diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/8f4428a21857a50c6d5175552662196399896ae9ca767d71abeadfa08204996f.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/8f4428a21857a50c6d5175552662196399896ae9ca767d71abeadfa08204996f.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..39de9c538fd2d6176aa5976e3ee17d110744a526 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/8f4428a21857a50c6d5175552662196399896ae9ca767d71abeadfa08204996f.md @@ -0,0 +1,63 @@ +Case 9:08-CV-80069-KAM Document 4-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/29/2008 Page 1 of 3 + + + +Case 9:08-cv-80069-KAM Document 4-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/29/2008 Page 2 of 3 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-80069 CIV-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO.1, by and through +JANE DOE's FATHER as parent and natural +guardian, and JANE DOE's FATHER, and +JANE DOE's STEPMOTHER, individually, +Plaintiffs, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS +• being duly sworn deposes and says that: +I am the mother and natural guardian for Jane Doe No.1 as referenced in the +Complaint filed on January 24, 2008, in the United States District Court Southern District of +Florida, Case No. 08-80069 CIV-MARRA-|| +This Affidavit is filed in support of the +Motion to Stay Proceedings. +2. +Jane Doe No. 1 will be eighteen (18) years of age on May 13, 2008. +3. +Jane Doe No.1 has been estranged from her father since Thanksgiving day, +November 22, 2007. +On January 24, 2008, Jane Doe No.I's father filed a lawsuit on behalf of himself and +as parent and natural guardian of Jane Doe No. 1 against Jeffrey Epstein in the United States District +Court, Southern District of Florida, Case No. 08-80069 CIV-MARRA-| +_ Jane Doe's + +A + + +*Case 9:08-cv-80069-KAM Document 4-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/29/2008 Page 3 of 3 +father filed this lawsuit against Defendant Jeffrey Epstein without the knowledge, consultation or +consent of me or of my daughter, Jane Doe No.1. +Jane Doe No.l does not want her lawsuit to be prosecuted on her behalf by her +father. +FURTHER, AFFIANT SAYETH NOT. +steres +natural guardian of Jane Doe No. 1 +as mother and +STATE OF GEORGIA +SS: +COUNTY OF WALESKA +The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 28day or January 2008 +by +who is personally known to me or has produced +GA Drivers Lianse +_as identification and who (did/did not) take an oath. +many urey, Pauze +Commission No.: +TAN +ANY B. PARKER +NOTARY +EXPIRES +GEORGIA +July 13, 2009 +PUBLIC +Page 2of 2 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/8f4428a21857a50c6d5175552662196399896ae9ca767d71abeadfa08204996f.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/8f4428a21857a50c6d5175552662196399896ae9ca767d71abeadfa08204996f.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5fe5e580c7dc18701f77cfd75b044c0d8e97361b --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/8f4428a21857a50c6d5175552662196399896ae9ca767d71abeadfa08204996f.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -52, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "8f4428a21857a50c6d5175552662196399896ae9ca767d71abeadfa08204996f", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 5, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "05658379069a5588cf822be727eac6e572c2ce39d5559f5916cc7c0471cc76c7", + "output_sha256": "b05b86801ab682982539c75ac5c77ddfab4dc9e13f4bfbe70ea834a201230009", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/8f5c330c20052696172a762a9e8c6b5912af5b7ebf9e23db41182bfb1d0a49c8.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/8f5c330c20052696172a762a9e8c6b5912af5b7ebf9e23db41182bfb1d0a49c8.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d95f1e54edefa8eac6951240b7a21fbfdc6188f6 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/8f5c330c20052696172a762a9e8c6b5912af5b7ebf9e23db41182bfb1d0a49c8.md @@ -0,0 +1,445 @@ +Case 99480319KAJE Doeument 546 Entered On FLSD Dookat 0405/2010 Page 1 Off 15 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO. 10-80309-CIV- +JANE DOE No. 103, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFERY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO DISMISS,COUNT VI& +FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT & TO STRIKE +DIRECTED TO PLAINTIFF JANE DOE NO. 103'S +COMPLAINT [dated 2/23/20101 +Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, ("EPSTEIN"), by and through his undersigned +counsel, moves to dismiss Count Six of Plaintiff JANE DOE 103's Complaint for failure +to state a cause of action, as specified herein. Rule 12(b)(6), Fed.R.Civ.P. (2009); Local +Gen. Rule 7.1 (S.D. Fla. 2009). Defendant further moves for More Definite Statement +and to Strike. Rule 12(e) and (f), In support of his motion, Defendant states: +The Complaint attempts to allege 6 counts, all of which are purportedly brought +pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §2255 - Civil Remedies for Personal Injuries. Count Six is subject +to dismissal because the predicate act relied upon by Plaintiff for her claims did not come +into effect until July 27, 2006, well after the conduct alleged by Plaintiff occurred. The +More Definite Statement requested is for Plaintiff to allege her date of birth in that her +being a minor has significance in the claims she alleges. +1 + + +Case 9980480319KA Document 546 Entered On FLSD DOSKA 0H05201 PaGE 2 Of 15 +Supporting Memorandum of Law +Principles of Statutory Interpretation +It is well settled that in interpreting a statute, the court's inquiry begins with the +plain and unambiguous language of the statutory text. CBS, Inc. v. Prime Time 24 +Venture, 245 F.3d 1217 (11" Cir. 2001); U.S. v. Castroneves, 2009 WL 528251, *3 (S.D. +Fla. 2009), citing Reeves v. Astrue, 526 F.3d 732, 734 (11" Cir. 2008); and v. +Husband, 376 F.Supp.2d at 610 ("When interpreting a statute, [a court's] inquiry begins +with the text."). "The Court must first look to the plain meaning of the words, and +scrutinize the statute's 'language, structure, and purpose."" Id. In addition, in construing +a statute, a court is to presume that the legislature said what it means and means what it +said, and not add language or give some absurd or strained interpretation. As stated in +CBS, Inc., supra at 1228 - "Those who ask courts to give effect to perceived legislative +intent by interpreting statutory language contrary to its plain and unambiguous meaning +are in effect asking courts to alter that language, and "[courts have no authority to alter +statutory language.... We cannot add to the terms of [the] provision what Congress left +out.' Merritt, 120 F.3d at 1187." See also Dodd v. U.S., 125 S.Ct. 2478 (2005); 73 +Am.Jur.2d Statutes §124. +Title 18 of the U.S.C. is entitled "Crimes and Criminal Procedure." §2255 is +contained in "Part I. Crimes, Chap, 110. Sexual Exploitation and Other Abuse of +Children." 18 U.S.C. §2255 (2002)', is entitled Civil remedy for personal injuries, and +provides: +(a) Any minor who is a victim of a violation of section 2241(c), 2242, 2243, 2251, +2251A, 2252, 2252A, 2260, 2421, 2422, or 2423 of this title and who suffers +' The above quoted version of 18 U.S.C. §2255 was the same beginning in 1999 until +amended in 2006, effective July 27, 2006. +2 + + +Case 998-eV80BU9KAJ Document 546 Entered On FLSD DOSKA OHOS2OMO PAGES Of 15 +personal injury as a result of such violation may sue in any appropriate United +States District Court and shall recover the actual damages such minor sustains +and the cost of the suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee. Any minor as +described in the preceding sentence shall be deemed to have sustained damages +of no less than $50,000 in value. +(b) Any action commenced under this section shall be barred unless the complaint +is filed within six years after the right of action first accrues or in the case of a +person under a legal disability, not later than three years after the disability. +See endnote 1 hereto for statutory text as amended in 2006, effective July 27, +2006. Prior to the 2006 amendments, the version of the statute quoted above was in +effect beginning in 1999.! +All of Plaintiff's allegations of abuse occurred between January 2004 and May +2005 (par. 18), well prior to 18 U.S.C. §2255 being amended. +Motion to Dismiss +Plaintiff's reliance on the amended version of 18 U.S.C. §2255, such reliance is +improper. The version of Defendant's position that 18 U.S.C. §2255 in effect +prior to the 2006 amendments applies to this action, and therefore Count Six is +required to be dismissed as it relies on a predicate act that was not in effect at +the time of the alleged conduct." +Plaintiff does not specifically allege in her Complaint on which version of 18 +U.S.C. §2255 she is relying. However, in Count Six of her Complaint, 150, she alleges +that Defendant "knowingly engaged in a child exploitation enterprise, as defined in 18 +U.S.C. §2252A(g)(2), in violation of 18 U.S.C. §2252A(g)(I)." §2252A is one of the +specified predicate acts under 18 U.S.C. §2255. However, subsection (g) of §2252 was +2 Points (2) and (3) are addressed together as the legal arguments overlap. +" In other §2255 actions filed against Defendant, Defendant has previously asserted the position +that 18 U.S.C. §2255's creates a single cause of action on behalf of a plaintiff against a +defendant, as opposed to multiple causes of action on a per violation basis or as opposed to an +allowance of a multiplication of the statutory presumptive minimum damages or "actual +damages." EPSTEIN asserts his position regarding the single recovery of damages in order to +properly preserve all issues pertaining to the proper application of §2255 for appeal. EPSTEIN +will fully honor his obligations as set forth in the Non-Prosecution Agreement with the United +States Attorney's Office; principally, as related to the claims made in this case by Jane Doe 103, +the obligations as set forth in paragraph 8 of that Agreement. In particular, EPSTEIN will not +contest the allegation that he committed at least one predicate offense as alleged by Jane Doe +103. +3 + + +Case 998-eV80BU9KAJ Document 546 Entered On FLSD DOSKAL OHOSZOR PAGE A OF 15 +not added to the statute until 2006. Thus, to the extent that Plaintiff is relying on the +amended version of 18 U.S.C. §2255, such reliance is improper and Count Six is required +to be dismissed as it relies on a statutory predicate act that did not exist at the time of the +alleged conduct. +The statute in effect during the time the alleged conduct occurred is 18 U.S.C. +§2255 (2005) - the version in effect prior to the 2006 amendment, eff. Jul. 27, 2006, +(quoted above), and having an effective date of 1999 through July 26, 2006. See +endnote 1 hereto. Plaintiff's Complaint alleges that Defendant's conduct occurred during +the time period from the age of 17, January 2004 until approximately May 2005. +Complaint, 1917, 18. Thus, the version in effect in 2004-2005 of 18 U.S.C. §2255 +applies. +It is an axiom of law that "retroactivity is not favored in the law." Bowen, 488 +U.S., at 208, 109 S.Ct., at 471 (1988). As eloquently stated in Landgraf v. USI Film +Products, 114 S.Ct. 1483, 1497, 511 U.S. 244, 265-66 (1994): +jurisprudence, and embodies a legal doctrine centuries older than our Republic +Elementary considerations of fairness dictate that individuals should have at +oportily to any not they dire on from their cod conting at le +FN18. See General Motors Corp. v. Romein, 503 U.S. 181, 191, 112 S.Ct. 1105, +[Further citations omitted]. +4 + + +Case 9980480319KA Document 546 Entered On FLSD DOSKA HOS2O1 PAGES Of 15 +from passing another type of retroactive legislation, laws "impairing the Obligation of +Contracts." The Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause prevents the Legislature (and other +government actors) from depriving private persons of vested property rights except for +a "public use" and upon payment of "just compensation." The prohibitions on "Bills of +Attainder" in Art. I, §§ 9-10, prohibit legislatures from singling out disfavored persons +and meting out summary punishment for past conduct. See, e.g.. United States v. +, 381 U.S. 437, 456-462, 85 S.Ct. 1707, 1719-1722, 14 L.Ed.2d 484 (1965). The +Due Process Clause also protects the interests in fair notice and repose that may be +compromised by retroactive legislation; a justification sufficient to validate a statute's +prospective application under the Clause "may not suffice" to warrant its retroactive +application. Usery v. Turner Ellchorn Mining Co., 428 U.S. 1, 17, 96 S.Ct. 2882, 2893, +49 L.Ed.2d 752 (1976). +FN19. Article I contains two Ex Post Facto Clauses, one directed to Congress (§ 9, +cl. 3), the other to the States (§ 10, cl. 1). We have construed the Clauses as +applicable only to penal legislation. See Calder v. Bull, 3 Dall. 386, 390-391, 1 +L.Ed. 648 (1798) (opinion of Chase, J.). +These provisions demonstrate that retroactive statutes raise particular concerns. The +Legislature's unmatched powers allow it to sweep away settled expectations suddenly +and without individualized consideration. Its responsivity to political pressures poses a +risk that it may be tempted to use retroactive legislation as a means of retribution +against unpopular groups or individuals. As Justice Marshall observed in his opinion for +**1498 the Court in Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24, 101 S.Ct. 960, 67 L.Ed.2d 17 +(1981), the Ex Post Facto Clause not only ensures that individuals have "fair warning" +about the effect of criminal statutes, but also "restricts governmental power by +restraining arbitrary and potentially vindictive legislation." Id., at 28-29, 101 S.Ct., at +963-964 (citations omitted). PN20 +FN20. See Richmond v. J. A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469, 513-514, 109 S.Ct. 706, +732, 102 L.Ed.2d 854 (1989) (*Legislatures are primarily policymaking bodies that +promulgate rules to govern future conduct. The constitutional prohibitions against +the enactment of ex post facto laws and bills of attainder reflect a valid concern +about the use of the political process to punish or characterize past conduct of +private citizens. It is the judicial system, rather than the legislative process, that is +the conditions that presumably would have existed had no wrong been committed") +(STEVENS, .., concurring in part and concurring in judgment); James v. United +states, 366 U.S. 213, 247, n. 3, 81 S.Ct. 1052, 1052, n. 3, 6 L.Ed.2d 246 (1961) +(retroactive punitive measures may reflect "a purpose not to prevent dangerou +conduct generally but to impose by legislation a penalty against specific persons ol +classes of persons"). +These well entrenched constitutional protections and presumptions against +retroactive application of legislation establish that 18 U.S.C. §2255 (2005) in effect at the +time of the alleged conduct applies to the instant action, and not the amended version. +5 + + +Case 998-eV 80B@KA Document 546 Entered On FLSD DOSKAt 0H0520A PaGEGO 15 +Not only is there no clear express intent stating that the statute is to apply +retroactively, but applying the current version of the statute, as amended in 2006, would +be in clear violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution as it +would be applied to events occurring before its enactment and would increase the penalty +or punishment for the alleged crime. U.S. Const. Art. 1, §9, cl. 3, §10, cl. 1. U.S. V. +Seigel, 153 F.3d 1256 (11" Cir. 1998); U.S. v. +, 162 F.3d 87 (3d Cir. 1998); and +generally, Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. 386, 390, 1 L.Ed. 648, 1798 WL 587 (Calder) (1798). +The United States Constitution provides that "En]o Bill of Attainder or ex +post facto Law shall be passed" by Congress. U.S. Const. art. I, § 9, cl. 3. A law +violates the Ex Post Facto Clause if it " 'appli[es] to events occurring before its +nactment … [and] disadvantage[s] the offender affected by it' by altering the +definition +of criminal conduct or increasing the punishment for the crime.' +Lynce v. Mathis, 519 U.S. 433, 117 S.Ct. 891, 137 L.Ed.2d 63 (1997) (quoting +Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24, 29, 101 S.Ct. 960, 67 L.Ed.2d 17 (1981)). +U.S. v. Siegel, 153 F.3d 1256, 1259 (11" Cir. 1998). +The statute, as amended in 2006, contains no language stating that the application +is to be retroactive. +Thus, there is no manifest intent that the statute is to apply +retroactively, and, accordingly, the statute in effect during the time of the alleged conduct +is to apply. Landgraf v. USI Film Products, supra, at 1493, ("A statement that a statute +will become effective on a certain date does not even arguably suggest that it has any +application to conduct that occurred at an earlier date."). +This statute was enacted as part of the Federal Criminal Statutes targeting sexual +predators and sex crimes against children. H.R. 3494, "Child Protection and Sexual +Predator Punishment Act of 1998;" House Report No. 105-557, 11, 1998 U.S.C.A.N. +678, 679 (1998). Quoting from the "Background and Need For Legislation" portion of +the House Report No. 105-557, 11-16, H.R. 3494, of which 18 U.S.C. §2255 is included, +6 + + +Case 998-eV80BU9KAJ Document 546 Entered On FLSD DOSKA OHOS2OMO PAGET O 15 +is described as "the most comprehensive package of new crimes and increased penalties +ever developed in response to crimes against children, particularly assaults facilitated by +computers." Further showing that §2255 was enacted as a criminal penalty or +punishment, "Title II - Punishing Sexual Predators," Sec. 206, from House Report No. +105-557, 5-6, specifically includes reference to the remedy created under §2255 as an +additional means of punishing sexual predators, along with other penalties and +punishments. Senatorial Comments in amending §2255 in 2006 confirm that the creation +of the presumptive minimum damage amount is meant as an additional penalty against +those who sexually exploit or abuse children. 2006 WL 2034118, 152 Cong. Rec. S8012- +02. Senator Kerry refers to the statutorily imposed damage amount as "penalties." Id. +The cases of U.S. v. Siegel, supra (11" Cir. 1998), and U.S. v. +supra (3d +Cir. 1998), also support Defendant's position that application of the current version of 18 +U.S.C. §2255 would be in clear violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause. In Siegel, the +Eleventh Circuit found that the Ex Post Facto Clause barred application of the Mandatory +Victim Restitution Act of 1996 (MVRA) to the defendant whose criminal conduct +occurred before the effective date of the statute, 18 U.S.C. §3664(f)(1)(A), even though +the guilty plea and sentencing proceeding occurred after the effective date of the statute. +On July 19, 1996, the defendant Siegel pleaded guilty to various charges under 18 U.S.C. +§371 and §1956(a)(1)(A), (conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, bank fraud, and +laundering of money instruments; and money laundering). He was sentenced on March +7, 1997. As part of his sentence, Siegel was ordered to pay $1,207,000.00 in restitution +under the MVRA which became effective on April 24, 1996. Pub.L. No. 104-132, 110 +Stat. 1214, 1229-1236. The 1996 amendments to MVRA required that the district court +7 + + +Case 998-eV80BU9WAJ Document 546 Entered On FLSD DOSKAt 0HOS2OAO PageS Of 15 +must order restitution in the full amount of the victim's loss without consideration of the +defendant's ability to pay. Prior to the enactment of the MVRA and under the former 18 +U.S.C. §3664(a) of the Victim and Witness Protection Act of 1982 (VWPA), Pub.I. No. +97-291, 96 Stat. 1248, the court was required to consider, among other factors, the +defendant's ability to pay in determining the amount of restitution. +When the MVRA was enacted in 1996, Congress stated that the amendments to the +VWPA "shall, to the extent constitutionally permissible, be effective for sentencing +proceedings in cases in which the defendant is convicted on or after the date of enactment +of this Act [Apr. 24, 1996]." Siegel, supra at 1258. The alleged crimes occurred between +February, 1988 to May, 1990. The Court agreed with the defendant's position that 1996 +MVRA "should not be applied in reviewing the validity of the court's restitution order +because to do so would violate the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States +Constitution. See U.S. Const. art I, §9, cl. 3." +The Ex Post Facto analysis made by the Eleventh Circuit in Siegel is applicable to +this action. In resolving the issue in favor of the defendant, the Court first considered +whether a restitution order is a punishment. Id, at 1259. In determining that restitution +was a punishment, the Court noted that §3663A(a)(1) of Title 18 expressly describes +restitution as a "penalty." In addition, the Court also noted that "Callthough not in the +context of an ex post facto determination, ... restitution is a 'criminal penalty meant to +have strong deterrent and rehabilitative effect.' United States v. Twitty, 107 F.3d 1482, +1493 n. 12 (11th Cir.1997)." Second, the Court considered "whether the imposition of +restitution under the MVRA is an increased penalty as prohibited by the Ex Post Facto +Clause." Id, at 1259. In determining that the application of the 1996 MVRA would +8 + + +Case 998-eV80BU9KAJ Document 546 Entered On FLSD DOSKA OHOSZOR PAGEDO 15 +indeed run afoul of the Constitution's Ex Post Facto Clause, the Court agreed with the +majority of the Circuits that restitution under the 1996 MVRA was an increased penalty.* +"The effect of the MVRA can be detrimental to a defendant. Previously, after considering +the defendant's financial condition, the court had the discretion to order restitution in an +amount less than the loss sustained by the victim. Under the MVRA, however, the court +must order restitution to each victim in the full amount." Id, at 1260. See also U.S. v. +, 162 F.2d 87 (3'd Circuit 1998). +As discussed above, 18 U.S.C. §2255 was enacted as part of the criminal statutory +scheme to punish and penalize those who sexually exploit and abuse minors, and thus, the +Ex Post Fact Clause prohibits a retroactive application of the 2006 amended version. +Notwithstanding the above legal analysis, in the recent case of Individual Known +to Defendant As 08MIST096.JPG and 08mist067.jpg v. Falso, 2009 WL 4807537 (N.D. +N.Y. Dec. 9, 2009), United States District Court for the Northern District of New York +addressed the issue of whether §2255 is a civil or criminal statute for purposes of the +constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. The New York Court stated that +"looking to the plain language of §2255(a), it is clear that the statutory intent was to +provide a civil remedy. This is exemplified by the title ... and the fact that the statute +aims to provide compensation to individuals who suffered personal injury as a result of +criminal conduct against them." The New York Court in analyzing whether §2255 +violated the Constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy, concluded that although +* The Eleventh Circuit, in holding that "the MVRA cannot be applied to a person whose +with the Second, Third, Eighth, Ninth, and D.C. Circuits. See U.S. v. Futrell, 209 F.3d +1286, 1289-90 (11" Cir. 2000). +9 + + +Case 998-eN 80319-KAN Document 546 Entered On FLSD DOSKAL DAOSZOR PAGE 1O OF 15 +the behavior to which §2255 is criminal, it did not find that the "primary aim" was +"retribution and deterrence." "The statute serves civil goals." The "primary aim" is "the +compensation for personal injuries sustained as a result of criminal conduct." +Therefore, because Jane Doe 103 has invoked the provisions of the criminal Non- +Prosecution Agreement (NPA) between EPSTEIN and USAO (see paragraphs 25 and 26 +of complaint), plaintiff cannot avoid the full protection of the rule of lenity and due +process to which EPSTEIN is entitled in the context of these unique factual +circumstances. +Although there does not exist any definitive ruling of whether the damages +awarded under §2255 are meant as criminal punishment or a civil damages award, +Defendant is still entitled to a determination as a matter of law that the statute in effect at +the time of the alleged criminal conduct applies. +As explained by the Landgraf court, supra at 280, and at 1505,5 +impair rights a party possessed when he acted, increase a party's liability for pas +conduct, or impose new duties with respect to transactions already completed. If the +statute would operate retroactively, our traditional presumption teaches that it does not +Here, there is no clear expression of intent regarding the 2006 Act's application to +conduct occurring well before its enactment. See discussion of House Bill Reports and +Congressional background above herein. +> In Landgraf, the United States Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals +and refused to apply new provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to conduct occurring before +the effective date of the Act. The Court determined that statutory text in question, §102, was +subject to the presumption against statutory retroactivity. +10 + + +Case 998-ev80BU9KAN Document 546 Entered On FLSD OAOSIZORO PAGE ALOF15 +As stated in Landgraf, "the extent of a party's liability, in the civil context as well as +the criminal, is an important legal consequence that cannot be ignored." Courts have +consistently refused to apply a statute which substantially increases a party's liability to +conduct occurring before the statute's enactment. Landgraf, supra at 284-85. Even if +plaintiff were to argue that retroactive application of the new statute "would vindicate its +purpose more fully," even that consideration is not enough to rebut the presumption +against retroactivity. Id, at 285-86. "The presumption against statutory retroactivity is +founded upon sound considerations of general policy and practice, and accords with long +held and widely shared expectations about the usual operation of legislation." Id. +Thus, Count Six should be dismissed. +Motion For More Definite Statement and To Strike, Rule 12(e) and (f), F.R.C.P. +As noted above, Plaintiff alleges that she was 17 year old high school student as +of January, 2004, and that the alleged conduct involving EPSTEIN occurred "between +approximately January 2004 and May 2005. Thus, Plaintiff had to be 18 (no longer a +minor) by January of 2005. Under the principles of statutory construction, the language +of §2255(a) is clear - "Any minor who is a victim of a violation of section ...of this title +and who suffers personal injury as a result of such violation may sue in any appropriate +United States District Court and shall recover the actual damages such minor sustains +and the cost of the suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee. Any minor as described in +the preceding sentence shall be deemed to have sustained damages of no less than +$50,000 in value." +As Plaintiff's date of birth is significant to her §2255 claim, she should be +required to more definitely state her date of birth so that Defendant and this Court are +11 + + +Case 998-eN 80319KAN Document 546 Entered On FLSD DOSKAL DAOSZORO PAGE 12 OF 15 +able to determine precisely when she reached the age of majority. (The age of majority +under both federal and state law is 18 years old. See 18 U.S.C. §2256(1), defining a +"minor" as "any person under the age of eighteen years;" and §1.01, Definitions, Fla. +Stat., defining "minor" to include "any person who has not attained the age of 18 years.") +To the extent that Plaintiff is relying on any alleged conduct that occurred after +her 18 birthday as an element of her §2255 claim, such allegations should be stricken as +immaterial and she should be required to more definitely state the dates of the alleged +conduct. See Rule 12(f). Defendant also seeks to strike 1910, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16, +of Plaintiff's Complaint as immaterial and impertinent. None of the allegations in those +paragraphs specifically pertain to the Plaintiff. Not until 917 does Plaintiff assert +allegations pertaining to her and the conduct of Defendant directly involving her. What +EPSTEIN may or may not have allegedly done with respect to other alleged girls does +not effect Plaintiff's claim brought pursuant to §2255. The allegations in 11910-16 are not +related to the elements of Plaintiff's §2255 claim and, thus, are required to be stricken. +Conclusion +Pursuant to the above, Count Six is required to be dismissed. In addition, Plaintiff +should be required to more definitely state her date of birth, and any conduct occurring +after her 18* birthday should be stricken, and 9910 - 16 of the Complaint should also be +stricken. +WHEREFORE, Defendant requests hat this Cout dismiss Count six apains him, +and further grant his Motion for More Definite Stardent tend to Strike. +Attorney for Defendant +Certificate of Service +12 + + +Case 948080BIKAJE Doeument 546 Entered On FLSD DOSKA OHOS2O1 PAge 13 Of 15 +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 I +being served this day on all counsel of record identified on the following Service List ir +the manner specified by CM/ECE on this I day of Halle +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 +rjosefsberg@podhurst.com +kezell@podhurst.com +Counsel for Plaintiff +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 +jagesq(@bellsouth.net +Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein +Respectfully flibmited, +ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. +Florida Bar No. 224162 +rcrit@bclclaw.com +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. +Florida Bar #617296 +mpike@bclclaw.com +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & +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) +13 + + +Case 998-0480319-KAN Document 546 Entered On FLSD DOSKAI OHOSZORO PAGE 14 OF 15 +18 USCA $2255 (1999-July 26, 2006): +PART I--CRIMES +CHAPTER 110--SEXUAL EXPLOITATION AND OTHER ABUSE OF +CHILDREN +§ 2255. Civil remedy for personal injuries +(a) Any minor who is a victim of a violation of section 2241(c), 2242, +2243, 2251, 2251A, 2252, 2252A, 2260, 2421, 2422, or 2423 of this title +and who suffers personal injury as a result of such violation may sue in +any appropriate United States District Court and shall recover the actual +damages such minor sustains and the cost of the suit, including a +reasonable attorney's fee. Any minor as described in the preceding +sentence shall be deemed to have sustained damages of no less than +$50,000 in value. +(b) Any action commenced under this section shall be barred unless the +complaint is filed within six years after the right of action first accrues or +in the case of a person under a legal disability, not later than three years +after the disability. +CREDIT(S) +(Added Pub.L. 99-500, Title I, § 101(b) [Title VII, § 703(a)], Oct. 18, +1986, 100 Stat. 1783-75, and amended Pub.L.. 99-591, Title I, § 101(b) +[Title VII, § 703(a)], Oct. 30, 1986, 100 Stat. 3341-75; Pub.L. 105-314, +Title VI, § 605, Oct. 30, 1998, 112 Stat. 2984.) +18 U.S.C. $2255, as amended 2006, Effective July 27, 2006: +PART I--CRIMES +CHAPTER 110-SEXUAL EXPLOITATION AND OTHER ABUSE OF +CHILDREN +§ 2255. Civil remedy for personal injuries +incuding sentence shal be deif co have sustained damascibed in less +14 + + +Case 948080319-KANE DoGument 546 Entered On FLSD DOSKAI OHOS2010 PAGe 15 Of 15 +(b) Statute of limitations.--Any action commenced under this section shall +be barred unless the complaint is filed within six years after the right of +action first accrues or in the case of a person under a legal disability, not later +than three years after the disability. +CREDIT(S) +(Added Pub.L. 99-500, Title I, § 101(b) [Title VII, § 703(a)), Oct. 18, 1986, +100 Stat. 1783-75, and amended Pub.L. 99-591, Title I, § 101(b) [Title VII, § +703(a)], Oct. 30, 1986, 100 Stat. 3341-75; Pub.L. 105-314, Title VI, § 605, +Oct. 30, 1998, 112 Stat. 2984; Pub.L. 109-248, Title VII, § 707(b), (c), July +27, 2006, 120 Stat. 650.) +15 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/8f5c330c20052696172a762a9e8c6b5912af5b7ebf9e23db41182bfb1d0a49c8.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/8f5c330c20052696172a762a9e8c6b5912af5b7ebf9e23db41182bfb1d0a49c8.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a8180195b459aa6aeffaff55b8bc30d3a18cbbb6 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/8f5c330c20052696172a762a9e8c6b5912af5b7ebf9e23db41182bfb1d0a49c8.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -180, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "8f5c330c20052696172a762a9e8c6b5912af5b7ebf9e23db41182bfb1d0a49c8", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 15, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "33f99fd77f5e656bd38398732ac3999d4b9efbc88fe52b033f76e4d085ba003c", + "output_sha256": "5a054bac2d06d60e1d5ba442233f798f7302535506cff774952b990072c614e5", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/8f67235e333fe0ed8c1b55530b3f05b6574f973908ef5cd931819145eeb448a6.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/8f67235e333fe0ed8c1b55530b3f05b6574f973908ef5cd931819145eeb448a6.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..286a2e69f52a49e27f1cce1c44d57b996ead168f --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/8f67235e333fe0ed8c1b55530b3f05b6574f973908ef5cd931819145eeb448a6.md @@ -0,0 +1,279 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 92 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2010 Page 1 of 10 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/ +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, +PLAINTIFES JANE DOES 2-8' MEMORANDUM IN +RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S RULE 4 APPEAL +Plaintiffs, Jane Does 2-8 ("Plaintiffs"), by and through undersigned counsel, file this +Memorandum in Response to Defendant's Rule 4 Appeal of the Magistrate Judge's Orders (DE +480 and DE 513) directing Defendant to produce his income tax returns, as follows: +Introduction +Defendant appeals the Magistrate Judge's Orders (DE 480 and DE 513) compelling +Defendant to produce income tax returns and related forms and schedules. He fails, however, to +demonstrate that the Magistrate Judge's decision as to tax returns is clearly erroneous or contrary +to law. The applicable case law establishes that the tax returns are not protected from discovery +by the Fifth Amendment privilege under the act of production doctrine, or alternatively, that they +fall within the "required records" exception to the Fifth Amendment privilege. +The tax returns are indisputably relevant in these cases, particularly as to Plaintiff's +claims for punitive damages, and given the Defendant's invocation of the Fifth Amendment in + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 92 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2010 Page 2 of 10 +blanket fashion to all requests for net worth discovery, there is a compelling need for this +discovery. Even if Plaintiffs could not demonstrate a compelling need for the tax returns in +discovery, under applicable Eleventh Circuit precedent and reported cases in this District, +Plaintiffs would be entitled to this discovery under the broad relevance standard of Fed. R. Civ. +P. 26(b). Finally, there is no basis to delay this discovery, as the tax returns are relevant to +punitive damages, which is an important, current issue in these cases. For the reasons set forth +herein, Plaintiff's request that the Magistrate Judge's Orders as to Defendant's tax returns be +affirmed and that Defendant be ordered to produce the tax return discovery requested by +Plaintiffs. +Argument +I. +DEFENDANT HAS BURDEN TO SHOW THAT MAGISTRATE +JUDGE'S ORDER IS CLEARLY ERRONEOUS OR CONTRARY TO LAW +In seeking reversal of the Magistrate Judge's Order as to discovery of tax returns, it is the +Defendant's burden to show that the order is "clearly erroneous or contrary to law". 28 U.S.C. +§636(b)(1). Absent such a showing, the Magistrate Judge's decision "shall not be disturbed." +Emmisive Energy Corp. v. Novatac, Inc., 2009 WL 2834841 *1 (S.D. Fla. 2009). In the instant +appeal, Defendant has not shown that the Magistrate Judge's Order to produce tax returns is +clearly erroneous or contrary to law. +Il. +THE ACT OF PRODUCTION OF TAX RETURNS IS NOT +PROTECTED BY THE FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE +The Plaintiffs served the following document request in discovery, to which Defendant +asserted the Fifth Amendment privilege: +Request No. 1: All Federal and State income tax returns, including all W-2 +forms, 1099 forms and schedules, for tax years 2003-2008. +The Magistrate Judge rejected the Defendant's privilege assertion as to tax returns. (De 480, pp. +8-9). In so holding, the Magistrate Judge applied the act of production doctrine set forth in +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 92 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2010 Page 3 of 10 +Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 410 (1976) and United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 35- +36 (2000). As noted by the Magistrate Judge, "Defendant cannot reasonably and in good faith +argue that in producing these documents to Plaintiff he will somehow be incriminating himself." +(Order, p. 9). Yet, Defendant argues just that. In Hubbell, the Supreme Court made express +reference to tax returns in discussing documents that cannot be protected by the Fifth +Amendment privilege under the act of production doctrine: +[T]he fact that incriminating evidence may be the byproduct of +obedience to a regulatory requirement, such as filing an income +tax return, maintaining required records, or reporting an accident, +does not clothe such required conduct with the testimonial +privilege. +120 U.S. at 2043, 530 U.S. at 35 (footnotes omitted) (emphasis supplied). Accord United States +v. Hammes, 3 F.3d 1081, 1083 (7th Cir. 1993) (*[wle reject [defendant's] compulsory selfincrimination claim because the government may use voluntarily filed tax returns against a +defendant without violating the Fifth Amendment"). See also Garner v. United States, 96 S.Ct. +1178, 424 U.S. 648 (1976) (holding that disclosures in tax returns are not compelled +incriminations and may be used as evidence in criminal prosecution); Ebay, Inc. v. Digital Point +Solutions, Inc., 2010 WL 147967 *8 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (holding that a person cannot incriminate +himself by turning over a document already in the government's possession); Federal Savings +and Loan Ins. Corp. v. Hardee, 686 F. Supp 885 (N.D. Fla. 1988) (holding that personal income +tax returns and supporting schedules are not protected by the "act of production" doctrine under +Fisher). +As an alternative to finding that the Fifth Amendment privilege does not apply because +the act of producing documents is not testimonial and communicative, courts have invoked the +"required records" exception to the act of production doctrine. See Federal Saving & Loan Ins. +Corp. v. Rodrigues, 717 F. Supp. 1424, 1427 (N.D. Cal 1988) ("required records" exception is a +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 92 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2010 Page 4 of 10 +distinct basis to deny Fifth Amendment privilege alternative to the "foregone conclusion" +rationale under Fisher). The "required records" exception defeats the Fifth Amendment privilege +where: "(1) because of the public aspect of the required records the individual admits little of +significance by their production; and (2) by doing business in an area where the government +requires record keeping, an individual may be deemed to have waived the Fifth Amendment +privilege as to the production of those records." In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 21 F.3d 226, 229 +(8th Cir. 1994). +Defendant contends that the "required records" exception does not apply to tax returns +because they cannot be accessed by the public. This is wrong, however, as the "required +records" exception requires only that there be "public aspects" to the documents at issue. Id. +Numerous courts that have addressed this precise issue have found that tax returns have "public +aspects". See Rodrigues, 717 F. Supp. at 1426-27 (citing cases); accord Doe v. United States, +711 F.2d 1187, 1191 (2d Cir. 1983).' Accordingly, the "required records" exception applies to +the production of tax returns. In Rodrigues, the Court denied the Fifth Amendment privilege for +the act of producing tax returns under the "required records" exception, noting that "records filed +with a public body pursuant to a valid regulatory scheme have been held to have public aspects." +Id. at 1427. Accordingly, the fact that federal tax returns cannot be accessed by the general +public does not aid the Defendant. Accord Resolution Trust Corp. v. +1, 794 F. Supp. 1, 3 +(D.D.C. 1992). +Thus, there are two alternative grounds for holding that Defendant's assertion of the Fifth +Amendment privilege to production of tax returns is invalid: (1) the tax returns are in the +' Defendant further appears to argue that the "required records" exception should be limited to +"highly regulated business (e.g., physicians)", citing In re Dr. John Doe, 97 F.R.D. 640, 641-643 +(S.D.N.Y. 1982). In Dr. John Doe, however, the Court held contrary to Defendant's assertion +and consistent with the case law cited herein stating, "[w]e agree that some of these records (e.g +W-2 and other tax forms) may indeed fall within the required records exception." Id. at 644 +(ordering that Dr. Doe comply with subpoena for W-2 forms). +4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 92 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2010 Page 5 of 10 +possession of the government, their existence is a foregone conclusion, and there is no risk of +"implicit authentication" by Defendant's production of these documents; or (2) tax returns fall +within the "required records" exception to the act of production doctrine, and are thus not +protected by the Fifth Amendment. Under either of these grounds, the Defendant's tax returns +are not privileged and must be produced in discovery. +II. THERE IS NO HEIGHTENED BURDEN +FOR DISCOVERY OF TAX RETURNS +Defendant asserts that there is a heightened burden on a party seeking discovery of tax +returns, requiring that party to show not only relevance, but also that "a compelling need for the +tax returns exists because the information contained therein is not otherwise available." (Appeal, +p. 24). However, in the Eleventh Circuit this heightened burden has been rejected. "IT]he +Eleventh Circuit does not require a showing of compelling need before tax information may be +obtained by a party in discovery." Bellosa v. Universal Tile Restoration, Inc.., 2008 WL 2620735 +(S.D. Fla. 2008) (citing Maddow v. Procter & Gamble Co., 107 F.3d 846 (11th Cir. 1997)); +accord U.S. v. Certain Real Property, 444 F.Supp. 2d 1258 (S.D.Fla. 2006); Platypus Wear, Inc. +y. Clarke Modet & Co., 2008 W.L. 728540 (S.D. Fla. 2008); Preferred Care Partners Holding +Corp. v. Humana, Inc., 2008 WL 4500258 (S.D. Fla. 2008); Ruskin Co. v. Greenheck Fan Corp., +2009 WL 383349 (S.D. Fla. 2009). Significantly, in both Preferred Care and Ruskin the Court +affirmed the decision of a Magistrate Judge rejecting a higher standard for production of tax +returns, holding that, despite an arguable split of authority, ' the Magistrate Judge's decision was +not "contrary to law." Id. Likewise, the Magistrate Judge's decision in this case compelling +* Defendant relies upon Pendlebury v. Starbucks Coffee Co., 2008 WL 2105024 (S.D. Fla. 2005) +and Dunkin Donuts, Inc. v. Mary's Donuts, Inc., 2001 WL 34079319 (S.D. Fla. 2001), in which +the Court applied the higher standard. These cases do not consider the Eleventh Circuit's +opinion in Maddow, and the federal judges in this District over the past five years since +Pendlebury have consistently rejected the "compelling need" standard for production of tax +returns. See cases cited above. +5 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 92 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2010 Page 6 of 10 +production of tax returns is consistent with authority in this District and the Eleventh Circuit, and +thus should be affirmed. +IIl.KEVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT'S FINANCIAL +STATUS AND HISTORY IS RELEVANT TO +PUNITIVE DAMAGES, AMONG OTHER ISSUES +Defendant does not go so far as to contend that the discovery of his tax returns is not +relevant under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26. Defendant only argues that the Magistrate Judge did not address +the relevancy standard in her Order. (Appeal, p. 25). As a result, Defendant does nothing to +show that the Magistrate Judge's Order as to tax returns is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. +In any event, it is abundantly clear that Defendant's financial status and history are relevant to +punitive damages, among other issues in these cases, and in this regard the Defendant's tax +returns are pertinent and discoverable. Tennant v. Charlton, 377 So.2d 1169 (Fla. 1979) (holding +that party may obtain tax returns for purposes of net worth discovery on issue of punitive +damages). See also State v. O'Malley, 53 S.W. 3d 623 (Mo. App. 2001) ("[ilt is well settled that +when a plaintiff seeks punitive damages against a defendant, evidence of the defendant's +financial status is both relevant and admissible"); Interstate Narrow Fabrics, Inc. V. Century +USA, Inc., 2004 WL 444570 (M.D. N.C. 2004) (holding that tax returns are relevant to the jury's +determination of the amount of punitive damages to award); E.J. Lavino & Co. v. Universal +Health Services, Inc., 1991 WL 275767 (E.D. Pa. 1991) ("[m]ost courts that have considered this +issue have held that a plaintiff seeking punitive damages may discovery information pertaining +to a defendant's net worth"). +Defendant further argues that he should not have to produce his tax returns until it +becomes apparent" that "punitive damages will be an issue." (Appeal, p. 26). This argument +ignores Florida law on punitive damages. It is well established that "punitive damages are +always recoverable in intentional tort cases where malice is one of the essential elements of the +6 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 92 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2010 Page 7 of 10 +tort." Ciamar Marcay, Inc. v. Monteiro Da Costa, 508 So.2d 1282 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) +(emphasis supplied). "In Florida it is clear that an act of intentional assault and battery +committed without legal justification supplies proof of malice." Joab, Inc. v. Thrall, 245 So.2d +291 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971). Therefore, it is clear in this intentional tort case that punitive damages +are an issue. As this Court knows, Defendant Epstein is alleged to have perpetrated a plan and +scheme to sexually molest dozens of underage teenage girls." +Even assuming that the "compelling need" standard were applicable for discovery of tax +returns, clearly in this case there is a compelling need. Defendant has provided no net worth +discovery, asserting a blanket Fifth Amendment privilege.* Defendant nonetheless contends that +there exists an "alternative" - not to discovery of the necessary information, but through his offer +to "stipulate" to a net worth in the nine figures. Of course, a stipulation requires the consent of +the parties and there is no agreement in this case on the Defendant's net worth. Defendant +cannot unilaterally by fiat claim a certain net worth for purposes of trial. The law is well +established that a jury may determine punitive damages "by exacting from [the defendant's] +pocketbook a sum of money which, according to his financial ability, will hurt, but not +" Defendant's reliance on Gallina v. Commerce and Industry Ins., 2008 WL 3895918 (M.D. Fla. +2008) is misplaced. Gallina is an insurance bad faith case and does not involve a claim of +punitive damages against an intentional tortfeasor. Moreover, in the present case it would make +no sense to have a different "stage" for punitive damages discovery or trial. +4 "[T]he burden to identify an alternative source of the information lies with the resisting party." +Interstate Narrow Fabrics, 2004 WL 444570 at *2. Here, Epstein's blanket Fifth Amendment +privilege assertion to all net worth discovery makes it clear that there is a compelling need for +any net worth discovery not protected by the Fifth Amendment privilege. +S Defendant relies upon Myers v. Central Florida Investment, Inc., 592 F.3d 1201 (11th Cir. +2010) for its "stipulation" argument. In Myers, however, the district court heard testimony +regarding each of the defendant's net worth. There was no unilateral statement of net worth in +Myers as Defendant wishes to create in the instant case. To the extent that Defendant relies +upon the Court's holding in Myers regarding the reasonableness of the trial court's award of +punitive damages, the issue of reasonableness is determined by the particular facts and +circumstances of the case and the discussion in Myers of this issue has no relevance here. Id. +7 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 92 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2010 Page 8 of 10 +bankrupt." Joab, Inc. v. Thrall, 245 So.2d 291 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971) (emphasis supplied). +Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to discovery on the Defendant's real net worth so that the jury +will be in a position to make an award that "will hurt". In any event, it seems beyond dispute +that Defendant's tax returns are relevant and discoverable, either under a straight relevance test +under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26 or a heightened "compelling need" standard. +Conclusion +Based on the foregoing, the Magistrate Judge's Orders as to Defendant's production of +tax returns in response to Plaintiffs" document request no. 1 are not clearly erroneous and not +contrary to law. As a result, the Magistrate Judge's Orders as to production of tax returns should +be affirmed. Plaintiffs respectfully request that the documents responsive to Plaintiffs' document +request no. 1 be ordered to be produced forthwith. +Dated: May 28, 2010. +Respectfully submitted, +By: s/ Stuart S. Mermelstein +Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245) +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980) +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P.A. +Attorneys for Plaintiffs +18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 +Miami, Florida 33160 +Tel: (305) 931-2200 +Fax: (305) 931-0877 +8 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 92 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2010 Page 9 of 10 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I hereby certify that on May 28, 2010, I electronically filed the foregoing document with +the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served +this day to all parties on the attached Service List in the manner specified, either via transmission +of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for +those parties who are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing. +Is/ Stuart S. Mermelstein + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 92 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2010 Page 10 of 10 +SERVICE LIST +DOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN +United States District Court, Southern Distriet of Florida +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +jgoldberger@agwpa.com +Robert D. Critton, Esq. +rcritton @bclclaw.com +James +bedwards@rra-law.com +Isidro Manuel +isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net +Jack +jph@searcylaw.com +Katherine Warthen Ezell +KEzell@podhurst.com +Michael James Pike +MPike@bclclaw.com +Paul G. Cassell +cassellp@law.utah.edu +Richard Horace Willits +lawyerwillits@aol.com +Robert C. Josefsberg +rjosefsberg@ podhurst.com +10 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/8f67235e333fe0ed8c1b55530b3f05b6574f973908ef5cd931819145eeb448a6.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/8f67235e333fe0ed8c1b55530b3f05b6574f973908ef5cd931819145eeb448a6.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6d17d06595aad615f8e367918f134dce8de1f726 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/8f67235e333fe0ed8c1b55530b3f05b6574f973908ef5cd931819145eeb448a6.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -122, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "8f67235e333fe0ed8c1b55530b3f05b6574f973908ef5cd931819145eeb448a6", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 11, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "95d4d4aad6f143aac093d4caad7d78089705fc499a5da9e0789bd1c41dbf2da4", + "output_sha256": "632a9933de3218fdafeebec7f078514291047182725665cc11515867b43a434c", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/8f6c5eccb12f861b4e3b203c576683335ed447f8d36e26ea83882029a637b399.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/8f6c5eccb12f861b4e3b203c576683335ed447f8d36e26ea83882029a637b399.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6bc16fdcce25b2a09fbca1af322dc39e44efbf0a --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/8f6c5eccb12f861b4e3b203c576683335ed447f8d36e26ea83882029a637b399.md @@ -0,0 +1,81 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 205-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/05/2013 Page 1 of 4 +Appendix C + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 205-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/05/2013 Page 2 of 4 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA +JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, +Petitioners, +VS. +UNITED STATES, +Respondent. +MOTION TO SEAL +The United States of America, by and through the undersigned Assistant United States +Attorney, hereby moves to seal its Motion to Stay Discovery Pending Ruling upon Respondent's +Motion to Dismiss for the following reasons: +1. +The Motion contains information regarding proceedings before West Palm Beach +Federal Grand Jury 05-02 and West Palm Beach Federal Grand Jury 07-103, which is subject to the +secrecy protections of Fed. R. Crim. P. 6. +Pursuant to Rule 6(e)(6), "[r]ecords, orders, and subpoenas relating to grand-jury +proceedings must be kept under seal to the extent and as long as necessary to prevent the +unauthorized disclosure of a matter occurring before a grand jury." +On November 7, 2011, the United States moved for permission to disclose limited +information from those grand jury proceedings relevant to this litigation. The Court issued an Order +allowing such limited disclosure, but required that all pleadings containing such information be filed +under seal. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 205-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/05/2013 Page 3 of 4 +WHEREFORE, the United States respectfully requests that the Motion to Stay Discovery +Pending Ruling upon Respondent's Motion to Dismiss be sealed. +DATED: November 7, 2011 +Respectfully submitted, +By: +WIFREDO A. FERRER +UNITED STATES ATTORNEY +Acclane for +DEXTER A. LEE +Assistant U.S. Attorney +Fla. Bar No. 0936693 +I VILLAFAÑA +99 N.E. 4'" Street +Miami, Florida 33132 +(305) 961-9320 +Fax: (305) 530-7139 +E-mail: dexter.lee@usdoj gov +Attorney for Respondent +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +The undersigned hereby certifies and affirms that a copy of the foregoing was served via +United States Mail this 7th day of November, 2011, upon Counsel for Petitioners Jane Doe #1 and +Jane Doe #2. +DEXTER A. LEF +ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 205-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/05/2013 Page 4 of 4 +Brad +, Esq., +The Law Offices of Brad +Associates, LLC +2028 +Street, Suite 202 +Hollywood, Florida 33020 +(954) 414-8033 +Fax: (954) 924-1530 +SERVICE LIST +Jane Does 1 and 2 v. United States, +Case No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/ +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +1 & +Paul G. Cassell +S.J. Quinney College of Law at the +University of Utah +332 S. 1400 E. +Salt Lake City, Utah 84112 +(801) 585-5202 +Fax: (801) 585-6833 +E-mail: casselp@law.utah.edu +Attorneys for Jane Doe # 1 and Jane Doe # 2 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/8f6c5eccb12f861b4e3b203c576683335ed447f8d36e26ea83882029a637b399.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/8f6c5eccb12f861b4e3b203c576683335ed447f8d36e26ea83882029a637b399.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e00bd3460f7197c1e06a74b96d30c85ee383460c --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/8f6c5eccb12f861b4e3b203c576683335ed447f8d36e26ea83882029a637b399.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -48, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "8f6c5eccb12f861b4e3b203c576683335ed447f8d36e26ea83882029a637b399", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 4, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "964a98860dda66d35dd85111a70f7aca8298ff2dce4b3a063751c888f7afbef3", + "output_sha256": "98ddcc5aabfbb41b0aa6f6a33553f89fbfa9c3c83be778a817cf3dbcf0285278", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/8f763f2cd094be0c23a0bb4479e0550c437e7ac7820f2d54400ffb8f75e8421d.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/8f763f2cd094be0c23a0bb4479e0550c437e7ac7820f2d54400ffb8f75e8421d.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..30b45ccd79b6e77f34995cfdb41526e4afd24e63 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/8f763f2cd094be0c23a0bb4479e0550c437e7ac7820f2d54400ffb8f75e8421d.md @@ -0,0 +1,423 @@ +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 37 Filed 04/17/20 Page 1 of 14 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff +V. +DARREN K. INDYKE and RICHARD D. KAHN in +their capacities as the executors of the ESTATE OF +JEFFREY EDWARD EPSTEIN and GHISLAINE +MAXWELL, an individual, +Defendants. +Case No. 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF +THE CO-EXECUTORS' MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF +THEIR MOTION TO DISMISS IN PART PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT +TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP +875 Third Avenue +New York, New York 10022 +Tel: 212-704-6000 +Fax: 212-704-6288 +Attorneys for Defendants +Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, +as Co-Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 37 Filed 04/17/20 Page 2 of 14 +TABLE OF CONTENTS +Page +1 +2 +PRELIMINARY STATEMENT +ARGUMENT +A. +B. +C. +Legal Standard: Legal conclusions, labels and formulaic recitations of the +elements of causes of action are insufficient to state a claim. +Plaintiff's claims based on alleged torts that occurred outside of New York +and those that occurred when she was an adult, regardless of location, are +time-barred +Plaintiff's claim for false imprisonment must be dismissed in its entirety +as untimely. +Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages against the Co-Executors must be +dismissed because each jurisdiction where the torts allegedly occurred +bars recovery of punitive damages against a deceased tortfeasor's estate. +CONCLUSION +2 +2 +4 +6 +8 +i + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 37 Filed 04/17/20 Page 3 of 14 +TABLE OF AUTHORITIES +Page(s) +Cases +AHW Inv. P'ship, MFS, Inc. v. Citigroup Inc., +661 F. App'x 2 (2d Cir. 2016) +Ashcroft v. Iqbal, +556 U.S. 662(2009). +Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, +550 U.S. 544 (2007) +Carson Optical Inc. v. eBay Inc., +202 F. Supp. 3d 247 (E.D.N.Y. 2016) .... +Deutsch v. Novartis Pharms. Corp., +723 F. Supp. 2d 521 (E.D.N.Y. 2010) .... +Guidi v. Inter-Continental Hotels Corp., +No. 95-CV-9006, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6390 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 16, 2003). +In re M., +93 Misc. 2d 545 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. Bronx Cnty. 1978) . +In re Merrill +Auction Rate Sec. Litig., +851 F. Supp. 2d 512 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)..... +In re Venie, +No. 2017-NMSC-018, 395 P.3d 516 (Sup. Ct. N.M. 2017) +Jaramillo v. Providence Wash. Ins. Co., +117 N.M. 337 (N.M. 1994) +Kunica v. St. Jean Fin., +No. 97 Civ. 3804, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11867 (S.D.N.Y. July 29, 1998) +(Sweet, J.). +Nash v. Coram Healthcare Corp., +No. 96 Civ. 0298 (LMM), 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9101 (S.D.N.Y. June 27, +1996) +Poindexter v. Zacharzewski, +No. 18-civ-14155, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189861 (Nov. 5, 2018 S.D. Fla.). +.6 +.2 +2 +.2 +6 +.6 +.5 +8 +.4 +.7 +..7 +.8 +..7 +ii + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 37 Filed 04/17/20 Page 4 of 14 +Simons v. Marriott Corp., +No. 92 Civ. 3762 (SWK), 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14365 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 12, +1993) +S/B v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Educ., +No. 03 Civ. 6653, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13227 (S.D.N.Y. July 14, 2004) +(Buchwald, J.). +Starr Indem. & Liab. Co. v. Am. Claims Mgmt., +No. 14-cv-0463-JMF, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60272 (S.D.N.Y. May 7, 2015). +The Cookware Co. (USA), LLC v. Austin, +No. 15 Civ. 5796, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177691 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 8, 2016) +(Batts, J.) +Whitley v. Bowden, +No. 17-cv-3564 (KMK), 2018 WL 2170313 (S.D.N.Y. May 9, 2018)…. +Statutes +CPLR 214-g.. +CPLR $ 202 +CPLR § 214(5). +CPLR § 215(3). +EPTL § 11-3.2 (a)(1). +Fla. Stat. § 95.11 (3)(O). +Fla. Stat. § 95.11(7). +Fla. Stat. § 95.11(9). +N.M. Stat. § 37-1-8 +N.M. Stat. § 37-1-30 +N.M. Stat. § 37-1-30(A)(2). +New York Child Victims' Act +New York Penal Law Art. 130 +New York Penal Law Article 135. +.6 +...7 +.6 +..7 +.2,3 +.3,5 +...4 +4, 6 +4, 6 +....7 +.3 +...3 +3,4 +.4 +..4 +.4 +.2 +4, 5, 6 +.5 +iii + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 37 Filed 04/17/20 Page 5 of 14 +Other Authorities +C.L +& A. +, 5C Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 1380 (3d ed.) +N.Y.P.L. §§ 135.00 +Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)…... +Restatement (Second) of Torts. +WAYNE R. LAFAVE, ET AL., CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, § 16.4(c) (4th ed. 2019) +.8 +..5 +..1 +...7 +.3 +iv + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 37 Filed 04/17/20 Page 6 of 14 +Defendants Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, as Co-Executors of the Estate of +Jeffrey E. Epstein (the "Co-Executors"), submit this memorandum of law in support of their +motion, made pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), to dismiss Counts I-IV in +Plaintiff Jane Doe's (*Plaintiff") Complaint (ECF Doc. 9) to the extent they are time-barred, Count +V in its entirety, and Plaintiff's demand for punitive damages against them. +PRELIMINARY STATEMENT +Several of Plaintiff's claims, which allege torts that ended over twenty years ago, are timebarred. Plaintiff alleges that Jeffrey E. Epstein ("Decedent"), now deceased, sexually abused her +starting in 1994, when she was 14, until sometime in 1999, when Plaintiff was an adult, in Florida, +New York and New Mexico. (Compl. 11 17-19, 21, 22, 24.) Plaintiff alleges she was 16 in 1996 +(id. at 1| 20); she therefore turned 18 in 1998. Plaintiff asserts causes of action for sexual assault, +sexual battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress and false imprisonment, and seeks +punitive damages. (Id. at 11 33-58, 60.) +While preserving all rights and legal positions, the Co-Executors do not seek to dismiss +Plaintiff's first four claims (for battery, assault, and infliction of emotional distress) in their +entirety. However, to the extent those claims are based on alleged torts that occurred in Florida or +New Mexico, or after Plaintiff turned 18, regardless of where they occurred, they are time-barred +and must be dismissed. +Further, Plaintiff's fifth claim (false imprisonment) must be dismissed in its entirety for +two reasons. First, the claim is time-barred regardless of how old Plaintiff was at the time or where +it occurred. Second, even if it were not time-barred, Plaintiff failed to allege the facts necessary to +assert a claim for false imprisonment. +1 + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 37 Filed 04/17/20 Page 7 of 14 +Finally, Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages against the Co-Executors must be dismissed +as a matter of law. None of the jurisdictions where the alleged torts occurred permits recovery of +punitive damages in actions against the personal representatives of a decedent tortfeasor's estate. +ARGUMENT +A. Legal Standard: Legal conclusions, labels and formulaic recitations of the elements +of causes of action are insufficient to state a claim. +"To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, +accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. +662, 678 (2009). While the Court must normally accept as true all well-pleaded factual allegations +in a complaint and draw all inferences in Plaintiff's favor, those principles are "inapplicable to +legal conclusions." Id. at 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 & 556 +(2007)). Thus, a pleading that offers only "labels and conclusions" or "a formulaic recitation of +the elements of a cause of action will not do." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (2007). Moreover, +"'[w]here [the] plaintiff's own pleadings are internally inconsistent, a court is neither obligated to +reconcile nor accept the contradictory allegations in the pleadings as true in deciding a motion to +dismiss."' Whitley v. Bowden, No. 17-cv-3564 (KMK), 2018 WL 2170313, at *11 (S.D.N.Y. May +9, 2018) (quoting Carson Optical Inc. v. eBay Inc., 202 F. Supp. 3d 247, 255 (E.D.N.Y. 2016)). +B. Plaintiff's claims based on alleged torts that occurred outside of New York and +those that occurred when she was an adult, regardless of location, are time-barred. +In an apparent attempt to suggest her untimely claims have been revived by the New York +Child Victims' Act (CVA"), Plaintiff alleges that each of her causes of action has been brought +pursuant to it. (Compl. 11 37, 43, 48, 52 and 58.) However, Plaintiff ignores that the CVA does +not revive her claims (i) based on conduct that allegedly occurred after she turned 18 in 1998, or +2 + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 37 Filed 04/17/20 Page 8 of 14 +(il) outside of New York, regardless of Plaintiff's age at the time.' +The CVA creates a one-year window in which civil claims alleging damages "suffered as +a result of conduct which would constitute a sexual offense as defined in article one hundred +thirty of the penal law committed against a child less than eighteen years of age" may be filed +despite the statute of limitations having already run. CPLR § 214-g (emphasis added). The CVA's +New York Penal Law predicate applies only to acts that occurred in New York. See, e.g., WAYNE +R. LAFAVE, ET AL., CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, § 16.4(c) (4th ed. 2019) ("a state has power to make +conduct or the result of conduct a crime only if the conduct takes place or the result happens within +its territorial limits."). +Therefore, Plaintiff's claims based on torts occurring in New York after she became an +adult, as well as her claims based on torts occurring in Florida and New Mexico-regardless of +whether she was a minor at the time expired as follows: +• Florida: for torts occurring while she was a minor, the later of within seven years +shetsh treaded age or Deider le sometime in 2005 a vitiates, arither +four years from the time she discovered both her injury and the causal relationship +between that injury and the abuse (i.e., by sometime in 2003 at the latest)? (See Fla. +Stat. § 95.11(7)); and, within four years after Plaintiff reached age of majority (i.e.., +by sometime in 2002) (See Fla. Stat. § 95.11 (3)(O)).* +(S.D.N.Y. May 9, 2018). +2 Plaintiff alleges she "escaped" from Decedent in 1999, when she moved to California. (Compl. 9 24.) Plaintiff could +not have depended on him after that time. +3 Plaintiff does not allege belated discovery of her injuries. To the contrary, she alleges she has experienced pain and +suffering daily. (See, e.g., Compl. 11| 25, 36, 42.) Plaintiff further claims she "was aware of" Decedent's alleged false +imprisonment of her. (Id. at ( 54.) +* In 2010, the Florida Legislature enacted Fla. Stat. § 95.11(9), which provides: *An action related to an act constituting +a violation of's. 794.011 involving a victim who was under the age of 16 at the time of the act may be commenced at +any time. This subsection applies to any such action other than one which would have been time barred on or before +3 + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 37 Filed 04/17/20 Page 9 of 14 +• New Mexico: for torts occurring while she was a minor, the later of the "first +instant" of Plaintiff's 24th birthday (i.e., sometime in 2004) or three years from the +date of the time that she knew or had reason to know of the childhood sexual abuse +and that the childhood sexual abuse resulted in an injury to her, as established by +competent medical or psychological testimony (Plaintiff makes no allegations in +this regard) (see N.M. Stat. § 37-1-30);S and three years after Plaintiff reached age +of majority (i.e., sometime in 2001) (see N.M. Stat. § 37-1-8). +• New York: excluding alleged torts subject to the CVA, if any, Plaintiff's causes of +action sounding in battery must be commenced within one year of accrual (see +CPLR § 215(3)); or, if Plaintiff's claims sound in personal injury, within three years +(see CPLR § 214(5)). Therefore, under New York law, Plaintiff's claims arising +from her alleged sexual abuse occurring in New York when she was no longer a +minor expired in 2002 at the latest.° +C. Plaintiff's claim for false imprisonment must be dismissed in its entirety as +untimely. +Plaintiff's false imprisonment cause of action (Count V) must be dismissed because the +CVA does not apply to it. As explained above, one of the two predicates for the CVA's application +is a civil claim arising from conduct which would constitute a sexual offense as defined in New +York Penal Law Art. 130: +July I, 2010." (emphasis added). As explained above, Plaintiff's cause of action based on alleged abuse in Florida +expired by 2005. Accordingly, Fla. Stat. § 95.11(9) is inapplicable to her claim. +5 As her cause of action expired before the current version of N.M. Stat. § 37-1-30(A)(2) became effective on April 6, +2017, Plaintiff is not entitled to avail herself of it. See In re Venie, No. 2017-NMSC-018, 395 P.3d 516 (Sup. Ct. N.M. +2017) (distinguishing cases such as this, in which a cause of action expires before the enactment of a new limitations +period, from cases in which a new limitations period extends the time to bring a cause of action before the prior +limitations period had expired such that a defendant has no vested right in the statute of limitations defense based on +the prior limitations period). Rather, Plaintiff is only entitled to invoke the prior version of N.M. Stat. § 37-1-30(A)(2), +which provided that an action for damages based on personal injury caused by childhood sexual abuse must be +commenced "three years from the date of the time that a person knew or had reason to know of the childhood sexual +abuse and that the childhood sexual abuse resulted in an injury to the person, as established by competent medical or +psychological testimony." See current version of N.M. Stat. § 37-1-30(A)(2) ("An action for damages based on +personal injury caused by childhood sexual abuse shall be commenced by a person before the latest of the following +dates ... (2) three years from the date that a person first disclosed the person's childhood sexual abuse to a licensed +medical or mental health care provider in the context of receiving health care from the provider."). In any event, +Plaintiff fails to allege the condition precedent to either version of the statute. +" That Plaintiff's causes of action accruing outside New York are untimely under New York law alone renders those +claims time-barred. Plaintiff alleges she resides in California. (Compl. 9 4.) New York's borrowing statute, CPLR § +202, provides that, when a non-New York resident such as Plaintiff sues on causes of action accruing outside New +York, the complaint must be timely under the statute of limitations of both New York and the jurisdiction where the +claim accrued. (As explained above, the torts that Plaintiff alleges occurred outside New York fall outside the scope +of the CVA.) +4 + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 37 Filed 04/17/20 Page 10 of 14 +Notwithstanding any provision of law which imposes a period of limitation to the contrary +and the provisions of any other law pertaining to the filing of a notice of claim or a notice +of intention to file a claim as a condition precedent to commencement of an action or +special proceeding, every civil claim or cause of action brought against any party alleging +intentional or negligent acts or omissions by a person for physical, psychological, or other +injury or condition suffered as a result of conduct which would constitute a sexual offense +as defined in article one hundred thirty of the penal law committed against a child less +than eighteen years of age, incest as defined in section 255.27, 255.26 or 255.25 of the +penal law committed against a child less than eighteen years of age, or the use of a child in +a sexual performance as defined in section 263.05 of the penal law, or a predecessor statute +that prohibited such conduct at the time of the act, which conduct was committed against +a child less than eighteen years of age, which is barred as of the effective date of this section +because the applicable period of limitation has expired, and/or the plaintiff previously +failed to file a notice of claim or a notice of intention to file a claim, is hereby revived, and +action thereon may be commenced not earlier than six months after, and not later than one +year and six months after the effective date of this section. +CPLR 214-g (emphasis added). +However, Article 130 of the New York Penal Law, titled "Sex Offenses," does not cover +conduct that would give rise to a claim of false imprisonment, but rather various types of sexual +abuse, misconduct, and assault. See N.Y.P.L. §§ 130.00, et seq. Conduct that could give rise to a +claim of false imprisonment, specifically, "knowingly unlawful restraint without consent," is +covered by Article 135 of the New York Penal Law, which address "unlawful imprisonment" +among "Kidnapping, Coercion and Related Offenses." N.Y.P.L. §§ 135.00, et seq. +Here, albeit in a formulaic, threadbare fashion, Plaintiff alleges as the basis of her false +imprisonment claims—as opposed to the conduct that forms the basis of her sexual assault and +sexual battery claims that Decedent and Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell 'imprison[ed]" her +"without lawful authority"—i.e., "unlawful imprisonment." (Compl. 9| 54.) While that alleged +underlying conduct may in theory give rise to a N.Y.P.L. § 135 violation, it cannot give rise to a +N.Y.P.L. § 130 violation. See In re M., 93 Misc. 2d 545, 549 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. Bronx Cnty. 1978) +("Further argument advanced by respondent's attorney that the charge of unlawful imprisonment, +second degree, under section 135.05 of the Penal Law does not exist independently of the charge +5 + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 37 Filed 04/17/20 Page 11 of 14 +of sexual abuse, second degree [Penal Law 135.05], is equally without merit ... Clearly, the +elements of each of these crimes are totally different and each can stand independent of the +other."). +Therefore: (i) Plaintiff's false imprisonment claim is subject to the 1 - or 3-year statutes of +limitation set forth in CPR §§ 215(3) and 214(5), respectively; and (ii) accordingly, and +regardless of whether she was a minor at the time of the alleged false imprisonment, Count V +expired by 2002 at the latest. +D. Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages against the Co-Executors must be dismissed +because each jurisdiction where the torts allegedly occurred bars recovery of +punitive damages against a deceased tortfeasor's estate. +As a matter of law, none of the jurisdictions where Plaintiff alleges she was abused permits +her to recover punitive damages from the Co-Executors. It is black-letter law that the place of a +tort (here, Florida, New Mexico or New York) generally applies to the issue of punitive damages. +When determining which state's law applies, courts look to the choice-of-law rules of the forum +state. Simons v. Marriott Corp., No. 92 Civ. 3762 (SWK), 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14365, at *15 +(S.D.N.Y. Oct. 12, 1993). +Under New York law, "[b]ecause punitive damages are conduct-regulating, "the law of the +jurisdiction where the tort occurred will generally apply."" Starr Indem. & Liab. Co. v. Am. Claims +Mgmt., No. 14-cv-0463-JMF, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60272, *7 (S.D.N.Y. May 7, 2015) (quoting +Deutsch v. Novartis Pharms: Corp., 723 F. Supp. 2d 521, 524 (E.D.N.Y. 2010); Guidi v. Inter- +Continental Hotels Corp., No. 95-CV-9006, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6390, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. +16, 2003)). See also AHW Inv. P'ship, MFS, Inc. v. Citigroup Inc., 661 F. App'x 2, 5 (2d Cir. +2016) ("[Jt is the place of the allegedly wrongful conduct that generally has superior "interests in +protecting the reasonable expectations of the parties who relied on the laws of that place to govern +6 + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 37 Filed 04/17/20 Page 12 of 14 +their primary conduct and in the admonitory effect that applying its law will have on similar +conduct in the future."). +Because none of the jurisdictions where the alleged torts occurred permits punitive +damages against the personal representatives of a decedent tortfeasor's estate, the Court must +dismiss Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages against the Co-Executors. See Poindexter v. +Zacharzewski, No. 18-civ-14155, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189861, at *6 (Nov. 5, 2018 S.D. Fla.) +("Florida law prohibits recovery of punitive damages from the estate of a wrongdoer who is +deceased."); Jaramillo v. Providence Wash. Ins. Co., 117 N.M. 337, 346 (N.M. 1994) +("punishment and deterrence are not accomplished by enabling recovery of punitive damages from +the estate of deceased tortfeasors."); NY EPTL § 11-3.2 (a)(1) ("For any injury, an action may be +brought or continued against the personal representative of the decedent, but punitive damages +shall not be awarded nor penalties adjudged in any such action brought to recover damages for +personal injury." (emphasis added)). That is also the law in most U.S. jurisdictions, as reflected +in the Restatement (Second) of Torts. See Restat. (Second) Of Torts § 908 cmt. a ("Punitive +damages are not awarded against the representatives of a deceased tortfeasor."). +Dismissing +; Plaintiff's punitive damages claim is procedurally proper. Judges in this +District regularly dismiss and strike punitive damages claims at the pleadings stage where, as here, +they are legally baseless, whether because they are barred by statute and black-letter law (as is the +case here) or where a plaintiff fails to allege facts that would permit them. See, e.g., The Cookware +Co. (USA), LLC v. Austin, No. 15 Civ. 5796, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177691, at *17 (S.D.N.Y. +Dec. 8, 2016) (Batts, J.) (granting motion to dismiss claim for punitive damages without leave to +replead because allegations regarding defendant's bad-faith conduct were conclusory and did not +rise to the required level of malice); SJB v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Educ., No. 03 Civ. 6653, 2004 U.S. +7 + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 37 Filed 04/17/20 Page 13 of 14 +Dist. LEXIS 13227, at *25-26 (S.D.N.Y. July 14, 2004) (Buchwald, J.) (granting motion to dismiss +statutorily unavailable punitive damages claims); Kunica v. St. Jean Fin., No. 97 Civ. 3804, 1998 +U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11867, at *26 (S.D.N.Y. July 29, 1998) (Sweet, J.) (granting motion to dismiss +claim for punitive damages because, even if conduct alleged in complaint was true, it did not rise +to the level necessary to award punitive damages). See also In re Merrill +Auction Rate Sec. +Litig., 851 F. Supp. 2d 512, 544 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (granting motion to strike sections of complaint +asserting punitive damages); Nash v. Coram Healthcare Corp., No. 96 Civ. 0298 (LMM), 1996 +U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9101, at *15 (S.D.N.Y. June 27, 1996) ("The motion to strike the punitive +damages prayer from the Complaint is Granted."). See also C. +& A. +, 5C Fed. Prac. +& Proc. Civ. § 1380 (3d ed.) (*[T]he technical name given to a motion challenging a pleading is +of little importance ... as prejudice to the nonmoving party hardly can result from treating a motion +that has been inaccurately denominated a motion to strike as a motion to dismiss the complaint."). +CONCLUSION +For the reasons stated above, the Co-Executors respectfully request that the Court dismiss +Counts I-IV of Plaintiff's Complaint to the extent they are time-barred, Count V in its entirety, and +Plaintiff's demand for punitive damages, together with such other and further relief as is just and +equitable. + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 37 Filed 04/17/20 Page 14 of 14 +Dated: New York, New York +April 17, 2020 +By: /s/ Bennet .J. Moskowitz +Bennet J. Moskowitz +TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP +875 Third Avenue +New York, New York 10022 +Attorneys for Defendants Darren K. Indyke and +Richard D. Kahn, as Co-Executors of the Estate +of Jeffrey E. Epstein diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/8f763f2cd094be0c23a0bb4479e0550c437e7ac7820f2d54400ffb8f75e8421d.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/8f763f2cd094be0c23a0bb4479e0550c437e7ac7820f2d54400ffb8f75e8421d.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5231085ba9120551cf3c13a41141062b716e4142 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/8f763f2cd094be0c23a0bb4479e0550c437e7ac7820f2d54400ffb8f75e8421d.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -170, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "8f763f2cd094be0c23a0bb4479e0550c437e7ac7820f2d54400ffb8f75e8421d", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 15, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "a327d7666b5f403b45752f19fa6c154b814b3507feaca475183c50950fbc8f62", + "output_sha256": "02b3ead1fb8df4b670642fa0abf63b6dd884e56bf199c4be89b0a6716ee21db8", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/8f777d59f3dda234fbd5177de382115ab43f9663a95b53d38631d6b0f57c5f22.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/8f777d59f3dda234fbd5177de382115ab43f9663a95b53d38631d6b0f57c5f22.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..40be24e80fa770637fe0b9d3343cc957ed07af4a --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/8f777d59f3dda234fbd5177de382115ab43f9663a95b53d38631d6b0f57c5f22.md @@ -0,0 +1,95 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 236 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2013 Page 1 of 3 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA +JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, +Petitioners, +VS. +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, +Respondent. +OF DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE +Respondent, by and through its undersigned counsel, files its Motion for Enlargement of +Time to File Declaration of United States Attorney in Support of Deliberative Process Privilege, +and states: +1. On September 4, 2013, this Court granted the government's motion for enlargement of +time to file declaration in support of invocation of the deliberative process privilege. The Court +granted the government until Friday, September 13, 2013, to file the declaration. +2. The government asserted the deliberative process privilege on two classes of +documents, those generated by components of the Department of Justice, and those generated by +the U.S. Attorney's Office, Southern District of Florida. +3. The United States Attorney, Southern District of Florida, is reviewing the documents +for which the deliberative process privilege was asserted, to determine if he will formally invoke +the privilege. His review will be complete by September 19, 2013, and the undersigned expects +the U.S. Attorney's declaration will be filed on Friday, September 20, 2013. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 236 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2013 Page 2 of 3 +4. The government respectfully requests an enlargement of time of seven days, up to and +including September 20, 2013, to file the declaration of the United States Attorney, in support of +the invocation of the deliberative process privilege. +CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE +On September 13, 2013, petitioners' counsel advised that they do not oppose this motion. +At present, petitioners' reply in support of their renewed motion for an order directing the U.S. +Attorney's Office not to withhold relevant evidence is due on September 23, 2013, ten days after +the filing of the government's declaration. D.E. 234. In the event the Court grant's the +government's motion, the government respectfully requests that petitioners' date for filing their +reply be enlarged to September 30, 2013. +DATED: September 13, 2013 +Respectfully submitted, +WILFREDO A. FERRER +UNITED STATES ATTORNEY +By: +s/ Dexter A. Lee +DEXTER A. LEE +Assistant U.S. Attorney +Fla. Bar No. 0936693 +99 N.E. 4th Street, Suite 300 +Miami, Florida 33132 +(305) 961-9320 +Fax: (305) 530-7139 +E-mail: dexter.lee@usdoj.gov +ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I HEREBY CERTIFY that on September 13, 2013, I electronically filed the foregoing +document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF +s/ Dexter A. Lee +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 236 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2013 Page 3 of 3 +DEXTER A. LEE +Assistant U.S. Attorney +SERVICE LIST +Jane Does 1 and 2 v. United States, +Case No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/ +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +J. +Esq. +Jaffe, Weissing, +Fistos & Lehrman, P.L. +425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 +Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 +(954) 524-2820 +Fax: (954) 524-2822 +E-mail: brad@pathtojustice.com +Paul G. Cassell +S.J. Quinney College of Law at the +University of Utah +332 S. 1400 E. +Salt Lake City, Utah 84112 +(801) 585-5202 +Fax: (801) 585-6833 +E-mail: casselp@law.utah.edu +Attorneys for Jane Doe # 1 and Jane Doe # 2 +Roy Black +Jackie Perczek +Black, Srebnick, Kornspan & Stumpf, P.A. +201 South Biscayne Boulevard +Suite 1300 +Miami, Florida 33131 +(305) 371-6421 +Fax: (305) 358-2006 +E-mail: rblack@royblack.com +jperczek@royblack.com +Attorneys for Intervenors +3 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/8f777d59f3dda234fbd5177de382115ab43f9663a95b53d38631d6b0f57c5f22.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/8f777d59f3dda234fbd5177de382115ab43f9663a95b53d38631d6b0f57c5f22.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c2794f12f16b83a43a501e8b6fc0141f0275c391 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/8f777d59f3dda234fbd5177de382115ab43f9663a95b53d38631d6b0f57c5f22.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -36, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "8f777d59f3dda234fbd5177de382115ab43f9663a95b53d38631d6b0f57c5f22", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 3, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "a05d7de5671b24fd848b1f38ad855bad23cb1078bbb1a13fd0cc352238da92ae", + "output_sha256": "7041c9962f2b27cb3af83ba47a74894a20d9a2ced9f065142f9e14ae5f6176a7", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/8f84f0600a1e03a06c6193386d66a8d634ff382c77a1b8d5105f6960722d7d97.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/8f84f0600a1e03a06c6193386d66a8d634ff382c77a1b8d5105f6960722d7d97.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..672028100dcc43ec449ee2c84332e5b9fc2d9b35 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/8f84f0600a1e03a06c6193386d66a8d634ff382c77a1b8d5105f6960722d7d97.md @@ -0,0 +1,243 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 559 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2010 Page 1 of 7 +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, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, +08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, +09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092 +DEFENDANT'S, MOTION FOR MODIFICATION AND RECONSIDERATION OF THE +MAGISTRATE'S ORDER DATED JUNE 1, 2010 (DE 555), WITH INCORPORATED +OBJECTIONS AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW +Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter "Epstein"), by and through his undersigned +attorneys, hereby files his Motion for Modification and Reconsideration of the Magistrate's +Order (DE 555) pursuant to Rule 60, Rule 4, Rule 4(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(e), and other +applicable Federal Rules and Local Rules. In support, Epstein states: +1. +This court entered an order (DE 555) stating that Alfredo Rodriguez +("Rodriguez") (DE 469), must produce, to the extent in his possession, "...any and all journal, +notes, diaries, and writings relating to Jeffrey Epstein including the journal described by +Rodriguez to Palm Beach Police that [allegedly] contains the names of girls who visited the +residence." (DE 555, p.2) +2. +As set forth in Rodriguez's deposition, he was an employee of Epstein. +Rodriguez Deposition, Exhibit "A" at p. 12-13. Moreover, as an individual employee, +1 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 559 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2010 Page 2 of 7 +Rodriguez claims he executed a confidentiality agreement with Epstein. Exhibit "A" at p. 135. +Furthermore, in his plea agreement, Rodriguez "admitted removing [a book or journal] from +Epstein's home without Epstein's permission. ..." Plea Agreement, Exhibit "B" at p.8. In +short, if Rodriguez's testimony and Plea Agreement are correct, then he stole the property from +Epstein's home, which would be a breach of his fiduciary obligations as an employee, a breach +of the Employment Agreement he testified he executed and an invasion of Epstein's privacy +rights and potentially his commercially sensitive financial and trade secret information. To the +extent Rodriguez's testimony is true, Epstein never gave Rodriguez permission for this "journal" +or "book" to be removed. +3. +This "book" or "journal" or "papers" could contain the names of Epstein's +business associates and other highly confidential commercially sensitive information that would +be entirely irrelevant to this action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of +admissible evidence. +Accordingly, depending upon what this "book" or "journal" contains, +there may be commercially sensitive and trade secret information contained therein including, +but not limited to, lists of business associates which could result in irreparable harm to Epstein if +disseminated. +v. Silcox, 2001 WL 1200656 (S.D. Fla. 2001). +Courts have often enjoined the dissemination of confidential or private +information wrongfully obtained from the employer by a (now) ex-employee during the course +of his employment, either through a free-standing action for injunctive relief or in conjunction +with a tort action for, among other things, breach of fiduciary duty. See, c.g., Saini V. +International Game Technology, 434 F.Supp.2d 913, 924 (D.Nev. 2006)(court finds that +company had shown likelihood of success in proving breach of implied covenant of good faith +and fair dealing where former employee's "decision to distribute internal IGT documents to a +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 559 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2010 Page 3 of 7 +party adverse to IGT in litigation demonstrates a deliberate attempt to violate the spirit of his +confidentiality agreements with IGT;" injunction issued); see also In re Zyprexa Injunction, 474 +F.Supp.2d 385, 419 (E.D.N.Y. 2007)(court has power to enjoin dissemination of stolen +documents obtained in violation of court's protective order). Even where the employee is not +subject to a formal confidentiality agreement, "an employee may still be enjoined from using +confidential information where he or she has obtained such information by wrongful means, such +as theft or intentional memorization." Tactica Intern., Inc. V. Atlantic Horizon Intern., Inc., 154 +F.Supp.2d 586, 608 (S.D.N.Y. 2001); Standard Brands, Inc. v. Zumpe, 264 F.Supp. 254, 262 +(D.La. 1967)(internal quotation marks omitted). See A.H. Emery Co. v. Marcan Products Corp, +268 F.Supp. 289, 299 (S.D.N.Y. 1967)("A confidential relationship exists between an employee +and his employer. It survives the termination of his employment. It does not depend on any +express contract. Disclosure by an employee of a trade secret entrusted to him by his employer in +the course of his employment is a classic instance of a disclosure which constitutes a breach of +confidence and which is therefore actionable. It is not necessary that the employee expressly +agree not to disclose it"), aff'd 389 F.2d 11 (2d Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 835 (1968). +The simple fact is that this court must determine, in camera, what is in the "book" or "journal" +such that relevancy, privileges, privacy interests and commercially sensitive and trade secret +privileges can be addressed before disclosure. +5. +Moreover, the right to privacy encompasses at least two different kinds of +interests, the individual interests of disclosing personal matters and the interest in independence +in making certain kinds of important decisions. Favalora v. Sidaway, 966 So.2d 895 (Fla. 4th +DCA 2008). The Supreme Court has "consistently held that a person has no legitimate +expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to the third parties." +V. +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 559 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2010 Page 4 of 7 +Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 743-44, 99 S.Ct. 2577, 2582 (1979). To the extent this "book" or +"journal" exists, Rodriguez admitted that he took same without Epstein's permission. Therefore, +Epstein could not have voluntarily given same to him and, as such, Epstein has not waived any +objections, privileges and/or privacy interests in the "book" or "journal.". Likewise, Article 1, s. +23, Right of Privacy, provides that every natural person has the right to be let alone and free from +governmental intrusion into the person's private life. Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367, 387 +(1986); State v. Jardines, 9 So.3d 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)(the Fourth Amendment clearly protects +the right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects from intrusions); New +Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 375 (1985)(search of a woman's purse by a school administrator +is a serious invasion of her legitimate expectation of privacy). Based upon the foregoing, +Epstein should be afforded his due process rights to review this alleged "book" and/or "journal" +in an effort to determine what, if any, legal objections and privileges should be asserted before +disclosure. +6. +As this court is well aware, there are serious 4"', s"*, 6, and 14"h Amendment +implications involved in this case. The fact that Rodriguez claims to have stolen the "book" or +"journal" gives this court good reason to, at the very least, hold an in camera proceeding to +determine if the confidential information set forth therein should be disclosed. +Epstein has not had the opportunity to review what is in this "book" or "journal" +to determine whether various legal objections should be made and to determine what, if any, 4*, +s"', 6*, and 14" Amendment implications would arise due to its disclosure as well as other legal +objections and privileges. See infra. Therefore, an in camera hearing should occur to determine +what objections and privileges must be raised before disclosure is made. U.S. v. Zolin, 491 U.S. +554, 575 (1989)(disclosing materials to the district court does not have the legal effect of +4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 559 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2010 Page 5 of 7 +terminating a privilege thereby allowing parties to disclose documents in camera and make that +in camera request - especially when there is a question as to whether those documents were +obtained by unlawful means); St. Andrews Park, Inc. v. U.S. Dept. of Army Corps of Engineers, +299 F.Supp.2d 1264 (S.D. Fla. 2003)(court determined that an in camera proceeding was +appropriate when it involved a small volume of documents); see also In re Alberto Duque, 134 +B.R. 679 (S.D. Fla. 1991)(in camera inspection afforded adequate protection against disclosure +of any privileged documentary material). A trial court departs from the essential requirements of +law in ordering production of confidential information without conducting an in camera review +to determine whether the assertion of privilege is valid. See Westco, Inc. v. Scott +Gardening & Trimming, Inc., 26 So. 3d 620, 622 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). +If disclosure is made, this court should then determine what portions of the +"book" or "journal" should be produced, redacted and then subject to a heightened +confidentiality agreement. +Wherefore, Epstein requests that this court enter an order: +granting the relief requested above inclusive of a modification of the order +and or reconsideration of same for the reasons set out above: +b. +finding that an in camera hearing should occur to determine if any +privileges, objections, privacy interests, redactions and/or discovery objections can be +made by Epstein before disclosure is made and granting a reasonable time to do so; +C. +reversing the Magistrate's Order relative to the carte blanch production of +the "journal" and/or "book" (DE 555); +d. +likewise, if this court rules that the "book" or "journal" should be +produced, Epstein respectfully requests that it do so only after an in camera hearing +allowing the document 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 document should be redacted as privileged including, but not +limited to, what portions should be redacted due to the confidentiality and privacy +interests, trade secret and commercially sensitive financial and business information. +5 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 559 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2010 Page 6 of 7 +Again, the foregoing should only occur after this court ensures that the document (i.e., the +"journal" or "book") produced is the subject of a heightened-confidentiality order where +disclosure will result in the disclosing party being held in contempt of court; and +for such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. +By: Is/ Robert D. Critton, Jr. +ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. +Florida Bar #224162 +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. +Florida Bar #617296 +Certificate of Service +I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was being served this day on all +counsel of record identified on the following Service List via electronic mail (EMAIL) on this +day of 4t day of June 2010. +Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. +Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. +Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. +18205 Biscayne Boulevard +Suite 2218 +Respectfully submitted, +By: Is/ Robert D. Critton, Jr. +ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. +Florida Bar No. 224162 +rcrit@bclelaw.com +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. +Florida Bar #617296 +mpike@bclclaw.com +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN +303 Banyan Blvd., Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561/842-2820 Phone +561/253-0164 Fax +(Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) +Certificate of Service +ane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epsteir +Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/, +1 Esq. +Banner, Jafle, sing, 1 +& Lehrman, PL +425 N. Andrews Ave. +Suite #2 +Fistos +6 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 559 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2010 Page 7 of 7 +Miami, FL 33160 +305-931-2200 +Fax: 305-931-0877 +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +ahorowitz/@sexabuseattorney.com +Counsel for Plaintiffs +In related Cases Nos. 08-80069, 08-80119, 08- +80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80993, 08- +Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 +Phone: 954-524-2820 +Fax: 954-524-2822 +Brad@pathtojustice.com +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08- +80893 +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 +jagesq@bellsouth.net +Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein +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 +cassellp@law.utah.edu +Co-counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe +Isidro M. +Esq. +Tara A. Finnigan, Esq. +Law Firm, P.A. +224 Datura Street, Suite 900 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561-832-7732 +561-832-7137 F +isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net +S046sel for Plainit in Related Case No. OS. +7 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/8f84f0600a1e03a06c6193386d66a8d634ff382c77a1b8d5105f6960722d7d97.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/8f84f0600a1e03a06c6193386d66a8d634ff382c77a1b8d5105f6960722d7d97.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f279acfd2a025c55d9d052b784bfeadaf3e42552 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/8f84f0600a1e03a06c6193386d66a8d634ff382c77a1b8d5105f6960722d7d97.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -84, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "8f84f0600a1e03a06c6193386d66a8d634ff382c77a1b8d5105f6960722d7d97", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 7, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "7bd7f22a04113ed127a3335d5f4cfeec7cf2f0138830557a8d45aad88e2514be", + "output_sha256": "311abb5a1881c35f01c062b0ddddefc958ab77f3664623737d1b0b96539f54eb", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/8f917117bfe4355423f61feb7232f20163dba72fad3bb122a537eae9321abd05.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/8f917117bfe4355423f61feb7232f20163dba72fad3bb122a537eae9321abd05.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ed1e2a07f8230ff327e0a5573d5a61e402b08d3a --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/8f917117bfe4355423f61feb7232f20163dba72fad3bb122a537eae9321abd05.md @@ -0,0 +1,1573 @@ +Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2009 Page 1 of 38 + +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA-| +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +V. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +! +Related Cases: +08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994, +08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, +09-80581, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092. +DEFENDANT'S. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AND +TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF JANE DOE NO. 4 AND MEMORANDUM IN +SUPPORT THEREOF +Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through his undersigned attorneys, moves this +court for an order granting sanctions pursuant to Rule 30(d)(2) and (3)(A) and (C) (referencing +Rule 37(a)(5)), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and compelling the deposition of Jane Doe No. +4 within fifteen (15) days and as grounds therefore would state: +On August 16, 2009, the deposition of Jane Doe No. 4 was noticed for September +16, 2009 to begin at 1:00 p.m. Plaintiff's counsel had advised that Jane Doe No. 4 could not +appear for a deposition prior to that time of day, i.e. 1:00 p.m. +2. +The deposition was originally set at the offices of the undersigned, but Plaintiff's +counsel requested that it be moved to the court reporter's office. The court reporter is Prose +Court Reporting located at 250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 115, West Palm Beach, FL +33401. +"1" + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 322-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2009 Page 2 of 38 +Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Page 2 of 8 +3. +The undersigned's office began attempting to set the deposition of Jane Doe No. 4 +on July 21, 2009. Because of the number of attorneys who would be attending (based on the +court's consolidation order) coordinating the video deposition creates logistical problems. +4. +On August 27, 2009, the undersigned wrote a letter to counsel for the Plaintiff +indicating that Mr. Epstein would be present at the deposition. A copy of that letter is attached +as Exhibit 1. +Some 13 days later, counsel for Jane Doe No. 4 filed a motion for protective order +on September 9, 2009 attempting to prohibit Mr.Epstein's presence at the deposition. The +Defendant immediately filed a response (an Emergency Motion) on September 11, 2009 +requesting that the court enter an order allowing Epstein, the Defendant in this matter, to attend +the deposition. This is common procedure. See Exhibit 2, without exhibits. As of the date of +the deposition, the court had not ruled on these motions. +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. +The deposition was originally scheduled on the 15" 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 +14"' Floor in the same building as the court reporter and Mir. Epstein's criminal attorney, Mr. +Goldberger. As well, had the court issued an order prior to the deposition that would have +allowed Mr. Epstein to attend, he was readily available. +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 322-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2009 Page 3 of 38 +Case 9:08-Cv-80119-KAM Document 305 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Page 3 of 8 +9. +As of 1:00 p.m., no order had been received from the court, so Epstein's +attorneys, in good faith, decided that Epstein would not attend the deposition (as per the +agreement), if we chose to proceed, which we were doing. The undersigned and Mr. 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. +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. Luttier +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. I 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 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 322-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2009 Page 4 of 38 +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 305 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 + +14. +Any suggestion that the chance "visual" between Mr. Epstein and Jane Doe No. 4 +was "pre-planned" would be absurd, disingenuous and false. The undersigned counsel went out +of his way to make certain Mr. Epstein would not be in the building after the time the deposition +was set to begin. Had the Plaintiff and her counsel been in the deposition room at the appointed +time, no visual contact would have occurred. +15. +It is possible that Plaintiff's counsel, by filing their motion for protective order on +September 9, 2009 and then advising the undersigned on September 14, 2009 that the deposition +would not go forward unless the undersigned agreed to exclude Mr. Epstein from the deposition, +were not prepared and/or did not want to proceed with the deposition. +16. +The unilateral termination of the deposition was unnecessary, inappropriate and a +substantial waste of attorney time and the costs related to the deposition (court reporter and +videographer). (See Affidavit of Robert D. Critton, Jr., Mark T. Luttier 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. +The costs associated with the court reporter and videographer total $428.80. See +18. + +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 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 322-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2009 Page 5 of 38 +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 Plaintiff's counsel and Plaintiff refusing to +move forward with the deposition. Furthermore, pursuant to (3)(A) and (C), Plaintiff and +Plaintiff's counsel had no right to unilaterally terminate/cancel the deposition and fail to move +forward. Plaintiff should have continued with the deposition and filed any motion deemed +appropriate post deposition. Therefore, Defendant is asking for the costs associated with the +attendance of the court reporter, her transcript and the presence of the videographer. Defendant +would also request reasonable fees for 2.5 hours at $500 per hour for being required to prepare +this motion and affidavits associated with same. +The records obtained thus far on Jane Doe No. 4, do not reflect any "emotional trauma" +by her own account of some 50 plus visits to the Defendant's home prior to the time that she +hired an attorney. Even in her interview with attorney's handpicked expert, Dr. 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 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 322-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2009 Page 6 of 38 +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 305 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Page 6 of 8 +Rule 7.1 A. 3. Certification of Pre-Filing Conference +Counsel for Defendant conferred with Counsel for Plaintiff by telephone and by e-mail; +however, an agreement has not been reached. +WHEREFORE, Defendant moves this court for an order granting sanctions to include +attorneys fees and costs as set forth above and costs associated with the attendance of the court +reporter, the transcript and the presence of the videographer and direction that Jane Doe No. 4 +appear for deposition within fifteen (15) days from the date of the court's order at the court +reporter's office. If the court has not issued an order regarding Mr. Epstein's attendance at +Plaintiff's deposition when Jane Doe No. 4 is to appear, the Defendant will agree that Mr. +Epstein will not be present in the building on the date of her scheduled deposition such that no +"inadvertent" contact will occur. +Robert D. Critton, Jr. +Michael J. Pike +Attorneys for Defendant Epstein +Certificate of Service +I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was hand-delivered to the Clerk +of the Court as required by the Local Rules of the Southern District of Florida and electronically +mailed to all counsel of record identified on the following Service List on this_ 7 # day of +September, 2009. +Certificate of Service +Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein +Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON +6 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 322-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2009 Page 7 of 38 +Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Page 7 of 8 +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@sexabuseattorney.com +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +Brad +1, Esq. +Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler +401 East Las Olas Boulevard +Suite 1650 +Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 +Phone: 954-522-3456 +Fax: 954-527-8663 +bedwards@rra-law.com +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08- +80893 +Counsel for Plaintiffs +In related Cases Nos. 08-80069, 08-80119, 08- +80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80993, 08- Paul G. Cassell, Esq. +80994 +Pro Hac Vice +332 South 1400 E, Room 101 +Richard Horace Willits, Esq. +Salt Lake City, UT 84112 +Richard H. Willits, P.A. +801-585-5202 +2290 10*h Avenue North +801-585-6833 Fax +Suite 404 +Lake Worth, FL 33461 +cassellp@law.utah.edu +Co-counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe +561-582-7600 +Fax: 561-588-8819 +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08- +80811 +reelrhw@hotmail.com +L. Esq. +| Law Firm, P.A +24 Datura Street, Suite 90( +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Jack Scarola, Esq. +isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net +Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, Sounsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08- +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 +jsx@searcylaw.com +25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800 +Miami, FL 33130 +jph@searcylaw.com +305 358-2800 +Counsel for Plaintiff, C.M.A. +Fax: 305 358-2382 +rjosefsberg@podhurst.com +kezell@podhurst.com +Bruce Reinhart, Esq. +Counsel for Plaintiffs in Related Cases Nos. +Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A. +09-80591 and 09-80656 +250 S. Australian Avenue +Suite 1400 +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +7 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 322-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2009 Page 8 of 38 +Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Page 8 of 8 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561-202-6360 +Fax: 561-828-0983 +ect@brucereinhartlaw.com +Counsel for Defendant L +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- +skuvin@riccilaw.com +tleopold@riccilaw.com +Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 +561-659-8300 +Fax: 561-835-8691 +jagesq@bellsouth.net +Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein +Respectfully submitted, +By: — +ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. +Florida Bar No. 224162 +rcrit@bclclaw.com +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. +Florida Bar #617296 +pike @bciclaw.co +URMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMA +303 Banyan Boulevard, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561/213-0164 Fax +(Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) +8 + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2009 Page 9 of 38 +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 305-2 +Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Page 1 of 1 +BE BUMN EMANE +A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP +J. MICHAEL BURMAN, PA.12 - +GREGORY W. COLEMAN, PA. +ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR. RA. I' +BERNARD LEBEDEKER +MARK T. LUTTIER, PA. +JEFFREY C. PEPEN +MICHAEL ). PIKE +HEATHER MONAMARA RUDA +DAVID YAREMA +'FLORIDA DOARD CERTIFIED CIVIL TRIAL LAWYÉR, +ADMITTED TO PRACTICE IN FLORIDA AND COLORADO +DELQUL - BENAVEN +RALEOAL/INVESTIGATI +ASHLIE STOKEN-BARING +BETTY STOKES +D RICO +August 27, 2009 +Sent by E. Mail and U.S. Mail +Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. +Herman & Mermelstein, P.A. +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 +rour client. He does not intend to engage in any conversation with your client. However, i +s certainly his right as a party-defendant in the lawsuit to be present and to assist counse +in the defense of any case. +Cordially ours, +Robof b. CHiton, Jr. +RDC/clz +Cc: +Jack A. Goldberger, Esq. +EXHIBIT / +303 BANYAN BOULEVARD : SUITE 400 • WEST PAIM BEACH, FL 33401 • PHONE: 561-842-2820 - FAX: 561-841-6929 - MAIL@BCLCIAW.COM +WWW.BCLCLAW.COM + + +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 322-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2009 Page 10 of +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM- +Document 305-3 +Document 296 +Entered on FLSD Docket 09/11/2009 + + +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA-1 +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +V. +FILED by +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +SEP 1 1 2009 +Defendant. +Related Cases: +08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994, +08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, +09-80581, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092. +/ +Defendant Epstein's Emergency Motion To Strike Plaintiff's Motion For +Protective Order (DE 292) And Emergency Motion To Allow The +Attendance Of Jeffrey Epstein At The Deposition Of Plaintiffs And Response +In Opposition To Plaintiffs', Jane Doe Nos. 2-8, Motion For Protective Order +As To Jeffrey Epstein's Attendance At The Deposition Of Plaintiffs, With +Incorporated Memorandum of Law +Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, by and through his undersigned counsel, and pursuant to all +applicable rules, including Local Rule 7.1(e) and Local Rule 12, hereby files and serves 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 Background +On August 19, 2009, Defendant sent a Notice for Taking the Deposition of Jane +Doe No. 4 for September 16, 2009. See Exhibit "1" + +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 322-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2009 Page 11 of +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 +2. +Additionally, notices were sent out in other cases in connection with deposing +additional Plaintiffs. +3. +No objection(s) was/were received for Jane Doe No. 4, which was the only +deposition set relative to the Jane Doe 2-8 Plaintiffs. +4. +On August 27, 2009, the undersigned counsel sent a letter to counsel for Jane Doe +No. 4 concerning her deposition and the scheduling of same on the above date. See Exhibit "2". +5. +No response was received until counsel for Jane Doe No. 4 called on September +8, 2009, approximately eight days prior to the scheduled deposition, to indicate that they now +had an objection and would be filing a motion for protective order seeking to prevent Epstein +from attending the deposition. Once again, Plaintiffs are attempting to stifle this litigation +through their own delay tactics during discovery. Plaintiffs wish not only to attempt to force +Epstein to trial without any meaningful discovery, but now wish to ban Epstein from any +depositions, thereby preventing him from assisting his attorneys in his very own defense. What's +next - will Plaintiffs seek to prevent Epstein from attending any of the trials that result from the +lawsuits Jane Does 2-8 have initiated? Plaintiffs see millions of dollars in damages, both +compensatory and punitive, against Defendant. +6. +Defendant is filing this emergency motion and his immediate response to the +motion for protective order to guarantee his right to be present and assist counsel in deposing not +only Jane Doe No. 4, but other plaintiffs and witnesses in these cases. To hold otherwise would +violate Epstein's due process rights to defend the very allegations Plaintiffs have alleged against +him. 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, + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 322-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2009 Page 12 of +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 +stated that "Please be advised that Mr. Epstein plans to be in attendance at the deposition of your +client. He does not intend to engage in any conversation with your client. However, it is +certainly his right as a party-defendant in the lawsuit to be present and to assist counsel in the +defense of any case." Despite this right, Plaintiffs continue to attempt to control how discovery +is conducted in this case and how this court has historically governed discovery. +9. +Interestingly, in Jane Doe II, the state court case, attorney Sid +took the +deposition of the Defendant and his client, Jane Doe II, was present throughout the deposition. +This is despite her claims of "emotional trauma" set forth in her complaint. Jane Doe No. II is +also a Plaintiff in the federal court proceeding Jane Doe II v. Jeffrey Epstein (Case No. 09-CIV- +80469). Is this court going to start a precedent where it allows Plaintiffs to attend the depositions +of Jeffrey Epstein, but not allow Epstein to attend their depositions (i.e., the very Plaintiffs that +have asserted claims against him for millions of dollars)? This court should not condone such a +practice. +10. +The undersigned is well aware of the court's No-Contact Order entered on July +31, 2009 (DE 238). A copy of the order is attached as Exhibit "3". In fact, the order provides +that the defendant have no direct or indirect contact with the plaintiffs, nor communications with + + +Case 9:08-Cv-80119-KAM Document 322-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2009 Page 13 of +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 305-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Page 4 of 11 +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 296 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/11/2009 Page 4 of 33 +Page 4 +the plaintiffs either directly or indirectly. However, there is no prohibition against Mr. Epstein's +attendance at a deposition where, as is reflected in the order, the communication will be made to +the plaintiff solely through defense counsel with one or more of plaintiffs' counsel of record +present in the room in a videotaped deposition. Obviously, any inappropriate contact or +communication will certainly be flagged by the attorneys in attendance. As such, Plaintiffs +really have the cart before the horse in this instance (i.e., nothing prevents Epstein from attending +these depositions and, to the extent Plaintiffs believe that something improper occurs at any +deposition, only then can that circumstance be addressed by a motion such as the instant one.) +11. Next, Plaintiffs, Jane Does 2-8, attempt to use the Affidavit of Dr. Kliman for +every motion for protective order/objection filed to date. This also includes the two most recent +motions, which attempt to prevent Defendant's investigators from doing their job, such that the +Defendant and his attorneys can defend the claims asserted in these cases. Plaintiffs lose sight of +the fact that the court, in discussing the Non-Prosecution Agreement, inquired as to whether +Epstein and his counsel could fully defend the case, which included discovery and investigation. +All plaintiffs' counsel and the USAO responded in the affirmative. In fact, Plaintiffs universally +agreed at the June 12, 2009 hearing on Defendant's Motion to Stay that regular discovery could +proceed. See Composite Exhibit "4" at pages 26-30 & 33-34. For instance, the court asked +Plaintiffs' attorneys the following questions: +The Court: ) So again, I just want to make sure that if the cases go forward and +if Mr. Epstein defends the case as someone ordinarily would defend a case being +prosecuted against him or her, that that in and of itself is not going to cause him t +›e subject to criminal prosecution? (Ex. "A," p.26) +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). + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 322-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2009 Page 14 of +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 +*** +The Court: Okay. But again, you're in agreement with everyone else 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," +p.30). +Mr. Horowitz - counsel for Jane Does 2-7: Subject to your rulings, of course, +yes. (Ex. "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 +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 + + +Case 9:08-Cv-80119-KAM Document 322-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2009 Page 15 of +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 +B. +C. +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. +Plaintiffs' +Praminion in Col V. Setter pen and a doladic asylo, 08- +(Case No. 08- +MIY-80811), as to time, subject matter and scope. However, Magistrate +entered an order denying the requested restrictions. +Other Plaintiffs" attorneys have said that they object to requested +psychological exam of their clients), thus motions for such exams will +now need to be filed; yet all seek millions of dollars in damages for +alleged psychological and emotional trauma. +Many Plaintiffs' object to discovery regarding current and past +employment (although they are seeking loss of income, both in past and +All Plaintiffs object to prior sexual history, consensual and forced as +being irrelevant, although in many of the medical records that are now +being obtained, as well as the psychiatric exams done by Dr. Kliman, +there is reference to rape, molestation, abusive relationships (both +physical and verbal), 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. +M.D., an expert psychiatrist retained by Defendant to conduct exams on various claimants.) See + +A. +C. +Sought counseling due to a dysfunctional home situation, specifically with +She described herself as being angry, bitter, +depressed and having body image problems; +Had an ex-boyfriend, Preston Vinyard, who was, on information and +belief, a drug dealer who she lived with; +Had drug and alcohol problems herself; and + + +Case 9:08-Cv-80119-KAM Document 322-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2009 Page 16 of +Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Page 7 of 11 +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 296 +Entered on FLSD Docket 09/11/2009 Page 7 of 33 +Page 7 +Spoke with two psychiatrists when she was sixteen or seventeen (before +this lawsuit!) and did not reference Epstein, but did reference her +boyfriend and family issues. +17. There are police reports that reflect that: +A. +In September 2004, a battery report was filed regarding Jane Doe No. 4 +and Vinyard based on an argument where he grabbed her by the neck and +began spitting on her and calling her a cheater. +B. +Also in September 2004, there was a domestic violence file opened where +Vinyard was physically and verbally abusive to Jane Doe No. 4, his +girlfriend at the time. +There is reference that the two started a serious +relationship in January 2002, when she was only fourteen (14) years old. +C. +Vinyard was arrested in December 2003, and charged with reckless +driving and leaving the scene of the accident with Jane Doe No. 4, when +their vehicle hit a tree and they fled. +18. +Moreover, an ex-boyfriend of Jane Doe No. 4 died in a DUI accident and it took +her two years to get over his death, and another good friend of hers, "Jen," died in an automobile +accident involving drinking. Within her Amended Complaint and Answers to Interrogatories, +she indicates that she went to Epstein's house on several occasions. However, at no time did she +call the police, at no time did she report any traumatic or severe emotional trauma, not alleged +coercion, force or improper behavior by Epstein until she got a "lawyer" and is now pursuing +claims for millions of dollars. Epstein's assistance to his attorneys at these depositions regarding +the above issues is not only a constitutional due process right afforded to him but essential given +the fact that this court has ruled that Plaintiffs' depositions can only occur one time, no "second +bite" absent a court order. +19. +Given the breadth of the allegations made against Epstein and the substantial +damages sought, Epstein has an unequivocal and constitutional right to be present at any +deposition such that he can assist his counsel with the defense of these cases. See infra. Dr. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 322-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2009 Page 17 of +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 B +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 case 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. +Discussion of Law Requiring the Denial of the Requested Protective Order +Rule 26(c)(1)(E), Fed.R.Civ.P. (2009), governing protective orders, provides in relevant +part that: +(1) In General. A party or any person from whom discovery is sought may move for +a protective order in the court where the action is pending--or as an alternative on +matters relating to a deposition, in the court for the district where the deposition will +be taken. The motion must include a certification that the movant has in good faith +conferred or attempted to confer with other affected parties in an effort to resolve the +dispute without court action. The court may, for good cause, issue an order to +protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or +undue burden or expense, including one or more of the following: +(E) designating the persons who may be present while the discovery is conducted; + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 322-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2009 Page 18 of +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 +are being deposed, Plaintiffs generally rely on treatise material from +& +, 8 Federal +Practice & Procedure Civ.2d, §2041, and cases cited therein. The case of Gaella v. Onassis, 487 +F.2d 986, at 997 (2d Cir. 1973), cited by Plaintiffs, makes clear that the exclusion of a party from +a deposition "should be ordered rarely indeed." Unlike the Gaella case, there is no showing by +each 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. Critton, Jr. +Michael J. Vike +Attorney for Defendant Epsten + + +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 322-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2009 Page 19 of +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 +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 Ilth day of +September, 2009. +Certificate of Service +Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein. +Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/| +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@sexabuseattorney.com +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +Brad +Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler +401 East Las Olas Boulevard +Suite 1650 +Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 +Phone: 954-522-3456 +Fax: 954-527-8663 +bedwards@rra-law.com +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08- +80893 +Counsel for Plaintiffs +In related Cases Nos. 08-80069, 08-80119, 08- +80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, +80994 +08-80993, 08- Paul G. Cassell, Esq. +Pro Hac Vice +332 South 1400 E, Room 101 +Richard Horace Willits, Esq. +Salt Lake City, UT 84112 +ichard H. Willits, P.A +801-585-5202 +290 10* Avenue Nort +801-585-6833 Fax +Suite 404 +cassellp@law.utah.edu +Lake Worth, FL 33461 +Co-counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe +561-582-7600 +Fax: 561-588-8819 +Costsel for Plaimtif in Related Case No. 08. +reelrhw@hotmail.com +Jack Scarola, Esq. +Jack P. +Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, 80469 +Isidro M. +1, Esq. +| 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- + + +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 322-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2009 Page 20 of + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 296 +Entered on FLSD Docket 09/11/2009 + +Page 11 +2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard +West Palm Beach, FL 33409 +561-686-6300 +Fax: 561-383-9424 +isx@searcylaw.com +jph@searcylaw.com +Counsel for Plaintiff, +Bruce Reinhart, Esq. +Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A. +250 S. Australian Avenue +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561-202-6360 +Fax: 561-828-0983 +ecf@brucereinhartlaw.com +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 +Cossel for Plaintif in Related Case No. 08- +skuvin@riccilaw.com +tleopold@riccilaw.com +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 +riosefsberg@podhurst.com +kezell@podhurst.com +Counsel for Plaintiffs 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 +agesq@bellsouth.ne +ounsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstel +mpike@bclclaw.com +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN +(Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 322-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2009 Page 21 of +• Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 305-4 +Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Pegbof ef 2 +Robert D. Critton Jr. +From: Adam Horowitz [ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com] +Sent: +Tuesday, September 15, 2009 11:43 AM +To: +Michael J. Pike; Robert D. Critton Jr. +Cc: +Stuart Mermelstein +Subject: Jane Does v. Epstein +Please allow this to confirm that Jeffrey Epstein will not attend tomorrow's deposition of Jane Doe No. 4 (in the +absence of a Court order permitting him to attend). We understand you may wish to have your client listen in by +telephone or view a videofeed of the deposition, but will not be seen by our client. +Regards, +Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. +www.sexabuseattorney.com +Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. +18205 Biscayne Boulevard +Suite 2218 +Miami, FL 33160 +ghorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +Tel: (305) 931-2200 +Fax: (305) 931-0877 +From: Michael J. Pike [mailto:MPike@bclclaw.com. +Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 10:54 AM +To: Stuart Mermelstein; Adam Horowitz +Cc: Robert D. Critton Jr.; Jessica Cadwell +Subject: FW: Jane Does v. Epstein +Gentlemen: +I sent the e-mail below weeks ago. I have not heard back from you. I'm entitled to the +questionnaires Kliman had your clients fill out and which he utilized to formulate his opinions. I +need them by tomorrow since they are well over due. If not, I will have no other choice to file a +motion, which I do not want to do given how we have worked together on these issues in the +past. Let me know, pike. +From: Michael J. Pike +Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 11:37 AM +To: Robert D. Critton Jr.; Stuart Mermelstein; Ashlie Stoken-Baring; Connie Zaguirre +Subject: Jane Does v. Epstein +From reviewing the transcripts, it seems Dr. Kliman utilized Questionnaire's with all of your +clients. I need them. Please advise of your position. I'm sure you will produce since they are + +9/15/2009 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 322-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2009 +Page 22 of +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 305-4 k +Faage 2 of 2 +discoverable. Thanks. +Michael J. Pike, Esq. +Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman +515 N. Flagler Dr., Ste. 400 +West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 +Telephone: (561) 842-2820 +Facsimile (561) 844-6929 + +The information contained in this tansmission is attorney/client privileged and/ or attorney work product. +If you are not the addressee or authotized by the addressee to receive this message, you shall not review, +disclose, copy, distribute ot otherwise use this message (including any attachments). If you have received +this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and destroy the message (including +attachments) and all copies. Thank you. +9/15/2009 + + +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 322-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2009 Page 23 of + +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY B. EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +Related Cases: +08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994, +08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, +09-80581, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092. +AFFIDAVIT OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN +STATE OF FLORIDA +) SS +COUNTY OF PALM BEACH +) +BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, personally appeared Jeffrey B. Epstein +having personal knowledge and being duly sworn, deposes and says: +My office is located at 250 Australian Avenue South, 14 Floor, West Palm +Beach, Florida. Its location has been well publicized in the news. +I met with my attorneys, Robert D. Critton, Jr. and Mark T. Luttier, 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 had been served in this case +by counsel for Jane Doe No. 4 and the Emergency Motion To Strike Plaintiff's Motion For + + + +Case 9:08-Cv-80119-KAM Document 322-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2009 Page 24 of +Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Page 2 of 3 +Protective Order And Bmergency 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, With +Incorporated Memorandum of Law, which had been filed on my behalf such that I could attend +the deposition and assist my attorneys in my defense. +4. +I also understood that as of 1:00 p.m. on September 16, after I had finished. +speaking with my attorneys that the court had not ruled regarding the above-referenced motions. +I was instructed by my attorneys that I could not attend the deposition and +therefore a video feed was set up such that I could view the deposition from my home. +6. I also understood that my attorneys did not want me in the building after the +deposition began. +At 1:04 p.m. after we assumed that everyone would be in the deposition room, my +lawyers went down on one elevator and I went down on another elevator with my driver, Igor +Zinovier, both exiting at approximately the same time. +8. I asked Igor where he had parked, and he said "out front". We exited the +elevator, I walked toward the front door. Near the front door, I saw a taller woman and a +shorter woman who I thought might be Jane Doe No. 4 and immediately turned to my left and +went out a separate exit to the garage. +9. +At no time did I speak with or attempt to interact with either women. +FURTHER THE AFFLANT SAYETH NAUGHT. + + +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 322-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2009 Page 25 of + +Page 3 +STATE OF FLORIDA +COUNTY OF PALM BEACH +I hereby Certify that on this day, before me, an officer duly authorized to administer +oaths and take acknowledgments, personally appeared Jeffrey B. Epstein known to me to be the +person described in and who executed the foregoing Affidavit, who acknowledged before me +that he/she executed the same, that I relied upon the following form of identification of the above +named person: Jeftay Epstein. +, and that an oath was/was not taken. +ITNESS my hand and official seal in the County and State last aforesaid th +ay of Sept. 17 +- 2009. +: +4. Val +TAME: Shen I Make (SBAL) +NOTARY PUBLIC/STATE OF FLORIDA +COMMISSION NO.: +MY COMMISSION PAIN +NOTARY +L MAHONAL +: My Comm. Expires +May 28, 2010 +No. DD519867 +PUBLIC + + +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 322-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2009 Page 26 of + +4: At no time did Mr. Epstein speak or gesture to anyone, including the individuals +whom I saw near the front door. +5. +At no time did I speak with the individuals at the main entrance. +FURTHER THE AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT.™ +STATE OF FLORIDA +COUNTY OF PALM BEACH +I hereby Certify that on this day, before me, an officer duly authorized to administer +day of +WITNESS my hand and official seal in the County and State last aforesaid this +Sept. 17 +- 2009. +...... +SOTARY +Expire +MY Make +My May 28, 2010 +No. DD519B67 +STATE +FOR TARY POLICIAN OF FORMan. (SEAL) +COMMISSION NO.: + + +Case 9:08-Cv-80119-KAM Document 322-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2009 Page 27 of + +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-1 +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +V. +JEPFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +Related Cases: +08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994, +08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, +09-80581, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092. +AFFIDAVIT OF IGOR ZINOVIEY +STATE OF FLORIDA +COUNTY OF PALM BBACH +) SS +) +BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, personally appeared Igor Zinovier +having personal knowledge and being duly sworn, deposes and says: +I work for Jeffrey Epstein. I as well drive him from place to place. +2. +At approximately 1:04 p.m., Mr. Epstein and I went down in the elevator from the +14"* floor to the ground level. I was to drive Mr. Epstein to his home. His lawyers went down at +approximately the same time in a separate elevator. +3. +I parked the car at the front entrance. As I walked toward the front door and +noticed that Mr. Epstein quickly turned to the left so as to exit through the door to the garage of +the building rather than the front entrance. + + + +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 322-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2009 Page 28 of +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 305-7 + +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +V. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +Related Cases: +08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994, +08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, +09-80581, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092. +AFFIDAVIT OF ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR. +STATE OF FLORIDA +COUNTY OF PALM BEACH +) SS +) +BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, personally appeared Robert D. Critton, Jr., +having personal knowledge and being duly sworn, deposes and says: +I am counsel for Jeffrey Epstein in the above-styled matter and other civil +lawsuits. +The information contained in motion, paragraphs 1 through 9, 11, 13, 14 and 16 +is true and accurate based on my personal knowledge. +3. +The costs and fees set forth in the motion are true, correct and reasonable. +FURTHER THE AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT. +Robert TP. Critton, Jr. +XHIBIT 6 + + +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 322-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2009 Page 29 of +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 305-7 +Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Page 2 of 2 +STATE OF FLORIDA +COUNTY OF PALM BEACH +I hereby Certify that on this day, before me, an officer duly authorized to administer +oaths and take acknowledgments, personally appeared Robert D. Critton, Jr.. known to me to be +the person described in and who executed the foregoing Affidavit, who acknowledged before me +that he/she executed the same, that I relied upon the following form of identification of the above +named person: Deborally known +→ and that an oath was/was not taken. +WITNESS my hand and official seal in the County and State last aforesaid this +day of [1, Septenber +_ 2009. +JESSICA CADWELL +MY COMMISSION # DD 853529 +EXPIRES: April 19, 2013 +Bonded Thra Notary Public Undentlers +sin (adwell +ELSICA CADWASAL) +NOTAR& PUBLIC/STATE OF FLORIDA +COMMISSION NO: DD 853529 +04/19/13 + + +Case 9:08-Cv-80119-KAM Document 322-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2009 Page 30 of +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 305-8 +Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Page 1 of 2 +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA-u +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +V. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +Related Cases: +08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994, +08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, +09-80581, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092. +AFFIDAVIT OF MARK T. LUTTIER +STATE OF FLORIDA +COUNTY OF PALM BEACH +) SS +) +BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, personally appeared Mark T. Luttier, having +personal knowledge and being duly sworn, deposes and says: +I am counsel for Jeffrey Epstein in the above-styled matter and other civil +lawsuits. +The information contained in motion, paragraphs 1 through 10, 11, 13, 14 and 16 +is true and accurate based on my personal knowledge. +FURTHER THE AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT. +Mach I Cutte +Mark T. Luttier + + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 322-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2009 Page 31 of +Document 305-8 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Page 2 of 2 +STATE OF FLORIDA +COUNTY OF PALM BEACH +I hereby Certify that on this day, before me, an officer duly authorized to administer +oaths and take acknowledgments, personally appeared Mark T. Luttier, known to me to be the +person described in and who executed the foregoing Affidavit, who acknowledged before me +that he/she executed the same, that I relied upon the following form of identification of the above +named person: De Sonall Known, and that an oath was/was not taken. +ayOr LENESS my hand and official seal in the County and State last aforesaid this /774 +sept: 2009 +JESSICA CADWELL. +MY COMMIESION & CD 853529 +(PIRES: April 19, 20 +ded Thera Notary Public Undi +Jessien adwell +PRINT NAMB TESSICA C42181B/C +NOTARY PUBLIC/STATE OF FLÓRIDA +COMMISSION NO: 3D853529 +04/19/13 + + +Case 9:08-Cv-80119-KAM Document 322-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2009 Page 32 of +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 305-9 +Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Page 1 of 3 +CASE NO. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/4 +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 +DEPOSITION OF JANE DOE #4 +Wednesday, September 16, 2009 +1:03 - 1:08 p.m. +250 Australian Avenue South +Suite 115 +West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 +Reported By: +cynthia uble, state of Florida +Prose Court Reporting + +(561) 832-7500 +Electronically signed by cynthia +PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC. +(561) 832-7506 +(601-051-976-2934) +d2a436e3-9513-4206-9641-6687d2dff905 + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2009 Page 33 of + +Page +4 +4 +5 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +APPEARANCES: +On behalf of the Plaintiff: +ADAM D. HOROWITZ, ESQUIRE +MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P.A. +18205 Biscayne Boulevard +Suite 2218 +Miami, Florida 33160 +Phone: 305.931.2200 +On behalf of the Defendant: +ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQUIRE +MARK T. LUTTIER, ESQUIRE +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN, LLP +303 Banyan Boulevard +Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 +Phone: 561.842.2820 +On behalf of Jeflrey Epstein: +JACK ALAN GOLDBERGER, ESQUIRE +ATTERBURY, GOLDBERGER & WEISS, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South +Suite 1400 +West Palen Beach, Florida 33401-5012 +Phons: 561.659.8300 +On behalf of LM and EW: +WILLIAM I. BERGER, ESQUIRE +ROTHSTEIN, ROSENFELDT, ADLER +401 East Las Olas Boulevand +Suite 1650 +Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 +Phome: 954.522.3456 +In behalf MA, ESQUIRE +SEARCY, DENNEY, SCAROLA +BARNHART & SHIPLEY, P.A +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 3 +PROCEEDINGS +MR. HOROWITZ: Adam Horowitz, counsel for +Plaintiff, Jane Doe 4. +MR. CRITTON: Cindy, what time is it? +THE COURT REPORTER: It is 1:03. +MR. BERGER: William J. Berger for LM and +EW. +MR +1: Jack +I for CMA. +MR. LANGINO: Adam Langino from +Leopold Kuvin on behalf of BB. +MR. LUTTIER: Mark Luttier on behalf of +Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman for the +Defendant. +MR. CRITTON: Robert Critton on behalf of +Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein. +MR. HOROWITZ: This is Adam Horowitz. +We're canceling today's deposition. Before +appearing here today, we had a stipulation with +Defense counsel that Mr. Jeffrey Epstein, the +Defendant, would not be here. He would not +cross paths with our client. +And immediately as we were approaching the +deposition room, he made face-to-face contact +with our client. He was just feet away from +Page 5 +her and intimidated her, and for that reason +1 +2 +5 +6 +APPEARNCES CONTINUED... +On behalf of BB: +ADAM J. LANGINO, ESQUIRE +LEOPOLD KUVIN +2925 PGA Boulevard +Suite 200 +Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410 +Phone: 561.515.1400 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +were not going forward. +MR. CRITTON: I didn't see any contact +because I, obviously, was not out there. We +started at about - when you came in it was +approximately 1:03. Mr. Epstein has an office +here at the Florida Science Foundation. Had +you been here at 1:00, your paths never would +have crossed because Mr. Epstein was leaving +the building. I instructed him to leave the +building so that he would not be here. +He was going to appear by way of Skype so +that he could be on a video camera so that he +could see this. +(Mr. Goldberger entered the room.) +MR. CRITTON; Had you been here on time, +and not faulting, I am just saying had you been +here on time at 1:00, as everyone else seemed +to be here at least get here before you dia, +Adam, you and your client, your paths never +would have crossed. +I directed Mr. Epstein to leave the +building so he would not be here so that there +would be no way that your paths could have +crossed. It was neither my intent nor was it +2 (Pages 2 to 5) +(561) 832-7500 +PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC. +(561) 832-7506 +d2a436e3-95f3-42e6-9641-6687d2dff9e5 +Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601-051-976-2934) + + +Document 322-1 +Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2009 Page 34 of + +Page 8 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +1 +4 +5 +6 +7 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +(561) 832-7500 +Electronically signed by cynthia +Page 6 +my client's intent specifically, because I also +advised him that he was not to cross paths, not +to have any contact with your client, and +certainly by our agreement not to be here today +for the deposition. +MR. HOROWITZ: And at approximately 1:00 +is exactly when my client crossed paths with +Jeffrey Epstein. And not only did he cross +paths but he proceeded to stare her down just +feet away from her. For that reason she became +an emotional wreck and cannot proceed with the +deposition. She's simply not in an emotional +state to do so. +And in addition Mr. Epstein violated the +agreement between counsel that he would not +cross paths or come into contact with our +client. And it will be also for the criminal +court judge to decide whether he has violated a +no-contact order. I have nothing else to say. +MR. CRITTON: Again I instructed +Mr. Epstein to leave the building so absolutely +no contact could occur between he and +Mr. Horowitz and his client nor anyone else. +Until the court, until either Judge Marra or +Judge +ruled on the issue as to whether +Page 7 +or not he could appear at the depositions of +not only Jane Doe 4 but any other individuals, +so you do what you need to do. +MR. HOROWITZ: Off the record. +(The Deposition was concluded.) +1 +2 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +25 +CERTIFICATE +STATE OF FLORIDA +COUNTY OF PALM BEACH +1, Cynthia! +Registered Professional +Reporter and Florida Professional Reporter, State of +Florida at large, certify that I was authorized to +and did stenographically report the foregoing +proceedings and that the transcript is a true and +complete record of my stenographic notes. +Dated this 16th day of September, 2009. +3 +(Pages 6 to 8) +PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC. +(561) +832-7506 +(601-051-976-2934) +d2a436e3-95f3-42e6-9641-6687d2dff9e5 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 322-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2009 Page 35 of +Ca8e9:0B-20810905AM +Document 305-10 +Entered on FLSD Docket 09M7/2009 PPage 1 of 2 +Prose Court Reporting Agency, Inc +One Clearlake Centre +250 South Australian Avenue, Suite 1500 +West Paim Beach, Florida 33401 +(561) 832-7500 Phone (561) 832-7506 Fax +Tax ID: 26-3892897 +www.proseora.com +September 17, 2008 +Robert Critton, Esquire +Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman - WPB +303 Banyan Boulevard +Sulte 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Involce Number +CH 411 +Re: Jane Doe No. 2 vs. Jeffrey Epstein +9-18-09 Scheduled Deposition of Jane Doe No. 4 +Statement for Record +Description of Services +Depo App NT - 1st Hr +Depo Trans 081-Reg +E-Transcript Emalled +Appearance 1st Hr +Transcript Pages - B +Complimentary +Involce total: +110.00 +28.80 +$138.80 +Thank you for choosing Prose Court Reporting Agency, inc. Payment is due upon receipt. + + + +Case 9:08-Cv-80119-KAM Document 322-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2009 Page 36 of +East 9108-208801992RAR765530Cument 305-10 +elfered on FLSD Docket 09/7i23dg "Page2/872 +VISUAI +Invoice +EVIDENCE +P.O. ox 0987 West Palm Beach, FL 33405 +Date +Number +9/17/2009 +28616 +Terms +Due on receipt +BURMAN, CRITTON & LUTTIER +ROBERT CRITTON +303 BANYAN BLVD +SUITE 400 +WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33401 +Date +9/18/2009 +9/17/2009 +Case / Reference: +JANE DOE #2 V EPSTEIN +Services Rendered +Qty +VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF: JANE DOE # 4 +Tech Time - 1ST 2 Hours +Daltal Tape +TAPE CONSISTS OF DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN ATTORNEYS PRIOR TO SWEARING IN +REGARDING CANCELLATION OF DEPO. +Delivery +TAPES FORWARDED PER YOUR REQUEST. NO COPIES HAVE BEEN MADE OR KEPT ON +BIAN VISUAL EVIDENCE. SHOULD COPIES BE REQUIRED IN THE FUTURE PLEASE FORWARD +TAPES TO OUR OFFICE FOR DUPLICATION. THANK YOU. +Amount +275.00 +15.00 +0.00 +MORE THAN JUST VIDEO / See ALL avallable presentation +technology services at: www.visualevldence.org. +TOTAL: +$290.00 +Remit to +P.O. Box 696. +Wast Palm Beach, FL. 33405 +Tax ID # 59-2476529 +Phone: (561) 655-2855 Fux: (561) 655-2896 office@visualevidence.org + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 322-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2009 Page 37 of +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 305-11 + +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +v. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +Related Cases: +08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994, +08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, +09-80581, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092. +ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, MOTION FOR SANCTIONS +AND TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF JANE DOE NO. 4 +AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOE +This matter came before the Court on Defendant's, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Motion For +Sanctions and to Compel Deposition of Jane Doe No. 4. Having considered Defendant's motion, +it is HEREBY ORDERED and ADJUDGED that: +Defendant's motion is hereby GRANTED: Plaintiff shall pay sanctions in the amount of +in costs and $ +in fees directly to Burman, Critton, Luttier and +Coleman within 10 days, and further directs that the Plaintiff make herself available for +deposition no later than October . +_ 2009 beginning at 9:30 a.m. at the same location. Mr. +• Epstein shall not be present in the building on the day of the deposition absent a court order on +pending motions. + + +Case 9:08-Cv-80119-KAM Document 322-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2009 Page 38 of +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 305-11 + +DONE and ORDERED this _ +_day of +, 2009. +Kenneth A. Marra +United States District Judge +Courtesy Copies: Counsel of Record \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/8f917117bfe4355423f61feb7232f20163dba72fad3bb122a537eae9321abd05.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/8f917117bfe4355423f61feb7232f20163dba72fad3bb122a537eae9321abd05.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6a56efef417a2860c7355fbc8df438a35299715e --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/8f917117bfe4355423f61feb7232f20163dba72fad3bb122a537eae9321abd05.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -2921, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "8f917117bfe4355423f61feb7232f20163dba72fad3bb122a537eae9321abd05", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 64, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.privileged-attorney-work-product\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": false, + "input_sha256": "1341017e2a17e2450ff28dd8ee364c0b309e1a88ca4181bf8cce2d862a9a8428", + "output_sha256": "de326a882f8f966263bb09d0be5002725c006e07de7ce2ba16c4f8cbfdab567d", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/8f95619050f6401c3d0db3432dbde718a98699b1c45e3c3cf29445dc3d9b216d.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/8f95619050f6401c3d0db3432dbde718a98699b1c45e3c3cf29445dc3d9b216d.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4f2de0bf368e38a861144fcfeb557955a1fd06bc --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/8f95619050f6401c3d0db3432dbde718a98699b1c45e3c3cf29445dc3d9b216d.md @@ -0,0 +1,35 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 499 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/24/2010 Page 1 of 1 +Case 9:08-cv-80119 KAM Document 491-1 +Entered on PLSD Docket 03/18/2010 + +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, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, +08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, +09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092 +MAR 2 4 2010 +STEVEN M. LARIMORE +CLERK U.S. DIST. CT. +S.D. OF FLA. - W.P.B. +ORDER +This matter came before the Court on Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S, Motion +for Extension of Time to File Reply to Plaintiff, JANE DOE'S, Response in Opposition +to Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration and/or Request for Rule 4 Appeal (DE 485), +having considered Defendant's Motion, it is HEREBY ORDERED and ADJUDGED +that: +Defendant's Motion is GRANTED. Defendant shall file his Reply to Plaintiff, +JANE DOE'S, Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration +and/or Request for Rule 4 Appeal on or before March 26, 2010. +DONE and ORDERED this 2Y day of MArch 2010. +Luneformon +UNNEA R. Ichnsm +United States Distriot-Judge +Courtesy Copies all counsel +MAGISTRATE diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/8f95619050f6401c3d0db3432dbde718a98699b1c45e3c3cf29445dc3d9b216d.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/8f95619050f6401c3d0db3432dbde718a98699b1c45e3c3cf29445dc3d9b216d.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b34054649f3daa3367927aa249c15de3c24e2868 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/8f95619050f6401c3d0db3432dbde718a98699b1c45e3c3cf29445dc3d9b216d.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -23, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "8f95619050f6401c3d0db3432dbde718a98699b1c45e3c3cf29445dc3d9b216d", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "90a45edaa4f1d0d0917dfe3b12b7cb257f00a84fafc39d97fff85c6288d809ea", + "output_sha256": "5049c794bb4f0f38c964efe2fce1afe4db8436108d5a7a97a14d6d4e5db9fd89", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/8fd6a53809ebf65104b156f3d102116d9cd61e913c586b36e32864185f38973b.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/8fd6a53809ebf65104b156f3d102116d9cd61e913c586b36e32864185f38973b.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4938757e309a0ab02a7b86f3d552cce5f368949a --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/8fd6a53809ebf65104b156f3d102116d9cd61e913c586b36e32864185f38973b.md @@ -0,0 +1,1089 @@ +Case 1:19-cv-09610-PAE-DCF Document 36-1 Filed 12/23/19 Page 1 of 37 + + + +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK +CASE NO. +JANE DOE 17, +Plaintiff, +V. +DARREN K. INDYKE AND +RICHARD D. KAHN, AS JOINT +PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES OF +THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, +NINE EAST 71st STREET CORPORATION, +LAUREL, INC., FINANCIAL TRUST COMPANY, +INC., NES, LLC, MAPLE, INC., LSJE, LLC, +HBRK ASSOCIATES, INC., NAUTILUS, INC., +CYPRESS, INC. and JEGE, INC. +Defendants. +COMPLAINT +Plaintiff, JANE DOE 17, by and through the undersigned counsel, in support of her +claims against Defendants, alleges and states as follows: +This action is brought, inter alia, pursuant to common law, statutory law and 18 +U.S.C. §1591- §1595. Therefore, jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C. §1331 and the damages +sought exceed the jurisdictional requirements of this Court. +2. +Plaintiff files this complaint under a pseudonym in order to protect her identity +because the Complaint makes allegations of a sensitive sexual nature the disclosure of which, in +association with her name, would cause further harm to her. +Plaintiff is currently a resident and domiciled in the State of Florida and over the +age of 18. + + + +4. At all times material, Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") was a citizen of the United +States and resident of the U.S. Virgin Islands. Epstein was a man of extreme wealth who +frequently travelled between and regularly stayed in his numerous residences, including in New +York (within the Southern District of New York) at 9 East 71" Street, New York, NY 10021; in +Palm Beach, Florida at 358 El Brillo Way, Palm Beach, Florida 33480; in New Mexico at 49 +Zorro Ranch Road, Stanley, New Mexico 87056, in Paris, France at 22 Avenue Foch, Paris, +France 75116, and in the United States Virgin Islands at Little St. James Island No. 6B USVI +00802. +5. +At all times material to this cause of action Epstein was an adult male born on +January 20, 1953, who died on August 10, 2019. +6. +Defendant, Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn as Joint Personal +Representatives of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein ("Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein") was opened +and domiciled in the United States Virgin Islands, St. +Division, and is the legal entity +responsible for intentional, criminal, or tortious conduct committed by Epstein as described in +this Complaint. +7. At all times material hereto, Defendant Nine East 71 Street, Corporation ("Nine +East"), was a domestic business corporation conducting business in New York with its principal +place of business located at 575 Lexington Avenue, Fourth Floor, New York 10022. +8. +At all times material hereto, Defendant Laurel, Inc. ("Laurel") was and is a U.S. +Virgin Islands corporation conducting business in multiple locations including New York and +Florida. + + + +9. +At all times material hereto, Defendant Financial Trust Company, Inc. (Financial +Trust"), was and is a U.S. Virgin Islands corporation conducting business in multiple locations +including New York. +10. +At all times material hereto, Defendant NES, LLC, ("NES"), was and is a +domestic limited liability company registered in and conducting business in multiple locations +including New York. +11. +At all times material hereto, Defendant Maple, Inc., ("Maple"), was and is a U.S. +Virgin Islands corporation conducting business in New York. +12. +At all times material hereto, LSJE., LLC, ("LSJ"), was and is a U. S. Virgin +Islands corporation conducting business in the United States Virgin Islands conducting business +in New York. +13. At all times material hereto, Defendant HBRK Associates, Inc., ("HBRK"), was +and is a domestic business corporation registered in and conducting business in multiple +locations including New York with a Registered Agent located at 1365 York Avenue, Apartment +28, New York 10021. +14. At all times material hereto, Defendant Nautilus, Inc., ("Nautilus"), was and is a +U.S. Virgin Islands corporation conducting business in New York. +15. +At all times material hereto, Defendant Cypress, Inc., ("Cypress"), was and is a +U.S. Virgin Islands corporation conducting business in New York and New Mexico. +16. +At all times material hereto, Defendant JEGE, Inc., ("JEGE"), is a U.S. Virgin +Islands corporation conducting business throughout the United States of America, including but +not limited to, Florida, New York and the United States Virgin Islands. + + + +17. Corporate Defendants Nine East, Laurel, Financial Trust, NES, Maple, LSJE, +HBRK, JEGE, Nautilus, and Cypress, referred to as "Corporate Defendants," each performed +business, in whole or in part, in New York. +18. +Plaintiff intends to amend this complaint to add or substitute additional parties as +discovery reveals the identities of other tortious corporate or individual actors. +19. Epstein, the leader of a complex commercial sex trafficking and abuse ring, was +an officer, director, or employee of many corporate entities registered in various states +throughout the United States, one or more of which may also be legally responsible for the +crimes and torts he committed against young females, including Plaintiff. +20. +Additionally, individuals who worked at the residences where sexual criminal acts +were committed, or friends or acquaintances who assisted Epstein in committing such violations +or those of his wealthy, famous, or socially powerful friends with whom Epstein caused Plaintiff +to be sexually abused by, or those who were employed through, or worked for, numerous other +corporate entities whose participation caused or contributed to causing the sexual violations that +caused harm to Plaintiff, may additionally be added as defendants. +21. A substantial part of the acts, events, and omissions giving rise to this cause of +action occurred in the Southern District of New York; venue is proper in this District. 28 U.S.C. +§1391(b)(2). +22. +At all times material to this cause of action, Epstein (legally represented now +through Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn as Joint Personal Representatives of the Estate +of Jeffrey E. Epstein (referred to herein as "Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein") and Corporate +Defendants owed a duty to Plaintiff to treat her in a non-negligent manner and not to commit, or +conspire to commit, or cause to be committed intentional, criminal, fraudulent, or tortious acts + + + +Cas@abd9-99￾@9696PAФĄЄБСFDФUШAn*7011 FilEürb1R171§19ag8a5 0f6зaf 37 +against Plaintiff, including any acts that would cause Plaintiff to be harmed through conduct +committed against her in violation of Common law battery, New York Penal Law §130.20; or +New York Penal Law §130.35; or New York Penal Law §130.50; or New York Penal Law +$130.52; or New York Penal Law §130.66; or any violation of 18 U.S.C. §1591-$1595. +FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS +23. At all times material to this cause of action, Epstein was an adult male over 45 +years old. Epstein was a tremendously wealthy individual, widely recognized as a billionaire, +who used his wealth, power, resources, and connections to commit illegal sexual crimes in +violation of federal and state laws and who employed or conspired with other individuals and +corporate entities to assist him in committing those crimes or torts or who facilitated or enabled +those acts to occur. +24. Epstein displayed his enormous wealth, power, and influence to his employees; to +the employees of the corporate or company entities who worked at his direction, to the victims +procured for sexual purposes; and to the public, in order to advance, carry out, and conceal his +crimes and torts. +25. At all relevant times, Epstein had access to numerous mansions, as well as a fleet +of airplanes, motor vehicles, boats and one or more helicopters. For example, he regularly +traveled by private jet aboard a Boeing aircraft (of make and model B-727-31H with tail number +N908JE) or a Gulfstream aircraft (of' make and model G-1159B with tail number N909JE). +26. +Epstein also inhabited and frequently travelled between numerous properties and +homes, each of which he admitted to being owned or controlled by him, including a Manhattan +townhome located at 9 East 71" Street, New York, New York 10021 valued conservatively by +Epstein's own admission at $55,931,000.00 (but valued by the US Attorney's office for this + + + +District at $77,000,000); a ranch located at 49 Zorro Ranch Road, Stanley, New Mexico 87056 +valued conservatively by Epstein's own admission at $17,246,208.00; a home located at 358 El +Brillo Way, Palm Beach, Florida 33480 valued conservatively by Epstein's own admission at +$12,380,209.00; an apartment located at 22 Avenue Foch, Paris, France 75116 valued +conservatively by Epstein's own admission at $8,672,820.00; an Island located at Great St. +James Island No. 6A USVI 00802 (parcels A, B, and C); and an Island Little St. James Island +No. 6B USVI 00802 (parcels A, B, and C). See Jeffrey Epstein "Asset Summary - June 30, +2019" filed in Case No. 1:19-cr-00490-RMB on July 15, 2019 attached hereto as Exhibit A. +27. +Epstein controlled or was affiliated with the corporation or business entities that +owned, managed, or maintained each of the real properties listed in the preceding paragraph and +enumerated in Exhibit A. +28. +The allegations herein concern Epstein's tortious conduct committed against +Plaintiff while at the residences owned by Defendant Nine East in New York, Defendant Laurel +in Florida, Defendant Cypress in New Mexico and Defendants LSJE and Nautilus in the U.S. +Virgin Islands. Many such acts were facilitated by Defendant NES or Defendant HBRK or +Defendant JEGE. +29. +Epstein had a compulsive sexual preference for young females, as young as 14 +years old, and acted on that sexual preference for decades. +30. +Epstein enjoyed sexual contact with young females, including minor children, and +also took pleasure corrupting vulnerable and innocent young females, including minor children, +into engaging in sexual acts with him. + + + +31. +Epstein directed a complex system of individuals, including employees and +associates of Defendant entities, to work in concert and at his direction, for the purpose of +harming young females through sexual exploitation, abuse and trafficking. +32. +It was widely known among individuals regularly in Epstein's presence that he +obtained pleasure from corrupting and inducing vulnerable young females into engaging in +uncomfortable and unwanted sexual acts for his own gratification. +33. +Epstein's illegal sexual activities were investigated by law enforcement on at least +two occasions, once in 2005-2008 by the United States Attorney for the Southern District of +Florida, and more recently by the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York. +34. +On July 2, 2019 the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of +New York filed a sealed Two Count Indictment including One Count of Sex Trafficking +Conspiracy and One Count of Sex Trafficking for violations of 18 U.S.C. §1591, in part due to +Epstein's criminal activities against children in the New York Mansion located at 9 East 71$ +Street. +35. +In addition to the allegations in the criminal indictment referenced above, Epstein +also utilized a similar, if not the same; scheme many years before the time period that was +charged and many years after as well as in additional locations nationally and internationally. +36. +Corporate Defendants enabled Epstein to receive daily massages from young +females, often minors, who were not experienced in massage. Rather than receive regular body +massages, Epstein was predictably sexually abusing young females, including Plaintiff, in +violation of New York Penal Law $130. + + + +37. +Additionally, employees of the various Corporate Defendants performed actions +or failed to perform actions that further placed victims, including Plaintiff, in danger of being +sexually abused by Epstein, and assisted in the concealment of his sexually abusive acts. +38. +Defendants employed many recruiters of young females, or directed employees of +his related companies, to recruit young females In order to grow the enterprise and satisfy his +insatiable sexual desire, Epstein and those working at his direction enabled victims themselves to +elevate their status within the enterprise to that of a paid recruiter of other victims, an elevation +only made possible through the assistance of Defendants. +39. +Recruiters were taught by Epstein or by employees of Corporate Defendants to +inform targeted young female victims that Epstein possessed extraordinary wealth, power, +resources, and influence; that he was a philanthropist who would help female victims advance +their education, careers, and lives; and that she only needed to provide Epstein with body +massages in order to avail herself of his nearly unlimited assistance and influence. +40. +Epstein and Corporate Defendants and their many employees fulfilled Epstein's +compulsive need for sex with young females by preying on their personal, psychological, +financial, and related vulnerabilities. Epstein and Defendants' tactics included promising the +victims money, shelter, transportation, gifts, employment, admission into educational +institutions, education tuition, professional licensure, protection, healthcare and other things of +value. +41. +Epstein's sexual attraction to young, often underage, females dated back to at +least the mid-nineties and the number of victims increased substantially with the necessary +assistance from Defendants and Defendants' employees. + + + +42. +Defendants, at the direction of Epstein or in furtherance of his demands, and with +help from assistants, associates and underlings, and even other victims, recruited or procured +dozens if not hundreds of young females, including minors, for the purpose of Epstein's sexual +gratification. +43. +Epstein, and employees of certain Corporate Defendants, including at least +Defendant HBRK, +specifically targeted underprivileged, emotionally vulnerable and/or +economically disadvantaged young females to sexually molest and abuse. +44. +Additionally, Epstein and Corporate Defendants, through employees, informed +young females, including Plaintiff that Epstein was wealthy, well-connected, and had the power +and ability to impact the life of any young female recruited or obtained to provide a massage. +45. +Each of the Corporate Defendants committed acts of negligence that allowed for +Epstein to commit acts in violation of New York Penal Law §130. +46. +Each of the Defendants committed acts against Plaintiff in violation of 18 U.S.C. +§1591 - $1595. +JANE DOE 17 +47. +Consistent with Epstein's foregoing plan, scheme/enterprise, the Plaintiff was +recruited to provide Epstein with massages for monetary compensation. These massages +provided to Epstein by Plaintiff progressed to instances of inappropriate sexual contact with the +Plaintiff by Epstein in touching, inappropriate vaginal penetration, and outright rape. Plaintiff +was sexually assaulted, violated, and otherwise degraded, injured, victimized, and subjected to +outrageous, reckless abuse and insult. +48. +In this regard, the Defendants willingly participated, contributed, cooperated, and +assisted the inappropriate and illegal scheme by facilitating such scheme by and through the + + + +employees of the Corporate Defendants such that the Corporate Defendants were acting jointly +and in concert with the illegal scheme with the goal designed to produce corrupt sexual +gratification for Epstein and degradation for the targets and victims of the corrupt scheme set in +motion with the active involvement of the Corporate Defendants and their employees. +49. +Epstein's abuse of the Plaintiff was not incidental or fleeting but rather was born +out of a pathological desire to achieve, corrupt and deviate sexual gratification through the +subjugation and abuse of Epstein's targeted victims. The actions on behalf of the Corporate +Defendants by and through its employees enhanced, facilitated, and promoted the deviate sexual +acts of Epstein and contributed a corrupting influence which ensnared unsuspecting women and +girls in its reach. +50. +Epstein, by acting singularly and in concert with the Corporate Defendants, +devised a sophisticated plan and a modus operandi which subtly and pervasively over time +connived to influence the victims and subjects of the corrupt and deviant sexual scheme to +influence the will to resist the temptations both actual and promised on behalf of the scheme and +thereby manipulate the victims into acceptance of the scheme as being one that was acceptable +and appropriate by virtue of communications and representations made on behalf of Epstein by +the Corporate Defendants and in fact Epstein himself. The scheme utilized a gradual wearing +down of the victim's will to resist and did so by virtue of offering positive and negative rewards +for compliance with the scheme's overall deviant methodology and goals. +51. +Once Epstein and the Corporate Defendants" victims were entrapped and the +scheme's methodologies enabled, Epstein and the corporate defendants through its employees +utilized techniques to further inhibit, indoctrinate, and threaten Epstein's victims such that +compliance with the deviant scheme's goals could be further obtained. + + + +52. +The deviant scheme was perpetuated over years by the actions of Epstein and the +Corporate Defendants such that victims were caught up in the scheme, pressure, threats, and +indoctrination techniques utilized to bring the victims to heel. +53. +For victims young, vulnerable, and struggling financially, the scheme's +methodology was particularly effective. +54. +As part and parcel of the scheme's goals, Epstein's colleagues and acquaintances +were involved in the scheme and benefited from the scheme by virtue of receiving sexual favors +and inappropriate, illegal, and otherwise commercial sexual services provided by Epstein's +victims such that the corrupt intent of this scheme involved males other than Epstein himself. +As a direct and proximate result of the methodology of the deviant scheme and the goals of +sexual exploitation of the women recruited and victimized, Plaintiff was subject to unwanted +touching of her breasts and genitals, other sensitive areas of her body, required to perform acts +of a sexual nature against her will and subjected to genital penetration and otherwise sexually +degraded, abused, insulted, coerced, and injured, experience resulting in confusion, emotional +distress, mental pain and suffering, shame, humiliation, loss of the enjoyment of life, +inconvenience, and other injuries to body, mind and soul. +55. +Epstein and the Corporate Defendants by and through their employees and agents +substantially contributed to proximately cause injury to the Plaintiff as aforementioned. +56. +Over a course of years, Epstein and the Corporate Defendants, by and through its +employees and agents, facilitated the multiple rapes conducted on the Plaintiff in addition to +other deviant sexual acts against her will. Furthermore, the plaintiff's virginity was forcefully +taken from her against her will. + + + +57. +This fraudulent scheme of Epstein's constituted acts of coercion from beginning +to end, from 2001 through mid-2006, inasmuch as the scheme was designed to and in fact, +caused Plaintiff to believe that her failure to perform any sex act required by Epstein would +result in serious financial, reputational, physical and emotional harm to her. +COUNTI +(BATTERY AGAINST DARREN K. INDYKE AND RICHARD D. KAHN AS JOINT +PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN) +58. +The Plaintiff adopts and realleges paragraphs 1 through 57 above. +59. +Epstein committed a harmful or offensive touching against Plaintiff. +60. +As a direct and proximate result of Epstein's battery, the Plaintiff has in the past +suffered and in the future will continue to suffer physical injury, pain, emotional distress, +psychological trauma, mental anguish, humiliation, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, loss of +dignity, invasion of her privacy and a loss of her capacity to enjoy life, as well as other damages. +Plaintiff incurred medical and psychological expenses and Plaintiff will in the future suffer +additional medical and psychological expenses. These injuries are permanent in nature and +Plaintiff will continue to suffer these losses in the future. +WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein for +compensatory and general damages, attorney's fees, punitive damages and such other and further +relief as this Court deems just and proper. Plaintiff hereby demands trial by jury on all issues +triable as of right by a jury. +COUNT !! +(BATTERY/VIOLATION OF SECTION 130 AGAINST DARREN K. INDYKE AND +RICHARD D. KAHN AS JOINT PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ESTATE +OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN) + + + +61. +The Plaintiff adopts and realleges paragraphs 1 through 57 above. +62. +The intentional acts of Epstein against Plaintiff constitute a sexual offense as +defined in New York Penal Law §130, including but not limited to the following: +a. Sexual misconduct as defined in $130.20 inasmuch as Epstein engaged in +sexual intercourse with Plaintiff without Plaintiff's consent; +b. Rape in the first degree as defined in §130.35 inasmuch as Epstein engaged in +sexual intercourse with Plaintiff by forcible compulsion; +c. Criminal sexual act in the first degree as defined in §130.50 inasmuch as +Epstein engaged in oral sexual conduct with Plaintiff by forcible compulsion; +d. Forcible touching as defined in §130.52 inasmuch as Epstein, intentionally +nd for no legitimate purpose, engaged the forcible sexual touching o +'laintiff for the purpose of degrading or abusing her or for the purpose o +gratifying his own sexual desire; and, +e. Aggravated sexual abuse in the third degree as defined in §130.66 inasmuch +as Epstein inserted a foreign object in the vagina of Plaintiff by forcible +compulsion. +63. +As a direct and proximate result of Epstein's violations of New York Penal Law +§130, Plaintiff has in the past suffered and in the future will continue to suffer physical injury, +pain, emotional distress, psychological trauma, mental anguish, humiliation, embarrassment, loss +of self-esteem, loss of dignity, invasion of her privacy and a loss of her capacity to enjoy life, as +well as other damages. Plaintiff incurred medical and psychological expenses and Plaintiff will +in the future suffer additional medical and psychological expenses. These injuries are permanent +in nature and Plaintiff will continue to suffer these losses in the future. +WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein for +compensatory and general damages, attorney's fees, punitive damages and such other and further +relief as this Court deems just and proper. Plaintiff hereby demands trial by jury on all issues +triable as of right by a jury. + + + +COUNT I +(CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DARREN K. INDYKE AND RICHARD D. KAHN AS +JOINT PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. +EPSTEIN PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1595) +64. +Plaintiff adopts and realleges paragraphs 1 through 57 above. +65. +Epstein, within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United +States, in interstate and foreign commerce, and/or affecting interstate and foreign commerce, +knowingly recruited, enticed, harbored, transported, provided, obtained, maintained, patronized, +solicited, threatened, forced, or coerced Plaintiff to engage in commercial sex acts. +66. +Such actions were undertaken knowing that his use of force, threats of force, +fraud, coercion, and/or combinations of such means would be used, and were in fact, used, in +order to cause Plaintiff to engage in commercial sex acts. In doing so, Epstein violated 18 +U.S.C. $1591. +67. +Furthermore, Epstein attempted to violate 18 U.S.C. § 1591. In so doing, violated +18 U.S.C. § 1594(a). +68. +Epstein conspired with each member of the enterprise, and with other persons +known and unknown, to violate 18 U.S.C. § 1591. In so doing, violated 18 U.S.C. § 1594(c). +69. +By virtue of Epstein's violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591, 1593A, and 1594, +Defendants Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn as Joint Personal Representatives of the +Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein ("Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein") is subject to civil causes of action +under 18 U.S.C. § 1595 by Plaintiff, who is a victim of the violations. +70. +Certain property of Epstein's was essential to the commission of the federal +crimes and torts described herein, including the Palm Beach, Florida estate located at 358 El +Brillo Way, Palm Beach, Florida 33480, the use of multiple private aircraft including a Boeing + + + +aircraft (of make and model B-727-31H with tail number N908JE) and a Gulfstream aircraft (of +make and model G-1159B with tail number N909JE). Such real property and aircraft, along with +other of Epstein's property, were used as means and instruments of Epstein's tortious and +criminal offenses and, as such, are subject to forfeiture. +71. +Additionally, Epstein's New York townhouse, located at 9 East 71st Street, New +York, New York, in the Southern District of New York, Epstein's private island located in the +United States Virgin Islands and Epstein's New Mexico estate, were used as means and +instruments of Epstein's tortious and criminal offenses as they relate to Plaintiff and, as such, are +subject to forfeiture. +72. +As a direct and proximate result of Epstein's commission of the aforementioned +criminal offenses enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 1591, 1593A, and 1594, and the associated civil +remedies provided in § 1595, Plaintiff has in the past suffered and will continue to suffer injury +and pain, emotional distress, psychological and psychiatric trauma, mental anguish, humiliation, +confusion, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, loss of dignity, loss of enjoyment of life, invasion +of privacy, and other damages associated with Epstein's actions. Plaintiff will incur further +medical and psychological expenses. These injuries are permanent in nature and Plaintiff will +continue to suffer from them in the future. In addition to these losses, Plaintiff has incurred +attorneys' fees and will be required do so in the future for which Epstein is liable pursuant to 18 +U.S.C. §1595. +WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein for +compensatory and general damages, attorney's fees pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1595, punitive +damages, forfeiture of Epstein's assets and such other and further relief as this Court deems just +and proper. Plaintiff hereby demands trial by jury on all issues triable as of right by a jury. + + + +COUNT IV +(CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST NINE EAST 7IST STREET, CORPORATION +PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §1595) +73. +Plaintiff adopts and realleges paragraphs 1 through 57 above. +74. +Defendant, by and through its management and personnel, within the special +maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, in interstate and foreign commerce, +and/or affecting interstate and foreign commerce, knowingly recruited, enticed, harbored, +transported, provided, obtained, maintained, patronized, solicited by any means Plaintiff from +2001 through 2006. +75. +Defendant, by and through its management and personnel, knew that means of +fraud or coercion, and/or combinations of such means, would be used, and were in fact used, in +order to cause Plaintiff to engage in commercial sex acts. In doing so, Defendant corporation +violated 18 U.S.C. $1591. +76. +Furthermore, Defendant corporation attempted to violate 18 U.S.C. § 1591. In so +doing, violated 18 U.S.C. § 1594(a). +77. +Defendant, by and through its management and personnel, conspired with other +members of the enterprise, and with other persons and companies, known and unknown, to +violate 18 U.S.C. § 1591. In so doing, Defendant violated 18 U.S.C. § 1594(c). +78. +By virtue of its violations of 18 U.S.C. §$ 1591, 1593A, and 1594, Defendant is +subject to civil causes of action under 18 U.S.C. § 1595 by Plaintiff, who is a victim of their +violations. +79. +Defendant, by and through its management and personnel, participated in a +venture with Epstein's enterprise by knowingly recruiting, transporting, soliciting, obtaining, and + + + +maintaining Plaintiff knowing that fraud or coercion would be used to cause Plaintiff to commit +a commercial sex act. +80. +As a direct and proximate result of Defendant corporation's commission of the +aforementioned criminal offenses enumerated in 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591, 1593A, and 1594, and the +associated civil remedies provided in §1595, Plaintiff has in the past suffered and will continue +to suffer injury and pain, emotional distress, psychological and psychiatric trauma, mental +anguish, humiliation, confusion, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, loss of dignity, loss of +enjoyment of life, invasion of privacy, and other damages associated with Defendant's actions. +81. +Plaintiff will incur further medical and psychological expenses. These injuries are +permanent in nature and Plaintiff will continue to suffer from them in the future. In addition to +these losses, Plaintiff has incurred attorneys' fees and will continue to do so in the future for +which Defendant is liable pursuant to 18 U.S.C. $1595. +WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Nine East 71st Street, Corporation for +compensatory and general damages, attorney's fees pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1595, forfeiture of +Defendant's assets, punitive damages and such other and further relief as this Court deems just +and proper. Plaintiff hereby demands trial by jury on all issues triable as of right by a jury. +COUNT V +(CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST LAUREL, INC. PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. $1595) +82. +83. +Plaintiff adopts and realleges paragraphs 1 through 57 above. +Defendant, by and through its management and personnel, within the special +maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, in interstate and foreign commerce, +and/or affecting interstate and foreign commerce, knowingly recruited, enticed, harbored, + + + +transported, provided, obtained, maintained, patronized, solicited by any means Plaintiff from +2001 through 2006. +84. +Defendant, by and through its management and personnel, knew that means of +fraud or coercion, and/or combinations of such means, would be used, and were in fact used, in +order to cause Plaintiff to engage in commercial sex acts. In doing so, Defendant corporation +violated 18 U.S.C. §1591. +85. +Furthermore, Defendant corporation attempted to violate 18 U.S.C. § 1591. In so +doing, violated 18 U.S.C. § 1594(a). +86. +Defendant, by and through its management and personnel, conspired with other +members of the enterprise, and with other persons and companies, known and unknown, to +violate 18 U.S.C. § 1591. In so doing, Defendant violated 18 U.S.C. § 1594(c). +87. +By virtue of its violations of 18 U.S.C. §$ 1591, 1593A, and 1594, Defendant is +subject to civil causes of action under 18 U.S.C. § 1595 by Plaintiff, who is a victim of their +violations. +88. +Defendant, by and through its management and personnel, participated in a +venture with Epstein's enterprise by knowingly recruiting, transporting, soliciting, obtaining, and +maintaining Plaintiff knowing that fraud or coercion would be used to cause Plaintiff to commit +a commercial sex act. +89. +As a direct and proximate result of Defendant corporation's commission of the +aforementioned criminal offenses enumerated in 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591, 1593A, and 1594, and the +associated civil remedies provided in §1595, Plaintiff has in the past suffered and will continue +to suffer injury and pain, emotional distress, psychological and psychiatric trauma, mental + + + +anguish, humiliation, confusion, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, loss of dignity, loss of +enjoyment of life, invasion of privacy, and other damages associated with Defendant's actions. +90. +Plaintiff will incur further medical and psychological expenses. These injuries are +permanent in nature and Plaintiff will continue to suffer from them in the future. In addition to +these losses, Plaintiff has incurred attorneys' fees and will continue to do so in the future for +which Defendant is liable pursuant to 18 U.S.C. $1595. +WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Laurel, Inc. for compensatory and +general damages, attorney's fees pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1595, forfeiture of Defendant's assets, +punitive damages and such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. Plaintiff +hereby demands trial by jury on all issues triable as of right by a jury. +COUNT VI +(CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST FINANCIAL TRUST COMPANY, INC. +PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §1595) +91. +Plaintiff adopts and realleges paragraphs 1 through 57 above. +92. +Defendant, by and through its management and personnel, within the special +maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, in interstate and foreign commerce, +and/or affecting interstate and foreign commerce, knowingly recruited, enticed, harbored, +transported, provided, obtained, maintained, patronized, solicited by any means Plaintiff. +93. +Defendant, by and through its management and personnel, knew that means of +fraud or coercion, and/or combinations of such means, would be used, and were in fact used, in +order to cause Plaintiff to engage in commercial sex acts. In doing so, Defendant corporation +violated 18 U.S.C. $1591. +94. +Defendant, by and through its management and personnel knowingly benefitted, +financially and by receiving things of value, from participating in a venture (the Epstein sex + + + +trafficking venture enterprise) which had engaged in acts in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1592 and +1595(a), knowing that the venture had engaged in such violations. In so doing, Defendant +corporation violated 18 U.S.C. § 1593A. +95. +Furthermore, Defendant corporation attempted to violate 18 U.S.C. §1591. In so +doing, violated 18 U.S.C. § 1594(a). +96. +Defendant, by and through its management and personnel, conspired with other +members of the enterprise, and with other persons and companies, known and unknown, to +violate 18 U.S.C. §1591. In so doing, Defendant violated 18 U.S.C. $1594(c). +97. +By virtue of their violations of 18 U.S.C. $§ 1591, 1593A, and 1594, Defendant is +subject to civil causes of action under 18 U.S.C. §1595 by Plaintiff, who is a victim of their +violations. +98. +Defendant, by and through its management and personnel, participated in a +venture with Epstein's enterprise by knowingly recruiting, transporting, soliciting, obtaining, and +maintaining Plaintiff knowing that fraud or coercion would be used to cause Plaintiff to commit +a commercial sex act. +99. +As a direct and proximate result of Defendant corporation's commission of the +aforementioned criminal offenses enumerated in 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591, 1593A, and 1594, and the +associated civil remedies provided in §1595, Plaintiff has in the past suffered and will continue +to suffer injury and pain, emotional distress, psychological and psychiatric trauma, mental +anguish, humiliation, confusion, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, loss of dignity, loss of +enjoyment of life, invasion of privacy, and other damages associated with Defendant's actions. +100. +Plaintiff will incur further medical and psychological expenses. These injuries are +permanent in nature and Plaintiff will continue to suffer from them in the future. In addition to + + + +these losses, Plaintiff has incurred attorneys' fees and will continue to do so in the future for +WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant, Financial Trust Company, +Inc., For compensatory and general damages, attorney's fees pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1595, +forfeiture of Defendant's assets, punitive damages and such other and further relief as this Court +deems just and proper. Plaintiff hereby demands trial by jury on all issues triable as of right by a +jury. +COUNT VII +(CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST NES, LLC PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. $1595) +101. +Plaintiff adopts and realleges paragraphs 1 through 57 above. +102. +Defendant, by and through its management and personnel, within the special +maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, in interstate and foreign commerce, +and/or affecting interstate and foreign commerce, knowingly recruited, enticed, harbored, +transported, provided, obtained, maintained, patronized, solicited by any means Plaintiff. +103. +Defendant, by and through its management and personnel, knew that means of +fraud or coercion, and/or combinations of such means, would be used, and were in fact used, in +order to cause Plaintiff to engage in commercial sex acts. In doing so, Defendant corporation +violated 18 U.S.C. $1591. +104. +Furthermore, Defendant corporation attempted to violate 18 U.S.C. §1591. In so +doing, violated 18 U.S.C. $1594(a). +105. +Defendant, by and through its management and personnel, conspired with other +members of the enterprise, and with other persons and companies, known and unknown, to +violate 18 U.S.C. §1591. In so doing, Defendant violated 18 U.S.C. §1594(c). + + + +106. +By virtue of their violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591, 1593A, and 1594, Defendant is +subject to civil causes of action under 18 U.S.C. §1595 by Plaintiff, who is a victim of their +violations. +107. +Defendant, by and through its management and personnel, participated in a +venture with Epstein's enterprise by knowingly recruiting, transporting, soliciting, obtaining, and +maintaining Plaintiff knowing that fraud or coercion would be used to cause Plaintiff to commit +a commercial sex act. +108. +As a direct and proximate result of Defendant corporation's commission of the +aforementioned criminal offenses enumerated in 18 U.S.C. $§ 1591, 1593A, and 1594, and the +associated civil remedies provided in §1595, Plaintiff has in the past suffered and will continue +to suffer injury and pain, emotional distress, psychological and psychiatric trauma, mental +anguish, humiliation, confusion, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, loss of dignity, loss of +enjoyment of life, invasion of privacy, and other damages associated with Defendant's actions. +109. +Plaintiff will incur further medical and psychological expenses. These injuries are +permanent in nature and Plaintiff will continue to suffer from them in the future. In addition to +these losses, Plaintiff has incurred attorneys' fees and will continue to do so in the future for +WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant, NES, Inc., for +compensatory and general damages, attorney's fees pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1595, forfeiture of +Defendant's assets, punitive damages and such other and further relief as this Court deems just +and proper. Plaintiff hereby demands trial by jury on all issues triable as of right by a jury. + + + +COUNT VIII +(CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST MAPLE, INC. PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. $1595) +110. +Plaintiff adopts and realleges paragraphs 1 through 57 above. +111. +Defendant, by and through its management and personnel, within the special +maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, in interstate and foreign commerce, +and/or affecting interstate and foreign commerce, knowingly recruited, enticed, harbored, +transported, provided, obtained, maintained, patronized, solicited by any means Plaintiff from +2001 through 2006. +112. +Defendant, by and through its management and personnel, knew that means of +fraud or coercion, and/or combinations of such means, would be used, and were in fact used, in +order to cause Plaintiff to engage in commercial sex acts. In doing so, Defendant corporation +violated 18 U.S.C. §1591. +113. +Furthermore, Defendant corporation attempted to violate 18 U.S.C. § 1591. In so +doing, violated 18 U.S.C. § 1594(a). +114. +Defendant, by and through its management and personnel, conspired with other +members of the enterprise, and with other persons and companies, known and unknown, to +violate 18 U.S.C. § 1591. In so doing, Defendant violated 18 U.S.C. § 1594(c). +115. +By virtue of its violations of 18 U.S.C. §$ 1591, 1593A, and 1594, Defendant is +subject to civil causes of action under 18 U.S.C. § 1595 by Plaintiff, who is a victim of their +violations. +116. +Defendant, by and through its management and personnel, participated in a +venture with Epstein's enterprise by knowingly recruiting, transporting, soliciting, obtaining, and + + + +maintaining Plaintiff knowing that fraud or coercion would be used to cause Plaintiff to commit +a commercial sex act. +117. +As a direct and proximate result of Defendant corporation's commission of the +aforementioned criminal offenses enumerated in 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591, 1593A, and 1594, and the +associated civil remedies provided in §1595, Plaintiff has in the past suffered and will continue +to suffer injury and pain, emotional distress, psychological and psychiatric trauma, mental +anguish, humiliation, confusion, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, loss of dignity, loss of +enjoyment of life, invasion of privacy, and other damages associated with Defendant's actions. +118. +Plaintiff will incur further medical and psychological expenses. These injuries are +permanent in nature and Plaintiff will continue to suffer from them in the future. In addition to +these losses, Plaintiff has incurred attorneys' fees and will continue to do so in the future for +WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Maple, Inc. for compensatory and +general damages, attorney's fees pursuant to 18 U.S.C. $1595, forfeiture of Defendant's assets, +punitive damages and such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. Plaintiff +hereby demands trial by jury on all issues triable as of right by a jury. +COUNT IX +(CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST LSJE, LLC PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. $1595) +119. +Plaintiff adopts and realleges paragraphs 1 through 57 above. +120. +Defendant, by and through its management and personnel, within the special +maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, in interstate and foreign commerce, +and/or affecting interstate and foreign commerce, knowingly recruited, enticed, harbored, + + + +transported, provided, obtained, maintained, patronized, solicited by any means Plaintiff from +2001 through 2006. +121. +Defendant, by and through its management and personnel, knew that means of +fraud or coercion, and/or combinations of such means, would be used, and were in fact used, in +order to cause Plaintiff to engage in commercial sex acts. In doing so, Defendant corporation +violated 18 U.S.C. §1591. +122. +Furthermore, Defendant corporation attempted to violate 18 U.S.C. § 1591. In so +doing, violated 18 U.S.C. § 1594(a). +123. +Defendant, by and through its management and personnel, conspired with other +members of the enterprise, and with other persons and companies, known and unknown, to +violate 18 U.S.C. § 1591. In so doing, Defendant violated 18 U.S.C. § 1594(c). +124. By virtue of its violations of 18 U.S.C. §$ 1591, 1593A, and 1594, Defendant is +subject to civil causes of action under 18 U.S.C. § 1595 by Plaintiff, who is a victim of their +violations. +125. +Defendant, by and through its management and personnel, participated in a +venture with Epstein's enterprise by knowingly recruiting, transporting, soliciting, obtaining, and +maintaining Plaintiff knowing that fraud or coercion would be used to cause Plaintiff to commit +a commercial sex act. +126. +As a direct and proximate result of Defendant corporation's commission of the +aforementioned criminal offenses enumerated in 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591, 1593A, and 1594, and the +associated civil remedies provided in §1595, Plaintiff has in the past suffered and will continue +to suffer injury and pain, emotional distress, psychological and psychiatric trauma, mental + + + +anguish, humiliation, confusion, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, loss of dignity, loss of +enjoyment of life, invasion of privacy, and other damages associated with Defendant's actions. +127. +Plaintiff will incur further medical and psychological expenses. These injuries are +permanent in nature and Plaintiff will continue to suffer from them in the future. In addition to +these losses, Plaintiff has incurred attorneys' fees and will continue to do so in the future for +which Defendant is liable pursuant to 18 U.S.C. $1595. +WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against LSJE, LLC for compensatory and +general damages, attorney's fees pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1595, forfeiture of Defendant's assets, +punitive damages and such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. Plaintiff +hereby demands trial by jury on all issues triable as of right by a jury. +COUNT X +(CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST HBRK ASSOCIATES, INC. +PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. $1595) +128. +Plaintiff adopts and realleges paragraphs 1 through 57 above. +129. +Defendant, by and through its management and personnel, within the special +maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, in interstate and foreign commerce, +and/or affecting interstate and foreign commerce, knowingly recruited, enticed, harbored, +transported, provided, obtained, maintained, patronized, solicited by any means Plaintiff. +130. +Defendant, by and through its management and personnel, knew that means of +fraud or coercion, and/or combinations of such means, would be used, and were in fact used, in +order to cause Plaintiff to engage in commercial sex acts. In doing so, Defendant corporation +violated 18 U.S.C. §1591. +131. +Defendant, by and through its management and personnel knowingly benefitted, +financially and by receiving things of value, from participating in a venture (the Epstein sex + + + +trafficking venture enterprise) which had engaged in acts in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1592 and +1595(a), knowing that the venture had engaged in such violations. In so doing, Defendant +corporation violated 18 U.S.C. §1593A. +132. +Furthermore, Defendant corporation attempted to violate 18 U.S.C. §1591. In so +doing, Defendant violated 18 U.S.C. §1594(a). +133. +Defendant, by and through its management and personnel, conspired with other +members of the enterprise, and with other persons and companies, known and unknown, to +violate 18 U.S.C. §1591. In so doing, Defendant violated 18 U.S.C. §1594(c). +134. +By virtue of their violations of 18 U.S.C. $§ 1591, 1593A, and 1594, Defendant is +subject to civil causes of action under 18 U.S.C. §1595 by Plaintiff, who is a victim of their +violations. +135. +Defendant, by and through its management and personnel, participated in a +venture with Epstein's enterprise by knowingly recruiting, transporting, soliciting, obtaining, and +maintaining Plaintiff knowing that fraud or coercion would be used to cause Plaintiff to commit +a commercial sex act. +136. +As a direct and proximate result of Defendant corporation's commission of the +aforementioned criminal offenses enumerated in 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591, 1593A, and 1594, and the +associated civil remedies provided in §1595, Plaintiff has in the past suffered and will continue +to suffer injury and pain, emotional distress, psychological and psychiatric trauma, mental +anguish, humiliation, confusion, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, loss of dignity, loss of +enjoyment of life, invasion of privacy, and other damages associated with Defendant's actions. +137. +Plaintiff will incur further medical and psychological expenses. These injuries are +permanent in nature and Plaintiff will continue to suffer from them in the future. In addition to + + + +these losses, Plaintiff has incurred attorneys' fees and will continue to do so in the future for +138. +WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant, HBRK +Associates, Inc., for compensatory and general damages, attorney's fees pursuant to 18 U.S.C. +§1595, forfeiture of Defendant's assets, punitive damages and such other and further relief as this +Court deems just and proper. Plaintiff hereby demands trial by jury on all issues triable as of +right by a jury. +COUNT XI +(CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST NAUTILUS, INC. PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. $1595) +139. +Plaintiff adopts and realleges paragraphs 1 through 57 above. +140. +Defendant, by and through its management and personnel, within the special +maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, in interstate and foreign commerce, +and/or affecting interstate and foreign commerce, knowingly recruited, enticed, harbored, +transported, provided, obtained, maintained, patronized, solicited by any means Plaintiff. +141. +Defendant, by and through its management and personnel, knew that means of +fraud or coercion, and/or combinations of such means, would be used, and were in fact used, in +order to cause Plaintiff to engage in commercial sex acts. In doing so, Defendant corporation +violated 18 U.S.C. §1591. +142. +Defendant, by and through its management and personnel knowingly benefitted, +financially and by receiving things of value, from participating in a venture (the Epstein sex +trafficking venture enterprise) which had engaged in acts in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1592 and +1595(a), knowing that the venture had engaged in such violations. In so doing, Defendant +corporation violated 18 U.S.C. §1593A. + + + +143. +Furthermore, Defendant corporation attempted to violate 18 U.S.C. §1591. In so +doing, Defendant violated 18 U.S.C. §1594(a). +144. +Defendant, by and through its management and personnel, conspired with other +members of the enterprise, and with other persons and companies, known and unknown, to +violate 18 U.S.C. §1591. In so doing, Defendant violated 18 U.S.C. §1594(c). +145. +By virtue of their violations of 18 U.S.C. §$ 1591, 1593A, and 1594, Defendant is +subject to civil causes of action under 18 U.S.C. §1595 by Plaintiff, who is a victim of their +violations. +146. +Defendant, by and through its management and personnel, participated in a +venture with Epstein's enterprise by knowingly recruiting, transporting, soliciting, obtaining, and +maintaining Plaintiff knowing that fraud or coercion would be used to cause Plaintiff to commit +a commercial sex act. +147. +As a direct and proximate result of Defendant corporation's commission of the +aforementioned criminal offenses enumerated in 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591, 1593A, and 1594, and the +associated civil remedies provided in §1595, Plaintiff has in the past suffered and will continue +to suffer injury and pain, emotional distress, psychological and psychiatric trauma, mental +anguish, humiliation, confusion, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, loss of dignity, loss of +enjoyment of life, invasion of privacy, and other damages associated with Defendant's actions. +148. +Plaintiff will incur further medical and psychological expenses. These injuries are +permanent in nature and Plaintiff will continue to suffer from them in the future. In addition to +these losses, Plaintiff has incurred attorneys' fees and will continue to do so in the future for + + + +149. +WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant, Nautilus, Inc., for +compensatory and general damages, attorney's fees pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1595, forfeiture of +Defendant's assets, punitive damages and such other and further relief as this Court deems just +and proper. Plaintiff hereby demands trial by jury on all issues triable as of right by a jury. +COUNT XII +(CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST CYPRESS, INC. PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. $1595) +150. +Plaintiff adopts and realleges paragraphs 1 through 57 above. +151. +Defendant, by and through its management and personnel, within the special +maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, in interstate and foreign commerce, +and/or affecting interstate and foreign commerce, knowingly recruited, enticed, harbored, +transported, provided, obtained, maintained, patronized, solicited by any means Plaintiff. +152. +Defendant, by and through its management and personnel, knew that means of +fraud or coercion, and/or combinations of such means, would be used, and were in fact used, in +order to cause Plaintiff to engage in commercial sex acts. In doing so, Defendant corporation +violated 18 U.S.C. §1591. +153. +Defendant, by and through its management and personnel knowingly benefitted, +financially and by receiving things of value, from participating in a venture (the Epstein sex +trafficking venture enterprise) which had engaged in acts in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1592 and +1595(a), knowing that the venture had engaged in such violations. In so doing, Defendant +corporation violated 18 U.S.C. §1593A. +154. +Furthermore, Defendant corporation attempted to violate 18 U.S.C. §1591. In so +doing, Defendant violated 18 U.S.C. §1594(a). + + + +155. +Defendant, by and through its management and personnel, conspired with other +members of the enterprise, and with other persons and companies, known and unknown, to +violate 18 U.S.C. §1591. In so doing, Defendant violated 18 U.S.C. §1594(c). +156. +By virtue of their violations of 18 U.S.C. §$ 1591, 1593A, and 1594, Defendant is +subject to civil causes of action under 18 U.S.C. §1595 by Plaintiff, who is a victim of their +violations. +157. +Defendant, by and through its management and personnel, participated in a +venture with Epstein's enterprise by knowingly recruiting, transporting, soliciting, obtaining, and +maintaining Plaintiff knowing that fraud or coercion would be used to cause Plaintiff to commit +a commercial sex act. +158. +As a direct and proximate result of Defendant corporation's commission of the +aforementioned criminal offenses enumerated in 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591, 1593A, and 1594, and the +associated civil remedies provided in §1595, Plaintiff has in the past suffered and will continue +to suffer injury and pain, emotional distress, psychological and psychiatric trauma, mental +anguish, humiliation, confusion, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, loss of dignity, loss of +enjoyment of life, invasion of privacy, and other damages associated with Defendant's actions. +159. +Plaintiff will incur further medical and psychological expenses. These injuries are +permanent in nature and Plaintiff will continue to suffer from them in the future. In addition to +these losses, Plaintiff has incurred attorneys' fees and will continue to do so in the future for +160. +WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant, Cypress, Inc., for +compensatory and general damages, attorney's fees pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1595, forfeiture of + + + +Defendant's assets, punitive damages and such other and further relief as this Court deems just +and proper. Plaintiff hereby demands trial by jury on all issues triable as of right by a jury. +COUNT XIII +(CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST JEGE, INC. PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. $1595) +161. +Plaintiff adopts and realleges paragraphs 1 through 57 above. +162. +Defendant, by and through its management and personnel, within the special +maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, in interstate and foreign commerce, +and/or affecting interstate and foreign commerce, knowingly recruited, enticed, harbored, +transported, provided, obtained, maintained, patronized, solicited by any means Plaintiff from +2001 through 2006. +163. +Defendant, by and through its management and personnel, knew that means of +fraud or coercion, and/or combinations of such means, would be used, and were in fact used, in +order to cause Plaintiff to engage in commercial sex acts. In doing so, Defendant corporation +violated 18 U.S.C. §1591. +164. +Furthermore, Defendant corporation attempted to violate 18 U.S.C. § 1591. In so +doing, violated 18 U.S.C. § 1594(a). +165. +Defendant, by and through its management and personnel, conspired with other +members of the enterprise, and with other persons and companies, known and unknown, to +violate 18 U.S.C. § 1591. In so doing, Defendant violated 18 U.S.C. § 1594(c). +166. +By virtue of its violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591, 1593A, and 1594, Defendant is +subject to civil causes of action under 18 U.S.C. § 1595 by Plaintiff, who is a victim of their +violations. + + + +167. +Defendant, by and through its management and personnel, participated in a +venture with Epstein's enterprise by knowingly recruiting, transporting, soliciting, obtaining, and +maintaining Plaintiff knowing that fraud or coercion would be used to cause Plaintiff to commit +a commercial sex act. +168. +As a direct and proximate result of Defendant corporation's commission of the +aforementioned criminal offenses enumerated in 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591, 1593A, and 1594, and the +associated civil remedies provided in §1595, Plaintiff has in the past suffered and will continue +to suffer injury and pain, emotional distress, psychological and psychiatric trauma, mental +anguish, humiliation, confusion, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, loss of dignity, loss of +enjoyment of life, invasion of privacy, and other damages associated with Defendant's actions. +169. +Plaintiff will incur further medical and psychological expenses. These injuries are +permanent in nature and Plaintiff will continue to suffer from them in the future. In addition to +these losses, Plaintiff has incurred attorneys' fees and will continue to do so in the future for +WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against JEGE, INC. for compensatory and +general damages, attorney's fees pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1595, forfeiture of Defendant's assets, +punitive damages and such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. Plaintiff +hereby demands trial by jury on all issues triable as of right by a jury. +Dated: +October 17, 2019 +By: +Respectfully Submitted, +_Is/ Andrew S. Buzin +Andrew S. Buzin +BUZIN LAW, P.C. +111 Broadway, Suite 1204 +New York, NY 10006 +Tel: (646) 470-4878 + + + +Casеabd9-99@9696Р0₺Ą£БСFDФЫBAn*7611 FilEter1P17₽§19ageag4 afaf 37 +By: +Fax: (347) 736-9490 +Email: abuzin@buzinlaw.com +Attorney for Plaintiff +/s/ David H. Brodie +David H. Brodie, Esq., FBN 0813168 +Laura J. Starr, Esq., FBN 0491888 +WEISMAN, BRODIE, STARR +& MARGOLIES, P.A. +1301 N. Federal Highway +Lake Worth, FL 33460 +Telephone: (561) 588-9500 +Facsimile: (561) 588-9500 +Email: dbrodie@yourfloridacounsel.com +Email: Istarr@yourfloridacounsel.com +Attorneys for Plaintiff +(SEEKING ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE) + + + +Сasєaś₴9q9QЯ6ф9•АĘR£FCDq9mAn3f111 Filed 18/29/19 P8g09139 gf 37 + + + +Caseds299909609010#REDC@92136111 Filed 10/29/19 p89822307 gf 37 +U.S. v. Jeffrey Epstein, 19-Cr-490 (RMB) +ASSET SUMMARY - JUNE 30, 2019 +Asset +Cash +* +Fixed Income +* +* +Equities +Hedge Funds & Private Equity +** Properties +*** +9 East 71st Street, New York, NY 10021 +49 Zorro Ranch Road, Stanley New Mexico 87056 +358 El Brillo Way, Palm Beach, FL 33480 +22 Avenue Foch, Paris France 75116 +Great St James Island No. 6A USVI 00802 (parcels A,B,C) +**** +Little St James Island No. 6B USVI 00802 (parcels A,B,C) +$ +$ +$ +$ +$ +$ +$ +$ +$ +6/30/19 +Value +56,547,773 +14,304,679 +112,679,138 +194,986,301 +55,931,000 +17,246,208 +12,380,209 +8,672,823 +22,498,600 +63,874,223 +Total Assets +$ +559,120,954 +* +Values reflect gross numbers that are not net of tax +** All properties are valued at assessed values as per the most recent +property tax bills +*** Note the United States Attomey's office for the Souther District of New York +has stated that the value of this home is $77,000,000 as compared to the +market value shown above per the June 1, 2019 property tax bill +**** Note this property is valued at cost basis, however the assessment on +the most recent tax bill is $4,857,500 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/8fd6a53809ebf65104b156f3d102116d9cd61e913c586b36e32864185f38973b.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/8fd6a53809ebf65104b156f3d102116d9cd61e913c586b36e32864185f38973b.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d59807df6f54d6586a6104ce6d5ca5e88eb86f57 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/8fd6a53809ebf65104b156f3d102116d9cd61e913c586b36e32864185f38973b.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -1288, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "8fd6a53809ebf65104b156f3d102116d9cd61e913c586b36e32864185f38973b", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 74, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "c2139c8db768cd095b110b62c8ceb6bd720f88239f07021077941106ddcbf705", + "output_sha256": "58300bbcea051cf051a6692897131ac12df8283c12eef77d255b6d1331ad8a6f", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/8fe78f32eec10f8e56ace86eae366fb1d1035cd2a2f14ad9d275c112db60a42a.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/8fe78f32eec10f8e56ace86eae366fb1d1035cd2a2f14ad9d275c112db60a42a.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4a937476c37b6bd0d608ec12a38bfddcd2e35fbf --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/8fe78f32eec10f8e56ace86eae366fb1d1035cd2a2f14ad9d275c112db60a42a.md @@ -0,0 +1,817 @@ +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 79-3 Filed 06/22/20 Page 1 of 29 + + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 79-3 Filed 06/22/20 Page 2 of 29 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff, +V. +DARREN K. INDYKE and RICHARD D. KAHN, in +their capacities as the executors of the Estate of +Jeffrey E. Epstein, +Defendants. +Case No. 19 Civ. 8673 (KPF) (DCF) +PLAINTIFF JANE DOE'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS' +FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS +Pursuant to Rules 26 and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules +for the Southern District of New York (together, the "Rules"), Plaintiff Jane Doe, by and through +her attorneys, submits these responses and objections ("Responses") to Defendants Darren K. +Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, in their capacities as the executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein +("Defendants") First Request for the Production of Documents dated March 10, 2020. +The Definitions and Instructions below form an integral part of the Requests that follow +and must be read in conjunction with the Requests and followed when responding to the +Requests. +GENERAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES +The following general objections and responses (the "General Objections") are +incorporated into each specific objection and response (the "Specific Objections") as if fully set +forth therein: +Plaintiff objects to the Requests to the extent they are duplicative, cumulative, or +seek information that has been or will be provided through other means of discovery. + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 79-3 Filed 06/22/20 Page 3 of 29 +2. +Plaintiff objects to the Requests to the extent they are vague, ambiguous, overly +broad, unduly burdensome, seck information not relevant to the claims or defenses of any party, +or are not proportional to the needs of the case. +Plaintiff objects to the Requests to the extent they impose any obligations or +requirements beyond the scope of the Rules or any case law interpreting them. +Plaintiff's Responses are not intended to be and shall not be construed as an +agreement or concurrence that all information provided is admissible. +5. +Plaintiff objects to each Request to the extent that it calls for documents that: (a) +are already in Defendants' possession, custody, or control; (b) are publicly available; or (c) are +otherwise independently available to Defendants or their counsel. +Plaintiff objects to the Requests to the extent they purport to call for documents or +information that: (a) are subject to the attorney-client privilege; (b) constitute attorney work +product; (c) are protected from disclosure based on common interest or a similar privilege; or (d) +are otherwise protected from disclosure under applicable privilege, law, or rule. Plaintiff will not +produce such information in response to the Requests, and any inadvertent production thereof shall +not be deemed a waiver of any privilege with respect to such information. +Plaintiff objects to the Requests to the extent they seek information protected by +federal or state law. Except to the extent permitted by an applicable exception or court order, +Plaintiff will not disclose any information in violation of federal or state law. +8. +Plaintiff objects to the Requests to the extent they require unreasonable measures +to locate and produce responsive documents. Plaintiff will construe the Requests to require a +reasonable and diligent search of her reasonably-accessible files where she would reasonably +expect to find information, documents, or things related to the Requests, and specifically states + + +Case 1:19-CV-08673-KPF-DCF Document 79-3 Filed 06/22/20 Page 4 of 29 +that she will limit her search for electronically stored information by use of identified search terms +to be agreed upon by the Parties. +9. +Plaintiff objects to the Requests, and in particular, Definitions No. 4 and +Instructions Nos. 2 and 4, to the extent that they seek information or documents that are not within +Plaintiff's possession, custody, or control. Subject to this General Objection, in responding to the +Requests, Plaintiff will provide only responsive, non-privileged documents within Plaintiff's own +possession, custody, or control. +10. +Plaintiff objects to Instruction No. 3 insofar as it seeks to impose obligations greater +than those imposed by the Rules or any other applicable law or rule. +11. +Plaintiff objects to Instruction No. 4 insofar as it imposes obligations greater than +those imposed by the Rules and it seeks information or documents that are not within Plaintiff's +possession, custody, or control. +12. +Plaintiff objects to Instruction No. 11 to the extent that it seeks information or +documents beyond the time period relevant to the allegations listed in the Complaint (ECF 1). +13. +Plaintiff objects to each Request to the extent that it asks Plaintiff to identify "all" +documents, communications, information etc., on the ground that each such Request is overly +broad and that compliance with each such Request would be unduly burdensome and not +proportional to the needs of this case. +14. +Plaintiff objects to each Request to the extent that it seeks information or documents +beyond the time period relevant to Plaintiff's claims. +15. +Plaintiff objects to the Requests to the extent they contain express or implied +assumptions of fact or law with respect to matters at issue in this case. Plaintiff's Responses to +the Requests are not intended to be and shall not be construed as an agreement or concurrence with + + +Case 1:19-CV-08673-KPF-DCF Document 79-3 Filed 06/22/20 Page 5 of 29 +Defendants' characterization of any facts, circumstances, or legal obligations. Plaintiff reserves +the right to contest any such characterization as inaccurate. +16. +Plaintiff expressly reserves all rights and privileges under the Rules and any other +applicable law or rule. The failure to assert such rights and privileges or the inadvertent disclosure +by Plaintiff of information or documents protected by such rights or privileges shall not constitute +a waiver thereof, either with respect to these Responses or with respect to any future discovery +objections or responses. +17. +The fact that Plaintiff has responded to a particular Request shall not be interpreted +as implying that Plaintiff acknowledges the propriety of that Request. +18. +Plaintiff's Responses to the Requests are made to the best of Plaintiff's present +knowledge, information, and belief. These Responses are at all times subject to such additional or +different information that discovery or further investigation may disclose and, while based on the +present state of Plaintiff's knowledge and investigation, are subject to such additional knowledge +of facts as may result from Plaintiff's further discovery or investigation. +19. +Plaintiff reserves the right to make any use of, or to introduce at any hearing and at +trial, information responsive to the Requests but discovered subsequent to the date of these +Responses, including, but not limited to, any such information obtained in discovery herein. +20. +Plaintiff reserves all objections or other questions as to the competency, relevance, +materiality, privilege, or admissibility of Plaintiff's Responses herein and any documents produced +subject thereto, as evidence in any subsequent proceeding in, or trial of, this or any other action, +or for any other purpose whatsoever. +21. +Plaintiff's Responses to the Requests will be subject to the protections of any +Protective Order entered by the Court governing the handling of confidential material in this case. + + +Case 1:19-CV-08673-KPF-DCF Document 79-3 Filed 06/22/20 Page 6 of 29 +22. +Plaintiff will produce responsive documents pursuant to its General and Specific +Objections on a rolling basis. +23. +Plaintiff is available to meet and confer with Defendants in an effort to resolve any +disputes that may arise concerning these Responses. +SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES +REQUEST NO. 1 +All documents and communications with or otherwise concerning Decedent. This +includes, without limitation, all communications concerning Decedent which are to, from, +or which copy: (i) members of the press, media or publishing industry; (il) law enforcement +personnel; (iii) government agents, including, without limitation, prosecutors and +government attorneys; and communications which are to, from, or which copy you or your +attorneys, on the one hand, and other persons who have filed lawsuits or made claims +against Decedent or his estate, or such other persons' attorneys, on the other hand. +RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 1 +Plaintiff objects to Request No. 1 on the ground that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, +and seeks information not relevant to either party's claims or defenses in this litigation, and will +withhold responsive documents and communications, if any, based on this objection. Plaintiff +further objects to Request No. 1 to the extent it calls for the production of documents and +communications that are subject to the attorney-client privilege, constitute attorney work product, +or are otherwise protected from disclosure under applicable privilege, law, or rule, and will +withhold responsive documents and communications, if any, based on this objection. +Subject to the General and Specific Objections, Plaintiff will produce non-privileged +documents and communications concerning the claims and defenses in this litigation and +responsive to this request, if any. + + +Case 1:19-CV-08673-KPF-DCF Document 79-3 Filed 06/22/20 Page 7 of 29 +REQUEST NO. 2 +To the extent not otherwise produced in response to the foregoing, all documents +and communications concerning any other legal proceeding or investigation that concerns +Decedent. +RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 2 +Subject to the General and Specific Objections, Plaintiff will produce non-privileged +documents and communications that are responsive to this request, if any. +REQUEST NO. 3 +To the extent not otherwise produced in response to the foregoing, all non-privileged +documents and communications concerning this litigation. +RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 3 +Plaintiff objects to Request No. 3 on the ground that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, +and seeks information not relevant to either party's claims or defenses to the extent that +"concerning this litigation" has a meaning other than "concerning the claims and defenses in this +litigation" and will withhold responsive documents and communications, if any, based on this +objection. +Subject to the General and Specific Objections, Plaintiff will produce non-privileged +documents and communications concerning the claims and defenses at issue in this litigation, if +any. +REQUEST NO. 4 +A copy of your birth certificate. +RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 4 +Plaintiff objects to Request No. 4 on the ground that it seeks information not relevant to +either party's claims or defenses, and will withhold responsive documents and communications, if +any, based on this objection. + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 79-3 Filed 06/22/20 Page 8 of 29 +REQUEST NO. 5 +Copies of all of your passports. +RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 5 +Plaintiff objects to Request No. 5 on the ground that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, +and seeks information not relevant to either party's claims or defenses to the extent it requests all +Plaintiff's passports, and will withhold responsive documents and communications, if any, based +on this objection. +Subject to the General and Specific Objections, Plaintiff will produce a copy of her current +passport, if any. +REQUEST NO. 6 +relevant time period. +RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 6 +Documents sufficient to establish your place of residency at all times during the +Plaintiff objects to Request No. 6 on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous to the extent +it uses the undefined phrase "sufficient to establish." +Subject to the General and Specific Objections, Plaintiff will produce non-privileged +documents, if any, that demonstrate Plaintiff's residency (1) during the period relevant to the +allegations in the Complaint and (2) at present. +REQUEST NO. 7 +Documents sufficient to establish your domicile at all times during the relevant time +period. +RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 7 +Plaintiff objects to Request No. 7 on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous to the extent +it uses the undefined phrase "sufficient to establish." + + +Case 1:19-CV-08673-KPF-DCF Document 79-3 Filed 06/22/20 Page 9 of 29 +Subject to the General and Specific Objections, Plaintiff will produce non-privileged +documents, if any, that demonstrate Plaintiff's domicile (1) during the period relevant to the +allegations in the Complaint and (2) at present. +REQUEST NO. 8 +Documents sufficient to identify the location, nature, and scope of your employment +during the relevant time period. +RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 8 +Plaintiff objects to Request No. 8 on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous to the extent +it uses the undefined phrase "sufficient to identify" and the terms "nature" and "scope." +Subject to the General and Specific Objections, Plaintiff will produce non-privileged +documents and communications demonstrating her employment that are responsive to this request, +if any. +REQUEST NO. 9 +Documents sufficient to identify the source, nature, and scope of all financial +support or income you received during the relevant time period. +RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 9 +Plaintiff objects to Request No. 9 on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous to the extent +it uses the undefined phrase "sufficient to identify," and the terms "nature" and "scope." +Subject to the General and Specific Objections, Plaintiff will produce non-privileged +documents and communications demonstrating her financial support and income that are +responsive to this request, if any. +REQUEST NO. 10 +Documents sufficient to establish your complete academic history. + + +Case 1:19-CV-08673-KPF-DCF Document 79-3 Filed 06/22/20 Page 10 of 29 +RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 10 +Plaintiff objects to Request No. 10 on the ground that it seeks information not relevant to +either party's claims or defenses to the extent that it seeks documents concerning Plaintiff's +"complete academic history" (emphasis added). Plaintiff further objects to the Request on the +ground that it is vague and ambiguous to the extent it uses the undefined phrases "sufficient to +establish" and "academic history." +Subject to the General and Specific Objections, Plaintiff will produce non-privileged +documents that demonstrate Plaintiff's academic history during the relevant time period, if any. +REQUEST NO. 11 +Documents sufficient to identify all telephone numbers you used during the relevant +time period. +RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 11 +Plaintiff objects to Request No. 11 on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous to the +extent it uses the undefined phrase "sufficient to identify." +Subject to the General and Specific Objections, Plaintiff will produce non-privileged +documents to identify each of Plaintiff's telephone numbers during the relevant time period, if any. +REQUEST NO. 12 +Documents sufficient to identify all email addresses you used during the relevant +time period. +RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 12 +Plaintiff objects to Request No. 12 on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous to the +extent it uses the undefined phrase "sufficient to identify." +Subject to the General and Specific Objections, Plaintiff will produce non-privileged +documents to identify each of Plaintiff's email addresses during the relevant time period, if any. + + +Case 1:19-cV-08673-KPF-DCF Document 79-3 Filed 06/22/20 Page 11 of 29 +REQUEST NO. 13 +All documents and communications concerning all medical procedures and +consultations you received during the relevant time period. +RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 13 +Plaintiff objects to Request No. 13 on the ground that it is overly broad, unduly +burdensome, and seeks information not relevant to either party's claims or defenses to the extent +that it +seeks +documents and communications concerning "all medical procedures and +consultations" (emphasis added) regardless of the relation to the allegations in the Complaint, and +will withhold responsive documents and communications, if any, based on this objection. +Subject to the General and Specific Objections, Plaintiff will produce non-privileged +documents and communications concerning medical procedures and consultations received by +Plaintiff during the relevant time period that relate to allegations of the Complaint, if any. +REQUEST NO. 14 +Regardless of date and the relation (or lack thereof) to Decedent's acts and +omissions alleged in the Complaint or otherwise, all documents and communications +concerning all medical procedures and consultations you received evidencing or otherwise +concerning the following conditions: +a. an eating disorder, +b. emotional distress, +c. psychological or psychiatric trauma, +d. mental anguish, +e. humiliation, +f. confusion, +g. embarrassment, +h. loss of self-esteem, +i. loss of dignity, +j. loss of enjoyment of life, +k. pain, +I. suffering, or +m. any condition that would require surgery to correct. + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 79-3 Filed 06/22/20 Page 12 of 29 +RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 14 +Plaintiff objects to Request No. 14 on the ground that it is overly broad, unduly +burdensome, and seeks information not relevant to either party's claims or defenses to the extent +that it seeks documents and communications concerning "all medical procedures and +consultations" regardless of the relation to the allegations in the Complaint and to the extent it +requests information for "any condition that would require surgery to correct," and will withhold +responsive documents and communications, if any, based on this objection. Plaintiff further +objects to Request No. 14 on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous to the extent it uses the +undefined phrase "evidencing or otherwise concerning." +Subject to the General and Specific Objections, Plaintiff will produce non-privileged +documents and communications concerning medical procedures and consultations received by +Plaintiff concerning the aforementioned conditions that relate to the allegations in the Complaint, +if any. +REQUEST NO. 15 +To the extent not otherwise produced in response to the foregoing request and +regardless of date and the relation (or lack thereof) to Decedent's acts and omissions +alleged in the Complaint or otherwise, all documents and communications evidencing or +otherwise concerning your experience of the same or similar conditions and damages for +which you seek recovery from Defendants in this litigation. +RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 15 +Plaintiff objects to Request No. 15 on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous to the +extent it uses the undefined phrase "similar conditions and damages" and the term "evidencing." +Subject to the General and Specific Objections, Plaintiff will produce non-privileged +documents and communications concerning her experience of the same conditions and damages +from which she seeks recovery in this litigation, if any. + + +Case 1:19-CV-08673-KPF-DCF Document 79-3 Filed 06/22/20 Page 13 of 29 +REQUEST NO. 16 +To the extent not otherwise responsive to these requests, all documents and +communications concerning anything of value you received from Decedent. +RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 16 +Plaintiff objects to Request No. 16 on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous to the +extent it uses the undefined phrase "anything of value." +Subject to the General and Specific Objections, Plaintiff will produce non-privileged +documents and communications concerning anything of monetary value she received from +Decedent, if any. +REQUEST NO. 17 +To the extent not otherwise responsive to these requests, all documents and +communications concerning your allegations in the Complaint. +RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 17 +Subject to the General Objections, Plaintiff will produce non-privileged documents and +communications not otherwise responsive to other Requests concerning the allegations in the +Complaint, if any. +REQUEST NO. 18 +To the extent not otherwise responsive to these requests, all documents and +communications upon which you intend to rely in this litigation, including but not limited +to in the course of depositions, in support of any motion, and at any hearing and trial. +RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 18 +Plaintiff objects to Request No. 18 on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous to the +extent it uses the undefined phrase "intend to rely." Plaintiff objects to Request No. 18 to the +extent that it requires Plaintiff to speculate as to which documents and communications Plaintiff +may or may not reference later in this litigation. + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 79-3 Filed 06/22/20 Page 14 of 29 +Subject to the General and Specific Objections, Plaintiff will produce non-privileged +documents and communications not otherwise responsive to other Requests that Plaintiff presently +plans to rely on in this litigation, if any. +REQUEST NO. 19 +To the extent not otherwise produced in response to these requests, all documents +and communications evidencing or otherwise concerning any damages you allege you +suffered concerning the allegations in your Complaint, including but not limited to all +medical fees, attorneys' fees and lost wages. +RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 19 +Plaintiff objects to Request No. 19 on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous to the +extent it uses the undefined phrase "evidencing or otherwise concerning." +Subject to the General Objections, Plaintiff will produce non-privileged documents and +communications not otherwise responsive to other Requests concerning Plaintiff's damages +suffered as a result of the allegations in the Complaint, if any. +REQUEST NO. 19 +All documents identified in your response to Defendants' First Set of Interrogatories +to Plaintiff. +RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 19 +Subject to the General Objections, Plaintiff will produce non-privileged documents not +otherwise responsive to other Requests that Plaintiff' identified in response to Defendants' First Set +of Interrogatories to Plaintiff, if any. +Dated: April 16, 2020 +New York, NY +Respectfully submitted, +By: +Roun +Roberta A. Kaplan +Kate L. Doniger +Alexandra Conlon + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 79-3 Filed 06/22/20 Page 15 of 29 +Kyla Magun +Louis W. Fisher +KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP +350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7110 +New York, NY 10118 +(212) 763-0883 +rkaplan@kaplanhecker.com +kdoniger@kaplanhecker.com +aconlon@kaplanhecker.com +kmagun@kaplanhecker.com +Ifisher@kaplanhecker.com +Attorneys for Plaintiff + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 79-3 Filed 06/22/20 Page 16 of 29 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff, +V. +DARREN K. INDYKE and RICHARD D. KAHN, in +their capacities as the executors of the Estate of +Jeffrey E. Epstein, +Defendants. +Case No. 19 Civ. 8673 (KPF) (DCF) +PLAINTIFF JANE DOE'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO +PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES +Pursuant to Rules 26 and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules +for the Southern District of New York (together, the "Rules"), Plaintiff Jane Doe, by and through +her attorneys, submits these responses and objections ("Responses") to Defendants Darren K. +Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, in their capacities as the executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein +("Defendants") First Set of Interrogatories dated March 10, 2020 (the "Interrogatories"). +GENERAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES +The following general objections and responses (the "General Objections") are +incorporated into each specific objection and response (the "Specific Objections") as if fully set +forth therein: +Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatories to the extent they are duplicative, cumulative, +or seek information that has been or will be provided through other means of discovery. +Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatories to the extent they are vague, ambiguous, +overly broad, unduly burdensome, seek information not relevant to the claims or defenses of any +party, or are not proportional to the needs of the case. + + +Case 1:19-CV-08673-KPF-DCF Document 79-3 Filed 06/22/20 Page 17 of 29 +3. +Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatories to the extent they impose any obligations or +requirements beyond the scope of the Rules or any case law interpreting them. +4. +Plaintiff's Responses are not intended to be and shall not be construed as an +agreement or concurrence that all information provided is admissible. +Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatories to the extent that they call for documents that: +(a) are already in Defendants' possession, custody, or control; (b) are publicly available; or (c) are +otherwise independently available to Defendants or their counsel. +6. +Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatories to the extent they purport to call for +documents or information that: (a) are subject to the attorney-client privilege; (b) constitute +attorney work product; (c) are protected from disclosure based on common interest or a similar +privilege; or (d) are otherwise protected from disclosure under applicable privilege, law, or rule. +Plaintiff will not produce such information in response to the Interrogatories, and any inadvertent +production thereof shall not be deemed a waiver of any privilege with respect to such information. +7. +Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatories to the extent they seek information protected +by federal or state law. Except to the extent permitted by an applicable exception or court order, +Plaintiff will not disclose any information in violation of federal or state law. +8. +Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatories to the extent they require unreasonable +measures to locate and produce responsive documents. Plaintiff will construe the Interrogatories +to require a reasonable and diligent search of her reasonably-accessible files where she would +reasonably expect to find information, documents, or things related to the Interrogatories, and +specifically states that she will limit her search for electronically stored information by use of +identified search terms to be agreed upon by the Parties. +Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatories to the extent that they include "discrete subparts" but +are listed as one individual Interrogatory, pursuant to Rule 33(a)(1). + + +Case 1:19-cV-08673-KPF-DCF Document 79-3 Filed 06/22/20 Page 18 of 29 +10. +Plaintiff objects to Definition No. 1 to the extent that it imposes obligations greater +than those imposed by the Rules. +11. Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatories, and in particular, Definitions No. 4 and +Instructions No. 5, to the extent that they seek information or documents that are not within +Plaintiff's possession, custody, or control. Subject to this General Objection, in responding to the +Requests, Plaintiff will provide only responsive, non-privileged documents within Plaintiff's +possession, custody, or control. +12. Plaintiff objects to Instruction No. 7 to the extent it calls for speculation. +13. Plaintiff objects to each Interrogatory to the extent that it asks Plaintiff to identify +"each" or "all" persons, documents, communications, etc., on the ground that each such +Interrogatory is overly broad and that compliance with each such Interrogatory would be unduly +burdensome and not proportional to the needs of this case. +14. +Plaintiff objects to each Interrogatory to the extent that it secks information or +documents beyond the time period relevant to the allegations in the Complaint. +15. +Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatories to the extent they contain express or implied +assumptions of fact or law with respect to matters at issue in this case. Plaintiff's Responses are +not intended to be and shall not be construed as an agreement or concurrence with Defendants' +characterization of any facts, circumstances, or legal obligations. Plaintiff reserves the right to +contest any such characterization as inaccurate. +16. +Plaintiff expressly reserves all rights and privileges under the Rules and any other +applicable law or rule. The failure to assert such rights and privileges or the inadvertent disclosure +by Plaintiff of information or documents protected by such rights or privileges shall not constitute + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 79-3 Filed 06/22/20 Page 19 of 29 +a waiver thereof, either with respect to these Responses or with respect to any future discovery +objections or responses. +17. +The fact that Plaintiff has responded to a particular Interrogatory shall not be +interpreted as implying that Plaintiff acknowledges the propriety of that Interrogatory. +18. +Plaintiff's Responses to the Interrogatories are made to the best of Plaintiff's +present knowledge, information, and belief. These Responses are at all times subject to such +additional or different information that discovery or further investigation may disclose and, while +based on the present state of Plaintiff's knowledge and investigation, are subject to such additional +knowledge of facts as may result from Plaintiff's further discovery or investigation. +19. +Plaintiff reserves the right to make any use of, or to introduce at any hearing and at +trial, information responsive to the Interrogatories but discovered subsequent to the date of these +Responses, including, but not limited to, any such information obtained in discovery herein. +20. +Plaintiff reserves all objections or other questions as to the competency, relevance, +materiality, privilege, or admissibility of Plaintiff's Responses herein and any documents produced +subject thereto, as evidence in any subsequent proceeding in, or trial of, this or any other action, +or for any other purpose whatsoever. +21. +Plaintiff's Responses to the Interrogatories will be subject to the protections of any +Protective Order entered by the Court governing the handling of confidential material in this case. + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 79-3 Filed 06/22/20 Page 20 of 29 +SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES +INTERROGATORY NO. 1 +Identify all persons with knowledge of information concerning the subject matter of +this litigation, and the subject matter of their knowledge. +RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1 +Plaintiff objects to Interrogatory No. 1 as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeking +information that is not relevant to any party's claims or defenses and disproportionate to the needs +of this case to the extent it requests the identification of all persons with knowledge of information +concerning "the subject matter of the litigation." Plaintiff further objects to Interrogatory No. 1 +on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous to the extent it uses the phrase "the subject matter of +this litigation." Plaintiff further objects to Interrogatory No. I on the ground that it calls for +Plaintiff to speculate as to the scope of someone else's knowledge. +Subject to the General and Specific Objections, Plaintiff identifies the following persons +whom Plaintiff believes have direct, relevant knowledge or information about the allegations in +the Complaint: +Name +Lesley Groff +Dr. Dawn Hughes +Assistant U.S. Attorney Alexander +Rossmiller, Esq. +Diarmuid +, Esq. +Subjects of Information +The allegations in the Complaint, including that Jeffrey +Epstein repeatedly sexually abused Doe in his home +between 2002 and 2005. +The allegations in the Complaint, including that Jeffrey +Epstein repeatedly sexually abused Doe in his home +effrey Epstein's sexual abuse of Plaintiff, includin +sychological impact of that abuse +Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse of Plaintiff. +Jeffrey Epstein's retention of Mr. +to represent +Plaintiff in connection with a criminal investigation into +Epstein's sexual abuse of minors +The allegations in the Complaint +The allegations in the Complaint. + + +Case 1:19-cV-08673-KPF-DCF Document 79-3 Filed 06/22/20 Page 21 of 29 +_ The allegations in the Complaint. +INTERROGATORY NO. 2 +Identify and describe the computation of each category of damages for which you +seek recovery in this litigation. +RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2 +Plaintiff objects to Interrogatory No. 2 on the basis that it requires expert opinion to +determine the computation of each category of damages. +Subject to the General and Specific Objections, Plaintiff discloses that she is entitled to +recover damages in the form of, inter alia, actual damages, compensatory damages, statutory +damages, consequential damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and interest. +INTERROGATORY NO. 3 +Identify the existence, custodian and location of, and generally describe, all +documents and communications concerning the subject matter of this litigation. +RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.3 +Plaintiff objects to Interrogatory No. 3 as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeking +information that is not relevant to any party's claims or defenses and disproportionate to the needs +of this case to the extent it requests the identification of all documents and communications +concerning "the subject matter of the litigation." Plaintiff further objects to Interrogatory No. 3 +on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous to the extent it uses the phrases "generally describe" +and "the subject matter of this litigation." +Subject to the General and Specific Objections, Plaintiff will identify non-privileged, +responsive documents and communications concerning the allegations in the Complaint, if any, +when such communications are produced in response to Defendants' First Requests for Production +("Defendants' RFPs"), subject to Plaintiff's general and specific responses and objections thereto. + + +Case 1:19-CV-08673-KPF-DCF Document 79-3 Filed 06/22/20 Page 22 of 29 +Plaintiff refers Defendants to Plaintiff's Responses and Objections to Plaintiff's First Requests for +Production of Documents ("Plaintiff's RFP Responses"). +INTERROGATORY NO. 4 +Identify each employee of, agent of, or other individual associated with Decedent +with whom you communicated or interacted; and identify the date of, and describe the +nature of, each such communication or interaction. +RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 4 +Plaintiff' objects to Interrogatory No. 4 on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous to the +extent it uses the phrase "associated with." +Subject to the General and Specific Objections, Plaintiff first refers Defendants to the +Complaint and the allegations therein. Plaintiff also identifies +and Lesley Groff. +Plaintiff states that she interacted with +and Groff between approximately 2002 and 2005 to +schedule her visits to Decedent's Upper East Side mansion, and that +and Groff periodically +made payments to Plaintiff on Decedent's behalf during that time. Plaintiff further states that she +interacted with other individuals employed by and/or associated with Decedent in his Upper East +Side mansion, +including +, maids, butlers/doormen, and drivers, among others, between +approximately 2002 and 2005. +INTERROGATORY NO. 5 +Describe with particularity all duties owed to you by Decedent. +RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.5 +Plaintiff objects to Interrogatory No. 5 on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous to the +extent it uses the phrase "duties owed to you." Plaintiff further objects to Interrogatory No. 5 on +the ground that it calls for a legal conclusion. + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 79-3 Filed 06/22/20 Page 23 of 29 +Subject to the General and Specific Objections, for information concerning the nature of +the relationship between Decedent and Plaintiff, Plaintiff refers Defendants to the Complaint and +the allegations therein, as well as Plaintiff's RFP Responses. +INTERROGATORY NO. 6 +Identify and describe with particularity each act or omission on the part of +Decedent that you allege constitutes a breach of a duty owed to you. For each act or +omission identified, identify the date of the alleged act or omission, all persons with +knowledge of the facts set forth in your response to this interrogatory, and all documents +evidencing or otherwise concerning the information set forth in your response to this +interrogatory. +RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 6 +Plaintiff objects to Interrogatory No. 6 on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous to the +extent it uses the undefined term "evidencing." Plaintiff further objects to Interrogatory No. 6 on +the ground that it calls for a legal conclusion. Plaintiff further objects to Interrogatory No. 6 on +the ground that it calls for Plaintiff to speculate as to the scope of someone else's knowledge. +Subject to the General and Specific Objections, for information concerning the interactions +between Decedent and Plaintiff, Plaintiff refers Defendants to the Complaint and the allegations +therein, as well as Plaintiff's RFP Responses. +INTERROGATORY NO. 7 +Identify and describe with particularity each act or omission on the part of +evidencing or otherwise concerning the information set forth in your response to this +interrogatory. +RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 7 +Plaintiff objects to Interrogatory No. 7 on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous to the +extent it uses the undefined term "evidencing." Plaintiff further objects to Interrogatory No. 7 on + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 79-3 Filed 06/22/20 Page 24 of 29 +the ground that it calls for a legal conclusion. Plaintiff further objects to Interrogatory No. 7 on +the ground that it calls for Plaintiff to speculate as to the scope of someone else's knowledge. +Subject to the General and Specific Objections, Plaintiff refers Defendants to Plaintiff's +Response to Interrogatory No. 1, the Complaint and the allegations therein, as well as Plaintiff's +RFP Responses. +INTERROGATORY NO. 8 +Identify with particularity each act or omission on the part of Decedent that you +allege constitutes a tort. For each act or omission identified, identify the date of the alleged +ict or omission, the tort you allege the act or omission constitutes, all persons witl +nowledge of the information set forth in your response to this interrogatory, and al +documents evidencing or otherwise concerning such information. +RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 8 +Plaintiff objects to Interrogatory No. 8 on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous to the +extent it uses the undefined term "evidencing." Plaintiff further objects to Interrogatory No. 8 on +the ground that it calls for a legal conclusion. Plaintiff further objects to Interrogatory No. 8 on +the ground that it calls for Plaintiff to speculate as to the scope of someone else's knowledge. +Subject to the General and Specific Objections, Plaintiff refers Defendants to Plaintiff's +Response to Interrogatory No. 1, the Complaint and the allegations therein, as well as Plaintiff's +RFP Responses. +INTERROGATORY NO. 9 +Identify all persons other than Decedent who have ever committed or attempted to +commit sexual iis conduct or offense agains or otheral at core sening abuse studing, +issault, threats or intimidation of a sexual nature, or sexual exploitation, regardless o +vhether the misconduct or offenses involved physical touching. For each person identified +identify the misconduct or offense committed, and the date and location of the misconduct +or offense. + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 79-3 Filed 06/22/20 Page 25 of 29 +RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 9 +Plaintiff objects to Interrogatory No. 9 as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeking +information that is not relevant to any party's claims or defenses and disproportionate to the needs +of this case to the extent it requests the identification of "all persons" who have "committed or +attempted to commit sexual misconduct or offenses against or otherwise concerning you," +including, for example, "any unwelcome behavior of a sexual nature," regardless of the relation to +the allegations in the Complaint and regardless of the severity of the behavior, and to the extent it +requests the "location of the misconduct or offense." Plaintiff further objects to Interrogatory No. +9 on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous to the extent it uses the phrases "unwelcome +behavior of a sexual nature" and "threats or intimidation of a sexual nature." +Subject to the General and Specific Objections, Plaintiff states that her s +INTERROGATORY NO. 10 +Identify all medical procedures and consultations you received, including the dates +of each procedure and consultation, the locations of each procedure and consultation, and +the identities of all medical providers who conducted or otherwise participated in each +procedure and consultation. The relevant time period for this interrogatory is the date on +which you first learned of Decedent through the date of your responses to these +RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 10 +Plaintiff objects to Interrogatory No. 10 as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeking +information that is not relevant to any party's claims or defenses and disproportionate to the needs +of this case to the extent it requests the identification of "all medical procedures and consultations," +regardless of the relation to the allegations in the Complaint and "the identities of all medical + + +Case 1:19-CV-08673-KPF-DCF Document 79-3 Filed 06/22/20 Page 26 of 29 +providers who . .. otherwise participated in each procedure and consultation," regardless of his or +her role in the procedure or consultation. +Subject to the General and Specific Objections, Plaintiff identifies the following mental +and/or physical health care providers who provided treatment or services relevant to the claims +and defenses in this action: +Provider +Treatment Type +Plaintiff further refers Defendants to the documents produced in response to Request No. 13 of +Defendants' RFPs. +INTERROGATORY NO. 11 +Regardless of date and the relation (or lack thereof) to Decedent's acts and +omissions alleged in the Complaint or otherwise, identify all medical procedures and +consultations you received evidencing or otherwise concerning the following conditions: +a. an eating disorder, +b. emotional distress, +c. psychological or psychiatric trauma, +d. mental anguish, +e. humiliation, +f. confusion, +g. embarrassment, + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 79-3 Filed 06/22/20 Page 27 of 29 +h. loss of self-esteem, +i. loss of dignity, +j. loss of enjoyment of life, +k. pain, +1. suffering, or +m. any condition that would require surgery to correct +RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 11 +Plaintiff objects to Interrogatory No. I on the ground that it is overly broad, unduly +burdensome, and seeks information not relevant to either party's claims or defenses to the extent +that it seeks +documents +and communications concerning "all medical procedures and +consultations" regardless of the relation to the allegations in the Complaint and to the extent it +requests information for "any condition that would require surgery to correct." Plaintiff further +objects to Interrogatory No. 11 on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous to the extent it uses +the undefined term "evidencing." +Subject to the General and Specific Objections, Plaintiff refers Defendants to her Response +to Interrogatory No. 10 and to the documents produced in response to Request No. 14 of +Defendants' RFPs. +INTERROGATORY NO. 12 +State whether you have ever experienced the same or similar conditions and +damages, for which you seek recovery from Defendants in this litigation, as a result of acts +or omissions by persons other than Decedent. If you answer this interrogatory in the +affirmative: identify each such person; describe the acts or omissions that resulted in the +damages; identify the dates and locations of such acts and omissions; and describe the +damages that resulted. +RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 12 +Plaintiff objects to Interrogatory No. 12 on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous to +the extent it uses the undefined phrase "similar conditions and damages." Plaintiff further objects +to Interrogatory No. 12 on the ground that it calls for speculation. Plaintiff also objects to + + +Case 1:19-cV-08673-KPF-DCF Document 79-3 Filed 06/22/20 Page 28 of 29 +Interrogatory No. 12 on the basis that the determination as to whether Plaintiff has experienced +"the same or similar conditions or damages ...as a result of acts or omissions by persons other +than Decedent" calls for an expert opinion. +Subject to the General and Specific Objections, Plaintiff refers Defendants to the +forthcoming expert reports in this Litigation. +INTERROGATORY NO. 13 +Identify all things of value you received from Decedent, including a description of +the thing, the date on which you received the thing, and the person who tendered the thing +to you. +RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 13 +Plaintiff objects to Interrogatory No. 13 on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous to +the extent it uses the undefined phrase "things of value." +Subject to the General and Specific Objections, Plaintiff refers Defendants to the +Complaint and the allegations therein, as well as Plaintiff's Response to RFP No. 16. Plaintiff +states that she received numerous cash payments between 2002 and 2005 from Decedent and +Decedent's associates, +and Lesley Groff, on Decedent's behalf. Plaintiff further +states that she received a shipment of furniture from Decedent to her home in Astoria between +2002 and 2005, delivered by men employed by Decedent. +INTERROGATORY NO. 14 +Identify all documents and communications upon which you intend to rely in this +itigation, including but not limited to in the course of depositions, in support of any +motion, and at any hearing or trial. +RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 14 +Plaintiff objects to Interrogatory No. 14 on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous to +the extent it uses the undefined phrase "intend to rely." Plaintiff further objects to Interrogatory + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 79-3 Filed 06/22/20 Page 29 of 29 +No. 14 to the extent that it requires Plaintiff to speculate as to which documents and +communications Plaintiff may or may not reference later in this litigation. +Subject to the General and Specific Objections, Plaintiff refers Defendants to documents +and communications produced in response to Defendants' RFPs, if any. +INTERROGATORY NO. 15 +dentify all documents and communications evidencing or otherwise concernin +lamages and everything else for which you seek recovery in this litigation, including bu +not limited to damages you allege in your Complaint, medical fees, attorneys' fees and lost +wages. +RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 15 +Plaintiff objects to Interrogatory No. 15 on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous to +the extent it uses the undefined term "evidencing." +Subject to the General and Specific Objections, Plaintiff refers Defendants to documents +and communications produced in response to Defendants' RFPs. +Dated: April 16, 2020 +New York, NY +Respectfully submitted, +By: +Roberta A. Kaplan +Kate L. Doniger +Alexandra Conlon +Kyla Magun +Louis W. Fisher +KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP +350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7110 +New York, NY 10118 +(212) 763-0883 +rkaplan@kaplanhecker.com +kdoniger(@kaplanhecker.com +aconlon@kaplanhecker.com +kmagun@kaplanhecker.com +Ifisher@kaplanhecker.com +Attorneys for Plaintiff diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/8fe78f32eec10f8e56ace86eae366fb1d1035cd2a2f14ad9d275c112db60a42a.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/8fe78f32eec10f8e56ace86eae366fb1d1035cd2a2f14ad9d275c112db60a42a.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e667f38bcc8df9807edd72d3579398cc2f764e47 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/8fe78f32eec10f8e56ace86eae366fb1d1035cd2a2f14ad9d275c112db60a42a.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -357, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "8fe78f32eec10f8e56ace86eae366fb1d1035cd2a2f14ad9d275c112db60a42a", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 30, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "67a2b97d530be0e9320e37a609c7428533168acc40661fd954a9637e6c75b150", + "output_sha256": "5bde9eeb4591d9d58c1a1747a00695f04796d3549a86d42de7588b21a5eeac1f", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9030846c63e90e50b232ebc52221d146857d76b5203a48cb4129521b7730bb23.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9030846c63e90e50b232ebc52221d146857d76b5203a48cb4129521b7730bb23.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9442bee2850ec398de79e57136d2b34a3db1fab1 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9030846c63e90e50b232ebc52221d146857d76b5203a48cb4129521b7730bb23.md @@ -0,0 +1,204 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 316 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/18/2009 Page 1 of 5 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/ +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 +JOINT NOTICE OF AGREEMENT RELATIVE TO PLAINTIFF JANE DOE'S +MOTIONS TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES, +REQUEST TO PRODUCE AND RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, AND +UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME IN WHICH TO RESPOND TO +REMAINING PORTIONS STILL AT ISSUE +Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, and Plaintiff, JANE DOE, by and through their +undersigned counsel hereby file this JOINT NOTICE OF AGREEMENT RELATIVE TO +PLAINTIFF JANE DOE'S MOTIONS TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO ANSWERS TO +INTERROGATORIES, REQUEST TO PRODUCE AND RESPONSES TO REQUEST +FOR ADMISSIONS, AND UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME IN +WHICH TO RESPOND TO REMAINING PORTIONS STILL AT ISSUE, and thus move +this Court for an Extension of Time until October 6, 2009, to file Responses to Plaintiff +Jane Doe's Motions to Compel Responses to Request to Produce, Responses to Request +for Admissions, and Answers to Interrogatories, pursuant to Local Rule 7.1 A.1()(S.D. +Fla. 2008). As good cause for the requested extension, Defendant states: + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 316 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/18/2009 Page 2 of 5 +1. Brad +Counsel for the Plaintiff, is scheduled to return to his office after +having a surgical procedure on September 20, 2009. +2. Nonetheless, in a diligent effort to conserve on Judicial resources, attorney +resources and in light of the court's order addressing the 5" Amendment issues at (DE +242 and 293) Mr. +and the undersigned have been able to resolve via telephone +several discovery requests, thereby relieving the court from having to address certain +requests in the above Motions to Compel and any responses/replies thereto. Mr. +does not waive his right to address those requests for which an agreement has been made. +The Court has already ruled on certain discovery matters. Therefore, that is the binding +law of the case, and Plaintiff maintains her objections to said discovery requests for +purposes of any appeal. +3. In sum, the requests delineated below are simply moot for purposes of the court +having to rule on same at this time. +The Interrogatories +4. Initially, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories (DE 196) +addressed interrogatories 1-23. +5. The undersigned attorneys have agreed that this court is relieved from having to +currently rule on interrogatory numbers 1, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22. +6. Therefore, the remaining interrogatories in dispute are interrogatory numbers 2, 3, +4, 5, 6, 7, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, and 23. +The Requests for Production +7. Initially, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production (DE +210) addressed requests numbers 1-16. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 316 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/18/2009 Page 3 of 5 +8. The undersigned attorneys have agreed that this court is relieved from having to +currently rule on request numbers 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6. +9. Therefore, the remaining requests in dispute are request numbers 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, +12, 13, 14, 15 and 16. +The Requests for Admissions +10. Initially, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Admissions (DE +195) addressed requests numbers 1-23. +11. The undersigned attorneys have agreed that this court is relieved from having to +currently rule on request for admission numbers 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and +20. +12. Therefore, the remaining requests for admissions in dispute are request numbers +1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 21, 22, and 23. +13. While the undersigned lawyers have resolved certain issues in the above motions +to conserve on judicial resources, no admissions or waivers of objections have been made +and no arguments are being abandoned. +14. Therefore, the undersigned attorneys have agreed that Defendant shall file his +Response Motions to the above Motions to Compel relative to the requests at issue on or +before October 2, 2009. +Rule 7.1 A.3 Certification of Pre-Filing Conference +Counsel for Defendant conferred with Counsel for Plaintiff by telephone and/or +electronic mail, and Counsel for Plaintiff is in agreement with the toquested extension. +By: +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. +Floride Bar #617296 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 316 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/18/2009 Page 4 of 5 +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 thislig day of September, 2009 +ROBERTD. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. +Florida Bar No. 224162 +rcrit@bclclaw.com +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. +Florida Bar #617296 +mpike@bclclaw.com +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & +COLEMAN +303 Banyan Blvd., Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561/842-2820 Phone +561/515-3148 Fax +(Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) +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@sexabuseattorney.com +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +Certificate of Service +Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein +Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON +Brad +• Esq. +Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler +401 East Las Olas Boulevard +Suite 1650 +Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 +Phone: 954-522-3456 +Fax: 954-527-8663 +bedwards@rra-law.com +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. +08-80893 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 316 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/18/2009 Page 5 of 5 +Counsel for Plaintiffs +In related Cases Nos. 08-80069, 08-80119, +08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80993, +08-80994 +Richard Horace Willits, Esq. +Richard H. Willits, P.A. +2290 10" Avenue North +Suite 404 +Lake Worth, FL 33461 +561-582-7600 +Fax: 561-588-8819 +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. +08-80811 +reelrhw@hotmail.com +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 +cassellp@law.utah.edu +Co-counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe +Isidro M. ' +Esq. +| Law Firm, P.A. +224 Datura Street, Suite 900 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561-832-7732 +561-832-7137 F +Jack Scarola, Esq. +isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net +Jack P. +| Esq. +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. +Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, +08-80469 +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 Flagler Street, Suite 800 +jsx@searcylaw.com +Miami, FL 33130 +iph@searcylaw.com +305 358-2800 +Counsel for Plaintiff. C.M.A. +Fax: 305 358-2382 +rjosefsberg@podhurst.com +kezell@podhurst.com +Bruce Reinhart, Esq. +Counsel for Plaintiffs in Related Cases +Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A. +Nos. 09-80591 and 09-80656 +250 S. Australian Avenue +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561-202-6360 +Fax: 561-828-0983 +ecf@brucereinhartlaw.com +Counsel for Defendant TI +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 +jagesq@bellsouth.net +Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9030846c63e90e50b232ebc52221d146857d76b5203a48cb4129521b7730bb23.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9030846c63e90e50b232ebc52221d146857d76b5203a48cb4129521b7730bb23.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6cb585f2a42165ab348138c255301bcd3c619f91 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9030846c63e90e50b232ebc52221d146857d76b5203a48cb4129521b7730bb23.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -60, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "9030846c63e90e50b232ebc52221d146857d76b5203a48cb4129521b7730bb23", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 5, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "b464e965f567f737187b588e6cb41ce8431d08edcc2736a760cf01136035edfc", + "output_sha256": "4e948e5f0a1190fbb973595281aa26c82142fa16ed59f492b9d4351332045592", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/90488be35ca5be3c81e2bdc2818a40120f666170e26674ebab85648bd16493bc.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/90488be35ca5be3c81e2bdc2818a40120f666170e26674ebab85648bd16493bc.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8286230a5ee560a8c3129445b6820fc046625d75 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/90488be35ca5be3c81e2bdc2818a40120f666170e26674ebab85648bd16493bc.md @@ -0,0 +1,109 @@ +Casase 1918Y-0-08675KFP-6EF Bocument 38 Filed 12123189 Page or 2 + +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK +JANE DOE, +USDC SNY +DOCUMENT +ELECTRONICALLY FILED +DOC#:. +DATE FILED: +12/18/19. +Case No. 19 Civ. 8673 +Plaintiff, +V. +DARREN K. INDYKE and RICHARD D. KAHN, in +their capacities as executors of the ESTATE OF +JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, +Defendants. +JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S ANONYMITY +This stipulation is entered into by plaintiff Jane Doe ("Plaintiff") and defendants Darren +K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, in their capacities as executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein +("Defendants"). +WHEREAS, Plaintiff has moved this Court for an Order permitting Plaintiff to proceed +under a pseudonym in this action; +IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between Plaintiffs and +Defendants, through their undersigned counsel, subject to the approval of the Court, that: +1. Within three (3) days of entry of this Order, Counsel of Record for Plaintiff shall disclose +Plaintiff's identity to Counsel of Record for Defendants, in writing. +2. Counsel of Record for Defendants may disclose Plaintiff's identity only to Defendants and +any attorneys, paralegals, and clerical or other assistants working with or for Counsel of +Record for Defendants on this action; and the recipients of such information shall not +disclose it to any other persons. +3. If Defendants wish to disclose Plaintiff's identity to any person not otherwise permitted to +receive such information under this Order, Defendants are limited to doing so in connection +with defending this action, and must require such person to first execute a non-disclosure +agreement, in a form agreed to by the parties and attached to this Order as Exhibit A, that +prevents such person from disclosing Plaintiff's identity to any other persons. Defendants +must maintain a list of all such persons to whom Plaintiff's identity is disclosed and copies +of the executed non-disclosure agreements, all of which are subject to in camera inspection. + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF +Document 41 +Filed 12/18/19 + +ase 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 38 Filed 12/13/19 Page 2 of +4. All portions of pleadings, motions or other papers filed with the Court that disclose +Plaintiff's identity shall be filed under seal with the Clerk of the Court and kept under seal +until further order of the Court. The parties shall use their best efforts to minimize such +sealing. Any party filing a motion or any other papers with the Court under seal shall also +publicly file a redacted copy of the same, via the Court's Electronic Case Filing system, +that redacts the Plaintiff's identity and text that would reveal Plaintiff's identity. +5. The parties may seck to modify or amend this Order at any time upon motion to the Court +or by stipulation. +Dated: December 13, 2019 +Respectfully submitted, +Roll +Roberta A. Kaplan +Kate L. Doniger +Alexandra K. Conlon +KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP +350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7110 +New York, New York 10118 +Telephone: (212) 763-0883 +Facsimile: (212) 564-0883 +rkaplan@kaplanhecker.com +kdoniger@kaplanhecker.com +kmagun@kaplanhecket.com +aconlon@kaplanhecker.com +BIM 1к0 +Bennet J. Moskowitz +TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP +875 Third Avenue +New York, New York 10022 +Telephone: (212) 704-6000 +Bennet.Moskowitz@trouthman.com +Altorneys for Defendants Darren K. +Escars heard Die olege E. +Epstein. +Attorneys for Plaintiff Jane Doe +SO ORDERED. +Date: +12/18/12 +New York, New York +HON. DEBRA FREEMAN +United States Magistrate Judge +2 + + +Casse 11100088673KF:BEF Document 8.1 Fild 22/37/9° Page 103 of 3 +EX.A +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff, +V. +Case No. 19 Civ. 8673 +DARREN K. INDYKE and RICHARD D. KAHN, in their +capacities as executors of the ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. +EPSTEIN, +Defendants. +NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT +_ acknowledge that I understand that the name of the Plaintift +in this action is confidential. I agree that: (1) I will hold in confidence Plaintiff's identity; (2) 1 +vill use Plaintiff's identity only for purposes of this litigation and for no other purpos +vhatsoever; and (3) I will take all due precautions to prevent the unauthorized or inadverten +disclosure of Plaintiff's identity. +By acknowledging these obligations under this Non-Disclosure Agreement, I understand +contempt of court. +Dated: +[Signature] diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/90488be35ca5be3c81e2bdc2818a40120f666170e26674ebab85648bd16493bc.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/90488be35ca5be3c81e2bdc2818a40120f666170e26674ebab85648bd16493bc.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..20fbd08216ad684bc0515bf1791521be099afdc7 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/90488be35ca5be3c81e2bdc2818a40120f666170e26674ebab85648bd16493bc.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -58, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "90488be35ca5be3c81e2bdc2818a40120f666170e26674ebab85648bd16493bc", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 5, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "0511d2a4efa1d12b95c07dc48ba51a8795cd8e055a7728c4f17fdd6161764017", + "output_sha256": "3fd5ad02d2066d3ce27177a134a0d3df6b4744e1744b5ff8dab5892b76e972db", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/905b1e00543106863912a36e74a4fd7e14d3eb97d9e165e5fc0e8010b2d0559b.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/905b1e00543106863912a36e74a4fd7e14d3eb97d9e165e5fc0e8010b2d0559b.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d8a63dfb959a298f456c26633140d4a546b859ed --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/905b1e00543106863912a36e74a4fd7e14d3eb97d9e165e5fc0e8010b2d0559b.md @@ -0,0 +1,161 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 86 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2009 Page 1 of 5 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA- +JANE DOE NO. 3, +V. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Plaintiff, +Defendant. +Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through his undersigned counsel, moves +this Court for the entry of an order requiring that the Plaintiff in the above-styled action +use the proper case-style in all filings in this action, as opposed to improperly including +all other Jane Does, (Jane Doe No. 2, Jane Doe No. 3, Jane Doe No. 4, Jane Doe No. +5, Jane Doe No. 6, and Jane Doe No. 7), who are represented by the same counsel. +Rule 10(a), Fed.R.Civ.P. (2009), Loc. Gen. Rule 7.1 (S.D. Fla. 2009). In support of his +motion, Defendant states: +1. Rule 10(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, pertaining to "Caption; Names +of Parties," provides that - +Every pleading must have a caption with the court's name, a title, a file +number, and a Rule 7(a) designation. The title of the complaint must name +all the parties; the title of other pleadings, after naming the first party on +each side, may refer generally to other parties. +2. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is the case style which Plaintiff recently used in +filing papers with this Court. This action has not been consolidated with any of the other + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 86 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2009 Page 2 of 5 +Jane Doe No. 3 v. Epstein +Page 2 +Jane Doe actions filed by Plaintiff's counsel. Rule 10(a) makes clear that only the +parties to this action are to be included in the caption. +3. By including case styles from five additional cases makes it appear as though the +cases have been consolidated. Further, the case style used by Plaintiff is not only +misleading, but confusing in that there is no clear delineation as to in which action the +matter is properly filed. Each case has different facts and should proceed on those +facts. Each Plaintiff is claiming personal injury type damages which must be decided +separately. +4. Accordingly, Defendant is entitled to an order requiring that Plaintiff uses the +proper caption and case style in this action and not list every case in which her counsel +represents other Jane Does. +WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that this Court grant Defendant's +motion, and enter the requested order. +Rule 7.1 Certification +Pursuant to letter communication, Plaintiff's counsel did not agree with the relief +request in Defendant's motion. +Attorney for Epstein +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 1 day of May, 2009: + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM +Document 86 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2009 Page 3 of 5 +Jane Doe No. 3 v. Epstein +Page 3 +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@sexabuseattorney.com +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +Counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe #3 +Jack Alan Goldberger +Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 +561-659-8300 +Fax: 561-835-8691 +jagesq@bellsouth.net +Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein +Respectfully submitte +By: _ +ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. +Florida Bar No. 224162 +rcrit@bclclaw.com +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. +Florida Bar #617296 +mpike@bclclaw.com +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN +515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561/842-2820 Phone +561/515-3148 Fax +(Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 86 +Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2009 Page 4 of 5 +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM +Document 82 +Entered on FLSD Doonet 04/23/2009 + +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRAL +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 4, +VS. +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/JOHNSON +/ +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/JOHNSON +JANE DOE NO. 5, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRALIL +-1- + + + +Case 9:08-cV-80232-KAM Document 86 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2009 Page 5 of 5 +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 82 +Entered on FLSD Docket 04/23/2009 + +JANE DOE NO. 6, +VS. +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80994-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 7, +CASE NO.: 08-80993-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION +TO MOTION TO STAY AND OR CONTINUE ACTION +Plaintiffs, JANE DOES 2-7, by and through undersigned counsel, file this Memorandum in +Opposition to Stay and or Continue Action, as follows: +I. +Introduction +In moving for stay, Defendant has the burden of demonstrating that, due to a parallel criminal +proceeding, if he exercises his right against self incrimination he will certainly lose on summary +judgment unless a stay is granted. Defendant has failed to satisfy this burden. There is no pending +motion for summary judgment. +• There is also no criminal proceeding at this time arising from +Epstein's acts against the Plaintiffs or other victims. Indeed, whether such a criminal proceeding is +ever commenced is entirely within the Defendant's control, by complying with the terms of his +Non-Prosecution Agreement with the U.S. Attorney's Office. Defendant relies upon an amorphous +- 2- diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/905b1e00543106863912a36e74a4fd7e14d3eb97d9e165e5fc0e8010b2d0559b.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/905b1e00543106863912a36e74a4fd7e14d3eb97d9e165e5fc0e8010b2d0559b.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..92efa879b8188fd7c008f2ff726878e83a1f9900 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/905b1e00543106863912a36e74a4fd7e14d3eb97d9e165e5fc0e8010b2d0559b.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -91, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "905b1e00543106863912a36e74a4fd7e14d3eb97d9e165e5fc0e8010b2d0559b", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 8, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "51585407f77ddb667c0830b591737337d9e3cb7801c225c49dd47deea0fb80e1", + "output_sha256": "418913d7594a8facaf1f02f9e7cef46f732dcf82a129b92035d25bd3331913cd", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/908d534f49c4098d3d7e4f1a5ec21faf3889d3a6fd993a4f3dc6c5d650edb8d2.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/908d534f49c4098d3d7e4f1a5ec21faf3889d3a6fd993a4f3dc6c5d650edb8d2.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3b8437b02dd720bb854abe7280a2936cf2841968 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/908d534f49c4098d3d7e4f1a5ec21faf3889d3a6fd993a4f3dc6c5d650edb8d2.md @@ -0,0 +1,102 @@ +Filing # 146708085 E-Filed 03/30/2022 12:23:05 PM +IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT +IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC, +Publisher of THE PALM BEACH POST, +Plaintiff, +Case No.: 50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB +Division: AG +v. +DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of +Palm Beach County, Florida; SHARON R. +BOCK, as Clerk and Comptroller of Palm +Beach County. Florida, +Defendants. +COPY +/ +MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL +Pursuant to Rule 2.505(f)(1), Florida Rules of Judicial Administration, the law firm of +Turkel Cuva Barrios, P.A., Kenneth G. Turkel, Esq., Shane B. Vogt, Esq., and James C. Mooney, +Esq., counsel for Defendant, +Abruzzo, as Clerk and Comptroller of Palm Beach County, +Florida (the "Clerk"), through undersigned counsel, request leave of Court to withdraw as counsel +and state as follows: +The Clerk hired the law firm of Bajo Cuva +Turkel, P.A., Kenneth G. Turkel, +Esq., Shane B. Vogt, Esq., and James C. Mooney, Esq. to represent him in the above matter. +2. +On January 1, 2022, Kenneth G. Turkel, Esq., Shane B. Vogt, Esq., and James C. +Mooney, Esq. left the law firm of Bajo Cuva +Turkel, P.A. and formed the law firm of Turkel +Cuva Barrios, P.A., and continued representing the Clerk. +On January 3, 2022, Collin D. +, Esq., appeared in this action on behalf of +the Clerk, and therefore outside counsel's assistance is no longer needed. +4. +The Clerk consents to the relief requested herein. See Exhibit A. +FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, +ABRUZZO, CLERK, 03/30/2022 12:23:05 PM + + +WHEREFORE, the law firm of Turkel Cuva Barrios, P.A., Kenneth G. Turkel, Esq., Shane +B. Vogt, Esq., and James C. Mooney, Esq. respectfully request the Court grant their motion to +withdraw as counsel for Defendant, +Abruzzo, as Clerk and Comptroller of Palm Beach +County, Florida, in the above-captioned matter, to relieve them of any further responsibility of +representation in this cause, and for such other and further relief as may be just and necessary +under the circumstances. +/s/ Kenneth G. Turkel +Kenneth G. Turkel - FBN 867233 +E-mail: kturkel@tcb-law.com +Shane B. Vogt - FBN 257620 +TURKEL CUVA BARRIOS, P.A. +100 North Tampa Street, Suite 190( +Tampa, Florida 33602 +Telephone: (813) 834-9191 +NOT A CER +Facsimile: (813) 443-2193 +Attorneys for Defendant, +Abruzzo, as Clerk +and Comptroller of Palm Beach County, Florida +2 +4879-2778- +4457, v. 1 + + +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I HEREBY CERTIFY that on March 30, 2022, I caused a true and correct copy of the +foregoing to be served via the Florida Court's E-Filing Portal upon the following counsel of record: +Stephen A. Mendelsohn +Collin D. L +Esq. +Clerk of the Circuit Court & Comptroller, +Palm Beach County +P.O. Box 229 +West Palm Beach, FL +Tel.: (561) 355-2983 +E-mail: eservice@mypalmbeachclerk.com +smithl@gtlaw.com +FLService@gtlaw.com +Michael J. Grygiel +Greenberg Traurig, P.A. +54 State St., 6th Floor +Albany, NY 12207 +E-mail: +grygielm@gtlaw.com +Nina D. Boyajian +Greenberg Traurig, P.A. +1840 Century Park East, Ste. 1900 +Los Angeles, CA 90067 +E-mails: +boyajiann@gtlaw.com +riveraal@gtlaw.com +Attorneys for Plaintiff +CERTIFIED CO +/sl +'Kenneth +G. Turkel +Attorney +NOT A +3 +4879-2778- +4457, v. 1 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/908d534f49c4098d3d7e4f1a5ec21faf3889d3a6fd993a4f3dc6c5d650edb8d2.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/908d534f49c4098d3d7e4f1a5ec21faf3889d3a6fd993a4f3dc6c5d650edb8d2.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1fe036b587c8cc02c5c08851a4bd3b46826ab98e --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/908d534f49c4098d3d7e4f1a5ec21faf3889d3a6fd993a4f3dc6c5d650edb8d2.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -36, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "908d534f49c4098d3d7e4f1a5ec21faf3889d3a6fd993a4f3dc6c5d650edb8d2", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 3, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "0563821294d93489a65c1da7866b231b758bd28978ce940df3f276701a289785", + "output_sha256": "cd698fd5cef993dc33d95c0ad87ae5ba668542ac7e59e499a0751273bffdb5da", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/90b02cd96cd74e96de1124a0e316c49a1f4de0e183f83427f93eb1bda2900a55.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/90b02cd96cd74e96de1124a0e316c49a1f4de0e183f83427f93eb1bda2900a55.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..27091c6487c7b10d8d26e748a147f64d438f2b70 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/90b02cd96cd74e96de1124a0e316c49a1f4de0e183f83427f93eb1bda2900a55.md @@ -0,0 +1,434 @@ +Case 9:09-cv-80802-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2009 Page 1 of 7 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 09-CV-80802-Marra- +JANE DOE NO. 8, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +FILED D +ELECTRONIO +VT +May 28, 2009 +TEVEN M. LARIMOR +LERK U.S. DIST. C +S.D. OF FLA, - MIAMI +D.C. +Defendant. +/ +COMPLAINT +Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 8 ("Jane" or "Jane Doe"), brings this Complaint against Jeffrey +Epstein, as follows: +Parties, Jurisdiction and Venue +Jane Doe No. 8 ("Jane Doe") is a citizen and resident of the State of Florida, and is +sui juris. +2. +This Complaint is brought under a fictitious name to protect the identity of the +Plaintiff because this Complaint makes sensitive allegations of sexual assault and abuse upon a +minor. +Defendant Jeffrey Epstein is a citizen and resident of the State of New York, and +presently serving a prison sentence in Palm Beach County, Florida for, inter alia, solicitation of +prostitution and solicitation of minors to engage in prostitution.. +4. +This is an action for damages in excess of $50 million. +5. +This Court has jurisdiction of this action and the claims set forth herein pursuant to 28 +U.S.C. §1332(a), as the matter in controversy (i) exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs; +MERMELSTEIN & HOrOWITZ, P. A. +- 1- +1 of7 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80802-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2009 Page 2 of 7 +and (ii) is between citizens of different states. +6. +Additionally, this Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331 because +Plaintiff alleges a claim under the laws of the United States. This Court has supplemental +jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367(a) over all other claims set forth herein which form part of +the same case or controversy. +This Court has venue of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1391(a) and 1391(b) as a +substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in this District. +Factual Allegations +8. +At all relevant times, Defendant Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") was an adult male in his +early 50's. Epstein is a financier and money manager with a secret clientele limited exclusively to +billionaires. He is himself a man of tremendous wealth, power and influence. He maintains his +principal home in New York and also owns residences in New Mexico, St. +and Palm Beach, +FL. The allegations herein concern Epstein's conduct while at his lavish estate in Palm Beach. +9. +Upon information and belief, Epstein has a sexual preference and obsession for +underage minor girls. He engaged in a plan and scheme in which he gained access to primarily +economically disadvantaged minor girls in his home, sexually assaulted these girls, and then gave +them money. In or about 2001, Jane Doe, then approximately 16 years old, fell into Epstein's trap +and became one of his victims. +10. +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. +11. Epstein's scheme involved the use of young girls to recruit underage girls. These +underage girls were recruited ostensibly to give a wealthy man a massage for monetary compensation +MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P. A. +- 2- +2o17 + + +• +Case 9:09-cv-80802-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2009 Page 3 of 7 +in his Palm Beach mansion. Epstein, upon information and belief, generally sought out economically +disadvantaged underage girls from Palm Beach County who would be enticed by the money being +offered - generally $200 to $300 per "massage" session - and who were perceived as less likely to +complain to authorities or have credibility if allegations of improper conduct were made. +12. +Epstein's plan and scheme reflected a particular pattern and method. The underage +victim would be brought or directed to Epstein's mansion, where she would be led up a flight of +stairs to a room that contained a massage table in addition to other furnishings. The girl would then +find herself alone in the room with Epstein, who would be wearing only a towel. He would then +remove his towel and lie naked on the massage table, and direct the girl to remove her clothes. +Epstein would then perform one or more lewd, lascivious and sexual acts. +13. Consistent with the foregoing plan and scheme, Jane Doe was recruited by another +girl, who told her that she could make some money, but did not tell her what was involved. At all +relevant times, the girl who recruited Jane Doe was acting on behalf of and as agent for Epstein. +Jane was contacted by this girl by telephone. Jane was then picked up and brought to Epstein's +mansion in Palm Beach. Once there, she was led up the flight of stairs to the room with the massage +table. Epstein came into the room and directed Jane to remove her clothes and give him a massage. +Jane was frightened and felt trapped. As directed by Epstein, Jane removed her clothes. Epstein +then during the massage touched Jane on her breasts and vagina, and he grabbed her hand and placed +it on his penis. Epstein masturbated himself during the massage. Epstein then left money for Jane. +14. +As a result of this encounter with Epstein, Jane experienced confusion, shame, +humiliation and embarrassment, and has suffered severe psychological and emotional injuries. +Mermelstein & Horowitz, P. A. +- 3 - +3 of 7 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80802-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2009 Page 4 of 7 +COUNT I +Sexual Assault and Battery +15. +Plaintiff Jane Doe repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 14 above. +16. +Epstein made an intentional, unlawful offer of offensive sexual contact toward Jane +Doe, creating a reasonable fear of imminent peril and sexual assault. +17. +Epstein intentionally inflicted harmful or offensive sexual contact on the person of +Jane Doe. +18. +Epstein tortiously committed a sexual assault and battery on Jane Doe. Epstein's acts +were intentional, unlawful, offensive and harmful. +19. +Epstein's plan and scheme in which he committed such acts upon Jane Doe were done +willfully and maliciously. +20. +As a direct and proximate result of Epstein's assault on Jane, she has suffered and will +continue to suffer severe and permanent traumatic injuries, including mental, psychological and +emotional damages and loss of enjoyment of life. +WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 6 demands judgment against Defendant Jeffrey +Epstein for compensatory damages, punitive damages, costs, and such other and further relief as this +Court deems just and proper. +21. +22. +23. +of decency. +COUNT II +Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress +Plaintiff Jane Doe repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 14 above. +Epstein's conduct was intentional or reckless. +Epstein's conduct with a minor was extreme and outrageous, going beyond all bounds +MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P. A. +- 4- +4017 + + +• +Case 9:09-cv-80802-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2009 Page 5 of 7 +24. +Epstein committed willful acts of child sexual abuse on Jane Doe. These acts resulted +in mental or sexual injury that caused or were likely to cause Jane Doe's mental or emotional health +to be significantly impaired. +25. +Epstein's conduct caused severe emotional distress to Jane Doe. Epstein knew or had +reason to know that his intentional and outrageous conduct would cause emotional distress and +damage to Jane Doe, or Epstein acted with reckless disregard of the high probability of causing +severe emotional distress to Jane Doe. +26. +As a direct and proximate result of Epstein's intentional or reckless conduct, Jane Doe +has suffered and will continue to suffer severe mental anguish and pain, psychological and emotional +injuries and los of enjoyment of life.. +WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 6 demands judgment against Defendant Jeffrey +Epstein for compensatory damages, costs, punitive damages, and such other and further relief as this +Court deems just and proper. +COUNT III +Coercion and Enticement to Sexual Activity in Violation of 18 U.S.C. §2422 +27. Plaintiff Jane Doe repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 14 above. +28. +Epstein used a facility or means of interstate commerce to knowingly persuade, +induce or entice Jane Doe, when she was under the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution or +sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense. +29. On June 30, 2008, Epstein entered a plea of guilty to violations of Florida §§ 796.07 +and 796.03, in the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County (Case nos. 2008-cf- +009381AXXXMB and 2006-cf-009454AXXXMB), for conduct involving the same plan and +scheme as alleged herein. +MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P. A. +- 5- +5 of 7 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80802-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2009 Page 6 of 7 +30. +As to Plaintiff Jane Doe, Epstein could have been charged with criminal violations of +Florida Statute §796.07(2) (including subsections (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), and (h) thereof), and other +criminal offenses including violations of Florida Statutes §§798.02 and 800.04 (including +subsections (5), (6) and (7) thereof). +31. +Epstein's acts and conduct are in violation of 18 U.S.C. §2422. +32. +As a result of Epstein's violation of 18 U.S.C. §2422, Plaintiff has suffered personal +injury, including mental, psychological and emotional damages. +33. +Plaintiff hired Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. (f/k/a Herman & Mermelstein, P.A.), in +this matter and agreed to pay them a reasonable attorneys' fee. +WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 6 demands judgment against Defendant Jeffrey +Epstein for all damages available under 18 U.S.C. §2255(a), including without limitation, actual and +compensatory damages, costs of suit, and attorneys' fees, and such other and further relief as this +Court deems just and proper. +JURY TRIAL DEMAND +Plaintiff demands a jury trial in this action on all claims so triable. +Dated: May 27, 2009 +Respectfully submitted, +By: +i that +Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245) +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980) +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P.A. +Attorneys for Plaintiff +18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 +Miami, Florida 33160 +Tel: 305-931-2200 +Fax: 305-931-0877 +MERMELSTEIN & HOrOWITZ, P. A. +- 6- +6 of 7 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80802-KAM Docu@IVILICOVER SHEESD Docket 05/28/2009 Page 7 of 7 +The JS-44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing, and service of pleading or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local +rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of the Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket +sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON THE REVERSE OF THE FORM.) +|(a) PLAINTIFFS +JANE DOE NO. 8, +(b) COUNTY OF RESIDENCE OF FIRST LISTED PLAINTIFF +DEFENDANTS +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +COUNTY OF RESIDENCE OF FIRST LISTED DEFENDANTNEW YORK +(IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY) +PALM BEACH COUNTY +(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) +(c) ATTORNEYS (FIRM NAME, ADDRESS, ANDTELEPHONE NUMBER) +ATTORNEYS (IF KNOWN) +Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A., 18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218, +Miami, FL 33160, (305) 931-2200 +(d) CIRCLE COUNTY WHERE ACTION AROSE: PALM BEACH +9:09Cv 80802- KAm -LRJ +II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION +(PLACE AN X ONE BOX ONLY) +• 1. U.S. Government +X 3. Federal Question +Plaintiff +(U.S. Government Not a Party) +• 2. U.S Government +• 4. Diversity +Defendant +(Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item +III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES +(For Diversity Case Only) +AND ONE FOR DEFENDANT +DEF Incorporated of Principal Place of +04 04 +Citizen of This State +Business in This State +Citizen of Another State +02 x 2 +Incorporated and Principal Placeof 05 +Citizen or Subject of a Foreign Country • 3 • 3 +Business in Another State +Foreign Nation +06 06 +IV. CAUSE OF ACTION +(CITE THE U.S. CIVIL STATUTE UNDER WHICH YQJ ARE FILING AND WRITE A BRIEF STATEMENT OF CAUSE +DO NOT CITE JURISDICTIONAL STATUTES UNLESS DIVERSITY.) +ACTION FOR COERCION AND ENTICEMENT TO SEXUAL ACTIVITY OF MINOR UNDER 18 U.S.C. §52422 AND 2255(a) AND SUPPLEMENTAL STATE +LAW CLAIMS +IVa. 5 days estimated (for both sides) to try entire case +V. NATURE OF SUIT +(PLACE AN X IN ONE BOX ONLY) +A CONTRACT +A TORTS +110 insurance +0000 +120M. +Acl +140 Negoliable Instrument +150 Recovery of Overpayment +Judgment +• 151 Medicare Act +D 152 Recovery of Deluted +Student Loans (Excl +Velerans) B +• 153 Recovery of Overpayment +of Veteran's Benefts B +• 160 Sackholder's Suits +• To Diner Gorad +• 185 Contract Product Liability +PERSONAL INJURY +CI 310 Airplane +• 362 Personal injury Med Maipractice +C 315 Airplane Product Liability +0365 Personal Injury-Product Liabilly +© 320 Assaut, Libel & Slander +C 330 Federal Employers' Liabilly +injury Product Lintity +© 340 Marine +D 345 Marine Product Liabilty +PERSONAL PROPERTY +• 350 Motor Vehicie +© 355 Motor Vehicle Product Labity C 370 Oihar Fraud +X 360 Other Personal Injury +© 371 Truth in Lending B +© 360 Other Personnel +Property Damage +O 385 Property Damage +Product Liabilly +B FORFEITURE +PENALTY +• 610 Agricuffure +© 625 Drug Related Seizure +of Property 21 USC 801 +© 630 Liquor Laws +• 840 R.R. & Truck +© 050 Airline Rega +• 060 Occupational +Safety/Heath +• 690 Other +A BANKRUPTCY +A OTHER STATUS +• 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 +• 423 Windrawal 28 USC 157 +• 400 +Status Reappointment +• 410 Antitrust +• 430 +Banks and Banking +• 450 +Commerca/iC Rates/eic. B +400 +Deportation +© 470 Rackeleer Influenced and +A REAL PROPERTY +A CIVIL RIGHTS +B PRISONER PETITIONS +A PROPERTY RIGHTS +• 820 Copyrights +• 840 Trademark +B SOCIAL SECURITY +O 351 HIA (1395M) +8B2 Black Lung (R23) +D863 DIWC/DIWW(405(gi) +© 804 SSIO Tale XVI +D 865 RSI (405(g0) +• 210 Land Condemnalien +220 Forecisure B +00 +230 Rent Lease & Ejectment +240 Torts to Land +245 Tert Product Liabilty +• 290 Al Other Reai Property +• 442 Employment +• 443 Housing/Accommodations +• 444 Welfare +• 440 Other Chi Rights +• 510 Motions to Vacate Santence +• 530 General* +Seas Parats +540 Mandamus & Other* +*A or B +A LABOR +X 710 Fair Labor Standards +• 720 Labor Managemest +Relationa B +• 730 Labor Management +Reporting & Disciosure +Act +1740 Raiway Labor A +i 780 Other Labor Litigati +• 791 Employee Ret. Inc +Securly Act B +A FEDERAL TAX SUITS +Securlies/ Commodies/ +Exchange +O 875 Customer Chalenge +12USC3410 +0 891 +Agnicultural Act +D 892 +Economic Stabilization Al +8800 +Environmental Matters +Energy Alocation Act +0 685 +Freedom af Information Act +• 900 +Appeai of Fee Determinalion +Under Equal Access to +Justice +• 950 Constlutionality of State +Statutes +• 880 Other Statutory Actions* +* A or B +Declaralory relef and state law claims +for defamation +VI. ORIGIN +* 1. Original +Proceeding +VII. REQUESTED +IN COMPLAINT +• 2. Removed from • 3. Remanded from • 4. Refilled +• 6. Multidistrict Litigation +Appeal to District Judge from +State Court +Appellate Court +• 5. Transferred from another district +(Specify) +Magistrate Judgment +CHECK IF THIS IS A +• CLASS ACTION DEMANDS +• UNDER F.R.C.P. 23 +Check YES only if demanded in X YES +complaint +JURY DEMAND: +• NO +/Ill. RELATEL +CASE(S) IF AN' +(See Instructions): +(SEE ATTACHED) +JANE DOE NO 2M JEFFREY EPSTEIN, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232 +• JANE DOE NO EM JEFFREY EPSTEIN +CASE NO: 08-CV-80381-MARRA +JANE DOENIO EM JEFFREYEPSTEIN, CASE NO.:08-CV-80994-MARRA +: JANE DOE NO. 7V. +RETEN EAT, EASTEN CASE NO E COSET ANARA +; C.M.A. v. CASE NO.: 08- CV-80811 -MARRA +JANE DOE V. JEFFRE +IFFEREYEPSTEIN, CASE NO.: 08-CV- 80469-MARRA/JOHNSON, JANE DO +_; JANE DOE NO. 102 v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, CASE NO.: 08- CV-80656- +DATE +5/27/09 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +> REV:3194 +SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD +FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: Receipt No. 54h 345 Amou +Mm/350K +Date Paid: +M/ifp \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/90b02cd96cd74e96de1124a0e316c49a1f4de0e183f83427f93eb1bda2900a55.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/90b02cd96cd74e96de1124a0e316c49a1f4de0e183f83427f93eb1bda2900a55.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a4fc1a3e8751f007fbb7c2004f69aba0d6f89d7f --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/90b02cd96cd74e96de1124a0e316c49a1f4de0e183f83427f93eb1bda2900a55.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -235, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "90b02cd96cd74e96de1124a0e316c49a1f4de0e183f83427f93eb1bda2900a55", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 8, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": false, + "input_sha256": "b6fed9b1b03282ba3535fce06b99eeeb03d9bac8b2bce549c7cc268be980a19e", + "output_sha256": "cb164b8375dbcbf108e46e2de7967ccf396a9c34b73687f680786f4583f32d1b", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/90c790cb0ef7031a3b756f71cd3168795d12de85a7d19708591e3f5c463a245c.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/90c790cb0ef7031a3b756f71cd3168795d12de85a7d19708591e3f5c463a245c.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9a3dc12b2cddcc9d1a936a76b50bba6584905633 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/90c790cb0ef7031a3b756f71cd3168795d12de85a7d19708591e3f5c463a245c.md @@ -0,0 +1,38 @@ +ca389.239V682484 2RKD8FF B8EUmERt 128 +Fined 34933121 Papage 91 dr 1 +HADDON +MORGAN +FOREMAN +Haddon, +and +L, P.C +Laura A. Menninger +150 East 10th Avenue +Denver, Colorado 8020: +PH 303.831.7364 X 303.832.2628 +www.hmflaw.com +Imenninger@hmflaw.com +December 2, 2021 +VIA ECF +The Honorable John G. Koeltl +United States District Court +Daniel +Moynihan +United States Courthouse +500 Pearl Street +New York, NY 10007-1312 +Re: +Doe v. Indyke, et al., 1:20-cv-000484-JGK-DCF +Dear Judge Koeltl: +I write to withdraw Ms. Maxwell's November 22, 2021 letter request for permission +to use the unredacted release in her defense in Case No. 20-cr-330-AJN. Due to +regulep that this Court vacate procedis harence presenty so for 23 pare also +December 6, 2021. +Respectfully Submitted, +Laura A. Menninger +CC: Counsel of Record via ECF +The couserence schooled +der 12/6/211 +" Canceled. +so ordeed. +19/3/21 u.S.D.5. diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/90c790cb0ef7031a3b756f71cd3168795d12de85a7d19708591e3f5c463a245c.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/90c790cb0ef7031a3b756f71cd3168795d12de85a7d19708591e3f5c463a245c.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3e128cf242688d7c404ea76e618e9aaced568f74 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/90c790cb0ef7031a3b756f71cd3168795d12de85a7d19708591e3f5c463a245c.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "90c790cb0ef7031a3b756f71cd3168795d12de85a7d19708591e3f5c463a245c", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "37e0b4f5176cf4cdcfd766fdc9c9013600f2287aeb5a8b0d8c24025da4285fb5", + "output_sha256": "bfeaf0b9561210dba82ee469a28ee7d830125fbfc59916cd4cd69661d74a1c2c", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/90d96d1059399584427055001a2cbcb5977fc20fa207c566848456a33853f5e8.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/90d96d1059399584427055001a2cbcb5977fc20fa207c566848456a33853f5e8.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c87ee3bd778ca9c5d3d5443ef78c9d043661c1da --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/90d96d1059399584427055001a2cbcb5977fc20fa207c566848456a33853f5e8.md @@ -0,0 +1,26 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 337-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/05/2009 Page 1 of 1 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/ +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 +Upon Plaintiffs' Jane Doe Nos. 2-7' Unopposed Motion for Enlargement of Time to +Respond to Defendant's Motions to Compel Independent Medical Examination, and good cause +being shown, it is hereby +ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion is granted. Plaintiffs shall have an enlargement of +time until October 13, 2009, to respond to the Defendant's Motions to Compel Independent +Medical Examinations of Jane Does 2-7. +DONE AND ORDERED in +, in Ft. Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, this +day of +_ 2009. +DISTRICT COURT JUDGE +1 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/90d96d1059399584427055001a2cbcb5977fc20fa207c566848456a33853f5e8.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/90d96d1059399584427055001a2cbcb5977fc20fa207c566848456a33853f5e8.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c04d0c3e79c2a7af47fdbccff5ccedf500773a9d --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/90d96d1059399584427055001a2cbcb5977fc20fa207c566848456a33853f5e8.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "90d96d1059399584427055001a2cbcb5977fc20fa207c566848456a33853f5e8", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "37d93077199ba280307043ac65b2fc3ebd140df7a2a6afe7cb08394695b70760", + "output_sha256": "4ddb330e16927939fd61dee80c886ffaec0045158920a644f6ab99c3492a53fc", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/90fd7ad02a127cd440c8f93b0bfb0df1ca201a186f70feb2f949425d1d961000.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/90fd7ad02a127cd440c8f93b0bfb0df1ca201a186f70feb2f949425d1d961000.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..093ef93272ce7b57ebc333e17a448566e828e748 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/90fd7ad02a127cd440c8f93b0bfb0df1ca201a186f70feb2f949425d1d961000.md @@ -0,0 +1,37 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 32 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 1 of 2 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +DECLARATION OF JEFFREY M. HERMAN REGARDING SERVICE +OF PROCESS AND THIS COURT'S ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE +Jeffrey M. Herman, deposes and states as follows: +I am counsel for Plaintiff in this action. After the parties' briefed the issue of service +of process on Defendant Jeffrey Epstein, this Court found valid service under New York law and +entered an Order to Show Cause Why Default Should Not be Entered Against Defendant Jeffrey +Epstein, dated July 16, 2008. +I submit this Declaration to correct what appears to be a factual error in the Court's +Order to Show Cause. I do so even though this error is in Plaintiff's favor. +3. +In the Order to Show Cause, this Court finds that "It]he process server also mailed a +copy of the summons and complaint to Defendant on May 5, 2008, via first class mail. (DE 6)." It is +my understanding that the Affidavit of Service (DE 6) crosses out language regarding mail to the +Defendant, and that the process server in this case did not mail a copy of the Summons and +Complaint to the Defendant's New York address. In none of the papers Plaintiff filed in this matter +is it asserted that the Summons and Complaint was mailed, nor did Plaintiff claim that service was +valid under New York law. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 32 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 2 of 2 +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/ +Under penalties of perjury, I declare the foregoing to be true and correct. +Dated: July 21, 2008. +s/ Jeffrey M. Herman +Jeffrey M. Herman +Herman & Mermelstein, P. A. +2 +www.hermanlaw.com diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/90fd7ad02a127cd440c8f93b0bfb0df1ca201a186f70feb2f949425d1d961000.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/90fd7ad02a127cd440c8f93b0bfb0df1ca201a186f70feb2f949425d1d961000.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..db63e5b1cb68fec80263f4338a0f22fa63111f0f --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/90fd7ad02a127cd440c8f93b0bfb0df1ca201a186f70feb2f949425d1d961000.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -24, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "90fd7ad02a127cd440c8f93b0bfb0df1ca201a186f70feb2f949425d1d961000", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "2b2d2e12766ee5214ac6fe46bad71f70968e29105276a3b9aca6fb7320c07b20", + "output_sha256": "5f41471dd5caf12911d05364305dd29d7dfe83fe959f5b038a6c07b6ae9d2050", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9101cd599019dafbe2fd5cd56b53660cf736865b0790aede5a6e29cd27596cf3.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9101cd599019dafbe2fd5cd56b53660cf736865b0790aede5a6e29cd27596cf3.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1ab5d43cb9d7e9c47c9c3d8e869b03be2df218bc --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9101cd599019dafbe2fd5cd56b53660cf736865b0790aede5a6e29cd27596cf3.md @@ -0,0 +1,98 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 487-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2010 Page 1 of 3 +Dep +IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15™H +JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM +BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +Case No: 502008CA37319XXXX MB AB +B.B., +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF TAKING VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION +PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT THE UNDERSIGNED ATTORNEY WILL TAKE THE DEPOSITION OF: +NAME: +DATE AND TIME: +LOCATION: +Jean Lue Bruhel +November 3, 2009 +Esquire Court Reporters +10:00 AM +515 N. Flagler Drive +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +upon an oral examination before a Notary Public or officer authorized by law to take depositions in +the State of New York, The oral examination will continue from day to day until completed. The +depositions are being taken for purposes of discovery, for use at trial or are being taken for such +other purposes as are permitted under the Rules of the Court +WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of this Notice was mailed this +day of October, 2009 to: Jack A. Goldberger, Esq., 250 Australian Avenue, Suite 1400, West Palm +Beach, FL 334101; Bruce E. Reinhart, Esq., 250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400, West Palm +Beach, FL. 33401; Robert D. Critton, Jr., Michael J. Pike, 515 North Flagler Drive, Suite 400, West +Palm Beach, FL 33401. +LEOPOLD-KUVIN, P.A. +2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200 +Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 +(561) 513-1404 +(561) 515-140 +By:_ +Spencér// +Kuvin, Esq. +Florida Bar No: 089737 +CO. JE, DI + + +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 487-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2010 Page 2 of 3 +Depo +IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT +IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +CIVIL DIVISION +L.M., +) +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 502008CA028051XXXXMB AD +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +) +NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION +PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the attorney for Defendant in the above-styled +cause will take the deposition of Jean Luc Bruhnel on November 3, 2009 at 10:00 +a.m. for the purposes of discovery at the following location: +Esquire Court Reporters +515 N Flagler Dr +West Palm Beach, FL 33401-4321 +Said deposition will be taken before Esquire Court Reporters, a Notary Public or +any officer authorized to administer oaths by the laws of the State of Florida, and a +person who is neither a relative, nor employee, nor attorney, nor counsel of any of the +parties and who is neither a relative nor employee of such attorney or counsel, and who +is not financially interested in the action. +Said deposition will be taken pursuant to Florida Rules of Civil Procedure in such +cases provided. Said oral examination will continue from hour to hour and from day to +day until completed. +D + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 487-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2010 Page 3 of 3 +Case No. 502008CA028051XXXXMB AD +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been served +via U.S. Mail and Facsimile this ZCk day of October, 2009 to: Michael Burman, Esq., & +Robert D. Critton, Jr., Esq., Burman, Critton, et al., 515 North Flagler Drive, Suite 400, +West Palm Beach, FL 33401; Jay Howell, Esq., Jay Howell & Assoc., 644 Cesery +Boulevard, Suite 250, Jacksonville, FL 32211; and Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq., Atterbury +Goldberger et al., 250 Australian Ave. South, Suite 1400, West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +and a courtesy copy to Tama Kudman, Esq., 444 PGA Boulevard, Suite 600, West Palm +Beach, Florida 33410. +ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER +Attorneys for Plaintiff +401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1650 +Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33394 +Telephone (954) 522-3456 +Telecopier (954) 527-8663 +By: +ERR +Florida Bar No. 542075 +bedwards@rra-law.com +William J. Berger +Florida Bar No. 197701 +wberger@rra-law.com diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9101cd599019dafbe2fd5cd56b53660cf736865b0790aede5a6e29cd27596cf3.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9101cd599019dafbe2fd5cd56b53660cf736865b0790aede5a6e29cd27596cf3.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..024c2cde99c0e0e65ecb46a28f93d92da24ae768 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9101cd599019dafbe2fd5cd56b53660cf736865b0790aede5a6e29cd27596cf3.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -36, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "9101cd599019dafbe2fd5cd56b53660cf736865b0790aede5a6e29cd27596cf3", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 3, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "2ec3eb5839fd6e1d1e39016b0387e61d7bbee059c6b43f749a819844099f0a4f", + "output_sha256": "38ad4aa3fa7efaaba1442e064f44d3eff67b8b95b7625df41bee41711ee1e8de", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/910e5de81f8c2abb82a37b26663635670e9aeb763c25e81b439e3a697e20009a.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/910e5de81f8c2abb82a37b26663635670e9aeb763c25e81b439e3a697e20009a.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2e7e1c632723438600e90329beed3a6fab225cc1 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/910e5de81f8c2abb82a37b26663635670e9aeb763c25e81b439e3a697e20009a.md @@ -0,0 +1,109 @@ +Filing # 110771414 E-Filed 07/24/2020 03:23:53 PM +CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC, +Publisher of THE PALM BEACH POST, +Plaintiff, +IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE +FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND +FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +DIVISION: AG +V. +DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of +Palm Beach County, Florida; SHARON R. +BOCK, as Clerk and Comptroller of Palm +Beach County, Florida, +Defendants. +COPY +AMENDED REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS +Plaintiff, CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC, Publisher of THE PALM BEACH POST, by +and through their undersigned counsel, hereby requests that Defendant, SHARON R. BOCK, as +Clerk and Comptroller of Palm Beach County, Florida, produce all materials requested herein at +the offices of the undersigned counsel within thirty (30) days from the date hereof, or such shorter +time as may be ordered by the Court, pursuant to Rule 1.350, Fla. R. Civ. P. +DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS +"Epstein Grand Jury Materials" shall refer to all evidence, testimony, documents, +transcripts, notes, bills and other items used in or presented to the grand jury in and for Palm Beach +County, Florida in the prosecution of Jeffrey E. Epstein, date of birth January 20, 1953, Palm +Beach Circuit Court Case No. 50-2006-CF-009454 AXX. +2. +"Clerk" shall refer to the Office of the Clerk and Comptroller of Palm Beach County, +Florida established by the Fla. Constitution, Article V, Section 16. +*** FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL SHARON R BOCK, CLERK. 07/24/2020 03:23:53 PM *** + + +3. +"State Attorney" shall refer to the Office of State Attorney for Palm Beach County, Florida +established by Fla. Constitution, Article V, Section 17. +DOCUMENTS REQUESTED +Copies of all logs, notations, registers, lists and entries that show the delivery of Epstein +Grand Jury Materials from the Clerk to the State Attorney. The specific materials delivered need +not be disclosed or produced. +Copies of all logs, notations, registers, lists and entries that show the return of Epstein +With reum of pacin +Grand Jury Materials by the State Attorney to the Clerk. The specific materials returned need not +be disclosed or produced. +3. +Copies of all communications between the Clerk and the State Attorney concerning the +storage, possession, delivery, receipt and control of Epstein Grand Jury Materials. The specific +materials referenced need not be disclosed or produced. +4. +Copies of all logs, notations, registers, lists and entries that show the general types of +Epstein Grand Jury Materials in the possession of the Clerk, without revealing their contents. +Copies of all logs, notations, registers, lists and entries that show the delivery of Epstein +Grand Jury Materials to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The specific materials referenced need +not be disclosed or produced. +6. +Copies of all logs, notations, registers, lists and entries that show the delivery of Epstein +Grand Jury Materials to the United States Department of Justice and/or any Office of the United +States Attorney. The specific materials referenced need not be disclosed or produced. +2 + + +Copies of all subpoenas and any judicial process served upon the Clerk for production of +Epstein Grand Jury Materials. +8. +Copies of all communications between the Clerk and the United States Department of +Justice, or the Federal Bureau of Investigation or any Offices of the United States Attorney +concerning Epstein Grand Jury Materials. The specific materials referenced need not be disclosed +or produced. +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 24th day of July 2020, a copy of the foregoing has been +electronically filed with the Florida E-File Portal for e-service on all parties of record herein. +Respectfully submitted, +NOT A +GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A. +Altorneys for CA Florida Holdings, LLC, +Publisher of The Palm Beach Post +Stephen A. Mendelsohn, Esq. +5100 Town Center Circle, Suite 400 +Boca Raton, Florida 33486 +Telephone: (561) 955-7629 +Facsimile: (561) 338-7099 +By: Is/ Stephen A. Mendelsohn +STEPHEN A. MENDELSOHN +Florida Bar No. 849324 +mendelsohns@gtlaw.com +smithl@gtlaw.com +FLService@gtlaw.com +3 + + +By: Is/ Michael J Grygiel +MICHAEL J GRYGIEL +(Admitted Pro Hac Vice) +54 State St., 6th Floor +Albany, New York 12207 +Telephone: (518) 689-1400 +Facsimile: (518) 689-1499 +grygielm@gtlaw.com +By: Is/ Nina D. Boyajian +NINA D. BOYAJIAN +(Admitted Pro Hac Vice) +1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900 +Los Angeles California 90067 +Telephone: (310) 586-7700 +Facsimile: (310) 586-7800 +boyajiann@gtlaw.com +riveraal@gtlaw.com +ACTIVE 516467 +NOT A CERTIF +4 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/910e5de81f8c2abb82a37b26663635670e9aeb763c25e81b439e3a697e20009a.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/910e5de81f8c2abb82a37b26663635670e9aeb763c25e81b439e3a697e20009a.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..da2ae37dcfeb3670b6d317fa19f0ca9d29b3a2cc --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/910e5de81f8c2abb82a37b26663635670e9aeb763c25e81b439e3a697e20009a.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -361, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "910e5de81f8c2abb82a37b26663635670e9aeb763c25e81b439e3a697e20009a", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 5, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "f060783ef14182ba83ffea4617f2aa521e71e79ecbc8ba3e0cfa007231f9cf01", + "output_sha256": "29fd6bdc2be2b6583cd9432f713080bb0f4ab3d8f92be28fdfd8a2d716479832", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9124fea47bc8a523dfcbdda57ca493fe088fd4cb77ffdc9fd83c6920186394b4.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9124fea47bc8a523dfcbdda57ca493fe088fd4cb77ffdc9fd83c6920186394b4.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0d5cedb6b7816f734f8f4abb9f334424b773038f --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9124fea47bc8a523dfcbdda57ca493fe088fd4cb77ffdc9fd83c6920186394b4.md @@ -0,0 +1,720 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 24-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 1 of 14 +IN THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT +IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +CASE NO. 50 2008CA020614XXXXMB AF +JANE DOE II, +Plaintiff, +COPY +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN and +Defendants. +/ +COURT REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF +PROCEEDINGS HAD BEFORE +THE HONORABLE DIANA +DATE: +PLACE: +March 3, 2009 +Palm Beach County Courthouse +205 N. Dixie Highway +West +Palm Beach, Florida 33401 +EXHIBI "C" + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 24-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 2 of 14 +2 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +B +9 +10 +11 +12 +APPEARANCES: +LAW FIRM, P.A. +224 Datura Avenue +Suite 900 +West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 +Counsel for Plaintiff +BY: +ISIDRO M. +1, ESQUIRE +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN +515 N. Flagler +Drive +Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 +Counsel for Defendant +BY: ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., +ESQUIRE +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +... +(561) +835-0220 + + +Case 9:08-CV-80994-KAM Document 24-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 3 of 14 +11 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +that but I'd just like to do that. +THE COURT: Right. And if you want to +contact the other individuals saying, you know, +I'm the one that's questioning whether or not +these need to be before one judge. You may have +a different perspective than your colleagues who +are prosecuting some of the cases. +I understand the damages. I'm not +saying consolidate. I'm saying transfer. It's +not a consolidation issue. Everybody gets that +confused for some reason. The words are very +different out of my mouth, your mouth and how +they're written. +So let me go ahead and take a gander at +this. I did read it last night. I'm not sure +that we need to get -- we need names? +MR. CRITTON: Right. Well, here's what some +of the issues are is that, as an example -- if I +could approach the bench. +THE COURT: Sure. +MR. CRITTON: This is some of the +information that we've obtained through discovery +from some of the -- from at least in this +instance, it would be this particular Jane Doe. +THE COURT: You know who Jane Doe is I take + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 24-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 4 of 14 +12 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +it? +MR. CRITTON: Right. +THE COURT: You know who the Jane Doe is? +MR. CRITTON: Yes, correct. And so this +particular lady has kept in part a diary and +she -- which appears to have started some time -- +this is not in any way significant -- but some +time after she learned that she could file a +lawsuit. I think she's also been to Oakwood +Center some time after she learned she could file +a lawsuit and seek damages from Mr. Epstein. +There's no history of this lady +beforehand other than in some of the Oakwood +records where she was Baker Acted, she started +drinking beer at 16, she started Xanax at 16, +started marijuana at 15, that she's sexually +active. +So how she has interacted -- she has a +claim for emotional damages, mental pain and +anguish, psychiatric-type damages. How she's +interacted with friends, with family, the events +in her life, school, work, her interpersonal +relationships both with men and let's -- we'll +use an example men here, but other individuals. +She's saying that this event with Mr. Epstein, +U.s. Legal Support + + +Case 9:08-CV-80994-KAM Document 24-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 5 of 14 +13 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +this sexual assault and whatever occurred during +these events is that -- has caused her damage. +And therefore damages in the case such +as the emotional, mental, psychiatric-type +damages are completely subjective, I mean +separate and apart from any medical bills that +may be -- which are clearly intangible. So these +are intangible damages. And the jury is +instructed, you know, you advise the greater +weight of the evidence, what's fair and +reasonable under the circumstances. +So what we would have is basically this +young lady's testimony as to what she claims her +damages are and what the circumstances are with +her situation with Mr. Epstein. She claims on +page 13, you know, I love this guy, I'm dating +this guy Chris. On page 15 -- +THE COURT: Is this part of a diary for +treatment? +MR. CRITTON: I have no idea what it is. It +was just produced in response to discovery. And +she apparently started in, I think this is +December of '08. You know I took Jay Lyntenis' +girl to the zoo, had an amazing day, I love her, +i.e., the girl. +We have so much fun. I want a + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM +Document 24-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 6 of 14 +14 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +baby especially with him. Okay. So I know who +this person is. We are all so open together, I +love him and Jay and +, what do I do with +Chris, who is another guy in her life. +All right. This is circumstances where +this young lady is saying, 1o0k, Jeffrey Epstein +has ruined my life from a damage standpoint, +okay. Let me depose other individuals with whom +you've had a relationship. And what if it turns +out - as with some of these girls did -- is they +had relationships or had escapades or +circumstances with individuals, older men similar +to Mr. Epstein well before Mr. Epstein. +And this girl, I don't know one way or +the other, but let's assume she had a situation +where she was assaulted or molested or raped, ' +that all is going to affect her emotional and her +mental pain and anguish and it will all factor +into evaluating damages. +You know, it's not something that I'm +going to spread around. I'm happy to keep it, +you know, within the confines of the discovery of +this case. But if she says every other +relationship in my life has been perfect but Jeff +Epstein has done this to me and it has affected + + +Case 9:08-cV-80994-KAM Document 24-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 7 of 14 +15 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +my ability to trust men and my sexual +relationships with other men, which is part of +her interpersonal relationships, okay, let's talk +to MI +THE COURT: When does your client allege +that she had her first encounter with +Mr. Epstein? +MR: +: At what age? +THE COURT: Well, what year? +MR. CRITTON: June of '03. +MR. +•: June of '03, Judge. +'MR. CRITTON: She claims from June of '03 +through November of '04. +MR. +: She was I believe 16 at the +beginning and ended at 17. She was a minor +during all this time. +THE COURT: June of '03 to now is six years. +Let me hear from Mr. +MR. +: Judge, in the criminal case +that was filed against Mr. Epstein, he would not +have had a right to do this type of discovery and +I -- if I could hand up -- +THE COURT: They wouldn't care about the +women. +MR. +Right. Well, I mean -- +• U.S. Legal Support + + +Case 9:08-cV-80994-KAM Document 24-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 8 of 14 +16 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +THE COURT: This is damages. There's no -- +they weren't seeking damages at the time. +MR. +•: Right. And we have not alleged +in the complaint or in the answers to +interrogatories that her ability to have a +relationship with a man has been affected by +Mr. Epstein's conduct. +We have alleged that she has been +hospitalized for depression, anxiety but we have +not alleged any damages concerning -- the only +reason this would be relevant is if we were +making a claim at her ability to have either +sexual relations or to have emotional relations +with men was effected by her experience with +Mr. Epstein. +So this damages' claim is just a smoke +screen to attempt to get evidence to show the +jury that this woman has had other consensual +relationships with young men that are +approximately her age what I would characterize +as a slut defense. +She had it coming to her +because she engaged in other voluntarily +consensual -- +THE COURT: Mr. Critton wouldn't try the +slut defense in my courtroom, I'm sure. + + +Case 9:08-cV-80994-KAM Document 24-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 9 of 14 +17 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +MR. +: Maybe not, but certainly that's +the way this discovery is going. And, Judge, +what -- +THE COURT: What are the damages you think +your client is seeking? +MR. +: She is seeking emotional +distress +damages for depression and anxiety and +she has been hospitalized at the Oakwood Center. +Her friend -- she was on the phone to a friend +who called the sheriff's office because she +thought she was suicidal. The sheriffs +responded. They Baker Acted her that day and +they took her eventually to the Oakwood Center. +THE COURT: How do we know it's not +intertwined with her rejection by three other men +since Mr. Epstein? +MR. +: Well, even if it was related to +her rejection by three other men -- you mean +other men's rejection of her? +THE COURT: Yeah. Well, how do you not know +that? I mean you can't do it until you do +discovery. Has anybody attempted to review the +records from Oakwood to find out what's going on? +MR. CRITTON: It's like a one-time visit +when she was Baker Acted and then there's some + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 24-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 10 of 14 +18 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +other -- +THE COURT: She didn't receive treatment? +MR. CRITTON: She received treatment for +that day and she's been back a couple of times. +She's on medication. Again, I don't know what or +the extent but she's got -- her medical bills are +de minimis. +Again as an example, Judge, did the +Court have an opportunity to 1ook at the case +that I also attached to the motion? Because +there's a case that's almost on all fours with . +this which I attached to our motion which is +called Balles versus Russo. +THE COURT: Right. +MR. CRITTON: It was a case where the +plaintiff was sued -- the plaintiff sued the +former owners of a house of prostitution. So +that part is different, but within it there were +a number of claims including a sexual assault +claim and they sought emotional pain, humiliation +and emotional distress. +Within the complaint that was filed in +this particular case, she is seeking severe +emotional distress, mental anguish, humiliation, +embarrassment, past and future, compensatory +v.s. Legal Support + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 24-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 11 of 14 +19 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +humiliation, loss of reputation, mental anguish, +pain and suffering, the same type of damages. +And what the Court said -- +THE COURT: How old is she now? +MR. +: She's 21 now. +MR. CRITTON: She's 21 now. What the Court +said is, you know, if you'd only brought this +claim under 796 evidence of past issues, it's not +an issue. You can't use this defense for +anything, but because you brought these other +claims which include, you know, sexual assault +and you're seeking damages for other causes of +action since the information sought by discovery +may be relevant or may lead to the discovery of +admissible evidence in one or more of the other +causes of action or determination of damages, we +cannot conclude the trial court parted from +essential requirements of law in granting -- +THE COURT: So in other words, she's not +only seeking -- she's seeking current emotional +damage as a result of this relationship and +you're trying to find out if she had prior +relationships that perhaps could be intertwined +with it so that it's not just Mr. Epstein's -- +MR. CRITTON: Right. A perfect example is + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 24-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 12 of 14 +20 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +one of the cases that I have is there's a young +Lady who claims that she was molested in the past +and raped, pretty significant issues, well in +advance of her even meeting with Mr. Epstein. +And they seem to play a large role in her +psychiatric and psychological evaluation. +We're going to come to the Court in +this case as we have others and ask for a +psychological evaluation of this lady, and if she +was raped or if she was molested or just she had +a bad experience or some -- whether it was a +young or old man assaulted her in some fashion, +that may play a role in her damages and what -- +THE COURT: What I'm going to allow for +discovery purposes only not necessarily getting +it in at the time trial are two years before her +first encounter with Mr. Epstein and anything +subsequent. +MR. +•: Judge, I just wanted to say on +the record because I forgot to mention it, +there's also -- I did state an objection to the +identity of people that are unrepresented in this +courtroom. They have rights too. So what I -- +THE COURT: Well, my suggestion is that you +send those people a letter and tell them that + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 24-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 13 of 14 +21 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +you're going to disclose them and if they have a +problem with it that they come to see me before +you disclose it. +So I'm going to give you 20 days to +respond to this rather than the usual five and +that will give you time to put these people on +notice and if they want to come visit with me and +have a John Doe, I'll have a John Doe hearing +but, you know, this is her case. She's doing it. +She's the one seeking damages, and he is entitled +to be able to confront other individuals to find +out information that may be relevant to the +damages she's seeking or she can drop the +damages. That's her choice. If you seek +damages, you've got to do it - if you could put +that in an order so that we have a time for him +to do this. +Just fill out an order, hand it back up +to me and I'll deal with it. +(The proceedings were concluded.) +u.s. Legal Support + + +• Case 9:08-CV-80994-KAM Document 24-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 14 of 14 +22 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE +THE STATE OF FLORIDA, +COUNTY OF PALM BEACH. +I, Teresa Bell, Court Reporter, certify that +I was authorized to and did stenographically report +the foregoing proceedings and that the transcript is a +true and complete record of my stenographic notes. +I further certify that the proceedings were +taken at the time and place shown herein and that all +counsel and persons as hereinabove shown were present. +I further certify that I am not a relative, +employee, attorney or counsel of any of the parties, +nor am I a relative or employee of any of the parties' +attorney or counsel connected with the action, nor am +I financially interested in the action. +Dated this 11th day lens Bolt. +TERESA BELL, +Court Reporter +(561) +835-0220 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9124fea47bc8a523dfcbdda57ca493fe088fd4cb77ffdc9fd83c6920186394b4.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9124fea47bc8a523dfcbdda57ca493fe088fd4cb77ffdc9fd83c6920186394b4.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9f19640eb524554504c1c69ff417a2e86c3373bb --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9124fea47bc8a523dfcbdda57ca493fe088fd4cb77ffdc9fd83c6920186394b4.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -540, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "9124fea47bc8a523dfcbdda57ca493fe088fd4cb77ffdc9fd83c6920186394b4", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 15, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "acde6fb410e9e03f99c91bf14feb1136efd4d24f54579e299184fcd54c4cb32b", + "output_sha256": "c4dbc5e29b6eab5f46ba466720a0804e52bf68be1b2481466555f7a642f563b0", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/914f3df98571fcd892a7c47b15e612d8ca8fc681734ae9b6fd68ef03626ff1c8.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/914f3df98571fcd892a7c47b15e612d8ca8fc681734ae9b6fd68ef03626ff1c8.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..95b7f84aef24c493c123720bd24b24c04842a43e --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/914f3df98571fcd892a7c47b15e612d8ca8fc681734ae9b6fd68ef03626ff1c8.md @@ -0,0 +1,34 @@ +.Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 2 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/06/2008 Page 1 of 1 +AO (Rev. 10/93) Summons in a Civil Action +United States District Court +DISTRICT OF Florida +SUMMONS +Southern +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +TO: JEFFREY EPSTEIN, individually: +9 East 71st Street +New York, NY 10021 +CASE NO. 08-CV-80119-MARRA-| +YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED and required to serve upon PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY, +Jeffrey M. Herman, Esq. +Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. +Herman & Mermelstein, P.A. +18205 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 2218 +Miami, Florida 33160 +(305) 931-2200 +an answer to the complaint which is herewith served upon you, within 20 days after service of this summons upon you, +exclusive of the day of service. If you fail to do so, judgment by default will be taken against you for the relief demanded in the +complaint. You must also file your answer with the Clerk of this Court within a reasonable period of time after service. +February 6, 2008 +SUMMONS- +DATE +Clarence Maddox +Clerk of Court +s/ Vernice +Deputy Clerk +U.S. District Courts +- diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/914f3df98571fcd892a7c47b15e612d8ca8fc681734ae9b6fd68ef03626ff1c8.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/914f3df98571fcd892a7c47b15e612d8ca8fc681734ae9b6fd68ef03626ff1c8.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8604626e3ca455355a8d15f24b23165ee94607d3 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/914f3df98571fcd892a7c47b15e612d8ca8fc681734ae9b6fd68ef03626ff1c8.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "914f3df98571fcd892a7c47b15e612d8ca8fc681734ae9b6fd68ef03626ff1c8", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "dd10bde56fd1f30dfe3ee19728b52eff8bc0d6ff54bb92259d50223cf3b8bdd9", + "output_sha256": "d5d618a3679e2ddc0ab96cd434d0546c106dd5a7a17fe62838410433ea633bb3", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/916221a5bd48a62a965f0c61536d2d6bf10d7a948cc5cd7574c97020378a4182.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/916221a5bd48a62a965f0c61536d2d6bf10d7a948cc5cd7574c97020378a4182.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0c656755684f50a29ae417e6b2bf08d699c0d9e4 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/916221a5bd48a62a965f0c61536d2d6bf10d7a948cc5cd7574c97020378a4182.md @@ -0,0 +1,216 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 328-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/25/2009 Page 1 of 6 +can you take me?" And my stepfather stayed home that day. So he's like, "No, you can't +take.her. She needs.to.walk to work.". And I was like, "Well, this is only like my second +day. And you know, mom said she was going to take me to work by car. So I had been, +like, getting ready and not, you know, I didn't leave, you know, so many hours prior to +be at work 'cause I didn't have to walk there. And he's like, "No. That's your problem. +You're going to end up walking there. So if you're late that's your fault. That's not our +problem at all." So I got upset, and I was like, whatever. So I ended up walking to work. +And of course I was late, 'cause I had to walk two miles. And um, I got fired because it +was my like second, third day of work. And uh, they just said—you know, I explained to +them exactly what had happened, that I didn't have transportation, and what I just told +you. And um, basically, I lost my job. So he got upset that I had no responsibilities and +ended up saying that, you know, "You need to be kicked out." Which I thought was very +absurd and stupid, but those are his rules. He's very strict. Like, he has a certain +standard. +07:00 +Okay. Now, you also liked to be out a lot. Was he upset about you being out a lot? +Um, yes. He got upset about that also. But when I went out, it wasn't like I went out and +partied. I just wanted to be with my friends. 'Cause like I said also, when I was with my +friends, I put them so much as like my family, that I grew so close to them, that when +I'm with my friends, like my close friends, I feel just comfortable and stressful—-like, +stress-relieved, I guess. Like all my stress is gone. And comfortable. +07:36 +Dr: Kliman: Now again. Following up things that you listed in various questionnaires. You +mentioned one time you caught your mother and stepfather having sex. And that seemed +to be your first knowledge, or first understanding of sex. Could you explain to me what +that reference is? +08:08 +Yeah, well I, I've you know, I mean, don't get me wrong. I've heard of, you know, about +sex when I was younger from people. But I was never, you know, knowledged of what is +was exactly. And I caught——do you want me to give you the exact scenario of what +happened? +Well, sure. +Um, my stepfather grounded me and put me in my room at one of their friend's houses, +like, "Stay here. Don't go anywhere." And I was like, "Okay." So I had to use the +restroom, you know, at some point when I was sitting in the room. So I want +This was at a friend's house? +08:38 +Not my friend. Like their friend's. They were watching their house or whatever they +GPEEENDANTS + +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 328-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/25/2009 Page 2 of 6 +were doing. +I see. +Yeah. They were house-sitting. And you know, I had to use the restroom. So I wanted to +ask him before, "Can I use the restroom?" 'cause he'd said, "Don't go anywhere." So I +walked in the pool room, where they play pool. And she was on the table with her legs +open, with no clothes on. And he was on his knees. And it just like really grossed me +out. Extremely, ugh, just grossed me out. And um, you know, of course, they were +embarrassed. But she, you know, bought me like a little video for a kids. Like, a cartoon +video that explained sex. And what guys and girls have and, stuff like that. +09:31 +So was this oral sex they were having? +I didn't see them in the act. But you know, she was on the table butt naked. And he was +on his knees. So basically it was going to become oral sex I guess. +So you didn't see very much of what he was doing? +приство +No. +But you figured it out at some point. + +Yeah. +Did you immediately understand? +PS, Pretty much. They tried to lie to me at first. And say that you know, he was checking her +down there 'cause she had a bump or something. Like, uh, cancer or whatever. And I +was just like, I'm not stupid. You know, I'm not that unaware of sex. Like, I know about +it. I know what happens. +10:16 +So they made some effort then to educate you through a film? +Yes. +Now, were you very upset by seeing this event? +I was. Yes. +Di. Kliman: +Tell me about your upset. +(beep I just felt like, very like, I don't know what it was, but I was very jealous of like, my +mom. Not like jealous of her, but like, I didn't like other guys talking to her or touching +her. Like, it really made me like, angry inside. Like very angry. Like when they would +hold hands and stuff, it made me like, get really like— +4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 328-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/25/2009 Page 3 of 6 +• - Even if your stepfather held her hand? +Yes. +10:53 +Did you become more jealous after that? Or were you already jealous? +A I was jealous before that of like, the holding hands. And I didn't want them to benaked. +- together: 1 didn't want them to see each other naked. I have no idea why I was like that. +But I was. I didn't like guys trying to flirt with her: I was very overprotective of her, I +guess. And when I saw that, it just like, like, really grossed me out. +Dr. Kliman: Was he naked at that time? +Dr. Kliman: Had you seen him naked at times? +Mistler No. +So you've never walked in on him and found him in the shower, +Befall No. +Or anything like that. You mentioned that your mother suffers from depression and +stress. +get Yes. to thad a rely bad chilhood. When she was growing up, um, do you want me to +Sure. +11:48 +Matay Baically her mother, my grandmed Dick And ok of with Did and ye at the fins. +And basically found this guy named Dick. And took off with Dick and left all the kids +with my mom's father. So there was four babies, like four kids, with my mom's dad. My +mom's dad was very lenient, and didn't really care about school, didn't give them any +discipline, and didn't care what they did. He had, you know, one of the type of parents +that, "Do whatever you want, I don't care." There was no guidelines. And then my mom +caught him with another guy. And her older sisters...she's not a twin, but she has a set of +twin sisters that are probably like five years older than her. And they used to like, stick +her in closets and spray Windex in her eyes, and hit her over the head with the phone, +and abuse her, basically. And they've gotten her raped at school. She also got molested +by her uncle. And now she's around forty-three to forty-four. I'm really bad with +remembering ages. And she has, including me, she has four kids. But I'm never there, +because you know, I have my own life. So right now she has three kids. And she also +has a one-year-old like I do. And she has a four-year-old and a nine-year-old. So she +5 + + +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 328-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/25/2009 Page 4 of 6 +just, she stresses out about little stuff and is very like, for instance, I was there yesterday. +And my little brother dropped a bowl of cereal all over the floor. And I was like, "'Mom,. +calm down." 'Cause she just +Gets agitated. +13:28 +Very. +Let me go back to these abuse experiences that your mother had, if I understand them. +First, she was abandoned by— +By her mom. +Dr. Kliman: By her mom. Do you think it was a total abandonment? +All From what my mom says, it was. And then my grandmother of course always defends +Okay. But then your mom caught your grandfather, that her father. +Ragply Hereal father. +With another guy. +(взятков, Yos. +Dr. Kliman: And how did she catch him? +NA She said she went down to the basement and another guy was with him. +Well, were they having sex? +Dr. Kliman: And what did she see? +14:09 +All, She said she say everything. Like him, I think he, I don't know who was on who, but a +guy and a guy. And she just freaked out, 'cause she never even knew about stuff like that, +you know. +How old was she? +She said she was young. I cannot give you a specific age 'cause I have no idea. Um, she +was probably anywhere from around eight to fifteen years of age, I have no idea. +Honestly, I don't know. But I know she was young. +6 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 328-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/25/2009 Page 5 of 6 +Dr. Kliman: Okay. You mentioned also, I think you mentioned, that she was raped in school. +Yeah, her sisters—-something about her sisters paid this guy to try to rape her in a closet +at school. Um, I don't know how far it went. She didn't get into it with me. If it got far or +not. But I know that her sisters paid a guy to rape her in a closet at school. She's actually +been raped three times. +15:10 +During her childhood, or? +Twice during her childhood and once as like an adult, on a date. +How old do you think she was when closet effort at raping her occurred? +She was either in the beginning of high school or the end of middle school. I'm not a +hundred percent sure. She never gave me really facts. She said she was young. +And did the rape actually occur? That her sisters paid a guy to do? +Um, I don't know exactly if it did. She didn't get into that. I'm not sure. +But you do think she's been raped three times, according to what she's told you? +Yes. She got raped by her uncle. And then a rape, like a roofie. They slipped something +in her drink when she was an adult. And then the closet thing. But I don't know if that +necessarily went through. But I know her uncle and the other one. I know the whole +stories. +16:17 +Which uncle is that? +I've never met him in my entire life. Um, +I'm glad. +(lita, Um, yeah, It makes me sick But one, ques he lives in New York. Um, I think it's +my mom's dad's side of the family somehow. +So that would be your mom's dad's brother, probably? +воззводу +Probably, but I don't think it's that close. I don't know how +Okay. +Al I don't know if they just call him "uncle", but 1 now that he's a part of the family. He's +like a cousin. A second cousin or something, I don't know. +So he could be a cousin? +7 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 328-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/25/2009 Page 6 of 6 +• Yeah, but he's definitely, he was definitely older than her. +And how old was she? +17:05 +Mila She was young. She was like, she said she was around like five to seven years old I +think. She was really young. And you know, he was like married I think, with kids. Or +he had like a family, and he uh, was like, was touching her. +How about her sisters? Did they get touched also? +Rafabag She's never told me that. No. +Dr. Kliman: Has she told you that he raped her? Or that he touched her? Or both? +Um, I don't think that he used his penis. But he used his fingers on her. +Dr. Kliman: And then she was raped once on a date? +18:08 +Yeah, I don't know the exact age or time. But I know she was older. And she went on a +date with this guy. And he basically slipped something in her drink. And she said she +was conscious of what was going on, but she couldn't like scream or move. And him and +his friend took her back to a place and raped her. +So two guys raped her? +Yes. +When did your mother tell you the first of anything about this at first. Let me put it +better because I didn't ask it well. What was the first thing you learned about your +mother's misfortunes of being sexually abused? +18:49 +предка +• Like how old was I? +Yeah. How old were you is a good way to put it. +Um. I was probably in my young teens. She told me I think. +Was it before Mr. Epstein or after Mr. Epstein? +Before. +And what did she first tell you? +8 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/916221a5bd48a62a965f0c61536d2d6bf10d7a948cc5cd7574c97020378a4182.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/916221a5bd48a62a965f0c61536d2d6bf10d7a948cc5cd7574c97020378a4182.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1d819cfba5933a4522cebb3d21628a112b3c514b --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/916221a5bd48a62a965f0c61536d2d6bf10d7a948cc5cd7574c97020378a4182.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -520, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "916221a5bd48a62a965f0c61536d2d6bf10d7a948cc5cd7574c97020378a4182", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 9, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.digits-only\", \"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "bc50e5e74673590628af4d3ee04b3cf6306d79c69357462ffccc16fcfd4b2e48", + "output_sha256": "d101589ca845463f96b77eeeddd9887f5f5fd8c249d30ed90a4f15558d2a5775", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/91944ad47fc3235bc80d0193e5d57f15ccb8528ed5f499aeca83eaa770d6dd9f.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/91944ad47fc3235bc80d0193e5d57f15ccb8528ed5f499aeca83eaa770d6dd9f.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ac99ec660af041db2e1bd625e9be778ae15800fd --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/91944ad47fc3235bc80d0193e5d57f15ccb8528ed5f499aeca83eaa770d6dd9f.md @@ -0,0 +1,49 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 303-5 +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 291-5 +- +Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2009 Page 1 of 1 +Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2009 Page 1 of 1 +IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, +IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +Case No: 502004DR01223SXXXXMB +Division: FB +MEMO OF DISPOSITION +-VS- +Petitioner +VS +[v] Present w/Ceunsel:. +I J Not Present +[ ] Called/contacted clerk +PRESTON SCOTT VINYARD +Respondent, +[V) Present w/Ceunsel. +1] Not Present +I ] Called/contacted clerk +Type of Heating: dema Judgement f +Date of hearing: 10-6-0 +Heard by Judge: +Kath +Service: +[V Executed by:_ +PBSO +| ] Unexecuted by: +Court Extends Injunction For/Till +Court Appoints: +_ returo on 933-04 +10-1-05 +[ ] Guardian Ad Litem +[ ] BIP +1] Other +Case Disposition +[ ] DA - Dismissed After hearing +Case Reopened: +[] Yes +] DA - Dismissed Before hearin +}DJ - Disposed by Judg +Petitioner's New Address +Respondent's New Address: +Sherrle Norton +Deputy Clerk +memodisp.frm + +"E" diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/91944ad47fc3235bc80d0193e5d57f15ccb8528ed5f499aeca83eaa770d6dd9f.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/91944ad47fc3235bc80d0193e5d57f15ccb8528ed5f499aeca83eaa770d6dd9f.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cfbf21b537f1a87801b3be6c161579c48eb72efd --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/91944ad47fc3235bc80d0193e5d57f15ccb8528ed5f499aeca83eaa770d6dd9f.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -23, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "91944ad47fc3235bc80d0193e5d57f15ccb8528ed5f499aeca83eaa770d6dd9f", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "7151c15d9f486577c8ee457a1f23255ff2a0658a0a1ad10144a8c82e3f6971b4", + "output_sha256": "06618b72284c2765a8cb6f534920bbd70225a9bb81bf9b99625d91154ca7c904", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/91a24e07a9cede13ed083f47b1cc80566b00b7b6bfce68ec3f8d5b065601d500.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/91a24e07a9cede13ed083f47b1cc80566b00b7b6bfce68ec3f8d5b065601d500.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8adb4306cc1332b3a7fc76a86abe2dfcf2efef2c --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/91a24e07a9cede13ed083f47b1cc80566b00b7b6bfce68ec3f8d5b065601d500.md @@ -0,0 +1,359 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 404-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/12/2009 Page 1 of 4 +0001 +2 +3 +4 +5 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/] +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +-VS- +VOLUME I OF III +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 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +VIDEO-CONFERENCED AND VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF +JANE DOE NO. 4 +Tuesday, October 27, 2009 +11:11 - 6:05 p.m. +250 Australian Avenue South +Suite 115 +West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +0002 +1 +2 +3 +Reported By: +Cynthia +I RPR, FPR +Notary Public, State of Florida +Prose Court Reporting +4 +5 +APPEARANCES: +On behalf of the Plaintiff, L.M. and E.W.: +MICHAEL J. WHEELER, ESQUIRE +ROTHSTEIN, ROSENFELDT, ADLER +401 East Las Olas Boulevard +Suite 1650 +Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 +Phone: 954.522.3456 +6 +7 +8 +On behalf of Jane Does 1 through 8: +ADAM D. HOROWITZ, ESQUIRE +STUART S. MERMELSTEIN, ESQUIRE +file:///C//Documents%20and%20Settings/Production/Desktop/Doe%20No.%204,%20Jane%20-%20Vol.%201.txt[1 1/6/2009 5:12:36 PM] +«EXHIBIT +B" + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 404-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/12/2009 Page 2 of 4 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +0003 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P.A. +18205 Biscayne Boulevard +Suite 2218 +Miami, Florida 33160 +Phone: 305.931.2200 +E-mail: Ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +On behalf of C.M.A.: +RICHARD HORACE WILLITS, ESQUIRE +RICHARD H. WILLITS, P.A. +2290 10th Avenue North +Suite 404 +Lake Worth, Florida 33461 +Phone: 561.582.7600 +(Via Telephone) +On behalf of the Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein: +ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQUIRE +MARK T. LUTTIER, ESQUIRE +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN, LLP +303 Banyan Boulevard +Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 +Phone: 561.842.2820 +ALSO PRESENT: Jeffrey Epstein, via video conference +Jeff +Videographer +Visual Evidence, Incorporated +INDEX +WITNESS: DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS +JANE DOE NO. 4 +BY MR. LUTTIER 4 +EXHIBITS + +DESCRIPTION +PAGE +DEFENDANT'S EX. 1 Proposal for Settlement +DEFENDANT'S EX. 2 Answers to Interrogatories 232 +DEFENDANT'S EX. 3 Petition for Injunction +DEFENDANT'S EX. 4 Handwritten Note +DEFENDANT'S EX. 5 Psychological/Social History 394 +file:///CV/Documents%20and%20Settings/Production/Desktop/Doe%20No.%204,%20Jane%20-%20Vol.%20T.txt[11/6/2009 5:12:36 PM] + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 404-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/12/2009 Page 3 of 4 +0004 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +1l +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +0005 +1 +PROCEEDINGS +--- +Deposition taken before Cynthia I +Registered Professional Reporter and Florida +Professional Reporter, and Notary Public in and for +the State of Florida at Large, in the above cause. +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +0006 +1 +THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This is the 27th day of' +October, 2009. The time is 11:11 a.m. This is +the videotape deposition of Jane Doe No. 4 in +the matter of Jane Doe No. 4 versus Epstein. +This deposition is being held at 250 South +Australian Avenue, West Palm Beach, Florida. +My name is Jeff 4 +I am the +videographer representing Visual Evidence, +Incorporated. +Will the attorneys please announce their +appearances for the record. +MR. HOROWITZ: Sure. Adam Horowitz, +counsel for Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 4. +MR. LUTTIER: Mark Luttier, counsel for +Jeff Epstein. +MR. CRITTON: Robert Critton on behalf of +Mr. Epstein. +MR. HOROWITZ: Let me just do a -- +MR. WILLITS: Rick Willits on behalf of +MR. HOROWITZ: Let me just note a brief +objection. Per the letter that we have written +to you, we intend to object and instruct our +client not to answer to the extent there are +questions whose answers will implicate Rule +412. The issue of Rule 412 is, is before the +court in a pending motion, and before the depo +was set, we fully briefed the issue before the +court and have noted our intent to object to +questions which implicate that question -- that +rule. +MR. CRITTON: 412 deals with the -- +MR. HOROWITZ: Sexual, sexual history. +MR. CRITTON: -- sexual history, and our, +we briefed it -- +MR. HOROWITZ: We briefed it. +MR. CRITTON: -- on both sides, and our +position is, is Judge +in her order with regard to CME and with regard +to this medical exam that was done by Dr. +in the +case as to why it's +relevant, and why it's material and why it's +important. We understand your position, don't +agree with it, and we'll proceed. +file:///C//Documents%20and%20Settings/Production/Desktop/Doe%20No.%204,%20Jane%20-%20Vol.%20L.txt[11/6/2009 5:12:36 PM] + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 404-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/12/2009 Page 4 of 4 +2 +3 +4 +5 +7 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +MR. LUTTIER: Ready? +THE COURT REPORTER: Yes. +MR. LUTTIER: Please state your name. ( +you have to swear her in. +6 Thereupon, +(JANE DOE NO. 4) +8 Having been first duly sworn or affirmed, was +examined and testified as follows: +THE WITNESS: Yes. +DIRECT EXAMINATION +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. What is your name, 1 +A. Jane Doe No. 4. +Q. And how do you spell your middle name? +A. (Witness spells middle name.) +Q. And your last name is -- (Mr. Luttier +spelled the witness's last name.) +A. Yes. +Q. Okay. Jane Doe No. 4, when were you born? +A. June 6, 1987. +MR. WILLITS: I can barely hear the +witness. Can we get it a little closer to her? +MR. HOROWITZ: Yes. +1 BY MR. LUTTIER: +2 +Q. Have you ever been known by any other +3 +name? +4 +A. No. +5 +Q. Have you ever been deposed before? +6 +A. Deposed? +7 +• That is have your deposition taken as +8 +we're doing today. +9 +A. No. +10 +Q. Have you ever given anybody any kind of +11 +statement under oath before? +12 +A. The police reports, you mean? +13 +Q. Could be, yeah. +14 +A. Yeah. +15 +Q. All right. Do you know what the +16 +significance of an oath is? +17 +A. Yeah, where you tell the truth. +18 +Q. Okay. You understand you are under oath +19 today? +20 +A. Yes. +21 +Q. Do you know what the significance of +22 violating an oath is? +23 +A. (Witness shakes head.) +24 +25 +Q. Like, if you don't tell the truth when +you're under oath, do you know -- +0008 +A. Yeah, you're in trouble. +2 +Q. Okay. You know that's against the law to +3 do that? +file:///C/Documents%20and%20Settings/Production/Desktop/Doe%20No.%204,%20Jane%20-%20Vol.%20l.txt[11/6/2009 5:12:36 PM] diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/91a24e07a9cede13ed083f47b1cc80566b00b7b6bfce68ec3f8d5b065601d500.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/91a24e07a9cede13ed083f47b1cc80566b00b7b6bfce68ec3f8d5b065601d500.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..de435a54e859e1b2441a42a4aacb679fbf0084ad --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/91a24e07a9cede13ed083f47b1cc80566b00b7b6bfce68ec3f8d5b065601d500.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -55, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "91a24e07a9cede13ed083f47b1cc80566b00b7b6bfce68ec3f8d5b065601d500", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 5, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "ff5ee7c317bb2fd66386e436594fd8b618d80abd1b14d212be3d80917fad610c", + "output_sha256": "4a2399ab899a8fa4cb0d332739644181078432782ff2ed2c6638e70ff7b7b278", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/91bacd1a807af47fc5a8d69fc1bb48c8fab7f51250070145f480e8f8ddaa04b0.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/91bacd1a807af47fc5a8d69fc1bb48c8fab7f51250070145f480e8f8ddaa04b0.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b2e706c100cc1f25598b37f267837637cb485bce --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/91bacd1a807af47fc5a8d69fc1bb48c8fab7f51250070145f480e8f8ddaa04b0.md @@ -0,0 +1,282 @@ +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 72-1 Filed 08/20/20 Page 1 of 6 +Metcalfe, Mary +From: +Sent: +To: +Cc: +Subject: +Metcalfe, Mary +Thursday, August 20, 2020 3:18 PM +'Robert Glassman"; Moskowitz, Bennet J. +Nathan Werksman; Laura Menninger; Weiner, Daniel H.; Kevin Boyle; Andrew Tomback +RE: Jane Doe, 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF +Robert, +We will make Mr. Kahn available for a deposition in his capacity as co-executor only, on a mutually agrecable +date in the second half of September or in October. Please keep in mind September is very difficult with the +various holidays. Please let us know several possible dates on your side within the proposed window. This is +without prejudice to our clients' rights and legal positions, including regarding the potential stay of discovery or +the entire action. +Thanks, +Mary +W. Metcalfe +Associate +troutman pepper +Direct: 212.704.6029 | Mobile: 425.984.4165 +marygrace.metcalfe@troutman.com +From: Robert Glassman +Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2020 12:38 PM +To: Moskowitz, Bennet J. +Cc: Metcalfe, Mary| +Subject: RE: Jane Doe, 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF +; Nathan Werksman ; Laura Menninger ; Weiner, Daniel H. ; Kevin Boyle ; Andrew Tomback +EXTERNAL SENDER +Hi Bennet, as I stated on Tuesday, we would still like to proceed with Mr. Indyke's deposition next week even if you still +haven't given us documents before then. I am sorry if you did not understand that the first time I said it. In that regard, +please confirm you received the Zoom link we circulated earlier this week for his deposition. +I'm not sure you correctly stated the chronology of events concerning your proposed confidentiality order and NDA. I +provided you with my edits to it on August 10—ten days ago. Up until last night, we did not hear from you whether you +had issues with or were satisfied with them. As Judge Freeman stated, the PO should protect the identity of other +alleged Epstein/Maxwell minor victims. Other than that, I can't think of any other subject matter that ought to be +legitimately protected that already isn't in this case. Regarding carving out Mr. Epstein from paragraph 4(a-b), it is my +understanding that one does not have a right to privacy after death. If I'm wrong about that, I am happy to take a look at +your authorities to the contrary. +Regarding the documents I told you about earlier this week, as I said then, because of the current stay of document +production in this case, we will produce such materials to you once we are permitted to do so by the Court. But since +you asked about them, please also answer for us the same questions you asked me last night about the documents +you've been withholding from us. Specifically: + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 72-1 Filed 08/20/20 Page 2 of 6 +How did you obtain them? +Who did you obtain them from? +What comprises the documents you have and when did you receive them? +Why haven't you produced the materials you have to us upon your receipt of them? +Regarding Mr. Kahn's deposition, we've been requesting dates for his deposition for several weeks now. To date, +however, you have not provided any to us. With respect to Mr. Kahn testifying in his personal capacity, we would like to +know to what extent he knew about Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell's criminal enterprise. We would like to know if Mr. +Epstein had ever told him that he sexually abused and raped my client and other minor victims. I trust you would agree +that even if Mr. Kahn started working for Mr. Epstein after Mr. Epstein stopped abusing my client that doesn't mean Mr. +Kahn wouldn't or doesn't know anything about it. Right? +Regarding the damages computation, we supplemented our response to your interrogatory which was what you wanted +us to do in your letter to the Court and which was brought up with Judge Freeman at the conference. We separated out +non-economic damages from punitive damages which is what Judge Freeman ordered and we specified what plaintiff's +damages are to the Estate of Epstein and Maxwell. Judge Freeman said that if the past and future numbers are the +same, we wouldn't need to separate them out. Here, the past and future numbers are the same. If, however, you want +us to copy and paste the same response in a Rule 26 disclosure for you too, let me know and we would be happy to do +that as well. +Lastly, but perhaps most pressing, since Ms. Maxwell moved for a complete stay of this case in its entirety, then per the +Court's Order, " within two business days of the motion's submission, the parties should jointly propose a schedule +for opposition and reply submissions, and should also inform this Court of their views as to whether the motion +should (or should not) affect any other deadlines set by this Order." Accordingly, we need to file a proposed briefing +schedule by end of day tomorrow addressing the Maxwell request for stay. I propose that we have until Thursday, +August 27 to file oppositions and replies by Friday, Sept. 4. I also think the motion should not affect any other +deadlines set by the Order. Bennet/Mary Laura, please let me know your respective positions on this so we +can file the joint proposed briefing schedule. Thanks. +Robert Glassman, Esq. +Panish Shea & Boyle LLP +11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700 +Los Angeles, CA 90025 +Fax: (310) 477-1699 +Email: glassman@psblaw.com +Web: www.psblaw.com +CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: +This e-mail may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipients). Any review, use, +distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the +recipient), please contact the sender by reply e-mail or telephone, and delete all copies of this message. +If you are a potential client, the information you disclose to us by email will be kept in strict confidence and will be protected to the +full extent of the law. Please be advised, however, that Panish Shea & Boyle LLP and its lawyers do not represent you until you have +signed a retainer agreement with the firm. Until that time, you are responsible for any statutes of limitations or other deadlines for +your case or potential case. + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 72-1 Filed 08/20/20 Page 3 of 6 +From: Moskowitz, Bennet J. [mailto:Bennet.Moskowitz@troutman.com) +Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2020 7:03 PM +To: Robert Glassman +Cc: Metcalfe, Mary L +; Nathan Werksman ; Laura +Menninger ; Weiner, Daniel H. ; Kevin Boyle +; Andrew Tomback +Subject: RE: Jane Doe, 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF +Robert, +As an initial matter, please clarify your position: if you are able to take Mr. Indyke's deposition next week, which +would be over our objections (as explained below), are you committing to forgoing a further deposition of him +following the parties' document productions? This is a yes or no question; and we need to know the answer +today so we can advise the Court. +With regard to the confidentiality agreement, we are not the hold up. Rather, we were waiting for input from you +and Ms. Maxwell, who has now moved for a stay of the lawsuit. +As you know, we circulated our draft confidentiality agreement on July 15 but only received your edits on +August 10, a few hours before our meet-and-confer call. As counsel for Ms. Maxwell noted during the call, this +short turnaround time had not allowed her to discuss your edits with her client. While we all acknowledged +during our meet and confer that the confidentiality agreement should not be finalized without Ms. Maxwell's +input, we did in fact raise several objections to your edits to which you still have not yet responded. In +particular, we raised concerns that you had completely removed paragraphs 19-24, which provide standard +claw-back provisions. We noted the importance of such a provision and asked you during the call for an +explanation of your edits. We still have not received an answer. We are similarly concerned by your edits to +paragraph 4, particularly your carving Mr. Epstein out of 4(a-b) and the deletion of 4(d-f) in their entirety. +Please explain these changes as well. As noted during the call, you have proposed substantial and unusual +edits, but once we understand the basis for your edits, we will be able to respond more fully. +Your account of the "documentary evidence" you received from the witnesses you subpoenaed raises many +questions. If, as you state, the "documentary evidence" was "not produced by these witnesses pursuant to the +subpoenas," how did you obtain it? Are these witnesses the only individuals from whom you have obtained +"evidence"? What comprises this "documentary evidence" and from which of the witnesses was it received and +when? What is the basis for your expectation that "the last of the evidence" was produced to you this week? +Why didn't you produce the materials to us upon receipt? +The fact remains that we do not know the universe of materials that has been produced to your client, when it +was produced, or by whom. Nor have we had the opportunity to examine or review all of the "documentary +evidence." As a result, you have unduly prejudiced our clients by depriving us of the opportunity to fully prepare +them for their depositions. Combined with the lack of a finalized confidentiality agreement and your continued +refusal to answer our questions regarding the topics to be covered by Mr. Indyke in his deposition as a Co- +Executor, we are not in a position to proceed with Mr. Indyke's deposition next week. Nor does it make any +sense for the deposition to proceed pending the resolution of Ms. Maxwell's motion to stay this lawsuit, which +she filed earlier this evening. +Please let us know today whether you will agree to reschedule Mr. Indyke's deposition. If not, please indicate +whether you have any basis for refusing beyond the argument that the "date has already been cleared by the +parties and has been on calendar for some time now." +With regard to the deposition of Richard Kahn, please provide us with your basis for seeking his deposition in +his capacity as an individual. As noted, Mr. Kahn did not work with Mr. Epstein until, per your own Complaint, +six years after the Plaintiff ceased her interaction with Mr. Epstein. We therefore need some guidance about +3 + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 72-1 Filed 08/20/20 Page 4 of 6 +what evidence Mr. Kahn could offer in his personal capacity. Per the Court's Order, if we "cannot agree as to +whether this would be permissible," we will need to set a briefing schedule to address the scope of his +deposition. Additionally, as we requested, please let us know when your client is available for her deposition. +With regard to the damages disclosure and as raised in Mary +email on Friday, to which you still have +yet to respond, the document you served on August 13 was styled as a supplemental response to the Co- +Executors' Interrogatories, not a damages disclosure pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1). That document did not +separate out the computation of damages as required by the Court during our conference on August 5. There +is no breakdown of the damages according to the type of harm alleged, whether the harm in question is past or +future, from which of the Defendants these damages are being sought, or the calculations used to arrive at any +of these numbers. Nor are there any supporting documents, including medical records or actuarial tables, +supporting your calculations. Please explain your failure to comply with the Court's instructions and remedy the +deficiencies in accordance with the Court's recent Order. +Similarly, as raised by Mary L +on Friday and previously discussed in our deficiency letters and during our +meet-and-confer call in June, we have yet to receive verifications from Plaintiff for any of her responses and +supplemental responses to the Co-Executors' interrogatories. Please provide those immediately. +We have repeatedly tried to resolve our concerns by emails, which you have either ignored or addressed only +in part. We have also asked for your availability to meet and conter, without receiving any proposed times. In +addition to providing us with your position today regarding Mr. Indyke's deposition, please let us know when +you are available to meet-and-confer tomorrow morning on the outstanding issues identified in this email, Mary +communications from last week, and our two deficiency letters. +Thank you, +Bennet +Bennet J. Moskowitz* +Partner +troutman pepper +Direct: 212.704.6087 +bennet.moskowitz@troutman.com +*Licensed to practice law in New York and Connecticut +From: Robert Glassman +Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2020 5:58 PM +To: Moskowitz, Bennet J. +Cc: Metcalfe, Mary L +; Nathan Werksman ; Laura +Menninger ; Kevin Boyle + +Subject: RE: Jane Doe, 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF +EXTERNAL SENDER +Hi Bennet, +Thanks for your email. I am in agreement with your recitation in paragraph 1 of your email concerning the Court's +8/14/20 Scheduling Order. +Regarding Mr. Indyke's deposition which is scheduled for August 26, I understand that you will not be producing him +multiple times for his deposition. I also realize that we may not receive documents from you before that time. Although I +4 + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 72-1 Filed 08/20/20 Page 5 of 6 +will note that nothing is stopping us from finalizing your draft PO before that time. The Court gave us until August 26 to +resolve the issue but we can certainly finalize it before then. Right? In this regard, I would welcome your feedback on my +proposed edits so we can get the ball rolling. But even if we cannot, for whatever reason, get the documents before his +deposition, we would still like to proceed with it on 8/26 since that date has already been cleared by the parties and has +been on calendar for some time now. Let me know your thoughts on that. +Per the Court's 8/14 Order, please also send me some dates for Mr. Kahn's deposition. Like Mr. Indyke, we would like to +depose him in both his capacity as Co-Executor and in his personal capacity. So I suppose Mr. Tomback will have to be +involved in the setting of that. +Additionally, we served you with our amended damages computation on August 13 separating out the punitive damages +and non-economic damages as ordered by the Court. Please let me know that you got it. Finally, per the Court's Order, +please be advised that plaintiff previously served Rule 45 subpoenas for the depositions of Juan Alessi, David Rogers and +Larry Visoski. Notice of such depositions were email served on you on June 30. Although responsive documents were not +produced by these witnesses pursuant to the subpoenas, we have recently obtained documentary evidence from these +witnesses through their counsel. Indeed, we received what we expect to be the last of the evidence yesterday. In light of +the Court's 8/14 Order regarding the current stay of document production in this case, we will produce such materials to +you once we are permitted to do so by the Court. +If you would like to discuss any of this further, do not hesitate to call or email me. +Robert +Robert Glassman, Esq. +Panish Shea & Boyle LLP +11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700 +Los Angeles, CA 90025 +Tel: (310) 477-1700 +Fax: (310) 477-1699 +Email: glassman@psblaw.com +Web: www.psblaw.com +CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: +This e-mail may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review, use, +distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the +recipient), please contact the sender by reply e-mail or telephone, and delete all copies of this message. +If you are a potential client, the information you disclose to us by email will be kept in strict confidence and will be protected to the +full extent of the law. Please be advised, however, that Panish Shea & Boyle LLP and its lawyers do not represent you until you have +signed a retainer agreement with the firm. Until that time, you are responsible for any statutes of limitations or other deadlines for +your case or potential case. +From: Moskowitz, Bennet J. [mailto:Bennet.Moskowitz@troutman.com] +Sent: Monday, August 17, 2020 4:51 PM +To: Robert Glassman +Cc: Metcalfe, Mary +; Nathan Werksman ; Laura +Menninger ; Weiner, Daniel H. +Subject: Jane Doe, 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF +Hello Robert, +Per the Court's August 14, 2020 Scheduling Order that hit the docket earlier today, document production in this +action is now expressly stayed pending the Court's entry of a protective order (Doc. 68, § 2). Moreover, by +August 26 (the previously noticed date for Mr. Indyke's deposition), the parties are required to make a joint +5 + + +Case 1:20-Cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 72-1 Filed 08/20/20 Page 6 of 6 +proposal to the Court regarding a protective order (ld.). We trust that, absent complete agreement on such +order, which regrettably seems unlikely based on prior meet-and-confers and your recent proposed edits, the +Court will then need time to review the parties' respective submissions and rule on the matter. The parties will +then have one week from the entry of such an order to make their document productions (id.)-something +which we are prepared to do, as previously discussed. Separately, until this Wednesday, we will not know Ms. +Maxwell's position on the discovery schedule or whether she plans to move for a partial or complete stay of +this action (Id. at § 1). +You have previously indicated that you would like to receive Defendants' respective document productions +before you depose them. That is understandable. However, we are not willing to make either of the Co- +Executors available for multiple depositions. Accordingly, we should reschedule Mr. Indyke's deposition until +Defendants' documents have been produced. We should discuss that date along with dates for your client's +deposition and the deposition of Mr. Kahn, as Co-Executor. If you still intend to depose Mr. Kahn in his +personal capacity, please inform him of that and your basis for doing so -- and then he must be part of the +discussion regarding the timing and sequence of depositions. +Please confirm at your earliest convenience whether you agree to reschedule Mr. Indyke's deposition. If you +decline, we will have no choice but to immediately seek the Court's assistance to: (1) compel Plaintiff to +provide deposition topics insofar as she seeks to depose Mr. Indyke in his capacity as Co-Executor; and (2) +preclude Plaintiff from pressing ahead with Mr. Indyke's deposition only to later seek another deposition of him +following Defendants' completion of their document productions. If you decline, please provide us with the +basis for your decision so as to expedite our raising the issue with the Court. +Best, +Bennet +Bennet J. Moskowitz* +Partner +Direct: 212.704.6087 +bennet.moskowitz@troutman.com +troutman pepper +875 Third Avenue +New York, NY 10022 +troutman.com +*Licensed to practice law in New York and Connecticut +A HIGHER COMMITMENT TO CLIENT CARE +Troutman Sanders and Pepper +have combined to become Troutman Pepper (Troutman Pepper +Sanders LLP). Troutman Pepper offers expanded capabilities and practice strengths while continuing to deliver powerful +solutions to clients' legal and business issues with a higher commitment to client care. +This e-mail (and any attachments) from a law firm may contain legally privileged and confidential information +solely for the intended recipient. If you received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete it. +Any unauthorized reading, distribution, copying, or other use of this e-mail (and attachments) is strictly +prohibited. We have taken precautions to minimize the risk of transmitting computer viruses, but you should +scan attachments for viruses and other malicious threats; we are not liable for any loss or damage caused by +viruses. +6 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/91bacd1a807af47fc5a8d69fc1bb48c8fab7f51250070145f480e8f8ddaa04b0.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/91bacd1a807af47fc5a8d69fc1bb48c8fab7f51250070145f480e8f8ddaa04b0.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..47c0728ced67162db06e36c15f09f30b7afe2705 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/91bacd1a807af47fc5a8d69fc1bb48c8fab7f51250070145f480e8f8ddaa04b0.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -72, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "91bacd1a807af47fc5a8d69fc1bb48c8fab7f51250070145f480e8f8ddaa04b0", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 6, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "cd56df4e5069ed57284732fba5eec363a24419caafc7f160d075371f586f9bf6", + "output_sha256": "553efbd7107a101e055e635a5842b86846a02e5910e042f16830b5d9babe3df2", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/91e3331c78ee3d59efd71da3e2c8d8dbaeb3411ddb4c7892656ec9b662becbe9.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/91e3331c78ee3d59efd71da3e2c8d8dbaeb3411ddb4c7892656ec9b662becbe9.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..570045113ada1dd4b85fa25d8128efacfa1df24e --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/91e3331c78ee3d59efd71da3e2c8d8dbaeb3411ddb4c7892656ec9b662becbe9.md @@ -0,0 +1,53 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 27-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2009 Page 1 of 2 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 5, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 6, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/ +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/ +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/ +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80994-MARRA/ + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 27-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2009 Page 2 of 2 +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 7, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08- 80993-CIV-MARRA/ +ORDER +Upon Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Enlargement of Time to File Memorandum in +Opposition to Motion to Stay and/or Continue Action, and good cause being shown, it is hereby +ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion is granted. Plaintiffs shall have an enlargement of time of +ten (10) days, until April 23, 2009, to file a reply memorandum in opposition to the Defendant's +Motion to Stay and/or Continue Action. +DONE AND ORDERED in +in Ft. Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, this +day of +_ 2009. +DISTRICT COURT JUDGE diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/91e3331c78ee3d59efd71da3e2c8d8dbaeb3411ddb4c7892656ec9b662becbe9.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/91e3331c78ee3d59efd71da3e2c8d8dbaeb3411ddb4c7892656ec9b662becbe9.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..886222082ffe16827e0520c361e2a94ed34fa59f --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/91e3331c78ee3d59efd71da3e2c8d8dbaeb3411ddb4c7892656ec9b662becbe9.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -24, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "91e3331c78ee3d59efd71da3e2c8d8dbaeb3411ddb4c7892656ec9b662becbe9", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "7d5584a212f959264718d1d11703da6611a2e2314d0b7b527ee495c022e12e7f", + "output_sha256": "9b5b7941add520491fd0711b242935221e89396a6567e5150d7b00c7bc78096f", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/91ea9789e3a7da6093fdbae14dc58c2097c46ae14ab5145ccd74854253be4232.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/91ea9789e3a7da6093fdbae14dc58c2097c46ae14ab5145ccd74854253be4232.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7bc6937cfde5e6d2e91e38758fcbe64f26c6ac7b --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/91ea9789e3a7da6093fdbae14dc58c2097c46ae14ab5145ccd74854253be4232.md @@ -0,0 +1,216 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 362-3 +Aus 0Zase 9508-cv-80743kArCument 247-4 +Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2009 Page 1 of 8 +Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 1 of 8 +Jane Doe #4 +V. +Jeffrey Epstein +AFFIDAVIT OF RICHARD CW. L.M.D. +STATE OF FLORIDA +COUNTY OF SEMINOLE +On this day personally appeared before me, the undersigned authority, Richard +C.W. I, M.D., who, being by me first duly sworn under oath deposes and says: +I. +My name is Richard C.W. Hall, M.D. Tam over the age of majority, and make +this affidavit and declaration upon the basis of personal knowledge of the factual matters +contained herein. +2. +I have maintained a private practice in psychiatry and forensic psychiatry +since 1996. +3. I, also, currently serve as a Courtesy Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at the +University of Florida, College of Medicine, Gainesville, Florida; Affiliate Professor, Dept of +Psychiatry and Behavioral Medicine, University of South Florida; and Professor of +Psychiatry, Department of Medical Education, University of Central Florida College +Medicine. +4. +Ireceived my undergraduate degree from the Johns +!! University and +1 +C + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 362-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2009 Page 2 of 8 +Aug 040866458B-CV-8019rAMHalodUment 247-4 Entered on FLSD D82k8P08/85/2009 Page 2 of 8 +medical degree from the University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, Florida. +I served as a Lieutenant Commander in the United States Navy, where I +researched and evaluated biological and neurochemical factors associated with the onset of +psychiatric disorders and served as a representative to the Joint Services Task Force +planning Operation Homecoming, the return of POW's from Vietnam. +Thave previously served as an assistant clinical professor at the University of +South Florida College of Medicine, directed one of the ten model mental health centers in +the United States, and served as a medical consultant to the Kennedy Space Center. +I am a former member of the academic faculty at the University of Texas, in +Houston, Texas where I served as Assistant Professor and then Associate Professor of +Psychiatry and Internal Medicine, Director of Clinical Research, Director of Residency +Training, Chief of the Consultation/Liaison Service, and Chief Psychiatrist at the M.D. +Cancer Hospital in Houston. +8. +1, also, have served as a Professor of Internal Medicine and Psychiatry at the +Medical College of Wisconsin where I was appointed Chief of Psychiatry at the Milwaukee +County and Froedtert Hospitals. +In addition, I have served as a Professor of Psychiatry and Internal Medicine +and Associate | at the University of Tennessee College of Medicine, Memphis. +10. +The amended complaint filed by Jane Doe #4 against Jeffrey Epstein makes +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 362-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2009 Page 3 of 8 +Aug 0/Case 9508-CV-80129rkAMHaDodüment 247-4 Entered on FLSD D62k8208/85/2009 Pag8-3 of 8 +sensitive allegations of sexual assault and abuse upon a minor and seek damages in excess +of $50 million. Jane Doe #4 alleges confusion, shame, humiliation, embarrassment, and +severe psychological and emotional injuries. It is further alleged that she suffered, and will +continue to suffer, +severe and permanent traumatic injuries, including mental, +psychological, and emotional damages. +11. She alleges the intentional infliction of emotional distress and that Mr. +Epstein's conduct caused severe emotional distress, severe mental anguish and pain. +12. She further alleges that she has suffered personal injury including mental, +psychological and emotional damage. +13. Plaintiff's counsel has retained an expert witness, Dr. Kliman of the +Psychological Trauma Center, a division of Preventive Psychiatry Associates Medical +Group, Inc, of San Francisco, California, of which Gilbert W. Kliman, MD, is the medical +director. Di. Kliman's initial records indicate the following concerning Jane Doe #4. +14. Plaintiff reports a history of alcohol use and an ex-boyfriend who drank +alcohol and used pills that were "a form of oxycodine [sic] a form of heroine [sic]." (Page +18, tape 1) +15. +Plaintiff reports obtaining a restraining order against her ex-boyfriend, stating +that he would spit in her face, push her, and was abusive. (Page 20, tape 1) +16. Plaintiff reports talking with two psychiatrists at age 16 or 17 due to family +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 362-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2009 Page 4 of 8 +Aug 0408604908-CV-80119-KAMlaDolament 247-4 Entered on FLSD 58Zk87 08985/2009 Page 4 of 8 +issues and boyfriend issues. (Pages 2 and 3, tape 3). In the tapes, she makes no mention of +telling the psychiatrists of her alleged encounters with Epstein. Moreover, while Plaintiff +denies recruiting other girls, on page 24 of the Palm Beach Police Report, Plaintiff said she +left a note for Epstein that indicated "for a good time call [Plaintiff] and [friend]" and left +the girls' phone numbers. +17. Plaintiff noted that while in high school a friend, Chris, died in a motor +vehicle accident, that she was in shock from his death, and that she got over it after about 1 +½ to 2 years, but that it still bothers her. (Page 4, GK Contemp notes) +18. Plaintiff noted that a close friend, Jen, died in a motor vehicle accident and +that she was in shock for two months. (Page 4, GK Contemp notes) +19. Plaintiff reported, "I probably went there over 50 times." (Page 3, tape 4) +20. Plaintiff was arrested at age 17 for DUI on 3/09/05. (Police Offense Report) +21. On 10/31/04, fight occurred between plaintiff and Preston +) in back of +cab. Plaintiff (age 17) had been drinking. Police were called for theft of cab fare. Upon +arriving at residence, police found plaintiff in home with no shirt on. Plaintiff refused to +cooperate with police and threatened to kill herselt. +was arrested for violation of +protective order. (Police Offense Report) +22. +On 2/28/02, plaintiff was charged with shoplifting bras from Burdines and +was issued a juvenile referral form. (Police Offense Report) + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 362-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2009 Page 5 of 8 +Aug 05CaseG0QB-CV-8018+KAM/HaDodQment 247-4 Entered on FLSD D8CR8708985/2009 Pag₴ 5 of 8 +23. +On 9/21/04, a protective order was filed against Prestong +after an +incident on 9/20/04 in which he accused her of cheating on him. He then began choking +her, threw her against a wall, and yelled at plaintiff. He dumped beer on her, threw +cigarettes in her face, and slammed her into the ground. On a previous incident in August +2004, plaintiff reported they agued and Mr. +@grabbed her by her arms and threw +her to the ground outside her house. Plaintiff noted she was in fear because he has a +violent history and has verbally threatened her friends, family and herself. (Petition for +Injunction for Protection) +24. +All of the above show that this plaintiff came from an unstable and disturbed +home, had been subject to previous physical and sexual abuse, was fearful, isolated, and +had had suicidal ideation prior to meeting Mr. Epstein. For further elaboration of her +history and background, access to all available records is crucial if one is to fully +understand the impact of any of these events on her subsequent behavior and proportion +the impact of specific events, if any, or her current and future level of function. +25. In Dr. Kliman's initial replenishment retainer agreement and fee schedule +(date 7/18/08), in a heading entitled "Regarding Full Disclosure," Dr. Kliman notes that +prior to deposition, counsel will make every effort necessary to provide experts with +information requested by the experts including: 1) a list of all depositions, statements, +declarations, and motions in the case, 2) a copy of any requested items, and 3) most +5 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 362-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2009 Page 6 of 8 +Aug 040250950B-CV-80119HKAMHaDddüment 247-4 Entered on FLSD D87K87 08985/2009 Page 6 of 8 +importantly, a list of all medical, clinical, school, and work records known to the attorney +in the case. +26. +Dr. Kliman notes on page 8 of his contract opinion formation that he will not +form opinions, give reports, or testify in certain circumstances. +These include +circumstances where he has reașon to believe a retaining attorney has "available important +and relevant documents which are being deliberately withheld from us." "We define such +as documents in possession of retaining attorney, which we have requested or that we have +stated would ordinarily be part of medical opinion formation on the topics concerning, +which our input is requested." We request the same. +27. It is critical for an IME examiner to be able to make a cogent assessment of +any plaintiff and to understand their medical, social, academic, psychological and +psychiatric condition/state prior to any act of alleged victimization. There are a number of +variables that combine to determine the effects of such alleged victimization; including the +type and character of the alleged assault; and key victim variables such as demographics; +psychological reactions at the time of the trauma; previous psychiatric or psychological +history, history of previous victimization; current or previous psychological difficulties; +general personality dynamics and coping style; sociocultural factors such as drug +use/abuse; poverty; social inequity and/or inadequate social support; any previous history +of abuse within or outside the family; whether individuals were abused by strangers, +6 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 362-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2009 Page 7 of 8 +Aug 040189508-CV-804#91KAMHaDdEment 247-4 Entered on FLSD D8ZK8P08885/2009 Page 7 of 8 +acquaintances or family members; and whether there was any history of indiscriminate +behavior that may have placed them at increased risk. It is important to know if there had +been previous sexual conduct, contact with police or welfare agencies, alcohol or drug +use/abuse, voluntary sexual activity, contraceptive use, genital infections, or apparent +indifference to previous abuse. +28. +It is also essential to understand the plaintiff's level of emotional support, +whether any significant psychiatric illnesses were present, whether they were taking any +medications (prescribed or non-prescribed), whether there had been previous suicide +attempts, thoughts, plans, etc. +29. Knowledge of plaintiff's relationships to her family and familial factors, +including social disadvantage, family instability, impaired parent/child relationship, and +parental adjustment difficulties is also critical. +30. Itis, therefore, crucial that the independent medical examiner has available to +him a full and complete record that includes medical, previous legal, social, criminal, +academic, psychological and psychiatric records/data; psychological tests; laboratory tests; +and clinical, hospital, physician records. +31. +These, in essence, are the same or similar records that plaintiff's expert +witness (Dr. Kliman) feels are essential for him to do an appropriate evaluation. To obtain +the necessary information, it will be necessary to identify the plaintiff by name. Such + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 362-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2009 Page 8 of 8 +Aug 042389588-CV-804495kAHollment247-4 Entered on FLSD DOCK27 08/85/2009 Page 8 of 8 +identification will not humiliate the plaintiff since all we are requesting is pertinent +information as noted above relative to their past medical and psychiatric histories and +conduct. We would concur and request of the court that the same and/or similar +information be made available to us to conduct our examination. +Respectfully submitted, +Richard C. W.| +Courtesy Clinical Professor of Psychiatry, University of Florida, College of Medicine +Affiliate Professor, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Medicine, University of South Florida +Professor of Psychiatry, Department of Medical Education, University of Central Florida College of +Medicine +STATE OF FLORIDA +COUNTY OF SEMINOLE +BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, personally appeared RICHARD C.W. +, M.D., who is ( personally known to me or ( ) who has produced +_. as identification, and who did take an oath, deposes and says that +the attached Affidavit is true and correct to the best of his knowledge and belief. +SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED before me on this 4th day of Auguel +_ 2009. +arcis Climan +MARCIRJCHAPMAN +Expines 6/5/2010 +Florica Notary Assn.. Inc +Votary Publi +Printed Name: HARGIA J.CHAPnAN +My Commission Expires: +8 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/91ea9789e3a7da6093fdbae14dc58c2097c46ae14ab5145ccd74854253be4232.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/91ea9789e3a7da6093fdbae14dc58c2097c46ae14ab5145ccd74854253be4232.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d91c228286e7670c2b08029b4af5e0d2de1c29d9 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/91ea9789e3a7da6093fdbae14dc58c2097c46ae14ab5145ccd74854253be4232.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -96, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "91ea9789e3a7da6093fdbae14dc58c2097c46ae14ab5145ccd74854253be4232", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 8, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "ebe9a1b6b80201bb24b64633700f007e21226427683991953e8bfc03831206e5", + "output_sha256": "a940ec08b2c937d6b24181062542447d6e1ec69bb3590e8798ac4e7af3d46ec9", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/91fb3aec8626dc41a84f7d359368541c3c0e496be889da7e5412cf501a4893f5.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/91fb3aec8626dc41a84f7d359368541c3c0e496be889da7e5412cf501a4893f5.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..df8249a32a55c92bce1f2cf2ede4650e30cf7e07 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/91fb3aec8626dc41a84f7d359368541c3c0e496be889da7e5412cf501a4893f5.md @@ -0,0 +1,73 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 1 of 3 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-80119-CIV-KAM-LRJ +JANE DOE NO. 2, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN. +JANE DOE NO. 3, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN. +JANE DOE NO. 4, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN. +JANE DOE NO. 5, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN. +CASE NO.: 08-80232-CIV-KAM-LRJ +CASE NO.: 08-80380-CIV-KAM-LRJ +CASE NO.: 08-80381-CIV-KAM-LRJ +DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF FILING EXHIBITS +Defendant Jeffrey Epstein hereby files the following two exhibits to his Reply in Support +of Motion to Stay, filed under seal on July 28, 2008: +A. +Exhibit "A" is the July 9, 2008 Declaration of Assistant United States Attorney Ann +C. Villafana, previously filed by the United States in In re: Jane Doe, Case No. 08- +80736-CIV-Marra/ +(S.D. Fla.) (DE 14). + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 2 of 3 +B. +Exhibit "B" is a copy of Title 18, United States Code, section 1595. +These exhibits were inadvertently omitted from the reply memorandum. +Respectfully submitted, +TEIN, P.L. +3059 Grand Avenue, Suite 340 +Coconut Grove, Florida 33133 +Tel: 305 442 1101 Fax: 305 442 6744 +By: +Is/ Michael R. Tein +GUY A. +Fla. Bar No. 623740 +MICHAEL R. TEIN +Fla. Bar No. 993522 +tein@lewistein.com +ATTERBURY, GOLDBERGER & WEISS, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 +Tel. 561 659 8300 Fax. 561 835 8691 +By: Jack A. Goldberger +Fla. Bar No. 262013 +jgoldberger@agwpa.com +Attorneys for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +1 HEREBY CERTIFY that on July 29, 2007, I electronically filed the foregoing +document 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 on the attached service list by transmission of +Notice of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF. +Is/ Michael R. Tein +2 +Tein. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 3 of 3 +SERVICE LIST +Jeffrey M. Herman, Esq. +Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. +Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. +Herman & Mermelstein, P.A. +18205 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 2218 +Miami, Florida 33160 +3 +Teinr. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/91fb3aec8626dc41a84f7d359368541c3c0e496be889da7e5412cf501a4893f5.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/91fb3aec8626dc41a84f7d359368541c3c0e496be889da7e5412cf501a4893f5.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d7b19cf870e11cf6357b5c970ae008e8616e4b43 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/91fb3aec8626dc41a84f7d359368541c3c0e496be889da7e5412cf501a4893f5.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -214, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "91fb3aec8626dc41a84f7d359368541c3c0e496be889da7e5412cf501a4893f5", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 4, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "33c8a89584fe2e03323061415cebd46e59119c9820b97399c01c30997172c1d7", + "output_sha256": "3ba3171399ec68360b68dd416f47cbfd7c0baedeeceb233594c1ea44514e222f", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/91fbc883827e4a74eee7df292cd93486e86f047cb26a4f07941abdc7eb628fa9.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/91fbc883827e4a74eee7df292cd93486e86f047cb26a4f07941abdc7eb628fa9.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d58cbbd125cd996ff2ee9109bac28adb695caa0e --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/91fbc883827e4a74eee7df292cd93486e86f047cb26a4f07941abdc7eb628fa9.md @@ -0,0 +1,26 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/13/2008 Page 1 of 1 +IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.:08-CV-80119-MARRA-J +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +NOTICE OF FILING PERMANENT APPEARANCE +The Clerk of Court shall enter the appearance of the undersigned counsel for JEFFREY +EPSTEIN, in the above-entitled cause. +DATED: +June 13, 2008 +I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy hereof has been furnished to Jeffrey M. +Herman, Esquire, Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esquire and Adam D. Horowitz, Esq., Herman & +Mermelstein, P.A., 18205 Biscayne Blvd, Suite 2218, Miami, Florida, 33160 this 13'h day of June, +2008. +ATTERBURY, GOLDBERGER & WEISS, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 +(561) 659-8300 +Fax: (561)835-8691 +Is/Jack A. Goldberger, Esq. +JACK A. GOLDBERGER, ESQUIRE +Florida Bar No. 262013 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/91fbc883827e4a74eee7df292cd93486e86f047cb26a4f07941abdc7eb628fa9.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/91fbc883827e4a74eee7df292cd93486e86f047cb26a4f07941abdc7eb628fa9.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1687bcdb7a7a5305db6e5a0feb8e7ec0f4bca0dc --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/91fbc883827e4a74eee7df292cd93486e86f047cb26a4f07941abdc7eb628fa9.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "91fbc883827e4a74eee7df292cd93486e86f047cb26a4f07941abdc7eb628fa9", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "560ae4d7d0555d5a66b0ec0325ee5aafeb2eb8b58875d669ddea830dc9de89b9", + "output_sha256": "f98ef4a615a6d76b9fbaddecc2359da7b2b832e297f812f028fbbbbb201fa06a", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9205ac033ad57438f464fc76536e5000a74781b2529e463b8fb669ab2fadbec8.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9205ac033ad57438f464fc76536e5000a74781b2529e463b8fb669ab2fadbec8.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ef12c7e3fdaa00402c70c775685aeab05f81f4a3 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9205ac033ad57438f464fc76536e5000a74781b2529e463b8fb669ab2fadbec8.md @@ -0,0 +1,483 @@ +Case 9:10-cv-80309-KAM Document 15-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/12/2010 Page 1 of 16 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO. 10-80309-CIV- +JANE DOE No. 103, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFERY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S AMENDED MOTION TO DISMISS.COUNT +VI & FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT & TO STRIKE DIRECTED +TO PLAINTIFF JANE DOE NO. 103'S COMPLAINT Idated 2/23/20101 +Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, ("EPSTEIN"), by and through his undersigned +counsel, files this Amended Motion To Dismiss Count VI, & Motion For More Definite +Statement & Strike Directed To Plaintiff JANE DOE 103's Complaint. Defendant moves +to dismiss Count Six of Plaintiff JANE DOE 103's Complaint for failure to state a cause +of action, as specified herein. Rule 12(b)(6), Fed.R.Civ.P. (2009); Local Gen. Rule 7.1 +(S.D. Fla. 2009). Defendant further moves for More Definite Statement and to Strike. +Rule 12(e) and (f), In support of his motion, Defendant states: +The Complaint attempts to allege 6 counts, all of which are purportedly brought +pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §2255 - Civil Remedies for Personal Injuries. Count Six is subject +to dismissal because the predicate act relied upon by Plaintiff for her claims did not come +into effect until July 27, 2006, well after the conduct alleged by Plaintiff occurred. The +More Definite Statement requested is for Plaintiff to allege her date of birth in that her +being a minor has significance in the claims she alleges. +"A" + + +Case 9:10-cv-80309-KAM Document 15-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/12/2010 Page 2 of 16 +Supporting Memorandum of Law +Principles of Statutory Interpretation +It is well settled that in interpreting a statute, the court's inquiry begins with the +plain and unambiguous language of the statutory text. CBS. Inc. v. Prime Time 24 +Venture, 245 F.3d 1217 (11"" Cir. 2001); U.S. v. Castroneves, 2009 WL 528251, *3 (S.D. +Fla. 2009), citing Reeves v. Astrue, 526 F.3d 732, 734 (11"' Cir. 2008); and v. +Husband, 376 F.Supp.2d at 610 ("When interpreting a statute, [a court's] inquiry begins +with the text."). "The Court must first look to the plain meaning of the words, and +scrutinize the statute's 'language, structure, and purpose.'" Id. In addition, in construing +a statute, a court is to presume that the legislature said what it means and means what it +said, and not add language or give some absurd or strained interpretation. As stated in +CBS, Inc., supra at 1228 - "Those who ask courts to give effect to perceived legislative +intent by interpreting statutory language contrary to its plain and unambiguous meaning +are in effect asking courts to alter that language, and '[clourts have no authority to alter +statutory language.... We cannot add to the terms of [the] provision what Congress left +out.' Merritt, 120 F.3d at 1187." See also Dodd v. U.S., 125 S.Ct. 2478 (2005); 73 +Am.Jur.2d Statutes §124. +Title 18 of the U.S.C. is entitled "Crimes and Criminal Procedure." §2255 is +contained in "Part I. Crimes, Chap. 110. Sexual Exploitation and Other Abuse of +Children." 18 U.S.C. 82255 (2002)', is entitled Civil remedy for personal injuries, and +provides: +' The above quoted version of 18 U.S.C. §2255 was the same beginning in 1999 until +amended in 2006, effective July 27, 2006. +2 + + +Case 9:10-cv-80309-KAM Document 15-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/12/2010 Page 3 of 16 +(a) Any minor who is a victim of a violation of section 2241(c), 2242, 2243, 2251, +2251A, 2252, 2252A, 2260, 2421, 2422, or 2423 of this title and who suffers +personal injury as a result of such violation may sue in any appropriate United +States District Court and shall recover the actual damages such minor sustains +and the cost of the suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee. Any minor as +described in the preceding sentence shall be deemed to have sustained damages +of no less than $50,000 in value. +(b) Any action commenced under this section shall be barred unless the complaint +is filed within six years after the right of action first accrues or in the case of a +person under a legal disability, not later than three years after the disability. +See endnote 1 hereto for statutory text as amended in 2006, effective July 27, +2006. Prior to the 2006 amendments, the version of the statute quoted above was in +effect beginning in 1999.! +All of Plaintiff's allegations of abuse occurred between January 2004 and May +2005 (par. 18), well prior to 18 U.S.C. §2255 being amended. +Motion to Dismiss +required to be dismissed as it relies on a predicate act that was not in effect at +Plaintiff does not specifically allege in her Complaint on which version of 18 +U.S.C. §2255 she is relying. +However, in Count Six of her Complaint, 950, she alleges +that Defendant "knowingly engaged in a child exploitation enterprise, as defined in 18 +U.S.C. §2252A(g)(2), in violation of 18 U.S.C. §2252A(g)(1)." §2252A is one of the +2 Points (2) and (3) are addressed together as the legal arguments overlap. +That 18 U.S. action creates ingle cause of arion on alre player get the ring +defendant, as opposed to multiple causes of action on a per violation basis or as opposed to an +allowance of a multiplication of the statutory presumptive minimum damages or "actual +damages." EPSTEIN asserts his position regarding the single recovery of damages in order to +properly preserve all issues pertaining to the proper application of §2255 for appeal. EPSTEIN +will fully honor his obligations as set forth in the Non-Prosecution Agreement with the United +States Attorney's Office; principally, as related to the claims made in this case by Jane Doe 103, +the obligations as set forth in paragraph 8 of that Agreement. In particular, EPSTEIN will not +contest the allegation that he committed at least one predicate offense as alleged by Jane Doe +103. +3 + + +Case 9:10-cv-80309-KAM Document 15-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/12/2010 Page 4 of 16 +specified predicate acts under 18 U.S.C. §2255. However, subsection (g) of §2252 was +not added to the statute until 2006. Thus, to the extent that Plaintiff is relying on the +amended version of 18 U.S.C. §2255, such reliance is improper and Count Six is required +to be dismissed as it relies on a statutory predicate act that did not exist at the time of the +alleged conduct. +According to Plaintiff's allegations, the alleged conduct of EPSTEIN directed to +Plaintiff occurred beginning in January 2004 until approximately May 2005. In Count +VI, in attempting to assert a claim pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §2255, Plaintiff is relying on +subsection, (g)(1) and (2), of the criminal statute 18 U.S.C. §2252A as the requisite +predicate act. +Subsection (g) of §2252A was not even in existence at the time of the +alleged conduct. Subsection (g) was enacted in 2006, effective July 27, 2006. See 2006 +Amendments; Pub.L. 109-248, § 701, added subsec. (g). 18 U.S.C.A. § 2252A. As +discussed more fully below herein, reliance on subsection (g) violates the well entrenched +constitutional principles against retroactivity, and, thus, Count VI is required to be +dismissed. +The statute in effect during the time the alleged conduct occurred is 18 U.S.C. +§2255 (2005) - the version in effect prior to the 2006 amendment, eff. Jul. 27, 2006, +(quoted above), and having an effective date of 1999 through July 26, 2006. See +endnote 1 hereto. Plaintiff's Complaint alleges that Defendant's conduct occurred during +the time period from the age of 17, January 2004 until approximately May 2005. +Complaint, 1917, 18. Thus, the version in effect in 2004-2005 of 18 U.S.C. §2255 +applies. +4 + + +Case 9:10-cV-80309-KAM Document 15-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/12/2010 Page 5 of 16 +It is an axiom of law that "retroactivity is not favored in the law." Bowen, 488 +U.S., at 208, 109 S.Ct., at 471 (1988). As eloquently stated in Landgraf v. USt Film +Products, 114 S.Ct. 1483, 1497, 511 U.S. 244, 265-66 (1994): +... the presumption against retroactive legislation is deeply rooted in our +jurisprudence, and embodies a legal doctrine centuries older than our Republic. +Elementary considerations of fairness dictate that individuals should have an +opportunity to know what the law is and to conform their conduct accordingly; settled +expectations should not be lightly disrupted.™NIS For that reason, the "principle that the +legal effect of conduct should ordinarily be assessed under the law that existed when the +conduct took place has timeless and universal appeal." Kaiser, 494 U.S., at 855, 110 +S.Ct., at 1586 (SCALIA, J., concurring). In a free, dynamic society, creativity in both +commercial and artistic endeavors is fostered by a rule of law that gives people +confidence about the legal consequences of their actions. +FN18. See General Motors Corp. v. Romein, 503 U.S. 181, 191, 112 S.Ct. 1105, +1112, 117 L.Ed.2d 328 (1992) ("Retroactive legislation presents problems of +unfairness that are more serious than those posed by prospective legislation, because +it can deprive citizens of legitimate expectations and upset settled transactions"); +[Further citations omitted]. +It is therefore not surprising that the antiretroactivity principle finds expression in +several provisions of our Constitution. The Ex Post Facto Clause flatly prohibits +retroactive application of penal legislation.#!? Article I, § 10, cl. 1, prohibits States +from passing another type of retroactive legislation, laws "impairing the Obligation of +Contracts." The Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause prevents the Legislature (and other +government actors) from depriving private persons of vested property rights except for +a "public use" and upon payment of "just compensation." The prohibitions on "Bills of +Attainder" in Art. I, §§ 9-10, prohibit legislatures from singling out disfavored persons +and meting out summary punishment for past conduct. See, e.g., United States v. +381 U.S. 437, 456-462, 85 S.Ct. 1707, 1719-1722, 14 L.Ed.2d 484 (1965). The +Due Process Clause also protects the interests in fair notice and repose that may be +compromised by retroactive legislation; a justification sufficient to validate a statute's +prospective application under the Clause "may not suffice" to warrant its retroactive +application. Usery v. Turner Elkhorn Mining Co., 428 U.S. 1, 17, 96 S.Ct. 2882, 2893, +49 L.Ed.2d 752 (1976). +FN19. Article I contains two Ex Post Facto Clauses, one directed to Congress ($ 9, +cl. 3), the other to the States (§ 10, cl. 1). We have construed the Clauses as +applicable only to penal legislation. See Calder v. Bull, 3 Dall. 386, 390-391, 1 +L.Ed. 648 (1798) (opinion of Chase, J.). +These provisions demonstrate that retroactive statutes raise particular concerns. The +Legislature's unmatched powers allow it to sweep away settled expectations suddenly +and without individualized consideration. Its responsivity to political pressures poses a +risk that it may be tempted to use retroactive legislation as a means of retribution +against unpopular groups or individuals. As Justice Marshall observed in his opinion for +**1498 the Court in Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24, 101 S.Ct. 960, 67 L.Ed.2d 17 +5 + + +Case 9:10-cv-80309-KAM Document 15-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/12/2010 Page 6 of 16 +(1981), the Ex Post Facto Clause not only ensures that individuals have "fair warning" +about the effect of criminal statutes, but also "restricts governmental power by +restraining arbitrary and potentially vindictive legislation." Id., at 28-29, 101 S.Ct., at +963-964 (citations omitted). FN20 +FN20. See Richmond v. J. A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469, 513-514, 109 S.Ct. 706, +732, 102 L.Ed.2d 854 (1989) ("Legislatures are primarily policymaking bodies that +promulgate rules to govern future conduct. The constitutional prohibitions against +the enactment of ex post facto laws and bills of attainder reflect a valid concern +about the use of the political process to punish or characterize past conduct of +private citizens. It is the judicial system, rather than the legislative process, that is +best equipped to identify past wrongdoers and to fashion remedies that will create +the conditions that presumably would have existed had no wrong been committed") +(STEVENS, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment); James v. United +States, 366 U.S. 213, 247, n. 3, 81 S.Ct. 1052, 1052, n. 3, 6 L.Ed.2d 246 (1961) +(retroactive punitive measures may reflect "a purpose not to prevent dangerous +conduct generally but to impose by legislation a penalty against specific persons or +classes of persons"). +These well +entrenched constitutional protections and presumptions against +retroactive application of legislation establish that 18 U.S.C. §2255 (2005) in effect at the +time of the alleged conduct applies to the instant action, and not the amended version. +Not only is there no clear express intent stating that the statute is to apply +retroactively, but applying the current version of the statute, as amended in 2006, would +be in clear violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution as it +would be applied to events occurring before its enactment and would increase the penalty +or punishment for the alleged crime. U.S. Const. Art. 1, §9, cl. 3, §10, cl. 1. U.S. V. +Seigel, 153 F.3d 1256 (11" Cir. 1998); U.S. v.. +162 F.3d 87 (3d Cir. 1998); and +generally, Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. 386, 390, 1 L.Ed. 648, 1798 WL 587 (Calder) (1798). +The United States Constitution provides that "[n]o Bill of Attainder or ex +Lynce v. Mathis, 519 U.S. 433, 117 S.Ct. 891, 137 L.Ed.2d 63 (1997) (quoting +Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24, 29, 101 S.Ct. 960, 67 L.Ed.2d 17 (1981)). +U.S. v. Siegel, 153 F.3d 1256, 1259 (11" Cir. 1998). +6 + + +Case 9:10-cv-80309-KAM Document 15-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/12/2010 Page 7 of 16 +The statute, as amended in 2006, contains no language stating that the application +is to be retroactive. Thus, there is no manifest intent that the statute is to apply +retroactively, and, accordingly, the statute in effect during the time of the alleged conduct +is to apply. Landgraf v. USI Film Products, supra, at 1493, ("A statement that a statute +will become effective on a certain date does not even arguably suggest that it has any +application to conduct that occurred at an earlier date."). +This statute was enacted as part of the Federal Criminal Statutes targeting sexual +predators and sex crimes against children. H.R. 3494, "Child Protection and Sexual +Predator Punishment Act of 1998;" House Report No. 105-557, 11, 1998 U.S.C.A.N. +678, 679 (1998). Quoting from the "Background and Need For Legislation" portion of +the House Report No. 105-557, 11-16, H.R. 3494, of which 18 U.S.C. §2255 is included, +is described as "the most comprehensive package of new crimes and increased penalties +ever developed in response to crimes against children, particularly assaults facilitated by +computers." Further showing that §2255 was enacted as a criminal penalty or +punishment, "Title II - Punishing Sexual Predators," Sec. 206, from House Report No. +105-557, 5-6, specifically includes reference to the remedy created under §2255 as an +additional means of punishing sexual predators, along with other penalties and +punishments. Senatorial Comments in amending §2255 in 2006 confirm that the creation +of the presumptive minimum damage amount is meant as an additional penalty against +those who sexually exploit or abuse children. 2006 WL 2034118, 152 Cong. Rec. S8012- +02. Senator Kerry refers to the statutorily imposed damage amount as "penalties." Id. +The cases of U.S. v. Siegel, supra (11" Cir. 1998), and U.S. v. +, supra (3d +Cir. 1998), also support Defendant's position that application of the current version of 18 +7 + + +Case 9:10-cv-80309-KAM Document 15-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/12/2010 Page 8 of 16 +U.S.C. §2255 would be in clear violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause. In Siegel, the +Eleventh Circuit found that the Ex Post Facto Clause barred application of the Mandatory +Victim Restitution Act of 1996 (MVRA) to the defendant whose criminal conduct +occurred before the effective date of the statute, 18 U.S.C. §3664(D(1)(A), even though +the guilty plea and sentencing proceeding occurred after the effective date of the statute. +On July 19, 1996, the defendant Siegel pleaded guilty to various charges under 18 U.S.C. +§371 and §1956(a)(1)(A), (conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, bank fraud, and +laundering of money instruments; and money laundering). He was sentenced on March +7, 1997. As part of his sentence, Siegel was ordered to pay $1,207,000.00 in restitution +under the MVRA which became effective on April 24, 1996. Pub.L. No. 104-132, 110 +Stat. 1214, 1229-1236. The 1996 amendments to MVRA required that the district court +must order restitution in the full amount of the victim's loss without consideration of the +defendant's ability to pay. Prior to the enactment of the MVRA and under the former 18 +U.S.C. §3664(a) of the Victim and Witness Protection Act of 1982 (VWPA), Pub.I. No. +97-291, 96 Stat. 1248, the court was required to consider, among other factors, the +defendant's ability to pay in determining the amount of restitution. +When the MVRA was enacted in 1996, Congress stated that the amendments to the +VWPA "shall, to the extent constitutionally permissible, be effective for sentencing +proceedings in cases in which the defendant is convicted on or after the date of enactment +of this Act [Apr. 24, 1996]." Siegel, supra at 1258. The alleged crimes occurred between +February, 1988 to May, 1990. The Court agreed with the defendant's position that 1996 +MVRA "should not be applied in reviewing the validity of the court's restitution order +8 + + +Case 9:10-cv-80309-KAM Document 15-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/12/2010 Page 9 of 16 +because to do so would violate the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States +Constitution. See U.S. Const. art I, §9, cl. 3." +The Ex Post Facto analysis made by the Eleventh Circuit in Siegel is applicable to +this action. In resolving the issue in favor of the defendant, the Court first considered +whether a restitution order is a punishment. Id, at 1259. In determining that restitution +was a punishment, the Court noted that §3663A(a)(1) of Title 18 expressly describes +restitution as a "penalty." In addition, the Court also noted that "[a]lthough not in the +context of an ex post facto determination, ... restitution is a 'criminal penalty meant to +have strong deterrent and rehabilitative effect.' United States v. Twitty 107 F.3d 1482, +1493 n. 12 (11th Cir.1997)." Second, the Court considered "whether the imposition of +restitution under the MVRA is an increased penalty as prohibited by the Ex Post Facto +Clause." Id, at 1259. In determining that the application of the 1996 MVRA would +indeed run afoul of the Constitution's Ex Post Facto Clause, the Court agreed with the +majority of the Circuits that restitution under the 1996 MVRA was an increased penalty.* +"The effect of the MVRA can be detrimental to a defendant. Previously, after considering +the defendant's financial condition, the court had the discretion to order restitution in an +amount less than the loss sustained by the victim. Under the MVRA, however, the court +must order restitution to each victim in the full amount." Id, at 1260. See also U.S. V. +| 162 F.2d 87 (3*d Circuit 1998). +4 The Eleventh Circuit, in holding that "the MVRA cannot be applied to a person whose +with the Second, Third, Eighth, Ninth, and D.C. Circuits. See U.S. v. Futrell, 209 F.3d +1286, 1289-90 (11"" Cir. 2000). +9 + + +Case 9:10-cv-80309-KAM Document 15-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/12/2010 Page 10 of 16 +As discussed above, 18 U.S.C. §2255 was enacted as part of the criminal statutory +scheme to punish and penalize those who sexually exploit and abuse minors, and thus, the +Ex Post Fact Clause prohibits a retroactive application of the 2006 amended version. +Notwithstanding the above legal analysis, in the recent case of Individual Known +to Defendant As 08MIST096.JPG and 08mist067.jpg. v. Falso, 2009 WL 4807537 (N.D. +N.Y. Dec. 9, 2009), United States District Court for the Northern District of New York +addressed the issue of whether §2255 is a civil or criminal statute for purposes of the +constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. The New York Court stated that +"looking to the plain language of §2255(a), it is clear that the statutory intent was to +provide a civil remedy. This is exemplified by the title ... and the fact that the statute +aims to provide compensation to individuals who suffered personal injury as a result of' +criminal conduct against them." The New York Court in analyzing whether §2255 +violated the Constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy, concluded that although +the behavior to which §2255 is criminal, it did not find that the "primary aim" was +"retribution and deterrence." "The statute serves civil goals." The "primary aim" is "the +compensation for personal injuries sustained as a result of criminal conduct." +Therefore, because Jane Doe 103 has invoked the provisions of the criminal Non- +Prosecution Agreement (NPA) between EPSTEIN and USAO (see paragraphs 25 and 26 +of complaint), plaintiff cannot avoid the full protection of the rule of lenity and due +process to which EPSTEIN is entitled in the context of these unique factual +circumstances. +Although there does not exist any definitive ruling of whether the damages +awarded under §2255 are meant as criminal punishment or a civil damages award, +1 +10 + + +Case 9:10-cv-80309-KAM Document 15-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/12/2010 Page 11 of 16 +Defendant is still entitled to a determination as a matter of law that the statute in effect at +the time of the alleged criminal conduct applies. +As explained by the Landgraf court, supra at 280, and at 1505, +When a case implicates a federal statute enacted after the events in suit, the court's +first task is to determine whether Congress has expressly prescribed the statute's proper +reach. If Congress has done so, of course, there is no need to resort to judicial default +rules. When, however, the statute contains no such express command, the court must +determine whether the new statute would have retroactive effect, i.e., whether it would +impair rights a party possessed when he acted, increase a party's liability for past +conduct, or impose new duties with respect to transactions already completed. If the +statute would operate retroactively, our traditional presumption teaches that it does not +govern absent clear congressional intent favoring such a result. +Here, there is no clear expression of intent regarding the 2006 Act's application to +conduct occurring well before its enactment. See discussion of House Bill Reports and +Congressional background above herein. +As stated in Landgraf, "the extent of a party's liability, in the civil context as well as +the criminal, is an important legal consequence that cannot be ignored." Courts have +consistently refused to apply a statute which substantially increases a party's liability to +conduct occurring before the statute's enactment. Landgraf, supra at 284-85. Even if +plaintiff were to argue that retroactive application of the new statute "would vindicate its +purpose more fully," even that consideration is not enough to rebut the presumption +against retroactivity. Id, at 285-86. "The presumption against statutory retroactivity is +founded upon sound considerations of general policy and practice, and accords with long +held and widely shared expectations about the usual operation of legislation." Id. +Thus, Count Six should be dismissed. +" In Landgraf, the United States Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals +nd refused to apply new provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to conduct occurring befor +le effective date of the Act. The Court determined that statutory text in question, $102, wa +subject to the presumption against statutory retroactivity. + + +Case 9:10-cv-80309-KAM Document 15-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/12/2010 Page 12 of 16 +Motion For More Definite Statement and To Strike, Rule 12(e) and (f), F.R.C.P. +As noted above, Plaintiff alleges that she was 17 year old high school student as +of January, 2004, and that the alleged conduct involving EPSTEIN occurred "between +approximately January 2004 and May 2005. Thus, Plaintiff had to be 18 (no longer a +minor) by January of 2005. Under the principles of statutory construction, the language +of §2255(a) is clear - "Any minor who is a victim of a violation of section ...of this title +and who suffers personal injury as a result of such violation may sue in any appropriate +United States District Court and shall recover the actual damages such minor sustains +and the cost of the suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee. Any minor as described in +the preceding sentence shall be deemed to have sustained damages of no less than +$50,000 in value." +As Plaintiff's date of birth is significant to her §2255 claim, she should be +required to more definitely state her date of birth so that Defendant and this Court are +able to determine precisely when she reached the age of majority. (The age of majority +under both federal and state law is 18 years old. See 18 U.S.C. §2256(1), defining a +"minor" as "any person under the age of eighteen years;" and §1.01, Definitions, Fla. +Stat., defining "minor" to include "any person who has not attained the age of 18 years.") +To the extent that Plaintiff is relying on any alleged conduct that occurred after +her 18 birthday as an element of her §2255 claim, such allegations should be stricken as +immaterial and she should be required to more definitely state the dates of the alleged +conduct. See Rule 12(f). Defendant also seeks to strike 1910, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16, +of Plaintiff's Complaint as immaterial and impertinent. None of the allegations in those +paragraphs specifically pertain to the Plaintiff. Not until 917 does Plaintiff assert +12 + + +Case 9:10-cv-80309-KAM Document 15-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/12/2010 Page 13 of 16 +allegations pertaining to her and the conduct of Defendant directly involving her. What +EPSTEIN may or may not have allegedly done with respect to other alleged girls does +not effect Plaintiff's claim brought pursuant to §2255. The allegations in 110-16 are not +related to the elements of Plaintiff's §2255 claim and, thus, are required to be stricken. +Conclusion +Pursuant to the above, Count Six is required to be dismissed. In addition, Plaintiff +should be required to more definitely state her date of birth, and any conduct occurring +after her 18" birthday should be stricken, and 9910 - 16 of the Complaint should also be +stricken. +WHEREFORE, Defendant requests that this Court dismiss Count Six against him, +and further grant his Motion for More Definite Statement and to Strike. +Is/ Robert D. Critton +Robert D. Critton, Esq. +Attorney for Defendant +Certificate of Service +I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed +vith the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document i +eing served this day on all counsel of record identified on the following Service List i +the manner specified by CM/ECF on this 12 day of April, 2010. +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 +rjosefsberg@podhurst.com +kezell@podhurst.com +Counsel for Plaintiff +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 +jagesq@bellsouth.net +Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein +Respectfully submitted, +13 + + +Case 9:10-cv-80309-KAM Document 15-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/12/2010 Page 14 of 16 +By: Is/ Robert D. Critton +ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. +Florida Bar No. 224162 +rcrit@bclclaw.com +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. +Florida Bar #617296 +mpike@bclclaw.com +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & +COLEMAN +303 Banyan Blvd., Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561/842-2820 Phone +561/515-3148 Fax +(Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) +14 + + +Case 9:10-cv-80309-KAM Document 15-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/12/2010 Page 15 of 16 +1 +18 USCA §2255 (1999-July 26, 2006): +PART I--CRIMES +CHAPTER 110-SEXUAL EXPLOITATION AND OTHER ABUSE OF +CHILDREN +§ 2255. Civil remedy for personal injuries +(a) Any minor who is a victim of a violation of section 2241(c), 2242, +2243, 2251, 2251A, 2252, 2252A, 2260, 2421, 2422, or 2423 of this title +and who suffers personal injury as a result of such violation may sue in +any appropriate United States District Court and shall recover the actual +damages such minor sustains and the cost of the suit, including a +easonable attorney's fee. Any minor as described in the preceding +sentence shall be deemed to have sustained damages of no less thar +$50,000 in value. +(b) Any action commenced under this section shall be barred unless the +in the cas of a perist unite a legal dishe liy, of action first ace ye or +after the disability. +CREDIT(S) +(Added Pub.L. 99-500, Title I, § 101(b) [Title VII, § 703(a)], Oct. 18, +1986, 100 Stat. 1783-75, and amended Pub.L. 99-591, Title I, § 101(b) +[Title VII, § 703(a)], Oct. 30, 1986, 100 Stat. 3341-75; Pub.L. 105-314, +Title VI, § 605, Oct. 30, 1998, 112 Stat. 2984.) +18 U.S.C. §2255, as amended 2006, Effective July 27, 2006: +PART I--CRIMES +CHAPTER 110--SEXUAL EXPLOITATION AND OTHER ABUSE OF +CHILDREN +§ 2255. Civil remedy for personal injuries +(a) In general.--Any person who, while a minor, was a victim of a violation +of section 2241(c), 2242, 2243, 2251, 2251A, 2252, 2252A, 2260, 2421, +'422, or 2423 of this title and who suffers personal injury as a result of sucl +violation, regardless of whether the injury occurred while such person was +minor, may sue in any appropriate United States District Court and shall +recover the actual damages such person sustains and the cost of the suit, +including a reasonable attorney's fee. Any person as described in the +preceding sentence shall be deemed to have sustained damages of no less +than $150,000 in value. +15 + + +Case 9:10-cv-80309-KAM Document 15-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/12/2010 Page 16 of 16 +(b) Statute of limitations.--Any action commenced under this section shall +be barred unless the complaint is filed within six years after the right of +action first accrues or in the case of a person under a legal disability, not later +than three years after the disability. +CREDIT(S) +(Added Pub.L. 99-500, Title I, § 101(b) [Title VII, § 703(a)), Oct. 18, 1986, +100 Stat. 1783-75, and amended Pub.L. 99-591. Title I, § 101(b) [Title VII, § +703(a)], Oct. 30, 1986, 100 Stat. 3341-75; Pub.L. 105-314, Title VI, § 605, +Oct. 30, 1998, 112 Stat. 2984; Pub.L.. 109-248. Title VII, § 707(b), (c), July +27, 2006, 120 Stat. 650.) +16 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9205ac033ad57438f464fc76536e5000a74781b2529e463b8fb669ab2fadbec8.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9205ac033ad57438f464fc76536e5000a74781b2529e463b8fb669ab2fadbec8.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f268b397271835d755fa6e8f8f181ca5cc926294 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9205ac033ad57438f464fc76536e5000a74781b2529e463b8fb669ab2fadbec8.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -192, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "9205ac033ad57438f464fc76536e5000a74781b2529e463b8fb669ab2fadbec8", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 16, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "241998ba377b746f3a524d92bfbfda5244679a55cea7f01df1e50de7305b070d", + "output_sha256": "79d0baa4059e9e41964e00a7e443016695c0c2d2918a700358a9e67417294480", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/920912ac6f4416a81615df97823f2ec9906f535388159e18b1d20d71a66e37c2.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/920912ac6f4416a81615df97823f2ec9906f535388159e18b1d20d71a66e37c2.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..634472dbcca7962e69feda5f57a112858bf0695d --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/920912ac6f4416a81615df97823f2ec9906f535388159e18b1d20d71a66e37c2.md @@ -0,0 +1,505 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 262 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2009 Page 1 of 15 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-cy-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff, +/ +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/JOHNSON +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Defendant. +1 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 262 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2009 Page 2 of 15 +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/, +JANE DOE NO. 5, +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +/ +CASE NO.: 08-80994-CIV-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 6, +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-80993-CIV-MARRA/_ +JANE DOE NO. 7, +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Defendant. +C.M.A., +CASE NO.: 08-80811-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Defendant. +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 262 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2009 Page 3 of 15 +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al, +Defendants. +CASE NO.: 08-80893-CIV-MARRA/ +DOE II, +CASE NO.: 09-80469-CIV-MARRA- +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al, +Defendants. +JANE DOE NO. 101, CASE NO.: 09-80591-CIV-MARRA- +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 102, CASE NO.: 09-80656-CIV-MARRAI +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +/ +Response To Plaintiffs', Jane Does 2-7, Motion for Protective Order (DE 223), With +Incorporated Memorandum Of Law +Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN ("Epstein" or "Defendant"), by and through his +undersigned attorneys, hereby files his Response In Opposition to Plaintiffs', Jane Does +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 262 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2009 Page 4 of 15 +2-7, Motion for Protective Order (DE 223), With Incorporated Memorandum Of Law (the +"Motion for Protective Order"). In support, Mr. Epstein states as follows: +I. +Introduction & Argument +Plaintiffs' have joined in a collective effort to prevent discovery relating to +their medical, psychological, criminal and employment histories, as well as their general +backgrounds. Thus, Plaintiffs have unreasonably delayed discovery directed to them. +Now, Plaintiffs go even further and request that this court preclude Epstein from +investigating these matters through one of the most traditional methods available in the +justice system, private investigators. Importantly, Plaintiffs' allegations do not state that +Epstein's investigators have contacted them directly or indirectly - because they have +not. Instead, Plaintiffs allege that Epstein's private investigators have contacted third +parties, that is, Plaintiffs' "ex-boyfriends, former employers, and others who know +nothing of the underlying facts of the case." The law does not forbid such an +investigation. +2. +Plaintiff, Jane Doe 7, filed a self-serving hearsay declaration (DE 251-2) +wherein she claims she spoke to only one of the individuals apparently interviewed by +Epstein's investigators; however, Plaintiff does not state that the investigators have +identified Jane Doe 7 as a Plaintiff in this lawsuit. Defendant expects that in light of this +court's recent order (DE 253) that Plaintiff will speciously amend her declaration. +Nonetheless, Plaintiff cannot expect this court to limit Defendant's investigation efforts +when Plaintiff, Jane Doe 7, has stated that investigators have NOT identified her as a +Plaintiff in this lawsuit. (Declaration, DE 251-2, 95). Moreover, +affidavit tells a different story; that is, Jane Doe 7 approached her at a local bar and + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 262 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2009 Page 5 of 15 +discussed Jeffrey Epstein with her in a public forum, 1.e., Jane Doe 7 discussed her +lawsuit with +in public, with others. See Exhibit "A". Even so, an +elementary review of the alleged questioning by the investigators as set forth in Jane Doe +7's declaration shows that same is relevant (e.g., what was her reputation, did she date +older rich guys, did she give massages for money etc...). Surely, Jane Doe 7 is not being +heard to argue that her providing massages to "older-rich guys" is not relevant to this +action. +3. +Despite this court requiring that we proceed with discovery, Plaintiffs +continue to make allegations in which they believe this court will allow them to dictate: +(a) what is and what is not relevant to the defense of Epstein's case; (b) who has +knowledge of the underlying facts of the case for investigation purposes; and (c) what is +and what is not discoverable. Under this scenario, Epstein might as well terminate his +attorneys and allow the Plaintiffs' attorneys to represent him. +4. +Epstein has been faced with several motions seeking to prevent or limit +discovery with the primary goal being to send Epstein to trial without little or no +discovery. Plaintiffs continue to avert discovery, and now they wish to shelter their pasts +by requesting that this court enter an order broadly limiting the rules of discovery and +thus preventing Epstein from investigating this matter and the claims Plaintiffs have +alleged against him. This would undoubtedly result in reversible error. +As set forth in Epstein's Reply to Jane Doe 2-7 Response in Opposition to +Epstein's Motion to Identify (the "Reply") (DE 247), Plaintiffs' have several preexisting +and diagnosed conditions for which they now attempt to pawn off on Epstein in an effort +to increase their damages. For instance, prior to any of their alleged encounters with +5 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 262 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2009 Page 6 of 15 +Epstein, certain Plaintiffs have been raped, sexually abused, molested and physically and +verbally abused. Some of them have been diagnosed with post traumatic stress disorder +or obsessive compulsive disorder, and some have suicidal thoughts and/or have attempted +suicide on more than one occasion. Moreover, some of the Plaintiffs have witnessed +close friends or family members commit suicide. While the above incidents are nothing +less than tragic, the impact of those incidents on each of the Plaintiffs must be taken into +consideration with the claims they make and the damages they seek against from Epstein. +Plaintiffs have objected to all meaningful discovery, and now they seek to halt all +traditional investigatory methods which may lead to evidence that may diminish or +disprove their claims and/or evidence that may prove that Plaintffs have made +inconsistent statements relative to their allegations. +6. As this court is well aware, utilizing investigators prior to and during a +lawsuit is a common well-accepted method by which parties seek to obtain information +not easily or otherwise obtainable about the claims asserted by them or against them in a +lawsuit. Investigators are employed not only by individuals involved in lawsuits but also +by insurance companies, small businesses, the State Attorneys' Office, the Public +Defenders' Office, and the Federal Government. If this court's precludes Epstein's +private investigators from seeking information from third parties about the claims +asserted against him by Jane Does 2-7, it will undoubtedly violate Epstein's due process +rights by preventing him from defending the allegations made against him and it will +further open the floodgates to additional challenges from others who are the subject of an +investigation commenced by insurance companies, small businesses, the State Attorneys' +Office, the Public Defenders' Office and the Federal Government. +6 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 262 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2009 Page 7 of 15 +Plaintiffs claim in their Motion for Protective Order that retaining +investigators in a case such as this one is not "customary." Such an assertion is not only +nonsensical, but Plaintiffs also fail to cite one case or rule supporting their overbroad and +self-serving theory. +In fact, Plaintffs' theory would result in rewriting the rules of +discovery, and the intended purpose of the rules would largely be disregarded (i.e., to +obtain all information necessary to prosecute and/or defend claims such that the element +of unfair surprise is diminished). +8. +Despite this court ordering that we move these cases forward, Plaintiffs' +strategy is to delay or prevent the very discovery this court said Defendant should +undertake! Once again, this court has already ruled that Plaintiffs can only be deposed +once (Case #80119, DE 98 at 15 - "Defendant is limited to a single deposition of each +Plaintiff, during which defendant may depose the Plaintiff as both a party and a +witness."). Plaintiffs, however, refused for several months to allow third-party subpoenas +to be served to obtain among other things, medical, psychological, criminal and +employment histories. The court recently entered an order allowing for Defendant to +serve the third-party subpoenas. Even so, Plaintiffs now wish to halt any outside +investigation of the claims they have asserted against Epstein. It appears Plaintiffs wish +for this court to force Epstein to take their depositions without any relevant information +in hand, and with the ultimate goal of sending Epstein to trial without any legitimate +information and discovery that will reduce Plaintiffs' damages or contradict their claims. +9. +Plaintiffs universally agreed at the June 12, 2009 hearing on Defendant's +Motion to Stay that regular discovery could proceed. See Composite Exhibit "B" at +pages 26-30 & 33-34. For instance, the court asked Plaintiffs' attorneys the following + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 262 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2009 Page 8 of 15 +questions: +The Court: I So again, 1 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). +*** +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). +*** +The Court: Okay. But again, you're in agreement with everyone else 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," р.30). +Mr. Horowitz - counsel for Jane Does 2-7: Subject to your rulings, of +course, yes. (Ex. "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) +10. It is clear from the transcript attached as Exhibit "B" that each of the +Plaintiffs' attorneys, including Mr. Horowitz for Jane Does 2-7, expected and conceded +that regular/traditional discovery would take place (i.e., discovery, motion practice, +depositions, requests for records, and investigations). +Investigating any claims made against any Defendant is reasonable and +should not be limited. For instance, assume an investigator contacts a third-party who +8 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 262 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2009 Page 9 of 15 +knew or dated one of the Jane Does before and/or after the Plaintiffs' alleged encounters +with Epstein. Is it Plaintiffs' contention that an investigator cannot ask the ex-boyfriend +or the friend: (a) whether Plaintiff ever mentioned Epstein; (b) whether Plaintiff gave +Epstein massages; (c) whether Plaintiff ever complained about her alleged experiences +with Epstein; and/or (d) whether Plaintiff ever seemed disturbed or traumatized about her +alleged experiences with Epstein. If this court grants Plaintffs' request, it will result in +Plaintiffs being afforded the opportunity to make sexual assault and battery allegations +without affording Epstein the opportunity to defend those specific allegations. This is not +the same as identifying each Jane Doe by name in a public proceeding accessible by all - +it is basic behind the scenes discovery which seeks to investigate and question others on +an individual basis. Plaintiffs' request, if granted, would violate Epstein's constitutional +and due process rights to defend himself, and would further not allow Epstein a full +opportunity to confront the Plaintffs that have made allegations against him with the +necessary material to properly cross-examine them at trial. As such, this would violate +Epstein's 6" Amendment Right to confront witnesses, and the due process clauses of the +Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. +12. +It is simply not fair to allow the Plaintiffs to file lawsuits containing +sexual-abuse allegations and then attempt to use the rules of discovery and those same +sexual-abuse allegations as a sword to cut-out the heart of Defendant's case (and the +defenses thereto) while simultaneously brandishing their allegations as a shield from +disclosure of any Achilles heel. +II. +a. +Memorandum of Law +The Allegations in the Amended Complaints As to Jane Does 2-7 +9 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 262 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2009 Page 10 of 15 +13. +The amended complaints filed by Jane Does 2-7 against Jeffrey Epstein +make allegations of sexual assault and abuse upon a minor and seek damages in excess of +$50 million. +Jane Does 2-7 allege confusion, shame, humiliation, embarrassment, and +severe psychological and emotional injuries. It is further alleged that they suffered, and +will continue to suffer, severe and permanent traumatic injuries, including mental, +psychological, and emotional damages. +Plaintiffs allege intentional infliction of +emotional distress, severe emotional distress, severe mental anguish and pain. They +further allege that they suffered personal injury including mental, psychological and +emotional damage. +14. It is the Defendant's job to obtain information to disprove and/or find +information that diminishes Plaintiffs' damage claims. The rules of discovery +contemplate same. +b. The Rules of Discovery Contemplate the Hiring of Investigators +15. The rules of discovery contemplate the hiring of investigators, and also +protect the information obtained by an investigator as the work-product of the hiring +attorney because the materials are obtained or created in anticipation of litigation or for +trial. See Alachua General Hospital, Inc. v. Zimmer USA, Inc., 403 So.2d 1087 (Fla. 1st +DCA 1981); Fed.R. Civ.Pro. 26(b)(3)(B); Fla.R.Civ.Pro. 1.280; In re Faro Technologies +Securities Litigation, 2008 WL 205318 (M.D. Fla. 2008); Lake Shore Radiator, Inc. v. +Radiator Express Warehouse, 2008 WL 842989 (M.D. Fla. 2007)(protecting investigative +materials as work-product); and Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 508, 67 S.Ct. 385, 91 +L.Ed. 451 (1947)(noting, among other things and subject to exception, that work-product +includes information which an attorney secures from a witness while acting for his client +10 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 262 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2009 Page 11 of 15 +in anticipation of litigation or for trial). Florida even has its own investigative privilege +codified in Fla. Stat. §493.6119, which also seeks to promote the rules of discovery and +protect any investigators file. Accordingly, it is clear that the overall purpose of +discovery under the Federal Rules is to obtain a full and accurate understanding of the +true facts in order to obtain a fair and just result. United States v. Proctor & Gamble Co., +356 U.S. 677, 682, 78 S.Ct. 983 (1958). +16. +Defendant should not have to rely on only those "handpicked" witnesses +disclosed by Plaintiff at depositions, through interrogatories or by way of Rule 26 +disclosures who Plaintiffs and their lawyers have identified to: +(a) +(b) +test the Plaintiffs' credibility as to their alleged involvement with Epstein; +determine the alleged effects on Plaintiffs as a result of any involvement +with Epstein; +(c) +identify other females whom Plaintiffs took or might have met at Epstein's +home; +(d) +support Plaintiffs' claims that she sustained damages as a result of their +alleged involvement with Epstein; and +(e) +determine what Plaintiffs may have said to others regarding the alleged +incidents. +17. +Many of the Plaintiffs are claiming that Epstein is the sole or substantial +contributing cause of their physical, psychological and emotional damages. However, as +this court is aware, Plaintiffs have experienced several incidents in their lives which +affected them emotionally and psychologically. See e.g., Exhibits "C" and "D", +Affidavits of Richard C.W. I +, outlining the psychological issues experienced by Jane +Does 4 and 6 as a result of incidents in their lives prior to Epstein, which cannot be +discounted. For additional affidavits of the remaining Jane Does, see DE 247 and the +11 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 262 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2009 Page 12 of 15 +Affidavits attached thereto. As such, Plaintiffs should not be able to "handpick" who +Defendant utilizes to refute their allegations. +18. +Accordingly, Plaintiffs cannot expect this court to limit Epstein's +investigation of the claims they assert against him. To hold otherwise will negatively +effect information sought by way of depositions, independent medical evaluations, +regular discovery and the like, thereby prejudicing Epstein and impacting the one day he +will have in court to defend these allegations. +III. Conclusion and Requested Relief +19. +It is critical for this entire case that Epstein be able to conduct regular +discovery, which includes investigating the claims Plaintiffs make against him by using +an investigator. As Dr. +stated in his affidavits attached to DE 247, "there are a +number of variables that combine to determine the effects of such alleged victimization, +including the type and character of the alleged assault, and key victim variables such as +demographics, psychological reactions at the time of the trauma, previous psychiatric or +psychological history, previous victimization history ..., general personality dynamics +and coping style, as well as sociocultural factors such as drug use/abuse; poverty; social +inequity and/or inadequate social support; any previous history of abuse within or outside +the family; whether individuals were abused by strangers, acquaintances or family +members; and whether there was any history of indiscriminate behavior that may have +placed them at increased risk...." Id. It is also important to know about Plaintffs' ".. +previous sexual conduct, contact with police or welfare agencies, alcohol or drug +use/abuse, voluntary sexual activity, contraceptive use, genital infections, or apparent +indifference to previous abuse. +..whether any significant psychiatric illnesses were +12 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 262 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2009 Page 13 of 15 +present, whether they were taking any medications (prescribed or non-prescribed), +whether there had been previous suicide attempts, thoughts, plans, etc...., and whether. +• Plaintiffs' relationships with their families and familial factors, including social +disadvantage, +family instability, impaired parent/child relationship, and parental +adjustment difficulties [were present]" Id. It is therefore critical for Epstein to conduct a +thorough investigation, which will confirm or rebut Plaintiffs" allegations in their +respective complaints. To hold otherwise would cause this court to accept Plaintiffs' +allegations as true without allowing Epstein to retain information to refute same. +Wherefore, Epstein requests that this court deny Plaintffs' Jalotion for Protective +PIKE, ESQ. +Florida Bar #617996 +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 +eing served this day on all counsel of record identified on the following Service List 1 +he manner specified by CM/ECF on this L day of QWAC +, 2009 +Respectfully submit +By: = +ROBEKÍ D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. +Florida Bar No. 224162 +rcrit@bclclaw.com +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. +Florida Bar #617296 +mpike@bclclaw.com +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & +COLEMAN +515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +13 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 262 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2009 Page 14 of 15 +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/J +Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. +Brad +Esq. +Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. +Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler +Mermelstein & 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 +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +bedwards@rra-law.com +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +08-80893 +Counsel for Plaintiffs +In related Cases Nos. 08-80069, 08-80119, +08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80993, +Paul G. Cassell, Esq. +08-80994 +Pro Hac Vice +332 South 1400 E, Room 101 +Richard Horace Willits, Esq. +Salt Lake City, UT 84112 +Richard H. Willits, P.A. +801-585-5202 +2290 10* Avenue North +801-585-6833 Fax +Suite 404 +cassellp@law.utah.edu +Lake Worth, FL 33461 +Co-counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe +561-582-7600 +Fax: 561-588-8819 +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. +08-80811 +reelrhw@hotmail.com +Isidro M. L +Law Firm, P.A. +224 Datura Street, Suite 900 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561-832-7732 +561-832-7137 F +Jack Scarola, Esq. +isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net +Jack P. +Esq. +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. +Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, +P.A. +2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard +West Palm Beach, FL 33409 +561-686-6300 +Fax: 561-383-9424 +jsx(@searcylaw.com +Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq. +Katherine W. Ezell, Esq. +Podhurst Orseck, P.A. +25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800 +Miami, FL 33130 +14 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 262 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2009 Page 15 of 15 +jph@searcylaw.com +Counsel for Plaintiff, C.M.A +Bruce Reinhart, Esq. +Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A. +250 S. Australian Avenue +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561-202-6360 +Fax: 561-828-0983 +ecf@brucereinhartlaw.com +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 +skuvin@riccilaw.com +tleopold@riccilaw.com +305 358-2800 +Fax: 305 358-2382 +rjosefsberg@podhurst.com +kezell@podhurst.com +Counsel for Plaintiffs 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 +jagesq@bellsouth.net +Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein +15 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/920912ac6f4416a81615df97823f2ec9906f535388159e18b1d20d71a66e37c2.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/920912ac6f4416a81615df97823f2ec9906f535388159e18b1d20d71a66e37c2.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..941b6112d3a88d0933f29bc6c6f99fc47b32d289 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/920912ac6f4416a81615df97823f2ec9906f535388159e18b1d20d71a66e37c2.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -180, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "920912ac6f4416a81615df97823f2ec9906f535388159e18b1d20d71a66e37c2", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 15, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "7f55839b454409f1c91564b9386776209e7b27adb540f2c920d832e0b88453c8", + "output_sha256": "4af8450a84a0cbfa056a16210c1acbcb213c43d67290713361a84fcf5ea9bf2b", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9217ff167b294c34d8f8370977cc1bda0b7bf4f57cc069f72d143d32eafa7db3.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9217ff167b294c34d8f8370977cc1bda0b7bf4f57cc069f72d143d32eafa7db3.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..af142329b41534afb1c87b6d27eaa791da107b66 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9217ff167b294c34d8f8370977cc1bda0b7bf4f57cc069f72d143d32eafa7db3.md @@ -0,0 +1,38 @@ +JUN 99-2008 WEB 02192KM Document 9-2 Entered on FIAS NBocket 06/11/2008 Page 1 g. 1 +305-9312200 +Herman &/Mermelstein, P +02:25:12 p.m. +11-06-2008 +2/2 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRAJOHNSON +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +AFFIDAVIT +STATE OF NEW YORK. +COUNTY OF MANHATTAN +) SS: +) +Joel Golub deposes and states as follows: +1. +I am an agent with Aetna Judicial Services, Inc., a service of process firm in New +York, NY. +2. Ireceived the Summons and Complaint in this matter from Herman & Mermelstein, +P.A. on February 12, 2008. +We attempted service on Jeffrey Epstein a number of times during the months of +February and March, 2008, at the residence located at 9 East 71st Street, New York, NY, and were +unable to effectuate personal service during that time. +JOBL GOLUB +My Commission expires: + +B +Notary Public, State of New York +BRETT GOLUB +Notary Public, State of New Yorl +No. 01G06129491 +Qualified in Nassau Count +_ommission Expires June 27, 200 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9217ff167b294c34d8f8370977cc1bda0b7bf4f57cc069f72d143d32eafa7db3.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9217ff167b294c34d8f8370977cc1bda0b7bf4f57cc069f72d143d32eafa7db3.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5af892ebe1c7d60ef7dc3a82dc7bfcf35ec55d25 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9217ff167b294c34d8f8370977cc1bda0b7bf4f57cc069f72d143d32eafa7db3.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -19, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "9217ff167b294c34d8f8370977cc1bda0b7bf4f57cc069f72d143d32eafa7db3", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "c3339cbeafdbcf5d4de947edb1b516e32e0e62c46338c313f34998843cc472f2", + "output_sha256": "0d93eb52a7a97e8c347a0fca8669f0051703c1cbc74d0afac96d2acf1dacca2d", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9218a3b64256f2a5b4548a9f8629940067fda04a59302c63b6ad3bebf30984b5.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9218a3b64256f2a5b4548a9f8629940067fda04a59302c63b6ad3bebf30984b5.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3abda72231459db5aedbe09dafc65cee6bdb33a1 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9218a3b64256f2a5b4548a9f8629940067fda04a59302c63b6ad3bebf30984b5.md @@ -0,0 +1,60 @@ +Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2009 Page 1 of 2 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 09-80656-RYSKAMPIVITUNAC +JANE DOE No. 102, +V. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Plaintiff, +Defendant, +NOTICE OF APPEARANCE +The undersigned attorneys hereby file an appearance as counsel on +behalf of the Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, in the above styled matter. +ROBERT. CRITTON, JR, ESO. +Florida Bar No. 224162 +rcrit@bclclaw.com +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. +Florida Bar #617296 +mpike@bclclaw.com +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 leday of May, 2009 +Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq. +Katherine W. Ezell, Esq. +Podhurst Orseck, P.A. +25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800 +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South +Suite 1400 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2009 Page 2 of 2 +Doe 102 v. Epstein +Page 2 +Miami, FL 33130 +305 358-2800 +Fax: 305 358-2382 +rjosefsberg@podhurst.com +kezell@podhurst.com +Counsel for Plaintiff +West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 +561-659-8300 +Fax: 561-835-8691 +jagesq@bellsouth.net +Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein +Respectfully sybmitted, +ROBERTD. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. +Florida Bar No. 224162 +rcrit@bclclaw.com +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. +Florida Bar #617296 +mpike@bclclaw.com +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & 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) diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9218a3b64256f2a5b4548a9f8629940067fda04a59302c63b6ad3bebf30984b5.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9218a3b64256f2a5b4548a9f8629940067fda04a59302c63b6ad3bebf30984b5.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a817fd7919e16afc636991a5607692c32bcbb519 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9218a3b64256f2a5b4548a9f8629940067fda04a59302c63b6ad3bebf30984b5.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -24, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "9218a3b64256f2a5b4548a9f8629940067fda04a59302c63b6ad3bebf30984b5", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "0e167681fb2c13f40429b69f7f687693f68b05137c6a9c042cd299d92ed0e1ee", + "output_sha256": "b883bdb04225caba9300428f2d81a2cb4be5ef92adee23d717654fa6ed0d6953", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/921f1f3692d3a8cdaedc422583b0212dbad174b3f816ef5f9f53373e29226229.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/921f1f3692d3a8cdaedc422583b0212dbad174b3f816ef5f9f53373e29226229.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8268ae3e05f755416640655402ef278ee111eb83 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/921f1f3692d3a8cdaedc422583b0212dbad174b3f816ef5f9f53373e29226229.md @@ -0,0 +1,833 @@ + +04.27322 mAss +RREST NOTICE TO APPEA +venile Referral Repo +1. Arrest +2. N.T.A/ +• Request! +Agency ORT Number +Roc +al for Caplas +FLO +Charg&Type + +PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT +8 8 +Check +as many +1. Felony +3. Misdemeanor +na apph. +vanpon Seted 7Type +2. Traffic Folony +4. Traffic Misdemeanor +Location of Arrasi [includi +ef Business) +151 Bilbao St +Deta of Arrest +Palm Bch, F1 33411 +Location of Offense (Business Name, Address) +same +Time of Arrest +10/31/04 +0407 +Booking Dale +Booking Time +Jall Date +JaM Time +10/31/04 +Locaton of Venice +0455 +10/31/04 +Name (Last, First, Addle) +N/A +Vinyard, Preston, S +Allas (Name, DOB, Soc. Sec. E, Ele.) +12 use d: mental can l W +Date of Bath +Haighi +Waight +Eye Color +M +04/05/1980 +Hair Color +6'00" +Complexion +170 +Buse +Scars, Marke, Talloos, Unique Physical Festures (Locaton, Type, Description) +Br +Med +Forearm, Back, Shoulder +Roligion +Blo +Fair +Marital Status +sica bon of: +Single +Unk +Alcohol Influence +8 +ENDANT +Local Address +(state) +Drug Enituence +103-C Weybridge Cr +Phone +Palm Beh, Fl 33411 +Residenca Type +Permanent Address (Street, Apl. Number) +561) 798-9410 +E: Enry +(slam) +Phena +Address Source +2. One seate +11 +DEF +same +Business Address (Name, Stoel) +)) +Defendant +Phane +Docupation +DM. Number, Stale +) +Unk +Soc. Soc. Number +V563677801250 + +Place of born (City, State) +Cheership +Co-Defendant Name (Last, First, Middle) +Oklahoma +US +• 1. Arreste +J 2. AI Leg +100 +3. Felony +Co-Defendant Hame (Last, First, Accie) +1. Mendereror +Dale of Birk +• 1. Arenied +• 2 AlLege +вопу +Medemeanor +di Cusiodian +Name (Lani) +Residence T +Address (Street, Tol Humber) +(Cily) +(541a) +(Др) +Bushess Phone +Halled by: (rama) +Time +need processed withe +2. TOT HRS /DYE +Dapt. and Reicas +Paleosed To: (Rama) +1. incarcera tad +Matonship +Deta +Time +School Amended +Grade +Description oF +Value of Property +CODE +Activity +Sell +R. Smu +K. Dispensa +Manufactura/ Z. Other +Distribute +a. Barbiturate +P. +nais +U. Uranown +A. Amphetarsine +Charge Description +E. Cerem +Cocaine +M. Ma +(una +Z. Olber +O. Ophum/Dertv. +9. Synthelica +Statute Violation Number +RGE +Violation of Protection Order +Violation of ORD # +OY +741.31 +N/A +Amount / Unti +Offense F +N +N/A +Warrant 1 Capias Number +04-4495 +N/A +Band +Charge Descripton 3 +Counta +Domenue +CHARGE +Violer +Suatute Violation Number +Vitation of ORD +arug Acthity Drug Try +Amount / Una +Offense # +Warsarl / Caples Number +Bond +Charge Desorpion at +Counte +Domestle +Blatude Viction Mumber +CHARGE +Violation of ORD +The heavy true Tos +Warrant 7 Caples Number +Bond +RGE +Спари Deecipton g +Counta +Comenic +Tolen +Slatula Violation Number +Violation of ORD B +Amount / Unit +Olena B +Warren / Caples Humber +Bond +• Instruction No. 1 +Mandatory Appserance in Court +Instruction No. 2 +ou need not appear in Court but mus +ocation (Car. Room Number, Criminal Justice Complex 3228 Gun Club Rd +Court Dala and Time +amply with instructiors on Reverse Sid +November +TREE TO APPEAR AT THE TIME AND PLACE DESIGNATED TO ANSWER THE OFFENSE CHARGED OR TO PAY THE FINE SUBSCRIBEC +TUNDERSTAND THAT SHOULD I WILLFULLY +L TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT AS REQUIRED BY THIS NOTICE 10 APPEAR, THAT I MAY BE HELD IN CONTEMPT OF COURT AND A WARRANT FOR MY ARREST SHALL BE ISSUE +Signature of Defendant (or Juve +mis and Parent /Custodian) +OLD for other Agency +Hame: +• Restated Arrest +Suicidal +• 00er +take Deputy +LD. B +Pouch • +DISTRIBUTION: +Ore. Holberton #25 +Transporting Officer +ID E +HOLBERTON 251 +Court Copy +- State Attorney +Date Signed +Name Vorification (Printed by Arreste +1251 +(PRINT +gent +(17, +Witness here If subjact signed with a: +YELLOW- Agency +PINK - Jail +GOU + + + +- Number +04.27322 amAss +Agency ORI Number +4. Request for Warrant +, Roquest for Caples +ADMINISTRATIVE +FLO + +Agency Name +Chargeype +PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT +Chec +as many +1. Fetony +20 3. Misdomeanor +8 8 +8. Ordinance +as apply. +14402,5 +2. Traffic Folony +4. Traffic Misdomeanor +Be. Other +Warpon Belted 7 Type +Mutiple +Locaton of Arresi (Including +Cisarance +" Business) +151 Bilbao St +Deta of Arrest +Palm Bch, FI 33411 +Location of Offanse (Business Name, Addross) +Ime of Arrest +same +10/31/04 +Booking Data +Booking Time +Jall Date +JaN Time +0407 +10/31/04 +Location of Venice +0455 +10/31/04 +Mame (Lest, First, Middle) +N/A +Vinyard, Preston, S +Alas (Mame, DOB, Soc. Sec. I, Ete.) +WE +Sex +• American +Date of Birth +Haigh! +M +04/05/1980 +Eye Color +6'00" +Complesion +170 +Har Coer +Butt +Scars, Marke, Tattoos, Unique Ptrysical Features (Locason, Type, Descriplion) +Br +Blo +Fair +Med +Forearm, Back, Shoulder +Martial Status +Religion +Indicasion of: +Local Address (Strel, Apt: Number) +103-C Weybridge Cr +(Caly) +Single +Unk +Alcohol Intuance +Phone +Drag Intend +Permanent Address (Street, Apl. Number) +Palm Bch, Fl 33411 +740T +Hendence Tyse +561) +798-9410 +2: Eaunty +(blan) +(2pl +Phone +2.000 seate +1 +DEF +same +Лобгов Souro +Business Address (Name, Scrol) +) +(Cily) +(4) +Phone +Defendant +Decupalen +DVL. Number, State +V563677801250 +Soc. Soc. Number +Unk + +Taco of Birth cily, Statal +Caronship +Co-Defendera Name (Lesi, First, Miscia) +Oklahoma +US +Date of BAh +• 1. Ameste +3. Felony +Co-Detendand Name (Last, First, Nickin) +Wildemeanor +Date of Birth +Juvenia +• E. Ammied +gul Custocian +Name (Lael) +• 2. Al Large +Residence +Adoress (Stree, Apl. Mumber) +(City) +75010) +(2p) +Business Phone +Hauled by: (Name) +Time +essed within +Dopt. and Released. +Raleased To: (Name) +Incarcerated +bonship +Date +dante parent ha child and / or parant way od +S addross +Time +Grade +Descripton of PF +Activity +8 +Traine +CHARGE +Violation of Protection Order +Drug ADMis Drug Tpo +N +N +Amount / Unti +N/A +Charge Desorpson, = +CHARGE +Drug Actly Drug Tie +Amount / Una +Charge Deacription 2 +Amount TUnE +Charge Description +RGE +CHA +Drug Actly Drug Type. +Amourt/ Unt +Instructon No. 1 +landatory Appearance in Court +tnstruction No. 2 +in Court but mur +comply with inten +ta on Raverse Sid +g +Schoal Allended +Value of Property +Offense • +04-4495 +Counta +Offense & +Manufactura/ Z. Other +mic +DY +Molence +OY +Domesse +Violence +DY ON +8. Barbiturate +C. +Cocaine +A. Amphatanina +E. Meroln +L. Mon +O. Opium Dertv. +Satute Victation Number +741.31 +Warrant | Captas Number +Statute Victaton Number +N/A +Warrant / Caples Number +Counta +Statute Victation Number +Crense D +Wemart/Caples Rumber +Counta +Domestic +Violence +Statute Violaton Number +Warrant / Caples Number +an a, a a Criminal Justice Complex 3228 Gun Club Rd +Court Date and Time +November +P. Persphem: +J. Unknow +L. Oihe +8. Synthelica +Violation of ORD # +N/A +Bond +Violatton of ORD 1 +Bond +Violation of ORDE +Bond +Violation of ORD • +Bond +А.м. X PM.* +Signature of Defendant (or Arvenile and Parent Custod +HOLD for other Agency +Hama: +Dengerous +Suicidal +nake Deputy +• Resisiad Anest +• oner: +LD. • +DISTRIBUTION: +Pouch +No ONE. Hole on #251 +Transporting Officer +HOLBERTON 251 +- Court Copy +- State Allorney +Date Signed +Name Varification (Prinied by Arresis +1251 +(PRINT) +gene +Winese here i/ subject signed win ai +YELLOW-Agancy PINK - Jail +GOLI +"6" + + +ADMINISTRATIVE +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM + +OBTS Number +DAIN +Agancy ORl Mumbe +по, 5, 0,2,8,0 +Charge Type +Check as many +1. Felony +2. Traffie"Falony +Ime (Last, First, Midd +Preston, S +Charge Descripton +Violation of Protection Order +PROBABLE CAUSE AFFIDAVIT +PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT +29 3. Misdemeanor +• 4. Traffic Misdomeanor +16. Other - +1. Arest +2. N.T.A. +3. Request for Warran +1. Roquest for Capia +Juvondle +Agency Report Number +3810444.95 1h +Spectal Holes: +M +Charge Description +4,0,5,8,0 +Charge Description +Victim's Name (Last, Firsi, Lidol) +State of Florida +Local Addresa (Street, Apt, Number) +Charpe Desorption +Face +Sas +bata of bach +(CRy) +(Stala) +(ap) +Phone +Address Source +Business Address (Mame, Stroet) +(Cay) +(State) +(p) +Phone +Occupation +Victim +Govt +The undersigned certies and swears thal harshe has jusland reasonable grounds is believe, and does beieve that the above named Defendant committed the following violaton of law +The Person iskan into custody - +2 commitled the below acts in my presence. +• was observed by - +• confessed to +who told +that ha/she saw the amested person commit the below acts. +admitting to the below facte. +2 wes found to have committed the below acts, resulting from my (described) investigation. +On the +31st +• day of +November +_20 04.. 0321 +8AM. CJ P.M. (Specifically include facts constituting cause for arrest.) +On the above date/time I was dispatched to +in reference to a Battery in the back of a taxi and +Theft of Services. +Upon arrival I made contact with th +driver John Bespinis. Bespinis advised me he was driving Preston +S Vinyard and +to +when they started to argue because neither of them had money +to pay the cab. At some point during the argument, Bespinis said Vinyard hit +Upon arriving a +and Vinyard got out of the vehicle and ran into the residence. I walked up to the front door +and noticed it was partially open. Shortley after Sgt.Murphy and Ofc.Doerr arrived to assist me. I knocked +on the door several times ans sald "Police", but no one answered. Myself, Sgt.Murphy, and Ofc.Doerr +entered the residence to make sure no one was injured. As 1 entered the residence +stepped out from +behind a wall with a pair of shorts on and no shirt e +posing her breast +told us to get out of her house +numerous times. I advised +to put a shirt on and she did so. I tried to explain to +why we were +there, but she kept telling us to get out of her house, and that no one was in her house +then called her +lather, +and told him police were in there house for no reason. I then got on the phone with +and informed him of the situation. Since +was a juvenile, I asked +for consent to search +his residence for the battery suspect +agreed to let us search the house, but +would not let us +search her fathers bedroom and locked herself in there. +stayed on the phone with her father and +kept telling him she wanted us out of there house. +We talked back and forth with +for about thirty +minutes and'1 tried to have her open the door. +then told her father she was going to kill herself. +Sgt.Murphy advised the father that since she made that statement we had no choice but to force entry into +the room if the door was not opened! +advised be was on the way home from Ft.Plerce and that he will +be home as soon as possible. +then opened the door and was placed in handcuffs for our protection. I +then sat| +on the couch in the living room while Sgt.Murphy searched the bedroom and discovered +Vinyard under the bed. Vinyard was placed in cuffs and sat down on the +in the living room. After +running Viryard by his Florida Drivers License, he came back with a Protection Order for +Shortley after +arrived home and was updated on the situation. Vinyard was placed under +arrest for Violation of Protection Order and transported to the county jall without incident +advised +Vinyard did not hit her at any time, and refused to prosecute. Bespinis had left the scene earlier and when +contacted refused to return to +entify Vinyard or to prosecute for theft of services. +SWORN AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME +NOTARY PUBLIC / CLERK OF COURT / POLICE OFFICER +10/31/2004 +DATE +DISTRIBUTION: +- Court Copy +* State Allernay +SIGNATURE OF ARRESTING / INVESTIGATING OFFICER +Ofe. Holberton #251 +NAME OF OFFICER (PLEASE PRINT) +10/31/2004 +DATE +YELLOW- Agency +PINK - Agency +GOLDENROD - +PAGE +1 +-OF- + + +ADMIN +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM| +Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2009 Page 4 of 6 +OBTS Number +PROBABLE CAUSE AFFIDAVIT +Agency ORI Number +FLO +5,0,2,81.0101 +Charge Type +ROYAL PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT +Check as many +X 3. Misdomeanor +• 4. Traffie Misdemeanor +1. Arrest +2. N.T.A. +3. Request for Warrant +4. Request for Capian +Agency Repori Number + +Зросіт Нош: +Allies +Preston, S +Charge Description +Violation of Protection Order +Charge Descripoon +она с Br +M 0,4,0,5,8,0 +Charge Description +Charge Description +Victim's Name (Last, First, Madame) +State of Florida +Local Address (Street, Apt, Number) +Raca +Ser +bale of bach +Caly +(54(a) +(Ep) +Phone +Address Source +Business Address (Name, Stroel) +(Slate) +(no) +Phone +Occupation +Victim +Govt +The undersioned carties end swears thai he/she has just and reasonable grounds to belove, and does belleve that the above named Detendant committed the following violation of am. +The Person isken into custody -. +committed the balaw acts in my presence. +L was observed by +who told +that ha/she saw the arrested person commit the below acte +admitting to the below facts. +31st +- day of - +& was found to have committed the below acts, resulting from my (described) investigation. +On the - +Cont. +November 1. 04.. _ 0321 +2A.м. L P.M. (Specifically include facts constituting cause for arrest.) +was turned over to her father. +No further information. +SWORN AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME +OTARY PÚBLIC / CLERK OF COURT / POUCE OFFICE +10/31/2004 +DATE +DISTRIBUTION: +- Court Copy +-* State Attomay +SIGNATURE OF ARRESTING / INVESTIGATING OFFICER +Ofc. Holberton #251 +HAVE OF OFFICER (PLEABE PRINT) +10/31/2004 +DATE +YELLOW- Agency +PINK - Agency +GOLDENROD - +PAGE +2 +2 +- OF. + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2009 Page 5 of 6 +IN THE CIRCUIT/COUNTY COURT, FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +heater kenyand s. +BOOKING No: 2004357347 +CASE NO.: +Defendant. +1. +2. +3. +4. +5. +6. +unless civil +ORDER OF NO CONTACT +juage and +juageate lift +The Defendant is specifically ordered to have NO CONTACT and to not attempt to contact the following person or +persons: +no contact +order +& Alleged victims) +• Co-defendants) +• Witnesses) +The Defendant shall NOT CONTACT or attempt to contact the above-listed person(s) until this case is closed or until +further order of the Court, whichever occurs first. +For purposes of this order: no contact means: nome at all +1. +NO direct or indirect messages or communications by the Defendant. +2. +NO direct or indirect contact by a third person on behalf of the Defendant. +3. +NO communication of any kind including telephone calls, messages on answering machines and voice +or electronic mail; all written forms ofpmmunication including letters of apology: or any other means +of communication, including the delivery of/gifts at any time, either at a residence, school, or workplace +The Defendant has been expressly advised that if any of the about listed person(8) attempts to contact the Defendant, +he/she must avoid any such contact and the Defendant has been further advised that he/she would be in violation of this +Order if the Defendant communicates with any of the above-listed persons even if contact is initiated by the above-listed +person(s). +Exceptions: +(applies only if checked): +The Defendant may return to the residence where the above-listed person(s) resides for the purpose of +removing the Defendant's PERSONAL EFFECTS ONLY and then only in the presence of a uniformed +law enforcement officer and on ONE occasion only. +Contact may be in writing +0 +0 +Contact may be by telephone. +Contact may occur but only through a third party and only to facilitate visitation with the Defendant's +minor children. +The Defendant has been expressly advised that violation of this Order will subject the Defendant to arrest and +commitment by the Court, plus. if applicable. bond forfeiture. +This order. underundertherefore hat the diege to om i cly herate annoy and it to are or or eye +HAVE THE AUTHORITY to modify ANY PORTIN of this Order without APPROVAL BY THE JUDGE +Immedias yearerand and agro that if filly this Order, the Judge may posity +Lester +Lung +DONE AND ORDERED at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, this +cop-es +CIRCUIT/COUNTY COURT JUDGE +Г.. 1./ ^ 7 2004. +God +ate Anem +Die Defender/Defense Attorn +Detendant +Alleged veten (prowded by Slate Anarney) +Jad records + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2009 Page 6 of 6 +: : +IN THE COUNTY COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT +IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, STATE OF FLORIDA +CRIMINAL DIVISION "TDC" +STATE OF FLORIDA +CASE NO. 04MM027322A02 +BOOKING NO. 2004351347 +VS. +PRESTON VINYARD, W/M, 04/05/1980, 441-78-2517 +1) +INFORMATION FOR: +VIOLATION OF INJUNCTION AGAINST REPEAT OR DATING VIOLENCE +In the Name and by Authority of the State of Florida: +BARRY E. KRISCHER, State Attorney for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County, Florida, by and +through his undersigned Assistant State Attorney, charges that PRESTON VINYARD on or about October 31, +2004, in the County of Palm Beach and State of Florida, did willfully, after having been served with an +Injunction for Protection Against Repeat or Dating Violence issued pursuant to section 784.046 or a foreign +protection order accorded full faith and credit pursuant to +section 74% 4! 5, go to the residence, school, place of +employment, or a specified place frequented regularly b +and any named family or +household member, contrary to Florida Statute 784.047(2). (1 DEG NIDD) +TACEY COLE BARR +FL. BAR NO. 0162541 +Assistant State Attorney +FILED +Palm Beach County, Florida +NOV 1 6 2004 +STATE OF FLORIDA +COUNTY OF PALM BEACH +CIRCUIT & COUNTY COURTS +(CRIMINAL DIV) +Appeared before me, STACEY IBARRA Assistant State Attorney for Palm Beach County, +Florida, personally known to me, who, being first duly sworn, says that this prosecution is instituted in good +faith. +Secusana +ssistant State Attorne +Sworn to and subscribed to before me this /2 day of November, 2004. +- ad +OTARY PUBLIC, Slate 6l Florida +ECIC REFERENCE NUMBERS: +Laura A Rodriguez +_ MY COMMISSION• D267565 EXPIRES +1) VIOLATION OF INJUNCTION AGAINST REPEAT OR DATING O +SLENG#3009120 200C.W +9 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/921f1f3692d3a8cdaedc422583b0212dbad174b3f816ef5f9f53373e29226229.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/921f1f3692d3a8cdaedc422583b0212dbad174b3f816ef5f9f53373e29226229.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f2c38a64ae15f4328b560ff97f33253812e79b25 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/921f1f3692d3a8cdaedc422583b0212dbad174b3f816ef5f9f53373e29226229.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -467, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "921f1f3692d3a8cdaedc422583b0212dbad174b3f816ef5f9f53373e29226229", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 15, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.digits-only\", \"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "556dedf52f7eeb7dbbb7b312ed52e5c765fb14384ed53cabc5eaa61c7b4719d2", + "output_sha256": "b1e726dc121f17ad192d9e611b67e8afdd25f510b54ac82347e3deddb8ec7026", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9257aeaf32c182540e805daaa1b3aa4a33d5b1f1a89bbbfc4fe5d654eb8ecd67.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9257aeaf32c182540e805daaa1b3aa4a33d5b1f1a89bbbfc4fe5d654eb8ecd67.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ffd6458e2e841e5fc2c6fbb03a6b8a2b8a0fa729 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9257aeaf32c182540e805daaa1b3aa4a33d5b1f1a89bbbfc4fe5d654eb8ecd67.md @@ -0,0 +1,18 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 38 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/09/2010 Page 1 of 1 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/ +IN RE: JANE DOES 1 AND 2, +Petitioners. +ORDER CLOSING CASE +THIS CAUSE comes before the Court sua sponte. An examination of the docket reveals that +no activity has taken place in this case since April of 2009. In light of the underlying settlements +between the victims and Mr. Epstein, it is hereby +ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this case is CLOSED. +DONE and ORDERED in +in West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, +this 8" day of September, 2010. +KENNETH A. MARRA +UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE +Copies furnished to: +all counsel of record diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9257aeaf32c182540e805daaa1b3aa4a33d5b1f1a89bbbfc4fe5d654eb8ecd67.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9257aeaf32c182540e805daaa1b3aa4a33d5b1f1a89bbbfc4fe5d654eb8ecd67.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..43c683a961597b80f5c3e55f3b90e4de397c6a3c --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9257aeaf32c182540e805daaa1b3aa4a33d5b1f1a89bbbfc4fe5d654eb8ecd67.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "9257aeaf32c182540e805daaa1b3aa4a33d5b1f1a89bbbfc4fe5d654eb8ecd67", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "ad57cdd00536134b2e841c431c34c0f12a1303ba7f08ffc4a41d91b1c062d3a6", + "output_sha256": "e8fe12208e404b9fc20141d98100c256434bf8b6a6525e3d298d43f1838a9fd7", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9274bb94cbb3dfff0aa8d34aaa8f684b9e3036740e0417280d47ca46cb276792.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9274bb94cbb3dfff0aa8d34aaa8f684b9e3036740e0417280d47ca46cb276792.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f78fc6411e170ce14fe12cf8f58b7e1abb09a3e1 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9274bb94cbb3dfff0aa8d34aaa8f684b9e3036740e0417280d47ca46cb276792.md @@ -0,0 +1,28 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 393 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/05/2009 Page 1 of 1 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/1| +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 +Upon Plaintiffs' Jane Doe Nos. 2-7' Unopposed Motion for Enlargement of Time to +(DE#337) +Respond to Defendant's Motions to Compel Independent Medical Examination, and good cause +being shown, it is hereby +ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion is granted. Plaintiffs shall have an enlargement of +time until October 13, 2009, to respond to the Defendant's Motions to Compel Independent +Medical Examinations of Jane Does 2-7. +DONE AND ORDERED in +day of Novembez, 2009. +, in Ft. Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, this +DISTRICT COURT JUDGE +Magistrate +LineaR. Johnsor +1 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9274bb94cbb3dfff0aa8d34aaa8f684b9e3036740e0417280d47ca46cb276792.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9274bb94cbb3dfff0aa8d34aaa8f684b9e3036740e0417280d47ca46cb276792.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c7367c13f0fbfe6c08c601d6823893f4724f7084 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9274bb94cbb3dfff0aa8d34aaa8f684b9e3036740e0417280d47ca46cb276792.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "9274bb94cbb3dfff0aa8d34aaa8f684b9e3036740e0417280d47ca46cb276792", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "fa91d00185c735073521bff3a5601efdc59d4b6b7ba461468151591c392c2b2c", + "output_sha256": "e1fba14c74f6eacc05d719e05facb19618ca877d54a254b26407953b98e0d6a3", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/92928797e96121983a82053ea49e6430948e90523fb84f37550a016aa80b0bc1.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/92928797e96121983a82053ea49e6430948e90523fb84f37550a016aa80b0bc1.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2b8c5a9141bdf98dfcb2973e117deab55954bf99 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/92928797e96121983a82053ea49e6430948e90523fb84f37550a016aa80b0bc1.md @@ -0,0 +1,265 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 152 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2009 Page 1 of 8 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/ +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/JOHNSON +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/JOHNSON +JANE DOE NO. 5, +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 152 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2009 Page 2 of 8 +Page 2 +JANE DOE NO. 6, +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 7, +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Defendant. +C.M.A., +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Defendant. +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al, +Defendants. +DOE II, +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al, +Defendants. +CASE NO.: 08-80994-CIV-MARRA/_ +CASE NO.: 08-80993-CIV-MARRA/ +CASE NO.: 08-80811-CIV-MARRA/ +CASE NO.: 08-80893-CIV-MARRA/ +CASE NO.: 09-80469-CIV-MARRA- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 152 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2009 Page 3 of 8 +Page 3 +JANE DOE NO. 101, +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +CASE NO.: 09-80591-CIV-MARRA-CLI +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 102, +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +CASE NO.: 09-80656-CIV-MARRA/ +Defendant. +/ +DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS JANE DOE NOS. 101 AND 102'S +MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE UNDER SEAL RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO +DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STAY OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO UNSEAL THE +NONPROSECUTION AGREEMENT (dated 5/29/09, [DE 1281 +Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +("EPSTEIN"), by and through his undersigned +attorneys responds to the Plaintiffs' Jane Doe No. 101 and Jane Doe No. 102 ("Plaintiffs") +Motion For Leave To File Under Seal Response In Opposition To Defendant's Motion To Stay +Or, In The Alternative, To Unseal The Nonprosecution Agreement, and states: +This Court has already entered orders preserving the confidentiality of the Non- +Prosecution Agreement ("NPA") and denying prior attempts to have the document unsealed. See +Court's Orders, attached hereto as Exhibit A and Exhibit B, respectively, entered in In Re: Jane +A. Order To Compel +Does 1 and 2, Petitioners, Case No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/I +Production And Protective Order, [DE 26], dated August 21, 2008, and B. Order [DE 36], dated +February 12, 2009, on Petitioners' Motion To Unseal Non-Prosecution Agreement [DE 28]. +Both of these Orders are clear that the terms of the NPA are to remain confidential and remain + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 152 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2009 Page 4 of 8 +Page 4 +protected from being disclosed to third parties. The NPA is an agreement between the United +States Attorney's Office and EPSTEIN. Plaintiffs' motion presents nothing in support of this +Court modifying its prior orders. +Significantly, even the United States Attorney's Office (USAO), along with +Defendant, has strongly opposed making the NPA public. Attached as Exhibit C hereto is +Respondent United States of America's Opposition To Victims' Motion To Unseal Non- +Prosecution Agreement, dated October 8, 2008, [DE 29], also filed in In Re: Jane Does 1 and 2, +Petitioners, Case No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/. +In opposing the petitioners' attempts +to make public the terms of the NPA, the United States in the Response, Exhibit C, stated: +Since the Agreement (NPA) has not been filed under seal with this Court, the +legal authority cited by petitoners regarding sealing of documents, United States v. +Ochoa-Vasque, 428 F.3d 1015 (11" +' Cir. 2005), is inapposite. The parties who +negotiated the Agreement, the United States Attorney's Office and Jeffrey Epstein, +determined the Agreement should remain confidential. They were free to do so, and +violated no law in making such an agreement. Since the Agreement has become +relevant to the instant lawsuit, petitioners have been given access to it, upon the +condition that it not be disclosed further. Petitioners have no legal right to disclose +the Agreement to third parties, or standing to challenge the confidentiality provision. +After the United States' response, Exhibit C, this Court entered its Order, Exhibit B, +agreeing with the United States' position and maintaining the confidentiality of the NPA in +accordance with its prior Order, Exhibit A. The "victims" who were provided a copy of the +NPA were and are required to maintain the NPA's confidentiality and not disclose the terms to +third parties. +3. +Other parties in the consolidated cases have been able to file their responses +without a similar request being made. Defendant believes that these Plaintiffs can fully respond +without the need to file under seal; and reference provisions generally. However if the Court is + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 152 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2009 Page 5 of 8 +Page 5 +inclined to grant this Order, then in order to continue to protect the confidentiality of the NPA +and to comply with the Court's prior Orders, Exhibit A and Exhibit B, Defendant would agree +to allow Plaintiff to file under seal her response and reference only those portions (identified +herein) of the NPA which are potentially relevant to the issues arising under claims brought +pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §2255 and thus, that may have impact on Defendant's motion for stay and +Plaintiff's response thereto. Specifically, the only portions relevant for this Court to make a +decision on Defendant's motion and Plaintiffs' response are paragraphs 7, 8, 9, and10 of the +NPA, and paragraphs 7A, 7B, and 7C of the Addendum To The NPA. +WHEREFORE, Defendant requests that this Court enter an Order denying any attempts +by Plaintiffs to unseal or make public or to disclose to third parties the terms of the NPA, and to +deny Plaintiffs move to file their response under seal; or if the Court is inclined to grant the +motion, to allow Plaintiff to file her response to the motion to stay and only the specified +portions of the NPA and Addendum thereto under seal. +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 10th_ day of June, 2009 +Respectfully submitted, +rcrit@bclclaw.com +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. +Florida Bar #617296 +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN +515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 152 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2009 Page 6 of 8 +Page 6 +561/842-2820 Phone +561/515-3148 Fax +(Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 152 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2009 Page 7 of 8 +Page 7 +Certificate of Service +Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein +Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON +Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. +Brad +Esq. +Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. +Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler +Mermelstein & 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 +bedwards@rra-law.com +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08- +ahorowitz/@sexabuseattorney.com +80893 +Counsel for Plaintiffs in Related Cases Nos. +08-80069, 08-80119, 08-80232, 08-80380, 08- +80381, 08-80993, 08-80994 +Paul G. Cassell, Esq. +Pro Hac Vice +Richard Horace Willits, Esq. +332 South 1400 E, Room 101 +Richard H. Willits, P.A. +Salt Lake City, UT 84112 +2290 10* Avenue North +801-585-5202 +Suite 404 +801-585-6833 Fax +Lake Worth, FL 33461 +cassellp@law.utah.edu +561-582-7600 +Co-counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe +Fax: 561-588-8819 +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08- Isidro M. | +, Esq. +80811 +Law Firm, P.A. +reelrhw@hotmail.com +224 Datura Street, Suite 900 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561-832-7732 +Jack Scarola, Esq. +561-832-7137 F +isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net +Scarcy Denney Scarola Bamhart && Shipley, Counsel for Plaint in Related Case No. O8- +2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard +West Palm Beach, FL 33409 +Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq. +561-686-6300 +Katherine W. Ezell, Esq. +Fax: 561-383-9424 +Podhurst Orseck, P.A. +jsx@searcylaw.com +jph@searcylaw.com +25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800 +Miami, FL 33130 +Counsel for Plaintiff. C.M.A. +305 358-2800 +Fax: 305 358-2382 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 152 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2009 Page 8 of 8 +Page 8 +Bruce Reinhart, Esq. +Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A. +250 S. Australian Avenue +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561-202-6360 +Fax: 561-828-0983 +ecf@brucereinhartlaw.com +Counsel for Defendant | +Theodore J. Leopold, Esq. +Spencer T. Kuvin, Esq. +Ricci-Leopold, 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 +skuvin@riccilaw.com +tleopold@riccilaw.com +rjosefsberg@podhurst.com +kezell@podhurst.com +Counsel for Plaintiffs 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 +jagesq@bellsouth.net +Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/92928797e96121983a82053ea49e6430948e90523fb84f37550a016aa80b0bc1.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/92928797e96121983a82053ea49e6430948e90523fb84f37550a016aa80b0bc1.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..67d20cc8e32ec15317ae8b41ca0dff2d582d8261 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/92928797e96121983a82053ea49e6430948e90523fb84f37550a016aa80b0bc1.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -230, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "92928797e96121983a82053ea49e6430948e90523fb84f37550a016aa80b0bc1", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 9, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "241b513e803896f3e1c2edd55248ab4740079a3747fcef02e21c17a16bf2f406", + "output_sha256": "541c6d2db7570aae8e622b6b8d96fab982c2be29bc340875b3156aabbd283c8c", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/92a68e3a53c8f240777be6cb76214f6cd0906c49d778ec29c86ed56ad1c4ed12.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/92a68e3a53c8f240777be6cb76214f6cd0906c49d778ec29c86ed56ad1c4ed12.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ee51d8daf47cada72148962d1107b6764574d4aa --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/92a68e3a53c8f240777be6cb76214f6cd0906c49d778ec29c86ed56ad1c4ed12.md @@ -0,0 +1,176 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 309 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Page 1 of 4 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/ +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 +DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION OF +PLAINTIFE, JANE DOE # 6(80994) +Defendant, JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, pursuant to Rule 35, Fed. R. Civ. P., notices +the Plaintiff for an independent/psychological medical examination and states: +1. +An appointment for examination of the Plaintiff has been made with Ryan +.M.D. of C.W. +M.D., P.A. at 9:00 a.m. on November 9, 2009 at the law firm of +Burman, Critton, Luttier and Coleman, LLP, located at 303 Banyan Boulevard, Ste. 400, +West Palm Beach, FL, 33401. The Plaintiff is to wear comfortable clothing and bring a +sweater. The examination shall consist of an interview and testing and will likely last +until 5:30 p.m. See infra and Motion attached at DE (308) for scope, time and place of +IME. See Exhibits attached as well. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 309 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Page 2 of 4 +Plaintiff has not provided an available date; however, unless a timely and +valid objection to this Notice is made, the Plaintiff is required by this Rule to be in +attendance at the above-scheduled examination. +3. +Pursuant to Rule 35, if the psychiatrist performing the examination is +called as a witness, the psychiatrist shall not be identified as one appointed by the Court. +4. +The cost of the examination will be originally borne by the Defendant but +is subject to taxation by the Court upon proper motion. +The interview will be videotaped. +6. Dr. Halls' specialties and qualifications are attached to the Motion +to Compel the IME at DE (308). The time, place, manner, conditions and scope +of the examination are attached to the Motion to Compel the IME at DE (308). +See Affidavit attached thereto. All of the above documents have been provided +to the Plaintiff's counsel and, therefore, sufficient notice has +made. +By: +MICHAEL J. +PIKE, ESQ +Florida Bar #617296 +Certificate of Service +I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed +Respectfully submitted, +ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. +Florida Bar No. 224162 +rcrit@bclclaw.com + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 309 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Page 3 of 4 +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. +Florida Bar #617296 +mpike@bclclaw.com +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & +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/L +Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. +Brad M +1, Esq. +Adam D. Horowitz., Esq. +Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler +Mermelstein & 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 +bedwards@rra-law.com +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +08-80893 +Counsel for Plaintiffs +In related Cases Nos. 08-80069, 08-80119, +08-80232, +08-80380, +, 08-80381, 08-80993, +Paul G. Cassell, Esq. +08-80994 +Pro Hac Vice +332 South 1400 E, Room 101 +Richard Horace Willits, Esq. +Salt Lake City, UT 84112 +Richard H. Willits, P.A. +801-585-5202 +2290 10** Avenue North +801-585-6833 Fax +Suite 404 +Lake Worth, FL 33461 +assellp@law.utah.edu +o-counsel for Plaintiff Jane Do +561-582-7600 +Fax: 561-588-8819 +sidro M.L +L. Esq. +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. +| Law Firm, P.A +08-80811 +224 Datura Street, Suite 900 +reelrhw@hotmail.com +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Jack Scarola, Esq. +Jack P. +L. Esq. +561-832-7137 F +isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 309 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Page 4 of 4 +Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, 08-80469 +P.A. +2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard +West Palm Beach, FL 33409 +561-686-6300 +Fax: 561-383-9424 +jsx@searcylaw.com +iph@searcylaw.com +Counsel for Plaintiff, C.M.A. +Bruce Reinhart, Esq. +Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A. +250 S. Australian Avenue +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561-202-6360 +Fax: 561-828-0983 +ecf@/brucereinharlaw.com +Counsel for Defendant +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 +rjosefsberg@podhurst.com +kezell@podhurst.com +Counsel for Plaintiffs in Related Cases +Nos. 09-80591 and 09-80656 +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South +West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 +561-659-8300 +Fax: 561-835-8691 +Theodore J. Leopold, Esq. +jagesq@bellsouth.net +Spencer T. Kuvin, Esq. +Counsel for 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 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/92a68e3a53c8f240777be6cb76214f6cd0906c49d778ec29c86ed56ad1c4ed12.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/92a68e3a53c8f240777be6cb76214f6cd0906c49d778ec29c86ed56ad1c4ed12.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b86f7123affff2f20799faaf6da69dedba32db48 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/92a68e3a53c8f240777be6cb76214f6cd0906c49d778ec29c86ed56ad1c4ed12.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -48, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "92a68e3a53c8f240777be6cb76214f6cd0906c49d778ec29c86ed56ad1c4ed12", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 4, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "96b314d4fd979d35c644d21ecda29e5a6a1968be4bef4311fab0c1a3cfffdbed", + "output_sha256": "106824ffc2ffeac1c830cfd1fae1f0382c8b240b6f34c451acaecc88176c7d43", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/92ad9ce8f61f145aaeae1ca1ee4578e8cd2254ca0ca6a5958d64980bf042a423.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/92ad9ce8f61f145aaeae1ca1ee4578e8cd2254ca0ca6a5958d64980bf042a423.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c513aa9573528cdc64312edef2f8b93ba5bac50d --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/92ad9ce8f61f145aaeae1ca1ee4578e8cd2254ca0ca6a5958d64980bf042a423.md @@ -0,0 +1,726 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 217 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2009 Page 1 of 26 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/_ +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/_ +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/] +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 217 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2009 Page 2 of 26 +JANE DOE NO. 5, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/ +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 6., +Plaintiff, +CASE NO: 08-CV-80994-MARRA/_ +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 7, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO: 08-CV-80993-MARRA/_ +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 217 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2009 Page 3 of 26 +C.M.A., +CASE NO: 08-CV-80811-MARRA/ +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO. 08-CV-80893-CIV-MARRA/_ +Vs. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et al., +Defendants. +DOE II, +CASE NO: 09-CV-80469-MARRA/ +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et al., +Defendants. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 217 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2009 Page 4 of 26 +JANE DOE NO. 101, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO: 09-CV-80591-MARRA/J +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 102, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO: 09-CV-80656-MARRA/_ +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +PLAINTIFF JANE DOE'S REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR +INJUNCTION RESTRAINING FRAUDULENT TRANSFER OF ASSETS, APPOINTMENT +OF A RECEIVER TO TAKE CHARGE OF PROPERTY OF EPSTEIN AND TO POST A $15 +MILLION BOND TO SECURE POTENTIAL JUDGMENT +Plaintiff, Jane Doe, hereby files this Reply Memorandum in Support of her Motion, pursuant to +Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 64, for appointment of a receiver to take charge of Epstein's property +and to post a $15 million bond to secure any potential judgment in this case. +As explained in Jane Doe's motion, Epstein is a billionaire who recently has been fraudulently +transferring his assets overseas and elsewhere with the intent to prevent Jane Doe (and possibly several +dozen other victims of his sexual abuse) from satisfying any judgment they might obtain against him. +In response, Epstein does not deny these allegations, but essentially argues: "Prove It ... If You Can." +Jane Doe is willing to take up his challenge in three ways. First, in the face of a supported motion +seeking protection against fraudulent transfers, Epstein cannot simply refuse to confirm or deny that he + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 217 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2009 Page 5 of 26 +is making them. Because he has failed to controvert Jane Doe's claims, they are deemed admitted. +Second, in any event, Jane Doe has clear evidentiary support that Epstein is hiding his assets through +an adverse inference from his Fifth Amendment invocations. That inference is entirely appropriate in +this case, because Epstein has personal knowledge of the subject at hand (whether he is fraudulently +transferring assets) and the inference is entirely reasonable on the facts of the case. Third, in addition +to the adverse inference, Jane Doe has a perfect circumstantial case of fraudulent transfers: Epstein has +the means, motive, and opportunity to hide his assets. +In view of this proof of fraudulent transfers, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 64 guarantees +Jane Doe all available state law pre-judgment remedies to protect her interests. Florida has adopted the +Florida Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (FUFTA), Fla. Stat. Ann. § 726.101 et seq., which gives the +Court power to appoint a receiver to take charge of assets that are being fraudulently transferred. +Epstein's argument that this Court lacks the ability to make such an appointment conflates an ordinary +case (where courts are reluctant to take control of a defendant's assets before entry of judgment) and a +case in which fraudulent transfers have been proven - in which case seizure of assets is entirely +appropriate. +Given that the Court has the power to appoint a receiver, it should appoint a receiver. Jane Doe +has advanced extremely serious allegations of sexual abuse against Epstein, which is likely to produce +a substantial judgment in her favor (not to mention judgments of a similar nature in several dozen other +cases). This Court should not allow Epstein to move hundreds of millions of dollars overseas before +Jane Doe can obtain her judgment, but should instead appoint a receiver - now - to take control of +Epstein's assets and to post a $15 million bond with this Court on behalf of Epstein to satisfy any +judgment that Jane Doe might obtain. +DEFENDANT ESPTEIN HAS NOT DISPUTED JANE DOE'S MATERIAL FACTS WITH HIS +OWN MATERIAL FACTS, SO JANE DOE'S FACTS SHOULD BE ACCEPTED +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 217 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2009 Page 6 of 26 +In her moving papers, Jane Doe provided 14 specific material facts, each supported by +evidence. In response, Epstein choose to ignore most of the facts, resorting instead to generalized +attacks that the facts are "irrelevant, speculative, and hearsay." Epstein's Memo. in Opp. [DE 198 at +5]. Epstein should not be permitted to proceed in this blunderbuss fashion. Epstein should be required +to explain which of the 14 specific facts he disputes - and which he does not. Indeed, his failure to +controvert the facts specifically should lead the Court to deem all of them admitted. +A specific response to each of Jane Doe's material facts is certainly the approach envisioned in +this Court's rules. Local Rule 7.5.C.3 explains that, for summary judgment motions, that statements of +material facts "shall correspond with the order and with the paragraph numbering scheme used by the +movant ...." Additional facts "shall be numbered and placed at the end of the opposing party's +statement of material facts ...." Id. The rule concludes that "[a]ll material facts set forth in the +movant's statement filed and supported as required by Local Rule 7.5.C will be deemed admitted +unless controverted by the opposing party's statement, provided that the Court finds that the movant's +statement is supported by evidence in the record." Id. +The obvious underlying reason for this point-counterpoint approach is to narrow the range of +disputes presented to the court. A party needs to provide a specific basis for contesting the proposed +facts of the other side and, without such a basis, should not contest the fact. Epstein has short-circuited +this process by refusing to explain which of Jane Doe's facts he contests - and which he admits. +Obviously, some of Jane Doe's facts are incontestable. For example, Jane Doe has asserted +that she seeks more than $50 million in damages and many other, similarly-situated defendants seek at +least the same amount in similar lawsuits pending before this Court and Florida courts. Thus, Epstein +is facing more than $1 billion in damages claims. See Material Facts #1 and #4. If these facts are true, +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 217 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2009 Page 7 of 26 +then Epstein has an undeniable motive to fraudulently hide his assets. But Epstein sidesteps and +obscures this point by refusing to say whether or not he disputes these (quite incontestable) facts. +Similarly, Jane Doe has alleged that Epstein has international contacts, having travelled +overseas with such famous persons as President Bill Clinton, Prince Andrew, and Donald Trump. Is +Epstein contesting that he has these international travels? Here again, it is impossible to tell because +Epstein has not explained whether he is contesting or accepting these facts. +With regard to several of Jane Doe's facts, Epstein responds generally that they are supported +by "hearsay" information. For example, Epstein argues "It]his appearance of extreme wealth and +sophistication in international financial matters is based on inadmissible hearsay ...." Epstein's +Memo. in Opp. [DE 198 at 6]. Epstein does not deny the truth of these allegations. And, to the extent +that the supporting sources for these claims are inadequate, Jane Doe has now filed a motion to +supplement her supporting evidence with a new, recently-obtained Declaration - from Epstein himself. +See Plaintiff Jane Doe's Motion to Provide Recently-Obtained Affidavit of Jeffrey E. Epstein in +Support of Material Facts Supporting Motion for Appointment of a Receiver to Take Charge of +Property of Epstein [DE 213]. This Declaration was signed by Esptein in October of 2002 and filed in +support of a Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment filed in +the matter of Citibank, N.A. v. Jeffrey E. Epstein and Financial Trust Company, Inc., Index No. 02 +Civ. 5332(SHS) in United States Southern District of New York, in which Epstein was named +individually and as President and Director of Financial Trust Co., Inc. as Defendant. A copy of the +Declaration has been provided to Defendant and is attached hereto as Exhibit "A.". In this Declaration +Epstein declares under penalty of perjury: +• That he is President and Director of Financial Trust Company, Inc., a business that +provides financial and business consulting services from the U.S. Virgin Islands to its +clients. + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 217 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2009 Page 8 of 26 +• That he has been a legal resident of the U.S. Virgin Islands since 1999, residing at Little +St. James Island - a 70-acre island that he owns through a wholly-owned limited +liability company. +• From 1987 through the date of the affidavit, Epstein was one of Citibank's most +important individual clients. +• In 1999, Epstein and Citibank did a $10 million deal together, followed by another +similar $10 million deal the next year. These deals involved Epstein borrowing $20 +million from Citibank and then immediately reinvesting them in a fund that Citibank +was touting. +Of course, all of these admissions fully support the claims that Jane Doe made in her initial moving +papers. +Presumably the reason for Epstein refusing to respond point-by-point to Jane Doe's facts is that +he does not want to have to respond specifically to Jane Doe's position that he has fraudulently +transferred assets in the past and is currently transferring his assets overseas - transfers that are being +used to defeat any judgment that might be entered against him in this case. If Epstein were required to +go point-by-point through Jane Doe's facts - as the Local Rules envision - then Epstein's counsel +would have to either sign a pleading admitting that such fraudulent transfers are taking place or +representing, as an officer of the court, that no such transfers are taking place. Far better, Epstein has +apparently concluded, to simply duck the issue entirely by blustering in general about how some +aspects of Jane Doe's are "speculative" or "irrelevant." +Because of Epstein's failure to provide specific material facts in opposition to the facts +proffered by Jane Doe, all of these facts should be taken as admitted. +JANE DOE HAS PROVIDED SUFFICIENT, UNREBUTTED PROOF THAT EPSTEIN IS +FRAUDULENTLY TRANSFERRING ASSETS +Jane Doe Has Provided Sufficient Support of Her Alleged Facts +In addition to Epstein's procedural failures, he has also failed to provide any substantive reason +for the court to refuse to accept the facts. Many of the facts are well supported by the affidavit of Paul +5 + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 217 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2009 Page 9 of 26 +Cassell, Esq., that Jane Doe initially filed. To the extent that any of the information provided in the +Cassell affidavit was hearsay, that problem has now disappeared in view of the Declaration signed by +Epstein that Jane Doe is providing to the Court. +The facts regarding Epstein's fraudulent transfers of assets overseas are also sufficiently +supported. As envisioned by the local rule, Jane Doe supported her allegations on this point with +specific materials "on file with the Court," Local Rule 7.5.C.2, namely, Epstein's answers to her +requests for admissions and interrogatories. When asked directly whether he was perpetrating such a +fraud, Epstein invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. +Epstein's invocation should lead the Court to draw the obvious adverse conclusion - that he is, +in fact, fraudulently transferring assets overseas. Epstein concedes that the Court has the power to +draw such an inference. See Epstein's Memo. in Opp. at 8. He gamely maintains, however, that such +an inference is somehow not proper under the test laid out by United States v. Custer Battles, LLC, 415 +F.Supp.2d 628, 633 (E.D. Va. 2006). +Custer Battles lays out a two-prong test for deciding whether a factfinder can appropriately +draw an adverse inference. The first prong is whether there is "a valid basis for asserting the privilege." +Id. at 633. "When the privilege is invoked during discovery, this validity issue is typically resolved +via a motion to compel." Id. Because the burden rests squarely on Epstein to show the specific basis +for his invocation, Jane Doe has filed currently-pending motions to compel answers to her requests for +admissions, requests for production, and interrogatories. See, e.g., Plaintiff Jane Doe's Motion to +Compel Answers to Plaintiff's First Request for Admissions to Defendant [DE 211] (filed July 20, +2009). If after reviewing Jane Doe's motion to compel, the Court concludes that Epstein does not have +a valid basis for invoking privilege about asset transfers, then Epstein will have to explain where he +has transferred his assets and this motion can be resolved in light of specific explanations from +6 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 217 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2009 Page 10 of 26 +Epstein. If, on the other hand, the Court concludes that Epstein does have a valid basis for invoking +privilege about asset transfers, then the Court will have concluded that Epstein "might be prosecuted in +this country" for making fraudulent transfers. Custer Battles, 415 F.Supp.2d at 633. The issue then +arises about what the court should infer from this fact. +The second-prong of the Custer Battles test explains how the Court should resolve whether to +draw the obvious inference against Epstein. The Court should make "an assessment [of] whether the +requested inference, which [is] a form of evidence, complies] with the Federal Rules of Evidence. +Thus, any adverse inferences must be relevant, reliable, and not unfairly prejudicial, confusing, or +cumulative." Id. at 634 (internal citation omitted), quoted in Epstein's Memo. in Opp. [DE 198 at 9]. +Surprisingly, having set out this governing, second prong of the test, Epstein does not pause to analyze +whether it is satisfied. Presumably that is because the test obviously is satisfied. The inference that +Epstein is fraudulently transferring assets is plainly "relevant" to Jane Doe's motion to have the Court +intervene to stop the fraud. The inference is likewise "reliable," because Epstein makes no argument +(nor offers any evidence) to the contrary. And the inference is clearly "not unfairly prejudicial, +confusing, or cumulative" because it goes to the central issue in this motion. +The Fifth Amendment Cases Do Not Require Independent Evidence Before An Adverse +Inference Can Be Drawn +Rather than analyze whether the inference satisfies the two-prong Custer Battles test, Epstein +pulls another sentence out of context from the opinion, which he claims forms yet a third prong of +what Custer Battles itself describes as a "two step inquiry." Id. at 633. Epstein argues that an adverse +inference can only be drawn when independent evidence exists of the fact to which the party refuses to +answer. Epstein's Memo. in Opp. [DE 198 at 9]. But that is not what Custer Battles actually says. +Instead, Custer Battles discusses the need to show through independent evidence that an adverse +inference satisfies the requirement of "personal knowledge" (one of the requirements for admissible +7 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 217 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2009 Page 11 of 26 +evidence under Fed. R. Evid. 602). The case explains: "This finding of personal knowledge must itself +rely on the other evidence to be presented at trial; a conclusion as to the reliability of an inference +cannot derive by bootstrapping from Morris' [the defendant's] seemingly blanket invocation of the +privilege against self-incrimination." Custer Battles, 41 F.Supp.2d at 634-35 (emphasis added). Thus, +Custer Battles cautioned against drawing inferences about other people's state of mind via an adverse +inference from defendant Morris' invocation of his Fifth Amendment rights. But the Court had no +difficulty in finding an inference proper regarding Morris' own state of mind: "This [need for proof of +personal knowledge] is not a problem here, as none of the six deposition questions [as to which Morris +took the Fifth] inquire into matters as to which there is any doubt about Morris' personal knowledge." +Id. So too here: There can be no doubt about Epstein's personal knowledge about whether he himself +is fraudulently transferring assets - which is the narrow question that Jane Doe propounded in her +requests for admission. Accordingly, an adverse inference would be entirely reliable and proper in this +case. +Epstein also provides two "see also" citations in support of his claim that Jane Doe must +provide some kind of "independent evidence" of his fraudulent transfers in order to gain the inference +of fraudulent transfers. The first is Avirgan v. Hull, 932 F.2d 1572, 1580 (11"" Cir. 1991), in which +Plaintiffs who had filed a frivolous lawsuit appealed from a district court decision granting summary +judgment against them. The plaintiffs in that case had attempted to defeat summary judgment by +arguing that several of the defendants had not complied with discovery and invoked the Fifth +Amendment in response to certain questions during discovery. The Eleventh Circuit, however, +rejected that claim by explaining that the fact that several defendants had raised Fifth Amendment +objections to discovery did not bar a summary judgment grant: 'Invocation of the fifth amendment +privilege did not give rise to any legally cognizable inferences sufficient to preclude entry of summary +8 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 217 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2009 Page 12 of 26 +judgment. The negative inference, if any, to be drawn from the assertion of the fifth amendment does +not substitute for evidence needed to meet the burden of production. Most importantly, Avirgan and +Honey did not demonstrate that further discovery would have led to evidence which would have +precluded summary judgment.... +" Id. at 1580 (citing United States v. Rylander, 460 U.S. 752 +(1983)). Avirgan thus stands for the unexceptional proposition that the mere fact that someone has +raised the Fifth Amendment does not prevent them from filing a well-supported summary judgment +motion. That principle has little application, however, to this case; here it is Jane Doe who is the +moving party. Epstein has not provided any evidence that the Court should not draw an adverse +inference - or, indeed, any evidence at all in opposition to her motion. Accordingly, Avirgan is not on +point and certainly does not suggest that Jane Doe needs to provide some sort of independent evidence +to obtain an adverse inference.' +The other case cited by Epstein -- Eagle Hospital Physicians, LLC v. SRG Consulting, Inc., 561 +F.3d 1298 (11" Cir. 2009) - is likewise unavailing. There, a defendant presented an affidavit to the +district court that attached attorney-client privileged e-mails of the plaintiff company. When the +company deposed the defendant in an effort to learn how he obtained these sensitive documents, the +defendant took the Fifth. Based on these facts alone, the district court drew the adverse inference that +the plaintiff maintained the ability to monitor the company's confidential e-mails. On appeal, the +Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision to draw an adverse inference. The Circuit +explained that "It]he decision to invoke the Fifth Amendment does not have to be consequence-free." +Id. Instead, a court need only avoid "an undue burden" on the constitutional invocation. An undue +burden would exist from "It]he automatic entry of an adverse judgment solely as a result of the +' In addition, as explained below, Jane Doe has independent evidence via the circumstantial evidence +of fraudulent transfers that she has provided to the Court, specifically the means, motive, and +opportunity evidence. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 217 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2009 Page 13 of 26 +CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/_ +assertion of the Fifth Amendment." Id. at 1304. Similarly, "a dismissal following the assertion of the +Fifth Amendment violates the Constitution where the inferences drawn from the Fifth-Amendmentprotected silence are treated as a substitute for the need for evidence on an ultimate issue of fact." Id. +Here, Jane Doe does not propose either the "automatic entry of an adverse judgment" or "a +dismissal" based on a conclusion of "ultimate fact." Rather, Jane Doe asks this Court to draw the +specific adverse inference that Epstein is fraudulently transferring assets. That adverse inference then +becomes a link in a chain of reasoning asking not for ultimate entry of final judgment in her favor, but +rather for interim appointment of a receiver over Epstein's assets to preserve the status quo and prevent +any further fraudulent transfers. At the end of the case, after paying whatever judgment the jury +returns, Epstein will then regain control over his remaining assets. Therefore, drawing the inference as +part of resolving this motion does not burden Epstein with any conclusion of ultimate fact, but instead +does no more than was done in Eagle Hospital: "assign the proper evidentiary weight to [Epstein's] +silence." Id. at 1304. +The conclusion that the Court can draw an adverse inference on the facts of this case is also +supported by common sense. It is exceedingly difficult for Jane Doe to get information about +Epstein's assets. +Indeed, this Court has previously recognized that "liln the fraudulent transfer +context, ... the defendant, as opposed to the plaintiff, is more likely to possess the particularized +information about the complained-of conduct." Special Purpose Accounts Receivable Co-op Corp. v. +Prime One Capital Co.,.L.L.C, 2007 WL 4482611 (S.D. Fla. 2007) (Marra, J.). Obtaining information +about the whereabouts of Epstein's assets is particularly difficult, given his financial sophistication in +structuring control over those assets. See, e.g., Declaration of Jeffrey E. Epstein, Attachment 1, at 1 +(noting ownership of of Little St. James Island in the U.S. Virgin Islands through a wholly-owned +limited liability company itself resident in the Virgin Islands). Therefore, the Court should draw the +10 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 217 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2009 Page 14 of 26 +obvious inference that the reason Epstein is taking the Fifth when asked about his fraudulent transfers +of assets is because he is making fraudulent transfers of assets. +In Any Event, Jane Doe Has Provided Circumstantial Evidence of Epstein's Fraudulent Transfers. +Even assuming, for sake of argument, that these cases could be read as establishing some sort +of requirement that Jane Doe produce independent evidence of fraudulent transfers before obtaining an +adverse inference, Jane Doe has produced that evidence. As explained in detail in her moving papers, +Jane Doe has a "perfect circumstantial evidence case that [Epstein] ha[s] means, motive, and +opportunity to fraudulently transfer assets." Jane Doe's Motion to Restrain Fraudulent Transfer of +Assets at 11 (quoting United States v. Sparks, 265 F.3d 825, 830 (9" Cir. 2001)).? Epstein completely +misses the point of Jane Doe's means, motive, and opportunity argument, construing it as some sort of +new "test" for deciding whether asset transfers are fraudulent. See Epstein's Memo. in Opp. at [DE +198 at 19-20]. But Jane Doe offers this circumstantial evidence not as a test for determining a +fraudulent transfer, but as evidence that Epstein is making fraudulent transfers. Epstein cannot +plausibly deny that he has the means, motive, and opportunity to move all of his substantial assets +overseas beyond the reach of Jane Doe. This circumstantial evidence should be more than enough to +meet whatever sort of burden of production Epstein wants to tease out of the adverse inferences cases. +Indeed, taken to its logical conclusion, Epstein's argument about Jane Doe's purported need to +provide "independent evidence" of fraudulent transfers ultimately collapses under its own weight. +Epstein would apparently require Jane Doe to track down his fraudulent asset transfers to foreign +countries, providing documentation of these fraudulent transfers. Of course, if she had clear +" Epstein claims that the Sparks decision is "completely inapposite" because it concerns probable cause for an +arrest, rather than a fraudulent asset determination. Epstein's Memo. in Opp. at 20. But the legal principle at +prevent fraudulent asset transfers. +11 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 217 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2009 Page 15 of 26 +documentation of these transfers, there would be no need to rely on an adverse inference. In other +words, Epstein's interpretation of the burden that Jane Doe must sustain to obtain an adverse inference +would make the inference all but irrelevant. +Epstein's position also ignores the realities of this case. As Jane Doe proffered in her statement +of facts, without direct response from Epstein, "Epstein has blocked all discovery, in this and other +related cases, regarding his assets." Jane Doe's Motion to Restrain Fraudulent Transfer of Assets at 8 +(supported by uncontested affidavit of her legal counsel). Jane Doe had further proffered that Epstein +is a man of great financial sophistication, id. at 6 - a fact now undeniably supported by Epstein's own +affidavit. See Declaration of Jeffrey E. Epstein at 2, Attachment 1 (swearing under oath that Epstein +provides financial advice from the U.S. Virgin Islands in securities and other matters to his clients and +that he is viewed by Citibank as "one of its most important individual clients"). Given the fact that +asset transfers can take place to such countries as Israel, Switzerland, and the Cayman Islands, placing +the burden on Jane Doe to document fraudulent asset transfers to such destinations effectively gives a +light to massive fraud - a fraud that could ultimately total in the neighborhood of one billion +dollars ($1,000,000,000.00). See Jane Doe's Motion to Restrain Fraudulent Transfer of Assets at [DE +165 at 5] (statement of material fact that Epstein is a billionaire). The Fifth Amendment does not +require such obtuse results. Instead, it permits the narrow and reasonable inference that Epstein is +fraudulently transferring his assets, permitting the Court to take appropriate remedial action. +Drawing an Adverse Inference Would Not Violate the Fifth Amendment +Epstein also tries to argue that drawing an adverse inference on these facts would violate his +Fifth Amendment rights. Epstein contends that "a judgment cannot rest solely upon a privileged +refusal to admit or deny at the pleading stage." Epstein Memo. in Opp. [DE 198 at 10] (quoting +LaSalle Bank Lake View v. Seguban, 54 F.3d 387, 391 (7th Cir. 1995) (emphasis added)). As just +12 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 217 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2009 Page 16 of 26 +CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/_ +explained, Jane Doe has circumstantial evidence of fraudulent transfers. But more important for +purposes of this argument, Jane Doe is not asking for a final judgment to be entered on Epstein's +fraudulent transfer of assets. Instead, she is asking merely for an adverse evidentiary inference that +then becomes a piece of evidence supporting her motion. In turn, her motion merely asks for an +interim measure that would protect the status quo: a receiver to account for Epstein's assets and +prevent him from hiding them overseas. +Blocking fraudulent transfers is hardly the sort of "coercive" practice that is of concern in the +cases cited by Epstein. The cases are clear that using the Fifth Amendment to block discovery need +not be "cost free." McKune v. Lile, 536 U.S. 24, 41 (2002). Here, there is no real cost to Epstein from +the appointment of a receiver. All Jane Doe wants is a receiver to control Epstein's assets to keep +them from dissipating overseas and to post a bond (in an interest-bearing account) to satisfy any +judgment that she might obtain. These measures will only harm Epstein if he is attempting to +fraudulently transfer his assets outside the reach of the Court. This is not the sort of burden that might +even conceivably implicate true Fifth Amendment concerns. +Jane Doe Has Met the Elements to Obtain Relief Under Florida's Uniform Fraudulent +Transfer Act +Somewhat out of order, Epstein argues in the tail end of his response that Jane Doe has failed to +sufficiently prove fraudulent transfers under Florida's Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act ("FUFTA"), +Fla. Stat. §$ 726.101 et seq. Memo. in Opp. at [DE 198 at 1821]. Epstein argues that a fraudulent +transfer is proven where: (1) a transfer of property has in fact occurred; (2) the property transferred +belonged to the debtor; (3) the transfer occurred within certain statutory time periods; and (4) the +debtor made the transfer with the intent to hinder, delay or defraud creditors. Memo. in Opp. at [DE +13 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 217 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2009 Page 17 of 26 +198 at 18] (citing In re Leneve, 341 B.R. 53, 56 (Bkrtcy S.D. Fla. 2006).? However, Epstein does not +grapple with the fact that Jane Doe has properly proven each of these four points with regard to the +first factor - transfer of property - Jane Doe's Material Fact #9 is that Epstein has "conveyed money +and assets in an attempt to insulate and protect his money and assets from being capture[d] in civil +lawsuits filed against him." +With regard to the second factor - that the property belonged to the debtor - Jane Doe's +Material Fact #9 and #12 (among others) is that he is moving his assets (which total more than $1 +billion, according to Material Fact #8) overseas. +With regard to the third factor - that the transfers occurred within the appropriate time limits - +Jane Doe's Material Fact #9 is that the fraudulent transfers have been taking place "since he was +incarcerated" (i.e., since June 2008) and Material Fact #11 is that they are going on "currently." This +on-going activity obviously satisfies whatever applicable time limits may apply.* +With regard to the fourth factor - that Epstein made the transfers with the intent to hinder, +delay or defraud creditors - Jane Doe's Material Fact #9 is that Epstein has "conveyed money and +assets in an attempt to insulate and protect his money and assets from being captured in civil lawsuits +filed against him" and Material Fact #12 is that "Epstein is transferring these assets with the intent to +defeat any judgment that might be entered against him in this and other similar cases." Plainly Jane +Doe has covered the required elements of a case under the FUFTA. There is thus no need for the +3 Epstein incorrectly cites this case has having been decided by this Court (the U.S. District Court for the S.D. +of Florida), when in fact it was decided by the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida. +* It is not clear that any time limit applies under the FUFTA. The case cited by Epstein is a bankruptcy case, +which refers to the need to prove that "It]he transfer was within one year of the date of the filing of the +[bankruptcy] petition." See In re Leneve, 351 B.R. at 56, citing In re Ingersoll, 124 B.R. 116, 120 (M.D. Fla. +1991). The FUFTA eschews any rigid time limit if it can be shown that transfer was made with the "intent to +hinder, delay, or defraud any creditor of the debtor." Fla. Stat. Ann. § 726.105(1)(a). Jane Doe has made such a +shor his explai, Epsie the next paragraph re Stevar, 280 B.R. 268, 285 (Brey. M.D. Fla. 2001), is not on +point. In that case, the plaintiff had merely made allegations without providing any supporting evidence - +14 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 217 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2009 Page 18 of 26 +Court to delve into the "badges of fraud" sometimes needed to determine fraudulent intent. See, e.g., +In re Dealers Agency Services, Inc., 380 B.R. 608, 613 (Bkrtcy. M.D. Fla. 2007). Courts use these +badges of fraud because it is, in some cases, "difficult to establish a transferor's actual intent." In re +Ramsurat, 361 B.R. 246, 254 (Bkrtcy. M.D. Fla... 2006). Here, however, Jane Doe's material facts +establish the fraudulent intent. It could hardly be otherwise: Epstein has not alleged (much less +proven) that he is moving his assets to overseas for any legitimate business purpose. +For all these reasons, the Court should conclude that Epstein is fraudulently transferring his +assets. +JANE DOE IS ENTITLED TO RELIEF TO BLOCK EPSTEIN'S FRAUDULENT +TRANSFERS UNDER THE UNIFORM FRAUDULENT TRANSFER ACT AS +ADOPTED BY FLORIDA +In light of Epstein's fraudulent asset transfers, Jane Doe is entitled to pre-judgment remedies to +protect her. For purposes of navigating through the Court's PACER filing system, Jane Doe has +checked the "injunction" box in the automated system. But, as made clear in the body of Jane Doe's +motion, while the relief can be viewed as a form of injunctive relief, is more precisely viewed as a prejudgment seizure of property. In any event, the name is not important. See +v. Cascade Intern., +Inc., 21 F.3d 1520, 1530 (11th Cir. 1994) ("federal courts look past the terminology to the actual +nature of the relief requested") (internal quotation omitted). Jane Doe's requested relief is specifically +authorized by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 64, which guarantees Jane Doe during the course of +unlike Jane Doe, who has provided an affidavit of counsel, adverse inferences from discovery propounded to +Epstein, and circumstantial evidence of the mean, motive, and opportunity for fraudulent transfers. Moreover, +in Stewart, that plaintiff did not "allege any specific fact which, even if admitted, would support a finding that +transfer was made with the actual intent to defraud a creditor." Id. at 286. Here, of course, that is precisely +what Jane Doe has alleged - and proven - all without any denial from Epstein. +® Because Jane Doe is proceeding under Fed. R. Civ. P. 64 ("Seizure of Person or Property") rather than Fed. R. Civ. P. 64 +(Injunctions"), she has not organized her brief around the well-known four factor test for obtaining injunctive relief. At the +same time, however, her moving papers specifically discuss each of the four factors and it is obviously that she easily +satisfies them. First, Jane Doe has shown a likelihood of success on the merits. As explained in her moving papers (see +Jane Doe's Motion at 16-18), at trial she and several dozen young girls will all testify to a pattern of sexual abuse by +15 + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 217 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2009 Page 19 of 26 +this suit "all remedies providing for seizure of person or property for the purpose of securing +satisfaction of the judgment ultimately to be entered in the action" that are "available under the +circumstances and in the manner provided by the law of the state in which the court is held." The Rule +goes on to provide that "It]he remedies thus available include arrest, attachment, garnishment, +replevin, sequestration, and other corresponding or equivalent remedies, however designated and +regardless of whether by state procedure the remedy is ancillary to an action or must be obtained by an +independent action." This "long-settled federal law provid[es] that in all cases in federal court , ... +state law is incorporated to determine the availability of prejudgment remedies for the seizure of +person or property to secure satisfaction of the judgment ultimately entered." +21 F.3d at 1531. +Accordingly, under this Rule, this Court looks to Florida law to determine Jane Doe's rights to prejudgment relief.' +To prevent fraudulent transfers of assets before judgment, Florida has adopted the Uniform +Fraudulent Transfer Act. Fla. Stat. Ann. § 726.101 et seq. Under Florida's Uniform Fraudulent +Transfer Act (FUFTA), courts are broadly empowered to take action to block fraudulent transfers of +assets. Epstein attempts to obscure the power of this Court to block his fraud by arguing to the Court +that "freezing a defendant's assets to establish a fund with which to satisfy a potential judgment for +money damages is not an appropriate exercise of a federal district court's authority." Mem. in Opp. +Epstein. Epstein has pled guilty to abusing some of these girls and has invoked the Fifth Amendment rather than answer +any questions about it. Second, Jane Doe will obviously be irreparably harmed if Epstein succeeds in fraudulently +transferring his assets beyond the reach of this Court, has she will be unable to satisfy any judgment that she might obtain +against him. Third, this injury clearly outweighs any injury to Epstein, as Epstein has not explained how he would be in +any way harmed by the existence of a receiver whose job is merely to account for assets and block fraudulent transfers. +Finally, such an injunction would serve the public interest, as it would prevent a billionaire sex offender from depriving +Jane Doe (and his other victims) of compensation for the abuse he committed against them. +Because Jane Doe is proceeding under Fed. R. Civ. P. 64, there is no requirement that she engage in a paper +chase by filing some sort of separate state law claim, as Epstein seems to argue. Mem. in Opp. at 11. See +7. 21 F.3d at 1531 ("Rule 64 commands that the proper pretrial remedy to ensure that a fund will be +available with which to satisfy a money judgment... is available according to the provisions of the forum +state's law."). +16 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 217 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2009 Page 20 of 26 +[DE 198 at 12-13] (citing +v. Cascade Intern., Inc., 21 F.3d 1520, 1531 (11th Cir. 1994)). But +Jane Doe stands not in the position of an ordinary tort claimant who is merely trying to gain a leg up +on the collection of an anticipated judgment; instead, she is trying to block Epstein from altering the +status quo by hiding all of his assets. +The difference between trying to gain an advantage in the collection process versus blocking +fraudulent transfers is widely recognized in the case law. For example, Epstein's lead case - [ +V. +Cascade Intern., Inc., 21 F.3d 1520 (11th Cir. 1994) - refused to approve a pre-judgment injunction +seizing assets where the plaintiff had merely argued that this would help in collecting a judgment down +the road. The Eleventh Circuit specifically recognized that fraudulent transfers of assets presented an +entirely different problem: +Contrary to [plaintiff's] assertion, our holding that a district court is without the power +to grant such preliminary injunctive relief does not mean that a federal court is +powerless to protect a potential future damages remedy against a recalcitrant defendant +with highly liquid assets, no matter how wrongful its conduct, how bad the injury it +caused, or how brazen its attempt to evade judgment by secreting assets. On the +contrary, Rule 64 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes the prejudgment +attachment of property for the benefit of a plaintiff in certain situations and provides the +proper vehicle for plaintiffs seeking to restrain a defendant's assets with an eye towards +satisfying a potential money judgment. +21 F.3d at 1520. In this case, of course, Jane Doe is face with a brazen attempt by Epstein to hide his +assets. She has responded by proceeding under Rule 64, which +calls the "proper vehicle" for +plaintiffs in her position. +Equally off point is Epstein's other main case - De Beers Consol. Mines v. United States, 325 +U.S. 212, 219 (1945) - in which the "Government disclaim|ed] any benefit of [Federal Rule of Civil +Procedure 64], which provides for an attachment ... during the course of an action for the purpose of +securing payment of any judgment" (emphasis added). Here, of course, far from "disclaiming" use of +Fed. R. Civ. 64, Jane Doe is proceeding under it. The apparent reason that the Government +17 + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 217 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2009 Page 21 of 26 +disclaimed use of Rule 64 in De Beers was that it was not seeking any sort of money damages. See +Hoxworth v. Blinder, +& Co., Inc., 903 F.2d 186, 195 (3rd Cir. 1990) (explaining why De +Beers is a peculiar case that "must be understood in its context"). In later cases, the Supreme Court +has not hesitated to approve relief to prevent fraudulent dissipation of assets that might be used to +satisfy a judgment awarding money damages. See, e.g., United States v. First National City Bank, 379 +U.S. 378, 385 (1965) (approving a temporary injunction to prevent "transfer[ring] assets abroad" and +distinguishing De Beers). +In one final attempt to obscure this Court's power, Epstein cites Lawhon v. Mason, 611 So.2d +1367, 1368 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993), as rejecting plaintiff's motion to prohibit a defendant from +transferring assets. Mem. in Opp. at 14. But the specific reason given for rejecting the motion was that +the plaintiffs were not proceeding "under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act." 611 So.2d at 1368. +Of course, in this case, Jane Doe is proceeding under Florida's Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, +incorporated as a state law remedy into Fed. R. Civ. P. 64.° +For all these reasons, the Court has the power to protect Jane Doe through the provisions of the +FUFTA. +UNDER FLORIDA'S UNIFORM FRAUDULENT TRANSFER ACT, JANE DOE IS +ENTITLED TO THE REMEDIES OF APPOINTMENT OF A RECEIVER TO TAKE +CHARGE OF EPSTEIN'S ASSETS, FILE AN ACCOUNTING OF THOSE ASSETS +WITH THE COURT, AND TO POST A $15 MILLION BOND +In her motion, Jane Doe sought appointment of a receiver to take charge of Epstein's assets, to +file an accounting of those +assets, and to post a $15,000,000 bond. Jane Doe explained that the +Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act gives this Court broad remedial powers to prevent fraudulent +transfers of assets. The remedies provided by the Act include: +& Epstein cites certain cases regarding the nature of affidavits and other proof that must be provided when a +plaintiff proceeds under the general prejudgment attachment provisions found in Fla. Stat. § 76.01. See Mem. in +Opp. at 15-16. Those requirements have no bearing on Jane Doe's motion, which proceeds under the FUFTA. +18 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 217 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2009 Page 22 of 26 +1. An injunction against further disposition by the debtor ... of the asset transferred ... +2. Appointment of a receiver to take charge of the asset transferred or of other property +of the transferee: or +3. Any other relief the circumstances may require. Fla. Stat. Ann. § 726.108(c). +In response, Epstein argues that this Court is powerless to appoint a receiver, because section +(2) of the FUFTA refers to a receiver to take control "of the asset transferred or of other property of the +transferee." But Epstein does not deny that the Court obviously has the power to appoint a receiver +under section (3) of the FUFTA, which broadly confers power on court to award "[a]ny other relief the +circumstances may require." For this reason, it is not important that Jane Doe shoehorn her claim +within section (2). Instead, she can rely on (3), which is "a 'catch-all" phrase that allows courts to +award "other relief." Freeman v. First Union Nat. Bank, 865 So.2d 1272, 1276 (Fla. 2004). The intent +of this provision was "to facilitate the use of the other remedies provided in the statute," id. - +presumably including receivers, since they are discussed in the statute. The only question, then, is +whether the "circumstances" here make the appointment of a receiver appropriate. A receiver is the +remedy that makes the most sense, because the receiver can identify where Epstein's assets are and can +prevent further fraudulent transfers.? +Epstein does not even argue (much less, convincingly argue) that appointment of a receiver is +inappropriate. Instead, he dives off on a detour regarding the circumstances in which fiduciaries can +obtain an equitable accounting. See Memo. in Opp. at 16-17. However, those cases allow an +accounting where "the remedy at law is inadequate." Florida Software Systems, Inc. v. Columbia/HCA +Helathcare Corp., 46 F.Supp. 1276, 1285 (M.D. Fla. 1999) (citing Kee v. National Reserve Life +Insurance Co., 918 F.2d 1538, 1540 (11th Cir. 1990). If the Court denies Jane Doe's motion, then she +will be completely without any remedy to bar Epstein's fraudulent transfers - leaving her with no +° A receiver to account for Epstein's assets also makes sense because there are more than twenty other +plaintiffs with sexual abuse claims against Epstein, who may be similarly situated to Jane Doe. A receiver can +block fraudulent transfers that would harm these victims as well. +19 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 217 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2009 Page 23 of 26 +"remedy at law." Moreover, Epstein pretends that the only point of the receiver is to provide an +itemized list of his assets, as though this were a mere accounting exercise. But the main point of the +receiver is block further fraudulent transfers by exercising control over Epstein's assets. Jane Doe will +not be comforted to get an accounting next year after trial showing that Epstein has moved his +hundreds of millions of dollars to Swiss bank accounts, Israeli corporations, and Cayman Island +investment trusts. Instead, she wants a receiver appointed now to keep Epstein from fully perpetrating +a billion-dollar fraud. +After the receiver is in place, Jane Doe also asks for the posting of $15,000,000 bond. Here +again, Epstein quibbles about the Court's authority to order such an award, without addressing the fact +that this Court has broad power to give Jane Doe "[a]ny other relief the circumstances may require." +Fla. Stat. Ann. § 726.108(c). Such a bond is appropriate in the circumstances here, particularly given +that Epstein never contests Jane Doe's argument as to why such a bond is a reasonable given the +judgment she is likely to obtain. See Jane Doe's Motion to Restrain Fraudulent Transfer of Assets at +[DE 165 at 16-17]. +THE COURT ALSO HAS EQUITABLE POWERS TO PREVENT +FRAUDULENT TRANSFERS +For all the reasons just explained, the Court has specifically direct power to appoint a receiver +under the FUFTA. But Jane Doe also explained in her motion that the Court has additional equitable +powers. As the Florida cases explain, the UFTA "grants the court equity powers to remedy .. fraud." +Invo Florida, Inc. v. Somerset Venturer, Inc., 751 So.2d 1263, 1267 (Fla. Ct. Apps. 2000). The +FUFTA's provisions are "supplement[ed]" by "the principles of law and equity." Fla. Stat. Ann. § +726.111. Epstein does not contest Jane Doe's argument that "equity will do what ought to be done." +Jane Doe's Motion to Restrain Fraudulent Transfer of Assets at 17 (citing Sterling v. Brevard County, +776 So.2d 281, 284 (Fla. Ct. Apps. 2000)). The only question then is "what ought to be done?" +20 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 217 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2009 Page 24 of 26 +Epstein's answer to that question, at least as can be inferred from his pleadings, is that he +should be allowed to take the Fifth on all questions about his sexual abuse of Jane Doe and where his +assets are, and then be left free to fraudulently transfer all of hundreds of millions of dollars of assets to +such places as Switzerland, Israel, and tax havens in the Caribbean - ultimately leaving Jane Doe +unable to obtain any financial compensation for the abuse he inflicted on her and the financial losses +that it he entails. This Court should not allow such an affront to Jane Doe (and other victims of +Epstein, a convicted sex offender) - not to mention the affront to the ability of this Court to enforce +any judgment the jury might ultimately return. When this Court proceeds in equity, it "will not suffer a +wrong to be without a remedy." Connell v. Mittendorf, 147 So.2d 169, 172 (Fla. Ct. Apps. 1962). +Jane Doe asks for the straightforward relief of appointing a receiver to take control over Epstein's +assets and make arrangement to prevent further fraudulent transfers. Jane Doe has explained precisely +how the receiver should operate, providing a proposed order for the Court's consideration. Epstein has +not argued that the proposed order is burdensome in any way or suffers from any flaws. Indeed, the +Court can read his entire response without finding any substantive reason why the Court should not +take the obvious step of intervening to block fraudulent movement of his assets overseas. Instead, +Epstein raises alleged legal roadblocks and procedural requirements that somehow keep the Court from +doing "what ought to be done." +For all the reasons explained here and in Jane Doe's opening papers, the Court should do what +equity demands: It should reject Epstein's makeweight arguments and intervene to block Epstein's +fraud by appointing a receiver to take charge of his assets. +CONCLUSION +WHEREFORE, in view of the fraudulent transfers being made by Jeffrey Epstein to prevent +Jane Doe from satisfying any judgment she might obtain in this case, the Court should appoint a +21 + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 217 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2009 Page 25 of 26 +receiver to take charge of Epstein's property and direct the receiver to provide the Court with an +accounting of Epstein's assets and post a $15 million bond to secure any potential judgment that Jane +Doe might obtain in this case. +DATED July 23, 2009 +Respectfully Submitted, +S/ +ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER +Las Olas City Centre +401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1650 +Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 +Telephone (954) 522-3456 +Facsimile (954) 527-8663 +Florida Bar No.: 542075 +E-mail: bedwards@rra-law.com +and +Paul G. Cassell +Pro Hac Vice +332 S. 1400 E. +Salt Lake City, UT 84112 +Telephone: +801-585-5202 +Facsimile: +801-585-6833 +E-Mail: +cassellp @law.utah.edu +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I HEREBY CERTIFY that on July 23, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing document with +the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this +day on all parties on the attached Service List in the manner specified, either via transmission of +Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those +parties who are not authorized to receive electronically filed Notices of Electronic Filing. +22 + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 217 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2009 Page 26 of 26 +SERVICE LIST +Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +Jgoldberger@agwpa.com +Robert D. Critton, Esq. +rcritton@bclclaw.com +Isidro Manual +isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net +Jack +iph@searcylaw.com +Katherine Warthen Ezell +KEzell@podhurst.com +Michael James Pike +MPike@bclclaw.com +Paul G. Cassell +cassellp@bclclaw.com +Richard Horace Willits +lawyerswillits@aol.com +Robert C. Josefsberg +rjosefsberg@podhurst.com +Adam D. Horowitz +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +Stuart S. Mermelstein +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +William J. Berger +wberger@rra-law.com +23 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/92ad9ce8f61f145aaeae1ca1ee4578e8cd2254ca0ca6a5958d64980bf042a423.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/92ad9ce8f61f145aaeae1ca1ee4578e8cd2254ca0ca6a5958d64980bf042a423.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f714ebfe5f7cde687d53c0add3a35f7c408c89d1 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/92ad9ce8f61f145aaeae1ca1ee4578e8cd2254ca0ca6a5958d64980bf042a423.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -1101, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "92ad9ce8f61f145aaeae1ca1ee4578e8cd2254ca0ca6a5958d64980bf042a423", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 30, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": false, + "input_sha256": "625ab4a08330fd270426936eb8e9cf802931f3c11fbbab6bc2afeb6eeb22c93f", + "output_sha256": "f8acf4c417e6b04cd4663b1ca9c0c209108b8c75c9b37085319cf22be24179c0", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/92b06d2c1f4eca13858314d9757516eb825760d62d96315807c0d942e04dc58d.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/92b06d2c1f4eca13858314d9757516eb825760d62d96315807c0d942e04dc58d.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f4014d04e216f08a636bc28d74758e4e41ba0b9e --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/92b06d2c1f4eca13858314d9757516eb825760d62d96315807c0d942e04dc58d.md @@ -0,0 +1,41 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2008 + +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA1 +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +EPSTEIN'S NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF REPLY IN SUPPORT OF +MOTION [DE 11] TO SET ASIDE CLERK'S DEFAULT +COMES NOW the Defendant, Jeffrey Esptein, by and through his undersigned +attorney and files this Notice of Withdrawal Of Reply In Support Of Motion [DE 11] To Set Aside +Clerk's Default which was filed on July 8, 2008, and as grounds states as follows: +1. +The above reply has already been filed by co-counsel [DE19]. +THEREBY CERTIFY that on July 8, 2008, I electronically filed the foregoing document 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 via transmission of Notices of +Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF. +ATTERBURY, GOLDBERGER & WEISS, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 +Tel. 561 659 8300 +Fax. 561 835 8691 +By: /s/ Jack A. Goldberger +Jack A. Goldberger +Fla. Bar No. 262013 +jgoldberger@agwpa.com +Attorneys for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2008 Page 2 of 2 +SERVICE LIST +Jeffrey M. Herman, Esq. +Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. +Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. +HERMAN & MERMELSTEIN, P.A. +182 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 +Miami, FL 33160 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/92b06d2c1f4eca13858314d9757516eb825760d62d96315807c0d942e04dc58d.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/92b06d2c1f4eca13858314d9757516eb825760d62d96315807c0d942e04dc58d.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c4a199d1065287ea9fe9fcfc58e29deec9848261 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/92b06d2c1f4eca13858314d9757516eb825760d62d96315807c0d942e04dc58d.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -35, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "92b06d2c1f4eca13858314d9757516eb825760d62d96315807c0d942e04dc58d", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 3, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "2b5be8bfd1c3bf82321a2314efc392458cffa5b44e16df87ad6fd53324b4593e", + "output_sha256": "17babe86200bfd7ae5b91614db55e15b0fc15b0f7292162b1d7dd5badb1ccaf4", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/92d318678af99e73572191fd76a6720133b1eb5febf6b3be6fe377464506ad0c.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/92d318678af99e73572191fd76a6720133b1eb5febf6b3be6fe377464506ad0c.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..bba799475716e41973cc93061c24680e3df269de --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/92d318678af99e73572191fd76a6720133b1eb5febf6b3be6fe377464506ad0c.md @@ -0,0 +1,27 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 38 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2008 Page 1 of 1 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO. 08-80232-CIV-MARRA +Jane Doe No. 3, +Plaintift, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +ORDER DENYING MOTIONS AS MOOT +THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendant's Motion for Enlargement of Time to +Answer or Otherwise Respond to Complaint (DE 9) and Defendant's Motion to Dismiss +Complaint (DE 35). As Plaintiff's Complaint has been replaced by an Amended Complaint, it is +hereby +ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: +(1) Defendant's Motion for Enlargement of Time to Answer or Otherwise Respond to +Complaint (DE 9) is DENIED as moot. +(2) Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Complaint (DE 35) is DENIED as moot. This denial +is without prejudice to Defendant reasserting the grounds asserted in the motion if he deems it +appropriate as to the Amended Complaint. +DONE AND ORDERED in +at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, +this 23" day of September, 2008. +KENNETH A. MARRA +United States District Judge +copies to: +All counsel of record diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/92d318678af99e73572191fd76a6720133b1eb5febf6b3be6fe377464506ad0c.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/92d318678af99e73572191fd76a6720133b1eb5febf6b3be6fe377464506ad0c.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..17f2f96eabc1858566e34d351fa6bce86f5b3e2e --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/92d318678af99e73572191fd76a6720133b1eb5febf6b3be6fe377464506ad0c.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "92d318678af99e73572191fd76a6720133b1eb5febf6b3be6fe377464506ad0c", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "ec6e27220c02c25ed1c337afac447a6337459cb7a5e83de853c50b4041c48c1f", + "output_sha256": "308447b11776248de6d281d2de6bb97ecf5d2d45b0f9977dd86de79600a1d554", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/92e6caef72ce0672faf2d460ab01bb40b1b650b72e43746d7fefe76b3f90e0a1.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/92e6caef72ce0672faf2d460ab01bb40b1b650b72e43746d7fefe76b3f90e0a1.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..02580868ec601f5953e88ccc2fdf9419358c522a --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/92e6caef72ce0672faf2d460ab01bb40b1b650b72e43746d7fefe76b3f90e0a1.md @@ -0,0 +1,181 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/04/2008 Page 1 of 7 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-80380-CIV-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Defendant. +MOTION TO DISMISS +Defendant Jeffrey Epstein, pursuant to Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of +Civil Procedure and Rule 7.1(A) of the Local Rules for the Southern District of +Florida, moves to dismiss Count I of plaintiff's complaint,' and states as follows: +" The time to answer the remaining allegations of the complaint is tolled pending the Court's +ruling on the present motion. See Beaulieu v. Bd. of Trustees of Univ. of W. Fla., No. +3:07cv30/RV/EMT, 2007 WL 2020161, * 2 (N.D. Fla. July 9, 2007) (holding that defendant's +partial motion to dismiss "automatically extends its time to answer ... until after the court has +ruled on [its] motion to dismiss"); Finnegan v. Univ. of Rochester Med. Ctr., 180 F.R.D. 247, +249 (W.D.N.Y. 1998) (concluding "that the filing of a motion that only addresses part of a +complaint suspends the time to respond to the entire complaint, not just to the claims that are the +subject of the motion"); L +v. Berry College, Inc., No. Civ.A. 4:96CV338-HLM, 1997 WL +579166, *1 (N.D. Ga. July 3, 1997) (noting that there is significant case law to support the +position that "when a defendant files a Rule 12(b) motion to dismiss, addressing only some of +the claims contained in the plaintiff's complaint, the defendant is not required to file an answer +until the court rules on the motion to dismiss"). + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/04/2008 Page 2 of 7 +CASE NO.: 08-80380-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON +ALLEGATIONS IN PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT +This action arises out of the alleged assault of the plaintiff. According to the +allegations in her complaint, the plaintiff went to Mr. Epstein's house to give him +"a massage for monetary compensation" (Compl. 1| 12), where Mr. Epstein +allegedly assaulted her "in violation of Chapter 800 of the Florida Statutes." +(Compl. 1 18.) +The plaintiff tries to assert a claim for sexual assault (Compl. 1 15-19.) +This theory of liability, however, cannot be supported by the allegations in the +complaint. In fact, even if everything in the complaint were true, recovery against +Jeffrey Epstein, for Count I, under any formulation, is impossible under Florida +law. Accordingly, this count must be dismissed. +ARGUMENT +A motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) should be granted when a +court cannot identify "each of the material elements necessary to sustain a +recovery under some viable legal theory." Snow v. DirectIV, Inc., 450 F.3d 1314, +1320 (11th Cir. 2006) (quoting Roe v. Aware Woman Ctr. For Choice, Inc., 253 +F.3d 678, 684 (11th Cir. 2001)). Moreover, a court should dismiss a complaint +"when, on the basis of a dispositive issue of law, no construction of the factual +allegations will support a cause of action." Marshall County Bd. of Educ. v. +Marshal County Gas Dist., 992 F.2d 1171, 1174 (11th Cir. 1993). "[Tlo survive a +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/04/2008 Page 3 of 7 +CASE NO.: 08-80380-CIV-MARRA/ +motion to dismiss, plaintiffs must do more than merely state legal conclusions; +they are required to allege some specific factual bases for those conclusions ..…." +Holt v. Crist, No. 06-14617, 2007 WL 1156938, *2 (11th Cir. Apr. 19, 2007). As +such, "conclusory allegations, unwarranted deductions of facts or legal conclusions +masquerading as facts will not prevent dismissal." Snow, 450 F.3d at 1320. +Count I Fails to State a Cause of Action For Assault Recognized by +Florida Law. +The plaintiff attempts to plead a cause of action against Mr. Epstein for +"sexual assault" based on a "violation of Chapter 800 of the Florida Statutes"' for +the "lewd and lascivious acts committed by Epstein upon Jane Doe." (Compl. 9 +18.) Plaintiff cannot assert a cause of action for "violation of Chapter 800, Florida +Statutes" because there is no private right of action under that Chapter. See +generally Am. Home Assurance Co. v. Plaza Materials Corp., 908 So. 2d 360, 374 +(Fla. 2005) (observing that "not every statutory violation carries a civil remedy") +(citing Villazon v. Prudential Health Care Plan, Inc., 843 So. 2d 842, 852 (Fla. +2003)). See also, e.g., Miami Herald Publ'g Co. v. Ferre, 636 F. Supp. 970 (S.D. +Fla. 1985) ( +C.J.) (holding that violation of Florida's criminal extortion +statute does not give rise to a civil cause of action for damages). +2 Chapter 800, Florida Statutes, is entitled, "Lewdness; Indecent Exposure." +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/04/2008 Page 4 of 7 +CASE NO.: 08-80380-CIV-MARRA/. +Where a plaintiff brings a civil action pursuant to a criminal statute that +provides no civil remedy, her complaint is properly dismissed for failure to state a +cause of action. See Mantooth v. Richards, 557 So. 2d 646, 646 (Fla. 4th DCA +1990) (per curiam) (affirming dismissal of plaintiff's claim for parental kidnapping +where "the mentioned statutes concern only criminal violations and do not afford +a civil remedy") (citation omitted) (emphasis added). Accordingly, the plaintiff's +claim for sexual assault against Mr. Epstein, pursuant to a violation of Chapter +800, Florida Statutes, must be dismissed. +Should the Court look beyond the plain language of the plaintiff's complaint +and construe Count I as a claim for. common-law assault, that claim would also +fail. As the court explained in Lay v. Kremer, 411 So. 2d 1347, 1349 (Fla. Ist +DCA 1982), an assault is "an intentional, unlawful offer of corporal injury to +another by force, or force unlawfully directed toward another under such +circumstances as to create a fear of imminent peril, coupled with the apparent +present ability to effectuate the attempt." An assault thus requires "an affirmative +act—a threat to use force, or the actual exertion of force." +v. Atl. Fed. +Sav. & Loan Assoc., 454 So. 2d 52, 54 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984) (affirming dismissal of +assault claim where there was no affirmative act). +In this case, there is no such affirmative act. The only thing that Mr. Epstein +is alleged to have said to Jane Doe is to "remove her clothes and give him a +4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/04/2008 Page 5 of 7 +CASE NO.: 08-80380-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON +massage." (Compl. 1 12.) These allegations fall far short of an "offer of corporal +injury by force." There are no allegations that Jane Doe was placed in any fear of +imminent peril. Gatto v. Publix Supermarket, Inc., 387 So. 2d 377, 379 (Fla. 3d +DCA 1980) (holding that where there was no evidence to show that Gatto was +placed in fear of imminent peril, there was no assault). Thus, there was no assault. +Accordingly, because the plaintiff has failed to plead a cause of action for +assault recognized in Florida, Count I against Mr. Epstein must be dismissed. +Conclusion +For the reasons set forth herein, Defendant Jeffrey Epstein respectfully +requests that Count I of the plaintiff's complaint be dismissed. +Respectfully submitted, +TEIN, P.L. +3059 Grand Avenue, Suite 340 +Coconut Grove, Florida 33133 +Tel: 305 442 1101 +Fax: 305 442 6744 +By: Is/ Michael R. Tein +GUY A. +Fla. Bar No. 623740 +MICHAEL R. TEIN +Fla. Bar No. 993522 +tein@lewistein.com +5 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/04/2008 Page 6 of 7 +CASE NO.: 08-80380-CIV-MARRA/ +ATTERBURY, GOLDBERGER & +WEISS, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 +Tel. 561 659 8300 +Fax. 561 835 8691 +By: Jack A. Goldberger +Fla. Bar No. 262013 +jgoldberger@agwpa.com +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & +COLEMAN, LLP +515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 +Tel. 561 842 2820 +Fax. 561 515 3148 +By: Robert D. Critton, Esq. +Fla. Bar No. 224162 +rcritton@bclclaw.com +Michael J. Pike, Esq. +Fla. Bar No. 617296 +mpike@bclclaw.com +Attorneys for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein +6 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/04/2008 Page 7 of 7 +CASE NO.: 08-80380-CIV-MARRA/, +CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL RULE 7.1 +Undersigned counsel has conferred in good faith with counsel for the +plaintiff, who opposes the relief requested in this motion. +/s/ Michael R. Tein +Michael R. Tein +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I HEREBY CERTIFY that on September 4, 2008, I electronically filed the +foregoing document with the Clerk of Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the +foregoing document is being served this day on all individuals on the following +service list via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF. +/s/ Michael R. Tein +Michael R. Tein +Service List +Jeffrey M. Herman, Esq. +Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. +Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. +Herman & Mermelstein, P.A +18205 Biscayne Blvd, Suite 2218 +Miami, Florida 33160 +Fax: 305 931 0877 +7 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/92e6caef72ce0672faf2d460ab01bb40b1b650b72e43746d7fefe76b3f90e0a1.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/92e6caef72ce0672faf2d460ab01bb40b1b650b72e43746d7fefe76b3f90e0a1.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..bc73ea9ecb982ca8ade4b8be4409383edafcbb80 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/92e6caef72ce0672faf2d460ab01bb40b1b650b72e43746d7fefe76b3f90e0a1.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -84, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "92e6caef72ce0672faf2d460ab01bb40b1b650b72e43746d7fefe76b3f90e0a1", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 7, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "65883ca4b7cb7728ee9ceb068df58eaf6dd94512c6cef950db9f464956d7f50c", + "output_sha256": "6334daee54065c936f051af0364bfeb1e6c398297b4dac5bca51dd6578267415", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/92f02f7af03cac2088386ae03694c538ecc74c9784aa6fa06c92ec3866cbcae4.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/92f02f7af03cac2088386ae03694c538ecc74c9784aa6fa06c92ec3866cbcae4.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c33408a5ea9269d8b128e21df5ff46aa0a34e098 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/92f02f7af03cac2088386ae03694c538ecc74c9784aa6fa06c92ec3866cbcae4.md @@ -0,0 +1,89 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 119-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/27/2009 Page 1 of 3 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 5, +VS. +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 6, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/ +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/ +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/ +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80994-MARRA/ + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 119-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/27/2009 Page 2 of 3 +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 7, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08- CV-80993-MARRA/ +C.M.A., +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08- CV-80811 -MARRA/_ +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et al., +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08- CV-80893-MARRAJ +DOE II, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al., +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV- 80469-MARRA/_ + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 119-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/27/2009 Page 3 of 3 +JANE DOE NO. 101, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08- CV-80591-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 102, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08- CV-80656-MARRA/ +ORDER +Upon Plaintiffs' Motion for Enlargement of Time to Respond to Defendant's Motion to +Compel and/or Identify Jane Doe in the Style of this Case and Motion to Identify Jane Doe in Third +Party Subpoenas for Purposes of Discovery, or Alternatively Motion to Dismiss Sua Sponte, and +good cause being shown, it is hereby +ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion is granted. Plaintiffs shall have an enlargement of time of +twenty (20) days until June 11, 2009, to respond to the Defendant's Motions to Compel and/or +Identify Jane Doe in the Style, et al.. +DONE AND ORDERED in +at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, +this_ +day of +• 2009. +DISTRICT COURT JUDGE diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/92f02f7af03cac2088386ae03694c538ecc74c9784aa6fa06c92ec3866cbcae4.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/92f02f7af03cac2088386ae03694c538ecc74c9784aa6fa06c92ec3866cbcae4.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0bfd08c59c9001c110d426629e1dbc0f110ee281 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/92f02f7af03cac2088386ae03694c538ecc74c9784aa6fa06c92ec3866cbcae4.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -36, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "92f02f7af03cac2088386ae03694c538ecc74c9784aa6fa06c92ec3866cbcae4", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 3, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "fba8f608dec482058197d9c32e6f6cf3631d172ede8b0ce1bb7e7765ba2bcc89", + "output_sha256": "da94bbbd5223dafb13b148edf2c9505651c21b35b0d8ca04b1542b6166ad907c", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/92f4e60611c806e1a8df0bc494f866d876fda149d6983e8e0131dfabd8e1eb09.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/92f4e60611c806e1a8df0bc494f866d876fda149d6983e8e0131dfabd8e1eb09.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..10bee7f83c31049691875916652f8f3ab6dca5b6 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/92f4e60611c806e1a8df0bc494f866d876fda149d6983e8e0131dfabd8e1eb09.md @@ -0,0 +1,32 @@ +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 52 Filed 07/09/20 Page 1 of 1 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK +X +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff, +V. +DARREN L INDYKE and RICHARD D. +KAHN, in their capacities as executors of the +ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, an individual, +Defendants. +20-cv-00484-JGK +NOTICE OF APPEARANCE +PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the undersigned attorney, Laura A. Menninger, who is a +member in good standing of the bar of this Court, hereby appears as counsel for Defendant +Ghislaine Maxwell in the above-captioned proceeding. +Dated: Denver, Colorado +July 9, 2020. +Respectfully submitted, +Is/ Laura A. Menninger +Laura A. Menninger (LM-1374) +HADDON, L +LAND +150 East 10" Avenue +Denver, CO 80203 +Phone: 303.831.7364 +Fax: +303.832.2628 +Imenninger@hmflaw.com +Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell +_ P.C. diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/92f4e60611c806e1a8df0bc494f866d876fda149d6983e8e0131dfabd8e1eb09.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/92f4e60611c806e1a8df0bc494f866d876fda149d6983e8e0131dfabd8e1eb09.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..53ed81c2cb10091ae80de7b4b8b9c05c0c5ff645 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/92f4e60611c806e1a8df0bc494f866d876fda149d6983e8e0131dfabd8e1eb09.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "92f4e60611c806e1a8df0bc494f866d876fda149d6983e8e0131dfabd8e1eb09", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "0e1fc933598379de61fdef3bfc22f29aa87dd68873ab99a41c7420ffbdc3d372", + "output_sha256": "3d2eb57d4dabe4ebed61fed17d2c73137125114319d3ade174301a2f84d762cd", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9303b9781bad1d53093619b3ac2b0d613f444d70aa9c33da74dbf2be0e4e8278.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9303b9781bad1d53093619b3ac2b0d613f444d70aa9c33da74dbf2be0e4e8278.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7741f3ca698adad879a5ccdbccee644d33cb731b --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9303b9781bad1d53093619b3ac2b0d613f444d70aa9c33da74dbf2be0e4e8278.md @@ -0,0 +1,19 @@ +Case 9:09-CV-80802-KAM Document 9-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/30/2009 Page 1 of 1 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 09-CV-80802-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 8, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +ORDER +Upon Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Enlargement of Time to Respond to Defendant's +Motion to Dismiss, and good cause being shown, it is hereby +ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion is granted. Plaintiffs shall have an enlargement of time +until August 12, 2009, to file her memorandum in response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. +DONE AND ORDERED in +in Ft. Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, this +_ day of. +_, 2009. +DISTRICT COURT JUDGE diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9303b9781bad1d53093619b3ac2b0d613f444d70aa9c33da74dbf2be0e4e8278.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9303b9781bad1d53093619b3ac2b0d613f444d70aa9c33da74dbf2be0e4e8278.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..52579fb1eea1291290faad84aa79dea01c60cf23 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9303b9781bad1d53093619b3ac2b0d613f444d70aa9c33da74dbf2be0e4e8278.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "9303b9781bad1d53093619b3ac2b0d613f444d70aa9c33da74dbf2be0e4e8278", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "f6c36af2e3bfb833ed8d73313ed0182644149e1eb67c33a61165db12685ef41b", + "output_sha256": "5900cad2c49a5eead6bd6187f53c7f872f76deecbce4dd25202644560d082b20", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9316c73da5c1d1e8eb47ae49d37589f68dfc5d50a7cef7ae002c15cf45a242b2.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9316c73da5c1d1e8eb47ae49d37589f68dfc5d50a7cef7ae002c15cf45a242b2.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8aaf4bd97aa51e35b9be3629291f6973115e3e9a --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9316c73da5c1d1e8eb47ae49d37589f68dfc5d50a7cef7ae002c15cf45a242b2.md @@ -0,0 +1,651 @@ +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 36 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/12/2009 Page 1 of 19 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +JANE DOE II +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 09-80469-CIV-MARRA +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +and +Defendants. +PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED' MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION +TO DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO DISMISS +Plaintiff, JANE DOE II, through counsel, opposes Defendant's RICHARD EPSTEIN's +Motion to Dismiss. Defendant's argument for a dismissal is premised on the following: 1) +Plaintiff is not permitted to file a claim under Florida law in a State of Florida court and then +file a federal claim in a federal court; 2) the remedies amendment to 18 U.S.C.§2255 are +not retroactive based on the dates Defendant EPSTEIN is alleged to have violated the +statute; 3) +damages under §2255 cannot be obtained on a per incident basis, but must +be lumped together into a single recovery despite multiple violations occurring in temporally +distinct time frames, and therefore being different incidents; 4) Plaintiff has failed to state a +cause of action under §2255 because she has failed to "allege facts constituting a predicate +'As discussed at the hearing this morning before the Court, Plaintiff in this case +is withdrawing the contention raised in the original memorandum, that Defendant +EPSTEIN may not contest this Court's jurisdiction based on the Non Prosecution +Agreement ('NPA"). Although the State Court action is not a part of this Complaint, and +is not alleged in the four (4) corners of it, it is a fact that cannot be contested since +Plaintiff has filed a State Court action. + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 36 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/12/2009 Page 2 of 19 +act"; and 5) Plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action for conspiracy to violate §2255. +1. +LEGAL STANDARD +Defendant's motion to dismiss must be denied unless it appears beyond doubt that +the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of her claims that would entitle her to relief. +Conley v. +,, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957). The Court must accept all of plaintiff's factual +allegations as true. Schuer v. +, 416 U.S. 232 (1974). Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal +Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a complaint need only be "a short and plain statement +of the claim," and as long as the pleadings "give defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff's +claim is and the grounds upon which it rests," notice pleading has been satisfied. Conley v. +, 355 U.S. at 47. For a claim to state a cause of action however, facts, not labels and +conclusions must be asserted. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) +Il. ARGUMENT +Point 1. +Plaintiff has every right to proceed in State court for a Florida +common law claim, and in this Court for a federal claim. +Defendant EPSTEIN's argument on this point is frivolous. Plaintiff's claims in State +court are based on the common law of Florida, while the federal claims are based on a +federal statutory remedy.? There are different facts that prove each claim and different +elements to the claims. Defendant seems to be arguing that the Plaintiff forfeits a right to a +federal remedy when she invokes a parallel, but independent and wholly distinct right to a +State remedy. That is simply not supported by any case or reasonable interpretation of any +case. The lynchpin of Defendant's argument is that concurrent jurisdiction is available to hear +2On a Motion to Dismiss, the Court is of course confined to the four corners of +the Complaint, and it is completely improper for the Defendant to attach as Exhibits +copies of a Complaint from a different proceeding, a fact that is not alleged anywhere in +the Complaint at issue before this Court. Nevertheless because the Defendant's +argument on this issue is meritless, Plaintiff addresses it on the merits. +2 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 36 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/12/2009 Page 3 of 19 +all claims in one forum; that is simply not the case, since the state claims are vastly different +than the federal statutory remedy. If the State claims had been filed in this Court, this Court +would not be obligated to exercise concurrent jurisdiction. It is well established that the +exercise of supplemental jurisdiction is discretionary with the court, and is properly rejected +under many circumstances. +28 U.S.C. §1367, "supplemental jurisdiction," provides that: +©) The district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over +a claim under subsection (a) if-- +(1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law, +(2) the claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which +the district court has onginal jurisdiction, +(3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original +jurisdiction, or +(4) in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for +declining jurisdiction. +Courts routinely "are obligated to raise and decide issues of subject matter jurisdiction +sua sponte any time it appears subject matter jurisdiction is absent." Carias v. Lenox +Financial Mortgage Corporation, 2008 U.S. DIST. LEXIS 20345 *1 (N.D. Cal. March 5, +2008). In Carias, after granting summary judgment on the sole federal claim, the Court +remanded the State claims to state court, stating: "The Court declines to exercise pendent +jurisdiction over the state law claims and remands the action to state court. The Court finds +3 +In United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (1966), a jury's verdict +against a union based on State law claims was reversed, in part, because the federal +law claim failed. The Court noted that: "It has consistently been recognized that +pendent jurisdiction is a doctrine of discretion, not of plaintiff's right. Its justification lies +in considerations of judicial economy, convenience and fairness to litigants; if these are +not present a federal court should hesitate to exercise jurisdiction over state claims, +even though bound to apply state law to them, Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. +64. Needless decisions of state law [by a federal court] should be avoided both as a +matter of comity and to promote justice between the parties, by procuring for them a +surer-footed reading of applicable law." +3 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 36 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/12/2009 Page 4 of 19 +that the issues of economy, convenience, fairness and comity collectively weigh in favor of +remand. See Harrell, 934 F.2d at 205. Comity weighs especially strong, given that the +remaining claims are pure state law claims with no connection to federal law. Economy +also weighs in favor of remand as state courts are better equipped to efficiently handle state +law claims." Id. at *5-6 (emphasis added). In Daimler Chrysler Corporation v. Charlotte Cuno, +547 U.S. 332, 351-52 (2006) the Supreme Court stated: +Gibbs held that federal-question jurisdiction over a claim may authorize a +federal court to exercise jurisdiction over state-law claims that may be viewed +as part of the same case because they "derive from a common nucleus of +operative fact" as the federal claim. 383 U.S., at 725, 86 S. Ct. 1130, 16 L. +Ed. 2d 218. Plaintiffs assume that Gibbs stands for the proposition that +federal jurisdiction extends to all claims sufficiently related to a claim within +Article III to be part of the same case, regardless of the nature of the +deficiency that would keep the former claims out of federal court if presented +on their own. +Our general approach to the application of Gibbs, however, has been +markedly more cautious. For example, as a matter of statutory construction +of the pertinent jurisdictional provisions, we refused to extend Gibbs to allow +claims to be asserted against nondiverse parties when jurisdiction was based +on diversity, see Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 98 +S. Ct. 2396, 57 L. Ed. 2d 274 (1978), and we refused to extend Gibbs to +authorize supplemental jurisdiction over claims that do not satisfy statutory +amount-in-controversy requirements, see Finley v. United States, 490 U.S. +545, 109 S. Ct. 2003, 104 L. Ed. 2d 593 (1989). As the Court explained just +last Term, "we have not ... applied Gibbs' expansive interpretive approach +to other aspects of the jurisdictional statutes." Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah +Servs., 545 U.S. 546, 553, 125 S. Ct. 2611, 162 L. Ed. 2d 502 (2005) +(applying 28 U.S.C. § 1367, enacted in 1990, to allow a federal court in a +diversity action to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over additional diverse +plaintiffs whose claims failed to meet the amount-in-controversy threshold). +What we have never done is apply the rationale of Gibbs to permit a +federal court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim that +does not itself satisfy those elements of the Article Ill inquiry, such as +constitutional standing, that "serve to identify those disputes which are +appropriately resolved through the judicial process." Whitmore, 495 U.S., at +155, 158, 110 S. Ct. 1717, 109 L. Ed. 2d 135. +4 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 36 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/12/2009 Page 5 of 19 +(Emphasis added) +Defendant's argument that the Court should abstain from deciding the purely +federal issues in this case because there is an independent action under State law is absurd. +For this argument the Defendant relies on the Colorado River abstention doctrine, clearly +inapplicable to this case. Only in "exceptional" circumstances, to promote conservation of +judicial resources and comprehensive disposition of litigation, would a federal court be +authorized to dismiss federal parallel* claims because of the pendency of state law claims +that are initiated in state court. Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States, +424 U.S. 800 (1976). However, for the Colorado River doctrine to even apply, there must be +clear Congressional direction that would preclude a federal court's "virtually unflagging +obligation ...to exercise federal jurisdiction." Id. at 817. In that case, the Supreme Court +found that clear Congressional direction from the McCarran Amendment, which the Court +read to counsel against "piecemeal litigation" concerning issues of water rights in a river +system, favored abstention Id. at 819. Even with this clear Congressional direction, if other +factors had not favored abstention, it may not have been ordered. Id. at 820. +*The federal claims that are the subject matter of this action are not necessarily +parallel to the State law claims, although the incidents that gave rise to both the federal +and state claims arise from the same series of events. A Florida appellate court, for +example, has refused to apply principles of res judicata to bar State discrimination +claims after the plaintiff lost federal discrimination claims. +v. National Property +& Casualty Underwriters, 659 So. 2d 1214 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (adverse judgment +against plaintiff in federal court for federal discrimination claims did not bar subsequent +action under state discrimination laws). Here, although some of the elements for some +of the claims may be similar, they are sufficiently different that application of +would preclude res judicata. To determine whether a case is parallel, courts have +looked to whether the same issues are being litigated. Calvert Fire Ins. Co. V. American +Mut. Reins. Co., 600 F.2d 1228, 1229, n. 1 (7th Cir. 1979); the issues in the State court +and in this Court are not the same. +5 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 36 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/12/2009 Page 6 of 19 +Defendant EPSTEIN does not offer any evidence of any Congressional direction that +would direct this Court to abstain from hearing claims under 18 U.S.C. §2255.º Further, the +Colorado River doctrine only applies when federal courts are presented with "difficult +questions of state law bearing on policy problems of substantial public import whose +importance transcends the result in the case at bar." Id. at 814 (emphasis added).® Plaintiff +in this case is not asking this Court to adjudicate any claims under State law, nor do the +claims present "policy problems of substantial public import." This case involves claims +against an individual brought by another individual. +Just how narrow the circumstances under which abstention is appropriate under the +Colorado River doctrine, was demonstrated in the subsequent decision of the Supreme +Court in the case of Will v. Calvert Fire Insurance Co., 437 U.S. 655 (1979). In Will, the +Supreme Court further narrowed the contours of when a federal court may abstain when +there is a parallel state action. In that case, a bare majority of one held upheld the District +Court's decision to abstain, however, Justice Blackmun, in casting the deciding vote, did so +because he was of the opinion that the remedy sought (mandamus) was premature, since +the Appellate Court which had reversed the District Court, should have simply directed it to +reconsider the issue in light of the very limited circumstances under which abstention is +appropriate under the Colorado River doctrine. Id. at 668. +While the Will case recognizes that Colorado River abstention is a matter generally +›The Supreme Court said that Congressional direction is the "[m]ost important +factor." Id. at 819. +•Colorado River has been applied where the plaintiff is pursuing federal civil +rights claims in state and federal courts, at the same time, which is not the case here. +See for example: Atchinson v. Nelson, 460 F. Supp. 1102 (D. Wyo. 1978). +6 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 36 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/12/2009 Page 7 of 19 +left to the sound discretion of the District Court, the Eleventh Circuit has abolished its +application for claims predicated on 42 U.S.C.§1983. Alacare, Inc. v.Bagiano, 785 F. 2d 963 +(11th Cir. 1986); See also: Tovar v. Billmeyer, 609 F. 2d 1291 (9th Cir. 1979) (rejecting +application of abstention in Section 1983 cases). Defendant cites no cases where the +Colorado River doctrine has been applied to a federal claim under §2255. The cases cited +by Defendant EPSTEIN do not support a decision by this Court to abstain over what is a +purely federal claim. In American Bankers Ins. Co. v. First State Ins. Co., 891 F.2d 882 (11" +Cir. 1990), the District Court dismissed a purely state law claim for equitable subrogation +because there had been an earlier claim for declaratory relief in State Court; the Eleventh +Circuit reversed, concluding +...that no exceptional circumstances require dismissal of this case in +deference to the pending state court proceeding. If it were simply a question +of judicial economy, this litigation probably should proceed in the New York +court. A federal court cannot properly decline to exercise its statutory +jurisdiction, however, simply because judicial economy might be served by +deferring to a state +• court. Federal courts have a 'virtually unflagging +obligation' to exercise the jurisdiction given them.! Colorado River, 424 U.S. +at 816, 96 S. Ct. at 1246. The interest in preserving federal jurisdiction +mandates that this action not be dismissed. +891 F.2d at 886. +Point 2. +The retroactivity of the amendments to §2255 is not appropriately +addressed in a motion to dismiss; but if the Court is so inclined to +consider it, there are insufficient facts pled in the Complaint to +render the 2006 amendments inapplicable to the case at bar. +The only issue properly before the Court is whether the Complaint states a cause of +action. 114 of the Complaint claims that the Plaintiff is entitled to the sum of $150,000 for +each event wherein Defendant EPSTEIN solicited the Plaintiff for prostitution. Each event +7 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 36 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/12/2009 Page 8 of 19 +is set forth in the Complaint in T13.? There are two related issues before the Court: 1) the +amount of minimum damages recoverable, $50,000, or $150,000; and, 2) whether the +Plaintiff can recover the minimum amount of damages for each temporally distinct event, or +whether she is restricted to a single recovery of the minimum damages recoverable under +the statute. +For the first issue, it is Plaintiff's position that the matter cannot be decided on a +motion to dismiss, because what Defendant EPSTEIN is asking the Court to do is to declare, +prematurely, that when the Court instructs the jury, it instruct them that the minimum +recovery for the Plaintiff, if she proves the allegations, is either $50,000 (for the entire set of +events, Defendant EPSTEIN's position) or $150,000 for each event (Plaintiff's position); this +issue cannot be settled on a motion to dismiss, but is better reserved for the charging +conference at trial. On the second issue, as will be addressed later, under the plain language +of the statute, since Defendant EPSTEIN can be criminally prosecuted for each temporally +distinct event where he solicited this minor for prostitution, he can be subjected to the civil +remedy for damages for each such event, under either version of the statute. This second +issue would be better addressed on a summary judgment motion, and again, has nothing +to do with whether Plaintiff has pled a cause of action pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Fed. R. Civ. +Plaintiff agrees with the general proposition that a new law that creates new +'Plaintiff alleges that Defendant EPSTEIN, or others working on his behalf, +solicited the Plaintiff for prostitution, while she was a minor, on "6/16/03, 7/2/03, 4/9/04, +6/7/04, 7/30/04, 8/30/04, 10/9/04, 10/12/04, 10/30/04 and 11/9/04. In addition, Plaintiff +believes that there were as many as 10 to 20 other occasions during this time frame +that Defendant EPSTEIN solicited her and procured her to perform prostitution +services, all during the time that she was a minor." +8 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 36 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/12/2009 Page 9 of 19 +substantive rights, absent Congressional direction to the contrary, does not have retroactive +effect, but this is not a new law. §2255 was amended in 2006, to, inter alia, provide an +enhanced minimum recovery for damages caused by sexual predators such as Defendant +EPSTEIN. However, the change in the civil remedies available is a procedural, not a +substantive change in the law, and procedural changes to a statute are routinely applied +retroactively.® Where substantive changes in a law are made by Congress, a slim majority +of the Supreme Court has declined retroactive application, even where the law was +ostensibly enacted to overrule a Court precedent that had itself, in the view of Congress, +overruled earlier Court precedents. Rivers v. Roadway Express, 511 U.S. 298, 308 (1994).° +•Defendant EPSTEIN also cites to United States v. Siegel, 153 F.3d 1256 (11" +Cir. 1998), wherein, based on a defendant's inability to pay restitution mandated by a +penal statute, the Court reversed a restitution order. An amendment to the statute +removed from consideration the defendant's ability to pay restitution; the Court said +such an amendment could not be applied retroactively because the provision amounted +to a punishment under a penal statute, and would violate the ex post facto provision in +the U. S. Constitution, This case is clearly distinguished from our case: the statute here +is a civil, not a penal remedy; the amendment to the statute modifies the minimal +exposure of the Defendant if the Plaintiff otherwise proves her claim, but does not, as in +the Siegel case, dispense with a substantive defense to restitution, as occurred in +Siegel. See: United States v. Whiting, 165 F.3d 631 (8" Cir. 1999), where a conviction +for possession of child pornography was upheld, despite the fact that the conduct of the +defendant was arguably not specifically proscribed by statute at the time the images +were possessed; the Court held the legislative amendment was a mere clarification of +the prior legislation and not an ex post facto law. +• Justice Scalia cited the statement of purpose of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, to +hold that, for example, the amendments specifically designed to overrule Patterson v. +McLean Credit Union, 491 U.S. 164, 105 L. Ed. 2d 132, 109 S. Ct. 2363, should be +applied prospectively only, based on a statutorily expressed Congressional intent to do +so: "The statute that was actually enacted in 1991 contains no comparable language. +Instead of a reference to 'restoring' pre-existing rights, its statement of purposes +describes the Act's function as 'expanding the scope of relevant civil rights statutes in +order to provide adequate protection to victims of discrimination.' 1991 Act, § 3(4), 105 +Stat. 1071 (emphasis added)." +9 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 36 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/12/2009 Page 10 of 19 +Similarly, in the companion case of Landgraf v. Usi Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244, 275, n. 28 +(1994), the Court declined to retroactively apply substantive changes to Title VII cases, but +noted that +While we have strictly construed the Ex Post Facto Clause to prohibit +application of new statutes creating or increasing punishments after the fact, +we have upheld intervening procedural changes even if application of the new +rule operated to a defendant's disadvantage in the particular case. See, e. g.. +Dobbert v. Florida, 432 U.S. 282, 293-294, 53 L. Ed. 2d 344, 97 S. Ct. 2290 +(1977); see also +v. Youngblood, 497 U.S. 37, 111 L. Ed. 2d 30, 110 +S. Ct. 2715 (1990); Beazell v. Ohio, 269 U.S. 167, 70 L. Ed. 216, 46 S. Ct. 68 +(1925). +The question becomes then is an increase in the minimum guaranteed damages of +a civil remedy statute a substantive or a procedural change? A careful reading of Landsgraf +compels a finding that it is a procedural change only that must be given retroactive +application. Although the Landsgraf Court declined to give retroactive application to the +change most analogous to the one at issue here, it did so because it found the newly created +right to compensatory damages, previously not available under Title VIl, and made available +by the Civil Rights Act of 1991, was in effect the creation of a new statute: +The provision of § 102(a)(1) authorizing the recovery of compensatory +damages is not easily classified. It does not make unlawful conduct that was +lawful when it occurred; as we have noted, supra, 511 U.S. at 252-255, § 102 +only reaches discriminatory conduct already prohibited by Title VII. Concerns +about a lack of fair notice are further muted by the fact that such +discrimination was in many cases (although not this one) already subject to +monetary liability in the form of backpay. Nor could anyone seriously contend +that the compensatory damages provisions smack of a "retributive" or other +suspect legislative purpose. Section 102 reflects Congress' desire to afford +victims of discrimination more complete redress for violations of rules +established more than a generation ago in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. At +least with respect to its compensatory damages provisions, then, § 102 is not +in a category in which objections to retroactive application on grounds of +fairness have their greatest force. +10 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 36 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/12/2009 Page 11 of 19 +Nonetheless, the new compensatory damages provision would operate +"retrospectively" if it were applied to conduct occurring before November 21, +1991. Unlike certain other forms of relief, compensatory damages are +quintessentially backward looking. Compensatory damages may be intended +less to sanction wrongdoers than to make victims whole, but they do so by a +mechanism that affects the liabilities of defendants. They do not +"compensate" by distributing funds from the public coffers, but by requiring +particular employers to pay for harms they caused. The introduction of a right +to compensatory damages is also the type of legal change that would have +an impact on private parties' planning. In this case, the event to which the new +damages provision relates is the discriminatory conduct of respondents' agent +John +: if applied here, that provision would attach an important new +legal burden to that conduct. The new damages remedy in § 102, we +conclude, is the kind of provision that does not apply to events antedating its +enactment in the absence of clear congressional intent. +In cases like this one, in which prior law afforded no relief, § 102 can be +seen as creating a new cause of action, and its impact on parties' rights +is especially pronounced. Section 102 confers a new right to monetary relief +of backpay in some cases, and because compensatory damages under § +102(a) are in addition to any backpay recoverable, the new provision also +resembles a statute increasing the amount of damages available under a +preestablished cause of action. Even under that view, however, the provision +would, if applied in cases arising before the Act's effective date, undoubtedly +impose on employers found liable a "new disability" in respect to past events. +See Society for Propagation of the Gospel, 22 F. Cas. at 767. The extent of +a party's liability, in the civil context as well as the criminal, is an important +legal consequence that cannot be ignored. Neither in +itself, nor in +any case before or since in which Congress had not clearly spoken, have we +read a statute substantially increasing the monetary liability of a private party +to apply to conduct occurring before the statute's enactment. See Winfree v. +Northern Pacific R. Co., 227 U.S. 296, 301, 57 L. Ed. 518, 33 S. Ct. 273 +(1913) (statute creating new federal cause of action for wrongful death +inapplicable to case arising before enactment in absence of "explicit words" +or "clear implication"); United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. United States +ex rel. Struthers Wells Co., 209 U.S. 306, 314-315 (1908) (construing statute +restricting subcontractors' rights to recover damages from prime contractors +as prospective in absence of "clear, strong and imperative" language from +Congress favoring retroactivity). +Id. at 281-86 [footnotes omitted]. +11 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 36 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/12/2009 Page 12 of 19 +Here, we have an increase in the proscribed minimum recovery, if the claim is +otherwise proven, butit was a damages remedy that already existed at the time of Defendant +EPSTEIN's commission of the acts against the minor. Hence, here, unlike Landsgraf, there +was an existing civil remedy prior to Defendant EPSTEIN's commission of the acts against +the minor Plaintiff, and there continues to be such a remedy. Similar to our fact situation +here, in +v. School Bd. of Richmond, 416 U.S. 696, 40 L. Ed. 2d 476, 94 S. Ct. 2006 +(1974), where a unanimous Court applied an intervening statute authorizing an award of +attorney's fees for parties seeking to end school segregation, to a case pending on appeal +at the time the statute was enacted. Noting that the statute created an "additional basis or +source for the Board's potential obligation to pay attorneys' fees," 416 U.S. at 721, the Court +found that the statute's retroactive application did not adversely affect the settled +expectations of the parties. It is difficult to imagine, particularly when the Court is +contemplating a motion to dismiss, that Defendant EPSTEIN had a "settled expectation" that +if and when he was caught for solicitation of minors for prostitution he would be liable for only +a minimum of $50,000; it is highly probable that he never believed he would be caught and +he never knew of or contemplated the civil penalties he would face under §2255. It is highly +unlikely that Defendant EPSTEIN made those calculations when he committed the crimes +against this or any other minor. Hence the rationale usually advanced for prospective +application of statutory enactments is simply not present here, and the record is devoid of +any factual material that would support such a conclusion." As Justice Blackmun said in +10 Although outside the pleadings and not appropriate for consideration on a +Motion to Dismiss, Defendant EPSTEIN has refused to answer any substantive +questions in the only two (2) depositions he has given in all these cases, including in +the State court case involving this Plaintiff. Accordingly, Plaintiff has not been able to +12 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 36 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/12/2009 Page 13 of 19 +dissent in Landsgraf, there is no vested right to break the law." +Bottom line is, a motion to dismiss a claim is not the correct procedural mechanism +to determine the retroactivity of a statute. Landsgraf was decided after a trial on the merits +of the claim, wherein the trial court determined that although the sexual harassment was +serious, the employer, upon learning of it, had taken prompt remedial measures to correct +it, and the plaintiff did not have sufficient cause to warrant quitting her job. Id. at 247-48. +Rivers v. Roadway Express, 511 U.S. 298 (1994) was decided after a trial on the merits as +well, wherein the Court dismissed the 1981 claims based on the holding in Patterson, supra, +and exonerated the Defendant on the Title VII claims in a bench trial. On appeal, the plaintiff +sought relief under the 1991 Civil Rights Act amendments, which overruled Patterson. These +cases where in a much different procedural posture than the present case, and the law that +is applicable, including the raise of the minimum cap to $150,000, was in place well before +this suit was filed. +Point 3. +18 U.S.C. §2255 permits a claim for each temporally distinct event. +ascertain whether Defendant EPSTEIN had settled expectations about the limits of his +civil liability under §2255. +1"'At no time within the last generation has an employer had a vested right to +engage in or to permit sexual harassment; 'there is no such thing as a vested right to do +wrong.' Freeborn v. +1, 69 U.S. 160, 2 Wall. 160, 175, 17 L. Ed. 922 (1865). See +also 2 N. +,, Sutherland on Statutory Construction § 41.04, p. 349 (4th rev. ed. +1986) (procedural and remedial statutes that do not take away vested rights are +presumed to apply to pending actions). Section 102 of the Act expands the remedies +available for acts of intentional discrimination, but does not alter the scope of the +employee's basic right to be free from discrimination or the employer's corresponding +legal duty. There is nothing unjust about holding an employer responsible for injuries +caused by conduct that has been illegal for almost 30 years." Id. at 297. Similarly in this +case, soliciting minors for acts of prostitution, has been unlawful and the civil remedy +associated therewith has long preceded the acts in question. +13 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 36 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/12/2009 Page 14 of 19 +(a) In general. Any person who, while a minor, was a victim of a +violation of section 2241C), 2242, 2243, 2251, 2251A, 2252, 2252A, 2260, +2421, 2422, or 2423 of this title [18 USCS § 22410), 2242, 2243, 2251, +2251A, 2252, 2252A, 2260, 2421, 2422, or 2423] and who suffers personal +injury as a result of such violation, regardless of whether the injury occurred +while such person was a minor, may sue in any appropriate United States +District Court and shall recover the actual damages such person sustains and +the cost of the suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee. Any person as +described in the preceding sentence shall be deemed to have sustained +damages of no less than $ 150,000 in value. +The statute makes reference to "a violation" and "such violation," both references +being in the singular. The statute does not say that if there are multiple violations, the +Plaintiff is limited to a single recovery for all the violations that occur. Such a construction +would due violence to the plain language of the statute and common sense. For example, +if a person such as Defendant EPSTEIN engages in videotaping a sex act with a minor on +Monday, and follows suit on Wednesday, there are potentially two separate crimes, and +potentially two separate torts which give rise to two separate claims upon which recovery +may be had. Plaintiff has alleged that Defendant EPSTEIN violated the statute on 10 +confirmed occasions and up to 20 additional occasions. Each date for each violation is +different. There is no language in the statute that prohibits the Plaintiff from suing for each +violation, and the dicta set forth in Tilton v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc., 554 F. 3d +1371 (11" Cir. 2009), vaguely noting that the District Court awarded the Plaintiff "the +minimum 'actual damages, Id. at 1379, does not support Defendant's claim that the Plaintiff +is entitled to a single lump sum recovery for each temporally distinct violation. There is no +suggestion in this Opinion that the Plaintiff was so limited, no reference to whether Plaintiff +sought the relief being sought here or that the events complained of in Tilton occurred on +multiple occasions. In fact, it appears clear from the Opinion that the pro se Defendant that +14 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 36 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/12/2009 Page 15 of 19 +the Plaintiff prevailed against (by default) was sued for a singular violation of recording the +Plaintiff's sexually oriented performance at a Spring Break gathering. There is no indication +that the conduct that was recorded by the defaulted Defendant occurred on multiple +occasions. +Point 4. +The Eleventh Circuit has foreclosed Defendant EPSTEIN's +argument that for a violation of 18 U.S.C. 2422(b) to occur, he must +travel in interstate commerce. +In United States v. Yost, 479 F.3d 815 (11" Cir. 2007), a defendant was convicted of +two counts of attempting to induce persons he believed were minors (they were govemment +agents posing as minors) to commit acts of prostitution under 18 U.S.C. §2422(b); he sought +to void his convictions on appeal because he didn't get to the meeting place. The Court +rejected the argument, holding: +We are not convinced by Yost's argument that his failure to arrive at the +meeting place precludes a finding of a substantial step. Although this is the +first time we have been confronted with an attempt conviction under 18 U.S.C. +§ 2422(b) where travel is not involved, two other circuits have examined the +issue and determined travel is not necessary to sustain such a conviction. In +United States v. +1, 228 F.3d 637, 639-40 (6th Cir. 2000), the Sixth Circuit +affirmed a conviction under Section 2422(b) where the defendant sent e-mails +proposing oral sex and attempted to set up meetings with minor females, +albeit unsuccessfully. Similarly, in United States v. +1, 410 F.3d 1235, +1246 (10th Cir. 2005), the Tenth Circuit affirmed a Section 2422(b) attempt +conviction, despite a lack of evidence of travel. The Tenth Circuit stated: +crossed the line from 'harmless banter' to inducement the moment +he began making arrangements to meet [the minor], notwithstanding the lack +of evidence that he traveled to the supposed meeting place." Id. Viewing the +totality of Yost's actions, we likewise conclude Yost crossed the line from +mere "talk" to inducement. In addition to his online chats with +1. Yost +called +on the telephone, posted pictures of his genitalia online, and +made arrangements to meet her. Despite a lack of evidence of travel, the +totality of Yost's actions convinces us that a reasonable jury could have found +Yost committed a substantial step. +Id. at 820. +15 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 36 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/12/2009 Page 16 of 19 +As a practical matter, although not pled, the manner in which Defendant EPSTEIN +solicited Plaintiff to commit acts of prostitution as alleged was by telephone, by use of one +of his surrogate "assistants," in this case Defendant +12 Plaintiff would +receive a phone call on her cell phone (with a 561 exchange) from the cell phone of +Defendant +, who used a cell phone with a New York exchange (917 area code). In +United States v. Drury, 396 F.3d 1303 (11" Cir. 2005), the Court had to determine whether +a murder for hire conviction, where the defendant made calls from a Georgia land line to a +federal agent posing as a hit man on a cell phone that routed calls through Jacksonville, was +sufficient to establish use of interstate commerce for commission of the crime in question. +The Court affirmed the conviction, even where there was no intent to use an instrumentality +of interstate commerce, since the Defendant believed he was calling a number in Georgia. +In this case, the facts will demonstrate that for 99 per cent of the solicitations for +prostitution, Plaintiff was called by Defendant +who used her cell phone with a 917 +exchange, a New York exchange, and presumably set up the event after being instructed by +Defendant EPSTEIN when and at what time the Plaintiff should appear at his home for the +sexual services he paid the Plaintiff for. Defendant +resides and is believed to have +resided in New York at all times relevant to this suit, although she was present at Defendant +EPSTEIN's home on some of the occasions when the Plaintiff appeared after being +summoned there. However, since she used a cellular phone, that is clearly a facility of +interstate commerce as contemplated by 18 U.S.C. 2422(b), which encompasses conduct +12Ms. +has been served in accordance with New York law after seeking to +avoid service with the assistance of a doorman at her building. She has thus far failed +to respond to the Complaint, and Plaintiff is filing a Motion for Default against her today. +16 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 36 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/12/2009 Page 17 of 19 +where "any facility or means of interstate commerce" is used.'3 The Eleventh Circuit has +recognized that "[t]he telephone system is clearly a 'facility of interstate ... commerce." +United States v. Covington, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 8263 (11" Cir. April 22, 2009). +Point 5. +Plaintiff has pled sufficient facts to establish a conspiracy to +violate §2255. +A civil conspiracy is an agreement by two or more persons, to do an unlawful act +or a lawful act by unlawful means, the doing of an overt act in furtherance of the +conspiracy, resulting in damage to the Plainti ff. Walters v. Blankenship, 931 So. 2d 137 +(Fla. 5' DCA 2006); Blatt v. +_. Horn, et al., 456 So. 2d 949 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1984). +To support her claim of a civil conspiracy, Plaintiff has pled the following: +9. +Defendant EPSTEIN, in agreement with two (2) persons he +employed for this purpose, +and Defendant +conspired with these other two, and others, to solicit young women of the type +Defendant EPSTEIN preferred, blonde, attractive in appearance, and younger +than 18 years of age, to provide sexual gratification for him by engaging in +acts of prostitution. +10. +Defendants EPSTEIN and +entered into a criminal +conspiracy to solicit young women for acts of prostitution, including the +Plaintiff, here in Palm Beach County. +11. +From +about June, +2003 until on or about +Feb +TY, 200 +5, Defendants +EPSTEIN and +persuaded, induced, or enticed the Plaintiff to come +to Defendant EPSTEIN's home and provide Defendant EPSTEIN with +"massages" which escalated into sexual encounters between Defendant +13 "(b) Whoever, using the mail or any facility or means of interstate or +foreign commerce, or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the +United States knowingly persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any individual who has +not attained the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution or any sexual activity for +which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, or attempts to do so, shall be +fined under this title and imprisoned not less than 10 years or for life." (Emphasis +added). +17 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 36 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/12/2009 Page 18 of 19 +EPSTEIN and the Plaintiff designed to fulfill his unnatural sexual desires for +young women or even younger girls who were minors. These acts included +Defendant EPSTEIN's request that he wanted the encounter to be like a +"porn video." Defendant EPSTEIN would script lines for the Plaintiff to say, +including calling out his name and requesting that he perform a certain sexual +act "harder,"while he touched the Plaintiff's vagina with a vibrator or with his +fingers; alternately, he would masturbate in the presence of the Plaintiff after +demanding her to disrobe and walk in front of him in provocative sexual +poses. Defendant EPSTEIN would pay the Plaintiff a fee of $200 on each +occasion after he ejaculated while masturbating in the presence of the +Plaintiff. +Plaintiff has pled the elements of a civil conspiracy to violate §2255. +CONCLUSION +Defendant's Motion to Dismiss must be denied. Plaintiff's Complaint states a cause +of action pursuant to §2255. The Colorado River doctrine for abstention is not remotely +applicable to this case, which is grounded on a purely federal statutory cause of action, and +does not involve the type of policy concerns present there (water rights). It is inappropriate +for the Defendant to seek to limit his minimum statutory exposure on a Motion to Dismiss, +where there is no factual record or legislative history to determine the retroactivity of an +enhanced damages provision to a cause of action and a civil remedy that existed at the time +of the wrongful acts. §2255 claims permit a Plaintiff to assert multiple claims for multiple +violations that occur in temporally distinct time frames, no differently than any claim, whether +based on tort or statutory law, that encompasses multiple events that occur at different +times. On the interstate commerce issue, Plaintiff is prepared to allege, if the Court deems +it necessary, how his employee and co-conspirator, Defendant +used an +instrumentality of interstate commerce, her cell phone, to solicit the Plaintiff, then a minor, +on behalf of Defendant EPSTEIN who solicited her sexual services for money. Finally, +18 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 36 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/12/2009 Page 19 of 19 +Plaintiff has pled all necessary elements to establish a civil conspiracy to violate §2255. For +these reasons, Defendant EPSTEIN's Motion to Dismiss must be denied; however, if the +Court determines otherwise, Plaintiff respectfully requests leave to amend. +Respectfully submitted, +BY: s/ Isidro M. +ISIDRO M. +Florida Bar No. 437883 +LAW FIRM, P.A. +224 Datura Street, Suite 900 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Telephone: (561) 832-7732 +Telecopier: (561) 832-7137 +e-mail: isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was furnished VIA +ECM TRANSMISSION to: Robert D. Critton, Esq. and Michael Pike, Esq., BURMAN +CRITTON LUTTIER & COLEMAN, 515 N. Drive, Suite 400, West Palm Beach, Florida +33401 this 12th day of June, 2009. +BY:s/ Isidro M. +ISIDRO M. +19 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9316c73da5c1d1e8eb47ae49d37589f68dfc5d50a7cef7ae002c15cf45a242b2.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9316c73da5c1d1e8eb47ae49d37589f68dfc5d50a7cef7ae002c15cf45a242b2.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..26ad968cb4b78389bbe37a409ddc8294a2fe87c5 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9316c73da5c1d1e8eb47ae49d37589f68dfc5d50a7cef7ae002c15cf45a242b2.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -228, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "9316c73da5c1d1e8eb47ae49d37589f68dfc5d50a7cef7ae002c15cf45a242b2", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 19, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "8631e3b009728ea65cdd4e00cf0699ad8c6f05983ca790918eabb29c600afc78", + "output_sha256": "0c0d7d54b36fdba4923ba0cd867235970fbb0915f4ed617144b3c6d9d44e5ff2", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/93582153a14b3058c405a5334ac301f202bd4d202d28489b9b7dd47c35105a5c.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/93582153a14b3058c405a5334ac301f202bd4d202d28489b9b7dd47c35105a5c.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..130bf27bd532eac71153367e7e8d29bf8a0328e1 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/93582153a14b3058c405a5334ac301f202bd4d202d28489b9b7dd47c35105a5c.md @@ -0,0 +1,92 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 340-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/06/2009 Page 1 of 2 +Stuart Mermelstein +From: +Sent: +To: +Subject: +cmecfautosender@fisd.uscourts.gov +Thursday, September 10, 2009 8:36 AM +fisd_cmecf_notice@fisd.uscourts.gov +Activity in Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Doe v. Epstein Order +This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND +to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended.***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** +Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in +a case (including pro se litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of all documents +filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access +fees apply to all other users. +To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document +during this first viewing. However, if the referenced document is a transcript, the free +copy and 30 page limit do not apply. +U.S. District Court +Southern District of Florida +Notice of Electronic Filing +The following transaction was entered on 9/10/2009 8:35 AM EDT and filed on 9/9/2009 +Case Name: Doe v. Epstein +Case Number: 9:08-C-80119 https://ecf.flsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.p1?309403 +Filer: +Document Number: 293 +ropy the URL address from the line below into the location bar of your Web browser to vie +he document: Document: https://ecf.flsd.uscourts.gov/doc1/05107019280?magic_num=8803787 +&de_seg_num=912&caseid=309403 +Docket Text: +OMNIBUS ORDER GRANTING [283] Supplement, filed by Jeffrey Epstein, GRANTING [282] Appeal +of Magistrate Judge Decision to District Court filed by Jeffrey Epstein. Signed by +Magistrate Judge Linnea R. +9:08- CV-80119 Notice has been electronically mailed to: +Adam D. Horowitz +0 20 3 3130 a 10a to: +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +Ann +C. Villafana +James +bedwards@rra-law.com, +owilliamson@rra-law.com, radler@rra-law.com, sstirling@rra-law.com, wberger@rra-law.com +Isidro Manuel l +isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net +Jack Alan Goldberger +jagesq@bel1south.net, +nalanis@agwpa.com +Jack | +iph@searcylaw.com, +ca wesearcylaw.com, kmc@searcylaw.com, 3. slater@searcylaw.com, sas@searcylaw.com, +Jeffrey Marc Herman +jherman@hermanlaw.com +Katherine Warthen Ezell +mestrada@podhurst.com +KEzell@podhurst.com, + +A + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 340-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/06/2009 Page 2 of 2 +Michael James Pike +bobbie@bclclaw.com, jcadwell@bclclaw.com +MPike@belclaw.com, +Paul G. Cassell +cassel1p@law.utah.edu +Richard Horace Willits +reelrhw@hotmail.com +lawyerwillits@aol.com, +Robert C. Josefsberg +rjosefsberg@podhurst.com, +amann@podhurst.com, bertpatton@podhurst.com, +mestrada@podhurst.com +Robert Deweese Critton +bobbie@bclclaw.com +•Jr Icrit@bclclaw.com, +Stuart S. Mermelstein +jarbour@sexabuseattorney.com, lrivera@sexabuseattorney.com +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com, +: 08-Cv-80119 Notice has not been delivered electronically to those listed below and wil +e provided by other means. For further assistance, please contact our Help Desk at +1-888-318-2260.: +• G. Weinberg +20 Park Plaza +Boston, 1 +The following document (s) are associated with this transaction: +Document description: Main Document +Original filename: n/a +Electronic document Stamp: +[STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1105629215 [Date=9/10/2009] [FileNumber=6736378-0] +[642743c33dfb971adb73cf00a1a3abe8c18bd140ddaf5d472216591edfe1b0b0459e4cdd9da190bcf837d5d3c +9c72aldfd798264b8c71ceb154087d88ad9a379]] diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/93582153a14b3058c405a5334ac301f202bd4d202d28489b9b7dd47c35105a5c.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/93582153a14b3058c405a5334ac301f202bd4d202d28489b9b7dd47c35105a5c.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e1136004efda5bbae54e2317cb9a5bef101da9ac --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/93582153a14b3058c405a5334ac301f202bd4d202d28489b9b7dd47c35105a5c.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -31, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "93582153a14b3058c405a5334ac301f202bd4d202d28489b9b7dd47c35105a5c", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 3, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "9ca25e0b89152bac53d365fcab88b79ae9f7ef485047af21ebd49634518bdca7", + "output_sha256": "72ed7c7a1d7f1be922240fab9b1c93c0ae8a99b1ff68d2d7146941119fa31496", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/935a9542e80c18c52475af4cb6872eee278a0586eba55f475d131d2edf8987bd.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/935a9542e80c18c52475af4cb6872eee278a0586eba55f475d131d2edf8987bd.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..facefdc7640105a1755b47f6a31dbaa767370ffd --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/935a9542e80c18c52475af4cb6872eee278a0586eba55f475d131d2edf8987bd.md @@ -0,0 +1,174 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 133 +Entered on FLSD Docket 11/20/2009 Page 1 of 4 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRAI. +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 +DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO ATTEND MEDIATION +AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOF +(AS TO CMA v. EPSTEIN AND | +- 08-CIV-80811) +Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through his undersigned attorneys, +moves this Court for an order allowing him to attend mediation in the above-styled +matter and as grounds set forth would state: +The Court entered a no contact order which may apply to Carolyn +Andriano, [DE 238]. +Plaintiff's counsel and plaintiff, +have no objection to Mr. +Epstein attending deposition, mediation and obviously trial. +3. +Therefore, Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, in an abundance of caution, +requests that the court enter the attached proposed Agreed Order which shall not + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 133 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/20/2009 Page 2 of 4 +Page 2 +preclude him from attending Plaintiff +trial of this case. +deposition, mediation, or the +Rule 7.1 Certification +Defense counsel has spoken with Plaintiff's counsel and he has no objection to +the entry of the proposed agreed order. +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 20 day of _November_ 2009 +Respectfully submitted, +By: +ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. +Florida Bar No. 224162 +crit@bclclaw.com +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. +Florida Bar #617296 +mpike@bclclaw.com +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & 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) + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 133 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/20/2009 Page 3 of 4 +Page 3 +Certificate of Service +Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein +Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON +Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. +Brad +Esq. +Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. +Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler +Mermelstein & 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 +bedwards@rra-law.com +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +08-80893 +Counsel for Plaintiffs +In related Cases Nos. +08-80069, 08- Paul G. Cassell, Esq. +80119, 08-80232, +08-80380, 08-80381, Pro Hac Vice +08-80993, 08-80994 +332 South 1400 E, Room 101 +Salt Lake City, UT 84112 +Richard Horace Willits, Esq. +801-585-5202 +Richard H. Willits, P.A +801-585-6833 Fax +2290 10* Avenue North +cassellp@law.utah.edu +Suite 404 +Co-counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe +Lake Worth, FL 33461 +561-582-7600 +Isidro M. +, Esq. +Fax: 561-588-8819 +Law Firm, P.A +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. +224 Datura Street, Suite 900 +08-80811 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +reelrhw@hotmail.com +561-832-7732 +561-832-7137 F +Jack Scarola, Esq. +Jack P. +, Esg. +isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. +Searcy +Denney +Scarola Barnhart & 08-80469 +Shipley, 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 Flagler Street, Suite 800 +jsx@searcylaw.com +Miami, FL 33130 +iph@searcylaw.com +305 358-2800 +Counsel for Plaintiff, C.M.A. +Fax: 305 358-2382 +rjosefsberg@podhurst.com +kezell@podhurst.com + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 133 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/20/2009 Page 4 of 4 +Page 4 +Bruce Reinhart, Esq. +Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A. +250 S. Australian Avenue +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561-202-6360 +Fax: 561-828-0983 +ecf@brucereinhartlaw.com +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 +skuvin@leopoldkuvin.com +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. +08-08804 +Counsel for Plaintiffs 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 +jagesq@bellsouth.net +Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/935a9542e80c18c52475af4cb6872eee278a0586eba55f475d131d2edf8987bd.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/935a9542e80c18c52475af4cb6872eee278a0586eba55f475d131d2edf8987bd.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..de94131084210710a07c6f6d50a8d68f090a33d6 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/935a9542e80c18c52475af4cb6872eee278a0586eba55f475d131d2edf8987bd.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -127, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "935a9542e80c18c52475af4cb6872eee278a0586eba55f475d131d2edf8987bd", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 5, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "bf726f384e50094c793bdd7ed58c65c58294aedf3f6b97c6d573ed0d7f064997", + "output_sha256": "59ad852de2f8ad3550960508df5e753e04af2d19e7f7f5a10521382cc39a9fc3", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9363841c56bd070f6c05d77b2634723066c6e6ed0b0af564763feb3b4981dc2e.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9363841c56bd070f6c05d77b2634723066c6e6ed0b0af564763feb3b4981dc2e.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0f79a5b007c8f6ba8f5f42ffd48d1b029d4dc52d --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9363841c56bd070f6c05d77b2634723066c6e6ed0b0af564763feb3b4981dc2e.md @@ -0,0 +1,125 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 123-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 1 of 5 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/_ +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/J +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/, +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Defendant. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 123-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 2 of 5 +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/. +JANE DOE NO. 5, +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-80994-CIV-MARRA/. +JANE DOE NO. 6, +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-80993-CIV-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 7, +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Defendant. +C.M.A.., +CASE NO.: 08-80811-CIV-MARRA/. +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Defendant. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 123-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 3 of 5 +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al, +Defendants. +CASE NO.: 08-80893-CIV-MARRA/, +DOE II, +CASE NO.: 09-80469-CIV-MARRA-_ +Taintit +JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al, +Defendants. +JANE DOE NO. 101, +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 09-80591-CIV-MARRA- +JANE DOE NO. 102, +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 09-80656-CIV-MARRA/| +PROPOSED ORDER +This matter came before the Court on Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN's, +Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to file Reply to Plaintiffs' Jane Does 2-7 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 123-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 4 of 5 +Responses in Opposition to Motion to Compel Answers to 1" Set of Interrogatories and +1" Request to Produce, it is HEREBY ORDERED and ADJUDGED that: +Defendant's Unopposed Motion is GRANTED. Defendant shall have until May +20, 2009 to file a Reply to Plaintiffs' Jane Does 2-7 Responses in Opposition to Motion +to Compel Answers to 1% Set of Interrogatories and 1" Request to Produce +DONE and ORDERED this +_day of +_ 2009. +Kenneth A. Marra +United States District Judge +Courtesy Copies: +Counsel of Record +Certificate of Service +I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed +with there of the out wine ecs. deceit the the freing document in +he manner specified by CM/ECF on this _ 20 +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@sexabuseattorney.com +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +Counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe #2 +Jack Alan Goldberger +Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 +561-659-8300 +Fax: 561-835-8691 +jagesq@bellsouth.net +Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 123-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 5 of 5 +RITTON, JR., ESQ +Florida Bar No. 224162 +rcrit@bclclaw.com +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. +Florida Bar #617296 +mpike@bclclaw.com +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & +COLEMAN +515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561/842-2820 Phone +561/515-3148 Fax +(Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9363841c56bd070f6c05d77b2634723066c6e6ed0b0af564763feb3b4981dc2e.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9363841c56bd070f6c05d77b2634723066c6e6ed0b0af564763feb3b4981dc2e.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..643313159497bdacb7591a5bca06ae077e947ce0 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9363841c56bd070f6c05d77b2634723066c6e6ed0b0af564763feb3b4981dc2e.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -61, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "9363841c56bd070f6c05d77b2634723066c6e6ed0b0af564763feb3b4981dc2e", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 5, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "3708ef22f061c67b5483cde54bb33d7007782e425c37aaa3f7453c06b9df805e", + "output_sha256": "8e456d20a1840d64219ea5b5c5d1eae89aadbe5e2f243ffd0805ff96aa26f3e2", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/936634d27eecc5e91f0588a7235c0edd7733101d307ad5da15113b53aeeafe88.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/936634d27eecc5e91f0588a7235c0edd7733101d307ad5da15113b53aeeafe88.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8b89fe5e2837fa47ebddf42ac35c27d69abd87fd --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/936634d27eecc5e91f0588a7235c0edd7733101d307ad5da15113b53aeeafe88.md @@ -0,0 +1,89 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 248-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/06/2009 Page 1 of 4 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-cv-80119-MARRA/. +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/._ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/_ +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Defendant. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 248-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/06/2009 Page 2 of 4 +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 5, +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +/ +CASE NO.: 08-80994-CIV-MARRA/__ +JANE DOE NO. 6, +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-80993-CIV-MARRA/_ +JANE DOE NO. 7, +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Defendant. +C.M.A., +CASE NO.: 08-80811-CIV-MARRA/_ +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Defendant. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 248-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/06/2009 Page 3 of 4 +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al, +Defendants. +CASE NO.: 08-80893-CIV-MARRA/. +DOE II, +CASE NO.: 09-80469-CIV-MARRA-, +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al, +Defendants. +JANE DOE NO. 101, +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 09-80591-CIV-MARRA- +JANE DOE NO. 102, +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 09-80656-CIV-MARRA/_ +ORDER +This matter came before the Court on Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S, Motion +For Extension of Time in which to Respond to Plaintiff, Jane Does's Motions to Compel + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 248-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/06/2009 Page 4 of 4 +Responses to Request to Produce, Answers to Request for Admissions, and Answers to +Interrogatories. Having considered Defendant's motion and Plaintiff's counsel being in +agreement with the requested extension, it is HEREBY ORDERED and ADJUDGED +that: +Defendant's motion is GRANTED. Defendant shall Respond to Plaintiff's +Motions to Compel Responses to Request to Produce, Answers to Request for +Admissions, and Answers to Interrogatories. +on or before August 21, 2009. +DONE and ORDERED this +day of +_ 2009. +Kenneth A. Marra +United States District Judge +Courtesy Copies: +Counsel of Record diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/936634d27eecc5e91f0588a7235c0edd7733101d307ad5da15113b53aeeafe88.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/936634d27eecc5e91f0588a7235c0edd7733101d307ad5da15113b53aeeafe88.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8aca5bad549b937355c2a36939e8c327fe61de2e --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/936634d27eecc5e91f0588a7235c0edd7733101d307ad5da15113b53aeeafe88.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -48, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "936634d27eecc5e91f0588a7235c0edd7733101d307ad5da15113b53aeeafe88", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 4, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "31359fd8a75bd508e71cba626f3652180704889b0c0f843a68498a54a438b2c2", + "output_sha256": "d585999ed6dc0e3a2a31fed7c0ba8da3ac6fac72b76055ca2aaffead0ffddb25", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9376bade93a29644ccf49d859758338888da3ecc18c321b4f882e5cabad598c2.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9376bade93a29644ccf49d859758338888da3ecc18c321b4f882e5cabad598c2.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..14769f99a24f91f300f4db8035e734655e141f62 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9376bade93a29644ccf49d859758338888da3ecc18c321b4f882e5cabad598c2.md @@ -0,0 +1,39 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 454 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/27/2010 Page 1 of 2 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO. 08-CIV-80119-MARRA +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 Defendant Epstein's Motion to Quash and +Motion for Protective Order and Objections to the Subpoena Served on JP +Chase +& Co. Which is Incorrectly Titled and Addressed to Bear Stearns (D.E. #307). +The time period for filing a response in opposition to the subject Motion has long +since passed and Plaintiff has elected to not file a response to the Motion. Noting +Plaintiff's failure and refusal to file a response to the Motion, it is hereby +ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that said Motion, Defendant Epstein's Motion to +Quash and Motion for Protective Order and Objections to the Subpoena Served on JP +Chase & Co. Which is Incorrectly Titled and Addressed to Bear Stearns (D.E. +#307), is GRANTED BY DEFAULT pursuant to and in accordance with S.D. Fla. L.R. +1 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 454 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/27/2010 Page 2 of 2 +7.1.C. Defendant's objections to the subject subpoena are sustained and no documents +need be produced. +DONE AND ORDERED this January 27, 2010, in +1, at West Palm Beach, +Florida. +LINNEA R. JOHNSON +UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE +CC: The Honorable Kenneth A. Marra +All Counsel of Record +2 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9376bade93a29644ccf49d859758338888da3ecc18c321b4f882e5cabad598c2.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9376bade93a29644ccf49d859758338888da3ecc18c321b4f882e5cabad598c2.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c387eba11b351014c6589711a57268f63950a581 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9376bade93a29644ccf49d859758338888da3ecc18c321b4f882e5cabad598c2.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -24, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "9376bade93a29644ccf49d859758338888da3ecc18c321b4f882e5cabad598c2", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "1fc88852ee6d21adb835b9ebce9530db81d797f9c6f074f51201a47023263efb", + "output_sha256": "bb0782122e34a3358c8ba3f16907a1437015f7f0006f0467efd769be57f5c079", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/93971ae572f196f5a3660d47d35a75d4bc149652e16de5a0d766b682d653e746.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/93971ae572f196f5a3660d47d35a75d4bc149652e16de5a0d766b682d653e746.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d621aa04257e008c614da83e7cc2921ad30fff5d --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/93971ae572f196f5a3660d47d35a75d4bc149652e16de5a0d766b682d653e746.md @@ -0,0 +1,296 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 75 +Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 1 of 9 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA- +JANE DOE NO. 4 +V. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Plaintiff, +Defendant. +DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF, +JANE DOE NO. 4, To ANSWER DEFENDANT'S FIRST SET OF +INTERROGATORIES AND TO OVERRULE OBJECTIONS, AND +FOR AN AWARD OF DEFENDANT'S REASONABLE EXPENSES +Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through his undersigned attorneys, +moves this Court for an order compelling Plaintiff, JANE DOE No. 4 to answer +Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories and to overrule her objections asserted in +Plaintiff's Answers To Defendant's First Interrogatories, dated January 26, 2009. +Defendant further seeks an award of his reasonable expenses, including expenses, +associated with the making of this motion. Rule 37, Fed.R.Civ.P. (2008); Local Gen. +Rules 7.1 and 26.1 H (S.D. Fla. 2008). In support of his motion, Defendant states: +Introduction +Prior to the filing of this motion, counsel for Defendant and counsel for Plaintiff +corresponded with each other and were able to resolve some of the discovery issues +related to Defendant's First Interrogatories and Plaintiffs answers and objections +thereto. By letter, dated March 3, 2009, the Plaintiff agreed to withdraw her "General +Objections" set forth in her response. As well, issues as to interrogatories nos. 10 and +14 are presently resolved. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 75 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 2 of 9 +Page No. 2 +Also, Defendant has filed simultaneously with this motion a Motion To Compel +directed to certain of Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant's First Request To Produce, +also dated January 26, 2009, and which addresses identical discovery issues. Both +motions should be determined at the same time. +Motion To Compel Answers to Interrogatories Nos. 18, 19, 20, and 21 +18. +List separately the names, addresses and phone numbers of all males, +excluding Mr. Epstein, with whom you have had sexual activity since age 10 (by year) +up through your current age. Describe the nature of sexual activity, the date(s) and +whether you received money or other consideration from the person. +19. List separately the names, addresses and phone numbers of all males, +excluding your claims against Mr. Epstein, +whom you have claimed (formally or +informally) committed sexual assault or battery on you since age 10 (by year) up +through your current age. Describe the nature of sexual assault or battery, the date(s) +and whether you received money or other consideration from the person. +State the names, addresses and phone numbers of all males, excluding +your claims against Mr. Epstein, +whom you have claimed (formally or informally) +committed lewd or lascivious conduct to you since age 10 (by year) up through your +current age. Describe the lewd or lascivious conduct, the date and whether you +received money or other consideration from the person. +State the names, addresses and phone numbers of all males, excluding +your claims against Mr. Epstein, +whom you have claimed (formally or informally) +committed lewd or lascivious exhibition to you since age 10 (by year) up through your +current age. Describe the lewd or lascivious exhibition, the date and whether you +received money or other consideration from the person. +Plaintiff asserted the identical answer to each of the above stated interrogatories: +Response: +Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory as vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome, +harassing, and not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. +Moreover, this interrogatory is outrageous, offensive and apparently posed for the +purpose of intimidating the victim. Fed.R.Evid. 412 makes any answer to this +interrogatory inadmissible, and nothing in the answer could plausibly lead to discovery +of admissible evidence. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 75 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 3 of 9 +Page No. 3 +Legal Argument Supporting Entitlement to Discovery +Plaintiff does not make a relevancy objection, but instead claims that the +requests are "not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible +evidence," claiming that such "evidence ... would not be admissible under Fed.R.Evid. +412." Plaintiff further claims, without making any showing in her answer and without +moving for a protective order in accordance with Rule 26(c) and Local Gen. Rule 26.1 H +(S.D. Fla. 2008), that the interrogatory is "harassing,' "outrageous, offensive and is +apparently posed for the purpose of intimidating Plaintiff." +It is well settled that relevant information is discoverable, even if not admissible at +trial, so long as the discovery is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of +admissible evidence. Rule 26(b)(1), Fed.R.Civ.P.; Donahay v. Palm Beach Tours & +trans., Inc., 242 F.R.D. 685 (S.D. Fla. 2007). Contrary to Plaintiff's assertion, Rule 412 +does not automatically result in a determination that such sexual history and sexual +activity/behavior information is never admissible. In fact, written into the Rule are the +procedures to follow in determining when such information is admissible at trial. The +Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 412, Fed.R.Evid, makes clear that the procedures to +determine admissibility of an alleged victim's/plaintiff's sexual conduct or activity in civil +cases does not apply to discovery of such information. Rather, discoverability of such +information is governed by Rule 26, Fed.R.Civ.P., pursuant to which the scope of +discovery is broad. Donahay, supra, at 686, and cases cited therein. "Parties may +obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the claims or +defense of any party involved in the pending action." Id. +Rule 412, entitled "Sex Offense Cases; Relevance of Alleged Victim's Past +Sexual Behavior or Alleged Sexual Predisposition," provides in relevant part - + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 75 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 4 of 9 +Page No. 4 +(a) Evidence generally inadmissible.--The following evidence is not admissible +in any civil +... proceeding involving alleged sexual misconduct except as +orovided in subdivisions (b) and (C): +(1) Evidence offered to prove that any alleged victim engaged in other sexual +behavior. +(2) Evidence offered to prove any alleged victim's sexual predisposition. +(b) Exceptions.— +* +* +* +(2) In a civil case, evidence offered to prove the sexual behavior or sexual +predisposition of any alleged victim is admissible if it is otherwise admissible +under these rules and its probative value substantially outweighs the danger of +harm to any victim and of unfair prejudice to any party. Evidence of an alleged +victim's reputation is admissible only if it has been placed in controversy by the +alleged victim. +(c) Procedure to determine admissibility.- +(1) A party intending to offer evidence under subdivision (b) must— +(A) file a written motion at least 14 days before trial specifically describing +the evidence and stating the purpose for which it is offered unless the court, for +good cause requires a different time for filing or permits filing during trial; and +(B) serve the motion on all parties and notify the alleged victim or, when +appropriate, the alleged victim's guardian or representative. +(2) Before admitting evidence under this rule the court must conduct a +hearing in camera and afford the victim and parties a right to attend and be +heard. The motion, related papers, and the record of the hearing must be +sealed and remain under seal unless the court orders otherwise. +In confirming that Rule 412 does not control the discoverability of such +information, the Advisory Committee Notes (1994 Amendments) state - +The procedures set forth in subdivision (c) do not apply to discovery of a +victim's past sexual conduct or predisposition in civil cases, which will be +continued to be governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. In order not to undermine the +rationale of Rule 412, however, courts should enter appropriate orders pursuant +to Fed. R. CIv. P. 26 (c) to protect the victim against unwarranted inquiries and +to ensure confidentiality. Courts should presumptively issue protective orders +barring discovery unless the party seeking discovery makes a showing that + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 75 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 5 of 9 +Page No. 5 +the evidence sought to be discovered would be relevant under the facts +and theories of the particular case, and cannot be obtained except +through discovery. In an action for sexual harassment, for instance, while +some evidence of the alleged victim's sexual behavior and/or predisposition in +the workplace may perhaps be relevant, non-work place conduct will usually be +rrelevant. Cf. l +v. McGregor Electronic Industries, Inc., 989 F.2d 959, 962- +63 (8th Cir. 1993) (posing for a nude magazine outside work hours is irrelevant +to issue of unwelcomeness of sexual advances at work). Confidentiality +orders should be presumptively granted as well. +(Emphasis added). +In accordance with Rule 412 and Rule 26, the discovery sought regarding +Plaintiff's sexual activity with males, including whether she received any compensation +or consideration therefore, in interrogatory no. 18, whether she claims other males +committed sexual assault or battery on her in no. 19, whether she claims other males +committed lewd and lascivious conduct to her in no. 20, and whether other males +committed lewd or lascivious exhibition to her in no. 21, are all relevant to Plaintiff's +damages claims and the type of injury she claims she has suffered. Defendant has no +other means of obtaining such information and obtaining such information through +Plaintiff will better protect the confidentiality until the Court can make a determination in +accordance with the procedures under Rule 412(c) whether such information will be +admissible at trial. See Rule 412(c) quoted above. Defendant will agree to an order +keeping the confidentiality of the information obtained through discovery. +The evidence sought is relevant based on the facts and theories of this action. +In her Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff attempts to allege claims in Count I for +"Sexual Assault and Battery," Count Il for "Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress," +and in Count Ill for "Coercion and Enticement to Sexual Activity in Violation of 18 +U.S.C.A. §2422," and seeks damages pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §2255(a). (Plaintiff alleges + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 75 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 6 of 9 +Page No. 6 +diversity of citizenship as a basis for this Court's jurisdiction. 2d Am. Complaint, 5). +Counts I and Il are brought pursuant to state law. +In her complaint, Plaintiff alleges that "she has suffered and will continue to suffer +severe and permanent traumatic injuries, including mental, psychological and emotional +damages," and "severe mental anguish and pain." She also seeks actual (Count III) +and compensatory damages for her alleged injuries. 2d Am. Complaint, 11122, 27-28, +34, and "Wherefore" clauses. In her answers to interrogatory no. 9, Plaintiff further +states that: +Plaintiff has suffered severe psychological and emotional injuries, including +without limitation, corruption of morals, anxiety, intrusive thoughts, disturbed +sleep, impaired concentration, disruption and distortion of normal development, +loss of innocence. ... (Interrog. No. 9). +Plaintiff also alleges that " +a Palm Beach Community College +student," was a part of "Epstein's 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. 2"d Am. Complaint, 111-13. +According to the complaint allegations - "Upon information and belief Epstein has a +sexual preference and obsession for underage minor girls." 19. The "girl would be led +up a flight of stairs to a bedroom that contained a massage table ... The girl would be +alone with EPSTEIN; "Epstein would then perform one or more lewd, lascivious and +sexual acts, including masturbation and touching the girl's vagina." 2°° Am. Complaint, +111, 12. Plaintiff alleges that "in 2002-2003," she, "then approximately 15 years old, fell +into Epstein's trap and became one of his victims." M9. Plaintiff alleges that she +"returned on many occasions to the Palm Beach mansion to provide Epstein with +massages." 114. Plaintiff further alleges that on these occasions "Epstein engaged in + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 75 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 7 of 9 +Page No. 7 +sexual contact and activity with minor Jane, which included, among other things, +directing Jane to remove all her clothes, masturbating during the massage, and digitally +penetrating Jane's vagina. ... This sexual abuse occurred for approximately three +years." 114. Plaintiff further alleges that "Epstein committed willful acts of child sexual +abuse" on her, which resulted in "mental or sexual injury," and "caused or likely to cause +Jane Doe's mental or emotional health to be significantly impaired." 2d Am. Complaint, +126. +The information sought is clearly relevant to the injuries and damages claimed by +Plaintiff. The nature of her claimed injuries and damages are such that Defendant is +entitled to evidence which would show the nature of her relationship with males, +whether she has suffered other acts of sexual misconduct as alleged in her complaint, +and whether she suffered injury and damages as a result of the other claimed sexual +misconduct with males. See United States v. Bear Stops, 997 F.2d 451(8" Cir. +1993)(Defendant charged with sexual abuse of six year old boy was entitled to +admission of evidence relating to victim's sexual assault by 3 older boys to establish +alternative explanation for why victim exhibited behavioral manifestations of sexually +abused child.). +In further support of Defendant's motion, a copy of Balas v. Ruzzo, 703 So.2d +1076 (Fla. 5* DCA 1997), rev. denied, 719 So.2d 286 (Fla. 1998), is attached hereto as +Exhibit A as it is on point to the discovery issues in this action, and the relevancy and +discoverability of Plaintiff's history of sexual activity and any payment, therefore. See + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 75 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 8 of 9 +Page No. 8 +interrogatories 8, 22 and 30 propounded in the Balas case and footnote 1 herein. ' +Additionally and significantly, in other pending state court civil actions against Defendant +EPSTEIN attempting to assert similar claims and damages, the Circuit Court Judges +have already ruled that such information is discoverable as it is relevant to the damages +claims of Plaintiff. See Composite Exhibits B and C hereto. Composite Exhibit B +are the Orders, dated February 23, 2009, entered in the case of A.C. v. Epstein, and +. Case No. 502008CA025129 MB Al, 15" Judicial Circuit, In and For Palm Beach +County, State of Florida, which granted Defendant's motion to compel therein directed +to discovery identical to interrogatory no. 18 above, and to requests for production nos. +17 and 18 addressed below herein. (In the A.C. case, the Plaintiff answered without +objection interrogatories identical to nos. 19, 20, and 21 herein.) Composite Exhibit C +is a portion the transcript from a March 3, 2009 hearing on Defendant's motion to +compel discovery in the case of Jane Doe II v. Epstein, and +Case No. +502008CA020614 MB AF, 15"* Judicial Circuit Court, In and For Palm Beach County, +State of Florida. Again, the Circuit Court Judge determined that the information sought +is relevant to the issue of damages and, thus, discoverable. +WHEREFORE, Defendant requests that this Court grant his motion to compel +and award his attorney's fees and costs, associated with this motion, in accordance with +Rule 37, Fed.R.Civ.P.., and applicable Local Rules. +Rule 7.1 Certification +emotional distress. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 75 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 9 of 9 +Page No. 9 +I hereby certify that counsel for the respective parties communicated by letters in +a good faith effort to resolve the discovery issues prior to the filing of this motion to +compel. Some of the issues were resolved. +Robert D. Critton, Jr. +Attorney før Defendant Epstein +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 +erved this day on all counsel of record identified on the following Service List in the +nanner specified by CM/ECF on this A*-day of April. 2009 +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@sexabuseattorney.com +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +Counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe #2 +Jack Alan Goldberger +Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 +561-659-8300 +Fax: 561-835-8691 +jagesq@bellsouth.net +Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein +Respectfully submitted, +ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. +Florida Bar No. 224162 +crit@bclclaw.com +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESC +Florida Bar #617296 +mpike@bclclaw.com +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN +515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561/515-3148 Fax +(Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/93971ae572f196f5a3660d47d35a75d4bc149652e16de5a0d766b682d653e746.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/93971ae572f196f5a3660d47d35a75d4bc149652e16de5a0d766b682d653e746.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..59ec1c714d56ee34116880db1b13c2a443875dea --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/93971ae572f196f5a3660d47d35a75d4bc149652e16de5a0d766b682d653e746.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -245, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "93971ae572f196f5a3660d47d35a75d4bc149652e16de5a0d766b682d653e746", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 10, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "5507b33b0a1aed78c72ad391192df71290c64592373a431a05e1cdf820ec2582", + "output_sha256": "89568e01def8c227d44380abb88053342492bd02a70c73bd2415f0eb13d07ef7", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/93a48d3603e36614c71c22837f73f5d35320740029ca02272b44c2b97274b7f5.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/93a48d3603e36614c71c22837f73f5d35320740029ca02272b44c2b97274b7f5.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..13c357207f10274dc0e43910229b692b3d0133b9 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/93a48d3603e36614c71c22837f73f5d35320740029ca02272b44c2b97274b7f5.md @@ -0,0 +1,104 @@ +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 43 +Troutman Sanders LLP +875 Third Avenue +New York, New York 10022 +troutman.com +Filed 01/13/20 Page 1 of 3 +troutman" +sanders +Bennet J. Moskowitz +bennet.moskowitz@troutman.com +January 13, 2020 +ECF +Hon. Debra C. Freeman +Daniel +Moynihan +United States Courthouse +500 Pearl St. +New York, NY 10007 +Re: Jane Doe v. Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, in their capacities as the +Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF +Dear Judge Freeman: +We represent Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, Co-Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. +Epstein (together, the "Co-Executors"), in the above-referenced action. We write to correct +several inaccuracies in Plaintiff Jane Doe's status report filed on Friday, January 10, 2020 (ECF +Doc. 42). +First, as we indicated to Your Honor on Friday, in a joint status report submitted on behalf of all +parties in five other actions against the Estate,' we understand that the vast majority of the +plaintiffs in these and other actions pending in this District will or are likely to participate in the +Epstein Victims' Compensation Program (the "Program"). Although none is required to do so in +order to participate in the Program, five plaintiffs have voluntarily stayed their actions pending +their participation therein.? Respective counsel for all plaintiffs have conferred extensively with +the Program administrator and designers - Jordana | +, Kenneth Feinberg and Camille +Biros - including in person, to consider the Program's design and to provide specific input on +the draft Program protocol circulated on December 13, 2019 by | +Mr. Feinberg and +Ms. Biros. As counsel for five plaintiffs wrote to Your Honor on Friday, "we agree with +Defendants' assertion that our discussions with the designers and administrator of the ... +Program have been positive and productive."3 +' See VE, 1:19-cv-07625-AJN-DCF (ECF No. 52). +2 See Jane Doe 1, et al., 1:19-cv-07675-GBD-DCF (ECF No. 36); Jane Doe 17, 1:19-cv-09610PAE-DCF +(ECF No. 39). +3 See VE, 1:19-cv-07625-AJN-DCF (ECF No. 51). + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 43 Filed 01/13/20 Page 2 of 3 +January 13, 2020 +Page 2 +troutman" +sanders +Second, as noted above, the Co-Executors have not required any claimants to stay their actions +in this Court (or in any other jurisdictions) as a pre-condition to participate in the wholly +independent and completely voluntary Program; the Program administrator and designers have +also made that point clear. While some plaintiffs have seen the wisdom in briefly putting their +litigations on hold to participate in the Program, that is a choice that all claimants are entirely +free to make at their sole discretion. The Co-Executors have not asked Plaintiff Jane Doe to +stay this action, and in fact agreed on the proposed discovery schedule attached as Exhibit A to +Ms. Kaplan's letter. +Third, it was at the specific request of +Mr. Feinberg and Ms. Biro that counsel for +the Co-Executors did not attend Ms. Kaplan's in-person meeting or participate in her other +discussions with the Program administrator and designers. Collectively, they have several +decades of experience in this field, and expressed their strong belief that Ms. Kaplan and other +plaintiffs' counsel would be more candid in our absence. They also recommended that their +discussions with plaintiffs' counsel be confidential, and the Co-Executors accepted that +recommendation. We are encouraged that other plaintiffs' counsel - including David Boies, Lisa +Bloom and Brad +- have reacted positively to the Program as an alternative mechanism +for resolving claims against the Estate. +Fourth, the Court need only review my letter to Ms. McCawley of the Boies Schiller firm dated +December 3, 2019 (a copy of which is attached as Exhibit D to Ms. Kaplan's letter) to recognize +the inaccuracy of the statement that the Co-Executors "representled] that they do not know how +much money the Estate has or how much the Program will have access to." Only Ms. Kaplan +and the other plaintiffs' counsel know the number of other individuals who intend to file +additional claims, as well as the nature and scope of those claims. Once plaintiffs' counsel +provides that information, the Co-Executors will be better able to assess the amount of money +that will ultimately be required to adequately fund the Program. Morever, as I explained in my +letter to Ms. McCawley (on which Ms. Kaplan and all other plaintiffs' counsel were copied), the +Co-Executors intend that the Program be "open-ended" regarding amounts awarded - ie., the +Estate will not impose any absolute numerical cap on the Program's aggregate compensation +payments. Inasmuch as Plaintiff is required neither to accept any award from the Program nor +stay this litigation during the relatively short period that her participation in the Program is +pending, fixation on the total amount available in the Program is misguided. If Plaintiff is +ultimately dissatisfied with the results of the Program, she will have lost nothing.* +4 Alone among plaintiffs in all of the actions pending in this Court, only Ms. Kaplan's client filed an +claimants who seek to participate in the Program, as well as to the Co-Executors. + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 43 Filed 01/13/20 Page 3 of 3 +January 13, 2020 +Page 3 +troutman +sanders +Finally, we understand that the Program administrator and designers are prepared to appear +before Your Honor to explain the Program's goals, structure and planned implementation, if +Your Honor believes it would be productive. +Despite the skepticism evident in Ms. Kaplan's status report, the Co-Executors continue to +believe that the Program will provide a singular opportunity to resolve Plaintiff's claims in a +voluntary, confidential and non-adversarial manner. +Respectfully submitted, +s/Bennet J. Moskowitz +Bennet J. Moskowitz +CC: +All Counsel of Record diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/93a48d3603e36614c71c22837f73f5d35320740029ca02272b44c2b97274b7f5.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/93a48d3603e36614c71c22837f73f5d35320740029ca02272b44c2b97274b7f5.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7960a85b89bbcd3fc001b86f398f17ed859bdc7c --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/93a48d3603e36614c71c22837f73f5d35320740029ca02272b44c2b97274b7f5.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -36, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "93a48d3603e36614c71c22837f73f5d35320740029ca02272b44c2b97274b7f5", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 3, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "afffcc1e0f6dc4d863c64aeeb0bca380ab98ddc1bced54b28b4938a694255ee0", + "output_sha256": "04fdd264db1a997a650c008465a8a1282a340fb6b9d36e1d47aacfb1a9afde9f", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/93b6524e8d180e5e7318a05812c0e5695e972bd40ef7f05b0aeebc391713715d.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/93b6524e8d180e5e7318a05812c0e5695e972bd40ef7f05b0aeebc391713715d.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..042738182456087825baa1edb4314ba380605174 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/93b6524e8d180e5e7318a05812c0e5695e972bd40ef7f05b0aeebc391713715d.md @@ -0,0 +1,233 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 67-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 1 of 8 +Entered on FLSD Docket 02/27/2009 +KHU + +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-80381-CIV-MARRA/J +JANE DOE NO. 5, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT +Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 5 ("Jane" or "Jane Doe"), brings this Complaint against Jeffrey +Epstein, as follows: +1. +Parties, Jurisdiction and Venue +Jane Doe No. 5 is a citizen and resident of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and is sui +juris. +2. +This Complaint is brought under a fictitious name to protect the identity of the +Plaintiff because this Complaint makes sensitive allegations of sexual assault and abuse upon a +minor. +Defendant Jeffrey Epstein is a citizen and resident of the State of New York. +This is an action for damages in excess of $50 million. +This Court has jurisdiction of this action and the claims set forth herein pursuant to 28 +U.S.C. §1332(a), as the matter in controversy (i) exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs; +and (il) is between citizens of different states. +This Court has venue of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(a) as a substantial +- 1- +EXHIBIT B* + + +Case 9:08-CV-80381-KAM Document 67-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 2 of 8 +Document 60 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/27/2009 Page 2 of 8 +part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in this District. +Factual Allegations +7. +At all relevant times, Defendant Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") was an adult male, 52 +years old. Epstein is a financier and money manager with a secret clientele limited exclusively to +billionaires. He is himself a man of tremendous wealth, power and influence. He maintains his +principal home in New York and also owns residences in New Mexico, St.' +and Palm Beach, +FL. The allegations herein concern Epstein's conduct while at his lavish estate in Palm Beach. +8. +Upon information and belief, Epstein has a sexual preference and obsession for +underage girls. He engaged in a plan and scheme in which he gained access to primarily +economically disadvantaged minor girls in his home, sexually assaulted these girls, and then gave +them money. In or about 2002-2003, Jane Doe, then approximately 15-16 years old, fell into +Epstein's trap and became one of his victims. +9. +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. +10. +Epstein's scheme involved the use of young girls to recruit underage girls. These +underage girls were recruited ostensibly to give a wealthy man a massage for monetary +compensation in his Palm Beach mansion. The girls would be contacted when Epstein was planning +to be at his Palm Beach residence or soon after he had arrived there. Upon information and belief, +Epstein generally sought out economically disadvantaged underage girls from western Palm Beach +County who would be enticed by the money being offered - generally $200 to $300 per "massage" +session - and who were perceived as less likely to complain to authorities or have credibility if +allegations of improper conduct were made. This was an important element of Epstein's plan. +11. +Epstein's plan and scheme reflected a particular pattern and method. The underage +- 2- + + +Case 9:08-cV-80381-KAM Document 67-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 3 of 8 +Case 9:08-CV-80381-KAM +Document 60 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/27/2009 Page 3 of 8 +victim would be brought to the kitchen entrance of Epstein's mansion, where she would be +introduced tol +Epstein's assistant. +would then bring the girl up a flight of +stairs to a room that contained a massage table in addition to other furnishings, and a bathroom. +The girl would then find herself alone in the room with Epstein, who would be wearing only a towel. +He would then remove his towel and lie naked on the massage table, and direct the girl to remove +her clothes. Epstein would then perform one or more lewd, lascivious and sexual acts, including +masturbation and touching the girl's vagina. +12. Consistent with the foregoing plan and scheme, when Jane Doe was approximately +15-16 years old, she was recruited to give Epstein a massage for monetary compensation. Jane and +another girl were brought to Epstein's mansion in Palm Beach, to the kitchen entrance. Once there, +they were introduced to +who led them up the flight of stairs to the room with the +massage table. Jane and the other girl were directed by Epstein to remove their clothes and give +him a massage. Jane and the other girl removed their clothes except for their panties and bras, and +complied with Epstein's instructions. While on the massage table, Epstein masturbated himself +and touched both girls on their vaginas with his hand and with a vibrator. +13. +After Epstein had completed the sexual assault, both girls were then able to get +dressed, leave the room and go back down the stairs. Epstein gave both girls money for this +"massage." +14. +As a result of this encounter with Epstein, Jane experienced confusion, shame, +humiliation and embarrassment, and has suffered severe psychological and emotional injuries. +COUNT I +Sexual Assault and Battery +- 3- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 67-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 4 of 8 +Document 60 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/27/2009 Page 4 of 8 +15. +Plaintiff Jane Doe repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 14 above. +16. +Epstein acted with intent to cause an offensive contact with Jane Doe, or an imminent +apprehension of such a contact, and Jane Doe was thereby put in such imminent apprehension. +Epstein made an intentional, unlawful offer of offensive sexual contact toward Jane +Doe, creating a reasonable fear of imminent peril. +18. +Epstein intentionally inflicted harmful or offensive contact on the person of Jane Doe, +with the intent to cause such contact or the apprehension that such contact is imminent. +19. +Epstein tortiously committed a sexual assault and battery on Jane Doe. Epstein's acts +were intentional, unlawful, offensive and harmful. +20. +Epstein's plan and scheme in which he committed such acts upon Jane Doe were +done willfully and maliciously. +21. +As a direct and proximate result of Epstein's assault on Jane, she has suffered and +will continue to suffer severe and permanent traumatic injuries, including mental, psychological and +emotional damages. +WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 4 demands judgment against Defendant Jeffrey +Epstein for compensatory damages, punitive damages, costs, and such other and further relief as this +Court deems just and proper. +COUNT II +Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress +22. +23. +Plaintiff Jane Doe repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 14 above. +Epstein's conduct was intentional or reckless. +24. +Epstein's conduct with a minor was extreme and outrageous, going beyond all bounds +of decency. +-4- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 67-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 5 of 8 +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 60 +Entered on FLSD Docket 02/27/2009 Page 5 of 8 +25. +Epstein committed willful acts of child sexual abuse on Jane Doe. These acts resulted +in mental or sexual injury to Jane Doe, that caused or were likely to cause Jane Doe's mental or +emotional health to be significantly impaired. +26. +Epstein's conduct caused severe emotional distress to Jane Doe. Epstein knew or had +reason to know that his intentional and outrageous conduct would cause emotional distress and +damage to Jane Doe, or Epstein acted with reckless disregard of the high probability of causing +severe emotional distress to Jane Doe. +27. +As a direct and proximate result of Epstein's intentional or reckless conduct, Jane +Doe, has suffered and will continue to suffer severe mental anguish and pain. +WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 5 demands judgment against Defendant Jeffrey +Epstein for compensatory damages, costs, punitive damages, and such other and further relief as this +Court deems just and proper. +COUNT III +Coercion and Enticement to Sexual Activity in Violation of 18 U.S.C. §2422 +28. +Plaintiff Jane Doe repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 14 above. +29. +Epstein used a facility or means of interstate commerce to knowingly persuade, +induce or entice Jane Doe, when she was under the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution or +sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense. +30. +On June 30, 2008, Epstein entered a plea of guilty to violations of Florida §§ 796.07 +and 796.03, in the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County (Case nos. 2008-cf- +009381AXXXMB and 2006-cf-009454AXXXMB), for conduct involving the same plan and +scheme as alleged herein. +31. +As to Plaintiff Jane Doe, Epstein could have been charged with criminal violations of +- 5- + + +Case 9:08-CV-80381-KAM Document 67-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 6 of 8 +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 60 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/27/2009 Page 6 of 8 +Florida Statute §796.07(2) (including subsections (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), and (h) thereof), and other +criminal offenses including violations of Florida Statutes §§ 798.02 and 800.04 (including +subsections (5), (6) and (7) thereof). +32. +Epstein's acts and conduct are in violation of 18 U.S.C. §2422. +33. +As a result of Epstein's violation of 18 U.S.C. §2422, Plaintiff has suffered personal +injury, including mental, psychological and emotional damages. +34. +Plaintiff hired Herman & Mermelstein, P.A., in this matter and agreed to pay them a +reasonable attorneys' fee. +WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 5 demands judgment against Defendant Jeffrey +Epstein for all damages available under 18 U.S.C. §2255(a), including without limitation, actual +and compensatory damages, costs of suit, and attorneys' fees, and such other and further relief as +this Court deems just and proper. +JURY TRIAL DEMAND +Plaintiff demands a jury trial in this action on all claims so triable. +Dated: February 27, 2009 +Respectfully submitted, +By: +s/ Adam D. Horowitz +Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245) +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980) +.horowitzl@)sexabuseattorney.con +MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P.A +18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 +Miami, Florida 33160 +Tel: 305-931-2200 +Fax: 305-931-0877 +- 6- + + +Case 9:08-cV-80381-KAM Document 67-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 7 of 8 +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 60 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/27/2009 Page 7 of 8 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I hereby certify that on February 27, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing document with +the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this +day to all parties on the attached Service List in the manner specified, either via transmission of +Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those +parties who are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing. +Is/ Adam D. Horowitz +- 7- + + +Case 9:08-cV-80381-KAM Document 67-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 8 of 8 +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM S +Entered on FLSD Docket 02/27/2009 + +SERVICE LIST +DOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +igoldberger@agwpa.com +Robert D. Critton, Esq. +rcritton@bclclaw.com +Is/ Adam D. Horowitz._ +- 8- \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/93b6524e8d180e5e7318a05812c0e5695e972bd40ef7f05b0aeebc391713715d.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/93b6524e8d180e5e7318a05812c0e5695e972bd40ef7f05b0aeebc391713715d.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0d55cbfcf08440b1b16f6f9d507299129df6845a --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/93b6524e8d180e5e7318a05812c0e5695e972bd40ef7f05b0aeebc391713715d.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -213, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "93b6524e8d180e5e7318a05812c0e5695e972bd40ef7f05b0aeebc391713715d", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 11, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "4370fda928d24533e38d5a662f52f89d5affbf2c4a85a26e48bf380191be5ac4", + "output_sha256": "32a2d64fed1e7553e66c28d02b2b7fc6abfed79cd9d91ec83af220239d32590e", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/93fe499673dae7702e60d0204732efd42ce84ead12f0b9626ad5673e39b0d7d5.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/93fe499673dae7702e60d0204732efd42ce84ead12f0b9626ad5673e39b0d7d5.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c3c7202508c1bc5c859cba5d40c9aaa49c644a1c --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/93fe499673dae7702e60d0204732efd42ce84ead12f0b9626ad5673e39b0d7d5.md @@ -0,0 +1,57 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 90 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/27/2009 Page 1 of 2 +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM +Document 77-2 +Entered on FLSD Docket 04/03/200 + +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +APR 2 7 2009 +STEVEN M. LARIMORE +CLERK U.S. DIST. CT. +S.D. OF FLA. - W.P.B. +JANE DOE NO. 2, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRAI +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRAUI +JANE DOE NO. 5, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRAJ +ORDER + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 90 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/27/2009 Page 2 of 2 +Case 9:08-cy-80380-KAM Document 77-2 +Entered on FLSD Docket 04/03/2009 + +Upon Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Enlargement of Time to File Reply Memoranda in +Support of Motions to Compel Answers to Interrogatories and Production of Documents, and good +cause being shown, it is hereby +ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion is granted. Plaintiffs shall have an enlargement of time of +two (2) weeks, until April 20, 2009, to file reply memoranda in support of the Motions to Compel +Answers to Interrogatories and Production of Documents. +Nes1 lalm BEacH +DONE AND ORDERED in +1 Et, Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, th +2) day of APRIL +_ 2009. +2mmafommon +DISTRICT COURT JUDGE +Magistrate +Linned R.Iohnsau diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/93fe499673dae7702e60d0204732efd42ce84ead12f0b9626ad5673e39b0d7d5.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/93fe499673dae7702e60d0204732efd42ce84ead12f0b9626ad5673e39b0d7d5.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a13f60a6c9bc1322f674acd35ac69153a0709644 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/93fe499673dae7702e60d0204732efd42ce84ead12f0b9626ad5673e39b0d7d5.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -46, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "93fe499673dae7702e60d0204732efd42ce84ead12f0b9626ad5673e39b0d7d5", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 4, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "131db75f70ac1fa89d0b31c4ba0240528f09a02474e838964c13cf7ce4dc2eae", + "output_sha256": "c5ff0b88bcdae87f6732a51f9ba96aa34d811e36ee21b06060012597e9f2a0b6", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/93feda4af8900e0f2f88e5255e3a888436354ee054b6fa77b5cb21d012721b18.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/93feda4af8900e0f2f88e5255e3a888436354ee054b6fa77b5cb21d012721b18.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..46877ff4ccdebc6f32e5d10ef6750abd12554086 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/93feda4af8900e0f2f88e5255e3a888436354ee054b6fa77b5cb21d012721b18.md @@ -0,0 +1,158 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 524 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/12/2010 Page 1 of 6 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO. 08-CV-80893-CIV-MARRA/ +Vs. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et al. +Defendant. +Related Cases: +08-80119, 08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, +08-80994, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, +09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092 +PLAINTIFF JANE DOE'S RESPONSE TO EPSTEIN'S UNTIMELY MOTION FOR +LEAVE TO FILE REDACTED VERSIONS OF FIFTH AMENDMENT ARGUMENTS +Plaintiff, Jane Doe, respectfully files this response to defendant Jeffrey Epstein's +untimely Motion for Leave to File Redacted Versions of Sensitive Fifth Amendment +Arguments and Submit Un-Redacted Arguments to the Court (dkt. #518). While the +motion is not completely clear, Epstein seems to be arguing that he can file these +arguments with regard to his appeal of the magistrate judge's ruling in favor of Jane +Doe on various discovery issues (dkt. #462). This particular appeal, however, is already +fully briefed - as the appeal/request for Rule 4 review (dkt. #477), Jane Doe's response +(dkt. #485), and Epstein's reply (dkt. #502 ) were all filed well before Epstein's motion to +submit new redacted arguments. Epstein's motion does not contend that any of these +issues are newly discovered or otherwise arose recently. Therefore, at least with + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 524 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/12/2010 Page 2 of 6 +respect to his effort to appeal the order in favor of Jane Doe, his motion is simply and +obviously untimely. +PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND +On July 20, 2009, Jane Doe filed a straightforward motion for production of +various materials, including documents provided to Epstein from state and federal +prosecutors in the criminal cases against him, his recent tax returns, and his passport +(dkt. #210). Consistent with his discovery history, Epstein obtained an extension of time +in which to respond and, two-and-a-half months later, on October 6, 2009, Epstein filed +an objection to producing these items primarily on Fifth Amendment grounds (dkt. +#339). On October 16, 2009, Jane Doe filed a reply in support of her motion (dkt. +#354). On January 22, 2010, Jane Doe filed a notice that more than 90 days had +elapsed since the filing of her motion (dkt. #453). +On February 4, 2010, the magistrate judge granted in part Jane Doe's motion to +compel, specifically ruling that Epstein had to produce the documents provided to him +by state and federal prosecutors, his recent tax returns, and his passport (dkt. #462). +Epstein then obtained another extension of time in which to file an appeal,' +ultimately filing an appeal of the magistrate decision on February 26, 2010 - some +seven months after Jane Doe's initial request had been made (dkt. #477). Jane Doe +' On February 9, 2010, Epstein moved for an extension of time to file his appeal (dkt. #464). +On the same day, Jane Doe objected to any extension, explaining the length of time involved in +resolving the issue and the prejudice it was having to her ability to gather evidence in support of +er claims and urging an expeditious resolution of the matter (dkt. #465). Two days later, thi +Court agreed with some of Jane Doe's arguments, requiring that Epstein collect all the material +that are subject to this discovery dispute and be prepared to produce them within three days of +any order affirming the magistrate judge (dkt. #468). +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 524 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/12/2010 Page 3 of 6 +promptly filed her response on March 10, 2010 (dkt. #485). Epstein then moved for +(dkt. #495) and obtained (dkt. #500) additional time to file his reply, which he filed on +March 26, 2010 (dkt. #502). +Ten days after the appeal was fully briefed by both sides, on April 6, 2010, +Epstein moved "for leave to file redacted versions of sensitive Fifth Amendment +arguments and submit original, un-redacted arguments to the Court for in-camera +inspection." Dkt. #518 at p. 1. He listed three magistrate judge orders that these +arguments were to bear on, including dkt. #462 -- the February 4, 2010, order in Jane +Doe's favor that was the subject of the fully-briefed appeal. Dkt. #518 at p. 1. The next +day, April 7, 2010, the Court ordered the plaintiffs to file any objection to the motion +promptly, no later than April 12, 2010 (dkt. #520). +ARGUMENT +It appears that Epstein is contending that he should now be able to file new +redacted arguments on issues relating to his appeal of the magistrate judge's order in +favor of Jane Doe (as well as with regard to other plaintiffs). At least with regard to +Jane Doe, his motion should simply be denied as being untimely. The appeal of the +Jane Doe order became fully briefed when Epstein filed his reply on March 26, 2010. +There is no reason for Epstein to file new, redacted arguments after his reply brief has +been filed. Moreover, Jane Doe would be prejudiced were the Court to receive and +consider new arguments that she will have no opportunity to respond to. Finally, the +Court should be aware that this untimely motion appears to be part of a calculated effort +by Epstein and his extensive legal team to simply "run out the clock" and block Jane +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 524 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/12/2010 Page 4 of 6 +CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/_ +Doe from gaining relevant evidence to prove her case. Accordingly, with regard to Jane +Doe and the appeal of the magistrate judge's order in her favor (dkt. #462), Epstein's +motion should be promptly denied so that she can receive the materials she properly +sought more than eight months ago. +CONCLUSION +Epstein's Motion for Leave to File Redacted Versions of Sensitive Fifth +Amendment Arguments and to Submit Un-Redacted Arguments to the Court (dkt. #518) +should be denied with regard to Epstein's appeal of the order in Jane Doe's favor (dkt. +#462). Jane Doe understands that other plaintiffs are also objecting to the motion. To +the extent that those objections apply to Jane Doe's case, Jane Doe fully joins in those +objections. +DATED: April 12, 2010 +Respectfully Submitted, +s/l +JAFFE, WEISSING. +_. FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. +425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 +Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 +Telephone (954) 524-2820 +Facsimile (954) 524-2822 +Florida Bar No.: 542075 +E-mail: brad@pathtojustice.com +and +4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 524 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/12/2010 Page 5 of 6 +Paul G. Cassell +Pro Hac Vice +332 S. 1400 E. +Salt Lake City, UT 84112 +Telephone: 801-585-5202 +Facsimile: +801-585-6833 +E-Mail: +cassellp@law.utah.edu +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I HEREBY CERTIFY that on April 12, 2010 I electronically filed the foregoing +document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing +document is being served this day on all parties on the attached Service List in the +manner specified, either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by +CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those parties who are not authorized to +receive electronically filed Notices of Electronic Filing. +J. +SERVICE LIST +Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +Jgoldberger@agwpa.com +Robert D. Critton, Esq. +rcritton@bclclaw.com +Isidro Manual +isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net +Jack +iph@searcylaw.com +Katherine Warthen Ezell +KEzell@podhurst.com +5 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 524 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/12/2010 Page 6 of 6 +Michael James Pike +MPike@bclclaw.com +Paul G. Cassell +cassellp@law.utah.edu +Richard Horace Willits +lawyerswillits@aol.com +Robert C. Josefsberg +rjosefsberg@podhurst.com +Adam D. Horowitz +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +Stuart S. Mermelstein +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +6 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/93feda4af8900e0f2f88e5255e3a888436354ee054b6fa77b5cb21d012721b18.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/93feda4af8900e0f2f88e5255e3a888436354ee054b6fa77b5cb21d012721b18.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5427fb9fa9bc4bfa2c7ba9911f37a2db872b190a --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/93feda4af8900e0f2f88e5255e3a888436354ee054b6fa77b5cb21d012721b18.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -185, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "93feda4af8900e0f2f88e5255e3a888436354ee054b6fa77b5cb21d012721b18", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 7, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "bb8008ce8443f2f4b81a2bb10c1ac82c74f241fc0bf55913e56311e6d78852e4", + "output_sha256": "e066496b5680aebe0f507007815c18357b47cd8d1072b7bddb7de468cbf1ed57", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/94083cb8834ba0b36be77c1c6f5d48945f8b402cd8dfd4d022583003ca1f8e3e.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/94083cb8834ba0b36be77c1c6f5d48945f8b402cd8dfd4d022583003ca1f8e3e.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2e2b3535a5cb72836775971531cde06e02ee88cc --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/94083cb8834ba0b36be77c1c6f5d48945f8b402cd8dfd4d022583003ca1f8e3e.md @@ -0,0 +1,283 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 340 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/06/2009 Page 1 of 10 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/ +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, +PLAINTIFFS JANE DOE NOS. 2-8' MEMORANDUM IN +OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE +APPEAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S ORDER AS UNTIMELY, +RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE, AND REQUEST +FOR SANCTIONS PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. $1927 +Plaintiffs, Jane Does No. 2-8 ("Plaintiffs"), by and through undersigned counsel, +hereby file this Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Strike Appeal of +Magistrate Judge's Order as Untimely, Response to Order to Show Cause, and Request +for Sanctions Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927, and state as follows: +Introduction and Summary +Plaintiffs filed their appeal of the Magistrate Judge's Order (DE 293) on +September 24, 2009. Defendant Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") incorrectly contends that this +appeal was untimely filed based on two flawed assertions, one of fact and one of law: +Incorrect Fact. +Defendant asserts that the Magistrate Judge's Order was +entered on September 9, 2009. According to Defendant, Plaintiffs failed to file + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 340 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/06/2009 Page 2 of 10 +their Local Mag. R. 4 appeal within ten (10) days, as required by that Rule, +because the September 24, 2009 filing of the appeal was 11 business days +(excluding Saturdays and Sundays), and 15 calendar days, after entry of the +Order. +Incorrect Law. According to Defendant, the calculation of the ten day period +for appeal provided by Local Mag. R. 4 includes Saturdays and Sundays. The +Plaintiffs' appeal of the Magistrate Judge's Order becomes untimely by including +those days in the calculation of time. +Both of these assertions are plainly and obviously wrong. Plaintiffs' appeal of the +Magistrate's Order was timely for the following reasons: +Correct Fact. The Magistrate's Order may have been signed on September 9, +2009, but it was undeniably entered and served on September 10, 2009. +Correct Law. In calculating the ten day period for appeal, Saturdays and +Sundays are excluded. The date the appeal was filed, September 24, 2009, is the +tenth day after the Magistrates Judge's Order was entered and served. +Local Mag. R. 4 expressly provides that an appeal shall be filed "within ten days of being +served with the Magistrate Judge's Order. ..."' (Emphasis supplied). Rule 6(a) of the +Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states, plainly and clearly, that in computing the time +period under any local rule, intermediate Saturdays, Sunday and legal holidays are +excluded when the prescribed period is less than 11 days, as it is here. +Defendant's assertion that the Plaintiffs' appeal is untimely filed is, therefore, +patently frivolous. Epstein's counsel must know that the Magistrate's Order was entered +' This language mirrors that of 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(c), which provides that a party shall +have ten days after service of a magistrate's order to file objections. +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 340 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/06/2009 Page 3 of 10 +and served on September 10, 2009. Epstein's counsel would have received from the +Court an email of the Order on that date. Printed on top of page one of the copy of the +Order served on counsel is "Document 293 ... Entered on FLSD Docket 09/10/2009"2 +Yet, inexplicably, Epstein's counsel states in his Motion to Strike, "[o]n September 9, +2009, the Magistrate Judge entered her Order on Defendant's Motion/Appeal and +Supplemental Brief (DE 292)."' (Motion to Strike (DE 334), I 2). +Epstein's counsel, in his Motion to Strike, compounds the error of his +misstatement of fact by egregiously misstating the law. The Motion to Strike incorrectly +asserts that weekends and holidays are included in the ten day calculation, never once +even mentioning the contrary provision of Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a). A practitioner in federal +court should know that Fed.R.Civ.P. 6 is the first place to look in calculating a time +period provided under the rules of court. As discussed below, Epstein's Motion to Strike +is unreasonable and vexatious, and has unnecessarily multiplied the proceedings in this +action. Sanctions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1927 are therefore warranted against Epstein +and his counsel. +" A copy of the email received from the Court by Plaintiffs' counsel, attached hereto as +Exhibit "A", plainly shows that the Magistrate's Order was entered and served on +September 10, 2009. +3 Defendant incorrectly identifies the docket entry no. as 292. The Magistrate's Order is +in fact docket entry no. 293. +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 340 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/06/2009 Page 4 of 10 +Discussion +PLAINTIFFS' APPEAL OF THE +MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S ORDER IS TIMELY +Local Mag. J. R. 4 provides in relevant part as follows: +Any party may appeal from a Magistrate Judge's order +etermining a motion or matter under subsection 1(C) o +hese rules, supra, within ten days after being served wit +the Magistrate Judge's order, unless a different time is +prescribed by the Magistrate Judge or District Judge. +(Emphasis supplied). +This ten day time period after service must be read in conjunction with Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a) +in computing the time for appeal: +The following rules apply in computing any time period +specified in these rules or in any local rule, court order, or +statute: +... +(2) Exclusions from Brief Periods. Exclude intermediate +Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays when the period is +less than 11 days. +As discussed above, there should be no dispute that the Magistrate Judge's Order +was served on September 10, 2009. Calculating ten days from that date, excluding +Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays, the due date was September 24, 2009. By filing +on that date, Plaintiffs' appeal is timely.* See Ad Vance Coating Technology, Inc. v. +* Nothing in Epstein's Motion to Strike indicates a reasonable argument to the contrary. +Defendant notes that S.D.Fla.L.R. 7.1 does not apply to action in response to court +orders. Plaintiffs, however, do not rely on Local Rule 7.1. Rather, Plaintiffs rely on +Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a), which extends well beyond motions to encompass any time period for +a party to act under local rule, court order or statute. Epstein's Motion fails to discuss or +even mention Rule 6(a). The only case authority cited by Defendant is an unpublished +opinion, Cornelius v. Home Comings Financial Network, Inc.., 293 Fed. Appx. 723, 2008 +WL 4230197 (11th Cir. 2008). In Cornelius, the Court did not address the issue of the +calculation of the ten day appeal period under the Rules. Rather, the Court only found +4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 340 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/06/2009 Page 5 of 10 +LEP Chemical Ltd., 142 F.R.D. 91, 94 (S.D.N.Y. 1991) (holding that party's filing of +objections to magistrate's order was timely, noting that "the court must take into +consideration" the exclusion of Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays under +Fed.R.Civ.P. 6 in computing the time to appeal). +Moreover, it would appear that Plaintiffs' appeal, if anything, was early under the +Rules, when one factors in service of the Magistrate's Order by electronic means. Rule +6(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides three (3) additional days when +action is required after service, as follows: +When a party may or must act within a specified time after +service and service is made under Rule 5(b)(2)(C), (D), (E), +or (F), 3 days are added after the period would otherwise +expire under Rule 6(a). +Local Mag. J. R. 4, like 28 U.S.C. §636(b), expressly ties the ten day appeal period to +service of the order. In this regard, it appears that the drafters of Local Mag. J. R. 4 and +28 U.S.C. §636(b), by referring to service instead of entry of a magistrate's order as +triggering the ten day period, intended that Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(d) apply. In this case, +therefore, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 5(b)(2)(E) and 6(d), three additional days are added +after the prescribed period would otherwise expire to appeal, given that service was by +electronic means. See also S.D. Fla. CM/ECF R. 3(K)(4) (noting that Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(d) +(formerly 6(e)) applies to service by electronic means). Plaintiffs therefore in fact had +until Monday, September 29, 2009 to file their appeal. Their filing on September 24, +2009 is unquestionably timely. +that objections filed 21 and 36 days after the magistrate judge's order were "well after the +deadline." Id. at 728. It provides no authority, one way or the other, on the issue of +whether intermediate Saturdays and Sundays are included in calculating the time to file +an appeal of a magistrate's order. +5 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 340 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/06/2009 Page 6 of 10 +DEFENDANT EPSTEIN AND HIS COUNSEL +SHOULD BE SANCTIONED UNDER 28 U.S.C. $1927 +FOR FILING A FRIVOLOUS MOTION TO STRIKES +Attorneys practicing in the federal courts of this District are expected to know, +among other things, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules.' The +calculation of time periods under these Rules is objective and straightforward - except in +extraordinary circumstances, it should not be the subject of motion practice. In this case, +no extraordinary circumstances are present. The calculation of the time to appeal the +Magistrate's Order under Fed.R.Civ.P. 6 is simple and should not be a matter of +controversy. It is obvious under the plain meaning and application of Local Mag. R. 4 +and Fed.R.Civ.P. 6 that Plaintiffs' appeal of the Magistrate's Order is timely. +In arguing to the contrary, Epstein's counsel misstates a critical fact - the date of +service and entry of the Magistrate's Order - which is a readily ascertainable matter of +publie record, and should have been apparent from the Court's email to all counsel in the +case. Epstein's counsel further misstates the law by failing to recognize the application +of Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a). As a result, the proceedings have been multiplied and valuable time +s Plaintiffs' counsel is aware that the Order to Show Cause issued by this Court (DE 335) +sales the hamite poponse shall realis to pro rico anon under to yo +support the Plaintiffs' +mean that the Court does not want to hear argument on the merits of the appeal until such +time as the timeliness issue is resolved in Plaintiffs' favor. Plaintiffs include in this +Response a request for sanctions under 28 U.S.C. §1927 only because this relief pertains +directly and entirely to the Motion to Strike and the timeliness issue. As discussed +below, the separate round of briefing created by the Motion to Strike would not have +been necessary if Epstein and his counsel had acted reasonably. Defendant's position is +not supported under the facts or a fair reading of the applicable Rules. +*Qualification for admission as an attorney in this District requires that the attorney pass +an examination demonstrating proficiency in the Federal Rules and the Local Rules. +S.D.Fla. Rules of Attorney Admission no. 1. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 340 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/06/2009 Page 7 of 10 +and effort have been wasted. Indeed, as a result of the Defendant's Motion to Strike, the +Court issued an Order to Show Cause on October 2, 2009 (DE 335), which directed a +response to the Motion to Strike on or before October 9, 2009, and stayed proceedings on +the Plaintiffs' appeal of the Magistrate's Order pending resolution of the issue of +timeliness. The additional judicial effort and briefing arising from Epstein's Motion to +Strike could have been avoided by the reasonable effort and diligence of his counsel.? +The Motion to Strike has resulted in unnecessary delay, prejudicing Plaintiffs, as the +relief sought by Plaintiffs underlying the appeal is to compel discovery that Plaintiffs +have been seeking for well over six months. The conduct of Epstein's counsel in filing +the Motion to Strike without a factual or legal basis should not be condoned. +Section 1927 of Title 28 provides for sanctions, as follows: +Any attorney or other person admitted to conduct cases in +personally the excess costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees +reasonably incurred because of such conduct. +" Plaintiffs further note that Epstein's counsel failed to comply with the pre-motion +conference requirement of S.D.Fla.L.R. 7.1(A)(3). No certificate of counsel is included +in the Motion, as required by the Rule. Epstein's counsel contacted Plaintiffs' counsel +the evening before he filed the Motion to Strike, but only to request an enlargement of +time for Defendant to respond to the Plaintiffs' appeal of the Magistrate's Order, to +which Plaintiffs' counsel agreed. No mention was made that Defendant would be filing a +separate motion on the timeliness issue. If it had been, and if Epstein's counsel had +thereby complied with the pre-motion conference requirement, then Plaintiffs' counsel +could have explained to Epstein's counsel why the appeal is timely, and perhaps have +avoided the unnecessary motion practice Epstein's counsel created by filing the Motion +to Strike. +7 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 340 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/06/2009 Page 8 of 10 +In this case, §1927 provides authority for an award of sanctions against Defendant and +his counsel.* The Motion to Strike created an unnecessary and wasteful round of motion +practice. +Plaintiffs should be allowed to recover attorneys' fees as a result of this +conduct. +Conclusion +Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs respectfully request that (i) Defendant's Motion +to Strike Appeal as Untimely be denied, and Defendant be directed to respond to the +appeal on its merits; (ii) the Court's Order to Show Cause be discharged; (iii) sanctions +be made against Defendant and his counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1927; and (iv) such +other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. +Dated: October 6, 2009. +Respectfully submitted, +By: s/ Stuart S. Mermelstein +Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245) +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980) +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P.A. +Attorneys for Plaintiffs +18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 +Miami, Florida 33160 +Tel: (305) 931-2200 +Fax: (305) 931-0877 +& The Defendant's Motion to Strike is also in violation of Fed.R.Civ.P. 11. It is +unsupported factually and its legal contention on the calculation of time is not warranted +by existing law or any nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying or reversing +existing law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(b). However, given the 21 day "safe harbor" requirement +for a motion under Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(c)(2), there is insufficient time in this instance, as a +practical matter, for Plaintiffs to serve and file a Rule 11 motion. Plaintiffs note that the +Court, on its own initiative, may by order to show cause direct Epstein and his counsel to +show why the Motion to Strike does not violate Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(b). See Fed.R.Civ.P. +11(c)(3). +8 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 340 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/06/2009 Page 9 of 10 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I hereby certify that on October 6, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing +document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing +document is being served this day to all parties on the attached Service List in the manner +specified, either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF +or in some other authorized manner for those parties who are not authorized to receive +electronically Notices of Electronic Filing. +/s/ Stuart S. Mermelstein + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 340 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/06/2009 Page 10 of 10 +SERVICE LIST +DOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +jgoldberger@agwpa.com +Robert D. Critton, Esq. +rcritton@bclclaw.com +James +bedwards @rra-law.com +Isidro Manuel +isidrogarcia @bellsouth.net +Jack +jph@searcylaw.com +Katherine Warthen Ezell +KEzell@podhurst.com +Michael James Pike +MPike@bclclaw.com +Paul G. Cassell +cassellp@law.utah.edu +Richard Horace Willits +lawyerwillits@aol.com +Robert C. Josefsberg +rjosefsberg@podhurst.com +10 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/94083cb8834ba0b36be77c1c6f5d48945f8b402cd8dfd4d022583003ca1f8e3e.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/94083cb8834ba0b36be77c1c6f5d48945f8b402cd8dfd4d022583003ca1f8e3e.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8574c18dfe71158c57808558e6317964007a9575 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/94083cb8834ba0b36be77c1c6f5d48945f8b402cd8dfd4d022583003ca1f8e3e.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -120, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "94083cb8834ba0b36be77c1c6f5d48945f8b402cd8dfd4d022583003ca1f8e3e", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 10, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "e93ab27c783606d9637dd40f611b581824c460416b3908929742f087ad560cc5", + "output_sha256": "fda2235fbb7a8c92d174c8679d1f84ca7fd56850aadba79e06f8276ee1766d7f", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/94951206288cc792b5514b36e30775121ea1cf30a3bed36b3b8057bf16e8d469.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/94951206288cc792b5514b36e30775121ea1cf30a3bed36b3b8057bf16e8d469.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..77e023714ebe4828d15a253d981598c5697b1096 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/94951206288cc792b5514b36e30775121ea1cf30a3bed36b3b8057bf16e8d469.md @@ -0,0 +1,397 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 1 of 15 +JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S MOTION FOR FINDING OF VIOLATIONS OF THE +CRIME VICTIMS' RIGHTS ACT AND REQUEST FOR A HEARING ON APPROPRIATE +REMEDIES +CASE NO: +08-80736-Ciy-Marra/ + + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 2 of 15 +IN RE: +INVESTIGATION OF +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT +IT APPEARING that the City of Palm Beach Police Department and the State +the Sates one s otice hate co Circed an inter elim into conduct on infie +Epstein (hereinafter "Epstein"); +IT APPEARING that the State Attorey's Office has charged Epstein by indictment +with solicitation of prostitution, in violation of Florida Statutes Section 796.07; +IT APPEARING that the United States Attorney's Office and the Federal Bureau of +Investigation have conducted their own investigation into Epstein's background and any +offenses that may have been committed by Epstein against the United States from in or +around 2001 through in or around September 2007, including: +(1) +knowingly and willfully conspiring with others known and unknown to +commit an offense against the United States, that is, to use a facility or means +of interstate or foreign commerce to knowingly persuade, induce, or entice +minor females to engage in prostitution, in violation of Title 18, United States +Code, Section 2422(b); all in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section +(2) +knowingly and willfully conspiring with others known and unknown to travel +in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct, as +defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2423(f), with minor females, in violation of Title 18, +United States Code, Section 2423(b); all in violation of Title 18, United States +Code, Section 2423(e); +(3) +(4) +traveling in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual +conduct, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2423(L), with minor females; in violation + + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 3 of 15 +of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2423(b); and +(S) +knowingly, in and affecting interstate and foreign commerce, recruiting, +enticing, and obtaining by any means a person, knowing that the person had +not attained the age of 18 years and would be caused to engage in a +commercial sex act as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1591(c)(I); in violation of Title +18, United States Code, Sections 1591(a)(1) and 2; and +IT APPEARING that Epstein seeks to resolve globally his state and federal criminal +liability and Epstein understands and acknowledges that, in exchange for the benefits +provided by this agreement, he agrees to comply with its terms, including undertaking certain +actions with the State Attorney's Office; +IT APPEARING, after an investigation of the offenses and Epstein's background by +both State and Federal law enforcement agencies, and after due consultation with the State +Attorney's Office, that the interests of the United States, the State of Florida, and the +Defendant will be served by the following procedure; +THEREFORE, on the authority of R. Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney for +the Southern District of Florida, prosecution in this District for these offenses shall be +deferred in favor of prosecution by the State of Florida, provided that Epstein abides by the +following conditions and the requirements of this Agreement set forth below. +If the United States Attorney should determine, based on reliable evidence, that, +during the period of the Agreement, Epstein willfully violated any of the conditions of this +Agreement, then the United States Attorney may, within ninety (90) days following the +expiration of the term of home confinement discussed below, provide Epstein with timely +notice specifying the condition(s) of the Agreement that he has violated, and shall initiate its +prosecution on any offense within sixty (60) days' of giving notice of the violation. Any +notice provided to Epstein pursuant to this paragraph shall be provided within 60 days of the +United States learning of facts which may provide a basis for a determination of a breach of +the Agreement. +After timely fulfilling all the terms and conditions of the Agreement, no prosecution +for the offenses set out on pages 1 and 2 of this Agreement, nor any other offenses that have +been the subject of the joint investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the +United States Attorney's Office, nor any offenses that arose from the Federal Grand Jury +investigation will be instituted in this District, and the charges against Epstein if any, will be +dismissed. + + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 4 of 15 +Terms of the Agreement: +1. +Epstein shall plead guilty (not nolo contendere) to the Indictment as +currently pending against him in the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for +Palm Beach County (Case No. 2006-cf-009495AXXXMB) charging +one (I) count of solicitation of prostitution, in violation of Fl. Stat. 9 +796.07. In addition, Epstein shall plead guilty to an Information filed +by the State Attorney's Office charging Epstein with an offense that +requires him to register as a sex offender, that is, the solicitation of +minors to engage in prostitution, in violation of Florida Statutes Section +796.03; +2. +Epstein shall make a binding recommendation that the Court impose a +thirty (30) month sentence to be divided as follows: +(a) +Epstein shall be sentenced to consecutive terms of twelve (12) +months and six (6) months in county jail for all charges, without +3. +4. +6. +(b) +Epstein shall be sentenced to a term of twelve (12) months of +community control consecutive to his two terms in county jail +as described in Term 2(a), supra. +This agreement is contingent upon a Judge of the 15th Judicial Circuit +agreement. +The terms contained in paragraphs 1 and 2, supra, do not foreclose +Epstein and the State Attorney's Office from agreeing to recommend +any additional charge(s) or any additional terms) of probation and/or +incarceration. +Epstein shall waive all challenges to the Information filed by the State +Attorney's Office and shall waive the right to appeal his conviction and +sentence, except a sentence that exceeds what is set forth in paragraph +(2), supra. +Epstein shall provide to the U.S. Attorney's Office copies of all + + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 5 of 15 +8. +9. +proposed agreements with the State Attorney's Office prior to entering +into those agreements. +The United States shall provide Epstein's attorneys with a list of +individuals whom it has identified as victims, as defined in 18 U.S.C. +§ 2255, after Epstein has signed this agreement and been sentenced. +Upon the execution of this agreement, the United States, in consultation +with and subject to the good faith approval of Epstein's counsel, shall +select an attorney representative for these persons, who shall be paid for +by Epstein. Epstein's counsel may contact the identified individuals +through that representative. +If any of the individuals referred to in paragraph (7), supra, elects to +file suit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255, Epstein will not contest the +jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District +of Florida over his person and/or the subject matter, and Epstein waives +his right to contest liability and also waives his right to contest damages +up to an amount as agreed to between the identified individual and +so long as the identified individual elects to proceed +exclusively under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, and agrees to waive any other +claim for damages, whether pursuant to state, federal, or common law. +Notwithstanding this waiver, as to those individuals whose names +appear on the list provided by the United States, Epstein's signature on +this agreement, his waivers and failures to contest liability and such +damages in any suit are not to be construed as an admission of any +criminal or civil liability. +Epstein's signature on this agreement also is not to be construed as an +admission of civil or criminal liability or a waiver of any jurisdictional +r other defense as to any person whose name does not appear on ur +st provided by the United State +10. +11. +Epstein shall use his best efforts to enter his guilty plea and be + + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 6 of 15 +sentenced not later than October 26, 2007. The United States has no +objection to Epstein self-reporting to begin serving his sentence not +later than January 4, 2008. +12. +Epstein agrees that he will not be afforded any benefits with respect to +gain time, other than the rights, opportunities, and benefits as any other +inmate, including but not limited to, eligibility for gain time credit +based on standard rules and regulations that apply in the State of +Florida. At the United States' request, Epstein agrees to provide an +accounting of the gain time he earned during his period of +incarceration. +13. +The parties anticipate that this agreement will not be made part of any +public record. If the United States receives a Freedom of Information +Act request or any compulsory process commanding the disclosure of +the agreement, it will provide notice to Epstein before making that +disclosure. +Epstein understands that the United States Attorney has no authority to require the +State Attorney's Office to abide by any terms of this agreement. Epstein understands that +it is his obligation to undertake discussions with the State Attorney's Office and to use his +best efforts to ensure compliance with these procedures, which compliance will be necessary +to satisfy the United States' interest. Epstein also understands that it is his obligation to use +his best efforts to convince the Judge of the 15th Judicial Circuit to accept Epstein's binding +recommendation regarding the sentence to be imposed, and understands that the failure to +do so will be a breach of the agreement. +In consideration of Epstein's agreement to plead guilty and to provide compensation +in the manner described above, if Epstein successfully fulfills all of the terms and conditions +of this agreement, the United States also agrees that it will not institute any criminal charges +against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein, including but not limited to ! +, Lesley Groff, or +Further, upon execution of this +agreement and a plea agreement with the State Attorney's Office, the federal Grand Jury +investigation will be suspended, and all pending federal Grand Jury subpoenas will be held +in abeyance unless and until the defendant violates any term of this agreement. The +defendant likewise agrees to withdraw his pending motion to intervene and to quash certain +grand jury subpoenas. Both parties agree to maintain their evidence, specifically evidence +requested by or directly related to the grand jury subpoenas that have been issued, and +including certain computer equipment, inviolate until all of the terms of this agreement have +been satisfied. Upon the successful completion of the terms of this agreement, all +outstanding grand jury subpoenas shall be deemed withdrawn. + + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 7 of 15 +By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that each of these terms is +material to this agreement and is supported by independent consideration and that a breach +of any one of these conditions allows the United States to elect to terminate the agreement +and to investigate and prosecute Epstein and any other individual or entity for any and all +federal offenses. +By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that he is aware of the fact that +the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides that in all criminal +prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial. Epstein further +is aware that Rule 48(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that the Court +may dismiss an indictment, information, or complaint for unnecessary delay in presenting +a charge to the Grand Jury, filing an information, or in bringing a defendant to trial. Epstein +hereby requests that the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida defer such +prosecution. Epstein agrees and consents that any delay from the date of this Agreement to +the date of initiation of prosecution, as provided for in the terms expressed herein, shall be +deemed to be a necessary delay at his own request, and he hereby waives any defense to such +prosecution on the ground that such delay operated to deny him rights under Rule 48(b) of +the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the +United States to a speedy trial or to bar the prosecution by reason of the running of the statute +of limitations for a period of months equal to the period between the signing of this +agreement and the breach of this agreement as to those offenses that were the subject of the +grand jury's investigation. Epstein further asserts and certifies that he understands that the +Fifth Amendment and Rule 7(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provide that all +felonies must be charged in an indictment presented to a grand jury. Epstein hereby ágrees +and consents that, if a prosecution against him is instituted for any offense that was the +subject of the grand jury's investigation, it may be by way of an Information signed and filed +by the United States Attorney, and hereby waives his right to be indicted by a grand jury as +to any such offense. +/11 + + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 8 of 15 +By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read +and explaied to him. Epstein bereby states that he understands the conditions of this Non- +Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with them. +R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA +UNITED STATES ATTORNEY +Dated: +By: +A. VILLAFAÑA +ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY +Dated: +GERALD LEFCOURT, ESQ. +COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Dated: +1, ESQ. + + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 9 of 15 +By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read +and explained to him. Epstein hereby states that he understands the conditions of this Non- +Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with them. +R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA +UNITED STATES ATTORNEY +Dated: +By: +A. IN VILLAFANA +ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY +Dated: +Darod: 9/24/07 +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Pall Fount +OUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEI +Dated: +LILLY ANNI +1, ESQ. + + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 10 of 15 +By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read +and explained to him. Epstein bereby states that he understands the conditions of this Non- +Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with them. +R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA +UNITED STATES ATTORNEY +Dated: +By: +AL +• VILLAFANA +ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY +Dated: _ +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Dated:_ +GERALD LEFCOURT, ESQ. +COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Dated: 9-2407 +ILLY ANN SAN +IZ, ESQ. + + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 11 of 15 +IN RE: +INVESTIGATION OF +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +ADDENDUM TO THE NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT +IT APPEARING that the parties seck to clarify certain provisions of page 4, paragraph 7 +of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (hereinafter "paragraph 7"'), that agreement is modified as +follows: +7A. The United States has the right to assign to an independent third-party the responsibility +for consulting with and, subject to the good faith approval of Epstein's counsel, selecting +the attorney representative for the individuals identified under the Agreement. If the +United States elects to assign this responsibility to an independent third-party, both the +United States and Epstein retain the right to make good faith objections to the attorney +representative suggested by the independent third-party prior to the final designation of +the attorney representative. +7B. +The parties will jointly prepare a short written submission to the independent third-party +regarding the role of the attorney representative and regarding Epstein's Agreement to +pay such attorney representative his or her regular customary hourly rate for representing +such victims subject to the provisions of paragraph C, infre. +7C. +Pursuant to additional paragraph 7A, Epstein has agreed to pay the fees of the attorney +representative selected by the independent third party. This provision, however, shall not +obligate Epstein to pay the foes and costs of contested litigation filed against him. Thus, +if after consideration of potential settlements, an attorney representative clects to file a +contested lawsuit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. s 2255 or elects to pursue any other contested +remedy, the paragraph 7 obligation of the Agreement to pay the costs of the attorney +representative, as opposed to any statutory or other obligations to pay reasonable +attorneys fees and costs such as those contained in s 2255 to bear the costs of the attorney +representative, shall cease. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 12 of 15 +By signing this Addendum, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read and +explained to him. Epstein hcreby, states that he understands the clarifications to the Non- +Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with them. +R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA +UNITED STATES ATTORNEY +By: +Dated: +Dea /121/7 +VILLAPANA +ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY +STEREY PASTEIN +Dated: - +GERALD LEFCOURT, ESQ. +COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Dated: _ +ESQ. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 13 of 15 +By signing this Addendum, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read and +explained to him. Epstein heroby states that he understands the clarifications to the Non- +Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with them. +R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA +UNITED STATES ATTORNEY +Dated: +By: +A. +VILLAFANA +ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY +Dated: +so 10/69/07 +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +count +COUNSEL TO JEFFRÉY EPSTEIN +Dated: +_ ESQ. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 14 of 15 +By signing this Addendum, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read and +explained to him. Epstein hereby states that he understands the clarifications to the Non- +Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with them. +R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA +UNITED STATES ATTORNEY +Dated: +By: +[VILLAFAÑA +ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY +Dated: _ +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Dated: +GBRALD LEFCOURT, ESQ. +COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Dated: 10-29-07 +LILLY ANN SANCHEZ, BS + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 15 of 15 +Dac-07-07 +04:55pм +From +Burnett + +T-965 +P.003/004 +F-975 +Affirmation +I, Jeffrey B. Epstein do hereby ro-affirm the Nob-Proscoution Agreement and Addendum to +same dared Octobar 30, 2007. +Dato +1/ba \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/94951206288cc792b5514b36e30775121ea1cf30a3bed36b3b8057bf16e8d469.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/94951206288cc792b5514b36e30775121ea1cf30a3bed36b3b8057bf16e8d469.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cd9293bdbf04e2d4a919b2e58614651c85375196 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/94951206288cc792b5514b36e30775121ea1cf30a3bed36b3b8057bf16e8d469.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -503, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "94951206288cc792b5514b36e30775121ea1cf30a3bed36b3b8057bf16e8d469", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 27, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.digits-only\", \"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": false, + "input_sha256": "15bab9f00c002265ebd79c0f7bb707a9657b754f2f5e652589f4055e18a7e189", + "output_sha256": "64c62ea1175a4141b151d0ea799527b17a08f02c78b3381a29680464e864705b", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/94966b4ffdf08809ced8612bad141ba59e65a775f38cecb83b8d01628ac14db0.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/94966b4ffdf08809ced8612bad141ba59e65a775f38cecb83b8d01628ac14db0.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ec16182492c86864d79e44b103cef561fff22ebc --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/94966b4ffdf08809ced8612bad141ba59e65a775f38cecb83b8d01628ac14db0.md @@ -0,0 +1,62 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 93 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/11/2010 Page 1 of 2 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80994-MARRA/JOHNSON +JANE DOE NO. 6, +V. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Plaintiff, +Defendant. +NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL +Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, in the above-styled cases hereby files his Notice of +Withdrawal. Plaintiff, JANE DOE 6 is in agreement with this Notice. In support thereof: +1. The parties have reached a settlement in this matter. +2. As a result, the following docket entry is hereby moot. +a. DE 91, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment +By: Is/ Robert D. Critton, Jr. +Robert D. Critton, Jr. +Florida Bar No. 224162 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 93 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/11/2010 Page 2 of 2 +Jane Doe No. 6 v. Epstein +Page 2 +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 11"* day of June, 2010: +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@sexabuseattorney.com +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +Counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe #3 +Jack Alan Goldberger +Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 +561-659-8300 +Fax: 561-835-8691 +jagesq@bellsouth.net +Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein +Respectfully submitted, +By: /s/ Robert D. Critton, Jr. +ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. +Florida Bar No. 224162 +rcrit@bclclaw.com +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. +Florida Bar #617296 +mpike@bclclaw.com +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN +515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561/842-2820 Phone +561/515-3148 Fax +(Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/94966b4ffdf08809ced8612bad141ba59e65a775f38cecb83b8d01628ac14db0.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/94966b4ffdf08809ced8612bad141ba59e65a775f38cecb83b8d01628ac14db0.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7841b3d53e369b70438c54f718981253483a6033 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/94966b4ffdf08809ced8612bad141ba59e65a775f38cecb83b8d01628ac14db0.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -24, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "94966b4ffdf08809ced8612bad141ba59e65a775f38cecb83b8d01628ac14db0", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "15e9012da42428705ec550698692144f16ba3a065b3250d9a3af0f93956ddddd", + "output_sha256": "52515a89f93360cdd107621d5bd232638e5602962a84f17df766e8e0c8bcaafc", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/949fb12a4c07a7380f1876bea2386b36155e570b016cb8d35df6355453df7f7c.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/949fb12a4c07a7380f1876bea2386b36155e570b016cb8d35df6355453df7f7c.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..04dfefb327fdd505d1056a2c807953fa4c4dd0ab --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/949fb12a4c07a7380f1876bea2386b36155e570b016cb8d35df6355453df7f7c.md @@ -0,0 +1,208 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 185 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/12/2013 Page 1 of 8 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/ +JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2 +V. +UNITED STATES +JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY IN SUPPORT OF +MOTION FOR COURT TO DENY THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS +BASED ON EXISTING PLEADINGS OR, AT A MINIMUM, ALLOW LEAVE TO FILE +A SUR-REPLY +COME NOW Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 (also referred to as "the victims"), by and +through undersigned counsel, to file this supplemental authority in support of their Motion for +the Court to Deny the Government's Motion to Dismiss Based on the Existing Pleadings or, at a +Minimum, Allow Leave to File a Sur-Reply. As the Court is aware, the victims argued in that +motion that their existing pleadings provide ample grounds for denying the Government's +motion to dismiss, as the Government has not proven that this Court stands powerless to craft a +remedy for deliberate violations of the CVRA. The motion further explained, however, that if +the Court would like further information on the new issues and new legal authorities the +Government advances in its 35-page "reply" memorandum, the Court should provide the victims +with a fair opportunity to file a sur-reply. The victims now file supplemental authorities in +support of these arguments. +1 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 185 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/12/2013 Page 2 of 8 +BACKGROUND +As the Court knows, on November 7, 2011 - more than three years after this case began' +-- the Government filed a sealed motion to dismiss, alleging essentially that the victims lack +standing to pursue this case and therefore that the Court somehow does not possess "jurisdiction" +over the matter. For example, the Government argued in its 13-page pleading that the +Constitution does not allow this Court to set aside even an illegal plea agreement. Mot. to +Dismiss at 3. Indeed, the Government even argued that the Court could not provide any remedy +to the victims whatsoever. Id. +On December 5, 2011, the victims responded with a 25-page pleading addressing the +Government's arguments.? The victims provided numerous remedies that they were seeking +which were within the court's power in this case, including an open-ended request for any +remedy that might be just and proper. Victims' Resp. to Government's Sealed Mot. to Dismiss +(DE #127) at 14-15 (listing 19 separate remedies that are possible in this case).3 The victims +also explained that they had already filed extensive case law supporting one particular remedy -- +the remedy that illegal plea agreements were unenforceable and could be set aside. Id. at 8-9 +(collecting cases). The victims also observed that the Government appeared to be deliberately +refusing to respond to these cases and raised a concern that they were about to be "sandbagged": +'And, apparently not coincidentally, the same day that the Government was obligated to +begin producing discovery to the victims that was ordered by this Court. +« The victims also filed a brief sealed response touching on the sealed aspects of their +requests for relief. +Additional remedies are listed in the victims" parallel, sealed pleading responding to +the Government's motion to dismiss. +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 185 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/12/2013 Page 3 of 8 +As the victims have previously explained, however, ample precedent supports the +power of this Court to set aside the agreement if it was arrived at illegally. See +Victim's Motion for Finding of Violation of Rights (DE #48) at 37-39 (collecting +case law on setting aside illegal plea agreements). The Government studiously +ignores these arguments in its newly-filed motion to dismiss. Should the +Government attempt to "sandbag" the victims by raising new arguments for the +first time in its reply brief, the victims would then respectfully seek leave to file a +sur-reply to these new arguments. +Victims' Resp. to Government's Sealed Mot. to Dismiss (DE #127) at 8 & n.1. +Sure enough, the sandbagging the victims feared came to pass. After three extensions (all +of which the victims consented to), seven weeks later on January 26, 2012 the Government filed +a 35-page "reply" memorandum. Many of the arguments advanced in the memorandum did not +in fact reply to anything that the victims had said in their response, but were instead entirely new, +affirmative arguments by the Government. For example, the Government argued - for the first +time - that "actions that Petitioners have taken since learning of the Non-Prosecution Agreement +legally preclude them for seeking rescission of the Non-Prosecution Agreement." Gov't Reply +in Support of Mot. to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction at 9-12.* In addition, the +reply contained eleven pages of detailed discussion of the case law surrounding setting aside plea +agreements - including the cases that the victims noted were being studiously ignored in the +Government's opening pleading. See Gov't Reply in Support of Mot. to Dismiss for Lack of +Subject Matter Jurisdiction at 4-14. The "reply" pleading also raised a host of new issues and +* Of course, this is not a "jurisdictional" argument and thus has nothing to do with the +ther alleged "jurisdictional" arguments raised in the Government's initial pleading. And, o +ourse, this argument is a factual argument. for which the Government did not provide an +proper factual record - much less give the victims an opportunity to provide their own facts on +the question. +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 185 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/12/2013 Page 4 of 8 +new arguments that the victims had not seen before in the three-and-a-half years that this case +has been litigated. +The victims then filed under seal a Motion for Court to Deny the Motion to Dismiss +Based on Existing Pleadings or, at a Minimum, Allow Leave to File a Sur-Reply. That motion +explained that the Government was raising frivolous new arguments in support of its motion to +dismiss. The victims asked that the Government's motion to dismiss be summarily denied or, in +the alternative, that they be allowed to file a reply brief. The victims also asked that the time for +filing any sur-reply not begin to run until the Court had granted the victims' motion to unseal the +Government's pleadings, so that they could consult with other experts on victims' rights +regarding the pleadings. This victims' motion has now been pending for more than a year. +Also relevant is the fact that on December 6, 2012, the victims filed a Motion for Prompt +Ruling Denying the Government's Motion to Stay (DE #179). On March 14, 2013, the victims +filed a Motion to Compel Production of Court-Ordered Discovery and for a Prompt Ruling on +the Motion (DE #183). The Government did not respond to this later motion, and thus it +continues to stand in an unopposed posture. In addition to ignoring the victims' motion to +compel, more generally the Government has also refused to comply with Court-ordered +discovery for more than 18 months, even though its motion for a stay of discovery obligations +has never been granted. +On March 29, 2013, the Court entered an order granting both of the victims' motions - +i.e., DE #179 and DE #183 -- "to the extent the Court hopes and intends to resolve these matters +in the relatively near future." DE #184. +4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 185 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/12/2013 Page 5 of 8 +DISCUSSION +For all the reasons that the victims have previously explained, the Court should +summarily deny the Government's frivolous and belatedly-raised argument that this Court +somehow "lacks jurisdiction" over a case that has been before it for nearly five years. As the +Court is aware, the victims have raised serious, supported, and substantial arguments that the +Government and a convicted sex offender agreed to a secret non-prosecution agreement and then +contrived to keep the victims from learning about it - all in violation of the CVRA. If the Court +simply denies the Government's motion to dismiss, then the case can move forward with +discovery and a factual record properly developed and available to the public in this case. +Likewise, for all the reasons the victims have previously explained, in the alternative, the Court +should deny the Government's motion to dismiss based on the fact that the bulk of the arguments +for dismissal were raised by the Government for the first time in its reply brief. +In addition to the authorities that the victims previously filed on this point, the victims +now proffer supplemental authorities supporting their position. +The Court should reject all of the new arguments raised by the Government in its reply +memorandum. This Court has recently explained the proper approach for this Court to take with +arguments raised for the first time in a reply memorandum is to "reject|] those arguments out of +5 The victims would also note that they long ago filed a motion explaining why the +Government refusal to provide any discovery to them - including information that is highly +relevant to their motions - violates its obligations under the CVRA, including the Government's +obligation to treat the victim with fairness. Doc. #50. The victims also argued that the +Government has "Brady" obligations to crime victims not less than criminal defendants that +apply regardless of any discovery obligations. Id. This Court has reserved ruling on this motion +Doc. #99 at 11. By simply denying the Government's motion to dismiss, the Court could +continue to reserve ruling on this motion. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 185 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/12/2013 Page 6 of 8 +hand." Guest v. Carnival Corp., ---F.Supp.2d-.-, .-., 2012 WL 6879069 at *6 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 7, +2012) (opinion of +_. M.J.) (citing Fromm-Vane v. Lawnwood Med. Ctr., Inc., 995 F.Supp. +1471, 1475 (S.D.Fla. 1997)). Supplemental authority from this Court in the last few months +confirms that "filudges in this district have repeatedly rejected attempts by parties to raise new +arguments in reply memoranda. See, e.g., Flamenbaum v. Orient Lines, Inc., No. 03-22549-Civ, +2004 WL 1773207, at *14 (S.D.Fla. July 20, 2004); Plante v. USF & G Speciality Ins. Co., No. +03-23517-Civ, 2004 WL 741382, at *5 n. 3 (S.D. Fla. 2004); | +v. Weyerhaeuser +Mortgage Co., 959 F.Supp. 1511, 1515-16 (S.D.Fla.1996)." Felicia v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., +2012 WL 6869829 at *2 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 30, 2012) (opinion of Snow, M.J.). Quite recent +authority from the Eleventh Circuit also confirms that a party who fails to address an issue in an +opening brief has "abandoned" it. Topping v. U.S. Dept. of Education, 2013 WL 656786 at *2 +(11th Cir. Feb. 22, 2013) (citing Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (1 1th Cir.2008)). +As the Court is aware, this case presents important issues about whether crime victims +whose CVRA rights have been deliberately violated will be able to obtain an effective remedy. +The straightforward way for the Court to proceed is to deny the Government's motion to dismiss +and allow the victims limited discovery to develop the fact surrounding this case. These +supplemental authorities support that conclusion. +CONCLUSION +In light of these supplemental authorities, the Court should simply deny the +Government's pending motion to dismiss. +6 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 185 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/12/2013 Page 7 of 8 +DATED: June 12, 2013 +Respectfully Submitted, +S/ +JAFFE, WEISSING, +1, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. +425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 +Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 +Telephone (954) 524-2820 +Facsimile (954) 524-2822 +Florida Bar No.: 542075 +E-mail: brad@pathtojustice.com +and +Paul G. Cassell +Pro Hac Vice +S.J. Quinney College of Law at the +University of Utah +332 S. 1400 E. +Salt Lake City, UT 84112 +Telephone: 801-585-5202 +Facsimile: 801-585-6833 +E-Mail: cassellp@law.utah.edu +Attorneys for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 +7 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 185 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/12/2013 Page 8 of 8 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +The foregoing document was served on June 12, on the following using the Court's +CM/ECF system: +Dexter Lee +A. +Villafaña +Assistant U.S. Attorneys +500 S. Australian Ave., Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +(561) 820-8711 +Fax: (561) 820-8777 +E-mail: Dexter.Lee @usdoj.gov +E-mail: +Attorneys for the Government +L. Ackerman, Jr. +Burnett PA +777 S. Flagler Drive, West Tower, Suite 901 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Criminal Defense Counsel for Jeffrey Epstein +(courtesy copy of pleading via U.S. mail) diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/949fb12a4c07a7380f1876bea2386b36155e570b016cb8d35df6355453df7f7c.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/949fb12a4c07a7380f1876bea2386b36155e570b016cb8d35df6355453df7f7c.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..214978fc1a56b16f5216005220bda861e76263a5 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/949fb12a4c07a7380f1876bea2386b36155e570b016cb8d35df6355453df7f7c.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -96, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "949fb12a4c07a7380f1876bea2386b36155e570b016cb8d35df6355453df7f7c", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 8, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "e8ba4454fe1b63f23bcb9765cfdc42d0d347b7952af5f03a92ae6744622aab07", + "output_sha256": "3443a044797d13076bd5d95144e3f9532dde7947c67279ceab1f7918aa276eb8", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/94a97d4bb82c477c52026be019f5a96c7831130d0ca3b07ab5f287268a8d11d4.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/94a97d4bb82c477c52026be019f5a96c7831130d0ca3b07ab5f287268a8d11d4.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9428aca1d79a491e10340b4a964701d5c1108e3b --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/94a97d4bb82c477c52026be019f5a96c7831130d0ca3b07ab5f287268a8d11d4.md @@ -0,0 +1,184 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 456-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/01/2010 Page 1 of 2 +Page +1 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/| +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 +/ +VIDEO-TELECONFERENCED AND VIDEOTAPED +COMPULSORY MEDICAL EVALUATION OF +JANE DOE NO. 3 +Tuesday, November 24, 2009 +9:18 - 4:45 p.m. +250 Australian Avenue +Suite 1500 +West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 +Reported By: +Notary Public, State of Florida +Prose Court Reporting Services +561) 832-7500 +nically signed by cynth +nically signed by cynth +PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC. +(801-051-876-2034) +fc1d87b0 + +B + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 456-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/01/2010 Page 2 of 2 +Page 2 +APPEARANCES: +On behalf of the Plaintiff: +JESSICA D. ARBOUR, ESQUIRE +MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P.A. +18205 Biscayne Boulevard +Suite 2218 +Miami, Florida 33160 +Phone: 305.931.2200 +E-mail: Ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +ALSO PRESENT: +Dr. Ryan +- M.D. +1, Paralegal, +Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman +Sascha Quimby, Videographer +Visual Evidence, Incorporated +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +120 +21 +122 +/23 +/24 +25 +Page 3 +EXAMINATION +BY DR. +a near the sis tin the side represenine. +Ar. Epstein +information which basically says that you realize +this is for court, that anything you tell me is not +confidential, meaning I am going to write a report. +Anything you say to me may end up in my report. A +copy will be sent to both attorneys, I believe a +judge may see it and things along those lines. +Usually when you see a doctor, there is +the expectation that what you say to him stays in +that office. That's not the case in this situation. +Also in this situation, I am not going to be taking +on treatment responsibility for you. So usually +when you see a doctor there is an expectation that +they are going to treat you, make recommendations, +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +113 +114 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 4 +maybe prescribe medicines, things along those lines. +I am not going to be doing that. I'm just doing the +evaluation for the court case. So there is no +doctor-patient relationship. All right? +A. Okay. +Q. Do you have any questions? +A. No. +Q. All right. This will probably be a long +day. This is not an endurance test though, so at +any time if you need to take a break or, I don't +know if you smoke or want to get some water, use the +restroom, feel free. Just let me know. And we +usually break for lunch around 12'ish, lish, just +depending on how things are going and what the flow +is. And we are videotaping. The tapes last about +two hours, so usually they have to come in and +change them out and then it becomes a good break +point. +A. Okay. +Q. So, but if you want to take a break +before, just let me know. +A. Okay. Do you want me to sign this now? +Q. Yes, please. +A. Today is the 23rd? +Q. I believe so. 24th. +Page 5 +A. 24th, thank you. Do I just sign here and +here? +Q. Yes, please. If you don't mind just +dating that. +A. Yeah. +Q. Thank you. Okay. +So, I'd just like to start by getting some +background information, things along those lines. +IfI could get your actual name, please. +A. Jane Doe No. 3. +Q. Okay. Where were you born? +A. West Palm Beach, Florida. +Q. Date of your birth? +A. March Sth, 1988. +Q. Were there any problems or complications +with your birth? +A. No. I was a healthy baby. +Q. So, not born early, born late, no time in +the NICU, PICU, or nothing like that? +A. No. +Q. Okay. Any in-utero exposures to anything +that you are aware of, alcohol, tobacco, cocaine? +A. When I was, when I was in the womb? +Q. Uh-huh. +A. No, none of that. +2 (Pages 2 to 5) +(561) 832-7506 +561) 832-7500 +ronically signed by cynthia +Tonically signed by cynthia +PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC. +(601-051-976-2934) +(601-051-976-2934) +fc1d87b0-efb8-44eB-8950-27567f880ce6 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/94a97d4bb82c477c52026be019f5a96c7831130d0ca3b07ab5f287268a8d11d4.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/94a97d4bb82c477c52026be019f5a96c7831130d0ca3b07ab5f287268a8d11d4.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5ffdb6d43ff2ee4f5de6085bb71e756635e4926d --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/94a97d4bb82c477c52026be019f5a96c7831130d0ca3b07ab5f287268a8d11d4.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -31, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "94a97d4bb82c477c52026be019f5a96c7831130d0ca3b07ab5f287268a8d11d4", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 3, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "f6e68fa2c9663e25bdca5695114e8aa2dbf17010d51658844a2ea6b4ce054f9d", + "output_sha256": "cb64184aec8f29853154aa60590c6406f6233d4ffc669c7b0d69d5358028441f", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/94c9cf9de53883dbade7e889b2f1ab2e2b7bf420c8d3ba5cf04952724610c528.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/94c9cf9de53883dbade7e889b2f1ab2e2b7bf420c8d3ba5cf04952724610c528.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8cd4f8fbefca42af900a90a63d3eb14490c102b2 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/94c9cf9de53883dbade7e889b2f1ab2e2b7bf420c8d3ba5cf04952724610c528.md @@ -0,0 +1,79 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 69-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 1 of 2 +34 +IN THE COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH +JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM +BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +CASE NO. 502008CA025129XXXXMB Al +A.C., +V. +Plaintift, +JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, and +Defendants. +ORDER ON DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO +FIRST REQUEST TO PRODUCE TO PLAINTIFF AND TO OVERRULE +PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS, & FOR DEFENDANT'S EXPENSES, +INCLUDING ATTORNEYS' FEES +THIS CAUSE came before the Court on Defendant Epstein's Motion To +Compel Responses To First Request To Produce To Plaintiff And To Overrule +Plaintiff's Objections, & For Defendant's Expenses, Including Attorneys' Fees +and the Court having heard argument of counsel and being fully advised in these +premises, it is hereby +ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Defendant's Motion is hereby granted/ +denied as +to +# 17 + 7/18 +→ and denced +as to #22 as phrased. +Responses to +be fter semed w/in 10 dap. +DONE AND ORDERED at Palm Beach County Courthouse, West Palm +Beach, Florida, this 23 day of _ +FUB +< 200€ +Edward A. +Garrison +Circuit Judge +Copies furnished: +ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ., and MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESO., 515 North Flagler Drive, Suite 400, West Palm Beach, +FL 33401; JACK SCAROLA, ESQ., AND JACK P. +Shipley, P.A., 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd.,. +ESQ., Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & +West Palm Beach, FL 33409, and JACK A. +Austrian ReSus Fis, PA, One Clearake Centre, Suite 1400, 250, +Australian Avenue South, West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +EXHIBIT" B +COVERNEDI + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 69-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 2 of 2 +35 +A.C., +IN THE COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH +JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM +BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +CASE NO. 502008CA025129XXXXMB Al +Plaintiff +V. +JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, and +Defendants. +ORDER ON DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO +INTERROGATORIES AND TO OVERRULE PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS, & FOR +DEFENDANT'S EXPENSES, INCLUDING ATTORNEYS' FEES +THIS CAUSE came before the Court on Defendant Epstein's Motion To +Compel Answers To Interrogatories And To Overrule Plaintiff's Objections, & For +Defendant's Expenses, Including Attorneys' Fees, and the Court having heard +argument of counsel and being fully advised in these premises, it is hereby +ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Defendant's Motion is hereby granted/ +denled +as to #5, 12$18, denied as +to #2. +Responses to be soned win +10 dap. +DONE AND ORDERED at Palm Beach County Courthouse, West Palm +Beach, Florida, this 23 day of . +Edward A. Garrison +Circuit Judge +Copies furnished: +ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ., and MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESO. 515 North Flagler Drive, Suite 400, West Palm Beach, +, ESQ., Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & +TENG, DE diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/94c9cf9de53883dbade7e889b2f1ab2e2b7bf420c8d3ba5cf04952724610c528.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/94c9cf9de53883dbade7e889b2f1ab2e2b7bf420c8d3ba5cf04952724610c528.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..32b77d20f91f4b44221e9cea36d7adb568082314 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/94c9cf9de53883dbade7e889b2f1ab2e2b7bf420c8d3ba5cf04952724610c528.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -24, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "94c9cf9de53883dbade7e889b2f1ab2e2b7bf420c8d3ba5cf04952724610c528", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "5cc64c92b130a46557db85808932c8995c868b120334929d5d4d52ed2be78938", + "output_sha256": "3d2166b113488a3fc004a6e9d13944d844c04331997b86b646cdaf79a0b7344e", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/94d0888617f1720836a50370a5aa8a81e69be09c4e52fa23c5681169b4e1473b.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/94d0888617f1720836a50370a5aa8a81e69be09c4e52fa23c5681169b4e1473b.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2594e0767c5fe05bbe342b732b0ecbd313c2b4d5 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/94d0888617f1720836a50370a5aa8a81e69be09c4e52fa23c5681169b4e1473b.md @@ -0,0 +1,70 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2008 Page 1 of 3 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA-JOHNSON +JANE DOE NO. 5, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +/ +DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION +TO MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT (DE #7) +In accordance with Local Rule 7.1(C), Defendant Jeffrey Epstein submits +the following response in opposition to Plaintiff's Motion (DE #7) for Judgment +Upon Default, and respectfully states as follows: +1. +Jeffrey Epstein has filed a motion (DE #9) to set aside the clerk's +default (DE #6) that would serve as the basis of a default judgment (DE #7-2). +2. +For the reasons detailed in that motion (DE #9 at 3), the clerk's +default was entered prematurely because substituted service was effected on June +2, not May 7. Thus, in accordance with Rule 12(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of +Civil Procedure, Mr. Epstein has until June 23 to respond to the complaint. +Apart from the prematureness of the plaintiff's motion, "[t]he law +does not favor defaults, and any doubts as to whether a party is in default should be + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2008 Page 2 of 3 +decided in favor of the defaulting party." E.g., Marschauser v. Travelers Indem. +Co., 145 F.R.D. 605, 610 (S.D. Fla. 1992) (Highsmith, J.) (citing 10 Charles A. +Arthur R. +& Mary K. Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § +2681 at 402-03 (2d ed. 1983)). Cf. id. (noting that "It]he Court's entry of an Order +of Default is within the discretion of the Court"). +4. Because the default (DE 8) was premature, any default judgment at +this point would also be premature. See Franklin v. Scribner, No. 07cv438 BTM +(LSP), 2007 WL 2326085, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2007) (denying motion for +default judgment where the answer deadline had not yet passed); see also id. +(characterizing the motion for default judgment as "deficien[t]"). +WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing, defendant Jeffrey Epstein opposes +the plaintiff's motion for entry of default judgment. +Respectfully submitted, +ATTERBURY, GOLDBERGER & +WEISS, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 +Tel: 561 659 8300 +Fax: 561 835 8691 +By: Is/ Jack A. Goldberger +Jack A. Goldberger +Fla. Bar No. 262013 +jgoldberger@agwpa.com +Attorneys for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2008 Page 3 of 3 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I HEREBY CERTIFY that on June 19, 2008, I electronically filed the +foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF.I also certify that +the foregoing document is being served this day on counsel of record identified +below by facsimile and U.S. Mail. +Jeffrey M. Herman, Esq. +Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. +Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. +Herman & Mermelstein, P.A. +18205 Biscayne Blvd, Suite 2218 +Miami, Florida 33160 +Fax: 305 931 0877 +Is/ Jack A. Goldberger +Jack A. Goldberger diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/94d0888617f1720836a50370a5aa8a81e69be09c4e52fa23c5681169b4e1473b.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/94d0888617f1720836a50370a5aa8a81e69be09c4e52fa23c5681169b4e1473b.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..82b110394a076175e7547d26e09c48a75eb1bb2c --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/94d0888617f1720836a50370a5aa8a81e69be09c4e52fa23c5681169b4e1473b.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -36, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "94d0888617f1720836a50370a5aa8a81e69be09c4e52fa23c5681169b4e1473b", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 3, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "11ccc3b17b11e964bbcb6d3f95f0b0b783ae09980a2634217c87d3b572a5e066", + "output_sha256": "cd5232f283f943d30c7334934d3428a4f3cab02e2f98a2ccfc0bc12e4c4fa556", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/94eeebe5ec0106ef66bc63f2ba20d5c9551888765b16004eed5ceb45e5b94614.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/94eeebe5ec0106ef66bc63f2ba20d5c9551888765b16004eed5ceb45e5b94614.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6bf16109544cc73b7cfd364b6b417712578df095 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/94eeebe5ec0106ef66bc63f2ba20d5c9551888765b16004eed5ceb45e5b94614.md @@ -0,0 +1,46 @@ +Case 1:19-cv-11869-MKV-DCF Document 34 +Filed 07/08/20 Page 1 of 1 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK +ANASTASIA DOE, +Plaintiff, +-against- +DARREN I INDYKE and RICHARD +D. KAHN, et al., +Case No. 19-CV-11869-MKV-DCF +Defendant. +NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS +TO: +ATTORNEY SERVICES CLERK AND ALL OTHER PARTIES +I have cases pending +I have no cases pending +Pursuant to Local Rule 1.3 of this Court, please take notice of the following attorney information change (s) for: +Mary "Molly" S. Dirago +FILL IN ATTORNEY NAME +_My State Bar Number is +My SDNY Bar Number is: +1 am, +• +An attorney +A Government Agency attorney +A Pro Hac Vice attorney +FIRM INFORMATION (Include full name of firm (OLD AND NEW), address, telephone number and fax number): +OLD FIRM: +FIRM NAME: Troutman Sanders LLP +FIRM ADDRESS: _227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 3900, Chicago, IL 60606 +FIRM TELEPHONE NUMBER: (312) 759-1920 +FIRM FAX NUMBER: (312) 759-1939 +NEW FIRM: +FIRM NAME: Troutman Pepper +Sanders LLP +FIRM ADDRESS: 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 3900, Chicago, IL 60606 +FIRM TELEPHONE NUMBER:_(312) 759-1920 +FIRM FAX NUMBER: (312) 759-1939 +I will continue to be counsel of record on the above-entitled case at my new firm/agency. +• +I am no longer counsel of record on the above-entitled case. An order withdrawing my appearance +was entered on +by Judge +Dated: July 8, 2020 +s/Mary "Molly" S. Dirago +ATTORNEY'S SIGNATURE diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/94eeebe5ec0106ef66bc63f2ba20d5c9551888765b16004eed5ceb45e5b94614.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/94eeebe5ec0106ef66bc63f2ba20d5c9551888765b16004eed5ceb45e5b94614.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ebd9560a11ddf772b9eb8ba721f7b6075f66abc1 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/94eeebe5ec0106ef66bc63f2ba20d5c9551888765b16004eed5ceb45e5b94614.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "94eeebe5ec0106ef66bc63f2ba20d5c9551888765b16004eed5ceb45e5b94614", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "374344df947f9fba12a15e3843f8d329ea70e6a5f310873ca03c371970d6b8cf", + "output_sha256": "04719a02c93eb18b64ee452b4419fcb3fd3c0d6202004d3b34809d3f1a88deae", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/94f3d3313b2a194318604dbccbeb8c4378969078b7be36bc033a4ef2761c28f5.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/94f3d3313b2a194318604dbccbeb8c4378969078b7be36bc033a4ef2761c28f5.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a289e7aa3ec7a212e68db11da585698783180962 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/94f3d3313b2a194318604dbccbeb8c4378969078b7be36bc033a4ef2761c28f5.md @@ -0,0 +1,116 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2008 Page 1 of 5 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF +MOTION FOR ENTRY OF CLERK'S DEFAULT +Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 3, by and through her undersigned counsel, submits this Reply +Memorandum in Support of Motion for Entry of Clerk's Default, as follows: +Introduction +Defendant Jeffrey Epstein claims that service of process on him was ineffective under +Florida or Federal law, based solely on a "bare bones" affidavit that raises more questions than it +answers. At a minimum, the issue of whether service was effective under Florida or Federal law is +at this point one of fact which should be the subject of discovery. +The Affidavit Attached to the Defendant's +Response to the Motion is Insufficient +Service of process was effected at Jeffrey Epstein's New York residence on May 7, 2008, at +7:45 a.m. by handing a copy of the Summons and Complaint to a person in Defendant's residence +who refused to identify himself. (See Affidavit of Service). Defendant now attaches to his +Response as Exhibit "A" the Affidavit of Richard Barnett, who claims to have received the copies of +the Summons and Complaint on May 7, 2008 at Defendant Epstein's residence. In this Affidavit, +HERMAN & MERMELSTEIN, P. A. +- 1- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2008 Page 2 of 5 +Mr. Barnett states very little. He asserts that he does not now, nor has he ever, resided at 9 E. 71st +Street, New York, New York (Mr. Epstein's residence). He fails to state in this Affidavit, however, +where he does live, if not at the residence in question; what he was doing at the subject address when +service was made; his relationship with Defendant Epstein, and how often he was at the residence; or +why he refused to identify himself to the process server. He also fails to state who instructed him to +answer the door on May 7, 2008 and take service anonymously. +The Court may grant limited discovery on the issue of service of process. Commonwealth of +Puerto Rico v. SS Zoe Colocotroni, 61 F.R.D. 653, 656-57 (D.P.R. 1974) ("discovery regarding the +legal sufficiency of service of process so as to acquire in personam jurisdiction over the person of a +defendant is permitted by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, specifically Rule 26"). See also +Blair v. City of Worcester, 522 F.3d 105, 111 (Ist Cir. 2008); Monteiro v. San Nicolas, S.A., 254 +F.2d 514, 516-17 (2d Cir. 1958) (holding that discovery was appropriate on disputed issues of +service of process). The parties do not dispute that if the person who in fact received the copies of +the summons and complaint resided at the residence, then service would have been valid under +Florida or Federal law on May 7, 2008.' See National Development Co. v. Triad Holding Corp., +930 F.2d 253 (2d Cir. 1991) (upholding service of process on housekeeper of defendant's New York +apartment, under Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(d)(I) [now 4(e)(2)], because the defendant was actually living in +the apartment at the time service was effected). Alternatively, if the difficulties encountered in +'Defendant notes that under Rule 4(e) there is no priority between alternative methods of service. +This means that Plaintiff has the option of perfecting service under either federal law, the law of the +forum state, or the law of the state where service is made: "Either may be turned to with no +attempted prior resort to the other." Fed.R.Civ.P. 4 (Commentary C4-22). It does not stand, +however, for the proposition that the defendant can accept service under New York law, while +ignoring valid service under Florida or Federal law. Accordingly, once valid service was made on +Defendant Epstein under Federal or Florida law on May 7, 2008, Defendant was required to answer +to otherwise respond to the Complaint by May 27, 2008 to avoid default, which he failed to do. +Herman & MermelsteIn, P. A. +- 2- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2008 Page 3 of 5 +serving Mr. Epstein were the result of Mr. Epstein's deliberate avoidance or deception, while +knowing of the lawsuit, then it would likewise be appropriate to find good service and a default. See +Keevan & Son , Inc. v. Callier Pipe & Tube, Inc., 107 F.R.C. 665, 671-72 (S.D. Fl.a. 1985) +("[e]ffective service is most likely found when a defendant has engaged in deception to avoid service +of process"). Based on what Mr. Barnett's Affidavit does not disclose, Plaintiff should be granted +discovery to determine whether service was proper under Florida or Federal law. Plaintiff would at +a minimum like to take the depositions of Mr. Barnett and Mr. Epstein with regard to the service of +process issues that have arisen in this matter. +Conclusion +Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff requests that this Court allow Plaintiff to take discovery on +the issue of service of process; conduct an evidentiary hearing on the validity of service under +Florida or Federal law; enter an Order compelling the Clerk to enter a default against Defendant +Epstein pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(a); and such other and further relief as this Court deems proper. +Dated: June 24, 2008. +Respectfully submitted, +By: +s/ Jeffrey M. Herman +Jeffrey M. Herman (FL Bar No. 521647) +jherman@hermanlaw.com +Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245) +ssm@hermanlaw.com +Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980) +ahorowitz@hermanlaw.com +HERMAN & MERMELSTEIN, P.A +Attorneys for Plaintiffs Jane Doe +18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 +Miami, Florida 33160 +Tel: 305-931-2200 +Fax: 305-931-0877 +HERMAN & MERMELSTEIN, P. A. +- 3- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2008 Page 4 of 5 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I hereby certify that on June 24, 2008, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the +Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day +to all parties on the attached Service List in the manner specified, either via transmission of Notices +of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those parties who +are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing. +Is/ Jeffrey M. Herman +Herman & Mermelstein, P. A. +- 4- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2008 Page 5 of 5 +SERVICE LIST +DOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/, +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +Jack Alan Goldberger +jagesq@ bellsouth.net +Is/ Jeffery M. Herman +Herman & Mermelstein, P. A. +- 5- \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/94f3d3313b2a194318604dbccbeb8c4378969078b7be36bc033a4ef2761c28f5.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/94f3d3313b2a194318604dbccbeb8c4378969078b7be36bc033a4ef2761c28f5.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7f5488bb8768bbe6ce7f57ad91a47ae92b4ca692 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/94f3d3313b2a194318604dbccbeb8c4378969078b7be36bc033a4ef2761c28f5.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -151, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "94f3d3313b2a194318604dbccbeb8c4378969078b7be36bc033a4ef2761c28f5", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 6, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "0a450d41688d0df09ac587327295e6a895e280c9c13c584dd977888f0cb04e5a", + "output_sha256": "9ccc8de211060f53367c4edf49b58b4ec2a4b4a64fd4d3676ee5b78d9fa50962", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9522ab44652c51c33259bcb66f2c3f8f6a7da9bc6459138f3451c3fd1c77bf71.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9522ab44652c51c33259bcb66f2c3f8f6a7da9bc6459138f3451c3fd1c77bf71.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b718f4bc207e9b9d0ca8ec010357c800b5a73222 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9522ab44652c51c33259bcb66f2c3f8f6a7da9bc6459138f3451c3fd1c77bf71.md @@ -0,0 +1,74 @@ +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 16 Filed 01/28/20 Page 1 of 2 +AO 440 (Rev, 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +for the +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK +JANE DOE, +Plaintiffs) +V. +Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-00484 +DARREN K. INDYKE and RICHARD D. KAHN, in their +capacities as executors of the ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, et al. +Defendant(s) +) +SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION +To: (Defendant's name and address) +DARREN K. INDYKE +c/o Bennet ). Moskowitz, attorney +Troutman Sanders LLP +875 Third Avenue +New York, NY 10002 +A lawsuit has been filed against you. +Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you +are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. CIv +. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 o +the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff's attorney, +whose name and address are: Kevin R. Boyle +Robert S. Glassman +Panish Shea & Boyle LLP +11111 Santa Monica, Blvd., Suite 700 +Los Angeles, CA 90025 +If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. +You also must file your answer or motion with the court. +CLERK OF COURT +Date: +01/28/2020 +1s./D. Howie +Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk +TES DISTA +Sutra + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 16 +Filed 01/28/20 Page 2 of 2 +AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2) +Civil Action No. +PROOF OF SERVICE +(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (D)) +This summons for (name of individual and title, if any) +was received by me on (date) +• I personally served the summons on the individual at (place) +on (date) +; or +• Ileft the summons at the individual's residence or usual place of abode with (name) +, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there, +on (date) +, and mailed a copy to the individual's last known address; or +• I served the summons on (name of individual) +designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization) +on (date) +; or +, who is +• I returned the summons unexecuted because +• Other (specify): +; or +My fees are $ +for travel and S +for services, for a total of $ +0.00 +I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true. +Date: +Server's signature +Printed name and title +Server's address +Additional information regarding attempted service, etc: diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9522ab44652c51c33259bcb66f2c3f8f6a7da9bc6459138f3451c3fd1c77bf71.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9522ab44652c51c33259bcb66f2c3f8f6a7da9bc6459138f3451c3fd1c77bf71.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a2007d8be168ee1773958b2db5f289c7e300c7de --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9522ab44652c51c33259bcb66f2c3f8f6a7da9bc6459138f3451c3fd1c77bf71.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -24, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "9522ab44652c51c33259bcb66f2c3f8f6a7da9bc6459138f3451c3fd1c77bf71", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "0014f455cc6c2f0a5d9652976e968f90fe4e23ab73275cf7d44f1b21e5ec7713", + "output_sha256": "628753da2dcc7037aa189def2b4da944c6746bba274dcaf4d5601ac35063656f", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/953330dd5b16f6ebaeb11ed9fc1da5b9c85818e2a45e2b25eaf8c6c554efc23f.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/953330dd5b16f6ebaeb11ed9fc1da5b9c85818e2a45e2b25eaf8c6c554efc23f.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b3a41618d34233e520419ca73f504b626a037adc --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/953330dd5b16f6ebaeb11ed9fc1da5b9c85818e2a45e2b25eaf8c6c554efc23f.md @@ -0,0 +1,32 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 423-1 +Entered on FLSD Docket 11/20/2009 Page 1 of 1 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/ +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 +AGREED ORDER ON DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO ATTEND MEDIATION +(AS TO CMA V. EPSTEIN AND +08-CIV-80811) +This matter came before the Court on Defendant Epstein's Motion to Attend +Mediation and Plaintiffs counsel being in agreement with the entry of this order, it is +HEREBY ORDERED and ADJUDGED that: +The court's no contact order, [DE 238], shall not preclude Defendant Epstein +deposition, mediation, or the trial of this +from attending Plaintiff +case. +DONE and ORDERED this +_day of +_ 2009 +Linnea R. +United States Magistrate Judge +Courtesy Copies: +Judge Kenneth Marra +Counsel of record diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/953330dd5b16f6ebaeb11ed9fc1da5b9c85818e2a45e2b25eaf8c6c554efc23f.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/953330dd5b16f6ebaeb11ed9fc1da5b9c85818e2a45e2b25eaf8c6c554efc23f.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f2cd3e064cb04859b20d85c314469fa725479c36 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/953330dd5b16f6ebaeb11ed9fc1da5b9c85818e2a45e2b25eaf8c6c554efc23f.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "953330dd5b16f6ebaeb11ed9fc1da5b9c85818e2a45e2b25eaf8c6c554efc23f", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "ceaa95ffe276bea3b0e86008a9e82a68e4f715f0c8b7164cd10ea20f0c24acf5", + "output_sha256": "70d4f3ec0e0ddffaa0105d599b05268342f541ef215c335534c4eea42f138768", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/95486713cd650153d4d6fa032973dfcf66d6737e006f0875d5e0f3f3b73d5e24.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/95486713cd650153d4d6fa032973dfcf66d6737e006f0875d5e0f3f3b73d5e24.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3a716ba348685afe0414eedb2ba32827dc818e5e --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/95486713cd650153d4d6fa032973dfcf66d6737e006f0875d5e0f3f3b73d5e24.md @@ -0,0 +1,178 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 264 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/13/2009 Page 1 of 5 +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, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, +08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, +09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092 +DIRT ASIAN OPOSE MOTION ATTENDED TEN +CONNECTION WITH THIS COURT'S ORDER DATED AUGUST 4, 2009 (DE 242) +Defendant, +Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter "Epstein"), by and through his +undersigned attorneys, and Pursuant to Rule 4, Review and Appeal - Southern District, +and other applicable rules as well as this court's discretion, respectfully moves this Court +for an extension of time in which to "... file with the Clerk of the Court, and serve of all +parties written objections which shall specifically set forth the order, or part thereof, +appealed from [and] a concise statement of the alleged error in the O] ruling, and +statutory, rule, or case authority, in support of defendant's position." As good cause in +support of granting the motion, Defendant states: +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 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 264 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/13/2009 Page 2 of 5 +said order. The same ruling was made as to request for production numbers 7 and 23. +See DE 242. Accordingly, the answers and responses are due August 14, 2009. +2. +Defendant seeks to appeal, pursuant to Rule 4, those portions of the order +which specifically address the above interrogatories and requests for production. Given +the breadth of the 5" Amendment addressing the above requests, the Defendant +respectfully requests an additional 15 days within which to "file with the Clerk of the +Court, and serve of all parties written objections which shall specifically set forth the +order, or part thereof, appealed from [and] a concise statement of the alleged error in the +• ruling, and statutory, rule, or case authority, in support of defendant's position." As +such, Defendant requests that the due date effectively be moved to August 31, 2009. +The undersigned, Michael J. Pike, has a status conference in front of the +Honorable Judge Huck in Miami, Florida on August 14, 2009. In addition, the +undersigned, Robert D. Critton, Ji., Esq., is out-of-town. Moreover, the undersigned +attorneys are moving their entire office and staff to a new location/address. +4. +5. +This request is not made to delay and will not prejudice any of the parties. +While this request is within the sound discretion of the court pursuant to +Rule 4, the undersigned has consulted with opposing counsel and he has agreed. +Wherefore, the undersigned respectfully requests the relief sought herein, and for +such other and further relief as this court deems just and proper. +Local Rule 7.1 Statement +Counsel for the movant conferred by telephone with counsel for the Plaintiff and +Counsel for Plaintiff is in agreement with the requested extension. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 264 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/13/2009 Page 3 of 5 +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/BCF. I also certify that the foregoing document is +boring ered ei day ay al cour on freo dent on til lowing Service List in +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@sexabuseattorney.com +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. +Florida Bar #617296 +mpike@bclclaw.com +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & +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/ +Brad +Esq. +Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler +401 East Las Olas Boulevard +Suite 1650 +'ort Lauderdale, FL 3330 +Phone: 954-522-345 +Fax: 954-527-8663 +bedwards@rra-law.com +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 264 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/13/2009 Page 4 of 5 +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +Counsel for Plaintiffs +In related Cases Nos. 08-80069, 08-80119, +08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80993, +08-80994 +Richard Horace Willits, Esq. +Richard H. Willits, P.A. +2290 10** Avenue North +Suite 404 +Lake Worth, FL 33461 +561-582-7600 +Fax: 561-588-8819 +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. +08-80811 +reelrhw@hotmail.com +Jack Scarola, Esq. +Jack P. +, Esq. +Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, +E139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard +West Palm Beach, FL 33409 +561-686-6300 +Fax: 561-383-9424 +jsx@searcylaw.com +jph@searcylaw.com +Counsel for Plaintiff, C.M.A. +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 +cassellp@law.utah.edu +Co-counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe +Isidro M. +, Esq. +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. +Bruce Reinhart, Esq. +Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A. +250 S. Australian Avenue +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561-202-6360 +Fax: 561-828-0983 +ecf@brucereinhartlaw.com +Counsel for Defendant +Theodore J. Leopold, Esq. +Spencer T. Kuvin, Esq. +Leopold, Kuvin, P.A +2925 PGA Blvd., Suite 200 +Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 +Fax: 305 358-2382 +rjosefsberg@podhurst.com +kezell@podhurst.com +Counsel for Plaintiffs 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 +jagesq@bellsouth.net +Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 264 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/13/2009 Page 5 of 5 +561-684-6500 +Fax: 561-515-2610 +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. +08-08804 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/95486713cd650153d4d6fa032973dfcf66d6737e006f0875d5e0f3f3b73d5e24.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/95486713cd650153d4d6fa032973dfcf66d6737e006f0875d5e0f3f3b73d5e24.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c4c2c6f6f366f024b86661847fc674ee33929d79 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/95486713cd650153d4d6fa032973dfcf66d6737e006f0875d5e0f3f3b73d5e24.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -60, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "95486713cd650153d4d6fa032973dfcf66d6737e006f0875d5e0f3f3b73d5e24", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 5, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "6b46bb138099375a6b54dd603c0e7e579300a2c134b8ba0b57c6c7e3297d0521", + "output_sha256": "579e23e340c05db53c70c27e17ad699e4deaaf0c99b2d0c3344145640660fb84", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/954b51c83f43d35c4c452b0f9c7504116a03755c6b5d116275a0efd3c0529ec1.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/954b51c83f43d35c4c452b0f9c7504116a03755c6b5d116275a0efd3c0529ec1.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5f6c3878108e09dcf8ea941475865a8640a12a21 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/954b51c83f43d35c4c452b0f9c7504116a03755c6b5d116275a0efd3c0529ec1.md @@ -0,0 +1,202 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 310-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Page 1 of 6 +Uh huh. +I just don't like the fact that you're in a vehicle that really high up +in the air and if something small happens you can pretty much die. +So, I don't know maybe I'm afraid of heights but I haven't really +gotten too high up to figure out whether or not 1 am. I just pretty +much stay in the safe zone, actually. I like to be in a comfort zone +and this is just a little bit out of my comfort zone. I'm just very +nervous. I get nervous. +Are you generally a nervous person? +00:05:49 +Like I said when I'm not comfortable I get really nervous; and I +start like moving around and I can't stop; and I can't really talk +uite clear sometimes because I'm so nervous that its just...kind +haking inside +Are you shaking now inside? +A little bit. +I'm sorry. +No its okay it's just me. I've just always been kind of nervous like +that in front of people that I don't really know. +Have you been shy person? +nore friendly towards people that I didn't know, maybe. My mom +ised to always say that I would...I was too friendly to people +guess more slang for just really tense; and I don't know... nervous +about people that I don't know, I don't know. So what else? +00:07:31 +That's a very uncomfortable feeling to feel that you're being +followed all the time. +"B" + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 310-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Page 2 of 6 +00:25:15 +r. Kliman: +I didn't have surgery for anything. +Okay. Had some tubes in your ears? +Yeah that was about it. +How old were you? +When I was younger... when I lived in Virginia so probably when I was +Okay and... your parents divorced when you were how old? +Do you remember how that affected you? +00:26:44 +So one of the things was that this guy lets call him Epstein... +Yeah. +Dr. Kliman: Had a vulnerable youngster there and that you didn't... +Yeah. +Have a father figure the way you're thinking right now. +Yeah. +Dr. Kliman: You did have a stepfather... +Yeah but he was more of always just yelling at me so I always in my +room by myself or I was hanging out with my friends. +9 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 310-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Page 3 of 6 +What was the violence with your mother and father when you were 3? +Well my dad... he never hit me but the would hit my little brother and my +brothers actually my two brothers; and my dad brought us home from. +being with him for the day and my mom went to go change my little +brother and he was like beaten on his back and on butt and stiff like that +and my mom got really angry and she called my dad to come back +here...back to the house where he dropped us off and I just remember him +going upstairs. He had hit my mom and then my step dad hit him and my +dad went down the stairs cause we lived on like the second floor and +then..! just remember sitting in the window and the cops came in the +house and they couldn't find my dad; because my dad basically ran off to +another state so...I haven't seen my dad in a while after that. +Dr. Kliman: It was interesting to me there were some stairs involved in there that your +step dad hit your dad and there; what was the business about stairs? +In which story? +Dr. Kliman: This story about... +okay. +Your mom and your step dad; your dad hit your mom; your step dad hit +him and then there were stairs. +Well cause my dad had just fallen down the stairs and he...he just got +punched and he fell down the stairs and started tumbling and then he got +up and then he ran off and then he ran to North Carolina; and I'm no too +sure what's up with the stairs though. +Okay. I was just struck. +It was just the image. +By the image. There's stairs in both these bad events. +That's true. +Not after that time your step dad was not a very comfortable replacement +for you. He would yell at you? +He would always...he was even a little bit violent with my mom; but he +had three kids of his own and my mom had four kids of her own so we had +seven all together and our whole life was just about whose kids have done +what and whose kids are bad; and whose kids are good; and whose kids +10 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 310-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Page 4 of 6 +did this and that and...its all they argued about was us; and its like so +annoying, cause its not really... it doesn't really matter what each kid +did.. its like what they did; its not like whose kid it was that did it. It was +what they did that was bad, but he would just get mad at me for like +random things like he told... like he would say something and he told me +not to tell my sister and I like told my sister because she's my sister and +then he like spanked me or hit me or something and sent me to my room +without dinner. And then like he was yelling at his son when I got older +and I was like why are you guys fighting Shawn didn't even do anything +and then he just came at me and smacked across the face and then kicked +me out of his house; I don't know why but I was trying to help; it seems +that every time I try to help I always get in the way... +Dr. Kliman: How old are you at that point? +I was probably 17, yeah 17. +00:31:37 +Dr. Kliman: Had the Epstein thing happen yet when you were kicked out of the house? +No. +Dr. Kliman: Which came first? +I believe I got kicked out first and then it happened. +Okay how much time was there in between? +Dr. Kliman: Okay. +About 2 years, no it couldn't have been because I was like 17.1 mostly +remember when I dated people when... what I did in school and stuff like +that about the timing. +And the age and stuff. So I must have been... when I just got my car and I +was still driving the mini van so that was like 16 almost 17; and then it +happened when I was 17 the Epstein thing.... when I was about to be 18. +So it was probably a year difference almost. +Dr. Kliman: So you were almost 18 when the Epstein thing happened? +Yeah. +Okay now, the choices we have now include the fact that it's almost 12 +o'clock. I'm sorry it's almost 1 o'clock. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 310-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Page 5 of 6 +00:37:39 +Palm High School yes. +Dr. Kliman: At that time, had you already met Epstein? +Uh huh. +And what were the effects if you can tell me of this hurricane experience +on you emotionally? +What were my effects? +Did it scare you? +yeah it scared me but in the same way because my brothers were +around they were making it funny and they were making like videos and +they went out in the middle of the eye of the hurricane and was filming. +There was a bowl in my front yard when it was over with so...it's kind of +funny at the same time but it was also really scary because our property +was torn up. We had to clean up the whole yard and we had 5 acres to +clean up; there was tree that landed on a car that was right next to my car +in my driveway; and then there was this huge tree that landed on our house +that broke our screen enclosure to our pool. So that also happened when +we were in the house; just a lot of different little things that happened. +Did your house survive so you could live in it? +Yeah... it was okay... we just didn't have power or water for 11 days; and I +had to go to my friends house and just to like take showers and stuff like +that; and I don't know... that's all I really remember about that. +Dr. Kliman: Okay now...you mentioned in part one; question 5. That you had a sexual +assault by a family member or someone you know, for example a rapper +an attempted rape, could you tell me about that? +00:39:54 +Yeah I was actually dating my step brother's friend; like his best friend +and I was hanging out with them, there's just been a couple of times +actually. He like wanted me to sit on his lap. +Dr. Kliman: Who is the he? +14 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 310-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Page 6 of 6 +Yeah. +And he was standing right in between it, I saw a little piece of the door +that was still open and so I had a weird feeling and vibe that he was still in +my room and that he didn't really leave; and then he..] guess had ducked +down and then crawled around to the side of my bed again and he...he +was doing like I heard like somebody breathing like right near me; and I +was freaking out but I was still awake at the time; I knew what was going +on and then he like tried to do it again and that's when I freaked out and I +was like get out now! I was just like get out of my room please, like I +didn't know what to say for him to go away. He finally left and then I +locked my door and that was it for that time and then my parents kicked +him out for like a day and then he came back the like the next.... +So you told your parents? +Yeah I told my parents but they didn't really think that they could do +anything about it...so they kicked him out and he just snuck back in the +house like he always did so no matter what I do or he did he was never +getting punished for it he just always kept coming back and I was; there's +just a couple of stories like I found him in my room with.. he was like +naked under my covers like in my room and I am such like a perfectionist; +like I'm a neat clean kind of person and I put everything in its own specific +place in my room and I know when people go through my stuff and I had +feeling that someone was going in my room cause he knows how to like +get through locks and stuff like that so I came home early from school one +day and I ran my room really quick and he was like trying to get out of my +room and get out of bed; and I opened my door really quick and he was +like. he jumped from my bed to my closet and he was naked; and my +pink sandals were right next to my bed which is were they weren't before +so he was like wearing them or something and then like my underwear +like my see through underwear was like missing for like months and +month and months and then I just recently found it in like my laundry +basket like tucked away so where I couldn't have found it; and its just +really weird. And then I told my parents about that and then they kicked +him out for like couple day and then he just came back so...I don't know, +its just really weird how everything happens; but I always lock everything +and I just know when people are touching my stuff and it gets me so +irritated. +00:46:15 +Dr. Kliman: So you can tell when your stuff is being touched but now... did you +experience other than at the time when it happened; did you experience an +emotional distress that lasted more than that day? +16 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/954b51c83f43d35c4c452b0f9c7504116a03755c6b5d116275a0efd3c0529ec1.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/954b51c83f43d35c4c452b0f9c7504116a03755c6b5d116275a0efd3c0529ec1.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..495a20df259aff324a4458571aca6a52a29f3756 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/954b51c83f43d35c4c452b0f9c7504116a03755c6b5d116275a0efd3c0529ec1.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -325, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "954b51c83f43d35c4c452b0f9c7504116a03755c6b5d116275a0efd3c0529ec1", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 7, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "569ee38051bbf6793016e155079b2b3e71ed0f3bf3abd09e1c6b813dc8ffc5a4", + "output_sha256": "c32dcfc4a803b2cdfea623e5dd4072d9136ff65855be68eca62311b05d3615e3", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/956b403ea4593b03f6cb26de5695bfcff60401cd61cb8b2bc1c0244e22e86482.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/956b403ea4593b03f6cb26de5695bfcff60401cd61cb8b2bc1c0244e22e86482.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..026b79ba3758807c65ce50db02f11eadb1293248 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/956b403ea4593b03f6cb26de5695bfcff60401cd61cb8b2bc1c0244e22e86482.md @@ -0,0 +1,18932 @@ +Filing # 158593126 E-Filed 10/04/2022 05:27:21 PM +CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC, +Publisher of THE PALM BEACH POST, +Plaintiff, +IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE +FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND +FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB +DIVISION: AG +V. +DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of +Palm Beach County, Florida; SHARON R. +BOCK, as Clerk and Comptroller of Palm +Beach County, Florida. +Defendants. +JOINT NOTICE OF FILING SEPTEMBER 6. 2022 AND SEPTEMBER 8, 2022 +TRANSCRIPTS OF HEARING PROCEEDINGS +Plaintiff, CA Florida Holdings, LLC ("Plaintiff'), publisher of The Palm Beach Post, and +Defendant, Dave Aronberg, as State Attorney of Palm Beach County, Florida ("Defendant") +(collectively, the "Parties"), by and through undersigned counsel, and pursuant to the Court's +instructions at the conclusion of the hearing, hereby files the attached transcripts from the +September 6 and September 8, 2022 hearing proceedings on Defendant's Amended Motion for +Attorneys' Fees. +Respectfully submitted, +/s/ Lauren Whetstone +LAUREN WHETSTONE +Florida Bar No. 45192 +MARK F. BIDEAU +Florida Bar No. 564044 +GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A. +777 South Flagler Drive, Suite 300 East +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +/s/ Douglas A. Wyler +ARTHUR I. L +Florida Bar No. 10249 +RICHARD J. SCHOLZ +Florida Bar No. 0021261 +DOUGLAS A. WYLER +Florida Bar No. 119979 +ScHoLz & WYLER, LLC +961687 Gateway Blvd., Suite 201-1 +*** FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL +ABRUZZO, CLERK. 10/04/2022 05:27:21 PM *** + + +Tel.: 561.650.7900 +whetstonel@gtlaw.com +bideaum@gtlaw.com +sandra.famadas@gtlaw.com +thomasd@gtlaw.com +FLService@gtlaw.com +STEPHEN A. MENDELSOHN +Florida Bar No. 849324 +GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A. +401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 2000 +Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 +Tel.: 954.768.8225 +mendelsohns@gtlaw.com +smithl@gtlaw.com +MICHAEL J. GRYGIEL +(Admitted Pro Hac Vice) +GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP +54 State Street, 6th Floor +Albany, NY 12207 +Tel.: 518.689.1400 +grygielm@gtlaw.com +NINA D. BOYAJIAN +(Admitted Pro Hac Vice) +GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP +1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900 +Los Angeles, CA 90067 +Tel.: 310.586.7700 +boyajiann@gtlaw.com +riveraal@gtlaw.com +Counsel for Plaintiff CA Florida Holdings, LLC, +Publisher of The Palm Beach Post +Fernandina Beach, FL 32034 +Tel.: 904.261.3693 +jacobsscholzlaw@comcast.net +Counsel for Defendant Dave Aronberg, as +State Attorney for Palm Beach County, +Florida +ERTIFIED COPY +2 + + +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and accurate copy of the foregoing has been +electronically filed with the Florida E-File Portal for e-service on all parties of record herein on +this 4'* day of October, 2022. +/s/ Lauren Whetstone +Lauren Whetstone +NOT A CERTIFIED COPY +3 + + +CA Florida Holdings, L.L.C. +VS. +Dave Aronberg +Hearing Before: +Judge Luis +Delgado +September 06, +2022 +NOT A CER + + +entember 06, 202 +IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT +IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +CASE NO. 50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB AG +CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC, +Publisher of the PALM BEACH POST, +Plaintiff, +VS. +DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney +of Palm Beach County, +SHARON R. BOCK, as Clerk and +Comptroller of Palm Beach County, +Florida, +Defendants. +TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING +PROCEEDINGS +TIFIED COPY +RE: Defendant Dave Aronberg's Amended Motion for +Attorneys' Fees +DATE TAKEN: Tuesday, September 6, 2022 +TIME: +PLACE: +> 1 PALM BEACH COUNTY COURTHOUSE +205 North Dixie Highway +Courtroom 10D +West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 +BEFORE: +LUIS DELGADO, JR., Circuit Judge +Stenographically reported by: +isa Begley, RPR, RMF + + + +1 APPEARANCES: +2 On behalf of the Plaintiff: +GREENBERG TRAURIG +777 South Flagler Drive +Suite 300 East +West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 +561-650-6420 +BY: LAUREN R. WHETSTONE, ESQ. +Page 2 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +On behalf of Defendant, Dave Aronberg: +JACOB, SCHOLZ & WYLER, LLC +Fernandina Beach, Florida 32034 +13 Also present: Dave Aronberg, State Attorney +Defendant +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +OT A +21, +22 +23 +24 +25 + + +1 +2 +INDEX +PAGE +3 Opening Statement +By Mr. Wyler +4 By Ms. Whetstone +4 +23 +5 +WITNESS +6 +DAVID ARONBERG, STATE ATTORNEY +Direct Examination by Mr. Wyler +& Credie Examinion My Mr Waler +9 STEPHEN MENDELSOHN, ESQ. +Direct Examination by Ms. Whetstone +10 +11 Defense Rests +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +18 +19 +20 +21, +22 +23 +EXHIBITS ENTERED IN EVIDENCE +Joint Exhibits 1 - 37 +95 +17 Certificate of Reporter +141 +24 +25 +Page 3 +43 +63 +94 + + +1 Thereupon, +2 the following proceedings began at 1:42 p.m.: +3 +THE COURT: All right, please be seated. +4 +All right, so we're here on the amended +5 +motion for attorneys' fees. +Let's announce appearances. +7 +8 +MS. WHETSTONE: Good afternoon, Your Honor, +Lauren Whetstone. With me is Mark Bideau and +Gerard Buitrago and our paralegal, Jennifer +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21Y +22 +Thomson, from Greenberg Traurig on behalf of CA +Florida Holdings, the publisher of the Palm Beach +Post. +MR. WYLER: Good afternoon, Your Honor. My +name's Douglas Wyler. I'm here on behalf of +defendant, David Aronberg. +MR. ARONBERG: State Attorney Dave +Aronberg, Your Honor. +THE COURT: Thank you very much. It's your +motion. +MR. WYLER: Thank you, Your Honor. May I +approach? +THE COURT: (Nods head up and down.) +MR. WYLER: Hi, again, Your Honor. Thank +you. May it please the Court. As you know, we're +25 +here today on Mr. Aronberg's amended motion for +Page 4 + + +attorney's fees. It was filed on November 9th, +2 2020, in conjunction with his 57.105 demand that +3 was made to the plaintiffs on June 8th, 2020. +4 +That demand letter that was sent to the +5 plaintiff's counsel was sent on the same day that +6 Judge Marx entered her order granting the +7 defendant's motion to dismiss Count 2 of this case +8 with prejudice. And that motion, that 57.105 +9 demand letter asserted that the plaintiff's sole +10 remaining count for declaratory action had no +11 basis in fact or law pursuant to 57.105. +12 +Their declaratory relief claim is rooted in +13 Chapter 905.27 Florida Statute, that governs the +14 exceptions for the release of grand jury -- grand +15 jury materials. +16 +In our 57.105 letter, we specifically told +17 the plaintiffs that, under 57.105(1)(a), their +18 declaratory relief claim is unsupported by the +19 material facts necessary to establish it and also, +20 under 57.105(1)(b), that their declaratory relief +21y claim is unsupported by the application of the law +22 to those material facts: +23 +There's a case, +v. Bailynson, it's +24 found at 268 So.3d 762. It's a Fourth DCA case +25 from 2019. +Page 5 + + +1 +THE COURT: Give me that cite one more +2 time. +3 +MR. WYLER: Yes, sir. It's +V. +4 Bailynson, B-a-i-I-y-n-s-o-n, 268 So.3d 762. It's +5 a Fourth DCA 2019. That case says, The central +6 purpose of 57.105 Florida Statute is and always +7 has been to deter meritless filings and, thus, +8 streamline the administration and the procedure of +9 the courts. Thus, the post-1999 version of the 57 +10 - 57.105 has expanded the circumstances where +11 fees should be awarded and the purpose is to defer +12 meritless filings. +13 +57.105 -- The statute 57.105 provides the +14 following language authorizing the award of +15 attorneys' fees such as in the present litigation. +16 It says, "Upon the Court's initiative or motion of +17 any party, the Court shall award a reasonable +18 attorney's fee, including prejudgment interest, to +19 be paid to the prevailing party in equal amounts +20 by the losing party and the losing party's +21y attorney on any claim or defense at any time +22 during a civil proceeding or action in which the +23 Court finds that the losing party or the losing +24 party's attorney knew or should have known that a +25 claim or defense, when initially presented to the +Page 6 + + +1 Court or at any time before trial, was not +2 supported by the material facts necessary to +3 establish the claim or defense, or would not be +4 supported by the application of then existing law +5 to those material facts." +So, notably, the statute includes a lot of +7 key words in there, but here, the key words that +Page 7 +9 +Here, the plaintiff had a due diligence +10 obligation to know what the law was when they +11 filed the lawsuit. They should have known the +12 ultimate facts of the case all along, and they +13 +should have known the proper legal mechanism for +14 +obtaining the records that they were seeking. +15 +Nonetheless, we've informed the plaintiff +16 multiple times throughout this case that not -- +17 that Mr. Aronberg is an improper party, not only +18 - because not only is it impossible for him to +19 produce the requested records since he has no +20 possession, custody or control over them, but also +21y because the statutes that govern the disclosure of +22 grand jury records clearly and unambiguously do +23 +not grant such authority or power to the state +24 +attorney. +25 +Another case for you is Trust Mortgage, + + +1 LLC, v. Ferlanti. That's found at 193 So.3d 997. +2 That's also a Fourth DCA case from 2016. And it +3 can guide the Court here. This case says that, in +4 determining an award of sanctions under +5 Section 57.105, the trial court's findings must be +6 based on substantial competent evidence and the +7 trial court must make an inquiry into what the +8 losing party knew or should have known during the +9 fact establishment process both before and after +10 the suit was filed. +11 +So, as to the 57.105(1)(a) claim, +12 Mr. Aronberg's position is that the newspaper +13 should have known when they were doing their +14 research that it was an impossibility, that he had +15 no access, custody or control of these records, +16 but that fact -- a bright line was drawn to that +17 fact by Judge Marx in the June 3rd, 2020, motion +18 to dismiss hearing. She made several statements +19 that put the plaintiff on notice, if they weren't +20 already. +21y +And, if it would please the Court, I would +22 like to read those onto the record. You can find +23 these -- We've submitted a joint binder to you, +24 and if you -. -- +25 +THE COURT: I have it here. Tell me where +Page 8 + + +1 I'm looking. +2 +MR. WYLER: Yes, sir. If you look at J13, +3 that's the condensed version of the transcript. +4 You can find the full version if you look at J29, +5 and I can give you the +stamp numbers. +6 +THE COURT: Tell me where to look, and I'll +7 look. +8 +MR. WYLER: Absolutely, Your Honor. Look +9 at +stamp 1353, and that will start you +10 +THE COURT: Of what exhibit? +11 +MR. WYLER: Okay, Exhibit 29 is the full +12 version. I thought that might be easier for you +13 +to read it. At 1353. +14 +THE COURT: You said J29. +15 +MR. WYLER: Yeah, J29, and, if you look in +16 the lower left corner, there's a +number that +17 says CA, slash, Aronberg, and you'll see the +18 +stamp numbers. +19 +THE COURT: What's the number? +20 +MR. WYLER: 1353. +21Y +THE COURT: Go ahead. +22 +MR. WYLER: Thank you, Your Honor. I'm +23 going to go through this transcript, and I'll +24 direct you to the actual page number of the +25 transcript itself, okay? Page 3, lines 18 -- 4 +Page 9 + + +1 through 1. "Not for nothing" -- This is all Judge +2 Marx. "Not for nothing, I think we all know that +3 they don't have control and custody of the +4 records." +5 +Page 5, lines 17 through 19. "I think we +6 can all agree that the state attorney doesn't have +7 these records." +8 +Page 8, line 4. "I'm asking you, how are +9 the clerk and the state attorney the proper +10 defendants?" +11 +Page 8, line 8. "I'm puzzled by the +12 procedural posturing of this case naming the state +13 attorney, and, you know, I'm further stymied by +14 the fact that you allege in your complaint that +15 they have, particularly David Aronberg, the state +16 attorney, that he has these records." +17 +Page 8, line 18. "Okay, let's run this all +18 the way out. Let's say you win and you get a +19 judgment against the state attorney, Dave +20 Aronberg. What's he supposed to do with it? He +21y can't release the grand jury testimony. He has no +22 authority whatsoever to do that." +23 +Page 10, line 21. "And the only thing +24 we're here today about is why should the clerk and +25 the state attorney have to defend a civil action +Page 10 + + +when it's an impossibility of performance? They +2 even - If you were to win and get a judgment +3 against them, they cannot give you what they don't +4 have." +5 +Page 11, line 12. "I'm simply saying, why +6 should these two entities have to defend this +7 lawsuit when, even down the road, if you win, they +8 can't give you what they don't have?" +9 +Page 16, line 12. "And, you know, really, +10 I want to you boil it down for me as to this: +11 Let's take it all the way down the road. You win. +12 You get a judgment against the clerk and the state +13 attorney. I know there's other reasons why you +14 might have filed it this way, but I'm just simply +15 puzzled because | do hear what the clerk and the +16 state attorney are saying, and that is, +17 performance is impossible. They don't have the +18 records and cannot, absolutely. There's not even +19 an inch of wiggle room that they could release the +20 ecords even if you got a judgment. It is solely +21y a determination for the Court. I frankly think +22 you know there's ways to get your records. +23 There's ways to get confidential records, but it +24 isn't by suing the state attorney and the clerk." +25 +Page 17, line 6. "Even assuming, arguendo, +Page 11 + + +1 that they have the records, we know they don't. +2 You were to -- If you were to get a judgment +3 against them, how would you expect them to +4 perform?" +5 +And then finally, on page 17, line 23. +6 "What do you mean? What do you mean? They're not +7 trying to block it? They're saying that, despite +8 the fact -- let's just talk about the clerk +9 because we all know the state attorney doesn't +"OH +10 have it." +11 +I would ask the Court to enter the hearing +12 transcript found at J29, 1353 to 1374 as Defense's +13 + +14 +THE COURT: Any objection? +15 +MS. WHETSTONEY All the joint exhibits are +16 in evidence, so... +17 +MR. WYLER: They're in evidence, but | +18 don't know if you wanted to mark them for each +19 person. So if I don't need to do that, then Il +20 dispense with that. +21y +THE COURT: These joint exhibits have all +22 been stipulated to? +23 +MR. WYLER: Yes. +24 +THE COURT: No need then. +25 +MR. WYLER: Then I'II leave it alone. +Page 12 + + +1 Thank you, Your Honor. +2 +These statements, along with the upcoming +3 examination of Mr. Aronberg and Mr. Mendelsohn, +4 along with everything that's presented to the +5 Court, it shows that these sanctions are +6 justified, and there is no arguable basis in fact +7 or law the way those statutes are written that +8 Mr. Aronberg could ever provide the requested +9 materials that he was sued for. +10 +As to the 57.105(1)(b) argument, +11 Mr. Aronberg's position here is that the +12 newspaper, plaintiffs and their attorneys, they +13 should have also known at the beginning when they +14 were doing their research that those statutes +15 precluded Mr. Aronberg from actually providing +16 these records. +That's what they sued for. They +17 asked for Mr. Aronberg to provide these records so +18 that they could then be disclosed to the public. +19 But chapter -- or, Statute 905.27 states this: +20 And this -- this argument has been presented in +21y everything that we've said to the newspaper. +22 +"When such disclosure is ordered by a Court +23 +pursuant to subsection (1) for use in a civil +24 +case, it may be disclosed to all parties to the +25 +case and to their attorneys and by the latter to +Page 13 + + +1 their legal associates and employees. However, +2 the grand jury testimony afforded such persons by +3 the Court can only be used in the defense or +4 prosecution of the civil or criminal case and for +5 no other purpose whatsoever." +6 +That argument was ultimately utilized in +7 Judge Hafele's final judgment in favor of the +8 clerk because, on top of other things, the +9 plaintiff admitted that they weren't seeking to +10 use these requested records in an underlying civil +11 or criminal case. They wanted to use it to - for +12 public disclosure. +13 +Chapter 905.17 of the Florida statutes also +14 applies here. This has also been made evident and +15 very clear to the plaintiff. That statute says, +16 in pertinent part, +, "The notes" - and this is all +17 regarding the grand jury materials -- "The notes, +18 records and transcriptions are confidential and +19 exempt from the provisions of Chapter 119.07 and +20 Section 24(a), Article 1 of the State Constitution +21y and shall be released by the clerk only on a +22 +request by a grand jury for use by the grand jury +23 or on an order of the Court pursuant to +24 Chapter 905.27." +25 +So, like I said, these legal arguments have +Page 14 + + +1 been presented to plaintiff and its lawyers +2 several times. It was in the 57.105 demand +3 letter, but plaintiff dropped Mr. Aronberg from +4 the case too late. The statute had already taken +5 effect. There's a 21-day safe-harbor provision in +6 that statute. And the testimony and evidence +7 today will show that a motion for attorneys' fees +8 was filed appropriately with that statute, and +9 then following that, Mr. Aronberg was dropped from +10 the case. After that, an amended motion for +11 attorneys' fees was filed. +12 +Plaintiff has an argument having to deal +13 +with the timing of when our amended motion for +14 +attorneys' fees was filed. They claim that we +15 don't comply with the 21-day safe-harbor +16 provision, and they use this case of Lago v Kame, +17 Lago v Kame By Design. It's K-a-m, like Mary, +18 K-a-m-e By Design, LLC. That's found at 120 So.3d +19 73. It's also a Fourth DCA case from 2013. +20 +So that case held that, if a party files a +21y subsequent or amended motion for sanctions under +22 Section 57.105 and raises an argument that was not +23 +raised in the original motion for Section 57.105 +24 +sanctions, then the subsequent motion must +25 independently comply with the 21-day safe-harbor +Page 15 + + +1 provision. +2 +4 +Okay, but the facts are different, totally +3 different. +See, in the Lago case, the party who was +5 served with the 57.105 demand never withdrew from +6 the case. They stayed in the case to the end. +7 The person that served the original 57.105 in +Page 16 +9 when they served the second 57.105 - well, they +10 didn't serve a second 57.105 demand letter. They +11 +filed a second motion for attorneys fees, an +12 amended motion for attorneys fees without +13 providing an additional letter, 57.105 letter +14 before they filed the amended motion. That didn't +15 happen in this case y +16 +In this case, we filed our amended motion +17 -- our original motion for attorneys' fees on +18 November 9th, 2020, and then they dropped +19 Mr. Aronberg from the case on October 21st -- +20 sorry, we filed -- I'm sorry. I apologize, Your +21y Honor. We filed our original motion for +22 attorneys' fees on July 1, 2020. I apologize. +23 They dropped Mr. Aronberg from the case on +24 October 21, 2020, and then we filed our amended +25 motion for attorneys' fees on November 9th, 2020. + + +1 +So the significant thing about this, Your +2 Honor, is the 21-day safe-harbor provision is +3 there to provide the -- provide an opportunity to +4 reevaluate your position and change your position +5 and withdraw your case based on the demands in the +6 57.105. +7 +There was no opportunity for the plaintiff +8 to reevaluate and change their position. They had +9 already made their mind up. They had already +10 dropped Mr. Aronberg from the case. So, by asking +11 or saying that we failed to provide the 21-day +12 safe-harbor provision, that is misleading, Your +13 Honor, because there was no way they could change +14 their position with another demand letter sent to +15 them. They had already made their decision and +16 dropped Mr. Aronberg from the case. It was +17 impossible for them to change their position. So +18 he had no obligation to serve his amended motion +19 prior to filing with the Court because he was +20 already dropped, and a previous motion for +21y attorneys' fees was already filed. +22 +Another interesting part of that Lago case +23 is that, in that case, the Court did find that the +24 +amended motion was filed improperly because they +25 +were still in the case, but, instead, the Court +Page 17 + + +picked up the originally-filed motion for +2 attorneys' fees in that case. And we would ask +3 Your Honor, in the alternative, should you find +4 that, that you would rule on our original motion +5 for attorneys' fees if it came down to it because, +6 in the end, the arguments are the same, and the +7 real difference in the filing of the amended +8 motion for attorneys' fees is that it included the +9 final tabulation of my firm's fees, as well as +10 affidavits -- my affidavit of reasonable -- of +11 fees and an affidavit of reasonable fees from our +12 expert. +13 +The other interesting thing here, the other +14 argument that you'll hear plaintiff make is that +15 Mr. Aronberg was a proper party to the case. Now, +16 again, the clerk is the person -- the only entity +17 that has authority to provide these records under +18 statute, and that alone should be enough to show +19 that Mr. Aronberg is not a proper party defendant. +20 But Judge Hafele's final judgment actually helps +21y out this because Judge Hafele's final judgment +22 actually instructed plaintiff on the right way to +23 go about trying to get the records that they were +24 seeking. It points out that they followed -- +25 +failed to follow the right procedure. +Page 18 + + +1 +In that final judgment, Judge Hafele makes +2 it clear that all that they had to do was file -- +3 follow the Rules of Judicial Administration +4 Rule 2.42 and file a motion seeking disclosure in +5 the underlying case, and then serve the parties to +6 that case and anybody who might be interested in +7 it. +8 +That underlying case is State of Florida +9 vs. Jeffrey Epstein. It's case number +10 2006-CF-9454, and Mr. Aronberg nor his office is a +11 party to that case. So he is an improper party. +12 They never needed to sue him to get these records. +13 +There's a big difference between suing the +14 state attorney to get records versus filing a +15 motion in a case that was already open. +16 +Okay, now they make one other defense here +17 under 57.105(3)(a), but that does not apply here +18 in any sense, and I'll explain to you why. First, +19 let me read you the statutory language. +20 +This is 57.105(3)(a), and it says, +21, "Notwithstanding subsections (1) and (2), monetary +22 sanctions may not be awarded; (a), Under +23 +paragraph (1)(b) if the Court determines that the +24 claim or defense was initially presented to the +25 Court as a good faith argument for the extension, +Page 19 + + +1 +modification or reversal of existing law or the +2 establishment of new law, as it applied to the +3 material facts, and with a reasonable expectation +4 of success." +5 +So here, the plaintiff tries to twist the +6 language of that statute in two different ways to +7 suit its argument. First, they entirely failed to +8 recognize that the 57.103(a) (sic) defense applies +9 only to claims made under 57.105(1)(b), and that +10 has to do with the law not being correct as +11 applied to the facts to establish the case: +12 +The law here cannot be applied to the case +13 in such a way that would support their claim as l +14 went through with those statutes with you. That +15 is the only scenario under (1)(b), when you're +16 making a legal argument, not a factual argument, +17 where you can come up with a good faith defense. +18 So there is no good faith defense at all that +19 applies to the factual argument that it is +20 impossible for Mr. Aronberg to provide these +21y materials, that he has no access, custody or +22 control over them and he never has. That is +23 +unchanged by this defense of theirs. +24 +But the interesting thing is that this +25 +defense fails in another way, too, because, if you +Page 20 + + +1 +recall, their only remaining count is for +2 declaratory relief, and when declaratory relief is +3 asked of the Court, that is an asked for +4 interpretation, and admittedly so by the +5 plaintiff. Their -- They state that -- Where did +6 I just put it? They argue that their declaratory +7 relief claim was presented to the Court as a, +Page 21 +9 of existing law or at least the establishment of a +10 new law. But that doesn't work here because, if +11 you go back to the statutory language, the +12 statute, it's only for the extension, modification +13 or reversal of existing law. It doesn't say +14 anything about interpretations. +15 +They did not ask for the extension of +16 57.105 -- or, of 905.27. They didn't ask for it +17 to be modified. They didn't ask for it to be +18 reversed. They asked the Court to interpret it +19 and tell them whether or not they had the ability +20 to have the grand jury records disclosed to them. +21y That is totally - That is an interpretation that +22 they asked for. The Court only got to address +23 that as to the clerk because, again, we were +24 dropped before then. +25 +So the other part of that statute talks + + +1 about -- it says, or creation of a new law, okay? +2 They weren't asking to create a new law with their +3 declaratory relief claim. The only place where +4 they were trying to create a new statutory cause +5 of action was in their Count 2 that was dismissed +6 with prejudice by Judge Marx and is not at all a +7 part of Mr. Aronberg's 57.105 demand. +8 +The 57.105 demand any eard the claim OP Y +9 for declaratory relief. So the defense under +10 57.105(3)(a) fails as to both of Mr. Aronberg's +11 +57.105 claims. +12 +I would just like to reiterate to the Court +13 that the clerk is in actual possession of the +14 requested records, is the only entity that is +15 statutorily authorized to release grand jury +16 records pursuant to a Court order, and despite +17 plaintiff's arguments to the contrary, the record +18 evidence will show that plaintiff and its lawyers +19 knew or should have known at the time they were +20 served -- at least at the time they were served +21y with the 57.105 demand that the declaratory relief +22 claim fails under 57.105(1)(a) because it is +23 +unsupported by the material facts necessary to +24 establish it, and under 57.105(1)(b) because it is +25 unsupported by the application of the law to the +Page 22 + + +1 +material facts. +2 +Plaintiff and its attorneys have exposed +3 themselves to sanctions under 57.105, and +4 Mr. Aronberg requests such relief. +5 +THE COURT: Thank you. +MR. WYLER: Thank you, Your Honor. +I approach, Your Honor? +Page 23 +7 +8 +THE COURT: Please. +9 +MS. WHETSTONE: And if I may, I'll flip +10 over this timeline. Your Honor should have a copy +11 in your binder. +12 +THE COURT: Is that the - Yes, give me -- +13 +I think I actually... +14 +Is this it? +15 +MS. WHETSTONEY Yes. +16 +THE COURT: Whenever you're ready. +17 +it please the Court. +18 The Post filed a complaint seeking access to +19 materials from Jeffrey Epstein's grand jury +20 investigation which was run by the Palm Beach +21y County's former state attorney in 2006. +22 +The Post felt a duty to inform the public +23 as to how this sexual predator got the deal of the +24 century and got off with such leniency. It is a +25 matter of genuine public interest and concern as + + +1 this Court has noted. +2 +The Post named two defendants, number one, +3 the clerk of Court as the public office tasked +4 with custody of grand jury records and, number +5 two, the state attorney's office because it +6 actually ran the investigation and because it is +7 the public office tasked with protecting grand +8 jury secrecy. +9 +The state attorney's office says they +10 +should have never been named a party. Of course +11 they had to be named a party. Not only were they +12 the public office that conducted the investigation +13 and presumably had possession of certain documents +14 +at some time, but, more importantly, they're the +15 +public office with the power and authority to +16 +prevent the clerk from producing grand jury +17 documents +18 +Your Honor, we heard in the state +19 attorney's counsel's opening that this is about +20 custody, whether the state attorney had the +21y documents, whether he had possession or custody of +22 the documents, but it's not just about that. It +23 is not just about custody. And it's -- We'll get +24 into this, but the important point is, the state +25 attorney's office has as its task the protection +Page 24 + + +1 +of the grand jury system. +2 +And it's important to remember, we're here +3 today on a motion for 57.105 sanctions relating to +4 the declaratory relief claim, not the statutory +5 claim. We heard reading from the transcript +6 before Judge Marx relating to the motion to +7 dismiss Count 2, which was on a statutory claim +8 under Florida Statute 905.27. +9 +Of course, we are here on the declaratory +10 relief claim that also involved constitutional law +«COPY +11 and First Amendment law, not just Florida +12 statutory law. +13 +So, starting off, we went as to the merits, +14 but you don't even need to get there, Your Honor. +15 There are two noncurable, case dispositive +16 jurisdictional issues which require denial of the +17 motion without any consideration of underlying +18 facts. And this is not just an argument. These +19 +are jurisdictional defects. +20 +Number one, the Court lacks jurisdiction +21y because the amended motion for sanctions was filed +22 after the state attorney was dismissed as a party. +23 And I'll indicate -- Hopefully you can hear me, +24 but here is where the state attorney filed his +25 +amended motion for fees. It was November 2020. +Page 25 + + +1 And we dismissed -- the Post had dismissed him as +2 a party 19 days before, on October 21st, 2020. +3 +The case law is clear that the Court has no +4 jurisdiction over a motion for sanctions after a +5 voluntary dismissal, like the motion here. And +6 this is case law, including Sidlosca vs. Olympus, +7 and that is in Authorities tab -- the Authorities +8 binder that Your Honor has at tab 26, and I'll +9 read the case cite for the record. 276 So.3d 987. +10 It's a Third DCA 2019 case. +11 +Number two, the Court also lacks +12 jurisdiction because the +d motion, which is +13 the only motion we are here on, violated 57.105 +14 subsection (4)'s safe-harbor notice provision +15 which requires a motion for fees be served at +16 least 21 days before its filed. +17 +It is undisputed that the state attorney +18 never served a copy of the amended motion for +19 sanctions at any time before filing it on November +20 9th. I believe Mr. Wyler also mentioned that and +21y agreed with that in his opening. +As a result, the +22 amended motion cannot be considered. The state +23 +attorney tries to rely on a prior, what he calls, +24 +quote, unquote, place-marker motion for fees that +25 +was served on June 8th, 2020, in an attempt to get +Page 26 + + +around the safe-harbor requirement of 57.105. He +2 cannot do so. First, the statute is in derogation +3 of the common law, so it must be strictly +4 construed. +5 +More importantly, the case law says, and +6 this is Lago vs. Kame, the case law says that the +7 initial place-marker motion is not sufficient to +Page 27 +9 amended motion making new arguments, then that +10 21-day safe-harbor notice was required anew. And, +11 again, Lago says -- this is tab 14 in Your Honor's +12 binder -- that they must independently comply with +13 the 21-day safe harbor. +14 +The state attorney tries to argue that, +15 because we dismissed him prior to him filing the +16 amended motion for fees, he's no longer required +17 to comply with the 21-day safe harbor, but the +18 dismissal is exactly what the 21-day safe-harbor +19 provision is aimed at encouraging from parties in +20 Vitigation. +21y +There was nothing to ask us to withdraw +22 with a 21-day notice because it had already been +23 withdrawn, so 57.105 doesn't even apply to the +24 situation here, and that's actually a situation +25 that came up in the Ferere, F-e-r-e-r-e, vs. Shore + + +1 +case, and that's tab 6 in Your Honor's binder and +2 that's a Fourth DCA case. And in that case, the +3 Court said that 57.105 subsection (1) was not +4 applicable where there was no way for plaintiff's +5 counsel to withdraw an allegation after a +6 post-trial motion. So if 57.105 -- the +7 safe-harbor notice was not available, then 57.105 +8 doesn't apply at all. +9 +And, here, it's obvious that the amended +10 motion made new arguments not in the first +11 place-marker motion. And we're going to pull up +12 the first place-marker motion and the amended +13 motion to compare them, and those are exhibits, +14 Joint Exhibits 14 and 25. +15 +So, first, here is - So the first +16 place-marker motion, Exhibit 14, it's -- the +17 motion itself is one page. There's an enclosure +18 letter that came with it, and it's two pages. So +19 three pages total. The motion itself says nothing +20 except we're going to prevail, and this is your +21y notice, we want fees. +22 +But the enclosure letter says, along the +23 lines I believe Mr. Wyler said this in his +24 opening, that the defendant Aronberg nor the +25 office of the state attorney is in custody or +Page 28 +1 + + +1 +control of the 2006 grand jury materials sought +2 therein. +3 +However, the first motion completely failed +4 to address the main reason why the state attorney +5 was a party to the lawsuit, because it could +6 object to the clerk providing the grand jury +7 records. +8 +So now let's pull up Exhibit 25, which is +9 the amended motion. And, Your Honor, here, so you +"OPY +10 can have an idea, here's the first motion. +It's +11 Joint Exhibit 14. Here's the amended motion. +12 This is three pages. This is 59 pages with +13 exhibits, 11 pages of a motion. And one page of a +14 motion. So clearly there's new stuff in the +15 amended motion for fees. But Mr. Wyler said they +16 said the same arguments. That's not -- That's not +17 true. +18 +The amended motion clearly makes new +19 arguments not in the first place-marker motion. +20 Vt also references new documents, like the state +21y attorney's motion for summary judgment and +22 Mr. Aronberg's affidavit, both which were filed in +23 August of 2020. So here (indicating). +24 +Importantly, the amended motion also raises +25 new positions. +Just as an example -- and, Gerard, +Page 29 + + +1 if you could pull up paragraph 20 of the amended +2 motion -- it says, "The state attorney has no +3 objection to the clerk producing and disclosing +4 the requested materials should the Court grant an +5 order to that effect." And then in paragraph 25 +6 it says, "Likewise, the state attorney has no +7 objection and never has had any objection to the +8 clerk releasing the records sought by the +9 plaintiff." +10 +That's not true, though. As you will see +11 in the evidence, the position that the state +12 attorney had, quote, no objection, or, quote, +13 never had any objection to the clerk producing +14 grand jury materials was new, and you'll hear from +15 Greenberg Traurig attorney Stephen Mendelsohn that +16 this is exactly the position that the Post was +17 trying to get and Mr. Mendelsohn was trying to get +18 from the state attorney. +19 +And you'll hear, in a June 23rd, 2020, +20 Vetter Mr. Mendelsohn wrote to the state attorney, +21y he said the state attorney is named here because +22 they are a party that is tasked with protection of +23 the grand jury system. You have the right to +24 object to the release of grand jury materials. +25 That's why you're here. And, once we had this +Page 30 + + +notice right here of saying they don't object, we +2 dismissed him. +3 +So he first said on the record, on +4 October 14th, I have no objection to the +5 production of the Epstein grand jury materials. +6 We dismissed him October 21st. +7 +So, to close out on the jurisdictional +8 argument, the amended motion raised new arguments +9 and cited new record evidence that did not exist +10 at the time of the first place-marker motion. So +11 the amended motion had independently complied with +12 the strict 21-day safe-harbor réquirement, and the +13 +state attorney failed to serve it before filing; +14 therefore, the amended motion must be denied +15 outright. +16 +Your Honor, eyen if the Court -- sorry -- +17 even if the state attorney could overcome the +18 jurisdictional defects, the evidence will show +19 there's absolutely no basis for sanctions under +20 the statute, and let's turn to the statute now and +21y the standard under it as applied by the case law. +22 +And this will be tab 18. +23 +THE COURT: Are you talking to me, or -- +24 +MS. WHETSTONE: Sorry, I was indicating to +25 Gerard. +Page 31 + + +1 +And, Your Honor, here's the standard for +2 sanctions under Florida Statute 57.105. The +3 +statute is behind it. Mr. Wyler read from that. +4 And this is a case that interprets -- interprets +5 this high standard, and this is the same -- I note +6 that +vs. Bailynson -- I'm going to botch +7 that name, sorry, but the case that Mr. Wyler read +8 from has the same exact standard as to how you -- +9 you interpret whether somebody has met the +10 requirements of 57.105. So this is a high burden. +11 This is not a who won. This is not a prevailing +12 party standard. +13 +They have the burden of showing that the +14 claim was so frivolous and devoid of merit both on +15 the facts and the law as to be completely +16 untenable, and we know the claim was not +17 frivolous, number one, because they admitted in +18 their answer to this very claim -- +19 +And, Gerard, if you could pull up the +20 comparison. +21y +They admitted in their answer to this very +22 claim that a good faith dispute exists between the +23 +parties. And here you're seeing -- Your Honor is +24 seeing a comparison of Exhibit 9, which is the +25 amended complaint, this count for declaratory +Page 32 + + +relief, and Exhibit 10, which is the state +2 attorney's answer. And it says, "The Palm Beach +3 +Post has sought from defendants, and defendants - +4 but defendants have refused to provide access to +5 the testimony, minutes and other evidence +6 presented in 2006 to the Palm Beach County grand +7 jury. Indeed, defendants have each filed motions +8 to dismiss the complaint and the relief it sought +9 under Florida Statute Section 905.27(1). +10 Accordingly, a good faith dispute exists between +11 the parties." And, in response, the state +12 attorney simply said, "Admitted." +13 +By that admission, they lose this motion +14 for sanctions. They cannot now argue this claim +15 was without merit. And, in addition, we will go +16 through the evidence that shows the Post and +17 Greenberg Traurig acted only in good faith and +18 with thoughtful deliberation and that this was not +19 a frivolous claim by any means. +20 +So backing up a bit and to what we believe +21y the evidence will show. After Epstein's arrest +22 here in Palm Beach County in 2005, the Post began +23 an investigation into Epstein and then what +24 happened with the prosecution in 2006, how he got +25 this sweetheart deal from the former state +Page 33 + + +attorney, to inform the public what went wrong. +2 +The Post made a number of public records +3 +requests. No luck. The limited documents they +4 received shed no light on how Epstein got off with +5 such leniency. +6 +So, in the summer of 2019 - we again have +7 this timeline -- after years of investigation on +& Epstein, the Post brought in a team at Greenberg +9 Traurig, including Stephen Mendelsohn here who you +10 will hear from today, and other experienced +11 attorneys in First Amendment and constitutional +12 law and criminal law. +13 +The Post and its attorneys spent months +14 researching and determining how do we get these +15 records. And you'll see the first box is from +16 July - July 2019 through November 2019, research +17 and - legal research and due diligence regarding +18 what claims to bring and how. You will hear that +19 Mr. Mendelsohn tried contacting the state +20 attorney's office and requesting what was missing +21y from the public records requests. +22 +And if you want to pull up Exhibit 1. +23 +Exhibit 1 is an example of such, and it was +24 a letter from Mr. Mendelsohn that you'll hear +25 about where he requests specific documents. And +Page 34 + + +1 you will hear that +I was not the only +2 attorney to write the state attorney's office in +3 addition to the Post. You will hear that +4 Mr. Mendelsohn's specific records request to the +5 state attorney's office went unanswered, and you +6 will hear from Mr. Mendelsohn and the Post that +7 the Post was left with no other option. So the +8 Post filed this lawsuit seeking access to grand +9 jury materials naming two defendants, the clerk +10 and the state attorney. +11 +And the state attorney was a necessary +12 party to the claim here. I believe I've gone over +13 that, but, quickly, number one, the state attorney +14 ran -- conducted the grand jury investigation in +15 2006. At some point, the state attorney's office +16 had to have records. But, number two, more +17 importantly, as the public official with +18 responsibility and control over the grand jury +19 system, the state attorney had to be named. As +20 the public office with that control, the state +21y attorney had the power to object to the clerk +22 producing records. And this is something that the +23 +state attorney has never refuted or even +24 addressed, and that goes hand in hand with number +25 +two, that the state attorney also had the ability +Page 35 + + +1 to request access to records from the clerk. This +2 was not on a whim, not to harass and certainly not +3 frivolous. +4 +In doing all this background research, you +5 will hear that Mr. Mendelsohn came across Fourth +6 DCA and federal case law supporting the conclusion +7 that the state attorney was a necessary party. +8 Mr. Mendelsohn provided the state attorney with +9 that case law and explained what we needed from +10 the state attorney in this case. We needed the +11 state attorney to represent that he would not +12 object to the release of grand jury materials by +13 the clerk if ordered by the Court. They ignored +14 that request. +15 +You will hear from Mr. Mendelsohn -- +16 Exhibit 16 -- about a June 23rd, 2020, letter he +17 sent to the state attorney in response to the +18 state attorney's place-marker motion for fees that +19 +was in early June. And, in this letter dated +20 June 23rd, Mr. Mendelsohn set forth three reasons +21y why the state attorney was named as a party. +22 Again, number one, custody; number two, they had +23 the power to make arguments against release of +24 grand jury materials; number three, there was +25 nothing that prohibits the state attorney from +Page 36 + + +requesting copies of the clerk during and after +2 the close of criminal prosecution. +3 +So, as Mr. Mendelsohn says in this letter, +4 even if the state attorney's office did not have +5 possession or custody of the | +materials, +6 that did not end the need for his office to be a +7 party to the declaratory relief claim. The state +8 attorney still had the right to object to the +9 clerk producing records. That's exactly why we +10 included them in the case. +11 +You'll hear they previously did oppose +12 release by filing a motion to dismiss. - this is +13 Count 2, I'm sorry, the statutory count -- and +14 then, by filing the answer to Count 1 admitting +15 that a good faith dispute exists as to this very +16 claim. +17 +So in the timeline, for months after +18 Mr. Mendelsohn's letter, they - they refused to +19 respond, and we also reminded them on October 2nd, +20 2020, in a later filing, what we needed. What we +21y needed from the state attorney to release him from +22 this case was that he would not object to the +23 +clerk's release of materials, and this was in our +24 reply -- sorry -- response to the first +25 place-marker motion for fees, and that was +Page 37 + + +1 Exhibit 20. +2 +In that exhibit -- or, in that document, +3 +again raises the In re Grand Jury +4 +case that you just saw in the June 23rd letter. +5 It was not until after this, on October 14th, +6 2020, that the state attorney's office finally +7 stated in a court filing they would not object to +8 the clerk's production if ordered, and he took a +Op +9 position of neutrality. Days later, we dismissed +10 the state attorney. +11 +It's important to note the dismissal of the +12 state attorney does not make him a prevailing +13 party, not even under the 57.105 sanctions +14 standard, which is much higher than a prevailing +15 party standard, but èven under a regular +16 prevailing party standard, the state attorney is +17 not a prevailing party here. Just because a +18 plaintiff voluntarily dismisses a defendant does +19 not make a defendant a prevailing party. Where a +20 plaintiff gets something or a compromise out of +21y litigation, a dismissal becomes an appropriate +22 course of action as a result, then neither party +23 is the prevailing party for purposes of +24 contractual attorneys' fees. And that's pursuant +25 to the Kelly vs. BankUnited case that is -- it +Page 38 + + +1 should be in tab 38 of Your Honor's Authorities +2 binder. We sent it included in the supplement. +3 +THE COURT: I think | -- +4 +MS. WHETSTONE: It should have been on last +5 Thursday, but - +6 +THE COURT: I got it. +7 +MS. WHETSTONE: As Mr. Wyler even said, the +8 purpose of 57.105 is to deter misuse of the +9 judicial system and to discourage needless +10 litigation, but here, to declare the state +11 attorney a prevailing party and entitled to +12 attorneys' fees under these facts would be +13 contrary to that goal. +14 +Again, you'll hear from Mr. Mendelsohn that +15 the Post dismissed the state attorney only after +16 it got what it needed from him, changing his +17 opposition to release of grand jury records to +18 getting his affirmative statement that his office +19 did not object. And, Your Honor, the cases here +20 +• sorry -- the Court's rulings here actually +21y support this finding of no basis for sanctions +22 even further. +23 +With regard to - We heard a lot from the +24 transcript before Judge Marx from the motion to +25 +dismiss Count 2. First, that was with regard to a +Page 39 + + +motion to dismiss Count 2, not the count we're on +2 here today, which is Count 1 for declaratory +3 relief. +4 +It's important to note that Count 1 for +5 declaratory relief involves issues of First +6 Amendment and constitutional law, not just that +7 Florida Statute 905.27. +8 +In number two, respectfully, what -- what +9 Judge Marx said during a hearing is not evidence +10 as to whether the state attorney actually has +11 custody or control of records. So we heard her +12 statements on the record but no evidence about +13 whether the state attorney did or did not have +14 custody of the documents. And he did say in his +15 filings he does not have custody or control of the +16 documents, but, again, we're not just here about +17 his own custody or control; we're here about his +18 right as the state attorney to object to the clerk +19 releasing grand jury records. +20 +And when Judge Marx entered an order on +21, Count 2 dismissing Count 2, that was a limited +22 order on whether there was a private cause of +23 action under that statute. +24 +In addition, there was Judge Hafele's final +25 judgment that was Exhibit 30 in the binder, and +Page 40 + + +1 Judge Hafele, when he entered the final judgment, +2 that was as to the same claim that's at issue +3 here, the declaratory relief claim as it remained +4 against the clerk, because you'll recall the state +5 attorney had already been dismissed as a party +6 once they said they had no objection to the clerk +7 releasing grand jury materials. +8 +In the final judgment, Judge Hafele noted +9 this was a case of first impression involving +10 issues of genuine public concern. The arguments +11 by the Post's attorneys in support of the +12 declaratory relief claim were strong, sincere, +13 palatable and persuasive He commended everyone +14 for their hard work. This is the opposite of a +15 frivolous claim. And, while the Court ultimately +16 did not rule in the Post's favor for declaratory +17 relief as to the clerk, we respectfully disagree, +18 and that decision is currently on appeal. But, +19 more importantly, that is not the standard for +20 57.105. Again, it is not a prevailing party +21y standard. +22 +They have not met the high burden for +23 sanctions to prove that the fact -- the claim was +24 so frivolous or so devoid of merit under both the +25 facts and the law as to be completely untenable, +Page 41 + + +and, at the very least, this is a case -- in this +2 case of first impression, the claim for +3 declaratory relief was a good faith argument for +4 extension of the law. And, according to +5 57.105(3)(a) sanctions cannot be awarded. +A reminder here, too, that it was not just +7 the statutory -- the Florida statute at issue. +8 It's constitutional and First Amendment law at +9 issue in the declaratory relief claim. +10 +Finally, it's worth noting that, if there +11 are no sanctions imposed, there are no fees to be +12 paid by the state attorney's office, by +13 Mr. Aronberg personally or by taxpayers, by +14 anybody. +15 +Mr. Wyler, who represents state attorneys +16 across the state of Florida, had a contingency +17 agreement with the state of Florida in this case +18 -- sorry -- state attorney in this case and, from +19 the outset, no fee obligations arose unless there +20 was a Court order awarding fees. And that's +21y Exhibit 5 in the joint exhibit binder. So the +22 only way they were going to get fees was under a +23 57.105 motion. However, there has never been any +24 +basis for 57.105 sanctions. +25 +In closing, Your Honor, 57.105 is reserved +Page 42 + + +Supte turo Be 2022 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +for egregious conduct. There's nothing even +remotely close to that conduct that exists here. +The motion must be denied, and the Post +respectfully requests the Court deny the amended +motion for sanctions in its entirety. +Thank you, Your Honor. +THE COURT: How many witnesses are you +8 +calling? +MR. WYLER: Just one. Mr. Aronberg. +10 +THE COURT: All right. +11 +THE CLERK: Do you solemnly swear or affirm +12 +that the evidence you are about to give will be +13 +the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the +14 +truth? +15 +THE WITNESS: Ido. +16 Thereupon, +17 +DAVID ARONBERG, STATE ATTORNEY, +18 having been duly sworn by the Clerk of the Court, +19 responded and testified as follows: +20 +DIRECT EXAMINATION +21YBY MR. WYLER: +22 +Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Aronberg. +23 +Will you please introduce yourself to the +24 Court and tell us how long you've held your position. +25 +A. Good afternoon. +Page 43 + + +1 +I'm David Aronberg. I go by Dave. And +2 I've been state attorney since I was elected in 2012. +3 +6 +7 +9 +10 +Q. Thank you. We're here today on your +4 amended motion for attorneys' fees filed November 9, +5 2020, against the plaintiff, correct? +A. Correct. +Q. And did you engage my law firm, M +8 Scholz & Wyler, to defend you in this action? +A. Yes. +Q. I'm going to show you our Joint Exhibit 5. +11 Do you recognize this as a copy of our firm's engagement +12 letter with your office signed by Jeanne Howard? +A. Yes. +14 +Q. Thank you. +15 +MR. WYLER: Joint Exhibit 5, Your Honor, +16 +our firm's engagement letter, contingency fee +17 +agreement. +18 +THE COURT: Thank you. +19 BY MR. WYLER: +20 +Q. Mr. Aronberg, have you reviewed or are you +21,otherwise familiar with the pleadings and filings +22 submitted with the Court in this hearing? +23 +A. 1am. +24 +Q. So then you're familiar with the +25 newspaper's original summons and complaint filed against +Page 44 + + +1 you on November 14th, 2019, and then the amended +2 complaint filed January 17, 2020? +3 +A. Yes. +4 +Q. And what has the newspaper sued you for? +5 +A. They sued me to obtain the Jeffrey Epstein +6 grand jury documents. +7 +Q. Did they sue to just obtain them, or to +8 also produce them and provide them to them? +9 +A. They wanted me to produce them and to give +10 it - give those documents to them. +11 +Q. And do you know what they wanted to do with +12 those documents once they got them? +13 +A. They wanted to publish the documents. +14 +Q. Okay. And do you have possession, custody +15 or control of those requested grand jury documents? +16 +A. No. I've never had possession, custody or +17 control of those documents. +18 +Q. And, by control of those documents, do you +19 mean that you couldn't -- you have no power to release +20 them if you had them? +21y +A. I have no power to release these documents. +22 I don't have them. I've never had them. They knew I've +23 never had them. +24 +Q. But, in their complaint, didn't they allege +25 that you and your office are, quote, in possession of the +Page 45 + + +1 documents that are the subject of this action? +2 +A. That's this whole case. It's whether I had +3 possession, custody or control of these documents. +4 That's why they sued me and my office. And I never had +5 possession, custody or control of these documents. +Q. Okay. +7 +8 +MR. WYLER: Your Honor, you can find that +on J9 of the amended complaint if you're looking. +Op +THE COURT: Thank you. +10 +MR. WYLER: You can find it at +stamp +11 +118. +12 BY MR. WYLER: +13 +Q. Mr. Aronberg, are you familiar with the +14 newspaper's allegation in their complaint that you, +15 quote, have denied to the Palm Beach Post and to the +16 public at large the grand jury materials sought to be +17 disclosed? +18 +1am. +19 +Q. Y Did you ever deny the newspaper those +20 requested materials? +21y +A. From the beginning, we informed the +22 newspaper that I've never had these documents. In our +23 motion to dismiss, we had two arguments. The first one, +24 the very first one was that we do not possess, have +25 custody or control of these documents. +Page 46 + + +1 +In the second argument, we then make an +2 argument of law, because it's a motion to dismiss and we +3 have to argue as a matter of law and we couldn't rely on +4 the matter of fact that I didn't have the documents. So +5 they put us in a position to argue as a matter of law +6 that, even if we did have them, under the law we could +7 not provide them. +8 +Q. Okay. +9 +A. And, since then, they've been using that as +10 a cudgel. +11 +12 +Page 47 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21y +22 +24 +25 +MR. WYLER: And, Your Honor, if can, 'II +direct you to J6 and J10. Those are the two +motions to dismiss that do make that assertion. +THE COURT: 6 and 10? +MR. WYLER: Yes, Your Honor. And I'll read +that on the record J6, +stamp 103, it says, +"It is significant to note that, despite +plaintiff's allegations to the contrary, Defendant +Aronberg is not in custody or control of the +records sought and is, therefore, not a proper +party to this action." +And, in the second motion to dismiss, I'll +read that to the Court as well. That's at J10, +stamp 222. "It is significant to emphasize +that, despite plaintiff's allegations to the + + +Judge tux De 2022 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +contrary, Defendant Aronberg and the Office of the +State Attorney for the 15th Judicial Circuit are +not in custody or control of the records sought +herein, and, therefore, Defendant Aronberg is not +a proper party to this action. In fact, Defendant +Sharon R. Bock as clerk and comptroller of Palm +Beach County, Florida, admits that she is the +Page 48 +8 +9 +the subject of this action." +10 BY MR. WYLER: +11 Q. Mr. Aronberg, after these initial filings, +12 did you take any other steps to further notify the +13 newspaper and its lawyers that your office lacks +14 possession, custody and control of the requested records? +15 +A. Yes, and that is because, when the articles +16 came out that I was somehow stonewalling the Palm Beach +17 Post and trying to prevent public access to these +18 documents, I'started to get calls and texts from people +19 asking why I was doing that. I had a Facebook message +20 that said I should resign. +21y +Peter Antonacci, my predecessor down in +22 Broward, reached out to me, wanted to know why I was +23 covering for the grand jury -- or, for Barry Krischer or +24 for others. And I told him I don't have the documents, +25 because that seemed to be lost in the articles written. + + +1 +And so I took an extraordinary step. I +2 made a decision to create a Web portal and to release +3 every document that my office had relating to Jeffrey +4 Epstein and put it on the Internet, and that was -- and | +5 have just to refresh my recollection, the dates up here +6 - that was January 30th. +7 +Q. Okay, great. On January 30th, did -- I'm +8 going to show you joint Exhibit No. 12. Do you recognize +9 this as the press release that your office released that +10 you were just explaining? +11 +A. Yes. +12 +Q. And can you read it to the Court, please? +13 +A. This is a press release that my office put +14 out when we established this Web portal, and it says +15 this: "Palm Beach County State Attorney Dave Aronberg +16 creates Web portal for public access to Jeffrey Epstein +17 records." +18 +And then there's a statement from me: "In +19 response to a large number of requests, my office is +20 posting online all the public records from the +21 investigation and prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein. These +22 records, which have all been released previously pursuant +23 to public records requests, can be accessed through the +24 +following link," and it gives the link. +25 +"The Jeffrey Epstein case occurred several +Page 49 + + +1 years and multiple state attorney administrations before +2 I became Palm Beach County State Attorney in 2013." | +3 was elected as -- As an aside, I was elected in 2012, but +4 I started in 2013. "As such, I have never seen or had +5 access to the Epstein grand jury transcripts as the state +6 attorney's office has never possessed them. As lawsuits +7 and investigations continue to move forward, I hope that +8 Epstein's victims are able to achieve justice and closure +9 they deserve." +10 +Q. Thank you. Now, in addition to that press +11 release, did you make any other steps to further notify +12 plaintiff that you don't have the records they were +13 seeking? +14 +A. In addition to putting out that press +15 release and sending it to the Palm Beach Post and every +16 other media outlet in our database from around the +17 country, I also put that press release on my Twitter page +18 and, not only that, I pinned it so it would be the first +19 thing on my Twitter page. +20 +I also put it out on my Facebook page, and, +21 yas a result, it received national media coverage, +22 including coverage from the Sun-Sentinel, the competitor +23 to the Palm Beach Post. But, curiously, the one paper +24 that did not report on this Web portal, the one paper +25 that did not report on my releasing all the documents in +Page 50 + + +1 my possession was the Palm Beach Post. +2 +To this day, they still have never +3 acknowledged that | posted every document onto my Web +4 page, onto my Twitter page, onto my Facebook page, onto +5 our Web portal. To this day, even though I've had that +6 tweet pinned to my page for months in the past, they have +7 never acknowledged that it existed. +8 +9 you our joint Exhibit No. 11. Do you recognize this as +10 the Twitter post that you were just referencing? +A. Yes. +12 +Q. And does it say the +e thing as the press +13 release? +14 +A. Yes. +15 +Q. Thank you. +16 +A. It also looks like this could be from +17 Facebook as well. +18 +Q. +Okay. All right, are you aware and +19 familiar with the June 3rd motion to dismiss hearing and +20 statements made on the record by Judge Marx, the ones I +21 just read to the Court previously? +22 +A. Yes. +Q. What did you think of those remarks? +MR. BIDEAU: Objection, Your Honor, +25 +irrelevant what Mr. Aronberg thinks of remarks. +Page 51 + + +1 +THE COURT: Sustained. +2 BY MR. WYLER: +3 +Q. So following those remarks from Judge Marx, +4 do you believe that the newspaper knew or should have +5 known that you were not in possession, custody or control +6 of those records and that they should have dropped you +7 from the lawsuit even then? +8 +Page 52 +I don't know how Mr. Aronberg could know what the +10 +newspaper knew or should have known +11 +THE COURT: So your objection is +12 +speculation. Sustained. +13 +MR. WYLER: Okay +14 +THE COURT: All right, you know, generally, +15 +we have a jury here, but let's keep objections +16 +short. I'll answer them if I need to, or I'll ask +17 +for more. +18 +MR BIDEAU: Okay, Your Honor. +19 BY MR. WYLER: +20 +Q. Can you - Mr. Aronberg, can you please +21 explain to the Court how it is impossible for you to +22 provide these records? +23 +A. Well, first, I never had these records, so +24 obviously it's impossible for me to provide them. I told +25 them that. They knew that. + + +1 +Secondly, I have no custody or control over +2 these documents. I've never had them. They know that, +3 which is why they now are moving the goal posts to change +4 this whole lawsuit, this whole action from custody, +5 possession, control, into keeping me on the sidelines so +6 I don't object to the clerk's ability to release the +7 documents. So it's a new -- it's a new ball game now +8 apparently. +9 +But the newspaper obviously knew that I +10 never had these documents, that I never had custody or +11 control over them because I repeatedly told them. +12 +Q. All right. And then so, following Judge +13 Marx's order that I just referenced on June 3rd, what +14 action did you then direct me to take? +15 +A. Well, after Judge Marx's order and I was +16 dismissed from one of the two counts, I asked you to seek +17 sanctions, well, to start the ball rolling, 57.105, so to +18 send a letter that gives the 21-day notice. +19 +Q. That's correct. And let me show you a copy +20 ofthat letter. +21y +MR. WYLER: Your Honor, if you see our J14, +22 +it's a copy of the 57.105 demand letter and the +23 +email to Mr. Mendelsohn that accompanied it, and +just for a point of clarification, there is the +25 +motion for attorneys' fees at the end, but that +Page 53 + + +Supte turo Be 2022 +1 +was not filed on June 8th. Pursuant to the +2 +statute, you have to wait at least 21 days, and as +3 +you'll see later, that was followed. +4 +THE COURT: The way this is - | assume +5 +this was attached to the letter? +6 +MR. WYLER: It is, Your Honor. It's at +7 +stamp 235, yes, Your Honor. +8 BY MR. WYLER: +9 +Q. Do you recognize that, Mr. Aronberg, as a +10 copy of the email to Mr. Mendelsohn and then the 57.105 +11 demand that we issued to the plaintiff? +12 +A. Yes. +13 +Q. And, in that letter, did we assert our +14 position that their demand to produce the 2006 grand jury +15 +records, that there was no basis in fact or law? +16 +A. Correct. +17 +Q. Do you know if the newspaper dropped you +18 from the lawsuit within the 21-day safe-harbor provision +19 provided by statute 57.105? +20 +A. They did not +21Y +Q. But they eventually did drop you? +22 +A. A long time later, they did finally drop +23 me. +24 +Page 54 +Q. Okay, but, before they dropped you, did we +25 not file a motion for summary judgment? + + +1 +A. Correct. +2 +Q. And did that include an accompanying +3 affidavit from you? +4 +A. Correct. +5 +Q. Let me show you a copy of that affidavit. +6 That's at J18. Do you recognize this as a copy of your +7 affidavit? +8 +A. Yes. +9 +Q. Will you please read it aloud for the +10 Court? +A. The entire page? +12 +Q. Yep. +13 +A. "My name is David (Dave) Aronberg, and I'm +14 the State Attorney for the 15th Judicial Circuit, Palm +15 Beach County, Florida, since 2013 and a defendant in the +16 above-captioned matter. Plaintiff is seeking declaratory +17 relief pursuant Florida Statute 905.21(1)(c) and the +18 Court's inherent authority allowing plaintiff access to +19 the testimony, minutes and other evidence presented in +20 2006 to the Palm Beach County grand jury, the requested +21 materials, and to use those materials for the purpose of +22 informing the public." +23 +"Despite plaintiff's above-described action +24 for declaratory relief, neither myself nor the Office of +25 the State Attorney for the 15th Judicial Circuit (SAO) is +Page 55 + + +1 in control, custody or possession of the required" -- +2 excuse me -- " of the requested materials." +3 +"As such, the declaratory relief sought by +4 the plaintiff seeks materials that are impossible for me +5 or my office to produce. To be clear, neither myself nor +6 the SAO has the legal authority to obtain and deliver the +7 requested materials. I've repeatedly made these facts +8 evident to the plaintiff and the public through not only +Op +9 the pleadings and correspondence in this matter, but also +10 through an office press release and my public social +11 media accounts." +12 +"Despite the contentions of plaintiff, +13 neither myself nor the SAO has the authority to demand +14 that the clerk grant the SAO access to grand jury +15 materials after a criminal case has concluded. Moreover, +16 during my administration, neither myself nor my office +17 has access to grand jury materials from the clerk's +18 office in this or any other instance." +19 +"As provided in Section 905.17(1) Florida +20 Statutes, the clerk has sole authority and possession of +21y the requested materials, which can only be released by +22 the clerk pursuant to an order of the Court." +23 +Q. Thank you. Do you know of any other +24 substantive action regarding plaintiff's claim for +25 declaratory relief after you filed your motion for +Page 56 + + +1 +summary judgment? +2 +A +After we filed the motion for summary +3 judgment, we included the affidavit, and then there was a +4 -- at some point I was dismissed, and then there was an +5 amended motion after that. +6 +Q. That's correct. And I'm going to show you +7 J23. Do you recognize this as a copy of the notice where +8 you were dropped as a party from the lawsuit? +A. Correct. +10 +Q. What date is that? It's on the top, the +11 very, very top. +A. This was October 21st, 2020. +13 +Q. Thank you. And, after you were dismissed, +14 are you aware -- yeah, after you were dismissed, are you +15 aware that the Court eventually granted the clerk summary +16 judgment in their favor, a summary judgment in favor of +17 the clerk? +18 +A. +19 +Yes. +Q. Y Okay. Just a couple more questions for +20 you. +21y +There's been some references to maybe the +22 newspaper not just suing you just to get these records +23 for public disclosure. Even Judge Marx said that she +24 thought that there was something else going on. What do +25 you think is the underlying reason here for this lawsuit? +Page 57 + + +Septe ter Be 2020 +1 +MR. BIDEAU: Objection, Your Honor, +2 +irrelevant as to what the reason is. +3 +MR. WYLER: It goes to good faith, Your +4 +Honor. +5 +THE COURT: All right, overruled. +6 +A. Look, it was clear to me from the beginning +7 that this whole lawsuit was a twofer for the Palm Beach +8 Post. Number one, they were able to try to overcome the +9 fact that the Miami Herald, a newspaper 90 miles away, +10 scooped them on the Jeffrey Epstein story, and they +11 wanted to catch up and be the hero of their own +12 narrative. And so they made themselves the center of +13 this whole thing by suing to gef these transcripts. +14 +And, number two, they can do it on the back +15 of someone they have extreme dislike for, and it's no +16 secret in this community that the Palm Beach Post and I +17 have had numerous battles over the years, usually +18 one-sided, where the Palm Beach Post has, for the past +19 12 years, has attacked me, written many misleading +20 articles, which stems from a personal vendetta from a +21 Header of the Palm Beach Post, Randy +, and me. +22 And then, after he was removed from his position, his +23 acolytes believed that I had something to do with it, and +24 they -- the attacks continued. +25 +I mean, they continue even today where +Page 58 + + +1 there's a front page article about some exaggerated -- a +2 misleading front-page article about a criminal defendant +3 in Broward who is making claims and trying to get my +4 ex-wife's deposition. And the Palm Beach Post, instead +5 of writing the facts about it, sued to get the ex-wife's +6 deposition released. +I mean, for years, this has been an ongoing +8 issue between the Palm Beach Post and me, and it's not a +9 secret. For example, when they hired a reporter to cover +10 my office, who my office, prior to my being there, +11 prosecuted for crack cocaine. So I was thinking maybe at +12 some point they could find a reporter to cover our office +13 who our office did not prosecute for crack cocaine. So +14 this has been an ongoing thing. +15 +So this whole matter stems from two things: +16 The Palm Beach Post trying to get the Jeffrey Epstein +17 story back, sell newspapers and to go after me, and +18 they're able to do it. And that's why I insisted that we +19 at least get the taxpayers some of their money back +20 because they had to fight and pay for your legal fees to +21y fight a lawsuit that was, in my mind, frivolous from the +22 beginning because this newspaper knew I never had these +23 documents, I never had control or custody. And it's very +24 telling that now they're trying to move the goal posts +25 and make this about something entirely different. +Page 59 + + +1 BY MR. WYLER: +2 +Q. Let's talk about that, moving the goal +3 posts. We talked earlier about the wording in the +4 complaint against you. Do you recall the statements were +5 that you somehow denied the Palm Beach Post and the +6 citizens of Palm Beach County the grand jury records they +7 were requesting? Do you recall that? +8 +A. Yes. +9 +Q. And now it appears that we're hearing a +10 whole new argument from plaintiff today; is that correct? +A. Yes. +12 +Q. And that argument, correct me if I'm wrong, +13 is that they were fine once you said you didn't object to +14 the records being released and that, for that reason, +15 they dropped you; is that accurate? +16 +A. Correct. +17 +MR. BIDEAU: Objection, Your Honor, +18 +leading +19 +THE COURT: Sustained. +20 BYMR. WYLER: +21y +Q. Can you please explain your -- your +22 perception of how they moved the goal posts? +23 +A. Look, I mean, this lawsuit from the +24 beginning was about whether I had possession, custody, +25 control of the Jeffrey Epstein grand jury transcripts. +Page 60 + + +1 That's a series of articles they wrote about this. They +2 wrote a long series of articles attacking me for trying +3 to obstruct. Those articles were misleading. +4 +The fact that we're here today and now it's +5 not about that, it's about keeping me on the sidelines so +6 I didn't have -- that I didn't object to the clerk's +7 production of these documents is something that I haven't +8 heard before, and think is so misleading because this C +9 whole thing was about the grand jury transcripts. It's +10 not about trying to prevent me from saying something to +11 the clerk. +12 +It was clear from the beginning I never had +13 these documents. Judge Marx made it clear on the record, +14 and that's why we pursued these sanctions. +15 +Q. Thank you. +And isn't it - isn't there a +16 big difference between objecting to the release or +17 intervening in the release and actually being able to +18 release the records? +19 +A. Y They sued me to get the records. They +20 didnit sue me to prevent me from speaking up. +21y +Q. There's nowhere in the complaint that says +22 that they're suing to you keep you from objecting to the +23 release? +24 +A. Not only is there nothing in the complaint, +25 there's nothing in all the articles they wrote. They +Page 61 + + +1 wanted this thing to continue, to continue to write +2 articles. It would have been embarrassing for them to +3 admit that they filed a frivolous lawsuit and then they +4 had to dismiss me. So they continued these articles way +5 past the 21-day period, and now, when they got called on +6 it, they're trying to change the whole case into +7 something about how they needed me to stay silent so | +8 wouldn't tell the clerk to do something. +9 +I mean, this thing was about production, +10 custody and control of grand jury documents, and I just +11 don't believe the Palm Beach Post should be able to +12 change it after the fact. +13 +Q. So do you believe they have an agenda +14 against you and were intentionally targeting you when +15 they filed this lawsuit? +16 +A. They've always had an agenda against me. +17 +MR. BIDEAU: Objection, Your Honor, +18 +relevance. +19 +THE COURT: I think you have already +20 +covered it. So I'm going to sustain the +21Y +objection. That's fine. +22 BY MR. WYLER: +23 +Q. Have your friends and family been impacted +24 by the plaintiffs agenda-driven reporting? +25 +MR. BIDEAU: Again, Judge, objection, +Page 62 + + +1 +relevance. +2 +THE COURT: Sustained as to relevance. +3 +MR. WYLER: Thank you. +4 BY MR. WYLER: +5 +Q. Do you believe that plaintiff's +6 relationship with you prevented them from accepting the +7 ultimate fact that you have no legal right to possession, +a custody road he de the rested san f +9 jury records? +10 +MR. BIDEAU: Objection, cumulative, Judge. +11 +I think we've been over this. He asked the same +12 +question before. +13 +THE COURT: We've covered this. +14 +MR. WYLER: No further questions. +15 +THE COURT Cross examination. +MR. BIDEAU: Thank you, Judge. +EXAMINATION +Page 63 +17 +18 BY MR. BIDEAU: +19 +Q. Y Good afternoon, Mr. Aronberg. +20 +A. +Hi. +21y +Q. You said a couple minutes ago to your +22 lawyer that you filed this motion to get the taxpayers +23 back some of their money, right? +24 +A. Uh-huh. +25 +Q. That's what you said? The taxpayers are + + +1 not out any money, are they? +2 +A. It is a contingency-fee basis. +3 +Q. Right, and so the answer to question is: +4 The taxpayers are not out any money, are they? You don't +5 owe your counsel a nickel today, right? +6 +A. I think that's fair to say. +7 +Q. You haven't paid your counsel a nickel +8 today, right? +9 +A. We have not. +10 +Q. And the only way that your counsel gets any +11 money is if he wins this 57.105 motion, right? +12 +A. That's a good point. +13 +Q. So under no circumstance are the taxpayers +• out any money, correct? +15 +A. Yeah, I guess so. You're right. +16 +Q. Okay. So, when you testified a few minutes +17 ago that you filed this motion in order to get the +18 taxpayers back their money, that was wrong, right? +19 +A. Y Look, the fact that our office -- +20 +Q. Is that right, or wrong? +21y +A. Look, I have to dispute with you on that +22 one. Look, look, the fact that our office has spent +23 months having to deal with this frivolous lawsuit, that's +24 taxpayer money. And, yes, so perhaps I misspoke when I +25 said that because the money wouldn't go directly to him +Page 64 + + +1 unless we got something today. But it's clear the +2 taxpayers are out money when you divert my attention from +3 real business to focus on your frivolous lawsuit that has +4 been filed for nothing more than to sell newspapers and +5 make a profit for your client. +6 +Q. So the only person involved in this lawsuit +7 - I haven't seen you -- Have you testified in any +8 hearings in this case? +9 +A. No. +10 +Q. Have you been deposed in this case? += +A. No. +12 +Q. Okay. So the only thing you've done in +this case presumably is chat with your lawyer, correct? +14 +16 +17 +20 +22 +A. Are you saying our office has done nothing, +15 has not been distracted about this case? +Q. I'm talking about you, Mr. Aronberg. +A. Oh, I've spent plenty of time about this +18 case. have spent way more time than I ever should have +19 in a case that I had nothing to do with. +Q. Mr. Aronberg, you said that this idea that +21 y. Well, let me back up for a second. +You said that you thought the Palm Beach +23 Post brought this case for two reasons: One, they +24 brought this case because they don't like you and they +25 wanted to embarrass you somehow, and they brought this +Page 65 + + +1 case because they've been scooped by the Miami Herald, I +2 think you said, right? +3 +A. Yes. +4 +Q. On the Epstein matter. I mean, you agree +5 that an investigation into the Epstein matter and what +6 your predecessors did in the Epstein matter is a +7 legitimate matter of public interest, right? +8 +A. +The investigation of Jeffrey Epstein? +9 Absolutely. +10 +Q. Absolutely. And the -- And the +11 investigation of what your office by your predecessor -- +12 By the way, nobody has ever suggésted, Mr. Aronberg, in +13 any of the pleadings filed in this case that you +14 personally were involved in whatever happened with +15 Mr. Epstein. That's not in the complaint, right? +16 There's no reference to you personally having been +17 involved. In fact, the complaint makes it very clear +18 that this was your predecessor who was involved, correct, +19 not you?! +20 +A. Correct. +21y +Q. Now, so the pleadings we drafted didn't - +22 didn't accuse you of having done anything wrong with +23 respect to Mr. Epstein or the plea deal that got cut or +24 whatever happened with the feds, correct? We acknowledge +25 you weren't around in the pleadings that we filed in this +Page 66 + + +1 case, right? +2 +A. You acknowledged that I had nothing to do +3 with the stuff in the past, but you are accusing me of +4 hiding grand jury transcripts that I've never possessed. +5 +Q. There's nothing in the pleading that said +6 you hid grand jury transcripts, correct? The request -- +7 The lawsuit for declaratory relief was to declare that +8 you either turn over what you had, correct? +9 +A. Then you don't read your own newspaper. +10 +Q. I'm talking about the pleadings that are +11 filed in this case. I understand that you are concerned +12 about the press side of this. I'm conce +about the +13 legal side, okay? +14 +A. The legal side sued me to get grand jury +15 transcripts, and the press side accused me of hiding +16 them. +17 +Q. Okay, so we can agree that the legal side, +18 the thing we're here on in this case today, is about +19 getting grand jury testimony, correct, getting grand jury +20 transcripts? +21y +A. Possession, custody and control, correct. +22 +Q. Incidentally, when my firm first got +23 involved -- Do you have the exhibit binder in front of +24 you? +25 +A. I do not. +Page 67 + + +Septe but Do 2020 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +MR. BIDEAU: Okay. Can we get an extra +copy of it? +MS. WHETSTONE: We can pull it up on the +screen. +MR. BIDEAU: Exhibit 1. +THE COURT: I'm sorry, what number? +7 +MR. BIDEAU: Exhibit 1, Your Honor. +8 +MS. WHETSTONE: Your Honor, may I approach +9 +with the exhibit binder? +10 +THE COURT: Yes. +11 BY MR. BIDEAU: +12 +Q. Mr. Aronberg, it might be a little quicker +13 if I just hand you the binder, okay? That way you don't +14 have to turn around and look at it. +15 +A. Okay, what exhibit is it? +16 +Q. Exhibit 1. +17 +A. Okay. +18 +Q. +Exhibit 1 is an August 27, 2019, letter +19 from Mr. Mendelsohn to you, correct? +20 +A. Correct. +21y +Q. And this was a request for - Now, prior to +22 this, your office had received a number of public records +23 requests from the Palm Beach Post, correct? +24 +A. About - About this? +25 +Q. About the Jeffrey Epstein matter. All my +Page 68 + + +1 questions are about the Jeffrey Epstein matter. +2 +A. Okay, yes. +3 +Q. Okay, and this was the first letter you +4 received from my office, correct? From Mr. Mendelsohn +5 about the Jeffrey Epstein matter, right? +6 +A. I don't know if this is the first letter. +7 If you say it, I assume that's true. +8 +Q. And, in this letter, Mr. Mendelsohn +9 requests a number of documents and records with respect +10 to the grand jury matter concerning Mr. Epstein, correct? +11 +A. I'd have to read it, but, yes, l'll take +12 your - +13 +Q. By the way, your office never actually +14 responded to this particular letter, did it? +15 +A. I dont know y +16 +Q. And, in fact, after this letter, if you +17 look at tab 37, which is the very last tab -- and | +18 apologize, the binder is so big, it's hard to move +19 around. This letter is dated of August of 2019. +20 +THE COURT: What exhibit? +21Y +MR. BIDEAU: Exhibit 37, Your Honor. +22 +MS. WHETSTONE: It's also on the screen if +that's easier. +24 +25 +THE WITNESS: Maybe I can look at the +screen. +Page 69 + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +8 +6. 202 +MR. BIDEAU: You can look there, okay. +THE COURT: I'm going to slow you down a +little bit. I can't see the writing on the screen +from that far, so I'm going to flip to 37. +MR. BIDEAU: And, I apologize, I hate these +big binders. +THE COURT: It's okay. I just want to see +what you're talking about as you're talking about +Page 70 +it. +10 +You're right, they're not easy to navigate. +11 +All right, please continue. +12 BY MR. BIDEAU: +13 +Q. Exhibit 37 is an October 9th, 2019, letter +14 and that's from Mike Grygiel, another lawyer in my +15 office, to your office, and it's following up on +16 Mr. Mendelsohn's October (sic) 27th letter, okay, and his +17 September 17th letter. Do you see that? +18 +A. +Yes. +19 +Q. Y Okay. And up to that point in time, we had +20 not yet received responses to our letters, correct? Do +21 you know? +22 +A. I don't know. +23 +Q. Okay. And then -- And then after that, +24 sir, it was on January -- it was on -- it was in 2019, +25 shortly after that, November of 2019 that we filed the + + +1 first lawsuit against you, correct? +2 +A. +Correct. +3 +Q. So, after having sent your office two +4 letters, you don't know if we ever got responses to those +5 letters, we went and filed a lawsuit, and in that lawsuit +6 we named you in your official capacity, correct, not a +7 personal capacity? +8 +A. Correct. +9 +Q. And whenever you sue the state attorney's +10 office, and your office gets sued for things all the +11 time, it doesn't have anything to do with you personally, +12 right? +13 +A. Correct. +14 +Q. You sue -- You sue an entity like the state +15 attorney's office in its - by the state attorney who is +16 in his official capacity, correct? +17 +A. Yes. +18 +Q. And you talked about your original motion +19 to dismiss, J6, so let's take a look at J6, if you want +20 to look at Exhibit 6 in the binder, or can you look at it +21 yup there. I don't really care. +22 +A. Okay. +23 +Q. Let's look at the second page. On the +24 second page, you -- +25 +MR. BIDEAU: Could you highlight, Gerard, +Page 71 + + +1 +where it starts with, "Plaintiff has +2 +improperly..." Down at the bottom, last +3 +paragraph. +4 BY MR. BIDEAU: +5 +Q. You see you indicate -- your lawyer +6 responded by saying, "Plaintiff," that would be the Palm +7 Beach Post, is improperly seeking requested 2006 grand +8 jury materials for the purpose of public disclosure +9 pursuant to the Court's inherent authority and +10 supervisory powers over the grand jury." Do you see +11 that? +12 +A. Yes. +13 +Q. So at least at that point, you were +14 objecting saying the Post shouldn't get these, they're +15 not entitled to them, so that they can't -- because they +16 want to give them out to the public, right? And that's +17 what the sentence says. +18 +See -- +19 +Q. Y Is that what it says? +20 +A. +Look, you are -- this is exactly the +21 ›problem, what you guys did. You filed a lawsuit against +22 us, and the first defense that we had was that we didn't +23 have the documents, but because, as you know, in a motion +24 to dismiss you have to argue as a matter of law. So the +25 only way we could dismiss this frivolous lawsuit is to +Page 72 + + +1 argue as a matter of law. And this -- this was the legal +2 position that says, by the way, under the law you're not +3 entitled to these documents. And then you -- then your +4 client then wrote all these articles saying, see, he's +5 trying to block us, he's trying to obstruct us, without +6 mentioning the number one defense, which was he doesn't +7 have the documents. That could have gone a long way. +8 That could have shown maybe some good faith if you would +9 have done that. +10 +Q. Mr. Aronberg, in connection with - at the +11 time of the motion to dismiss, you had filed nothing, +12 your office had done no indication that you didn't have +13 the documents, did you, up to this point in time? Up to +14 this point in time. And this is only -- this is only +15 late 2019. You hadn't filed an answer. You hadn't filed +16 any motion. +17 +A. In our motion to dismiss. +18 +Q. You hadn't responded to any of our three +19 prior letters, and the first pleadings you filed +20 indicated that your objection was that we were improperly +21 › seeking these materials under the Court's inherent +22 authority and supervisory powers over the grand jury for +23 public disclosure. That was the official position filed +24 by your lawyer, and I understand, you were taking a legal +25 position to dismiss the lawsuit. +Page 73 + + +1 +A. Correct, but also I do want to challenge +2 one part of that. When you say that we -- we were silent +3 over and over again about responding to your public +4 records requests, I have spoken to -- I've spoken to the +5 public records person in my office who believes that she +6 did say that we didn't have the documents to everyone who +7 has requested them. +8 +MR. BIDEAU: Your Honor, I'd move to strike +9 +as hearsay. +10 +THE COURT: Sustained. +11 BY MR. BIDEAU: +12 +Q. And, after you filed this motion, the Palm +13 Beach Post filed an amended complaint, correct, and, in +14 that amended complaint, the Post asserted two causes of +15 action, right? One was a statutory claim, and one was a +16 declaratory judgment claim under the First Amendment and +17 the Court's inherent authority, correct? +18 +Correct. +19 +Q. Y And the motion to dismiss and the arguments +20 in front of Judge Marx all went to the statutory claim, +21y not to the second claim, the declaratory judgment claim, +22 correct? +A. The Marx hearing was about Count 2. +24 +25 +Q. Count 2, the statutory claim, correct? +A. Correct. +Page 74 + + +1 +Q. And, so, when we look at -- I've got the +2 complaint here because I want to read it. The first +3 amended complaint, which is J9, and if you take a look at +4 J9-- +5 +Page 75 +THE COURT: Let me stop you for one second. +So I'm flipping through these, but, like, for +7 +example, right there, I can't - I can't see that. +8 +MR. BIDEAU: Right, I know. +9 +THE COURT: But I saw that you were able to +10 +blow up a portion of -- +11 +MR. BIDEAU: He is. +12 +THE COURT: - and I'm going to ask him to +13 +do that, that way I don't have to - +14 +MR. BIDEAU: I'm going to ask him to blow +15 +it up so you can see it! +16 +THE COURT: Thank you very much. I +17 +appreciate it. +18 BY MR. BIDEAU: +19 +Q. Y So let's take a look here at Count 1 for +20 declaratory relief. +21y +MR. BIDEAU: Gerard, it's on page 19. +22 +Okay, just blow up the Count 1 for declaratory +23 +relief, please, that section. +24 BY MR. BIDEAU: +25 +Q. Then, with respect to paragraph 7, do you + + +1 see that one of the allegations is that the Post +2 respectfully requests the Court declare that, pursuant to +3 Florida Statute 905.27(1), it is entitled to access to +4 the testimony, minutes and other evidence presented in +5 2019 - 2006 to the grand jury because such disclosure +6 and access would be in furtherance of justice, and then +7 it cites to 905.27(1)06 (sic), correct? +8 +A. Yes. +9 +Q. And it says, because the Post is not +10 seeking these materials in connection with any civil or +11 criminal case, it seeks a declaration -- In other words, +12 it asks the Court, hey, construe this paragraph, construe +13 the statute to allow us to give this stuff to the public +14 because we recognize there's an interest of justice +15 provision in that statute, correct? +16 +A. Well, it is what it says it is. +17 +Q. Okay. And that's what it says, right, in +18 furtherance of justice? That's what the request was? +19 +A. Y Again, it is what it is. +20 +Okay. And then paragraph 71, the Post +21y seeks a further declaration that disclosure of the +22 testimony, minutes and other evidence presented to the +23 grand jury is appropriate pursuant to the Court's +24 inherent authority over grand jury proceedings because of +25 the exceptional public interest in this case and +Page 76 + + +1 compelling circumstances supporting transparency. Do you +2 see that? +3 +4 +6 +7 +8 +A. Yes. +Q. Okay, and, with respect to paragraph 71, do +5 you know what the answer was -- +A. No - +Q. - that you filed? +A. - not offhand. +9 +10 +MR. BIDEAU: Okay. Can we pull up the +answer to 71? That's J2, page 10, 71.71. +"COPY +11 BY MR. BIDEAU: +12 +Q. As to 71, you admit that we seek a +13 declaration, but you deny the remainder of paragraph 71. +14 So, in fact, although we were asking in 71 that the Court +15 uses its inherent authority over grand jury proceedings, +16 because of the exceptional interest in this case and +17 compelling circumstances, that the Court declare that +18 we're allowed to use this testimony, your answer was, +19 well, that's your declaration, but we deny paragraph 71. +20 So you asked the Court to deny that relief? +21y +A. +It is what it is. +22 +MR. BIDEAU: Okay. And then we'll go to +paragraph 72. I think you have a slide on that, +72. +Page 77 +25 + + +1 BY MR. BIDEAU: +2 +Q. And, in 72, we say, the Post has sought +3 from defendants, but defendants have refused to provide, +4 access to the testimony, minutes and evidence presented +5 in 2006 to the grand jury. Indeed, defendants have each +6 filed motions to dismiss the complaint and the reliefs +7 sought under 50 - 905.27(1). Accordingly, a good faith +Page 78 +10 +Q. And you see in that case your office +11 admitted that, your lawyers admitted that at least, +12 admitting there was a good faith dispute between the +13 parties and admitting that the defendants had refused to +14 provide access to the testimony, minutes and evidence +15 presented, right? No qualification, you all just admit +16 that. +17 +A. Again, it is what it is. +18 +Q. Now, you said that this argument that +19 Ms. Whetstone made during her opening statement, that the +20 idea that you wouldn't object to disclosure, was +21 something new, that just popped up at this hearing, that +22 - I think your phrase was, "you moved the goal posts," +23 right -- +24 +25 +A. Yes. +Q. - at this hearing? But that's not true + + +1 either, right, because that issue had been raised with +2 you all the way back in June of 2020, right? +3 +6 +Are you saying this lawsuit was about that? +4 Is that what you're saying, or are you saying that it was +5 about possession? +Q. The issue - The issue of your position +7 with respect to whether you would agree with -- I'm sorry +8 - whether you would object to the request to have the +Os +9 records released was an issue that had been raised by +10 Mr. Mendelsohn back in June of 2020, correct? += +A. Can you restate the question, please? +12 +Q. Sure. Let me -- Let me try to do it a +13 little more articulately because that was pretty +14 terrible. Let me get the letter out to make it easier +15 for all of us. J16, please. +16 +You've seen this letter, right, Exhibit 16? +17 +A. I'm not sure if I've seen this one. +18 +Q. Okay, well, did you know that, when your +19 lawyer filed his 57.105 motion back in early June and +20 then had that two-page letter that he served it with, +21 yright, and he laid out, we don't have the records, right? +22 +A. Correct. +23 +Q. Which is the basis for your 57.105 -- +24 +A. Yeah, correct. +25 +Q. +- we don't have it, leave me alone. +Page 79 + + +1 +A. Well... +2 +Q. Basically. +3 +A. Yeah, no possession, custody or control. +4 +Q. Okay, no possession, custody or control. +5 +Mr. Mendelsohn, a couple weeks later, wrote +6 a letter back, right? Do you remember seeing that? +7 +A. This is the letter you're referring to? +8 +Q. That's the letter, and it's under tab 16 in +9 the binder. +10 +A. Again, I don't remember seeing this letter. +Q. Can you flip to the second page? +12 +A. This letter was written to my attorney -- +13 +Q. To your attorney, right. +14 +A. - back in June of 2020. +15 +Q. June 23rd, +, 20207 +16 +A. No, I don't remember reading this letter. +17 +Q. Okay, well, let me see if I can help you +18 out then. Would you go to the middle of that paragraph +19 where it says, "The state attorney was named..." Can you +20| +•Go above that, where it says, "The state attorney was +21 y named as a party, not simply" -- Do you see it? Okay. +22 +Do you see Mr. Mendelsohn writes back, he +23 says, "Assuming the state attorney does not currently +24 have physical possession of the Epstein grand jury +25 materials" -- | mean, by the way, the Office of State +Page 80 + + +1 Attorney at some point would have had possession of the +2 materials that were going to be presented to the grand +3 jury, right? I mean, the office presented this stuff to +4 the grand jury. You would have had possession. +5 +A. If you're talking about the transcripts, +6 по. +Page 81 +Q. No, but I'm talking about the other +9 minutes, the other things like that. +10 +A. The minutes? +Q. Your office would have had those? +12 +A. The minutes? I don't believe so. I guess +13 it depends. I don't know how they did it back in Barry +14 Krischer's administration, but the documents that you +15 asked for, I've never had., So that's the only question | +16 had. +17 +Q. Well, hold on. You mean the transcripts, +18 because in the complaint, we actually ask for more than +19 transcripts. +20 +A. Right, but those are documents I've never +21 had, and that's the whole thing. +22 +Q. You personally never had them, but -- +23 +A. Right. +24 +Q. - you agree with me, the Office of State +25 Attorney would have, during the course of the + + +1 investigation, would have had those materials, it had to? +2 +A. +Again, I don't know what Barry Krischer's +3 administration had back then. +4 +Q. Well, when you got the public records +5 request, did you have somebody go back and look and see +6 what they had? +7 +A. Well, obviously, when we got public records +8 requests, we try to fulfill all of them. +9 +Q. Right, and you don't know personally +10 sitting here today what was done to respond to any of +11 Mr. Mendelsohn or Mr. Grygiel, my partners" letters +12 asking for materials from back during the Barry Krischer +13 days, correct? Because there's been no response to those +14 letters even to today. +15 +MR. WYLER: Objéction, Your Honor, those +16 +letters and the Chapter 119 request have nothing +17 +do with this lawsuit. They're not referenced in +18 +the lawsuit. They have no bearing on the +19 +requested relief that plaintiff is requesting +20 +here. +21y +THE COURT: Overruled. +22 BY MR. BIDEAU: +Q. And so -- +24 +25 +THE COURT: Can you repeat the question? +MR. BIDEAU: Sure, I'll repeat the +Page 82 + + +1 question. +2 BY MR. BIDEAU: +3 +Q. You don't know what anybody in your office +4 did to respond to Mr. Mendelsohn or Mr. Grygiel's +5 letters, Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 37, correct? You don't +6 personally know? +A. It is my understanding, based on +Page 83 +9 records request has been responded to and that people +10 were told, who requested Jeffrey Epstein grand jury +11 transcripts, that we did not have them. +12 +Q. Mr. Mendelsohn and Mr. Grygiel, in those +13 letters, request a lot more than just transcripts, right? +14 They wanted evidence. They wanted exhibits. They wanted +15 that sort of material, correct? That was Exhibit 1 and +16 37, we looked at, right? +17 +A. When | say "transcripts," I mean records, I +18 mean records, that anything we had, we put then out on +19 that portal that your client refused to acknowledge. +20 +Q. Well, the portal was things you'd already +21 ›produced. That's what - Your press release says this is +22 all the stuff we've already given out, right? That's +23 already been in the public, right? +24 +A. Yeah. +25 +Q. Okay, well, but you understand, we were + + +1 asking for stuff that you hadn't yet given out, and, as +2 best you know, you don't have any personal knowledge as +3 to whether or not -- what happened to those requests, to +4 Mr. Mendelsohn's request or Mr. Grygiel's request, right? +5 You personally don't know? +6 +A. Well, again, you objected because of +7 hearsay before, but, in speaking to an individual who +8 does public records in my office, I've been told that +9 that person had said whether or not we've had those +10 documents, and so I believe that everyone who requested +11 documents were told truthfully whether we had those +12 documents or not. And we can usé documents in a broad -- +13 in a broad way. +14 +Q. In a broad sense, right? +15 +A. Correct. +16 +Q. But you don't have copies of any responses +17 or that went back to Mr. Mendelsohn or Mr. Grygiel in my +18 office when they requested documents, correct? +19 +•A. Y I would think that Mr. Wyler would have +20 everything that we produced. +21y +Q. Okay. Now, Mr. Mendelsohn, back in June +22 of 2020, in response to your first 57.105 letter, he +23 says, The state attorney was named as a party, not simply +24 as custodian of the grand jury -- the grand jury records. +25 The state attorney was named in his official capacity as +Page 84 + + +1 his office has, quote, as his primary interest, +2 protection of its grand jury system, and he cites to a +3 11th Circuit decision. Do you see that? +4 +A. Yes. +5 +Q. Okay. And, in that case, the U.S. petition +6 - he goes on to explain it. He goes on to explain that +7 the Broward County State Attorney was involved in this +8 case, and so Mr. Mendelsohn was indicating to you in that +9 case where you were named not only whether you had +10 custody; you were named in that case basically because +11 you're in charge of the grand jury process, you had the +12 right to object if the clerk wanted to give out those +13 records or not. +14 +A. Where does it say that? +15 +Q. It's in the - The case indicates that, +16 when one seeks grand jury materials, the relevant state +17 attorney is a necessary party in order to protect the +18 grand jury system, and the Office of State Attorney +19 supervised it to make arguments if needed against release +20 of the grand jury materials. Do you see that? +21y +A. +Yes. +22 +Q. So Mr. Mendelsohn was telling you, as +23 opposed to what you said a few minutes ago in here, that +24 the first time you saw these goal posts being moved, +25 Mr. Mendelsohn -- was today when Ms. Whetstone testified +Page 85 + + +1 - I mean, when Ms. Whetstone talked. In fact, all the +2 way back to when the very first 57.105 motion was filed, +3 Mr. Mendelsohn told you that one of the reasons that the +4 Post sued you in this case was in order to address the +5 situation that you had the right, if you thought it was +6 appropriate, to object to the release of materials. Do +7 you see that? +8 +A. Was that in the complaint? +Q. I'm asking about the -- I'm asking about +9 +10 the -- +11 +A. Well, the letter you wrote after -- well +12 after the complaint, the letter you're showing me here +13 that was sent to Mr. Wyler is what it says it is. +14 +Q. Correct. +15 +A. That's on not in the complaint, right? +16 +Q. But you told me that this idea of moving +17 the goal posts, that the Post was suddenly making that +18 argument, you told everybody in this courtroom a few +19 minutes ago that just happened today, I mean, they're +20 just moving the goal posts on me. Well, if the goal +21 ›posts are being moved, that was back on June 23rd of +22 2020, and you remember seeing this, right? +23 +A. Again, I don't remember seeing this letter, +24 but, again, this was not part of the complaint. This is +25 an after-the-fact letter from Mr. Mendelsohn to my +Page 86 + + +1 lawyer. +2 +Q. Correct, and so -- +3 +A. Okay. +4 +Q. - you -- neither you nor your lawyer ever +5 responded to this letter, right? +6 +A. Well, you'll have to talk to my lawyer +7 about that. Obviously I don't personally respond to +8 letters written to my lawyer. +9 +Q. Correct. But you told us you're familiar +10 with the pleadings, but you're not familiar with this +11 particular letter? +12 +A. Again, I don't remember seeing this letter. +13 +Q. Now, Mr. Mendelsohn indicates in the last +14 +sentence, These are some of the same reasons why the +15 state attorney was named in this case. Do you see that? +16 Very last sentence of that paragraph. +17 +A. Yes. +18 +MR. BIDEAU: Can we take a look at +19 +Exhibit 21? Do you have Exhibit 21 up? +20 +Can you -- Can you blow up the part that's +21y +highlighted, please, and I'll read it? +22 BY MR. BIDEAU: +23 +Q. Now, Exhibit 21 is Defendant David +24 Aronberg's response to plaintiff's memorandum in +25 opposition to the 57.105 motion, the original one filed +Page 87 + + +1 back in June of 2020. And do you see in paragraph -- in +2 the first paragraph, you indicate, quote, Nonetheless, +3 the state attorney has no objection and never had any +4 objection to the Court releasing the records sought by +5 plaintiff as to the disclosure of the requested materials +6 sought herein lies within the province of the clerk +7 pursuant to the order of the Court. Do you see that? +8 +A. Yes. +9 +Q. And this is the first time in any pleading +10 - Strike that. +11 +First of all, obviously you knew this was +12 an issue back in October of 2020, the fact that the Post +13 was arguing that one reason you needed to be in this case +14 was because you had the right to object, because you +15 address that issue in October of 2020, correct? +16 +A. Here. +17 +Q. Here, right, as of October 2020. So that +18 argument had been raised not for the first time today, +19 but back in 2020, right, Mr. Aronson? +20 +A. Aronberg. +21Y +Q. Aronberg. I'm sorry. +22 +A. This is what it says it is +23 +And, again, I felt that this sentence was +24 +• consistent with what our position always has been +25 because, when we were forced to do the motion to dismiss, +Page 88 + + +1 we were forced, because of a matter of law, to make the +2 legal argument as a legal matter that the Post is not +3 entitled to this, but as far as my belief of whether I +4 care whether these grand jury documents are released, +5 l've never cared one way or the other, but, because of +6 this, in my view, bad faith lawsuit, you forced us to do +7 a motion to dismiss that told you we don't have this +8 stuff, and, secondly, we had to do a response as a matter +9 of law. +10 +Q. Okay, now let me get back to my question. +11 My question was: You told the Court earlier today that +12 this moving the goal posts, this idea that you had the +13 right to object and we wanted to make sure you weren't +14 going to object was something that came up for the first +15 time today, and that wasn't true, was it? That issue +16 came up back in June of 2020 at the -- at the latest when +17 Mr. Mendelsohn put it in his letter, and you saw it +18 necessary to address it in October of 2020, right? +A. Y So the letter that I said I don't remember +20 seeing is the letter that you say put me on notice that +21 › this argument was being made? +22 +Q. Well, that letter certainly put you on +23 notice if you didn't know it before that, sir, because it +24 +• says it clear as day. +25 +A. But it doesn't make my statement +Page 89 + + +1 inconsistent. It said, again, that I was not aware of +2 your moving the goal posts, and, besides, it doesn't +3 matter because this whole thing is about possession, +4 custody and control, which you informed of that we didn't +5 have. Now you're saying, well, this whole thing was +6 about you wanted me to talk to the clerk, or you didn't +7 want me to talk to the clerk, and to me that's +8 disingenuous because that's not the subject of this +9 lawsuit. +10 +You mentioned in a sentence that +11 Mr. Mendelsohn wrote to my lawyer much later than the +12 complaint, well after the complaint, in one sentence in a +13 letter to my lawyer, and you're saying, aha, we wanted +14 this the whole time. +15 +Q. Well, certainly we wanted it the whole +16 time, and we wanted it at the, as Mr. Mendelsohn will +17 testify, and Mr. Mendelsohn wrote that when your lawyer +18 sent a 57.105, saying our case isn't frivolous, we think +19 your office might have possession of the records, at +20 Veast some of the records that we were seeking, and in +21 addition, your office has the right to object. +22 +A. +Did you put that in the complaint? You +23 didn't put that in the complaint. +24 +Q. I know it's hard for a lawyer to not ask +25 questions, but -- +Page 90 + + +1 +A. Fair enough. Fair enough. +2 +Q. And try not to argue because our court +3 reporter is going to kill us. +4 +Okay, in any event, Mr. Aronberg, in the +5 October 14th, 2020, response, you indicate that the state +6 attorney has no objection, okay, to the clerk producing +7 these records if the clerk produces them, right? +8 +A. Right. +9 +Q. And you know, by the way, that the clerk +10 had already produced them without -- well, probably -- +11 nobody could find a court order -- had given them to the +12 U.S. Attorney and the FBI years earlier, right? +13 +A. I guess so. I mean, T wasn't there years +14 earlier, so if that's what happened, yes, sure. +15 +Q. And, by the way, shortly after you filed +16 Exhibit 21 is when the Palm Beach Post dismissed the +17 case, right? It was within 14 days of that, correct? +18 +We can do it up there. Maybe 17 days? +19 +A. Y Whatever your timeline says. +20 +Q. Right. All right, you indicated on the +21 y20th is the first time you stated you had no objection to +22 production of the materials, okay, and then on +23 October 21st, now that you said you don't have them and +24 you don't object, the Post dropped you as a party seven +25 days later, see that? +Page 91 + + +1 +A. Yeah. +2 +Q. Right? Okay. And then 17 days later, you +3 file an amended motion which makes a host of arguments +4 not set forth in your original motion back in June +5 of 2020, correct? +A. Well, you have to ask Mr. Wyler about the +7 substance of that, but I know that the motion -- the +Page 92 +9 from the lawsuit and after your client failed to dismiss +10 me within the 21-day +period. +11 +Q. Well, that's the 21-day grace period for +12 the first motion that you filed, correct? +13 +A. Correct, correct. +14 +Q. But the motion we're here on today, +15 according to the Court order and the notice, is your +16 amended motion, which was never served prior to being +17 filed, correct? +18 +Well, are you saying that the filing of the +19 second motion means that the first motion is now void, it +20 just goes away, it didn't exist? +21y +Q. We're going to be arguing that to the +22 Judge, but the filing, under the law, the filing of a +23 second motion that raises new and different arguments +24 absolutely goes away, the first motion goes away. +25 +A. But the whole purpose of the 21-day notice + + +1 is to give you a chance to dismiss me, and I was already +2 dismissed by that point, so -- +3 +Q. So let's take that to its logical -- Let's +4 assume you had gone ahead and served this back, say, back +5 here in October, okay, and then you filed that response +6 and we looked at it and said, +he's now admitting - +7 he's now saying he's not going to oppose it. If we had +Page 93 +9 because under the rule, we're allowed to dismiss. +10 +A. You get 21 days. +Q. We get 21 days, right. So if you had +12 served it all the way back here in October and if we had +13 gotten your response and dismissed, you'd have no fee +14 claim, right? We would have gotten your 57.105, and +15 within the +period, we would have dismissed it, +16 right? +17 +A. If the second one was filed before I was +18 dismissed, within the 21 days -- +19 +Q. Yes, sir. +20 +A. +- and the case was still pending? Then, +21 yyeah, you'd have a much better argument. But you don't +22 have an argument now because, under the first -- +23 +Q. We'll argue -- We'll argue that to the +24 Judge -- +25 +A. All right, fair enough. + + +1 +Q. +-- as to whether we have an argument now. +2 We think the Fourth is pretty clear on that one. +3 +4 +6 +MR. BIDEAU: Would you bring up, please -- +just last question -- Exhibit 25, paragraph 20? +5 BY MR. BIDEAU: +Q. And this is -- this is your amended motion, +7 and you say, The state attorney has no objection to the +Page 94 +9 should the Court grant an order to that effect; however. +10 it is impossible for the state attorney to comply with +11 the relief, blah, blah, blah, because you'd made that +12 argument before. +13 +That argument that you had no objection to +14 the clerk producing the requested materials was not set +15 forth in your original motion, your original 57.105 +16 motion, correct? +17 +A. Ibelieve that's correct. +18 +MR. BIDEAU: That's all I have, Judge. +19 +THE COURT: Redirect? +20 +MR. WYLER: Just real quick. +21Y +REDIRECT EXAMINATION +22 BY MR. WYLER: +23 +Q. Mr. Aronberg, you were just talking -- or, +24 just being asked questions about the public records +25 requests that were made of your office. + + +6. 202 +1 +3 +4 +5 +Did the plaintiff ever file a Chapter 119 +2 lawsuit against your office for those records? +A. No. +MR. WYLER: No further questions. +THE COURT: Is Mr. Aronberg excused? +THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honor. +7 +8 +MR. WYLER: Yes, you're excused. +MS. WHETSTONE: Your Honor, may we take a +five-minute break? +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21y +22 +THE COURT: We'll be back in a few. WIl +be in recess, we'll say 5 to 10 minutes. +(Off the record from 3:39 p.m.to +3:57 p.m.) +THE COURT: All right, please be seated. +MR. WYLER: Your Honor, before I rest, I +just wanted to say to the Court that plaintiff and +defense counsel, we've -- we've agreed on all +those exhibits, that joint exhibit book. We just +wanted to make sure that all exhibits, 1 through +37, are recognized by the Court. +THE COURT: All right, so Exhibits 1 +through 37 of this joint binder have been +stipulated to and are in evidence, and that's the +24 +25 +an agreement of the parties. +MS. WHETSTONE: Yes, Your Honor. +Page 95 + + +1 +MR. WYLER: Thank you, Your Honor. +2 +(Joint Exhibits 1 through 37 were admitted +3 into evidence.) +4 +Defense rests. +5 +THE COURT: But not this timeline, correct? +6 This is not? +7 +MS. WHETSTONE: That's correct. That's a +8 demonstrative. Thank you, Your Honor. +9 +THE CLERK: Thank you. +10 +MS. WHETSTONE: The plaintiff calls Stephen +11 Mendelsohn. +12 +THE COURT: Before we do this, how long is +13 +Mr. Mendelsohn going to testify today? +14 +MS. WHETSTONE, We will make this as fast +15 as possible. +16 +THE COURT: I'm not trying to rush you +17 through everything, but we're done at 5:00 today. +18 +MS. WHETSTONE: Thirty minutes. +19 +THE COURT: And after Mr. Mendelsohn, are +20 you done? +21y +MS. WHETSTONE: Yes, Your Honor. +22 +THE COURT: Okay. In the event that you're +23 +going past 5 -- we're not going to go past 5, but +24 in the event you need to go past 5, I'll bring you +25 back in later in the week. It won't be tomorrow. +Page 96 + + +1 Tomorrow I have another matter that I have to hear +2 in the afternoon. But, in the event we need to go +3 past 5, even if it's for argument, probably +4 Thursday or Friday in the afternoon, I'll bring +5 you back. +6 +If the testimony is going to conclude today +7 or mostly conclude today and the only thing left +8 are your arguments of law and your arguments as to +9 the findings of fact, then that might be something +10 that we end up doing on Thursday or Friday +11 +afternoon, okay? +12 +MR. WYLER: Yes, Your Honor. I think it +13 +might be worthwhile to point out to the Court that +14 the reasonableness phase of this, if we get there, +15 we've already agreed that there would be no +16 experts, so I think that could dispense with that. +17 +I am located up in Amelia Island, Florida, +18 +so lam -- +19 +THE COURT: Fifteen minutes away. +20 +MR. WYLER: Super close. So I don't know +21y if it would be possible, if we finished with the +22 testimony today, if maybe we could make written +23 closing arguments to the Court instead of coming +24 back? +25 +Page 97 +THE COURT: How do you feel about writing? + + +edge ber Dead +6. 202 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +MS. WHETSTONE: We would have no objection +to that if Your Honor would prefer. Whatever Your +Honor prefers, we will do. +THE COURT: If you guys don't mind writing. +I mean, I think people are better in writing. +People overestimate their oratory skills, but +Page 98 +8 +9 +10 += +that the evidence you're about to give will be the +truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? +THE WITNESS: Yes. +12 Thereupon, +13 +STEPHEN MENDELSOHN, ESQ., +14 having been duly sworn by the Clerk of the Court, +15 responded and testified as follows: +16 +THE COURT: Whenever you're ready. +17 +MS. WHETSTONE: Thank you, Your Honor. +\DIRECT EXAMINATION +19 BY MS. WHETSTONE: +20 +21y +22 +Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Mendelsohn. +A. Hello. +Q. Please introduce yourself to the Court. +A. Yes. I am Stephen Mendelsohn. +24 +25 +Let me just move a little closer. +Yes, I'm Stephen Mendelsohn, and I'm an + + +1 attorney at Greenberg Traurig in the Fort Lauderdale +2 office. +3 +Q. Please let us know your educational +4 background. +5 +A. I have a bachelor's degree from Colgate +6 University in Upstate New York, graduated in 1980 and -- +7 in economics, and I have a J.D. degree from Hofstra +8 University School of Law from 1983. +9 +Q. And what's your work experience going +10 backwards in time? +11 +A. I've been at Greenberg Traurig as a +12 commercial litigator for approximately 20 years, and all +13 that time I've been a shareholder at Greenberg. As l +14 said, I work out of the Fort Lauderdale office at +15 present. Previous to that, Iwas in the Boca Raton +16 office of Greenberg Traurig, so going back 20 years. +17 +Before that, I was an attorney with +18 Rutherford Mulhull & Wargo in Boca Raton, also commercial +19 litigation, and, prior to that, I was a named partner a +20 firm in Miami. That was Carolonga, Langen, Lorenza +21 ›(phonetic) & Mendelsohn, and before that, I was an +22 assistant attorney general for the State of New York. +23 +Q. In what states are you licensed to practice +24 law? +25 +A. New York and Florida. +Page 99 + + +1 +Q. At Greenberg Traurig, what types of cases +2 do you practice? +3 +A. +A variety of commercial litigation, +4 copyright, trademark, securities, real estate disputes, +5 disputes over employment, contract, fraud. Also, not +6 just simply commercial, but I also do defamation defense, +7 First Amendment cases on defamation, and I do trial work +8 and appellate work. +9 +Q. When you were at the New York State +10 Attorney General's Office, what types of cases did you +11 handle? +12 +A. I was in the Litigation Bureau of Labor +13 Statistics, and that's civil litigation, primarily civil +14 rights and constitutional law cases involving 42 USC +15 Section 1983, where New York State and its officials were +16 sued in their official capacity. That included cases +17 under the Fourth Amendment, cases under the Seventh +18 Amendment occasionally, and the Eighth Amendment and +19 Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. +Q. Are you AV rated? +21Y +22 +24 +25 +A. Yes, AV rated as well. +Q. Have you ever been sanctioned or subject to +23 disciplinary action? +A. Never. +Q. Ever -- +Page 100 + + +1 +A. In any jurisdiction. +2 +Q. Ever had 57.105 sanctions or Rule 11 +3 sanctions awarded in any case that you've worked on? +4 +A. This is the first motion ever under 57.105 +5 or Rule 11 under the federal rules or any of that. +6 +Q. So besides this case, no? +7 +A. No. +8 +Q. You've never had any motion raised? +9 +A. No. No, +10 +Q. How did you first get involved with the +11 Jeffrey Epstein case on behalf of the Palm Beach Post? +12 +A. I was contacted by Michael Grygiel from our +13 Albany office. He represents a number of media and +14 newspapers throughout the United States, and essentially +15 he heads the media group at Greenberg Traurig. And he +16 was looking for someone to help the Palm Beach Post in +17 obtaining documents from at that time the state +18 attorney's office here in Palm Beach County. +19 +Q. › When were you contacted by Mike Grygiel? +20 +A. +When approximately? +21Y +Q. (Nods head up and down.) +22 +A. +In the summer of 2019. It's Grygiel, +23 G-r-y-g-i-e-l. +24 +Q. Thank you. So here, around -- on the +25 timeline, I'm indicating July 2019? +Page 101 + + +1 +A. Yes. +2 +Q. And what did the Post want to find out and +3 inform the public about with regard to Jeffrey Epstein? +4 +A. Right, at that time, the Epstein matter was +5 back in the news. Mr. Epstein had been arrested by the +6 FBI, and he was being prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney's +7 Office in the Southern District of New York and was in +8 custody. +9 +So the issues of the plea deal that had +10 been worked out by Mr. Krischer's office back in 2006 was +11 back in the news, and, in particular, President Trump's +12 Secretary of Labor, Alexander Acosta, at that time was +13 the U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of Florida who +14 also helped negotiate the plea and the non-prosecution +15 agreement, and there was a big firestorm as to whether or +16 not Mr. Acosta should or should not resign as Secretary +17 of Labor. +18 +What was the Post interested in finding out +19 with regard to the prior grand jury investigation by the +20 Palm Beach County State Attorney? +21y +A. Well, because of the firestorm surrounding +22 Alex Acosta and the re-arrest, or new arrest, I should +23 say, of Jeffrey Epstein, the Post was interested in +24 looking back again as to what Barry Krischer's office as +25 state attorney did in terms of using or misusing the +Page 102 + + +1 grand jury process, in terms of the prosecution of +2 Jeffrey Epstein both in terms of the very light +3 non-prosecution agreement that they allowed him to enter +4 into, as well as the extremely lenient sentence that he +5 had. +6 +Q. Were you involved in drafting letters to +7 the state attorney's office seeking documents relating to +8 the Epstein prosecution? +9 +A. Yes. +10 +MS. WHETSTONE: Would you please bring up +11 +Exhibit 1? +12 BY MS. WHETSTONE: +13 +Q. We're pulling up Exhibit 1 in the joint +14 exhibit binder. It's an August 27th letter. +15 +A. Yes. +16 +Q. Or, actually, Mr. Mendelsohn, please let me +17 know what this letter is. +18 +Yes, this is Joint Exhibit 1. This is a +19 letter | wrote on August 27, 2019, to State Attorney Dave +20 Aronberg on behalf of the Post requesting specific +21y documents related to the grand jury investigation of +22 Jeffrey Epstein. +23 +Q. What were you seeking in this letter? +24 +A. Particularly, we were interested in items +25 stated on pages 2 and 3, some of what we were looking at. +Page 103 + + +1 We were very interested in finding out the conversations +2 between defense counsel, that's criminal defense counsel +3 for Mr. Epstein and, in particular, Alan Dershowitz and +4 Mr. Krischer's office. +5 +We knew from investigation that +6 Mr. Dershowitz had provided Mr. Krischer with exhibits or +7 documents which went to injure the testimony -- the +8 credibility and the testimony of the young woman who +Op +9 testified before the grand jury. I mean, we were looking +10 for those communications between Mr. Krischer's office +11 and defense counsel, in particular where Mr. Dershowitz +12 and others from the defense provided those materials to +13 damage the credibility of the grand jury witness. +14 +We also wanted communications between +15 Mr. Krischer's office and the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's +16 Office because those issues were coming to the fore +17 because of Alex Acosta, and we did know that there were +18 such communications, and we wanted those documents to go +19 back to the Post for public disclosure. +20 +Q. What was the state attorney's office's +21 response to this August 27th letter? +22 +A. I never received a response to this letter. +23 +Q. Were there other letters from Greenberg +24 Traurig to the state attorney's office following up? +25 +A. Yes. Mr. Grygiel wrote a letter to the +Page 104 + + +1 state attorney's office as well. When I didn't receive a +2 response, I guess he felt whatever, but he did send that +3 next letter. +4 +Q. Okay, so I'm pulling up Exhibit 37. Is +5 this -- Let me know what this is. +6 +A. Yes, this is Mr. Grygiel, from our Albany +7 office, this is his letter to State Attorney Dave +8 Aronberg, October 9, 2019, reiterating some of the things +9 that we thought were in the possession of the state +10 attorney's office but had not been provided to the Palm +11 Beach Post. +12 +Q. Did you get a response -- Was there a +13 response to this letter? +14 +A. No. +15 +Q. Did you review the documents that were +16 provided by the state attorney's office to the Post? +17 +A. Yes. Before -- Sort of in the middle of +18 this, the Palm Beach Post, before I had written, had made +19 a public récords request of the state attorney's office, +20 and some materials had been provided, and we did go +21 > through that, those materials. They did not include +22 those that I mentioned in Joint Exhibit 1, which +23 particularly were missing the Dershowitz communications +24 and the communications with Mr. Krischer's office, the +25 FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office. +Page 105 + + +1 +Q. So what information -- what additional +2 information was needed that the Post was seeking? +3 +A. We wanted to see why the grand jury was +4 used in such a way as to result in a very lenient charge +5 for Mr. Epstein, as well as the lenient sentence that was +6 part of the non-prosecution agreement. +7 +We knew from the Post's investigation and +8 from other materials we had assembled that there were - +9 there was a grand jury that was empaneled. In fact, +10 there was two. The first one was canceled, and the +11 second one was conducted, and a witness, a victim did +12 testify. And we were on fairly certain ground that the +13 state attorney's office under Barry Krischer undermined +14 her credibility with materials provided to Mr. Krischer +15 by defense counsel. +16 +Q. Did you -- +17 +A. +and we did not get those materials back +18 from the state attorney's office. +19 +Q. Y Did you review any other information to +20 reach the conclusions about the grand jury indictment? +21y +A. Yes. I wanted to say that I was not the +22 only one working on this at Greenberg Traurig. In +23 addition to Mr. Grygiel, Nina Boyajian of our Los Angeles +24 office, who is a First Amendment expert, was also part of +25 ourteam. She is very well versed in First Amendment +Page 106 + + +1 issues, especially when it comes to representing the +2 media's interest under the First Amendment. +3 +So we also had paralegals tasked with that +4 responsibility, too. We had assembled deposition +5 transcripts, affidavits that had been submitted in +6 various cases. I personally have spoken with the Town of +7 Palm Beach County -- the Town of Palm Beach Chief of +8 Police Reiter and discussed his testimony with him in. +9 civil cases. I've obtained his deposition transcripts. +10 We spoke to only a few of the plaintiffs' lawyers in the +11 cases, but some of them did provide us with materials. +12 +There was a voluminous amount of materials +13 we used. We also went back to the criminal case where +14 the materials were in the public domain and read through +15 those items as well. +16 +Q. And, after this team at Greenberg reviewed +17 all this information and did due diligence, what was +18 decided next? +19 +A. Y Ultimately, the team decided that it was +20 necessary to bring a lawsuit to obtain what we call grand +21 jury materials. It's not just simply the transcripts of +22 what occurred in front of the grand jury, but all of the +23 ancillary or corollary materials related to that. And +24 that, as we stated in Exhibit 1, included, but not +25 limited to, the communications where we believe +Page 107 + + +1 Mr. Dershowitz provided damaging information or +2 documentation to Mr. Krischer's office to destroy his own +3 witness in front of the grand jury, which honestly, +4 looking at all of the materials we had received and based +5 upon my personal discussions with the chief of police of +6 the Town of Palm Beach, we came to the conclusion +7 Mr. Krischer had abused his authority as state attorney. +8 +Q. When did the due diligence process start +9 and when did it end as far as reviewing the facts? +10 +A. Started in the summer of 2019, and it - +11 Well, the first phase resulted in the lawsuit, and that +12 contained hundreds of hours' worth of work, not only +13 legal work, but, as I said, factual investigatory work as +14 well. But it continued eyen after the lawsuit had been +15 filed as well. We didn't stop in case we found something +16 new, and ultimately we did find new things out in this +17 case, which I can add later, but there were new +18 revelations that had occurred. +19 +Q. Y And the initial complaint was filed in...? +20 +A. The end of November of 2019. +21y +Q. What legal research was done before filing +22 the initial complaint? And that was for the statutory +23 count under 905.27. +24 +A. Sure. The way we divided the work between +25 myself primarily and Ms. Boyajian was that we would +Page 108 + + +1 handle the First Amendment issues in the case. So the +2 U.S. Supreme Court cases involving the rights of the +3 media to be the public surrogate or be the public +4 mouthpiece and to obtain and participate in all facets of +5 criminal proceedings, she helped me and provided that -- +6 I was aware of all of that, but she certainly had a +7 greater in-depth knowledge than I did. I was tasked with +8 the responsibility of fleshing out Section 905.27 of the +Os +9 Florida statutes primarily. +10 Q. What did you personally research to flesh +11 out Florida Statute 905.27? +12 A. I read every word of Chapter 905. I looked +13 at Law Review articles. I remember one from Catholic +14 University, Valparaiso and others about the grand jury +15 process, grand jury secrecy, both federal cases and state +16 cases. I found every reported case under 905.27, which +17 particularly dealt with the issues that we were +18 discussing before and that Mr. Aronberg testified about, +19 and that went back to even the predecessor statute to +20 905.27, which is into the 1920s. And I tried to find +21 legislative history on the statute, but there wasn't any. +22 +So l amassed 50, 60 cases under the statute +23 going back from the '20s, '30s, '40s, '50s, '60s, et +24 +cetera, under 905.27. I read all of them. +25 +Q. It sounds like a great deal of research, +Page 109 + + +1 but did you engage in any other research before filing +2 the initial complaint? +3 +A. Well, federal as well, not only under the +4 state, but I wanted to see, you know, who to sue, to be +5 honest with you, in this case. We had a debate amongst +6 ourselves as to who the proper defendants were going to +7 be, and my principal responsibility was determining under +8 Florida law who that would be. +9 +So I had extensive experience as an +10 assistant attorney general on suing, at least in +11 defending state officials in not only 1983 cases, but +12 many other type of cases where state officials are sued +13 in their official capacity. So this was certainly +14 nothing new to me. +15 +I probably handled 3, 400 cases like that, +16 all on the defense side. So I was very familiar with +17 arguments of who was the proper party and the role of a +18 state official in litigation. +19 +So what did I do? I went to see whether +20 there were other 905 cases, Chapter 905 cases where state +21 ›officials had been sued, and in particular I found two +22 cases. One was a state case and one was a federal case. +23 The state case was James vs. Wille and, coincidently, +24 actually involved the predecessor to Barry Krischer, and +25 that case involved the beating of an inmate at the Palm +Page 110 + + +1 Beach County Jail out by Belle Glade, and that individual +2 sought grand jury testimony, and the state attorney was +3 named as a party in the case and, in fact, participated +4 in the case as to whether or not grand jury secrecy under +5 the statute -- you know, the extent of it and made legal +6 arguments opposing such. +7 +Q. So we're talking about some of the cases +8 you relied upon -- +9 +A. Yes. +10 +Q. -- in determining that the state attorney +11 was a necessary party defendant, and I wanted to pull up +12 - you mentioned James vs. -- Was it the James vs. Wille +13 +case? +14 +A. Yeah, James vS. Wille, correct. +15 +Q. And that's Exhibit 36. Can you just let me +16 know if Exhibit 36 is the case you were talking about? +17 +A. Yep, that's the case. +18 +Q. And were there any other cases you relied +19 upon specifically with regard to the state attorney +20 necessarily being a party? +21y +A. Yes. An 11th Circuit case called In re +22 Grand Jury. It's a Federal 11th Circuit Court of Appeals +23 case. +24 +25 +Page 111 +MS. WHETSTONE: And that's in Your Honor's +binder, the Authorities binder at tab 11. We'll + + +1 +pull that up. +2 BY MS. WHETSTONE: +3 +4 +5 +Q. Is that the In re Grand Jury case? +A. Yes, that's the case. +Q. So what were the three -- what were the +6 reasons the state attorney was named a defendant? +A. Well, this case particularly, the state +Page 112 +9 It's a little complicated facts, but essentially there +10 was a federal grand jury that issued a subpoena to the +11 Broward County State Attorney seeking state attorney +12 grand jury materials for a particular investigation, and +13 the Broward County attorney, as you can see here, +14 participated in this case and objected to the release of +15 such under 905.27.. +16 +And I was particularly interested in the +17 language from this case which said that the state +18 attorney's role was an essential one because his or her +19 role was to protect the grand jury process, which +20 included grand jury secrecy. +21y +So, based upon the James vs. Wille case and +22 this case and my background in defending state officials, +23 I felt that the state attorney here in his official +24 capacity was a necessary party because someone had to +25 advocate one way or the other for grand jury secrecy if + + +1 the state attorney decided that's what he wanted to do. +2 But, if we didn't name the state attorney, we were +3 denying that state official and that office the right to +4 object under secrecy laws. +5 +So the purpose was to allow the state +6 attorney, if he chose to do so, to object to the +7 disclosure under 905.27 and to advocate for the state +Page 113 +9 was named. +10 +Q. Were there other reasons? +11 +A. Well, we weren't sure what the state +12 attorney's office had. We knew that at one point the +13 state attorney's office had grand jury materials because +14 that's -- under Mr. Krischer that's what had occurred. +15 He presented this to the grand jury. So we weren't +16 completely sure who had what. +17 +So we also believed, and I still believe, +18 that the statute does not prohibit the state attorney +19 from requesting the state attorney to look at grand jury +20 materials, not disclose it to the public, but merely to +21y disclose it to the state attorney if the state attorney +22 wanted to look at it. +23 +So we were hopeful that, if the state +24 attorney was interested in looking at these materials, +25 that he would say that he had the right to look at them + + +1 under 905.27 and then, if so, ask the Court for an +2 in-camera review before release to the public. +3 +So those are the three issues we were +4 concerned with. +5 +Q. Did Greenberg Traurig conclude that the +6 state attorney was a necessary party to this case +7 regardless of whether it had possession of the grand jury +8 materials? +A. Yes. +10 +Q. And was that conclusion a yes?, +11 +A. Yes, it was. +12 +Q. +So, after the complaint the initial +13 complaint was filed in November of 2019, were discussions +14 had with the state attorney's counsel and the counsel for +15 the clerk? +16 +A. Yes. +17 +Q. +What were those discussions? +18 +A. +Well, we had discussions about the case, +19 particularly where this is going, did they have +20 objections and, if so, under what basis did they have +21 objections. +22 +Q. After the complaint -- the initial +23 complaint was filed, what position did the state attorney +24 take in the case? +25 +A. Took two -- Took two positions. He filed +Page 114 + + +an answer, and that answer contained a motion to dismiss. +2 +Q. Backing up. Sorry. After the initial +3 complaint was filed, what was the -- what was the +4 position taken by the state attorney to the initial +5 complaint, just the Count 2? +6 +A. Okay. +7 +Q. Sorry, just Count 1. +8 +A. His position was that grand jury secrecy +9 was preeminent under 905.27, and that statute barred the +MOPY +10 release of the materials. He also argued that the +11 statute was only operative where there was a pending +12 civil case and a pending criminal case, and since the +13 Epstein case was not pending civilly involving the Post, +14 or the criminal case, there was no criminal case in Palm +15 Beach County, we didn't have any position or standing +16 under the statute to seek the materials on behalf of the +17 Palm Beach Post. +18 +Did the state attorney file a motion to +19 dismiss the initial complaint? +20 +A. Yes. +21Y +Q. What was your reaction to that? +22 +A. Well, I was hopeful that they wouldn't +23 object or seek to dismiss it, but I understood that they +24 had a statutory obligation to protect grand jury secrecy, +25 so | didn't take it personally or anything like that. I +Page 115 + + +1 understood the role that they were playing because that +2 was the role we gave them the opportunity to play in this +3 case. So I was neither surprised, nor upset that they +4 played that role, because that's the opportunity we gave +5 them. +6 +Q. Did the clerk file a motion to dismiss the +7 initial complaint as well? +8 +A. Yes. +9 +Q. After the state attorney filed his motion +10 to dismiss the initial complaint, what did the Post do in +11 response? +12 +A. After the initial -- Well, we filed an +13 amendment to the -- to the complaint. +14 +Q. Did you take a look at whether there were +15 other causes of action you could assert? +16 +A. Yes. +We decided to develop the First +17 Amendment issue in more depth and argue that the Post had +18 rights under the First Amendment, as well as the statute, +19 in conjunction with the statute to obtain the materials, +20 as well as an argument that I had developed which was +21 that the Court has inherent authority as the ultimate +22 supervisor of the grand jury system under the Florida +23 Constitution to prevent abuse of the grand jury system, +24 and we felt that the Court had such authority. That was +25 the Clayton case that I was relying on. +Page 116 + + +1 +Q. We're going to pull up Exhibit 9, which is +2 the amended complaint in this matter. +3 +5 +Could you confirm to me that's the first +4 amended complaint? +A. Yes, I see that. That's on the board here. +6 Yes, it's in front of me as well. +Q. And we'll turn to it, but the state +Page 117 +9 which was the count for declaratory judgment; is that +10 correct? +11 +A. That is correct. They moved to - Yes, +12 they moved to dismiss Count 2, the purely statutory +13 claim, and they answered the declaratory judgment which +14 was the mixture of First Amendment, statute, inherent +15 authority of the Court. +16 +Q. What do you recall about reviewing the +17 answer to the first amended complaint for declaratory +18 relief? +19 +A. Y Well, they continued to oppose the release +20 ofthe materials under 905.27 asserting grand jury +21 › secrecy and asserting that we didn't have a claim under +22 the statute. I did note that they admitted in +23 paragraph 72 that the case was brought in good faith, and +24 that's particularly the declaratory judgment one. That +25 stood out to me. + + +1 +Q. We'll pull that up. I think we've seen it +2 a couple times. We'll pull it up. +3 +Please let me know if this comparison of +4 Exhibit 9 and Exhibit 10 is the paragraph you're talking +5 about. +6 +A. Right, right, yes, that they refused to +7 provide access. That's through their objection to the +8 clerk to testimony, minutes and other evidence. Again, +Op +9 this was not just simply transcripts. It was much +10 broader than that. And that a good faith dispute exists, +11 and they admitted all of that. +12 +Q. Did Count 1 for declaratory relief seek to +13 force the state attorney to produce documents that he did +14 not have? +15 +A. No. +16 +Q. Did the state attorney's position that his +17 office did not have possession or custody of the grand +18 jury materials end the need for his office to be a party +19 to the declaratory relief claim? +20 +A. +No, and really the proof of that is what +21 actually occurred, which is they moved forward with their +22 motion to dismiss and ultimately a motion for summary +23 judgment. +24 +Page 118 +So they opposed the release of the +25 materials, as was their right, under the statute + + +1 asserting grand jury secrecy. So it actually proved why +2 we put them in the case, which is to give them the +3 opportunity on behalf of the office officially to assert +4 grand jury secrecy, which is what they did. So, in +5 effect, it worked. They took advantage of the +6 opportunity and asserted that we were not entitled to it +7 under the statute's grand jury secrecy provisions. +8 +9 Marx enter an order on the motion to dismiss Count 2 +10 under Florida Statute 905.27? +A. She did. +12 +Q. And what was -- what was the ruling? +13 +A. She determined that the Post lacked -- +14 well, that the statute did not create a private right of +15 action, that it was limited to those who were seeking the +16 materials in the pending civil case and a pending +17 criminal case, so she did it on a very narrow ground. +18 +That order -- sorry. +19 +A. +Y Go right ahead. +20 +Q. Mr. Mendelsohn, go ahead. +21y +Okay, that order did not address the +22 declaratory judgment claim in Count 1, did it? +23 +A. No. +24 +Q. When did the state attorney send its +25 initial what he calls place-marker 57.105 demand letter +Page 119 + + +and motion for fees? +2 +A. +Within hours of the order from Judge Marx +3 was issued, I believe, on June 8, 2020. +4 +Q. And at that point why was the state +5 attorney kept in the case? +6 +A. Well, they were still objecting to +7 disclosure under Count 2, under the declaratory judgment. +8 They were still asserting that grand jury secrecy and the +9 statute could not be overcome by the First Amendment or +10 by the Court's inherent authority, and that the Court's +11 inherent authority was limited by the statute, which we +12 obviously thought was sort of the other way, that the +13 statute or the legislature could not inhibit the Court's +14 inherent authority because the judiciary had its rights +15 and the legislature had its rights. So that issue still +16 remained. +17 +Q. Did you write to the state attorney's +18 counsel and lay out the Post's reasons for continuing to +19 include thé state attorney in the case? +20 +A. Yes. That's my letter of June 23rd, 2020. +21y +Q. And we'll go ahead and pull that up. +22 That's Exhibit 16. +23 +Is that the letter that you're referring +24 to? +25 +A. Yes. +Page 120 + + +1 +Q. And your letter set forth the reasons why +2 the state attorney was named as a party in the case -- +3 +4 +5 +6 +9 +10 letter. +11 +A. Yes. +Q. - and continued to be named? +A. Yes. +Q. Did the state attorney's office ever +7 address the second reason for keeping the state attorney +8 in the case in response to this letter? +A. I never received a written response to this +Q. And that second reason was that he was the +12 -- that the state attorney's office was an official +13 tasked with protecting grand jury secrecy? +A. Correct. +15 +Q. And, in your letter, did you cite a case to +16 the state attorney? +17 +A. Yes. +I cited to In re Grand Jury +18 Proceedings, the 11th Circuit case. +19 +Q. Y Did you have discussions with the state +20 attorney's counsel after this point, after writing this +21 Yetter? +22 +A. Yes, with Mr. Wyler. +23 +Q. And what were they? +A. What are we going to do about this case +25 essentially. Is the state attorney going to oppose us? +Page 121 +1 + + +1 Is he continuing to oppose us? Because I never received +2 a response to my June 23rd letter, and I wanted it to be +3 understood that we honestly believed that the state +4 attorney had a necessary role to play in their official +5 capacity. We were hopeful that they would take a neutral +6 position, but they remained adamant that they had to +7 protect grand jury secrecy under the statute, which we +8 respected. +9 +Q. And I don't want to know the substance of +10 settlement discussions, if there were any, but did +11 settlement discussions go on with the state attorney's +12 counsel after the June 23rd letter? +13 +A. Yes. Yes, they did. +14 +Q. And is that indicated on the timeline here +15 of June, June 8th, 2020, to October 15th, 2020? +16 +A. Yes. With Mr. Wyler, yes. +17 +Q. Mr. Wyler. +18 +A. Hewas a very nice man on the phone. We +19 had very good conversations, very professional. +20 +Q. The state attorney filed his motion for +21y fees on July 1st, 2020; is that correct? +22 +A. Yes. +23 +Q. And is this the state attorney's first +24 motion for fees that was filed on July 1st, 2020? +25 +A. It is. +Page 122 + + +1 +Q. Did the initial 57.105 motion as filed set +2 forth any of the grounds for the motion? +3 +A. No, it didn't. It just said that they were +4 entitled to 57.105. +5 +Q. So, after this point, did you -- did the +6 Post and Greenberg seek discovery from the clerk? +7 +A. Yes. +8 +Q. And this was in the litigation? +9 +A. Yes. +10 +Q. What discovery did you seek from the clerk? += +A. We wanted to know whether or not any -- +12 well, first, whether the state attorney under +13 Mr. Krischer had asked for any of the materials that the +14 clerk had had, and, also, whether the FBI and U.S. +15 Attorney's Office had asked the clerk to provide such +16 materials. And the clerk indicated to us in response to +17 a request that the clerk's office had done so, though +18 they were vague as to why and when. +19 +Q. Y And what -- did you serve +20 interrogatories - +21y +A. Yes. +22 +Q. - and document - +23 +A. Requests, yes. We wanted to see a log of +24 the materials in the grand jury sealed -- that the clerk +25 had sealed. We hoped that there was a log indicating +Page 123 + + +1 what was in there, not really specifically what was in +2 there, but by category, whether it was a transcript, +3 whether there were exhibits and/or whether there were +4 affidavits or whether there were deposition transcripts. +5 Whatever there was in there, we wanted to understand. +6 +The clerk had responded that they don't +7 keep a log, so they couldn't tell us unless the seal was +8 broken what was in there. +9 +Q. In August of 2020, the state attorney's +10 office filed a motion for summary judgment, is that +11 correct? +12 +A. Yes. +Q. And Exhibit 19, please. Is this the state +14 attorney's motion for summary judgment that's on the +15 +screen? +A. Yes, it is. Yes. +17 +19 +20 +21Y +23 +25 +Q. And, in support of this motion for summary +18 judgment, did Mr. Aronberg file an affidavit in support? +A. Y He did. +MS. WHETSTONE: If you could go to 18, +please. +22 BY MS. WHETSTONE: +Q. And is 18 the State Attorney Dave +24 Aronberg's affidavit in support? +A. Itis. +Page 124 + + +1 +Q. At this point, after the affidavit had been +2 filed, had the state attorney responded to another one of +3 the reasons that he had been named as a necessary party +4 to the action? +5 +A. No. They focused exclusively on possession +6 rather than their position protecting the grand jury's +7 secrecy issue which they had advocated for. +8 +Q. So did the state attorney's affidavit and +9 motion tor summary judgment address In re Grand Jury +10 Proceedings or any of that -- any point in your letter +11 about his office being able to prevent the clerk from +12 releasing grand jury materials? +13 +A. No, they never responded to that. +14 +Q. Was there still a factual issue -- At this +15 time in August 2020, was there still a factual issue as +16 to whether the state attorney had physical possession of +17 copies of grand jury materials? +18 +A. Well, we knew at one point Mr. Krischer +19 obviously had to have had such. We also had -- We were +20 of the belief that there were communications, on very +21 › strong grounds, between Mr. Krischer's office and +22 Mr. Dershowitz and other defense counsel, as well as the +23 FBI and U.S. Attorney leading up to and including the +24 indictment, the non-prosecution agreement, as well as the +25 +sentencing report. +Page 125 + + +1 +We never received any such, and we knew +2 they were out there. Exactly who had them, where they +3 were, we weren't sure. We learned in hindsight that the +4 U.S. Attorney's Office had been provided with such by the +5 clerk's office. This is the Palm Beach County clerk's +6 office. +Page 126 +Q. So fast forwarding a bit to October 2nd, +8 2020, did Greenberg and the Post -- sorry -- did the Post +9 file a response to the state attorney's first +10 place-marker 57.105 motion? +11 +A. We did. +12 +Q. And if you could pull up Exhibit 20. +13 +A. Which one is this exhibit? +14 +Q. 20. +15 +A. That's what /thought. Okay. +16 +Q. Is this the Post's response, memorandum of +17 law of the plaintiff to the state attorney's -- +18 +That is correct. +19 +Q. +Y -- 57.105 sanction motion? +20 +A. +Yes. I drafted this, yes. +21y +Q. On page 8 -- +22 +MS. WHETSTONE: Gerard, do you mind going +23 +to page 8. +24 BY MS. WHETSTONE: +25 +Q. Did you again raise the state attorney's + + +1 ability to object to release of grand jury records? +2 +A +Yes. I cited to In re Grand Jury +3 Proceedings again. +4 +Q. If you look at the screen, is that on page +5 8? Is that where you cited to? +6 +A. Correct. +7 +Q. And at this point, the state attorney still +8 had not responded to this reason he was named as a party; +9 is that correct? +10 +A. Yes. +11 +Q. So then on October 14th, 2020, did the +12 state attorney file a reply to this response? +13 +A. Yes. +14 +MS. WHETSTONE: If could you pull up +15 + +16 BY MS. WHETSTONE: +17 +Q. Is this the state attorney's reply in +18 support of the first place-marker motion for fees? +19 +A. Y Yes, it's in response to their June 2020 +20 motion for fees. +21y +Q. So this is not a reply to the 57.105 motion +22 we're here on today, right? +23 +A. That's correct. +24 +Q. This is a reply to the original June +25 place-marker motion for fees, correct? +Page 127 + + +1 +A. Correct. What happened is the state +2 attorney never noticed the first motion they filed for +3 fees for a hearing, and they still haven't done that. So +4 it's never been noticed for hearing. +5 +There was a little dispute between myself +6 and Mr. Wyler as to whether or not the fee motion that he +7 had filed in June should be heard first or their motion +8 for summary judgment should be heard first, and there was +9 a case management conference before Judge Hafele, and +10 Judge Hafele decided that the state attorney could decide +11 the order of when that would occur. So not knowing when +12 - what hearing would go first, I filed a response to +13 their fee motion that they filed back in June, and that +14 was Exhibit 20, and then he responded in Exhibit 21. +15 +Q. And I'll call your attention to pages 1 +16 through 2 of Exhibit 21 and the state attorney's reply - +17 +A. +Yes. +18 +Q. +- and where it's highlighted on the +19 screen. +20 +A. Yep, I see that. +21y +Q. It says, "Nonetheless, the state attorney +22 has no objection and never has had any objection to the +23 clerk releasing the records sought by the plaintiff." +24 +Was this the first time the state attorney +25 -- the state attorney stated his office would not object +Page 128 + + +1 to the release of grand jury materials if ordered by the +2 Court? +3 +A. Yes. +4 +Q. So, after your reply -- sorry -- after your +5 response on October 2nd, then on October 14th, the state +6 attorney for the first time stated in a filing that he +7 had no objection to the production of Epstein grand jury +8 materials by the clerk? +A. That's accurate, yes. +10 +Q. Was this a change from the state attorney's +11 prior position about releasing grand jury materials? +12 +A. Absolutely. +13 +Q. How would you describe the change from the +14 initial - from his initial response to the initial +15 complaint to this reply? +16 +A. Initially they fulfilled why they were in +17 the case, which is they objected to the release of the +18 materials under 905.27, and now they were taking a +19 neutral position, and they were no longer advocating the +20 supremacy of 905.27 and its secrecy provisions as a bar +21 or prevention or preventive for the release of grand jury +22 materials. They were no longer taking that position. +23 They were no longer taking any position. +24 +Q. What was your reaction to this change? +25 +A. Well, I was pleased. +Page 129 + + +1 +Q. Did you send a letter -- a settlement +2 letter on October 15th in response to this October 14th +3 position in the reply? +4 +A. Yes. I did it pretty quickly after I saw +5 it. +6 +Q. The next day? +7 +A. The next day. Well, I started writing it +8 on the 14th, but, yes, we sent it on the next day. +9 +Q. Okay, and I'll pull up Exhibit 22. +10 +Is this your letter to Mr. Wyler with +11 regard to the reply? +12 +A. Yes. Since they had changed to a neutral +13 position, I didn't see a point in discussing whether or +14 not they should remain in the case, and that's what the +15 purpose of this was. +16 +Q. And in it you say you were pleased about +17 them changing - +18 +Yes, yes. In the second paragraph, I said +19 Iwas pleased to read that they - the state attorney's +20 clear and unequivocal statement in their response filed +21) yesterday that their office will not oppose the Post's +22 request for access to the Jeffrey Epstein grand jury +23 materials. I was pleased. +24 +Q. Once the state attorney's office said that +25 it would no longer object to release of the grand jury +Page 130 + + +1 materials by the clerk, what was +s and +2 the Post's response? +3 +A. We had a team meeting and ultimately +4 discussion with the Post as to whether or not the state +5 attorney should remain in the case. We had, for the +6 first time, Mr. Aronberg's affidavit. He had previously +7 stated that position, but for the first time in a +8 pleading or an affidavit filed in the case, he said he +9 clearly didn't have possession. And he's now taking a +10 neutral position. Because of the change in position that +11 this neutrality had now created, we had a very serious +12 discussion as to whether or not he should remain in the +13 case because, remember, one of the necessary party prongs +14 that I had mentioned previously was to give Mr. Aronberg +15 the opportunity as state attorney to voice either his +16 objection to the release or his neutrality or maybe his +17 support. +18 +Now he decided to change from opposition to +19 neutrality, and, since that was the case, we determined +20 ultimately to drop him from the case, that there was no +21y he had exercised his option and made a decision, and +22 we were happy that he had done so. +23 +Q. Was -- What date was the state attorney +24 dropped as a party to the action? +25 +A. It was in October. Was it October 21st? +Page 131 + + +1 +Q. We'll pull up Exhibit 23. +2 +4 +A. Okay, I've got it in front of me. It was +3 October 21st, 2020 +Q. And is this Exhibit 23 the notice of +5 dropping the state attorney as a party? +A. Correct. +Q. After this, 19 days after this, did the +Page 132 +9 57.105? +10 +A. He did. += +Q. Is that the motion we're here ontoday? +12 +A. Correct. That's the only one that the +13 state attorney has noticed for hearing. +14 +Q. We're pulling up Exhibit 25, and, once it's +15 up, I'd like you to confirm, is this the amended motion +16 for sanctions that we're here on today? +17 +A. Yes, +18 +Was this amended motion ever served on you +19 or the Post anytime before it was filed? +20 +A. +. No. +21y +Q. Does the amended motion set forth new and +22 different BCs for the motion for sanctions than compared +23 to the first what they call place-marker motion? +24 +A. Absolutely. +25 +Q. What were some of those new arguments? + + +1 +A. Well, ultimately the major new argument was +2 that he now had neutrality in the case. That was a +3 massive change in the position of the state attorney +4 which was not the situation back when they first made +5 their place-holder motion, and this is the words they +6 used back in June. This was a sea change as far as we +7 were concerned in the status of the case. +Q. And you told the state attorney that was +9 the basis for its joinder back in the beginning of the +10 case? +11 +A. As a necessary party, yes. And, since they +12 were no longer advocating secrecy and now had adopted +13 neutrality, that's why we dropped them from the case. +14 +Q. And I'll move to what think is going to +15 be my last exhibit, the final judgment, which is +16 Exhibit 30. +17 +A. Yes. +18 +Q. Did the Post -- So did the Post file a +19 motion for summary judgment against the clerk -- +20 +A. Yes. +21Y +Q. - as to the declaratory relief claim? +22 +A. Yes. They were the remaining party in the +23 case. +24 +Page 133 +Q. And Judge Hafele heard argument on that +25 motion for summary judgment? + + +1 +A. He heard it for about two and a half hours, +2 yes. +3 +Q. And was this the same declaratory judgment +4 count that had been asserted against the state attorney +5 that had been dismissed against him after he said he had +6 no objection to the clerk releasing documents? +It was Count 1. That was the same count +that we had at to sad atone and head Pl +9 that had been dropped against the state attorney at the +10 time I argued the motion for summary judgment in front of +11 Judge Hafele in September of 2020 or August of 2020. +12 +Q. And Judge Hafele entered an order on a +13 motion for summary judgment which became this final +14 judgment; is that right? +15 +A. Correct. +16 +Q. And going through it, on page 5, the Court +17 noted that the Post's position was -- Well, I'll ask you, +18 what was the Court's reaction in the final judgment to +19 +the presentations given by the Post? +20 +A +Ultimately Judge Hafele determined that his +21 hands were -- while he recognized that the Court had +22 inherent authority and that inherent authority covered +23 the supervision of prosecutorial abuse of the grand jury +24 +• process, he felt constrained by the statute, which was +25 +905.27. So he felt ultimately that he could not exercise +Page 134 + + +1 inherent authority because of the limitations that he +2 thought 905.27 contained, though, without sounding too +3 egotistical, he was very effusive to the work that +4 Greenberg Traurig had done, as well as the work done by +5 the clerk's counsel. +6 +Q. So l'll draw attention to page 7. It says, +7 "The newspaper makes strong arguments to advance its more +8 expansive construction of Section 905" -. +9 +A. Right. +10 +Q. - "27 as part of furthering justice" And +11 then page 11, it says, "The Court acknowledges the +12 newspaper's vibrant and sincere arguments." +13 +Was that - Was that comment with regard to +14 Count 1? +15 +A. Yes. +16 +Q. And that's the count we're here on today? +17 +A. Correct. That matter is on appeal. The +18 +• final judgment is on appeal. +19 +Q. Thank you. That was my next question. +20 +A. +Okay. +21y +Q. Okay. Okay, one last question -- sorry - +22 two. +23 +Did you have any discussions with the +24 editorial side of the Post having anything to do with the +25 decision to sue the state attorney? +Page 135 + + +1 +A. None. There was a firewall between the +2 legal arguments we were making here and whatever the Post +3 was writing both editorially and factually. I had +4 absolutely no conversations with the Post, nor did any +5 member of my team as to what they were going to write. +6 It's not my role to tell the paper what it wants to, or +7 not, write or not write, so the legal positions that we +Page 136 +9 as Greenberg Traurig and the paper came to the conclusion +10 of based upon the facts and the law. +11 +As to what the Post may have wanted to +12 write or did write, I have zero input into that, nor did +13 Mr. Grygiel, nor did Ms. Boyajian. I didn't even know +14 what was going to be printed untif I read it in the +15 paper, so I did not know one word they were going to put +16 in the paper. +17 +Q. Last question. Did suing the state +18 attorney in this case have anything to do with a personal +19 vendetta against the state attorney? +20 +A. Well, I voted for Mr. Aronberg. No. +21Y +Q. Sono? +22 +A. We have a mutual friend. So I have no +23 animus against him at all. I'm not happy he has me +24 sitting up here, to be honest with you, but, you know, I +25 understand why he has me up here. I get that. He's not + + +1 happy being associated with Mr. Epstein. The man was +2 reprobate. He was one of the lowest forms of humanity. +3 So even having my name in an article, even if I'm not +4 accused of something, I can understand why he's not happy +5 about it. +6 +Page 137 +But I don't - we didn't do this out of +7 animus or lack of preparation. This was a sober decision +9 that he feels personally offended by this, but we took +10 great pains to make sure that there were no allegations +11 in the amended complaint and the complaint accusing him +12 of anything or of any wrongdoing of any kind because +13 that's just not the case that we have in front of us. +14 +MS. WHETSTONE: Thank you, Mr. Mendelsohn. +15 +Sorry, we went a little long. +16 +THE COURT: No, it's okay. +17 +Are you going to finish in the next 10 +18 +minutes? +19 +MR. WYLER: No, Your Honor. That's +20 +impossible for me. +21y +THE COURT: So then we're not going to get +22 +started. +MR. WYLER: I don't think it would be +worthwhile for me to start and then stop in 10 +25 +minutes. It's going to take me at least + + +30 minutes, probably more like 45. +2 +THE COURT: Okay, so, you know, from Amelia +3 Island to here is five hours? +4 +MR. WYLER: Yes, sir. +5 +THE COURT: You're almost in Georgia. +6 +MR. WYLER: Exactly. Your Honor, I will be +7 here whenever you need me to be here. I'Il make +8 it happen. +9 +THE COURT: Thursday or Friday? +10 +MR. WYLER: Honestly -- +11 +THE COURT: How about Thursday? +12 +MR. WYLER: - how about Thursday? Yeah, +13 +Thursday would be better. +14 +THE COURT: +,, all right, we'll come +15 back in Thursday +16 +MR. MENDELSOHN: In the afternoon, Your +17 Honor? +18 +THE COURT: Come back Thursday, probably +19 1:00 p.m. Give me one minute. +20 +(Brief interruption.) +21Y +THE COURT: All right, so the only thing +22 left is cross examination, redirect, and then are +23 the parties going to write closing arguments? +24 +MS. WHETSTONE: If Your Honor would prefer +25 it, we'd be fine with that. +Page 138 + + +1 +THE COURT: I prefer closing arguments that +2 are written. I think things are more coherent. +3 You know, I think the logic is tighter. If the +4 parties don't mind writing closing arguments, I +5 would prefer that. +Okay, do you want to bring your closing +7 argument? I mean, I can anticipate you probably +8 know what you're going to argue. +9 +MS. WHETSTONE: If we could finish the +10 direct -- the redirect and just make suré we have +11 the testimony, that we will have the transcript +12 and add it into the closings or make sure that we +13 +have - What do you think? +14 +MR. WYLER: Your Honor, it's going to be +15 really hard for me to drive back, and then hand +16 write it and then drive back down here again. +17 +THE COURT: Why don't we do this: Cross +18 examination, redirect. You'll give me a closing +19 +argument, and you can supplement your closing +20 arguments in writing. If I need to have an +21y additional hearing, we can do that via Zoom since +22 the evidence and presentation will have concluded. +23 +MS. WHETSTONE: Sounds good. +24 +THE COURT: Sound good? +25 +MR. WYLER: Sounds good, yes. +Page 139 + + +1 +3 +THE COURT: All right, so we'll come back +2 Thursday, 1:00 p.m. +THE WITNESS: Am I excused, Your Honor, +4 from the stand? +5 +6 +7 +10 +THE COURT: Yes. +THE WITNESS: Thank you. +THE COURT: I know we have guests. You +8 know, the Wall Street Journal will write +9 reprobate. It's a big word. It's a big word. +All right, anything else? +CÓP +11 +Have a great day, everybody. We're in +12 +recess. +13 +14 +(The hearing adjourned at 4.53 p.m.) +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +OT A +21Y +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 140 + + +entember 06, 202 +1 +COURT CERTIFICATE +2 +3 STATE OF FLORIDA +4 COUNTY OF PALM BEACH +5 +6 +7 +1, Lisa Begley, RPR, RMR, certify that I +8 +9 +10 +the foregoing proceedings and that the transcript +is a true and complete record of my stenographic +notes. +Page 141 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +'OT +21, +22 +23 +24 +25 +Dated this 12th day of September, 2022. +Lisa Begley, RPR, RMR + + +( +(1) +13:23 19:21 +28:3 +(1) (b) +19:23 20:15 +(2) +19:21 +(4) '8 +26:14 +(a) +19:22 +1 +1 +10:1 12:13 +14:20 16:22 +34: 22,23 +37:14 40:2,4 +68:5,7,16,18 +75:19,22 +83:5,15 +95:19,21 96:2 +103:11,13,18 +105:22 107:24 +115:7 117:8 +118:12 119:22 +128-15 134:7 +135:14 +10:23 33:1 +47:14 77:10 +95:11 118:4 +137:17,24 +103 +47:16 +11 +11:5 29:13 +51: 9 101:2,5 +111:25 135:11 +118 +46:11 +119 +82:16 95:1 +119.07 +14:19 +11th +85:3 111:21, +22 121:18 +12 +11:5,9 49:8 +58:19 +120 +15:18 +1353 +9:9,13,20 +12:12 +1374 +12:1 +14 +27:11 +- 28:14, +16 29:11 +91:17 +14th +31:4 38:5 +45:1 91:5 +127:11 129:5 +130:2, 8 +15th +48: 2 55:14,25 +122:15 130:2 +16 +11:9 36:16 +79:16 80:8 +120:22 +17 +10:5 11:25 +12:5 45:2 +91:18 92:2 +17th +70:17 +18 +9:25 10:17 +31:22 124:20, +23 +19 +10:5 26:2 +75:21 124:13 +132:7 +1920g +109:29 +193 +8/1 +1980 +99:6 +1983 +99:8 100:15 +110:11 +1: 00 +138:19 140:2 +1:42 +4:2 +1st +122:21,24 +2 +2 +5: 7 22:5 25:7 +37:13 39:25 +40:1,21 +74:23,24 +103:25 115:5 +117:12 119:9 +1 +120:7 128:16 +2.42 +19:4 +20 +30:1 38:1 +94: 4 99:12,16 +126:12,14 +128:14 +2005 +33:22 +2006 +23:21 29:1 +33:6,24 35:15 +54:14 55:20 +72: 7 76:5 +78:5 102:10 +2006-CF-9454 +19:10 +2012 +44:2 50:3 +2013 +15:19 50:2,4 +55:15 +2016 +8:2 +2019 +5:25 6:5 +26:10 34:6,16 +45: 1 68:18 +69:19 70:13, +24,25 73:15 +76:5 101:22, +25 103:19 +105:8 108:10, +20 114:13 +2020 +5:2, 3 8:17 +16:18,22,24, +25 25:25 + + +26:2,25 29:23 +30:19 36:16 +37:20 38:6 +44:5 45:2 +57:12 79:2,10 +80:14,15 +84:22 86:22 +88:1,12,15, +17,19 89:16, +18 91:5 92:5 +119:8 120:3, +20 122:15,21, +24 124:9 +125:15 126:8 +127:11,19 +132 :3 134:11 +20s +109:23 +20th +91:21 +21 +10:23 16:24 +26:16 54:2 +87:19,23 +91:16 93:10, +11,18 127:15 +128:14,16 +21-day +15:5,15/25 +17:2, 11 +27:10,23,17, +18,22 31:12 +53:18 54:18 +62:5 92:10, +11,25 +21st +16:19 26:2 +31:6 57:12 +91:23 131:25 +132 :3 +22 +130:9 +222 +47:24 +23 +12:5 132:1,4 +235 +54:7 +23 rd +30:19 36:16, +20 38:4 80:15 +86 : 21 120:20 +122:2,12 +24 (a) +14:20 +25 +28:14 29:8 +30:5 94:4 +132:14 +26 +26:8 +268 +TI +5:24 +27 +68:18 103:19 +135:10 +276 +26:9 +27th +70:16 103:14 +104:21 +29 +9:11 +2nd +37:19 126:7 +129:5 +3 +3 +9:25 103:25 +110:15 +30 +40:25 133:16 +138:1 +30g +109:23 +30th +49:6,7 +36 +111:15,1 +37 +69: 17,21 +70:4,13 83:5, +16 95:20,22 +96:2 105:4 +38 +39:1 +3:39 +95:12 +3:57 +95:13 +3rd +8:17 51:19 +53:13 +4 +9:25 10:8 +400 +110:15 +40g +109:23 +42 +2 +100:14 +45 +138:1 +4:53 +140:13 +5 +10:5 42:21 +44:10,15 +95:11 96:23, +24 97:3 +134:16 +50 +78:7 109:22 +50g +109:23 +57 +6:9 +57.103 (a) +20:8 +57.105 +5:2,8,11,16 +6:6,10,13 8:5 +15:2,22,23 +16:5,7,9,10, +13 17:6 21:16 +22:7,8,11,21 +23:3 25:3 +26:13 27:1,8, +23 28:3,6,7 +32:2,10 38:13 +39:8 41:20 +42:23,24,25 +53:17,22 +54:10,19 +64: 11 79:19, +23 84:22 86:2 +87:25 90:18 + + +93:14 94:15 +101:2,4 +119:25 123:1, +$ 126:10,19 +127:21 132:9 +57.105 (1) (a) +5:17 8:11 +22:22 +57.105 (1) (b) +5:20 13:10 +20:9 22:24 +57.105 (3) (a) +19:17,20 +22:10 42:5 +59 +29:12 +5:00 +96:17 +6 +6 +11:25 28:1 +47:14 71:20 +60 +109:22 +60s +109:23 +7 +75:25 135:6 +71 +76:20 77:4, +10,12,13,14, +19 +72 +77:23,24 78:2 +117:23 +73 +15:19 +762 +5:24 6:4 +8 +8 +10:8,11,17 +120:3 126:21, +23 127:5 +8th +5:3 26:25 +54: 1 119:8 +122:15 +9 +9 +32:24 44:4 +105: 8 117:1 +118:4 +90 +58:9 +905 +109:12 110:20 +135:8 +905.17 +14:13 +905.17 (1) +56:19 +905. 21 (1) (c) +55:17 +905.27 +5:13 13:19 +14:24 21:16 +25: 8 40:7 +108:23 109:8, +11,16,20,24 +112:15 113:7 +114:1 115:9 +117:20 119:10 +129:18,20 +134: 25 135:2 +905.27 (1) +33: 9 76:3 +78:7 +905.27 (1) 06 +76:7 +987 +26:9 +997 +8: 1 +9th +5 1 16:18,25 +26:20/70:13 +A +• ability +21:19 35:25 +53:6 127:1 +above-captioned +55:16 +above-described +55:23 +absolutely +9:8 11:18 +31:19 66:9,10 +92:24 129:12 +132:24 136:4 +abuse +116:23 134:23 +abused +108:7 +accepting +63:6 +access +8: 15 20:21 +3 +23:18 33:4 +35:8 36:1 +48:17 49:16 +50: 5 55:18 +56:14,17 +76:3, 6 78:4, +14 118:7 +130:22 +accessed +49:23 +accompanied +53:23 +accompanying +55:2 +accounts +56:11 +accurate +60:15 129:9 +accuse +66:22 +accused +67:15 137:4 +accusing +67:3 137:11 +achieve +50:8 +acknowledge +66:24 83:19 +acknowledged +51:3,7 67:2 +acknowledges +135:11 +acolytes +58:23 +Acosta +102:12,16,22 +104:17 + + +acted +33:17 +action +5:10 6:22 +10:25 22:5 +38:22 40:23 +44:8 46:1 +47:21 48:5,9 +53:4,14 55:23 +56:24 74:15 +100:23 116:15 +119:15 125:4 +131:24 +actual +9:24 22:13 +adamant +122:6 +add +108:17 139:12 +addition +33:15 35:3 +40:24 50:10, +14 90:21 +106:23 +additional +16:13 106:1 +139:21 +address +21:22 (9:4 +86:A 88:15 +89:18 119:21 +12) 7 125:9 +addressed +35:24 +adjourned +140:13 +administration +6: 8 19:3 +56:16 +81:14 +82:3 +administrations +50:1 +admission +33:13 +admit +62:3 77:12 +78:15 +admits +48:7 +admitted +14: 9 32:17,21 +33:12 78:11 +96:2 117:22 +118:11 +admittedly +21:4 +admitting +37:14 78:12 +13 93:6 +adopted +133:12 136:8 +advance +1351 +advantage +119:5 +advocate +112:25 113:7 +advocated +125:7 +advocating +129:19 133:12 +affidavit +18:10,11 +29:22 55:3,5, +7 57:3 +124:18,24 +125:1,8 +131:6,8 +affidavits +18:10 107:5 +124:4 +affirm +43:11 98:8 +affirmative +39:18 +afforded +14:2 +after-the-fact +86:25 +afternoon +4: 7,13 43022, +25 63:19 +97:2,4,11 +98 20 138:16 +agenda +62:13,16 +agenda-driven +62:24 +agree +10: 6 66:4 +67:17 79:7 +81:24 +agreed +26:21 95:17 +97:15 +agreement +42:17 44:17 +95:24 102:15 +103:3 106:6 +125:24 +aha +90:13 +ahead +9:21 93:4 +119:19,20 +4 +120:21 +aimed +27:19 +Alan +104:3 +Albany +101:13 105:6 +Alex +102:22 104:17 +Alex +102:12 +allegation +28:5 46:14 +allegations +47:18,25 76:1 +137:10 +allege +10:14 45:24 +allowed +77:18 93:9 +103:3 +allowing +55:18 +aloud +55:9 +alternative +18:3 +amassed +109:22 +Amelia +97:17 138:2 +amended +4:4, 25 15:10, +13,21 16:12, +14,16,24 +17:18,24 18:7 +25:21,25 +26:12,18,22 + + +Sedge Ler De 2022 +27:9,16 28:9, +12 29:9,11, +15,18,24 30:1 +31:8,11,14 +32:25 43:4 +44: 4 45:1 +46: 8 57:5 +74:13,14 75:3 +92:3,8,16 +94: 6 117:2,4, +8, 17 132:8, +15,18,21 +137:11 +amendment +25:11 34:11 +40:6 42:8 +74:16 100:7, +17,18 106:24, +25 107:2 +109:1 116:13, +17,18 117:14 +120: 9 +Amendments +100:19 +amount +107:12 +amounts +6:19 +ancillary +107:23 +and/or +124: +anew +27:10 +Angeles +106:23 +animus +136:23 +137:7 +announce +4: 6 +anticipate +139:7 +Antonacci +48:21 +anytime +132:19 +apologize +16:20,22 +69:18 70:5 +apparently +53:8 +appeal +41:18 135:17, +18 +Appeals +111:22 +appearances +4: 6 +appears +60:9 +appellate +100: 8)' +applicable +28:4 +application +5:21 7:4 +22:25 +applied +20:2,11,12 +31:21 +applies +14:14 20:8,19 +apply +19:17 27:23 +28:8 +approach +4: 21 23:7 +68:8 +appropriately +15:8 +approximately +99:12 101:20 +arguable +13:6 +argue +21: 6 27:14 +33:14 47:3,5 +72:24 73:1 +91:2 93:23 +116:17 139:8 +argued +115:10 134:10 +arguendo +11:25 +arguing +88:13 92:21 +argument +13:10,20 14:6 +15:12,22 +18:14 19:25 +20:7,16,19 +21:8 25:18 +31:8 42:3 +47:1,2 60:10, +12 78:18 +86:18 88:18 +89:2,21 +93:21,22 +94:1,12,13 +97: 3 116:20 +133:1,24 +139:7,19 +arguments +14:25 18:6 +22:17 27:9 +28:10 29:16, +5 +19 31:8 36:23 +41:10 46:23 +74: 19 85:19 +92:3,23 97:8, +23 110:17 +111:6 +132:25 +135:7,12 +136:2 138:23 +139:1,4,20 +Aronberg +4:15,16,17 +7: 17 9:17 +10:15,20 +13:3,8,15,17 +15:3, 9 16:19, +23 17:10,16 +18:15,19 +19:10 20:20 +23:4 28:24 +42:13 43:9, +17,22 44:1,20 +46:13 47:19 +48:1,4,11 +49:15 51:8,25 +52:9,20 54:9 +55:13 63:19 +65:16,20 +66:12 68:12 +73:10 88:20, +21 91:4 94:23 +95:5 103:20 +105:8 109:18 +124:18 131:14 +136:20 +Aronberg's +4:25 8:12 +13:11 22:7,10 +29:22 87:24 +124:24 131:6 +Aronson +88:19 +EFTA02734800R + +arose +42:19 +arrest +33:21 102:22 +arrested +102:5 +article +14:20 59:1,2 +137:3 +articles +48:15,25 +58:20 61:1,2, +3,25 62:2,4 +73:4 109:13 +articulately +79:13 +asks +76:12 +assembled +106:8 107:4 +assert +54:13 116:15 +119:3 +asserted +5: 9 74:14 +119:6 134:4 +asserting +117:20,21 + +asgertion +47:13 +assistant +99:22 110:10 +associates +14:1 +assume +54: 4 69:7 +93:4 +assuming +11:25 80:23 +attached +54:5 +attacked +58:19 +attacking +61:2 +attacks +58:24 +attempt +26:25 +attention +65:2 128:15 +135:6 +attorney +4:16 6:21,24 +7:24 10:6,9 +13,16,19,25 +11:13,16,24 +12:9 +19:14 +23:21 +24:20 +25:22,24 +26617,23 +27:14 28:25 +29:4 30:2,6, +12,15,18,20, +21 31:13,17 +33:12 34:1 +35:2,10,11, +13,19,21,23, +25 36:7,8,10, +11,17,21,25 +37:8,21 +38:10,12,16 +39:11,15 +40:10,13,18 +41:5 42:18 +43:17 44:2 +48: 2 49:15 +50:1,2 55:14, +25 71:15 +80:12,13,19, +20,23 81:1,25 +84:23,25 +85:7,17,18 +87:15 88:3 +91:6,12 94:7, +10 99:1,17,22 +100:10 +102:13,20,25 +103:19 105: +108:7 110:10 +111:2,10,19 +112:6,8,11, +13,23 113:1, +N +6,18,19,21, +24 +4:6,23 +115:4,18 +116:9 117:8 +118:13 119:24 +120:5,19 +121:2,7,16,25 +122:4,20 +123:12 124:23 +125:2,16,23 +127:7,12 +128:2,10,21, +24,25 129:6 +131:5,15,23 +132:5,8,13 +133:3,8 +134: 4,8, 9 +135:25 +136:18,19 +attorney's +5:1 6:18 +24:5,9,19,25 +29:21 33:2 +34:20 35:2,5, +15 36:18 37:4 +6 +38:6 42:12 +50:6 71:9,15 +101:18 102:6 +103:7 104:15, +20,24 105:1, +10,16,19,25 +106:13,18 +112:18 +113:12,13 +114:14 118:16 +120:17 121:6, +12,20 122:11, +23 123:15 +124:9,14 +125:8 126:4, +9,17,25 +127:17 128:16 +129:10 +130:19,24 +attorneys +13:12,25 23:2 +34:11,13 +41:11 42:15 +attorneys' +4: 5 6:15 +15:7,11,14 +16:11,12,17, +22,25 17:21 +18:2,5,8 +38:24 +39:12 +44: 453:25 +August +29:23 68:18 +69:19 103:14, +19 104:21 +124: 9 125:15 +134:11 +Authorities +26:7 39:1 +111:25 + + +authority +7:23 10:22 +18:17 24:15 +55:18 56:6, +13,20 72:9 +73:22 74:17 +76:24 77:15 +108:7 116:21, +24 117:15 +120:10,11,14 +134:22 135:1 +authorized +22:15 +authorizing +6:14 +AV +100:20,21 +award +6:14,17 8:4 +awarded +6: 11 19:22 +42: 5 101:3 +awarding +42:20 +aware +51:18 57:14, +15 90:1 109: +B-A-I-L-Y-N-S- +O-N +6: 4 +bachelor's +99:5 +back +21:11 58:14 +59:17,19 +63:23 64:18 +65:21 79:2, +10,19 80:6, +14, 22 81:13 +82:3,5,12 +84:17,21 +86:2,21 88:1, +12,19 89:10, +16 92:4 93:4, +12 95:10 +96:25 97:5,24 +99:16 102:5, +10,11,24 +104:19 106:17 +107:13 +109:19,23 +128:13 133:4, +6, 9 138:15,18 +139:15,16 +140:1 +background +36:4 99:4 +112:22 +backing +33:20 115:2 +backwards +199-10 +bad +89:6 +Bailynson +5:23 6:4 32:6 +ball +53:7,17 +Bankunited +38:25 +bar +129:20 +barred +115:9 +Barry +48:23 81:13 +82:2,12 +102:24 106:13 +110:24 +based +8: 6 17:5 83:7 +108:4 112:21 +136:10 +basically +80:2 85:10 +basis +5:11 13:6 +31:19 39:21 +42:24 54:15 +64:2 79:23 +114:20 +133:9 +Bates +9:5,9,16,17 +46:10 47:16, +Y24 54:7 +• battles +58:17 +BCS +132:22 +Beach +4: 11 23:20 +33:2,6,22 +46:15 48:7,16 +49:15 50:2, +15,23 51:1 +55:15,20 +58:7,16,18,21 +59:4,8,16 +60:5,6 62:11 +65:22 68:23 +72: 7 74:13 +91:16 101:11, +16,18 102:20 +105:11,18 +107:7 108:6 +111:1 115:15, +7 +17 126:5 +bearing +82:18 +beating +110:25 +began +4:2 33:22 +beginning +13:13 46:21 +58:6 59:22 +60:24 61:12 +133:9 +behalf +4:10,14 +101:11 103:20 +115:16 119:3 +belief +89: 3 125:20 +believed +58:23 113:17 +122:3 +believes +74:5 +Belle +111:1 +Bideau +4: 8 51:24 +52:8,18 58:1 +60:17 62:17, +25 63:10,16, +18 68:1,5, 7, +11 69:21 +70:1,5,12 +71:25 72:4 +74:8,11 75:8, +11,14,18,21, +24 77:9,11,22 +78:1 82:22,25 +83: 2 87:18,22 + + +94:3,5,18 +big +19:13 61:16 +69:18 70:6 +102:15 140:9 +binder +8: 23 23:11 +26:8 27:12 +28:1 39:2 +40:25 42:21 +67:23 68:9,13 +69:18 71:20 +80: 9 95:22 +103:14 111:25 +binders +70:6 +bit +33:20 70:3 +126:7 +blah +94:11 +block +12:7 73:5 +blow +75:10,14,22 +87:20 +board +117:5 +Boca +99:15,18 +Bock, +48:6 +boil +11:10 +book +95:18 +botch +32:6 +bottom +72:2 +box +34:15 +Boyajian +106:23 108:25 +136:13 +break +95:9 +bright +8:16 +bring +34:18 94:3 +96:24 97:4 +103:10 107:20 +139:6 +broad +84:12,13,14 +broader +118:10 +broken +124:8 +brought +34:8/65:23, +24,25 117:23 +Broward +48:22 59:3 +85: 7 112:8, +11,13 +Buitrago +4:9 +burden +32:10,13 +41:22 +Bureau +100:12 +business +65:3 +CA +4: 10 9:17 +call +107:20 128:15 +132:23 +called +62:5 111:21 +calling +43:8 +calls +26:23 +48:18 +96:10 +119/25 +canceled +capacity +71:6,7,16 +84:25 100:16 +110:13 112:24 +122:5 137:8 +care +71:21 89:4 +cared +89:5 +Carolonga +99:20 +case +5:7,23,24 6:5 +7:12,16,25 +8: 2,3 +10:12 +13:24,25 +14:4,11 15:4, +10,16,19,20 +16:4,6,15,16, +19,23 17:5, +10,16,22,23, +25 18:2,15 +19:5,6,8, 9, +8 +11,15 20:11, +12 25:15 +26:3,6,9,10 +27:5,6 28:1,2 +31:21 32:4,7 +36:6,9,10 +37:10,22 +38:4,25 41:9 +42:1,2,17,18 +46:2 49:25 +56:15 62:6 +65:8,10,13, +15,18,19,23, +24 66:1,13 +67:1,11,18 +76:11,25 +77:16 78:10 +85:5,8,9,10, +15 86:4 87:15 +88:13 90:18 +91:17 93:20 +101:3,6,11 +107:13 +108:15,17 +109:1,16 +110:5,22,23, +25 111:3,4, +13,16,17,21, +23 112:3,4,7, +8,14,17,21,22 +114:6,18,24 +115:12,13,14 +116:3,25 +117:23 119:2, +16,17 120:5, +19 121:2,8, +15,18,24 +128: 9 129:17 +130:14 131:5, +8,13,19,20 +133:2,7,10, +13, 23 136:8, + + +18 137:13 +cases +39:19 100:1, +7,10,14,16,17 +107:6,9,11 +109:2,15,16, +22 110:11,12, +15,20,22 +111:7,18 +catch +58:11 +category +124:2 +Catholic +109:13 +center +58:12 +central +6:5 +century +23:24 +cetera +109:24 +challenge +74:1 +chance +93:1 +change +17:4, 8,13,17 +53:362:6,12 +129:10,13,24 +131:10,18 +133:3,6 +changed +130:12 +changing +39:16 130:17 +chapter +5:13 13:19 +14:13,19,24 +82:16 95:1 +109:12 110:20 +charge +85:11 106:4 +chat +65:13 +chief +107:7 108:5 +chose +113:6 +Circuit +48:2 55:14,25 +85:3 111:21, +22 121:18 +circumstance +64:13 +circumstances +6:10 77:0 +, 17 +cite +6: 1 26:9 +121X15) +cited +31: 9 121:17 +127:2,5 +cites +76: 7 85:2 +citizens +60:6 +civil +6:22 10:25 +13:23 14:4,10 +76:10 100:13 +107:9 115:12 +119:16 +civilly +115:13 +claim +5:12,18,21 +6:21,25 7:3 +8: 11 15:14 +19:24 20:13 +21:7 22:3,8, +22 25:4,5, 7, +10 32:14,16, +18,22 33:14, +19 35:12 +37:7,16 41:2 +3,12,15,23 +42:2,9 56:24 +74:15,76,20 +21,24 93:8,14 +117:13,21 +118:19 119:22 +133:21 +claims +20:9 22:11 +34:18 59:3 +clarification +53:24 +Clayton +116:25 +clear +14: 15 19:2 +26:3 56:5 +58: 6 61:12,13 +65: 1 66:17 +89:24 94:2 +130:20 +clerk +10:9,24 +11:12,15,24 +12: 8 14:8,21 +18:16 21:23 +22:13 24:3,16 +29: 6 30:3,8, +13 35:9,21 +9 +36:1,13 37:1, +9 40:18 41:4, +6,17 43:11,18 +48:6 56:14, +20,22 57:15, +17 61:11 62:8 +85:12 88:6 +90:6,7 91:6, +7,994:8.14 +96: 9 98:8,14 +114: 15 116:6 +118:8 123:6, +10,14,15,16, +24 124:6 +125:11 128:23 +129:8 131:1 +133:19 134:6, +8 +clerk's +37:23 38:8 +53:6 56:17 +61: 6 123:17 +126:5 135:5 +client +65:5 73:4 +83:19 92:9 +close +31:7 37:2 +43: 2 97:20 +closer +98:24 +closing +42: 25 97:23 +138:23 139:1, +4,6,18,19 +closings +139:12 +closure +50:8 + + +cocaine +59:11,13 +coherent +139:2 +coincidently +110:23 +Colgate +99:5 +commended +41:13 +comment +135:13 +commercial +99:12,18 +100:3, 6 +common +27:3 +communications +104:10,14,18 +105:23,24 +107:25 125:20 +community +58:16 +compare +28:13 +compared +132:22 +comparison +32:20,24 +118:3 +compelling +77:1,17 +competent +8:6 +competitor +50:22 +complaint +10:14 23:18 +32:25 33:8 +44:25 45:2,24 +46:8,14 60:4 +61:21,24 +66:15,17 +74:13,14 +75:2, 3 78:6 +81:18 86:8, +12,15,24 +90:12,22,23 +108:19,22 +110:2 114:12, +13,22,23 +115:3,5,19 +116:7,10,13 +117:2,4,8,17 +129:15 137:11 +completely +29:3 32:15 +41:25 113:16 +complicated +112:9 +complted +31:11 +comply +15:15,25 +27:8,12,17 +94:10 +compromise +38:20 +comptroller +48:6 +concern +23: 25 41:10 +concerned +67:11,12 +114: 4 133:7 +conclude +97:6,7 114:5 +concluded +56:15 139:22 +conclusion +36: 6 108:6 +114:10 136:9 +conclusions +106:20 +condensed +9:3 +conduct +43:1,2 +conducted +24:12 35:14 +106:11 +conference +128:9 + +11:23 14:18 +confirm +117:3 132:15 +conjunction +5:2 116:19 +connection +73:10 76:10 +consideration +25:17 +considered +26:22 +consistent +88:24 +Constitution +14:20 100:19 +116:23 +constitutional +25:10 34:11 +40:6 42:8 +100:14 +10 +constrained +134:24 +construction +135:8 +construe +76:12 +construed +27:4 +contacted +101:12,19 +contacting +34:19 +contained +108:12 115:1 +135:2 +contentions +56:12 +contingency +42:16 44:16 +contingency-fee +64:2 +continue +50:7 58:25 +62:1 70:11 +continued +58:24 62:4 +108:14 117:19 +121:4 +continuing +120:18 122:1 +contract +100:5 +contractual +38:24 +contrary +22:17 39:13 +47:18 48:1 + + +control +7:20 8:15 +10:3 20:22 +29:1 35:18,20 +40:11,15,17 +45:15,17,18 +46:3,5.25 +47:19 48:3,14 +52:553:1,5, +11 56:1 59:23 +60:25 62:10 +63: 8 67:21 +80:3,4 90:4 +conversations +83:8 104:1 +122:19 136:4 +copies +37:1 84:16 +125:17 +copy +23:10 26:18 +44:11 53:19, +22 54:10 +55:5, 6 57:7 +68:2 +copyright +100:4 +corner +9:16 +corollary +107:23 +correct +30:10 +44:5, 6 +53:19 54:16 +55:1,4 57:6,9 +60:10.12,16 +64: 14 65:13 +66:18,20,24 +67:6,8,19,21 +68:19.20,23 +69:4,10 70:20 +71:1,2,6,8, +13,16 74:1, +13,17,18,22, +24,25 +76:7,15 +79:10,22,24 +82:13 83:5,15 +84:15,18 +86:14 87:2,9 +88:15 91:17 +92:5,12,13,17 +94:16,17 +96:5,7 111:14 +117:10,11 +121:14 122:21 +124:11 126:18 +127:6,9,23,25 +128:1 132:6, +12 134:15 +135:17 +correspondence +56:9 +counsel +5.5,28, +5 +64:5,7,10 +95:17 104:2, +1/ 106:15 +114:14 120:18 +121:20 122:12 +125:22 135:5 +counsel's +24:19 +count +5:7,10 21:1 +22:5 25:7 +32:25 37:13, +14 39:25 +40:1,2,4,21 +74:23,24 +75:19,22 +108:23 115:5, +7 117:8,9,12 +118:12 119:9, +22 120:7 +134:4,7 +135:14,16 +country +50:17 +counts +53:16 +County +33:6,22 48:7 +49:15 50:2 +55:15, 20 60:6 +85:7 101:18 +102:20 +107:7 +11:1 +112:8, +115:15 +126:5 +Çounty's +23:21 +couple +57:19 63:21 +80:5 118:2 +court +4:3,18,22,24 +6:1,17,23 7:1 +8:3,7,21,25 +9:6,10,14,19, +21 11:21 +12:11,14,21, +24 13:5,22 +14:3,23 +17:19,23,25 +19:23,25 +21:3,7,18,22 +22:12,16 +23:5,8,12,16, +17 24:1,3 +25:20 26:3,11 +28:3 30:4 +11 +31:16,23 +36:13 38:7 +39:3, 6 41:15 +42:20 43:4,7, +10,18,24 +44:18,22 46:9 +47:14,23 +49:12 51:21 +152:1,11,14,21 +54: 4 55:10 +56:22 57:15 +58:5 60:19 +62:19 63:2, +13,15 68:6,10 +69:20 70:2,7 +74:10 75:5,9, +12,16 76:2,12 +77:14,17,20 +82:21,24 +88:4, 7 89:11 +91:2,11 92:15 +94:9,19 95:5, +10,14,16,20, +21 96:5,12, +16,19,22 +97:13,19,23, +25 98:4,14, +16, 22 109:2 +111:22 114:1 +116:21,24 +117:15 129:2 +134:16,21 +135:11 +137:16,21 +138:2,5,9,11, +14,18, 21 +139:1,17,24 +140:1,5,7 +court's +6:16 8:5 +39:20 55:18 + + +72: 9 73:21 +74:17 76:23 +120:10,13 +134:18 +courtroom +86:18 +courts +6:9 +cover +59:9,12 +coverage +50:21,22 +covered +62:20 63:13 +134:22 +covering +48:23 +crack +59:11,13 +create +22:2,449:2 +119:14 +created +131:11 +creates +49:16 +creation +22:1 +credibility +104:8,13 +_ 106\14 +criminal +14:4,11 34:12 +37:2 56:15 +59:2 76:11 +104:2 107:13 +109:5 115:12, +14 119:17 +cross +63:15,17 +138:22 139:17 +cudgel +47:10 +cumulative +63:10 +curiously +50:23 +custodian +48:8 84:24 +custody +7:20 8:15 +10:3 20:21 +24:4,20,21,23 +28:25 36:22 +37:5 40:11, +14,15,17 +45:14,16 +46:3,5,25 +47:19 48:3,14 +52:553:1, +10~56 1 59:23 +60 24) 62:10 +63: 8 67:21 +80:3, 4 85:10 +90:4 102:8 +118:17 +cut +66:23 +D +damage +104:13 +damaging +108:1 +database +50:16 +date +57:10 131:23 +dated +36:19 +69:19 +dates +49:5 +Dave +4:16 10:19 +44: 1 49:15 +55:13 103:19 +David +4: 15 10:15 +43:17 44:1 +55/13 +87:23 +Davis +5:23 +6: 3 32:6 +day +5:5 51:2,5 +89:24 130:6, +7, 8 140:11 +days +26:2,16 38:9 +54:2 82:13 +91:17,18,25 +92:2 93:10, +11,18 132:7 +DCA +5:24 6:5 8:2 +15:19 26:10 +28:2 36:6 +deal +15:12 23:23 +33:25 64:23 +66:23 102:9 +109:25 +dealt +109:17 +12 +debate +110:5 +decide +128:10 +decided +107:18,19 +113:1 116:16 +128:10 131:18 +decision +17:15 41:18 +49:2 85:3 +131:21 135:25 +137:7 +declaration +76:11,21 +77:13,19 +declaratory +5:10,12,18,20 +21:2,6 22:3, +9,21 25:4,9 +32:25 37:7 +40:2,5 41:3, +12,16 42:3,9 +55:16,24 +56:3,25 67:7 +74:16,21 +75:20,22 +117:9,13,17, +24 118:12,19 +119:22 120:7 +133:21 134:3 +declare +39:10 67:7 +76:2 77:17 +defamation +100:6,7 +defects +25:19 31:18 +defend + + +10:25 11:6 +44:8 +defendant +4: 15 18:19 +28:24 38:18, +19 47:18 +48:1,4,5 +55:15 59:2 +87:23 111:11 +112:6 +defendant's +5:7 +defendants +10:10 24:2 +33:3,4, 7 35:9 +78:3,5,13 +110:6 +defending +110:11 112:22 +defense +6:21,25 7:3 +14: 3 19:16,24 +20:8,17,18, +23,25 +22: 9 +72:22 73:6 +95:17 96:4 +100:6 104:2 +11,12 106:15 +110:16 125:22 +Defense's +12:12 +defer +6:11 +degree +99:5,7 +deliberation +33:18 +deliver +56:6 +demand +5:2,4,9 15:2 +16:5,10 17:14 +22:7,8,21 +53:22 54:11, +14 56:13 +119:25 +demands +17:5 +demonstrative +96:8 +denial +25:16 +denied +31:14 43:3 +46:15 60:5 +deny +43: 4 46:19 +77:13,19,20 +denying +113:3 +depends +81:13 +deposed +65:10 +deposition +59:4, 6 107:4, +9 124:4 +depth +116:17 +derogation +27:2 +Dershowitz +104:3,6,11 +105:23 108:1 +125:22 +describe +129:13 +deserve +50:9 +Design +15:17,18 +destroy +108:2 +deter +6: 7 39:8 +determination +11:21 +determined +119:13 131:19 +134:20 +determines +19:23 +determining +8: 4 34:14 +110:7 111:10 +develop +116:16 +developed +116:20 +devoid +32:14 41:24 +difference +18:7 19:13 +61:16 +diligence +7:9 34:17 +107:17 108:8 +direct +9:24 43:20 +47:12 53:14 +98:18 139:10 +directly +64:25 +disagree +41:17 +13 +disciplinary +100:23 +disclose +113:20,21 +disclosed +13:18,24 +21:20 46:17 +disclosing +30: 3 94:8 +disclosure +7:21 13:22 +14:12 19:4 +57:23 72:8 +73:23 76:5,21 +78:20 88:5 +104:19 113:7 +120:7 +discourage +39:9 +discovery +123:6,10 +discussed +107:8 +discussing +109:18 130:13 +discussion +131:4,12 +discussions +108:5 114:13, +17,18 121:19 +122:10,11 +135:23 +disingenuous +90:8 +dislike +58:15 +dismiss +5: 7 8:18 25:7 + + +redge bers De 2022 +1, 2022 +33: 8 37:12 +39:25 40:1 +46:23 47:2, +13,22 51:19 +62: 4 71:19 +72:24,25 +73:11,17,25 +74: 19 78:6 +88:25 89:7 +92: 9 93:1,9 +115:1,19,23 +116:6,10 +117:12 118:22 +119:9 +dismissal +26:5 27:18 +38:11,21 +dismissed +22:5 25:22 +26:1 27:15 +31:2, 6 38:9 +39:15 41:5 +53:16 57:4, +13,14 91:16 +92:8 93:2,8, +13,15,18 +134:5 +dismisses +38:18 +dismissing +40:21 +dispense +12:20 97:16 +dispositive +25:15 +dispute +32:22 33:10 +37:15 64:21 +78:8,12 +118:10 128:5 +disputes +100:4,5 +distracted +65:15 +District +102:7,13 +divert +65:2 +divided +108:24 +document +38:2 49:3 +51:3 123:22 +documentation +108:2 +documents +24:13,17,21, +22 29:20 +34:3,25 +40:14,16 +45:6,10,12, +13 +15,17,18, +46:4,3,5, +(25 47:4 +48:8,18,24 +50:25 53:2,7, +10 59:23 +61:7,13 62:10 +69:9 72:23 +73:3,7,13 +74: 6 81:14,20 +84:10,11,12, +18 89:4 +101:17 103:7, +21 104:7,18 +105:15 118:13 +134:6 +domain +107:14 +Douglas +4:14 +drafted +66:21 126:20 +drafting +103:6 +draw +135:6 +drawn +8:16 +drive +139:15,16 +drop +54: 21, 2 +131:20 +dropped +15/3, 9 16:18, +23 17:10,16, +20 21:24 52:6 +54:17,24 57:8 +60:15 91:24 +131:24 133:13 +134:9 +dropping +132:5 +due +7:9 34:17 +107:17 108:8 +duly +43:18 98:14 +duty +23:22 +E +earlier +60:3 89:11 +91:12,14 +14 +early +36:19 79:19 +easier +9:12 69:23 +79:14 +easy +70:10 +economics +99:7 +editorial +135:24 +editorially +136:3 +educational +99:3 +effect +15:5 30:5 +94: 9 119:5 +effusive +135:3 +egotistical +135:3 +egregious +43:1 +Eighth +100:18 +elected +44:2 50:3 +email +53:23 54:10 +embarrass +65:25 +embarrassing +62:2 +empaneled +106:9 +emphasize + + +47:24 +employees +14:1 +employment +100:5 +enclosure +28:17,22 +encouraging +27:19 +end +16:6 18:6 +37: 6 53:25 +97:10 108:9, +20 118:18 +engage +44: 7 110:1 +engagement +44:11,16 +enter +12:11 103:3 +119:9 +entered +5:6 40:20 +41:1 134:12 +entire +55:11 +entirety +43:5 +entities +14:6 +entitled +39:11 72:15 +73:3 76:3 +89:3 119:6 +123:4 +entity +18:16 22:14 +71:14 +Epstein +19:9 31:5 +33:23 34:4,8 +45:5 49:4,16, +21,25 50:5 +58:10 59:16 +60:25 66:4,5, +6,8,15, 23 +68:25 69:1,5, +10 80:24 +83:10 101:11 +102:3,4,5,23 +103:2,8,22 +104:3 106:5 +115:13 129:7 +130:22 137:1 +Epstein's +23:19 33:21 +50:8 +equal +6:19 +ESQ +98:11 +escent say + +essentially +101:14 112:9 +121:25 +establish +5:19 7:3 +20:11 22:24 +established +49:14 +establishment +8: 9 20:2 21:9 +estate +100:4 +event +91:496:22,24 +97:2 +eventually +54: 21 57:15 +evidence +8 : 6 12:16,17 +15:6 22:18 +30:11 31:9,18 +33:5,16,21 +40:9,12 43:12 +55:19 76:4,22 +78:4,14 83:14 +95:23 96:3 +98: 9 11848| +139:22 +evident +14:14 +56:8 +ex-wife's +59:4,5 +exact +32:8 +exaggerated +59:1 +examination +13:3 43:20 +63:15,17 +94:21 98:18 +138:22 139:18 +exceptional +76:25 77:16 +exceptions +5:14 +exclusively +125:5 +excuse +56:2 +excused +95:5, 7 140:3 +exempt +15 +14:19 +exercise +134:25 +exercised +131:21 + +9:10,11 12:13 +28:16 29:8,11 +32:24 33:1 +34:22,23 +36:16 38:1,2 +40:25 42:21 +44:10,15 49:8 +51:9 67:23 +68:5,7,9,15, +16,18 69:20, +21 70:13 +71:20 79:16 +83:5,15 +87:19,23 +91:16 94:4 +95:18 103:11, +13,14,18 +105:4,22 +107:24 +111:15,16 +117:1 118:4 +120:22 124:13 +126:12,13 +127:15 +128:14,16 +130: 9 132:1, +4, 14 133:15, +16 +exhibits +12:15,21 +28:13,14 +29:13 81:8 +83:14 95:18, +19, 21 96:2 +104: 6 124:3 + + +exist +31:9 92:20 +existed +51:7 +existing +7: 4 20:1 +21:9,13 +exists +32:22 33:10 +37:15 43:2 +78:8 118:10 +expanded +6:10 +expansive +135:8 +expect +12:3 +expectation +20:3 +experience +99: 9 110:9 +experienced +34:10 +expert +18:12 106:24 +experts +97:16 +explain/ +19:18 52:21 +60: 21 85:6 +explained +36:9 +explaining +49:10 +exposed +23:2 +extension +19:25 21:12, +15 42:4 +extensive +110:9 +extent +111:5 +extra +68:1 +extraordinary +49:1 +extreme +58:15 +extremely +103:4 +F-E-R-E-R-E +27:25 +Facebook +48:19 50€20 +51:4,17 +facets +109x4 +fact +5/11 8:9,16, +17 10:14 12:8 +13: 6 41:23 +47:4 48:5 +54:15 58:9 +61:4 62:12 +63:7 64:19,22 +66:17 69:16 +77:14 86:1 +88:12 97:9 +106:9 111:3 +facts +5:19,22 7:2, +5,12 16:2 +20:3,11 22:23 +23:1 25:18 +32:15 39:12 +41:25 56:7 +59:5 108:9 +112:9 136:10 +factual +20:16,19 +108:13 +125:14,15 +factually +136:3 +failed +17:11 18:25 +20:7 29:3 +31:13 +92:9 +fails +20:25 +22:10, +fair +64: 6 91:1 +93:25 +fairly +106:12 +faith +19:25 20:17, +18 21:8 32:22 +33:10,17 +37:15 42:3 +58:3 73:8 +78:7,12 89:6 +117:23 118:10 +familiar +44:21,24 +46:13 51:19 +87:9,10 +110:16 +family +62:23 +fast +16 +96:14 126:7 +favor +14:7 41:16 +57:16 +FBI +91:12 102:6 +104:15 105:25 +123:14 125:23 +federal +36:6 101:5 +109:15 110:3, +22 111:22 +112:10 +feds +66:24 +fee +6: 18 42:19 +44:16 93:8,13 +128:6,13 +feel +97:25 +feels +137:9 +fees +4: 5 5:1 6:11, +15 15:7,11,14 +16:11,12,17, +22,25 17:21 +18:2,5,8,9,11 +25:25 26:15, +24 27:16 +28:21 29:15 +36:18 37:25 +38:24 39:12 +42:11,20,22 +14: 4 53:25 +59:20 120:1 +122:21,24 +127:18,20,25 +128:3 132:8 + + +felt +23:22 88:23 +105:2 112:23 +116:24 +134:24,25 +Ferere +27:25 +Ferlanti +8:1 +Fifteen +97:19 +fight +59:20,21 +file +19:2,4 54:25 +92: 3 95:1 +115:18 116:6 +124:18 126:9 +127:12 132:8 +133:18 +filed +5:1 7:11 8:10 +11:14 15:8, +11,14 16:11, +14,16,20,21, +24 17:21,24 +23:18 25:21 +24 26:16 +27: +29:22 83:7 +35: 8 44:4,25 +45:2 54:1 +56\25-57:2 +62:3,15 63:22 +64:17 65:4 +66:13,25 +67:11 70:25 +71:5 72:21 +73:11,15,19, +23 74:12,13 +77:7 78:6 +79:19 86:2 +87:25 91:15 +92:8,12,17 +93:5,17 +108:15,19 +114:13,23,25 +115:3 116:9, +12 122:20,24 +123:1 124:10 +125:2 128:2, +7,12,13 +130:20 131:8 +132:19 +files +15:20 +filing +17:19 18:7 +19:14 26:19 +27:15 31:13 +37:12,14,20 +38: 7 92:18,22 +108:21 +0: 1 +129,6 +filings +6:7,12 40:15 +44:21 48:11 +final +14:7 18:9,20, +21 19:1 40:24 +41:1,8 133:15 +134:13,18 +135:18 +finally +12:5 38:6 +42:10 54:22 +find +8:22 9:4 +17:23 18:3 +46:7,10 59:12 +91:11 102:2 +108:16 109:20 +finding +39:21 102:18 +104:1 +findings +8: 5 97:9 +finds +6:23 +fine +60:13 62:21 +138:25 +finish +137:17 139:9 +finished +97:21 +firestorm +102:15,21 +firewall +136:1 +firm +44: 7 67:22 +99:20 +firm's +18: 9 44:11,16 +five-minute +95:9 +flesh +109:10 +fleshing +109:8 +flip +23: 9 70:4 +80:11 +flipping +75:6 +Florida +4:11 5:13 6:6 +14:13 19:8 +17 +25:8,11 32:2 +33: 9 40:7 +42:7,16,17 +48: 7 55:15,17 +56:19 76:3 +97:17 99:25 +102:13 109:9, +11 110:8 +1116:22 119:10 +65:3 +focused +125:5 +focusing +7:8 +follow +18:25 19:3 +force +118:13 +forced +88:25 89:1,6 +fore +104:16 +forms +137:2 +Fort +99:1,14 +forward +50:7 118:21 +forwarding +126:7 +found +5:24 8:1 +12:12 15:18 +108:15 109:16 +110:21 +Fourteenth +100:19 + + +Fourth +5:24 6:58:2 +15:19 28:2 +36:5 94:2 +100:17 +frankly +11:21 +fraud +100:5 +Friday +97:4,10 138:9 +friend +136:22 +friends +62:23 +frivolous +32:14,17 +33: 19 36:3 +41:15,24 +59:21 62:3 +64:23 65:3 +72:25 90:18 +front +59:1 67:23 +74:20 107:22 +108:3 117:6 +132:2 134:11 +137:13 +front-page +59:2 +182:8 +fulfilled +129:16 +full +9:4,11 +furtherance +76:6,18 +furthering +135:10 +G +G-R-Y-G-I-E-L +101:23 +game +53:7 +gave +116:2,4 +general +99:22 110:10 +General's +100:10 +generally +52:14 +genuine +23:25 41:10 +Georgia +138:5 +Gerard +4:929,25 +31\25 32:19 +71:25 75:21 +126:22 +give +6:1 9:5 11:3, +8 23:12 43:12 +45:9,10 72:16 +76:13 85:12 +93: 1 98:9 +119:2 131:14 +138:19 139:18 +Glade +111:1 +goal +39:13 53:3 +59:24 60:2,22 +78:22 85:24 +86:17,20 +89:12 90:2 +good +4: 7,13 19:25 +20:17,18 21:8 +32:22 33:10, +17 37:15 42:3 +43:22,25 58:3 +63:19 +64:12 +73:8 78:7,12 +98:20 117:23 +118:10 122:19 +139:23.24,25 +govern +7-21 +governs +5: 13 +grace +92:10,11 +93:15 +graduated +99:6 +grand +5:14 7:22 +10:21 14:2, +17,22 21:20 +22:15 23:19 +24:4,7,16 +25:129:1,6 +30:14,23,24 +31:5 33:6 +35:8,14,18 +36:12,24 37:5 +38: 3 39:17 +40:19 41:7 +45:6,15 46:16 +48:23 50:5 +54: 14 55:20 +56:14,17 +18 +60:6,25 61:9 +62:10 63:8 +67:4,6,14,19 +69:10 72:7,10 +73:22 76:5, +23,24 77:15 +78:5 80:24 +81:2,4 83:10 +84:24 85:2, +11,16,18,20 +89:4 102:19 +103:1,21 +104:9,13 +106:3,9,20 +107:20,22 +108:3 109:14, +15 111:2,4,22 +112:3,10,12, +19,20,25 +113:13,15,19 +114:7 115:8, +24 116:22,23 +117:20 118:17 +119:1,4,7 +120:8 121:13, +17 122:7 +123:24 125:6, +9,12,17 +127:1,2 +129:1,7,11,21 +130:22,25 +134:23 +grant +7:23 30:4 +56:14 94:9 +granted +57:15 +granting +5:6 +great +49: 7 109:25 + + +137:10 140:11 +greater +109:7 +Greenberg +4: 10 30:15 +33:17 34:8 +99:1,11,13,16 +100:1 101:15 +104:23 106:22 +107:16 114:5 +123:6 126:8 +131:1 135:4 +136:9 +ground +106:12 119:17 +grounds +123:2 125:21 +group +101:15 +Grygiel +70:14 82:11 +83:12 84:17 +101:12,19,22 +104:25 105:6 +106:23 136:13 +Grygiel's +83: 4 84:4 +guess +64: 15 81 12 +91:03 205:2 +guests +1140:7 +guide +8:3 +guys +72: 21 98:4 +H +Hafele +19:1 41:1,8 +128:9,10 +133:24 +134:11,12,20 +Hafele's +14: 7 18:20,21 +40:24 +half +134:1 +hand +35:24 68:13 +139:15 +handle +100:11 109:1 +handled +110:15 +hands +134:21 +happen +16/15138:8 +happened +33:24 66:14, +24 84: 3 86:19 +91:14 128:1 +happy +131:22 136:23 +137:1,4 +harass +36:2 +harbor +27:13,17 +hard +41:14 69:18 +90:24 139:15 +hate +70:5 +head +4:22 101:21 +heads +101:15 +hear +11:15 18:14 +25:23 30:14, +19 34:10,18, +24 35:1,3,6 +36:5,15 37:11 +39:14 9711 +heard +24,18 +25:5 +39:23 +140:11 +61:8 128:7,8 +133:24 134:1 +hearing +8: 18 12:11 +40: 9 44:22 +51:19 60:9 +74:23 78:21, +25 128:3,4,12 +132:13 139:21 +140:13 +hearings +65:8 +hearsay +74: 9 84:7 +held +15:20 43:24 +helped +102:14 109:5 +helps +18:20 +Herald +58: 9 66:1 +19 +hero +58:11 +hey +76:12 +hid +67:6 +hiding +67:4,15 +high +37:5,10 41:22 +higher +38:14 +highlight +71:25 +highlighted +87:21 128:18 +hindsight +126:3 +hired +59:9 +history +109:21 +Hofstra +99:7 +hold +81:17 +Holdings +4:11 +honest +110:5 136:24 +honestly +108:3 122:3 +138:10 +Honor +4: 7,13,17,20, +23 9:8,22 +13:1 16:21 +17:2,13 18:3 + + +redge bers De 2022 +, 2022 +23:6,7,10 +24:18 25:14 +26:8 29:9 +31:16 32:1,23 +39:19 42:25 +43:6 44:15 +46: 7 47:11,15 +51:24 52:8,18 +53: 21 54:6,7 +58:1,4 60:17 +62:17 68:7,8 +69:21 74:8 +82:15 95:6,8, +15,25 96:1,8, +21 97:12 +98:2,3.17 +137:19 138:6, +17,24 139:14 +140:3 +Honor's +27:11 28:1 +39:1 111:24 +hope +50:7 +hoped +123:25 +hopeful +113:23 +115:22 +122:5 +host +921 +hours +120:2 134:1 +138:3 +hours' +108:12 +Howard +44:12 +humanity +137:2 +hundreds +108:12 +I +idea +29:10 65:20 +78:20 86:16 +89:12 +impacted +62:23 +important +24:24 25:2 +38:11 40:4 +importantly +24:14 27:5 +29:24 35:17 +41:19 +imposed +42:11 +impossibility +8:14 11:1 +impossible +7: 18 11:17 +17: 17 20:20 +52:21,24 56:4 +94:10 137:20 +impression +41: 9 42:2 +improper +7:17 19:11 +improperly +17:24 72:2,7 +73:20 +in-camera +114:2 +in-depth +109:7 +inch +11:19 +Incidentally +67:22 +include +55:2 105:21 +120:19 +included +18:8 37:10 +39:2 57:3 +100:16 107:24 +112:20 +includes +7:6 +including +6: 18 26:6 +3419 +50:22 +1,25:23 +inconsistent +90:1 +independently +15:25 27:12 +31:11 +indicating +29:23 31:24 +85:8 101:25 +123:25 +indication +73:12 +indictment +106:20 125:24 +individual +84: 7 111:1 +inform +23:22 34:1 +102:3 +information +106:1,2,19 +20 +107:17 108:1 +informed +7: 15 46:21 +90:4 +informing +55:22 +inherent +55:18 72:9 +73:21 74:17 +76:24 77:15 +116:21 117:14 +120:10,11,14 +134:22 135:1 +inhibit +120:13 +initial +27:7 48:11 +108:19,22 +110:2 114:12, +22 115:2,4,19 +116:7,10,12 +119:25 123:1 +129:14 +initially +6:25 19:24 +129:16 +initiative +6:16 +injure +104:7 +inmate +110:25 +input +136:12 +inquiry +8:7 +insisted +59:18 + + +Septe bur De 2a2o +instance +56:18 +instructed +18:22 +intentionally +62:14 +interest +6:18 23:25 +66:776:14,25 +77:16 85:1 +107:2 113:8 +interested +19:6 102:18, +23 103:24 +104:1 112:16 +113:24 +interesting +17:22 18:13 +20:24 +Internet +49:4 +interpret +21:18 32:9 +interpretation +21:4,8,21 +interpretations +21:14 +interprets +32:4 +interrogatories +123:20 +interruption +138:20 +intervening +61:17 +introduce +43:23 98:22 +investigation +23:20 24:6,12 +33:23 34:7 +35:14 49:21 +66:5,8,11 +82: 1 102:19 +103:21 104:5 +106:7 112:12 +investigations +50:7 +investigative +81:8 +investigatory +108:13 +involved +25:10 65:6 +66:14,17,18 +67:23 85:7 +101:10 103:6 +110:24,25, +involves( +40:5 +inyolving +41/9 100:14 +109:2 115:13 +irfelevant +51:25 58:2 +Island +97:17 138:3 +issue +41:2 42:7,9 +59:8 79:1,6,9 +88:12,15 +89:15 113:8 +116:17 120:15 +125:7,14,15 +issued +54:11 112:10 +120:3 +issues +25:16 40:5 +41:10 102:9 +104:16 107:1 +109:1,17 +114:3 +items +103:24 107:15 +J +J.D. +99:7 +J10 +47:12,2 +J13 +9:2 +J14 +53:21 +y J16 +79:15 +J18 +55:6 +J2 +77:10 +J23 +57:7 +J29 +9:4,14,15 +12:12 +J6 +47:12,16 +71:19 +J9 +46: 8 75:3,4 +44:7 +Jail +111:1 +21 +James +110:23 +111:12,14 +112:21 +January +45: 2 49:6,7 +70:24 +Jeanne +44:12 +Jeffrey +19:9 23:19 +45:5 49:3,16, +21,25 58:10 +59:16 60:25 +66:8 68:25 +69:1,5 83:10 +101:11 102:3, +23 103:2,22 +130:22 +Jennifer +4:9 +joinder +133:9 +joint +8: 23 12:15,21 +28:14 29:11 +42:21 44:10, +15 49:8 51:9 +95:18,22 96:2 +103:13,18 +105:22 +Journal +140:8 +Judge +5:6 8:17 10:1 +14: 7 18:20,21 +19:1 22:6 +25:6 39:24 +40:9,20,24 +41: 1, 8 51:20 + + +52:3 53:12,15 +57:23 61:13 +62:25 63:10, +16 74:20 +92:22 93:24 +94: 18 119:8 +120:2 128:9, +10 133:24 +134:11,12,20 +judgment +10:19 11:2, +12, 20 12:2 +14: 7 18:20,21 +19:1 29:21 +40:25 41:1,8 +54:25 57:1,3, +16 74:16,21 +117:9,13,24 +118:23 119:22 +120:7 124:10, +14,18 125:9 +128:8 133:15, +19,25 134: 3, +10,13,14,18 +135:18 +judicial +19:3 39:9 +48: 2 55:14, +judiciary +120:14 +July +16:22 34:16 +1 101$25 +122:21,24 +June +5: 3 8:17 +26:25 30:19 +36:16,19,20 +38: 4 51:19 +53:13 54:1 +79:2,10,19 +80:14,15 +84:21 86:21 +88:1 89:16 +92: 4 119:8 +120:3,20 +122:2,12,15 +127:19,24 +128:7,13 +133:6 +jurisdiction +25:20 26:4,12 +101:1 +jurisdictional +25:16,19 +31:7,18 +jury +5:14,15 7:22 +10:21 14:2, +17,22 21:20 +22:15 23:19 +24:4,8,16 +25:1 +29:1,6 +30:14,23,24 +3145/33:7 +35: 9,14,18 +36:12,24 37:5 +38: 3 39:17 +40:19 41:7 +45:6,15 46:16 +48:23 50:5 +52:15 54:14 +55:20 56:14, +17 60:6,25 +61: 9 62:10 +63: 9 67:4,6, +14,19 69:10 +72:8,10 73:22 +76:5,23,24 +77:15 78:5 +80:24 81:3,4 +83:10 84:24 +85:2,11,16, +18,20 89:4 +102:19 103:1, +21 104:9,13 +106:3,9,20 +107:21,22 +108:3 109:14, +15 111:2,4,22 +112:3,10,12, +19,20,25 +113:13,15,2 +114:7 115:8 +24 116/22,23 +117:20 +118:18 +119:1 +4,7 +120:8 +121:13, +17 +122:7 +123:24 125:9, +12,17 127:1,2 +129:1,7,11,21 +130:22,25 +134:23 +jury's +125:6 +justice +50:8 76:6,14, +18 135:10 +justified +13:6 +K +K-A-M +15:17 +K-A-M-E +15:18 +Kame +15:16,17 27:6 +keeping +22 +53: 5 61:5 +121:7 +Kelly +38:25 +key +7:7 +kill +91:3 +Akind +137:12 +knew +6:24 7: 8 8:8 +22:19 45:22 +52:4,10,25 +53:9 59:22 +88:11 104:5 +106:7 113:12 +125:18 126:1 +knowing +128:11 +knowledge +84:2 109:7 +Krischer +48:23 82:12 +104: 6 106:13, +14 108:7 +110:24 113:14 +123:13 125:18 +Krischer's +81: 14 82:2 +102:10,24 +104:4,10,15 +105:24 108:2 +125:21 +L +Labor +100:12 +102:12,17 + + +lack +137:7 +lacked +119:13 +lacks +25:20 26:11 +48:13 +Lago +15:16,17 +16:4,8 17:22 +27:6,11 +laid +79:21 +Langen +99:20 +language +6: 14 19:19 +20: 6 21:11 +112:17 +large +46:16 49:19 +late +15:4 73:15 +latest +89:16 +Lauderdale +99:1,14 +Lauren +4: 8 +1aw +5:11,21 7:4, +DQ 13:7 20:1, +2,10,12 21:9, +10,13 22:1,2, +25 25:10,11, +12 26:3,6 +27:3,5, 6 +31:21 32:15 +34:12 36:6,9 +40:6 41:25 +42: 4, 8 44:7 +47:2,3, 5, 6 +54:15 72:24 +73:1, 2 89:1,9 +92:22 97:8 +99:8,24 +100:14 109:13 +110: 8 126:17 +136:10 +laws +113:4 +lawsuit +7:11 11:7 +29:5 35:8 +52: 7 53:4 +54: 18 57:8,25 +58:7 59:21 +60: 23 62:3,15 +64: 23 65:3/6 +67:7 71:4,5 +72:21,25 +73:25 +79:3 +82: 17,18 89:6 +19019 +92:9 +95:2 107:20 +108:11,14 +lawsuits +50:6 +lawyer +63: 22 65:13 +70:14 72:5 +73:24 79:19 +87:1,4,6,8 +90:11,13,17, +24 +lawyers +15:1 22:18 +48:13 78:11 +107:10 +lay +120:18 +leader +58:21 +leading +60:18 125:23 +learned +126:3 +leave +12:25 79:25 +left +9:16 35:3 +97:7 138:22 +legal +713 +14:1,25 +20:16/34:17 +56 6 59:20 +63:767:13, +14,17 73:1,24 +89:2 108:13, +21 111:5 +136:2, 7 +legislative +109:21 +legislature +120:13,15 +legitimate +66:7 +leniency +23:24 34:5 +lenient +103:4 106:4,5 +letter +5:4,9,16 15:3 +16:10,13 +17:14 28:18, +22 30:20 +34:24 36:16, +19 37:3,18 +23 +38:4 44:12,16 +53:18,20,22 +54:5,13 68:18 +69:3,6,8,14, +16,19 70:13, +16,17 79:14, +16,20 80:6,7, +8,10,12,16 +184:22 86:11, +12,23,25 +87:5,11,12 +89:17,19,20, +22 90:13 +103:14,17,19, +23 104:21,22, +25 105:3,7,13 +119:25 +120:20,23 +121:1,8,10, +15,21 122:2, +12 125:10 +130:1,2,10 +letters +70:20 71:4,5 +73:19 82:11, +14,16 83:5,13 +87:8 103:6 +104:23 +licensed +99:23 +lies +88:6 +light +34:4 103:2 +Likewise +30:6 +limitations +135:1 +limited +34: 3 40:21 + + +107:25 119:15 +120:11 +lines +9:25 10:5 +28:23 +link +49:24 +litigation +6:15 27:20 +38:21 39:10 +99:19 100:3, +12,13 110:18 +123:8 +litigator +99:12 +LLC +8: 1 15:18 +located +97:17 +1og +123:23,25 +124:7 +logic +139:3 +logical +93:3 +long +43:24 +54:22 +61:2 73:7 +96:12 137:15 +Longer +27:16 129:19, +22,23 130:25 +133:12 +1ooked +83:16 93:6 +109:12 +Lorenza +99:20 +Los +106:23 +lose +33:13 +losing +6:20,23 8:8 +lost +48:25 +lot +7:6 39:23 +83:13 +lower +9:16 +lowest +137:2 +luck +34:3 +made +5:3, 8:38 +14 14 17:9,15 +20:9 28:10 +34: 2 49:2 +51:20 56:7 +58:12 61:13 +78:19 89:21 +94:11,25 +105:18 111:5 +131:21 133:4 +main +29:4 +major +133:1 +make +8: 7 18:14 +19:16 36:23 +38:12,19 +47:1,13 50:11 +59:25 65:5 +79:14 85:19 +89:1,13,25 +95:19 +96:14 +97:22 137:10 +138:7 139:10, +12 +makes +19:1 29:18 +66:17 92:3 +135:7 +making +20:16 +27: +59:3 +86:17 +136:2 +man +122:18 137:1 +management +128:9 +mark +4: 8 12:18 +Marx +5:6 8:17 10:2 +22:6 25:6 +39:24 40:9,20 +51:20 52:3 +57:23 61:13 +74:20,23 +119:8,9 120:2 +Marx's +53:13,15 +Mary +15:17 +massive +133:3 +material +5:19,22 7:2,5 +24 +20:3 22:23 +23:1 83:15 +94:8 +materials +5:15 13:9 +14:17 20:21 +23:19 29:1 +30:4,14,24 +131:5 35:9 +36:12,24 +37:5,23 41:7 +46:16,20 +55:21 56:2,4, +7,15,17,21 +72:8 73:21 +76:10 80:25 +81:2,8 82:1, +12 85:16,20 +86:6 88:5 +91:22 94:14 +104:12 +105:20,21 +106:8,14,17 +107:11,12,14, +21,23 108:4 +112:12 +113:13,20,24 +114:8 115:10, +16 116:19 +117:20 +118:18,25 | +119:16 +123:13,16,24 +125:12,17 +129:1,8,11, +18,22 130:23 +131:1 +matter +23:25 47:3,4, +5 55:16 56:9 +59:15 66:4,5, + + +6, 7 68:25 +69:1,5,10 +72:24 73:1 +89:1,2,8 90:3 +97: 1 102:4 +117:2 135:17 +means +33:19 92:19 +mechanism +7:13 +media +50:16,21 +56:11 101:13, +15 109:3 +media's +107:2 +meeting +131:3 +member +136:5 +memorandum +87:24 126:16 +Mendelsohn +13:3 30:15, +17,20 34:9, +19,24 35:1, 6 +36:5,8,15,20 +37:3 38.3 +39:14 53123 +54:10 68:19 +69:4,8 79:10 +80:5, 22 82:11 +83:4,12 +84:17,21 +85:8,22,25 +86:3,25 87:13 +89:17 90:11, +16,17 96:11, +13,19 98:13, +20,23,25 +99:21 103:16 +119:20 137:14 +138:16 +Mendelsohn's +35: 4 37:18 +70:16 84:4 +mentioned +26:20 90:10 +105:22 111:12 +131:14 +mentioning +73:6 +merit +32:14 33:15 +41:24 +meritless +6:7,12 +merits +25:13 +message +48:19 +met +A +32:8 +41:22 +Miami, +58: 9 66:1 +99:20 +Michael +101:12 +middle +80:18 105:17 +Mike +70:14 101:19 +miles +58:9 +mind +17:9 59:21 +98: 4 126:22 +139:4 +minute +138:19 +minutes +33: 5 55:19 +63:21 64:16 +76:4,22 78:4, +14 81:9,10,12 +85:23 86:19 +95:11 96:18 +97:19 118:8 +137:18,25 +138:1 +misleading +17:12 58:19 +59:2 61:3,1 +missing +34:20 +105:23 +misspoke +·64:24 +Y misuse +39:8 +misusing +102:25 +mixture +117:14 +modification +20:1 21:12 +modified +21:17 +monetary +19:21 +money +59:19 63:23 +64:1,4,11,14, +18,24,25 65:2 +months +34:13 37:17 +51:6 64:23 +25 +Mortgage +7:25 +motion +4: 5,19,25 +5:7,8 6:16 +8:17 15:7,10, +13,21,23,24 +16:11,12,14, +116,17.21,25 +7:18,20,24 +18:1,4,8 +19:4,15 25:3, +6,17,21,25 +26:4,5,12,13, +15,18,22,24 +27:7,9,16 +28:6,10,11, +12,13,16,17, +19 29:3,9,10, +11,13,14,15, +18,19,21,24 +30:2 31:8,10, +11,14 33:13 +36:18 37:12, +25 39:24 40:1 +42:23 43:3,5 +44: 4 46:23 +47:2,22 51:19 +53:25 54:25 +56:25 57:2,5 +63:22 64:11, +17 71:18 +72:23 73:11, +16,17 74:12, +19 79:19 86:2 +87:25 88:25 +89:7 92:3,4, +7,8,12,14,16, +19,23,24 +94:6,15,16 +101:4,8 +EFTA02734820R + +115:1,18 +116:6, 9 +118:22 119:9 +120:1 122:20, +24 123:1,2 +124:10,14,17 +125:9 126:10, +19 127:18,20, +21,25 128:2, +6,7,13 132:8, +11,15,18,21, +22,23 133:5, +19,25 134:10, +13 +motions +33: 7 47:13 +78:6 +mouthpiece +109:4 +move +50:7 59:24 +69:18 74:8 +98:24 133:14 +moved +60:22 78:22 +85:24 86:21 +117:11,12 +118:21 +moving +53:3 60:2 +86:16,20 +89:12.90:2 +Mulhull +99:18 +multiple +7:16 50:1 +mutual +136:22 +N +name's +4:14 +named +24:2,10,11 +30: 21 35:19 +36:21 71:6 +80:19,21 +84: 23,25 +85:9,10 87:15 +99:19 111:3 +112:6, 8 113:9 +121:2, 4 125:3 +127:8 +naming +10:12 35:9 +narrative +58:12 +narrow +119:17 | +national +50:21 +navigate +70:10 +necessarily +111:20 +needed +19:12 36:9,10 +37:20,21 +39:16 62:7 +85:19 88:13 +106:2 +needless +39:9 +negotiate +102:14 +neutral +122:5 129:19 +130:12 131:10 +neutrality +38:9 131:11, +16,19 133:2, +13 +news +102:5,11 +newspaper +8: 12 13:12,21 +45:4 46:19,22 +48:13 52:4,10 +53: 9 54:17 +57:22 58:9 +59:22 +135:7 +newspaper's +44:25 46:14 +135:12 +• newspapers +59:17 65:4 +101:14 +nice +122:18 +nickel +64:5,7 +Nina +106:23 +nods +4:22 101:21 +non-prosecution +102:14 103:3 +106:6 125:24 +noncurable +25:15 +Nonetheless +7:15 88:2 +128:21 +26 +notably +7:6 +note +32:5 38:11 +40: 4 47:17 +117:22 +noted +24: 1 41:8 +1134:17 +notes +14:16,17 +notice +8:19 26:14 +27:10,22 +28:7,21 31:1 +53:18 57:7 +89:20,23 +92:15,25 +132:4 +noticed +128:2,4 +132:13 +notify +48:12 50:11 +noting +42:10 +Notwithstanding +19:21 +November +5:1 16:18,25 +25:25 26:19 +34:16 44:4 +45: 1 70:25 +108:20 114:13 +number +9:16,19,24 +19:9 24:2,4 +25:20 26:11 +32:17 34:2 + + +35:13,16,24 +36:22,24 40:8 +49:19 58:8,14 +68:6,22 69:9 +73: 6 101:13 +numbers +9:5,18 +numerous +58:17 +object +29: 6 30:24 +31:1 35:21 +36:12 37:8,22 +38:7 39:19 +40:18 53:6 +60:13 61:6 +78:20 79:8 +85:12 86:6 +88:14 89:13, +14 90:21 +91:24 113:4,6 +115:23 127:1 +128:25 130:25 +objected +84: 6 112:14 +129:17 +objecting +61:16,22 +72: 14 120:6 +objection +13:14 30:3,7, +12,13 31:4 +41:6 51:24 +52:8,11 58:1 +60:17 62:17, +21,25 63:10 +73:20 82:15 +88:3,4 91:6, +21 94:7,13 +98:1 118:7 +128:22 129:7 +131:16 134:6 +objections +52:15 114:20, +21 +obligation +7:10 17:18 +115:24 +obligations +42:19 +obstruct +61:3 73:5 +obtain +45:5,7 56:6 +107:20 109:4 +116:19 +obtained +107:9 +obtaining +7:14 101:17 +obvious +28:9 +occasionally +100:18 +occur +128:11 +occurred +49:25 107:22 +108:18 113:14 +118:21 +October +16:19,24 26:2 +31:4, 6 37:19 +38: 5 57:12 +70:13,16 +88:12,15,17 +89:18 91:5,23 +93:5,12 105:8 +122:15 126:7 +127:11 129:5 +130:2 131:25 +132:3 +offended +137:9 +offhand +77:8 +office +19:10 24:3,5, +7,9.12.25,25 +28:25 +34:20 +35:2 +5,15,20 +37:4, +38:6 +39:18 +42:12 +44/12 45:25 +46: 4 48:1,13 +49:3,9,13,19 +50:6 55:24 +56:5,10,16,18 +59:10,12,13 +64:19,22 +65:14 66:11 +68:22 69:4,13 +70:15 71:3, +10,15 73:12 +74: 5 78:10 +80:25 81:3, +11,24 83:3,8 +84:8,18 85:1, +18 90:19,21 +94:25 95:2 +99:2,14,16 +100:10 +101:13,18 +102:7,10,24 +103:7 104:4, +10,15,16,24 +105:1,7,10, +27 +16,19,24,25 +106:13,18,24 +108:2 113:3, +12,13 118:17, +18 119:3 +121:6,12 +123:15,17 +124:10 +125:11,21 +126:4,5,6 +128:25 +130:21,24 +office's +104:20 +official +35:17 71:6,16 +73:23 84:25 +100:16 +110:13,18 +112:23 113:3 +121:12 122:4 +137:8 +officially +119:3 +officials +100:15 +110:11,12,21 +112:22 +Olympus +26:6 +one-sided +58:18 +ongoing +59:7,14 +online +49:20 +open +19:15 +opening + + +Septe ter Be 2020 +24:19 26:21 +28:24 78:19 +operative +115:11 +opportunity +17:3,7 116:2, +4 119:3,6 +131:15 +oppose +37:11 93:7 +117:19 121:25 +122:1 130:21 +opposed +85:23 118:24 +opposing +111:6 +opposite +41:14 +opposition +39:17 87:25 +131:18 +option +35:7 131:21 +oratory +98:6 +order +5:6 14:23 +22:16 80:5 +40:20.22 +42120 53:13, +15 56:22 +64:17 85:17 +86: 4 88:7 +91:11 92:15 +94: 9 119:9, +18, 21 120:2 +128:11 134:12 +ordered +13:22 36:13 +38: 8 129:1 +original +15:23 16:7, +17,21 18:4 +44: 25 71:18 +87:25 92:4 +94:15 127:24 +originallyfiled +18:1 +outlet +50:16 +outright +31:15 +outset +42:19 +overcome +31:17 58:8 +120:9 +overestimate +98:6 +overruled +58:5 82:21 +owe +64:5 +P +p.m. +4: 2 95:12,13 +138:19 140:2, +13 +pages +28:18,19 +29:12,13 +103:25 128:15 +paid +6:19 42:12 +64:7 +pains +137:10 +palatable +41:13 +Palm +4: 11 23:20 +33:2,6,22 +46:15 48:6,16 +49:15 50:2, +15,23 51:1 +55:14,20 +58:7,16,18,21 +59:4,8,16 +60:5,6 +|62: 11 +65:22 +68 +72: 6 +14:12 +91:16 +101:11, +16 18 +102:20 +105:10,18 +107:7 108:6 +110:25 +115:14,17 +126:5 +paper +50:23,24 +136:6,9,15,16 +paragraph +19:23 30:1,5 +72: 3 75:25 +76:12,20 +77:4,13,19,23 +80:18 87:16 +88:1,294:4 +117:23 118:4 +130:18 +paralegal +4:9 +paralegals +107:3 +28 +part +14:16 17:22 +21:25 22:7 +74:2 86:24 +87:20 106:6, +24 135:10 +participate +109:4 +participated +111:3 112:14 +parties +13:24 19:5 +27:19 32:23 +33: 11 78:8,13 +95: 24 138:23 +139:4 +partner +99:19 +partners' +82:11 +party +6:17,19,20,23 +7:17 8:8 +15:20 16:4 +18:15,19 +19:11 24:10, +11 25:22 26:2 +29:5 30:22 +32:12 35:12 +36:7,21 37:7 +38:13,15,16, +17,19,22,23 +39:11 41:5,20 +47:21 48:5 +57:8 80:21 +84: 23 85:17 +91:24 110:17 +111:3,11,20 +112:24 114:6 +118:18 121:2 + + +125:3 127:8 +131:13,24 +132:5 133:11, +22 +party's +6:20,24 +past +51:6 58:18 +62:5 67:3 +96:23,24 97:3 +pay +59:20 +pending +93:20 115:11, +12,13 119:16 +people +48:18 83:9 +98:5,6 +perception +60:22 +perform +12:4 +performance +11:1,17 +period +62:5 92:10, +93:15 +person +12:19 16:7 +18:16 65:6 +7415 84:9 +personal +58:20 71:7 +84: 2 108:5 +136:18 +personally +42:13 66:14, +16 71:11 +81: 22 82:9 +83:6 84:5 +87: 7 107:6 +109:10 115:25 +137:9 +persons +14:2 +persuasive +41:13 +pertinent +14:16 +Peter +48:21 +petition +85:5 +phase +97:14 108:11 +phone +122:18 +phonetic +99:21 +phrase +78422 +physical +80:24 125:16 +picked +18:1 +pinned +50:18 51:6 +place +22:3 +place-holder +133:5 +place-marker +26:24 27:7 +28:11,12,16 +29:19 31:10 +36:18 37:25 +119:25 126:10 +127:18,25 +132:23 +plaintiff +7:9,15 8:19 +14:9,15 15:1, +3,12 17:7 +18:14,22 20:5 +21:5 22:18 +23:2 30:9 +38:18,20 44:5 +50:12 54:11 +55:16,18 +56:4,8,12 +60:10 +12:1, +82:19 +88:5 +95:1,16 +96:10 +126:17 128:23 +plaintiff's +5:5, 9 22:17 +28:4 47:18,25 +55:23 56:24 +62:24 63:5 +87:24 +plaintiffs +5:3,17 13:12 +plaintiffs' +107:10 +play +116:2 122:4 +played +116:4 +playing +116:1 +plea +66:23 102:9, +14 +pleading +67:5 88:9 +131:8 +29 +pleadings +44:21 56:9 +66:13,21,25 +67:10 73:19 +87:10 +pleased +129:25 +130:16,19,23 +plenty +65:17 +point +24:24 35:15 +53:24 57:4 +59:12 64:12 +70:19 72:13 +73:13,14 81:1 +93:2 97:13 +113:12 120:4 +121:20 123:5 +125:1,10,18 +127:7 130:13 +points +18:24 +police +107:8 108:5 +popped +78:21 +portal +49:2,14,16 +50:24 51:5 +83:19,20 +portion +75:10 +position +8: 12 13:11 +17:4,8,14,17 +30:11, 16 38:9 +43:24 47:5 +54:14 58:22 + + +73:2,23,25 +79:6 88:24 +114:23 115:4, +8, 15 118:16 +122:6 125:6 +129:11,19,22, +23 130:3,13 +131:7,10 +133:3 134:17 +positions +29:25 114:25 +136:7,8 +possess +46:24 +possessed +50:6 67:4 +possession +7:20 22:13 +24:13,21 37:5 +45:14,16,25 +46:3,5 48:8, +14 51:1 52:5 +53:5 56:1,20 +60:24 63:7 +67:21 79:5 +80:3,4,24 +81:1,4 90:3 +19 105:9 +114:7 +118:17 +125:5,16 y +131:9 +post +4: 12 23:18,22 +24:2 26:1 +30:16 33:3, +16,22 34:2,8, +13 35:3,6,7,8 +39:15 43:3 +46:15 48:17 +50:15,23 +51:1,10 58:8, +16,18,21 +59:4,8.16 +60:5 62:11 +65:23 68:23 +72:7,14 +74:13,14 +76:1,9,20 +78:2 86:4,17 +88:12 89:2 +91:16,24 +101:11,16 +102:2,18,23 +103:20 104:19 +105:11,16,18 +106:2 115:13, +17 116:10,17 +119:13 123:6 +126:8 131:4 +132:19 133:18 +134:19 135:24 +136:2,4 +Post' +41:11 +106:7, 120:18 +126/16 130:21 +131:2 134:17 +post-1999 +6: 9 +post-trial +28:6 +posted +51:3 +posting +49:20 +posts +53:3 59:24 +60:3,22 78:22 +85:24 86:17, +20,21 89:12 +90:2 +posturing +10:12 +power +7:23 24:15 +35:21 36:23 +45:19,21 +powers +72:10 73:22 +practice +99:23 100:2 +precluded +13:15 +predator +28:23 +predecessor +48/21 66:11, +18 109:19 +110:24 +predecessors +66:6 +preeminent +115:9 +prefer +98: 2 138:24 +139:1,5 +prefers +98:3 +prejudgment +6:18 +prejudice +5:8 22:6 +preparation +137:7 +present +6:15 99:15 +presentation +139:22 +30 +presentations +134:19 +presented +6:25 13:4,20 +15:1 19:24 +21: 7 33:6 +55:19 76:4,22 +78:4,15 81:2, +13 113:15 +A +President +102:11 +press +49:9,13 +50:10,14,17 +51:12 56:10 +67:12,15 +83:21 +pretty +79:13 94:2 +130:4 +prevail +28:20 +prevailing +6:19 32:11 +38:12,14,16, +17,19,23 +39:11 41:20 +prevent +24:16 48:17 +61:10,20 +116:23 125:11 +prevented +63:6 +prevention +129:21 +preventive +129:21 +previous +17:20 99:15 + + +rudge Luis Delgado +leptember 06, 202. +previously +37:11 49:22 +51:21 131:6, +14 +primarily +100:13 108:25 +109:9 +primary +85:1 +prime +113:8 +principal +110:7 +printed +136:14 +prior +17:19 26:23 +27:15 59:10 +68: 21 73:19 +92:16 99:19 +102:19 129:11 +private +40:22 119:14 +problem +72:21 +procedural +10:12 +procedupe +6:8 18:25, +proceeding +6:22 +proceedings +4:2 76:24 +77:15 109:5 +121:18 125:10 +127:3 +process +8: 9 85:11 +103:1 108:8 +109:15 112:19 +134:24 +produce +7: 19 45:8,9 +54: 14 56:5 +118:13 +produced +83:21 84:20 +91:10 +produces +91:7 +producing +24:16 30:3,13 +35:22 37:9 +91: 6 94:8,14 +production +31:5 38:8 +61: 7 62:9 +91:22 129: +professional +122, 09) +profit +65,5 +prohibit +113:18 +prohibits +36:25 +prongs +131:13 +proof +118:20 +proper +7: 13 10:9 +18:15,19 +47:20 48:5 +110:6,17 +prosecute +59:13 +prosecuted +59:11 102:6 +prosecution +14:4 33:24 +37:2 49:21 +103:1,8 +prosecutorial +134:23 +protect +85:17 112:19 +115:24 122:7 +protecting +24: 7 121:13 +125:6 +protection +24:25 30:22 +85:2 +prove +41:23 +proved +119:1 +provide +13:8,17 17:3, +11 18:17 +20:20 33:4 +45:8 47:7 +52:22,24 +78:3,14 +107:11 118:7 +123:15 +provided +36:854:19 +56:19 104:6, +12 105:10,16, +20 106:14 +108:1 109:5 +126:4 +31 +providing +13:15 16:13 +29:6 +province +88:6 +provision +15:5,16 16:1 +17:2,12 26:14 +27:19 54:18 +76:15 +provisions +14:19 119:7 +129:20 +public +13:18 14:12 +23:22,25 +24:3,7,12,15 +34:1,2,21 +35:17,20 +41:10 46:16 +48:17 49:16, +20,23 55:22 +56:8,10 57:23 +66:7 68:22 +72:8,16 73:23 +74:3, 5 76:13, +25 82:4,7 +83:8,23 84:8 +94:24 102:3 +104:19 105:19 +107:14 109:3 +113:20 114:2 +publish +45:13 +publisher +4:11 +pull +28:11 29:8 +30:1 32:19 +34:22 68:3 + + +edge ber Dead +6. 202 +77: 9 111:11 +112:1 117:1 +118:1,2 +120:21 126:12 +127:14 130:9 +132:1 +pulling +103:13 105:4 +132:14 +purely +117:12 +purpose +6:6,11 14:5 +39: 8 55:21 +72: 8 92:25 +113:5 130:15 +purposes +38:23 +pursuant +5:11 13:23 +14:23 22:16 +38:24 49:22 +54:1 55:17 +56:22 72:9 +76:2,23 88:7 +pursued +61:14 +put +8:19 21:6 +47:5 49:4,13 +50:17,20 +83-18 89:17, +30,22 90:22, +23 119:2 +136:15 +putting +50:14 +puzzled +10:11 11:15 +qualification +78:15 +question +63:12 64:3 +79: 11 81:15 +82:24 83:1 +89:10,11 94:4 +135:19,21 +136:17 +questions +57:19 63:14 +69:1 90:25 +94: 24 95:4 +quick +94:20 +quicker +68:12 +quickly +35:13 130:4 +quote +21;8. 26:24 +30:12 45:25 +46:15 85:1 +88:2 +R +raise +126:25 +raised +15:23 31:8 +79:1,9 88:18 +101:8 +raises +15:22 29:24 +38:3 92:23 +ran +24:6 35:14 +Randy +58:21 +rated +100:20,21 +Raton +99:15,18 +re-arrest +102:22 +reach +106:20 +reached +48:22 +reaction +115:21 129:24 +134:18 +read +8: 22 9:13 +19:19 26:9 +32:3,7 47:15, +23 49:12 +51:21 55:9 +67: 9 69:11 +75:2 87:21 +107:14 +109:12,24 +130:19 136:14 +reading +25:5 80:16 +ready +23:16 98:16 +real +18: 7 65:3 +94:20 100:4 +reason +29:4 57:25 +58:2 60:14 +88:13 121:7, +32 +11 127:8 +reasonable +6:17 18:10,11 +20:3 +reasonableness +97:14 +reasons +11:13 36:20 +65:23 86:3 +87:14 112:6 +113:10 120:18 +121:1 125:3 +recall +21:1 41:4 +60:4, 7 117:16 +receive +105:1 +received +34: 4 50:21 +68:22 69:4 +70:20 104:22 +108: 4 121:9 +122:1 126:1 +recess +95:11 140:12 +recognize +20:8 44:11 +49:8 51:9 +54: 9 55:6 +57:7 76:14 +recognized +95:20 134:21 +recollection +49:5 +record +8: 22 22:17 +26:9 31:3,9 +40:12 47:16 +51:20 61:13 + + +95:12 +records +7:14,19,22 +8: 15 10:4,7, +16 11:18,20, +22,23 12:1 +13:16,17 +14:10,18 +18:17,23 +19:12,14 +21:20 22:14, +16 24: 4 29:7 +30:8 34:2,15, +21 35:4,16,22 +36:1 37:9 +39:17 40:11, +19 47:20 +48:3,14 +49:17,20,22, +23 50:12 +52:6,22,23 +54:15 57:22 +60:6,14 +61:18,19 63:9 +68:22 69:9 +74:4,5 79:9, +21 82:4,7 +83:9,17,18 +84:8,24 85:1 +88:4 90619,20 +91:794:24 +95 2 105:19 +127: 1 +128:23 +redirect +94:19,21 +138:22 +139:10,18 +reevaluate +17:4,8 +reference +66:16 +referenced +53:13 82:17 +references +29:20 57:21 +referencing +51:10 +referring +80: 7 120:23 +refresh +49:5 +refused +33:4 37:18 +78:3,13 83:19 +118:6 +refuted +35:23 +regard +39:23,25 +102:3,19 +111:19 +130:11 +135:13 +regular +38: 15 +Reiter +107:8 +reiterate +22:12 +reiterating +105:8 +related +103:21 107:23 +relating +25:3, 6 49:3 +103:7 +relationship +63:6 +release +5:14 10:21 +11:19 22:15 +30:24 36:12, +23 37:12,21, +23 39:17 +45:19,21 +49:2,9,13 +50:11,15,17 +51:13 53:6 +56:10 61:16, +17,18,23 63:8 +83:21 85:19 +86:6 112:14 +114:2 115:10 +117:19 118:24 +127:1 129:1. +17/21 130:25 +131:16 +released +14: 21 49:9,22 +56:21 59:6 +60:14 79:9 +89:4 +releasing +30: 8 40:19 +41: 7 50:25 +88: 4 125:12 +128:23 129:11 +134:6 +relevance +62:18 63:1,2 +relevant +85:16 +relied +111:8,18 +relief +5:12,18,20 +21:2,7 22:3, +9,21 23:4 +25:4,10 33:1, +8 37:7 40:3,5 +33 +41:3,12,17 +42:3, 9 55:17, +24 56:3,25 +67:7 75:20,23 +77:20 82:19 +94: 11 117:18 +118:12,19 +133:21 +reliefs +78:6 +rely +26:23 47:3 +relying +116:25 +remain +130:14 131:5, +12 +remainder +77:13 +remained +41:3 120:16 +122:6 +remaining +5:10 21:1 +133:22 +remarks +51:23,25 52:3 +remember +25:2 80:6,10, +16 86:22,23 +87:12 89:19 +109:13 131:13 +reminded +37:19 +reminder +42:6 +remotely +43:2 + + +removed +58:22 +repeat +82:24,25 +repeatedly +53:11 56:7 +reply +37:24 127:12, +17,21,24 +128:16 129:4, +15 130:3,11 +report +50:24,25 +125:25 +reported +109:16 +reporter +59:9,12 91:3 +reporting +62:24 +represent +36:11 +representing +107:1 +represents +42:15 101:13 +reprobate^ +137:2 140:9 +request +14:22 35:4 +36:1,14 67:6 +08: 21 76:18 +79:8 82:5,16 +83:9,13 84:4 +105:19 123:17 +130:22 +reguested +7:19 13:8 +14:10 22:14 +30 :4 45:15 +46:20 48:14 +55:20 56:2,7, +21 63:8 72:7 +74:7 82:19 +83:10 84:10, +18 88:5 94:8, +14 +requesting +34:20 37:1 +60:7 82:19 +103:20 113:19 +requests +23:4 34:3,21, +25 43:4 +49:19,23 +68:23 69:9 +74:4 76:2 +82:8 84:3 +94:25 123:23 +require +25:16 +required +27:20,16 56:1 +requirement +27:1 31:12 +requirements +32:10 +requires +26:15 +research +8 : 14 13:14 +34:16,17 36:4 +108:21 +109:10,25 +110:1 +researching +34:14 +reserved +42:25 +resign +48:20 102:16 +respect +66 : 23 69:9 +75:25 77:4 +79:7 +respected +122:8 +respectfully +40:8 41:1 +43:4 76:2 +respond +37:19 82:10 +83 4 87:7 +responded +43:19 69:14 +72:6 73:18 +83:9 87:5 +98:15 124:6 +125:2,13 +127:8 128:14 +responding +74:3 +response +33:11 36:17 +37:24 49:19 +82:13 84:22 +87:24 89:8 +91:5 93:5,13 +104:21,22 +105:2,12,13 +116:11 121:8, +9 122:2 +123:16 126:9, +16 127:12,19 +128:12 129:5, +14 130:2,20 +131:2 +34 +responses +70:20 71:4 +84:16 +responsibility +35:18 107:4 +109:8 110:7 +rest +95:15 +restate +79:11 +rests +96:4 +result +26:21 38:22 +50:21 106:4 +resulted +108:11 +revelations +108:18 +reversal +20:1 21:13 +reversed +21:18 +review +105:15 106:19 +109:13 114:2 +reviewed +44:20 107:16 +reviewing +108:9 117:16 +rights +100:14 109:2 +116:18 +120:14,15 +road +11:7,11 +role +110:17 + + +112:18,19 +116:1,2,4 +122: 4 136:6 +rolling +53:17 +room +11:19 +rooted +5:12 +rule +18: 4 19:4 +41:16 93:9 +101:2,5 +rules +19:3 101:5 +ruling +119:12 +rulings +39:20 +run +10:17 23:20 +rush +96:16 +Rutherford +99:18 +safe +27:13,17 +safe-harbor +15:5,15,25 +17:2,12 26:14 +27:1,10,18 +28:7 31:12 +54:18 +sanction +126:19 +sanctioned +100:22 +sanctions +8: 4 13:5 +15:21,24 +19:22 23:3 +25:3,21 26:4, +19 31:19 32:2 +33:14 38:13 +39:21 41:23 +42:5,11,24 +43:5 53:17 +61:14 101:2,3 +132:16,22 +SAO +55:25 56:6, +13,14 +scenario +20:15 +Scholz +44: 8 +School +99:8 +schultz +58:21 +seooped +58:10 66:1 +screen +68: 469:22,25 +70:3 124:15 +127:4 128:19 +sea +133:6 +seal +124:7 +sealed +123:24,25 +seated +4: 3 95:14 +secrecy +24: 8 109:15 +111:4 112:20, +25 113:4,8 +115:8,24 +117:21 119:1, +4, 7 120:8 +121:13 122:7 +125:7 129:20 +133:12 +secret +58:16 59:9 +Secretary +102:12,16 +section +865 14:20 +15:22, 23 33:9 +56:19 +75:23 +100:15 109:8 +135:8 +securities +100:4 +seek +53:16 77:12 +115:16,23 +118:12 123:6, +10 +seeking +7: 14 14:9 +18:24 19:4 +23:18 35:8 +50:13 55:16 +72: 7 73:21 +76:10 90:20 +103:7,23 +106:2 112:11 +119:15 +seeks +56:4 76:11,21 +85:16 +35 +sell +59:17 65:4 +send +53:18 105:2 +119:24 130:1 +sending +50:15 +sense +19:18 84:14 +sentence +72:17 87:14, +16 88:23 +90:10,12 +103:4 106:5 +sentencing +125:25 +September +70:17 134:11 +series +61:1,2 +serve +16:10 17:18 +19:5 31:13 +123:19 +served +16:5,7,8,9 +22:20 26:15, +18,25 79:20 +92:16 93:4,12 +132:18 +serving +16:8 +set +36:20 92:4 +94:14 121:1 +123:1 132:21 +settlement +122:10,11 +130:1 +EFTA02734830R + +Seventh +100:17 +sexual +23:23 +shareholder +99:13 +Sharon +48:6 +shed +34:4 +Shore +27:25 +short +52:16 +shortly +70:25 91:15 +show +15:7 18:18 +22:18 31:18 +33:21 44:10 +49:8 51:8 +53: 19 55:5 +57:6 +showing +32:13 86:12 +shown +73:8 +shows +13:5 33:16 +sid +- 20: 8. 70:16 +76:7 +side +67:12,13,14, +15,17 110:16 +135:24 +sidelines +53: 5 61:5 +Sidlosca +26:6 +signed +44:12 +significant +17:1 47:17,24 +silent +62:7 74:2 +simply +11:5,14 33:12 +80:21 84:23 +100:6 107:21 +118:9 +sincere +41:12 135:12 +sir +6: 3 9: 2 70:24 +89:23 93:19 +138:4 +sitting +82:10 136:24 +situation +27:24 +86:5 +133:4 +skills +98:6 +slash +9:17 +slide +77:23 +slow +70:2 +So. 3d +5:24 6:4 8:1 +15:18 26:9 +sober +137:7 +social +56:10 +sole +5: 9 56:20 +solely +11:20 +solemnly +43:11 98:8 +sort +83:15 105:17 +120:12 +sought +29:1 30:8 +33:3, 8 46:16 +47:20 48:3 +56 3 78:2,7 +8814, 6111:2 +128:23 +Sound +139:24 +sounding +135:2 +sounds +109:25 +139:23,25 +Southern +102:7,13 +speaking +61:20 84:7 +specific +34:25 35:4 +103:20 +specifically +5:16 111:19 +124:1 +speculation +52:12 +spent +36 +34:13 64:22 +65:17,18 +spoke +107:10 +spoken +74: 4 107:6 +stamp +9:5,9,18 +46:10 47:16, +2454:7 +stand +140:4 +standard +31:21 32:1,5, +8, 12 38:14, +15,16 41:19, +21 +standing +115:15 +start +9:9 53:17 +108:8 137:24 +started +48:18 50:4 +108:10 130:7 +137:22 +starting +25:13 +starts +72:1 +state +4:16 7:23 +10:6,9,12,15, +19,25 11:12, +16,24 12:9 +14:20 19:8,14 +21:5 23:21 +24:5,9,18,20, +24 25:22,24 + + +26:17,22 +27:14 28:25 +29:4,20 30:2, +6,11,18,20,21 +31:13,17 +33:1,11,25 +34:19 +35:2,5, +10,11,13,15, +19,20,23,25 +36:7,8,10,11, +17,18,21,25 +37:4,7.21 +38:6,10,12,16 +39:10,15 +40:10,13,18 +41:4 42:12, +15,16,17,18 +43:17 44:2 +48:2 49:15 +50:1,2,5 +55:14,25 +71:9,14,15 +80:19,20,23, +25 81:24 +84:23,25 +85:7,16,18 +87:15 88:3 +91:5 94:7,10 +99:22 100:9, +15 101: +102:20,25 +103:7,19 +104:2024 +10511, 7,9,16, +19106:13,18 +108:7 109:15 +110:4,11,12, +18,20,22,23 +111:2,10,19 +112:6,7,11, +17,22,23 +113:1,2,3,5, +7,11,13,18, +19,21,23 +114:6,14,23 +115:4,18 +116:9 117:7 +118:13,16 +119:24 120:4, +17,19 121:2, +6,7,12,16,19, +25 122:3,11, +20,23 123:12 +124:9,13,23 +125:2,8,16 +126:9,17,25 +127:7,12,17 +128:1,10,16, +21,24,25 +129:5,10 +130:19,24 +131:4,15,23 +132:5,8,13 +133:3, 8 +134:4,8,9 +135:25 +136:17. +719 +stated +38:7 91:21 +103:25 107:24 +128:25 129:6 +131:7 +statement +39:18 49:18 +78:19 89:25 +130:20 +statements +8: 18 13:2 +40:12 51:20 +60:4 +states +13:19 99:23 +101:14 +Statistics +100:13 +status +133:7 +statute +5:13 6:6,13 +7: 6 13:19 +14:15 15:4,6, +в 18:18 20:6 +21:12,25 25:8 +27:2 31:20 +32:2,3 33:9 +40:7,23 42-7 +54:2,19 +55:17 +76:3,13 +109:11,19,21, +22 111:5 +113:18 115:9, +11,16 116:18, +19 117:14,22 +118:25 +119:10,14 +120:9,11,13 +122:7 134:24 +statute's +119:7 +statutes +7:21 13:7,14 +14:13 20:14 +56:20 109:9 +statutorily +22:15 +statutory +19:19 21:11 +22:4 25:4,7, +12 37:13 42:7 +74: 15,20,24 +108:22 115:24 +117:12 +37 +stay +62:7 +stayed +16:6 +stems +58:20 59:15 +step +49:1 +/Stephen +30:15 34:9 +96:10 98:13, +23,25 +steps +48:12 50:11 +stipulated +12:22 95:23 +stonewalling +48:16 +stood +117:25 +stop +75:5 108:15 +137:24 +story +58:10 59:17 +streamline +6:8 +Street +140:8 +strict +31:12 +strictly +27:3 +strike +74: 8 88:10 +strong +41:12 125:21 +135:7 + + +stuff +29:14 67:3 +76:13 81:3 +83:22 84:1 +89:8 +stymied +10:13 +subject +46: 1 48:9 +90:8 100:22 +submitted +8:23 44:22 +107:5 +subpoena +112:10 +subsection +13:23 +26:14 +28:3 +subsections +19:21 +subsequent +15:21,24 +substance +92: 7 122:9 +substantial +8: 6 +substantive +56:24 +success +20:4 +suddenly +36:17 +sue +19:12 45:7 +61:20 71:9,14 +110:4 135:25 +sued +13:9,16 45:4, +5 46:4 59:5 +61:19 67:14 +71:10 86:4 +100:16 +110:12,21 +sufficient +27:7 +suggested +66:12 +suing +11:24 19:13 +57:22 58:13 +61:22 110:10 +136:17 +suit +8:10 20:7 +summary +29:21 54:25 +57:1,2,15,16 +118:22 +124:10 14,17 +125:9 +128:8 +133:19,25 +134:10.13 +summer +34: 6 101:22 +108:10 +summons +44:25 +Sun-sentinel +50:22 +Super +97:20 +supervised +85:19 +supervision +134:23 +supervisor +116:22 +supervisory +72:10 73:22 +supplement +39:2 139:19 +support +20:13 39:21 +41:11 124:17, +18,24 127:18 +131:17 +supported +7:2,4 +supporting +36:6 77:1 +supposed +10:20 +supremacy +129:20 +Supreme +109:2 +surprised +116:3 +surrogate +109:3 +surrounding +102:21 +sustain +62:20 +Sustained +52:1,12 60:19 +63:2 74:10 +swear +43:11 98:8 +sweetheart +33:25 +sworn +43:18 98:14 +system +25:130:23 +38 +35:19 39:9 +85:2,18 +116:22,23 +tab +26:7,8 27:11 +28:1 31:22 +39:1 69:17 +80:8 111:25 +tabulation +18:9 +taking +73:24 129:18, +22,23 131:9 +talk +12:8 60:2 +87:6 90:6,7 +talked +60:3 71:18 +86:1 +talking +31:23 65:16 +67:10 70:8 +81:5, 7 94:23 +111:7,16 +118:4 +talks +21:25 +targeting +62:14 +task +24:25 +tasked +24:3,7 30:22 +107:3 109:7 +121:13 +taxpayer + + +64:24 +taxpayers +42:13 59:19 +63:22,25 +64:4,13,18 +65:2 +team +34:8 106:25 +107:16,19 +131:3 136:5 +telling +59:24 85:22 +terms +202:25 203:1, +terrible +79:14 +testified +43:19 64:16 +65: 7 85:25 +98:15 104:9 +109:18 +testify +90:17 96:13 +106:12 +testimony +10:21 14:2 +15:6 33 5 +55: 19 67\19 +76:4,22 +77:18 +78:4 +14 97:6, +22 104:7,8 +107: 8 111:2 +118:8 139:11 +texts +48:18 +thing +10:23 17:1 +18:13 20:24 +50:19 51:12 +58:13 59:14 +61: 9 62:1,9 +65:12 67:18 +81:21 90:3,5 +97: 7 138:21 +things +14:8 59:15 +71:10 81:9 +83:20 105:8 +108:16 139:2 +thinking +59:11 +thinks +51:25 +Thirty +96:18 +Thomson +4:10 +thought +9:12 51:24 +65:22 +: 86:5 +105:9 +120:12 +126:15 135:2 +thoughtful +33:18 +Thursday +39:5 97:4,10 +138:9,11,12, +13,15,18 +140:2 +tighter +139:3 +time +6: 2,21 7:1 +22:19,20 +24:14 26:19 +31:10 54:22 +65:17,18 +70:19 71:11 +73:11,13,14 +85:24 88:9,18 +89:15 90:14, +16 91:21 +99:10,13 +101:17 102:4, +12 125:15 +128:24 129:6 +131:6,7 +134:10 +timeline +23:10 34; +37:17 91:19 +96:5 101:25 +122:14 +times +7: 16 15:2 +118:2 +timing +15:13 +today +4: 25 10:24 +15:7 25:3 +34:10 40:2 +44: 3 58:25 +60:10 61:4 +64:5, 8 65:1 +67:18 82:10, +14 85:25 +86:19 88:18 +89:11,15 +92:14 96:13, +17 97:6,7,22 +127:22 +132:11,16 +135:16 +told +5:16 48:24 +52:24 53:11 +39 +83:10 84:8,11 +86:3,16,18 +87: 9 89:7,11 +133:8 +tomorrow +96:25 97:1 +top +14: 8 57:10,11 +total +28:19 +totally +16:2 21:21 +Town +107:6,7 108:6 +trademark +100:4 +transcript +9:3,23,25 +12:12 25:5 +39:24 124:2 +139:11 +transcriptions +14:18 +transcripts +50:5 58:13 +60:25 61:9 +67:4,6,15,20 +81:5,17,19 +83:11,13,17 +107:5,9,21 +118: 9 124:4 +transparency +77:1 +Traurig +4: 10 30:15 +33: 17 34:9 +99:1,11,16 +100:1 101:15 +104:24 106:22 + + +114:5 135:4 +136:9 +Traurig's +131:1 +trial +7:1 8:5,7 +100:7 +true +29:17 30:10 +69:7 78:25 +89:15 +Trump's +102:11 +Trust +7:25 +truth +43:13,14 +98:10 +truthfully +84:11 +turn +31:20 67:8 +68:14 117:7 +tweet +51:6 +twist +20:5 +Iwitter( +50:17,19 +54:4,10 +two-page +79:20 +twofer +58:7 +type +110:12 +types +100:1,10 +U.s. +85:5 91:12 +100:19 102:6, +13 104:15 +105:25 109:2 +123:14 125:23 +126:4 +Uh-huh +63:24 +ultimate +7: 12 63:7 +116:21 +ultimately +14:6 41:15 +107:19 108:16 +118:22 131:3 +20 133:1 +134:20,25 +unambiguously +7:22 +unanswered +13515 +unchanged +20:23 +underlying +14:10 19:5,8 +25:17 57:25 +undermined +106:13 +understand +67:11 73:24 +83:25 124:5 +136:25 137:4 +understanding +83:7 +understood +115:23 116:1 +122:3 +undisputed +26:17 +unequivocal +130:20 +United +101:14 +University +99:6, 8 109:14 +unquote +26:24 +unsupported +5:18,21 +22:23,25 +untenable +32/16 41:25 +ypcoming +13:2 +upset +116:3 +Upstate +99:6 +USC +100:14 +utilized +14:6 +vague +123:18 +Valparaiso +109:14 +variety +100:3 +vendetta +58:20 136:19 +40 +versed +106:25 +version +6: 9 9:3,4,12 +versus +19:14 +vibrant +135:12 +victim +106: 11 +victims +50:8 +view +89:6 +violated +26:13 +voice +131:15 +void +92:19 +voluminous +107:12 +voluntarily +38:18 +voluntary +26:5 +voted +136:20 +wait +54:2 +Wall +140:8 +wanted +12:18 14:11 +45:9,11,13 + + +48:22 58:11 +62: 1 65:25 +83:14 85:12 +89:13 90:6, +13,15,16 +95:16,19 +104:14,18 +106:3,21 +110:4 111:11 +113:1,22 +122:2 123:11, +23 124:5 +136:11 +Wargo +99:18 +ways +11:22,23 20:6 +Web +49:2,14,16 +50:24 51:3,5 +week +96:25 +weeks +80:5 +whatsoever +10:22 14:5 +Whetstone +4:7,8 12415 +23:7,9.15,17 +31:27 39:4,7 +68:3,8 69:22 +78:19 +85:25 +86:195:8,23 +6: 7,10,14, +18,21 98:1, +17,19 103:10, +12 111:24 +112:2 124:20, +22 126:22,24 +127:14,16 +137:14 138:24 +139:9,23 +whim +36:2 +wiggle +11:19 +Wille +110:23 +111:12,14 +112:21 +win +10:18 11:2,7, +11 +wins +64:11 +withdraw +17:5 27:21 +28:5 +withdrawn +27:23 +withdrew +16:5 +witnesses +43:7 +woman +104:8 +won +32:11 +word +109:12 136:15 +140:9 +wording +60:3 +words +7:7 76:11 +133:5 +work +21:10 41:14 +99:9,14 +100:7,8 +108:12,13,24 +135:3,4 +worked +101:3 102:10 +119:5 +working +106:22 +worth +42:10 108:12 +worthwhile +97:13 137:2 +write +35:2 62:1 +120:17 +136:5, +012 +138:23 +139:16 140:8 +writes +80:22 +writing +59:5 70:3 +97:25 98:4,5 +121:20 130:7 +136:3 139:4, +20 +written +13:7 48:25 +58:19 80:12 +87:8 97:22 +105:18 121:9 +139:2 +wrong +34: 1 60:12 +64:18,20 +66:22 +wrongdoing +137:12 +41 +wrote +30:20 61:1,2, +25 73:4 80:5 +86:11 90:11, +17 103:19 +104:25 +Wyler +4: 13,14,20,23 +16:3 9:2,8,11, +15,20,22 +12:17,23,25 +23: 6 26:20 +28:23 29:15 +32:3, 7 39:7 +42:15 43:9,21 +44:8,15,19 +46:7,10,12 +47:11,15 +48:10 52:2, +13,19 53:21 +54: 6, 8 58:3 +60:1,20 62:22 +63:3,4,14 +82:15 84:19 +86:13 92:6 +94:20,22 +95:4,7,15 +96: 1 97:12,20 +121:22 +122:16,17 +128: 6 130:10 +137:19,23 +138:4,6,10,12 +139:14,25 +years +34:7 50:1 +58:17,19 59:7 +91:12,13 + + +99:12,16 +yesterday +130:21 +York +99:6,22,25 +100:9,15 +102:7 +Young +104:8 +42 +Zoom +139:21 +NOT A CERTIFIED COPY + + +CA Florida Holdings, L.L.C. +VS. +Dave Aronberg +Hearing Before: +NOT A +PHIPPS REPORTING +Raising the Bar! + + +IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT +IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +CASE NO. 50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB AG +CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC, +Publisher of the PALM BEACH POST, +Plaintiff, +vs. +DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney +of Palm Beach County, Florida; +SHARON R. BOCK, as Clerk and +Comptroller of +Florida, +Defendants. +TRANSCRIPI OF +•CONTINUATION OF +HEARING PROCEEDINGS +RE: Defendant Dave Aronberg's Amended Motion for +Attorneys' Fees +DATE TAKEN: +Thursday, September 8, 2022 +TIME? +PLACE: +PALM BEACH COUNTY COURTHOUSE +205 North Dixie Highway +Courtroom 10D +West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 +BEFORE: +LUIS DELGADO, JR., Circuit Judge +Stenographically reported by: +Lisa Begley, +RPR, RMR + + + +Septe turo Be 2020 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +Page 143 +APPEARANCES: +On behalf of the Plaintiff: +GREENBERG TRAURIG +777 South Flagler Drive +Suite 300 East +West Palm Beach, Florida +33401 +561-650-6420 +LAUREN R. WHETSTONE, ESQ. +whetstonel@gtlaw.com +MARK F. BIDEAU, ESQ. +bideaum@gtlaw.com +GERARD BUITRAGO, ESQ. +buitragog@gtlaw.com +On behalf of Defendant, Dave Aronberg: +OPY +JACOB, SCHOLZ & WYLER, LLC +961687 Gateway Boulevard +Suite 2011 +Fernandina Beach, Florida +32034 +904-261-3693 +BY: DOUGLAS A. WYLER, +doug@jswflorida.com +Also present: Dave Aronberg, State Attorney +Defendant +Leigh +Public Records Coordinator +afice of the state Attorney PBC +22 +23 +24 +25 + + +Page 144 +1 +2 +3 +4 +INDEX +WITNESS +STEPHEN MENDELSOHN, ESQ. +ross Examination by Mr. Wylei +Redirect Examination by Ms. Whetstone +5 +6 +Non-movant rests +7 +8 +9 +Certificate of Report +er +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +TOT A CERTIFIED COPY +PAGE +146 +187 +204 +210 +22 +23 +24 +25 + + +Page 145 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Thereupon, +the following proceedings began at 1:06 p.m.: +THE COURT: All right, please be seated. +All right, announce your presence. +MS. WHETSTONE: Good afternoon, Your Honor, +Lauren Whetstone, and with me, Mark Bideau, Gerard +Buitrago and paralegal, Jennifer Thomson, on +behalf of Greenberg Traurig, on behalf of CA +Florida Holdings, the publisher of the Palm Beach +Post, the plaintiff, and our witness, Stephen +Mendelsohn. +MR. WYLER: +Good afternoon, Your Honor, +Douglas Wyler with the law firm +,, Scholz & +Wyler here on behalf of the State Attorney, Dave +Aronberg, defendant. +THE COURT: All right, so we left off with +cross examination? Is that where we are? +MS. WHETSTONE: Yes, Your Honor. +MR. WYLER: Yes, sir. +THE COURT: Madam Clerk, please swear in +the witness. +Sir? +THE WITNESS: +•. I've been sworn in +before. +THE CLERK: Do you solemnly swear or affirm + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +Page 146 +that the evidence that you're about to give will +be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the +truth? +THE WITNESS: I do. +Thereupon, +7 +8 +9 +STEPHEN MENDELSOHN, ESQ., +having been duly sworn by the Clerk of the court, +responded and testified as follows: +CROSS EXAMINATION +10 +BY MR. WYLER: +11 +Good afternoon, Mr Mendelsohn. +12 +A. Good afternoon, Mr. Wyler. +13 +l. So I'm going to start off with this: Isn't +14 +it true that part of the exhibits that we've all agreed +15 +on that are here and part of evidence are some of the +16 +portions of our settlement negotiations? +17 +There is one letter, yes. +18 +Okay. And isn't it true you and I talked +19 +several times regarding settlement? +201 +A. +Sure. +21y +l. And isn't it also true that, during the +22 +pendency of our settlement negotiations, Mr. Aronberg was +23 +contacted by the same reporter that the SAO had +24 +previously prosecuted for illegal substances? +25 +MS. WHETSTONE: Objection, Your Honor, no + + +Page 147 +1 +2 +3 +foundation. +MR. WYLER: That's fine. +THE COURT: All right. +4 +BY MR. WYLER: +5 +l. Isn't it true, though, that Mr. Aronberg +6 and Mike Edmondson contacted you to complain/about an +7 +article that was being written about him?' +8 +A. +No, no. +I've never spoken to Edmondson +9 +that I remember. +10 +e. +Well, okay. That's fine. But you did +11 +speak with Mr. Aronberg, right? +12 +A. No. I don't)recall speaking to anyone on +13 +this matter, unless he was on the phone with you. Other +14 +than that, no. +15 +Okay, well, then part of when we spoke, and +16 +maybe you didn't know, Mr. Aronberg and Mike Edmondson +17 +were on the phone with us, but isn't it true that there +18 +was a time, when you and I spoke in settlement +19 +negotiations, that you offered to hold an article pending +20 +our settlement negotiations? +21) +MS. WHETSTONE: Objection, Your Honor, +22 +settlement discussion. +MR. WYLER: They opened the door to +24 +25 +settlement negotiations by putting it into +evidence. + + +Page 148 +1 +THE COURT: What exhibit are you talking +2 +about? +3 +MR. WYLER: I don't actually have an +4 +exhibit that is part of evidence, but I do have an +5 +exhibit that is not part of evidence that I will +6 +offer to the Court. +7 +THE COURT: That is good then +objection +8 +is sustained. +A. That is absolutely untrue.) +10 +BY MR. WYLER: +11 +l. So you're saying that never happened? +12 +A. No. Mr. Aronberg, through you, suggested +13 +that in the settlement, +that the paper would write a +14 +favorable article about him if we were able to settle. +15 +16 +17 +You suggested that. +I didn't make a comment one way or +the other, but 'absolutely advised my client of it. +I don't make editorial decisions for the +18 +19 +20 +paper, so I have no authority to make such. +So you're saying there was never a +conversation between you and I where we discussed +21y Mr. Aronberg creating a comment to go into the newspaper +22 as part of those settlement negotiations where you wanted +23 +24 +25 +us to drop our 57.105 demand and you offered to get an +article held while we determined whether we would do +that? + + +1 +2 +3 +Page 149 +MS. WHETSTONE: Objection, Your Honor, +compound, compound. +THE COURT: Sustained as compound. +4 +BY MR. WYLER: +5 +l. All right, I'll move on. +6 +So, in your direct examination the other +7 +day, isn't it true that you stated that you devoted +8 +hundreds of hours to the research and development of +9 +bringing this lawsuit? +10 +A. +Yes. +11 +e. Okay. And so, in all of that research, you +12 +extensively put time into looking into Chapter 905.27 +13 +before you brought this action? +14 +A. +Yes, sir! +15 +And, prior to Judge Marx's June 8th order +16 +on the motion to dismiss Count 2 -- Let me scratch that. +17 +Isn't it also true that your client's +18 +complaint alleged against -- that my client was in +19 +possession or control of the documents that are in this +20 +action, the subject of this action? +21Y +A. +I'm sorry, can -- +22 +I'll repeat it. Isn't it true that your +23 +client's complaints alleged that my client and/or his +24 +office is in, quote, possession and/or control of the +25 +documents that are subject of this action? + + +Page 150 +1 +A. +Are you reading from the amended complaint? +2 +That is found at page 117, +stamp +3 +number 117, paragraph 3 of the first amended complaint. +4 +I'll be happy to show it to you. +5 +A. Well, if you'll just let me know where in +6 +the amended complaint it is, what paragraph +7 +Paragraph 3. +8 +THE COURT: What's the Bates stamp? +MR. WYLER: 117, Your Honor. +10 +A. +Yes, sir, that's part +of what I said in +11 +paragraph 3. +12 BY MR. WYLER: +13 +2. But there was an allegation that my client +14 +is in possession and/or control of the documents? +15 +A. +In his official capacity as his office is +16 +in possession and/or control of documents that are the +17 +subject, of this action. And in the prior sentence, I +18 +quoted Florida Statute 27.03 which provides for the +19 +attorney -- excuse me -- the state attorney to have +20 +authority over grand jury proceedings in the state of +21y Florida. +22 +23 +24 +25 +Okay. Isn't it also true in the first +amended complaint that your client admitted that it is +not -- it is not seeking these materials in connection +with either a civil or criminal case and, therefore, + + +1 +2 +sought unlimited access to the requested materials unde 251 +905.27? +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +stamps in front of +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +A. Again, that's a compound question. I'm not +sure which one goes first. +l. Isn't it -- If you would look at +stamp page 135. +A. I don't have the l +me. A11 I have is the exhibits, sir." +Okay. They should be on there, in the +bottom left corner. +A. +Which one is it? +l. +135. +A. +Okay. +I'm sorry, what is your question, +14 +sir? +15 +l. +Didn't you admit on that page that you are +16 +not seeking these requested materials in connection with +17 +either a civil or criminal case? +18 +A pending -- Right, that is correct. +19 +Okay. +20 +A. +The Post was not seeking these documents in +21y +a pending criminal or civil case involving the Post. +22 +That is correct. +23 +l. Thank you. And did you also seek unlimited +24 +access to those requested materials for that reason? +25 +A. +No, that's not accurate. + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +e. +at that +A. +A. +A. +sir. +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21y +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 152 +-- +If you look -- Would you look at +stamp I just provided you? +Yes. +I believe it's on here. +Are you looking at 135 -- +Uh-huh. +-- on Exhibit 9? Yes, I'm Iooking at that, +l. Okay, and if you would look at +paragraph 70. +A. Sure. +l. And then, do you see -- one, two, three -- +the fourth line down in the sentence that starts with, +"Because..." +A. +Yes, +l. +Okay. It says, "Because the Palm Beach +Post is not seeking these materials in connection with +either alcivil or criminal case, it seeks a declaration +that the scope of its use of the disclosed materials is +not limited." +A. Right, not limited to a civil or criminal +case, but that the Post had the right under section (c) +of 905.27 in furtherance of justice. We were always +seeking an in-camera inspection of the documents by the +Court prior to any release to the Post. + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +move on. +19 +20 +21Y +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 153 +l. Did that argument succeed in your claim +against the clerk? +A. Which one? +l. That you had no connection with the civil +or criminal case and to get unlimited -- to get unlimited +access. +A. Well, again, we weren't seeking unlimited +access. As I just mentioned, we were always seeking an +in-camera inspection by the Court prior to release to us. +So we were not seeking unlimited access, nor immediate +access to the documents. +l. +You weren't - All right, we're going to +Isn't it true that the other day you +testified that you sued my client because you needed him +not to object to your request for these materials? +I needed him not to object? No. I gave +him the opportunity to do actually three things. One is +to support our request; two, they could have taken a +neutral position; or, three, they could have objected. +Initially, the state attorney's office took +the position to object, and as I think I testified, they +eventually changed the position in October of 2020 to +neutrality. +And you believe that's a proper basis for + + +Page 154 +1 +filing this lawsuit against my client? +2 +A. That they adopted a neutrality position? +3 +I'm not clear what you're asking me. +4 +,, no, that you needed him not to object. +5 +A. +That I needed him not to object? +No - - +6 +Unless you wanted -- +7 +A. +I'm sorry, did I step on you, sir? +8 +l. No, you're fine. +9 +A. +No. That I needed him not to object? No, +10 +I gave the state attorney's office the option to make, in +11 +their discretion, to make the decision as to what they +12 +wanted to do vis-à-vis grand Jury secrecy. And as I +13 +stated -- You know, +if you look at the paragraph you +14 +quoted before, that's paragraph 3 of the first amended +15 +complaint, I cite to Florida Statute 27.03, which gives +16 +the state attorney the authority over grand juries, and +17 +if you look at the cases cited under 27.03, there are a +18 +number of them which say that the state attorney has +19 +(very, Yvery broad powers in the conduct of a grand jury, +20 +SO +-- +21y +22 +23 +24 +25 +l. +Thank you, Mr. Mendelsohn. Let's move on. +A. +Okay. +l. In your long practice as an attorney, is it +your understanding that clear, unambiguous statutory +language has to be enforced as written? + + +1 +A. +Well, there are circumstances where the +Page 155 +2 +courts have implied causes of action. That's the famous +3 +United States Supreme Court case of Cort v. Ash where the +4 +Court said that, even if Congress did not specifically +5 +authorize a cause of action, that, in certain +6 circumstances, if Congress did not bar such, you could +7 +have an implied cause of action. That comes +also for +Section 10 (b) (5) of the securities laws +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +23 +24 +25 +Okay, but -- +A. And Florida has that, +too. +l. All right. But, in your research, you +stated that you went through 905.27, right? +A. +Exactly, yes. +Okay and you came across this language, +right? I'm going to read this to you: "When such +disclosure is ordered by a Court pursuant to +subsection (1) for use in a civil case, it may be +disclosed to all parties to the case and to their +attorneys and by the latter to their legal associates and +employees; however, the grand jury testimony afforded +21y such persons by the Court can only be used in the defense +22 or prosecution of the civil or criminal case and for no +other purpose whatsoever." +You came across that language when you were +doing the research, right? + + +Page 156 +1 +A. Absolutely. +2 +l. And do you recall my client asserting that +3 +as a defense from the beginning, from our first +4 +interaction, first legal filing in this? +5 +A. +Yes, you made a motion to dismiss arguing +6 +that the Post did not - - +7 +We'll take a yes. It was a yes or no. +8 +A. +Well, you asked me if your client did that, +9 +and I was answering it. So the answer - +10 +I'll take it as a yes or no. +11 +A. +May I finish my answer without +12 +interruption? +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21Y +22 +23 +24 +25 +The answer is, yes, you made a motion to +dismiss under 905.27 and asserted that the materials +could only be used in a civil or criminal case. Of +course, we disputed that because of (c), which is the +furtherance of justice language. +Q. And did that -- did that argument - - was +this argument successful in your action against the +clerk? +A. It was never addressed by the Court. +l. So you're telling me that Judge Hafele +never brought up 57 - - or, 905.27 in his final judgment? +A. +No. I'm suggesting the way you +characterize it was not the way Judge Hafele decided. + + +Page 157 +1 +Judge Hafele, in his final judgment, said that he felt +2 +constrained by the statute vis-à-vis his inherent +3 +authority as a judge. +4 +While he wanted as a judge to exercise his +5 inherent authority to allow for disclosure, he felt that +6 the statute constrained him in doing so because it did +7 +not expressly so state that it could be used outside of +8 +the civil or criminal case. That's what I believe Judge +9 Hafele said. +10 +2. Do you have a copy of the final judgment in +11 +front of you? +12 +A. +Yes. What exhibit is it? +13 +It's tab 30,, +14 +A. +okay, +Okay. +15 +All right, tab -- or, +1477. +16 +A. +Sure. +The newspaper makes strong arguments +17 +to advance +18 +Q. +No. No, sir. No, sir. +19 +A. +I'm sorry. +20 +l. No, sir. Let me redirect -- Let me direct +21y you to the first paragraph here under Emphasis Added? Do +22 +you see it says, "Reading subsection (1) (c)..."? +23 +A. Right. +24 +Could you read that until the cite for the +25 +amended complaint, please? + + +Page 158 +1 +A. +Right. "Reading subsection (1) (c), +2 furthering justice," which is in quotes and parentheses, +3 +"in tandem with section (2), it is evident that the +4 +phrase, quote, furthering justice, end quote, is to be +5 +interpreted in the context of seeking disclosure of the +6 grand jury materials for use in a pending criminal or +7 +Y +civil case." +8 +Keep going. +A. +Yep. +"The newspaper acknowledges that it +10 is not seeking the disclosure of such materials for such +11 +purpose. Instead" - +12 +l. +That's it. +Thank you, Mr. Mendelsohn. +13 +A. +But it/s not the - +14 +l. +Mr Mendelsohn -- +15 +THE STENOGRAPHER: I'm sorry, I can't take +16 +this. +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +THE COURT: Gentleman, gentleman, we're +here for trial, and you're being cross-examined -- +THE WITNESS: Your Honor, maybe, for the +rule of completeness, I would like to be able to +read the entire sentence. +THE COURT: So right now you're testifying. +It's your witness. What's your next +24 +inquiry? +25 +MR. WYLER: Thank you, Your Honor. May I + + +Page 159 +1 +continue with this final judgment, Your Honor? +2 BY MR. WYLER: +3 +l. I would like you, Mr. Mendelsohn, to flip +4 +to page 1479 of that same final judgment. At the very +5 top of that page, could you read that first sentence for +6 me, too .. for me? +7 +A. "Subsection (2) clearly limits +8 +Section 925.27's (sic) scope as to the instances in which +9 grand jury testimony or materials need to be disclosed +10 +for use in a criminal or civil case." +11 +l. +And then - You can keep going. +12 +A. +"Section 12) provides that, once grand jury +13 +testimony is disclosed in the course of a court +14 +proceeding, it is then open to unlimited dissemination. +15 +16 +Before that occurs, the Court must determine that one of +the three needs prescribed in section (1) is present in a +17 +18 +criminal or civil case that requires disclosure. There's +nothing in Section 905.27 that gives the Court carte +19 +20 +blanche, " which he has italics, "authority to release +gránd jury materials in any situation that might bear +217 +22 +23 +24 +25 +some relationship to, quote, furthering justice, end +quote, in its broadest sense." +Q. Thank you. All right, so moving on from +905.27, in your extensive research of this case, did you +also come across Chapter 905.17? + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +A. +Page 160 +Sure. +l. Okay, and let me provide that to you, sir. +MR. WYLER: This is tab 32 of the -- or, 33 +of the Authorities, Your Honor, tab 33. +BY MR. WYLER: +l. Do you have it, Mr. Mendelsohn, or would +you like me to provide it? +A. +It's the +amended and supplemental affidavit +of attorneys' fees and costs? +e. +You don't have the Authorities binder? +A. +No, I don't have the Authorities binder. +MR. WYLER: +May I approach? +THE COURT: +Yes. +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21Y +22 sir. +23 +24 +25 +BY MR. WYLER: +l. +Here's a copy of 905.17. +A. +Yes, I'm familiar with this provision. +e. +Great, okay. And then the very last +sentence of that first paragraph, it starts with, "The +notes, records and transcriptions..." Would you please +read that for the Court? +A. +I'm not sure where you're directing me, +l. Let me approach again and show you here. +I'm sorry, I didn't have this highlighted for you. +Right here, very last sentence of that + + +Page 161 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +first paragraph starts with, "The notes..." +A. Yes. +l. Will you please read that for the Court? +A. Sure. +"The notes, records and +transcriptions are confidential and exempt from the +6 provisions of Section 119.07 subdivision (1)/and +7 +Section 24(a), Article 1 of the State Constitution, and +8 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21y +22 +23 +24 +25 +shall be released by the clerk only upon request by a +9 grand jury for use by the grand jury or on order of the +Court pursuant to 905.27." +Thank you, Mr. Mendelsohn. And do you +recall my client asserting this as a defense to your +claim as well? +A. +Yes, yes. +And isn't it true that your client and your +firm and you yourself have been made aware several times +that Mr. Aronberg and his office have no ability to +comply with your declaratory relief claim because they +have no possession, custody or control of those requested +grand jury materials? +A. +I'm aware that's your argument. +e. +You're aware that we've made that argument +to you several times, are you? +A. +Yes, you made a motion to dismiss and a +motion for summary judgment. + + +1 +2 +Page 162 +And did we also put that argument in our +3 +4 +5 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21y +22 +23 +24 +25 +57.105 demand? +A. +Yes. +l. Okay. And isn't it true that you and your +client have admitted that the clerk is the only one in +6 possession and control of those requested grand jury +materials? +A. +I don't believe so. +l. +All right. If I could direct the Court and +you, Mr. Mendelsohn, to tab 20/ and it's +stamped +262. +A. +262? Yes/ sir. +e. +And then the second paragraph starts with, +"Also..." Can you just read -- Can you just read that +first sentence for me? Or I'll just read it here. It +says, Also, the clerk, who admittedly has both possession +and control of the Epstein grand jury materials, has not +followed the state attorney's lead in seeking sanction of +the Palm Beach Post. +It says that in there, correct? +A. +Well, you didn't read it verbatim, but +essentially that's what it says, yes. +It also says the clerk's decision -- +e. +A. +I didn't ask you what else it says. +I know, because it doesn't help you. + + +Page 163 +1 +But I didn't ask you that. +2 +THE COURT: Gentleman, so this is the +3 +second time, okay? +4 +MR. WYLER: Thank you, Your Honor. +5 +THE COURT: Let's maintain a little +6 +civility. +7 +BY MR. WYLER: +8 +Q. Mr. Mendelsohn, in your extensive +9 involvement in this case, how did you contribute to the +10 June 3rd, 2020, motion to dismiss hearing? +11 +A. +How did I? +12 +Yeah, or did you? +13 +A. I didn't argue the motion, but certainly, +14 +as part of the group, we had discussions as to how we +15 +thought it should be argued, the potential arguments from +16 +the state attorney's office and what we thought would +17 +occur. +18 +19 +A. +Did you attend via Zoom or -- +Yes -- +20 +21y +A. +22 +Okay. +-- I did. +And have you ever read the transcript of +23 +it? +24 +A. +25 +Some time ago, yes. +Okay, so then you were aware of Judge + + +1 +Marx's statements, the ones that I read onto the repage 164 +2 in my opening statement regarding the impossibility of +3 +performance for the records that you requested? +4 +A. I know she said that, yes. +5 +l. Okay. Did you agree with Judge Marx's +6 statements as to an impossibility of Mr. Aronberg being +7 +able to comply? +8 +A. +I took her statements as complete dicta +9 +since they were not before her as a question on the +10 +motion to dismiss. I did not know what personal +11 +knowledge she had of what the state attorney's possession +12 +or nonpossession was. +So i did not credit it as being +13 +anything but a dicta statement from her. +14 +So you or your firm, no one objected to +15 +those statements then, correct? +16 +There wasn't -- I'm not sure what you're +17 +referring to. +18 +19 +20 +21Y +22 +23 +24 +25 +Was there any objections made to any of +those statements made -- objections or appeals made as to +those statements made on the record in that hearing? +A. +I don't follow, because you don't make +objections to a judge's comments. +l. Well, through an appeal, you would. Did +you file an appeal as to that motion to dismiss? +A. +No. It wasn't necessary. + + +Page 165 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +Okay. Would you please flip to our Joint +Exhibit Number 14? +A. +Sure. +e. +It's also found at +stamp 232. +A. +Yes, sir. +Okay, do you -- do you recognize this as a +7 +8 +copy of my client's 57.105 demand letter and a copy of +the email when it was sent to you? +A. +Yes, I do. +10 +And what day was it sent to you? +11 +A. +June 8th -- +12 +Okay. +13 +A. +-- of 2020, +14 +Thank you. +15 +past the letter, that's +And then, if you flip to the -- +stamp 235. +16 +A. +Yes, sir. +17 +Do you -- Do you recognize this as the +18 +motion for attorneys' fees that was sent along with that +19 +motion to -- or, with that 57.105 demand? +20 +A. +Well, it wasn't a motion. It was an +21y +unsigned proposed motion that you were suggesting would +22 be filed if we did not act within the 21-day safe harbor +23 +under 57.105. +24 +l. That's right. And that -- Do you know when +25 +this motion for attorneys' fees was actually filed? + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21y +22 +23 +24 +25 +A. +Page 166 +July, the beginning of July of 2020, I +believe. +If I told you July 1, 2020, does that sound +correct to you? +A. Yes, it does. +okay. And is that more than 21 days after +June 8th, 2020? +A. +Yes. +e. +It's 23 days beyond, my math. +A. +I have no reason to doubt that. +l. +If you look at +I quoted in our -- In the +57.105 demand, you'll see a quote of the Chapter 57.105 +subsection (1). +A. +What are you referring to now? +Do you see in my -- the 57.105 demand +letter, still Exhibit 14? +The demand letter that's Exhibit 16? +No, no, no. Still on 14. +A. +14. +stamp 233. +A. +233? Yes. +Okay. Do you see where the 57.105 +statute's quoted there in the middle of the page? +A. +Yes. +l. +Can you tell me anywhere in there there's a + + +Page 167 +1 +2 +3 +good faith element? +element of the statute. +4 +A. No, because you didn't quote the good faith +l. In subsection (1), is there a good faith +5 +element? +A. I believe there is a good faith element +7 +that wraps around the entire proceeding of 57.105. +8 +Okay, but in subsection 1 itself, is there +9 +a good faith element in that subsection? +10 +A. +No, but there's an additional good faith +11 +provision in 57.105 that you didn't cite to in this +12 +letter. +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +Okay. +Now, are you referring to 57.105 +subsection 4? I can show you the statute. +A. +Let me just check here. I'm looking at my +letter of June j23rd. 57.105 (3) (a), that's what I was +referring to. +18 +19 +20 +21Y +Okay. All right. And, now, we talked +about this before. Can you -- 57.105 (3) (a), can you read +subsection (a) for the Court? +A. +I don't have 57.105. I have my letter +22 +which -- +23 +24 +A. +25 +I can hand it to you. +Sure. +Yeah, absolutely. + + +Page 168 +1 +A. +Thank you. +2 +l. You're welcome. 3(a) is right there. +3 +A. +"Notwithstanding subsections (1) and (2), +4 +monetary sanctions may not be awarded; (a), under +5 +paragraph (1) (b) if the Court determines that the claim +6 or defense was initially presented to the Court as a good +7 +faith argument for the extension, modification or +8 +reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law +9 +as it is applied -. as it applied to the material facts +10 for the reasonable expectation of success; (b), under +11 +section" -- excuse me -- "under paragraph (1) (a) or +12 +paragraph (1) (b) against a losing party's attorney, if he +13 +or she has acted in good faith based upon the +14 +representations of his or her client as to the existence +15 +of material facts; Ic), under" -. +16 +l. +I just -- I just needed you to read (a). +17 +Thank you. +18 +. I wasn't sure. +19 +So under (3) (a), does that apply to +20 +subsection (1) (a) of the statute, or does it only say +21y (1) (b) there? +22 +A. No, if you 100k at (3) (a) -- if you look at +23 +(3) (b), it says, under paragraph (1) (a) or +24 +paragraph (1) (b) against a losing party's attorney if he +25 +or she has acted in good faith. + + +1 +Page 169 +You're seeking fees against myself and -- +2 +e. +No, no. +3 +A. +-- and Greenberg attorneys, so I read that +4 +as being applicable. +5 +7 +l. MI. Mendelsohn, you're skipping down to -- +6 That's not what I asked you. 57.105 (3) (a), does that +apply to 57.105 (1) (a)? +• Does it say it in the statute? +8 +MS. WHETSTONE: Objection, calís for a +legal conclusion. +MR. WYLER: No, +I'm just asking him to read +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21Y +22 +23 +24 +25 +it. +A. It doesn't say X1) (a) under (3) (a), but I +don't remember the case law as to whether or not, when +you're suing both the elient and the lawyer under 57.105, +that both of them can't make the argument of good faith. +BY MR. WYLER: +But correct me if I'm wrong, it did say, +under paragraph (1) (b), if the Court determines that the +claim or defense was initially presented to the Court as +a good faith argument? +A. +(1) (b) has good faith in it as well, yes. +l. It doesn't say (1) (a) in there, does it? +A. +I'm confused now as to what you're asking +me. No offense. +e. +Mr. Mendelsohn, that's okay. I'll move on + + +2 saying. +Page 170 +from that. I believe the Court understands what I'm +3 +So back to that 57.105 demand letter. +4 +7 +8 +Isn't it true in that demand letter that we asserted that +5 your client's declaratory relief claim is not supported +6 by the material facts to establish it? +A. That's what you say, yes. +2. Okay, we made that assertion, yes? +A. +That's what the state attorney asserted. +10 +11 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21y +22 +23 +24 +25 +e. +Yes, sir, okay. And, in making that +assertion, didn't he say that neither him or his office +12 has custody or control of those records and that's it's +13 impossible for him to provide them? He made that known +to you in that letter? +A. +That's what he said, yes. +e. +Okay. Didn't that letter also say that +your client's declaratory relief claim is unsupported by +the application of the law to those facts? +A. +Well, in a conclusory way, yes, but not in +any specifics as to why we were wrong. +l. +Well, then maybe you should keep looking at +that because, if you flip to the second page of that +57.105 demand letter, do you see Section 905.27 (2) quoted +as the reason for that assertion? +A. +Yes, but if you recall, there was more -- + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +16. +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21y +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 171 +Thank you. +A. +-- there was more than one argument you +were making and more than one argument we were making. +l. A review of this letter makes crystal clear +-- I'm sorry. All right. Okay, let's go to tab number +A. +Yes. +l. Do you recognize this as the letter where +you rejected our 57.105 demand? +A. +Yes. +l. Can I direct you to the very last paragraph +of that letter? +A. +"For these reasons, we decline" .. +l. No sir. No, sir. I'll point you. The +very last paragraph of this letter, it starts with, "Also +assuming..." +That's actually -- +, no, I'm sorry, on the second page. I +didn't need that one. +A. That's actually the penultimate -- +l. Then we'll start with the penultimate +paragraph on 245-- +A. +Right, I see that, yes. It starts, "Also +assuming..." +e. +First sentence, please. + + +Page 172 +1 +A. +"Also assuming the state attorney does not +2 have physical possession of the grand jury materials, +3 +there is nothing in Florida law that prohibits the state +4 +attorney from requesting the clerk provide copies to the +5 +state attorney." +6 +Do you want me to keep reading? +7 +No, sir. Thank you. But I would like to +8 +redirect your attention, again, back to 905.17 and that +9 +statement that you read earlier. It says, "The notes, +10 +records and transcriptions are confidential and exempt +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21y +22 +23 +24 +25 +from the provisions of Section 119.07(1) and +Section 24 (a) Article 1 of the State Constitution and +shall be released by the clerk only on request by a grand +jury for use by the grand jury or on order of the Court +pursuant to Section 905.27." +A. +Right, I'm familiar with that. +Okay. +And that section refers to the clerk, not +to the state attorney. +Thank you. Exactly. Thank you. +A. So there's nothing to prohibit the state +attorney in this statute from asking the clerk for these +materials. +All right, isn't there a big difference +between getting access from the clerk for materials and + + +Page 173 +1 +3 +4 +5 +disclosing the materials? Isn't there a difference +2 between that? +A. +I don't understand what you're asking. +l. I'll ask you again. Isn't there a +difference between accessing the materials and being able +6 +to disclose the materials? +7 +8 +A. Once the clerk provides +-- +l. No, no, no. It's a yes or no question. +A. +Then I don't understand what you're asking +10 +me, to be honest with you. +11 +Is there -- Is there a difference between +12 +saying, Hey, may I please have these records, versus +13 +saying, Here you go, here's these records, Newspaper? +14 +A. +Well, what you're -- what you're asking me +15 +is a twofold questión. +16 +e. asked you one question. Is there a +17 +difference between access and disclosure? +18 +No. Once you access something, it's +19 +disclosed. I don't understand what you're asking me, +20 +sir, I honestly don't. +21y +Mr. Mendelsohn, I'm sorry, and I do not +22 want to have -- I do not want to make the Court angry, +23 but we've got to stop talking over each other. I'm +24 +asking you a simple question. +25 +You stated here that Mr. Aronberg could get + + +Page 174 +1 +access to these records through the Court -- through the +2 clerk, correct? +3 +A. He could ask the clerk for them, and I +4 +didn't -- and I argued that there was nothing in the +5 statute prohibiting him from asking the clerk for the +6 clerk to give his office these documents, yes, sir. +7 +okay, sure. Okay, thank you +And so let's +8 +just say that happened. +9 +A. Okay. +10 +Q. The clerk gives +Mr. +Aronberg asks the +11 +clerk for the records and the clerk gives them to him. +12 +A. Okay. +13 +e. That's not what you asked for in your +14 +lawsuit, is it? +15 +A. +Yes, of course it is. +16 +e. +MI. Mendelsohn, did you not -- does not +17 +your complaint request the complete -- the disclosure of +18 +these records from my client? +19 +A. +But - - +20 +You asked -- Did you ask in your lawsuit +21y for my client to hand these records over? +22 +A. +No, no. +23 +Q. No? Okay. +24 +A. +No, because we had asked for the records to +25 +be examined by the Court in camera before they were ever + + +Page 175 +1 +to be disclosed to the public. In fact, we stated in the +2 +amended complaint that the Court should review such +3 +documents and redact anything that would identify +4 +witnesses or potential witnesses or those who were not +5 +charged with a crime. +So it's inaccurate for you to suggest that +the paper just wanted it handed to them. +That was never +the case. +7 +8 +9 +Okay. Let's 1ook back at your complaint. +10 +It's tab number 9. +We're going to look at +stamp +11 +136, and we're going to look at your wherefore clause. +12 +A. +Tab 9, you say? +13 +e. +Yes. +14 +A. +1363 +15 +l. +Yes., +16 +A. +I see it. +17 +Okay. +18 +"Wherefore, the Post -- the Palm Beach Post +19 +respectfully requests that the Court determine the rights +20 +and obligations of the parties by declaring that, +21y +pursuant to Florida Statute Section 905.27 (1) (c) and the +22 +Court's inherent authority, the Palm Beach Post may gain +23 +access +to the testimony, minutes and other evidence +24 +presented in 2006 to the Palm Beach County grand jury and +25 +use those materials for the purpose of informing the + + +Page 176 +1 +public." +2 +e. +Okay, thank you. And so in there it says +3 +that you're asking for the Palm Beach Post to gain access +4 +to the testimony; is that correct? +5 +A. +Yes, after the Court examined them in +6 +camera. +7 +8 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +e. +How else would you gain access to testimony +unless it was disclosed to you? +A. +I'm -- +e. +You would not. +A. +I'm not following what you're asking me, +I'm really not. +e. +A. +l. +A. +17 +Would you please look at tab J17. +Daye Aronberg's motion for attorneys' fees? +Uh-huh. +Okay. +It's at +18 +I stamp 247. +Right. This is the one you made on July 1, +19 +2020.7 +20 +Correct. And we went through that. +21y Before, you said that was filed at least 21 days after +22 you received the 57.105 demand, correct? +23 +A. +Well, you said it was 23, and I agreed with +24 +you. +25 +And I said at least 21 days. + + +Page 177 +1 +2 +3 +4 +A. Right. +l. Thank you. So, if I give you this -- Let +me give you this 57.105 statute again and ask you to look +at subsection (4) for me. +5 +6 +A. +Okay. +l. +And if could you read that to the court. +7 +8 +Thank you. +A. +"A motion by a party seeking sanctions +9 +10 +under this section must be served but may not be filed +with or presented to the Court unless, within 21 days +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +23 +24 +25 +after service of the motion, the challenged paper, claim, +defense, contention, allegation or denial is not +withdrawn or appropriately corrected." +Thank you. And you and your client did not +withdraw the claim for declaratory relief within that +21 days after being served, correct? +Yes. +All right. And then let me have you look +at tab number -- or, our Exhibit Number 23. +A. +Plaintiff -- Yes, the notice of dropping +21y State Attorney Dave Aronberg on October 21st, 2020, that +22 is the one you want me to look at? +l. Yes, that's right. Yep. And that's the +date it was filed, October 21, 2020; is that what you +said? + + +Page 178 +1 +2 +3 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21Y +22 +23 +24 +25 +A. +Yes. +l. +Okay. And is that filing date more than +21 days beyond when you were served with the 57.105? +A. +You're confusing a lot of things there. +l. +No, I'm not. I asked you a question. +A. +I cannot answer that question, +can't +l. +Okay. +A. +-- because it's making a number of +assumptions that are inaccurate. +No, no, no. That was one simple question. +When were you served with the 57.105 demand? +A. +Which one? +l. +No, no, no, +You were only served with one +57.105 demand. +A. +Thatys correct. +Okay. I'm just asking which one. +Right. I wanted you to pin down what you +did. +Okay, you were served with one 57.105 +demand. +A. +Right. +What day was that? +A. +The letter was June 8th, 2020. +Okay. And this -- And that gave you +21 days from that date to change your position; is that + + +Tudge Luis Delgad +Page 179 +1 +correct? +2 +A. +The statute gave me that, yes. +3 +l. Okay. And then when did you actually +4 +change your position and drop Mr. Aronberg? +5 +A. +We dropped Mr. Aronberg -- When you say +6 +changed position, I don't know what you're referring to. +7 +We dropped Mr. Aronberg as a defendant in this case on +8 +October 21, 2020. +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +Okay, and October 21, 2020, is more than +21 days after June 8th, 2020, right? +A. +Yes. +l. Okay. So then that fits with the statutory +language then, correct, of what that 21-day -- it gives +you 21 days to withdraw, and you didn't withdraw within +21 days, correct? , The statute, 57.105 subsection (4), +gives you 21 days to withdraw the alleged -- +You are confusing a number of things that +are happening, so I cannot answer that question. You're +19 +assuming certain things that are not accurate, so I +20 +cannot answer your question in the manner you put it to +21y me. +22 +23 +24 +25 +MI. Mendelsohn, it's very simple. I'm just +trying to establish that that -- that you filed your drop +cure -- you dropped the claim against Mr. Aronberg +outside of the 21-day safe-harbor period, correct? + + +Page 180 +1 +A. But you never moved -- you never filed a +2 +3 +motion on the first motion you made for fees. +e. Okay. +4 +A. That's not before us. So you're confusing +5 +a safe-harbor for something you've never moved on versus +6 dropping your client as a defendant after something else +7 +Y +happened. +8 +A. +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +Okay, so -- +So you're mixing two things together. +I'm not. I believe you are. Okay, so is +it your position then that, after you dropped Dave +Aronberg as a client, that.-- +A. +He's not a client. +l. After --Is it your position that, after +you dropped Dave Aronberg as a party from this lawsuit, +it's your position that, after you dropped him, that +another 57.105 demand letter should have been sent to +you? +19 +A. +You didn't give us -- +20 +Just answer my question. After you dropped +21) Mr. Aronberg from this lawsuit, is it your position that +22 you should have been served with another 57.105 demand +23 +letter? +24 +A. +25 +Yes. You didn't comply with 57.105 for +your amended motion for 57.105. You did not comply with + + +Page 181 +it. Yes, that is the position. +2 +3 +l. Can you tell me, after dropping +Mr. Aronberg from the lawsuit, how your position -- how +4 +your client's position could have changed if they were +5 +served with another letter being that he was already out +6 of the lawsuit? +7 +A. Well, that's the problem you have because +8 +you served this motion without giving us the safe-harbor, +9 the amended motion I'm referring to, as well as the fact +10 that you served it after we dropped him. For +11 +jurisdictional purposes, you can't do that. +12 +How could I provide you a safe-harbor if +13 +you had already dropped him from the lawsuit? +14 +A. +Mr Wyler, with all due respect, you're +15 +actually making my argument, which is that 57.105 is not +16 +applicable when your client is no longer part of the +17 +case. +18 +19 +20 +Well, then I guess we just have differing +views on how to interpret that statute, Mr. Mendelsohn. +All right, I just have a few more questions +21y for you. +22 +23 +24 +25 +A. +Sure. +l. I'd like to go -- I think I'd like to go +back to that final judgment. That was tab 30. +A. +Okay. + + +1 +Page 182 +stamp +2 +3 +4 +l. All right, all right, I'm on +1473, and I'm at the top of that page, that first +sentence. +A. +The clerk's position? Is that what you're +5 +reading from? +6 +Yes, yes. That's correct. +7 +A. "The clerk's position is that he is merely +8 +a custodian of the materials, and, as such, he has no +9 real interest in the issues before the Court as +10 identified. The clerk only needs direction from the +11 +Court on whether or not he should produce or disclose the +12 +materials. Nonetheless, +the clerk has zealously +13 +advocated the position against disclosure based upon +14 +grand jury secrecy and confidentiality because +15 +Rule 2.420 (d)(1)XB)Xxvii) of the Florida Rules of General +16 +Practice and Judicial Administration, the clerk is +17 +required to maintain the confidentiality of grand jury +18 +records.y +19 +Q. +Yes, will you read the next paragraph, too, +20 +pléase? +21) +22 +23 +24 +25 +A. +"The clerk is correct that his role as +custodian of the materials is only to follow the Court's +direction once confidentiality is determined. The +clerk's role in this proceeding has been complicated or +expanded because the newspaper filed this action as a + + +2 +3 +4 +Page 183 +civil declaratory judgment action and has moved for +summary judgment under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure +1.510. However, the proper procedure for obtaining +disclosure of confidential Court records is set forth in +5 +Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial +Administration 2.420(j) which only requires the filing of +7 +a, quote, motion, end quote, seeking disclosure, Florida +8 +Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration +9 +2.420 (j) (2). " +10 +11 +Want me to keep going? +Yeah, just to the very end of that next +12 +13 +14 +e. +sentence, please. +A. +"Accordingly, the Court will treat the +newspaper's complaint and motion for summary judgment as +a motion for disclosure under Rule 2.42" - - excuse me -- +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21Y +22 +24 +25 +"2.420 (j) . +As ja result, the Court need not determine as +a matter of law whether the clerk of the Court is a +proper defendant to the declaratory judgment for the +release of the grand jury materials." +Thank you. All right. +A. +I'm sorry, was there a question? +No. There's going to be. Just one second. +When you filed this lawsuit, were you +familiar with Rule 2.420 of the Rules of Judicial +Administration? + + +Page 184 +1 +A. +Absolutely. +2 +l. Then why didn't you just file a motion like +3 +the rule says -- says you're supposed to if you want +4 +confidential Court records and sued my client instead? +5 +7 +A. +First off, the rule doesn't actually say +6 that. It says you may file a motion in a pending +criminal or civil procedure. +Since there wasn't a +8 +pending criminal or civil proceeding, we didn't view that +9 +10 +motion as being necessary to be made. +Now, this issue is before the Fourth DCA at +11 +13 +the present time, and the clerk's taken the position in +12 its answer brief that Rule 4y- 2.420 is ambiguous and +the actual procedure that, needs to be followed is +14 +uncertain. And, in fact, the clerk's position is now +15 +16 +17 +18 +that the Supreme Court must reassess how one would seek +grand jury materials. +That was in their answer brief, which I'd +be happy to provide to the Court along with our initial +19 +20 +23 +24 +25 +brief and reply brief, which extensively discusses +2.420, but also argue that the clerk has now adopted +21y a position of neutrality when it comes to the release of +22 the grand jury materials. In its answer brief, it says +it no longer opposes release of the materials. +Okay. +A. +It is now neutral on that issue. + + +Page 185 +1 +l. +Thank you, Mr. Mendelsohn. +2 +In the Court's final judgment, however, it +3 +does say, which you just read to the Court, the proper +4 +procedure for obtaining disclosure of confidential +5 +records is set forth in Florida Rule of General Practice +6 and Judicial Administration 2.420 (i), which only requires +7 +the filing of a motion seeking disclosure; +is that +8 +correct? +9 +A. +Yes, but at this time, the state attorney +10 +was not a party, and, in fact, the state attorney has +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +never made any argument under Rulé 2.420 in this case. +It has never made such an argument. +e. +But you were aware of that rule before you +filed this lawsuit? +A. +Right, and the clerk made this argument +after we dropped the state attorney from this case. That +was the first time the clerk had made such. The clerk +made this argument that the rule was applicable in +19 +20 +opposition to our motion for summary judgment which +occurred after the state attorney had been dropped from +21y the case. +22 +23 +24 +25 +So this was not an issue in the case either +because your client did not raise it, the clerk did not +raise it, and it was not before the Court until after +your client was no longer a party. So it was not an + + +Page 186 +1 +3 +issue that either you addressed or we addressed as part +2 of your demand that we withdraw the case. +l. +But you still knew about it before you +4 +filed the lawsuit, right? You knew about that rule? +5 +A. +Of course. Of course. +6 +l. All right, last question for you; +Isn't it +7 +true that your client's goal in obtaining these records +8 +from my client was for public disclosure? Was that your +9 +end goal? +10 +A. +After the Court examined them in camera and +11 +removed witness identification or people who hadn't been +12 indicted, that was actually discussed very much +13 +extensively in the oral argument before Judge Hafele, +14 +and, in fact, he asked us particularly if I were -- and +15 +16 +using Judge Hafele's words -- inclined to release these +materials to the newspaper and the public -- it wasn't +17 +just the paper; it was simultaneously to the public -- +18 +how would I go about redacting them? Would I need to +19 +20 +21y +have someone else, a +I, possibly review them? How +would I go about doing it? +And we had about a half hour's worth of +22 +discussion as to how to accomplish that if he were +23 inclined to grant disclosure. So that absolutely was an +24 +issue before Judge Hafele. +25 +Great. So then the final goal was -- Was + + +Page 187 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +the final goal to have these requested grand jury +materials be able to be disclosed to the public? +A. Absolutely. +. okay. And that was without any connection +to any underlying civil or criminal case, correct? +A. If you're asking me whether or/not the Post +was part of a civil or criminal case pending at the time, +no, it was not. +l. You did not .. Did you request these +records as part of a pending civil or criminal case? +A. +Involving the Postp No -- +MR. WYLER: Thank you. No further +questions. +A. +-- other than this lawsuit. +THE COURT: Thank you. +Redirect examination. +REDIRECT EXAMINATION +18 +BY MS. WHETSTONE: +19 +Good afternoon, Mr. Mendelsohn. +20 +A. +21 y +22 +23 +24 +25 +Yes. +Mr. Wyler asked you to read a sentence in +the amended complaint -- +A. +Yes. +e. +-. and I'd like to draw your attention to +that, and it's Exhibit 9. I'm going to look at + + +Page 188 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +paragraph 3. +A. Yes, I have that in front of me. +l. Can you read the entire paragraph 3, +please? +A. +Yes, I'd be happy to. +"Defendant Dave Aronberg is the duly +7 +elected State Attorney for the 15th Judicial District in +8 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21y +22 +23 +24 +25 +and for Palm Beach County, Florida, pursuant to Florida +9 Statute Section 27.01 and has authority in grand jury +10 proceedings pursuant to Florida Statute Section 27.03. +He is sued in his official capacity as his office is in +possession and/or control of documents that are the +subject of this action. +l. +So and I'm actually going to compare -- +MS. WHETSTONE: And it's on the screen for +Your Honor, too, if that's easier to see. +BY MS. WHETSTONE: +l. But we're going to look at paragraph 4 next +because paragraph 4 names the clerk; is that correct? +A. +Yes. +l. Could you read paragraph 4, please? +A. +Yes. "Defendant Sharon R. Bock is the duly +elected clerk and comptroller of Palm Beach County, +Florida. She is sued here in her official capacity as +her office is in possession and/or control of documents + + +Page 189 +1 +that are the subject of this action." +2 +l. So comparing those two paragraphs, was the +3 +clerk named in a different capacity as the state attorney +4 +in paragraph 3? +5 +7 +A. Yes, because, in paragraph 3, I cited to +6 Florida Statute 27.03, which is the broad grant of +authority to state attorneys to supervise and conduct +8 +grand jury investigations, and that's really what the +9 situation involved in this case. +10 +2. So you set forth in the amended complaint +11 +that the state attorney was named as having authority +12 +over grand jury proceedings; is that correct? +13 +A. +Yes. +14 +l. Was the same language in the first +15 +complaint that was filed in November 2019? +16 +A. +I don't recall. +17 +Let's go ahead and pull that up. +18 +MS. WHETSTONE: And, Gerard, if you don't +19 +mind, it's Exhibit 4. +20 +BY MS. WHETSTONE: +21 y +l. And, while you're turning to that, was the +22 clerk only named in its official capacity as having +23 +possession? +24 +A. +Yes, that is correct. I'm looking at +25 +paragraph 3 of the original complaint dated 11/14/2019, + + +Page 190 +1 +and it appears that paragraph 3 appears the same. +2 +l. And let's go ahead and blow that up just so +3 +we can close the loop on this. +4 +Paragraph 3 of the original complaint is +5 +6 +the same as the amended complaint; is that correct? +A. Yes. Both of them cite to Section 27.03 +7 +Florida Statutes creating jurisdiction by the state +8 +attorney over all grand juries within their particular +9 +judicial district. +10 +e. +So the state attorney was named -- never +11 +named solely because he might have possession, custody -- +12 +or custody of the grand jury records from the Epstein +13 +grand jury investigation, is that correct? +14 +A. +That is correct. The primary reason was +15 +because the state attorney has such authority over the +16 +grand jury progess in this judicial district. +17 +Now, granted, Mr. Aronberg was not the one +18 +who conducted the Jeffrey Epstein grand jury proceeding. +19 +Nevertheless, we didn't sue Mr. Aronberg in his +20 +individual capacity, only in his official capacity +21y because he's the successor to State Attorney Krischer. +22 +Was there any case law cited in the amended +23 +complaint -- We'll go back to Exhibit 9, please -- any +24 +case law cited in the amended complaint dealing with the +25 +state attorney's official capacity as the protector of + + +Page 191 +1 +the grand jury system? +2 +3 +A. You mean paragraph 3? +l. Yes. +4 +A. No, I didn't cite to it because it was +clear to anyone who looked at Florida Statute 27.03, they +6 would see a litany of cases describing the authority of +7 +the state attorney over the grand juries in +their +8 +judicial district. So it was obvious that) - what we +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21) +22 +23 +24 +25 +were getting at. +l. +You cited the statute that gives the state +attorney power over the grand Jury? +A. +Correct, yes. In fact, there are cases +that say that, under this statute, that the grand jury is +essentially the arm of the -- of the state attorney. +e. +And now that we're back on the amended +complaint, I'll direct your attention to paragraph 21 -- +sorry +-* page 21, wherein there is the wherefore clause. +Mr. Wyler had you read from one of the +wherefore clauses, but I wanted to ask about the +wherefore clause on page 21 -- +A. +Yes. +e. +-- and you had said that you had requested +an in-camera inspection. Actually, could I just ask you +to read this wherefore clause? +A. +Sure. "The Palm Beach Post respectfully + + +Page 192 +1 +requests that this Court, pursuant to Florida Statute +2 +Section 905.27(1) and the Court's inherent authority, +3 +order the state attorney and clerk of the Court to file +4 +with this Court files of testimony, minutes and other +evidence presented in 2006 to the Palm Beach County grand +6 jury during the first Jeffrey Epstein sex abuse +7 +investigation so that, following an in-camera inspection, +it can be made available to the Palm Beach Post and the +9 public on an expedited basis, and grant such other and +10 +further equitable or legal relief the Court deems just +11 +and proper." +12 +So, in the amended complaint, did you +13 +request an in-camera inspection? +14 +A. +In fact, in our motion for summary judgment +15 +that we made before Judge Hafele, there's a whole section +16 +on that. +17 +And Mr. Wyler asked you about the +18 +transcript -- the hearing before Judge Marx and that +19 +transcript, and during that hearing, Judge Marx made +20 +comments about possession and custody of the grand jury +21y records by the state attorney. +22 +I wanted to ask you about the order on that +23 +motion to dismiss. The order was Exhibit 15. +24 +A. Yes. +25 +l. And did Judge Marx's order address those + + +Page 193 +1 +comments that Mr. Wyler read? +2 +A. No, she did not. That's why I believe that +3 +they were dicta. +4 +l. And what did Judge Marx's order rule? +5 +7 +A. +She ruled on a very narrow area, which -- +6 and I respect Judge Marx. She's a very, very seasoned +and reasoned jurist. +8 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +201 +that was +21y +22 +23 +24 +25 +She determined that, under 905.27, that +9 there was not a private cause of action and that, +10 because it was not a private cause of action, we could +not utilize that statute to seek) the grand jury +materials. We disagreed with that, and that is the +subject of the appeal. +So turning to the final judgment that was +entered by Judge Hafele, which is -- +A. +30. +-- Exhibit 30, yes -- +Yes. +-- Mr. Wyler asked you to read from page 7, +number ending 1477. +A. +Yes. +l. And I'm going to ask you to go ahead and +finish that paragraph, or read the whole paragraph if you +would like. +A. Right. "The newspaper makes strong + + +Page 194 +1 +arguments to advance its more expansive construction of +2 +Section 905.27 as part of, quote, furthering justice, +3 +unquote. +Unquestionably, the established matters +4 +surrounding Mr. Epstein's conduct, the circumstances of +5 his resolution of the 2006 state charges and potential +6 federal charges and his 2008 guilty plea and +7 +incarceration are matters of public interest, +and +8 +disclosure of the materials may arguably fall within the +9 concept of, quote, furthering justice, end quote, in the +10 +broadest social sense of the phrase." +11 +Should I keep going, or not? +12 +l. I think that's fine for now. +13 +Were there other portions of the final +14 +judgment that you wanted to discuss and needed to finish? +15 +Did the -- +16 +A. +Well -- +17 +18 +Go ahead, sorry. +I take issue with the state attorney's +19 +assertion that this was only about possession and +20 +custody. We were asserting that the Court has inherent +21y +authority over the grand jury process and that inherent +22 +23 +24 +authority superseded or was preeminent over the statute, +905.27. That is why we gave the state attorney the +opportunity to participate in this case, because we felt +25 +it was only fair to, not only the state attorney, but to + + +Page 195 +1 +the public to hear a voice for grand jury secrecy. And +2 the state attorney availed himself of that opportunity. +3 +Now, on appeal, we are of the belief that +4 +the Court has such inherent authority and that the +5 +Court's inherent authority is, as I say, superior to the +statute. There are federal cases which say that, and +7 +there are state cases which say that. And, +in fact, the +8 +Florida Supreme Court's case -- actually it's a Fifth DCA +9 +case in Clayton says that, where a state attorney may +10 +have abused his authority with the grand jury -- It's not +11 +Mr. Krischer, and it's not Mr +Aronberg, so I'm not +12 +13 +suggesting they are -- but, in that case, it was the +Fifth DCA who said that, +I don't care what the statute +14 +says, the Court has authority to control abuses of the +15 +16 +grand jury process, and ultimately that's why we're here. +We believe that we've laid out a very +17 +detailed factual and legal reason why we think the prior +18 +state attorney abused his authority. How did he do so? +19 +20 +22 +By obtaining materials from the defense team that +undermined the credibility of the witness and the victim +21y before the grand jury. We assert that in paragraph 22 of +the amended complaint. It states that in there. And, if +23 +24 +25 +you look at the exhibits, you'll see that. +We now know, based upon the Department of +Justice, the U.S. Department of Justice's report, that + + +Page 196 +1 +the clerk's office in Palm Beach County shared these +2 reported secret grand jury materials with the federal +3 +government without a court order, without notice +4 +apparently to Mr. Aronberg's office or to the public. +5 +7 +Now, why they did that, under what +6 authority they did that, I don't know. Now, whether they +asked Mr. Krischer or whether he consented during the +8 +time of the U.S. Attorney's interactions with the state +attorney, Mr. Krischer's office, we don't know that +10 +either. +But we do know that they have been disclosed. +11 +l. +And you're trying to get those materials +12 +and -- +13 +14 +15 +16 +A. +l. +A. +e. +17 +18 +We want +the, public to have those materials. +Right. +Not me. +The public. +The public. The Post is only a conduit for +the public. That's what the media is under the First +19 +Amendment. Without the media acting as the conduit for +20 +the public, the public does not have the authority, the +21y +time or the resources to inform the public of what's +22 +going to happen. +23 +24 +25 +Imagine if Joe Public or Jane Public came +and brought this lawsuit. Would it have gone anywhere? +No. Thank God for the First Amendment that the Post has + + +1 +2 +Page 197 +the right constitutionally to seek these materials. +I know I'm going off on a tangent, but it's +3 +important. +4 +5 +THE COURT: You are. So let's move on. +THE WITNESS: Thank you. +6 +BY MS. WHETSTONE: +7 +e. +Thank you, Mr. Mendelsohn. +Now let's go +8 +back to the demand, the first motion for sanctions that +9 was that one-page motion, and that was served on +10 June 8th, 2020. +11 +A. +Yes. +12 +2. And the demand was Exhibit 14. +13 +A. Yes. +14 +l. And Mr. Wyler had asked you some questions +15 +about the letter that was enclosed with that motion and +16 +was the basis for the sanctions motion that was attached +17 +dealing with possession or custody of the grand jury +18 +materials by the state attorney's office. +19 +A. +I'm sorry, I don't understand your +20 +question. +21y +Sure. He had asked you whether there was a +22 basis for the first motion for fees, and the basis is set +23 +forth in this enclosure letter; is that correct? +24 +A. Right. Their position was that the +25 +Statute, 905.27, and -- yes, 905.27 did not provide a + + +Page 198 +1 +2 +3 +4 +private right of action, yes. +l. So 905.27, that statute is not the claim +that we're here on today, correct? +A. That is correct. Count 1 was broader than +5 +that. +6 +l. And, when it comes to -- Mr. Wyler said +7 +something about possession or custody of the state +8 +attorney. He referenced that the state attorney does not +9 +have possession or custody in this letter, correct? +10 +A. +Correct. +11 +l. But the reason for naming the state +12 +attorney in the complaint, the initial complaint and the +13 +amended complaint, was broader than his own possession or +14 +custody? +15 +16 +A. +Correct. As the entity charged by Florida +law with the supervision of the grand jury proceeding, +17 +that included as well the protection of grand jury +18 +secrecy, Yand we named him in his official capacity, if he +19 +20 +so chose, to protect grand jury secrecy, which he did in +a motion to dismiss and the motion for summary judgment +21y he filed opposing the release of the materials to the +22 public. +23 +24 +25 +So that first motion for fees was filed +July Ist, 2020; is that correct? +A. +The first motion, yes. + + +Page 199 +1 +2 +3 +4 +Yes. And did the state attorney ever set +that motion, original motion for fees for hearing? +A. Never. +l. And we are not here on that first motion; +5 +is that correct? +A. +Correct. They never set it for a hearing. +7 +l. So we're here on the amended motion for +8 +sanctions which was filed November 9th, 2020; is that +9 +correct? +10 +A. +Correct. And, in fact, the amended motion +11 +and the notice of hearing does not mention the first one +12 +from July of 2020. +13 +So you never got a notice of hearing that +14 +set the original first +- July Ist, 2020, motion for fees +15 +for hearing; is that correct? +16 +A. +That is correct, yes. +17 +And you never got a copy via mail or fax or +18 +hard copy of the amended motion for fees filed +19 +November 9th prior to the time it was filed, correct? +20 +A. That is correct. We weren't given the +21y 21-day safe harbor. +22 +2. Why did you -- Why did the Post decide to +23 +drop the state attorney when it did? +24 +A. +The state attorney's position changed from +25 +one of opposition to the release of the grand jury + + +1 +2 +3 +Page 200 +materials to one of neutrality. Once the grand jury -- +Once the state attorney changed the position, then the +Post re-evaluated whether or not he should remain in the +4 +case, and we determined that he should be dropped from +5 the case. +6 +l. At that point, had the Post accomplished +7 +everything that it needed from the state attorney in the +8 +amended complaint? +9 +A. +Yes. We had given him the opportunity to +10 +voice objection or non-objection. +He originally voiced +11 +objection, then he changed it to neutrality. That was +12 +his decision, and there was nothing further that needed +13 +to be stated. +14 +e. +And, at that point, when the Post decided +15 +to dismiss the state attorney on October 21st, 2020, had +16 +the Post accomplished everything that was set forth in +17 +your June 23rd, 2020, letter, those three reasons? +18 +A. +Yes. +We had given the state attorney his +19 +opportunity to be heard, and he took it and then decided +20 +21y +23 +24 +25 +he no longer needed it. +l. +And, finally, the -- you mentioned that the +22 final judgment on Count 1 regarding declaratory relief is +currently on appeal. +A. Yes, Count 1 is, yes. +l. And does the state attorney need to be + + +Page 201 +1 +named in that appeal? +2 +3 +A. No. +e. Why not? +4 +A. Well, the appeal was taken on Count 1 as +5 +you say. Count 1 had a number of elements associated +6 with it. That's the declaratory judgment provision. +It +7 +asserted that, under the First Amendment, both the U.S. +8 +Constitution and the Florida Constitution that the Post +9 had standing or the right to seek these grand jury +10 +materials, and the statute was complementary to that +11 +12 +13 +First Amendment right by the language in the statute, +905.27, of it being in furtherance of justice. +We also asserted that the court had +14 +inherent authority over and above 905.27. If the +15 +16 +appellate count were to determine that 905.27 was in +conflict with the Court's authority, that the Court's +17 +authority was superior to 905.27. So if it's unclear -- +18 +So there were a number of elements, a constitutional +19 +element, the Court's constitutional inherent authority as +20 +described by the Florida Supreme Court and that we +21y believe that the reading of the statute that read out in +22 +furtherance of justice or tied it exclusively to a +23 pending civil or criminal case was too narrow a reading +24 +of the statute. +25 +So the state attorney has stated his + + +_Page 202 +1 +affirmative non-objection to the clerk releasing the +2 +grand jury materials from the Jeffrey Epstein case if +3 +ordered by the Court? +4 +A. +Yes. That was why we dropped the state +5 +attorney. +6 +On October 14th -- +7 +A. +Correct, yes. +8 +-- that was the first time he filed that +9 +affirmative statement -- +10 +A. +Yes. +11 +l. +-- that he didn't object? +12 +A. +That's absolutely right, yes. +13 +l. And the clerk no longer objects to the +14 +release of the grand jury materials if ordered by the +15 +Court in the Fourth DCA appeal? +16 +A. +Yes. In their answer brief, the clerk took +17 +the position that it had no opposition at all to the +18 +release of the materials, which was contrary to the +19 +position they took against our motion for summary +20\ +judgment. +21y +22 +23 +24 +25 +MS. WHETSTONE: No further questions. +THE COURT: Is this witness excused? +THE WITNESS: Thank you, sir. +MS. WHETSTONE: Yes. +THE COURT: All right, thank you, sir. + + +Judge Luis Delgade +september 08, 2022 +Page 203 +1 +MS. WHETSTONE: If I may approach, I'll +2 +take the exhibit binder. +3 +THE WITNESS: +These are for Mr. Wyler. +4 +5 +Thank you. +THE COURT: Next witness. +6 +MR. WYLER: May we call a rebuttal witness? +7 +MS. WHETSTONE: Your Honor, there's no +8 +rebuttal witness listed on the +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +MR. WYLER: Well, as to the statements that +Mr. Mendelsohn said at the beginning denying the +conversation where he, you know, put it on us to +-- you know, he said thaty he would hold the filing +of an article while settlement negotiations were +pending. +MS. WHETSTONE: And, Your Honor, those +settlement discussions were never entered into +evidence, never even attempted to enter into +eyidence, and we object to those being entered +19 +20 +Into evidence now. +THE COURT: Settlement negotiations are +21Y +excluded by statute. All right, so no. +22 +MR. WYLER: Okay. +23 +MS. WHETSTONE: Thank you, Your Honor. +24 +THE COURT: Is there anything else? +25 +MR. WYLER: Other than -- No, Your Honor. + + +Judge Luis Delgade +September 08, 202: +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21y +please? +p.m.) +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 204 +THE COURT: Okay. Then, I guess, both +parties have rested at this point? +MS. WHETSTONE: I was going to ask if Your +Honor wanted copies of the appeal brief and the +reply that had been filed in the Fourth DCA? +THE COURT: It's not in evidence, no. +MS. WHETSTONE: Then the non-movant rests. +THE COURT: All right. So everybody's +rested. I have your joint -- +Can we have just a moment, +THE COURT: I'll\take a moment. I'll be +back in five minutes., +(Off the record from 2:20 p.m. to 2:35 +THE COURT: Please be seated. +Everyone get a chance to confer with who +they need to confer with? +MR. WYLER: Your Honor, thank you. We'd +ask if you might reconsider the rebuttal witness. +It's not based on settlement. It's really based +on the direct testimony yesterday of +Mr. Mendelsohn saying that there was a firewall +between the legal team and the news team, and our +witness can directly contradict that. + + +Page 205 +1 +MS. WHETSTONE: Your Honor, we object to +2 this as not on the witness list, which we have +3 +agreed, and having no issue that needs to be +4 +raised. You could have asked Mr. Mendelsohn about +5 +-- and you could have asked Mr. Aronberg about his +6 +own recollection of that instance. +7 +MR. WYLER: I could call Mr. +Aronberg then +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21) +22 +23 +24 +25 +as a rebuttal. +THE COURT: I'm sorry? +MS. WHETSTONE: Objection, it's not +relevant to the motion at all. +THE COURT: I +agree!. +All right, I will not +reconsider. +MR. WYLER: +Thank you, Your Honor. +THE COURT: Closing arguments. All right, +now, I think what we discussed last time we were +here was that you would give me your closing +arguments, and, if you needed to supplement, I'l +give you time to supplement in writing. +Is that what you all want to do, or do you +want to conclude today? +MR. WYLER: I would prefer to provide you a +written closing argument if possible. +THE COURT: Instead of -- +MR. WYLER: Yeah, I absolutely would. I + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21y +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 206 +think that there's a lot of -- there's a lot going +on here, and I think it might be beneficial to the +Court if you would -- if you would allow us. I +will give you -- I'd be happy to give you a +written closing argument. I think it could help +you in formulating your final judgment, whichever +way you go. +MS. WHETSTONE: Your Honorx I prepared a +closing argument, but -- and I can also write one. +I was planning on doing a supplemental one anyway. +THE COURT: Well, I'm asking you, you know. +MS. WHETSTONE: +I think it would probably +be more -- if you were going to do one or the +other, I think written closing arguments, we could +really lay out,, you know - +THE COURT: Yeah, I joked about it earlier, +I think people are better in writing. A lot of +people, when they try to go off the cuff or deal +with the changes they experienced during a trial, +they miss things. I do think people are better in +writing. +written argument? +How much time do you need to prepare a +MR. WYLER: If you could give us a week, +that would be great. + + +Page 207 +1 +THE COURT: Okay, I'm going to give you +2 +some guidance because there's something I do want +3 +to hear from you. +4 +I do want you to address Lago. And, +5 Ms. Whetstone, when I read In re Grand Jury +6 +Proceedings, in those cases the state attorney was +7 +subpoenaed, they were not a party to the case, and +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21y +22 +23 +24 +25 +I want you to address that as well. +How much time do you need to prepare your +closings? +MR. WYLER: If you could give us a week, +Your Honor, that would be terrific. +THE COURT: +I'll give you a week. +Ms. Whetstone, is a week sufficient? +MS. WHETSTONE: Yes, Your Honor, a week is +sufficient. +THE COURT: I'll give you 10 days. I would +also like a copy of the transcript attached. +MR. WYLER: Then we might need a little +móre time to get it. +MS. WHETSTONE: Your Honor, could we ask +for 20 days? +THE COURT: I'll give you three weeks. +I'll give you three weeks. Give me your -- your +written closings and proposed orders. + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +Page 208 +Give me one more minute. There might be +something else I want you guys to address. +In the event that I agree with +Mr. Aronberg, the amounts have been stipulated to, +correct? +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21y +22 +23 +24 +25 +MS. WHETSTONE: No, Your Honor, they have +not been stipulated to. We submitted +a bench memo +that objects to the majority of the fees. +THE COURT: I saw that. Travel time. +MS. WHETSTONE: Yes, +Your Honor. +THE COURT: Okay x +MR. BIDEAU: But\the rates have been +agreed. We're not +contesting the rate. They +didn't need to bring an expert to talk about the +rate. +Our argument was on legally whether some of +these -- some of these fees were -- were +recoverable. +THE COURT: You can be seated. Give me a +second. +I, okay. +THE COURT: I want you to address +Weatherby. One of the cases submitted, Weatherby. +MR. WYLER: +Weatherby? Yes, sir. +And, Ms. Whetstone, I want you to address +In re Grand Jury on that issue regarding -- + + +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21) +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 209 +1 +because there is a difference, Mr. Aronberg in his +2 +4 +5 +official capacity as a named party, and In re +3 Grand Jury, I think in that case, I think the +state attorney's was subpoenaed. +And I also want you -- well, both parties +6 +to address the Horowitz case where it says that +7 +the judge can extend the law because +it's an +obligation of legislative authority. ) +All right, so you'll give me your arguments +and proposed orders within 21 days. +Do I need to bring you back in for a +hearing? +MS. WHETSTONE: +No, Your Honor. +MR. WYLER: +No, Your Honor. +THE COURT: Okay. All right, then we'll be +in recess +Thank you very much, everybody. +MR. +WYLER: Thank you, Your Honor. +MS. WHETSTONE: Thank you, Your Honor. +THE COURT: Have a great day. +(The hearing concluded at 2:42 p.m.) + + +1 +2 +Page 210 +COURT CERTIFICATE +STATE OF FLORIDA +COUNTY OF PALM BEACH +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +I, Lisa Begley, +RPR, +RMR, +certify that I +was authorized to and did stenographically report +the foregoing proceedings and that the transcript +is a true and complete record of my stenographic +notes. +Qua Beyley +Lisa Begley, +RPR, +RMR +22 +23 +24 +25 + +(1) +155:17 159:16 +161:6 166:13 +167:4 168:3 +(1) (a) +168:11,20,23 +169:12,22 +(1) (b) +168:5,12,21, +24 169:18,21 +(1) (c) +157:22 158:1 +(2) +158:3 159:7, +12 168:3 +(3) (a) +168:19,22 +169:12 +(3) (b) +168:23 +(4) +177:4 179:15 +(a) +167:20 168: +16 +(b) +168:10 +152722 156:16 +168:15 +1 +1 +161:7 166:3 +167:8 172:12 +176:18 198:4 +200:22,24 +201:4,5 +1.510 +183:3 +10 +207:17 +10 (b) (5) +155:8 +11/14/2019 +189:25 +117 +150:2,3,9 +119.07 +161:6 +119.07 (1) +172:11 +135 +151:6,12 +152:5 +136 +175:11,14 +14 +165:2) 166:16, +18,19 197:12 +1473 +182:2 +1477 +157:15 193:20 +1479 +159:4 +14th +202:6 +15 +192:23 +15th +188:7 +16 +166:17 171:6 +1:06 +145:2 +Ist +198:24 199:14 +2 +2 +149:16 +2.42 +183:15 +2.420 +183:24 +184.12,20 +185:11 +2,420 (d) (1) (b) ( +·182:15 +/ 2.420 (j) +183:6,16 +185:6 +2.420 (j) (2) +183:9 +20 +162:10 207:22 +2006 +175:24 192:5 +194:5 +2008 +194:6 +2019 +189:15 +2020 +153:23 163:10 +165:13 166:1, +3, 7 176:19 +177:21,24 +178:23 179:8, +1 +9,10 197:10 +198:24 199:8, +12,14 200:15, +17 +21 +166:6 176:21, +25 177:10,16, +24 178:3,25 +1179:8,9,10, +14,15,16 +191:16,17,20 +209:10 +21-day +165:22 +179:13,25 +199:21 +21st +177:21 200:15 +22 +195:21 +23 +166: 9 176:23 +177:19 +232 +165:4 +233 +166:20,21 +235 +165:15 +23rd +167:16 200:17 +24 (a) +161:7 172:12 +245 +171:22 +247 +176:17 +262 + + +162:11,12 +27.01 +188:9 +27.03 +150:18 +154:15,17 +188:10 189:6 +190:6 191:5 +2:20 +204:14 +2:35 +204:14 +2:42 +209:20 +3 +3 +150:3,7,11 +154:14 188:1, +з 189:4,5,25 +190:1,4 191:2 +3 (a) +168:2 +30 +157:13 181:24 +193:16,17 +32 +160:3 ( +33 +16092,4 +3rd +163:10 +4 +4 +167:14 184:12 +188:18,19,21 +189:19 +5 +57 +156:23 +57.105 +148:23 162:2 +165:7,19,23 +166:12,15,22 +167:7,11,13, +21 169:14 +170:3,23 +171:9 176:22 +177:3 178:3, +11,14,19 +179:15 +180:17,22,24, +25 181:15 +57.105 (1) (a) +169:7 +57.105 (3) (a) +167116 19 +169:6 +7 +7 +193:19 +70 +152:10 +8 +8th +149:15 165:11 +166:7 178:23 +179:10 197:10 +9 +9 +152:7 175:10, +12 187:25 +190:23 +905.17 +159:25 160:15 +172:8 +905.27 +149:12 151:2 +152:23 155:12 +156:14/23 +159:18,24 +161:10 172:15 +193:8 194:2, +23 +197:25 +198:2 201:12, +y14,15,17 +· 905.27 (1) +192:2 +905.27 (1) (c) +175:21 +905.27 (2) +170:23 +925.27'8 +159:8 +9th +199:8,19 +A +ability +161:17 +absolutely +148:9,16 +156: 1 167:25 +184: 1 186:23 +187:3 202:12 +2 +205:25 +abuse +192:6 +abused +195:10,18 +abuses +195:14 +access +151:1,24 +1$3:6,8,10,11 +172:25 +173:17,18 +174: 1 175:23 +176:3,7 +accessing +173:5 +accomplish +186:22 +accomplished +200:6,16 +accurate +151:25 179:19 +acknowledges +158:9 +act +165:22 +acted +168:13,25 +acting +196:19 +action +149:13,20,25 +150:17 155:2, +5, 7 156:19 +182:25 183:1 +188: 13 189:1 +193:9,10 +198:1 + + +actual +184:13 +Added +157:21 +additional +167:10 +address +192:25 207:4, +8 208:2,21,24 +209:6 +addressed +156:21 186:1 +Administration +182:16 183:6, +8,25 185:6 +admit +151:15 +admitted +150:23 162:5 +admittedly +162:16 +adopted +154:2 184:20 +advance +157:17 194:1 +advised +148:16 +advocated +182:13 +affidavit +160:8 +affirm +145:25 +affirmative +202:1,9 +afforded +155:20 +afternoon +145:5,12 +146:11,12 +187:19 +agree +164: 5 205:12 +208:3 +agreed +146:14 176:23 +205:3 208:13 +ahead +189:17 190:2 +193:22 194:17 +allegation +150:13 177:12 +alleged +149:18,23 +179:16 +ambiguous +184:12 +amended +150:1,3,6,23 +154x14,157:25 +160:8 175:2 +180:25 181:9 +187:22 189:10 +190:5,22,24 +191:15 192:12 +195:22 198:13 +199:7,10,18 +200:8 +Amendment +196:19,25 +201:7,11 +amounts +208:4 +and/or +149:23,24 +150:14,16 +188:12,25 +angry +173:22 +announce +145:4 +answering +156:9 +apparently +196:4 +appeal +164:23,24 +193:13 195:3 +200:23201:1, +4 202:15 +204:4 +appeals +164:19 +appears +190:1 +appellate +201:15 +applicable +169:4 181:16 +185:18 +application +170:18 +applied +168:9 +apply +168:19 169:7 +approach +160:12,23 +203:1 +appropriately +177:13 +area +193:5 +3 +arguably +194:8 +argue +163:13 184:20 +argued +163:15 174:4 +arguing +156:5 +argument +153: 1 156:18, +19 161:21,22 +162:1 168:7 +169:15,20 +171:2,3 +181:15 +185:11,12,15, +18 186:13 +205:23 206:5, +9,23 208:15 +arguments +157:16 163:15 +194: 1 205:15, +18 206:14 +209:9 +arm +191:14 +Aronberg +145:15 146:22 +147:5,11,16 +148:12,21 +161:17 164:6 +173:25 174:1 +177:21 179:4 +5,7,24 +180:12,15,21 +181:3 188:6 +190:17,19 +195:11 205:5, +7 208: 4 209:1 + + +Aronberg's +176:14 196:4 +article +147:7,19 +148:14,24 +161:7 172:12 +203:13 +Ash +155:3 +asks +174:10 +assert +195:21 +asserted +156:14 170:4, +9 201:7,13 +asserting +156:2 161:12 +194:20 +assertion +170:8,11,24 +194:19 +associates +155:19 +assuming +171:16,24 +172:1 179:19 +assumptions +178:9 +attached +- 197:16 207:18 +attempted +203:17 +attend +163:18 +attention +172:8 187:24 +191:16 +attorney +145:14 150:19 +154:16,18,23 +168:12,24 +170:9 172:1, +4,5,19,22 +177:21 185:9, +10,16,20 +188:7 189:3, +11 190:8,10, +15, 21 191:7, +11,14 192:3, +21 194:23,25 +195:2,9,18 +196:9 198:8, +12 199:1,23 +200:2,7,15, +18,25 201:25 +202:5 207:6 +attorney's +153:21 154:10 +162:18 1 +(163:16 +164:11 +190:25 +194:18 +196:8 +197:18 +199:24 +20974 +attorneys +155:19 169:3 +189:7 +attorneys' +160:9 165:18, +25 176:14 +Authorities +160:4,10,11 +authority +148:18 150:20 +154:16 157:3, +5 159:19 +175:22 188:9 +189:7,11 +190:15 191:6 +192:2 194:21, +22 195:4,5, +10,14,18 +196:6,20 +201:14,16,17, +19 209:8 +authorize +155:5 +availed +195:2 +awarded +168:4 +aware +162:16,21,22 +163: 25 185:13 +B +back +170:3 172:8 +175:9 181:24 +190:23 191:15 +197:8 204:13 +209:11 +bar +155:6 +based +168:13 182:13 +195:24 204:21 +basis +153:25 192:9 +197:16,22 +150:2,8 +151:5,7 +152:1,2 +157:15 162:10 +165:4,15 +166:20 175:10 +4 +176:17 182:1 +193:20 +Beach +145: 9 152:16 +162:19 +175:18,22,24 +176:3 188:8, +23 191:25 +1192:5, 8 196:1 +bear +159:20 +began +145:2 +beginning +156:3 166:1 +203:10 +behalf +145:8,14 +belief +195:3 +bench +208:7 +beneficial +206:2 +Bideau +145:6 208:12 +big +172:24 +binder +160:10,11 +203:2 +blanche +159:19 +blow +190:2 +Bock +188:22 + + +bottom +151:10 +bring +208:14 209:11 +bringing +149:9 +broad +154:19 189:6 +broader +198:4,13 +broadest +159:22 194:10 +brought +149:13 156:23 +196:24 +Buitrago +145:7 +CA +145:8 +call +203: 6 205:7 +calls +169:8 +camera +174:25 +176:6 +186:10 +capacity +150: 15 +188:11,24 +189:3,22 +190:20,25 +198:18 209:2 +care +195:13 +carte +159:18 +case +150:25 +151:17,21 +152:18,22 +153: 5 155:3, +17,18,22 +156:15 157:8 +158:7 159:10, +17,24 163:9 +169:13 175:8 +179:7 181:17 +185:11,16,21, +22 186:2 +187:5,7,10 +189:9 190:22, +24 194:24 +195:8,9,12 +200:4,5 +201:23 202:2 +207:7 209:3. +cases +154:17 (191:6, +12 195;6,7 +207:6 208:22 +challenged +177:11 +chance +204:17 +change +178:25 179:4 +changed +153:23 179:6 +181:4 199:24 +200:2,11 +Chapter +149:12 159:25 +166:12 +characterize +156:25 +charged +175:5 198:15 +charges +194:5,6 +check +167:15 +chose +198:19 +circumstances +155:1,6 194:4 +cite +154:15 157:24 +167:11190:6 +191:4 +cited +754:17 +189:5 +190:22,24 +191:10 +civil +150:25 +151:17,21 +152:18,21 +153:4 155:17, +22 156:15 +157:8 158:7 +159:10,17 +183:1,2 +184:7,8 +187:5,7,10 +201:23 +civility +163:6 +claim +153:1 161:13, +18 168:5 +169:19 170:5, +17 177:11,15 +179:24 198:2 +clause +5 +175:11 +191:17,20,24 +clauses +191:19 +Clayton +195:9 +clear +154:3,24 +171:4 191:5 +clerk +145:20,25 +146:7 153:2 +156:20 161:8 +162:5,16 +172:4,13,18, +22,25 173:7 +174:2,3,5, 6, +10,11 182:10, +12,16,21 +183:17 184:20 +185:15,17,23 +188:19,23 +189:3,22 +192:3 202:1, +13,16 +clerk's +162:23 182:4, +7,24 184:11, +14 196:1 +client +148:16 +149:18,23 +150:13,23 +153:15 154:1 +156:2,8 +161:12,15 +162:5 168:14 +169:14 +174:18,21 +177:14 180:6, + + +Sedge Ter Be 202 +3, 202: +12,13 181:16 +184: 4 185:23, +25 186:8 +client's +149:17,23 +165:7 170:5, +17 181:4 +186:7 +close +190:3 +closing +205:15,17,23 +206:5,9,14 +closings +207:10,25 +comment +148:15,21 +comments +164: 22 192:20 +193:1 +compare +188:14 +comparing +189:2 +complain +147:6 +complaint +149:18/150:1, +3,6,2з 154:15 +157:25 +774:17 +175:2, +183:14 187:22 +189:10,15,25 +190:4,5,23,24 +191:16 192:12 +195:22 +198:12,13 +200:8 +complaints +149:23 | +complementary +201:10 +complete +164: 8 174:17 +completeness +158:20 +complicated +182:24 +comply +161:18 164:7 +180:24,25 +compound +149:2, 3 151:3 +comptroller +188:23 +concept +194:9 +conclude +205:21 +concluded +209:20' +conclusion +169:9 +conclusory +170:19 +conduct +154: 19 189:7 +194:4 +conducted +190:18 +conduit +196:17,19 +confer +204:17,18 + +161:5 172:10 +183:4 184:4 +185:4 +confidentiality +182:14,17,23 +conflict +201:16 +confused +169:23 +confusing +178:4 179: +180:4 +Congress +155:4, 6 +connection +150:24 151:16 +152:17 153:4 +187:4 +consented +196:7 +Constitution +161:7 172:12 +201:8 +constitutional +201:18,19 +constitutionall +197:1 +constrained +157:2, 6 +construction +194:1 +contacted +146:23 147:6 +contention +177:12 +contesting +208:13 +6 +context +158:5 +continue +159:1 +contradict +204:25 +contrary +202:18 +contribute +163:9 +control +149:19,24 +150:14,16 +161:19 162:6, +17 170:12 +188:12,25 +195:14 +conversation +148:20 203:11 +copies +172:4 204:4 +copy +157:10 160:15 +165:7 199:17, +18 207:18 +corner +151:10 +correct +151:18,22 +162:20 164:15 +166: 4 169:17 +174:2 176:4, +20,22 177:16 +178:15 179:1, +13,15, 25 +182:6,21 +185:8 187:5 +188:19 +189:12,24 + + +8. 202 +190:5,13,14 +191:12 197:23 +198:3,4,9,10, +15,24 199:5, +6,9,10,15,16, +19.20 202:7 +208:5 +corrected +177:13 +Cort +155:3 +costs +160:9 +Count +149:16 198:4 +200:22,24 +201:4,5 +County +175:24 188:8, +23 192:5 +196:1 +court +145:3,16,20 +146:7 147:3 +148:1,6,7 +149:3 150:8 +152:25 153:9 +155:3,4,16,2 +156:24 +158:17,227 +159:13,75,18 +160:13,20 +761:3,10 +162:9 163:2,5 +167:20 168:5, +6 169:18,19 +170:1 172:14 +173:22 174:1, +25 175:2,19 +176:5 177:6, +10 182:9,11 +183:4,13,16, +17 184:4,15, +18 185:3,24 +186:10 187:15 +192:1,3,4,10 +194:20 195:4, +14 196:3 +197:4 201:13, +15,20 202:3, +15,22,25 +203:5,20,24 +204:1,6,8,12, +16 205:9,12, +15,24 206:3, +11,16 207:1, +13,17,23 +208:9,11,18, +21 209:15,19 +Court's +175:22 +182:22 +185:2 192:2 +195:5,8 +201:16 +courts' +155:2 +creating +148:21 190:7 +credibility +195:20 +credit +164:12 +crime +175:5 +criminal +150:25 +151:17,21 +152:18,21 +153:5 155:22 +156:15 157:8 +158: 6 159:10, +17 184:7,8 +187:5,7,10 +201:23 +cross +145:17 146:9 +cross-examined +158:18 +crystal +171:4 +cuff +206:18 +cure +179:24 +custodian +182:8,22 +custody +161:19 170:12 +190:11,12 +192:20 194:20 +197:17 198:7, +9,14 +D +date +177:24 178:2, +25 +dated +189:25 +Dave +145:14 176:14 +177:21 +180:11,15 +188:6 +day +149:7 153:14 +165:10 178:22 +209:19 +7 +days +166:6,9 +176:21,25 +177:10,16 +178:3,25 +179:10,14,15, +16 207:17,22 +209:10 +DEA +- 184:10 195:8, +13 202:15 +204:5 +deal +206:18 +dealing +190:24 197:17 +decide +199:22 +decided +156:25 +200:14,19 +decision +154:11 162:23 +200:12 +decisions +148:17 +declaration +152:18 +declaratory +161:18 170:5, +17 177:15 +183:1,18 +200:22 201:6 +declaring +175:20 +decline +171:13 +deems +192:10 + + +defendant +145:15 179:7 +180:6 183:18 +188:6,22 +defense +155:21 156:3 +161:12 168:6 +169:19 177:12 +195:19 +demand +148:23 162:2 +165:7,19 +166:12,15,17 +170:3,4,23 +171:9 176:22 +178:11,14,20 +180:17,22 +186:2 197:8, +12 +denial +177:12 +denying +203:10 +Department +195:24,25 +describing +191:6 +detailed +195:17 +determine +159 15 175:19 +183\16 201:15 +determined +148:24 182:23 +193:8 +200:4 +determines +168:5 169:18 +development +149:8 +devoted +149:7 +dicta +164: 8,13 +193:3 +difference +172:24 173:1, +5,11,17 209:1 +differing +181:18 +direct +149:6 157:20 +162:9 171:11 +191:16 204:22 +directing +160:21 +direction +182:10,23 +directly +204:25 +disagreed +193:12 +disclose +173y6 182:11 +disclosed +152:19 155:18 +159:9,13 +173:19 175:1 +176: 8 187:2 +196:10 +diselosing +173:1 +disclosure +155:16 157:5 +158:5,10 +159:17 173:17 +174:17 182:13 +183:4,7,15 +185:4,7 +186:8,23 +194:8 +discretion +154:11 +discuss +194:14 +discussed +148:20 186:12 +205:16 +discusses +184:19 +discussion +147:22 186:22 +discussions +163:14 +203:16 +dismiss +148:16 156:5, +14 161:24 +163:10 +164:10,24 +192:23 198:20 +200:15 +disputed +156:16 +dissemination +159:14 +district +188:7 190:9, +16 191:8 +documents +149:19,25 +150:14,16 +151:20 152:24 +153:11 174:6 +175:3 188:12, +25 +door +147:23 +8 +doubt +166:10 +Douglas +145:13 +draw +187:24 +drop +148:23 179:4, +23 199:23 +dropped +179:5,7,24 +180:11,15,16, +20 181:10,13 +185:16,20 +200:4 202:4 +dropping +177:20 180:6 +181:2 +due +181:14 +duly +146:7 188:6, +22 +E +earlier +172:9 206:16 +easier +188:16 +editorial +148:17 +Edmondson +147:6,8,16 +elected +188:7,23 +element +167:1,3,5,6,9 +201:19 + + +elements +201:5,18 +email +165:8 +Emphasis +157:21 +employees +155:20 +enclosed +197:15 +enclosure +197:23 +end +158:4 159:21 +183:7,11 +186:9 194:9 +ending +193:20 +enforced +154:25 +enter +203:17 +entered +193:15 +203:16,18 +entire +158:21 167:7 +188:3 +entity +198:15 +Epstein +162:17 +190:12,18 +192:6 202:2 +Epstein's +194:4 +equitable +192:10 +ESQ +146:6 +essentially +162:22 191:14 +establish +170:6 179:23 +established +194:3 +establishment +168:8 +event +208:3 +eventually +153:23 +everybody's +204:8 +evidence +146:1,15 +147:25 14814, +5 175:28 +192:5-203:27, +18,19/204:6 +evident +1583 +examination +145:17 146:9 +149:6 187:16, +17 +examined +174:25 176:5 +186:10 +excluded +203:21 +exclusively +201:22 +excuse +150:19 168:11 +183:15 +excused +202:22 +exempt +161:5 172:10 +exercise +157:4 + +148:1,4,5 +152: 7 157:12 +165:2 166:16, +17 177:19 +187:25 189:19 +190:23 292-23 +193:17 +197:12 +203+2 +exhibits +146:14 +151:8 +195:23 +existence +168:14 +existing +168:8 +expanded +182:25 +expansive +194:1 +expectation +168:10 +expedited +192:9 +experienced +206:19 +expert +208:14 +expressly +157:7 +extend +209:7 +9 +extension +168:7 +extensive +159:24 163:8 +extensively +149:12 184:19 +186:13 +F +tact +175:1 181:9 +184:14 185:10 +186:14 191:12 +192:14 195:7 +199:10 +facts +168:9,15 +170:6,18 +factual +195:17 +fair +194:25 +faith +167:1,2,4,6, +9,10 168:7, +13, 25 169:15, +20,21 +fall +194:8 +familiar +160:16 172:16 +183:24 +famous +155:2 +favorable +148:14 +fax +199:17 + + +federal +194: 6 195:6 +196:2 +fees +160: 9 165:18, +25 169:1 +176:14 180:2 +197:22 198:23 +199:2,14,18 +208:8,16 +felt +157:1,5 +194:24 +file +164:24 184:2, +6 192:3 +filed +165:22,25 +176:21 177:9, +24 179:23 +180:1 182:25 +183:23 185:14 +186: 4 189:15 +198:21,23 +199:8,18,19 +202:8 204:5 +files +192:4 +filing +154 1 15674 +178:2 183:6 +185:7 203:12 +final +156:23 157:1, +10 159:1,4 +181:24 185:2 +186:25 187:1 +193:14 194:13 +200:22 206:6 +finally +200:21 +fine +147:2,10 +154:8 194:12 +finish +156:11 193:23 +194:14 +firewall +204:23 +firm +145:13 161:16 +164:14 +fits +179:12 +flip +159:3 165:1, +14 170:22 +Florida +145:9 150:187 +21 154:15 +155/10 172:3 +115:21, 182:15 +188:2,5,7 +185:5 188:8, +10, 24 189:6 +190:7 191:5 +192:1 195:8 +198:15 201:8, +20 +follow +164:21 182:22 +formulating +206:6 +found +150:2 165:4 +foundation +147:1 +fourth +152:13 184:10 +202:15 204:5 +front +151:7 157:11 +188:2 +furtherance +152:23 156:17 +201:12,22 +furthering +158:2,4 +159:21 194:2, +9 +G +gain +175:22 176:3, +gave +153:17 154:10 +178:24 179:2 +194:23 +General +182:15 183:5, +8 185:5 +gentleman +158:17 163:2 +Gerard +145:6 189:18 +give +146:1 174:6 +177:2,3 +180:19 +205:17,19 +206:4,24 +207:1,11,13, +17,23,24 +208:1,18 +209:9 +10 +giving +181:8 +goal +186:7,9,25 +187:1 +God +196:25 +good +145:5,12 +146:11,12 +148:7 167:1, +2,4,6,9,10 +168:6,13,25 +169:15,20,21 +187:19 +government +196:3 +grand +150:20 +154:12,16,19 +155:20 158:6 +159:9,12,20 +161:9,20 +162:6,17 +172:2,13,14 +175:24 +182:14,17 +183:19 +184:16,22 +187:1 188:9 +189:8,12 +190:8,12,13, +16,18 191:1, +7,11,13 +192:5,20 +193:11 194:21 +195:1,10,15, +21 196:2 +197:17 +198:16,17,19 + + +199:25 200:1 +201:9 202:2, +14 207:5 +208:25 209:3 +grant +186:23 189:6 +192:9 +granted +190:17 +great +160:17 186:25 +206:25 209:19 +Greenberg +145: 8 169:3 +group +163:14 +guess +181:18 204:1 +guidance +207:2 +guilty +194:6 +guys +208:2 +H +Hafele +156:22,25 +157:1,9 +186:1324 +1192415 193:15 +Hafele's +186:15 +half +186:21 +hand +167:23 174:21 +handed +175:7 +happen +196:22 +happened +148:11 174:8 +180:7 +happening +179:18 +happy +150:4 184:18 +188:5 206:4 +harbor +165:22 199:21 +hard +199:18 +hear +195:1 207:3 +heard +200:19. +hearing +163:10 164:20 +192:18,19 +199,2,6,11, +13,15 209:12, +20 +held +148:24 +Hey +173:12 +highlighted +160:24 +hold +147:19 203:12 +Holdings +145:9 +honest +173:10 +honestly +173:20 +Honor +145:5,12,18 +146:25 147:21 +149:1 150:9 +158:19,25 +159:1 160:4 +163:4 188:16 +203:7,15,23, +25 204:4,19 +205:1,14 +206:8 207:22, +15,21 208: 6, +10 209:23,14, +12,18 +Horowitz +209:6 +hour's +186:21 +hours +149:8 +hundreds +149:8 +I +identification +186:11 +identified +182:10 +identify +175:3 +illegal +146:24 +Imagine +196:23 +implied +155:2,7 +11 +important +197:3 +impossibility +164:2,6 +impossible +170:13 +in-camera +152:24 153:9 +191:23 192:7, +inaccurate +175:6 178:9 +incarceration +194:7 +inclined +186:15,23 +included +198:17 +indicted +186:12 +individual +190:20 +inform +196:21 +informing +175:25 +inherent +157:2,5 +175:22 192:2 +194:20,21 +195:4,5 +201:14,19 +initial +184:18 198:12 +initially +153:21 168:6 +169:19 + + +inquiry +158:24 +inspection +152:24 153:9 +191:23 192:7, +13 +instance +205:6 +instances +159:8 +interaction +156:4 +interactions +196:8 +interest +182:9 194:7 +interpret +181:19 +interpreted +158:5 +interruption +156:12 +investigation +190:13 192:7 +investigations +189:8 +involved +189:9€ +involvement +163:9 +Involving +151:21 187:11 +issue +184:10,25 +185:22 186:1, +24 194:18 +205:3 208:25 +issues +182:9 +italics +159:19 +J +J17 +176:13 +145:13 +Jane +196:23 +Jeffrey +190:18 192:6 +202:2 +Jennifer +145:7 +Joe +196:23 +joint +1654 +1 204:9 +joked +206:16 +judge +149:15 +156:22,25 +157:1,3,4,8 +163:25 164:5 +186:13,15,24 +192:15,18,19, +25 193:4,6,15 +209:7 +judge's +164:22 +judgment +156:23 157:1, +10 159:1,4 +161:25 181:24 +183:1,2,14,18 +185:2,19 +192:14 193:14 +194:14 198:20 +200:22 201:6 +202:20 206:6 +judicial +182:16 183:5, +8,24 185:6 +188:7 190:9, +16 191:8 +July +166: 1, 3 +176:18 +| 198:24 +199:12,14 +June +149315 163:10 +165:11 166:7 +167:16 178:23 +179:10 197:10 +200:17 +juries +154:16 190:8 +191:7 +jurisdiction +190:7 +jurisdictional +181:11 +jurist +193:7 +Jury +150:20 +154:12,19 +155:20 158:6 +159:9,12,20 +161:9,20 +162:6,17 +172:2,14 +175:24 +182:14,17 +12 +183:19 +184:16,22 +187:1 188:9 +189:8,12 +190:12,13,16, +18 191:1,11, +13 192:6,20 +193:11 194:21 +1195:1,10,15, +21 196:2 +197:17 +198:16,17,19 +199:25 200:1 +201:9 202:2, +14 207:5 +208:25 209:3 +justice +152:23 156:17 +158:2, 4 +159:21 194:2, +9 195:25 +201:12,22 +Justice's +195:25 +K +knew +186: 3,4 +knowledge +164:11 +Krischer +190:21 195:11 +196:7 +Krischer's +196:9 +Lago +207:4 + + +laid +195:16 +language +154:25 +155:14,24 +156:17 179:13 +189:14 201:11 +Lauren +145:6 +1aw +145:13 168:8 +169:13 170:18 +172:3 183:17 +190:22,24 +198:16 209:7 +laws +155:8 +lawsuit +149:9 154:1 +174:14,20 +180:15,21 +181:3,6,13 +183:23 185:14 +186: 4 187:14 +196:24 +lawyer +169:14 +lay +206:15 +lead +162÷18 +left +145:16 151:10 +legal +155:19 156:4 +169: 9 192:10 +195:17 204:24 +legally +208:15 +legislative +209:8 +letter +146:17 165:7, +15 166:16,17 +167:12,16,21 +170:3,4,14, +16,23 171:4, +8,12,15 +178:23 +180:17,23 +181:5 197:15, +23 198:9 +200:17 +limited +152:20,21 +limits +159:7 +list +205:2 +listed +203:8 +11tany +191:6 +long +154:23 +longer +181:16 184:23 +185:25 200:20 +202:13 +looked +191:5 +100p +190:3 +losing +168:12,24 +lot +178:4 206:1, +17 +Madam +145:20 +made +156:5,13 +161:16,22,24 +164:18,19,20 +170:8,13 +176:18 180:2 +184: 9 185:11 +12,15,17,18 +192:8,15,19 +mail +199:17 +maintain +163:5 182:17 +majority +208:8 +make +148:15,17,18 +154:10,11 +164:21 169:15 +173:22 +makes +157:16 171:4 +193:25 +making +170:10 171:3 +178: 8 181:15 +manner +179:20 +Mark +145:6 +Marx +192:18,19 +193:6 +Marx's +13 +149:15 164:1, +5 192:25 +193:4 +186:19 +material +168:9,15 +170:6 +materials +150:24 151:1, +16,24 152:17, +19 153:16 +156:14 158:6, +10 159:9,20 +161:20 162:7, +17 172:2,23, +25 173:1,5,6 +175:25 182:8, +12,22 183:19 +184:16,22,23 +186:16 187:2 +193:12 194:8 +195:19 196:2, +11,13 197:1, +18 198:21 +200:1 201:10 +202:2,14,18 +math +166:9 +matter +147:13 183:17 +matters +194:3,7 +media +196:18,19 +memo +208:7 +Mendelsohn +145:11 146:6, +EFTA02734920R + +Septe turo Be 2022 +11 154:21 +158:12,14 +159:3 160:6 +161:11 162:10 +163:8 169:5, +25 173:21 +174:16 179:22 +181:19 185:1 +187:19 197:7 +203:10 204:23 +205:4 +mention +199:11 +mentioned +153: 8 200:21 +middle +166:23 +Mike +147:6,16 +204:10 +mind +189:19 +minute +208:1 +minutes +175:23 192:4 +204:13 +mixing +180:9 +modification +N68:7 +moment +204:10,12 +monetary +168:4 +motion +149:16 156:5, +13 161:24,25 +163:10,13 +164:10,24 +165:18,19,20, +21,25 176:14 +177:8,11 +180:2,25 +181:8,9 +183:7,14,15 +184:2,6, 9 +185:7,19 +192:14,23 +197:8,9,15, +16,22 198:20, +23,25 199:2, +4, 7,10,14,18 +202:19 205:11 +move +149:5 153:13 +154:21 169:25 +197:4 +moved +1800,5 +183:1 +moving +159:33 +N +named +189:3,11,22 +190:10,11 +198:18 201:1 +209:2 +names +188:19 +naming +198:11 +narrow +193:5 201:23 +needed +153:15,17 +154:4,5,9 +168:16 194:14 +200:7,12,20 +205:18 +negotiations +146:16,22 +147:19,20,24 +148:22 +203:13,20 +neutral +153:20 184:25 +neutrality +153:24 +154:2 +184:21 +200:1, +11 +news +204:24 +newspaper +148:21 157:16 +158:9 173:13 +182:25 186:16 +193:25 +newspaper's +183:14 +non-movant +204:7 +non-objection +200:10 202:1 +Nonetheless +182:12 +nonpossession +164:12 +notes +160:19 161:1, +4 172:9 +notice +177:20 196:3 +14 +199:11,13 +Notwithstanding +168:3 +November +189:15 199:8, +19 +number +150:3 154:18 +165:2 171:5 +175:10 177:19 +178:8 179:17 +193:20 201:5, +18 +object +153:16,17,22 +154:4,5,9 +202:11 203:18 +205:1 +objected +153:20 164:14 +objection +146:25 147:21 +148:7 149:1 +169:8 200:10, +11 205:10 +objections +164:18,19,22 +objects +202:13 208:8 +obligation +209:8 +obligations +175:20 +obtaining +183:3 185:4 +186: 7 195:19 + + +obvious +191:8 +occur +163:17 +occurred +185:20 +occurs +159:15 +October +153:23 +177:21,24 +179:8,9 +200:15 202:6 +offense +169:24 +offer +148:6 +offered +147:19 148:23 +office +149:24 150:15 +153:21 154:10 +161:17 163:16 +170:11 174:6 +188:11,25 +196:1,4,9 +197:18 +official +150:15 +188:11,24 +189:22 +190:20,25 +198:18 209:2 +one-page +197:9 +open +159:14 +opened +147:23 +opening +164:2 +opportunity +153:18 194:24 +195:2 200:9, +19 +opposes +184:23 +opposing +198:21 +opposition +185:19 199:25 +202:17 +option +154:10 +oral +186:13 +order +149:15 16149 +172:14 192:3 +22,23,25 +19314 196:3 +ordered +155:16 202:3, +14 +orders +207:25 209:10 +original +189:25 190:4 +199:2,14 +originally +200:10 +P +p.m. +145:2 204:14, +15 209:20 +Palm +145: 9 152:16 +162:19 +175:18,22,24 +176:3 188:8, +23 191:25 +192:5,8 196:1 +paper +148:13,18 +175: 7 177:11 +186:17 +paragraph +150:3, 6,2, 11 +152:10 +154:13,1 +157:21 +160:18 +761: +162:13 +168:5,11,12, +23,24 169:18 +171:11,15,22 +182:19 188:1, +3,18,19,21 +189:4,5,25 +190:1,4 +191:2,16 +193:23 195:21 +paragraphs +189:2 +paralegal +145:7 +parentheses +158:2 +part +146:14,15 +147:15 148:4, +5,22 150:10 +163:14 181:16 +186:1 187:7, +10 194:2 +15 +participate +194:24 +parties +155:18 175:20 +204:2 209:5 +party +177:8 180:15 +185:10,25 +207:7 209:2 +party's +168:12,24 +past +165:15 +pendency +146:22 +pending +147:19 +151:18,21 +158:6 184:6,8 +187:7,10 +201:23 203:14 +penultimate +171:20,21 +people +186:11 +206:17,18,20 +performance +164:3 +period +179:25 +personal +164:10 +persons +155:21 +phone +147:13,17 +phrase +158:4 194:10 + + +physical +172:2 +pin +178:17 +plaintiff +145:10 177:20 +planning +206:10 +plea +194:6 +point +171:14 200:6, +14 204:2 +portions +146:16 194:13 +position +153:20,22,23 +154:2 178:25 +179:4,6 +180:11,14,16, +21 181:1,3,4 +182:4,7,13 +184:11,14,21 +197:24 199:24 +200:2 202:17, +19 +possession +149:19 +24 +150:14, 16 +161:19 162:6, +16 164:11 +17212 188:12, +25 189:23 +190:11 192:20 +194:19 197:17 +198:7,9,13 +possibly +186:19 +Post +145:10 +151:20,21 +152:17,22,25 +156: 6 162:19 +175:18,22 +176:3 187:6, +11 191:25 +192:8 196:17, +25 199:22 +200:3,6.14,16 +201:8 +potential +163:15 175:4 +194:5 +power +191:11 +powers +154:19 +practice +154:23 182:16 +183:5,8185:5, +preeminent +194:22 +prefer +205:22 +prepare +206:22 207:9 +prepared +206:8 +prescribed +159:16 +presence +145:4 +present +159:16 184:11 +presented +168:6 169:19 +175:24 177:10 +192:5 +previously +146:24 +primary +190:14 +prior +149:15 150:17 +152:25 153:9 +195:17 199:19 +private +193:9,10 +198:1 +problem +181:7 +procedure +183: 2, 3 +^184:7/13 +185:4 +proceeding +159:14 167:7 +182:24 184:8 +190:18 198:16 +proceedings +145:2 150:20 +188:10 189:12 +207:6 +process +190:16 194:21 +195:15 +produce +182:11 +prohibit +172:21 +prohibiting +174:5 +prohibits +172:3 +proper +153:25 183:3, +16 +18 185:3 +192:11 +proposed +165:21 207:25 +209:10 +prosecuted +146:24 +prosecution +155:22 +protect +198:19 +protection +198:17 +protector +190:25 +provide +160:2,7 +170:13 172:4 +181:12 184:18 +197:25 205:22 +provided +152:2 +provision +160:16 167:11 +201:6 +provisions +161:6 172:11 +public +175:1 176:1 +186:8,16,17 +187:2 192:9 +194: 7 195:1 +196:4,13,16, +17,18,20,21, +23 198:22 +publisher +145:9 +pull + + +189:17 +purpose +155:23 158:11 +175:25 +purposes +181:11 +pursuant +155:16 161:10 +172:15 175:21 +188:8,10 +192:1 +put +149:12 162:1 +179:20 203:11 +putting +147:24 +question +151:3,13 +164:9 173:8, +15,16,24 +178:5,6,10 +179:18,20 +180:20 183:21 +186:6 197:20 +questions +181:20/187:13 +197:14 +202;21 +quote +149:24 158:4 +159:21,22 +166:12 167:2 +183:7 194:2,9 +quoted +150:18 154:14 +166:11,23 +170:23 +quotes +158:2 +R +raise +185:23,24 +raised +205:4 +rate +208:13,15 +rates +208:12 +re-evaluated +200:3 +read +155:15 157:24 +158:21 159:5 +160:20 161:3 +162:14,15.24 +163:22 164:1 +167:19 168 16 +162:3/10 +172: 9 +177:6 +182y19 185:3 +187:21 188:3, +21 191:18,24 +193:1,19,23 +201:21 207:5 +reading +150:1 157:22 +158:1 172:6 +182:5 201:21, +23 +real +182:9 +reason +151:24 166:10 +170:24 190:14 +195:17 198:11 +reasonable +168:10 +reasoned +193:7 +reasons +171:13 200:17 +reassess +184:15 +rebuttal +203:6,8 +204:20 205:8 +recall +147:12156:2 +161:12 +170/25 +189:16 +received +176:22 +recess +209:16 +recognize +165:6,17 +171:8 +recollection +205:6 +reconsider +204:20 205:13 +record +164:1,20 +204:14 +records +160:19 161:4 +164:3 170:12 +172:10 +173:12,13 +174:1,11,18, +21,24 182:18 +183:4 184:4 +185: 5 186:7 +187:10 190:12 +17 +192:21 +recoverable +208:17 +redact +175:3 +redacting +186:18 +redirect +157:20 172:8 +187:16,17 +referenced +198:8 +referring +164:17 166:14 +167:13,17 +179:6 181:9 +refers +172:18 +rejected +171:9 +relationship +159:21 +release +152:25 153:9 +159:19 183:19 +184:21,23 +186:15 198:21 +199:25 +202:14,18 +released +161:8 172:13 +releasing +202:1 +relevant +205:11 +relief +161:18 170:5, +17 177:15 + + +192:10 200:22 +remain +200:3 +remember +147:9 +169:13 +removed +186:11 +repeat +149:22 +reply +184:19 204:5 +report +195:25 +reported +196:2 +reporter +146:23 +representations +168:14 +request +153:16,19 +161:8 172:13 +174:17 187:9 +192:13 +requested +151:1,16,24 +161:19 162:6 +164: 3 187:1 +191/22 +requesting +27224 +requests +175:19 192:1 +required +182:17 +requires +159:17 183:6 +185:6 +research +149:8,11 +155:11,25 +159:24 +resolution +194:5 +resources +196:21 +respect +181:14 193:6 +respectfully +175:19 191:25 +responded +146:8 +rested +204:2,9 +rests +204:7 +result +183:16 +reversal +168: 8 +review) +171/4 175:2 +186:19 +rights +175:19 +role +182:21,24 +rule +158:20 182:15 +183:2,5,8,15, +24 184:3,5, +12,20 185:5, +11,13,18 +186:4 193:4 +ruled +193:5 +Rules +182:15 183:24 +safe +165:22 199:21 +safe-harbor +179:25 180:5 +181:8,12 +sanction +162:18 +sanctions\ +168:4 +177:8 +197:8,16 +199:8 +SAO +146:23 +Scholz +145:13 +scope +152:19 159:8 +scratch +149:16 +screen +188:15 +seasoned +193:6 +seated +145:3 204:16 +208:18 +secrecy +154:12 182:14 +195:1 198:18, +19 +secret +196:2 +section +152:22 155:8 +18 +158:3 159:8, +12,16,18 +161:6,7 +168:11 170:23 +172:11,12,15, +18 175:21 +177:9 188:9, +10 190:6 +192:2,15 +194: 2 +securities +155:8 +seek +151:23 184:15 +193:11 197:1 +201:9 +seeking +150:24 +151:16,20 +152:17,24 +153:7,8,10 +158:5,10 +162:18 169:1 +177:8 183:7 +185:7 +seeks +152:18 +sense +159:22 194:10 +sentence +150:17 152:13 +158:21 159:5 +160:18,25 +162:15 +: 171:25 +182:3 183:12 +187:21 +served +177:9,16 +178:3,11,13, +19 180:22 + + +leptember 08, 202; +181:5,8,10 +197:9 +service +177:11 +set +183:4 185:5 +189:10 197:22 +199:1,6,14 +200:16 +settle +148:14 +settlement +146:16,19,22 +147:18,20,22, +24 148:13,22 +203:13,16,20 +204:21 +sex +192:6 +shared +196:1 +Sharon +188:22 +show +150:4 160:23 +167:14 +sic +159:8 +simple +173:24 +178:10 +179:22 +simultaneously +186:17 +sir +145:19,22 +149:14 150:10 +151:8,14 +152: 8 154:7 +157:18,20 +160:2,22 +162:12 165:5, +16 170:10 +171:14 172:7 +173:20 174:6 +202:23,25 +208:23 +situation +159:20 189:9 +skipping +169:5 +social +194:10 +solely +190:11 +solemnly +145:25 +sought +151:1 +sound +166:3 +speak +147A11) +speaking +147:12 +specifically +155:4 +specifics +170:20 +spoke +147:15,18 +spoken +147:8 +stamp +150:2,8 151:6 +152:2 165:4, +15 166:20 +175:10 176:17 +182:1 +stamped +162:10 +stamps +151:7 +standing +201:9 +start +146:13 171:21 +starts +152:13 160:18 +161:1 162:13 +171:15/23 +state +145:14 +750-19,20 +153:21 +154:10,16,18 +157:7 161:7 +162:18 163:16 +164:11 170:9 +172:1,3,5,12, +19,21 177:21 +185:9,10,16, +20 188:7 +189:3,7,11 +190:7,10,15, +21,25 191:7, +10,14 192:3, +21 194:5,18, +23,25 195:2, +7,9,18 196:8 +197:18 198:7, +8, 11 199:1, +23,24 200:2, +7,15,18,25 +201:25 202:4 +207:6 209:4 +stated +149: 7 154:13 +19 +155:12 173:25 +175:1 200:13 +201:25 +statement +164:2,13 +172:9 202:9 +statements +164:1,6,8,15, +19,20 203:9 +states +155:3 195:22 +statute +150:18 154:15 +157:2,6 +167:3,14 +168:20 169:7 +172:22 174:5 +175:21 177:3 +179:2,15 +181:19 188:9, +10 189:6 +191:5,10,13 +192:1 193:11 +194:22 195:6, +13 197:25 +198:2 201:10, +11,21,24 +203:21 +statute's +166:23 +Statutes +190:7 +statutory +154:24 179:12 +STENOGRAPHER +158:15 +step +154:7 +Stephen + + +Septe turo Be 2020 +145:10 146:6 +stipulated +208:4, 7 +stop +173:23 +strong +157:16 193:25 +subdivision +161:6 +subject +149:20,25 +150:17 188:13 +189:1 193:13 +submitted +208:7,22 +subpoenaed +207:7 209:4 +subsection +155:17 157:22 +158:1 159:7 +166:13 167:4, +8,9,14,20 +168:20 177:4 +179:15 +subsections +168:3 +substances +146:24 +succeed +153:1 +Buccess +168:10 +successful +156:19 +successor +190:21 +sue +190:19 +sued +153:15 184:4 +188:11,24 +sufficient +207:14,16 +suggest +175:6 +suggested +148:12,15 +suggesting +156:24 165:21 +195:12 +suing +169:14 | +summary +161:25 183:2, +14 185:19 +192:14 198:20 +202:19 +superior +195:5 201:17 +superseded +194 22) +supervise +189:7 +supervision +198:16 +supplement +205:18,19 +supplemental +160: 8 206:10 +support +153:19 +supported +170:5 +supposed +184:3 +Supreme +155:3 +184:15 +195:8 201:20 +surrounding +194:4 +sustained +148:8 149:3 +swear +145:20,25 +sworn +145:23 146: +system +191:1 +tab +157:13,15 +160:3,4 +162:10 171:5 +175:10,12 +176:13 177:19 +181:24 +talk +208:14 +talked +146:18 167:18 +talking +148:1 173:23 +tandem +158:3 +tangent +197:2 +team +195:19 204:24 +telling +156:22 +terrific +207:12 +20 +testified +146: 8 153:15, +22 +testifying +158:22 +testimony +155:20 159:9, +13 175:23 +1176:4,7 192:4 +204:22 +things +153:18 178:4 +179:17,19 +180:9 206:20 +Thomson +145:7 +thought +163:15,16 +tied +201:22 +time +147:18 149:12 +163:3,24 +184:11 185:9, +17 187:7 +196:8,21 +199:19 202:8 +205:16,19 +206:22 207:9, +20 208:9 +times +146:19 +161:16,23 +today +198:3 205:21 +told +166:3 +top +159:5 182:2 + + +transcript +163:22 +192:18,19 +207:18 +transcriptions +160:19 161:5 +172:10 +Traurig +145:8 +Travel +208:9 +treat +183:13 +trial +158:18 206:19 +true +146:14,18,21 +147:5,17 +149:7,17,22 +150:22 153:14 +161:15 162:4 +170: 4 186:7 +truth +146:2,3 +turning +189:21 193:14 +twofold +173:15 +U.S. +195:25 196:8 +201:7 +Uh-huh +152:6 176:15 +ultimately +195:15 +unambiguous +154:24 +uncertain +184:14 +unclear +201:17 +underlying +187:5 +undermined +195:20 +understand +173:3,9,19 +197:19 +understanding +154:24 +understands +170:1 +United +155:3 +unlimited +151:1,23 +153: 5/7,10 +159÷14 +Unquestionably +194:3 +unquote +194:3 +unsigned +165:21 +unsupported +170:17 +untrue +148:9 +utilize +193:11 +verbatim +162:21 +versus +173:12 180:5 +victim +195:20 +view +184:8 +views +181:19 +vis-à-vis +154:12 157:2 +voice +195:1 200:10 +voiced +· 200:10 +wanted +148:22 154:6, +12 157:4 +175:7 178:17 +191:19 192:22 +194:14 204:4 +Weatherby +208:22,23 +week +206:24 +207:11,13,14, +15 +weeks +207:23,24 +whatsoever +155:23 +wherefore +21 +175:11,18 +191:17,19,20, +24 +Whetstone +145:5,6,18 +146:25 147:21 +149: 1 169:8 +187:18 +1188:15,17 +189:18,20 +197:6 202:21, +24 203:1,7, +15,23 204:3,7 +205:1,10 +206:8,12 +207:5,14,15, +21 208:6,10, +20,24 209:13, +18 +whichever +206:6 +withdraw +177:15 +179:14,16 +186:2 +withdrawn +177:13 +witnesses +175:4 +words +186:15 +worth +186:21 +wraps +167:7 +write +148:13 206:9 +writing +205:19 + + +206:17,21 +written +147:7 154:25 +205:23 206:5, +14,23 207:25 +wrong +169:17 170:20 +Wyler +145:12,13,14, +19 146:10,12 +147:2,4,23 +148:3,10 +149: 4 150:9, +12 158:25 +159:2 160:3, +5,12,14 +163:4,7 +169:10,16 +181:14 +187:12,21 +191:18 192:17 +193:1,19 +197:14 198:6 +203:3,6,9,22, +25 204:19 +205:7,14,22, +25 206:24 +207:11,19 +208:23 +209:14, +Zoom +163:18 +CERTIFIED COPY +yesterday +204:22 +Z +zealously +182:12 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/956b403ea4593b03f6cb26de5695bfcff60401cd61cb8b2bc1c0244e22e86482.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/956b403ea4593b03f6cb26de5695bfcff60401cd61cb8b2bc1c0244e22e86482.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..754e6e95635f5c75489523d53169a1ae27855f4d --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/956b403ea4593b03f6cb26de5695bfcff60401cd61cb8b2bc1c0244e22e86482.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -23607, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "956b403ea4593b03f6cb26de5695bfcff60401cd61cb8b2bc1c0244e22e86482", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 286, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.digits-only\", \"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.confidential\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": false, + "input_sha256": "441f94222f69f93962a11df3cdc7a5a8303e2b635bf5467f277085d600dd715c", + "output_sha256": "2791bfa4ecb0a104cde972e68926b8664ad3db2b6297eeb2659cc0ce717a08f6", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/958b239223fcbd9f8b8b464180dd5924b0f57b1dccba2d77c61ef93b39bb1cbb.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/958b239223fcbd9f8b8b464180dd5924b0f57b1dccba2d77c61ef93b39bb1cbb.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6edadeed29d241415a7640a4967fd28c55171263 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/958b239223fcbd9f8b8b464180dd5924b0f57b1dccba2d77c61ef93b39bb1cbb.md @@ -0,0 +1,112 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 87 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2009 Page 1 of 5 +JANE DOE NO. 2, +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/ +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRAJ_ +JANE DOE NO. 5, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/ +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +- 1- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 87 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2009 Page 2 of 5 +JANE DOE NO. 6, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80994-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 7, +VS. +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08- 80993-CIV-MARRA/ +PLAINTIFFS' UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME +TO FILE MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO MOTIONS TO COMPEL +PLAINTIFES TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANT'S FIRST REQUEST +TO PRODUCE AND FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES, ET AL. +Plaintiffs, JANE DOES 2-7, by and through undersigned counsel, file this Motion for +Enlargement to Time to File Memorandum in Opposition to Motions to Compel Plaintiffs to +Respond to Defendant's First Request to Produce and First Set of Interrogatories, et al., pursuant to +S.D. Fla.L.R. 7.1 and Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b), and state as follows: +On April 2, 2009, Defendant Epstein filed two Motions to Compel in each of the +above-captioned cases: (1) Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Defendant's First Request to +Produce and to Overrule Objections, and for an Award of Defendant's Reasonable Expenses; and (2) +Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Answer Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories, and to Overrule +Objections, and for an Award of Defendant's Reasonable Expenses. Plaintiffs' responses to these +- 2- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 87 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2009 Page 3 of 5 +Motions are due on April 20, 2009. +2. +Plaintiffs move for an enlargement of time to prepare and file their response to the +Motions because of demands on Plaintiffs' counsel in this case and in other cases and matters. This +includes an initial appellate brief presently due on April 24, 2009, in Doe v. School Bd. of Broward +County and Scavella, case no. 09 -10394-E, Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. +3. +Plaintiffs request an enlargement of time until April 29, 2009. +4. +Pursuant to S.D.Fla.L.R. 7.1(A), Plaintiffs' counsel has conferred with counsel for +Defendant regarding the relief sought in this Motion, who has advised Plaintiffs' counsel that +Defendant has no objection to the enlargement of time requested. +WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request an enlargement of time to file their response to +the Motions to Compel et al., until and including April 29, 2009. +Dated: April 17, 2009 +Respectfully submitted, +By: +s/ Stuart S. Mermelstein +Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245) +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980) +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P.A. +litorneys for Plaintiff +8205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 221: +Miami, Florida 33160 +Tel: 305-931-2200 +Fax: 305-931-0877 +- 3- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 87 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2009 Page 4 of 5 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I hereby certify that on April 17, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the +Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this +day to all parties on the attached Service List in the manner specified, either via transmission of +Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those +parties who are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing. +Is/ Stuart S. Mermelstein +- 4- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 87 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2009 Page 5 of 5 +SERVICE LIST +DOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +igoldberger@agwpa.com +Robert D. Critton, Esq. +rcritton@bclclaw.com +Is/ Stuart S. Mermelstein +- 5- diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/958b239223fcbd9f8b8b464180dd5924b0f57b1dccba2d77c61ef93b39bb1cbb.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/958b239223fcbd9f8b8b464180dd5924b0f57b1dccba2d77c61ef93b39bb1cbb.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a2b588685fcce4decda28084e3107e897032da24 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/958b239223fcbd9f8b8b464180dd5924b0f57b1dccba2d77c61ef93b39bb1cbb.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -60, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "958b239223fcbd9f8b8b464180dd5924b0f57b1dccba2d77c61ef93b39bb1cbb", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 5, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "30c5c978fa1af341d03d569cc9cd5a8c84eeab77961ed617cbbc9a300df08080", + "output_sha256": "dac53a7526d03b2ad4fceef4f75cc909f65098bb57db16d4df9c17da2002e5e0", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/958dac7d5b40744269360b0cdeba83b42eedeee6204b3e8aa4aa66863fe06251.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/958dac7d5b40744269360b0cdeba83b42eedeee6204b3e8aa4aa66863fe06251.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5b1f279eff304c91173623441433ad4ef3751479 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/958dac7d5b40744269360b0cdeba83b42eedeee6204b3e8aa4aa66863fe06251.md @@ -0,0 +1,90 @@ +Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 87 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2009 Page 1 of 3 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 09-80591-MARRA/. +JANE DOE No. 101, +V. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Plaintiff, +Defendant, +DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION +OF TIME IN WHICH TO FILE A REPLY TO PLAINTIFF JANE DOE 101'S RESPONSE +TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT +Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, (hereinafter "Epstein") by and through his undersigned +attorneys, respectfully moves this Court for an extension of time in which to reply to +Plaintiff, Jane Doe 101's Response to Defendant, Epstein's Motion to Dismiss Amended +Complaint [DE 56] dated June 26, 2009. Defendant seeks an extension until December +15, 2009, to file his reply. As good cause in support of granting the motion, Defendant +states: +1. On May 1, 2009, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint [DE 9]. +2. On May 26, 2009, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint [DE +29]. +3. On June 26, 2009, Plaintiff filed her Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss +Amended Complaint [DE 56]. + + +Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 87 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2009 Page 2 of 3 +Doe 101 v. Epstein +Page 2 +4. The parties continue to work together to find a resolution in this case and are +close to a resolution. In addition, parties have agreed to numerous extensions while +negotiating a resolution. +5. The implosion of the Rothstein Rosenfeldt & Adler, PA firm has raised certain +questions for which defense counsel will request answers/information from Plaintiff's +counsel regarding the Rothstein scheme/scandal prior to final resolution. +6. The requested extension is fair and reasonable under the circumstances as it will +provide time to allow the Defendant, EPSTEIN, to fully and adequately respond. +7. As certified below, counsel for Defendant conferred with counsel for Plaintiff, and +Plaintiff's counsel is not in agreement with the requested extension at this time. +WHEREFORE Defendant respectfully requests that this Court enter an Order +granting an extension until December 15, 2009, to file a Reply to Plaintiff's Response to +Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint. +Local Rule 7.1 Statement +Counsel for the movant conferred by correspondence with counsel for the +Plaintiff and Counsel for Plaintiff is not in agreement with the requested extension until +December 15, 2009 for Defendant to respond to Plaintiffs Complaint. +Robert D. Critton Jr., Esq. +Attorney for Defendant +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 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 87 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2009 Page 3 of 3 +Doe 101 v. Epstein +Page 3 +served this day on all counsel of record identified on the following Service List in the +manner specified by CM/ECF on this 21d day of December, 2009 +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 +rjosefsberg@podhurst.com +kezell@podhurst.com +Counsel for Plaintiff +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 +jagesq@bellsouth.net +Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein +Respectfully submitted, +* 1 +ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. +Florida Bar/No. 224162 +rcrit@bclclaw.com +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. +Florida Bar No. 617296 +npike@bclclaw.com +URMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & 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) diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/958dac7d5b40744269360b0cdeba83b42eedeee6204b3e8aa4aa66863fe06251.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/958dac7d5b40744269360b0cdeba83b42eedeee6204b3e8aa4aa66863fe06251.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..692f978e3b7ac53ad6f160eebd124c69cfac5bd1 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/958dac7d5b40744269360b0cdeba83b42eedeee6204b3e8aa4aa66863fe06251.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -36, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "958dac7d5b40744269360b0cdeba83b42eedeee6204b3e8aa4aa66863fe06251", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 3, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "cad806e9a78003308482fb868b29d8611d7fd9ca70309ebfde314f14d60a605f", + "output_sha256": "470da0d6e347919b7af2d860c8312c2880b93e15d1de8bb7d1755156855c73cc", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/95cb991189b3070bd6de51fbb9ee96bafc32897902011f84bd361a31d71ebd06.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/95cb991189b3070bd6de51fbb9ee96bafc32897902011f84bd361a31d71ebd06.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..489e27cb74311407454c7d0773f07fc9df975072 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/95cb991189b3070bd6de51fbb9ee96bafc32897902011f84bd361a31d71ebd06.md @@ -0,0 +1,360 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 113 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2009 Page 1 of 12 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/_ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff, +/ +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 5, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +25 West Flagler Stret, Suite 800, Miami, FL. 3130, Miami 305.358 2800 Fax 305358.2382 • Fort Tauderdale 954463.446 T + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 113 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2009 Page 2 of 12 +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 6, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80994-MARRA +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 7, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80993-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +C.M.A., +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80811-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80893-MARRA/ +VS. +2 +25 West Flagler Stret Suite 80, Mami, T. 3130, Miami 306 3582800 ax 305.382382 • Port Lauderdale 951.463.4346 T + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 113 +Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2009 Page 3 of 12 +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. II, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80469-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 101, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 09-CV-80591-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 102, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 09-CV-80656-MARRA/JOHNSON +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +3 +25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800, Miami, FL 33130, Miami 305.358.2800 Fax 305.358.2382 • Fort Lauderdale 954.463.4346 + + +Document 113 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2009 Page 4 of 12 +PLAINTIFFS JANE DOE NO. 101 and JANE DOE NO. 102'S +MOTION FOR NO-CONTACT ORDER +Plaintiffs, Jane Doe No. 101 and Jane Doe No. 102 (together, the "Plaintiffs") hereby +move this Court for a No-Contact Order directed to Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, and, as grounds, +state as follows: +After investigations by the Palm Beach Police Department, the Palm Beach State +Attorney's Office, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the United States Attorney's Office +for the Southern District of Florida (the "USAO"), Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, in June 2008, +entered pleas of "guilty" in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in Palm Beach Count, Florida, to +various Florida state crimes involving the solicitation of minors for prostitution and the +procurement of minors for the purposes of prostitution. +During the course of Defendant's state plea conference of June 30, 2008, Palm +Beach Circuit Court Judge Deborah Dale Pucillo ordered Defendant "not to have any contact, +direct or indirect" with any victims. (Transcript of the Plea Conference at 20, relevant pages +attached hereto as Exhibit A). Judge Dale Pucillo went on to clarify that, by "indirect," she +meant that Defendant should not send any text messages, c-mails, Facebook contact, My Space +contact, telephone calls, voicemails, or messages through third parties to "any of these victims." +Id. Judge Dale Pucillo expressiy stated that the no-contact order should apply to "all of the +victims." Id. +3. +In addition, after Defendant entered into a non-prosecution agreement with the +USAO, Assistant United States Attorney +Villafaña provided Defendant's attorneys with a +list of individuals whom the USAO had identified as victims of child sex exploitation as defined +in 18 U.S.C. § 2255 (the "USAO List"). The USAO was prepared to indict Defendant based +upon Defendant's sexual exploitation of these minor victims. It was the intent of the USAO to +place these identified victims in the same position as they would have been had Defendant been +4 +25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800, Miami, FL 33130, Miami 305.358.2800 Fax 305.358.2382 • Fort Lauderdale 954.463.4346 + + +Document 113 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2009 Page 5 of 12 +convicted at trial. Thus, upon information and belief, AUSA | +Villafaña and Mr. Michael +Tein, former counsel for Defendant, along with Mr. Jack Goldberger, who still represents +Defendant, entered into a verbal agreement at the time AUSA Villafaña provided the USAO List +to them, whereby neither Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, nor his agents would have any direct or +indirect contact with the victims named on the USAO List. +4. +Nevertheless, during a March 25' meeting with Defendant's counsel, Defendant's +counsel told Plaintiffs' counsel that it is Defendant's position that the no-contact order agreed to +during the state plea conference does not apply to anyone other than those three vietims who +were officially part of Defendant's state plea. +5. +Upon Plaintiffs' counsel seeking reassurance from Defendant's counsel that +neither Defendant nor his agents would contact victims on the USAO List, Defendant's counsel +responded that Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, would not contact any of undersigned counsel's +clients as long as Mr. Josefsberg was representing them in connection with settlement +discussions. +As a result, on April 17, 2009, Plaintiffs' counsel sent defense counsel a letter +requesting that Defendant provide written confirmation that neither he nor his agents will +directly or indirectly contact any of the victims represented by Plaintiffs' counsel (the "No- +Contact Letter") (April 17, 2009 Letter attached hereto as Exhibit B). On May 18, 2009, +Plaintiffs' counsel again requested this written confirmation (E-mail correspondence attached +hereto as Exhibit C). Despite Plaintiffs' reasonable requests, Defendant's counsel first +responded by stating that the Non-Prosecution Agreement does not prevent some form of contact +with undersigned counsel's clients. (Redacted May 18, 2009 Letter from Mr. Robert Critton is +attached hereto as Exhibit D). Defendant's counsel then sent a letter on May 21, 2009 citing the +Comment to Rule 4-4.2 of the Rules of Professional Conduct that states that "[p]arties to a matter +5 +25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800, Miami, FL. 33130, Miami 305.358.2800 Fax 305.358.2382 • Fort Lauderdale 954.463.4346 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 113 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2009 Page 6 of 12 +may communicate directly with each other." (Redacted May 21, 2009 Letter from Mr. Critton is +attached hereto as Exhibit E). Thus, despite Mr. Critton's statement that it is not Defendant's +intention to have direct contact with undersigned counsel's clients, Defendant obviously believes +he can change his intentions if he so chooses. +7. +Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, is a designated sexual offender who sexually abused +Jane Doe No. 101 and Jane Doe No. 102 when the victims were minors. As a result of his abuse, +Plaintiffs have in the past suffered, now suffer, and will in the future continue to suffer, physical +injury, pain and suffering, emotional distress, psychological and/or psychiatric trauma, mental +anguish, humiliation, confusion, embarrassment, loss of educational opportunities, loss of selfesteem, loss of dignity, and invasion of their privacy. Any further direct or indirect contact with +Defendant and/or his agents would cause a great deal of additional damages. Moreover, any +desire or need on the part of Defendant to contact these victims implied by virtue of his refusal +to unambiguously confirm that he will not contact them is disturbing and suspect, at best. At a +minimum, Defendant's refusal to avoid contact works as a ploy to attempt to keep Plaintiffs in +"victim mode." +WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court to enter an order prohibiting +Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, and any of his agents from any direct or indirect contact with +Plaintiffs, except through Plaintiffs' attorney of record through the duration of this Court's order. +Memorandum In Support +As previously stated, during the course of Defendant's state plea conference of June 30, +2008, Palm Beach Circuit Court Judge Deborah Dale Pucillo ordered Defendant "not to have any +contact, direct or indirect" with any of Defendant's victims. However, for what could only be +dubious purposes, Defendant seeks to take advantage of the fact that only three of Defendant's +numerous victims were officially a part of the State of Florida's criminal prosecution of +6 +25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800, Miami, FL 33130, Miami 305.358.2800 Fax 305.358.2382 • Fort Lauderdale 954.463.4346 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM ( +Document 113 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2009 Page 7 of 12 +Defendant and that he entered into a non-prosecution agreement with the USAO. Thus, despite +the no-contact order being considered a standard condition of probation or community control +for sex offenders such as Defendant, and despite his counsel having agreed to a no-contact order +with AUSA Villafaña for all of Defendant's victims on the USAO List, Defendant is now taking +the position that neither Judge Dale Pucillo's no-contact order nor his agreement with the USAO +via his counsel restricts him from contacting any of the victims except for the three victims +directly involved in the state plea. Because of the non-prosecution agreement, there is no federal +conviction against Defendant with respect to Plaintiffs and other victims on the USAO List who +are similarly situated and, thus, no accompanying sentencing court to issue a no-contact order. +However, each of the victims on the USAO List is supposed to be in the same position as if +Defendant had been convicted in federal court. In crimes involving victims, at the time of +sentencing, a sentencing judge generally has wide discretion to order that the defendant have no +contact with the victim or victims of the crime or crimes for which the defendant is being +sentenced. Where the defendant is given a sentence of probation or community control, the nocontact order can be made a condition of the defendant's supervision. The case for judicial +intervention is heightened in cases such as this one, where Defendant has sexually exploited +numerous minors. Jane Doe No. 101 and Jane Doe No. 102, like all of the other young women +on the USAO List, were sexually abused by Defendant; any further direct contact with +Defendant and/or his agents would cause a great deal of additional damages. Previous contact by +Defendant and his agents with other victims has had a terrible effect on the young women's +ability to heal the scars of Defendant's abuse. Additionally, Defendant's contacting his victims +also has the predictable effect of undermining the victims' willingness to proceed with their civil +actions against Defendant. Defendant's demonstrated use of his wealth, power, and influence +has the immediate effect of intimidating young women who have already been traumatized by +7 +25 West Fagler Street, Suite 800, Miami, FL 33130, Miami 305.358.2800 Fax 305.358.2382 • Fort Lauderdale 954.463.4346 + + +Document 113 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2009 Page 8 of 12 +his sexual exploitation. +Indeed, any desire or need on the part of Defendant to contact his +victims, implied by virtue of his refusal to confirm that he will not contact them directly or +indirectly, is disturbing and suspect, at best. Plaintiffs thus ask this Court to provide the +protection and peace of mind that cach of them needs. +WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully move this Court to enter an order granting +Plaintiffs' Motion for No-Contact Order prohibiting Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, from any +contact or communication with Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and Jane Doe No. 102, either directly +or indirectly, except through Plaintiffs' attorney of record for the duration of the order. +CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL RULE 7.1.A.3 +On May 18, 2009, undersigned counsel conferred with counsel for Defendant in a good +faith effort to resolve the issues raised in this motion, and Defendant's counsel advised that +Defendant opposes this motion. +Date: May 22, 2009 +/s/Robert C. Josefsberg +Robert C. Josefsberg, Bar No. 040856 +Katherine W. Ezell, Bar No. 114771 +City National Bank Building +25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800 +Miami, Florida 33130 +(305) 358-2800 +(305) 358-2382 (fax) +rjosefsberg@podhurst.com +kezell@podhurst.com +Attorneys for Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 +and Jane Doe No. 102 +Certificate of Service +I hereby certify that, on May 22, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing document 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 attached Service List in the manner specified, +either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other +8 +25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800, Miami, FL 33130, Miami 306.358.2800 Fax 305.358.2382 • Fort Lauderdale 954.463.4346 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 113 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2009 Page 9 of 12 +authorized manner for those counsel or parties who are not authorized to receive electronically +Notices of Electronic Filing. +Is/ Robert Josefsberg +Robert C. Josefsberg, Bar No. 040856 +Katherine W. Ezell, Bar No. 114771 +City National Bank Building +25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800 +Miami, Florida 33130 +(305) 358-2800 +(305) 358-2382 (fax) +rjosefsberg@podhurst.com +kezell@podhurst.com +Attorneys for Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 +and Jane Doe No. 102 +9 +25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800, Miami, FL. 33130, Miami 305.358.2800 Fax 305.358.2382 •Fort Lauderdal: 954463.1346 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 113 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2009 Page 10 of 12 +SERVICE LIST +JANE DOE NO. 2 v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +Robert Critton, Esq. +Michael J. Pike, Esq. +Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman LLP +515 North Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Phone: (561) 842-2820 +Fax: (561) 515-3148 +rcrit@bclclaw.com +mpike@bclclaw.com +Counsel for Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein +Jack Goldberger, Esq. +Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, PL 33401 +Phone: (561) 659-8300 +Fax: (561) 835-8691 +jagesq@bellsouth.net +Co-Counsel for Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein +Bruce E. Reinhart, Esq. +Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A. +250 South Australian Avenue, Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Phone: (561) 202-6360 +Fax: (561) 828-0983 +ecf@brucereinhartlaw.com +Counsel for Co-Defendant, +Jack Scarola, Esq. +West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 +Phone: (561) 686-6300 +Fax: (561) 383-9456 +isx(@)searcylaw.com +jph@searcylaw.com +Counsel for Plaintiff +25 West Flagler Siret, Suite 800, Miami, FL. 3130, Miami 305 358.2800 ax 305.35.2382 • Fort Lauderdale 954.463.4346 T + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 113 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2009 Page 11 of 12 +Adam Horowitz, Esq. +Stuart Mermelstein, Esq. +Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. +18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 +Miami, FL 33160 +Phone: (305) 931-2200 +Fax: (305) 931-0877 +ahorowitz/@sexabuseattorney.com +smermelstein(@sexabuseattorney.com +Counsel for Plaintiffs in Related Cases Nos. 08-80069, 08-80119,08-80232, 08-80380, 08- +80381, 08-80993, 08-80994 +Spencer Todd Kuvin, Esq. +Theodore Jon Leopold, Esq. +Leopold Kuvin, P.A. +2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200 +Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 +Phone: (561) 515-1400 +Fax: (561) 515-1401 +skuvin@leopoldkuvin.com +tleopold@leopoldkuvin.com +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-08804 +Richard Willits, Esq. +Richard H. Willits, P.A +2290 10* Ave North, Suite 404 +Lake Worth, FL 33461 +Phone: (561) 582-7600 +Fax: (561) 588-8819 +lawyerwillits(@)aol.com +reelrhw@hotmail.com +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80811 +Brad +_ Esq. +Law Office of Brad +& Associates, LIC +2028 | +Street, Suite 202 +Hollywood, FL 33020 +Phone: (954) 414-8033 +Fax: (954) 924-1530 +bedwards@rra-law.com +be@bradedwardslaw.com +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80893 +25 West Flagler Stret, Suite 800, Miami, FL. 3130, Miami 305.358.2800 Fax 306 358.232 • Fort Lauderdale 954463.4346 † + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 113 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2009 Page 12 of 12 +Isidro Manuel +Esq. +_ Elkins & Boehringer +224 Datura Avenue, Suite 900 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Phone: (561) 832-8033 +Fax: (561) 832-7137 +isidrogarcia(@bellsouth.net +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80469 +12 +25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800, Miami, FL. 33130, Miami 305.358.2800 Fax 305.358.2382 • Fort Lauderdale 95446343467 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/95cb991189b3070bd6de51fbb9ee96bafc32897902011f84bd361a31d71ebd06.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/95cb991189b3070bd6de51fbb9ee96bafc32897902011f84bd361a31d71ebd06.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6bc62105d1d92db4b74406c18ffb91d194adb2e0 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/95cb991189b3070bd6de51fbb9ee96bafc32897902011f84bd361a31d71ebd06.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -730, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "95cb991189b3070bd6de51fbb9ee96bafc32897902011f84bd361a31d71ebd06", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 15, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "d95ba54e1a13725179765671a778b7c7c542e23140611abd954c0a243d5b1e56", + "output_sha256": "e7588769c465868c2bfa0ef056a03ab25c40e9e94ec2b340d6c70b28971d48df", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/95d604ca95e3203b96ff0828de95c6321e9bf93376417305888e596b6aa2538c.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/95d604ca95e3203b96ff0828de95c6321e9bf93376417305888e596b6aa2538c.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b4b26d4240999d01325ad944f90c6545d4037fa9 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/95d604ca95e3203b96ff0828de95c6321e9bf93376417305888e596b6aa2538c.md @@ -0,0 +1,73 @@ +Filing # 112002684 E-Filed 08/18/2020 03:46:04 PM +IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT +IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC, +Publisher of the PALM BEACH POST, +Plaintiff, +V. +DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of +Palm Beach County, Florida; SHARON R. +BOCK, as Clerk and Comptroller of Palm +Beach County, Florida +Defendants. +CASE NO.: 19-CA-014681 +AFFIDAVIT OF DAVID ARONBERG +STATE OF FLORIDA +COUNTY OF PALM BEACH +Before me, the undersigned authority personally appeared DAVID ARONBERG, being first duly sworn, +states: +1. +My name is David (Dave) Afonberg, and I am the State Attorney for the Fifteenth Judicial +Circuit/Palm Beach County, Florida, since 2013, and a Defendant in the above-captioned matter. . +2. +Plaintiff is seeking declaratory relief, pursuant to Fla. Stat. 905.21(1)(c) and the Court's +inherent authority, allowing Plaintiffaccess to the testimony, minutes, and other evidence presented in 2006 +to the Palm Beach County grand jury, (the "Requested Materials"), and to use those materials for the +purpose of informing the public. +Despite Plaintiff's above-described action for declaratory relief, neither myself nor the +Office of the State Attorney for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, ("SAO"), is in control, custody, or possession +of the Requested Materials. +4. +As such, the declaratory relief sought by the Plaintiff seeks materials that are impossible +for me or my office to produce. +5. +To be clear, neither myself nor the SAO has the legal authority to obtain and deliver the +Requested Materials. +6. +I have repeatedly made these facts evident to the Plaintiff and the public through not only +the pleadings and correspondence in this matter, but also through an office press release and my public +social media accounts. +Party_JOINT +ID#. 18 EV#JI B +DATE ADMITTED: 9/6/2022 +Joint Exhibit +J18 +LL ABRUZZO CLERK +CIRCUIT COURT +CA/Aronter@ 099249 BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 3:44:22 PM + + +7.. +Despite the contentions of Plaintiff, neither myself nor the SAO has the authority to +demand that the Clerk grant the SAO access to grand jury materials after a criminal case has concluded. +8. +Moreover, during my administration, neither myself nor my office has accessed grand jury +materials from the Clerk's office in this or any other instance. +9.- +As provided in section 905.17(1), Florida Statutes (2020), the Clerk has sole custody and +possession of the Requested Materials, which can only be released by the Clerk pursuant to an order of the +Court. +FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT. +By: +STATE OF FLORIDA +COUNTY OF PALM BEACH +Swer 10 and subscribed before me this 30 day of July, 2020, by DAVID ARONBERG, who is +personally known to me or has shown +as personal identification. +Notary's Stamp or Sealt. +LATOSHA LOWE-GOODE +Commission EGG 967813 +Expires May 24, 2024 +NOT A +CAAronterg-0Đ0250 BEACH COUNTY, FL, +ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 3:44:22 PM diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/95d604ca95e3203b96ff0828de95c6321e9bf93376417305888e596b6aa2538c.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/95d604ca95e3203b96ff0828de95c6321e9bf93376417305888e596b6aa2538c.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..131f2b6b27f2ee60d6c23de6ee9df73a40b16536 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/95d604ca95e3203b96ff0828de95c6321e9bf93376417305888e596b6aa2538c.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -24, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "95d604ca95e3203b96ff0828de95c6321e9bf93376417305888e596b6aa2538c", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "2342362ad8735381c962c9c85c43ae6694cab3691685f3639737298cbe4bb218", + "output_sha256": "01fc5bf23cdeb120024808bb7deaa558b25be0c07409b5cc9bbd7169ffc4acf0", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/95faf3cb4e81e1678f4d92b77a241fac68e05af9d26eecf41f7880d0229f6367.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/95faf3cb4e81e1678f4d92b77a241fac68e05af9d26eecf41f7880d0229f6367.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0905853cbca8deb6df92ec6c87350d8c161cf218 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/95faf3cb4e81e1678f4d92b77a241fac68e05af9d26eecf41f7880d0229f6367.md @@ -0,0 +1,194 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM +Document 86-1 +Herman &Mermelstein, P +Entered on FLSD Docke 05/06/26-092009age 1 °f89s +10•38:19 p.m. +fire +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA- +JANE DOE NO. 5, +V. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Plaintiff, +Defendant. +PLAINTIFF JANE DOE NO. 5's ANSWERS TO +DEFENDANT'S FIRST INTERROGATORIES +Plaintiff, JANE DOE NO. 5, by and through their undersigned counsel, and +pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 33, hereby responds to Defendant, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff as follows: +General Objections +Plaintiff objects to Defendant's Interrogatories to the extent that the +Interrogatories call for the disclosure of information protected by the attorney-client +privilege, attorney work-product doctrine, or other applicable privilege or immunity, +whether created by statute or common law. +Plaintiff claims such privileges and +protections to the extent implicated by each Interrogatory, and excludes privileged and +protected information from any responses to Defendant's discovery. Any disclosure is +inadvertent and is not intended to waive those privileges or protections, which are +specifically reserved. +2. +Plaintiff objects to Defendant's Interrogatories to the extent that same are +vague, ambiguous, incomprehensible and/or overly broad. +"A" +•OC-VENA, DI + + +Case 9:08-CV-80381-KAM Document 86-1 Entered on FLSD D09k.13 p.5/0626-0122009 age 2 95932 +Herman &Mermelsteln, P +Doe No. 5 v. Epstein +Page 6 +Psychologist who treated Plaintiff in approximately June 2007. +Discovery is ongoing and may be supplemented in accordance with the Federal +Rules of Civil Procedure. +Please state the specific nature and substance of the knowledge that you believe +the person(s) identified in your response to interrogatory no. 5 may have. +Answer: +See response to Interrogatory No. 5. +9. +Answer: +Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory as vague and overly broad. Subject to said +objections, Plaintiff states: +No. +Did you consume any alcoholic beverages or take any drugs or medications +within 12 hours before the time of each incidents) described in the complaint? If +so, state the type and amount of alcoholic beverages, drugs, or medication which +were consumed, and when and where you consumed them. +Answer: +No. +Describe each injury (physical, emotional, mental) for which you are claiming +lamages in this case, specifying the part of your body that was injured, the +lature of the injury, and as to any injuries you contend are permanent, the effects +on you that you claim are permanent. +Answer: + + +Case 9:08-CV-80381-KAM Document 86-1 Entered on FLSD D09524 0.5.06/26-01-20page 3 014952 +Herman &Mermelstein, P +Doe No. 5 v. Epstein +Page 7 +Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory as vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome, +'premature, and calling for an expert opinion. Subject to said objections, Plaintiff +states: +Plaintiff has sustained mental and emotional injuries, including, but not limited to, +depressive episodes, anger, low self-esteem, flashbacks, mood swings, lack of +trust generally, and lack of trust of men (particularly of older men around +Plaintiffs daughter). +Discovery is ongoing and will be supplemented in accordance with the Federal +Rules of Civil Procedure. In particular, Plaintiff's psychological and emotional +injuries will be the subject of expert review, analysis and testimony. +10. Please state each item of damage that you claim, and include in your answer: +the count to which the item of damages relates; the factual basis for each item of +damages; and an explanation of how you computed each item of damages, +including any mathematical formula used. +Answer: +Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory as vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome, +atesture, and calling for an expert opinion. Subject to sald objections, Plaintif +Ries or Procedurnd will be supplemented in accordance with the Federa +11. List the names and business addresses of each physician (including psychiatrist, +psychologist, etc.) or medical provider (including chiropractors) who has treated +or examined you, and each medical facility where you have received any +treatment or examination for the injuries for which you seek damages in this +case; and state as to each the date of treatment or examination and the injury or +Answer: +Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory as vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome, +premature, and calling for an expert opinion. Subject to said objections, Plaintiff +states: + + +Case 9:08-CV-80381-KAM Document 86-1 Entered on FLSD D0.40.46 p.5/0628-02008 age 4 3653z +Herman &Mermelstein, P +Doe No. 5 v. Epstein +Page 13 +25. +Answer: +Plaintiff's only contact with the FBI was by phone, so she is unaware if anyone +was recording the interview or taking notes. +Please describe any statements made to you by any federal or state law +enforcement agent or prosecutor regarding the availability of civil remedies +against Mr. Epstein and regarding whether there would be any benefit from your +voluntary cooperation with law enforcement. +Answer: +No such statements were made. +January C4, 2009 +Respectfully submitted: +HERMAN & MERMELSTEIN P.A. +18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 +Miami, Florida 33160 +www.hermanlaw.com +Tel: 305-931-2200 +By: +iherman@hermanlaw.com +Florida Bar No. 521647 +Stuart S. Mermelstein +smermelstein@hermanlaw.com +Florida Bar No. 947245 +Adam D. Horowitz +ahorowitz@hermanlaw.com + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM +Document 86-1 Entered on FLSD D09kss 0.5/06/2069 zoage 5 0f1652 +Herman &Mermelstein, P +VERIFICATION +meing duly sworn, deposes and says that the +foregoing answers to intertogatories are true and corect to the best of her knowledge, +information and belief. +TATE OF FLORIDI +COUNTY OF ALMORRAI +SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED before me this 12 day Janump009 by +who is personally known to me or has prøduced the +following identification/Ll C-. +• wich is current or has been issued +within the past five years and bears a serial or other identifying number. +/URNERA +SATEL +Print Name +NOTARY PUBLIC - STATE OF FLORIDA +Commission Number: +My commission expires: +(Notarial Seal) +PURNIMA K. PATEL +Notary Public +Commonwealth of Virginia + +My commation Exples Deo 31.2011 + + +15-9312200 +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 86-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 + +Herman &Mermelsteln, P +10:41:06 p.m. +26-01-2009 +Doe No. 5 v. Epstein +Page 15 +Certificate of Service +WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing has been sent via u.s. +Mail and facsimile to the following addressees this U day of January, 2009. +Robert D. Critton, Jr, Esq. +Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman +515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561/842-2820 Phone +561/515-3148 Fax +rcrit@bclclaw.com +Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein +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 +jagesq@bellsouth.net +Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein +Michael R. Tein, Esq. +Tein, P.L. +3059 Grand Avenue, Suite 340 +Coconut Grove, FL 33133 +305-442-1101 +Fax: 305 442 6744 +Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein +tein@lewistein.com +rant \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/95faf3cb4e81e1678f4d92b77a241fac68e05af9d26eecf41f7880d0229f6367.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/95faf3cb4e81e1678f4d92b77a241fac68e05af9d26eecf41f7880d0229f6367.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7591856646c108db1f8e45534c772b4b9fdf4b67 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/95faf3cb4e81e1678f4d92b77a241fac68e05af9d26eecf41f7880d0229f6367.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -150, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "95faf3cb4e81e1678f4d92b77a241fac68e05af9d26eecf41f7880d0229f6367", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 9, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.digits-only\", \"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": false, + "input_sha256": "ee452d73ba8ae9a963fb2e1e90ad1ae2ca39e40ea6f0d97a922fa090c9634ffa", + "output_sha256": "61f80416d2983cc88bd022e6a11b7823e3f17a2001e27c37221cc4a80467cbcd", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9606c89daf3f1ba69f3826ffa072e409a3673f95746e1ef048b78e3f6509a06f.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9606c89daf3f1ba69f3826ffa072e409a3673f95746e1ef048b78e3f6509a06f.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..64e9b4b69c68bbd1e495e779fe9841a05b7fc1fe --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9606c89daf3f1ba69f3826ffa072e409a3673f95746e1ef048b78e3f6509a06f.md @@ -0,0 +1,66 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 308-3 +Entered on FLSD Docket 08/17/2009 Page 1 of 1 +PALM BEACH +SHERIFF'S OFFICE +OFFENSE REPORT +CASE NO. 03038033 +DISPOSITION: ZULU +DIVISION: ROAD PATROI +SUSP PERSON/VEHICLE +CODE: 9513 DATE: 03/02/03 SUNDAY +ZONE: B51 GRID: 4B15 +DEPUTY ID.: +5471 ASSIST: +TIME D 0812 A 0817 C 0834 +OCCURRED BETWEEN DATE: 03/02/03, 0730 HOURS AND +, 0000 HOURS +INCIDENT LOCATION: +APT. NO.: +CITY: WEST PALM BEACH +STOLEN: TO +ZIP: 33415 +NO. OFFENSES: 00 NO. OFFENDERS: UK NO. VEH. STOLEN: +NO. PREM. ENTERED: 0 +LOCATION: RESIDENCE - OTHER +NO. VICTIMS: 00 +NO. ARRESTED: 0 FORCED ENTRY: 0 +COMPLAINANT +SEX: +F RACE: W +HT: 500 WT: 135 HR: +RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS: +HOME PHONE: +BUSINESS PHONE: +561 +COMPLAINANT +SEX: E RACE: W HT: 502 WT: +90 HR: +RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS: +HOME PHONE: +BUSINESS PHONE: 561 000-0000 +WPB +EYE: +FL +33 +- EYE: BROWN +WEST PALM EL 33415 +ON 03/ASE PALM BEACH FOR IS LOCATED IN THEN +• WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA, WHICH IS LOCATED +IN REFERENCE TO A +SUSPICIOUS PERSON. +UPON MY ARRIVAL I MET WITH COMPLAINANT +COMPLAINANT TOLD ME THAT UPON GOING OUTSIDE THIS DATE AT APPROXIMATELY +MALE (5'6", THIN BUILD, BLACK AND +• WEARING A L +PANTS) THAT WAS INSIDE +OF HER SHED +THE COMPLAINANT SAID THAT THE SUBJECT SAID HELLO AND TOOK THE +NDERNEAR OUT OF HIS MOUTH AND RAN OUTSIDE IN A NORTHERN DIRECTION. +THE COMPLAINANT STATED THAT THE SUBJECT PUT THE UNDERWEAR IN THE DRYEF +PRIOR TO HIM RUNNING AWAY. +AN ATTEMPT TO LOCATE THE SUBJECT WAS MADE WITH NEGATIVE RESULTS. +THE COMPLAINANT WANTED THIS TO BE DOCUMENTED. +THE CASE NUMBER TO TED COMPLAINAN DOCUME CASE IS FOR INFORMA GONE +PURPOSES ONLY. +D/S SCHRODER 5471/DICT 030203 0842/TRAN 030503 DM +"C" diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9606c89daf3f1ba69f3826ffa072e409a3673f95746e1ef048b78e3f6509a06f.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9606c89daf3f1ba69f3826ffa072e409a3673f95746e1ef048b78e3f6509a06f.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..bd7005a9657bcc5f7ba77206707bacb5860ff131 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9606c89daf3f1ba69f3826ffa072e409a3673f95746e1ef048b78e3f6509a06f.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "9606c89daf3f1ba69f3826ffa072e409a3673f95746e1ef048b78e3f6509a06f", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "c1395e9b84ade6bef63d4402e1d96b9a17626cd4f73a6535d25e46b2bf9cd22c", + "output_sha256": "fdaf2e4fd4af5d286d8e8e4c93e2c730d8e8102e26f4ba0c548df6af37d0ade2", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9631a13add79b1eab1bba4372a79b7bb9b3fc07f5fdc6f1d770cdc4bce2404e8.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9631a13add79b1eab1bba4372a79b7bb9b3fc07f5fdc6f1d770cdc4bce2404e8.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0440913c7cd896156700f4e6abff7e27a1146092 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9631a13add79b1eab1bba4372a79b7bb9b3fc07f5fdc6f1d770cdc4bce2404e8.md @@ -0,0 +1,177 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 98 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2009 Page 1 of 6 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 2 +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 3 +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 4 +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 5 +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/ +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/ +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/ + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 98 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2009 Page 2 of 6 +JANE DOE NO. 6 +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 7 +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80994-MARRAJ, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80993-MARRAI, +C.M.A. +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80811-MARRAJ +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80893-MARRA/ +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 98 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2009 Page 3 of 6 +DOE II +CASE NO.: 09-CV-80469-MARRA/. +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 101 +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 09-CV-80591-MARRA/. +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 102 +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 09-CV-80656-MARRAI. +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF FILING WITHDRAWAL OF PREVIOUSLY RAISED +OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT, JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S, MOTION TO COMPEL +AND/OR IDENTIFY C.M.A. IN THE STYLE OF THIS CASE AND MOTION TO +IDENTIFY C.M.A. IN THIRD-PARTY SUBPOENAS FOR PURPOSES OF +DISCOVERY, OR, ALTERNATIVELY, MOTION TO DISMISS SUA SPONTE, WITH +INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW +Plaintiff, C.M.A., by and through her undersigned attorneys, hereby files notice of +withdrawal of previously raised objections to Defendant, JEFRREY EPSTEIN'S, Motion +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 98 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2009 Page 4 of 6 +to Compel and/or Identify C.M.A. in the Style of This Case and Motion to Identify C.M.A. +in Third-Party Subpoenas For Purposes of Discovery, or, Alternatively, Motion to +Dismiss Sua Sponte, With Incorporated Memorandum of Law, and further states as +follows: +1. +Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, filed a Motion to Compel and/or Identify +C.M.A. in the Style of This Case and Motion to Identify C.M.A. in Third-Party Subpoenas +For Purposes of Discovery, or, Alternatively, Motion to Dismiss Sua Sponte, With +Incorporated Memorandum of Law (D.E. 67) on April 29, 2009. +2. +EPSTEIN's Motion seeks the following relief (taken verbatim from the +conclusion of his Motion): +a) "That C.M.A. be identified by her legal name in the style of this case; +b) That Epstein be granted leave to identify C.M.A. by her legal name in +Third-Party Subpoenas (but not file them in Court, or, if required, in a +redacted form); and +c) That on an alternative basis, this court dismiss this action Sua Sponte +until such time as C.M.A. identifies herself in the style of this matter. +Doe v. Rostker, 89 F.R.D at 163." +3. +Plaintiff withdraws her objection to a) and b) requested above. The +request to have C.M.A.'s case dismissed is rendered moot given C.M.A.'s acquiescence +to a) and b). To the extent that it is not, however, C.M.A. continues to object to c) +above. +4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 98 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2009 Page 5 of 6 +4. +Counsel for EPSTEIN is free to prepare a proposed agreed order +reflecting the above for the Court's consideration following the undersigned's review of +same. +CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL RULE 7.1 +Counsel for the movant conferred via telephone with counsel for the Defendant +regarding the filing of the instance Notice and he has no objection to Plaintiff filing +same. +s/ Jack P.| +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 20th day of May, 2009, I electronically filed the +foregoing with the Clerk of the Court by using CM/ECF system, which will send a notice +of electronic filing to all counsel of record on the attached service list. +Is/Jack P. +Jack Scarola +Florida Bar No.: 169440 +Jack P. +Florida Bar No.: 0547808 +Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. +2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard +West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 +Phone: +(561) 686-6300 +(561) 383-9424 +Attorneys for Plainti, C.M.A. +5 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 98 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2009 Page 6 of 6 +COUNSEL LIST +Richard H. Willits, Esquire +Richard H. Willits, P.A. +2290 10th Avenue North, Suite 404 +Lake Worth, FL 33461 +Phone: +(561) 582-7600 +Fax: +(561) 588-8819 +Robert Critton, Esquire +Burman Critton Luttier & Coleman LLP +515 North Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33414 +Phone: +(561) 842-2820 +(561) 844-6929 +Jack A. Goldberger, Esquire +Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Phone: +(561) 863-9100 +Bruce E. Reinhart, Esquire +Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A. +250 South Australian Avenue +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Phone: +(561) 202-6360 +Fax: +(561) 828-0983 +6 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9631a13add79b1eab1bba4372a79b7bb9b3fc07f5fdc6f1d770cdc4bce2404e8.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9631a13add79b1eab1bba4372a79b7bb9b3fc07f5fdc6f1d770cdc4bce2404e8.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..93edbdecf6d29c892a0f0f234b175baf09c3ff0b --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9631a13add79b1eab1bba4372a79b7bb9b3fc07f5fdc6f1d770cdc4bce2404e8.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -72, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "9631a13add79b1eab1bba4372a79b7bb9b3fc07f5fdc6f1d770cdc4bce2404e8", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 6, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "25601ff1a406d6096d9c115cc101c85c0a843b0784bb5631aa3410d551b5a3db", + "output_sha256": "e8ff5ca32cbd4a19a504deec3e560719e13664b9dffcc486e0386c9484d1158d", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/963284cd7341dde672e8b453930db5849c17c73f2ace118e1d46a373c1fa2707.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/963284cd7341dde672e8b453930db5849c17c73f2ace118e1d46a373c1fa2707.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fba02f1540844fb49d88220076f5f2662232e218 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/963284cd7341dde672e8b453930db5849c17c73f2ace118e1d46a373c1fa2707.md @@ -0,0 +1,759 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 90-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/19/2011 Page 1 of 16 +THE AVAILABILITY OF CRIME VICTIMS' RIGHTS UNDER THE CRIME +VICTIMS' RIGHTS ACT OF 2004 +The rights provided by the Crime Victims' Rights Act are guaranteed from the time that criminal +proceedings are initiated (by complaint, information, or indictment) and cease to be available if all +charges are dismissed either voluntarily or on the merits (or if the Government declines to bring formal +charges after the filing of a complaint). +December 17, 2010 +MEMORANDUM OPINION FOR THE +ACTING DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL +The Crime Victims' Rights Act ("CVRA"), enacted as section 102 of the Justice for All +Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-405, 118 Stat. 2260, 2261-64 (codified at 18 U.S.C. § 3771 (2006 +& Supp. III 2009)), guarantees victims of federal (and District of Columbia) crimes eight rights. +See 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a). In connection with an effort to update the Attorney General's +Guidelines for Victims and Witness Assistance, you have asked whether some or all of these +rights must be made available to crime victims before the United States files charges and +whether the rights no longer apply once the relevant charges are declined, dropped, or dismissed. +In 2005, this Office conducted a preliminary review of these questions and concluded that +a person's status as a qualifying crime victim under the Act could reasonably be understood to +commence upon the filing of a criminal complaint, and could reasonably be understood to cease +if the relevant charges are declined, dropped, or dismissed. See E-mail for Rachel Brand et al., +Office of Legal Policy, from Luke Sobota, Office of Legal Counsel (Apr. 1, 2005). That +informal guidance did not foreclose the possibility that other readings of the CVRA might also +be reasonable. We observed, however, that the statutory definition of "crime victim," the nature +of the rights provided under the Act, and the CVRA's legislative history all suggested that the +rights guaranteed by the CVRA were limited in their applicability to pending criminal +proceedings. Having carefully considered written submissions by components of the Department +as well as other federal law enforcement agencies, and for the reasons outlined below, we now +conclude, consistent with our 2005 guidance, that the CVRA is best read as providing that the +rights identified in section 3771(a) are guaranteed from the time that criminal proceedings are +initiated (by complaint, information, or indictment) and cease to be available if all charges are +dismissed either voluntarily or on the merits (or if the Government declines to bring formal +charges after the filing of a complaint).' +' See Memorandum for John E. Bies, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, from +Christine A. Varney, Assistant Attorney General, Antitrust Division (Sept. 27, 2010); E-mail for John Bies, Deputy +Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, from Karen Stevens, Acting Chief, Policy and Strategy +Section, Civil Rights Division (Oct. 4, 2010, 21:06); Memorandum for John E. Bies, Deputy Assistant Attorney +General, Office of Legal Counsel, from Eugene Thirolf, Director, Office of Consumer Litigation, Civil Division +(Sept. 24, 2010); Memorandum for John E. Bies, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, +from Patty M. Stemler, Chief, Appellate Section, Criminal Division (Sept. 30, 2010); Memorandum for Jonathan +Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division (Sept. 27, 2010) (ENRD Memo"); +Memorandum for John Bies, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, from H. Marshall Jarrett, +Director, Executive Office for United States Attorneys (Sept. 29, 2010); Office of the Assistant Attorney General, + + +Case 9:08-CV-80736-KAM Document 90-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/19/2011 Page 2 of 16 +The questions we address are limited to issues of statutory obligation under the CVRA. +We express no opinion as to whether any of the rights identified in 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a) should +be provided prior to the filing of a complaint (or after the dismissal of charges) as a matter of +good practice, Departmental policy, or pursuant to the provisions of other victim-related statutes, +such as section 503 of the Victims' Rights and Restitution Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 10607 +(2006).? +I. +The CVRA defines a "crime victim" in relevant part as "a person directly and +proximately harmed as a result of the commission of a Federal offense or an offense in the +District of Columbia." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(e). The Act states that crime victims so defined have +the following rights: +(1) The right to be reasonably protected from the accused. +(2) The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any +public court proceeding, or any parole proceeding, involving the +crime or of any release or escape of the accused. +(3) The right not to be excluded from any such public court +proceeding, unless the court, after receiving clear and convincing +evidence, determines that testimony by the victim would be +materially altered if the victim heard other testimony at that +proceeding. +(4) The right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in +the district court involving release, plea, sentencing, or any parole +proceeding. +National Security Division, +Acting Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, from +General, Office of Legal Policy (Sept. 28, 2010); E-mail for John Bies, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office +of Legal Counsel, from Rafael Alberto Madan, General Counsel, Office of Justice Programs (Sept. 29, 2010, 19:23); +E-mail for John Bies, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, from St. Clair Theodore, +Assistant General Counsel, Federal Bureau of Investigation (Sept. 27, 2010, 2:52 PM); Memorandum for John E. +Bies, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, from Wendy H. Goggin, Chief Counsel, Drug +Enforcement Administration (Oct. 6. 2010); E-mail for John Bies, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of +Legal Counsel, from Audrey J. L +_ Associate General Counsel, Office of Legal Counsel, Department of +Homeland Security (Sept. 30, 2010, 3:17 PM); E-mail for John Bies, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office +of Legal Counsel, from L +B. Sterner, Deputy Chief Counsel (Operations), Internal Revenue Service, +Department of the Treasury (Sept. 24, 2010, 9:22 AM). We appreciate the thoroughness and thoughtfulness of these +submissions. +2 This memorandum addresses only the CVRA. It does not address the application of other statutes +providing for rights, services, or restitution for crime victims, including when such other statutes apply or who might +qualify as a "victim" under them. Likewise, we were not asked, and intimate no view on, the question of what +constitutes the "direct and proximate harm" necessary to qualify as a "crime victim" under the CVRA for a given +offense, as opposed to the question of when such rights must be provided. +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 90-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/19/2011 Page 3 of 16 +The Availability of Crime Victims' Rights Under The Crime Victims' Rights Act of 2004 +(5) The reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the +Government in the case. +(6) The right to full and timely restitution as provided by law. +(7) The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay. +(8) The right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the +victim's dignity and privacy. +18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(1)-(8). The CVRA repealed and replaced section 502 of the Crime Control +Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-647, 104 Stat. 4789, 4820 (codified at 42 U.S.C. § 10606 (2000)), +which appeared in a portion of that statute known as the Victims' Rights and Restitution Act of +1990 ("VRRA"), and which originally provided crime victims with a very similar list of rights. +(Other sections of the VRRA remain in force.) +Having identified these rights, the Act provides several avenues for their protection: +by the courts, by Executive Branch officers, and finally by providing standing to victims +themselves. First, the Act states that "li]n any court proceeding involving an offense against a +crime victim, the court shall ensure that the crime victim is afforded [these rights]." 18 U.S.C. +§ 3771(b)(1). Second, the Act provides that "[o]fficers and employees of the Department of +Justice and other departments and agencies of the United States engaged in the detection, +investigation, or prosecution of crime" shall "make their best efforts to see that crime victims are +notified of, and accorded, the rights described in subsection (a)," id. § 3771(c)(1), and it requires +"It]he prosecutor" to "advise the crime victim that the crime victim can seek the advice of an +attorney with respect to the rights described in subsection (a)," id. § 3771(c)(2). Third, the Act +authorizes crime victims, or their lawful representatives, as well as "the attorney for the +Government," id. § 3771(d)(1), to assert CVRA rights by motion "in the district court in which a +defendant is being prosecuted for the crime or, if no prosecution is underway, in the district court +3 The VRRA had read as follows: +Rights of Crime Victims.— A crime victim has the following rights: +(I) The right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the vietim's dignity +and privacy. +(2) The right to be reasonably protected from the accused offender. +(3) The right to be notified of court proceedings. +(4) The right to be present at all public court proceedings related to the offense, +unless the court determines that testimony by the crime victim would be +materially affected if the victim heard other testimony at trial. +(5) The right to confer with [the] attorney for the Government in the case. +(6) The right to restitution. +(7) The right to information about the conviction, sentencing, imprisonment, +and release of the offender. +42 U.S.C. § 10606(b)(I)-(7) (2000). The rights provided in the VRRA applied to any victim of crime, defined in +section 503 of that Act as "a person that has suffered direct physical, emotional, or pecuniary harm as a result of the +commission of a crime," 42 U.S.C. § 10607(e)(2) (2006), including a crime under federal, state, or tribal law. +3 +Case No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/L + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 90-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/19/2011 Page 4 of 16 +in the district in which the crime occurred." Id. § 3771(d)(3). The Act directs the district court +"to take up and decide [such a motion] forthwith." Id. The Act provides for expedited +mandamus review by the court of appeals of any decision denying relief, id., and it permits the +Government (but not the crime victim) to assert as error on appeal any denial of a crime victim's +sentence in limited circumstances. See id. § 3771(d)(5). Finally, the Act provides that +"InJothing in this chapter shall be construed to authorize a cause of action for damages," id. +§ 3771(d)(6), and directs that "InJothing in this chapter shall be construed to impair the +prosecutorial discretion of the Attorney General or any officer under his direction." Id. +In addition to providing means for judicial enforcement of the rights it guarantees, the +Act directs the Attorney General to "promulgate regulations to enforce the rights of crime +victims and to ensure compliance by responsible offcials with the obligations described in law +respecting crime victims." Id. § 3771(f)(1). These regulations "shall ... designate an +administrative authority within the Department of Justice to receive and investigate complaints +relating to the provision or violation of the rights of a crime victim," id. § 3771(f)(2)(A); "require +a course of training for employees and offices of the Department of Justice that fail to comply +with provisions of Federal law pertaining to the treatment of crime victims," id. § 3771(f)(2)(B); +"contain disciplinary sanctions, including suspension or termination from employment, for +employees of the Department of Justice who willfully or wantonly fail to comply with provisions +of Federal law pertaining to the treatment of crime victims," id. § 3771(f)(2)(C); and "provide +that the Attorney General, or the designee of the Attorney General, shall be the final arbiter of +the complaint, and that there shall be no judicial review of the final decision of the Attorney +General by a complainant," id. § 3771(f)(2)(D). Pursuant to the Act's directive, the Attorney +General has promulgated regulations establishing procedures for crime victims to file complaints +regarding the provision of CVRA rights or other obligations regarding crime victims provided by +law, and to have such complaints adjudicated. See 28 C.F.R. § 45.10 (2010). +Il. +While a number of provisions in the CVRA indicate that the rights it guarantees do not +apply until after the initiation of criminal proceedings, a few provisions could be read to suggest +that at least some of the rights are to be provided before any charges are filed. In our view, the +better reading of the Act—considering its text, structure, purpose, and legislative history—is that +the rights provided by the CVRA are guaranteed only from the time criminal proceedings are +initiated through a complaint, information, or indictment. See, e.g., United Sav. Ass'n of Tex. v. +Timbers of Inwood Forest Assocs. Ltd., 484 U.S. 365, 371 (1988) ("[s]tatutory construction ... is +a holistic endeavor"). To begin with, there are a number of textual indications that Congress was +focused on providing crime vietims an opportunity to participate in pending criminal +proceedings; these include the use of the term "offense" in the definition of "crime victim" and +the use of a number of terms—e.g., "the accused," "court proceedings," and "in the case"—in +the characterizations of several of the rights in section 3771(a). The nature of the CVRA rights +considered as a whole also reflects a paramount focus on ensuring that crime victims have +standing and an opportunity to be heard in pending criminal proceedings involving conduct that +harmed them. This focus is embodied in the enforcement mechanisms provided in the Act, +which direct courts to ensure that crime victims are afforded their CVRA rights to participate in +pending criminal proceedings and empower crime victims to file motions to enforce these rights +4 + + +Case 9:08-CV-80736-KAM Document 90-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/19/2011 Page 5 of 16 +The Availability of Crime Victims' Rights Under The Crime Victims' Rights Act of 2004 +directly in such proceedings without intervening or becoming a party. The judicial enforceability +of CVRA rights by victims themselves distinguishes those rights, in the main, from the rights +protected in other victims' rights statutes, and counsels a construction of the Act that clearly +defines the availability of the rights. The CVRA's legislative history likewise reflects the +importance to Congress of ensuring that crime victims be heard in the judicial process, and +that they have standing to protect their interests in such proceedings. By contrast, there is no +indication in the Act or its legislative history that Congress intended to empower crime victims +to initiate independent court proceedings outside the context of a pending criminal proceeding to +enforce their rights under the Act, and thereby compel federal courts to adjudicate the existence +of a Federal offense absent any formal charging decision by the Government, a prospect that +would be in considerable tension with the Act's express disavowal of any intent to "impair ... +prosecutorial discretion." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(6). +A. +An analysis of the rights provided by the CVRA logically begins with its definition of +"crime vietim." Only "crime victims" are entitled to the rights articulated in 18 U.S.C. +§ 3771(a), the opening clause of which states that "[a] crime victim has the following rights." +For the purposes of the CVRA, a "crime victim" is defined as "a person directly and proximately +harmed as a result of the commission of a Federal offense or an offense in the District of +Columbia." Id. § 3771(e) (emphasis added).* The CVRA's definition of "crime victim," +however, does not conclusively resolve the question of when the rights afforded in section +3771(a) become available. Nevertheless, the definition's requirement that a crime victim be +harmed as a result of the commission of a Federal "offense" naturally suggests that a person's +status as a "crime victim" can only be determined after there has been a formal decision to +charge a defendant with a particular Federal offense. Under this reading, the earliest that a +"crime victim" under the Act could be identified would be upon the filing of a criminal +complaint—that is, at the earliest point at which there is a sworn written statement of probable +cause to believe that a particular defendant committed an identified Federal offense, see Fed. +R. Crim. P. 4, and hence the first point at which it is possible with any certainty to identify a +"crime vietim" directly and proximately harmed by the commission of that offense. As our +2005 informal advice observed, before the filing of a criminal complaint, it is not clear how one +ascertains whether a particular harm is the result of a "Federal offense" or some other sort of +conduct that does not constitute a Federal offense. Consistent with this reading, most courts to +* Hereafter, this memorandum will use "Federal offense" to refer to offenses either under federal law or +the laws of the District of Columbia. +" This reading of the definition of "crime victim" also finds some support in the history of the CVRA's +enactment. As noted, the CVRA repealed and replaced section 502 of the VRRA (codified at 42 U.S.C. § 10606 +(2000)), which originally provided victims of crime with a very similar list of rights, see supra n. 3. The VRRA +defined "victim" broadly as "a person that has suffered direct physical, emotional, or pecuniary harm as a result of +the commission of a crime," 42 U.S.C. $ 10607(e)(2) (2006), including the commission of a crime under federal, +state, or tribal law. Rather than adopt this definition of "crime victim" in the CVRA, Congress relied on a definition +that appears to be taken nearly verbatim from two prior federal victim-oriented statutes that limit rights to restitution +to individuals "directly and proximately harmed" by an "offense." See 18 U.S.C. § 3663(a)(2) (2006 & Supp. III +2009) (defining "victim" for purposes of the Victim and Witness Protection Act of 1982 ("VWPA"*) as "a person +directly and proximately harmed as a result of the commission of an offense for which restitution may be ordered"); +18 U.S.C. § 3553A(a)(2) (same for purposes of the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act). Congress's apparent +decision to adopt the VWPA's definition of "victim" is potentially significant insofar as it allows us to look for +5 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 90-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/19/2011 Page 6 of 16 +consider who qualifies as a "crime victim" under the Act have declined to extend enforceable +rights under the CVRA to alleged victims of conduct that did not lead to criminal proceedings.® +B. +Standing alone, the CVRA's definition of "crime victim" is not dispositive of the +questions you have posed. But when we consider other aspects of the Act, including the nature +of the rights conferred, the enforcement mechanisms adopted, the general structure and purposes +of the Act, and the Act's legislative history, they only strengthen the conclusion that the Act +is best understood to confer the rights in section 3771(a) only when a direct and proximate +relationship can be drawn between the victim and an underlying Federal offense with which +a defendant has been charged in a federal criminal proceeding. +To begin with, the rights conferred in 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a), taken together, appear to +contemplate the existence of an ongoing criminal proceeding initiated by the Government. Five +of the eight rights articulated there expressly refer to or necessarily presuppose the existence of +a criminal proceeding. See id. § 3771(a)(2), (3), (4), (6), (7). Three of these reflect the victim's +right to notification of, access to, and opportunity to be heard in public court proceedings +involving release, plea, sentencing, or parole. See id. § 3771(a)(2) ("The right to reasonable, +accurate, and timely notice of any public court proceeding, or any parole proceeding, involving +the crime or of any release or escape of the accused."); id. § 3771(a)(3) ("The right not to be +excluded from any such public court proceeding, unless the court, after receiving clear and +convincing evidence, determines that testimony by the victim would be materially altered if the +guidance to decisions interpreting that statute. See Hughey v. United States, 495 U.S. 411, 422 (1990) (holding +that VWPA authorized restitution only for losses caused by the offense of conviction). Indeed, some courts have +interpreted the CVRA based on the assumption that Congress was aware that courts had interpreted the VWPA not +to apply to uncharged conduct. See, e.g., United States v. Turner, 367 F. Supp. 2d 319, 326-27 (E.D.N.Y. 2005) +(*IT]he full Congress passed the [CVRA] knowing that similar language in an earlier victims' rights bill had been +interpreted not to refer to uncharged conduct. ... Since the [VWPA] and the CVRA use similar definitions of +"victim," it appears that the same reasoning would exclude victims of uncharged conduct from the class of those +entitled to participatory rights under the [CVRA].") (footnote omitted). This comports with how courts have +interpreted the CVRA in the context of restitution claims; in that context they have emphasized the statutory +requirement of "direct and proximate harm" caused by the offense of conviction to limit the standing of alleged +crime victims to assert restitution claims under the CVRA. See In re Rendon Galvis, 564 F.3d 170, 175-76 (2d Cir. +2009); In re Stewart 552 F.3d 1285, 1288-89 (11th Cir. 2008); In re Antrobus, 519 F.3d 1123, 1125-26 (10th Cir. +2008); United States v. Atlantic States Cast Iron Pipe Co., 612 F. Supp. 2d 453, 545 (D.N.J. 2009); United States v. +Sharp, 463 F. Supp. 2d 556, 563-64 (E.D.Va. 2006). However, insofar as restitution, unlike many of the other rights +provided in section 3771(a), necessarily depends on the existence of a predicate conviction, these considerations are +only suggestive. +• See, e.g., Turner, 367 F. Supp. 2d at 326-27 (excluding victims of uncharged conduct from the class of +those entitled to participatory rights under the Act because "the offense charged against a defendant can serve as a +basis for identifying a 'crime victim" as defined in the CVRA"); Searcy v. Paletz, No. 6:07-1389-GRA-WMC, 2007 +WL 1875802, at "6 (D.S.C. June 27, 2007) (inmate does not qualify as a "crime victim" under the CVRA where +there has been a prosecutorial decision not to charge another inmate accused of attacking him); Searcy v. Skinner, +No. 6:06-1418-GRA-WMC, 2006 WL 1677177, at *2 (D.S.C. June 16, 2006) (where Government had declined to +bring a prosecution against an inmate accused of attacking plaintiff, he could not use the CVRA as basis to bring his +own action against inmate). But see United States v. BP Prods. North Am. Inc., No. H-07-434, 2008 WL 501321, at +*11-16 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 21, 2008) (finding certain CVRA rights to apply pre-charge but construing them narrowly so +as not to interfere with prosecutorial discretion). +6 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 90-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/19/2011 Page 7 of 16 +The Availability of Crime Victims' Rights Under The Crime Victims' Rights Act of 2004 +victim heard other testimony at that proceeding."); id. § 3771(a)(4) ("The right to be reasonably +heard at any public proceeding in the district court involving release, plea, sentencing, or any +parole proceeding."). Two others, regarding the right to restitution and the right to proceedings +free from unreasonable delay, likewise presume the existence of criminal proceedings against a +defendant. See id. § 3771(a)(6) ("The right to full and timely restitution as provided in law."); +id. § 3771(a)(7) ("The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay."). +Admittedly, the remaining three rights (set out in sections 3771(a)(1), (5) and (8)) would +not necessarily have to be limited to the period after the initiation of a criminal proceeding. +Nevertheless, in our view, the CVRA is best read to contemplate judicial enforcement of these +rights only once the Government has initiated a federal criminal proceeding. +We turn first to the "right to be reasonably protected from the accused." 18 U.S.C. +§ 3771(a)(1). Section 3771(a)(1)'s use of the term "the accused" appears to contemplate that the +Government has already initiated criminal proceedings. "The accused" is a legal term of art that +means a person who has been formally charged with a crime. See Black's Law Dictionary 25 +(9th ed. 2009) ("A person who has been arrested and brought before a magistrate or who has +been formally charged with a crime. +A person against whom legal proceedings have been +initiated."); see also Michigan v. +1. 475 U.S. 625, 632 (1986) ("[A]fter a formal +accusation has been made ... a person who had previously been just a 'suspect' has become an +"accused" within the meaning of the Sixth Amendment ... ."). The single CVRA decision of +which we are aware to address this issue on the merits adopts just such a reading of "accused," +finding the right to reasonable protection afforded in section 3771(a)(1) of the Act to be +applicable only in the context of an ongoing criminal proceeding. See United States v. Rubin, +558 F. Supp. 2d 411, 420 (E.D.N.Y. 2008) (*'[A]ccused' must mean accused by criminal +complaint, information or indictment of conduct victimizing the complainant. The right... to be +"reasonably protected from the accused' cannot have ripened before the earliest of one of these +happenings."). +The context in which Congress enacted the CVRA provides an additional reason to +adopt this understanding of its right to protection from the accused. Congress enacted section +3771(a)(1) against the backdrop of a pre-existing requirement in section 503 of the VRRA that, +during the investigation of a crime, designated "responsible officials" at any agency "engaged +in the detection, investigation or prosecution of crime," 42 U.S.C. § 10607(a), shall, "[a]t the +earliest opportunity after the detection of a crime," id. § 10607(b), "arrange for a victim to +receive reasonable protection from a suspected offender," id. § 10607(c)(2) (emphasis added). +This requirement remains in force and, by its terms, can apply before the filing of criminal +charges. The contrast between VRRA's continuing requirement that the Government provide +victims with reasonable protection from a "suspected offender" and the CVRA's "right to be +reasonably protected from the accused," 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(1), strengthens our conclusion that +Congress elected in the CVRA to guarantee crime victims a judicially enforceable right to +protection only after a formal accusation by the Government, i.e., after the initiation of criminal +proceedings. This is particularly so given that the right to protection in the CVRA replaced a +similar right "to be reasonably protected from the accused offender," 42 U.S.C. § 10606(b)(2) +(emphasis added), previously provided in section 502 of the VRRA. Indeed, reading a victim's +entitlement to protection under section 10607(c)(2) and under section 3771(a)(1) as co-terminous +would fail to give meaning to Congress's deliberate choice to use different words in two +7 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 90-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/19/2011 Page 8 of 16 +provisions of the same statutory scheme (as well as in what were originally two parts of the +same enactment). See, e.g., +v. United States, 516 U.S. 137, 145 (1995) (holding that +"a legislature is presumed to have used no superfluous words," and construing words "use" +and "carry" in the same statutory scheme as having separate and non-overlapping meanings) +(quoting +v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 99 U.S. 48, 58 (1878))? +Similarly, the wording of the CVRA's "reasonable right to confer with the attorney for +the Government in the case," 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(5), suggests that the right is intended to apply +only once the Government has initiated criminal proceedings. The phrase "in the case" implies +the pendency of a judicial proceeding. See l +1, 538 U.S. 760, 766 (2003) +("'a 'criminal case' at the very least requires the initiation of legal proceedings"); Black's Law +Dictionary at 243 (defining "case" as a "civil or criminal proceeding, action, suit or controversy +at law or in equity"); Blyew v. United States, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 581, 595 (1871) ("The words +'case' and "cause' are constantly used as synonyms in statutes and judicial decisions, each +meaning a proceeding in court, a suit, or action."); cf. Phar-Mor, Inc. v. Coopers & Lybrand, +22 F.3d 1228, 1233 (3d Cir. 1994) (a "case" within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 1109(b) "is +commenced by the filing of a petition under the Bankruptcy Code"). Congress's use of the +definite article "the" in reference to the word "case" also supports the view that "the case" +implies a specific adversary proceeding rather than an indefinite ongoing investigation. +Cf. Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 434-35 (2004) (interpreting use of the definite article +"the person" in a provision regarding a habeas corpus custodian to signify that there is usually +only one proper custodian, and not several different ones). +" In a law review article published shortly after passage of the CVRA, one of the Act's sponsors suggested +that the CVRA's right to be "reasonably protected from the accused" might apply "without regard to the existence +of legal proceedings," which could be read to include before a complaint has been filed. Jon Kyl, Steven J. Twist & +Stephen Higgins. On the Wings of Their Angels: The Scott +•. Stephanie Roper, Wendy Preston, Louarna +Gillis, and Nila +Crime Victims' Rights Act, 9| +& Clark L. Rev. 581, 594 (2005). For the reasons outlined +above, we think this is not what Congress intended with respect to the CVRA's judicially enforceable right to +protection (as opposed, perhaps, to the protective "services" that section 503(c)(2) of the VRRA obligates the +Government to provide). If this right were read to apply before the filing of charges, the CVRA would empower +private citizens to go into court, in the absence of any pending charges, and seek a court order for protection, which +would require a judicial determination whether the requisite elements, including the existence of a Federal offense, +are present, without regard for any impact on Governmental resources or on pending and potentially confidential +investigations. As we discuss more fully below, such a reading would be in tension with the long tradition of +executive discretion to initiate criminal proceedings, and with section 3771(d)(6) of the Act, which directs that the +Act not to "be construed to impair the prosecutorial discretion of the Attorney General or any officer under his +direction." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(6). +The legislative record suggests that Congress's principal concern, beyond ensuring protection of victims +during the pendency of criminal charges, was protection after a conviction to ensure the victim could be heard with +respect to a determination regarding parole or early release of a convicted offender. A colloquy between two +original sponsors of the bill reflects this concern: +Ms. Feinstein: One final point. Throughout this act, reference is made to the "accused." Would +the Senator also agree that it is our intention to use this word in the broadest sense to include both +those charged and convicted so that the rights we establish apply throughout the criminal justice +system? +Mr. Kyl: Yes.... +150 Cong. Rec. 7304 (2004) (colloquy of Sens. Feinstein and Kyl) (emphasis added). +8 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 90-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/19/2011 Page 9 of 16 +The Availability of Crime Victims' Rights Under The Crime Victims' Rights Act of 2004 +That the right to confer is with "the attorney" for the Government in the case reinforces +the conclusion that the right to confer is tied to the existence of a criminal proceeding in which a +Government attorney plays a lead role. Of course, attorneys for the Government may sometimes +play a role during an investigation, particularly once a matter is being presented to a grand jury,® +but typically most investigative work is done by federal agents. If the right to confer were meant +to apply during investigations, it is not clear why Congress would have limited the responsibility +to confer with a crime victim to the attorney for the Government, particularly since there may be +many open investigations where no attorney has been assigned. Congress understood how to +assign responsibilities in connection with protecting victims' rights to officials involved in the +criminal justice process who were not attorneys, including responsibilities that take effect before +the filing of any criminal charges, as it did in the VRRA when it specifically required designated +"responsible officials" at all agencies "engaged in the detection, investigation or prosecution of +crime," 42 U.S.C. § 10607(a), to provide the specified services, including, for example, a duty to +ensure that victims receive "the earliest possible notice of-the status of the investigation of the +crime." Id. § 10607(c)(3)(A). By contrast, limiting the responsibility to confer to a single +Government attorney would make sense if the right to confer relates to issues that arise in the +course of a criminal proceeding, such as potential release, the role of the victim as a witness in +the course of the prosecution, potential plea agreements, sentencing, and restitution efforts, for +which the prosecuting attorney would be the most natural party to confer with victims. +The CVRA's legislative history further bolsters our conclusion that the right to confer +arises once a criminal proceeding has been commenced. Floor statements by both original +sponsors of the Act in the Senate emphasize that the right to confer relates to the conduct of +criminal proceedings after the filing of charges. Senator Feinstein explained that "It]he victim +of crime, or their counsel, should be able to provide any information, as well as their opinion, +directly to the court concerning the release, plea, or sentencing of the accused... Of course, +in providing victim information or opinion it is important that the victim be able to confer with +the prosecutor concerning a variety of matters and proceedings... This right is intended to be +expansive. For example, the victim has the right to confer with the Government concerning +any critical stage or disposition of the case." 150 Cong. Rec. 7302 (2004) (emphasis added). +Similarly, Senator Kyl stated that "It]his right to confer does not give the crime victim any right +to direct the prosecution. Prosecutors should consider it part of their profession to be available to +consult with crime victims about concerns the victims may have which are pertinent to the case, +case proceedings or dispositions. Under this provision, victims are able to confer with the +Government's attorney about proceedings after charging." Id. (emphasis added). +Some have suggested that the right to confer should be understood to apply to plea +negotiations that take place before the filing of charges. See ENRD Memo at 2-3. And it is true +that a pre-charge negotiated plea agreement may reduce a victim's ability to provide input in a +meaningful way regarding the matters addressed in the agreement. Although much of such precharge negotiations may relate to charging decisions that we believe are beyond the ambit of the +" Strictly speaking, the grand jury foreperson, not an attorney for the Government, is "in charge" of +proceedings before a grand jury. Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(c). Furthermore, such proceedings are confidential as a matter +of law, Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e), and the CVRA's legislative history shows that Congress did not intend to permit crime +victims to attend grand jury proceedings. See 150 Cong. Rec. 22,951 (2004) (statement of Sen. Kyl) (*the right is +limited to public proceedings, thus grand jury proceedings are excluded from the right"). +9 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 90-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/19/2011 Page 10 of 16 +right to confer, see 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(6) ("Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to impair +the prosecutorial discretion of the Attorney General or any officer under his direction."), we +recognize that our reading of the CVRA may in certain circumstances reduce the impact of a +victim's participation in subsequent court proceedings to which the right to confer does apply. +See, e.g., Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C) (plea agreement binding on court). Even in such a case, +the CVRA would still ensure that the victim has an opportunity to be heard by the court, and by +the Government, before the court accepts the plea or imposes a sentence, as well as a right to +seek mandamus and attempt to have the plea set aside. And, of course, our view of what the +CVRA requires in no way limits the discretion either of individual prosecutors to confer with +victims about pre-charge plea negotiations or of the Attorney General to direct that prosecutors +do so as a matter of Departmental policy. The question before us, though, is not whether it +would be advisable as a matter of good practice or Departmental policy for Government +attorneys to confer with victims pre-charge when appropriate, but whether Congress created a +judicially-enforceable right for victims pursuant to which they may compel prosecutors to do so. +Noting in the Act or its legislative history suggests Congress intended such a result. +Accordingly, we do not believe the CVRA is best read to obligate the Government to confer with +victims during such pre-charge negotiations with a criminal suspect.? +The eighth CVRA right is "It Jhe right to be treated with fairness and with respect for +the victim's dignity and privacy." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(8). Unlike the terms of the other seven +CVRA rights, the wording of the right to fairness and dignity does not itself indicate that the +right applies only once criminal charges have been filed. The concepts of "fairness," "dignity," +and "privacy" are certainly implicated directly in judicial proceedings. See, e.g., Nixon v. +Warner Comme'ns, Inc. 435 U.S. 589, 602-03, 608-11 (1978) (addressing tension between +privacy and common law right of public access to court records). But issues of fairness, privacy, +and dignity for victims can arise during the course of a criminal investigation as well. See BP +" The Fifth Circuit's decision in In re +527 F.3d 391 (Sth Cir. 2008), might be read to reach a +contrary result. Determining the significance of In re +on this question, however, is complicated both by the +unusual circumstances of that particular case and by the fact that the parties did not contest whether the right to +confer applied pre-charge. In connection with the underlying criminal matter, shortly before the initiation of +criminal proceedings against a corporate defendant, the Government first filed an ex parte proceeding seeking (and +obtaining) a court order restricting notice to victims under the CVRA until after charges (and a plea agreement) had +been filed and unsealed, arguing that this met the "reasonableness" requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(5) because +of the practical difficulties any pre-charge notice would have entailed. See In re +1. 527 F.3d at 395. In rejecting +this argument, the Fifth Circuit ruled that such an ex parte proceeding was contrary to the provisions of the CVRA +and unprecedented as a matter of law. Id. It is unclear whether the court's subsequent criticism of the +Government's failure to confer pre-charge was simply a response to the unusual ex parte filing in the case or +reflected a broader view that the CVRA obligates the Government to engage in such pre-charge referrals more +generally. The court appeared to recognize the unique "posture of this case," and was careful not to "speculate on +the applicability to other situations." Id. at 394. In any event, the question of whether the right to confer under the +CVRA applied at all pre-charge (as opposed to the question of the reasonableness of the procedure used in that case) +was not contested or briefed in the district court or on appeal. To the extent that the court of appeals in In re +held that the right to confer under the CVRA can be triggered during the initial investigative phase of the case, and +that CVRA obligates the Government as a general matter to confer with crime victims during pre-charge +negotiations with criminal suspects regarding a potential plea agreement, we respectfully disagree. A number of +subsequent decisions do not follow In re +on this point. See, e.g., United States. v. Merkosky, No. 1:02cr-0168- +01, 2008 WL 1744762, at *2 (N.D. Ohio Apr. 11, 2008) (victim has rights under the CVRA only once prosecution +has begun); Rubin, 558 F. Supp. 2d at 420 (victims' rights accrue upon filing of the indictment); see also In re +Acker, 596 F.3d 370, 373 (6th Cir. 2010) (whether a victim has rights prior to formal charges being filed is +"uncertain"). +10 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 90-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/19/2011 Page 11 of 16 +The Availability of Crime Victims' Rights Under The Crime Victims' Rights Act of 2004 +Prods. North Am. Inc., 2008 WL 501321, at *11 ("The right to be treated with fairness and with +respect for the victim's dignity and privacy may apply with great force during an investigation, +before any charging instrument has been filed."); cf. VRRA, Pub. L. No. 101-647, § 506(1), 104 +Stat. 4789, 4822 (1990) ("It is the sense of Congress that the States should make every effort to +adopt the following goals of the Victim of Crime Bill of Rights," including that "[vlictims of +crime should be treated with compassion, respect, and dignity throughout the criminal justice +process."). +This right, however, must be considered in the context of the other rights guaranteed by +the CVRA. Under the well-known canon of statutory interpretation noscitur a sociis, which +means that "words and people are known by their companions," Gutierrez v. Ada, 528 U.S. 250, +255 (2000), "several items in a list sharing] an attribute counsels in favor of interpreting the +other items as possessing that attribute as well," Beecham v. United States, 511 U.S. 368, 371 +(1994). Similarly, here, the range of application of the first seven, more specific rights should +be understood to inform the scope of the potentially more general right to fairness, dignity, and +privacy afforded by section 377l(a)(8). Cf. Jarecki v. G.D. Searle d Co., 367 U.S. 303, 311-12 +(1961) (construing for tax purposes the term "discovery" in the phrase "exploration, discovery +or prospecting" to be limited to the finding of minerals, as suggested by its association with +exploration and prospecting, and therefore inapplicable to income from a patented item). +Reading the right to be treated with fairness and dignity to apply during pending criminal +proceedings is consistent with the discussion concerning the right in the CVRA's legislative +history. Every example of crime victims experiencing unfairness, indignities, or violations of +their privacy discussed in the legislative history refers to situations occurring after the filing of +charges and typically involved a deprivation of one or more of the other rights protected by the +Act as well. For instance, the floor debates reflect concern with the fairness and dignity with +which crime victims are treated during pending criminal prosecutions. See, e.g., 150 Cong. Rec. +7296-97 (2004) (statement of Sen. Feinstein) (describing several examples of the failure to notify +crime victims of critical hearings in criminal cases, as well as other instances where crime +victims were problematically excluded from criminal proceedings); id. at 7297 ("This is not the +way criminal justice should be practiced in the United States of America. The time has come to +give victims of crime the right to participate in the system, the right to notice of a public hearing, +the right to be present at that public proceeding, the right to make a statement when appropriate, +the right to have restitution, if ordered by a judge, the right to know when your assailant or +attacker is released from prison, and the right to be treated by our prosecutors and by our +criminal justice system with respect and dignity."); id. at 7298 (statement of Sen. Kyl) (Fair +play for crime victims, meaningful participation ... in the justice system, protection against a +government that would take from a crime victim the dignity of due process—these are consistent +with the most basic values of due process in our society.").' These statements and examples +suggest that Congress was concerned with ensuring fair treatment for crime victims in the +context of pending criminal proceedings, rather than creating a right that could be asserted +1° In the more extensive legislative history for S.J. Res. 1, 108th Cong. (2003) (the proposed constitutional +amendment for which the CVRA emerged as a statutory substitute), the numerous examples of alleged affronts to +fairness, dignity, and privacy suffered by crime victims again uniformly arise from the conduct of criminal +proceedings and relate to perceived failures by courts to allow a crime victim to participate meaningfully in those +proceedings against the alleged victimizer. See generally S. Rep. No. 108-191, at 19-20, 25, 28 (2003). +11 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 90-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/19/2011 Page 12 of 16 +independent of any criminal prosecution. For these reasons, we conclude that the right to +fairness, dignity, and privacy in section 3771(a)(8) of the Act, like the other seven rights, +should be understood as applying only after the filing of criminal charges against a defendant. +C. +In addition to the nature of the rights provided, the structure and purpose of the Act, as +reflected in the mechanisms provided to enforce the rights and the Act's legislative history, also +support our conclusion that the rights are guaranteed only once the Government has initiated +criminal proceedings. The mechanisms Congress established in the CVRA to ensure that crime +victims are afforded their rights, including by providing crime victims standing to assert the +rights directly, all relate to pending criminal proceedings. Three provisions of the Act ensure +that crime victims are provided their rights or have standing to assert them. First, under the +heading "Rights Afforded," the CVRA provides expressly that "li]n any court proceeding +involving an offense against a crime victim, the court shall ensure that the crime victim is +afforded the rights described in subsection (a)." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(b)(1). This provision +explicitly empowers—and, indeed, requires—the courts to afford the CVRA rights during +pending criminal proceedings. Second, the Act explicitly provides crime victims the right to +participate in a pending criminal proceeding without intervening or becoming a party to the +litigation by filing a motion on their own behalf. See id. § 3771(d)(3) (providing crime victims +standing to assert their rights under the Act by motion). Third, the Act provides that crime +victims are entitled to seek relief by writ of mandamus from the court of appeals if the district +court denies the relief sought by motion in a pending criminal proceeding. See id. ("If the +district court denies the relief sought, the movant may petition the court of appeals for a writ +of mandamus.")." By contrast, the CVRA includes no provision for crime victims to initiate +independent judicial proceedings by any mechanism, whether by private complaint or petition or +otherwise, to enforce these rights. Taken together, the enforcement mechanisms provided by the +CVRA appear to be designed to ensure that crime victims would have legal standing to be heard +in the context of ongoing criminal proceedings against defendants who have been accused by the +Government of a Federal offense. +The CVRA's legislative history likewise underscores more generally that protecting the +ability of crime victims to participate in pending criminal proceedings was the primary purpose +underlying the Act. Much of the impetus for enactment of the CVRA arose after the Tenth +Circuit issued a decision in United States v. McVeigh, the prosecution of Timothy McVeigh, +the bomber of the federal building in Oklahoma City, limiting the ability of victims to enforce +in court their rights under the VRRA.' The district judge ordered the sequestration of crime +victims from the trial in anticipation of hearing victim-impact statements at sentencing. The +" The Act also assigns "It]he prosecutor" the responsibility to advise crime victims that they "can seek the +advice of an attorney" with respect to their CVRA rights. See 18 U.S.C. § 3771(c)(2) (emphasis added). +12 See, e.g., 150 Cong. Rec. 7295 (2004) (statement of Sen. Feinstein) ("Nowhere was the need for this +legislation made more clear than during the trials over the Oklahoma City bombing."); see also id. at 22,953 +(statement of Sen. Kyl) ("This legislation is meant to ensure that cases like the Mc Veigh case, where victims of the +Oklahoma City bombing were effectively denied the right to attend the trial and to avoid federal appeals courts from +determining, as the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals did, that victims had no standing to seek review of their right to +attend the trial under the former victims' law that this bill replaces."). +12 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 90-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/19/2011 Page 13 of 16 +The Availability of Crime Victims' Rights Under The Crime Victims' Rights Act of 2004 +victims and their families sought mandamus review in the Tenth Circuit, relying, inter alia, on +the language in section 502(b)(4) of the VRRA, granting them a "right to be present at all public +court proceedings related to the offense." 106 F.3d 325, 328-29 (10th Cir. 1997). The Tenth +Circuit denied the mandamus petition, holding that crime victims lacked standing to enforce their +rights under the VRRA in court." Id. at 335 (declaring VRRA enforceable only through the +"best efforts" of the Government); see also Memorandum for Kathryn Turman, Acting Director, +Office for Victims of Crime, from William Michael Treanor, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, +Office of Legal Counsel, Re: Effect of 42 U.S.C. Section 10607 on Proposed Revisions to the +Attorney General's Guidelines for Victim and Witness Assistance at 4 (Jan. 15, 1999) (VRRA's +"best efforts" obligation does not create judicially enforceable rights). The legislative record is +replete with statements reflecting Congress's particular concern with ensuring that crime victims +would have standing to participate in ongoing criminal proceedings. CVRA supporters +repeatedly expressed concern regarding the failures of the judicial system to account sufficiently +for victims' interests and emphasized the need to give crime victims the opportunity to +participate in such proceedings through judicially-enforceable rights. By contrast, the +legislative history contains no discussion of the possibility of crime victims bringing independent +proceedings to enforce their rights rather than enforcing them in the context of existing, pending +criminal proceedings. +D. +Particularly given the support for our reading in the text of the Act and its legislative +history, we are not persuaded by two arguments that have been presented in support of the view +that the rights afforded in the Act were meant to apply in some circumstances before the filing of +a criminal complaint. +B Although the Tenth Circuit's ruling in McVeigh figures most prominently in the CVRA's legislative +history, Congress was also troubled generally by courts denying victims standing with respect to restitution orders +under the VWPA. See S. Rep. No. 108-191, at 13 (2003) ("In those rare cases when [victims seck restitution] they +face a daunting array of obstacles, including barriers to their even obtaining "standing' to be heard to raise their +United " esior to the CY 20 26,2 denie visi came in to lake india case . +challenge denial of restitution order); United States v. Kelley, 997 F.2d 806, 808 (10th Cir. 1993) (same). These +cases rested in part on a series of Supreme Court decisions denying standing to crime victims more generally. +See, e.g., Leeke v. Timmerman, 454 U.S. 83, 86-87 (1981) (because decision to prosecute is solely within discretion +of prosecutor, private citizen has no judicially cognizable right to challenge how prosecutor goes about making +decision to prosecute); Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973) ("a private citizen lacks a judicially +cognizable interest in the prosecution or non-prosecution of another"). +14 The legislative history reflects a clear concern with a failure to provide crime victims with a meaningful +opportunity to participate in criminal proceedings, and consequently the need to create express enforcement +mechanisms for the rights. See, e.g., H.R. Rep. No. 108-711, at 2 (2004), reprinted in 2004 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2274, +2276 ("Victims of crime often do not feel their voices are heard or that their concerns are adequately addressed in +the judicial process... This legislation addresses these concerns by codifying the rights of victims and providing +the means to enforce those rights."): 150 Cong. Rec. 7296 (2004) (statement of Sen. Feinstein) ("In case after case +we found victims, and their families, were ignored, cast aside, and treated as non-participants in a critical event in +their lives. They were kept in the dark by prosecutors to busy to care enough, by judges focused on defendant's +rights, and by a court system that simply did not have a place for them."); id. at 7297 (The time has come to give +victims of crime the right to participate in the system ...."); id. at 7298 (statement of Sen. Kyl) (describing the Act +as providing crime victims "meaningful participation ... in the justice system"). +13 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 90-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/19/2011 Page 14 of 16 +Perhaps the most significant argument that the rights guaranteed by the CVRA may apply +before the pendency of criminal proceedings comes from the venue provision, which provides +that the rights described in subsection (a) shall be asserted in the district court in which a +defendant is being prosecuted for the crime or, if no prosecution is underway, in the district court +in the district in which the crime occurred." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(3) (emphasis added). The +phrase "if no prosecution is underway," understood colloquially, might be thought to envisage +the possibility that some CVRA rights may be asserted before the pendency of criminal +proceedings against a particular defendant. But "prosecution" is also a legal term of art used to +refer to the levying of formal charges, and not merely the issuance of a warrant upon the filing +of a complaint, and we think the venue provision should be read in light of this understanding, +particularly when considered in the context of the other aspects of the Act discussed above. For +instance, Rule 7 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure requires that a felony "be prosecuted +by indictment," and therefore any prosecution of a felony must commence with the return of an +indictment by a grand jury, Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(a)(1) (or, if the defendant waives his right to +indictment, the filing of an information by the Government, id. 7(b)). Cf. United States v. +Alvarado, 440 F.3d 191, 200 (4th Cir. 2006) (stating that, for Sixth Amendment purposes, +"the filing of a federal criminal complaint does not commence a formal prosecution").!'S +As a result, a "prosecution" does not necessarily commence simply because criminal proceedings +have been initiated by the filing of a complaint, although an initial appearance must be held +"without unnecessary delay" after a defendant is arrested on a warrant. Fed. R. Crim. P. +5(a)(1)(A) (providing for initial appearance of a person arrested pursuant to a warrant). At such +an initial appearance the magistrate judge informs the defendant of his rights, affords him a +reasonable opportunity to consult with counsel, and makes an initial determination with respect +to the defendant's continued detention. Fed. R. Crim. P. 5(d). Consequently, even before a +"prosecution" is "underway," important rights secured by the CVRA may be at stake, including +the right of crime victims to be heard with respect to the possible release of the defendant. See +18 U.S.C. $ 3771(a)(1), (2), (4). ' Accordingly, we believe the venue provision's reference to +the period when a prosecution is not underway is best read as applying to the period of time +between the filing of a complaint and the initiation of formal charges. +15 See also Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U.S. 682, 688-90 (1972) (for purposes of Sixth Amendment right to +counsel, "criminal prosecution" does not commence with filing of complaint and issuance of arrest warrant); +United States v. Pace, 833 F.2d 1307, 1312 (9th Cir. 1987) (filing of complaint and issuance of arrest warrant +do not commence criminal prosecution for Sixth Amendment purposes, but rather, based on Fed. R. Crim. P. 7, +"prosecution commenced when the indictment was handed down"). But see Hanrahan v. United States, 348 F.2d +363, 366 n.6 (D.C. Cir. 1965) ("In some cases the formal prosecution may begin with the indictment or information. +But in others, the prosecution may begin with the filing of a complaint.*). +If Moreover, when a defendant is arrested outside of the district where the crime occurred, such initial +proceedings may not occur in the district where the crime occurred. On this reading, the Act's direction that the +victim seek relief "in the district court in the district in which the crime occurred," 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(3), would +apply during such a period and would sensibly direct the crime victim to the court where the prosecution most likely +would ultimately occur, in conformity with Fed. R. Crim. P. 18 ("the government must prosecute an offense in a +district where the offense was committed"). +1 Given that we read this provision as consistent with our conclusion regarding when CVRA rights +become available, we do not reach the question of whether other periods of time (such as after judgment has been +entered and a prosecution is no longer underway) may also satisfy the venue provision of the Act. +14 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 90-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/19/2011 Page 15 of 16 +The Availability of Crime Victims' Rights Under The Crime Victims' Rights Act of 2004 +Similarly, in our view, section 3771(c)(1) of the Act—which requires those involved in +the "detection, investigation or prosecution of crime [to] make their best efforts to see that crime +victims are notified of, and accorded, [their CVRA rights]"-—does not indicate that the CVRA +rights apply before the Government initiates criminal proceedings. As we noted in our 2005 +informal advice, these references to detection and investigation tell us about which federal +officials have obligations to ensure the protection of victims' rights, not when those rights arise. +For example, the role of field agents, that is, those centrally responsible for the detection and +investigation of crime, does not stop with the filing of criminal charges. Rather, agents and +detectives play an ongoing role throughout the prosecution of a case, including continued +investigative efforts and interactions with victims, and, where necessary, assisting in providing +protection to victims and witnesses. In particular, agents often develop a relationship of trust +with crime victims during the investigation that continues as they assist crime victims in +negotiating active criminal proceedings. Given this continuing active role that agents typically +play during criminal prosecutions, we find the fact that the CVRA assigns responsibility to them, +together with the attorney for the Government, to notify crime victims of and accord them their +rights under the CVRA to be entirely consistent with our conclusion that those rights arise only +once the Government has initiated criminal proceedings. +Finally, we would note that a contrary view would be in some tension with the CVRA's +express disavowal of permitting any interference with our country's long-standing tradition of +governmental control of prosecutions. +. ' See 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(6) ("Nothing in this chapter +shall be construed to impair the prosecutorial discretion of the Attorney General or any officer +under his direction."). Reading the CVRA to empower private individuals to initiate proceedings +in court making allegations that a Federal offense occurred prior to the filing of any criminal +charges by the Government would, at a minimum, create substantial tension with this tradition. +Courts would be required to adjudicate, at a private party's instigation, the factual questions +necessary to conclude that an asserted CVRA right should be enforced, including the existence +of a Federal offense. Such a court proceeding while the Government's investigation of the crime +remains underway, and in the absence of any conclusion by the Government that federal charges +are warranted, would place substantial pressure on the Government's prosecutorial charging +decisions and may even risk, in some circumstances, impairing the Government's ability to build +a viable case. This risk may be particularly apparent in large-scale cases where the Government +intended such an outcome. To the contrary, both section 3771(d)(6) and the legislative record +as a whole suggest that Congress did not intend to impinge upon prosecutorial independence, +18 The principle that the authority to charge criminal offenses is reserved to attorneys for the Government +has deep roots that go back to the founding of our Government under the Constitution. See, e.g., Judiciary Act of +1789, ch. 20, § 35, 1 Stat. 73, 92 (establishing office of United States District Attorney with the exclusive power to +prosecute "all delinquents for crimes and offenses, cognizable under the authority of the United States"); see also +Respect Due to Consuls, 1 Op. Att'y Gen. 41, 43 (1794) (*it will be the duty of the district attorney to reduce the +Constitution to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed") (citing U.S. Const. art. II, § 3). +15 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 90-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/19/2011 Page 16 of 16 +but rather to ensure that once criminal proceedings are initiated, crime victims have rights to be +heard and treated fairly in the process, and standing to enforce those rights. +E. +For these same reasons, we also conclude that rights under the CVRA cease to be +guaranteed if all charges in the case are dismissed either voluntarily or on the merits once the +dismissal becomes final and the criminal proceedings have ended (or if the Government declines +to bring formal charges after the filing of a complaint). As we have explained, the CVRA's +guarantees are premised on the existence of an accused against whom the Government has +initiated criminal proceedings with respect to a particular offense or offenses. Ensuring that +victims' interests are protected during the course of those proceedings is the CVRA's core +purpose. In the absence of a proceeding against a particular accused that animates the CVRA's +guarantees, the rights guaranteed by the Act would not apply. +For these reasons, we conclude that rights of crime victims under the Crime Victims' +Rights Act are not guaranteed until criminal proceedings are initiated by the filing of a criminal +complaint or information, or by the return of an indictment, and cease to be guaranteed if all +charges in the case are declined or dismissed either voluntarily or on the merits. +/sl +JOHN E. BIES +Deputy Assistant Attorney General +16 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/963284cd7341dde672e8b453930db5849c17c73f2ace118e1d46a373c1fa2707.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/963284cd7341dde672e8b453930db5849c17c73f2ace118e1d46a373c1fa2707.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0b771050aa2fbbb0f4fb06e0b50c0e15c9ed0c64 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/963284cd7341dde672e8b453930db5849c17c73f2ace118e1d46a373c1fa2707.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -1422, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "963284cd7341dde672e8b453930db5849c17c73f2ace118e1d46a373c1fa2707", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 18, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "d1efc56c84765f7ac019d241a8fb170f9f3242fdf7cdbad8d04f63d3c175bd7e", + "output_sha256": "8f5efe0cf369494ec6e24b48235032aebbea9a583e8d99718a053da6fb645ced", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/96340aab74aa28af1a5d7bf2e1b1abe33e48e71899d7fc9b075239f65a56ad6d.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/96340aab74aa28af1a5d7bf2e1b1abe33e48e71899d7fc9b075239f65a56ad6d.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..35a2bfacbf683b6b3b75ef46435f5d80ea27e91a --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/96340aab74aa28af1a5d7bf2e1b1abe33e48e71899d7fc9b075239f65a56ad6d.md @@ -0,0 +1,35 @@ +Case 9:08-Cv-80232-KAM Document 7-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/13/2008 Page 1 of 2 + + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 7-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/13/2008 Page 2 of 2 +AFFIDAVIT OF RICHARD BARNETT +I, Richard Barnett, being duly sworn, do depose and state as follows: +1. +2. +I am over the age of 18, am otherwise competent to testify and +base the following on my personal knowledge. +On May 7, 2008, I received copies of the summons and complaint +in four lawsuits: +a. Jane Doe #2 v. Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 08-CV-80119, +b. Jane Doe #3 v. Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 08-CV-80232, +c. Jane Doe #4 v. Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 08-CV-80380, and +d. Jane Doe #5 v. Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 08-CV-80381. +I do not now, nor have I ever resided at 9 East 71st Street, New +York, New York. +FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT. +RICHARD BARNETT +Sworn and subscribed before me +this 12" day of June 2008 by +Richard Barnett, who +is personally known to me. f-or did provide +s identification. +intries +NOTARY PUBL +STATE OF NEWYOR! +MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: +LAUREN J. KWINTNER +Notary Public, State of New York +No. 02KW6016686 +Qualified in New York County +Commission Expires November 30, 20 I° diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/96340aab74aa28af1a5d7bf2e1b1abe33e48e71899d7fc9b075239f65a56ad6d.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/96340aab74aa28af1a5d7bf2e1b1abe33e48e71899d7fc9b075239f65a56ad6d.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8e873029d852e6943d232d09fb84e17ad5249e2a --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/96340aab74aa28af1a5d7bf2e1b1abe33e48e71899d7fc9b075239f65a56ad6d.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -33, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "96340aab74aa28af1a5d7bf2e1b1abe33e48e71899d7fc9b075239f65a56ad6d", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 3, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "813a6f9a3077724b75f1dc49d4744381d0c6f2cb5be1dd92b345b8d40b199cbe", + "output_sha256": "a0698829f362b5a201bbf8a5d81f31de67f12f0928cc983b755b1deea0faf42b", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9642bae68d54acfde6d6688531d3f23234368176b8de4570933b0bc944c95aa4.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9642bae68d54acfde6d6688531d3f23234368176b8de4570933b0bc944c95aa4.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..236089f264757ffc58b2d187324aaca95c8e771c --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9642bae68d54acfde6d6688531d3f23234368176b8de4570933b0bc944c95aa4.md @@ -0,0 +1,460 @@ +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 63 Filed 04/30/20 Page 1 of 12 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff, +V. +DARREN K. INDYKE and RICHARD D. KAHN, in +their capacities as the executors of the Estate of +No. 19 Civ. 8673 (KPF) (DCF) +Jeffrey E. Epstein, +Defendants. +STIPULATED [PROPOSED| PROTECTIVE ORDER +WHEREAS, certain documents and information have been and may be sought, produced +or exhibited by and between the Parties to this proceeding (the "Proceeding"), which relate to the +Parties' personal identifying information, financial information, or other kinds of sensitive +information that the Party (including any non-Party) making the production deems confidential; +and +WHEREAS, it has been agreed by and among the Parties to the Proceeding, through their +respective counsel, that a Stipulated Protective Order (Protective Order") preserving the +confidentiality of certain documents and information should be entered by the United States +District Court for the Southern District of New York; and +WHEREAS, the Court has reviewed the terms and conditions of this Protective Order +submitted by the Parties; +IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that any person subject to this Protective Order—including +without limitation the Parties to the action; their attorneys, representatives, employees, agents, +experts, investigators and consultants, acting as such; all third Parties providing discovery in this +action; and all other interested persons with actual or constructive notice of this Order-shall +adhere to the following terms, upon pain of contempt: +Plaintiff's Identity +1. The Order on Plaintiff's Anonymity (ECF No. 41) governs disclosure of Plaintiff' s +identity. Nothing in this Protective Order shall be construed as superseding or limiting +the Order on Plaintiff's Anonymity. In the event of a conflict, the terms of the Order on +Plaintiff's Anonymity shall govern. +1 + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 63 Filed 04/30/20 Page 2 of 12 +Discovery Materials May Be Designated as Confidential Information +2. A Party (the Plaintiff and Defendants, collectively the "Parties") producing "Discovery +Material" (i.e., all documents, the information contained therein, and all other +information produced or disclosed during the Proceeding, whether revealed in a +document, deposition, other testimony, discovery response, or otherwise) (the "Supplying +Party") to any other Party (the "Receiving Party") may, through counsel, designate as +"Confidential Information" any confidential or private personal information (hereinafter +"Designated Material"). +3. A non-Party producing Discovery Material voluntarily or pursuant to a subpoena or a +court order may designate such material or information as Confidential Information or +may redact Financial Information, as described in Paragraph 5, pursuant to the terms of +this Protective Order. A non-Party's use of this Protective Order to protect its +Confidential Information and/or Financial Information does not entitle that non-Party +access to the Confidential Information and/or Financial Information produced by any +Party in this case. +4. "Confidential Information" includes but is not limited to: +a. personally identifying information, including but not limited to contact +information, addresses, phone numbers, email addresses, social security +numbers, identification card numbers, driver's license numbers, passport +numbers, or other government identification numbers, and any other +similar information, but excluding Financial Information (as defined in +Paragraph 5 below); +b. medical information, including documents containing medical and/or +psychological conditions, diagnoses, or treatment, communications with health +care providers and their staff (including any doctor, surgeon, psychiatrist, dentist, +nurse, psychologist, therapist, counselor, medical advisor, mental health provider, +or specialist), and any information that would be protected under The Health +Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA"); +c. any material or portion thereof that contains trade secrets, proprietary +business information, or other information the disclosure of which +would, in the good faith judgment of the designating person, be +seriously detrimental to the producing person's business or personal +interests; +d. any material or information that could be used to identify Plaintiff, including, but +not limited to, images, recordings, names of family members, past or current +employers; and +2 + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 63 Filed 04/30/20 Page 3 of 12 +e. any other category of information given confidential status by this Court after the +date of this Order. +5. The Supplying Party must redact unique identifiers pertaining to financial records, +including bank account numbers, credit card numbers, usernames and passwords +("Financial Information"). Documents containing Financial Information shall be +redacted but shall not be designated as Confidential Information in full solely on the +grounds that they contain Financial Information. +6. In designating material as Confidential Information, the Supplying Party will make such +designation only as to that material that it in good faith believes to be entitled to such +treatment pursuant to this Protective Order. +7. Discovery Material produced by a Supplying Party shall, if appropriate, be designated as +Confidential Information by marking the first page of the document and each subsequent +page thereof containing Confidential Information as follows: + +All Confidential Information not reduced to documentary, tangible, or physical form, +or which cannot be conveniently designated by marking it shall be designated by the +Supplying Party informing the Receiving Party of the designation in writing. +8. A Party or non-Party (or its counsel) may designate as Confidential Information +testimony disclosed at a deposition taken in connection with this Proceeding by: +a. designating testimony given on the record during the taking of the deposition, in +which case the court reporter shall mark each page as provided in Paragraph 7, +above; or +b. notifying all other Parties in writing, within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of +the transcript of a deposition of specific pages and lines of the transcript which are +designated as Confidential Information. +Whereupon each Party shall attach a copy of such written designation to the face of the +transcript and each copy thereof in that Party's possession, custody, or control. During +the 30-day period following a deposition, all Parties will treat the entire deposition +transcript as if it had been designated Confidential Information. +Who May Receive Designated Material +9. Designated Material shall be disclosed by the Receiving Party only to the following +persons: +a. the Parties to this action; +3 + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 63 Filed 04/30/20 Page 4 of 12 +b. counsel retained specifically for this action, including any paralegal, clerical, or +other assistant employed by such counsel to work on this action; +c. as to any document, its author, its addressee, and any other person shown on the +face of the document as having received a copy; +d. any witness who counsel for a Party in good faith intends to call to testify at trial +or deposition in this action, provided such person, other than those persons set +forth in subparagraphs 9 (a), (b), and (c) has first executed a Non-Disclosure +Agreement in the form annexed hereto as Exhibit A (the "Non-Disclosure +Agreement") and only to the extent necessary to prepare the witness to testify; +e. any person retained by a Party to serve as an expert witness or consultant or +otherwise provide specialized advice to counsel in connection with this action, +provided such person has first executed the Non-Disclosure Agreement, and +further provided that any such support staff are subject to contractual or +professional duties of confidentiality with respect to such material; +f. stenographers and video technicians engaged to transcribe or record depositions +conducted in this action, provided such persons are subject to contractual or +professional duties of confidentiality with respect to such material; +g. independent photocopying, graphic production services, or other litigation support +services employed by the Parties or their counsel to assist in this action, including +computer service personnel performing duties in relation to a computerized +litigation system, provided such persons are subject to contractual or professional +duties of confidentiality with respect to such material; +h. the Court and its staff; +i. any mediators engaged by the parties; +j. any claims administrator for the Epstein Victims' Compensation Program and +such administrator's support staff, if, and only if, Plaintiff chooses to participate +in said program; and +k. any other person whom the producing person, or other person designating the +Discovery Material as Confidential, agrees in writing may have access to such +Designated Material. +10. Counsel shall take all reasonable and necessary steps to ensure the security of any +Designated Material and will limit access to Designated Material to those persons listed +in Paragraph 9 of this Protective Order. +4 + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 63 Filed 04/30/20 Page 5 of 12 +11. All persons to whom Designated Material is to be disclosed pursuant to Subparagraphs 9 +(c)-(g) and (i) as applicable above, as well as Plaintiff and Defendants, shall, prior to +disclosure, be advised of the contents of this Stipulation and Protective Order and be +required to execute the Non-Disclosure Agreement evidencing their agreement to the +terms of the Protective Order. To the extent that any such person refuses to sign the Non- +Disclosure Agreement, a Party may seek proper recourse including, but not limited to, an +order directing that such person is subject to the terms set forth herein. +12. Counsel for the Party that obtains signed Non-Disclosure Agreements, as required +herein, shall retain them for six (6) months following the final termination of this +Proceeding, including any appeals, and shall make them available to the other Party upon +good cause shown. Counsel of record shall maintain a list of the names of all persons to +whom such Designated Material is disclosed and such list shall be available for +inspection by counsel for the Party claiming confidentiality upon order of the Court +following a show of good cause. +13. Nothing shall prevent disclosure beyond the terms of this Protective Order if the +Supplying Party (or its counsel) designating the material as Confidential Information +consents in writing to such disclosure, or if the Court, after reasonable written notice to +all affected Parties, orders such disclosure. +14. Any Party may request at any time permission to disclose Designated Material to a +person other than those permitted under Paragraph 9 above or to use such information in +a manner prohibited by this Protective Order, by serving a written request upon the +Supplying Party's counsel. Any such request shall state the Designated Material the +Party wishes to disclose, to whom it wishes to make disclosure, and the reason(s) and +purposes) therefore. The Supplying Party or its counsel shall thereafter respond to the +request in writing (by hand delivery, courier, or email transmission) as soon as +practicable, but within ten (10) business days of its receipt of such request. If consent is +withheld, the Supplying Party or its counsel shall state the reasons why it is withholding +such consent. If, where consent is withheld, the requesting Party and the Supplying Party +are subsequently unable to agree on the terms and conditions of disclosure, disclosure +may only be made in accordance with the Supplying Party's designation of the material +as Confidential Information (i.e., the requesting Party may disclose the Designated +Material only as permitted under Paragraph 9 above) unless and until differing treatment +is directed pursuant to an order of the Court. +Responding to a Subpoena +15. In the event a Party or non-party having possession, custody, or control of any +Designated Material received as part of this Proceeding receives a subpoena or other +process or order to produce such information, such subpoenaed Party or non-party shall +5 + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 63 Filed 04/30/20 Page 6 of 12 +promptly notify by e-mail the attorneys of record of the Supplying Party (or, if the +subpoenaed person is a non-party, the Parties) and shall furnish those attorneys with a +copy of said subpoena or other process or order. The Party or non-party receiving the +subpoena or other process or order shall not produce the requested Designated Material +unless and until a court of competent jurisdiction so directs, except if the Supplying Party +(a) consents, or (b) fails to file a motion to quash or fails to notify the Party or non-party +receiving the subpoena or other process in writing of the Supplying Party's intention to +contest the production of the Designated Material prior to the date designated for +production of the subpoenaed information, in which event the Party or non-party who +received the subpoena or other process may produce on the designated production date, +but no earlier. The Supplying Party asserting the confidential treatment shall have the +burden of defending against such subpoena, process, or order. The Party or non-party +receiving the subpoena or other process or order shall be entitled to comply with it except +to the extent the Party asserting the confidential treatment is successful in obtaining an +order modifying or quashing it. +Later Designation of Confidential Information +16. Any Supplying Party may designate as Confidential Information (or withdraw a +designation regarding) any material that it has produced; provided, however, that such +designation shall be effective only as of the date of such designation. Such designation +shall be accomplished by providing written notice to counsel of record for each Party +identifying (by production number, transcript line and page number, or other individually +identifiable information) the document, testimony, or other information whose +designation is to be changed and, promptly after providing such notice, by providing relabeled copies of the material to the Receiving Party reflecting the new +designation. Upon receipt of any such written designation, counsel of record shall: (1) not +make any further disclosure or communication of such newly Designated Material except +as provided for in this Protective Order; (ii) take reasonable steps to notify any persons +known to have possession of any newly Designated Material of the treatment of such +material required under this Protective Order pursuant to the designation; (iii) promptly +endeavor to procure all copies of such newly Designated Material from any persons +known to have possession of any such Designated Material who are not entitled to receipt +of Designated Material under Paragraph 9 above; and (iv) replace the newly Designated +Material with the re-labeled copies of the material and make reasonable efforts to destroy +the copies of the Designated Material produced prior to such designation. +Objecting to Designations of Confidential Information +17. Any Party may object to the propriety of the designation or the lack of designation of +specific material as Confidential Information or Financial Information (the "Objecting +Party"). A Party shall not be obliged to challenge the propriety of the designation at the +6 + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 63 Filed 04/30/20 Page 7 of 12 +time of production or later designation, and failure to do so shall not preclude a +subsequent challenge thereto. The Objecting Party should serve a written objection upon +the Supplying Party's counsel who shall thereafter, within ten (10) business days, respond +to such objection in writing (by hand delivery, courier, or email transmission) by either: +(i) agreeing to remove, change, or add the designation; or (ii) stating the reasons for such +designation or lack thereof. If the Objecting Party and the Supplying Party are +subsequently unable to agree upon the terms and conditions of disclosure for the +material(s) in issue, the Objecting Party shall be free to move the Court for an Order +removing or modifying the disputed designation or lack thereof. On such a motion, it +will be the burden of the Party imposing a limitation on circulation of discovery materials +to justify that limitation. The material(s) in issue shall continue to be treated in the +manner imposing the greatest limitation on circulation sought by a Party until the Court +orders otherwise. +Inadvertent Disclosure of Confidential Information +18. If a Receiving Party receives documents or other materials that it has reason to believe +are subject to a good faith claim of attorney-client privilege, work product protection, or +other privilege or immunity from disclosure, the receiving party must refrain from +examining the documents or other materials any more than is essential to ascertain +whether the documents or other materials are reasonably subject to such a claim. The +Receiving Party shall promptly notify the Supplying Party in writing that the Receiving +Party possesses documents or other material that appears to be privileged or otherwise +protected from disclosure. +19. If, in connection with this litigation, a Supplying Party inadvertently discloses +information that is subject to a claim of attorney-client privilege, attorney work product +protection, or any other privilege or immunity from disclosure ("Inadvertently Disclosed +Information"), such disclosure shall not constitute or be deemed a waiver or forfeiture of +any claim of privilege, work product protection, or other privilege or immunity from +discovery with respect to the Inadvertently Disclosed Information or its subject matter. +In addition, a Supplying Party may use its own document (e.g., as a deposition exhibit) +containing material that is subject to a claim of privilege or immunity from disclosure for +the purpose of establishing the basis of such claim without waiver of any applicable +rivilege or immunity from disclosure, unless the producing person attirmatively uses o +alies upon the specific material contained in the document that is subiect to the claim o +privilege or immunity from disclosure for any purpose other than establishing the basis of +such claim. +20. If a Supplying Party makes a claim of inadvertent disclosure, the Receiving Party shall, +within five business days, return or destroy all copies of the Inadvertently Disclosed +Information, and provide a certification of counsel that all such information has been +returned or destroyed. +7 + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 63 Filed 04/30/20 Page 8 of 12 +21. Within five business days after the notification that such Inadvertently Disclosed +Information has been returned or destroyed, the Supplying Party shall produce a privilege +log with respect to the Inadvertently Disclosed Information. +22. The Receiving Party may move the Court for an Order compelling production of the +Inadvertently Disclosed Information. Pursuant to the Parties' obligations set forth herein, +the motion shall not quote or paraphrase the substance of the document subject to the +motion to compel beyond the description of the document contained in the privilege log +entry for the document. The motion shall be filed under seal, and shall not assert as a +ground for entering such an Order the fact or circumstances of the inadvertent production +in this action. +23. The Supplying Party retains the burden of establishing the privileged or protected nature +of any Inadvertently Disclosed Information. Nothing in this Order shall limit the right of +any Supplying Party or Receiving Party to request an in camera review of the +Inadvertently Disclosed Information. +Filing Designated Material in This Action +24. All Designated Material that is filed with the Court, or any pleadings, motions or other +papers filed with the Court that reveals any information that has been designated as +Confidential Information by any Party or non-Party, shall be filed as redacted or under +seal consistent with Section 1.C of Magistrate Judge Freeman's Individual Practices, +Section 9 of Judge Failla's Individual Rules of Practice in Civil Cases, and the Court's +Order on Plaintiff's Anonymity (ECF No. 41). +25. Prior to filing with the Court Designated Material, the Parties shall meet and confer +concerning any redactions, and cooperate in seeking to resolve any disputed issues of +confidentiality. The Party intending to file the Designated Material with the Court shall +make all reasonable efforts to provide the redacted documents) to the other Party for +review two (2) business days prior to filing. If the Parties cannot resolve a dispute arising +from this Paragraph, they shall follow the procedures set forth in Section 1.C of +Magistrate Judge Freeman's Individual Practices or Section 3.C of Judge Failla's +Individual Rules of Practice in Civil Cases. +Use of Confidential Information/Designated Material +26. Persons having knowledge of Confidential Information only by virtue of their +participation in the Proceeding shall use that Confidential Information only in connection +with the Proceeding or appeal thereof, and shall neither use such Confidential +Information for any other purpose nor disclose such Confidential Information to any +person who is not listed in Paragraph 9 of this Protective Order. +8 + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 63 Filed 04/30/20 Page 9 of 12 +27. Designated Material, any copies and/or extracts thereof, and anything derived therefrom, +shall not be disclosed in any way for use in any other litigation or contemplated litigation, +or for any other purpose extraneous to this Proceeding. +28. Nothing in this Protective Order shall restrict any Party's counsel from rendering advice +to its clients with respect to this Proceeding and, in the course thereof, relying upon +Designated Material, provided that in rendering such advice, counsel shall not disclose +any other Party's Designated Material, other than in a manner provided for in this +Protective Order. +29. If Designated Material is used during depositions or in preparing a witness for testimony, +it shall not lose its status through such use, and counsel shall exercise their best efforts +and take all steps reasonably required to protect its designated status during such use. +30. Nothing herein shall be construed to affect in any manner the admissibility at trial of any +document, testimony or other evidence, or to affect any Party's right to assert that +documents or information may be withheld on grounds of relevance, privilege, or any +other ground. +31. Nothing contained in this Protective Order will be construed as: (a) a waiver by a Party or +person of its right to object to any discovery request; (b) a waiver of any privilege or +protection; or (c) a ruling regarding the admissibility at trial of any document, testimony, +or other evidence. +32. Nothing contained in this Protective Order prejudices a Party's ability to seek discovery +in this and any other legal proceeding, without prejudice to any other Party's right to +object to such discovery. +33. Nothing in this Protective Order shall prevent any Party from seeking further protection +with respect to the use of any such Designated Material in connection with the trial, a +hearing, or other proceeding in this litigation. +34. Nothing contained herein shall preclude any Party from using its own Designated +Material in any manner it sees fit, without prior consent of any Party or the Court. +Improper Disclosure of Designated Material +35. If Designated Material is disclosed to any person other than in the manner authorized by +this Protective Order, the Party responsible for the disclosure shall, immediately upon +learning of such disclosure, inform the Supplying Party of all pertinent facts relating to +such disclosure and make all reasonable efforts to recover all copies of the Designated +Material and prevent further disclosure or dissemination by each unauthorized person +who received such Designated Material. +9 + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 63 Filed 04/30/20 Page 10 of 12 +36. In the event of a proven willful violation of this Protective Order by any Party in this +action or others designated in Paragraph 9 hereof, all Parties acknowledge that the +offending Party or persons may be subject to sanctions determined in the discretion of the +Court. +Destruction of Designated Material +37. Upon the conclusion of the Proceeding, including any appeals related thereto, at the +written request and option of the Supplying Party, all Designated Material and any and all +copies shall be returned or destroyed within sixty (60) calendar days of receipt of the +request to the Supplying Party; provided, however, that attorney work product, briefs and +other court papers prepared for use in this Proceeding need not be returned or destroyed, +but may be retained only by the Parties" counsel and, if so retained, shall continue to be +maintained as Confidential in accordance with the provisions of this Stipulation. +Notwithstanding the foregoing, Designated Material that has been received electronically +and that cannot be returned or destroyed must be electronically deleted and deleted from +"trash" files, and the Receiving Party must take reasonable measures to ensure that +unauthorized persons do not have access to Designated Material residing on the +recipient's computer server and back-up media. +Retention of Jurisdiction +38. The foregoing provisions concerning confidentiality of Designated Material shall +continue through the trial and any appeals related to this Proceeding, unless otherwise +modified by agreement of the Parties or order of the Court. The Parties shall be free to +use any admissible Designated Material at trial and any appeals related to this Proceeding +but shall work together to fashion appropriate measures to limit the disclosure of such +Designated Materials to the general public. The Court shall issue any relief, if necessary, +prior to trial or to the hearing in open court upon motion or agreement of the Parties. +39. The terms of this Protective Order may be amended or modified by written agreement of +the Parties or upon motion and order of the Court. This Protective Order shall continue +in force until amended or superseded by express order of the Court and shall survive any +final judgment or settlement in this Proceeding. +Time of Effect +40. This Protective Order shall become effective as between the Parties immediately upon +submission to the Court for approval, notwithstanding the pendency of approval by the +Court. If approval by the Court is ultimately denied, withheld, or made conditional, no +10 + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 63 | +Filed 04/30/20 + +The Parties, by their counsel, hereby consent to entry of the foregoing Order: +Dated: New York, New York +April 28, 2020 +Respectfully Submitted, +By: +Roberta A. Kaplan +Kate L. Doniger +Alexandra Conlon +Kyla P.S. Magun +Louis W. Fisher +KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP +350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7110 +New York, NY 10118 +(212) 763-0883 +rkaplan@kaplanhecker.com +kdoniger@kaplanhecker.com +aconlon@kaplanhecker.com +kmagun@kaplanhecker.com +Ifisher@kaplanhecker.com +Attorneys for Plaintiff Jane Doe +BJM /KPsm +Bennet J. Moskowitz +TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP +875 Third Avenue +New York, NY 10022 +Telephone: (212) 704-6000 +Bennet.Moskowitz@troutman.com +Attorney for Defendants +Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, Co- +Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. +Epstein +IT IS SO ORDERED this +day of +_ 2020 +The Hon. Debra Freeman +United States Magistrate Judge +11 + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 63 l +Filed 04/30/20 Page 12 of 12 + +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff, +V. +DARREN K. INDYKE and RICHARD D. KAHN, in +their capacities as the executors of the Estate of +Jeffrey E. Epstein, +Defendants. +No. 19 Civ. 8673 (KPF) (DCF) +NON-DISCLOSURE +AGREEMENT +, acknowledge that I have read and understand the +Protective Order in this action governing the non-disclosure of Designated Material (the +"Protected Material"). I agree that (1) I will hold in confidence all Protected Material to the +extent required by the Protective Order and agree to be bound by the terms of that Order; (2) | +will use such Protected Material only for purposes of this litigation and for no other purpose +whatsoever; and (3) I will take all due precautions to prevent the unauthorized or inadvertent +disclosure of such Protected Material. +By acknowledging these obligations under the Protective Order, I understand that I am +submitting myself to the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern +District of New York for the purpose of any issue or dispute arising hereunder, and that my +willful violation of any term of the Protective Order could subject me to punishment for +contempt of court. +Dated: +[Signature] diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9642bae68d54acfde6d6688531d3f23234368176b8de4570933b0bc944c95aa4.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9642bae68d54acfde6d6688531d3f23234368176b8de4570933b0bc944c95aa4.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..33c39eda17f6f6ec157f9c4852701a64fc1a0b97 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9642bae68d54acfde6d6688531d3f23234368176b8de4570933b0bc944c95aa4.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -180, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "9642bae68d54acfde6d6688531d3f23234368176b8de4570933b0bc944c95aa4", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 16, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.confidential\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "bb315fd91c3ffe5de84474eded2bb5f2f4142bce13bf504798304013e3d8e97b", + "output_sha256": "c4b54fd4f0f2628283730df628ffce131b8bcb4dc89f9e2623bac0b0924c85e5", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/964db02ed5dfe0e51284386a02af2a718c93d1782ec3b8ecb9b19654eef260d6.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/964db02ed5dfe0e51284386a02af2a718c93d1782ec3b8ecb9b19654eef260d6.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f8c8b8a8876a996e6fec5648e2fe9f5c9aa802e9 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/964db02ed5dfe0e51284386a02af2a718c93d1782ec3b8ecb9b19654eef260d6.md @@ -0,0 +1,347 @@ +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 103-1 Filed 03/22/21 Page 1 of 10 +United States District Court +Southern District of New York +Ruby J. Krajick +Clerk of Court +Dear Litigant: +Enclosed is a copy of the judgment entered in your case. If you disagree with a judgment or +final order of the district court, you may appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for +the Second Circuit. To start this process, file a "Notice of Appeal" with this Court's Pro Se +Intake Unit. +You must file your notice of appeal in this Court within 30 days after the judgment or order +that you wish to appeal is entered on the Court's docket, or, if the United States or its officer +or agency is a party, within 60 days after entry of the judgment or order. If you are unable +to file your notice of appeal within the required time, you may make a motion for extension +of time, but you must do so within 60 days from the date of entry of the judgment, or +within 90 days if the United States or its officer or agency is a party, and you must show +excusable neglect or good cause for your inability to file the notice of appeal by the +deadline. +Please note that the notice of appeal is a one-page document containing your name, a +description of the final order or judgment (or part thereof) being appealed, and the name of +the court to which the appeal is taken (the Second Circuit) - it does not include your reasons +or grounds for the appeal. Once your appeal is processed by the district court, your notice +of appeal will be sent to the Court of Appeals and a Court of Appeals docket number will +be assigned to your case. At that point, all further questions regarding your appeal must be +directed to that court. +The filing fee for a notice of appeal is $505 payable in cash, by bank check, certified check, +or money order, to "Clerk of Court, S.D.N.Y." No personal checks are accepted. If you are +unable to pay the $505 filing fee, complete the "Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis on +Appeal" form and submit it with your notice of appeal to the Pro Se Intake Unit. If the +district court denies your motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, or has certified +under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, you may file a +motion in the Court of Appeals for leave to appeal in forma pauperis, but you must do so +within 30 days after service of the district court order that stated that you could not proceed +in forma pauperis on appeal. +For additional issues regarding the time for filing a notice of appeal, see Federal Rule of +Appellate Procedure 4(a). There are many other steps to beginning and proceeding with +your appeal, but they are governed by the rules of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and +the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. For more information, visit the Second Circuit +Court of Appeals website at http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/• +THE DANIEL +MOYNIHAN +UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE +500 PEARL STREET +NEW YORK, NY 10007-1312 +THE CHARLES L. BRIEANT, JR. +UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE +300 QUARROPAS STREET +PLAINS, NY 10601-4150 +Rev. 5/23/14 + + +Filed 03/22/21 Page 2 of 10 +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK +(List the full name(s) of the plaintiff(s)/petitioner(s).) +-against- +CV +_ (X) +NOTICE OF APPEAL +(List the full name(s) of the defendant(s)/respondent(s).) +Notice is hereby given that the following parties: +(list the names of all parties who are filing an appeal) +in the above-named case appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit +from the +• judgment +• order +entered on: +(date that judgment or order was entered on docket) +that: +(If the appeal is from an order, provide a brief description above of the decision in the order.) +Dated +Signature +Name (Last, First, MI) +Address +City +State +Zip Code +Telephone Number +E-mail Address (if available) +"Each party filing the appeal must date and sign the Notice of Appeal and provide his or her mailing address and telephone +number, EXCEPT that a signer of a pro se notice of appeal may sign for his or her spouse and minor children if they are partie +o the case. Fed. R. App. P. 3(c)(2). Attach additional sheets of paper as necessary +Rev. 12/23/13 + + +Filed 03/22/21 Page 3 of 10 +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK +(List the full name(s) of the plaintiff(s)/petitioner(s).) +-against- +CV +MOTION FOR EXTENSION +OF TIME TO FILE NOTICE +OF APPEAL +(List the full name(s) of the defendant(s)/respondent(s).) +I move under Rule 4(a)(5) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure for an extension of time +to file a notice of appeal in this action. I would like to appeal the judgment +entered in this action on +but did not file a notice of appeal within the required +date +time period because: +(Explain here the excusable neglect or good cause that led to your failure to file a timely notice of appeal.) +Dated: +Signature +Name (Last, First, MI) +Address +City +State +Zip Code +Telephone Number +E-mail Address (if available) +Rev. 3/27/15 + + +Filed 03/22/21 + +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK +(List the full name(s) of the plaintiff(s)/petitioner(s).) +-against- +_CV_ +— x +MOTION FOR LEAVE TO +PROCEED IN FORMA +PAUPERIS ON APPEAL +(List the full name(s) of the defendant(s)/respondent(s).) +I move under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(1) for leave to proceed in forma +pauperis on appeal. This motion is supported by the attached affidavit. +Dated +Signature +Name (Last, First, MI) +Address +City +State +Zip Code +Telephone Number +E-mail Address (if available) +Rev. 12/23/13 + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 103-1 Filed 03/22/21 Page 5 of 10 +Application to Appeal In Forma Pauperis +Affidavit in Support of Motion +I swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that, +because of my poverty, I cannot prepay the docket +fees of my appeal or post a bond for them. I believe +I am entitled to redress. I swear or affirm under +enalty of perjury under United States laws that my +nswers on this form are true and correct. (2 +U.S.C. § 1746; 18 U.S.C. § 1621.) +Signed: +Appeal No.. +District Court or Agency No. +Instructions +Complete all questions in this application and then +sign it. Do not leave any blanks: if the answer to a +question is "O," "none," or "not applicable (N/A)," +write that response. If you need more space to answer +she si paper depic your answer ata co a parate +docket number, and the question number. +Date: +My issues on appeal are: (required): +For both you and your spouse estimate the average amount of money received from each +of the following sources during the past 12 months. Adjust any amount that was received +weekly, biweekly, quarterly, semiannually, or annually to show the monthly rate. Use +gross amounts, that is, amounts before any deductions for taxes or otherwise. +Income source +Average monthly +amount during the past +12 months +You +Spouse +Amount expected next +month +You +Employment +Self-employment +Income from real property (such as +rental income) +Spouse +- 1- +12/01/2013 SCC + + +Filed 03/22/21 +Interest and dividends +Gifts +Alimony +Child support +Retirement (such as social security, +pensions, annuities, insurance) +Disability (such as social security, +insurance payments) +Unemployment payments +Public-assistance (such as welfare) +Other (specify): +Total monthly income: + +S +S +$0 +$0 +S +S +S +$0 +$0 +Employer +List your employment history for the past two years, most recent employer first. (Gross +monthly pay is before taxes or other deductions.) +Address +Dates of +employment +Gross +monthly pay +3. +Employer +List your spouse's employment history for the past two years, most recent employer first. +(Gross monthly pay is before taxes or other deductions.) +Address +Dates of +emploment +Gross +monthly pay +- 2- + + +Filed 03/22/21 Page 7 of 10 +How much cash do you and your spouse have? S +Below, state any money you or your spouse have in bank accounts or in any other +financial institution. +Financial Institution +Type of Account +Amount you have +Amount your +spouse has +Ifyou are a prisoner seeking to appeal a judgment in a civil action or proceeding, you must +attach a statement certified by the appropriate institutional officer showing all receipts, +expenditures, and balances during the last six months in your institutional accounts. If you +have multiple accounts, perhaps because you have been in multiple institutions, attach one +certified statement of each account. +5. +Home +(Value) $ +List the assets, and their values, which you own or your spouse owns. Do not list clothing +and ordinary household furnishings. +Other real estate +(Value) $ +Motor vehicle #2 +(Value) $ +Make and year: +Model: +Registration #: +Other assets +(Value) $ +Motor vehicle #1 +(Value) $ +Make and year: +Model: +Registration #: +Other assets +(Value) $ +- 3- + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 103-1 Filed 03/22/21 Page 8 of 10 +6. +State every person, business, or organization owing you or your spouse money, and the +amount owed. +Person owing you or your spouse +money +Amount owed to you +A mount owed to your +spouse +State the persons who rely on you or your spouse for support. +Name [or, if a minor (i.e., underage), initials only] +Relationship +Age +Estimate the average monthly expenses of you and your family. Show separately the +amounts paid by your spouse. Adjust any payments that are made weekly, biweekly, +quarterly, semiannually, or annually to show the monthly rate. +You +Your Spouse +Rent or home-mortgage payment (including lot rented for +mobile home) +Are real estate taxes included? +| Yes +No +Is property insurance included? +] Yes +No +Utilities (electricity, heating fuel, water, sewer, and telephone) +Home maintenance (repairs and upkeep) +Food +Clothing +Laundry and dry-cleaning +Medical and dental expenses +- 4- + + +Filed 03/22/21 Page 9 of 10 +Transportation (not including motor vehicle payments) +Recreation, entertainment, newspapers, magazines, etc. +Insurance (not deducted from wages or included in mortgage payments) +Homeowner's or renter's: +Life: +Health: +Motor vehicle: +Other: +Taxes (not deducted from wages or included in mortgage +payments) (specify): +Installment payments +Motor Vehicle: +Credit card (name): +Department store (name): +Other: +Alimony, maintenance, and support paid to others +Regular expenses for operation of business, profession, or +farm (attach detailed statement) +Other (specify): +Total monthly expenses: +9. +Do you expect any major changes to your monthly income or expenses or in your assets +or liabilities during the next 12 months? +• Yes +No +If yes, describe on an attached sheet. +10. +Have you spent — or will you be spending —any money for expenses or attorney fees in +connection with this lawsuit? Yes No +If yes, how much? $ +- 5- + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 103-1 Filed 03/22/21 Page 10 of 10 +11. +Provide any other information that will help explain why you cannot pay the docket fees +for your appeal. +12. +Identify the city and state of your legal residence. +State +City +Your daytime phone number: +Your age: +Your years of schooling: +Last four digits of your social-security number: +Print +Save +Reset Form +- 6- \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/964db02ed5dfe0e51284386a02af2a718c93d1782ec3b8ecb9b19654eef260d6.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/964db02ed5dfe0e51284386a02af2a718c93d1782ec3b8ecb9b19654eef260d6.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2eb20484936364ce8e39883774acc9c127f7a118 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/964db02ed5dfe0e51284386a02af2a718c93d1782ec3b8ecb9b19654eef260d6.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -634, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "964db02ed5dfe0e51284386a02af2a718c93d1782ec3b8ecb9b19654eef260d6", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 13, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": false, + "input_sha256": "688c3a171436abeda28f23a9549c560324e44d3a7802a555e4d9a9970a0d8e5f", + "output_sha256": "59b19f07a771a5a8c6101a0660c61836dbab46d635dc8371bb27c16a042c2aa5", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/965af16579b5af94c00369b611b5b5089242aa695a720b46ab125f3142c25d5d.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/965af16579b5af94c00369b611b5b5089242aa695a720b46ab125f3142c25d5d.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3d6f592cdfb3d9f61c268a064168926a42890b07 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/965af16579b5af94c00369b611b5b5089242aa695a720b46ab125f3142c25d5d.md @@ -0,0 +1,256 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 138 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2009 Page 1 of 10 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff +CASE NO: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff +CASE NO: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 138 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2009 Page 2 of 10 +JANE DOE NO. 5, +Plaintiff +CASE NO: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant +JANE DOE NO. 6. +Plaintiff +CASE NO: 08-CV-80994-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant +JANE DOE NO. 7, +Plaintiff +CASE NO: 08-CV-80993-MARRA/_ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 138 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2009 Page 3 of 10 +CASE NO: 08-CV-80811-MARRA/ +C.M.A., +Plaintiff +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO. 08-CV-80893-CIV-MARRA/_ +Vs. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et al. +Defendant. +DOE II, +CASE NO: 09-CV-80469-MARRA/ +Plaintiff +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et al. +Defendants. +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 138 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2009 Page 4 of 10 +JANE DOE NO. 101, +Plaintiff +CASE NO: 09-CV-80591-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant +JANE DOE NO. 102, +Plaintiff +CASE NO: 09-CV-80656-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant +PLAINTIFF JANE DOE'S MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO PLAINTEF'S +FIRST REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS TO DEFENDANT +Plaintiff Jane Doe, hereby moves this Court for an order compelling defendant, +Jeffrey Epstein, to answer her first requests for admissions or, in the alternative, to +prove that his invocation of his Fifth Amendment privilege is proper. +Jane Doe has propounded 23 requests for admission to Epstein, including such +straightforward requests as: +• Your net worth is greater than $1 billion. +4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 138 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2009 Page 5 of 10 +• You own or control, directly or indirectly, real estate property in foreign +countries. +• You are moving significant financial assets overseas, outside of the direct +territorial reach of the U.S. and Florida Courts. +• You currently have the ability to post a bond of $15 million to satisfy a +judgment in this case without financial or other difficulty. +In response to each and every one of these questions, Epstein has given the +following response. +In response, Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges as +specified herein. I intend to respond to all relevant discovery regarding +this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot +provide answers to any discovery 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. +This Court should order Epstein to answer all of the requests for admission or, in +the alternative, prove that his Fifth Amendment invocations are valid. It is for the court, +not the claimant, to determine whether the hazard of incrimination is justified. United +States v. Argomaniz, 925 F.2d 1349, 1355 (11th Cir. 1991). "A court must make a +particularized inquiry, deciding, in connection with each specific area that the +questioning party wishes to explore, whether or not the privilege is well-founded." Id. +Typically this is done in an in camera proceeding wherein the person asserting the +privilege is given the opportunity "to substantiate his claims of the privilege and the +5 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 138 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2009 Page 6 of 10 +district court is able to consider the questions asked and the documents requested by +the summons." Id +Here Epstein has made boilerplate invocation of the Fifth Amendment to each +and every question propounded by Jane Doe, including for example a request that he +admit that his net worth is more than $500 million. It is not apparent how admitting his +net worth is incriminating in the circumstances of this case. In any event, the Fifth +Amendment does not operate in this fashion. It is Epstein's obligation to explain his +claims on a "question-by-question basis." Id. +The only issue before the Court is Epstein's Fifth Amendment privilege. Epstein +has only asserted a Fifth Amendment objection to production. As a result, any other +objections to production are deemed waived. See Local Rule 26.1G.3.(a) ("Any ground +[for an objection] not stated in an objection within the time provided by the Federal +Rules of Civil Procedure, or any extensions thereof, shall be waived."). +SPECIFIC REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION +For the convenience of the court - and in compliance with Local Rule 26.1 H +(party filing motion to compel shall list specific requests in succession) - Jane Doe's +requests for admission are as follows: +1. Your net worth is greater than $10 million. +2. Your net worth is greater than $50 million. +3. Your net worth is greater than $100 million. +4. Your net worth is greater than $500 million. +5. Your net worth is greater than $1 billion. +6 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 138 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2009 Page 7 of 10 +6. Since being incarcerated you have, directly or indirectly (through the services +or assistance of other persons), conveyed money or assets in an attempt to insulate or +protect your money or assets from being captured in any civil lawsuits filed against you. +7. You own or control, directly or indirectly, real estate property in the Caribbean. +8. You own or control, directly or indirectly, real estate property in foreign +countries. +9. In the last 2 years you have transferred assets and/or money and/or financial +instruments to countries outside the United States. +10. You have provided financial support to the modeling agency MC2. +11. You have committed sexual assault against Plaintiff, a minor. +12. You committed battery against Plaintiff. +13. You digitally penetrated Plaintiff when she was a minor. +14. You offered Plaintiff more money contingent upon her having sex with your +or giving you oral sex. +15. You intended to harm Plaintiff when you committed these sexual acts +against her. +16. You knew Plaintiff was under the age of 16 when you sexually touched and +fondled her. +17. You intend to hire investigators to intimidate and harass Plaintiff during this +litigation. +18. You were engaged in the act of trafficking minors across state or country +borders for the purposes of sex or prostitution between 2000 and the present. +7 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 138 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2009 Page 8 of 10 +19. You coerced Plaintiff into being a prostitute and remaining in prostitution. +20. You are guilty of the following offenses against Jane Doe: +A. Procuring a minor for the purpose of prostitution as defined in F.S. 796.03; +B. Battery as defined by Florida Statutes. +C. Sexual Battery. +21. You are moving significant financial assets overseas, outside of the direct +territorial reach of the U.S. and Florida Courts. +22. You are making asset transfers with the intent to defeat any judgment that +might be entered against you in this or similar cases. +23. You currently have the ability to post a bond of $15 million to satisfy a +judgment in this case without financial or other difficulty. +CONCLUSION +For all these reasons, the Court should compel Epstein to answer the requests +for admission or provide a particularized justification for his Fifth Amendment invocation +with regard to each request. Counsel for Jane Doe have conferred with opposing +counsel on the issues raised in this motion, and no resolution was possible. +DATED July 10, 2009 +Respectfully Submitted, +S/ +ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER +Las Olas City Centre +401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1650 +Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 +Telephone (954) 522-3456 +Facsimile (954) 527-8663 +Florida Bar No.: 542075 +E-mail: bedwards@rra-law.com +8 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 138 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2009 Page 9 of 10 +and +Paul G. Cassell +Pro Hac Vice +332 S. 1400 E. +Salt Lake City, UT 84112 +Telephone: 801-585-5202 +Facsimile: +801-585-6833 +E-Mail: +cassellp@law.utah.edu +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +1 HEREBY CERTIFY that on July 10, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing +document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing +document is being served this day on all parties on the attached Service List in the +manner specified, either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by +CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those parties who are not authorized to +receive electronically filed Notices of Electronic Filing. +J. +9 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 138 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2009 Page 10 of 10 +SERVICE LIST +Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +Jgoldberger@agwpa.com +Robert D. Critton, Esq. +rcritton@bclclaw.com +Isidro Manual +isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net +Jack +iph@searcylaw.com +Katherine Warthen Ezell +KEzell@podhurst.com +Michael James Pike +MPike@bclclaw.com +Paul G. Cassell +cassellp@bclclaw.com +Richard Horace Willits +lawyerswillits@aol.com +Robert C. Josefsberg +rjosefsberg@podhurst.com +Adam D. Horowitz +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +Stuart S. Mermelstein +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +William J. Berger +wberger@rra-law.com +10 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/965af16579b5af94c00369b611b5b5089242aa695a720b46ab125f3142c25d5d.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/965af16579b5af94c00369b611b5b5089242aa695a720b46ab125f3142c25d5d.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c803de99f65900546576a06379b668e6487559db --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/965af16579b5af94c00369b611b5b5089242aa695a720b46ab125f3142c25d5d.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -404, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "965af16579b5af94c00369b611b5b5089242aa695a720b46ab125f3142c25d5d", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 11, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "0c558c807d7e08eb0c6a22cf3d7bbbe5ed5cf6c25f1eb44c1bc3c1d330d87fd2", + "output_sha256": "5bb1d9f4837e30b7c791c3098684e477208f27cbbf785a2996253c6b3f986786", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/965d54b76360623a58307460144eaccef4436ebf9ba5f8cb9de075b60d2cdfa4.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/965d54b76360623a58307460144eaccef4436ebf9ba5f8cb9de075b60d2cdfa4.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6cca1e07c446629b67ed2be88727f39f6e132c4f --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/965d54b76360623a58307460144eaccef4436ebf9ba5f8cb9de075b60d2cdfa4.md @@ -0,0 +1,364 @@ +Filing # 130757887 E-Filed 07/15/2021 04:41:24 PM +CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC, +Publisher of THE PALM BEACH POST, +Plaintiff, +IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE +FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND +FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB +DIVISION: AG +V. +DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of +Palm Beach County, Florida; SHARON R. +BOCK, as Clerk and Comptroller of Palm +Beach County, Florida, +Defendants. +COPY +RESPONSE AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW OF PLAINTIFF CA HOLDINGS. LLC IN +OPPOSITION TO STATE ATTORNEY DAVE ARONBERG'S AMENDED MOTION +FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES UNDER FLA. STAT. $ 57.105 +Plaintiff, CA Florida Holdings, LLC ("Plaintiff"), publisher of The Palm Beach Post, +submits this Response and Memorandum of Law in Opposition to State Attorney Dave Aronberg's +("Aronberg") November 9, 2020 Amended Motion for Attorneys' Fees under Fla. Stat. § 57.105 +[DE 50] ("Amended Motion")." For the reasons set forth below, the Amended Motion should be +denied, with prejudice. +INTRODUCTION +Aronberg's Amended Motion for sanctions is legally and factually insufficient to meet the +strict standards of Fla. Stat. § 57.105. First, the Amended Motion fails as a matter of law because +Aronberg did not comply with the required 21-day notice period (safe harbor provision) set forth +1 +FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, +| ABRUZZO, CLERK, 07/15/2021 04:41:24 PM + + +in Fla. Stat. § 57.105(4) prior to filing his November 9, 2020 Amended Motion, which was +materially different than, and raised new arguments and cited record evidence not included in his +first Motion for Attorneys' Fees ("First Motion") served on June 8, 2020 and filed on July 1, 2020 +[DE 35]. Unlike his First Motion, which was served via email upon Plaintiff's counsel 21 days +before filing, Aronberg's Amended Motion was never served via any method of delivery before it +was filed on November 9, 2020. Thus, Aronberg precluded Plaintiff from taking advantage of the +statutory 21-day safe harbor provision to voluntarily dismiss its then-pending claim as to Aronberg +before filing his Amended Motion seeking sanctions. Moreover, Aronberg filed his November 9, +2020 Amended Motion nineteen days after Plaintiff had already dismissed him from the action by +filing a notice dropping Aronberg as a party on October 21, 2020 [DE 48]. Thus, at the time the +Amended Motion was filed, it was moot. +As to the merits, the Amended Motion fails under Fla. Stat. § 57.105 because the claim at +issue, Count I of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, is exactly the type of claim specifically +excepted from sanctions under Section 57.105(3)(a), as the Plaintiff's claim was presented to the +Court as a good faith argument for the interpretation of existing law or, at least, the establishment +of new law, as it applied to the material facts, with a reasonable expectation of success. +Further, Aronberg, in his official capacity as the State Attorney, was a proper party +defendant. Sanctions are inappropriate under Fla. Stat. § 57.105. +BACKGROUND +On January 17, 2020, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint [DE 17] ("Complaint") +against the State Attorney, Aronberg, and the Clerk of Court, Sharon Bock (now +Abruzzo), +for declaratory relief (Count I) and relief under Fla. Stat. § 905.27 (Count II), seeking to obtain +2 + + +access to records from the grand jury proceeding and criminal prosecution of the late Jeffrey +Epstein, a convicted sex offender, by former State Attorney Barry Krischer.? +On January 24, 2020, Aronberg filed an Answer to Count I and a Motion to Dismiss Count +II [DE 22]. The Clerk of Court also filed an Answer to Count I and Motion to Dismiss Count II +[DE 24]. In his Answer to Count I of the Complaint, Aronberg admitted that Plaintiff The Palm +Beach Post sought but Defendants "have refused to provide access to testimony, minutes, and +other evidence presented in 2006" in the grand jury proceeding. Aronberg Answer, I 72 [DE 22]. +On June 8, 2020, the Court entered an Order Granting the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss +Count II of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint With Prejudice [DE 33]. The Order specifically +did not address the merits of Count I. +On July 1, 2020, Aronberg filed his First Motion seeking sanctions against Plaintiff under +Fla. Stat. § 57.105. On June 8, 2020, prior to filing his First Motion, Aronberg's attorney (Douglas +A. Wyler, Esq.) served via email to Plaintiff's counsel an unfiled copy of the First Motion with an +enclosure letter. The enclosure letter was not filed along with the First Motion [DE 35], which has +no exhibits. The enclosure letter accompanying the First Motion (but not the First Motion itself) +alleged in conclusory fashion that Aronberg did not have possession, custody, or control of the +grand jury documents sought by Plaintiff. See [DE 45] at Ex. A. Importantly, however, there was +no evidence in the record to confirm this allegation, and the First Motion did not refute or even +2 While much of the Epstein saga is a matter of public record, the public still does not know how +former State Attorney Krischer used the grand jury process - and the secrecy that comes with itto shield Epstein and his equally powerful and corrupt accomplices from the public and to justify +Epstein's lenient treatment. Access to the Epstein grand jury materials will reveal how the +instrumentality of the grand jury was used in this case, which directly implicates the integrity of +this State's criminal justice process and is unquestionably a matter of vital public concern. +3 Aronberg later attached the June 8, 2020 enclosure letter as Exhibit A to his October 14, 2020 +Response to Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in Opposition to the State Attorney's Fla. Stat. +Section 57.105 Motion ("Aronberg's October 14, 2020 Reply") [DE 45]. +3 + + +address the State Attorney's ability to object to or impede attempts by the Plaintiff (or any other +third party) to seek grand jury documents, whether through the Clerk of Court or other means. +At the time of Aronberg's First Motion for sanctions, which he expressly admitted was a +"place-marker" motion to the extent he ultimately prevailed on the merits,* no motions for +summary judgment had been filed and Aronberg had not served any affidavit(s) or identified any +evidence relating to this matter or any allegations in the Complaint. +On or about August 18, 2020, Aronberg filed a Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 38] +and an affidavit by Aronberg [DE 39] averring that he did not have possession or control over the +Epstein grand jury materials and had no authority to demand that the Clerk of Court provide access +to the materials. This was the first record evidence relating to Aronberg's lack of possession or +control of the grand jury materials sought by The Palm Beach Post. Notably, Aronberg's affidavit +still did not refute or address the State Attorney's ability to object to or otherwise impede an +attempt by Plaintiff to seek grand jury documents, +On October 21, 2020, Aronberg filed a motion to set a hearing on his Motion for Summary +Judgment [DE 47]. On that same date, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Dropping Party as to Aronberg, +dismissing him from the case [DE 48]. +On November 9, 2020, Aronberg filed his Amended Motion for Attorneys' Fees [DE 50], +seeking sanctions under Fla. Stat. § 57.105 against Plaintiff relating to all fees and costs incurred +by Aronberg after June 8, 2020. The Amended Motion, unlike his First "place-marker" Motion +filed on July 1, referenced Aronberg's August 18 Motion for Summary Judgment and exhibits. +Importantly, neither Aronberg nor his attorney served a copy of the Amended Motion upon +Plaintiff or its counsel at any time prior to filing the Amended Motion on November 9. +4 See Aronberg's October 14, 2020 Reply [DE 45], at 5, 13. +4 + + +The evidentiary hearing on Aronberg's Amended Motion for sanctions is set on the Court's +ten-week docket between July 26 and October 1, 2021 [DE 56]. +MEMORANDUM OF LAW +LEGAL STANDARD +Under Section 57.105, Florida Statutes, the Court may award reasonable attorneys' fees +only if it finds that a party or its attorney knew or should have known that a claim of defense when +initially presented to the Court or at any time before trial was not supported by material facts +necessary to establish the claim or defense, or would not be supported by the application of thenexisting law to those material facts. To award sanctions, the trial court must find that there were +no justiciable issues of law or fact and that the losing party's attomey did not act in good faith +based on the representations of his or her client." Siegel i Rowe, 71 So. 3d 205, 211 (Fla. 2d DCA +2011) (quotation omitted). +Indeed, "[w]here there is an arguable basis in law and fact for a party's claim, a trial court +may not sanction that party under section 57,105." Minto PBLH, LLC v. 1000 Friends of Florida, +Inc., 228 So. 3d 147, 149 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (citing Kowallek v. Rehm, 189 So.3d 262, 263-64 +(Fla. 4th DCA 2016)) (emphasis added). Courts must apply Section 57.105 "with restraint to +ensure that it serves its intended purpose of discouraging baseless claims without casting a chilling +effect on use of the courts." MacAlister v. Bevis Constr:., Inc., 164 So.3d 773, 776 (Fla. 2d DCA +2015). +Taking into account the amendments that broadened the statute after 1999, "Florida courts +have continued to caution that section 57.105 must be carefully applied to ensure that it serves the +purpose for which it was intended - to deter frivolous pleadings." MC Liberty Express, Inc. v. All +Points Servs., Inc., 252 So. 3d 397, 403 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) ("Thus, an award of fees under section +57.105 requires more than the moving party succeeding in obtaining a dismissal of the action or +5 + + +the entry of a summary judgment in its favor, ... and a party does not need to have conclusive +evidence to prove its case at the time of filing in order to avoid sanctions. Where a party reasonably +believes the factual basis for its claim exists, it is entitled to proceed with its claims and seek to +prove those facts. If attempts to prove those facts are fruitless, that is still not cause for sanctions +where the party's initial belief was well-founded.") (internal citations omitted). Thus, a voluntary +dismissal does not automatically equate to sanctionable conduct. +Before awarding sanctions, the trial court must make "explicit findings" that "the action +was "frivolous or so devoid of merit both on the facts and the law as to be completely untenable.' +..This burden is a heavy one." Id. (internal citations omitted) (emphasis added). Additionally, +the trial court's findings "must be based on substantial competent evidence presented to the court +at the hearing on attorney's fees or otherwise before the court and in the trial court record." Trust +Mortg., LLC v. Ferlanti, 193 So. 3d 997, 1001 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). The trial court "must make +an inquiry into what the losing party knew or should have known during the fact-establishment +process, both before and after suit was filed." See Chue v. Lehman, 21 So. 3d 890, 891-92 (Fla. +4th DCA 2009). +II. +ARONBERG'S AMENDED MOTION MUST BE DENIED FOR FAILURE TO +COMPLY WITH THE 21-DAY SAFE HARBOR PROVISION IN FLA. STAT. § +57.105(4) AND BECAUSE THE AMENDED MOTION WAS MOOT WHEN IT +WAS FILED +A. +57.105(4). +Aronberg did not serve his Amended Motion at any time before filing it, and thus failed to +comply with the 21-day notice provision set forth in Fla. Stat. § 57.105(4). The Amended Motion +must be denied outright for that reason alone. Because Aronberg's Amended Motion raised +arguments not raised in his First Motion, and cited evidence not in the record at the time the First + + +Motion was filed, Aronberg was required to independently comply with the 21-day safe harbor +provision of Section 57.105(4). Lago v. Kame By Design, LLC, 120 So. 3d 73, 75 (Fla. 4th DCA +2013) ("We hold that if a party files a subsequent or amended motion for sanctions under section +57.105 and raises an argument that was not raised in the original motion for section 57.105 +sanctions, the subsequent motion must independently comply with the twenty-one-day "safe +harbor' provision of section 57.105(4)."). His failure to do so requires denial of the Amended +Motion. See id. +As the Fourth District Court of Appeal noted in Lago, "[tlo hold otherwise would allow a +party to raise a new ground for sanctions in a subsequent motion under section 57.105 without +giving the other side the opportunity to withdraw the offending claim or defense within twentyone days after receiving notice of the new ground for sanctions." Id. Because Aronberg's +barebones First Motion did not include the substantive arguments or cite any evidence now raised +in the Amended Motion, Aronberg was required to serve the Amended Motion at least 21 days +before filing same, in order to give The Palm Beach Post the opportunity to withdraw the count +that remained against Aronberg (Count I). The Amended Motion was filed in violation of Fla. Stat. +§ 57.105(4) and must be denied. +B. +THE AMENDED MOTION WAS MOOT UPON FILING. +On November 9, 2020, Aronberg filed the Amended Motion seeking sanctions against +Plaintiff relating to Count I of the Complaint against him. However, the entire action, which +necessarily included Count I, was dismissed as to Aronberg on October 21, 2020, nineteen days +before Aronberg filed his Amended Motion. The Amended Motion was therefore moot at the time +it was filed on November 9, 2020 and must be denied. +7 + + +C. +ARONBERG'S SELF-DESCRIBED "PLACE-MARKER" FIRST MOTION FOR +SANCTIONS WAS INSUFFICIENT AND DID NOT ABSOLVE ARONBERG OF THE +REQUIREMENT TO SERVE THE AMENDED MOTION PRIOR TO FILING. +Aronberg specifically admitted that his First Motion for sanctions under Fla. Stat. § 57.105 +was filed as a "place-marker" to "notify Plaintiff of the State Attorney's intention to seek sanctions +should he prevail on the merits at a future substantive hearing." See Aronberg's October 14, 2020 +Reply [DE 45], at 5, 13 ("The 57.105 Motion was filed ... to further put the Plaintiff on notice +that the State Attorney would seek sanctions should he prevail on the merits of the lawsuit."). +The First Motion for sanctions was insufficient under Fla. Stat, § 57.105 when filed - it set +forth no substantive arguments as to why Count I of the Amended Complaint was insupportable +based on material facts in the record or the application of existing law to those facts. Rather, at the +time the First Motion was filed, there was no evidence in the fecord supporting the statement by +Aronberg's counsel that it was impossible for him or the State Attorney's Office to provide the +documents sought in the Complaint. +Essentially, what Aronberg argued in his "place-marker" First Motion is that if he prevailed +in defending the lawsuit, his attorneys' fees should be awarded as sanctions against Plaintiff in his +favor. There is no such mechanism as a "place-marker" motion for sanctions. Otherwise, any +defendant could file a threadbare and conclusory "place-marker" notice of his intent to seek fees +if he ultimately prevails, and then seek fees based on later-filed evidence and arguments. A motion +for sanctions must be supported by the record evidence at the time it is filed. Because the First +Motion was not so supported, it fails under the statute. Further, as explained above, service of the +First Motion did not absolve Aronberg of his obligation to serve the Amended Motion on Plaintiff +" Aronberg's "place-marker" First Motion appeared to be based erroneously on a prevailing party +standard (see Reply, at 5, 13), which is not the applicable standard for imposing sanctions expressly +set forth in Fla. Stat. § 57.105. + + +through counsel prior to filing the Amended Motion. The First Motion cannot be a "place-marker" +for the mandated service of the Amended Motion. +I1l. +THE ISSUES RAISED IN COUNT I OF THE COMPLAINT WERE NOVEL AND +COMPLEX AND PRESENTED A GOOD FAITH ARGUMENT FOR THE +INTERPRETATION OF EXISTING LAW OR ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW LAW +Both counts of the Complaint raised novel and complex issues and were presented to the +Court as a good faith argument for the interpretation of existing law, or at the very least, the +establishment of new law, based on the material facts. +Where an issue is novel and complex, sanctions under Section 57.105(a) may not be +imposed. Grove Key Marina, LLC v. Casamayor, 166 So. 3d 879 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015). Sanctions +are plainly inappropriate under the statute where, as here, a good faith basis exists for a proposed +interpretation of the law applied to the material facts. See Fla. Stat. § 57.105(1). Moreover, even +in the absence of existing supportive law, if the claim at issue was presented as a good-faith +argument for the extension or modification of existing law or the establishment of new law, with +a reasonable expectation of success, the Court cannot sanction the party or its attorney. See Key +Biscayne Gateway Partners, Ltd. v. Village Council for Village of Key Biscayne, 240 So. 3d 84, +87 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (reversing order of sanctions under 57.105 as good faith argument was +presented for extension of existing law with reasonable expectation of success). +Indeed, Fla, Stat. § 57.105(3)(a) mandates that monetary sanctions shall not be awarded +if the court determines that the claim or defense was initially +presented to the court as a good faith argument for the extension, +modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new +Law, as it applied to the material facts, with a reasonable expectation +of success. [Emphasis added.] +The claims in the Complaint presented a case of first impression. Indeed, in the motions and orders +in this action, neither this Court nor the State Attorney or the Clerk cited to any case that previously +resolved the issues presented relating to the media's implied private right of action under Fla. Stat. +9 + + +§ 905.27 (as alleged in Count II) or for declaratory relief to obtain grand jury materials (as alleged +in Count I). The November 9, 2020 Amended Motion appears to relate only to Count I of the +Complaint (although, as set forth above, no count was pending against Aronberg as of October 21, +2020). While Count II alleged that The Palm Beach Post has constitutional and statutory standing +to overcome grand jury secrecy provisions "in furtherance of justice," Count I, in contrast, did not +allege a Section 905.27 private right of action. Instead, Count 1 sought declaratory relief under the +U.S. Constitution's First Amendment and the Florida Constitution's analogous provisions. +The Constitutional provisions and interpretive case law, along with Fla. Stat. § 905.27, +provided ample grounds for this Court to direct the release of the Epstein grand jury materials to +The Palm Beach Post as a surrogate for the public, or require the Court to conduct an in camera +examination of the same, to balance the public's right to know through a free media with Florida's +qualified statutory interest in grand jury secreey, as sought in Count I. Plaintiff relied upon such +authorities in its prior filings and arguments in this matter to propose a good faith interpretation of +existing law in support of its deelaratory relief claim in Count I. See, e.g., First Amended +Complaint [DE 17], at 15-19; Plaintiff's Opposition to Aronberg's Motion to Dismiss Count II of +the First Amended Complaint [DE 26], at 10-20; Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in Opposition +to Aronberg's First Motion [DE 43], at 5-7. At the very least, Plaintiff provided a good-faith +argument for the extension or modification of existing law or the establishment of new law, and +thus sanctions are not appropriate under Fla. Stat. § 57.105(3)(a). +• As to Count II, Plaintiff presented various reasoned arguments why Section 905.27 creates a +private right of action in favor of the media on both constitutional and statutory grounds. See +Plaintiff's Opposition to Aronberg's Motion to Dismiss Count Il of the First Amended Complaint, +at pp. 10-15. +10 + + +Moreover, the material facts in the record at all times supported Plaintiff's claim against +Aronberg. When Count I was filed, and throughout the litigation prior to Aronberg's dismissal, +Plaintiff had a good faith basis for understanding that the State Attorney's Office had either access +to, control over, or the ability to impinge, prevent, or thwart Plaintiff's attempts to obtain public +access to the Epstein grand jury materials. See, e.g., Ferlanti, 193 So. 3d at 1000 (reversing trial +court's award of 57.105 fees for naming husband as defendant in mortgage foreclosure proceeding, +even though husband was never a signatory to mortgage or note and plaintiff made no such +allegations, but there was at least some triable set of facts under which defendant could have been +liable). The Amended Motion for sanctions should be denied based on the explicit provisions of +Fla. Stat. §§ 57.105(1)(a)-(b) and (3). +IV. STATE ATTORNEY ARONBERG WAS A PROPER PARTY +While Aronberg alleged in the enclosure letter to his First Motion that his office did not +have physical possession of the Epstein grand jury materials, he nevertheless argued in that same +letter, relying on Section 905.27, that the Clerk should not produce them. By taking a position +against disclosure, Aronberg, in effect, asserted his right to the secrecy of the Epstein grand jury +materials. Stated another way, Aronberg claimed the statutory right for the State Attorney's Office +to prevent access to the Epstein grand jury materials, a position which actually supported the +propriety of naming him, in his official capacity, as a party defendant in this action. +As State Attorney, Aronberg was not named in this action solely as a custodian of the grand +jury records. Rather, he was a defendant in his official capacity as his office has "as its primary +interest the protection of its grand jury system." In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 832 F. 2d 554, 559 +(11th Cir. 1987) (italics in original). In that case, the federal government petitioned a Florida State +Attorney to turn over state grand jury transcripts. In opposition, the Broward State Attorney argued +against their release, citing to Section 905.27. Later, a federal grand jury served a subpoena upon +11 + + +the same State Attorney seeking grand jury transcripts. The State Attorney advised the federal +court that he would produce the transcripts, thereby demonstrating that irrespective of physical +possession, he had legal authority to obtain and deliver them pursuant to the subpoena. For these +same reasons, State Attorney Aronberg, in his official capacity, was a necessary party, at the very +least as a nominal defendant. +Further, even assuming the State Attorney did not have physical possession, Florida law +does not prohibit his office from requesting the Epstein grand jury | +terials from the Clerk. +Indeed, as the State Attorney is well aware, Florida Statutes Chapter 905 does not bar any State +Attorney from accessing grand jury materials, even after a defendant has been convicted and +sentenced. +CONCLUSION +Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff, CA Florida Holdings, LLC, respectfully requests that the +Court deny State Attorney Dave Aronberg's Amended Motion for Attorneys' Fees in its entirety, +and grant such other and further relief as the Court deems necessary or proper. +Respectfully submitted, +NOT A +C +GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A. +Attorneys for CA Florida Holdings, LLC, +Publisher of The Palm Beach Post +Stephen A. Mendelsohn, Esq. +401 East Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 2000 +Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 +Telephone: (954) 768-8225 +Facsimile: (561) 338-7099 +By: Is/ Stephen A. Mendelsohn +STEPHEN A. MENDELSOHN +Florida Bar No. 849324 +mendelsohns@gtlaw.com +smithl@gtlaw.com +FLService@gtlaw.com +By: Is/ Michael J Grygiel + + +MICHAEL J. GRYGIEL +(Admitted Pro Hac Vice) +54 State St., 6th Floor +Albany, New York 12207 +Telephone: (518) 689-1400 +Facsimile: (518) 689-1499 +grygielm@gtlaw.com +By: Is/ Nina D. Boyajian +NINA D. BOYAJIAN +(Admitted Pro Hac Vice) +1840 Century Park East, Ste. 1900 +Los Angeles, California 90067 +Telephone: (310) 586-7700 +Facsimile: (310) 586-7800 +boyajiann@gtlaw.com +riveraal@gtlaw.com +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 15" day of July, 2021, a true and correct copy of the +foregoing has been filed with the Clerk of the Court using the State of Florida e-filing system, +which will send a notice of electronic service for all parties of record herein. +NOT A +Is/ Stephen A. Mendelsohn +STEPHEN A. MENDELSOHN +13 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/965d54b76360623a58307460144eaccef4436ebf9ba5f8cb9de075b60d2cdfa4.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/965d54b76360623a58307460144eaccef4436ebf9ba5f8cb9de075b60d2cdfa4.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b00441bc4dffdc104fb088105bd8c73d962a263a --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/965d54b76360623a58307460144eaccef4436ebf9ba5f8cb9de075b60d2cdfa4.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -162, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "965d54b76360623a58307460144eaccef4436ebf9ba5f8cb9de075b60d2cdfa4", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 16, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "ef3d66b3e57a707be7c5d30b6b9e08d0de573695ecda4a1cd712298cf0741abc", + "output_sha256": "259001a746cba3b22667b379e15db5788aae40633f195d6946961340f6d11150", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/965ffd5a84f890c9d05133fb361b13d985f09b097061c121ff13a2b5eff19254.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/965ffd5a84f890c9d05133fb361b13d985f09b097061c121ff13a2b5eff19254.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7ca767e65cc4b86ae5aa6bc96bd101d77455df73 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/965ffd5a84f890c9d05133fb361b13d985f09b097061c121ff13a2b5eff19254.md @@ -0,0 +1,29 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 148-1 +Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2010 Page 1 of 1 +.. +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA- +JANE DOE NO. 3 +V. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Plaintiff, +Defendant. +FINAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE +THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon the parties' Stipulation of Dismissal with +Prejudice [DEJ, filed June , 2010. The Court has reviewed the Stipulation, the +pertinent portions of the record, and is otherwise advised in the premises. In +accordance with the parties' Stipulation, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: +1. The above-styled action is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. +2. All pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT. +3. The Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the parties' +settlement. +4. The Clerk shall CLOSE THIS CASE. +DONE AND ORDERED in +at West Palm Beach, Florida this _ +_day +of June, 2010. +KENNETH A. MARRA +UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE +Copies Furnished to: +All Counsel of Record diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/965ffd5a84f890c9d05133fb361b13d985f09b097061c121ff13a2b5eff19254.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/965ffd5a84f890c9d05133fb361b13d985f09b097061c121ff13a2b5eff19254.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..39319d8e1a917e5c1a4b9bcf42969cd0642a5d45 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/965ffd5a84f890c9d05133fb361b13d985f09b097061c121ff13a2b5eff19254.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "965ffd5a84f890c9d05133fb361b13d985f09b097061c121ff13a2b5eff19254", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "15779ef2169c2efd6cdcd8386e2b894c548b5586790c7bb3b92977965bfc05f6", + "output_sha256": "1ac9c162a01351b6dad529e6539d2e88c87fce8b4f6a7782290b6222f17c483c", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/966b07d9e3c653f4beb17ae5dbc8ce6ac6bd8669901568a2883ce71e5ffd81a8.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/966b07d9e3c653f4beb17ae5dbc8ce6ac6bd8669901568a2883ce71e5ffd81a8.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..125a63cb4e10f104d83de81a068b512739e28085 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/966b07d9e3c653f4beb17ae5dbc8ce6ac6bd8669901568a2883ce71e5ffd81a8.md @@ -0,0 +1,37 @@ +Case 9:08 e/maD 280 nAerh, Document 74-4 Entered on FLSD Daceto @4.02/2009 zolage 1 of4152 +Doe No. 4 v. Epstein +Page 3 +2. +List the names, business addresses, telephone and cell phone numbers, dates of +employment, immediate supervisor (name and address) and rates of pay +regarding all employers, including self-employment, for whom you have worked +in the past 10 years; this includes listing all sources of income you have received. +Answer this question by year, i.e. 1998 - 2008. +Answer: +Plaintiff was unemployed until 2004 (except for a summer job at Walk About +Computers). +1. Pinetree Camp at +3601 N. Military Trail +_University +Boca Raton, FL +Camp Counselor +$8.00/hour +Summer 2006 +2. Cheyenne Saloon +120 W. Church St. +Orlando, FL +Server +Minimum plus tips +Summer 2008 +3. Florida Realty +Palm Beach, FL +2004-2005 +Office Assistant +Plaintiff does not recall rate of pay +Enfante, Supervisor +4. Walk About Computers +1236 Doctor Beach Rd. +Riviera Beach, FL +Plaintiff worked temporarily during middle school, but is unable to remember +the amount she was paid. + diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/966b07d9e3c653f4beb17ae5dbc8ce6ac6bd8669901568a2883ce71e5ffd81a8.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/966b07d9e3c653f4beb17ae5dbc8ce6ac6bd8669901568a2883ce71e5ffd81a8.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b8554944c29b1e6e9be8a7b4cecc79abfe7fdde5 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/966b07d9e3c653f4beb17ae5dbc8ce6ac6bd8669901568a2883ce71e5ffd81a8.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -22, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "966b07d9e3c653f4beb17ae5dbc8ce6ac6bd8669901568a2883ce71e5ffd81a8", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "a8db87a7cae15c98804212e4d27a15f2d3994bc8d68f3254f61bcd64a81c0db6", + "output_sha256": "a05b743a60947f6e4bb65e86413344cf849f90eb62e14ffd5a79c13962e9d7cf", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/969b84e08b4a872d2e514c79a1fc01570f29611ba0b99843ff649550b631c615.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/969b84e08b4a872d2e514c79a1fc01570f29611ba0b99843ff649550b631c615.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1cad6acaabf78eb2d7653b521a28bfb68101460e --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/969b84e08b4a872d2e514c79a1fc01570f29611ba0b99843ff649550b631c615.md @@ -0,0 +1,130 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 238 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/31/2009 Page 1 of 5 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff, +vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 5, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 238 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/31/2009 Page 2 of 5 +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 6, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-80994-CIV-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 7, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-80993-CIV-MARRA/_ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +C.M.A., +CASE NO.: 08-80811-CIV-MARRA/_ +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08- 80893-CIV-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al, +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 238 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/31/2009 Page 3 of 5 +Defendants. +DOE II, +CASE NO.: 09- 80469-CIV-MARRA +Plaintift, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al, +Defendants. +JANE DOE NO. 101, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 09- 80591-CIV-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 102 +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 09- 80656-CIV-MARRA/_ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +ORDER +THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiffs Jane Doe. No 101 and 102's Motion for +No-Contact Order (DE 113) and Plaintiffs Jane Does' 2-7 Notice of Joinder in Plaintiffs' Motion +(DE 145). The Court has reviewed the motions, responses, and replies (DE's 113, 127, 136, 145, +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 238 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/31/2009 Page 4 of 5 +233), and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. Plaintiffs seek a Court order prohibiting +Defendant or his agents from communicating with Plaintiffs directly or indirectly. Defendant. +Defendant opposes the request as "needless, unwarranted and excessive." (DE 127 at 5). +Nonetheless, Defendant states in his response that "neither Mr. Epstein nor his attorneys, nor +their agents intend to have any direct or indirect contact with Plaintiffs counsels' clients." (DE +127 at 4). +The Court notes that Defendant is already under court order not to have direct or indirect +contact with any victims. See Transcript of Plea Conference at 20. During the course of +Defendant's state plea conference of June 30, 2009, Palm Beach Circuit Court Judge Deborah +Dale Pucillio explicitly instructed Defendant as follows: +Court: Okay. D is, you shall not have any contact with the victim, are there more +than one victim? +Ms. Belohlavek: There's several. +Court: Several, all of the victims. So this should be plural. I'm making that +plural. You are not to have any contact direct or indirect, and in this day and age I +find it necessary to go over exactly what we mean by indirect. By indirect, we +mean no text messages, no e-mail, no Face Book, no My Space, no telephone +calls, no voice mails, no messages through carrier pigeon, no messages through +third parties, no hey would you tell so and so for me, no having a friend, +acquaintance or stranger approach any of these victims with a message of any sort +from you, is that clear? +Defendant: Yes, +Id. at 20-21. +In light of Defendant's response to Plaintiffs' motion for no contact order, suggesting that +the state court's order only applies to some victims and that parties are always allowed to contact +each other directly, the Court finds it necessary to state clearly that Defendant is under this +4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 238 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/31/2009 Page 5 of 5 +court's order not to have direct or indirect contact with any plaintiffs, regardless of the intended +scope of the state court's order. Accordingly, it is hereby +ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: Plaintiffs Jane Doe. No 101 and 102's +Motion for No-Contact Order (DE 113) is GRANTED. Defendant is hereby prohibited from +communicating with all plaintiffs directly or indirectly, either personally or through agents, +except that Defendant may communicate with plaintiffs only through plaintiffs' attorneys of +record, for the duration of this Order. +DONE AND ORDERED in +at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, +Florida, this 31" day of July, 2009 +KENNETH A. MARRA +United States District Judge +Copies furnished to: +all counsel of record +'See infra, excerpt of Transcript of Plea Conference at 20-21, for examples of indirect +contact. +5 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/969b84e08b4a872d2e514c79a1fc01570f29611ba0b99843ff649550b631c615.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/969b84e08b4a872d2e514c79a1fc01570f29611ba0b99843ff649550b631c615.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8a005c06a314e9718e12a7bfbe6c742661639927 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/969b84e08b4a872d2e514c79a1fc01570f29611ba0b99843ff649550b631c615.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -60, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "969b84e08b4a872d2e514c79a1fc01570f29611ba0b99843ff649550b631c615", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 5, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "8e9e166a9c193f148432c5ae0341711e8fa3a1a4c85ac522f025dae4e8c76f70", + "output_sha256": "8dc296e0a70117132273736fa65c72acc2e07d163a55cbc1790d9b26f01adc2e", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/96cac675c298a80e712c567455dab69372ae00268ca36e3392a802993aab650a.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/96cac675c298a80e712c567455dab69372ae00268ca36e3392a802993aab650a.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6cdecae9a29f5f2b716bb70e3501467821fc8793 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/96cac675c298a80e712c567455dab69372ae00268ca36e3392a802993aab650a.md @@ -0,0 +1,292 @@ +• Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 565 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/14/2010 Page 1 of 9 +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRAL +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +JUN 1 4 2010 +STEVEN US ASTO +DIST +S.D. OF FLA. - W.PB. +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 +Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein's Emergency Motion For Protective Order, Motion to +Quash and Motion for Attorneys' Fees, With Incorporated Memorandum Of Law +Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, (hereinafter "EPSTEIN") by and through his +undersigned attorneys, hereby files his Emergency Motion For Protective Order, Motion +to Quash and Motion for Attorneys' fees and Costs, With Incorporated Memorandum Of +Law. In support, Defendant states as follows: +1. As this Court is well aware, these cases have been consolidated for discovery. +However, on April 1, 2010, Plaintiff's counsel, Spencer Kuvin, filed C.L. v. Epstein, +Case No. 10-80447-cv-Marra/ +Ill, and that case has not been consolidated with the +other related cases for purposes of discovery. +2. On April 20, 2010, Mr. Kuvin served Maritza Milagros Vasquez with a subpoena +for deposition, which is set to occur tomorrow. See Exhibit "A". However, this Notice +and subpoena for deposition must be stricken/quashed as Mr. Kuvin, on behalf of his +client, has failed to comply with Fed.R.Civ.P. 26 (d). That rule states, in pertinent part, + + +• Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 565 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/14/2010 Page 2 of 9 +that: "[a] party may not seek discovery from any source before the parties have conferred +as required by Rule 26(f)...." Mr. Kuvin, on behalf of his client, has not complied with +Rule 26(f) and, therefore, the subpoena for deposition must be stricken/quashed and a +Protective Order should be entered pursuant to Rule 26(c) forbidding the deposition from +occurring for non-compliance with the applicable rules. In Varo, Inc. v. Litton Systems. +Inc., 129 F.R.D. 139, 141 (N.D. TX 1989), the court held that one cannot be compelled to +comply with a withdrawn subpoena. Id. Likewise, the court here cannot compel Maritza +Milagros Vasquez to attend any deposition when the subpoena itself is invalid, especially +when it will require those involved in these matters to incur substantial attorneys' fees. +3. Next, Mr. Brad +, counsel for Jane Doe, cross-noticed Maritza Milagros +Vasquez's deposition in Jane Doe (#08-80893 - Exhibit "B"), which matter is already set +for trial in July 2010. Discovery concluded on May 31, 2010 (see DE 531). +Accordingly, the cross notice served by Jane Doe must be stricken/quashed and a +protective order entered because the subpoena itself in invalid due to C.L.'s counsel's +failure to comply with Rule 26(d) and discovery in Jane Doe (80893) has concluded. +Rule 7.1 Certification +I hereby certify that counsel for the respective parties communicated by e-mail in a +good faith effort to resolve the issues set forth above prior to the filing of this Motion and +none of the issues were resolved. +WHEREFORE, Defendant requests that this Court enter an order granting +Defendant's motion for protective order and motion to quash. Defendant further requests +that this Court award his attorney's fees and costs associated with this motion, in +accordance with Rule 37, Fed.R.Civ.P. and applicable Local Rules and specifically: +a. Quash CL's subpoena attached as Exhibit "A"; + + +• Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 565 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/14/2010 Page 3 of 9 +b. Quash and/or strike Jane Doe's cross notice as to Exhibit "A" because +Exhibit "A" is invalid and discovery has concluded in Jane Doe; +c. Award attorneys to Defendant for CL and Jane Doe's noncompliance with +these discovery matters; and +MICHAELS. PIKÉ, 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 14#* day of June, 2010 +Respectfully submitted +ROBERY +Flotida Bar No. 224162 +rcrit@bclclaw.com +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ +Florida Bar #617296 +mpike@bclclaw.com +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & +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) +Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. +Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. +Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. +18205 Biscayne Boulevard +Certificate of Service +Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein +Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRAJ| +Brad +_ Esq. +Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler +401 East Las Olas Boulevard +Suite 1650 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 565 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/14/2010 Page 4 of 9 +Suite 2218 +Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 +Miami, FL 33160 +Phone: 954-522-3456 +305-931-2200 +Fax: 954-527-8663 +Fax: 305-931-0877 +bedwards@rra-law.com +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +08-80893 +Counsel for Plaintiffs +In related Cases Nos. 08-80069, 08-80119, +Paul G. Cassell, Esq. +08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80993, +Pro Hac Vice +08-80994 +332 South 1400 E, Room 101 +Salt Lake City, UT 84112 +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +801-585-5202 +Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +801-585-6833 Fax +250 Australian Avenue South +cassellp@law.utah.edu +Suite 1400 +Co-counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe +West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 +561-659-8300 +Fax: 561-835-8691 +jagesq@bellsouth.net +Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein +Isidro M. Esq. +| 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 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 565 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/14/2010 Page 5 of 9 +AO 88A (Rev. 06/09) Subpoene to Testify at a Deposition in a Civil Action +for the +Southern District of Florida +C.L. +Plaintiff +V. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Civil Action No. 10-80447-cv-Marra/ +(If the action is pending in another district, state where: +Defendant +SUBPOENA TO TESTIFY AT A DEPOSITION IN A CIVIL ACTION +To: MARITZA MILAGROS VASQUEZ, 1253 SW 21ST TERRACE, APT 21, MIAMI, FL 33145-2922 +& Testimony: YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear at the time, date, and place set forth below to testify at a +deposition to be taken in this civil action. If you are an organization that is not a party in this case, you must designate +one or more officers, directors, or managing agents, or designate other persons who consent to testify on your behalf +about the following matters, or those set forth in an attachment: +Place: INTELLIGENT OFFICE, 701 BRICKELL AVENUE, +SUITE 1550, MIAMI, FL 33131 +Date and Time: +05/18/2010 10:00 am +The deposition will be recorded by this method: VIDEOGRAPHER AND COURT. REPORTER +D Production: You, or your representatives, must also bring with you to the deposition the following documents, +electronically stored information, or objects, and permit their inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of the +material: +The provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c), relating to your protection as a person subject to a subpoena, and Rule +stach end (e), relating to your duty to respond to this subpoena and the potential consequences of not doing so, are +Date: +04/08/2010 +CLERK OF COURT +Sigrature of Clerk of Deputy Clerk +The name, address, e-mail, and telephone number of the attorney representing (name of party) +C.L. +., who issues or requests this subpoena, are: +SPENCER T. KUVIN, ESQ., LEOPOLD-KUVIN, P.A., 2925 PGA BOULEVARD, SUITE 200, PALM BEACH GARDENS, +FLORIDA 33410 +T: 561-515-1400 +F: 561-515-1401 +"A" + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM . +Document 565 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/14/2010 Page 6 of 9 +AO 88A (Rev. 06/09) Subpoena to Testify at a Deposition in a Civil Action (Page 2) +Civil Action No. 10-80447-cv-Marra/ +PROOF OF SERVICE +(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed, R. Civ. P. 45.) +This subpoena for (name of individual and tille, if any) +was received by me on (date) +• I served the subpoena by delivering a copy to the named individual as follows: +on (date) +; or +• I returned the subpoena unexecuted because: +Unless the subpoena was issued on behalf of the United States, or one of its officers or agents, I have also +tendered to the witness fees for one day's attendance, and the mileage allowed by law, in the amount of +$ +My fees are $ +for travel and S +I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true. +for services, for a total of $ +0.00 +Date: +Server's signatyre +Printed name and title +Server's address +Additional information regarding attempted service, etc: + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 565 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/14/2010 Page 7 of 9 +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO. 08-CV-80893-CIV-MARRAJ| +Vs. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et al. +Defendant. +Related Cases: +08-80119, 08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, +08-80994, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, +09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092 +PLAINTIFF'S CROSS-NOTICE OF VIDEO DEPOSITION OF +MARITZA MILAGROS VASQUEZ +PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that plaintiff, Jane Doe, will take the video deposition by +oral examination, of the persons named below, at the time, on the date, at the hour of +the place indicated: +NAME +Maritza Milagros Vasquez +DATE AND +TIME +June 15, 2010 @ +10:00AM +[PLACE OF TAKING DEPOSITON +Intelligent Office +701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1550 +Miami, FL 33131 +upon oral examination before Videographer and a Notary Public, or any other notary +public or officer authorized by law to take depositions in the State of Florida. The oral +examination will continue from day to day until completed. The depositions are being +"B + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 565 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/14/2010 Page 8 of 9 +CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRAN +taken for the purpose of discovery, for use at trial, or for such other purposes as are +permitted under the Rules of Court. +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +| HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing was served by e-mail on May 12, +2010 to: See attached service list. +jatte, Weissing, +Fistos & Lehrman, PL +425 N. Andrews Ave., Suite 2 +Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 +(954) 524-2820 +(954) 524-2822 fax +brad@pathtojustice.com +By: +Florida Bar No.: 542075 +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 565 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/14/2010 Page 9 of 9 +CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRAJ +SERVICE LIST +Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein +United States District Court - Southern District of Florida +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +Jgoldberger@agwpa.com +Robert D. Critton, Esq. +rcritton@bclclaw.com +sidro Manual +sidrogarcia @bellsouth.ne +Jack +iph@searcylaw.com +Katherine Warthen Ezell +KEzell@podhurst.com +Michael James Pike +MPike@bclclaw.com +Paul G. Cassell +cassellp@law.utah.edu +Richard Horace Willits +lawyerswillits@aol.com +Robert C. Josefsberg +rjosefsberg@podhurst.com +Stuart S. Mermelstein +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +3 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/96cac675c298a80e712c567455dab69372ae00268ca36e3392a802993aab650a.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/96cac675c298a80e712c567455dab69372ae00268ca36e3392a802993aab650a.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..36a0858077c71084509699ace280ec1cbcb4446d --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/96cac675c298a80e712c567455dab69372ae00268ca36e3392a802993aab650a.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -196, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "96cac675c298a80e712c567455dab69372ae00268ca36e3392a802993aab650a", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 10, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "30fdce9e97d551401825a59a6481bbc96076f7020a7a8a0192708f043c62b08b", + "output_sha256": "3e579d6d5b9121457792f2c57a9a100a42d6f04678820c41d6d8fa9eaa619e29", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/96d24461234e48692a17afb11f335e067f5a8294b8b1261fa3df5cc63abd4ce9.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/96d24461234e48692a17afb11f335e067f5a8294b8b1261fa3df5cc63abd4ce9.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3ee7159d73462a9f8202847bf9137e2b10cb9883 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/96d24461234e48692a17afb11f335e067f5a8294b8b1261fa3df5cc63abd4ce9.md @@ -0,0 +1,267 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 135 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/28/2009 Page 1 of 8 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/ +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 +PLAINTIFE, +L, RESPONSE TO THIRD PARTY WITNESS, +IGOR ZINOVIEW'S, MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND INCORPORATED +MEMORANDUM OF LAW +Plaintiff, +_, by and through her undersigned counsel, hereby +files her Response Third Party Witness, Igor Zinoview's, Motion For Protective Order +and Incorporated Memorandum of Law (D.E. 402), and in support thereof states as +follows: +Third party witness, Igor Zinoview, seeks to have this Court enter an order +preventing his deposition from going forward at all, or, in the alternative, limiting the +scope of permissible questioning during same. Mr. Zinoview's deposition is presently +scheduled to be taken on December 18, 2009. +Mr. Zinoview has been employed by Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, as his +"driver, bodyguard, and trainer" since November of 2005. See Affidavit of Igor Zinoview + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 135 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/28/2009 Page 2 of 8 +(D.E. 402) dated November 9, 2009. Mr. Zinoview argues that his deposition should not +go forward as scheduled because Defendant Epstein has never discussed nor +attempted to discuss with him "any facts or information related to any legal matters in +which he [Jeffrey Epstein] is involved." Id. From Mr. Zinoview's vague assertion springs +the bold yet erroneous argument that "Mr. Zinoview cannot possibly have any +knowledge or information that is presently germane to this action." +3. +It should initially be noted that a "complete prohibition of a deposition is an +extraordinary measure which should be resorted to only in rare occasions." Jennings v. +Family Management, 201 F.R.D. 272 (D.D.C. 2001); See also, Salter v. Upjohn Co., +593 F.2d 649, 651 (5" Circ. 1979)(It is very unusual for trial court to prohibit the taking +of a deposition altogether, and absent extraordinary circumstances, such order would +likely be in error.); Inv. Properties Intern., Ltd. v. IOS, Ltd., 459 F.2d. 705, 708 (2d Circ. +1972)("an order to vacate a notice of taking deposition is generally regarded as both +unusual and unfavorable ... "). Neither Mr. Zinoview's conclusory affidavit nor his +Motion provide anything even approaching the "extraordinary circumstances" necessary +to justify the entry of order precluding his deposition from going forward at all. +4. +Additionally, Mr. Zinoview's vague assertion that he and Defendant +Epstein have never discussed any facts or information related to any legal matters that +Mr. Epstein is involved in does not give rise to requisite "extraordinary circumstances" +either. Detweiler Bros, Inc. v John Graham and Company, 412 F.Supp. 416 (E.D. Wash, +1976)(Plaintiff could not properly seek to prohibit defendant from deposing plaintiff's +employee via a protective order on grounds that employee had no knowledge of matters +at issue.) See also, 8 Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. §2037. +and +("A witness + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 135 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/28/2009 Page 3 of 8 +ordinarily cannot escape examination by denying knowledge of any relevant facts, since +the party seeking to take the deposition is entitled to test the witness's lack of +knowledge.") +5. +The undersigned, as well as counsel for all of the other victims of Jeffrey +Epstein, are entitled to question and challenge Mr. Zinoview on his purported lack of +knowledge. Mr. Zinoview and plaintiffs' counsel very well might have a difference of +opinion on what constitutes "facts and information related to any legal matters" in which +Defendant Epstein is involved. The victims of Jeffrey Epstein ought not to be forced to +accept Mr. Zinoview's opinion as to what constitutes "facts and information related to +any legal matters" involving Jeffrey Epstein. Instead, plaintiffs should be able to explore +these relevant matters directly with Mr. Zinoview, rather than being forced to rely on his +twenty seven (27) word claim of lacking any knowledge. +6. +Additionally, Mr. Zinoview worked for Defendant Epstein during portions of +the Palm Beach Police Department's months' long investigation which spanned from +March 15, 2005 through February 2006 into the illegal sexual contact committed by +Defendant Epstein against these minor plaintiffs. Accordingly, Mr. Zinoview certainly +might have direct knowledge about what was going on in and around the Epstein +residence during the time period in which he was employed by Defendant Epstein as his +"driver, bodyguard, and trainer" while his employer was being investigated by law +enforcement. Given the Defendant's voracious invocation of his Fifth Amendment +privilege, the plaintiffs have consistently been denied the opportunity to seek any +relevant information directly from Defendant Epstein himself. Rather, plaintiffs have + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 135 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/28/2009 Page 4 of 8 +been forced to build their cases against Mr. Epstein by other discovery methods, +including deposing his employees who may have relevant information. +7. Third party witness Igor Zinoview has failed to meet his very high burden +of establishing "extraordinary circumstances." Mr. Zinoview has failed to demonstrate +the "good cause" required by Rule 26(c) to protect a person from "annoyance, +embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense" to overcome the liberal +scope of permissible discovery. The above proposed lines of inquiry of Mr. Zinoview +are certainly reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. +Accordingly, to the extent that it seeks to preclude his deposition from going forward at +all, Mr. Zinoview's Motion should be denied +Next, Mr. Zinoview also seeks to prevent questions being posed to him +wherein he is first asked to "assume certain facts about which he has no knowledge," +and then be asked about his "opinions about certain facts." First, it remains to be seen +exactly what facts about which Mr. Zinoview has no knowledge. Second, Mr. Zinoview's +opinions and beliefs about the factual matters surrounding plaintiffs' claims are relevant +to exploring any potential bias and prejudice in favor of his employer and against +Defendant Epstein's victims. For example, if Mr. Zinoview believes that these plaintiffs +are simply inventing their claims against his employer that they were sexually victimized +by Defendant Epstein while they were minor children, it very well might impact his +impartiality as a witness. Third, the undersigned has no present intention of engaging in +this line of questioning unless the proverbial "door" has been opened by Mr. Zinoview +first. Lastly, counsel for Mr. Zinoview is certainly free to invoke the privileges afforded to + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 135 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/28/2009 Page 5 of 8 +him by the applicable procedural rules should he feel that his client is being asked +inappropriate questions during the deposition. +9. +In conclusion and for the reasons cited above, Mr. Zinoview's Motion For +Protective Order should be denied in its entirety. +WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, +respectfully requests that +this Court deny Third Party Igor Zinoview's Motion For Protective Order. +Respectfully submitted, +Is/Jack P. +JACK SCAROLA +Florida Bar No. 169440 +JACK P. +Florida Bar No.: 0547808 +Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. +2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard +West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 +Phone: +(561) 686-6300 +Fax: +(561) 383-9456 +Attorneys for Plaintiff + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 135 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/28/2009 Page 6 of 8 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I HEREBY CERTIFY that on November 28'h +, 2009, I electronically filed the +foregoing document with the Clerk of Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the +foregoing document is being served this day on all counsel of record identified below via +transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF. +Ls/Jack P. +Jack Scarola +Florida Bar No.: 169440 +Jack P. +Florida Bar No.: 0547808 +Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. +2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard +West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 +Phone: +(561) 686-6300 +Fax: +(561) 383-9424 +Attorneys for Plaintiff + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 135 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/28/2009 Page 7 of 8 +Certificate of Service +Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein +Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/ +Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. +Brad +, Esq. +Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. +Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler +Mermelstein & 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 +bedwards@rra-law.com +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +08-80893 +Co related Cases Nos. 08-80069, 08-30119, Paul O. Casell, Bs. +08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80993, +Pro Hac Vice +08-80994 +332 South 1400 E, Room 101 +Salt Lake City, UT 84112 +Richard Horace Willits, Esq. +801-585-5202 +Richard H. Willits, P.A. +801-585-6833 Fax +2290 104 Avenue North +cassellp@law.utah.edu +Suite 404 +Co-counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe +Lake Worth, FL 33461 +561-582-7600 +Isidro M. +, Esq. +Fax: 561-588-8819 +Law Firm, P.A +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. +224 Datura Street, Suite 900 +08-80811 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +reelrhw@hotmail.com +561-832-7732 +561-832-7137 F +Jack Scarola, Esq. +isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net +Jack P. +_, Esq. +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. +Searcy Denney Scarola Barhart & Shipley, +P.A. +08-80469 +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 +isx@searcylaw.com +25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800 +Miami, FL 33130 +jph@searcylaw.com +305 358-2800 +Counsel for Plaintiff, C.M.A. +Bruce Reinhart, Esq. +Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A. +250 S. Australian Avenue +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +riosefsberg@podhurst.com +kezell@podhurst.com +Counsel for Plaintiffs in Related Cases +Nos. 09-80591 and 09-80656 +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 135 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/28/2009 Page 8 of 8 +561-202-6360 +Fax: 561-828-0983 +ecf@brucereinhartlaw.com +Counsel for Defendant +Theodore J. Leopold, Esq. +Spencer I. Kuvin, Esq. +Leopold, Kuvin, P.A +2925 PGA Blvd., Suite 200 +Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 +561-684-6500 +Fax: 561-515-2610 +skuvin@leopoldkyvin.com +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. +08-08804 +Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +250 Australian Ayenue South +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, PL 33401-5012 +561-659-8300 +Fax: 561-835-8691 +jagesg@bellsouth.net +Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/96d24461234e48692a17afb11f335e067f5a8294b8b1261fa3df5cc63abd4ce9.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/96d24461234e48692a17afb11f335e067f5a8294b8b1261fa3df5cc63abd4ce9.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2e4075830d4268633bf6deca0e467081004ea0ff --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/96d24461234e48692a17afb11f335e067f5a8294b8b1261fa3df5cc63abd4ce9.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -96, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "96d24461234e48692a17afb11f335e067f5a8294b8b1261fa3df5cc63abd4ce9", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 8, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "e2d1e320aefd52b7069a4cc9db644156170dcbea60ec8e9734f191798660ab47", + "output_sha256": "cdd49ba536f5985bc5fecaa95431790119ae28b1a0a67c483136675103fa3379", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/96d81e2390e0b0521d44cf03497b74d6fdcf7188eb1a4c5a76837ddd5ab0d209.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/96d81e2390e0b0521d44cf03497b74d6fdcf7188eb1a4c5a76837ddd5ab0d209.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9b544557a5fb598e99ceb0adcb9ab8b94a0d881f --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/96d81e2390e0b0521d44cf03497b74d6fdcf7188eb1a4c5a76837ddd5ab0d209.md @@ -0,0 +1,44 @@ +Case 1:19-cv-10577-LJL-DCF Document 68 Filed 07/10/20 Page 1 of 1 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK +JANE DOE 1000, +Plaintiff, +-against- +DARREN IL INDYKE and RICHARD +D. KAHN, et al., +Case No. 1:19-cv-10577-LJL-DCF +Defendant. +NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS +TO: +ATTORNEY SERVICES CLERK AND ALL OTHER PARTIES +I have cases pending +I have no cases pending +Pursuant to Local Rule 1.3 of this Court, please take notice of the following attorney information change (s) for: +Matthew J. Aaronson +FILL IN ATTORNEY NAME +_ My State Bar Number is 3951100 +My SDNY Bar Number is: MA2092 +1am, +• +An attorney +A Government Agency attorney +A Pro Hac Vice attorney +FIRM INFORMATION (Include full name of firm (OLD AND NEW), address, telephone number and fax number): +OLD FIRM: +FIRM NAME:_ Troutman Sanders LLP +FIRM ADDRESS: 875 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10022 +FIRM TELEPHONE NUMBER: (212) 704-6000 +FIRM FAX NUMBER: (212) 704-6288 +NEW FIRM: +FIRM NAME: Troutman Pepper +Sanders LLP +FIRM ADDRESS: 875 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10022. +FIRM TELEPHONE NUMBER:_(212) 704-6000 +FIRM FAX NUMBER: (212) 704-6288 +I will continue to be counsel of record on the above-entitled case at my new firm/agency. +I am no longer counsel of record on the above-entitled case. An order withdrawing my appearance +was entered on +by Judge +Dated: July 10, 2020 +s/Matthew J. Aaronson +ATTORNEY'S SIGNATURE diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/96d81e2390e0b0521d44cf03497b74d6fdcf7188eb1a4c5a76837ddd5ab0d209.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/96d81e2390e0b0521d44cf03497b74d6fdcf7188eb1a4c5a76837ddd5ab0d209.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..651f7f96883b9c3f56d2537e4b04abd007eb0536 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/96d81e2390e0b0521d44cf03497b74d6fdcf7188eb1a4c5a76837ddd5ab0d209.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "96d81e2390e0b0521d44cf03497b74d6fdcf7188eb1a4c5a76837ddd5ab0d209", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "c048946b469b8bdf9ece3d805fb7e8bd37834d917b9c6aa697869dcb53044f71", + "output_sha256": "9406f8fe7b779d3a43369ec644ba7f35dea72da53e10847d09ead1f19e006245", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9736986a07f0ff9047568c7673b732c8696e2a26c1d0aec0b007a00e9c8a6232.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9736986a07f0ff9047568c7673b732c8696e2a26c1d0aec0b007a00e9c8a6232.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..65c31f6b7b67b66421656ca74e972fdd84dcbaf1 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9736986a07f0ff9047568c7673b732c8696e2a26c1d0aec0b007a00e9c8a6232.md @@ -0,0 +1,95 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 407 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/13/2009 Page 1 of 4 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/ +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, +PLAINTIFES JANE DOE NOS. 2-8' UNOPPOSED MOTION +FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO FILE REPLY +MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL +RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR NET WORTH DISCOVERY +Plaintiffs, Jane Does Nos. 2-8, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby file +this Unopposed Motion for Enlargement of Time to File Reply Memorandum in Support +of Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Net Worth Discovery, and state as +follows: +On November 2, 2009 Defendant Jeffrey Epstein filed a Response to +Jane Does Nos. 2-8 Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Net Worth Discovery. +2. +Plaintiffs seek an enlargement of time until November 23, 2009, to file a +Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Net +Worth Discovery. This enlargement of time is necessary due to demand on Plaintiffs' + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 407 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/13/2009 Page 2 of 4 +counsel in other cases and matters. Additionally, the additional time is requested will +allow Plaintiffs to adequately address the issues raised in Defendants' Response. +3. +This Motion seeks a brief enlargement of time and is not brought for purposes +of undue delay. +4. +Plaintiffs' counsel has conferred with Defendant's counsel regarding this +request for enlargement of time, and he has no objection to this request. +WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, Jane Does Nos. 2-8, respectfully request an Order granting +an enlargement of time until November 23, 2009, to file Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum in +Support of Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Net Worth Discovery. +Dated: November 13, 2009. +Respectfully submitted, +By:_ +s/ Adam D. Horowitz +Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245) +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980) +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P.A. +Attorneys for Plaintiffs +18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 +Miami, Florida 33160 +Tel: (305) 931-2200 +Fax: (305) 931-0877 +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 407 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/13/2009 Page 3 of 4 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I hereby certify that on November 13, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing +document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing +document is being served this day to all parties on the attached Service List in the manner +specified, either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF +or in some other authorized manner for those parties who are not authorized to receive +electronically Notices of Electronic Filing. +Is/ Adam D. Horowitz +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 407 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/13/2009 Page 4 of 4 +SERVICE LIST +DOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +jgoldberger@agwpa.com +Robert D. Critton, Esq. +rcritton@bclclaw.com +James +bedwards @rra-law.com +Isidro Manuel +isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net +Jack +jph@searcylaw.com +Katherine Warthen Ezell +KEzell@podhurst.com +Michael James Pike +MPike@bclclaw.com +Paul G. Cassell +cassellp@law.utah.edu +Richard Horace Willits +lawyerwillits@aol.com +Robert C. Josefsberg +rjosefsberg@podhurst.com +4 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9736986a07f0ff9047568c7673b732c8696e2a26c1d0aec0b007a00e9c8a6232.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9736986a07f0ff9047568c7673b732c8696e2a26c1d0aec0b007a00e9c8a6232.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7c0a20c49362fc751942cb86a589a7aaf8774e6a --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9736986a07f0ff9047568c7673b732c8696e2a26c1d0aec0b007a00e9c8a6232.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -48, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "9736986a07f0ff9047568c7673b732c8696e2a26c1d0aec0b007a00e9c8a6232", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 4, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "2148903072387099684440c77b730a0f43f27d17a053f668a136936a16f2cc1b", + "output_sha256": "d176d274579d5b1442511af05eabe837468aa266103ab34ab6e3e34d8b3d5f64", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9754e083329b8639b84200cbef400494c6e513696da88e7153b17912762ecf53.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9754e083329b8639b84200cbef400494c6e513696da88e7153b17912762ecf53.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c32fad37e2f85a1009b9f4428602a0454661e5ff --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9754e083329b8639b84200cbef400494c6e513696da88e7153b17912762ecf53.md @@ -0,0 +1,35 @@ +Case 1:20-cv-02365-LJL-DCF Document 18 Filed 12/01/20 Page 1 of 1 +Sanders LLP +Troutman Pepper +875 Third Avenue +New York, New York 10022 +troutman.com +troutman" +pepper +Bennet J. Moskowitz +bennet.moskowitz@troutman.com +December 1, 2020 +VIA ECF +Hon. Debra C. Freeman +Daniel +Moynihan +United States Courthouse +500 Pearl St. +New York, NY 10007 +Re: +Jane Doe v. Darren |. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, in their capacities as +the Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, 1:20-cv-02365-LJL-DCF +Dear Judge Freeman: +Pursuant to the Court's September 4, 2020 Order (ECF No. 15), Plaintiff and +Defendants Darren _. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, Co-Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey +E. Epstein, jointly submit this status report. +Plaintiff seeks to participate in the Epstein Victims' Compensation Program (the +"Program") and expects to submit her claim shortly. Should Plaintiff resolve her claims +against Defendants via the Program, the parties will thereafter promptly discontinue this +action with prejudice. +To preserve the parties' resources and in the interests of judicial economy, the +parties respectfully request that this case remain stayed at this time. +Respectfully submitted, +/s/ Bennet J. Moskowitz +Bennet J. Moskowitz +cc: Counsel of Record (via ECF) diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9754e083329b8639b84200cbef400494c6e513696da88e7153b17912762ecf53.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9754e083329b8639b84200cbef400494c6e513696da88e7153b17912762ecf53.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fad04fbb2a7203a3d33ec026e142f1d41fb5e429 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9754e083329b8639b84200cbef400494c6e513696da88e7153b17912762ecf53.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "9754e083329b8639b84200cbef400494c6e513696da88e7153b17912762ecf53", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "5265c03ecc355c7f44dfd33956338ba2fa097f9bccec9cd216aef289fc2ff7cb", + "output_sha256": "e9dc594488844847d60f0ec705c6306367aafdef53240943e279c2ab9c8c03b2", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/97b3ed58759046687cd8fe3262a12ecc018f246f3b747667a4d0acb748e156db.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/97b3ed58759046687cd8fe3262a12ecc018f246f3b747667a4d0acb748e156db.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3173d97ab920a42fce661c91098167264d4ce825 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/97b3ed58759046687cd8fe3262a12ecc018f246f3b747667a4d0acb748e156db.md @@ -0,0 +1,1642 @@ +Case 9:09-cv-80802-KAM Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2009 Page 1 of 26 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintitt, +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 +THIRD PARTY WITNESS, IGOR ZINOVIEW'S, +MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND +INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW +Third Party Witness, Igor Zinoview's, ("Mr. Zinoview") by and through his +undersigned attorney, moves this Court pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) for a protective +order regarding his deposition and as grounds therefore would state: +As reflected on the affidavit of Igor Zinoview, attached as Exhibit A, he +works for Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein ("Mr. Epstein") as a driver and bodyguard. He did +not know Mr. Epstein before November of 2005. He first became employed by Mr. +Epstein in November of 2005. +2. +Additionally, Mr. Zinoview would testify as set forth on his affidavit, that +at no time has he discussed with Mr. Epstein any issues involving Mr. Epstein's criminal +case nor any of the cases or issues involved with civil plaintiffs. +1 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80802-KAM Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2009 Page 2 of 26 +3. +In many of the depositions, counsel for L.M. and E.W., has asked them as +witnesses to assume certain facts about which they have no knowledge, and he then asks +their opinions about certain facts. See Exhibit B -Epstein's Motion for Protective Order +to Prohibit Inappropriate Deposition Questions. +4. +There is no information which Mr. Zinoview has relating to the facts and +circumstances surrounding any of the pending civil cases, in that none of their allegations +directed to Mr. Epstein extend beyond September of 2005. Therefore whatever +information Mr. Zinoview may have, postdates that time. +5. +Regarding the scope of discovery, Judge Linnea +noted in her +October 28, 2009 Omnibus Order (DE #377), "[w]hile the scope of discovery is broad, it +is not without limits. Washington v. +& Williamson Tobacco, 959 F.2d 1566, +1570 (11th Cir. 1992)... Courts have long held that '[w]hile the standard of relevancy +[in discovery] is a liberal one, it is not so liberal as to allow a party to roam in the shadow +zones of relevancy and to explore matter (sic) which does not presently appear germane +on the theory that it might conceivably become so.' Food Lion, Inc. y. United Food & +Commercial Workers Intern. Union, 103 F.3d 1007, 1012-13 (C.A. D.C. 1997) (string +cite omitted)." +6. +Rule 26(c), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, provides that, "[a] party or +any person from whomn discovery is sought may move for a protective order in the court +where the action is pending.... The court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect +a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or +expense, including +one or more of the following: (A) forbidding the disclosure or +discovery;" +2 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80802-KAM Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2009 Page 3 of 26 +7. +As set forth in his affidavit, Mr. Zinoview cannot possibly have any +knowledge or information that is presently germane to this action. Accordingly, the +Court should enter a protective order prohibiting his deposition. +WHEREFORE, third-party witness moves this court for a protective order +pursuant to Rule 26(c), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that his deposition not take +place or the questioning be limited. +BACK ALAN GOLDBEROER ESO. +Florida Bar No. 262013 +jagesq@bellsouth.net +Rule 7.1 Certification +I hereby certify that counsel for the movant has conferred or attempted to confer +with opposing counsel in a good faith effort to resolve the discovery issues prior to the +filing of this motion for protective order but has been unable to do so. +Certificate of Service +I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed +vith the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document i +he manter spectay by Conf record iden November lowing Service List i +_ day of November, 2009 +Respectfully submitted, +By: +JACK ALAN GOLDBERGER ESQ. +Florida Bar No. 262013 +agesq@bellsouth.ne +terbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A +250 Australian Avenue South +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 +561-659-8300 +Fax: 561-835-8691 +(Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) +3 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80802-KAM Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2009 Page 4 of 26 +Certificate of Service +Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein +Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/ +Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. +Brad +Esq. +Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. +Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler +Mermelstein & 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 +bedwards@rra-law.com +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +08-80893 +Counsel for Plaintiffs +In related Cases Nos. 08-80069, 08-80119, Paul G. Cassell, Esq. +08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80993, +08-80994 +Pro Hac Vice +332 South 1400 E, Room 101 +Salt Lake City, UT 84112 +Richard Horace Willits, Esq. +801-585-5202 +Richard H. Willits, P.A. +801-585-6833 Fax +229010 Avenue North +cassellp@law.utah.edu +Suite 404 +Co-counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe +Lake Worth, FL 33461 +561-582-7600 +Isidro M. +1 Esq. +Fax: 561-588-8819 +Law Firm, P.A. +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. +224 Datura Street, Suite 900 +08-80811 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +reelrhw@hotmail.com +561-832-7732 +561-832-7137 F +Jack Scarola, Esq. +isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net +Jack P.| +, Esq. +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. +Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, 08-80469 +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 Flagler Street, Suite 800 +jsx@searcylaw.com +Miami, FL 33130 +jph@searcylaw.com +305 358-2800 +Counsel for Plaintiff, C.M.A. +Fax: 305 358-2382 +riosefsberg@podhurst.com +Bruce Reinhart, Esq. +kezell@podhurst.com +Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A. +Counsel for Plaintiffs in Related Cases +250 S. Australian Avenue +Nos. 09-80591 and 09-80656 +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +4 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80802-KAM Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2009 Page 5 of 26 +561-202-6360 +Fax: 561-828-0983 +ccf@brucereinhartlaw.com +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 +skuvin@leopoldkuvin.com +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. +08-08804 +Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 +561-659-8300 +Fax: 561-835-8691 +jagesq@bellsouth.net +Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein +5 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80802-KAM Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2009 Page 6 of 26 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA-d +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +V. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +Related Cases: +08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994, +08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, +09-80581, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092. +AFFIDAVIT OF IGOR ZINOVIEV +) SS +STATE OF FLORIDA +COUNTY OF PALM BEACH +BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, personally appeared Igor Zinoviev +having personal knowledge and being duly sworn, deposes and says: +1. +My name is Igor Zinoview. +2. +I began working for Mr. Epstein in November of 2005. +3. +I did not know him until I began working for him. +I have never discussed nor has he ever attempted to discuss with me any facts or +information relating to any legal matters in which he is involved. +I work for Mr. Epstein as his driver, bodyguard and trainer. +EXHIBIT_A + + +Case 9:09-cv-80802-KAM Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2009 Page 7 of 26 +Page 2 +FURTHER THE AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT. +gor 'novie +STATE OF FLORIDA +COUNTY OF PALM BEACH +I hereby Certify that on this day, before me, an officer duly authorized to administer +named person: Ijor Zinoview +WITNESS my hand and official seal in the County and State last aforesaid this +day of Ma. 9 +- 2009. +CL MAHONE +NOTARY +C: My Comm. Expires +May 28, 2010 +No. DD519867 +Sh 2 Make +NAME +NOTARY PUBLIC/STATE OF FLORIDA +COMMISSION NO.: +MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: +(SEAL) + + +Case 9:09-cv-80802-KAM Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2009 Page 8 of 26 +IN THE COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH +JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM +BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +CASE NO. 502008CA028051XXXXMB AB +L.M., +Plaintiff, +V. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER TO +PROHIBIT INAPPROPRIATE DEPOSITION QUESTIONS +Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN ("Epstein"), pursuant to Rule 1.280(c), Florida +Rules of Civil Procedure, moves for a protective order to prohibit argumentative, +harassing and inappropriate questions in depositions, and states: +At numerous depositions, Plaintiff's counsel has repeatedly asked +argumentative and harassing questions that are irrelevant and not reasonably +calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. +2. +In particular, Plaintiff's counsel has asked questions that improperly +sought to illicit lay opinions from fact witnesses, asked questions regarding witnesses' +feelings towards Mr. Epstein and their beliefs regarding media reports of this case, +asked whether they would leave their children with Mr. Epstein and asked whether they +would go back to work for Mr. Epstein assuming the media reports were accurate, +among other things. +These questions and the responses thereto will never be +admissible. They are argumentative, irrelevant and seek speculative answers and +inadmissible lay opinions. +EXHIBIT_B + + +Case 9:09-cv-80802-KAM Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2009 Page 9 of 26 +Epstein's Motion for Protective Order to Prohibit Inappropriate Deposition Questions + +3. +For example, in the deposition of Larry Visoski, one of Mr. Epstein's pilots, +Plaintiff's counsel asked the following questions seeking to obtain Mr. Visoski's beliefs +and opinions on Plaintiff's allegations: +Q. +All right. +When you read in the newspapers +allegations that Mr. Epstein was involved with +underage girls for sexual reasons, were you surprised? +the +numerous +A. I didn't believe it. +Q. Do you believe it today? +A. I don't believe it. +Q. You don't believe that Jeffrey Epstein was involved with +underage girls in a sexual way? +MR. CRITTON: Form. +THE WITNESS: You're asking for my opinion, and I don't +think my opinion is relevant in that matter. +BY MR. +Q. I think it's relevant. Can you just tell me whether today +you believe that Jeffrey Epstein has engaged in sex with +underage girls? +MR. CRITTON: Form; speculation, irrelevant, always. +THE WITNESS: It's irrelevant. +BY MR. +Q. I need an answer. +A. I don't believe he had sex with underage women. +Q. Or engaged in any sexual acts with underage women? +MR. CRITTON: Form. + + +Case 9:09-cv-80802-KAM Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2009 Page 10 of 26 +LM V. Epstein +Epstein's Motion for Protective Order to Prohibit Inappropriate Deposition Questions + +THE WITNESS: No. +BY MR. +Q. +You think that this is just a story that a bunch of +underage women have made up? +A. +Speculation. +** * * +Q. Then we'll handle the question this way: If you were to +believe based on information and evidence that Mr. Epstein +engaged in sex or some form of sex acts with people of the +age range of 12, 13, 14, 15 years old, would you continue +your employment with Mr. Epstein? +MR. CRITTON: Form; speculation. +THE WITNESS: +I would certainly be speculating +and I have to discuss it with my wife long and hard. I don't +think I could give you a correct and honest answer at this +time. +See Excerpts of Deposition of Larry Visokski at 66-67; 181-82 (attached as +composite Exhibit A). Other examples of similar improper questions are included in + +4. +Not only do these questions seek improper lay opinions, Plaintiff's counsel +asked Mr. Visoski his belief as to the truth of hearsay newspaper articles. The +foregoing questions are obviously irrelevant, argumentative and not reasonably +calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. +5. +Moreover, whether Mr. Visoski would continue working for Mr. Epstein if +Plaintiff's allegations are true has absolutely no relevance to any claim or defense in this +case. +The questions are simply improper and meant to harass and embarrass the + + +Case 9:09-cv-80802-KAM Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2009 Page 11 of 26 +Epstein's Motion for Protective Order to Prohibit Inappropriate Deposition Questions + +witness. +6. +Mr. Visoski was questioned for over four hours and much of the time was +wasted on irrelevant and harassing questions. +7. +Plaintiff's counsel asked similar questions at the deposition of Larry +Eugene +another one of Mr. Epstein's pilots: +Q. Certainly you've read certain newspaper articles about +the allegations, police reports, otherwise, the allegations that +occurred or have been alleged to have occurred at his Palm +Beach mansion, correct? +A. Uh-huh. +Q. Correct? +A. Correct. +Q. Given the nature of those allegations, would you leave +your daughter of 17, 16, 15 years old with Mr. Epstein +alone? +MR. PIKE: Form. Move to strike. +A. Yes. +**** +Q. And despite pleading guilty to procuring underage girls +for the purposes of sex, you still feel comfortable leaving a +13, 14, 15-year-old girl around him? +MR. PIKE: Form. Move to strike. +A. +Yes. I mean, with my daughter, yes. I don't know how +he behaves around anybody else. +I just know that the +respect that he showed me, I feel safe with my daughter. +And have you read in detail the reports as to what +happened at his house with the girls? + + +Case 9:09-cv-80802-KAM Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2009 Page 12 of 26 +I-M v. Epstein +Epstein's Motion for Protective Order to Prohibit Inappropriate Deposition Questions + +A. Only - +MR. PIKE: Form. +A. +- what's been in the newspapers and published. +Q. +if you read and hear testimony given - well, I can tell +you now - testimony has been given in this case that what +happens is: A 13 or 14 year old is led upstairs by herself, +told to get naked, he lays down on his back, there is a brief +massage +before he turns over, exposes himself erect, +masturbates while he tells this 13 or 14 year old to pinch his +nipples as hard as she can while he inserts his fingers into +their vagina and ejaculates all over them before saying, +"Take your money and leave." +MR. PIKE: Form. Move to strike. +BY MR. EDWARDS: +Q. Okay? Then, "You can continue to come back for $200 +every time or every girl you bring me within your age group +and | get to do this again, I pay you $200 per person." If that +is the testimony - +MR. PIKE: Form. +Q. - that what happens behind closed doors with him, do +you still feel comfortable leaving a 13 or 14 year old in a +room with Jeffrey Epstein? +MR. PIKE: Form. +A. +If that, in fact, is what actually happened, no. +**** +Q. [Would you] go back - considering what you've read and +hat you may or may not believe - would you go back +orking for Jeffrey Epstein +MR. PIKE: Form. +A. I can't say. I still work for him on a maintenance - to + + +Case 9:09-cv-80802-KAM Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2009 Page 13 of 26 +_M v. Epstein +Epstein's Motion for Protective Order to Prohibit Inappropriate Deposition Questions + +maintain the airplanes and stuff like that, so. +See Excerpts of Deposition of Larry Eugene +(attached as composite Exhibit B). +at 135-36; 175-76; 184 +8. +Again, whether Mr. +I would work for Mr. Epstein "considering what +[he has] read and what [he] may or may not believe" (i.e. considering hearsay media +accounts and inadmissible lay opinion) has no bearing on the instant case. +would leave his +9. In addition, questions regarding whether Mr. +children alone with Mr. Epstein could have only been meant to harass and embarrass +I testified that he would leave his children with +Mr. +Nevertheless, Mr. +Mr. Epstein. As Plaintiff's counsel was obviously not happy with the answer to this +question, he proceeded to press Mr. +I with inflammatory statements until he got +the answer he wanted. +10. +Plaintiff's counsel has also asked the same improper line of questions in +other witnesses' depositions. +11. +The above-cited questions exceed the bounds of permissible discovery; +they have absolutely no relevance to this case. Accordingly, the Court should enter a +protective order prohibiting such questions and should sanction Plaintiff's counsel if +such inappropriate questions are asked at future depositions. +12. +Regarding the scope of discovery, Judge Linnea +noted in her +October 28, 2009 Omnibus Order,' "while the scope of discovery is broad, it is not +The Omnibus Order (DE #377) was entered in the federal companion case Jane Doe No. 2 V. Epstein +Case No. 0B-CIV-80119 MARRA/| +I in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida + + +Case 9:09-cv-80802-KAM Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2009 Page 14 of 26 +Epstein's Motion for Protective Order to Prohibit Inappropriate Deposition Questions + +without limits. Washington v. +& Williamson Tobacco, 959 F.2d 1566, 1570 (11th +Cir. 1992). ... Courts have long held that "while the standard of relevancy [in +discovery] is a liberal one, it is not so liberal as to allow a party to roam in the shadow +zones of relevancy and to explore matter (sic) which does not presently appear +germane on the theory that it might conceivably become so.' Food Lion, Inc. V. United +Food & Commercial Workers Intern. Union, 103 F.3d 1007, 1012-13 (C.A. D.C. 1997) +(string cite omitted)." See also Capco Properties, LLC v. Monterry Gardens of Pinecrest +Condo., 982 So. 2d 1211, (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (holding that discovery in civil cases must +be relevant to the subject matter of the case and must be admissible or reasonably +calculated to lead to admissible evidence); Morton Plant Hospital Ass'n, Inc. v. +Shahbas, 960 So. 2d 820, 824 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (holding that "discovery should be +denied when it has been established that the information requested is neither relevant +to any pending claim or defense nor will it lead to the discovery of admissible evidence," +citing Tanchel v. Shoemaker, 928 So. 2d 440, 442 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)). +13. As illustrated above, the questions are simply not germane to any pending +claim or defense nor will they lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Whether +Mr. Visoski believes or disbelieves the media accounts of this case, or whether Mr. +would leave his children with Mr. Epstein is not relevant and cannot +conceivably lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. +14. +The Court should curtail these inappropriate lines of questions and enter a +protective order prohibiting them. +15. Rule 1.280(c), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, provides the Court with + + +Case 9:09-cv-80802-KAM Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2009 Page 15 of 26 +Epstein's Motion for Protective Order to Prohibit Inappropriate Deposition Questions + +the power to "make any order to protect a party or person from annoyance, +embarrassment, oppression or undue burden or expense that justice requires including +... (4) that certain matter not be inquired into, or that the scope of the discovery be +limited to certain matters." +16. +Accordingly, Epstein requests the Court enter a protective order +prohibiting Plaintiff's counsel from asking witnesses' questions regarding opinions and +beliefs regarding media articles and the allegations in this case and whether they would +leave their children with Epstein or questions of a similar nature, and limiting the scope +to the witnesses personal knowledge regarding matters relevant to the claims and +defenses in this case. See Shahbas, 960 So. 2d at 824. +WHEREFORE, Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, respectfully requests the Court +enter a protective order prohibiting Plaintiff's counsel from asking witnesses' questions +regarding opinions and beliefs regarding media articles and the allegations in this case +and whether they would leave their children with Epstein or questions of a similar +nature, and limiting the scope to the witnesses personal knowledge regarding matters +relevant to the claims and defenses in this case and grant any additional relief the Court +deems just and proper. +Certificate of Service +I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was sent by fax and U.S. +Mail to the following addressees on this 3rd day of November, 2009: +Brad +Esq. +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler +Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +401 East Las Olas Boulevard +250 Australian Avenue South +Suite 1650 +Suite 1400 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80802-KAM Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2009 Page 16 of 26 +Epstein's Motion for Protective Order to Prohibit Inappropriate Deposition Questions + +Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 +954-522-3456 Phone +954-527-8663 Fax +Counsel for Plaintiff +West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 +Fax: 561-835-8691 +Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein +Jay Howell, Esq. +Jay Howell & Associates, P.A. +644 Cesery Boulevard +Suite 250 +Jacksonville, FL 32211 +904-680-1234 Phone +904-680-1238 Fax +Co-counsel for Plaintiff +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN, LLP +303 Banyan Blvd., Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +(561) 842-2820 +(561) 844-6929 Fax +By: — +12497 +Robert B. Critton, Jr. +Ar Florida Bar #224162 +Michael J. Pike +Florida Bar #617296 +(Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) + + +Case 9:09-cv-80802-KAM Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2009 Page 17 of 26 +IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT +IN AND FOR PALM DEACH COUNTY, PLORIDA +CASE NO. 502008CA028051XXXXHAD +L, H., +Plaintitt, +-v's- +JEVEREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +DEPOSTTION OF TARRY VISDERI +Thursda le -1091 +1 p.8. 2003 +315 N. Plagler Drive +Suite 7200 +lest Palm Beach, Florida 33401 +leported By +Notary Public, +Esquire Deposition Services +West Palm Beach Office +Job #127542 +6 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +2 +RONSIEN +L ESQUIR +IN, ROSENFELDT, ADL +401 East Las Olas Boulevard +Suile 1660 +Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33394 +On behalf of the Defendant: +ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQUIRE +BURMAN, CRITTON & LUTTIER +303 Banyan Boulevard, Suile 400 +West Pain Beach, Florida 39401 +250 South Australlan Avenue +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 +ALSO PRESENTiN ESQUIRE +CARA L. +1220 N.W. 157th Avenue +Pembroke Pines, Florida 33028 +ADAM D. HOROWITZ, ESQUIRE +MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P.A. +18205 Biscayne Boulevard, Sulle 2218 +Miami, Florida 33160 +ICHARD H. WILLITS, ESQUIRE (VIA TELEPHON +ICHARD H. WILLITS, P. +2290 10th Avenue North, Suite 404 +Lake Worth, Florida 33461 +3 +4 +5 +6 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +1 +3 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +| 17 +118 +/19 +120 +121 +- 22 +23 +124 +25 +ALL STATE LEGALS +DEFENDANT'S + +3 +INDEX +• .. +WITNESS: +LARRY VISOSKI +BYMR. +BY MR. CRITTON: +BY MR. +BY MR, CRITTON: +DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS +214 +220 +221 +EXHIBITS +NUMBER +DESCRIPTION +PAGE +PLAINTIFF'S EX. 1 FLIGHT LOG BOOK +(MARKED IN PREVIOUS DEPO) +PLAINTIFF'S EX. 2 +MEBBAGE PAD +PLAINTIFF'S EX. 3 +MESSAGE PAD +PLAINTIFF'S EX. 4 +COMPLAINT +119 +119 +139 +PLAINTIFF'S EX. 5 INMATE VISITOR LOG +161 +4 +PROCEEDINGS +Deposition taken before. Wendy Beath +Certified Reallime Reporter and Notary Public in and for +the State of Florida al Large, in the above cause. +MR. +I We're going to put something on +the record about - well, we'll do it this way - +MR. REINHART: Do it at the end, after we get +him - whatever you want. It's your show. +MR. +: Okay. There were - | don't +even think Mr. Willits is aware of this. There was +a subpoena duces fecum for this witness, as well as +the previous witness, which was another pilot, Dave +Rogers, and that duces fecum was to bring the +flight logs related from 1998 through 2005. What +was produced at the previous deposition were flight +logs from 2002 through 2005, and now Mr. Reinhart +has agreed to produce the remainder of the flight +logs requested, those going from 1998 through 2002. +MR. REINHART: Correct. They're pilot logs, +not flight logs. There are other records we +Indicated are corporate records, and with those you +have to deal with Mr. Critton. +MR. CRITTON: However, with the proviso, too + + +Case 9:09-cv-80802-KAM Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2009 Page 18 of 26 +1 +2 +3 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +66 +Q. All right. When you read in the newspapers +the allegations that Mr. Epstein was involved with +numerous underage giris for sexual reasons, were you +surprised? +A. I didn't believe it. +Q. Do you believe it today? +A. I don't belleve it. +Q. You don't believe that Jeffrey Epstein was +involved with underage girls in a sexual way? +MR. CRITTON: Form. +THE WITNESS: You're asking for my opinion, +and I don't think my opinion is relevant in that +matter. +BY MR. +Q. I think it's relevant. Can you just tell me +whether today you belleve that Jeffrey Epstein has +engaged in sex with underage girls? +MR. CRITTON: Form; speculation, irrelevant, +always. +THE WITNESS: It's irrelevant. +BY MR. +Q. I need an answer. +A. I don'i believe he had sex with underage +women. +Q. Or engaged in any sexual acts with underage +67 +women? +MR. CRITTON: Form. +THE WITNESS: No. +BY MR +Q. You think that this Is Just a story that a +bunch of underage women have made up? +? +A Speculation. +,8 +MR. CRITTON: Objection. Now it's +9 +argumentative. Who gives a darn what he thinks one +10 +way or angther? If he has personal knowledge - +11 +MR +3: You're objecting to the form? +12 +MR. CRITTON: It's argumentative. +13 +14 +MR. +5: You're objecting to the form? +MR. CRITTON: Yes. +'15 +MR +8: Okay. +'16 +BY MR. +17 +Q. Is that something that you believe that a +18 +bunch of women - some of which know each other, some +19% don't, some of which have been on the airplane and some +20 +which haven" - made this up, that Jeffrey Epstein +21 +engaged in some sexual conduct with them? +22 +MR, CRITTON: Form. +23 +THE WITNESS: What I believe doesn't matter in +24 +this case, does it? +25 +68 +1 BY MR. +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +฿ +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Q. I need an answer. Do you believe it? Do you +belleve these girls made this up? +MR. CRITTON: Form. +MR. REINHART: I'm going to instruct him not +to answer. Move on. +MR. +: is there a privilege that we're +asserting? +MR. REINHART: No, It's irrelevant. It's +harassment and not likely to lead to discoverable +evidence +MR +: I'm going to put on the record +right now that it is - we are allowed discovery +into a RICO count. We are also allowed discovery +Into the intent of Mr. Epsten in developing a +criminal enterprise designed to sexually exploit +and sexually abuse underage girls. We belleve that +in doing so, he associated intentionally with +people of similar belief's that sex with underage +girls is okay, and that there have been many +discussions with this witness, as weli as many +other witnesses with -- to insure his protection +from law enforcement that they not answer these +specific questions. And thus, the opinions and +bellefs of all of these witnesses that we are + + +Case 9:09-cv-80802-KAM Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2009 Page 19 of 26 +2 +5 +6 +7 +B +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +5 +6 +7 +8 +69 +alleging associated with this criminal enterprise +are certalnly reasonably calculated to lead to the +discovery of admissible evidence. And if you're +still instructing the witness, based on that +proffer, not to answer any of these questions, I'm +going to continue to ask the questions and you can +instruct him not to answer and we can go to the +71 +A. It's an opinion, and 1 believe that he has +2 +3 +4 +5 +not. +Q. Okay. Isn't it true that at some point in +lime you leamed that Jeffrey Epstein has - strike +that. +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +MR. REINHART: My response is to his opinion +whether people making allagations in this case are +colluding or making up a story is irrelevant to +what you just said. So l am going to instruet him +not to answer any question that goes to his opinion +of someone else's motivation or the truth of facts +to which he has no knowledge. +So yes, I'm instructing him not to answer, +MR. CRITTON: Let me add in my pari, is that I +think - you're certainly not only capable to ask +questions with regard to what his personal +knowledge is, and if he knows something or he has +reasonable basis for it; certainly you are entitled +to that information. I think you've asked those +questions and he's given you straightforward +answers as to what he knew or what he didn't know +under those circumstances. And as to what his +70 +thoughts are on something which he has no factual +basis or even an assumption to know one way or +anolher is irrelevant. That's ultimately for a +fact-finder in this case. +While it's interesting, it's argumentative and +I don't think he's -- I mean, do it on a +question-by-question basis, If he has knowledge, +that's great, but to argue your case with this +witness or any olher witness doesn't serve a +purpose and | think is, you know - I think it's +not a good use of our time, I'll put it that way. +But you know, you can go ahead and ask. +MR. +* I can ask the question and if +the witness is being instructed not lo answer, +we'll let a judge decide whether he needs lo answer +the question and whether it's discoverable or not. +MR. REINHART: Absolutely. Make your record. +BY MR. | +Q. Do you have any reason to believe that Jeffrey +Epstein engaged in sexual activity with underage women? +A. I have no reason lo believe. +Q. +Okay. So as you sit here today, based on your +18 years of knowledge, experience and observation of +Jeffrey Epstein, is it your belief that he has not had +sex or engaged in sexual activity with underage women? +MR. CRITTON: When you ullimately get to a +7 +good place to break, will you let us know? +8 +MR. +Let's break now. +9 +(A break was had at 11:28 a.m.) +10 +BY MR. +11 +Q. All right. Eighteen years of being a pilot +12 +for Jeffrey Epstein and in terms of being able to name +13 +somebody that you would say you've observed with Jeffrey +14 +Epstein and would classify that person as Jeffrey +15 +Epstein's friend, can you name anybody? +16 +A Nadia, Sarah; just people that we see +17 +routinely on the airplane. +18 +Q. That's people you see routinely in the last +/19 +five to ten years, right? +120 +A. Yes. +21 +Q. Prior to that time, anybody that you've +22 +noliced as Jeffrey Epstein's friend may be Chislaine +23 +Maxwell? +24 +A What time frame? +25 +Q. Is that a person that at some point in time +72 +1 you would classify as Jeffrey Epstein's friend? +A. I would classify it. I don't know If it's +3 +true. +Q. But thal's only because they were on the +5 +6 +airplane together? +A. Yes. +Q. Do you know what Jeffrey Epstein does for a +ving in your 18 years of observing and talking with +Jeffrey Epstein? +10 +A No. +11 +Q. No Idea? +| 12 +A. No. +/13 +14 +Q. Ever asked him? +A. No, actually. +15 +Q. Ever been curious? +16 +A. Sure. +17 +Q. Everdone anything to satisfy that curiosity? +18 +A. If you mean Google it, not really, actually. +119 +I mean, I really have not. +20 +Q. Okay. So in 18 years of traveling and being +21 +the pilot and driving - and taking this person, Jeffrey +22 +Epsteln, from one property in New York to New Mexico and +23 +Florida and around the world, you have no idea what he +24 +does in terms of how he makes money? +25 +A No, sir. + + +Case 9:09-cv-80802-KAM Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2009 Page 20 of 26 +156 +1 +MIR. CRITTON: Form. +THE WITNESS: No. +BY MR. +Q. If you had been aware that Mr. Epstein was - +• B +and by this - this is more in the form of a +9 +hypothetical, and that I'm not going.to suggest to you +10 +It's a fact that he was. But if you had been aware that +11 +every single day Jeffrey Epstein's goal was to locate +12 underage girls for the purposes of sex, and either have +13 +sex with them on the alrplane of at some other +14 +designation that you were destination that you were +15 +traveling him to, would you have continued to pliot +16 +those planes? +MR. CRITTON: Form. +THE WITNESS: You said it was hypothetical? +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +13 +14 +15 +BY MR. +Q. Right, if is a hypothetical. +A. Why would I want to answer that? Because +you're being hypothetical. I mean, it would obviously +be wrong +Q. Sure, Well, a hypothetical question is a +legal question that I'm allowed to ask. +i + + +Case 9:09-CV-80802-KAM Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2009 Page 21 of 26 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +1 +2 +157 +A. Okay. +Q. And I'm just asking you if you did have +knowledge that Jefirey Epslein was having sex with +little girls either on the plane or at a piace that you +were taking him to or from on a daily basis, that's what +he did, would you have continued to be his pilol? +MR. CRITTON: Lel me object. Object to the +form, It's argumentative. It has no more value +than assuming he was chopping up bodies or anybody +was chopping up bodies in the plane you're fying. +What difference does it make? Form. +MR. +What difference does it make in +a case about him having sex with little girls? I'm +not going to argue with you about it. You've +stated your objection. +MR. CRITTON: Exactly, Il's an argumentative +question. +MR. +I'm not going lo argue with you +about it. +MR. CRITTON: Youre arguing with him about +now. +MR. +No, I'm asking him the +hypothetical. +BY MR. +158 +7 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +girls? +MR. CRITTON: Form. +THE WITNESS: It could be any person. It +doesn't have to be Jeffrey Epstein, then, right? +BY MR. [ +Q. True. +A. No, I wouldn't pilot an airplane if there was +wrongdoing going on. +Q. That you knew about? +A. That! knew you about, sure. +first time you've heard these allegations -- +A. Yes. +Q. +- against Mr. Epstein? +A +Yes. + + +Case 9:09-cv-80802-KAM Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2009 Page 22 of 26 +2 +4 +5 +6 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +7 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +181 +which he pled guilty to - +MR. CRITTON: Form. +MR. REINHART: Can we - for purposes of your +hypothetical, what facts do you want him to assume +are true? You said the facts to which he pled +guilty, but the witness already said he doesn't +know what he pled guilty to. He knows the charge +he doesn't know the facts. +BY MR. +Q. Solicitation of prostitution of a minor, +somebody under the age of 18. +MR. +That's the charge, right, +solicitation of prostitution of a minor? +MR. CRITTON: No. I think you've got it +wrong. I'l object to the form. +MR. +BY MR. +Q. Then we'll handle the question this way: If +you were to believe based on information and evidence +that Mr. Epslein engaged in sex or some form of sex act +with people of the age range of 12, 13, 14, 15 years +old, would you continue your employment with +Mr. Epstein? +MR. CRITTON: Form; speculation. +THE WITNESS: 1 would certainly be speculating +182• +and 1 have to discuss it with my wife long and • +hard. I don't think I could give you a correct and +honest answer at this time. +BY MR. +Q. Okay. Given the allegations that have been +made in this case, is this something that you have +discussed with anyone other than your attorney? +A. No, not really. Only from the fact that +theyre allegations and there's still a lot more work, +I'm sure, to be discovered +MR. CRITTON: Let me put on there, for the - +If this deposition Is not typed - and we request +it - I'd like at least this portion where +Mr. +last question back about five pages +worth, so just if you could mark it from this +page back about five pages. +If nobody requests the deposition, Id just +like those five pages. +: I'm going to request the +deposition, so... +MR. CRITTON: Okay. Well mark this then, so +you could tell me where it is, approximalely. +BY MR. MAM +2. Is there a reason why you have not discusse +vith Jeffrey Epstein the allegations that have been : + + +Case 9:09-cv-80802-KAM Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2009 Page 23 of 26 +Larry Eugene +- Volume I +1 +IN THE CIND FOR PALM BERCE GOTH HEAL AACUTE IN +VOLNE I +Pages 1 to 200 +Plaintitt, +V8. +JEPFREY EPSTEIN, +Case No. 50200BCA028051 +і ХХХхНа л +Defendant. +LARRY EUGENE +DEPOSITE PEA +TAKEN ON DEHALT OF THE PLAINTIFT +October 6, 2009 +10:55 a.m. - 2:20 p.m. +Weat Bai: Ph tE 95401-9322 +Jennifer Dilorenzo, court reporter +4 +5 +10 +111 +12 +13 +114 +15 +16 +117 +23 +25 +October 6, 2009 +3 +APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL +On behalf of the Defendant +ATTERBURY, GOLDBERGER & WEISS +BY: JACK ALAN GOLDBERGER, ESQ., +250 Australan Avenue +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561-659-8300 +igoldbergen@agwpa.com +On behalf of the Defendant by telephone: +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTER & COLEMAN +BY: MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ., +515 N. Flagler Drivo +Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561-842-2820 +mpike@bolelaw.com +On behalf of the witness: +LAW OFFICE OF BRUCE E. REINHART +BY: BRUCE E. REINHART, ESQ., +One Clearlake Center +250 8, Australian Avenue +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561-202-6380 +BReinhart@BruceREinhartLaw.com +4 +/12 +== +15 +16 +17 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +2 +APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL +On behalf of the Plainly LM.: +SENEELDE & ADLER +and MICHAEL WI +WatER La. +ESQ. +401 Easl Las Olas Boulevard +Sulle 1550 +Fert Louderdalo, FL 33394 +954-522-3455 +bechwards@rra-iaw.com +mahesler@ra-law.com +On bahalf of Plainlits Jane Doe 2 through 0; +ME JESSICAD, ANOUR AT PANEYAT-LAW, +18205 Biscayne Soulevard +Sulle 2218 +Maml, FL 33100 +305-931-2200 +jarbour@soxabusesliornay.com +near lanet an on 101 an 10207 +CHURST ORSECK, P +KATHERINE W. EZELL, ATTORNEY-AT-L +25 W. Flaglor Street +Miami, FL 33130 +305-355-2000 +kozelk@podhurst.com +On behalf of Uhe Plainilf C.M.A, by lelephone: +LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD WILLITS, P.A. +BY: RICHARD WAITS, E5G., +2290 100 Avenue N. +Sule 404 +Lako Worth, FL 33461 +561-562-7500 +luwyarwifts@aol.com +4 +INDEX OF EXAMINATION +WITNESS: +LARRY EUGENE +Page +DIRECT EXAMINATION +By Mr. +$5 +CROSS-EXAMINATION +By Ms. Ezi +• CROSS-EXAMINATIO +By Mr. Willits +·190 +#195 +10 +CROSS-EXAMINATION +12 +By Mr. Pike +FURTHER PIRECT EXAMINA +#199 +15 +INDEX TO EXHIBITS +Passenger Manifest.* +22 +125 +I DEFENDANT'S +EXHIBIT. +TTU + + +Case 9:09-cv-80802-KAM Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2009 Page 24 of 26 +October 6, 2009 +135 +1 +A I have no Idea. I don't know. +Q. When you say tha +was just +3 +coming in the picture, what's your understanding as to +who +a is relative 1o Mr. Epsteln? +5 +A I don't know. I don't understand. I +don't know. I didn' know if maybe she was like an +exchange - Jeffrey always appeared to be very +8 +involved in education and philanthropy. I didn't +know if she was an exchange-type student or something +10 +or what. I don't know. +11 +Q. When you say he appeared to be Involved in," +12 +what do you mean? +13 +A. Educational things, foundations, science +11 +foundations, and things. +15 +Q. Speaking of - the Flonda Science Foundation +16 +Is a place where, when he was on work release, he spent a +17 +lot of time there, you're aware of thal? +1B +A That's what /ve heard, yeah. +18% +Q. What does that place do? +20 +21 +A I have no idea. +Q. Does it do anything? +22 +A I dont know. I don't know anything about +23 +24 +25 +Q. Cartainly you've read certain newspaper +articles about the allegations, police reports, +136 +1 +: +2 +otherwise, the allegations that ocurred or have been +alleged to have occurred at his Palm Beach mansion, +3 correct? +4 +A. Uh-huh. +5 +Q. Correct? +6 +A. Correct. +7 +Q. Given the nature of those allegations, would +you leave your daughter of 17,16,15 years old with Mr. +9 +Epstein alone? +,10 +11 +MR. PIKE: Form. Move to strike. +12 +A. Yes. +Q. You would? +13 +14 +A. (Witness nods head.) +15 +Q. And why? +16 +A. Because I don" fear that he would try +17 +anything with my daughter. He showed - When +worked for him he showed me respect. He never - +• 18 +never - He never showed me disrespect. He would ask +19 +how the family is. 1 mean, not on a personal level, +20 +but an employer/employee. +21 +Q. Right. Okay. +22 +A. He never showed me any reason not to trust +23 +him. +24 +Q. But you're not a 13-year old girl, so. +25 A. No, but, like I say, he never showed me + + +Case 9:09-cv-80802-KAM Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2009 Page 25 of 26 +october 6, 2009 +175 +3 +4 +Q. And despite pleading guilty to procuring +underage girls for the purposes of sex, you still feel +comfortable leaving a 13, 14, 15-year-old girl around +him? +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +1 14 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +MR. PIKE: Form. Move to sirike. +A. Yes. I mean, with my daughter, yes. I +don't know how he behaves around anybody else. ! +just know that the respect that he showed me, I feel +safe with my daughter. +Q. And have you read in detail the reports as to +what happened at his house with the glris? +A. Only - +MR. PIKE: Form. +A. - what's been in the newspapers and +Q. If you read and hear testimony given - well, I +can tell you now - lestimony has been given in this case +that what happens is: A 13 or 14 year old is led +upstairs by herself, told to get naked, he lays down on +his back, there is a brief massage before he turns over, +exposes himself erect, masturbates while he tells this 13 +or 14 year old to pinch his nipples as hard as she can +while he Inserts his fingers into their vagina and +ejaculates all over them before saying, "Take your money +176 +MR. PIKE: Form. Move to strike. +1 +2 BY MR. +3 +Q. Okay? Then, "You can continue to come back +4 +for $200 every time or every girl you bring me within +5 +your age group and 1 get to do this again, I pay you $200 +per person." If that is the testimony - +MR. PIKE: Form. +Q. - that what happens behind closed doors with +him, do you still feel comfortable leaving a 13 or 14 +10 +year old in a room with Jeffrey Epstein? +11 +MR. PIKE: Form. +12 +A. If that, in fact, is what actuaily +13 happened, no. + + +Case 9:09-cv-80802-KAM Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2009 Page 26 of 26 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +7 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +15 +16 +17 +10 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +184 +you witnessed Jeffrey Epstein committing? +A. No. +Q. Would you - +A. No. +Q. - go back - considering what you've read and +what you may or may not believe - would you go back to +working for Jeffrey Epstein? +MR. PIKE: Form. +A. I can't say. I still work for him on a +maintenance - fo maintain the airplanes and stuff +ike that, so. +Q. You're on his payroll? +A. Salaried, yes. +Q. Do you know who else Is on hls payroll? +A. Well, Dave and Larry. +Q. Cerfainly, ifI want to know more about his +private life - do you know who's at his house? +A. No. +Q. Do you know who his housekeeper Is? +A. No. +Q. Do you know who his architect is? +A. No, no. +Q. Does Larry visit him at his house? +A. I would assume so. +Q. Why do you say you would assume so? That \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/97b3ed58759046687cd8fe3262a12ecc018f246f3b747667a4d0acb748e156db.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/97b3ed58759046687cd8fe3262a12ecc018f246f3b747667a4d0acb748e156db.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a5f953d6532bc1a7331a134188b25bec37d1ba89 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/97b3ed58759046687cd8fe3262a12ecc018f246f3b747667a4d0acb748e156db.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -851, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "97b3ed58759046687cd8fe3262a12ecc018f246f3b747667a4d0acb748e156db", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 37, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "1e9eac8c08ac19c5b38066327c8eba1301a55b6c5371112492a798a52632f7af", + "output_sha256": "d8d3713a73706bac386644563a5ad2b877980080050e60e7ad6c88dca65498ee", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/97b74fcf2d130ecc64173ea5983e62bfd013da303a844b6fe6bd41bf556de2fc.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/97b74fcf2d130ecc64173ea5983e62bfd013da303a844b6fe6bd41bf556de2fc.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..074e2940542d2e4cf3c7e81772154e701373557c --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/97b74fcf2d130ecc64173ea5983e62bfd013da303a844b6fe6bd41bf556de2fc.md @@ -0,0 +1,18 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 7-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2008 Page 1 of 1 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +DEFAULT +It appearing that the Defendant Jeffrey Epstein is in Default for failure to plead or otherwise +defend as required by law, Default is hereby entered as against the said Defendant this +day of +May, 2008. +CLERK OF COURT +HERMAN & MERMELSTEIN, P. A. +www.hermanlaw.com +- 1- diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/97b74fcf2d130ecc64173ea5983e62bfd013da303a844b6fe6bd41bf556de2fc.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/97b74fcf2d130ecc64173ea5983e62bfd013da303a844b6fe6bd41bf556de2fc.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8201739a062bdfbcdff2e1c7b777005b3d0126c6 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/97b74fcf2d130ecc64173ea5983e62bfd013da303a844b6fe6bd41bf556de2fc.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "97b74fcf2d130ecc64173ea5983e62bfd013da303a844b6fe6bd41bf556de2fc", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "013d364cf383f92cdf1aca3aa791a99681078a14032c37b6edbbf4afbc64433f", + "output_sha256": "78c5882b45be26ff364f869c29c8e22306a8c6cf84732805f649b61c54694b38", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/97b95aa3e1eaf8a956aad3abc26027ecfa27fda16f95b8864eb139c4a1179154.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/97b95aa3e1eaf8a956aad3abc26027ecfa27fda16f95b8864eb139c4a1179154.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4b06fb8c4f248dc555ec2dad029b7d41453ddb27 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/97b95aa3e1eaf8a956aad3abc26027ecfa27fda16f95b8864eb139c4a1179154.md @@ -0,0 +1,301 @@ +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 16-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2008 Page 1 of 4 + + + +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 16-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2008 Page 2.of 4 +CASE +150 : +5020060FD09454AXXX. ET CF TE, V$. +JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN +241 +Chazges +SE CONNET PROBTITUNDO +ARTEST 9 +2006g341 +3730708.60 +13006 +W/WO Def. Co. + +13. 3, 200.09 +Cit. Rep. +DATES +ASA +Deft---Pres Not Pres.: +GotT +22901 +Esq./ PD. +Pres / Not Pres, +Before the Court for +• Denied • With / Without Prejudice +• Withdrawn +• Court Reserves Ruling +• Written Order to Follow +O Ordered +• Recalled +• See Below +•Also Covers. Sp Cond +• Bond Forf +DOR: Disch/Revoked/Reinstated +[Bond: Disch/Reveker" +OSOR: Disch/Revoked/Reinstated +• Bond Forf Vacated +• Previous Bond Reinstated, if Bondsman agrées +• State failed to file charges • - Released O.R. / S.O.R. +• Deft _ Indigent +• PD Appt +• Hig only +. PD Pres +• Court Appts +Evaluation for: +• Drug Farm +• DOC Non-Secure Bed by +• PSI ordered by/within +w/input from DIJ / Staffing +Referred to: PTI / SAAP /PADD +• Case placed on the absentee docket +DEFT ENTERED A PLEA OF: +• NOT GUILTY +$ GUILTY +• NO CONTEST O BEST INTEREST. O TO THE COURT +As Charged-Cts +Lesser Charge +a Ady of Rts +& Waived PSI +Lesser Cts +Lesser Charge +ADJ GUILTY as Charged as to Cts. +FOUND GUILTY as Charged as to Cts +ADJ W/HELD as to Cts +• SENT W/HELD as to Cts +FOUND AND ADJUDICATED DELINQUENT as to Cts +•Dispo Onderto follow /Filed +FOUND & ADJ NOT GUILTY as to Cts +• Dismiss +• Revoked +• Reinstat +• Modified +SENTENCE: (PiC) abill: 775.084 +Successfully / Unsuccessfully +Sexua Offent Sexual Predator +• Stip/Found: P.R.R. +SENTENCE: +lays /-Mes:+YTS. +A Deft Remanded C Deft to remain on same rel. status pending seat. +'onc / Consec / Co-Term w/cases +• Execution of Sentence Stayed +• Sentence Suspended • Time served as to Cts +• Youthful Off • Habitual Off. • Min/ Mand: +- as to Cts +• ABOVE SENTENCE TO BE FOLLOWED By: O Probation +• Drug / Sex Off Prob • Comm, Control' • I. • II - See Pg. 2 +DRIVERS LICENSE TO BE SUSPENDED / REVOKED FOR +YEARS AS A RESULT OF THIS PLEA. +DUA SWAB +Set / Remains Set / Reset +Div. +Rm +at - +AM/PM +Set / Remains Set / Reset: +Div.. +Rm. +at +AM/PM +• Deft sign +• Def Co +• ASA — +• Bondsman +• Prob +• Jail +• DIJ O GAL +Notified by mail by:- +- оП +• County Courthouse +Courtroom, Criminal Justice Bldg- +Courtroom, Criminal Justice Complex +205 N. Dixie, West Palm Beach +38844 State Road 80, Belle Glade +3228 Gun Club Rd., West Palm Beach +IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF +CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT MARY JAFFE, ADA COORDINATOR IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURT, PALM BEACH COUNTY COURTHOUSE, 205 N. DIE HWY, RM 5.2500, +WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33401; TELEPHONE (561) 355-4380, WITHIN 2 WORKING DAYS OF YOUR RECEIPT OF THIS NOTICE. IF YOU ARE HEARING OR VOICE IMPAIRED, CALL 1-800-955-8771. +Form 611 EDP Rey 12/06 + + +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 16-1. Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2008 Page 3 of 4 +Case No.: +2008CP009381AXX +Charges: +PROCURE PERSON +UNDER +ST of FL vs. +EGB OF +18 FOR PROSTITOTION +JEPFREY SPOTEIN +(ARISZS PROM +2006CP0094542XX) +Arrest#• +Bond# +Type +\A/C +Date +Judge +ASA +-Defi... Pres/ Not Pres. +A $2.66 +Crt. Rep. +Int +Esq (PD-i-Pres/ Not Pres. +Before the Court for: +• Granted +• Denied With / Without Prejudice +O Withdrawn +• Court Reserves Ruling +• Written Order to Follow +• Warrant +• Ordered +• Recalled +• Bond Set at $ +D. See Below +• Also Covers O Sp Cond +D. Bond Forf +OOR: Disch / Revoked / Reinstated +• Bond: Disch / Revoked +• SOR: Disch / Revoked / Reinstated +O Bond Forf Vacated • Previous Bond Reinstated, if Bondsman agrees. 7 State failed to file charges • O Released O.R. /S.O.R. +• Deft _ Indigent O PD Appt +• Hrg only PD Pres +• Court Appts +Evaluation for: O Drug Farm +• DOC Non-Secure Bed by +• Pre-Plea +O PSI ordered by/within +days. +• w/input from DJJ / Staffing +• Referred to: PTI / SAAP/PADD l +• Case placed on the absentee docket +DEFT ENTERED A PLEA QF: +O NOT GUILTY. 'GUILTY O NO CONTEST CJ BEST INTEREST O TO THE COURT +As Charged-Cts +Lesser Cts +| Sw & Test JJ Adr of Ris +T. Lesser Charge +C Waived PSI +Lesser Cts +- Lésser Charge +Q ADI GUILTY as Charged as to Cts . +Lesser Cts +• FOUND GUILTY as Charged as to Cts +Lesser Cts +• ADJ W/HELD as to Cts +• SENT W/HELD as to Cts +O FOUND AND ADJUDICATED DELINQUENT as to Cts : +• Dispo Order to follow / Filed +• FOUND & ADJ NOT GUILTY as to Cts +• Dismiss : • Nolle Prosse Cts +Prob / Comm Control: +.• Reinstated +• Modified. +• Term: Successfully / Unsuccessfully. * +• Deft. to pay fine or complete +hrs. Community Service or Serve +• Stip/Found: (violent) Habitua] Off. 775.084 +• Stip/Found: Sexual Offender / Sexual Predator +• Stip/Found: P.R.R: +PBCJ21C2 +W/Credit for +Days / Mos. / Yrs. +Conc /Consecy Co-Term w/cases Yets. 1221:1. +granded: • Deft to remain on same rel: status pending sent. +• Execution of Sentence Stayed +• Sentence Suspended • Time served as to Cts +• Youthful Off • Habitual Off • Min/ Mand: +L ABOVE SENTENCE TO BE FOLLOWED By: • Probation: • Drug Off Prob +Comm. Control 1 01- See Page 2) +- Set / Remains Set / Reset. +• Div: +- Rm +•at +- AM/PM +Set / Remains Set / Reset +Div_ +Rm. +al +AM/PM +• Deft sign +• Def Co +O ASA +] Bondsman +• Prob +• Jail O DJI. • GAL Notified by mail by: +on +• County Courthouse +• Courtroom, Criminal Justice Bldg. +Courtroom, Criminal Justice Complex +205 N. Dixie, West Palm Beach +: 38844 State Road 80, Belle Glade +3228 Gun Club Rd., West Palm Beach +IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILTY WHO NEEDS ANY ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING, YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF +CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT ROBIN SHEPETT, ADA, COORDINATOR IN THE ADMINSTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURT, PALM BEACH COUNTY COURTHOUSE, 205 N. DIXIE HWY, RM 5,2500, +WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33401; TELEPHONE (561) 355-4380, WITHIN 2 WORKING DAYS OF YOUR RECEIPT OF THIS NOTICE. IF YOU ARE HEARING OR VOICE IMPAIRED, CALL 1-800-955-8771. +Form 611-snap 1ev-3/02-- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM +Document 16-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2008 Page 4 of 4 +DATE: +6/30/08 +CASE NO. +0080-7831XXY +-Page 2 +TERM OF Prob / Sex Off / Drug Off Prob// C.C. I) C.C. II: +• conc w/ • consec. w/ +NAME +mos / yrs-as tó Cts. +• Probation transferred to: +SPECIAL CONDITIONS: +• Complete Originally Ordered Conditions +• Curfew: +p.m., with the following exception: +Deft. to report to Prob. Dept. immediately upon release +•. Deft. not țo have in care, custody, or control any unlawful of illegal material, subst., device, or object. +Deft. to immediately notify Prob. Officer if place of residence or job changes. +Restitution CRO filed +• Subject to all ordinary and special conditions of Probation +• Substance Abuse Eval. / Psychological Eval: / Psychosexual Eval. within / by: +and deft. to successfully complete recommended treatment +Random Drug/Alcohol Testing +• At Deft's Expense +• Costs Waived +No Consumption/Possession of Alcohol or Drugs or Intoxicants without a Prescription. +Attend +AA and/or NA Meetings per. Week: +• Deft. not to frequent any place of business whose primary purpose is the sale of alcohol. " +Complete - +_Hrs. of Community Service to be done at the rate of +Hrs. per Wk / Mo.(Min.) +License Revoked / Suspended for +_ mos / yrs +Attend and successfully complete DUl school and 1 session of Victim Impact Panel +• No Contact / No Violent Contact / No Direct or Indirect contact w/Victim(s) or others listed: - +• No Contact w/Minor Children w/o Adult Supervision aware of this case and the disposition: +• Cost of Supervision: $ +_ per month +• Waived by Court. +• Enter and Successfully Complete DOC Non-Secure Bed Program and Any Recommended Aftercare. +• Hold in Custody, release only to DOC Non-Secure Bed Program Officer. +• Enter and Successfully Complete PBSO Long / Short Track Drug Farm and Any Rec: Aftercare. +• Forfeit Weapon / Money seized at the time of arrest to: +Enter and Complete: +• Anger Management Program +• Theft Abatement Program: +Defendant may apply for Early Termination after +Serve +days / months in PBCJ, with credit for +Batterers Intervention Program +Other: +; provided all conds. are satisfied +days / months. +* See all Aliched, Documents +* Dori mst mminens: Seria Offerine. +FORM 373 rev 3/02 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/97b95aa3e1eaf8a956aad3abc26027ecfa27fda16f95b8864eb139c4a1179154.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/97b95aa3e1eaf8a956aad3abc26027ecfa27fda16f95b8864eb139c4a1179154.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cf6268eaca1f085098b5c903acf2b43def52d6e1 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/97b95aa3e1eaf8a956aad3abc26027ecfa27fda16f95b8864eb139c4a1179154.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -69, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "97b95aa3e1eaf8a956aad3abc26027ecfa27fda16f95b8864eb139c4a1179154", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 6, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.digits-only\", \"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "fab069572a60dc6c6d91dd99475a9e607539c53da5a5fc7324803c201eb55661", + "output_sha256": "9023347a20bcb4afbd1f51435fe9966d9f671cc1e8333bb191769246bbaf3811", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/97bdd9bbecef7905c65f8a697ac65f1a0bc42f9a6f4923fdb01e9c6f65e4f666.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/97bdd9bbecef7905c65f8a697ac65f1a0bc42f9a6f4923fdb01e9c6f65e4f666.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4aeba387a93959f05de8b7ab4570375c7dad681a --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/97bdd9bbecef7905c65f8a697ac65f1a0bc42f9a6f4923fdb01e9c6f65e4f666.md @@ -0,0 +1,105 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 178 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/12/2012 Page 1 of 4 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marral +JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2 +V. +UNITED STATES +JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S RESPONSE TO MOTION TO STRIKE NOTICE +OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY +COME NOW Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 (also referred to as "the victims"), by and +through undersigned counsel, to file this response to Epstein's Motion to Strike Notice of +Supplemental Authority (doc. #177). The motion should be denied. The victims have properly +provided supplemental information that the Court should consider in ruling on a pending motion +- specifically an admission by Epstein's counsel that communications with Government entities +are matters of public record and thus are not privileged under any theory. +This Court is familiar with all of the issues related to this case, including the overlylenient plea deal and the various civil suits that were pursued against Mr. Epstein. Additionally, +this Court knows that for a short time, from approximately April 2009 through October 2009, +was an attorney at the former law firm of Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler (RRA) while +prosecuting several civil cases against Mr. Epstein for his molestation of | +clients. Mr. +Epstein has repeatedly tried to attack Mr. L +and his clients. When Scott Rothstein of the +RRA firm went to jail, Epstein seized on that as a last ditch chance to push +off the case. +Epstein filed a SLAPP suit against Mr. L +solely to attempt to harass, intimidate, and +1 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 178 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/12/2012 Page 2 of 4 +bankrupt Mr. +and force Mr. +to abandon the various actions he was pursuing +on behalf of his clients against Epstein. Most of the frivolous counts against Mr. +have +been dismissed, and Mr. +has countersued Mr. Epstein for Abuse of Process and +Malicious Prosecution. +In that circuit court case, Epstein requested certain emails (such as confidential email +between +and his co-counsel and other confidential sources), purportedly so that he +could attempt to defend the malicious prosecution action +filed against him. +believes that certain of those requested emails are privileged, and none of those requested emails +are relevant to Epstein's defense. However, contrary to what Epstein implies in his response, +has not claimed privilege regarding any email correspondence with the government. +Epstein moves to "strike" the supplemental authority that +now provides to this +court. But Epstein does not deny that - through his attorney, Ms. Hadded - he has taken the +position that email communications with the government are not privileged "under any theory". +As the Court will notice, Epstein does not even attempt to explain the inconsistent positions he +has taken in different courts. The Court is certainly entitled to consider those inconsistent +positions in evaluating the pending motions in this case. +CONCLUSION +The Court should deny the motion to strike the supplemental authority. +DATED: June 12, 2012 +Respectfully Submitted, +JAFFE, WEISSING, +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 178 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/12/2012 Page 3 of 4 +,, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. +425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 +Fort Lauderdale, Florida33301 +Telephone (954) 524-2820 +Facsimile (954) 524-2822 +Florida Bar No.: 542075 +E-mail: brad@pathtojustice.com +and +Paul G. Cassell +Pro Hac Vice +S.J. Quinney College of Law at the +University of Utah +332 S. 1400 E. +Salt Lake City, UT84112 +Telephone:801-585-5202 +Facsimile:801-585-6833 +E-Mail:cassellp@law.utah.edu +Attorneys for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 178 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/12/2012 Page 4 of 4 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +The foregoing document was served on June 12, 2012, on the following using the Court's +CM/ECF system: +Dexter Lee +A. +Villafaña +Assistant U.S. Attorneys +500 S. Australian Ave., Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +(561) 820-8711 +Fax: (561) 820-8777 +E-mail: Dexter.Lee @usdoj.gov +E-mail: +Attorneys for the Government +L. Ackerman, Jr. +Burnett PA +777 S. Flagler Drive, West Tower, Suite 901 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Criminal Defense Counsel for Jeffrey Epstein +(courtesy copy of pleading via U.S. mail) +4 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/97bdd9bbecef7905c65f8a697ac65f1a0bc42f9a6f4923fdb01e9c6f65e4f666.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/97bdd9bbecef7905c65f8a697ac65f1a0bc42f9a6f4923fdb01e9c6f65e4f666.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9061fa77fa9b79030303e87ab22ed12bfa2c3d87 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/97bdd9bbecef7905c65f8a697ac65f1a0bc42f9a6f4923fdb01e9c6f65e4f666.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -50, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "97bdd9bbecef7905c65f8a697ac65f1a0bc42f9a6f4923fdb01e9c6f65e4f666", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 5, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "71512ca61582c4ea1036b17ef9c28ed25ce698c5cd33051215ad7c060225b57f", + "output_sha256": "c529dc8a20207e92301e61ce660aa63d79d0d365239cf8c53c3e24d3b334960b", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/97bebce891c811d792cea42cfbd86a6e3639dd60702b2e4a7d738628dc51152c.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/97bebce891c811d792cea42cfbd86a6e3639dd60702b2e4a7d738628dc51152c.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..beb5ab88ac81364f29baa8148a087f55dde46e98 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/97bebce891c811d792cea42cfbd86a6e3639dd60702b2e4a7d738628dc51152c.md @@ -0,0 +1,33 @@ +Case 1:19-cV-11869-MKV-DCF Document 3-2 Filed 12/27/19 Page 1 of 1 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK +ANASTASIA DOE, +Plaintift, +Case No. 1:19-CV-11869 +VS. +DARREN K. INDYKE AND RICHARD D. +KAHAN, AS CO-EXECUTORS OF THE ESTATE +OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, +ORDER FOR ADMISSION +PRO HAC VICE +Defendant. +The motion of +to appear Pro Hac Vice in the above-captioned action +is granted. +Applicant has declared that he is a member in good standing of the bar of the State of +Florida; and that his contact information is as follows: +Applicant Name: +J. +Firm Name: +Pottinger LLC +Address: 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 +City / State / Zip: Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 +Telephone / Fax: (954) 524-2820/ (954) 524-2822 +Applicant having requested admission Pro Hac Vice to appear for all purposes as counsel +for Plaintiff ANASTASIA DOE in the above entitled action; +IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Applicant is admitted to practice Pro Hac Vice in +the above captioned case in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New +York. All attorneys appearing before this Court are subject to the Local Rules of this Court, +including the Rules Governing discipline of attorneys. +Dated: +United States District/Magistrate Judge diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/97bebce891c811d792cea42cfbd86a6e3639dd60702b2e4a7d738628dc51152c.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/97bebce891c811d792cea42cfbd86a6e3639dd60702b2e4a7d738628dc51152c.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4d92670d417437b3062cd694bac77c77efb6fd7a --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/97bebce891c811d792cea42cfbd86a6e3639dd60702b2e4a7d738628dc51152c.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "97bebce891c811d792cea42cfbd86a6e3639dd60702b2e4a7d738628dc51152c", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "8e26ba8b30e4ee3795f1cbbc7e23b452b3749674d46c0dd88eb558ab13460984", + "output_sha256": "92eb6b8921ab803e33a0ba39930617b8f11d9c452ea425572d85eec6a87b48c6", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/97fb012f405201850870bf6885b6dd1f682359d7facdb3e452344ae87aef44b7.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/97fb012f405201850870bf6885b6dd1f682359d7facdb3e452344ae87aef44b7.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..871d6e1133ca1b28a5d5525ef8219ed6fcd8a463 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/97fb012f405201850870bf6885b6dd1f682359d7facdb3e452344ae87aef44b7.md @@ -0,0 +1,42 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 15 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2008 Page 1 of 2 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/. +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF FILING DEPOSITION +In support of his motion to stay this action [DE 12], defendant Jeffrey Epstein hereby +files the redacted deposition of Jane Doe #1 (Case No. 08-80069-Civ-Marra/ +, taken in +State of Florida v. Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 2006 CF 09454 AXX (Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, +Palm Beach County). The redacted deposition is attached hereto as Exhibit A. +Respectfully submitted, +ATTERBURY, GOLDBERGER & WEISS, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 +Tel: 561 659 8300 +Fax: 561 835 8691 +By: Is/ Jack A. Goldberger +Jack A. Goldberger +Fla. Bar No. 262013 +jgoldberger@agwpa.com +Attorneys for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 15 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2008 Page 2 of 2 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I HEREBY CERTIFY that on June 30, 2008, I electronically filed the foregoing +document 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 via +transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF. +Jeffrey M. Herman, Esq. +Herman & Mermelstein, P.A. +18205 Biscayne Blvd, Suite 2218 +Miami, Florida 33160 +via CM/ECF Notice of Electronic Filing +Is/ Jack A. Goldberger +Jack A. Goldberger +2 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/97fb012f405201850870bf6885b6dd1f682359d7facdb3e452344ae87aef44b7.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/97fb012f405201850870bf6885b6dd1f682359d7facdb3e452344ae87aef44b7.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..bf717359e153a5c9cafda831c251bcbd54c1fd2b --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/97fb012f405201850870bf6885b6dd1f682359d7facdb3e452344ae87aef44b7.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -24, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "97fb012f405201850870bf6885b6dd1f682359d7facdb3e452344ae87aef44b7", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "9a5be9c1faa69112c4263524548135a7e2572d97c93fd8b436f6fdd208e2985e", + "output_sha256": "a3d932abb06bf6daca25c855d8ba695c84daaff457aedef7bf6fb821834d8009", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/980f08b7a7ece7e5430f45c7bb9e6106a2cd9964879e500b49d5c72467b6df7e.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/980f08b7a7ece7e5430f45c7bb9e6106a2cd9964879e500b49d5c72467b6df7e.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..47b5feeb81dbe03e2a12e139ac1bd316f1379824 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/980f08b7a7ece7e5430f45c7bb9e6106a2cd9964879e500b49d5c72467b6df7e.md @@ -0,0 +1,78 @@ +Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2009 Page 1 of 3 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 09-80656-MARRA/_ +JANE DOE No. 102, +V. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Plaintiff, +Defendant, +DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION +OF TIME IN WHICH SERVE RESPONSIVE PLEADING TO COMPLAINT +Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter "Epstein"), by and through his undersigned +attorneys, respectfully moves this Court for an extension of time in which to respond to +Complaint dated, May 1, 2009 [DE 1]. Defendant seeks an extension until October 15, +2009, to file his response. As good cause in support of granting the motion, Defendant +states: +1. On May 1, 2009 Plaintiff filed a Complaint [DE 1]. Defendant's response would +be due on August 20, 2009, as previously agreed upon. +2. The parties continue to work together to potentially resolve this case. +3. The requested extension is fair and reasonable under the circumstances as it will +provide time to allow the Defendant, EPSTEIN to fully and adequately respond. +4. As certified below, counsel for Defendant conferred with counsel for Plaintiff, and +Plaintiff's counsel is in agreement with the requested extension. + + +Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2009 Page 2 of 3 +Doe 102 v. Epstein +Page 2 +WHEREFORE Defendant respectfully requests that this Court enter an Order +granting an extension until October 15, 2009, to file a response to Plaintiff's Complaint. +Local Rule 7.1 Statement +Counsel for the movant conferred by telephone and correspondence with +counsel for the Plaintiff and Counsel for Plaintiff is in agreement with the requested +extension until October 15, 2009 for Defendant to respond to Plaintiff's Complaint. +Robert D. Critton Jr/, Esq. +Attorney for Defendant +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 +nanner specified by CM/ECF on this 7' day of August, 2009 +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 +rjosefsberg@podhurst.com +kezell@podhurst.com +Counsel for Plaintiff +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 +jagesq@bellsouth.net +Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein + + +Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2009 Page 3 of 3 +Doe 102 v. Epstein +Page 3 +Respectfully submitted, +RETO CITION. RA E5D. +Florida Bar No. 224162 +rcrit@bclclaw.com +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. +Florida Bar #617296 +mpike@bclclaw.com +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & 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) diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/980f08b7a7ece7e5430f45c7bb9e6106a2cd9964879e500b49d5c72467b6df7e.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/980f08b7a7ece7e5430f45c7bb9e6106a2cd9964879e500b49d5c72467b6df7e.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3b4ed4061be3e303480f01ec09ca05dee6d7f431 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/980f08b7a7ece7e5430f45c7bb9e6106a2cd9964879e500b49d5c72467b6df7e.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -36, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "980f08b7a7ece7e5430f45c7bb9e6106a2cd9964879e500b49d5c72467b6df7e", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 3, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "fe57dcead9bd36c6dcdda28982f4aa0e6571cc8c1959937f98afc7aaf246e62d", + "output_sha256": "7b42ad2f86b2a48b538a0ed48cd7b24368bfac9e30ff9cfc349fc3e72cbc9ad3", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/984fe5d448725178bcf08b9107ac26a15c67bf1b317e642ac2d8dd141d085d96.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/984fe5d448725178bcf08b9107ac26a15c67bf1b317e642ac2d8dd141d085d96.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5d525ab70be24cae171f800610bae05d435102be --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/984fe5d448725178bcf08b9107ac26a15c67bf1b317e642ac2d8dd141d085d96.md @@ -0,0 +1,79 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 210 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2013 Page 1 of 1 +FILED by/ +D.C. +ELEVENTH CIRCUIT TRANSCRIPT ORDER FORM +JUL 1 6 2013 +PART L +TRANSCRIPT ORDER INFORMATION +STEVEN M. LARIMORE +A pee he a cog or for which me it rise Dis orderer Clerk within 10 days of the ling of ithe motte of appeal in all cases, including those it he MIAMI +is no hearing or for which no transcript is ordered. +Short Case Style: Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #f2 +ve United States of Amerlen +Distric: Court No.: 08-80736-CIY-MARRA +Dute Notice of Appeal Filed: June 27, 2013 +Court of Appeals:No.:13-12923C +CHOOSE ONE: +• No hearing +→ No transcript is required for appeal purposes +(If Available) +•All necessary transcripts) on file +17 I AM ORDERING A TRANSCRIPT OF THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS: +Check appropriate bos(es) and provide all information requested: +HEARING DATES) +JUDGE MAGISTRATE +COURT REPORTER NAMES) +Pre-Trial Proceedings Miscellaneous Hearing held on 7/11/2008+* Judge Kenneth A. Marra Victoria Alello (954) 467-8204 +Trial +Status Conference held on 08/14/2008 ** +Judge Kenneth A. Marra Stephen Franklin (561) 514-3768 +Sentence +Pending Motions hearing on 08/12/2011 +Judge Kenneth A. Marra Melinda Colchico (561) 682-0905 +Other_ +** Transcripts of 07/11/2008 and 08/14/2008 are on file. +METHOD OF PAYMENT: +[2] I CERTIFY THAT I HAVE CONTACTED THE COURT REPORTERS) AND HAVE MADE SATISFACTORY ARRANGEMENTS WITH THE +COURT REPORTER(S) FOR PAYING THE COST OF THE TRANSCRIPT. +• CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT. Attached for submission to District Judge/Magistrate is my completed CJA Form 24 requesting authorization for +governanent payment of transcript. [A transcript of the foliowing procedings will be provided ONY IF SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED in Item 13 on +CJA Fonn 24: Vof Dire; Opening and Closing Statements of Proscoutian and Defense; Prosecution Rébuttal; Jury Instructions] +Ordering Coansel/Party: Jackle Perezek, Esq, for Intervenor, Roy Black +Name of Firm: Black, Srebaick, Kornspan & Stampí, P.A. +Street Address/P.O. Box: 201 South Biscayne Boulevard., Suite 1300 • +City/State/Zip Code: Miami, FL 33131 +_ Phone No.: (305) 371-6421 +I certify that I have filed the original (Yellow page) with the District Court Clerk, sent the Pink and green pages to the appropriate Court Reporter (s) Uf +ordering a transcript, and sent a photocopy to che Court of Appeals Clerk and to all parties. +DATE: July 2, 2013 +_ SIONED: s/Jackie Perczek, Esa. +Attomey For:_Intervenor Roy Black +PART II. +COURT REPORTER ACKNOWLEDGMENT +Court Reporter to complele and file Pink page with the Disier Cour Clerk within. 10 days of receip. The Cour Reporter shall send a photocopy do the +Court of Appeals Clerk and to all parties, and resain the +i page to provide notification when transcript filed. +Date Transcript Onder received: 2•02:13 +2) Satisfactory arrangements for paying the cost of the transcript were completed on:_ +7.2.13 +• Satisfactory arrangements for paying the cost of the transcript have not been made. +No. of bearing days: +_ Estimated no. of transcript pages: 220 +- Estimated filing date: +DATE: _1 +7/5/13 +_ SIGNED: 5L +Nelmda Colchuca +Phone No: 501-339-4306 +NOTE: The transcript is due to he filed within to days of the dste satisfactory arrangements for paying the cost of the transcript were completed unless the +Court Reporter obtains an extension of time to file the transcript. +PART III. +Court Reporter to complete end fle +NOTIRICATION THAT TRANSCRIPT HAS BEEN FILED IN DISTRICT COURT +photocopy of the completed +page with the Distriet Court Clerk on date of filing transcript in District Court. The Court Reporter shall send a +I page to the Court of Appeals Clerk on the some date. +Actual No. of Volumes and Hearing Dutes: +Volume 1, Augurt 12, 2011 +Date: _ +aJ.B. OPO: 1998-734-049-88146 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/984fe5d448725178bcf08b9107ac26a15c67bf1b317e642ac2d8dd141d085d96.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/984fe5d448725178bcf08b9107ac26a15c67bf1b317e642ac2d8dd141d085d96.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..15f4cbcfd6f84d1f994c5d96d5681310e47f8223 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/984fe5d448725178bcf08b9107ac26a15c67bf1b317e642ac2d8dd141d085d96.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "984fe5d448725178bcf08b9107ac26a15c67bf1b317e642ac2d8dd141d085d96", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "80eb6150d48e1d4518e2cd822de7a6d3ccf7dca6b93e7f69d86b239444cc3759", + "output_sha256": "27514aa7bc5c0636cf6f65e1717f62ab3f2e9c35b46095f248231ed75dd17d78", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/985032f89b70692428c5660b738d22c12bad895456eadfa1da239ac30d41169e.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/985032f89b70692428c5660b738d22c12bad895456eadfa1da239ac30d41169e.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9d8502a5b4836860daa9e278dd20b2ed06a8297b --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/985032f89b70692428c5660b738d22c12bad895456eadfa1da239ac30d41169e.md @@ -0,0 +1,24 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 94-1 +Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2009 Page 1 of 1 +JANE DOE NO. 3, +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-80232-CIV-MARRA/ +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Defendant. +ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE +TO WITHDRAW AS CO-COUNSEL +THIS CAUSE having come to be heard on the Motion for Leave to +Withdraw as Co-Counsel, and this Court being fully advised, it is hereby: +ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion is hereby granted. +DONE AND ORDERED in +Beach County, Florida, this +_ day of. +at West Palm Beach, Palm +-, 2009. +KENNETH A. MARRA +UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE +Copies furnished to: +All Counsel of Record diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/985032f89b70692428c5660b738d22c12bad895456eadfa1da239ac30d41169e.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/985032f89b70692428c5660b738d22c12bad895456eadfa1da239ac30d41169e.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..352c212e77ec5044a1f41f00943bdf052f5d9691 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/985032f89b70692428c5660b738d22c12bad895456eadfa1da239ac30d41169e.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "985032f89b70692428c5660b738d22c12bad895456eadfa1da239ac30d41169e", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "cfa7e290b091a39cc0eb28bc7e1ad398691413121420f885c168f109fa2f917f", + "output_sha256": "ffded54d708fbe57409dc3cc9c094d88efb0acc4cd92da4c2483dad183f82084", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9856c342ecbb2b470fe8e6b9fd3fa0fda88b5b30b7da20e0b7b96f6cf46c394b.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9856c342ecbb2b470fe8e6b9fd3fa0fda88b5b30b7da20e0b7b96f6cf46c394b.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..016139ec8c6d193d8f7e839b72691a6cfc01a904 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9856c342ecbb2b470fe8e6b9fd3fa0fda88b5b30b7da20e0b7b96f6cf46c394b.md @@ -0,0 +1,717 @@ +Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2009 Page 1 of 20 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff +CASE NO: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff +CASE NO: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant + + +Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2009 Page 2 of 20 +CASE NO: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 5, +Plaintiff +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant +/ +JANE DOE NO. 6. +Plaintiff +CASE NO: 08-CV-80994-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant +JANE DOE NO. 7, +Plaintiff +CASE NO: 08-CV-80993-MARRA/_ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant +2 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2009 Page 3 of 20 +CASE NO: 08-CV-80811-MARRA/ +C.M.A., +Plaintiff +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO. 08-CV-80893-CIV-MARRA/] +Vs. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et al. +Defendant. +DOE II, +CASE NO: 09-CV-80469-MARRA/] +Plaintiff +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et al. +Defendants. +3 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2009 Page 4 of 20 +CASE NO: 09-CV-80591-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 101, +Plaintiff +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant +JANE DOE NO. 102, +Plaintiff +CASE NO: 09-CV-80656-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant +PLAINTIFF JANE DOE'S MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO PLAINTFF'S FIRST +SET OF INTERROGATORIES +Plaintiff Jane Doe, hereby moves this Court for an order compelling defendant, +Jeffrey Epstein, to answer her first set of interrogatories or, in the alternative, to prove +that his invocation of his Fifth Amendment privilege is proper. +Jane Doe has propounded 23 interrogatories, including such straightforward +requests as: +Interrogatory No. 2: Describe financial assets that are under your control, +directly or indirectly, including interests in corporations or other business entities. +4 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2009 Page 5 of 20 +Interrogatory No. 3: Describe which financial assets listed in your answer to +interrogatory #2 are located outside the 50 states of the United States and where they +are located +Interrogatory No. 4: +Describe your net worth, including income and +expenses for 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008. +Interrogatory No. 5: +Describe any real property in which you have a total +or partial interest, either directly or indirectly. +Interrogatory No. 7: +Describe any transfer of assets under your control, +either directly or indirectly, to locations outside the 50 United States in 2005, 2006, 2007 +and 2008. +Interrogatory No. 8: Describe, with specificity, your travel to locations outside +the 50 states of the United states in 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008, including your dates +of travel, location to which you traveled and persons that accompanied you in each such +travel. +Interrogatory No. 11: Have you heard or do you know about any statement or +remark (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of any party to this lawsuit, other than +yourself, concerning any issue in this lawsuit? If so, state the name and address of each +person who heard or read it, and the date, time, place and substance of each statement +or remark. +Interrogatory No. 12: Do you intend to elicit testimony of witnesses other than +Plaintiff regarding any statements she has ever made? If so, what statements do you +5 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2009 Page 6 of 20 +intend to produce through testimony? Through which witness do you intend to elicit +such statement? And for what purpose do you intend to admit such statement? +Interrogatory No. 23: State the facts upon which you rely for each affirmative +defense in your answer. +In response to these interrogatories, Epstein has given the following response +(with only slight variations on the overbreadth objection): +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 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 objects as the interrogatory is so overbroad and, +thus, 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. +This Court should order Epstein to answer all of these interrogatories or, in the +alternative, prove that his Fifth Amendment invocations are valid. It is for the court, not +the claimant, to determine whether the hazard of incrimination is justified. United States +v. Argomaniz, 925 F.2d 1349, 1355 (11th Cir. 1991). "A court must make a +particularized inquiry, deciding, in connection with each specific area that the +questioning party wishes to explore, whether or not the privilege is well-founded." Id. +Typically this is done in an in camera proceeding wherein the person asserting the +privilege is given the opportunity "to substantiate his claims of the privilege and the +6 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2009 Page 7 of 20 +district court is able to consider the questions asked and the documents requested by +the summons." Id +Here Epstein has made boilerplate invocation of the Fifth Amendment to each +and every question propounded by Jane Doe, including for example the question: +Do you intend to elicit testimony of witnesses other than Plaintiff regarding any +statements she has ever made? This obviously is not an interrogatory with Fifth +Amendment implications. Nor is Epstein's claim that this interrogatory is somehow +"overbroad" or "not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence" even +facially plausible. +Epstein's "cut and paste" response to the interrogatories also blatantly +disregards the requirements for invoking privilege under the Court's local rules. Local +rule 26.1.G very specifically requires the preparation of a privilege log with respect to all +documents and oral communications (among other things) that are withheld on the +basis of privilege. Epstein has failed to prepare such a log, making it impossible for +Jane Doe to effectively challenge his generic assertions. The Local Rules do not permit +this tactic, and Epstein should be (at a minimum) promptly required to produce a +privilege log. +For all these reasons, the Court should compel Epstein to answer the +interrogatories or provide a particularized justification for his Fifth Amendment +invocation with regard to each request. +It should be noted that the only two grounds on which Epstein can refuse to +answer the interrogatories are either proof of a valid Fifth Amendment privilege or proof +7 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2009 Page 8 of 20 +of a valid overbreadth objection. These are the only two objections Epstein has +asserted. As a result, any other objections to production are deemed waived. See +Local Rule 26.1G.3.(a) ("Any ground [for an objection] not stated in an objection within +the time provided by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or any extensions thereof, +shall be waived."). +SPECIFIC INTERROGATORIES +For the convenience of the court - and in compliance with Local Rule 26.1 H +(party filing motion to compel shall list specific requests in succession) - Jane Doe's +interrogatories are as follows: +What is the full name and Florida address of the person answering these +interrogatories, and, if applicable, the person's official position or relationship with +the party to whom the interrogatories are directed? +[Note: This is the only interrogatory Epstein answered in any way.] +Describe financial assets that are under your control, directly or indirectly, +including interests in corporations or other business entities. +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 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, Detendant objects as the interrogatory is so overbroad and, +thus, 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. +8 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2009 Page 9 of 20 +3. +4. +5. +Describe which financial assets listed in your answer to interrogatory #2 that are +located outside the 50 states of the United States and where they are located. +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 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 objects as the interrogatory is so overbroad and, +thus, 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. +Describe your net worth, including income and expenses for 2005, 2006, 2007, +and 2008. +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 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 objects as the interrogatory is so overbroad and, +thus, 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. +Describe any real property in which you have a total or partial ownership interest, +either directly or indirectly. +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 +9 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2009 Page 10 of 20 +6. +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 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 objects as the interrogatory is so overbroad and, +thus, 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. +Describe which real properties listed in your answer to interrogatory #5 are +located outside the 50 United States and where the properties are located. +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 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 objects as the interrogatory is so overbroad and, +thus, 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. +Describe any transfer of assets under [y]our control, either directly or indirectly, to +locations outside the 50 United States in 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008. +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, 1 assert my federal constitutional +rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed +by United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these +circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my +10 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2009 Page 11 of 20 +8. +9. +constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate +the Constitution. +In addition to and without waiving his constitutional +privileges, Defendant objects as the interrogatory is so overbroad and, +thus, 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. +Describe, with specificity, your travel to locations outside the 50 states of the +United States in 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008, including your dates of travel, +location to which you traveled and persons that accompanied you in each such +travel. +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 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 objects as the interrogatory is so overbroad and, +thus, 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. +List each telephone number used by you or your assistants to call minor females +directly, or indirectly, for the purpose of scheduling a massage to take place at +your house located at 358 El Brillo Way, West Palm Beach (includes landlines, +providhones, and private jet or airplane lines). For each cell phone, list the +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 United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these +circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my +11 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2009 Page 12 of 20 +10. +11. +constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate +the Constitution. +List the last known name, address and telephone numbers of all persons that +may have any knowledge about any of the allegations in the Complaint, +including, but not limited to, friends, acquaintances, employees, or others to +whom you have spoken about the subject matter which forms the basis of this +Complaint or who have observed such activity. +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 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 objects as the interrogatory is so overbroad and, +thus, 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. The scope of the information is so +overbroad that it also includes information that is attorney-client and workproduct privileged. +Have you heard or do you know about any statement or remark (verbal or +written) made by or on behalf of any party to this lawsuit, other than yourself, +concerning any issue in this lawsuit? If so, state the name and address of each +person wo made the statement or remark, the name and address of each person +who heard or read it, and the date, time, place and substance of each statement +or remark. +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, 1 assert my federal constitutional +rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed +by 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 +12 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2009 Page 13 of 20 +12. +13. +the Constitution. +In addition to and without waiving his constitutional +privileges, Defendant objects as the interrogatory is so overbroad and, +thus, 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. The scope of the information is so +overbroad that it also includes information that is attorney-client and workproduct privileged. +Do you intend to elicit testimony of witnesses other than Plaintiff regarding any +statements she has ever made? It so, what statements do you intend to produce +through testimony? Through which witness do you intend to elicit such +statement? And for what purpose do you intend to admit such statement? +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 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 objects as the interrogatory is so overbroad and, +thus, 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 +Additionally, work-product and +attorney-client. +Are you transferring, or do you plan to, or might you transfer money or assets out +of the country during the course of this litigation? +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 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 objects as the interrogatory is so overbroad and, +13 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2009 Page 14 of 20 +14. +15. +thus, 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. +Describe each property owned by you, including location, approximate value, and +whether there is a mortgage on the property and the amount of any such +mortgage. +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, 1 assert my federal constitutional +rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed +by 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 objects as the interrogatory is so overbroad and, +thus, 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. +Describe with specificity the amount of money available to you in cash or that can +be readily liquidated as such. Include the bank financial institution, holding +company, or other location of this money and the name of the account. +Detendant 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 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 objects as the interrogatory is so overbroad and, +thus, 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. +14 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2009 Page 15 of 20 +16. +State with as much specificity as possible when you met the Plaintiff, and +including in your answer the following: (a) the circumstances and location of how +and where you met (b) describe the nature of your relationship, (c) describe how +many occasions she was with you at your residence located at 358 El Brillo Way +in Palm Beach, Florida. +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 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. +17. +Provide the names, addresses, and phone numbers of all your current +accountants, financial planners or money managers handling, or assisting in the +handling, of your money or assets. +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, ! assert my federal constitutional +rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed +by 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 objects as the interrogatory is so overbroad and, +thus, 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. +18. +Did you ever ask the Plaintiff to introduce you to minor females and/or to bring +minor females to your house in Palm Beach, Florida and if so, when did this +ccur, and what was she asked by you to do, and what did you tell her about th +eason for her to bring these other minor airls' +15 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2009 Page 16 of 20 +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 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. +19. Did you ever engage in sexual activity of any kind whatsoever with the Plaintiff, +and including in your answer what type of sexual activity took place, where it took +place, and the dates or general timeframe when this activity occurred. +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 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. +20. +Were there parameters or instructions by you to the Plaintiff as to the types of +girls to bring to your Palm Beach, Florida house, including age, range, what they +would be asked to do, body type or socio-economic background? +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 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. +16 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2009 Page 17 of 20 +21. +22. +23. +CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA +Describe any words or actions that you made to assure the Plaintiff that sexual +activity with you was properl] or appropriate? +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 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. +Describe what age you thought the Plaintiff was when you first had sexual activity +with her, including your reasons for that belief. +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 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. +State the facts upon which you rely for each affirmative defense in your 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 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 objects as the interrogatory is so overbroad and, +17 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2009 Page 18 of 20 +CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/| +thus, 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. No answer has yet been filed, so not +applicable. +CONCLUSION +For all these reasons, the Court should compel Epstein to answer the +interrogatories or provide a particularized justification for his Fifth Amendment +invocation with regard to each request. Epstein should also be required to produce a +privilege log. Counsel for Jane Doe have conferred with opposing counsel on the +issues raised in this motion, and no resolution was possible. +DATED July 10, 2009 +Respectfully Submitted, +ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER +Las Olas City Centre +401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1650 +Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 +Telephone (954) 522-3456 +Facsimile (954) 527-8663 +Florida Bar No.: 542075 +E-mail: bedwards@rra-law.com +and +Paul G. Cassell +Pro Hac Vice +332 S. 1400 E. +Salt Lake City, UT 84112 +Telephone: 801-585-5202 +Facsimile: 801-585-6833 +E-Mail: +cassellp@law.utah.edu +18 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2009 Page 19 of 20 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +1 HEREBY CERTIFY that on July 10, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing +document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing +document is being served this day on all parties on the attached Service List in the +manner specified, either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by +CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those parties who are not authorized to +receive electronically filed Notices of Electronic Filing. +J. +19 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2009 Page 20 of 20 +SERVICE LIST +Jane Doe V. Jeffrey Epstein +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +Jgoldberger@agwpa.com +Robert D. Critton, Esq. +rcritton@bclclaw.com +Isidro Manual +isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net +Jack +iph@searcylaw.com +Katherine Warthen Ezell +KEzell@podhurst.com +Michael James Pike +MPike@bclclaw.com +Paul G. Cassell +cassellp@bclclaw.com +Richard Horace Willits +lawyerswillits@aol.com +Robert C. Josefsberg +rjosefsberg@podhurst.com +Adam D. Horowitz +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +Stuart S. Mermelstein +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +William J. Berger +wberger@rra-law.com +20 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9856c342ecbb2b470fe8e6b9fd3fa0fda88b5b30b7da20e0b7b96f6cf46c394b.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9856c342ecbb2b470fe8e6b9fd3fa0fda88b5b30b7da20e0b7b96f6cf46c394b.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..af93f9c8148aa016b81853aa890d44ebcdfeda05 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9856c342ecbb2b470fe8e6b9fd3fa0fda88b5b30b7da20e0b7b96f6cf46c394b.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -754, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "9856c342ecbb2b470fe8e6b9fd3fa0fda88b5b30b7da20e0b7b96f6cf46c394b", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 23, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "2ba7059907f1359a48a916e5cc4e0dd006c3cf6727059f356872ac340071ca48", + "output_sha256": "aa7c5b2f495b63c5fbae656cfd2083238499603d632b4954f7225e052d92449b", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9859cc1562e4ca06eed366e1a2ce36262d4e8d6e07c8f6f96646cef7bd21c5e6.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9859cc1562e4ca06eed366e1a2ce36262d4e8d6e07c8f6f96646cef7bd21c5e6.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..268156a752e2fa902b8d30334db93f403dccb9f9 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9859cc1562e4ca06eed366e1a2ce36262d4e8d6e07c8f6f96646cef7bd21c5e6.md @@ -0,0 +1,419 @@ +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 39 Filed 04/27/20 + +JANE DOE, +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK +Case No. 1:20-cv-00484-JGK +Plaintiff, +V. +DARREN K. INDYKE and RICHARD D. +KAHN, in their capacities as executors of the +ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, an individual, +Defendants. +PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO +DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS IN PART PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT +111 +11/ +111 +111 +111 +111 +111 + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 39 Filed 04/27/20 Page 2 of 14 +TABLE OF CONTENTS +I. +II. +III. +IV. +INTRODUCTION +ARGUMENT +Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Is Procedurally Improper. +B. +Defendants Misapply New York Law Which Indicates USVI Law +Determines The Applicability Of Punitive Damages In This Case .. +In Deciding This Question, The Court Must Apply New York's +Interest Analysis +2. +JSVI's Interest Is Considerably Stronger Than New York's Becausc +of the Estate's Overwhelming Ties To The USVI +3. +Thate Rest Pains Towards Apiying USV LAnd The Best +USVI Law Would Allow For Punitive Damages Against the Estate. +1. +The Me Damages Against the Esta +it" Banks Factor Supports Imposition Ol +2. +The Two Lesser Banks Factors Do Not Support Barring Punitive +Damages Against The Estate +ANY NEW ARGUMENTS RAISED BY DEFENDANTS IN THEIR REPLY +BRIEF SHOULD BE IGNORED +CONCLUSION….. +Page +1 +1 +1 +.2 +.2 +.3 +.4 +.4 +.5 +.7 +.8 +.9 + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 39 Filed 04/27/20 Page 3 of 14 +TABLE OF AUTHORITIES +Page +CASES +Gov't of the V.l. v. +60 V.I. 597(2016) +FEDERAL CASES +Babcock v +12 NY2d 473 (1963) +Banks v. Int'l Rental & Leasing Corp. +55 V.I. 967 (2011).. +Booth v. Bowen +No. CIV. 2006-217, 2008 WL 220067, at *5 (D.V.I. Jan. 10, 2008). +5 +4 +4 +. 7 +2 +Crabtree ex rel. Kemp v. Estate of Crabtree +837 N.E.2d 135 (Ind. 2005)..... +Estate of Mayer v. Lax, Inc. +998 N.E.2d 238 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). +v. Knack +T70 A.D.3d 667 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019). +Golden v. Wyeth, Inc. +No. 4-CV-2841, 2013 WL 4500879, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 20, 2013) +v. Dowson Holding Co. +51 V.I. 619 (D.V.I. 2009) +Hunter v Palisades Acquisition XVI, LLC, +16 CIV. 8779 (ER), 2017 WL 5513636, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 16, 2017). +Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Elec. Mfg. Co. +313 U.S. 487 (1941).... +Nat'l Jewish Democratic Council v. Adelson +No. 18 Civ. 8787 (JPO), 2019 WL 4805719, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2019) +Nicholas v. Wyndham Int'l, Inc. +301 F. Supp. 2d 407, 410 (D.V.I. 2002) +Padula v. Lilarn Prop. Corp. +644 N.E.2d 1001 (N.Y. 1994). +6 +6 +4 +3,5 +7 +1 +. 2 +2 +4 +2 +ii + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 39 Filed 04/27/20 Page 4 of 14 +Rapay v. Chernov +No. 16 Civ. 4910, 2017 WL 892372, at *1, 8 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 6, 2017). +Iv. Philip Morris Inc. +124 F. Supp. 2d 46 (E.D.N.Y. 2000) (citing Babcock v +(N.Y. 1963) +12 NY2d 473, 481 +STATE CASES +Alain Ellis Living Tr v. Harvey D. Ellis Trust (2016). +308 Kan. at 1046 +David B. v Millar +2 AD3d 763, 764 (N.Y. 2003). +laralson v. Fisher Surveying, Inc +201 Ariz. 1, 3-4 (2001) (en banc +State Farm Fire and Cas. Co. v LiMauro +103 AD2d 514 (N.Y 1984)... +TREATISES +Bary A. pdade, 2 Modern Tor Law: Liability and Litigation $ 20-24 (2d ed. June 2019 +Zitter, 30 A.L.R.4th 707. +2 +3 +8 +8 +.. 8 +. 8 +.. 8 +..8 +ili + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 39 Filed 04/27/20 Page 5 of 14 +I. +INTRODUCTION +Plaintiff Jane Doe ("Plaintiff"), by her undersigned attorneys, respectfully submits this +memorandum of law in opposition to Defendants' motion to dismiss in part Plaintiff's complaint +(ECF Nos. 36-37). First, Defendants contend that Plaintiff's claims based on torts that occurred +outside of New York and those that occurred when she was an adult are time-barred. Plaintiff +does not dispute this point and did not allege such in her complaint. Second, Defendants argue +that Plaintiff's fifth cause of action for false imprisonment must be dismissed in its entirety as +untimely. Plaintiff does not oppose this argument and will hereby withdraw that cause of action +against Defendants. And finally, Defendants assert that Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages +against the Co-Executors must be dismissed. Not so. Defendants' argument regarding punitive +damages is not only procedurally improper but it ignores the law of the governing jurisdiction +which decides this question: that of the United States Virgin Islands ("USVI"). +II. ARGUMENT +A. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Is Procedurally Improper +First, Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's request for punitive damages is procedurally +improper because punitive damages are not an independent cause of action. See, e.g., Hunter v +Palisades Acquisition XVI, LLC, 16 CIV. 8779 (ER), 2017 WL 5513636, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 16, +2017) ("Because punitive damages are a form of damages, not an independent cause of action, a +motion to dismiss a prayer for relief in the form of punitive damages is procedurally premature.") +(internal quotations omitted). The proper vehicle for Defendants' attempt to strike Plaintiff's +' To be clear, however, Plaintiff did suffer tremendously both outside of New York and as an adult +as a result of Decedent Jeffrey Epstein's repeated sexual abuse of her. For the purposes of this +lawsuit, Plaintiff only brings claims against Defendants for the numerous rapes and assaults +against her while she was a minor in the state of New York. +1 + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 39 Filed 04/27/20 Page 6 of 14 +prayer for punitive damages (a mode of relief) is a motion to strike under Federal Rule of Civil +Procedure 12(f). See, e.g., Rapay v. Chernov, No. 16 Civ. 4910, 2017 WL 892372, at *1, 8 +(S.D.N.Y. Mar. 6, 2017); Com- Tech Assocs. v. Comput. Assocs. Int'l, Inc., 753 F. Supp. 1078, +1093 (E.D.N.Y. 1990) (denying Rule 12(f) motion to strike punitive damages). +Accordingly, Defendants' motion should be denied on this ground alone. Should the Court +decide to entertain the motion on its merits, though, it should still be denied. +B. +Defendants Misapply New York Law Which Indicates USVI Law Determines +The Applicability Of Punitive Damages In This Case +Defendants fail to address in the motion the likelihood that USVI law applies to the +question of whether Plaintiff may recover punitive damages in this case against Defendants. +Based on the following points and authorities, it does. +In Deciding This Question, The Court Must Apply New York's Interest +Analysis +A federal court must look to the choice-of-law rules of the forum state in resolving +conflicts of law. See Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Elec. Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 487, 496 (1941); Int'1 Bus. +Machs. Corp. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 363 F.3d 137, 143 (2d Cir. 2004). The forum state in this +matter is New York. Therefore, New York choice of law analyses govern this conflict. +In the context of tort law, "New York utilizes interest analysis to determine which of two +competing jurisdictions has the greater interest in having its law applied in the litigation." Padula +v. Lilarn Prop. Corp., 644 N.E.2d 1001, 1002 (N.Y. 1994). "[U]nder New York law—for punitive +damages in particular- +—a court must consider the object or purpose of the wrongdoing to be +punished and give controlling weight to the law of the jurisdiction with the strongest interest in the +resolution of the particular issue presented." Nat'l Jewish Democratic Council v. Adelson, No. 18 +Civ. 8787 (JPO), 2019 WL 4805719, at *6 (S.D.N. Y. Sept. 30, 2019). Further, because "punitive +damages are designed to punish the defendant, ... the choice-of-law inquiry for punitive +2 + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 39 Filed 04/27/20 Page 7 of 14 +damages provisions is necessarily "defendant-focused.''' Id. (citing Golden v. Wyeth, Inc., No. +4-CV-2841, 2013 WL 4500879, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 20, 2013)). Importantly, in conducting this +analysis, New York courts seek to achieve "[i]ustice, fairness, and the best practical result..." +v. Philip Morris Inc., 124 F. Supp. 2d 46, 55 (E.D.N.Y. 2000) (citing Babcock v L +12 NY2d 473, 481 (N.Y. 1963). +2. +USVI's Interest Is Considerably Stronger Than New York's Because of +the Estate's Overwhelming Ties To The USVI +Here, the USVI's interest in the availability of punitive damages supersedes New York's by +a long shot. First, the Defendant is the Estate. The Estate was probated in the USVI, where it is +governed by USVI laws. Compl. (ECF Doc. 9) TIl 28, 29. Second, Defendants Indyke and Kahn, +both named in their capacities as executors of the Estate, were authorized by USVI Magistrate +Judge Carolyn P. Hermon-Percell to administer the Estate. Compl. I 32. In fact, as legal +representatives of the Estate, Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn are deemed citizens of the +USVI. Compl. I 9. Third, Epstein himself was a Virgin Islander and was domiciled there, not in +New York. Compl. 99. +Conversely, New York's interest in having its law applied is weak. As previously noted, +the Estate is not domiciled in New York, nor is it in probate in New York. Further, Epstein was +not a domiciliary of New York. In short, with regard to the punitive damages question, there is no +"there" in New York. +Because of the "defendant-focused" nature of punitive damages, the law of the USVI— +where the Estate was probated, where the Estate is actively overseen, and where Epstein was +domiciled- +-should decide the question as to the applicability of punitive damages against the +Estate. +3 + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 39 Filed 04/27/20 Page 8 of 14 +3. +The Interest Analysis's Focus On "Justice, Fairness, And The Best +Practical Result" Points Towards Applying USVI Law +Moreover, justice and fairness require the Court to apply USVI law in deciding this +question. First, as aforementioned, the USVI has strong interests considering it is the home of the +Estate and was the home of Epstein. The USVI clearly is most "intimately concerned with the +outcome of (the) particular litigation." Babcock v L +1. 12 NY2d 473, 481-82 (1963). +Therefore, the applicability of punitive damages against the Estate should be decided by USVI +law. +Second, the practical result of applying New York law, as opposed to USVI law, is that it +will reward Epstein for committing suicide by shielding him from punishment for his heinous +sexual abuse of his victims. Had Epstein not committed suicide, it is indisputable he would face +punitive damages alongside Maxwell.2 Thus, justice and fairness require what is also the best +practical result: the application of USVI law in deciding this question. +C. +USVI Law Would Allow For Punitive Damages Against the Estate +To determine USVI common law, USVI courts apply what is known as the Banks analysis. +See Banks v. Int'l Rental & Leasing Corp., 55 V.I. 967, 979 (2011). "[I]nstead of mechanistically +following the Restatements, courts should consider three non-dispositive factors to determine +Virgin Islands common law: (1) whether any Virgin Islands courts have previously adopted a +particular rule; (2) the position taken by a majority of courts from other jurisdictions; and (3) most +" See, e.g., Nicholas v. Wyndham Int'l, Inc., 301 F. Supp. 2d 407, 410 (D. V.I. 2002) ("[P]unitive +damages may be awarded for conduct that is outrageous, because of defendant's evil motive or +[her] reckless indifference to the rights of others."); +v. Knack, 170 A.D.3d 667, 670 +(N.Y. App. Div. 2019) (punitive damages appropriate in sexual assault case because "the +defendant's acts were particularly heinous"). +4 + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 39 Filed 04/27/20 Page 9 of 14 +importantly, which approach represents the soundest rule for the Virgin Islands." Gov't of the V.I. +V. +j, 60 V.I. 597, 600, 602 (2016) (emphasis added). An analysis of these three factors +clearly indicates punitive damages are available under USVI law in this case. +The "Most Important" Banks Factor Supports Imposition Of Punitive +Damages Against The Estate. +The "most important|]" of those factors—the "approach [that] represents the soundest +rule for the Virgin Islands"-clearly points towards allowing punitive damages against the Estate. +In fact, the Government of the USVI filed a complaint against the Estate in which the USVI seeks +punitive damages against the Estate. In its complaint, the USVI affirms the soundness of +permitting the recovery of punitive damages against the Estate. First, the USVI states the purpose +of punitive damages "is to punish the defendant for outrageous conduct that is reckless or +intentional" and "to deter others from engaging in such conduct in the future." Additionally, the +USVI states "punitive damages are especially important in the case of persons or companies that +have money, assets, and power that mere fines, penalties, and economic damages are simply not +sufficient." The Government of the USVI's seeking punitive damages should be dispositive in this +Banks analysis. +Of course, the USVI properly identifies the benefits to the Virgin Islands of permitting +punitive damages against the Estate. An independent analysis too strongly favors this approach +for the USVI. Punitive damages in the Virgin Islands are designed to both punish wrongdoers and +to deter others from engaging in similar conduct. See, e.g., Guardian Ins. Co. v. Gumbs, No. ST- +15-CV-195, 2016 WL 9525609, at *10 (V.I. Super. Aug. 22, 2016). The importance to the USVI +of deterring the kind of conduct Epstein engaged in in the USVI is obvious. It is on the USVI +where Epstein not only abused countless girls and young women, but also "abused [the] privileges +of residency," specifically choosing the Virgin Islands as the location for his heinous crimes +because of its seclusion and isolation, and thereby contributing to a public perception that the +5 + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 39 Filed 04/27/20 Page 10 of 14 +Virgin Islands is "a hiding place for human trafficking and sex crimes." +Critically, Epstein committed suicide in prison with full knowledge that, to put it plainly, +the jig was up. He faced not only the strong likelihood of life in prison, but also claims seeking +punitive damages for his horrific acts. He committed suicide fully aware of that reality. The fact +that Epstein would have been subject to punitive damages claims if he had not taken his own +life—and that he committed suicide knowing he was subject to such claims—further militates in +favor of permitting punitive damages against his Estate. This specific circumstance is recognized +and accounted for in other jurisdictions like, for example, in Indiana where the Indiana Supreme +Court indicated its intention to decline applying its normal bar on punitive damages "where a +tortfeasor seems to have considered his own death as an escape from punitive damages incident to +some intentional tort" by committing suicide. See Crabtree ex rel. Kemp v. Estate of Crabtree, +837 N.E.2d 135, 139 (Ind. 2005).? In this circumstance, the USVI would clearly benefit from +allowing for punitive damages against his Estate which would otherwise be available against +Epstein (and the very same money now sitting in trust) had he not killed himself with full +knowledge of the weight of the claims against him. +While courts in the USVI have favorably cited to the Section 908 of the Restatement, the +USVI Supreme Court in +supra, 60 V.I. at 600 rejected "mechanistically following the +Restatements" and instead instructed USVI courts to apply the Banks analysis instead. The Court +should follow its heed. +In conclusion, it is beyond dispute that the soundest rule for the USVI would be to allow +3 See also Estate of Mayer v. Lax, Inc., 998 N.E.2d 238, 259 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (noting a +"possible exception" to the rule proscribing punitive damages against an estate "if the tortfeasor +committed suicide to attempt to escape such damages"). +6 + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 39 Filed 04/27/20 Page 11 of 14 +punitive damages against the Estate: 1) Epstein was a domiciliary of the USVI; 2) the Estate is +probated in the USVI and actively administered through its courts; 3) the Government of the USVI +is itself seeking punitive damages against the Estate; and 4) Epstein committed suicide knowing of +the onslaught of claims against him. +2. +The Two Lesser Banks Factors Do Not Support Barring Punitive +Damages Against The Estate. +As for the other two elements of the Banks analysis, they do not provide any justification +for denying punitive damages against the Estate. As for the first factor, Plaintiff is not aware of +any USVI decision on the question of whether to permit punitive damages in this circumstance. +While the federal court in the USVI declined to allow punitive damages in a case where the +personal representatives of an estate seek punitive damages against a third party for the decedent's +wrongful death, it goes without saying the circumstances there are entirely different from the one +here.* They seek punitive damages in favor of an estate, whereas here punitive damages are +sought against an estate. Simply, the circumstance at issue here has not yet been addressed by a +USVI court. +As for the second, less-important factor of the Banks analysis, while it is true that barring +punitive damages against an estate is the majority view, a significant minority has reached the +opposite conclusion: ten (Arizona, Delaware, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, ++ See, e.g., +v. Dowson Holding Co., 51 V.I. 619, 628 (D.V.I. 2009) (personal +representative seeks punitive damage against operator of a hotel where decedent was shot and +killed); Booth v. Bowen, No. CIV. 2006-217, 2008 WL 220067, at *5 (D.V.I. Jan. 10, 2008) +(personal representative seeks punitive damages against scuba diving instruction company after +decedent drowned during scuba course) +7 + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 39 Filed 04/27/20 Page 12 of 14 +Alabama, Montana, New Hampshire, and West Virginia) of the approximately 35 jurisdictions to +address the question have decided punitive damages should be allowed against an estate, including +for reasons the USVI as we write this seeks punitive damages against the Estate: adequate +compensation for victims, punishment of wrongdoers, deterrence of other future wrongdoers, and +social condemnation of uniquely abhorrent behavior. Haralson v. Fisher Surveying, Inc., 201 Ariz. +1, 3-4 (2001) (en banc); see also generally Zitter, 30 A.L.R.4th 707; Barry A. Lindahl, 2 Modern +Tort Law: Liability and Litigation § 20:24 (2d ed., June 2019 Update). Importantly, most of the +| jurisdictions adopting the majority rule have-unlike the Virgin Islands—passed a statute +codifying a prohibition on punitive damages against an estate. See Alain Ellis Living Tr., 308 Kan. +at 1046 ("[A]t least 14 of the cases adopting the position that an injured party cannot recover +punitive damages from the estate of a tortfeasor—the majority rule-reached that conclusion +because their respective state legislatures had passed a statute stating that position."). Therefore, +most of the jurisdictions that bar punitive damages against an Estate do so as an expression of +legislative, not judicial, will. +III. ANY NEW ARGUMENTS RAISED BY DEFENDANTS IN THEIR REPLY BRIEF +SHOULD BE IGNORED +Any new arguments raised by Defendants in the reply brief would be improper and should +be ignored. "It is beyond cavil that raising a new substantive issue of law for the first time in a +reply brief is improper ..." State Farm Fire and Cas. Co. v LiMauro, 103 AD2d 514, 521-22 +(N.Y 1984); see also David B. v Millar, 2 AD3d 763, 764 (N.Y. 2003) ("This argument is not +properly before this Court since it is raised for the first time in Il reply brief"). +5 See Jay M. Zitter, Claim for punitive damages in tort action as surviving death of tortfeasor or +person wronged, 30 A.L.R.4th 707 (1984 ed., 2019 Suppl.). +8 + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 39 Filed 04/27/20 Page 13 of 14 +IV. +CONCLUSION +For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court deny Defendants' +motion to dismiss Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages. +Dated: April 27, 2020 +Respectfully submitted, +By: Is/ Robert Glassman +Robert Glassman +PANISH SHEA & BOYLE LLP +11111 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 700 +Los Angeles, CA 90025 +Telephone: (310) 477-1700 +Facsimile: (310) 477-1699 +glassman@psblaw.com +Attorneys for Plaintiff + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 39 Filed 04/27/20 Page 14 of 14 +CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE +1, Robert S. Glassman, hereby certify that Plaintiff's Memorandum of Opposition to +Defendants' Motion to Dismiss contains 2,583 words and complies with the formatting rules set +forth in the Individual Practices of Judge John G. Koeltl. +Respectfully submitted, +Dated: April 27, 2020 +By: Is/ Robert Glassman +Robert Glassman +PANISH SHEA & BOYLE LLP +11111 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 700 +Los Angeles, CA 90025 +Telephone: (310) 477-1700 +Facsimile: (310) 477-1699 +glassman@psblaw.com +Attorneys for Plaintiff +10 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9859cc1562e4ca06eed366e1a2ce36262d4e8d6e07c8f6f96646cef7bd21c5e6.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9859cc1562e4ca06eed366e1a2ce36262d4e8d6e07c8f6f96646cef7bd21c5e6.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9dbe335da45e2136d9aa70458ca3b446240780ba --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9859cc1562e4ca06eed366e1a2ce36262d4e8d6e07c8f6f96646cef7bd21c5e6.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -180, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "9859cc1562e4ca06eed366e1a2ce36262d4e8d6e07c8f6f96646cef7bd21c5e6", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 15, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "3b3ed4eed9828e68aa33a3c682e00cc33d10354947b3c409e72fe3e26ebdf99b", + "output_sha256": "30aaec0cdd5305efb8faaac39d534a42098e32f988297bd0cbd30cf90e090d97", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/98696be6a76b9b3f87c1f9b852e91ae330a1329dd128debc4705bfb52516667d.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/98696be6a76b9b3f87c1f9b852e91ae330a1329dd128debc4705bfb52516667d.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f2e8b11baa276137a67900f1bb356efcc4abd86b --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/98696be6a76b9b3f87c1f9b852e91ae330a1329dd128debc4705bfb52516667d.md @@ -0,0 +1,38 @@ +Case 1:19-cV-09610-PAE-DCF Document 47 Filed 10/01/20 Page 1 of 1 +Troutman Pepper +875 Third Avenue +New York, New York 10022 +Sanders LLP +troutman™ +pepper +troutman.com +Bennet J. Moskowitz +bennet.moskowitz@troutman.com +October 1, 2020 +VIA ECF +Hon. Debra C. Freeman +Daniel +Moynihan +United States Courthouse +500 Pearl St. +New York, NY 10007 +Re: +Jane Doe 17 v. Darren . Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, Co-Executors of the +Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, et al., 1:19-cv-09610-PAE-DCF; Status Report +Dear Judge Freeman: +Pursuant to the Court's September 4, 2020 Order (ECF No. 46), Plaintiff and +Defendants Darren. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, Co-Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey +E. Epstein,, Nine East 71st Street Corporation, Laurel, Inc., Financial Trust Company, +Inc., NES, LLC, Maple, Inc., LSJE, LLC, HBRK Associates, Inc., Nautilus, Inc., Cypress, +Inc., and JEGE, Inc., jointly submit this status report. +Plaintiff has submitted her claim to the Epstein Victims' Compensation Program +(the "Program"). The Program's Administrator has issued a compensation determination +to Plaintiff, which Plaintiff is considering. Should Plaintiff resolve her claims against +Defendants via the Program, the parties will thereafter promptly discontinue this action +with prejudice. +To preserve the parties' resources and in the interests of judicial economy, the +parties respectfully request that this case remain stayed at this time. +Respectfully submitted, +/s/ Bennet J. Moskowitz +Bennet J. Moskowitz +cc: Counsel of Record (via ECF) diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/98696be6a76b9b3f87c1f9b852e91ae330a1329dd128debc4705bfb52516667d.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/98696be6a76b9b3f87c1f9b852e91ae330a1329dd128debc4705bfb52516667d.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2b63fe4e688b1ca37479c2539f302fb69d6099c9 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/98696be6a76b9b3f87c1f9b852e91ae330a1329dd128debc4705bfb52516667d.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "98696be6a76b9b3f87c1f9b852e91ae330a1329dd128debc4705bfb52516667d", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "7b3192777fefdd5583d247c1803256498cf37dfb0abe8d22e65dfd708b8ea826", + "output_sha256": "bc44e5c2185f64ec90da285c58ee03698659b5f32e90df81de5861ac2764d564", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/987ad5bde397b660e4597b6f1cd19031ed40c0086721a3fd6f3587c71919306d.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/987ad5bde397b660e4597b6f1cd19031ed40c0086721a3fd6f3587c71919306d.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..43a47421f6308d5b92fbf42d00c2e4187e34bc5d --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/987ad5bde397b660e4597b6f1cd19031ed40c0086721a3fd6f3587c71919306d.md @@ -0,0 +1,267 @@ +Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 61 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/28/2009 Page 1 of 8 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/ +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 +PLAINTIFE, +L, RESPONSE TO THIRD PARTY WITNESS, +IGOR ZINOVIEW'S, MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND INCORPORATED +MEMORANDUM OF LAW +Plaintiff, +_, by and through her undersigned counsel, hereby +files her Response Third Party Witness, Igor Zinoview's, Motion For Protective Order +and Incorporated Memorandum of Law (D.E. 402), and in support thereof states as +follows: +Third party witness, Igor Zinoview, seeks to have this Court enter an order +preventing his deposition from going forward at all, or, in the alternative, limiting the +scope of permissible questioning during same. Mr. Zinoview's deposition is presently +scheduled to be taken on December 18, 2009. +Mr. Zinoview has been employed by Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, as his +"driver, bodyguard, and trainer" since November of 2005. See Affidavit of Igor Zinoview + + +Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 61 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/28/2009 Page 2 of 8 +(D.E. 402) dated November 9, 2009. Mr. Zinoview argues that his deposition should not +go forward as scheduled because Defendant Epstein has never discussed nor +attempted to discuss with him "any facts or information related to any legal matters in +which he [Jeffrey Epstein] is involved." Id. From Mr. Zinoview's vague assertion springs +the bold yet erroneous argument that "Mr. Zinoview cannot possibly have any +knowledge or information that is presently germane to this action." +3. +It should initially be noted that a "complete prohibition of a deposition is an +extraordinary measure which should be resorted to only in rare occasions." Jennings v. +Family Management, 201 F.R.D. 272 (D.D.C. 2001); See also, Salter v. Upjohn Co., +593 F.2d 649, 651 (5" Circ. 1979)(It is very unusual for trial court to prohibit the taking +of a deposition altogether, and absent extraordinary circumstances, such order would +likely be in error.); Inv. Properties Intern., Ltd. v. IOS, Ltd., 459 F.2d. 705, 708 (2d Circ. +1972)("an order to vacate a notice of taking deposition is generally regarded as both +unusual and unfavorable ... "). Neither Mr. Zinoview's conclusory affidavit nor his +Motion provide anything even approaching the "extraordinary circumstances" necessary +to justify the entry of order precluding his deposition from going forward at all. +4. +Additionally, Mr. Zinoview's vague assertion that he and Defendant +Epstein have never discussed any facts or information related to any legal matters that +Mr. Epstein is involved in does not give rise to requisite "extraordinary circumstances" +either. Detweiler Bros, Inc. v John Graham and Company, 412 F.Supp. 416 (E.D. Wash, +1976)(Plaintiff could not properly seek to prohibit defendant from deposing plaintiff's +employee via a protective order on grounds that employee had no knowledge of matters +at issue.) See also, 8 Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. §2037, +and +("A witness + + +Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 61 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/28/2009 Page 3 of 8 +ordinarily cannot escape examination by denying knowledge of any relevant facts, since +the party seeking to take the deposition is entitled to test the witness's lack of +knowledge.") +5. +The undersigned, as well as counsel for all of the other victims of Jeffrey +Epstein, are entitled to question and challenge Mr. Zinoview on his purported lack of +knowledge. Mr. Zinoview and plaintiffs' counsel very well might have a difference of +opinion on what constitutes "facts and information related to any legal matters" in which +Defendant Epstein is involved. The victims of Jeffrey Epstein ought not to be forced to +accept Mr. Zinoview's opinion as to what constitutes "facts and information related to +any legal matters" involving Jeffrey Epstein. Instead, plaintiffs should be able to explore +these relevant matters directly with Mr. Zinoview, rather than being forced to rely on his +twenty seven (27) word claim of lacking any knowledge. +6. +Additionally, Mr. Zinoview worked for Defendant Epstein during portions of +the Palm Beach Police Department's months' long investigation which spanned from +March 15, 2005 through February 2006 into the illegal sexual contact committed by +Defendant Epstein against these minor plaintiffs. Accordingly, Mr. Zinoview certainly +might have direct knowledge about what was going on in and around the Epstein +residence during the time period in which he was employed by Defendant Epstein as his +"driver, bodyguard, and trainer" while his employer was being investigated by law +enforcement. Given the Defendant's voracious invocation of his Fifth Amendment +privilege, the plaintiffs have consistently been denied the opportunity to seek any +relevant information directly from Defendant Epstein himself. Rather, plaintiffs have + + +Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 61 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/28/2009 Page 4 of 8 +been forced to build their cases against Mr. Epstein by other discovery methods, +including deposing his employees who may have relevant information. +7. Third party witness Igor Zinoview has failed to meet his very high burden +of establishing "extraordinary circumstances." Mr. Zinoview has failed to demonstrate +the "good cause" required by Rule 26(c) to protect a person from "annoyance, +embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense" to overcome the liberal +scope of permissible discovery. The above proposed lines of inquiry of Mr. Zinoview +are certainly reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. +Accordingly, to the extent that it seeks to preclude his deposition from going forward at +all, Mr. Zinoview's Motion should be denied +Next, Mr. Zinoview also seeks to prevent questions being posed to him +wherein he is first asked to "assume certain facts about which he has no knowledge," +and then be asked about his "opinions about certain facts." First, it remains to be seen +exactly what facts about which Mr. Zinoview has no knowledge. Second, Mr. Zinoview's +opinions and beliefs about the factual matters surrounding plaintiffs' claims are relevant +to exploring any potential bias and prejudice in favor of his employer and against +Defendant Epstein's victims. For example, if Mr. Zinoview believes that these plaintiffs +are simply inventing their claims against his employer that they were sexually victimized +by Defendant Epstein while they were minor children, it very well might impact his +impartiality as a witness. Third, the undersigned has no present intention of engaging in +this line of questioning unless the proverbial "door" has been opened by Mr. Zinoview +first. Lastly, counsel for Mr. Zinoview is certainly free to invoke the privileges afforded to + + +Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 61 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/28/2009 Page 5 of 8 +him by the applicable procedural rules should he feel that his client is being asked +inappropriate questions during the deposition. +9. +In conclusion and for the reasons cited above, Mr. Zinoview's Motion For +Protective Order should be denied in its entirety. +WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, +respectfully requests that +this Court deny Third Party Igor Zinoview's Motion For Protective Order. +Respectfully submitted, +Is/Jack P. +JACK SCAROLA +Florida Bar No. 169440 +JACK P. +Florida Bar No.: 0547808 +Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. +2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard +West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 +Phone: +(561) 686-6300 +Fax: +(561) 383-9456 +Attorneys for Plaintiff + + +Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 61 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/28/2009 Page 6 of 8 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I HEREBY CERTIFY that on November 28'h +, 2009, I electronically filed the +foregoing document with the Clerk of Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the +foregoing document is being served this day on all counsel of record identified below via +transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF. +Ls/Jack P. +Jack Scarola +Florida Bar No.: 169440 +Jack P. +Florida Bar No.: 0547808 +Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. +2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard +West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 +Phone: +(561) 686-6300 +Fax: +(561) 383-9424 +Attorneys for Plaintiff + + +Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 61 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/28/2009 Page 7 of 8 +Certificate of Service +Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein +Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/ +Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. +Brad +, Esq. +Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. +Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler +Mermelstein & 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 +bedwards@rra-law.com +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +08-80893 +Co related Cases Nos. 08-80069, 08-30119, Paul O. Casell, Bs. +08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80993, +Pro Hac Vice +08-80994 +332 South 1400 E, Room 101 +Salt Lake City, UT 84112 +Richard Horace Willits, Esq. +801-585-5202 +Richard H. Willits, P.A. +801-585-6833 Fax +2290 104 Avenue North +cassellp@law.utah.edu +Suite 404 +Co-counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe +Lake Worth, FL 33461 +561-582-7600 +Isidro M. +, Esq. +Fax: 561-588-8819 +Law Firm, P.A. +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. +224 Datura Street, Suite 900 +08-80811 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +reelrhw@hotmail.com +561-832-7732 +561-832-7137 F +Jack Scarola, Esq. +isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net +Jack P. +1, Esq. +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. +Searcy Denney Scarola Barhart & Shipley, +P.A. +08-80469 +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 +isx@searcylaw.com +25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800 +Miami, FL 33130 +jph(@searcylaw.com +305 358-2800 +Counsel for Plaintiff, C.M.A. +Bruce Reinhart, Esq. +Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A. +250 S. Australian Avenue +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +riosefsberg@podhurst.com +kezell@podhurst.com +Counsel for Plaintiffs in Related Cases +Nos. 09-80591 and 09-80656 +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. + + +Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 61 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/28/2009 Page 8 of 8 +561-202-6360 +Fax: 561-828-0983 +ecf@brucereinhartlaw.com +Counsel for Defendant +Theodore J. Leopold, Esq. +Spencer I. Kuvin, Esq. +Leopold, Kuvin, P.A +2925 PGA Blvd., Suite 200 +Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 +561-684-6500 +Fax: 561-515-2610 +skuvin@leopoldkyvin.com +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. +08-08804 +Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +250 Australian Ayenue South +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, PL 33401-5012 +561-659-8300 +Fax: 561-835-8691 +jagesg@bellsouth.net +Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/987ad5bde397b660e4597b6f1cd19031ed40c0086721a3fd6f3587c71919306d.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/987ad5bde397b660e4597b6f1cd19031ed40c0086721a3fd6f3587c71919306d.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..096ffed4938f72700499f8244f2861216b30e182 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/987ad5bde397b660e4597b6f1cd19031ed40c0086721a3fd6f3587c71919306d.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -96, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "987ad5bde397b660e4597b6f1cd19031ed40c0086721a3fd6f3587c71919306d", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 8, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "e90e8ed5e200dce69ca10c6ecef95a7b0ff7695cd459d6d01fa308fa1b9bfa18", + "output_sha256": "8e66bc07abaf2dc6a9c748b92210ed33c679fdd4f2d321e7c0d25482834a551f", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/98bcd6a3e4e74aa2d21c8ffac3c70ef095e7b495398069c48050f4fcc4d8bbae.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/98bcd6a3e4e74aa2d21c8ffac3c70ef095e7b495398069c48050f4fcc4d8bbae.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..253bb4975da128958e744a0c936b2a5f93333b67 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/98bcd6a3e4e74aa2d21c8ffac3c70ef095e7b495398069c48050f4fcc4d8bbae.md @@ -0,0 +1,144 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 503 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2010 Page 1 of 4 +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, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, +08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, +09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092 +DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE RESPONSE TO +PLAINTIFFS JANE DOE NOS. 2-8', APPEAL PURSUANT TO S.D.FLA.MAG.4 AND +OBJECTIONS AS TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S ORDER ON NET WORTH +DISCOVERY (493) +Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, (hereinafter "Epstein") by and through his +undersigned attorneys, respectfully moves this Court for an Extension of Time in which +to Respond to Plaintiffs, Jane Doe Nos. 2-8', Appeal Pursuant to S.D.Fla. Mag.R.4. +Defendant seeks an additional ten (10) business days until April 12, 2010 to file his +Response. As good cause in support of granting the motion, Defendant states: +On March 4, 2010 this Court entered an Order granting in part and +denying in part Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Net Worth Discovery (DE 480). +On March 18, 2010, 2010 both the Defendant and the Plaintiffs filed +Motions for Reconsideration and/or Request for Rule 4 Review and Appeal (Des 488 and +493). + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 503 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2010 Page 2 of 4 +3. +Defendant's Response to Plaintiffs Jane Doe Nos. 2-8' Appeal Pursuant to +S.D.Fla.Mag.R.4 and Objections to Magistrate Judge's Order on Net Worth Discovery is +currently due on March 29, 2010. +4. +As the Court is well aware, counsel for the Defendant is inundated with +discovery requests, responses and replies, and just finalized and filed his Reply to +Plaintiff, Jane Doe's, Response in Opposition to Defendant's Request for Rule 4 Review +and Appeal relating to a previous Order entered by this Court. Further, counsel for the +Defendant has been in attendance of several full day depositions both is these case and +other unrelated matters. +While this request is reasonable, counsel for the Defendant has spoken to +counsel for the Plaintiff and counsel for the Plaintiff is in agreement with five (5) +business day extension, but not a ten (10) business day extension. +Wherefore, the undersigned respectfully requests the relief sought herein, and for +such other and further relief as this court deems just and proper. +Local Rule 7.1 Statement +Counsel for the movant conferred by e-mail with counsel for the Plaintiff and +Counsel for Plaintiff is in agreement with a five (5) business day extension, but not a ten +(10) business day extension. +By: /s/ Michael J. Pike +ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR. +Florida Bar #224162 +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. +Florida Bar #617296 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 503 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2010 Page 3 of 4 +Certificate of Service +I HEREBY 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 +electronic mail (e-mail) on this 26" day of March, 2010. +Respectfully submitted, +3y: Is/ Michael J. Pike +ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ +Florida Bar No. 224162 +rcrit@bclclaw.com +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. +Florida Bar #617296 +mpike@bclclaw.com +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & +COLEMAN +303 Banyan Blvd., 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. +Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, I +I, Fistos +Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. +& Lehrman, PL +Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. +425 N. Andrews Avenue +18205 Biscayne Boulevard +Suite 2 +Suite 2218 +'ort Lauderdale, FL 3330 +Miami, FL 33160 +'hone: 954-524-2820 +305-931-2200 +Fax: 954-524-2822 +Fax: 305-931-0877 +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +brad@pathtojustice.com +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. +08-80893 +Counsel for Plaintiffs +In related Cases Nos. 08-80069, 08-80119, Paul G. Cassell, Esq. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 503 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2010 Page 4 of 4 +08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80993, Pro Hac Vice +08-80994 +332 South 1400 E, Room 101 +Salt Lake City, UT 84112 +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +801-585-5202 +Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +801-585-6833 Fax +250 Australian Avenue South +cassellp@law.utah.edu +Suite 1400 +Co-counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe +West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 +561-659-8300 +Fax: 561-835-8691 +jagesq@bellsouth.net +Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein +Isidro M. +Esq. +Law Firm, P.A +224 Datura Street, Suite 900 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561-832-7732 +Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq. +561-832-7137 F +Katherine W. Ezell, Esq. +isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net +Podhurst Orseck, P.A. +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. +25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800 +08-80469 +Miami, FL 33130 +305 358-2800 +Fax: 305 358-2382 +rjosefsberg@podhurst.com +kezell@podhurst.com +Counsel for Plaintiffs in Related Cases Nos. +09-80591 and 09-80656 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/98bcd6a3e4e74aa2d21c8ffac3c70ef095e7b495398069c48050f4fcc4d8bbae.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/98bcd6a3e4e74aa2d21c8ffac3c70ef095e7b495398069c48050f4fcc4d8bbae.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..902081775eabf83dae4022337052441f434ba0d8 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/98bcd6a3e4e74aa2d21c8ffac3c70ef095e7b495398069c48050f4fcc4d8bbae.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -48, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "98bcd6a3e4e74aa2d21c8ffac3c70ef095e7b495398069c48050f4fcc4d8bbae", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 4, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "27bf3d6512e93eec5c774948fb06f17c4ff7e632f06077564f05b9c83746d7aa", + "output_sha256": "97b98459239a7b8987b8357eb9393f3c927e85d4a0d3c5ca7851c1dd39d4e5a3", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/98d3600b46bd8e48ae920c61e5f7106ddcf6abfc15bc20c5f2055304cef6f0e0.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/98d3600b46bd8e48ae920c61e5f7106ddcf6abfc15bc20c5f2055304cef6f0e0.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e64b2d5845d5f24719cf9eef6211cff95b335d2d --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/98d3600b46bd8e48ae920c61e5f7106ddcf6abfc15bc20c5f2055304cef6f0e0.md @@ -0,0 +1,351 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 160 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2012 Page 1 of 13 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/ +JANE DOE 1 and JANE DOE 2, +Plaintiffs, +V. +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, +Defendant. +/ +INTERVENORS' MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER AND +OPPOSITION TO MOTIONS OF JANE DOE 1 AND JANE DOE 2 FOR +PRODUCTION, USE, AND DISCLOSURE OF SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS +Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 complain that the government treated them unfairly by not +keeping them involved in the government's settlement negotiations with Jeffrey Epstein. They seek +to invalidate the Non-Prosecution Agreement between Mr. Epstein and the government, claiming +that the agreement violates the Crime Victims's Rights Act. +Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 seek disclosure of all the letters between the lawyers defending +Mr. Epstein and federal prosecutors during the criminal investigation. They claim that the letters are +relevant and admissible to show that the government did not live up to its obligations under the +Crime Vietims' Rights Act. Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 have copies of the letters and emails the +government wrote to the defense team, and now seek copies of the letters the defense wrote to the +prosecutors. [DE 50 at 5]. +The letters and emails prepared by the government are subject to a protective order +prohibiting their disclosure. In the related case 9:08-CV-80893 (the case where Jane Doe 1 and Jane +Doe 2 sued Mr. Epstein for money), the Magistrate Judge prohibited Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 160 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2012 Page 2 of 13 +from making "the subject correspondence public by either filing the correspondence in a court file, +attaching it to a deposition, releasing it to the media, or publically disseminating it in any other +fashion, before allowing Epstein an opportunity to object to its disclosure ...." [DE 226 at 4] +(emphasis added). The order is dated January 5, 2011. +Established case law as well as sound and substantial policy considerations prohibit +disclosure of the defense settlement letters written to the government, and require that the letters and +emails that Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 already have remain confidential. The release of these letters, +and the precedent it would establish, would have a severe chilling effect on the lawyers' ability to +engage in candid settlement discussions with the government in future cases. Indeed, to the extent +such written correspondence is deemed discoverable by third parties, criminal defense attorneys and +the government's lawyers alike would lose the ability to negotiate such agreements, and to provide +the most vigorous defense of their respective clients' interests, without being inhibited by the +possible disclosure of their correspondence in meritless lawsuits like this one. +The Court should decline the invitation to fuel the media campaign against Mr. Epstein and +should deny the motions by Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 to release materials that are plainly the +privileged opinion work-product of the attorneys, that constitute settlement negotiations under +Federal Rule of Evidence 410 and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11, and that contain +information about matters occurring before the grand jury, which are strictly confidential under +Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e). +There is no question that Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 intend to disseminate these confidential +communications to the media to ridicule and prejudice Mr. Epstein. And currying favor with the +media at Mr. Epstein's expense is not new to +, the lawyer who represents Jane Doe +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 160 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2012 Page 3 of 13 +1 and Jane Doe 2. He and his own lawyer in a related state case, Jack Scarola, have been widely +quoted by local and British press, making prejudicial and inflammatory statements about Mr. +Epstein. +If the correspondence between the defense team and the government is not kept +confidential, attorneys Scarola and +could reasonably be expected to continue disseminating +out-of-court publicity and making extrajudicial statements and commentary to the media to prejudice +Mr. Epstein. +I. +THE LETTERS ARE THE PRIVILEGED +OPINION WORK-PRODUCT OF THE ATTORNEYS +The correspondence with the government contains the opinions, strategies, and thought +processes of the defense team concerning the matters under investigation. The letters were obviously +written in furtherance of settlement, and constitute the privileged opinion work-product of the +lawyers. The Court should deny the motion by Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 for their production [DE +50 at 5]. +A. THE CONTOURS OF THE PRIVILEGE +The United States Supreme Court has recognized "a qualified privilege for certain materials +prepared by an attorney 'acting for his client in anticipation of litigation."' United States v. Nobles, +422 U.S. 225, 238 (1975). The work-product doctrine applies in civil and criminal litigation. Id. +at 236. +In Hickman v. Taylor, the Supreme Court described the policy behind the doctrine protecting +the opinion work-product of lawyers. The Court explained that a lawyer is bound "to work for the +advancement of justice while faithfully protecting the rightful interests of his clients." 329 U.S. at +510-11. To perform his duties, "it is essential that a lawyer work with a certain degree of privacy, +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 160 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2012 Page 4 of 13 +free from unnecessary intrusion by opposing parties and their counsel." Id. Properly preparing a +client's case demands that the lawyer "assemble information, sift what he considers to be the relevant +from the irrelevant facts, prepare his legal theories, and plan his strategy without undue and needless +interference." Id. +The lawyer's work is reflected "in interviews, statements, memoranda, correspondence, +briefs, mental impressions, personal beliefs, and countless other tangible and intangible ways ...." +Id. If such materials were open to adverse parties "on mere demand," then "much of what is now +put down in writing would remain unwritten. An attorney's thoughts, heretofore inviolate, would +not be his own." Id. Inevitably, "i]nefficiency, unfairness and sharp practices would ... develop +in the giving of legal advice and in the preparation of cases for trial." Id. Ultimately, "It]he effect +on the legal profession would be demoralizing. And the interests of the clients and the cause of' +justice would be poorly served." Id. +For these reasons, the opinion work-product of the lawyers is afforded the most +comprehensive protection under the law. "[A] highly particularized showing," as well as "rare and +extraordinary circumstances" are required to overcome such a claim of privilege. In re Air Crash +Near Cali, Colombia, 959 F. Supp. 1529, 1536-37 (S.D. Fla. 1997) (*a highly particularized +showing" is required to overcome a claim of privilege); Cox v. Administrator U.S. Steel & Carnegie, +17 F.3d 1386, 1422 (11th Cir. 1994) ("Opinion work product enjoys a nearly absolute immunity and +can be discovered only in very rare and extraordinary circumstances"). +4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 160 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2012 Page 5 of 13 +B. +JANE DOE 1 AND JANE DOE 2 HAVE NOT MADE A HIGHLY PARTICULARIZED SHOWING +OF NEED OR OF RARE AND EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES +There are no rare or exceptional circumstances in this case. Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 assert +only that the defense team correspondence is "highly relevant" and "discusses" their rights as "crime +victims[.] so it is obviously quite material." [DE 50 at 5]. These are just conclusions, neither rare +nor exceptional, and they are not supported by any factual allegations in the pleadings. Indeed, +nothing in the motion explains how the opinions of the defense lawyers would add to the claim that +the government did not live up to its obligations under the Crime Victims' Rights Act. +Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 have not made a "highly particularized showing" of their need +for these letters. On the contrary, their pleadings show conclusively that they do not need the letters +to establish their claims. Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 have moved for summary judgment [DE 48]. +By submitting this motion, Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 admit that they do not require additional +discovery, and obviously do not need the settlement letters to substantiate their claims under the +Crime Victims' Rights Act. +As a matter of law, Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 cannot show a highly particularized valid +need for the correspondence for two additional reasons: First, they seek the letters to invalidate the +Non-Prosecution Agreement, which is expressly prohibited by the Crime Victims' Rights Act. +Second, they seek the letters to use them as evidence, which is expressly prohibited by the Rules of +Evidence. +(1) There Is No Valid Need When The Goal Is To Use The Letters To Invalidate The +Non-Prosecution Agreement: Under the Crime Victims' Rights Act, neither Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe +2, nor the Court can invalidate the Non-Prosecution Agreement. The Act expressly prohibits it: +5 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 160 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2012 Page 6 of 13 +"Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to impair the prosecutorial discretion of the Attorney +General or any officer under his direction." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(6). +The Act codifies the long-standing principle that "ItJhe Attorney General and United States +Attorneys retain broad discretion to enforce the Nation's criminal laws." United States v. Armstrong, +517 U.S. 456, 464 (1996). This is due in large part to the separation of powers doctrine - +prosecutors are delegates of the President, helping him discharge his constitutional obligation "to +take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." Id.; U.S. CONST. art. II, § 3. Whether to investigate +possible criminal conduct, grant immunity, negotiate a plea, or dismiss charges, are all central to the +prosecutor's executive function. United States v. +, 231 F.3d 800, 807 (11th Cir. 2000). "The +judiciary cannot interfere with a prosecutor's charging discretion, except in narrow circumstances +where it is necessary to do so in order to discharge the judicial function of interpreting the +Constitution." Id. And this Court has not been called upon to interpret the Constitution. +The most recent and compelling precedent illustrate the complete absence of case support +for the proposition advanced by Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 - that after a Non-Prosecution +Agreement is final and its terms and burdens have been fully met, a Court can invalidate that +agreement because a third party was not given an opportunity to express an opinion about its terms. +Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 rely on In re +527 F.3d 391 (5th Cir. 2008), to support invalidation +of the Non-Prosecution Agreement. In re +was litigated by one of the lawyers who also +represents Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 here. Despite citing and quoting from In re +throughout +his papers in this litigation, the lawyer skips over what is arguably the most important part of the In +re +litigation as it pertains to the relief sought here: Following remand from the Fifth Circuit, +the district court denied the motion of the victims to invalidate the defendant's plea agreement as a +6 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 160 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2012 Page 7 of 13 +remedy for the claimed violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. +The district court expressly noted on remand that "ItJhe purpose of the conferral right is not +to give the victims a right to approve or disapprove a proposed plea in advance or to participate in +plea negotiations." In re +on remand as United States v. BP Products North America, Inc., 610 +F. Supp. 2d 655, 727 (S.D. Tex. 2009). Instead, "[t]he purpose of the reasonable right to confer is +for victims to provide information to the government, obtain information from the government, and +to form and express their views to the government and court." Id. The district court concluded that +the violations alleged by the victims did not provide a basis for rejecting the plea agreement. Id. at +726-27; see In re Acker, 596 F.3d 370, 373 (6th Cir. 2010) (denying mandamus where petitioners +sought to vacate plea agreement which made no provision for restitution in deference to pending +civil litigation); United States v. Aguirre-_ +597 F.3d 46 (Ist Cir. 2010) (relying on the +"strong interest in the finality of criminal sentences" to reject mandamus under the Act where a +defendant had pleaded guilty and had been sentenced more than two years earlier); see also United +States v. Bedonie, 413 F.3d 1126, 1129-30 (10th Cir. 2005) (district court had no authority under +mandatory restitution act to reopen restitution proceedings after sentencing). +More recently in the case of In re Peterson, No. 2:10-CV-298, 2010 WL 5108692 (N.D. Ind. +Dec. 8, 2010), the district court denied relief under the Crime Victims' Restitution Act before any +charges were filed. The court recognized that the Act "guarantees crime victims a range of +substantive and participatory rights," but that "[w]hether charges might be filed and proceedings +initiated in the future is a matter of prosecutorial discretion, and the [Act] expressly provides that +"InJothing in this chapter shall be construed to impair the prosecutorial discretion of the Attorney +General or any office under his direction."" Id. at *2 (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(6)). +7 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 160 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2012 Page 8 of 13 +Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 have not identified what relief they seek other than invalidation +of the Non-Prosecution Agreement. They obviously cannot seek money damages under the Act. 18 +U.S.C. § 3771(d)(6). They have requested a hearing so that the Court can pick some form of +"appropriate relief" for them. Under these circumstances, Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 have failed +to establish any valid need, or a rare and extraordinary circumstance, to overcome "the nearly +absolute immunity" given to attorney opinion work-product. +(ii) There Is No Valid Need When The Goal Is To Use The Letters As Evidence: Jane +Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 have moved for admission of the settlement letters in evidence. This is plainly +contrary to Federal Rule of Evidence 410 and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11. +The letters exchanged between the government and defense counsel contain the legal +discussions and analyses prepared by attorneys for both sides, in an effort to reach the best possible +result for their clients. The letters were classic settlement discussions, written with the intention that +they remain confidential and protected by Rules 410 and 408, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure +11, and the constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel. Under the express language of +Rule 410, these letters are "not, in any civil or criminal proceeding, admissible against the defendant +who ... was a participant in the plea discussions ...." FED. R. EVID. 410 (emphasis added). +Of course, Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 seek to use the correspondence "against" Mr. Epstein, +even though he is not a party to this civil action. The words "not ... admissible against the +defendant" refer to "the purpose for which [the evidence] is offered" and not "to the kind of +proceeding in which the evidence is offered." FED. R. CRIM. PRO. 11 advisory committee note 1979 +amendment (emphasis added). And the stated purpose of Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 is to invalidate +the government's Non-Prosecution Agreement with Mr. Epstein. +8 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 160 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2012 Page 9 of 13 +The purpose of Rule 11 and Rule 410 is to permit "the unrestrained candor which produces +effective plea discussions." Id. Disposition of cases following plea discussions "is not only an +essential part of the process but a highly desirable part for many reasons." Santobello v. New York, +404 U.S. 257, 261 (1971). Among them is the obvious fact that these negotiations "lead to prompt +and largely final disposition of most criminal cases ...." Id. +The law favors plea negotiations and the resolution of criminal matters. But "for plea +bargaining to work effectively and fairly, a defendant must be free to negotiate without fear that his +statements will later be used against him." United States v. Herman, 544 F.2d 791, 796 (5th Cir. +1977). The candor and meaningful dialogue that bring about settlements would be impossible if +either party risked having their statements used against them. +The Court should deny the motion of Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 to use the letters as +evidence. Their claim that "the correspondence is plainly admissible as it is highly relevant" [DE +51 at 5] misses the point and ignores the purpose and policy of Rule 410. It is precisely because plea +negotiations may be relevant in a subsequent civil action that Rule 410 expressly excludes them. +Il. +THE LETTERS ARE CONFIDENTIAL UNDER FEDERAL +RULE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 6(E) BECAUSE THEY +DISCUSS MATTERS OCCURRING BEFORE THE GRAND JURY +The settlement letters prepared by the government and those prepared by the defense should +remain confidential and subject to a protective order because they contain grand jury information. +Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e)(2) prohibits disclosure of "a matter occurring before +the grand jury." FED. R. CRIM. P. 6(e)(2). This prohibition has been read broadly to include all +matters taking place before the grand jury and not just testimony. Thus, even though the negotiation +9 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 160 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2012 Page 10 of 13 +letters between the lawyers and the government are not themselves "a matter occurring before the +grand jury," they are properly confidential under Rule 6(e) because they would reveal grand jury +information. The letters discuss the government's investigative and law enforcement strategy as well +as the direction of the federal investigation, all matters that are properly protected as occurring before +the grand jury. See Fund for Constitutional Gov't v. Nat'l Archives & Records Serv., 656 F.2d 856, +869 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (identities of witnesses, substance of testimony, strategy, and direction of the +investigation are properly protected by Rule 6(e)). +Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 have not articulated any legitimate, particularized need for grand +jury information. First, their stated strategy is to spread these letters among media outlets such as +the television show Law and Order, gossip columnist Jose Lambiet of the Palm Beach Post, and the +British media, which Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 state has "gone berserk" with gossip about Mr. +Epstein. [DE 51 at 7]. Inciting a media campaign against Mr. Epstein is decidedly not a valid basis +for releasing grand jury information. To be sure, the press has no First Amendment right of access +to matters occurring before a grand jury. In re Subpoena To Testify Before Grand Jury, 864 F.2d +1559, 1562 (11th Cir. 1989).' +Second, Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 have moved for summary judgment, claiming that the +facts are not in dispute and that they are entitled to judgment in their favor as a matter of law. [DE +48]. By their own admission, Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 require no additional discovery, and +obviously do not need the settlement letters to substantiate their claims under the Crime Victims' +'And any hearing or proceeding where grand jury material may be revealed would have +to be closed to the public, including the press. In re Newark Morning Ledger Co., 260 F.3d 217, +226 (3d Cir. 2001) (secrecy afforded grand jury materials extends to hearings where grand jury +information may be revealed). +10 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 160 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2012 Page 11 of 13 +Rights Act. The motion for summary judgement, by definition, establishes that Jane Doe 1 and Jane +Doe 2 have no particularized need for the letters. See SEC v. Merrill Scott & Assoes., Ltd., 600 F.3d +1262, 1271 (10th Cir. 2010) (affirming order limiting discovery where movant did not "show any +need for further discovery in light of the limited nature of the relief he has requested"). +Third, Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 seek disclosure of the letters so they can use them as +evidence against Mr. Epstein, contrary to Federal Rule of Evidence 410. Under Rule 6(e), Jane Doe +1 and Jane Doe 2 can have no legitimate particularized need for grand jury materials that they intend +to use in violation of the rules of evidence. See United States v. Capozzi, 486 F.3d 711, 727 (Ist Cir. +2007) (no right to grand jury transcripts established by defendant who sought them to substantiate +an appeal of a non-justiciable issue); see also United States v. McVeigh, 119 F.3d 806, 813 (10th Cir. +1997) (there is no constitutional right to access inadmissible evidence). +Finally, as argued earlier, there can be no valid particularized need when Jane Doe 1 and Jane +Doe 2 seek relief that is expressly prohibited by the Act and by established case law. 18 U.S.C. § +3771(d)(6) ("Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to impair the prosecutorial discretion of the +Attorney General or any officer under his direction"); Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598, 607-08 +(1985) (the decision whether to prosecute is "particularly ill-suited to judicial review," and "not +readily susceptible to the kind of analysis the courts are competent to undertake"). +The letters between counsel and the government contain information of matters occurring +before the grand jury, and are confidential under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e). +11 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 160 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2012 Page 12 of 13 +III. +COnCLUSION +Whether to resolve a criminal investigation or contest a criminal charge is one of the most +important decisions a client can make in a criminal case. Defense lawyers have a responsibility to +make every possible inquiry to determine all valid defenses, to examine the facts, the circumstances +and the law, and to provide clients with the best informed opinion as to what pleas to enter. If the +decision is made to resolve a criminal case or investigation, defense lawyers have the added +responsibility of mitigating their client's liability and negotiating the best possible agreement. These +are solemn responsibilities, grounded on the client's constitutional right to effective representation +of counsel. +Defense lawyers are encouraged by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(f), Federal Rule +of Evidence 410, and their constitutional obligations, to negotiate with the government candidly and +in a meaningful way, without fear or risk that what they say will later be used against their clients +in a civil proceeding. +Relying on these protections and on the opinion work-product doctrine, +defense lawyers openly explore alternative pleas with the government, propose different strategies, +and divulge defenses and information that they would otherwise maintain confidential. This is +precisely the type of open dialogue that the Rules envision because it results in a settlement - as this +case illustrates. +Intervenors who represented Mr. Epstein during the criminal investigation oppose disclosure +of the settlement correspondence and its dissemination to the public. We request that the protective +order issued by the Magistrate Judge in the related case remain in place, and that a similar order issue +in this case. +12 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 160 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2012 Page 13 of 13 +We certify that on April 17, 2012, the foregoing document was filed electronically with the +Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system. +Respectfully submitted, +BLACK, SREBNICK, KORNSPAN +& STUMPF, P.A. +201 South Biscayne Boulevard +Suite 1300 +Miami, Florida 33131 +Office: (305) 371-6421 +Fax: (305) 358-2006 +By - +/S/ +ROY BLACK, ESQ. +Florida Bar No. 126088 +JACKIE PERCZEK, ESQ. +Florida Bar No. 0042201 +On Behalf of Intervenors +Roy Black and Jay Lefkowitz +G. WEINBERG, P.C. +20 Park Plaza +Fax: (617) 338-9538 +BYL +/S/ +[G. WEINBERG, ESQ. +Massachusetts Bar No. 519480 +On Behalf of Intervenor +Weinberg diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/98d3600b46bd8e48ae920c61e5f7106ddcf6abfc15bc20c5f2055304cef6f0e0.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/98d3600b46bd8e48ae920c61e5f7106ddcf6abfc15bc20c5f2055304cef6f0e0.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..061b1e93c253d7781be83668d03af1eb4684245a --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/98d3600b46bd8e48ae920c61e5f7106ddcf6abfc15bc20c5f2055304cef6f0e0.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -156, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "98d3600b46bd8e48ae920c61e5f7106ddcf6abfc15bc20c5f2055304cef6f0e0", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 13, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "0d1a6ecf5c0c02a7a3e69498ac5691b967c0d47499e596bf47355958a4f80b7e", + "output_sha256": "576f66d13486e0381e6766cceb1acdcef7dfcb280eb5cff87654f79466f49912", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/98e2473058a46cd862038a320a2711f7fd3d61cf950dd2cb46e3304b2bc92e79.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/98e2473058a46cd862038a320a2711f7fd3d61cf950dd2cb46e3304b2bc92e79.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c79face46b87c8188d01adc6c0873c5fed3d2b62 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/98e2473058a46cd862038a320a2711f7fd3d61cf950dd2cb46e3304b2bc92e79.md @@ -0,0 +1,39 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 501-1 +Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2010 Page 1 of 2 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/J +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 +ORDER ON DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO EXCEED +PAGE LIMITATION IN DEFENDANT'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE +IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION +AND/OR REQUEST FOR RULE 4 REVIEW AND APPEAL OF PORTIONS OF +THE MAGISTRATE'S ORDER DATED FEBRUARY 4, 2010 (DE 462), WITH +INCORPORATED OBJECTIONS AND MEMORANDUM +This matter came before the Court on Defendant's, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Motion +to Exceed Page Limitation in his Reply to Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to +Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration and/or Request for Rule 4 Review and Appeal +of Portions of the Magistrate's Order dated February 4, 2010 (DE 462) with Incorporated +Objections and Memorandum. Having considered Defendant's motion to exceed page +limitation, it is HEREBY ORDERED and ADJUDGED that: +Defendant's motion is GRANTED. Defendant's Reply to Plaintiff's Response in +Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration and/or Request for Rule 4 Review + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 501-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2010 Page 2 of 2 +and Appeal of Portions of the Magistrate's Order dated February 4, 2010 (DE 462) with +Incorporated Objections and Memorandum may exceed 10 pages. +DONE and ORDERED this +_day of +, 2010. +Kenneth A. Marra +United States District Judge +Courtesy Copies: Counsel of Record diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/98e2473058a46cd862038a320a2711f7fd3d61cf950dd2cb46e3304b2bc92e79.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/98e2473058a46cd862038a320a2711f7fd3d61cf950dd2cb46e3304b2bc92e79.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cab444c6afbed49b433761f1c94c7a0f71d4aa35 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/98e2473058a46cd862038a320a2711f7fd3d61cf950dd2cb46e3304b2bc92e79.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -24, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "98e2473058a46cd862038a320a2711f7fd3d61cf950dd2cb46e3304b2bc92e79", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "bcb12a4d849c8ca8b66c7b73f9ce9a726f062f162bb67dabc610e45535524df0", + "output_sha256": "bffb265f685568bbec8a15270412ccb13fc9a55fadc9a69e91e0319fd27f75a7", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/98edf376b9eaa2926d65bc1581c0f1390f425fb41564d117b5a2ff96701ecc45.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/98edf376b9eaa2926d65bc1581c0f1390f425fb41564d117b5a2ff96701ecc45.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3706369cfa3113a9d7fafc6eb986e4b928d2a366 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/98edf376b9eaa2926d65bc1581c0f1390f425fb41564d117b5a2ff96701ecc45.md @@ -0,0 +1,93 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 138 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/06/2012 Page 1 of 3 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA +JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, +Petitioners, +VS. +UNITED STATES, +Respondent. +/ +RESPONDENT'S SECOND MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO FILE +REPLIES AND RESPONSES TO PETITIONERS' RESPONSES AND +MOTIONS FILED ON DECEMBER 5, 2011 +Respondent, by and through its undersigned counsel, files its Second Motion for +Enlargement of Time to File Replies and Responses to Petitioners' Responses and Motions filed +on December 5, 2011, and state: +1. On December 5, 2011, petitioners filed their Response to Government's Sealed +Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (D.E. 127); Response to +Government's Sealed Motion to Stay (D.E. 129); Protective Motion for Remedies (D.E. 128); +and Protective Motion to Compel (D.E. 130). +Respondent's replies to petitioners' two +responses were due on December 15, 2011, while responses to petitioners' two motions were due +on December 22, 2011. +2. On December 15, 2011, respondents moved for an enlargement of time, up to and +including January 6, 2012, to file the two responses and two replies. The Court granted +respondent's motion on December 15, 2011. D.E. 137. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 138 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/06/2012 Page 2 of 3 +3. Respondent has begun preparing its responses and replies. However, Assistant U.S. +Attorney l +Villafaña has been occupied for the past several weeks in preparing for an +evidentiary hearing scheduled for January 24, 2012, for a motion filed by an incarcerated +individual under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Assistant U.S. Attorney Dexter Lee will be starting a civil +trial on Tuesday, January 17, 2012, at 10:00 a.m. M.C. v. United States, Case No. 11-20216- +CIV-UNGARO (S.D.Fla.). The responses and replies will be prepared by Assistant U.S. +Attorney Eduardo +, with limited assistance from AUSAs Villafaña and Lee. +4. On January 5, 2012, the undersigned contacted petitioners' counsel to determine their +position on the instant motion. Petitioners' counsel graciously did not oppose the instant +motion. +WHEREFORE, respondent respectfully requests a second enlargement of time, up to and +including January 24, 2012, to file its reply to petitioners' response to respondent's sealed motion +to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction (D.E. 127), and respondent's sealed motion to stay (D.E. 129); +and to file its response to petitioners' protective motion for remedies (D.E. 128), and protective +motion to compel (D.E. 130). +DATED: January 6, 2012 +Respectfully submitted, +WIFREDO A. FERRER +UNITED STATES ATTORNEY +s/ Dexter A. Lee +DEXTER A. LEE +Assistant U.S. Attorney +Fla. Bar No. 0936693 +99 N.E. 4"' Street +Miami, Florida 33132 +(305) 961-9320 +Fax: (305) 530-7139 +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 138 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/06/2012 Page 3 of 3 +E-mail: dexter.lee @usdoj.gov +Attorney for Respondent +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I HEREBY CERTIFY that on January 6, 2012, I electronically filed the foregoing +document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. +s/ Dexter A. Lee +DEXTER A. LEE +Assistant U.S. Attorney +SERVICE LIST +Jane Does 1 and 2 v. United States. +Case No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/ +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +J. +Esq. +Jaffe, Weissing, +425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 +Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 +(954) 524-2820 +Fax: (954) 524-2822 +E-mail: brad@pathtojustice.com +Paul G. Cassell +S.J. Quinney College of Law at the +University of Utah +332 S. 1400 E +Salt Lake City, Utah 84112 +(801) 585-5202 +Fax: (801) 585-6833 +E-mail: casselp@law.utah.edu +Attorneys for Jane Doe # 1 and Jane Doe # 2 +Fistos & Lehrman, P.L. +3 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/98edf376b9eaa2926d65bc1581c0f1390f425fb41564d117b5a2ff96701ecc45.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/98edf376b9eaa2926d65bc1581c0f1390f425fb41564d117b5a2ff96701ecc45.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c7a12704cc54f3c902ce84d7b11ad9b61dec59d2 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/98edf376b9eaa2926d65bc1581c0f1390f425fb41564d117b5a2ff96701ecc45.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -36, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "98edf376b9eaa2926d65bc1581c0f1390f425fb41564d117b5a2ff96701ecc45", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 3, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "bbe0a4261e1bb35dacf2dd1f6f668cc344ad0b58cc51dbdf51003d5249b98040", + "output_sha256": "6d0c6ae9edfff8629d3aa83289d1dfed30302929155e9890e78285bf519836ad", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/98fb4c659b6b3660497af0331ed33408df385dc7b8157be5bad078f5df2e8604.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/98fb4c659b6b3660497af0331ed33408df385dc7b8157be5bad078f5df2e8604.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5ff7ac37cb10b747797184ba7d3d62ac79894991 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/98fb4c659b6b3660497af0331ed33408df385dc7b8157be5bad078f5df2e8604.md @@ -0,0 +1,226 @@ +: +IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE +FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT +IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +STATE OF FLORIDA +-VS- +Jeffrey Epstein +• Case No. 50-2006-CF-009454-A +Defendant(s) +MOTION FOR AN ORDER UNSEALING GRAND JURY TESTIMONY +COMES NOW the State of Florida, by and through its undersigned Assistant State Attorney, and +pursuant to Florida Statute 905.27 (1), moves this court to énterpan order authorizing the +unsealing of grand jury testimony. The State further requests this couft to enter an order +authorizing FDLE Agent Troy K. Cope, Members of thi +EDLE Office of Executive +Investigations Public Corruption Unit, State Attorney Bruce +Iton and his assigned assistants +to obtain recordings of the entire grand jury in the above +matter from the Palm Beach +Clerk of Court and authorize the transcription of +hotion refers specifically to the +Palm Beach County Grand Jury proceedings involving +Indictment dated July 19, 2006 of +Jeffrey Epstein for Felony Solicitation of Prostitutio +As grounds in support of this motion, the St +asse +& the following: +1. 905.27(1) Florida Statutes (20) +ibits the disclosure of the testimony of a witness +examined before the grand +ler evidence received by it. +2. An exception to the rule agamit non-disclosuré exists when disclosure is required for the +furthering of justice. +905:27(1)(c) Florida Statutes (2019). +3. On August 6, 20 +*Bon DeSantis, Governor of the State of Florida, authorized the +Florida Department of Law Enforcement to initiate a preliminary inquiry beyond the +work release of Jeffrey Epstein and into other irregularities surrounding the prior State +19/F3a hoand the ultimate plea agreement. See Exhibit A, Executive Order Number +Pluspector Troy K. Cope and the Office of Executive Investigations Public Corruption +Unit has been assigned to spearhead the investigation on behalf of the Florida +Department of Law Enforcement. +5. The aforementioned executive order assigned Bruce H. Colton, State Attorney for the +Nineteenth Judicial Circuit of Florida, to assist in the investigation, prosecution and al! +allegations related to Jeffrey Epstein and his assigned work release program and other +inegularities. +Party_JOINT +ID#. JOZ_ EV#J07 +DATEADMITTED: 9/6/2022 +FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, SHARON R. BOCK, CLERK. 12/16/2019 3:20:00 PM +Joint Exhibit +J07 +CA Aroner@ 009104 BEACH COUNTY, FL, + + +6. Bruce H. Colton assigned Assistant State Attorneys Lev +and Anastasia Norman to +assist the Florida Department of Law Enforcement in the execution to this executive +assignment. +7. A review of the Palm Beach County Clerk of Court's file in Case No. 2006CF9454AXX +and 2008CF009381AXX indicate that Jeffrey Epstein was charged, in part, via grand jury +indictment. See Attached Indictment, Exhibit B. +8. A review of the grand jury testimony is necessary to fulfill Governor DeSantis +assignment and required in the furtherance of justice. +WHEREFORE, the State respectfully requests this Honorable Court enter an orden granjing the +State's Motion as requested above. +I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing has been fulfished to, Jack A. +Goldberger, by eservice/email at the designated email address of jgolcoergert@agwpa.com, +smahoney@agwpa.com; Attorney Robert D. Critton, by email at the de +rcrit@lawclc.com; Sharon R, Bock, Clerk and Comptroller of Pa +In Beach County by mail at 205 +N Dixie Hwy, West Palm Beach, FL 33401; Attorney Spencer +Kuyin by email at the +designated email address of skuvin@800goldlaw.com; Att +padley J. +by email at +the designated email address of brad@epllc.com; Attorney +y M. Herman by email at the +designated email address of jheriman@hermanlaw.com; Fleodore J. Leopold, by email at the +designated email address of tleopold@cohenmilste +rem; A.H. by US mail at confidential +address; A.D. by US mail at confidential address +by US mail at confidential address; +Gregory Parkinson by US mail at 7022 Venetan V +6, West Palm Beach, FL 33406, on +December 10, 2019: +RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED +BRUCE H. COLTON, State Attorney +NOT A +By: Is/M. Levering +M. Levering +Assistant State Attorney +FL Bar#: 708828 +411 S. 2nd Street +Fort Pierce, FL 34950 +(772) 465-3000 +Designated eService address: +SA19eService@sao19.org +FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, SHARON R. BOCK, CLERK. 12/16/2019 3:20:00 PM +CA/Aronhar@ 0D9109 BEACH COUNTY, FL, + + + +STATE OF FLORIDA +OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR +EXECUTIVE ORDER NUMBER 19-183 +WHEREAS, in 2008, Jeffrey Epstein pled guilty to procuring a person under 418 for +prostitution and felony solicitation of prostitution in Palm Beach County, following stale and +federal investigations, and was later placed on work release; and +WHEREAS, the State Attorney Office for Palm Beach C +led the case +related to the state investigation conceruing Jeffrey Epsteiri; ai +WHEREAS, the Sheriff for Palm Beach County oy +work release of Jeftrey +Epstein; and +WHEREAS, the Sheriff for Palm Beg +concering Jeffrey Epstein and has re +unty has initiated a criminal investigation +red. of me that the Florida Department of Law +Enforcement now assume that inv +WHEREAS, the Dep +not Law Enforcement may initiate a preliminary inquiry +beyond the work release of Jeffrey Epstein and into other inegulanties surrounding the prior +state investigation +e ultimate plea agreement; and +WHEREAS, the Honorable BRUCEH, COLTON, State Attorgey for the Nineteenth +Judicial Circui of florida, has agreed to accept an excutve assignmen: for any procedings +that arise from the Department of Law Enforcement Investigation and inquiry in this matter; +WHEREAS, for good and sufficient reason, the Governor has determined it is in the +best interests of the State of Florida and of the ends of justice that the Honorable BRUCE H. +FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, SHARON R, BOCK, CLERK, 12/16/2019 3:20:00 PM +CA/Aronterg 009104 BEACH COUNTY, FL, + + +COLTON discharge the duties of the Hourable DAVID ARONBERG, pursuant to section +27.14, Flonda Statutes. +NOW, THEREFORE, I, RON DESANTIS, Govemor of Flotida, in obedience to my +solemn constitutional duty to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed," and pursuant +to the Constitution and laws of the Siate of Florida, issue the following Executive Order, +effective immediately: +Section 1: +The Home BRUCE H COLTON, sit Alone or pa sen tent. +Circuit of Florida, referred to as the "Assigned State Attorney +duties of the Honorable DAVID ARONBERG. State Aito +Circuit of Florida, as they relate to the investigation +allegations related to Jeffrey. Epstein and his +ir the Fifteenth Judicial +cution, and all matters related to +ed work teléase program and other +irregularities. +Section 2. +The Assigned Stater +Atorey or one or more Assistant State Attoreys and +Investigators, Who +/designated by the Assigned Siate Attorey, shall proceed +immediately to the Bifteenth Judicial Circuit of Florida, and are yested with the authority to +perforin the duties prescribed herein. +Section +All residents of the Fifleenth Judicial Circuit are requested, and all public officials are +directed, to çooperate and tender whatever assistance is necessary to the Assigned State +Attormey, so that justice may be served. +FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, SHARON R. BOCK, CLERK. 12/16/2019 3:20:00 PM +CA/Aronber 0001M BEACH COUNTY, FL, + + +Section.4. +August 6, 2020 +Section 5. +additional time is required. +The period of this Executive Assignment shall be for one (I) year, to and including +The Assigned State Attomey shall, noufy the Govemor, on or before July 6, 2020, if +IN TESTIMONY WHEREO) +hereunto set my hand and have +have +caused the +Great Scal. of the Smte of Floridato be affixer +it Tallahassee, this 6üh day of August, 2019 +nar +ATTEST: +RETARY OF STAT +OT A CERTIF +iAMENA GESTATE +ALLAHASSEE: FLORIDA +2019 AUG =6 PM 1:20 +FILED +FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, SHARON R. BOCK, CLERK. 12/16/2019 3:20:00 PM +CA/Aronberg: 000109 BEACH COUNTY, FL, + + +INDICTMENT + +A TRUE BILL 06-9454 CFgE +AiL +IN THE NAME OF AND BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA: +IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL +189 +06 JUL 19 PM +CIRCUIT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA +For Palm Beach County, at the Spring Term thereof, in the year of our Lord Two Thousand ard Six, to-wit: +The Grand Jurors of the State of Florida, inquiring in and for the body of said County of Palm Beach, upon their +oaths do present that JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN in the County of Palm Beach aforesaid, in the Circuit and State +aforesaid, +i l +COUNT ONE +FELONY SOLICITATION OF PROSTITUTION +on or about or between the 1st day of August in the year of our Lord Two Thousand and Four and October 31, +2005, did solicit, induce, entice, or procure another to commit prostitution lewdress, or assignation, contrary to +Florida Statute 796.07(1) on three or more occasions between August 01, 2004 and October 31, 2005, +contrary to Florida Statute 796.07(2)(f) and (4)(c). (3 DEG FEL) +(EL 1) +against the form of the statute, to the evil example of allothers, and against the peace and dignity of the State +of Florida. +I hereby certify that I have advised the Grand Jury returning this indictment as authorized and required by law. +Assistant State Attorney effo +Fifteenth Judicial Circuit of the State +of Florida, prosecuting tor the said +Will H. Ublel, +AND JURY FOREPERSON +afely 19, 2006 +Jeffrey E. Epstein, Race: +Sex: Male, DOB: January 20, 1953, SS#:| +I; Issue Warrant +GAA BUE 25; 1 +FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, +FL, SHARON R. BOCK, CLERK. 12/16/2019 3:20:00 PM +CA/Aronberg 009109 BEACH COUNTY, FL, \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/98fb4c659b6b3660497af0331ed33408df385dc7b8157be5bad078f5df2e8604.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/98fb4c659b6b3660497af0331ed33408df385dc7b8157be5bad078f5df2e8604.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..57b2024b0a6fc8e09f9016362dba872c2e180216 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/98fb4c659b6b3660497af0331ed33408df385dc7b8157be5bad078f5df2e8604.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -313, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "98fb4c659b6b3660497af0331ed33408df385dc7b8157be5bad078f5df2e8604", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 9, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "8322c8eb127de004ac2c185730534b344167a8f0d21f6991e028d47c570efc1a", + "output_sha256": "0dbaf966d3f0f3ea65801c07f7b639364e21bcfeaed21d40f11aecb85dc45cf6", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9900e888c6b0a4e89be6e93241d8cfe2bf615cdabf1d9fe2f0ec919f0c716a14.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9900e888c6b0a4e89be6e93241d8cfe2bf615cdabf1d9fe2f0ec919f0c716a14.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e6595ed54bdf90597e2dab254dedda6bd16ca396 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9900e888c6b0a4e89be6e93241d8cfe2bf615cdabf1d9fe2f0ec919f0c716a14.md @@ -0,0 +1,89 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 349 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2009 Page 1 of 4 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/ +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, +PLAINTIFES JANE DOE NOS. 2-8' RESPONSE AND +MOTION TO STRIKE ARGUMENT PORTION OF +DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF NINETY DAYS EXPIRING +Plaintiffs, Jane Does Nos. 2-8, by and through undersigned counsel, and pursuant +to Southern District of Florida Local Rule 7.1.B.3, hereby file this Response and Motion +to Strike Argument Portion of Defendant's Notice of Ninety Days Expiring, and state as +follows: +On October 14, 2009, Defendant Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") filed a +Notice of Ninety Days Expiring (D.E. 347) (the "Notice"), alerting this Court to the +passage of ninety days since various motions have been fully briefed. +While Plaintiffs share Epstein's interest in having these motions decided +so that discovery in these cases can move forward efficiently, Plaintiffs object and move +to strike the argument portion of the Notice. Epstein improperly uses the Notice as a +vehicle to make additional legal arguments on motions that have been fully briefed, and + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 349 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2009 Page 2 of 4 +thereby attempt to prejudice the Plaintiffs. In particular, in paragraphs 6-9, Epstein +argues his Motions to Compel, and seeks to attack the Plaintiffs' arguments and approach +to discovery. This is inappropriate and unauthorized by S.D.Fla.L.R. 7.1.B.3. +WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, Jane Doe Nos. 2-8, respectfully request an Order striking the +argument portion of Jeffrey Epstein's "Notice of Ninety Days Expiring" (D.E. 347) in its +entirety, and all other and further relief this Court deems just and proper. +Dated: October 14, 2009. +Respectfully submitted, +By: s/ Adam D. Horowitz +Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245) +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980) +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P.A. +Attorneys for Plaintiffs +18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 +Miami, Florida 33160 +Telephone: (305) 931-2200 +Facsimile: (305) 931-0877 +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 349 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2009 Page 3 of 4 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I hereby certify that on October 14, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing +document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing +document is being served this day to all parties on the attached Service List in the manner +specified, either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF +or in some other authorized manner for those parties who are not authorized to receive +electronically Notices of Electronic Filing. +Is/ Adam D. Horowitz +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 349 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2009 Page 4 of 4 +SERVICE LIST +DOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +jgoldberger@agwpa.com +Robert D. Critton, Esq. +rcritton@bclclaw.com +James +bedwards @rra-law.com +Isidro Manuel +isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net +Jack +jph@searcylaw.com +Katherine Warthen Ezell +KEzell@podhurst.com +Michael James Pike +MPike@bclclaw.com +Paul G. Cassell +cassellp@law.utah.edu +Richard Horace Willits +lawyerwillits@aol.com +Robert C. Josefsberg +rjosefsberg@podhurst.com +4 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9900e888c6b0a4e89be6e93241d8cfe2bf615cdabf1d9fe2f0ec919f0c716a14.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9900e888c6b0a4e89be6e93241d8cfe2bf615cdabf1d9fe2f0ec919f0c716a14.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..266d0363511ae4d355820801aaf5c4a1a1cc536e --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9900e888c6b0a4e89be6e93241d8cfe2bf615cdabf1d9fe2f0ec919f0c716a14.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -48, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "9900e888c6b0a4e89be6e93241d8cfe2bf615cdabf1d9fe2f0ec919f0c716a14", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 4, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "5f504a213ecf6d1453f650091f9b981452bb7ced87af14bbba93c9bd8de93a33", + "output_sha256": "c700f65d4c4fb57dd3be6df3081ab80a8001a0a8392ec0f3af3b9fbb08fce877", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/992f89037b2b8b8561d817218a7a101c0de98dac7c79897196db1aa4bdb52473.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/992f89037b2b8b8561d817218a7a101c0de98dac7c79897196db1aa4bdb52473.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a799808b5aa99c3b63d4425f96740e4007ce9159 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/992f89037b2b8b8561d817218a7a101c0de98dac7c79897196db1aa4bdb52473.md @@ -0,0 +1,67 @@ +Case 9:09-cv-80802-KAM Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/30/2009 Page 1 of 4 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 09-CV-80802-MARRA/JOHNSON +JANE DOE NO. 8, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +PLAINTIFF'S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF +TIME TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS +Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 8, by and through undersigned counsel, files this Unopposed Motion +for Enlargement of Time to Respond to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, and states as follows: +Defendant Jeffrey Epstein filed a Motion to Dismiss in this action on July 14, 2009. +Pursuant to S.D.Fla.R. 7.1, Plaintiff has until July 31, 2009 to file her response to the Motion to +Dismiss. +Due to obligations of Plaintiff's counsel in other cases and matters, including in +related cases against Defendant Jeffrey Epstein, Plaintiff requests an enlargement of time until +August 12, 2009 to file her Memorandum in response to the Motion to Dismiss. +3. +Plaintiff's counsel has conferred with Defendant's counsel regarding this request for +enlargement of time, and has been advised that Defendant does not oppose the Motion. +WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 8 respectfully requests an enlargement of time until +August 12, 2009 to file her Memorandum in response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. +- 1- + + +Case 9:09-cv-80802-KAM Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/30/2009 Page 2 of 4 +Dated: July 30, 2009. +Respectfully submitted, +By: +s/ Stuart S. Mermelstein +Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245) +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980) +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P.A. +Attorneys for Plaintiff Jane Doe 8 +18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 +Miami, Florida 33160 +Tel: 305-931-2200 +Fax: 305-931-0877 +- 2- + + +Case 9:09-cv-80802-KAM Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/30/2009 Page 3 of 4 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I hereby certify that on July 30, 2009, I electronically filled the foregoing document with the +Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day +to all parties on the attached Service List in the manner specified, either viatransmission of Notices +of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those parties who +are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing. +Is/ Stuart S. Mermelstein +- 3- + + +Case 9:09-cv-80802-KAM Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/30/2009 Page 4 of 4 +SERVICE LIST +DOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN +CASE NO.: 09-CV-80802-MARRA/ +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +jgoldberger@agwpa.com +Robert D. Critton, Esq. +rcritton@bclclaw.com +Is/ Stuart S. Mermelstein +- 4- diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/992f89037b2b8b8561d817218a7a101c0de98dac7c79897196db1aa4bdb52473.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/992f89037b2b8b8561d817218a7a101c0de98dac7c79897196db1aa4bdb52473.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4eb23da1c7997bc9d19ba3b08a81bdfbc8579f7d --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/992f89037b2b8b8561d817218a7a101c0de98dac7c79897196db1aa4bdb52473.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -48, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "992f89037b2b8b8561d817218a7a101c0de98dac7c79897196db1aa4bdb52473", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 4, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "a9741b88b6d403018b6b9cd01fb49a8a204d1fcc29dcd75a209810895c33f6f9", + "output_sha256": "cb78e60952e893f55ed97b8c8813bf631ab8ea8aad8f173656f5e653570613e3", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/993633200225219a8973e97321b3456c3e248735e2e8bfb6af9c93a7c9662f2d.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/993633200225219a8973e97321b3456c3e248735e2e8bfb6af9c93a7c9662f2d.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d9e5bc1716400645ef8dbb27d9875b0daf3fe396 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/993633200225219a8973e97321b3456c3e248735e2e8bfb6af9c93a7c9662f2d.md @@ -0,0 +1,357 @@ +Case 1:19-cv-09610-PAE-DCF Document 35 +Filed 12/23/19 Page 1 of 12 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK +------ +X +JANE DOE 17, +Plaintiff, +: +V. +DARREN K. INDYKE AND +RICHARD D. KAHN, AS JOINT +PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES OF +THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, +NINE EAST 7Ist STREET CORPORATION. : +LAUREL, INC., FINANCIAL TRUST +COMPANY, INC., NES, LLC, MAPLE, INC., +LSJE, LLC, HBRK ASSOCIATES, INC., +NAUTILUS, INC., CYPRESS, INC. and JEGE, : +INC., +: +Defendants. +: +X +Case No. 1:19-cv-09610-PAE-DCF +DEFENDANTS' MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF +THEIR MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT +TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP +875 Third Avenue +New York, New York 10022 +Tel: 212-704-6000 +Fax: 212-704-6288 +Attorneys for Defendants + + +Case 1:19-cv-09610-PAE-DCF Document 35 Filed 12/23/19 + +TABLE OF CONTENTS +PRELIMINARY STATEMENT +I. +ALLEGED FACTS +II. +ARGUMENT. +a. +true. +C. +d. +e. +f. +Legal Standard: Plaintiff's legal conclusions are not accepted as +Plaintiff's battery causes of action expired in 2009 at the latest. +Plaintiff's TVPA claims expired in 2016 at the latest. +Plaintiff's claims against the Corporate Defendants must be +dismissed for the additional reason that they are based on +conclusory statements and impermissible group pleading—not +facts. +Plaintiff's two battery counts are impermissibly duplicative of each +other. +Plaintiff's demand for punitive damages must be dismissed +because it is precluded by New York law and otherwise +unavailable under the TVPA. +Page +1 +2 +3 +3 +4 +4 +5 +6 +CONCLUSION +6 +7 +-i- + + +Case 1:19-cv-09610-PAE-DCF Document 35 Filed 12/23/19 Page 3 of 12 +TABLE OF AUTHORITIES +Page(s) +Cases +Ashcroft v. Iqbal, +556 U.S. 662(2009).. +ATS/ Comme'ns, Inc. v. Shaar Fund, Ltd., +493 F.3d 87 (2d Cir. 2007). +Atuahene v. City of Hartford, +10 Fed. App'x 33 (2d Cir. 2001).. +Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, +550 U.S. 544 (2007). +Blissett v. Eisensmidt, +940 F. Supp. 449 (N.D.N.Y. 1996). +Carson Optical Inc. v. eBay Inc., +202 F. Supp. 3d 247 (E.D.N.Y. 2016) …... +Deutsch v. Novartis Pharms. Corp., +723 F. Supp. 2d 521 (E.D.N.Y. 2010) ... +Graham v. +224 F.R.D. 59 (N.D.N.Y. 2004). +Guidi v. Inter-Continental Hotels Corp., +No. 95-CV-9006, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6390 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 16, 2003). +Medrano v. MCDR, Inc., +366 F. Supp. 2d 625 (W.D. Tenn. 2005) (dismissing deceased plaintiff's claim +for punitive damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1981). +Ochre LLC v. Rockwell Architecture Planning & Design, +12-cv-2837, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172208 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 28, 2012). +Official Comm. of Unsecured Creditors of Exeter Holdings, Ltd. v. Haltman, +13-cv-5475, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123752 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 3, 2017) +Price v. L'Oreal USA, Inc., +17-cv-0614, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165931 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 5, 2017). +Starr Indem. & Liab. Co. v. Am. Claims Mgmt., +14-cv-0463-JMF, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60272 (S.D.N.Y. May 7, 2015) +2,3,5 +3 +.5 +2,3,5 +..7 +4 +.6 +..7 +.6 +..T +.5 +..7 +.6 +.6 + + +Case 1:19-cv-09610-PAE-DCF Document 35 Filed 12/23/19 Page 4 of 12 +Swan Media Grp., Inc. v. Staub, +841 F. Supp. 2d 804 (S.D.N.Y. 2012).... +Whitley v. Bowden, +No. 17-CV-3564 (KMK), 2018 WL 2170313 (S.D.N.Y. May 9, 2018) +Statutes +18 U.S.C. § 1595(c) .. +18 U.S.C. § 1595(c)(1) +EPTL $ 11-3.2 (a)(1)... +New York Estates, Powers And Trusts Law. +Trafficking Victims Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. §$ 1589, et seq. +Other Authorities +CPLR $ 214(5). +CPLR $ 215(3) +Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) ….... +.5 +.4 +1,4 +.1 +...7 +.6 +1,4 +.4 +..4 +...1 +- 2- + + +Case 1:19-CV-09610-PAE-DCF Document 35 Filed 12/23/19 Page 5 of 12 +Defendants Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, Co-Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey +E. Epstein (named herein as "Joint Personal Representative[s] of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein") +(together, the "Estate"), Nine East 71st Street, Corporation ("Nine East"), Financial Trust +Company, Inc. ("FTC"), NES, LLC ("NES"), Laurel, Inc. ("Laurel"), Maple, Inc. ("Maple"), +LSJE, LLC ("LSJE"), HBRK Associates, Inc. ("HBRK"), Nautilus, Inc. ("Nautilus"), Cypress, +Inc. ("Cypress"), and JEGE, Inc. ("JEGE", and together with Nine East, FTC, NES, Laurel, Maple, +LSJE, HBRK, Nautilus, Cypress and JEGE, the "Corporate Defendants"; and the Corporate +Defendants together with the Estate, the "Defendants") respectfully submit this Memorandum of +Law in support of their Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Jane Doe 17's ("Plaintiff") Complaint (ECF +Doc. # 1)' with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state +a claim. +PRELIMINARY STATEMENT +This action is time barred. Plaintiff—who was not a minor at any time at issue in her +Complaint—alleges that, "from 2001 through mid-2006," Jeffrey E. Epstein ("Decedent") +sexually assaulted her. (Compl. I 47, 57.) +Accordingly, Plaintiff's two causes of action sounding in battery (Counts I and II, which +are subject to at most a 3-year statute of limitations, expired by 2009. Plaintiff's remaining causes +of action, all of which are brought pursuant to the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. +1589, et seq. (the "TVPA"), +are subject to a 10-year statute of limitations. +18 U.S.C. § 1595(c)(1). Therefore, Plaintiff's TVPA claims expired in mid-2016 at the latest— +several years before she filed her Complaint in October 2019. Therefore, Plaintiff's Complaint +should be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). +' A copy of Plaintiff's Complaint is attached to the Declaration of Bennet J. Moskowitz submitted herewith. + + +Case 1:19-CV-09610-PAE-DCF Document 35 Filed 12/23/19 Page 6 of 12 +Plaintiff fails to state a claim against the Corporate Defendants for the additional reason +that her allegations against them consist of threadbare, conclusory recitations of the elements of +civil TVPA causes of action. Such conclusory allegations are precisely the type that are deemed +insufficient under the pleading standards set forth in Twombly and Iqbal. Moreover, Plaintiff is +relying on impermissible group pleading against the Corporate Defendants. +Counts 1 and Il for battery based on the same alleged misconduct are also impermissibly +duplicative of each other. At least one of these causes of action should be dismissed for this +independent reason. +Separately, Plaintiff's demand for punitive damages fails as a matter of law and must also +be dismissed. Under New York law and Federal Common law, punitive damages are unavailable +where, as here, a plaintiff asserts battery and TVPA claims based on alleged torts committed by a +decedent. +I. +ALLEGED FACTS +Few paragraphs of Plaintiff's Complaint allege what happened to her. Instead, the +Complaint consists largely of allegations related to Decedent generally without any nexus to +Plaintiff, such as allegations pertaining to Decedent's wealth (see, e.g., Compl. I9l 4, 19, 23-26) +and what he allegedly did to unidentified individuals other than Plaintiff (see, e.g., id. at 1I 40-41). +The scant allegations concerning Plaintiff set forth in conclusory fashion that, from 2001 +through mid-2006, she received money to give Decedent massages which "progressed to instances +of inappropriate sexual contact" including rape. (Id. 99l 47, 57.) Plaintiff does not allege she was +a minor when the alleged abuse occurred. Facts subject to judicial notice also firmly establish that +- 2- + + +Case 1:19-CV-09610-PAE-DCF Document 35 Filed 12/23/19 Page 7 of 12 +Plaintiff has repeatedly stated and has sworn under oath that she did not even meet Decedent until +Plaintiff was an adult.? +Based on Plaintiff's scant allegations related entirely to conduct allegedly committed by +Decedent, Plaintiff claims the Corporate Defendants, which she lumps together, are somehow +liable to her as well. Plaintiff alleges without any supporting factual allegations that all "Corporate +Defendants" were part of an "illegal scheme" that somehow "facilitated" Decedent's alleged abuse +of Plaintiff. (Id. I| 48.) However, Plaintiff does not identify a single person who worked for or +otherwise acted on behalf of any of the Corporate Defendants let alone allege what any such person +specifically did or failed to do that renders their employer or principal liable to Plaintiff. +Based on her few general allegations related to Decedent and her threadbare, conclusory +allegations against and lumping together the "Corporate Defendants," Plaintiff asserts two +duplicative battery causes of action against the Estate (Counts I and II) and TVPA violations +against each Defendant (Counts III - XIII, respectively). Plaintiff seeks various damages in +unspecified amounts, including punitive damages (see, e.g., id. at p. 33). +II. +ARGUMENT +a. +Legal Standard: Plaintiff's legal conclusions are not accepted as true. +Although the Court normally accepts as true all well-pleaded factual allegations in a +complaint and draws all inferences in a plaintiff's favor, ATSI Commc'ns, Inc. v. Shaar Fund, Ltd., +493 F.3d 87, 98 (2d Cir. 2007), those principles are "inapplicable to legal conclusions." Ashcroft +v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Thus, a pleading that offers only "labels and conclusions" or +"a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, +2 Should Plaintiff now allege otherwise, Defendants reserve the right on reply to submit under seal facts subject to +judicial notice and thus properly considered on a motion to dismiss, including Plaintiff's sworn statements, decisively +showing she was over 18 when she met Decedent. +- 3- + + +Case 1:19-CV-09610-PAE-DCF Document 35 Filed 12/23/19 Page 8 of 12 +550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Moreover, "[w]here [the] plaintiff's own pleadings are internally +inconsistent, a court is neither obligated to reconcile nor accept the contradictory allegations in the +pleadings as true in deciding a motion to dismiss.'' Whitley v. Bowden, No. 17-CV-3564 (KMK), +2018 WL 2170313, at *11 (S.D.N.Y. May 9, 2018) (quoting Carson Optical Inc. v. eBay Inc., 202 +F. Supp. 3d 247, 255 (E.D.N.Y. 2016)). +Here, as further explained below, Plaintiff asserts formulaic recitations of the elements of +her battery and TVPA causes of action. Per the well-established case law cited above, such +allegations are insufficient to state a claim. +b. +Plaintiff's battery causes of action expired in 2009 at the latest. +Under New York law, actions for battery must be commenced within one year (CPLR § +215(3)); and actions for personal injury must be commenced within three years (CPLR § 214(5)). +Plaintiff, who was not a minor at the time relevant to her allegations, alleges the misconduct at +issue in her Complaint ended in mid-2006. Accordingly, Plaintiff's causes of action asserting +battery and personal injury expired in mid-2009 at the latest. +C. +Plaintiff's TVPA claims expired in 2016 at the latest. +The TVPA expressly states no civil action may be maintained thereunder "unless it is +commenced not later than the later of—(1) 10 years after the cause of action arose; or (2) 10 years +after the victim reaches 18 years of age, if the victim was a minor at the time of the alleged +offense." 18 U.S.C. § 1595(c). Plaintiff does not allege she was a minor at the time of the alleged +sexual assaults that ended in mid-2006. (Compl. I| 57) Accordingly, Plaintiff's TVPA claims +expired in mid-2016 at the latest. +- 4- + + +Case 1:19-CV-09610-PAE-DCF Document 35 Filed 12/23/19 Page 9 of 12 +d. +Plaintiff's claims against the Corporate Defendants must be dismissed +for the additional reason that they are based on conclusory statements +and impermissible group pleading—not facts. +Plaintiff failed to allege "enough facts" to state any claim against the Corporate +Defendants "that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007) +(emphasis added). It is well-settled that Plaintiff must demonstrate grounds for relief beyond +mere "labels and conclusions." Id. at 555. +Rather, to state a claim, Plaintiff's Complaint must set forth "[flactual allegations [that +are] ... enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Id. "Though the Court must +accept the factual allegations of a complaint as true, it is "not bound to accept as true a legal +conclusion couched as a factual allegation.'" Swan Media Grp., Inc. v. Staub, 841 F. Supp. 2d +804, 806 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). +Additionally, "[w]here a complaint names multiple defendants, that complaint must +provide a plausible factual basis to distinguish the conduct of each of the defendants. ... A plaintiff +cannot merely lump all the defendants together in each claim and provide no factual basis to +distinguish their conduct." Ochre LLC v. Rockwell Architecture Planning & Design, 12-cv-2837, +2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172208, at *16-17 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 28, 2012) (citing Atuahene v. City of +Hartford, 10 Fed. App'x 33, 34 (2d Cir. 2001)). +With respect to the allegations against the Corporate Defendants, Plaintiff has not made +factual allegations sufficient to "raise the right to relief above the speculative level." See Twombly, +550 U.S. at 555. Besides generic conclusions that the Corporate Defendants "enabled [Decedent]" +(Compl. I 36), "facilitated" Decedent's acts (id. I[ 49) and the like, there are no alleged facts +describing what any of the Corporate Defendants' employees or other agents specifically did or +failed to do that constituted a TVPA violation as to Plaintiff (or anyone else, for that matter). +- 5- + + +Case 1:19-CV-09610-PAE-DCF Document 35 Filed 12/23/19 Page 10 of 12 +Further, most of Plaintiff's allegations about the Corporate Defendants impermissibly +lump their conduct together. (See id. 99l 22, 36-37, 39-40, 43-45, 48-52, 55-56.) The Corporate +Defendants cannot reasonably prepare a response to such conclusory, vague claims. +e. +Plaintiff's two battery counts are impermissibly duplicative of each +other. +Counts I and Il are also impermissibly duplicative of each other. See Price v. L'Oreal USA, +Inc., 17-cv-0614, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165931, at *12 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 5, 2017) ("Defendants' +motion to dismiss the unjust enrichment claim under New York law (see Count V) is granted +because it is duplicative of the other claims."). Counts I and II are based on the same alleged +occurrences and seek the same relief. Therefore, it would serve no legitimate purpose to permit +Plaintiff to pursue both claims. +f. +Plaintiff's demand for punitive damages must be dismissed because it +is precluded by New York law and otherwise unavailable under the +TVPA. +Plaintiffs may not recover punitive damages in this action as a matter of law. Plaintiff +alleges a substantial part of the acts and omissions giving rise to her causes of action occurred in +New York (Compl. 9121). Therefore, New York law applies to the issue of punitive damages. See +Starr Indem. & Liab. Co. v. Am. Claims Mgmt., 14-cv-0463-JMF, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60272, +*7 (S.D.N.Y. May 7, 2015) ("Because punitive damages are conduct-regulating, 'the law of the +jurisdiction where the tort occurred will generally apply."") (quoting Deutsch v. Novartis Pharms. +Corp., 723 F. Supp. 2d 521, 524 (E.D.N.Y. 2010); Guidi v. Inter-Continental Hotels Corp., No. +95-CV-9006, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6390, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 16, 2003)). +New York Estates, Powers And Trusts Law provides: "No cause of action for injury to +person or property is lost because of the death of the person liable for the injury. For any injury, +- 6- + + +Case 1:19-CV-09610-PAE-DCF Document 35 Filed 12/23/19 Page 11 of 12 +an action may be brought or continued against the personal representative of the decedent, but +punitive damages shall not be awarded nor penalties adjudged in any such action brought to +recover damages for personal injury." NY EPTL § 11-3.2 (a)(1) (emphasis added). "Also, 'there +is a strong policy against the assessment of punitive damages against an estate on account of +wrongful conduct of the decedent.' Graham v. +. 224 F.R.D. 59, 63 (N.D.N.Y. 2004) +(quoting Blissett v. Eisensmidt, 940 F. Supp. 449, 457 (N.D.N.Y. 1996)). +Nor are punitive damages available to Plaintiffs under the TVPA, which is a punitive +statute. A federal cause of action that is penal in nature, as opposed to remedial, abates upon a +party's death. Official Comm. of Unsecured Creditors of Exeter Holdings, Ltd. v. Haltman, 13- +cv-5475, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123752, at *22 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 3, 2017). Even where a federal +cause of action survives death, punitive damages are unavailable. See, e.g., Medrano v. MCDR, +Inc., 366 F. Supp. 2d 625, 635 (W.D. Tenn. 2005) (dismissing deceased plaintiff's claim for +punitive damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1981). +Accordingly, even if Plaintiff's claims are not dismissed as untimely—which they should +be-Plaintiff's demand for punitive damages should be dismissed. +CONCLUSION +Based on the foregoing, Defendants respectfully request that the Court grant their Motion +to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint in its entirety with prejudice together with such other and further +relief as the Court deems just and proper. +- 7- + + +Case 1:19-cv-09610-PAE-DCF Document 35 Filed 12/23/19 Page 12 of 12 +Dated: New York, New York +December 23, 2019 +Respectfully submitted, +TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP +875 Third Avenue +New York, New York 10022 +By: Is/ Bennet J. Moskowitz +Bennet J. Moskowitz +Attorneys for Defendants +- 8 - \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/993633200225219a8973e97321b3456c3e248735e2e8bfb6af9c93a7c9662f2d.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/993633200225219a8973e97321b3456c3e248735e2e8bfb6af9c93a7c9662f2d.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..aac7a8b4e0ab091383311fd94d099aac50b6dc4f --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/993633200225219a8973e97321b3456c3e248735e2e8bfb6af9c93a7c9662f2d.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -278, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "993633200225219a8973e97321b3456c3e248735e2e8bfb6af9c93a7c9662f2d", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 14, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "b7526ef78632aae7330298db44b53b40ec9b1f4a65d1d15ef44123e6de7ee72d", + "output_sha256": "d6a516766e7edeeec6c421071e6882ab481620feb704f76f21573d2ec6a050ca", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/994996b4eaa80946120623e3d65dbabd473b19046e0ab636b79a997d09af0415.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/994996b4eaa80946120623e3d65dbabd473b19046e0ab636b79a997d09af0415.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3427cc283924abc0c5cf3765b29c20dc529b849e --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/994996b4eaa80946120623e3d65dbabd473b19046e0ab636b79a997d09af0415.md @@ -0,0 +1,191 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 79-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2009 Page 1 of 5 +The Psychological Trauma Center +a division of Preventive Psychiatry Associates Medical Group, Inc. +Medical Director: Gilbert W. Kliman, M. D. +2105 Divisadero St., San Francisco, CA 9411: +Phone (415)292-7119 Fax (415) 749-2802 +www.experichildposchiatry.com +Forensic Child Psychiatric Evaluations, Life Care Plans & Testimony +DECLARATION OF GILBERT KLIMAN, M. D. +June 4, 2009 +RE: EXPECTATION OF HARM FROM DISCLOSING THE PLAINTIFFS' IDENTITIES +IN DOES V JEFFREY EPSTEIN +1. 1, Gilbert W. Kliman, M.D., of 2105 Divisadero Street, San Francisco, California, +CA. Physicians License G55912, declare the following under penalty of perjury: +2. I have been retained by plaintiffs' law firm, Mermelstein & Horowitz, to give expert +testimony. If called as a witness, I would testify truthfully and competently concerning +my psychiatric findings about each of the plaintiffs' alleged experiences of sexual abuse, +and the enduring effects that I find each of the young women have suffered as a direct +result of the sexual acts perpetrated by the defendant. +3. I have been asked to respond to the Defense motion, which requests that some of the +plaintiffs, who are now adults, should be publicly named. It is my opinion that +involuntary public disclosure will result in the plaintiffs experiencing revictimization, +albeit by a justice system that is designed to protect them. If their identities are released, +the victims will be at-risk of having their personal lives scrutinized by friends, extended +family, spouses, children, fellow students, employers and fellow employees, the media +and general public. This type of exposure humiliates many victims and represents anothe +betrayal of trust. Public exposure places the plaintiffs at further risk of stigmatization +4. Due to traumatization the plaintiffs are arrested in their development, and even those +who are now legally adults are arrested in part to adolescent aspects of psychology. +5. The plaintifts do not hold their heads high with pride tor having been sexually +absorption and self-doubt and self-blame about sexual acts. + +A +1 + + +Case 9:08-cV-80994-KAM Document 79-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2009 Page 2 of 5 +6. Clinically harmful levels of shame, self-consciousness, self-doubt and self-blame are +even more prominent among victims of molestations than among the general population. +7. Molested teenagers are particularly vulnerable to wrongful manipulations and special +clinical harms from the experiences of shame and humiliation. In fact, shame and efforts +to cope with it played an underlying role in the harm to each plaintiff. Each was lured +into Mr. Epstein's sexual lair with the promise of overcoming bodily and sexual shame +by earning money and bettering their lot in life. The defendant capitalized on their sexual +naiveté, insecurities and effort to better themselves, and he worked hard to overcome +their shame at his enlistment of them in his selfish gratifications. +8. The defendant who wishes to make their identities public is one whom the criminal +justice system has already determined is a person who has already committed a crime of +child molestation. That surely means he has already exploited and manipulated the girls' +state of adolescent sexuality, including their embarrassment, awkwardness and bodily +self-consciousness. He perverted their nascent and developing moral structures by posing +as a generous, avuncular mentor who could coach them about their bodies, sex and love. +The exploitation of adolescent bodies, sex and love is - from a psychoanalytic point of +view - an influence on the developing moral conscience of the children, as well as on +their sexual urges. Now the ravaging of their internal and private moral conscience is +intended by the perpetrator to be made a public ravaging. +9. Among sexual trauma victims, the insidious and destructive persistence of shame, +humiliation and associated self-blame is well-documented (Finkelhor and +_, 1985). +Stigmatization, as experienced by a sexual trauma victim, has especially painful and +pathologic consequences. Shame lingers and becomes integrated within the adolescent +victim's malleable emerging identity, character structure and self image. Moral clarity is +distorted. Perceptions of self-blame and guilt are magnified. The impact of shame lends +to cultivating a self image of being "spoiled goods." +10. Stigmatization following sexual trauma results in long-term risks that can negatively +shape multiple facets of adult development: sexual, emotional, interpersonal and +vocational. Stigmatization, which is generally to be avoided among psychiatric patients, +increases risks among those - as in our plaintilts as a group - who experience clinical +depression and self-destructive behaviors: drug use, criminal activity, even prostitution +Stigmatization following abuse is associated with delinquency due to increased anger +and affiliation with deviant peers (Feiring et al., 2007). +11. Shame and guilt are important dimensions of both complex and single event, +posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Symptoms of shame are associated with feelings of +helplessness and powerlessness, which each of the plaintiffs endorsed experiencing in +relation to Mr. Epstein. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 79-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2009 Page 3 of 5 +12. The DSM-IV-TR recognizes both powerlessness and helplessness as requisite parts of +the traumatic experience in Criterion A for the diagnosis of posttraumatic stress disorder +Seligman, recent Past President of the American Psychological +Association, coined relevant terms of "learned helplessness and "Loss of Personal Locus +of Control." See Seligman, M.P. 1975: Helplessness, Depression, Development and +Death. W. H. Freeman, San Francisco). The teenaged girls suffered the loss of personal +locus of control to a much more experienced, sexually aggressive, powerful and +dominant, manipulative perpetrator. +13. Releasing names of the plaintiffs to the public will reenact experiences of +powerlessness and helplessness in the face of a boundary violation. Repetition and +reenactment represent central features of Criterion B in the DSM-IV-TR diagnosis of' +posttraumatic stress disorder trauma. In effect, release of their identity and public +intrusion into their personal life represents a reenactment of the shame of sexual +traumatization. Repetition and reenactment are central pathologies that afflict sexual +trauma survivors. +14. Victims of sexual abuse often rely upon some form of dissociation, splitting or denial, +as a detensive means to manage overwhelming attects associated with the sexual trauma. +Each of the plaintiff girls has employed some variation of this defense, both during the +massages and then subsequently following disclosure of the abuse. Primitive, +maladaptive responses of this nature will become additionally reinforced as a result of +public disclosure. +15. Another aspect of the plaintiffs' experience, which is recognized by DSM-IV-TR, is +that the trauma was associated with human design factors (such as cruel intention to do +harm, rape, torture). Trauma of this origin has a tendency to produce more "severe or +long lasting" posttraumatic stress disorder than natural events (DSM IV TR p. 464). A +policy of deliberate revelation of the names of the victims would reinforce the sense of +design, pattern and policy of human intentions. +16. Negative expectations about significant activities are noted in DSM-IV-TR, as part of +Criterion C. Symptoms of foreshortened future are characteristic of a traumatized +individual's clinical course (C4). They expect revictimization. They expect bad outcomes +identity will aggravate existing symptoms of hypervigilance. +17. The DSM-IV-TR diagnostic category of "chronic" is justified for each of the +auntills. Scientifie literature shows that the prognostic consequences of PTSD an +esidual effects may last for decades (U.S. Dept. of Health, 2005; Issues in Child Abus +Prevention Number 9 Autumn1998: Long-term Effects of Child Sexual Abuse, Paul E +Mullen and Jillian Fleming). The lasting impact upon character, identity and moral +development will probably affect long-term influences upon adult development. It is +more probable than not that stigmatization associated with public disclosure of the +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 79-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2009 Page 4 of 5 +plaintiffs' identities will intensify the scope, nature and severity of the chronic symptom +course. +18. In addition to PTSD, shame and humiliation themselves have also been associated +with causing clinical depression. Coexisting PTSD and clinical depression places the +plaintiff's at increased risk for re-victimization and high risk sexual behaviors (e.g., +sexually transmitted disease, premature pregnancy, rape) (Nelson, 2002), and at greater +risk to victimize others (Filipas and Ullman, 2006; Desai, Centers for Disease Control, +2002) who are in their control. Studies have also shown that chronic symptoms of PTSD, +in association with a single episode of Major Depressive Disorder, can produce lifetime +adjustment difficulties, which include suicidality (Oquendo et al, 2005; Dube et al, CDC, +2001; Rohde, J. Am. Acad. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 2005). The plaintiffs will be +additionally vulnerable to these clinical outcomes, if they suffer the stigmatization and +humiliation associated with public disclosure of their identities. +19. Alternative hypothesis: I have applied the evidence shown from examination and +testing of the plaintiffs and relevant observations and information from other +professionals while testing an alternative hypothesis: that no harm would result from +public disclosure of the plaintiffs' identities. During the evaluations with the six +plaintiffs, I used generally acceptable criteria for establishing whether a DSM-IV-TR +disorder occurred. I established that there were provable and diagnosable injuries, +primarily posttraumatic stress disorder and comorbid depression. Based upon these +diagnostic signs, it is more probable than not, that exposing the plaintiff's identity to the +public is not a trivial concern or one without substantial clinical repercussions. I believe +that most child, adolescent and adult psychiatrists would share the opinion that additional +psychiatric injury will result from such exposure. +20. However, consider for the sake of argument, that my diagnostic conclusions are +incorrect, notwithstanding having fulfilled standard psychiatric evaluation procedures of +taking a history from multiple sources, videotaping and transcribing my initial interview, +and reviewing available medical and legal documents. Even if this was the case, and my +diagnostic conclusions were faulty, I believe that multiple experts, even those who may +now propose publication of the victims' names, would still come to a conclusion that the +plaintiff's suffered sexual abuse, and in some cases, multiple acts of ongoing abuse, at the +hands of Jeffery Epstein. Even without developing a subsequent disorder, there is much +clinical evidence and scientific literature showing likelihood of substantial psychiatric +harm to these sexually abused plaintiffs. +21. To form these conclusions, I have used my extensive experience in forming these +opinions. That experience is both as a treating child psychiatrist and separately as a +forensic psychiatrist. I have treated hundreds of minor patients, as well as additionally +evaluated hundreds of children and adolescents who have suffered sexual abuse. I have +made long term followups of many of the children and have treated many adults who +have been molested as adolescents. It is my opinion, with a reasonably high degree of +medical certainty that the defense motion to allow public disclosure of the plaintiffs' +identities is clinically and ethically a wrongful plan. The act of revealing their identities +against their wishes places the plaintiffs at risk, in the best of circumstances, of suffering +4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 79-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2009 Page 5 of 5 +an aggravation of existing diagnostic concerns. It is more probable than not that releasing +personal identities will f +an exacerbation and magnification of symptoms lending to +increased risk of revictimization and retraumatization. +I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the +foregoing statements are true and correct, and that this declaration was executed at San +Francisco, California on June 4, 2009. +Sincerely +Gilbert Kliman, M.D. +Distinguished Life Fellow, American Psychiatric Association +Senior Fellow, American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry +Brockman Award Holder, for Distinguished Lifetime Contributions to +Psychoanalysis and Psychiatry, bestowed by the American College of Psychoanalysis and +Psychiatry +LEONID NAKHODKIN< +Соми. # 1791115 +NOTARY PUBLIC- CALIFORMA +DITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISO +ty Cow. Exp. FEe: 27, 2012 H +State of California, City & County of San Francisco +subscibed and sworn to (or attimed) before me on the +yay of undone by Gilbert Klinken +pond to me petrole to opened store me +5 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/994996b4eaa80946120623e3d65dbabd473b19046e0ab636b79a997d09af0415.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/994996b4eaa80946120623e3d65dbabd473b19046e0ab636b79a997d09af0415.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3829626ac207e83ca6e8c47d1421b7d703e57041 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/994996b4eaa80946120623e3d65dbabd473b19046e0ab636b79a997d09af0415.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -67, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "994996b4eaa80946120623e3d65dbabd473b19046e0ab636b79a997d09af0415", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 6, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "92c28bd30b44ac5cf1cd86cabb8330e934a8d711d5ebc66d7fbb5df85f88b1f2", + "output_sha256": "b72b49b044442bcdd16b18acc45ac38bc5dc232fb81978f4ff68adba4ad8f534", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/995ddbb79393a15c2e0de6d91a0fe545ef591c49a370219806284f28e727127b.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/995ddbb79393a15c2e0de6d91a0fe545ef591c49a370219806284f28e727127b.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..35182ef5c4bd4dc24b82703dd7e6583a9399a933 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/995ddbb79393a15c2e0de6d91a0fe545ef591c49a370219806284f28e727127b.md @@ -0,0 +1,70 @@ +Case 9:08-CV-80736-KAM Document 30. 1 WF 0 Fed on FLSD Docket 10/16/2008 Page 1 of 2 +Brad Edwards +AND ASSOCIATES +October 9, 2008 +Dexter Lee, AUSA +United States Attorney's Office +99 N.E. 4th Street +Miami, Florida +33132 +Re: +Jane Doe # and Jane Doe #2 v. United States of America +Case No.: +08-80736-CIV-MARRA +Dear Mr. Lee: +I am writing to call to your attention two potentially false statements that the Government +made, albeit inadvertently, in a sworn declaration submitted to the Court in connection with the +above-captioned case. I request that your office file a corrected declaration and accompanying +explanation. +The first statement is found at page 3 to 4 of the July 9th +, 2008 declaration of | +Villafaña. There a provision in a plea agreement with Mr. Jeffrey Epstein is recounted. As we +understand the Government's current position in this case, it is that this provision is not in fact +part of the plea agreement in this case. If our understanding is correct, then Ms. Villafaña has +filed a false affidavit with the court, albeit inadvertently. We respectfully request that she file a +new affidavit that corrects this false information, along with all other information relevant to +understanding how the false information came to be provided to the court - and to the victims in +this case. This correction should, in my view, include more details about how Epstein and his +attorneys approved a submission of false information to the victims as you stated on Page 5, n.2 +in your October 8, 2008 filing "Respondent's Opposition to Victims' Motion to Unseal Non- +Prosecution Agreement" - presumably knowing that litigation surrounding the victims' rights +issues was on-going and that such false information might be ultimately presented to the court. +Such information is highly relevant to what remedy the victims might ultimately choose to seek +for violations of their rights in this case. +The second statement may or may not be false, but may need some clarification. At page +4 of Ms. Villafaña declaration, she states that "[i]n October 2007, shortly after the agreement was +signed, four victims [including C.W.] were contacted and these provisions were discussed" +(emphasis added). Similarly at page 5, the declaration states: "After C.W. had been notified of +the terms of the agreement....." (emphasis added). I write to inquire whether, in view of the fact +that the provision noted above is not in fact (according to the Government's current view) part of +the plea agreement, whether this was the provision that the government (inaccurately) discussed +with the victims. Put another way, I am wondering whether the Government will now stipulate +that it, at most, discussed with the victims a provision in the plea agreement that never was +actually part of the plea agreement. +2028 +STREET, SUITE 202, HOLLYWOOD, FLORIDA 33020 +OFFICE: 954-414-8033/305-935-2011 +FAX: 954-924-1530/305-935-4227 +BE@BRADEDWARDSLAW.COM + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 30-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/16/2008 Page 2 of 2 +Dexter Lee, AUSA +United States Attorney's Office +October 9, 2008 +Page Two +I continue to be interested in working out a joint stipulation of proposed facts in this case +with the Government. If you would like to proceed in that direction, please give me a call. If, +however, the Government is not willing to work out a joint stipulation of facts, then I need to +have the record be as clear as possible, and at a minimum would request that the Government +correct the inaccurate information it has provided to the court and clarify precisely how such +inaccurate information came to be made a part of the record and the extent to which Mr. Epstein, +through his attorneys, was culpable. +Sincerely, +BE/sg +Brad +2028 +STREET, SUITE 202, HOLLYWOOD, FLORIDA 33020 +OFFICE: 954-414-8035/305-935-2011 +FAX: 954-924-1530/305-935-4227 +BE@BRADEDWARDSLAW.GOM diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/995ddbb79393a15c2e0de6d91a0fe545ef591c49a370219806284f28e727127b.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/995ddbb79393a15c2e0de6d91a0fe545ef591c49a370219806284f28e727127b.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c3988c8ec73dcd0d73299192d94038b265b219fe --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/995ddbb79393a15c2e0de6d91a0fe545ef591c49a370219806284f28e727127b.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -24, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "995ddbb79393a15c2e0de6d91a0fe545ef591c49a370219806284f28e727127b", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "3517bd14905a94464a759dfcbdef4644000d131063b8cfcff63244bdd57b7484", + "output_sha256": "32892a491c735880bde7fdb1bf7729c163fdbe87dd7fdd7a2ccb73956556bd57", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/997a376e80715e9751706b5e57c1351313eaabf42e0a4f63b1bb8bde2cdfc551.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/997a376e80715e9751706b5e57c1351313eaabf42e0a4f63b1bb8bde2cdfc551.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..dbed012e605c45484c058633219d24a34e177743 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/997a376e80715e9751706b5e57c1351313eaabf42e0a4f63b1bb8bde2cdfc551.md @@ -0,0 +1,50 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 305-6 +Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Page 1 of 2 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA-| +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +Related Cases: +08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994, +08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, +09-80581, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092. +AFFIDAVIT OF ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR. +STATE OF FLORIDA +COUNTY OF PALM BEACH +) SS +) +BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, personally appeared Robert D. Critton, Jr., +having personal knowledge and being duly sworn, deposes and says: +I am counsel for Jeffrey Epstein in the above-styled matter and other civil +lawsuits. +The information contained in motion, paragraphs 1 through 9, 11, 13, 14 and 16 +is true and accurate based on my personal knowledge. +3. +The costs and fees set forth in the motion are true, correct and reasonable. +FURTHER THE AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT. +Robert P. Critton, Jr. +XHIBIT 6 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 305-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Page 2 of 2 +Jane Doe No. 4 v. Epstein +Page 2 +STATE OF FLORIDA +COUNTY OF PALM BEACH +I hereby Certify that on this day, before me, an officer duly authorized to administer +tha he phe co penally a relied upon the towing for a deniedion of the above +_ and that an oath was/was not taken. +day or 17, eptember, 2 and official seal in the County and State last aforesaid this +JESSICA CADWELL +MY COMMISSION & DD 853529 +EXPIRES: April 19, 2013 +Bonded Thru Notary Public Underartlers +PRINT NAME: 3 +ESSICA (ADWAREAL) +NOTARY PUBLICISTATE OF FLORIDA +COMMISSION NO.: DD853529 +MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: +04/19/13 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/997a376e80715e9751706b5e57c1351313eaabf42e0a4f63b1bb8bde2cdfc551.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/997a376e80715e9751706b5e57c1351313eaabf42e0a4f63b1bb8bde2cdfc551.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e0de9e67375fe7de057eb4a519b18e362e902059 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/997a376e80715e9751706b5e57c1351313eaabf42e0a4f63b1bb8bde2cdfc551.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -24, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "997a376e80715e9751706b5e57c1351313eaabf42e0a4f63b1bb8bde2cdfc551", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "7ab4351d3a81c06b0dc427cff1c46f09e801efd05822516e57019980c72e0ede", + "output_sha256": "95112118cb16a697a39e4423cc5cdc0bd7c8ace9b91bfeb8f2e38a9ec2a47b1b", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/997bd698ce3e9ac68f97492440a7bb00ecdab78dc0328309ac5ff8c8ed764b7d.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/997bd698ce3e9ac68f97492440a7bb00ecdab78dc0328309ac5ff8c8ed764b7d.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1b689019a84aba890e6bd4476e9fd36ad8f21c89 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/997bd698ce3e9ac68f97492440a7bb00ecdab78dc0328309ac5ff8c8ed764b7d.md @@ -0,0 +1,20 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 130-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2011 Page 1 of 1 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/ +JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2 +V. +UNITED STATES +[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S +PROTECTIVE MOTION TO COMPEL +THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2's Protective +Motion to Compel. Having reviewed the Motion and the Court file, and good cause having been +shown, +this +It is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion is GRANTED. +DONE AND ORDERED in +at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, +_day of +_ 2011. +KENNETH A. MARRA +United States District Judge diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/997bd698ce3e9ac68f97492440a7bb00ecdab78dc0328309ac5ff8c8ed764b7d.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/997bd698ce3e9ac68f97492440a7bb00ecdab78dc0328309ac5ff8c8ed764b7d.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f347ce6ada60167fbb981ddb1530fe5560e9c457 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/997bd698ce3e9ac68f97492440a7bb00ecdab78dc0328309ac5ff8c8ed764b7d.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "997bd698ce3e9ac68f97492440a7bb00ecdab78dc0328309ac5ff8c8ed764b7d", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "cf2ea92da5f5a0e05377587f29730446c0cb849517046484b68f8560ec72dd14", + "output_sha256": "ff20cf6a896f19276f450b0ca6548115c38d085a80fed8626bd9a02c362aabe7", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9985e26bcfcee7c4633450faf60ea5ac42f299d2bd204d9e9e8c2137ebe012e5.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9985e26bcfcee7c4633450faf60ea5ac42f299d2bd204d9e9e8c2137ebe012e5.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2153d2cc2cc814ec2de114af7c17f376c2adacd1 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9985e26bcfcee7c4633450faf60ea5ac42f299d2bd204d9e9e8c2137ebe012e5.md @@ -0,0 +1,28 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 533 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/27/2010 Page 1 of 1 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRA +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 +The above-styled cause has been set for a status conference regarding the pending and +anticipated discovery appeals on Thursday, May 6, 2010 at 10:30 a.m. before United States +District Judge Kenneth A. Marra, 701 Clematis Street, Courtroom 4, West Palm Beach, Florida. +Thirty (30) minutes have been set aside for this status conference. Defendant need not +file his anticipated appeal (as referenced in DE 532) until after the status conference. +DONE AND ORDERED in +at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, +Florida, this 27" day of April, 2010. +2 +KENNETH A. MARRA +United States District Judge +Copies to: +all counsel of record +1 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9985e26bcfcee7c4633450faf60ea5ac42f299d2bd204d9e9e8c2137ebe012e5.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9985e26bcfcee7c4633450faf60ea5ac42f299d2bd204d9e9e8c2137ebe012e5.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d3b3248e9b4eef5a375bdd1978fc6c59aa57ba45 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9985e26bcfcee7c4633450faf60ea5ac42f299d2bd204d9e9e8c2137ebe012e5.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "9985e26bcfcee7c4633450faf60ea5ac42f299d2bd204d9e9e8c2137ebe012e5", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "2b824bfd672a37ca101fc88beea6c1e2f8b9f76019ec77caccbe95b7a54120cc", + "output_sha256": "206637ad991afd669cc22773052023c6a893f63ad6a64b274ea925f25308a46d", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/99a03e35b9daa8917a990050c081867deab2ba42e03b90c50d7cdb2e89db3337.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/99a03e35b9daa8917a990050c081867deab2ba42e03b90c50d7cdb2e89db3337.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..94d55e43cd05f4914b30f04357373a281d1cba6d --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/99a03e35b9daa8917a990050c081867deab2ba42e03b90c50d7cdb2e89db3337.md @@ -0,0 +1,27 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 166-1 | +Entered on FLSD Docket 04/19/2012 Page 1 of 1 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +Case No. 08.80736-Cr-Marru +JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2 +V. +UNITED STATES +[PROPOSED| ORDER GRANTING JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S UNOPPOSED +MOTION FOR FIVE EXTRA PAGES TO RESPOND TO SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING +IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO INTERVENE BY ROY BLACK ET AL. +THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2's Unopposed +Motion for Five Extra Pages to Respond to Supplemental Briefing in Support of Motion to +Intervene by Roy Black, et. al., filed April 19, 2012. Having reviewed the Motion and the Court +file, and good cause having been shown, +It is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion is GRANTED. The Court shall allow +Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 an additional five pages (a total of 25 pages) to respond to the +Supplemental Briefing in Support of Motion to Intervene of Roy Black, +Weinberg, and +Jay Lefkowitz (DE 160, DE 161, and DE 162) and the government response thereto (DE 100). +DONE AND ORDERED in +at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, +this _ day of. +- 2012. +KENNETH A. MARRA +United States District Judge +1 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/99a03e35b9daa8917a990050c081867deab2ba42e03b90c50d7cdb2e89db3337.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/99a03e35b9daa8917a990050c081867deab2ba42e03b90c50d7cdb2e89db3337.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4ba199ed14964bb94c3d2cef4b334657f39fabc0 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/99a03e35b9daa8917a990050c081867deab2ba42e03b90c50d7cdb2e89db3337.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "99a03e35b9daa8917a990050c081867deab2ba42e03b90c50d7cdb2e89db3337", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "29d63a8445e4eb15b35fdf8807943bbc5882afd26f3d2febbfb8b6c03c1ed520", + "output_sha256": "1c8b8e0d446b4ee244b2633e5252b38bbedeaaec03ebfdfbf65e5303c5ac881a", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/99a927158552927490fcebecb6a3089576bf93e5cefabb5ea5edf8bce52b5f4f.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/99a927158552927490fcebecb6a3089576bf93e5cefabb5ea5edf8bce52b5f4f.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b0a05e68d129cf5c2b4bd39fb0b3729d06023aab --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/99a927158552927490fcebecb6a3089576bf93e5cefabb5ea5edf8bce52b5f4f.md @@ -0,0 +1,73 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 105 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2011 Page 1 of 3 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/ +JANE DOE #1 and JANDE DOE #2 +V. +UNITED STATES +JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR FIVE EXTRA +PAGES TO RESPOND TO SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING IN SUPPORT OF MOTION +TO INTERVENE BY ROY BLACK ET AL. +COME NOW Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 (also referred to as "the victims"), by and +through undersigned counsel, to move this Court to allow them five extra pages beyond the +twenty-page limit to respond to the Supplemental Briefing in Support of Motion to Intervene of +Roy Black, +Weinberg, and Jay Lefkowitz (DE 94) and the government response thereto +(DE 100). The motion is unopposed. +In support of the motion, the victims note that initial Supplemental Briefing from Epstein +they are responding to (DE 94) is 23 pages long. The Government's response (DE 100) supports +many of Epstein's arguments and is 11 pages long. As a result, the victims have a total of 33 +pages that they need to respond to. The victims require 25 pages to set forth all of their +arguments and authorities on the issues addressed in the briefs. The victims have discussed this +motion with counsel for Epstein and the Government, and they do not oppose the motion. +1 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 105 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2011 Page 2 of 3 +CONCLUSION +For all the foregoing reasons, the Court should allow Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 an +additional five pages (a total of 25 pages) to respond to the Supplemental Briefing in Support of +Motion to Intervene of Roy Black, +Weinberg, and Jay Lefkowitz (DE 94) and the +government response thereto (DE 100). +DATED: October 10, 2011 +Respectfully Submitted, +S/ +JAFFE, WEISSING, +FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. +425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 +E-mail: brad@pathtojustice.com +and +Paul G. Cassell +S.J. Quinney College of Law at the +University of Utah +332 S. 1400 E. +Salt Lake City, UT 84112 +Telephone: 801-585-5202 +Facsimile: 801-585-6833 +E-Mail: cassellp@law.utah.edu +Attorneys for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 105 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2011 Page 3 of 3 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +The foregoing document was served on October 10, 2011, on the following using the +Court's CM/ECF system: +A. +Villafaña +Assistant U.S. Attorney +500 S. Australian Ave.., Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +(561) 820-8711 +Fax: (561) 820-8777 +E-mail: +Attorney for the Government +Roy Black, Esq. +Jackie Perczek, Esq. +Black, Srebnick, Kornspan & Stumpf, P.A. +201 South Biscayne Boulevard +Suite 1300 +Miami, FL 33131 +Attorneys for Proposed Intervenors Roy Black et al. +3 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/99a927158552927490fcebecb6a3089576bf93e5cefabb5ea5edf8bce52b5f4f.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/99a927158552927490fcebecb6a3089576bf93e5cefabb5ea5edf8bce52b5f4f.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b3a196ce30d6f28f237fd62aa5a9538888d6c50b --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/99a927158552927490fcebecb6a3089576bf93e5cefabb5ea5edf8bce52b5f4f.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -36, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "99a927158552927490fcebecb6a3089576bf93e5cefabb5ea5edf8bce52b5f4f", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 3, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "35b2166a03f6e329bccf6c05d6727350903e5061932fa9228fd8c51cb8a862d2", + "output_sha256": "1f7209d0f4545df9ee397f3d5337eb3a8af95758d9fc64bdb641f91a5b66d589", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/99dbc05787aa34e3f2af58130cc931878e7cdd5ecc7f6cf06fbda5e6435c4c07.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/99dbc05787aa34e3f2af58130cc931878e7cdd5ecc7f6cf06fbda5e6435c4c07.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..63dafe4b3ac6eade28d5cb45af65d3ee8989ed89 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/99dbc05787aa34e3f2af58130cc931878e7cdd5ecc7f6cf06fbda5e6435c4c07.md @@ -0,0 +1,143 @@ +Filing # 131377457 E-Filed 07/26/2021 11:35:30 AM +IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT, +IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB +DIVISION: AG +CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS LLC PUBLISHER OF THE PALM BEACH POST, +Plaintiff/Petitioner +VS. +DAVE ARONBERG, +SHARON R BOCK, +Defendant/Respondents. +ORDER SETTING HEARING ON DEFENDANT +DAVE ARONBERG'S AMENDED MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES +THIS CAUSE having come before the Court for Calendar Call on July 16, 2021, upon +Defendant DAVE ARONBERG's Amended Motion for Attorneys' Fees filed on November 19. +2020, it is +ORDERED that the hearing on Defendant DAVE ARONBERG's Amended Motion for +Attorneys' Fees filed November 19, 2020 is set before the Honorable DONALD W. HAFELE +on July 27, 2021 at 02:00 pm, in Courtroom 10D, 205 N. Dixie Hwy, West Palm Beach, +Florida 33401. This is a special set hearing which shall be limited to 1/2 day. It is further +ORDERED that the attorneys/parties must submit to the Court by hard copy seven (7) +working days before the hearing noting the date and time of the hearing: +1. copies of all relevant pleadings; +2. a copy of any memorandum of law (not to exceed 10 double spaced pages with +case authority in no less than 12 point font for body and any footnotes); +3. copies of all case law authority; +4. copies of exhibit and witness lists; and +5. in compliance with Local Rule 3 proposed order and/or judgment. +This hearing has been specially set by the Court and shall not be canceled unless the issues +of this motion have been settled and an order entered, or the motion withdrawn. +FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, I + +| ABRUZZO, CLERK, 07/26/2021 11:35:30 AM + + +If an interpreter is needed for a party or witness in this case, it shall be the responsibility +of the party needing same to provide a qualified interpreter. +DONE and ORDERED in +in West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida. +XXX-ME 2726203RCUIT +Donald Hatele, Circuit, Judgevr arrice or ThE CouRT +50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB +07/26/2021 +Donald Hafele +Circuit Judge +COPIES TO: +CYNTHIA M GUERRA +No Address Available +No Address Available +DOUGLAS A. WYLER +961687 GATEWAY BLVD +SUITE 201-1 +FERNANDINA BEACH, FL +32034 +JAMES CULLEN MOONEY No Address Available +JESSICA NEER +MCDONALD +POST OFFICE BOX 229 +WEST PALM BEACH, FL +KENNETH G. TURKED +No Address Available +MICHAEL GRYGIEL, +MICHAELJ. GRYGIEL +NINA D. BOYAJIAN +54 STATE STREET +6TH FLOOR +ALBANY, NY 12207 +No Address Available +No Address Available +NINA D. BOYAJIAN +SHANE B. VOGT +1840 CENTURY PARK +EAST +SUITE 1900 +LOS ANGELES, CA 90067 +No Address Available +No E-mail Address Available +Clerk_e- +service@mypalmbeachclerk.co +doug.wyler@comcast.net +jmooney@bajocuva.com +lheckman@bajocuva.com +CLERK_E- +SERVICE@MYPALMBEACH +CLERK.COM +jnme donald@mypalmbeachclerk +.com +kturkel@bajocuva.com +lisa.meriwether@bajocuva.com +teri.deleo@bajocuva.com +GRYGIELM@GTLAW.COM +grygielm@gtlaw.com +boyajiann@gtlaw.com +riveraal@gtlaw.com +No E-mail Address Available +shane.vogt@bajocuva.com +garnold@bajocuva.com + + + +STEPHEN A. +MENDELSOHN, ESQ +5100 TOWN CENTER CIR +SUITE 400 +BOCA RATON, FL 33486 +mendelsohns@gtlaw.com +smithl@gtlaw.com +flservice@gtlaw.com +NOT A CERTIFIED COPY + + + +This notice is provided pursuant to Administrative Order No. 2.207 +"If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation +in order to participate in this proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to +you, to the provision of certain assistance. Please contact Tammy Anton, +Americans +with Disabilities Act Coordinator, Palm Beach County +Courthouse, 205 North Dixie Highway West Palm Beach, Florida 33401; +telephone number (561) 355-4380 at least 7 days before your scheduled +court appearance, or immediately upon receiving this notification if the +time before the scheduled appearance is less than 7 days; if you are +hearing or voice impaired, call 711." +"Si usted +es +una persona minusválida que +necesita algún +acomodamiento para poder participar en este procedimiento, usted tiene +derecho, sin tener gastos propios, a que se le provea cierta ayuda. Tenga la +amabilidad de ponerse en contacto con Tammy Anton, 205 N. Dixie +Highway, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401; teléfono número (561) 355- +4380, por lo menos 7 días antes de la cita fijada para su comparecencia en +los tribunales, o inmediatamente después de recibir esta notificación si el +tiempo antes de la comparecencia que se ha programado es menos de 7 +días; si usted tiene discapacitación del oído o de la voz, llame al 711." +"Si ou se yon moun ki enfim ki bezwen akomodasyon pou w ka +patisipe nan pwosedi sa, ou kalifye san ou pa gen okenn lajan pou w peye, +gen pwovizyon pou jwen kèk èd. Tanpri kontakte Tammy Anton, +kòòdonatè pwogram Lwa pou ameriken ki Enfim yo nan Tribinal Konte +Palm Beach la ki nan 205 North Dixie Highway, West Palm Beach, Florida +33401; telefòn li se (561) 355-4380 nan 7 jou anvan dat ou gen randevou +pou parèt nan tribinal la, oubyen imedyatman apre ou fin resevwa +bungekeyon en pil o aet po yen påt maete tinal la mens ke 7 jou; st diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/99dbc05787aa34e3f2af58130cc931878e7cdd5ecc7f6cf06fbda5e6435c4c07.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/99dbc05787aa34e3f2af58130cc931878e7cdd5ecc7f6cf06fbda5e6435c4c07.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..13cbb8da5f492a38e863a0bb6780e93653f8114f --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/99dbc05787aa34e3f2af58130cc931878e7cdd5ecc7f6cf06fbda5e6435c4c07.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -200, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "99dbc05787aa34e3f2af58130cc931878e7cdd5ecc7f6cf06fbda5e6435c4c07", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 10, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "305f582cd0872476be25168009cd59f3783c52d3f09c505b9d2e6aa31cfaa90a", + "output_sha256": "00b2c7dd7fc44c7585338aca75480ef26030e3c8cc18823535f0c5e6d8b8eac7", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/99f1fb3489a65f552eecaef0365ce40fa8bc72f879f3880731e24dc05eaf4c3d.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/99f1fb3489a65f552eecaef0365ce40fa8bc72f879f3880731e24dc05eaf4c3d.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a49ae33aa2ac362b9556ab68876de902503069d2 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/99f1fb3489a65f552eecaef0365ce40fa8bc72f879f3880731e24dc05eaf4c3d.md @@ -0,0 +1,110 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 228 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/19/2013 Page 1 of 4 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA +JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, +Petitioners, +VS. +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, +Respondent. +RESPONDENT'S OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS' MOTION FOR +ORDINARY BRIEFING SCHEDULE AND ORDINARY PAGE LIMITS +Respondent, by and through its undersigned counsel, files its Opposition to Petitioners" +Motion for Ordinary Briefing Schedule and Ordinary Page Limits to Respond to Government's +Privilege Assertions, and state: +Petitioners' motion for ordinary briefing schedule and ordinary page limits should be +denied because the procedures the Court set forth in its Omnibus Order (D.E. 190) provide an +adequate opportunity for petitioners to challenge the government's invocation of privilege. +Instead of directing the government to only file a Privilege Log, the Court also directed the +government to file those documents withheld on a claim of privilege with the Court for in camera +inspection. D.E. 190 at 2. Thus, in adjudicating the government's claim of privilege, the Court +will have the petitioners' objection, the government's response, and the document for which the +privilege is being claimed. +Petitioners go to great lengths to preview what they claim are "problems" with the +government's assertions of privilege. D.E. 218 at 3-7. They claim the government cannot +invoke an attorney-client privilege in the context of the CVRA petition because "it owes a + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 228 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/19/2013 Page 2 of 4 +fiduciary duty to the crime victims to use its 'best efforts."" D.E. 218 at 4. Assuming a +fiduciary relationship between crime victims and the government even exists, the common law +fiduciary exception to the attorney-client privilege does not extend to the federal government +because any trust obligation to crime victims is based on statute, rather than common law. +United States v. Jicarilla Apache Nation, 131 S.Ct. 2313 (2011)(Fiduciary exception to attorneyclient privilege does not extend to federal government in its capacity as trustee of Indian funds). +Similarly, the deliberative process privilege has been properly invoked by the +government. Petitioners provide no authority for their assertion that the deliberative process +privilege cannot be invoked in an action under the CVRA, D.E. 218 at 4. As to the work +product doctrine, petitioners claim the privilege does not apply because "[m]any of the +documents at issue here were not prepared in anticipation of litigation about the CVRA." D.E. +218 at 5. Petitioners appear to believe that the work product doctrine only covers materials +prepared in anticipation of the litigation in which the documents are actually being sought. This +is incorrect. In describing Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(3), the Supreme Court observed that, "the literal +language of the Rule protects materials prepared for any litigation or trial as long as they were +prepared by or for a party to the subsequent litigation." Federal Trade Commission v. Grolier, +Inc.., 462 U.S. 19, 25 (1983)(emphasis in original). If government attorneys prepared +documents containing mental impressions, theories, opinions, or conclusions, in anticipation of a +criminal prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein, those work product materials would be protected from +disclosure in this case also. +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 228 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/19/2013 Page 3 of 4 +Petitioners' motion for ordinary briefing schedule and ordinary page limits should be +denied. +DATED: August 19, 2013 +Respectfully submitted, +WILFREDO A. FERRER +UNITED STATES ATTORNEY +By: +s/ Dexter A. Lee +DEXTER A. LEE +Assistant U.S. Attorney +Fla. Bar No. 0936693 +99 N.E. 4th Street, Suite 300 +Miami, Florida 33132 +(305) 961-9320 +Fax: (305) 530-7139 +E-mail: dexter.lee@usdoj.gov +ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I HEREBY CERTIFY that on August 19, 2013, I electronically filed the foregoing +document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. +s/ Dexter A. Lee +DEXTER A. LEE +Assistant U.S. Attorney +SERVICE LIST +Jane Does 1 and 2 v. United States, +Case No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/ +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +Jaffe, Weissing, +425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 +Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 +(954) 524-2820 +Fax: (954) 524-2822 +E-mail: brad @pathtojustice.com +Fistos & Lehrman, P.L. +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 228 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/19/2013 Page 4 of 4 +Paul G. Cassell +S.J. Quinney College of Law at the +University of Utah +332 S. 1400 E. +Salt Lake City, Utah 84112 +(801) 585-5202 +Fax: (801) 585-6833 +E-mail: casselp@law.utah.edu +Attorneys for Jane Doe # 1 and Jane Doe # 2 +Roy Black +Jackie Perczek +Black, Srebnick, Kornspan & Stumpf, P.A. +201 South Biscayne Boulevard +Suite 1300 +Miami, Florida 33131 +(305) 371-6421 +Fax: (305) 358-2006 +E-mail: rblack@royblack.com +jperczek@royblack.com +Attorneys for Intervenors +4 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/99f1fb3489a65f552eecaef0365ce40fa8bc72f879f3880731e24dc05eaf4c3d.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/99f1fb3489a65f552eecaef0365ce40fa8bc72f879f3880731e24dc05eaf4c3d.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d3839f65e2ed8dd9e1385c7ffb97f32ac37f242c --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/99f1fb3489a65f552eecaef0365ce40fa8bc72f879f3880731e24dc05eaf4c3d.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -50, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "99f1fb3489a65f552eecaef0365ce40fa8bc72f879f3880731e24dc05eaf4c3d", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 5, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "dae02cf7829121713dbde62e1ae144733d5b1e8a32631ea3a3bf748e9ef54dac", + "output_sha256": "2ec58a68e63f9826a45c08f4d763101803b4fbe8c99fe265320b6aeb1f9910a1", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9a05ffee7a5e7d99cb59b038a735e017365b02a512f18afdcd275e4483c9f73b.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9a05ffee7a5e7d99cb59b038a735e017365b02a512f18afdcd275e4483c9f73b.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..92f2ae5718122e7565afc08a2ce39d81dc519ee8 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9a05ffee7a5e7d99cb59b038a735e017365b02a512f18afdcd275e4483c9f73b.md @@ -0,0 +1,94 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 27 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/06/2008 Page 1 of 2 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +Steven M. Larimore +Court Administrator • Clerk of Court +400 North Miami Avenue Room 8N09 +Miami, Florida 33128-7716 +(305) 523-5100 +Date: October 6, 2008 +Clerk of the Circuit and County Courts +15'h Judicial Circuit of Florida +205 North Dixie Highway, Room 3.2300 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +RE: Our case No.: 08-CIV-80804-KAM +Your case No.: 50 2008 CA 006596 +Dear Sir: +Enclosed please find a certified copy of this Court's Order of Remand in the above referenced case. +Please acknowledge receipt of the above on the enclosed copy of this letter. +STEVEN M. LARIMORE +Clerk of Court +by: Is/ Bonnie J. Bernard +Deputy Clerk +Enclosures +• 400 N. Miami Ave. +Room 8N09 +Miami, FL 33128 +(305) 523-5100 +299 E. Broward Blvd. +Room 108 +Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 +(954) 769-5400 +• 701 Clematis Street +Room 402 +West Palm Beach, FL +33401 +(561) 803-3400 +• 300 South Sixth Street • 301 Simonton Street, +Fort Pierce, FL 34950 +Room 130 +(772) 467-2330 +Key West, FL 33040 +(305) 295-8100 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 27 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/06/2008 Page 2 of 2 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +Steven M. Larimore +Court Administrator • Clerk of Court +400 North Miami Avenue, Room 8N09 +Miami, Florida 33128-7716 +(305) 523-5100 +Date: October 6, 2008 +Clerk of the Circuit and County Courts +15" Judicial Circuit of Florida +205 North Dixie Highway, Room 3.2300 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +RE: +Our case No.: 08-CIV-80804-KAM +Your case No.: 50 2008 CA 006596 +Dear Sir: +Enclosed please find a certified copy of this Court's Order of Remand in the above referenced case. +Please acknowledge receipt of the above on the enclosed copy of this letter. +CLERK'S ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT of : +STEVEN M. LARIMORE +Clerk of Court +Certified copy of order of remand +is hereby acknowledged. This case has been assigned +our case number: +by: Is/ Bonnie J. Bernard +Deputy Clerk +Enclosures +by: _ +on: +_ Deputy Clerk +0400 N. Miami Avenue +Room 8N09 +Miami, FL 33128 +(305) 523-5100 +0299 E. Broward Boulevard +Room 108 +Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 +(954) 769-5400 +0701 Clematis Street +Room 402 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +(561) 803-3400 +0300 South Sixth Street +Fort Pierce, FL 34950 +(772) 467-2300 +0301 Simonton Street +Room 130 +Key West, FL 33040 +(305) 295-8100 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9a05ffee7a5e7d99cb59b038a735e017365b02a512f18afdcd275e4483c9f73b.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9a05ffee7a5e7d99cb59b038a735e017365b02a512f18afdcd275e4483c9f73b.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..dae5a69b7840a43c81bb9a172f9a8e37fa973dcd --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9a05ffee7a5e7d99cb59b038a735e017365b02a512f18afdcd275e4483c9f73b.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -24, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "9a05ffee7a5e7d99cb59b038a735e017365b02a512f18afdcd275e4483c9f73b", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "543f710aa21e49a57985ebf2a929488953d201fbab3fb910977fa109bc3e418b", + "output_sha256": "76d90aaabc1be390a9cdc3bea227a8b4f533763a37a57fc47177a19501317375", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9a116bb27ddec4ceabfd1d5eeda6a141c7e25f814237a67c64a16ed6a1b77ab7.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9a116bb27ddec4ceabfd1d5eeda6a141c7e25f814237a67c64a16ed6a1b77ab7.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..53ff4ab62b325f972d2a7e801294b46c862c6ca6 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9a116bb27ddec4ceabfd1d5eeda6a141c7e25f814237a67c64a16ed6a1b77ab7.md @@ -0,0 +1,63 @@ +Filing # 101751860 E-Filed 01/16/2020 10:16:32 AM +IN THE CIRCUIT COURT IN AND FOR +PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +CIRCUIT CIVIL DIVISION: "AG" +CASE NO.:50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB +CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS LLC PUBLISHER OF THE PALM BEACH POST, +Plaintiff/Petitioner +VS. +DAVE ARONBERG, +SHARON R BOCK, +Defendant/Respondents. +ORDER SETTING HEARING ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS +THIS CAUSE having come before the Court on Defendant Dave Aronberg's Motion +to Dismiss and Defendant Sharon R Bock's Motion to Dismiss, and the Court having +reviewed the file in the entirety and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is +ORDERED that BOTH Defendant's Motion to Dismiss are hereby scheduled for +hearing on January 24, 2020 at 10:00 am in Courtroom I1B of the Main Courthouse, 205 N +Dixie Highway, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401. Failure to appear will result in sanctions. +DONE AND ORDERED in West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida. Thursday, +January 16, 2020 +Krista Marx_ Chlef Judge +01/16/2020 +50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB +Krista Marx +Chief Judge +COPIES TO: +ARTHUR IJACOBS +No Address Available +DOUGLAS A. WYLER +961687 GATEWAY BLVD +SUITE 201-1 +FERNANDINA BEACH, FL +32034 +HAMPTON C. PETERSON POST OFFICE BOX 229 +WEST PALM BEACH, FL +33402 +jacobsscholzlaw@comcast.net +aijacobs@comcast.net +doug.wyler@comcast.net +CLERK_E- +SERVICE@MYPALMBEACH +CLERK.COM +hpeterson@mypalmbeachclerk. +com + +FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, SHARON R. BOCK, CLERK, 01/16/2020 10:16:32 AM + + +Case No. 50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB +MICHAEL GRYGIEL +STEPHEN A. +MENDELSOHN, ESQ +54 STATE STREET +6TH FLOOR +ALBANY, NY 12207 +5100 TOWN CENTER CIR +SUITE 400 +BOCA RATON, FL 33486 +GRYGIELM@GTLAW.COM +mendelsohns@gtlaw.com +hasenh@gtlaw.com +NOT A CERTIFIED COPY + diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9a116bb27ddec4ceabfd1d5eeda6a141c7e25f814237a67c64a16ed6a1b77ab7.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9a116bb27ddec4ceabfd1d5eeda6a141c7e25f814237a67c64a16ed6a1b77ab7.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0831a668d5df3e6cbab1ee91a83e42167a5e3386 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9a116bb27ddec4ceabfd1d5eeda6a141c7e25f814237a67c64a16ed6a1b77ab7.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -46, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "9a116bb27ddec4ceabfd1d5eeda6a141c7e25f814237a67c64a16ed6a1b77ab7", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 4, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "73b1bcbe2748e816eefe6b1669a17a84acfe4adaad688547005c1d355fadc4e5", + "output_sha256": "8f83076e9f6c2ae292bf00e67ff37ddcf688edce145538a36a3e62ba1b6ab560", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9a469f2ac6a90304bf7b408ee50b0755de043e53cd8d624791ce3e938f787418.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9a469f2ac6a90304bf7b408ee50b0755de043e53cd8d624791ce3e938f787418.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..53f39dcb115794cff51cb50d966d6677e6723330 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9a469f2ac6a90304bf7b408ee50b0755de043e53cd8d624791ce3e938f787418.md @@ -0,0 +1,33 @@ +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 72 +Troutman Sanders LLP +875 Third Avenue +New York, New York 10022 +troutman.com +Filed 06/15/20 Page 1 of 1 +troutman" +sanders +Bennet J. Moskowitz +D: 212-704-6000 +bennet.moskowitz(@troutman.com +June 15, 2020 +VIA ELECTRONIC COURT FILING +Hon. Debra C. Freeman +Daniel +Moynihan +United States Courthouse +500 Pearl Street +New York, New York 10007 +Re: +Jane Doe, 1:19-cv-8673 (KPF) (DCF) +Dear Judge Freeman: +We represent Defendants in the above-referenced action. We write to further update the Court +on the status of the voluntary, independent Epstein Victims' Compensation Program (the +"Program"). As we previously advised, on June 3, 2020, the Probate Court of the U.S. Virgin +Islands approved the Program. Immediately upon receipt of funding, the Program designers and +administrator accelerated their efforts to commence operations. We are pleased to report that +the Program will begin receiving formal claims filings on June 25. This information and other +details are now available on the Program's official website: https://epsteinvcp.com. +Respectfully submitted, +s/Bennet J. Moskowitz +Bennet J. Moskowitz +cc: Counsel of Record (via ECF) diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9a469f2ac6a90304bf7b408ee50b0755de043e53cd8d624791ce3e938f787418.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9a469f2ac6a90304bf7b408ee50b0755de043e53cd8d624791ce3e938f787418.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9419d571fd4c7099aeb146e4162d9c7550c544c7 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9a469f2ac6a90304bf7b408ee50b0755de043e53cd8d624791ce3e938f787418.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "9a469f2ac6a90304bf7b408ee50b0755de043e53cd8d624791ce3e938f787418", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "4c8e62a9a57f211e986422f265176112b25f6b256a5a9587e6f54a67a22804bc", + "output_sha256": "cdc4cb1d150520f75eaaeece2ad4e9a480fbfe513a2e7034525843e0b9675b66", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9a48ddea71b35478ec39bb8023651800afcc3984a426ef04d29f1c4e445ddec1.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9a48ddea71b35478ec39bb8023651800afcc3984a426ef04d29f1c4e445ddec1.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2cda2019715df8b80e3db18043d3412c820b5693 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9a48ddea71b35478ec39bb8023651800afcc3984a426ef04d29f1c4e445ddec1.md @@ -0,0 +1,33 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 394 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/05/2009 Page 1 of 2 +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, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, +08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, +09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092 +ORDER ON DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO EXCEED PAGE +LIMITATION IN RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO +COMPEL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION +WITH INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW +This matter came before the Court on Defendant's, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Motion +to Exceed Page Limitation in Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel +Responses to Request for Production with Incorporated Memorandum of Law. "Having +considered Defendant's motion to exceed page limitation by one (1) page, it is HEREBY +ORDERED and ADJUDGED that: +Defendant's motion is GRANTED. Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Motion +to Compel Response to Request for Production with Incorporated Memorandum of Law +may exceed 20 pages by one (1) additional page. +DONE and ORDERED this 5 day or November, 2009. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 394 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/05/2009 Page 2 of 2 +Kemeth A Mata Linner R-Johnses +United States District Judge +MagistaR +Courtesy Copies: Counsel of Record diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9a48ddea71b35478ec39bb8023651800afcc3984a426ef04d29f1c4e445ddec1.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9a48ddea71b35478ec39bb8023651800afcc3984a426ef04d29f1c4e445ddec1.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a6381018cc6bbc7b9618be09724b2c1266a0ebea --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9a48ddea71b35478ec39bb8023651800afcc3984a426ef04d29f1c4e445ddec1.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -24, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "9a48ddea71b35478ec39bb8023651800afcc3984a426ef04d29f1c4e445ddec1", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "79d8ffef3304b5ddc7be44c8916f5138aa9ca5de45f643cf0a993872910af691", + "output_sha256": "1e4da0d2a0b46a49ea10691d268618a031e6fe89655c5c4b4975084751330d24", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9a8472c64d66675f9fb94fa5de0dfbc8e0475efce2f737fc3f0d7e06a3c64a11.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9a8472c64d66675f9fb94fa5de0dfbc8e0475efce2f737fc3f0d7e06a3c64a11.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a88220e362e12d27568dbf16ab14282d2ac0f531 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9a8472c64d66675f9fb94fa5de0dfbc8e0475efce2f737fc3f0d7e06a3c64a11.md @@ -0,0 +1,54 @@ +! +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 152-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2009 Page 1 of 2 +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM +Document 36 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2009 Page 1 of 2 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA) +JANE DOES #1 AND #2, +Petitioners, +V. +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, +Respondent. +ORDER +THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on the Petitioners' Motion to Unseal Non-Prosecution +Agreement (DE 28), filed September 25, 2008. Respondent filed its response (DE 29), on October +8, 2008, and Petitioners filed their reply (DE 30) on October 16, 2008. The Court has carefully +considered the motion and the record and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. +Petitioners motion seeks the Court to enter an order unsealing the Non-prosecution +Agreement, including any modifications and addenda thereto (collectively referred to as the +"Agreement"), between the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida +("USAO") and Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"). Ata hearing held on August 14, 2008, the Court ordered +the USAO to produce the Agreement to counsel for the Petitioners and to any other victims +identified by the USAO and their counsel, pursuant to the terms of the Court's Order. (See DE 26, +August 21, 2008). Petitioners argue that the Agreement "should now be unsealed." +First, as Respondent points out, the Agreement was not filed in this case, under seal or +otherwise. Petitioners also assert that the Agreement should be "unsealed" because the victims + + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 152-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2009 Page 2 of 2 +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 36 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2009 Page 2 of 2 +and/or their attorneys believe the Government has mischaracterized some of its provisions. If and +when such alleged mischaracterizations become relevant to an issue to be decided by the Court, the +parties will be given the opportunity to advance their positions and the Court will resolve the issue. +If disclosure of the Agreement will be required for the Court to resolve the issue, appropriate +disclosure will be ordered. +Furthermore, to the extent Petitioners are seeking modification of the restrictions placed +upon their use of the Agreement by the Court's August 21, 2008 order, Petitioners have not met their +burden to justify a modification. Petitioners' mere desire to discuss the Agreement with third parties +is insufficient, in and of itself, to warrant the granting of such relief. If and when Petitioners have +a specific tangible need to be relieved of the restrictions, they should file an appropriate motion. If +a specific tangible need arises in a civil case Petitioners or other alleged victims are pursuing against +Epstein, relief should be sought in that case, with notice to the United States, the other party to the +Agreement. Accordingly, it is +ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Petitioners' Motion to Unseal Non-Prosecution +Agreement (DE 28) is DENIED. +DONE and ORDERED in +in West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, +this 12" day of February, 2008. +KENNETH A. MARRA +UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE +Copies furnished to: +all counsel of record +2 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9a8472c64d66675f9fb94fa5de0dfbc8e0475efce2f737fc3f0d7e06a3c64a11.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9a8472c64d66675f9fb94fa5de0dfbc8e0475efce2f737fc3f0d7e06a3c64a11.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..705c5aab594ebc4827f5ed95a4f77307afde8afc --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9a8472c64d66675f9fb94fa5de0dfbc8e0475efce2f737fc3f0d7e06a3c64a11.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -33, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "9a8472c64d66675f9fb94fa5de0dfbc8e0475efce2f737fc3f0d7e06a3c64a11", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 3, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "5ffd5bdedfb0d8baae6a98bda42fac7e46167cc5fdc840e35e1aa27b54b8209a", + "output_sha256": "8b431a2f07e7698f10ecf3b851f1717736a75d2995aa00fba691da5b9d6265c7", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9a8d0715a6a5e0676913395c0560abbec349add3d7bd5f8b6e61cdb8b9eeafbe.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9a8d0715a6a5e0676913395c0560abbec349add3d7bd5f8b6e61cdb8b9eeafbe.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..79fc95bd7a9c28f007ba0bc8dd7816f2dc67bfbf --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9a8d0715a6a5e0676913395c0560abbec349add3d7bd5f8b6e61cdb8b9eeafbe.md @@ -0,0 +1,433 @@ +Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 1 of 15 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRAJ +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 5, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/ +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/ +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRAJ + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 2 of 15 +JANE DOE NO. 6, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80994-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 7, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08- CV-80993-MARRA +C.M.A., +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80811 -MARRAO +JANE DOE, +VS. +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et al., +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08- CV-80893-MARRA| +DOE II, +VS. +CASE NO.: 08-CV- 80469-MARRA/ +Plaintiff, +2 + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 3 of 15 +JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al., +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 101, +CASE NO.: 08- CV-80591-MARRA/ +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 102, +CASE NO.: 08- CV-80656-MARRA +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +PLAINTIFES JANE DOES 2-7'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO +COMPEL AND/OR IDENTIFY PLAINTIFFS IN THE STYLE OF THIS CASE AND +MOTION TO IDENTIFY JANE DOE IN THIRD-PARTY SUBPOENAS FOR +PURPOSES OF DISCOVERY, OR ALTERNATIVELY, MOTION TO DISMISS +"SUA SPONTE", WITH INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW +Plaintiffs, JANE DOES 2-7, hereby serve their Response to Defendant's Motion to +Compel and/or Identify Plaintiffs in the Style of this Case and Motion to Identify Jane Doe in +Third-Party Subpoenas for Purposes of Discovery, or Alternatively, Motion to Dismiss "Sua +Sponte", With Incorporated Memorandum of Law, and state as follows: +The lawsuits filed by JANE DOES 2-7 involve private, intimate facts pertaining +to their own childhood sexual abuse and exploitation by Defendant Jeffrey Epstein. +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 114 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 4 of 15 +2. +Jane Does 2-7 filed their suits under a pseudonym' to prevent public disclosure of +the private, highly sensitive and intimate facts pertaining to their sexual assaults, and the public +association of their identities with Defendant Epstein and these assaults. +Dr. Gilbert Kliman," a well-known forensic psychiatrist with an expertise in the +field of child trauma, has met with and evaluated each of Jane Does 2-7 and opined that public +disclosure of their real names would create a substantial risk to them of further psychological +harm. See Exhibit "A", Declaration of Gilbert Kliman, M.D. +Dr. Kliman opines as follows: +Releasing names of the plaintiffs to the public will reenact experiences of +powerlessness and helplessness in the face of a boundary violation. Repetition and +reenactment represent central features of Criterion B in the DSM-IV-TR diagnosis +of posttraumatic stress disorder trauma. In effect, release of their identity and +public intrusion into their personal life represents a reenactment of the shame of +sexual traumatization. Repetition and reenactment are central pathologies that +afflict sexual trauma survivors. +Victims of sexual abuse often rely upon some form of dissociation, splitting or +denial, as a defensive means to manage overwhelming affects associated with the +sexual trauma. Each of the plaintiff girls has employed some variation of this +defense, both during the massages and then subsequently following disclosure of +the abuse. Primitive, maladaptive responses of this nature will become +additionally reinforced as a result of public disclosure. +Another aspect of the plaintiffs' experience, which is recognized by DSM-IV-TR, +is that the trauma was associated with human design factors (such as cruel +intention to do harm, rape, torture). Trauma of this origin has a tendency to +produce more "severe or long lasting" posttraumatic stress disorder than natural +events (DSM IV TR p. 464). À policy of deliberate revelation of the names of the +victims would reinforce the sense of design, pattern and policy of human +intentions. +It is my opinion, with a reasonably high degree of medical certainty that the +defense motion to allow public disclosure of the plaintiffs' identity is clinically +" Defendant and his counsel are aware of the real names of Jane Does 2-7. +" A copy of the curriculum vitae of Dr. Gilbert Kliman is attached hereto as Exhibit "B". +4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 114 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 5 of 15 +and ethically a wrongful plan. The act of revealing their identity against their +wishes places the plaintiffs at risk, in the best of circumstances, of suffering an +aggravation of existing diagnostic concerns. It is more probable than not that +releasing personal identities will +an exacerbation and magnification of +symptoms lending to increased risk of revictimization and retraumatization. +See Exhibit "A", 99l 13-15, 21 +5. +Given the private nature of the allegations in this lawsuit and the serious risk of +harm to the mental health of Jane Does 2-7 if a public disclosure of their identities were required, +Jane Does 2-7 should be permitted to continue using a pseudonym in this lawsuit. +6. +Notably, in one of the cases consolidated for purposes of discovery, Jane Doe v. +Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 08-80893, this Court recognized the harm likely to result from public +disclosure of the victims' identities in these cases, and allowed the Plaintiff in that case to +"proceed in this action under the pseudonym Jane Doe'", by Order dated October 6, 2008. +Jeffrey Epstein sets forth no facts to support his bare contention that Jane Does 2- +7 use of a pseudonym in these proceedings interferes with his "constitutional due process right." +See Motion to Compel, p. 3. Defendant and his counsel know the identities of these Plaintiffs. +8. +Defendant also requests the Court's permission to use the real names of Jane Does +2-7 in various third-party subpoenas for discovery purposes. Defendant does not identify any of +the entities or persons to whom he intends to send subpoenas. An order granting the relief +requested without limitations would essentially nullify Jane Does 2-7's right to proceed +anonymously. Jane Does 2-7 therefore object to the issuance of third-party subpoenas, and +submit that Defendant can obtain the discovery he seeks by alternative means that will preserve +the confidentiality of the Jane Does 2-7's identities. +9. +If this Court were to permit third party subpoenas or records custodian +depositions using the existing captions and identifying Jane Does 2-7 in the body of the +5 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 114 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 6 of 15 +subpoena by their names, due to publicity surrounding the Defendant's crimes, then Jane Does 2- +7 would effectively be revealed as abuse victims in these cases against Defendant Epstein. Any +subpoenas or notices to third parties therefore should not disclose the type of action or the +Defendant's identity. There are alternatives which would preserve Jane Does 2-7's anonymity +and be more efficient and cost-effective at the same time. For instance, Defendant can obtain +records from various non-party sources through Plaintiffs' counsel, who can certify that they +have obtained the records through authorizations signed by Jane Does 2-7. Another means to +obtain non-party records concerning Plaintiffs is the appointment of a special +who would +verify authenticity and completeness of the records. +10. +Finally, Jeffrey Epstein's request that this Court order a "sua sponte" dismissal is +illogical. Sua sponte means "[w]ithout prompting or suggestion; on its own motion." Black's +Law Dictionary 1437 (7th ed.1999). Thus, the definition of sua sponte does not fit these +circumstances, because the Court is being prompted by Epstein's Motion. Velchez v. Carnival +Corp, 331 F.3d 1207 (11th Cir. 2003). In any event, there is no basis or authority to support a +dismissal of these cases. +WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Jane Does 2-7 respectfully request that (i) this Court deny +Defendant's Motion to Compel and/or Identify Plaintiffs in the Style of this Case and Motion to +Identify Jane Doe in Third-Party Subpoenas for Purposes of Discovery, or Alternatively, Motion +to Dismiss "Sua Sponte", in its entirety; (ii) Plaintiffs Jane Does 2-7 be permitted to continue +using their pseudonyms in this litigation; (ill) this Court order that records from non-parties +relating to Jane Does 2-7, including medical and employment records, only be obtained through +Plaintiffs' counsel by means of signed authorizations that do not include the caption or identify +Epstein as the party seeking records, or alternatively, appoint a special +to obtain the +6 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM +Document 114 +Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 7 of 15 +records, who would verify authenticity and completeness of the records; and (iv) all other relief +this Court deems just and appropriate. +MEMORANDUM OF LAW +PLAINTIFFS JANE DOES 2-7 SHOULD BE PERMITTED +TO PROCEED ANONYMOUSLY IN THIS CASE DUE TO THE +SENSITIVE, PRIVATE NATURE OF THE UNDERLYING FACTS +AND THE RISK OF PSYCHOLOGICAL HARM TO THE PLAINTIFFS +Federal courts permit a party to proceed under a pseudonym when special circumstances +warrant anonymity. See, e.g., Roe v. Aware Woman Ctr. for Choice, Inc., 253 F.3d 678, 685-87 +(11th Cir.2001); Does / thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d 1058, 1068-69 (9th +Cir.2000); James v. Jacobson, 6 F.3d 233, 238-39 (4th Cir. 1993); EW v. New York Blood Center, +213 F.R.D. 108, 110-12 (E.D.N.Y.2003); Javier v. +-Botello, 211 F.R.D. 194, 196 +(W.D.N.Y.2002); Doe v. | +105 F.Supp.2d 40, 43-44 (E.D.N.Y.1999); Doe v. United Servs. +Life Ins. Co., 123 F.R.D. 437, 439 (S.D.N.Y.1988). Sexual assault victims are a paradigmatic +example of those entitled to a grant of anonymity. See Doe No. 2 v. Kolko, 242 F.R.D. 193 (E.D. +N.Y. 2006); Doe v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield United of Wisc., 112 F.3d 869, 872 (7th Cir.1997) +("fictitious names are allowed when necessary to protect the privacy of ... rape victims, and other +particularly vulnerable parties or witnesses"); see also Doe v. City of Chicago, 360 F.3d 667, 669 +(7th Cir. 2004). +The decision whether to allow a plaintiff to proceed anonymously is within the court's +discretion. See Aware Woman Ctr., 253 F.3d at 684; Javier, 211 F.R.D. at 195; EW, 213 F.R.D. +at 110. As set forth above, this Court exercised its direction in one of the consolidated cases, +Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 08-80893, to allow a plaintiff to proceed under the +pseudonym "Jane Doe" in an Order dated October 6, 2008. +7 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 114 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 8 of 15 +Courts will permit a party to proceed under a pseudonym where "the party's need for +anonymity outweighs prejudice to the opposing party and the public's interest in knowing the +party's identity." Does I Thru XXIII, 214 F.3d at 1068; see Javier, 211 F.R.D. at 195; EW, 213 +F.R.D. at I11; As set forth herein, the balancing test in this case weighs in favor of permitted +plaintiff to continue to proceed anonymously: +In undertaking this balance, courts have considered such facts as +(1) whether the plaintiff is suing the government or a private +person; (2) whether the plaintiff would be compelled to disclose +intimate information; (3) whether plaintiff would be compelled to +under a pseudonym would thereby be prejudiced; (6) the ages of +the parties whose identity is to be suppressed; (7) the extent to +which the identity of the litigant has been kept confidential; (8) +whether, because of the purely legal nature of the issues presented +or otherwise, there is an atypically weak publie interest in knowing +the litigants' identities; and (9) the public interest in guaranteeing +open access to proceedings without denying litigants access to the +justice system. +Doe v. Del Rio, 241 F.R.D. 154, 157 (S.D. N.Y. 2006) +The public has a strong interest in protecting the identities of sexual assault victims so +that other victims will not be deterred from reporting such crimes. See Doe v. +, 202 F.R.D. +173, 176 (E.D.Pa.2001) (granting anonymity to sexual assault victim); Doe No. 2 v. Kolko, 242 +F.R.D. 193 (E.D. N.Y. 2006). That is particularly true in these consolidated cases where there +are numerous victims with similar claims. Although these cases have gained considerable media +attention, there appears to be little public interest in knowing the specific identity of each of the +victims. +With regard to the second factor, courts have granted anonymity to protect against +disclosure of a wide range of issues involving matters of the utmost intimacy, including sexual +8 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 114 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 9 of 15 +assault. See, e.g., Aware Woman Cir., 253 F.3d at 685 (abortion); EW, 213 F.R.D. at 111 +(infection with hepatitis B); Doe v. L +1. 202 F.R.D. 173, 176 (E.D.Pa.2001) (sexual assault +victim); [ +, 105 F.Supp.2d at 42 (sexual assault victim); WGA v. Priority Pharmacy, Inc., 184 +F.R.D. 616, 617 (E.D.Mo.1999) (status as AIDS patient); Doe v. United Servs. Life Ins. Co., 123 +F.R.D. 437, 439 (S.D.N.Y.1988) (sexual orientation); see also Blue Cross, 112 F.3d at 872 +(recognizing rape victims as entitled to anonymity). It cannot be reasonably denied that a +person's sexual history - especially during their childhood - is an intimate fact. When the +childhood sexual history includes criminal sexual contact by an adult, the facts are even more +intimate and personal. In the electronic age in which we live, these concerns are heightened. As +federal courts have recognized in this context, it is now possible to "determine whether a given +individual is a party to a lawsuit in federal court anywhere in the country by the simplest of +computer searches, to access the docket sheet of any such case electronically, and ... that entire +case files will be accessible over the Internet." Doe v. City of New York, 201 F.R.D. 100, 102 +(S.D.N.Y.2001) (denying anonymity where any injury was purely reputational and case did not +involve private or intimate matter); see EW, 213 F.R.D. at 112-13. +As Dr. Kliman explains in his Declaration, disclosure of Jane Does 2-7's identities will +place these Plaintiffs "at-risk of having their personal lives scrutinized by friends, extended +family, spouses, children, fellow students, employers and fellow employees, the media and +general public. This type of exposure humiliates many victims and represents another betrayal of +trust. Public exposure places the plaintiff's at further risk of stigmatization, shame and +retraumatization." See Exhibit "A" at 9l 3. Dr. Kliman also finds it of no consequence that some +of the plaintiffs are now legally adults in that "[dJue to traumatization the plaintiffs are arrested +in their development, and even those who are now legally adult are arrested in part to adolescent +9 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 114 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 10 of 15 +aspects of psychology." Id. at 9 4 +The policy of protecting victims of sexual misconduct from undue embarrassment and +disclosure of their private affairs is firmly established in Fed.R.Evid. 412. The protections of +Rule 412 are designed to "encourage victims of sexual misconduct to institute and participate in +legal proceedings against alleged offenders." (Committee Notes to 1994 Amendment). +Likewise, many states in this country, including Florida and New York, have similarly enacted +laws to protect the anonymity of sexual assault victims. See Fla. Stat. $$794.024, 794.026 +(2008); N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 50-b (McKinney 2009). In 1994, the Florida Legislature passed +The Crime Victims Protections Act. The legislative stated purpose for the Act was "to protect +the identity of victims of sexual crimes." Fla. AGO, 2003-56, 2003 WL 22971082 (Dec. 15, +2003). Under §794.024, Florida Statutes, court records that identify the name and/or address of a +victim of a sexual crime are presumed to be confidential and exempt from public access. Id. +Similarly, upon approving New York's rape shield law, then Governor Mario +stated, +"sexual assault victims have unfortunately had to endure a terrible invasion of their physical +privacy. They have a right to expect that this violation will not be compounded by a further +invasion of their privacy." 1991 McKinney's Sessions Laws of N.Y., at 2211-2212 (quoted in +Deborah S. v. Diorio, 153 Misc.2d 708, 583 N.Y.S.2d 872 (N.Y.City Civ. Ct.1992)); see also +Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584, 597, 97 S.Ct. 2861, 53 L.Ed.2d 982 (1977) ("Short of homicide, +[rape] is the ultimate violation of self"). +As to the fourth factor of risk injury, Dr. Kliman has evaluated Jane Does 2-7, and has +concluded that the childhood sexual abuse at issue has caused features of post-traumatic stress +disorder (PTSD), including shame, guilt, helplessness, and powerlessness. See Exhibit "A" at TYl +4-7. Dr. Kliman further states, +"it is more probable than not that releasing personal identities +10 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 114 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 11 of 15 +will +an exacerbation and magnification of symptoms lending to increased risk of +revictimization and retraumatization." Id. at 9| 21. Thus, this is not a case analogous to those +cited by defendant in which the plaintiffs were merely at risk of "personal embarrassment." +Instead, there is a genuine and immediate risk of psychological harm. +None of the cases cited by Defendant where courts denied a plaintiff's request for +anonymity involved victims of childhood sexual assault or evidence of emotional or +psychological harm that would result from disclosure of the plaintiff's identity. See Doe v. Hartz, +52 F.Supp.2d 1027 (N.D.Iowa 1999); Doe v. Shakur, 164 F.R.D. 359 (E.D.N.Y.1996); Doe v. +Bell Atlantic Bus. Sys. Servs., 162 F.R.D. 418 (D.Mass.1995); Doe v. Univ. of Rhode Island, 28 +Fed.R.Serv.3d 366, 1993 WL 667341 (D.R.I. Dec. 28, 1993). +As to the factor of prejudice, the Defendant does not identify how his ability to conduct +discovery or impeach Jane Does 2-7's credibility has been or will be impaired if these Plaintiffs +are permitted to proceed under a pseudonym. See EW, 213 F.R.D. at 112, +105 F.Supp.2d +at 44-45. Other than the need to make redactions and take measures not to disclose these +Plaintiffs' identities, Defendant will not be hampered or inconvenienced merely by Plaintiffs' +anonymity in court papers. As set forth above, Defendant already knows their true identities. See +Aware Woman Center, 253 F.3d at 687 (no prejudice where plaintiff offered to disclose her name +to defendant); EW, 213 F.R.D. at 112; +105 F.Supp.2d at 44-45. +II. +DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED TO USE +THE REAL NAMES OF JANE DOES 2-7 IN THIRD-PARTY +SUBPEONAS EXCEPT FOR THOSE ISSUED TO PERSONS WHOM +PLAINTIFES HAVE ALREADY DISCLOSED THEIR SEXUAL ABUSE +As for the use of Jane Does 2-7's real names in subpoenas issued to non-parties, a party +may obtain discovery of any non-privileged matter that is relevant to a claim or defense of any +party. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(I). However, a district court may limit discovery "for good cause +11 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 114 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 12 of 15 +shown" by making "any order which justice requires to protect a party or person from +annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense," including that the +discovery not be had or that it be had only by a method other than that selected by the party +seeking discovery. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c). Jane Does 2-7 have articulated a specific and substantial +harm from disclosure of their identities. +If this Court were to permit Defendant to issue third-party subpoenas containing Jane +Doe 2-7's real names, the identity of the Defendant, and/or facts pertaining to the nature of the +case to whomever Defendant wants, it would be akin to requiring these Plaintiffs to use their real +name in the pleadings. +Instead, Jane Does 2-7 propose to voluntarily execute authorizations +(which would not contain the case names or the identity of the Defendant) to allow Defendant to +obtain education, employment, and medical records to be used for purposes of this litigation +only. Alternatively, Defendant can obtain the records through a special +who would +verify authenticity and completeness of the records. Either of these approaches would not only +place Jane Does 2-7 at less risk of psychological harm, but would also be more cost-effective and +efficient. +CONCLUSION +Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs Jane Does 2-7 respectfully request that Defendant's +Motion to Compel and/or Identify Plaintiffs in the Style of this Case and Motion to Identify Jane +Doe in Third-Party Subpoenas for Purposes of Discovery, or Alternatively, Motion to Dismiss +"Sua Sponte" be denied in its entirety, and that Plaintiffs Jane Does 2-7 be permitted to continue +using their pseudonyms in this litigation. Additionally, to avoid public disclosure of the +Plaintiff's identities in non-party records discovery, Plaintiffs Jane Does 2-7 request that such +3 Defendant and Plaintiff have previously agreed that education records can be obtained in this +12 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 114 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 13 of 15 +discovery be obtained either through Plaintiffs' counsel by means of written authorizations, or by +the appointment of a special +Dated: June 8, 2009 +Respectfully submitted, +By: +s/ Adam D. Horowitz +Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245) +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980) +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P.A. +Attorneys for Plaintiffs Jane Doe Nos. 2-7 +18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 +Miami, Florida 33160 +Tel: (305) 931-2200 +Fax: (305) 931-0877 +manner in lieu of subpoenas. +13 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 114 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 14 of 15 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I hereby certify that on June 8, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing document with +the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served +this day to all parties on the attached Service List in the manner specified, either via transmission +of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for +those parties who are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing. +Is/ Adam D. Horowitz +14 + + +Case 9:08-cV-80381-KAM Document 114 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 15 of 15 +SERVICE LIST +DOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +jgoldberger@agwpa.com +Robert D. Critton, Esq. +rcritton@bclclaw.com +James +bedwards@rra-law.com +Isidro Manuel +isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net +Jack +jph@searcylaw.com +Katherine Warthen Ezell +KEzell@podhurst.com +Michael James Pike +MPike@bclclaw.com +Paul G. Cassell +cassellp@law.utah.edu +Richard Horace Willits +lawyerwillits@aol.com +Robert C. Josefsberg +rjosefsberg@podhurst.com +/s/ Adam D. Horowitz +15 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9a8d0715a6a5e0676913395c0560abbec349add3d7bd5f8b6e61cdb8b9eeafbe.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9a8d0715a6a5e0676913395c0560abbec349add3d7bd5f8b6e61cdb8b9eeafbe.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c38af060b343d0feb1d5c64eef43bc6558519118 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9a8d0715a6a5e0676913395c0560abbec349add3d7bd5f8b6e61cdb8b9eeafbe.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -289, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "9a8d0715a6a5e0676913395c0560abbec349add3d7bd5f8b6e61cdb8b9eeafbe", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 16, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "e2d50950c2a5c4b5de7b394baaeefec9da2678b3bd93249b54f5a01a9f1b6e8b", + "output_sha256": "0447a06a41f821e33eecd4f5ac1b54376c9a523ebcb044187e1ffd5a76cf0571", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9a9d489b534711d6a6b23d7e789e28ba8fbb61586210e998fb1032d3fb550ffb.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9a9d489b534711d6a6b23d7e789e28ba8fbb61586210e998fb1032d3fb550ffb.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fd7ac93300aa9cdfc99d502416aa1ba78321e056 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9a9d489b534711d6a6b23d7e789e28ba8fbb61586210e998fb1032d3fb550ffb.md @@ -0,0 +1,27 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 245-1 +Entered on FLSD Docket 02/13/2014 Page 1 of 1 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/_ +JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2 +V. +UNITED STATES +ORDER GRANTING JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S PROSPECTIVE LIMITED +INTERVENTION AT THE REMEDY STAGE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS +This matter is before the Court on Jeffrey Epstein's unopposed Motion for Prospective +Limited Intervention at the Remedy Stage of These Proceedings (DE 207), as well as Jane Doe +No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2's Motion for an expedited ruling on this motion (DE 245). Having +carefully considered the same and finding good cause show, it is +ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2's motion (DE 245) is +GRANTED, also +ORDERED AND ADJUDGED THAT Jeffrey Epstein's motion (DE 207) is GRANTED +and he allowed to intervene with regard to any remedy issue concerning the non-prosecution +agreement in this case. +DONE AND ORDERED in +at West Palm Beach, Florida, this _ +_ day of +February, 2014. +KENNETH A. MARRA +UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE +cc: +All counsel diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9a9d489b534711d6a6b23d7e789e28ba8fbb61586210e998fb1032d3fb550ffb.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9a9d489b534711d6a6b23d7e789e28ba8fbb61586210e998fb1032d3fb550ffb.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..61ff5e8a53fd24c1b36e1c629635963891127c40 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9a9d489b534711d6a6b23d7e789e28ba8fbb61586210e998fb1032d3fb550ffb.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "9a9d489b534711d6a6b23d7e789e28ba8fbb61586210e998fb1032d3fb550ffb", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "f53c6abe5cef52309f4ae2a88d6e88073f226427e59efb1bb4387b4d06fe2352", + "output_sha256": "366e7658e517c5aaca3a8d1ab91a57c44b5905099463d30c86219c322e56a32c", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9ab8e0cc5f10a72316240b6acf91e9a96c13f9c96870bc1b92b3d6b719e9bcc1.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9ab8e0cc5f10a72316240b6acf91e9a96c13f9c96870bc1b92b3d6b719e9bcc1.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7da053d519d41734e041f4cfe371ea61aee962d4 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9ab8e0cc5f10a72316240b6acf91e9a96c13f9c96870bc1b92b3d6b719e9bcc1.md @@ -0,0 +1,469 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 107 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 1 of 17 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +JANE DOE NO. 2, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119- +MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 3, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232- +MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 4, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380- +MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 5, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381- +MARRA/ + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 107 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 2 of 17 +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 6, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80994- +MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 7, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80993- +MARRA +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +C.M.A., +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80811-MARRA/] +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 107 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 3 of 17 +JANE DOE, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80893-MARRA/_ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. II, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80469- +MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 101, +CASE NO.: 09-CV-80591- +MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 102, +CASE NO.: 09-CV-80656- +MARRA/ + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM +Document 107 +Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 4 of 17 +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +PLAINTIFFS JANE DOE NO. 101 AND JANE DOE NO. 102's REPLY IN +SUPPORT OF MOTION TO PROCEED ANONYMOUSLY AND RESPONSE IN +OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL AND/OR IDENTIFY JANE DOE NO. +101 AND JANE DOE NO. 102 IN THIRD-PARTY SUBPOENAS FOR PURPOSES +OF DISCOVERY +Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and Jane Doe No. 102 (together, "Plaintiffs"), by and +through their undersigned attorneys, hereby file their Reply in Support of Motion to +Proceed Anonymously and Response in Opposition to Motion to Compel and/or Identify +Jane Doe No. 101 and Jane Doe No. 102 in Third-Party Subpoenas for Purposes of +Discovery, and, as grounds, state as follows: +Exposure of Plaintiffs to the public disclosure of their identity and the +resultant shame and humiliation accompanying their sexual exploitation is wholly +unnecessary and premature, and may cause further damage. Plaintiffs respectfully assert +that this Court should first decide the threshold issues of retroactivity and calculation of +damages. Plaintiffs, and all other victims of Defendant who have filed an action against +Defendant in federal court, will have to litigate these two following threshold issues +being reviewed by the Court in the C.M.A. action against Defendant (Case No. 08-CV- +80811-MARRA/ +): 1) whether the most recent version of the statute, which +provides for a minimum recovery of $150,000 (instead of the previous minimum of +' Plaintiffs respectfully file this Reply in the consolidated action, as the issue at hand pertains to discovery +issues. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 107 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 5 of 17 +$50,000) applies to cases arising from incidents predating the 2006 amendment to the +statute; and 2) whether the applicable minimum amount is recoverable per incident and/or +per count, or per victim. Defendant has attempted to force settlements on any victims as +possible without considering the possibility that the minimum amount recoverable under +18 U.S.C. § 2255 is $150,000 per count and/or per incident. Much of this Court's +caseload will be alleviated once the Court resolves these issues related to the minimum +recovery; at that point, many of Defendant's victims will likely agree to settle for the +minimum statutory damages to which they are entitled, thus obviating Defendant's +specified need to destroy his vietims" anonymity and expose them to further harm and +humiliation. +2. +This Court has discretion to deny Defendant's Motion to Compel and/or +Identify Plaintiffs in Third Party Subpoenas for Purposes of Discovery. See Doe v. +Stegall, 653 F.2d 180, 184 (5th Cir. Aug. 10, 1981)' ("Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c) vests in the +trial court discretion over litigants' requests for protection from 'annoyance, +embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense' in the discovery process.") +(internal quotation omitted). As more fully discussed in Plaintiffs' Response to +Defendant's Motion to Stay, which is adopted and incorporated herein, Defendant waived +his right to contest liability in actions filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255. Thus, third +party discovery is relevant only if Plaintiffs seek recovery of damages in excess of the +statutory minimum. Additionally, if and when the parties are ready to proceed with +discovery from non-party sources, the Court can put numerous measures in place to +maximize Plaintiffs' anonymity. At the outset, Defendant can obtain records from +" In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), this circuit adopted as +binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down before October 1, 1981. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 107 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 6 of 17 +various non-party sources through Plaintiffs' counsel, who can demonstrate and certify +that they have obtained the very records being sought, or through an independent special +I, who could be given releases by Plaintiffs to obtain such records on behalf of +Defendant to eliminate any question of authenticity or completeness. If Defendant +nevertheless insists on conducting his own third-party discovery (needlessly increasing +the cost of litigating these actions and causing unnecessary delay), subpoenas seeking +documents from sources such as health care providers or employers should not disclose +the type of action or identify Defendant. Because of the highly-publicized nature of +Defendant's crimes as well as his designation as a sexual offender, the mere mention of +Defendant's name in any subpoena or deposition notice will automatically expose the +subject Plaintiff as one of Defendant's victims and may result in unnecessary public +humiliation. Similarly, records custodian depositions do not require the disclosure of the +nature of the action and/or the identity of the defendant in the action.? +Defendant's only purpose in opposing Plaintiffs' motions is harassment. +Defendant's intentions are clear. He seeks to destroy these young women by outing them +as being among his many victims, a pattern of behavior consistent with his status as a +designated sex offender. Defendant openly admits to his desire to reveal the victims' +names in newspapers so that individuals in their community can come forward to assault +their credibility and tarnish their reputations (and, as a result, their dignity). See +Defendant's Response in Opposition to Motion to Proceed Anonymously (DE# 5) at 9| 6 +("[O]nce the Plaintiff is identified, other individuals come forward in the discovery phase +with information which often directly contradicts allegations as to the events and +" Depending upon claims of Plaintiffs, certain documents will be relevant. At this point, however, +Plaintiffs do not waive their privilege to prevent the release of each of their names under the doctor-patient +relationship. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 107 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 7 of 17 +damages. For instance, witnesses may testify that Plaintiff was paid by others for similar +sexual acts she claims Mr. Epstein forced upon her or that she willingly participated in +certain acts(s) that would negate or lessen her damages"). Each of Defendant's victims +whom undersigned counsel represents continues to experience trauma and humiliation +associated with sexual abuse. See Ellen Bass & Laura +, The Courage to Heal: A +Guide for Women Survivors of Child Sexual Abuse 3 (4th ed. 2008) (*The long-term +effects of child sexual abuse can be so pervasive that it's sometimes hard to pinpoint +exactly how the abuse affected you. It can permeate everything: your sense of self, +intimate relationships, sexuality, parenting, working, even your sanity.")* The U.S. +Supreme Court in Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584, 597 (1977), discussed the grave +nature of the crimes at issue in the cases against Defendant, stating: +[Rape] is highly reprehensible, both in a moral sense and in its almost total +contempt for the personal integrity and autonomy of the female victim ... Short of +homicide, it is the "ultimate violation of self" +Defendant committed crimes constituting the "ultimate violation of self" against minors. +Because of the disdainful nature of these types of crimes, courts, including the Eleventh +Circuit, "have carved out a limited number of exceptions to the general requirement of +disclosure, which permit plaintiffs to proceed anonymously." Roe v. Aware Woman Ctr. +for Choice, Inc., 253 F.3d 678, 685 (11th Cir. 2001) (internal citation omitted). "The +* Although some Plaintiffs no longer live in the Palm Beach area, this should not undermine Plaintiffs' +need for anonymity. As the Court in Doe No. 2 v. Kolko, 242 F.R.D. 193, 197 (E.D.N.Y. 2006) (internal +citation omitted), points out, "[I]t is now possible to determine whether a given individual is a party to a +lawsuit in federal court anywhere in the country by the simplest of computer searches, to access the docket +sheet of any such case electronically, and ... that entire case files will be accessible over the Internet." +Given the ease with which the public could access court files in these cases, it is reasonable that Plaintiffs' +fears extend beyond ostracism in the Palm Beach community. The Palm Beach Post is available online all +over the world. In addition, many of Plaintiffs' family members remain in the Palm Beach area and remain +unaware of their daughter/granddaughter/niece's involvement in Defendant's sordid child sex exploitation +enterprise. Furthermore, Plaintiffs are exposed to harassment through social networking sites such as +Facebook and MySpace as well as other forms of online harrassment. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 107 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 8 of 17 +ultimate test for permitting a plaintiff to proceed anonymously is whether the plaintiff has +a substantial privacy right which outweighs the customary and constitutionally-embedded +presumption of openness in judicial proceedings." Id. (internal quotation and citation +omitted). +Cases regarding sexual assault are the paradigmatic examples of the type +of highly sensitive and personal matter that warrant a grant of anonymity. See Doe No. 2 +v. Kolko, 242 F.R.D. 193, 195-98 (E.D.N.Y. 2006) (adult plaintiff, who, many years later, +alleged that he was sexually abused by rabbi at private Jewish school when he was a +child, was entitled to proceed anonymously because he feared retaliation and ostracism +from his community; Doe v. +1. 202 F.R.D. 173, 176 (E.D. Pa. 2001) (sexual assault +victim granted use of pseudonym); Doe v. +105 F. Supp. 2d 40, 44 (E.D.N.Y. 1999) +(victim of assault, molestation, and sexual abuse granted anonymity because victim +otherwise psychologically and emotionally unable to proceed with action); Roe v. Borup, +500 F. Supp. 127, 130 (E.D. Wis. 1980) ("It is beyond argument that [a suit involving +charges of sexual abuse of a child] is a highly sensitive issue"; thus, plaintiffs were +entitled to use fictitious names in prosecuting the suit); see also Doe v. Blue Cross & +Blue Shield United of Wis., 112 F.3d 869, 872 (7th Cir. 1997) ("[F]ictitious names are +allowed when necessary to protect the privacy of children, rape victims, and other +particularly vulnerable parties or witnesses."). The intensely personal nature of sexual +exploitation creates an unusual case, and, in such a case, the general policy of full +disclosure should give way to a policy of protecting privacy in a very private matter. +This protection is especially necessary when the Court is dealing with young women who +recently were sexually abused as minors. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 107 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 9 of 17 +5. +Defendant is using the threat of publicity to attempt to intimidate victims +to cause them not to file suit or to settle their claims for the absolute minimum in order +for them to avoid being held up to public ridicule and hostility. His intention to attack the +victims is at the heart of the protection afforded by numerous rape shield statutes, of +which Defendant and his counsel are surely aware. In 1994, Congress amended the +Federal Rules of Evidence to promote the strong social policy of protecting a victim's +privacy and encouraging victims of crime to come forward. 'The reason for extending +Rule 412 to civil cases is equally obvious. The need to protect alleged victims against +invasions of privacy, potential embarrassment, and unwarranted sexual stereotyping, and +the wish to encourage victims to come forward when they have been sexually molested +do not disappear because the context has shifted from a criminal prosecution to a claim +for damages or injunctive relief." Fed. R. Evid. 412 advisory committee's note. Rule +412 now provides that, in civil trials in federal court involving alleged sexual misconduct, +evidence that the victim engaged in other sexual behavior or evidence offered to prove +any alleged victim's sexual predisposition can be admitted only in unusual circumstances, +none of which apply to Plaintiffs' cases. Fed. R. Evid. 412 (a), (b). "The rule aims to +safeguard the alleged victim against the invasion of privacy, potential embarrassment and +sexual stereotyping that is associated with public disclosure of intimate sexual details and +the infusion of sexual innuendo into the factfinding process. By affording victims +protection in most instances, the rule also encourages victims of sexual misconduct to +institute and to participate in legal proceedings against alleged offenders." Fed. R. Evid. +412 advisory committee's note; see also Michigan v. Lucas, 500 U.S. 145, 149-50 (1991) +(Rape shield statutes represent the valid legislative determination that victims of rape and + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 107 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 10 of 17 +attempted rape "deserve heightened protection against surprise, harassment, and +unnecessary invasions of privacy."); United States v. Elbert, 561 F.3d 771, 776-77 (8th +Cir. 2009) (evidence that child plaintiffs had previously engaged in prostitution was +rightfully excluded in federal sex trafficking suit); Stephens v. +, 13 F.3d 998, 1010 +(7th Cir. 1994) (Cummings, C.J., dissenting) ("The Indiana rape shield statute furthers +laudable and pragmatic goals. It protects victims from needless exposure of their sexual +past conduct; [and] ensures that the focus of rape trials remains the guilt or innocence of ' +the accused rather than the sexual history of the complainant."); United States v. Kasto, +584 F.2d 268, 271-72 n.3 (8th Cir. 1978) (*[U]nchastity of a victim has no relevance +whatsoever to [the victim's] credibility as a witness. Such a proposition would +'necessarily imply the absurd (corollary) that the extramarital sexual history of a female +witness would be admissible to impeach her credibility in any case in which she +testified."") (internal citation omitted). Procedural protections such as the rape shield +statutes reduce the embarrassment and anguish of trial, encouraging victims to report +sexual offenses and offendors. "Without the protection provided by rape shield statutes, +victims may find trial an ordeal not worth enduring." Stephens, 13 F.3d at 1010 +(Cummings, C.J., dissenting) (quoting 124 Cong. Rec. H11944 (1978) (statement of Rep. +Elizabeth Holtzman)); see Fed. R. Evid. 412 advisory committee's note ("Too often in +this country victims of rape are humiliated and harassed when they report and prosecute +the rape... [RJape trials become inquisitions into the victim's morality, not trials of the +defendant's innocence or guilt ...."). Indeed, "many [victims] find the trial almost as +degrading as the rape itself." Fed. R. Evid. 412 advisory committee's note. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 107 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 11 of 17 +6. +In addition, Congress enacted the Child Victims' and Child Witnesses' +Rights Act (18 U.S.C. § 3509) in an effort to provide protection for victims who, while +minors, were victims of physical abuse, sexual abuse, or sexual exploitation, or who have +witnessed a crime committed upon another. One of the primary protections provided by +the statute is the restriction on the disclosure of the name of, or other information +concerning, the victim. See 18 U.S.C. § 3509(d)(3) (2008). Further, pursuant to 18 +U.S.C. § 3509(d)(2), "[a]ll papers to be filed in court that disclose the name of or any +other information concerning a child shall be filed under seal without necessity of +obtaining a court order." +7. +Indeed, numerous states, including Florida and New York, have enacted +laws to protect the anonymity of sexual assault victims. See Fla. Stat. §$ 794.024, +794.026 (2008); N.Y. Civ. Rights Law § 50-b (McKinney 2009). In 1994, the Florida +Legislature passed The Crime Victims Protection Act. The legislative stated purpose for +passage of the Act was "to protect the identity of victims of sexual crimes." Fla. AGO +2003-56, 2003 WL 22971082 (Dec. 15, 2003) ("IT]he Legislature intended to make the +identity of a victim of a sexual crime confidential in a court record or proceeding.") +Under Florida Section 794.024 of the Florida Statutes, court records that identify the +name and/or address of a victim of a sexual crime are presumed to be confidential and +exempt from public access. Id. That statute further imposes criminal and civil liability +for the disclosure or communication of information identifying the victim of a sexual +crime. Fla. AGO 2003-56, 2003 WL 22971082 (citing Fla. Stat. §§ 794.024, 794.026 +(2008)). Similarly, upon approving New York's rape shield law, then Governor Mario +stated, "[S]exual assault victims have unfortunately had to endure a terrible + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 107 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 12 of 17 +invasion of their physical privacy. They have a right to expect that this violation will not +be compounded by a further invasion of their privacy." 1991 N.Y. Sess. Laws page nos. +2211-12, quoted in Kolko, 242 F.R.D. at 196 (internal citations omitted). +Finally, Defendant should be estopped from outing his victims. Plaintiffs +attempted to utilize the process established by the Non-Prosecution Agreement ("NPA") +with the reasonable expectation that a specific purpose of the NPA was to allow +Defendant's victims to maintain anonymity, only to be subjected to deliberate and +unreasonable delays and Defendant's failure to engage in meaningful, good faith +settlement discussions. This left Plaintiffs no choice but to file suit. Under these +circumstances, Defendant should be estopped from seeking to lift anonymity. +9. +Many of Defendant's victims are awaiting this Court's decision regarding +whether they will be allowed to proceed anonymously before making the difficult +decision as to whether to pursue their claims against Defendant. All of Defendant's +victims and any future victims of sexual exploitation must know that they can protect +what remains of their personal dignity when appealing to the Federal Courts for justice. +WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully move this Court to grant Plaintiffs' Motion +to Proceed Anonymously and to deny Defendant's Motion to Compel and/or Identify +Jane Doe No. 101 and Jane Doe No. 102 in Third-Party Subpoenas for Purposes of +Discovery. +Date: May 29, 2009 +Respectfully submitted, +PODHURST ORSECK, P.A. +Attorneys for Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. +101 and Jane Doe No. 102 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 107 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 13 of 17 +By: +s/Katherine W. Ezell +Robert C. Josefsberg +Fla. Bar No. 040856 +rjosefsberg@podhurst.com +Katherine W. Ezell +Fla. Bar No. 114771 +kezell@podhurst.com +City National Bank Building +25 W. Flagler Street, Suite 800 +Miami, FL 33130 +Telephone: (305) 358-2800 +Facsimile: (305) 358-2382 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 107 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 14 of 17 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +WE HEREBY CERTIFY that, on this 29th day of May, 2009, we electronically +filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. We also certify +that the foregoing document is being served this day on all counsel of record identified on +the attached Service List either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated +by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those counsel or parties who are not +authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing. +Respectfully submitted, +PODHURST ORSECK, P.A. +Attorneys for Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. +101 and Jane Doe No. 102 +By: +s/Katherine W. Ezell +Robert C. Josefsberg +Fla. Bar No. 040856 +rjosefsberg@podhurst.com +Katherine W. Ezell +Fla. Bar No. 114771 +kezell@podhurst.com +City National Bank Building +25 W. Flagler Street, Suite 800 +Miami, FL 33130 +Telephone: (305) 358-2800 +Facsimile: (305) 358-2382 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 107 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 15 of 17 +SERVICE LIST +JANE DOE NO. 2 v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/ +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +Robert Critton, Esq. +Michael J. Pike, Esq. +Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman LLP +515 North Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Phone: (561) 842-2820 +Fax: (561) 515-3148 +rcrit@bclclaw.com +mpike@bclclaw.com +Counsel for Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein +Jack Goldberger, Esq. +Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Phone: (561) 659-8300 +Fax: (561) 835-8691 +jagesq@bellsouth.net +Co-Counsel for Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein +Bruce E. Reinhart, Esq. +Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A +250 South Australian Avenue, Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Phone: (561) 202-6360 +Fax: (561) 828-0983 +ecf@brucereinhartlaw.com +Counsel for Co-Defendant, +Jack Scarola, Esq. +Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A +2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard +West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 +Phone: (561) 686-6300 +Fax: (561) 383-9456 +jsx@searcylaw.com +jph@searcylaw.com +Counsel for Plaintiff C.M.A. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 107 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 16 of 17 +Adam Horowitz, Esq. +Stuart Mermelstein, Esq. +Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. +18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 +Miami, FL 33160 +Phone: (305) 931-2200 +Fax: (305) 931-0877 +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +smermelstein@sexabuseattorney.com +Counsel for Plaintiffs in Related Case Nos. 08-80069, 08-80119,08-80232, 08-80380, 08- +80381, 08-80993, 08-80994 +Spencer Todd Kuvin, Esq. +Theodore Jon Leopold, Esq. +Leopold Kuvin, P.A. +2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200 +Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 +Phone: (561) 515-1400 +Fax: (561) 515-1401 +skuvin@leopoldkuvin.com +tleopold@leopoldkuvin.com +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-08804 +Richard Willits, Esq. +Richard H. Willits, P.A +2290 10" Ave North, Suite 404 +Lake Worth, FL 33461 +Phone: (561) 582-7600 +Fax: (561) 588-8819 +lawyerwillits@aol.com +reelrhw@hotmail.com +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80811 +Brad +Esq. +Law Office of Brad +& Associates, LLC +2028 +Street, Suite 202 +Hollywood, FL 33020 +Phone: (954) 414-8033 +Fax: (954) 924-1530 +bedwards @ira-law.com +be@bradedwardslaw.com +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80893 +Isidro Manuel +Esq. +Elkins & Boehringer + + +Case 9:08-cV-80381-KAM Document 107 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 17 of 17 +224 Datura Avenue, Suite 900 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Phone: (561) 832-8033 +Fax: (561) 832-7137 +isidrogarcia @ bellsouth.net +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80469 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9ab8e0cc5f10a72316240b6acf91e9a96c13f9c96870bc1b92b3d6b719e9bcc1.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9ab8e0cc5f10a72316240b6acf91e9a96c13f9c96870bc1b92b3d6b719e9bcc1.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..267e1a684e69c4389650b3156cd0ff2ef99d8d72 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9ab8e0cc5f10a72316240b6acf91e9a96c13f9c96870bc1b92b3d6b719e9bcc1.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -326, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "9ab8e0cc5f10a72316240b6acf91e9a96c13f9c96870bc1b92b3d6b719e9bcc1", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 18, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "8362f2b135e71707186d4d22d35b80b3a417956fb5f6ea81eed83d7714a52bc9", + "output_sha256": "c8ccc72e14e5950cf8e48347f07f8510480117dba233167e3cd8a232b05c750a", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9accb033fdd905ef69ec61795d34680fba9df22cf37e9c134a32fa3a11f7794d.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9accb033fdd905ef69ec61795d34680fba9df22cf37e9c134a32fa3a11f7794d.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1e91cb164fae7725ee4daca5179d027f87af2cbb --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9accb033fdd905ef69ec61795d34680fba9df22cf37e9c134a32fa3a11f7794d.md @@ -0,0 +1,114 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 121 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 1 of 4 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/_ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 5, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/ +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/__ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 121 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 2 of 4 +JANE DOE NO. 6, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80994-MARRA +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 7, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80993-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +C.M.A., +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80811-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80893-MARRA/_ +vS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al, +Defendants. +-2- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 121 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 3 of 4 +DOE II, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 09-CV-80469-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al, +Defendants. +JANE DOE NO. 101, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 09-CV-80591-MARRA/JOHNSON +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 102 +Plaintiff, +/ +CASE NO.: 09-CV-80656-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +UNITED STATES' NOTICE OF LIMITED APPEARANCE +AS AMICUS CURIAE TO FILE RESPONSE TO COURT'S ORDER +REQUESTING POSITION ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STAY [DE 99] +Comes now the United States, by and through the undersigned Assistant United States +Attorney, and makes this limited appearance to file via CM/ECF its response to the Court's +Order requesting the position of the United States on Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to +Stay Proceedings [DE 99]. By filing this notice of limited appearance and its response, the +United States does not make itself a party to this litigation and takes no position with respect +-3- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 121 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 4 of 4 +to the outcome of any of the civil suits. By filing this notice of limited appearance and +response, the United States also does not waive any procedural or statutory bars to suit. +Respectfully submitted, +R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA +UNITED STATES ATTORNEY +By: +A. A +Villafaña +VILLAFAÑA +Assistant United States Attorney +Florida Bar No. 0018255 +500 East Broward Boulevard, 7th Floor +Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33394 +Telephone: 954-356-7255 +Facsimile: 954-356-7230 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I HEREBY CERTIFY that on May 28, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing +document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. According to the Court's website, counsel +for all parties are able to receive notice via the CM/ECF system. +S/A. +Villafaña +A. +VILLAFAÑA +Assistant United States Attorney +-4- diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9accb033fdd905ef69ec61795d34680fba9df22cf37e9c134a32fa3a11f7794d.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9accb033fdd905ef69ec61795d34680fba9df22cf37e9c134a32fa3a11f7794d.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..358a94cfcbdd2cb7c7ea3b2e02a6b318fa32e297 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9accb033fdd905ef69ec61795d34680fba9df22cf37e9c134a32fa3a11f7794d.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -48, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "9accb033fdd905ef69ec61795d34680fba9df22cf37e9c134a32fa3a11f7794d", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 4, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "fae49656dcce237d0e4f8c9db487473c00cf7b14ccb4795ac43ac6fc3ac03687", + "output_sha256": "23630684c6fae7c8a3e406adaf09399a7c63d6fe18b48b6c3d7bdb8fe0ef4f63", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9ae2bf4ab33a54cc9039ae9143b11c5ddb58c3bf6cacb23da17de0e3d2ea6a93.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9ae2bf4ab33a54cc9039ae9143b11c5ddb58c3bf6cacb23da17de0e3d2ea6a93.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3cdd646c849c563ef7d7930f0c667cb2f97d0cc5 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9ae2bf4ab33a54cc9039ae9143b11c5ddb58c3bf6cacb23da17de0e3d2ea6a93.md @@ -0,0 +1,40 @@ +Casse11220eov00088436KEDTF Document 52-1 Fled 08/29/20 +Hagge11o6f11 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff, +Index No. 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF +V. +[PROPOSED] SCHEDULING ORDER DF +DARREN K. INDYKE AND RICHARD D. KAHN, +in their capacities as executors of the ESTATE OF +JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, GHISLAINE +MAXWELL, an individual, +Defendants. +DEBRA FREEMAN, United States Magistrate Judge: +It is hereby ORDERED that: +1. Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell ("Maxwell") shall serve her initial disclosures no later than +August 10, 2020. +2. To the extent not already completed before Maxwell appeared in this action, the parties +shall serve their initial document requests and interrogatories no later than August 21, +2020. +3. Any motions to amend the pleadings or to join any additional parties shall be filed no +later than August 21, 2020. +4. All fact discovery shall be completed no later than November 6, 2020. +5. Expert discovery shall be conducted on the following schedule: +a. Plaintiff's expert reports shall be served no later than November 6, 2020. +b. Defendants' rebuttal reports shall be served no later than December 6, 2020. +c. Expert discovery shall be completed no later than January 6, 2021. +6. The parties may stipulate to modify interim deadlines in this Scheduling Order, +without seeking prior leave of Court. +Paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 6 of the within proposed schedule are +adopted. The parties are directed to confer further regarding +the deadlines contained in paragraphs 4 and 5, and to submit +Dated: New York, New York +August 5, 2020 +a joint letter regarding those deadlines by 8/12/2020. +SO ORDERED: +Ala Im +DEBRA C. FREEMAN +United States Magistrate Judge diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9ae2bf4ab33a54cc9039ae9143b11c5ddb58c3bf6cacb23da17de0e3d2ea6a93.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9ae2bf4ab33a54cc9039ae9143b11c5ddb58c3bf6cacb23da17de0e3d2ea6a93.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..bba5f9d2f2db09fa510d94659fd5643c0f86b8a8 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9ae2bf4ab33a54cc9039ae9143b11c5ddb58c3bf6cacb23da17de0e3d2ea6a93.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "9ae2bf4ab33a54cc9039ae9143b11c5ddb58c3bf6cacb23da17de0e3d2ea6a93", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "e4e182ba2eb9984302835c9c5360eb0750972b8863834439cb9954eda7a69228", + "output_sha256": "823975f1188fb0f577b74984a75ee1409307b9703eebfe94cd05f9fbd0af8beb", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9aebf31fee0373e7dd82a893063bf8e7dd8b6dea316e2b918edb976555171705.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9aebf31fee0373e7dd82a893063bf8e7dd8b6dea316e2b918edb976555171705.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2dd7b920d9c15ab51f8daf04a2c39bb2e64b319a --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9aebf31fee0373e7dd82a893063bf8e7dd8b6dea316e2b918edb976555171705.md @@ -0,0 +1,213 @@ +11 Fia. L. Weekly 93 +480 So.2d 253 +District Court of Appeal of Florida, +Fourth District. +duces tecum which recited: "Bring with you your entire +investigative file and notes regarding the investigation and +presentation to the Grand Jury of the death of ANTHONY +JAMES, deceased, who died at the Palm Beach +County Jail on 7/15/84." (Emphasis added.) +JAMES. Jr., as the Personal Representative +of the Estate of Anthony +James, deceased +on behalf of said Estate and as the lawful +survivor of Anthony +James, Petitioner, +Richard P. WILLE, individually, and as the +Sheriff of Palm Beach County and as the +Director of Corrections for the Palm Beach +County Sheriff's Department, Respondents. +No. 85-2259. +The state sought a protective order, asserting: +3. The Plaintiff deposition duces tecum specifically requires +movant to provide notes and materials regarding the +presentation to the Grand Jury. Florida Statute 905.27 +specifically prohibits testimony or other relevant evidence +received by the Grand Jury shall not be disclosed by the +Assistant State Attorney except when required by a court for +) ascertaining whether it is consistent with the lestimon +iven by the witness before the Court, or b) determinin +whether the witness is guilty of perjury; or c) furthering +justice. It is a criminal offense to do so without a court order. +Dec. 31. 1985. +4. There has been no showing that there is an exception to +Florida Statúte 905.27 disclosure that movant is aware of. +Synopsis +Personal representative of decedent served assistant state +attorney with subpoena for deposition and duces tecum, and +5. Personal notes of the Assistant State Attorney are work +product and not discoverable. +attorney sought protective order to exclude notes, testimony +and materials which were product of grand jury presentation +regarding death of decedent in county jail. The Circuit +THEREFORE the State of Florida requests a Protective Order +from this Honorable Court limiting the deposition and duces +Court, Palm Beach County, Mary E. Lupo, J., granted the +tecum to exclude notes, testimony, and materials which are a +protective order, and the personal representative petitioned +for writ of common-law certiorari. The District Court of +product of Grand Jury presentation, pursuant to Rule 1.280(c) +Appeal, Glickstein, J., held that the personal representative +(4). +had not presented sufficient grounds to justify disclosure of +the products of the grand jury presentation. +Petition denied. +Attorneys and Law Firms +*254 Jeffrey M. Liggio, West Palm Beach, for petitioner. +David H. Bludworth, State Atty., and Pablo Perhacs, Asst. +State Atty., West Palm Beach, for respondent-Bludworth. +Opinion +GLICKSTEIN, Judge. +The personal representative of the decedent, who hanged +himself in the Palm Beach County Jail, brought an action +against the sheriff. The assistant state attorney who presented +the grand jury with evidence in connection with the decedent's +death was served with a subpoena for deposition and +(Emphasis in original.) The trial court granted the motion, +prompting the personal representative's present petition for +certiorari, which we deny. +In denying the petition, we discuss the point raised by the state +before the trial court and not the additional point which was +not considered by the trial court and is raised here for the first +time. Accordingly, our sole, present concern is with section +905.27, Florida Statutes (1983). Subsection (I) of the subject +statute forbids an assistant state attorney, among others, to +disclose the testimony of a witness before a grand jury or +other evidence received by the grand jury unless a court +requires him to disclose it for one of the three stated purposes. +Subsection (2) makes it unlawful to publicize such testimony +or its contents unless the testimony is or has been disclosed +in a court proceeding, and goes on to say who may receive +such information when a court has ordered disclosure. The +statute states at subsection (3) that a client who testified before +a grand jury may tell his lawyer about such testimony or +JOINT +Joint Exhibit +WESTLAW © 2022 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.ID#. 136_ EV#J36 +DATE ADMITTED: 9/6/2022 +CA/Aronberg-001601 +FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, I +J36 +MINAST PAUST + + +11 Fla. L. Weekly 93 +anything affecting the client that was discussed in his presence +before the grand jury. The rest of the section discusses the +criminal nature of the violation, and its penalties. +It is true then, according to this statute, that the trial court in a +civil case may order disclosure of testimony or other evidence +presented before a grand jury when, for example, it is in the +furtherance of justice to do so. The statute does not require a +trial court to order such disclosure, but only permits it to do +so. Whether or not so to order must therefore be discretionary +with the trial court. +In d +v. State, 220 So.2d 393 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969), +a convicted perjury defendant contended it was reversible +error under *255 Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 +S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), for the trial court to +refuse to compel the state to disclose to him certain testimony +or evidence presented to the grand jury. The trial court +apparently made an in camera examination of the testimony +sought to have discovered, and refused to grant its +discovery. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion, +finding nothing to suggest the withholding of evidence +material to the appellant's guilt or to his punishment. The +court also expressed doubt that Brady was intended to apply +to testimony before a grand jury. +In Jackman v. State, 140 So.2d 627 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962), +appellant Jackman contended the trial court erred when it +denied his oral motion, grounded on section 905.27, to réquire +the state to produce the testimony of a certain state's witness +before the grand jury. The witness had admitted at Jackman's +trial that he had lied under oath at an earlier trial. The Jackman +appellate court stated the pertinent law as follows: +Section 905.27, supra, prohibits disclosure by certain persons +of testimony given before a grand jury "except when required +by a court to disclose the testimony of a witness examined +before the grand jury for the purpose of ascertaining whether +it is consistent with that of the witness given before the +court * * *" Under this statute, and the decisions of our +courts, it is settled that when the purposes of the secrecy rule +are accomplished and a disclosure becomes essential to the +attainment of justice, the secrecy rule may be relaxed, in the +discretion of the court, upon the laying of a proper predicate. +See Minton v. State, Fla. 1959, 113 So.2d 361; Trafficante v +State, Fla. 1957, 92 So.2d 811; State ex rel. +v. Dewell, +123 Fla. 785, 167 So. 687. +The proper procedure in such a case is for the trial judge, +once the proper predicate has been laid, to examine the +grand jury testimony sought to be disclosed with a view to +making a determination of its materiality. Minton v. State, +supra; Trafficante v. State, supra; Vann v. State, Fla. 1956, 85 +So.2d 133. The importance of laying the proper predicate was +stressed in Minton v. State, supra, 113 So.2d p. 365, where the +court said: +"But it is crystal clear that something +more than a mere surmise or speculation +that a witness's testimony at the trial is +inconsistent with that given before the +grand jury must be le to appear in +order to hold a trial judge in error for +refusing to lift the veil of secrecy from +the grand jury proceedings. While, in +a given case, the reasons for secrecy +may no longer obtain, the effect on +subsequent grand jury proceedings-on +jurors, on witnesses, on the privacy of the +system itself-of indiscriminate disclosure +has been said to be of "greater moment." " +The effect of the cited cases is that it is within the sound +judicial discretion of the trial judge to decide whether the +proper predicate has been laid to warrant stopping the trial to +examine the grand jury testimony to determine its materiality. +The record in this case does not disclose an abuse of this +discretion by the trial judge in denying appellant Jackman's +motion which was predicated solely on the witness' admitted +perjury in the trial of another case. +Id. at 629. +We think the law stated in Jackman is equally applicable +in the present case. Although Jackman is a criminal case +and the issue there was apparently whether a certain +witness' testimony was consistent, and the present case is +a civil suit where, hypothetically, discovery might affect +the achievement of justice, we believe the party in either +type of action must lay a proper predicate for obtaining +court permission to examine evidence or testimony that came +before a grand jury. When that has been done, the trial +court would examine the grand jury evidence or testimony in +camera to determine its materiality. +WESTLAW © 2022 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. +CA/Aronberg-001602 +FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, +2 +ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 4:20:48 PM + + +11 Fla. L. Weekly 93 +We do not see in the appendix or the petition anything that +could be perceived as the laying of a proper predicate for +whatever *256 the plaintiff sought to have disclosed that was +put in evidence before the grand jury. It is by no means clear +why the plaintiff/petitioner thinks he should be allowed access +to the investigation information the assistant state attorney +presented before the grand jury. ' +DELL and WALDEN, JJ., concur. +All Citations +480 So.2d 253, I| Fla. L. Weekly 93 +Footnotes +Respondent observes that petitioner has not sought to ascertain whether the assistant district attorney has +notes or other matter in the file or knows anything that was not presented to the grand jury; petitioner simply +canceled the deposition. +End of Document +© 2022 +CERTIFIED +: Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works +NOT A +WESTLAW © 2022 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.' +CA/Aronberg-001603 +FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, L +3 +ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 4:20:48 PM \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9aebf31fee0373e7dd82a893063bf8e7dd8b6dea316e2b918edb976555171705.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9aebf31fee0373e7dd82a893063bf8e7dd8b6dea316e2b918edb976555171705.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..dfcaea69cb734173740ed78fc358048579a8927c --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9aebf31fee0373e7dd82a893063bf8e7dd8b6dea316e2b918edb976555171705.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -148, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "9aebf31fee0373e7dd82a893063bf8e7dd8b6dea316e2b918edb976555171705", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 4, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "8e654affc1b56f53f1f2642d90d935d8d35726aa1d79af7ca1a8076f3620377c", + "output_sha256": "60962b882796a00a6384e693c019c44a728396530c00f2bccb17005af0734fa6", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9b0b1d95862b2355e013aabffde3982c1643ba03396b085df9240ad69e6e490f.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9b0b1d95862b2355e013aabffde3982c1643ba03396b085df9240ad69e6e490f.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6347015f3027e090e81d6eb3aa8308191417ec85 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9b0b1d95862b2355e013aabffde3982c1643ba03396b085df9240ad69e6e490f.md @@ -0,0 +1,139 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 116 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/27/2009 Page 1 of 6 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 5, +VS. +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/ +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/ +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/ +1 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 116 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/27/2009 Page 2 of 6 +JANE DOE NO. 6, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80994-MARRAI +JANE DOE NO. 7, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08- CV-80993-MARRA/ +C.M.A., +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08- CV-80811 -MARRAJ +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et al., +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08- CV-80893-MARRA/ +DOE II, +CASE NO.: 08-CV- 80469-MARRA/ +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 116 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/27/2009 Page 3 of 6 +VS. +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al., +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 101, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08- CV-80591-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 102, +VS. +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08- CV-80656-MARRA/ +NOTICE OF FILING PROPOSED ORDER +Plaintiffs, Jane Does 2-7, by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby file the +attached Proposed Order in reference to document no. 111 filed in case no. 08-80119 on May 21, +2009. +Dated: May 27, 2009 +Respectfully submitted, +By:_ +s/ Adam D. Horowitz +Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245) +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980) +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P.A. +Attorneys for Plaintiffs +18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 +3 + + +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 116 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/27/2009 Page 4 of 6 +Miami, Florida 33160 +Tel: (305) 931-2200 +Fax: (305) 931-0877 +4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 116 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/27/2009 Page 5 of 6 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I hereby certify that on May 27, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing document with +the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served +this day to all parties on the attached Service List in the manner specified, either via transmission +of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for +those parties who are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing. +Is/ Adam D. Horowitz +5 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 116 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/27/2009 Page 6 of 6 +SERVICE LIST +DOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +jgoldberger@agwpa.com +Robert D. Critton, Esq. +rcritton@bclclaw.com +James +bedwards@rra-law.com +Isidro Manuel +isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net +Jack +jph@searcylaw.com +Katherine Warthen Ezell +KEzell@podhurst.com +Michael James Pike +MPike@bclclaw.com +Paul G. Cassell +cassellp@law.utah.edu +Richard Horace Willits +lawyerwillits@aol.com +Robert C. Josefsberg +rjosefsberg@podhurst.com +Is/ Adam D. Horowitz +6 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9b0b1d95862b2355e013aabffde3982c1643ba03396b085df9240ad69e6e490f.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9b0b1d95862b2355e013aabffde3982c1643ba03396b085df9240ad69e6e490f.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ba4da05df6edc0e01fa89d10bb208ade3ff4d3d6 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9b0b1d95862b2355e013aabffde3982c1643ba03396b085df9240ad69e6e490f.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -72, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "9b0b1d95862b2355e013aabffde3982c1643ba03396b085df9240ad69e6e490f", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 6, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "39e7c5e5104ef68c069d3a353d3a5162dbafc442489cbdfcd9790bba814def70", + "output_sha256": "ec01edc9ee4d3d4bdd02779a41ce8e765fc1e372846bbbfc1ee46d5e466684b6", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9b19ed0d3759b38382a30de2875d4c9a217bc8abb6ca33c71fdfde146bf43d93.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9b19ed0d3759b38382a30de2875d4c9a217bc8abb6ca33c71fdfde146bf43d93.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3720f90895e50035a360cf033e7757d744f71d8c --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9b19ed0d3759b38382a30de2875d4c9a217bc8abb6ca33c71fdfde146bf43d93.md @@ -0,0 +1,88 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 186-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2009 Page 1 of 4 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-cv-80119-MARRA/_ +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/. +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Defendant. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 186-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2009 Page 2 of 4 +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/, +JANE DOE NO. 5, +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +/ +CASE NO.: 08-80994-CIV-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 6, +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +/ +CASE NO.: 08-80993-CIV-MARRA/, +JANE DOE NO. 7, +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Defendant. +/ +C.M.A., +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Defendant. +JANE DOE, +CASE NO.: 08-80811-CIV-MARRA/. +CASE NO.: 08-80893-CIV-MARRA/ + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 186-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2009 Page 3 of 4 +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al, +Defendants. +/ +DOE II, +CASE NO.: 09-80469-CIV-MARRA- +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al, +Defendants. +JANE DOE NO. 101, +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 09-80591-CIV-MARRA- +JANE DOE NO. 102, +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 09-80656-CIV-MARRA/ +ORDER +This matter came before the Court on Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S +Unopposed Motion For Extension of Time in Which to File a Reply to Plaintiffs Jane +Does 2-7 Response to Defendant's Motion to Compel Identity in the Style of the Case + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 186-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2009 Page 4 of 4 +and in Third Party Subpoenas, having considered Defendant's Unopposed Motion and +Plaintiff's counsel being in agreement with the requested extension, it is HEREBY +ORDERED and ADJUDGED that: +Defendant's Unopposed Motion is GRANTED. Defendant shall file a Reply to +Plaintiffs Jane Does 2-7 Response to Defendant's Motion to Compel Identity in the Style +of the Case and in Third Party Subpoenas on or before July 14, 2009. +DONE and ORDERED this 29# day of June, 2009 +Kenneth A. Marra +United States District Judge +Courtesy Copies all counsel diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9b19ed0d3759b38382a30de2875d4c9a217bc8abb6ca33c71fdfde146bf43d93.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9b19ed0d3759b38382a30de2875d4c9a217bc8abb6ca33c71fdfde146bf43d93.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7cfb91ede649dc9917f59a3d3b4b33a5bfaf7e07 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9b19ed0d3759b38382a30de2875d4c9a217bc8abb6ca33c71fdfde146bf43d93.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -48, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "9b19ed0d3759b38382a30de2875d4c9a217bc8abb6ca33c71fdfde146bf43d93", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 4, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "5e9076a2ce7fb04931ba12df4d1ed62220488ee7521da58250df944afea7af86", + "output_sha256": "0ef1a6289e3e1805d0f2fc3368a78d16728030a1827eb47f8d9d50e4b845d11c", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9b8ab44ebc94f80729c7956e73adf38e25c0696080862c43af0b4a0039d95364.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9b8ab44ebc94f80729c7956e73adf38e25c0696080862c43af0b4a0039d95364.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..56a302bb4680504ee50ba187e16204e72eb670e7 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9b8ab44ebc94f80729c7956e73adf38e25c0696080862c43af0b4a0039d95364.md @@ -0,0 +1,77 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 57 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2011 Page 1 of 3 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA +JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, +Petitioners, +VS. +UNITED STATES, +Respondent. +RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO FILE +MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN EXCESS OF TWENTY PAGES +Respondent, United States, by and through its undersigned counsel, files its Motion for +Leave of Court to File Memorandum of Law in Excess of Twenty Pages, and states: +1. Under S.D.Fla.L.R. 7.1(c)(2), no party shall file any legal memorandum exceeding +twenty (20) pages in length, absent prior permission of the Court. +2. Respondent has prepared its Response to Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2's Motion for +Finding of Violations of the Crime Victims Rights Act and Request for a Hearing on Appropriate +Remedies, which numbers fifty-three (53) pages. A copy is attached as Exhibit A. The +additional length of the Response was necessary to adequately respond to the forty-two (42) page +motion filed by petitioners. +3. On April 7, 2011, the undersigned asked petitioners' co-counsel, Brad +Esq., +for their position on the instant motion. Mr. +graciously did not oppose the instant +motion. +WHEREFORE, respondent respectfully requests leave of the Court to file its Response to + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 57 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2011 Page 2 of 3 +Jane Does #1 and Jane Doe #2's Motion for Finding of Violations of the Crime Victims Rights +Act and Request for a Hearing on Appropriate Remedies, numbering fifty-three (53) pages. +Respectfully submitted, +WIFREDO A. FERRER +UNITED STATES ATTORNEY +By: +s/ Dexter A. Lee +DEXTER A. LEE +Assistant U.S. Attorney +Fla. Bar No. 0936693 +99 N.E. 4* Street +Miami, Florida 33132 +(305) 961-9320 +Fax: (305) 530-7139 +E-mail: dexter.lee@usdoj.gov +Attorney for Respondent +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +THEREBY CERTIFY that on April 7, 2011, 1 electronically filed the foregoing document +with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. +s/ Dexter A. Lee +DEXTER A. LEE +Assistant U.S. Attorney +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 57 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2011 Page 3 of 3 +SERVICE LIST +Jane Does 1 and 2 v. United States, +Case No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +Esq.. +, Jaffe, Weissing, +425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 +Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 +(954) 524-2820 +Fax: (954) 524-2822 +E-mail: brad@pathtojustice.com +Paul G. Cassell +S.J. Quinney College of Law at the +University of Utah +332 S. 1400 E. +Salt Lake City, Utah 84112 +(801) 585-5202 +Fax: (801) 585-6833 +E-mail: casselp@law.utah.edu +Attorneys for Jane Doe # 1 and Jane Doe # 2 +Fistos & Lehrman, P.L. +3 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9b8ab44ebc94f80729c7956e73adf38e25c0696080862c43af0b4a0039d95364.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9b8ab44ebc94f80729c7956e73adf38e25c0696080862c43af0b4a0039d95364.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a80a3c06a9054183bb10d84e808893d5c84b127f --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9b8ab44ebc94f80729c7956e73adf38e25c0696080862c43af0b4a0039d95364.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -36, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "9b8ab44ebc94f80729c7956e73adf38e25c0696080862c43af0b4a0039d95364", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 3, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "948d17c99abfe335e3d7ea04a1328e83be89e87b866b567031331db132942c2a", + "output_sha256": "119a876ba567d296b941e6f9efbc5916d4ffba42cc28849a55a27a6d3d0b84fc", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9b9159a83598f64b9853f585247250bd67ac84fdff79850fa18352a6cb717bd1.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9b9159a83598f64b9853f585247250bd67ac84fdff79850fa18352a6cb717bd1.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3fbaa04204a942d1f61e7248b9347d4be6d2e22a --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9b9159a83598f64b9853f585247250bd67ac84fdff79850fa18352a6cb717bd1.md @@ -0,0 +1,31 @@ +case 1:19-cv-09610-PAE-DCF Document 42 Filed 03/06/20 + +Case 1:19-cv-09610-PAE-DCF Document 41-1 Filed 03/06/20 Page 1 of : +JANE DOE 17, +USDC SNY +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOCUMENT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK +ELECTRONICALLY FILED +DOC#: +DATE FILED: 3/6/2020 +Plaintiff, +V. +DARREN K. INDYKE AND +RICHARD D. KHAN, AS JOINT +PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES OF +THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN +NINE EAST 71st STREET CORPORATION, +LAUREL, INC., FINANCIAL TRUST COMPANY, +INC., NES LLC, MAPLE, INC., LSJE, LLC, +HBRK ASSOCIATES, INC., NAUTILUS, INC., +CYPRESS, INC., and JEGE, INC., +Defendants. +Case No. 1:19-cv-09610-PAE +ORDER +IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that ANDREW S. BUZIN and BUZIN LAW, P.C. are hereby +relieved and discharged as counsel for the plaintiff, JANE DOE 17. +SO ORDERED. +Date: 3/6/2020 +New York, New York +HON. DEBRA C. FREEMAN +United States Magistrate Judge diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9b9159a83598f64b9853f585247250bd67ac84fdff79850fa18352a6cb717bd1.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9b9159a83598f64b9853f585247250bd67ac84fdff79850fa18352a6cb717bd1.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..165f35e0f7eb8e1ee6b382de1b185c0900e392b3 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9b9159a83598f64b9853f585247250bd67ac84fdff79850fa18352a6cb717bd1.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -23, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "9b9159a83598f64b9853f585247250bd67ac84fdff79850fa18352a6cb717bd1", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "3c14222fa5339a1d2ee2bf47d595638f89468c4404837b95b4b396d1251a1a6f", + "output_sha256": "7d35850349da80a897ee9cd85b4a521e21a5318f24324fecc46fc7ebc3a03ecb", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9ba6a40e25938fb98febc2c8d0414ec3a79da3abc61c73e4a400bb2fc80a4166.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9ba6a40e25938fb98febc2c8d0414ec3a79da3abc61c73e4a400bb2fc80a4166.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..172b705d0c5e5e56c36c6b2249a4f99dfea3cd1f --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9ba6a40e25938fb98febc2c8d0414ec3a79da3abc61c73e4a400bb2fc80a4166.md @@ -0,0 +1,55 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/30/2008 Page 1 of 2 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-80232-CIV-MARRA +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL AS CO-COUNSEL +TEIN, PL notices its withdrawal as co-counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein in +this matter. +Respectfully submitted, +I TEIN, P.L. +3059 Grand Avenue, Suite 340 +Coconut Grove, Florida 33133 +Tel: 305 442 1101 +Fax: 305 442 6744 +By: /s/ Michael R. Tein +GUY A. +Fla. Bar No. 623740 +MICHAEL R. TEIN +Fla. Bar No. 993522 +tein@lewistein.com +Tein. +3059 GRAND AVENUE, SUITE 340, COCONUT GROVE, FLORIDA 33133 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/30/2008 Page 2 of 2 +CASE NO.: 08-80232-CIV-MARRA +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I HEREBY CERTIFY that on December 30, 2008, I electronically filed the foregoing +with the Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF system. I further certify that plaintiff's +attorneys are CM/ECF participants, as indicated by the CM/ECF Attorney Listings for this case. +/s/ Michael R. Tein +Michael R. Tein +Service List +Jeffrey M. Herman, Esq. +Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. +Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. +Herman & Mermelstein, P.A. +18205 Biscayne Blvd, Suite 2218 +Miami, Florida 33160 +Jack A. Goldberger, Esq. +Atterbery, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 +Robert D. Critton, Esq. +Michael J. Pike, Esq. +Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman, LLP +515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 +2 +Teine +3059 GRAND AVENUE, SUITE 340, COCONUT GROVE, FLORIDA 33133 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9ba6a40e25938fb98febc2c8d0414ec3a79da3abc61c73e4a400bb2fc80a4166.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9ba6a40e25938fb98febc2c8d0414ec3a79da3abc61c73e4a400bb2fc80a4166.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..728308886d8582a55dce32240806d41d74952c21 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9ba6a40e25938fb98febc2c8d0414ec3a79da3abc61c73e4a400bb2fc80a4166.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -24, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "9ba6a40e25938fb98febc2c8d0414ec3a79da3abc61c73e4a400bb2fc80a4166", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "4bc694d3fbc0116c90c64e73ca0161aeda41da66d1d3bd15c6064af2dc5928d2", + "output_sha256": "d2eae8fa54acdbc58a4dcf192cbcfa6fb0350794874f2ca25f23443a07d3f4ba", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9baf2ad4f49afbf89f6719defdced1f4af505173cac2338ee5a1b5168ded2de4.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9baf2ad4f49afbf89f6719defdced1f4af505173cac2338ee5a1b5168ded2de4.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5d9b95e26cc56a25f1f91ce25b071160730147d4 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9baf2ad4f49afbf89f6719defdced1f4af505173cac2338ee5a1b5168ded2de4.md @@ -0,0 +1,94 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 77 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/16/2009 Page 1 of 3 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA-, +JANE DOE NO. 2, +V. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Plaintiff, +Defendant. +Defendant's Amended Motion For Extension Of Time In Which To Respond To +aintiff's Motion For Protective Order And To Quash Subpoena For Depositic +f Jane Doe No. 3, Motion To Consolidate Cases For Purposes Of Discovery, Ar +Incorporated Memorandum Of Law +Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, (hereinafter "Epstein") by and through his +undersigned attorneys, respectfully moves this Court for an extension of time in which to +respond to Plaintiff's Motion For Protective Order And To Quash Subpoena For +Deposition Of Jane Doe No. 3, Motion To Consolidate Cases For Purposes Of +Discovery, And Incorporated Memorandum Of Law ("Motion"). Local General Rule 7.1 +A.1 and Rule 6, Fed. R. Civ. P. (2009). Defendant seeks an extension until April 24, +2009 to file his response. As good cause in support of granting the motion, Defendant +states: +1. Defendant's response to the Motion is due on or about April 6, 2009, and an +extension was given to April 13, 2009. +2. Plaintiff's counsel also represents five (5) other Plaintiffs pursuing claims against +Defendant, EPSTEIN, most of which have filed similar Motions. In order to fully and + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 77 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/16/2009 Page 2 of 3 +Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein +Page 2 +adequately respond to this and the other motions, Defendant is in need of an extension +until April 24, 2009. +3. In addition to the multiple motions, good cause for the extension also includes +that counsel has been attempting to resolve discovery issues in this and other cases +against Defendant, EPSTEIN; an associate of Defendant's undersigned counsel who +works extensively on this case is currently out of the office and the undersigned was +working on and has filed between 12-15 motions and responses in the various cases +during the time these motions were filed. +4. The requested extension is fair and reasonable under the circumstances as it will +provide time to allow the Defendant, EPSTEIN, to fully and adequately respond to this +and the other motions. In addition, this action is still at its early stages. +5. As certified below, counsel for Defendant conferred with counsel for Plaintiff, and +Plaintiff's counsel is in agreement with the requested extension. +WHEREFORE, Defendant requests that this Court enter an order granting +Defendant an extension until April 24, 2009, in which to respond to the Above Motion. +Local Rule 7.1 Statement +Counsel for the movant conferred by telephone with counsel for the Plaintiff and +Counsel for Plaintiff is in agreement with the requested extension until April 24, 2009 for +Defendant to respond to the Motion. +Robert D. Critton, Jr. +Attorney for Defendant Epstein + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 77 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/16/2009 Page 3 of 3 +Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein +Page 3 +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 fy day of April, 2009: +Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. +Jack Alan Goldberger +Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. +Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A +Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South +18205 Biscayne Boulevard +Suite 1400 +Suite 2218 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 +Miami, FL 33160 +561-659-8300 +305-931-2200 +Fax: 561-835-8691 +Fax: 305-931-0877 +jagesq@bellsouth.net +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein +Counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe #2 +ByL +ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. +Florida Bar No. 224162 +rcrit@bclclaw.com +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. +Florida Bar #617296 +mpike@bclclaw.com +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN +515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561/842-2820 Phone +561/515-3148 Fax +(Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9baf2ad4f49afbf89f6719defdced1f4af505173cac2338ee5a1b5168ded2de4.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9baf2ad4f49afbf89f6719defdced1f4af505173cac2338ee5a1b5168ded2de4.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..af2f0ccdf5bcbcd78ba2959598957bb0da26a2f0 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9baf2ad4f49afbf89f6719defdced1f4af505173cac2338ee5a1b5168ded2de4.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -36, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "9baf2ad4f49afbf89f6719defdced1f4af505173cac2338ee5a1b5168ded2de4", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 3, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "981ec404c40e47a98a2b8c37e979fa573ce4c8ac37982a3533fcd17c9865b7e4", + "output_sha256": "94e29a5107afb851bb1735febecb41182da087c549f35821c181fcd893895795", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9bdc9cd1d1a1d3ee638ac7d64cc85107e740657c37716e6633c952e17b238347.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9bdc9cd1d1a1d3ee638ac7d64cc85107e740657c37716e6633c952e17b238347.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..601ffe80ae46d329981b4a459804eb931472fc83 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9bdc9cd1d1a1d3ee638ac7d64cc85107e740657c37716e6633c952e17b238347.md @@ -0,0 +1,317 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM +09/04/2089 +13:48 +561284279cument 317-6 EnterAB:2^ KAkF0RPRSKEi 09/21/2009 PagdE0162/16 +NAME +DOB: +PROGRESS NOTES +Rogar r Rl for Sharepy +RTe н +du Lexapao ILICI +Kho past. +Restarl texap sang gu +elc lle +eeeng Boan godny onto +Vо. 50 +vo ste poa Mede se noeda to +5/26/09 +Ne +Show +"pacemuy + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM +09/04/2009 13:48 + +Document 317-6 EnterA812 KEkR8DM985ką 09/21/2009 Pagacz ofel/16 +Name +11/7/2007 +PROGRESS NOTES +Bt i's Seeu Tadnu becend sl +has been hamma oI specp eus +such as nausth eud +'deserzbea +t e starle Fokang robopl +shamr +WE117 +4=5-2 +BMI = 21.4 +BNI - galke up i her bogbiend yelfeiday +stes belu caluner, nett Fearfu. +or autious. nood tas wepronc +suce ate starter ue lelenapro +- Bazodano. +Elu in 2 manths. +1/22/08 Pt Cauceled. +2 Кард п +I agan Po bock E her ege +Ell i's 3 M. +Male + + +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 317-6 Enter&10 KF RS098CKęt 09/21/2009 Pagasê 0186/16 + +NABIL KARROUM, M.D., P.A. +WELLINGTON PROFESSIONAL CENI, +10111 W. FOREST HILL BLVD. SUITE 369 +'SYCHIATRIC EVALUATI +WELLINGTON, FL 33414 +NAME. +SSN: +DO +FEPRESENTINE PROBLLM +ft is a 19 y/a ue/s/E nena Reported uroad +qub as epíscde: +sho has been. +utnies lo contact umm begamte ay ber cnyeas. +NiobiCTE LISTORY +roQue +RAtlective disotdets. +L Schizophrenia. +•Alcoholism. +ZAges between 7 and 29. +•Healthy support system unavailable. +•Unemployment. +•Recont death in family. +ханах 0. 25409 +bilete coult +ARSE TACKORS OLSUTETDI +•No friends to talk to. +•Premeditated suicide. +Recent suicidal attempt. +•Marital estrangement. +[Impulsive lethal suicidal attempt. +El Previous suicidal attempt. +•Current suicidal ideas. +Lecter +•]Chronic physical illness. +•Family history of suicide. +•]Divorced / widowed. +•Previous history of violence. +LOther:_ + + +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 317-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/21/2009 Pap&c£ 068/16 +13:48 + +NABIL KARROUM MD PA +BLISTA +Healthy +EGroomed +ElAnxious. +Paranoid. +•sickly +•Unkempt +Depressed +•Apathetic +L. Limp +LIPoised +Attentive +•Playful +• Relaxed +•Comfortable +•Guarded +•Seductive +•Tense +•At ease +#Cooperative +•Hostile +•Evasive +Dother: +•Relaxed +•Combative +•Hyperactive +•Gestures +Elense +•Tics +•Rigid +•Distracted +•Retarded +Stereotype +E Agitated +•Other: +Productive +•Pressured +-Spontaheous +•slurred +•Slow +•Loud +•Euthymie +•Expansive +Depressed +DAngry +•Happy +EAnxious +• Monotonous +•stuttered +1OO1 +• Elated +•Fearful +Hesitant +•Dysarthric +Rapid +LOther_ +Erritable +•Despairing +•Guilty +DOther; +Full Range +•Blunted +•Restricted +•Labile +L. Flat +EDysphoric +Depersonalization: +Content:: +Hallucinations: +Content:, +•Yes +ENO +• Constricted +E Appropriate +REEE +Illusions: +MYcs +ENo +•inappropriate +•Euphorio +Dother_ +Derealization: +Dyes ENo +•Yes +No +•Auditory •Visual +Dolfactory •Gustatory Dother:_ +•Logical +• •Circumstantial +[Directed +•Incoherent +•Loose +•Relevant +THOUGUMEROCES +• Poverty +•Tangential +THOUGH CONTENT +DRacing +•Avoidant +•Confabulation +•Perseveration +Obsessions: Dyes +ENo +Content: +Delusions: Dyes ENo Contenti +Suicidal Ideas: DYes No Content: +" Not of this Tinue +Homicidal Ideas: • Yes ENo Content: +Other_ +Memory: •poor #Good +Alert.EYes LiNo +i cannabil a base +AXIS 1I: 299.9 +Attention: Poor EGood +Abstraction: Poor Good Concentration: Poor Good +Orientation: person Brime place Insight: EPoor Good +Judgment Poor •Good +IRAGNOSIS +Materi +AXIS III: +799.9 +AXIS V: RussoLt 60 +RECOMME +MEON +gychiatrist's Signature +Dato of Evaluation: +10/26/02 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 317-6 +Entered on FLSO Docket 09/21/2009 Pag&G₴ 0188/16 +09/04/2009 13:48 + +NABIL KARRDUM MD PA +NAME: +1726/07 +Name of Medication +zotoft +1|/ 7/07 +sample +11/30|0Z dexarene +2/13/08 +5/20/08 pexeva +(3) +6/3/08 +Хехарга +Razedone +«/25р8 Аоккрго +Dose +Frequency +#qd +20509 =9d +1000÷9d +20coa +9d +DOB: +Amount +60 +30 +Refill +1300 +30 +30 +2 +28 +32 +30 +4 +30 +30 4 + + +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 317-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/21/2009 Page 6 of 6 + +NABIL KARROUM MD PA +PAGE 14/16 +13:48 +- PBC.. +- Frice +Birth control. +по розиансу. +194/0 +Sto +19 +dild +- cymbalta past Tuesday +- can't concentrate +- Allergy: cector +- no medical-a +DR. scaulou. +РСД. +Sab test past +Tuesday. +Mood sworeg, +Tearful +Free - Break up a roache +адо. +augry +- depressed. +23 +-O.D. as pill +2 weeks ago. +_ SIB: cutting +Витисну +- 10-11 1l0 +cattines +porat Divorce +- 134l0 Molested +- 15ylo. Raped. +- бал a +3 Psychiatrists, +3 zoloft +_therapy. +- Cannabis +darlop. +- ses/asy. +- Kanak +0. 25шg +_insomnia. +_ Real Es/ale +сжирану. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9bdc9cd1d1a1d3ee638ac7d64cc85107e740657c37716e6633c952e17b238347.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9bdc9cd1d1a1d3ee638ac7d64cc85107e740657c37716e6633c952e17b238347.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cb2870d5f913bebcf4d97c9c449b41d722d1e805 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9bdc9cd1d1a1d3ee638ac7d64cc85107e740657c37716e6633c952e17b238347.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -156, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "9bdc9cd1d1a1d3ee638ac7d64cc85107e740657c37716e6633c952e17b238347", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 12, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.digits-only\", \"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": false, + "input_sha256": "ffc98721fcf68d73f22804027e92acf1fa69588905130fcbda9f36fbe0eaf712", + "output_sha256": "aa2d00bb8ef04e2a0c2fc00c8fb6ab9f8cf8e84e7ceab7f3f2b3c26f422af07c", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9bdfffb03c2ce2ea9b0b0fa4ee71ea83ef75ae733efccc9bcf402c33fa7247c9.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9bdfffb03c2ce2ea9b0b0fa4ee71ea83ef75ae733efccc9bcf402c33fa7247c9.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..65748a37fe3e942bdc69ed431a3a63e5d9310573 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9bdfffb03c2ce2ea9b0b0fa4ee71ea83ef75ae733efccc9bcf402c33fa7247c9.md @@ -0,0 +1,44 @@ +Case 1:19-cv-10577-LJL-DCF Document 66 Filed 07/09/20 Page 1 of 1 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK +JANE DOE 1000, +Plaintiff, +-against- +DARREN | INDYKE and RICHARD +D. KAHN, et al., +Case No. 19-CV-10577-LJL-DCF +Defendant. +NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS +TO: +ATTORNEY SERVICES CLERK AND ALL OTHER PARTIES +I have cases pending +I have no cases pending +Pursuant to Local Rule 1.3 of this Court, please take notice of the following attorney information change (s) for: +Charles L. Glover +FILL IN ATTORNEY NAME +_ My State Bar Number is 5329909 +My SDNY Bar Number is: CG0117 +1am, +• +An attorney +A Government Agency attorney +A Pro Hac Vice attorney +FIRM INFORMATION (Include full name of firm (OLD AND NEW), address, telephone number and fax number): +OLD FIRM: +FIRM NAME:_ Troutman Sanders LLP +FIRM ADDRESS: 875 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10022 +FIRM TELEPHONE NUMBER: (212) 704-6000 +FIRM FAX NUMBER: (212) 704-6288 +NEW FIRM: +FIRM NAME:_ Troutman Pepper +Sanders LLP +FIRM ADDRESS: 875 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10022 +FIRM TELEPHONE NUMBER:_(212) 704-6000 +FIRM FAX NUMBER: (212) 704-6288 +I will continue to be counsel of record on the above-entitled case at my new firm/agency. +I am no longer counsel of record on the above-entitled case. An order withdrawing my appearance +was entered on +by Judge +Dated: July 9, 2020 +s/Charles L. Glover +ATTORNEY'S SIGNATURE diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9bdfffb03c2ce2ea9b0b0fa4ee71ea83ef75ae733efccc9bcf402c33fa7247c9.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9bdfffb03c2ce2ea9b0b0fa4ee71ea83ef75ae733efccc9bcf402c33fa7247c9.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b041db57cd66b086040542c501f3f990ea9a1894 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9bdfffb03c2ce2ea9b0b0fa4ee71ea83ef75ae733efccc9bcf402c33fa7247c9.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "9bdfffb03c2ce2ea9b0b0fa4ee71ea83ef75ae733efccc9bcf402c33fa7247c9", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "517077da452e3a9aa27a3c56e749e85e922744733be999243749b736c63bd903", + "output_sha256": "3fcc0ef22c62088fc63146dc3e1923ae216be4d73e1601d03976b4581fa46f24", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9bfbbf599e82cb4e5e64fc322112d064287558ff5eb31f447a3b548eefef592d.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9bfbbf599e82cb4e5e64fc322112d064287558ff5eb31f447a3b548eefef592d.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..94b454b81179c7b3b0b3afccbf0c72c69f3cbf91 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9bfbbf599e82cb4e5e64fc322112d064287558ff5eb31f447a3b548eefef592d.md @@ -0,0 +1,224 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 1 of 9 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 5, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/ +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 2 of 9 +JANE DOE NO. 6, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80994-MARRA +JANE DOE NO. 7, +CASE NO.: 08- 80993-CIV-MARRA/ +VS. +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION +TO EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO FIRST SET OF +INTERROGATORIES AND FOR AN AWARD OF REASONABLE EXPENSES +Plaintiffs, JANE DOES 2-7, by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby file this +Memorandum in Opposition to Epstein's Motion to Compel Plaintiffs to Answer First Set of +Interrogatories and for an Award of Reasonable Expenses, and state as follows: +I. +Introduction +Defendant Epstein served an Interrogatory (# 18) seeking to unearth explicit information on +every bit of possible sexual conduct and activity in chronological order which each Jane Doe might +have engaged in since age 10, including the names and phone numbers of all persons with whom +they had sexual contact.' Plaintiffs properly objected to these interrogatories in that discovery on +' Plaintiffs also object to Interrogatory nos. 19, 20, and 21, served on each of them, which seek the +identities and contact information of any men whom Plaintiffs' claim committed sexual assault or +-2- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 3 of 9 +the sexual history of a childhood abuse victim is substantially limited in federal court, "courts should +presumptively issue protective orders barring discovery unless the party seeking discovery makes a +showing that the evidence sought to be discovered would be relevant under the facts and theories of +the particular case and cannot be obtained except through discovery." See Fed. R. Evid. 412, +Advisory Committee Notes to 1994 Amendments, subdivision (c). Defendant has made no such +showing in his Motion to Compel to overcome this presumption. Accordingly, Defendant's Motion +to Compel must be denied in its entirety. +II. Argument +Epstein incorrectly argues that Fed.R.Evid 412 is strictly an evidentiary rule and that Rule +26(b) must be read exclusively to determine whether information about an abuse victim's sexual +history is discoverable. The Rule 412 Advisory Committee Notes, however, instruct that Rule 412 +affects not only the admissibility of evidence at trial, but must also "inform the discovery process." +Barta v. City and County of Honolulu, 169 F.R.D. 132 (D. Haw. 1996). The Committee Notes state, +in relevant part, as follows: +Courts should presumptively issue protective orders barring +discovery unless the party seeking discovery makes a showing that +the evidence sought to be discovered would be relevant under the +battery, or engaged in lewd and lascivious conduct or exhibition, against them. Unlike interrogatory +no. 18, which asks for information regarding all men other than Epstein with whom the Plaintiffs +have had sexual activity, interrogatory nos. 19-21 are at least limited to criminal conduct. +Nonetheless, these interrogatories are overbroad and unnecessarily infringe on the Plaintiffs' privacy +interests, particularly since they seek identity and contact information of men other than Epstein +whom Plaintiffs claim committed sexual crimes against them. As discussed infra, discovery on a +victim in a case of this nature is tempered by Fed.R.Evid., 412, and, as a result, a party is not entitled +to carte blanche discovery on sexual matters involving the victim. There must be a balancing of +interests based on the discovery sought. Here, Defendant contends that the information it seeks in +interrogatory nos. 19-21 is relevant to Plaintiffs' damages claims, but fails to state in this regard why +the perpetrator's identity and contact information specifically is relevant and should be +discoverable. This discovery should not therefore be allowed. +-3- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 4 of 9 +facts and theories of the particular case and cannot be obtained except +through discovery. +Nowhere in Defendant's Motion is it explained how or why this presumption should be +overcome. It is well established under Fed.R.Evid. 412 that a victim's past sexual behavior is +wholly irrelevant to the credibility of her testimony, and that her prior and subsequent sexual activity +with third parties has no bearing on the issue of whether she consented to or complied with the +sexual acts charged. See United States v. +1. 472 F.2d 909, 919 (5th Cir. 1973); Virgin Islands v. +, 634 F.Supp. 933, 936-37 (D. V.I. 1986) (policy of rule disallowing evidence to show +character of assault victim; Dept. of Professional Regulation v. Wise, 575 So.2d 713 (Fla. 1st DCA +1991) (holding that evidence of sexual relations with a person other than an accused is not relevant). +One commentator has noted that once the identity of persons and similarity of circumstances are +removed, "probative value all but disappears." See Ordover, Admissibility of Patterns of Similar +Sexual Conduct: The Unlamented Death of Character for Chastity, 63 Cornell L. Rev. 96, 106 +(1977). The discovery at issue is not limited to sexual contact involving similar circumstances, and +is therefore lacking in probative value. Defendant fails in his Motion to demonstrate otherwise. +Defendant's argument that Rule 412 is merely an evidentiary rule that should be disregarded +in discovery disputes has been routinely rejected in federal courts. See, e.g., Barta v. City and +County of Honolulu, 169 F.R.D. 132 (D. Haw. 1996) (granting protective order pursuant to Rule 412 +to prevent a sexual battery and harassment victim from having to disclose off-duty sexual contacts +with persons other than defendant in discovery); Herron v. Eastern Industries, Inc., 2007 WL +2781211 (N.D. Fla. Sept. 19, 2007); Gibbons v. Food Lion, Inc.., 1999 WL 33226474 (M.D. Fla. +Feb. 19, 1999); P.J. Herchenroeder v. John +Univ. Applied Physical Lab, 171 F.RD. 179 (D. +Md. 1997) (looking at both Rule 26 and Rule 412 in resolving discovery motion); +v. Zabihi, +166 F.R.D. 500 (D. N.M. 1996) (explaining that "[a]lthough the present motion arises in the context +-4- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 5 of 9 +of discovery under Rule 26, the Court must remain mindful of Rule 412 and its implications); +Stalnaker v. Kmart Corp., 1996 WL 397563 (D. Kan. 1996) (noting that Rule 412 "is applicable and +has significance in deciding certain discovery motions*). +As the above-referenced cases make abundantly clear, childhood sexual abuse cases are not +garden-variety litigation subject to traditional broad discovery concerning a victim's sexual history. +Rule 412 is designed to protect victims of sexual misconduct from undue embarrassment and +intrusion into their private affairs. See Fed R.Evid. 412. The committee notes explain that the Rule +is also intended to prevent "sexual stereotyping that is associated with public disclosure of intimate +sexual details and the infusion of sexual innuendo into the factfinding process." Rule 412, Advisory +Committee Notes to 1994 Amendments. Common sense dictates that requiring a sexual abuse +victim to disclose the intimate details sought by Epstein during the discovery process - which then +would presumably lead to additional discovery of the victim's other sexual partners - would be at +least as embarrassing and intrusive during the discovery process as it would be if the victim were +questioned about these facts at trial, if not more. Thus, in order to carry out its purpose, Rule 412 +"must inform the discovery process" and the Court "must impose certain restriction on discovery to +preclude inquiry into areas which will clearly fail to satisfy the balancing test" set forth in Rule 412. +See Barta v. City and County of Honolulu, 169 F.R.D. at 135. +In Barta, the Court confronted this issue in the context of a discovery motion in a civil case. +169 F.R.D. at 133. +A former employee brought a sexual harassment and battery claim against her +former employer and individual employees. Id. The defendants asked questions at deposition which +delved into the plaintiff's sexual conduct outside the workplace. Id. at 134. The Court did not allow +these questions and wait until trial to determine admissibility. Id. at 135. Instead, the Court +sustained the plaintiff's objections. Id. The Court based its decision on Fed.R.Evid. 412. Id. +-5- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 6 of 9 +Although noting that Rule 412 controls the admissibility of evidence, the Court explained that it +must also apply Rule 412 to "impose certain restrictions on discovery to preclude inquiry into areas +which will clearly satisfy the balancing test of 412(b)(2)..." Id. Thus, the Court concluded that the +defendants should not be permitted to inquire into the plaintiff's conduct while she was off-duty, +outside the workplace, and which did not involve the same defendants. The same rationale should +apply here. The Defendant should not be permitted to seek intimate details of Plaintiff's sexual +conduct throughout her life - particularly if it did not involve similar criminal circumstances such as +those involving Epstein. +Defendant attached three Florida state court orders to its Motion, two of which are trial court +decisions. These cases do not serve as precedent for this Court, and in any event, they are not +persuasive. Unlike state courts, federal courts must focus on the interplay between Fed.R.Evid. 412 +and Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b), and in this regard must be concerned with embarrassment to the victim and +protection of her privacy. Indeed, it does not appear that an analogous argument was made in any +of the state court cases relied upon by Defendant. Furthermore, the discovery in Balas v. Russo, 703 +So.2d 1076 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) was far narrower than that which is at issue here. It was limited to +asking plaintiffs for their employment history (which admittedly included prostitution), employment +records, electronic recording of the conduct which was the subject of the complaint, and a +description of her damages. 703 So.2d 1077-78. At no time were the plaintiffs in Balas asked to +disclose their entire sexually history beginning at age 10. Id. Thus, the three state court cases cited +in the Motion are not helpful to the Defendant, and should not deflect attention from the burden +placed on the party in federal court seeking discovery of a victim's other sexual contacts. +Finally, Defendant's request for attorney's fees and costs is completely unwarranted. The +present motion and response involve good-faith, timely and well-founded objections by Plaintiffs to +-6- + + +Case 9:08-cV-80380-KAM Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 7 of 9 +over-reaching and harassing discovery efforts. Accordingly, Defendant's request for award of +reasonable expenses should be denied. +Conclusion +Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs respectfully request that Defendant Epstein's Motions to +Compel Plaintiffs to Answer First Set of Interrogatories and for an Award of Reasonable Expenses +be denied in their entirety. +Dated: May 6, 2009 +Respectfully submitted, +By: +s/ Adam D. Horowitz +Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245) +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980) +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P.A. +Attorneys for Plaintiffs +18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 +Miami, Florida 33160 +Tel: (305) 931-2200 +Fax: (305) 931-0877 +-7- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 8 of 9 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I hereby certify that on May 6, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the +Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this +day to all parties on the attached Service List in the manner specified, either via transmission of +Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those +parties who are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing. +Is/ Adam D. Horowitz +-8- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 99 +Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 9 of 9 +SERVICE LIST +DOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +jgoldberger@agwpa.com +Robert D. Critton, Esq. +rcritton@bclclaw.com +/s/ Adam D. Horowitz +-9- diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9bfbbf599e82cb4e5e64fc322112d064287558ff5eb31f447a3b548eefef592d.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9bfbbf599e82cb4e5e64fc322112d064287558ff5eb31f447a3b548eefef592d.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f9259bc29d9bb5ac9f2a071c2af4fb1f4c26a2f0 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9bfbbf599e82cb4e5e64fc322112d064287558ff5eb31f447a3b548eefef592d.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -108, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "9bfbbf599e82cb4e5e64fc322112d064287558ff5eb31f447a3b548eefef592d", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 9, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "dd279da44ebcd0fcd9a33fdddaf4976545ee389b206224d3c269d20c4e7032af", + "output_sha256": "5ed5c248e228197d49d55ee9972c07e42a88d53431cbffe3d7398136aa062a63", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9c0a915f9a848406dfe7567a44a8ea4e7f6aa8f8f3e0d0e903026e1ec9eb832a.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9c0a915f9a848406dfe7567a44a8ea4e7f6aa8f8f3e0d0e903026e1ec9eb832a.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f27f47dd57fb233a080008260ddeae7ca97617f7 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9c0a915f9a848406dfe7567a44a8ea4e7f6aa8f8f3e0d0e903026e1ec9eb832a.md @@ -0,0 +1,66 @@ +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF +• Document 18-4 Filed 02/06/20 + +1 +2 +3 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +26 +27 +28 +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff, +V. +DARREN K. INDYKE and RICHARD D. +KAHN, in their capacities as executors of the +ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, an individual, +Defendants. +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK +Case No. 1:20-cv-00484 +DECLARATION OF ROBERT +SAMUEL GLASSMAN IN SUPPORT +OF APPLICATION FOR +ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE +PANISH SHEA & BOYLE LLP +11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700 +Los Angeles, California 90025 +310.477.1700 phone +• +310.477.1699 fax +I, Robert Samuel Glassman, hereby declare as follows: +1. I have never been convicted of a felony. +2. I have never been censured, suspended, disbarred or denied admission or readmission by +any court. +3. There is no pending disciplinary proceedings against me in any state or federal court. +4. I am a member in good standing of the bars of the State of California and Washington D.C. +I hereby declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing statements are true and correct. +Respectfully submitted, +Dated: January 21, 2020 +Robert S. Glassman +PANISH SHEA & BOYLE LLP +11111 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 700 +Los Angeles, CA 90025 +Telephone: (310) 477-1700 +tornevs for Plainti +1 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9c0a915f9a848406dfe7567a44a8ea4e7f6aa8f8f3e0d0e903026e1ec9eb832a.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9c0a915f9a848406dfe7567a44a8ea4e7f6aa8f8f3e0d0e903026e1ec9eb832a.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..289906e9fa794be4cac62fabd8e4bb67f974bfa7 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9c0a915f9a848406dfe7567a44a8ea4e7f6aa8f8f3e0d0e903026e1ec9eb832a.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -23, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "9c0a915f9a848406dfe7567a44a8ea4e7f6aa8f8f3e0d0e903026e1ec9eb832a", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "bec08329158a2bf6e86df11b5f2e868ad25d815b1f8b15e348d59508e90f7580", + "output_sha256": "e591281c677b48a17654d52549fc52dd0af2cfff44f0a001ae6f464f55d4c8ad", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9c0dd2db0e2ebcb1d194baa57ae5290d184eb9cf393e8ff8295f9b5675103986.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9c0dd2db0e2ebcb1d194baa57ae5290d184eb9cf393e8ff8295f9b5675103986.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f225e80c16ae4275da6781b4019a03ccb7243478 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9c0dd2db0e2ebcb1d194baa57ae5290d184eb9cf393e8ff8295f9b5675103986.md @@ -0,0 +1,306 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 76 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/02/2011 Page 1 of 11 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/ +JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2 +V. +UNITED STATES +JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S REPLY TO GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE TO +MOTION FOR ORDER DIRECTING THE U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE NOT TO +WITHHOLD RELEVANT EVIDENCE +COME NOW Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 (also referred to as "the victims"), by and +through undersigned counsel, to reply to the Government's response (DE #59) to their Motion +for Order Directing the U.S. Attorney's Office Not to Withhold Relevant Evidence (DE #50). +The Government does not dispute that it possesses easily-identifiable and easily-retrievable +information that would help the victims prove that their CVRA rights have been violated. Nor +does the Government deny that it is obligated to use its "best efforts" to insure that victims are +accorded their rights, 18 U.S.C. § 3771(c)(1). For this reason alone, the Court should order the +Government to provide this information to the victims. The Court should also order the +Government to provide this information as part of the victims' right to be "treated with fairness," +18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(8). The Government offers no convincing reasoning as to how it could +possibly be treating the victims fairly to allow the Government to withhold material information +concerning their case. +The Court should therefore enter an order, as it would in any other +1 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 76 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/02/2011 Page 2 of 11 +criminal or civil case, requiring the Government to make appropriate production of such +evidence to the victims. +THE GOVERNMENT IS VIOLATING ITS "BEST EFFORTS" OBLIGATIONS +BY CONTINUING TO WITHOLD EVIDENCE FAVORABLE TO THE +VICTIMS. +In their motion, the victims explained that the CVRA obligates government prosecutors +to "make their best efforts to see that crime victims are ... accorded[] their rights" under the +CVRA. 18 U.S.C. § 3771(c)(1) (emphasis added). The victims also noted that "best efforts" are +usually understood as requiring "[djiligent attempts to carry out an obligation." Victims' Mot. at +4 (citing BLACK's LAw DictIoNArY 169 (8*" ed. 2004)). The victims accordingly argued that +the Government was obligated to produce the information for the victims. +In response, the Government attempts to recast the victims' motion as one seeking some +kind of right of discovery. But the victims are not urging that they themselves have the right to +rummage through the government's files on the chance that they might turn up something useful +for their case. Instead, the victims are simply asking the Court to order the Government to fulfill +its own obligations to produce to the victims information that is highly relevant to this action. +The "best efforts" requirement cannot possibly be understood as allowing the Government to +simply suppress material information regarding this case. +The authorities that the Government cites do not support its far-fetched claim it can +withhold relevant documents. For starters, it does not appear that any of these cases involve +prosecutors' "best efforts" obligations under the CVRA, as it is not clear whether the facts of +these cases (or the victims' attorneys) presented the "best efforts" issue with regard to the +Government withholding material evidence. +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 76 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/02/2011 Page 3 of 11 +Moreover, the first CVRA case cited by the Government - United States v. Rubin, 558 +F.Supp.2d 411 (E.D.N.Y. 2008) - specifically contradicts the Government's position that victims +are not entitled to obtain information from the Government. In Rubin, crime victims argued that +"the government has not provided information with which to pursue restitution in this case." Id. +at 425. The district court agreed that the CVRA "does not authorize an unbridled gallop to any +and all information in the Government files," id. - a point that Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 +readily concede. But the district court went on to state that "[c]onferring with and seeking +information from the government in connection with restitution to be sought in an actual +criminal proceeding, by contrast, would appear to be well within these bounds." Id. (emphasis +added). The district court then went on to note that, because the Government believed some of +the restitution information it possessed was secret grand jury material, it had provided the +victims "with schedules setting forth information based on the grand jury materials that may, +along with continued efforts to obtain the remainder of the grand jury material, fulfill [the +victims'] request." Id. The court went on to note that "[a]t oral argument, moreover, the +government pledged to continue such efforts, to [the victims'] apparent satisfaction." Id. The +court accordingly found it unnecessary to rule further on the victims' motion for production of +information, because the necessary information had apparently been produced. +The Government actions in this case are a far cry from those in Rubin. Rather than +providing the victims with material information (or even summaries of that information), the +Government has simply stonewalled. The Court should accordingly order the Government to +produce the victims what is +"well within the bounds" of the CVRA - that is, material +information about their claims. +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 76 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/02/2011 Page 4 of 11 +The Government also cites several cases in which district courts have declined to turn +over to crime victims their own confidential pre-sentencing reports. Gov't Resp. at 3-4. These +cases about judicial obligations say nothing about prosecutorial obligations under the CVRA +"best efforts" provision. It is unsurprising that the provision does not obligate judges to take +sides in a case and help crime victims obtain their rights; instead, that requirement extends to +"[o]fficers and employees of the Department of Justice and other departments and agencies of +the United States engaged in the detection, investigation, and prosecution of crime." 18 U.S.C. § +3771(c)(1). Thus, while the "best efforts" requirement does not obligate judges to turn over their +own confidential materials (PSRs prepared by the court's probation officers), prosecutors must +provide evidence that would help victims. Indeed, in one of the cases cited by the Government - +United States v. Sacane, 2007 WL 951666 (D. Conn. Mar. 28, 2007) - the Court specifically +stated that the victims should not try to obtain relevant information from the courts but instead +should get it from prosecutors: "If the [victims] believe additional ... disclosures are necessary, +then pursuant to the CVRA they may enlist the assistance of the government; but they are not +permitted to bypass the government and discover information directly from [the defendant]." Id. +at *2 (citing the "best efforts" provision of the CVRA). +In addition, these cases involving PSRs hardly support the Government's position that +relevant evidence can simply be concealed from crime victims - and from the Court. To the +contrary, one of the rationales for these cases holding that victims cannot review the PSR is that +the PSR is already reviewed by the Court. Thus, in the first PSR case cited by the Government, +United States v. Coxton, 598 F.Supp.2d 737 (W.D.N.C. 2009), the Court declined to disclose +PSR information to the victims because "[nJothing in the PSR enhances or changes [the victims' +4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 76 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/02/2011 Page 5 of 11 +restitution] claims. The Court will review the information in the PSR along with the victims' +claims and other factors relevant to restitution, and will make its decision." Id. at 740. Here, of +course, the Court cannot review material information that the Government has decided to +withhold - and victims are deprived of the chance to place that information before the Court. +The Government also cites United States v. Moussaoui, 483 F.3d 220 (4th Cir. 2007). +Moussaoui is completely irrelevant to this case, as it involved efforts by civil litigants to +intervene in a criminal case and obtain discovery for civil litigation. See id. at 224 (plaintiffs +identified as civil tort plaintiffs). +Indeed, before the Fourth Circuit, the civil litigants +"abandoned" any claim that the CVRA even applied. Id. at 234. The Fourth Circuit commented +in dieta that the CVRA rights "are limited to criminal justice process; the Act is therefore silent +and concerned with victims' rights to file civil claims against their assailants." Id. at 234-35 +(emphases added). Moussaoui says nothing about the rights of Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2, +who are seeking to vindicate their CVRA rights in the criminal justice process. +Finally, it is useful to recall that the Government does not deny that it is concealing +relevant information that will help the victims prove their case. Nor does the Government claim +it would be burdensome to produce this information. Instead, the Government simply takes that +position that there is nothing in the CVRA which obligates it to take even the smallest steps to +help the victims. +If accepted, this position would eviscerate the CVRA command that +prosecutors must use their "best efforts" to afford victims their rights. As the victims explained +in their motion (at p. 4), "best efforts" is usually understood "in the natural sense of the words as +requiring that the party puts its muscles to work to perform with full energy and fairness the +relevant express promises and reasonable implications therefrom." Stabile v. Stabile, 774 N.E.2d +5 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 76 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/02/2011 Page 6 of 11 +673, 676 (Mass. App. Ct. 2002). This Court should order the prosecutors to put their muscles to +work to protect the rights of the victims in this case. +Il. +THE VICTIMS HAVE A DUE PROCESS RIGHT UNDER THEIR CVRA +"RIGHT TO BE TREATED WITH FAIRNESS." +The victims are also entitled to receive favorable evidence in the Government's +possession for the +same reason that criminal defendants receive such information: the +fundamental dictates of fairness require that the Government not deliberately withhold relevant +information contrary to its position in court. In their motion (at pp. 5-9), the victims explained +why fairness entitles them to "Brady" information (i.e., information contradicting the +Government's position) no less than criminal defendants. In response, the Government does not +even pretend to argue that it is somehow fair for it to suppress this information. Instead, the +Government raises the technical claim that in the absence of any "protected life, liberty, or +property interest," the Due Process Clause is not triggered. Gov't Resp. at 5. +The Government completely misapprehends the victims' position. The victims are not +arguing that they have a right under the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution to +receive favorable information. ' Instead, they are arguing that they possess such a right under the +CVRA's right to be "treated with fairness." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(8). That right has already been +triggered in this litigation, as the victims are asserting this right. Being treated with fairness +means (at a minimum) receiving due process. As one of the CVRA's co-sponsors (Senator Kyl) +explained, "The broad rights articulated in this section [$ 3771(a)(8)] are meant to be rights +' The Government's distortion of the victims' position is hard to understand in view of +the fact that the victims' specifically stated in their motion that they were not raising a +constitutional argument. See Victims' Motion at 6 ("To be sure, the victims in this case do not +rely on a federal constitutional right to due process." (emphasis in original). +6 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 76 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/02/2011 Page 7 of 11 +themselves and are not intended to just be aspirational. One of these rights is the right to be +treated with fairness. Of course, fairness includes the notion of due process. Too often victims +of crime experience a secondary victimization at the hands of the criminal justice system. This +provision is intended to direct Government agencies and employees, whether they are in +executive or judiciary branches, to treat victims of crime with the respect they deserve." 150 +CONG. REC. S4269 (Apr. 22, 2004) (emphasis added). +It is simply not treating the victims with "the respect they deserve" to withhold from +them relevant evidence that will help prove their case. The courts have repeatedly recognized +that, once criminal defendants request favorable information from the government "the +prosecution's suppression of such evidence, whether in good or bad faith, violates due process." +V. +592 F.3d 1144 (11th Cir. 2010). For the same reasons, the prosecution's +suppression of favorable evidence from the victims violates that their right to be treated with +fairness. The Brady decision explains that "IsJociety wins not only when the guilty are convicted +but when criminal trials are fair; our system of the administration of justice suffers when any +accused is treated unfairly." Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963). So too here - our +system of administering justice will suffer if Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 are treated unfairly. +The Court should therefore order that the Government give the victims of a sex offender the +same kind of information that they would give to the sex offender himself - e.g., favorable +information in the Government's possession that will support the victims' claims. +Ill. +THE VICTIMS ARE ALSO ENTITLED TO DISCLOSURE UNDER THE +FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 76 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/02/2011 Page 8 of 11 +The victims are also entitled to receive information favorable to them under the rules civil +procedure. As explained at greater length in their motion (at pp. 9-10), the Court opened the +victims' CVRA case as a civil case (i.e., as case no. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/ +) and the case +would therefore presumptively appear to be governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. +Accordingly, the victims have fully made their initial disclosures to the Government required by +Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A). The Government, however, has refused to reciprocate any such +disclosures to the victims. +In response to victims' point about the apparently applicability of the rules of civil +procedure, the Government takes a new position. It had previously told the victims that it would +not confer with them about this CVRA case because it was "civil" litigation rather than criminal +litigation. See Victims' Mot. at 9 (citing Doc. #41 at 1-2). Now, the Government finds it +convenient to disavow that earlier position and instead says that it is "happenstance" that this +case is opened as a civil matter. Gov't Resp. at 7. But the Government cannot deny that Rule 1 +of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure makes the civil rules applicable to what is undeniably +currently a civil case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 ("These rules govern the procedure in all civil +actions and proceedings in the United States district courts ...."). If the Government wanted to +be relieved from the obligations of the civil rules or have this case moved to the Court's criminal +docket, it could have filed a motion to that effect. Instead, it has done nothing. Accordingly, the +Government must make the ordinary initial disclosures that it makes in other civil cases. +The Government does not argue that making such disclosures would be burdensome, +unfair, or expensive. Presumably, then, the only reason the Government does not to disclose the +information in its possession is that the materials are somehow embarrassing to the +8 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 76 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/02/2011 Page 9 of 11 +Government's position. This hardly provides a legitimate basis for refusing to make common +litigation disclosures - particularly in light of Congress' command to the Government that it +must make its "best efforts" to protect victims' rights. 18 U.S.C. § 3771(c)(1). +The victims do not wish to engage in a metaphysical debate about whether this case is +more accurately characterized as a "civil" case or a "criminal" case. To the contrary, the victims +are simply trying to get the same kind of information that the Government routinely provides in +all cases. Thus, as the victims explained in their motion (at p. 8), ordinarily in a criminal case +the Court enters a "Standing Discovery Order" that requires the Government to "reveal to the +defendant(s) and permit inspection and copying of all information and material known to the +government which may be favorable to the defendant on the issue of guilt or punishment within +the scope of Brady v. Maryland...." Moreover, for criminal cases local rule 88.10(O) requires +the government to "make every possible effort in good faith to stipulate to all facts ... the truth +or existence of which is not contested and the early resolution of which will expedite the trial." +The Government is basically trying to have this case viewed as neither fish nor fowl: even +though the case has been opened as a civil case, the rules of civil procedure do not apply; but +even though the rules of civil procedure don't apply, the Government is not obligated to provide +the disclosures ordinarily made in criminal cases. The Court should not allow this kind of +gamesmanship. The Government knows full well that it has material information supporting the +victims" case.? The Court should require the Government to produce it. Accordingly, the Court +should enter the proposed order that the victims submitted with their original motion. +" If the Government did not have any such information, it could have simply filed an +affidavit to that effect and the victims" motion would have been moot. Moreover, in + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 76 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/02/2011 Page 10 of 11 +CONCLUSION +For all the foregoing reasons, the Court should order the U.S. Attorney's Office to +produce information favorable to the victims. A proposed order to that effect was attached with +the victims' original motion, which the Court should enter. +DATED: May 2, 2011 +Respectfully Submitted, +JAFFE, WEISSING, +1. FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. +425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 +ort Lauderdale, Florida 3330 +elephone (954) 524-282 +Florida Bar No: 5420732 +E-mail: brad@pathtojustice.com +and +Paul G. Cassell +. Hai Wey College of Law at th +niversity of Uta +332 S. 1400 E. +Salt Lake City, UT 84112 +Telephone: 801-585-5202 +Facsimile: 801-585-6833 +E-Mail: cassellp@law.utah.edu +Attorneys for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 +conversations with the Government, it has been made clear to victims' counsel that the +Government will not produce favorable information that it possesses. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 76 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/02/2011 Page 11 of 11 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +The foregoing document was served on May 2, 2011, on the following using the Court's +CM/ECF system: +Dexter A. Lee +A. +Villafaña +Assistant U.S. Attorneys +500 S. Australian Ave.., Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +(561) 820-8711 +Fax: (561) 820-8777 +E-mail: dexter.lee @usdoj.gov +Attorneys for the Government +Roy Black, Esq. +Jackie Perczek, Esq. +Black, Srebnick, Kornspan & Stumpf, P.A. +201 South Biscayne Boulevard +Suite 1300 +Miami, FL 33131 +(305) 37106421 +(305) 358-2006 +G. Weinberg, P.C. +20 Park Plaza +Suite 1000 +Boston, 02116 +(617) 227-3700 +(617) 338-9538 +L. Ackerman, Jr. +Ackerman, Jr. +Burnett PA +777 S. Flagler Drive, West Tower, Suite 901 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Criminal Defense Counsel for Jeffrey Epstein +(courtesy copy of pleading via U.S. mail) +11 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9c0dd2db0e2ebcb1d194baa57ae5290d184eb9cf393e8ff8295f9b5675103986.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9c0dd2db0e2ebcb1d194baa57ae5290d184eb9cf393e8ff8295f9b5675103986.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8f29f84af936edcac14b023b141de70a324d14d5 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9c0dd2db0e2ebcb1d194baa57ae5290d184eb9cf393e8ff8295f9b5675103986.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -132, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "9c0dd2db0e2ebcb1d194baa57ae5290d184eb9cf393e8ff8295f9b5675103986", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 11, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "dacd1e8ed91b472b23e32242f195645f434d3f50217d02113caf1a1adbbddeee", + "output_sha256": "7e0dd897d9b6b02309fdaf2b4079b0d0ee8bee616cf67f466ccf4112e97e7f1c", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9c1e0e2e333c5637f03059effbb1d66cf4743cc5a4f998513eb1ea266afe3ebd.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9c1e0e2e333c5637f03059effbb1d66cf4743cc5a4f998513eb1ea266afe3ebd.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b3390477980af201196d3a90a5c53ddd84c01a11 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9c1e0e2e333c5637f03059effbb1d66cf4743cc5a4f998513eb1ea266afe3ebd.md @@ -0,0 +1,59 @@ +Case 9:09-cv-80802-KAM Document 5 +Entered on FLSD Docket 06/05/2009 Page 1 of 2 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 09-CV-80802-MARRA- +JANE DOE NO. 8 +V. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Plaintiff, +Defendant. +NOTICE OF APPEARANCE +Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman, LLP file their appearance as counsel for +Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, in the above-styled matter. +Certificate of Service +¡ 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 5** day of June, 2009: +Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. +Jeffrey Marc Herman, Esq. +Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. +18205 Biscayne Boulevard +Suite 2218 +Miami, FL 33160 +305-931-2200 +Fax: 305-931-0877 +ahorowitz@hermanlaw.com +jherman@hermanlaw.com +Irivera@hermanlaw.com +Counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe #5 +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 +jagesq@bellsouth.net +Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein + + +Case 9:09-cv-80802-KAM Document 5 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/05/2009 Page 2 of 2 +Jane Doe No. 8 v. Epstein +Page 2 +Respectfully submitted, +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER +& COLEMAN, LLP +515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, +- 33401 +(561) 842-2820 +By: _ +Robert D. Critton, Jr. +Florida Bar #224162 +Michael J. Pike +Florida Bar #617296 +Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein +rcrit@bclclaw.com +mpike@bclclaw.com diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9c1e0e2e333c5637f03059effbb1d66cf4743cc5a4f998513eb1ea266afe3ebd.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9c1e0e2e333c5637f03059effbb1d66cf4743cc5a4f998513eb1ea266afe3ebd.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3b54d23ba3c9fad8d713eced0648a461f36947d6 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9c1e0e2e333c5637f03059effbb1d66cf4743cc5a4f998513eb1ea266afe3ebd.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -24, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "9c1e0e2e333c5637f03059effbb1d66cf4743cc5a4f998513eb1ea266afe3ebd", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "86dfc746b0bfe05fcd9866ae9c53955ceb01d28be95e60867bd49e54cec84810", + "output_sha256": "525a2c9f4bad8f3d69c66724c1bd26bbdaa5496697f491122610e685db376529", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9c56d3aaa66fd8e47beaafdc68c2323090dc35cbe90efda5509e26f35b7cfc4f.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9c56d3aaa66fd8e47beaafdc68c2323090dc35cbe90efda5509e26f35b7cfc4f.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2d554cc6ba49c682c2181eb94a8c2f3880d9f0cc --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9c56d3aaa66fd8e47beaafdc68c2323090dc35cbe90efda5509e26f35b7cfc4f.md @@ -0,0 +1,86 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 30 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2008 + +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA- +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff, +08 +ED BY +1C- +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +PM12: 24 +FILED EX PARTE +UNDER SEAL + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 30 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2008 Page 2 of 4 +NOTICE OF CONTINUED PENDENCY +OF FEDERAL CRIMINAL ACTION +Defendant Jeffrey Epstein hereby notifies the Court of the continued +pendency of a federal criminal action against him, stating as follows: +On June 30, 2008, after defendant Jeffrey Epstein filed his motion to stay +[DE 13], he was sentenced in the state-court criminal case described in that motion +(State of Florida v. Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 2006 CF 09454 AXX, Fifteenth +Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County) (the "Florida Criminal Action"). As +explained below, the parallel federal criminal action against him described in that +motion (In re Grand Jury, No. FGJ 07-103(WPB), United States District Court for +the Southern District of Florida) (the "Federal Criminal Action"), remains pending. +On September 24, 2007, the United States Attorney's Office for the +Southern District of Florida ("USAO"), represented by Assistant United States +Attorney Ann +C. Villafana, Esq., and Mr. Epstein, entered into a deferredprosecution agreement ("Agreement"), which the parties agreed to keep +confidential. Prior to entering into that Agreement, Ms. Villafana advised that she +had already prepared a federal criminal indictment against Mr. Epstein in the +Federal Criminal Action. +Under the Agreement, beginning on the date Mr. Epstein began serving his +sentence in the Florida Criminal Action, the USAO agreed to suspend its grand +jury investigation in the Federal Criminal Action. The USAO, however, retains the +2 + + +Case 9:08-Cv-80380-KAM Document 30 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2008 Page 3 of 4 +right to reactivate the grand jury and indict Mr. Epstein should he breach any part +of the Agreement during its term, which runs for 33 months, beginning on the date +Mr. Epstein began serving his sentence in the Florida Criminal Action. +Accordingly, the Federal Criminal Action will remain pending against Mr. Epstein +for 33 months from June 30, 2008. +Mr. Epstein will provide the Court with a copy of the confidential +Agreement for its in-camera inspection at the Court's request. +WHEREFORE, Defendant Jeffrey Epstein hereby notifies the Court of the +continued pendency of the Federal Criminal Action. +Respectfully submitted, +TEIN, P.L. +3059 Grand Avenue, Suite 340 +Coconut Grove, Florida 33133 +Tel: 305 442 1101 +Fax: 305 442 674 +By: +lumpete: +GUY A. +Fla. Bar No. 623740 +MICHAEL R. TEIN +Fla. Bar No. 993522 +tein@lewistein.com +3 + + +• Case 9:08-Cv-80380-KAM Document 30 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2008 Page 4 of 4 +ATTERBURY, GOLDBERGER & WEISS, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 +Tel. 561 659 8300 +Fax. 561 835 8691 +By: Jack A. Goldberger +Fla. Bar No. 262013 +jgoldberger@agwpa.com +Attorneys for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I HEREBY CERTIFY that this motion, in accordance with S.D. Fla. L.R. +5.4, has not been served on opposing counsel and was filed under seal on July 10, +2008. +Minutei +Michael R. Tein +4 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9c56d3aaa66fd8e47beaafdc68c2323090dc35cbe90efda5509e26f35b7cfc4f.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9c56d3aaa66fd8e47beaafdc68c2323090dc35cbe90efda5509e26f35b7cfc4f.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3ba81dfd42352aa6e3ec029d8eda2d84112ae4d8 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9c56d3aaa66fd8e47beaafdc68c2323090dc35cbe90efda5509e26f35b7cfc4f.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -61, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "9c56d3aaa66fd8e47beaafdc68c2323090dc35cbe90efda5509e26f35b7cfc4f", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 6, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "81a8cf1e5a87a4a2178e7e6804eb28294a8bbfdf66149974f1c0b2fe579dfce5", + "output_sha256": "8b7d71b670e09d0bae840c0b5420ca52530f2e0dcb4bb337a24106598685de3b", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9c5c80ca211a4a9950144efb80bc969048a105131d60b4bb6885ab5e5a92c230.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9c5c80ca211a4a9950144efb80bc969048a105131d60b4bb6885ab5e5a92c230.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..24b7077076722634f52201da5889eb4dcccaf02d --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9c5c80ca211a4a9950144efb80bc969048a105131d60b4bb6885ab5e5a92c230.md @@ -0,0 +1,43 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 70-1 +• Entered on FLSD Docket 04/03/2009 Page 1 of 2 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 5, +VS. +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/ +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/ +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/JOHNSON +ORDER + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 70-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/03/2009 Page 2 of 2 +Upon Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Enlargement of Time to File Reply Memoranda in +Support of Motions to Compel Answers to Interrogatories and Production of Documents, and good +cause being shown, it is hereby +ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion is granted. Plaintiffs shall have an enlargement of time of +two (2) weeks, until April 20, 2009, to file reply memoranda in support of the Motions to Compel +Answers to Interrogatories and Production of Documents. +DONE AND ORDERED in +1. in Ft. Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, this +day of +- 2009. +DISTRICT COURT JUDGE diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9c5c80ca211a4a9950144efb80bc969048a105131d60b4bb6885ab5e5a92c230.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9c5c80ca211a4a9950144efb80bc969048a105131d60b4bb6885ab5e5a92c230.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..849ffabc15aaf636921ab2dc96474485f0fb0cb7 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9c5c80ca211a4a9950144efb80bc969048a105131d60b4bb6885ab5e5a92c230.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -24, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "9c5c80ca211a4a9950144efb80bc969048a105131d60b4bb6885ab5e5a92c230", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "06a262bb8086fccb871ad8f6a19d75e4c88758f03a838e697c193943229a2029", + "output_sha256": "98e8f2dac6bc1f0583eb23ab4c6a1f306d87ad05d35891d72b4090fd90ea5947", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9c6c9cbaed96fa2793ebe697e3c423e69b331c1dc8d3277a4de0a94c7ae7b04f.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9c6c9cbaed96fa2793ebe697e3c423e69b331c1dc8d3277a4de0a94c7ae7b04f.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..73f3c0891f099d0801369bc7271f4ebab38b01fd --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9c6c9cbaed96fa2793ebe697e3c423e69b331c1dc8d3277a4de0a94c7ae7b04f.md @@ -0,0 +1,99 @@ +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 361-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/20/2009 Page 1 of 4 +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 349 +Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2009 Page 1 of 4 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/. +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintifi, +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, +PLAINTIFFS JANE DOE NOS. 2-8' RESPONSE AND +MOTION TO STRIKE ARGUMENT PORTION OF +DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF NINETY DAYS EXPIRING +Plaintiffs, Jane Does Nos. 2-8, by and through undersigned counsel, and pursuant +to Southern District of Florida Local Rule 7.1.B.3, hereby file this Response and Motion +to Strike Argument Portion of Defendant's Notice of Ninety Days Expiring, and state as +follows: +1. +On October 14, 2009, Defendant Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") filed a +Notice of Ninety Days Expiring (D.E. 347) (the "Notice"), alerting this Court to the +passage of ninety days since various motions have been fully briefed. +2. +While Plaintiffs share Epstein's interest in having these motions decided +so that discovery in these cases can move forward efficiently, Plaintiffs object and move +to strike the argument portion of the Notice. Epstein improperly uses the Notice as a +vehicle to make additional legal arguments on motions that have been fully briefed, and +"EXHIBH A" + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 361-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/20/2009 Page 2 of 4 +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 349 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2009 Page 2 of 4 +thereby attempt to prejudice the Plaintiffs. In particular, in paragraphs 6-9, Epstein +argues his Motions to Compel, and seeks to attack the Plaintiffs' arguments and approach +to discovery. This is inappropriate and unauthorized by S.D.Fla.L.R. 7.1.B.3. +WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, Jane Doe Nos. 2-8, respectfully request an Order striking the +argument portion of Jeffrey Epstein's "Notice of Ninety Days Expiring" (D.E. 347) in its +entirety, and all other and further relief this Court deems just and proper. +Dated: October 14, 2009. +Respectfully submitted, +By:_ +s/ Adam D. Horowitz. +Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245) +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980) +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P.A. +Attorneys for Plaintiffs +18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 +Miami, Florida 33160 +Telephone: (305) 931-2200 +Facsimile: (305) 931-0877 +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 361-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/20/2009 Page 3 of 4 +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 349 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2009 Page 3 of 4 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I hereby certify that on October 14, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing +document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing +document is being served this day to all parties on the attached Service List in the manner +specified, either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF +or in some other authorized manner for those parties who are not authorized to receive +electronically Notices of Electronic Filing +/s/ Adam D. Horowitz. +3 + + +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 361-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/20/2009 Page 4 of 4 +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 349 +Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2009 Page 4 of 4 +SERVICE LIST +DOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +jgoldberger@agwpa.com +Robert D. Critton, Esq. +rcritton@bclclaw.com +James +bedwards@rra-law.com +Isidro Manuel +isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net +Jack +jph@searcylaw.com +Katherine Warthen Ezell +KEzell@podhurst.com +Michael James Pike +MPike@bclclaw.com +Paul G. Cassell +cassellp@law.utah.edu +Richard Horace Willits +lawyerwillits@aol.com +Robert C. Josefsberg +rjosefsberg@podhurst.com +4 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9c6c9cbaed96fa2793ebe697e3c423e69b331c1dc8d3277a4de0a94c7ae7b04f.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9c6c9cbaed96fa2793ebe697e3c423e69b331c1dc8d3277a4de0a94c7ae7b04f.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9296f2d4af3a6cb82513d3b0a14e7b6a5bbc6120 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9c6c9cbaed96fa2793ebe697e3c423e69b331c1dc8d3277a4de0a94c7ae7b04f.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -48, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "9c6c9cbaed96fa2793ebe697e3c423e69b331c1dc8d3277a4de0a94c7ae7b04f", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 4, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "8d8c8009c50101f9df79140fc1999d6ec901287725e2aa8b6a2b9c11ae7a08e7", + "output_sha256": "3424f1877c1547e4666e0f28bdf631e1dfb6ab0672a09a7eab3859cb3ef4778f", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9c86ee795f8e8b4e6b9ea221c1dac477ecc8636ca2e22b07326ffb207caf5539.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9c86ee795f8e8b4e6b9ea221c1dac477ecc8636ca2e22b07326ffb207caf5539.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..64c2cee61a9cec2b6e595a96417b0fc42f7bc874 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9c86ee795f8e8b4e6b9ea221c1dac477ecc8636ca2e22b07326ffb207caf5539.md @@ -0,0 +1,38 @@ +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 54 Filed 02/18/20 Page 1 of 1 +KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP +350 FIFTH AVENUE | SUITE 7110 +NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10118 +TEL (212) 763-0883 | FAX (212) 564-0883 +WWW.KAPLANHECKER.COM +DIRECT DIAL 212.763.0884 +DIRECT EMAIL rkaplan@kaplanhecker.com +MEMO ENDORSED +February 14, 2020 +VIA ECE +The Honorable Katherine Polk Failla +United States District Court +Southern District of New York +Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse +40 Foley Square +New York, NY 10007 +Re: +Doe v. Indyke et al., No. 19-cv-8673-KPF (S.D.N.Y.) +Dear Judge Failla: +We represent Plaintiff Jane Doe in the above-captioned action. Pursuant to Rule 4(E) of +Your Honor's Individual Rules of Practice, we write to request oral argument on Defendants' +Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. No. 46.) +Respectfully submitted, +Roder +Roberta A. Kaplan +cc: Counsel of Record +The Court is in receipt of the above request from Plaintiff. +(Dkt. +#53). The Court will schedule oral argument if and when it +believes oral argument will be useful to the Court in resolving the +motion to dismiss. +Dated: February 18, 2020 +New York, New York +SO ORDERED. +Katherine Pall Faila +HON. KATHERINE POLK FAILLA +UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9c86ee795f8e8b4e6b9ea221c1dac477ecc8636ca2e22b07326ffb207caf5539.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9c86ee795f8e8b4e6b9ea221c1dac477ecc8636ca2e22b07326ffb207caf5539.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9f02d5b0a62b47d894a976eccb4101a0051abf51 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9c86ee795f8e8b4e6b9ea221c1dac477ecc8636ca2e22b07326ffb207caf5539.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "9c86ee795f8e8b4e6b9ea221c1dac477ecc8636ca2e22b07326ffb207caf5539", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "f8e2120ad7d15bb9d387c24dfcb47f92915a6739c1a6c270648177ec55f48d26", + "output_sha256": "53dfa0d6615b2b687c9b8be4baf82e8a93e04e74d19f85a837a1eedb39754226", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9c9b3eee30bfcf7259c4b915527aa4845508e613d937ae2a37a16205852e8a00.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9c9b3eee30bfcf7259c4b915527aa4845508e613d937ae2a37a16205852e8a00.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7467c6b5407461a154165f7bf1ae53ab80203236 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9c9b3eee30bfcf7259c4b915527aa4845508e613d937ae2a37a16205852e8a00.md @@ -0,0 +1,61 @@ +Filing # 165889453 E-Filed 02/01/2023 10:24:49 AM +IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE +FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN +AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, +FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 50-2019-CA-014681-AG +CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC, +Publisher of THE PALM BEACH POST, +Plaintiff, +v. +DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of +alm Beach County, Florida; SHARON I +OCK. as Clerk and Comptroller of Paln +Beach County, Florida, +COPY +Defendants. +ORDER DENYING THE AMENDED MOTION FOR +ATTORNEYS' FEES UNDER FLORIDA STATUTES SECTION 57.105 +THIS CAUSE having come before the Court on September 6 and 8, 2022 on State Attorney +Dave Aronberg's November 9, 2020 Amended Motion for Attorneys' Fees Under Florida Statutes +Section 57.105, and the Court having reviewed the Amended Motion, the evidence presented, and +arguments of counsel, and being otherwise fully and duly advised in the premises, it is hereby, +ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: +State Attorney Dave Aronberg's November 9, 2020 Amended Motion for +Attorneys Fees under Florida Statutes Section 57.105 (the "Amended Motion") is hereby +DENIED. +Under Florida Statutes Section 57.105, a court may award reasonable attorneys' +fees only if "the court finds that the losing party or the losing party's attorney knew or should have +known that a claim or defense when initially presented to the court or at any time before trial: +(a) Was not supported by the material facts necessary to establish the claim or defense; or +FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, +ABRUZZO, CLERK, 02/01/2023 10:24:49 AM + + +(b) Would not be supported by the application of then-existing law to those material facts." Fla. +Stat. § 57.105(1). +3. +The Court heard the testimony of the parties and finds the testimony of Mr. +Aronberg reliable and credible, and resolves the conflicts in the testimony in favor of Mr. +Aronberg; however, the "Amended Motion" is the only motion for fees that was set for hearing, +and for reasons stated below Mr. Aronberg's motion is denied - solely on procedural grounds. +4. +The Amended Motion did not comply with the strict "safe harbor" notice provision +of section 57.105(4), which requires the motion to be served on the non-moving party at least 21 +days before it is filed. +The Court must deny the Amended Motion See MC Liberty Express, Inc., 252 So. +3d at 403 ("[I]n order to have properly complied with section 57.105, [the filing party] must have +first served the proposed motion upon the party it sought to sanction"; "The primary purpose of +section 57.105's safe harbor provision is to provide the recipient of the motion with notice and the +opportunity to withdraw or abandon a frivolous claim before sanctions are sought."). +6. +Accordingly, the July J, 2020 Motion for Attorneys' Fees is DENIED. +DONE AND ORDERED in +, at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida +502019CA014681XXXXMB +Luis Delgado +Circult Judge +01/31/2023 +cc: All counsel of +record +2 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9c9b3eee30bfcf7259c4b915527aa4845508e613d937ae2a37a16205852e8a00.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9c9b3eee30bfcf7259c4b915527aa4845508e613d937ae2a37a16205852e8a00.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a94c53aea1dcd1d16f407dbc6263a636302d870e --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9c9b3eee30bfcf7259c4b915527aa4845508e613d937ae2a37a16205852e8a00.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -24, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "9c9b3eee30bfcf7259c4b915527aa4845508e613d937ae2a37a16205852e8a00", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "7f3da5a0285e81b3282a273808b2a315345af840d8232c05f136dd25133a692d", + "output_sha256": "1b79fff2012edcceea246a57024cdfb0b5043f7072badd73a67579ffbfbe2273", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9cbb7a3424b64edbb0fa325fd1cbab87fc0535cd10c4a3c9083a5bd6edf6dd4c.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9cbb7a3424b64edbb0fa325fd1cbab87fc0535cd10c4a3c9083a5bd6edf6dd4c.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e3ecc6ba26b2fde71b1d8263d11a549bbe51ed07 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9cbb7a3424b64edbb0fa325fd1cbab87fc0535cd10c4a3c9083a5bd6edf6dd4c.md @@ -0,0 +1,83 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 414 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/18/2009 Page 1 of 3 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO. 08-CIV-80119-MARRA +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 Defendant Epstein's Emergency Motion for +Order of the Preservation of Evidence (D.E. #405). +By this Motion, Epstein moves for an order requiring Herbert Stettin, the State Court +appointed receiver ("Receiver") and Chief Restructuring Officer ("CRO") of the Rothstein, +Rosenfeldt, Adler, P.A. ("RRA") law firm, to preserve all evidence relevant to the investment +scheme referenced in the Motion and further prohibit the individuals at the RRA Law Firm +from tampering, destroying or altering any such evidence.' In his response to the Motion, +' The Motion also sought to have the order apply and be directed to " +a 'partner' in [RRA and] Stuart Rosenfeldt as partner/shareholder and +receiver of RRA" (Def's Emer. Mtn., p. 1). However, on November 11, 2009, a resolution +was entered appointing Stettin as the CRO of RRA and delegating to him all operational +and managerial control over RRA. This Resolution effectively removed Rosenfeldt from +all managerial roles at RRA, and to the extent +had any managerial roles, +1 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 414 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/18/2009 Page 2 of 3 +Stettin has represented that he intends to continue to fully comply with his fiduciary duties +both as receiver and now as CRO of an alleged bankruptcy debtor, and to comply with 11 +U.S.C. §101 et seq., which requires a debtor in possession to behave and function with the +same types of responsibilities as a trustee. Stettin's Resp., pp. 2-3. Accordingly, Stettin +contends he has no objection to the entry of an order consistent with his fiduciary +obligations. Id. at 3. This language has been interpreted by counsel for Epstein and by this +Court as Stettin having no objection to the entry of a preservation order consistent with his +fiduciary/trustee duties for RRA +However, Stettin goes on to state that to the extent Defendant wishes for Stettin to +produce documents or to sit for deposition on November 19, 2009, he requests a +continuance of at least forty-five (45) days so that he can attend to the continuing critical +and pressing needs occasioned by RRA's collapse. While the Court understands the +difficult position Stettin has been placed in and believes that he has been working +expeditiously to deal with the onerous job of stabilizing the law firm, unfortunately there are +deadlines in place in this case with respect to the exchange of expert witness reports, +deposition discovery deadline, and so forth, that will expire before the requested forty-five +(45) day extension lapses. Consequently, were the Curt to agree to the extension +requested, Epstein could be severely prejudiced. +Accordingly, counsel for Epstein and Stettin are hereby ordered to immediately +confer and reach agreement on mutually acceptable terms for inclusion in a proposed +agreed upon preservation of evidence order, which proposed order shall be filed with the +effectively removed him as well, resulting in Stettin, as CRO, being the only executive at +RRA. +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 414 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/18/2009 Page 3 of 3 +Court and a copy delivered to the undersigned for her signature within five (5) days from +the date hereof. In the meantime the temporary order requiring the preservation of +evidence and the maintenance of the status quo (D.E. #408) is hereby renewed and shall +continue in effect until such time as the proposed order referred to above has been issued +by the Court. As for the deposition and document production noticed for November 19, +2009, same shall be continued, but in view of the fast approaching scheduling deadlines, +only for ten (10) days instead of the forty-five (45) days requested. In accordance with the +foregoing, counsel for the parties are ordered to immediately confer and reach agreement +upon a mutually acceptable date and time for deposition and document production to take +place no later then (10) days from the date hereof. The Court observes that the District +Court has before it a motion to continue the scheduling deadlines in this case (D.E. #361), +and that if such motion is granted, the forty-five (45) day extension requested by Stettin +shall be automatically granted and counsel for the parties are instructed to once again +confer and reach agreement upon a date and time for deposition and document production +to take place within forty-five (45) days from the date hereof. +DONE AND ORDERED this November 18, 2009, in +at West Palm +Beach, Florida. +LINNEA R. JOHNSON +UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE +CC: +The Honorable Kenneth A. Marra +All Counsel of Record +3 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9cbb7a3424b64edbb0fa325fd1cbab87fc0535cd10c4a3c9083a5bd6edf6dd4c.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9cbb7a3424b64edbb0fa325fd1cbab87fc0535cd10c4a3c9083a5bd6edf6dd4c.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..87f09005bf74ac905ecae8ef9b60cca5584b78e7 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9cbb7a3424b64edbb0fa325fd1cbab87fc0535cd10c4a3c9083a5bd6edf6dd4c.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -36, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "9cbb7a3424b64edbb0fa325fd1cbab87fc0535cd10c4a3c9083a5bd6edf6dd4c", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 3, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "ea357fe14adf500b4bc82607bd83af0ee7ef5662c0e7682c55c36b301cb8c426", + "output_sha256": "23f5dd34358c1c375ef4b89fc7ff984c4b0f86017d1f80a28693c5c038075ed1", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9cf8ecc2f436f1d5f29aa6ad6e5505e0e216420b2da0f5821e1542a71464cfd3.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9cf8ecc2f436f1d5f29aa6ad6e5505e0e216420b2da0f5821e1542a71464cfd3.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..096e0aa416a230cc718fe10ca3600cf1e931be77 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9cf8ecc2f436f1d5f29aa6ad6e5505e0e216420b2da0f5821e1542a71464cfd3.md @@ -0,0 +1,27 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 132-3 +Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2009 Page 1 of 1 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA- +JANE DOE NO. 4, +V. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Plaintiff, +Defendant. +ORDER ON DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S UNOPPOSED FIRST MOTION TO AMEND +AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT +This matter came before the Court on Defendant's, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Unopposed First Motion to Amend Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiff's Second Amended +Complaint. Having considered Defendant's motion and Plaintiff's counsel being in +agreement with the requested amendment, it is HEREBY ORDERED and ADJUDGED +that: +Defendant's motion to amend is hereby GRANTED, Defendant shall file the +Amended Answer within five (5) days. +DONE and ORDERED this +day of +, 2009. +Kenneth A. Marra +United States District Judge +Courtesy Copies: +Counsel of Record +- 5- diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9cf8ecc2f436f1d5f29aa6ad6e5505e0e216420b2da0f5821e1542a71464cfd3.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9cf8ecc2f436f1d5f29aa6ad6e5505e0e216420b2da0f5821e1542a71464cfd3.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e909458f93cbeb748aff86a5c05f813136fbd3e9 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9cf8ecc2f436f1d5f29aa6ad6e5505e0e216420b2da0f5821e1542a71464cfd3.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "9cf8ecc2f436f1d5f29aa6ad6e5505e0e216420b2da0f5821e1542a71464cfd3", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "9c1df42b3dc47d9c62cb1f5ff332cdd89b195814dff6e6d357cd194fefc50917", + "output_sha256": "9316d6e7ccd1b4ac23f29f89befb7307ea15d53f486d7bad20ddfb76bcd1e875", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9d32337ee545276b0f266047d77ff335e91fd305674be5532e046a726cc4db58.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9d32337ee545276b0f266047d77ff335e91fd305674be5532e046a726cc4db58.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6bb0af2524f3ed601bc7bebf58a4aacc51e815a6 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9d32337ee545276b0f266047d77ff335e91fd305674be5532e046a726cc4db58.md @@ -0,0 +1,33 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 223-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2009 Page 1 of 2 +DECLARATION OF JANE DOE NO. 4 +1, 1 +, state as follows: +2. +I am the Plaintiff identified as Jane Doe No. 4 in this lawsuit. +During the past week, three investigators working on behalf of Jeffrey Epstein +contacted the office of my former employer, Florida Realty, on three separate occasions. +During the contacts, the investigators asked my former employer personal +questions about me, including whom I am dating and how they can contact my ex-boyfriend. +The investigators obtained the name of my ex-boyfriend from my former employer and have +been repeatedly contacting a former co-worker to get the telephone number of my ex-boyfriend. +Once they obtained the number of my ex-boyfriend, they have repeatedly contact him, asking +very personal questions about my relationship with him, as well as my current relationship, +employment, and residence. +4. None of the individuals whom the investigators have contacted or attempted to +contact knew that I am a plaintiff in a childhood sexual abuse lawsuit against Jeffrey Epstein, but +now they are asking me questions about it. +5. +I am worried that Jeffrey Epstein will continue to send investigators to speak with +people I know who do not know that I am a Plaintiff in this lawsuit. I am concerned that the +investigators will ask these people very personal questions about my life and disclose that I am a +Plaintiff in a sexual abuse lawsuit against Jeffrey Epstein. It could cause problems in my social +circle and with my future employment and educational opportunities if people find out that I am +a plaintiff in a childhood sexual abuse suit against Jeffrey Epstein. +I declare under penalty of perjury the foregoing to be true and correct. + +B + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 223-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2009 Page 2 of 2 +Dated this 1] day of _July, 2009 +D alka/ Jane Doe No. 4 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9d32337ee545276b0f266047d77ff335e91fd305674be5532e046a726cc4db58.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9d32337ee545276b0f266047d77ff335e91fd305674be5532e046a726cc4db58.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..54f69d009f66c25cfede0fad8f107e348710e394 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9d32337ee545276b0f266047d77ff335e91fd305674be5532e046a726cc4db58.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -31, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "9d32337ee545276b0f266047d77ff335e91fd305674be5532e046a726cc4db58", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 3, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "3487128096ad29691ddcf5c302fee827e8c032e3a6720a9923547c778b142a99", + "output_sha256": "50358c41f612f3d5c2bbdda70a2be6b35d6c4e3a1ffa8f92e79c10b4187a4191", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9d6c09b52b60bd2eb58f48d588e405d8e7a7ed18f22448e8e9e0f19c5f879341.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9d6c09b52b60bd2eb58f48d588e405d8e7a7ed18f22448e8e9e0f19c5f879341.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5954a4a6f8bfa3b9fc961658fa0fa64dbe254035 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9d6c09b52b60bd2eb58f48d588e405d8e7a7ed18f22448e8e9e0f19c5f879341.md @@ -0,0 +1,105 @@ +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 54 Filed 07/15/20 Page 1 of 3 +PANISH +BOYLE +LLP +July 15, 2020 +VIA ECE +Hon. Debra C. Freeman +Daniel _ +Moynihan +United States Courthouse +500 Pearl Street +New York, NY 10007 +Re: Doe v. Indyke, et al., 1:20-cv-000484-JGK-DCF +Request for Informal Discovery Conference +Dear Judge Freeman: +We are writing on behalf of our client, plaintiff Jane Doe, in the above-referenced +litigation. This case arises out of years of child rape, sexual abuse and exploitation of Jane Doe +by Jeffrey Epstein and his accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell. Jane Doe was their first known +victim and was subsequently abused by Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell for years as a young girl, +suffering unimaginable physical and psychological trauma and distress. +Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 37.2, Jane Doe hereby requests an informal conference with +the Court for a pre-motion discovery conference. The need for this conference has, +unfortunately, arisen as a result of defendants Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, Co- +Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein ("the Epstein Estate") engaging in obstructionist +litigation tactics intended to stonewall and deprive Jane Doe of plainly relevant discovery. +Indeed, even though Jane Doe served the Epstein Estate with written discovery requests and +interrogatories nearly three months ago, she has not received a single substantive response nor a +single page of evidence from the Epstein Estate to date. It is clear that absent court intervention, +the Epstein Estate will not comply with its basic discovery obligations. For these reasons and +those that follow, we request the Court's guidance and assistance prior to the filing of a formal +After a lengthy phone call on June 30 between counsel that lasted over an hour and a half +discussing each other's initial discovery responses, we agreed that Jane Doe would provide +supplemental responses to the Epstein Estate on July 7 and that the Epstein Estate would provide +responsive documents to our requests on July 13. On July 7, she did just that and provided +supplemental responses which included over 190 pages of documents that the Epstein Estate +requested. The Epstein Estate, however, failed to provide a single page of evidence to us on the +July 13 deadline despite assurances from its counsel that it would and that it had already +11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700 - Los Angeles, California 90025 - 310.477.1700 phone - 310.477.1699 fax - www.psblaw.com + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 54 Filed 07/15/20 +PARİSH +BOYLE, +Hon. Debra C. Freeman +Daniel +Moynihan +United States Courthouse +July 15, 2020 +Page 2 +identified documents within the possession, custody and control of the Estate containing Jane +Doe's name and information. And as of the time of writing this letter, the Epstein Estate has not +offered any explanation whatsoever as to why the documents were not produced or when we can +even except to receive them, if at all. +The information Jane Doe seeks from the Epstein Estate is clearly relevant and material +to her case. For instance, the Estate was asked to identify and describe all interactions the coexecutors Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn (and Jeffrey Epstein himself) had with Jane Doe. +Rather than provide a straightforward response, the Estate feigned confusion about the word +"interactions" saying that it is vague and ambiguous and failed to provide any substantive +response. The Epstein Estate also asserted the same boilerplate objections and response to +nearly each of the 30 document requests sent to the Estate stating, in essence, that it would not +provide documents unless we: (1) agreed to keep those documents confidential (without any +showing whatsoever how or why the documents would be, in fact, confidential), (2) agreed on an +undefined "ESI protocol" and (3) agreed to "mutually agreeable search parameters." The Epstein +Estate then concluded each response by stating that it "will meet and confer with counsel for +Plaintiff about the search as soon as practicable." The Epstein Estate cannot, and should not, get +away with constructing baseless legal barriers, firewalls and conditions all designed to deprive +Plaintiff from obtaining basic information. This is especially true given that, as discussed above, +counsel for the Epstein Estate already represented to us that documents within the Estate's +possession pertaining to Jane Doe have already been identified. +On the other hand, the Epstein Estate seeks largely irrelevant and, quite frankly, +outrageous information from Jane Doe. For instance, in one such request to Jane Doe, the +Epstein Estate sought documents concerning any and all medical procedures and consultations +she has ever had throughout her lifetime, including while she was a minor, even if such medical +care had nothing at all to do with Jeffrey Epstein's abuse of her. +The Epstein Estate also sought copies of each and every page of Jane Doe's passport, her +birth certificate, documents pertaining to each and every address Jane Doe ever lived at +throughout her lifetime, documents pertaining to all financial support or income Jane Doe ever +received throughout her lifetime and documents pertaining to all phone numbers she has ever +used throughout her lifetime. +We also request to discuss deposition scheduling with the Court. Mainly, we previously +scheduled the deposition of Darren Indyke for August 7 after clearing the date with his personal +counsel and counsel for the Epstein Estate. Then, for whatever reason, counsel for the Epstein +Estate on July 14 abruptly sent an email stating that his office was going to "mark" Mr. Indyke's +deposition off calendar. Accordingly, not only is the Epstein Estate failing to provide any + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 54 Filed 07/15/20 +BOYLE™ +Hon. Debra C. Freeman +Daniel +Moynihan +United States Courthouse +July 15, 2020 +Page 3 +information to Jane Doe in this case but now, it would appear, it is also attempting to prevent her +from obtaining testimony from critical witnesses. This behavior flies in the face of fairness, +professionalism and much needed justice for Plaintiff. +Finally, we would also like to discuss scheduling a deposition of defendant Ghislaine +Maxwell as soon as practicable. Given her incarcerated status, we understand there are some +addition hoops we will need to jump through and would of course work with her counsel and the +appropriate authorities on coordinating an in-person or virtual deposition of Ms. Maxwell that +takes place at a mutually agreeable time. +Respectfully submitted, +PANISH SHEA & BOYLE +/s/ Robert Glassman +Robert Glassman \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9d6c09b52b60bd2eb58f48d588e405d8e7a7ed18f22448e8e9e0f19c5f879341.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9d6c09b52b60bd2eb58f48d588e405d8e7a7ed18f22448e8e9e0f19c5f879341.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e1470e8f830f578b96847c399a958be91a917986 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9d6c09b52b60bd2eb58f48d588e405d8e7a7ed18f22448e8e9e0f19c5f879341.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -60, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "9d6c09b52b60bd2eb58f48d588e405d8e7a7ed18f22448e8e9e0f19c5f879341", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 5, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "cd9958a2bb0c5a5d7f70540f519d9f2816c52598ee51eb3bdda07efc72e36626", + "output_sha256": "c869716b8b8ae37f6296e0cc3f585d4949673fa207a586271d2d7fd297a69871", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9d767db8fb85d630393eb4136239b74168f284653d5fccfac679e618e909fa21.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9d767db8fb85d630393eb4136239b74168f284653d5fccfac679e618e909fa21.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..336cf7cc1666db58ab08f1f1cc5d27038a6be3f6 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9d767db8fb85d630393eb4136239b74168f284653d5fccfac679e618e909fa21.md @@ -0,0 +1,547 @@ +Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 60 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2009 Page 1 of 16 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff +CASE NO: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff +CASE NO: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/_ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant + + +Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 60 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2009 Page 2 of 16 +JANE DOE NO. 5, +Plaintiff +CASE NO: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/_ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant +JANE DOE NO. 6. +Plaintiff +CASE NO: 08-CV-80994-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant +JANE DOE NO. 7, +Plaintiff +CASE NO: 08-CV-80993-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant +2 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 60 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2009 Page 3 of 16 +CASE NO: 08-CV-80811-MARRA/ +C.M.A., +Plaintiff +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO. 08-CV-80893-CIV-MARRA/_ +Vs. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et al. +Defendant. +DOE II, +CASE NO: 09-CV-80469-MARRA/ +Plaintiff +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et al. +Defendants. +3 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 60 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2009 Page 4 of 16 +JANE DOE NO. 101, +Plaintiff +CASE NO: 09-CV-80591-MARRA/| +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant +JANE DOE NO. 102, +Plaintiff +CASE NO: 09-CV-80656-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant +PLAINTIFF JANE DOE'S MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO PLAINTFF'S FIRST +REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION +Plaintiff Jane Doe, hereby moves this Court for an order compelling defendant, +Jeffrey Epstein, to answer her first request for production or, in the alternative, to prove +that his invocation of his Fifth Amendment privilege is proper. Jane Doe also requests +production of a privilege log. +Jane Doe has propounded 16 requests for production, including such +straightforward requests as requests for production of: +4 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 60 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2009 Page 5 of 16 +Request No. 1: Copies of all telephone records; +Request No. 2: Photos of the inside of your home located at 358 El Brillo Way, +Palm Beach, Florida, that depict the rooms) where massages took place (including +massage table). +Request No. 10: Correspondence between Epstein and federal prosecutors; +Request No. 12: Personal tax returns; +Request No. 13: Photocopies of Epstein's passport; +Request No. 14: A statement of net worth; and +Request No. 16: Medical records. +In response to each and every one of these requests, Epstein has given the +following response (with only minor variations here and there): +Defendant is asserting his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to +respond to all relevant questions 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 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. +This Court should order Epstein to provide all of the requested information or, in +the alternative, prove that his Fifth Amendment invocations are valid. It is for the court, +not the claimant, to determine whether the hazard of incrimination is justified. United +States v. Argomaniz, 925 F.2d 1349, 1355 (11th Cir. 1991). "A court must make a +particularized inquiry, deciding, in connection with each specific area that the +5 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 60 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2009 Page 6 of 16 +questioning party wishes to explore, whether or not the privilege is well-founded." Id. +Typically this is done in an in camera proceeding wherein the person asserting the +privilege is given the opportunity "to substantiate his claims of the privilege and the +district court is able to consider the questions asked and the documents requested by +the summons." Id. +Here Epstein has made boilerplate invocation of the Fifth Amendment to each +and every request propounded by Jane Doe, including for example the request for +correspondence with federal prosecutors and for production of federal tax returns. This +obviously is not a request with Fifth Amendment implications, as the information has +already been fully disclosed to the Government. +For all these reasons, the Court should compel Epstein to answer the requests or +provide a particularized justification for his Fifth Amendment invocation with regard to +each request. +Epstein's "cut and paste" response to the request for production also blatantly +disregards the requirements for invoking privilege under the Court's local rules. Local +rule 26.1.G very specifically requires the preparation of a privilege log with respect to all +documents and oral communications (among other things) that are withheld on the +basis of privilege. Epstein has failed to prepare such a log, making it impossible for +Jane Doe to effectively challenge his generic assertions. Indeed, with respect to a few +requests, Epstein has stated: "Further, the request may include information subject to +work product or an attorney-client privilege." Of course, the whole purpose of forcing a +defendant to prepare a privilege log is to force the defendant to decide whether or not +6 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 60 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2009 Page 7 of 16 +information is privileged. An assertion that something "may" be privileged is obviously +woefully deficient. The Local Rules do not permit this tactic, and Epstein should be (at a +minimum) promptly required to produce a privilege log. +For all these reasons, the Court should compel Epstein to provide a privilege log +and to answer the interrogatories or provide a particularized justification for his Fifth +Amendment invocation with regard to each request. +It should be noted that (with minor exceptions) the only grounds on which Epstein +can refuse to answer the request for production is proof of a valid Fifth Amendment +privilege. This the only objection Epstein has asserted (with minor exceptions). As a +result, any other objections to production are deemed waived. See Local Rule +26.1G.3.(a) ("Any ground [for an objection] not stated in an objection within the time +provided by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or any extensions thereof, shall be +waived."). +SPECIFIC REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION +For the convenience of the court - and in compliance with Local Rule 26.1 H +(party filing motion to compel shall list specific requests in succession) - Jane Doe's +requests for production and Epstein's objections are as follows: +Request No. 1: Copies of all telephone records in your or your attorney's possession +from 2002 through 2005 that in any way relate to you (including all phone lines owned +by you or that were used to contact girls for the purposes of scheduling massages for +you.) +Defendant is asserting his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to +respond to all relevant questions 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 and I must +accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective +7 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 60 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2009 Page 8 of 16 +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. +Request No. 2: All massage appointment books, diaries, computer calendars or +scheduling entities, scheduling books or any other writing or correspondence that +contains the names of any of the girls that were called, contacted, scheduled or who +otherwise went to your home located at 358 El Brillo Way, Palm Beach, Florida, for the +purpose of giving you a massage. +Defendant is asserting his U.S. constitutional privileges. | intend to +respond to all relevant questions 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 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. +Request No. 3: Any and all documentation in your possession that contains Plaintiff's +name or that refers to Plaintiff, directly or indirectly, (includes e-mails, letters, message +pads, diaries, appointment books, computer print outs). +Defendant is asserting his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to +respond to all relevant questions 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 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 Filth, 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. +Request No. 4: Any and all photos, videos, downloaded digital prints or any other visual +depiction of Plaintiff, or of any other known or suspected minor females introduced to +you, directly or indirectly, by Plaintiff. +8 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 60 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2009 Page 9 of 16 +Defendant is asserting his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to +respond to all relevant questions 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 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. +Request No. 5: Photos of the inside or your home located at 358 El Brillo Way, Palm +Beach, Florida, that depict the rooms) where the massages too place (including +massage table). +Defendant is asserting his U.S. constitutional privileges. | intend to +respond to all relevant questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my +attorneys have counseled me that at the present time | cannot select +authenticate, and produce documents 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. +Request No. 6: Any and all documentation of cancelled checks or evidence of payment +to Plaintiff of any kind and for any reason whatsoever. +Defendant is asserting his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to +respond to all relevant questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my +attorneys have counseled me that at the present time | cannot select +authenticate, and produce documents 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. +9 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 60 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2009 Page 10 of 16 +Request No. 7: All discovery information obtained by you or your attorneys as a result +of the exchange of discovery in the State criminal case against you or the Federal +investigation against you. +Defendant is asserting his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to +respond to all relevant questions 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 and I must +accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective +representation. Accordingly, I assert my tederal 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, the information sought is privileged and confidential, and +inadmissible to the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement, Federal +Rule of Evidence 410 and 408, and § 90.410, Fla. Stat.' +Further, the +request may including information subject to work product or an attorneyclient privilege. +Request No. 8: All financial documents evidencing asset transfers from 2005 to present +for you personally or any company or corporation owned by you. +Defendant is asserting his U.S. constitutional privileges. | intend to +respond to all relevant questions 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 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. +"Jane Doe does not intend to use these materials to draw a forbidden inference of guilt from the mere +the non-prosecution agreement, nothing in that agreement bars discovery of information relevant to this +10 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 60 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2009 Page 11 of 16 +Request No. 9: Any documents or other evidentiary materials provided to local, state, +or federal law enforcement investigators or local, state or federal prosecutors +investigating your sexual activities with minors. +Defendant is asserting his U.S. constitutional privileges. | intend to +respond to all relevant questions 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 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, the information sought is privileged and confidential, and +inadmissible pursuant to the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement, +Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and 408, and § 90.410, Fla. Stat. 2 +Further, +the request may include information subject to work product or an +attorney-client privilege. +Request No. 10: All correspondence between you and your attorneys and state or +federal law enforcement or prosecutors (includes, but not limited to, letters to and from +the States Attorney's office or any agents thereof). +Defendant is asserting his U.S. constitutional privileges. | intend to +respond to all relevant questions 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 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, the information +sought is privileged and confidential, and +inadmissible pursuant to the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement, +* Jane Doe does not intend to use these materials to draw a forbidden inference of guilt from the mere +fact of plea discussions, but rather for other purposes. +These materials are also likely to lead to the +discovery of other admissible evidence. +To the extent that Epstein relies on the non-prosecution +agreement, nothing in that agreement bars discovery of information relevant to this lawsuit. +11 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 60 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2009 Page 12 of 16 +Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and 408, and § 90.410, Fla. Stat. Further, +the request may include information subject to work product or an +attorney-client privilege. +Request No. 11: Any and all documents reflecting your current net worth. +Defendant is asserting his U.S. constitutional privileges. | intend to +respond to all relevant questions 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 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 +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. +Request No. 12: Personal tax returns for all years from 2002 through the present. +Defendant is asserting his U.S. constitutional privileges. | intend to +respond to all relevant questions 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 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. +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. +" Jane Doe does not intend to use these materials to draw a forbidden inference of guilt from the mere +fact of correspondence in connection with plea discussions, but rather for other purposes. These +naterials are also likely to lead to the discovery of other admissible evidence. To the extent that Epstein +relies on the non-prosecution agreement, nothing in that agreement bars discovery of information relevant +to this lawsuit. +12 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 60 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2009 Page 13 of 16 +Defendant is asserting his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to +respond to all relevant questions 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 and I must +accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective +representation. Accordingly, 1 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 +protections and privileges, the scope of information is so overbroad that it +seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead +to the discovery of admissible evidence; compiling such information over a +six year period would be unduly burdensome and time consuming.4 +Request No. 14: A sworn statement of your net worth (including a detailed financial +statement depicting all current assets and liabilities). +Defendant is asserting his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all +relevant questions 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 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. +Request No. 15: All financial statements or affidavits produced by you for any reason, +to any person, company, entity or corporation since 2005. +Defendant is asserting his U.S. constitutional privileges. 1 intend to +respond to all relevant questions 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 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 +*Jane Doe believes that Epstein used overseas travel as a means of obtaining underage girls for sexual +purposes and for avoiding criminal prosecution for such activities. Also, providing a copy of a passport is +hardly "burdensome." Also, given the fact that Epstein is likely to have used the services of a travel agent +or another intermediary, it should not be difficult for him to provide evidence of his overseas travels from +such intermediaries. +13 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 60 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2009 Page 14 of 16 +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. +Request No. 16: All medical records of Defendant Epstein from Dr. Stephan Alexander. +Defendant is asserting his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to +respond to all relevant questions 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 and I must +accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective +representation. Accordingly, I assert my tederal 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. +CONCLUSION +For all these reasons, the Court should compel Epstein to answer the request for +production, or provide a particularized justification for his Fifth Amendment invocation +with regard to each request. Epstein should also be required to provide a privilege log. +Counsel for Jane Doe have conferred with opposing counsel on the issues raised in this +motion, and no resolution was possible. +DATED July 10, 2009 +Respectfully Submitted, +J.l +J. +ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER +Las Olas City Centre +401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1650 +Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 +Telephone (954) 522-3456 +Facsimile (954) 527-8663 +Florida Bar No.: 54207: +E-mail: bedwards@rra-law.com +14 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 60 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2009 Page 15 of 16 +and +Paul G. Cassell +Pro Hac Vice +332 S. 1400 E. +Salt Lake City, UT 84112 +Telephone: 801-585-5202 +Facsimile: +801-585-6833 +E-Mail: +cassellp@law.utah.edu +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I HEREBY CERTIFY that on July 10, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing +document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing +document is being served this day on all parties on the attached Service List in the +manner specified, either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by +CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those parties who are not authorized to +receive electronically filed Notices of Electronic Filing. +S/ +J. +J. +15 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 60 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2009 Page 16 of 16 +SERVICE LIST +Jane Doe V. Jeffrey Epstein +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +Jgoldberger@agwpa.com +Robert D. Critton, Esq. +rcritton@bclclaw.com +Isidro Manual +isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net +Jack +iph@searcylaw.com +Katherine Warthen Ezell +KEzell@podhurst.com +Michael James Pike +MPike@bclclaw.com +Paul G. Cassell +cassellp@bclclaw.com +Richard Horace Willits +lawyerswillits@aol.com +Robert C. Josefsberg +rjosefsberg@podhurst.com +Adam D. Horowitz +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +Stuart S. Mermelstein +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +William J. Berger +wberger@rra-law.com +16 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9d767db8fb85d630393eb4136239b74168f284653d5fccfac679e618e909fa21.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9d767db8fb85d630393eb4136239b74168f284653d5fccfac679e618e909fa21.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2879696dadb497edb6448686df774dee060abaa9 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9d767db8fb85d630393eb4136239b74168f284653d5fccfac679e618e909fa21.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -648, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "9d767db8fb85d630393eb4136239b74168f284653d5fccfac679e618e909fa21", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 18, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "b4af470f259193868ebf07179fda46326e284cca9740e9152c6f20f2b0451298", + "output_sha256": "e57a90c004712ab746f0cef56ffebab5257badd75de444c5b3c7424ca6f09a90", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9d8e22f82e8a7037a51c00d556da37c8f274474f9725e13887d9bc4195937ea5.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9d8e22f82e8a7037a51c00d556da37c8f274474f9725e13887d9bc4195937ea5.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9d7b79f8f1271f4bba5c28a33526428179d79093 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9d8e22f82e8a7037a51c00d556da37c8f274474f9725e13887d9bc4195937ea5.md @@ -0,0 +1,106 @@ +OFFICE OF THE STATE ATTORNEY +FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT +IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY +DAVID ARONBERG +STATE ATTORNEY +October 1, 2019 +Ms. Jane Musgrave +The Palm Beach Post +RE: Response to Public Records Request +Our Public Record No.: 2019PR000372AMB +Via Electronic Mail: (jmusgrave@pbpost.com) +Dear Ms. Musgrave: +We have completed your public records request received by our office on July 30, 2019 for "a +copy of: +"1- Any emails or other correspondence sent by Palm Beach County State Attorney Barry +Krischer concerning the case of Jeffrey Epstein from January 2006 through December +2008. These would include, but not be limited to, emails or correspondence he sent to Palm +Beach Police Chief Michael Reiter, Assistant State Attorney Lana Belohlavek, Michael +Edmondson or any prosecutors in the office. +2- I would also like any communication with federal officials, including, but not limited to, +U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta and assistant U.S. attorneys A. | +Villafana, Jeffrey Sloman, +Andrew Lourie. +3- Further, I would like any emails sent to Epstein's defense team, including, but not +limited to, Alan Dershowitz, Jack Goldberger, Roy Black, Jay Lefkowitz, Ken Starr or +Gerald Lefcourt, +and +4- The personnel file of former Assistant State Attorney Lanna Belohlavek", +Please be advised that in response to your requests 1 through 3, our office does not retain emails +electronically prior to 2012. The only emails now existing are the physical copies of emails +maintained within the state's files and copies of the state's files, including any emails have already +been provided to you. Further, our office previously responded to you request of December 5th +2018, for a copy of the files pertaining to Jeffrey Epstein, et. al., in Public Records Request No.: +2018PR000460AMB. The request was fulfilled and closed on December 5"', 2018 +Your colleague reporter Lulu Ramadan made another request for the state's on July 15", 2019 +which was assigned Public Records Request No.: 2019PR000328AMB. Our office provided to +both yourself and reporter LuLu Ramadan via the SAO's CIP Portal and by hand delivery a 32gb +Party JOINT +401 North Dixie Highway, West Pali Beach, Florida 33401 +Phone: (561)355-7100 +www.sa15.org +ID# J03 EV#J03 +DATE ADMITTED: 9/6/2072 +in 2019-CA-014681 +CA/Aronberg 00000a BEACH COUNTY, FL, +ABRUZZO, CLERK® +ABRUZZO CLERK +37248202942157:43 PM +Joint Exhibit +J03 + + +thumb drive containing Audio and Redacted Control Calls, Walkthrough Video, Audio from +Cassettes Part 1, Audio from Cassettes Part 2, Video Interviews Part 1, Video Interviews Part 2, +Video Interview Part 3, and a copy of the State's files containing 2,833 electronic pages of +information. In an abundance of caution and to ensure the thoroughness of our earlier disclosures, +our office conducted an additional review of the close states files and executive records of former +State Attorney Barry Krischer. This search revealed an additional 134 pages of information and +two (2) videos, which are subject to release. The following redactions were applied to these items: +a) All social security numbers, pursuant to Fla. Sta. §119.071(4) and §119.071(5) (a) 5. +b) All driyer license numbers, pursuant to Fla. Stat. §119,0712 (2) (a) and 18 U.S.C.A, §2725. +c) Any information, including, name, address, date of birth, school which reveals the identity +of the victim of crime under 796.07 2e and 4c and 800.04(6)(2b), pursuant to Fla. Sta. +§119.071 (3) (c). +d) All biometric identification, pursuant to Fla. Sta. §119.071(5)(g). +e) All home addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth and photographs of a current or +former assistant state attorney, spousés and children, pursuant to Fla. Sta. §119.071(4) +(d)2. d.(1). +f) All information revealing the photographs of active or former sworn law enforcement +personnel, pursuant to Fla. Stat. §119.07(4)2.a.(1). +8) Furthermore, in accordance with Art 1 §16, Fla. Const. (2018) any and all identifying +victim information is redacted +Lastly, in response to the 4'' part of your request for a copy the personnel file of former Assistant +State Attorney Lanna Belohlavek, the records consist of approximately 265 pages of information. +There will be a special service charge based on the labor cost of the personnel providing the service +incurred by this agency pursuant to Fla. Stat. §119.07(4)(d). The information will need to be +reviewed for possible exemptions or necessary redactions from public disclosure pursuant to +Florida Statute Section 119, by an employee whose hourly rate is $37.26, It is estimated that it will +take 5 hours of man power to retrieve, scan, review, and redact the records, for an estimated total +of $186.30. +A 50% deposit from the final estimated cost will be required in order for us to begin with the +processing of your request, as authorized under Board of County Commissioners of Highlands +County v. Colby, 9.76 So2d 31 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008), and Morris Publishing Group, LLC v. State, +154 So. 3d 528, 534 (Fla. Ist DCA 2015). Please provide cash in the exact amount, check or money +order payable to the Office of the State Attorney for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in the amount of +$93.15 as a deposit towards the estimated cost of the first part of your request. Once we receive +the deposit, we will process your public records request in a timely manner; +401 North Dixie Highway, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 +Phone: (561)355-7100 +www.sa15.org +CA/Aronber @0DO00G BEACH COUNTY, FL, +ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 2:57:43 PM + + +Any subsequent requests for information will be assigned a new public records number and be +processed in accordance with Florida Public Records Law. If you have further questions, please +feel free to contact me by e-mail at ncruz@sa1.5.org or directly at (561)355-7247, +Sincerely, +Natalie Cruz +Executive Secretary +NOT A CERTIFIED COPY +101 North Dixie Highway, West Palm Beach, Florida 3340 +Phone: (561)355-7100 +www.sal5.org +CA/Aronber @ODOO BEACH COUNTY, FL, L +ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 2:57:43 PM diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9d8e22f82e8a7037a51c00d556da37c8f274474f9725e13887d9bc4195937ea5.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9d8e22f82e8a7037a51c00d556da37c8f274474f9725e13887d9bc4195937ea5.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b0e1562773f2772f0cebafd838636e4e7102810e --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9d8e22f82e8a7037a51c00d556da37c8f274474f9725e13887d9bc4195937ea5.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -36, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "9d8e22f82e8a7037a51c00d556da37c8f274474f9725e13887d9bc4195937ea5", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 3, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "570d63d3193dc7a3b08e927963f5e3be41557ece4cffc4f2d45aa4ae438498f8", + "output_sha256": "01225cd224582ce8a1dbf198205132f208b1b14536204325dca8636dcb569c6d", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9d9699a05059d49ac9eed4b6297d31110c2dc60f333108b48ed5e90418221948.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9d9699a05059d49ac9eed4b6297d31110c2dc60f333108b48ed5e90418221948.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c67db13710c00bcdb020972c94766138d6349c9d --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9d9699a05059d49ac9eed4b6297d31110c2dc60f333108b48ed5e90418221948.md @@ -0,0 +1,69 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 95 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/01/2009 Page 1 of 2 +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM +Document 94-2 +Entered on FLSD Docket 04/29/2009 +FILED by. + +- D.C. +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +MAY - 1 2009 +STEVEN M. LARIMORE +CLERK U.S. DIST, CT. +S.D. OF FLA. - W.PB +JANE DOE NO. 2, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA1 +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/JOHNSON +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 5, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/LLI +JANE DOE NO. 6, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80994-MARRA/L + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 95 +Entered on FLSD Docket 05/01/2009 +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 94-2 +Entered on FLSD Docket 04/29/2009 + + +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 7, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08- 80993-CIV-MARRA/ +ORDER +Upon Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Enlargement of Time to File Response to Motions to +Compel Plaintiffs to Respond to Defendant's First Request to Produce and First Set of +Interrogatories, et al., and good cause being shown, it is hereby +ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion is granted. Plaintiffs shall have an enlargement of time of +until May 6, 2009, to respond to the Defendant's Motions to Compel, et al. +DONE AND ORDERED in LI +1 at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, +this I day or MAy 2009. +DISTRIET COURT JUDGE +MAGERATe +LiNNEN f. Johnson diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9d9699a05059d49ac9eed4b6297d31110c2dc60f333108b48ed5e90418221948.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9d9699a05059d49ac9eed4b6297d31110c2dc60f333108b48ed5e90418221948.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5c15597b3ee37ae25bf2183de826fd82a6df5426 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9d9699a05059d49ac9eed4b6297d31110c2dc60f333108b48ed5e90418221948.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -57, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "9d9699a05059d49ac9eed4b6297d31110c2dc60f333108b48ed5e90418221948", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 5, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "26f04c6e13cddd1b9f0794e0c2e2a6c936b18520e43e4a082e18ce52b1d07d49", + "output_sha256": "054c76eb50a8bc515809db5b49c3349a7027e3eddeb18b456896aa384b84a829", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9da9e2a1e0da6b4acc7335a21d01f5b09548d939c02fa21d5319208ef636ce8e.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9da9e2a1e0da6b4acc7335a21d01f5b09548d939c02fa21d5319208ef636ce8e.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1d44dd4df63cdf867703f631b487ccb0d30cfeb1 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9da9e2a1e0da6b4acc7335a21d01f5b09548d939c02fa21d5319208ef636ce8e.md @@ -0,0 +1,341 @@ +Filing # 198838685 E-Filed 05/21/2024 03:20:00 PM +IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT +IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB +DIVISION: AG +CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC, +Publisher of THE PALM BEACH POST, +Plaintiff, +V. +ABRUZZO, as Clerk and +Comptroller of Palm Beach County, +Florida, +COPY +Defendant. +CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT & COMPTROLLER'S +ANSWER TO THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT +Defendant, +Abruzzo in his official capacity as the Clerk of the Circuit Court & +Comptroller, Palm Beach County (the "Clerk"), by and through his undersigned counsel, hereby +files his Answer to the Second Amended Complaint and states as follows: +JURISDICTION +Paragraph 1 contains a legal conclusion and characterization of this action to which +no response is required, To the extent a response is required, the Clerk admits that this Court has +jurisdiction over this action. +PARTIES +The Clerk admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 2. +The Clerk admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 3. +FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, +ABRUZZO, CLERK, 05/21/2024 03:20:00 PM + + +INTRODUCTION +4. +Paragraph 4 contains a characterization of the Palm Beach Post's (the "Post") action +to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, the Clerk is without +knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in +Paragraph 4. +S. +Paragraph 5 contains legal arguments and a characterization of this action to which +no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, the Clerk refers the Post to +section 905.27, Florida Statutes as the statute speaks for itself and is without knowledge or +information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations. +6. +Paragraph 6 contains legal arguments and a characterization of this action to which +no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, the Clerk refers the Post to +section 905.27, Florida Statutes as it speaks for itself and is without knowledge or information +sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations. +FACTUAL BACKGROUND +The Clerk is without khowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the +truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 7. +A. First Ep +2005-2008 +Sex Crimes Investigation, Indictment, and Plea Agreement: +8. 1 +The Clerk is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the +truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 8. +9. +The Clerk is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the +truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 9. +10. +The Clerk is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the +truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 10. + + + +11. +The Clerk is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the +truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 11. +12. +The Clerk is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the +truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 12. +(1) Police Chief Reiter's Letter to the State Attorney. +13. +The Clerk is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the +truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 13. +14. +The Clerk is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the +truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 14. +(2) The July 2006 State Grand Jury Presentation. +15. +The Clerk is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the +truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 15. +16. +The Clerk is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the +truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 16. +17. +The Clerk is without khowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the +truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 17. +The Clerk is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the +truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 18. +19. +The Clerk is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the +truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 19. +(3) +The FBI's Investigation and Epstein's Non-Prosecution +Agreement With Federal Authorities. +20. +The Clerk is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the +truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 20. + + + +21. +The Clerk is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the +truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 21. +22. +The Clerk is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the +truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 22. +23. +The Clerk is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the +truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 23. +24. +The Clerk is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the +truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 24. +25. +The Clerk is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the +truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 25. +26. +The Clerk is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the +truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 26. +27. +The Clerk is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the +truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 27. +28. +The Clerk is without khowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the +truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 28. +(4) +The Crime Victims' Rights Act Litigation. +29. +The Clérk is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the +truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 29. +30. +The Clerk is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the +truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 30. +31. +The Clerk is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the +truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 31. + + + +32. +The Clerk is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the +truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 32. +33. +The Clerk is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the +truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 33. +34. +The Clerk is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the +truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 34. +B. Second Epstein Sex Crimes Investigation, Indictment, Suicide: 2019. +35. +The Clerk is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the +truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 35. +36. +The Clerk is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the +truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 36. +37. +The Clerk is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the +truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 37, +38. +The Clerk is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the +truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 38. +39. +The Clerk is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the +truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 39. +40. +The Clérk is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the +truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 40. +41. +The Clerk is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the +truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 41. + + + +C. The August 27, 2019, SDNY Hearing: Epstein's Victims Speak. +42. The Clerk is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the +truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 42. +43. +The Clerk is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the +truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 43. +44. +The Clerk is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the +truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 44. +45. +The Clerk is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the +truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 45. +46. +The Clerk is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the +truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 46. +47. +The Clerk is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the +truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 47, +48. +The Clerk is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the +truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 48. +D. The August 27, 2019, SDNY Hearing: Epstein's Victims Speak. +1) +The Palm Beach Post Has Reported Extensively On Epstein's +Crimes For Nearly 15 Years. +49.1 +The Clerk admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 49. +50. y +The Clerk is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the +truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 50. +51. +The Clerk admits that the Post has extensively investigated and reported on the +allegations against, the law enforcement investigation of, and the crimes committed by, Epstein +and his co-conspirators. The Clerk, however, is without knowledge or information sufficient to + + + +form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 51, including +subparts and Exhibit 1. +52. The Clerk admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 52. +(2) The Palm Beach Post's Standing and the Public Interest. +53. +Paragraph 53 contains legal arguments to which no response is required. To the +extent that a response is required, the Clerk is without knowledge or information sufficient to form +a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 53. +54. +Paragraph 54 contains legal arguments to which no response is required. To the +extent that a response is required, the Clerk is without knowledge or information sufficient to form +a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 34, +55. +Paragraph 55 contains legal arguments and a characterization of this action to which +no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, the Clerk is without knowledge +or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph +55. +56. +Paragraph 56 contains legal arguments and a characterization of this action to which +no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, the Clerk refers the Post to +section 905.27 as the statute speaks for itself. +y3) The Cour's Jurisdiction To Declare Rights And Construc +57. +Paragraph 57 contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the +extent that a response is required, the Clerk refers the Post to section 86.011 as the statute speaks +for itself. + + + +58. +Paragraph 58 contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the +extent that a response is required, the Clerk refers the Post to section 86.011 as the statute speaks +for itself. +59. +Paragraph 59 contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the +extent that a response is required, the Clerk refers the Post to section 86.011 as the statute speaks +for itself. +COUNT I +(Declaratory Relief - Florida Stat. Sections 86.01/ et seq.) +60. +The Clerk re-alleges and reincorporates its responses to Paragraphs 1 through 59 as +if fully set forth herein. +61. +Paragraph 61 contains a characterization of this action to which no response is +required. To the extent that a response is required, the Clerk admits that the Second Amended +Complaint purports to be an action for declaratory relief pursuant to Chapter 86, Florida Statutes, +and other supplemental relief. +62. +Paragraph 62 contains á characterization of this action to which no response is +required. To the extent that a response is required, the Clerk admits that the Post is requesting that +the Court declare pursuant to Fla. Stat. Sections 905.27(1) and (2)(c) that it is entitled access to the +testimony, minutes, and other evidence presented in 2006 to the Palm Beach County grand jury. +63. +The Clerk admits that the Post has sought access to the testimony, minutes, and +other evidence presented in 2006 to the Palm Beach County grand jury. As for the remaining +allegations, the Clerk is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth +of the allegations. + + + +64. +Paragraph 64 contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the +extent that a response is required, the Clerk is without knowledge or information sufficient to form +a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 64. +65. +Paragraph 65 contains legal arguments and a characterization of this action to +which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, the Clerk refers the Post +to CA Fla. Holdings, LLC v. Aronberg, et al., 360 So. 3d 1149 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023) as the matter +speaks for itself. +66. +The Clerk is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the +truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 66. +COUNT I +(Florida Stat. Section 905.27) +67. +The Clerk re-alleges and reincorporates its responses to Paragraphs 1 through 66 as +if fully set forth herein. +68. +The Clerk is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the +truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 68. +69. +Paragraph 69 contains legal arguments and a characterization of this action to which +no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, the Clerk admits that the Post is +requesting that it and the public be granted immediate access to the testimony, minutes, and other +evidence presented in 2006 to the Palm Beach County grand jury. +70. +Paragraph 70 contains legal arguments and a characterization of this action to which +no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, the Clerk refers the Post to +sections 905.27(1)(c) and (2)(c) as the statutes speak for themselves. + + + +Dated: May 21, 2024 +Respectfully submitted, +CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT & +COMPTROLLER, PALM BEACH COUNTY +By: +s/ Collin D. +Esq. (FL Bar No. 1018081) +Clerk of the Circuit Court & Comptroller, +Palm Beach County +P.O. Box 229 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Tel.: (561) 355-2787 +E-mail: eservice@mypalmbeachclerk.com +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I hereby certify that on May 21, 2024 the foregoing document was furnished upon the +following via the Florida ePortal System: +Stephen A. Mendelsohn +Greenberg Traurig, P.A +5100 Town Center Circle, Suite 400 +Boca Raton, FL 33486 +E-mails: mendelsohns(@gtlaw.com; +Michael J. Grygiel +Greenberg Traurig, P.A. +54 State St., 6th Floor +Albany, NY 12207 +E-mail: grygielm@gtlaw.com +FLService@gtlaw.com +Nina D. Boyajian +Greenberg Traurig, P.A. +1840 Century Park East, Ste. 1900 +Los Angeles, CA 90067 +E-_ ils: boyajiann@gtlaw.com; +riveraal@gtlaw.com +By: +s/ Collin D. +Collin D. +Esq. + diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9da9e2a1e0da6b4acc7335a21d01f5b09548d939c02fa21d5319208ef636ce8e.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9da9e2a1e0da6b4acc7335a21d01f5b09548d939c02fa21d5319208ef636ce8e.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f6212b7b613dcb9bb8f476e8b9c62e3dedbe6dd0 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9da9e2a1e0da6b4acc7335a21d01f5b09548d939c02fa21d5319208ef636ce8e.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -229, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "9da9e2a1e0da6b4acc7335a21d01f5b09548d939c02fa21d5319208ef636ce8e", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 19, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "83656cd0375ab17c6e03a0224fd133bdbb10d565c0ed95dc9b465f10c14e91d4", + "output_sha256": "1495d7a88ee0705f13d1e8ba89db24cdac1508da734d8b6c29a28b9745a39e34", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9dcfe37ecd815b2ee0b40985f65a2bb4af61624099c30bb160f3f77fe2276a30.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9dcfe37ecd815b2ee0b40985f65a2bb4af61624099c30bb160f3f77fe2276a30.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f16111bea7b434bcca98e32b133cdd83f076b894 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9dcfe37ecd815b2ee0b40985f65a2bb4af61624099c30bb160f3f77fe2276a30.md @@ -0,0 +1,563 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 193 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2013 Page 1 of 21 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA1 +JANE DOE 1 AND JANE DOE 2, +Petitioners +V. +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, +Respondent +INTERVENORS' MOTION FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL +Intervenors Roy Black, +Weinberg, Jay Lefkowitz, and Jeffrey Epstein request that +the Court stay pending appeal its order of June 18, 2013 (Doc. 188), denying their Motion for a +Protective Order and ordering disclosure of the intervenor attorneys' written communications +with federal prosecutors in the Southern District of Florida made with the specific purpose of +obtaining a favorable resolution of the criminal investigation of Mr. Epstein through attorney-toattorney settlement negotiations. Intervenors also seek to stay those portions of the Court's +orders at DE 189 and DE 190 that would require disclosure of these materials. +Undersigned spoke with counsel for the government, who stated that the government +does not object to a stay pending appeal. +Undersigned also spoke with Paul Cassell, counsel for the petitioners, who stated that he +objects to a stay pending appeal. +In determining whether to grant a stay pending appeal, the Court considers four factors: +"(1) the likelihood that the moving party will ultimately prevail on the merits of the appeal; (2) + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 193 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2013 Page 2 of 21 +the extent to which the moving party would be irreparably harmed by denial of the stay; (3) the +potential harm to opposing parties if the stay is issued; and (4) the public interest." Florida +Businessmen for Free Enterprise v. City of Hollywood, 648 F.2d 956, 957 (11th Cir. 1981). See, +e.g., In re Federal Grand Jury Proceedings (FGJ 91-9), L +1. 975 F.2d 1488, 1492 (Ith Cir. +1992). +These factors are amply satisfied in this case. There is a strong likelihood that intervenors +will prevail on appeal or, at a minimum, they have a "substantial case on the merits," and the +"harm factors" militate in favor of granting a stay. Merial Ltd. v. Cipla Ltd., 426 Fed.Appx. 915 +(11th Cir. 2011), citing Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 778 (1987)). Intervenors will be +immediately and irreparably harmed by the disclosure of the communications at issue because +once disclosed, the communications cannot be un-disclosed. Petitioners Jane Doe 1 and Jane +Doe 2 will suffer no harm from the granting of a stay until these critically important issues can +be resolved by the Eleventh Circuit. And, to the extent that the public has an interest in the +matter, it would favor considered appellate resolution of the issues presented prior to the release +of the communications at issue. +The Court's order is the first decision anywhere, insofar as the undersigned counsel are +aware, that orders disclosure to third-party litigants of private and confidential communications +between attorneys who were seeking to resolve a criminal matter favorably to their clients and +government prosecutors. The Court's decision drastically reshapes the landscape of criminal +settlement negotiations and sets at naught expectations of privacy, confidentiality, and privilege +on which criminal defense attorneys have reasonably relied for many decades in negotiating with +government attorneys on behalf of their clients. While framed as a disclosure order in this +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 193 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2013 Page 3 of 21 +particular case, the Court's order has potentially far-reaching and seriously deleterious +consequences for the ability of attorneys nationwide to effectively represent their clients through +open and candid communications with government counsel. The decision will have a predictably +chilling effect on attorneys around the country, if they can no longer expect privacy and +confidentiality in their written communications with prosecutors aimed at reaching a negotiated +resolution to the case. Such communications often necessarily involve explicit or implicit +admissions regarding a client's conduct - what he did, what he did not do, what he knew, what +he intended, and the like - and the attorney's opinions regarding acceptable resolutions of the +matter. These are admissions and opinions that attorneys in many cases will be loath to commit +to written form if those communications are later subject to disclosure to the client's civil +adversaries. +This case is far from sui generis - the cases are legion in which there is related civil or +ancilliary litigation seeking damages or other relief from an individual who was the subject of +criminal investigation or prosecution and in which, after becoming aware of this Court's +decision, plaintiffs will begin clamoring for access to communications between defense counsel +and prosecuting authorities in the belief that this may help support their case against the +defendant. In addition to the stay factors addressed below, the importance of these issues for the +functioning of the criminal justice system counsels in favor of granting the requested stay. +Intervenors have standing under Perlman v. United States, 247 U.S. 7 (1918), to pursue +an interlocutory appeal of the Court's order. +Additionally, questions of privilege and +confidentiality +asserted by non-parties to the litigation are paradigmatic examples of +circumstances in which interlocutory appeals are allowed. The value of that appeal will be +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 193 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2013 Page 4 of 21 +severely undercut, if not destroyed entirely, if a stay pending appeal is not granted. Forced +disclosure of confidential or privileged communications cannot be undone on appeal; the +protections afforded the documents will have been irretrievably lost by the time the appellate +court issues its decision, to the intervenors' irremediable prejudice. For all the reasons addressed +herein, the Court should grant the requested stay. +I SLIKELIHOOD OF SUCCESS ON THE MERITS.' +A. The Applicability of Rule 410. +Any assessment of the merits of the intervenors' contentions must begin with an +understanding of the central role plea bargaining and settlement negotiations have in our criminal +justice system and the Sixth Amendment protections that surround them. Last year, the United +States Supreme Court held that "[p]lea bargains are ... central to the administration of the +criminal justice system" because ours is "a system of pleas, not a system of trials": +[NJinety-four percent of state convictions are the result of guilty pleas. The reality is that +plea bargains have become so central to the administration of the criminal justice system +that defense counsel have responsibilities in the plea bargain process, responsibilities that +must be met to render the adequate assistance of counsel that the Sixth Amendment +requires in the criminal process at critical stages. Because ours "is for the most part a +system of pleas, not a system of trials," it is insufficient simply to point to the guarantee +of a fair trial as a backstop that inoculates any errors in the pretrial process. +" Intervenors incorporate the arguments set forth in their Motion for a Protective Order and +Opposition to Motions of Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 for Production, Use, and Disclosure of +Settlement Negotiations (Doc. 160); Supplemental Briefing of Intervenors Roy Black, +Weinberg, and Jay Letkowitz in Support of Their Motion for a Protective Order Concerning +Production, Use, and Disclosure of Plea Negotiations (Doc. 161); Intervenor Jeffrey Epstein's +Motion for a Protective Order and Opposition to Motions of Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 for +Production, Use, and Disclosure of Plea Negotiations (Doc. 162); Notice of Supplemental +Authority of the United States Supreme Court (Doc. 163); and Reply in Support of Supplemental +Briefing By Limited Intervenors Black, Weinberg, Lefkowitz, and Epstein (Doc. 169). +4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 193 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2013 Page 5 of 21 +Lafler v. +132 S. Ct. 1376, 1388 (2012); Missouri v. Frye, 132 S. Ct. 1399, 1407 (2012). +In Lafler and Frye, the Supreme Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment right to effective +assistance of counsel "extends to the plea bargaining process" and that defendants are entitled to +"the effective assistance of competent counsel" during plea negotiations. Lafler, 132 S. Ct. at +1384; Frye, 132 S.Ct. at 1407-09 (2012). Under Lafler and Frye, counsel have an ongoing +obligation to provide effective representation in plea bargaining and to engage in +communications with the client and the prosecutor to discharge that obligation. +These obligations arise even before formal charges are brought. Counsel representing a +client under federal investigation have an obligation to secure the best possible outcome for their +clients, whether it be one which results, as here, in no charges being brought by the prosecuting +authority conducting the criminal investigation or the bringing of fewer, or less serious, charges +against the client. Defense counsel cannot fulfill their obligations to their clients if they must +temper their settlement negotiations with prosecutors for fear that disclosures made now will +later enure to the clients' severe detriment in other litigation contexts. Defendants and people +under criminal investigation would not engage in plea negotiations and waive their Fifth +Amendment rights if they believed that statements made during those negotiations could be used +against them later in litigation with third parties. Candid discussions simply cannot take place if +defendants or persons under criminal investigation fear that statements made during negotiations +can be divulged to third parties in other proceedings and used to harm them, send them to prison, +or invalidate their bargains years after they have served prison sentences and suffered all the +consequences of their deals. +5 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 193 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2013 Page 6 of 21 +Similarly, few if any lawyers would engage in candid and open discussions with a +prosecutor if their statements could later be used in other litigation contexts to harm their clients. +A ruling that exposes plea negotiations to public scrutiny and to the scrutiny of litigation +adversaries of the client and makes those negotiations admissible in evidence to be used as +ammunition to harm the clients is terribly at odds with the constitutional, ethical, and +professional obligations of criminal defense attorneys seeking to resolve an investigation or +criminal charges. The strong policy considerations mitigating against the result reached by the +Court weigh heavily in favor of the likelihood of intervenors' success on appeal. +Contrary to the result reached by this Court, the settlement negotiations at issue here lie +well within the heartland of Rule 410's prohibition against the admissibility of plea negotiations +"against the defendant who was a participant in the plea discussions" "in any civil or criminal +proceeding". The cases on which the Court relied in concluding that the settlement negotiations +at issue here do not fall within Rule 410 are uniformly inapposite and do not support the +proposition that the settlement negotiations in this case are not subject to the protections of Rule +410. +United States v. Merrill, 685 F.3d 1002, 1013 (11th Cir. 2012), concerned statements +made by the defendant himself in informal meetings with the prosecution prior to his scheduled +grand jury testimony. +Id. at 1007-08. The only discussions of leniency involved the +government's generalized statement to the defendant that if he cooperated, the government +would recommend leniency when he was sentenced. Id. Notably, the Court's ruling that the +district court had not erred in refusing to suppress the defendant's statements rested on its +conclusion that, given the circumstances, the defendant could not have reasonably believed that + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 193 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2013 Page 7 of 21 +he was engaged in plea negotiations. Id. at 1013. The case does not stand for the general +proposition advanced by the Court that settlement discussions in advance of the return of an +indictment categorically do not fall within Rule 410.- Moreover, the circumstances present here +are dispositively different from those in Merrill. Here, the communications were made attorneyto-attorney under circumstances which leave no room to doubt that the parties were engaged in +serious negotiations to resolve the federal criminal investigation of Epstein. +United States v. Adelman, 458 F.3d 791 (8th Cir. 2006), also involved statements made +by the defendant to federal prosecutors. The defendant's statements were made in meetings at +which she was told, according to the government, that she was a "prime suspect" in criminal +wrongdoing and that any statements she made could be used against her. Id. at 805. +In United States v. Hare, 49 F.3d 447 (8th Cir. 1995), like the other two cases, the +statements were made by the defendant to prosecutors voluntarily and unconditionally in the +unilateral hope of bettering his chances. Id. at 45l. +Under the Court's ruling, the attorneys for a person under federal criminal investigation +may never enter into negotiations with the government with the primary aim of avoiding federal +indictment entirely, no matter how serious and good faith those negotiations, without risking that +anything they say on behalf of their clients in seeking to arrive at a negotiated settlement may in +the future be used, either by the government or by adversarial third parties, to the severe +" In any event, there was, as the Court notes elsewhere in its opinion, an indictment pending in +settlement negotiations, further differentiating this case from the cases relied on by the Court. +7 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 193 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2013 Page 8 of 21 +detriment of their client. This is not and cannot be the law and is certainly unsound policy, and +there is a substantial likelihood that the Eleventh Circuit will agree. Indeed, the Court's opinion +creates an incentive for attorneys not to do precisely what Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 +(1947), was intended to encourage attorneys to do: reduce facts, ideas, and opinions to writing. +A return to the days of settlement/plea negotiations conducted through oral, rather than written, +communications, which the Court's decision will encourage whenever the progress of the +negotiations or the attainment of the desired objective require the attorney to communicate +information which, if disclosed in another context, would be detrimental to the client's interests, +would serve no one's interests - not the defendant's, not the government's, not the judicial +system's, and not the public's. +The Court also rejected the applicability of Rule 410 because the communications +between Epstein's counsel and the government led to Epstein's plea of guilty in state court. In +the sole case cited by the Court for this proposition, United States v. Paden, 908 F.2d 1229 (5th +Cir. 1990), the defendant pled guilty to federal charges pursuant to his plea agreement. That Mr. +Epstein entered into a plea in state court to state offenses is irrelevant to the Rule 410 analysis. +The plain meaning of Rule 410(4) is that the defendant must enter a plea in federal court relating +to the federal offenses under investigation. If Congress had intended to include state court pleas +in subsection (4), it would have expressly done so, as it did in subsection (3). There, Congress +expressly provided for change-of-plea proceedings in federal court and "comparable state +procedures." FED.R.EVID. 410(3). Congress did not provide for state court pleas in subsection +(4) of the rule, and "where Congress includes particular language in one section of a statute but +8 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 193 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2013 Page 9 of 21 +omits it in another ... it is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally and purposely in +the disparate inclusion or exclusion." Keene Corp. v. United States, 508 U.S. 200, 208 (1993). +Even when plea negotiations result in a guilty plea, not all statements made during those +negotiations are thereby subject to disclosure. The plain meaning of Rule 410 is that any +disclosure of plea negotiations must relate to the plea that was actually entered. The broad +reading adopted by the Court would frustrate the purpose and policy of Rule 410. In this case, +there was no plea to the offenses that the government was investigating or to the matters +discussed in the plea negotiation letters and emails. There was never a federal plea that closed +out all the federal issues that were the subject of the continuing exchanges of letters and memos +in which Mr. Epstein's counsel addressed the reasons why Mr. Epstein should not be federally +prosecuted. +The "central feature" of Rule 410 "is that the accused is encouraged candidly to discuss +his or her situation in order to explore the possibility of disposing of the case through a +consensual arrangement." United States v. Herman, 544 F.2d 791, 797 (5th Cir. 1977). The Rule +is derived from "the inescapable truth that for plea bargaining to work effectively and fairly, a +defendant must be free to negotiate without fear that his statements will later be used against +him." Id. at 796 (emphasis added). Thus, the most reasonable construction of Rule 410 is that all +plea discussions in this case were about offenses for which there was no plea of guilty, and +therefore Rule 410 facially and fully applies. Any other reading would render Rule 410 +ambiguous and would violate Mr. Epstein's Fifth Amendment rights. +9 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 193 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2013 Page 10 of 21 +The rule's central feature is that the accused is encouraged candidly to discuss his or her +situation in order to explore the possibility of disposing of the case through a consensual +arrangement. Such candid discussion will often include incriminating admissions... To +allow the government to introduce statements uttered in reliance on the rule would be to +use the rule as a sword rather than a shield. This we cannot allow; the rule was designed +only as a shield. +Id. at 797. "Where an otherwise acceptable construction of a statute would raise serious +constitutional problems, the Court will construe the statute to avoid such problems unless such +construction is plainly contrary to the intent of Congress... The elementary rule is that every +reasonable construction must be resorted to, in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality." +DeBartolo Corp. v. Florida Gulf Coast Trades Council, 485 U.S. 568, 575 (1988). +B. +Recognition of a Privilege Under Rule 501. +The Court rejected intervenors' contention that the Court should recognize a privilege for +communications in the course of settlement/plea negotiations on the ground that Congress has +already addressed the issue in Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(f) and Fed. R. Evid. 410 and the Court did not +see fit to recognize a privilege for plea negotiation communications. Neither the Rules of +Evidence nor the Rules of Criminal Procedure, however, have ever dealt with specifying the +privileges which will and will not be recognized; instead, they leave that function to the courts +under Rule 501. Nothing in Rules 11(f) or 410 suggest that Congress rejected (or even thought +about) a privilege for attorney settlement/plea negotiation communications when framing those +provisions. Rules 11(f) and 410 deal only with what is admissible; they do not purport to extend +to what is discoverable. Rule 410 begins with the assumption that a litigant is in possession of +plea negotiation materials, and thus the Rule describes the circumstances in which those +10 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 193 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2013 Page 11 of 21 +materials may either be admitted or excluded from consideration at trial. It says nothing, +however, about whether a nonparticipant in the plea negotiations is entitled to obtain those +materials in discovery in the first instance. That question must be answered by reference to Fed. +R. Civ. P. 26, which refers to Federal Rule of Evidence 501, which "empower[s] the federal +courts to 'continue the evolutionary development of [evidentiary] privileges.'" Adkins v. +Christie, 488 F.3d 1324, 1328 (11th Cir. 2007), quoting Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40, +47 (1980). +The "central feature" of Rule 410 "is that the accused is encouraged candidly to discuss +his or her situation in order to explore the possibility of disposing of the case through a +consensual arrangement." United States v. Herman, 544 F.2d 791, 797 (5th Cir. 1977). The Rule +is derived from "the inescapable truth that for plea bargaining to work effectively and fairly, a +defendant must be free to negotiate without fear that his statements will later be used against +him." Id. at 796. The legislative history, too, "shows that the purpose of Rule 410 and Rule +11(e)(б) is to permit the unrestrained candor which produces effective plea discussions between +the ... government and the ... defendant." Committee on Rules of Practice And Procedure of +The Judicial Conference of The United States, Standing Committee On Rules of Practice And +Procedure, 77 F.R.D. 507 (February 1978) (emphasis added). For these reasons, criminal defense +lawyers negotiate with prosecutors in an environment of confidentiality, fostered by the +protections of Rules 410 and 11. These rules encourage a process of searching and honest +disclosures, and parties expect that their negotiations, and the information they exchange, will be +protected from future use by an adversary. And because criminal defense lawyers are required, +by ethical and constitutional considerations, to engage in plea negotiations to discharge their duty +11 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 193 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2013 Page 12 of 21 +to represent the client's best interest, they do so with the well-founded expectation that +communications made during those negotiations will not later be used to harm the client. +The Supreme Court has recognized that "Rules 410 and 11(e)(6) 'create], in effect, a +privilege of the defendant +'" Mezzanatto, 513 U.S. at 204. This privilege encourages +disposition of criminal cases by plea agreement, which is essential to the administration of +justice: +The disposition of criminal charges by agreement between the prosecutor and the +accused, sometimes loosely called "plea bargaining," is an essential component of the +administration of justice. Properly administered, it is to be encouraged. If every criminal +charge were subjected to a full-scale trial, the states and the federal government would +need to multiply by many times the number of judges and court facilities. +Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 260 (1971). "IT]he fact is that the guilty plea and the +often concomitant plea bargain are important components of this country's criminal justice +system. Properly administered, they can benefit all concerned." Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. +63, 71 (1977). Those sentiments are just as true today. The Bureau of Justice Statistics of the +Department of Justice reports that in 2005, 96.1% of federal criminal cases were resolved by way +of a plea bargain. www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/html/fjsst/2005/fjs05st.htm. That today's justice +system depends on plea negotiations is a monumental understatement. +Whether to negotiate a plea or contest a criminal charge "is ordinarily the most important +single decision in any criminal case." Boria v. Keane, 99 F.3d 492 (2d Cir. 1996). In the age of +the Sentencing Guidelines, +with the severe sentences called for in federal criminal cases, +minimum mandatories, and the abolition of parole, engaging in meaningful and effective plea +negotiations is perhaps one of the most important roles of a criminal defense attorney. Today, the +lawyer's "ability to persuade the judge or the jury is ... far less important than his ability to +12 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 193 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2013 Page 13 of 21 +persuade the prosecutor" during plea negotiations. United States v. Fernandez, 2000 WL 534449 +(S.D.N.Y. May 3, 2000) at *1. +Counsel's failure to discharge his duties during plea negotiations is malpractice: "I]t is +malpractice for a lawyer to fail to give his client timely advice concerning" pleas. Id. It also +constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel, and violates the Constitution. Thus, counsel has a +duty to advise clients fully on whether a particular plea is desirable, since "[e]ffective assistance +of counsel includes counsel's informed opinion as to what pleas should be entered." United +States v. Villar, 416 F. Supp. 887, 889 (S.D.N.Y. 1976); Boria v. Keane, 99 F.3d 492, 497 (2d +Cir. 1996), citing ABA Model Code of Professional Responsibility, Ethical Consideration 7-7 +(1992). +Counsel also has a constitutional obligation to seck out information from the government, +especially information that the government intends to use against the client. Failure to do so +constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel. Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374 (2005). "The +notion that defense counsel must obtain information that the state has and will use against the +defendant is not simply a matter of common sense, ... it is the duty of the lawyer ...." Id. at +387, citing 1 ABA Standards for Criminal Justice 4-4.1 (2d ed. 1982 Supp). The Constitution +also requires that criminal defense lawyers conduct "a prompt investigation of the circumstances +of the case," and this includes making every effort to secure information directly from the +prosecutors: The Supreme Court has "long ... referred [to these ABA Standards] as 'guides in +determining what is reasonable."" Id. at 387. +13 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 193 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2013 Page 14 of 21 +It is the duty of the lawyer to conduct a prompt investigation of the circumstances of the +case. The investigation should always include efforts to secure information in the +possession of the prosecution and law enforcement authorities. The duty to investigate +exists regardless of the accused's admissions or statements to the lawyer of facts +constituting guilt or the accused's stated desire to plead guilty. +Id. at 386, citing 1 ABA Standards for Criminal Justice 4 4.1 (2d ed. 1982 Supp). +The lawyer's duty to investigate and obtain information from the prosecutor goes handin-hand with the lawyer's additional duty to "make suitable inquiry" to determine whether valid +defenses exist. +v. Cunningham, 313 F.2d 347 (4th Cir.1963) ("Of course, it is not for a +lawyer to fabricate defenses, but he does have an affirmative obligation to make suitable inquiry +to determine whether valid ones exist"). And regardless of whether valid defenses exist, counsel +has a duty to initiate plea negotiations if he is to discharge his duty to faithfully represent the +client's interests. Hawkman v. Parratt, 661 F.2d 1161, 1171 (8th Cir. 1981)(counsel's "failure to +initiate plea negotiations concerning the duplicitous felony counts constituted ineffective +assistance of counsel which prejudiced Hawkman"). +Reason and experience tell us that the system we have in place of sentencing laws, ethical +rules, federal court dockets, and constitutional considerations, will not function if plea +negotiations are not privileged. After all, "it is immediately apparent that no defendant or his +counsel [would] pursue [plea negotiations] if the remarks uttered during the course of it are to be +admitted in evidence as proof of guilt." Herman, 544 F.2d at 797. Plea negotiations are "rooted +in the imperative need for confidence and trust," Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1, 10 (1996), and +maintaining their confidentiality advances significant public and private ends. Discovery and use +of +14 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 193 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2013 Page 15 of 21 +plea negotiations will cause "a meaningful and irreparable chill" to the "l +and complete +disclosures" that result in negotiated resolution of criminal matters. In re Air Crash Near Cali, +Colombia, 957 F.2d at 1533. For these reasons, plea negotiations are properly subject to a +common law privilege under Rule 501. +II. THE SEVERE AND IRREMEDIABLE PREJUDICE TO INTERVENORS FROM +DISCLOSURE OF THE COMMUNICATIONS. +The communications that would be disclosed under the Court's order were made by +intervenor attorneys on behalf of their client, intervenor Epstein, as part of a full, open, and +negotiation with government counsel directed toward resolving the federal criminal investigation +of Mr. Epstein on the most favorable terms possible. Those communications were made with +complete confidence that their contents would remain confidential, known only to counsel for the +government and intervenors, and would not be subject to possible future disclosure to third +parties, and certainly not to third parties seeking to use the contents of their attorney +communications to harm their client. That belief was eminently reasonable and based on +established practice and understandings regarding the confidentiality of such communications, +on which the attorneys relied in making those communications. The attorney intervenors' +decisions regarding the content of the communications sent to the government in the effort to +fulfill their professional and ethical obligations to their client - what to say, how much to say, +when to say it, and how to say it - were made in reliance upon those communications not being +disclosed outside the attorney-to-attorney settlement negotiation process. Indeed, for the reasons +addressed in the preceding section, the settlement/plea negotiation process so central to our +system of criminal justice cannot function in the absence of counsel's ability to represent their +15 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 193 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2013 Page 16 of 21 +clients vigorously in pursuing a favorable resolution of a criminal matter through confidential +communications with government counsel. +Now, by ordering the disclosure of settlement negotiations to Mr. Epstein's adversaries, +the Court has drastically reshaped the settlement negotiation landscape to retroactively eliminate +the reasonable expectation of confidentiality generated by Rule 410 and the work product +privilege, in reliance on which these communications were authored by competent and +responsible attorneys, that settlement communications between counsel would remain +confidential and not be subject to disclosure to third parties seeking to harm their client. If such +communications are ultimately found on appeal to be confidential under Rule 410 and the work +product privilege and/or found to be subject to Rule 501 common law privilege, as intervenors +have every confidence they will be, their disclosure in advance of appellate resolution will inflict +irremediable harm - if disclosure is not stayed pending appeal, the protections of privilege and +confidentiality will have been irretrievably lost and the harm that privilege and confidentiality +rules are designed to protect will have been done. And the anticipated damage here is not simply +limited to disclosure to petitioners and their counsel, serious as that damage would be; as past is +prologue, there can be little doubt, based on the prior conduct of petitioners and their attorneys, +that these communications, if disclosed to them, will quickly make their way into the public +press for wide-ranging dissemination. +Because it is impossible for appellate courts to undo the damage caused by forced +disclosure of privileged or confidential communications or information, courts have consistently +recognized that the harm caused by an erroneous order to disclose privileged or confidential +information is irreparable. See, e.g., In re Professionals Direct Ins. Co., 578 F.3d 432, 438 (6th +16 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 193 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2013 Page 17 of 21 +Cir. 2009) (finding risk of irreparable harm because "a court cannot restore confidentiality to +documents after they are disclosed"); [ +v. Gulfstream Park Racing Ass'n, Inc., 399 F.3d 391, +398 (Ist Cir. 2005) ("once the documents are turned over to +with no clear limitation on what +he may do with them, the cat is out of the bag, and there will be no effective means by which +TRPB can vindicate its asserted rights after final judgment"); In re Perrigo Co., 128 F.3d 430, +437 (6th Cir. 1997) (We find ... that forced disclosure of privileged material may bring about +irreparable harm"); In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 43 F.3d 966, 970 (5th Cir. 1994) (forced +disclosure of privileged documents would cause irreparable harm). The serious and irreparable +injury to intevenors from the Court's order weighs profoundly heavily in favor of granting a stay +pending appeal. +III. THE ABSENCE OF PREJUDICE TO THE PETITIONERS. +In stark contrast to the severe risk of serious and irreparable injury which the failure to +grant a stay pending appeal would cause to intervenors stands the clear absence of prejudice to +petitioners if a stay is granted. The petitioners commenced this action in 2008; they did not even +seek disclosure of the communications at issue until two and a half years later, in March, 2011 +(Doc. 51). Before doing so, petitioners had already moved for summary judgment (Doc. 48), a +filing conveying petitioners" belief that the record as it existed at that juncture was sufficient to +demonstrate their entitlement to the requested relief. That motion remains pending, and no trial +date has been set. +The petitioners knowingly sat on their CVRA claims for years as Mr. Epstein served a +prison sentence and as he satisfied all the requirements of his non-prosecution agreement. Rather +than seek emergency relief from the Court, the petitioners appeared at a status conference on July +17 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 193 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2013 Page 18 of 21 +11, 2008, knowing that Mr. Epstein was in prison, and they told the Court that they saw no +reason to proceed on an emergency basis. [Trans. July I1, 2008 at 24-25]. In a hearing one +month later, the petitioners specifically asked that the Court not invalidate the non-prosecution +agreement because they wanted to make sure not to undo any benefits they could gain from it. +[Trans. August 14, 2008 at 4]. There will be no prejudice to petitioners from waiting until an +appellate court can address the critically important issues at stake here. If they are entitled to +relief - something intervenors strenuously deny - they will obtain it, and the timing of that relief +matters little, if at all. Having been in no hurry to seek rescission of the non-prosecution +agreement, petitioners should not now be heard to contend that the time awaiting appellate +resolution really matters. +To the extent that communications authored by Mr. Epstein's counsel and sent to federal +prosecutors during settlement negotiations could ever, arguendo, be deemed relevant to +petitioners' action against the government for alleged breaches of their rights under the CVRA,? +a dubious proposition at best, any such relevance could be no more than tangential. Petitioners +already know full well what the government did or did and did not do with respect to +communicating with them during the course of the negotiations; the communications of Mr. +Epstein's counsel add little or, more likely, nothing to the petitioners' quantum of proof. +Moreover, the government has made it abundantly plain that, whatever the outcome of +this litigation, the agreement it made with Mr. Epstein will stand. Indeed, controlling Supreme +Court case law prevents it from doing otherwise. Mr. Epstein has fully performed his side of the +3 The Court's order expressly did not rule on whether any particular piece of correspondence +was relevant or admissible. Doc. 188 at 10. +18 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 193 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2013 Page 19 of 21 +bargain with the government, and when a bargain is based "on a promise or agreement of the +prosecutor, so that it can be said to be part of the inducement or consideration, such promise +must be fulfilled." Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (1971). Failure to enforce the +government's side of a plea bargain violates Due Process. United States v. Yesil, 991 F.2d 1527, +1532-33 (11th Cir. 1992). Mr. Epstein has a Due Process right to the continued specific +performance and enforcement of the non-prosecution agreement. United States v. Haber, 299 +Fed. Appx. 865, 867 (11th Cir. 2008). Rescission of the non-prosecution agreement at this +juncture would, moreover, undermine Mr. Epstein's reasonable expectations of finality in a +contract into which he entered with the government, a particularly inequitable result where it was +the government, alone, which had duties to third parties under the CVRA. +Relying on the non-prosecution agreement, Mr. Epstein served his state sentence in jail, +served community control probation, paid huge legal fees under his obligation to the attorney +representing certain alleged victims who were relying on the non-prosecution agreement to seek +damages under 18 U.S.C. §2255, and paid civil settlements to these claimants because the nonprosecution agreement precluded him from contesting liability. The rescission remedy sought by +petitioners could never restore the status quo to Mr. Epstein or to the third-party beneficiaries of +the agreement. Other civil settlements would also not have occurred but for the non-prosecution +agreement.* +* In addition, the State Attorney relied on the non-prosecution agreement when returning a +criminal charge that resulted not from the actions of the grand jury but instead as a corollary of +the non-prosecution agreement. +19 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 193 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2013 Page 20 of 21 +Even if the Court could validly set aside the non-prosecution agreement based on the +alleged violations of the CVRA, which intervenors maintain that it cannot, although they +acknowledge that the Court has ruled otherwise (Doc. 189), the ultimate result under both +contract and constitutional law would be the re-entry of the non-prosecution agreement after +compliance by the government with its obligations under the CVRA. The confidentiality and +privilege rights of intervenors should not be destroyed, as they would be by the failure to grant a +stay pending appeal, for so little reason. Epstein's constitutional rights under the Fifth and Sixth +Amendments as well as his contractual rights under the NPA cannot be extinguished by a +statutory non-constitutional violation by the Government towards third parties under the CVRA. +IV. THE PUBLIC INTEREST. +There is no interest of the public which will be harmed by the granting of the requested +stay. Ordinarily the public may have little interest at all in a dispute between private civil +litigants regarding access to documents. The public does, however, have a great interest in the +fair conduct of plea negotiations - an interest that is profoundly affected by the Court's Order of +June 18, 2013. Since more than 95% of all criminal cases are resolved by pleas, the public must +have an interest in how the courts function in regard to pleas. The public needs to see that justice +not only is done but appears to be done in the courts and would likely regard the Court's new +rule of disclosure to private litigants as introducing injustice and unfairness into the +settlement/plea negotiation process. +The public's interest strongly lies in awaiting appellate +resolution of the important issues raised in this case before forcing disclosure of documents +which there is a substantial likelihood the appellate court will rule are not subject to disclosure +and where the implementation of an un-stayed district court order will risk a change in the way +20 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 193 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2013 Page 21 of 21 +in which attorneys provide effective assistance of counsel to defendants in the pivotal plea +bargaining stages that are at issue in this matter. +V. CONCLUSION. +For all these reasons, +intervenor attorneys and intervenor Jeffrey Epstein respectfully +request that the Court stay its orders directing disclosure of all plea negotiations pending +resolution of these issues by the Eleventh Circuit. +We certify that on June 26, 2013, this motion was filed using the CM/ECF system. +Respectfully submitted, +BLACK, SREBNICK, KORNSPAN +& STUMPF, P.A. +201 South Biscayne Boulevard +Suite 1300 +Miami, Florida 33131 +Office: (305) 371-6421 +Fax: (305) 358-2006 +By - +/S/ +ROY BLACK, ESQ. +Florida Bar No. 126088 +JACKIE PERCZEK, ESQ. +Florida Bar No. 0042201 +G. WEINBERG, P.C. +20 Park Plaza +Suite 1000 +Boston, • 02116 +Office: (617) 227-3700 +Fax: (617) 338-9538 +By. +/S/ +|G. WEINBERG, ESQ. +Massachusetts Bar No. 519480 +21 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9dcfe37ecd815b2ee0b40985f65a2bb4af61624099c30bb160f3f77fe2276a30.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9dcfe37ecd815b2ee0b40985f65a2bb4af61624099c30bb160f3f77fe2276a30.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..45f1b3be8881a35526f2da890e409d8d5bc23196 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9dcfe37ecd815b2ee0b40985f65a2bb4af61624099c30bb160f3f77fe2276a30.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -260, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "9dcfe37ecd815b2ee0b40985f65a2bb4af61624099c30bb160f3f77fe2276a30", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 25, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "26e5a4c5b262e3aa3f10f25f8b89b4198b1dce952f8c937db94c3282ea0a2d77", + "output_sha256": "ebf90632ddb4b0450ce330bf1c7ec221129103049c4ba883e7c33f911ff4717f", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9de926bfd52086f616bc860baf7e10004e543148d853b91119c262e5c0b3b609.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9de926bfd52086f616bc860baf7e10004e543148d853b91119c262e5c0b3b609.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d4e533fe98b15d3b276d1b308ed0fa71da4032ec --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9de926bfd52086f616bc860baf7e10004e543148d853b91119c262e5c0b3b609.md @@ -0,0 +1,150 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 326-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/24/2009 Page 1 of 5 +Document 322-3 +Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2009 Page 1 of 5 +Entered on FLSD Docket 07/31/2009 + +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRAJ +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff, +vS. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 5, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/|| +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/T I +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +"1" + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 326-1 +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM +Document 322-3 +Entered on FLSD Docket 09/24/2009 Page 2 of 5 +Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2009 + +Entered on FLSD Docket 07/31/2009 Page 2 of 5 +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 6, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-80994-CIV-MARRAL +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 1, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-80993-CIV-MARRAII +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +C.M.A., +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-80811-CIV-MARRAJL +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOB, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08- 80893-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al, +2 + + +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 326-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/24/2009 Page 3 of 5 +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM +Document 322-3 +Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2009 Page 3 of 5 +Entered on FLSD Docket 07/31/2009 + +Defendants. +DOE II, +CASE NO.: 09- 80469-CIV-MARRA/ +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al, +Defendants. +JANE DOE NO. 101, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 09-80591-CIV-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 102 +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 09-80656-CIV-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +ORDER +THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiffs Jane Doe. No 101 and 102's Motion for +No-Contact Order (DE 113) and Plaintiffs Jane Does' 2-7 Notice of Joinder in Plaintiffs' Motion +(DE 145). The Court has reviewed the motions, responses, and replies (DE's 113, 127, 136, 145, +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 326-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/24/2009 Page 4 of 5 +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 322-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2009 Page 4 of 5 +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 238 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/31/2009 Page 4 of 5 +233), and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. Plaintiffs seek a Court order prohibiting +Defendant or his agents from communicating with Plaintiffs directly or indirectly. Defendant. +Defendant opposes the request as "needless, unwarranted and excessive." (DE 127 at 5). +Nonetheless, Defendant states in his response that "neither Mr. Epstein nor his attorneys, nor +their agents intend to have any direct or indirect contact with Plaintiffs counsels' clients." (DE +127 at 4). +The Court notes that Defendant is already under court order not to have direct or indirect +contact with any victims. See Transcript of Plea Conference at 20. During the course of +Defendant's state plea conference of June 30, 2009; Palm Beach Circuit Court Judge Deborah +Dale Pucillio explicitly instructed Defendant as follows: +Court: Okay. D is, you shall not have any contact with the victim, are there more +than one victim? +Ms. Belohlavek: There's several. +Court: Several, all of the victims. So this should be plural. I'm making that +plural. You are not to have any contact direct or indirect, and in this day and age I +find it necessary to go over exactly what we mean by indirect. By indirect, we +mean no text messages, no e-mail, no Face Book, no My Space, no telephone +calls, no voice mails, no messages through carrier pigeon, no messages througl +third parties, no hey would you tell so and so for me, no having a friend, +acquaintance or stranger approach any of these victims with a message of any sort +Defendant: Yes, +Id. at 20-21. +In light of Defendant's response to Plaintiffs' motion for no contact order, suggesting that +the state court's order only applies to some victims and that parties are always allowed to contact +each other directly, the Court finds it necessary to state clearly that Defendant is under this +4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 326-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/24/2009 Page 5 of 5 +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 322-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2009 + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 238 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/31/2009 Page 5 of 5 +court's order not to have direct or indirect contact with any plaintiffs, regardless of the intended +scope of the state court's order. Accordingly, it is hereby +ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: Plaintiffs Jane Doe. No 101 and 102's +Motion for No-Contact Order (DE 113) is GRANTED. Defendant is hereby prohibited from +communicating with all plaintiffs directly or indirectly', either personally or through agents, +except that Defendant may communicate with plaintiffs only through plaintiffs' attorneys of +record, for the duration of this Order. +DONE AND ORDERED in +at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, +Florida, this 31" day of July, 2009 +KENNETH A. MARRA +United States District Judge +Copies furnished to: +all counsel of record +'See infra, excerpt of Transcript of Plea Conference at 20-21, for examples of indirect +contact. +5 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9de926bfd52086f616bc860baf7e10004e543148d853b91119c262e5c0b3b609.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9de926bfd52086f616bc860baf7e10004e543148d853b91119c262e5c0b3b609.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f215856adbb5c510fcd3d629d0779d10de46dd5a --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9de926bfd52086f616bc860baf7e10004e543148d853b91119c262e5c0b3b609.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -236, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "9de926bfd52086f616bc860baf7e10004e543148d853b91119c262e5c0b3b609", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 10, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": false, + "input_sha256": "c1af80a50babfc0349a68a7135fe16fde1034c5b8ebc1403c79fc2ced987fee7", + "output_sha256": "72e93359da1cdb368374561b3830cac080bc8dd2f56548de50993063039cc6c6", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9df50eb6d27c8d3c1b136fc35a0b05340d8538b8f3ebf59e3f149503c01b3c9d.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9df50eb6d27c8d3c1b136fc35a0b05340d8538b8f3ebf59e3f149503c01b3c9d.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..605ca8921f95a22b7555f468c580cab7273024fa --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9df50eb6d27c8d3c1b136fc35a0b05340d8538b8f3ebf59e3f149503c01b3c9d.md @@ -0,0 +1,1108 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 113-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 1 of 23 +professional publications include books and peer-reviewed medical journal articles on mass +disasters, most recently concerning the Attack on America. +He was extensively interviewed in 1997 by CBS Dallas TV regarding psychiatric testimony +concerning eleven altar boys, testimony which had resulted in a record-making jury verdict +against the Archdiocese of Dallas. In April, 1998, Dr. Kliman was interviewed by Channel Four +anchorwoman, Linda +i, concerning his Salvation Army project providing the Cornerstone +form of psychoanalytic psychotherapy for homeless preschoolers and toddlers,. The Cornerstone +project itself was viewed on the Channel II Five O'Clock News. KGO TV interviewed Dr. +Kliman concerning a forensic testimony, with a focus on a Stanford football player who had +allegedly become a child molester. During the Lewinsky-Clinton matter, Kliman was +interviewed by Channel 12/20 concerning psychoanalytic views of leaders having exceptional +sexual access to partners and the risk of a position of power overcoming the judgments of such +leaders. During 2001 following the World Trade Building terrorism, Dr. Kliman was +interviewed by Channel II News and appeared on five occasions thereafter through 2003 +concerning the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. In May 2003, he was discussant with U.N. Secretary +General Olaru Otonu, featured on Dhubai Business TV concerning the plight of children in war. +In 2004, together with the International Psychoanalytic Association, Dr. Kliman helped organize, +establish +and supervise a therapeutic preschool project in Buenos Aires. +"Cornerstone +Argentina" is now in its second year of treating severely disturbed and impoverished +preschoolers, with his continuing collaboration. +Following the hurricane disasters of 2005 he collaborated with Mercy Corps and the Children's +Psychological Health Center to produce a mental health resource. The result, "My Katrina and +Rita Story", a guided activity resource of families who had to deal with the hurricanes. Mercy +Corps is distributing copies to 20,000 families. +In 2005, RE DISTURBED PRESCHOOLERS Dr. Kliman helped organize. establish and +supervise a therapeutic project in Piedmont California, at the nonprofit Ann +Center. +In 2007, RE HOMELESS CHILDREN: Dr. Kliman helped establish a Reflective Network +Therapy service for homeless preschoolers in Seattle. He provided four days of training in that +method for the Family Service Center of +• County (located in Seattle), and created an +organizational link between The Family Services Center and The Children's Psychological +Health Center, Inc. of San Francisco in order to continue serving homeless children in Seattle. +In 2008, Dr. Kliman activated the Reflective Network Therapy services for preschoolers in +Seattle. He supervises there in person and by phone and video. +In 2008, RE DISASTER SERVICES: Following the Sichuan Earthquake Disaster of May 12, +2008, Dr. Kliman established a link between Children's Psychological Health Center, Inc. +Mercy Corps, and The China America Psychoanalytic Alliance. He created mental health +resources (see Publications) which were licensed for mass distribution in China by Mercy Corps. +In 2008, Dr. Kliman helped found a new non-profit organization called Teach with Africa and is +a member of its Board of Directors. +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 113-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 2 of 23 +PROFESSIONAL POSITIONS: +Medical Director: The Children's Psychological Health Center, Inc. (a non-profit agency), San +Francisco, 1993- Responsible for standards of research. clinical treatment, clinical supervision, +staff training and forensic evaluations - reporting directly to the Board of Directors. Psychiatrie +Consultant: Ann +• Center, Piedmont, CA. Psychiatric Consultant: +• County Family +Services, Seattle, WA. Private Practice: Medical Director, The Psychological Trauma Center, +(a division of Preventive Psychiatry Associates, Medical Group, Inc.), San Francisco, 1989-. +Chief Psychiatric Consultant, Children's Garden, San Rafael, CA, 1990-1991. (Children's +Garden is a residential +i care facility, consisting of group care cottages and a school.) +Director, Preventive Psychiatry Services and Unit for Study of Mass Violence and Genocide, St. +Mary's Hospital, San Francisco, CA 1987-1989. Private practice of Psychiatry and +Psychoanalysis (Adult, Child, and Adolescent), San Francisco, CA, 1985-. Director and +Principal Investigator, +Care Study Unit, Columbia University, College of Physicians and +Surgeons, New York, N.Y., 1984-87. Associate Clinical Professor, Columbia University, +Department of Child Psychiatry, New York, N.Y., 1985-87. Founder, Editor-in-Chief, the +Journal of Preventive Psychiatry, New York, N.Y., 1980-. Principal Investigator, NIMH +project ("Preventive Mental Health Services for Children Entering +¡ Care"), The Center for +Preventive Psychiatry, +| Plains, N.Y., 1979-1985. Consultant, Children's Television +Workshop, New York 1976. Assistant Clinical Professor, Mount Sinai Medical School, +Department of Psychiatry, New York, N.Y., 1969-70. Director, Preventive Psychiatry Service, +Elmhurst General Hospital, Queens, N. Y.,1969-70 +GRANTS AWARDED: +Grants have been received as Principal Investigator for research and service in preventive +psychiatry from: The Aaron Norman Foundation, American Chai Trust, +Barrie +Foundation, Bydale Foundation, Cheesborough Pond's Inc., Ciba-Giegy Corporation, Julius H. & +Bessie R. Cohn Foundation, David and Ruth Kosh Foundation, James +Foundation, +Estate of Florence Mascias, Birny Mason Foundation, The Charles and Emma Goldmann +Foundation, The Haas Foundation, The Savin Corporation, The Harris Foundation, The Abelard +Foundation, AMF Corporation, CNA Financial Corporation, D. & R. Gottesman Foundation, +Stella & Charles Guttman Foundation, Longhill Charities, Virginia & Leonard Marx Foundation, +The Klingenstein Foundation, The Lavanburg-Corner House Foundation, Herman Muehlstein +Foundation, Nestle Corporation, Louise Ottinger Charitable Trust, Pettus Crowe Foundation, +Edward & Ellen Roche Relief Foundation, Samuel Rubin Foundation, Savin Business Machines +Corp., S. & H. Scheuer Foundation, +Tannenbaum Foundation. +Grants have been received as Principal Investigator for a project to develop nonmedical training +in Early Childhood Psychotherapy from: The Cleveland Foundation, The Van Ameringen +Foundation. A grant was received for equipment for preschool therapeutic services, from: The +Hecksher Foundation. Grants have been received as Principal Investigator for Research in the +Etiology of Early Childhood Psychosis from: The Bochm Foundation. Grants have been received +as Principal Investigator for Research in Assessment of Preventive Clinical Interventions with +Children Entering | +Family Care, from: The National Institute of Mental Health (Grant # +RO1 MH 27944), and The Harris Foundation. Grants received as Principal Investigator, The +Columbia University +I Care Study Unit, for development of preventive interventions with +children, from the following foundations: The Daniel and Florence Guggenheim +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 113-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 3 of 23 +Foundation, The Dreyfus Foundation, The Seth Sprague Foundation, The Gralnick Foundation, +The Harris Foundation, U.S. Trust, and The Scheuer Family Foundation. +Most recent grants. +1996-2002: Support from The Office of Education, Division of Special Education, San Mateo +County, California. +1996 The Windholz Foundation, San Francisco, for video documentation of an experimental +project concerning treatment of disturbed and traumatized preschool patients in a public +education special education division. +1999 Morris Stulsaft Foundation for video-recording facility to document treatment in The +Cornerstone Therapeutic School. +1999-2001 The Cadence Corporation - for early childhood treatment services +2000-2001 The Harris Foundation for Cornerstone Therapeutic School. +2000 Funding and Recognition by the State of California: In 2001, The Department of +Education, Division of Special Education, certified the Cornerstone Therapeutic School as a +nonpublic special education school, allowing public entities to fund the school by contracts with +Unified School Districts. +2001 The San Francisco Day Care Corporation - for Cornerstone Therapeutic School. +2001 The Sophie Murvis Foundation for Training of Teachers and Therapists in the Cornerstone +Method. +2002, 2003. The Five +Preschool 2003. +Foundation for development of The Cornerstone Therapeutic +2005 The Sophie Murvis Foundation grant for Training of Teachers and Therapists in the +Cornerstone Method. +2005 Mercy Corps for creation of "My Personal Story about Hurricanes Katrina and Rita" +2008 Mercy Corps for creation of "My Sichuan Earthquake Story" +JANUSZ KORCZAK INTERNATIONAL LITERARY PRIZE: +Albert Rosenfeld, co-authors of Responsible Parenthood, published by Holt, Rinchart and +Winston, New York, 1980 +PUBLISHED PAPERS AND BOOKS: +4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 113-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 4 of 23 +01. "Adrenal Medullary Function," in G. +Yearbook of Endocrinology, Yearbook +Publishers, 1955. +02. Improved Visual Recognition in Hypnotic Versus Control State," Archives of General +Psychiatry, Vol. 7:155-162, October 1962. +03. Children and the Death of a President, Editor and Contributor (with Martha +Wolfenstein, Ph.D.), Doubleday & Company, New York, 1965. +04. Oedipal Themes in Children's Reactions to the Assassination of President Kennedy," +in Wolfenstein and Kliman, Children and the Death of a President, Doubleday, New +York, 1965. +05. "The Role of Stimulus Ambiguity in Hypnotic Recognition," (with Eugene Goldberg, +M.D.), Arch. Gen. Psychiat. 14: 100, Jan. 1966. +06. "Sharing Truths for Mental Health," in Mental Health in Our Daily Life. Mental +Health Association, +Plains. New York, 1966. +07. "A Psychoanalyst Looks at +Violence as a Factor in Black Violence," The +Center for Preventive Psychiatry, 1968. +08. Teacher Recognition of Psychiatric Needs Among Preschoolers," The Center for +Preventive Psychiatry, 1968. +09. Psychological Emergencies of Childhood. Grune and +New York, 1968. +10. +"A Psychiatrist Speaks Out: 3,000 Blighted Children of Westchester," The Center for +Preventive Psychiatry, 1969. +11. "On a Vacuum in Mental Health Practices," The Center for Preventive Psychiatry, +1969. +"Psychological Management of the Dying Child," in W. Kutscher (Ed.) Death and +Bereavement, Charles C. +Company, Springfield, III. 1969. +13. "The Unique Function of the Teacher in an Experimental Therapeutic Nursery School" +(with Doris Ronald), The Center for Preventive Psychiatry, +Plains, New York, +1970. +14. The Open Family Series (Consultant Editor, with Sarah Bonnett +author). A +series of five books entitled About Dying, Making Babies, That New Baby, A Hospital +Story, and About Handicaps, +Publishing Co., New York, 1974. +15. "Death in the Family-Its Impact on Children," Terry +Klein Memorial +16. +Lecture. Behavioral Sciences Tape Library, Leonia, New Jersey, 1974. +"Death of a Parent Occurring During a Child's Analysis," in Trauma: Monograph V of +17. +the Monograph Series of the Ernst Kris Study Group, New York, 1974. +"A Case of a Dying Child," in Trauma: Monograph V of the Monograph Series of the +Ernst Kris Study Group, New York Psychoanalytic Institute, International Universities +Press, New York, 1974. +18. "Analyst in the Nursery: Application of Child Analytic Techniques in a Therapeutic +Nursery," The Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, Volume 30, New York Times +Publishing Company, 1975. +19. "A Study of Maternal Depression in the First Two Years of Life: A Possible +Contributing Factor in the Etiology of Infantile Psychosis and Neurosis" (with Judyth +Katz), The Center for Preventive Psychiatry, +Plains, New York, 1975. +20. Introduction to Love and Mankind's Future, by Alexander Arzoumanian, Persepolis +Press, New York, 1976. +21. "Preventive Measures in Childhood Bereavement," in Linzer, N. Understanding +Bereavement and Grief. Yeshiva University Press, New York, 1977. +22. "Childhood Mourning: A Taboo Within a Taboo," in Gerber, I., Wiener, A., Kutscher, +A., et al., Perspectives on Bereavement, MSS Information Corporation, New York, +5 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 113-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 5 of 23 +23. "Mourning, Memory, and Reconstruction: The Analysis of a Four-Year-Old +Maternally Bereaved Girl at Age Sixteen Months" (With +, Ph.D.), in +The Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, Volume 34, The New York Times Press, New +York, 1979. +"Facilitation of Mourning During Childhood," in Gerber, I., Wiener, A., Kutscher, A., +et al., Perspectives on Bereavement, MSS Information Corporation, New York, 1979. +25. "The Cornerstone Treatment of a Preschool Boy from an Extremely Impoverished +Environment" (with +, Ph.D.), The Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, +Vol. 35, The New York Times Press, New York, 1980. +26. Responsible Parenthood: The Child's Psyche Through the Six-Year Pregnancy, Holt, +Rinehart, and Winston, New York, 1980. +27. "Death: Some Implications in Child Development and Child Analysis," in Advances in +Thanatology, Vol. 4, No. 2, Arno Press, New York, 1980. +28. +"Children in +Care: A Preventive Service and Rescarch Program for a High Risk +Population" (with M. Harris Schaeffer, +, and Bernard G. +Pasquariella). The Journal of Preventive Psychiatry, Volume I: 1, 1981. +Editorial(s). The Journal of Preventive Psychiatry. Volume I, 1981-1982, Volume II, +1983-4, Volume III, 1985-7, Volume IV, in press. +30. Preventive Mental Health Services for Children Entering +Assessment (with M. Harris Schaeffer, and M. +Family Care: An +The Center for Preventive +31. +Psychiatry, +Plains, New York, 1982. +"Summary +of Two Psychoanalytically Based Service and Research Projects: +Preventive Treatments for +Children" with M. Harris Schaeffer, Ph.D. J. of +Preventive Psychiatry, Vol. II, No. 1, 1983. +"Three New Areas in Litigation on behalf of Children," in Child Psychiatry and the +33. +Law, Diane Schekty, Editor, Volume 2, Bruner/Mazel, New York, 1985. +Preventive Psychiatry: Early Intervention and Situational Crisis Management, coeditor, with S.C. Klagsbrun, M.D., E.J. Clark, Ph.D., others. The Charles Press, +Philadelphia, 1989. +34. My Earthquake Story: A Guided Workbook for Children, Parents and Teachers, with +Harriet Wolfe, M.D. and Edward Oklan, M.D. Psychological Trauma Center Press, +35. +Kentfield, CA. October, 1989. +"Facilitation of Mourning During Childhood," chapter in Preventive Psychiatry: Early +Intervention and Situational Crisis Management. (Eds) S. Klagsbrun, G. Kliman, E. +Clark, A. Kutscher, R. DeBellis, C. Lambert. The Charles Press, Philadelphia, 1989. +36. +"Toward Preventive Intervention in Early Childhood Object Loss," chapter in +Noshpitz, H. and Coddington, D. (Eds) Stressors and Clinical Techniques in Child +Psychiatry. Charles +, NY, 1990. +37. "Brief Report: Loss of Parental Services—-A Guide to Categorization." J. Preventive +Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines 4:1, 1990. Human Sciences Press, NYC. +38. +"A Methodologic Breakthrough: The Saga of Delivering Effective Primary Preventive +Psychotherapy to Groups of | +| Children." J. Preventive Psychiatry and Allied +Disciplines 4:1, 1990. Human Sciences Press, NYC. +39. +"The Rise of Adolf Hitler and Other Genocidal Leaders—Psychoanalytic and +Historical Symposium (Summary)," J. Preventive Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines +4:1,1990. Human Sciences Press, NYC. +6 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 113-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 6 of 23 +40. Kliman, G. et al (2007). "Facilitating Effective Coping in Children Following +Disasters: A Psychoanalytic Informed Guided Narrative Intervention." J. Am Psan. +Assoc. In Press +41. Kliman, G. and M.H. Schaeffer, Ph.D. "A Breakthrough in Prediction and Prevention: +Diagnoses as Social Predictors for +Children." J. Preventive Psychiatry and +Allied Disciplines 4:1, 1990 Human Sciences Press, NYC. +42. "My Flood Story-a Guided Activity Workbook for Children, Families and +Teachers," co-authored with Edward Oklan, M.D., Family Development Press, 1010 +Sir Francis Drake Blvd, Kentfield, CA 94960. +43. "My Earthquake Story, A Guided Activity Workbook for Children, Families and +Teachers," co-authored with Harriet Wolfe, M.D., Preventive Psychiatry Associates +Medical Group, Inc., 2105 Divisadero Street, San Francisco, CA 94115 and Edward +Oklan, M.D., Family Development Press, 1010 Sir Francis Drake Blvd, Kentfield, CA +94960. +44. "Field Notes: | +| Care: The Personal Life History Book: A Psychoanalytically +Based Intervention for +Children," Journal for the Psychoanalysis of Culture & +Society, Fall 1996 1:2. 159-162. +45. Kliman G and Zelman A. (1996). "Use of a Personal Life History Book in the +Treatment of +_ Children-An Attempt to Enhance Stability of +Care +Placements." Chapter in Zelman A (ed). Early Intervention with High-Risk Children: +Freeing Prisoners of Circumstance. Jason Aronson, Northvale, NJ. 105-124. +46. "Cornerstone Project: Analysis in Special Ed Classes," The American Psychoanalyst, +1997. 31:2.27-28 +"My Book about Kosovo - a Guided Activity Workbook for Kosovo Children, +Families, and their Teachers." English and Albanian Editions, CPHC, 1999, San +Francisco. +48. "My Book about the Attack on America", A Guided Activity Workbook for Children, +Families and Teachers, coauthored with Ed Oklan, M.D. and Ann Oklan, M.D. 2001, +CPHC, San Francisco. +49. "Helping Patients and their Families Cope in a National Disaster", The S.F. Medical +Society, January 2002. Reprinted in J. L.A. Medical Society, March 2002. +50. Discussion of Reactive Attachment Disorder. Developmental Pediatrics. 2003. +51. "My Personal Story About Hurricanes Katrina and Rita - a guided activity workbook +Portland, OR. +"My Personal Story About Tropical Storm Stan" English Ed. Feb. 24, 2006, The +Children's Psychological Health Center. Spanish Translation " Mi Historia De La +Tormenta Stan" Feb. 2006 +53. +Israeli Terror Book +54. "'Methods for Maximizing the Good Effects of +Care: Evidence Based Strategies +to Prevent Discontinuities of +Care and Raise I.Q." International Journal of +Applied Psychoanalytic Studies, April, 2006 +"My Personal Story about being Homeless" A Guided Activity Workbook to help +Children Cope. The Children's Psychological Health Center Jan 15, 2008 +56. My Sichuan Earthquake Story - A Guided Activity Workbook to help Children +Cope" 85 pages. First English Edition May 22, 2008 available for download online at +www.childrenspsychological.org. Mandarin edition by CPHC and China America +Analytic Association, in press with Mercy Corps June 2, 2008. +7 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 113-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 7 of 23 +57. "My Hurricane Story" A Guided Activity Workbook to help Children Cope. The +Children's Psychological Health Center. Sept 21, 2008 +WORKS IN PROGRESS: available in Draft: +IQ Rise among Preschoolers with Pervasive Developmental Disorders. +Child Psychoanalytic Contributions to Civil Justice System, submitted by invitation, to +Psychoanalytic Inquiry +Books in Draft: +1. Reflective Network Therapy: Early Childhood Psychotherapy in the Classroom +2. A Unifying New Theory of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder +PRESENTATIONS: +01. "Specific Traumas: Selective Review of Literature," presented at the Ernst Kris Study +Group, New York Psychoanalytic Institute, New York, 1965. +02. "Psychoanalysis of a Four-Year-Old in a Preschool Group," presented at the American +Psychoanalytic Association, Atlantic City, New Jersey, May, 1966 +03. "Covert Suicidal Impulses in Maternally Deprived Children" (with Harriet Lubin, M.S.W.), +presented at the American Association of Psychiatric Services for Children, Boston, +Massachusetts, November, 1969. +04. Children's Reactions to National Events: The 1968 Federal Elections," presented at the +American Orthopsychiatric Association, Washington, D.C., 1969. +05. "Facilitation of Mourning During Childhood," presented at the Chicago Psychoanalytic +Institute, May 1973. +06. "Preventive Approaches to Preschool Psychiatric Disorders: Some Assessments," presented +at the Academy of Child Psychiatry, Washington, D.C., October, 1973. +"Biological Drive Derivative Cycles in Preschool Patients," presented at the New York +Psychoanalytic Institute Research Seminar, 1974. +08. "Children in National Disasters," presented at the International Association for Child +Psychiatry, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1974. +09. "Childhood Mourning: Some Social Aspects," presented at Yeshiva University, New York, +October, 1974. +10. The Secter far Pral entive Rey oate Impact ors with mene and hident presented +Yeshiva University, October 15, 1975. +11. "Death: Implication for Psychoanalytic Theory and Practice," presented at The Association +for Psychoanalytic Medicine, New York, 1977. +12. "A Psychoanalytic View of an Ancient Mass Disaster: The Mayan Exodus," The Center for +Preventive Psychiatry, 1977. +8 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 113-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 8 of 23 +13. "A Psychoanalytic View of Preventive Psychiatry," presented at Stockbridge, Mass., +December, 1977. +14. "The Self-Concept and Healthy Narcissism: Relevance to Preventive Psychiatry," presented +at the Westchester Psychoanalytic Socicty, L +Plains, New York, 1978. +15. "Special Problems of the Single Parent Child," presented at Department of Child +Psychiatry, Rutgers Medical School and published by Jason Aronson Psychotherapy Tape +Library, New York, 1978. +16. "The Self-Concept: Its Significance in Prevention of Mental Illness," presented at The +Alumni Association of the Chicago Psychoanalytic Institute, Child Psychotherapy Program, +Chicago, 1978. +17. "Treatment of an Impoverished Intellectually Retarded Ghetto Child by the Cornerstone +Method" (with +. Ph.D.), presented at the American Psychoanalytic +Association, New York, 1979. +18. "Preventive Approaches Among +| Children Using Modern Theory of Narcissism," +presented at The Department of Psychiatry, Mountainside Hospital, Symposium on Primary +Prevention of the Mental and Behavioral Disorders, Mountainside, NJ, 1979. +19. "The Center for Preventive Psychiatry: Its Relationship to Infant Psychiatry," at the +Symposium on Infant Psychiatry, The Center for Preventive Psychiatry, +Plains, New +York, 1979. +20. "Mourning, +Memory and Reconstruction," presented at The Westchester Psychoanalytic +Association, +Plains, New York, 1980. +21. "Preliminary Report on Preventive Psychiatric Services for +Children," presented at +American Association of Psychiatric Services for Children, 1980. +22. "Assessment of Primary Preventive Services: Children Entering +Family Care," +presented at American Orthopsychiatric Association, May, 1981. +23. "Psychoanalytically-Based Approaches to the Problems of +Care: A Pilot Project," +presented at the American Psychoanalytic Association Interdisciplinary Seminar on +Psychoanalytic Observations of +| Care, New York, December, 1978. See also report of +this Seminar by +T.: "Psychoanalytic Observations of +Care (An +Interdisciplinary Seminar of the American Psychoanalytic Association)." The Journal of +Preventive Psychiatry, Volume I:1, 1981. +24. "A Project to Deliver and Evaluate Preventive Psychiatric Services," Columbia College of +Physicians & Surgeons, Division of Child Psychiatry Grand Rounds, May, 1982. +25. "New Concepts in Litigation on Behalf of Children," presented at New York Medical +College, October, 1982. +26. "Cruel Experiments of Nature: General Remarks on Childhood Bereavement and +Developmental Pathology." Vulnerable Child Workshop, American Psychoanalytic +27. Facilitation of Mourning During Childhood: Role of The Clinician," presented at New York +28. "A Questionnaire for Surveying the Practice of Preventive Psychiatry," presented at the +American Academy of Child Psychiatry, Prevention Committee, October, 1983. +29. "Experiences and Problems in Research Concerning Childhood Bereavement," presented at +Department of Psychiatry, University of Ottawa, November, 1983. +30. "Prediction and Prevention with +Children" (co-authored with M. Harris Schaetter, +Ph.D.), presented at American Psychiatric Association, May, 1984. +31. "Preventive Psychiatry as Applied to +Children," Grand Rounds, +_ Porter +Psychiatric Institute, 1985. +32. +"The Childhood of Adolf Hitler," with Robert Pois, Ph.D., The American Psychoanalytic +Association, Denver, May 1985. +9 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 113-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 9 of 23 +33. Seminar on "New Areas in Forensic Psychiatry," at the Robert +law firm, San +Francisco, 1986. VIDEOTAPE AVAILABLE +34. "Children's Reactions to the Challenger Shuttle Disaster," on 20/20 (Television Broadcast), +1986. VIDEOTAPE AVAILABLE +35. +The Fathering of Adolf Hitler," Grand Rounds, McAuley Neuropsychiatric Institute, St. +Mary's Hospital, San Francisco, 1986. +36. "Child Sexual Abuse: Psychoanalytic and Forensic Approaches," Children's Hospital, San +Francisco, 1986. VIDEOTAPE AVAILABLE +37. +"Preventive Psychiatry for Children," Training Seminar at McAuley Neuropsychiatric +Institute, St. Mary's Hospital, San Francisco, 1987. VIDEOTAPE AVAILABLE +38. "Multi-Victim Child Sexual Abuse," San Francisco Psychoanalytic Institute Extension +Division, October 1987. VIDEOTAPE AVAILABLE +39. "Children in +¡ Families: Advances in Preventive Psychiatry," Continuing Education +Program for Psychiatrists, U.C. +8, 1988. +40. "The Mothering of Adolf Hitler," Grand Rounds. McAuley Neuropsychiatric Institute, St. +Mary's Hospital, San Francisco, Dec. 1988. +41. "Adolf Hitler's Mothering: A Child Psychoanalytic View," Westchester Psychoanalytic +Society, New York Hospital, January, 1989. +42. "The Personal Life History Book: Preventive Psychotherapy for Children in Chaos." +Department of Child Psychiatry, Harlem Hospital, New York, NY, January, 1989. +43. Chairman: Symposium April 20-21, 1989. The Rise of Adolf Hitler and Other Genocidal +Leaders. Interdisciplinary Unit for Study of Mass Violence and Genocide. St. Mary's +Hospital Department of Psychiatry, San Francisco. +44. "The Mothering of Adolf Hitler," Symposium above. VIDEOTAPE AVAILABLE +45. +46. +"The Fathering of Adolf Hitler," Symposium above. VIDEOTAPE AVAILABLE +Public Media: Following the October 17th earthquake, Dr. Kliman and his Psychological +Trauma Center associates appeared on KRON-TV, KFAS, KQED and public service radio +network to offer advice and respond to call-in questions regarding earthquake stress and +trauma. His Earthquake Story guided workbook (see above) was distributed as a public +service by San Francisco Community Mental Health Services and the Oakland Bureau of +47. +Education to 11,000 teachers in Oakland and San Francisco. +Psychoanalytic Society: (April 1990) "Simultaneous child and couple therapy: +emergence and interpretation of congruent unconscious themes." +48. University of California College of Medicine, Department of Psychiatry, Irvine. Chune +1990) "Prevention of Psychopathology among Children: Systematic Projects with +Children." +49. Preventive Interventions with Traumatized Children," Grand Rounds California Pacific +Hospital Department of Psychiatry, October 20, 1992. VIDEOTAPE AVAILABLE. +50. Altered Interpersonal Schemas After Life Threatening Childhood Trauma," Center for +Study of Consciousness, UCSF, October 1992. +51. Alterations of Pre-Traumatic Memory and Post Traumatic Schemas," Child Analysis +Colloquium, San Francisco Psychoanalytic Institute, November 1992. +52. Toward A New Theory of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder," Control Mastery Group, San +Francisco Psychoanalytic Institute, December 1992. +53. Severe Psychological Trauma in Very Young Children," Grand Rounds at the Menninger- +San Mateo County Hospital Psychiatric Residency Program, March 23, 1993. +54. Psychological Crises Among Preschoolers," Department of Health, City of San Francisco, +April 1993. +55. Child Analysis Colloquium," San Francisco Psychoanalytic Institute, May 1993. +10 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 113-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 10 of +56. "Loss of Parental Services—a Guide for Clinicians and Attorneys," Children's +Psychological Trauma Center, September 16, 1993. (120 min. VIDEOTAPE +AVAILABLE.) +57. Catastrophic Levels of Psychological Trauma—a Guide for Clinicians and Attorneys," +Children's Psychological Trauma Center, September 27, 1993 (120 min. VIDEOTAPE +AVAILABLE.) +58. Systematic Preventive Interventions with +• Children," Kevnote Address, Western +Pennsylvania Psychiatric Institute Conference on Adoption and +• Care, Sept. 22, 1993. +59. Cost Benefits of Preventive Interventions with +• Children," American Behavioral +Health Institute, San Francisco, Sept. 28, 1993. (60 min. VIDEOTAPE AVAILABLE.) +60. True and False Allegations of Child Molestation," Children's Psychological Trauma Center, +October 1, 1993. (120 min. VIDEOTAPE AVAILABLE). +61. Severe Psychological Trauma in Childhood-Some New Observations," Grand Rounds, +Dept. of Child Psychiatry, Oakland Children's Hospital, Oct. 7, 1993. (60 min. +VIDEOTAPE AVAILABLE.) +Preventive Approaches in Severe Psychological Trauma," Bar Association of San +Francisco, October 28, 1993. (90 min. VIDEOTAPE AVAILABLE.) +63. New Theory of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder," Pediatric Grand Rounds California Pacific +Hospital, Nov. 5, 1993. +64. Preventing Depression in Yourself, Your Clients and Your Co-Workers," San Francisco +Bar Association, San Francisco, CA, December 2, 1993. +A New Theory of Post Traumatic Disorders," Center for Preventive Psychiatry, +Plains, NY, January 11, 1994. +66. KRON-TV, "Helping Children Deal with Earthquake Stress," San Francisco, CA, January +20, 1994. +67. Samuel Kahn Memorial Lecture, The Center for Preventive Psychiatry, +, Plains, N.Y. +Topic, +"Catastrophic Traumas of Childhood-New Findings, +New Theory, New +Therapeutic Tasks," February 28, 1994. +68. "Preventing Job Stress: The Disease of the 20th Century," San Francisco Bar Association, +San Francisco, CA, March 25, 1994. +69. "Controlled Assessment of Psychoanalytically Derived Psychotherapy with +Children," American Psychoanalytic Association, Philadelphia, PA, May 1994. +70. "A senior researcher's subjective experience of a new hypothesis," California School of +Professional Social Work Studies. Commencement Address, May 1994. +71. "Oppositionalism Among Traumatized Children," International Association Child and +Adolescent Psychiatry, San Francisco, CA, July 23, 1994. +72. "New Theory of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder," International Association Child and +Adolescent Psychiatry, San Francisco, CA, July 25, 1994. +73. "Violence Against Young Children-Children in War," Co-sponsored by San Francisco +Psychoanalytic Institute, San Francisco, CA, July 26, 1994. +74. "Method for Treatment of Preschool Psychiatric Patients in Groups," American +Psychoanalytic Association, Philadelphia, PA, December 15, 1994. +Francisco Psychoanalytic Institute, March 31, 1995. +76. "New Theory of Child Abuse Effects," T.A.S.K., Monterey, CA, April 1, 1995. +77. "Psychological Trauma, Day Care and Mental Health," San Francisco Psychoanalytic +Institute Extension Division. April 26, 1995. +78. "Special Problems of Medical Ethics in Psychiatric Treatment: Child Abuse Concerns," San +Francisco Psychoanalytic Institute Research Group, June 30, 1995. +11 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 113-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 11 of +79. "Operational Confirmation of a Psychoanalytic Hypothesis: Detecting and Interfering with +The Repetition Compulsion," Cleveland Psychoanalytic Institute and Anni Katan Center for +Child Development, October 28, 1995. +80. The Personal Life History Book Method: Reducing Transfers Among +Family +Homes," The Center for Preventive Psychiatry, 1 +Plains, NY, October 30, 1995. +81. "A New Theory of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder," Grand Rounds, Baylor University +School of Medicine, Houston, November 8, 1995. +82. "Raising IQ's in a Therapeutic Nursery: The Cornerstone Method. How it works as +illustrated by video clips of the therapist and patients in the classroom," The Houston +Psychoanalytic Institute and Stedman West Child Development Center, Houston, TX, +November 8, 1995. +83. "The Difficult Client: Accredited Continuing Legal Education seminar for California +Attorneys." The Psychological Trauma Center, The Psychological Trauma Center, 1996. +84. "Catastrophic injuries and psychological trauma: Accredited Continuing Legal Education +seminar for California Attorneys." The Psychological Trauma Center, 1996. +85. "Why Small Clients Get Large Awards: Proving and Disproving Psychological Injuries in +Childhood. Accredited Continuing Legal Education seminar for California Attorneys." +86. "A New Public Health Approach in Public Special Education: Presentation to The San +Mateo Board of Education," San Mateo, CA. April 17, 1996. +87. A new model for special education of preschoolers: The Cornerstone Method -- for synergy +between early childhood education and psychotherapy. California State Dept. Education, +Division of Special Education September 1996, Red Lion Hotel, Orange County Airport, +88. "Synergy Between Special Education and Psychotherapy in the Classroom: Special +Education Learning Program Administrators," San Mateo, CA. October 10, 1996. +89. "The Role of Psychoanalyst as Forensic Expert in Catastrophic Psychological Trauma +Cases." American Psychoanalytic Association, Winter Meeting, Waldorf Astoria, NY. +December 1996 +"Controlled Assessment of a Psychoanalytically Derived Psychotherapy." American +Psychoanalytic Association, Winter Meeting, Waldorf Astoria, NY December 1996. +91. "Child Psychotherapy Course: Several preschool patients with different diagnosis, treated in +a preschool therapeutic nursery, showing response to interpretations, with discussions of the +role of teacher, parents and medications." San Francisco Psychoanalytic Institute, March 4, +11, 18, 1997 +"Synergy between Psychotherapy and early childhood special education" SELPA +Administrators, April 17, 1997 +"Analyst in the Nursery: The Cornerstone Method," San Francisco Psychoanalytic Institute, +May 21, 1997 +94. +"Psychological Trauma Among Preschoolers," San Francisco Psychoanalytic Institute, May +15, 1997 +95. ACT for Mental Health, April 17, 1997 +96. +"New Theory of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder," Fifth European Conference on Traumatic +Stress, European Society for Traumatic Stress Studies, July 1, 1997. +97. The Cornerstone Method: Intensive Preschool Psychotherapy in Public School Special +Education Classes. California State Federation/Council for Exceptional Children 48'h +Annual Conference & Special Education Fall Conference, San Francisco, CA, October 21- +24, 1998. +98. +Research and treatment with highly traumatized preschoolers. +Institute, Berkeley, +Feb. 4, 2002. +12 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 113-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 12 of +99. Five year and thirty-three year follow ups of early childhood psychotherapy: Some startling +findings among children treated by The Cornerstone Method. Grand Rounds, Dept. of +Psychiatry, California Pacific Medical Center, San Francisco, February +1, 2000. +(VIDEOTAPE AVAILABLE). +100. Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and new methods of treatment. Department of Mental +Health, State of Oklahoma, and Dept. of Psychiatry, Oklahoma State College of Medicine. +Two Days of Workshops and Seminars to fellows, residents in psychiatry and child +psychiatry, medical students, and mental health clinicians. October 22,23 2000. +101. A Psychoanalytic Treatment of Young Children: Surprisingly Measurable Positive +Outcomes", San Francisco Psychoanalytic Institute - Extension Division Discussion for +Clinicians, 03.05.2001 +102. Regarding the 9/11/2002 Attack on America. +2001-2002 Attack on America Events: 2001-2002 Public Health/ Public Education +Activities: +Seminar for Parents on Crisis Management following 9/11: Convent of Sacred Heart +Elementary School Seminar for Teachers on Crisis Management following 9/11: Stuart +and Convent of Sacred Heart Elementary Schools Federal Emergency Management +Agency: Web-Site Linkage for CPH's advice to parents and teachers American Academy +of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry: Web-Site Linkage for free copies of guided activity +workbook for children, parents and teachers. +American Psychoanalytic Association: Web-site linkage for free copies of guided activity +workbook for children, parents and teachers. +Channel II: Three interviews on primary prevention of the effects of psychological trauma +and terror +Channel II: Three interviews on secondary prevention via early life psychiatric treatment of +children +103. Day Long Workshop on The Cornerstone Method. The Children's Psychological Health +04. Child psvchoanalysis. San Francisco Psychoanalytic Institute. +author's recent treatment work with young children. +105. Theory and Intervention regarding Early Childhood Trauma: Extension Division, San +Francisco Psychoanalytic Institute. +106. Educating and treating disturbed young children: Office of Education, County of San +Mateo, ten conferences a year. (1995- 2002) +107. The Cornerstone Method of educating and treating disturbed young children: 45 +conferences a year, Children's Psychological Health Centcr, San Francisco. (1999- +continuing) +108. New methods for treatment of traumatized and/or developmentally disordered young +children. Northern California Mental Health Association, February 9, 2002. A day long +workshop. Eureka, Ca. +109. Research and treatment with disturbed and traumatized young children. +Berkeley, Feb 4, 2002. +Institute, +13 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 113-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 13 of +110. Presentations of video-taped child treatment sessions: The Child Analysis Study Group of +the San Francisco Psychoanalytic Institute, six occasions 2001-2002. +I11. New Theory and New Treatments of Children. Northern California Society of Mental +Health Professionals. Feb 8, 2002. +112. Treatment of Children in their Real Life Spaces. Ann |||| Center, Berkeley, CA +February 2, 2002. +113. Treatment of children in community school settings. Workshop on Community Child +Psychiatry. American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. October 2002. +114. Treatment of preschoolers in real life space - The Cornerstone Method. A two day training +workshop for the L.A. County Dept. of Mental Health. October 2002. +115. The Cornerstone Method. The American Psychoanalytic Association, Workshop on Early +Childhood. January 2003, New York. +116. Treatment of Three Autistic Preschoolers: The American Psychoanalytic Association. June, +2003. Boston. +117. The Personal Life History Book: A Preventive Therapy for +| Children. A day-long +workshop at Counseling4Kids, Los Angeles, September 2003. +118. A new method of treatment of autistic preschoolers. The Chinatown Child Development +Center, San Francisco, December 4, 2003 +119. Results of the Cornerstone Method: Pervasive Developmental Disorder with eight month to +37 year followup. The M.I.N.D. Institute, U.C. +. December 19, 2003. +120. Procedures for preventing and reducing psychopathology among +| children. Joint +Committee of AACAP and Child Welfare League, November 2003, with Marilyn Benoit, +M.D. +121. The Role of Child Psychiatrists in Prevention of Child Abuse: Forensic Child Psychiatry as +a Societal Influence. Mensa Society, January 2004. +122. Psychoanalysis Confronts Autism. The L.A. and SoCal Psychoanalytic Institutes, February +22,2004. +123. Child Psychiatric Testimony and the Leading Edge of Social Change. American College of +Forensic Psychiatry, March 28, 2004 +124. The Cornerstone Method of Treating Autism. American Psychoanalytic Association, +Boston, Mass., January 2005. +125. An evidence based method for in-classroom treatment of disturbed preschoolers. Child +Welfare League of America. New Orleans, May 2005. +126. Two evidence-based methods for treating +| children. International Psychoanalytic +Association, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, July 2005. +127. A novel evidence-based method for treatment of Asperger's Disorder. Lorman Educational +Seminars, Redding, CA. November 18, 2005 +128. "Applications of The Cornerstone Method to Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders" +American Psychoanalytic Association, New York, New York. January 18, 2006 +129. "Applying The Cornerstone Method in Public Schools" Philadelphia Board of Education +April 28,06 DVD FORMAT AVAILABLE +130. "Crises Intervention Techniques Within Schools: What you Need to Know When Large or +Small Scale Disasters Strike" Lorman Educational Seminar, Sacramento, CA Oct. 6, 2006 +131. "Saying Goodbye: Termination in Psychotherapy" 53d Annual Meeting of The American +Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, San Diego, Ca October 28, 2006 +132. +|| LE, Viron M, I! +_JE, +A, Samples G, Kliman G: A school-based mental +health recovery effort. Poster session presentation at the 58th Institute on Psychiatric Services +Annual Meeting, New York, NY, October 5-8, 2006. +14 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM +Document 113-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 14 of +133. +÷, L, Viron M, +a JE, +§ A, Samples G, Kliman G, O'Neill P. A School-based +Mental Health Recovery Effort. Poster session presentation at ADMSEP Annual meeting. Park +City, Utah, June, 2007. +134. Mishkin, AD, Viron M, +* LE, +n JE, Samples G, Kliman G. Reducing Post- +Traumatic Stress after Hurricane Katrina: A School-Based Intervention. Poster presented at the +59th Institute on Psychiatric Services Annual Meeting, New Orleans, LA, October 11-14, 2007. +135. Videotape evidence for a new theory of PTSD etiology and treatment. Combined meeting of +American Academy of Psychoanalysts with Academy of Psychoanalysis and Psychodynamic +Psychiatry, The Marriot, Washington, D.C. May 3, 2008 +CURRENT TEACHING: +Faculty Member: S.F. Psychoanalytic Institute. Eight 90 minute seminars on Pathogenesis in +Early Childhood, with Focus on Psychological Trauma (a course for Candidates in the Child +Analysis Program). See also Grand Rounds presentations below. +THESIS CHAIR ACTIVITIES: +Chairperson, Thesis Committee, California School of Professional Psychology, for Thesis of E. +Wayrynen, M.A. concerning "Oppositional Behavior Following Childhood Sexual Abuse." 1998 +Chairperson, Thesis Committee, +* Institute, for Thesis of Miquela +* Hope, Ph.D. on IQ +and CGAS changes following in-classroom psychotherapy and control group. 1999. +Chairperson, Thesis Committee, Pacific Graduate School of Psychology, for Tina Scovis- +Weston, Ph.D., on Early Memory Changes among Twelve Boys Raped by Men. 2001. +RECENT AND CURRENT PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION COMMITTEE WORK: +Chairperson an ensic sud a Association or a sac of Continuing Real cia red +seminars presented by a panel of psychoanalysts. Topics presented by G. Kliman, 1993-1994: +"Post Traumatic Stress Disorder," "Prevention of Stress in the Workplace," and "Prevention of +Depressive Reactions during Legal Practice." Place: S.F. Bar Association. +CURRENT: +Member, Child Development Program Committec, San Francisco Psychoanalytic Institute. +Member, Child Analysis Study Group, San Francisco Psychoanalytic Institute. +Member, Committee on Psychoanalysis and the Community, American Psychoanalytic Institute. +15 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 113-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 15 of +Member, Joint Committee on +Child Welfare Association. +Care: Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and the +PROFESSIONAL COMMENDATIONS: +A letter of commendation regarding clinical work in the classroom within a public school +system: +December 3, 2001 +To Whom It May Concern: +This is to report that the San Mateo County Office of Education, Special Education programs, +has benefited from the services of The Children's Psychological Health Center, specifically its +Cornerstone Therapeutic School Project. +We have worked together for the past six years. Under the leadership of Gilbert Kliman, M.D., +the Center has trained members of our teaching and school psychology staff to carry out a +mental health service on our premises. We now have a collaborative project in its sixth year for +our special education preschool children with Pervasive Developmental Disorders (PDD) and +for those with Serious Emotional Disorders (SED) which interfere with their education. As an +alternative to sending children to a private nonpublic special education school for extremely +intensive mental health services at significant cost, this project has created and provides just +such intensive service within a public preschool special class program at 65 Tower Road, San +Mateo. +To my knowledge, among the 30 children served so far under the collaborative project, we are +seeing cognitive, social and human gains which have decreased the gap between these children +and their typically developing peers. Several families and children are thriving with less +intensive special education service or returned to regular education class. Not only has the +family and child suffering been reduced, the burden to taxpayers is also reduced. The children +have been able to remain in the community, and some who were functioning as severely autistic +and retarded now appear to be developing within a somewhat normal range. We are pleased +with the quality of special education services our County provides for preschoolers with PDD or +SED. We are also gratified with the research results provided by The Children's Psychological +Health Center. +We recommend the Cornerstone project to other school systems, so that they consider it an +important opportunity should they be able to collaborate similarly with The Children's +Psychological Health Center. At California's common cost of $15,000 to $40,000 or more a +year, for a special education child who needs full time special education services and auxiliary +intensive help, the savings for even one child's 12-year career of intensive services in special +education can be substantial. The savings from one of the successes we have seen may equal the +costs of the entire Cornerstone project with the 30 children helped so far. +16 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 113-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 16 of +We have not yet seen any failures. The agency is showing measurable cognitive gains for our +collaborative work which, according to their research, averages 20 to 28 points in independent +WPPSI testing of the children in the Cornerstone program. The techniques are far more +economical to use than we have found with the Lovaas method, which we also implement for +some students. We have also seen the techniques transmitted to special education teachers as +well as inexperienced therapists. +I invite you to visit our project in action. +Sincerely, +JAYS. PARNES, Ed.D. +Senior Administrator +Special Education +MAJOR FEDERAL COURT FORENSIC ACTIVITIES: +EVALUATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS HEARD IN FEDERAL COURT, HANNIBAL +MISSOURI, November 15, 2001 +Under Dr. Kliman's leadership, a Children's Psychological Health Center team of five clinicians +na two administrative staff has been at work since May 2, 2001 conducting a behavioral aud +garding the psychiatric conditions and the residential treatment of over 100 children (most +ages 13 to 17) at Heartland Christian Academy, as requested by the Academy's general counsel. +2001: Doe vs. Three Springs Treatment Center, Nashville, TN. +2004: Does vs. L.K. Baliredy et al (An international child trafficking matter). Five days of +deposition. +2004 Doe vs. State of New Mexico and Arthur Brokup. +MAJOR STATE COURT CASES: +Some cases of public health significance, concerning allegedly traumatized minors in care of +governmental or institutional agencies: +Does vs. OK Boys Ranch and State of Washington: 44 children in care at a state-licensed +rehabilitation and +| care-related center were allegedly allowed to abuse each other while +staff and therapists did not report harmful activities of which they knew, Dr. Kliman opined. The +plaintiff children have to date all received settlements in four phases of this litigation over a nine +year period, with Dr. Kliman as the principal expert. +York vs. Chaparral/Victor Treatment Facility. Orange County Superior Court. An eleven year +old child severely and chronically molested by a residential treatment staff member was +evaluated and an opinion given by Dr. Kliman concerning harm and how to rehabilitate the child +as much as possible. Implications for standards of residential care are contained within the case. +Carlson vs. Ray-Lara|| +Home. Orange County Superior Court. Dr. Kliman evaluated and +testified concerning a twelve year old boy who was allegedly molested by a l +father and had +17 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 113-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 17 of +to rescue himself. The || father's partner was negligent, Dr. Kliman opined. The judge +agreed and awarded the child compensation for psychological damages. +Does vs. Archdiocese of Los Angeles. Dr. Kliman was the lead psychiatric witness. The case +settled after six days of his deposition testimony. +Does vs. Salesian Order Western Region. Dr. Kliman was the lead psychiatric witness. The case +settled after nine days of his deposition testimony and two days of trial. +Does v South Dakota School for the Deaf. Multiple boys were molested by an older student. The +state school administration was allegedly negligent and major psychological damages were +claimed. Dr. Kliman served as the principal plaintiffs' expert on administrative liability issues +and psychological damages. The case settled with major compensation for the plaintiffs during +the time of jury deliberations. +CHILD PSYCHIATRIC EXPERT TESTIMONY: +Dr. Kliman helped set legal precedents for the inclusion of psychiatric testimony in matters +concerning wrongful death of a parent and loss of parental services, in both New York State and +California. He has testified in over 275 cases including over 100 trials. A Federal Rule 26 list is +available on request and on www.expertchildpsychiatry.com. His courtroom and deposition +testimony experience includes +cases of institutional negligence of children leading to +psychological trauma, negligent +I care, loss of parental services due to wrongful deaths, +psychological trauma as part of personal injury of adults and children, childhood molestation, +sexual harassment, termination of parental rights, and disputed custody. Since 2000 about 30% +of his forensic work has been requested by defense, about 70% by plaintiffs, with the defense +tasks increasing markedly in recent years. +Dr. Kliman's evaluations and testimony regarding 16 children negligently cared for and abused +at The Kiwanis' OK Boys' Ranch, Olympia, WA, helped lead to settlements and awards, +totalling $25,000,000. Responding to disclosures in that case, many improvements have occurred +in the publicly funded and licensed institutional care of children throughout the State of +Washington, according to newspaper accounts. +Dr. Kliman's evaluations and opinions, together with that of The Children's Psychological +Trauma Center team led by Robert Wynne MFCC, led to record-making $8,000,000 loss of +parental and other services compensation for 17 bereaved subsistence-economy Alaskan Inupiat +Native Americans (| +•vS. Ryan Airlines, Anchorage, 1997). +Principal expert regarding institutional negligence and psychological damages in Does vs. +Rudolph Kos and the Diocese of Dallas, Dallas 1997. The Catholic Church of Dallas was held +liable for institutional negligence, testimony concerning the need for major psychiatric treatment +planning was accepted by the jury, and $119,000,000-including punitive damages against the +18 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 113-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 18 of +OTHER PUBLIC HEALTH ACTIVITIES AND RECOGNITION: +In response to the mental health needs of families following recent massive firestorms, United +Way printed and distributed 10,000 copies of "My Fire Story -- a Guided Activity Workbook for +Children, Families and Teachers," co-authored with Edward Oklan, M.D. Copies can be obtained +from Family Development Press, 1010 Sir Francis Drake Boulevard, Kentfield, CA 94960. The +State of lowa purchased rights to reproduce 10,000 copies of "My Book about The Attack on +America - a Guided Activity Workbook for Children, Families and Teachers", published in 2001. +During 1996 - 2002 Sophie Murvis Foundation, The Windholz Foundation, The Atkinson, +Cadence Corporation, Irving Harris Foundation and The Stullsaft Foundations have recently +awarded grants to Dr. Kliman as principal investigator for his Cornerstone Therapeutic Nursery +project, serving seriously disturbed preschoolers in the San Mateo Office of Education. +Presentations on The Cornerstone Therapeutic Nursery Project have been made by Dr. Kliman +during 1997 through 2002 at the San Francisco Psychoanalytic Institute and the Seattle Institute +for Psychoanalysis. +Three documentary videotapes concerning Dr. Kliman's psychotherapies of disturbed children +treated by him using this method in a therapeutic special education class are now available for +scientific and educational purposes, parental permission having been gained. Such use requires a +confidentiality agreement. +Tape I: The Cornerstone Method. +Tape II: Treatment of an Autistic Boy +Tape III: Unique Features of The Cornerstone Method +As a pilot application of his techniques for preschoolers, Dr. Kliman opened a Cornerstone +Therapeutic Nursery at the Salvation Army Shelter for homeless families in January 1998, +serving seven homeless families with preschool children. He is supervising the project weekly as +Medical Director of The Children's Psychological Trauma Center. Unedited videotapes of that +project are available to scientists and educators with a confidentiality agreement. The +Institute has provided a psychology intern to conduct the treatment under Dr. Kliman's training +and supervision. The California School of Professional Psychology has assigned a doctoral thesis +candidate to Dr. Kliman's supervision to study the I.Q. rise phenomenon previously documented +in Cornerstone therapies. +Peer-reviewed publications of Dr. Kliman's work with +children appear in Zelman, A: +Interventions with High Risk Children, Jason Aronson 1997 (Chapter by Kliman on Controlled +Assessment of The Personal Life History Book Method for +Children). Results of Dr. +Kliman's Cornerstone Method are also reported extensively in that book, focusing on the I.Q. rise +phenomenon. +19 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 113-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 19 of +Archive of Videotaped +Seminars and Events: +- Gilbert Kliman, M.D., Medical Director +THE CHILDREN's PSYCHOLOGICAL TRAUMA CENTER +(A division of the Children's Psychological Health Center, Inc.) +Archive of Videotaped Seminars and Events: +CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION TAPES: +California MCLE credit is available to attorneys for study of these tapes. Unless otherwise +indicated, Gilbert Kliman, M.D. was the sole or principal speaker. Contact Edith Lee at 415 474 +0955 for MCLE credit fulfillment associated with study of these tapcs. +O1. True and False Allegations of Sexual Molestations, 1987. 1.5 hrs. +02. Loss of Parental Services, May 6** 1992 Elina Wayrynen and Gilbert Kliman, M.D. +2.0 hrs. +03. Abuse in Institutions, August 1" 1995, 2.0 hrs. +Catastrophic Accidents with Lifetime Psychological Damage, December 5 1995 2.5 +05. Evaluating Psychological Trauma in Catastrophic Accidents (Grosvenor Hotel, San +Francisco) 1996, 2.5 hrs. +06. +Loss of Parental Services (Holiday Inn), January 9* 1996, 2.5 hrs. +07. +Loss of Parental Services, May 12" 1993 1.5 hrs. +08. +True and False Allegations of Sexual Abuse, June 7" 1993, 1.5 hrs. +09. +Catastrophic Psychological Traumas in Childhood, February 1994, 2.5 hrs. +10. +The Difficult Client, February 27* 1996, 2.5 hrs. +11. The Difficult Client (at Wells Fargo), February 6" 1996, 2.5 hrs. +Evaluating the Validity of Recovered Memories: Perspective of a Forensic Expert, +February 29# 1996, 1.0 hr. +13. How Small Clients Get Large Awards, Psychological Trauma in carly childhood +produces life time consequences in some cases. Defense and plaintiff considerations. +Giving Powerful Voices to Children in Court: I, March 20*' 1998. Windle Turley, Esq. +With Gilbert Kliman, M.D., 2.5 hrs. +Giving Powerful Voices to Children in Court II, May 8* 1998, John Connelly, Jr. with +Gilbert Kliman, M.D., 2.5 hrs. +20 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 113-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 20 of +16. Giving Powerful Voices to Children in Court III, June 12" 1998, Mare June, Esq. With +Gilbert Kliman, M.D., 2.5 hrs. +17. Psychoanalysis and the Law: How Child Psychoanalysis Contributes to Justice for +Children. Conference at the San Francisco Psychoanalytic Institute, March 1" 1999, +Introduction by Maureen Katz, M.D., Discussion by Katherine MaeVicar, M.D., +Gilbert Kliman, M.D., presenter. San Francisco Psychoanalytic Institute Extension +Division. 1.5 hrs. +21 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 113-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 21 of +The Children's Psychological Health Center +Archive of Videotaped Seminars and Events: +- Gilbert Kliman, M.D., Medical Director +CLINICAL AND SCIENTIFIC TAPES: +STARRED (*) TAPES BELOW ARE A PRECIOUS ARCHIVE OF INFORMATION ABOUT +PROBLEMS AND TREATMENT OF SEVERELY STRESSED CHILDREN. THEY ARE +NOT FOR SALE OR COMMERCIAL DISTRIBUTION. THEY MAY BE STUDIED AT +CPHC ON-SITE WITH ASSISTANCE OF OUR STAFF BY QUALIFIED RESEARCHERS, +CLINICIANS, SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHERS, ADMINISTRATORS OF NONPROFIT +CLINICAL ORGANIZATIONS AND SCHOOLS FOR CHILDREN, SCIENTISTS AND +STUDENTS OF RELEVANT DISCIPLINES BY APPOINTMENT AT CPTC +HEADQUARTERS. CREDENTIALS, REFERENCES AND CONFIDENTIALITY +AGREEMENT ARE REQUIRED COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH ARRANGEMENTS CAN +BE CONTRACTED FOR WITH CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENTS AND LONG TERM +USE OF THE TAPES. +*1. +Childhood Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (California Pacific Hospital Grand Rounds). +1992 +New Theory of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, Gilbert Kliman, M.D. December 44 +1992, International Association of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Allied +Disciplines, Fairmont Hotel, San Francisco. +*3. Severe Psychological Trauma in very Young Children, March 23d 1993 +*4. Post Traumatic Stress Disorder: Child & Adult, September 27" 1993 +5. +Cost Effectiveness: Mental Health Services for +Children, September 28'* 1993 +6. +Preventive Child Psychiatry, Mc Auley St Mary's, October 16* 1993, +*7. +New Theory of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, for Int, Association of Child and +Adolescent Psychiatry, July 25* 1994 +*8. +Cornerstone Method Conference, Wells Fargo, January 30* 1996 +*9. +Cornerstone Conference: Control - Mastery Group, San Francisco Psychoanalytic +Institute. February 9" 1996 + + +Case 9:08-Cv-80232-KAM Document 113-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 22 of +10. +Conference on Childhood of Adolf Hitler: Control-Mastery Group, San Francisco +Psychoanalytic Institute, May 17" 1996 +11. +Orientation to the Personal Life History Book Method. CPTC & ACT For Mental Health, +April 4'' 1997 (two tapes) +*12. +The Cornerstone Method: A Public Health Approach. National Association for Social +Work and Psychoanalysis, Seattle. September 26* 1997 +*13. +*14. +New Theory of Psychological Trauma: Colloquium, San Francisco Psychoanalytic +Institute, October 12" 1996 +Treatment of Severely Disturbed Preschoolers in their Public School Special Education +Classrooms: A New Application of Intensive Psychotherapy. American Academy of +Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. +*15. Treatment of an Autistic Boy, the Cornerstone Method +*16. The Cornerstone Therapeutic Nursery Method +*17. The Cornerstone Method: Unique Features +18. +Investing in our Futures: Rotary Club: About the Cornerstone Method, December 9'h +1997 Robert Denebeim, Esq. With Gilbert Kliman, M.D. +19. +Salavation Army Cornerstone Program: Channel 4 News. Linda +Reporter. +20. Gilbert Kliman M.D. on Channel 4 News, April 22d 1998. Linda +Reporter. +21. Orientation to The Personal Life History Book, October 13" 1998 (three tapes) +*22. The Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy of a Four Year Old Boy, 1999. An ongoing archive +made with generous permission of the child's family, now totaling over 25 hours. This +child has had severe stressors in his life, and suffers behavioral and overanxious +symptoms. He has impulse dyscontrol, attentional deficits, and expressive language +difficulties from which he can be seen to be recovering. Two excerpted tapes have been +created to illustrate features of the child's pathology, and of the response to interpretive +aspects of treatment. Gilbert Kliman, M.D. is the psychoanalyst, and the treatment is +conducted three times a week, with parent guidance every two weeks. The videographer +is in the room. This may be the only existing video archive of a child analysis conducted +by a certified child psychoanalyst. +Cornerstone Treatment Archives: 1995-2008. Ongoing archive of intensive in-classroom +treatment of seriously disturbed preschoolers, within their public special education +classrooms in San Francisco and San Mateo, Shelters for homeless families in San +23 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 113-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 23 of +Francisco and Seattle, private therapeutic preschool in San Francisco, and Cornerstone +Argentina +24. +Thirty four year follow-up of a Cornerstone Treated autistic child, now recovered. +Presented at The San Francisco Psychoanalytic Institute, Child Analysis Study Group, +2001. Permission for public viewing granted by the patient. Excerpts may be viewed on +www.childrenspsychological.org or the entire video obtained from +gilbertkliman2008@gmail.com +*25 +Orientation of the Family Services Center of 1 +2007, in Seattle. Six DVD's. +County. Four days in December, +Scientific and Educational Video Archives under Dr. Kliman's supervision: +With parental permission, The Children's Psychological Health Center, under Dr. Kliman's +leadership, is collecting unedited treatment documents of a special method of treatment in a real +life space, called "The Cornerstone therapeutic preschool method." Now totaling over 200 video +archive hours, eight different California therapists working with various educator teams have +recorded their Cornerstone therapeutic preschool method work. Beginning in 1995, this archive +started with Gilbert Kliman, M.D. working for a year as daily in-classroom therapist in a public +special education school. He was assisted by Leanne Runyan and Gail +as the teachers +at the San Mateo Early Childhood Education Center, a preschool special education facility of +The County of San Mateo. A second team under his supervision included work at The San +Francisco Unified School District (Vanessa Vigilante and Esther Kronenberg). Third and fourth +teams were at The Salvation Army Gateway Shelter (Vanessa Vigilante as therapist and Lynda +Byrd as teacher, Deanna Reardon as therapist and Lynda Byrd as teacher). A fourth was at The +Cadence Cornerstone Site at Mt. Pleasant School, San Jose (Karita Hummer, therapist and Kathy +Krall, teacher). Fifth team therapy was provided by Jane Christmas. The sixth team therapists +was Dr. Miquela +Hope, the seventh Molly Franklin, MFT. All have been extensively +videotaped carrying out the method. An eighth team was assembled in late 2002, when Linda +Hirshfeld Ph.D. joined as Fellow in Cornerstone Therapy. In 2001 Mike McDonald, Ed.D. +became Special Education Director of Cornerstone School. All the treatments are have been +under principal supervision of Dr. Kliman with additional supervision by Mali +Myrna Frankel, Ed.D., and Jan Baeuerlen, M.D. Linda Hirshfeld, Ph.D. of the Ann +with dinal +M.D., +Center is conducting the archival work for her Cornerstone Services. +A professional researcher/ training confidentiality agreement is required to study this archive. +S:IGK. Private Forensic 7-13-04ICV1PPA CVs|Gilbert Kliman CV ppa 06 02 08.doc +24 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9df50eb6d27c8d3c1b136fc35a0b05340d8538b8f3ebf59e3f149503c01b3c9d.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9df50eb6d27c8d3c1b136fc35a0b05340d8538b8f3ebf59e3f149503c01b3c9d.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fb315cb170cb53c8291b1af36d28c067b941a6a9 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9df50eb6d27c8d3c1b136fc35a0b05340d8538b8f3ebf59e3f149503c01b3c9d.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -278, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "9df50eb6d27c8d3c1b136fc35a0b05340d8538b8f3ebf59e3f149503c01b3c9d", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 24, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "6efef1cf3e27c6d6a0e6df3c794e1d4f4e8dc40f7924f9a00603377b9f55695f", + "output_sha256": "b7a91fcc0f27c931953d3a1e273594d63d4a6b8e00e7b8afd6fb177bd214e489", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9dfef61a320d64bba22c6bddb04b8c30b6d3963b0f6c7cd7df8cbc2a528e289c.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9dfef61a320d64bba22c6bddb04b8c30b6d3963b0f6c7cd7df8cbc2a528e289c.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..65d1a09e8109cd8a00e22c6bf217bc20b100e462 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9dfef61a320d64bba22c6bddb04b8c30b6d3963b0f6c7cd7df8cbc2a528e289c.md @@ -0,0 +1,51 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2008 Page 1 of 3 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA- +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +/ +DEFENDANT'S NOTICE CONCERNING MOTION TO STAY [DE 8] +In connection with his motion to stay this action [DE 8], Defendant Jeffrey +Epstein hereby notifies the Court that the State Court action, State of Florida v. +Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 2006 CF 09454 AXX (Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm +Beach County), was resolved on June 30, 2008. See Final Disposition sheets, +attached hereto as Exhibit A. The federal criminal proceeding, however, remains +pending. +Respectfully submitted, +ATTERBURY, GOLDBERGER & +WEISS, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 +Tel: 561 659 8300 +Fax: 561 835 8691 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2008 Page 2 of 3 +By: Is/ Jack A. Goldberger +Jack A. Goldberger +Fla. Bar No. 262013 +jgoldberger@agwpa.com +Attorneys for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2008 Page 3 of 3 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I HEREBY CERTIFY that on July 1, 2008, I electronically filed the +foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECP. I also certify that +the foregoing document is being served this day on counsel of record identified +below by facsimile and U.S. Mail. +Jeffrey M. Herman, Esq. +Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. +Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. +Herman & Mermelstein, P.A. +18205 Biscayne Blvd, Suite 2218 +Miami, Florida 33160 +Fax: 305 931 0877 +Is/ Jack A. Goldberger +Jack A. Goldberger +3 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9dfef61a320d64bba22c6bddb04b8c30b6d3963b0f6c7cd7df8cbc2a528e289c.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9dfef61a320d64bba22c6bddb04b8c30b6d3963b0f6c7cd7df8cbc2a528e289c.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0a2910a6c55099b3faed44d47bd752ab2cbf64e8 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9dfef61a320d64bba22c6bddb04b8c30b6d3963b0f6c7cd7df8cbc2a528e289c.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -36, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "9dfef61a320d64bba22c6bddb04b8c30b6d3963b0f6c7cd7df8cbc2a528e289c", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 3, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "afbece5db8379500c1f7cb5048cdd1545eb29c359e605ff14f6d928d8692696e", + "output_sha256": "6b981277e45ca3cf9c834fd0ad1073ba2afcf7eca1197c60d7ae2b4d4e18187e", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9e161c45e757374d8c62eb8cfbb0faf51c7e3966aad03ca800cb3ecca2653b97.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9e161c45e757374d8c62eb8cfbb0faf51c7e3966aad03ca800cb3ecca2653b97.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..27e46e3c402f95072c26d2eec253cb7a30352a80 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9e161c45e757374d8c62eb8cfbb0faf51c7e3966aad03ca800cb3ecca2653b97.md @@ -0,0 +1,39 @@ +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 284-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2009 Page 1 of 2 +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, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, +08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, +09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092 +ORDER ON PLAINTIFF JANE DOE NO. 101 AND DEFENDANT JEFFREY +EPSTEIN'S JOINT MOTION TO MODIFY DISCOVERY DEADLINES +THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 101 and +Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Joint Motion to Modify Discovery Deadlines (DE.), +entered +The Court has carefully considered the motion, the +proposed orders, and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. +It is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff and Defendant's Joint Motion +(DE) is GRANTED as follows: The current order (DE 59) Setting Trial Date & +Discovery Deadlines is hereby modified as follows, the discovery cut-off shall be +January 22, 2010 from December 1, 2009; and the deadline for Substantive Pre-Trial +Motions shall be February 1, 2010 instead of January 15, 2010. All other deadlines +shall remain the same. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 284-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2009 Page 2 of 2 +Florida, this +DONE AND ORDERED in +day of +at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, +, 2009. +KENNETH A. MARRA +United States District Court Judge +Copies to: +All counsel of record +2 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9e161c45e757374d8c62eb8cfbb0faf51c7e3966aad03ca800cb3ecca2653b97.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9e161c45e757374d8c62eb8cfbb0faf51c7e3966aad03ca800cb3ecca2653b97.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0cdeb62da7b7bc511751bf7c308cdcef7226840d --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9e161c45e757374d8c62eb8cfbb0faf51c7e3966aad03ca800cb3ecca2653b97.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -24, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "9e161c45e757374d8c62eb8cfbb0faf51c7e3966aad03ca800cb3ecca2653b97", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "6866f6e155583f2a0a846c86640a6e0e8a64256e46dd77350ee2add8b252a6fa", + "output_sha256": "2a133bbb7abbb572f858191b6dd04a334db3a187a522016ea52ae0e840fdcf75", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9e185557b0d24c972e7f3c93f1b99e54fa6a03546e6caacda347b807ccabbb24.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9e185557b0d24c972e7f3c93f1b99e54fa6a03546e6caacda347b807ccabbb24.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c61030965ebb317edde144da0393a71f6307c98f --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9e185557b0d24c972e7f3c93f1b99e54fa6a03546e6caacda347b807ccabbb24.md @@ -0,0 +1,584 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 242 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2009 Page 1 of 22 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRAJ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff, +vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRAJ +JANE DOE NO. 5, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/ +VS. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 242 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2009 Page 2 of 22 +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 6, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-80994-CIV-MARRA +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 7, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-80993-CIV-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +C.M.A., +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-80811-CIV-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08- 80893-CIV-MARRAJ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al, +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 242 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2009 Page 3 of 22 +Defendants. +DOE II, +CASE NO.: 09- 80469-CIV-MARRAJ +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al, +Defendants. +JANE DOE NO. 101, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 09- 80591-CIV-MARRAJ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 102 +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 09- +80656-CIV-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +ORDER +THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Answers to +Interrogatories and Production of Documents (D.E. #57). For the following reasons said +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 242 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2009 Page 4 of 22 +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 +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 undersigned would agree with Epstein's statement at page +4 of its Response, that 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." Id. +4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 242 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2009 Page 5 of 22 +By this Motion, Plaintiff seeks to compel answers to certain interrogatories and +requests for production that were propounded December 9, 2008. Defendant has +responded by asserting several objections, 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 "Injo person...shall be compelled in any Criminal Case to be +a witness against himself." Id. In practice, the Fifth Amendment's privilege against selfincrimination "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 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 +5 + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 242 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2009 Page 6 of 22 +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 orto 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 +determination the judge is instructed to view the facts and evidence presented on a caseby-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 +6 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 242 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2009 Page 7 of 22 +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. 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 Epstein's Response +Memorandum for more particularized objections, rather than relying solely on Epstein's +objections as initially stated, which in some cases were less specific in nature. The Court +also notes Plaintiff's concession, stated at pages 3 and 5 of her Motion, that the act of +producing items in response to Production Request Nos. 9, 12-13 and responding to +Interrogatory No. 9, may implicate the Fifth Amendment. Finally, the Court approves +Epstein's decision not to provide a detailed privileged log, in that it is reasonable under the +circumstances to believe that in compelling production of same, the Court would in +essence be compelling testimony to which Epstein's constitutional protections might apply. +As such, the Court agrees with Epstein that it makes judicial sense to decide the +constitutional issues first, before deciding the additional discovery request objections. +INTERROGATORIES +Epstein's assertion of the Fifth Amendment as it relates to Interrogatories 3, 4, 5, +6, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 is sustained and Plaintiff's Motion in this regard is denied. +Interrogatories 3-6 ask Epstein to identify anyone who gave or were asked to give him +7 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 242 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2009 Page 8 of 22 +massages. Epstein argues, and this Court agrees, that any answer to these questions +involve compelled statements that could reasonably furnish a link in the chain of evidence +needed to prosecute Epstein in future criminal proceedings or even support a criminal +conviction. Interrogatory No. 15 seeks information relating to alleged sexual abuse or +misconduct on a minor. On its face, this interrogatory seeks incriminating evidence which +Epstein is entitled to protect by asserting his Fifth Amendment privilege against self +incrimination. Interrogatory No. 16 is a contention interrogatory seeking the facts upon +which Epstein relies to support each of his pleading allegation denials and for each +affirmative defense. As Epstein correctly observes, forcing him to answer this interrogatory +unconstitutionally places him in the position of being compelled to testify as to his version +of the facts, and, in asserting affirmative defenses, being compelled to admit to Plaintiff's +version of the facts. +Interrogatories 13, 14 and 17 ask Epstein to identify any persons or witnesses who +have knowledge of the events in question, or who are in possession or control of any +photos, videos, written statements, etc. pertaining to the events in question. Clearly these +interrogatories, all of which relate to claims of sexual abuse and exploitation of a minor, +implicate the Fifth Amendment, in that by requiring Epstein to list such persons or +witnesses, Epstein is being forced to incriminate himself in the commission of crimes. +Epstein's assertion of the Fifth Amendment as it relates to Interrogatories 1, 2, 9 and +12, is likewise +sustained and Plaintiff's Motion in this regard denied. While these +interrogatories ask for general, identification-type information, which on their face may not +appear to infringe upon or otherwise implicate Epstein's rights under the Fifth Amendment, +based on the particularized showing made by Epstein in his Response Memorandum, the +8 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 242 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2009 Page 9 of 22 +facts alleged in the Complaints, and the undersigned's knowledge of the cases, it is clear +they involve compelled statements that would furnish a link in the chain of evidence +needed to convict him of a crime, allowing Epstein to assert his Fifth Amendment privilege. +Interrogatory No. 1 asks Epstein to identify all employees who performed work or +services inside his Palm Beach residence and Interrogatory No. 2 asks Epstein to identify +all employees not identified in Interrogatory No. 1 who at any time came to Defendant's +Palm Beach residence. Interrogatories 9 and 12 are similar in nature requesting +information regarding the identity of persons providing transport services (Interrogatory 9), +and a list of Epstein's employee's telephone numbers (Interrogatory 12). +Epstein raises the same general objections to each of these interrogatories, +referring to the allegations in the Complaints of sexual abuse, exploitation and battery, +along with the alleged scheme of recruiting girls to come to his Palm Beach mansion to +give him "massages," and then states that requiring him to identify his employees, his +drivers, and his employee's telephone numbers, "would be a link in the chain of evidence +needed to convict him of a crime." Then, in his Response Brief, Epstein goes further and +makes a particularized showing for each of the subject interrogatories identified above +explaining how answering these interrogatories present a real and substantial danger of +self incrimination. See Epstein's Resp. Brief, pp. 18-20. +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 +9 + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 242 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2009 Page 10 of 22 +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 employees who either worked at +his Palm Beach residence or visited his Palm Beach residence during the relevant time +period, or drivers who drove himself or others to or from his Palm Beach residence would +be privy to evidence that would implicate Epstein in a crime. Given the allegations raised +in the Complaints and the elements required to convict Epstein of a crime, and considering +the background facts underlying the case, these concerns are reasonable, real and not +unjustified. As such, the subject requests, which essentially ask Epstein to identify potential +witnesses against him, are subject to Epstein's assertion of his Fifth Amendment privilege +against self incrimination. +In sustaining Epstein's Fifth Amendment privilege, the Court has considered the +facts alleged in the Complaints, the elements needed to convict Epstein of a crime, the +particularized showing made in Epstein's Response Brief, and drawn upon the Court's +knowledge of the cases at issue. On this basis the Court finds the privilege raised as to +these interrogatories valid, and asserted by Epstein only with reference to "genuinely +threatening questions." United States v. Goodwin, 625 F.2d 693, 701 (5th Cir. 1980). The +danger Epstein 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. Accordingly, +finding the above-mentioned interrogatories involve compelled statements that would +furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to convict Epstein of a crime, the Court finds +Epstein's Fifth Amendment privilege claim validly asserted. +When one considers the nature of the allegations, to wit, a scheme and plan of +10 + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 242 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2009 Page 11 of 22 +sexual misconduct carried out at Epstein's various residences, and that at least one of +Epstein's employees, +, is alleged to have aided Epstein in his alleged sexual +exploitation, then it is entirely reasonable for Epstein to assert that forcing him to testify as +to anyone who came or went to his Palm Beach mansion or was employed at his Palm +Beach mansion (Interrogatories 1-2), the identity of persons providing transport services +(Interrogatory No. 9), and his employee's telephone numbers (Interrogatory 12), may +provide a lead or clue to evidence tending to incriminate him. Not 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. Accordingly, Epstein's Fifth Amendment privilege as it relates to +Interrogatories 1, 2, 9 and 12 is sustained and Plaintiff's Motion in this regard is rejected. +The same objections raised above with respect to Interrogatories 1, 2, 9 and 12 +have been raised by Epstein to justify his refusal to answer Interrogatories 7 (dates of +Florida travel), 8 (identification of health care providers), and 11 (identification of Epstein's +telephone numbers). These Interrogatories ask for general, identification-type information, +which neither on their face nor by implication implicate Epstein's rights under the Fifth +Amendment. +In this regard, the Court is left with only Epstein's blanket assertion of the +privilege in which he claims that requiring him to identify his heath care providers, his +various telephone numbers and his dates of Florida travel, "would be a link in the chain of +evidence needed to convict him of a crime." See Epstein's Resp. Brief, pp. 18-20. +Unfortunately for Epstein, this objection is so general and sweeping in nature it amounts +to a blanket assertion of the privilege. In these circumstances, where a blanket assertion +11 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 242 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2009 Page 12 of 22 +of the privilege is asserted, the Court is required to make a "particularized inquiry," and +sustain only those privileges asserted as to "genuinely threatening questions." United +States v. Goodwin, 625 F.2d 693, 701 (5th Cir. 1980). +Here, Epstein's objections fall well short of the showing required of demonstrating +that requiring him to answer these interrogatories would realistically and necessarily furnish +a link in the chain of evidence needed to prove a crime against him. Discovery requests +that seek background information on events and experiences of the witness for which he +cannot realistically or genuinely be expected to be charged with a crime are not subject to +Fifth Amendment protection. See Krause v. +1, 390 F.Supp. 1070, 1071-72 (N.D. +Ohio 1974). In summary, Epstein has failed to sustain his burden of making a +particularized showing to support his claim that forcing him merely to identify his health +care providers, his dates of travel and his telephone numbers, would present a substantial +and real threat of criminal prosecution. +As for Epstein's non-privileged based objections, such as relevance, over breadth, +over burdensomeness, and alleged HIPAA protection, said objections are also rejected. +Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, allows any party to serve on any +other party written interrogatories concerning matters within the scope of Federal +Rule Civil Procedure 26(b). The scope of discovery under Rule 26(b) is broad: +"[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant +to the claim or defense of any party involved in the pending action." Id. Relevant +information need not be admissible at trial if the discovery appears reasonably +calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." Id.; see also Hickman +12 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 242 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2009 Page 13 of 22 +v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 507-508 (1947); Farnsworth v. Proctor and Gamble Co., 758 +F.2d 1545, 1547 (11th Cir. 1985)(the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure "strongly favor +full discovery whenever possible"); Canal Authority v. Froehlke, 81 F.R.D. 609, 611 +(M.D. Fla. 1979). +Thus, under Rule 26, relevancy is "construed broadly to encompass any +matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to another matter that could bear +on any issue that is or may be in the case." Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 +U.S. 340, 352 (1978). Discovery is not limited to the issues raised by the pleadings +because "discovery itself is designed to help define and clarify the issues." Id. at 352. +In short, information can be relevant and therefore discoverable, even if not +admissible at trial, so long as the information is reasonably calculated to lead to the +discovery of admissible evidence. Dunbar v. United States, 502 F.2d 206 (5th Cir. +1974). +Under Fed. R. Civ. P., 26(b)(1) a court may limit discovery of relevant material +if it determines that the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicitive, +or obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or +less expensive, or the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs the +likely benefit. Id. The party resisting discovery has a heavy burden of showing why +the requested discovery should not be permitted. Rossbach v. Rundle, 128 +F.Supp.2d 1348, 1354 (S.D. Fla. 2000) ("The onus is on the party resisting discovery +to demonstrate specifically how the objected-to information is unnecessary, +13 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 242 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2009 Page 14 of 22 +unreasonable or otherwise unduly burdensome."); Dunkin Donuts, Inc. v. Mary's +Donuts, Inc., 2001 WL 34079319 (S.D. Fla. 2001)("the burden of showing that the +requested information is not relevant to the issues in the case is on the party +resisting discovery") (citation omitted); Gober v. City of Leesberg, 197 F.R.D. 519, +521 (M.D. Fla. 2000)("The party resisting production of information bears the burden +of establishing lack of relevancy or undue burden in supplying the requested +information"). +To meet this burden, the party resisting discovery must demonstrate +specifically how the objected-to request is unreasonable or otherwise unduly +burdensome. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4); Panola Land Buyers Ass'n v. Shuman, +762 F.2d 1550, 1559 (11th Cir. 1985); Rossbach, 128 F.Supp.2d at 1353. Thus, +to even merit consideration, "an objection must show specifically how a discovery +request is overly broad, burdensome or oppressive, by submitting evidence or +offering evidence which reveals the nature of the burden." Coker v. +& Co., +1777 F.R.D. 682, 686 (M.D. Ala. 1998). Once the resisting party meets its burden, +the burden shifts to the moving party to show the information is relevant and +necessary. Gober, 197 F.R.D. at 521; see also Hunter's Ridge Golf Co. Inc. v. +Georgia-Pacific Corp., 233 F.R.D. 678, 680 (M.D. Fla. 2006). +Here, the information requested concerns Epstein's dates of travel, health +care provider identification, and list of phone numbers. This information is relevant +in that it may lead to evidence to support Plaintiff's claims that Epstein lured her to +14 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 242 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2009 Page 15 of 22 +his mansion for the purpose of sexual exploitation. Substantively, the interrogatories +are narrowly tailored to discover only information that is directly relevant to Plaintiff's +claims and/or Epstein's defenses. Epstein's HIPAA objections are unfounded as the +request seeks only the identification of Epstein's health care providers.' +Finally, the requested ten-year time frame is not overly broad considering the +allegation that Epstein has a psychosexual condition, which, if true, could very well +have existed most, if not all, of his adult life. The Court agrees with Epstein, +however, that Plaintiff's allegation of child abuse, does not alone provide Plaintiff with +carte blanche access to a list of ALL of Defendant's medical providers. Instead, the +undersigned limits the interrogatory to a request for "identification, by name, title and +address and/or telephone number, of all of Epstein's psychologists, psychiatrists, +therapists, or mental health counselors for the last ten years." Accordingly, except +as mentioned above with respect to health care professionals, the Court finds Epstein's +objections to Interrogatories 7, 8 and 12 unfounded and orders Epstein to provide +responses to same in accordance with the afore-stated terms, within ten (10) days from +the date hereof. +PRODUCTION REQUESTS +As noted previously, the Fifth Amendment privilege may not apply to specific +'In addressing Interrogatory 8, both parties refer to the need for the Court to +old an in camera inspection of the documents to determine, as to each documen +hether Fla. Stat. $39.204 is applicable. The request at issue, however, is ar +INTERROGATORY request, not a document request, and therefore these concerns are +inapplicable. +15 + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 242 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2009 Page 16 of 22 +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." +Hubbell, 530 U.S. at 35-36. Accordingly, a party cannot avoid discovery merely because +demanded documents contain incriminating evidence, "whether written by others or +voluntarily prepared by himself." Id. In certain instances, however, '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 93. +In response to Plaintiff's Requests for Production, Epstein has asserted an identical +"blanket" objection to each of the 24 requests, stating essentially that while he initially +intended to produce all responsive relevant documents, he has been advised by his +attorneys to assert his "federal constitutional rights under the fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth +Amendments" and refuse to produce them. In his Response Brief Epstein went further and +explained that as to each of the production requests at issue, "the act of production itself +involves a testimonial compulsion" in that, "'i]n responding to each request, Epstein would +be compelled to admit that such documents existed, admit that the documents were in his +possession or control, and were authentic. In other words, the very act of production of the +category of documents requested would implicitly communicate "statements of fact." +Epstein's Resp. Brief, p.22. According to Epstein, the "act of production might not only +16 + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 242 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2009 Page 17 of 22 +provide evidence to support a conviction, but also a link in the chain of evidence for +prosecution. Such compulsion to produce is the same as being compelled to testify." Id. +The documents requested fall into several different categories consisting of +agreements with the U.S. Attorney and State Attorney, and documents exchanged +between the Defendant and the U.S. Attorney (Requests 1-4), telephone records +(Requests 5-6), videos and photos of Epstein's Palm Beach residence (Request 7), +documents relating to Plaintiff Jane Doe (Request 8), air travel records (Request 10), +documents relating to model agencies (Request 11), correspondence with other witnesses +(Request 14-17, 19), social networking documents (Request 18), gifts to minor females +(Request 20), personal calendars and diaries (Requests 21-22), and, prescription +medicines (Request 23).? +Defendant's Motion as it relates to Production Requests 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 14, 15, 16, +17 and 20 is denied. The very act of producing documents in response to these requests +is testimonial in nature, in that by production, Epstein would be implicitly communicating +"statements of fact, to which the Fifth Amendment privilege may be validly asserted. +Hubbell, 530 U.S. at 35-36. Not only do the subject requests implicitly involve "statements +of fact," given the nature of the allegations against Epstein, they could also serve as links +in the chain of evidence needed for prosecution. As such, Epstein's Fifth Amendment +privilege assertion as it relates to these requests is sustained. +- On page 5, footnote 6 of Plaintiff's Reply Brief, Plaintiff concedes that the act of +producing items in response to Request 9, concerning witness statements, and +Requests 12-13, concerning photographs or images of females, may implicate the Fifth +Amendment. As such, Epstein's assertion of his Fifth Amendment privilege as it relates +to these requests stands and Epstein need not produce documents responsive to +Requests 9, 12-13.. +17 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 242 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2009 Page 18 of 22 +In sustaining Epstein's Fifth Amendment privilege, the Court has considered the +particular requests at issue, the facts alleged in the Complaints, the elements needed to +convict Epstein of a crime, and has drawn upon the Court's knowledge concerning the +cases at issue. On this basis, the Court finds the privilege raised as to these requests +valid, and asserted by Epstein only with reference to "genuinely threatening questions." +Goodwin, 625 F.2d at 701. Accordingly, finding the above-mentioned requests involve +compelled statements that could furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to convict +Epstein of a crime, the Court finds Epstein's Fifth Amendment privilege claim as applied +to these requests validly asserted. +The Court notes that in making this determination it is cognizant that except in those +instances where it is apparent from the face of the subject requests that the act of +producing responsive items would be protected under the Fifth Amendment, it is the +Defendant's burden to demonstrate that the act of producing any particular responsive +documents would entail testimonial self-incrimination. U.S. v. Wujkowski, 929 F.2d 981, +984 (4th Cir. 1991). In the instant case, it is evident from the requests themselves, the +allegations in the various Complaints, and the facts and circumstances surrounding these +cases, that to demand from Epstein a more particularized showing of danger, would require +Epstein "to surrender the very protection which the privilege is designed to guarantee." +Hoffman, 341 U.S. at 479. As such, no more particularized showing than that offered by +Epstein in his Response Brief is necessary. +Plaintiff's Motion as it relates to Request 7 and 23 is granted. Request 7 seeks all +surveillance videos or photographs of the Palm Beach residence. Request 23 seeks all +documents referring or relating to Epstein's purchase or consumption of prescription +18 + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 242 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2009 Page 19 of 22 +medication. It is not evident from the face of these requests, even given the allegations +contained in the Complaints and the undersigned's knowledge of the facts and +circumstances surrounding the action, how production of these responsive documents can +in any way be seen to implicitly communicate "statements of fact." Nor is it evident from +the face of these requests how production of responsive documents may "implicitly +authenticate" items that are not themselves incriminating. It is therefore incumbent on +Epstein to make a particularized showing, demonstrating how the act of producing +responses to these requests would entail testimonial incrimination. Wujkowski, 929 F.2d +at 984 (4th Cir. 1991). Epstein has failed to sustain his burden in this regard. Accordingly, +Epstein's assertion of his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination in response +to Requests 7 and 23 is denied, and Plaintiff's Motion as it relates to these requests is +granted. Defendant has ten (10) days from the date hereof in which to produce documents +responsive to these requests. +Plaintiff's Motion as it relates to requests for air travel documents (Request 10), +model agency documents (Request 11), social networking site documents and photos +(Request 18), witness statements (Request 19), and personal calendars or schedules +(Request 21), is granted in part and denied in part. It is not evident from the face of these +requests, even given the allegations contained in the Complaints and the undersigned's +knowledge of the facts and circumstances surrounding the action, how production of +responsive documents can in any way be seen to implicitly communicate "statements of +fact." Nor is it evident from the face of the requests how production of responsive +documents may "implicitly authenticate" items that are not themselves incriminating. It is +therefore incumbent on Epstein to make a particularized showing, demonstrating how the +19 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 242 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2009 Page 20 of 22 +act of producing responses to these requests would entail testimonial incrimination. +Wujkowski, 929 F.2d at 984 (4th Cir. 1991). Epstein has failed to sustain his burden in this +regard. +Nonetheless, because the undersigned can imagine a scenario where production +of documents responsive to these requests might constitute testimonial self incrimination, +the Court defers ruling on the issue until such time as Epstein supplements his Response +Brief by making a particularized showing, by in camera submission or otherwise, +demonstrating how the Fifth Amendment may validly be asserted in response to these +requests. Epstein shall have fifteen (days) from the date hereof in which to accomplish this +task. Epstein has fifteen (15) days from the date hereof in which to produce documents +responsive to any requests he elects not to address in the forthcoming supplementation. +Plaintiff's Motion as it relates to Request 5, seeking "all telephone records and other +documents reflecting telephone calls made by or to Defendant", is denied as overly-broad +and unduly burdensome. Plaintiff has failed to satisfactorily explain the relevance of this +information to this litigation. Given the tremendous burden of producing the requested +information, coupled with its tenuous connection to the issues in this case, the Court +declines to compel a response to this request. See, e.g., World Triathlon Corp. v. SRS +Sports Centre SDN, BHD, Case No. 8:04-cv-1594-T-24TBM, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15412, +at *2 (M.D. Fla. July 29, 2005)("the court may limit discovery upon the determination that +the discovery sought is unreasonably burdensome or expensive or the expense of the +proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit, taking into account the needs of the case, +the amount in controversy, the parties' resources, and the importance of the proposed +discovery in resolving issues."); Priest v. Rotary, 98 F.R.D. 755, 761 (N.D. Cal. +20 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 242 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2009 Page 21 of 22 +1983)("When a discovery request "[a]pproaches the outer bounds of relevance and the +information requested may only marginally enhance the objectives of providing information +to the parties or narrowing the issues, the Court must then weigh that request with the +hardship to the party from whom the discovery is sought.')(quoting Carlson Cos., Inc. v. +Sperry & Hutchinson Co., 374 F.Supp. 1080, 1088 (D.Minn. 1974)); 10 Federal Procedure, +Lawyer's Edition § 26:70 (1994 & Supp. 2005)("the district courts should not neglect their +power to restrict discovery where justice requires protection for a party ... from undue +burden or expense."). +Finally, to the extent Epstein asks the Court to forbid the drawing of an adverse +inference against Epstein for his failure to respond to discovery, said request is denied at +this time, without prejudice and with leave to renew at a later date, as the request at this +early juncture of the proceedings is premature. +In accordance with the above and foregoing, it is hereby +ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Answers to +Interrogatories and Production of Documents (D.E. #57) is GRANTED IN PART AND +DENIED IN PART in accordance with the terms of the within Order. In accordance +herewith, Plaintiff's Motion as it relates to Interrogatories 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, +16 and 17 and Production Requests 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 20 is denied, +and Plaintiff's Motion as it relates to Interrogatories 7, 8 and 11, and Production Requests +17 and 23 is granted. A ruling on Plaintiff's Motion as it relates to Production Requests 10, +11, 18, 19, and 21 is deferred until Epstein files his Supplementary Response Brief, due +fifteen (15) days from the date hereof, in which Epstein is required to make a particularized +21 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 242 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2009 Page 22 of 22 +showing, by in camera submission or otherwise, demonstrating how the Fifth Amendment +may validly be asserted in response to these requests. Any of the above-mentioned +requests (Requests 10, 11, 18, 19 and 21) not addressed in the forthcoming supplement +are deemed by the Court to be outside a valid claim of Fifth Amendment privilege and must +be responded to within fifteen (15) days from the date hereof. +DONE AND ORDERED this August 4, 2009, in +at West Palm Beach, +Florida. +Lincolomom +LINNEA R. JOHNSÓN +UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE +CC: The Honorable Kenneth A. Marra +All Counsel of Record +22 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9e185557b0d24c972e7f3c93f1b99e54fa6a03546e6caacda347b807ccabbb24.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9e185557b0d24c972e7f3c93f1b99e54fa6a03546e6caacda347b807ccabbb24.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ac43f50948bd00b4431e115753cedce0f90d84bd --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9e185557b0d24c972e7f3c93f1b99e54fa6a03546e6caacda347b807ccabbb24.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -256, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "9e185557b0d24c972e7f3c93f1b99e54fa6a03546e6caacda347b807ccabbb24", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 23, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "afffb29c0670af8997929b7e51ad7ec05f6d3b0811c48ddb47df872c0f58dc62", + "output_sha256": "f48e71c5e74c750f855edfe0615672ac0f11d9cb7f175ced6965353d4dda3f26", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9e398cc424943592be6ac9fe81371f2ec4195c03c800d55b8e81017d0c617dca.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9e398cc424943592be6ac9fe81371f2ec4195c03c800d55b8e81017d0c617dca.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0d653c4147e40d5013bad12d86ce63cafe492ff1 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9e398cc424943592be6ac9fe81371f2ec4195c03c800d55b8e81017d0c617dca.md @@ -0,0 +1,652 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 328-7 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/25/2009 Page 1 of 14 +Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2009 Page 1 of 22 +CURRICULUM VITAE +Ryan C. W +I, M.D. +DEFENDANT'S + +4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 328-7 +Entered on FLSD Docket 09/25/2009 Page 2 of 14 +Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2009 + +Updated 06/17/09 +TABLE OF CONTENTS +PRESENT POSITION +EDUCATION +MEDICAL LICENSE +CERTIFICATION +ADDITIONAL TRAINING +SOCIETY MEMBERSHIPS, PAST AND PRESENT +COMMITTEES +HONORS +PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES +REVIEWER +BOOK REVIEWS +PUBLICATIONS +ABSTRACTS +PRESENTATIONS AT NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL MEETINGS +AND INVITATIONAL ACADEMIC LECTURES +MEDIA +2 +2 +3 +3 +3 +4 +4 +5 +5 +5 +7 +12 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 328-7 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/25/2009 Page 3 of 14 +Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2009| + +NAME: +DATE OF BIRTH: +PLACE OF BIRTH: +MARITAL STATUS: +PRESENT POSITION: +07/2008 - +Present +Ryan Chaloner Winton! +I. M.D. +May 10, 1976 +Titusville, Florida +Single +03/01/2008- +07/31/2011 +03/03/09 - +06/30/12 +EDUCATION: +1995 - 1999 +Psychiatrist +Richard C.W. +|. MD, PA +2500 West Lake Mary Blvd; Ste 219 +Lake Mary, FL 32746 +Ph: 407-322-8199 +Affiliate Instructor +University of South Florida +Department of Psychiatry +Assistant Professor of Psychiatry +University of Central Florida College of Medicine +Department of Medical Education +1999 - 2003 +2003-2004 +2004-2007 +2007 - 2008 +Johns +University +Baltimore, Maryland +Double Major - Biology and Psychology +B.A. Degree, graduated Phi Beta Kappa with honors +Georgetown University School of Medicine +Washington, DC +M.D. Degree +Internal Medicine Internship +Sinai Hospital of Baltimore/Johns +Baltimore, Maryland +esidena +ohns|||| Hospit +Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences +Baltimore, Maryland +Fellow in Forensic Psychiatry +Case Western Reserve University +Cleveland, Ohio +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 328-7 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/25/2009 Page 4 of 14 +Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2009 Page 4 of 22 +MEDICAL LICENSE: +2004 +2007 +2007 +CERTIFICATION: +2008 +ADDITIONAL TRAINING: +2006 +2007 +2008 +Maryland - D62746 - Inactive +Ohio - 89483 - Inactive +Florida - ME99792 +Diplomate, American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology, #58286 +Forensic Psychiatry Review Course +American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, Chicago, IL +Forensic Psychiatry Review Course +American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, Miami Beach, FL +Florida Forensic Examiner Training +University of South Florida College of Behavioral and Community +Sciences, Ft. Lauderdale, FL +SOCIETY MEMBERSHIPS, PAST AND PRESENT: +Member, Academy of Psychosomatic Medicine +Member, American Psychiatric Association +Member, Maryland Psychiatric Society +Member, American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law +Member, American Medical Association +Member, Ohio Psychiatric Association +Member, Florida Psychiatric Society +Member, Southern Psychiatric Association +Member, The American College of Psychiatrists +COMMITTEES: +2005 - 2007 +Public Relations Committee, Maryland Psychiatric Society +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 328-7 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/25/2009 Page 5 of 14 +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 303-11 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2009 Page 5 of 22 +2005 - 2007 +2005 - 2007 +2005 - 2007 +2007 - present +2007 - present +2007 - 2009 +2008 - 2009 +Legislative Committee, Maryland Psychiatric Society +Disaster Committee, Maryland Psychiatric Society +Resident and Fellows Committee, Maryland Psychiatry Society +sychopharmacology Committee, American Academy o +'sychiatry and the Lav +Research Committee, American Academy of Psychiatry and the +Law +Corresponding Committee on Graduate Education, American +Psychiatric Association +Member, New Member Task Force, Southern Psychiatric +Association +HONORS: +1999 +2004 +2005 +2005 +Phi Beta Kappa, Johns +University +Superior" performance rating, 1st-year residency, by Sina +lospital Department of Medicine's Clinical Competency an +Evaluation Committee +Dorfman Award, presented by The Academy of Psychosomatic +Medicine for best review article of the year for Definition, +Diagnosis, and Forensic Implications of Postconcussional +Syndrome. Psychosomatics, 46(3): 195-202, May-June 2005. +Rappeport Fellowship, American Academy of Psychiatry and the +PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES: +2008 +2009 +Written testimony on Elder Abuse in support of bills +HB873/SB501 +Persons with a +Criminal sabin Pens lies, preten die Maryland +House Judiciary +Committee for Delegate +District 19 +County, Maryland. Hearing March 4 +Payrtie Sodey counseleyng, January to Florida. +4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 328-7 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/25/2009 Page 6 of 14 +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM +Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2009 Page 6 of 22 +2009 +Testified before the Florida Senate Banking and Insurance +Committee (SB 354) on Mental Health Parity. March 17. +REVIEWER: +-Archives of Internal Medicine +-Clinical Geriatrics +-Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness +-European Psychiatry +-Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience +-Nature Clinical Practice Neurology +-Neurology India +-Psychosomatics +-Social Science & Medicine +-World Journal of Surgical Oncology +BOOK REVIEWS: +1. +Clark MR and Treisman GJ: Pain and Depression: An Interdisciplinary, Patient +entered Approach. Psychosomatics, July-August 2006, 47(4)365-366 +PUBLICATIONS: +1. RCW, Dunlap PK, RcW, +J: Thyroid +disease and abnormal thyroid function tests in patients with eating disorders +and depression. The Journal of the Florida Medical Association, Inc. 82(3)187-192, +2. +RCW, RCW: Anxiety and Endocrine Disease. In Popkin, MK, Seminars in +Clinical Neuropsychiatry 4(2)72-83, 1998. +3. RcW,_ +DE, +RCW: Suicide Risk Assessment: A Review of Risk +Factors for Suicide in 100 Patients Who Made Severe Suicide Attempts. +Psychosomatics 40:(1)18-27, 1999. +4. RCW, +CW: Fee-Splitting: Ethical Implications and Principles fo +ractice Management. Transference 20(2)14, 199 +5. RCW,| +RCW: Long-term Psychological and Neurological Complications +of Lindane Poisoning. Psychosomatics 40(6)513-517, 1999. +6. RCW, +RCW: False Allegations: The Role of the Forensic Psychiatrist. +Journal of Psychiatric Practice 7(5)343-346, September 2001. +5 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 328-7 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/25/2009 Page 7 of 14 +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 303-11 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2009 Page 7 of 22 +7. +RCW, +RCW: Principles of Physician Recruiting. In Handbook of Mental +Health Administration and Management; Reid WH and Silver S (ed.): Brunner- +Routledge, New York, NY; Chapter 34:440-448, 2003. +8. +RCW, +RCW, Chapman M: Identifying Geriatric Patients at Risk for Suicide +and Depression. Clinical Geriatrics 11(10)36-44, October 2003. +9. Hall RCW, +RCW: Establishing Liaison Before Disaster Strikes. +http://www.psych.org/disasterpsych/pdfs/apadisasterhandbk.pdf; Chapter 2:12-19. +2004. +10. RCW, Hall RCW, Chapman MJ: Emotional and Psychiatric Effects of Weapons +of Mass Destruction in First Responders. In: Bioterrorism: Psychological and Public +Hover sit PresCa: Uridge: Cr, pier 126273, 2lgrton CS (eds). Cambridge +11. +RCW, Appleby B, +RCW: Atypical Neuroleptic Malignant Syndrome +Presenting as Fever of Unknown Origin in the Elderly. Southern Medical Journal +1(98) 114-117, January 2005. +12. +RCW, +RCW, Chapman MJ: Exploitation of the Elderly: Undue Influence as +a Form of Elder Abuse. Clinical Geriatrics 13(2)28-36, February 2005. +13. +IRCW, +RCW, Chapman MJ: Definition, Diagnosis, and Forensi +plicationsof Postconcussional Syndrome. Psychosomatics, 46(3)195-202, May +June 2005. +14. +RCW, Hall RCW: Abuse of Supraphysiologic Doses of Anabolic Steroids. +Southern Medical Journal, 98(5)550-555, May 2005. +15. +ROW, +RCW, Chapman MJ: Psychiatric Complications of Anabolic Steroid +Abuse. Psychosomatics, 46(4)285-290, July-August 2005. +16. +RCW, Hall RCW, Chapman MJ: Medical and Psychiatric Casualties caused by +Conventional and Radiological (Dirty) Bombs. General Hospital Psychiatry, +28(3):242-248, May-June 2006. +1. Pores Response co arman My: Peter othe Elitor. Paycoon alce, 4715) 272. +May-June 2006. +18. Hall RCW, +6 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 328-7 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/25/2009 Page 8 of 14 +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 303-11 +Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2009 Page 8 of 22 +20. RCW, L +RCW, Chapman MJ: Effects of Terrorist Attacks on the Elderly, +Part 2: Posttraumatic Stress, Acute Stress, and Affective Disorders. Clinical +Geriatrics, 14(9):17-24, 2006. +21. +RcW, +RCW: Malingering of PTSD: forensic and diagnostic +considerations, characteristics of malingerers and clinical presentations. +General Hospital Psychiatry, 28(6):525-535, 2006. +22. | +RCW, +RCW: A Profile of Pedophilia: Definition, Characteristics of +Offenders, Recidivism, Treatment Outcomes, and Forensic Issues. Mayo Clinic +Proceedings, 82(4):457-471, 2007. +23. +RCW, +RCW: Detection of Malingered PTSD: An Overview of Clinical, +Psychometric, and Physiological Assessment: Where Do We Stand? Journal of +Forensic Sciences, 52(3):717-725, 2007. +24. +RCW, Macvaugh GS III, Merideth P, +J: Commentary: Delving +Further Into Liability for Psychotherapy Supervision. The Journal of the American +Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 35(2): 196-9, 2007. +25. +RCW, +RCW, Chapman MJ: Psychiatric Effects of Terrorism: Medical and +Societal Implications of Recent Attacks. In: Focus on Terrorism, Vol. 9; Linden EV +(ed), Nova Science:New York; Chapter 11, Publication date: 3' Quarter, 2007. +26. +RCW, +RCW: The 1995 Kikwit Ebola outbreak - Model of virus properties +on system capacity and function: A lesson for future viral epidemics. American +Journal of Disaster Medicine, 2(5):270-276, 2007 +27. | +RCW, +RCW, Chapman MJ: Central Serotonin Syndrome: Part I- +Causative Agents, Presentation, and Differential Diagnosis. Clinical Geriatrics, +15(12):18-25, 2007. +28. +IRCW, +RCW, Chapman MJ: Central Serotonin Syndrome: Part II - +Pathophysiology, Drug Interactions, and Treatment. Clinical Geriatrics, 16(1):24. +28, 2008 +29. +RCW, Resnick PJ: Psychotherapy Malpractice: New Pitfalls. Journal of +Psychiatric Practice, 14(2):119-121, 2008 +30. RCW, RCW, Chapman MJ: Violence in Older Persons: Part I - +Occurrence in Forensic/Criminal Situations, Partner Relationships, and Sexual +Offenses. Clinical Geriatrics, 16(5):27-32, 2008 +31. RCW, +_RCW, Chapman MJ: Violence in Older Persons: Part |I - +Occurrence in Hospitals and Pharmacological/Behavioral Treatment of Agitation, +Aggression and Violence. Clinical Geriatrics, 16(6):28-32, 2008. +7 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 328-7 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/25/2009 Page 9 of 14 +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 303-11 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2009 Page 9 of 22 +32. RCW, RCW, Chapman MJ. The 1995 Kikwit Ebola outbreak: lessons +hospitals and physicians can apply to future viral epidemics. Gen Hosp +Psychiatry. 2008 Sep-Oct;30(5):446-52. Epub 2008 Jul 23 +33. RCW, +SH: Drug Diversion Program Rights. Legal Digest. The +Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 36(4):579-580, 2008 +34. +_RCW, RCW, Chapman MJ: Nursing Home Violence: Occurrence, Risks, +and Interventions. Annals of Long-Term Care, 17(1):25-31, 2009 +35. Paul RK, Lockey C, +ROW, Bursztajn H: Practice Management: Managing Risks +When Practicing in Three-Party Care Settings. Psychiatrictimes.com, 26(2), Feb. 3, +2009. +36. Hall RCW, +]RCW, Chapman M.J: Letter to the Editor response re: Nursing Home +fiolence: Occurrence, Risks, and Interventions) Annals of Long-Term Care +7(1):25-31, 2009), Annals of Long-Term Care, 17(4):17-21, 2009. +37.RCW. +Physicians Role, le Mies Vic, anally. rest arenalinged i at oritics, +*Boldface indicates Ryan C. W.. MD +ABSTRACTS: +1. +2. +3. +RCW, Hazard SC, RcW. +(CA, Blakey RE, +J: Thyroid +Disease in Eating Disordered and Depressed Patients. +-146th Annual Meeting, American Psychiatric Association, May 25, 1993, San +Francisco, CA, P.1.57 (Poster Session). +DE, RCW: Suicide Risk Assessment: A Review of Risk +Factors for Suicide in 100 Patients Who Made Severe Suicide Attempts: +Evaluation of Suicide Risk in a Time of Managed Care. +- Psychiatric Practice and Managed Care, American Psychiatric Association, Vol. 5, +No. 5, P 12, Sept-Oct 1999. +_RCW, Gould N, McCann U, McKibben J: The Role of Morphine in the +Development of Acute Stress Disorder and Posttraumatic Stress Disorder in +Patients with Severe Burn Injury. +- 41" Annual Meeting, American Burn Association. San Antonio, TX, Mar 25, 2009. +8 + + +Case 9:08-Cv-80119-KAM Document 328-7 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/25/2009 Page 10 of +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 303-11 +Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2009 Page 10 of 22 +4. Gould N, McCann U, McKibben J, +RCW: Peri-traumatic Heart Rate as a +Predictor of Acute Stress Disorder and Post-traumatic Stress Disorder in +Patients with Burn Injury. +- 41 Annual Meeting, American Burn Association. San Antonio, TX, Mar 25, 2009. +* Boldface indicates Ryan C. W. +1. MD +PRESENTATIONS AT NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL MEETINGS AND INVITATIONAL +ACADEMIC LECTURES: +2. +3. +4. +5. +6. +8. +RCW, Hazard SC, Dunlap PK, +RcW, +CA, Blakey RE, L +J: +Thyroid disease and abnormal function tests in patients with eating disorders +and depression. Poster Session - American Psychiatric Association Annual +Meeting, San Francisco, CA, May 25, 1993 +RCW, +RCW: Management of Hostage Situations. Psychiatric Responses +to Trauma, U.S. State Department Conference on International Terrorism, hosted by +Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences, Washington, D.C., April 28, 1999 +RCW, +RCW: Terrorism: Its Aftermath and Long-term Effects on +Survivors - A Consultation-Liaison Perspective -- Part I. Psychiatric Responses +to Trauma, U.S. State Department Conference on International Terrorism, hosted by +Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences, Washington, D.C., April 28, 1999 +RCW, +RCW: Terrorism: Its Aftermath and Long-term Effects on +Survivors - A Consultation-Liaison Perspective - Part II. Psychiatric Responses +to Trauma, U.S. State Department Conference on International Terrorism, hosted by +Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences, Washington, D.C., April 28, 1999 +RCW, Row, +DE: Impact of Managed Care on Suicide Risk +Assessment. American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 1999 Annual Meeting, +Baltimore, MD, October 15, 1999 +RCW, +RCW: Ethical Issues in Managed Care. American Psychiatric +Association, 1999 Ethics Workshop, Washington, DC, November 3, 1999 +RCW, RCW: Terrorism, Bioterrorism and Disaster - Aftermath and +I Aggression A Bard Gras Sympoyium yane Uni Ass New and na, Lement. +February 26, 2000 +RCW, RCW: Bioterrorism - Dealing with Medical and Psychiatric +Consequences of Victims and Responders. Cycle of Violence: Assessment ano +reans, LA, Fe rugression- A Mardi Gras Symposium, Tulane University. New +9. +RCW, +RCW: Psychiatric Consequences of Terrorism, Bioterrorism and +9 + + +Case 9:08-Cv-80119-KAM Document 328-7 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/25/2009 Page 11 of +14 +Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2009 Page 11 of 22 +Disaster. Rocky Mountain Emotional Trauma Symposium, Pathways Treatment +Center, Kalispell, MT, June 29, 2000 +10. H +RCW, +RCW: Suicide in an Era of HMO's and Managed Care. Rocky +Mountain Emotional Trauma Symposium, Pathways Treatment Center, Kalispell, MT, +June 30, 2000 +11. +RCW, Hall RCW: Psychological Response to Disasters and Terrorism. +International Society of Political Psychology, 23rd Annual Scientific Meeting, Seattle, +WA, July 4, 2000 +12. 1 +RCW, +RCW: Biological Warfare - Attack Scenarios, Response to +Terrorist Attacks, and Sources of Conflict. American Academy of Psychiatry and +the Law, Pre-AAPL meeting, Ireland, September 16-26, 2000 +13. +RCW, +]RCW, Chapman M: Workplace Violence. American Academy of +Psychiatry and the Law, Pre-AAPL meeting, Ireland, September 16-26, 2000 +14. +IRCW, +RCW: Biological Warfare: Attack Scenarios and Public Health +Issues. Grand Rounds, Hennepin County Medical Center, Minneapolis, MN, +December 8, 2000 +15. +RCW, +RCW: Bioterrorism: A Short History of Biowarfare & Analysis of +the Threat. +Grand Rounds, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, August 15, 2001 +16. +RCW, +RCW: Situational Suicide. Halifax Medical Center, Daytona Beach, +FL, September 13, 2001 +17. +RCW, +RCW: Domestic Violence: The Physician's Role. Halifax Medical +Center, Daytona Beach, FL, September 14, 2001 +18. +RCW, +RCW: Terrorism, Bioterrorism and Assault with Anthrax as a +Biological Weapon. +-Florida Psychiatric Society, Fall Meeting, Coconut Grove, FL, November 4, 2001 +-Grand Rounds, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, Shreveport, LA, +January 30, 2002 +19. +Bence Center, revear. A, Grand 0, 2, Louisiana State Universiy Heath +RCW: Psychopharmacology - Forensic Risk and Clinical +ractice: Things the clinician must know. Apopka Community Health Center, +21. RCW, +RCW: Overview of Terrorism and Bioterrorism. Orlando Police +Academy, Orlando Police Department, Orlando, FL, August 2, 2002 +10 + + +Case 9:08-Cv-80119-KAM Document 328-7 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/25/2009 Page 12 of +14 +Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2009 Page 12 of 22 +22. I RCW, +RCW: Workplace Violence, School Shootings and Occupations +at Risk: Analysis of current data and psychological profiles. Orlando Police +Academy, Orlando Police Department, Orlando, FL, August 2, 2002 +23. I RCW, +RCW: Smallpox as a Biological Weapon. Orlando Police +Academy, Orlando Police Department, Orlando, FL, August 2, 2002 +24. HI RCW, +| RCW: Smallpox as an Agent for Biological Warfare. Southern +Psychiatric Association Annual Meeting, Loews Ventana Canyon Resort, Tucson, +AZ, October 3, 2002 +25. +_ RCW. +| RCW: Domestic Violence: The Physician's Role. Mandatory +Madness, Halifax Medical Center, Daytona USA, Daytona Beach, FL, December 14, +2002 +26. +I RCW, +RCW, Chapman MJ: Workplace Violence, School Shootings and +occupations at Risk: Analysis of current data and psychological profiles. +Orlando Police Department, Orlando, FL, February 11, 2003 +27. +RCW: Medical and Psychological Sequelae of Bombings: +Implications for First Responders and Critical Government Staff. Orlando Police +Department, Orlando, FL, February 11, 2003 +28. +RCW, Hall RCW: Domestic Violence: The Physician's Role. Florida +Psychiatric Society Spring Meeting, Orlando, FL, April 5, 2003 +29. +RCW, +RCW: Terrorist Bombings: Medical and Psychiatric Impact. +Southern Psychiatric Association's Annual Meeting, Nashville, TN, October 11, 2003 +30. +RCW, Hall RCW: Terrorism, Bombings, and Psychiatric Casualties. +University of Florida, Department of Psychiatry, Visiting Professor Program, +November 7, 2003 +31. +RCW, +RCW: Domestic Violence: The Physician's Role. Tampa Bay +Psychiatric Society, Tampa, FL, sponsored by Pfizer, January 29, 2004 +32. +| RCW, +| RCW: Smallpox as an Agent for Biological Warfare. Orlando +Police Academy, Orlando Police Department, Orlando, FL, August 13, 2004 +33. || RCW. +CW: Medical and Psychiatric Casualties of Terrorist Bombings +rando Police Academy, Orlando Police Department, Orlando, FL, August 13, 200 +34. +ROW, +RCW: Medical and Psychological Consequences of Bombings. +Grand Rounds, Tulane University, Department of Psychiatry, New Orleans, LA, +January 28, 2005 +35. || RCW, ||||| RCW: Psychological Sequelae of Weapons of Mass Destruction +on First Responders. South Central Center for Public Health + + +Case 9:08-Cv-80119-KAM Document 328-7 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/25/2009 Page 13 of +14 +Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2009 Page 13 of 22 +Preparedness/Alabama Department of Public Health, +y. AL, Satellite +Conference, May 6, 2005 +36. |I RCW, +I RCW: Medical and Psychological Aspects of Terrorist +Bombings. Grand Rounds, Sinai Hospital, Department of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, +June 2, 2005 +37. HI RCW, +I RCW: Managed Care Disrupting the Physician-Patient +Relationship: The New Realities. (Abbreviated version) Forensic Psychiatry +Fellows and Residents, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, January 24, 2006 +38. RCW, +I RCW, Chapman MJ: Managed Care Disrupting the Physician- +Patient Relationship: The New Realities. Presidential Address. Southern +Psychiatric Association, Baltimore, MD, September 30, 2006. +39. _ +_RCW, +RCW: When the System is Overwhelmed: Protecting the +Provider during Biodisaster. Satellite Conference, University of Alabama +Department of Public Health/Tulane University School of Public Health, +AL, February 27, 2007. +40. l +RCW: Testamentary Capacity from Isaac Ray to Anna NicoleL +7. Grand +Rounds, Case Western Reserve School of Medicine, Cleveland, +I. March 28, 2008 +41. RCW, +RCW, Rundell JR, Winstead DK: Psychiatrists' Role in Disaster +Management: Lessons Learned. Course 14, American Psychiatric Association, +Annual Meeting, Washington, DC, May 3, 2008. +42. +| RCW: Violence in the Elderly: Forensic and Treatment Concerns. Forensic +Forum, Florida Psychiatric Society, ChampionsGate, FL, September 20, 2008. +43. +RCW: Testamentary Capacity: From Isaac Ray to Anna Nicole I +Southern Psychiatric Association, September 25, 2008. +44. +| RCW: Testamentary Capacity: From Isaac Ray to Anna Nicole +Forensic Psychiatry Program, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, January 29, +2009. +45. | RcW, ||| RCW: Domestic Violence as Portrayed in Film - A Realistic +Appraisal? Florida Psychiatric Society, St. Petersburg Beach, FL, March 20, 2009. +6. | RCW, Silberman E, Preven D, Weissman S (chairperson): Indications for th +Ise of Combined Talking Therapy and Pharmacotherapy and How to Teach i +Residency. Corresponding Committee on Graduate Education, CW16, America +'sychiatric Association, San Francisco, CA, May 19, 200 +* Boldface indicates Ryan C. W. I +I, MD +12 + + +Case 9:08-Cv-80119-KAM Document 328-7 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/25/2009 Page 14 of +Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2009 Page 14 of 22 +MEDIA: +1. Time Magazine, Definition, Diagnosis, and Forensic Implications of +Postconcussional Syndrome, May 16, 2005 +2. Reach MD Radio, Pedophilia. April 25, 2007 +3. MD Consult. Doug +_. Joint telephone interview with Richard C. W. +1. MD, +Pedophilia. May 2, 2007 +4. The Korean Broadcasting System, KBS Special, Pedophilia. March 11, 2008. +5. Tony Pipitone, WKMG-TV Channel 6, Mothers Who Kill Their Children. October +28,2008. +6. J. L. +• Orlando Medical News. Cyberchondriacs. November 13, 2008. +7. Fox 35 News, Orlando. Forensic Implications of +Anthony case. December +11,2008. +8. Fox 35 News, Orlando. The +Anthony Case: DNA Evidence. December 12, +2008. +9. Jessica +, WKMG-TV Channel 6. The +Anthony Case: Baker Act +and Stressors. January 23, 2009. +10. Nam Nae Won and Jihyun Song. Korea Educational Broadcasting System. +Pedophilia. March 30, 2009. +11. Keith Landry, Fox 35 News, Orlando. Effects of Stress and Financial Strair +June 15, 2009 +12. Heidi Hatch, Fox 35 News, Orlando. Effects of Stress on Families. June 16, 2009. +13 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9e398cc424943592be6ac9fe81371f2ec4195c03c800d55b8e81017d0c617dca.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9e398cc424943592be6ac9fe81371f2ec4195c03c800d55b8e81017d0c617dca.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d853e9161acf2a76271b4c89a1c1f77a15d1d973 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9e398cc424943592be6ac9fe81371f2ec4195c03c800d55b8e81017d0c617dca.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -528, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "9e398cc424943592be6ac9fe81371f2ec4195c03c800d55b8e81017d0c617dca", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 18, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "070092dacfeacb2a495377d5ded41ea1ca5b92e1c551c83a3c65d344deb996ba", + "output_sha256": "52d76207ea9b4b755111ce9e7dfecf55e8ef872b843841817a8a26081ec5cc8a", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9e41e455c6a2f0b2de69d7e948827ca6c25589a053ebc6d9854e4cdeb8f13786.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9e41e455c6a2f0b2de69d7e948827ca6c25589a053ebc6d9854e4cdeb8f13786.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7f3561f2cd0329e51e31364315449bf07628f44a --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9e41e455c6a2f0b2de69d7e948827ca6c25589a053ebc6d9854e4cdeb8f13786.md @@ -0,0 +1,144 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 406 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/13/2009 Page 1 of 3 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/ +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 +NOTICE OF FILING JOINT AGREED PROTECTIVE ORDER +Plaintiffs Jane Does 2-8, Jane Doe and' +(CMA) and their +counsel and Defendant Jeffrey Epstein and his counsel, in the above-styled cases hereby +give Notice of Filing their Joint Agreed Protective Order. In support thereof : +1. Joint Agreed Protective Order in compliance with United States Magistrate Judge +October 28", 2009 Order [DE 377] +By: +Robert D./Critton, Jr. +Florida Bar No. 224162. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM . Document 406 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/13/2009 Page 2 of 3 +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 13" day of November, 2009 +Respectfully submitted, +Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. +Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. +Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. +18205 Biscayne Boulevard +Suite 2218 +Miami, FL 33160 +305-931-2200 +ROBERT D. CRITTON, IR., ESQ. +Florida Bar No. 224162 +rcrit@bclclaw.com +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. +Florida Bar #617296 +mpike@bclclaw.com +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & +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/J +Brad +Esq. +Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler +401 East Las Olas Boulevard +Suite 1650 +Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 +Phone: 954-522-3456 +Fax: 954-527-8663 + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 406 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/13/2009 Page 3 of 3 +Fax: 305-931-0877 +bedwards@rra-law.com +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +08-80893 +Counsel for Plaintiffs +In related Cases Nos. 08-80069, 08-80119, +08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, +08-80993, +Paul G. Cassell, Esq. +08-80994 +Pro Hac Vice +332 South 1400 E, Room 101 +Richard Horace Willits, Esg. +Salt Lake City, UT 84112 +Richard H. Willits, P.A. +801-585-5202 +2290 10* Avenue North +801-585-6833 Fax +Suite 404 +cassellp@law.utah.edu +Lake Worth, FL 33461 +561-582-7600 +Co-counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe +Fax: 561-588-8819 +Isidro M. +1 Esq. +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. +Law Firm, P.A. +08-80811 +224 Datura Street, Suite 900 +reelrhw@hotmail.com +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561-832-7732 +561-832-7137 F +Jack Scarola, Esq. +isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net +Jack P. +_ Esq. +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. +Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, 08-80469 +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 Flagler Street, Suite 800 +isx@searcylaw.com +Miami, FL 33130 +jph@searcylaw.com +305 358-2800 +Counsel for Plaintiff, C.M.A. +Fax: 305 358-2382 +rjosefsberg@podhurst.com +Bruce Reinhart, Esq. +kezell@podhurst.com +Counsel for Plaintiffs in Related Cases +Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A. +Nos. 09-80591 and 09-80656 +250 S. Australian Avenue +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561-202-6360 +Fax: 561-828-0983 +ecf@brucereinhartlaw.com +Counsel for Defendant +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 +jagesq@bellsouth.net +Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9e41e455c6a2f0b2de69d7e948827ca6c25589a053ebc6d9854e4cdeb8f13786.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9e41e455c6a2f0b2de69d7e948827ca6c25589a053ebc6d9854e4cdeb8f13786.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7f1146d2067a99394a1a05930c973186b475ae79 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9e41e455c6a2f0b2de69d7e948827ca6c25589a053ebc6d9854e4cdeb8f13786.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -36, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "9e41e455c6a2f0b2de69d7e948827ca6c25589a053ebc6d9854e4cdeb8f13786", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 3, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "9b86fad7e3a8214a3d08fa3b37b925002b6757e6e27e6ff71759ea8bc7fa1643", + "output_sha256": "22cf74a6980cbca0327bdabda976b73f0ac0b91bd90dba818cece990d67ac18b", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9e46f21e3abc9ea36831f06ae030ad0cac40e75a296b9acf0e04b4eb668df9a6.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9e46f21e3abc9ea36831f06ae030ad0cac40e75a296b9acf0e04b4eb668df9a6.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..61be0f29fe706c163f3b31e8e6d7a15814c210af --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9e46f21e3abc9ea36831f06ae030ad0cac40e75a296b9acf0e04b4eb668df9a6.md @@ -0,0 +1,35 @@ +Filing # 123766786 E-Filed 03/25/2021 01:38:18 PM +IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT +IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS LLC +CASE NO: 50-2019-CA-014681-XXXXMB +PUBLISHER OF THE PALM +BEACH POST +Plaintiff, +VS. +DAVE ARONBERG, et al. +Defendant(s). +/ +CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT & COMPTROLLER, PALM BEACH COUNTY'S +NOTICE OF CHANGE OF COUNSEL OF RECORD AND DIRECTIONS TO CLERK TO +UPDATE COUNSEL INFORMATION +PLEASE BE ADVISED that pursuant to Administrative Order 2.311-2/13(5) of the Fifteenth +Judicial Circuit, the Defendant, Clerk of the Circuit Court & Comptroller, Palm Beach County, hereby +gives notice that is it changing the attorney of record in this matter to Jessica Neer MeDonald. Attorney +Cynthia M. Guerra, Hampton C. Peterson and Nicole Fingerhut should be removed as counsel ofrecord for +the Clerk. +Therefore, any and all further pleadings, court filings and correspondence in this action are to be +served upon the Clerk by directing them to Jessica Neer McDonald, Esq. +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +indicated on fre scice list and tet Portal in compiace wits the Rule 2516, Florid pries of +Judicial Administration, on this 25 day of March, 2021 +Jessica Neer McDonald, Esq. +For the Clerk of the Circuit Court & Comptroller, Palm Beach +County +Post Office Box 229 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +E-service: Clerk_E-service@mypalmbeachclerk.com +BY: Is/Jessica Neer McDonald/ +Florida Bar No. 125559 +FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, I +| ABRUZZO, CLERK, 03/25/2021 01:38:18 PM diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9e46f21e3abc9ea36831f06ae030ad0cac40e75a296b9acf0e04b4eb668df9a6.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9e46f21e3abc9ea36831f06ae030ad0cac40e75a296b9acf0e04b4eb668df9a6.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4ba35c014a6fb8a5b777fc5fc848ffe9773923c0 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9e46f21e3abc9ea36831f06ae030ad0cac40e75a296b9acf0e04b4eb668df9a6.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "9e46f21e3abc9ea36831f06ae030ad0cac40e75a296b9acf0e04b4eb668df9a6", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "8f939a6b2033a411c810a7716547524b6a08da23b485b90a508e00f492d19667", + "output_sha256": "99c0ac0ec90bf036d6715c81fc89ef06bb15e99c820b54f2f16be55374c66283", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9e6e25d0965daa1bf805783781f9423eb5b10dfae0f9eca2d7a6cad40c514f2d.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9e6e25d0965daa1bf805783781f9423eb5b10dfae0f9eca2d7a6cad40c514f2d.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..657051e8163ddf39f617e167f94ecf0f992cf0f5 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9e6e25d0965daa1bf805783781f9423eb5b10dfae0f9eca2d7a6cad40c514f2d.md @@ -0,0 +1,50 @@ +Case 1:19-cv-09610-PAE-DCF Document 34 +Filed 12/23/19 Page 1 of 2 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK +------ +X +JANE DOE 17, +Plaintiff, +: +V. +DARREN K. INDYKE AND +RICHARD D. KAHN, AS JOINT +PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES OF +THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, +NINE EAST 7ISt STREET CORPORATION, +LAUREL, INC., FINANCIAL TRUST +COMPANY, INC., NES, LLC, MAPLE, INC., : +LSJE, LLC, HBRK ASSOCIATES, INC., +NAUTILUS, INC., CYPRESS, INC. and JEGE. +Defendants. +Case No. 1:19-cv-09610-PAE-DCF +X +NOTICE OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION +TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT +PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that upon the accompanying Memorandum of Law, the +Declaration of Bennet J. Moskowitz dated December 23, 2019 and the exhibit thereto, and all prior +pleadings and proceedings in this action, Defendants Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, Co- +Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, Nine East 71st Street, Corporation, Financial Trust +Company, Inc., NES, LLC, Laurel, Inc., Maple, Inc., LSJE, LLC, HBRK Associates, Inc., +Nautilus, Inc., Cypress, Inc., and JEGE, Inc. will move this Court before the Hon. Paul E. +Engelmayer, United States District Judge, at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 +Foley Square, New York, New York 10007, on January 17, 2019 at 10:00 a.m., or as soon +thereafter as counsel may be heard, for an Order pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of +Civil Procedure dismissing Plaintiff Jane Doe 17's Complaint (Doc. # 1) in its entirety with +40881595vl + + +Case 1:19-cV-09610-PAE-DCF Document 34 Filed 12/23/19 Page 2 of 2 +prejudice for failure to state a claim; and for such other and further relief as may be just and proper. +Dated: New York, New York +December 23, 2019 +Respectfully submitted, +TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP +875 Third Avenue +New York, New York 10022 +By: /s/ Bennet J. Moskowitz +Bennet J. Moskowitz +Attorneys for Defendants +- 2- +40881595vl diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9e6e25d0965daa1bf805783781f9423eb5b10dfae0f9eca2d7a6cad40c514f2d.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9e6e25d0965daa1bf805783781f9423eb5b10dfae0f9eca2d7a6cad40c514f2d.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..51f7e8e64443943c6eb90245d5ec057bcca7d5b2 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9e6e25d0965daa1bf805783781f9423eb5b10dfae0f9eca2d7a6cad40c514f2d.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -24, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "9e6e25d0965daa1bf805783781f9423eb5b10dfae0f9eca2d7a6cad40c514f2d", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "4fae2abee2fea900e24cae603d5e4aa05ea4a475b4212175f312ea338c0f991e", + "output_sha256": "1cc5be56b7d6baa1150ac1775cc7695cb75d5c94d94666a1dcc83bdb845f1bd8", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9e87b3e386ce82ee2d7b2d8be98916437f958903cbdf5026d70492999461e11d.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9e87b3e386ce82ee2d7b2d8be98916437f958903cbdf5026d70492999461e11d.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fed70071e1562b64d2493b1eb14122440eba9b26 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9e87b3e386ce82ee2d7b2d8be98916437f958903cbdf5026d70492999461e11d.md @@ -0,0 +1,30 @@ +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 65 | +Filed 08/12/20 Page 1 of 1 +IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK +JANE DOE, +USA / Plaintiffs) +V. +Case No.: #20cv484 +INDYKE, et al., +Defendants) +NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT +Notice is hereby given that an official transcript of a _TELEPHONE CONFERENCE +has been filed by the court reporter/transcriber in the above-captioned +held on 8/5/2020 +matter. +Redaction responsibilities apply to the attorneys of record or pro se parties, even if the +person requesting the transcript is a judge or a member of the public or media. +The parties have seven (7) calendar days from the date of filing of this NOTICE to file +with the court any NOTICE OF INTENT TO REQUEST REDACTION of this transcript. A +copy of said NOTICE must also be served on the court reporter. If no such NOTICE is filed, the +transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after +ninety (90) calendar days. +This process may only be used to redact the following personal data identifiers: Social- +¡ecurity numbers; dates of birth; minors' names; and financial account numbers. See Federa +tule of Civil Procedure 5.2. and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 49.1. Parties wishing t +request redaction of other information may proceed by motion. +Carole Ludwig +Court Reporter +Date: +8/12/2020 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9e87b3e386ce82ee2d7b2d8be98916437f958903cbdf5026d70492999461e11d.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9e87b3e386ce82ee2d7b2d8be98916437f958903cbdf5026d70492999461e11d.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c085c2736cecc8da27d60b2c990fd9f863b86697 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9e87b3e386ce82ee2d7b2d8be98916437f958903cbdf5026d70492999461e11d.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "9e87b3e386ce82ee2d7b2d8be98916437f958903cbdf5026d70492999461e11d", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "1d853bf3cbbaad05f66527c91c46abcff7aef3fc95cd5f63f4b7995bc707019e", + "output_sha256": "086022f199c86257638973df4d3995d8181510409046ab2f73a16f1b59a5bd7c", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9ec12d2b68ebcc0f08848f91675cb7e24b49ac40f39919470f2108d9ba4eee31.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9ec12d2b68ebcc0f08848f91675cb7e24b49ac40f39919470f2108d9ba4eee31.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d2ca5fa53d9d79aa1ba94fd89be9f41917d1c97d --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9ec12d2b68ebcc0f08848f91675cb7e24b49ac40f39919470f2108d9ba4eee31.md @@ -0,0 +1,154 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 496 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/19/2010 Page 1 of 5 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/J +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 +AMENDED JOINT MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME +TO COMPLETE DISCOVERY DEADLINES AND SHORTEN EXPERT DISCLOSURES +Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through his undersigned attorneys, and +Plaintiffs, JANE DOES 2-7, by and through their undersigned attorneys respectfully moves this +Court for an extension of time to complete discovery deadlines, and as good cause in support of +granting the motion, states as follows: +These cases are currently set on a two week trial docket commencing on +September 27, 2010. +2. +The majority of the depositions of Plaintiffs have been taken but the majority +have not been completed. A number of witness depositions have yet to occur. In fact, Defendant +has over thirty (30) depositions that he believes are needed to complete discovery, dates for +which Defendant's counsel requested from Plaintiffs' counsel on March 9, 2010. Plaintiffs + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 496 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/19/2010 Page 2 of 5 +Page 2 +counsel is working on the scheduling of these depositions. Additionally, the deposition of Jeffrey +Epstein has not been completed, and Plaintiffs have additional depositions to take, some of +which are out of state. +3. +The scheduling of depositions in this matter has become much more difficult +since the case was consolidated on May 14, 2009, due to the number of attorneys involved and +the fact that witnesses, plaintiffs and the defendant may only be deposed once. (See Order +Consolidating Cases for Purpose of Discovery and Procedural Motions That Relate to Multiple +Cases). Additionally, many of the witnesses retained their own counsel, and the depositions +need to be coordinated with those attorneys' schedules. +5. Due to the fact that depositions are still being scheduled, both Plaintiffs and +Defendant are in agreement with extending the discovery cutoff' in Jane Does 2-4 an additional +two (2) weeks from April 12, 2010, making the new discovery cutoff date April 30, 2010 and +extending the discovery cutoff in Jane Does 5-7 to May 28, 2010. +6. +Further, the current scheduling order requires expert reports to be disclosed on +July 1, 2010. The parties have agreed to disclose the expert reports in Jane Does 2-4 on May 14, +2010 and in Jane Does 5-7 on June 7, 2010. +WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs and Defendant request that this Court enter an order granting +the Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery Deadline and Shorten Expert +Disclosures. +CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL RULE 7.1 +Counsel for the parties conferred via e-mail and are in agreement with moving the above +dates. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 496 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/19/2010 Page 3 of 5 +Page 3 +By: Is/ Robert D. Critton +ROBERT D. CRITTON, ESQ. +Florida Bar # 224162 +MICHAEL 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 19 dav of March, 2010 +Respectfully submitted, +By: Is/ Robert D. Critton +ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. +Florida Bar No. 224162 +rcrit@bclclaw.com +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. +Florida Bar #617296 +mpike@bclclaw.com +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN +303 Banyan Blvd., Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561/842-2820 Phone +561/515-3148 Fax +(Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 496 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/19/2010 Page 4 of 5 +Page 4 +Certificate of Service +Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein +Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/_ +Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. +, Jaffe, Weissing, +, Fistos & +Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. +Lehrman, PL +Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. +425 N. Andrews Avenue +18205 Biscayne Boulevard +Suite 2 +Suite 2218 +Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 +Miami, FL 33160 +Phone: 954-524-2820 +305-931-2200 +Fax: 954-524-2822 +Fax: 305-931-0877 +brad@pathtojustice.com +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08- +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +80893 +Counsel for Plaintiffs +In related Cases Nos. 08-80069, 08-80119, 08- Paul G. Cassell, Esq. +80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80993, 08- Pro Hac Vice +80994 +332 South 1400 E, Room 101 +Salt Lake City, UT 84112 +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +801-585-5202 +Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +801-585-6833 Fax +250 Australian Avenue South +cassellp@law.utah.edu +Suite 1400 +Co-counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe +West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 +561-659-8300 +Isidro M. +, Esq. +Fax: 561-835-8691 +Law Firm, P.A. +jagesq@bellsouth.net +224 Datura Street, Suite 900 +Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561-832-7732 +Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq. +561-832-7137 F +Katherine W. Ezell, Esq +isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net +Podhurst Orseck, P.A. +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08- +25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800 +80469 +Miami, FL 33130 +305 358-2800 +Fax: 305 358-2382 +rjosefsberg@podhurst.com +kezell@podhurst.com +Counsel for Plaintiffs in Related Cases Nos. +09-80591 and 09-80656 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 496 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/19/2010 Page 5 of 5 +Page 5 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9ec12d2b68ebcc0f08848f91675cb7e24b49ac40f39919470f2108d9ba4eee31.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9ec12d2b68ebcc0f08848f91675cb7e24b49ac40f39919470f2108d9ba4eee31.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fef34f1e4751fbc6197a905e3b26a4c9206dfa1d --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9ec12d2b68ebcc0f08848f91675cb7e24b49ac40f39919470f2108d9ba4eee31.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -173, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "9ec12d2b68ebcc0f08848f91675cb7e24b49ac40f39919470f2108d9ba4eee31", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 6, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "a1c349e9c7ef65003c6d28e5645c30ff3c50aa5da22cf0d67d59718f7aaea03f", + "output_sha256": "92f3feee7b36c0c023adadb1d08255c9464b05d6293d4778c76c586a704c0054", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9ec9a5258783226ef5063fbf17825cbb9a593429105b077dd16af610da74b6ad.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9ec9a5258783226ef5063fbf17825cbb9a593429105b077dd16af610da74b6ad.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a1d0544d290292310e0e7bb758db0d841a032f22 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9ec9a5258783226ef5063fbf17825cbb9a593429105b077dd16af610da74b6ad.md @@ -0,0 +1,40 @@ +Case 1:19-cv-10577-LJL-DCF Document 6 Filed 11/20/19 Page 1 of 2 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK +JANE DOE 1000, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO: +19-cv-10577-LGS +V. +DARREN K. INDYKE and RICHARD D. KAHN, +in their capacities as the executors of the +ESTATE OF JEFFREY EDWARD EPSTEIN, +Defendants. +NOTICE OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR +LEAVE TO PROCEED ANONYMOUSLY +PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that upon the accompanying memorandum of law in support of +Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed anonymously, dated November 20, 2019, Plaintiff Jane +Doe 1000 will move this Court for an order granting Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed +anonymously in this action. + + +Case 1:19-cv-10577-LJL-DCF Document 6 Filed 11/20/19 Page 2 of 2 +Dated: November 20, 2019 +Respectfully Submitted, +Is/ Joshua I. Schiller +David Boies +BOIES SchIlLer FLexner LLP +333 Main Street +Armonk, NY 10504 +(914) 749-8200 +Joshua I. Schiller +BOlEs SCHILLER FLEXER LLP +55 Hudson Yards +New York, NY 10001 +(212) 446-2300 +Sigrid McCawley +(Pro Hac Vice Pending) +BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLF +F. Lauderdale: EL . Suie 1200 +(954) 356-0011 +Counsel for Plaintiff, Jane Doe 1000 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9ec9a5258783226ef5063fbf17825cbb9a593429105b077dd16af610da74b6ad.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9ec9a5258783226ef5063fbf17825cbb9a593429105b077dd16af610da74b6ad.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..09f758d5d50ea31d09e26174376b4e44068c6483 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9ec9a5258783226ef5063fbf17825cbb9a593429105b077dd16af610da74b6ad.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -24, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "9ec9a5258783226ef5063fbf17825cbb9a593429105b077dd16af610da74b6ad", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "dbab99ecad160abd56133eaa00f6f864d80edf7b5ceed161731e2fe8c66dc5b3", + "output_sha256": "054225198d1aa59402351d642593598f919ea8c04b198d4e0645e5196f175771", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9ed692671b6c8959f049724ee38718f350ff66f34f293d71a5f94fdf5d5324e5.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9ed692671b6c8959f049724ee38718f350ff66f34f293d71a5f94fdf5d5324e5.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f89c51f1eabb5494ab0d889d151e18fe74a70148 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9ed692671b6c8959f049724ee38718f350ff66f34f293d71a5f94fdf5d5324e5.md @@ -0,0 +1,86 @@ +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 3 Filed 01/17/20 + +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff, +-against- +DARREN K. INDYKE and RICHARD D. KAHN, in their +capacities as executors of the ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, et al. +Defendant. +Civ. +MOTION FOR ADMISSION +PRO HAC VICE +Pursuant to Rule 1.3 of the Local Rules of the United States Courts for the Southern and Eastern +Robert Samuel Glassman, Esq. +hereby move this Court +Districts of New York, +for an Order for admission to practice Pro Hac Vice to appear as counsel for +Plaintiff, Jane Doe +_in the above-captioned action. +I am in good standing of the bar(s) of the state(s) of_ +California, District of Columbia +_and +there are no pending disciplinary proceedings against me in any state or federal court. I have +never been convicted of a felony. I have never been censured, suspended, disbarred or denied +admission or readmission by any court. I have attached the affidavit pursuant to Local Rule 1.3. +Dated: January 16, 2020 +Respectfully Submitted, +Robert Samuel Glassman +Applicant Signature: R-Ola +Applicant's Name: +Robert Samuel Glassman +Firm Name:_ Panish Shea & Boyle LLP +Address:_ +11111 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 700 +City/State/Zip:_ Los Angeles, CA 90025 +Telephone/Fax: 310-477-1700 / 310-477-1699 +Email:_glassman@psblaw.com + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 3 Filed 01/17/20 + +The State Bar +of California +180 Howard Street, San Francisco, CA 94105 +888-800-3400 +OFFICE OF ATTORNEY REGULATION +& CONSUMER RESOURCES +AttorneyRegulation@calbar.ca.gov +CERTIFICATE OF STANDING +January 11, 2020 +TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: +This is to certify that according to the records of the State Bar, ROBERT SAMUEL +GLASSMAN, #269816 was admitted to the practice of law in this state by the +Supreme Court of California on June 1, 2010 and has been since that date, and is at +date hereof, an ACTIVE licensee of the State Bar of California; and that no +recommendation for discipline for professional or other misconduct has ever been +made by the Board of Trustees or a Disciplinary Board to the Supreme Court of the +State of California. +THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA +Dina DiLoreto +Custodian of Records + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 3 Filed 01/17/20 Page 3 of 3 +DOBAR +COUNT OF APPENE +On behalf of JULIO A. CASTILLO, Clerk of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, +the District of Columbia Bar does hereby certify that +Robest Glassman +was duly qualified and admitted on May 13, 2011 as an attorney and counselor entitled to +practice before this Court; and is, on the date indicated below, an Active member in good +standing of this Bar. +In Testimony Whereof, +I have hereunto subscribed my +name and affixed the seal of this +Court at the City of +Washington, D.C., on January +9, 2020. +Gulis a Entelle +JULIO A. CASTILLO +Clerk of the Court +Issued By: +District of Columbia Bar Membership +For questions or concerns, please contact the D.C. Bar Membership Office at 202-626-3475 or email +memberservices@dcbar.org. diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9ed692671b6c8959f049724ee38718f350ff66f34f293d71a5f94fdf5d5324e5.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9ed692671b6c8959f049724ee38718f350ff66f34f293d71a5f94fdf5d5324e5.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8e470dab74eb862f08670d205d0563fd486e8634 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9ed692671b6c8959f049724ee38718f350ff66f34f293d71a5f94fdf5d5324e5.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -58, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "9ed692671b6c8959f049724ee38718f350ff66f34f293d71a5f94fdf5d5324e5", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 5, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "3e677e9c640068a238576c19e29ea58bf8e128c8adfd8b55c291a5a56dd30392", + "output_sha256": "4718d1fc0c21723a6cf134c93fd5bc52bb0d4a1de93330ff6048214fdedae05f", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9edadae94c97abd7b5c0d8099df52a9bbe01c00c6cf5a9df5df08d3fcc1feda5.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9edadae94c97abd7b5c0d8099df52a9bbe01c00c6cf5a9df5df08d3fcc1feda5.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..21615edeb16c7e4d2fe7dcbe2059dc2c0aedb389 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9edadae94c97abd7b5c0d8099df52a9bbe01c00c6cf5a9df5df08d3fcc1feda5.md @@ -0,0 +1,107 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 73 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2009 Page 1 of 5 +JANE DOE NO. 2, +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/ +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRAJ +JANE DOE NO. 5, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/ +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +- 1- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 73 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2009 Page 2 of 5 +JANE DOE NO. 6, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80994-MARRA +JANE DOE NO. 7, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08- 80993-CIV-MARRA +PLAINTIFFS' UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT +OF TIME TO FILE MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION +TO MOTION TO STAY AND/OR CONTINUE ACTION +Plaintiffs, JANE DOES 2-7, by and through undersigned counsel, file this Motion for +Enlargement to Time to File Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Stay and/or Continue Action, +pursuant to S.D. Fla.L.R. 7.1 and Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b), and state as follows: +1. +Defendant Epstein filed a Motion to Stay and/or Continue Action for Time Certain +Based on Parallel Civil and Criminal Proceedings, in each of the above-captioned cases, on March +25, 2009. Plaintiffs response to this Motion is due on April 13, 2009. +2. +Plaintiffs move for an enlargement of time to prepare and file their responses to the +Motion because of demands on Plaintiffs' counsel in other cases and matters. In particular, +Plaintiffs' counsel has an initial appeal brief due in Doe v. School Bd. of Broward County and +- 2- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 73 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2009 Page 3 of 5 +Scavella, case no. 09 - 10394-E, Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. +Plaintiffs request an enlargement of time of ten (10) days, until April 23, 2009. +4. +Pursuant to S.D.Fla.L.R. 7.1(A), Plaintiffs' counsel has conferred with counsel for +Defendant regarding the relief sought in this Motion, who has advised Plaintiffs' counsel that +Defendant has no objection to the enlargement of time requested. +WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request an enlargement of time to file their response to +the Motion to Stay et al., until and including April 23, 2009. +Dated: April 23, 2009 +Respectfully submitted, +By: +s/ Stuart S. Mermelstein +Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245) +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980) +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P.A. +Attorneys for Plaintiffs +18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 +Miami, Florida 33160 +Tel: 305-931-2200 +Fax: 305-931-0877 +- 3- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 73 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2009 Page 4 of 5 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I hereby certify that on April 23, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the +Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day +to all parties on the attached Service List in the manner specified, either via transmission of Notices +of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those parties who +are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing. +Is/ Stuart S. Mermelstein +- 4- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 73 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2009 Page 5 of 5 +SERVICE LIST +DOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +igoldberger@agwpa.com +Robert D. Critton, Esq. +rcritton@bclclaw.com +Is/ Stuart S. Mermelstein +- 5- diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9edadae94c97abd7b5c0d8099df52a9bbe01c00c6cf5a9df5df08d3fcc1feda5.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9edadae94c97abd7b5c0d8099df52a9bbe01c00c6cf5a9df5df08d3fcc1feda5.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5e3bc74d56f6acda048f9b2eb04fa8f7776b8a2e --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9edadae94c97abd7b5c0d8099df52a9bbe01c00c6cf5a9df5df08d3fcc1feda5.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -60, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "9edadae94c97abd7b5c0d8099df52a9bbe01c00c6cf5a9df5df08d3fcc1feda5", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 5, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "6d188448ab851e91f2d50032e9a67586e31c04bb9d33f1a4745ac0d811f7e313", + "output_sha256": "e273a2dd22b785d7ecb3eb34138e0754c7de0121892ee21940672f8f4c3109d3", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9edfaedb051098bf3b8d402492eea0dbe27f351fe2b8850bafd5ece7a05ba751.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9edfaedb051098bf3b8d402492eea0dbe27f351fe2b8850bafd5ece7a05ba751.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c2bc902aa09b265fa1496cb0b75fc4f19ea96b68 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9edfaedb051098bf3b8d402492eea0dbe27f351fe2b8850bafd5ece7a05ba751.md @@ -0,0 +1,33 @@ +Case 9:09-cV-80591-KAM Document 66-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2009 Page 1 of 2 +DECLARATION OF JANE DOE NO. 4 +1, B +, state as follows: +I am the Plaintiff identified as Jane Doe No. 4 in this lawsuit. +2. +During the past week, three investigators working on behalf of Jeffrey Epstein +contacted the office of my former employer, Florida Realty, on three separate occasions. +During the contacts, the investigators asked my former employer personal +questions about me, including whom I am dating and how they can contact my ex-boyfriend. +The investigators obtained the name of my ex-boyfriend from my former employer and have +been repeatedly contacting a former co-worker to get the telephone number of my ex-boyfriend. +Once they obtained the number of my ex-boyfriend, they have repeatedly contact him, asking +very personal questions about my relationship with him, as well as my current relationship, +employment, and residence. +4. None of the individuals whom the investigators have contacted or attempted to +contact knew that I am a plaintiff in a childhood sexual abuse lawsuit against Jeffrey Epstein, but +now they are asking me questions about it. +5. +I am worried that Jeffrey Epstein will continue to send investigators to speak with +people I know who do not know that I am a Plaintiff in this lawsuit. I am concerned that the +investigators will ask these people very personal questions about my life and disclose that I am a +Plaintiff in a sexual abuse lawsuit against Jeffrey Epstein. It could cause problems in my social +circle and with my future employment and educational opportunities if people find out that I am +a plaintiff in a childhood sexual abuse suit against Jeffrey Epstein. +I declare under penalty of perjury the foregoing to be true and correct. + +B + + +Case 9:09-cV-80591-KAM Document 66-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2009 Page 2 of 2 +Dated this 1] day of _July, 2009 +alka/ Jane Doe No. 4 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9edfaedb051098bf3b8d402492eea0dbe27f351fe2b8850bafd5ece7a05ba751.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9edfaedb051098bf3b8d402492eea0dbe27f351fe2b8850bafd5ece7a05ba751.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1b273dfab871bb5c1ad7585d1615c3ed9a340777 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9edfaedb051098bf3b8d402492eea0dbe27f351fe2b8850bafd5ece7a05ba751.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -31, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "9edfaedb051098bf3b8d402492eea0dbe27f351fe2b8850bafd5ece7a05ba751", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 3, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "d7b84a0be96bcf6135ff9a5a574a4540c29c9da3ca73f77306a0ee6915232a4e", + "output_sha256": "5fe2128afa01114c2db7fa79c6a6b86d11ceab714c4e82234139ffb0efddba41", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9ee07479fed6e962435d07738921674a004eb272ae4a098d1e756b1e99d36d44.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9ee07479fed6e962435d07738921674a004eb272ae4a098d1e756b1e99d36d44.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d1530f84ed04b587d255c8d7afcff377112bf294 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9ee07479fed6e962435d07738921674a004eb272ae4a098d1e756b1e99d36d44.md @@ -0,0 +1,512 @@ +Entered on FLSD Docket 09/21/2009 Page 1 of 6 +..- +| PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT +Date: +Time: +6/14/07 +15:34:18 +Offense Report +Day Of Week +Thursday +Report Date +Occur From Date: +4/12/01 +Occur To Date +Page: +Program: CMS301L +4/12/01 8:27 +: 4/12/01 +Dept Class +SEX OFFENSE - LEWD AND LASCIVIOUS +Screet Number +COUNTER POINT ESTATES, +PALM BEACH, +FL 33411 +City +Zone/division +Zone Three (3) +(Resid. SR7/SR80) +Location Type +RES-SNGL FAMILY +Case Status +: EXCEPTIONALLY CLEARED +Report Officer +ROBBRE +Supervisory Emp: +PERVENECKI, DAVID 4/12/01 +Case Status DE +9/26/01 +************ CA +MANAGENENT INFORMATION ************* +Case Number • : +1-01-001356 +Dept Class..: +SEX OFFENSE +- LEND AND IASCIVIOUS +Case Status +EXCEPTIONALLY CLEARED Case Status Dt : 9/26/01 +Investigator . : ROSKIN, R. +Case Number +•: 1-01-001356 +***ASSIGNMENT HISTORY*** +Dept Unit +• DETECTIV +upervisor : : : PERVENBCKI, DAVI +Investigator . : ROBKIN, ROBERT +Assignment Date: 4/12/01 +*********************OFFE +NSE +REPORT # 1******* +******** +State Class +.: Sex Offenses - Forcible Rape +Attmpt/Coumitt : Comnitted +Statute/Ordin : B00.04 (5C2 ) +Weapon Type +• : Hands/Fists/Feet +*********************OP FENSE +REPORT # 2******** +******* +State Class +.: Sex Offenses - Forcible Rape +Attmpt/Committ : Comnitted +Statute/Ordin : 800.04(48) +Weapon Type +.: Hands/Fists/Feet +********OFFENSE +PRIMARY REDATIONSHIP *********** +Offense #: +001 Sex Offenses +Forcible Rape / / 800.04 (5C2 ) +Name #...: 001 +(SUSP) +KEVTN E +Name #...: +001 +(VICT) +Offense #: +002 Sex Offenses +- Forcible Rape +11. 800.0414B) +Name #...: +001 +(SUSP) HOEBEE, KEVIN E. +********* PROPERTY +INFORMAIION # +1****** +******* +Category +• : PROP/EVIDENCE--NO VALUE +UCR Prop Type : MIBCELLANBOUS +Brandity::: : 7120 +Name +: MAXELL +Brand . +Description' +: VIDEO TAPE HOME SAFE INTERVIEW +Value +: 4.00 +Recovered by . : DET. ROBKIN +Recovered Date : +4/12/01 8:27 +Property type +: MISCELLANEOUS +Recovery value: 4.00 +********* PROPERTY +I N +FORMATION #2 +** +Category +•.: PROP/EVIDENCE--NO VALUE +UCR Prop Type : MISCELLANBOUS +Quantity . . . +Description +•: PHOTO LINE UP DISPLAY OF SUBT. +Value +: 1.00 +Recovered by +Recovered Date +: 4/12/01 8:27 +Property type + +'C" + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 09/21/2009 Page 2 of 6 +Date: , 6/14/07 +Time: +15:34:18 +PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT +Offense Report +Page: +Program: CMS3011 +1-01-001356 +(Continued) +Recovery value : 1.00 +************** +Саве Number +Street Number +City . • • +County • +Birth Date +Birth City • • +Oper Lic No. +Race • • +Ethnic Origin +Minimum Weight +190 +Juvenile . +Have Length: +** +ADULT +Short (Up to 1/2") +Complexion : +• : Medium +Body Marks #1 : Tattoo right calf +*** VICTIM +•: 1-01-001356 +SPECT/ARRESTEE INFORMATION- +# 1 ** +1-01-001356 +Prompt valid in: HOEBEE, KEVIN EDWARD +FL 33411 +PALM BEACH +Home Phone No. +Maximum Age +DEMEAN BEACH, ELL +Birth Country +FL United States +Sex +Minimum Height +Occupation +Hair Color +Eye ColoI +Build . . +: United States +: Male +511 +LANN CARE WORKER +Blue +SLIGHT +********** +Case Number +Street Number +City . • • • +County . . +Business Phone +Birth Country +PALM BEACH +561/000-0000 +Unknown +Race . . +Ethnic Origin +*********OTHER +PERSON +Case Number .: 1-01-001356 +Person Type . : +OTHER PERSON +Street Number +City. • • • +County • +PALM BEACH +Business Phone +Birth Country +Unknown +Oper Lic No. +Race • +Ethnic Origin +Weight +130 +occupation : +*************** +Original Report +INFORMATION +-# +Prompt valid in: +Home Phone No. +Birth Date • +Oper Lic Cntry +Unknown +Female +Victim Type : : Juvenile +INFORMATION +Last Name +Home Phone No. +Birth Date • • +FL United States +44 +*** NARRATIVE +# 1 *** +reported By: ROBKIN, ROBERT G +intered By.: JARRETT, DAWN M +CROSS REFERENCE TO CASE #01 0981, 01 1143, & 01 1314. +WHILE THIS INVESTIGATOR WAS INVESTIGATING THE ABOVE CASE +NUMBERS, +WHICH INVOLVE SEXUAL ABUSE, I WAS GIVEN THE NAME OF THIS +ON 4/11/01 1 +CONTACTED THE VICTIM'S MOTHER, +CONTACTED THE VICTIMS TRESS TO THERED TO HER THAT T +******* +4/12/01 +4/17/01 + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 09/21/2009 Page 3 of 6 +Date: , i +6/14/07 +Time: ( +15:34:18 +PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT +Offense Report +Page: +Program: +1-01-001356 (Continued) +WAS DOING THE ABOVE INVESTIGATIONS AND I BELIEVED THAT +MIGHT +HAVE INFORMATION THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO THOSE INVESTIGATIONS. +REQUESTED THAT +MEET WITH ME ON 4/12/01 AT 08:00 +HOURS TO DISCUSS THE CASES, SHE AGREED. +I HAD INFORMED +THE NATURE OF THE INVESTIGATIONS. +ON 4/12/01 • +CAME TO THE POLICE STATION. +AT THAT TIME THIS WRITER ASKED +IF SHE WAS AWARE OF WHY SHE WAS HERE? +SHE STATED THAT SHE WAS. +SHE +THEN TOLD ME THAT SHE HAD ALSO BEEN A VICTIM OF KEVIN HOEBEE. +THEN STATED THAT ON THE NIGHT BEFORE, HER DAUGHTER HAD CONFIDED +TO HER THAT HOEBEE HAD IN FACT MOLESTED HER. +THIS WAS ON THE SAME +DATE AS THE OTHER VICTIMS WERE MOLESTED. +I ASKED +• IF THIS WAS +TRUE AND SHE STATED THAT IT WAS AND THAT SHE WANTED TO PURSUE +CRIMINAL CHARGES AGAINST HOEBEE, WHO SHE KNEW AS NICOLE HOEBEE'S +BROTHER. +I THEN ASKED +• TO TELL ME WHAT HAPPENED. +STATES THAT SHE WAS AT THE SAME SLUMBER PARTY AS | +#01 1143) AND | +(CASE #01-0981), WHICH WAS AT THE HOME +OF NICOLE HOBBEE, 1385 RYAN LANB. +SHE WAS IN THE GARAGE +BOYFRIEND, JUST POUCHE (SIC) . +HOEBEE WAS ALSO IN THE GARAGE AT THIS TIME. +THE GARAGE HAS A BAR IN +IT AND IT IS LIKE A REC ROOM. +THE OTHER PEOPLE WERE SITTING AROUND +THE BAR. +I STATES THAT SHE WENT TO THE REAR OF THE GARAGE, +WHICH IS LIKE +A PARTY/LAUNDRY AREA TO GET SOME FOOD. +BLOCKED OFF FROM THE FRONT OF THE GARAGE. +WHILE SHE WAS AT THE +PANTRY SHE WAS APPROACHED BY KEVIN HOEBEE. +I STATES THAT +HOEBEE THEN BEGAN TO TOUCH HER BREASTS AND VAGINAL AREA. +STATES THAT SHE WAS AFRAID AND TOLD HOEBEE TO STOP. +HE CONTINUE TO +ATTEMPT TO TOUCH HER AND GRAB HER. +I WAS WEARING A PAIR OF +CHEERLEADING SHORTS AND A I SHIRT AT THE TIME. +SHE GOES ON TO STATE +THAT SHE TOLD HOEBEE TO STOP SEVERAL TIMES AND HE DID STOP. +SHOWED +• SOME MONEY AND ASKED HER TO "STRIP FOR ME AND I WILL +GIVE YOU THIS". +SHE REFUSED AND ATTEMPTED TO GO BACK TO WHERE THE +OTHER PEOPLE WERE. +• STATES THAT ONCE AGAIN HOEBEE GRABBED HER +AND STARTED TO GROPE HER IN HER VAGINAL AREA AND HER BREASTS. +WAS ABLE TO GET AWAY AND REJOIN HER FRIENDS. +SHE DID NOT SAY +ANYTHING AT THIS TIME BECAUSE SHE WAS SCARED OF HOEBEE. +LATER ON, ON THIS SAME DAY SHE AND THE OTHER GIRLS WENT TO BED +ON THE LIVING ROOM FLOOR WHILE WATCHING "THE EXORCIST". +SHE STATES +THAT SHE WAS NOT AWARE OF THE OTHERS BEING MOLESTED BY HOEBEE UNTIL +LATER ON. +SHE STATES THAT SHE FELL ASLEEP WHILE WATCHING THE MOVIE +AND DOES NOT BELIEVE THAI HOEBEE TOUCHED HER AT THAT TIME. THIS WA S +FEW HOURS AFTER SHE WAS ATTACKED WHILE IN THE GARAGE. +CAN +NOT GIVE ANY TIMES AT THIS TIME. THIS INVESTIGATOR ASKED +WHAT ROLE DID JUSTIN HAVE IN ANY OF THIS? +•STATES THAT JUSTIN +HAD BROUGHT HOEBEE TO THE HOUSE TO PICK UP SOMETHING. +STATED THAT ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS JUSTIN TRIED TO GET HOBBEE TO LEAVE +BUT HE REFUSED TO DO SO. +AND REQUEST THAT PAM KLINGER CONDUCT A INTERVIEW WITH THIS CHILD. +MS. KLINGER HAS DONE THE INTERVIENS WITH THE OTHER VICTIMS. +THE ENTIRE PROCESS HAS BEEN EXPLAINED TO +AND +AND THEY ARE WILLING TO COOPERATE IN THIS INVESTIGATION. +CMS3013. + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 09/21/2009 Page 4 of 6 +Date: +6/14/07 +Time: +15:34:18 +PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT +Offense Report +Page: +Program: +CMS3011 +1-01-001356 (Continued) +ON 4/12/01 WHILE THE VICTIM WAS AT THE POLICE STATION THIS +INVESTIGATOR SHOWED HER A PHOTO DISPLAY WHICH CONTAINED SIX +PHOTOGRAPHS. +• WAS ABLE TO IDENTIFY THE PICTURE OF KEVIN +HOEBEE AS THE SAME PERSON WHO HAD TOUCHED HER • AND HAD OFFERED HER +MONEY TO TAKE HER CLOTHES OFF• +AND HER MOTHER SIGNED AND +DATED THIS DISPLAY WHICH WILL BE PLACED INTO PROPERTY/EVIDENCE. +INVESTIGATION TO CONTINUE: +****************************NARRATIVE +# 2 ****** +SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT I +Reported By: ROBKIN, ROBERT G. +****** +4/19/01 +4/19/01 +4/20/01 +SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT +DATE OF ORIGINAL REPORT +CASE # +04/12/01 +01 1356 +On 4/18/01 +was presented to Home Safe for her intervien +in regarde to the statements that she had made in reference to her +being molested by the subject, Kevin Hoebee. +Pam Klinger who is the Case Worker conducted the interview with +This interview was video taped and a copy has been provided +for this investigator, this copy has been placed into +PROPERTY/EVIDENCE. +For detaile of this interview please refer to the tape and the +PROBABLE CAUSE AFFIDAVIT that is included in the Filing Packet for +this case. +Based on the information provided by the victim in this statement and +information provided by +investigator is requesting warrants for Kevin Hoebee. +or kevin +this +This case will be referred to Jill Esty A/S/A for her review. +Det. R. G. Robkin #119 4/19/01 +*************** +PROBABLE CAUSE +*** NARRATIVE # 3 ***** +Reported By: ROBKIN, ROBERT G. +Entered By.: JARRETT, DAWN M. +STATION AT THE REQUEST OF THIS WRITER. +THE VICTIM AND HER MOTHER CAMERO THIS WAS IN REGARDS DO TOE +****** +4/19/01 +4/23/01 + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 09/21/2009 Page 5 of 6 +Date:. +6/14/07 +Time: +15:34:18 +PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT +Offense Report +Page: +Program: C4S3015 +1-01-001356 (Continued) +AND +THE VICTIM STATES THAT SHE, NICOLE +HOEBEE AND +WERE ALL IN THE GARAGE AREA OF THE HOUSE, WHICH IS +ALSO LIKE A BAR OR REC. ROOM. +THEY WERE SITTING AROUND. +THE +DEFENDANT WHO IS NICOLE'S BROTHER CAME INTO THE GARAGE. +HE DOES NOT +LIVE AT THIS HOUSE. HE WAS WITH JUSTIN• +- WHO IS +THE VICTIM STATS THAT SHE GOT HUNGRY AND WENT TO THE REAR +OF THE GARAGE WHERE THERE IS A PANTRY WITH FOOD. +WHILE SHE WAS +THERE, HOEBEE APPROACHED HER. SHE WAS NOW ALONE WITH HOEBBE AND AWAY +FROM THE REST OF THE GROUP. +HER AND BEGAN TO GRAB AT HER BREASTS AND VAGINAL AREAS. +TRESS AND AT ME UP TO +ATTEMPTED TO PUSH HIM AWAY AND MAKE HIM STOP. SHE ALSO TOLD HIM TO +HOEBEE DID STOP BUT WHEN THE 12 YEAR OLD VICTIM BENT OVER TO +GET SOMETHING, HOBBEE THEN REACHED BETWEEN HER LEGS AT LEAST IWICE +WHILE SHE TRIED TO GET HIM TO STOP. THE VICTIM WAS ABLE TO BACK AWAY +FROM HOEBEE. +HE THEN REACHED INTO HIS POCKET AND PULLED OUT SOME +MONEY AND ASKED THE VICTIM TO "STRIP" FOR HIM AND HE WOULD GIVE HER +THE MONEY. +THE VICTIM REFUSED AND THEN WAS ABLE TO GET AWAY AND GOT +TO THE AREA WHERE HER FRIENDS WERE. +ON 4/18/01 THE VICTIM WENT TO +HOME SAFE AND WAS INTERVIEWED BY PAM KLINGER, WHO IS A CASE WORKER. +THIS INTERVIEW WAS VIDEO TAPED. +DURING THIS INTERVIEW THE VICTIM +REPEATED THE INCIDENT AS STATED BEFORE, TO ME. +BASED ON THE STATEMENTS MADE BY THE VICTIM AND INFORMATION +PROVIDED BY BOTH +AND +THIS +INVESTIGATOR IS FILING FOR WARRANTS FOR HOBBEE FOR THE ABOVE CHARGES. +****************************NARRATIVE +# 4 ***1 +SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT II +Reported By: ROBKIN, ROBERT G +intered By.: ROBKIN, ROBERT G +Reviewed By: PERVENECKI, DAVID A. +SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT +***** +*9/18/01 +9/18/01 +9/26/01 +DATE OF 0R/42/01 +• REPORT +CASE # +01 1356 +There is nothing to support the victim's claim. +Because of the above reason the state will not file this case. +This case is EXCEPTIONALLY CLEARED: +********* +SUPPLEMENT +Det. R. G. Robkin #119 +***** NARRATIVE +# 5 ***** +Reported By: GEROULD, GLENN A. +9/18/01 +******** +3/27/03 + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 09/21/2009 Page 6 of 6 +Date: +6/14/07 +Time: 15:34:18 +I PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT +Offense Report +Page: +Program: +CMS3011, +1-01-001356 +Entered By.: GEROULD, GLENN A. +(Continued) +3/27/03 +he above listed evidence within these case numbers have bee +estroyed with appropriate entries made in the log book +****** +******* +END OF REPORT * * +*** +** +* +* +**** +* \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9ee07479fed6e962435d07738921674a004eb272ae4a098d1e756b1e99d36d44.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9ee07479fed6e962435d07738921674a004eb272ae4a098d1e756b1e99d36d44.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6ceb7df16254f079cfa3b3cc8d550813b5adcfe4 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9ee07479fed6e962435d07738921674a004eb272ae4a098d1e756b1e99d36d44.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -308, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "9ee07479fed6e962435d07738921674a004eb272ae4a098d1e756b1e99d36d44", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 8, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": false, + "input_sha256": "fd7bd46bb6a79cbea6bc9e67f17d18fadde7a2d39d70a5f0afbbec8ba7213b47", + "output_sha256": "d8dcbbd2174170dcc309b70fd81a868f05bd4ab7ed7d8477fecd79dc11a8589c", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9ef7decf9616067620fad226af24177ddd79ca17d6dc337ba4ebe770cdd3e179.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9ef7decf9616067620fad226af24177ddd79ca17d6dc337ba4ebe770cdd3e179.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..321e138f5dcfceee390d2393d1125dc957e943e8 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9ef7decf9616067620fad226af24177ddd79ca17d6dc337ba4ebe770cdd3e179.md @@ -0,0 +1,47 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 201 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2013 Page 1 of 1 +Case 9:08-Ev-83736-RẢM Bocument 194/2811ed 36/27/199 plagé 1 of 1 +13-129234 +NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +Case No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA +JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, +Petitioners, +FILED by +MC_D.C. +ELECTRONIC +JUL 1, 2013 +CLERE US: ARST. CT. +U.s. +DIST. +S.D. OF FLA. - MIAMI +VS. +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, +Respondent. +….....: +NOTICE OF APPEAL BY INTERVENOR ROY BLACK +Intervenor Roy Black hereby appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh +Circuit from an Order Granting Petitioners' Motion to Proffer Government Correspondence in +Support of CVRA Claims & Granting Motion to Unseal Correspondence and Related Unredacted +Pleadings of Petitioners dated June 18, 2013 [DE 188], an Order Denying Government's Motion to +Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction & Order Lifting Stay of Discovery dated June 19, +2013 [DE 189], and an Omnibus Order dated June 19, 2013 [DE 190]. +We certify that on June 27, 2013, the foregoing document was filed electronically with +the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system. +Respectfully submitted, +BLACK, SREBNICK, KORNSPAN +& STUMPF, P.A. +201 South Biscayne Boulevard +Suite 1300 +Miami, Florida 33131 +Telephone (305) 371-6421 +Fax (305) 358-2006 +By: +Isl +ROY BLACK, ESQ. +Florida Bar No. 126088 +Email: rblack@royblack.com +JACKIE PERCZEK, ESQ. +Florida Bar No. 042201 +Email: iperczek@royblack.com +22 +1 of 1 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9ef7decf9616067620fad226af24177ddd79ca17d6dc337ba4ebe770cdd3e179.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9ef7decf9616067620fad226af24177ddd79ca17d6dc337ba4ebe770cdd3e179.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3cb9543397afba0d03e561d1eff2e5881bcfb486 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9ef7decf9616067620fad226af24177ddd79ca17d6dc337ba4ebe770cdd3e179.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "9ef7decf9616067620fad226af24177ddd79ca17d6dc337ba4ebe770cdd3e179", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "0c4d0a527827971f82aed79b4a92c98563c8ed5562cffafdd02fad9bd615cb39", + "output_sha256": "49bdae804ddee5b7920f7cf823f837aaac952900494bd6881df4e1027c8f5b66", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9f1844bad6e820b1dcadbae46c6b164de373d16a3b339847551e7971df6630a5.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9f1844bad6e820b1dcadbae46c6b164de373d16a3b339847551e7971df6630a5.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8db413aeca0d8847e5ef33d3444e3b63de103f48 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9f1844bad6e820b1dcadbae46c6b164de373d16a3b339847551e7971df6630a5.md @@ -0,0 +1,298 @@ +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 55 Filed 02/28/20 Page 1 of 11 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK +JANE DOE, +X +Plaintiff, +19 Civ. 8673 (KPF) (DCF) +V. +DARREN K. INDYKE and RICHARD D. +KAHN, in their capacities as the executors of +the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, +Defendants. +: +------ +X +DEFENDANTS' REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF THEIR +MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES +TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP +875 Third Avenue +New York, New York 10022 +Tel: 212-704-6000 +Fax: 212-704-6288 +Attorneys for Defendants Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, +Co-Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 55 Filed 02/28/20 Page 2 of 11 +The Co-Executors' submit this reply memorandum of law in support of their motion to +dismiss Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure +12(b)(б). +PRELIMINARY STATEMENT +The parties agree what the legal issue on this motion is: "The pending motion now presents +the question of whether [Decedent's] Estate should be liable for a punitive damages verdict that +would have clearly been available against him if he were still alive." (Opp. Br. 2.) The parties +also agree that New York law prohibits the recovery of punitive damages against a deceased +tortfeasor's estate. +Plaintiff nevertheless asks the Court to permit her punitive damages claim to stand. (Opp. +Br. 1.) Because no legal authority supports Plaintiff's request, Plaintiff devotes much of her +opposition brief to policy arguments better directed to the New York Legislature, a lengthy +narrative concerning Decedent's alleged conduct, and speculation (e.g., that Decedent has "no +innocent heirs" (Op. Br. 2)). These are not grounds to ignore black-letter New York law on the +legal issue presented on this motion. +Permitting Plaintiff's punitive damages claim to remain in this action would delay its +inevitable dismissal while simultaneously impeding settlement discussions by enabling Plaintiff +to use the (legally baseless) prospect of obtaining punitive damages as (misplaced) leverage. +'Capitalized terms used but not defined herein have the meanings ascribed to them in the Co-Executors' moving brief +(ECF Doc. 47). +41601574vl + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 55 Filed 02/28/20 Page 3 of 11 +ARGUMENT +A. NEW YORK LAW APPLIES TO THE ISSUE OF PUNITIVE DAMAGES +BECAUSE THE TORTS ALLEGEDLY OCCURRED IN NEW YORK +As an initial matter, Plaintiff largely ignores the Co-Executors' showing that she may not +have the Court simultaneously apply the first sentence of E.P.T.L. § 11-3.2(a)(1), permitting her +to bring this case, but to disregard the very next sentence precluding punitive damages. See Blissett +v. Eisensmidt, 940 F. Supp. 449, 457 (N.D.N.Y. 1996) ("[It would be an anomalous situation +indeed if plaintiff were allowed to proceed with this section 1983 action against the estate of +because of section 11-3.2(a)(1), while at the same time he was allowed to recover relief in the +form of punitive damages, which clearly is beyond the scope of relief which that statute +authorizes."). Instead, Plaintiff relegates her discussion of this principle -- which by itself resolves +this motion in favor of the Co-Executors -- to a single footnote. (Op. Br. n. 9.) And, while Plaintiff +claims without support that "whatever the Blissett court meant when it stated that it would be +"incongruous' to allow the plaintiff in Blissett to rely on one part of the NY EPTL and not another, +it cannot possibly have the meaning Defendants give it," she does not explain why that case does +not mean exactly what it says. The quoted language from Blissett is unambiguous and makes +perfect sense. +To escape the principle set forth in Blissett, Plaintiff now argues that she may pursue this +action pursuant to a Virgin Islands Estates and Fiduciary Relations statute, 15 V.I.C. § 601. (Op. +Br. 17.) This argument fails for four reasons. First, Plaintiff does not cite any legal authority that +permits a New York litigant to file a personal injury suit in New York, alleging torts occurring in +New York, pursuant to 15 V.I.C. § 601. Second, even if that statute applies (it does not), New +York choice-of-law principles would still result in application of New York law to the issue of +punitive damages, as explained in the Co-Executors' moving brief and below. Third, Plaintiff +- 2- + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 55 Filed 02/28/20 Page 4 of 11 +does not set forth any law establishing that she could have brought this lawsuit in the USVI +pursuant to 15 V.I.C. § 601 and avail herself of USVI laws on punitive damages while +simultaneously maintaining the action is timely pursuant to the New York Child Victims' Act. +Fourth, regardless of E.P.T.L. § 11-3.2(a)(I), New York has a "strong policy against the +assessment of punitive damages against an estate on account of wrongful conduct of the +decedent.''' Graham v. +, 224 F.R.D. 59, 63 (N.D.N.Y. 2004) (quoting Blissett, 940 F. +Supp. at 457). +Plaintiff does not cite any legal authority justifying a departure from the application of +New York law regarding punitive damages to torts that allegedly occurred in New York. The +Second Circuit has held that where, as here, alleged misconduct takes place in New York, New +York law should apply to damages: +If conflicting conduct-regulating laws are at issue, the law of the jurisdiction +where the tort occurred will generally apply because that jurisdiction has +the greatest interest in regulating behavior within its borders. Cooney, 81 +N. Y.2d at 72. In Licci ex rel. Licci v. Lebanese Can. Bank, SAL, 739 F.3d +45 (2d Cir. 2014) (per curiam), we observed that, under New York law, +when the jurisdictions of the conduct and injury are distinct, it is the place +of the allegedly wrongful conduct that generally has superior 'interests in +protecting the reasonable expectations of the parties who relied on the laws +of that place to govern their primary conduct and in the admonitory effect +that applying its law will have on similar conduct in the future. " Id. at 50- +51 (quoting +, 65 N.Y.2d at 198) (alterations omitted). Here, the +allegedly wrongful conduct—the misrepresentations by Citigroup and its +officers-took place in New York, where Citigroup had its headquarters. +We therefore conclude that New York's rules on fraud damages and +negligent misrepresentation apply. +AHW Inv. P'ship, MFS, Inc. v. Citigroup Inc., 661 F. App'x 2, 5 (2d Cir. 2016); see also Starr +Indem. & Liab. Co. v. Am. Claims Mgmt., No. 14-cv-0463-JMF, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60272, +*7 (S.D.N.Y. May 7, 2015) ("Because punitive damages are conduct-regulating, 'the law of the +jurisdiction where the tort occurred will generally apply."") (quoting Deutsch v. Novartis Pharms. +- 3- + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 55 Filed 02/28/20 Page 5 of 11 +Corp., 723 F. Supp. 2d 521, 524 (E.D.N.Y. 2010); Guidi v. Inter-Continental Hotels Corp., No. +95-CV-9006, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6390, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 16, 2003)). +Plaintiff's heavy reliance on Nat'l Jewish Democratic Council v. Adelson, No. 18 Civ. +8787 (JPO), 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168675, (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2019), is based on an apparent +misinterpretation of that action. In Adelson, the National Jewish Democratic Council and its chair +sued Sheldon G. Adelson for damages based on Adelson's prior filing of a defamation suit against +them in the same court pursuant to Nevada law. Id. at *1-2. The court had dismissed Adelson's +prior action pursuant to Nevada's anti-SLAPP statute, which has its own punitive damages +provision. Id. at *1-2, 11. In the action against Adelson, the court held that Nevada had a much +stronger interest in applying its punitive damages law because Adelson had previously attempted +to use Nevada's defamation law to chill First Amendment rights. Id. at *14. By contrast, "New +York's interest [was] relatively attenuated" in the second action because "li]ts sole connection to +this suit is that the suit was filed here." Id. at *15. +Here, the situation is effectively the opposite. New York has the strongest connection +(indeed, the only material connection) to this lawsuit because: Plaintiff is suing for damages based +on torts that occurred entirely in New York (Compl. |[ 13); Plaintiff alleges "[a]t all times material +to the events alleged herein, Plaintiff resided in New York, New York, and (Decedent] maintained +a residence in New York, New York" (Id. I[ 12); Plaintiff alleges she is a New York citizen (Id. I +7); Plaintiff alleges she is domiciled in New York (Id. I 10); Plaintiff chose to sue in New York +(which is only possible pursuant to a New York statute, E.P.T.L. § 11-3.2(a)(1)); and, Plaintiff's +causes of action are only timely, according to Plaintiff, by virtue of the New York Child Victims +Act. +- 4- + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 55 Filed 02/28/20 Page 6 of 11 +By contrast, the USVI has no interest in applying its laws on punitive damages (which are +the same as New York in any event) to the alleged torts that took place in New York. The sole +connection to the USVI is that the Decedent's Estate is being probated there approximately fifteen +years after the alleged tortious conduct took place—in other words, a connection much weaker +than the one deemed "tenuous" in Adelson. Even under the framework of Adelson, New York, not +the USVI, has the sole and thus greater interest in applying its laws and policies concerning +Plaintiff's improper claim for punitive damages. +Adelson is also factually distinguishable. Adelson did not involve E.P.T.L. § 11-3.2(a)(1) +or New York's "strong policy against the assessment of punitive damages against an estate on +account of wrongful conduct of the decedent."" Graham, 224 F.R.D. at 63. +The other cases on which Plaintiff relies provide clear support for the Co-Executors" +positions on this motion. In +v. Philip Morris, 124 F. Supp. 2d 46, 73 (E.D.N.Y. 2000), the +court reaffirmed that New York has a greater interest in applying its law to punitive damages in +matters involving misconduct within its borders, which is exactly the situation here: +New York's interest appears more significant in this action than that of any +single other state. It has a greater interest in determining general +compensatory liability issues since, like punitive damages, they may bear +directly on the regulation of dangerous conduct within its borders. Cf. +J. Weintraub, Methods For Resolving Conflicts of law Problems in +Mass Tort Litigation, 1989 U. III. L. Rev. 129 (1989) ("higher +compensatory damages may also punish and deter"); see, e.g., American +Law Institute: Complex Litigation: Statutory Recommendations and +Analysis (choice of Law) § 6.01, comment a ("state where the defendant +acted clearly may have a legitimate interest in regulating that conduct and +in controlling defendant's potential tort liability"); see, e.g., Pescatore, 97 +.3d at 14 ("New York has an obvious interest in regulating the extent t +vhich New York-corporations may be held liable for excessive or punitiv +damages"). (emphasis added). +While the New York Court of Appeals adopted a "center of gravity" approach Babcock v. +, 12 NY2d 473 (N.Y. 1963), it later explained (as Plaintiff fails to explain in her brief): +- 5- + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 55 Filed 02/28/20 Page 7 of 11 +"This new method of analysis, however, was limited to competing loss-allocation—not conductregulating—rules." +v. Erie Coach Lines Co., 17 N.Y.3d 306, 318-19 (N.Y. 2011) +(emphasis added). Because punitive damages are conduct-regulating, Babcock is inapplicable. +Also, even under the loss-allocation and center of gravity frameworks, which do not apply +here, New York law must still apply. Plaintiff does not allege any torts or injuries occurring +outside New York, whether in the USVI or elsewhere. +H. Lee Equity Fund V, L.P. v. Mayer +& Maw LLP, 612 F. Supp. 2d +267, 284 (S.D.N.Y. 2009), which Plaintiff also relies on, further confirms the site of the tort is +what matters here: "When the confliet [sic] involves rules that regulate conduct—as here-the site +of the tort, not the place of the loss, governs." (emphasis added) (citing Lee v. Bankers Trust Co., +166 F.3d 540, 543 (2d Cir. 1999); Sheldon v. PHH Corp., 135 F.3d 848, 853 (2d Cir. 1998)). Here, +of course, the site of the loss and the site of the tort are the same: New York. +The other cases cited by Plaintiff are in accord. See Padula v. Lilarn Props. Corp., 84 +N.Y.2d 519, 521-22, (N.Y. 1994) ("As we stated in +….. when the conflicting rules involve +the appropriate standards of conduct ... the law of the place of the tort 'will usually have a +predominant, if not exclusive, concern' ….. because the locus jurisdiction's interests in protecting +the reasonable expectations of the parties who relied on it to govern their primary conduct and in +the admonitory effect that applying its law will have on similar conduct in the future assume critical +importance and outweigh any interests of the common-domicile jurisdiction."" (emphasis added) +(citing +v. Boy Scouts of Am., 65 N. Y.2d 189 (N.Y. 1985), which Plaintiff also cites)). +Plaintiff cites an old Ulster County decision, Stevens v. Shields, 131 Misc. 2d 145, 499 +N.Y.S.2d 351 (Sup. Ct. Ulster Cnty. 1986), to support her flawed assertion that, merely because +the Co-Executors are deemed domiciled in the USVI pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(2), USVI +- 6- + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 55 Filed 02/28/20 Page 8 of 11 +law should apply to the issue of punitive damages. (See Op. Br. 9 and Compl. I[ 11). However, +the issue and facts in Stevens were entirely different than those here. In Stevens, the court applied +a Florida "post event loss or liability allocating provision" to a Florida resident who was liable +under the provision due to her Florida resident son's automobile accident that occurred in New +York. Id. at 352-53. Here, Plaintiff is asking the Court to apply USVI law to punitive damages, +which are conduct regulating, notwithstanding that the alleged torts occurred entirely in New York. +New York has the only interest in regulating conduct that occurred within its borders 15 years +before Decedent died. Therefore, Stevens is irrelevant. +Plaintiff also argues that, "where a tortfeasor commits suicide to avoid imposition of +punitive damages, considerations of fairness no longer counsel in favor of protecting his estate." +(Op. Br. 12.) However, much like Plaintiff's statement about the supposed lack of "innocent +heirs," this is pure speculation. The only legal authority Plaintiff cites to support this argument +are two Indiana state law cases—hardly persuasive. Plaintiff cites no New York authority +supporting this Indiana concept, which in any event was dicta in a case in which Indiana joined +the majority of jurisdictions (including New York) and held "Indiana law does not permit recovery +of punitive damages from the estate of a deceased tortfeasor." Crabtree ex rel. Kemp v. Estate of +Crabtree, 837 N.E.2d 135, 139 (Ind. 2005). +B. USVI LAW IS IN ACCORD WITH THE MAJORITY POSITION PROHIBITING +PUNITIVE DAMAGES AGAINST A DECEDENT TORTFEASOR'S ESTATE. +a. Plaintiff's Banks analysis ignores what USVI courts have repeatedly held. +As established in the Co-Executors' moving brief, every Banks factor favors the Estate: (I) +pre-Banks, USVI courts expressed approval for the general rule that punitive damages cannot be +recovered against the personal representatives of a wrongdoer's estate (see, e.g., +V. +Dowson Holding Co., 51 +V.I. 619, 628 (D.V.I. 2009) (considering the inverse issue)); (2) a +- 7- + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 55 Filed 02/28/20 Page 9 of 11 +majority of courts from other jurisdictions preclude punitive damages against the personal +representatives of a wrongdoer's estate (2 Linda L. Schlueter, Punitive Damages § 20.4 (7th ed. +2015)); and (3) post-Banks, USVI courts have held Restatement (Second) of Torts § 908 represents +the soundest rule for the USVI (see, e.g., Powell v. Chi-Co's Distrib., No. ST-13-TOR-14, 2014 +V.I. LEXIS 21, at *5 n. 13 (U.S.V.I. Super. Ct. Apr. 3, 2014)). +Plaintiff ignores the first Banks factor and admits the second Banks factor is not in her +favor. (See Op. Br. 16 ("While it is true that this is the majority view ....").) Plaintiff's response +to the post-Banks decisions is to belittle not only those courts' reliance on the Restatement but also +the Restatement itself, a tacit admission that USVI courts have repeatedly deferred to Restatement +(Second) of Torts § 908 when addressing damages issues. +However, that is precisely what the third Banks factor calls for: to determine whether, post- +Banks, USVI courts have determined that a particular approach represents the soundest rule for the +USVI. On the issue of damages, USVI courts have determined that the approach in the +Restatement (Second) of Torts § 908 is sound. None of those courts suggests that only part of +§ 908 is sound. Therefore, even if USVI law applies (which it does not), the result is the same: +there can be no punitive damages in this action.? +b. The USVI AG's request for punitive damages in a CICO action is irrelevant. +Plaintiff's reliance on the USVI Attorney General's request for punitive damages against +Decedent's estate in an action alleging violations of the USVI's Criminally Influenced and Corrupt +-Plaintiff asks the Court to certify to the Supreme Court of the USVI the question of whether punitive damages are +available against Decedent's Estate. (Op. Br. fn. 8.) As explained in the Co-Executors' moving brief and herein, New +York law applies to this issue and, in any event, USVI law is in accord with New York law. There is, therefore, no +need to certify that question. Should the Court nevertheless determine to certify this issue, this action should be stayed +pending resolution of the certified question. +- 8 - + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 55 Filed 02/28/20 Page 10 of 11 +Organizations Act ("CICO") fails for three reasons. First, per black-letter New York law, USVI +law does not apply. +Second, even assuming USVI law does somehow apply, it is in accord with New York law +and the majority of U.S. jurisdictions, as reflected in the Restatement (Second) of Torts. +Third, the fact that the USVI Attorney General asks for something in a lawsuit is not legal +authority, let alone authority that somehow overrides the numerous USVI court decisions +establishing that USVI law conforms to the majority of U.S. jurisdictions in prohibiting recovery +of punitive damages from a deceased tortfeasor's estate. Even where an attorney general purports +to interpret a law - and here the USVI AG did no such thing -- the Supreme Court has warned +against accepting such interpretation as authoritative. See Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914, 940, +120 S. Ct. 2597, 2614 (2000) ("our precedent warns against accepting as 'authoritative' an +Attorney General's interpretation of state law when the Attorney General does not bind the state +courts or local law enforcement authorities**). +CONCLUSION +Based on the foregoing and the Co-Executors' moving brief, the Co-Executors respectfully +request that the Court grant their motion to dismiss Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages or, +alternatively, to strike that claim, together with such other and further relief as the Court deems +just and proper. +- 9- + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 55 Filed 02/28/20 Page 11 of 11 +Dated: New York, New York +February 28, 2020 +Respectfully submitted, +TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP +875 Third Avenue +New York, New York 10022 +By: Is/ Bennet J. Moskowitz +Bennet J. Moskowitz +Attorney for Defendants Darren K. Indyke and +Richard D. Kahn, Co-Executors of the Estate of +Jeffrey E. Epstein +- 10- diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9f1844bad6e820b1dcadbae46c6b164de373d16a3b339847551e7971df6630a5.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9f1844bad6e820b1dcadbae46c6b164de373d16a3b339847551e7971df6630a5.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2b66ae74384be9f9c81761042438086ee89ac086 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9f1844bad6e820b1dcadbae46c6b164de373d16a3b339847551e7971df6630a5.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -134, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "9f1844bad6e820b1dcadbae46c6b164de373d16a3b339847551e7971df6630a5", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 12, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "0f8a726c893234e333d3b1bee2653624ec6e07e2bc6ffc20d90d012081bfa88a", + "output_sha256": "016a6d7eb93eed8c96ac433f41ef411515eb7f02fbe4b53b49c4697905f4cd4d", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9f1e90238d7c5c0151322538866ebdc0b3f2d18bd8e98263a74cca1efa54d8f4.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9f1e90238d7c5c0151322538866ebdc0b3f2d18bd8e98263a74cca1efa54d8f4.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a26581c02eba4544cea6351d7fda7ed406039238 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9f1e90238d7c5c0151322538866ebdc0b3f2d18bd8e98263a74cca1efa54d8f4.md @@ -0,0 +1,16 @@ +Case 9:09-cV-80591-KAM Document 66-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2009 Page 1 of 1 +DECLARATION OF JANE DOE NO. 6 +state as follows: +I am the Plaintiff identified as Jane Doe No. 6 in this lawsuit. +On July 9, 2009, an investigator came to the office of my former employer, A +Affordable Auto Insurance, in Lake Worth, Florida. +After the investigator left, 1 was contacted by my former employer and told that +the investigator was asking personal questions about me. +I am worried that Jeffrey Epstein will continue to send investigators to speak with +other people I know who do not know that I am a Plaintiff in this lawsuit. I am concerned that +the investigators will ask these people very personal questions about my life and disclose that I +am a Plaintiff in a sexual abuse lawsuit against Jeffrey Epstein. +I declare under penalty of perjury the foregoing to be true and correct. +→ 2009 +Dated this 22 day of July +mika line Doc Nigo diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9f1e90238d7c5c0151322538866ebdc0b3f2d18bd8e98263a74cca1efa54d8f4.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9f1e90238d7c5c0151322538866ebdc0b3f2d18bd8e98263a74cca1efa54d8f4.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f8b094dcf8ab67a73b2cc3e5a90327baa32afba0 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9f1e90238d7c5c0151322538866ebdc0b3f2d18bd8e98263a74cca1efa54d8f4.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "9f1e90238d7c5c0151322538866ebdc0b3f2d18bd8e98263a74cca1efa54d8f4", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "03b26046588635288e0d665c2f61351624326006eb9d692897221923079ade7e", + "output_sha256": "076f3084769035b639f0ec564d33b9e33dc0f1edb866e34c08f4a61b68e7c2ae", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9f2809a41289c7bf510bb8d545cdc919d8ac4dba76806c657943d8d82eb09c96.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9f2809a41289c7bf510bb8d545cdc919d8ac4dba76806c657943d8d82eb09c96.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7905050c660021d0a7196b0864fcdceaa52415c3 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9f2809a41289c7bf510bb8d545cdc919d8ac4dba76806c657943d8d82eb09c96.md @@ -0,0 +1,154 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2009 Page 1 of 5 +JANE DOE NO. 6, +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80994-MARRA/JOHNSON +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR ORDER REQUIRING +THAT PLAINTIFF USE PROPER CASE STYLE IN ALL FILINGS +Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through his undersigned counsel, moves +this Court for the entry of an order requiring that the Plaintiff in the above-styled action +use the proper case-style in all filings in this action, as opposed to improperly including +all other Jane Does, (Jane Doe No. 2, Jane Doe No. 3, Jane Doe No. 4, Jane Doe No. +5, Jane Doe No. 6, and Jane Doe No. 7), who are represented by the same counsel. +Rule 10(a), Fed.R.Civ.P. (2009), Loc. Gen. Rule 7.1 (S.D. Fla. 2009). In support of his +motion, Defendant states: +1. Rule 10(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, pertaining to "Caption; Names +of Parties," provides that - +Every pleading must have a caption with the court's name, a title, a file +number, and a Rule 7(a) designation. The title of the complaint must name +all the parties; the title of other pleadings, after naming the first party on +each side, may refer generally to other parties. +2. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is the case style which Plaintiff recently used in +filing papers with this Court. This action has not been consolidated with any of the other + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2009 Page 2 of 5 +Jane Doe No. 6 v. Epstein +Page 2 +Jane Doe actions filed by Plaintiff's counsel. Rule 10(a) makes clear that only the +parties to this action are to be included in the caption. +3. By including case styles from five additional cases makes it appear as though the +cases have been consolidated. Further, the case style used by Plaintiff is not only +misleading, but confusing in that there is no clear delineation as to in which action the +matter is properly filed. Each case has different facts and should proceed on those +facts. Each Plaintiff is claiming personal injury type damages which must be decided +separately. +4. Accordingly, Defendant is entitled to an order requiring that Plaintiff uses the +proper caption and case style in this action and not list every case in which her counsel +represents other Jane Does. +WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that this Court grant Defendant's +motion, and enter the requested order. +Rule 7.1 Certification +Pursuant to letter communication, Plaintiff's counsel did not agree with the relief +request in Defendant's motion. +ROBERTO CRITTON, JR, ESO. +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 day of May, 2009: + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2009 Page 3 of 5 +Jane Doe No. 6 v. Epstein +Page 3 +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@sexabuseattorney.com +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +Counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe #6 +Jack Alan Goldberger +Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 +561-659-8300 +Fax: 561-835-8691 +jagesq@bellsouth.net +Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein +Respectfully submitted, +Florida Bar No. 224162 +rcrit@bclclaw.com +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. +Florida Bar #617296 +mpike@bclclaw.com +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & 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) + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2009 Page 4 of 5 +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM +Document 82 Entered on FLSD Docnet 04/23/2009 + +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/LI +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 5, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/ +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/| +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/JOHNSON +- 1- +EXHIB A + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2009 Page 5 of 5 +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM +Document 82 +Entered on FLSD Docket 04/23/2009 Page 2 of 9 +JANE DOE NO. 6, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80994-MARRA/JOHNSON +JANE DOE NO. 7, +CASE NO.: 08-80993-CIV-MARRA/J +VS. +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION +TO MOTION TO STAY AND OR CONTINUE ACTION +Plaintiffs, JANE DOES 2-7, by and through undersigned counsel, file this Memorandum in +Opposition to Stay and or Continue Action, as follows: +I. Introduction +In moving for stay, Defendant has the burden of demonstrating that, due to a parallel criminal +proceeding, if he exercises his right against self incrimination he will certainly lose on summary +judgment unless a stay is granted. Defendant has failed to satisfy this burden. There is no pending +motion for summary judgment. There is also no criminal proceeding at this time arising from +Epstein's acts against the Plaintiffs or other victims. Indeed, whether such a criminal proceeding is +ever commenced is entirely within the Defendant's control, by complying with the terms of his +Non-Prosecution Agreement with the U.S. Attorney's Office. Defendant relies upon an amorphous +- 2- diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9f2809a41289c7bf510bb8d545cdc919d8ac4dba76806c657943d8d82eb09c96.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9f2809a41289c7bf510bb8d545cdc919d8ac4dba76806c657943d8d82eb09c96.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8d4a5e0796d8008d6db94fb82e94666fc75b6c4e --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9f2809a41289c7bf510bb8d545cdc919d8ac4dba76806c657943d8d82eb09c96.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -71, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "9f2809a41289c7bf510bb8d545cdc919d8ac4dba76806c657943d8d82eb09c96", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 6, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "0bf17f38da88ee497897cd6258ac5e62d04c5e1d7ff3cf6cb26643da2364730b", + "output_sha256": "4cff14f3497c196c3c5ce692222a85f3f77323b82b66909d3db9395510751f79", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9f4f5372beeb7a3d85f662b2e1848e0b9c054bb5f44d10b6b43feb538e235b83.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9f4f5372beeb7a3d85f662b2e1848e0b9c054bb5f44d10b6b43feb538e235b83.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..52a84f1bc3fa961333a912bbaa06b2e37827e85a --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9f4f5372beeb7a3d85f662b2e1848e0b9c054bb5f44d10b6b43feb538e235b83.md @@ -0,0 +1,106 @@ +Case 9:09-cv-80802-KAM Document 30 - Entered on FLSD Docket 06/14/2010 Page 1 of 2 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO. 08-CIV-80119-MARRA +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 +PLAINTIFE, C.L.'S NOTICE OF WITHDRAWING SUBPOENA SERVED +ON MARITZA MILAGROS VASQUEZ AND CANCELLING DEPOSITION +SCHEDULED FOR JUNE 15. 2010 +Plaintiff, C.L., by and through her undersigned counsel, hereby gives notice of +withdrawing the Subpoena for Deposition directed to Maritza Milagros Vasquez and, further, +gives notice of canceling the deposition of Maritza Milagros Vasquez scheduled for June 15, +2010 in the C.L. v. Epstein, Case No. 10-80447-CIV-Marra/Johnson pending in the United States +District Court, Southern District of Florida. +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I hereby certify that on June 14, 2010, I electronically filed the foregoing document 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 or pro se parties identified +the attached Service List in the +manner specified, either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF +or in some other authorized manner for those counsel or parties who are not authorized to receive +electronically. +S/SPENCER T. KUVIN +SPENCER T. KUVIN (Florida Bar No.: 089737) +Email: skuvin@leopoldküvin.com +Leopold~Kuvin, P.A. +2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200 +Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 +(561) 515-1400; (561) 515-1401 (facsimile) +Attorneys for Plaintiff, C.L. + + +Case 9:09-CV-80802-KAM Document 30 Centreated Servile Docket 06/14/2010 Page 2 of 2 +Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein +Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA +Stuart S. Mermeistein, Esq. +Brad +Esq. +Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. +Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler +Mermelstein & 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 +bedwards@rra-law.com +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. +ahorowitz@sexabuseattomney.com +08-80893 +Counsel for Plaintiffs +In related Cases Nos. 08-80069, 08-80119, +Paul G. Cassell, Esq. +08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80993, +Pro Hac Vice +08-80994 +332 South 1400 E, Room 101 +Salt Lake City, UT 84112 +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +801-585-5202 +Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +801-585-6833 Fax +250 Australian Avenue South +cassellp@law.utah.edu +Suite 1400 +Co-counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe +West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 +561-659-8300 +Fax: 561-835-8691 +jagesq@bellsouth.net +Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein +Isidro M. +Esq. +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 D. Critton, Jr., Esq. +Florida Bar No. 224162 +rcrit@bclclaw.com +Michael J. Pike, Esq. +Florida Bar No. 617296 +mpike@bclclaw.com +Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman +515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL: 33401 +561-842-2820 +561-515-3148 Fax +Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9f4f5372beeb7a3d85f662b2e1848e0b9c054bb5f44d10b6b43feb538e235b83.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9f4f5372beeb7a3d85f662b2e1848e0b9c054bb5f44d10b6b43feb538e235b83.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..14f8c0bfc285f0396fb723ad47515e698391bb7e --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9f4f5372beeb7a3d85f662b2e1848e0b9c054bb5f44d10b6b43feb538e235b83.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -24, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "9f4f5372beeb7a3d85f662b2e1848e0b9c054bb5f44d10b6b43feb538e235b83", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "da9961d90176b4bb6b7d513a69807b26a2dbae1b18950b9e35aa57da3286f3a9", + "output_sha256": "a8131c189805f50bb7bd4544edb7edf3c31761df9c2416b7b5685afc085b28df", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9f4fc19eded463d75ad180d59bed3ccac04409d46d1a16ed411fbd9b0353c821.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9f4fc19eded463d75ad180d59bed3ccac04409d46d1a16ed411fbd9b0353c821.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9d30cf4d39d4e8cf28566deaafcdb7fb6c8a65e1 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9f4fc19eded463d75ad180d59bed3ccac04409d46d1a16ed411fbd9b0353c821.md @@ -0,0 +1,2141 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 1 of 46 +Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009, + +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80811-MARRAI, +C.M. A., +Plaintiff, +V. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN and _ +Defendants, +DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF G.M.A. TO RESPOND TO +DEFENDANT'S FIRST REQUEST TO PRODUCE AND ANSWER DEFENDANT'S +FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES, AND TO OVERRULE OBJECTIONS, AND FOR +AN AWARD OF DEFENDANT'S REASONABLE EXPENSES +Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through his undersigned attorneys, +moves this Court for an order compelling Plaintiff, C.M.A. to respond to Defendant's +First Request To Produce and to answer Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories, and to +overrule her objections asserted in Plaintiff's Response To Defendant's First Request +To Produce, dated February 13, 2009, and in Plaintiff's Notice of Serving Answers To +Interrogatories, dated February 18, 2009. Defendant further seeks an award of his +reasonable expenses, including expenses, associated with the making of this motion. +Rule 37, Fed.R.Civ.P. (2008); Local Gen. Rules 7.1 and 26.1 H (S.D. Fla. 2008). In +support of his motion, Defendant states: +Prior to the filing of this motion, on April 1, 2009, Defendant's counsel +communicated by telephone with Plaintif's counsel in a good faith effort to resolve the +discovery issues herein. This motion addresses those discovery Items which remain at + + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 2 of 46 +Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 2 of 18 +Page 2 +issue. Also, rather than file 2 separate motions to compel, Defendant filed one +addressing the production requests and interrogatories because the discovery issues +overlap. +Motion To Compel Responses to Production Requests Nos. 1,2.4, 5, and 19, +and Answers to Interrogatories Nos. 2. 18, and 23. +Production Request No. 1 +Individual and/or joint income tax returns and supporting documentation +including W-2 and 1099 forms for 2002-2007 and, as well as all records or +documentation relative to the Plaintiff's earnings for the current year. +Response: +Objection. Irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery +of admissible information. +Legal Argument Supporting Entitlement to Discovery +Plaintiff's tax returns and supporting documentation are relevant to Plaintiff's +damages claims and, thus, discoverable. Plaintiff's complaint alleges in part that +"beginning in approximately late May or early June of 2002, and continuing until +approximately August of 2003, the Defendant coerced and enticed the impressionable, +vulnerable, and economically deprived then minor Plaintiff to commit various acts of +sexual misconduct." +pot Am. Complaint, 113. (Plaintiff also refused to answer +Interrogatory no. 2 which sought her employment history for the past ten years asserting +the same general objection). +Such information is both relevant and reasonably calculated to lead to the +discovery of admissible evidence. +It Is well settled that relevant information is +discoverable, even if not admissible at trial, so long as the discovery is reasonably +calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Rule 26(b)(1), Fed.R.Civ.P.; + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 3 of 46 +Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 3 of 18 +Page 3 +Donahay v. Palm Beach Tours & trans., Inc., 242 F.R.D. 685 (S.D. Fla. 2007). +Discoverability of such information is governed by Rule 26, Fed.R.Civ.P., pursuant to +which the scope of discovery is broad. Donahay, supra, at 686, and cases cited therein. +"Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to +the claims or defense of any party involved in the pending action." Id. +Plaintiff's tax returns, along with the requested supporting documentation, for the +six year period, and documents relevant to her current earnings, are relevant to +Plaintiff's damages claims detailed below herein. Such information would show +Plaintiff's employment and earning history, as well as provide evidence as to how +Plaintiff has been able to function in her daily life before, during and after the alleged +incidents. Was she self-sufficient? Was she able to get out of bed each morning and +support herself? What type of job did she hold? One's ability to earn a living and be +self-supporting +has not only a financial component, but +'also +emotional/psychological/mental component. +C.M.A.'s First Amended Complaint' attempts to allege 32 counts: Counts | +through XXX are purportedly brought pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §2255 - Civil Remedies for +Personal Injuries; Count XXXI is entitled "Sexual Battery," and Count XXXII, is entitled +"Conspiracy to Commit Tortious Assault only against Defendant, | +In her answers to interrogatory nos. 9 and 10, which seek information about +C.M.A.'s damages claims, Plaintiff answered that: +'Defendant's Motion To Dismiss directed to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint is pending. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 4 of 46 +Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM| +Document 54 +Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 4 of 18 +Page 4 +I have bi-polar disorder and manic depression. I lost my self-esteem. I began +cutting myself on my arms and legs and developed drug problems. Permanent +injuries are psychological. (Interrog. No. 9). +I am claiming compensation for mental anguish, mental pain, psychic trauma, +and loss of enjoyment of life. These damages will be evaluated by a jury who +will provide their own methods of computation in an amount of at least the +statutory minimum established by 18 U.S.C.A. §2255. (Interrog. No. 10). +In her 15% Amended Complaint, relevant to her damages claims, Plaintiff alleges: +...C.M.A., has in the past suffered, and will in the future suffer, physical injury, +pain and suffering, emotional distress, psychological trauma, mental anguish, +humiliation, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, loss of dignity, invasion of her +privacy and other damages ... The then minor Plaintiff incurred medical and +psychological expenses. +life. +continue to suffer these losses in the future. +(18 Am. Complaint, Counts I - XXX (18 U.S.C. §2255), 11125, 31, 37, 43, 49, 55, +61, 67, 73, 79, 85, 91, 97, 103, 109, 115, 121, 127, 133, 139, 145, 151, 157, +163, 169, 175, 181, 187, 193; Count XXXI (Sexual Battery), 1199.) +In each of her "Wherefore" clauses, Plaintiff seeks "compensatory damages of at +least the minimum provided by law." 18 U.S.C. §2255, pursuant to which Plaintiff +attempts to bring certain of her claims, allows for recovery of "actual damages." See fn. +2 herein for applicable statutory text.? +As discussed above, the tax returns, and supporting documentation, will provide +direct evidence as to Plaintiff's claimed damages. Such information does not only go to +a reasonable attorney's fee. Any minor as described in the preceding senterice shall be +deemed to have sustained damages of no less than $50,000 in value. [Emphasis added.] + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 5 of 46 +Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM +Document 54 +Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 5 of 18 +Page 5 +compensatory or actual damages or loss of income/loss of capacity to earn income type +damages, but also her emotional/psychological/mental health type damages. In the +telephone communication between counsel for the respective parties, Plaintiff's counsel +indicated that Plaintiff was not seeking loss of income/earning capacity type damages; +(Defendant is not aware that there has been any formal withdrawal of such damages +claimed); notwithstanding, the information sought is still relevant and discoverable +based on the additional damages claimed by Plaintiff. The time period will allow +Defendant to compare how Plaintiff was doing in her life prior to, during, and after the +alleged incident. Again, the type of jobs Plaintiff has been able to hold and her earnings +and ability to support herself clearly have not only a financial component, but an +emotional/psychological/mental health component as well. Accordingly, Plaintiff's +objection is required to be overruled, and Defendant is entitled to the documents +requested. +Production Request No. 2 +2. +All bills/expenses from any medical doctor, chiropractor, psychologists, +psychiatrists, mental health counselors (including any members of the healing arts and +related +, i.e. drugs, prescriptions, etc.) you claim you incurred as a result of the +injuries which are or may be the subject matter of this lawsuit +Response: +None in our possession. These will be provided upon receipt. Discovery is ongoing. +Legal Argument Supporting Entitlement to Discovery +Plaintiff makes no objection to the documents requested, but has failed to +produce any documents responsive to this request. Clearly, the documents are relevant +and discoverable as they go to proof of Plaintiff's claimed injuries. In the April 1, 2009, + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 6 of 46 +Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009, Page 6 of 18 +Page 6 +telephone communication Plaintiff's counsel indicated that Plaintiff was still not in +possession of such documents. +The First Request for Production was served on +Plaintiff on January 16, 2009. In her answer to interrogatory no. 11, (Notice of Serving +Answers, dated February 18, 2009, identifies a psychiatrist and a counselor/therapist +from whom she claims she is receiving "treatment or examination for the injuries for +which [she] seeks damages." See Exhibit A hereto for copy C.M.A.'s answer to +interrogatory no. 11. Regarding the date of treatment from the psychiatrist - she +asserts "I would defer to the Doctor's records." She claims the treatment from the +counselor/therapist has been "since high school" and "ongoing." Defendant is entitled to +the documents sought and Plaintiff is in control of and has the ability to obtain the +requested medical bills and expenses she claims were incurred as result of her injuries +claimed in this action. Plaintiff should be required to immediately produce the requested +documents to Defendant. +Production Request No. 4 +4. +All reports, evaluations, recommendations and/or analysis submitted by +any expert which relate to or cover the Incident which is the subject matter of this +lawsuit and/or any injuries, damages or losses you allege were caused by the incident. +Response: +Any reports generated by any retained experts not yet disclosed are protected by the +work product privilege. Notwithstanding same, none. +Legal Argument Supporting Entitlement to Discovery +Plaintiff, through counsel, in the April 1, 2009, telephone communication, +indicated that she does not have any responsive documents and stands by her +objection. Rule 26 provides In relevant part - + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 7 of 46 +Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 7 of 18 +Page 7 +2) Disclosure of Expert Testimony. +(A) in General. In addition to the disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1), a party must +disclose to the other parties the Identity of any witness it may use at trial to present +evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, 703, or 705. +(B) Written Report. Unless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, this +disclosure must be accompanied by a written report-prepared and signed by the witness-if +the witness is one retained or specially employed to provide expert testimony in the +case or one whose duties as the party's employee regularly involve giving expert testimony. +The report must contain: +(i) a complete statement of all opinions the witness will express and the basis and +reasons for them; +(il) the data or other information considered by the witness in forming them; +(il) any exhibits that will be used to summarize or support them; +(iv) the witness's qualifications, Including a list of all publications authored in the +previous 10 years; +(v) a list of all other cases in which, during the previous four years, the witness +testified as an expert at trial or by deposition; and +(vi) a statement of the compensation to be paid for the study and testimony in the +case. +(C) Time to Disclose Expert Testimony. A party must make these disclosures at the +times and in the sequence that the court orders. Absent a stipulation or a court order, the +disclosures must be made: +(i) at least 90 days before the date set for trial or for the case to be ready for trial; or +(ii) if the evidence is intended solely to contradict or rebut evidence on the same +subject matter identified by another party under Rule 26(a)(2)(B), within 30 days after the +other party's disclosure. +* +* +(e) Supplementing Disclosures and Responses. +(1) In General. A party who has made a disclosure under Rule 26(a)-or who has +responded to an interrogatory, request for production, or request for admission--must +supplement or correct its disclosure or response: +(A) in a timely manner if the party learns that in some material respect the +disclosure or response is incomplete or incorrect, and if the additional or corrective + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 8 of 46 +Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 8 of 18 +Page 8 +information has not otherwise been made known to the other parties during the +discovery process or in writing; or +(B) as ordered by the court. +(2) Expert Witness. For an expert whose report must be disclosed under Rule +26(a)(2)(B), the party's duty to supplement extends both to information included in +the report and to information given during the expert's deposition. Any additions or +changes to this information must be disclosed by the time the party's pretrial disclosures +under Rule 26(a)(3) are due. +Accordingly, Defendant requests that should Plaintiff be in possession of any +such reports, evaluations, recommendations and/or analysis prepared by an expert +expected to testify at trial or deposition, or to be used by an expert expected to testify at +trial or deposition, that such documents be produced as required by Rule 26, +Fed.R.Civ.P. quoted above. +Production Request No. 5 +All medical reports and/or records from doctors, physicians, (including +psychologists, psychiatrists, mental health counselors), hospitals, drug or alcohol +facilities or any other person or entity who has rendered treatment to or examined you +for any reason after the incidents) which is the subject matter of this lawsuit. +Response: +None in our possession. Discovery is ongoing. +Legal Argument Supporting Entitlement to Discovery +documents. +In support of ordering immediate production, Defendant realleges and +incorporates his "Legal Argument Supporting Entitlement To Discovery" to request no. 5 +above herein. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 9 of 46 +Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009: Page 9 of 18 +Page 9 +Interrogatory No. 2 +2. +List the names, business addresses, telephone and cell phone numbers, +dates of employment, immediate supervisor (name and address) and rates of pay +regarding all employers, including self-employment, for whom you have worked in the +past 10 years; this includes listing all sources of income you have received. Answer this +question by year, i.e. 1998 - 2009. +Answer: +Objection. Irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of +admissible evidence. +Legal Argument Supporting Entitlement to Discovery +Such information is clearly relevant to the damages and injuries claimed by +Plaintiff in this action. +Plaintiff's complaint alleges in part that "beginning in +approximately late May or early June of 2002, and continuing until approximately +August of 2003, the Defendant coerced and enticed the impressionable, vulnerable, and +economically deprived then minor Plaintiff to commit various acts of sexual misconduct." +1st Am. Complaint, 113. (See discussion of Production Request no. 1 above herein). +Such information is both relevant and reasonably calculated to lead to the +discovery of admissible evidence. It is well settled that relevant information is +discoverable, even if not admissible at trial, so long as the discovery is reasonably +calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Rule 26(b)(1), Fed.R.Civ.P.; +Donahay v. Palm Beach Tours & trans., Inc., 242 F.R.D. 685 (S.D. Fla. 2007). +Discoverability of such information is governed by Rule 26, Fed.R.Civ.P., pursuant to +which the scope of discovery is broad. Donahay, supra, at 686, and cases cited therein. +"Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to +the claims or defense of any party involved in the pending action." Id. + + +Case 9:08-Cv-80119-KAM Document 207-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 10 of + +Page 10 +Plaintiff's employment and earnings history prior to and after the alleged +incidents are relevant to her claimed damages and injuries. Such information would not +only evidence Plaintiff's employment and earning history, but also provide evidence as +to how Plaintiff has been able to function in her daily llfe before, during and after the +alleged incidents. +Was she self-sufficient? Was she able to get out of bed each +morning and support herself? What type of job did she hold? One's ability to earn a +living and be self-supporting has not only a financial component, but also an +emotional/psychological/mental component. +C.M.A.'s First Amended Complaint attempts to allege 32 counts Counts I +through XXX are purportedly brought pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §2255 - Civil Remedies for +Personal Injuries; Count XXXI is entitled "Sexual Battery," and Count XXXII is entitled +"Conspiracy to Commit Tortious Assault only against Defendant, +In her answers to interrogatory nos. 9 and 10, which seek information about +C.M.A.'s damages claims, Plaintiff answered that: +I have bi-polar disorder and manic depression. I lost my self-esteem. I began +cutting myselt on my arms and legs and developed drug problems. Permanent +injuries are psychological. (Interrog. No. 9). +I am claiming compensation for mental anguish, mental pain, psychic trauma, +and loss of enjoyment of life. These damages will be evaluated by a jury who +will provide their own methods of computation in an amount of at least the +statutory minimum established by 18 U.S.C.A. §2255. (Interrog. No. 10). +... C.M.A., has in the past suffered, and will in the future suffer, physical injury, +ain and suffering, emotional distress, psychological trauma, mental anguish +umiliation, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, loss of dignity, invasion of hel +....The then minor Plaintiff incurred medical and +sychological expenses ... and will in the future suffer additional medical and +psychological expenses. +The Plaintiff C.M.A. has suffered loss of income, + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 11 of +Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 + +Page 11 +loss of the capacity to earn income in the future, and a loss of capacity to enjoy +life. +These injuries are permanent in nature and the Plaintiff, C.M.A., will +continue to suffer these losses in the future. +(1° Am. Complaint, Counts | - XXX (18 U.S.C. §2255), 11125, 31, 37, 43, 49, 50, +61, 67, 73, 79, 85, 91, 97, 103, 109, 115, 121, 127, 133, 139, 145, 151, 157, +163, 169, 175, 181, 187, 193; Count XXX (Sexual Battery), 1199.) +In each of her "Wherefore". clauses, Plaintiff seeks "compensatory damages of at +least the minimum provided by law." 18 U.S.C. §2255, pursuant to which Plaintiff +attempts to bring certain of her claims, allows for recovery of "actual damages." See fn. +2 herein for applicable statutory text. +As discussed above, C.M.A.'s employment and earnings history will provide direct +evidence as to Plaintiff's claimed damages. Such information does not only go to +compensatory or actual damages or loss of income/loss of capacity to earn income type +damages, but also her emotional/psychological/mental health type damages. In the +telephone communication between counsel for the respective parties, Plaintiff's counsel +indicated that Plaintiff was not seeking loss of income/earning capacity type, damages; +(Defendant is not aware that there has been any formal withdrawal of such damages +claimed); notwithstanding, the information sought is still relevant and discoverable +based on the additional damages claimed by Plaintiff. The time period will allow +Defendant to compare how Plaintiff was doing in her life prior to, during, and after the +alleged incident. Again, the type of jobs Plaintiff has been able to hold and her earnings +and ability to support herself clearly have not only a financial component, but an +emotional/psychological/mental health +component as well. Accordingly, Plaintiff's + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 12 of + +C.M.A. v. Epsteln, et al. +Page 12 +objection is required to be overruled, and Defendant is entitled to the information sought +in the interrogatory. +Interrogatory No. 18 +List separately the names, addresses and phone numbers of all males, +excluding Mr. Epstein, with whom you have had sexual activity since age 10 (by year) +up through your current age. Describe the nature of sexual activity, the date(s) and +whether you received money or other consideration from the person. +Answer: +Objection. Relevance and overbroad. +Legal Argument Supporting Entitlement to Discovery +Plaintiff's only objection is relevancy and overbroad, without any factual support +or showing as required by Rule 26(c) and Local Gen. Rule 26.1 H (S.D. Fla, 2008). +Nowhere does C.M.A. explain how such interrogatory is overbroad. +It is well settled that relevant information is discoverable, even if not admissible at +trial, so long +as the discovery is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of +admissible evidence. Rule 26(b)(1), Fed.R.Civ.P.; Donahay v. Palm Beach Tours & +trans.. Inc., 242 F.R.D. 685 (S.D. Fla. 2007). Discoverability of an alleged +victim's/plaintiff's sexual conduct or activity in civil cases is governed by Rule 26, +Fed. R.Civ.P.., pursuant to which the scope of discovery is broad. Donahay, supra, at +686, and cases cited therein. "Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not +privileged, which is relevant to the claims or defense of any party involved in the +pending action." Id. +In accordance with Rule 26, the discovery sought regarding Plaintiff's sexual +activity with males and the nature thereof, including whether she received any + + +Case 9:08-Cv-80119-KAM Document 207-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 13 of +Case 9:08-CV-80811-KAM Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 + +C.M.A. v, Epstein, et al. +Page 13 +compensation or consideration therefore, in interrogatory no. 18, are all relevant to +Plaintiff's damages claims and the type of injury she claims she has suffered. +Defendant has no other means of obtaining such information and obtaining such +information through Plaintiff will better protect the confidentiality until the Court can +make a determination in accordance with the procedures under Rule 412(c) whether +such information will be admissible at trial. See Rule 412(c), Fed.R.Civ.P. Defendant +will agree to an order keeping the confidentiality of the information obtained through +discovery. +The evidence sought is relevant based on the facts and theories of this action. +C.M.A.'s First Amended Complaint attempts to allege 32 counts. Counts | through XXX +are purportedly brought pursuant to 18 U.S.G. §2255 - Civil Remedies for Personal +Injuries; Count XXXI- is entitled "Sexual Battery," and Count XXXII is entitled +"Conspiracy to Commit Tortious Assault only against Defendant, i +In her answers to interrogatory nos. 9 and 10, which seek information about +C.M.A.'s damages claims, Plaintiff answered that: +I have bi-polar disorder and manic depression. I lost my self-esteem. I began +cutting myself on my arms and legs and developed drug problems. Permanent +injuries are psychological. (Interrog. No. 9). +1 am claiming compensation for mental anguish, mental pain, psychic trauma, +and loss of enjoyment of life. These damages will be evaluated by a jury who +Will provide their own methods of computation in an amount of at least the +statutory minimum established by 18 U.S.C.A. §2255. (Interrog. No. 10). +In her 1t Amended Complaint, relevant to her damages claims, Plaintiff alleges: +... C.M.A., has in the past suffered, and will in the future suffer, physical injury, +pain and suffering, emotional distress, psychological trauma, mental anguish +numiliation, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, loss of dignity, invasion of her + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-3 . Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 14 of +Case 9:08-CV-80811-KAM Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 14 of 18 +C.M.A. V. Epstein, et al. +Page 14 +privacy and other damages .... The then minor Plaintiff incurred medical and +psychological expenses ... and will in the future suffer additional medical and +psychological expenses. The Plaintiff C.M.A. has suffered loss of income, a +loss of the capacity to earn income in the future, and a loss of capacity to enjoy +life. +These Injuries are permanent in nature and the Plaintiff, C.M.A., Will +continue to suffer these losses in the future. +(19" Am. Complaint, Counts I - XXX (18 U.S.C, §2255), 11125, 31, 37, 43, 49, 55, +61, 67, 73, 79, 85, 91, 97, 103, 109, 115, 121, 127, 133, 139, 145, 151, 157, +163, 169, 175, 181, 187, 193; Count XXXI (Sexual Battery), (199.) +In each of her "Wherefore" clauses, Plaintiff seeks "compensatory damages of at +least the minimum provided by law." 18 U.S.C. §2255, pursuant to which Plaintiff +attempts to bring certain of her claims, allows for recovery of "actual damageș." See fn. +2 herein for applicable statutory text. +C.M.A. also alleges that Defendant's conduct was "sexual assault and child +abuse of a then minor." 12. +She alleges that "beginning in approximately late May or +early June of 2002, and continuing until approximately August of 2003, the Defendant +coerced and enticed the impressionable, vulnerable, and economically deprived then +minor Plaintiff to commit various acts of sexual misconduct." T13. +... These acts included, but were not limited to, fondling and inappropriate and +illegal sexual touching of the then minor Plaintiff, sexual misconduct and +masturbation of the Defendant in the presence of the then minor Plaintiff, +soliciting and enticing the then minor Plaintiff to engage in sexual acts with +another female in EPSTEIN's presence, and encouraging the then: minor +Plaintiff to become involved in prostitution; Defendant committed numerous +criminal sexual offenses against the then minor Plaintiff including, but not +limited to, sexual battery, solicitation or prostitution, procurement of a minor for +the purpose of prostitution, and lewd and lascivious assaults upon the person of +the then minor plaintiff. (1° Am. Complaint 1|13) +The information sought is clearly relevant to the injuries and damages claimed by +Plaintiff. The nature of her claimed injuries and damages are such that Defendant is + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 15 of + +Page 15 +entitled to evidence which would show the nature of her relationship with males, +whether she has suffered or engaged in other acts of sexual misconduct or activity as +alleged in her complaint, and whether she suffered injury and damages as a result of +the other claimed sexual misconduct or activity. See United States v. Bear Stops, 997 +F.2d 451 (8" Cir. 1993)(Defendant charged with sexual abuse of six year old boy was +entitled to admission of evidence relating to victim's sexual assault by 3 older boys to +establish alternative explanation for why victim exhibited behavioral manifestations of +sexually abused child.). +In further support of Defendant's motion, a copy of Balas v. Ruzzo, 703 So.2d +1076 (Fla. 5" DCA 1997), rev. denied, 719 So.2d 286 (Fla, 1998), is attached hereto as +Exhibit B as it is on point to the discovery issues in this action, and the relevancy and +discoverability of Plaintiff's history of sexual activity and any payment, therefore. See +interrogatories 8, 22 and 30 propounded in the Balas case and footnote 1 herein. 3 +Additionally and significantly, in other pending state court civil actions against Defendant +EPSTEIN attempting to assert similar claims and damages, the Circuit Court Judges +have already ruled that such information is discoverable as it is relevant to the damages +claims of Plaintiff. +See Composite Exhibits C and D hereto. Composite Exhibit C +are the Orders, dated February 23, 2009, entered in the case of A.C. v. Epstein, and +Case No. 502008CA025129 MB Al, 15" Judicial Circult, In and For Palm Beach +County, State of Florida, which granted Defendant's motion to compel therein directed +3 In Balas V. Ruzzo, supra, the Plaintiffs alleged a multicount complaint including claims for + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM +..Document 207-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 16 of +Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 : Page 16 of 18 +Page 16 +to discovery identical to interrogatory no. 18 above. (In the A.C, case, the Plaintiff +answered without objection interrogatories identical to nos. 19, 20, and 21 herein.) +Composite Exhibit D is a portion the transcript from a March 3, 2009 hearing on +Defendant's motion to compel discovery in the case of Jane Doe II v. Epstein, and +I Case No. 502008CA020614 MB AF, 15'' Judicial Circuit Court, In and For Palm +Beach County, State of Florida. Again, the Circuit Court Judge determined that the +information sought is relevant to the issue of damages and, thus, discoverable. +Accordingly, Plaintiffs objections are required to be overruled and Defendant is +entitled to the discovery sought. +Interrogatory No. 23 +State the names, addresses, ages, phone numbers and dates of all +females whom you claim were brought by you to Mr. Epstein's home to give him e +massage or for any other reason. +As to each female, state the amount of money you +claim you were paid to bring each female. +Answer: +A.L. Age: 22 +West Palm Beach, FL +I was paid $100.00 +Legal Argument Supporting Entitlement to Discovery +Counsel for the respective parties also discussed this interrogatory in an effort to +come to a resolution. Plaintiff does not object to the discovery requested. Plaintiff's +counsel indicated that he had a "problem" disclosing the identity of A.L. to the extent +she was a minor at the time. Defendant would agree to an order protecting public +disclosure of the true identity of A.L. if she were indeed a minor at the time; however, as +part of the order, Plaintiff should also be required to provide Defendant with the full + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 17 of +Case 9:08-cV-80811-KAM Document 54 + +Page 17 +name of A.L. so that Defendant may conduct meaningful discovery. It is Plaintiff who +claims she brought A.L. to Epstein's home as part of the alleged "scheme." In addition, +Plaintiff failed to provide any date or dates as to when she brought A.L. to Epstein's +home. Plaintiff's counsel indicated they would attempt to provide this information. +Accordingly, in granting Defendant's motion to compel discovery, with respect t +this interrogatory, Plaintiff should be required to provide the full name of A.L. (which +Defendant agrees to keep confidential at this time), the date or dates which she brought +A.L. or any female to Epstein's home, and how much she was allegedly paid each time. +WHEREFORE, Defendant requests that this Court grant Defendant's motion to +compel and award Defendant's reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, +associated with this motion. +Rule 7.1 Certification +I hereby certify that counsel for the respective parties communicated by +telephone in a good faith effort to resolve the discovery issues prior to the filing of this +motion to compel. Some of the issues were resolved or in the process of being +resolved. +Robert D. Critton, Jr. +Attorney for Defendant Epstein +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, dentified on the following Service List in the +day of April, 2009 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 18 of + +• +Page 18 +Richard Horace Willits, Esq. +Richard H. Willits, P.A. +2290 104 Avenue North +Suite 404 +Lake Worth, FL 33461 +561-582-7600 +Fax: 561-588-8819 +Counsel for Plaintiff C.M.A. +reelrhw@hotmail.com +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +Alterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 +561-659-8300 +Fax: 561-835-8691 +jagesq@bellsouth.net +Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein +Jack Scarola, Esq. +y Esq. +Bruce Reinhart, Esq. +Denney +Scarola Barnhart & +• Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A. +250 S. Australian Avenue +2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard +West Palm Beach, FL 33409 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561-686-6300 +561-202-6360 +Fax: 561-383-9424 +Fax: 561-828-0983 +jsx@searcylaw.com +ecf@brucereinhartlaw.com +jph@searcylaw.com +Counsel for Defendant +Co-Counsel for Plaintiff +Respectfully submitted, +ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR, ESO. +Florida Bar No. 224162 +rcrit@bclclaw.com +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. +Florida Bar #617296 +npike@bclclaw.com +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN +515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561/515-3148 Fax +(Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 19 of +Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54-2 + +C.M.A. vs. Epstein, et al. +Case No.: 08-CV-80811-CIV-MARRA/ +Plaintiff's Answers to Defendant's First Interrogatories +School behavioral problems, received counseling prior to the incident. +8. +Did you consume any alcoholic beverages or take any drugs or medications +within 12 hours before the time of each incidents) described in the complaint? I +so, state the type and amount of alcoholic beverages, drugs, or medication which +were consumed, and when (dates) and where you consumed them. +ANSWER +1. On one occasion I had taken "Morning Glory" and "Angel Trumpets". I +do not recall the date. +2. On another occasion I used cocaine powder. I do not recall the date. +Describe each injury (physical, emotional, mental) for which you are claiming +damages in this case, specifying the part of your body that was injured, the +nature of the injury and as to any injuries you contend are permanent, the effects +on you that you claim are permanent. +ANSWER +I have bi-polar disorder and manic depression. I lost my self-esteem. I +began cutting myself on my arms and legs and developed drug problems. +Permanent injuries are psychological. +10. +Please state each item of damage that you claim, and include in your answer: the +count to which the item of damages relates; the factual basis for each item of +damages; and an explanation of how you computed each item of damages, +es and an explanaton of +including any mathematical formula used. +ANSWER +I am claiming compensation for mental anguish, mental pain, psychic +11. +Discovery is ongoing. +List the names and business addresses of each physician (including psychiatrist, +psychologist, chiropractor or medical provider) who has treated or examined you, +13 +" +EXHIBIT_ + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM +! Document 207-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 20 of +• Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54-2 +Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 2 of 2 +C.M.A. Vs. Epstein, et al. +Case No.: 08-CV-80811-CTV-MARRA/J +Plaintiff's Answers to Defendant's First Interrogatories +arid each medical facility where you have recelved any treatment or examination +for the injuries for which you seek damages in this case; and state as to each the +date of treatment or examination and the injury or condition for which you were +examined or treated. +ANSWER +Dr. Serge Thys (Psychiatrist) +2151 45* Street +Date: I do not recall the date. I would defer +to the Doctor's records. +West Palm Beach, FL. 33407 +• +Susan Pope (Counselor/Therapist) Date: Since high school. Ongoing. +Parent Child Center +2001 W. Blue Heron Boulevard +12. List the names and business addresses of all other physicians, medical facilities, +rehab facilities (drug, alcohol or psychiatric) or other health care providers +including psychiatrist, psychologist, mental health counselor and chiropractors by +whom or at which you have been examined or treated in the past 10 years; and +state as to each the dates of examination or treatment and the condition or injury +ANSWER +Good Samaritan Hospital (3/12/04, 3/25/08) +Child Birth +1309 N Flagler Dr +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +St. Mary's Hospital (4/07) +DNC +901 454 Street +West Palm Beach, FL 33407 +Gloria C. Hakkarainen, MD +2926 10' Avenue North, Suite 305 +Palm Springs, FL. 33461 +Theodore Ritota, DDS +Dentist +14 + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 21 of +Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54-3 +Page 1 of +Westlaw. +703 So.2d 1076 +703 So.2d 1076, 22 Fla. L. Weekly D2375, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D169 +(Cite as: 703 So.2d 1076) +Page 1 +District Court of Appeal of Florida, +307Ak31 k. Relevancy +and Materiality. +Fifth District. +Most Cited Cases +Kimberly BALAS and Teresa Shumate, Petitioners, +Party may be permitted to discover: evidence that +V. +would be inadmissible at trial, if it would lead to +Marjorie A. RUZZO, and Exec., Inc., etc., Re- +discovery of relevant evidence. West's F.S.A. RCF +spondents. +Rule 1.280(b)(1). +No. 97-82. +[3] Pretrial Procedure 307A €m 36.1 +Oct. 10, 1997. +is Modified on Grant of Clarification Jan. 2, 1998. +307A Pretrial Procedure +rey. denied, 719 50,2d 286 (Fla. +307AII Depositions and Discovery +Plaintiffs brought action against alleged house of 1998). +307 AI(A) Discovery in General +prostitution for, inter alia, coercion of prostitution. +307Ak36 Particular Subjects of Disclos- ure +The Circuit Court, Brevard County, +307Ak36.1 k. In General. Most Cited +J., granted in part defendants' motion to compel dis- +Cases +covery. Plaintiffs filed petition for writ of cernor- +Evidence of plaintiffs' past prostitution and their +ari. The District Court of Appeal, W. Sharp, J., held +revenues relating to such activities, including activthat evidence of plaintiffs' past prostitution and +ities +with alleged house of prostitution against +their revenues relating to such activities was diswhich they had filed suit, was discoverable, where +coverable. +plaintiffs brought action not only for coercion of +prostitution, but also for battery, false imprison- +Petition denied. +ment, invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of +emotional distress, violation of their civil rights, +Harris, J., concurred specially and filed opinion. +and racketeering. Violent Crime Control and Law +Enforcement Act of 1994, § 40302, 42 U.S.C.A. § +West Headnotes +13981; West's F.S.A. 69 772.014, 796.09; West's +F.S.A. RCP Rule 1280(h (1). +[1] Pretrial Procedure 307A ©m31 +*1076 Richard E. +Land Heather Fisher Lindsay, of Spriggs & +, Tallahassee, for Peti- +307A Pretrial Procedure +tioners. +307AII Depositions and Discovery +307AII(A) Discovery in General +Mark S. Peters of Amari, Theriac & Eisenmenger, +307Ak31 k. Relevancy and Materiality. +P.A., Cocoa, for Respondents. +Most Cited Cases +Discovery in civil cases must be relevant to subject +matter of case and must be admissible or reason- +W. SHARP, Judge. +ably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. +West's F.S.A. RCP Rule 1.280(b)(1). +12] Pretrial Procedure 307A em31 +307A Pretrial Procedure +307 AII Depositions and Discovery +307 AII(A) Discovery in General +@ 2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. +EXHIBI B", +http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?sv=Split&prft=HTMLE&ifm=NotSet&mt.. 3/26/2009 + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 22 of +46 +Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54-3 +703 So.2d 1076 +703 So.2d 1076, 22 Fla. L. Weekly D2375, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D169 +(Cite as: 703 So.2d 1076) +compelled to disclose intimate details of their sexual histery. We decline to issue the writ of certiorari. +Balas and Shumate filed suit against Ruzzo and Ex- +ec, Inc., doing business as "The Boardroom." Ac- +cording to Balas and Shumate, The Boardroom opcrates ostensibly as *1077 a leisure spa but actually +is a bouse of prostitution. Balas worked at The +Boardroom from December 1993 until February +1996; Shumate worked there from October 1992 +until March 1996. Ruzzo, the sole officer and +shareholder of Exec, Inc., collected about fifty to +sixty percent of each employees' carnings from performing sexual acts. +According to Balas and Shumate, Ruzzo exerted +mental and emotional control over her employees +and thus she was able to exploit them as prostitutes. +Ruzzo reguired her employees to pay her substantial sums of money to attend "metaphysical workshops" conducted by Ruzzo or persons associated +with her. At the work place, the employees were required to participate in religious and quasi-religious +"circles," rituals and incantations. These practices +were allegedly designed to break down the personatties of the women who worked for Ruzzo and to +dependency and loyalty to herself. At one +time when the earnings of a new employee were +missing and believed to be stolen, Ruzzo required +that the petitioners be strip searched and body cav- +Ity searched. Ruzzo caused the petitioners to believe their continued employment was dependent on +heir submission to these searches and that they +night be arrested on felony charges if they refused +to submit to the searches. +Balas and Shumate's second amended complaint +against Ruzzo contains seven counts. Count I is an +action for coercion of prostitution pursuant to section 796.09, Florida Statutes. Petitioners allege the +requirement that they perform sexual acts to retain +their employment constitates inducement and coerclon to engage in prostitution. Count IT is a claim +for battery for the unwanted and offensive touching +of the petitioners' bodies. Count Ill is a claim for +false imprisonment for physically confining the pe- + + +Page 2 +titioners against their will. Count IV alleges that respondents" actions constituted an invasion of petitoners' privacy. Count V is a claim for the intentional infliction of emotional distress. Count VI alleges a civil rights action-that respondents have violated petitioners' right to be free from crimes of violence motivated by gender within the meaning of +42 U.S.C. section 13981. Finally, count VII seeks +civil remedies for criminal practices or racketeering +pursuant to section 772,104, Florida Statutes. The +petitioners claim that they suffered emotional pain, +anguish, humiliation, insult, indignity; loss of selfesteem, inconvenience, hurt and emotional distress. +They seek an award of general and punitive damages, among other relief. +The discovery to which the petitioners are being required to respond is as follows: +I. +Interrogatory 8: Please advise how long have you +been engaged in prostitution.... +II. +- +III. +Request for Production 30: A copy of any photo +raphs, movies or videotapes in which you per +formed sexual acts and/or simulated sexual acts +in exchange for money or other consideration. +IV. +Interrogatory 16: Please list the names, addresses, +elephone numbers and rates of pay for all em +loyers for which you worked, including th +© 2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. +http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?sv=Split&prft=HTMLE&ifm=NotSet&mt... 3/26/2009 + + +Page 23 of +46 +Case 9:08-CV-80811-KAM Document 54-3 +703 So.2d 1076 +703 So.2d 1076, 22 Fla. L. Weekly D2375, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D169 +(Cite as: 703 So.2d 1076) +rature of the work, during the five years immediately precoding the dute of employment with the. +Boardroom and from the date of your termination +with the Boardroom to the present, providing the +names of your immediate supervisors at ench +place of employment and the reason för your +leaving each place of employment. +V. +Interrogatory 26: Please state your total income +while employed at the Boardroom, and state the +source of that income including any income from +other employment or +*1078 income earned from +prostitution other than at the Boardroom. +VI. +Request for Production 34: Business records from +any selfemployment or owned business ventures +in the last 5 years, including any records or list of +"special customer lists" or "sugar +daddy's list." +[1][2] Discovery in civil cases must be relevant to +the subject matter of the case and must be admissible or reasonably calculated to lead to admissible +evidence. See Allstate Insurance Co. V. Langston, +655 So.2d 91 (Fla. 1995); Amente v. +So.2d 1030 (Fla.1995); +ers, Inc., 690 So.2d 743 (Fla. Sth DCA 1997). The +concept of relevancy is broader in the discovery +context than in the trial context and a party may be +permitted to discover evidence that would be inadmissible at trial, if it would lead to the discovery of +relevant evidence. Allstate; Amente. Florida Rule of +Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(1) delineates the proper +scope of discovery: +In General. Parties may obtain discovery regard- + +Page 3 +nature, custody, condition, and location of any +documents, or other tangible things and +the identity and location of persons is not ground +ledge of any discoverable matter. It is not ground +for objection that the information sought will be +Inadmissible, at the trial if the information sought +appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. +Nonetheless, the discovery of certain kinds of information may cause material injury of an irreparable nature. This includes the "cat-out-of-the-bag" +material that could be used to injure another person +or party outside the context of the litigation, material protected by privilege, trade secrets or work +product. Discovery was never intended to be used +as a tactical tool to harass, embarrass or annoy +one's adversary. Rather, pretrial discovery was implemented to simplify the issues in a; case, to eliminato the elements of surprise, to encourage the settlement of cases, to avoid the cost of litigation, and +to achieve a balanced search for the truth to ensure +a fair trial. Elkins u. Syken, 672 So.2d 517 (Fla. 1996). +Here the petitioners argue that the information +sought to be discovered regarding prostitution and +their sexual activities was propounded solely to embarrass them and to invade their right to privacy. +The petitioners also claim that this information is +privileged under section 796.09 and is not calculated to lead to evidence which would be admissible at trial. +Section 796.09 provides a person with a civil cause +of action for compensatory and punitive damages +against anyone who coerces that person into prostitution, who coerces that person to remain in prostitution, or who uses coercion to collect or receive +© 2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. +http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx7sv=Split&prft=HTMLE&ifn=NotSet&mt.. 3/26/2009 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 24 of +Case 9:08-CV-80811-KAM Document 54-3 + +Page 4 +703 So.2d 1076 +703 So.2d 1076, 22 Pla. L. Weekly D2375, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D169 +(Cite as: 703 So.2d 1076) +ness for the plaintiffs cannot be used against the +plaintiffs or witness in any other investigation or +proceding, except one for perjury. +Section 796.09(5) specifically provides that it is not +a defense that the plaintiff was paid or otherwise +compensated for prostitution, that the plaintiff had +engaged in prostitution prior to any involvement +with the defendant or that the plaintiff made no attempt to escape from the defendant. Section +796.09(6) provides that convictions for prostitution +or prostitution-related offenses are inadmissible for +the purpose of attacking the plaintiffs' credibility. +This legislation was the result of the Florida Su- +preme Court Gender Bias +Study Commission, +which conducted an extensive investigation of prostitution in this state. The Commission's activities +included interviews with law enforcement and corrections personnel, *1079 judges, public defenders, +prosecutors, +drug rehabilitation +counselors, +social +workers, medical personnel, prostitutes, clients and +pimps. +The Commission found prostitution to be +prevalent and uniform throughout the state and law +enforcement largely unable to deter it under prevailing social attitudes and judicial practices. The +Commission further found that prostitutes are often +victims of economic, physical, and psychological +coercion, that most persons do not chose to become +prostitutes, but do so to survive, and that ninety +percent of street prostitutes, both adult and children, are controlled by pimps who use a variety of +coercive methods +to +maintain this control. The +Commission determined that clients and pimps are +rarely prosecuted and, when prosecuted, +receive +light sentences; whereas prostitutes, who are mainly +females, are +frequently prosecuted and receive +harsher treatment in the courts. The Commission +recommended changes in the methods of intervenarrested. +Under section 796.09, the petitioners' prior involvement in prostitution and their earnings from prostitution would be irrelevant. Hence discovery should +not be permitted because such information would +not be admissible at trial nor would it be reasonably +calculated to lead to evidence ultimately admissible +at trial. Even though the scope of discovery is generally quite broad, section 796,09 is designed to encourage prostitutes to sue their pimps. Thus the +uspally broad scope of discovery may be constricted so that prostitutes will not be embarrassed, harassed or hindered in their actions. +[3] Had the petitioners brought their lawsuit against +Ruzzo and +The Boardroom +only under +section +796.09, evidence of petitioners" past prostitution, +including with the Boardroom, and their carnings +relating to such activities, may not have been discoverable. However, the petitioners filed a multicount complaint for compensatory and +damages, +alleging +numerous causes appunitive +action +against the respondents. +These other causes carry +no such protection from discovery. Since the information sought by discovery may be relevant or +may lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in +one or more of these other causes of action or to +determination of damages, we cannot; conclude that +the trial court departed from the essential reauire +ments of law in granting this discovery. See +v. TIB Bank of the Keys, 687 So.2d 895 (Fla. 3d +DCA 1997) (by alleging fraud as well as breach of +contract, purchaser placed at issue her reliance on +venders' assertions, +the veracity of financial documents she submitted to the vender, and the state of +her mental health, including memory problems she +was experiencing at the time of the alleged tortious +state of mind were relevant). +thus deposition questions concerning her +Petition for Writ of Certiorari DENIED. +raffic in human flesh by giving the prostitute ac +ess to the judicial system without first having to b +© 2009 Thomson Reuters/ West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. +http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx7sv=Split&prft=HTMLB&ifm=NotSet8çmt.. 3/26/2009 + + +Page 25 of +-46 +Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54-3 +703 So.2d 1076 +703 So.2d 1076, 22 Fla. L. Weekly D2375, 23 Fla. L. Weckly D169 +(Cite as: 703 So.2d 1076) +There is a temptation in cases such as this to inquire +which, +the pot or the kettle, is imbued with the +darker hue, Indeed that may ultimately be the question uppermost in the jurors' minds. But the issue +presently before us is simply whether the pot, in order to establish the parties' comparative complexion, may discover the historical condition and the +inherent characteristics of the kettle. +We are here involved with parties that the limited +record before us indicates were co-conspirators in a +joint effort to violate Florida's laws against prostitution. The defendants are the owner/operators of a +"social club" whose primary service is prostitution; +the plaintiffs +are employees of the club who +provide such services. The employees are suing the +owner/operators for, among other counts, taking advantage of their vulnerabilities ("coercing" them to +be prostitutes) through manipulation and exploitation. In order to prepare a defense to the action, defendants have filed certain interrogatories for the +employees to answer. These interrogatories*1080 +request such information as how long the employees have been engaged in prostitution; how the employees have been affected by the defendants' conduct; copies of photographs, movies, and videotapes in which the employees have performed sexual acts or simulated sexual acts; the names of previous employers and previous +rates of pay; and a +statement of income received from defendants. +These interrogatories survived the employees' objections. I agree certiorari should be denied. +The employees' primary cause of action is based on +section 796.09(1), Florida Statutes, which provides: +(1) A person has a cause of action for compensatory +and punitive damages against: +(a) A person who coerces that person into prostitu- +"b) A person who coerces that person to remain in +prostitution, or +c) A person who uses coercion to collect or receive +ade 5 of +Page 5 +any part of that person's earnings derived from +prostitution. +The employees resist discovery of their past prostitution or their past or present earning experience or +the basis of subparagraph 5 of section 796.09: +{5) It does not constitute a defense to a complaint +4) The plaintiff was paid or otherwise compensate +for acts of prostitution; +b) The plaintiff engaged in acts of prostitution prior to any involvement with the defendant... +But the question before us is not whether prior acts +of prostitution (or the receipts of earnings therefrom) which might be revealed by answering the interrogatories could be used as a defense to the complaint, but rather whether evidence of such conduct +or such earnings would be relevant in determining +whether the employees were, in fact, "coerced" into +prostitation, into remaining prostitutes, or into sharing the proceeds of their services with defendants. +The relevancy of this information depends, of +course, on what constitutes coercion. +If we apply the definition of "coercion" which is +commonly accepted, then the relevancy of the requested information is apparent and this appeal has +no merit at all. Webster defines "coercion" as: (L) +to restrain or dominate by force, (2), to compel an +act or choice, or (3) to enforce or bring about by +force or threat. In sexual battery cases, the legislature has adopted the common meaning of the +word "coercion" and has even placed limits on it, It +has provided that consent will not be recognized if +submission is coerced by threats of force or viol- +© 2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. +http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?sv=Split&prft=HTMLB&ifm=NotSct8imt... 3/26/2009 + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 26 of +Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54-3 +703 So.2d 1076 +703 So.2d 1076, 22 Fla. L. Weekly D2375, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D169 +(Cite as: 703 So.2d 1076) +sidered as consensual if one exploits a known physical or mental weakness of the vietim to aehieve his +or her goal or takes advantage of one who is physically helpless or involuntarily intoxicated, g +Therefore, even in sexual battery cases, before coercion or exploitation will vitiate consent, the free +will of the victim must be overcome by force or +threat or some unfortunate circumstance suffered +by the victim. +FN1. Section 794.011(4)(b), Florida Stat- +FN2. Section 794.011(4)(c), Florida Statutes. +FN3. Section 794.011(4)(a).(d),(e), and (f), +Florida Statutes. +But then we get to the definition of "coercion" contained in section 796.09(3): +(3) As used in this section, the term "coercion" +means any practice of dominion, restraint, or inducement for the purpose of or with the reasonably foreseeable effect of causing another person +to engage in or remain in prostitution or to relinquish earnings derived from prostitution, and includes, but is not limited to: +(a) Physical force or threats of physical force. +b) Physical or mental torture. +(c) Kidnapping. +*1081 (d) Blackmail. +(e) Extortion or claims of indebtedness. +" Threats of legal complaint or report of delinquency. +Page 6 ot 8 + +Page 6 +7) Promise of greater financial rewards! +J Promise of marriage. +I) Restraint of Speech or communications with +others. +) Exploitation of a condition of developmental +disability, cognitive limitation, affective disorder, +or substance dependency. +"m) Exploitation of victimization by sexual abuse, +'n) Exploitation of pornographic performance. +'o) Exploitation of human needs for food, shelter, +safety, or affection. +The definition urged by the employees herein is the +"promise of a greater financial reward. Whether +the requested information is relevant to the issue of +coercion in this case will depend on what the legislature intended by subsection (I) in the meaning of +"coercion." +I agree with Judge Altenbernd's thoughtful analysis +in State v. Brigham, 694 So.2d 793 (1997): +There can be no dispute that the legislature's unusual definition of "percent" is not a common dictionary definition. This is perhaps an appropriate +case in which to remind ourselves of Learned +Hand's famous observation that a "mature and developed jurisprudence" does not "make a fortress +out of the dictionary." +But even so, one would expect some nexus between +the commonly accepted meaning of a word and the +ive action or otherwise. +it) Promise of legal benefit. +@ 2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. +http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?sv=Split&prft-HTMLE&ifm=NotSet&mt.. 3/26/2009 + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 27 of +Case 9:08-CV-80811-KAM Document 54-3 +703 So.2d 1076 +703 So.2d 1076, 22 Fla. L, Weekly D2375, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D169 +(Cite as: 703 So.2d 1076) +before a definition is construed so as to expand the +meaning of a well-known word to include its antonym .., the intention of the legislature to that effect must be clear." As Judge +observed in +Catron N. Roger Bolm, D.C., P.A., 380 So.2d 814, +818 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991): +It is our primary duty to give effect to legislative +intent and, if a literal interpretation of a statute +leads to unreasonable results, then we should exercise our power to interpret reason and logic to it. +****** +Unfortunately, it is apparent that in enacting this legislation, the legislature has, without redefining +the terms for the purposes of this legislation, often used terms with commonly accepted meanings for purposes at great variance from those +commonly accepted meanings. +In our case, the legislature did define the term for +the purpose of the act. But because the term +(coercion) as so defined can be interpreted two +ways-one consistent with the commonly accepted +meaning and one at variance-we should not accept +the +"antonym" unless such legislative intent is +clear. A free will decision, even if based on a hope +of financial gain, is the opposite of a coerced decision. +The employees urge that the mere promise of a +greater reward brings them within the act. But if the +mere promise of a greater reward is sufficient to establish coercion, then anyone who makes a voluntary and reasoned exercise of free will motivated by +the hope of economic gain has been coerced. This +definition removes the element of compulsion implicit in the commonly accepted meaning of coercion and substitutes therefor the mere desire for financial gain. The employees herein assert that since +they were offered "a greater financial reward" for +providing the services performed by them through +Jefendants' establishment, they were coerced into +their prostitution activities. This equates the giving +Page 73f8 +Page 7 +of an opportunity to make a decision with the coercion of that decision. But subsection (I can also +mean *1082 that the promise of 'a greater reward is +cocrcion only if such promised reward is sufficient +to overcome one's natural revulsion to selling one's +body for money. If there is no such revulsion, there +can be no coercion. Becoming a prostitute only because one likes the hours and wages or "because it +beats the heck out of working for a living" simply +should not meet the test of section 796.09(1). +At oral argument herein, it was suggested without +contradiction, that at least one of the employees has +a college degree and gave up a well-paying, legitimate job in order to engage in this profession for +the greater reward. Section 796.09 does not appear +to be a general prostitute's relief act. It is based on a +report by the Gender Bias Study Commission which +recommended the equalization of treatment in relation to the prostitute, the client and the "pimp." It is +based on the premise that prostitutes are generally +victims of economic, physical, and psychological +coercion and choose prostitution in order to survive. Further, the Commission was concerned that +90 percent of the street prostitutes are controlled by +"pimps" who use a variety of coerciye methods to +maintain control. It seems clear that the legislature +was not intending to depart from the precepts of the +commonly understood meaning of "coercion" and +to redefine it to include both free will decisions and +compelled decisions.. The interpretation urged by +the employees seems at variance with the stated +goal of the legislature and the Gender Bias Commission. +Since there is no cause of action provided for one +who makes a reasoned and voluntary exercise of +their free will to enter or continue in the profession +© 2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. +http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?sv=Split&prft=HTMLE&ifm=NotSet&mt. 3/26/2009 + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 207-3 +Page 28 of +Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54-3 +703 So.2d 1076 +703 So.2d 1076, 22 Fla. L. Weekly D2375, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D169 +(Cite as: 703 So.2d 1076) +This is a case of first impression based on a relatively new statute. As indicated, the legislative history of the new law suggests that the statute is designed to assist those who were forced to enter +prostitution in order to keep a roof over their heads +or food on their table. It does not appear to be intended to aid those who voluntarily enter the profession in order to drive a Mercedes instead of a +. The limited record before us indicates that +even beginning employees of the defendants (those +who do not have an established clientele bring in +$700 a day and can keep 50% of their earnings. +Based on a five-day work week, this would reflect +an income of $87,500 a year even with a two week +vacation. And the employees herein are not beginners. +There is no indication that the legislature intended +to legalize prostitution or to make it a respectable +profession. It merely intended to place the prostitute on the same footing with the client and the +"pimp." If a prostitute voluntarily makes the decision to participate, +free from force, intimidation, +or disadvantageous circumstance, then he or she is +on the same footing as the other participants and +should be treated the same. +Although it might well serve a legitimate publi +urpose to permit the cannibalistic demise of sucl +enterprises (and I am not unsympathetic with this +view), that does not appear to be the policy behind +the current statute. Therefore, in cases where coercion is not present (and this may or may not be +one), the court should continue its tradition of not +interceding in civil conflicts involving transactions +that are either illegal or are against public policy. +See Wechsler y. Novak, 157 Fla, 703, 26 So.2d 884 +(1946); +N. Ratiner, 462 So.2d 1157, 1160 +(Fla. 3d DCA 1984), rev, denied, 472 So.2d 1182 +(Fla, 1985) ("An action may lie for interference with +Page 8 +in the hospital] and which makes one who is a party +thereto, as tho appellant in the instant case, guilty of +a criminal act for entering into such an agree- ment.") +We are not asked in this proceeding to rule on the +admissibility of the discovered information as evidence at the trial of this cause. We are to determine +only if the information might lead to admissible +evidence. Even *1083 though we deny the Writ I +suggest we certify the following question: +DOES ONE, FREE FROM FORCE, INTIMIDA- +TION, OR DISADVANTAGBOUS CIRCUM- +STANCE, WHO MAKES A REASONED DE- +CISION TO BECOME OR REMAIN A PROSTI- +TUTE OR TO SHARE THE PROCEEDS +THEREOF BECAUSE OF A PROMISE OF A +GREATER FINANCIAL REWARD HAVE A +CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER +SECTION +796.09(1), FLORIDA STATUTES? +ON MOTIONS FOR REHEARING, FOR CLARI- +FICATION, FOR CERTIFICATION, AND FOR RE- +HEARING EN BANC! +W. SHARP, Judge. +Petitioners Balas and Shumate have, filed motions +for rehearing, clarification and certification. +We +deny the motions in full except for one regard. We +delete the sentence in the last full paragraph of the +opinion which reads: "These other causes of action +carry no such protection from discovery." +Motion for Clarification GRANTED as stated +above; Motion for Rehearing and Certification +DENIED. +ARRIS and THOMPSON, Ju., concI +la.App. 5 Dist., 199 +Balas v. Ruzzo +703 So.2d 1076, 22 Fla. L. Weekly D2375, 23 Fla. +L. Weekly D169 +END OF DOCUMENT +© 2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. +http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx7sv=Split&prft-HTMLE&ifm-NotSet8imt. 3/26/2009 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 29 of +Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM +Document 54-4 +Entered on ELSD Docket 04/02/2009 +Page 1 of 2 34 +IN THE COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH +JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM +BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +CASE NO. 502008CA025129XXXXMB AI +A.C., +Plaintiff, +V. +JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, and +Defendants. +ORDER ON DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO +FIRST REQUEST TO PRODUCE TO PLAINTIFF AND TO OVERRULE +PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS, & FOR DEFENDANT'S EXPENSES, +INCLUDING ATTORNEYS' FEES +THIS CAUSE came before the Court on Defendant Epstein's Motion To +Compel Responses To First Request To Produce To Plaintiff And To Oyerrule +Plaintiff's Objections, & For Defendant's Expenses, Including Attorneys' Fees +and the Court having heard argument of counsel and being fully advised in these +premises, it is hereby +ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Defendant's Motion is hereby grarted/ +denied +as to +# 17 + 418 +→ and denced +as to #22 +as phrased. Responses to +Le for sened w/in 10 dap. +Beach, Florida, this 2.2 day of +Ford tRay of an Beach County Courthouse, West Palm +Circuit Judge +Copies furnished: +ROBERT D, CRITTON, JR., ESQ, and MICHAEL J. PIKE, E +515 North Flagler Drive, Suite 400, West Palm Beach +FL 33401; JACK SCAROLA, ESQ., AND JACK P. +:SQ., Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart +Shipley, P.A. +, 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., +west Palm Beach, FL 33409, and JACK A +GOLDBERGER, +ESQ., Afterbury Goldberger & Welss, P.A., One Clearlake Centre, Suite 1400, 250 +Australian Avenue South, West Palm Beach, FL 33401 + +CAVENGDE + + +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 207-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 30 of +35 +Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54-4 + +A.Ç., +IN THE COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH +JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM +BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +CASE NO. 502008CA025129XXXXMB AI +Plaintiff; +NEFEREY E. EPSTEIN, and +Defendants. +ORDER ON DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO +INTERROGATORIES AND TO OVERRULE PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS, & FOR +DEFENDANT'S EXPENSES, INCLUDING ATTORNEYS' FEES +THIS CAUSE came before the Court on Defendant Epstein's Motion To +Compel Answers To Interrogatories And To Overrule Plaintiff's Objections, & For +Defendant's Expenses, Including Attorneys' Fees, and the Court having heard +argument of counsel and being fully advised in these premises, it is hereby +ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Defendant's Motion is hereby granted/ +as to #5, 12$18 , denied ass +to #2. +Responser to be sened u/in +10 dap. +DONE AND ORDERED at Palm Beach County Courthouse, West Palm +Beach, Florida, this 23 day of. +12009- +Edward A. Garriso +Circuit Judge +1, ESQ., Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & +JENG, DE + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 207-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 31 of +,Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 1 of 14 +1 +IN THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT +IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +CASE NO. 50 2008CA020614XXXXMB AF +JANE DOE II, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN and +Defendants. +COPY +COURT REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF +PROCEEDINGS HAD BEFORE +THE HONORABLE DIANA +DATE: +March 3, 2009 +PLACE: Palm Beach County Courthouse +205 N. +Dixie Highway +West +Palm Beach, Florida 33401 +EXHIB 2" + + +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 207-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 32 of +Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54-5 + +2 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +• 11 +12 +23 +14 +15 +16 +APPEARANCES: +ILAN FIRM, P.A. +224 Datura Avenue +Suite 900 +West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 +Counsel for Plaintiff +BY: ISIDRO M. +ESQUIRE +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN +515 N. Flagler Drive +Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 +Counsel for Defendant +BY: ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQUIRE +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24' +25 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 +Page 33 of +Case 9:08-CV-80811-KAM Document 54-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 + +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +that but I'd just like to do that. +THE COURT: Right. And if you want to +contact the other individuals saying, you know +I'm the one that's questioning whether or not +these need to be before one judge. You may have +a different perspective than your colleagues who +are prosecuting some of the cases. +I understand the damages. I'm not +saying consolidate. I'm saying transfer.; It's +not a consolidation issue. Everybody gets that +confused for some reason. The words are very +different out of my mouth, your mouth and how +they're written. +So let me go ahead and take a gander at +this. I did read it last night. I'm not sure +that we need to get -- we need names? +MR. CRITTON: Right. Well, here's what some +of the issues are is that, as an example +-- if I +could approach the bench. +THE COURT: Sure. +MR. CRITTON: This is some of the +information that we've obtained through discovery +from some of the -- from at least in this: +instance, it would be this particular Jane Doe. +THE COURT: You know who Jane Doe is I take + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 +Page 34 of +46 +Case 9:08-CV-80811-KAM Document 54-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 + +1 +2 +3 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +it? +MR. CRITTON: Right. +THE COURT: You know who the Jane Doe is? +MR. CRITTON: Yes, correct. And so this +particular lady has kept in part a diary, and +she -- which appears to have started some time — +this is not in any way significant - but some +time after she learned that she could file a +lawsuit. I think she's also been to Oakwood +Center some time after she learned she could file +a lawsuit and seek damages from Mr. Epstein. +There's no history of this lady +beforehand other than. in some of the Oakwood +records where shę was Baker Acted, she started +drinking beer at 16, she started Xanax at 16, +started marijuấna at' 15, that she's sexually +active: +so how she has interacted - she has a +claim for emotional damages, mental pain and +anguish, psychiatric-type damages. How she's +interacted with friends, with family, the events +'in her life, school, work, her interpersonal +relationships both with men and let's -- we'1l +use an 'example men here, but other individuals. +She's saying that this event with Mr. Epstein, + + +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 207-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 35 of +Case 9:08-CV-80811-KAM Document 54-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 6 of 14 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +this sexual assault and whatever occurred during +these events is that -- has caused her damage. +And therefore damages in the case such +as the emotional, mental, psychiatric-type +damages are completely subjective, I mean +separate and apart from any medical bills that +may be - which are clearly intangible. So these +are intangible damages. And the jury is +instructed, you know, you advise the greater +weight of the evidence, what's fair and +reasonable under the circunstances. +So what we would have is basically this +young lady's testimony as to what she claims her +damages are and what the circumstances are with +her situation with Mr. Epstein. She claims on +page 13, you know, I love this guy, I'm dating +this guy Chris. On page 15 -- +THE COURT: Is this part of a diary for +treatment? +MR. CRITTON: I have no idea what it 1s. It +was just produced in response to discovery. And +she apparently started in, I think this is +December Of '08. You know I took Jay Lyntenis' +girl to the zoo, had an amazing day, I love her, +i.e., the girl. +We have so much fun. I want a + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 36 of +Case 9:08-CV-80811-KAM Document 54-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 + +14 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +B +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +baby especially with him. Okay. So I know who +this person is. We are all so open together, I +love him and Jay and will, what do I do with +Chris, who is another guy in her life. +All right. This is circumstances where +this young lady is saying, 100k, Jeffrey Epstein +has ruined my life from a damage standpoint, +okay. Let me depose other individuals with whom +you've had a relationship. And what if it turns +out - as with some of these girls did -- is they +had relationships or had escapades or +circumstances with individuals, older men similar +to Mr. Epstein well before Mr. Epstein. +And this girl, I don't know one way or +the other, but let's assume she had a situation +where she was assaulted or molested or raped, ' +that all is going to affect her emotional and her +mental pain and anguish and it will all factor +into evaluating damages. +You know, it's not something that I'm +going to spread around. I'm happy to keep it, +you know, within the confines of the discovery of +this case. But if she says every other +relationship in my life has been perfect but Jeff +Epstein has done this to me and it has affected +" + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 37 of +Case 9:08-CV-80811-KAM Document 54-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 7 of 14 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +my ability to trust men and my sexual +relationships with other men, which is part of +her interpersonal relationships, okay, let's talk +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +THE COURT: When does your client allege +that she had her first encounter with +Mr. Epstein? +MR: +At what age? +THE COURT: Well, what year? +MR. CRITTON: June of '03. +MR. I +• June of '03, Judge. +'MR. CRITTON: She claims from June of '03 +through November of '04. +MR. +She was I believe 16 at the +beginning and ended at 17. She was a minor +during all this time. +THE COURT: June of '03 to now is six years. +Let me hear from Mr. LI. +MR. +• Judge, in the criminal case +that was filed against Mr. Epstein, he would not +, have had a right to do this type of discovery and +I - if I could hand up -- +THE COURT: They wouldn't care about' the +women. +MR. +Right. Well, I mean +• U.S. Legal Support + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 38 of +Case 9:08-CV-80811-KAM Document 54-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 8 of 14 +16 +• 2 +2 +3 +4 +5 +7 +9 +10 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +THE COURT: This is damages. There's no -- +they weren't seeking damages at the time. +MR. GARCIA: Right. And we have not alleged +in the complaint or in the answers to +interrogatories that her ability to have a +relationship with a man has been affected by +Mr. Epstein's conduct. +We have alleged that she has been +hospitalized for depression, anxiety but we have +not alleged any damages concerning - the only +reason this would be relevant is if we were +making a claim at her ability to have either +sexual relations or to have emotional relations +with men was effected by her experience with +Mr. Epstein. +So this damages' claim is just a smoke +screen to attempt to get evidence to show the +jury that this woman has +had other consensual +relationships with young men that are +approximately her age what I would characterize +as a slut defense. +She had it coming to her +because she engaged in other voluntarily +consensual -- +THE COURT: Mr. Critton wouldn't try the +slut defense in my courtroom, I'm sure. +.... + + +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 207-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 39 of +Case 9:08-CV-80811-KAM Document 54-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 9 of 14 +17 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +8 +10 +11 +12 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +MR. +Maybe not, but certainly that's +the way this discovery is going. And, Judge, +what -- +THE COURT: What are the damages you think +your client is seeking? +MR. : She is seeking emotional +distress damages for depression and anxiety and +she has been hospitalized at the Oakwood Center. +Her friend - she was on the phone to a friend +who called the sheriff's office because she +thought she was suicidal. The sheriffs +responded. They Baker Acted her that day and +they took her eventually to the Oakwood Center. +THE COURT: How do we know it's not +intertwined with her rejection by three other men +since Mr. Epstein? +MR. +: Well, even if it was related to +her rejection by three other men -- you mean +other men's rejection of her? +THE COURT: Yeah. Well, how do you not know +that? I mean you' +can't do it until you do +discovery. Has anybody attempted to review the +records from Oakwood to find out what's going on? +MR. CRITTON: It's like a one-time visit +when she was Baker Acted and then there's some + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 207-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 40 of +46 +Case 9:08-CV-80811-KAM Document 54-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 10 of 14 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +8 +10 +11 +12 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +other -- +THE COURT: +She didn't receive treatment? +MR. CRITTON: +She received treatment for +that day and she's been back a couple of times. +She's on medication. Again, I don't know what oI +the extent but she's got - her medical bills are +de minimis. +Again as an example, Judge, did the +Court have an opportunity to 1o0k at the case +that I also attached to the motion? Because +there's a case that's almost on all fours with . +this which I attached to our motion which is +called Balles versus Russo. +THE COURT: Right. +MR. CRITTON: It was a case where the +plaintiff was sued -- the plaintiff sued the +former owners of a house of prostitution. so +that part is different, but within it there were +a number of claims including a sexual assault +claim and they sought emotional pain, humiliation +and emotional distress. +Within the complaint that was filed in +this particular case, +she is seeking severe +emotional distress, mental anguish, humiliation, +embarrassment, past and future, compensatory + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 41 of +46 +. Case 9:08-CV-80811-KAM Document 54-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 + +' 1 +2 +4 +5 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +25 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +humiliation, loss of reputation, mental anguish, +pain and suffering, the same type of damages. +And what the Court said +THE COURT: How old is she now? +MR. HI: she's 21 now. +MR. CRITTON: She's 21 now. What the Court +said is, you know, if you'd only brought this +claim under 796 evidence of past issues, it's not +an issue. You can't use this defense for +anything, but because you brought these other +claims which include, you know, sexual assault +and you're seeking damages for other causes of +action since the information sought by discovery +may be relevant or may lead to the discovery of +admissible evidence in one or more of the other +causes of action or determination of damages, we +cannot conclude the trial court parted from +essential requirements of law in granting'-- +THE COURT: So in other words, she's' not +only seeking -- she's seeking current emotional +damage as a result of this relationship and +you're trying to find out if she had prior +relationships, that perhaps could be intertwined +with it so that it's not just Mr. Epstein's - +MR. CRITTON: Right. A perfect example is +V.s. Legal Support + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 +Page 42 of +46 +Case 9:08-CV-80811-KAM Document 54-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 12 of 14 +20 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +9 +10 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +one of the cases that I have is there's a young +lady who claims that she was molested in the past +and raped, pretty significant issues, well in +advance of her even meeting with Mr. Epstein. +And they seem to play a large role in her: +psychiatric and psychological evaluation.! +We're going to come to the Court in +this case as we have others and ask for a. +psychological evaluation of this lady, and if she +was raped or if she was molested or just she had +a bad experience or +some -- whether it was a +young or old man assaulted her in some fashion, +that may play a role in her damages and what -- +THE COURT: What I'm going to allow for +discovery purposes only not necessarily getting +it in at the time trial are two years before her +first encounter with Mr. Epstein and anything +subsequent. +MR. +| Judge, I just wanted to say on +the record because I forgot to mention it; +there's also -- I did state an objection to the +identity of people that are unrepresented in this +courtroom. They have rights too. So what I - +THE COURT: Well, my suggestion is that you +send those people a letter and tell them that + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 43 of +Case 9:08-CV-80811-KAM Document 54-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 + +21 +' 1 +2 +4 +5 +6 +7 +B +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +you're going to disclose them and if they have a +problem with it that they come to see me before +you disclose it. +So I'm going to give you 20 days to +respond to this rather than the usual five and +that will give you time to put these people on +notice and if they want to come visit with me and +have a John Doe, I'll have a John Doe hearing +but, you know, this is her case. She's doing it. +She's the one seeking damages, and he is entitled +to be able to confront other individuals to find +out information that may be relevant to the +damages she's seeking or she can drop the +damages. That's her choice. If you seeki +damages, you've got to do it - if you could put +that in an order so that we have a time for him +to do this. +Just fill out an order, hand it back up +to me and I'll deal with it. +(The proceedings were concluded. ) + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 44 of +Case 9:08-CV-80811-KAM Document 54-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 +• Page 14 of 14 +22 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE +THE STATE OF FLORIDA, +COUNTY OF PALM BEACH. +I, Teresa Bell, Court Reporter, certify that +I was authorized to and did stenographically report +the foregoing proceedings and that the transcript is a +true and complete record of my stenographic notes. +I further certify that the proceedings were +taken at the time and place shown herein and that all +counsel and persons as hereinabove shown were present. +I further certify that I am not a relative, +employee, attorney or counsel of any of the parties, +nor am I a relative or employee of any of the parties! +attorney or counsel connected with the action, nor am +I financially interested in the action. +Dated this 11th day of her told. +TERESA BELL, +Court Reporter + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 45 of +Kikka M. Claudio +From: +Sent: +To: +Subject: +cmecfautosender@fisd.uscourts.gov +April 02, 2009 1:54 PM +flsd_cmecf_notice@flsd.uscourts.gov +Activity in Case 9:08-CV-80811-KAM C.M.A. v. Epstein et al Motion to Compel +This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to +this e-mail because the mail box is unattended. +***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits +attorneys of record and parties in a case (including pro se litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of +all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees +apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first +viewing. However, if the referenced document is a transcript, the free copy and 30 page limit do not +apply. +U.S. District Court +Southern District of Florida +Notice of Electronic Filing +The following transaction was entered by Critton, Robert on 4/2/2009 at 1:53 PM EDT and filed on 4/2/2009 +Case Name: +C.M.A. v. Epstein et al +Case Number: +9:08-cv-80811 +Filer: +Jeffrey Epstein +Document Number: 54 +9:08-cv-80811 Notice has been electronically mailed to: +Bruce Reinhart +ccf@brucereinhartlaw.com +Guy Alan +Jack Alan Goldberger +jagesq@bellsouth.net, nalanis@agwpa.com +Jack +jph@searcylaw.com. clw@searcylaw.com, kmc@searcylaw.com, s.slater@searcylaw.com. +sas@searcylaw.com, vat@searcylaw.com +Michael James Pike +MPike@bclclaw.com +Michael +Tein +tein@lewistein.com, kmeyers@lewistein.com, mcapote@lewistein.com +Richard Horace Willits reelrhw@hotmail.com, lawyerwillits@aol.com +1 + + +Case 9:08-Cv-80119-KAM Document 207-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 46 of +Robert Deweese Critton, JI rcrit@bclclaw.com, bobbie@bclclaw.com +9:08-cv-80811 Notice has not been delivered electronically to those listed below and will be provided by +other means. For further assistance, please contact our Help Desk at 1-888-318-2260.: +The following documents) are associated with this transaction: +Document description:Main Document +Original filename:n/a +Electronic document Stamp: +[STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1105629215 [Date=4/2/2009] [FileNumber-6195964-0] +[49f0c2d75486f6d6a6101a08c395b2c7992778ee9920e8793e30a05701c38a82a7cd +Oc07e4948284cbee2a315cedf37038a790bd53308696a153cec35dd4a2eb]] +Document description:Exhibit A +Original filename:n/a +Electronie document Stamp: +[STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1105629215 [Date=4/2/2009] [PileNumber-6195964-1] +[5442dd228c17016a18a93a482a085529427a84c328a0e54754cdf751967853bb92be +ecb01757337952c95593597ccfc9a41571176b352bb55db83a21a343d276]] +Document description: Exhibit B +Original filename:n/a +Electronic document Stamp: +[STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1105629215 [Date=4/2/2009] [FileNumber=6195964-2] +[25cedd880cca3d8978be178b71f1defe7a045549a477d2d9547e32020ef01488969e +bad8c2e920f70317c10d9120ceca0890948393f1d74268de18e9f88192d]] +Document description:Exhibit C +Original filename:n/a +Electronic document Stamp: +[STAMP deecfStamp_ID=1105629215 [Date=4/2/2009] [FileNumber=6195964-3] +[37892711faff5el0f7c7b9blcOcad10ac25f111cfa940376210a3a511f5b8fc66е25 +7a72e8a82ac1f8d04c63aa2721bce8e1445577efdde123db7e50acecc99a]] +Document description: Exhibit D +Original filename:n/a +Electronic document Stamp: +[STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1105629215 [Date=4/2/2009] [FileNumber=6195964-4] +[30891fd9cd081f85da5c8b8446571f54389е681aa2a51bf899667fcfbca8f86fccf8 +b5cc59c87a711c75abbeaaf0e49106318132669f8731cecdd18b8714e895]] +2 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9f4fc19eded463d75ad180d59bed3ccac04409d46d1a16ed411fbd9b0353c821.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9f4fc19eded463d75ad180d59bed3ccac04409d46d1a16ed411fbd9b0353c821.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..883298243c68effcf7d602be5a90972e6939a401 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9f4fc19eded463d75ad180d59bed3ccac04409d46d1a16ed411fbd9b0353c821.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -3207, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "9f4fc19eded463d75ad180d59bed3ccac04409d46d1a16ed411fbd9b0353c821", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 187, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": false, + "input_sha256": "7804de59a084999d8dd1ec26cbfeeab8a1d79df496f0bd5f19782c96b07d5e03", + "output_sha256": "e3681d4654af96e00eccb644260d86a7470039dfbe37c6debb3dc82931f403cc", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9f5d810bb297a682d2b42b4974a874452922f626560f5242ab265dd9a7710f2a.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9f5d810bb297a682d2b42b4974a874452922f626560f5242ab265dd9a7710f2a.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..56cf24b2209d822564728ff41c3c06a29152d3a6 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9f5d810bb297a682d2b42b4974a874452922f626560f5242ab265dd9a7710f2a.md @@ -0,0 +1,173 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 209 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 1 of 7 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff +CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff +CASE NO: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff +CASE NO: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/_ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 209 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 2 of 7 +JANE DOE NO. 5, +Plaintiff +CASE NO: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant +/ +JANE DOE NO. 6. +Plaintiff +CASE NO: 08-CV-80994-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant +JANE DOE NO. 7, +Plaintiff +CASE NO: 08-CV-80993-MARRA/| +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 209 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 3 of 7 +CASE NO: 08-CV-80811-MARRA/ +C.M.A.., +Plaintiff +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO. 08-CV-80893-CIV-MARRA/| +Vs. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et al. +Defendant. +DOE II, +CASE NO: 09-CV-80469-MARRA/| +Plaintiff +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et al. +Defendants. +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 209 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 4 of 7 +JANE DOE NO. 101, +Plaintiff +CASE NO: 09-CV-80591-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant +JANE DOE NO. 102, +Plaintiff +CASE NO: 09-CV-80656-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant +/ +PLAINTIFF, JANE DOE'S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO EXCEED PAGE LIMITATION +IN HER REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO +JANE DOE'S MOTION FOR INJUNCTION RESTRAINING FRAUDULENT +TRANSFER OF ASSETS +Plaintiff, Jane Doe, hereby moves to exceed the page limitation of 10 pages for a +reply memorandum of law found in Local Rule 7.1C.2. +Jane Doe is preparing a reply to Defendant's opposition to her motion for an +injunction restraining fraudulent transfer of assets. Local Rule 7.1.C.2. provides that +"'a]bsent prior permission of the court" a reply memorandum of law may not exceed 10 +pages in length. It is clear that, given the many issues raised by defendant's opposition +to Plaintiff's motion (which opposition is itself 24 pages long) that more than 10 pages +4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 209 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 5 of 7 +will be required to fully and adequately respond to and discuss the issues raised. +Moreover, the issues raised are quite complicated, as they go to questions surrounding +how the court should respond to fraudulent transfers of substantial assets to overseas +locations by defendant Jeffrey Epstein, a billionaire. In addition, substantial financial +assets are at stake; Jane Doe has moved, for example, for a receiver to take control of +Defendant's assets to permit the posting of a $15 million bond. +As certified below, Defendant's counsel have agreed to the request to exceed 10 +pages. +WHEREFORE, Jane Doe respectfully requests that this Court grant her motion +and enter an order allowing a reply in excess of 10 pages. +Local Rule 7.1 statement +Counsel for movant Jane Doe have conferred with counsel for the defendant, +and counsel for Defendant kindly agreed to the requested filing in excess of ten pages. +DATED July 20, 2009 +Respectfully Submitted, +S/ +ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER +Las Olas City Centre +401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1650 +Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 +Telephone (954) 522-3456 +Facsimile (954) 527-8663 +Florida Bar No.: 542075 +E-mail: bedwards@rra-law.com +and +Paul G. Cassell +Pro Hac Vice +5 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 209 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 6 of 7 +332 S. 1400 E. +Salt Lake City, UT 84112 +Telephone: 801-585-5202 +Facsimile: 801-585-6833 +E-Mail: +cassellp@law.utah.edu +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +1 HEREBY CERTIFY that on July 20, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing +document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing +document is being served this day on all parties on the attached Service List in the +manner specified, either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by +CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those parties who are not authorized to +receive electronically filed Notices of Electronic Filing. +6 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 209 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 7 of 7 +SERVICE LIST +Jane Doe V. Jeffrey Epstein +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +Jgoldberger@agwpa.com +Robert D. Critton, Esq. +rcritton@bclclaw.com +Isidro Manual +isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net +Jack +iph@searcylaw.com +Katherine Warthen Ezell +KEzell@podhurst.com +Michael James Pike +MPike@bclclaw.com +Paul G. Cassell +cassellp@bclclaw.com +Richard Horace Willits +lawyerswillits@aol.com +Robert C. Josefsberg +rjosefsberg@podhurst.com +Adam D. Horowitz +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +Stuart S. Mermelstein +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +William J. Berger +wberger@rra-law.com +7 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9f5d810bb297a682d2b42b4974a874452922f626560f5242ab265dd9a7710f2a.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9f5d810bb297a682d2b42b4974a874452922f626560f5242ab265dd9a7710f2a.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fd89ac3dbddfc66f3641bbd07e6c06c0c937ac96 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9f5d810bb297a682d2b42b4974a874452922f626560f5242ab265dd9a7710f2a.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -84, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "9f5d810bb297a682d2b42b4974a874452922f626560f5242ab265dd9a7710f2a", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 7, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "65919e1d90e9aa86b5cbfd02612b64710108eb3681c3c2fa15ea8a205fcc9e4e", + "output_sha256": "759b0d91abe23e173553aa29268d274d5b25a2f6dc5206283be6dcc803204648", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9f5fc11936c83493faa226403a92484f51c058f0c143f8f846efdd607648a79b.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9f5fc11936c83493faa226403a92484f51c058f0c143f8f846efdd607648a79b.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..609230deec6c43ad0c781b75336be7da2c1a4451 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9f5fc11936c83493faa226403a92484f51c058f0c143f8f846efdd607648a79b.md @@ -0,0 +1,107 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 182 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/21/2012 Page 1 of 4 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA +JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, +Petitioners, +VS. +UNITED STATES, +Respondent. +RESPONDENT'S RESPONSE TO PETITIONERS' MOTION FOR A +PROMPT RULING DENYING GOVERNMENT'S MOTION TO STAY +Respondent United States of America, by and through its undersigned counsel, files its +Response to Petitioners' Motion for a Prompt Ruling Denying Government's Motion to Stay, +and states: +The government filed its motion to stay discovery on November 7, 2011. The motion +was premised upon the government filing a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter +jurisdiction, also filed on November 7, 2011. Petitioners filed their opposition to both motions, +and the government filed its replies. Now the petitioners ask the Court to deny the motion to +stay, claiming that "[t]he practical effect of a lack of a ruling on that motion has been to +effectively grant the stay." D.E. 179 at 1. +The government sought a stay of discovery because it had filed a motion to dismiss +challenging this Court's subject matter jurisdiction. The Government argued that resolution of +the threshold jurisdictional question should occur before requiring the parties and the Court to +expend time and resources in the discovery process. That argument remains valid. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 182 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/21/2012 Page 2 of 4 +Petitioners' contention that the stay has been "effectively granted" (D.E. 179 at 2-3) +seems to suggest the Government has already received a benefit, but is still not complying with +its present legal obligations, such as when a party seeks an enlargement of seven days to file a +document, seven days elapse without the Court ruling on the motion, and the party still has not +filed the document. But the government's motion did not seek additional time to comply with +discovery, and the government certainly has not ignored or failed to comply with a legal +requirement that has already ripened. Instead, the government sought the stay because it should +not be obligated to incur the expense and expend the time necessary to respond to petitioners' +far-reaching discovery requests—which include twenty-five requests for broad categories of +information, many composed of numerous sub-parts, and which go well beyond the issues for +which the Court authorized limited discovery and seek information independently protected from +discovery and disclosure—where the case should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, and +certainly not while a case-dispositive, jurisdictional motion to dismiss is pending. That is still +the case. +Petitioners are not entitled to discovery while the government's motion to dismiss for +lack of jurisdiction is pending. Consequently, the government's motion to stay discovery should +be granted. +DATED: December 21, 2012 +Respectfully submitted, +WIFREDO A. FERRER +UNITED STATES ATTORNEY +By: +s/ Dexter A. Lee +DEXTER A. LEE +Assistant U.S. Attorney +Fla. Bar No. 0936693 +I VILLAFAÑA +EDUARDO I. +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 182 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/21/2012 Page 3 of 4 +Assistant U.S. Attorneys +99 N.E. 4'' Street +Miami, Florida 33132 +(305) 961-9320 +Fax: (305) 530-7139 +E-mail: dexter.lee @usdoj.gov +Attorneys for Respondent +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I HEREBY CERTIFY that on December 21, 2012, 1 electronically filed the foregoing +document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF, and served the attorneys on the attached +Service List by U.S. Mail. +s/ Dexter A. Lee +DEXTER A. LEE +Assistant U.S. Attorney +SERVICE LIST +Jane Does 1 and 2 v. United States, +Case No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/ +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +Esq.. +,. Jaffe, Weissing, +Fistos & Lehrman, P.L. +425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 +Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 +(954) 524-2820 +Fax: (954) 524-2822 +E-mail: brad@pathtojustice.com +Paul G. Cassell +S.J. Quinney College of Law at the +University of Utah +332 S. 1400 E. +Salt Lake City, Utah 84112 +(801) 585-5202 +Fax: (801) 585-6833 +E-mail: casselp@law.utah.edu +Attorneys for Jane Doe # 1 and Jane Doe #2 +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 182 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/21/2012 Page 4 of 4 +Roy Black +Jackie Perczek +Black, Srebnick, Kornspan & Stumpf, P.A. +201 South Biscayne Boulevard +Suite 1300 +Miami, Florida 33131 +(305) 371-6421 +Fax: (305) 358-2006 +4 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9f5fc11936c83493faa226403a92484f51c058f0c143f8f846efdd607648a79b.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9f5fc11936c83493faa226403a92484f51c058f0c143f8f846efdd607648a79b.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0d48433408f1cab348691b66b37e804e552ccd16 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9f5fc11936c83493faa226403a92484f51c058f0c143f8f846efdd607648a79b.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -48, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "9f5fc11936c83493faa226403a92484f51c058f0c143f8f846efdd607648a79b", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 4, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "2f8b1f1fdf4ecd4296f7b9af79331a9e0125deacac5bcf9150379c9ed13a55a6", + "output_sha256": "3cfa406ab4451c5af215d349d7b24bd983d527d04f2befe4b0e04b7a5e92f2b8", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9f8804777413f3c841fd1aab8626876b8d00ef0160d89f7bb2820d83e4a8da45.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9f8804777413f3c841fd1aab8626876b8d00ef0160d89f7bb2820d83e4a8da45.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7ccb85147f8fad88b5554ac2f915524f383b808a --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9f8804777413f3c841fd1aab8626876b8d00ef0160d89f7bb2820d83e4a8da45.md @@ -0,0 +1,53 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 75-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2009 Page 1 of 2 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 5, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 6, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/ +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/ +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/ +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80994-MARRA/ + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 75-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2009 Page 2 of 2 +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 7, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08- 80993-CIV-MARRA/ +ORDER +Upon Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Enlargement to Time to File Memorandum in +Opposition to Motions to Compel Plaintiffs to Respond to Defendant's First Request to Produce and +First Set of Interrogatories, et al., and good cause being shown, it is hereby +ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion is granted. Plaintiffs shall have an enlargement of time of +until April 29, 2009, to respond to the Defendant's Motions to Compel, et al. +DONE AND ORDERED in +in Ft. Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, this +day of +_ 2009. +DISTRICT COURT JUDGE diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9f8804777413f3c841fd1aab8626876b8d00ef0160d89f7bb2820d83e4a8da45.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9f8804777413f3c841fd1aab8626876b8d00ef0160d89f7bb2820d83e4a8da45.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..adfd863cf555f9792169a2a6738e60515fc3f6d9 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9f8804777413f3c841fd1aab8626876b8d00ef0160d89f7bb2820d83e4a8da45.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -24, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "9f8804777413f3c841fd1aab8626876b8d00ef0160d89f7bb2820d83e4a8da45", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "1cd76439f18ff4ffa1acab79f7ae8f5b52ab37ac1bbe06517c0827af98db4312", + "output_sha256": "5a274f47ffc014012a76eadac70ffc433e3723812a769bb5fbd7abec9b5053ff", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9faa2ec1590f1e300813c36498b2fbf503c5fa8e1727a0219b5f9b3935c695b5.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9faa2ec1590f1e300813c36498b2fbf503c5fa8e1727a0219b5f9b3935c695b5.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0e44653b79ee37b6f942671ab6e6bb7650df653a --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9faa2ec1590f1e300813c36498b2fbf503c5fa8e1727a0219b5f9b3935c695b5.md @@ -0,0 +1,37 @@ +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 23-2 Filed 02/14/20 Page 1 of 2 +Certificate of Admission +To the Bar of Illinois +1, Carolyn Taft Grosboll, Clerk of the Supreme Court of Illinois, do hereby certify that +Mary Sharon DiRago +Law eh duly licensad a has miled ta practice required ray no Gupolorat +CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES and of the STATE OF ILLINOIS, and +also the oath of office prescribed by law, that said name was entered upon the Roll +of Attorneys and Counselors in my office on 11/04/2004 and is in good standing, so +far as the records of this office disclose. +IN WITNESS WHEREOF, 1 have hereunto +subscribed my name and affixed the +seal of said Court, this 31st day of +January, 2020. +Cardya Taft Gosboll +Clerk, +Supreme Court of the State of Illinois + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 23-2 Filed 02/14/20 + +CERTIFICATE OF GOOD STANDING +IS GRIND +DOVILIO BUTE +United States of America +Northern District of Illinois +}ss. Mary S DiRago +G. Bruton, Clerk of the United States District Court +for the Northern District of Illinois, +DO HEREBY CERTIFY That Mary S DiRago +was duly admitted to practice in said Court on (12/08/2004) +and is in good standing as a member of the bar of said court. +Dated at Chicago, Illinois +on (01/29/2020 ) +G. Bruton, Clerk, +By: Tina Lam +Deputy Clerk diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/9faa2ec1590f1e300813c36498b2fbf503c5fa8e1727a0219b5f9b3935c695b5.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9faa2ec1590f1e300813c36498b2fbf503c5fa8e1727a0219b5f9b3935c695b5.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b55145db7e8a43fb12dbf85929201a460a0f80d3 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/9faa2ec1590f1e300813c36498b2fbf503c5fa8e1727a0219b5f9b3935c695b5.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -35, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "9faa2ec1590f1e300813c36498b2fbf503c5fa8e1727a0219b5f9b3935c695b5", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 3, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "0668a6fd9a35a3e737326320dfd4aef0adc04f298fe6d7a10900e2d57a246a04", + "output_sha256": "3764380d70afb473f05ba1d79a9b35a7033a0e85a72531b8a9a428fb1af37c70", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a000674a9d208fb2e827ef5143588c5c948e7980cfeb72b46d2c8cfa1a936d6c.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a000674a9d208fb2e827ef5143588c5c948e7980cfeb72b46d2c8cfa1a936d6c.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f1ee0a2abc7e9e3d692a844e90d4a90b861c5336 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a000674a9d208fb2e827ef5143588c5c948e7980cfeb72b46d2c8cfa1a936d6c.md @@ -0,0 +1,100 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 77 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/03/2009 Page 1 of 5 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 5, +VS. +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/ +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/ +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/ +PLAINTIFFS' UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME +- 1- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 77 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/03/2009 Page 2 of 5 +TO FILE REPLY MEMORANDA IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS TO COMPEL +ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS +Plaintiffs, JANE DOES 2-5, by and through undersigned counsel, file this Motion for +Enlargement to Time to File Reply Memoranda in Support of Motion to Compel Answers to +Interrogatories and Production of Documents, pursuant to S.D. Fla.L.R. 7.1 and Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b), +and state as follows: +Plaintiffs in the above-styled cases filed Motions to Compel Answers to +Interrogatories and Production of Documents on March 2, 2009. Defendant Jeffrey Epstein served +Memoranda in opposition to these Motions on March 25, 2009. +2. +Plaintiffs move for an enlargement of time to prepare and file their replies in support +of the Motions because of demands on Plaintiffs' counsel in other cases and matters. In particular, +Plaintiffs' counsel has an initial appeal brief due in Doe v. School Bd. of Broward County and +Scavella, case no. 09 -10394-E, Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Plaintiffs' counsel also has an +impending discovery deadline in +v. Archdiocese of New York, case no. 10069-06, Supreme +Court of the State of New York, County of New York. +3. +The Plaintiffs' replies in support of the subject Motions are presently due on April 6, +2009. Plaintiffs request an enlargement of time of two (2) weeks, until April 20, 2009. +Pursuant to S.D.Fla.L.R. 7.1(A), Plaintiffs' counsel has conferred with counsel for +Defendant regarding the relief sought in this Motion, who has advised Plaintiffs' counsel that +Defendant has no objection to the enlargement of time requested. +WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request an enlargement of time to file reply +memoranda in support of the Motions to Compel Answers to Interrogatories and Production of +Documents, until and including April 20, 2009. +- 2 - + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 77 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/03/2009 Page 3 of 5 +Dated: April 3, 2009 +Respectfully submitted, +By: +s/ Stuart S. Mermelstein +Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245) +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980) +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P.A. +Attorneys for Plaintiffs +18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 +Miami, Florida 33160 +Tel: 305-931-2200 +Fax: 305-931-0877 +- 3- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 77 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/03/2009 Page 4 of 5 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I hereby certify that on April 3, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the +Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day +to all parties on the attached Service List in the manner specified, either via transmission of Notices +of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those parties who +are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing. +Is/ Stuart S. Mermelstein +- 4- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 77 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/03/2009 Page 5 of 5 +SERVICE LIST +DOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +igoldberger@agwpa.com +Robert D. Critton, Esq. +rcritton@bclclaw.com +Is/ Stuart S. Mermelstein +- 5- diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a000674a9d208fb2e827ef5143588c5c948e7980cfeb72b46d2c8cfa1a936d6c.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a000674a9d208fb2e827ef5143588c5c948e7980cfeb72b46d2c8cfa1a936d6c.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c97dea2e40ce33a72f343b6fdc09d7d117f1ad6d --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a000674a9d208fb2e827ef5143588c5c948e7980cfeb72b46d2c8cfa1a936d6c.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -60, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "a000674a9d208fb2e827ef5143588c5c948e7980cfeb72b46d2c8cfa1a936d6c", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 5, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "055d154c1fbe262cf2b42aa3eef6f440402a47f621fa557266e5308bc500b23a", + "output_sha256": "d5028604804a6ec1d68d433ce07ab2dc4a4d53b98bbc2ad3dda9916cdf2c766b", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a025d521d4012e00ef1696ea8eec8e99d70d8ba8d6b8004fdd205cfceb265087.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a025d521d4012e00ef1696ea8eec8e99d70d8ba8d6b8004fdd205cfceb265087.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..67b8542ba76cab1b45eac226ed1d40d1d66ff141 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a025d521d4012e00ef1696ea8eec8e99d70d8ba8d6b8004fdd205cfceb265087.md @@ -0,0 +1,118 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 547 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/17/2010 Page 1 of 4 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO. 08-CV-80893-CIV-MARRA/ +Vs. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et al. +Defendant. +Related Cases: +08-80119, 08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, +08-80994, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, +09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092 +NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY ON PLAINTIFF JANE DOE'S MOTION +FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND FOR AN ORDER TO COMPEL AND +INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW [DE 483] +Plaintiff, Jane Doe, hereby gives notice of filing portions of the probation file of +Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, in connection with the above referenced Motion for Order to +Show Cause and to Compel the Deposition of Jean Luc Brunel [DE 483]. +On March 10, 2010 Plaintiff filed her Motion for an Order to Show Cause and for +an Order to Compel [DE 483] requesting entry of an Order directed to Jean Luc Brunel +and his counsel ordering them to show cause why they should not be held in contempt, +for sanctions, and for an Order compelling Jean Luc Brunel to appear for deposition. +Plaintiff's counsel recently obtained Epstein's probation file that contains +documents that further corroborate Plaintiff's position that Brunel has not remained out + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 547 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/17/2010 Page 2 of 4 +CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/S +of the country as Brunel's counsel suggested, but has in fact been staying with Epstein +much of 2010, if we are to believe the records Epstein provided to probation. +The portions of the probation file, specifically the Written Monthly Reports from +December 2009 through February 2010 are attached hereto as Exhibit "A." A section of +the Written Monthly Report requires Defendant to "List full names, ages, and your +relationship to all persons who resided at your residence this month" in the middle +section of the form. +Defendant identifies Jean Luc Brunel in his probation papers as residing with him +within the period of December 2009 to February 2010, when Ms. Kudman represented +him to be out of Florida. +As indicated in our previous pleading, Mr. Brunel was served for deposition, and +his counsel Ms. Kudman represented that she would produce him for deposition in +Florida. +She ultimately reneged, saying that her client told her that he was in France +indefinitely and would not be returning to the United States, a representation known to +be false. +In an email dated January 25, 2010, Ms. Kudman responds to a request for dates +for her client's deposition by writing, "I have just been informed that my client will be out +of the country until the end of March." (Email attached here to as Exhibit "B") +Again, while it is not believed that Ms. Kudman made the false representation +intentionally, and it is more likely that Mr. Brunel simply made that false representation +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 547 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/17/2010 Page 3 of 4 +CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/ +to his attorney, it is impossible for the undersigned to know with any degree of certainty +exactly who participated in this plan to obstruct Jane Doe's discovery. +As +such, Plaintiff files her supplemental authority and requests the relief +previously sought. +DATED: May 17, 2010 +Respectfully Submitted, +s/ +• JAFFE, WEISSING, +, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. +425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 +Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 +Telephone (954) 524-2820 +Facsimile (954) 524-2822 +Florida Bar No.: 542075 +E-mail: brad@pathtojustice.com +and +Paul G. Cassell +Pro Hac Vice +332 S. 1400 E. +Salt Lake City, UT 84112 +Telephone: 801-585-5202 +Facsimile: 801-585-6833 +E-Mail: cassellp@law.utah.edu +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I HEREBY CERTIFY that on May 17, 2010 | electronically filed the foregoing +document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing +document is being served this day on all parties on the attached Service List in the +manner specified, either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by +CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those parties who are not authorized to +receive electronically filed Notices of Electronic Filing. +S/ +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 547 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/17/2010 Page 4 of 4 +CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/ +SERVICE LIST +Jane Doe V. Jeffrey Epstein +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +Jgoldberger@agwpa.com +Robert D. Critton, Esq. +rcritton@bclclaw.com +Isidro Manual +isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net +Jack +iph@searcylaw.com +Katherine Warthen Ezell +KEzell@podhurst.com +Michael James Pike +MPike@bclclaw.com +Paul G. Cassell +cassellp@law.utah.edu +Richard Horace Willits +lawyerswillits@aol.com +Robert C. Josefsberg +rjosefsberg@podhurst.com +Adam D. Horowitz +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +Stuart S. Mermelstein +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +4 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a025d521d4012e00ef1696ea8eec8e99d70d8ba8d6b8004fdd205cfceb265087.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a025d521d4012e00ef1696ea8eec8e99d70d8ba8d6b8004fdd205cfceb265087.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..01765dd86fd24d6fc02cbf228890b01b07ccb133 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a025d521d4012e00ef1696ea8eec8e99d70d8ba8d6b8004fdd205cfceb265087.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -48, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "a025d521d4012e00ef1696ea8eec8e99d70d8ba8d6b8004fdd205cfceb265087", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 4, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "4d918b0600b0b6a7ffdd6347c3a977be579645d950e4ba1c1522bcab0899beee", + "output_sha256": "dd5f7efd781af607a0202853ef0fa0bc9d270cba60e0ae9eaeef5d1450528238", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a039134d2ace76c3d398534c9da2a26b5f91c91a23c4063255155ed3df45c662.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a039134d2ace76c3d398534c9da2a26b5f91c91a23c4063255155ed3df45c662.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d48a7df73d8f6e0cda573952c13c2b79bddffe84 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a039134d2ace76c3d398534c9da2a26b5f91c91a23c4063255155ed3df45c662.md @@ -0,0 +1,120 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 33 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2008 Page 1 of 5 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +NO. 08-80119-CIV-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +V. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY +THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to Stay +(DE 12), filed June 20, 2008. The motion is now fully briefed and is ripe for review. The Court +has carefully considered the motion and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. +Defendant Jeffrey Epstein ("Defendant") seeks a stay of this civil action under a federal +statute which reads, in pertinent part, as follows: +damage or injury to the person of a child exists, a criminal action is +sending which arises out of the same occurrence and in which the child is +the victim, the civil action shall be stayed until the end of all phases of the +criminal action and any mention of the civil action during the criminal +proceeding is prohibited. As used in this subsection, a criminal action is +pending until its final adjudication in the trial court. +18 U.S.C. § 3509 (k). In his motion, Defendant cites a state case, Florida v. Epstein, No. 2006 +1 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 33 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2008 Page 2 of 5 +CF 09454AXX (Fla. Cir. Ct. 2008)' and a federal case, In re Grand Jury, No. FGJ 07-103(WPB) +(S.D. Fla.), that arise out of the same occurrences and are pending and thus require a stay of this +civil case. The federal "case," according to Defendant, involves a "deferred-prosecution" +agreement whereby the U.S. Attorney agreed to suspend its investigation of Defendant while +"retaining the right to reactivate the grand jury." (DE 24.) Defendant essentially reasons, +because the U.S. Attorney could bring criminal charges against Defendant, that a criminal action +is "pending." The Court rejects this definition of a "pending criminal action." +When interpreting the text of a statute, the Court begins with the plain meaning of the +text. In re +524 F.3d 1175, 1186 (11" Cir. 2008). If the plain meaning of a statute is +clear, the Court should not deviate from that interpretation. Id. Pending is defined as "remaining +undecided" and "awaiting decision." Blacks Law Dictionary (8"' ed. 2004).- Likewise, an +'As Defendant recognizes, the state court case was "finally adjudicated" and thus no +longer pending as of June 30, 2008. (See DE 12.) +"Defendant attempts to argue that the fact that grand jury subpoenas are still +"outstanding" and "not withdrawn" and that the grand jury will not be dismissed until Defendant +completes his obligations under the state plea agreement means that a "criminal action" is +"pending." (Def. Reply 4.) Defendant misunderstands the purpose of a grand jury. A grand +jury's sole purpose is to inquire into whether there is probable cause to bring an individual before +a tribunal to determine his guilt or innocence of an alleged crime. Id. The grand jury is simply +an investigative body. See U.S. v. Alred, 144, F.3d 1405, 1413 (11" Cir. 1998). A "criminal +action" is not instigated by the calling of a grand jury, because a grand jury is convened "to +determine whether a crime has been committed and whether criminal proceedings should be +instituted against any person." U.S. v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 344 (1974). An "action" is +commenced against a person after the grand jury actually finds probable cause to make an +individual answer specific charges and renders a bill of indictment against that individual. Until +a grand jury's investigation is complete and there has been a determination by a lawful authority +that probable cause exists, there can be no criminal action. +2 + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 33 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2008 Page 3 of 5 +"action" is defined as a "criminal judicial proceeding." Id. Because the U.S. Attorney has not +filed an indictment or an information against Defendant, the Court fails to see how there is an +undecided judicial proceeding in federal court against Defendant. +Defendant argues that this statute should be read to include the definition of "criminal +action" used in 18 U.S.C. § 1595(b)(2), which reads as follows: "In this subsection, a 'criminal +action' includes investigation and prosecution and is pending until final adjudication in the trial +court." Defendant argues that "Congress specifically intended that the term "criminal action' +would be applied extremely broadly" under § 1595, so Congress "took pains to ensure that courts +would give it the broadest possible construction" and defined "criminal action" as including +investigatory stages. (Def. Reply 4.) Defendants argue that the Court should borrow this +definition. +The Court disagrees. The Court believes that Congress's inclusion of this broader +definition under § 1595 evinces Congressional intent to depart from the normal meaning of the +term "criminal action.". This addition to the text suggests that Congress knows the plain +meaning of the term "criminal action and that Congress decided, under § 1595, that the +definition of "criminal action" should be broader. In contrast, Congress could have made such an +addition to § 3509 had it intended the mandatory stay provision to apply to pre-indictment +investigations, but it did not. In other words, by not broadening the definition of "criminal +action" § 3509, Congress intended that the term should only have its ordinary meaning: that an +indictment or information has been filed naming a specific defendant. Instead, it seems clear that +'In fact, Congress made this intent clear by stating that this broader definition of a +"criminal action" applied only "in this subsection." +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 33 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2008 Page 4 of 5 +Congress intended that these two statutory provisions should each have a different scope. +Defendant's argument of statutory construction fails. +The single case cited by Defendant in support of his motion is not on point. In Doe 1 v. +Francis, No. 5:03CV260/MCR/WCS, 2005 WL 517847 (N.D. Fla. Feb. 10, 2005), the stay was +entered because criminal charges had been filed against the defendant in a state court several +months earlier (i.e., the defendants had been indicted by the state attorney). See Memorandum in +Support of Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Outcome of Parallel Criminal Proceedings at 3, +Doe 1 v. Francis, No. 5:03CV260/MCR/WCS (N.D. Fla. Dec. 2, 2003). The Court agrees with +Defendant that a stay under § 3509(k) is mandatory when a criminal action is pending; the Court +simply disagrees that the "deferred-prosecution agreement" constitutes a pending criminal action. +The Court also does not believe a discretionary stay is warranted. Defendant did not seek +this relief in his motion; including such a request in the reply brief is inappropriate. Further, the +Court sees no reason to delay this litigation for the next thirty-three months. After all, Defendant +is in control of his own destiny - it is up to him (and him alone) whether the plea agreement +reached with the State of Florida is breached. If Defendant does not breach the agreement, then +he should have no concerns regarding his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The +fact that the U.S. Attorney (or other law enforcement officials) may object to some discovery in +these civil cases is not, in an of itself, a reason to stay the civil action. Any such issues shall be +resolved as they arise in the course of this litigation. +Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: +1. Defendant's Motion to Stay (DE 12) is DENIED. +2. Defendant's Motion for Hearing (DE 27) is DENIED AS MOOT. +4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 33 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2008 Page 5 of 5 +3. Plaintiff's Motion for an Extension of Time to File Response (DE 18) is GRANTED NUNC +PRO TUNC. +DONE AND ORDERED in +at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, +Florida, this 4" day of August, 2008. +KENNETH A. MARRA +United States District Judge +Copies furnished to: +all counsel of record +5 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a039134d2ace76c3d398534c9da2a26b5f91c91a23c4063255155ed3df45c662.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a039134d2ace76c3d398534c9da2a26b5f91c91a23c4063255155ed3df45c662.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a2c09f39121a4b1056e236fa06e5c831df9d8fbb --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a039134d2ace76c3d398534c9da2a26b5f91c91a23c4063255155ed3df45c662.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -60, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "a039134d2ace76c3d398534c9da2a26b5f91c91a23c4063255155ed3df45c662", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 5, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "0e9b817e7a456f203fc46339ea33a7c8235c83847872981c99408d750751d6de", + "output_sha256": "c8990c9749a56c660dc58829a9339d633fd70dfc78438b0844670e39e095504b", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a05a2119087d1fcbfa8135bce83317c5ef8496535b6a347afc9f96cc385ccd86.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a05a2119087d1fcbfa8135bce83317c5ef8496535b6a347afc9f96cc385ccd86.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..dabf4a0ab85944cc9fca8dc864f747fed0f0b17b --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a05a2119087d1fcbfa8135bce83317c5ef8496535b6a347afc9f96cc385ccd86.md @@ -0,0 +1,53 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80069-KAM Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/22/2008 Page 1 of 2 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-80069-CIV-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 1, by and through +JANE DOE's FATHER as parent and natural +guardian, and JANE DOE's FATHER, and +JANE DOE's STEPMOTHER, individually, +Plaintifts, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE +Plaintiffs, Jane Doe No. 1 by and through Jane Doe's Father as parent and natural guardian, +and Jane Doe's Father, and Jane Doe's Stepmother, individually, hereby give notice of their +voluntary dismissal of this action against all Defendant Jeffrey Epstein without prejudice pursuant +to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(1)(A). +Dated: February 22, 2008 +Respectfully submitted, +By:_ +s/ Jeffrey M. Herman +Jeffrey M. Herman (FL Bar No. 521647) +jherman@hermanlaw.com +Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245) +smermelstein@hermanlaw.com +Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980) +ahorowitz@hermanlaw.com +HERMAN & MERMELSTEIN, P.A. +Attorneys for Plaintiffs Jane Doe et al. +18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 +Miami, Florida 33160 +Tel: 305-931-2200 +Fax: 305-931-0877 +HERMAN & MERMELSTEIN, P. A. +www.hermanlaw.com +- 1 - + + +Case 9:08-cv-80069-KAM Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/22/2008 Page 2 of 2 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I hereby certify that on February 22, 2008, I electronically filed the foregoing document with +the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this +day on the following, via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF: +Theodore Jon Leopold +tleopold@riccilaw.com +and by mail to: +Jeffrey Epstein +9 East 71st Street +New York, NY 10021 +Is/ Jeffrey M. Herman +HERMAN & MERMELSTEIN, P. A. +www.hermanlaw.com +- 2- diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a05a2119087d1fcbfa8135bce83317c5ef8496535b6a347afc9f96cc385ccd86.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a05a2119087d1fcbfa8135bce83317c5ef8496535b6a347afc9f96cc385ccd86.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..824beefbb2b57f33592aa55f7a1e33d53d1ff9d2 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a05a2119087d1fcbfa8135bce83317c5ef8496535b6a347afc9f96cc385ccd86.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -24, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "a05a2119087d1fcbfa8135bce83317c5ef8496535b6a347afc9f96cc385ccd86", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "e2cd686200831530b3ee83e41218998709d1634ac66497d53542968fd312353c", + "output_sha256": "b2aa384e97a37d111d661e927e6eac13c32e98589bb9c2a61e0e266fa2a2f06d", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a06bd33968eb92b273985da2f1d90c9c3b9d12becc9342d58924b41a40e03fcc.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a06bd33968eb92b273985da2f1d90c9c3b9d12becc9342d58924b41a40e03fcc.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6503dae49725cc0d01f7b2f51fe3d16fd5330817 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a06bd33968eb92b273985da2f1d90c9c3b9d12becc9342d58924b41a40e03fcc.md @@ -0,0 +1,288 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 45 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/31/2008 Page 1 of 11 +JANE DOE NO. 2, +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/ +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 3, +VS. +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 4, +VS. +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 5, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/ +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 45 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/31/2008 Page 2 of 11 +JANE DOE NO. 6, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08- 80994-CIV-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 7, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08- 80993-CIV-MARRA/ +PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM OF LAW +IN OPPOSITION TO MOTIONS TO DISMISS +Plaintiffs, Jane Does 2-7, by and through undersigned counsel, file this Memorandum of Law +in Opposition to Motions to Dismiss, pursuant to S.D.Fla.L.R. 7.1(C), as follows: +Introduction and Summary +Defendant's Motions to Dismiss and for More Definite Statement filed in each of the abovecaptioned cases pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) and 12(e) essentially concede that Plaintiffs have +alleged the elements of the claims asserted in Counts I and III of each pleading, but contend that +more factual allegations are necessary for these claims. The pleadings at issue contain a short and +plain statement of the claims showing that the Plaintiffs are entitled to relief in accordance with +Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). The specific facts sought by Defendant may properly be the subject of +discovery, but are not necessary for purposes of pleading. Accordingly, Defendant's Motions are +without merit and should be denied in their entirety. +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 45 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/31/2008 Page 3 of 11 +II. Facts Plead +The pleadings in these six cases are all similarly structured and assert the same claims. In the +section entitled "Factual Allegations" each describes the plan and scheme of Defendant Epstein to +recruit underage girls to his Palm Beach mansion for "massages". (Jane Doe No. 2 Amd. Compl. 99l +10-11; Jane Doe No. 3 Amd. Comp. 9[ 10-11; Jane Doe No. 4 Amd. Compl. 911-12; Jane Doe No. 5 +Amd. Compl. 9| 10-11; Jane Doe No. 6 Amd. Compl. 9[11-12; Jane Doe No. 7 Amd. Compl. I 11-12). +The pleading then alleges that, consistent with this scheme, the Plaintiff was lured to Epstein's Palm +Beach mansion to give a massage for monetary compensation. (Jane Doe No. 2 Amd. Compl. 9| 12; +(Jane Doe No. 3 Amd. Compl. I[ 12; Jane Doe No. 4 Amd. Compl. 9| 13; Jane Doe No. 5 Amd. +Compl. 9l 12; Jane Doe No. 6 Amd. Compl. I 13; Jane Doe No. 7 Amd. Compl. 9 13). The Plaintiff +was directed up a flight of stairs to a room where Epstein instructed the Plaintiff to remove her +clothes and give him a massage. Epstein then masturbated and sexually assaulted the Plaintiff +during this massage. (Jane Doe No. 2 Amd. Compl. 912; Jane Doe No. 3 Amd. Compl. 912; Jane +Doe No. 4 Amd. Compl. 9|13; Jane Doe No. 5 Amd. Compl. 912; Jane Doe No. 6 Amd. Compl. 9|13; +Jane Doe No. 7 Amd. Compl. 913). +Count I of the pleading in each case alleges a claim of sexual assault and battery. Count I| +alleges a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, which Defendant does not seek to +dismiss in his Motions before the Court. Count IIl alleges a claim for coercion and enticement to +sexual activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. §2422. Defendant's Motions to Dismiss seek dismissal of +Counts I and IIl for failure to state a claim under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), or alternatively move for a +more definite statement under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(e) on these Counts. As discussed below, Plaintiffs' +claims are sufficiently plead, and Defendant's Motions should be denied in their entirety. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 45 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/31/2008 Page 4 of 11 +Ill. Argument +A. +THE STANDARD UNDER FED.R.CIV.P. 12(b)(6) +DOES NOT SUPPORT DISMISSAL +The gravamen of Defendant's Motion is that Plaintiffs' have not pled sufficient facts in +support of their claims in Counts I and III. According to Defendant, the pleadings in this case do not +satisfy "the standard of pleading" established in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955 +(2007). In making this argument, Defendant would extend Twombly well beyond its intended +scope. +Twombly was an antitrust conspiracy case, in which the Court abrogated the longstanding +pronouncement first made in Conly v. +355 U.S. 41 (1957), that a complaint should not be +dismissed under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) "unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove +no set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle him to relief." 127 S.Ct. at 1969. The Court +noted that it did "not require heightened fact pleading of specifics, but only enough facts to state a +claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Id. at 1974 (emphasis supplied). The antitrust +conspiracy claim before the Court was dismissed "[bjecause the plaintiffs here have not nudged their +claims across the line from conceivable to plausible. ..." Id. +Since Twombly, courts and commentators have grappled with the case's meaning and scope. +Courts within the Eleventh Circuit have held that Twombly did not alter the standard for dismissal +under Rule 12(b)(6) in the typical case. See, e.g., CBT Flint Partners, LLC v. Goodmail Systems, +Inc., 529 F.Supp. 2d 1376, 1379 (N.D. Ga. 2007); Coughlin v. Wal-Mart Stores East LP, 2008 WL +2704381 (M.D. Fla. 2008); Capaz v. Whitaker, Weinstraub & Grizzard, M.D.S, P.A., 2007 WL +1655473 (M.D. Fla. 2007). In CBT Flint Partners, the Court warned against reading the decision in +Trombly too broadly: +4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 45 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/31/2008 Page 5 of 11 +In my view, Trombly did not radically alter the elementary rules of +civil procedure that have governed litigation in the federal courts for +the past seventy years. The Court's forced retirement of Conley v. +"no set of facts" language does not change the fundamental +command of Rule 8 as to what a valid complaint must look like. +Indeed, the Court made clear that it was not imposing a heightened +pleading standard. As a general matter, I am loath to assume that the +Supreme Court circumvented the normal channels for amending the +Federal Rules. The Court's "new standard" was merely a specific +way to articulate a solution to what it perceived to be a specific +pleading problem, in a specific area of law that inflicted a high cost +upon antitrust defendants. It was not a broad based new license for +federal courts to ramp up pleading requirements. +529 F.Supp. 2d at 1379 (citations omitted). +The standard for pleading in the federal courts remains controlled by Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2), +which "only requires a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to +relief in order to give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it +rests." Capaz, 2007 WL 1655473 at *1. While the scope of Twombly may not be entirely clear, it +plainly cannot be read to turn pleadings into a discovery device, as Defendant advocates here in +seeking dismissal for failure to plead detailed factual allegations. +In Iqbal v. Hasty, 490 F.3d 143 (2d Cir. 2007), the Court reviewed and analyzed in depth +Twombly's "conflicting signals", and ultimately held that the Supreme Court did not impose "a +universal standard of heightened fact pleading," but rather a "flexible "plausibility standard'". Id. +at 157-158. This standard "obliges a pleader to amplify a claim with some factual allegations in +those contexts where such amplification is needed to render the claim plausible." Id. (emphasis +original). See also Sales v. All Florida Dialysis Services, Inc., 2007 WL 3231723 *2 n.2 (S.D. Fla. +2007) (noting that Twombly was inapplicable because the defendants did not raise the type of +pleading deficiencies confronted in Twombly - lack of specific time, place or person involved in the +alleged antitrust conspiracies). + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 45 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/31/2008 Page 6 of 11 +The instant allegations and claims cannot be compared to the speculative antitrust conspiracy +alleged in Twombly. See 127 S.Ct. at 1965. There should be no doubt that the Plaintiffs' claims are +plausible. Accordingly, Twombley is not authority for dismissal of the pleadings in these cases. +Il. +THE ELEMENTS OF COUNT I FOR SEXUAL ASSAULT +AND BATTERY ARE SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED +In each case, the claim in Count I is labeled "Sexual Assault and Battery." Assault and +battery are closely related common law intentional torts that are often alleged together. See Herzfeld +v. Herzfeld, 781 So.2d 1070 (Fla.2001) (noting that plaintiff alleged intentional tort of "assault and +battery" based on allegations of sexual abuse); +_v. Atlantic Federal Savings & Loan, 454 +So.2d 52 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984) (holding that a cause of action for assault and battery cannot be based +entirely on an omission). A common law assault occurs when a person "acts intending to cause a +harmful or offensive contact with the person of the other, or an imminent apprehension of such +contact, and the other is thereby put in such imminent apprehension". Restatement (Second) of +Torts, Assault §21 (1965). "A battery consists of the infliction of a harmful or offensive contact +upon another with the intent to cause such contact or the apprehension that such contact is +imminent". +See Paul v. Holbrook, 696 So.2d 1371 (Fla. Sth DCA 1997). See also Scelta v. +Delicatessen Support Services, Inc., 57 F.Supp. 2d 1327, 1358-59 (M.D. Fla. 1999) (allegation that +defendant attempted to put his hands down plaintiff's dress, and that there was an actual and +intentional touching, sufficient to state a claim for battery); Hogan v. Tavzel, 660 So.2d 350 (Fla. 5th +DCA 1995) (tortfeasor may be liable for battery for infecting another with a sexually transmitted +disease). +Defendant does not contend that the Plaintiffs failed to allege these elements of the common +law torts of assault and battery in Count I of their pleadings. Rather, Defendant argues that the +pleadings fail to allege the specific facts of "what was said or done to Plaintiff". Defendant thus +6 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 45 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/31/2008 Page 7 of 11 +misconstrues Twombly. All of the Plaintiffs allege essentially the same plan and scheme of +Defendant to lure underage girls to his Palm Beach mansion for "massages", leading to Defendant +engaging in sexual activities with the Plaintiffs. The specific facts concerning what was said and +done prior to and during the course of these "massages" is the proper subject of discovery, not the +pleadings. Plaintiffs satisfy the pleading requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2), and Twombly does +not require more specific fact pleading in these cases. +Ill. +PLAINTIFFS SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGE A CLAIM +IN COUNT III FOR VIOLATION OF 18 U.S.C. $2422 +The pleadings in Count III closely track the language of 18 U.S.C. §2422, and thus set forth +the elements of a violation of this Statute, as follows: +(i) Allegation in Complaint. Epstein used a facility or means of interstate commerce +to knowingly persuade, induce or entice Jane Doe, when she was under the age of 18 years, +to engage in prostitution or sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a +criminal offense; and +(ii) 18 U.S.C. §2422(b). Whoever, using the mail or any facility or means of +interstate or foreign commerce,.... knowingly persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any +individual who has not attained the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution or any sexual +activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, or attempts to do so... +18 U.S.C. §2455(b); Jane Doe 2 Amd. Compl. I 29; Jane Doe 3 Amd. Compl. I 29; Jane Doe 4 +Amd. Compl. I 30; Jane Doe 5 Amd. Compl. 9 29; Jane Doe 6 Amd. Compl. I 28; Jane Doe 7 Amd. +Compl. 9 29. Defendant does not appear to contend that Plaintiffs have failed to allege the elements +of a violation of 18 U.S.C. §2422 in Count III, but instead argues that further factual allegations are +necessary. As with Count I, such specific facts are the proper subject of discovery, and need not be +set forth in the pleadings under Rule 8(a)(2). There is no issue of plausibility concerning the +Plaintiffs' claims under 18 U.S.C. §2422. Indeed, the Plaintiffs in these cases were notified by the +U.S. Attorney's office that the Defendant has agreed that each Plaintiff has the same right to proceed +on her federal statutory claim "as she would have had if Mr. Epstein had been tried federally and +7 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 45 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/31/2008 Page 8 of 11 +convicted of an enumerated offense." (See July 10, 2008 letter from A. | +Villafaña, Assistant +U.S. Attorney, attached hereto as Exhibit "A"). +Defendant also attempts to make much of a typographical error that appears in Count III in +the "Wherefore" clause demanding a judgment for damages. There, the pleading inadvertently +makes reference to 28 U.S.C. §2255(a) instead of 18 U.S.C. §2255(a). As is clear from the +Defendants' Motions, Defendant is well aware that this is a typographical error and that the intent is +to reference 18 U.S.C. §2255. In any event, this reference concerns the Plaintiffs' damages, not the +elements of Plaintiff's claim set forth in the paragraphs above it.' Count III nonetheless satisfies +Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(3), as the "Wherefore" clause states that Plaintiff seeks actual and compensatory +damages, costs of suit, attorneys' fees and such other and further relief as this Court deems just and +proper. If deemed necessary, the typographical error in the "Wherefore" clause of Count III can be +corrected by interlineation. It does not warrant a dismissal and repleading. +IV. +THERE IS NO BASIS FOR DEFENDANT'S +MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT +A motion for more definite statement under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(e) may only be granted "if a +pleading is so vague or ambiguous that a party cannot reasonably be required to frame a responsive +pleading." +v. Two Brothers Farm, LLC, 2008 WL 4405409 *1 (S.D. Fla. 2008) (quoting +Betancourt v. Marine Cargo Mgmt., 930 F. Supp. 606, 608 (S.D. Fla. 1996)). Federal courts +disfavor motions for more definite statement. Home Mgmt. Solutions, Inc. v. Prescient, Inc.., 2007 +WL 2412834 (S.D. Fla. 2007). Most importantly, "Defendants may not use a motion for more +definite statement as a means of discovery regarding those claims." +, 2008 WL 4405409 +at *1. Yet that is exactly how Defendant Epstein uses his Motions for More Definite Statement. He +' As a result, this reference in error to 28 U.S.C. 2255(a) is not set forth in a paragraph to which +Defendant would be expected to frame an answer. +8 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 45 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/31/2008 Page 9 of 11 +seeks by these Motions specific facts which are the proper subject of discovery, not pleadings. +Accordingly, Defendants Motions for More Definite Statement should be denied. +Conclusion +For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss +be denied in their entirety. +Dated: October 31, 2008. +Respectfully submitted, +By: +s/ Jeffrey M. Herman +Jeffrey M. Herman (FL Bar No. 521647) +jherman@hermanlaw.com +Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245) +ssm@hermanlaw.com +Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980) +ahorowitz@hermanlaw.com +HERMAN & MERMELSTEIN, P.A. +Attorneys for Plaintiffs Jane Doe +18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 +Miami, Florida 33160 +Tel: 305-931-2200 +Fax: 305-931-0877 +9 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 45 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/31/2008 Page 10 of 11 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I hereby certify that on October 31, 2008, I electronically filed the foregoing document with +the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this +day to all parties on the attached Service List in the manner specified, either via transmission of +Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those +parties who are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing. +s/ Jeffrey M. Herman +10 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 45 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/31/2008 Page 11 of 11 +SERVICE LIST +DOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +igoldberger@agwpa.com +Michael R. Tein, Esq. +tein@lewistein.com +Robert D. Critton, Esq. +rcritton@bclclaw.com +Michael Pike, Esq. +mpike@belclaw.com +s/ Jeffrey M. Herman +11 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a06bd33968eb92b273985da2f1d90c9c3b9d12becc9342d58924b41a40e03fcc.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a06bd33968eb92b273985da2f1d90c9c3b9d12becc9342d58924b41a40e03fcc.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7f832eebc8a30679c37ea40b8a7de13041d2aac4 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a06bd33968eb92b273985da2f1d90c9c3b9d12becc9342d58924b41a40e03fcc.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -134, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "a06bd33968eb92b273985da2f1d90c9c3b9d12becc9342d58924b41a40e03fcc", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 12, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "50480f029e8bed2277bc042e8f3ede00e88d85ab243f5a691f830f850e6dd6bf", + "output_sha256": "2578e6a32ed2f66133fd82ee75de2d112fcce49222b9bd6132055e25cbc247d9", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a07ec5b98e5b314cbc3a99c46b6fc6a7c3c99e16f897d12fd7e06219c7d9b48d.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a07ec5b98e5b314cbc3a99c46b6fc6a7c3c99e16f897d12fd7e06219c7d9b48d.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..88ff95f2de17f2ce908819614e6bbfb9f2fd3581 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a07ec5b98e5b314cbc3a99c46b6fc6a7c3c99e16f897d12fd7e06219c7d9b48d.md @@ -0,0 +1,86 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 1 of 3 +JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S MOTION FOR FINDING OF VIOLATIONS OF THE +CRIME VICTIMS' RIGHTS ACT AND REQUEST FOR A HEARING ON APPROPRIATE +REMEDIES +CASE NO: +08-80736-Ciy-Marra/ + + + +07/09/2008 +14 FAI +Case 9:08-CV-80736-KAN + +024 +Document 48-4 +8-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Pade 2 of +U.S. Department of Justice +United States Altorney +Souihern District of Florida +500 South Australian Ave., Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +(561) 820-8717 +Facsimile: (561) 820-8777 +August 11, 2006 +DELIVERY BY HAND +Miss T +Re: Crime Victims' and Witnesses' Rights +Dear Miss M +Pursuant to the Justice for All Act of 2004, as a victim and/or wilness of a federal offense, +you have a number of rights. Those rights are: +(1) +(2) +The right to be reasonably protected from the accused +The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court proceeding +(3) +involving the crime or of any release or escape of the accused. +The night not to be excluded from any public court proceeding, unless the court +determines that your testimony may be materially altered if you are present for other +portions of a proceeding. +(4) +The right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court +involving release, plea, or sentencing +(5) +(б) +(7) +(8) +The reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the United States in the case. +The right to full and timely restitution as provided in law. +The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay. +The right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim's dignity and +privacy. +Members of the U.S. Department of Justice and other federal investigative agencies, +including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, must use their best efforts to make sure that these +rights are protected. If you have any concerns in this regard, please feel free to contact me at 56l +209-1047, or Special Agent Nesbitt Kuyrkendall from the Federal Bureau of Investigation at 561 +822-5946. You also can contact the Justice Department's Office for Victims of Crime in +Washington, D.C. at 202-307-5983. That Office has a website at www.ovc.gov. +You can seek the advice of an attomey with respect to the rights listed above and, if you +believe that the rights set forth above are being violated, you have the right lo petition the Court for +relief. + + +07/022009:88-0-80438-505984 Bocument 4854° Entered ON FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 325f 3 +MISS TEN +AUGUST 11, 2006 +PAGE 2 +In addition to these rights, you are entitled to counseling and medical services, and pr si +from intimidation and harassment. If the Court determines that you are a victim, you also i; +entitled to restitution from the perpetrator. A list of counseling and medical service prox ri +be provided to you, if you so desire. If you or your family is subjected to any intim..i.f. +harassment, please contact Special Agent Kuyrkendall or myself immediately. It is possf-iss +someone working on behalf of the targets of the investigation may contact you. Such cont +not violate the law. However, if you are contacted, you have the choice of speaking to th. ; +or refusing to do so. If you refuse and feel that you are being threatened or harassed, I: 1' +contact Special Agent Kuyrkendall or myself. +You also are entitled to notification of upcoming case events. At this time, your ca:. - +investigation. If anyone is charged in connection with the investigation, you will be nori. +Sincerely, +By: +R. Alexander Acosta +United States Attorney +buillaboro +* Villafaña +Assistant United States Attorney +CC: +Special Agent Nesbitt Kuyrkendall, F.B.I. diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a07ec5b98e5b314cbc3a99c46b6fc6a7c3c99e16f897d12fd7e06219c7d9b48d.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a07ec5b98e5b314cbc3a99c46b6fc6a7c3c99e16f897d12fd7e06219c7d9b48d.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4b76f63f678b8fe7010d1497727179570df1f09a --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a07ec5b98e5b314cbc3a99c46b6fc6a7c3c99e16f897d12fd7e06219c7d9b48d.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -55, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "a07ec5b98e5b314cbc3a99c46b6fc6a7c3c99e16f897d12fd7e06219c7d9b48d", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 5, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.digits-only\", \"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "8709ca24119d0c3902e990522207c6f1715ce4666c7acd8cdc2db73e4b85ae93", + "output_sha256": "54467696600c4059c90d8a5273f2e046bd519a9c0c685fb4093b8246064ca757", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a08edf076d2ef0f354733ba71e29b2e807507f27dc44cd38603b2940186dddac.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a08edf076d2ef0f354733ba71e29b2e807507f27dc44cd38603b2940186dddac.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..82f6588536b55faa7fed4fd47b5aad82b2cbdec0 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a08edf076d2ef0f354733ba71e29b2e807507f27dc44cd38603b2940186dddac.md @@ -0,0 +1,37 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 497 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/19/2010 Page 1 of 2 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRA1 +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 +DISCLOSURES +This matter came before the Court on a Joint Motion for Extension of Time to +[DE 496]. +Complete Discovery Deadlines and Shorten Expert Disclosures^ Having considered the +Joint Motion it is HEREBY ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the motion is GRANTED +as follows: +Jane Does 2-4 discovery cutoff is extended to April 30, 2010 and the parties will +exchange their expert reports on or before May 14, 2010. +2. +Jane Does 5-7 discovery cutoff is extended to May 28, 2010 and the parties will +exchanges their expert reports on or before June 7, 2010. +DONE and ORDERED this 19 day of March +, 2010. +Kenneth A. Marra +United States District Judge + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 497 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/19/2010 Page 2 of 2 +08-CIV-80119-Marra +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 +Page 2 +Courtesy Copies: +Counsel of Record diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a08edf076d2ef0f354733ba71e29b2e807507f27dc44cd38603b2940186dddac.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a08edf076d2ef0f354733ba71e29b2e807507f27dc44cd38603b2940186dddac.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0cdc88b0401d326a275aac2508ead0b40eded385 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a08edf076d2ef0f354733ba71e29b2e807507f27dc44cd38603b2940186dddac.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -24, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "a08edf076d2ef0f354733ba71e29b2e807507f27dc44cd38603b2940186dddac", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "af2b77ba675046a4c20c64b82682c44c9b25aae20a666c8491adf94f02a5acf8", + "output_sha256": "353f1f7ec72b50d59fd732fabf322b26d078e69c69a0fcfb9e88b47fbc3b4222", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a0bdbab97dc1fa0ccf30fc0fd0fb631f9be116c68c5a3c5d5563abf09551433f.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a0bdbab97dc1fa0ccf30fc0fd0fb631f9be116c68c5a3c5d5563abf09551433f.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..105615300a9f98900db49c1e1c8ff1c4d9e3110c --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a0bdbab97dc1fa0ccf30fc0fd0fb631f9be116c68c5a3c5d5563abf09551433f.md @@ -0,0 +1,321 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/18/2008 Page 1 of 11 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-80804-CIV-MARRA/ +JANE DOE, a/k/a, +JANE DOE NO. 1, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +, and +Defendants. +MOTION TO REMAND +Plaintiff Jane Doe moves the Court to remand this action to state court for lack of +subject matter jurisdiction and states as follows: +1. Although Plaintiff Jane Doe, a Florida citizen, sues +also a Florida +citizen, in this action, Defendants removed the case to federal court on July 21, +2008, citing diversity of citizenship as the basis for federal subject matter +jurisdiction. +2. Defendants claim that +who has described herself as Heidi Fleiss +(the Hollywood madam),' has "nothing to do with the plaintiff's case against Mr. +'See New York Post, Oct. 1, 2007 (reporting "Some of the girls, legal documents indicate, +were recruited by +,, now 21, who described herself as 'like Heidi Fleiss,' the +notorious Hollywood madam."); Palm Beach Post, Aug. 14, 2006 (reporting that +Defendant " +told detectives, 'I'm like a Heidi Fleiss."). + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/18/2008 Page 2 of 11 +Epstein," (Notice of Removal, DE 1, p. 3) and that Plaintiff fraudulently joined +her in this action to prevent complete diversity.? +3. As demonstrated in Plaintiff's amended complaint, however, Defendant +was a vital part of the scheme to lure underage girls, including Plaintiff, to +Epstein's home in order to subject them to sexual abuse and induce them to +engage in lewd behavior. Defendant +was a key player in this scheme +because she was paid by Epstein to recruit the underage girls and take them to +Epstein's Palm Beach mansion. (Amended Complaint 99l 11-15, DE 1, pp. 302- +04). Without Defendant +, these girls, including Plaintiff, would not have +been victimized. +4. Because the allegations in Plaintiff's amended complaint support the causes of +action against Defendant +for civil conspiracy, intentional infliction of +emotional distress, and civil RICO, +is a proper defendant in this action. +5. As +is admittedly a citizen of Florida, (Affidavit of +DE 1, +pp. 230-31) as is Plaintiff Jane Doe," (Amended Complaint 9 1, DE 1, pp. 301; +Deposition of Jane Doe, DE 1, pp. 31-32, 5:14-18, 6:6-10) federal diversity +jurisdiction does not exist in this case. See 28 U.S.C. §1332(a)(1) (providing that +" Defendants also argue that Plaintiff named +as a defendant to prevent entry of a +stay in this matter pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3509(k). The Court has since denied +Defendants' motion, holding a stay of this proceeding is not warranted under either the +statute or the Court's discretion. (Order Denying Motion to Stay, DE 7). +" Although Jane Does testified in deposition that she is a citizen of Florida, Defendants +question whether she might actually be a citizen of Georgia because her mother lives in +Georgia. (Notice of Removal, DE 1, pp. 7-8, n.6). Defendants fail to point out, however, +that there is a question of whether Defendant Epstein is actually a citizen of Florida +because he is now incarcerated in a Florida jail under an eighteen month sentence, to be +followed by twelve months of community control, during which Epstein agreed he will +be residing in Palm Beach, Florida. (Epstein Sentence, attached). +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/18/2008 Page 3 of 11 +district courts have original jurisdiction over cases in which the matter in +controversy exceeds $75,000 and is between "citizens of different States"). +6. Defendants' removal of this action was, therefore, improper. Because the Court +lacks diversity jurisdiction, or any other form of subject matter jurisdiction, over +this matter, the Court must remand this action to Florida state court. +WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests the Court remand this action to state court and +requests Defendants be ordered under 28 U.S.C. §1447(c) to pay costs and attorney fees +incurred as a result of the removal. +MEMORANDUM OF LEGAL AUTHORITY +"An action in state court may be removed to federal court when the federal courts +have diversity or federal question jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). When a +defendant removes a case to federal court on diversity grounds, a court must remand the +matter back to state court if any of the properly joined parties in interest are citizens of +the state in which the suit was filed. See Lincoln Prop. Co. v. Roche, 546 U.S. 81, 126 +S.Ct. 606, 613, 163 L.Ed.2d 415 (2005) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)). Such a remand is +the necessary corollary of a federal district court's diversity jurisdiction, which requires +complete diversity of citizenship." +v. Washington Nat. Ins. Co., 454 F.3d +1278, 1281 (11th Cir. 2006). +Federal Courts are obligated to construe removal statutes very strictly, and "all +doubts about jurisdiction should be resolved in favor of remand to state court." Univ. of +South Alabama v. American Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 411 (11th Cir. 1999) (citing +v. Windsor Ins. Co., 31 F.3d 1092, 1095 (11th Cir. 1994), and Coker v. Amoco Oil +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/18/2008 Page 4 of 11 +Co., 709 F.2d 1433 (11th Cir. 1983)). "A presumption in favor of remand is necessary +because if a federal court reaches the merits of a pending motion in a removed case where +subject matter jurisdiction may be lacking it deprives a state court of its right under the +Constitution to resolve controversies in its own courts." American Tobacco Co., 168 +F.3d at 411. +Defendants have removed this action even though Plaintiff named +a citizen of Florida, as a defendant because they claim Plaintiff's joinder of Defendant +was done fraudulently in order to avoid federal jurisdiction. "In a removal case +alleging fraudulent joinder, the removing party has the burden of proving that either: (1) +there is no possibility the plaintiff can establish a cause of action against the resident +defendant; or (2) the plaintiff has fraudulently pled jurisdictional facts to bring the +resident defendant into state court." Crowe v. Coleman, 113 F.3d 1536, 1538 (11th Cir. +1989) (citing Cabalceta v. Standard Fruit Co., 883 F.2d 1553, 1561 (11th Cir. 1989)). +"The burden of the removing party is a 'heavy one."" Id. (quoting B., Inc. v. +Brewing Co., 663 F.2d 545, 549 (Sth Cir. Unit A 1981)). +"To determine whether the case should be remanded, the district court must +evaluate the factual allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and must +resolve any uncertainties about state substantive law in favor of the plaintifff." Id. (citing +B., Inc., 663 F.2d at 549). The Court may not "weigh the merits of a plaintiff's claim +beyond determining whether it is an arguable one under state law." Id. +. "If there is even +a possibility that a state court would find that the complaint states a cause of action +against any one of the resident defendants, the federal court must find that joinder was +proper and remand the case to state court." Id. (quoting Coker v. Amoco Oil Co., 709 +4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/18/2008 Page 5 of 11 +F.2d 1433, 1440-41 (11th Cir. 1983)). This protects a plaintiff's right to select the forum +of his lawsuit and the manner in which to prosecute the suit, and avoids exposing the +plaintiff to the possibility of prosecuting the suit to conclusion only to learn the federal +court lacked jurisdiction on removal. Id. (citing +v. The New York Times Co., 308 +F.2d 474, 478 (5th Cir. 1962); Cowart Iron Works, Inc. v. +Constr. Co., Inc., 507 +F.Supp. 740, 744 (S.D. Ga. 1981)). +Here, Defendants argue that removal is proper because Plaintiff cannot state a +cause of action against Defendant +under Florida law. Viewing the allegations of +the amended complaint in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, it is clear that there is at +least a possibility that Plaintiff can recover against Defendant +under Florida law +for each of the counts in the amended complaint-civil conspiracy, intentional infliction +of emotional distress, and civil RICO. Joinder of Defendant +in this action was +therefore proper, which requires remand of this action to Florida state court. +a. +Plaintiff has a cognizable cause of action for civil conspiracy against +Defendant +"The elements of a civil conspiracy are: (a) a conspiracy between two or more +parties, (b) to do an unlawful act or to do a lawful act by unlawful means, (c) the doing of +some overt act in pursuance of the conspiracy, and (d) damage to plaintiff as a result of +the acts performed pursuant to the conspiracy." Walters v. Blankenship, 931 So. 2d 137, +140 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (citing Florida Fern Growers Ass'n, Inc. v. Concerned Citizens +of Putnam County, 616 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)). As Defendants point out, there +muse be an +"actionable underlying tort or wrong" for an actionable conspiracy claim. +v. Yurko, 446 So. 2d 1162, 1165 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). +5 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/18/2008 Page 6 of 11 +Plaintiff has grounded her conspiracy claim on the tort of sexual assault alleged in +Count I of her amended complaint. In this count, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Epstein +tortiously assaulted her and states that the assault was committed in violation of Chapter +800 of the Florida Statutes. (Amended Complaint 49l 17-18, DE 1, pp. 304-05). Under +Florida law, sexual assault is an intentional tort. See Doe v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., 394 +F.3d 891, 917 (11th Cir. 2004) ("Florida law equates sexual battery with an intentional +tort."). This is true regardless of whether Defendant Epstein's violation of Chapter 800 +of the Florida Statutes also creates a private right of action, which is a matter of first +impression in Florida. Thus, Plaintiff has a cognizable cause of action for civil +conspiracy against Defendant +Plaintiff has a cognizable cause of action for intentional infliction of +emotional distress against Defendant +"The elements of the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress are: (1) +The wrongdoer's conduct was intentional or reckless, that is, he intended his behavior +when he knew or should have known that emotional distress would likely result; (2) the +conduct was outrageous, that is, as to go beyond all bounds of decency, and to be +regarded as odious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community; (3) the conduct +caused emotion[al] distress; and (4) the emotional distress was severe." Gallogly v. +Rodriguez, 970 So. 2d 470, 471 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (citing LeGrande v. Emmanuel, 889 +So. 2d 991, 994-95 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)). +Here, Plaintiff has alleged that Defendant +used false pretenses to lure her +(a 14-year old girl) to the mansion of Defendant Epstein and physically took her to +Epstein so that he could subject her to sexual abuse and lewd behavior. Defendant + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/18/2008 Page 7 of 11 +recruited Plaintiff, as she had done numerous others, under the belief that +Plaintiff was economically disadvantaged and would be unlikely to contact authorities +after being sexually assaulted and abused by Defendant Epstein. Defendant +was +paid by Defendant Epstein only after the sexual assault and abuse were completed. And, +Defendant +knew that Plaintiff would be severely emotionally traumatized after +the abuse. (Amended Complaint 9l 9, 11, 15, 24-28, DE 1, pp. 302-03, 304, 306). These +allegations are enough to demonstrate Plaintiff has a cognizable cause of action for +intentional infliction of emotional distress against Defendant +because they +amount to conduct that would be viewed as outrageous by any reasonable person. +Defendants argue that Plaintiff is barred from recovering for intentional infliction +of emotional distress under Florida law because she went to Defendant Epstein's home +with the intent to give him a massage for monetary compensation when it is a crime (a +misdemeanor), under section 480.047, Florida Statutes, to practice massage without a +license. +They claim Plaintiff cannot "recover damages flowing from her own illegal +conduct." (Notice of Removal, DE 1, p. 16). +First, Plaintiff's damages do not flow from her conduct in giving Defendant +Epstein a massage without a license. Defendants Epstein, +, and +engaged in +a scheme to lure underage girls to Epstein's mansion in order for Epstein to sexually +abuse them. Plaintiff's damages resulting from Defendants making her a victim to their +intentional, outrageous, and criminal conduct in no way flow from her decision as a 14- +year old girl to make some extra money by giving a massage. +Furthermore, it is not a universal rule in Florida that any Plaintiff engaged in any +criminal action, no matter how trivial, is barred from recovering damages suffered in +7 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/18/2008 Page 8 of 11 +connection with that conduct. "The defense of in pari delicto is not woodenly applied in +every case where illegality appears somewhere in the transaction; since the principle is +founded on public policy, it may give way to a supervening public policy." Kulla v. E.F. +Hutton & Co., Inc., 426 So. 2d 1055, 1057 n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). "''The fundamental +purpose of the rule must always be kept in mind, and the realities of the situation must be +considered. Where, by applying the rule, the public cannot be protected because the +transaction has been completed, where no serious moral turpitude is involved, where the +defendant is the one guilty of the greatest moral fault, and where to apply the rule will be +to permit the defendant to be unjustly enriched at the expense of the plaintiff, the rule +should not be applied."" Id. (quoting Goldberg v. Sanglier, 96 Wash.2d 874, 639 P.2d +1347, 1353-54 (1982)). The fact that Florida law gives the trial court the discretion to +apply the doctrine of in pari delicto, considering that all ambiguities must be resolved in +favor of Plaintiff, does not take away from the fact that Plaintiff has a cognizable cause of +action for intentional infliction of emotional distress against Defendant +Plaintiff has a cognizable cause of action for civil RICO against Defendant +Finally, Defendants argue that Plaintiff does not have a cognizable cause of action +for civil RICO under section 772.104, Florida Statutes, because she was not directly +injured by the Defendants' scheme. In Count IV of the amended complaint, Plaintiff +alleges that Defendants engaged in a pattern of criminal activity in which Defendant +found and delivered underage girls to Defendant Epstein in order for Epstein to +"solicit, induce, coerce, entice, compel or force such girls to engage in acts of prostitution +and/or lewdness." (Amended Complaint 9l 32, DE 1, p. 307). She also alleges that she +8 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/18/2008 Page 9 of 11 +was a victim of Defendants' scheme because she was one of the underage girls found and +delivered to Defendant Epstein by Defendant +and that she endured Epstein's +actions as he tried to get her to engage in, and forced upon her, acts of prostitution and +lewdness. (Amended Complaint 9| 33, DE 1, pp. 307-308). Plaintiff, who was a victim of +Defendants" scheme, was directly harmed by the scheme and it is damages for this harm +that she seeks in Count IV of the amended complaint. Cf. Palmas Y Bambu, S.A. v. E.I. +Dupont De Nemours & Co., Inc., 881 So. 2d 565, 570 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (holding +plaintiff has standing to sue for civil RICO when her injuries flow directly from +commission of the predicate acts, which means "when the alleged predicate act is mail or +wire fraud, the plaintiff must have been a target of the scheme to defraud and must have +relied to his detriment on misrepresentations made in furtherance of that scheme"). +Because Plaintiff was a target of Defendants' scheme and was harmed by their actions in +carrying out the scheme, Plaintiff has a cognizable cause of action for civil RICO against +Defendant +CONCLUSION +Plaintiff has cognizable causes of against Defendant +, a Florida citizen, for +civil conspiracy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and civil RICO. Because +Plaintiff has a possibility of recovering against Defendant +under her amended +complaint, Defendants have failed to meet their burden of demonstrating that +was +fraudulently joined in this action. As the parties lack complete diversity of citizenship, +the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this matter and should remand this case to +Florida state court. +9 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/18/2008 Page 10 of 11 +CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL RULE 7.1.A.3 +On August 18, counsel for Plaintiff conferred with counsel for the Defendants in a +good faith effort to resolve the issues raised in this motion, but was unable to do so. +S/ Spencer T. Kuvin +Spencer T. Kuvin (Florida Bar Number 089737) +Certificate of Services +I hereby certify that on August 18, 2008, I electronically filed the foregoing +Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF. +S/ Spencer T. Kuvin +Spencer T. Kuvin (Florida Bar Number 089737) +Attorney E-Mail Address: +RICCI-LEOPOLD, P.A. +2925 PGA Blvd. +Suite 200 +Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 +Telephone: (561) 684-6500 +Facsimile: (561) 697-2383 +Counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe +10 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/18/2008 Page 11 of 11 +SERVICE LIST +Doe v. Epstein, et. al. +CASE NO: 08-80804-Civ-MARRAJ +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +Guy Alan +Email: +Esq. +Tein +3059 Grand Avenue, Suite 340 +Coconut Grove, FL 33133 +Phone: (305) 442-1101 +Fax: (305) 442-6744 +Counsel for Jeffrey Epstein +Served via CM/ECF +Michael R. Tein, Esq. +Email: tein@lewistein.com +Tein +3059 Grand Avenue, Suite 340 +Coconut Grove, FL 33133 +Phone: (305) 442-1101 +Fax: (305) 442-6744 +Counsel for Jeffrey Epstein +Served via CM/ECF +11 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a0bdbab97dc1fa0ccf30fc0fd0fb631f9be116c68c5a3c5d5563abf09551433f.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a0bdbab97dc1fa0ccf30fc0fd0fb631f9be116c68c5a3c5d5563abf09551433f.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6950aada64ab36cf18710d31092e945ef7112e55 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a0bdbab97dc1fa0ccf30fc0fd0fb631f9be116c68c5a3c5d5563abf09551433f.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -132, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "a0bdbab97dc1fa0ccf30fc0fd0fb631f9be116c68c5a3c5d5563abf09551433f", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 11, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "f7548b70478fa797594599cae50a898d2bb89dfe4901a71257abc855abc13831", + "output_sha256": "fa3f3b700996a7bd42c24ccff1108bb665dbfb1d765e7d76d733c748e1b982ad", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a0c94cef91bcc0daab045b407b440bbc6eedf98b125c25107db0a97f182b1035.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a0c94cef91bcc0daab045b407b440bbc6eedf98b125c25107db0a97f182b1035.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d839edcb400db38fd9cc61cf3ce71448fab0107a --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a0c94cef91bcc0daab045b407b440bbc6eedf98b125c25107db0a97f182b1035.md @@ -0,0 +1,58 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 163 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/18/2012 Page 1 of 2 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/ +JANE DOE 1 and JANE DOE 2, +Plaintiffs, +V. +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, +Defendant. +NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY OF THE +UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT +In two decisions last term, the Supreme Court constitutionalized the right to competent +counsel in plea negotiations by ruling that the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of +counsel "extends to the plea bargaining process" and that defendants are entitled to "the effective +assistance of competent counsel" during plea negotiations. Lafler v. +132 S. Ct. 1376, 1384 +(2012); Missouri v. Frye, 132 S. Ct. 1399, 1407-09 (2012). Under Lafler and Frye, counsel have +an ongoing obligation to provide effective representation in plea bargaining and to engage in +communications with the client and the prosecutor to discharge that obligation. The limited +intervenor lawyers and limited intervenor Jeffrey Epstein submit Lafler and Frye in support of their +motions for protective orders and their objections to disclosure and use of plea negotiations by Jane +Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2. +The limited intervenors also submit Lafler and Frye in direct support of their arguments that +the Court should recognize a common-law privilege in this case under Rule 501 in part because plea +negotiations are an integral part of our criminal justice system. This was expressly recognized by the + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 163 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/18/2012 Page 2 of 2 +Supreme Court in Lafler and Frye when it found that "plea bargains are ... central to the +administration of the criminal justice system" because ours is "a system of pleas, not a system of +trials": +Ninety-four percent of state convictions are the result of guilty pleas. The reality is +that plea bargains have become so central to the administration of the criminal justice +system that defense counsel have responsibilities in the plea bargain process, +responsibilities that must be met to render the adequate assistance of counsel that the +Sixth Amendment requires in the criminal process at critical stages. Because ours *is +for the most part a system of pleas, not a system of trials," it is insufficient simply to +point to the guarantee of a fair trial as a backstop that inoculates any errors in the +pretrial process. +Lafler, 132 S. Ct. at 1388; Frye, 132 S. Ct. at 1407. +We certify that on April 18, 2012, the foregoing document was filed electronically with the +Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system. +Respectfully submitted, +BLACK, SREBNICK, KORNSPAN +& STUMPF, P.A. +201 South Biscayne Boulevard +Suite 1300 +Miami, Florida 33131 +Office: (305) 371-6421 +Fax: (305) 358-2006 +By _ +/S/ +ROY BLACK, ESQ. +Florida Bar No. 126088 +JACKIE PERCZEK, ESQ. +Florida Bar No. 0042201 +On Behalf of Jeffrey Epstein +2 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a0c94cef91bcc0daab045b407b440bbc6eedf98b125c25107db0a97f182b1035.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a0c94cef91bcc0daab045b407b440bbc6eedf98b125c25107db0a97f182b1035.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..73bfcf784339ee6be8908a547c0c3ca800d457f2 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a0c94cef91bcc0daab045b407b440bbc6eedf98b125c25107db0a97f182b1035.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -24, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "a0c94cef91bcc0daab045b407b440bbc6eedf98b125c25107db0a97f182b1035", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "202aa39d62242a58be74e9a061e175a1f6f043ce79cf0dcf95f4eda0d0831cc7", + "output_sha256": "dc8bc89e6f63386c25670e96e19a60b4b92d925a2de32f8ad91df848bdc977b3", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a0d8db685db2b103366208dc1972fbb098f79a470d3bacb24fedcfb6892f703a.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a0d8db685db2b103366208dc1972fbb098f79a470d3bacb24fedcfb6892f703a.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6557dd8f1dce018d4eb8a68f15786d27f4e38e2b --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a0d8db685db2b103366208dc1972fbb098f79a470d3bacb24fedcfb6892f703a.md @@ -0,0 +1,95 @@ +Filing # 99909771 E-Filed 12/06/2019 11:07:57 AM +IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT +IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC, +Publisher of the PALM BEACH POST, +Plaintiff, +v. +DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of +'alm Beach County, Florida; SHARON F +OCK, as Clerk and Comptroller of Paln +Beach County, Florida. +Defendants. +CASE NO.: 19-CA-014681 +COPY +MOTION TO DISMISS +Defendant, DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of Palm Beach County, Florida, by and +through the undersigned counsel, hereby files this Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint for failure to +state a cause of action, and in support thereof states: +MOITON TO DISMISS STANDARD +When confronted with a motion to dismiss, the Court must determine whether the Complaint as +phrased within its four corners sufficiently states a cause of action, whereby relief can be granted. Fox v. +Professional Wrecker Operations, 801 So. 2d 175, 178 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). A motion to dismiss tests +whether the plaintiff has stated a cause of action. The test for a motion to dismiss under Florida Rule of +Civil Procedure 1.140(b) is whether the pleader could prove any set of facts as alleged in the Complaint to +support his or her claim. See, Connolly v. Sebeco, Inc., 89 So. 2d 482, 484 (Fla. 1956); Wasua Ins. Co. v. +Haynes, 683 So, 2d 1123 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). +In order to meet this test, "a complaint must allege sufficient ultimate facts to show that a pleader +is entitled to relief." W.R. Townsend Contr., Inc. v. Jensen Civ. Constr., Inc., 728 So. 2d 297, 300 (Fla. +1st DCA 1999) (quoting +v. Cosgrove, 464 So. 2d 664, 665 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Fla. R. Civ. P. +1.110(b)). +• The court need not accept internally inconsistent factual claims, conclusory allegations, +unwarranted deductions, or mere legal conclusions made by a party. Id. (citing Response Oncology, Inc. +FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, SHARON R. BOCK, CLERK, 12/06/2019 11:07:57 AM + + +y. Metrahealth Insurance Co., 978 F. Supp. 1052, 1058 (S.D. Fla. 1997)); Oxford Asset Mgmt. v. Jaharis, +297 F.3d 1182, 1188 (11th Cir. 2002) (*[On a motion to dismiss,] the plaintiff's factual allegations are +accepted as true.... However, legal conclusions masquerading as facts will not prevent dismissal."). To +avoid dismissal, a pleading "must allege a cause of action recognized under law" against the defending +party. Kislak v. Kreedian, 95 So. 2d 510, 514 (Fla. 1957). +COUNT! +(Florida Statutes Section 905.27) +Plaintiff attempts to assert a cause of action, in the interest of "furthering justice" +", under Florida +Statute § 905.27; however, a review of the statute in question reveals that no cause of action is provided +for therein and consequently Plaintiff's Complaint must be dismissed as a matter of law. Despite +Plaintiff's extensive recitation of the factual background regarding Jeffery Epstein and the testimony and +evidence presented to the 2006 grand jury in Palm Beach County, Florida, Fla. Stat. § 905.27, merely +explains the exceptions to the disclosure of grand jury testimony and does not set forth in any way a cause +of action upon which to initiate a valid law suit. +Moreover, a review of the statute at issue clearly indicates that even if § 905.27, Fla. Stat. +provided a basis for a cause of action, Plaintiff is barred from access to the records it seeks. To wit, in +pertinent part, Fla. Stat. § 905.27(2) states: +When such disclosure is ordered by a court pursuant to subsection (1) for use in a civil +case, it may be disclosed to all parties to the case and to their attorneys and by the latter +to their legal associates and employees. However, the grand jury testimony afforded such +persons by the court can only be used in the defense or prosecution of the civil or +criminal case and for no other purpose whatsoever. +Here, despite the clear statutory guidelines for disclosure of grand jury materials in a civil case, +Plaintiff is improperly seeking the requested 2006 grand jury materials for the purposes of public +disclosure pursuant to the court's inherent authority and supervisory powers over the grand jury. [See, +Complaint 11 8, 62]. Again, even if Plaintiff properly asserted a cause of action under Fla. Stat. 905.27, +the statute unambiguously states that grand jury testimony "can only be used in the defense or prosecution +of the civil or criminal case and for no other purpose whatsoever", which is distinctly different from + + +Plaintiff's intended purpose for public disclosure of the grand jury evidence. Fla. Stat. § 905.27(2). +Finally, it is significant to note that despite Plaintiff's allegations to the contrary, Defendant Aronberg is +not in custody or control of the records sought and is therefore not a proper party to this action. +WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing argument and supporting authority, Defendant, DAVE +ARONBERG, as State Attorney of Palm Beach County, Florida, respectfully requests that this Honorable +Court grant the instant Motion and dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint with prejudice, and grant Defendant +Aronberg all other and further relief deemed just and proper, including attorney's fees and costs for +defending this frivolous action. +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 6th day of December, 2019, a copy of the foregoing has been +electronically filed with the Florida E-File Portal for e-service on all parties of record herein. +NOT A +JACOBS SCHOLZ & WYLER, LLC +/s/ Douglas A. Wyler +Arthur I. +Esq. +Fla. Bar No.: 10249 +Richard J. Scholz, Esq. +Fla. Bar No.: 0021261 +Douglas A. Wyler, Esq. +Fla. Bar No.: 119979 +961687 Gateway Blvd., Suite 201-1 +Fernandina Beach, Florida 32034 +(904) 261-3693 +(904) 261-7879 Fax +Primary: jacobsscholzlaw@comcast.net +General Counsel for the Florida Prosecuting +Attorney's Association diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a0d8db685db2b103366208dc1972fbb098f79a470d3bacb24fedcfb6892f703a.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a0d8db685db2b103366208dc1972fbb098f79a470d3bacb24fedcfb6892f703a.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8e31617ae64b132a326925a2a1a6b425752abc22 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a0d8db685db2b103366208dc1972fbb098f79a470d3bacb24fedcfb6892f703a.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -36, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "a0d8db685db2b103366208dc1972fbb098f79a470d3bacb24fedcfb6892f703a", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 3, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "f92cedbcf74ece079874f7ecc7121356ddb248e843697405c4e34c37fe6bb3b0", + "output_sha256": "0c4f5f30331d265244b5d6d6d46cc25a0c884c73314e6c6bd0dc284b6e76cc02", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a113a8d0f4026ff6bd764855e0d6dc65ea1ec1ae8eef258ae16b62140f5b62a0.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a113a8d0f4026ff6bd764855e0d6dc65ea1ec1ae8eef258ae16b62140f5b62a0.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..008c211f1fdf7d8404c51737a4db2ee69fe7d140 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a113a8d0f4026ff6bd764855e0d6dc65ea1ec1ae8eef258ae16b62140f5b62a0.md @@ -0,0 +1,34 @@ +Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2009 Page 1 of 1 +AO 440 (Rev. 10/2002) Summons in a Civil Case +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +Southern District of Florida +Case Number: +JANE DOE 102 +Plaintiff +V. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Defendant +09-80656 +CIV-RYSKAMP +MAGISTRATE JUDGE +VITUNAC +SUMMONS IN A CIVIL CASE +nd/or by serving his counsel +ack A. Goldberger, +0 250 Stratian Je, suit, Lagler Drive, +YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED and required to serve upon PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY (name and address) +Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq./Katherine w. Ezell, Esq. +Podhurst Orseck, P.A. +25 W. Flagler St., Suite 800 +Miami, FL 33130 +an answer to the complaint which is herewith served upon you, within +20 +_ days after service of +you for bie rote amade in the compan You mas fo fle you done a te te is our ena t +reasonable period of time after service. +MAY - 1 2009 +Steven M. Larimore +CLERK OF COURT +fartumn Jandonal +(BY) DEPUTY CLERK +DATE diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a113a8d0f4026ff6bd764855e0d6dc65ea1ec1ae8eef258ae16b62140f5b62a0.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a113a8d0f4026ff6bd764855e0d6dc65ea1ec1ae8eef258ae16b62140f5b62a0.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b78def33586f2651ab4c3f8567d93d5bd0bd9c2c --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a113a8d0f4026ff6bd764855e0d6dc65ea1ec1ae8eef258ae16b62140f5b62a0.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "a113a8d0f4026ff6bd764855e0d6dc65ea1ec1ae8eef258ae16b62140f5b62a0", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "a9dbdd104b550deda2dfb01105c54e9747b041996ad8b89f72f222577d27b382", + "output_sha256": "a6cd7f908de18d995b59fc124e25aafc62f8a8472bb5379f544d35e11f495ae2", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a12ec304ff00daefebd0db000705d5d226ca005e0de69fd124fab7a74939b689.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a12ec304ff00daefebd0db000705d5d226ca005e0de69fd124fab7a74939b689.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e845f5eb5d1e83535fcbcb75582992f465585774 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a12ec304ff00daefebd0db000705d5d226ca005e0de69fd124fab7a74939b689.md @@ -0,0 +1,52 @@ +Filing # 148016970 E-Filed 04/20/2022 10:31:53 AM +IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT +IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC, +Publisher of the PALM BEACH POST, +Plaintiff, +V. +DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of +Palm Beach County, Florida; SHARON R +BOCK, as Clerk and Comptroller of Palm +Beach County, Florida. +Defendants. +COPY +CASE NO.: 19-CA-014681 +/ +NOTICE OF UNAVAILABILITY +DOUGLAS A. WYLER, ESQ., as Counsel for Defendant, DAVE ARONBERG, as State +Attorney of Palm Beach County, Florida, hereby files his Notice of Unavailability and states as +follows: +Defendant, DAVE ARONBERG, hereby gives notice to all parties that he is +scheduled to be out of town from May 2, 2022 through May 6, 2022. +DOUGLAS A. WYLER, ESQ. hereby gives notice to all parties that he is +unavailable May 9, 2022, due to a previously scheduled hearing before the Nassau County Board +of County Commissioners. +3. +DOUGLAS A. WYLER, ESQ. hereby gives notice to all parties that he is +scheduled to be out of town from May 11, 2022 through May 13, 2022. +4. A +DOUGLAS A. WYLER, ESQ. hereby requests that no hearings, depositions, or +other matters be scheduled on the above dates. +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I hereby certify that on this 20th day of April, 2022 a copy of the foregoing was +electronically filed with the Florida E-File Portal for e-service on the parties herein. +|, SCHOLZ & WYLER, LLC +Is/ Douglas A. Wyler +*** FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL +ABRUZZO, CLERK. 04/20/2022 10:31:53 AM *** + + +Arthur I.I +1, Esq +Fla. Bar No.: 108249 +Richard J. Scholz, Esq. +Fla. Bar No.: 0021261 +Douglas A. Wyler, Esq. +Fla. Bar No.: 119979 +961687 Gateway Blvd., Suite 201-1 +Fernandina Beach, FL 32034 +(904) 261-3693 +(904) 261-7879 Fax +Primary: jacobsscolzlaw@comcast.net +NOT A CERTIFIED COP diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a12ec304ff00daefebd0db000705d5d226ca005e0de69fd124fab7a74939b689.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a12ec304ff00daefebd0db000705d5d226ca005e0de69fd124fab7a74939b689.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0f12f5813851a2a149cf85be6f8e23c69fdd65d4 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a12ec304ff00daefebd0db000705d5d226ca005e0de69fd124fab7a74939b689.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -24, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "a12ec304ff00daefebd0db000705d5d226ca005e0de69fd124fab7a74939b689", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "870deb477e3f50ca7920f60a63b01ccf8403c30f96669bf42661f7a8c139cf0e", + "output_sha256": "41e36265ccf81b1bb17c8539306a9d2f14a5728453bac6de5d1a9045afc602a6", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a133c43e28962a850c78e3afc37db58f95178d1c7d00291821bd27763725f69a.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a133c43e28962a850c78e3afc37db58f95178d1c7d00291821bd27763725f69a.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d0031f5e14e5734dc289ba8e39eb7d5e0755bd87 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a133c43e28962a850c78e3afc37db58f95178d1c7d00291821bd27763725f69a.md @@ -0,0 +1,63 @@ +Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 15 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/07/2009 Page 1 of 2 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 09-80591-MARRA/ +JANE DOE No. 101, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Plaintiff, +Defendant, +NOTICE OF APPEARANCE +The undersigned attorneys hereby file an appearance as counsel on +behalf of the Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, in the ab +styled matter. +elle +ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. +Florida Bar No. 224162 +rcrit@bclclaw.com +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. +Florida Bar #617296 +mpike@bclclaw.com +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 +manner specied by CECF ont his 72 day of May, the following Service List in the +Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq. +Katherine W. Ezell, Esq. +Podhurst Orseck, P.A. +25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800 +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South +Suite 1400 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM +Document 15 +Entered on FLSD Docket 05/07/2009 Page 2 of 2 +Doe 101 v. Epstein +Page 2 +Miami, FL 33130 +305 358-2800 +Fax: 305 358-2382 +rjosefsberg@podhurst.com +kezell@podhurst.com +Counsel for Plaintiff +West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 +561-659-8300 +Fax: 561-835-8691 +jagesq@bellsouth.net +Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein +Respectfully submitted, +By: +ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. +Florida Bar No. 224162 +crit@bclclaw.com +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. +Florida Bar #617296 +mpike@bclclaw.com +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & 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) diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a133c43e28962a850c78e3afc37db58f95178d1c7d00291821bd27763725f69a.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a133c43e28962a850c78e3afc37db58f95178d1c7d00291821bd27763725f69a.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..027294f10e88909faa0159148af213e8a5aece82 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a133c43e28962a850c78e3afc37db58f95178d1c7d00291821bd27763725f69a.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -24, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "a133c43e28962a850c78e3afc37db58f95178d1c7d00291821bd27763725f69a", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "b8ebab7ddf10fdcba19d0800b6a14ea11266c8a3f1876c607f2825c36615f83d", + "output_sha256": "47a0428655fb47f2a4442872aabb6e281c8e308a5bbb3d064fac286cffb0b731", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a134c4d160c8e69c0304486f06be4905c6429988f164bf66f3d961f59a57c031.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a134c4d160c8e69c0304486f06be4905c6429988f164bf66f3d961f59a57c031.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..021b74ab75d90da45f5d96ccf7bc07721d5df0a3 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a134c4d160c8e69c0304486f06be4905c6429988f164bf66f3d961f59a57c031.md @@ -0,0 +1,148 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 150 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/07/2012 Page 1 of 6 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/ +JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2 +V. +UNITED STATES +JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S MOTION REQUESTING AN ORDER +DIRECTING THE GOVERNMENT TO FILE REDACTED PLEADINGS IN THE +PUBLIC COURT FILE +COME NOW Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 (also referred to as "the victims"), by and +through undersigned counsel, to file this motion for an order directing the Government to file in +the public court file redacted versions of its (1) Sealed Memorandum in Support of Motion to +Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, (2) Sealed Motion to Stay Discovery, and (3) +Sealed Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction. There is +not even an arguable basis for keeping the vast majority of these pleadings under seal. Sealing +all of these pleadings interferes with counsel's ability to prepare a response, in addition to +denying the public the right to know how the Government is interpreting the CVRA in this case. +The Government cannot carry its burden of showing a need to seal all of these pleadings. +Accordingly, the Government should file a redacted pleading in the public court file that redacts +only information for which there is a basis for confidentiality - i.e., information that specifically +discloses grand jury material. +FACTUAL BACKGROUND +1 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 150 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/07/2012 Page 2 of 6 +As the Court is aware, on November 8, 2011 -- the very day that the Government was due +to produce discovery in this case -- it instead filed a Sealed Motion to Dismiss for purported lack +of subject matter jurisdiction, accompanied by a Sealed Motion to Stay further production of any +discovery. The reason the Government cited for placing these documents under seal is that they +contained grand jury material protected from disclosure by Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e). +On December 5, 2011, the victims filed responses to these pleadings. The vast bulk of +the issues did not pertain to grand jury information. Accordingly, the victims filed lengthy +responses to the Government's motions in the public court file. DE #127, 128, 129, 130. The +victims also filed short, sealed responses regarding issues that touched on the confidential grand +jury information. See Victims' Sealed Pleadings (docketed Dec. 7, 2011). +The Government obtained three extensions of time to file its reply. On January 27, +2012, the Government filed - under seal - a 35-page reply memorandum in support of its motion +to dismiss. The memorandum argued that, even if the victims' were able to prove a deliberate +and concerted conspiracy between the Government and Jeffrey Epstein to violate their rights, the +federal courts are powerless to provide any remedy. +DISCUSSION +The Government has improperly filed all its recent pleadings in this matter under seal. +The Government ignores the fundamental fact that "there exists a presumption of openness in all +legal proceedings." United States v. Ignasiak, ---F.3d--., 2012 WL 149314 at *15 (11th Cir. +2012) (unsealing documents filed in a criminal case) (citing United States v. Ochoa-Vasaquez, +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 150 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/07/2012 Page 3 of 6 +428 F.3d 1015, 1029-30 (11th Cir. 2005)). The Government has not provided - and cannot +provide - any justification for sealing the vast bulk of its recent pleadings. +The Eleventh Circuit and Supreme Court have made clear that district courts should be +particularly reluctant to seal documents "involv[ing] public concerns that are at the heart of the +interest protected by the right of access: "the citizen's desire to keep a watchful eye on the +workings of public agencies ... [and] the operation of government."" Romero v. Drummond +Co., Inc., 480 F.3d 1234, 1246 (11th Cir. 2007) (ordering unsealing of documents) (quoting +Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978). The issues being litigated in +this case involve matters of the highest public interest - namely, whether crime victims whose +CVRA rights have been deliberated violated' by the Government and a criminal offender can +obtain any remedy in federal courts. The Government's position is that they cannot. The +Government should not be permitted to conceal this fact through the expedient of filing every +page of its pleadings under seal. +This Court has already rebuffed one Government attempt to keep from the public +information about this case. At a hearing on July 11, 2008, the Government attempted to keep a +response under seal in this case. This Court ordered the response filed publicly: +I don't see that there is any real public necessity to keep the response sealed in +view of what we discussed already on the record and he victim's ability to +disclose those provisions of their own choosing, if they wish. So, in view of the +' While the Government obscures this fact in its reply, the victims have alleged a +deliberate conspiracy between the Government and Epstein to deny Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe +#2 their congressionally-mandated CVRA rights. Accordingly, the Court must assume the truth +of all victims" allegations in ruling on the Government's motion to dismiss. See Jane Doe #1 and +Jane Doe #2's Response to Government's Sealed Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter +Jurisdiction (DE #127) at 3 (citing +v. Prime, Inc., 602 F.3d 1276, 1291 (11th Cir. +2010)). +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 150 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/07/2012 Page 4 of 6 +public policy that matters filed in court proceedings should be open to the public +and sealing should only occur in circumstances that justify the need to restrict +public access, I'm going to deny the motion to seal the response and allow that to +Tr. at 31-32. +Keeping the pleadings under seal also unduly burdens counsel for the victims. Just as the +Government has been conferring with prosecutors throughout the country on this case, victims' +counsel have been conferring with leading experts on crime victims' rights in academia, private +practice, and in public interest organizations. Because the Government's pleadings are filed +under seal, counsel for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 is unable to share these pleadings with +these other experts. This constitutes an entirely unnecessary hindrance to effective advocacy in +this case. +The Government may claim that its sealing is justified by the fact that they touch on +grand jury materials, which are kept confidential under Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e). But the grand jury +information directly involved in the Government's pleadings is, at most, only a few isolated +sentences. +The Government can simply redact sentences that specifically disclose grand jury +material, while making the rest of its pleadings publicly available. +The Government is opposed to this motion. +CONCLUSION +The Court should order the Government to file redacted copies of all of its sealed +pleadings in this case in the public court file, with redactions limited to information for which +there is a basis for confidentiality - i.e., information that specifically discloses grand jury +material. +4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 150 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/07/2012 Page 5 of 6 +DATED: February 7, 2012 +Respectfully Submitted, +/s/ +JAFFE, WEISSING, +, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. +425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 +Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 +Telephone (954) 524-2820 +Facsimile (954) 524-2822 +Florida Bar No.: 542075 +E-mail: brad@pathtojustice.com +and +Paul G. Cassell +ro Hac Vice +Jiversity Collage of Law at the +332 S. 1400 E. +Salt Lake City, UT 84112 +Telephone: 801-585-5202 +Facsimile: 801-585-6833 +E-Mail: cassellp@law.utah.edu +Attorneys for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 +5 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 150 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/07/2012 Page 6 of 6 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +The foregoing document was served on February 7, 2012, on the following using the +Court's CM/ECF system: +Dexter Lee +A. +Villafaña +Assistant U.S. Attorneys +500 S. Australian Ave., Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +(561) 820-8711 +Fax: (561) 820-8777 +E-mail: Dexter.Lee @usdoj gov +E-mail: +Attorneys for the Government diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a134c4d160c8e69c0304486f06be4905c6429988f164bf66f3d961f59a57c031.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a134c4d160c8e69c0304486f06be4905c6429988f164bf66f3d961f59a57c031.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c79be814b0ea29d07636ded910a019a348c29ef8 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a134c4d160c8e69c0304486f06be4905c6429988f164bf66f3d961f59a57c031.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -72, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "a134c4d160c8e69c0304486f06be4905c6429988f164bf66f3d961f59a57c031", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 6, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "e3800aa146f83012ee00a0b0c8088ad8bcdb9bf33825e09237d78c6acf13a171", + "output_sha256": "673b493f5c40c1dd2f744f9e40db2f336718a9a2a0e56f3d93a11e354db1e0da", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a144dae9a62ccae4cd90b3a788450647146c1d01fea75688ebbf95f633c15a5f.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a144dae9a62ccae4cd90b3a788450647146c1d01fea75688ebbf95f633c15a5f.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6d087f1e600e2fe3f561887ef2157064447f74f9 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a144dae9a62ccae4cd90b3a788450647146c1d01fea75688ebbf95f633c15a5f.md @@ -0,0 +1,55 @@ +From: +Subjecti +BACE: +Fling 171164189 Processed - Appelate Courts +Monday, Apri 17, 2023 € 38:38 PM +This Message Is From an External Sender +This message came from outside your arganization. +Dear Cristina Riosa: +All electronic filers are obligated to register as eDCA users and are responsible for ensuring their email +addresses are current in their eDCA accounts. The Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth District Courts of Appeal use +eDCA to serve all acknowledgment letters, orders, opinions, mandates, and other outgoing filings on electronic filers through +a link provided by eDCA Casemail. To register or update your email address please visit eDCA through the court's website. +This email verifies the processing of your BRIEFS Record on Appeal by the Office of the Clerk, Fourth District Court of +Appeal. +Status: Docketed +Florida Courts E-Filing Portal Reference Number: 171164189 +Filing Date/Time: 04/17/2023 03:47:02 PM +Case Number: 4D2023-536 +Case Name: DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of Palm Beach County, Florida vs. CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC, Publisher +of THE PALM BEACH POST +Documents +# +Document Type +BRIEFS Record on Appeal +Status +Accepted +Filing Date Not Docketed Reason +04/17/2023 +Your Attachment +2019CA014681XXXXMB - +Record XX.pdf +Fees +# +2 +Description +Subsequent Filing Fee - APPEAL +Regarding Civil Matters Other +Brief, Record On Appeal +Memo: +Statutory Convenience Fee: $0.00 +Total Paid: $0.00 +Fee Status: Processed +Paid By: No payment required +Amount +$.00 +$00 +Order #: +Financial ID: +hists a non«onitored email, If you have questions about this filing, please contact the Office of the Clerk, Fourth Distric +ppeal at (561) 242-200 +Thank you, +Office of the Slerk +Fourth District Court of Appeal +FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL +ABRUZZO, CLERK 04/18/2023 09:33:44 AM diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a144dae9a62ccae4cd90b3a788450647146c1d01fea75688ebbf95f633c15a5f.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a144dae9a62ccae4cd90b3a788450647146c1d01fea75688ebbf95f633c15a5f.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..dda09980aaeaf94a3feef194acb3a44cc42a6bec --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a144dae9a62ccae4cd90b3a788450647146c1d01fea75688ebbf95f633c15a5f.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "a144dae9a62ccae4cd90b3a788450647146c1d01fea75688ebbf95f633c15a5f", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "77d4690c818b3806c2f21ef92fd0c1217ff1aae4ab0d7eb8f31b1c7383b53089", + "output_sha256": "63af2858b7a126cc3e516db4ae751f2f7e4fe726f35e83c3b3f59c08a5b23acc", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a17f8d68501f565e05c0d1f086a5837cacca4512197cf81e77a5344459f1e74b.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a17f8d68501f565e05c0d1f086a5837cacca4512197cf81e77a5344459f1e74b.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a6ab8d01c7dc3f45d50ae2fcc93afe069831529c --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a17f8d68501f565e05c0d1f086a5837cacca4512197cf81e77a5344459f1e74b.md @@ -0,0 +1,46 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 12 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2008 Page 1 of 3 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA- +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +NOTICE OF APPEARANCE AS CO-COUNSEL +NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the law firm of | +as co-counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein in these proceedings. +Respectfully submitted, +TEIN, P.L. +3059 Grand Avenue, Suite 340 +Coconut Grove, Florida 33133 +Tel: 305 442 1101 +Fax: 305 442 6744 +Tein, P.L. enters its appearance +By: Is/ Michael R. Tein +GUY A. L +Fla. Bar No. 623740 +MICHAEL R. TEIN +Fla. Bar No. 993522 +tein@lewistein.com + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 12 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2008 Page 2 of 3 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I HEREBY CERTIFY that on July 8, 2008, I electronically filed the foregoing document +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 via transmission +of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF. +Is/ Michael R. Tein +Michael R. Tein + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 12 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2008 Page 3 of 3 +SERVICE LIST +Jeffrey M. Herman, Esq. +Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. +Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. +Herman & Mermelstein, P.A. +18205 Biscayne Blvd, Suite 2218 +Miami, Florida 33160 +Fax: 305 931 0877 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a17f8d68501f565e05c0d1f086a5837cacca4512197cf81e77a5344459f1e74b.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a17f8d68501f565e05c0d1f086a5837cacca4512197cf81e77a5344459f1e74b.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..645ad9b7a273231945e7b76132800dec1bf8117b --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a17f8d68501f565e05c0d1f086a5837cacca4512197cf81e77a5344459f1e74b.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -36, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "a17f8d68501f565e05c0d1f086a5837cacca4512197cf81e77a5344459f1e74b", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 3, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "b3a649be59dcc652013e5d14874d72534f9a0c362b96b3b4e33ff57fef7f868c", + "output_sha256": "3e0308ff8da57ecbb15ad00937120cfdbca8a9fbcad733e84b5ef9db25feabd8", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a1a20204294097fd7b497af8c0e9051673cc34f5c2ecc3630aea4a32c3ba93fa.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a1a20204294097fd7b497af8c0e9051673cc34f5c2ecc3630aea4a32c3ba93fa.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..72175e5ee4b4f8a3c2bd3ea44e90f82e538c35f6 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a1a20204294097fd7b497af8c0e9051673cc34f5c2ecc3630aea4a32c3ba93fa.md @@ -0,0 +1,62 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 291-9 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2009 Page 1 of 2 +IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR +PALM BEACH COUNTY FLORIDA +JANE DOE, +CASE NO. 502008CA006596XXXXMB +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +and +Defendants. +AFFIDAVIT OF +STATE OF FLORIDA +COUNTY OF PALM BEACH +BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, personally appeared +, who after being first duly sworn, deposes and says: +2. +4. +5. +My name is +I am and have been represented by McIntosh, Sawran, Peltz & Cartaya, P.A. +I was a Defendant in the case styled, Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein,. +and +, Case No. 502008CA006596XXXXMB AB. +I have read the document entitled " Plaintiffs Jane Does' 2-7 Notice of Joinder +in Plaintiffs' Jane Does 101 and 102's Motion for No-Contact Order." +I am writing this affidavit in response to the statements within the motion that +refer to me. +I have not had any contact with Jeffrey Epstein since he was arrested. +I have not been asked by Mr. Epstein or his attorneys to gather information +about Jane Doe 4 and Jane Doe 7. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 291-9 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2009 Page 2 of 2 +I am not being supported by Mr. Epstein nor did I say that to Jane Doe 4 and +Based on the statements within the motion, I can identify Jane Doe 7 and only +spoke to her when she and her boyfriend approached and confronted me at Dr. +Feelgood's. +10. +When Jane Doe 7 and her boyfriend confronted me, I told her that I could not +believe she was bringing a lawsuit against Jeffrey Epstein, as I know that she +has taken money from a number of older men and even traveled to Chicago +with one of them. +11. I also told Jane Doe 7 and her boyfriend that I intended to tell the truth about +everything I know about her and what she has done with other men. +12. +I will tell the truth about Mr. Epstein, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 7 or anyone else +that I am asked about. I resent any suggestion that I would lie to assist Mr. +Epstein. +FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT., +SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED before me this anday of July +2009, by Haly Rubson +(name of person), who is personally +known to me or who has produced FL Drivero Likense +(type of +identification) as identification. +Cheme Hurles +SIGNATURE OF NOTARY +PRINTED NAME OF NOTARY +"Notary Public state ar flonia +Cheryl A Hughes +My Commission DD592524 +Expires 09/06/2010 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a1a20204294097fd7b497af8c0e9051673cc34f5c2ecc3630aea4a32c3ba93fa.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a1a20204294097fd7b497af8c0e9051673cc34f5c2ecc3630aea4a32c3ba93fa.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a7d1eb059247a5ed930857c39665d623ddc77f33 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a1a20204294097fd7b497af8c0e9051673cc34f5c2ecc3630aea4a32c3ba93fa.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -24, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "a1a20204294097fd7b497af8c0e9051673cc34f5c2ecc3630aea4a32c3ba93fa", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "f4a62f861bca7c62e313ee86ec8a447297944cd6b2cd14244071f79ae96a0d58", + "output_sha256": "d08e178eb8fe02ffdccf652719e246a9ba951503bc6f64d821799845c51645ee", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a1bf30d2b0f32f5386535a23c16e74768420bd545cd7f219d879dac436445343.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a1bf30d2b0f32f5386535a23c16e74768420bd545cd7f219d879dac436445343.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5d3953999574da8c8e2905baa2ece32f91418734 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a1bf30d2b0f32f5386535a23c16e74768420bd545cd7f219d879dac436445343.md @@ -0,0 +1,77 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 35-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/06/2008 Page 1 of 2 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 3, +VS. +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 4, +VS. +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 5, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/ +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/ +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/JOHNSON +STIPULATION FOR ACCEPTANCE OF SERVICE OF PROCESS +AND AGREED DATE FOR DEFENDANT'S RESPONSES TO COMPLAINTS + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 35-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/06/2008 Page 2 of 2 +Plaintiffs, Jane Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4 and Jane Doe 5, and Defendant Jeffrey +Epstein, hereby enter into this Stipulation for Acceptance of Service of Process and Agreed Date for +Responses to Complaints, as follows: +Defendant Jeffrey Epstein waives formal service of process under Fed.R.Civ.P. 4, and +hereby accepts service of process in each of these cases through service on his attorney, Michael +Tein, Esq. It is stipulated, agreed and acknowledged that the Summons and Complaint (DE 1) in +each of the above-referenced cases was duly served on Michael Tein, Esq. on August 5, 2008. +2. +It is stipulated and agreed that Defendant Jeffrey Epstein shall have thirty (30) days +from the date of service, until September 4, 2008, to serve an answer or otherwise respond to each of +the Complaints in these cases. +Dated: August 6, 2008. +Respectfully submitted: +By:_ +Is/ Jeffrey M. Herman +HERMAN & MERMELSTEIN, P.A. +Attorneys for Plaintiffs Jane Doe 2-5 +Jeffrey M. Herman (FL Bar No. 521647) +jherman@hermanlaw.com +Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245) +ssm@hermanlaw.com +Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980) +ahorowitz@hermanlaw.com +18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 +Miami, Florida 33160 +Tel: (305) 931-2200 +By: +/s/ Michael R. Tein +TEIN, P.L. +Attorneys for Defendant Epstein +Guy A. +(FL Bar No. 623740) +Michael Tein, Esq. (FL Bar No. 993522) +tein@lewistein.com +3059 Grand Avenue, Suite 340 +Coconut Grove, FL 33133 +Tel: (305) 442-1101 +and +ATTERBURY, GOLDBERGER, et al. +Attorneys for Defendant Epstein +Jack A. Goldberger +jagesq @bellsouth.net +250 Australian Ave. S, Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +2 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a1bf30d2b0f32f5386535a23c16e74768420bd545cd7f219d879dac436445343.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a1bf30d2b0f32f5386535a23c16e74768420bd545cd7f219d879dac436445343.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0bb76dad04fd05e477584c3ad5fbc8fcd5ec1f07 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a1bf30d2b0f32f5386535a23c16e74768420bd545cd7f219d879dac436445343.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -24, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "a1bf30d2b0f32f5386535a23c16e74768420bd545cd7f219d879dac436445343", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "da0d4e8f7686e1fa75bd830461ccd3e02065de5837be38e4a580715a974d4e87", + "output_sha256": "ef5623744b3fcaeb14b961a17a7ae74093b43eeae99e9a822331a109273fcedd", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a1c3b655e4ecc93748cf869040a2058e399b2b6b130032ff4250ad516cafca77.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a1c3b655e4ecc93748cf869040a2058e399b2b6b130032ff4250ad516cafca77.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..062e547a6a83f1abc675a550329e175854591ea7 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a1c3b655e4ecc93748cf869040a2058e399b2b6b130032ff4250ad516cafca77.md @@ -0,0 +1,74 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 36 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/30/2008 Page 1 of 3 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-80119-CIV-KAM-LRJ +JANE DOE NO. 2, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN. +JANE DOE NO. 3, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN. +JANE DOE NO. 4, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN. +JANE DOE NO. 5, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN. +CASE NO.: 08-80232-CIV-KAM-LRJ +CASE NO.: 08-80380-CIV-KAM-LRJ +CASE NO.: 08-80381-CIV-KAM-LRJ +WAIVER OF SERVICE +Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d) and in response to this Court's Orders entered July 25, +2008, defendant Jeffrey Epstein hereby waives formal service of a summons and complaint and +will accept delivery by mail or by hand at the below-listed address of his counsel, +Tein, +P.L. +Tein.. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 36 +Entered on FLSD Docket 07/30/2008 Page 2 of 3 +Respectfully submitted, +TEIN, P.L. +3059 Grand Avenue, Suite 340 +Coconut Grove, Florida 33133 +Tel: 305 442 1101 +Fax: 305 442 6744 +By: +Is/ Michael R. Tein +GUY A. +Fla. Bar No. 623740 +MICHAEL R. TEIN +Fla. Bar No. 993522 +tein@lewistein.com +ATTERBURY, GOLDBERGER & WEISS, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 +Tel. 561 659 8300 +Fax. 561 835 8691 +By: +Jack A. Goldberger +Fla. Bar No. 262013 +jgoldberger@agwpa.com +Attorneys for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein +2 +Teinn. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 36 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/30/2008 Page 3 of 3 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I HEREBY CERTIFY that on July 30, 2008, I electronically filed the foregoing +document with the Clerk of Court using CM/ECE. I also certify that the foregoing document is +being served this day on all counsel of record listed below via transmission of Notices of +Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF. +Jeffrey M. Herman, Esq. +Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. +Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. +Herman & Mermelstein, P.A. +18205 Biscayne Blvd, Suite 2218 +Miami, Florida 33160 +Fax: 305 931 0877 +Is/ Michael R. Tein +Michael R. Tein +3 +Tein a. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a1c3b655e4ecc93748cf869040a2058e399b2b6b130032ff4250ad516cafca77.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a1c3b655e4ecc93748cf869040a2058e399b2b6b130032ff4250ad516cafca77.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e330767017f56dccf9ff92bc41e71b6191919943 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a1c3b655e4ecc93748cf869040a2058e399b2b6b130032ff4250ad516cafca77.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -214, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "a1c3b655e4ecc93748cf869040a2058e399b2b6b130032ff4250ad516cafca77", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 4, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "047e5a772d6468d309747e89e1b354f39d74b35d3715afd4292cbd389d977c35", + "output_sha256": "772983fddae24af550182b00f04a2efb75384e0aa2b81fea62ed4abe1b80c532", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a1c94d954b975b34f2aa3ecce357b46b8fe3db5274fe769d5ccca9082de9af29.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a1c94d954b975b34f2aa3ecce357b46b8fe3db5274fe769d5ccca9082de9af29.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d5edbda6d82da82c97de3b34c1f11788c5a6b756 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a1c94d954b975b34f2aa3ecce357b46b8fe3db5274fe769d5ccca9082de9af29.md @@ -0,0 +1,223 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 93 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 1 of 9 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/_ +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 5, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/ +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 93 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 2 of 9 +JANE DOE NO. 6, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80994-MARRA +JANE DOE NO. 7, +CASE NO.: 08- 80993-CIV-MARRA/ +VS. +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION +TO EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO FIRST SET OF +INTERROGATORIES AND FOR AN AWARD OF REASONABLE EXPENSES +Plaintiffs, JANE DOES 2-7, by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby file this +Memorandum in Opposition to Epstein's Motion to Compel Plaintiffs to Answer First Set of +Interrogatories and for an Award of Reasonable Expenses, and state as follows: +I. +Introduction +Defendant Epstein served an Interrogatory (# 18) seeking to unearth explicit information on +every bit of possible sexual conduct and activity in chronological order which each Jane Doe might +have engaged in since age 10, including the names and phone numbers of all persons with whom +they had sexual contact.' Plaintiffs properly objected to these interrogatories in that discovery on +' Plaintiffs also object to Interrogatory nos. 19, 20, and 21, served on each of them, which seek the +identities and contact information of any men whom Plaintiffs' claim committed sexual assault or +-2- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 93 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 3 of 9 +the sexual history of a childhood abuse victim is substantially limited in federal court, "courts should +presumptively issue protective orders barring discovery unless the party seeking discovery makes a +showing that the evidence sought to be discovered would be relevant under the facts and theories of +the particular case and cannot be obtained except through discovery." See Fed. R. Evid. 412, +Advisory Committee Notes to 1994 Amendments, subdivision (c). Defendant has made no such +showing in his Motion to Compel to overcome this presumption. Accordingly, Defendant's Motion +to Compel must be denied in its entirety. +II. Argument +Epstein incorrectly argues that Fed.R.Evid 412 is strictly an evidentiary rule and that Rule +26(b) must be read exclusively to determine whether information about an abuse victim's sexual +history is discoverable. The Rule 412 Advisory Committee Notes, however, instruct that Rule 412 +affects not only the admissibility of evidence at trial, but must also "inform the discovery process." +Barta v. City and County of Honolulu, 169 F.R.D. 132 (D. Haw. 1996). The Committee Notes state, +in relevant part, as follows: +Courts should presumptively issue protective orders barring +discovery unless the party seeking discovery makes a showing that +the evidence sought to be discovered would be relevant under the +battery, or engaged in lewd and lascivious conduct or exhibition, against them. Unlike interrogatory +no. 18, which asks for information regarding all men other than Epstein with whom the Plaintiffs +have had sexual activity, interrogatory nos. 19-21 are at least limited to criminal conduct. +Nonetheless, these interrogatories are overbroad and unnecessarily infringe on the Plaintiffs' privacy +interests, particularly since they seek identity and contact information of men other than Epstein +whom Plaintiffs claim committed sexual crimes against them. As discussed infra, discovery on a +victim in a case of this nature is tempered by Fed.R.Evid., 412, and, as a result, a party is not entitled +to carte blanche discovery on sexual matters involving the victim. There must be a balancing of +interests based on the discovery sought. Here, Defendant contends that the information it seeks in +interrogatory nos. 19-21 is relevant to Plaintiffs' damages claims, but fails to state in this regard why +the perpetrator's identity and contact information specifically is relevant and should be +discoverable. This discovery should not therefore be allowed. +-3- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 93 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 4 of 9 +facts and theories of the particular case and cannot be obtained except +through discovery. +Nowhere in Defendant's Motion is it explained how or why this presumption should be +overcome. It is well established under Fed.R.Evid. 412 that a victim's past sexual behavior is +wholly irrelevant to the credibility of her testimony, and that her prior and subsequent sexual activity +with third parties has no bearing on the issue of whether she consented to or complied with the +sexual acts charged. See United States v. +1. 472 F.2d 909, 919 (5th Cir. 1973); Virgin Islands v. +, 634 F.Supp. 933, 936-37 (D. V.I. 1986) (policy of rule disallowing evidence to show +character of assault victim; Dept. of Professional Regulation v. Wise, 575 So.2d 713 (Fla. 1st DCA +1991) (holding that evidence of sexual relations with a person other than an accused is not relevant). +One commentator has noted that once the identity of persons and similarity of circumstances are +removed, "probative value all but disappears." See Ordover, Admissibility of Patterns of Similar +Sexual Conduct: The Unlamented Death of Character for Chastity, 63 Cornell L. Rev. 96, 106 +(1977). The discovery at issue is not limited to sexual contact involving similar circumstances, and +is therefore lacking in probative value. Defendant fails in his Motion to demonstrate otherwise. +Defendant's argument that Rule 412 is merely an evidentiary rule that should be disregarded +in discovery disputes has been routinely rejected in federal courts. See, e.g., Barta v. City and +County of Honolulu, 169 F.R.D. 132 (D. Haw. 1996) (granting protective order pursuant to Rule 412 +to prevent a sexual battery and harassment victim from having to disclose off-duty sexual contacts +with persons other than defendant in discovery); Herron v. Eastern Industries, Inc., 2007 WL +2781211 (N.D. Fla. Sept. 19, 2007); Gibbons v. Food Lion, Inc.., 1999 WL 33226474 (M.D. Fla. +Feb. 19, 1999); P.J. Herchenroeder v. John L +Univ. Applied Physical Lab, 171 F.RD. 179 (D. +Md. 1997) (looking at both Rule 26 and Rule 412 in resolving discovery motion); +v. Zabihi, +166 F.R.D. 500 (D. N.M. 1996) (explaining that "[a]lthough the present motion arises in the context +-4- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 93 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 5 of 9 +of discovery under Rule 26, the Court must remain mindful of Rule 412 and its implications); +Stalnaker v. Kmart Corp., 1996 WL 397563 (D. Kan. 1996) (noting that Rule 412 "is applicable and +has significance in deciding certain discovery motions*). +As the above-referenced cases make abundantly clear, childhood sexual abuse cases are not +garden-variety litigation subject to traditional broad discovery concerning a victim's sexual history. +Rule 412 is designed to protect victims of sexual misconduct from undue embarrassment and +intrusion into their private affairs. See Fed R.Evid. 412. The committee notes explain that the Rule +is also intended to prevent "sexual stereotyping that is associated with public disclosure of intimate +sexual details and the infusion of sexual innuendo into the factfinding process." Rule 412, Advisory +Committee Notes to 1994 Amendments. Common sense dictates that requiring a sexual abuse +victim to disclose the intimate details sought by Epstein during the discovery process - which then +would presumably lead to additional discovery of the victim's other sexual partners - would be at +least as embarrassing and intrusive during the discovery process as it would be if the victim were +questioned about these facts at trial, if not more. Thus, in order to carry out its purpose, Rule 412 +"must inform the discovery process" and the Court "must impose certain restriction on discovery to +preclude inquiry into areas which will clearly fail to satisfy the balancing test" set forth in Rule 412. +See Barta v. City and County of Honolulu, 169 F.R.D. at 135. +In Barta, the Court confronted this issue in the context of a discovery motion in a civil case. +169 F.R.D. at 133. +A former employee brought a sexual harassment and battery claim against her +former employer and individual employees. Id. The defendants asked questions at deposition which +delved into the plaintiff's sexual conduct outside the workplace. Id. at 134. The Court did not allow +these questions and wait until trial to determine admissibility. Id. at 135. Instead, the Court +sustained the plaintiff's objections. Id. The Court based its decision on Fed.R.Evid. 412. Id. +-5- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 93 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 6 of 9 +Although noting that Rule 412 controls the admissibility of evidence, the Court explained that it +must also apply Rule 412 to "impose certain restrictions on discovery to preclude inquiry into areas +which will clearly satisfy the balancing test of 412(b)(2)..." Id. Thus, the Court concluded that the +defendants should not be permitted to inquire into the plaintiff's conduct while she was off-duty, +outside the workplace, and which did not involve the same defendants. The same rationale should +apply here. The Defendant should not be permitted to seek intimate details of Plaintiff's sexual +conduct throughout her life - particularly if it did not involve similar criminal circumstances such as +those involving Epstein. +Defendant attached three Florida state court orders to its Motion, two of which are trial court +decisions. These cases do not serve as precedent for this Court, and in any event, they are not +persuasive. Unlike state courts, federal courts must focus on the interplay between Fed.R.Evid. 412 +and Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b), and in this regard must be concerned with embarrassment to the victim and +protection of her privacy. Indeed, it does not appear that an analogous argument was made in any +of the state court cases relied upon by Defendant. Furthermore, the discovery in Balas v. Russo, 703 +So.2d 1076 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) was far narrower than that which is at issue here. It was limited to +asking plaintiffs for their employment history (which admittedly included prostitution), employment +records, electronic recording of the conduct which was the subject of the complaint, and a +description of her damages. 703 So.2d 1077-78. At no time were the plaintiffs in Balas asked to +disclose their entire sexually history beginning at age 10. Id. Thus, the three state court cases cited +in the Motion are not helpful to the Defendant, and should not deflect attention from the burden +placed on the party in federal court seeking discovery of a victim's other sexual contacts. +Finally, Defendant's request for attorney's fees and costs is completely unwarranted. The +present motion and response involve good-faith, timely and well-founded objections by Plaintiffs to +-6- + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 93 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 7 of 9 +over-reaching and harassing discovery efforts. Accordingly, Defendant's request for award of +reasonable expenses should be denied. +Conclusion +Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs respectfully request that Defendant Epstein's Motions to +Compel Plaintiffs to Answer First Set of Interrogatories and for an Award of Reasonable Expenses +be denied in their entirety. +Dated: May 6, 2009 +Respectfully submitted, +By: +s/ Adam D. Horowitz +Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245) +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980) +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P.A. +Attorneys for Plaintiffs +18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 +Miami, Florida 33160 +Tel: (305) 931-2200 +Fax: (305) 931-0877 +-7- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 93 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 8 of 9 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I hereby certify that on May 6, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the +Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this +day to all parties on the attached Service List in the manner specified, either via transmission of +Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those +parties who are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing. +Is/ Adam D. Horowitz +-8- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 93 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 9 of 9 +SERVICE LIST +DOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +igoldberger@agwpa.com +Robert D. Critton, Esq. +rcritton@bclclaw.com +/s/ Adam D. Horowitz +-9- diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a1c94d954b975b34f2aa3ecce357b46b8fe3db5274fe769d5ccca9082de9af29.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a1c94d954b975b34f2aa3ecce357b46b8fe3db5274fe769d5ccca9082de9af29.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d0c54b45aed094d8d9e2323e4a3989cfce3c106a --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a1c94d954b975b34f2aa3ecce357b46b8fe3db5274fe769d5ccca9082de9af29.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -108, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "a1c94d954b975b34f2aa3ecce357b46b8fe3db5274fe769d5ccca9082de9af29", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 9, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "74670368ef2d937469c34abcfb18b2bd3991b9f6dc68154386499189b3793d1e", + "output_sha256": "8c13b1addc24e0487f2c8a1a4b12e6b68fdb1b4d8864d1b8ebdbe86d785eaa3d", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a1ce0fab856a212a2f41195ea45309e35db1fd3e1cb5795ca089f8ec1356b406.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a1ce0fab856a212a2f41195ea45309e35db1fd3e1cb5795ca089f8ec1356b406.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..61a67ec06cd8844fd104176d295a3aa4cc291f63 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a1ce0fab856a212a2f41195ea45309e35db1fd3e1cb5795ca089f8ec1356b406.md @@ -0,0 +1,62 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 217 . Entered on FLSD Docket 08/01/2013_ Page 1 of 1 +ELEVENTH CIRCUIT TRANSCRIPT INFORMATION FORM +PART I. +TRANSCRIPT ORDER INFORMATION +Appellant to complete and file with the District Court Clerk and the Court of Appeals Clerk within 14 days of the filing of the notice of +appeal in all cases, including those in which there was no hearing or for which no transcript is ordered. +Short Case Style: Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 +District Court No.: 08-80736-Marra +vs United States of America +Date Notice of Appeal Filed: June 27, 2013 Court of Appeals No.: 13-12923 +(If Available) +CHOOSE ONE: • No hearing • No transcript is required for appeal purposes • All necessary transcripts) on file +• I AM ORDERING A TRANSCRIPT OF THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS: +Check appropriate box(es) and provide all information requested: +HEARING DATE(S) +JUDGE/MAGISTRATE +COURT REPORTER NAME(S) +• Pre-Trial Proceedings +• Trial +• Sentence +• Other +METHOD OF PAYMENT: +• ICERTIFY THAT I HAVE CONTACTED THE COURT REPORTER(S) AND HAVE MADE SATISFACTORY +ARRANGEMENTS WITH THE COURT REPORTER(S) FOR PAYING THE COST OF THE TRANSCRIPT. +CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT. Attached for submission to District Judge/Magistrate is my completed CJA Form 24 requesting authorization +for government payment of transcript. [A transcript of the following proceedings will be provided ONLY IF SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED +in Item 13 on CJA Form 24: Voir Dire; Opening and Closing Statements of Prosecution and Defense; Prosecution Rebuttal; Jury Instructions.] +Ordering Counsel/Party: +Name of Firm: +Street Address/P.O. Box: +City/State/Zip Code: +Phone No.: +I certify that I have completed and filed PART I with the District Court Clerk and the Court of Appeals Clerk, sent a copy to the appropriate Court +Reporter(s) if ordering a transcript, and served all parties. +DATE: July 31, 2013 +SIGNED: /s/ +G. Weinberg +Attorney for: Appellants +G. Weinberg and Jeffrey Epstein +PART II. +COURT REPORTER ACKNOWLEDGMENT +Court Reporter to complete and file with the District Court Clerk within 14 days of receipt. The Court Reporter shall send a copy to +the Court of Appeals Clerk and to all parties. +Date Transcript Order received: +• Satisfactory arrangements for paying the cost of the transcript were completed on: +• Satisfactory arrangements for paying the cost of the transcript have not been made. +No. of hearing days: +Estimated no. of transcript pages: +Estimated filing date: +DATE: +SIGNED: +Phone No.: +NOTE: The transcript is due to be filed within 30 days of the date satisfactory arrangements for paying the cost of the +transcript were completed unless the Court Reporter obtains an extension of time to file the transcript. +PART III. NOTIFICATION THAT TRANSCRIPT HAS BEEN FILED IN DISTRICT COURT +Court Reporter to complete and file with the District Court Clerk on date of filing transcript in District Court. The Court +Reporter shall send a copy to the Court of Appeals Clerk on the same date. +This is to certify that the transcript has been completed and filed with the district court on (date): +Actual No. of Volumes and Hearing Dates: +Date: +Signature of Court Reporter: +Rev. 8/13 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a1ce0fab856a212a2f41195ea45309e35db1fd3e1cb5795ca089f8ec1356b406.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a1ce0fab856a212a2f41195ea45309e35db1fd3e1cb5795ca089f8ec1356b406.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..004b2e6ea62de86c1bdb45fdd798b9c675a3727b --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a1ce0fab856a212a2f41195ea45309e35db1fd3e1cb5795ca089f8ec1356b406.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "a1ce0fab856a212a2f41195ea45309e35db1fd3e1cb5795ca089f8ec1356b406", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "ddf02b69c6a270b1db02ebd6b149238437b1c91f9b8bab132ba781841ada2a6b", + "output_sha256": "95b7a75f0552fda45cc81324c8580319dc0b858f2f60a65ea19553a9c4daf2f5", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a1ce5494f68c33d9cf32b995163f5dd0c9a3f24ea52c4a3c2f66cbf4c5391713.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a1ce5494f68c33d9cf32b995163f5dd0c9a3f24ea52c4a3c2f66cbf4c5391713.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a31ba729f2158923e1f4d66537ed96d90096d9c5 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a1ce5494f68c33d9cf32b995163f5dd0c9a3f24ea52c4a3c2f66cbf4c5391713.md @@ -0,0 +1,392 @@ +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 323-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2009 Page 1 of 8 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN +DISTRICT OF +FLORIDA +CASE NO. 08-CV-80119- MARRA// +JANE DOE NO.2, +Plaintiff, +- VS- +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +Related cases: +08-80232, 08-08380, +08-80993, +09-80591, +09-80656, +08-80381, +08-80994, +08-80893, +09-80469, +09-80802,09-81092 +DEPOSITION OF JANE DOE #4 +wednesday, +September 16, 2009 +1:03 +1:08 p.m. +/ +250 Australian Avenue South +Suite +115 +West Palm +Beach, Florida 33401 +Reported By: +Notary publiC! +RPR, FPR +State of Florida +Prose +Court +Reporting + +B + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 323-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2009 Page 2 of 8 +2 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +APPEARANCES: +On behalf of the Plaintiff: +ADAM D. HOROWITZ, +MERMELSTEIN +ESQUIRE +& HOROWITZ, P.A. +18205 Biscayne Boulevard +Suite 2218 +Miami, Florida +33160 +Phone: 305.931.2200 +On behalf of the Defendant: +ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQUIRE +MARK I. LUTTIER, +ESQUIRE +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN, LLP +303 Banyan Boulevard +Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, +Florida 33401 +Phone: 561.842.2820 +On behalf of Jeffrey Epstein: +JACK ALAN GOLDBERGER, ESQUIRE +ATTERBURY, GOLDBERGER & WEISS, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, Florida 33401-5012 +Phone: 561.659.8300 +On behalf of LM and EW: +WILLIAM J. BERGER, ESQUIRE +ROTHSTEIN, ROSENFELDT, ADLER +401 East Las Olas Boulevard +Suite 1650 +Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 +Phone: 954.522.3456 +On behalf of CMA: +JACK P. +1, ESQUIRE +SEARCY, DENNÉY, SCAROLA, +BARNHART & SHIPLEY, P.A. +2139 Palm Beach +Lakes Boulevard +West Palm Beach, Florida +33409 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 323-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2009 Page 3 of 8 +3 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +APPEARNCES CONTINUED..• +On behalf of BB: +ADAM J. LANGINO, ESQUIRE +LEOPOLD KUVIN +2925 PGA Boulevard +Suite 200 +Beach i +Gardens, +Florida +Phone: +561.515.1400 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 323-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2009 Page 4 of 8 +4 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +PROCEEDINGS +- - - +MR. HOROWITZ: Adam Horowitz, counsel for +Plaintiff, Jane Doe 4. +MR. CRITTON: Cindy, what time is it? +THE COURT REPORTER: It is 1:03. +MR. BERGER: William J. Berger for LM and +EW. +22 +23 +24 +25 +MR. +•: Jack +for CMA. +MR. LANGINO: Adam Langino from +Leopold Kuvin on behalf of BB. +MR. LUTTIER: Mark Luttier on behalf of +Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman for the +Defendant. +MR. CRITTON: Robert Critton on behalf of +Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein. +MR. HOROWITZ: This is Adam Horowitz. +We're canceling today's deposition. Before +appearing here today, we had a stipulation with +Defense counsel that Mr. Jeffrey Epstein, the +Defendant, would not be here. He would not +cross paths with our client. +And immediately as we were approaching the +deposition room, he made face-to-face contact +with our client. +He was just feet away from + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 323-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2009 Page 5 of 8 +5 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +24 +25 +her and intimidated her, and for that reason +we're not going forward. +MR. CRITTON: I didn't see any contact +because I, obviously, was not out there. +started at about -- when you came in it was +approximately 1:03. Mr. Epstein has an office +here at the Florida Science Foundation. Had +you been here at 1:00, your paths never would +have crossed because Mr. Epstein was leaving +the building. I instructed him to leave the +building so that he would not be here. +He was going to appear by way of Skype so +that he could be on a video camera so that he +could see this. +(Mr. Goldberger entered the room.) +MR. CRITTON: Had you been here on time, +and not faulting, I am just saying had you been +here on time at 1:00, as everyone else seemed +to be here at least get here before you did, +Adam, you and your client, your paths never +would have crossed. +I directed Mr. Epstein to leave the +building so he would not be here so that there +would be no way that your paths could have +crossed. It was neither my intent nor was it + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 323-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2009 Page 6 of 8 +6 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +my client's intent specifically, because I also +advised him that he was not to cross paths, not +to have any contact with your client, and +certainly by our agreement not to be here today +for the deposition. +MR. HOROWITZ: And at approximately 1:00 +is exactly when my client crossed paths with +Jeffrey Epstein. And not only did he cross +paths but he proceeded to stare her down just +feet away from her. For that reason she became +an emotional wreck and cannot proceed with the +deposition. She's simply not in an emotional +state to do so. +And in addition Mr. Epstein violated the +agreement between counsel that he would not +cross paths or come into contact with our +client. And it will be also for the criminal +court judge to decide whether he has violated a +no-contact order. I have nothing else to say. +MR. CRITTON: Again I instructed +MI. Epstein to leave the building so absolutely +no contact could occur between he and +MI. Horowitz and his client nor anyone else. +Until the court, until either Judge Marra or +Judge +ruled on the issue as to whether + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 323-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2009 Page 7 of 8 +7 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +oI not he could appear at the depositions of +not only Jane Doe 4 but any other individuals, +so you do what you need to do. +MR. HOROWITZ: Off the record. +(The Deposition was concluded.) + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 323-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2009 Page 8 of 8 +8 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +CER +•TIFICATE +STATE OF FLORIDA +COUNTY OF PALM BEACH +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +I, Cynthia +, Registered Professional +Reporter and Florida Professional Reporter, State of +florida at large, certify that I was authorized to +and did stenographically report the foregoing +proceedings and that the transcript is a true and +complete record of my stenographic notes. +Dated this 16th day of September, 2009. +Cynthia +IT RPR, +'FPR +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a1ce5494f68c33d9cf32b995163f5dd0c9a3f24ea52c4a3c2f66cbf4c5391713.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a1ce5494f68c33d9cf32b995163f5dd0c9a3f24ea52c4a3c2f66cbf4c5391713.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6c310edc84dde5046955d623ac5f21d235ccbb9b --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a1ce5494f68c33d9cf32b995163f5dd0c9a3f24ea52c4a3c2f66cbf4c5391713.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -103, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "a1ce5494f68c33d9cf32b995163f5dd0c9a3f24ea52c4a3c2f66cbf4c5391713", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 9, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "ee0633a21f23af8dbca0d85db266fc883eeb95f8f7b0cd6e2d8671d52da27999", + "output_sha256": "f03af75450b5a3e65822487b658ee6af3070217d85a6b25da1bf360132211cf2", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a1e31c88b2e46bd64e4b915ae0641efcad58c49220f54997cc5e4d3230b1198e.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a1e31c88b2e46bd64e4b915ae0641efcad58c49220f54997cc5e4d3230b1198e.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b1398a8e74c6f170f1f2205207716f0e8b688dd4 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a1e31c88b2e46bd64e4b915ae0641efcad58c49220f54997cc5e4d3230b1198e.md @@ -0,0 +1,59 @@ +Filing # 165926381 E-Filed 02/01/2023 02:47:07 PM +IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT +IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC, +Publisher of the PALM BEACH POST, +Plaintiff, +V. +CASE NO.: 50-2019-CA-014681-AG +DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of +Palm Beach County, Florida; SHARON R. +BOCK, as Clerk and Comptroller of Palm +Beach County, Florida. +Defendants. +COPY +MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND ORDER DENYING THE AMENDED MOTION FOR +ATTORNEYS' FEES UNDER FLORIDA STATUTES SECTION 57.105 +Defendant, DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of Palm Beach County, Florida, by and through +the undersigned attorneys, moves the Court, pursuant to Rule 1.530(g), Fla. R. Civ. P., to enter an order +altering or amending the Court's January 31, 2023 Order Denying the Amended Motion for Attorneys' Fees +Under Florida Statutes Section 57.105, (the "Order"), and in support thereof states: +Rule 1.530(g), Fla. R. Civ. P.) Motion to Alter or Amend a Judgment states: "A motion to +alter or amend the judgment shall be served not later than 15 days after the date of filing of the judgment, +except that this rule does not affect the remedies in rule 1.540(b)." +2. The January 31, 2023 Order is specifically titled "Order Denying the Amended Motion for +Attorneys' Fees under Florida Statute Section 57.105. +Likewise, all components of the Order, other than paragraph 6, address only the "Amended +Motion" and it explicitly states that "the "Amended Motion' is the only motion for fees that was set for +hearing." +Notably, after detailing the reasons for denying the "Amended Motion", paragraph 6 of the +Order goes on to deny Mr. Aronberg's Original Motion for Attorneys' Fees, dated July 1, 2020, which was +never heard by the Court. +*** FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL +ABRUZZO, CLERK. 02/01/2023 02:47:07 PM *** + + +WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing, Defendant, DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of +Palm Beach County, Florida, respectfully requests that the Court enter an order altering or amending the +Order to clarify that only the Amended Motion for Attorneys' Fees, dated November 9, 2020, was denied +by the Order, not the original July 1, 2020 Motion for Attorneys' Fees that has never been heard by the +Court. +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 1st day of February, 2023, a copy of the foregoing has been +electronically filed with the Florida E-File Portal for e-service on all parties of record herein. +SCHOLZ & WYLER, LIC +/s/ Douglas A. Wyler +NOT A CER +Arthut L. Jacobs, Esq. +Fla. Bar No.: 10249 +Richard J. Scholz, Esq. +Fla. Bar No.: 0021261 +Douglas A. Wyler, Esq. +Fla. Bar No.: 119979 +961687 Gateway Blvd., Suite 201-1 +Fernandina Beach, Florida 32034 +(904) 261-3693 +(904) 261-7879 Fax +Primary: filings@jswflorida.com +Secondary: doug@jswflorida.com +Attorneys for Defendant, Dave Aronberg diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a1e31c88b2e46bd64e4b915ae0641efcad58c49220f54997cc5e4d3230b1198e.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a1e31c88b2e46bd64e4b915ae0641efcad58c49220f54997cc5e4d3230b1198e.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5f5bff5cbd022c1c47f4adb73779d6f20efddefc --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a1e31c88b2e46bd64e4b915ae0641efcad58c49220f54997cc5e4d3230b1198e.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -24, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "a1e31c88b2e46bd64e4b915ae0641efcad58c49220f54997cc5e4d3230b1198e", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "d86d6d299165d3106d7ec0552a3736bebe1cc711659a9070ff40602f739a0928", + "output_sha256": "e364a7b9c5dfa5736fca4aa71348592651a91251b47d43a9706e065719bac039", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a229eb8119f01f3e5ea80efb2e0b078d3666221541177d00b0f9bf5e538f0f1f.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a229eb8119f01f3e5ea80efb2e0b078d3666221541177d00b0f9bf5e538f0f1f.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3e886969f55b2a582b611f2a4fd7e6bbb403b7f7 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a229eb8119f01f3e5ea80efb2e0b078d3666221541177d00b0f9bf5e538f0f1f.md @@ -0,0 +1,218 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 157 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/17/2009 Page 1 of 6 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-cv-80119-MARRA/JC +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/J +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/JR +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Defendant. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 157 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/17/2009 Page 2 of 6 +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/JE +JANE DOE NO. 5, +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-80994-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON +JANE DOE NO. 6, +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-80993-CIV-MARRA/JC +JANE DOE NO. 7, +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Defendant. +C.M.A., +CASE NO.: 08-80811-CIV-MARRA/JY +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Defendant. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 157 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/17/2009 Page 3 of 6 +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al, +Defendants. +CASE NO.: 08-80893-CIV-MARRA/JY +DOE II, +CASE NO.: 09-80469-CIV-MARRA-J0 +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al, +Defendants. +JANE DOE NO. 101, +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 09-80591-CIV-MARRA-JC +JANE DOE NO. 102, +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 09-80656-CIV-MARRA/JL +DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION +OF TIME IN WHICH TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS JANE DOES 2-7 +NOTICE OF JOINDER IN PLAINTIFES JANE DOES 101 & 102 +MOTION FOR NO CONTACT (DE 116) + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 157 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/17/2009 Page 4 of 6 +Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through his undersigned counsel, moves +this Court for an extension of time until July 14, 2009, to file a Response to Plaintiffs +Jane Does 2-7 Notice of Joinder in Plaintiffs Jane Does 101 & 102 Motion for No +Contact, pursuant to Local Rule 7.1 A.1(i) (S.D. Fla. 2008). As good cause for the +requested extension, Defendant states: +1. Counsel for Defendant communicated with Counsel for the Plaintiff, and +Plaintiff's Counsel agrees to the requested extension of July 14, 2009, to file a Response +to Plaintiffs Jane Does 2-7 Notice of Joinder in Plaintiffs Jane Does 101 & 102 Motion +for No Contact. +Rule 7.1 A. 3. Certification of Pre-Filing Conference +Counsel for Defendant conferred with Counsel for Plaintiff's counsel, by +telephone, and Counsel for Plaintiff is in agreement with the requested extension. +Vil +Attorney for Defendant +Certificate of Service +nin sore ei day or alre on tre deni +Reapen aspired. +ROBERT RARITON RESO. + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 157 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/17/2009 Page 5 of 6 +Florida Bar No. 224162 +rcrit@bclclaw.com +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. +Florida Bar #617296 +mpike@bclclaw.com +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & +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/JO +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@sexabuseattorney.com +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +Brad +Esq. +Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler +401 East Las Olas Boulevard +Suite 1650 +Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 +Phone: 954-522-3456 +Fax: 954-527-8663 +bedwards@rra-law.com +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. +08-80893 +Counsel for Plaintiffs +In related Cases Nos. 08-80069, 08-80119, +08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80993, +Paul G. Cassell, Esq. +08-80994 +Pro Hac Vice +332 South 1400 E, Room 101 +Richard Horace Willits, Esq. +Salt Lake City, UT 84112 +Richard H. Willits, P.A. +801-585-5202 +2290 10"h Avenue North +801-585-6833 Fax +Suite 404 +cassellp@law.utah.edu +Lake Worth, FL 33461 +Co-counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe +561-582-7600 +Fax: 561-588-8819 +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. +Isidro M. +_ Esq. +Law Firm, P.A. +08-80811 +224 Datura Street, Suite 900 +reelrhw@hotmail.com +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561-832-7732 +561-832-7137 F + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 157 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/17/2009 Page 6 of 6 +Jack Scarola, Esq. +isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net +Jack P.L +Esq. +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. +Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, +08-80469 +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 Flagler Street, Suite 800 +jsx@searcylaw.com +jph@searcylaw.com +Miami, FL 33130 +305 358-2800 +Counsel for Plaintiff, C.M.A. +Fax: 305 358-2382 +rjosefsberg@podhurst.com +kezell@podhurst.com +Bruce Reinhart, Esq. +Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A. +250 S. Australian Avenue +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561-202-6360 +Fax: 561-828-0983 +ecf@brucereinhartlaw.com +Counsel for Defendant +Theodore J. Leopold, Esq. +Spencer T. Kuvin, Esq. +Ricci-Leopold, 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 +skuvin@riccilaw.com +tleopold@riccilaw.com +Counsel for Plaintiffs 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 +jagesg@bellsouth.net +Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a229eb8119f01f3e5ea80efb2e0b078d3666221541177d00b0f9bf5e538f0f1f.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a229eb8119f01f3e5ea80efb2e0b078d3666221541177d00b0f9bf5e538f0f1f.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..89f9a064b216ec7631cbb0e020656fd55fc629dc --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a229eb8119f01f3e5ea80efb2e0b078d3666221541177d00b0f9bf5e538f0f1f.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -72, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "a229eb8119f01f3e5ea80efb2e0b078d3666221541177d00b0f9bf5e538f0f1f", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 6, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "ad780664015a5a7d4445972e6f2c2cd15749073f40dffba7826e9ed4795ce5ca", + "output_sha256": "642c9ce0e69ea6b23b7ec9e3ebf2017b1c98df97ef285ed103c27b2bbba849bb", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a251e7a2c1cc420b886fad7b429151542ec8657166e090e8744d365400002584.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a251e7a2c1cc420b886fad7b429151542ec8657166e090e8744d365400002584.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c8c90f10b493db7e69ee5bc4813c221f4e7d6190 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a251e7a2c1cc420b886fad7b429151542ec8657166e090e8744d365400002584.md @@ -0,0 +1,25 @@ +Case 1:19-cv-11869-MKV-DCF Document 14-1 +Filed 01/28/20 + +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK +ANASTASIA DOE, +Plaintiff, +Case No. 1:19-cv-11869-AJN +DARREN K. INDYKE AND RICHARD D. KAHN CO- +EXECUTORS OF THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. +EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT +1. +- acknowledge that I understand that the identity of the +Plaintiff in this action is confidential. I agree that: (1) I will hold in confidence Plaintiff' s identity; +(2) I will use Plaintiff's identity only in connection with this litigation; and (3) I will take all due +precautions to prevent the unauthorized or inadvertent disclosure of Plaintiff's identity. +By acknowledging these obligations under this Non-Disclosure Agreement, I understand +that I am submitting myself to the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern +District of New York for the purpose of any issue or dispute arising hereunder, and that my willful +violation of any term of the Non-Disclosure Agreement could subject me to punishment for +contempt of court. +Dated: +[Signature] diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a251e7a2c1cc420b886fad7b429151542ec8657166e090e8744d365400002584.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a251e7a2c1cc420b886fad7b429151542ec8657166e090e8744d365400002584.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..81b83192791e065039e0c1c97dccc9fd796ab5b3 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a251e7a2c1cc420b886fad7b429151542ec8657166e090e8744d365400002584.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -23, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "a251e7a2c1cc420b886fad7b429151542ec8657166e090e8744d365400002584", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "f66eaa180f646f454a0e2a246c11ce8e68398cc857e9599f2549f654cd0c35d2", + "output_sha256": "dfee12f9228463412ec882a240f193e16bd3313d708406694790dec382c887b2", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a270cbed5743f5314d322a9d4f930d34d5d3241ce7a099a03e62d4abf85652b7.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a270cbed5743f5314d322a9d4f930d34d5d3241ce7a099a03e62d4abf85652b7.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..63ce6b31b5ce6492bd89f5cf0bfb508eeafd7e4c --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a270cbed5743f5314d322a9d4f930d34d5d3241ce7a099a03e62d4abf85652b7.md @@ -0,0 +1,84 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2008 Page 1 of 4 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA-JOHNSON +JANE DOE NO. S, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +EPSTEIN'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF +MOTION [DE 91 TO SET ASIDE CLERK'S DEFAULT +Discovery on service of process would be extraordinary, unnecessary and a +waste of resources. +Mr. Barnett's affidavit is dispositive: He was the one who received the +summons at Epstein's house, but he did not reside there. If the plaintiff had +offered some evidence (e.g., a phone-book entry, a Google search-result, an +affidavit, etc.) that Mr. Barnett did reside there, or that some other person, who did +reside there, received the summons - - and if we were contesting service altogether +' See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1) ("A party may not seek discovery from any source before the +parties have conferred as required by Rule 26(f), except in a proceeding exempted from initial +disclosure under Rule 26(a)(1)(B), or when authorized by these rules, by stipulation, or by court +order."). + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2008 Page 2 of 4 +- - perhaps discovery would be appropriate. Instead, the plaintiff ventures a l +guess (unsupported by affidavit or other evidence) that Mr. Epstein "instructed +[Barnett] to answer the door on May 7, 2008 and take service anonymously" (DE +14 at 2). +Such rank speculation about agency is insufficient to warrant "pre-discovery +discovery" on service of process. To conclude otherwise would create a rule that +any plaintiff who could not identify the person who answered the door would be +entitled to pre-discovery discovery. Cf. Patterson v. +, No. 3:06cv476, 2008 +WL 219965, at *8 (W.D.N.C. Jan. 24, 2008) (refusing discovery where +information sought was irrelevant to the issue of whether service of process was +valid); cf. Centennial LLC v. Becker, No. Civ.A. 3:97-CV-1126, 2000 WL +35508748, at *5 n.2 (D.S.C. Nov. 14, 2000) (stating that "Plaintiff's speculation, +grounded in nothing but a 'hunch' or a prayer, is simply insufficient to thwart the +court's finding [based on the defendant's uncontroverted sworn statement]," and +adding that "Plaintiff], instead of] provid[ing an] affidavit" to challenge the +defendant's position, put forth an "entire argument ... grounded in nothing more +substantial than idle and baseless speculation"). +As explained in our motion, because Mr. Barnett did not reside at Mr. +Epstein's house, substitute service on Mr. Barnett was effective only under New +York rules. They gave Mr. Epstein until June 23 to respond. Mr. Epstein timely +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2008 Page 3 of 4 +responded on June 20, by filing a motion to stay (DE 11). Accordingly, he is not +in default and the clerk's default should be set aside. +Respectfully submitted, +ATTERBURY, GOLDBERGER & WEISS, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 +Tel. 561 659 8300 +Fax. 561 835 8691 +By: Is/ Jack A. Goldberger +Jack A. Goldberger +Fla. Bar No. 262013 +jgoldberger@agwpa.com +Attorneys for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I HEREBY CERTIFY that on July 7, 2008, I electronically filed the +foregoing document 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 via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing +generated by CM/ECF. +Is/ Jack Goldberger +Jack Goldberger +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2008 Page 4 of 4 +SERVICE LIST +Jeffrey M. Herman, Esq. +Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. +Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. +HERMAN & MERMELSTEIN, P.A. +182 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 +Miami, FL 33160 +Phone: (305) 931-931-2200 +4 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a270cbed5743f5314d322a9d4f930d34d5d3241ce7a099a03e62d4abf85652b7.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a270cbed5743f5314d322a9d4f930d34d5d3241ce7a099a03e62d4abf85652b7.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b4c342007582c2b71c09745b22117d07d2006b63 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a270cbed5743f5314d322a9d4f930d34d5d3241ce7a099a03e62d4abf85652b7.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -48, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "a270cbed5743f5314d322a9d4f930d34d5d3241ce7a099a03e62d4abf85652b7", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 4, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "21b4888cd844b44d926f855894dbe6a69ea8730a8b6abbcf14d881afac8a2260", + "output_sha256": "7f3771d19045860f1f0a88707a465f531ea89303dc0f9abc50134de365675308", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a27d5a78ffef44268dc974a6c8a778231a0cdad1351a18605f71890d1e088177.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a27d5a78ffef44268dc974a6c8a778231a0cdad1351a18605f71890d1e088177.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..514422b3176128164f32369fd4e8d6f58d183e14 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a27d5a78ffef44268dc974a6c8a778231a0cdad1351a18605f71890d1e088177.md @@ -0,0 +1,174 @@ +Case 9:09-cv-80802-KAM Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/20/2009 Page 1 of 4 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRAI, +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 +DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO ATTEND MEDIATION +AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOF +(AS TO CMA v. EPSTEIN AND +08-CIV-80811) +Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through his undersigned attorneys, +moves this Court for an order allowing him to attend mediation in the above-styled +matter and as grounds set forth would state: +The Court entered a no contact order which may apply to +| [DE 238]. +2. +Plaintiff's counsel and plaintiff, +have no objection to Mr. +Epstein attending deposition, mediation and obviously trial. +3. +Therefore, Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, in an abundance of caution, +requests that the court enter the attached proposed Agreed Order which shall not + + +Case 9:09-cv-80802-KAM Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/20/2009 Page 2 of 4 +Page 2 +preclude him from attending Plaintiff +trial of this case. +deposition, mediation, or the +Rule 7.1 Certification +Defense counsel has spoken with Plaintiff's counsel and he has no objection to +the entry of the proposed agreed order. +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 20 day of _November_ 2009 +Respectfully submitted, +By: +ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. +Florida Bar No. 224162 +crit@bclclaw.com +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. +Florida Bar #617296 +mpike@bclclaw.com +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & 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) + + +Case 9:09-cv-80802-KAM Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/20/2009 Page 3 of 4 +Page 3 +Certificate of Service +Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein +Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON +Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. +Brad +Esq. +Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. +Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler +Mermelstein & 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 +bedwards@rra-law.com +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +08-80893 +Counsel for Plaintiffs +In related Cases Nos. +08-80069, 08- Paul G. Cassell, Esq. +80119, 08-80232, +08-80380, 08-80381, Pro Hac Vice +08-80993, 08-80994 +332 South 1400 E, Room 101 +Salt Lake City, UT 84112 +Richard Horace Willits, Esq. +801-585-5202 +Richard H. Willits, P.A +801-585-6833 Fax +2290 10* Avenue North +cassellp@law.utah.edu +Suite 404 +Co-counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe +Lake Worth, FL 33461 +561-582-7600 +Isidro M. +, Esq. +Fax: 561-588-8819 +Law Firm, P.A +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. +224 Datura Street, Suite 900 +08-80811 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +reelrhw@hotmail.com +561-832-7732 +561-832-7137 F +Jack Scarola, Esq. +Jack P. +, Esa. +isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. +Searcy +Denney +Scarola Barnhart & 08-80469 +Shipley, 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 Flagler Street, Suite 800 +jsx@searcylaw.com +Miami, FL 33130 +iph@searcylaw.com +305 358-2800 +Counsel for Plaintiff, C.M.A. +Fax: 305 358-2382 +riosefsberg@podhurst.com +kezell@podhurst.com + + +Case 9:09-cv-80802-KAM Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/20/2009 Page 4 of 4 +Page 4 +Bruce Reinhart, Esq. +Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A. +250 S. Australian Avenue +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561-202-6360 +Fax: 561-828-0983 +ecf@brucereinhartlaw.com +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 +skuvin@leopoldkuvin.com +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. +08-08804 +Counsel for Plaintiffs 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 +jagesq@bellsouth.net +Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a27d5a78ffef44268dc974a6c8a778231a0cdad1351a18605f71890d1e088177.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a27d5a78ffef44268dc974a6c8a778231a0cdad1351a18605f71890d1e088177.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..016e4c090903bfa4911f104b79e2ad7091263d71 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a27d5a78ffef44268dc974a6c8a778231a0cdad1351a18605f71890d1e088177.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -127, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "a27d5a78ffef44268dc974a6c8a778231a0cdad1351a18605f71890d1e088177", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 5, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "f6a7edcfa9749c26353435d49664533b1e9df68192a3fcd3bceaebbc7fb51c64", + "output_sha256": "65cee5caa4a62805a83a3a8cbaae0c2605366106b74604d083945dbd62bdc7f4", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a27f4cbb2599b281fece76d42cf61516bbdc5dff4656fbcd54b7d80dffe5cc99.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a27f4cbb2599b281fece76d42cf61516bbdc5dff4656fbcd54b7d80dffe5cc99.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9763a2971a21197c0e4d9a126f4d0ff9c9a806f0 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a27f4cbb2599b281fece76d42cf61516bbdc5dff4656fbcd54b7d80dffe5cc99.md @@ -0,0 +1,33 @@ +Case 1:19-cv-11869-MKV-DCF Document 20 +Filed 02/18/20 Page 1 of 1 +Troutman Sanders LLP +875 Third Avenue +troutman™ +New York, New York 10022 +sanders +troutman.com +Bennet J. Moskowitz +bennet.moskowitz@troutman.com +February 17, 2020 +ECF +Hon. Mary +Vyskocil +Daniel +Moynihan +United States Courthouse +500 Pearl St. +New York, NY 10007-1312 +Re: +Anastasia Doe v. Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn as Co-Executors of the +Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, 1:19-cv-11869-MKV-DCF +Dear Judge Vyskocil: +We represent Defendants Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, Co-Executors of the Estate of +Jeffrey E. Epstein (together, "Detendants") in the referenced action. We write to respectfully +request the Court's approval, with Plaintiff's consent, of a two (2) day extension of time, from +February 17, 2020 to February 19, 2020, for Defendants to respond to Plaintiff's Complaint +(ECF #1). The Court previously approved the parties' agreement whereby we agreed to accept +service of Plaintiff's Complaint on Defendants' behalf and Plaintiff consented to Defendants +having through February 17 to respond to Plaintiff's Complaint. +Respectfully submitted, +Is/ Bennet J. Moskowitz +Bennet J. Moskowitz diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a27f4cbb2599b281fece76d42cf61516bbdc5dff4656fbcd54b7d80dffe5cc99.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a27f4cbb2599b281fece76d42cf61516bbdc5dff4656fbcd54b7d80dffe5cc99.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..36285a9676d69645234cafd9c1be582f9b9a9a58 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a27f4cbb2599b281fece76d42cf61516bbdc5dff4656fbcd54b7d80dffe5cc99.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "a27f4cbb2599b281fece76d42cf61516bbdc5dff4656fbcd54b7d80dffe5cc99", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "9163678019ed8369f3f6c30161c661319b85cf0bac4099fd28af89b0f5b821c4", + "output_sha256": "54cecc7a4f1ebe777763263348234754259fa0e53f356aa378fa3845c6b452d4", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a2826aec31c7e93caae9554158de0e0819512bf4813200dd7fa281b73cdac71f.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a2826aec31c7e93caae9554158de0e0819512bf4813200dd7fa281b73cdac71f.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e7a521e400f6db63d47ad9eb8dbdc189bdf3d9f6 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a2826aec31c7e93caae9554158de0e0819512bf4813200dd7fa281b73cdac71f.md @@ -0,0 +1,31 @@ +Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/14/2009 Page 1 of 2 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +Case No. 09-80656-CIV-RYSKAMP/VITUNAC +JANE DOE NO. 102, +Plaintiff, +V. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +ORDER OF TRANSFER +THIS CAUSE comes before the Court sua sponte. The above-styled case is related to +multiple actions pending before the Honorable Kenneth A. Marra that have been filed against +Defendant Jeffrey Epstein. Pursuant to Local Rule 3.9, it is hereby +ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the above numbered case is hereby +TRANSFERRED to the Honorable Kenneth A. Marra. +DONE AND ORDERED in +at West Palm Beach, Florida, this 12 day of +May, 2009. +UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE + + +Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/14/2009 Page 2 of 2 +2 +After reviewing the Court file in the above numbered Cause, the undersigned hereby +accepts the transfer of said case. Therefore, it is +ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that all pleadings hereinafter filed shall bear the +following case number, 09-80656-CIV-MARRA, thereby indicating the Judge to whom all +pleadings should be routed or otherwise brought for attention. +THE FOREGOING transfer is herewith accepted this 13 day of May, 2009. +KENNETH A. MARRA +UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a2826aec31c7e93caae9554158de0e0819512bf4813200dd7fa281b73cdac71f.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a2826aec31c7e93caae9554158de0e0819512bf4813200dd7fa281b73cdac71f.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c8f2ad5ec26611bdf71aa1cbc798c46e4dbc9fe7 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a2826aec31c7e93caae9554158de0e0819512bf4813200dd7fa281b73cdac71f.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -24, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "a2826aec31c7e93caae9554158de0e0819512bf4813200dd7fa281b73cdac71f", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "e9f463c8c35cf5604ffe197be34401ca56834f0a9ee5b51f08dbb7ed2c7c8e0b", + "output_sha256": "6c4636d9c26ea18c8be0e168ba122b89426cdc884d3c4fc4929fc7680f1be4bb", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a2941295c2875ad3d87e8dc8add70f34f415dd155b2de3ddde31eada1eeabf8f.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a2941295c2875ad3d87e8dc8add70f34f415dd155b2de3ddde31eada1eeabf8f.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a70f18f2994ef8d038901ec4bbec129df061e14b --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a2941295c2875ad3d87e8dc8add70f34f415dd155b2de3ddde31eada1eeabf8f.md @@ -0,0 +1,168 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 431-3 +Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2009 Page 1 of 3 +INSTITUTE FOR WOMEN'S HEALTH & BODY +1395 State Road 7 +S60 Village Blvd. +8188 Jog Road +4495 Milibry Trail +Suite 450 +Suite 315 +Suite 203 +Suite 101 +Wellington, FL 33414 +West Palm Beach, FL 33409 +Boynton Beach, EL 33437 +Jupiter, FL 33458 +(561)798-1233 phone +(561)616-9988 phone +(561)740-1911 phone +(561)799-3722 phone +(561)798-1655 fax +(561)616-0507 5xx +(561)740-1856 Fax +(561)799-3692 Fax +**************************************** +************ +Reprinted from Electronic Medical Record - Created on 08/20/01 17:31:50 +Patient: +MR No.: 15961 +DOB: +********* +*************************** +CHIEE COMPLAINTS: • +HISTORY OF PRESENT ILLNESS: +On 08/20/2001, +a 52 year old Hispanic female, IMP 11/01/00 +presented for an annual exam and with c/o postmenopausal bleeding which began 2 weeks +Pt has a watery, bloody discharge. +She is not on HRT. She denies hot flashes, +vaginal dryness. She reports recently increased libido. No hirsuitism or +virilization. +t also has c/o urinary incontinence upon checond stairs, cective and works as +She cannot exercise because of the condition. +a cardiology tech at the V.A. Hospital. +She has to wear a pad to work. +is worsinging. she has tried kegeis without suce had also has one done and it +is worsinging. +She has tried Kegels without success. +vaginal pressure while standing, and feels a mass at the introitus. +urgency, nocturia. +PAST MEDICAL HISTORY: Grave's disease, GERD, hypercholesterolemia, no HX of infection, +STDs and PID +PAST SURGICAL HISTORY: no previous surgeries +PAST PREGNANCIES: Total Pregnancies - 4, Full Term Pregnancies - 2, Premature - O, +Abortions Induced - 2, Abortions Spontaneous - 0, Ectopics - 0, Multiple Births - +0, +Living - 2 +MENSTRUAL HISTORY: +Amount/Duration +Regularity +Frequency +IMP +Age Onset Menarche +Last Pap Smear +Last Mammogram +Method of Contraception +Symptons of Dysmenorrhea +Regular +11/01/00 (after stopping LoOvral) +11/01/00 +04/01/01 +none +none +FAMILY HISTORY: Family, No hx of Breast, Gyn, or Colon Cancer, Father, Alheimer's +Disease, Mother and MI at age 45 +ORest Her YeS enter Drinking sebaany diet, denies so one and moderate o +street drugs +REVIEW OF SYSTEMS: +General: +Eyes: +Ears: +Nose: +no fever, chills, or body aches +no blurred vision, eye pain, or discharge +no nasal congestcha, i had by baring + +"C" + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 431-3 +Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2009 Page 2 of 3 +Patient: +Mouth: +MRNO: 15961 +DOB: +no sore throat, +or difficulty +swallowing +no pain or swelling +Respiratory: no shortness of breath, cough, wheezing or bloody sputum +- Continued +Neck: +Cardiac: +G/I: +no nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, constipation and no abdominal pain +G/U: +no dysuria, frequency of urination, or slow stream and stress urinary +incontinence +Neuro: +no slurred speech, seizures, or localized weakness,; +MEDICATIONS HISTORY: +1. Aciphex 20 mg, 1 po g day +2. Calcium Citrate with Vitamin D 1500 +mg-2, 1 po g day +3. Synthroid 0.175 mg, 1 po g day +1. Vitamin C CR 1000 mg, 1 po q day +5. Vitamin E 400 iu, 1 po g day +ALLERGIES: Codiene +PHYSICAL EXAMINATION: +VITAL SIGNS: +CONST.: WN WD female, NAMD +SKIN: +no rash, no lesions +HEAD: +no trauma, normocephalic +EYES: +no gross ABN +ENT: +no gross ABN +NECK: +raised +no nodes, no nuchal rigidity, thyroid normal size and texture and JVD not +CHEST: +CTA, BS eguals BILAT +BREASTS: supple NT without LAD, D/C, masses, both sitting supine +CARDIAC: RRR without MGR +ABDOMEN: soft, non-tender, BSt, no masses or HSM +EXTREMITIES: w/o clubbing, cyanosis edema non tender w/o venous cords +NEURO: cranial nerves intact and normal gait +G/U: +Vulva - urethra - incontinence of urine during cough in dorsal lithotomy +osition and upon valsala while standing; positive Q tip test (45-50 degrees +lagina - mildly atrophic, 2nd degree cystocele upon standing +Cervix - WNL +Uterus - AV, NSSC, Mobile, NT +Adnexa - no masses, NI +Rectal - no hemorrhoids, no masses and guiac - negative +DIAGNOSIS: +1. 2nd degree Cystocele +2. Stess Urinary Incontenence +3. Post Menopausal bleeding +4. Well Woman Exam +ECISION MAKING (PLAN): Return in one week forEMB. Check pelvic ultrasound +'onsider urodynamic testing. Plan surgery in future for stress urinary incontinence + + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 431-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2009 Page 3 of 3 +and cystocele. +Probabie antento repaor +Continued +and Burch. Discussed +risks and benefits of +HRT extensively. +FOLLOWUP PLAN: Return in 1 Week +Entered: LER +Supervised by: +Page 3 of +3 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a2941295c2875ad3d87e8dc8add70f34f415dd155b2de3ddde31eada1eeabf8f.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a2941295c2875ad3d87e8dc8add70f34f415dd155b2de3ddde31eada1eeabf8f.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d0e01607074a0b8ed0130d95689b0310f9d423f7 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a2941295c2875ad3d87e8dc8add70f34f415dd155b2de3ddde31eada1eeabf8f.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -128, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "a2941295c2875ad3d87e8dc8add70f34f415dd155b2de3ddde31eada1eeabf8f", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 6, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "68dfba8333cd4733f39baf3460e09c7a0290ab4b808b194251d47f5e6fe45b30", + "output_sha256": "7d940fe6d9c0b7feb0defbf9f7c669c22963dcc7af4c013e4c9ff15c9195a6ac", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a2b670bbc371c4afba078b7e0bca49b29a70dc7f028c8ef0f1558162e3675d91.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a2b670bbc371c4afba078b7e0bca49b29a70dc7f028c8ef0f1558162e3675d91.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2c284930c482eee0f7caed5d2bc6b8d0632dd0de --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a2b670bbc371c4afba078b7e0bca49b29a70dc7f028c8ef0f1558162e3675d91.md @@ -0,0 +1,26 @@ +Case 9:09-cv-80802-KAM Document 32 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2010 Page 1 of 1 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 09-CV-80802-MARRA- +JANE DOE NO. 8 +V. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Plaintiff, +Defendant. +FINAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE +THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon the parties' Stipulation of Dismissal with +Prejudice [DE 3l], filed June 25, 2010. The Court has reviewed the Stipulation, the +pertinent portions of the record, and is otherwise advised in the premises. +accordance with the parties' Stipulation, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: +1. The above-styled action is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. +2. All pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT. +3. The Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the parties' +settlement. +4. The Clerk shall CLOSE THIS CASE. +DONE AND ORDERED in +at West Palm Beach, Florida this 25 day +of June, 2010. +KENNETH A. MARRA +UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE +Copies Furnished to: +All Counsel of Record diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a2b670bbc371c4afba078b7e0bca49b29a70dc7f028c8ef0f1558162e3675d91.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a2b670bbc371c4afba078b7e0bca49b29a70dc7f028c8ef0f1558162e3675d91.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4adb7b6013e841b382a22506d0b66d91465aab5a --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a2b670bbc371c4afba078b7e0bca49b29a70dc7f028c8ef0f1558162e3675d91.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "a2b670bbc371c4afba078b7e0bca49b29a70dc7f028c8ef0f1558162e3675d91", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "87ea8b156e1bc789018772e273b918dfebdf21e782ec6734a74e315e0db29602", + "output_sha256": "54b6c4ad240c0bf66ad10570de5c584e1aa537235899a5be220f0eeb162dd5eb", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a2cc52fe1886dce03b7b623f3c13f21fb555343c6216b0c2fa7d81a734cb7c95.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a2cc52fe1886dce03b7b623f3c13f21fb555343c6216b0c2fa7d81a734cb7c95.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..194d306e62a45e34834a8c0611f1b58c2f64323b --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a2cc52fe1886dce03b7b623f3c13f21fb555343c6216b0c2fa7d81a734cb7c95.md @@ -0,0 +1,201 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 156 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/27/2012 Page 1 of 8 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA +JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, +Petitioners, +FEB 2 4 2012 +S.D. OF FLA. - WRE +VS. +UNITED STATES, +Respondent. +RESPONDENT'S SEALED OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS' MOTION REQUESTING +AN ORDER DIRECTING THE GOVERNMENT TO FILE REDACTED +PLEADINGS IN THE PUBLIC COURT FILE +UNDER SEAL + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 156 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/27/2012 Page 2 of 8 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA +JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, +Petitioners, +VS. +UNITED STATES, +UNDER SEAL +Respondent. +RESPONDENT'S SEALED OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS' MOTION REQUESTING +AN ORDER DIRECTING THE GOVERNMENT TO FILE REDACTED +PLEADINGS IN THE PUBLIC COURT FILE +Respondent, by and through its undersigned counsel, files its Opposition to Petitioners' +Motion Requesting an Order Directing the Government to File Redacted Pleadings in the Public +Court file, and state: +I. +THE GOVERNMENT HAS COMPLIED WITH THE ORDER PERMITTING +LIMITED DISCLOSURE OF GRAND JURY INFORMATION BY FILING THE +REFERENCED MEMORANDUM, MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY, AND REPLY, +UNDER SEAL +Petitioners ask this Court to issue an order directing respondent to file redacted versions +of its (1) Sealed Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter +Jurisdiction; (2) Sealed Motion to Stay Discovery; and (3) Sealed Reply in Support of Motion to +Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction. Petitioners' motion should be denied because +the government has filed these three documents under seal in compliance with the Order granting +limited disclosure of grand jury information, entered on November 7, 2011. +1 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 156 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/27/2012 Page 3 of 8 +On November 7, 2011, the government sought a Court order pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. +6(e)(3)(E)(), to permit limited disclosure of grand jury information which was relevant to +whether this Court has subject matter jurisdiction. On the same day, the Honorable Donald M. +Middlebrooks, United States District Judge, entered a Sealed Order granting the government's +motion for limited disclosure of grand jury matter.' The disclosure was conditioned on the +following: +(1) the disclosure of the aforementioned grand jury information should be limited to +filings made under seal in Case No. 08-80726-CIV-MARRA; +(2) the service of filings containing the aforementioned grand jury information shall be +limited to counsel for Petitioners Jane Doe No.1 and Jane Doe No. 2 and for the government in +Case No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA, and shall be accompanied by a copy of this Order; and +(3) further dissemination by any person or entity receiving disclosure of the grand jury +information authorized to be disclosed by this Order shall be limited to the individual Petitioners +in Case No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA, and any dissemination of such grand jury information shall +be accompanied by a copy of this Order. +Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(2)(B), certain individuals, such as grand jurors, prosecutors, +stenographers and others are forbidden from disclosing "matters occurring before the grand +jury." "This phrase -- 'matters occurring before the grand jury' - includes not only what has +occurred and what is occurring, but also what is likely to occur." In re Motions of Dow +& +Company, 142 F.3d 496, 500 (D.C. Cir. 1998). Further, "[e]ncompassed within the rule of +secrecy are 'the identities of witnesses or jurors, the substance of testimony" as well as actual +transcripts, 'the strategy or direction of the investigation, the deliberations or questions of jurors, +and the like."" Id. at 500, citing SEC v. Dresser Industries, Inc., 628 F.2d 1368, 1382 (D.C. Cir. +' SDFL IOP 8.01.00 provides: "Grand jury matters, and all matters reasonably related to the original grand +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 156 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/27/2012 Page 4 of 8 +1980)(en banc). Plainly, the scope of what constitutes "matters occurring before the grand jury" +is not as narrow as petitioners contend. +Petitioners rely upon United States v. Ignasiak, -- F.3d -- , 2012 WL 149314 (11" Cir. +Jan. 19, 2012), and Romero v. Drummond Co., Inc., 480 F.3d 1234 (11" Cir. 2007). D.E. 150 at +2-3. Neither of these cases involve the sealing of matters occurring before the grand jury. In +Ignasiak, the government filed under seal, a post-trial in camera notice to the court, containing +impeachment information about Dr. Arthur Jordan, a key witness for the government. 2012 WL +149314 at *15. The defendant, Ignasiak, moved to unseal the notice, along with the +accompanying affidavit from the trial prosecutor. The government opposed the motion, and the +district court summarily denied the motion to unseal. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit reversed +the district court. Id. at 16. The appellate court noted there was a value of openness in criminal +proceedings, where the public had a "right to know the extent of Dr. Jordan's involvement with +the government." Id. Finding that the public's right to know outweighed any privacy interest of +Dr. Jordan, the appellate court found the district court had abused its discretion in denying the +motion to unseal. +In Romero v. Drummond Company, Inc., 480 F.3d 1234 (11" Cir. 2007), the Eleventh +Circuit found that a district court abused its discretion by refusing to unseal a motion for +reconsideration and accompanying affidavits filed by the plaintiffs. The Court of Appeals +recognized a common law right of access to judicial proceedings, and in particular, "[m]aterial +filed in connection with any substantive pretrial motion, unrelated to discovery, is subject to the +common law right of access." Id. at 1245 (citation omitted). The appellate court found the +lower court had abused its discretion in refusing to unseal Romero's Motion to Submit Pertinent +Information to U.S. State & Justice Departments, with two attached declarations; Drummond's +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 156 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/27/2012 Page 5 of 8 +sealed motion to seal Romero's motion and two attached declarations; and Romero's motion for +reconsideration. The sealing of these documents was not predicated in any way on the concept +of grand jury secrecy. +The common law right of access to judicial proceedings, recognized in Ignasiak and +Romero v. Drummond, does not apply in the instant case because grand jury secrecy is the basis +for sealing the three documents referenced in petitioners' motion. In In re Motions of Dow.||Il +& Company, the Court of Appeals observed that the press had advanced a common law right of +access to ancillary proceedings, based upon the Supreme Court's recognition of a common law +right of access to inspect and copy judicial records. 142 F.3d at 504, citing Nixon v. Warner +Communications, 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978). The appellate court also observed that this +common law right was not absolute: +Although some have identified a common law tradition of public access to +criminal trials, this never extended to preindictment, pretrial proceedings +involving a grand jury. Gannett Co. 443 U.S. 368, 99 S.Ct. 2898, indicates as +much. In any event, even if there was once a common law right of access to +materials of the sort at issue here, the common law has been supplanted by Rule +6(e)(5) and Rule 6(e)(6) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. These +Rules, not the common law, now govern. See In re Grand Jury Subpoena (John +Doe No. 4), 103 F.3d at 237. +142 F.3d at 504. Additionally, a district court is not compelled to take the least restrictive +means available to protect the secrecy of the grand jury proceedings during the pendency of +those proceedings. In re Subpoena to Testify Before Grand Jury, 864 F.2d 1559, 1564 (11" Cir. +1989), and United States v. +, 123 F.3d 140, 152-54 (3d Cir. 1997)(refusing to require +district court to redact briefs). +The government has acted with reasonable prudence and caution in filing the three +referenced documents under seal. The November 7, 2011 Order granted the government +limited authority to make disclosure of what would otherwise be information subject to grand +4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 156 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/27/2012 Page 6 of 8 +jury secrecy. The government's fidelity to the conditions placed by the Court on the disclosure +should not be the basis for castigating the government. +Petitioners argue that keeping the pleadings under seal "unduly burdens counsel for the +victims." D.E. 150 at 4. However, petitioners acknowledge that they filed lengthy responses to +the sealed memorandum in support of motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, +and sealed motion to stay discovery, on December 5, 2011. D.E. 150 at 2. Further, petitioners +stated they filed these responses in the public file, while filing short, sealed responses to what +petitioners contend were issues "that touched on the confidential grand jury information." Id. It +is difficult to understand how petitioners' ability to effectively respond to the government's +sealed motions has been impeded in any meaningful way. Moreover, petitioners have made +their own judgment as to what is covered by Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e) by filing large portions of their +responses in the public court file. Petitioners are free to make their own choices as to what is, +and is not encompassed in the November 7, 2011 Order. At the same time, the government +should not be faulted for choosing what it believes is a more prudent course. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 156 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/27/2012 Page 7 of 8 +Petitioners' motion requesting an order directing the government to file redacted +pleadings in the public court file should be denied. +DATED: February 24, 2012 +Respectfully submitted, +WIFREDO A. FERRER +UNITED STATES ATTORNEY +Assistant U.S. Attorney +Fla. Bar No. 0936693 +A +I VILLAFAÑA +EDUARDO I. i +Assistant U.S. Attorneys +99 N.E. 4" Street +Miami, Florida 33132 +(305) 961-9320 +Fax: (305) 530-7139 +E-mail: dexter.lee@usdoj.gov +Attorneys for Respondent +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I HEREBY CERTIFY that on February 24, 2012, I served the attorneys on the attached +Service List by U.S. Mail. +Assistant U.S. Attorney +6 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 156 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/27/2012 Page 8 of 8 +SERVICE LIST +Jane Does 1 and 2 v. United States, +Case No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/1 +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +Esq., +Jaffe, Weissing, +425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 +Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 +(954) 524-2820 +Fax: (954) 524-2822 +E-mail: brad@pathtojustice.com +Paul G. Cassell +S.J. Quinney College of Law at the +University of Utah +332 S. 1400 E. +Salt Lake City, Utah 84112 +(801) 585-5202 +Fax: (801) 585-6833 +E-mail: casselp@law.utah.edu +Attorneys for Jane Doe # 1 and Jane Doe # 2 +Fistos & Lehrman, P.L. +7 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a2cc52fe1886dce03b7b623f3c13f21fb555343c6216b0c2fa7d81a734cb7c95.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a2cc52fe1886dce03b7b623f3c13f21fb555343c6216b0c2fa7d81a734cb7c95.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9b22c9c672e011b6e32ae7c28031960d9a299ada --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a2cc52fe1886dce03b7b623f3c13f21fb555343c6216b0c2fa7d81a734cb7c95.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -96, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "a2cc52fe1886dce03b7b623f3c13f21fb555343c6216b0c2fa7d81a734cb7c95", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 8, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "8b513361c907e95b14b0c08def5583422d6f15c50de97c852d5e8c0c4c921213", + "output_sha256": "1a765c7661c0aab577b0e6f816040d597d35253ab7af337991a9b0842a92a998", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a2d3d9bbfbb826eadd32c1ad39c0ffc228b77aa05c8386d1c68ce77d9ebde4a7.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a2d3d9bbfbb826eadd32c1ad39c0ffc228b77aa05c8386d1c68ce77d9ebde4a7.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a10c3e0854624d0aa58b136c6b9fb94561521dde --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a2d3d9bbfbb826eadd32c1ad39c0ffc228b77aa05c8386d1c68ce77d9ebde4a7.md @@ -0,0 +1,585 @@ +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 81 Filed 06/23/20 + +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff, +-V.- +DARREN K. INDYKE and RICHARD D. KAHN, +in their capacities as the executors of the Estate +of Jeffrey E. Epstein, +19 Civ. 8673 (KPF) +OPINION AND ORDER +Defendants. +KATHERINE POLK FAILLA, District Judge!: +Plaintiff Jane Doe? brings this action under New York law against +Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn in their capacities as appointed +executors of the Estate of Jeffrey Epstein (together, "Defendants"). Plaintiff +asserts tort claims for sexual assault, sexual battery, intentional infliction of +emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress, for which she +seeks actual, compensatory, statutory, consequential, and punitive damages. +Defendants seek to dismiss Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages, arguing that: +(i) New York law applies to the punitive damages claim because the torts +allegedly occurred in New York; (ii) New York law bars the recovery of punitive +damages against a decedent tortfeasor's estate; and (iii) even if the law of the +United States Virgin Islands ("USVI") were to apply, it also would prohibit the +recovery of punitive damages against a decedent tortfeasor's estate. For the +arah Pyun, a rising second-year student at Fordham Law School and an intern in m +provided substantial assistance in researching and drafting this Opinion +Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed pseudonymously. (Dkt. #26). + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 81 Filed 06/23/20 Page 2 of 21 +reasons explained below, the Court dismisses Plaintiff's claim for punitive +damages. +BACKGROUND3 +A. +Factual Background +The Court accepts as true the well-pleaded allegations of the Complaint +for purposes of this motion. In broad summary, Plaintiff presents a disturbing +and corrosive pattern of sexual abuse and emotional manipulation of herself +and others over the course of three years by Jeffrey Epstein. (Compl. 11 15- +60). At all times relevant to this suit, Plaintiff was an economically +disadvantaged minor child living in New York City. (Id. at 11 12, 22). She was +raised by her single mother for the majority of her life. (Id. at 1 21). Financial +hardships afflicted Plaintiff and her family throughout her childhood, in part +because of the extensive medical care required to treat Plaintiff's younger +sister, who suffered from serious medical conditions. (Id. at 1 22). +In or around 2002, when Plaintiff was approximately fourteen years old, +she learned of Epstein through an older teenage girl from her neighborhood, +who approached Plaintiff with an opportunity to meet a "wealthy man" and +earn money. (Compl. 1 23). By that time, Plaintiff had been forced to move out +of her home and take on certain jobs after school to help support her family. +(Id. at 1 24). As a result, Plaintiff agreed to meet Epstein. (Id.). The older +3 +The facts contained in this Opinion are drawn primarily from Plaintiff's Complaint +("Complaint" or "Compl." (Dkt. #1)), which is the operative pleading in this case. +'or ease of reference, the Court refers to Defendants' opening brief as "Def. Br." (Dkt +·47); Plaintiff's opposition brief as "PI. Opp." (Dkt. #51); Defendants' reply brief as "Def +Reply" (Dkt. #55); and Plaintiff's Reply Letter as "Pl. Rep. Lt." (Dkt. #62). +2 + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 81 Filed 06/23/20 Page 3 of 21 +teenage girl brought Plaintiff to Epstein's Upper East Side mansion, where they +waited in a room until Epstein arrived, wearing only a robe. (Id. at 11 25-27). +Epstein asked Plaintiff her name and age, to which she responded truthfully. +(Id.). With this knowledge, Epstein began to test Plaintiff's boundaries by +engaging in escalating levels of sexual abuse on numerous occasions, paying +her several hundred dollars after each encounter. (Id. at 11 42-43). +The Complaint is harrowing in its detail of how Epstein's actions and +demands intensified over the course of three years, to the point where he +caused Plaintiff physical pain by forcing her to express pleasure as he violated +her. (Compl. 11 34-44). The Complaint further alleges that Epstein was aided +by his associates, who allowed, facilitated, and participated in his abuse of +Plaintiff and other young women. (Id. at 11 45-53). As Plaintiff grew financially +reliant on Epstein, she stopped attending school to spend her time "working" at +his home, gratifying him sexually, or bringing other girls to do the same, just +as she had been brought to him initially. (Id. at 9| 41). Epstein's conduct, for +which the adjective egregious seems an understatement, caused Plaintiff to +develop post-traumatic stress disorder; she continues to suffer from lasting +emotional repercussions that have affected her mental health, family life, and +education. (Id. at 11 54-80). +Plaintiff was one of several minor victims who suffered sexual abuse and +exploitation at the hands of Epstein. (Compl. 91| 43-44). In July 2019, Epstein +was indicted in this District for his decades-long child abuse scheme after an +investigation to which Plaintiff contributed by cooperating, confidentially, with +3 + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 81 Filed 06/23/20 Page 4 of 21 +authorities. (Id. at 19 61-62). On August 8, 2019, two days before his reported +suicide, Epstein executed his last will and testament (the "Will"), which +provided for his Estate to be probated in the USVI. (Id. at 11 63-65). Epstein +appointed Defendants to administer his Estate. (Id. at 11 65, 67-68). Plaintiff +seeks to obtain recovery from the Estate for the years of pain and suffering +Epstein inflicted on her. (Id. at 11 6, 63). +B. Procedural History +Plaintiff filed the Complaint in this action on September 18, 2019. (Dkt. +#1). The Complaint seeks relief for actual, compensatory, statutory, +consequential, and punitive damages. (Compl. | 88). On November 1, 2019, +Plaintiff filed a letter notifying the Court of several cases brought by other +plaintiffs against the Epstein Estate alleging similar claims of sexual abuse. +(Dkt. #16). All such cases, including the present one, were later consolidated +for discovery purposes before Magistrate Judge Debra Freeman. (Dkt. #23). +On December 2, 2019, Defendants filed a letter requesting a pre-motion +conference concerning their anticipated motion to dismiss Plaintiff's punitive +damages claim. (Dkt. #35). Plaintiff filed a letter in opposition on August 4, +2019. (Dkt. #36). The Court held a pre-motion conference on December 11, +2019. (Dkt. #40 (transcript)). Following the conference, the Court set a +briefing schedule and denied a stay of discovery pending resolution of +Defendants' motion to dismiss. (Dkt. #39). +On January 15, 2020, Defendants filed their partial motion to dismiss, +arguing that New York law applies to the issue of punitive damages because +4 + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 81 Filed 06/23/20 Page 5 of 21 +the alleged torts occurred in New York and, further, that as a matter of New +York law, punitive damages cannot be recovered against personal +representatives of an estate. (Dkt. #46, 47).4 Defendants further argue that +even if USVI law were to apply, as Plaintiff claims, punitive damages would still +be unavailable. (Id.). On February 14, 2020, Plaintiff filed a memorandum of +law in opposition to Defendants' motion. (Dkt. #51). The memorandum was +supported by a declaration from Roberta A. Kaplan, Esq., that attached copies +of Epstein's Will and the Complaint filed in Government of the United States +Virgin Islands v. Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, et al., ST-20-CV-14 (V.I. Super. Ct. +Jan. 15, 2020). (Dkt. #52). Defendants filed a reply brief on February 28, +2020. (Dkt. #55). +On April 28, 2020, Defendants filed a letter notifying the Court of +supplemental authority from a sister court in this District. (Dkt. #61). Plaintiff +filed a reply letter on April 29, 2020. (Dkt. #62). On April 30, 2020, +Defendants filed a letter with additional supplemental authority. (Dkt. #64). +And on June 19, 2020, Defendants filed a letter with still further supplemental +Plaintiff contends that Defendants' motion is more properly denominated a motion to +strike under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(t), inasmuch as the motion does not +seek to dismiss any of Plaintiff's four causes of action, but rather seeks to excise +Plaintiff's demand for punitive damages. (See Pl. Opp. 1 n.1). As a sister court in this +District concluded in Mary Doe v. Indyke, — F. Supp. 3d -, No. 19 Civ. 10758 (PAE), +2020 WL 2036707, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 28, 2020), this Court need not weigh in on this +conceptual debate because Defendants' motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) can, +alternatively, be treated as a motion to strike under Rule 12(f). See 5C Charles A. +& Alan R. +_. FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 1380 (3d ed.) (*|T]he +technical name given to a motion challenging a pleading is of little importance +inasmuch as prejudice to the nonmoving party hardly can result from treating a motion +that has been inaccurately denominated a motion to strike as a motion to dismiss the +complaint."). +5 + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 81 Filed 06/23/20 Page 6 of 21 +authority. (Dkt. #75). Accordingly, the motion is fully briefed and ripe for +decision. +DISCUSSION +A. Applicable Law +When a court considers a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil +Procedure 12(b)(6), it must "draw all reasonable inferences in Plaintiff|'s] favor, +assume all well-pleaded factual allegations to be true, and determine whether +they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief." Faber v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., +648 F.3d 98, 104 (2d Cir. 2011) (quoting Selevan v. N.Y. Thruway Auth., 584 +F.3d 82, 88 (2d Cir. 2009)) (internal quotation marks omitted). A plaintiff will +survive a motion to dismiss if she alleges "enough facts to state a claim to relief +that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 +(2007); see also In re Elevator Antitrust Litig., 502 F.3d 47, 50 (2d Cir. 2007) +("While Twombly does not require heightened fact pleading of specifics, it does +require enough facts to nudge [a plaintiff's] claims across the line from +conceivable to plausible." (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). +The Court is not, however, bound to accept "conclusory allegations or +legal conclusions masquerading as factual conclusions." Rolon v. Henneman, +517 F.3d 140, 149 (2d Cir. 2008) (citation omitted); see also Harris v. Mills, 572 +F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009) ("[A]lthough a court must accept as true all of the +allegations contained in a complaint, that tenet is inapplicable to legal +conclusions, and threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 81 Filed 06/23/20 Page 7 of 21 +supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." (internal quotation +marks, brackets, and citation omitted)). S +B. Analysis +The issue before the Court concerns whether the executors of Epstein's +Estate may be held liable for punitive damages — recovery that would +indisputably be available were Epstein still alive. (Pl. Opp. 2; Def. Reply 1). +Defendants assert at the outset that New York estate law, rather than USVI +law, applies to bar punitive damages against executors of an estate in a +personal injury suit. (See Def. Br. 1-2). Plaintiff maintains that USVI law +governs her punitive damages claim and allows it to stand, but that even if New +York law applied, relevant choice-of-law rules enable her to bring this action +under USVI law. (See Pl. Opp. 1-2, 17-18). By contrast, Defendants argue +that, even under USVI law, punitive damages are unavailable. (See Def. Br. 4- +6). The Court addresses each of these arguments in turn. +5 +A similar analysis would obtain were the motion construed as one to strike Plaintiff's +claim for punitive damages. Under Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a +party may move to "strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, +immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). Courts in this +District have found that "[t)he standard that applies to a motion to strike is the 'mirror +image' of the standard on a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim." Bd. +of Managers of Trump Tower at City Ctr. Condo. v. Palazzolo, 346 F. Supp. 3d 432, 471 +(S.D.N.Y. 2018) (internal citations and quotations omitted); see generally Rosa v. TCC +Commens, Inc., No. 15 Civ. 1665 (WHP), 2016 WL 67729, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 5, 2016) +(granting motion to strike punitive damages claim). Courts have also observed that +such motions are "generally disfavored." Oram v. SoulCycle LLC, 979 F. Supp. 2d 498, +511 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). +7 + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 81 Filed 06/23/20 Page 8 of 21 +1. +The New York Statute Authorizing Personal Injury Actions +Against a Decedent's Estate Precludes Punitive Damages +Claims in Such Actions +To begin, Defendants seek dismissal of Plaintiff's punitive damages claim +on the ground that New York law bars such claims in personal injury suits +against representatives of a decedent's estate. The statute in question, § 11- +3.2(a)(1) of New York's Estates, Powers and Trusts Law ("EPTL"), provides: +No cause of action for injury to person or property is lost +because of the death of the person liable for the injury. +For any injury, an action may be brought or continued +against the personal representative of the decedent, but +punitive damages shall not be awarded nor penalties +adjudged in any such action brought to recover damages +for personal injury. +EPTL § 11-3.2 (a)(1) (emphasis added). +As three recent cases in this District, presenting similar claims against +the same Defendants, have recognized, this provision clearly prohibits the +award of punitive damages in the situation at hand. See Mary Doe v. Indyke, +— F. Supp. 3d —, No. 19 Civ. 10758 (PAE), 2020 WL 2036707, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. +Apr. 28, 2020) (holding that EPTL § 11-3.2(a)(1) involves a categorical +preclusion of punitive damages against a deceased tortfeasor's estate); see also +Lisa Doe v. Indyke, No. 19 Civ. 7773 (ER), 2020 WL 3073219, at *14-15 +(S.D.N.Y. June 9, 2020) (same); Doe 15 v. Indyke, No. 19 Civ. 10653 (PAE), +2020 WL 2086194, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 30, 2020) ("New Mexico common law as +announced by the state supreme court, like EPTL § 11-3.2(a)(1), bars punitive +damages in a personal injury action against a tortfeasor's estate."). Both +federal courts addressing constitutional-tort claims under New York law, and +8 + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 81 Filed 06/23/20 Page 9 of 21 +state courts in personal injury actions governed by New York law, have +concluded similarly. See Mary Doe, 2020 WL 2036707, at *2 (collecting New +York federal and state cases). +This position is also reflected in the majority of United States +jurisdictions, as the Restatement (Second) of Torts indicates. See Restatement +(Second) of Torts § 908 cmt. a (Am. Law Inst. 1979) ("Punitive damages are not +awarded against the representatives of a deceased tortfeasor."). The common +justification for the majority rule is that "punishment and deterrence — the +recognized bases for imposing punitive damages on a tortfeasor — are not +advanced by imposing punitive damages on his or her estate." Mary Doe, 2020 +WL 2036707, at *3; see also Blissett v. Eisensmidt, 940 F. Supp. 449, 457 +(N.D.N.Y. 1996) (brackets and citation omitted) ("There is a strong policy +against the assessment of punitive damages against an estate on account of +wrongful conduct of the decedent."). +Thus, as a threshold matter under New York law, punitive damages are +unavailable in a case against personal representatives of a decedent tortfeasor's +estate. +2. +New York Law Governs Plaintiff's Punitive Damages Claim +Plaintiff does not dispute that she would be barred from recovering +punitive damages if her claim were strictly governed by EPTL § 11-3.2(a)(1). 6 +In Lisa Doe v. Indyke, No. 19 Civ. 7773 (ER), 2020 WL 3073219, at *14 (S.D.N.Y. +9 + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 81 Filed 06/23/20 Page 10 of 21 +Instead, Plaintiff makes two distinct arguments: (i) New York choice-of-law +rules allow Plaintiff to seek punitive damages under USVI law, even if she +pursues her personal injury claims under New York law; and (ii) Plaintiff has a +statutory right to sue Epstein's estate under either USVI or New York law. (See +Pl. Opp. 1-2, 17-18). +With respect to Plaintiff's first argument, this Court, like many courts +before it, recognizes New York choice-of-law rules, which apply an "interest +analysis" to resolve conflicts of law in tort actions. See, e.g., Mary Doe, 2020 +WL 2036707, at *5; Golden v. Wyeth, Inc., No. 04 Civ. 2841 (JS), 2013 WL +4500879, at *1-2 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 20, 2013). As construed by the Second +Circuit, the "interest analysis" requires application of the law of the jurisdiction +with the greatest interest in the litigation. In re Thelen LLP, 736 F.3d 213, 219 +(2d Cir. 2013) (brackets, alteration, and internal quotation marks omitted). +Further, the jurisdiction with more "significant contacts" relating to the +purpose of the law in conflict has the greater interest. See GlobalNet +Financial. Com, Inc. v. +Crystal & Co., 449 F.3d 377, 384 (2d Cir. 2006) +(citing +v. Boy Scouts of Am., Inc., 65 N.Y.2d 189, 197 (1985)). +Torts are divided into two types: conduct-regulating rules, such as "rules +of the road," and loss-allocation rules, "such as those limiting damages in +wrongful death actions, vicarious liability rules, or immunities from suit." In re +Thelen, 736 F.3d at 220 (citation omitted). "If conflicting conduct-regulating +laws are at issue, the law of the jurisdiction where the tort occurred will +generally apply because that jurisdiction has the greatest interest in regulating +10 + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 81 Filed 06/23/20 Page 11 of 21 +behavior within its borders." Id. (quoting Cooney v. Osgood Mach., Inc., 81 +N.Y.2d 66, 72 (1993)) (emphasis added). +The parties do not dispute that punitive damages rules are conductregulating. See, e.g., Mary Doe, 2020 WL 2036707, at *5 (collecting cases +reaching the same conclusion). Defendants argue that because Plaintiff's +causes of action occurred entirely in New York, EPTL § 11-3.2(a)(1) applies to +bar punitive damages. (Def. Br. 3). Plaintiff counters that the conductregulating classification does not end the inquiry, because a court must still +consider whether there is a "good reason not to apply" the law of the +jurisdiction where the tort occurred. (PI. Opp. 9 (quoting Nat'l Jewish +Democratic Council v. Adelson, 417 F. Supp. 3d 416, 426 (S.D.N.Y. 2019))). +In particular, Plaintiff identifies two circumstances that, she claims, give +the Court "good reason" to apply USVI law to the issue of punitive damages. +(See Pl. Opp. 8-11). First, Plaintiff contends that the fact that Defendants are +USVI domiciliaries counsels in favor of applying USVI estate law. (See id. at 9- +10). And in this regard, Plaintiff relies on Adelson to argue the importance of +deferring to a defendant's domicile in applying a particular jurisdiction's law. +(See id. at 9, 11; Pl. Rep. Lt. 1, 2 n.2 (citing Adelson, 417 F. Supp. at 426 +(reasoning that defendant's domiciliary, Nevada, "points in favor" of applying +Nevada punitive damages law))). But while Plaintiff's invocation of Adelson's +"points in favor" language is well-argued, that language is ultimately only a +partial recitation of the interest-analysis test described above. See GlobalNet, +449 F.3d at 384 (quotations and citations omitted) (explaining how under the +11 + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 81 Filed 06/23/20 Page 12 of 21 +interest-analysis test, significant contacts are, almost exclusively, the parties' +domiciles and the locus of the tort). In context, the weight afforded to domicile +in Adelson was largely due to the irrelevance of the locus of the tort factor, as +the suit's sole connection to New York was that it was filed there. Adelson, 417 +F. Supp. 3d at 426. Furthermore, Adelson's previous attempt to avail himself +of the benefits of Nevada defamation law granted Nevada the greater interest in +governing punitive damages as compared to New York. Id. +To describe Adelson is thus to highlight its insignificance to the instant +case. At all times material to the conduct alleged in the Complaint, Plaintiff +was domiciled in New York. All of the alleged torts took place in the home +Epstein maintained in New York. (Cf. Compl. 1 13 ("All of the events giving rise +to these causes of action occurred in the Southern District of New York, thus +venue in this district is proper.")). Further, Plaintiff chose to sue in New York, +where her causes of action are timely pursuant to the New York Child Victims +Act, N.Y.P.L. § 130.52-55. (See id. at 11 73, 77, 82, 86). And Plaintiff's case, +like Mary Doe and unlike Adelson with Nevada law, "does not build on a prior +litigation in, or based on the law of, the USVI." Mary Doe, 2020 WL 2036707, +at *7. These facts, taken together, demonstrate that New York's interest in +applying its punitive damages rules to this case outweighs the USVI's interest, +which exists only because of Epstein's decision to probate his estate there. See +Lisa Doe, 2020 WL 3073219, at *15 (concluding that New York punitive +damages law, rather than USVI punitive damages law, applied to plaintiff's case +"allegling] torts under New York law committed entirely within New York"). If +12 + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 81 Filed 06/23/20 Page 13 of 21 +anything, it is the USVI, and not New York, that has a "merely fortuitous +relationship with the case," minimizing its interest in governing punitive +damages. Adelson, 417 F. Supp. 3d at 427 (citation omitted). +In addition to her domicile argument, Plaintiff asserts that the USVI has +a greater interest than New York in preventing Epstein and his Estate from +availing themselves of the benefits, but not the burdens, of USVI probate law. +Despite her plausible policy concerns, Plaintiff provides little in the way of +precedential support for her contention that "where a tortfeasor commits +suicide to avoid imposition of punitive damages, considerations of fairness no +longer counsel in favor of protecting his estate." (PI. Opp. 12). Nor does she +substantiate her claim that "[p]rohibiting punitive damages in this case would +not protect innocent heirs; it would punish traumatized victims deserving of +adequate compensation." (Id.). In Mary Doe, the plaintiff asserted a +comparable argument, claiming that Epstein's decision to alter his Will shortly +before his suicide was strategically motivated, and thus his executors should +not be permitted to selectively avail themselves of certain benefits of USVI law +but avoid aspects that they do not like. Mary Doe, 2020 WL 2036707, at *5. +But, as with the Mary Doe court, this Court is left unpersuaded. Id. at *6 +("[Mary] Doe's point that the estate may prosper from being probated in the +USVI is disconnected from her claims."). +Meanwhile, New York's interest in governing Plaintiff's punitive damages +claim remains clear, as the place of the allegedly wrongful conduct "generally +has superior interests in protecting the reasonable expectations of the parties +13 + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 81 Filed 06/23/20 Page 14 of 21 +who relied on the laws of that place to govern their primary conduct and in the +admonitory effect that applying its law will have on similar conduct in the +future." Mary Doe, 2020 WL 2036707, at *6 (quoting AHW Inv. P'ship, MFS v. +Citigroup, Inc., 661 F. App'x 2, 5 (2d Cir. 2016) (internal quotations and +citations omitted)). With numerous personal injury actions pending against the +Epstein Estate under New York law for alleged conduct that largely occurred in +New York, the state has abundant interest in "vindicating the rights of [these] +victims]" and "assuring that the perpetrator of that abuse is adequately +punished and deterred." Id. And as previously noted, New York's interest is +reinforced by the fact that Plaintiff's suit is timely only by virtue of the New +York Child Victims Act. (See Compl. 11 73, 77, 82, 86). Cf. 5 V.I.C. § 31(5)(A) +(specifying two-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions in the +USVI). +Separate and distinct from her choice-of-law argument, Plaintiff asserts a +statutory right to sue Epstein's Estate under either USVI or New York law. +First, Plaintiff claims a right to sue under USVI law because the Complaint +does not specifically invoke EPTL § 11-3.2(a)(1). The Court rejects this +argument out of hand: Plaintiff's ability to sue Defendants originates from +EPTL § 11-3.2(a)(1), as her causes of action are all personal injury claims based +on alleged conduct that occurred exclusively in New York. (Compl. 99 12-13).7 +Plaintiff's strategic decision to omit reference to the provision in her Complaint +ee generally N.Y. Gen. Constr. Law § 37-a (defining "personal injury" as including "a +ssault, battery, false imprisonment, or other actionable injury to the person either o +the plaintiff, or of another"). +14 + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 81 Filed 06/23/20 Page 15 of 21 +does not change this fact, let alone preclude New York law from applying. See +Mary Doe, 2020 WL 2036707, at *6 ("It is problematic for [plaintiff] to +cherrypick within [EPTL § 11-3.2(a)(1)], invoking the part that authorizes a +personal injury suit against an executor while disclaiming the balance, which +delimits the recovery available in such a suit."). As the district court in Blissett +recognized, "it would be an anomalous situation indeed if plaintiff were allowed +to proceed with this [8] 1983 action ... because of [8] 11-3.2(a)(1), while at the +same time he was allowed to recover relief, in the form of punitive damages, +which clearly is beyond the scope of relief which that statute authorizes." +Blissett, 940 F. Supp. at 457. Plaintiff asserts that Blissett is inapplicable, as +the claim there sought punitive damages for federal civil rights violations, +which are governed by different choice-of-law principles than personal injury +cases. (Pl. Opp. 18 n.9). However, the Blissett court concluded that this was a +distinction without a difference: The plaintiff there argued that the statute was +irrelevant because he sought redress for a constitutional violation, not a +personal injury. Id. The court disagreed because "stripped to its core, in +essence, [the plaintiff's] claim is one for personal injury." Id. It is only logical, +therefore, to infer that the anomaly identified in Blissett would counsel against +the grant of punitive damages that are disallowed under EPTL § 11-3.2(a)(1). +Second, Plaintiff asserts that she possesses a statutory right under USVI +law because it, specifically 15 V.I.C. § 601, allows personal injury claims +against a decedent tortfeasor's estate. Whether Virgin Islands law or New York +law applies to her ability to sue the Estate, Plaintiff claims she is authorized to +15 + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 81 Filed 06/23/20 Page 16 of 21 +bring this action under the law of either jurisdiction. But this argument fails +for several reasons, including that: (i) Plaintiff cites no legal authority +permitting a New York litigant to file a personal injury suit under § 601 in New +York in order to recover for torts occurring in New York; and (ii) Plaintiff does +not explain how she can bring this lawsuit pursuant to § 601 and avail herself +of USVI law governing punitive damages, while simultaneously maintaining +that the action is timely pursuant to the New York Child Victims Act. +Finally, echoing her choice-of-law argument, Plaintiff asserts that the +doctrine of dépeçage permits different jurisdictions' laws to govern the +availability of punitive damages and the availability of a cause of action. (See +Pl. Opp. 19).8 The Mary Doe court resolved the same question by holding that +dépeçage does not invite the application of two different sets of laws to a single +issue, and thus may not be invoked to cherrypick from EPTL § 11-3.2(a)(1). +Mary Doe, 2020 WL 2036707, at *6. Plaintiff argues that the availability of +punitive damages and the availability of a cause of action are not a "single +issue," and therefore that dépeçage may be invoked. (See Pl. Rep. Lt. 3). In +particular, Plaintiff points out that the "New York Court of Appeals has +recognized that the doctrine lof dépeçage] may sometimes require that a +plaintiff's demand for punitive damages be analyzed under the law of a state +other than the one under whose law the cause of action arises." Fed. Hous. +8 +Under the doctrine of dépeçage, "the rules of one legal system are applied to regulate +certain issues arising from a given transaction or occurrence, while those of another +system regulate the other issues." Hunterv. [ +, 734 F.2d 896, 901 (2d Cir. 1984) +(citation omitted). +16 + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 81 Filed 06/23/20 Page 17 of 21 +Fin. Agency v. Ally Fin. Inc., No. 11 Civ. 7010 (DLC), 2012 WL 6616061, at *5 +(S.D.N.Y. Dec. 19, 2012). In such an analysis, "a court must consider the +object or purpose of the wrongdoing, and give controlling effect to the law of the +jurisdiction with the strongest interest in the resolution of the particular issue +presented." Id. (citation omitted). While this statement may be persuasive in a +vacuum, the Ally Financial court still applied the punitive damages law of the +states in which the alleged fraud took place, reasoning that the states where +the "primary conduct allegedly took place ha|d] a stronger interest in deterring +such [fraud]." Id. at *5. By extension, and regardless of whether Plaintiff's +alleged causes of action and prayer for punitive damages are considered a +single issue, New York has the stronger interest in resolving Plaintiff's punitive +damages claim. Thus, dépeçage would be inapplicable here. +3. USVI Law Is Likely in Accord with New York Law Under a +Banks Analysis +Even if the Court assumed, arguendo, that USVI law applied, the +outcome would be the same. The USVI does not have a statute addressing the +availability of punitive damages against a decedent tortfeasor's estate. See +Powell v. Chi-Co's Distrib., Inc., No. ST-13-TOR-14, 2014 WL 1394183, at *2 +n. 11 (V.I. Super. Ct. Apr. 3, 2014) (pointing out the lack of standard for +asserting punitive damages in the USVI). When considering a question not +foreclosed by statute or precedent, USVI courts apply three "non-dispositive" +factors: (i) whether any USVI courts have previously adopted a particular rule; +(ii) the position taken by a majority of courts from other jurisdictions; and (iii) +17 + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 81 Filed 06/23/20 Page 18 of 21 +most importantly, which approach represents the soundest rule for the USVI. +Gou't of Virgin Islands v. +60 V.I. 597, 600 (2014) (citing Matthew v. +Herman, 56 V.I. 674, 680 (2012)). The test, known as the "Banks analysis," +determines the common-law disposition of the USVI on a given issue. See id. +(citing Banks v. Int'l Rental & Leasing Corp., 55 V.I. 967, 979 (2011)). +Plaintiff argues that the Banks analysis makes "clear that punitive +damages are available in this case." (PI. Opp. 13). Defendants champion the +opposite conclusion. (Def. Br. 4-5). This Court is ultimately persuaded by the +position taken by its sister court, viz., that the USVI would not allow the +imposition of punitive damages on a tortfeasor's estate, thereby aligning itself +with New York, the majority of states, and § 908 of the Restatement (Second) of +Torts. See Mary Doe, 2020 WL 2036707, at *7-8 (citing supporting cases); +accord Doe 15, 2020 WL 2086194, at *1. +As to the first factor, multiple courts in the USVI have recited the +Restatement's rule precluding punitive damages. See, e.g., +V. Dowson +Holding Co., 51 V.I. 619, 628 (D.V.I. 2009); Booth v. Bowen, Civ. No. 2006-217 +(CVG), 2008 WL 220067, at *5 (D.V.I. Jan. 10, 2008). While these cases +address punitive damages in wrongful death actions, they are still relevant, in +spite of Plaintiff's objections, as support for the USVI's longstanding application +of § 908 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts within the USVI. See Pappas v. +Hotel on the Cay Time-Sharing Ass'n, 69 V.I. 3, 15 n.8 (V.I. Super. Ct. 2015) +(relying on this accepted application in finding the Restatement's provision to +be the soundest rule for USVI courts with respect to the imposition of punitive +18 + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 81 Filed 06/23/20 Page 19 of 21 +damages and local public policy). Plaintiff has not cited any countervailing +authority within the USVI. +Plaintiff claims that Defendants exaggerate the degree to which the +second Banks factor favors prohibiting punitive damages against an estate, but +concedes that this is the majority rule. (Pl. Opp. 16). That "most of the +jurisdictions adopting the majority rule" have passed a statute codifying a +prohibition of punitive damages against a decedent's estate, and the USVI has +not, does not suggest that the majority rule would not apply in the USVI. This +is especially true considering that, before the adoption of the Banks analysis +less than a decade ago, USVI courts strictly followed the Restatements. See +Isaac v. Crichlow, 63 V.I. 38, 58-60 (V.I. Super. Ct. 2015) (concluding, +pursuant to a Banks analysis, that § 222A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts +reflects the common law of the USVI, despite the fact that the Restatements "no +longer constitute binding legal authority in this jurisdiction"); Mary Doe, 2020 +WL 2036707, at *7 (explaining how the distinction between adopting this result +by statute or by court decision "does not appear germane to the Banks +inquiry"). +Plaintiff focuses on the third factor, asserting that the Mary Doe court +reached its conclusion by "essentially eliminating the third Banks factor — i.e., +which approach represents the soundest rule for the USVI - from its analysis, +even though that factor is the 'most important' of the three." (Pl. Rep. Lt. 3 +(citing Antilles Sch., Inc. v. Lembach, 64 V.I. 400, 428 (V.I. 2016))). The +soundest rule, according to Plaintiff, is to permit punitive damages because: +19 + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 81 Filed 06/23/20 Page 20 of 21 +(i) the USVI Attorney General has articulated this very position on behalf of the +Virgin Islands in her pending lawsuit against the Estate; and (ii) punitive +damages in the USVI are designed both to punish wrongdoers and to deter +others from engaging in similar conduct. This Court does not give weight to +the Attorney General's suit, as "the decision by a government lawyer to attempt +to obtain such damages in a high-profile case involving allegations of extreme +conduct ... doles] not speak to the question that the third Banks factor assays." +Mary Doe, 2020 WL 2036707, at *8. And while the Court does not deny the +USVI's interest in punishing tortfeasors on its land, or even its interest in +holding Epstein's Estate accountable for his tortious actions in the USVI, +Plaintiff's alleged causes of action arose exclusively in New York. The Court is +skeptical that that it would be the policy of the USVI to regulate conduct +occurring in New York.° Thus, consideration of the Banks factors leads the +Court to conclude that USVI law, if applied, would likely be in accord with New +York law and bar Plaintiff's recovery of punitive damages in this action. 10 +10 +Notably, none of the available cases from the USVI relying on the Restatement +questions the validity of its prohibition against punitive damages recovery from a +decedent's estate. But courts have held that it is that "the Restatement (Second) of +Torts § 908(2) represents the soundest rule for the Virgin Islands, and is in accord with +local public policy." Powell v. Chi-Co's Distrib., Inc., No. ST-13-TOR-14, 2014 WL +1394183, at *2 n.11 (V.I. Super. Ct. Apr. 3, 2014). +Because the Court finds New York law applies to this issue, and USVI law would be in +accord, it declines Plaintiff's request to certify the question to the Supreme Court of the +Virgin Islands. +20 + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 81 Filed 06/23/20 Page 21 of 21 +CONCLUSION +To be clear, the conduct alleged in Plaintiff's Complaint is as shocking as +it is reprehensible. That said, even for egregious fact patterns, the Court is not +free to overlook the law, and the law here is clear. For the reasons detailed +above, Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's prayer for punitive damages is +GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion pending at +Docket No. 46. +SO ORDERED. +Dated: +June 23, 2020 +New York, New York +Katherin Pall Paula +KATHERINE POLK FAILLA +United States District Judge +21 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a2d3d9bbfbb826eadd32c1ad39c0ffc228b77aa05c8386d1c68ce77d9ebde4a7.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a2d3d9bbfbb826eadd32c1ad39c0ffc228b77aa05c8386d1c68ce77d9ebde4a7.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5712c9fc06551fea2c59978815bc2ed9493e800a --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a2d3d9bbfbb826eadd32c1ad39c0ffc228b77aa05c8386d1c68ce77d9ebde4a7.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -268, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "a2d3d9bbfbb826eadd32c1ad39c0ffc228b77aa05c8386d1c68ce77d9ebde4a7", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 24, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "4d4a62c335b0419e29b142df29e5822f662e97bc5e48fef1995e5394f1c4115c", + "output_sha256": "74c8f15f67886b6d79c2a7d4ee8ac53889d8c6060a27dd01daae6db6a776ba26", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a2e33385e98396127729245481e96da36ac27b657cbd2dcc1745916dbd17175d.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a2e33385e98396127729245481e96da36ac27b657cbd2dcc1745916dbd17175d.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8bf87f789adaf6ad377488513e6fdfb0dd2bfbda --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a2e33385e98396127729245481e96da36ac27b657cbd2dcc1745916dbd17175d.md @@ -0,0 +1,44 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 418 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/19/2009 Page 1 of 2 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO. 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/ +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 +OMNIBUS ORDER +THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Jane Doe #4's Motion for Protective Order as +to Scope of Depositions of Jane Doe 4's Parents (D.E. #148 in Case No. 08-80380); and +the related motion filed by Epstein to Strike, incorporated in Epstein's Response in +Opposition (D.E. #410). Having reviewed the pleadings filed incident to these matters and +being otherwise duly advised in the premises it is hereby, +ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: +(1) +Jane Doe #4's Motion for Protective Order as to Scope of Depositions of +Jane Doe 4's Parents (D.E. #148 in Case No. 08-80380) is STRICKEN for +failure to comply with the District Court's August 11, 2009 Order requiring all +motions relating to discovery be filed in Case No. 08-80119; and, +1 + + +6028ł2 +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 418 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/19/2009 Page 2 of 2 +(2) +The related Motion filed by Epstein to Strike, incorporated in Epstein's +Response in Opposition (D.E. #410), is GRANTED. Jane Doe #4's Motion +for Protective Order as to Scope of Depositions of Jane Doe 4's Parents +(D.E. #148 in Case No. 08-80380) is hereby stricken. +DONE AND ORDERED this November 19, 2009 in +, at West Palm Beach, +Florida. +Lincolmon +LINNEA R. JOHNSON +UNITED STATÉS MAGISTRATE JUDGE +CC: +The Honorable Kenneth A. Marra +All Counsel of Record \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a2e33385e98396127729245481e96da36ac27b657cbd2dcc1745916dbd17175d.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a2e33385e98396127729245481e96da36ac27b657cbd2dcc1745916dbd17175d.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..aca41779681dded9d8a433a1b95417068cb87a8d --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a2e33385e98396127729245481e96da36ac27b657cbd2dcc1745916dbd17175d.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "a2e33385e98396127729245481e96da36ac27b657cbd2dcc1745916dbd17175d", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "b244aa3a96dfa0a4a539fc12aa9ea852f0322f27b8a32f6f1748520a8a50de62", + "output_sha256": "3a8809701f1fee2ff83aefc365d1641952b17c4fdedf13be3f72197162978ea4", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a2eba59ac7b7f8290c175c881a4e5221c94d19d30102e8ddf58e600dc0922d55.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a2eba59ac7b7f8290c175c881a4e5221c94d19d30102e8ddf58e600dc0922d55.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..59633af2dca069a769b398516309133c6aca34cb --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a2eba59ac7b7f8290c175c881a4e5221c94d19d30102e8ddf58e600dc0922d55.md @@ -0,0 +1,52 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 455 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/28/2010 Page 1 of 2 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRA +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 AFFIRMING MAGISTRATE JUDGE +DISCOVERY ORDER +THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiffs Jane Doe Nos. 2-8's Appeal and +Objections to Magistrate Judge's Discovery Order Entered September 10, 2009. (DE 327). +Defendant filed a response in opposition to the motion on November 3, 2009. The Court has +conducted a review of the motion, the pertinent portions of the record, and is otherwise fully +advised in the premises. +Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), a district court reviewing a magistrate judge's order shall +only modify or set aside the order if it is "found to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law." See +also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Local Magistrate Judge Rule 4(a)(1). An order is clearly +erroneous if "the reviewing court, after assessing the evidence in its entirety, is left with a +definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." Krys v. Lufthansa German +Airlines, 119 F.3d 1515, 1523 (11th Cir. 1997). See also United States v . United States Gypsum + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 455 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/28/2010 Page 2 of 2 +Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948) (explaining generally "[a] finding is clearly erroneous' when +although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the +definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed"). The mere fact that a reviewing +court might have decided the issue differently is not sufficient to overturn a decision when there +are two permissible views of the issue. Georgia State Conference of Branches of NAACP v. +Georgia, 775 F.2d 1403, 1416 (11th Cir. 1985). +After careful review of the Magistrate's Order, Plaintiffs' Appeal, and Defendant's +Response, the Court finds that the Magistrate's Order was not clearly erroneous or contrary to +law. The Magistrate Judge fully addressed all of the issues presented and her order cogently +explained her conclusions and the rationale behind those conclusions. Additionally, Plaintiffs' +Appeal is, at least in part, founded upon the mistaken belief that the Magistrate Judge relied upon +Defendant's redacted filings, rather than unredacted version provided for in camera review. +Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs Jane Doe Nos. 2-8's +Appeal and Objections to Magistrate Judge's Discovery Order Entered September 10, 2009. (DE +327) is DENIED. +DONE AND ORDERED in +at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, +Florida, this 27" day of January, 2010. +KENNETH A. MARRA +United States District Judge +Copies to: +all counsel of record +2 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a2eba59ac7b7f8290c175c881a4e5221c94d19d30102e8ddf58e600dc0922d55.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a2eba59ac7b7f8290c175c881a4e5221c94d19d30102e8ddf58e600dc0922d55.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5ef803290160bfa7b8be33285be23e568378483a --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a2eba59ac7b7f8290c175c881a4e5221c94d19d30102e8ddf58e600dc0922d55.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -24, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "a2eba59ac7b7f8290c175c881a4e5221c94d19d30102e8ddf58e600dc0922d55", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "787fdcbc5bbec4dedd82c32038519c6c83adc854a0fde17e9c2aea1c166a9d04", + "output_sha256": "12536f281def2136ea3b66faae1ab37d7d0e4966a172f1413b2914429228ca88", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a31e4db07423b92bbdb2f9f2ceb8fd20afcc67d6af727dc54532e8eb34af4fbe.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a31e4db07423b92bbdb2f9f2ceb8fd20afcc67d6af727dc54532e8eb34af4fbe.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1120b69b71780a458dd0d6fe3a6041302b48c815 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a31e4db07423b92bbdb2f9f2ceb8fd20afcc67d6af727dc54532e8eb34af4fbe.md @@ -0,0 +1,90 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 28 +Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2008 + +Sealed +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA-. +JANE DOE NO. 5, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +FILED EX PARTE +UNDER SEAL +- 2.0. +08 JUL 10 P.12-24 +STEVEN M. LARIMORE +CLERK U.S. DIST. CT. +S.D. OF FLA - HIA + + +. Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2008 Page 2 of 4 +NOTICE OF CONTINUED PENDENCY +OF FEDERAL CRIMINAL ACTION +Defendant Jeffrey Epstein hereby notifies the Court of the continued +pendency of a federal criminal action against him, stating as follows: +On June 30, 2008, after defendant Jeffrey Epstein filed his motion to stay +[DE 11], he was sentenced in the state-court criminal case described in that motion +(State of Florida v. Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 2006 CF 09454 AXX, Fifteenth +Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County) (the "Florida Criminal Action"). As +explained below, the parallel federal criminal action against him described in that +motion (In re Grand Jury, No. FGJ 07-103(WPB), United States District Court for +the Southern District of Florida) (the "Federal Criminal Action"), remains pending. +On September 24, 2007, the United States Attorney's Office for the +Southern District of Florida ("USAO"), represented by Assistant United States +Attorney Ann +C. Villafana, Esq., and Mr. Epstein, entered into a deferredprosecution agreement ("Agreement"), which the parties agreed to keep +confidential. Prior to entering into that Agreement, Ms. Villafana advised that she +had already prepared a federal criminal indictment against Mr. Epstein in the +Federal Criminal Action. +Under the Agreement, beginning on the date Mr. Epstein began serving his +sentence in the Florida Criminal Action, the USAO agreed to suspend its grand +jury investigation in the Federal Criminal Action. The USAO, however, retains the +2 + + +• Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2008 Page 3 of 4 +right to reactivate the grand jury and indict Mr. Epstein should he breach any part +of the Agreement during its term, which runs for 33 months, beginning on the date +Mr. Epstein began serving his sentence in the Florida Criminal Action. +Accordingly, the Federal Criminal Action will remain pending against Mr. Epstein +for 33 months from June 30, 2008. +Mr. Epstein will provide the Court with a copy of the confidential +Agreement for its in-camera inspection at the Court's request. +WHEREFORE, Defendant Jeffrey Epstein hereby notifies the Court of the +continued pendency of the Federal Criminal Action. +Respectfully submitted, +TEIN, P.L. +3059 Grand Avenue, Suite 340 +Coconut Grove, Florida 33133 +Tel: 305 442 1101 +Fax: 305 442 6744 +By: +Unture +GUY A.. +Fla. Bar No. 623740 +MICHAEL R. TEIN +Fla. Bar No. 993522 +tein@lewistein.com +3 + + +• • Case 9:08-CV-80381-KAM Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2008 Page 4 of 4 +ATTERBURY, GOLDBERGER & WEISS, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 +Tel. 561 659 8300 +Fax. 561 835 8691 +By: +Jack A. Goldberger +Fla. Bar No. 262013 +jgoldberger@agwpa.com +Attorneys for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I HEREBY CERTIFY that this motion, in accordance with S.D. Fla. L.R. +5.4, has not been served on opposing counsel and was filed under seal on July 10, +2008. +willies +Michael R. Tein +4 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a31e4db07423b92bbdb2f9f2ceb8fd20afcc67d6af727dc54532e8eb34af4fbe.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a31e4db07423b92bbdb2f9f2ceb8fd20afcc67d6af727dc54532e8eb34af4fbe.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..20e9f9cc5126ae5685cb65a7a400be7b4b16f12c --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a31e4db07423b92bbdb2f9f2ceb8fd20afcc67d6af727dc54532e8eb34af4fbe.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -61, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "a31e4db07423b92bbdb2f9f2ceb8fd20afcc67d6af727dc54532e8eb34af4fbe", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 6, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "cc3ccc508c0f31bd6a795b32286b5d3769f03c139f9e243b49060f5fec3197cd", + "output_sha256": "d2a214f37bd8dc2e7343d5d4edcbac4bea0a5f0ae629692b45593f156a1de7fd", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a3252ca6a805a23ee8e8d0d450556a2f19926581f223dbc723ce160497876346.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a3252ca6a805a23ee8e8d0d450556a2f19926581f223dbc723ce160497876346.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0b597de3b43323d75c172235cddde3c21276c3af --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a3252ca6a805a23ee8e8d0d450556a2f19926581f223dbc723ce160497876346.md @@ -0,0 +1,57 @@ +IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA +FOURTH DISTRICT, 110 SOUTH TAMARIND AVENUE, WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33401 +March 15, 2024 +CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC, Publisher of THE +PALM BEACH POST, +Appellants) +CASE NO. - 4D2024-0681 +L.T. No. - 502019CA014681 +V. +DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of Palm +Beach County, Florida and SHARON R. BOCK, as +Clerk and Comptroller of Palm Beach County, +Florida, +Appellee(s). +BY ORDER OF THE COURT: +CQPY +The jurisdiction of this court was invoked by filing of a Notice of Appeal in the lower +tribunal. The $300.00 filing fee required by the applicable rule of procedure and Section +35.22(2)(a), Florida Statutes (2021), is due and payable REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE +APPEAL IS LATER DISMISSED VOLUNTARILY OR ADVERSELY. ORDERED that Appellant +shall pay the $300.00 filing fee or file the lower tribunal clerk's determination of indigent status +in this court within ten (10) days from the date of this order. The fee may be paid electronically +through the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal - see the court's website for details. Failure to comply +within the time prescribed will result in dismissal of this cause and may result in the court +sanctioning of any party, or the party's attorney, who has not paid the filing fee. The attorney +filing the Notice of Appeal has a duty to tender the filing fee to the appellate court when the +appeal is initiated. See In Re Payment of Filing Fees, 744 So. 2d 1025 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). +Failure of the attorney to pay will result in referral to the Department of Financial Services for +collection. **NOTE/ This order does not toll the time for filing any pleadings necessary to +prosecute this appeal and no extensions of time will be entertained. Once the fee is paid, it is +not refundable. Except for dismissal, this court will take no action in this appeal until the filing +fee is paid or until a lower tribunal clerk's determination of indigent status is filed. +Served: +Nina D. Boyajian +Palm Beach Clerk +Michael J. Grygiel +Collin Doern +Jessica Neer McDonald +FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL +ABRUZZO, CLERK 03/15/2024 01:04:59 PM + + +Stephen Arthur Mendelsohn +Douglas Arthur Wyler +TW +I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of the court's order. +Losses Weirdlum +LONN WEISSBLUM, Clerk +Fourth District Court of Appeal +CITO S +RECTED +FLORID +A +ATE +OF +NOT A CERTIFIED CO +NOT A CERTIFIED diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a3252ca6a805a23ee8e8d0d450556a2f19926581f223dbc723ce160497876346.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a3252ca6a805a23ee8e8d0d450556a2f19926581f223dbc723ce160497876346.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3570d3a4e375638c655b119ec7946db8588bbee1 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a3252ca6a805a23ee8e8d0d450556a2f19926581f223dbc723ce160497876346.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -24, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "a3252ca6a805a23ee8e8d0d450556a2f19926581f223dbc723ce160497876346", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "83d346292226e53d257d25d9b50048d2e330c397a1159c7fb1a6257481f3077f", + "output_sha256": "f8c76d700ecd262dbca677f1ef2b2da8d690e7be85d7e4b694d1b8612473f449", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a33b7baadc771c43aa01dc3639a169295f76ff60347a58924f4f1e91f0e038d1.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a33b7baadc771c43aa01dc3639a169295f76ff60347a58924f4f1e91f0e038d1.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..db70278fefbfb0e8b9b9afdcd8733be915c2c55e --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a33b7baadc771c43aa01dc3639a169295f76ff60347a58924f4f1e91f0e038d1.md @@ -0,0 +1,51 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 15 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2008 Page 1 of 3 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA- +JANE DOE NO. 5, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +/ +DEFENDANT'S NOTICE CONCERNING MOTION TO STAY [DE 11] +In connection with his motion to stay this action [DE 11], Defendant Jeffrey +Epstein hereby notifies the Court that the State Court action, State of Florida v. +Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 2006 CF 09454 AXX (Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm +Beach County), was resolved on June 30, 2008. See Final Disposition sheets, +attached hereto as Exhibit A. The federal criminal proceeding, however, remains +pending. +Respectfully submitted, +ATTERBURY, GOLDBERGER & +WEISS, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 +Tel: 561 659 8300 +Fax: 561 835 8691 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 15 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2008 Page 2 of 3 +By: Is/ Jack A. Goldberger +Jack A. Goldberger +Fla. Bar No. 262013 +jgoldberger@agwpa.com +Attorneys for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 15 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2008 Page 3 of 3 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I HEREBY CERTIFY that on July 1, 2008, I electronically filed the +foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECP. I also certify that +the foregoing document is being served this day on counsel of record identified +below by facsimile and U.S. Mail. +Jeffrey M. Herman, Esq. +Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. +Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. +Herman & Mermelstein, P.A. +18205 Biscayne Blvd, Suite 2218 +Miami, Florida 33160 +Fax: 305 931 0877 +Is/ Jack A. Goldberger +Jack A. Goldberger +3 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a33b7baadc771c43aa01dc3639a169295f76ff60347a58924f4f1e91f0e038d1.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a33b7baadc771c43aa01dc3639a169295f76ff60347a58924f4f1e91f0e038d1.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..33a2ee7523f032ab0a2b957eb80ef40bd091b157 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a33b7baadc771c43aa01dc3639a169295f76ff60347a58924f4f1e91f0e038d1.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -36, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "a33b7baadc771c43aa01dc3639a169295f76ff60347a58924f4f1e91f0e038d1", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 3, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "11ea39a14257b984f74a937ef6e9657c7ce833b833fbc5bbe7d0f5a53b7d227f", + "output_sha256": "890e0d2ccdbf7b874f5824cfadb8b4a5f8e0577b7bba5c290dff1030a1f6e93b", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a35512ee20ebae3cf8d92c9c96c834ef6f71d99085491de9f12cc86700536da7.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a35512ee20ebae3cf8d92c9c96c834ef6f71d99085491de9f12cc86700536da7.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..43e66c5176f0f7537a091fd1b29d79309d94c25b --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a35512ee20ebae3cf8d92c9c96c834ef6f71d99085491de9f12cc86700536da7.md @@ -0,0 +1,48 @@ +Case 1:20-cv-02365-LJL-DCF Document 26 Filed 06/30/21 Page 1 of 1 +Sanders LLP +Troutman Pepper +875 Third Avenue +New York, New York 10022 +troutman" +pepper +troutman.com +The stay of proceedings in this case is hereby lifted; Defendants may have until +9/6/2021 to move, answer, or otherwise respond to the Complaint; and, in light of +Bennet J. Moskowitz +the motion filed at Dkt. 27, which is hereby granted, Plaintiff may have until +bennet.moskowitz@troutman.com +7/30/2021 to file a motion to proceed anonymously. +This Court will hold a telephonic initial pretrial conference in this action on +8/26/2021 at 10:00 a.m. For that conference, counsel should call the following +Toll-Free Number: (877) 411-9748, and use Access Code: 9612281. No later than +8/19/2021, the parties should submit a jointly proposed discovery plan. +The Clerk of Court is directed to close the motion filed at Dkt. 27 and to remove the +"stay" designation from the Docket for this action. +SO ORDERED +Dated: 7/22/2021 +June 30, 2021 +VIA ECE +Hon. Debra C. Freeman +Daniel | +Moynihan +United States Courthouse +500 Pearl St. +New York, NY 10007 +DEBRA FREEMAN +United States Magistrate Judge +Re: +Jane Doe v. Darren |. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, in their capacities as +the Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, 1:20-cv-02365-LJL-DCF +Dear Judge Freeman: +Pursuant to the Court's July 13, 2020 Joint Stipulation and Order Staying Action +('Order") (ECF No. 13), Plaintiff and Defendants Darren |. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, +Co-Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, write to inform the Court that Plaintiff +desires to lift the stay of this action. +Pursuant to the Order, the parties have conferred and agree that Defendants shall +have 45 days after the stay is lifted to answer, move, or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's +Complaint. Plaintiff will file a motion on or before July 23, 2021 if she wishes to proceed +anonymously. +Respectfully submitted, +/s/ Bennet J. Moskowitz +Bennet J. Moskowitz +cc: Counsel of Record (via ECF) diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a35512ee20ebae3cf8d92c9c96c834ef6f71d99085491de9f12cc86700536da7.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a35512ee20ebae3cf8d92c9c96c834ef6f71d99085491de9f12cc86700536da7.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6385a8f0cf1991e472ebabf000999b30e4241079 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a35512ee20ebae3cf8d92c9c96c834ef6f71d99085491de9f12cc86700536da7.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "a35512ee20ebae3cf8d92c9c96c834ef6f71d99085491de9f12cc86700536da7", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "ad96338258eea6a486b90fe2eb1ffdfc05bfd58e7a14e6a70ddc935542b846e2", + "output_sha256": "9a51458c766a08b2990d7540a9e06b8a010e138419e87531a33cb6bd6cf1258a", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a35827e941977b4c484519200e53f2af5ed554bc15f3cecf9d2c2ab719b72889.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a35827e941977b4c484519200e53f2af5ed554bc15f3cecf9d2c2ab719b72889.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0c0b554e0032094615e1eaba542ab52b83619e2f --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a35827e941977b4c484519200e53f2af5ed554bc15f3cecf9d2c2ab719b72889.md @@ -0,0 +1,36 @@ +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 31-1 +Filed 11/15/19 Page 1 of 1 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff. +V. +DARREN K. INDYKE AND RICHARD D. KAHN, +IN THEIR CAPACITIES AS THE EXECUTORS OF +THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, +Defendants. +Case No. 1:19-cv-08673-KPF +ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S ANONYMITY +IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that any person subject to this Order, including the parties to +this action and their respective counsel of record, shall adhere to the following terms: +1. Within three (3) days of entry of this Order, Counsel of Record for Plaintiff shall disclose +Plaintiff's identity to Counsel of Record for Defendants, in writing. +2. Plaintiff's identity may be disclosed only to Defendants and any attorneys, paralegals, +and clerical or other assistants working with or for Defendants on matters related to this +action; and the recipients of such information shall not disclose it to any other persons. +3. Defendants shall not be permitted to further disclose Plaintiff's identity except as +necessary to defend against this action. +4. All portions of pleadings, motions or other papers filed with the Court that disclose +Plaintiff's identity shall be filed under seal with the Clerk of the Court and kept under +seal until further order of the Court. The parties shall use their best efforts to minimize +such sealing. Any party filing a motion or any other papers with the Court under seal +shall also publicly file a redacted copy of the same, via the Court's Electronic Case Filing +system, that redacts the Plaintiff's identity and text that would reveal Plaintiff's identity. +5. The parties may seek to modify or amend this Order at any time upon motion to the Court +or by stipulation. +SO ORDERED. +Date: +New York, New York +HON. KATHERINE POLK FAILLA +United States District Judge +5 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a35827e941977b4c484519200e53f2af5ed554bc15f3cecf9d2c2ab719b72889.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a35827e941977b4c484519200e53f2af5ed554bc15f3cecf9d2c2ab719b72889.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..42339acba74638a1a5303c0ef9ab8d303bac4816 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a35827e941977b4c484519200e53f2af5ed554bc15f3cecf9d2c2ab719b72889.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "a35827e941977b4c484519200e53f2af5ed554bc15f3cecf9d2c2ab719b72889", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "701b0d893c07bc77f91280fba950316864b589f50c52abdc67177ac9541d51e8", + "output_sha256": "a1c791d54d24c48f2e77fe119c0ff21981fa48f4b64489ecec99d143a1131f21", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a36ab37465a93e3f920aab2bc46a912f90ba4cc608ffed6d543d6ddcd3dd8be4.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a36ab37465a93e3f920aab2bc46a912f90ba4cc608ffed6d543d6ddcd3dd8be4.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..21ad9222df14d052791ec4ee85e491be4fb858ee --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a36ab37465a93e3f920aab2bc46a912f90ba4cc608ffed6d543d6ddcd3dd8be4.md @@ -0,0 +1,9480 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2013 Page 1 of 113 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE No. : 08-80736-Civ-Marra/ +JANE DOE #1 and +JANE DOES #2, +-VS- +UNITED STATES, +Petitioners, +Respondent. +HEARING BEFORE THE HONORABLE +KENNETH A. MARRA +Friday, August 12, 2011 +United States Federal Courthouse +West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 +2:00 - 4:19 p.m. +Stenographically Reported By: +Melinda L. Colchico, FPR, RDR, CRR + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2013 Page 2 of 113 +1 +2 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +APPEARANCES: +On behalf of the Petitioners: +Brad +Esg. +Jaffe +Weissing +425 N. Andrews Avenue, +Suite Z +Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 +(954) 524-2820 +Paul G. Cassell, Esq. +USJ Quinney College of Law +University of Utah +332 South 1400 East, Room 101 +Salt Lake City, Utah 84112-0730 +(801) 585-5202 +Jay C. Howell, Esq. +Jay Howell & Associates +644 Cesery Boulevard, Suite 250 +Jacksonville, Florida 32211 +(904) 680-1234 +On behalf of the Respondent: +Dexter A. Lee, +Esq. +• Villałana, +Esq. +Assistant U.S. +Attorneys +99 NE 4th Street, Suite 300 +Miami, Florida 33132 +(305) 961-9320 +ALSO PRESENT: +Roy Black, Esq.. +Black Srebnick Kornspan & Stumpf +201 S. Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 1300 +Miami, Florida 33131 +(305) 371-6421 +Bruce Reinhart, Esq. +250 S. Australian Avenue +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 +(561) 202-6360 +Fistos & Lehman +24 +25 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2013 Page 3 of 113 +3 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +PROCEEDINGS +THE COURT: Good afternoon. Please be seated. This +is the case of Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2, versus United +States, Case No. 08-80736. Will counsel state their +appearances, please. +MR. LEE: Good afternoon, Your Honor. May it please +the Court. For the United States of America, | +Villafana, +Assistant United States Attorney, and Dexter Lee, Assistant +United States Attorney. Good afternoon. +THE COURT: Good afternoon. +MR. +: Good afternoon. On behalf of Jane Does +1 and 2, Brad +as well as my co-counsels, Paul Cassell +and Jay Howell. +THE COURT: Good afternoon. +MR. BLACK: Your Honor, good afternoon. Roy Black +appearing on behalf of the intervening lawyers, Black, Weinberg +and Lefkowitz. +THE COURT: Good afternoon. +MR. REINHART: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Bruce +Reinhart on behalf of myself. +THE COURT: Good afternoon. Anyone else that's going +to be participating as an attorney? +All right. We have a number of matters to go over +today. I thought the first thing I should do is figure out + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2013 Page 4 of 113 +4 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +who's going to be participating in the proceedings. So I think +I should deal with the intervenors' motions first before we get +to any of the substantive motions. +So, Mr. Reinhart, why don't I hear from you first. +MR. REINHART: Good afternoon, Your Honor. +THE COURT: Good afternoon. +MR. REINHART: Let me start by saying I don't want to +be here and I shouldn't be here but I feel like I have to be. +What is pending before you today is a motion by the plaintiffs +to address what they purport to be violations of the Crime +Victims' Right Act by the government. However, buried in that +motion, for reasons that escape me to this day, are allegations +that I, who am not a party to this litigation, have never been +counsel in this litigation and was minding my own business, +have now been alleged to have violated the Department of +Justice's regulations and the Florida Bar rules. +If you look at the face of the motion, it's clear +that there's absolutely no reason +for that to be in the motion +other than it's a personal attack for the purpose of harassment +and abuse. To my knowledge, these allegations have never been +sent to the Florida Bar, even though Mr. +as a member +of the bar, would have an obligation to report them if he +believed they were true. But he hasn't. They have never been +reported to the Department of Justice, even though there are +civil and criminal sanctions, if, in fact, they believed it was + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2013 Page 5 of 113 +5 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +true and they believed I did what they said I did. +Rather than putting these allegations into that sort +of a forum, where I would have a chance to respond and the +investigation would be confidential and I could clear my name +in private, they've thrown them into this litigation in a +public pleading and now they say I shouldn't be allowed to +respond to it. +THE COURT: Well, haven't you really responded to it? +MR. REINHART: Judge, I've said what I want to say +but there's been no finding. There's been no -- frankly, +there's been no inquiry why in the first place they did what +they did, and I think that's really the issue before the Court +today. It's not the merits of whether what they say is true or +not true. It's not, but that's not the issue for you today. +The issue is whether the Court is going to sanction this sort +of behavior and whether we're going to have a legal system +where I could stand here in a commercial litigation case and +put in a pleading that my neighbor is a tax evader or that the +guy down the street is cheating on his wife. +I mean, we have +rules of court that are supposed to limit the facts at issue to +the facts at issue. And if we start letting people simply make +ad hominem attacks outside of the four corners of the case, the +Court can't allow that. +So what the Court ought to do, most respectfully, in +this case, is to -- whether you allow me to intervene and + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2013 Page 6 of 113 +6 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +pursue it myself or whether you do it on your own, you ought to +convene some sort of a proceeding and make the plaintiffs +justify why they put these allegations in this pleading when +they so clearly don't belong there and what, if any, +investigation they did to support them. And that's what I'm +asking you to do today is to simply convene that process, and +if they complied with the rules of the court and they did their +sufficient investigation, then the proceeding will show that. +And if they were reckless and they were malicious and they did +it just because they could, they ought to be sanctioned for it, +and the Court ought to send a message that you're not going to +tolerate that sort of behavior. +So, Judge, in short, that's what I'm asking you to +do, either exercise your discretion under Rule 24(b) to allow +me to be a permissive intervenor and pursue those allegations +myself, or to exercise your authority under Rule 11 to +sua sponte issue an order to show cause and convene that +proceeding. +THE COURT: If I let you intervene to try and clear +your name from what you consider a slanderous or libelous +attack, aren't I essentially inviting anyone who has a +slanderous or libelous or defamatory statement made against +them in litigation, inviting them to come in and intervene in a +court and have the court conduct a mini-trial on whether or not +the allegations are true and -- I mean, I'm basically going to + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2013 Page 7 of 113 +7 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +open up the legal system to anyone who feels offended by +something that's said in court to come in and start +mini-lawsuits within a lawsuit. +I'm a little concerned about, you know, opening the +door to that kind of a process. +MR. REINHART: And I understand that, and I agree. +However, first of all, this is permissive -- I'm requesting +permissive intervention under Rule 24. So in the first +instance, you have the discretion to be the gatekeeper in that +instance, not to let everybody in. I'm not saying I have an +absolute right to be here. I'm saying you have the discretion +to allow me to be here and to argue these points. +So that's my +first response, is the Court can act as a gatekeeper. And +specific to the facts here, all you have to do is look at the +face of the pleading to realize that these allegations +have +nothing to do with this cause of action. It's not even close. +I would think in another case when the Court might +look at the face of the pleading and say, well, I can +understand why this might be here, you can exercise that +gatekeeping function. In the alternative, Judge, I'm not +asking you to let everybody in. I'm asking you, as the Court, +to police your own courtroom and issue an order to show cause +for behavior that's occurred in front of you that at least on +its face is improper. +And that's certainly a proper function +for the Court. +Again, that doesn't set a precedent that + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2013 Page 8 of 113 +0C +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +anybody who wants to complain can complain. It's the Court +policing its own backyard. +THE COURT: All right. Thank you. +Who wants to respond? Mr. +MR. +: Thank you, Your Honor. Your Honor, as +you recognized from our pleadings, we feel that this particular +motion serves no purpose but to delay and prejudice the +plaintiffs from achieving justice. As you know, we represent +two victims of many victims of molestation by Jeffrey Epstein, +and there's one issue here and that's whether or not the Crime +Victims' Rights Act and their rights under that act were +violated. +First, we don't believe that Mr. Reinhart has +standing to make the arguments or -- +THE COURT: Well, who has standing to make the +arguments other than the person that you attacked in your +motion? +MR. +: Well, a nonparty in this proceeding +does not have standing to make a Rule 11 sanction motion. So +he's asking for -- +THE COURT: He's asking to come into court so he can +seek that kind of relief. +MR. +: That's the kind of satellite litigation +we think should be avoided here. In fact, the case law is +clear that permissive intervention, if denied, is virtually + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2013 Page 9 of 113 +9 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +never overturned on appeal because we don't want to encourage +this type of satellite litigation. +A Rule 11 standard, as we know, is an objective +standard and the analysis is whether a reasonable attorney in +like circumstances could believe that his actions were +factually and legally justified. +We believe there was a bad deal that went down. We +have circumstances here that we are still trying to figure out +how it happened and why it happened, and the circumstances that +we had before we put them into these pleadings is simply that +Mr. Reinhart was a U.S. Attorney from 1996 through 2008; yet on +October 23rd, 2007 - +THE COURT: We don't need to go over all the facts +again. I know what the facts are. I know what you said in +your pleading. I know +what Mr. Reinhart said in response. And +I don't -- I'm not here to decide whether there was or was not +a bad faith allegation. I'm here to decide whether or not I +should allow Mr. Reinhart into the proceeding in order to +litigate that whole issue. +MR. +1: And we're asking that you deny that +motion. If it's granted, we would like to take discovery on +that matter, including his deposition. +THE COURT: All right. Thank you. +Mr. Lee, do you have anything you wanted to say? +MR. LEE: Yes. +Thank you, Your Honor. +We did not + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2013 Page 10 of 113 +10 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +oppose Mr. Reinhart's motion. We basically view this as a +matter between the petitioners' counsel and Mr. Reinhart. +THE COURT: All right. At this point, I'm going to +reserve ruling. I'm not going to -- I'm kind of reluctant to +grant the motion, but I'm going to give it some further +thought. There's no need to have a ruling on that today for +purposes of Mr. Reinhart's concerns. So I'll reserve ruling. +All right. Let me hear from Mr. Black on the +intervention by the attorneys. +MR. BLACK: May it please the Court, and good +afternoon. +THE COURT: Good afternoon. +MR. BLACK: We have filed -- the three lawyers who +previously represented Mr. Epstein have filed for our right to +intervene under Rule 24(a) as an intervention of right because +our issue relates to the property or the transaction. +THE COURT: Are you saying you have a -- is it as a +matter of right or -- +MR. BLACK: Yes. +THE COURT: —- permissive intervention? +MR. BLACK: No, as a matter of right. I just have a +few cases to cite to the Court. +In Chiles versus Thornburgh, it's an Eleventh Circuit +case, 1989, 865 F. 2d 1197, the court says, "The Supreme Court +has held that an interest under Rule 24(a) (2) means a + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2013 Page 11 of 113 +11 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +'significantly protectable interest.'" +The Eleventh Circuit has gone on and In Re: Grand +Jury Matter, which is 735 F. 2d 1330, to say that -- it was a +motion to intervene. The district court disallowed it. It +went up to the circuit. It was remanded, and the court says: +We have recognized that a district court should allow +intervention by a client in the first instance as soon as the +attorney/client privilege issue is raised. +That was a grand jury proceeding dealing with a +client seeking to protect his attorney/client privilege, and +the court held that intervention was as a matter of right. +Now, that obviously was a criminal investigation. +In terms of the -- on the civil docket, this court +decided in E1-Al Residences v. Mt. Hawley Insurance, which is +at 716 F. Supp. 2d 1257, an opinion by Magistrate Judge +McAliley, in which he says that the law in this circuit and +others is clear that this court must allow intervention by a +client in the first instance as soon as the attorney/client +privilege is raised, citing cases. +Colorable claims of +attorney/client and work product privilege are a textbook +example of an entitlement to intervention as a matter of right, +and citing particular cases. +THE COURT: +Now, let me ask you about that question +of privilege. As I understand your motion, you're claiming +that documents that were exchanged between yourself and the + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2013 Page 12 of 113 +12 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +other attorneys representing Mr. Epstein and the United States +Attorney's Office and maybe the State of Florida -- I don't +remember if the -- +MR. BLACK: It is just the United States Attorney, +Your Honor. +THE COURT: Okay. The United States Attorney. +During the negotiations that resulted in the non-prosecution +agreement are somehow work product, am I correct? +MR. BLACK: Yes, sir. +THE COURT: Okay. How can a letter between you and +your co-counsel and an adversary in a criminal prosecution be +considered work product, if it's given to the adversary? +MR. BLACK: Yes, sir, and I am happy to answer that +question. In order to do so, I have to give the Court some +background as to the duties and functions of lawyers as they +are of this date in our sentencing system, under the guidelines +system and under the particular rules, not only of the court +but of the ethical rules of the ABA and the Florida Bar and +rules issued by the courts. +To begin with, the Supreme Court has recognized for a +long time that plea bargaining is an essential part of the +administration of justice. It all goes back to the Santobello +case. That was 40 years ago. +The world has changed +significantly since then. +I just looked at the statistics. The last year I + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2013 Page 13 of 113 +13 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +could find in 2005, 87 percent of all federal criminal cases +were resolved by a guilty plea and 3.9 percent were resolved by +a trial. We've turned into a system of guilty pleas rather +than a trial system. And because of that, the courts have put +a lot of duties and obligations on lawyers dealing with this +plea bargaining process. And as a result of that, the courts +and the rules have added sanctions -- excuse me, safeguards to +protect us because of communications made during the course of +this plea bargaining process. And I think that is really what +we trying to get to here. There are safeguards that have been +in effect since -- for almost 80 years. +And there's a case, +United States v. Herman back in the seventies from the Fifth +Circuit, saying that the -- the old Fifth Circuit, that we have +recognized a type of immunity for any statements made during +the course of plea bargaining. And then the Supreme Court and +Congress enacted Rule 11 (e) (6), which became Rule 11(f), and, +of course, now refers us to Rule 410. So those rules provide +safeguards. What they do is they say if you engage in the plea +bargaining process, there is an immunity for the statements +that are made. +Any statements that relate to the plea bargaining +process are immunized. They don't use the word "immunization" +but they make it clear +that that's the type of protection or +cloak that's given to these kind of communications. +THE COURT: +You're talking about inculpatory + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2013 Page 14 of 113 +14 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +statements, aren't you? +MR. BLACK: Any statement; any statement made during +the course of plea bargaining. Rule 410 speaks, by the way, of +civil and criminal, and it says nothing about incriminating or +inculpatory or admissions of guilt. Any statement made during +the course of the plea negotiating process is given a type of +immunity. +THE COURT: I thought that rule relates to admitting +statements in evidence during the course of a trial; not that +it's a privileged statement that can never be disclosed. Am I +incorrect about that? +MR. BLACK: Well, I don't -- I'm not -- that's a very +good question that we have struggled some with. What are the +obligations of, for example, the United States Attorney when +they receive communications from defense counsel under Rule 11 +and under Rule 410? Under Rule 11, they cannot even make +derivative use of it so they couldn't take that information and +give it to the FBI, for example, to continue investigating. +I don't believe that they could give to it third +parties. I think it would be a violation of the rule to use it +in any way other than in determining the type of plea that they +would offer to a defendant. +Beyond that, +I do not believe that it can be used for +any purpose by the government, +and I don't believe that anybody +could use it for any purpose. +But even so, in this case, the + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2013 Page 15 of 113 +15 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +purpose the plaintiffs want for this is to use it in +litigation. So we don't have to worry about if they're going +to disseminate it to the media or use it to write a book, or +what have you. They intend to use it as evidence in this +proceeding. So I don't know that we need to necessarily +address any other kinds of uses of this material. +THE COURT: Is this material -- first of all, how +does +-- how do the plaintiffs in this case know about it? +Don't they already have it in their possession? +MR. BLACK: No. They have obtained the government +responses and communications to us. The courts have +redacted -- or the government has redacted any of our +communications to the government. Now, there are extensive +communications. I don't have it here, but my folder is about +this thick and I have never been in a case that has had as +much, particularly written communication, from defense counsel +to the government as this case has. +We have discussed with them a panoply of things. +It's the classic opinion work product that we talk about, what +the statutes mean, what the import of the statutes are, what +the cases are, what the discretion of the Attorney General is. +We discuss federalism, the differences between state and +federal law enforcement; whether or not the government should +proceed with this case because of various policy reasons. This +is classic opinion work product that we send to the government. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2013 Page 16 of 113 +16 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Now, I know what the Court's ultimate question is: +Well, if you send it to the government, why should I give it +any kind of confidentiality or privilege? The reason I'm going +through this is that we criminal lawyers know that today +anything that we send to the government is under this cloak of +a type of immunity; that it cannot be used for anything. The +government cannot use it in their case. They can't use it in +their investigation. They can't use it for anything other than +the purpose for which we give it to them, and that's to +determine whether or not we can come to a plea negotiation. +And one of the policy decisions here, and this is why +I believe that a privilege applies, is that if the Court should +say a civil plaintiff could obtain our communications with the +government, in which we discuss everything in the world about +this client, and use it in a civil case against the client, all +this is going to do is to begin to prevent us from having those +kind of communications. And all these cases about plea +bargaining say that the most important thing is to have open, +honest and +discussions between the parties to see if any +kind of agreement can be reached, and since you have these open +and +conversations you don't have to worry that these +materials can in any way be used against your client. +THE COURT: All right. Do you have any cases that +address this principle in the context of -- similar to what we +are doing, with where someone was trying to get this kind of + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2013 Page 17 of 113 +17 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +information in a civil case? +MR. BLACK: I have never seen a case, a civil case, +in which a third party plaintiff has been able to obtain +letters and communications and briefs of defense counsel sent +to a prosecutor in order to seek a plea bargain. There is no +such case. +THE COURT: And what cases are you relying on for the +proposition that these are cloaked with some type of privilege +of non-disclosure? +MR. BLACK: Yes, sir. I would rely on United States +versus Herman, which is 544 F. 2d 791. That's a Fifth Circuit +case of 1977. And, of course, the classic case is Santobello. +For some reason I don't have it right here in my folder, +although I've got it right here, I believe, which is United +States Supreme Court at 404 U.s. 257. +So those talk about the safeguards. I just wanted to +add two things to this, after I pick up my notes. The +courts -- in addition to encouraging plea bargaining -- issued +a series of opinions starting in the late 1990s, starting with +the Second Circuit, moving to the Ninth Circuit, and now all +the circuits do this, in which they say that defense lawyers +are ineffective and commit malpractice if they do not +communicate with the prosecutor in seeking a plea bargain. +There's one case, United States v. Leonti, which is a +Ninth Circuit case, which says that you not only have to + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2013 Page 18 of 113 +18 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +communicate with the prosecutor, you have to go with your +client during the briefings. You have to keep them advised as +to what your client is doing and you have to follow this all +the way through the end. So the courts put an obligation on us +to follow through on this. +Now, to get to the work product privilege -- +THE COURT: Before you move on -- +MR. BLACK: Yes, sir. +THE COURT: -- I don't remember you citing these +cases or making this argument in your brief. Did I miss it or +is this a new twist on what you've -- based upon my question to +you? Or is this a new argument that you're raising that you +didn't raise before? +MR. BLACK: Well, in our -- we filed a motion for +intervention and generally set forth what we I intended to do, +and the plaintiffs then responded saying that, we object to +intervention but request the right to brief whether or not the +work product privilege applies if we're granted intervention. +So we're at the stage of intervention not at the time +of developing the scope of what the privilege is, but the Court +asked me, you know, obviously what the bottom line is. But I +think that the only real issue here is intervention. I'm happy +to discuss, you know, the contours of the privilege and why it +applies in this case. +THE COURT: +So you're saying -- your position at this + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2013 Page 19 of 113 +19 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +point is, I've made an assertion of privilege; I as -- just on +that assertion alone, without regard to the merits of whether +the documents are or are not privileged, your mere assertion of +the privilege requires me to let you in in order to try and +defend that claim? +MR. BLACK: Well, I don't think it's quite that cut +and dry. I have made -- I have asserted the privilege. I have +to have some basis for it. In other words, I couldn't just +make some frivolous comment and say, you know, there's an +attorney/client privilege or this or that. I think I have to +make some statement that there is some good faith basis for +saying this. And in our papers, we did this. +I'm happy to say more, but I think there's certainly +enough here for the Court to say that it is a matter that is of +serious concern and that we ought to be able to intervene in +order to address it with the Court. Because if we don't +address it, it will be lost. +THE COURT: All right. So, again, I'm trying to make +sure I didn't miss something in the papers. As I understood +your moving papers, you claim that these are work product +privileged documents or there was some grand jury material +involved in this. +MR. BLACK: +Yes. +There is some 6(e) material as +well. +THE COURT: All right. And, again, maybe I missed it + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2013 Page 20 of 113 +20 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +in all the materials I had to go through for today, but did you +make the claim in your papers that it's work product because +part of the attorney -- criminal defense attorney's +responsibility is getting into plea negotiations and there's +this privilege of conmunications with the prosecutors in +dealing with plea negotiations; was that line of -- +MR. BLACK: Yes. +THE COURT: -- reasoning made? +MR. BLACK: Right, because that's all these papers +are. We said it's privileged because of these +communications, because of the importance of keeping open and +communications, and that it fits under the privilege. +THE COURT: I'm sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt +you. What else did you want to say? +MR. BLACK: All right. The other thing that I wanted +to mention is that there are the restatement of the law +regarding lawyers in the latest -- from the American Law +Institute, used as an example under the purpose of 410, where a +party actually sends documents to the government to examine +under a limited -- under confidentiality and limited use, and +the American Law Institute says that does not waive the work +product privilege. +The difference -- I don't want to get too deep into +it right now, but the difference between the two is you can +give work product to other people and not waive its type of + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2013 Page 21 of 113 +21 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +work product; whereas you do in the attorney/client privilege. +As soon as you give anything under the attorney/client +privilege to a third party, you waive it, but not under work +product. If it still has some protection associated with it, +the question is, under work product, did you give it to people +just to use however they want or was there some limitation on +it? And what's important here is the things that were sent to +the government -- and while we were adversaries at the time, +although we no longer became adversaries -- it was under the +protections that were given to these materials. +And I would -- there's one case I would analogize to, +although it's not exactly, obviously, the same. Judge Marcus +decided this case dealing with an American Airlines Crash near +Cali, Colombia and American Airlines was part of a program +where its pilots could report FAA violations to them and to the +FAA and it was considered confidential. +Judge Marcus, while he was on this court, said that +under Rule 501 -- even if you don't find any of these other +privileges, under 501, where you can accept common law +privileges, he said, I would find a limited common law +privilege for a reporting function like this because it is so +important to prevent airline disasters that I think that these +things ought to be privileged to facilitate open and +discussions between the pilots and the FAA, and what have you, +because it's too important. And, certainly, this fits under +wWW.USLEGALSUPPORT.COM + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2013 Page 22 of 113 +22 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +that same type of a rubric. +If we have a problem with work product, I think that +we can find a common law privilege of conmunication here +because of the importance given to plea negotiations that would +keep these out of the hands of the plaintiffs who intend to use +it against our clients. +So I think for a number of reasons this court should +allow this intervention. +I don't think now is the time to make +the decision or the ultimate decision. But I would say this: +If there's any kind of balancing here, the importance of +protecting communications in plea bargaining today is very +important. It's important to this court, to all the courts +dealing with trying to resolve criminal cases. And all the +cases say that's something that ought to be encouraged. +The plaintiffs, who have already filed for summary +judgment, who have said numerous times they have all the +evidence they need, certainly have a very low, if any, need for +anything from us to try to prove their case. So if there's any +kind of a balancing test here, I think that it certainly goes +in favor of protecting these materials. +THE COURT: What do you think in these materials is +protected under Rule 6? +MR. BLACK: +I think that all the materials that the +plaintiff is requiring are -- +under 6 (e) ? +THE COURT: +Yes. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2013 Page 23 of 113 +23 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +MR. BLACK: Under 6(e), what happens is that in a +number of the letters we discuss materials that we have been +shown or know of, like names of witnesses, names of victims and +what have you. That goes back and forth. That is obviously +grand jury material. Now, I can't say that there's a large +amount of that. There is some discussion of those things in +these letters, but I wouldn't say that it's more than +10 percent of them. The rest of them are just all the lawyers +talking about the law and that type of thing. +THE COURT: And what standing would you have to +complain about grand jury material being released? +MR. BLACK: I think that any officer of the court has +standing to complain about the dissemination and violation -- +of grand jury materials in violation of 6(e). I don't know +that anybody needs a particular standing for that. +THE COURT: I mean, if the government -- I don't know +what the government's position on that is. But if the +government isn't concerned, you think you can step in and say, +hey, you're not honoring your obligations under 6(e); I'm going +to step in? +MR. BLACK: Actually, there are times when we do +that. For example, if a government agent should disseminate +grand jury materials to the news media, there have been times +when we have made complaints for violations of 6(e). And I've +even -- I have filed letters with the Department of Justice to + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2013 Page 24 of 113 +24 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +the Attorney General complaining about prosecutors, and I won't +mention any names +-- not in this case +-- who have disseminated +6 (e) material in violation of the rules. So I think that any +party can make a complaint. +THE COURT: I assume you've done that when it +adversely affected one of your clients? +MR. BLACK: Well, obviously, because -- +THE COURT: Not because it -- just to protect the +system? +MR. BLACK: Your Honor is exactly right. This is a +highly adversarial system and the only reason I'm objecting to +it now is because it's beneficial to my client. I'm not doing +it out of any eleemosynary intent. +THE COURT: Thank you, sir. +MR. BLACK: Thank you, Your Honor. +THE COURT: Mr. +MR. +: Your Honor, we are asking that +Your Honor deny the motion to intervene in this case. +Mr. Black and these attorneys have not intervened on behalf of +Mr. Epstein, who may actually have an interest. They have no +stake in the outcome of this case. There is no case that +stands for -- +THE COURT: +Well, I mean, if they are right that this +is work product material -- and maybe that is not something +that I can decide now, +but to the extent that it might arguably + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2013 Page 25 of 113 +25 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +be work product material, don't they have standing to protect +their own work product? +MR. +: The cases that Mr. Black cited +indicated or held that they needed a colorable argument for +work product. You can't just come in and claim work product. +And there is a plethora of cases that stand for the +proposition, and has only been followed everywhere throughout +the country, that voluntary disclosure of work product +information to an adversary waives work product. +The other rules of evidence that Mr. Black referred +to, 410, don't apply to this case. That is a rule of +admissibility rather than discoverability. They're not being +entered against Mr. Epstein in this case. They are being +entered, if at all, against the government. +And just to correct the statement that he made that +the government redacted the portions of the emails and +correspondence from Mr. Epstein's attorneys to the government, +that's not how this happened. In previous litigation, it was +ordered that all of it be turned over to us from Mr. Epstein, +and they unilaterally made the decision to redact the +information from their attorneys going to the government. And +prior to the order that granted us permission to receive this +correspondence, all of these arguments, the work product, the +410 argument, +all of them were before this court and all of +them were overruled. +We've been down this road before. We + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2013 Page 26 of 113 +26 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +would argue that it's the law of the case at this point, since +these are similar issues, and there is no colorable argument of +work product at this point, and the intervention should be +denied. +THE COURT: All right. The cases that you're relying +on and that I, at least coming in here, was thinking about that +when you disclose something to an adversary it's no longer a +work product, are you familiar with the cases in the context of +plea negotiations where there's an exception or there's some +different type of privilege that applies in plea negotiations +between the government and a criminal defendant? +MR. +: We have read every case in his brief, +as well as any others on this subject, and can't find a single +case out there that stands for that proposition. It just +doesn't exist. So the cases +that he's spoken about don't say +that there is this automatic cloak of immunity between plea +discussions. In fact, there are cases talking about plea +discussions, and there isn't that. +This doesn't come up that much because this is a +unique scenario where the best evidence of how the victims' +rights were violated, when and by whom, is going to be found in +the correspondence between the government and Mr. Epstein, as +we have already seen from the half of the conversation that +we've been able to see. +THE COURT: Let me ask you this, and this kind of + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2013 Page 27 of 113 +27 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +gets to the merits of the argument, which I don't really want +to discuss right now, but do you really need the defense +lawyers' correspondence or statements to the government +attorneys in proving up whether or not the government violated +the Victims' Rights Act, assuming I'm going to find that it's +not -- it doesn't start from the point of indictment; the +rights are triggered earlier than that? Don't you have enough +information, without their comments in there, trial strategies +that may have been revealed to the government -- it is really +the government's actions or +inactions that you're complaining +about, not Epstein's lawyers' actions or inactions. +MR. +: We have a lot of information but some +of the information that we have are clearly responses by +Assistant U.S. Attorneys, and the U.S. Attorney at the time, +that is responding back to some letters or correspondence +saying, I understand that you're urging us not to tell the +victims certain information, but here's our problem with that, +and there's a back and forth. And we can never gain the +context of how it all came about and the rights were violated. +We additionally believe that this will go to the +heart of the relief or remedy that we are able to seek when we +learn the whole puzzle as to how this whole thing went on +behind the victims' backs, how deliberate it was and which +parties initiated it or caused the rights that we've claimed +were violated to be violated. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2013 Page 28 of 113 +28 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +THE COURT: Well, again, this is getting more to the +merits. But it's the government's either actions or inactions +that are at issue here and not what Mr. Epstein or any of his +lawyers may have done either to induce or encourage or suggest +that the -- again, hypothetically, that they violated the +victims' rights under the Act. So aren't you really focusing +on what the government did or didn't do regardless of what +Mr. Epstein may have done, or his lawyers? +Is that really +relevant? +MR. +: To prove violation, yes. But the scope +of the remedy or relief that we are able to seek, if it is +ultimately to invalidate this contract between the government +and Mr. Epstein, and it is ultimately going to be detrimental +at all to Mr. Epstein, then his deliberateness in the +insistence that the rights of these victims were violated is +going to be very important when we brief the issue on remedy +and relief. +THE COURT: All right. Thank you. I want to see if +the government has anything to say before I hear back from +Mr. Black. +Mr. Lee, did you have anything to add on this? I'd +be curious to know the government's position regarding +Mr. Black's assertion that any plea negotiations, statements +made during the course of plea negotiations, are somehow +privileged and protected and therefore can't be disclosed or + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2013 Page 29 of 113 +29 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +disseminated. +MR. LEE: Your Honor, on that particular issue I am +going to defer to my colleague, Ms. Villafana, but I would like +to note -- to invite the Court's attention, in response to +their motion to use correspondence and to unseal, we did raise +the 6(e) issue and we also raised a due process issue about +requiring the government to make a factual assertion that +somebody was guilty of a certain crime without even being +charged with a crime. That was raised independently of what +Mr. Black was asserting. So we did raise that. +THE COURT: Okay. I'm not sure how that -- explain +to me how those tie together. Your statement that -- the +government asserting someone may have been guilty of a crime +might be a due process violation, how does that relate to +statements made by the defense to you in the course of plea +negotiations? +MR. LEE: That's actually a separate issue that was +subsumed within the motion, Your Honor. The motion that they +filed was a motion to unseal correspondence and to file -- +unseal pleadings and use correspondence in order to prove +violations of the CVRA. Included in that were a number of +factual assertions that the petitioners claimed that we are +obligated to agree or disagree with in terms of presenting that +issue for the Court to resolve. And some of those factual +assertions that they suggested were true involved essentially + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2013 Page 30 of 113 +30 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +assertions that Mr. Epstein was guilty of various crimes, +crimes that he was not charged with. +And so we noted that would be a violation of due +process principles to name somebody in such a fashion or to +agree to an assertion, which basically becomes our assertion. +And secondly, we also mentioned the 6(e) issue in so far as +some of these emails that were generated that touched upon +matters occurring before the grand jury. That was in that +motion regarding -- motion to unseal and use correspondence. +If I could defer to my colleague to address the issue about the +philosophy about the plea negotiations? +THE COURT: All right. Thank you. +MR. LEE: Thank you, Your Honor. +MS. VILLAFANA: Thank you, Your Honor. I'm not +certain that this was raised in the pleadings so this is not +something that I was necessarily prepared to address. +THE COURT: well, if you're not prepared to address +it, then I don't want to put you on the spot and bind you to +anything you might say here, +if you want some +time to consider +it. I am really going to have to 1ook into this issue because +I took it as a new -- a new angle. +MS. VILLAFANA: I think I would prefer to 1o0k into +it a little bit and respond in writing, if that's all right +with Your Honor. +THE COURT: +All right. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2013 Page 31 of 113 +31 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +MS. VILLAFANA: Thank you. +THE COURT: Mr. Black, did you want to say anything +else? +MR. BLACK: Yes, Your Honor. At the beginning of +their argument, the plaintiff tells you they do not want to use +the statements in any way against Mr. Epstein. At the end of +the argument, they say they want to use the statements as a +remedy to vacate the non-prosecution agreement and try to have +him sentenced to a longer sentence, I assume. Mr. | +has +said that in previous times before this court. I think that's +more than sufficient to meet the standard that they intend to +use these 410 materials against Mr. Epstein to his detriment. +THE COURT: All right. +MR. BLACK: Thank you, sir. +THE COURT: That's a Mr. Epstein argument as opposed +to a Roy Black attorney argument? +MR. BLACK: It -- hopefully, they can't use those +statements against me but they certainly want to use it against +the client. And when we wrote the letters, we are acting for +the client. +And here is the problem, Your Honor, just to tell you +practically what it's like out in the field practicing criminal +law: If we believe that our statements in any way during this +plea bargaining process would end up coming back to damage our +clients in some way, why would we do this? Why would we go + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2013 Page 32 of 113 +32 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +through this whole process of sending these briefs and letters +and interpretations of the law and discussions of various +offenses and how things could be arranged and the discretion +between the federal and the state government and all those kind +of things, even discussing proposed charges and all of that, +why would we ever engage in that if we ever thought these +things could come back to bite our clients? +All we're going to do here is going to, for no good +reason, put a damper on the ability of lawyers to negotiate and +resolve criminal cases and I believe that is against the policy +of these courts, and our system of justice. +THE COURT: All right. Thank you, Mr. Black. I'm +going to reserve ruling. I guess I'm going to ask the +government, or both sides to - Mr. Black, did you want to -- +an opportunity to further develop this privilege argument on +plea negotiations in writing? +MR. BLACK: Yes, sir. I would also ask for whatever +time you give the government. I'll make another submission. +THE COURT: Why don't you make an initial submission +and then let the other side, both -- the other parties respond +to that. +MR. BLACK: That's fair enough, Your Honor. +THE COURT: +How much time do you want to do that? +MR. BLACK: Iwo weeks? +THE COURT: +That's fine. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2013 Page 33 of 113 +33 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +MR. BLACK: Thank you. +THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Black. +How much time did you want, Ms. Villafana, or Mr. +to respond to whatever Mr. Black submits? +MR. +: Two weeks as well, Your Honor. +MS. VILLAFANA: Two weeks is fine. +MR. LEE: Two weeks would be fine, Your Honor. +MR. +: Your Honor, we would ask that we be +able to reply after the government? +THE COURT: Okay. So you want two weeks after +Mr. Black and then after the government responds? +MR. +One week would be fine. +THE COURT: After? +MR. +The government responds. +THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Black, two weeks for the +government and a week for you? +MR. +Sounds great. +THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Black, are you going to want +to file a reply or are you going to wait and see? +MR. BLACK: I'll see. Why don't you give us three +days for a reply. +THE COURT: Okay. How about a week, all right? +MR. BLACK: Thank you. +THE COURT: All right. Let's talk about some of +these other procedural motions that don't delve into the real + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2013 Page 34 of 113 +34 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +merits. Let's talk about the plaintiffs' motion to have their +facts accepted because of the government's failure to contest +any of the facts. +Who's going to argue that? Mr. +MR. +: Yes, Your Honor. +THE COURT: All right. Now, let me kind of just +start off and try and focus the inquiry here. +MR. +_: Okay. +THE COURT: I read your motion. The motion you +filed, the ultimate motion on whether or not there's been a +violation of your clients' rights, it's not labeled a summary +judgment motion. It's not sworn to. It doesn't have any +affidavits. It doesn't -- no depositions, request for +admissions, nothing that you would ordinarily rely upon in the +context of a case dispositive motion. As far as I know, +there's been no attempt to conduct discovery; no request for +admissions; no document production; nothing in the ordinary =- +in an ordinary civil case that would be done in order to get +the other side to admit to certain facts. +It seems like you're saying, well, we've talked to +them back and forth. We've asked them to admit things. They +haven't admitted anything. They refused or we can't come to +some agreement, so admit everything we say in our motion and +use it against them. How does that work when there seems to +me, whether you consider this an aspect of an offshoot of a +criminal case or a separate civil case, that there is a means + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2013 Page 35 of 113 +35 +1 +2 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +or a method by which you could have, if you wanted to, asked +for the opportunity to conduct discovery or send out discovery +requests and get them to either admit or deny certain things? +Can you just negotiate, they say, I'm sorry, we're +not admitting anything, and come into court and say, we tried; +they won't admit anything, so now you've got to -- everything +is deemed admitted against them? I mean, how does that work? +MR. +1: Your Honor, let me confer with +co-counsel for one second because I believe there was some +attempt to do some discovery. +we made an initial disclosure under Rule 26, and the +response back that we got from the government was that this is +not a civil case because the Crime Victims' Rights Act is not a +civil case. And we said, okay, well, then we get certain +information from you if it's a criminal case. And they +said, +well, if it's a criminal case, it's United States versus +somebody else. So it's not a criminal case. So we are kind of +stuck in this middle ground and we need -- similar to a summary +judgment motion, we need an ultimate finding on a legal issue, +which is a finding of violation of the Act. So we've been kind +of stuck in limbo not knowing what's really available to us in +terms of how we go about getting discovery. +So we did negotiate with them for a long time over +facts, and they finally said, all the facts are irrelevant. +And if they're irrelevant, then what's the harm in accepting + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2013 Page 36 of 113 +36 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +them as true? And if they want to insert the one fact that +they believe is relevant, Jeffrey Epstein was not indicted, +then we agree. +THE COURT: Well, I presume their position is, the +rights under the Act don't kick in or aren't triggered until +there's an indictment, and if I accept that proposition then it +doesn't make any difference what the facts are. But if I don't +accept that proposition, then I have a feeling they're going to +say that all the facts do make a difference. I don't want to +speak for them but I presume that's going to be their approach. +MR. +_: Well, there -- +THE COURT: If I rule against them on the indictment +is the triggering event, they're going to want to contest a lot +of these facts. +MR. +: Well, there are certain undeniable +facts that are in the record that they will not contest, which +based on those facts alone the -- the finding of a violation, +we could reach that decision and it would be ripe for that +finding. It's not ripe until we have all of the circumstances +and all of the facts. But just given those -- the information +that we have in the record, such as when the non-prosecution +agreement was signed, the confidentiality provision, when the +letters were sent to the clients, when the plea negotiation +went down, the fact that it was a year after the +non-prosecution agreement that disposed of the clients' rights + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2013 Page 37 of 113 +37 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +before the clients knew about the non-prosecution agreement and +were receiving letters telling them to be patient, this is a +long process, after their rights were already gone, is enough. +And those are not things that are being contested. +So we could at least have had a meaningful discussion +as to which of these other facts, in addition to the fact that +Mr. Epstein was not indicted, that they would agree upon. And +if they're saying that it's irrelevant, it goes back to my +original argument, what's the harm then? We can get all the +way to making the decisions if we have a bunch of -- and +Your Honor can make the legal determination what weight to give +various facts, whether they're relevant or not relevant. +THE COURT: But that's assuming they're all true for +purposes of the proceeding. I guess my question to you is: If +you are uncertain or the government is uncertain as to what +kind of a case this is, is it an offshoot of a -- or ancillary +to a criminal case or is it a separate and independent civil +case or some hybrid, and you wanted to get them to admit +certain facts, you could have filed a motion and asked for some +assistance from me and said, hey, this is what we're trying to +accomplish. They won't cooperate. Can we employ some +discovery mechanisms in order to limit or narrow the disputed +issues? +I think whether it's criminal or civil, I probably +would have discretion to say, engage in some discovery if + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2013 Page 38 of 113 +38 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +that's going to simplify things or bring this to a head. But +you just filed a motion and say, they're stuck with everything +we say in our motion. +MR. +: Well, we believe that this did fall +under local Rule 7.5, and assuming that it does, then any -- +any facts that are uncontroverted would be deemed admitted and +accepted as true. +THE COURT: So you're saying this is a summary +judgment motion? +MR. +Yes. +THE COURT: You didn't call it a summary judgment +motion. +MR. +: I understand. +THE COURT: You didn't file -- you didn't file a +statement of undisputed facts. +MR. +I: We did file a statement of undisputed +facts. We filed 53 undisputed facts. +THE COURT: You did? +MR. +1: We filed -- within our motion for +finding violations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act, we filed +53 undisputed facts and attached, as exhibits, A through K. +THE COURT: Okay. +I see. Let me go to that section. +Okay. +MR. +Various pieces of the record. And we +have agreed with the government that we would agree to that + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2013 Page 39 of 113 +39 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +additional fact that Mr. Epstein was not indicted, and then we +would start with various correspondence indicating that there +was a 53-page indictment prepared against him and move on all +the way through the plea agreement so that we could reach the +determination on the violation. +THE COURT: All right. Well, I don't think I can +just accept your version of the facts, some of which are not +facts but are opinions and conclusions, just because the +government didn't choose to sit down and work out an agreement +with you. I think there are other ways of getting to the point +where you want to get. I think a discovery process +is probably +the -- and you didn't label it a motion for summary judgment. +It's kind of -- so I don't think they were on notice that you +were intending to consider this a summary judgment motion and +therefore had to respond under the local civil rule and file +their statement of disputed material facts. +MR. +_: Okay. I could be incorrect but I +believe in their response that they referred to it as a summary +judgment motion. +THE COURT: All right. +MR. +: But I could be wrong on that. Okay. +THE COURT: I'm going to deny that motion. Okay. I +think there's another way of trying to get these facts narrowed +and we can talk about how to do that after. +MR. +: Okay. In terms of the motion for + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2013 Page 40 of 113 +40 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +finding a violation, is at least the information that is +already in the record and is stipulated to, meaning the +exhibits that both parties agree were exhibits, is that +something that we are going to be permitted to rely upon for +that motion? +THE COURT: Well, let's wait until we get to that +motion and then we'll talk about it. +MR. +: Thank you, Your Honor. +THE COURT: Okay. How about the motion for the order +directing the United States Attorney's Office not to withhold +relevant evidence, who wants to talk about that? Mr. Cassell. +MR. CASSELL: Good afternoon, Your Honor. As the +Court is aware, we've been trying to sort through some of these +issues. The Court, I guess, is wondering about some of these +things, and we've been wondering as well. The one thing we +think is very clear is that the United States cannot sit on +information that's highly relevant to the plaintiffs' claims. +We've repeatedly asked the United States for +information that would support our claim both that there were +substantive violations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act and +that the appropriate remedy for this violation would be setting +aside the non-prosecution agreement. We've offered to provide +them very narrow and specific documents that we're looking for. +And in response, the United States Attorney's Office has taken +the position that it can and will withhold this relevant and + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2013 Page 41 of 113 +41 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +useful information from the victims. So we think the legal +issue is starkly present: Can the United States withhold +information from the victims that will help them establish a +violation of congressionally-mandated crime victims' rights? +And we submit that the answer to that question must be, no, for +three reasons. +THE COURT: Why isn't this, again, sort of a +discovery issue? We go through a discovery process and you +submit specific requests for information. They either produce +it or object to it, and if there's an objection and they say, +we're not going to produce it, we have a hearing on whether or +not it should be turned over. +MR. CASSELL: So that is our third argument. Let me +jump right to that. The third argument we have made in our +brief is that this is a civil case and so we should proceed +under the ordinary civil rules. As Your Honor is well aware, +the first step in the civil rules is to make initial +disclosures. So we made all of our initial disclosures under +Rule 26 and we asked the government then to make theirs. They +refused. They said, sorry, we're not going to make any +disclosures. So we were stopped at first base. We can't, of +course, move to request for depositions, request for admissions +because we haven't even had the initial disclosures that Rule +26 envisions. So basically -- +THE COURT: But you could have asked me to intervene + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2013 Page 42 of 113 +42 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +and make some preliminary determinations as to who's right or +wrong about that process. +MR. CASSELL: And that's what we tried to do with +this motion. +We said there should be a motion for them, and we +styled it, not to withhold evidence. And, of course, our third +argument was that the civil rules apply and they should -- let +me make clear, we're not trying to suggest that we're afraid of +the civil rules. +Io the contrary, if the Court were to enter +an order in a few minutes saying the civil rules apply, simply +proceed under the civil rules, we would be ecstatic about that. +That would let us get to the bottom of this case and we would +be happy to move forward on an expedited basis to produce some +requests for admissions, maybe take a few depositions and do +the ordinary thing that civil rules -- the civil rules require. +So we're certainly not opposed to that in any +way. +In fact, we proposed that to the government; again, only to be +blocked at square one, to even go down that path. So we're +happy to go down that path. We hope that the Court would go +that way. +But there's one -- there are a couple of other things +that I think above and beyond the ordinary civil rules that +factor in here that are highly relevant. This is not an +ordinary civil case where the victims and the government are +supposed to be adversaries, where both sides [ +• it out. To +the contrary, Congress has passed a specific provision that + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2013 Page 43 of 113 +43 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +mandates that the government must use its best efforts to +afford victims their rights. That best efforts clause then +suggests that, well, the government isn't entitled to try to +conceal things and withhold them. They have to undertake their +own affirmative search for information and provide it to us. +And here again, we think this is a very simple task. +They've never argued that this is burdensome. They've never +argued, we don't know what you're looking for. To the +contrary, they have said, we have information and we're simply +not going to produce it to you. That is simply not consistent +with the Crime Victims' Rights Act, which obligates them to use +their best efforts to help us. You shouldn't view this as an +adversarial position. And this is, again, where we have come +to the Court to request your assistance. We would like an +order that says to the government, come on, comply with the +Crime Victims' Rights Act; use your best efforts to assist the +victims to receive the information that they're looking for. +And the last argument we make is, remember what the +government has already done for the sex offender in this case. +Our understanding is they have provided hundreds of pages of +information to a child molester, but we're simply asking for a +few documents that will now help us make our claim that there +have been violations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act and that +the appropriate remedy for that is setting aside the +non-prosecution agreement. We're entitled to that information + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2013 Page 44 of 113 +44 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +no less than the defense was entitled to that information as a +matter of fairness. +Now, they say fairness, due process, that's under the +Constitution. We are not raising a constitutional claim. We +are raising a statutory claim. The Crime Victims' Rights Act +says that victims of crime must be treated with fairness. And, +again, we think this is a very simple and very stark question +that the Court can ask and should ask the government: How is +it treating the victims with fairness to allow you, the +government, to withhold information that will permit them to +show, first, that there's been a violation of the Crime +Victims' Rights Act and, secondly, that the appropriate remedy +is the remedy they're seeking to set aside the non-prosecution +agreement? +And, in fact, the cases that they cite even say that +the victims should go and seek the assistance of the government +when they run into situations where their rights are being +violated. The very first case they cite, U.S. v. Rubin, says +that the victims should go about conferring with the government +if they're trying to obtain information since, after all, it's +the government who is supposed to be the ally of the victims in +this process, not the adversaries. +And so for all of those reasons, the government's +best efforts and obligations, our right to be treated with +fairness, and the fact that this is a civil case and the + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2013 Page 45 of 113 +45 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +ordinary civil rules apply, for all of those reasons, +Your Honor, we think they are not entitled to withhold +information from us that they well know is very helpful to us, +both on the liability phase of this case and the ultimate +remedy phase of this case. +THE COURT: All right. Thank you. +Mr. Lee. +MR. LEE: Thank you, Your Honor. May it please the +Court. Let me address the first issue about the initial +disclosures that the petitioners claim. Those initial +disclosures were given to the government in March of 2011, +probably about two weeks before they filed their series of four +motions. This lawsuit commenced in July of 2008. So while +these are disclosures, they certainly were initial disclosures +which are typically done within a few weeks of the commencement +of the lawsuit. +Your Honor, this is a case that is really kind of a +hybrid. It's not a criminal case in the sense that nobody is +being charged with a crime. Nobody is in jeopardy of going to +jail. But it's not completely a civil case, either. I believe +that the CVRA intended that most of these actions where +individual victims seek to have their rights enforced, they are +usually done as an ancillary proceeding to an extant criminal +proceeding. +In such proceedings, an individual victim would not + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2013 Page 46 of 113 +46 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +necessarily have discovery rights that one would have under the +Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Not only that, not every +civil action cones with it rights to conduct full discovery. +If somebody files an agency APA action, Administrative +Procedures Act, seeking to get judicial review of an agency +action, those are record reviews and you're not entitled to +discovery. +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +If somebody files a habeas, in order to get discovery +in a habeas proceeding there must be a court order. And we +believe that just because this is a civil action in the sense +that it's not a criminal action, that they're not entitled to +discovery. It can only be done pursuant to an order of this +court. +THE COURT: All right. Well, do you believe I don't +have the discretion or do you believe or agree that regardless +of whether it's an ancillary action to a criminal proceeding or +it's a separate and independent civil proceeding, or it's some +hybrid, wouldn't I have discretion to order discovery if I +believed it was appropriate? +MR. LEE: Yes, you would, Your Honor. +THE COURT: Okay. +MR. LEE: Even in a habeas, the court has broad +discretion. Your Honor, I would note for this, we believe that +the first issue the Court must resolve is whether or not any +legal rights under 3771(a) (1) through (8) accrued prior to the + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2013 Page 47 of 113 +47 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +filing of a charge in the Southern District of Florida against +Mr. Epstein. That can be resolved. That's a statutory +interpretation question. It is a legal question. +The only predicate fact that is necessary for the +Court to engage in this analysis is to have -- to know that +there was no charge filed against Mr. Epstein in the Southern +District of Florida. There's no dispute as to that. I mean, +for that very reason, we believe that the discovery that the +petitioners claim that they need is unnecessary. +THE COURT: Well, I agree if I agree with you, then +that's the end of the case. But if I don't agree with you, I +have to have some way of dealing with the issue of whether or +not the plaintiffs' rights were violated and how we're going to +come to a resolution of that. So I'm now in the posture of -- +on the assumption, hypothetically, that I disagree with your +legal position and feel that there is an issue of fact as to +whether or not the rights were violated and how are we going to +resolve that factual issue. +MR. LEE: Your Honor, the Court would at that point +have the discretion, if there was good cause shown and the +Court believed it necessary to the resolution of the dispute, +to allow discovery. +THE COURT: All right. And I guess this is over and +above just discovery obligations. +The plaintiffs are claiming +that you have some statutory obligation over and above a + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2013 Page 48 of 113 +48 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +discovery obligation to produce information that would be +what's in your possession, out of treating them fair under the +statute. +What's your position on that? +MR. LEE: We respectfully disagree. They cite Brady +v. Maryland, which, of course, pertains to a criminal case. +Brady v. Maryland is based on the due process clause, because +if the government is seeking to deprive somebody of their life, +liberty or property, they have to accord them the process that +is due. The process that is due to a criminal defendant is +information that is exculpatory that is in the hands of the +government. This is not a criminal case. +In order to invoke the due process clause, they have +to establish that there's a protected life, liberty or property +interest, outside of Brady versus Maryland. So in this case, +they would have to demonstrate that some liberty or property +interest is in jeopardy and the government is seeking to take +it away from them and they are accorded a certain amount of +process. In their view, that process is the right to have +access to this information. +There is no protected liberty or property interest in +the CVRA. And in so far as the right that they invoke under +3771 (a) (8) about the right to be treated with fairness, there's +no authority that fairness includes a discovery right to compel +the government to produce information that might be of +assistance to a victim in prosecuting his or her claim that + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2013 Page 49 of 113 +49 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +their rights were violated. Thank you, Your Honor. +THE COURT: Thank you. +MR. CASSELL: Thank you, Your Honor. Mr. Lee first +talks about the timing of this case and the time line. Let me +just touch on two things that I think are highly relevant. +Back in July of 2008, when this case first began, you recall +that Mr. +and Mr. Lee said, Your Honor, we think we can +work out a set of facts so that you can then decide the case. +That was the agreement of Mr. Lee and Mr. L +_. And so I +assisted Mr. +and worked with Mr. Lee to begin working +on the facts, and after a few weeks we heard back from the +government, we've changed our mind; we no longer want to work +with you on the facts. +So at that point, as you know, we began working on +the civil cases, got some additional information, prepared. +And I have to confess maybe we didn't style it properly. Maybe +we should have put "summary judgment" on it or something else. +We weren't quite sure. But we put together 53 facts and we +sent them to the government before we ever presented them to +you and said, here are the facts. We would like to work with +you because we don't want to get in a squabble in front of the +judge when we can work together. And Mr. Lee sent me an email +saying, we will work with you and agree to any of the facts +that we think are true. +So we thought, great, we will move forward with that + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2013 Page 50 of 113 +50 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +process. +And then in, I believe it was February of this year, +we then got another about face from the government: No, we've +changed our mind; we're not going to work with you to stipulate +facts. +And at that point, we were then forced to file this +motion. +Now, Mr. Lee keeps calling it a discovery motion. I +don't think that's the right term. Discovery motion means we +would be fishing around trying to find something that's useful. +We see the principle at stake here as being something quite +different. The government admits -- and you notice Mr. Lee +didn't deny this -- that they have information that they know +will be helpful to us. We're asking you to order them to +produce it to us. That's not discovery, let's fish around and +see what we can find. +THE COURT: What does that mean? I guess, are you +trying -- it seems like it's a Brady concept. +MR. CASSELL: Exactly. +THE COURT: So they're supposed to, in good faith, I +presume, look through their files and decide, you know, this +1ooks like something that would be helpful to the plaintiffs to +prove that we violated their rights, so here it is. +MR. CASSELL: Exactly. And let me just explain +why -- and notice that the government has never raised the +point that this is burdensome; we can't figure it out; • +gosh, there are so many files we don't know what to look at. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2013 Page 51 of 113 +51 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +And let me explain to you why I think they are not making that +representation. We went to the U.S. Attorney for the Southern +District of Florida in December and raised a number of +questions about this case. At that point, the U.S. Attorney +for the Southern District of Florida referred the matter to +OPR, the Office of Professional Responsibility in Washington, +DC, for an investigation. +It's our understanding that for about five months +there was an inquiry or an investigation into the nature of +this case. And then in May, we received a letter that said, +well, all these issues are being litigated in front of the +court so we're not going to proceed any further with the +investigation, or the inquiry, whatever you want to call it. +We think there is a collection of materials, sealed +and wrapped in a ribbon, that they could simply hand to us +right now that would have basically 90 percent of all the +relevant information in the case. We further believe that they +know darn well that that information is very, very helpful for +us in proving that there were deliberate violations of the +Crime Victims' Rights Act; second, that Mr. Epstein was +involved in orchestrating those violations; and, third, that +that would show that the appropriate remedy in this case is to +invalidate the non-prosecution agreement because it is an +illegal agreement. +And yet they're refusing to provide that to +us. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2013 Page 52 of 113 +52 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +What is the basis that they say you shouldn't order +that information provided to us? They say, well, you just need +one fact to decide this case. As the Court, I think, is aware +and we may be getting into shortly, when you look at the case +laws you can't decide an issue like this based on just one +fact. You have to have some context. +Let me give you an example of one additional fact +that we think is highly relevant. The government prepared, as +we understand it, a 53-page indictment against Epstein and +presented that to the defense attorneys. Well, we think that +that is highly relevant information showing that they +mistreated the victims in this case. Why didn't they share +that with the victims? Why didn't they just share the +discussions about that with the victims? They were obligated +to do so. We think that's part of the context that the Court +will need. +Now, you notice what Mr. -- what Mr. Lee did as well. +He talks about the Brady principle. Let's think about what the +Brady principle is and why it's so important in this case. The +Brady principle is basically that the government wins when +justice is done. And the government is asking you to take the +position that even though it has information that's highly +relevant to the crime victims, there's no one that can force +them to turn it over to us. +That is not justice. That is +not -- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2013 Page 53 of 113 +53 +1 +2 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +THE COURT: I don't think -- I think Mr. Lee +acknowledged that if I ordered discovery that they would be +ordered to comply with - +MR. CASSELL: Right. +THE COURT: -- discovery requests. +MR. CASSELL: Well, maybe then -- maybe this is, in +essence, an unopposed motion. I mean, he said you have +discretion to do it. And the only argument I heard him make +against you exercising your discretion to do this is, Judge, +you only need one fact. So I assume that if you disagree with +Mr. Lee on that, that at that point I haven't heard any +arguments from the government, either in the written pleadings +they have filed or here this afternoon, that would suggest you +shouldn't exercise your discretion to, first of all, order them +to produce the information that we think that they have that is +highly relevant to us and, second, allow us to do some +discovery, take some depositions, get some requests for +admissions, get some document production, which we would +ordinarily get in a civil case. +The other thing Mr. Lee said is, they're not being +deprived of any property here. The crime victims in this case, +Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2 have made a very powerful +case that they are being deprived of congressionally-mandated +rights: The right to confer with prosecutors; the right to be +treated with fairness; and the right to accurate notice of + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2013 Page 54 of 113 +54 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +court proceedings. That's the deprivation that's at issue. +And as a result, it is only fair, as it would be if this were +under a due process situation, that they receive relevant +information that the government has. And so for all of those +reasons, we would ask you to order the government to produce +information and allow us to do some discovery as well. +THE COURT: All right. Thank you. I think this is +somewhat related to what we've been talking about, and this is +the plaintiffs' motion to use correspondence to prove +violations under the Crime Victims' Rights Act and to have +unsealed -- have the unredacted pleadings unsealed. Have we +already talked about this or is there some -- +MR. CASSELL: I think this one is unopposed. Maybe +you can just grant at least the first part of it, to use +correspondence. +THE COURT: Well, exactly what are we talking about, +I guess? I need to have a better understanding. What has been +redacted and -- well, I guess, what is -- it is unredacted, +material that's not redacted. +MR. CASSELL: We have material that was provided to +us that was, for example, Mr. Lee or some of the other +attorneys in the U.S. Attorney's Office talking about the plea +discussion. We have that information right now. +THE COURT: +And that's the government's side of the +discussion? + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2013 Page 55 of 113 +55 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +MR. CASSELL: That's the government's side. +THE COURT: Okay. +MR. CASSELL: And we simply want to use that. The +government does not oppose that motion. We were obligated to +provide notice to Mr. Epstein, which we did. There was the +magistrate judge process. All of the work product and other +objections that you've been hearing about today have been +overruled. And then the magistrate judge said, simply go to +the appropriate authority, which I assume is Your Honor, and +have the -- you know, have a decision made about whether that +information can be used. +THE COURT: Now, is this information -- is any of +this information, the unredacted correspondence -- I guess I +need to speak to Mr. Black about this. Is any of this +information information that you're concerned about, MI. Black? +Or is this information that is not anything that you're +concerned about? +MR. BLACK: It is none of our information. It's only +the government's side of the communication, Your Honor. That's +what I understand. +THE COURT: So you don't have any concern about +whether I allow the plaintiffs to use it or whether it's +unsealed? +MR. BLACK: We have no position on that because that +does not implicate our rights. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2013 Page 56 of 113 +56 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +THE COURT: All right. +MR. CASSELL: So I think this motion may be +unopposed, although the government, I think, is opposing +unsealing +of the information because they claim some of that is +Rule 6(e) grand jury material. +I have the same question I think Your Honor does. +For the life of me, I can't see how any of the emails we have +could be Rule 6(e) material because they've been given to us. +They've been given to Mr. Black. And, if so, that can't be +confidential grand jury material because it shouldn't have been +shared with anyone else. +None of the materials talk about what's going on +inside the grand jury room, which is what Rule 6(e) covers. So +we think any kind of argument that Rule 6(e) is implicated here +is just frankly frivolous. +THE COURT: All right. Mr. Lee, or Ms. Villafana, do +you want to be heard on this? +MR. LEE: Yes, Your Honor. Thank you. Very briefly, +we raised two arguments in so far as unredacting these +materials. 6(e) - +THE COURT: I don't think -- I don't think anybody is +asking that they be unredacted. I think they're just -- they +want to use it in the form that they have it right now. +MR. LEE: Okay. Let me address the 6(e) issue. As +we stated in our pleadings, Your Honor, or our opposition to + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2013 Page 57 of 113 +57 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +the motion, 6(e) is not a privilege like the attorney/client +privilege or deliberative process that can be waived once the +contents of the information that is protected is made known. +Somebody can be served with a grand jury subpoena and the press +may get ahold of it and say, ah, you're investigating so and +so; government, you need to confirm with us whether or not +you're investigating so and so. +Even though there is an existence of a grand jury +subpoena which would seem to indicate that, that doesn't +breach, if you will, Rule 6(e) obligations. The government is +still obligated to neither confirm nor deny. So just because +somebody has this information doesn't mean that the 6 (e) +protections are gone and vitiated. So that's why we believe +that this information should not be made public. +THE COURT: Well, are you talking about all of it or +just a portion of it? +MR. LEE: There are certain portions that we +redacted. We filed an actual document putting forth what we +believe should be redacted; what the petitioners agreed was +fine and where the areas of disagreement were. It was color +coded. +THE COURT: Right. So some of the material -- the +copies I have, I lose the color in them. I just have black. +Everything is black. +So there's some material that you believe +needs to be redacted? + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2013 Page 58 of 113 +58 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +MR. LEE: Correct. +THE COURT: And others that the plaintiffs say should +be unsealed and unredacted? +MR. LEE: That's correct, Your Honor. +THE COURT: Okay. All right. +MR. LEE: Thank you, Your Honor. +THE COURT: You're welcome. All right. Let's talk +about, I guess, the main issue of this case here. +When do the +victims' rights start to accrue? +Who's going to present that argument? Mr. Cassell. +MR. CASSELL: Thank you, Your Honor. So I'll address +what I think you've called the main event. The question is: +When does the Crime Victims' Rights Act begin to apply? The +government's position, as I understand it, is that unless it +makes the decision to publicly file an indictment, crime +victims have no rights in the criminal justice process. That's +a very important issue for crime victims' rights in this +country, and I think it's a very important question for the way +in which this congressional statute is going to be put into +effect. +The Crime Victims' Rights Act makes it quite clear +that it wasn't designed to be so narrowly circumscribed. In +fact, the rights apply throughout the criminal justice process. +You need go no further than the plain language of the CVRA, +which says that there is an obligation of, quote, officers and + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2013 Page 59 of 113 +59 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +employees of the Department of Justice, and other departments +and agencies of the United States, engaged in -- and here is +the important part -- the detection, investigation or +prosecution of crime. And those entities are obligated to +afford crime victims their rights. +If you take the position of the government and accept +it, then that language in the CVRA simply because superfluous. +It becomes meaningless. It would never apply. Agencies that +are involved in the detection and investigation of crime, like +the FBI and other agencies, would never have any obligations +under the Crime Victims' Rights Act. +We have cited that language, as you know. Back in +July of 2008, every single pleading we have filed in this case +has led with that particular argument. And the government, +despite having, I think, by this point, four separate pleadings +has never discussed that language with you at all, and we think +the answer -- the reason why they are not discussing that +language is obvious. They have no answer for that. +If they were to look +at that language -- if their +position were to be accepted, that language would be written +out of the statute. But that, of course, is not the only +language we rely upon in the CVRA. The CVRA goes on to say +that what should victims do if they are asserting rights and, +quote, no charges are -- or no prosecution is underway, which +is our situation here, no prosecution, at least federal + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2013 Page 60 of 113 +60 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +prosecution, is underway? +In that situation, a victim should assert her rights +in the district court in which the defendant is being +prosecuted, or if no prosecution is underway in the district +court, in the district in which the crime occurred. That's +here in the Southern District of Florida, which is why we +proceeded here. +Now, the government says this is a venue provision. +True, enough. But venue over what? The theory that we've +given you is that that provides venue over cases that are in a +pre-indictment situation. The government merely does not have +a coherent theory on how that venue provision applies. +If you read through the footnotes in their brief, you +discover that they say, well, if somebody is arrested, then at +that point The Crime Victims' Rights Act is triggered. Of +course, that footnote is inconsistent with the entire body of +their brief, which says that the triggering event for the Crime +Victims' Rights Act is the filing of an indictment. +So I'll be interested to hear from Mr. Lee, when he +makes his presentation, exactly what point in the process do +rights apply? Is it the indictment? Is it the arrest? Or is +it some earlier point, as we suggest? +Now, it's interesting, too, when you look at what +Mr. Lee said back on July 11th, 2008, because Your Honor asked +the same question that I think you're asking me and the + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2013 Page 61 of 113 +61 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +government right now, are there rights that apply under the +Crime Victims' Rights Act before the filing an indictment? And +the answer that Mr. Lee gave on July 11, 2008, was, yes, there +are rights that apply before the indictment. Quoting here: +Now, there are certain of eight rights accorded in 3771(a) that +could come up before any charges being filed. And he goes on +to give the example of the right of a victim to be reasonably +protected, and he conceded that those rights would apply before +indictment. +I think the government, once again, is reversing a +position that they took earlier in this litigation because they +now find it convenient to do so. +The government has also cited remarks from Senator +Kyl, saying if you look at Senator Kyl's legislative history +you'll see that the Senate didn't want the rights to apply +before the indictment was filed. As you know, just a couple of +weeks ago we provided supplemental authority to this court, +which was a letter from Senator Kyl to Attorney General Eric +Holder sent on June the -- +THE COURT: Well, I'm not sure I should rely on his +letter. I mean, I think you can rely on the full context of +the legislative history and the full -- the complete statement +that Senator Kyl made when this was being discussed, but I'm +not sure a letter sent years after the fact, which is one +person's statement of what he thinks now, I don't think + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2013 Page 62 of 113 +62 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +that's -- I wouldn't want to rely on that. +MR. CASSELL: In the -- if I could just take a short +moment then. Let me explain to you why you should rely on it. +The government has said Senator Kyl would want you to rule in +their favor in this case because he didn't want the Crime +Victims' Rights Act to apply pre-indictment, and now we have a +letter from Senator Kyl, just six weeks ago, saying, That is +quoting my remarks out of context. We could not have been +clearer when we drafted the Act, and he cited the same +statutory provisions that I just mentioned to you. And he +said, obviously we intended for the Act to apply +pre-indictment. +So at the very least, I think you have to disregard +the government's position that Senator Kyl has certain remarks +that they think ought to lead you to conclude that there's no +pre-indictment rights under the CVRA. +The other point that we would press, of course, is +that case law, in our view, all concludes that the Crime +Victims' Rights Act applies before indictment. Of course, the +lead Court of Appeals case on this is the Fifth Circuit case, +In re: +• The government -- you've had a chance to read the +government's briefing on that. Frankly, I don't think anything +they say is persuasive. +In re: +very specifically holds -- and I'm +quoting here - quote, logically the rights that apply before + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2013 Page 63 of 113 +63 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +any prosecution is underway included the CVRA's establishment +of the victim's reasonable right to confer with the attorney +for the government. That's the Fifth Circuit's holding. That +is persuasive authority, we would suggest, and the government +has no answer for that. +There are a number of district court cases that reach +exactly the same conclusion that the Crime Victims' Rights Act +applies before any indictment is filed. And so for all of +those reasons, Your Honor, we would ask you to conclude that +the Crime Victims' Rights Act applies before an indictment. +THE COURT: I don't know if you're prepared to answer +this question or whether you're going to say, well, the facts +of this case don't require me to deal with it. But when is the +earliest point when these rights trigger? +MR. CASSELL: And, you know, Your Honor, we believe +that is a very difficult issue that courts will be wrestling +with, how far back in the process does it go? And I think you +anticipated part of our response, which is, look, there are +going to be some line-drawing issues down the road. There are +certainly going to be some close-call cases, but we are not +anywhere near to a close-call case. +We are asking you for a very narrow holding in this +case, and we have set forth in our brief five factors that we +would ask you to rely upon in this case that will limit your +holding to these particular facts and leave for another day + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2013 Page 64 of 113 +64 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +some of the more theoretical questions. +Here are five factors that we think are present in +this case that make it clear the Crime Victims' Rights Act was +triggered, that may cut off some of the more theoretical or +preliminary stages that perhaps Your Honor is worried about. +The first fact is that prosecutors in this case +identified specific federal offenses conmitted against specific +victims, and that's one of the reasons we need the +correspondence, to show that that fact exists. +Secondly, the prosecutors in this case determined +that there was evidence which they could present at trial and +prove beyond a reasonable doubt that those crimes had been +committed. +The third fact is that in this case, the victims were +given notices that their rights had attached under the Crime +Victims' Right Act. You will recall in our exhibits, several +notices that went to both Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2 +saying, you have rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act. +At least in a situation where the government itself has said, +we think at this point rights have attached, that's when rights +should be deemed to have attached. +The fourth fact that's present here is that the +prosecutor sat down with defense attorneys to negotiate a +non-prosecution agreement. So let's take a case where the bank +robber runs out of the bank and he's on the front steps of the + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2013 Page 65 of 113 +65 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +bank, do the rights attach then? Well, no, that's a very +preliminary stage. But if they start negotiating with the bank +robber's attorney saying, okay, we're looking at filing federal +bank robbery +charges, we're thinking of filing these counts, we +would like to discuss with you plea options, at that point in +the process that's when the rights attach. +That, by the way, I think is exactly what the Fifth +Circuit did in the +case. There, the government had sat +down with a company that was responsible for some deaths. They +had negotiated -- they were contemplating filing specific +federal charges, and at that point the Fifth Circuit said the +rights attached. +And the last point is that there is at least the +attachment of crime victims' rights when the government is +prepared to execute an agreement that will abolish or +extinguish the rights of crime victims, and that's exactly what +happened here, of course. There was this non-prosecution +agreement that was executed that's then eviscerated any +possibility that Jane Doe No. 1 or Jane Doe No. 2 would have +their day in this federal court and see the child molester that +abused them brought to justice. Before that contract could be +signed, sealed and delivered, the government had an obligation +under the Crime Victims' Rights Act to confer with the victims. +So this is a very narrow case. +So if you want to ask, you know, the kind of law + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2013 Page 66 of 113 +66 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +professor's question, how far back, you know, do you go, I +mean, are all five of those necessary, I mean, I think that's +an interesting question. I would say, you really probably +don't need all five of those to conclude that the Crime +Victims' Rights Act applies. But I think at an absolute +minimum, when you have the combination of those five factors, +as you do in this case, it's quite clear that the Crime +Victims' Rights Act applies here. +THE COURT: All right. Thank you. +Mr. Lee, I am - Mr. Lee, before I hear from you, I +want to -- I think I'm going to give the reporter a break +because I think she has probably had a hard time keeping up +with some of the participants this afternoon. Why don't we +take a 15-minute break and then we will hear from the +government. +(Recess.) +THE COURT: Please be seated, everyone. All right, +Mr. Lee. +MR. LEE: Thank you very much, Your Honor. +Your Honor, the initial task before this court is to determine +the legal issue of when a right would attach under any of the +provisions in 3771(a) (1) through (8), and probably the most +important and prominent one that the petitioners have alleged +is 3771 (a) (5), which is a reasonable right to confer with the +attorney for the government in the case. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2013 Page 67 of 113 +67 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Initially, this is a statutory interpretation task +for the Court and, of course, the Court is guided by the words +of the statute, simple enough. And there are various doctrines +about plain meaning and the statutes say what they mean and +mean what they say, and things like that. +Congress provided a very definitive guidepost for +courts to interpret the various provisions of the CVRA, and +that's contained in Section 3771(d) (6). And if I could quote, +and it's the last sentence, Your Honor, quote: Nothing in this +chapter shall be construed to impair the prosecutorial +discretion of the Attorney General or any officer under his +direction, end quote. +So this is a guidepost to courts interpreting the +CVRA. If there are two conflicting interpretations, perhaps +equally reasonable and plausible under the statute -- under the +terms of the reading of the statute, if one impairs the +discretion of the Attorney General and one does not, then the +one that does not impair the discretion of the Attorney General +would be the one that would be correct. +THE COURT: Well, why does conferring have anything +to do with exercising discretion? You can confer with a victim +without infringing on your prosecutorial discretion, can't you? +MR. LEE: Yes, Your Honor, but here is what I mean: +In terms of construing it to apply at a certain point, the +Court needs to be mindful of whether this would impair the + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2013 Page 68 of 113 +68 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +prosecutorial discretion of the Attorney General or those +acting under him. +THE COURT: Well, why would conferring impinge on +prosecutorial discretion? I mean, you're saying part of +prosecutorial discretion is to decide whether or not to confer? +MR. LEE: No. What I'm saying is this: To the +extent that the individual is given a right to basically +undermine or call into question otherwise lawful prerogatives +of the Attorney General in deciding what to charge somebody +with, when to charge somebody with this, this would constitute +an impairment of the prosecutorial discretion and that would be +a construction that would not be favored under this advice. +Your Honor, this is particularly compelling in this +case, because what we are dealing with here is +not +an +indictment that was ultimately returned or a plea agreement +that came before this court. This was a non-prosecution +agreement. It was a determination by the United States +Attorney to engage in an agreement with Mr. Epstein that in +consideration for him doing certain things that he would not be +prosecuted in federal court for various things. +THE COURT: Well, but I think that we wouldn't be +here if your office conferred with the victims, told them what +you were contemplating, heard them out, and after hearing them +out said, thank you very much for your input; we appreciate +your position; we understand you'd rather we prosecute + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2013 Page 69 of 113 +69 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Mr. Epstein federally and send him to prison for 50 years, but +we, exercising our discretion under (d) (6), have chosen to not +prosecute him. And I think we wouldn't be here. I don't see +how that would have been an infringement on prosecutorial +discretion. +MR. LEE: Well, Your Honor, we respectfully believe +that we probably still would be here, because -- for this +reason: If all of that had been done in 2007, when the +agreement was still in its initial stages and about to be +executed, and all of these things were done to Jane Does 1 and +2, they were told this, this, this, and this, if they were +dissatisfied with this agreement, they would forward and +presumably invoke 3771(d) (3) and file an action just like they +did in this case, and they would complain about this being +improperly done. And this is something that this court would +have no authority to render an opinion on because under the +Separation of Powers Doctrine this is an exercise of discretion +on the part of the Government of the United States to which +prosecution functions are exclusively entrusted. +THE COURT: Well, they may have filed a proceeding +even if they had been advised of what your intent was or what +your thoughts were. But I'm -- it wouldn't be the same case. +I don't know what they would be complaining about, maybe that +you didn't confer adequately enough, but I don't think they +would be saying, you can't enter into the non-prosecution + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2013 Page 70 of 113 +70 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +agreement because we object. +MR. LEE: Well, they seem to be suggesting that now, +that it should be vacated because they weren't consulted on it. +That's exactly what they are claiming. +THE COURT: Because they weren't consulted. But if +they had been consulted, I don't know how they would have that +same argument. +MR. LEE: Well, Your Honor, what I'm saying is that +any interpretation has to be mindful of whether or not it would +impair the prosecutorial discretion of the Attorney General. +All right. So the issue of when rights attach does impair or +could potentially impair the prosecutorial discretion. +THE COURT: Why? +MR. LEE: Well, because the government believes that +these rights would only attach after a formal charge has been +filed. All right? The government has exercised its +discretion, and at that point these rights would attach. So if +somebody is formally charged and the government enters into +negotiations to resolve the matter by a plea, then the +individual victims who are identified can be notified, +consulted, given a voice, not a veto, and those individuals can +have their voice heard. If they're dissatisfied with what the +government does -- we've decided to go ahead with the plea -- +they can voice their objections anew before the court in a Rule +11 plea proceeding. +So that is a construction that does not + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2013 Page 71 of 113 +71 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +impair a prosecutorial discretion. +THE COURT: But why does it make any difference if +the conferring or the expression or disapproval is done before +indictment or after indictment? How does it impinge on your +discretion? I don't follow. +MR. LEE: Well, Your Honor, what this would involve +is involving the executive branch in litigation because the +individual victims, after being consulted -- or after not being +consulted -- would basically try to assert rights and basically +interfere with the process of returning the charge. +Let me give you an example, Your Honor. Let's say +somebody is the victim of a crime of violence and the +government is investigating it. It's the FBI. And the FBI has +decided to refer it to the U.S. Attorney's Office and the U.S. +Attorney's Office decides, we don't think there's sufficient +evidence to return an indictment in this case; we're not going +to accept this for prosecution. +Well, there's an FBI case. Under petitioners' +formulation, they would have rights to be consulted on the +decision whether or not to accept the case for prosecution. +And that, we believe, would be an improper interference with +the discretion of the United States Attorney's Office. That's +exactly what we're talking about, Your Honor. +THE COURT: +But we're talking about consulting, not +deciding whether to or not to prosecute. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2013 Page 72 of 113 +72 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +MR. LEE: Yes, Your Honor. +THE COURT: So I'm trying to understand how the fact +that you might -- if I accept the plaintiffs' position or +interpretation, you might have to consult with the victim +before you decide not to prosecute, how that impinges on your +ultimate decision to or not to prosecute? +MR. LEE: Well, Your Honor, we believe that the +proper construction of this thing is to allow the government to +exercise its discretion in terms of whether to charge or not to +charge. Once that discretion is exercised and there's a charge +filed, then these rights would come into play. To do +otherwise, to create rights prior to any charging decision +being made, would basically allow these individuals to +essentially interfere with the exercise of discretion and +basically hail the United States Government into court every +time somebody is now dissatisfied with something that is being +done. +The more orderly process is to have those rights +attach after the filing of a formal charge, in which case there +is an extant case; it is a matter before a judicial officer of +the United States Federal Courts; and these things can be more +orderly ironed out and these disputes can be aired out. +Your Honor, +if I may, let me move on. +THE COURT: Hold on. +MR. LEE: +Okay. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2013 Page 73 of 113 +73 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +THE COURT: Would you or would you not agree that all +of the rights that are set forth in 3771(a), all of them have +to do with an actual ongoing proceeding other than possibly the +right to confer and the right to be treated with fairness? +MR. LEE: That's correct, and also -- +THE COURT: Or the right to be protected from the +accused. +MR. LEE: Yes, (a) (1). There are actually five of +them, Your Honor, that specifically reference or -- arguably +clearly suggest that it only applies to a proceeding that's in +existence, yes. +THE COURT: All right. Well, if you -- if I agree +with your interpretation of the case, meaning an actual filed +case. +MR. LEE: Yes. +THE COURT: But the concern that you're having about +if I interpret this act to create rights in a victim before +indictment, somehow it's going to flood the court with lawsuits +challenging the government's decision either to or not to +prosecute, the only one that can possibly apply would be the +right to confer. Everything else in there has nothing to do +with that possibility. They couldn't come in under any of the +other subsections based on a decision not to prosecute, +correct? +MR. LEE: Well, perhaps (a) (8) might come into play + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2013 Page 74 of 113 +74 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +because the individual could say that they weren't being +treated with fairness. +THE COURT: All right. But if the government does +confer, then that would be the only thing. They confer. They +decide not to prosecute. Then a victim comes in and says, +we're not being treated with fairness because they chose not to +prosecute. Then you resort to (d) (6), which says they don't +have to agree with you; they just have to confer. And fairness +can't be telling them how to go forward with a case or not to +go forward with a case, because of (d) (6). +So I'm trying to understand how your concern about +creating a right to confer before indictment is going to upset +your prosecutorial discretion. +MR. LEE: Your Honor, I'm not suggesting that any +action to enjoin the failure to prosecute, an action to compel +the government to prosecute or in this case an action to compel +the government not to enter into a non-prosecution agreement +would ultimately be successful. But to the extent that a court +finds that these rights attach prior to the filing of a formal +charging instrument already when the government has -- the +United States Attorney's Office has exercised its discretion, +to the extent that that right is deemed to exist prior, then +it's going to encourage people to come forward and assert what +they believe to be their rights. +THE COURT: All right. Let me ask you about the + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2013 Page 75 of 113 +75 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +provision that talks about when there's no ongoing proceeding. +Where is that subsection? +MR. LEE: Yes. Well, the venue provision in (d) (3), +Your Honor? +THE COURT: (d) (3), if no prosecution is underway in +the district court in which the crime occurred. If there's no +prosecution underway, yet they are recognizing a lawsuit can be +filed in the district where the crime occurred, doesn't that +suggest that the rights can be enforced before an indictment? +MR. LEE: Your Honor, we believe that this +provision -- well, it's a venue provision, to tell the +individual who seeks to enforce their rights where to file, and +in so far as where the -- if no prosecution is underway in the +district where the offense occurred, this would allow somebody +to come in and essentially assert their rights for an +individual who has been arrested and perhaps charged by a +complaint but has not been formally indicted yet and the time +limitation for a formal indictment has not lapsed. +THE COURT: But you said that the rights don't begin +to accrue until indictment. So how can it, you know, work both +ways? +MR. LEE: Well, there's a right to a notice of public +proceedings. So there is an intervening period between initial +arrest and initial appearance in a bond hearing. And the +individual, if they feared whether -- that the accused was + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2013 Page 76 of 113 +76 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +going to harm them, should have the opportunity to attend and +have their say in so far as whether somebody should be released +and the conditions upon which he or she should be released. +THE COURT: All right. So let's assume that someone +is arrested; a criminal complaint is filed; there's no +indictment; there's a bond hearing; the victim is not notified; +the accused is released on bond; attacks the victim; and the +victim comes in and files a complaint or a lawsuit. Do they +have rights? +MR. LEE: There's no cause of action for damages +under the CVRA, Your Honor. +THE COURT: They file an action asking the court to +conclude that their rights were violated under the Act and want +the court to know about it, can they do that? Do they have +standing to come in and file an action to make the court aware +of the fact that their rights were violated and you should, you +know, take that into account with respect to these prosecutors +and -- do they have standing to file a lawsuit and come into +court and make the court aware of that? +MR. LEE: If they were somebody who was entitled to +notice of a public proceeding, like a bond hearing, a pretrial +detention hearing, et cetera, and the individual had been +apprehended and was before the court, yes, they would have the +ability to do that. +THE COURT: So they have rights pre-indictment? + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2013 Page 77 of 113 +77 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +MR. LEE: Yes, in this situation they would. +THE COURT: All right. +MR. LEE: We've already talked about 3771 (a) (1), +Your Honor. The petitioners' counsel talked about what I said +back on July the Ilth, 2008. There is a right to protection +from the accused, and whether it springs from 3771(a) (1) or +some other provision -- and we did note that there was another +provision in the Victims' Rights Act to cover individuals who +are entitled to protection, that would apply, yes. +THE COURT: So is your position then that only with +respect to 3771 (a) (5), that's the only subsection and only +right under this act that requires an indictment, but all the +other rights accrue, at least at the filing of a criminal +complaint or an arrest? +MR. LEE: Well, Your Honor, five of them reference a +specific public -- a proceeding. Okay? So that, I think, we +suggest assumes that there +is a formal charge. So we're +talking about the three remaining. +THE COURT: Well, why can't a bond hearing require a +full -- you're talking about a criminal complaint is a formal +charge? +MR. LEE: Well, a formal charge is actually an +information or an indictment. A criminal complaint, however, +brings the accused before the court for the purposes of +detention and then subsequent charging pursuant to the running + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2013 Page 78 of 113 +78 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +time that you have -- that the government has before they can +return an indictment on the individual. A number of +individuals, because of how the crime was discovered, are +charged by complaint first, with an indictment to subsequently +follow. This basically covers that period of time between the +return of a formal indictment and the initial arrest of the +individual appearance, bond hearing, pretrial detention +hearing. +THE COURT: All right. So does a person -- does a +victim of a crime, where the accused is arrested and had a +criminal complaint filed against him or her, does that victim +have a right to notice of the bond hearing? +MR. LEE: Yes, they would, Your Honor. +THE COURT: All right. Does that person have the +right not to be excluded from the bond hearing? +MR. LEE: Yes, they would. +THE COURT: Does that person have the right to be +heard at the bond hearing? +MR. LEE: Yes, they would. +THE COURT: Does that person have the right to have +that bond hearing be conducted without unreasonable delay? +MR. LEE: Yes. +THE COURT: +But that person doesn't have a right to +confer with the attorney for the government because an +indictment hasn't been filed yet? + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2013 Page 79 of 113 +79 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +MR. LEE: That is correct, because there is no +attorney for the government in the case, and we believe that +"in the case" is the relevant term that is referenced. +THE COURT: And the -- +MR. LEE: I'm sorry, sir? +THE COURT: No, go ahead. +MR. LEE: And "case" means, in our view, information +or indictment, formal charge. +THE COURT: So again, I think I asked you earlier, +you're saying that the indictment as a triggering event only +applies in subsection 5, because all the others can apply -- +can occur before indictment. +MR. LEE: It could, under the circumstances of an +individual being charged by a complaint. For that period of +time in between arrest -- the filing of the complaint, initial +arrest and the return of the indictment, it could apply, yes. +We believe the strongest case for not applying is 3771(a) (5) +because there is no case. +THE COURI: And so when a criminal complaint is +filed, I think in the clerk's office they give it a case +number. +MR. LEE: I believe the Court is correct. +THE COURT: That's not a case? +MR. LEE: No. It would have to be an information or +an indictment. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2013 Page 80 of 113 +80 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +THE COURT: But as far as the clerk's office is +concerned, there's a case? +MR. LEE: That is correct. +THE COURT: But that statute -- that word "case" +there, even though in the ordinary course of events in every +district of the United States they give a case number to a +person who is arrested and a criminal complaint is filed, that +understanding of the word "case" doesn't apply here; it's case +meaning indictment or information? +MR. LEE: That is correct, Your Honor. We referenced +Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure T(c), which talks about +indictments and information having to be signed by the attorney +for the government, which is the same phrase that is used in +3771 (a) (5). +THE COURT: Okay. And so I guess the subsection that +talks about investigation -- +MR. LEE: You're talking about (b) (1), Your Honor? +THE COURT: (b) (1)? +MR. LEE: Let's see. I'm sorry. You're talking +about (c) (1), Your Honor, I think, best efforts, and the +personnel who are responsible for assuring the individual was +accorded their rights? +THE COURT: Yes. +And the detection, investigation or +prosecution of the crime. +MR. LEE: This is (c) (1), Your Honor. Your Honor, + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2013 Page 81 of 113 +81 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +the last phrase in (c) (1) is the -- shall be "notified of, and +accorded, the rights described in subsection (a)." So this +does not inform when those rights attached. It essentially +says, these are the persons who are responsible for ensuring +that best efforts are utilized to ensure these individuals have +these rights once they attach under subsection (a). +If I may give an example, Your Honor, somebody is +charged with a crime. Let's say it's a crime of violence. And +the individual fears that they may be threatened by either the +defendant, if the individual makes bond, or the defendant's +relatives. This is a matter before the court because a formal +charge has been filed, but the responsibility for ensuring +reasonable protection under 3771(a) (1) would not be a +responsibility of the prosecutor doing the case or the United +States Attorney's Office, but it would also include those who +investigated the case, the agency who has basically brought the +case. So this would be the FBI, ATF, whatever law enforcement +agency. +So this explains what individuals are responsible for +ensuring that best efforts are used to afford these rights once +those rights attach. But just because individuals who are +described as having responsibilities are in the investigative +process doesn't necessarily mean that in the investigative +process, pre-charge, that such rights attach. +THE COURT: +So, again, you just basically go back + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2013 Page 82 of 113 +82 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +to -- or fall back on the argument that "case" means indictment +or information, and whatever rights accrue under these +subsections, those are the people that have to afford the +rights? +MR. LEE: That is correct, Your Honor. +THE COURT: All right. What else did you want to +argue? +MR. LEE: Your Honor, that was -- that basically is +the argument. Again, we ask the Court to be mindful of the +admonition about the prosecutorial discretion. The question of +when these rights attached is extremely significant in so far +as when people can go into court and invoke rights which they +believe to exist, and to complain about things that happened +which involved the exercise of the broad discretion of the +executive branch whether to charge somebody, how to charge +them, who to charge, what to charge, and how to resolve the +charges against an individual. Thank you. +THE COURT: I'm —— +MR. LEE: Yes, sir? +THE COURT: Let me ask you another question. Assume +for the sake of argument, because the motion that -- the motion +that the plaintiffs have filed have asked me to not only to +make a determination as to when their rights accrued but also +that -- to make a finding that the government has in fact +violated their rights based upon the information contained in + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2013 Page 83 of 113 +83 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +their motion. If I reject your argument and conclude that the +plaintiffs did have rights as victims, that that were to be +respected under the statute, do you agree or do you believe we +need to resolve on another day whether or not their rights +were, in fact, violated, based upon what has been presented to +me thus far? +MR. LEE: Yes, Your Honor. Your Honor, if the Court +finds that these rights did indeed attach prior to the filing +of a formal charge, we have asserted a best efforts defense, if +you will -- I will call it that -- that we did exert our best +efforts to notify individuals under these circumstances of what +was going on in so far as the non-prosecution agreement. That, +in our view, would require an evidentiary hearing and testimony +and documents -- factual matters to be submitted for the Court +to make a determination +as to what occurred and whether this +constituted best efforts or not. +THE COURT: All right. Thank you. +MR. LEE: Thank you, Your Honor. +MR. CASSELL: May I have just one moment? +THE COURT: Yes. I think Mr. Lee is conferring with +Ms. Villafana so he may want to add something. +Did you have anything else you wanted to add, +Mr. Lee? +MR. LEE: No, Your Honor. +THE COURT: +Okay. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2013 Page 84 of 113 +84 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +MR. CASSELL: I think Mr. Lee is correct when he says +this is at bottom an issue of statutory construction, and we +think the cardinal rule of construction you should apply here +is Congress passed the Crime Victims' Rights Act as a remedial +statute to address a particular problem, the unfair treatment +of crime victims throughout the criminal justice process. And +so the Act should be broadly construed to effectuate its +remedial purposes, that is, to make sure that crime victims are +treated fairly throughout the process. +The position they are staking out today is that they +can simply make rights in the statute disappear through the +simple device of not filing an indictment. And I think +Your Honor has done a very nice job of walking through why that +doesn't apply on a number of the different provisions that are +in there, and it would be interesting to see. +I think the government is conceding that the right to +fairness can apply even before an indictment is filed because +that doesn't link to a court proceeding. And, of course, +that's one of the rights we've alleged has been violated here, +the right to fair treatment. So perhaps I misunderstood but I +think the -- at least the effect of the government's position +is that that particular right would apply, even though no +indictment was applied in this case. +But let's look at the (a) (5) right then, the right to +confer and whether there was a violation here. The main + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2013 Page 85 of 113 +85 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +argument that Mr. Lee seems to be advancing is that while that +would impair the discretion of the Justice Department, the +Justice Department advanced the same argument in the Fifth +Circuit in the +case, and the Fifth Circuit rejected it. +Here is what the Fifth Circuit said: Recognizing a right to +confer about dispositions is, quote, not an infringement on the +government's independent prosecutorial discretion. And +instead, it is only a requirement that the government confer in +some reasonable way with the victims before ultimately +exercising its broad discretion. +We would ask you to take exactly the same position in +this case. We simply believe that we had an -- we were +entitled to an opportunity to confer with them before they +decided to do what they did in this particular case. +Now he says, well, if you open up this particular +case, rule in our favor, the flood gates will be open. We +wouldn't be here if our clients had been given an opportunity +to confer about the non-prosecution agreement and having made +what we think would have been compelling arguments not to move +forward in that direction. The government had nonetheless +exercised its discretion to move forward. But our clients were +denied that chance. They never got to make a presentation to +the government about why that was a bad resolution of the case. +And we submit that the only remedy, if we get that far, is to +therefore set aside the non-prosecution agreement and give them + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2013 Page 86 of 113 +86 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +that opportunity. +But certainly you shouldn't worry about +frivolous claims being raised because those would be frivolous +and would be routinely rejected. +In fact, it's interesting, let's look at what has +happened in the Fifth Circuit since the | +case three years +ago, when the Fifth Circuit clearly recognized that there were +rights before indictment. I don't think Mr. Lee can say in +good faith there have been a flood of frivolous claims. I +track crime victims' rights litigation. I don't think that +there's been any sudden spurt of litigation down there. +Now, he also says that, well, this would lead to +interference because people would object to whether we decided +to accept a case or not. That's the question that you were +raising with me earlier, how far back in the process do we go? +We don't have to deal with those questions in this particular +case. The government accepted this case for prosecution. They +then did what? They sent CVRA notices to our clients saying, +you have rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Then they +sat down with Epstein's attorney to negotiate a very specific +non-prosecution agreement which would make it impossible for +any federal prosecutorial agency to prosecute the federal +crimes that were committed against Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe +No. 2. +At least at that point, they had the right to say to +the prosecutors, you are making a mistake, and that's the right + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2013 Page 87 of 113 +87 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +that Congress gave them and that's the right that's being +violated here. +Now, how far back in the process do we go? I think +we got a little more specificity from the government today. We +hear that it turns out it's not really the indictment that +triggers the right. You go all the way back to a complaint. +But then you pushed him a little bit more, what about an +arrest? And if I understood Mr. Lee correctly, they agree that +even an arrest would be enough to trigger that. But, of +course, an arrest is not a formal charge. And why would we +magically stop the Crime Victims' Rights Act at the point of +arrest? The term "arrest" doesn't appear anywhere in the +statute. Essentially, they are trying to stake out a +litigating position that helps them in this case but it doesn't +have any grounding at all in the language of the +statute. The +language of the statute that's relevant here is that it applies +to agencies that are involved in the detection and +investigation of crimes. The words "investigation of crimes" +will become completely +meaningless in the statute if you agree +with the government's position. +Now, the last thing that Mr. Lee says is, well, this +right to confer applies only to cases, and obviously there's no +case here. I don't think that point is obvious at all. And, +in fact, I would simply use the words that the government used +when they communicated with Jane Doe No. 1. Here is the letter + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2013 Page 88 of 113 +88 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +that they sent to Jane Doe No. 1 on January 10th, 2008: Dear +Ms. Jane Doe No. 1, this case is currently under investigation. +They told Jane Doe No. 1 that her case was under +investigation, and they told her in communications like this +that she had rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act. And +now they come into this court and ask you to find that even +though that's exactly what they told Jane Doe No. 1, you should +simply ignore what they said then and conclude that they had no +rights. +Whatever else you might say about that, I think +that's clearly a violation of a right to confer but it's +certainly a violation of their right to be treated with +fairness. It is a violation of their right to accurate notice +about what's going on in court proceedings. +And so how should you proceed at this point? Let me +offer just one possible way out procedurally of where we are +right now. I think the Court has plenty of information to rule +today that the Crime Victims' Rights Act applied to the victims +in this particular case and we would ask you to enter an order +to that effect. If you're not prepared to do that, then at +that point we would request full discovery in this case. Or if +you enter an order saying it applies pre-indictment, we would +also ask to move forward with full discovery. +Simply to say +that the civil rules apply, +we're prepared to move forward on +an expedited basis. +We're prepared to move forward with + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2013 Page 89 of 113 +89 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +narrowly tailored requests on the information that we need; +recalling, though, that we're going to be asking for +information not only to prove that the victims' rights were +violated in this case but we are also going to be asking for +information that we hope will ultimately convince you that the +only just remedy in this case is to take this illegal agreement +that was reached by the government, in violation of the rights +of Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2, and to set that agreement +aside. +THE COURT: I guess this is maybe getting ahead of +ourselves. You call it an illegal agreement and you rely upon +cases that basically set aside sentences or that are in fact +beyond the statutory authority of the court to impose. There's +nothing illegal about the substance of this agreement itself, +as compared to a sentence +which is, let's say, in excess of the +statutory maximum. That is clearly an illegal sentence; it's +beyond the power of the court to impose. This agreement is not +outside of the U.S. Attorney's Office to enter into. The +substance of it is not illegal. You're saying the manner in +which it was entered into or the process -- +MR. CASSELL: That's right. +THE COURT: So those cases -- do you think those +cases really apply to this situation saying that it's illegal +and therefore an unenforceable agreement? +MR. CASSELL: +Yes, we do. +I mean, the point -- the + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2013 Page 90 of 113 +90 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +general proposition that those cases stand for is that an +illegal agreement can be set aside. And so the question then +becomes, all right, does it have to be substantively illegal or +is it enough to show that something is procedurally illegal? +Let me give you what I think is a very +straightforward example of an illegal procedural agreement. +Suppose this court were just to enter an order today saying, I +know +is a criminal; I'm going to sentence +to two +years in prison. Well, wait a minute. That would be within -- +two years in prison for dealing drugs. Well, dealing drugs is +a five-year maximum. Iwo years is within that. But that is a +procedurally illegal sentence because Mr. +never had his +right to a jury trial, his right to counsel, opportunity to +confront. So you would -- that agreement or that sentence +would be ultimately challenged as being procedurally illegal. +We think the same analysis applies here. There is a +document, a non-prosecution agreement, that is void because it +was entered into in a procedurally illegal way. It violated +the rights of both Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2 to have an +opportunity to confer with the government and to be treated +with fairness. But, again, we have not had a full opportunity +to brief that. +THE COURT: I understand that. +I was just -- +MR. CASSELL: But that's where we are going, and I +want to be clear when we get into the discovery phase we + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2013 Page 91 of 113 +91 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +think -- I mean, we think you could rule this afternoon that +their rights were violated. We think it's patently obvious +they weren't treated with fairness, patently obvious they did +not give a right to confer. And if you say, hey, do you really +need discovery to do that, we think you could rule on that +today. +You have denied our motion to accept facts. I'm +assuming that's without prejudice to give us the opportunity to +deal with that in an appropriate way. +THE COURT: Of course. +MR. CASSELL: The trickier issue in the case, or at +least the one we think requires some discovery, is how was that +illegal agreement reached? We intend to produce -- or obtain +information from the government which shows they deliberately +violated the rights of the victims and they did so with the +defendant, Mr. Epstein, engineering them. And for that reason, +we are going to ask for the agreement to be set aside. +THE COURT: To the extent you want to show that, and +assuming I agree that you're entitled to show that, you would +agree the government is entitled to show to the contrary and +that they exercised best efforts, and they should be entitled +to prove otherwise? +MR. CASSELL: +We're not arguing +for a one-sided +affair here at all, no, Your Honor. +THE COURT: +All right. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2013 Page 92 of 113 +92 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +MR. CASSELL: Thank you. +THE COURT: Mr. Lee, did you have something else? +MR. LEE: Your Honor, I have one procedural matter, +if I may. Thank you, Your Honor. +Your Honor, in May of this year, the Office of Legal +Counsel for the Department of Justice issued an opinion about +the very issue that the Court is grappling with, and we would +like to offer to the Court -- we will actually file it, but if +I may approach and provide a copy, I've provided a copy to +counsel. We believe that this is entitled to some deference in +so far as this is the position of the Department of Justice. +We're not suggesting that it's entitled to full deference under +Chevron versus Natural Resources Council, because this was not +subject to notice and comment procedures. We are going to file +it electronically and we wanted to provide a copy to the Court +now, if we may. +THE COURT: Any objection? +MR. CASSELL: If I could just comment briefly on the +substance that's in there? +THE COURT: Sure. +MR. CASSELL: This is a -- you will recall just a +little bit ago we were discussing Senator Kyl's remarks. +That's why Senator Kyl sent the letter to the Attorney General +saying, how dare you put in this memorandum my remarks during +the drafting of the CVRA as suggesting that the rights don't + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2013 Page 93 of 113 +93 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +apply at the early stages of the criminal justice process. So +if you're going to look at this, I think in fairness you need +to look at Senator Kyl's rebuttal. +The other point that I would make is, we believe that +this document was engineered precisely to help the government +win, among other things, this particular case. And so we don't +believe that it's entitled to the same kind of deference as you +would ordinarily give to agency decisions that are decided +without regard to pending litigation. Perhaps Mr. Lee could +acknowledge the fact, which I think is clear, that the Justice +Department knew it had this very serious matter pending in this +court, which is why it asked for this opinion. And so this +opinion is, I think, simply like an extra brief coming in on +their side. +THE COURT: And you didn't ask Senator Kyl to write +the letter? You didn't ask Senator Kyl to write the letter? +MR. CASSELL: We keep Senator Kyl apprised of +significant developments. +MR. LEE: Your Honor, we did not -- we, the United +States Attorney's Office, did not request this. It was issued +originally on December 17th but it was not made public. +Essentially, this was a position taken by the Department of +Justice. +THE COURT: +okay. +MR. LEE: Thank you. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2013 Page 94 of 113 +94 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +THE COURT: All right. Anything else we need or +should talk about before we adjourn? +MR. +: I don't think so, Your Honor. +THE COURT: All right. Thank you. Thank you all for +coming. We will try and get some rulings out in the near +future. +Have a good afternoon. +(The hearing was concluded.) +WWW.USLEGALSUPPORT .COM + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2013 Page 95 of 113 +95 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +CERTIFICATE +STATE OF FLORIDA +COUNTY OF PALM BEACH +I, Melinda Colchico, Florida Professional Reporter, State +of Florida at large, do hereby certify that I was authorized to +and did stenographically report the foregoing proceedings and +that the transcript is a true and complete record of my +stenographic notes. +Dated this 15th day +of +August, 2011. +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +felinda Calchies +MELINDA COLCHICO +O +WWW.USLEGALSUPPORT. COM + + +Case 9:08-CV-80736-KAM Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2013 Page 9page 31 +A +ABA 12:18 +ability 32:9 +| 76:24 +able 17:3 19:15 +26:24 27:21 +28:11 33:9 +abolish 65:15 +absolute 7: 11 66:5 +absolutely 4:18 +abuse 4:20 +abused 65:21 +accept 21:19 36:6 +36:8 39:7 59:6 +71:17,20 72:3 +86:13 91:7 +accepted 34:2 +38:7 +59:20 86:16 +accepting 35:25 +access 48:19 +accomplish 37:21 +accord 48: 8 +accorded 48:17 +61:5 80:22 81:2 +account 76:17 +accrue 58: 9 75:20 +77:13 82:2 +accrued 46:25 +82:23 +accurate 53:25 +88:13 +accused 73: 7 75:25 +76: 7 77:6,24 +78:10 +achieving 8: 8 +acknowledge 93:10 +acknowledged 53:2 +act 4:11 7:13 8:11 +8:11 27:5 28:6 +35:13,20 36:5 +38:20 40:20 +43:11,16,23 44:5 +44:12 46:5 51:20 +54:10 58:13,21 +59:11 60:15,18 +61:2 62:6,9,11 +62:19 63:7,10 +64:3,16,18 +65:23 +66:5,8 73:17 +76:13 77:8,12 +84:4,7 86:18 +87:11 +88:5,18 +acting 31:19 68:2 +action 7:16 46:3,4 +46:6,10,11,16 +69:13 +74:15,15 +74:16 +76:10,12 +76:15 +actions 9: 5 27:10 +27:11 28:2 45:21 +actual 57:18 73:3 +73:13 +ad 5:22 +add 17:17 28:21 +83:21,22 +added 13:7 +addition 17:18 +37:6 +additional 39:1 +49:15 52:7 +additionally 27:20 +address 4:10 15:6 +16:24 19:16,17 +30:10,16,17 45:9 +56:24 58:11 84:5 +adequately 69:24 +adjourn 94:2 +administration +12:22 +Administrative +46:4 +admissibility +25:12 +admissions 14:5 +34:13,16 +41:22 +42:13 53:18 +admit 34:18,20,22 +35:3,6 37:18 +admits 50:10 +admitted 34:21 +35:7 38:6 +admitting 14:8 +35:5 +admonition 82:10 +advanced 85: 3 +advancing 85:1 +adversarial 24:11 +43:13 +adversaries 21: 8, 9 +42:24 44:22 +adversary 12:11,12 +25:9 26:7 +adversely 24:6 +advice 68:12 +advised 18:2 +: 69:21 +affair 91:24 +affidavits 34:12 +affirmative 43:5 +afford 43:2 59:5 +81:20 82:3 +afraid 42:7 +afternoon 3: 3, 7, 10 +3: 11,12,15,16,19 +3:20,22 4:5,6 +10:11,12 +40:12 +53:13 66:13 91:1 +94:6 +agencies 59:2, 8, 10 +87:17 +agency 46:4,5 +81:16,18 86:21 +93:8 +agent 23:22 +ago 12:23 61:17 +62:7 86:6 92:22 +agree 7:6 29:23 +30:5 36:3 37:7 +38:25 40:3 46:15 +47:10,10,11 +49:23 73:1,12 +74:8 83:3 87:8 +87:19 91:19,20 +agreed 38:25 57:19 +agreement 12:8 +16:20 31:8 34:22 +36:22,25 37:1 +39:4, 9 40:22 +43:25 44:14 49:9 +51:23,24 64:24 +65:15,18 68:15 +68:17,18 69:9,12 +70:1 74:17 83:12 +85:18, 25 86:20 +89:6,8,11,14,17 +89:24 90:2,6,14 +90:17 91:13,17 +ah 57:5 +ahead 70:23 79:6 +89:10 +ahold 57:5 +aired 72:22 +airline 21:22 +Airlines 21:13,14 +allegation 9:17 +allegations 4:12 +4:20 5:2 6:3,15 +6:25 7:15 +alleged 4: 15 66:23 +84:19 +allow 5:23,25 6:14 +7:12 9:18 11:6 +11:17 22:8 44:9 +47:22 53:16 54:6 +55:22 72:8,13 +75:14 +allowed 5:6 +ally 44:21 +alternative 7:20 +America 3: 8 +American 20:17,21 +21:13,14 +amount 23:6 48:17 +analogize 21:11 +analysis 9:4 47:5 +90:16 +ancillary 37:16 +45:23 46:16 +Andrews 2: 4 +anew 70:24 +angle 30:21 +answer 12:13 41:5 +59:17,18 61:3 +63:5,11 +anticipated 63:18 +anybody 8:1 14:24 +23:15 56:21 +appeal 9:1 +Appeals 62:20 +appear 87:12 +appearance 75:24 +appearances 2:1 +3:6 +appearing 3:17 +applied 84:23 +88:18 +applies 16:12 +18:18,24 26:10 +60:12 62:19 63:8 +63:10 66:5,8 +73:10 79:11 +87:16,22 88:22 +90:16 +apply 25:11 42:6,9 +45:1 58:13,23 +59:8 60:21 61:1 +61:4,8,15 62:6 +62:11,25 67:24 +73:20 +77:9 79:11 +79:16 80:8 84:3 +84:14,17,22 +88:24 89:23 93:1 +applying 79:17 +appreciate 68:24 +apprehended 76:23 +apprised 93:17 +approach 36:10 +92:9 +appropriate 40:21 +43:24 44:12 +46:19 51:22 +55:9 +91:9 +areas 57:20 +arguably 24:25 +73:9 +argue 7:12 26:1 +34:3 82:7 +argued 43:7,8 +arguing 91:23 +argument 18:10, 12 +25:4,24 26:2 + + +Case 9:08-CV-80736-KAM Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2013 Page 9Tpage 2 +27:1 31:5,7,15 +31:16 32:15 37:9 +41:13,14 42:6 +43:18 +53:8 56:14 +58:10 59:14 70:7 +82:1,9,21 83:1 +85:1,3 +arguments 8:14, 16 +25:23 53:12 +56:19 85:19 +arranged 32: 3 +arrest 60:21 +75:24 +77:14 78:6 +79:15 +79:16 87:8,9,10 +arrested 60:14 +aside 40:22 43:24 +44:13 85:25 89:9 +asked 18:21 34:20 +35:1 37:19 40:18 +41:19,25 60:24 +79:9 82:22 93:12 +asking 6:6, 13 7:21 +7:21 8:20,21 +9:20 24:17 43:21 +50:12 52:21 +56:22 60:25 +63:22 76:12 89:2 +89:4 +aspect 34:24 +assert 60:2 71:9 +74:23 75:15 +asserted19:7 83:9 +asserting 29:10,13 +59:23 +assertion 19:1,2,3 +28:23 29:7 30:5 +30:5 +assertions 29:22 +29:25 30:1 +assist 43:16 +assistance 37:20 +43:14 44:16 +48:25 +Assistant 2:15 +3:9 +3:9 27:14 +assisted 49:10 +associated 21:4 +Associates 2:10 +assume 24:5 31:9 +53:10 55:9 76:4 +82:20 +assumes 77:17 +assuming 27:5 +37:13 38:5 91:8 +91:19 +assumption 47:15 +assuring 80:21 +ATF 81:17 +attach 65:1, 6 +66:21 +70:11,15 +70:17 +72:19 +74:19 +81:6,21,24 +83:8 +attached 38:21 +64:15,20,21 +65:12 +81:3 82:11 +attachment 65:14 +attack 4:19 6:21 +attacks 5:22 76:7 +attempt 34:15 +attend 76:1 +attention 29:4 +attorney 3:9,10,23 +9:4,11 12:4,6 +14:14 15:21 20:3 +24:1 27:14 31:16 +51:2,4 61:18 +65:366:25 +67:11,17,18 +68:1 +68:9,18 70:10 +78:24 79:2 80:12 +86:19 92:23 +attorneys 2:15 +10:9 12:1 24:19 +25:17,21 27:4,14 +52:10 54:22 +64:23 +attorney's 12:2 +20:3 40:10,24 +54:22 71:14,15 +71:22 +74:21 +81:15 +89:18 +93:20 +attorney/client +11:8,10,18,20 +19:10 21:1,2 +57:1 +August 1: 15 95:12 +Australian 2:22 +authority 6:16 +48:23 55:9 61:17 +63:4 69:16 89:13 +authorized 95:8 +automatic 26:16 +available 35:21 +Avenue 2: 4, 22 +avoided 8:24 +aware 40:13 41:16 +52:3 76:15,19 +B +b80:17,18 +back 12:22 13:12 +23:4 27:15,18 +28:19 31:24 32:7 +34:20 35:12 37:8 +49:6,11 59:12 +60:24 63:17 66:1 +77:5 81:25 82:1 +86:14 87:3,6 +background 12:15 +backs 27:23 +backyard 8:2 +bad 9:7,17 85:23 +balancing 22:10,19 +bank 64:24,25 65:1 +65:2,4 +bar 4:16,21,22 +12:18 +bargain 17:5,23 +bargaining 12:21 +13:6,9,15,19,21 +14:3 16:18 17:18 +22:11 31:24 +base 41:21 +based 18:11 +36:17 +48:6 52:5 +73:23 +82:25 83:5 +basically 6:25 +10:1 30:5 41:24 +51:16 52:20 68:7 +71:9,9 72:13,15 +78:5 +81:16,25 +82:8 89:12 +basis 19:8,11 +42:12 52:1 88:25 +Beach 1: 16 2:23 +95:4 +began 49:6,14 +beginning 31:4 +behalf 2:2,13 3:12 +3:17,21 24:19 +behavior 5:16 6:12 +7:23 +believe 8:13 9:5,7 +14:19,23,24 +16:12 17:14 +27:20 31:23 +32:10 35:9 36:2 +38:4 39:18 45:20 +46:10,14,15,23 +47:8 50:1 51:17 +57:13,19,24 +63:15 69:6 71:21 +72:7 74:24 75:10 +79:2,17,22 82:13 +83:3 85:12 92:10 +93:4,7 +believed 4:23, 25 +5:1 46:19 47:21 +believes 70:14 +belong 6:4 +beneficial 24:12 +best 26:20 43:1,2 +43:12,16 44:24 +80:20 81:5,20 +83:9,10,16 91:21 +better 54:17 +beyond 14:23 42:21 +64:12 89:13,17 +bind 30:18 +Biscayne 2:20 +bit 30:23 87:7 +92:22 +bite 32:7 +black 2:19,19 3:16 +3:16,17 10:8,10 +10:13,19,21 12:4 +12:9,13 14:2,12 +15:10 17:2,10 +18:8,14 19:6,23 +20:7,9,15 22:23 +23:1,12,21 24:7 +24:10,15,19 25:3 +25:10 +28:20 +29:10 31:2,4,14 +31:16,17 32:12 +32:14,17,22,24 +33:1,2,4,11,15 +33:18,20,23 +55:14,15,18,24 +56:9 57:23,24 +Black's 28:23 +blocked 42:17 +body 60:16 +bond 75:24 76:6,7 +76:21 77:19 78:7 +78:12,15,18, 21 +81:10 +book 15:3 +bottom 18:21 42:11 +84:2 +Boulevard 2:10, 20 +Brad 2: 3 3:13 +Brady 48:4,6,14 +50:16 52:18,19 +52:20 +branch 71: 7 82:15 +breach 57:10 +break 66:11,14 +brief 18:10,17 +26:12 28:16 +41:15 60:13,17 +63:23 +90:22 +93:13 + + +Case 9:08-CV-80736-KAM Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2013 Page 9page 33 +briefing 62:22 +briefings 18:2 +briefly 56:18 +92:18 +briefs 17:4 32:1 +bring 38:1 +brings 77:24 +broad 46:22 82:14 +85:10 +broadly 84: 7 +brought 65:21 +81:16 +Bruce 2:22 3:20 +bunch 37:10 +burdensome 43:7 +50:24 +buried 4:11 +business 4:14 +C +c2:9 3:1 +80:20,25 +81:1 +95:1,1 +Cali 21:14 +call38:11 51:13 +68:8 83:10 89:11 +called 58:12 +calling 50:6 +cardinal 84:3 +case 1:2 3:4,5 +5:17,22,25 7:17 +13:11 14:25 15:8 +15:15,17,24 16:7 +16:15 17:1,2,2,6 +17:12,12,24,25 +18:24 21:11,13 +22:18 24:2,18,21 +24:21 25:11,13 +26:1,12,14 34:14 +34:17,25,25 +35:13,14,15,16 +35:17 37:16,17 +37:18 41:15 +42:11,23 43:19 +44:18,25 45:4,5 +45:17,18,20 +47:11 48:5,11,14 +51:17,22 52:3,4 +52:12,19 53:19 +53:21,23 58:8 +59:13 62:5,18,20 +62:20 63:13,21 +63:23,24 64:3,6 +64:10,14,24 65:8 +65:24 66:7,25 +68:14 69:14,22 +71:16,18,20 +72:19,20 73:13 +73:14 +74:9,10,16 +79:2,3,7,17,18 +79:20,23 +80:2,4 +80:6,8,8 81:14 +81:16,17 82:1 +84:23 85:4,12,14 +85:16,23 +86:5,13 +86:16,16 87:14 +87:23 88:2,3,19 +88:21 89:4,6 +91:11 93:6 +cases 10:22 11:19 +11:22 13:1 15:21 +16:17,23 17:7 +18:10 22:13,14 +25:3,6 26:5,8,15 +26:17 32:10 +44:15 49:15 +60:10 63:6,20 +87:22 89:12,22 +89:23 90:1 +Cassel12:6 3:13 +40:11,12 41:13 +42:3 49:3 50:17 +50:22 53:4,6 +54:13,20 +58:10,11 +62:2 63:15 83:19 +84:189:21,25 +90:24 91:11,23 +92:1,18,21 93:17 +cause 6:17 7:16,22 +47:20 76:10 +certain 27:17 +57:17 61:5 62:14 +certainly 7:24 +19:13 21:25 +22:17,19 31:18 +63:20 86:1 88:12 +certify 95:8 +Cesery 2:10 +cetera 76:22 +challenged 90:15 +challenging 73:19 +chance 5: 3 62:21 +changed 12:23 +chapter 67:10 +charge 47:1,6 +68:10 70:15 +71:10 72:9,10,10 +72:19 77:17,21 +77:22 79:8 81:12 +82:15,15,16,16 +83:9 87:10 +charged 29:9 30:2 +45:19 +70:18 +75:16 78:4 79:14 +charges 32:5 59:24 +61:6 65:4,11 +82:17 +charging 72:12 +74:20 77:25 +cheating 5:19 +Chevron 92:13 +child 43:21 65:20 +Chiles 10:23 +choose 39:9 +chose 74:6 +chosen 69:2 +circuit 10:23 11:2 +11:5,16 13:13,13 +17:11,20,20,25 +62:20 65:8,11 +85:4,4,5 86:5,6 +circuits 17:21 +Circuit's 63:3 +circumscribed +58:22 +circumstances 9:5 +9:8,9 36:19 +79:13 83:11 +cite 10:22 44:15 +44:18 48:4 +cited 25:3 +59:12 +61:13 62:9 +citing 11:19,22 +18:9 +City 2: 8 +civil 4:25 11:13 +14:4 16:13,15 +17:1,2 34:17,25 +35:13,14 37:17 +37:24 39:15 +41:15,16,17 42:6 +42:8,9,10,14,14 +42:21,23 44:25 +45:1,20 46:2,3 +46:10,17 49:15 +53:19 88:24 +claim 19:5,20 20:2 +25:5 40:19 43:22 +44:4, 5 45:10 +47:9 48:25 56:4 +claimed 27:24 +29:22 +claiming 11:24 +47:24 70:4 +claims 11:19 40:17 +86:2,8 +classic 15:19,25 +17:12 +clause 43:2 48:6 +48:12 +clear 4:17 5:4 +6:19 8:25 11:17 +13:23 40:16 42:7 +58:21 64:3 66:7 +90:25 93:10 +clearer 62:9 +clearly 6:4 27:13 +73:10 86:6 +88:11 +89:16 +clerk's 79:20 80:1 +client 11:7,10,18 +16:15,15,22 18:2 +18:3 24:12 31:19 +31:20 +clients 22:6 24:6 +31:25 32:7 34:10 +36:23, 25 37:1 +85:17,21 86:17 +cloak 13:24 16:5 +26:16 +cloaked 17:8 +close 7:16 +close-call 63:20 +63:21 +coded 57:21 +coherent 60:12 +Colchico 1: 21 95:7 +95:16 +colleague 29: 3 +30:10 +collection 51:14 +College 2: 6 +Colombia 21:14 +color 57:20,23 +colorable 11:19 +25:4 26:2 +combination 66:6 +come 6:23 7:2 8:21 +16:10 25:5 26:19 +32:7 34:21 35:5 +43:13,15 47:14 +61:6 72:11 73:22 +73:25 74:23 +75:15 +76:15,18 +88:6 +comes 46:3 74:5 +76:8 +coming 26:6 31:24 +93:13 94:5 +commenced 45:13 +commencement 45:15 + + +Case 9:08-CV-80736-KAM Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2013 Page 9Page 4 +comment 19:9 92:14 +92:18 +comments 27: 8 +conmercial 5:17 +commit 17:22 +committed 64:7,13 +86:22 +common 21:19,20 +22:3 +communicate 17:23 +18:1 +communicated 87:25 +communication +15:16 22:3 55:19 +communications +13:8,24 14:15 +15:11,13,14 +16:13,17 17:4 +20:5,11,12 22:11 +88:4 +company 65:9 +compared 89:15 +compel 48:23 74:15 +74:16 +compelling 68:13 +85:19 +complain 8:1,1 +23:11,13 69:14 +82:13 +complaining 24:1 +27:10 69:23 +complaint 24:4 +75:17 76:5,8 +77:14,20,23 78:4 +78:11 79:14,15 +79:19 80:7 87:6 +complaints 23:24 +complete 61:22 +95:10 +completely 45:20 +87:19 +complied 6:7 +comply 43:15 +53:3 +conceal 43:4 +conceded 61:8 +conceding 84:16 +concept 50:16 +concern 19:15 +55:21 +73:16 +74:11 +concerned 7:4 +23:18 55:15,17 +80:2 +concerns 10:7 +conclude 62:15 +63:9 66:4 +76:13 +83:1 88:8 +concluded 94:7 +concludes 62:18 +conclusion 63:7 +conclusions 39:8 +conditions 76:3 +conduct 6:24 34:15 +35:2 46:3 +conducted 78:21 +confer 35:8 53:24 +63:2 65:23 66:24 +67:21 68:5 69:24 +73:4,21 74:4,4,8 +74:12 78:24 +84:25 85:6,8,13 +85:18 87:22 +88:11 90:20 91:4 +conferred 68:22 +conferring 44:19 +67:20 68:3 +71:3 +83:20 +confess 49:16 +confidential 5:4 +21:16 56:10 +confidentiality +16:3 20:20 36:22 +confirm 57:6,11 +conflicting 67:14 +confront 90:14 +Congress 13:16 +42:25 67:6 84:4 +87:1 +congressional +58:19 +congressionall. +41:4 53:23 +consider 6:20 +30:19 34:24 +39:14 +consideration +68:19 +considered 12:12 +21:16 +consistent 43:10 +constitute 68:10 +constituted 83:16 +Constitution 44:4 +constitutional +44:4 +construction 68:12 +70:25 +72:8 84:2 +84:3 +construed 67:10 +84:7 +construing 67:24 +consult 72:4 +consulted 70:3, 5, 6 +70:21 71:8,9,19 +consulting 71:24 +contained 67:8 +82:25 +contemplating +65:10 68:23 +contents 57:3 +contest 34:2 36:13 +36:16 +contested 37:4 +context 16:24 26:8 +27:19 34:14 52:6 +52:15 61:21 62:8 +continue 14:18 +contours 18:23 +contract 28:12 +65:21 +contrary 42:8,25 +43:9 91:20 +convene 6:2, 6, 17 +convenient 61:12 +conversation 26:23 +conversations +16:21 +convince 89: 5 +cooperate 37:21 +copies 57:23 +copy 92:9,9,15 +corners 5:22 +correct 12:8 25:15 +58:1,4 67:19 +73:5,24 79:1,22 +80:3,10 82:5 +84:1 +correctly 87:8 +correspondence +25:17,23 26:22 +27:3,15 29:5,19 +29:20 30:9 39:2 +54:9,15 55:13 +64:9 +Council 92:13 +counsel 3:5 4:14 +10:2 14:15 15:16 +17:4 77:4 90:13 +92:6,10 +country 25:8 +58:18 +counts 65:4 +COUNTY 95:4 +couple 42:20 61:16 +course 13:8,15,17 +14:3,6, 9 17:12 +28:24 29:15 +41:22 42:5 48:5 +59:21 60:16 +62:17,19 65:17 +67:2 80:5 84:18 +87:10 91:10 +court 1:1 3:3,8,11 +3: 15,19,22 4:6 +5:8,12,15,20,23 +5:24 6:7,11,19 +6:24,24 7:2,13 +7:17,21,25 8:1,3 +8:15,21,21 9:13 +9:23 10:3,10,12 +10:17.20,22,24 +10:24 11:4,5,6 +11:11,13,17,23 +12:6,10,14,17,20 +13:15,25 14:8 +15:7 16:12,23 +17:7,15 18:7,9 +18:20,25 19:14 +19:16,18,25 20:8 +20:13 21:17 22:7 +22:12,21,25 +23:10,12,16 24:5 +24:8,14,16,23 +25:24 26:5,25 +28:1,18 29:11,24 +30:12,17,25 31:2 +31:10,13,15 +32:12,19,23,25 +33:2,10,13,15, 18 +33:22,24 34:5,8 +35:5 36:4,12 +37:13 38:8,11,14 +38:18,22 39:6,20 +39:22 40:6,9,13 +40:14 41:7,25 +42:8,18 43:14 +44: 8 45:6,9 46:9 +46:13,14,21,22 +46:24 47:5,10,19 +47:21,23 49:2 +50:15,18 51:12 +52:3,15 53:1,5 +54:1,7,16,24 +55:2,12,21 56:1 +56:16,21 57:15 +57:22 58:2,5,7 +60:3,5 61:17,20 +62:20 63:6,11 +65:20 66:9,17,20 +67:2,2,20,25 +68:3,16,20,21 +69:15,20 70:5,13 +70:24 71:2,24 +72:2,15,24 73:1 +73:6,12,16,18 +74:3,18,25 75:5 +75:6,19 76:4,12 +76:12,14,15,19 +76:19,23,25 77:2 +77:10,19,24 78:9 +78:14,17,20,23 +79:4,6,9,19,22 +79:23 80:1,4,15 + + +Case 9:08-CV-80736-KAM Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2013 Page bage +5 +113 +80:18,23 81:11 +81:25 +82:6,9,12 +82:18,20 83:7,14 +83:17,20,25 +84:18 88:6,14,17 +89:10,13,17,22 +90:7,23 91:10,18 +91:25 92:2,7,8 +92:15,17,20 +93:12,15,24 94:1 +94:4 +Courthouse 1:16 +courtroom 7:22 +courts 12:19 13:4 +13:6 15:11 17:18 +18:4 22:12 32:11 +63:16 67:7,13 +72:21 +Court's 16:1 29:4 +cover 77:8 +covers 56:13 78:5 +co-counsel 12:11 +35:9 +co-counsels 3:13 +Crash 21:13 +create 72:12 73:17 +creating 74:12 +crime 4:10 8:10 +29:8,9,13 35:13 +38:20 40:20 +43:11,16,23 +44:6,11 45:19 +53:21 54:10 +58:13,15,17,21 +59:4,5,9,11 +60:15,17 61:2 +62:5,18 63:7,10 +64:3,15,18 +65:16,23 66:4,7 +71:12 75:6,8 +78:3,10 80:24 +81:8,8 84:4,6,8 +88:5,18 +crimes 30:1,2 +11:12 12:11 13:1 +14:4 16:4 20:3 +22:13 26:11 +31:22 32:10 +34:25 35:15,16 +35:17 37:17,24 +45:18,23 46:11 +46:16 +48:5,9,11 +58:16,23 76:5 +77:13,20,23 +78:11 +79:19 +80:7 +80:11 +84:6 +90:8 +93:1 +CRR 1:21 +curious 28:22 +currently 88:2 +cut 19:6 64:4 +CVRA 29:21 45:21 +48:21 58:24 59:7 +59:22,22 62:16 +67:7,14 76:11 +86:17 92:25 +CVRA's 63:1 +D +d3:1 69:2 +74:7,10 +75:3,5 +damage 31:24 +damages 76:10 +damper 32:9 +dare 92:24 +darn 51:18 +date 12:16 +Dated 95:12 +day 4:12 63:25 +days 33:21 +deal 4:2 9:7 63:13 +dealing 11:9 +47:12 68:14 +Dean 62:21,24 65:8 +deaths 65:9 +December 51:3 +decide 9:16,17 +49:8 50:19 +52:3,5 68:5 72:5 +decided 11:14 +decides 71:15 +deciding 68:9 +71:25 +decision 22: 9,9 +25:20 36:18 +55:10 +58:15 +71:20 72:6,12 +73:19,23 +decisions 16:11 +37:10 93:8 +deemed 35: 7 38:6 +64:21 74:22 +deep 20:23 +defamatory 6:22 +defend 19:5 +defendant 14:22 +26:11 48:9 60:3 +81:10 91:16 +defendant's 81:10 +defense 14:15 +15:16 17:4,21 +20:3 27:2 29:15 +44:1 52:10 64:23 +83:9 +defer 29: 3 30:10 +deference 92:10, 12 +93:7 +definitive 67:6 +delay 8: 7 78:21 +deliberate 27:23 +51:19 +deliberately 91:14 +deliberateness +28:14 +deliberative 57:2 +delivered 65:22 +delve 33:25 +demonstrate 48:15 +denied 8: 25 26:4 +85:22 91:7 +deny 9:20 24:18 +35:3 39:22 50:11 +57:11 +Department 4: 15,24 +23:25 59:1 85:2 +85:3 92:6,11 +93:11,22 +departments 59:1 +deposition 9:22 +depositions 34:12 +41:22 42:13 +53:17 +deprivation 54:1 +deprive 48:7 +deprived 53:21,23 +derivative 14:17 +described 81:2,22 +designed 58:22 +despite 59:15 +detection 59:3, 9 +80:23 87:17 +detention 76:22 +77:25 78:7 +determination +37:11 39:5 68:17 +82:23 83:15 +determinations +42:1 +determine 16:10 +66:20 +determined 64:10 +determining 14:21 +detriment 31:12 +detrimental 28:13 +develop 32:15 +developing 18:20 +developments 93:18 +device 84:12 +Dexter 2: 14 3:9 +difference 20:23 +20:24 36:7,9 +71:2 +differences 15:22 +different 26:10 +50:10 84:14 +difficult 63:16 +directing 40:10 +direction 67:12 +85:20 +disagree 29:23 +47:15 48:4 53:10 +disagreement 57:20 +disallowed 11:4 +disappear 84:11 +disapproval 71:3 +disasters 21:22 +disclose 26: 7 +disclosed 14:10 +28:25 +disclosure 25: 8 +35:11 +disclosures 41:18 +41:18,21,23 +45:10,11,14,14 +discover 60:14 +discoverability +25:12 +discovered 78: 3 +discovery 9:21 +34:15 +35:2,2,10 +35:22 37:22,25 +39:11 41:8,8 +46:1,3,7,8,12,18 +47:8,22,24 48:1 +48:23 50:6,7,13 +53:2,5,17 54:6 +88:21, 23 90:25 +91:5,12 +discretion 6:14 +7:9,11 15:21 +32:3 37:25 46:15 +46:18,23 47:20 +53:8,9,14 67:11 +67:17,18,21,22 +68:1,4,5,11 69:2 + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2013 Page Lage +113 +69:5,17 70:10,12 +70:17 71:1,5,22 +72:9,10,14 74:13 +74:21 82:10,14 +85:2,7,10,21 +discuss 15:22 +16:14 18:23 23:2 +27:2 65:5 +discussed 15:18 +59:16 61:23 +discussing 32:5 +59:17 92:22 +discussion 23:6 +37:5 54:23,25 +discussions 16:19 +21:24 26:17,18 +32:2 52:14 +disposed 36:25 +dispositions 85:6 +dispositive 34:14 +dispute 47:7,21 +disputed 37:22 +39:16 +disputes 72:22 +disregard 62:13 +dissatisfied69:12 +70:22 72:16 +disseminate 15: 3 +23:22 +disseminated 24:2 +29:1 +dissemination +23:13 +district 1:1,1 +11:4,6 47:1,7 +51:3,5 60:3,4,5 +60:6 63:6 75:6,8 +75:14 80:6 +docket 11:13 +Doctrine 69:17 +doctrines 67:3 +document 34:16 +53:18 +57:18 +90:17 +93:5 +documents 11:25 +19:3,21 20:19 +40:23 +43:22 +83:14 +Doe 1: 3 3:4,4 +53:22,22 64:17 +64:17 65:19,19 +86:22,22 87:25 +88:1,2,3,7 89:8 +89:8 90:19,19 +doing 16:25 +18: 3 +24:12 +68:19 +81:14 +door 7:5 +doubt 64:12 +drafted 62:9 +drafting 92:25 +drugs 90:10,10 +dry 19:7 +due 29:6,14 30:3 +44:3 48:6,9,9,12 +54:3 +duke 42:24 +duties 12:15 13:5 +E +E3:1,1 95:1,1 +earlier 27:7 60:22 +61:11 79:9 86:14 +earliest 63:14 +early 93:1 +East 2: 7 +ecstatic 42:10 +Edwards 2:3, 3 3:12 +3:13 4:21 8:4,5 +8:18,23 9:20 +24:16,17 25:3 +26:12 27:12 +28:10 31:9 33:4 +33:5,8,12,14,17 +34:3,4,7 +36:11,15 +38:4,10 +38:13,16,19,24 +39:17,21,25 +49:7,9,10 94:3 +effect 13:11 58:20 +84:21 88:20 +effectuate 84: 7 +efforts 43:1,2,12 +43:16 44:24 +80:20 81:5,20 +83:9,11,16 91:21 +eight 61:5 +either 6:14 +: 28:2,4 +35:3 41:9 +45:20 +53:12 73:19 81:9 +electronically +92:15 +eleemosynary 24:13 +Eleventh 10:23 +11:2 +E1-A1 11:14 +email 49:22 +emails 25:16 30:7 +56:7 +employ 37:21 +employees 59:1 +enacted 13:16 +encourage 9:1 28:4 +74:23 +encouraged 22:14 +encouraging 17:18 +enforce 75:12 +enforced 45:22 +75:9 +enforcement 15:23 +81:17 +engage 13:18 32:6 +37:25 47:5 68:18 +engaged 59:2 +engineered 93:5 +engineering 91:16 +enjoin 74:15 +ensure 81:5 +ensuring 81:4, 12 +81:20 +enter 42: 8 69:25 +74:17 88:19,22 +89:18 90:7 +entered 25:13,14 +89:20 90:18 +enters 70:18 +entire 60:16 +entities 59:4 +entitled 43:3,25 +44:1 45:2 46:6 +46:11 76:20 77:9 +85:13 91:19,20 +91:21 92:10,12 +93:7 +entitlement 11:21 +entrusted69:19 +Epstein 8: 9 10:14 +12:1 24:20 25:13 +25:19 26:22 28:3 +28:8,13,14 30:1 +31:6,12,15 36:2 +37:7 39:1 47:2,6 +51:20 52:9 55:5 +68:18 69:1 91:16 +Epstein's 25:17 +27:11 86:19 +equally 67:15 +Eric61:18 +escape 4:12 +Esg2:3,6,9,14,14 +2:19,22 +essence 53:7 +essential 12:21 +essentially 6:21 +29:25 72:14 +75:15 81:3 87:13 +93:22 +establish 41:3 +48:13 +establishment 63:1 +et 76:22 +ethical 12:18 +evader 5:18 +event 36:13 58:12 +60:17 79:10 +events 80:5 +everybody 7:10,21 +evidence 14:9 15:4 +22:17 25:10 +26:20 40:11 42:5 +64:11 71:16 +evidentiary 83:13 +eviscerated 65:18 +exactly 21:12 +24:10 50:17,22 +54:16 60:20 63:7 +65:7,16 70:4 +71:23 85:11 88:7 +examine 20:19 +example 11:21 +14:14,18 20:18 +23:22 52:7 54:21 +61:7 71:11 81:7 +90:6 +exception 26:9 +excess 89:15 +exchanged 11:25 +excluded 78:15 +exclusively 69:19 +exculpatory 48:10 +excuse 13:7 +execute 65:15 +executed 65:18 +executive 71: 7 +exercise 6:14,16 +7:19 53:14 69:17 +72:9,14 82:14 +72:10 74:21 +85:21 91:21 +exercising 53:9 +67:21 69:2 85:10 +exert 83:10 +exhibits 38:21 +40:3,3 64:16 +exist 26:15 74:22 +82:13 +existence 57:8 +73:11 +exists 64:9 +expedited 42:12 +88:25 +explain 29:11 +50:22 51:1 62:3 +explains 81:19 +expression 71:3 +extant 45:23 72:20 +extensive 15:13 +extent 24:25 68:7 + + +74:18,22 91:18 +extinguish 65:16 +extra 93:13 +extremely 82:11 +F +F10:24 11:3,15 +17:11 95:1 +FAA 21:15,16, 24 +face 4:17 7:15,18 +7:24 50:2 +facilitate 21:23 +fact 4:25 8:24 +26:17 36:1,24 +37:6 39:1 42:16 +44:15,25 47:4,16 +52:3,6, 7 53:10 +58:23 61:24 64:6 +64:9,14,22 72:2 +76:16 82:24 83:5 +86:4 87:24 89:12 +93:10 +factor 42:22 +factors 63:23 64:2 +66:6 +facts 5:20,21 7:14 +9:13,14 34:2,3 +34:18 35:24,24 +36:7,9,14,16,17 +36:20 37:6,12,19 +38:6,15,17,17,21 +39:7,8,16,23 +49:8,11,13,18,20 +49:23 50:4 63:12 +63:25 91:7 +factual 29:7,22,24 +47:18 83:14 +factually 9:6 +failure 34:2 74:15 +fair 32:22 48:2 +54:2 84:20 +fairly 84:9 +fairness 44:2, 3, 6 +44:9,25 48:22,23 +53:25 73:4 +74:2 +74:6,8 84:17 +88:13 +90:21 +91:3 +93:2 +faith9:17 19:11 +50:18 86:8 +fall38:4 82:1 +familiar 26:8 +far 30:6 34:14 +48:21 56:19 +63:17 66:1 75:13 +76:2 80:1 82:11 +83:6,12 85:24 +86:14 87:3 92:11 +Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2013 Page Page 7 +113 +Farmer 2: 3 +fashion 30:4 +favor 22:20 62:5 +85:16 +favored 68:12 +FBI 14:18 59:10 +71:13,13,18 +81:17 +feared 75:25 +fears 81: 9 +February 50:1 +federal 1:16 13:1 +15:23 32:4 46:2 +59:25 64:7 65:3 +65:11,20 +68:20 +72:21 80:11 +86:21,21 +federalism 15:22 +federally 69:1 +feel 4: 8 8:6 47:16 +feeling 36:8 +feels 7:1 +field31:22 +Fifth 13:12,13 +17:11 62:20 +63:3 +65:7,11 85:3,4,5 +86:5,6 +figure 3:25 9:8 +50:24 +file 29:19 +33:19 +38:14,14,16 +39:15 +50:4 58:15 +69:13 +75:12 +76:12,15,18 +92:8 +92:14 +filed 10:13,14 +18:14 22:15 +23:25 +29:19 +34:9 +37:19 +38:2,17,19 +38:20 +45:12 +47:6 +53:13 +57:18 +59:13 61:6,16 +63:8 69:20 +73:13 75:8 +76:5 78:11,25 +79:20 80:7 81:12 +files 46:4,8 50:19 +filing 47:1 60:18 +61:2 +:65:3,4,10 +72:19 +74:19 +77:13 +79:15 +83:8 +84:12 +finally 35:24 +find 13:1 21:18,20 +22:3 26:13 27:5 +50:8,14 61:12 +88:6 +finding 5:10 35:19 +35:20 36:17,19 +38:20 40:1 82:24 +finds 74:19 83:8 +fine 32:25 33:6,7 +33:12 57:20 +first 3:25 4:2,4 +5:11 7:7,8,13 +8:13 11:7,18 +15:7 41:17,21 +44:11,18 45:9 +46:24 49:3,6 +53:14 54:14 64:6 +78:4 +fish 50:13 +fishing 50:8 +Fistos 2: 3 +fits 20:12 21:25 +five 51: 8 63:23 +64:2 66:2,4,6 +73: 8 77:15 +five-year 90:11 +flood 73:18 85:16 +86:8 +Florida 1:1,16 2:4 +2:11,16,20,23 +4:16,21 12:2,18 +47:1,751:3,5 +60:6 95:3,7,8 +focus 34: 6 +focusing 28:6 +folder 15:14 17:13 +follow18:3,5 71:5 +78:5 +followed 25: 7 +footnote 60:16 +footnotes 60:13 +force 52:23 +forced 50: 4 +foregoing 95:9 +form 56:23 +formal 70:15 72:19 +74:19 75:18 +77:17,20,22 78:6 +79:8 81:11 83:9 +formally 70:18 +formulation 71:19 +Fort 2:4 +forth 18:15 23:4 +27:18 34:20 +57:18 63:23 73:2 +forum 5: 3 +forward 42:12 +49:25 69:12 74:9 +74:10,23 85:20 +85:21 88:23,24 +88:25 +found 26:21 +four 5: 22 45:12 +59:15 +fourth 64:22 +FPR 1:21 +frank 16:19,21 +20:12 21:23 +frankly 5:10 56:15 +62:22 +Friday 1:15 +frivolous 19:9 +56:15 86:2,2,8 +front 7:23 49:21 +51:11 64:25 +ful1 46:3 61:21,22 +77:20 88:21,23 +90:21 92:12 +function 7:20,24 +21:21 +functions 12:15 +69:19 +further 10:5 32:15 +51:12,17 58:24 +future 94:6 +G +G 2:6 3:1 +gain 27:18 +gatekeeper 7:9,13 +gatekeeping 7:20 +gates 85:16 +general 15:21 24:1 +61:18 67:11,17 +67:18 68:1,9 +70:10 90:1 92:23 +generally 18:15 +generated 30:7 +getting 20:4 28:1 +35:22 39:10 52:4 +89:10 +give 10:5 12:14 +14:18,19 16:2,9 +20:25 21:2,5 +32:18 33:20 +37:11 +52: 7 61:7 +66:11 +71:11 +79:20 80:6 81:7 +85:25 90:5 91:4 +91:8 93:8 +given 12:12 13:24 +14:6 21:10 22:4 +36:20 45:11 56:8 +56:9 60:10 64:15 +68: 7 70:21 85:17 +go 3: 24 9:13 18:1 +20:1 27:20 31:25 + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2013 Page Lage +8 +113 +35:22 38:22 41:8 +42:17,18,18 +44:16,19 55:8 +58:24 63:17 +66:1 +70:23 74:9,10 +79:6 81:25 82:12 +86:14 87:3,6 +goes 12:22 22:19 +23:4 37:8 59:22 +61:6 +going 3:22 4:1 +5:15,16 6:11,25 +10:3,4,5 15:2 +16:3,16 23:19 +28:13,16 29:3 +30:20 32:8,8,13 +32:13 33:18,19 +36:8,10,13 +39:22 40:4 +41:11,20 43:10 +45:19 47:13,17 +58:10,19 63:12 +63:19,20 66:11 +74:12,23 76:1 +88:14 89:2 +89:4 90:8,24 +91:17 92:14 93:2 +good 3:3,7,10,11 +3:12,15,16,19,20 +3:22 4:5,6 10:10 +10:12 14:13 +50:18 86:8 +gosh 50:25 +government 4:11 +14:24 15:10,12 +15:13,17,23, 25 +16:2,5.7,14 +20:19 21:8 23:16 +23:18,22 25:14 +25:16,17,21 +26:11,22 27:3,4 +27:9 28:7,12,19 +29:7,13 32:4,14 +32:18 33:9,11,14 +33:16 +35:12 +37:15 +38:25 +39:9 +41:19 +42:16,23 +43:1,3,15,19 +44:8,10,16,19,21 +45:11 48:7,11,16 +48:24 49:12,19 +50:2,10,23 52:8 +52:20,21 53:12 +54:4,5 55:4 56:3 +57:6,10 59:6,14 +60:8,11 61:1,10 +61:13 62:4,21 +63:3,4 64:19 +65:8,14,22 66:15 +66:25 69:18 +70:14,16,18,23 +71:13 72:8,15 +74:3,16,17,20 +78:1,24 79:2 +80:13 +82:24 +85:8,20,23 +89:7 90:20 +91:20 93:5 +government's 23:17 +27:10 28:2,22 +34:2 44:23 54:24 +55:1,19 58:14 +62:14,22 73:19 +84:21 85:7 87:20 +grand 11:2, 9 19:21 +23:5,11,14,23 +30:8 56:5,10,13 +57:4,8 +grant 10:5 54:14 +granted9:21 18:18 +grappling 92:7 +great 33:17 49:25 +ground 35:18 +grounding 87:15 +guess 32:13 37:14 +54:17,18 +89:10 +guided 67:2 +guidelines 12:16 +guidepost 67:6,13 +guilt 14:5 +guilty 13:2, 3 29:8 +29:13 30:1 +guy 5:19 +H +habeas 46:8,9,22 +hail 72:15 +half 26:23 +hand 51:15 +hands 22:5 +48:10 +happened 9:9,9 +25:18 65:17 +82:13 +86:5 +happens 23:1 +happy 12:13 18:22 +19:13 42:12,18 +harassment 4:19 +hard 66:12 +harm 35:25 +37:9 +76:1 +Hawley 11:14 +head 38:1 +hear 4: 4 10:8 +28:19 60:19 +66:10,14 87:5 +heard 49:11 53:8 +53:11 56:17 +68: 23 70:22 +78:18 +hearing 1:12 41:11 +55:7 68:23 75:24 +76:6,21,22 77:19 +78:7,8,12,15, 18 +78:21 83:13 94:7 +heart 27:21 +held10:25 11:11 +help 41:3 43:12,22 +helpful 45:3 50:12 +50:20 51:18 +helps 87:14 +Herman 13:12 17:11 +hey 23:19 37:20 +highly 24:11 40:17 +42:22 49:5 52:8 +52:11,22 53:16 +history 61:14,22 +Hold 72:24 +Holder 61:19 +holding 63:3,22, 25 +holds 62:24 +hominem 5: 22 +honest 16:19 +Honor 3: 7,16,20 +4: 5 8:5,5 9:25 +12:5 24:10,15,17 +24:18 29:2,18 +30:13,14,24 31:4 +31:21 32:22 +33:7,8 34:4 35:8 +37:11 40:8,12 +41:16 45:2,8,17 +46:20,23 47:19 +49:1,3,7 55:9,19 +56:6,18,25 58:4 +58:6,11 +63:9,15 64:5 +66:19,20 67:9,23 +68:13 69:6 +71:6,11,23 +: 72:1 +72:7,23 +73:9 +74:14 75:4,10 +76:11 77:4,15 +78:13 80:10,17 +80:20,25,25 81:7 +82:5,8 83:7,7,18 +83:24 84:13 +91:24 92:3,4,5 +93:19 94:3 +HONORABLE 1:12 +honoring 23:19 +hope 42:18 89:5 +hopefully 31:17 +Howe112:9,10 3:14 +hundreds 43:20 +hybrid37:18 45:18 +46:18 +hypothetically +28:5 47:15 +I +identified 64:7 +70:20 +ignore 88: 8 +illegal 51:24 89:6 +89:11,14,16,19 +89:23 90:2,3,4,6 +90:12,15,18 +91:13 +immunity 13:14,19 +14:7 16:6 26:16 +immunization 13:22 +immunized 13:22 +impair 67:10,18,25 +70:10,11,12 71:1 +85:2 +impairment 68:11 +impairs 67:16 +impinge 68: 3 71:4 +impinges 72:5 +implicate 55:25 +implicated 56:14 +import 15:20 +importance 20:11 +22:4,10 +important 16:18 +21:7,22,25 22:12 +22:12 28:16 +52:19 58:17,18 +59:3 66:23 +impose 89:13,17 +impossible 86:20 +improper 7:24 +improperly 69:15 +inactions 27:10,11 +include 81:15 +included 29:21 +63:1 + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2013 Page ½áge +113 +includes 48:23 +including 9:22 +inconsistent 60:16 +incorrect 14:11 +39:17 +incriminating 14:4 +inculpatory 13:25 +14:5 +independent 37:17 +46:17 85:7 +independently 29:9 +indicate 57:9 +indicated 25:4 +indicating 39:2 +indicted36:2 37:7 +39:1 75:17 +indictment 27:6 +36:6,12 39:3 +60:21 61:2,4,9 +63:10 68:15 71:4 +71:4,16 +74:12 75:9,18,20 +76:6 77:12,23 +78:2,4,6,25 79:8 +79:10,12,16,25 +80:9 82:1 84:12 +84:17,23 +86:7 +87:5 +indictments 80:12 +individual 45:22 +45:25 68:7 70:20 +71:8 74:1 75:12 +75:16,25 76:22 +78:2,7 79:14 +80:21 +81:9,10 +82:17 +individuals 70:21 +72:13 77:8 78:3 +81:5,19,21 +83:11 +induce 28:4 +ineffective 17:22 +inform 81:3 +information 14:17 +17:1 25:9,21 +27:8,12,13,17 +35:15 36:20 40:1 +40:17,19 41:1,3 +41:9 43:5,9,17 +43:21,25 44:1,10 +44:20 45:3 48:1 +48:10,19,24 +49:15 50:11 +51:17,18 52:2,11 +52:22 53:15 54:4 +54:6,23 55:11,12 +55:13,15, 15, 16 +55:18 56:4 57:3 +57:12,14 77:23 +79:7,24 80:9,12 +82:2,25 88:17 +89:1,3,5 91:14 +infringement 69:4 +85:6 +infringing 67:22 +initial 32:19 +35:11 41:17,18 +41:23 45:9,10,14 +66:20 69:9 +75:23 +75:24 78:6 79:15 +Initially 67:1 +initiated 27:24 +input 68:24 +inquiry 5:11 34:6 +51:9,13 +inside 56:13 +insistence 28:15 +instance 7:9,10 +Institute 20:18, 21 +Insurance 11:14 +intend 15:4 22:5 +31:11 91:13 +intended 18:15 +45:21 62:11 +intending 39:14 +intent 24:13 69:21 +interest 10:25 +11:1 24:20 48:14 +48:16,20 +interested 60:19 +interesting 60:23 +66:3 84:15 86:4 +interfere 71:10 +72:14 +interference 71:21 +86:12 +interpret 67:7 +73:17 +interpretation +47:3 67:1 70:9 +interpretations +interpreting 67:13 +interrupt 20:13 +intervene 5:25 +6:19,23 10:15 +11:4 19:15 24:18 +intervened 24:19 +intervening 3:17 +75:23 +intervenor 6:15 +intervenors 4:2 +intervention 7: 8 +8:25 10:9,15,20 +11:7,11,17,21 +18:15,17,18,19 +18:22 22:8 26:3 +invalidate 28:12 +51:23 +investigated 81:16 +investigating +14:18 57:5,7 +71:13 +investigation 5:4 +6:5,8 11:12 16:8 +51:7,9,13 59:3,9 +80:16,23 87:18 +87:18 88:2,4 +investigative +81:22,23 +invite 29:4 +inviting 6:21,23 +invoke 48:12,21 +69:13 82:12 +involve 71:6 +involved 19:22 +29:25 51:21 59:9 +82:14 87:17 +involving 71:7 +ironed 72:22 +irrelevant 35:24 +35:25 37:8 +issue 5:12, 14,15 +5:20,21 6:17 +7:22 8:10 9:19 +10:16 11:8 18:22 +28:3,16 29:2,6,6 +29:17,24 30:6,10 +30:20 35:19 41:2 +41:8 45:9 46:24 +47:12,16,18 52:5 +54:1 56:24 58:8 +58:17 63:16 +66:21 70:11 84:2 +91:11 92:7 +issued 12:19 17:18 +92:6 93:20 +issues 26:2 37:23 +40:14 51:11 +63:19 +J +Jacksonville 2:11 +Jaffe 2: 3 +jail 45:20 +Jane 1:3, 4 3:4,4 +3: 12 53:22,22 +64:17,17 65:19 +65:19 69:10 +86:22,22 87:25 +88:1,2,3, 7 89:8 +89:8 90:19,19 +January 88:1 +Jay 2:9,10 3:14 +Jeffrey 8: 9 36:2 +jeopardy 45:19 +48:16 +job 84:13 +judge 5: 9 6:13 +7:20 11:15 21:12 +21:17 49:22 53:9 +55:6,8 +judgment 22:16 +34:11 35:19 38:9 +38:11 39:12,14 +39:19 49:17 +judicial 46:5 +72:20 +July 45: 13 49:6 +59:13 60:24 61:3 +77:5 +jump 41:14 +June 61:19 +jury 11:3,9 19:21 +23:5,11,14,23 +30:8 56:5,10,13 +57:4,8 90:13 +justice 4:24 8:8 +12:22 23:25 +32:11 +52:21,24 +58:16,23 59:1 +65:21 84:6 85:2 +85:3 92:6,11 +93:1,10,23 +Justice's 4:16 +justified 9:6 +justify 6:3 +K +K38:21 +keep 18:2 22:5 +93:17 +keeping 20:11 +66:12 +keeps 50:6 +KENNETH 1:12 +kick 36:5 +kind 7:5 8:22, 23 +10:4 13:24 16:3 +16:17,20,25 +22:10,19 26:25 +32:4 34:5 35:17 +35:20 37:16 +39:13 45:17 +56:14 65:25 93:7 +kinds 15:6 + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2013 Pageplage 10 +113 +knew 37:1 93:11 +know 7:4 8:8 9:3 +9:14,14,15 15:5 +15:8 16:1,4 +18:21,23 19:9 +23:3,14,16 28:22 +34:14 43:8 +45:3 +47:5 49:14 +50:11 +50:19,25 51:18 +55:10 +59:12 +61:16 63:11,15 +65:25 66:1 69:23 +70:6 75:20 76:14 +76:17 90:8 +knowing 35:21 +knowledge 4:20 +known 57:3 +Kornspan 2:19 +Kyl 61:14,18,23 +62:4,7,14 92:23 +93:15,16,17 +Kyl's 61:14 92:22 +93:3 +limbo 35:21 +limit 5:20 37:22 +limitation 21:6 +limited 20:20,20 +line 18:21 20:6 +line-drawing 63:19 +link 84:18 +litigate 9:19 +litigated 51:11 +litigating 87:14 +litigation 4:13,14 +5:5,17 6:23 8:23 +9:2 15:2 25:18 +61:11 71:7 86:9 +86:10 93:9 +little 7:4 30:23 +87:4, 7 92:22 +local 38:5 39:15 +logically 62:25 +long 12:21 35:23 +L +L1:21 +label 39:12 +labeled34:10 +Lake 2: 8 +language 58:24 +59:7,12,16,18,19 +59:20,22 87:15 +87:16 +lapsed 75:18 +large 23:5 95:8 +late 17:19 +latest 20:17 +Lauderdale 2: 4 +law 2:6 8:24 11:16 +15:23 20:16,17 +20:21 21:19,20 +22:3 23:9 26:1 +31:23 32:2 62:18 +65:25 81:17 +lawful 68:8 +laws 52:5 +lawsuit 7: 3 45:13 +45:16 75:7 76:8 +76:18 +lawsuits 73:18 +lawyers 3:17 10:13 +12:15 13:5 16:4 +17:21 20:17 23:8 +27:3,11 28:4,8 +32:9 +lead 62:15, 20 +86:11 +learn 27:22 +leave 63:25 +led 59:14 +Lee 2:14 3:7,9 +9:24,25 28:21 +29:2,17 30:13 +33:7 45:7,8 +46:20,22 47:19 +: 49:3,7,9,10 +49:22 50:6,10 +52:17 53:1,11,20 +54:21 56:16,18 +56:24 57:17 58:1 +58:4,6 60:19,24 +66:10,10,18 +66:19 67:23 68:6 +69:6 70:2,8,14 +71:6 72:1,7,25 +73:5,8,15,25 +75:3,10, 22 +76:10,20 +77:1,3 +77:15,22 78:13 +78:16,19,22 79:1 +79:5,7,13,22,24 +80:3,10,17,19,25 +82:5,8,19 83:7 +83:18,20,23,24 +84:1 85:1 86:7 +87:8,21 92:2,3 +93:9,19,25 +Lefkowitz 3:18 +legal 5:16 7:1 +35:19 37:11 41:1 +46:25 47:3,16 +66:21 92:5 +legally 9:6 +legislative 61:14 +61:22 +Lehman 2: 3 +Leonti 17:24 +letter 12:10 +51:10 +61:18,21,24 +62:7 +87:25 92:23 +93:16,16 +letters 17:4 23:2 +23:7,25 27:15 +31:19 32:1 36:23 +37:2 +letting 5:21 +let's 33:24 34:1 +40:6 50:13 52:18 +58:7 64:24 71:11 +76:4 80:19 81:8 +84:24 86:4 89:15 +liability 45:4 +libelous 6:20,22 +liberty 48:8,13,15 +48:20 +life 48:7,13 56:7 +longer 21:9 26:7 +31:9 49:12 +100k4:17 7:14,18 +30:20, 22 50:19 +50:25 52:4 59:19 +60:23 61:14 +63:18 84:24 +86:4 +93:2,3 +looked 12:25 +looking 40:23 +43:8 +43:17 65:3 +looks 50:20 +lose 57:23 +lost 19:17 +lot 13:5 27:12 +36:13 +10w 22:17 +M +magically 87:11 +magistrate 11:15 +55:6, 8 +main 58:8, 12 84:25 +making 18:10 37:10 +51:1 86:25 +malicious 6:9 +malpractice 17:22 +mandates 43:1 +manner 89:19 +March 45:11 +Marcus 21:12,17 +Marie 2:14 3:8 +MARRA 1: 12 +Maryland 48:5,6,14 +material 15:6,7 +19:21,23 23:5,11 +24:3,24 25:1 +39:16 54:19,20 +56:5,8,10 57:22 +57:24 +materials 16:22 +20:1 21:10 22:20 +22:21,23 23:2,14 +23:23 +31:12 +51:14 56:12,20 +matter 9:22 10:2 +10:18,21 11:3,11 +11:21 19:14 44:2 +51:5 70:19 72:20 +81:11 92:3 93:11 +matters 3:24 30:8 +83:14 +maximum 89:16 +90:11 +McAliley 11:16 +mean 5:19 6:25 +15:20 20:13 +23:16 24:23 35:7 +47:7 50:15 53:7 +57:12 61:21 66:2 +66:2 67:4,5,23 +68:4 81:23 89:25 +91:1 +meaning 40:2 67:4 +73:13 80:9 +meaningful 37:5 +meaningless 59:8 +87:19 +means 10:25 34:25 +50:7 79:7 82:1 +mechanisms 37:22 +media 15:3 23:23 +meet 31:11 +Melinda 1:21 95:7 +95:16 +member 4:21 +memorandum 92:24 +mention 20:16 24:2 +mentioned 30:6 +62:10 +mere 19:3 +merely 60:11 +merits 5:13 19:2 +27:1 28:2 34:1 +message 6:11 +method 35:1 +Miami 2:16, 20 +middle 35:18 +mind 49:12 50:3 +mindful 67:25 70:9 +82:9 + + +minding 4:14 +minimum 66:6 +mini-lawsuits 7:3 +mini-trial 6:24 +minute 90:9 +minutes 42: 9 +missed 19:25 +mistake 86:25 +mistreated 52:12 +misunderstood +84:20 +molestation 8: 9 +molester 43:21 +65:20 +moment 62:3 83:19 +months 51: 8 +motion 4:9, 12,17 +4:18 8:7,17,19 +9:21 10:1,5 11:4 +11:24 18:14 +24:18 29:5,18,18 +29:19 30:9,9 +34:1,8,8,9,11,14 +34:22 35:19 +37:19 38:2,3,9 +38:12,19 39:12 +39:14,19,22,25 +50:5,6,7 53:7 +55:456:2 +82:21,21 +83:1 91:7 +motions 4:2,3 +33:25 45:13 +move 18:7 39:3 +41:22 42:12 +49:25 72:23 +85:19,21 88:23 +88:24,25 +moving 17:20 19:20 +Mt 11:14 +N +N 2:4 3:1 +name 5:4 +6:20 30:4 +names 23: 3, 3 24:2 +narrow 37:22 40:23 +63:22 65:24 +narrowed 39:23 +narrowly 58:22 +89:1 +Natural 92:13 +nature 51:9 +NE 2:15 +near 21:13 63:21 +94:5 +necessarily 15:5 +30:16 46:1 81:23 +Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2013 Pagepage 11 +113 +necessary 47:4,21 +66:2 +need 9:13 10:6 +15:5 22:17,17 +27:2 35:18,19 +47:9 52:2,16 +53:10 54:17 +55:14 57:6 58:24 +64:8 66:4 83:4 +89:1 91:5 93:2 +94:1 +needed 25:4 +needs 23:15 +57:25 +67:25 +negotiate 32:9 +35:4,23 64:23 +negotiated 65:10 +negotiating 14:6 +negotiation 16:10 +negotiations 12:7 +20:4,6 22:4 26:9 +26:10 28:23,24 +29:16 30:11 +neighbor 5:18 +never 4:13,20,23 +9:1 14:10 15:15 +17:2 27:18 43:7 +43:7 50:23 59:8 +59:10,16 85:22 +90:12 +new 18:11,12 30:21 +30:21 +news 23:23 +nice 84:13 +Ninth 17:20,25 +nonparty 8:18 +non-disclosure +17:9 +non-prosecution +12:7 31:8 36:21 +36:25 37:1 40:22 +43:25 +44:13 +51:23 +64:24 +65:17 +68:16 +69:25 +74:17 +83:12 +85:18,25 +86:20 +90:17 +note 29: 4 46:23 +77:7 +noted 30:3 +notes 17:17 95:11 +notice 39:13 50:10 +50:23 52:17 +53:25 55:5 75:22 +76:21 78:12 +88:13 92:14 +notices 64:15,17 +86:17 +notified 70:20 +76:6 81:1 +notify 83:11 +number 3:24 22:7 +23:2 29:21 51:3 +63:6 78:2 79:21 +80:6 84:14 +numerous 22:16 +03:1 +object 18:16 41:10 +70:1 86:12 +objecting 24:11 +objection 41:10 +92:17 +objections 55:7 +70:24 +objective 9:3 +obligated 29:23 +52:14 55:4 57:11 +59:4 +obligates 43:11 +obligation 4:22 +18:4 47:25 48:1 +58:25 65:22 +obligations 13:5 +14:14 23:19 +44:24 47:24 +57:10 59:10 +obtain 16:13 17:3 +44:20 91:13 +obtained 15:10 +obvious 59:18 +87:23 91:2,3 +obviously 11:12 +18:21 21:12 23:4 +24: 7 62:11 87:22 +occur 79:12 +occurred 7:23 60:5 +75:6, 8, 14 83:15 +occurring 30:8 +October 9:12 +offended 7:1 +offender 43:19 +offense 75:14 +offenses 32: 3 64:7 +offer 14:22 88:16 +92:8 +offered 40:22 +office 12:2 40:10 +40:24 51:6 54:22 +68:22 71:14,15 +71:22 74:21 +79:20 80:1 81:15 +89:18 92:5 +93:20 +officer 23:12 +67:11 72:20 +officers 58:25 +offshoot 34:24 +37:16 +oh 22:24 50:24 +okay 12:6,10 29:11 +33:10,15,18,22 +34:7 35:14 38:22 +38:23 39:17,21 +39:22,25 40:9 +46:21 55:2 56:24 +58:5 65:3 72:25 +77:16 80:15 +83:25 93:24 +old13:13 +once 57:2 61:10 +72:10 81:6,20 +one-sided 91:23 +ongoing 73: 3 75:1 +open 7: 1 16:18,20 +20:11 21:23 +85:15,16 +opening 7:4 +opinion 11:15 +15:19,25 69:16 +92: 6 93:12,13 +opinions 17:19 +39:8 +opportunity 32:15 +35:2 76:1 85:13 +85:17 86:1 90:13 +90:20,21 91:8 +oppose 10:1 55:4 +opposed 31:15 +42:15 +opposing 56: 3 +opposition 56:25 +OPR 51:6 +options 65:5 +orchestrating +51:21 +order 6:17 7:22 +9:18 12:14 17:5 +19:4,16 25:22 +29:20 34:17 +37:22 40:9 42:9 +43:15 46:8,9,12 +46:18 48:12 +50:12 52:1 53:14 +54: 5 88:19,22 +90:7 +ordered 25:19 53:2 +53:3 +orderly 72:18,22 + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2013 Pageplage 12 +113 +ordinarily 34:13 +53:19 93:8 +ordinary 34:16,17 +41:16 42:14,21 +42:23 45:1 80:5 +original 37:9 +originally 93:21 +ought 5:24 6:1,10 +6:11 19:15 21:23 +22:14 62:15 +outcome 24:21 +outside 5:22 48:14 +89:18 +overruled 25:25 +55:8 +overturned 9: 1 +P +P3:1 +pages 43:20 +Palm 1: 16 2:23 +95:4 +panoply 15:18 +papers 19:12,19,20 +20:2,9 +part 12:21 20:3 +21:14 52:15 +54:14 59:3 63:18 +68:4 69:18 +participants 66:13 +participating 3:23 +4:1 +particular 8:6 +11:22 12:17 +23:15 29:2 59:14 +63:25 84:5,22 +85:14,15 86:15 +88:19 93:6 +particularly 15:16 +68:13 +parties 14:20 +16:19 27:24 +32:20 40:3 +party 4:13 17:3 +20:19 21:3 24:4 +passed 42:25 84:4 +patently 91:2,3 +path 42:17,18 +patient 37:2 +Paul 2:6 3:13 +pending 4: 9 93:9 +93:11 +people 5:21 20:25 +21:5 74:23 82:3 +82:12 86:12 +percent 13:1,2 +23:8 51:16 +period 75:23 78:5 +79:14 +permission 25:22 +permissive 6:15 +7:7,8 8:25 10:20 +permit 44:10 +permitted 40:4 +person 8:16 78:9 +78:14,17,20,23 +80:7 +personal 4:19 +personnel 80:21 +persons 81:4 +person's 61:25 +persuasive 62:23 +63:4 +pertains 48:5 +petitioners 1: 5 +2:2 10:2 29:22 +45:10 47:9 57:19 +66:23 71:18 77:4 +phase 45:4, 5 90:25 +philosophy 30:11 +phrase 80:13 81:1 +pick 17:17 +pieces 38:24 +pilots 21:15,24 +place 5:11 +plain 58:24 67:4 +plaintiff 16:13 +17:3 22:24 31:5 +plaintiffs 4:9 6:2 +8:8 15:1,8 18:16 +22:5,15 34:1 +40:17 47:13,24 +50:20 54:9 55:22 +58:2 72:3 82:22 +83:2 +plausible 67:15 +play 72:11 73:25 +plea 12:21 13:2,6 +13:9,15,18,21 +14:3,6, 21 16:10 +16:17 17:5,18,23 +20:4,6 22:4,11 +26:9,10,16,17 +28:23,24 29:15 +32:16 36:23 +54:22 65:5 68:15 +70:19,23,25 +pleading 5:6,18 +6: 3 7:15,18 +9:15 +59:13 +pleadings 8:6 9:10 +29:20 +30:15 +53:12 54:11 +56:25 59:15 +pleas 13:3 +please 3: 3,6, 7 +10:10 45:8 66:17 +plenty 88:17 +plethora 25:6 +point 10:3 19:1 +26:1,3 27:6 +39:10 47:19 +49:14 50:4,24 +51:4 53:11 59:15 +60:15,20,22 +62:17 63:14 +64:20 65:5,11,13 +67:24 70:17 +86:24 87:11,23 +88:15,21 89:25 +93:4 +points 7:12 +police 7:22 +policing 8:2 +policy 15:24 16:11 +32:10 +portion 57:16 +portions 25:16 +57:17 +position 18:25 +23:17 28:22 36:4 +40:25 43:13 +47:16 48:3 52:22 +55:24 58:14 59:6 +59:20 61:11 +62:14 68:25 72:3 +77:10 +84:10,21 +85:11 87:14,20 +92:11 93:22 +possession 15: 9 +48:2 +possibility 65:19 +73:22 +possible 88:16 +possibly 73:3,20 +posture 47:14 +potentially 70:12 +power 89:17 +powerful 53:22 +Powers 69:17 +practically 31:22 +practicing 31:22 +precedent 7: 25 +precisely 93:5 +predicate 47:4 +prefer 30:22 +prejudice 8: 7 91:8 +preliminary 42:1 +64:5 65:2 +prepared 30:16,17 +39:3 49:15 52:8 +63:11 65:15 +88:20,24,25 +prerogatives 68:8 +present 2:18 41:2 +58:10 64:2,11,22 +presentation 60:20 +85:22 +presented 49:19 +52:10 83:5 +presenting 29:23 +press 57:4 62:17 +presumably 69:13 +presume 36:4,10 +50:19 +pretrial 76:21 +78:7 +prevent 16:16 +21:22 +previous 25:18 +31:10 +previously 10:14 +pre-charge 81:24 +pre-indictment +60:11 62:6,12,16 +76:25 88:22 +principle 16:24 +50:9 52:18,19,20 +principles 30:4 +prior 25:22 46:25 +72:12 74:19,22 +83:8 +prison 69:1 90:9 +90:10 +private 5:5 +privilege 11:8,10 +11:19,20,24 16:3 +16:12 17:8 18:6 +18:18,20,23 19:1 +19:4,7,10 20:5 +20:12,22 21:1,3 +21:21 22:3 26:10 +32:15 57:1,2 +privileged 14:10 +19:3,21 20:10 +21:23 28:25 +privileges 21:19 +21:20 +probably 37:24 +39:11 45:12 66:3 +66:12,22 69:7 +problem 22:2 27:17 +31:21 84:5 +procedural 33:25 +90:6 92:3 +procedurally 88:16 +90:4,12,15,18 +Procedure 46:2 +80:11 +procedures 46:5 +92:14 + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2013 Pagepage* 13 +113 +proceed 15:24 +41:15 42:10 +51:12 88:15 +proceeded 60:7 +proceeding 6:2, 8 +6:18 8:18 9:18 +11:9 15:5 37:14 +45:23, 24 46:9,16 +46:17 69:20 +70:25 73:3,10 +75: 1 76:21 77:16 +84:18 +proceedings 4: 1 +45:25 54:1 75:23 +88:14 95:9 +process 6:6 7:5 +13:6,9,19,22 +14:6 29:6,14 +30:4 31:24 32:1 +39:11 41:8 +42:2 44:3,22 +48:6,8,9.12,18 +48:18 50:1 +54:3 +55:6 57:2 58:16 +58:23 60:20 +63:17 65:6 71:10 +72:18 81:23,24 +84:6,9 86:14 +87:3 +89:20 93:1 +produce 41:9,11 +48:24 50:13 +53:15 54:5 91:13 +product 11:20 12:8 +12:12 15:19,25 +18:6,18 19:20 +20:2,22,25 21:1 +21:4,5 22:2 +24:24 25:1,2,5,5 +25:8,9,23 26:3,8 +production 34:16 +53:18 +Professional 51:6 +95:7 +professor's 66:1 +program 21:14 +prominent 66:23 +proper 7:24 72:8 +properly 49:16 +property 10:16 +48:8,13,15,20 +53:21 +proposed 32:5 +42:16 +proposition 17:8 +25:7 26:14 +36:6 +36:8 90:1 +prosecute 68:25 +69:3 71:25 72:5 +72:6 73:20,23 +74:5,7,15,16 +86:21 +prosecuted 60: 4 +68:20 +prosecuting 48:25 +prosecution 12:11 +59:4,24,25 60:1 +60:4 63:1 69:19 +71:17,20 75:5,7 +75:13 80:24 +86:16 +prosecutor 17:5,23 +18:1 64:23 81:14 +prosecutorial +67:10,22 68:1,4 +68:5,11 69:4 +70:10,12 71:1 +74:13 +82:10 85:7 +86:21 +prosecutors 20:5 +24:1 53:24 64:6 +64:10 +76:17 +86:25 +protect 11:10 13:8 +24:8 25:1 +protectable 11:1 +protected 22:22 +28:25 48:13,20 +57:3 61:8 73:6 +protecting 22:11 +protection 13:23 +21:4 77:5,9 +protections 21:10 +prove 22:18 28:10 +54:9 +64:12 89:3 91:22 +provide 13:17 +40:22 43:5 51:24 +55:5 92:9,15 +provided 43:20 +52:2 +: 54:20 61:17 +67:6 92:9 +provides 60:10 +proving 27:4 51:19 +provision 36:22 +42:25 60:8,12 +75:1,3,11,11 +77:7,8 +provisions 62:10 +66:22 67:7 84:14 +public 5:6 57:14 +75:22 76:21 +77:16 93:21 +publicly 58:15 +purport 4:10 +purpose 4:19 8:7 +14:24,25 15:1 +16:9 20:18 +purposes 10:7 +37:14 77:24 +84:8 +pursuant 46:12 +77:25 +pursue 6:1,15 +pushed 87: 7 +put 5:18 6:3 9:10 +13:4 18:4 30:18 +32:9 49:17,18 +58:19 92:24 +putting 5:2 57:18 +puzzle 27:22 +P.m 1:17 +question 11:23 +12:14 14:13 16:1 +18:11 21:5 37:14 +41:5 44:7 47:3,3 +56:6 58:12,18 +60:25 63:12 66:1 +66:3 68:8 82:10 +82:20 86:13 90:2 +questions 51:4 +64:1 86:15 +Quinney 2:6 +quite 19:6 49:18 +50:9 58:21 66:7 +quote 58:25 59:24 +62:25 67:8,9,12 +85:6 +quoting 61:4 62:8 +62:25 +R +R3:1 95:1 +raise 18:13 29:5 +29:10 +raised11:8,19 +29:6,9 30:15 +50:23 51:3 56:19 +86:2 +raising 18:12 44:4 +44:5 86:14 +RDR 1:21 +reach 36:18 39:4 +63:6 +reached 16:20 89:7 +91:13 +read 26:12 34:8 +60:13 62:21 +reading 67:16 +real 18:22 33:25 +realize 7:15 +really5:8,12 13:9 +27:1,2,9 28:6,8 +30:20 35:21 +45:17 66:3 87:5 +89:23 91:4 +reason 4: 18 16:3 +17:13 24:11 32:9 +47:8 59:17 69:8 +91:16 +reasonable 9:4 +63:2 64:12 66:24 +67:15 81:13 85:9 +reasonably 61:7 +reasoning 20:8 +reasons 4:12 15:24 +22:7 41:6 44:23 +45:1 54:5 63:9 +64:8 +rebuttal 93:3 +recall 49:6 64:16 +92:21 +recalling 89:2 +receive 14:15 +25:22 43:17 54:3 +received 51:10 +receiving 37:2 +Recess 66:16 +reckless 6: 9 +recognized 8:6 +11:6 12:20 13:14 +86:6 +recognizing 75:7 +85:5 +record 36:16,21 +38:24 +40:2 46:6 +95:10 +redact 25:20 +redacted 15:12,12 +25:16 54:18,19 +57:18,19,25 +refer 71:14 +reference 73:9 +77:15 +referenced 79:3 +80:10 +referred 25:10 +39:18 51:5 +refers 13:17 +refused 34:21 +41:20 +refusing 51:24 +regard 19:2 93:9 +regarding 20:17 +28:22 30:9 +regardless 28:7 +46:15 + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2013 Pagepage 14 +113 +regulations 4:16 +Reinhart 2:22 3:20 +3:21 4:4,5,7 5:9 +7:6 8:13 9:11,15 +9:18 10:2 +Reinhart's 10:1,7 +reject 83:1 +rejected 85: 4 86:3 +relate13:21 29:14 +related 54: 8 +relates 10:16 14:8 +relatives 81:11 +released 23:11 +76:2,3,7 +relevant 28: 9 36:2 +37:12,12 40:11 +40:17,25 42:22 +49:5 51:17 52:8 +52:11,23 53:16 +54:3 79:3 87:16 +relief 8:22 27:21 +28:11,17 +reluctant 10:4 +rely 17:10 34:13 +40:4 59:22 61:20 +61:21 62:1,3 +63:24 89:11 +relying 17:7 26:5 +remaining 77:18 +remanded 11:5 +remarks 61:13 62:8 +62:14 92:22,24 +remedial 84:4,8 +remedy 27:21 28:11 +28:16 31:8 40:21 +43:24 44:12,13 +45:5 51:22 85:24 +89:6 +remember 12: 3 18:9 +43:18 +render 69:16 +repeatedly 40:18 +reply 33:9,19,21 +report 4:22 21:15 +95:9 +reported 1:20 4:24 +reporter 66:11 +95:7 +reporting 21:21 +represent 8: 8 +representation +51:2 +represented 10:14 +representing 12:1 +request 18:17 +34:12,15 41:22 +41:22 43:14 +88:21 93:20 +requesting 7:7 +requests 35:3 41:9 +42:13 53:5,17 +89:1 +require 42:14 +63:13 77:19 +83:13 +requirement 85:8 +requires 19:4 +77:12 91:12| +requiring 22:24 +29:7 +reserve 10:4, 7 +32:13 +Residences 11:14 +resolution 47:14 +47:21 85:23 +resolve 22:13 +29:24 32:10 +46:24 47:18 +70:19 82:16 +83:4 +resolved 13:2,2 +47:2 +resort 74:7 +Resources 92:13 +respect 76:17 +77:11 +respected 83: 3 +respectfully 5:24 +48:4 69:6 +respond 5: 3,7 +30:23 32:20 +8:4 +33:4 +39:15 +responded 5: 8 +18:16 +Respondent 1: 8 +2:13 +responding 27:15 +responds 33:11,14 +response 7:13 +9:15 +29:4 35:12 39:18 +40:24 63:18 +responses 15:11 +27:13 +responsibilities +81:22 +responsibility +20:4 51:6 81:12 +81:14 +responsible 65:9 +80:21 +81:4,19 +rest 23: 8 +restatement 20:16 +result 13:6 54:2 +resulted12:7 +return 71:16 78:2 +78:6 79:16 +returned 68:15 +returning 71:10 +revealed27:9 +reversing 61:10 +review 46:5 +reviews 46:6 +ribbon 51:15 +right 3:24 4:11 +7:11 8:3 9:23 +10:3,8,14,15,18 +10:21 11:11,21 +16:23 17:13,14 +18:17 19:18,25 +20:9,15,24 24:10 +24:23 26:5 27:2 +28:18 30:12,23 +30:25 31:13 +32:12 33:22,24 +34:5 39:6,20 +41:14 42:1 44:24 +45:6 46:14 47:23 +48:18,21,22,23 +50:7 51:16 53:4 +53:24,24,25 54:7 +54:23 56:1,16,23 +57:22 58:5,7 +61:1,7 63:2 +64:16 66:9,17,21 +66:24 68:7 +70:11 +70:16 73:4,4,6 +73:12,21 74:3,12 +74:22,25 75:22 +76:4 77:2,5,12 +78:9,12,14,15,17 +78:20,23 82:6 +83:17 84:16,20 +84:22,24,24 85:5 +86:24,25 87:1,6 +87:22 88:11,12 +88:13,17 89:21 +90:3,13,13 91:4 +91:25 94:1,4 +rights 8:11,11 +26:21 27:5,7,19 +27:24 28:6,15 +34:10 35:13 36:5 +36:25 37:3 38:20 +43:11,16,23 44:5 +44:12,17 45:22 +46:1,3,25 47:13 +51:20 53:24 +58:13,16,17,21 +58:23 59:5,11,23 +60:2,15,18,21 +61:1,2,4,5,8,15 +62:6,16,19,25 +63:7,10,14 64:3 +64:15,18.18,20 +64:20 65:1,6,12 +65:14,16,23 66:5 +66:8 70:11,15,17 +71:9,19 72:11,12 +72:18 73:2,17 +74:19,24 75:9,12 +75:15,19 76:9,13 +76:16,25 77:8,13 +80:22 81:2,3,6 +81:20,21,24 82:2 +82:4,11.12,23,25 +83:2,4, 8 84:4,11 +84:19 +86:7,9,18 +86:18 87:11 88:5 +88:5,9,18 89:3,7 +90:19 91:2,15 +92:25 +ripe 36:18,19 +road 25:25 63:19 +robber 64:25 +robbery 65:4 +robber's 65:3 +room 2: 7 56:13 +routinely 86:3 +Roy 2:19 3:16 +31:16 +Rubin 44:18 +rubric 22:1 +rule 6:14,16 7:8 +8:19 9:3 10:15 +10:25 13:16,16 +13:17 14:3,8,15 +14:16,16,20 +21:18 +22:22 +25:11 +35:11 +36:12 38:5 39:15 +41:19,23 56:5,8 +56:13,14 57:10 +62: 4 70:24 80:11 +84: 3 85:16 88:17 +91:1,5 +rules 4:16 5:20 +6:7 12:17,18,19 +13:7,17 24:3 +25:10 41:16,17 +42:6,8,9,10,14 +42:14,21 45:1 +46:2 88:24 +ruling 10:4,6,7 +32:13 +rulings 94:5 +run 44:17 +running 77:25 +runs 64:25 +S + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2013 Pagepage 15 +113 +$ 2:20,22 3:1 +safeguards 13:7,10 +13:18 17:16 +sake 82:21 +Salt 2:8 +sanction 5:15 8:19 +sanctioned 6:10 +sanctions 4:25 +13:7 +Santobello 12:22 +17:12 +sat 64:23 65: 8 +86:19 +satellite8:23 9:2 +saying 4: 7 7:10,11 +10:17 13:13 +18:16,25 19:12 +27:16 34:19 37:8 +38:8 42:9 49:23 +61:14 62:7 64:18 +65:3 68:4,6 +69:25 70:8 +79:10 +86:17 88:22 +89:19,23 90:7 +92:24 +says 10:24 11:5,16 +14:4 17:25 +43:15 44:6,18 +58:25 60:8,17 +74:5,7 81:4 +84:1 +85:15 +86:11 +87:21 +scenario 26:20 +scope 18:20 28:10 +sealed 51:14 +65:22 +search 43: 5 +seated 3: 3 66:17 +second 17:20 35:9 +51:20 53:16 +secondly 30:6 +44:12 64:10 +section 38: 22 67:8 +see 16:19 26:24 +28:18 33:19,20 +38:22 50:9,14 +56:7 61:15 +65:20 +69:3 +80:19 +84:15 +seek 8:22 17:5 +27:21 28:11 +44:16 45:22 +seeking 11:10 +17:23 44:13 +46:5 +48:7,16 +seeks 75:12 +seen 17:2 26:23 +Senate 61:15 +Senator 61:13,14 +61:18,23 62:4,7 +62:14 92:22,23 +93:3,15,16,17 +send 6: 11 15:25 +16:2,5 35:2 +69:1 +sending 32:1 +sends 20:19 +sense 45:18 46:10 +sent 4:21 17:4 +21:7 36:23 49:19 +49:22 61:19,24 +86:17 88:1 92:23 +sentence 31:9 +89:15,16 +90:8,12 +sentenced 31: 9 +sentences 89:12 +sentencing 12:16 +separate 29:17 +34:25 37:17 +46:17 59:15 +Separation 69:17 +series 17:19 45:12 +serious 19:15 +93:11 +served 57: 4 +serves 8: 7 +set 7:25 18:15 +44:13 49:8 +63:23 +73:2 85:25 89:8 +89:12 90:2 +91:17 +setting 40:21 +43:24 +seventies 13:12 +sex 43:19 +share 52:12,13 +shared 56:11 +short 6:13 +62:2 +shortly 52:4 +show 6:8,17 7:22 +44:11 51:22 +64:9 +90:4 91:18,19,20 +showing 52:11 +shown 23:3 +47:20 +shows 91:14 +side 32:20 +34:18 +54:24 55:1,19 +93:14 +sides 32:14 42:24 +signed 36:22 65:22 +80:12 +significant 82:11 +93:18 +significantly11:1 +12:24 +similar 16:24 26:2 +35:18 +simple 43:6 44:7 +67:3 84:12 +simplify 38:1 +simply 5:21 6:6 +9:10 42:9 43:9 +43:10,21 51:15 +55:3,8 59:7 +84:11 85:12 +87:24 +88:8,23 +93:13 +single 26:13 59:13 +sir 12:9,13 17:10 +18:8 24:14 31:14 +32:17 79:5 82:19 +sit 39:9 40:16 +situation 54:3 +59:25 60:2,11 +64:19 77:1 89:23 +situations 44:17 +six 62:7 +slanderous 6:20,22 +Smith 90:8, 8, 12 +somebody 29:8 30:4 +35:17 46:4,8 +48:7 57:4,12 +60:14 68:9,10 +70:18 71:12 +72:16 75:14 76:2 +76:20 81:7 82:15 +somewhat 54:8 +soon 11:7,18 21:2 +sorry 20:13 35:4 +41:20 79:5 80:19 +sort 5:2,15 6:2,12 +40:13 41:7 +Sounds 33:17 +South 2: 7 +Southern 1: 1 47:1 +47:6 51:2,5 60:6 +speak 36:10 55:14 +speaks 14:3 +specific 7:14 +40:23 41:9 42:25 +64:7,7 65:10 +77:16 86:19 +specifically 62:24 +73:9 +specificity 87:4 +spoken 26:15 +sponte 6:17 +spot 30:18 +springs 77:6 +spurt 86:10 +squabble 49:21 +square 42:17 +Srebnick 2:19 +stage 18:19 65:2 +stages 64:5 69:9 +93:1 +stake 24:21 50:9 +87:13 +staking 84:10 +stand 5:17 25:6 +90:1 +standard 9:3,4 +31:11 +standing 8:14,15 +8:19 23:10,13,15 +25:1 76:15,18 +stands 24:22 26:14 +stark 44:7 +starkly 41:2 +start 4: 7 5:21 7:2 +27:6 34:6 39:2 +58:9 65:2 +starting 17:19,19 +state 3: 5 12:2 +15:22 32:4 95:3 +95:7 +stated 56:25 +statement 6:22 +14:2,2,5,10 +19:11 25:15 +29:12 38:15,16 +39:16 61:22,25 +statements 13:14 +13:19,21 14:1,9 +27:3 28:23 29:15 +31:6,7,18,23 +States 1:1,7,16 +3:5,8,9,10 12:1 +12:4,6 13:12 +14:14 17:10,15 +17:24 35:16 +40:10,16,18,24 +41:2 59:2 68:17 +69:18 71:22 +72:15,21 74:21 +80:6 81:15 93:20 +statistics 12:25 +statute 48:3 58:19 +59:21 67:3,15,16 +80:4 83:3 84:5 +84:11 87:13,15 +87:16,19 +statutes 15:20, 20 +67:4 +statutory 44:5 +47:2,25 62:10 +67:1 84:2 89:13 +89:16 +stenographic 95:11 +stenographically +1:20 95:9 +step 23:18, 20 +41:17 +steps 64:25 +stipulate 50:3 + + +stipulated 40:2 +stop 87:11 +stopped 41:21 +straightforward +90:6 +strategies 27:8 +street 2:15 5:19 +strongest 79:17 +struggled 14:13 +stuck 35:18,21 +38:2 +Stumpf 2:19 +style 49:16 +styled 42:5 +sua 6:17 +subject 26:13 +92:14 +submission 32:18 +32:19 +submit 41:5,9 +85:24 +submits 33:4 +submitted 83:14 +subpoena 57:4, 9 +subsection 75:2 +77:11 79:11 +80:15 81:2,6 +subsections 73:23 +82:3 +subsequent 77:25 +subsequently 78:4 +substance 89:14,19 +92:19 +substantive 4: 3 +40:20 +substantively 90:3 +subsumed 29:18 +successful 74:18 +sudden 86:10 +sufficient 6: 8 +31:11 71:15 +suggest 28:4 42:7 +53:13 60:22 63:4 +73:10 75:9 77:17 +suggested 29:25 +suggesting 70:2 +74:14 92:12,25 +suggests 43: 3 +Suite 2:4,10, 15,20 +2:23 +summary 22:15 +34:10 35:18 38:8 +38:11 39:12,14 +39:18 49:17 +superfluous 59:7 +Supp 11:15 +supplemental 61:17 +support 6: 5 40:19 +Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2013 Pageplage"16 +113 +Suppose 90:7 +supposed 5:20 +42:24 44:21 +50:18 +Supreme 10:24 +12:20 13:15 +17:15 +sure 19:19 29:11 +49:18 61:20,24 +84:8 92:20 +sworn 34:11 +system 5:16 7:1 +12:16,17 13:3,4 +24:9,11 32:11 +T +T95:1,1 +tailored 89:1 +take 9:21 14:17 +42:13 48:16 +52:21 53:17 +59:6 +62:2 64:24 66:14 +76:17 85:11 89:6 +taken 40:24 93:22 +talk 15:19 17:16 +33:24 34:1 39:24 +40:7,11 56:12 +58:7 94:2 +talked 34:19 +54:12 +77:3,4 +talking 13:25 +23:9 +26:17 +54:8,16,22 +57:15 71:23,24 +77:18,20 80:17 +80:19 +talks 49:4 +52:18 +75:1 +80:11,16 +task 43:6 66:20 +67:1 +tax 5:18 +tell27:16 31:21 +75:11 +telling 37:2 74:9 +tells 31:5 +term 50:7 79:3 +87:12 +terms 11:13 29:23 +35:22 39:25 +67:16,24 +72:9 +test 22:19 +testimony 83:13 +textbook 11:20 +thank 8: 3, 5 9:23 +9:25 24:14,15 +28:18 30:12,13 +30:14 31:1,14 +32:12 33:1,2,23 +40: 8 45:6,8 49:1 +49:2, 3 54:7 +56:18 58:6,11 +66:9,19 68:24 +82:17 83:17,18 +83:25 91:25 92:1 +92:4 93:24,25 +94:4,4 +theirs 41:19 +theoretical64:1,4 +theory 60:9,12 +thick 15:15 +thing 3:25 16:18 +20:15 23:9 27:22 +40:15 42:14 +53:20 72:8 74:4 +87:21 +things 15:18 17:17 +21:7,23 23:6 +32:3,5, 7 34:20 +35:3 37:4 38:1 +40:15 42:20 43:4 +49: 5 67:5 68:19 +68:20 69:10 +72:21 82:13 +93:6 +think 4:1 5:12 +7:17 8:24 13:9 +14:20 18:22 19:6 +19:10,13 21:22 +22:2,7,8,19,21 +22:23 23:12,18 +24:3 30:22 31:10 +37:24 39:6,10,11 +39:13,23 40:16 +41:1 42:21 43:6 +44:7 45:2 49:5,7 +49:24 50:7 51:1 +51:14 52:3,8,10 +52:15,18 53:1,1 +53:15 54:7,13 +56:2,3,6,14,21 +56:21,22 58:12 +58:18 59:15,16 +60:25 61:10,21 +61:25 62:13,15 +62:22 63:17 64:2 +64:20 65:7 66:2 +66:5,11,12 68:21 +69:3,24 71:15 +77:16 79:9,20 +80:20 83:20 84:1 +84:3,12,16,21 +85:19 86:7,9 +87:3,23 88:10,17 +89:22 90:5,16 +91:1,1,2,5,12 +93:2,10,13 94:3 +thinking 26:6 65:4 +thinks 61:25 +third14:19 17:3 +21:3 41:13,14 +42:5 51:21 64:14 +Thornburgh 10:23 +thought 3:25 10:6 +14:8 32:6 49:25 +thoughts 69:22 +threatened 81: 9 +three 10:13 33:20 +41:6 77:18 86:5 +thrown 5:5 +tie 29:12 +time 12:21 18:19 +21:8 22:8 27:14 +30:19 32:18,23 +33:3 35:23 49:4 +66:12 72:16 +75:17 78:1,5 +79:15 +times 22:16 23:21 +23:23 31:10 +timing 49:4 +today 3:25 4:9 +5:13,14 6: 6 10:6 +16:4 20:1 22:11 +55:7 84:10 87:4 +88:18 +90:7 91:6 +told68:22 69:11 +88:3,4,7 +tolerate 6:12 +touch 49:5 +touched 30:7 +track 86:9 +transaction 10:16 +transcript 95:10 +treated 44:6,24 +48:22 53:25 73:4 +74:2,6 84:9 +88:12 90:20 91:3 +treating 44:9 48:2 +treatment 84:5, 20 +trial13:3,4 14:9 +27:8 64:11 90:13 +trickier 91:11 +tried 35:5 42:3 +trigger 63:14 87:9 +triggered 27:7 +36:5 60:15 64:4 +triggering 36:13 +60:17 79:10 +triggers 87:6 +true 4:23 5:1,13 +5:14 6:25 29:25 +36:1 37:13 38:7 +49:24 60:9 +95:10 +try 6:19 19:4 +22:18 31:8 34:6 +43:3 71:9 94:5 + + +trying 9:8 13:10 +16:25 19:18 +22:13 37:20 +39:23 40:13 42:7 +44:20 50:8,16 +72:2 74:11 87:13 +turn 52:24 +turned 13:3 25:19 +41:12 +turns 87:5 +two 8: 9 17:17 +20:24 32:24 33:5 +33:6,7,10,15 +45:12 49:5 56:19 +67:14 90:8,10,11 +type 9:2 13:14,23 +14:6,21 16:6 +17:8 20:25 22:1 +23:9 26:10 +typically 45:15 +U +ultimate 16:1 22:9 +34:9 35:19 45:4 +72:6 +ultimately 28:12 +28:13 68:15 +74:18 85:9 89:5 +90:15 +uncertain 37:15,15 +uncontroverted +38:6 +undeniable 36:15 +undermine 68: 8 +understand 7:6,19 +11:24 27:16 +38:13 52:9 55:20 +58:14 68:25 72:2 +74:11 90:23 +understanding +43:20 51:8 54:17 +80:8 +understood 19:19 +87:8 +undertake 43:4 +underway 59:24 +60:1,4 63:1 75:5 +75:7,13 +undisputed 38:15 +38:16,17,21 +unenforceable +89:24 +unfair 84:5 +unilaterally 25:20 +unique 26:20 +United 1:1,7,16 +3: 4,8,9,10 12:1 +Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2013 Pageplage '17 +113 +12:4,6 13:12 +14:14 17:10,14 +17:24 35:16 +40:10,16,18,24 +41:2 59:2 68:17 +69:18 71:22 +72:15,21 +74:21 +80:6 81:14 93:19 +University 2:7 +unnecessary 47:9 +unopposed 53:7 +54:13 56:3 +unreasonable 78:21 +unredacted 54:11 +56:22 58:3 +unredacting 56:19 +unseal 29:5,19,20 +unsealed 54:11,11 +55:23 58:3 +unsealing 56:4 +upset 74:12 +urging 27:16 +use 13:22 14:17,20 +14:25 15:1,3,4 +16:7,7,8,15 +20:20 21:6 22:5 +29:5,20 30:9 +31:5,7,12,17,18 +34:23 43:1,11,16 +54:9,14 55:3,22 +56:23 87:24 +useful 41:1 50:8 +uses 15:6 +USJ 2:6 +usually 45:23 +Utah 2:7,8 +utilized81:5 +U.S2:15 9:11 +17:15 27:14,14 +44:18 51:2,4 +54:22 +71:14,14 +89:18 +v11:14 +17:24 +13:12 +44:18 48:5 +48:6 +vacate 31:8 +vacated 70:3 +various 15:24 30:1 +32:2 37:12 38:24 +39:2 67:3,7 +68:20 +venue 60:8, 9, 10, 12 +75:3,11 +version 39:7 +versus 3: 4 10:23 +17:11 35:16 +48:14 92:13 +veto 70:21 +victim 45:25 48:25 +60:2 61:7 67:21 +71:12 72:4 73:17 +74:5 76:6,7,8 +78:10,11 +victims 4: 11 8:9,9 +8:11 23:3 26:20 +27:5,17,23 28:6 +28:15 35:13 +38:20 40:20 41:1 +41:3,4 42:23 +43:2,11,16,17,23 +44:5,6,9,12,16 +44:19,21 45:22 +51:20 52:12,13 +52:14,23 53:21 +54:10 58:9,13,16 +58:17,21 59:5,11 +59:23 60:15,18 +61:2 62:6,19 +63:7,10 64:3,8 +64:14,16,18 +65:14,16,23,23 +66:5,8 68:22 +70:20 71:8 77:8 +83:284:4,6,8 +85:9 86:9,18 +87:11 88:5,18,18 +89:3 91:15 +victim's 63:2 +view 10:1 43:12 +48:18 62:18 79:7 +83:13 +Villafana 2: 14 3:8 +29:3 +30:14,22 +31:1 33:3,6 +56:16 83:21 +violated 4:15 8:12 +26:21 27:4,19,25 +27:25 28:5,15 +44:18 47:13,17 +49:1 50:21 76:13 +76:16 82:25 83:5 +84:19 87:2 89:4 +90:18 91:2,15 +violation 14:20 +23:13,14 24:3 +28:10 29:14 30:3 +34:10 35:20 +36:17 39:5 40:1 +40:21 41:4 44:11 +84:25 88:11,12 +88:13 89:7 +violations 4:10 +21:15 23:24 +29:21 38:20 +40:20 43:23 +51:19,21 54:10 +violence 71:12 +81:8 +virtually 8:25 +vitiated 57:13 +voice 70:21,22,24 +void90:17 +voluntary 25:8 +vs 1:6 +W +wait 33:19 40:6 +90:9 +waive 20:21,25 +21:3 +waived 57:2 +waives 25:9 +walking 84:13 +want 4: 7 5:9 9:1 +15:1 20:14,23 +21:6 27:1 28:18 +30:18,19 31:2,5 +31:7,18 32:14,23 +33:3,10,18 +36:9,13 39:11 +49:12,21 +51:13 +55: 3 56:17,23 +61:15 62:1,4,5 +65:25 +66:11 +76:13 82:6 83:21 +90:25 91:18 +wanted 9:24 17:16 +20:15 35:1 37:18 +83:22 92:15 +wants 8:1,4 40:11 +Washington 51:6 +wasn't 58:22 +way 14:3,21 16:22 +18:4 31:6,23,25 +37:10 39:4,23 +42:15,19 47:12 +58:18 +65:7 85:9 +87:6 88:16 90:18 +91:9 +ways 39:10 75:21 +week 33:12,16, 22 +weeks 32:24 33:5, 6 +33:7,10,15 45:12 +45:15 49:11 +61:17 62:7 +weight 37:11 +Weinberg 3:17 +Weissing 2:3 +welcome 58:7 +went 9:7 11:5 + + +Case 9:08-CV-80736-KAM Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2013 Pagepage* 18 +113 +27:22 36:24 51:2 +64:17 +weren't 49:18 70:3 +70:5 74:1 91:3 +West 1:16 2:23 +we'11 40: 7 +we're 5:16 9:20 +18:18,19 32:8 +35:4 37:20 40:23 +41:11,20 42:7,7 +42:15,17 43:9,21 +43:25 47:13 50:3 +50:12 51:12 65:3 +65:4 71:16,23,24 +74:6 77:17 88:24 +88:25 89:2 91:23 +92:12 +we've 13:3 25:25 +26:24 27:24 +34:19,20 35:20 +40:13,15,18,22 +49:12 50:2 54:8 +60:9 70:23 77:3 +84:19 +wife 5:19 +win 93:6 +wins 52:20 +withhold 40:10,25 +41:2 42:5 43:4 +44:10 45:2 +wondering 40:14,15 +word 13:22 80:4,8 +words 19: 8 67:2 +87:18,24 +work 11:20 +18:6,18 +19:20 20:2,21,25 +21:1,3,5 22:2 +24:24 25:1,2,5,5 +25:8,9,23 26:3,8 +34:23 35:7 39:9 +49:8,12,20,22,23 +50:3 55:6 75:20 +worked 49:10 +working 49:10,14 +world12:23 16:14 +worried 64:5 +worry 15:2 16:21 +86:1 +wouldn't 23:7 +46:18 62:1 68:21 +69:3,22 85:17 +wrapped 51:15 +wrestling 63:16 +write15:3 93:15 +93:16 +writing 30:23 +32:16 +written 15:16 +53:12 59:20 +wrong 39:21 42:2 +wrote 31:19 +year 12:25 +36:24 +50:1 92:5 +years 12:23 13:11 +61:24 69:1 +86:5 +90:9,10,11 +# +#11:3 +#21:4 +0 +08-80736 3:5 +08-80736-Civ-M.. +1 +13:4,13 +53:22 +64:17 65:19 +69:10 +73:8 80:17 +80:18,20,25 81:1 +86:22 +87:25 88:1 +88:2,3,7 +89:8 +90:19 +1023:8 +10th 88:1 +1012:7 +116:16 +8:19 9:3 +14:15,16 +70:25 +61:3 +11th60:24 +77:5 +11 (e) (6) 13:16 +11 (f) 13:16 +119710:24 +121:15 +125711:15 +1300 2:20 +133011:3 +14002:7,23 +15th 95:12 +15-minute 66:14 +17th 93:21 +197717:12 +198910:24 +1990s 17:19 +19969:11 +2 +22:4 3:4,13 53:22 +64:17 +65:19 +69:11 +90:19 +86: 23 89:8 +2d10:24 11:3,15 +17:11 +2:001:17 +200513:1 +20079:12 69:8 +20089:11 45:13 +49:6 +59:13 60:24 +61:3 77:5 88:1 +2012:20 +20111:15 45:11 +95:12 +202-63602:24 +23rd 9:12 +247:8 +24 (a) 10:15 +24 (a) (2) 10:25 +24 (b) 6:14 +2502:10,22 +25717:15 +2635:11 41:19,24 +3 +375:3,5 +3.913:2 +3002:15 +3052:16,21 +322112:11 +331312:20 +331322:16 +3322:7 +333012:4 +334011:16 2:23 +371-64212:21 +3771 (a) 61:5 73:2 +3771 (a) (1) 46:25 +66:22 77:3,6 +81:13 +3771 (a) (5) 66:24 +77:11 79:17 +80:14 +3771 (a) (8) 48:22 +3771 (d) (3) 69:13 +3771 (d) (6) 67:8 +4 +41013:17 14:3,16 +20:18 25:11,24 +31:12 +4252:4 +5 +579:11 84:24 +5069:1 +50121:18,19 +524-2820 2:5 +53 38:17,21 49:18 +53-page 39:3 52:9 +54417:11 +5612:24 +585-5202 2:8 +6 +622:22 69:2 74:7 +74:10 +6 (e) 19:23 22:24 +23:1,14,19,24 +24:3 29:6 30:6 +56:5,8,13,14,20 +56:24 57:1,10,12 +6442:10 +680-12342:11 +7 +7 (c) 80:11 +7.538:5 +71611:15 +735 11:3 +79117:11 +8 +8 46:25 66:22 +73:25 +8013:11 +8012:8 +84112-07302:8 +86510:24 +8713:1 +90 51:16 +9042:11 +9542:5 +961-93202:16 +992:15 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a36ab37465a93e3f920aab2bc46a912f90ba4cc608ffed6d543d6ddcd3dd8be4.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a36ab37465a93e3f920aab2bc46a912f90ba4cc608ffed6d543d6ddcd3dd8be4.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cda0f763181edd65107eb805487a43d4f888e4ad --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a36ab37465a93e3f920aab2bc46a912f90ba4cc608ffed6d543d6ddcd3dd8be4.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -5823, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "a36ab37465a93e3f920aab2bc46a912f90ba4cc608ffed6d543d6ddcd3dd8be4", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 114, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": false, + "input_sha256": "0c0aa6899692741ddae03e897bf9ce3ea45e9f35b2658c431d4bd6f959837867", + "output_sha256": "a2775cde505285d765a76f938d2187a8dc3ee6bf28cd8bc93d69150e6a7082b0", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a447dfc276376a49480401d4f3ecf8da2eb82a2bd3c4cd3a09d02ca01ede4308.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a447dfc276376a49480401d4f3ecf8da2eb82a2bd3c4cd3a09d02ca01ede4308.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d54ddafc5910d7b773db337160ab0ea556a90d3c --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a447dfc276376a49480401d4f3ecf8da2eb82a2bd3c4cd3a09d02ca01ede4308.md @@ -0,0 +1,42 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 72-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/03/2009 Page 1 of 2 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 5, +VS. +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/ +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/ +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/ +ORDER + + +Case 9:08-cV-80381-KAM Document 72-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/03/2009 Page 2 of 2 +Upon Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Enlargement of Time to File Reply Memoranda in +Support of Motions to Compel Answers to Interrogatories and Production of Documents, and good +cause being shown, it is hereby +ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion is granted. Plaintiffs shall have an enlargement of time of +two (2) weeks, until April 20, 2009, to file reply memoranda in support of the Motions to Compel +Answers to Interrogatories and Production of Documents. +DONE AND ORDERED in +1. in Ft. Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, this +day of +- 2009. +DISTRICT COURT JUDGE diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a447dfc276376a49480401d4f3ecf8da2eb82a2bd3c4cd3a09d02ca01ede4308.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a447dfc276376a49480401d4f3ecf8da2eb82a2bd3c4cd3a09d02ca01ede4308.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0b704cd1991554f611d29efdb0f71131ba9deab8 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a447dfc276376a49480401d4f3ecf8da2eb82a2bd3c4cd3a09d02ca01ede4308.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -24, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "a447dfc276376a49480401d4f3ecf8da2eb82a2bd3c4cd3a09d02ca01ede4308", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "56a6575bb9c51710bd38980c1bfae31414e6450a2d47b36a9a3ef9040ce72528", + "output_sha256": "6624ab6c70e2df61384bbc2a1e11c63539ccb38bf3fe00534f54829d6b145048", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a44f8565bf583d9ac72534655dcb362d71404a36fd89c86489aa8b7bc1a95705.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a44f8565bf583d9ac72534655dcb362d71404a36fd89c86489aa8b7bc1a95705.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f0ee6ae6fb2ed4d811207f8b262ebb18c6979ad7 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a44f8565bf583d9ac72534655dcb362d71404a36fd89c86489aa8b7bc1a95705.md @@ -0,0 +1,32 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 138-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/06/2012 Page 1 of 2 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/ +JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, +Petitioners, +VS. +UNITED STATES, +Respondent. +ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT'S SECOND MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF +TIME TO FILE REPLIES AND RESPONSES TO PETITIONERS' +RESPONSES AND MOTIONS FILED ON DECEMBER 5, 2011 +THIS MATTER is before the Court upon respondent's second motion for enlargement of +time to file replies and responses to petitioners' responses and motions filed on December 5, +2011. Having carefully considered the same, and finding that good cause has been shown, and +petitioners do not oppose the motion, it is +ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that respondent's motion is GRANTED. Respondent +shall have up to and including January 24, 2012, to file its reply to petitioners' response to +Government's sealed motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (D.E. 127), and +petitioners' response to Government's sealed motion to stay (D.E. 129); and to file its response + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 138-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/06/2012 Page 2 of 2 +to petitioners' protective motion for remedies (D.E. 128), and protective motion to compel (D.E. +130). +DONE AND ORDERED at West Palm Beach, Florida, this +day of January, 2012. +KENNETH A. MARRA +UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE +CC: +Counsel of Record +2 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a44f8565bf583d9ac72534655dcb362d71404a36fd89c86489aa8b7bc1a95705.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a44f8565bf583d9ac72534655dcb362d71404a36fd89c86489aa8b7bc1a95705.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..78d787f714c57820eebfd4ed14a29c347e00c57d --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a44f8565bf583d9ac72534655dcb362d71404a36fd89c86489aa8b7bc1a95705.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -24, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "a44f8565bf583d9ac72534655dcb362d71404a36fd89c86489aa8b7bc1a95705", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "deedefcba49ed966d18e8f2bc8f7678dfe736185b1596c718f3bf862404c3d38", + "output_sha256": "6e5dd985762bf9ee77ef3ae50c7950d3a903aa534d317534816826496102706d", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a45569b7209272b0a76682573e57db9c680f97e80e455d369a139fb7c9afdcd8.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a45569b7209272b0a76682573e57db9c680f97e80e455d369a139fb7c9afdcd8.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..766a1619918420d6a00850c6ce9b3f2c3a1d3734 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a45569b7209272b0a76682573e57db9c680f97e80e455d369a139fb7c9afdcd8.md @@ -0,0 +1,73 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/28/2011 Page 1 of 3 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/ +JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, +Plaintiffs, +V. +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, +Defendant. +/ +NOTICE OF OBJECTION +Petitioners Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 have moved for disclosure of settlement letters +between the U.S. Attorney's Office and the lawyers who represented Jeffrey Epstein during a federal +criminal investigation. [DE 50 at 5]. Doe 1 and Doe 2 seek to use these letters as evidence in this +civil matter, and request the Court's permission to disseminate the letters to the international media +[DE 51]. Even though the letters are sealed and subject to a protective order issued by the Magistrate +Judge in the related case 9:08-CV-80893, at least one of these letters was leaked last week to The +Daily Beast, an online "omnivorous guide" to gossip and news that boasts 51 million web page +views.' +Some of the lawyers who represented Jeffrey Epstein during the federal criminal investigation +and whose work product was included in the settlement letters, object to the release and +dissemination the settlement letters. These lawyers will be filing a motion to intervene and a +memorandum of law within the 14-day period provided by the Rules to respond to DE 50 and DE +The Daily Beast, www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-03-25/jeffreyepstein-how-the-billionaire-pedophile-got-off-easy/2/, last visited March 27, 2011. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/28/2011 Page 2 of 3 +51, which Doe 1 and Doe 2 filed on March 21, 2011. +Members of the defense team will be objecting and seeking a protective order on the grounds +that the letters fall under the protections of opinion work-product of the lawyers, as well as the broad +protections of Federal Rules of Evidence 410 and 408, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11, and +the constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel. +The lawyers will also object to dissemination of these letters because they contain +information from the grand jury's investigation, and this information is confidential pursuant to +Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e). +In an abundance of caution, defense team members Roy Black and | +Weinberg, two of +the attorneys who represented Jeffrey Epstein during the investigation, are filing this pleading to +provide notice to the Court and the parties of the intention to object to the disclosures sought by Doe +1 and Doe 2. A motion to intervene for this purpose, and a memorandum of law, will be filed no +later than April 4, 2011. +Attorney +Weinberg, a member in good standing of the Massachusetts Bar, will be +filing a motion for permission to appear pro hac vice in these proceedings. +We certify that on March 28, 2011, we electronically filed the foregoing document with the +Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system. +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/28/2011 Page 3 of 3 +We also certify that a copy of the foregoing was sent via separate email to all counsel +of record. +G. WEINBERG, P.C. +20 Park Plaza +Suite 1000 +Boston, +02116 +Office: (617) 227-3700 +Fax: (617) 338-9538 +By. +Paced +TOrMARTING. WEINBERG, ESO. +Massachusetts Bar No. S 44X +Respectfully submitted, +BLACK, SREBNICK, KORNSPAN +& STUMPE, P.A. +201 South Biscayne Boulevard +Suite 1300 +Miami, Florida 33131 +Office: (305) 231-6421 +By. +ROY BLACK, ESQ. +Florida Bar No. 919063 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a45569b7209272b0a76682573e57db9c680f97e80e455d369a139fb7c9afdcd8.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a45569b7209272b0a76682573e57db9c680f97e80e455d369a139fb7c9afdcd8.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e2c5b7dfd2297e453b134f39d29fd450e274e271 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a45569b7209272b0a76682573e57db9c680f97e80e455d369a139fb7c9afdcd8.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -38, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "a45569b7209272b0a76682573e57db9c680f97e80e455d369a139fb7c9afdcd8", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 4, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "87af8a7ce0c93f5fd4c3470c746e809eef3f85c993a473e900abc88cac3cbf65", + "output_sha256": "62044a5e1a73e3bb14898c18faae52583ab1309870ce6cd32129409ccdeb0c20", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a463f8a419405f0cf583acc354168547a969a30b0d4536102b4c27700985326f.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a463f8a419405f0cf583acc354168547a969a30b0d4536102b4c27700985326f.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..778a551a5d23a560ce81d419743f023198de6368 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a463f8a419405f0cf583acc354168547a969a30b0d4536102b4c27700985326f.md @@ -0,0 +1,211 @@ +Case 1:19-cv-11869-MKV-DCF +Document 27 Filed 04/15/20 Page 1 of 4 +Florida Office +*0+ +Seth M. Lehrman "t +Brittany N. +*0 +Matthew D. Weissing "t +POTTINGER LLC +425 North Andrews Avenue +Suite 2 +Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 +Telephone (954)524-2820 +Fax (954)524-2822 +New York Office +J. Stanley Pottinger ‡ +† Admitted in Califomin +° Admitted in District +t of Columbi: +* Admitted in Florida +‡ Admitted in New York +* Board Certified Civil Trial Lawyer +Filed Via ECF +Magistrate Judge Debra C. Freeman +Daniel +Moynihan +United States Courthouse +500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 +Re: +VE v. Nine East 71" Street et al., No. 19-cv-07625 (S.D.N.Y.) (Nathan, J.) +Katlyn Doe v. Darren K. Indyke et al., 19-cv-07771 (S.D.N.Y.) (Castel, J.) +Pricilla Doe v. Darren K. Indyke et al., No. 19-cv-07772 (S.D.N.Y.) (Carter, J.) +Lisa Doe v. Darren K. Indyke et al., No. 19-cv-07773 (S.D.N.Y.) (Ramos, J.) +Anastasia Doe v. Darren K. Indyke, et al., No. 19-cv-11869 (S.D.N.Y.) (Nathan, J.) +Dear Judge Freeman, +We represent the five Plaintiffs referenced above whose cases have all been assigned to Your Honor. +We write to provide you with a Status Update regarding the progress of settlement discussions in the +cases. As Your Honor is likely aware, counsel for claimants have spent a substantial amount of time +working with both the Attorney General of the Virgin Islands and the Estate in an effort to facilitate the +establishment of an independent and Voluntary Claims Resolution Program ("Program") for the +purposes of resolving sexual abuse claims against Jeffrey Epstein. Unfortunately, we have reached a +point of apparent impasse, and thus felt it necessary to apprise the Court of the recent events that have +transpired. +As Your Honor is aware, on November 14, 2019, the Estate sought approval of the Program from the +probate court in the United States Virgin Islands. On January 15, 2020, just before the February 4, 2020 +hearing wherein approval of the Program was anticipated, the Attorney General of the Virgin Islands +filed a forfeiture action against the Estate along with a Criminal Activity Lien pursuant to the Criminally +Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("CICO"), effectively preventing the Estate from utilizing +Estate assets to administer the Program. +At the February 4, 2020 hearing in the Virgin Islands, Judge Hermon-Purcell informed everyone that the +Attorney General's lien precluded the Court from allowing the Program to proceed and urged the Estate +to meet with the Attorney General in an effort to resolve their disagreements to the extent necessary to +allow the Program to move forward. The Attorney General expressed that she did not wish to impede +the establishment of the Program, rather, she felt compelled to seek improvements to the Program to +425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 + + +Case 1:19-cv-11869-MKV-DCF Document 27 Filed 04/15/20 Page 2 of 4 +Page 2 +ensure that its administration is both fair to the victims and independent from the Estate. In furtherance +of that position, on February 10, the Attorney General wrote a letter to the Estate, outlining eleven +substantive concerns about the manner in which the proposed Program was structured. Summarily, the +Attorney General's main concerns centered on the following: (a) the independence of the Program +Designers and Administrator, who were unilaterally selected by the Estate; (b) ensuring that assets would +be preserved for victims who opted out of the program or came forward in the future to make sure that +opting out of the Program was a meaningful option; and (c) the scope of the releases required of victims +who participated in the program and their ability, and the ability of other witnesses, to cooperate with +law enforcement. After careful consideration, including in-person meetings with several of Mr. Epstein's +victims and counsel for many victims who flew back to the USVI, the Attorney General agreed to a +partial lifting of her lien to allow for the immediate and effective implementation of the Program if the +Estate would agree to certain improvements in the Program protocol. +While it is true that counsel for the victims agreed with the Program moving forward as it was prior to +the Attorney General's intervention, there were certain components of the Program that facially appeared +to favor the Estate to the prejudice of the victims. The most obvious example of this is that the Estate +unilaterally chose the Program Designers and Program Administrator, refusing to allow the victims or +counsel any input in that selection process despite many requests for same. This issue was raised as a +problem in front of Your Honor at the joint hearing on February 11, 2020. Your Honor even suggested +at that hearing that if the appearance of the Program was going to be one of fairness, then the victims +and their counsel should have some input in the selection process of the Administrator. The Estate did +not listen, which only heightened the concerns of the Attorney General. +We agree with the Attorney General that a Program of this nature requires excellent administration. For +that reason, after meeting with and working with her for many months, the undersigned counsel gained +confidence in the Estate selected Administrator, Jordana +1, and believes she is best suited to serve +in the role of Program Administrator. The Attorney General, however, has taken great issue with the +independence of the Program based on the fact that +and the Program Designers Ken +Feinberg and Camille Biros—were unilaterally selected by the Estate without input from the victims. +After much deliberation, and at the urging of the undersigned, the Attorney General agreed that her +impartiality concerns could be meaningfully satisfied so long as the Estate would agree to add a victimselected Administrator to serve alongside +We recommended Professor Marci +,, as she is the foremost expert on child sexual abuse in the +country. Professor +has a wealth of knowledge and experience in the area of sexual abuse and +would be an indispensable asset to the Program. Professor| +has an unparalleled understanding +of the dynamics of sexual abuse, common responses to sexual abuse, and the impact of sexual abuse on +victims. Because of | +unimpeachable record as an expert on the topic, the suggestion of +adding her to the Program was ultimately accepted by the Attorney General and also by the Estate, the +Program Designers, and the Program Administrator. +This agreement was promising, although +precise role had not been defined. In an effort +to ensure that Professor +expertise is utilized to the fullest extent possible, the Attorney +General wanted Professor +to have equal decision-making authority and for each claim to be +decided by a consensus agreement between +and Professor +• The Estate rejected +that notion outright claiming that any disagreement would delay what was designed to be an efficient +425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 + + +Case 1:19-cv-11869-MKV-DCF Document 27 Filed 04/15/20 Page 3 of 4 +Page 3 +process. Instead, the Estate proposed that| +on an as-needed basis. +would be available to consult with +On March 5, 2020, counsel for the Estate, counsel for the Attorney General, the undersigned counsel, +and the Program Administrator met in Miami, Florida in an effort to resolve all outstanding issues to +allow the Program to move forward, including to reach an agreement for Marci +role in the +Program. After the meeting, the undersigned believed all parties had agreed that Professor +would be a Program Consultant with the ability to make a meaningful impact on the Program, but that +all final claim decisions would rest exclusively with +Again, counsel for the victims found +this agreement to be hopeful—albeit far from the Attorney General's original demand as Professor +would be able to provide input and valuable information on sexual abuse that would assist in +the evaluation of the claims. +After the Miami meeting, varying role descriptions remained pending for Professor +The +Attorney General and the victims merely requested that in order to serve as a meaningful Consultant to +the Program, Professor +should be permitted to review the claimant's files and provide +information to +before evaluation decisions were made, understanding that +could choose to completely ignore any opinions or suggestions +made and that the ultimate +decision will rest exclusively with +The Estate rejected outright the idea of allowing +Professor +to have access to the claimant files, and instead maintained that Professor +would only be utilized to answer any general questions that may arise, if someone ever decided to call +her with a question. With confidence that Professor +involvement would enhance the quality +of the Program and serve as an additional protection for the victims, the Attorney General reluctantly +agreed to allow the Program to proceed notwithstanding the Estate's refusal to allow Professor +to have decision making authority or even access to the view claimants Program files, so long as the +Program mandated periodic meetings between +and Professor +The Estate and +Attorney General agreed to bi-monthly meetings between the two, resolving the issue. +In addition to the inclusion of Professor +as a Program Consultant and referral source for +counseling or other services to victims, all parties have agreed to make additional enhancements to the +Program including: 1) the probate court in the Virgin Islands will be responsible for approving and +overseeing the expenses in operating the Program, 2) information provided by victims during the +administration of the Program will be maintained as confidential and not be shared with the Estate or +used against victims in defending claims, 3) the Program will report to the probate court on an aggregate +basis the number and amount of claims awarded, and 4) a Victim Set-Aside Fund will be established +with guaranteed minimum funding of $25 million as a floor for victims who opt out of the Program or +who emerge within eighteen months of the Program's launch. +After what has turned into many months of time and effort expended to reach an agreement wherein the +Attorney General would allow the Program to move forward, all partiesthe Estate, the Attorney +General, and counsel for many of the victims did in fact agree on all aspects of the Program with the +exception of the language of the proposed release to be signed by claimants. Both the Attorney General +and the victims have asked that the release not include individual sex abusers aside from Jeffrey +Epstein. Unfortunately, the Estate has remained steadfast in its position to require claimants resolving +claims through the Program to release all abusers related to Epstein, making it clear that the release is +designed in part to protect any criminal associated with the Epstein enterprise. While the victims do not +425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 + + +Case 1:19-cv-11869-MKV-DCF Document 27 Filed 04/15/20 Page 4 of 4 +Page 4 +believe this makes the statement the Estate should want to make, the Estate has claimed to do so in an +effort to uphold their fiduciary duties. We recognize that the Program is whatever the Estate wants it to +be and that if any victim does not want to release other criminals associated with Mr. Epstein then she +can reject any offer made to her on that point. +In an effort to begin obtaining justice and compensation for our clients as soon as possible, counsel for +the victims have agreed to move forward with the Program using the release as drafted with the intention +of negotiating the finer points of the release if and when such negotiation becomes necessary during the +Program process. Such agreement to relent only came after multiple efforts for compromise were offered +by both the Attorney General and the victims —all of which were rejected by the Estate. Despite our +urging, the Attorney General has expressed that she cannot allow a Program to go forward that on its +face aims to protect other criminals who abused young women unless the probate court in the Virgin +Islands rules that the Program should move forward with the current release over her objection. +As we have expressed to the Attorney General, the reality is that the Estate had no obligation to create a +Program at all. The nature of many of these programs is that it is done for the benefit of the entity +establishing the program —in this case the Estate. The Estate has not hidden behind that fact. The Estate +had no obligation to consider the victims in choosing the Program Designers and Administrator. That +decision to make a unilateral selection caused problems and made everyone skeptical from the very +beginning. However, this is the Estate's Program and the Estate's rules. Recognizing that, we have +assured the Attorney General that the victims are going into the Program eyes-wide-open, knowing that +it is a Program designed by the Estate to protect the Estate and others. However, we have confidence +and trust in the Program Administrator and her independence from the Estate and the fact that the +claimants will have lawyers to advise them about the pros and cons of any settlement, including what +she may be giving up. In that sense, the Program as designed, despite a less than optimal proposed +release, is better than no program at all. +This court has always been keenly interested in the Program that the Estate has touted so strongly at +every hearing. We felt that it was necessary to provide this Court with a brief, yet detailed, overview of +the current status of the Attorney General's lien and the negotiations as they relate to the Program. In +an effort to finally obtain justice for many of Jeffrey Epstein's victims, we again request that this Court +urge the Estate and the Attorney General alike to finalize their agreement so that the Attorney General +will lift her lien and allow for the Program to go forward. +POTTINGER +Pose +Bone boun +Brittany Henders +425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a463f8a419405f0cf583acc354168547a969a30b0d4536102b4c27700985326f.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a463f8a419405f0cf583acc354168547a969a30b0d4536102b4c27700985326f.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..eff3bbce1b0d57cce34c399b02d64c291356dfb6 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a463f8a419405f0cf583acc354168547a969a30b0d4536102b4c27700985326f.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -259, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "a463f8a419405f0cf583acc354168547a969a30b0d4536102b4c27700985326f", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 6, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "03fb77f32c15c4f22119c8699c899db53d33bbb3123606ebae8ef33901afe1f5", + "output_sha256": "804b2f7069153a10306f58e7995e18aadb1bf6042752882861ac0b80b105e4ea", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a475813e7dd9e9a1c5146e8838094e2b735910c60ce4eef5d706443847693e7c.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a475813e7dd9e9a1c5146e8838094e2b735910c60ce4eef5d706443847693e7c.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..216cbd0d059ab6f345fcecbfa454864297c63847 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a475813e7dd9e9a1c5146e8838094e2b735910c60ce4eef5d706443847693e7c.md @@ -0,0 +1,41 @@ +Case 1:19-cv-11869-MKV-DCF Document 18-3 +Filed 02/14/20 Page 1 of 2 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK +------ +ANASTASIA DOE, +X +Plaintift, +Index No. 1:19-cv-11869-MKV-DCF +V. +DARREN K. INDYKE AND RICHARD D. +KAHN AS CO-EXECUTORS OF THE +ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, +Defendants. +------ X +ORDER FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE +The motion of Mary "Molly" S. DiRago for admission to practice Pro Hac Vice in the +above captioned action is granted. +Applicant has declared that she is a member in good standing of the bar(s) of the state(s) +of Illinois; and that her contact information is as follows: +Mary "Molly" S. DiRago +Troutman Sanders LLP +One North Wacker Drive, Suite 2905 +Chicago, 60606 +(312) 759-1926 +(312) 759-1939 (Fax) +molly.dirago@troutman.com +Applicant having requested admission Pro Hac Vice to appear for all purposes as counsel for +Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn as Co-Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein +(together, the "Co-Executors"), in the above entitled action; +IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Applicant is admitted to practice Pro Hac Vice in the +above captioned case in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. +1 + + +Case 1:19-CV-11869-MKV-DCF Document 18-3 Filed 02/14/20 Page 2 of 2 +All attorneys appearing before this Court are subject to the Local Rules of this Court, including +the Rules governing discipline of attorneys. +Dated: +United States District/Magistrate Judge +2 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a475813e7dd9e9a1c5146e8838094e2b735910c60ce4eef5d706443847693e7c.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a475813e7dd9e9a1c5146e8838094e2b735910c60ce4eef5d706443847693e7c.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9f4e20c56f8315b3959234129322f807b4d2893b --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a475813e7dd9e9a1c5146e8838094e2b735910c60ce4eef5d706443847693e7c.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -24, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "a475813e7dd9e9a1c5146e8838094e2b735910c60ce4eef5d706443847693e7c", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "abd8ac57b1f82f9271c5da6a87eceddfa6832a2d9da07428bba6144b17827962", + "output_sha256": "8dd66346f5bd810cf74b53c0d634a650d42a370e92104eb1810d18e11252cd34", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a47abdcea13f70b3fa53beb17e22947988e0fbf64066582b33ace98c706120ad.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a47abdcea13f70b3fa53beb17e22947988e0fbf64066582b33ace98c706120ad.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6abb9e27e8a3d9e8c6bdebea7d15cab0e12fea6b --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a47abdcea13f70b3fa53beb17e22947988e0fbf64066582b33ace98c706120ad.md @@ -0,0 +1,121 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/22/2008 Page 1 of 5 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-80381-CIV-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 5, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM IN RESPONSE +TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS +Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 5, ("Jane" or "Jane Doe"), by and through her undersigned counsel, +files this Memorandum in Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, and states as follows: +Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein is alleged to have sexually abused Jane Doe when she was +a minor. The Complaint is in two Counts: Count I is labeled "Sexual Assault", and alleges an +intentional tort based on the actions of Jeffrey Epstein; Count Il alleges the tort of intentional +infliction of emotional distress based on the same factual allegations. Defendant Epstein has moved +to dismiss only Count I of the Complaint, contending that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim. +Simultaneously herewith, Plaintiff intends to file an Amended Complaint which substantially revises +Count I and moots the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.' +'The Amended Complaint also adds as Count III a federal claim against Defendant Epstein under 18 +courts of the Eleventh Circuit that a motion to dismiss is not a "responsive pleading" and does not +affect a plaintiff's right to amend the pleading once as a matter of course. +Regents, 477 F.3d 1282, 1291 (11th Cir. 2007). +HeRmaN & MerMElsteIN, P. A. +- 1- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/22/2008 Page 2 of 5 +2. +In any event, the Complaint sufficiently alleged a claim for sexual assault and battery. +The gravamen of the claims in Count I is set forth in paragraph 16 of the Complaint: "Epstein +tortiously assaulted Jane Doe sexually. Epstein's acts were intentional, unlawful, offensive and +harmful." +3. +Count I does not purport to be brought under the criminal statutes? Whether a +Complaint states a claim for relief is not based on labels or conclusions; rather it is determined by +the factual allegations, which "must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." +Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombley, 127 5. Ct. 1955, 1965 (2007). Here, the factual allegations +establish an intentional tort claim for sexual assault and battery.? See Paul v. Holbrook, 696 So.2d +1311 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) ("[a] battery consists of the infliction of a harmful or offensive contact +upon another with the intent to cause such contact or the apprehension that such contact is +imminent"); Scelta v. Delicatessen Support Services, Inc., 57 F.Supp. 2d 1327, 1358-59 (M.D. Fla. +1999) (allegation that defendant attempted to put his hands down plaintiff's dress, and that there was +an actual and intentional touching, sufficient to state a claim for battery); Hogan v. Tavzel, 660 +So.2d 350 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (tortfeasor may be liable for battery for infecting another with a +sexually transmitted disease); see also Restatement (Second) of Torts Assault, § 21 (1965) (stating +that an assault occurs when a person "acts intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the +'Chapter 800 of the Florida Statutes is mentioned in the Complaint (|18) because conduct against a +person in violation of the criminal laws of the State generally give rise to a civil claim for intentional +tort. Count I does not purport to bring a separate civil claim for violation of a strictly criminal +statute. +3 Assault and battery are closely related common law intentional torts that are commonly alleged +together. See Herzfeld v. Herzfeld, 781 So.2d 1070 (Fla.2001) (noting that plaintiff alleged +intentional tort of "assault and battery" based on allegations of sexual abuse). +v. Atlantic +Federal Savings & Loan, 454 So.2d 52 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984) (holding that a cause of action for +assault and battery cannot be based entirely on an omission). +HERMAN & MERMELSTEIN, P. A. +- 2- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/22/2008 Page 3 of 5 +person of the other, or an imminent apprehension of such contact, and the other is thereby put in +such imminent apprehension"). +4. +Epstein's conduct as alleged in this case of masterbating during the massage, +directing the Plaintiff to remove her clothes, and touching the Plaintiff, constitutes the intentional +tort of assault and battery. Accordingly, even if the Complaint had not been amended, it sufficiently +alleges facts establishing an assault and battery. +Based on the foregoing, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is moot, and, in any event, not well +founded, and therefore should be denied. +Dated: September 22, 2008. +Respectfully submitted, +By: +s/ Jeffrey M. Herman +Jeffrey M. Herman (FL Bar No. 521647) +jherman@hermanlaw.com +Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245) +ssm@hermanlaw.com +Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980) +ahorowitz@hermanlaw.com +HERMAN & MERMELSTEIN, P.A. +Attorneys for Plaintiffs Jane Doe +18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 +Miami, Florida 33160 +Tel: 305-931-2200 +Fax: 305-931-0877 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I hereby certify that on September 22, 2008, I electronically filed the foregoing document +with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being +served this day to all parties on the attached Service List in the manner specified, either via +transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized +manner for those parties who are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic +HERMAN & MERMELSTEIN, P. A. +- 3- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/22/2008 Page 4 of 5 +Filing. +Is/ Jeffrey M. Herman +Herman & Mermelstein, P. A. +- 4- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/22/2008 Page 5 of 5 +SERVICE LIST +DOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/, +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +igoldberger@agwpa.com +Michael R. Tein, Esq. +tein@lewistein.com +Robert D. Critton, Esq. +rcritton@bclclaw.com +Michael Pike, Esq. +mpike@bclclaw.com +Is/ Jeffrey M. Herman +Herman & Mermelstein, P. A. +- 5- \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a47abdcea13f70b3fa53beb17e22947988e0fbf64066582b33ace98c706120ad.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a47abdcea13f70b3fa53beb17e22947988e0fbf64066582b33ace98c706120ad.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2c38c4c194bff3f5856d1c05cd61d005e78af957 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a47abdcea13f70b3fa53beb17e22947988e0fbf64066582b33ace98c706120ad.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -151, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "a47abdcea13f70b3fa53beb17e22947988e0fbf64066582b33ace98c706120ad", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 6, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": false, + "input_sha256": "600dde9a5e65d61d45a3921425d7a6a803bfb95bbde9592de517f09f5d64d8db", + "output_sha256": "6671fce024e8bb63664cd286196a4bf67a4b29146cea2dbd1d3f1b6c3792d5d1", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a49848d9efd2aac8f73133736d55344d123a9f94d70a2f370ba7ebb0c4656fe8.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a49848d9efd2aac8f73133736d55344d123a9f94d70a2f370ba7ebb0c4656fe8.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f8dc10b3c39fdc0685fafcf0e2d5076cee0e9f1b --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a49848d9efd2aac8f73133736d55344d123a9f94d70a2f370ba7ebb0c4656fe8.md @@ -0,0 +1,32 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 184 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/29/2013 Page 1 of 2 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/ +JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, +Plaintiffs, +VS. +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, +Defendant. +ORDER +This cause is before the Court upon Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2's Motion for a Prompt +Ruling Denying Government's Motion to Stay (DE 179); and Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2's Motion +to Compel Production of Court-Ordered Discoveryand fora Prompt Ruling on the Motion (DE 183). +The Court recognizes that the government's motion to dismiss (DE 119) and motion to stay +discovery pending ruling upon the motion to dismiss (DE 121) have been pending for an extended +period of time. The Court apologizes to the parties for not having resolved these matters sooner and +recognizes that this delay has prevented the case from proceeding on the merits. The Court hopes +and intends to resolve these matters in the relatively near future. Accordingly, it is hereby +ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2's Motion for a Prompt Ruling +Denying Government's Motion to Stay (DE 179) and Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2's Motion to +Compel Production of Court-Ordered Discovery and for a Prompt Ruling on the Motion (DE 183) +are both GRANTED to the extent the Court hopes and intends to resolve these matters in the + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 184 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/29/2013 Page 2 of 2 +relatively near future. +DONE AND ORDERED in +this 28" day of March, 2013. +at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, +KENNETH A. MARRA +United States District Court +2 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a49848d9efd2aac8f73133736d55344d123a9f94d70a2f370ba7ebb0c4656fe8.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a49848d9efd2aac8f73133736d55344d123a9f94d70a2f370ba7ebb0c4656fe8.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7c3f9348c3636cd53030aa960aa0319f8cde20a1 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a49848d9efd2aac8f73133736d55344d123a9f94d70a2f370ba7ebb0c4656fe8.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -24, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "a49848d9efd2aac8f73133736d55344d123a9f94d70a2f370ba7ebb0c4656fe8", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "e52e7d4b777b0f3d590fe42a53b0eb075c9c780372bf78fe76dd4fa05078d6fa", + "output_sha256": "e965bde9f8455b9b82b054724585d7b638d8f937762968d4d86d93b684a92e6d", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a4ad28d5bf5adb446a901a677e81a152e2331566a90e441e5ead9271460e2015.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a4ad28d5bf5adb446a901a677e81a152e2331566a90e441e5ead9271460e2015.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d28a3c1c8a94dcee79baad5c4cd02c6c5877127c --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a4ad28d5bf5adb446a901a677e81a152e2331566a90e441e5ead9271460e2015.md @@ -0,0 +1,115 @@ +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 7-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2008 Page 1 of 2 +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2008 + +Form 42 - DOORMAN WITH MILITARY +HERMAN & MERMELSTEIN PA +ATTN: LISA +U.S. SOUTHERN COURT +FLORIDA • COUNTY +JANE- DOE NO.2 +plaintiff +Index No. 08CV80119MARRA- +Date Filed +- against - +Office No. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +defendant +Court Date: +/ / +STATE +OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF NEW YORK +: SS: +HARRY +being duly sworn, deposes and says; I am over 18 years +of age, not a party to this action, and reside in the State of New York. That on the +7th day of May, +2008 +07:45 AM +at +9 EAST 71ST ST +NEW YORK, NY 10021 +I served the SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT +after prior attempts were made on: 04/23/2008 06:15 PM 04/24/2008 02:30 PM 05/01/2008 06:27P) +upon JEFFREY EPSTEIN +** +the DEFENDANT therein named by delivering and leaving a true copy or copies +of the aforementioned documents with +"JOHN I +•, ASSISTANT & HOUSE STAFF EMPLOYEE WHO +REFUSED TRUE NAME +a person of suitable age and discretion, who refused access to DEFENDANT's +actual apartment, and accepted in accordance with his/her everyday duties. +Deponent describes the person served as aforesaid to the best of deponent's ability +at the time and circumstances of the service as follows: +SEX: MALE +COLOR: +HAIR: +AGE: 45 HEIGHT: 6:0 WEIGHT: 200 +OTHER IDENTIFYING FEATURES: MUSTACHE/BEARD +0n---f--f----#-depesited in the United states mail a true copy of the aforementioned. +- documents properly enclosed and sealed in a post paid wrapper addressed to the said.- +DEPENDANP at-the above address: That-address being. +Last known asidance, usual place of abode of the DEFENDANT. +Copy mailed 1at-class - +I-marked personal a-confidential n0t-indieating ex the-outeide theteof-- +by-ratura-address or otherwiso that taid notics is-from an attorney-on cherne-action-against +the-person to be served. **& 5/5/08 9:20PM +That at the time of service as aforesaid, I asked person spoken to whether DEFENDANT +was in the military service of the State of New York or United States and received a negative +reply. Upon information and belief based upon the conversation and observation as aforesaid +I aver that the DEFENDANT is not in the military service of the State of New York of' the +United states as that term is defined in the statutes of the State of New York or the Federal +Soldiers and Sailors Civil Relief Act. +DEPONENT STATED AT THE TIME OF SERVICE HE HAD LEGAL PAPERS +IN A FLORIDA ACTION. +Sworn to before me /this +12th +day of May, +2008ni +••••• +SAMSON +Notary Public, +New York +No. 01NE-4783767 +Qualified in NEW YORK COUNTY +Commission Expires 11/03/2009° +HARRY TORRES + +AETNA +CENTRAL JUDICIAL +225 BROADWAY, SUITE 1802 +NEW YORK, NY, 10007 +Reference No: 7HM4111728 +SERVICES +PLAINTIFF'S + +A + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 7-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2008 Page 2 of 2 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +NON-MILITARY AFFIDAVIT +STATE OF FLORIDA +) SS: +COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE +BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, personally appeared ADAM D. HOROWITZ, +ESQ., an attorney of record for the Plaintiff, who is personally known to me, and who after first +being duly sworn, deposes and says on personal knowledge that Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, is not on +active duty in the armed forces of the United States. +Sworn to and subscribed before me this 29 day of May, 2008. +Lian Guess +Notary Public, State of Florida +My Commission expires: +Lisa +www.AARONNOTARY.com +PLAINTIFF'S + +HERMAN & MERMELSTEIN, P. A. +www.hermanlaw.com diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a4ad28d5bf5adb446a901a677e81a152e2331566a90e441e5ead9271460e2015.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a4ad28d5bf5adb446a901a677e81a152e2331566a90e441e5ead9271460e2015.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9720dbfdcf32b4911b64b3b0a1c6166a6355cd4c --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a4ad28d5bf5adb446a901a677e81a152e2331566a90e441e5ead9271460e2015.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -56, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "a4ad28d5bf5adb446a901a677e81a152e2331566a90e441e5ead9271460e2015", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 6, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.digits-only\", \"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "aa021e7c54b221e9695b4cd786d359cf0a0012a8f8182e085ba352c4e060d413", + "output_sha256": "dbb4ff156589a1279046fed3ed8122968f3219a89d9493a42bc93d60aa17a99d", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a4b5d63d0b3573219c56a0d21f9bf22123c3d9d93e4e9f884252e8efd16607d5.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a4b5d63d0b3573219c56a0d21f9bf22123c3d9d93e4e9f884252e8efd16607d5.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7ef34c98d6de86f34f78829cbbd617c0bda77006 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a4b5d63d0b3573219c56a0d21f9bf22123c3d9d93e4e9f884252e8efd16607d5.md @@ -0,0 +1,297 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 25 +Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 1 of 9 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80994-MARRA- +JANE DOE NO. 6 +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF, +JANE DOE NO. 6, To ANSWER DEFENDANT'S FIRST SET OF +INTERROGATORIES AND TO OVERRULE OBJECTIONS, AND +FOR AN AWARD OF DEFENDANT'S REASONABLE EXPENSES +Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through his undersigned attorneys, +moves this Court for an order compelling Plaintiff, JANE DOE No. 6 to answer +Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories and to overrule her objections asserted in +Plaintiff's Answers To Defendant's First Interrogatories, dated January 26, 2009. +Defendant further seeks an award of his reasonable expenses, including expenses, +associated with the making of this motion. Rule 37, Fed.R.Civ.P. (2008); Local Gen. +Rules 7.1 and 26.1 H (S.D. Fla. 2008). In support of his motion, Defendant states: +Introduction +Prior to the filing of this motion, counsel for Defendant and counsel for Plaintiff +corresponded with each other and were able to resolve some of the discovery issues +related to Defendant's First Interrogatories and Plaintiff's answers and objections +thereto. By letter, dated March 3, 2009, the Plaintiff agreed to withdraw her "General +Objections" set forth in her response. As well, issues as to interrogatories nos. 10 and +14 are presently resolved. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 25 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 2 of 9 +Page No. 2 +Also, Defendant has filed simultaneously with this motion a Motion To Compel +directed to certain of Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant's First Request To Produce, +also dated January 26, 2009, and which addresses identical discovery issues. Both +motions should be determined at the same time. +Motion To Compel Answers to Interrogatories Nos. 18, 19, 20, and 21 +18. +List separately the names, addresses and phone numbers of all males, +excluding Mr. Epstein, with whom you have had sexual activity since age 10 (by year) +up through your current age. Describe the nature of sexual activity, the date(s) and +whether you received money or other consideration from the person. +19. List separately the names, addresses and phone numbers of all males, +excluding your claims against Mr. Epstein, whom you have claimed (formally or +informally) committed sexual assault or battery on you since age 10 (by year) up +through your current age. Describe the nature of sexual assault or battery, the date(s) +and whether you received money or other consideration from the person. +20. +State the names, addresses and phone numbers of all males, excluding +your claims against Mr. Epstein, whom you have claimed (formally or informally) +committed lewd or lascivious conduct to you since age 10 (by year) up through your +current age. Describe the lewd or lascivious conduct, the date and whether you +received money or other consideration from the person. +21. State the names, addresses and phone numbers of all males, excluding +your claims against Mr. Epstein, whom you have claimed (formally or informally) +committed lewd or lascivious exhibition to you since age 10 (by year) up through your +current age. Describe the lewd or lascivious exhibition, the date and whether you +received money or other consideration from the person. +Plaintiff asserted the identical answer to each of the above stated interrogatories: +Response: +Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory as vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome, +harassing, and not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. +Moreover, this interrogatory is outrageous, offensive and apparently posed for the +Fed.R.Evid. 412 makes any answer to this +interrogatory inadmissible, and nothing in the answer could plausibly lead to discovery +of admissible evidence. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 25 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 3 of 9 +Page No. 3 +Legal Argument Supporting Entitlement to Discovery +Plaintiff does not make a relevancy objection, but instead claims that the +requests are "not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible +evidence," claiming that such "evidence ... would not be admissible under Fed.R.Evid. +412." Plaintiff further claims, without making any showing in her answer and without +moving for a protective order in accordance with Rule 26(c) and Local Gen. Rule 26.1 H +(S.D. Fla. 2008), that the interrogatory is "harassing,' "outrageous, offensive and is +apparently posed for the purpose of intimidating Plaintiff." +It is well settled that relevant information is discoverable, even if not admissible at +trial, so long as the discovery is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of +admissible evidence. Rule 26(b)(1), Fed.R.Civ.P.; Donahay v. Palm Beach Tours & +trans., Inc., 242 F.R.D. 685 (S.D. Fla. 2007). Contrary to Plaintiff's assertion, Rule 412 +does not automatically result in a determination that such sexual history and sexual +activity/behavior information is never admissible. In fact, written into the Rule are the +procedures to follow in determining when such information is admissible at trial. The +Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 412, Fed.R.Evid, makes clear that the procedures to +determine admissibility of an alleged victim's/plaintiff's sexual conduct or activity in civil +cases does not apply to discovery of such information. Rather, discoverability of such +information is governed by Rule 26, Fed.R.Civ.P., pursuant to which the scope of +discovery is broad. Donahay, supra, at 686, and cases cited therein. "Parties may +obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the claims or +defense of any party involved in the pending action." Id. +Rule 412, entitled "Sex Offense Cases; Relevance of Alleged Victim's Past +Sexual Behavior or Alleged Sexual Predisposition," provides in relevant part - + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 25 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 4 of 9 +Page No. 4 +(a) Evidence generally inadmissible.--The following evidence is not admissible +in any civil ... proceeding involving alleged sexual misconduct except as +provided in subdivisions (b) and (c): +(1) Evidence offered to prove that any alleged victim engaged in other sexual +behavior. +(2) Evidence offered to prove any alleged victim's sexual predisposition. +(b) Exceptions.- +* +* +* +* * +(2) In a civil case, evidence offered to prove the sexual behavior or sexual +predisposition of any alleged victim is admissible if it is otherwise admissible +under these rules and its probative value substantially outweighs the danger of +harm to any victim and of unfair prejudice to any party. Evidence of an alleged +victim's reputation is admissible only if it has been placed in controversy by the +alleged victim. +(c) Procedure to determine admissibility.- +(1) A party intending to offer evidence under subdivision (b) must— +(A) file a written motion at least 14 days before trial specifically describing +the evidence and stating the purpose for which it is offered unless the court, for +good cause requires a different time for filing or permits filing during trial; and +(B) serve the motion on all parties and notify the alleged victim or, when +appropriate, the alleged victim's guardian or representative. +(2) Before admitting evidence under this rule the court must conduct a +hearing in camera and afford the victim and parties a right to attend and be +heard. The motion, related papers, and the record of the hearing must be +sealed and remain under seal unless the court orders otherwise. +In confirming that Rule 412 does not control the discoverability of such +information, the Advisory Committee Notes (1994 Amendments) state - +The procedures set forth in subdivision (c) do not apply to discovery of a +victim's past sexual conduct or predisposition in civil cases, which will be +continue i be are, nod be red. Pr Should e or appropriate orders pursuant +to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 (c) to protect the victim against unwarranted inquiries and +to ensure confidentiality. Courts should presumptively issue protective orders +barring discovery unless the party seeking discovery makes a showing that + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 25 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 5 of 9 +Page No. 5 +the evidence sought to be discovered would be relevant under the facts +and theories of the particular case, and cannot be obtained except +through discovery. In an action for sexual harassment, for instance, while +some evidence of the alleged victim's sexual behavior and/or predisposition in +the workplace may perhaps be relevant, non-work place conduct will usually be +irrelevant. Cf. +| v. McGregor Electronic Industries, Inc., 989 F.2d 959, 962- +63 (8th Cir. 1993) (posing for a nude magazine outside work hours is irrelevant +to issue of unwelcomeness of sexual advances at work). Confidentiality +orders should be presumptively granted as well. +(Emphasis added). +In accordance with Rule 412 and Rule 26, the discovery sought regarding +Plaintiff's sexual activity with males, including whether she received any compensation +or consideration therefore, in interrogatory no. 18, whether she claims other males +committed sexual assault or battery on her in no. 19, whether she claims other males +committed lewd and lascivious conduct to her in no. 20, and whether other males +committed lewd or lascivious exhibition to her in no. 21, are all relevant to Plaintiff's +damages claims and the type of injury she claims she has suffered. Defendant has no +other means of obtaining such information and obtaining such information through +Plaintiff will better protect the confidentiality until the Court can make a determination in +accordance with the procedures under Rule 412(c) whether such information will be +admissible at trial. See Rule 412(C) quoted above. Defendant will agree to an order +keeping the confidentiality of the information obtained through discovery. +The evidence sought is relevant based on the facts and theories of this action. +In her Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff attempts to allege claims in Count I for +"Sexual Assault and Battery," Count II for "Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress," +and in Count III for "Coercion and Enticement to Sexual Activity in Violation of 18 +U.S.C.A. §2422," and seeks damages pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §2255(a). (Plaintiff alleges + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 25 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 6 of 9 +Page No. 6 +diversity of citizenship as a basis for this Court's jurisdiction. 2d Am. Complaint, 15). +Counts I and Il are brought pursuant to state law. +In her complaint, Plaintiff alleges that she has "experienced confusion, shame, +humiliation and embarrassment, and "she has suffered and will continue to suffer +severe and permanent traumatic injuries, including mental, psychological and emotional +damages," "severe emotional distress," and "severe mental anguish and pain." She +also seeks actual (Count III) and compensatory damages for her alleged injuries. 2d +Am. Complaint, 1914, 20, 25-26, 32, and "Wherefore" clauses. In her answers to +interrogatory no. 9, Plaintiff further states that: +Plaintiff has suffered severe psychological and emotional injuries, including +without limitation, anxiety, anger, distorted and disrupted development, +restlessness, distrust, self destructive behaviors, suicidal behavior, substance +abuse, severe Xanax addiction beginning after her encounter with Epstein, +corruption of morals, antisocial behaviors, premature teenage pregnancy, loss +of normal adolescent ideals, loss of innocence. (Interrog. No. 9). +In Count II, Plaintiff also alleges that Epstein's "willful acts of child sexual abuse" +"resulted in mental or sexual injury that caused or were likely to cause Jane Doe's metal +or emotional health to be significantly impaired." 124 +Plaintiff also alleges that "Epstein's scheme involved the use of young girls to recruit +underage girls." "Epstein's plan and scheme 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. 2nd Am. Complaint, 19-12. According to the +complaint allegations - "Upon information and belief Epstein has a sexual preference +and obsession for underage minor girls." T9. The "girl would be led up a flight of stairs +to a bedroom that contained a massage table ... The girl would be alone with EPSTEIN; +"Epstein would then perform one or more lewd, lascivious and sexual acts, including + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 25 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 7 of 9 +Page No. 7 +masturbation." 2ª Am. Complaint, 112. Plaintiff alleges that "in 2004," "when she was +only 13 years old" ... "fell into Epstein's trap and became one of his victims." 79, 13. +Plaintiff alleges that "she was recruited to give Epstein a massage for monetary +compensation." 1|13. She was brought to Epstein's Palm Beach mansion, and was led +up a flight of stairs to a room with a massage table. 113. Plaintiff was directed by +Epstein to remove their clothes and give Epstein a massage; "Epstein then sexually +assaulted Jane during the massage. In addition, Epstein masturbated during the +massage. Epstein then paid Jane money." 9|13. +The information sought is clearly relevant to the injuries and damages claimed by +Plaintiff. The nature of her claimed injuries and damages are such that Defendant is +entitled to evidence which would show the nature of her relationship with males, +whether she has suffered other acts of sexual misconduct as alleged in her complaint, +and whether she suffered injury and damages as a result of the other claimed sexual +misconduct with males. See United States v. Bear Stops, 997 F.2d 451(8 Cir. +1993)(Defendant charged with sexual abuse of six year old boy was entitled to +admission of evidence relating to victim's sexual assault by 3 older boys to establish +alternative explanation for why victim exhibited behavioral manifestations of sexually +abused child.). +In further support of Defendant's motion, a copy of Balas v. Ruzzo, 703 So.2d +1076 (Fla. 5" DCA 1997), rev. denied, 719 So.2d 286 (Fla. 1998), is attached hereto as +Exhibit A as it is on point to the discovery issues in this action, and the relevancy and +discoverability of Plaintiff's history of sexual activity and any payment, therefore. See + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 25 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 8 of 9 +Page No. 8 +interrogatories 8, 22 and 30 propounded in the Balas case and footnote 1 herein. ' +Additionally and significantly, in other pending state court civil actions against Defendant +EPSTEIN attempting to assert similar claims and damages, the Circuit Court Judges +have already ruled that such information is discoverable as it is relevant to the damages +claims of Plaintiff. See Composite Exhibits B and C hereto. Composite Exhibit B +are the Orders, dated February 23, 2009, entered in the case of A.C. v. Epstein, and +Case No. 502008CA025129 MB Al, 15" Judicial Circuit, In and For Palm Beach +County, State of Florida, which granted Defendant's motion to compel therein directed +to discovery identical to interrogatory no. 18 above, and to requests for production nos. +17 and 18 addressed below herein. (In the A.C. case, the Plaintiff answered without +objection interrogatories identical to nos. 19, 20, and 21 herein.) Composite Exhibit C +is a portion the transcript from a March 3, 2009 hearing on Defendant's motion to +compel discovery in the case of Jane Doe II v. Epstein, and +Case No. +502008CA020614 MB AF, 15' Judicial Circuit Court, In and For Palm Beach County, +State of Florida. Again, the Circuit Court Judge determined that the information sought +is relevant to the issue of damages and, thus, discoverable. +WHEREFORE, Defendant requests that this Court grant his motion to compel +and award his attorney's fees and costs, associated with this motion, in accordance with +Rule 37, Fed.R.Civ.P., and applicable Local Rules. +Rule 7.1 Certification +' In Balas v. Ruzzo, supra, the Plaintiffs alleged a multicount complaint including claims +for "coercion of prostitution" pursuant to §796.09, Fla. Stat.; for battery for the unwanted +and offensive touching of petitioners' bodies; false imprisonment for physically confining +the petitioners against their will; invasion of privacy; and intentional infliction of +emotional distress. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 25 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 9 of 9 +Page No. 9 +I hereby certify that counsel for the respective parties communicated by letters in +a good faith effort to resolve the discovery issues prior to the filing of this motion to +compel. Some of the issues were resolved. +Robert D. Critton, Jr. +Attorney før Defendant Epstein +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 certity 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 2- day of April, 2009: +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@sexabuseattorney.com +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +Counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe #2 +Jack Alan Goldberger +Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 +561-659-8300 +Fax: 561-835-8691 +jagesq@bellsouth.net +Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein +Respectfully submitted +By: +ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. +Florida Bar No/ 224162 +crit@bclclaw.com +VICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. +Florida Bar #617296 +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN +515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561/515-3148 Fax +(Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a4b5d63d0b3573219c56a0d21f9bf22123c3d9d93e4e9f884252e8efd16607d5.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a4b5d63d0b3573219c56a0d21f9bf22123c3d9d93e4e9f884252e8efd16607d5.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..88ab9963a0e2b7818b2ae57e65e4d14b2fdba14a --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a4b5d63d0b3573219c56a0d21f9bf22123c3d9d93e4e9f884252e8efd16607d5.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -245, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "a4b5d63d0b3573219c56a0d21f9bf22123c3d9d93e4e9f884252e8efd16607d5", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 10, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "13533514567c38852e65bfce833f61df8f915f353ad5137da2f163e07b8ed915", + "output_sha256": "15c0082413052fc9b1d1bdab27007c7b9cfb8504bd0a28fca95fbb34018ad6a6", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a4b7cac66268fc05055170e02aee0a32036f7ce3a59c6cfa61fb5db8b432e668.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a4b7cac66268fc05055170e02aee0a32036f7ce3a59c6cfa61fb5db8b432e668.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f7568b087524b0e904d356b5f9f56822130f8a0d --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a4b7cac66268fc05055170e02aee0a32036f7ce3a59c6cfa61fb5db8b432e668.md @@ -0,0 +1,348 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 41 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/07/2009 Page 1 of 12 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80994-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 6, +V. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Plaintiff, +Defendant. +MOTION TO COMPEL AND/OR IDENTIFY JANE DOE #6 IN THE STYLE OF +THIS CASE AND MOTION TO IDENTIFY JANE DOE IN THIRD-PARTY +SUBPOENAS FOR PURPOSES OF DISCOVERY, OR ALTERNATIVELY, +MOTION TO DISMISS SUA SPONTE, WITH INCORPORATED +MEMORANDUM OF LAW' +Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN ("Epstein" or "Defendant"), by and +through his undersigned attorneys, hereby requests that this Court enter an order +identifying in the style of this case the complete legal name of the Plaintiff, JANE +DOE #6 ("JANE DOE"), to substitute her complete legal name in this case in +place of "JANE DOE" and, equally important, allowing Defendant to identify her in +various subpoenas that Epstein must serve so Epstein can defend this case or, +alternatively, Motion to Dismiss Entire Action Sua Sponte. In support, Mr. +Epstein states as follows: +1 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 41 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/07/2009 Page 2 of 12 +I. Motion And Incorporated Memorandum Of Law +a. +Background +On September 11, 2008, Plaintiff filed this action against Epstein. +On February 27, 2009, Plaintiff filed her Amended Complaint (DE +18) against Epstein, which alleges three causes of action against him: Count I - +Sexual Assault and Battery; Count II - Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; +and Count III - Coercion and Enticement to Sexual Activity in violation of 18 +U.S.C. §2422. +The Amended Complaint appears to raise both Federal and Florida +State substantive issues (DE 18). +4. +Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that she is entitled to money +damages pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. §2422 and 2255 (in the wherefore clause) and +by virtue her claims that Epstein sexually battered her and caused her emotional +distress. Plaintiff alleges separate counts against Mr. Epstein, on which he must +conduct discovery to defend this case. +5. +In particular, JANE DOE claims, in Count I for sexual battery, that +she has and will suffer " +..severe and permanent traumatic injuries, including +mental, psychological and emotional damages." 120, Am. Comp., DE 18. In +Count Il for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, plaintiff claims entitlement +to recover for the impairment to her "mental and emotional health," 124, Am. +Comp., DE 18, and "...severe emotional distress..." and "...severe mental +anguish and pain...." 1125, 26, Am. Comp., DE 18. In Count Ill for Coercion +and Enticement to Sexual Activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. §2422, plaintiff claims +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 41 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/07/2009 Page 3 of 12 +entitlement to recover for "... personal injury, including mental, psychological +and emotional damages" +132, Am. Comp., DE 18. Plaintiff also claims +entitlement to "punitive damages" and "actual and compensatory damages." DE +18. See also Exhibit "A", Interrogatory Response Number 9. +Epstein has a constitutional due process right to defend himself and +to seek the production of information that will assist in his defense of the +allegations in the Amended Complaint. In this case, Plaintiff's counsel objected +to Epstein serving subpoenas on Plaintiff's treating physicians and other third +parties. Thus, this motion seeks to identify JANE DOE in the style of this case, to +identify JANE DOE in various third-party subpoenas for discovery purposes and, +alternatively, to dismiss this entire action sua sponte. The undersigned's +experience in "Jane Doe" lawsuits is that once a Plaintiff is identified, other +individuals come forward in the discovery phase with information which often +directly contradicts allegations as to the events and damages. For instance, +witnesses may testify that Plaintiff was paid by others for similar sexual acts she +claims Mr. Epstein forced upon her or that she willingly participated in certain +acts) that would negate or lessen her damages. This goes directly to Plaintiff's +damage claim. +Likewise, subpoenas must be issued to third-party treaters and +current and former employers, and those subpoenas will seek to obtain records +related directly to Plaintiff's claims and her damages (i.e., her claim for severe +and permanent traumatic injuries, including mental, psychological and emotional +damages" and loss of self-esteem as referenced above). +Cherenfant v. +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 41 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/07/2009 Page 4 of 12 +Nationwide Credit, Inc., 2004 WL 5315889 (S.D. Fla. 2004)(order allowing +discovery of medical records consistent with Plaintiff's allegations in complaint). +This too goes directly to Plaintiff's damage claims. Medical providers, employers, +co-employees, +etc.have direct and relevant personal knowledge and +observations regarding damages, i.e., emotional state, activities, self-esteem, +etc.... +Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 26 allows for broad discovery. Epstein is not +required to rely solely on Plaintiff's discovery responses in defending this case, +nor is Epstein required by any statute or law to rely only upon what Plaintiff +produces in discovery or may obtain from her own medical treaters through her +counsel, and to then provide to Epstein only after Plaintiff has reviewed same. In +certain related state court actions involving Epstein, the undersigned offered to +serve certain subpoenas on the medical treaters and other third-parties with full +name, date of birth and Plaintiff's social security number (last four digits), but +agreed that the subpoenas filed with the clerk would be redacted. Several +attorneys agreed to this procedure in those cases. In Federal Court, subpoenas +are not filed with the clerk. Thus, in this matter, the undersigned offered to serve +the third-party subpoenas with plaintiff's full name, date of birth and social +security number (last four digits) and would agree to redact any identifying +information on any documents filed with this court if that ultimately became +necessary. As discussed below, Plaintiff's counsel did not agree. Further, +Plaintiff's counsel claims a HIPPA complaint protective order is necessary. Such +is not the case when a Plaintiff places her mental, emotional, psychological and + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 41 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/07/2009 Page 5 of 12 +physical condition at issue. +Moreover, when an order from the court is attached to the +Subpoena, treaters and other third parties produce the records and show up to +the depositions with the records requested because the deponent knows what to +bring by virtue of knowing the identity of the Plaintiff. +10. +Epstein's counsel intends to serve and depose witnesses duces +tecum. If Epstein is not permitted to identify JANE DOE, how will any deponent +know who the parties are and what to bring to the deposition pursuant to the +duces tecum? Further, how will Epstein be able to defend the claims. Just like +the Plaintiff, Epstein is entitled to due process. +11. +While it is within the sound discretion of this court to allow a party to +proceed anonymously, Plaintiff should not attempt to utilize that discretion as a +shield from legitimate and necessary discovery. Epstein has a fundamental due +process right to conduct discovery. +b. +Motion To Identify JANE DOE In Style Of This Case +12. As discussed below, Epstein has fundamental due process right to +defend himself in this civil litigation. While JANE DOE travels under a +pseudonym, various newspaper articles identifying Epstein have been released +discussing the alleged claims against him. Allowing JANE DOE to litigate this +matter under a +pseudonym is preventing Epstein from defending this suit +including, but not limited to, preventing him from locating individuals that may +have information about this lawsuit and information about JANE DOE that may +discredit her allegations and/or lessen the monetary damages she seeks to +5 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 41 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/07/2009 Page 6 of 12 +recover. It is the undersigned's experience that once identified, witnesses begin +to come forward. See supra. +13. +In Doe v. Lepley. 185 F.R.D. 605 (D. Ct. NV 1999), a sexual +harassment case, the court reasoned that there is no express or implied right to +bring an action anonymously. Id. at 606. Moreover, Fed. R. Civ. P 10(a) +requires that the complaint include the names of the parties. Id. When Plaintiffs +are permitted to proceed anonymously, the court must employ a balancing test to +decide if the plaintiff has a substantial privacy interest that outweighs the +presumption of openness in judicial proceedings. Id., citing, Doe v. +1, 951 +F.2d 320, 323 (11" Cir. 1992)(requiring complaint to include the names of the +parties serves more than administrative convenience, it protects the public's +legitimate interests in knowing all the facts involved, including the identity of the +parties - thus denying request to proceed anonymously). The factors include: +a. +whether the plaintiff is challenging governmental activity; +c. +e. +f. +g. +Doe v. +whether the party defending the suit would be prejudiced; +whether the plaintiff is required to disclose information of +utmost intimacy; +whether the plaintiff is compelled to admit an intention to +engage in illegal conduct, thereby risking criminal +prosecution; +whether the Plaintiff would risk suffering injury if identified; +whether the interests of children are at stake; and +whether there are less drastic means of protecting the +legitimate interests of either party. +|, 951 F.2d at 323. +6 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 41 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/07/2009 Page 7 of 12 +Plaintiff does not fall under any of the factors. Moreover, even if she did +meet one of the factors, "[the fact that [a] Doe [Plaintiff] may suffer some +personal embarrassment, standing alone, does not require the granting of a +request to proceed under a pseudonym." Id; see also Doe v. Rostker, 89 F.R.D. +159 (N.D. Calif. 1981). Any substantial privacy interests JANE DOE has must +outweigh the customary and constitutionally embedded presumption of openness +to judicial proceedings. Doe v. +, 951 F.2d at 323; Doe v. Bergstron, 2009 +WL 528623 (C.A.9(Or.))(denying request to proceed anonymously in civil action +by Plaintiff where Plaintiff's arrest, prosecution and acquittal were matters of +public record). +14. +In Sweetland v. State, 535 So.2d 646 (Fla. 1% DCA 1988), the court +reasoned that the purpose of discovery is to eliminate the likelihood of surprise +and to insure a fair opportunity to prepare for trial. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure +1.280(b)(1); see also Surf Drugs, Inc., v. Vermette, 236 So.2d 108, 111 (Fla. +1970)(stating that the rules of discovery should be afforded broad and liberal +treatment to effectuate their purpose), citing, Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, +501, 507 (1947). +15. Next, the right to go to court to resolve disputes is a fundamental right. +D.R. Lakes, Inc. v. Brandsmart U.S.A. of West Palm Beach, 819 So.2d 971 (Fla. 4*h +DCA 2002). All litigants are afforded an equal opportunity. Lingle v. Dion, 776 +So.2d 1073 (Fla. 4* DCA 2001). The Florida Constitution establishes the right +commonly known as access to courts. Mitchell v. Moore, 786 So.2d 521 (Fla. +2001). Courts shall be open to any person for the redress of any injury and justice +7 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 41 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/07/2009 Page 8 of 12 +shall be administered without sale, denial or delay. Art. I, §21, Fla. Const.; 10A Fla. +Jur. 2d, Constitutional Law, §360. +16. +If Jane Doe's name is not disclosed and identified, Mr. Epstein will not +be afforded his fundamental right to fairly litigate this dispute and prepare for trial. +Accordingly, Epstein requests that JANE DOE be identified by her legal name in the +pleadings. +C. +Motion To Identify JANE DOE In Third-Party Subpoenas +17. While discovery in this matter is underway; Epstein is effectively +being denied due process rights by Plaintiff's counsel from conducting broad, +open and liberal discovery in that Plaintiff's counsel has objected to, among other +things, Epstein identifying JANE DOE in various third-party subpoenas to her +medical providers and other third parties. +18. The undersigned must serve subpoenas on medical doctors to +obtain medical information on JANE DOE's alleged psychological and physical +damages as same goes to the heart of Epstein's defenses and Plaintiff's +damages. Plaintiff is claiming emotional/psychological damages. See Exhibit +"A", Interrogatory Response Number 9. Therefore, Epstein is entitled to know +her psychological condition(s) before and after the alleged incidents) she +references in the Amended Complaint. In particular, JANE DOE alleges specific +disorders as a result of Epstein's alleged conduct - "... [Severe psychological +and emotional injuries.. anxiety, anger, distorted and disturbed development, +restlessness, distrust, self destructive behaviors, suicidal behaviors, substance +abuse, severe Xanax addiction. ..corruption of morals, antisocial behaviors.. +8 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 41 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/07/2009 Page 9 of 12 +loss of normal adolescent ideals and loss on innocence.)." (Emphasis Added). +Id. Epstein is also entitled to know, among other things, whether she had any +physical complaints or whether there was ever any evidence of physical battery +on JANE DOE's body from the acts she complains of in the Amended Complaint. +The need to serve third-party subpoenas on medical doctors is a basic discovery +need related to the claims alleged by JANE DOE for which Plaintiff's counsel +refuses to compromise. Balas v. Ruzzo, 703 So.2d 1076 (Fla. 5" DCA 1997), +rev. denied, 719 So.2d 286 (Fla. 1998)(discoverability of Plaintiff's history of +sexual activity is relevant to damages); United States v. Bear Stops, 997 F.2d +451 (8* Cir. 1993)(deals with "admissibility of other acts of sexual abuse by +individuals other than the defendant to explain why a victim of abuse exhibited +behavioral manifestations of a sexually abused child.") If Plaintiff saw a +psychologist or other physician during or after the time periods she claims she +was assaulted by Epstein but either did not discuss or did discuss the incidents +(or lack thereof) would be directly relevant to her damage claims. Plaintiff seeks +physical and emotional/mental personal injury type damages, and the Epstein +must conduct his own discovery thereon. See supra. No valid discovery +objections or exemptions exist preventing necessary and reasonable discovery. +To hold otherwise prevents Mr. Epstein from preparing and defending this matter. +19. +In defending this lawsuit, Mr. Epstein should be permitted broad +discovery, whether admissible at trial or not. Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 26 provides, in +pertinent part, that "parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not +privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action." + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 41 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/07/2009 Page 10 of 12 +Plaintiff's counsel's refusal to identify JANE DOE in the third-party subpoenas +referenced above is prejudicing Mr. Epstein by virtue of preventing discovery all +together, which is in complete contradiction of the discovery rules and Epstein's +substantive due process rights. +20. +In addition, subpoenas must also be served upon various local and +state institutions in order to determine what crimes, if any, JANE DOE has +committed (i.e., crimes that involve dishonesty and/or false statement). +Obviously, this goes directly to the heart of JANE DOE's damages she claims ".. +• [Severe psychological and emotional injuries. ..anxiety, anger, distorted and +disturbed development, restlessness, distrust, self destructive behaviors, suicidal +behaviors, substance abuse, severe Xanax addiction. ..corruption of morals, +antisocial behaviors.. loss of normal adolescent ideals and loss on innocence.)" +- caused by Epstein or other events in her life) for which a jury is entitled to hear +about at trial, and certified records must be obtained from the clerk should JANE +DOE answer certain questions regarding her crimes incorrectly. See Exhibit "A". +21. Epstein is entitled to know whether Jane Doe committed and/or +was charged with any crimes. If Jane Doe was charged with crimes, Epstein is +entitled to obtain certified copies of those crimes Plaintiff may have committed for +purposes of discovery and impeachment. Questions will be asked regarding +those crimes (e.g., Have you been convicted of a crime of dishonesty or false +statement? If so, how many times? Have you been convicted of a felony? If so, +how many times?) To hold otherwise would not only prevent broad discovery but +would ultimately result in reversible error at any trial. +10 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 41 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/07/2009 Page 11 of 12 +lI. Conclusion +22. +Epstein requests the following relief: +a. +That JANE DOE be identified by her legal name in the style of +this case; +That Epstein be granted leave to identify JANE DOE by her +legal name in Third-Party Subpoenas (but not file them in Court +or, if required, in a redacted form); and +That, on an alternative basis, this court dismiss this action Sua +Sponte until such time as JANE DOE identifies herself in the +style of this matter. Doe v. Rostker, 89 F.R.D.at 163. +WHEREFORE, Epstein, Jeffrey Epstein, respectfully requests that this +Court enter said order granting the relief requested above, and for such other +and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper +ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. +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 +, 2009: +I day of May +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@sexabuseattorney.com +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +11 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 41 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/07/2009 Page 12 of 12 +Counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe #6 +Respectfully submitted, +By: +ROBERT'D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. +Florida Bar No. 224162 +rcrit@bclclaw.com +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. +Florida Bar #617296 +mpike@bclclaw.com +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & +COLEMAN +515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561/842-2820 Phone +561/515-3148 Fax +(Counsel for Jeffrey Epstein) +12 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a4b7cac66268fc05055170e02aee0a32036f7ce3a59c6cfa61fb5db8b432e668.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a4b7cac66268fc05055170e02aee0a32036f7ce3a59c6cfa61fb5db8b432e668.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..22554001d53c4189dda66363c41f3315c7114ebf --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a4b7cac66268fc05055170e02aee0a32036f7ce3a59c6cfa61fb5db8b432e668.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -144, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "a4b7cac66268fc05055170e02aee0a32036f7ce3a59c6cfa61fb5db8b432e668", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 12, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "e813c8730eba26eee061cd1780762703ceb20ce1f298f61bf438a06fc906a2c3", + "output_sha256": "671843dc01b3821c941f5bdff1b3249fda16724bb6dcee396cfd53deda98c8f5", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a4c3fa34bbd723c3bb951b66606e82354cd544038d00c093173eb95a1405f2dc.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a4c3fa34bbd723c3bb951b66606e82354cd544038d00c093173eb95a1405f2dc.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..620f8ad98d465e8a8a7ec5e39b26261f0c339890 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a4c3fa34bbd723c3bb951b66606e82354cd544038d00c093173eb95a1405f2dc.md @@ -0,0 +1,59 @@ +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 111 Filed 05/27/21 Page 1 of 3 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK +X +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff, +V. +DARREN K. INDYKE and RICHARD D. +KAHN, in their capacities as executors of +the ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, an individual, +Defendants. +20-cv-00484-JGK +-X +AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S +APPLICATION FOR COSTS AGAINST PLAINTIFF +I, Laura A. Menninger, declare pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746 and under penalty of perjury +that: +1. I am counsel for defendant, Ghislaine Maxwell in Doe v. Indyke, et al., No. 20-CV- +00484-JGK (S.D.N.Y.). I am personally familiar with the costs incurred in connection with the +litigation. +I am submitting this Declaration in support of Ghislaine Maxwell's Bill of Costs and +application for an award of costs against Jane Doe ("Plaintiff") in this action. +3. On January 15, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice Pursuant to +FRCP 41(a)(2). Dkt. 91. Ms. Maxwell responded on January 29 (Dkt. 93), and further litigation +regarding the dismissal occurred over the succeeding months. + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 111 Filed 05/27/21 Page 2 of 3 +4. On March 8, 2021, this Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order which +determined, inter alia, that granted the dismissal with prejudice subject to certain conditions. +Dkt. 98. Among the conditions were that Ms. Maxwell is permitted to seek her costs related to +this action from Plaintiff. Id. at 7. The parties accepted the Court's conditions and on March 19, +this Court issued an Order dismissing the case and ordering the conditions. Dkt. 102. +5. This Court determined that Ms. Maxwell is the "prevailing party for the purposes of +Rule 54(d). Dkt. 98 at 5. Accordingly she is entitled "under Rule 54(d), [to] 'costs-other than +attorney's fees." Id. (quoting Rule 54(d)). +6. Because discovery was stayed in the case by Magistrate Judge Freeman, the costs +were in fact de minimis. Nevertheless, Ms. Maxwell exercises her right to recovery of those +costs pursuant to Rule 54(d). +7. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1923, Ms. Maxwell is entitled to Docket Fees for +discontinuance of a civil action in the amount of $5. +8. Additionally, Ms. Maxwell incurred $8.70 in search and printing costs from PACER +associated with this case. +9. The total costs sought by Ms. Maxwell therefore is $13.70. +10. The Bill of Costs attached to the Notice and its exhibits evidence the costs incurred +by Ms. Maxwell in defense of this action. +11. Each of the costs claimed are allowed by law, specifically Local Civil Rule 54.1. +Each are correctly stated and were necessarily incurred. +I swear under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and accurate to the best of my +knowledge. +2 + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 111 Filed 05/27/21 Page 3 of 3 +Executed on Dated: May 27, 2021. +s/ Laura A. Menninger +Laura A. Menninger +3 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a4c3fa34bbd723c3bb951b66606e82354cd544038d00c093173eb95a1405f2dc.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a4c3fa34bbd723c3bb951b66606e82354cd544038d00c093173eb95a1405f2dc.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5e0fb891daa348aec39e76fc8e89b4f3726abdf4 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a4c3fa34bbd723c3bb951b66606e82354cd544038d00c093173eb95a1405f2dc.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -36, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "a4c3fa34bbd723c3bb951b66606e82354cd544038d00c093173eb95a1405f2dc", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 3, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "430d7f7bd8474d37ff8ba1364e00b754e6eda8d7c924fa45c988a59597a14c99", + "output_sha256": "a4f904e8978e3910e4b8a1822993b92c41544f7496d6192a5e9ff74b3bf1e39b", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a50ef5373a0908bf9c4359ecfb605dd8ce76728cbad725b28a3b697bea725801.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a50ef5373a0908bf9c4359ecfb605dd8ce76728cbad725b28a3b697bea725801.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b2543001f1ed5f6c91c8b31ea724df4776da93d9 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a50ef5373a0908bf9c4359ecfb605dd8ce76728cbad725b28a3b697bea725801.md @@ -0,0 +1,64 @@ +LLER +ABRUZZO +KROF TRECIKCUIT COURT & COMPTROLLER +PALM BEACH COUNTY +Circuit Civil Division +PO Box 4667 +West Palm Beach, FL 33402 +P: (561) 355-2986 | F: (561) 355-4643 +MIM BEACH COUNC +INVOICE +DATE: 03/22/2022 +TO: STEPHEN A. MENDELSOHN +mendelsohns@gtlaw.com; +FLService@gtlaw.com; Hasenh@gtlaw.com +MICHAEL GRYGIEL +grygielm@gtlaw.com +BRIDGET F. CECH SAMOLE +cechsamoleb@gtlaw.com +KATHERINE +CLEMENTE clementek@gtlaw.com; +miamiappellateservice@gtlaw.com +NINA D. BOYAJIAN +boyajiann@gtlaw.com: riveraal@gtlaw.com +FROM: CRISTINA RIOSA +CIRCUIT CIVIL / PROBATE DIVISION +Circuit Court Case Numbers: 502019CA014681XXXXMB +District Court Case Number: 22-0293 +CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC, Publisher of THE PALM BEACH POST vs DAVE +ARONBERG, as State Attorney of Palm Beach County, Florida, et al. +A Notice of Appeal was received for filing in the above referenced action on January 27", +2022. Please be advised, however, that payment for Preparation of the Record on +Appeal in the amount of $243.50 is required pursuant to F.S. 28.24(2). +Please forward your payment of $243.50 payable to: Clerk & Comptroller Palm Beach +County, to my attention at the following address: +ABRUZZO, Clerk of the Circuit Court & Comptroller Palm Beach County +Post Office Box 4667 +West Palm Beach, FL 33402 +OR +You may pay the fee by credit card online via our Paylt Express page that can be +accessed at the link: https://pay.payitgov.com/clerkpbc-courts or QR code below: +FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL +ABRUZZO, CLERK.03/22/2022 11:54:33 AM + + +CIRCUIE COURTE +THE +ABRUZZO +THECIRCUIT COURT & COMPTROLLER +PALM BEACH COUNTY +Circuit Civil Division +PO Box 466 +West Palm Beach, FL 33402 +P: (561) 355-2986 | F: (561) 355-4643 +MIM BEACH COUN +No further action will be taken on this Appeal until payment is received. +THE CIRCUIT +Sincerely, +JOSEPH ABRUZZO +Clerk of the Circuit Court & Comptroller +NOT A CÉ +By: +Riosa, Cristina as Deputy Clerk +FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLI +ABRUZZO, CLERK.03/22/2022 11:54:33 AM diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a50ef5373a0908bf9c4359ecfb605dd8ce76728cbad725b28a3b697bea725801.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a50ef5373a0908bf9c4359ecfb605dd8ce76728cbad725b28a3b697bea725801.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4cbd865fec5a2fb3f7fe250923c8e39f2fbba364 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a50ef5373a0908bf9c4359ecfb605dd8ce76728cbad725b28a3b697bea725801.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -24, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "a50ef5373a0908bf9c4359ecfb605dd8ce76728cbad725b28a3b697bea725801", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "b853a7b9823215e82f3e142e53fd8fd0e831b6663ea236f308682dc1148610e7", + "output_sha256": "eded0eedbb90471cc34c9414dbde11560d8209b3b598c1257f286b4576cd5c37", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a5183cb44984b8262d6c957a283bb707735b494ecd04fbd5d724c7f52b4055bb.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a5183cb44984b8262d6c957a283bb707735b494ecd04fbd5d724c7f52b4055bb.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3c946c3657cfe9845196e3148128c11cfc6a0461 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a5183cb44984b8262d6c957a283bb707735b494ecd04fbd5d724c7f52b4055bb.md @@ -0,0 +1,200 @@ +Case 9:09-cv-80802-KAM Document 17 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/16/2009 Page 1 of 5 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/J +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 +REPLY TO ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER'S P.A.'S +RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S EMERGENCY MOTION FOR ORDER +FOR THE PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE [DE 4051 +(AS TO JANE DOE v. EPSTEIN CASE NO.: 08-CIV- 80893) +Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"), by and through his undersigned attorneys, +hereby files his Reply to Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler P.A.'s ("RRA") Response to +Defendant's Emergency Motion for Order for the Preservation of Evidence [DE 405], +and states: +It now appears that the Honorable Herbert Stettin (Mr. Stettin") is the +sole individual, as the Chief Restructuring Officer, in charge of RRA assets, including +electronic and paper records. There also appears to be no objection to the entry of the +preservation order consistent with his fiduciary/trustee duties for RRA, although certain +documents may no longer exist within his possession. +2. +Par. 4 of the response reflects that some 40 plus boxes of documents were +obtained by the Department of Justice from search warrants served on the offices of + + +Case 9:09-cv-80802-KAM Document 17 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/16/2009 Page 2 of 5 +RRA; "it is believed that the Department of Justice also sequestered about (13) boxes of +documents related to this [Epstein] case." In fact there are three Epstein cases which +have been brought by the RRA firm, one being in federal court, two in state court. Mr. +Stettin confirms Defendant's belief that there are serious ethical and potentially criminal +issues that may impact Plaintiffs' ability to pursue their cases. +3. +Unfortunately, time is critical with regard to this case in that there are +deadlines to Disclose Experts and Exchange Reports by October 29, 2009 (but Plaintiff +has not seen her expert, has no report and only made herself available for the Defendant's +exam on November 13, 2009), deposition discovery deadline is November 28, 2009 and +a calendar call of February 19, 2010 for the February 22, 2010 trial docket. While the +undersigned understands that Mr. Stettin may be working expeditiously to deal with +critical and pressing needs of stabilizing the firm, a delay of 45 days for his deposition +(which has been set in the state court case in the 15" Judicial Circuit Court, Palm Beach +County, State of Florida, L.M. v. Epstein, Case No. 502008CA028051XXXXMB AB, +not the case sub-judice) will place his deposition sometime during the first 15 days of +January, after every pre-trial deadline has expired. +4. +If in fact there has been inappropriate and/or illegal conduct associated +with the prosecution of this case by RRA or any of its attorneys or by the Plaintff herself, +which might result in sanctions, dismissal or other remedy, Defendant Epstein will be +severely prejudiced. +WHEREFORE, Defendant Epstein request that the court's preservation order be +made permanent, which does not seem inconsistent with Mr. Stettin's position as +expressed by his lawyers but deny the relief sought for delaying the deposition unless the + + +Case 9:09-cv-80802-KAM Document 17 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/16/2009 Page 3 of 5 +court is disposed to modify the current scheduling deadlines and trial date that exist in +this case. +By: _ +Robert D. Critton, Jr.. +Florida Bar #224162 +Certificate of Service +I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed +Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. +Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. +ROBERT D./CRITTON, JR., ESQ. +Florida Bar No. 224162 +rcrit@bclclaw.com +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. +Florida Bar #617296 +mpike@bclclaw.com +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & +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 +Brad | +1 Esq. +Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler + + +Case 9:09-cv-80802-KAM Document 17 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/16/2009 Page 4 of 5 +Mermelstein & 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 +bedwards@rra-law.com +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +08-80893 +Counsel for Plaintiffs +In related Cases Nos. 08-80069, 08-80119, +08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80993, +Paul G. Cassell, Esq. +08-80994 +Pro Hac Vice +332 South 1400 B, Room 101 +ichard Horace Willits, B +Salt Lake City, UT 84112 +Richard H. Willits, P.A. +801-585-5202 +2290 10" Avenue North +801-585-6833 Fax +Suite 404 +Lake Worth, FL 33461 +cassellp@law.utah.edu +Co-counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe +561-582-7600 +Fax: 561-588-8819 +Isidro M. +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. +Esq. +Law Firm, P.A. +08-80811 +224 Datura Street, Suite 900 +reelrhw@hotmail.com +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561-832-7732 +561-832-7137 F +Jack Scarola, Esq. +isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net +Jack P. +Esq. +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. +Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, 08-80469 +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 Flagler Street, Suite 800 +jsx@searcylaw.com +Miami, FL 33130 +jph@searcylaw.com +305 358-2800 +Counsel for Plaintiff, C.M.A. +Fax: 305 358-2382 +rjosefsberg@podhurst.com +kezell@podhurst.com +Bruce Reinhart, Esq. +Counsel for Plaintiffs in Related Cases +Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A +Nos. 09-80591 and 09-80656 +250 S. Australian Avenue +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561-202-6360 +Fax: 561-828-0983 +ecf@brucereinhartlaw.com +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80802-KAM Document 17 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/16/2009 Page 5 of 5 +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 +561-659-8300 +Fax: 561-835-8691 +jagesq@bellsouth.net +Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein +Charles H. Lichtman, Esq. +Isaac Marcushamer, Esq. +Berger Singerman, P.A. +350 East Broward Boulevard, 10" Floor +954-525-9900 +954-523-2872 Fax +clichtman@bergersingerman.com +imarcushamer@bergersingerman.com +Proposed Attorneys for Alleged Debtor diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a5183cb44984b8262d6c957a283bb707735b494ecd04fbd5d724c7f52b4055bb.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a5183cb44984b8262d6c957a283bb707735b494ecd04fbd5d724c7f52b4055bb.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..38eb9229bc191dc2ba77f428e2e9bf53088f8ad0 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a5183cb44984b8262d6c957a283bb707735b494ecd04fbd5d724c7f52b4055bb.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -60, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "a5183cb44984b8262d6c957a283bb707735b494ecd04fbd5d724c7f52b4055bb", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 5, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "2c9369c6fb386d7490dd270c4cf0988033d7fb5bc497b4586ec2408af0ccafb5", + "output_sha256": "a497113281e32e7c00cffa25797e81e4baaacc8214a9a8510be5894cc5140c42", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a51f7ccf3ba77bb06da60a184a84ff0f21e1fd8e1e1de79e9cb9d636bec4ade9.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a51f7ccf3ba77bb06da60a184a84ff0f21e1fd8e1e1de79e9cb9d636bec4ade9.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..109696eb6eae55f2dcec4acd773cd7303d1fd8d6 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a51f7ccf3ba77bb06da60a184a84ff0f21e1fd8e1e1de79e9cb9d636bec4ade9.md @@ -0,0 +1,26 @@ +Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 70-1 +Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2009 Page 1 of 1 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 09-80591-MARRA/ +JANE DOE No. 101, +V. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Plaintiff, +Defendant, +J +ORDER +This matter came before the Court on Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S +Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time in Which to Reply to Plaintiff, Jane Doe 101's +Response to Defendant Epstein's, Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint [DE 56]. +Having considered Defendant's Unopposed Motion and Plaintiff's counsel being in +agreement with the requested extension, it is HEREBY ORDERED and ADJUDGED +that: +Defendant's Unopposed Motion is GRANTED. Defendant shall file a Responsive +Pleading to Plaintiff, Jane Doe 101's Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss +Amended Complaint on or before October 15, 2009. +DONE and ORDERED this +_day of August, 2009 +Kenneth A. Marra +United States District Judge +Courtesy Copies all counsel diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a51f7ccf3ba77bb06da60a184a84ff0f21e1fd8e1e1de79e9cb9d636bec4ade9.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a51f7ccf3ba77bb06da60a184a84ff0f21e1fd8e1e1de79e9cb9d636bec4ade9.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ec1ad5d928ec2693f3fb8b8b7ea35bb66d99db8e --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a51f7ccf3ba77bb06da60a184a84ff0f21e1fd8e1e1de79e9cb9d636bec4ade9.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "a51f7ccf3ba77bb06da60a184a84ff0f21e1fd8e1e1de79e9cb9d636bec4ade9", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "e21af1a45d327d8c863eaf3fa56a08b5c24d24e5e7d6bfc5269a737dc83642e4", + "output_sha256": "bf4ad9def31ad835d4a1fb9aba72c2feec929560a95d12ec0c4be62710979d63", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a56faec9c07706c8720f4fd4956c5fab3419710cf75bc7c188b3469d15b9fd14.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a56faec9c07706c8720f4fd4956c5fab3419710cf75bc7c188b3469d15b9fd14.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9a473005b5f2db59455b6e792b495add3ddd13d6 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a56faec9c07706c8720f4fd4956c5fab3419710cf75bc7c188b3469d15b9fd14.md @@ -0,0 +1,26 @@ +Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 78-1 +Entered on FLSD Docket 10/29/2009 Page 1 of 1 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 09-80591-MARRA/. +JANE DOE No. 101, +V. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Plaintiff, +Defendant, +ORDER +This matter came before the Court on Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S +Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time in Which to Reply to Plaintiff, Jane Doe 101's +Response to Defendant Epstein's, Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint [DE 56]. +Having considered Defendant's Unopposed Motion and Plaintiff's counsel being in +agreement with the requested extension, it is HEREBY ORDERED and ADJUDGED +that: +Defendant's Unopposed Motion is GRANTED. Defendant shall file a Responsive +Pleading to Plaintiff, Jane Doe 101's Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss +Amended Complaint on or before November 16, 2009. +DONE and ORDERED this +_day of +_. 2009 +Kenneth A. Marra +United States District Judge +Courtesy Copies all counsel diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a56faec9c07706c8720f4fd4956c5fab3419710cf75bc7c188b3469d15b9fd14.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a56faec9c07706c8720f4fd4956c5fab3419710cf75bc7c188b3469d15b9fd14.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..451b0fdba5f86b058d336529b51d5cddaef7ba10 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a56faec9c07706c8720f4fd4956c5fab3419710cf75bc7c188b3469d15b9fd14.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "a56faec9c07706c8720f4fd4956c5fab3419710cf75bc7c188b3469d15b9fd14", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "7b0b146cf406df962516558132a2481eaa3893e515f3249232fa869b1b4b2149", + "output_sha256": "bb5c32237cd3ec222cde0baab8b01b7ae8aafab0a4a104ee65a0530eac957424", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a57faf04b9ef517adce8101b875ab4e4882c1faa2b0efaafdca3a672b4fe2337.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a57faf04b9ef517adce8101b875ab4e4882c1faa2b0efaafdca3a672b4fe2337.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5e86b69562ed3314f152b29608c18825ca32f406 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a57faf04b9ef517adce8101b875ab4e4882c1faa2b0efaafdca3a672b4fe2337.md @@ -0,0 +1,36 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 251-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2009 Page 1 of 2 +DECLARATION OF JANE DOE NO. 7 +1. +depose and state as follows: +I am the Plaintiff identified as Jane Doc No. 7 in this lawsuit. +2. +1 received messages from three different friends/acquaintances whom I knew in +high school within the past week, advising me that Icy had been contacted by a private +investigator. I reccived these messages on July 30, July 31, and August 4, 2009. +I spokc to one of the persons who was contacted regarding questions asked and +information provided by the investigator. She advised me that the investigator asked her the +following: +• Was I promiscuous in high school? +• What was my reputation in high school? +• How many guys have I been with? +• Did I date older, rich guys? +• Did I give massages for money? +• Who were my friends in high school and what is their contact information? +4. +In the course of asking questions, the investigator mentioned the name of +The references by the investigator to +and massages, for all intents and +purposes, disclosed tu this person that I am a Plaintiff in a lawsuit involving scxual abuse against +Jeffrey Epstein. +5. I am worried that Jeffrey Epstein will continue to send investigators to speak with +other pcople in my community who arc unaware that I am a Plaintiff in this lawsuit. I am +concerned and fearful that the types of questions referenced above to these peuple will disclose + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 251-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2009 Page 2 of 2 +that I am a Plaintiff in a scxual abuse lawsuit against Jeffrey Epstein, and will ruin my reputation +either directly or by inference and innuendo. +I declare under penaltics of perjury the foregoing lo be true and correct. +Dated this To day of Arist +_ 2009 +Taka/ Jane Doe No.T diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a57faf04b9ef517adce8101b875ab4e4882c1faa2b0efaafdca3a672b4fe2337.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a57faf04b9ef517adce8101b875ab4e4882c1faa2b0efaafdca3a672b4fe2337.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d863ca048eeb2cb7e08bc83041383c3936d324be --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a57faf04b9ef517adce8101b875ab4e4882c1faa2b0efaafdca3a672b4fe2337.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -24, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "a57faf04b9ef517adce8101b875ab4e4882c1faa2b0efaafdca3a672b4fe2337", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "50c5a63bca5a158f841353707ea68c1f3be47034842b1e53125e28466e2c190c", + "output_sha256": "01cb8d14a53847dc1cf6c0cbde8d2c990a9e356d712597dc5e9de8042d48860a", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a58144b4460b41c3413da170d2098a1d03df30171a4af76e248d0e0c72dd77a9.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a58144b4460b41c3413da170d2098a1d03df30171a4af76e248d0e0c72dd77a9.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..930af197e7ac28fbf2964f865eb365ed26c02471 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a58144b4460b41c3413da170d2098a1d03df30171a4af76e248d0e0c72dd77a9.md @@ -0,0 +1,259 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 195 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2009 Page 1 of 10 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff +CASE NO: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff +CASE NO: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 195 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2009 Page 2 of 10 +CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/_ +JANE DOE NO. 5, +Plaintiff +CASE NO: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant +JANE DOE NO. 6. +Plaintiff +CASE NO: 08-CV-80994-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant +JANE DOE NO. 7, +Plaintiff +CASE NO: 08-CV-80993-MARRA/_ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 195 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2009 Page 3 of 10 +CASE NO: 08-CV-80811-MARRA/ +C.M.A., +Plaintiff +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO. 08-CV-80893-CIV-MARRA/_ +Vs. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et al. +Defendant. +DOE II, +CASE NO: 09-CV-80469-MARRA/ +Plaintiff +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et al. +Defendants. +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 195 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2009 Page 4 of 10 +JANE DOE NO. 101, +Plaintiff +CASE NO: 09-CV-80591-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant +JANE DOE NO. 102, +Plaintiff +CASE NO: 09-CV-80656-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant +PLAINTIFF JANE DOE'S MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO PLAINTEF'S +FIRST REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS TO DEFENDANT +Plaintiff Jane Doe, hereby moves this Court for an order compelling defendant, +Jeffrey Epstein, to answer her first requests for admissions or, in the alternative, to +prove that his invocation of his Fifth Amendment privilege is proper. +Jane Doe has propounded 23 requests for admission to Epstein, including such +straightforward requests as: +• Your net worth is greater than $1 billion. +4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 195 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2009 Page 5 of 10 +• You own or control, directly or indirectly, real estate property in foreign +countries. +• You are moving significant financial assets overseas, outside of the direct +territorial reach of the U.S. and Florida Courts. +• You currently have the ability to post a bond of $15 million to satisfy a +judgment in this case without financial or other difficulty. +In response to each and every one of these questions, Epstein has given the +following response. +In response, Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges as +specified herein. I intend to respond to all relevant discovery regarding +this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot +provide answers to any discovery 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. +This Court should order Epstein to answer all of the requests for admission or, in +the alternative, prove that his Fifth Amendment invocations are valid. It is for the court, +not the claimant, to determine whether the hazard of incrimination is justified. United +States v. Argomaniz, 925 F.2d 1349, 1355 (11th Cir. 1991). "A court must make a +particularized inquiry, deciding, in connection with each specific area that the +questioning party wishes to explore, whether or not the privilege is well-founded." Id. +Typically this is done in an in camera proceeding wherein the person asserting the +privilege is given the opportunity "to substantiate his claims of the privilege and the +5 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 195 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2009 Page 6 of 10 +district court is able to consider the questions asked and the documents requested by +the summons." Id +Here Epstein has made boilerplate invocation of the Fifth Amendment to each +and every question propounded by Jane Doe, including for example a request that he +admit that his net worth is more than $500 million. It is not apparent how admitting his +net worth is incriminating in the circumstances of this case. In any event, the Fifth +Amendment does not operate in this fashion. It is Epstein's obligation to explain his +claims on a "question-by-question basis." Id. +The only issue before the Court is Epstein's Fifth Amendment privilege. Epstein +has only asserted a Fifth Amendment objection to production. As a result, any other +objections to production are deemed waived. See Local Rule 26.1G.3.(a) ("Any ground +[for an objection] not stated in an objection within the time provided by the Federal +Rules of Civil Procedure, or any extensions thereof, shall be waived."). +SPECIFIC REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION +For the convenience of the court - and in compliance with Local Rule 26.1 H +(party filing motion to compel shall list specific requests in succession) - Jane Doe's +requests for admission are as follows: +1. Your net worth is greater than $10 million. +2. Your net worth is greater than $50 million. +3. Your net worth is greater than $100 million. +4. Your net worth is greater than $500 million. +5. Your net worth is greater than $1 billion. +6 + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 195 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2009 Page 7 of 10 +CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/_ +6. Since being incarcerated you have, directly or indirectly (through the services +or assistance of other persons), conveyed money or assets in an attempt to insulate or +protect your money or assets from being captured in any civil lawsuits filed against you. +7. You own or control, directly or indirectly, real estate property in the Caribbean. +8. You own or control, directly or indirectly, real estate property in foreign +countries. +9. In the last 2 years you have transferred assets and/or money and/or financial +instruments to countries outside the United States. +10. You have provided financial support to the modeling agency MC2. +11. You have committed sexual assault against Plaintiff, a minor. +12. You committed battery against Plaintiff. +13. You digitally penetrated Plaintiff when she was a minor. +14. You offered Plaintiff more money contingent upon her having sex with your +or giving you oral sex. +15. You intended to harm Plaintiff when you committed these sexual acts +against her. +16. You knew Plaintiff was under the age of 16 when you sexually touched and +fondled her. +17. You intend to hire investigators to intimidate and harass Plaintiff during this +litigation. +18. You were engaged in the act of trafficking minors across state or country +borders for the purposes of sex or prostitution between 2000 and the present. +7 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 195 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2009 Page 8 of 10 +19. You coerced Plaintiff into being a prostitute and remaining in prostitution. +20. You are guilty of the following offenses against Jane Doe: +A. Procuring a minor for the purpose of prostitution as defined in F.S. 796.03; +B. Battery as defined by Florida Statutes. +C. Sexual Battery. +21. You are moving significant financial assets overseas, outside of the direct +territorial reach of the U.S. and Florida Courts. +22. You are making asset transfers with the intent to defeat any judgment that +might be entered against you in this or similar cases. +23. You currently have the ability to post a bond of $15 million to satisfy a +judgment in this case without financial or other difficulty. +CONCLUSION +For all these reasons, the Court should compel Epstein to answer the requests +for admission or provide a particularized justification for his Fifth Amendment invocation +with regard to each request. Counsel for Jane Doe have conferred with opposing +counsel on the issues raised in this motion, and no resolution was possible. +DATED July 10, 2009 +Respectfully Submitted, +S/ +ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER +Las Olas City Centre +401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1650 +Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 +Telephone (954) 522-3456 +Facsimile (954) 527-8663 +Florida Bar No.: 542075 +E-mail: bedwards@rra-law.com +8 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 195 +Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2009 Page 9 of 10 +and +Paul G. Cassell +Pro Hac Vice +332 S. 1400 E. +Salt Lake City, UT 84112 +Telephone: 801-585-5202 +Facsimile: +801-585-6833 +E-Mail: +cassellp@law.utah.edu +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +1 HEREBY CERTIFY that on July 10, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing +document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing +document is being served this day on all parties on the attached Service List in the +manner specified, either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by +CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those parties who are not authorized to +receive electronically filed Notices of Electronic Filing. +J. +9 + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 195 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2009 Page 10 of 10 +SERVICE LIST +Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +Jgoldberger@agwpa.com +Robert D. Critton, Esq. +rcritton@bclclaw.com +Isidro Manual +isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net +Jack +iph@searcylaw.com +Katherine Warthen Ezell +KEzell@podhurst.com +Michael James Pike +MPike@bclclaw.com +Paul G. Cassell +cassellp@bclclaw.com +Richard Horace Willits +lawyerswillits@aol.com +Robert C. Josefsberg +rjosefsberg@podhurst.com +Adam D. Horowitz +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +Stuart S. Mermelstein +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +William J. Berger +wberger@rra-law.com +10 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a58144b4460b41c3413da170d2098a1d03df30171a4af76e248d0e0c72dd77a9.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a58144b4460b41c3413da170d2098a1d03df30171a4af76e248d0e0c72dd77a9.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ad53173746c75d0a4dd21e1e00ef38d5abe2d33e --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a58144b4460b41c3413da170d2098a1d03df30171a4af76e248d0e0c72dd77a9.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -345, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "a58144b4460b41c3413da170d2098a1d03df30171a4af76e248d0e0c72dd77a9", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 11, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "3ab084a9235b2ce8f25d5a82c3f8b400da9cb5cda8468a0b10a6ecf39c3b51a3", + "output_sha256": "605f4b7c9e79bcb62899145b193074730947d9c8e731b20a3767fd67d4229c1e", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a58b0a943ad2510385fb2602cb9d6ba8bd6c6ae04fb1b1edc2deca3f2d4b79d0.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a58b0a943ad2510385fb2602cb9d6ba8bd6c6ae04fb1b1edc2deca3f2d4b79d0.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c7fe6d49920c838611917806e7866a77c47dfb02 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a58b0a943ad2510385fb2602cb9d6ba8bd6c6ae04fb1b1edc2deca3f2d4b79d0.md @@ -0,0 +1,306 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 207 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2013 Page 1 of 11 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/ +JANE DOE 1 AND JANE DOE 2, +Plaintiffs +V. +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, +Defendant +MOTION OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN FOR PROSPECTIVE LIMITED INTERVENTION +AT THE REMEDY STAGE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS +Jeffrey Epstein hereby moves, pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 24(a)(2) and 24(b)(1)(B), that +he be permitted to intervene in these proceedings when and if they reach the stage at which the +Court will consider what remedy to order if it finds that the government violated the plaintiffs' +rights under the CVRA. Mr. Epstein does not seek to intervene generally in the case, as the +duties and obligations imposed by the CVRA apply solely to the government; the statutory +requirements do not run to Mr. Epstein; he had no obligations to the plaintiff under the CVRA. +The dispute regarding whether the government violated the plaintiffs' rights under the CVRA is +one between the plaintiffs and the government. +However, if the case reaches the remedy issue, which this Court has said is contingent +upon whether the plaintiffs' "evidentiary proofs will entitle them to [rescission] relief," "a +question properly reserved for determination upon a fully developed evidentiary record," Order +Denying Government's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (Doc. 189) at +11-12, Mr. Epstein has a clear and compelling interest in opposing any remedy that would entail + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 207 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2013 Page 2 of 11 +rescission of his non-prosecution agreement with the government and has interests which are +personal to him and would not be adequately represented by the government should the Court +determine that a CVRA violation occurred and that rescission or re-opening of the nonprosecution agreement was one of the remedial options under consideration. See, e.g., Harris v. +Pernsley, 820 F.2d 592, 599 (3d Cir. 1987) ("Given the nature of an applicant's interest, he or +she may have a sufficient interest to intervene as to certain issues in an action without having an +interest in the litigation as a whole"). +Because Mr. Epstein does not seek to intervene generally in the action but instead only as +to the issue of remedy, if it arises, the Court has the option of holding this motion in abeyance +and not deciding it unless and until such time as it decides that it must fashion a remedy for +violation of the CVRA. Mr. Epstein is filing this motion at the present time to ensure that +plaintiffs have continuing notice of his intention to intervene to oppose the rescission of his nonprosecution agreement with the government, a matter that fundamentally impacts his +constitutional and contractual rights. +In its Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (Doc. 205-2) at 4-5, the +government correctly argues that, as a matter of contract law and due process, courts cannot +order rescission of a contract - of which the non-prosecution agreement is one - unless all parties +to the contract are before the court. Mr. Epstein has no access to the courts to assert this right +without intervening in this action as to remedy, which creates an unconstitutional dilemma - a +veritable Catch-22 - in which he would be forced to forego one right - not to have the nonprosecution agreement rescinded in his absence as a party - in order to assert his other +contractual and due process rights in the matter. See, e.g., +v. United States, 390 U.S. +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 207 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2013 Page 3 of 11 +377, 394 (1968) ("[Wle find it intolerable that one constitutional right should have to be +surrendered to assert another"); Tomai-Minogue v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 770 F.2d +1228, 1232 (4th Cir. 1985) (finding it a "questionable line of argument ... [that] to assert her +rights as a matter of procedural due process, Tomai-Minogue would be compelled to forego +other due process rights"). Thus, in seeking to intervene with respect to remedy, Mr. Epstein +does not waive the issue regarding whether the Court can rescind the non-prosecution agreement +if he is not before the Court as a party. +I. +INTERVENTION AS OF RIGHT. +A party may intervene as of right under Rule 24(a) if "(1) the application to intervene is +timely; (2) the party has an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject +matter of the action; (3) the party is situated so that disposition of the action, as a practical +matter, +impede or impair its ability to protect that interest; and (4) the party's interest is +represented inadequately by the existing parties to the suit." Chiles v. Thornburgh, 865 F.2d +1197, 1213 (11th Cir. 1989). The circumstances here easily satisfy all four elements of the +standard. +A. +Timeliness. +In assessing the timeliness of motions to intervene, courts are to consider "(1) the length +of time during which the would-be intervenor knew or reasonably should have known of his +interest in the case before he petitioned for leave to intervene; (2) the extent of prejudice to the +existing parties as a result of the would-be intervenor's failure to apply as soon as he knew or +reasonably should have known of his interest; (3) the extent of prejudice to the would-be +intervenor if his petition is denied; and (4) the existence of unusual circumstances militating +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 207 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2013 Page 4 of 11 +either for or against a determination that the application is timely." United States v. Jefferson +County, 720 F.2d 1511, 1516 (11th Cir. 1983). '''Timeliness' is not precisely measurable," +| ex rel. O'Neil v. Bush, 194 Fed. Appx. 879, 882 (11th Cir. 2006), and is "not limited to +chronological considerations but is to be determined from all the circumstances." Stallworth v. +Monsanto Co., 558 F.2d 257, 263-64 (5th Cir. 1977). Among the circumstances which must be +considered is "the purpose for which intervention is sought." National Resources Defense +Council v. Costle, 561 F.2d 904, 907 (D.C.Cir. 1977). +Here, the government moved to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint for lack of subject matter +jurisdiction in November, 2011. In that motion, the government contended, inter alia, that the +remedy of rescission of the non-prosecution agreement was prohibited on due process grounds. +See Order Denying Government's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction +(Doc. 189) at 6-7. It was not until June 19, 2013, that the Court denied the motion and indicated +that it believed rescission to be a potentially available remedy. Id. at 11. Thus, it is only now that +Mr. Epstein's future interest in preserving inviolate his non-prosecution agreement has become +sufficiently concretized for seeking intervention to contest the rescission remedy sought by +plaintiffs.' A motion to intervene before the Court ruled on the Government's Motion to Dismiss +which focused, in part, on the question whether rescission was an available remedy at all, would +have been premature. +Since Mr. Epstein has moved to intervene promptly upon learning that the Court would +consider rescission in fashioning the remedy in this case (assuming, of course, that plaintiffs +'Courts, including the Eleventh Circuit, have recognized the propriety of intervention to +litigate remedy. See, e.g», +ex rel. Yock v. Department of Public Welfare, 701 F.3d 938 +(3d Cir. 2012); Howard v. McLucas, 782 F.2d 956, 959-61 (11th Cir. 1986); Costle, 561 F.2d at +907-08; see also Caterino v. Berry, 922 F.2d 37 (Ist Cir. 1990) (district court denied intervention +at liability stage but indicated that it would consider a motion to intervene at the remedy stage). +4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 207 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2013 Page 5 of 11 +prove their entitlement to any relief at all), there is no need to evaluate prejudice to the plaintiffs. +In any event, there will be no prejudice to plaintiffs in terms of timeliness in allowing Mr. +Epstein to intervene on the issue of remedy, particularly as this motion provides them with +further notice that he intends to do so, many months before the issue of remedy is even +potentially before the Court in a context that would result in the Court addressing the remedial +options available to respond to a violation of the CVRA rights of the plaintiffs, should any such +violations be found.? +In sharp contrast, denying intervention to Mr. Epstein to litigate remedy will cause him +severe prejudice, as the plaintiffs are asking the Court to invalidate a binding contract to which +he is a signatory and which implicates his constitutional rights. Mr. Epstein entered into a nonprosecution agreement with the government and has fully performed, to his detriment, his +obligations under that agreement, including pleading guilty to state court charges, serving a +prison term, serving a year of community control, paying the attorney representing claimants +who brought actions solely under 18 U.S.C. §2255, as he was required to do by the nonprosecution agreement, and making civil settlements with all such §2255 claimants due in +significant part to the requirements of the non-prosecution agreement that prohibited Mr. Epstein +^ In any case, this filing is not the first notice to plaintiffs of Epstein's intention, if necessary, +to seek a prospective intervention if the remedy issue is reached and if rescission of the nonprosecution agreement, which implicates his of his contractual and constitutional rights. As +plaintiffs themselves recognize, "Epstein has announced that he will seek to intervene further in +this case should any effort be made by the victims to seek a remedy that would harm him," +Motion to Dismiss Non-Party Interlocutory Appeal (filed by plaintiffs in Jane Doe #1 and Jane +Doe #2 v. United States, Roy Black, et al., Intervenors, Eleventh Circuit No. 13-12923, citing +Doc. 108 at 13 n.3 (Mr. Epstein's assertion that he has an interest in the non-prosecution +agreement which would later become ripe if the Court were to consider invalidating that +agreement). +5 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 207 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2013 Page 6 of 11 +from contesting liability.? See also United States' Reply in Support of Its Motion to Dismiss for +Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (Doc. 205-6), Exhibit F at 11-12 (detailing reliance of +plaintiffs themselves as well as other claimants on the non-prosecution agreement in seeking and +then negotiating civil settlements with Mr. Epstein). He has an intense interest in opposing +plaintiffs' effort to set that agreement aside and in presenting to the Court reasons why the +agreement should not be rescinded which are personal to him, as opposed to the institutional +considerations which the government has and may advance. +Even though the action has been pending since 2008, plaintiffs knowingly sat on their +CVRA claims for years as Mr. Epstein served a prison sentence and as he satisfied all the +requirements of his non-prosecution agreement. Rather than seek emergency relief from the +Court, the plaintiffs appeared at a status conference on July 11, 2008, knowing that Mr. Epstein +was in prison, and told the Court that they saw no reason to proceed on an emergency basis. +[Trans. July 11, 2008 at 24-25]. Moreover, in a hearing one month later, the plaintiffs +specifically asked that the Court not invalidate the non-prosecution agreement "because of the +legal consequences of invalidating the current agreement, it is likely not in [the plaintiffs'] +interest to ask for the [rescission] relief that we initially asked for." [Trans. August 14, 2008 at +4]. Thus, plaintiffs waived their right to have the Court "take up and decide any motion asserting +a victim's right forthwith," 18 U.S.C. §3771(d)(3), in favor of their pursuing over at least the next +eighteen months civil settlement actions against Mr. Epstein prior to, rather than concurrently +with, litigating their CVRA rights. As the direct result, Mr. Epstein has, to his detriment, served a +prison sentence (2008-09), served a year of community control probation (2009-10), and made +monetary payments that are directly related to his obligations under the non-prosecution +3 See Non-Prosecution Agreement, 1117-8, executed on September 24, 2007. +6 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 207 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2013 Page 7 of 11 +agreement to pay legal fees for attorney representation* and not to contest liability for underlying +offenses to those suing under §2255 alone. So inactive were plaintiffs in this case that the Court +dismissed the case for lack of prosecution in September, 2010. (Doc. 38). Despite the long +pendency of the action, the case remains, for many reasons, in its relatively early stages. If more +is needed to warrant intervention, the unusual procedural posture of the case presents "unusual +circumstances militating ... for ... a determination that the application is timely." The motion +to intervene, having been filed little more than two short weeks of the Court's ruling on the +government's motion to dismiss, satisfies the timeliness requirement for intervention, both as of +right and permissive. +B. +Mr. Epstein Has an Interest Relating to the Property or Transaction Which +Is the Subject Matter of the Action. +Mr. Epstein unquestionably has an interest in opposing rescission of the non-prosecution +agreement into which he entered with the government. "[A]n applicant has a sufficient interest to +intervene .. where contractual rights of the applicant may be affected by a proposed remedy." +Forest Conservation Counsel v. United States Forest Service, 66 F.3d 1489, 1495 (9th Cir. +1995), abrogated on other grounds, Wilderness Society v. United States Forest Service, 630 F.3d +1173 (9th Cir. 2011), quoting Harris, 820 F.2d at 601. "Nonprosecution agreements, like plea +bargains, are contractual in nature, and are therefore interpreted in accordance with general +principles of contract law. Under these principles, if a defendant lives up to his end of the +bargain, the government is bound to perform its promises." United States v. Castaneda, 162 F.3d +832, 835-36 (5th Cir. 1998). The potential rescission remedy also has serious implications for +Mr. Epstein's constitutional rights, as "[dJue process requires the government to adhere to the +4 See Addendum to the Non-Prosecution Agreement, executed in October, 2007. +7 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 207 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2013 Page 8 of 11 +terms of any plea bargain or immunity agreement it makes." United States v. +643 F.3d 807, +874 (11th Cir. 2011), quoting United States v. Harvey, 869 F.2d 1439, 1443 (11th Cir. 1989) (en +banc). See, e.g., Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 262 (1971) ("when a plea rests in any +significant degree on a promise ... of the prosecutor, so that it can be said to be part of the +inducement or consideration, such promise must be fulfilled"); United States v. Al-Arian, 514 +F.3d 1184, 1190 (11th Cir. 2008) ("Due process requires the government to adhere to the +promises it has made in a plea agreement"). +C. Mr. Epstein Is Situated So That Disposition of the Action, as a Practical +Matter, May Impede or Impair His Ability to Protect That Interest. +Mr. Epstein, as previously discussed, is a party to a binding contract - a contract with +respect to which his constitutionally-guaranteed right to due process is at stake - which the +plaintiffs are seeking to have this Court invalidate. If he cannot intervene to oppose such a +remedy, he will be forced to stand on the sidelines while others litigate rights which are personal +and fundamentally important to him. His ability to protect his interest in the validity of the nonprosecution agreement would be severely impaired. Also, unless he is allowed to intervene, he +would not be able to appeal from any possible future order of the Court rescinding the nonprosecution agreement and would lose another level of ability to protect his interests in the nonprosecution agreement. The Supreme Court has made it clear that "It]he rule that only parties to +a lawsuit or those that properly become parties may appeal an adverse judgment is well settled." +Marino v. Ortiz, 484 U.S. 301, 304 (1988). Even were he allowed to intervene later for purposes +of appeal, he would likely be limited to the issues raised by the parties and unable to assert his +own individual interests on appeal. See, e.g., Georgia Power Co. v. Teleport Communications, +8 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 207 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2013 Page 9 of 11 +Atlanta, Inc., 346 F.3d 1047, 1049 (11th Cir. 2003) ("[e]xcept for extraordinary cases, an +intervenor is precluded from raising issues not raised by the principal parties"). +D. +Mr. Epstein's Interest in the Non-Rescission of the Non-Prosecution +Agreement Would Not Be Adequately Represented by the Existing Parties to +the Suit. +While the government may adequately represent whatever interests Mr. Epstein may +have, if any, with respect to the question whether the government violated the plaintiffs' rights +under the CVRA, the same is not true as to the question of whether, if the Court finds that it did +so, rescission of the non-prosecution is an available or appropriate remedy. Although the +Eleventh Circuit has said that "It]here is a presumption of adequate representation where an +existing party seeks the same objectives as the interveners," +v. First Union Corp., 371 F.3d +1305, 1311 (11th Cir. 2004), that presumption is a "weak" one, id.;"li]nterveners need only +show that the current [party's] representation "may be inadequate,' and the burden for making +such a showing is 'minimal."" Id. (emphasis added), quoting Clark v. Putnam County, 168 F.3d +458, 461 (11th Cir. 1999). See, e.g., Georgia v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 302 +F.3d 1242, 1255 (11th Cir. 2002) ("The proposed intervenor has the burden of showing that the +existing parties cannot adequately represent its interests, but this burden is treated as minimal"); +Federal Sav. and Loan Ins. Corp. v. Falls Chase Special Taxing District, 983 F.3d 211, 216 +(11th Cir. 1993) ("The proposed intervenor's burden to show that their interests may be +inadequately represented is minimal") (emphasis in original). +Mr. Epstein and the government may share a common goal of opposing a rescission +remedy, at least at the present juncture, but their interests, as well as what they would bring to +the Court on the issue, vary substantially. The government will (most likely) present general +9 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 207 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2013 Page 10 of 11 +institutional reasons why non-prosecution agreements into which it has entered are binding on it +and cannot, or should not, be rescinded. In contrast, in addition to the constitutionally-based +arguments which the government may advance, Mr. Epstein has, specific, personal, and private +interests in the non-rescission of this particular agreement, including his constitutional right to +due process of law, see pages 7-8, supra, his detrimental reliance on the agreement and his full +performance of his many obligations under the agreement on the basis of that reliance, including, +as discussed above, pleading guilty to state court charges, serving a prison term, serving a year of +community control, and paying the attorney representing persons who had brought or were +threatening to bring actions against him for money damages. Mr. Epstein's personal +constitutional and contractual rights in the matter should be before the Court in making its +determination as to remedy, if the proceedings reach that stage, and the government will not +adequately represent those rights that are personal to Mr. Epstein. Indeed, plaintiffs have +contended that the government does not have standing to argue that rescission of the nonprosecution agreement would violate Mr. Epstein's constitutional rights. Jane Doe #1 and Jane +Doe #2's Response to Government's Sealed Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter +Jurisdiction (Doc. 127) at 11. +Il. PERMISSIVE INTERVENTION. +The Court need not reach the issue of permissive intervention, as Mr. Epstein so plainly +satisfies the criteria for intervention as of right. For the same reasons addressed in the preceding +section, Mr. Epstein "has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question +of law or fact." Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(1)(B). That common question of law or fact is whether +rescission of a non-prosecution agreement is a permissible remedy for a violation of the +10 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 207 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2013 Page 11 of 11 +plaintiffs' rights under the CVRA, if such a violation is found to have occurred, and, if so, +whether that remedy should be ordered in this case. +CONCLUSION +For all the foregoing reasons, Mr. Epstein's motion to intervene as to the remedy issue in +this case is timely and should be granted as of right under Rule 24(a)(2). Alternatively, +permissive intervention should be granted under Rule 24(b)(I)(B). +We certify that on July 8, 2013, this motion was filed using the CM/ECF system. +Respectfully submitted, +BLACK, SREBNICK, KORNSPAN +& STUMPF, P.A. +201 South Biscayne Boulevard +Suite 1300 +Miami, Florida 33131 +Telephone (305) 371-6421 +Fax (305) 358-2006 +By: +/s/ +ROY BLACK, ESQ. +Florida Bar No. 126088 +rblack@royblack.com +JACKIE PERCZEK, ESQ. +Florida Bar No. 042201 +jperczek@royblack.com +G. WEINBERG, P.C. +20 Park Plaza +Suite 1000 +Boston, L +02116 +Office: (617) 227-3700 +Fax: (617) 338-9538 +By: +/sl +G. WEINBERG, ESQ. +Massachusetts Bar No. 519480 +owlmgw@att.net +11 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a58b0a943ad2510385fb2602cb9d6ba8bd6c6ae04fb1b1edc2deca3f2d4b79d0.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a58b0a943ad2510385fb2602cb9d6ba8bd6c6ae04fb1b1edc2deca3f2d4b79d0.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0d347dae2abce655e5aa8e61edb097c9ca48efb1 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a58b0a943ad2510385fb2602cb9d6ba8bd6c6ae04fb1b1edc2deca3f2d4b79d0.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -152, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "a58b0a943ad2510385fb2602cb9d6ba8bd6c6ae04fb1b1edc2deca3f2d4b79d0", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 21, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "459dbb6887ef02746348322d2b4e1ad28390a08d73de2a615f3edacb3a493e38", + "output_sha256": "b9136e2ee09ce979fd1f975cc20bba0dad9f3117aa1e1526a2a666df033b2e72", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a591109db3303a15776417ecb1d25414412fbcd4021e229ae7731ea3d7e2a30c.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a591109db3303a15776417ecb1d25414412fbcd4021e229ae7731ea3d7e2a30c.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..dcc3272526f750716f36cc845fef1d5b385fded6 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a591109db3303a15776417ecb1d25414412fbcd4021e229ae7731ea3d7e2a30c.md @@ -0,0 +1,545 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 120 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2009 Page 1 of 16 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff +CASE NO: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff +CASE NO: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/_ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 120 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2009 Page 2 of 16 +JANE DOE NO. 5, +Plaintiff +CASE NO: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/_ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant +JANE DOE NO. 6. +Plaintiff +CASE NO: 08-CV-80994-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant +JANE DOE NO. 7, +Plaintiff +CASE NO: 08-CV-80993-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 120 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2009 Page 3 of 16 +CASE NO: 08-CV-80811-MARRA/ +C.M.A., +Plaintiff +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO. 08-CV-80893-CIV-MARRA/_ +Vs. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et al. +Defendant. +DOE II, +CASE NO: 09-CV-80469-MARRA/ +Plaintiff +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et al. +Defendants. +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 120 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2009 Page 4 of 16 +JANE DOE NO. 101, +Plaintiff +CASE NO: 09-CV-80591-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant +JANE DOE NO. 102, +Plaintiff +CASE NO: 09-CV-80656-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant +PLAINTIFF JANE DOE'S MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO PLAINTFF'S FIRST +REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION +Plaintiff Jane Doe, hereby moves this Court for an order compelling defendant, +Jeffrey Epstein, to answer her first request for production or, in the alternative, to prove +that his invocation of his Fifth Amendment privilege is proper. Jane Doe also requests +production of a privilege log. +Jane Doe has propounded 16 requests for production, including such +straightforward requests as requests for production of: +4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 120 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2009 Page 5 of 16 +Request No. 1: Copies of all telephone records; +Request No. 2: Photos of the inside of your home located at 358 El Brillo Way, +Palm Beach, Florida, that depict the rooms) where massages took place (including +massage table). +Request No. 10: Correspondence between Epstein and federal prosecutors; +Request No. 12: Personal tax returns; +Request No. 13: Photocopies of Epstein's passport; +Request No. 14: A statement of net worth; and +Request No. 16: Medical records. +In response to each and every one of these requests, Epstein has given the +following response (with only minor variations here and there): +Defendant is asserting his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to +respond to all relevant questions 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 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. +This Court should order Epstein to provide all of the requested information or, in +the alternative, prove that his Fifth Amendment invocations are valid. It is for the court, +not the claimant, to determine whether the hazard of incrimination is justified. United +States v. Argomaniz, 925 F.2d 1349, 1355 (11th Cir. 1991). "A court must make a +particularized inquiry, deciding, in connection with each specific area that the +5 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 120 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2009 Page 6 of 16 +questioning party wishes to explore, whether or not the privilege is well-founded." Id. +Typically this is done in an in camera proceeding wherein the person asserting the +privilege is given the opportunity "to substantiate his claims of the privilege and the +district court is able to consider the questions asked and the documents requested by +the summons." Id. +Here Epstein has made boilerplate invocation of the Fifth Amendment to each +and every request propounded by Jane Doe, including for example the request for +correspondence with federal prosecutors and for production of federal tax returns. This +obviously is not a request with Fifth Amendment implications, as the information has +already been fully disclosed to the Government. +For all these reasons, the Court should compel Epstein to answer the requests or +provide a particularized justification for his Fifth Amendment invocation with regard to +each request. +Epstein's "cut and paste" response to the request for production also blatantly +disregards the requirements for invoking privilege under the Court's local rules. Local +rule 26.1.G very specifically requires the preparation of a privilege log with respect to all +documents and oral communications (among other things) that are withheld on the +basis of privilege. Epstein has failed to prepare such a log, making it impossible for +Jane Doe to effectively challenge his generic assertions. Indeed, with respect to a few +requests, Epstein has stated: "Further, the request may include information subject to +work product or an attorney-client privilege." Of course, the whole purpose of forcing a +defendant to prepare a privilege log is to force the defendant to decide whether or not +6 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 120 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2009 Page 7 of 16 +information is privileged. An assertion that something "may" be privileged is obviously +woefully deficient. The Local Rules do not permit this tactic, and Epstein should be (at a +minimum) promptly required to produce a privilege log. +For all these reasons, the Court should compel Epstein to provide a privilege log +and to answer the interrogatories or provide a particularized justification for his Fifth +Amendment invocation with regard to each request. +It should be noted that (with minor exceptions) the only grounds on which Epstein +can refuse to answer the request for production is proof of a valid Fifth Amendment +privilege. This the only objection Epstein has asserted (with minor exceptions). As a +result, any other objections to production are deemed waived. See Local Rule +26.1G.3.(a) ("Any ground [for an objection] not stated in an objection within the time +provided by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or any extensions thereof, shall be +waived."). +SPECIFIC REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION +For the convenience of the court - and in compliance with Local Rule 26.1 H +(party filing motion to compel shall list specific requests in succession) - Jane Doe's +requests for production and Epstein's objections are as follows: +Request No. 1: Copies of all telephone records in your or your attorney's possession +from 2002 through 2005 that in any way relate to you (including all phone lines owned +by you or that were used to contact girls for the purposes of scheduling massages for +you.) +attorneys have counseled me that at the present time | cannot select +authenticate, and produce documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must +accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective +7 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 120 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2009 Page 8 of 16 +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. +Request No. 2: All massage appointment books, diaries, computer calendars or +scheduling entities, scheduling books or any other writing or correspondence that +contains the names of any of the girls that were called, contacted, scheduled or who +otherwise went to your home located at 358 El Brillo Way, Palm Beach, Florida, for the +purpose of giving you a massage. +Defendant is asserting his U.S. constitutional privileges. | intend to +respond to all relevant questions 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 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. +Request No. 3: Any and all documentation in your possession that contains Plaintiff's +name or that refers to Plaintiff, directly or indirectly, (includes e-mails, letters, message +pads, diaries, appointment books, computer print outs). +Defendant is asserting his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to +respond to all relevant questions 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 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 Filth, 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. +Request No. 4: Any and all photos, videos, downloaded digital prints or any other visual +depiction of Plaintiff, or of any other known or suspected minor females introduced to +you, directly or indirectly, by Plaintiff. +8 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 120 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2009 Page 9 of 16 +Defendant is asserting his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to +respond to all relevant questions 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 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. +Request No. 5: Photos of the inside or your home located at 358 El Brillo Way, Palm +Beach, Florida, that depict the rooms) where the massages too place (including +massage table). +Defendant is asserting his U.S. constitutional privileges. | intend to +respond to all relevant questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my +attorneys have counseled me that at the present time | cannot select +authenticate, and produce documents 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. +Request No. 6: Any and all documentation of cancelled checks or evidence of payment +to Plaintiff of any kind and for any reason whatsoever. +Defendant is asserting his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to +respond to all relevant questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my +attorneys have counseled me that at the present time | cannot select +authenticate, and produce documents 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. +9 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 120 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2009 Page 10 of 16 +Request No. 7: All discovery information obtained by you or your attorneys as a result +of the exchange of discovery in the State criminal case against you or the Federal +investigation against you. +Defendant is asserting his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to +respond to all relevant questions 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 and I must +accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective +representation. Accordingly, I assert my tederal 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, the information sought is privileged and confidential, and +inadmissible to the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement, Federal +Rule of Evidence 410 and 408, and § 90.410, Fla. Stat.' +Further, the +request may including information subject to work product or an attorneyclient privilege. +Request No. 8: All financial documents evidencing asset transfers from 2005 to present +for you personally or any company or corporation owned by you. +Defendant is asserting his U.S. constitutional privileges. | intend to +respond to all relevant questions 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 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. +"Jane Doe does not intend to use these materials to draw a forbidden inference of guilt from the mere +the non-prosecution agreement, nothing in that agreement bars discovery of information relevant to this +10 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 120 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2009 Page 11 of 16 +Request No. 9: Any documents or other evidentiary materials provided to local, state, +or federal law enforcement investigators or local, state or federal prosecutors +investigating your sexual activities with minors. +Defendant is asserting his U.S. constitutional privileges. | intend to +respond to all relevant questions 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 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, the information sought is privileged and confidential, and +inadmissible pursuant to the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement, +Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and 408, and § 90.410, Fla. Stat. 2 +Further, +the request may include information subject to work product or an +attorney-client privilege. +Request No. 10: All correspondence between you and your attorneys and state or +federal law enforcement or prosecutors (includes, but not limited to, letters to and from +the States Attorney's office or any agents thereof). +Defendant is asserting his U.S. constitutional privileges. | intend to +respond to all relevant questions 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 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, the information +sought is privileged and confidential, and +inadmissible pursuant to the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement, +* Jane Doe does not intend to use these materials to draw a forbidden inference of guilt from the mere +fact of plea discussions, but rather for other purposes. +These materials are also likely to lead to the +discovery of other admissible evidence. +To the extent that Epstein relies on the non-prosecution +agreement, nothing in that agreement bars discovery of information relevant to this lawsuit. +11 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 120 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2009 Page 12 of 16 +Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and 408, and § 90.410, Fla. Stat. Further, +the request may include information subject to work product or an +attorney-client privilege. +Request No. 11: Any and all documents reflecting your current net worth. +Defendant is asserting his U.S. constitutional privileges. | intend to +respond to all relevant questions 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 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 +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. +Request No. 12: Personal tax returns for all years from 2002 through the present. +Defendant is asserting his U.S. constitutional privileges. | intend to +respond to all relevant questions 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 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. +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. +" Jane Doe does not intend to use these materials to draw a forbidden inference of guilt from the mere +fact of correspondence in connection with plea discussions, but rather for other purposes. These +naterials are also likely to lead to the discovery of other admissible evidence. To the extent that Epstein +relies on the non-prosecution agreement, nothing in that agreement bars discovery of information relevant +to this lawsuit. +12 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 120 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2009 Page 13 of 16 +Defendant is asserting his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to +respond to all relevant questions 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 and I must +accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective +representation. Accordingly, 1 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 +protections and privileges, the scope of information is so overbroad that it +seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead +to the discovery of admissible evidence; compiling such information over a +six year period would be unduly burdensome and time consuming.4 +Request No. 14: A sworn statement of your net worth (including a detailed financial +statement depicting all current assets and liabilities). +Defendant is asserting his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all +relevant questions 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 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. +Request No. 15: All financial statements or affidavits produced by you for any reason, +to any person, company, entity or corporation since 2005. +Defendant is asserting his U.S. constitutional privileges. 1 intend to +respond to all relevant questions 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 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 +* Jane Doe believes that Epstein used overseas travel as a means of obtaining underage girls for sexual +purposes and for avoiding criminal prosecution for such activities. Also, providing a copy of a passport is +hardly "burdensome." Also, given the fact that Epstein is likely to have used the services of a travel agent +or another intermediary, it should not be difficult for him to provide evidence of his overseas travels from +such intermediaries. +13 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 120 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2009 Page 14 of 16 +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. +Request No. 16: All medical records of Defendant Epstein from Dr. Stephan Alexander. +Defendant is asserting his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to +respond to all relevant questions 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 and I must +accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective +representation. Accordingly, I assert my tederal 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. +CONCLUSION +For all these reasons, the Court should compel Epstein to answer the request for +production, or provide a particularized justification for his Fifth Amendment invocation +with regard to each request. Epstein should also be required to provide a privilege log. +Counsel for Jane Doe have conferred with opposing counsel on the issues raised in this +motion, and no resolution was possible. +DATED July 10, 2009 +Respectfully Submitted, +J.l +J. +ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER +Las Olas City Centre +401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1650 +Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 +Telephone (954) 522-3456 +Facsimile (954) 527-8663 +Florida Bar No.: 54207: +E-mail: bedwards@rra-law.com +14 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 120 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2009 Page 15 of 16 +and +Paul G. Cassell +Pro Hac Vice +332 S. 1400 E. +Salt Lake City, UT 84112 +Telephone: 801-585-5202 +Facsimile: +801-585-6833 +E-Mail: +cassellp@law.utah.edu +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I HEREBY CERTIFY that on July 10, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing +document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing +document is being served this day on all parties on the attached Service List in the +manner specified, either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by +CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those parties who are not authorized to +receive electronically filed Notices of Electronic Filing. +S/ +J. +J. +15 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 120 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2009 Page 16 of 16 +SERVICE LIST +Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +Jgoldberger@agwpa.com +Robert D. Critton, Esq. +rcritton@bclclaw.com +Isidro Manual +isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net +Jack +iph@searcylaw.com +Katherine Warthen Ezell +KEzell@podhurst.com +Michael James Pike +MPike@bclclaw.com +Paul G. Cassell +cassellp@bclclaw.com +Richard Horace Willits +lawyerswillits@aol.com +Robert C. Josefsberg +rjosefsberg@podhurst.com +Adam D. Horowitz +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +Stuart S. Mermelstein +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +William J. Berger +wberger@rra-law.com +16 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a591109db3303a15776417ecb1d25414412fbcd4021e229ae7731ea3d7e2a30c.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a591109db3303a15776417ecb1d25414412fbcd4021e229ae7731ea3d7e2a30c.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2430ac71656b577e8e5147429b79d656bcb16242 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a591109db3303a15776417ecb1d25414412fbcd4021e229ae7731ea3d7e2a30c.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -648, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "a591109db3303a15776417ecb1d25414412fbcd4021e229ae7731ea3d7e2a30c", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 18, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "092a55ae53a19331b3f8db86b2f1fe17fb85ce767b81fdc422cf02c099b0f2ed", + "output_sha256": "dbcd4424298cf91cf60fdc3c9cfa0b5e5ad453ef61f885d1fa0e0ee99daf5126", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a5a19b1cc8ae65faabec943531bc023beb65dd32d2f3e4584ab948803750d892.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a5a19b1cc8ae65faabec943531bc023beb65dd32d2f3e4584ab948803750d892.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6c30ea54ad33ec5b2a41bc40599eceb4ef69d67f --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a5a19b1cc8ae65faabec943531bc023beb65dd32d2f3e4584ab948803750d892.md @@ -0,0 +1,134 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 182-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2009 Page 1 of 5 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-cv-80119-MARRA/J +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/J +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/JOHNSON +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Defendant. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 182-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2009 Page 2 of 5 +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/J +JANE DOE NO. 5, +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-80994-CIV-MARRA/J +JANE DOE NO. 6, +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-80993-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON +JANE DOE NO. 7, +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Defendant. +C.M.A., +CASE NO.: 08-80811-CIV-MARRA/J +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Defendant. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 182-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2009 Page 3 of 5 +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al, +Defendants. +CASE NO.: 08-80893-CIV-MARRA/. +DOE II, +CASE NO.: 09-80469-CIV-MARRA- +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al, +Defendants. +JANE DOE NO. 101, +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 09-80591-CIV-MARRA-_ +JANE DOE NO. 102, +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 09-80656-CIV-MARRA/ +DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION +OF TIME IN WHICH TO REPLY TO PLAINTIFF JANE DOE'S RESPONSE IN +OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE CASES FROM +CURRENT TRIAL DOCKET + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 182-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2009 Page 4 of 5 +Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through his undersigned counsel, moves +this Court for an extension of time until July 6, 2009, to file a Reply to Plaintiff, Jane +Doe's, Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Strike Cases from the Current +Trial Docket. As good cause for the requested extension, Defendant states: +1. Counsel for Defendant communicated with Counsel for the Plaintiff, and +Plaintiff's Counsel agrees to the requested extension of July 6, 2009, to file a Response to +Plaintiff, Jane Doe's, Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Strike Cases +from the Current Trial Docket. +Rule 7.1 A. 3. Certification of Pre-Filing Conference +Counsel for Defendant conferred with Counsel for Plaintiff's counsel, by +telephone, and Counsel for Plaintiff is in agreement with the requested extension. +Robert D. Criffon, Esq. +Attorney for Defendant + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 182-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2009 Page 5 of 5 +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 via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by +CM/ECF on this 26# day of June, 2009: +Brad +Esq. +Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler +401 East Las Olas Boulevard +Suite 1650 +Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 +Phone: 954-522-3456 +Fax: 954-527-8663 +bedwards@rra-law.com +Counsel for Plaintiff +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 +cassellp@law.utah.edu +Co-counsel for Plaintiff +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 +561-659-8300 +561-835-8691 Fax +jagesg@bellsouth.net +Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein +rcrit@bclelaw.com +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. +Florida Bar #617296 +mpike@bclclaw.com +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & +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) diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a5a19b1cc8ae65faabec943531bc023beb65dd32d2f3e4584ab948803750d892.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a5a19b1cc8ae65faabec943531bc023beb65dd32d2f3e4584ab948803750d892.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7b0842566751e8767dd085ac884870be213221ca --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a5a19b1cc8ae65faabec943531bc023beb65dd32d2f3e4584ab948803750d892.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -60, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "a5a19b1cc8ae65faabec943531bc023beb65dd32d2f3e4584ab948803750d892", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 5, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "5112cb686c30763cc66c139b9d750cb79c56fe47026f7b98ec526ed0a7d677b3", + "output_sha256": "4960440d408c211140ba27ee3e7294b96dfbe813020a76bd65690736dbea1321", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a5b4e86c8518ab1bd5a77c8a562935cdd225ba179c6ebf09033f3a4aac9dbcf7.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a5b4e86c8518ab1bd5a77c8a562935cdd225ba179c6ebf09033f3a4aac9dbcf7.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..602a22fff489e314964b951f3a599198bb085714 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a5b4e86c8518ab1bd5a77c8a562935cdd225ba179c6ebf09033f3a4aac9dbcf7.md @@ -0,0 +1,228 @@ +Case 9:09-cv-80802-KAM Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/18/2009 Page 1 of 9 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO. 09-80802-CIV-MARRA +JANE DOE NO. 8, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +OPINION AND ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS +THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's ("Defendant") +Motion to Dismiss (DE 8). Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 8 ("Plaintiff") filed a response to the motion +(DE 13) and Defendant filed a Reply (DE 15). The Court has carefully reviewed the motion, +response, and reply, and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. +Background +On May 28, 2009, Plaintiff filed her Complaint against Defendant (DE 1). Plaintiff +brings suit alleging Count I - Sexual Assault and Battery; Count II - Intentional Infliction of +Emotional Distress; and Count III - Coercion and Enticement to Sexual Activity in Violation of +18 U.S.C. § 2422. +The facts, as alleged in the Complaint, are as follows: Defendant, an adult male, has a +sexual preference and obsession for underage minor girls. Compl. 419 8, 9. Defendant engaged in +1 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80802-KAM Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/18/2009 Page 2 of 9 +a plan and scheme in which he gained access to primarily economically disadvantaged minor +girls in his home, sexually assaulted these girls, and then gave them money. Compl. 19. In or +about 2001, Plaintiff, then approximately 16 years old, became one of Defendant's victims. +Compl. "1 9. +Defendant's scheme involved the use of young girls to recruit underage, ostensibly to +give a wealthy man a massage for monetary compensation in his Palm Beach mansion. Compl. 1 +11. The underage victim would be brought or directed to Defendant's mansion, where she would +be led up a flight of stairs to a room that contained a massage table in addition to other +furnishings. Id. The girl would then find herself alone in the room with Defendant, who would +be wearing only a towel. Id. Defendant would then remove his towel and lie naked on the +massage table, and then direct the girl to remove her clothes. Id. Defendant would then perform +one or more lewd, lascivious and sexual acts. Id. +Consistent with the foregoing plan and scheme, Plaintiff was recruited by another girl, +who told her that she could make some money, but did not tell her what was involved. Compl. 1 +13. Plaintiff was picked up and brought to Defendant's mansion in Palm Beach. Id. Once there, +she was led up a flight of stairs to the room with the massage table. Id. Defendant came into the +room and directed Plaintiff to remove her clothes and give him a massage. Id. Plaintiff was +frightened and felt trapped. Id. During the massage, Defendant touched Plaintiff's breasts and +vagina, and grabbed her hand and placed it on his penis. Id. Defendant masturbated himself +during the massage. Id. Defendant then left money for Plaintiff. Id. As a result of this encounter +with Defendant, Plaintiff experienced confusion, shame, humiliation, and embarrassment, and +has suffered severe psychological and emotional injuries. Compl. 9 14. +2 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80802-KAM Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/18/2009 Page 3 of 9 +Under Count I - Sexual Assault and Battery, the Complaint alleges as follows: Defendant +made an intentional, unlawful offer of offensive sexual contact toward Plaintiff, creating a +reasonable fear of imminent peril and sexual assault. Compl. 9 16. Defendant intentionally +inflicted harmful or offensive contact on the person of Plaintiff. Compl. 1 17. Defendant +tortiously committed a sexual assault and battery on Plaintiff. Compl. 1 18. Defendant's acts +were intentional, unlawful, offensive and harmful. Id. Defendant's plan and scheme in which he +committed such acts upon Plaintiff were done willfully and maliciously. Compl. 1| 19. Plaintiff +has suffered and will continue to suffer severe and permanent traumatic injuries, including +mental, psychological and emotional damages and loss of enjoyment of life. Compl. 1 20. +Under Count III, Coercion and Enticement to Sexual Activity in Violation of 18 U.S.C. § +2422, the Complaint alleges as follows: Defendant used a facility or means of interstate +commerce to knowingly persuade, induce or entice Plaintiff, when she was under the age of 18 +years, to engage in prostitution or sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a +criminal offense. Compl. 9 28. On June 30, 2008, Defendant entered a plea of guilty to +violations of Florida §§ 796,07 and 796.03 in the 15** Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach +County (Case nos. 2008-cf-009381AXXXMB and 2006-cf-009454AXXXMB), for conduct +involving the same plan and scheme as alleged herein. Comp. 9 29. As to Plaintiff, Defendant +could have been charged with criminal violations of Florida Statute § 796.07(2) (including +subsections (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), and (h) thereof), and other criminal offenses including violations +of Florida Statutes §$ 798.02 and 800.04 (including subsections (5), (6), and (7) thereof). Comp. +9 30. As a result of Defendant's violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422, Plaintiff has suffered personal +injury, including mental, psychological and emotional damages. Compl. 1 31. +3 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80802-KAM Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/18/2009 Page 4 of 9 +Defendant argues in his motion to dismiss that Counts I and Ill of the Complaint must be +dismissed as time-barred by the applicable statutes of limitations on the face of the Complaint.' +Plaintiff responds that the Court should deny the motion because it is not apparent from the +Complaint that Plaintiff's claims are time-barred because the Complaint does not allege the date +on which her claims accrued. Additionally, Plaintiff argues that Count I is not time-barred +because Plaintiff had until seven years after she reached the age of majority to file her claim. +Standard of Review +In deciding a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a +court must accept all factual allegations in a complaint as true and take them in the light most +favorable to the plaintiff. See Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007). To satisfy the +pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, a complaint must contain a short and +plain statement showing an entitlement to relief, and the statement must "give the defendant fair +notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Swierkiewicz v. +Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 8); see also Bell Atlantic Corp. v. +Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964 (2007); Dura Pharm., Inc. v. Broudo, 544 U.S. 336, 346 (2005). +This is a liberal pleading requirement, one that does not require a plaintiff to plead with +particularity every element of a cause of action. Roe v. Aware Woman Ctr. for Choice, Inc., 253 +F.3d 678, 683 (11th Cir. 2001). Instead, the complaint need only "contain either direct or +inferential allegations respecting all the material elements necessary to sustain a recovery under +some viable legal theory." Id. (internal citation and quotation omitted). "A complaint need not +'Defendant's Motion does not move for dismissal of Count II. + + +Case 9:09-cv-80802-KAM Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/18/2009 Page 5 of 9 +specify in detail the precise theory giving rise to recovery. All that is required is that the +defendant be on notice as to the claim being asserted against him and the grounds on which it +rests." +v. United Food and Comm'l Workers Int'l Union, 866 F.2d 1380, 1384 (11th Cir. +1989). +"While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed +factual allegations, [ ] a plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds' of his 'entitlement to relief" +requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause +of action will not do." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. at 1964-65 (citations omitted). +"Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level on the +assumption that all of the complaint's allegations are true." Id. at 1965. Plaintiff must plead +enough facts to state a plausible basis for the claim. Id. +Discussion +Count I alleges a claim for sexual assault and battery. Defendant asserts that Count I +should be dismissed because a four-year statute of limitations applies to that claim, and it is +apparent from the face of the Complaint that Plaintiff filed her claim past this limitations period. +A statute of limitations bar is "an affirmative defense, and ... plaintiffTs] [are] not +required to negate an affirmative defense in [their] complaint." LaGrasta v. First Union +Securities, Inc., 358 F.3d 840, 845 (11th Cir. 2004) (citing Tregenza v. Great American +Communications Co., 12 F.3d 717, 718 (7th Cir. 1993)). A Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal on statute of +limitations grounds is appropriate only if it is "apparent from the face of the complaint" that the +claim is time-barred. Id.; Omar v. Lindsey, 334 F.3d 1246, 1251 (11th Cir. 2003); Carmichael v. +5 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80802-KAM Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/18/2009 Page 6 of 9 +Nissan Motor Acceptance Corp., 291 F.3d 1278, 1279 (11th Cir. 2002). +Defendant argues that, pursuant to Florida law, the statute of limitations for assault and +battery is four years. Defendant relies upon Fla. Stat. § 95.11(3)(o), which provides: +Actions other than for recovery of real property shall be commenced as follows: +(3) Within four years.-- +(o) An action for assault, battery, false arrest, malicious prosecution, malicious +interference, false imprisonment, or any other intentional tort, except as provided +in subsections (4), (5), and (7). +Defendant asserts that, based upon the allegations in the Complaint?, +, it was approximately eight +(8) years between the alleged conduct by Defendant and the filing of the Complaint. Thus, +Defendant argues, on the face of the Complaint, the four year statute of limitations has expired +and, accordingly, Court I should be dismissed as time-barred. +In response, Plaintiff argues that Defendant is relying on the wrong limitations period. +Section 95.11(3)(o), upon which Defendant relies, provides as follows: "An action for assault, +battery, false arrest, malicious prosecution, malicious interference, false imprisonment, or any +other intentional tort, except as provided in subsections (4), (5), and (7)." (emphasis added). +Thus, Section 95.11(3)(o) is not applicable to causes of action falling within the purview of § +95.11(7). Section 95.11(7) provides as follows: +(7) For intentional torts based on abuse. - An action founded on alleged abuse, as +defined in s. 39.01 +age not migoriy. or withim bearance at any pins lave yedependhey +of the abuser, or within 4 years from the time of discovery by the injured party of +»oth the injury and the causal relationship between the injury and the abuse +whichever occurs later. +Accordingly, an intentional tort claim alleging "abuse" against a child, as described in Fla. Stat. +2 The Complaint states that "In or about 2001, Jane Doe, then approximately 16 years old, +fell into Epstein's trap and became one of his victims." Comp. 99. +6 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80802-KAM Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/18/2009 Page 7 of 9 +§39.01, is controlled by §95.11(7), as an exception to the four-year limitations period provided +for in §95.11(3)(o). See H.T.E. v. Tyler Technologies, Inc., 217 F.Supp. 2d 1255, 1259 (M.D. +Fla. 2002) (where language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, the statute must be given its +plain and obvious meaning). +The term "abuse" is defined in Fla. Stat. §39.01(2) as follows: " 'Abuse' means any +willful act or threatened act that results in any physical, mental or sexual injury or harm that +causes or is likely to cause the child's physical, mental, or emotional health to be significantly +impaired." The Complaint in this case alleges "abuse" under the broad definition of $39.01. +Specifically, Count I alleges willful acts (Complaint 11 8-13, 16-19); resulting in physical, mental +or sexual injury (Complaint 91 13,17, 20); that cause or are likely to cause the child's physical, +mental or emotional health to be significantly impaired. Thus, the seven-year limitations period +after the Plaintiff reaches the age of majority applies to Plaintiff's claims in Count I. According +to the allegations in the Complaint, Plaintiff was approximately 16 years old in 2001. Comp. 99. +It follows that Plaintiff was approximately 24 years old (and approximately six years past the age +of majority) when she filed her Complaint. Therefore, Count I is not time-barred pursuant to the +applicable statute of limitations. +Counts III alleges a claim under 18 U.S.C. § 2255(a) based upon an alleged violation of +18 U.S.C. § 2422. That statute states, in pertinent part, +(b) Whoever, using the mail or any facility or means of interstate or foreign +shall be fined under this title and imprisoned not less than 10 years or for life. +7 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80802-KAM Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/18/2009 Page 8 of 9 +18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). +Defendant argues that, on the face of the Complaint, Count IIl is barred by the statute of +limitations contained in 18 U.S.C. § 2255(b). That statute provides: "Any action commenced +under this section shall be barred unless the complaint is filed within six years after the right of +action first accrues or in the case of a person under a legal disability, not later than three years +after the disability." Defendant states that, based on the allegations of the Complaint, it has been +eight (8) years since the alleged conduct by Defendant occurred, well past the six-year statute of +limitations. Additionally, Defendant asserts that Plaintiff is now at least 24 years old, well past +the age of majority under both federal and state law. See 18 U.S.C. § 2256(1); Fla. Stat. § 1.01. +Plaintiff responds that Defendant's motion assumes that the action accrued on the date +when Defendant's alleged sexual misconduct occurred, but that the determination of when the +limitations period accrues under the discovery rule in a case involving sexual misconduct with a +minor requires a detailed and complex factual inquiry regarding when Plaintiff became aware of +her injuries and was able to connect those injuries to the Defendant's conduct. (Resp. at 5-7). +While ordinarily a Plaintiff need not negate the affirmative defense of the statute of limitations, +LaGrasta, 358 F.3d at 845, when on the face of the complaint it appears that the limitations +period has run, Plaintiff must allege facts which, if proven true, would avoid the limitations +period. See Hughes v. Lott, 350 F.3d 1157, 1163 (11" Cir. 2003) (to dismiss a claim as timebarred it must appear beyond a doubt from the complaint itself that the plaintiff can prove no set +of facts which would avoid a statute of limitations bar); Berkson v. Del Monte Corp., 743 F.2d +53, 55 (1" Cir. 1984); see, c.g., Autry Petroleum Co. v. BP Products North America, Inc., 2006 +WL 1174443, * 4 (M.D. Ga. 2006) ("Plaintiffs' Complaint may be dismissed only if, from the +8 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80802-KAM Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/18/2009 Page 9 of 9 +face of the Complaint, it is apparent (1) that the statute of limitations has run and (2) that there +are no facts that Plaintiffs could prove that would support a finding that BP has committed a +fraud which prevented Plaintiffs from bringing the action at an earlier time.") A review of the +Complaint, however, reveals no allegations which implicate the doctrine of delayed discovery, or +would avoid the running of the limitations period. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss Count III +without prejudice for Plaintiff to amend to add allegations which implicate the doctrine of +delayed discovery, if she can do so in good faith. +Conclusion +For the reasons stated herein, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (DE 8) is GRANTED IN +PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows: Defendant's motion to dismiss Count I is denied. +Defendant's motion to dismiss Count III is granted. Count III is hereby dismissed without +prejudice, with leave to amend in accordance with this Order. +DONE AND ORDERED in +at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, +Florida, this 18" day of November, 2009. +KENNETH A. MARRA +United States District Judge +copies to: +All counsel of record +9 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a5b4e86c8518ab1bd5a77c8a562935cdd225ba179c6ebf09033f3a4aac9dbcf7.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a5b4e86c8518ab1bd5a77c8a562935cdd225ba179c6ebf09033f3a4aac9dbcf7.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8bd94de542219fa681221f7581b56dac419bf46e --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a5b4e86c8518ab1bd5a77c8a562935cdd225ba179c6ebf09033f3a4aac9dbcf7.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -110, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "a5b4e86c8518ab1bd5a77c8a562935cdd225ba179c6ebf09033f3a4aac9dbcf7", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 10, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "6d45416ce836ff20c2f2e440ed363e00d4eb2fd93be0043a81555d43404c39a7", + "output_sha256": "fbd5b246a1f0635b9ec7217227a62813204196eb2154df623e18bd2ee3e96c53", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a5b8b3e166b130567cbe21436cfa87a2f97dab2b1a7f3f88e6404ce0873a453b.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a5b8b3e166b130567cbe21436cfa87a2f97dab2b1a7f3f88e6404ce0873a453b.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..19c492edb8a670d5019ce0accd9c8bb1f4d4963c --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a5b8b3e166b130567cbe21436cfa87a2f97dab2b1a7f3f88e6404ce0873a453b.md @@ -0,0 +1,467 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 105 +Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 1 of 17 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 5, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/ +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/C +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 105 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 2 of 17 +JANE DOE NO. 6, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80994-MARRA +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 7, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80993-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +C.M.A., +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80811-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80893-MARRA/_ +vS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al, +Defendants. +-2- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 105 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 3 of 17 +DOE II, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 09-CV-80469-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al, +Defendants. +JANE DOE NO. 101, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 09-CV-80591-MARRA/JOHNSON +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 102 +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 09-CV-80656-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +UNITED STATES' RESPONSE TO COURT'S ORDER +REQUESTING POSITION ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STAY [DE 99] +Comes now the United States, by and through the undersigned Assistant United States +Attorney, and files this response to the Court's Order requesting the position of the United +States on Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to Stay Proceedings [DE 99]. For the reasons +set forth below, it is the United States' position that a stay of the proceedings is not necessary +and was not contemplated by the Non-Prosecution Agreement between the United States and +Defendant Jeffrey Epstein. +-3- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 105 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 4 of 17 +ISSUE PRESENTED +The United States is not a party to these lawsuits and, accordingly, is not fully aware +of the scope of the proceedings, the range of arguments presented by counsel, and any +correspondence or oral communications between the parties in these civil suits. Based on +the information presented by the Court and a review of Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Motion +to Stay and/or Continue Action for Time Certain Based on Parallel Civil and Criminal +Proceedings with Incorporated Memorandum of Law (Court File No. 08-CV-80811- +MARRA/JOHNSON DE 51-1), and responses thereto filed by various plaintiffs in their suits, +the undersigned understands that the Court has requested the position of the United States +on the following issue: +Are there "special circumstances" that require the imposition of a stay of the +civil proceedings in the "interests of justice" until the "expiration" of the Non- +Prosecution Agreement ["NPA"] between the United States and Epstein? +By filing this response, the United States does not make itself a party to this litigation +and takes no position with respect to the outcome of any of the civil suits; nor does the +United States take any position regarding Defendant Epstein's performance of his obligations +pursuant to the NPA. The United States also declines to comment on Defendant Epstein's +representations regarding past allegations of violations of the NPA by Epstein. The United +States files this response solely as amicus curiae at the Court's request and does not waive +any procedural or statutory bars to suit. +-4- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 105 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 5 of 17 +I. +STANDARD FOR IMPOSING A DISCRETIONARY STAY +The Defendant Must Show that the Assertion of His Fifth +Amendment Privilege Against Self-Incrimination Would +Automatically Result in the Entry of Summary Judgment Against +Him. +"The decision whether or not to stay civil litigation in deference to parallel criminal +proceedings is discretionary..... A movant must carry a heavy burden to succeed in such an +endeavor." Microfinancial, Inc. v. Premier Holidays Internat'l, Inc., 385 F.3d 72, 77 (Ist +Cir. 2004) (citations omitted). When a defendant facing possible criminal liability invokes +his Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination in connection with civil +litigation, a court can stay discovery or the entire civil case. +v. Jenne, 2007 WL 624286 +*1 (S.D. Fl. Feb. 23, 2007) (Cooke, J.). "However, the Constitution does not require a stay +of civil proceedings pending the outcome of related criminal proceedings. Forcing an +individual to risk non-criminal disadvantage by remaining silent for fear of self incrimination +in a parallel criminal proceeding does not rise to the level of an unconstitutional +infringement."" Id. (quoting Shell Oil Co. v. Altina Assocs., Inc., 866 F. Supp. 536, 540 +(M.D. Fl. 1994)). +As this Court has previously explained: +The law regarding stays of civil actions is well-settled in the Eleventh Circuit. +In United States v. Lot 5, Fox Grove, Alachua County, Fla, 23 F.3d 359, 363- +5 (11th Cir. 1994) (*Lot 5" +av ith Cir. 1994) "st 5"), the Cou ariculated the following principles of +criminal action: +[A] blanket assertion of the privilege is an inadequate basis for +the issuance of a stay. +Rather, a court must stay a civil +-5- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 105 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 6 of 17 +proceeding pending resolution of a related criminal prosecution +only when "special circumstances" so require in the "interests +of justice." The court may deny a stay so long as the privilege's +invocation does not compel an adverse judgment against the +claimant. +[T]he standard set by the Eleventh Circuit as to when a stay should be granted +to prevent unconstitutional infringement is more narrow. The law in the +Eleventh Circuit requires consideration of whether, as a result of invoking the +privilege, the defendant faces certain loss of the civil proceeding on summary +judgment if the civil proceeding were to continue. Lot 5, 23 F.3d at 364; +Pervis v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 901 F.2d 944 (11th Cir. 1990). +Under this standard, Movants must show that invocation of the privilege in the +instant matter will result in certain loss by automatic summary judgment. +United States v. Two Parcels of Real Property, 92 F.3d 1123, 1129 (11th Cir. +1996); Pervis, 901 F.2d at 946-47. This must be an actual adverse judgment +ind not "merely the loss of the defendant's most 'effective defense." +Securities & Exchange Comm. v. Incendy, 936 F. Supp. at 955 (S.D. Fl. 1996); +Shell Oil Co., 866 F. Supp. at 540-41. +Court-Appointed Receiver of Lancer Mgt. Group LLC v. Lauer, 2009 WL 800144 (S.D. Fl. +Mar. 25, 2009) (Marra, J.). +Thus, before reaching the relative benefit and prejudice to each of the parties caused +by staying the cases, the Court must determine whether, if defendant Epstein were to invoke +his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination' and the Court were to allow an adverse +inference to be drawn therefrom, an adverse judgment against Epstein would be +automatically compelled. The United States respectfully submits that it would not. +'It appears from a brief review of some of Epstein's discovery responses that Epstein has +made a blanket assertion of the privilege. For example, Epstein has asserted his Fifth Amendment +privilege in response to a plaintiff's request to produce the NPA and the United States' list of +identified victims although these documents were provided to Epstein by the United States. +-6- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 105 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 7 of 17 +From a review of the Complaints filed by the plaintiffs in these cases, it appears that +some have filed claims based upon Title 18, United States Code, Section 2255, some have +filed claims based upon common law torts, and some have filed a combination of the two. +Under general principles of tort law, a plaintiff is required to prove: (1) that the defendant +committed a bad act; (2) that the plaintiff suffered damages; and (3) that the damages were +caused by the defendant's bad act. To succeed on a claim under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, a plaintiff +must show: (1) that the plaintiff is a person who, while a minor, was a victim of an +enumerated offense committed by the defendant; (2) that the person suffered personal injury +as a result of that violation; and (3) the amount of damages she sustained. +Epstein's assertion of his Fifth Amendment privilege could result in the drawing of +a negative inference only as to the first element under both of these claims. Therefore, to +succeed on summary judgment (or at trial), the plaintiffs would still have to prove that they +suffered personal injury/damages as a result of the defendant's bad act. Cf. In re Financial +Federated Title & Trust, Inc., 252 B.R. 834, 838 (S.D. Fl. Bank. Ct. 2000) (Stay not +warranted in bankruptcy proceeding where criminal indictment was pending because +negative inference related only to defendant's receipt of allegedly fraudulent transfers, but +"Trustee must still carry the burden of proving all of the elements of his complaint for +fraudulent transfers ... includ[ing] fraudulent intent, insolvency, and financial condition at +the time of the transfers to the Defendants."). +While Epstein may believe that his arguments and proof as to the first element are his +"most effective defense," that alone is insufficient to warrant the imposition of a stay of the +-7- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 105 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 8 of 17 +litigation. There are two other items for the Court to consider in deciding this issue. First, +pursuant to the terms of the NPA, as to those victims identified by the United States, Epstein +has already made a concession that they are victims of an enumerated offense committed by +Epstein. Thus, this inference is drawn not due to his invocation of the right against selfincrimination but due to his entry into a contractual agreement with the United States for +which the identified victims are third-party beneficiaries.? Second, in Lot 5, the Eleventh +Circuit pointed out the wealth of evidence other than the defendant's testimony that could +be used to defeat a liability claim. See Lot 5, 23 F.3d at 364 ("Thus, Claimant's assertion that +only her own testimony could vindicate her is groundless; other participants to the illegal acts +that gave rise to the forfeiture were available to testify at trial. Claimant's failure to indicate +with precision why she did not use other parties' testimony to substantiate her defense was +fatal."). For example, Epstein could mount a defense using effective cross-examination, +telephone records, travel records, documents within the possession of the plaintiffs or third +parties, and/or the testimony of third parties to rebut the plaintiffs' proof. +"The United States notes that it is not aware of the identities of all of the plaintiffs in the civil +suits. To the extent that any are not "identified victims" under the NPA, this contractual provision +would not apply. +-8- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 105 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 9 of 17 +Additional Factors to Consider in Balancing the Prejudice to the +Parties +If the Court is persuaded that the negative inference drawn from Epstein's assertion +of his Fifth Amendment privilege would result in an automatic grant of summary judgment +in favor of the plaintiffs, then the Court must engage in a balancing of equities in determining +whether there are "special circumstances" warranting the imposition of a stay "to prevent +a party from suffering substantial and irreparable prejudice.'" Securites and Exchange +Comm'n v. Incendy, 936 F. Supp. 952, 956 (S.D. Fl. 1996) (quoting S.E.C. v. First Financial +Group of Texas, Inc., 659 F.2d 660, 668 (5th Cir. 1981) (add'I citations omitted). +Examples of "special circumstances" provided by the Supreme Court in +[United States v. Kordel] are: (1) if the Government brought the civil action +solely to obtain evidence for its criminal prosecution, (2) if the Government +failed to advise the defendant in the civil proceeding that it contemplates his +criminal prosecution; (3) if the defendant is without counsel or reasonably +fears prejudice from adverse pretrial publicity or other unfair injury; or (4) any +other special circumstances indicating unconstitutionality or even impropriety. +Incendy at 956 (citing United States v. Kordel, 397 U.S. 1, 11 (1970)). See also Securities +and Exchange Comm'n v. +261 Fed. Appx. 259, 263 (1 1th Cir. 2008) ("[No "special +circumstances' existed in this case warranting a stay, as there is no record evidence +suggesting the Government had brought the civil case solely to obtain evidence for the +criminal prosecution or that the criminal case against [defendant] was unconstitutional or +inappropriately instituted."). +No "special circumstances" exist here. First, unlike +and Incendy, the United +States Government is not a party to the civil litigation. Each suit is brought on behalf of an +-9- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 105 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 10 of 17 +individual plaintiff represented by private counsel. Some of those plaintiffs are adverse to +the United States and have filed suit against the Government based upon its handling of the +criminal case against Epstein. (See In re Jane Doe Litigation, Court File No. 08-80736-Civ- +Marra.) There has been no allegation, and certainly no showing, that the civil litigation is +a ruse to obtain discovery on behalf of the criminal investigation. +As some of the plaintiffs have mentioned, one purpose of the NPA was to place the +identified victims in the same position where they would have been if Epstein had been +convicted after trial of an offense enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 2255. (See, e.g., Court File No. +08-CV-80119 DE 49-2.) If Epstein had proceeded to trial and been convicted, those victims +would have been entitled to restitution and to file suit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255, and +would have been entitled to the same sorts of discovery that they now seek. None of the +plaintiffs has contacted the United States about passing on materials gathered through +discovery to any criminal investigators or about seeking discovery that would be relevant +only to the criminal proceedings, rather than to their individual cases. If Epstein has +legitimate concerns that the civil discovery process is being abused in some way, he can ask +the Court for a protective order limiting the scope of discovery or its distribution. +Furthermore, if at some time in the future, Epstein were the subject of a criminal indictment +and he alleged that the evidence to be used against him was gathered improperly, he could +file a motion to suppress or to dismiss the indictment in that criminal action. See, e.g., United +States, ex. rel. Westrick v. Second Chance, 2007 WL 1020808 *4 (D.D.C. Mar. 31, 2007) +(Defendant in civil False Claims Act suit moved to stay civil action pending criminal +-10- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 105 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 11 of 17 +investigation where no indictment had been returned. The district court denied the motion, +noting that while allowing civil discovery to proceed may afford the government [who was +the real party in interest in the civil case] the opportunity to gain evidence that it may not be +entitled to under the more restrictive criminal discovery rules, if and when discovery +becomes necessary, protective orders and other remedial measures may be taken.") (citations +omitted). +By entering into the NPA, with its explicit discussion of 18 U.S.C. § 2255, Epstein +acknowledged that the United States was trying to protect the victims' rights to restitution +and that civil claims would likely follow. Epstein did not bargain for a stay of those +proceedings. Instead, both parties received benefits and gave consideration for the bargain +that was struck - while Epstein is faced with answering discovery requests that he would not +face during criminal proceedings, he also is entitled to the identification of and extensive +discovery from the victims, which he would not have received in the criminal case. Based +upon a review of the discovery requests he has promulgated thus far, it appears that Epstein +is taking full advantage of this benefit and if a criminal case were ever filed, he would, no +doubt, seek to use that information in his defense.? +With respect to the other "special circumstances" mentioned in Incendy, the government +obviously advised Epstein of the potential for criminal charges, and that knowledge led to the +negotiation of the NPA. Epstein also has a number of attorneys listed on the Service List for the +civil cases and has retained a similarly large number of attorneys to handle the criminal investigation +and negotiation of the NPA. Epstein alleges a fear of adverse publicity, but as the plaintiffs have +pointed out, during the course of the state and federal criminal investigations, Epstein's personal +publicist distributed stories to the press impugning the credibility of the victims and other witnesses +and averring that the victims' allegations of abuse were made solely to extract money from the +defendant. In the context of some of the civil suits currently pending, Epstein has asked the Court +-11- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 105 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 12 of 17 +Unlike +and Incendy, Epstein also has not been criminally indicted. In some +districts, this alone is virtually dispositive. See, e.g., Sterling Nat'l Bank v. A-1 Hotels +Internat'l, 175 F. Supp. 2d 573, 576-77 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) ("district courts in this Circuit +'generally grant the extraordinary remedy of a stay only after the defendant seeking a stay +has been indicted."" (quoting Citibank, N.A. v. | +L, 1993 WL 481335 *1 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. +18, 1993) (add'1 citations omitted). As one court explained: +the consensus that a party seeking a stay bears a heavier burden when he has +not yet been indicted derives logically from the balancing test set out by the +courts of appeals that have considered the question. When a defendant has +been indicted, his situation is particularly dangerous, and takes a certain +priority, for the risk to his liberty, the importance of safeguarding his +constitutional rights, and even the strain on his resources and attention that +makes defending satellite civil litigation particularly difficult, all weigh in +favor of his interest. Moreover, if the potential prejudice to the defendant is +particularly high post-indictment, the prejudice to the plaintiff of staying +proceedings is somewhat reduced, since the criminal litigation has reached a +crisis that will lead to a reasonably speedy resolution. Furthermore, at that +stage in the criminal proceeding, the contours of the indictment will provide +the Court with a reasonable basis for determining the extent of the threat to the +defendant's Fifth Amendment rights, and the likely extent and timing of the +criminal litigation. +Pre-indictment, these factors must be balanced significantly differently. +Though many of the same risks to the civil defendant are present, the dangers +are at least somewhat more remote, and it is inherently unclear to the Court +just how much the unindicted defendant really has to fear. Conversely, the +delay imposed on the plaintiff is potentially indefinite. There is no telling how +complicated the government's investigation may be, whether the allegations +of the particular civil plaintiff are merely the tip of an iceberg that will result +in a lengthy and open-ended investigation, what priority the government +assigns to the investigation, whether it will result in charges that will have to +to unseal the victims' names so that he may make use similar press efforts to impugn their +credibility. +-12- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 105 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 13 of 17 +be litigated, or how time-consuming the resulting criminal case will be. Under +these circumstances, the likelihood that a civil party can make the necessary +showing to obtain the "extraordinary" remedy of a stay is inevitably much +reduced. +Sterling Nat'l Bank, 175 F. Supp. 2d at 577 (internal citations omitted). +The First Circuit has noted that the decision whether to grant a stay "is highly nuanced +….. [and] involves competing interests. Balancing these interests is a situation-specific task, +and an inquiring court must take a careful look at the idiosyncratic circumstances of the case +before it." Microfinancial, supra, 385 F.3d at 78. Epstein's case is more idiosyncratic than +most. +As the Court aptly noted in its Order denying Epstein's first motion to stay the civil +proceedings, Epstein has not been indicted and there are no criminal proceedings pending +against him.* The resurrection of criminal proceedings against Epstein lies entirely within +Epstein's own hands, by performing or not performing under the terms of the NPA. This tips +the balance of equities even further in favor of the plaintiffs. Epstein makes allegations that +the U.S. Attorney's Office has unfettered discretion in determining breaches of the NPA, but +this is no different than in any contractual setting. If one party believes that there has been +a breach, it may seek the remedy set forth in the contract. If the other party believes that +*Epstein points to provisions requiring him to maintain certain evidence "inviolate" as proof +that the grand jury investigation is still active. These provisions are meant only to insure that easily +destroyed evidence identified through the investigation, such as computer equipment, that is still in +Epstein's control, will still be available to investigators if Epstein does, in fact, breach the NPA. +Epstein is well aware that litigation concerning those matters have been removed from the Court's +docket, at the insistence of the United States, because it fully halted its investigation in accordance +with the terms of the NPA. +- 13- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 105 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 14 of 17 +there has been no breach, it has a remedy at law or equity. In this situation, Epstein would +be entitled to seek dismissal of the indictment. See United States v. Beeks, 167 Fed. Appx +777 (11th Cir. 2006); United States v. L +138 Fed. Appx. 965 (9th Cir. 2005); United +States v. +1, 393 F.3d 540 (5th Cir. 2004). +Epstein argues that because he is seeking a finite period of delay - until the time that +he asserts that the NPA "expires" - and that, thereafter, he will promptly provide full and +complete responses to all discovery, the harm to the plaintiffs is de minimis. With all respect, +this overlooks a number of obvious issues. First, if a stay is imposed until Epstein's +proposed "expiration date," it affords Epstein one of two incentives: (a) to delay any intended +breach until a time when he believes that the United States has no remedy and then to breach +the agreement with impunity (i.e, to use the NPA as a shield and a sword); or (b) to delay the +civil litigation as long as possible (until shortly before the "expiration" of the NPA), and +then, after criminal charges have been filed, to seek a mandatory stay of the civil cases until +the criminal case is resolved. Thus, contrary to the assertions of Epstein, the delay is not +limited but, instead, is "potentially indefinite," as Sterling Bank warns. If the U.S. Attorney's +Office were to proceed criminally, the litigation would likely be very lengthy, and would +result in an even greater delay to the plaintiffs. +'The United States also notes that this finite termination to Epstein's exposure to potential +criminal consequences is illusory. The NPA addresses only certain victims identified during the +course of the government's investigation. To the extent that any of the plaintiffs who have already +filed suit against Epstein do not fall within that group, the NPA does not address potential charges +based upon crimes committed against them. The NPA also does not bind any other state or federal +prosecutor from pursuing charges for criminal acts committed within their jurisdiction(s). The +federal statute of limitations for offenses against children is ten years or the life of the child, +-14- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 105 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 15 of 17 +The factors to consider include: "(i) the interests of the civil plaintiff in proceeding +expeditiously with the civil litigation, including the avoidance of any prejudice to the +plaintiff should a delay transpire; (ii) the hardship to the defendant, including the burden +placed upon him should the cases go forward in tandem; (ill) the convenience of both the +civil and criminal courts; (iv) the interests of third parties; ... (v) the public interest:] ... +(vi) the good faith of the litigants (or the absence of it) and (vii) the status of the cases." +Microfinancial, 385 F.3d at 78 (citations omitted). +In considering those factors, the United States respectfully recommends to the Court +that all of the factors weigh against a stay. In making its decision, the Court should consider +that, unlike all of the cases cited herein, Epstein seeks to stay not one suit involving a single +plaintiff, but more than a dozen suits filed by individual plaintiffs. Each of those plaintiffs, +in turn, impliedly asserts that she is a "crime victim" with the "right to full and timely +restitution" and the "right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay." 18 U.S.C. § +3771(a)(6) & (7). As noted above, one of the purposes of the NPA was to provide these +rights to victims identified in the Government's investigation. Thus, this factor weighs more +heavily for the plaintiffs than in the average civil dispute as it embodies both the plaintiffs' +and the public's interests. The victims who were identified in the government investigation, +by and large, were without financial assets and had significant counseling needs that could +whichever is longer. 18 U.S.C. § 3283. Thus, for Epstein (or any other person accused of sexually +abusing children) to "wait out" any chance of criminal liability, the court would have to stay civil +litigation until all of the plaintiffs have died. +- 15- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 105 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 16 of 17 +be remedied through obtaining restitution from Epstein. In addition to those needs, they have +legitimate concerns about memories fading, witnesses becoming unavailable, and dissipation +of Epstein's assets while the matter is stayed. On the other hand, while the potential harm +to the defendant normally weighs in the defendant's favor, in this case, Epstein has +significant control over whether the criminal investigation remains in abeyance and whether +criminal charges are ever filed +CONCLUSION +In accordance with the Court's Order, the United States hereby submits that it is not +aware of any "special circumstances" that warrant staying all of the civil cases pending the +"expiration" of the NPA. +By: +Respectfully submitted, +R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA +UNITED STATES ATTORNEY +S/A. +Villafaña +À. +VILLAFAÑA +Assistant United States Attorney +Florida Bar No. 0018255 +500 East Broward Boulevard, 7th Floor +Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33394 +Telephone: 954-356-7255 +Facsimile: 954-356-7230 +-16- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 105 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 17 of 17 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I HEREBY CERTIFY that on May 28, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing +document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. According to the Court's website, counsel +for all parties are able to receive notice via the CM/ECF system. +SA +A. +Villafaña +VILLAFANA +Assistant United States Attorney +-17- diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a5b8b3e166b130567cbe21436cfa87a2f97dab2b1a7f3f88e6404ce0873a453b.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a5b8b3e166b130567cbe21436cfa87a2f97dab2b1a7f3f88e6404ce0873a453b.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..08b0e47b5fb7b5c3b1bacb4e3e1d042d3ac535f1 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a5b8b3e166b130567cbe21436cfa87a2f97dab2b1a7f3f88e6404ce0873a453b.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -206, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "a5b8b3e166b130567cbe21436cfa87a2f97dab2b1a7f3f88e6404ce0873a453b", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 18, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "9d132919bf44f400ad0b33bbdfa606868faa96e9a29d4f44a8a723a196fa24f5", + "output_sha256": "12af74e5dff802079664df26649e36be0efa2cda5103c866bafe4ca80b02f74c", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a5b9e9ac651e790b7d132cabe71023dc141a6c670441cd0d557f20937c89b77d.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a5b9e9ac651e790b7d132cabe71023dc141a6c670441cd0d557f20937c89b77d.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9ee7cd16e395d2f3c8e7cea0a68a09b9a236f6c3 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a5b9e9ac651e790b7d132cabe71023dc141a6c670441cd0d557f20937c89b77d.md @@ -0,0 +1,96 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 82 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/05/2009 + +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA-| +JANE DOE NO. 5, +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +_! +DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME IN WHICH TO FILE REPLY +TO PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STAY +Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, (hereinafter "Epstein") by and through his +undersigned attorneys, respectfully moves this Court for an extension of time in which to +file his Reply to Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Stay +Complaint. +1. On April 23, 2009 Plaintiff filed a Response [DE 77] in Opposition to Defendant's +Motion to Stay [DE 68]. Defendant's reply would be due on May 5, 2009 (5 days to +reply excluding weekends + mailing). Defendant is requesting a fifteen (15) day +extension to May 20, 2009 to reply. +2. There are several other cases filed with this Court in which Jeffrey Epstein is +named a Defendant. In those cases, the undersigned has been handling other matters +associated therewith. +3. Additionally, Defendant's counsel is in the midst of preparing for a state court +trial, CARDIOPULMONARY & PRIMARY CARE ASSOC. OF TREASURE COAST, P.A + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 82 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/05/2009 Page 2 of 3 +Jane Doe No. 5 v. Epstein +Page 2 +V. +M.D., Case No. 562008CA001726, specially set for trial beginning May 13 +through 15, 2009). Discovery in that case is ongoing with several depositions set to +prepare for trial. +4. The requested extension is fair and reasonable under the circumstances as it will +provide time to allow the Defendant, EPSTEIN, to fully and adequately reply. +5. An extension until May 20, 2009, is fair and reasonable under the circumstances. +The undersigned is in need of the additional time in order to fully and adequately +prepare a response on behalf of EPSTEIN. +6. As certified below, counsel for Defendant conferred with counsel by e-mail, and +Plaintiff's counsel is in agreement with the requested extension. +WHEREFORE Defendant respectfully requests that this Court enter an order +granting an extension until May 20, 2009, to file a Reply to Plaintiff's Response in +Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Stay Complaint. +Local Rule 7.1 Statement +Counsel for the movant conferred by e-mail with counsel for the Plaintiff and +Counsel for Plaintiff is in agreement with the requested extension until May 20, 2009 for +Defendant to reply to Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Motion to Stay Complaint. +Robert D. Critton, Jr. +Attorney for Defendant Epstein +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 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 82 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/05/2009 Page 3 of 3 +Jane Doe No. 5 v. Epstein +Page 3 +served this day on all counsel of record identified on the following Service List in the +manner specified by CM/ECF on this +5th day of +May +_ 2009: +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@sexabuseattorney.com +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +Counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe #5 +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 +jagesq@bellsouth.net +Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein +Respectfully submitted, +ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. +Florida Bar No. 224162 +rcrit@bclclaw.com +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. +Florida Bar #617296 +mpike@bclclaw.com +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN +515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561/842-2820 Phone +561/515-3148 Fax +(Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a5b9e9ac651e790b7d132cabe71023dc141a6c670441cd0d557f20937c89b77d.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a5b9e9ac651e790b7d132cabe71023dc141a6c670441cd0d557f20937c89b77d.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4aa0bd5e22e9c5f606bb86846bf5c83cd51054af --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a5b9e9ac651e790b7d132cabe71023dc141a6c670441cd0d557f20937c89b77d.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -47, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "a5b9e9ac651e790b7d132cabe71023dc141a6c670441cd0d557f20937c89b77d", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 4, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "613cb4b31eec204968f123243c7429f4362744193790f863dbee3b0f56c925a8", + "output_sha256": "591156f0d153c82fc3bceff18971b1e5432051ba3075b5c01ab9fcefddf45b39", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a5ce89d73e9ef6e052047aa5354c727fc90b271c76ab1f4ff9f8f27d286e9475.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a5ce89d73e9ef6e052047aa5354c727fc90b271c76ab1f4ff9f8f27d286e9475.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..900897c4727e6bb35f0286e2fe8552c71f2825fa --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a5ce89d73e9ef6e052047aa5354c727fc90b271c76ab1f4ff9f8f27d286e9475.md @@ -0,0 +1,185 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 1 of 7 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80994-MARRA-, +Plaintiff, +JANE DOE NO. 6 +V. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S ANSWER & AFFIRMATIVE +DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT +Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, (hereinafter "EPSTEIN"), by and through his +undersigned attorneys, files his Answer to the Second Amended Complaint and states: +1. Without knowledge and deny. +2. As to the allegations in paragraphs 2, Defendant asserts his Fifth Amendment +privilege against self-incrimination. See DeLisi v. Bankers Ins. Company, 436 So.2d +1099 (Fla. 4" DCA 1983); Malloy v. Hogan, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964)(the Fifth +Amendment's Self-Incrimination Clause applies to the states through the Due Process +Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment - "'ilt 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. 3d §1280 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 Fla.Jur.2d Evidence §592. Defendants in civil actions. - +"... a civil defendant who raises an affirmative defense is not precluded from asserting + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 2 of 7 +Page 2 +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. +3. As to the allegations in paragraph 3, deny. +4. As to the allegations in paragraph 4, deny. +5. As to the allegations in paragraph 5, without knowledge and deny. +6. As to the allegations in paragraphs 6, Defendant asserts his Fifth Amendment +privilege against self-incrimination. See DeLisi v. Bankers Ins. Company, 436 So.2d +1099 (Fla. 4" DCA 1983); Malloy v. Hogan, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964)(the Fifth +Amendment's Self-Incrimination Clause applies to the states through the Due Process +Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment - "fit 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. 3d §1280 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 Fla.Jur.2d Evidence §592. Defendants in civil actions. - +"... a civil defendant who raises an affirmative defense is not 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. +7. As to the allegations in paragraphs 7 through 14 of Plaintiff's Second Amended +Complaint, +Defendant exercises his Fifth Amendment Privilege against self- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 3 of 7 +Page 3 +incrimination. See DeLisi v. Bankers Ins. Company, 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4" DCA +1983); Malloy v. Hogan, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964)(the Fifth Amendment's Self- +Incrimination Clause applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the +Fourteenth Amendment - "Tilt 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. 3d §1280 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 Fla.Jur.2d Evidence §592. Defendants in civil actions. -"... a civil +defendant who raises an affirmative defense is not 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. +8. In response to the allegations of paragraph 15, Defendant realleges and adopts +his responses to paragraphs 1 through 14 of the Second Amended Complaint set forth +in paragraphs 1 through 6 above herein. +9. Defendant asserts the Fifth Amendment Privilege against self-incrimination to +the allegations set forth in paragraphs 16 through 21 of the Second Amended +Complaint. +See DeLisi v. Bankers Ins. Company, 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4" DCA 1983); +Malloy v. Hogan, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964)(the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination +Clause applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth +Amendment - "[ilt would be incongruous to have different standards determine the + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 4 of 7 +Page 4 +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. 3d +§1280 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 +Fla.Jur.2d Evidence §592. Defendants in civil actions. - "... a civil defendant who raises +an affirmative defense is not precluded from asserting the privilege [against selfincrimination], 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. +10. In response to the allegations of paragraph 22, Defendant realleges and adopts +his responses to paragraphs 1 through 14 of the Second Amended Complaint set forth +in paragraphs 1 through 6 above herein. +11. Defendant asserts the Fifth Amendment Privilege against self-incrimination to +the allegations set forth in paragraphs 23 through 27 of the Second Amended +Complaint. See DeLisi v. Bankers Ins. Company, 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4" DCA 1983); +Malloy v. Hogan, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964)(the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination +Clause applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth +Amendment - "Tilt 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. 3d +§1280 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 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 5 of 7 +Page 5 +Fla. Jur.2d Evidence §592. Defendants in civil actions. - "... a civil defendant who raises +an affirmative defense is not precluded from asserting the privilege [against selfincrimination], 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. +12. In response to the allegations of paragraph 28, Defendant realleges and adopts +his responses to paragraphs 1 through 14 of the Second Amended Complaint set forth +in paragraphs 1 through 6 above herein. +13. Defendant asserts the Fifth Amendment Privilege against self-incrimination to +the allegations set forth in paragraphs 29 through 34 of the Second Amended +Complaint. See DeLisi v. Bankers Ins. Company, 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4" DCA 1983); +Malloy v. Hogan, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964)(the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination +Clause applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth +Amendment - "[it 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. 3d +§1280 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 +Fla.Jur.2d Evidence §592. Defendants in civil actions. - "... a civil defendant who raises +an affirmative defense is not precluded from asserting the privilege [against selfincrimination], because affirmative defenses do not constitute the kind of voluntary + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 6 of 7 +Page 6 +application for affirmative relief" which would prevent a plaintiff bringing a claim seeking +affirmative relief from asserting the privilege. +WHEREFORE, Defendant requests that this Court deny the relief sought by Plaintiff. +Affirmative Defenses +1. As to all counts, Plaintiff consented to and was a willing participant in the acts +alleged. +2. As to all counts alleged, Plaintiff consented to and participated in conduct similar +and/or identical to the acts alleged with other persons which were the sole or +contributing cause of Plaintiff's alleged damages +3. As to all counts, Defendant reasonably believed that the Plaintiff had attained the +age of 18 years old at the time of the alleged acts. +4. Plaintiff's claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. +WHEREFORE Defendant requests that this Court deny the relief bought by Plaintiff. +Robert D. Cotton, Jr. +Attorney for Defendant Epstein +Certificate of Service +I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 7 of 7 +Page 7 +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@sexabuseattorney.com +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +Counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe #6 +Jack Alan Goldberger +Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 +561-659-8300 +Fax: 561-835-8691 +jagesq@bellsouth.net +Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein +Respectfully submitted, +ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR. ESQ. +Florida Bat No. 224162 +rcrit@bclclaw.com +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. +Florida Bar #617296 +mpike@bclclaw.com +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN +515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561/842-2820 Phone +561/515-3148 Fax +(Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a5ce89d73e9ef6e052047aa5354c727fc90b271c76ab1f4ff9f8f27d286e9475.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a5ce89d73e9ef6e052047aa5354c727fc90b271c76ab1f4ff9f8f27d286e9475.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0c9993f2efa2c960e75a27f243d5a7f4f94be067 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a5ce89d73e9ef6e052047aa5354c727fc90b271c76ab1f4ff9f8f27d286e9475.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -247, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "a5ce89d73e9ef6e052047aa5354c727fc90b271c76ab1f4ff9f8f27d286e9475", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 11, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "2378df3cac264a592b14a062c65cb45849440afb9b4e402d49e9109584e3377c", + "output_sha256": "57ed0d357b7122701c7a0aa68aaf30ceddf60e390e06639db5683fb364fc64d1", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a5d17f1a33f754caf924a528d9ebae41c2b06e7e8bf353ef953153d2631c2d8c.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a5d17f1a33f754caf924a528d9ebae41c2b06e7e8bf353ef953153d2631c2d8c.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6b67acc55ee723f2227cbf0dc86dce9becda6548 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a5d17f1a33f754caf924a528d9ebae41c2b06e7e8bf353ef953153d2631c2d8c.md @@ -0,0 +1,33 @@ +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 46 Filed 01/15/20 Page 1 of 1 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff, +X +: +: +19 Civ. 8673 (KPF) (DCF) +DARREN L. INDYKE and RICHARD D. +KAHN, in their capacities as the executors of +the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, +Defendants. +X +NOTICE OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS +PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that upon the accompanying Memorandum of Law and all prior +pleadings and proceedings in this action, Defendants Darren __. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, Co- +Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, will move this Court before the Hon. Katherine Polk +Failla, United States District Judge, at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley +Square, New York, New York 10007, at a time and place to be scheduled by this Court, for an +Order pursuant to Rule 12((6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure dismissing with prejudice +Plaintiff Jane Doe's claim for punitive damages in her Complaint (ECF No. I); and for such other +and further relief as may be just and proper. +Dated: New York, New York +January 15, 2020 +Respectfully submitted, +TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP +875 Third Avenue +New York, New York 10022 +By: Is/ Bennet J. Moskowitz +Bennet J. Moskowitz +Attorney for Defendants Darren Indyke and +Reches iD paem, Co-Execurors of the Estate of diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a5d17f1a33f754caf924a528d9ebae41c2b06e7e8bf353ef953153d2631c2d8c.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a5d17f1a33f754caf924a528d9ebae41c2b06e7e8bf353ef953153d2631c2d8c.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4d64110bbd72af3e03c205d3b2a1a8c8a486128a --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a5d17f1a33f754caf924a528d9ebae41c2b06e7e8bf353ef953153d2631c2d8c.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "a5d17f1a33f754caf924a528d9ebae41c2b06e7e8bf353ef953153d2631c2d8c", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "6ee0ce76e268bc065cf9d5a2335a2909f8d685572ca2b372b8099aff9df68aea", + "output_sha256": "027977b7a0b8284b3d2dad2d0bbb39beb08f6ecb136c713495a7d77ce53dfe07", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a5dbb3980f7302112c0d43dd49428db84d17d9512f508c69fb252dd0a1f03227.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a5dbb3980f7302112c0d43dd49428db84d17d9512f508c69fb252dd0a1f03227.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e400ec2b54b3919c7cf46038df3a503c9d6351cb --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a5dbb3980f7302112c0d43dd49428db84d17d9512f508c69fb252dd0a1f03227.md @@ -0,0 +1,40 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 508-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/29/2010 Page 1 of 1 +Page 1 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO. 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/ +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 +CERTIFICATE OF NON-APPEARANCE +I, Cynthia +, Registered Professional +Reporter and Notary Public, +State of Florida at +Large, was duly designated +to take the deposition of +the witness: +CASSANDRA +I hereby certify that aforesaid witness did +not appear before me between 2:00 p.m. and 2:30 p.m. +on the 23rd day of February, 2010. +Dated this 3rd day of March, 201 +winthia J +RPR +(561) 832-7500 +Electronically signed by cynthia +Prose Court Reporting Agency, Inc. +West Palm Beach, Florida +Job No. 1309 +Original +"C" +PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC. +(561) 832-7506 +(601-051-976-2934) +d7ccf93a-bc8b-4b04-b62e-41d7bb6d3918 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a5dbb3980f7302112c0d43dd49428db84d17d9512f508c69fb252dd0a1f03227.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a5dbb3980f7302112c0d43dd49428db84d17d9512f508c69fb252dd0a1f03227.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ccc78b6d16ad5e4435dc491d1bb135e0a427543c --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a5dbb3980f7302112c0d43dd49428db84d17d9512f508c69fb252dd0a1f03227.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "a5dbb3980f7302112c0d43dd49428db84d17d9512f508c69fb252dd0a1f03227", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "e9c015e3b1a2f9bc589ef1e9b992fd5fae7ddde32a09ae88a42c947c77897f99", + "output_sha256": "a0ef87e88ceb0811697ffc0951fa5f2666fdea6341a06cb1c156f62c2958172f", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a5fc6f41052422e42678ff0512e8042d6fdfd87a68773623cf1c4073ec19dc68.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a5fc6f41052422e42678ff0512e8042d6fdfd87a68773623cf1c4073ec19dc68.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..48aaed9cdd54cf4457f5b83aae2305c5c5dd6d8a --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a5fc6f41052422e42678ff0512e8042d6fdfd87a68773623cf1c4073ec19dc68.md @@ -0,0 +1,3181 @@ +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Case 1:19-cv-10577-LJL-DCF Document 57 Filed 06/03/20 Page 1 of 57 +1 +K5m2FarC +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK +--X +Plaintiff, +V. +DARREN K. INDYKE, in his +capacity +as executor of the +Estate of Jeffrey Edward +Epstein; RICHARD D. KAHN, in +his capacity as executor of +the Estate of Jeffrey Edward +Epstein; and GHISLAINE +MAXWELL, +Defendants. +New York, N.Y. +19 CV 10475 (LGS) +Teleconference +May 22, 2020 +11:00 a.m. +--x +19 CV 10476 (PGG) +Plaintiff, +V. +DARREN K. INDYKE, in his +capacity as executor of the +Estate of Jeffrey Edward +Epstein and RICHARD D. KAHN, in +his capacity as executor of +the Estate of Jeffrey Edward +Epstein, +Defendants. +------X +Plaintiff, +19 CV 10479 (ALC) +v. +DARREN K. INDYKE, in his +capacity as executor of the +Estate of Jeffrey Edward +Epstein and RICHARD D. KAHN, ir +his capacity as executor of +the Estate of Jeffrey Edward +Epstein, +Defendants. +-----X + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Case 1:19-cv-10577-LJL-DCF Document 57 Filed 06/03/20 Page 2 of 57 +2 +K5m2FarC +JANE DOE 1000, +19 CV 10577 (LJL) +Plaintiffs, +V. +DARREN K. INDYKE, in his +capacity as executor of the +Estate of Jeffrey Edward +Epstein and RICHARD D. KAHN, in +his capacity as executor of +the Estate of Jeffrey Edward +Epstein, +Defendants. +Before: +HON. DEBRA C. FREEMAN, +Magistrate Judge +APPEARANCES +BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP +Attorneys for Plaintiff +BY: SIGRID S. MCCAWLEY +SABINA MARIELLA +ANDREW VILLACASTIN +TROUTMAN SANDERS, LLP +Attorneys for Defendants Indyke and Kahn +BY: BENNET J. MOSKOWITZ +MATTHEW J. AARONSO +HADDON, +I. P.C. +Attorneys for Defendant Maxwell +BY: LAURA A. MENNINGER + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Case 1:19-cv-10577-LJL-DCF Document 57 Filed 06/03/20 Page 3 of 57 3 +K5m2FarC +THE COURT: This is Judge Freeman. +We might have a +court reporter, but I'm going to record this call anyway, so +hold on while I set that up. +All right. So this is Judge Freeman, and this is a +conference in four of the cases against the Jeffrey Epstein +estate: +19 Civ. 10476; +v. Indyke, 19 Civ. 10475; | +v. Indyke, +v. Indyke, 19 Civ. 10479; and Doe 1000 v. +Indyke, 19 Civ. 10577. +If you are here for some other case or you think I got +those numbers wrong, please make sure I know about it. +But I'm going to ask for your appearances. We have +quite a number of people on the line. Let me have the +appearance first by plaintiff's counsel in these cases. +MS. MCCAWLEY: Yes, your Honor. Good morning. This +is Sigrid McCawley from the law firm of Boies, Schiller & +Flexner, and I'm representing the plaintiffs in the actions +that you listed. Along with me, I have my colleague Sabina +Mariella and Andrew Villacastin. We also have a few of our +summer associates who have joined the line as well. +THE COURT: All right. +Do I have a court reporter on the line? +THE COURT REPORTER: Yes. Good morning, Judge. This +is Kristen Carannante. +THE COURT: I'm going to ask anyone who is giving +appearances for the record to please spell your name. So, + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Case 1:19-cv-10577-LJL-DCF Document 57 Filed 06/03/20 Page 4 of 57 +4 +K5m2FarC +Ms. McCawley, if you could please spell your name and the names +of your colleagues. +MS. MCCAWLEY: Of course. Sigrid McCawley, which is +spelled S-I-G-R-I-D, and the last name is McCawley, +M-c-C-A-W-L-E-Y. I also have with me Sabina Mariella, which is +S-A-B-I-N-A M-A-R-I-E-L-L-A and Andrew Villacastin, and that's +A-N-D-R-E-W and Villacastin is V-I-L-L-A-C-A-S-T-I-N. +THE COURT: You are counsel in all of the cases that +are on for today? +MS. MCCAWLEY: Correct. Correct, your Honor. +THE COURT: Can I have defendants' counsel, please? +MR. MOSKOWITZ: Hi, your Honor. Again, this is Bennet +Moskowitz, B-E-N-N-E-T, last name M-O-S-K-O-W-I-T-Z, at +Troutman Sanders, for the co-executors in each of these cases. +My colleagues who handle the day-to-day discovery, +Matthew Aaronson and Valerie Sirota, are on. That's Matthew is +M-A-T-T-H-E-W, last name is Aaronson, A-A-R-O-N-S-O-N; and +Valerie, V-A-L-E-R-I-E, last name Sirota, S-I-R-O-I-A, and we +are counsel for the co-executors in each of these cases. +THE COURT: All right. +Do I have any other attorneys who are on or +representing plaintiffs in any of the other cases that are +pending before the court? No. All right. +MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor -- +THE COURT: Yes. + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Case 1:19-cv-10577-LJL-DCF Document 57 Filed 06/03/20 Page 5 of 57 5 +K5m2FarC +MS. MENNINGER: Sorry. This is a defendant's counsel +for Ms. Maxwell, Laura Menninger. +THE COURT: +•. MENNINGER: I am in the 10475 case. +THE COURT: Can you spell your name, please? +MS. MENNINGER: Yes. It is L-A-U-R-A +M-E-N-N-I-N-G-E-R. +THE COURT: Okay. And, again, are there any other +attorneys on the line in any of the cases? +All right. I'm going to assume, then, that anyone +else on the phone is public or press and just ask you to please +keep your lines muted. +Sometimes on these calls we hear beeps which suggest +that someone else may have joined in the call. It can also +suggest that someone may have dropped off the call. And +because of that, I will probably interrupt anyone who is +speaking just to try to make sure that we didn't lose anybody +or we didn't gain anyone we should know about. It is not a +courtroom where I can see people coming and going, so I just +like to make sure we didn't accidentally lose one of the +counsel who is supposed to be present. And I apologize in +advance for the interruptions. +Do I have +Yes, Judge, I'm here. +THE COURT: Okay. That's one of my law clerks, just + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Case 1:19-cv-10577-LJL-DCF Document 57 Filed 06/03/20 Page 6 of 57| +6 +K5m2FarC +so you know. +All right. So I have letters in these cases. They +have come in clusters of letter and response and reply in the +three cases where Ms. Maxwell is not a party, and then there +are letters relating to her in the case where she is a party. +Let me start with the other cases where she is not the +party and deal with those letters first. +Can I have, from Ms. McCawley, just a status update +from you where things stand with your current request, with +your understanding about potential settlements? +MS. MCCAWLEY: Yes, your Honor. +So with respect to the requests, we have presented to +the court a main threshold issue which has been unresolved at +this point by the parties, and that is the issue of the time +period within which the defendants, the estate, will produce +documents. That issue remains unresolved. +It is the plaintiffs' position that documents for the +entire relevant time period for each plaintiff, which runs from +the date of their abuse, that year, to the present, are +responsive and relevant to discovery in the case. That goes to +the evidence with respect to any of the conduct that Epstein +was engaging in over those years that would prove the abuse, +not simply, as in a car crash case, you don't just get the +evidence of the date of the car crash, you get all evidence +relating to anything that's relevant and could be used + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Case 1:19-cv-10577-LJL-DCF Document 57 Filed 06/03/20 Page 7 of 57 +7 +K5m2FarC +potentially at trial. Similarly, here, the defendants have +attempted to limit the production to simply the year of the +abuse or years of the abuse, if it happened in more than one +year. It is our position that all evidence relating to the +over 20-year span of Epstein's abuse of not only our clients +but other clients that are similarly situated, other women that +are similarly situated, is highly relevant to the discovery in +this matter. +And of course, as your Honor knows, the plaintift has +the burden of proving her case in each of these instances, and +the estate has taken the position of attempting to prove +Epstein's innocence, therefore making all of this information +highly relevant for the entire time period. +This is similar to other cases that have come before +in the Southern District of New York. For example, Judge +Sweet, in his case with one of the victims, allowed discovery +for the entire time period from 2000 to the present; and that +is, again, because, under 415, evidence of other abuse can be +admissible at trial. So we believe that the entire time period +is highly relevant, and those documents need to be produced. +The status of this, as of the date of filing our +letters, no documents have been produced. In the last couple +of days, in +case and in the Jane Doe 1000 case, +there has been one document produced by the defendants. In the +case of +there have been three documents produced, + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Case 1:19-cv-10577-LJL-DCF Document 57 Filed 06/03/20 Page 8 of 57 +8 +K5m2FarC +one of which was clawed back. And in the case of +there have been 90 documents produced, and that is on +their side. +So we are still in a position where we have not +received any substantial document production in this case. The +court will remember that, back on January 28 -- the cases were +filed in November. Back on January 28 we sent -- after your +hearing that you had in December asking them to preserve +documents, we sent a document preservation letter that outlined +in very specific detail the e-mail accounts for which we were +aware of that Mr. Epstein had utilized. +You are going to hear today, and you saw in the +filings from the defendant about their claims of burdens, they +have not justified burden at this point. They have thrown +around a number of 700,000 documents. I will tell you that we +have already gone through 600,000 documents in just Annie's +case alone for our production. They have not produced a hit +list to show burden or otherwise establish why our request +would be so burdensome. +So with respect to -- and that is only - now, they +are only still responding to the time period that is the oneor two-year window, depending on the particular plaintiff. So +at this stage we do not have -- that is still the threshold +issue that we are asking this court to resolve. We need that +issue resolved before we can undertake depositions or get this + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Case 1:19-cv-10577-LJL-DCF Document 57 Filed 06/03/20 Page 9 of 57 +9 +K5m2FarC +case moving, because we at this point have no documents of any +substance from the other side. So that is the key issue that +we have put before the court for resolution. +They have produced supplemental interrogatory +responses. Again, those are still limited to the time period +that they have set forth. They have not agreed to produce +information for the entire time period at this point. +So that is the key issue that we put before the court +that we need resolution on it in order to be able to move these +cases forward at this point. +THE COURT: All right. Before I ask some questions +about that, let me just ask about potential for settlement of +these cases. What is plaintiffs' understanding? +MS. MCCAWLEY: Potential for settlement in these +cases, as your Honor knows, there was the proposal of a +potential claims administration program that came about in the +fall of this past year. That program has been through a series +of back-and-forth between the U.S. Virgin Islands' A.G. and the +estate, with input from the various plaintiffs' attorneys, as +well. The program has not yet been approved. It has made +headway, but it has not yet been approved to move forward. +There are still issues with respect to a release and other +matters, so that has not gotten off the ground at all. So +there have been no substantive settlement discussions of any +kind in these cases. + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Case 1:19-CV-10577-LJL-DCF Document 57 Filed 06/03/20 Page 10 of 57 +K5m2FarC +10 +And, again, if -- +THE COURT: If the program -- +MS. MCCAWLEY: Sorry. +THE COURT: If the program gets off the ground, the +program as you understand it to be fashioned, would these +plaintiffs be likely to participate in it? +MS. MCCAWLEY: We would still have to have those final +conversations with the clients pending what the final outcome +of the program is, but they have all been interested in trying +to participate in a program if it does go forward. +Our concern, of course, is that that program has been +delayed and has not moved forward, so we have had the need to +press forward with our case. Of course, in that program, too, +any offer that could be made could be very substandard, where +our clients would want to proceed with the merits of their +action, which is why we are here before the court trying to +seek resolution of our clients' claims, because there is no +guarantee with respect to that program whatsoever. So we are +in a position where we need to and want to move forward with +discovery without further delay to be able to get to the merits +of our clients' claims. +Any discovery they would receive in these matters +would be relevant anyway to those discussions with our +presenting claims to the claims administrator. So we see that +as coinciding and being relevant and responsive to Epstein + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Case 1:19-CV-10577-LJL-DCF Document 57 Filed 06/03/20 Page 11 of 57 +11 +K5m2FarC +being able to establish our claim, again, before the claims +administrator. +THE COURT: All right. And going back to your request +to compel discovery from defendant, you say that the time frame +is the issue. +I believe the letter was presented, it appeared +to say in general you hadn't gotten discovery responses to +document requests or interrogatories, and then you highlighted +this issue. Is this really the key issue or the only issue or +are there other issues with respect to just not getting +responses? +MS. MCCAWLEY: Well, you are correct, your Honor. At +the time we wrote the initial letter, the responses were - +there were not responses, there were just objections. They +have since supplemented their responses but, again, limiting it +only to the time frame. So we still may have issues with those +responses, because at this point we only can see them as to the +time period within which they are saying the abuse victims -- +that time period where they were abused, so we don't believe +that they are fulsome at this point. But if the court could +resolve the threshold issue of whether or not they have to +produce for the entire time period, they would then supplement, +or our assumption is that they would supplement their responses +both to interrogatories and to the requests for production, and +then we could evaluate at that point if it appears there is +anything missing. + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Case 1:19-CV-10577-LJL-DCF Document 57 Filed 06/03/20 Page 12 of 57 +K5m2FarC +12 +THE COURT: And why would it not be the case that, +document request by document request or interrogatory by +interrogatory, the inquiry might be different as to what time +frame would be appropriate to look at? There might be some, +depending upon how the request is framed, where it would be +appropriate to look at a longer time frame; and there may be +some, based on the nature of the request, where that would not +make sense to look at a longer time frame. Why should I be +doing this on a global basis? +MS. MCCAWLEY: Well, that's a very fair question, your +Honor. So the requests, for example, seek information +related -- like the request number one is information related +to the plaintiff including diary, diaries, journals, calendars, +any information, travel itineraries that relate to that +plaintiff, and that could be in any time period. For example, +if Epstein's last year was talking about one of our client's +and had information that he had recorded in an e-mail about one +of our clients, that would be responsive. +So the time period does pertain, in my view, to all of +the requests. We have not -- they have not come to us and said +a particular request only applies for these reasons to one +particular year. In my view, the request, for example, for +flight logs, if there are not flight logs in a certain year, +they would only produce what they have, obviously. But if they +have flight logs for the entire time period, we would want + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Case 1:19-cv-10577-LJL-DCF Document 57 Filed 06/03/20 Page 13 of 57 +13 +K5m2FarC +those. +So it is -- your Honor is correct that there can be +some request-specific issues, but they haven't agreed to +produce anything outside of the year of the abuse at this +point. +THE COURT: Are there some requests that relate to +people other than your clients? +MS. McCAWLEY: Yes. +THE COURT: Other than -- +MS. McCAWLEY: For example -- yes. +So as I said before, it is our position that, with +respect to our clients' claims in each of the cases, +information relating to Epstein's abuse of other victims is +highly relevant under 415, particularly to establish that this +pattern of luring in young girls in the same way, for example, +with saying they are interviewing for a modeling job or saying +they are coming for an assistant's interview, the pattern of +how he lured girls in, then abused them is relevant to our +clients presenting their claims to the jury to prove the truth +of the fact that they have before, as well, abused in a similar +manner. So we firmly believe that that information is highly +relevant to the case. +Again, the estate has taken the position, and you have +seen it in our filings, that Epstein is innocent, and we have +to prove the truth of that, as well as with respect to all of +these cases. So we are in a position where we are having to + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Case 1:19-CV-10577-LJL-DCF Document 57 Filed 06/03/20 Page 14 of 57 +14 +K5m2FarC +fight to get discovery from the estate. I would was certainly +hoping it would not be this kind of a battle. I was hoping +that now that he is no longer taking his Fifth Amendment +privileges, no longer with us, that we would be able to get +substantive discovery in a more streamlined manner, but that is +not the case. +And any threshold issue is very important because it +implicates our clients' ability to be able to present their +case and to be able to substantively be able to depose witness. +As your Honor knows our discovery deadline is looming in early +July. We need to be able to take the depositions of various +people who either interacted with our clients or who were +witnesses to the abuses that occurred in Epstein's various +homes, and we need the information and the documents from his +files that establish and relate to the abuse, and those are the +requests that we have put forward. +THE COURT: All right. I have some thoughts on this, +but let me hear from defendants first. +MR. MOSKOWITZ: Hi, your Honor. Bennet Moskowitz. +If I may, I would like to address the program issue +first, which I think is much quicker than the discovery. My +colleague, Matt Aaronson, will discuss the discovery issues, if +that's okay. +THE COURT: Okay. +MS. MCCAWLEY: So I am very, very surprised to hear + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Case 1:19-CV-10577-LJL-DCF Document 57 Filed 06/03/20 Page 15 of 57 | +15 +K5m2FarC +Ms. McCawley give a presentation that seems like her clients +are lukewarm on the program. She is on the e-mails from this +week where Brad +,, who represents five plaintiffs and we +understand the vast majority of claimants all of whom want to +participate in the program according to him, announced to us on +the estate side that he was able to get the Attorney General to +finally step aside and let the program move forward. So my +first surprise is hearing that Ms. McCawley thinks that the +program is still in some vast limbo. It is not for all of the +reasons that I discussed this morning, which Ms. McCawley is +aware of. +THE COURT: Hold on a second. We have two separate +conferences. One was at 10:00 and this one is 11:00. So when +you say that we discussed this morning, Ms. McCawley, unless +she didn't announce herself, was not on that call and doesn't +know what you said at that conference. +MR. MOSKOWITZ: Sure. +MS. MCCAWLEY: (Inaudible). +THE COURT: I'm sorry? +MS. MCCAWLEY: I'm sorry. This is Sigrid McCawley. +I was unaware of the 10:00 conference call. I'm +sorry. +THE COURT: We had a conference call in certain of the +other cases with different plaintiffs' counsel where there were +somewhat different issues raised. + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Case 1:19-CV-10577-LJL-DCF Document 57 Filed 06/03/20 Page 16 of 57 +16 +K5m2FarC +MR. MOSKOWITZ: Sure. And I am trying -- +THE COURT: I'm trying to cluster these so we don't +have to have a marathon session with all cases at once. +MR. MOSKOWITZ: I am happy to concisely, as best I +can, go through the same points, and I will say now that I know +Ms. McCawley knows all of the following with perhaps one +exception, which I will explain. +Ms. McCawley knows that around 69 individual +claimants, including her clients, have publicly come forward to +voice overwhelming support for the program, including to the +USVI probate court. We know that is the vast majority of known +claimants. We are aware of only one claimant who is a state +court plaintiff who has publicly said that she is not +participating, and that was through her counsel, and I don't +even know if that's that person's current position. +Ms. McCawley also knows that seven plaintiffs in the +SDNY action, including one of her clients, +recently stayed their actions in favor of the program. It +bears mentioning that +- you know, the +stipulation in that regard goes contrary to everything +Ms. McCawley just said. +, most +Your Honor entered that order, so I don't think I need +to repeat it verbatim. But mentioned in there was the notion +of conserving resources, and in that regard, as a side note, it +bears mentioning that Boies Schiller has been the biggest + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Case 1:19-cv-10577-LJL-DCF Document 57 Filed 06/03/20 Page 17 of 57| +17 +K5m2FarC +culprit in driving up the estate's litigation cost, money that +will never +be available for their clients or other alleged +victims in the program. We don't understand that. We were +staffed very leanly until recently, just me and an associate. +Five attorneys on their side, including three partners. I have +lawyers, my colleagues are on now for the team more recently, +because Boies Schiller takes the most unreasonable positions on +discovery, grossly overbroad view -- again, Mr. Aaronson will +get to that -- and they make the most constant threat to motion +practice notwithstanding their clients participating in the +program. +Ms. McCawley also knows that the protocol for the +program, which was done in close consultation between the +administrator and designers and claimants' counsel, including +hers, her firm, and with -- in between co-executors is nearly +finalized. +And Ms. McCawley also knows the only reason this +hasn't gone forward until now was because of the USVI Attorney +General. But again, Mr. l +announced a couple of days ago +in an email that Ms. McCawley is on that that last, quote, +lingering issue, as Mr. +put it, is now resolved. And, +again, there are a few less contentious matters to iron out, +but it is our firm expectation that by sometime next week that +resolution in principle will be formalized. +The sole thing that +not be aware of + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Case 1:19-CV-10577-LJL-DCF Document 57 Filed 06/03/20 Page 18 of 57 +18 +K5m2FarC +is that if something unexpected happens and that resolution in +principle is not finalized, then by June 15, our current intent +on the estate side is to move forward with the program absent +the probate court entering an order directing us not to or +otherwise impeding that, and I don't think that's going to +happen +because another person who has voiced support for the +program is the probate judge who, on February 4, at a hearing +that Ms. McCawley attended, as did David Boies, the probate +judge said the following: "I think we agreed that everybody +believes this program is a great program." +So I will say that I don't understand why we get one +display of overwhelming support from Boies Schiller and others +when we are not before your Honor, and then we come before your +Honor and I hear a different story. The program is going to go +forward very soon. I am confident of that. And I'm confident +that, per Ms. McCawley's own statements, all of her clients, +not just the one who stayed her action already, are going to +participate. So, again, every dollar we are spending in the +meantime is money that will never be available for that +program. +That's all I have to say on the program aspect. +Unless your Honor has questions, I will refer to my colleague, +Mr. Aaronson, to address the discovery issues. +THE COURT: Let me hear the discovery issues. +MR. AARONSON: Good morning, your Honor. Matthew + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Case 1:19-CV-10577-LJL-DCF Document 57 Filed 06/03/20 Page 19 of 57 +K5m2FarC +Aaronson. +19 +I want to correct a couple of misstatements that +Ms. McCawley made. +It is not the estate's position that documents that +relate to the claims asserted by the plaintiffs will not be +produced. In fact, all of our discovery responses have +identified that to the extent the request seeks information +about plaintiffs, they will be produced. +We also identified to your Honor in the letter that we +sent to you - +THE COURT: Hold on. Let me interrupt you. Without +regard to time frame or only within a specific time frame? +MR. AARONSON: I was about to clarify that. We said +in our letter to your Honor without regard to time frame with +respect to the plaintiffs. And in fact, that is something +that, your Honor, the problem we have here is, we were still +under the impression we were meeting and conferring with +plaintiffs' counsel on these issues, and we put that in our +letter. And before we could even -- you know, we told them we +would consider their positions, and before we could even +conclude that, they filed a letter with the court. I think you +are aware, our initial letter to the court said that we were +sort of surprised by that and we are saying it is premature. +We still think these issues are premature. +But the simple fact is, your Honor, our position is we + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Case 1:19-cv-10577-LJL-DCF Document 57 Filed 06/03/20 Page 20 of 57 +20 +K5m2FarC +are producing any documents that reference orally to the +plaintiffs. +And in fact we have searched documents for that. +So there is no dispute there, there is no issue there. +We are not saying that the time period for documents +relating to plaintiff is limited in that way, shape, or form. +What we did say was, these are events in some situations, +incidents that happened on one day in 2002, and +we are saying it is not proportional to ask for our client, the +estate, to search for documents relating to a 20 -- I guess it +would be a 19-year period, your Honor, relating to people who +may have worked at a property that Mr. Epstein owned and in +doesn't allege she +fact property that Mr. Epstein -- +ever visited. You know, it's a scope issue. +But, again, to the extent there is an allegation that +-- I'm sorry, there is a document that references +we have agreed to produce it. We searched for those +documents. And the same applies for all of the plaintiffs. +So I want to make it very clear that that is a +misstatement of what our position is. +You know, again, the scope here is just so overbroad, +beyond plaintiff, that we think it is not proportional to the +case. We disagree completely with Ms. McCawley's statement +that any of that discovery is necessary for her to prove her +claims. Her claims in this case are a simple claim of battery. +That's the claim in this case. That's her burden to prove and + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Case 1:19-CV-10577-LJL-DCF Document 57 Filed 06/03/20 Page 21 of 57 +21 +K5m2FarC +that is it. And we have agreed to provide documents that +relate to her claims. +If she says she was at a property on a +certain date, we have identified to the best of our ability +people who may have been at that property that date. +You know, I'm not sure what more we are obligated to +do, your Honor. And this is a part of the problem. If they +have complaints about search terms, then meet with us to talk +about search terms. +Before we could finish the process, they +ran into court. We are open to a dialogue. We have always +been open to a dialogue to try to resolve these issues. But, +as we told you, they prematurely went to court to try to - you +know, to try to get in front of your Honor before we could even +finish that. +We have a lot of requests, your Honor, that are just +completely unrelated to these cases. I don't think it's +appropriate now to go through each one right now. But I just +wanted to clarify that this concept that it is a -- we are not +agreeing to produce documents about the plaintiffs is wholly +untrue, and I just wanted to make that very clear. +THE COURT: Okay. So let me go back on plaintiffs' +side. I'm not going to make any blanket ruling, and I'm not +persuaded that you have conferred fully in good faith before +bringing the motion, in part, because you have already said +that some of it is moot because in fact when you got responses, +you no longer had a complete absence of information, and now + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Case 1:19-CV-10577-LJL-DCF Document 57 Filed 06/03/20 Page 22 of 57 +22 +K5m2FarC +you are really just focused on the time frame issue. That +tells me +that when you wrote the initial letter you hadn't +conferred fully in good faith to see what really had to be put +before the court. +With respect to the time frame issue, it sounds like +defendant is prepared to and planning to produce documents +without regard to time frame that refer to your clients or +relate to your clients, and it also sounds like defendants are +willing to confer with respect to other requests. +As far as those other requests go, the test for +relevance is not whether something is relevant to a general +subject matter of a case, it's whether it is relevant to a +claim or defense asserted in the case. It may be with respect +to some of the requests where time frame is at issue that the +documents sought are in fact highly relevant to a defense +that's been asserted in the case, for example. It may be that +they are tangentially relevant. It may be the burden is great. +It may be the burden is modest. It may be that - let me just +make sure I didn't lose counsel. +Do I still have plaintiffs' counsel? +MS. MCCAWLEY: Yes, your Honor. +THE COURT: Do I still have defendants' counsel? +MR. MOSKOWITZ: Yes, your Honor. +THE COURT: Okay. If anyone joined from the public or +press, I will please ask you to mute your phone. + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Case 1:19-CV-10577-LJL-DCF Document 57 Filed 06/03/20 Page 23 of 57 +K5m2FarC +23 +Did anyone join who is an attorney in one of the cases +in front of me? No. All right. +I lost the thread a little bit of what I was saying, +but the point is that if this is in front of me with +particularized disputes, I'm going to have to look at each +document request at issue or each interrogatory at issue, hear +from the parties about the particular relevance to a claim or a +defense, hear from the defendant about the particular arguable +lack of relevance or burden, and make item-by-item +determinations. I'm not going to do it in a blanket fashion, +and you are going to have to confer on that kind of level to +get it focused for me, if it comes back to me, so that I +understand just what the documents are that are being sought, +just what the claim of relevance is, just what the purported +burden is, just what the proportionality is so that I can make +that assessment balancing relevant factors. +Now, the other issue that we have is resources and +settlement and whether the dollars that are spent by +defendants in litigating the case and responding to discovery +requests might be better spent by being put into a fund if +plaintiffs are planning to participate in that and whether it +is a consideration that I should take into account, whether we +should have any kind of extended period of time for the +responses so that you can see if you are going to participate +in the program if the kinks are worked out. + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Case 1:19-CV-10577-LJL-DCF Document 57 Filed 06/03/20 Page 24 of 57 +K5m2FarC +24 +In the earlier conference we had today, what I did was +allow the parties to have a bit of a hiatus in their cases, to +conserve resources, asking for a status letter by June 19 with +the understanding that the estate was planning to move forward +with the program no later than June 15 absent something they +thought would be extraordinary to stop it from doing so. +So on plaintiffs' side, let me hear whether you think +it makes sense to give it a window of time before there is +increased attorney's fees spent to see if in fact that program +is moving forward and you might be participating in it. +And in any event, let me hear what you have to say +about my view that perhaps you should be conferring further in +good faith about these time frame issues on a +request-by-request basis. +MS. MCCAWLEY: Of course, your Honor. This is Sigrid +McCawley for the plaintiff. +With respect to the issue of a hiatus, my concern +there would be that we, as you know, back in November, talked +about this program, and while Mr. Moskowitz has made +representations on this call, you will understand that those +were the same representations that he was making back in +December and January and, for a number of reasons, that program +has just not moved forward. Now I'm hearing for the first time +this June 15 date that I have not heard before. +The problem I see with any kind of hiatus -- and, to + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Case 1:19-CV-10577-LJL-DCF Document 57 Filed 06/03/20 Page 25 of 57 +25 +K5m2FarC +be clear, we don't want to, of course, expend unnecessary +estate resources. +The issue that I have with that is it is the +continued delay and the part of the disadvantage to my clients +in that they don't have information, all of the information +they need relevant to their claims because they haven't +received -- even though we have tried diligently, they have not +received substantial production in the case of any kind. +So with respect to a hiatus, my concern would be that +right now our discovery deadline is set for early July. We +were hoping to get documents in order to be able to start +taking some of the necessary depositions to get information for +our case to be able to move it forward, and I believe that is +something that we would be entitled to. I think that my +concern is that, again, it would be a July 15 date, then it +would be -- I'm sorry, a June 15 date, then a July 15 date, and +it would continue without us being able to move the case +forward. +Also, as you know, the claims program is voluntary. +So to the extent that a client does participate in that and +gets paused, we don't know what that claims administration +program is going to ultimately prove to be. So to the extent +that a client participates and is offered something or not +offered anything, their case should be moving forward so that +they are able to go to trial on the merits of their claims, if +they need to, against the estate. So that would be my concern + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Case 1:19-CV-10577-LJL-DCF Document 57 Filed 06/03/20 Page 26 of 57 +26 +K5m2FarC +with making any change at this point. +Again, we are not -- the discovery, in my view, has +moved very, very slowly. So just to pull back and not have +them continue to engage with us on discovery, in my view, would +be problematic, because it would just further delay the case. +So those are my concerns generally with respect to +that. +And, again, I'm hearing from the other side this June +15 date that I have no confidence that that is something that +will necessarily move forward because we don't have anything in +writing with respect to that or any statement from the court in +the USVI that they have approved that or anything of that +nature. So that was my concern there. +With respect to the issue before the court, we are in +a position where the time frame issue is significantly +problematic to us for the reasons that I have outlined. While +they are representing to the court today that they will produce +documents related to the plaintiff, you will remember that we +have -- +THE COURT: What did they say in their responses that +you got in? Did they say these documents will be produced or +is it just they are saying this for the first time to the court +today? +MS. MCCAWLEY: With respect to the plaintiff, they +represented they would run the name of the plaintiff in their + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Case 1:19-CV-10577-LJL-DCF Document 57 Filed 06/03/20 Page 27 of 57 +27 +K5m2FarC +discovery searches and produce with respect to the plaintiff, +yes, that they did. +THE COURT: Why -- +MS .McCAWLEY: But the problem -- +THE COURT: Why did you tell me earlier on in the call +that they were refusing to produce any documents for the later +time frame even with regard to the plaintiff? +MS McCAWLEY: That is my understanding of their +position, your Honor. I am hearing now that they are saying -- +well, first of all, they have only produced one document for +case, one document for Jane Doe's case. +THE COURT: Wait a minute, wait a minute. This is +complete lack of meaningful dialogue between the parties, +because I'm hearing opposite things from the parties about what +defendants' position is. +Defendant, as I understand it from +this call, has said that they will, and have told you that they +will, produce documents regardless of time frame if they refer +or relate to the plaintiff, and that they are doing that in +fact in all cases and have not taken a position that they would +not. And you are saying that is your understanding of their +position, that they will not. +How can that be if you have had a good conference +between you? +MS. MCCAWLEY: Your Honor, as we set forth in our +letter, we did have a two-hour conference where we asked them + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Case 1:19-CV-10577-LJL-DCF Document 57 Filed 06/03/20 Page 28 of 57 +28 +K5m2FarC +about the time frame issues and made sure to get the full +position on that because that was our biggest concern. And +that is what we discretely presented to the court because that +was the concern we have, that they were not going to be +producing anything beyond the time period of the abuse. +(Indiscernible crosstalk) +THE COURT: -- discretely presented to the court. You +presented to the court in your opening letter that there was a +complete failure to respond to any of the requests, and now you +tell me on the call that since then there has been a response, +and so what is now being discretely presented on this telephone +call is what you say is a remaining issue, which seems like it +is only a remaining issue in part because it seemed like if +there are documents specifically relating or referring to the +plaintiff, defendants have agreed to produce it and according +to defendants have told you they have agreed to produce it in +their responses that you have since gotten. Now, I haven't +seen those responses. If they have been put before me, I'm +sorry, I have not reviewed them. I don't think I have them. +For that matter, I'm not sure I have all of the requests, I'm +not sure I have an item-by-item explanation of relevance, and +I'm not sure that your discussion has been adequate between the +lawyers. +MS. MCCAWLEY: Your Honor, this is Sigrid McCawley for +the plaintiff. + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Case 1:19-CV-10577-LJL-DCF Document 57 Filed 06/03/20 Page 29 of 57 +K5m2FarC +29 +I appreciate that. I am hearing your Honor. We will +go back and address +these issues again with the defendants in +the hopes of being able to resolve them and not hopefully have +to come before the court with respect to them. We are, again, +hopeful to be able to get discovery in this case. We do not +believe that has been the situation that we are in presently, +and that's why we have presented it to the court. But I +understand your point, your Honor, and we will make sure to +engage further in the hopes of being able to resolve this. +THE COURT: All right. Let me ask, on defendants' +side, by when do you plan to produce -- assuming we have no +stay of discovery here and no hiatus, by when do you plan to +produce the documents referring or relating to plaintiff? +MR. MOSKOWITZ: We have already started that, your +Honor. Bennet Moskowitz, excuse me. And in fact, I apologize. +Let me let Mr. Aaronson address that question. And then, if I +can, I would like to just very quickly respond to something +Ms. McCawley said about the program. +THE COURT: Let me hear first about the documents -- +MR. AARONSON: Yes -- +THE COURT: -- regarding the production. +MR. AARONSON: Yes, your Honor. Matthew Aaronson. +We have already started the production. We made a +production I believe on Wednesday of documents, and I think in +particular +it was over 100 documents. + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Case 1:19-cv-10577-LJL-DCF Document 57 Filed 06/03/20 Page 30 of 57 +K5m2FarC +30 +So with the process underway -- and, again, I think, +your Honor, you have gotten this correct, is that we have told +them that we will produce and search for -- search for and +produce documents that relate to their clients. To the extent +that they think we need to add additional search terms, we +searched the individual plaintiffs' names. If there are +additional search terms, we are open to a dialogue to discuss +that. If there are additional terms, as in every case, whether +or not we can reach agreements on those terms. You know, the +thing -- +THE COURT: I would like to put a deadline on getting +the production complete with respect to any documents that in +any way refer or relate to the plaintiffs after you have had +some further discussion perhaps on search terms, if necessary. +But I would like to have a firm date when you are not just +producing a few documents and a few documents and say it is +underway, that that actually gets produced. Once -- +MR. AARONSON: That's fair, your Honor. Part of that +goes back to the same issue you raised earlier about the +expenditure of time and money on discovery issues versus +putting it towards the program. +So to the extent the court is not inclined to issue a +pause or some sort of temporary issue on that, it's hard to +say. The problem we have is that, you know, it is difficult to +search all of our files, given the pandemic. Some files have + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Case 1:19-CV-10577-LJL-DCF Document 57 Filed 06/03/20 Page 31 of 57 31 +K5m2FarC +not been able to be collected yet. So I can tell you that, of +the electronic documents that we have collected, I think we can +keep that probably within 30 days of what we have collected +already. +But I will tell you, we have done the initial pass of +that, and we have made those productions. As I said, +there was a significant number of documents. Presumably +other plaintiffs there were not. So, again, we do believe that +it would be appropriate (unintelligible) some of this, but to +the extent the court is not inclined to do that, you know, I +think 30 days for what we have. But to be clear, your Honor, I +don't know that we have collected every, you know, source at +this point in time, given our inability to collect documents +dues to the pandemic. +THE COURT: How has the pandemic affected your ability +to collect documents specifically? +MR. AARONSON: I will let Mr. Moskowitz speak to that, +but my understanding is, you know, that we have not been able +to access and people are not traveling to different locations. +So we have collected electronic documents. I'm not -- again, +I'm deferring to Mr. Moskowitz on that, whether or not the +additional documents are still out there. +MR. MOSKOWITZ: Yes. Bennet Moskowitz. Happy to +clarify that point, your Honor. +There are two -- let me take a step back. Yes. It is + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Case 1:19-cv-10577-LJL-DCF Document 57 Filed 06/03/20 Page 32 of 57 +32 +K5m2FarC +true that we have collected over 700 and I think 40,000 +documents, and we did +search them for the plaintiffs' names. +And we did produce what we found that wasn't privileged, and we +will go back and make sure that that is complete. But the fact +that we located many documents for +which were +dated to as late as I believe last year and have already been +produced, so I don't understand Ms. McCawley's confusion about +the time frame issue. But in any event, the fact that we found +those but didn't find such documents for the other cases just +evidences a lack of documents, not something wrong with the +search process. +In terms of the pandemic difficulties, my problem with +making a 30-day blanket representation is that there are at +least some hard copy files that I would like certain people to +look through, and while I have no reason one way or the other +to expect their responsive materials are there, I would like +that to happen before such deadline, and I'm not 100 percent +certain that it can, because at least some of the documents are +in places that are still under lockdown or there are still +health concerns. +In addition to that, this is somewhat subject to the +disputes about the scope of the discovery. If Ms. McCawley is, +let's say, correct and these cases -- everything related to any +allegedly bad thing Mr. Epstein ever did is relevant in each +action, well, then, it could take me, you know, six months or a + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Case 1:19-CV-10577-LJL-DCF Document 57 Filed 06/03/20 Page 33 of 57 +33 +K5m2FarC +year to finish looking for every piece of paper and every +property Mr. Epstein owned. So, again, it's with the context +of just searching for names. Mr. Aaronson is correct, that can +be done in the next 30 days, with the exception of anything +that we can't actually access to look through. +And again I have -- +THE COURT: You have already -- +MR. MOSKOWITZ: Yes. +THE COURT: You already have the documents +electronically, at least certain of the documents, most of the +documents. +MR. MOSKOWITZ: Yes. +THE COURT: And you have already gone through them and +you have already made some production. Why would you need +another 30 days before you can get to the end of that +particular road? +MR. MOSKOWITZ: We may not. It really depends on the +rest of the meet-and-confer process which never completed. It +depends on the search terms that are proposed, whether there +are any additional search terms proposed. For example, what we +wanted to happen during a full meet-and-confer process, which +is what we strive to do in every case, and what we are actually +doing in other actions against the estate, that Boies Schiller +is not involved with, is suggest search terms to us that you +think would satisfy your view of what a particular request + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Case 1:19-CV-10577-LJL-DCF Document 57 Filed 06/03/20 Page 34 of 57 34 +K5m2FarC +entails, let us run the report. If the report comes back and +says +500 documents or even a thousand, we may deem that +reasonable for that request. If it comes back at 10,000, we +may not deem that reasonable. +So this is part of what an ongoing discussion, I hope, +would have entailed, which gives me pause to, again, say a +blanket yes, we will get it all done in 30 days. As to +searching for things, I mentioned the plaintiffs in what we +have already collected, to the extent we didn't complete that, +you know, we don't need 30 days. But I don't know that that +will satisfy Ms. McCawley. +THE COURT: Okay. +If this case goes all the way forward in litigation +and goes to trial, you are going to try this case. You are not +going to try ever case that is before this court or any other +court at the same trial. That doesn't mean that evidence +regarding others who are claiming to have been victims of +Mr. Epstein might not have relevance to some claim or defenses +being raised, and I understand that it may, in some documents, +may have relevance. +But you are going to have to get, on plaintiffs' side, +a lot more focused with what you want and why you want it. And +if you are going to come back and make a renewed application to +me, that application is going to have to be more focused on +what kind of documents you are talking about, what claim or + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Case 1:19-CV-10577-LJL-DCF Document 57 Filed 06/03/20 Page 35 of 57 | +35 +K5m2FarC +defense they are relevant to, why they are relevant to that +claim or defense, giving me an example of some case law that +shows how it could be relevant, and I will make a decision on a +request-by-request basis about what appropriate time frames +should be used. And with respect to search terms, in the first +instance you need to talk to each other about that because you +don't want the court coming up with search terms or trying to +make judgment calls on that if it's not necessary. You know, +you are much better off trying to figure it out between you, +getting an agreed protocol, an agreed list of custodians, an +agreed list of search terms, and then go from there, as +generally happens in cases where there might be a lot of +documents that are kept electronically. So I expect you to go +through that process as you would in any other case. +I am open to kicking out your deadlines a bit to give +you time to talk this through and to see if we can get some +progress. I'm going to ask defendants, to the extent you +already have a known universe of documents, if there are any +you have not yet produced, get them produced within two weeks. +If there are additional search terms, you will talk with each +other in good faith about time frame for running any additional +searches and getting any additional documents produced. And if +plaintiff wanted to come back to me on a renewed motion that's +more specifically laid out on particular categories of +documents or responses to interrogatories, you will do that + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Case 1:19-CV-10577-LJL-DCF Document 57 Filed 06/03/20 Page 36 of 57 +36 +K5m2FarC +after you have tried to work these things through with an eye +toward +what is what is reasonable. Plaintiff may reasonably +need more than defendants +want to give. Defendants may have a +reasonable point about conserving resources for the sake of a +settlement program which should be taken seriously because it +seems that very serious efforts are underway to try to get that +program off the ground. +I'm going to ask for a status letter by June 19, which +is the date that I gave in other cases. It is geared to +Mr. Moskowitz's representation that this program should launch, +he thinks, by June 15. So it seems to me by June 19 you will +have a better idea and you will also have a better idea of +where you are with respect to these discovery issues. +I'm going to caution plaintiffs' counsel in the +future, please do not send me something without being sure you +are at the end of the road in talking to your adversary. I +don't want to get a response that says it is premature, we +haven't really talked. Make sure you are clear on a +point-by-point basis that you have talked about specific +relevance, that you have talked about specific burden issues, +that you have talked about specific search terms, at least you +have try to engage in that kind of dialogue. If you are +stymied, you are stymied, and I will hear from you. But I +don't think you are at that point. +And I think that's it with respect to those disputes, + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Case 1:19-CV-10577-LJL-DCF Document 57 Filed 06/03/20 Page 37 of 57 +37 +K5m2FarC +and I should probably turn to the dispute regarding +Ms. Maxwell. +What I am going to do is I am going to -- I don't +know if the letters were framed as a motion for a conference or +a motion to compel. If they were framed as a motion for a +conference, I will say granted. We had a conference. As to +the underlying +issue about compelling, go talk or in if +actually framed as a motion, I will say denied without +prejudice to renew, and I'm going to ask for a status letter by +June 19. +Anybody want to say anything else on that before I +turn to Ms. Maxwell's issue? +No? Okay. I'm hearing no, or I am hearing nothing. +Hopefully I haven't lost everybody on the entire call. I'm +hearing laughs, so hopefully that means not. +Let me turn to Ms. Menninger's issue. One thing I +want to understand, because there was a reference to a +potential criminal prosecution which of course could impact +whether there should be a stay as to a defendant who is being +criminally prosecuted. Currently, if I'm understanding +correctly, +be the target of an investigation, +or you may be concerned she is the target of an investigation +but there are no actual criminal charges pending, is that +right? +MS. MENNINGER: Yes, that's correct, your Honor. We +do not have any criminal charges pending anywhere, but we have + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Case 1:19-CV-10577-LJL-DCF Document 57 Filed 06/03/20 Page 38 of 57 38 +K5m2FarC +a number of public statements by the U.S. Attorney's office in +the Southern District, as well as statements made by +plaintiffs' counsel to the press that suggest that those -- +that that investigation is underway and that it would encompass +Ms. Maxwell, and so that is our concern. But it is correct to +say that there is no active criminal charges that I am aware +of. +THE COURT: All right. So if there were active +criminal charges filed or if that should happen, that might +influence the thinking about whether or not there should be a +stay, because of course if a defendant ends up taking the +Fifth, that could have consequences in a civil case and +defendant may feel there is little choice but to do that if the +person is under a criminal indictment or if plaintiffs have +filed. +So I just want to just note that if that circumstance +change -- if that circumstance changes, let me know. If it +affects any ruling I make, let me know, because I may need to +revisit a ruling. +Let me hear what - given the last conference, the +last subject, where there seem to be some changed landscapes +since the application was initially made, let me make sure that +I am aware of the current circumstance. +Let me just hear from Ms. Maxwell's counsel first on +this. + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Case 1:19-CV-10577-LJL-DCF Document 57 Filed 06/03/20 Page 39 of 57 +K5m2FarC +39 +MS. MENNINGER: Thank you, your Honor, Ms. Menninger +here on behalf of Ms. Maxwell. +The landscape has not changed since our letters. We +have filed a motion to dismiss the claims which we believe are +distinct and different from any sort of example that the estate +may have, and we believe that they are strong grounds for +dismissal. +The case -- the allegations against Ms. Maxwell in +this case involve an allegation of battery that occurred one +time in 1996 in New Mexico, and the statute of limitations and +venue issues, you know, in New York versus New Mexico are very +different for Maxwell than perhaps for the estate and we think +provide the grounds for dismissal. +The other two bases that we raise for a stay are the +claims program that your Honor has already spent some time +discussing on this call and the earlier call today. We +believe -- we don't have any independent information. We were +not party to the calls in the Virgin Islands, as were counsel +for plaintiffs and for the estate. But I have heard on the +call today the representations made by the estate that they +believe that the program will be getting off the ground in a +matter of a few weeks, June 15, or three weeks or so from +today. +Given that plaintiff has indicated an intent to +participate in that program, at least in filings in the Virgin +Islands, and the fact that that program would -- if she + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Case 1:19-CV-10577-LJL-DCF Document 57 Filed 06/03/20 Page 40 of 57| +40 +K5m2FarC +participates and it is successful, would render this entire +lawsuit moot, we think we believe balancing that fact against +the extremely broad discovery demands that your Honor has heard +something about, although not with respect to Ms. Maxwell yet, +would counsel in favor of at least a short stay similar to the +ones that other plaintiffs' counsel have agreed to, promoted, +or even stipulated to in other cases pending before your Honor. +We have received extensive discovery demands. We have +been advised that plaintiffs' counsel intends to take a number +of depositions, including around the country, including for +people that plaintiff in our case never met and had no dealings +with. And, your Honor, I can speak from personal experience +with that same type of discovery happening with the same +plaintiffs' counsel in the +| v. Maxwell action that I was +counsel for in front of Judge Sweet. We had a number of +significant discovery disputes in that case and we had +depositions that occurred not only across the country, from +California to New York and Florida and many places in between, +but also abroad in that case, and the litigation costs were in +the hundreds of thousands easily in that case. And so looking +at the pattern of discovery that I believe plaintiff intends to +pursue here, balancing the costs of those to someone like my +client, who is not a multimillionaire, and then viewing the +claims program as something that could be successful in +resolving this case in a short period of time, we would ask + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Case 1:19-CV-10577-LJL-DCF Document 57 Filed 06/03/20 Page 41 of 57 | +41 +K5m2FarC +your Honor to consider putting a stay on discovery in the +case that I am party to, or I am counsel for a party to. +I think I can second or third some of the things that +have already been said earlier, so I don't want to waste the +court's time with those. But we have concerns that any money +spent on this litigation is going to reduce the amount of money +that would be available to any of the accusers in the Virgin +Islands, and we don't think it makes sense to spend the money +on these broad discovery requests if we can get the case +resolved shortly. +I think the only objection that I heard from +plaintiffs' counsel to something like a hiatus was that there's +a pending discovery cutoff of early July, and it seems to me +reasonable that of course if the claims program gets off the +ground in a few weeks, that discovery cutoff could be set out +to see if it is successful or not. And so it is sort of a +false premise to say that the discovery cutoff in July is the +reason we should be forging ahead full steam with this +expensive discovery, rather than just taking the more logical +approach, to me, which would be to at least put it on hold to +see if the claims program is successful in the first instance; +and, if not, then the cases +can proceed with the court's +blessing, pick back up where we left off. +In this particular case, I think it also bears noting +that the claim allegedly occurred in 1996, so it has been some + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Case 1:19-CV-10577-LJL-DCF Document 57 Filed 06/03/20 Page 42 of 57 +K5m2FarC +24 years since the allegations supposedly happened, and so I +don't see that waiting one or two or three months balanced +against 24 years is -- it's not as though we think documents +will go missing in those three months that weren't already +somehow lost to the winds of time over the last 24 years, your +Honor. +42 +THE COURT: So you are -- I will just note, by the +way, that in your initial letter you ask for an opportunity to +do full briefing, but it is all laid out in the letters. So +let me just get some clarification on that. What more briefing +would you be looking to do beyond what's in these letters? You +have case citations in these letters and you lay out the bases +for a stay. What would you be looking to do when you are +trying to conserve resources? Do you really need full +briefing. +MS. MENNINGER: I think it could be abbreviated +briefing; but, yes, there are more cases in support of the +request that we are making. There are more cases in terms of +the criminal investigation versus active prosecution, and then +there is certainly a fair amount of exhibits that I could +tender to your Honor to display the breadth of discovery that +is part of the traditional balancing test when looking at a +motion to stay -- or good cause -- of grounds for good cause as +balanced against the breadth of discovery. +THE COURT: I don't remember if at the beginning of + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Case 1:19-CV-10577-LJL-DCF Document 57 Filed 06/03/20 Page 43 of 57 43 +K5m2FarC +this call I asked if my law clerk +are you there? +was on. +Yes, I'm here, Judge. +THE COURT: Okay. Well, for the court reporter, it is +H-A-N-N-A. +And +and I were conferring before this conference +about some case law about some criminal prosecution as opposed +to criminal investigation, and we weren't finding, at least on +an initial look, cases where the courts tended to stay civil +proceedings when there was an investigation proceeding. You +have cases that say the opposite? +MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, I have some. They are not +in the Southern District, so there are -- +THE COURT: Okay. +MS. MENNINGER: -- cases that have occurred in various +federal and state cases across the country. +THE COURT: And you are looking for a stay of the +entire case, not just as to proceedings against your client? +MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, it seems to me best to +stay the case, but I would be amenable just in regards to my +client or, as I said towards the end of my letter, there are +other alternatives that, you know, I think I would view as +intermediate steps, for example, bifurcation of discovery on +the statute of limitations issue, for example, if that were +something the court thought were appropriate or a stay on party + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Case 1:19-CV-10577-LJL-DCF Document 57 Filed 06/03/20 Page 44 of 57 +44 +K5m2FarC +depositions until later in the discovery process to see where +the claims program and the criminal investigation end up, and +certainly with regard to the motion to dismiss, that should be, +I would think, decided at some point. +THE COURT: I might consider, because there is a lot +to do in this case, I might consider putting a hold on +Ms. Maxwell having to make statements, so either responding to +substantive interrogatories or being deposed because of Fifth +Amendment issues, because it may be that she ends up the +subject of prosecution even if she is not yet and because there +are other things that can meanwhile be going forward. If we +put her deposition further down the pike, maybe we will have +greater clarity on that before that issue actually comes to the +fore. +I'm also thinking that there are other interests +besides hers in this case. There are plaintiffs' interests and +I'm sure that although your point is well taken that it's not +that likely that documents will now not be preserved within +these few months as opposed to not being preserved over the +years, I'm sure plaintiff does not want to hear that after all +of these years she must wait more time in order to have what +she considers to be serious wrongs redressed. So the factors +can cut in more than one direction. +So right now I'm not inclined to stay the whole case, +but I am inclined to keep one eye on settlement, to keep one + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Case 1:19-CV-10577-LJL-DCF Document 57 Filed 06/03/20 Page 45 of 57 +45 +K5m2FarC +eye -- I'm not sure how many eyes I have -- to keep an eye on +the -- any criminal investigation and ask to have updates if +there are charges filed, and maybe put some things more at the +front end of the discovery period, some things more at the back +end of the discovery period. And I am willing to move the +dates out some to accommodate the parties if the parties are +engaged in good-faith discussions, if there is a desire to +conserve resources because it looks like the claims program is +in fact going forward. I am willing to do that. I have done +that another cases. I have stayed other cases. I have +extended deadlines in other cases. I don't really want to see +resources going to litigation if it's not necessary. But right +now I'm not inclined to have a complete stay of everything. +Ms. Menninger, what would be your reaction to saying +hold off on anything that could be in the category of +affirmative statements made by Ms. Maxwell for now and having +other discovery going forward? +MS. MENNINGER: It does address -- this is +Ms. Menninger, again, Laura Menninger. +It does address many of my concerns. I would say, you +know, the costs related to the broad discovery demands that +were propounded, written discovery requests and the like, are +still of concern to me. As I mentioned, we have been asked for +every calendar she has had for the last 24 years and every +Amazon account she has ever used for the last 24 years. So + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Case 1:19-CV-10577-LJL-DCF Document 57 Filed 06/03/20 Page 46 of 57 +K5m2FarC +I -- +46 +THE COURT: That sounds to me, again, like you need to +have a discussion with plaintiffs' counsel and, plaintiffs' +counsel, it sounds like you need to have a discussion with +Ms. Menninger about what you really need, why you really need +it, how it can be done in a way that's manageable with no +absolute yeses and no absolute nos with respect to those sorts +of requests. +It may be that there is something about Amazon +accounts that's really critical, and you can explain that. And +maybe there is something else that's not really critical, and +you can, you know, bend a bit on it. So you need to have that +kind of discussion to keep, you know -- you know, to keep +discovery tailored to the case and proportionate to the needs +of the case. That has to do with time frame, that has to do +with the scope of what's being claimed in a particular case, +and to some extent it has to do with Mr. Epstein's accused +conduct over time. So you are going to have to try to have +that conversation and try to balance it. And if you can't, +then I will. +MS. MENNINGER: I appreciate that, your Honor. +MS. MCCAWLEY: Your Honor, this is -- +THE COURT: Yes. +MS. MCCAWLEY: I'm sorry. This is Ms. McCawley. Can +I address -- + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Case 1:19-CV-10577-LJL-DCF Document 57 Filed 06/03/20 Page 47 of 57 +K5m2FarC +47 +THE COURT: Absolutely. +MS. MCCAWLEY: Thank you. +THE COURT: Please go ahead. +MS. McCAWLEY: With respect to the motion to stay that +Ms. Maxwell is proposing, one of the bases that she has filed +motion to dismiss, Judge Schofield held a premotion conference +with respect to that -- +THE COURT: Hold on a moment, please. Do I still +have -- do I still have -- I know I still have Ms. McCawley. +Do I still have Ms. Menninger? +MS. MENNINGER: Yes, your Honor. +THE COURT: Do I still have Mr. Moskowitz? +MR. MOSKOWITZ: Yes, your Honor. +THE COURT: Did anyone join us who is another +attorney? Okay. Hopefully we didn't lose anybody. If anyone +joined from the public or press, welcome. Please keep your +phone on mute. +Okay. Go ahead. You were saying, Ms. McCawley? +MS. MCCAWLEY: Yes. +So we did hold in front of +Judge Schofield a premotion conference on Ms. Maxwell's motion +to dismiss. As Judge Schofield did with the estate, she +discouraged Ms. Maxwell from filing a motion to dismiss, giving +her preliminary views that they -- the arguments that she was +putting forth were not meritorious. Ms. Maxwell insisted on +filing a motion to dismiss and has done that now, just this + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Case 1:19-cv-10577-LJL-DCF Document 57 Filed 06/03/20 Page 48 of 57 +48 +K5m2FarC +week. So in my view, that is -- bodes against any sort of stay +based on the motion to dismiss because the district judge has +set forth her views with respect to that at least as an initial +matter. +With respect to the case law, your Honor is correct, +the case law in New York is clear that unless there is an +indictment put forward, which there has not been, it doesn't +allow somebody in a civil case to stay the case on the basis of +a possible investigation. +With respect to your Honor's statements about the +investigation and potentially allowing Ms. Maxwell to not have +to make statements in this civil action, the concern I have +there is that we have no indication of any time frame with +respect to the Southern District of New York, how long that +investigation could go on or will go on or anything of that +nature. So the concern, for me, is Ms. Maxwell, as we have +alleged, worked in concert with Mr. Epstein to abuse my client. +We brought those claims under the Child Victims Act, as we are +allowed to do, because she was a minor, and to not be able to +get a discovery and ask Ms. Maxwell questions and get responses +and keep the case moving forward puts us in handcuffs with +respect to being able to establish our claims because, as your +Honor has seen from the complaint, the allegations are that +they worked together hand in hand with respect to the abuse of +So I would have concerns about some form of that + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Case 1:19-CV-10577-LJL-DCF Document 57 Filed 06/03/20 Page 49 of 57 +49 +K5m2FarC +kind of a path for defendant Maxwell in the case at this time +until there is a criminal indictment that's put forward. +THE COURT: All right. Let me just say a few things +about that. +First of all, if the investigation is going on here in +New York, or for that matter wherever it may be going on, +because what we have in New York is not only in New York with +respect to COVID-19, the grand jury process is understandably +delayed because it is very difficult to have jurors convene. +So there may be additional time before any case that is being +investigated is indicted, and so we just have to recognize that +we are in somewhat unusual circumstances. +The second thing is that any stay that I might put in +place with respect to any aspect of the claims against +Ms. Maxwell would be temporary and would be revisited. I would +not allow it to drag on indefinitely. But in a case where some +things can be done to move the case forward and the case is not +completely stalled, I don't see any harm in putting some things +a little bit further down the road. +The third thing I will say is this is also an unusual +circumstance because of the potential of this claims process in +which plaintiff may well participate and which may well get off +the ground soon; and, if it does, I'm not sure whether it would +moot claims against Ms. Maxwell or not, but it might. And as +you balance those factors, you have this situation where we may + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Case 1:19-CV-10577-LJL-DCF Document 57 Filed 06/03/20 Page 50 of 57 +50 +K5m2FarC +know in the relatively near future whether plaintiff is +actively participating in the claims process, whether it 1o0ks +like it is going to resolve her claims, and we may never have +to get to the point where we jeopardize, potentially jeopardize +somebody's Fifth Amendment rights. +So I might be inclined to do this, to say, look, you +can carry on with discovery in the case after a conference on +all kinds of things, to try to keep costs under control and try +to focus on what's most important. I will extend deadlines out +if you would like if you are feeling pressure from that. We +will hold off on -- not on production of documents from +Ms. Maxwell but on the statements that she makes, whether sworn +statements or interrogatories or deposition, we will put that a +little bit further down. You will give me status report +regarding the process of settlement, and we will take +And with respect to holding off on interrogatory +responses or deposition by Ms. Maxwell, that will not be a +permanent situation, that will be revisited. And if time is +stretching out too far and if there is no indictment, then I +may take further briefing on the subject and I will make a +decision as to whether in fact that part of the case should +also go forward. But I will not let it drag out indefinitely. +That is my current thinking. +What say both of you on that? +MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, this is Laura Menninger. + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Case 1:19-cv-10577-LJL-DCF Document 57 Filed 06/03/20 Page 51 of 57 +51 +K5m2FarC +That would be -- we would welcome that ruling, your Honor. +THE COURT: Plaintiff? +MS. McCAWLEY: Your Honor, obviously we disagree with +that because we believe that it's important to have +Ms. Maxwell's participation in this case. We have noticed her +for a deposition already and that got moved because she -- you +know, the issue of just being able to be in person, things of +that nature. +We were trying to accommodate. So we are +concerned about there being extended delay and are concerned +about not being able to get information from her through her +testimony. +We respect the court's concerns about a Fifth +Amendment privilege but, again, we would ask that if you are +going to be inclined to do something like this, you tie it to a +date like the June 15 date, or something along those lines, +so +that we are not in a position where she is able to take +depositions of all of our people and we are, you know, +handcuffed with respect to any discovery with respect to +Ms. Maxwell. +THE COURT: Like I said, I have no desire to have this +drag out. If all things -- if we didn't have this potential +claim process out there with a fairly soon, seemingly likely, +start date, according to defendants, then I think the balance +would be different. Because I don't think the case law in this +circuit would generally support the stay when there is no + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Case 1:19-cv-10577-LJL-DCF Document 57 Filed 06/03/20 Page 52 of 57 +52 +K5m2FarC +prosecution pending yet. +But nonetheless, there are a number of factors one +might look at on that, and whether or not an indictment is +pending is only one of the factors. There are several factors +that could be relevant, including, and I'm going to refer you +to the Louis Vuitton Malletier case. +For the court reporter, +L-0-U-I-S V-U-I-T-T-0-N M-A-L-L-E-T-I-E-R v. Ly, L-Y, U.S.A., +Inc., and the case number is 676 F.3d 83 from 2011. So the +Second Circuit noted that courts often take a look at a number +of factors in deciding whether there should be a stay, +including the extent to which the issues in the criminal case +overlap with those presented in the civil case. Here, there +would be, I assume, a very strong overlap to the status of the +case, including whether the defendants have been indicted. So +that's a factor. +Three, the private interests of the plaintiff in +proceeding expeditiously weighed against the prejudice to +plaintiffs caused by the delay. Here I'm looking at the +potential settlement process and that, to me, is an unusual +factor that suggests that the plaintiffs' interests may be +divided here in proceeding fast with this case when there is a +potential settlement within the next few months potentially +available to plaintiffs and plaintiff may go for that. +Another factor is the private interest of and burden +on the defendants. We do have an individual here. We are not + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Case 1:19-CV-10577-LJL-DCF Document 57 Filed 06/03/20 Page 53 of 57 +53 +K5m2FarC +talking about the estate, and there is somewhat more burden for +discovery. +There are the interests of the courts. The interest +of the court is not to have unnecessary litigation if the +matters can be resolved amicably, and not to have it stretch +out forever. +That's also an interest of the court. +We also have this strange overlay of COVID-19 which +affects the ability for criminal prosecutors to take matters to +a grand jury. +The public interest, I think the public interest is -- +would be well served by a claims process. If you look at this +case in terms of there being a number of claim victims, and +that is something that I definitely am looking at and is +weighing into my consideration as to how any and all of these +cases should be litigated. And in several of the cases, which +claims that are no more recent than the claims here, a lot of +plaintiffs' counsel have agreed to stays or partial stays or +are holding off on certain things to conserve resources and +allow that process to play out a bit, and I think that those +are factors that are unusual in this case. This is a +case-by-case, specific analysis that has to be made as to +whether there should be a stay. +So in this particular case, at this particular time, +with these particular circumstances, it seems to me to make +sense not to stay the case in its entirety, to send counsel + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Case 1:19-CV-10577-LJL-DCF Document 57 Filed 06/03/20 Page 54 of 57 | +54 +K5m2FarC +off to have the kind of good-faith conference you should have +had before contacting me in the first place and that you should +always have about anything and everything as you try to work +through discovery issues, but to hold off on the most serious +of the issues with respect to Ms. Maxwell, which are her +constitutional rights, and not forever, but at least long +enough to let us know whether the claims process is likely to +go forward. And I will revisit it, and I will revisit it at +intervals that are reasonable and that does not put you in +limbo where you will never be able to get discovery from +Ms. Maxwell if this case proceeds. All right? +So let me ask straight out, are you, under the +circumstances I have described and the way in which I would +envision this, which is some discovery going forward, +good-faith conference, report to me by June 19 about the +status, are you looking to have me move out the discovery +schedules at all and, if so, by how long? +MS. MCCAWLEY: Your Honor, this is Sigrid McCawley. +Would it be possible to have some time to consider +that? Right now the discovery deadline is set for July 10, I +believe, and I of course have anticipated taking depositions +throughout June and into early July. So if I could have some +time to consider what that would look like and confer with the +other side, then if we can't agree, then maybe present +something to the court with the timing of that? + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Case 1:19-CV-10577-LJL-DCF Document 57 Filed 06/03/20 Page 55 of 57 +55 +K5m2FarC +THE COURT: Yeah. I mean, I'm not usually in the +habit of suggesting extensions, but I think here, rather than +be crunched with depositions and panicking at the end of June +and beginning of July, putting another 30 days on it to give +you time to talk through your issues and for me to have fuller +briefing on the issue of a stay, should it come to that, it +might make sense to at least give you another 30. +MS. McCAWLEY: That would be fine, your Honor. +THE COURT: Mr. Moskowitz, do you want to say +anything? +MS. MCCAWLEY: Just very quickly, your Honor. +That 30-day initial extension for the further +discussion makes perfect sense to us. I would say you laid +out -- your Honor laid out very compelling reasons, one of +which is unique to this action, but the others equally apply to +the other actions that we are here now before you on, so I +would hope that we could also discuss with Ms. McCawley keeping +the extensions in line for each case with those other +considerations in mind. It's something we will discuss. +The only other thing I wanted to mention is -- which I +didn't get a chance to mention earlier is that Ms. McCawley +mentioned various concerns about the program. That could be +more convincing from someone but for the fact that they already +stayed one of their clients' actions in favor of the program. +So I just don't -- it doesn't square with us that those + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Case 1:19-CV-10577-LJL-DCF Document 57 Filed 06/03/20 Page 56 of 57 56 +K5m2FarC +concerns are such that they can't take the same reasoned +approach in the other actions when they found it reasonable for +one of them already. +But other than that, I have nothing to add, your +Honor. +THE COURT: Okay. So I'm going to ask for a status +report by June 19. In that status report, I not only want to +hear about how discovery is going and how settlement prospects +are looking. I also want to hear about further discussions +with counsel for Ms. Maxwell and mapping out of how the parties +would anticipate things moving further from that point, and, +you know, Ms. Maxwell permitting not to respond to +interrogatories and not to have her deposition until the +parties have had a chance to confer, until I have had that +status report June 19, until I hear again from counsel as to +the next logical way to proceed with that, and I will kick out +discovery deadlines 30 days, which is modest. Others, I think, +are going to be kicked out longer. You can do whatever +planning you do for depositions to be happening a little +further down the road in July, and you will get back to me. As +need be, we will have another conference and we will take in +the next piece. Okay? +MS. MCCAWLEY: Thank you, your Honor. +THE COURT: All right. Anything else -- +MS. MENNINGER: Thank you, your Honor. + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Case 1:19-CV-10577-LJL-DCF Document 57 Filed 06/03/20 Page 57 of 57 +K5m2FarC +57 +THE COURT: -- before we end this call? +All right. Let me just say one last thing, which is, +I did record this call into the conferencing system, but you +also have a court reporter on the call. You don't need to have +a transcript made from the telephone recording. And just be +aware that if there are two transcripts made -- one from AT&T +and one from the court reporter -- and there is any +discrepancy, the court reporter's transcript will be the +official transcript and will control. Okay? +MS. MCCAWLEY: Thank you, your Honor. +MR. MOSKOWITZ: Thank you, your Honor. +THE COURT: All right. Thank you all. Take care, +everybody. +000 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a5fc6f41052422e42678ff0512e8042d6fdfd87a68773623cf1c4073ec19dc68.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a5fc6f41052422e42678ff0512e8042d6fdfd87a68773623cf1c4073ec19dc68.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..88b67702c9df9492cfe0b6402323ccb0c2e72d86 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a5fc6f41052422e42678ff0512e8042d6fdfd87a68773623cf1c4073ec19dc68.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -3482, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "a5fc6f41052422e42678ff0512e8042d6fdfd87a68773623cf1c4073ec19dc68", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 59, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "d94527edc1a3cd561b1ef9ce41edc8fb077de74ca7afb70cfd4ad5be80330078", + "output_sha256": "2ad9fb2cc496a5ac2cae125af553c3cf320d36df15b2d81116eaa96abefc6708", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a61b34020ec1fe3ba0c19155e90b8369a1ea6c165653e6f53269985acfeb7a86.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a61b34020ec1fe3ba0c19155e90b8369a1ea6c165653e6f53269985acfeb7a86.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..92679f408c0cc6903c0cb5cbc9a05e78af37c069 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a61b34020ec1fe3ba0c19155e90b8369a1ea6c165653e6f53269985acfeb7a86.md @@ -0,0 +1,35 @@ +Case 1:20-cv-02365-LJL-DCF Document 27 Filed 07/21/21 Page 1 of 1 +KAISER +SAURBORN +MAIR +Kaiser Saurborn & Mair, P.C. +30 Broad Street, 37' Floor +New York, New York 10004 +www.ksmlaw.com +Daniel J. Kaiser ++1.212.338.9100 x317 ++1.646.607.9371 fax +kaiser@ksmlaw.com +July 21, 2021 +VIA ECF +Hon. Debra C. Freeman +Daniel +Moynihan +United States Courthouse +500 Pearl Street +New York, NY 10007 +Re: +Jane Doe v. Darren •. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, in their capacities as +the Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, 1:20-cv-02365(L.JL)(DCF) +Dear Judge Freeman: +I represent Jane Doe in the above referenced litigation. I write to respectfully request a +one week extension to submit Plaintiff's motion to proceed anonymously in the above referenced +action. Defendant consents to this request. +For the past week I have been preparing and participating in an arbitration which has +prevented me from focusing on other matters. +Thank you for your time and attention. +Respectfully submitted, +Daniel J. Kaiser +DJK/sz +cc: Bennett ||. Moskowitz, Esq. (via ECF) +New Jersey Office | 3163 Kennedy Boulevard, Jersey City, New Jersey | +1.201.353.4000 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a61b34020ec1fe3ba0c19155e90b8369a1ea6c165653e6f53269985acfeb7a86.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a61b34020ec1fe3ba0c19155e90b8369a1ea6c165653e6f53269985acfeb7a86.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..19bb267d0f97a13113934b393a0334cec80d715d --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a61b34020ec1fe3ba0c19155e90b8369a1ea6c165653e6f53269985acfeb7a86.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "a61b34020ec1fe3ba0c19155e90b8369a1ea6c165653e6f53269985acfeb7a86", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "219e1e44d54c760f1c2d700ef55c2852c5784f6c7956bc73e6d13262b9f11c5a", + "output_sha256": "04bd69c6d22c478bff1ddd0aa01e75876bb23c60257257b0b005678aec753d82", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a63949749905d7a0830a3f7c9ab150105a43a16498b6722dcdbd5fdf19d129bf.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a63949749905d7a0830a3f7c9ab150105a43a16498b6722dcdbd5fdf19d129bf.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f4c085d4addbf23743aad850c1bf1296c8a22c40 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a63949749905d7a0830a3f7c9ab150105a43a16498b6722dcdbd5fdf19d129bf.md @@ -0,0 +1,23 @@ +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 323-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2009 Page 1 of 1 + +Adam Horowitz +From: Adam Horowitz +Tuesday, September 15, 2009 11:43 AM +To: +Cc: +'Michael J. Pike", 'Robert D. Critton Jr.' +Stuart Mermelstein +Subject: Jane Does v. Epstein +Please allow this to confirm that Jeffrey Epstein will not attend tomorrow's deposition of Jane Doe No. 4 (in the +absence of a Court order permitting him to attend). We understand you may wish to have your client listen in by +telephone or view a videofeed of the deposition, but will not be seen by our client. +Regards, +Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. +www.sexabuseattorney.com +Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. +18205 Biscayne Boulevard +Suite 2218 +Miami, FL 33160 +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +Tel: (305) 931-2200 +Fax: (305) 931-0877 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a63949749905d7a0830a3f7c9ab150105a43a16498b6722dcdbd5fdf19d129bf.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a63949749905d7a0830a3f7c9ab150105a43a16498b6722dcdbd5fdf19d129bf.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4ae866cbd2bdb0b99e6dd6028a035af66773f76e --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a63949749905d7a0830a3f7c9ab150105a43a16498b6722dcdbd5fdf19d129bf.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -23, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "a63949749905d7a0830a3f7c9ab150105a43a16498b6722dcdbd5fdf19d129bf", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "1cf671fbb79874aedba21bdc2d812b532d022c3571e45c3adaf81eefad70718e", + "output_sha256": "61270c032a209e67abfb8d013fe9337ac528e5d15fb4b1ec8d805e824288d32a", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a6401b7b838eee39f81d525fa5c8e6d83673bbaebf5e57eb2f2d41de78afbbce.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a6401b7b838eee39f81d525fa5c8e6d83673bbaebf5e57eb2f2d41de78afbbce.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1cfafc643f563b889a9122975c5aa51fa1e01415 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a6401b7b838eee39f81d525fa5c8e6d83673bbaebf5e57eb2f2d41de78afbbce.md @@ -0,0 +1,496 @@ +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 90 Filed 07/14/20 Page 1 of 16 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 1:19-cv-08673 (KPF) (DCF) +V. +DARREN K. INDYKE AND RICHARD D. +KAHN, in their capacities as the executors +of the ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, +Defendants. +CO-EXECUTORS' ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO +PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT +Defendants Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, Co-Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey +E. Epstein (the "Co-Executors"), through their undersigned counsel, hereby respond to the +numbered paragraphs of Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF Doc. I) as follows: +INTRODUCTION +Paragraph 1 of the Complaint states legal conclusions to which no responses are +required. To the extent responses to those legal conclusions or the remainder of the paragraph are +required, the Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the +truth of the allegations in Paragraph 1 of the Complaint. +Paragraph 2 of the Complaint states legal conclusions to which no responses are +required. To the extent responses to those legal conclusions or the remainder of the paragraph are +required, the Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the +truth of the allegations in Paragraph 2 of the Complaint. +Paragraph 3 of the Complaint states legal conclusions to which no responses are +required. To the extent responses to those legal conclusions or the remainder of the paragraph are + + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 90 Filed 07/14/20 Page 2 of 16 +required, the Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the +truth of the allegations in Paragraph 3 of the Complaint. +4. +The Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about +the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 4 of the Complaint, except admit the existence of the 2019 +indictment (U.S. v. Epstein, 19-cr-490 (S.D.N.Y.)) (the "Indictment") of Jeffrey E. Epstein, now +deceased (the "Decedent"), and refer thereto for the full text, terms and meaning thereof. +5. +The Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about +the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 5 of the Complaint. +6. +The Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about +the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 6 of the Complaint. +THE PARTIES +The Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about +the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 7 of the Complaint. +8. +The Co-Executors admit the allegations in Paragraph 8 of the Complaint. +9. +The Co-Executors admit the allegations in Paragraph 9 of the Complaint. +JURISDICTION AND VENUE +10. +The Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about +the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 10 of the Complaint. +11. +The Co-Executors admit the allegations in the first sentence of Paragraph 11 of the +Complaint. The second sentence of Paragraph 11 of the Complaint states a legal conclusion to +which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the Co-Executors deny the +allegations in the second sentence of Paragraph 11 of the Complaint insofar as they purport to +characterize 28 USC § 1332, and refer thereto for the full text, terms and meaning thereof. +- 2- + + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 90 Filed 07/14/20 Page 3 of 16 +12. The Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about +the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 12 of the Complaint. +13. +Paragraph 13 of the Complaint states a legal conclusion to which no response is +required. To the extent a response is required, the Co-Executors lack knowledge or information +sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 13 of the Complaint; +except the Co-Executors deny the allegations in Paragraph 13 of the Complaint insofar as they +purport to characterize 28 USC § 1391, and refer thereto for the full text, terms and meaning +thereof. +JURY DEMAND +14. +Paragraph 14 of the Complaint purports to state Plaintiff's jury demand to which +no response is required. +FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS' +15. The Co-Executors deny the allegations Paragraph 15 of the Complaint, except +admit that Decedent, who is not a defendant in this action, was born in Brooklyn, New York in +1953. +16. The Co-Executors, upon information and belief, admit the allegations in Paragraph +16 of the Complaint, except deny that J. Epstein & Co. was a money management business and +deny that Decedent operated it until his death. +17. The Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about +the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 17 of the Complaint, except admit that, in 1998, Decedent +to form a belief about the truth of these allegations. + +- 3- + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 90 Filed 07/14/20 Page 4 of 16 +beneficially owned residences in Manhattan, New Mexico, Palm Beach, Florida and a private +island in the United States Virgin Island; and admit that Decedent at one time beneficially owned +a Boeing 727 and an apartment in Paris. +18. +Paragraph 18 of the Complaint states legal conclusions to which no responses are +required. To the extent responses to those legal conclusions or the remainder of the paragraph are +required, the Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the +truth of the allegations in Paragraph 18 of the Complaint. +19. The Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about +the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 19 of the Complaint, except admit that the New York +Times published a story attributing the quoted language to Decedent. +20. The Co-Executors deny the first and second sentences of Paragraph 20 of the +Complaint to the extent they purport to characterize a 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (the +"NPA") entered by Decedent, and refer thereto for the full text, terms and meaning thereof. The +Co-Executors deny the remainder of the allegations of Paragraph 20 of the Complaint except admit +that, following entry of the NPA, Decedent served 13 months in jail during a portion of which time +he was given 12 hours of work release for six days a week. +21. +The Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about +the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 21 of the Complaint. +22. +The Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about +the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 22 of the Complaint. +23. +The Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about +the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 23 of the Complaint. +- 4- + + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 90 Filed 07/14/20 Page 5 of 16 +24. +The Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about +the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 24 of the Complaint. +25. +The Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about +the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 25 of the Complaint. +26. +The Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about +the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 26 of the Complaint. +27. +The Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about +the truth of the allegations in paragraph 27 of the Complaint. +28. +The Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about +the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 28 of the Complaint. +29. +The Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about +the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 29 of the Complaint. +30. +The Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about +the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 30 of the Complaint. +31. +The Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about +the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 31 of the Complaint. +32. +The Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about +the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 32 of the Complaint. +33. +The Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about +the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 33 of the Complaint. +34. +The Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about +the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 34 of the Complaint. +- 5- + + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 90 Filed 07/14/20 Page 6 of 16 +35. +The Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about +the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 35 of the Complaint. +36. +The Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about +the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 36 of the Complaint. +37. +The Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about +the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 37 of the Complaint. +38. +The Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about +the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 38 of the Complaint. +39. +The Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about +the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 39 of the Complaint. +40. The Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about +the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 40 of the Complaint. +41. +The Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about +the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 41 of the Complaint. +42. +The Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about +the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 42 of the Complaint. +43. +The Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about +the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 43 of the Complaint. +44. +The Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about +the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 44 of the Complaint. +45. +Paragraph 45 of the Complaint states legal conclusions to which no responses are +required. To the extent responses to those legal conclusions or the remainder of the paragraph are +- 6- + + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 90 Filed 07/14/20 Page 7 of 16 +required, the Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the +truth of the allegations in Paragraph 45 of the Complaint. +46. The Complaint does not contain a paragraph numbered 46. +47. Paragraph 47 of the Complaint states a legal conclusion to which no response is +required. To the extent a response to that legal conclusion or the remainder of the paragraph is +required, the Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the +truth of the allegations in Paragraph 47 of the Complaint. +48. +The Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about +the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 48 of the Complaint. +49. The Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about +the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 49 of the Complaint. +50. +The Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about +the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 50 of the Complaint. +51. +The Co-Executors admit that the NPA refers to +Groff as +potential co-conspirators of Decedent, and refer thereto for the full text, terms and meaning thereof. +52. The Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about +the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 52 of the Complaint. The Co-Executors further state that, +to the extent the allegations in Paragraph 52 of the Complaint characterize a newspaper report, the +report speaks for itself. +53. +The Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about +the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 53 of the Complaint. +54. +The Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about +the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 54 of the Complaint. +- 7- + + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 90 Filed 07/14/20 Page 8 of 16 +55. +The Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about +the truth of the allegations in paragraph 55 of the Complaint. +56. +The Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about +the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 56 of the Complaint. +57. +The Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about +the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 57 of the Complaint. +58. +The Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about +the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 58 of the Complaint. +59. +The Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about +the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 59 of the Complaint. +60. +The Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about +the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 60 of the Complaint. +61. +The Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about +the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 61 of the Complaint. +62. +The Co-Executors admit that Decedent was indicted in July 2019, and refer to the +Indictment for the full text, terms and meaning thereof. Paragraph 62 of the Complaint also states +a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response to that legal +conclusion or the remainder of the paragraph is required, the Co-Executors lack knowledge or +information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 62 of the +Complaint. +63. +The Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about +the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 63 of the Complaint, except admit that Decedent died on +- 8- + + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 90 Filed 07/14/20 Page 9 of 16 +August 10, 2019 and that New York City's chief medical examiner has concluded that Decedent's +cause of death was suicide. +64. The Co-Executors admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 64 of the +Complaint. +65. +The Co-Executors deny the allegations in Paragraph 65 of the Complaint to the +extent they purport to characterize Decedent's last will and testament and accompanying affidavits, +as well as a probate petition, except admit the existence of the foregoing documents and refer +thereto for their full text, terms and meanings thereof. +66. +The Co-Executors deny the allegations in Paragraph 66 of the Complaint to the +extent they purport to characterize Decedent's last will and testament, except admit the existence +of the last will and testament and refer thereto for the full text, terms and meaning thereof. +67. The Co-Executors deny the allegations in Paragraph 67 of the Complaint to the +extent they purport to characterize a court filing, except admit the existence of the court filing and +refer thereto for the full text, terms and meaning thereof. +68. +The Co-Executors deny the allegations in Paragraph 68 of the Complaint to the +extent they purport to characterize court filings, except admit the existence of the court filings and +refer thereto for the full text, terms and meanings thereof. +CAUSES OF ACTION +COUNT ONE +Sexual Assault +The Co-Executors incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs as if set forth +69. +fully herein. +70. +Paragraph 70 of the Complaint states legal conclusions to which no responses are +required. To the extent responses to those conclusions or the remainder of the paragraph are +- 9- + + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 90 Filed 07/14/20 Page 10 of 16 +required, the Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the +truth of the allegations in Paragraph 70 of the Complaint. +71. +Paragraph 71 of the Complaint states a legal conclusion to which no response is +required. To the extent a response to those conclusions or the remainder of the paragraph is +required, the Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the +truth of the allegations in Paragraph 71 of the Complaint. +72. +Paragraph 72 of the Complaint states a legal conclusion to which no response is +required. To the extent a response to those conclusions or the remainder of the paragraph is +required, the Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the +truth of the allegations in Paragraph 72 of the Complaint. +73. +Paragraph 73 of the Complaint states a legal conclusion to which no response is +required. To the extent a response to those conclusions or the remainder of the paragraph is +required, the Co-Executors deny the allegations of Paragraph 73 of the Complaint to the extent +they characterize statutes, and refer to the statutes for the full text, terms and meanings thereof. +COUNT TWO +Sexual Battery +74. The Co-Executors incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs as if set forth +fully herein. +75. +Paragraph 75 of the Complaint states legal conclusions to which no responses are +required. To the extent responses to those conclusions or the remainder of the paragraph are +required, the Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the +truth of the allegations in Paragraph 75 of the Complaint. +- 10- + + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 90 Filed 07/14/20 Page 11 of 16 +76. +Paragraph 76 of the Complaint states a legal conclusion to which no response is +required. To the extent a response to those conclusions or the remainder of the paragraph is +required, the Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the +truth of the allegations in Paragraph 76 of the Complaint. +77. Paragraph 77 of the Complaint states a legal conclusion to which no response is +required. To the extent a response to those conclusions or the remainder of the paragraph is +required, the Co-Executors deny the allegations of Paragraph 77 of the Complaint to the extent +they characterize statutes, and refer to the statutes for the full text, terms and meanings thereof. +COUNT THREE +Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress +78. The Co-Executors incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs as if set forth +fully herein. +79. +Paragraph 79 of the Complaint states legal conclusions to which no responses are +required. To the extent responses to those conclusions or the remainder of the paragraph are +required, the Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the +truth of the allegations in Paragraph 79 of the Complaint. +80. +Paragraph 80 of the Complaint states legal conclusions to which no responses are +required. To the extent responses to those conclusions or the remainder of the paragraph are +required, the Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the +truth of the allegations in Paragraph 80 of the Complaint. +81. +Paragraph 81 of the Complaint states legal conclusions to which no responses are +required. To the extent responses to those conclusions or the remainder of the paragraph are +required, the Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the +truth of the allegations in Paragraph 81 of the Complaint. +- 11- + + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 90 Filed 07/14/20 Page 12 of 16 +82. +Paragraph 82 of the Complaint states a legal conclusion to which no response is +required. To the extent a response to those conclusions or the remainder of the paragraph is +required, the Co-Executors deny the allegations of Paragraph 82 of the Complaint to the extent +they characterize statutes, and refer to the statutes for the full text, terms and meanings thereof. +COUNT FOUR +Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress +The Co-Executors incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs as if set forth +83. +fully herein. +84. The Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about +the truth of the allegations in the first sentence of Paragraph 84 of the Complaint. The second +sentence of Paragraph 84 of the Complaint states a legal conclusion to which no response is +required. To the extent a response to those conclusions or the remainder of the paragraph is +required, the Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the +truth of the allegations in Paragraph 84 of the Complaint. +85. +Paragraph 85 of the Complaint states legal conclusions to which no responses are +required. To the extent responses to those conclusions or the remainder of the paragraph are +required, the Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the +truth of the allegations in Paragraph 85 of the Complaint. +86. +Paragraph 84 of the Complaint states a legal conclusion to which no response is +required. To the extent a response to those conclusions or the remainder of the paragraph is +required, the Co-Executors deny the allegations of Paragraph 84 of the Complaint to the extent +they characterize statutes, and refer to the statutes for the full text, terms and meanings thereof. +- 12- + + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 90 Filed 07/14/20 Page 13 of 16 +PRAYER FOR RELIEF +The "WHEREFORE" paragraph following Paragraph 86 of the Complaint purports to state +Plaintiff's prayers for relief, to which responses are not required. Moreover, on June 23, 2020, the +Court entered an Order dismissing plaintiff's prayer for punitive damages against the Co- +Executors (ECF Doc. 84). Therefore, and for that additional reason, no response to that prayer for +relief is required. To the extent a response to the "WHEREFORE" paragraph is required, the Co- +Executors, based on lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of +Plaintiff's allegations, deny that Plaintiff is entitled to any of the relief described therein, or to any +relief whatsoever. +The Co-Executors deny any and all allegations in the Complaint not expressly admitted +herein. +AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES +The Co-Executors, to the extent required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(c), assert the following +affirmative defenses. By pleading these defenses, the Co-Executors do not assume the burden of +proving any fact, issue, or element of a cause of action where such burden belongs to Plaintiff. +Moreover, nothing stated herein is intended to or shall be construed as a concession that any +particular issue or subject matter is relevant to Plaintiff's allegations. +Failure to State a Claim. Plaintiff's Complaint fails, in whole or in part, to state a +claim upon which relief can be granted. +2. +No Damages and Failure to Mitigate. Plaintiff's claims are barred to the extent +Plaintiff has not suffered any damages; alternatively, Plaintiff's claims are barred to the extent +Plaintiff has not been damaged to the extent alleged, and failed to mitigate any damages she may +have suffered. +- 13- + + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 90 Filed 07/14/20 Page 14 of 16 +3. +Contributory Negligence. If Plaintiff suffered or sustained any loss, injury, damage +or detriment, and the same was directly and proximately caused and contributed to by the conduct, +acts, omissions, activities, carelessness, negligence, and/or intentional misconduct of Plaintiff, +Plaintiff's recovery herein is partially or completely barred. +4. +Assumption of Risk. Plaintiff's claims are barred to the extent that, at the time and +place of the incidents alleged in Plaintiff's Complaint, Plaintiff knew of and fully understood the +danger and risks incident to their undertaking; but despite such knowledge, Plaintiff freely and +voluntarily assumed and exposed herself to all risks of harm and the consequential injuries and +resultant damages, if any. +Comparative Fault of Third Parties. If and to the extent that the Co-Executors are +subjected to any liability to Plaintiff due, in whole or in part, to the acts, omissions, activities, +carelessness, recklessness, negligence, and intentional misconduct of persons or entities other than +Decedent, any recovery obtained by Plaintiff against the Co-Executors should be reduced in +proportion to the respective negligence and fault and legal responsibility of all such other persons +and entities, and their agents, servants and employees who contributed to or caused any such injury +or damages, in accordance with the law of comparative negligence; the liability of the Co- +Executors, if any, is limited in direct proportion to the percentage of fault actually attributed to +Decedent. +Statute of Limitations. The Complaint, and each and every cause of action +contained therein, is barred by the applicable statute of limitations, including without limitation +because the New York Child Victims' Act, including without limitation CPLR 214-g, violates the +New York Constitution and the U.S. Constitution. +- 14- + + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 90 Filed 07/14/20 Page 15 of 16 +7. +Intervening/Superseding Causes. To the extent the injuries and damages which +Plaintiff alleges were proximately caused by, or contributed to by, the acts of other persons or +other entities, and said acts were intervening or superseding causes of the injuries and damages, if +any, which Plaintiff alleges, Plaintiff is barred from any recovery against the Co-Executors. +8. +Waiver, Estoppel, Laches. Plaintiff's claims are barred by the doctrines of waiver, +estoppel and laches. +9. +Punitive Damages Barred. To the extent Plaintiff seeks damages that are punitive +in nature, they are barred including without limitation pursuant to N.Y. E.P.T.L. § 11-3.2 and the +Court's June 23, 2020 Order (ECF Doc. 84). +10. +Duplicative Claims. Plaintiff's claims are barred to the extent she is simultaneously +prosecuting her claims in the Southern District of New York and the Superior Court of the Virgin +Islands Division of St. +and St. John. +The Co-Executors have not knowingly or intentionally waived any applicable affirmative +defenses and reserve the right to assert and rely upon such affirmative defenses as they may +become available or apparent during discovery. The Co-Executors further reserve the right to +amend their Answer accordingly. +- 15 - + + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 90 Filed 07/14/20 Page 16 of 16 +Dated: New York, New York +July 14, 2020 +By: /s/ Bennet J. Moskowitz +Bennet J. Moskowitz +TROUTMAN PEPPER LLP +875 Third Avenue +New York, New York 10022 +Attorneys for Defendants Darren K. +Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, as Co- +Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. +Epstein +- 16- + diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a6401b7b838eee39f81d525fa5c8e6d83673bbaebf5e57eb2f2d41de78afbbce.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a6401b7b838eee39f81d525fa5c8e6d83673bbaebf5e57eb2f2d41de78afbbce.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4aea61c83214b621becc7c19e45842e553423194 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a6401b7b838eee39f81d525fa5c8e6d83673bbaebf5e57eb2f2d41de78afbbce.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -336, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "a6401b7b838eee39f81d525fa5c8e6d83673bbaebf5e57eb2f2d41de78afbbce", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 32, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.digits-only\", \"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "81486350aa3b43b8e84bb84ed491669665452d1355be2c3d5a58158301902bb2", + "output_sha256": "23ebb12ef5bd602df926e1d3f4520d83fe3e1802ba1bfa6f31e98eb00db7815e", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a64c03daa1c1c4b7b5b0d427230173efc03bb75fc67461d53f5e616e5b61af35.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a64c03daa1c1c4b7b5b0d427230173efc03bb75fc67461d53f5e616e5b61af35.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..19711a01ab73369bc3dfa5ba2730ab1a23441a9f --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a64c03daa1c1c4b7b5b0d427230173efc03bb75fc67461d53f5e616e5b61af35.md @@ -0,0 +1,35 @@ +Case 1:19-cv-09610-PAE-DCF Document 31 Filed 12/19/19 Page 1 of 1 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK +JANE DOE 17, +Plaintiff. +Case No. 1:19-cv-09610-PAE +- against - +RULE 7.1 STATEMENT +DARREN L INDYKE AND RICHARD D. KAHN AS +JOINT PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE +ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, NINE EAST 71$T +STREET, CORPORATION, LAUREL, INC., +FINANCIAL TRUST COMPANY, INC., NES, LLC, +MAPLE, INC., LSJE, LLC, HBRK ASSOCIATES, +INC., NAUTILUS, INC., CYPRESS, INC., and JEGE, +INC., +Defendants. +Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1, the undersigned counsel for Nine East +71st Street Corporation, Financial Trust Company, Inc., NES, LLC, Laurel, Inc., Maple, Inc., +LSJE, LLC, HBRK Associates, Inc., Nautilus, Inc., Cypress, Inc. and JEGE, Inc. (the +"Defendants") certifies that there are no parent corporations or any publicly held corporations +owning 10% or more of Defendants' +Dated: New York, New York +December 19, 2019 +TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP +By: s/ Bennet J. Moskowitz. +Bennet J. Moskowitz +875 Third Avenue, +New York, New York +Phone +(212) 704-6000 +Fax +(212) 704-6288 +bennet.moskowitz@troutman.com +Counsel for Defendants diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a64c03daa1c1c4b7b5b0d427230173efc03bb75fc67461d53f5e616e5b61af35.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a64c03daa1c1c4b7b5b0d427230173efc03bb75fc67461d53f5e616e5b61af35.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c282546e64904f10b63f7baef004ed8aba3ccce5 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a64c03daa1c1c4b7b5b0d427230173efc03bb75fc67461d53f5e616e5b61af35.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "a64c03daa1c1c4b7b5b0d427230173efc03bb75fc67461d53f5e616e5b61af35", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "7d9de0c23b1b579c5fef61c6ddb5b2414e30dc2f0ac517dd70ef9af0d320d0cd", + "output_sha256": "9d458ec7a44d466787fba585ef5e91455f79827961d5ad0344e8df1a0c79d45d", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a64eb7c22af2bdb62f1150db3d74ac9d7e1796aa5883a3ddc4c5f03c40166cfb.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a64eb7c22af2bdb62f1150db3d74ac9d7e1796aa5883a3ddc4c5f03c40166cfb.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..33cbee83e8c54afaa17b6982bcb9005ed1ad0445 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a64eb7c22af2bdb62f1150db3d74ac9d7e1796aa5883a3ddc4c5f03c40166cfb.md @@ -0,0 +1,233 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 22 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2008 Page 1 of 8 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-80804-CIV-MARRA/ +JANE DOE, a/k/a, +JANE DOE NO. 1, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +1, and +Defendants. +PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO REMAND +Plaintiff Jane Doe, a Florida citizen, properly sued +also a Florida +citizen, in this action. Contrary to Defendants' contention, Defendant +was not +fraudulently joined because, when viewing the factual allegations in the light most +favorable to Plaintiff and resolving issues of Florida substantive law in favor of Plaintiff, +it is clear that Plaintiff has cognizable causes of action against Defendant +for civil +conspiracy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and civil RICO. Accordingly, the +Court should remand this action to Florida state court. +A. Plaintiff is a Florida citizen +Plaintiff alleged in her complaint and testified in deposition that she is a Florida +resident. (Amended Complaint 9 1, DE 1, pp. 301; Deposition of Jane Doe, DE 1, PP. +31-32, 5:14-18, 6:6-10). In their notice of removal, Defendants cite a newspaper article +(from the same newspaper that Defendants chide Plaintiff for citing with regard to +Defendant +describing herself as the Hollywood madam Heidi Fleiss) in which it + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 22 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2008 Page 2 of 8 +is reported that Plaintiff had moved to another state in order to intimate that Plaintiff +made fraudulent allegations regarding her residency. (DE 1, p. 7 n.6). Defendants then +chide Plaintiff in their opposition to her motion for remand for not taking the bait and +responding to this baseless allegation. (DE 21, p. I). The only evidence in this case, as +well as Plaintiff's allegations, demonstrate that Plaintiff is a Florida citizen. As +Defendants have failed to present sufficient evidence to demonstrate otherwise, there is +no need for Plaintiff to present additional evidence establishing her status as a Florida +citizen. +B. Plaintiff has alleged cognizable causes of action against Defendant +The allegations in Plaintiff's complaint demonstrate that Plaintiff was the victim +in a despicable scheme orchestrated by Defendant Epstein to find and obtain underage +girls, lure them to his home, and subject them to sexual abuse or otherwise induce them +to engage in lewd behavior. As much as Defendants attempt to downplay the role of +Defendant +by describing her as nothing but a college student with no assets, +Plaintiff's complaint demonstrates that +was a key player in Epstein's scheme. +Defendant +was the person that actually trolled for underage girls and induced +them with promises of money in exchange for massages in order to deliver the girls to +Epstein's home and get them into his bedroom. (Amended Complaint 99l 11-15, DE 1, +pp. 302-04). +Without Defendant +role in this scheme, the underage girls, +including Plaintiff, would not have been subjected to Defendant Epstein's depravity and +abuse. +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 22 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2008 Page 3 of 8 +1. Civil Conspiracy +Defendants repeatedly assert that Plaintiff cannot have a cause of action for civil +conspiracy grounded on the tort of sexual assault because Chapter 800 of the Florida +Statutes does not create a private cause of action. As authority for this legal proposition, +Defendants cite Florida case law that states "not every statutory violation carries a civil +remedy." (DE 21, p. 6) (citing Am. Home Assurance Co. v. Plaza Materials Corp., 908 +So. 2d 360, 374 (Fla. 2005)). Defendants do not cite case law that states, however, that +Chapter 800 of the Florida Statutes does not create a private cause of action, nor can they +because this appears to be a matter of first impression in Florida. +In order to determine whether a private cause of action may be based upon a +statutory breach, Florida courts look to the intent of the legislature. Baumstein v. Sunrise +Community, Inc., 738 So. 2d 420, 421 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). Because Florida courts have +not examined whether the legislature intended for violations of Chapter 800 to provide +for private causes of action, the Court should view this uncertainty regarding Florida state +law in favor of Plaintiff. See Crowe v. Coleman, 113 F.3d 1536, 1538 (11th Cir. 1989) +(citation omitted). +Furthermore, the failure of a statute to provide a private cause of action does not +"preclude the right to bring a common law ... claim based upon the same allegations." +Villazon v. Prudential Health Care Plan, Inc., 843 So. 2d 842, 852 (Fla. 2003). In her +action for sexual assault, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Epstein tortiously assaulted her +sexually. (DE 1, p. 104). Under Florida law, sexual assault is an intentional tort. See +Doe v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., 394 F.3d 891, 917 (11th Cir. 2004) (*Florida law equates +sexual battery with an intentional tort."). Thus, even if Plaintiff's civil conspiracy claim +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 22 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2008 Page 4 of 8 +cannot properly be grounded upon a violation of Chapter 800, it is properly grounded +upon common law tortious assault. Plaintiff's cause of action for civil conspiracy is, +therefore, cognizable against Defendant | +under Florida law. +2. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress +Defendants next assert that Plaintiff has failed to assert a cognizable cause of +action for intentional infliction of emotional distress against Defendant +because +her allegations are not so outrageous in character and so extreme in degree as to go +beyond all possible bounds of decency. (DE 21, p. 7). They attempt to characterize +Plaintiff as the wrongdoer because she agreed to give a massage in exchange for +monetary compensation when she was "unlicensed, untrained, and unqualified to perform +this professional service." (DE 21, p. 8). +Defendants seem to forget that Plaintiff was just a 14-year old girl when she was +approached by Defendant +and induced to agree to provide a massage to a wealthy +man in exchange for money. +What Plaintiff certainly did not agree to do was to be +subjected to Defendant Epstein's perverse scheme to satisfy his depraved sexual desires. +When read fairly, Plaintiff's complaint tells the tale of a girl, barely a teenager, who was +lied to and manipulated by the college-aged Defendant +who, for compensation, +tempted Plaintiff with the promise of money in exchange for easy and harmless work and +then knowingly delivered Plaintiff into the depraved hands of Defendant Epstein. +Defendant Epstein then subjected this young girl to the despicable lewd and lascivious +acts detailed in Plaintiff's complaint. It is hard to imagine any conduct that is more +"outrageous in character and so extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of +4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 22 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2008 Page 5 of 8 +decency." Plaintiff's cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress must, +therefore, be recognized as cognizable under Florida law. +3. Civil RICO +Finally, Defendants argue that Plaintiff has failed to assert a cognizable cause +of action for civil RICO against Defendant +I because Plaintiff was injured only by +the sexual assault, which is not a predicate act under Florida's RICO statute. In her +complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants engaged in a pattern of criminal activity in +which Defendant +found and delivered underage girls to Defendant Epstein in +order for Epstein to "solicit, induce, coerce, entice, compel or force such girls to engage +in acts of prostitution and/or lewdness." (Amended Complaint Il 32, DE 1, p. 307). She +also alleges that she was a victim of Defendants' scheme because she was one of the +underage girls found and delivered to Defendant Epstein by Defendant +and that +she endured Epstein's actions as he tried to get her to engage in, and forced upon her, acts +of prostitution and lewdness. (Amended Complaint I 33, DE 1, pp. 307-308). It is for +harm suffered as a result of these predicate acts that Plaintiff seeks damages for in Count +IV of her complaint. Cf. Palmas Y Bambu, S.A. v. E.I. Dupont De Nemours & Co., Inc., +881 So. 2d 565, 570 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (holding plaintiff has standing to sue for civil +RICO when her injuries flow directly from commission of the predicate acts, which +means "when the alleged predicate act is mail or wire fraud, the plaintiff must have been +a target +of +the +scheme to defraud and must have relied to his detriment on +misrepresentations made in furtherance of that scheme"). Because Plaintiff was a target +of Defendants' scheme and was harmed by their actions in carrying out the scheme, +Plaintiff has a cognizable cause of action for civil RICO against Defendant +5 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 22 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2008 Page 6 of 8 +C. Conclusion +Plaintiff, a Florida citizen, has alleged cognizable causes of action against Defendant +, also a Florida citizen, for civil conspiracy, intentional infliction of emotional +distress, and civil RICO. When viewing Plaintiff's factual allegations in the light most +favorable to her and resolving issues of Florida substantive law in her favor, it is clear +that Plaintiff has not fraudulently joined Defendant +in this action. Accordingly, +the Court should remand this action to Florida state court for lack of jurisdiction. +Certificate of Services +Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those +counsel or parties who are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic +Filing. +s/ Spencer T. Kuvin +Spencer T. Kuvin (Florida Bar Number 089737) +Attorney E-Mail Address: +RICCI-LEOPOLD, P.A. +2925 PGA Blvd. +Salm Beach Gardens, FL. 33410 +Telephone: (561) 684-6500 +Facsimile: (561) 697-2383 +Counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe +6 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 22 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2008 Page 7 of 8 +SERVICE LIST +Doe v. Epstein, et. al. +CASE NO: 08-80804-Civ-MARRA/, +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +Robert Critton, Esq. +Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman, LLP +515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Phone: (561) 842-2820 +Fax: (561) 515-3148 +Counsel for Jeffrey Epstein +Served via U.S. Mail, postage prepaid +Guy Alan +Email: +Esq. +Tein +3059 Grand Avenue, Suite 340 +Coconut Grove, FL 33133 +Phone: (305) 442-1101 +Fax: (305) 442-6744 +Counsel for Jeffrey Epstein +Served via CM/ECF +Bruce E. Reinhart, Esq. +Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A +250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Phone: (561) 202-6360 +Fax: (561) 828-0983 +Counsel for +Served via U.S. Mail, postage prepaid +Michael R. Tein, Esq. +Email: tein@lewistein.com +Tein +3059 Grand Avenue, Suite 340 +Coconut Grove, FL 33133 +Phone: (305) 442-1101 +Fax: (305) 442-6744 +Counsel for Jeffrey Epstein +Served via CM/ECF +7 + + +Case 9:08-cV-80804-KAM Document 22 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2008 Page 8 of 8 +Douglas M. Mcintosh, Esq. +Jason A. +,. Esq. +McIntosh, Sawran, Peltz & Cartaya, P.A. +Centurion Tower, Suite 1110 +1601 Forum Place +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Phone: (561) 682-3202 +Fax: (561) 682-3206 +Counsel for +Served via U.S. Mail, postage prepaid +8 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a64eb7c22af2bdb62f1150db3d74ac9d7e1796aa5883a3ddc4c5f03c40166cfb.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a64eb7c22af2bdb62f1150db3d74ac9d7e1796aa5883a3ddc4c5f03c40166cfb.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1ffc711a93bc054e9189356bf907ed399467fe79 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a64eb7c22af2bdb62f1150db3d74ac9d7e1796aa5883a3ddc4c5f03c40166cfb.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -96, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "a64eb7c22af2bdb62f1150db3d74ac9d7e1796aa5883a3ddc4c5f03c40166cfb", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 8, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "fba3b382d82ee718a493be19889959b7314f7e69272e7cda7c0028cc474b70b5", + "output_sha256": "0e5287ad7584f7066c66be6a898b0368a7dfb0370ea371aa19a0b72578d0171b", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a652844de3003c91f043f560e614ef09841446fa9089a0b4346b1af6a1677fd4.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a652844de3003c91f043f560e614ef09841446fa9089a0b4346b1af6a1677fd4.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..64cddefd1af2a13da46252d7ce2e8cfd059c3eb6 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a652844de3003c91f043f560e614ef09841446fa9089a0b4346b1af6a1677fd4.md @@ -0,0 +1,31 @@ +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 55 Filed 07/16/20 Page 1 of 1 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff, +DARREN I. INDYKE and RICHARD D. KAHN, in +their capacities as executors of the ESTATE OF +JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, +an individual, +Defendants +Case No. 1:20-cv-00484-JGK -DCF +NOTICE OF APPEARANCE +PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the undersigned attorney hereby appears as counsel for +defendants Darren _. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn as Co-Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. +Epstein in the above-captioned action. I certify that I am admitted to practice in this Court. All +notices given or required to be given in this case shall be served upon the undersigned. +Dated: New York, New York. +July 16, 2020 +By:_ /s/ Mary +W. Metcalfe +Mary +W. Metcalfe +TROUTMAN PEPPER LLP +875 Third Avenue +New York, NY 10022 +212.704.6000 +MaryGrace.Metcalfe@troutman.com +Attorneys for Defendants Darren _ Indyke +and Richard D. Kahn as Co-Executors of +the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein +To: All Counsel of Record (via ECF) diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a652844de3003c91f043f560e614ef09841446fa9089a0b4346b1af6a1677fd4.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a652844de3003c91f043f560e614ef09841446fa9089a0b4346b1af6a1677fd4.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1138ba4ce09632e166625d541ca19e31802d072c --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a652844de3003c91f043f560e614ef09841446fa9089a0b4346b1af6a1677fd4.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "a652844de3003c91f043f560e614ef09841446fa9089a0b4346b1af6a1677fd4", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "736458e5e81f178ef03cfdb167ff73009e6b8eace758f2ca164c72933b388acc", + "output_sha256": "f3a6bff8482fee289b79aed3994c27a5ba9408f25e2cdf01e1c3ebcf8a0bc2b2", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a65dc0e2394b2299c1b352be84ca814688402397288bf3c99836b88480e36c50.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a65dc0e2394b2299c1b352be84ca814688402397288bf3c99836b88480e36c50.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f9d6d30a83f7e8e475ddc142e2801745ba0d068e --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a65dc0e2394b2299c1b352be84ca814688402397288bf3c99836b88480e36c50.md @@ -0,0 +1,1102 @@ +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 34-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 1 of 23 +professional publications include books and peer-reviewed medical journal articles on mass +disasters, most recently concerning the Attack on America. +He was extensively interviewed in 1997 by CBS Dallas TV regarding psychiatric testimony +concerning eleven altar boys, testimony which had resulted in a record-making jury verdict +against the Archdiocese of Dallas. In April, 1998, Dr. Kliman was interviewed by Channel Four +anchorwoman, Linda +i, concerning his Salvation Army project providing the Cornerstone +form of psychoanalytic psychotherapy for homeless preschoolers and toddlers,. The Cornerstone +project itself was viewed on the Channel II Five O'Clock News. KGO TV interviewed Dr. +Kliman concerning a forensic testimony, with a focus on a Stanford football player who had +allegedly become a child molester. During the Lewinsky-Clinton matter, Kliman was +interviewed by Channel 12/20 concerning psychoanalytic views of leaders having exceptional +sexual access to partners and the risk of a position of power overcoming the judgments of such +leaders. During 2001 following the World Trade Building terrorism, Dr. Kliman was +interviewed by Channel II News and appeared on five occasions thereafter through 2003 +concerning the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. In May 2003, he was discussant with U.N. Secretary +General Olaru Otonu, featured on Dhubai Business TV concerning the plight of children in war. +In 2004, together with the International Psychoanalytic Association, Dr. Kliman helped organize, +establish +and supervise a therapeutic preschool project in Buenos Aires. +"Cornerstone +Argentina" is now in its second year of treating severely disturbed and impoverished +preschoolers, with his continuing collaboration. +Following the hurricane disasters of 2005 he collaborated with Mercy Corps and the Children's +Psychological Health Center to produce a mental health resource. The result, "My Katrina and +Rita Story", a guided activity resource of families who had to deal with the hurricanes. Mercy +Corps is distributing copies to 20,000 families. +In 2005, RE DISTURBED PRESCHOOLERS Dr. Kliman helped organize. establish and +supervise a therapeutic project in Piedmont California, at the nonprofit Ann +Center. +In 2007, RE HOMELESS CHILDREN: Dr. Kliman helped establish a Reflective Network +Therapy service for homeless preschoolers in Seattle. He provided four days of training in that +method for the Family Service Center of +• County (located in Seattle), and created an +organizational link between The Family Services Center and The Children's Psychological +Health Center, Inc. of San Francisco in order to continue serving homeless children in Seattle. +In 2008, Dr. Kliman activated the Reflective Network Therapy services for preschoolers in +Seattle. He supervises there in person and by phone and video. +In 2008, RE DISASTER SERVICES: Following the Sichuan Earthquake Disaster of May 12, +008, Dr. Kliman established a link between Children's Psychological Health Center, Inc +Mercy Corps, and The China America Psychoanalytic Alliance. He created mental healt +resources (see Publications) which were licensed for mass distribution in China by Mercy Corps. +In 2008, Dr. Kliman helped found a new non-profit organization called Teach with Africa and is +a member of its Board of Directors. +2 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 34-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 2 of 23 +PROFESSIONAL POSITIONS: +Medical Director: The Children's Psychological Health Center, Inc. (a non-profit agency), San +Francisco, 1993- Responsible for standards of research. clinical treatment, clinical supervision, +staff training and forensic evaluations - reporting directly to the Board of Directors. Psychiatrie +Consultant: Ann +Center, Piedmont, CA. Psychiatric Consultant: +• County Family +Services, Seattle, WA. Private Practice: Medical Director, The Psychological Trauma Center, +(a division of Preventive Psychiatry Associates, Medical Group, Inc.), San Francisco, 1989-. +Chief Psychiatric Consultant, Children's Garden, San Rafael, CA, 1990-1991. (Children's +Garden is a residential +i care facility, consisting of group care cottages and a school.) +Director, Preventive Psychiatry Services and Unit for Study of Mass Violence and Genocide, St. +Mary's Hospital, San Francisco, CA 1987-1989. Private practice of Psychiatry and +Psychoanalysis (Adult, Child, and Adolescent), San Francisco, CA, 1985-. Director and +Principal Investigator, +Care Study Unit, Columbia University, College of Physicians and +Surgeons, New York, N.Y., 1984-87. Associate Clinical Professor, Columbia University, +Department of Child Psychiatry, New York, N.Y., 1985-87. Founder, Editor-in-Chief, the +Journal of Preventive Psychiatry, New York, N.Y., 1980-. Principal Investigator, NIMH +project ("Preventive Mental Health Services for Children Entering +¡ Care"), The Center for +Preventive Psychiatry, +| Plains, N.Y., 1979-1985. Consultant, Children's Television +Workshop, New York 1976. Assistant Clinical Professor, Mount Sinai Medical School, +Department of Psychiatry, New York, N.Y., 1969-70. Director, Preventive Psychiatry Service, +Elmhurst General Hospital, Queens, N. Y.,1969-70 +GRANTS AWARDED: +Grants have been received as Principal Investigator for research and service in preventive +psychiatry from: The Aaron Norman Foundation, American Chai Trust, +Barrie +Foundation, Bydale Foundation, Cheesborough Pond's Inc., Ciba-Giegy Corporation, Julius H. & +Bessie R. Cohn Foundation, David and Ruth Kosh Foundation, James +Foundation, +Estate of Florence Mascias, Birny Mason Foundation, The Charles and Emma Goldmann +Foundation, The Haas Foundation, The Savin Corporation, The Harris Foundation, The Abelard +Foundation, AMF Corporation, CNA Financial Corporation, D. & R. Gottesman Foundation, +Stella & Charles Guttman Foundation, Longhill Charities, Virginia & Leonard Marx Foundation, +The Klingenstein Foundation, The Lavanburg-Corner House Foundation, Herman Muehlstein +Foundation, Nestle Corporation, Louise Ottinger Charitable Trust, Pettus Crowe Foundation, +Edward & Ellen Roche Relief Foundation, Samuel Rubin Foundation, Savin Business Machines +Corp., S. & H. Scheuer Foundation, +Tannenbaum Foundation. +Grants have been received as Principal Investigator for a project to develop nonmedical training +in Early Childhood Psychotherapy from: The Cleveland Foundation, The Van Ameringen +Foundation. A grant was received for equipment for preschool therapeutic services, from: The +Hecksher Foundation. Grants have been received as Principal Investigator for Research in the +Etiology of Early Childhood Psychosis from: The Bochm Foundation. Grants have been received +as Principal Investigator for Research in Assessment of Preventive Clinical Interventions with +Children Entering | +Family Care, from: The National Institute of Mental Health (Grant # +RO1 MH 27944), and The Harris Foundation. Grants received as Principal Investigator, The +Columbia University +I Care Study Unit, for development of preventive interventions with +children, from the following foundations: The Daniel and Florence Guggenheim +3 + + +Case 9:09-cV-80469-KAM Document 34-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 3 of 23 +Foundation, The Dreyfus Foundation, The Seth Sprague Foundation, The Gralnick Foundation, +The Harris Foundation, U.S. Trust, and The Scheuer Family Foundation. +Most recent grants. +1996-2002: Support from The Office of Education, Division of Special Education, San Mateo +County, California. +1996 The Windholz Foundation, San Francisco, for video documentation of an experimental +project concerning treatment of disturbed and traumatized preschool patients in a public +education special education division. +1999 Morris Stulsaft Foundation for video-recording facility to document treatment in The +Cornerstone Therapeutic School. +1999-2001 The Cadence Corporation - for early childhood treatment services +2000-2001 The Harris Foundation for Cornerstone Therapeutic School. +2000 Funding and Recognition by the State of California: In 2001, The Department of +Education, Division of Special Education, certified the Cornerstone Therapeutic School as a +nonpublic special education school, allowing public entities to fund the school by contracts with +Unified School Districts. +2001 The San Francisco Day Care Corporation - for Cornerstone Therapeutic School. +2001 The Sophie Murvis Foundation for Training of Teachers and Therapists in the Cornerstone +Method. +2002, 2003. The Five +Preschool 2003. +Foundation for development of The Cornerstone Therapeutic +2005 The Sophie Murvis Foundation grant for Training of Teachers and Therapists in the +Cornerstone Method. +2005 Mercy Corps for creation of "My Personal Story about Hurricanes Katrina and Rita" +2008 Mercy Corps for creation of "My Sichuan Earthquake Story" +JANUSZ KORCZAK INTERNATIONAL LITERARY PRIZE: +Albert Rosenfeld, co-authors of Responsible Parenthood, published by Holt, Rinchart and +Winston, New York, 1980 +PUBLISHED PAPERS AND BOOKS: +4 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 34-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 4 of 23 +01. "Adrenal Medullary Function," in G. +Yearbook of Endocrinology, Yearbook +Publishers, 1955. +02. Improved Visual Recognition in Hypnotic Versus Control State," Archives of General +Psychiatry, Vol. 7:155-162, October 1962. +03. Children and the Death of a President, Editor and Contributor (with Martha +Wolfenstein, Ph.D.), Doubleday & Company, New York, 1965. +04. Oedipal Themes in Children's Reactions to the Assassination of President Kennedy," +in Wolfenstein and Kliman, Children and the Death of a President, Doubleday, New +York, 1965. +05. "The Role of Stimulus Ambiguity in Hypnotic Recognition," (with Eugene Goldberg, +M.D.), Arch. Gen. Psychiat. 14: 100, Jan. 1966. +06. "Sharing Truths for Mental Health," in Mental Health in Our Daily Life. Mental +Health Association, +Plains. New York, 1966. +07. "A Psychoanalyst Looks at +Violence as a Factor in Black Violence," The +Center for Preventive Psychiatry, 1968. +08. Teacher Recognition of Psychiatric Needs Among Preschoolers," The Center for +Preventive Psychiatry, 1968. +09. Psychological Emergencies of Childhood. Grune and +New York, 1968. +10. +"A Psychiatrist Speaks Out: 3,000 Blighted Children of Westchester," The Center for +Preventive Psychiatry, 1969. +11. "On a Vacuum in Mental Health Practices," The Center for Preventive Psychiatry, +1969. +"Psychological Management of the Dying Child," in W. Kutscher (Ed.) Death and +Bereavement, Charles C. +Company, Springfield, III. 1969. +13. "The Unique Function of the Teacher in an Experimental Therapeutic Nursery School" +(with Doris Ronald), The Center for Preventive Psychiatry, +Plains, New York, +1970. +14. The Open Family Series (Consultant Editor, with Sarah Bonnett +author). A +series of five books entitled About Dying, Making Babies, That New Baby, A Hospital +Story, and About Handicaps, +Publishing Co., New York, 1974. +15. "Death in the Family-Its Impact on Children," Terry +Klein Memorial +16. +Lecture. Behavioral Sciences Tape Library, Leonia, New Jersey, 1974. +"Death of a Parent Occurring During a Child's Analysis," in Trauma: Monograph V of +17. +the Monograph Series of the Ernst Kris Study Group, New York, 1974. +"A Case of a Dying Child," in Trauma: Monograph V of the Monograph Series of the +Ernst Kris Study Group, New York Psychoanalytic Institute, International Universities +Press, New York, 1974. +18. "Analyst in the Nursery: Application of Child Analytic Techniques in a Therapeutic +Nursery," The Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, Volume 30, New York Times +Publishing Company, 1975. +19. "A Study of Maternal Depression in the First Two Years of Life: A Possible +Contributing Factor in the Etiology of Infantile Psychosis and Neurosis" (with Judyth +Katz), The Center for Preventive Psychiatry, +Plains, New York, 1975. +20. Introduction to Love and Mankind's Future, by Alexander Arzoumanian, Persepolis +Press, New York, 1976. +21. "Preventive Measures in Childhood Bereavement," in Linzer, N. Understanding +Bereavement and Grief, Yeshiva University Press, New York, 1977. +22. "Childhood Mourning: A Taboo Within a Taboo," in Gerber, I., Wiener, A., Kutscher, +A., et al., Perspectives on Bereavement, MSS Information Corporation, New York, +5 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 34-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 5 of 23 +23. "Mourning, Memory, and Reconstruction: The Analysis of a Four-Year-Old +Maternally Bereaved Girl at Age Sixteen Months" (With +,, Ph.D.), in +The Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, Volume 34, The New York Times Press, New +York, 1979. +24. +"Facilitation of Mourning During Childhood," in Gerber, I., Wiener, A., Kutscher, A., +et al., Perspectives on Bereavement, MSS Information Corporation, New York, 1979. +25. "The Cornerstone Treatment of a Preschool Boy from an Extremely Impoverished +Environment" (with +, Ph.D.), The Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, +Vol. 35, The New York Times Press, New York, 1980. +26. Responsible Parenthood: The Child's Psyche Through the Six-Year Pregnancy, Holt, +Rinehart, and Winston, New York, 1980. +27. "Death: Some Implications in Child Development and Child Analysis," in Advances in +Thanatology, Vol. 4, No. 2, Arno Press, New York, 1980. +28. +"Children in +Care: A Preventive Service and Rescarch Program for a High Risk +Population" (with M. Harris Schaeffer, +and Bernard G. +Pasquariella). The Journal of Preventive Psychiatry, Volume I: 1, 1981. +Editorial(s). The Journal of Preventive Psychiatry. Volume I, 1981-1982, Volume II, +1983-4, Volume III, 1985-7, Volume IV, in press. +30. Preventive Mental Health Services for Children Entering +Assessment (with M. Harris Schaeffer, and M. +Family Care: An +The Center for Preventive +31. +Psychiatry, +Plains, New York, 1982. +"Summary +of Two Psychoanalytically Based Service and Research Projects: +Preventive Treatments for +Children" with M. Harris Schaeffer, Ph.D. J. of +Preventive Psychiatry, Vol. II, No. 1, 1983. +"Three New Areas in Litigation on behalf of Children," in Child Psychiatry and the +33. +Law, Diane Schekty, Editor, Volume 2, Bruner/Mazel, New York, 1985. +Preventive Psychiatry: Early Intervention and Situational Crisis Management, coeditor, with S.C. Klagsbrun, M.D., E.J. Clark, Ph.D., others. The Charles Press, +Philadelphia, 1989. +34. My Earthquake Story: A Guided Workbook for Children, Parents and Teachers, with +Harriet Wolfe, M.D. and Edward Oklan, M.D. Psychological Trauma Center Press, +35. +Kentfield, CA. October, 1989. +"Facilitation of Mourning During Childhood," chapter in Preventive Psychiatry: Early +Intervention and Situational Crisis Management. (Eds) S. Klagsbrun, G. Kliman, E. +Clark, A. Kutscher, R. DeBellis, C. Lambert. The Charles Press, Philadelphia, 1989. +36. +"Toward Preventive Intervention in Early Childhood Object Loss," chapter in +Noshpitz, H. and Coddington, D. (Eds) Stressors and Clinical Techniques in Child +Psychiatry. Charles +, NY, 1990. +37. "Brief Report: Loss of Parental Services—-A Guide to Categorization." J. Preventive +Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines 4:1, 1990. Human Sciences Press, NYC. +38. +"A Methodologic Breakthrough: The Saga of Delivering Effective Primary Preventive +Psychotherapy to Groups of | +| Children." J. Preventive Psychiatry and Allied +Disciplines 4:1, 1990. Human Sciences Press, NYC. +39. +"The Rise of Adolf Hitler and Other Genocidal Leaders-Psychoanalytic and +Historical Symposium (Summary)," J. Preventive Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines +4:1,1990. Human Sciences Press, NYC. +6 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 34-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 6 of 23 +40. Kliman, G. et al (2007). "Facilitating Effective Coping in Children Following +Disasters: A Psychoanalytic Informed Guided Narrative Intervention." J. Am Psan. +Assoc. In Press +41. Kliman, G. and M.H. Schaeffer, Ph.D. "A Breakthrough in Prediction and Prevention: +Diagnoses as Social Predictors for +_ Children." J. Preventive Psychiatry and +Allied Disciplines 4:1, 1990 Human Sciences Press, NYC. +42. "My Flood Story-a Guided Activity Workbook for Children, Families and +Teachers," co-authored with Edward Oklan, M.D., Family Development Press, 1010 +Sir Francis Drake Blvd, Kentfield, CA 94960. +43. "My Earthquake Story, A Guided Activity Workbook for Children, Families and +Teachers," co-authored with Harriet Wolfe, M.D., Preventive Psychiatry Associates +Medical Group, Inc., 2105 Divisadero Street, San Francisco, CA 94115 and Edward +Oklan, M.D., Family Development Press, 1010 Sir Francis Drake Blvd, Kentfield, CA +94960. +44. "Field Notes: +| Care: The Personal Life History Book: A Psychoanalytically +Based Intervention for +Children," Journal for the Psychoanalysis of Culture & +Society, Fall 1996 1:2. 159-162. +45. Kliman G and Zelman A. (1996). "Use of a Personal Life History Book in the +Treatment of +_ Children-An Attempt to Enhance Stability of +Care +Placements." Chapter in Zelman A (ed). Early Intervention with High-Risk Children: +Freeing Prisoners of Circumstance. Jason Aronson, Northvale, NJ. 105-124. +46. "Cornerstone Project: Analysis in Special Ed Classes," The American Psychoanalyst, +1997. 31:2. 27-28 +"My Book about Kosovo - a Guided Activity Workbook for Kosovo Children, +Families, and their Teachers." English and Albanian Editions, CPHC, 1999, San +Francisco. +48. "My Book about the Attack on America", A Guided Activity Workbook for Children, +Families and Teachers, coauthored with Ed Oklan, M.D. and Ann Oklan, M.D. 2001, +CPHC, San Francisco. +49. "Helping Patients and their Families Cope in a National Disaster", The S.F. Medical +Society, January 2002. Reprinted in J. L.A. Medical Society, March 2002. +50. Discussion of Reactive Attachment Disorder. Developmental Pediatrics. 2003. +51. "My Personal Story About Hurricanes Katrina and Rita - a guided activity workbook +Portland, OR. +"My Personal Story About Tropical Storm Stan" English Ed. Feb. 24, 2006, The +Children's Psychological Health Center. Spanish Translation " Mi Historia De La +Tormenta Stan" Feb. 2006 +53. +Israeli Terror Book +54. "'Methods for Maximizing the Good Effects of +Care: Evidence Based Strategies +to Prevent Discontinuities of +Care and Raise I.Q." International Journal of +Applied Psychoanalytic Studies, April, 2006 +"My Personal Story about being Homeless" A Guided Activity Workbook to help +Children Cope. The Children's Psychological Health Center Jan 15, 2008 +56. My Sichuan Earthquake Story - A Guided Activity Workbook to help Children +Cope" 85 pages. First English Edition May 22, 2008 available for download online at +www.childrenspsychological.org. Mandarin edition by CPHC and China America +Analytic Association, in press with Mercy Corps June 2, 2008. +7 + + +Case 9:09-cV-80469-KAM Document 34-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 7 of 23 +57. "My Hurricane Story" A Guided Activity Workbook to help Children Cope. The +Children's Psychological Health Center. Sept 21, 2008 +WORKS IN PROGRESS: available in Draft: +IQ Rise among Preschoolers with Pervasive Developmental Disorders. +Child Psychoanalytic Contributions to Civil Justice System, submitted by invitation, to +Psychoanalytic Inquiry +Books in Draft: +1. Reflective Network Therapy: Early Childhood Psychotherapy in the Classroom +2. A Unifying New Theory of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder +PRESENTATIONS: +01. "Specific Traumas: Selective Review of Literature," presented at the Ernst Kris Study +Group, New York Psychoanalytic Institute, New York, 1965. +02. "Psychoanalysis of a Four-Year-Old in a Preschool Group," presented at the American +Psychoanalytic Association, Atlantic City, New Jersey, May, 1966 +03. "Covert Suicidal Impulses in Maternally Deprived Children" (with Harriet Lubin, M.S.W.), +presented at the American Association of Psychiatric Services for Children, Boston, +Massachusetts, November, 1969. +04. Children's Reactions to National Events: The 1968 Federal Elections," presented at the +American Orthopsychiatric Association, Washington, D.C., 1969. +05. "Facilitation of Mourning During Childhood," presented at the Chicago Psychoanalytic +Institute, May 1973. +06. "Preventive Approaches to Preschool Psychiatric Disorders: Some Assessments," presented +at the Academy of Child Psychiatry, Washington, D.C., October, 1973. +"Biological Drive Derivative Cycles in Preschool Patients," presented at the New York +Psychoanalytic Institute Research Seminar, 1974. +08. "Children in National Disasters," presented at the International Association for Child +Psychiatry, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1974. +09. "Childhood Mourning: Some Social Aspects," presented at Yeshiva University, New York, +October, 1974. +10. The Secter far Pral entive Rey oate Impact ors with mene and hident presented +Yeshiva University, October 15, 1975. +11. "Death: Implication for Psychoanalytic Theory and Practice," presented at The Association +for Psychoanalytic Medicine, New York, 1977. +12. "A Psychoanalytic View of an Ancient Mass Disaster: The Mayan Exodus," The Center for +Preventive Psychiatry, 1977. +8 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 34-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 8 of 23 +13. "A Psychoanalytic View of Preventive Psychiatry," presented at Stockbridge, Mass., +December, 1977. +14. "The Self-Concept and Healthy Narcissism: Relevance to Preventive Psychiatry," presented +at the Westchester Psychoanalytic Socicty, L +Plains, New York, 1978. +15. "Special Problems of the Single Parent Child," presented at Department of Child +Psychiatry, Rutgers Medical School and published by Jason Aronson Psychotherapy Tape +Library, New York, 1978. +16. "The Self-Concept: Its Significance in Prevention of Mental Illness," presented at The +Alumni Association of the Chicago Psychoanalytic Institute, Child Psychothcrapy Program, +Chicago, 1978. +17. "Treatment of an Impoverished Intellectually Retarded Ghetto Child by the Cornerstone +Method" (with +. Ph.D.), presented at the American Psychoanalytic +Association, New York, 1979. +18. "Preventive Approaches Among +| Children Using Modern Theory of Narcissism," +presented at The Department of Psychiatry, Mountainside Hospital, Symposium on Primary +Prevention of the Mental and Behavioral Disorders, Mountainside, NJ, 1979. +19. "The Center for Preventive Psychiatry: Its Relationship to Infant Psychiatry," at the +Symposium on Infant Psychiatry, The Center for Preventive Psychiatry, +Plains, New +York, 1979. +20. "Mourning, +Memory and Reconstruction," presented at The Westchester Psychoanalytic +Association, +Plains, New York, 1980. +21. "Preliminary Report on Preventive Psychiatric Services for +Children," presented at +American Association of Psychiatric Services for Children, 1980. +22. "Assessment of Primary Preventive Services: Children Entering +Family Care," +presented at American Orthopsychiatric Association, May, 1981. +23. "Psychoanalytically-Based Approaches to the Problems of +Care: A Pilot Project," +presented at the American Psychoanalytic Association Interdisciplinary Seminar on +Psychoanalytic Observations of +| Care, New York, December, 1978. See also report of +this Seminar by +T.: "Psychoanalytic Observations of +Care (An +Interdisciplinary Seminar of the American Psychoanalytic Association)." The Journal of +Preventive Psychiatry, Volume I:1, 1981. +24. "A Project to Deliver and Evaluate Preventive Psychiatric Services," Columbia College of +Physicians & Surgeons, Division of Child Psychiatry Grand Rounds, May, 1982. +25. "New Concepts in Litigation on Behalf of Children," presented at New York Medical +26. "Cruel Experiments of Nature: General Remarks on Childhood Bereavement and +Developmental Pathology:" Vulnerable Child Workshop, American Psychoanalytic +27. Facilitation of Mourning During Childhood: Role of The Clinician," presented at New York +28. "A Questionnaire for Surveying the Practice of Preventive Psychiatry," presented at the +American Academy of Child Psychiatry, Prevention Committee, October, 1983. +29. "Experiences and Problems in Research Concerning Childhood Bereavement," presented at +Department of Psychiatry, University of Ottawa, November, 1983. +30. "Prediction and Prevention with +Children" (co-authored with M. Harris Schaetter, +Ph.D.), presented at American Psychiatric Association, May, 1984. +31. "Preventive Psychiatry as Applied to +Children," Grand Rounds, +Porter +Psychiatric Institute, 1985. +32. +"The Childhood of Adolf Hitler," with Robert Pois, Ph.D., The American Psychoanalytic +Association, Denver, May 1985. +9 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 34-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 9 of 23 +33. Seminar on "New Areas in Forensic Psychiatry," at the Robert +law firm, San +Francisco, 1986. VIDEOTAPE AVAILABLE +34. "Children's Reactions to the Challenger Shuttle Disaster," on 20/20 (Television Broadcast), +1986. VIDEOTAPE AVAILABLE +35. +The Fathering of Adolf Hitler," Grand Rounds, McAuley Neuropsychiatric Institute, St. +Mary's Hospital, San Francisco, 1986. +36. "Child Sexual Abuse: Psychoanalytic and Forensic Approaches," Children's Hospital, San +Francisco, 1986. VIDEOTAPE AVAILABLE +37. +"Preventive Psychiatry for Children," Training Seminar at McAuley Neuropsychiatric +Institute, St. Mary's Hospital, San Francisco, 1987. VIDEOTAPE AVAILABLE +38. "Multi-Victim Child Sexual Abuse," San Francisco Psychoanalytic Institute Extension +Division, October 1987. VIDEOTAPE AVAILABLE +39. "Children in +¡ Families: Advances in Preventive Psychiatry," Continuing Education +Program for Psychiatrists, U.C. +8, 1988. +40. "The Mothering of Adolf Hitler," Grand Rounds. McAuley Neuropsychiatric Institute, St. +Mary's Hospital, San Francisco, Dec. 1988. +41. "Adolf Hitler's Mothering: A Child Psychoanalytic View," Westchester Psychoanalytic +Society, New York Hospital, January, 1989. +42. "The Personal Life History Book: Preventive Psychotherapy for Children in Chaos." +Department of Child Psychiatry, Harlem Hospital, New York, NY, January, 1989. +43. Chairman: Symposium April 20-21, 1989. The Rise of Adolf Hitler and Other Genocidal +Leaders. Interdisciplinary Unit for Study of Mass Violence and Genocide. St. Mary's +Hospital Department of Psychiatry, San Francisco. +44. "The Mothering of Adolf Hitler," Symposium above. VIDEOTAPE AVAILABLE +45. +46. +"The Fathering of Adolf Hitler," Symposium above. VIDEOTAPE AVAILABLE +Public Media: Following the October 17th earthquake, Dr. Kliman and his Psychological +Trauma Center associates appeared on KRON-TV, KFAS, KQED and public service radio +network to offer advice and respond to call-in questions regarding earthquake stress and +trauma. His Earthquake Story guided workbook (see above) was distributed as a public +service by San Francisco Community Mental Health Services and the Oakland Bureau of +Education to 11,000 teachers in Oakland and San Francisco. +Psychoanalytic Society: (April 1990) "Simultaneous child and couple therapy: +emergence and interpretation of congruent unconscious themes." +48. University of California College of Medicine, Department of Psychiatry, Irvine. Chune +1990) "Prevention of Psychopathology among Children: Systematic Projects with +Children." +49. Preventive Interventions with Traumatized Children," Grand Rounds California Pacific +Hospital Department of Psychiatry, October 20, 1992. VIDEOTAPE AVAILABLE. +50. Altered Interpersonal Schemas After Life Threatening Childhood Trauma," Center for +Study of Consciousness, UCSF, October 1992. +51. Alterations of Pre-Traumatic Memory and Post Traumatic Schemas," Child Analysis +Colloquium, San Francisco Psychoanalytic Institute, November 1992. +52. Toward A New Theory of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder," Control Mastery Group, San +Francisco Psychoanalytic Institute, December 1992. +53. Severe Psychological Trauma in Very Young Children," Grand Rounds at the Menninger- +San Mateo County Hospital Psychiatric Residency Program, March 23, 1993. +54. Psychological Crises Among Preschoolers," Department of Health, City of San Francisco, +April 1993. +55. Child Analysis Colloquium," San Francisco Psychoanalytic Institute, May 1993. +10 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 34-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 10 of 23 +56. "Loss of Parental Services—a Guide for Clinicians and Attorneys," Children's +Psychological Trauma Center, September 16, 1993. (120 min. VIDEOTAPE +AVAILABLE.) +57. Catastrophic Levels of Psychological Trauma—a Guide for Clinicians and Attorneys," +Children's Psychological Trauma Center, September 27, 1993 (120 min. VIDEOTAPE +AVAILABLE.) +58. Systematic Preventive Interventions with +• Children," Kevnote Address, Western +Pennsylvania Psychiatric Institute Conference on Adoption and +• Care, Sept. 22, 1993. +59. Cost Benefits of Preventive Interventions with | +• Children," American Behavioral +Health Institute, San Francisco, Sept. 28, 1993. (60 min. VIDEOTAPE AVAILABLE.) +60. True and False Allegations of Child Molestation," Children's Psychological Trauma Center, +October 1, 1993. (120 min. VIDEOTAPE AVAILABLE). +61. Severe Psychological Trauma in Childhood-Some New Observations," Grand Rounds, +Dept. of Child Psychiatry, Oakland Children's Hospital, Oct. 7, 1993. (60 min. +VIDEOTAPE AVAILABLE.) +Preventive Approaches in Severe Psychological Trauma," Bar Association of San +Francisco, October 28, 1993. (90 min. VIDEOTAPE AVAILABLE.) +63. New Theory of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder," Pediatric Grand Rounds California Pacific +64. Preventing Depression in Yourself, Your Clients and Your Co-Workers," San Francisco +Bar Association, San Francisco, CA, December 2, 1993. +A New Theory of Post Traumatic Disorders," Center for Preventive Psychiatry, +Plains, NY, January 11, 1994. +66. KRON-TV, "Helping Children Deal with Earthquake Stress," San Francisco, CA, January +20, 1994. +67. Samuel Kahn Memorial Lecture, The Center for Preventive Psychiatry, +, Plains, N.Y. +Topic, +"Catastrophic Traumas of Childhood-New Findings, +New Theory, New +Therapeutic Tasks," February 28, 1994. +68. "Preventing Job Stress: The Disease of the 20th Century," San Francisco Bar Association, +San Francisco, CA, March 25, 1994. +69. "Controlled Assessment of Psychoanalytically Derived Psychotherapy with +Children," American Psychoanalytic Association, Philadelphia, PA, May 1994. +70. "A senior researcher's subjective experience of a new hypothesis," California School of +Professional Social Work Studies. Commencement Address, May 1994. +71. "Oppositionalism Among Traumatized Children," International Association Child and +Adolescent Psychiatry, San Francisco, CA, July 23, 1994. +72. "New Theory of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder," International Association Child and +Adolescent Psychiatry, San Francisco, CA, July 25, 1994. +73. "Violence Against Young Children-Children in War," Co-sponsored by San Francisco +Psychoanalytic Institute, San Francisco, CA, July 26, 1994. +74. "Method for Treatment of Preschool Psychiatric Patients in Groups," American +Psychoanalytic Association, Philadelphia, PA, December 15, 1994. +Francisco Psychoanalytic Institute, March 31, 1995. +76. "New Theory of Child Abuse Effects," T.A.S.K., Monterey, CA, April 1, 1995. +77. "Psychological Trauma, Day Care and Mental Health," San Francisco Psychoanalytic +Institute Extension Division. April 26, 1995. +78. "Special Problems of Medical Ethics in Psychiatric Treatment: Child Abuse Concerns," San +Francisco Psychoanalytic Institute Research Group, June 30, 1995. +11 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 34-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 11 of 23 +79. "Operational Confirmation of a Psychoanalytic Hypothesis: Detecting and Interfering with +The Repetition Compulsion," Cleveland Psychoanalytic Institute and Anni Katan Center for +Child Development, October 28, 1995. +80. The Personal Life History Book Method: Reducing Transfers Among +Family +Homes," The Center for Preventive Psychiatry, 1 +Plains, NY, October 30, 1995. +81. "A New Theory of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder," Grand Rounds, Baylor University +School of Medicine, Houston, November 8, 1995. +82. "Raising IQ's in a Therapeutic Nursery: The Cornerstone Method. How it works as +ibo ele of the them pit a patient in the lene, the tou ta +83. "The Difficult Client: Accredited Continuing Legal Education seminar for California +Attorneys." The Psychological Trauma Center, The Psychological Trauma Center, 1996. +84. "Catastrophic injuries and psychological trauma: Accredited Continuing Legal Education +seminar for California Attorneys." The Psychological Trauma Center, 1996. +85. "Why Small Clients Get Large Awards: Proving and Disproving Psychological Injuries in +Childhood. Accredited Continuing Legal Education seminar for California Attorneys." +1996 +86. "A New Public Health Approach in Public Special Education: Presentation to The San +Mateo Board of Education," San Mateo, CA. April 17, 1996. +87. A new model for special education of preschoolers: The Cornerstone Method - for synergy +between early childhood education and psychotherapy. California State Dept. Education, +Division of Special Education September 1996, Red Lion Hotel, Orange County Airport, +88. "Synergy Between Special Education and Psychotherapy in the Classroom: Special +Education Learning Program Administrators," San Mateo, CA. October 10, 1996. +89. "The Role of Psychoanalyst as Forensic Expert in Catastrophic Psychological Trauma +Cases." American Psychoanalytic Association, Winter Meeting, Waldorf Astoria, NY. +December 1996 +"Controlled Assessment of a Psychoanalytically Derived Psychotherapy." American +Psychoanalytic Association, Winter Meeting, Waldorf Astoria, NY December 1996. +91. "Child Psychotherapy Course: Several preschool patients with different diagnosis, treated in +a preschool therapeutic nursery, showing response to interpretations, with discussions of the +role of teacher, parents and medications." San Francisco Psychoanalytic Institute, March 4, +11, 18, 1997 +92. +"Synergy between Psychotherapy and early childhood special education" SELPA +Administrators, April 17, 1997 +93. +"Analyst in the Nursery: The Cornerstone Method," San Francisco Psychoanalytic Institute, +May 21, 1997 +94. +"Psychological Trauma Among Preschoolers," San Francisco Psychoanalytic Institute, May +15, 1997 +"New Theory of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder," Fifth European Conference on Traumatic +Stress, European Society for Traumatic Stress Studies, July 1, 1997. +97. The Cornerstone Method: Intensive Preschool Psychotherapy in Public School Special +Education Classes. California State Federation/Council for Exceptional Children 48'h +Annual Conference & Special Education Fall Conference, San Francisco, CA, October 21- +24, 1998. +98. +Research and treatment with highly traumatized preschoolers. +Institute, Berkeley, +Feb. 4, 2002. +12 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 34-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 12 of 23 +99. Five year and thirty-three year follow ups of early childhood psychotherapy: Some startling +findings among children treated by The Cornerstone Method. Grand Rounds, Dept. of +Psychiatry, California Pacific Medical Center, San Francisco, February 1, 2000. +(VIDEOTAPE AVAILABLE). +100. Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and new methods of treatment. Department of Mental +Health, State of Oklahoma, and Dept. of Psychiatry, Oklahoma State College of Medicine. +Two Days of Workshops and Seminars to fellows, residents in psychiatry and child +psychiatry, medical students, and mental health clinicians. October 22,23 2000. +101. A Psychoanalytic Treatment of Young Children: Surprisingly Measurable Positive +Outcomes", San Francisco Psychoanalytic Institute - Extension Division Discussion for +Clinicians, 03.05.2001 +102. Regarding the 9/11/2002 Attack on America. +2001-2002 Attack on America Events: 2001-2002 Public Health/ Public Education +Activities: +Seminar for Parents on Crisis Management following 9/11: Convent of Sacred Heart +Elementary School Seminar for Teachers on Crisis Management following 9/11: Stuart +and Convent of Sacred Heart Elementary Schools Federal Emergency Management +Agency: Web-Site Linkage for CPH's advice to parents and teachers American Academy +of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry: Web-Site Linkage for free copies of guided activity +workbook for children, parents and teachers. +American Psychoanalytic Association: Web-site linkage for free copies of guided activity +workbook for children, parents and teachers. +Channel II: Three interviews on primary prevention of the effects of psychological trauma +and terror +Channel II: Three interviews on secondary prevention via early life psychiatric treatment of +children +103. Day Long Workshop on The Cornerstone Method. The Children's Psychological Health +104. Child psychoanalysis. San Francisco Psychoanalytic Institute. Six seminars to child +analysts and advanced students, using illustrations from parent-permitted videos of the +author's recent treatment work with young children. +105. Theory and Intervention regarding Early Childhood Trauma: Extension Division, San +Francisco Psychoanalytic Institute. +106. Educating and treating disturbed young children: Office of Education, County of San +Mateo, ten conferences a year. (1995- 2002) +107. The Cornerstone Method of educating and treating disturbed young children: 45 +conferences a year, Children's Psychological Health Centcr, San Francisco. (1999- +continuing) +108. New methods for treatment of traumatized and/or developmentally disordered young +children. Northern California Mental Health Association, February 9, 2002. A day long +workshop. Eureka, Ca. +109. Research and treatment with disturbed and traumatized young children. +Berkeley, Feb 4, 2002. +Institute, +13 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 34-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 13 of 23 +110. Presentations of video-taped child treatment sessions: The Child Analysis Study Group of +the San Francisco Psychoanalytic Institute, six occasions 2001-2002. +I11. New Theory and New Treatments of Children. Northern California Society of Mental +Health Professionals. Feb 8, 2002. +112. Treatment of Children in their Real Life Spaces. Ann |||| Center, Berkeley, CA +February 2, 2002. +113. Treatment of children in community school settings. Workshop on Community Child +Psychiatry. American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. October 2002. +114. Treatment of preschoolers in real life space - The Cornerstone Method. A two day training +workshop for the L.A. County Dept. of Mental Health. October 2002. +115. The Cornerstone Method. The American Psychoanalytic Association, Workshop on Early +Childhood. January 2003, New York. +116. Treatment of Three Autistic Preschoolers: The American Psychoanalytic Association. June, +2003. Boston. +117. The Personal Life History Book: A Preventive Therapy for +| Children. A day-long +workshop at Counseling4Kids, Los Angeles, September 2003. +118. A new method of treatment of autistic preschoolers. The Chinatown Child Development +Center, San Francisco, December 4, 2003 +119. Results of the Cornerstone Method: Pervasive Developmental Disorder with eight month to +37 year followup. The M.I.N.D. Institute, U.C. +. December 19, 2003. +120. Procedures for preventing and reducing psychopathology among +| children. Joint +Committee of AACAP and Child Welfare League, November 2003, with Marilyn Benoit, +M.D. +121. The Role of Child Psychiatrists in Prevention of Child Abuse: Forensic Child Psychiatry as +a Societal Influence. Mensa Society, January 2004. +122. Psychoanalysis Confronts Autism. The L.A. and SoCal Psychoanalytic Institutes, February +22,2004. +123. Child Psychiatric Testimony and the Leading Edge of Social Change. American College of +Forensic Psychiatry, March 28, 2004 +124. The Cornerstone Method of Treating Autism. American Psychoanalytic Association, +Boston, Mass., January 2005. +125. An evidence based method for in-classroom treatment of disturbed preschoolers. Child +Welfare League of America. New Orleans, May 2005. +126. Two evidence-based methods for treating +| children. International Psychoanalytic +Association, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, July 2005. +127. A novel evidence-based method for treatment of Asperger's Disorder. Lorman Educational +Seminars, Redding, CA. November 18, 2005 +128. "Applications of The Cornerstone Method to Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders" +American Psychoanalytic Association, New York, New York. January 18, 2006 +129. "Applying The Cornerstone Method in Public Schools" Philadelphia Board of Education +April 28,06 DVD FORMAT AVAILABLE +130. "Crises Intervention Techniques Within Schools: What you Need to Know When Large or +Small Scale Disasters Strike" Lorman Educational Seminar, Sacramento, CA Oct. 6, 2006 +131. "Saying Goodbye: Termination in Psychotherapy" 535d Annual Meeting of The American +Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, San Diego, Ca October 28, 2006 +132. +|| LE, Viron M, I! +_JE, +A, Samples G, Kliman G: A school-based mental +health recovery effort. Poster session presentation at the 58th Institute on Psychiatric Services +Annual Meeting, New York, NY, October 5-8, 2006. +14 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 34-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 14 of 23 +133. +¿, L, Viron M, +A JE +§ A, Samples G, Kliman G, O'Neill P. A School-based +Mental Health Recovery Effort. Poster session presentation at ADMSEP Annual meeting. Park +City, Utah, June, 2007. +134. Mishkin, AD, Viron M, +* LE, +n JE, Samples G, Kliman G. Reducing Post- +Traumatic Stress after Hurricane Katrina: A School-Based Intervention. Poster presented at the +59th Institute on Psychiatric Services Annual Meeting, New Orleans, LA, October 11-14, 2007. +135. Videotape evidence for a new theory of PTSD etiology and treatment. Combined meeting of +American Academy of Psychoanalysts with Academy of Psychoanalysis and Psychodynamic +Psychiatry, The Marriot, Washington, D.C. May 3, 2008 +CURRENT TEACHING: +Faculty Member: S.F. Psychoanalytic Institute. Eight 90 minute seminars on Pathogenesis in +Early Childhood, with Focus on Psychological Trauma (a course for Candidates in the Child +Analysis Program). See also Grand Rounds presentations below. +THESIS CHAIR ACTIVITIES: +Chairperson, Thesis Committee, California School of Professional Psychology, for Thesis of E. +Wayrynen, M.A. concerning "Oppositional Behavior Following Childhood Sexual Abuse." 1998 +Chairperson, Thesis Committee, +* Institute, for Thesis of Miquela +* Hope, Ph.D. on IQ +and CGAS changes following in-classroom psychotherapy and control group. 1999. +Chairperson, Thesis Committee, Pacific Graduate School of Psychology, for Tina Scovis- +Weston, Ph.D., on Early Memory Changes among Twelve Boys Raped by Men. 2001. +RECENT AND CURRENT PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION COMMITTEE WORK: +Chairperson an ensic sud a Association or a sac of Continuing Real cia Cred +seminars presented by a panel of psychoanalysts. Topics presented by G. Kliman, 1993-1994: +"Post Traumatic Stress Disorder," "Prevention of Stress in the Workplace," and "Prevention of +Depressive Reactions during Legal Practice." Place: S.F. Bar Association. +CURRENT: +Member, Child Development Program Committec, San Francisco Psychoanalytic Institute. +Member, Child Analysis Study Group, San Francisco Psychoanalytic Institute. +Member, Committee on Psychoanalysis and the Community, American Psychoanalytic Institute. +15 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 34-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 15 of 23 +Member, Joint Committee on +Child Welfare Association. +Care: Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and the +PROFESSIONAL COMMENDATIONS: +A letter of commendation regarding clinical work in the classroom within a public school +system: +December 3, 2001 +To Whom It May Concern: +This is to report that the San Mateo County Office of Education, Special Education programs, +has benefited from the services of The Children's Psychological Health Center, specifically its +Cornerstone Therapeutic School Project. +We have worked together for the past six years. Under the leadership of Gilbert Kliman, M.D., +the Center has trained members of our teaching and school psychology staff to carry out a +mental health service on our premises. We now have a collaborative project in its sixth year for +our special education preschool children with Pervasive Developmental Disorders (PDD) and +for those with Serious Emotional Disorders (SED) which interfere with their education. As an +alternative to sending children to a private nonpublic special education school for extremely +intensive mental health services at significant cost, this project has created and provides just +such intensive service within a public preschool special class program at 65 Tower Road, San +Mateo. +To my knowledge, among the 30 children served so far under the collaborative project, we are +seeing cognitive, social and human gains which have decreased the gap between these children +and their typically developing peers. Several families and children are thriving with less +intensive special education service or returned to regular education class. Not only has the +family and child suffering been reduced, the burden to taxpayers is also reduced. The children +have been able to remain in the community, and some who were functioning as severely autistic +and retarded now appear to be developing within a somewhat normal range. We are pleased +with the quality of special education services our County provides for preschoolers with PDD or +SED. We are also gratified with the research results provided by The Children's Psychological +Health Center. +We recommend the Cornerstone project to other school systems, so that they consider it an +important opportunity should they be able to collaborate similarly with The Children's +Psychological Health Center. At California's common cost of $15,000 to $40,000 or more a +year, for a special education child who needs full time special education services and auxiliary +intensive help, the savings for even one child's 12-year career of intensive services in special +education can be substantial. The savings from one of the successes we have seen may equal the +costs of the entire Cornerstone project with the 30 children helped so far. +16 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 34-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 16 of 23 +We have not yet seen any failures. The agency is showing measurable cognitive gains for our +collaborative work which, according to their research, averages 20 to 28 points in independent +WPPSI testing of the children in the Cornerstone program. The techniques are far more +economical to use than we have found with the Lovaas method, which we also implement for +some students. We have also seen the techniques transmitted to special education teachers as +well as inexperienced therapists. +I invite you to visit our project in action. +Sincerely, +JAYS. PARNES, Ed.D. +Senior Administrator +Special Education +MAJOR FEDERAL COURT FORENSIC ACTIVITIES: +EVALUATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS HEARD IN FEDERAL COURT, HANNIBAL +MISSOURI, November 15, 2001 +Under Dr. Kliman's leadership, a Children's Psychological Health Center team of five clinicians +na two administrative staff has been at work since May 2, 2001 conducting a behavioral aud +garding the psychiatric conditions and the residential treatment of over 100 children (most +ages 13 to 17) at Heartland Christian Academy, as requested by the Academy's general counsel. +2001: Doe vs. Three Springs Treatment Center, Nashville, TN. +2004: Does vs. L.K. Baliredy et al (An international child trafficking matter). Five days of +deposition. +2004 Doe vs. State of New Mexico and Arthur Brokup. +MAJOR STATE COURT CASES: +Some cases of public health significance, concerning allegedly traumatized minors in care of +governmental or institutional agencies: +Does vs. OK Boys Ranch and State of Washington: 44 children in care at a state-licensed +rehabilitation and +| care-related center were allegedly allowed to abuse each other while +staff and therapists did not report harmful activities of which they knew, Dr. Kliman opined. The +plaintiff children have to date all received settlements in four phases of this litigation over a nine +year period, with Dr. Kliman as the principal expert. +York vs. Chaparral/Victor Treatment Facility. Orange County Superior Court. An eleven year +old child severely and chronically molested by a residential treatment staff member was +evaluated and an opinion given by Dr. Kliman concerning harm and how to rehabilitate the child +as much as possible. Implications for standards of residential care are contained within the case. +Carlson vs. Ray-Lara | Home. Orange County Superior Court. Dr. Kliman evaluated and +testified concerning a twelve year old boy who was allegedly molested by a l +father and had +17 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 34-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 17 of 23 +to rescue himself. The || | father's partner was negligent, Dr. Kliman opined. The judge +agreed and awarded the child compensation for psychological damages. +Does vs. Archdiocese of Los Angeles. Dr. Kliman was the lead psychiatric witness. The case +settled after six days of his deposition testimony. +Does vs. Salesian Order Western Region. Dr. Kliman was the lead psychiatric witness. The case +settled after nine days of his deposition testimony and two days of trial. +Does v South Dakota School for the Deaf. Multiple boys were molested by an older student. The +state school administration was allegedly negligent and major psychological damages were +claimed. Dr. Kliman served as the principal plaintiffs' expert on administrative liability issues +and psychological damages. The case settled with major compensation for the plaintiffs during +the time of jury deliberations. +CHILD PSYCHIATRIC EXPERT TESTIMONY: +Dr. Kliman helped set legal precedents for the inclusion of psychiatric testimony in matters +concerning wrongful death of a parent and loss of parental services, in both New York State and +California. He has testified in over 275 cases including over 100 trials. A Federal Rule 26 list is +available on request and on www.expertchildpsychiatry.com. His courtroom and deposition +testimony experience includes +cases of institutional negligence of children leading to +psychological trauma, negligent +I care, loss of parental services due to wrongful deaths, +psychological trauma as part of personal injury of adults and children, childhood molestation, +sexual harassment, termination of parental rights, and disputed custody. Since 2000 about 30% +of his forensic work has been requested by defense, about 70% by plaintiffs, with the defense +tasks increasing markedly in recent years. +Dr. Kliman's evaluations and testimony regarding 16 children negligently cared for and abused +at The Kiwanis' OK Boys' Ranch, Olympia, WA, helped lead to settlements and awards, +totalling $25,000,000. Responding to disclosures in that case, many improvements have occurred +in the publicly funded and licensed institutional care of children throughout the State of +Washington, according to newspaper accounts. +Dr. Kliman's evaluations and opinions, together with that of The Children's Psychological +Trauma Center team led by Robert Wynne MFCC, led to record-making $8,000,000 loss of +parental and other services compensation for 17 bereaved subsistence-economy Alaskan Inupiat +Native Americans (| +•vS. Ryan Airlines, Anchorage, 1997). +Principal expert regarding institutional negligence and psychological damages in Does vs. +Rudolph Kos and the Diocese of Dallas, Dallas 1997. The Catholic Church of Dallas was held +liable for institutional negligence, testimony concerning the need for major psychiatric treatment +planning was accepted by the jury, and $119,000,000-including punitive damages against the +18 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 34-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 18 of 23 +OTHER PUBLIC HEALTH ACTIVITIES AND RECOGNITION: +In response to the mental health needs of families following recent massive firestorms, United +Way printed and distributed 10,000 copies of "My Fire Story -- a Guided Activity Workbook for +Children, Families and Teachers," co-authored with Edward Oklan, M.D. Copies can be obtained +from Family Development Press, 1010 Sir Francis Drake Boulevard, Kentfield, CA 94960. The +State of lowa purchased rights to reproduce 10,000 copies of "My Book about The Attack on +America - a Guided Activity Workbook for Children, Families and Teachers", published in 2001. +During 1996 - 2002 Sophie Murvis Foundation, The Windholz Foundation, The Atkinson, +Cadence Corporation, Irving Harris Foundation and The Stullsaft Foundations have recently +awarded grants to Dr. Kliman as principal investigator for his Cornerstone Therapeutic Nursery +project, serving seriously disturbed preschoolers in the San Mateo Office of Education. +Presentations on The Cornerstone Therapeutic Nursery Project have been made by Dr. Kliman +during 1997 through 2002 at the San Francisco Psychoanalytic Institute and the Seattle Institute +for Psychoanalysis. +Three documentary videotapes concerning Dr. Kliman's psychotherapies of disturbed children +treated by him using this method in a therapeutic special education class are now available for +scientific and educational purposes, parental permission having been gained. Such use requires a +confidentiality agreement. +Tape I: The Cornerstone Method. +Tape II: Treatment of an Autistic Boy +Tape III: Unique Features of The Cornerstone Method +As a pilot application of his techniques for preschoolers, Dr. Kliman opened a Cornerstone +Therapeutic Nursery at the Salvation Army Shelter for homeless families in January 1998, +serving seven homeless families with preschool children. He is supervising the project weekly as +Medical Director of The Children's Psychological Trauma Center. Unedited videotapes of that +project are available to scientists and educators with a confidentiality agreement. The +Institute has provided a psychology intern to conduct the treatment under Dr. Kliman's training +and supervision. The California School of Professional Psychology has assigned a doctoral thesis +candidate to Dr. Kliman's supervision to study the I.Q. rise phenomenon previously documented +in Cornerstone therapies. +Peer-reviewed publications of Dr. Kliman's work with +children appear in Zelman, A: +Interventions with High Risk Children, Jason Aronson 1997 (Chapter by Kliman on Controlled +Assessment of The Personal Life History Book Method for +Children). Results of Dr. +Kliman's Cornerstone Method are also reported extensively in that book, focusing on the I.Q. rise +phenomenon. +19 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 34-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 19 of 23 +Archive of Videotaped +Seminars and Events: +- Gilbert Kliman, M.D., Medical Director +THE CHILDREN's PSYCHOLOGICAL TRAUMA CENTER +(A division of the Children's Psychological Health Center, Inc.) +Archive of Videotaped Seminars and Events: +CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION TAPES: +California MCLE credit is available to attorneys for study of these tapes. Unless otherwise +indicated, Gilbert Kliman, M.D. was the sole or principal speaker. Contact Edith Lee at 415 474 +0955 for MCLE credit fulfillment associated with study of these tapcs. +O1. True and False Allegations of Sexual Molestations, 1987. 1.5 hrs. +02. Loss of Parental Services, May 6** 1992 Elina Wayrynen and Gilbert Kliman, M.D. +2.0 hrs. +03. Abuse in Institutions, August 1" 1995, 2.0 hrs. +Catastrophic Accidents with Lifetime Psychological Damage, December 5 1995 2.5 +05. Evaluating Psychological Trauma in Catastrophic Accidents (Grosvenor Hotel, San +Francisco) 1996, 2.5 hrs. +06. +Loss of Parental Services (Holiday Inn), January 9* 1996, 2.5 hrs. +07. +Loss of Parental Services, May 12" 1993 1.5 hrs. +08. +True and False Allegations of Sexual Abuse, June 7" 1993, 1.5 hrs. +09. +Catastrophic Psychological Traumas in Childhood, February 1994, 2.5 hrs. +10. +The Difficult Client, February 27* 1996, 2.5 hrs. +11. The Difficult Client (at Wells Fargo), February 6" 1996, 2.5 hrs. +Evaluating the Validity of Recovered Memories: Perspective of a Forensic Expert, +February 29# 1996, 1.0 hr. +13. How Small Clients Get Large Awards, Psychological Trauma in carly childhood +produces life time consequences in some cases. Defense and plaintiff considerations. +Giving Powerful Voices to Children in Court: I, March 20*' 1998. Windle Turley, Esq. +With Gilbert Kliman, M.D., 2.5 hrs. +Giving Powerful Voices to Children in Court II, May 8** 1998, John Connelly, Jr. with +Gilbert Kliman, M.D., 2.5 hrs. +20 + + +Case 9:09-cV-80469-KAM Document 34-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 20 of 23 +16. Giving Powerful Voices to Children in Court III, June 12" 1998, Mare June, Esq. With +Gilbert Kliman, M.D., 2.5 hrs. +17. Psychoanalysis and the Law: How Child Psychoanalysis Contributes to Justice for +Children. Conference at the San Francisco Psychoanalytic Institute, March 1" 1999, +Introduction by Maureen Katz, M.D., Discussion by Katherine MacVicar, M.D., +Gilbert Kliman, M.D., presenter. San Francisco Psychoanalytic Institute Extension +Division. 1.5 hrs. +21 + + +Case 9:09-CV-80469-KAM Document 34-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 21 of 23 +The Children's Psychological Health Center +Archive of Videotaped Seminars and Events: +- Gilbert Kliman, M.D., Medical Director +CLINICAL AND SCIENTIFIC TAPES: +STARRED (*) TAPES BELOW ARE A PRECIOUS ARCHIVE OF INFORMATION ABOUT +PROBLEMS AND TREATMENT OF SEVERELY STRESSED CHILDREN. THEY ARE +NOT FOR SALE OR COMMERCIAL DISTRIBUTION. THEY MAY BE STUDIED AT +CPHC ON-SITE WITH ASSISTANCE OF OUR STAFF BY QUALIFIED RESEARCHERS, +CLINICIANS, SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHERS, ADMINISTRATORS OF NONPROFIT +CLINICAL ORGANIZATIONS AND SCHOOLS FOR CHILDREN, SCIENTISTS AND +STUDENTS OF RELEVANT DISCIPLINES BY APPOINTMENT AT CPTC +HEADQUARTERS. CREDENTIALS, REFERENCES AND CONFIDENTIALITY +AGREEMENT ARE REQUIRED COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH ARRANGEMENTS CAN +BE CONTRACTED FOR WITH CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENTS AND LONG TERM +USE OF THE TAPES. +Childhood Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (California Pacific Hospital Grand Rounds). +1992 +New Theory of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, Gilbert Kliman, M.D. December 4 +1992, International Association of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Allied +Disciplines, Fairmont Hotel, San Francisco. +*3. Severe Psychological Trauma in very Young Children, March 23d 1993 +*4. Post Traumatic Stress Disorder: Child & Adult, September 27" 1993 +5. +Cost Effectiveness: Mental Health Services for | +Children, September 28" 1993 +6. +Preventive Child Psychiatry, Mc Auley St Mary's, October 16* 1993, +*7. +New Theory of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, for Int, Association of Child and +Adolescent Psychiatry, July 25* 1994 +*8. +Cornerstone Method Conference, Wells Fargo, January 30* 1996 +*9. +Cornerstone Conference: Control - Mastery Group, San Francisco Psychoanalytic +Institute. February 9 1996 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 34-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 22 of 23 +10. +Conference on Childhood of Adolf Hitler: Control-Mastery Group, San Francisco +Psychoanalytic Institute, May 17" 1996 +11. +Orientation to the Personal Life History Book Method. CPTC & ACT For Mental Health, +April 4* 1997 (two tapes) +*12. +The Cornerstone Method: A Public Health Approach. National Association for Social +Work and Psychoanalysis, Seattle. September 26* 1997 +*13. +New Theory of Psychological Trauma: Colloquium, San Francisco Psychoanalytic +Institute, October 12" 1996 +*14. +Treatment of Severely Disturbed Preschoolers in their Public School Special Education +Classrooms: A New Application of Intensive Psychotherapy. American Academy of +Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. +*15. Treatment of an Autistic Boy, the Cornerstone Method +*16. The Cornerstone Therapeutic Nursery Method +*17. The Cornerstone Method: Unique Features +18. +Investing in our Futures: Rotary Club: About the Cornerstone Method, December 9'h +1997 Robert Denebeim, Esq. With Gilbert Kliman, M.D. +19. +Salavation Army Cornerstone Program: Channel 4 News. Linda +Reporter. +20. Gilbert Kliman M.D. on Channel 4 News, April 22d 1998. Linda +Reporter. +21. Orientation to The Personal Life History Book, October 13" 1998 (three tapes) +*22. The Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy of a Four Year Old Boy, 1999. An ongoing archive +made with generous permission of the child's family, now totaling over 25 hours. This +child has had severe stressors in his life, and suffers behavioral and overanxious +symptoms. He has impulse dyscontrol, attentional deficits, and expressive language +difficulties from which he can be seen to be recovering. Two excerpted tapes have been +created to illustrate features of the child's pathology, and of the response to interpretive +aspects of treatment. Gilbert Kliman, M.D. is the psychoanalyst, and the treatment is +conducted three times a week, with parent guidance every two weeks. The videographer +is in the room. This may be the only existing video archive of a child analysis conducted +by a certified child psychoanalyst. +*23. +Cornerstone Treatment Archives: 1995-2008. Ongoing archive of intensive in-classroom +treatment of seriously disturbed preschoolers, within their public special education +classrooms in San Francisco and San Mateo, Shelters for homeless families in San +23 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 34-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 23 of 23 +Francisco and Seattle, private therapeutic preschool in San Francisco, and Cornerstone +Argentina +24. +Thirty four year follow-up of a Cornerstone Treated autistic child, now recovered. +Presented at The San Francisco Psychoanalytic Institute, Child Analysis Study Group, +2001. Permission for public viewing granted by the patient. Excerpts may be viewed on +www.childrenspsychological.org or the entire video obtained from +gilbertkliman2008@gmail.com +*25 +Orientation of the Family Services Center of 1 +2007, in Seattle. Six DVD's. +County. Four days in December, +Scientific and Educational Video Archives under Dr. Kliman's supervision: +With parental permission, The Children's Psychological Health Center, under Dr. Kliman's +leadership, is collecting unedited treatment documents of a special method of treatment in a real +life space, called "The Cornerstone therapeutic preschool method." Now totaling over 200 video +archive hours, eight different California therapists working with various educator teams have +recorded their Cornerstone therapeutic preschool method work. Beginning in 1995, this archive +started with Gilbert Kliman, M.D. working for a year as daily in-classroom therapist in a public +special education school. He was assisted by Leanne Runyan and Gail +as the teachers +at the San Mateo Early Childhood Education Center, a preschool special education facility of +The County of San Mateo. A second team under his supervision included work at The San +Francisco Unified School District (Vanessa Vigilante and Esther Kronenberg). Third and fourth +teams were at The Salvation Army Gateway Shelter (Vanessa Vigilante as therapist and Lynda +Byrd as teacher, Deanna Reardon as therapist and Lynda Byrd as teacher). A fourth was at The +Cadence Cornerstone Site at Mt. Pleasant School, San Jose (Karita Hummer, therapist and Kathy +Krall, teacher). Fifth team therapy was provided by Jane Christmas. The sixth team therapists +was Dr. Miquela +Hope, the seventh Molly Franklin, MFT. All have been extensively +videotaped carrying out the method. An eighth team was assembled in late 2002, when Linda +Hirshfeld Ph.D. joined as Fellow in Cornerstone Therapy. In 2001 Mike McDonald, Ed.D. +became Special Education Director of Cornerstone School. All the treatments are have been +under principal supervision of Dr. Kliman with additional supervision by Mali +M.D., +Myrna Frankel, Ed.D., and Jan Baeuerlen, M.D. Linda Hirshfeld, Ph.D. of the Ann +Center is conducting the archival work for her Cornerstone Services. +A professional researcher/ training confidentiality agreement is required to study this archive. +S:IGK. Private Forensic 7-13-04ICV1PPA CVs|Gilbert Kliman CV ppa 06 02 08.doc +24 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a65dc0e2394b2299c1b352be84ca814688402397288bf3c99836b88480e36c50.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a65dc0e2394b2299c1b352be84ca814688402397288bf3c99836b88480e36c50.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ed23eba8e686b7c6187f522a3fa7572e99646059 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a65dc0e2394b2299c1b352be84ca814688402397288bf3c99836b88480e36c50.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -278, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "a65dc0e2394b2299c1b352be84ca814688402397288bf3c99836b88480e36c50", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 24, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "ee893c8c37008d5e3ddbaf5f5318cac0464b22e53820e5fea204ed8c55395355", + "output_sha256": "13c5814f985ed5637174931e62cec22db5437f6d333f3dd77dd973a056d36961", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a67d9954a8f2fa6233b80198590c4dc15c941a649fedf755d48a9cd4b3bf8a12.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a67d9954a8f2fa6233b80198590c4dc15c941a649fedf755d48a9cd4b3bf8a12.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b7649b77e3f5421c121a9b11c59bd8bc493a24af --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a67d9954a8f2fa6233b80198590c4dc15c941a649fedf755d48a9cd4b3bf8a12.md @@ -0,0 +1,215 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/22/2008 Page 1 of 8 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-80381-CIV-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 5, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +AMENDED COMPLAINT +Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 5 ("Jane" or "Jane Doe"), brings this Complaint against Jeffrey +Epstein, as follows: +Parties, Jurisdiction and Venue +Jane Doe No. 5 is a citizen and resident of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and is sui +juris. +This Complaint is brought under a fictitious name to protect the identity of the +Plaintiff because this Complaint makes sensitive allegations of sexual assault and abuse upon a +minor. +Defendant Jeffrey Epstein is a citizen and resident of the State of New York. +4. +This is an action for damages in excess of $50 million. +This Court has jurisdiction of this action and the claims set forth herein pursuant to 28 +U.S.C. §1332(a), as the matter in controversy (i) exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs; +and (ii) is between citizens of different states. +6. +This Court has venue of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(a) as a substantial +- 1- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/22/2008 Page 2 of 8 +part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in this District. +Factual Allegations +7. +At all relevant times, Defendant Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") was an adult male, 52 +years old. Epstein is a financier and money manager with a secret clientele limited exclusively to +billionaires. He is himself a man of tremendous wealth, power and influence. He maintains his +principal home in New York and also owns residences in New Mexico, St. +and Palm Beach, +FL. The allegations herein concern Epstein's conduct while at his lavish estate in Palm Beach. +8. +Upon information and belief, Epstein has a sexual preference and obsession for +underage girls. He engaged in a plan and scheme in which he gained access to primarily +economically disadvantaged minor girls in his home, sexually assaulted these girls, and then gave +them money. In or about 2002-2003, Jane Doe, then approximately 15-16 years old, fell into +Epstein's trap and became one of his victims. +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. +10. Epstein's scheme involved the use of young girls to recruit underage girls. These +underage girls were recruited ostensibly to give a wealthy man a massage for monetary +compensation in his Palm Beach mansion. The girls would be contacted when Epstein was planning +to be at his Palm Beach residence or soon after he had arrived there. Upon information and belief, +Epstein generally sought out economically disadvantaged underage girls from western Palm Beach +County who would be enticed by the money being offered - generally $200 to $300 per "massage" +session - and who were perceived as less likely to complain to authorities or have credibility if +allegations of improper conduct were made. This was an important element of Epstein's plan. +11. +Epstein's plan and scheme reflected a particular pattern and method. The underage +Herman & Mermelstein, P. A. +- 2- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/22/2008 Page 3 of 8 +victim would be brought to the kitchen entrance of Epstein's mansion, where she would be +introduced to +Epstein's assistant. +would then bring the girl up a flight of +stairs to a room that contained a massage table in addition to other furnishings, and a bathroom. +The girl would then find herself alone in the room with Epstein, who would be wearing only a towel. +He would then remove his towel and lie naked on the massage table, and direct the girl to remove +her clothes. Epstein would then perform one or more lewd, lascivious and sexual acts, including +masturbation and touching the girl's vagina. +12. Consistent with the foregoing plan and scheme, when Jane Doe was approximately +15-16 years old, she was recruited to give Epstein a massage for monetary compensation. Jane and +another girl were brought to Epstein's mansion in Palm Beach, to the kitchen entrance. Once there, +they were introduced to +who led them up the flight of stairs to the room with the +massage table. Jane and the other girl were directed by Epstein to remove their clothes and give +him a massage. Jane and the other girl removed their clothes except for their panties and bras, and +complied with Epstein's instructions. While on the massage table, Epstein masturbated himself +and touched both girls on their vaginas with his hand and with a vibrator. +13. After Epstein had completed the sexual assault, both girls were then able to get +dressed, leave the room and go back down the stairs. Epstein gave both girls money for this +"massage." +14. +As a result of this encounter with Epstein, Jane experienced confusion, shame, +humiliation and embarrassment, and has suffered severe psychological and emotional injuries. +COUNT I +Sexual Assault and Battery +- 3- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/22/2008 Page 4 of 8 +15. +Plaintiff Jane Doe repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 14 above. +16. +Epstein acted with intent to cause an offensive contact with Jane Doe, or an imminent +apprehension of such a contact, and Jane Doe was thereby put in such imminent apprehension. +17. +Epstein made an intentional, unlawful offer of offensive sexual contact toward Jane +Doe, creating a reasonable fear of imminent peril. +18. +Epstein intentionally inflicted harmful or offensive contact on the person of Jane Doe, +with the intent to cause such contact or the apprehension that such contact is imminent. +19. Epstein tortiously committed a sexual assault and battery on Jane Doe. Epstein's acts +were intentional, unlawful, offensive and harmful. +20. +Epstein's plan and scheme in which he committed such acts upon Jane Doe were +done willfully and maliciously. +21. +As a direct and proximate result of Epstein's assault on Jane, she has suffered and +will continue to suffer severe and permanent traumatic injuries, including mental, psychological and +emotional damages. +WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 4 demands judgment against Defendant Jeffrey +Epstein for compensatory damages, punitive damages, costs, and such other and further relief as this +Court deems just and proper. +22. +23. +24. +of decency. +COUNT II +Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress +Plaintiff Jane Doe repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 14 above. +Epstein's conduct was intentional or reckless. +Epstein's conduct with a minor was extreme and outrageous, going beyond all bounds +-4- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/22/2008 Page 5 of 8 +25. +Epstein committed willful acts of child sexual abuse on Jane Doe. These acts resulted +in mental or sexual injury to Jane Doe, that caused or were likely to cause Jane Doe's mental or +emotional health to be significantly impaired. +26. +Epstein's conduct caused severe emotional distress to Jane Doe. Epstein knew or had +reason to know that his intentional and outrageous conduct would cause emotional distress and +damage to Jane Doe, or Epstein acted with reckless disregard of the high probability of causing +severe emotional distress to Jane Doe. +27. +As a direct and proximate result of Epstein's intentional or reckless conduct, Jane +Doe, has suffered and will continue to suffer severe mental anguish and pain. +WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 5 demands judgment against Defendant Jeffrey +Epstein for compensatory damages, costs, punitive damages, and such other and further relief as this +Court deems just and proper. +COUNT III +Coercion and Enticement to Sexual Activity in Violation of 18 U.S.C. $2422 +28. Plaintiff Jane Doe repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 14 above. +29. Epstein used a facility or means of interstate commerce to knowingly persuade, +induce or entice Jane Doe, when she was under the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution or +sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense. +30. +Epstein's acts and conduct are in violation of 18 U.S.C. $2422. +31. +As a result of Epstein's violation of 18 U.S.C. $2422, Plaintiff has suffered personal +injury, including mental, psychological and emotional damages. +32. +Plaintiff hired Herman & Mermelstein, P.A., in this matter and agreed to pay them a +reasonable attorneys' fee. +- 5- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/22/2008 Page 6 of 8 +WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 5 demands judgment against Defendant Jeffrey +Epstein for all damages available under 28 U.S.C. §2255(a), including without limitation, actual +and compensatory damages, costs of suit, and attorneys' fees, and such other and further relief as +this Court deems just and proper. +JURY TRIAL DEMAND +Plaintiff demands a jury trial in this action on all claims so triable. +Dated: September 22, 2008 +Respectfully submitted, +By: +s/ Jeffrey M. Herman +Jeffrey M. Herman (FL Bar No. 521647) +jherman@hermanlaw.com +Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245) +ssm@hermanlaw.com +Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980) +ahorowitz@hermanlaw.com +HERMAN & MERMELSTEIN, P.A. +Attorneys for Plaintiff +18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 +Miami, Florida 33160 +Tel: 305-931-2200 +Fax: 305-931-0877 +- 6- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/22/2008 Page 7 of 8 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I hereby certify that on September 22, 2008, I electronically filed the foregoing document +with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being +served this day to all parties on the attached Service List in the manner specified, either via +transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized +manner for those parties who are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic +Filing. +Is/ Jeffrey M. Herman +Herman & MermelsteIn, P. A. +- 7- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/22/2008 Page 8 of 8 +SERVICE LIST +DOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/, +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +igoldberger@agwpa.com +Michael R. Tein, Esq. +tein@lewistein.com +Robert D. Critton, Esq. +rcritton@bclclaw.com +Michael Pike, Esq. +mpike@bclclaw.com +Is/ Jeffrey M. Herman +Herman & Mermelstein, P. A. +- 8- \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a67d9954a8f2fa6233b80198590c4dc15c941a649fedf755d48a9cd4b3bf8a12.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a67d9954a8f2fa6233b80198590c4dc15c941a649fedf755d48a9cd4b3bf8a12.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d9840ba5e743dead27adde99ec4d788908bb56b6 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a67d9954a8f2fa6233b80198590c4dc15c941a649fedf755d48a9cd4b3bf8a12.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -381, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "a67d9954a8f2fa6233b80198590c4dc15c941a649fedf755d48a9cd4b3bf8a12", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 9, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "c2da0414d98005dffd903581f947fdd890b54ea39a17461226627b33f227b022", + "output_sha256": "46d69ffc56f63831ac371aadeca6aec9533f75e3540c5fc77869e3f515c8bf20", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a68ad6e15e8a44384d28db3eff3fb8ec604f529e5f937ceb834be988bf46b195.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a68ad6e15e8a44384d28db3eff3fb8ec604f529e5f937ceb834be988bf46b195.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..872a9add700d863f0f1e9e000ca42a9f903a04f1 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a68ad6e15e8a44384d28db3eff3fb8ec604f529e5f937ceb834be988bf46b195.md @@ -0,0 +1,101 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 254-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2009 Page 1 of 4 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 5, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/ +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/ +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRAJ + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 254-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2009 Page 2 of 4 +JANE DOE NO. 6, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80994-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 7, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +C.M.A., +VS. +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80993-MARRA/ +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80811-MARRAJ +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80893-MARRAJ + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 254-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2009 Page 3 of 4 +DOE II, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 101, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 102, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 09-CV-80469-MARRA/ +CASE NO.: 09-CV-80591-MARRA +CASE NO.: 09-CV-80591-MARRA/ +MOTION FOR INDEPENDENT EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF WITH +INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW (DE 228) +This matter came before the Court upon Plaintiff, C.M.A.'s Response and +Incorporated Motion for Protective Order Regarding Defendant, JEFFREY E. +EPSTEIN's, Emergency Motion for Independent Examination of Plaintiff with +Incorporated Memorandum of Law (DE 228). Having considered the motion, it is +hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED that: + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 254-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2009 Page 4 of 4 +Plaintiff's motion is hereby granted. Defendant's examination of Plaintiff by Dr. +shall be postponed until Plaintiff is discharged from the hospital. The examination +and testing by Dr. +shall be limited to a maximum of six (6) hours. Plaintiff will not +be required to answer questions regarding the same subject matter or topic during both +her deposition and examination by Dr. +Defendant can elect to make inquiries into +a particular subject matter either during deposition or at the examination, but not both. +Plaintiff shall also be permitted to have present with her in the examination room a +representative from her lawyer's office. +DONE AND ORDERED this +day of +_ 2009. +KENNETH A. MARRA +United States District Judge +Copies to all Counsel of Record diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a68ad6e15e8a44384d28db3eff3fb8ec604f529e5f937ceb834be988bf46b195.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a68ad6e15e8a44384d28db3eff3fb8ec604f529e5f937ceb834be988bf46b195.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4ef6b4fb5745835f387d7c9abefb056cca9863fc --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a68ad6e15e8a44384d28db3eff3fb8ec604f529e5f937ceb834be988bf46b195.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -48, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "a68ad6e15e8a44384d28db3eff3fb8ec604f529e5f937ceb834be988bf46b195", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 4, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "824c8e3d4214cffafabc85bb1c23255c7b658704934579e59c9b3fcdc9fdedf7", + "output_sha256": "3fa7d606abe37ab0616bb4689e115f9ab1202eae70bbab8a4256733634508bcf", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a69d8bbf5f47a15fd66b5d5630a8c99ebc6273cdf57d25689ce32405770ed3c5.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a69d8bbf5f47a15fd66b5d5630a8c99ebc6273cdf57d25689ce32405770ed3c5.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8165d534ea4e8e889f355f8842954334e16fc28f --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a69d8bbf5f47a15fd66b5d5630a8c99ebc6273cdf57d25689ce32405770ed3c5.md @@ -0,0 +1,174 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 311 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Page 1 of 4 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/ +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 +DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION OF +PLAINTIFE, JANE DOE #2 (80119) +Defendant, JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, pursuant to Rule 35, Fed. R. Civ. P., notices +the Plaintiff for an independent/psychological medical examination and states: +1. +An appointment for examination of the Plaintiff has been made with Ryan +I, M.D. of C.W. +M.D., P.A. at 9:00 a.m. on November 10, 2009 at the law firm +of Burman, Critton, Luttier and Coleman, LLP, located at 303 Banyan Boulevard, Ste. +400, West Palm Beach, FL, 33401. The Plaintiff is to wear comfortable clothing and +bring a sweater. The examination shall consist of an interview and testing and will likely +last until 5:30 p.m. See infra and Motion attached at DE (310) for scope, time and place +of IME. See Exhibits attached as well. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 311 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Page 2 of 4 +2. +Plaintiff has not provided an available date; however, unless a timely and +valid objection to this Notice is made, the Plaintiff is required by this Rule to be in +attendance at the above-scheduled examination. +Pursuant to Rule 35, if the psychiatrist performing the examination is +called as a witness, the psychiatrist shall not be identified as one appointed by the Court. +4. +The cost of the examination will be originally borne by the Defendant but +is subject to taxation by the Court upon proper motion. +The interview will be videotaped. +6. Dr. Halls' specialties and qualifications are attached to the Motion +to Compel the IME at DE (310). The time, place, manner, conditions and scope +of the examination are attached to the Motion to Compel the IME at DE (310). +See Affidavit attached thereto. All of the above documents have been provided +to the Plaintiff's counsel and, therefore, sufficient notice has been made. +MICHAEL 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 17 day of September, 2009 +Respectfully submitted, +ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. +Florida Bar No. 224162 +rcrit@bclclaw.com + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 311 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Page 3 of 4 +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. +Florida Bar #617296 +mpike@bclclaw.com +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & +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. +Brad +Esq. +Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. +Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler +Mermelstein & 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 +bedwards@rra-law.com +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. +ahorowitz/@sexabuseattorney.com +08-80893 +Counsel for Plaintiffs +In related Cases Nos. 08-80069, 08-80119, +08-80232, +08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80993, +Paul G. Cassell, Esq. +08-80994 +332 South 1400 E, Room 101 +Richard Horace Willits, Esq. +Salt Lake City, UT 84112 +Richard H. Willits, P.A. +801-585-5202 +2290 10"h Avenue North +801-585-6833 Fax +Suite 404 +cassellp@law.utah.edu +Lake Worth, FL 33461 +Co-counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe +561-582-7600 +Fax: 561-588-8819 +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. +08-80811 +reelrhw@hotmail.com +Jack Scarola, Esq. +Jack P. +,Esq. +Isidro M. +, Esq. +Law Firm, P.A +24 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. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 311 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Page 4 of 4 +Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, 08-80469 +2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard +West Palm Beach, FL 33409 +561-686-6300 +Fax: 561-383-9424 +isx@searcylaw.com +jph@searcylaw.com +Counsel for Plaintiff. C.M.A. +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 +rjosefsberg@podhurst.com +kezell@podhurst.com +Bruce Reinhart, Esq. +Counsel for Plaintiffs in Related Cases +Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A +Nos. 09-80591 and 09-80656 +250 S. Australian Avenue +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561-202-6360 +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South +Fax: 561-828-0983 +ecf@brucereinhartlaw.com +Counsel for Defendant +West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 +561-659-8300 +Fax: 561-835-8691 +Theodore J. Leopold, Esq. +jagesq@bellsouth.net +Spencer T. Kuvin, Esq. +Counsel for 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 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a69d8bbf5f47a15fd66b5d5630a8c99ebc6273cdf57d25689ce32405770ed3c5.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a69d8bbf5f47a15fd66b5d5630a8c99ebc6273cdf57d25689ce32405770ed3c5.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7d57d7764afe37c41efbed3387f0a7808a4d799e --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a69d8bbf5f47a15fd66b5d5630a8c99ebc6273cdf57d25689ce32405770ed3c5.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -48, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "a69d8bbf5f47a15fd66b5d5630a8c99ebc6273cdf57d25689ce32405770ed3c5", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 4, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "672d7471dc6168f4b376df412fb8cc4b6ac6dcdeb02e90db3f237b0d658a4c6e", + "output_sha256": "5cdb7e947f91e8112cff87c10c707026c4406acfe054dceb0c038bed12f41139", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a6c1f4b3a3a0cd597562e9cb56f42763f3d3609756495c9d84012753e8395bf4.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a6c1f4b3a3a0cd597562e9cb56f42763f3d3609756495c9d84012753e8395bf4.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..15782f0fca40c60bfdf2becfcf163de8a68c8019 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a6c1f4b3a3a0cd597562e9cb56f42763f3d3609756495c9d84012753e8395bf4.md @@ -0,0 +1,74 @@ +Filing # 106505646 E-Filed 04/21/2020 01:03:18 PM +IN THE CIRCUIT COURT IN AND FOR +PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +CIRCUIT CIVIL DIVISION: "AG" +CASE NO.:50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB +CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS LLC PUBLISHER OF THE PALM BEACH POST, +Plaintiff/Petitioner +VS. +DAVE ARONBERG, +SHARON R BOCK, +Defendant/Respondents. +ORDER RE-SCHEDULING HEARING ON DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS +COUNT II OF AMENDED COMPLAINT +THIS CAUSE having come before the Court sua sponte and the Court having reviewed +the file in the entirety and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is +ORDERED that Defendants Motion to Dismiss Count II of Amended Complaint is +hereby re-scheduled for hearing on June 3, 2020 at 10:00 am in Courtroom IIB of the Main +Courthouse, 205 N Dixie Highway, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401. This will cancel the +hearing scheduled on May 6, 2020 at 10:00 am. +DONE AND ORDERED in West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida. Tuesday, +April 21, 2020 +50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB +Krista Marx +Chief Judge +04/21/2020 +COPIES TO: +No Address Available +DOUGLAS A. WYLER +961687 GATEWAY BLVD +SUITE 201-1 +FERNANDINA BEACH, FL +32034 +HAMPTON C. PETERSON POST OFFICE BOX 229 +WEST PALM BEACH, FL +33402 +No E-mail Address Available +doug.wyler@comcast.net +CLERK_E- +SERVICE@MYPALMBEACH +CLERK.COMR +hpeterson@mypalmbeachclerk. +com + +FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, SHARON R. BOCK, CLERK, 04/21/2020 01:03:18 PM + + +Case No. 50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB +MICHAEL GRYGIEL +54 STATE STREET +6TH FLOOR +ALBANY, NY 12207 +MICHAEL J. GRYGIEL +NINA D. BOYAJIAN +No Address Available +No Address Available +NINA D. BOYAJIAN +STEPHEN A. +MENDELSOHN, ESQ +1840 CENTURY PARK +EAST +SUITE 1900 +LOS ANGELES, CA 90067 +5100 TOWN CENTER CIR +SUITE 400 +BOCA RATON, FL 33486 +GRYGIELM@GTLAW.COM +grygielm@gtlaw.com +boyajiann@gtlaw.com +riveraal@gtlaw.com +No E-mail Address Available +mendelsohns@gtfaw.com +hasenh@gtlaw.com +NOT A CERTIFIED + diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a6c1f4b3a3a0cd597562e9cb56f42763f3d3609756495c9d84012753e8395bf4.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a6c1f4b3a3a0cd597562e9cb56f42763f3d3609756495c9d84012753e8395bf4.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..424444ece6e95553a78c1cbe8411490ede2161b4 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a6c1f4b3a3a0cd597562e9cb56f42763f3d3609756495c9d84012753e8395bf4.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -46, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "a6c1f4b3a3a0cd597562e9cb56f42763f3d3609756495c9d84012753e8395bf4", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 4, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "e6f4f6d4ced3fe2e70b08dc26de565c003933a9e8eb78742ea257a65e16af125", + "output_sha256": "e82829c0f6b24c25c23108eb34bf8e1072556c225f37f78552f613b35e778635", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a6e93b875c4585f304bf231b820a29a2eb439172b7964bf585ad5a84ccb8db2c.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a6e93b875c4585f304bf231b820a29a2eb439172b7964bf585ad5a84ccb8db2c.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ef7c29e0d32de9adbd0b50a3d421dd577889f355 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a6e93b875c4585f304bf231b820a29a2eb439172b7964bf585ad5a84ccb8db2c.md @@ -0,0 +1,745 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 106 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2011 Page 1 of 27 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/ +JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2 +V. +UNITED STATES +JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S RESPONSE TO SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING IN +SUPPORT OF MOTION TO INTERVENE OF ROY BLACK, +WEINBERG, +AND JAY LEFKOWITZ +COME NOW Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 (also referred to as "the victims"), by and +through undersigned counsel, to respond in opposition to the supplemental briefing of defense +attorneys Roy Black, +Weinberg, and Jay Lefkowitz to intervene in this case under Fed. R. +Civ. P. 24(a) (DE 94) ("supplemental briefing"). +The victims continue to oppose the defense attorneys' motion to intervene in this civil +CVRA enforcement action (DE 56) for all the reasons that they have articulated in their previous +opposition (DE 78). Yet even though the defense attorneys have not been permitted to intervene, +they have proceeded to brief the merits of arguments that they would present if the Court were to +grant intervention, including most recently new "supplemental" briefing on the discoverability of +plea negotiation correspondence. +While the victims continue to believe that their arguments +against the defense attorneys intervening are meritorious, out of an abundance of caution and to +expedite this case, the victims now respond to the defense attorneys' new claims on the merits. +1 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 106 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2011 Page 2 of 27 +The defense attorneys claim that the victims cannot use at trial (or even discover +preliminarily) correspondence between them and the U.S. Attorney's Office arranging a highly +unusual and secretive non-prosecution agreement. The victims have already explained at length +why the correspondence between Epstein's lawyers and government prosecutors is simply not +confidential material to which any kind of privilege or other protection could attach. See Jane +Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2's Response to Motion to Intervene (DE 78) at 4-6. Perhaps +recognizing the strength of the victims' response, the defense attorneys now raise a new +"supplemental" argument that a privilege somehow follows from either (1) Federal Rule of +Evidence 410 or (2) a purported "common law privilege" for "plea negotiations" that the +attorneys ask the Court to create under Federal Rule of Evidence 501. The defense arguments +are meritless for multiple, independent reasons. +With regard to Rule 410, the defense attorneys' efforts to invoke Rule 410 is simply +premature. The rule bars only admissibility of information at trial, not collection of information +through discovery. Accordingly, discovery is proper now and admissibility issues can be sorted +out later. +Second, this Court previously ruled in the civil case against Epstein that Rule 410 does +not bar discovery of the correspondence. Epstein is collaterally estopped from re-litigating this +same issue. +Third, in any event, Rule 410 is simply inapplicable. The plain language of the rule +covers admissibility into evidence of "any statement made in the course of plea discussions with +an attorney for the prosecuting authority which do not result in a plea of guilty." Fed. R. Evid. +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 106 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2011 Page 3 of 27 +410(4) (emphasis added). Epstein's plea discussions did result in a plea of guilty, and +accordingly the rule does not apply. +Fourth, the victims intend to use the correspondence to prove that the Government +violated the CVRA violations and that various remedies are accordingly appropriate. Because +Rule 410 only bars evidence from being admitted into evidence "against the defendant" who +participated in plea discussions, the victims are (at the very minimum) entitled to obtain and use +the correspondence in litigation with the Government. +Fifth, Rule 410 makes plea bargaining statements admissible "in any proceeding wherein +another statement made in the course of the same plea discussions has been introduced and the +statement ought in fairness be considered contemporaneously with it." Fed. R. Evid. 410. The +Government has made clear that it intends to introduce considerable evidence about the course of +plea discussions in this case in support of its position. As a matter of fairness, the victims are +therefore entitled to discover evidence from the Government that might support their position. +In addition to their Rule 410 argument, the defense attorneys quickly advance a fallback +argument - that the Court should create a heretofore unrecognized "common law privilege" +under Rule 501 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. This claim also lacks merit. +First, the Court cannot create a "common law" plea bargaining privilege that would +overturn limits that Congress crafted in Rule 410. Congress extended protection only to plea +discussions "which do not result in a plea of guilty." Fed. R. Evid. 410(4) (emphasis added). +Whatever the Court's "common law" rulemaking authority maybe, it certainly does not extend to +trumping specific language in the Federal Rules of Evidence. +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 106 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2011 Page 4 of 27 +Second, no such "common law" privilege exists. While the defense attorneys frequently +allude to "constitutional considerations" that supposedly undergird plea bargain, the simple fact +remains that "there is no constitutional right to plea bargain." Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. +545, 561 (1977). The Court should not exalt to privileged status negotiations that merely serve +the administrative convenience of the parties over the important value of truth seeking. +The Government has also filed a response to the supplemental briefing of the defense +attorneys (DE 100), in which it claims that its plea bargaining correspondence with Epstein's +lawyers is confidential work product material. The Government's arguments are without merit +for three reasons. First, as the victims have previously explained, all the correspondence is +discoverable because the CVRA requires the Government to makes its "best efforts" to support +the victims. 18 U.S.C. § 3771(c)(1). Second, the CVRA bars the Government from erecting an +adversarial work product privilege against the victims when they are attempting to secure +information to protect their CVRA rights. Third, entirely apart from the CVRA, work product +protections only extend to confidential materials. If the Government wishes to litigate this issue, +it must prepare a privilege log. But the correspondence with defense attorneys is simply not +confidential and therefore not protected by the work product doctrine. +I. +THE CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT AND +EPSTEIN IS NOT PROTECTED FROM DISCOVERY BY FEDERAL +RULE OF EVIDENCE 410. +The defense attorneys claim that, under Fed. R. Evid. 410, the victims cannot seek +discovery of plea bargaining correspondence between them and the Government. Their +arguments are unavailing. +A. +RULE 410 DOES NOT BAR DISCOVERY OF THE CORRESPONDENCE. +4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 106 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2011 Page 5 of 27 +The defense attorneys' reliance on Rule 410 is simply premature. By its plain terms, the +rule bars only admissibility of information at trial against the defendant who made the plea - the +Rule does not apply to the discovery phase at all. See Fed. R. Evid. 410 (barring use of certain +"evidence" in a "civil or criminal proceeding"). Accordingly, the victims can discover the +correspondence now and the court can sort out trial admissibility issues later. +B. +EPSTEIN IS COLLATERALLY ESTOPPED FROM RELITIGATING +THE APPLICABILITY OF RULE 410. +As the Court is well aware, the issue of whether the correspondence was somehow +protected by Rule 410 was thoroughly litigated by the defense attorneys' client (Jeffrey Epstein) +more than a year ago, and Epstein's arguments were more appropriate in the previous case +(where he was actually a party to the litigation and the information discovered would likely be +admitted against him). This Court rejected Epstein's arguments against disclosure in that case as +well, including his argument that Rule 410 blocked disclosure. See, e.g., Jane Doe v. Epstein, +doc. #462 at 10, Case No. 9:08-CV-80119-KAM (Feb. 4, 2010). +The defense attorneys now propose to relitigate the very same issue of Rule 410's +applicability in this case. Their effort to revisit the issue is barred by the doctrine of collateral +estoppel because: "(1) the issue at stake is identical to the one involved in the prior proceeding; +(2) the issue was actually litigated in the prior proceeding; (3) the determination of the issue was +critical and necessary to the earlier judgment; and (4) the party against whom collateral estoppel +is asserted had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the prior proceeding." In re +MDL-1824 Tri-State Water Rights Litigation, 644 F.3d 1160, 1202 (11" Cir. 2011). +5 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 106 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2011 Page 6 of 27 +C. +RULE 410 DOES NOT APPLY IN THIS CASE BECAUSE THE PLEA +DISCUSSIONS LEAD TO A GUILTY PLEA. +In any event, at any ultimate proceeding in this case, Rule 410 will simply be +inapplicable. Because "Rule 410 is an exception to the general principle that all relevant +evidence is admissible at trial, see Fed.R.Evid. 402, its limitations are not to be read broadly." +United States v. Barrow, 400 F.3d 109, 116 (2d Cir. 2005). The plain language of the rule is +narrowly written to cover only a "statement made in the course of plea discussions with an +attorney for the prosecuting authority which do not result in a plea of guilty." Fed. R. Evid. +410(4) (emphasis added). Obviously, a prerequisite to applying the rule is a case where no plea +of guilty resulted. See, e.g., United States v. Ruhkowsi, 814 F.2d 594, 596 (11" Cir. 1987) +(discussing application of the rule in situations where "plea negotiations ... broke down" and +case went to trial); United States v. +608 F.3d 1001 (7th Cir. 2010) cert. denied, 131 S. +Ct. 952 (2011) (allowing use of plea discussions against a defendant who pleaded guilty because +Rule 410(4) "makes admissions in plea bargaining inadmissible only if the plea bargaining either +does "not result in a plea of guilty'"); United States v. Kerik, 531 F.Supp.2d 610, 618 (S.D.N.Y. +2008) (Rule 410 "only excludes statements made in plea discussions that do not result in a plea +of guilty. As such, the rule does not apply here because Mr. Kerik eventually pleaded guilty."). +Here, of course, Epstein's plea discussions did result in a plea of guilty. As the Court is well +aware, Epstein engaged in extensive discussions with the U.S. Attorney's Office in an effort to +obtain a non-prosecution agreement. And ultimately he did obtain such an agreement - in +exchange for pleading guilty to two state offenses. +6 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 106 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2011 Page 7 of 27 +The terms of the non-prosecution agreement the victims are challenging make it quite +clear that Epstein's plea discussions "result[ed] in a guilty plea." The agreement recites that +"Epstein seeks to resolve globally his state and federal criminal liability and Epstein understands +and acknowledges that, in exchange for the benefits provided by this agreement, he agrees to +comply with its terms, including undertaking certain actions with the State Attorney's Office." +Non-Prosecution Agreement at 2. The agreement goes on to specifically provide Epstein shall +plead guilty to two offenses: +"Epstein shall plead guilty ... to the Indictment as currently pending against him +in the 15" Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County (Case No. 2006-ct- +009495AXXXMB) charging one (1) count of solicitation of prostitution, in +violation of Fl. Stat. § 796.07. In addition, Epstein shall plead guilty to an +Information filed by the States Attorney's Office charging Epstein with an offense +that requires him to register as a sex offender, that is, the solicitation of minors to +engage in prostitution, in violation of Florida Statutes Section 796.03." +Id. at 3 (emphases added). And, as the Court knows, Epstein did ultimately plead guilty to those +two Florida offenses pursuant to the agreement.' Accordingly, Rule 410 gives Epstein no ability +to block the victims from discovery and use of his attorneys' plea discussions because those +discussions "resulted] in a guilty plea." +" Rule 410 draw no distinction between pleas in federal court and pleas in state court. +See, e.g.. United States v. Chapman, 954 F.2d 1352, 1360 (7th Cir. 1992) (applying rule to +discussions over "withdrawn state plea"); United States v. Kerik, 531 F.Supp.2d 610 (S.D.N.Y. +2008) ("Rule 410 applies in federal proceedings to statements made in connection with prior +state pleas"); see also United States v. L +1, 794 F.2d 345, 349 (8th Cir.1986) (permitting the +admission of a guilty plea from state court in a federal proceeding). +" Because Epstein's lawyers are claiming that the correspondence is protected by Rule +410, they bear the burden of establishing all necessary facts for the application of the rule. If +Epstein's lawyers claim that the plea discussions somehow did not result in a plea of guilty, the +victims request a hearing under Fed. R. Evid. 104(a) to dispute this preliminary question of fact. +7 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 106 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2011 Page 8 of 27 +Rather than address this obvious point, Epstein's lawyers engage in subterfuge. In their +supplemental pleading, the lawyers claim that the correspondence with the U.S. Attorney's +Office is protected by "the express language of Rule 410." DE 94 at 3. Yet, they cleverly +paraphrase the "express language" of the rule in a way that avoids quoting the critical limiting +language that restricts Rule 410 to discussions "which do not result in a plea of guilty." Fed. R. +Evid. 410(4). See DE 94 at 4-5 (discussion of Rule 410 that fails to discuss the limitation of the +rule to negotiations "result[ing] in a plea of guilty"). The express language of the Rule does not +prevent the victims from introducing the correspondence in support of their claims about plea +discussions concerning Epstein because he pled guilty." +D. +RULE 410 DOES NOT APPLY HERE BECAUSE THE VICTIMS WILL +USE THE CORRESPONDENCE AGAINST (IF ANYONE) THE +GOVERNMENT. +Rule 410 is also inapplicable here because it would, at most, bar admissibility of the +correspondence into evidence "against the defendant who made the plea" - i.e., against Jeffrey +Epstein. But the vietims intend to obtain and use the correspondence to seek relief from the +Government. Accordingly, the Rule cannot be used to bar the victims from obtaining discovery +of this information. +By its plain terms, Rule 410 only bars the admission of evidence "against the defendant +who made the plea." The purpose underlying this rule to "promote negotiations by permitting +defendants to talk to prosecutors without sacrificing their ability to defend themselves if no +disposition is reached." United States v. Barrow, 400 F.3d 109, 116 (2d Cir.2005) (emphases +3 The express language of Rule 410 also makes clear that "derivative evidence" is never +excluded from a proceeding. See United States v. Ruhkowsi, 814 F.2d 594, 599 (11" Cir. 1987). +8 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 106 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2011 Page 9 of 27 +added). Thus, the Rule has no application where the discussions are being used not against a +defendant but rather against the Government. See United States v. Biaggi, 909 F.2d 662, 691 (2d +Cir. 1990). +Here, the victims intend to use the correspondence against any argument the Government +may make in this civil action seeking to enforce their CVRA rights.* They intend to use the +correspondence to prove initially that the Government violated their rights. Having proven a +violation of their rights, they will then seek various remedies concerning the Government. To +provide a straightforward example, one (quite modest) remedy that they will ask the Court to +impose on the Government is an order directing the U.S. Attorney's Office write a letter of +apology to the victims for deliberately violating their rights. Clearly the victims' use of the +correspondence to prove that the Government did not afford them their rights and that such a +remedy is appropriate lies outside Rule 410's ambit. +Of course, the victims in this case seek far more than a letter of apology from the +Government. As they have made clear throughout this litigation, they also intend to ask for the +Court to impose (among other things) the one remedy that will most directly respond to the +Government's violation of their rights: invalidation of the non-prosecution agreement so that +they can confer with the Government about the possibility of actually prosecuting Epstein for the +sex offenses he committed against them. Epstein's lawyers claim that any such use would be a +use "against" the defendant and therefore covered by this language in Rule 410. This claim, +* As explained in Section III.B below, the victims do not believe they stand in an +adversarial posture with the Government, as Congress has obligated the Government to use its +"best efforts" to protect the CVRA rights of crime victims. 18 U.S.C. § 3771(c)(1). +5 Notably, the Government does not argue in its pleading that any use of the information +9 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 106 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2011 Page 10 of 27 +however, assumes that the Rule 410 bars every court action that might ultimately have some +collateral, harmful effect on a defendant. But Rule 410 is much more narrowly drafted - +forbidding not uses that may eventually harm the defendant, but instead more narrowly +admissibility of plea negotiations into evidence "against" the defendant in a "civil or criminal +proceeding." At this point, Epstein is not a party to the CVRA proceeding, and therefore it is +not possible for any use of this correspondence to equate to forbidden admissibility of evidence +"against" him. For this reason as well, the rule is inapplicable. +E. +RULE 410 DOES NOT APPLY HERE BECAUSE OTHER STATEMENTS +WILL BE INTRODUCED AND, IN FAIRNESS, THE +CORRESPONDENCE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS WELL. +Rule 410 will also ultimately be inapplicable at trial because it contains a "completeness" +exception. Even for plea bargain discussions protected by Rule 410, a plea bargain statement is +admissible "in any proceeding wherein another statement made in the course of the same plea +discussions +has been introduced and the statement ought in fairness be considered +contemporaneously with it." Fed. R. Evid. 410. The Government has already made it quite clear +in its pleadings that it will introduce certain statements about the course of the plea negotiations. +Rule 410 thus entitles the victims to respond by introducing other aspects of the plea +negotiations. +Rule 410's completeness rule requires the court to determine whether, when one +statement about plea discussions is introduced, other statements ought to in fairness be +introduced as well. While it is too early to say for certain what arguments the Government will +make at any ultimate proceeding to determine whether it violated the victims CVRA rights, from +against it would somehow violate Rule 410. See U.S. Response to Supplemental Briefing at 3. +10 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 106 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2011 Page 11 of 27 +all indications the Government intends to introduce many statements about the timing and course +of plea discussions. For example, in its response to the victims' summary judgment motion, the +Government makes clear that it intends to argue that it properly conferred with the victims over +an 18 month period of time. See U.S. Response to Jane Doe #1 and #2's Motion for Finding +Violations of the CVRA at 37 (arguing that between August 2006 and January 2008 government +prosecutors and agents "went above and beyond the minimum statutory requirements" in +conferring with victims about plea negotiations). Similarly, the Government intends to dispute +that it sent false notices to the victims about the case being "under investigation" because plea +discussions had not reached a final conclusion at that time. Id. at 41 (arguing that "[d]uring the +time that Epstein was challenging the NPA, the investigation continued and agents were able to +conduct" witness interviews). The Government also intends to take the position that it +reasonably stopped making notifications to the victims, because if Epstein did not plead guilty +and there was a trial, Epstein would cross-examine the victims about payments they would have +received pursuant to the non-prosecution agreement. Id. at 42. +It is simply unfair for the Government to be able to pick and choose from all the events +surrounding the plea negotiations only those that support its case, while depriving the victims of +the opportunity to even discover information that might bolster their case. See Frontier Ref., Inc. +v. Gorman-Rupp Co., Inc., 136 F.3d 695, 704 (10th Cir. 1998) (a litigant cannot use privilege "as +both a sword and shield by selectively using the privileged documents to prove a point but then +invoking the privilege to prevent an opponent from challenging the assertion."). And Rule 410 +in particular blocks such a one-sided approach. Instead, under the Rule, the victims are entitled +to show the full course of plea discussions at any ultimate hearing in this case about whether the +11 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 106 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2011 Page 12 of 27 +Government violated their CVRA rights. And the victims are certainly entitled, at this earlier +juncture in the case, to obtain all relevant information that they might ultimately be able to use to +disprove the Government's defenses. +Il. +THE CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT AND +EPSTEIN IS NOT PROTECTED FROM DISCOVERY BY SOME KIND +OF "COMMON LAW" PLEA BARGAINING PRIVILEGE. +For all the reasons just given, Rule 410 does not bar the victims from discovering +correspondence about how the non-prosecution agreement was reached. Perhaps recognizing the +weakness of this argument, Epstein's lawyers present the fallback claim that some sort of +"common law" privilege for "plea bargaining" bars discovery into the correspondence. This +argument, too, lacks any merit. +A. The Courts Cannot Create a "Common Law" Privilege That Overrules the Specific +Contours of Rule 410. +Epstein's lawyers ask the Court to invent some sort of new "common law" privilege +under Federal Rule of Evidence 501. Rule 501 does allow federal courts some opportunity to +" Additionally, the correspondence may become important if the Court allows Epstein to +make a belated entry into the case and raise various defenses. Epstein's legions of lawyers can +be expected to advance all manner of legal and factual arguments - even claims that are simply +untrue. For example, in a desperate attempt to avoid registering as a convicted sex offender in +New York, Epstein recently had his attorneys represent to the New York County Supreme Court +that "the prosecutor in Florida conducted a full investigation ... and determined that the only +case that she could present to the grand jury was this [single] indictment for a non registrable +offense ...." People of New York v. Epstein, No. 30129/2010 (N.Y. Cnty. Sup. Ct. Jan. 18, +2011), hearing transcript at 9 (transcript attached to his pleading as Exhibit A). Epstein's +attorneys also - quite astonishingly - stated "there are no real victims" in Florida. Id. And in +what can only be described as a false statement to the New York court, Epstein's lawyers stated: +"there has been through the course of the last few years some civil ligation ... involving these +matters and we now have sworn testimony in evidence from the complainants themselves +disclaiming much of what appears in the [Florida] police report." Id. at 14. Given Epstein's +penchant for bending the truth, the victims are entitled to all the correspondence as a safeguard +against him advancing similar inaccurate arguments in this case. +12 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 106 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2011 Page 13 of 27 +create new privileges. The Supreme Court has been clear, however, that courts must "not create +and apply an evidentiary privilege unless it "promotes sufficiently important interests to +outweigh the need for probative evidence. Inasmuch as testimonial exclusionary rules and +privileges contravene the fundamental principle that the public has a right to every man's +evidence, any such privilege must be strictly construed." University of Pennsylvania v. +E.E.O.C., 493 U.S. 182, 189 (1990) (internal quotations omitted). +While Epstein's lawyers do not cite the controlling legal standard for creating a privilege +in this Circuit. The Eleventh Circuit has strongly cautioned that "the rule in this circuit is that a +new privilege should only be recognized where there is a 'compelling justification."' +International Horizons, Inc. v. The Committee of Unsecured Creditors, 689 F.2d 996, 1004 (11th +Cir. 1982) (quoting In re Dinnan, 661 F.2d 426 (5th Cir.1981)). The Eleventh Circuit has +explained that this stringent rule arises from the federal courts' disfavor of privileges and from +the policy of construing privileges narrowly, so as to protect the "search for truth." 689 F.2d at +1003 (quoting United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974)). +Here the Court has strong reason to be skeptical of a new plea bargaining privilege. The +transparent purpose behind Epstein's lawyers' "common law" effort is to avoid the specific +limitations contained in Rule 410. See Sections I.C through I.E, supra (discussing language in +Rule 410 requiring that the negotiations not have "resulted] in a plea of guilty," that the +negotiations be introduced "against" the defendant in a "proceeding," and that fairness not +require "contemporaneous" introduction of all aspects of the negotiations). But the Supreme +Court has made clear that courts must be "especially reluctant to recognize a privilege in an area +where it appears that Congress has considered the relevant competing concerns but has not +13 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 106 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2011 Page 14 of 27 +provided the privilege itself. The balancing of conflicting interests of this type is particularly a +legislative function." University of Pennsylvania v. E.E.O.C., 493 U.S. 182, 189 (1990) (internal +quotation omitted). The Court should not use the general provisions of Rule 501 to effectively +supersede the detailed limitations in Rule 410. +B. No "Common Law" Privilege for Plea Bargaining Exists. +Even if the Court were willing to entertain the idea that it should embark on an exercise +of "common law" privilege making, no common law privilege exists for plea bargaining. While +the defense attorneys frequently allude to "constitutional considerations" that supposedly +undergird plea bargaining, the simple fact remains that "there is no constitutional right to plea +bargain." Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545, 561 (1977); accord United States v. Barrentine, +591 F.2d 1069, 1078 (5'" Cir. 1979). To be sure, the courts tolerate plea bargaining because it +helps reduce the workload of congested criminal dockets. But common law rulemaking should +not be used as an excuse to exalt negotiations that merely serve administrative convenience over +the far more important search for truth.? +Perhaps recognizing that tenuousness of raising plea bargaining over truth-seeking +values, Epstein's lawyers attempt to repackage their proposed privilege as a "common law +mediation" privilege. Supplemental Briefing at 16. There is no need for such a privilege in the +Southern District of Florida to protect true mediation. A local rule already protects +confidentiality in court-annexed mediation. See Local Rule 16.2(G)(2). Epstein's lawyers, +" To be sure, as the Government points out, effective defense counsel should always +explore plea bargaining opportunities. See Gov't Resp. at 7 (citing Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 +S.C.t 1473, 1485 (2010)). But this is a far cry from proving there is a "right" to plea bargaining +or that protecting plea bargaining opportunities is more important than, for example, protecting +congressionally-mandated crime victims' rights conferred in the CVRA. +14 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 106 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2011 Page 15 of 27 +however, do not cite this rule, because they know their plea bargaining discussions with +government attorneys fall outside its protections. +Epstein's lawyers also implicitly concede that there is no well-established "common law" +support for a mediation privilege, as they are able to cite only a smattering of cases (three in total +over the last 32 years) recognizing such a privilege. None of these cases are from the Eleventh +Circuit, which (unlike other jurisdictions) requires a strong showing of "compelling" justification +before a new privilege can be created. International Horizons, Inc. v. The Committee of +Unsecured Creditors, 689 F.2d 996, 1004 (11th Cir. 1982) ("compelling" justification required to +interfere with the search for truth in federal cases). Moreover, none of the three cases cited +involve plea bargaining in criminal cases - presumably because that subject is already directly +covered in detail in Rule 410. Finally, these cases involve situations where a court thought it +important to create "confidentiality and trust between participants in a mediation proceeding." +Epstein's Supplemental Briefing at 17 (citing Folb v. Motion Picture Ind. Pension & Health +Plans, 16 F.Supp.2d 1164, 1175 (C.D. Cal. 1998) (emphasis added)). Here, of course, the parties +to the plea discussion (Epstein and the Government) are attempting not to create a privilege +between themselves, but rather to block third parties harmed by their actions from discovering +what they have done. +Make no mistake about the sweeping position that Epstein's attorneys are advancing: +They claim that the defense attorneys and the Government can conspire between themselves to +arrange for secret plea discussions in violation of congressionally-mandated crime victims' rights +in the CVRA and then block the crime victims from obtaining the information that would prove +the violation that has happened. Such a privilege would, among other things, directly conflict +15 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 106 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2011 Page 16 of 27 +with the statutory command of Congress that crime victims must be "treated with fairness," 18 +U.S.C. § 3771(a)(8), a statute which obviously trumps any claim by a convicted sex offender that +his efforts to work out a secret plea deal with the Government is somehow entitled to greater +protection. For all these reasons, the Court should reject the defense attorney's suggestion that it +should invent a new "mediation privilege" to apply to the plea bargaining discussions in this +case. +III. +THE WORK PRODUCT DOCTRINE DOES NOT COVER +CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN PROSECUTORS AND DEFENSE +ATTORNEYS. +The Government's response to the defense attorney's supplemental briefing (DE 100) +itself raises new issues about whether the victims will be able to obtain the correspondence (or, +indeed, any information from the Government). After the Court ruled that the victims were +entitled to discover relevant information (DE 99 at 10), the victims asked the Government to +voluntarily provide them with at least some documents. In response, however, the Government +told the victims that all of the relevant information — including presumably the correspondence +— is privileged from production and that the Court will need to determine, "on a document-bydocument basis" (Gov't Resp. at 1) whether any of the materials in the Government's possession +falls outside the work product doctrine. The Court should reject the Government's sweeping +claim that all correspondence (and other information) is protected by the work product doctrine. +A. The Court Should Now Grant the Victim's Still-Pending Motion for an +Order Directing the U.S. Attorney's Office Not to Suppress Relevant +Evidence. +In its order allowing discovery, the Court "reserve[d] ruling" (DE 99 atll) on the +victims' Motion for an Order Directing the U.S. Attorney's Office Not to Withhold Relevant +16 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 106 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2011 Page 17 of 27 +Evidence. The victims respectfully renew their motion (DE 50). Of course, if the Court decided +to grant this motion, it would obviate the need for any kind of "document-by-document" review +of the relevant information that the Government continues to withhold. +B. The CVRA Requires the Government to Work Cooperatively to Protect the +Victims' Rights and Thus Bars the Government from Interposing an +Adversarial Work Product Defense. +The Government argues that the work-product doctrine it is asserting prevents the victims +from obtaining any information relevant to their CVRA claim. In doing so, the Government +fundamentally misunderstands its role under the CVRA. The Government seems to believe that +it stands in an adversarial posture to the victims and therefore it can simply interpose the same +sorts of litigation barriers it would deploy against a criminal defendant seeking discovery of +Government documents. But the CVRA does not place victims and the Government on opposite +sides of CVRA enforcement. Instead, the Act obligates the Government to work together with +victims to enforce CVRA rights. In such a cooperative world, the Government cannot erect a +"work product" barrier to CVRA enforcement. +The CVRA specifically directs Justice Department prosecutors to make their "best +efforts" to protect victims' rights. Title 18 U.S.C. § 3771(c)(1) commands that "[olfficers and +employees of the Department of Justice and other departments and agencies of the United States +engaged in the +... prosecution of crime shall make their best efforts to see that crime victims +notified of, and accorded, the rights described in [the CVRA]" (emphases added). Underscoring +this "best efforts" obligation, the CVRA even allows prosecutors to bring their own actions to +enforce victims' CVRA rights. Title 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(1) provides: "The crime victims ... +and the attorney for the Government may assert the rights described in [the CVRA]" (emphasis +17 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 106 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2011 Page 18 of 27 +added). Of course, the attorney for the Government can never bring an action on behalf of a +criminal defendant. Thus, unlike when they prosecute criminal defendants, Justice Department +prosecutors are statutorily obligated to work with crime victims. +In light of the fact that Congress requires prosecutors and victims to cooperate to protect +CVRA rights, in cases (such as this one) seeking to enforce CVRA rights the Government cannot +raise adversarial work-product objections under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Those +rules govern the antagonistic relationship inherent in a criminal prosecution. With regard to +discovery, the rules only cover discovery "upon a defendant's request." Fed. R. Crim. P. +16(a)(1) (emphasis added). The discovery rules allow a criminal defendant to obtain limited +information from the Government, including specifically his confession, his prior criminal +record, tangible objects (i.e., contraband or other evidence), and reports of scientific tests. Fed. +R. Crim. P. 16(a)(1)(A)-(F). Against that backdrop, the rule cited by the Government - Fed. R. +Crim. P. 16(a)(2) - prevents a criminal defendant from forcing disclosure of "internal +government documents made by an attorney for the government or other government agent in +connection with investigating or prosecuting the case." In this case, though, it is not a criminal +"defendant" trying to obtain information in an effort to obtain an acquittal, but rather plaintiff +crime victims seeking information to enforce their CVRA rights. Accordingly, by its plain terms, +Rule 16 simply doesn't apply. And even if it somehow did apply, it only covers documents +made "in connection with investigating or prosecuting the case" - i.e., documents about the +"case" in which the discovery request is made (here Jane Doe #1 and #2 v. United States). Here, +the victims are seeking (among other things) correspondence about an earlier case - i.e., +documents related to the Jeffrey Epstein investigation and non-prosecution in which the +18 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 106 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2011 Page 19 of 27 +Government violated their CVRA rights. For this reason as well, the criminal rule simply +doesn't apply. +Perhaps recognizing that it will not be able to avoid producing documents under the +Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Government immediately cites the Federal Rules of +Civil Procedural as well. Gov't Resp. at 5 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3)(B)). But if the +Government is going to seek the civil rules' protections, it also needs to satisfy those rules' +burdens. For example, despite repeated requests from the victims spanning several years, the +Government has yet to even make any initial disclosures under the civil rules. See Fed. R. Civ. +P. 26(a)(1)(A) ("a party must, without await awaiting a discovery request, provided to the other +parties" various things relevant to the case). The victims long ago made their initial disclosures +to the Government under the civil rules, but the Government continues to refuse to reciprocate. +If the Government is going to maintain that the civil rules operate to give it certain discovery +protections, it must satisfy all of its discovery obligations as well. +In any event, as with the criminal rules, the civil rules are designed to create protections +in an adversarial setting. The rule cited by the Government - Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3)(A) - +provides that "ordinarily ... a party may not discover documents and tangible things that are +prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for another party or its representative...." +This privilege "does not exist to protect a confidential relationship, but rather to promote the +adversary system by safeguarding the fruits of an attorney's trial preparations from the discovery +attempts of the opponent." U.S. v. American Tel. and Tel. Co., 642 F.2d 1285, 1299 (D.C. Cir. +1980) (emphasis added). +While the victims have listed the government in the caption of this +enforcement action, they certainly do not regard the Government as their "opponent" - and under +19 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 106 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2011 Page 20 of 27 +the regime created by the CVRA, prosecutors and victims are not "opponents" that would create +the proper circumstances for a work product privilege. As explained above, the CVRA requires +the Government to use its "best efforts" not to oppose crime victims but rather to "accord" them +their rights under the CVRA. 18 U.S.C. § 3771(c)(1). +Underscoring the conclusion that work product does not apply is the nature of the +correspondence at issue in these pleadings. The correspondence is between prosecutors and +defense attorneys negotiating a plea arrangement. It was, at most, prepared in anticipation of a +criminal prosecution being filed by the Government against Epstein - in other words, a +contemplated criminal prosecution that would have been styled United States v. Epstein. +Whatever work product claim would exist in that case, it does not extend to this - entirely +separate - civil case. +See +_ V. Avis Rent A Car System, Inc., 916 F.Supp. 256, +259 (W.D.N.Y.,1996) (no work product existed because "the documents sought "were not +prepared in anticipation of this particular litigation'" (citing Bartley v. Isuzu Motors, 158 F.R.D. +165, 167 (D.Colo. 1994) (emphasis added)). For all these reasons, the Court should give effect to +the cooperative structure created in the CVRA and flatly reject the Government's suggestion that +it can interpose an adversarial work product claim to block the victims from discovering +correspondence with Epstein's defense attorneys. +C. If the Court Allows the Government to Raise Work Product Claims, then the +If the Government is allowed to raise a work product claim, the procedures associated +with such claims are familiar. +As the Government concedes, it would be required to prove +20 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 106 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2011 Page 21 of 27 +protection on a "document-by-document" basis. Gov't Resp. at 1. The way such documentspecific issues are litigated is through a privilege log. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 26(b)(5)(A)(ii). The +Court's Local Rules spell out requirements for a privilege log. The Government should describe +(among other things) the type of document, the general subject matter of the document, the date +of the document, and the author and addressee of the document or correspondence. Local Rule +26(g)(3). The privilege log must be detailed enough to allow the victims to respond to the +Government's assertion of privilege. See, e.g., Avgoustis v. Shinseki, 639 F.3d 1340, 1345-46 +(Fed. Cir. 2011) ("privilege logs were insufficiently detailed when they merely stated "Fax: +Whistleblower article" or "Summary of Enclosures" and justified the privilege by characterizing +the documents as "attorney-client communication[s]" without explanation.") (citing United +States v. Constr. Prods. Research, Inc., 73 F.3d 464, 473 (2d Cir. 1996)).® +Once the Government has cataloged the documents in its privilege log, it then bears the +burden of proving the applicability of the privilege. See In re Professionals Direct Ins. Co., 578 +F.3d 432 (6"' Cir. 2009); Boogle v. McClure, 332 F.3d 1347, 1358 (11th Cir. 2003). The victims +will, of course, later respond in detail to any specific assertions the Government makes? But it +is obvious that the Government cannot assert a valid work product privilege for any of the +correspondence it carried on with defense attorneys for Epstein. +& Similarly, if the defense attorneys are allowed to intervene in this case to assert +privilege, they must then provide a privilege log on a document-by-document basis. +" In briefly responding here to arguments raised by the Government, the victims are not +waiving any responses they might later make to specifically-asserted work product claims. In +particular, on a document-by-document basis, the victims reserve their right to argue that the +documents are not work product materials and, in any event, that they have a "substantial need +for the materials to prepare [their] case and cannot, without undue hardship, obtain thel] +substantial equivalent by other means." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3)(A)(ii). +21 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 106 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2011 Page 22 of 27 +For starters, the issue of whether the correspondence was somehow protected against +discovery was thoroughly litigated by Epstein more than a year ago. This Court rejected +Epstein's arguments against disclosure. Jane Doe v. Epstein, doc. #462, Case No. 9:08-CV- +80119-KAM (Feb. 4, 2010).' That ruling by the Court then is, to say the least, persuasive +authority on the Government's identical argument here. +Moreover, correspondence with an adversary in a criminal prosecution is not the kind of +confidential information that is even arguably covered by work product. Work product covers +only "reports, memoranda, and other internal government documents made by an attorney for +the government ... in connection with ... prosecuting the case." Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(a)(2) +(emphasis added); see also Fed. R. Civ. 26(b)(3)(A). Correspondence between prosecutors and +defense attorneys is simply not an "internal" matter that is subject to a work product protection. +Correspondence with an adversary also waives any work-product coverage. +"The +privilege derived from the work-product doctrine is not absolute. Like other qualified privileges, +it may be waived." United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 239 (1975). "Disclosure to an +adversary waives the work product protection as to items actually disclosed, even where +disclosure occurs in settlement." In re Chrysler Motors Corp. Overnight Evaluation Program +Litigation, 860 F.2d 844, 846 (8'" Cir. 1988). Thus, "[clourts will imply waiver when a party +1° In Jane Doe v. Epstein, doc. #462, Case No. 9:08-CV-80119-KAM (Feb. 4, 2010) +(denying detense objection to Request for Production #10), the Court ordered Epstein to produce +"all correspondence between you and your attorneys and state or federal law enforcement or +prosecutors." It now appears to the victims that, in clear contravention of this Court's discovery +orders, Epstein's attorneys secretly withheld significant correspondence involving plea +discussions by several of Epstein's attorneys, including Lillian | +Starr. If this is true, as part of any privilege log they file, the defense attorneys should explain +why they secretly and improperly withheld this information. +22 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 106 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2011 Page 23 of 27 +claiming the protection has voluntarily disclosed work product to a party not covered by the +work-product doctrine." United States v. Ary, 518 F.3d 775, 783 (10th Cir. 2008). +Perhaps recognizing the difficulty inherent in its position under these well-recognized +general principles, the Government claims that the court cases have been inconsistent" on +whether communications during plea bargaining waive work product privilege. Gov't Resp. at 8. +This is simply untrue, as a review of the relevant cases quickly demonstrates. +The Government concedes that there is circuit court authority that defendants' disclosure +of work product materials to the government during plea bargaining waives all work product +protection. The Government acknowledges, for example, that Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. +Republic of the Philippines, 951 F.2d 1414 (3d Cir. 1991), explicitly adopts this position. That +case concluded that Westinghouse's disclosure of work product materials to the Justice +Department during an investigation +"waived the work-product doctrine as against all other +adversaries." Id. at 1429. This holding makes sense, because it is hard to understand how a +litigant can claim confidentiality in materials it has otherwise disclosed. +The Government claims, however, that this common sense conclusion has been rejected +by the First Circuit, which (according to the Government) has "held that a company may +maintain even its ... work-product privilege in materials that it discloses to the U.S. Attorney's +Office during pre-indictment presentations and ongoing plea negotiations." Gov't Resp. at 8 +(citing In re Keeper of the Records (Grand Jury Subpoena Addressed to XYZ Corp.), 348 F.3d +16, 27-28 (1st Cir. 2003)). +But the case the Government cites stands for no such broad +proposition. Rather, that case involved a situation where for two years the Government had been +demanding that XYZ Corporation should waive its privileges and produce various documents +23 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 106 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2011 Page 24 of 27 +relevant to a government investigation; the company "steadfastly had refused." Id. at 26. The +company ultimately proffered some of the documents that the Government had been seeking. +But the company's counsel voluntarily produced those documents under a "clear and explicit" +reservation of all privileges. Id. at 27. And the reservation was "accepted by the government's +consistent course of conduct," id. at 28, which included treating the documents as protected. +Thus, in that case, there was simply no conduct from which a waiver could be inferred, as the +Government had agreed through its course of conduct that the protection existed. Here, of +course, there is not such course of conduct and, in any event, the victims have never "accepted" +that the correspondence is protected. +Moreover, in an effort to show the Courts of Appeals are inconsistent, the Government +pretends to have universally surveyed caselaw with its citations to just these two allegedly +"inconsistent" cases. In fact, the clear bulk of circuit authority has clearly and straightforwardly +rejected arguments that the U.S. Attorney's Office advances here (and has frequently done so at +the request of the Government). See, e.g., In re Owest Communications, Inc., 450 F.3d 1179, +1192-1201 (10th Cir. 2006) (company's disclosure of documents to the SEC during criminal +investigation waived work product protections); +United Methodist Church v. City of +Cheyenne, 451 F.3d 643, 668 (10th Cir. 2005) ("any work product objection was waived by +[party] via production" of the documents in question); In re Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp. +Billing Practices Litigation, 293 F.3d 289, 302 (6th Cir. 2002) (attorney client/work product +privilege was "never designed to protect conversations between a client and the Government — +i.e., an adverse party — rather, it pertains only to conversations between the client and his or her +attorney... purpose [of attorney-client privilege] is to encourage full and +communication +24 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 106 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2011 Page 25 of 27 +between attorneys and their clients and thereby promote broader public interests in the +observance of law and administration of justice. Nowhere amongst these reasons [for protection] +is the ability to 'talk candidly with the Government."*); United States v. M.I.T., 129 F.3d 681, +687 (Ist Cir. 1997) ("the prevailing rule that disclosure to an adversary, real or potential, forfeits +work product protection"); In re Steinhardt Partners, L.P., 9 F.3d 230, 235 (2nd Cir. 1993) +("voluntary disclosure of work product to an adversary waives the privilege as to other parties"); +In re Chrysler Motors Overnight Evaluation Litigation, 860 F.2d 844, 846-47 (8'" 1988) +(defendant company's disclosure of computer tape to class counsel during settlement negotiated +waived work product when tape sought by government as part of criminal case); In re Sealed +Case, 676 F.2d 793, 824-25 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (production of documents during settlement +discussions +with +the SEC waived work product protection as to grand jury). +For all these reasons, +the Court should reject the Government's claim that its +correspondence with Epstein's attorneys during plea negotiations somehow is confidential work +product immune from discovery. +CONCLUSION +For all the foregoing reasons, if the Court allows the defense attorneys to intervene in this +case, the Court should rule (1) that Rule 410 does not prevent discovery of plea negotiation +correspondence; (2) there is no basis for inventing a new "common law" privilege preventing +discovery of the correspondence; and (3) the correspondence is not confidential "work product" +of the Government and is discoverable by the victims in this case. +DATED: October 10, 2011 +25 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 106 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2011 Page 26 of 27 +Respectfully Submitted, +JAFFE, WEISSING, +1. FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. +425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 +Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 +Telephone (954) 524-2820 +Facsimile (954) 524-2822 +Florida Bar No.: 542075 +E-mail: brad@pathtojustice.com +and +Paul G. Cassell +Pro Hac Vice +S.J. Quinney College of Law at the +University of Utah +332 S. 1400 E. +Salt Lake City, UT 84112 +Telephone: 801-585-5202 +Facsimile: 801-585-6833 +E-Mail: cassellp@law.utah.edu +Attorneys for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 +26 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 106 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2011 Page 27 of 27 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +The foregoing document was served on October 10, 2011, on the following using the +Court's CM/ECF system: +Dexter Lee +A. +Villafaña +Assistant U.S. Attorneys +500 S. Australian Ave., Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +(561) 820-8711 +Fax: (561) 820-8777 +E-mail: Dexter. Lee@usdoi.gov +E-mail: +Attorneys for the Government +Roy Black, Esq. +Jackie Perczek, Esq. +Black, Srebnick, Kornspan & Stumpf, P.A. +201 South Biscayne Boulevard +Suite 1300 +Miami, FL 33131 +(305) 37106421 +(305) 358-2006 +27 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a6e93b875c4585f304bf231b820a29a2eb439172b7964bf585ad5a84ccb8db2c.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a6e93b875c4585f304bf231b820a29a2eb439172b7964bf585ad5a84ccb8db2c.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..61c2747c984cc7e2c65cd347229309c8d6658877 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a6e93b875c4585f304bf231b820a29a2eb439172b7964bf585ad5a84ccb8db2c.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -328, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "a6e93b875c4585f304bf231b820a29a2eb439172b7964bf585ad5a84ccb8db2c", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 29, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "2f2869e313d3d1c0dcc6b8faf6ec7d56315e71348fd256dafd2cd0d1d026aa03", + "output_sha256": "b87f2f90a86069d00e5b9174f27cae705dbd06ec887b46b14509d4b24dbe8f5e", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a6eab156e41209f7a287c9e7d6e5e5ff2a68450ea9c4b1f0c393097544907fa7.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a6eab156e41209f7a287c9e7d6e5e5ff2a68450ea9c4b1f0c393097544907fa7.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f6e35493e28e19dc8224e0cd3f49ba432bfbfc2f --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a6eab156e41209f7a287c9e7d6e5e5ff2a68450ea9c4b1f0c393097544907fa7.md @@ -0,0 +1,105 @@ +Filing # 158150710 E-Filed 09/26/2022 04:38:06 PM +IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE +FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND +FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 50-2019-CA-014681-AG +CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC, +Publisher of THE PALM BEACH POST, +Plaintiff, +V. +DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of +Palm Beach County, Florida; SHARON R. +BOCK, as Clerk and Comptroller of Palm +Beach County, Florida, +Defendants. +COPY +JOINT MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO +SUBMIT WRITTEN CLOSING ARGUMENTS AND PROPOSED ORDERS +Plaintiff, CA Florida Holdings LLC ("Plaintiff)) and Defendant/Movant, Dave Aronberg +("Aronberg"), hereby file this Joint Motion for a One Week Extension of Time to Submit Written +Closing Arguments and Proposed Orders which are currently due on September 29, 2022. In +support thereot, Plaintiff and Aronberg state as follows: +On September 6, 2022 and September 8, 2022, the Court held evidentiary hearings +on State Attorney Dave Aronberg's Amended Motion for Attorney's Fees Under Florida Statute +Section 57.105 +Judge Delgado instructed the parties to submit closing arguments and proposed +orders within 21 days of the September 8, 2022 hearing. Accordingly, the current deadline for the +parties to submit the written closing arguments and proposed orders is September 29, 2022. +In light of the Jewish Holiday, Rosh Hashanah, on September 26 and 27, 2022, +counsel's intermittent deadlines and hearings in other matters, and the fact that there is current +FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, +ABRUZZO, CLERK, 09/26/2022 04:38:06 PM + + +Hurricane threat to Florida for this week, the parties respectfully request a one-week extension of +time for their submittal of the written closing arguments and proposed orders with regard to State +Attorney Dave Aronberg's Amended Motion for Attorney's Fees Under Florida Statute Section +57.105. +4. +This Joint Motion is not made for purposes of delay or for any other improper +purpose. No party would be harmed or prejudiced by the granting of this Joint Motion. +WHEREFORE, CA Florida Holdings LLC and Dave Aronberg respectfully request that +the Court grants the parties a one-week extension of time through and including Thursday, October +6, 2022 to provide the court with their written closing arguments and proposed orders. +Respectfully submitted on September 26, 2022 by: +Is/ Douglas Wyler +DOUGLAS A. WYLER +Florida Bar No. 119979 +ScHOLz & WYLER, LLC +961687 Gateway Blvd., Suite 201-1 +Fernandina Beach, FL 32034 +Tel.: 904.261.3693 +doug.wyler@comcast.net +Counsel for Defendants/Respondents Dave +Aronberg and Sharon R. Bock +10, +sk Lauren Whetstone +LAUREN WHETSTONE +Florida Bar No. 45192 +MARK F. BIDEAU +Florida Bar No. 564044 +GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A. +777 South Flagler Drive, Suite 300 East +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Tel.: 561.650.7900 +whetstonel@gtlaw.com +bideaum @gtlaw.com +sandra.famadas@gtlaw.com +thomasd@gtlaw.com +FLService@gtlaw.com +STEPHEN A. MENDELSOHN +Florida Bar No. 849324 +GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A. +401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 2000 +Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 +Tel.: 954.768.8225 +mendelsohns@gtlaw.com +smithl@gtlaw.com +MICHAEL J. GRYGIEL +(Admitted Pro Hac Vice) +2 + + +GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A. +54 State Street, 6th Floor +Albany, NY 12207 +Tel.: 518.689.1400 +grygielm@gtlaw.com +NINA D. BOYAJIAN +(Admitted Pro Hac Vice) +GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A. +1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900 +Los Angeles, CA 90067 +Tel.: 310.586.7700 +boyajiann@gtlaw.com +riveraal@gtlaw.com +Counsel for Plaintiff CA Florida Holdings, +LLC, Publisher of The Palm Beach Post +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and accurate copy of the foregoing has been +electronically filed with the Florida E-File Portal for o-service on all parties of record herein on +this 26** day of September, 2022. +Is/ Lauren Whetstone +Lauren Whetstone +NOT A +3 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a6eab156e41209f7a287c9e7d6e5e5ff2a68450ea9c4b1f0c393097544907fa7.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a6eab156e41209f7a287c9e7d6e5e5ff2a68450ea9c4b1f0c393097544907fa7.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..432e4c4855d5d4da8b2c953e988a9e49dfb7abc0 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a6eab156e41209f7a287c9e7d6e5e5ff2a68450ea9c4b1f0c393097544907fa7.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -36, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "a6eab156e41209f7a287c9e7d6e5e5ff2a68450ea9c4b1f0c393097544907fa7", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 3, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "45a860333a3d76a130f0f00e5b93c52a5102de0732b2d249b035ff1b5b0c7a86", + "output_sha256": "299dce21688432b22a006f57432e7e70b2d76dc7e71d9d325c4fc41fdb5802d8", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a73f936eab69d52c854a051b61e8aa0b5bd8c6f538e04901c517f70579f1bc77.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a73f936eab69d52c854a051b61e8aa0b5bd8c6f538e04901c517f70579f1bc77.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3058cce0bd23336f1dc56b52e7c3ee4af877b609 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a73f936eab69d52c854a051b61e8aa0b5bd8c6f538e04901c517f70579f1bc77.md @@ -0,0 +1,102 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 534-4 +Entered on FLSD Docket 04/27/2010 Page 1 of 2 +1 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +1 +.2 +3 +4 +5 +7 +8 +9' +0 +1 +2 +3. +4 +5 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/_ +JANE DOE 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 +CERTIFIED +COPY +- +DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT +TAKEN AS TO JANE DOE #4 +OF RE +I. ZE +LOCATION: +DATE: +TIME: +REPORTED BY: +Accurate Reporting & Video Service +814 E. +Silver Springs Blvd. +Suite A +Ocala, FL +34470 +Thursday, January 21, 2010 +4:57 p.m. - 6:00 p.m. +Datary Pubid, state of Florida +ACCURATE REPORTING & VIDEO SERVICE +352-368-2545 + +4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 534-4 +Entered on FLSD Docket 04/27/2010 Page 2 or z +46 +Q. Did you talk about it in person or did you talk +about it over the phone? +A. +Person. +Q. Was that over the Christmas period? +A. After. +Q. Did she ever -- did she ever tell you that she +had made a video of she and +in an intimate +relationship which she then showed to other people? +A. +NO. +Q. Did -- when she talked to you about having had +the abortion, was she pretty upset? +A. Yes. +Q. Did she cry? +A. Yes. No, no cry. She feel shamed. She was -- +I can tell you because I don't want to see her face when +I was talking with her and I was very, like, sad. I +don't see her reaction because I was so, like, sad, very +disappoint. +Q. Did you act disappointed, that is, could she see +that in your face? +A. I don't know if she saw, I don't know. +Q. Did you say anything back to her when she told +you? +A. +Q. +you don't +NO. +As you sit here today, miss +ACCURATE REPORTING & VIDEO SERVICE +352-368-2545 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a73f936eab69d52c854a051b61e8aa0b5bd8c6f538e04901c517f70579f1bc77.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a73f936eab69d52c854a051b61e8aa0b5bd8c6f538e04901c517f70579f1bc77.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8dc8040aea43c2a7b8214d4081ecea7288027642 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a73f936eab69d52c854a051b61e8aa0b5bd8c6f538e04901c517f70579f1bc77.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -31, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "a73f936eab69d52c854a051b61e8aa0b5bd8c6f538e04901c517f70579f1bc77", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 3, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "dae9e45c1b9268e80a69a4e37a398dd9ae6ceceb114ae89dbe3c9d9a6dd483ae", + "output_sha256": "cd7ced3579a09b909886b2187c11e066d6aba4deec685bddb0c47536c868ba8b", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a7449b610ca3c8cb55751ce8d95acf32a1363e2a031c4dca5856d421fd2f0f61.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a7449b610ca3c8cb55751ce8d95acf32a1363e2a031c4dca5856d421fd2f0f61.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b8daf514ed5225dbeb0eb0161c11b944ba12798f --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a7449b610ca3c8cb55751ce8d95acf32a1363e2a031c4dca5856d421fd2f0f61.md @@ -0,0 +1,223 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/27/2009 Page 1 of 8 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT +Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 4 ("Jane" or "Jane Doe"), brings this Amended Complaint against +Jeffrey Epstein, as follows: +Parties, Jurisdiction and Venue +Jane Doe No. 4 is a citizen and resident of the State of Florida, and is sui juris. +This Complaint is brought under a fictitious name to protect the identity of the +Plaintiff because this Complaint makes sensitive allegations of sexual assault and abuse upon a +minor. +Defendant Jeffrey Epstein is a citizen and resident of the State of New York. +This is an action for damages in excess of $50 million. +5. +This Court has jurisdiction of this action and the claims set forth herein pursuant to 28 +U.S.C. §1332(a), as the matter in controversy (i) exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs; +and (ii) is between citizens of different states. +6. +Additionally, this Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331 because +Plaintiff alleges a claim under the laws of the United States. This Court has supplemental +jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367(a) over all other claims set forth herein, which form part of +- 1- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/27/2009 Page 2 of 8 +the same case or controversy. +7. +This Court has venue of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. $$1391(a) and 1391(b) as a +substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in this District. +Factual Allegations +8. +At all relevant times, Defendant Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") was an adult male, 52 +years old. Epstein is a financier and money manager with a secret clientele limited exclusively to +billionaires. He is himself a man of tremendous wealth, power and influence. He maintains his +principal home in New York and also owns residences in New Mexico, St. +and Palm Beach, +FL. The allegations herein concern Epstein's conduct while at his lavish estate in Palm Beach. +Upon information and belief, Epstein has a sexual preference and obsession for +underage minor girls. He engaged in a plan and scheme in which he gained access to primarily +economically disadvantaged minor girls in his home, sexually assaulted these girls, and then gave +them money. In or about 2002-2003, Jane Doe, then approximately 15 years old, fell into Epstein's +trap and became one of his victims. +10. 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. +11. Epstein's scheme involved the use of young girls to recruit underage girls. [ +a Palm Beach Community College student from Loxahatchee, Florida recruited girls +ostensibly to give a wealthy man a massage for monetary compensation in his Palm Beach mansion. +The young girls would be contacted when Epstein was planning to be at his Palm Beach residence +or soon after he had arrived there. +upon information and belief, generally sought out +economically disadvantaged underage girls from western Palm Beach County who would be enticed +by the money being offered - generally $200 to $300 per "massage" session - and who were +perceived as less likely to complain to authorities or have credibility if allegations of improper +- 2- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/27/2009 Page 3 of 8 +conduct were made. This was an important element of Epstein's plan. +12. +Epstein's plan and scheme reflected a particular pattern and method. The underage +victim would be brought to the kitchen entrance of Epstein's mansion, where she would be +introduced to +Epstein's assistant. +would then bring the girl up a flight of +stairs to a bedroom that contained a massage table in addition to other furnishings. There were +photographs of nude women lining the stairway +and in the bedroom. The girl would then find +herself alone in the room with Epstein, who would be wearing only a towel. He would then remove +his towel and lie naked on the massage table, and direct the girl to remove her clothes. Epstein +would then perform one or more lewd, lascivious and sexual acts, including masturbation and +touching the girl's vagina. +13. Consistent with the foregoing plan and scheme, when Jane Doe was approximately 15 +years old, she was recruited by +to give Epstein a massage for monetary compensation. +Jane was brought to Epstein's mansion in Palm Beach, to the kitchen entrance. Once there, Jane +was introduced to +who led her up the flight of stairs to the room with the massage +table. In this room, Jane was directed by Epstein to remove her clothes and give him a massage. +Jane initially kept her panties and bra on, and complied with Epstein's instructions. Jane was paid +by Epstein for this massage. +14. +Jane returned on many occasions to the Palm Beach mansion to provide Epstein with +massages. On those occasions, Epstein engaged in sexual contact and activity with the minor Jane, +which included, among other things, directing Jane to remove all her clothes, masturbating during +the massage, and digitally penetrating Jane's vagina. Jeffrey Epstein often used a vibrator on the +minor Jane during the massage. This sexual abuse continued for approximately three years. +15. As a result of these encounters with Epstein, Jane experienced confusion, shame, +humiliation and embarrassment, and has suffered severe psychological and emotional injuries. +- 3- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/27/2009 Page 4 of 8 +COUNTI +Sexual Assault and Battery +16. +Plaintiff Jane Doe repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 15 above. +17. Epstein acted with intent to cause an offensive contact with Jane Doe, or an imminent +apprehension of such a contact, and Jane Doe was thereby put in such imminent apprehension. +18. +Epstein made an intentional, unlawful offer of offensive sexual contact toward Jane +Doe, creating a reasonable fear of imminent peril. +19. +Epstein intentionally inflicted harmful or offensive contact on the person of Jane Doe, +with the intent to cause such contact or the apprehension that such contact is imminent. +20. +Epstein tortiously committed a sexual assault and battery on Jane Doe. Epstein's acts +were intentional, unlawful, offensive and harmful. +21. +Epstein's plan and scheme in which he committed such acts upon Jane Doe were +done willfully and maliciously. +22. As a direct and proximate result of Epstein's assault on Jane, she has suffered and +will continue to suffer severe and permanent traumatic injuries, including mental, psychological and +emotional damages. +WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 4 demands judgment against Defendant Jeffrey +Epstein for compensatory damages, punitive damages, costs, and such other and further relief as this +Court deems just and proper. +23. +24. +25. +of decency. +COUNT II +Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress +Plaintiff Jane Doe repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 15 above. +Epstein's conduct was intentional or reckless. +Epstein's conduct with a minor was extreme and outrageous, going beyond all bounds +- 4- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/27/2009 Page 5 of 8 +26. +Epstein committed willful acts of child sexual abuse on Jane Doe. These acts resulted +in mental or sexual injury to Jane Doe, that caused or were likely to cause Jane Doe's mental or +emotional health to be significantly impaired. +27. +Epstein's conduct caused severe emotional distress to Jane Doe. Epstein knew or had +reason to know that his intentional and outrageous conduct would cause emotional distress and +damage to Jane Doe, or Epstein acted with reckless disregard of the high probability of causing +severe emotional distress to Jane Doe. +28. +As a direct and proximate result of Epstein's intentional or reckless conduct, Jane +Doe, has suffered and will continue to suffer severe mental anguish and pain. +WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 4 demands judgment against Defendant Jeffrey +Epstein for compensatory damages, costs, punitive damages, and such other and further relief as this +Court deems just and proper. +COUNT III +Coercion and Enticement to Sexual Activity in Violation of 18 U.S.C. §2422 +29. Plaintiff Jane Doe repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 15 above. +30. +Epstein used a facility or means of interstate commerce to knowingly persuade, +induce or entice Jane Doe, when she was under the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution or +sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense. +31. +On June 30, 2008, Epstein entered a plea of guilty to violations of Florida §$ 796.07 +and 796.03, in the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County (Case nos. 2008-cf- +009381AXXXMB and 2006-cf-009454AXXXMB), for conduct involving the same plan and +scheme as alleged herein. +32. +As to Plaintiff Jane Doe, Epstein could have been charged with criminal violations of +Florida Statute §796.07(2) (including subsections (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), and (h) thereof), and other +- 5- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/27/2009 Page 6 of 8 +criminal offenses including violations of Florida Statutes §$ 798.02 and 800.04 (including +subsections (5), (6) and (7) thereof). +33. +Epstein's acts and conduct are in violation of 18 U.S.C. §2422. +34. +As a result of Epstein's violation of 18 U.S.C. §2422, Plaintiff has suffered personal +injury, including mental, psychological and emotional damages. +35. +Plaintiff hired Herman & Mermelstein, P.A.., in this matter and agreed to pay them a +reasonable attorneys' fee. +WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 4 demands judgment against Defendant Jeffrey +Epstein for all damages available under 18 U.S.C. §2255(a), including without limitation, actual +and compensatory damages, costs of suit, and attorneys' fees, and such other and further relief as +this Court deems just and proper. +JURY TRIAL DEMAND +Plaintiff demands a jury trial in this action on all claims so triable. +Dated: February 27, 2009 +Respectfully submitted, +By: +s/ Adam D. Horowitz +Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245) +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980) +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P.A. +Attorneys for Plaintiff +18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 +Miami, Florida 33160 +Tel: 305-931-2200 +Fax: 305-931-0877 +- 6- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/27/2009 Page 7 of 8 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I hereby certify that on February 27, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing document with +the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. 1 also certify that the foregoing document is being served this +day to all parties on the attached Service List in the manner specified, either via transmission of +Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those +parties who are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing. +Is/ Adam D. Horowitz +- 7- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/27/2009 Page 8 of 8 +SERVICE LIST +DOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +igoldberger@agwpa.com +Robert D. Critton, Esq. +rcritton@bclclaw.com +/s/ Adam D. Horowitz. +- 8- diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a7449b610ca3c8cb55751ce8d95acf32a1363e2a031c4dca5856d421fd2f0f61.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a7449b610ca3c8cb55751ce8d95acf32a1363e2a031c4dca5856d421fd2f0f61.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..62e661ad0de454bcb1452f0464c4a5b2db414578 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a7449b610ca3c8cb55751ce8d95acf32a1363e2a031c4dca5856d421fd2f0f61.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -96, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "a7449b610ca3c8cb55751ce8d95acf32a1363e2a031c4dca5856d421fd2f0f61", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 8, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "9b15b79ba3888fd385b9771a5a19ff0a3b062e38453f026e0350f0442d64858d", + "output_sha256": "12b90196bf2f98b662ea3b6eae62a52c5117c052c428f5f98885a476273d081b", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a761423e336ba24a6849bcce64ffeb82e9ad2640fa02b4ce053d2bd48ac779d8.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a761423e336ba24a6849bcce64ffeb82e9ad2640fa02b4ce053d2bd48ac779d8.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..27981818de29774a14df0bc0a5620f2eb7d16ec6 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a761423e336ba24a6849bcce64ffeb82e9ad2640fa02b4ce053d2bd48ac779d8.md @@ -0,0 +1,436 @@ +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 305 2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Page 1 of11 +Entered on FLSD Docket 09/11/2009 + +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA- +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +V. +FILED by +D.C. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +SEP 1 1 2009 +EVEN M. LARIMO +Related Cases: +08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994, +08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, +09-80581, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092. +Defendant Epstein's Emergency Motion To Strike Plaintiff's Motion For +Protective Order (DE 292) And Emergency Motion To Allow The +Attendance Of Jeffrey Epstein At The Deposition Of Plaintiffs And Response +In Opposition To Plaintiffs', Jane Doe Nos. 2-8, Motion For Protective Order +As To Jeffrey Epstein's Attendance At The Deposition Of Plaintiffs, With +Incorporated Memorandum of Law +Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, by and through his undersigned counsel, and pursuant to all +applicable rules, including Local Rule 7.1(e) and Local Rule 12, hereby files and serves 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 Background +On August 19, 2009, Defendant sent a Notice for Taking the Deposition of Jane +Doe No. 4 for September 16, 2009. See Exhibit "1" + +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 305-2 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 objections) was/were received for Jane Doe No. 4, which was the only +deposition set relative to the Jane Doe 2-8 Plaintiffs. +4. +On August 27, 2009, the undersigned counsel sent a letter to counsel for Jane Doe +No. 4 concerning her deposition and the scheduling of same on the above date. See Exhibit "2". +5. +No response was received until counsel for Jane Doe No. 4 called on September +8, 2009, approximately eight days prior to the scheduled deposition, to indicate that they now +had an objection and would be filing a motion for protective order seeking to prevent Epstein +from attending the deposition. Once again, Plaintiffs are attempting to stifle this litigation +through their own delay tactics during discovery. Plaintiffs wish not only to attempt to force +Epstein to trial without any meaningful discovery, but now wish to ban Epstein from any +depositions, thereby preventing him from assisting his attorneys in his very own defense. What's +next - will Plaintiffs seek to prevent Epstein from attending any of the trials that result from the +lawsuits Jane Does 2-8 have initiated? Plaintiffs see millions of dollars in damages, both +compensatory and punitive, against Defendant. +6. +Defendant is filing this emergency motion and his immediate response to the +motion for protective order to guarantee his right to be present and assist counsel in deposing not +only Jane Doe No. 4, but other plaintiffs and witnesses in these cases. To hold otherwise would +violate Epstein's due process rights to defend the very allegations Plaintiffs have alleged against +him. 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, + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 305-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Page 3 of 11 +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 +stated that "Please be advised that Mr. Epstein plans to be in attendance at the deposition of your +client. He does not intend to engage in any conversation with your client. However, it is +certainly his right as a party-defendant in the lawsuit to be present and to assist counsel in the +defense of any case." Despite this right, Plaintiffs continue to attempt to control how discovery +is conducted in this case and how this court has historically governed discovery. +9. +Interestingly, in Jane Doe II, the state court case, attorney Sid +took the +deposition of the Defendant and his client, Jane Doe II, was present throughout the deposition. +This is despite her claims of "emotional trauma" set forth in her complaint. Jane Doe No. II is +also a Plaintiff in the federal court proceeding Jane Doe II v. Jeffrey Epstein (Case No. 09-CIV- +80469). Is this court going to start a precedent where it allows Plaintiffs to attend the depositions +of Jeffrey Epstein, but not allow Epstein to attend their depositions (i.e., the very Plaintiffs that +have asserted claims against him for millions of dollars)? This court should not condone such a +practice. +10. The undersigned is well aware of the court's No-Contact Order entered on July +31, 2009 (DE 238). A copy of the order is attached as Exhibit "3". In fact, the order provides +that the defendant have no direct or indirect contact with the plaintiffs, nor communications with + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 305-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Page 4 of 11 +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 296 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/11/2009 Page 4 of 33 +Page 4 +the plaintiffs either directly or indirectly. However, there is no prohibition against Mr. Epstein's +attendance at a deposition where, as is reflected in the order, the communication will be made to +the plaintiff solely through defense counsel with one or more of plaintiffs' counsel of record +present in the room in a videotaped deposition. Obviously, any inappropriate contact or +communication will certainly be flagged by the attorneys in attendance. As such, Plaintiffs +really have the cart before the horse in this instance (i.e., nothing prevents Epstein from attending +these depositions and, to the extent Plaintiffs believe that something improper occurs at any +deposition, only then can that circumstance be addressed by a motion such as the instant one.) +11. Next, Plaintiffs, Jane Does 2-8, attempt to use the Affidavit of Dr. Kliman for +every motion for protective order/objection filed to date. This also includes the two most recent +motions, which attempt to prevent Defendant's investigators from doing their job, such that the +Defendant and his attorneys can defend the claims asserted in these cases. Plaintiffs lose sight of +the fact that the court, in discussing the Non-Prosecution Agreement, inquired as to whether +Epstein and his counsel could fully defend the case, which included discovery and investigation. +All plaintiffs' counsel and the USAO responded in the affirmative. In fact, Plaintiffs universally +agreed at the June 12, 2009 hearing on Defendant's Motion to Stay that regular discovery could +proceed. See Composite Exhibit "4" at pages 26-30 & 33-34. For instance, the court asked +Plaintiffs' attorneys the following questions: +The Court: [ So again, I just want to make sure that if the cases go forward and +if Mr. Epstein defends the case as someone ordinarily would defend a case being +prosecuted against him or her, that that in and of itself is not going to cause him to +be subiect to criminal prosecution? (Ex. "A," p.26). +*** +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). + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 305-2 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 +*** +The Court: Okay. But again, you're in agreement with everyone else 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," +p.30). +Mr. Horowitz - counsel for Jane Does 2-7: Subject to your rulings, of course, +yes. (Ex. "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 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 305-2 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' +xamination in C.M.A. V. Jefirey Epstein and +counsels sought to limit the nsvchological psychiatri +• (Case No. 08- +CIV-80811), as to time, subject matter and scope. However, Magistrate +• entered an order denying the requested restrictions. +C. +Other Plaintiffs' attorneys have said that they object to requested +psychological exam of their clients), thus motions for such exams will +now need to be filed; yet all seek millions of dollars in damages for +alleged psychological and emotional trauma. +D. +Many Plaintiffs' object to discovery regarding current and past +employment (although they are 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 are now +being obtained, as well as the psychiatric exams done by Dr. Kliman, +there is reference to rape, molestation, abusive relationships (both +physical and verbal), 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. M +M.D., an expert psychiatrist retained by Defendant to conduct exams on various claimants.) See + +C. +Sought counseling due to a dysfunctional home situation, specifically with +She described herself as being angry, bitter, +depressed and having body image problems; +Had an ex-boyfriend, Preston Vinyard, who was, on information and +belief, a drug dealer who she lived with; +Had drug and alcohol problems herself; and + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 305-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Page 7 of 11 +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 296 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/11/2009 Page 7 of 33 +Page 7 +D. +Spoke with two psychiatrists when she was sixteen or seventeen (before +this lawsuit!) and did not reference Epstein, but did reference her +boyfriend and family issues. +17. There are police reports that reflect that: +In September 2004, a battery report was filed regarding Jane Doe No. 4 +and Vinyard based on an argument where he grabbed her by the neck and +began spitting on her and calling her a cheater. +B. +Also in September 2004, there was a domestic violence file opened where +Vinyard was physically and verbally abusive to Jane Doe No. 4, his +girlfriend at the time. There is reference that the two started a serious +relationship in January 2002, when she was only fourteen (14) years old. +C. +Vinyard was arrested in December 2003, and charged with reckless +driving and leaving the scene of the accident with Jane Doe No. 4, when +their vehicle hit a tree and they fled. +18. +Moreover, an ex-boyfriend of Jane Doe No. 4 died in a DUI accident and it took +her two years to get over his death, and another good friend of hers, "Jen," died in an automobile +accident involving drinking. Within her Amended Complaint and Answers to Interrogatories, +she indicates that she went to Epstein's house on several occasions. However, at no time did she +call the police, at no time did she report any traumatic or severe emotional trauma, nor alleged +coercion, force or improper behavior by Epstein until she got a "lawyer" and is now pursuing +claims for millions of dollars. Epstein's assistance to his attorneys at these depositions regarding +the above issues is not only a constitutional due process right afforded to him but essential given +the fact that this court has ruled that Plaintiffs' depositions can only occur one time, no "second +bite" absent a court order. +19. +Given the breadth of the allegations made against Epstein and the substantial +damages sought, Epstein has an unequivocal and constitutional right to be present at any +deposition such that he can assist his counsel with the defense of these cases. See infra. Dr. +• + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 305-2 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 case 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. +Discussion of Law Requiring the Denial of the Requested Protective Order +Rule 26(c)(1)(E), Fed.R. Civ.P. (2009), governing protective orders, provides in relevant +part that: +pre are or espere, intring are a reason, pression or +indue burden or +(E) designating the persons who may be present while the discovery is conducted; + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 305-2 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 +are being deposed, Plaintiffs generally rely on treatise material from +8 Federal +Practice & Procedure Civ.2d, §2041, and cases cited therein. The case of Gaella v. Onassis, 487 +F.2d 986, at 997 (2d Cir. 1973), cited by Plaintiffs, makes clear that the exclusion of a party from +a deposition "should be ordered rarely indeed." Unlike the Gaella case, there is no showing by +each 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. Criton, Jr. +Michael J. Pike +Attorney for Defendant Epstein + + +Case 9:08-Cv-80119-KAM Document 305-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Page 10 of +11 +Entered on FLSD Docket 09/11/2009 Page 10 of 33 +Page 10 +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 11th day of +September, 2009. +Certificate of Service +Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein +Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/,| +Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. +Brad I +1. Esq. +Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. +Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler +Mermelstein & 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 +bedwards@rra-law.com +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08- +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +Counsel for Plaintiffs +In related Cases Nos. 08-80069, 08-80119, 08- +80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, +08-80993, 08- Paul G. Cassell, Esq. +80994 +Pro Hac Vice +332 South 1400 E, Room 101 +Richard Horace Willits, Esq. +Richard H. Willits, P.A. +Salt Lake City, UT 84112 +801-585-5202 +2290 10* Avenue North +801-585-6833 Fax +Suite 404 +cassellp@law.utah.edu +Lake Worth, FL 33461 +Co-counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe +561-582-7600 +Fax: 561-588-8819 +Isidro M. +Esq. +Counsel for Plaintif in Related Case No. 08. 22 +| Law Firm, P.A. +224 Datura Street, Suite 900 +reelrhw@hotmail.com +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561-832-7732 +561-832-7137 F +Jack Scarola, Esq. +isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net +Jack P. Esq. +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08- +Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, 80469 +P.A. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 305-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Page 11 of +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM +Document 296 +Entered on FLSD Docket 09/11/2009 Page 11 of 33 +Page 11 +2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard +West Palm Beach, FL 33409 +561-686-6300 +Fax: 561-383-9424 +isx@searcylaw.com +jph@searcylaw.com +Counsel for Plaintiff, C.M.A. +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 +riosefsberg@podhurst.com +kezell@podhurst.com +Bruce Reinhart, Esq. +Counsel for Plaintiffs in Related Cases Nos. +Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A. +09-80591 and 09-80656 +250 S. Australian Avenue +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561-202-6360 +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South +Fax: 561-828-0983 +ecf@brucereinhartlaw.com +Counsel for Defendant +West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 +Fax: 561-835-8691 +Theodore J. Leopold, Esq. +Spencer T. Kuvin, Esq. +Cens 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 +skuvin@riccilaw.com +tleopold@riccilaw.com +ROBERT D/CRITTON, JR., ESQ. +Florida Bar No. 224162 +rcrit@bclclaw.com +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. +Florida Bar #617296 +mpike@bclclaw.com +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN +303 Banyan Blvd., Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561/842-2820 Phone +561/515-3148 Fax +(Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a761423e336ba24a6849bcce64ffeb82e9ad2640fa02b4ce053d2bd48ac779d8.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a761423e336ba24a6849bcce64ffeb82e9ad2640fa02b4ce053d2bd48ac779d8.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..64e3f1080fb6af7f7eb3c1bd857b5c599bc8ae11 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a761423e336ba24a6849bcce64ffeb82e9ad2640fa02b4ce053d2bd48ac779d8.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -272, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "a761423e336ba24a6849bcce64ffeb82e9ad2640fa02b4ce053d2bd48ac779d8", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 15, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "5b25f79526f1c19d8c47e4a292ddf8e676a78bbac2134a90e9b8d6057c22c19b", + "output_sha256": "34ab9ab52ba95b487ea757cf1f0853e85019e5d894df4c67b31302c864a63d67", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a78c9e4dc467a4ffd6fedf693de3ada73d1c925a376777adc018baa76414c12a.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a78c9e4dc467a4ffd6fedf693de3ada73d1c925a376777adc018baa76414c12a.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b9325db0c612b741a20b30677440a68b826037dd --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a78c9e4dc467a4ffd6fedf693de3ada73d1c925a376777adc018baa76414c12a.md @@ -0,0 +1,25 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 246 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/13/2014 Page 1 of 1 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/ +JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2 +v. +UNITED STATES +ORDER GRANTING JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S PROSPECTIVE LIMITED +INTERVENTION AT THE REMEDY STAGE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS +This matter is before the Court on Jeffrey Epstein's unopposed Motion for Prospective +Limited Intervention at the Remedy Stage of These Proceedings (DE 207), as well as Jane Doe +No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2's Motion for an expedited ruling on this motion (DE 245). Having +carefully considered the same and finding good cause show, it is +ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2's motion (DE 245) is +GRANTED, also +ORDERED AND ADJUDGED THAT Jeffrey Epstein's motion (DE 207) is GRANTED +and he allowed to intervene with regard to any remedy issue concerning the non-prosecution +agreement in this case. +DONE AND ORDERED in +at West Palm Beach, Florid, this 13 day of +February, 2014. +KENNETH A. MARRA +UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE +cc: +All counsel diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a78c9e4dc467a4ffd6fedf693de3ada73d1c925a376777adc018baa76414c12a.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a78c9e4dc467a4ffd6fedf693de3ada73d1c925a376777adc018baa76414c12a.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0a85197e6e69b9dceabd79d81a3b4d7a0bfbfa31 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a78c9e4dc467a4ffd6fedf693de3ada73d1c925a376777adc018baa76414c12a.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "a78c9e4dc467a4ffd6fedf693de3ada73d1c925a376777adc018baa76414c12a", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "287ab62a8a1843c4f20433fddc892319613f4b39deaa78927233b66940fe5113", + "output_sha256": "26a914d3e2a15fb09e03aac3953201dc54c52b75b9f20a55375dbca46dcc8570", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a79db547f7e2bd72b2d3fbaf9d8e8dbd57c6bc6aa6eb7bfd7b9f5ed27fc8cfe9.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a79db547f7e2bd72b2d3fbaf9d8e8dbd57c6bc6aa6eb7bfd7b9f5ed27fc8cfe9.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..46231a7ed3a95f2636b1e8bb1a86aebf3ee1ed78 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a79db547f7e2bd72b2d3fbaf9d8e8dbd57c6bc6aa6eb7bfd7b9f5ed27fc8cfe9.md @@ -0,0 +1,291 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 559-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2010 Page 1 of 10 +@cument 25 Entered on FLSD Dogst 03/18/2010 Page 1 of 10 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO. 10-80015-Cr-Marra/ +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA +VS. +ALFREDO RODRIGUEZ, +Defendant. +PLEA AGREEMENT +The United States of America and Alfredo Rodriguez (hereinafter referred to as the +"defendant") enter into the following agreement: +The Charge to Which the Defendant Is Pleading Guilty: The defendant agrees +to plead guilty to the sole count of the Information, which charges that, from at least as early +as January 18, 2007, through on or about November 3, 2009, in Palm Beach County, in the +Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, the defendant did corruptly conceal a record, +document, or other object, with the intent to impair the object's availability for use in an +official proceeding, that is proceedings before a federal grand jury, and otherwise corruptly +obstructed and impeded said official proceeding; in violation of Title 18, United States Code, +Section 1512(c). +2. +The Elements of the Offense of Conviction: The elements of the offense of +obstruction of justice, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1512(c), are as +follows: + +"B" + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 559-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2010 Page 2 of 10 +document 25 Entered on FLSD Dog +at 03/18/2010 Page 2 of 10 +First, that the defendant concealed a record, document, or other object with the +intent to impair the object's availability for use in an official proceeding, or otherwise +obstructed or impeded that proceeding; +Second, that the defendant did so "corruptly," that is, wrongfully and with +improper purpose; and +Third, that the defendant's conduct had a relationship in time, causation or +logic with the official proceeding, that is, that the endeavor had the natural and +probable effect of interfering with the due administration of justice. +3. +Statutory Penalties: The defendant understands and acknowledges that, as to +the charge contained in the Information, the Court may impose a maximum sentence of +twenty (20) years' imprisonment to be followed by a term of supervised release of up to three +(3) years, and may impose a fine of up to $250,000. The defendant also understands that, in +addition to any term of imprisonment and supervised release and/or any fine that is imposed, +the Court may order him to pay restitution to any victim of his offense, as required by law. +The defendant understands and acknowledges that a violation of the terms of his supervised +release can result in additional criminal penalties. +4. +Special Assessment: The defendant further understands and acknowledges that, +in addition to the sentence imposed under paragraph 3 of this Agreement, a special +assessment in the amount of $100 will be imposed. The defendant agrees that any special +assessment imposed shall be paid at the time of sentencing. +Applicability of Sentencing Guidelines: The defendant is aware that the + + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 559-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2010 Page 3 of 10 +Pocument 25 Entered on FLSD Dop +et 03/18/2010 Page 3 of 10 +sentence will be imposed by the Court after considering the Federal Sentencing Guidelines +and Policy Statements (hereinafter "Sentencing Guidelines"). The defendant acknowledges +and understands that the Court will compute an advisory sentence under the Sentencing +Guidelines and that the applicable guidelines will be determined by the Court relying in part +on the results of a Pre-Sentence Investigation by the Court's Probation Office, which +investigation will commence after the entry of the defendant's guilty plea. The defendant is +also aware that, under certain circumstances, the Court may depart from the advisory +sentencing guideline range that it has computed, and may raise or lower that advisory +sentence under the Sentencing Guidelines. The defendant further understands that the Court +is required to consider the advisory guideline range determined under the sentencing +guidelines, but is not bound to impose that sentence; the Court is permitted to tailor the +ultimate sentence in light of other statutory concerns, and such sentence may be either more +severe or less severe than the Sentencing Guidelines' advisory sentence. Knowing these +facts, the defendant understands and acknowledges that the Court has the authority to impose +any sentence within and up to the statutory maximum authorized by law for the offense +identified in paragraph 1 and that the defendant cannot withdraw his guilty plea solely as a +result of the sentence imposed. +Rights Waived by Pleading Guilty: The defendant understands that by pleading +guilty, he knowingly and voluntarily waives the following rights: +a. +the right to plead not guilty and to persist in a plea of not guilty; +b. +the right to a speedy and public trial before a jury of his peers; + + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 559-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2010 Page 4 of 10 +cument 25 Entered on FLSD Dogst 03/18/2010 Page 4 of 10 +C. +the right to the effective assistance of counsel at trial, including, if the +defendant could not afford an attorney, the right to have the Court appoint an attorney +for the defendant; +d. +the right at trial to be presumed innocent until guilt has been proven +beyond a reasonable doubt by the United States; +e. +the right at trial to confront and cross-examine witnesses against the +defendant; +f. +the right to compel or subpoena the testimony of witnesses and other +evidence to present at trial; +the right at trial to testify or to remain silent, and the right that such +silence could not be used against the defendant; +h. +the right to challenge the sufficiency of the Information; and +7. +i. +the right to appeal any pretrial rulings or a finding of guilt. +Government's Right to Disclose Information to the Court: The Office of the +United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida (hereinafter "Office") reserves the +right to inform the Court and the Probation Office of all facts pertinent to the sentencing +process, including all relevant information concerning the offenses committed, whether +charged or not, as well as concerning the defendant and the defendant's background. Subject +only to the express terms of any agreed-upon sentencing recommendations contained in this +Agreement, this Office further reserves the right to make any recommendation as to the +quality and quantity of punishment. + + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 559-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2010 Page 5 of 10 +• +Document 25 Entered on FLSD Dogst 03/18/2010 Page 5 of 10 +8. +Acceptance of Responsibility: The United States and the defendant agree that, +although not binding on the Probation Office or the Court, they will jointly recommend that +the Court should reduce by two levels the sentencing guideline level applicable to the +defendant's offense, pursuant to Section 3E1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines, based upon the +defendant's recognition and affirmative acceptance of personal responsibility. If at the time +of sentencing the defendant's offense level is determined to be 16 or greater, and the +defendant complies with the requirements of Section 3E1.1, the government will make a +motion requesting an additional one-level decrease pursuant to Section 3E1.1(b) of the +Sentencing Guidelines, stating that the defendant has assisted authorities in the investigation +or prosecution of his own misconduct by timely notifying authorities of his intention to enter +a plea of guilty, thereby permitting the government to avoid preparing for trial and permitting +the government and the Court to allocate their resources efficiently. +Limitation on Joint Sentencing Recommendations: The defendant understands +and agrees that the United States will not be required to make the motion and sentencing +recommendation set forth in paragraph (8) if the defendant: (a) fails or refuses to make a full, +accurate and complete disclosure to the Probation Office of the circumstances surrounding +the relevant offense conduct; (b) is found to have misrepresented facts to the government +prior to entering this plea agreement; (c) commits any misconduct after entering into this plea +agreement, including but not limited to committing a state or federal offense, violating any +term of release, or making false statements or misrepresentations to any governmental entity +or official; or (d) fails to provide information when requested to do so by this Office. + + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 559-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2010 Page 6 of 10 +cument 25 Entered on FLSD DogSt 03/18/2010 Page 6 of 10 +10. Factual Proffer: The defendant, his counsel, and the United States further agree +that, had this case proceeded to trial, the United States would have introduced the following +evidence, which is sufficient to support a plea of guilty and proves beyond a reasonable doubt +that the defendant is guilty of the charge contained in the Information. +The defendant was formerly employed as a property manager by Jeffrey +Epstein ("Epstein"), and lived and worked at Epstein's residence in Palm Beach, Florida, in +the Southern District of Florida, in 2004 and 2005. +b. +In 2006, the defendant was interviewed by members of the Town of +Palm Beach Police Department regarding allegations ofillicit sexual conduct between Epstein +and several minor females. On January 18, 2007, Special Agents of the Federal Bureau of +Investigation also interviewed the defendant in connection with a federal grand jury +investigation of Epstein's criminal activity. The defendant was asked by law enforcement +to produce any information or evidence in his possession related to Epstein's criminal +activity. The defendant also was provided with contact information for FBI Special Agents +and was asked to contact them if he remembered or discovered any further information. +In July and August 2009, the defendant was subpoenaed to appear for +deposition in connection with several civil lawsuits filed against Epstein by minor female +victims of his criminal conduct. The subpoenas called for the defendant to appear and +produce documents related to Epstein. The defendant appeared for deposition but did not +produce any documents. +Beginning in August 2009, after the conclusion of the second deposition, + + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 559-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2010 Page 7 of 10 +• +acument 25 Entered on FLSD Dog +et 03/18/2010 Page 7 of 10 +the defendant contacted a cooperating witness (CW) and informed the CW that he had +additional information that he had not previously disclosed to any law enforcement agency +or any of the civil attorneys, including lists of "hundreds" of additional victims and their +telephone numbers. The defendant agreed to turn this information over to the CW in +exchange for $50,000. The CW tried to convince the defendant to turn over the material +voluntarily, but the defendant refused. The CW then approached law enforcement. During +a consensually monitored telephone call on October 28, 2009, the CW told the defendant that +he would be contacted by an associate of the CW regarding the purchase of the material. The +"associate" was, in fact, an undercover Special Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation +("UCE"). +e. +On October 29, 2009, the UCE contacted the defendant via telephone. +The defendant again explained that he would only turn over the information in exchange for +monetary compensation. During the conversation, the defendant admitted that he knew that +the information was relevant to the FBI's criminal investigation and was called for by the +investigation. The defendant explained that he had not turned over the information to the FBI +because: (1) it was his "property" and he should be compensated for it; and (2) he was afraid +that Epstein would make him "disappear" or otherwise harm him, and the information was +his "insurance policy." +On November 3, 2009, the defendant met with the UCE ata +predetermined location. During the meeting, the defendant produced a small bound book and +several sheets of legal pad paper containing hand-written notes. The defendant discussed in + + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 559-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2010 Page 8 of 10 +cument 25 Entered on FLSD Dog +et 03/18/2010 Page 8 of 10 +detail the information contained within the book, which he admitted removing from Epstein's +home without Epstein's permission, and identified important information to the UCE. In +addition, the defendant admitted that he had previously lied to the FBI during the course of +the federal criminal investigation of Epstein. The defendant asked the UCE about the +$50,000.00, took possession of the money, and began counting it. The defendant was then +detained for Obstruction of Official Proceedings, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, +Section 1512(c), and questioned. After Miranda warnings were administered by agents, the +defendant waived his rights and signed a written waiver of those rights. The defendant +admitted that he had the documents and book in his possession and had never turned them +over to local law enforcement or the FBI. In addition, the defendant advised he had +witnessed naked girls whom he believed were minors at the pool area of Epstein's home, +knew that his former employer was engaging in sexual contact with underage girls, and had +viewed pornographic images of underage girls on computers in Epstein's home. +The items that the defendant attempted to sell to the UCE were reviewed +by an FBI Special Agent involved in the federal grand jury investigation of Epstein. As the +defendant had described, the items contained information material to the Epstein +investigation, including names of material witnesses and additional victims. The items also +would have corroborated testimony of victims already identified. Had the items been +produced in response to the inquiries of the state or federal authorities, or if the defendant had +contacted the federal authorities at any time after his initial interview to produce these items, +the materials would have been presented to the federal grand jury. + + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 559-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2010 Page 9 of 10 +acument 25 Entered on FLSD Dog +et 03/18/2010 Page 9 of 10 +11. +No Promises or Representations Regarding Ultimate Sentence: The defendant +is aware that the sentence has not yet been determined by the Court. The defendant also is +aware that any estimate of the probable sentencing range or sentence that the defendant may +receive, whether that estimate comes from the defendant's attorney, the government, or the +probation office, is a prediction, not a promise, and is not binding on the government, the +probation office, or the Court. The defendant understands further that any recommendation +that the government makes to the Court as to sentencing, whether pursuant to this agreement +or otherwise, is not binding on the Court and the Court may disregard the recommendation +in its entirety. The defendant acknowledges that no one has promised of guaranteed what +sentence the Court will impose. The defendant understands and acknowledges, as previously +acknowledged in paragraph 5 above, that the defendant may not withdraw his plea based +ироп (a) the Court's decision not to accept a sentencing recommendation made by the +defendant and/or the government, or (b) the fact that he received an incorrect estimate of the +sentence that he would receive, whether that estimate came from his attorney, the United +States, and/or the Probation Office. +12. Voluntariness of Plea: The defendant agrees that he has entered into this Plea +Agreement freely and voluntarily, and that no threats or promises, other than the promises +contained in this written Plea Agreement, were made to induce the defendant to enter his plea +of guilty. +13. +Consent to Forfeiture/Disposal/Destruction of Items: The defendant agrees to +forfeit all interests in any items seized during the course of this investigation, whether the + + + +Case 9:08-Cv-80119-KAM Document 559-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2010 Page 10 of +cument 25 Entered on FLSD Dogket 03/18/2010 Page 10 of 10 +defendant currently owns, has previously owned, or over which the defendant currently, от +has in the past, exercised control, directly or indirectly. Defendant agrees to hoid the United +States, its agents, and employees harmless from any claims whatsoever in connection with +the forfeiture, seizure, or destruction of property covered by this agreement. The defendant +agrees that this property may be destroyed or disposed of in accordance with the policies and +procedures of the custodial agency. The defendant further agrees to waive all constitutional +and statutory challenges in any manner (including direct appeal, habeas corpus, or any other +means) to any destruction or disposal of property carried out in accordance with this Plea +Agreement on any grounds, including that the forfeiture constitutes an excessive fine or +punishment. Defendant acknowledges that all property covered by this agreement is subject +to forfeiture as property involved in illegal conduct giving rise to forfeiture. +14. Entire Agreement: This is the entire agreement and understanding between the +United States and the defendant. There are no other agreements, promises, representations, +or understandings. +Date: 3/18/10 +Date: +3/17/10 +Date: 3-17-10 +By: +By: +JEFFREY H. SLOMAN +UNITED STATES ATTORNEY +AM Lina +ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY +PRod +riquca +ALFRET +O RODRIGUEZ, DEFENDANT +VE LEE BRANNON, ESQ. +ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a79db547f7e2bd72b2d3fbaf9d8e8dbd57c6bc6aa6eb7bfd7b9f5ed27fc8cfe9.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a79db547f7e2bd72b2d3fbaf9d8e8dbd57c6bc6aa6eb7bfd7b9f5ed27fc8cfe9.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6b75b4ac76a50935ef8702a8299482fc41e309dd --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a79db547f7e2bd72b2d3fbaf9d8e8dbd57c6bc6aa6eb7bfd7b9f5ed27fc8cfe9.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -472, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "a79db547f7e2bd72b2d3fbaf9d8e8dbd57c6bc6aa6eb7bfd7b9f5ed27fc8cfe9", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 21, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "29cc3afabb66e95eafdcc6dc5d68a5946757afe5bab52dc9c66c5d7371ec8232", + "output_sha256": "de4fe5a860e8d1b60937600b272057281580b36c279cfb7f2ddff7cb359b6e9f", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a7b6a1d20e00e0f52bfae071e3a144a00403ae2c56758d9fa534c140426bd8c5.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a7b6a1d20e00e0f52bfae071e3a144a00403ae2c56758d9fa534c140426bd8c5.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e17ebb2394d217428cf2414e8e50958e20ed6d58 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a7b6a1d20e00e0f52bfae071e3a144a00403ae2c56758d9fa534c140426bd8c5.md @@ -0,0 +1,26 @@ +Case 9:09-cV-80469-KAM Document 13-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 1 of 1 +27 +THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT +IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +CASE ID: 502008CA020614XXXXMB +DIVISION: AB +JANE DOE II +VS +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +CLERK'S NOTICE OF REASSIGNMENT +Pursuant to Court Order of the Honorable JUDGE DIANA | | dated APRIL 2, 2009, +the above styled case is reassigned to Division AB, JUDGE DONALD W HAFELE for all +WITNESS my hand and seal on APRIL 10, 2009. +39 +¡ROBATE +Sharon R. Bock +Clerk & Comptroller +i By: kudra Vrauger +Deputy Clerk +D +Robert Critton Jr, Esquire +Michael Pike, Esquire +Isidro T +1, Esquire +Jack Goldberger, Esquire +EXHIBIT'B". diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a7b6a1d20e00e0f52bfae071e3a144a00403ae2c56758d9fa534c140426bd8c5.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a7b6a1d20e00e0f52bfae071e3a144a00403ae2c56758d9fa534c140426bd8c5.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6565b32452967da85f35b59e26e4e2a840bdfdb2 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a7b6a1d20e00e0f52bfae071e3a144a00403ae2c56758d9fa534c140426bd8c5.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "a7b6a1d20e00e0f52bfae071e3a144a00403ae2c56758d9fa534c140426bd8c5", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "903199648e7f6d1ae1ff3803667ce4456dc1d08c213fd11cd1763c28a44086fb", + "output_sha256": "f70177fdbdf8d7eb8d6d67ee7f1cbef88288517ee53a4eff81816c8977e3db48", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a7bb4a690f03bbbfe8891d038de8275918fcad9e9cf5010e9bd5cc07bfe54e28.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a7bb4a690f03bbbfe8891d038de8275918fcad9e9cf5010e9bd5cc07bfe54e28.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a128a59e8975e6ee5b4919e102c0659e55f3392c --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a7bb4a690f03bbbfe8891d038de8275918fcad9e9cf5010e9bd5cc07bfe54e28.md @@ -0,0 +1,120 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 88 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/14/2009 Page 1 of 5 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff, +vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 5, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 88| +Entered on FLSD Docket 05/14/2009 Page 2 of 5 +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 6, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-80994-CIV-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 7, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-80993-CIV-MARRA/L +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +C.M.A., +CASE NO.: 08-80811-CIV-MARRA/_ +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08- 80893-CIV-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al, +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 88 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/14/2009 Page 3 of 5 +Defendants. +DOE II, +CASE NO.: 09- 80469-CIV-MARRA +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al, +Defendants. +JANE DOE NO. 101, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 09- 80591-CIV-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 102 +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 09- 80656-CIV-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES FOR PURPOSES OF DISCOVERY AND +PROCEDURAL MOTIONS THAT RELATE TO MULTIPLE CASES +THIS CAUSE is before the Court sua sponte. +In the interests of judicial economy and +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 88 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/14/2009 Page 4 of 5 +efficiency, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: +1. The above-styled cases are hereby CONSOLIDATED for purposes of discovery and +for procedural motions that relate to multiple cases. +2. Hereinafter, all motions and other court filings that relate to discovery and all +procedural motions that relate to multiple cases shall be styled with all of the case names and +numbers, consistent with the styling of this Order, and shall be FILED ONLY IN Jane Doe No. +2 v. Epstein, case no. 08-80119, which is the lowest-numbered pending case. Any motions styled +incorrectly or filed in multiple cases will be stricken from the docket for failure to follow the +Court's Order. +3. The parties may file separate motions to dismiss, answers to the complaint, summary +judgment motions, motions in limine and other substantive motions that pertain to their +individual cases and their individual trials under their individual case styles. +4. Production of documents by any party or non-party that relate to multiple cases need +be produced only once. +5. Defendant is limited to a single deposition of each Plaintiff, during which Defendant +may depose the Plaintiff as both a party and a witness. +6. Defendant(s) may be deposed only once. +7. Any other witnesses common to multiple cases may be deposed only once. +8. For depositions, Local Rule 26.1 K (limiting deposition time to one day of seven +hours) is waived so as to allow each party an adequate opportunity to develop fully the record as +it may relate to that party. However, this waiver shall not be construed as authority for any party +to take unnecessarily long depositions, or abuse the process. Any abuses of this waiver +4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 88 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/14/2009 Page 5 of 5 +shall result in the imposition of appropriate sanctions against the offending party. +DONE AND ORDERED in +Florida, this 14" day of May, 2009 +at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, +KENNETH A. MARRA +United States District Judge +Copies furnished to: +all counsel of record +Magistrate Judge Linnea R. +5 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a7bb4a690f03bbbfe8891d038de8275918fcad9e9cf5010e9bd5cc07bfe54e28.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a7bb4a690f03bbbfe8891d038de8275918fcad9e9cf5010e9bd5cc07bfe54e28.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..71dd5b04e8870627b70bde517f4a7dee12301e4b --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a7bb4a690f03bbbfe8891d038de8275918fcad9e9cf5010e9bd5cc07bfe54e28.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -60, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "a7bb4a690f03bbbfe8891d038de8275918fcad9e9cf5010e9bd5cc07bfe54e28", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 5, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "7a61cef51e3230ea9c6893bdd7b4a086c44bff7dbfcf82e8cb86903c0309ae7d", + "output_sha256": "68e86fd22c56ba47ff9a2587f6a7c95153d5d4b77651b5bf30d9f9157d6d9a3c", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a7c06bc1dbc49f1386e1a10c88986541a84642938381d9a5dc4e0737f8788fe1.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a7c06bc1dbc49f1386e1a10c88986541a84642938381d9a5dc4e0737f8788fe1.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..36568b2926775453acb0fc1121e07ad8a4b40f71 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a7c06bc1dbc49f1386e1a10c88986541a84642938381d9a5dc4e0737f8788fe1.md @@ -0,0 +1,289 @@ +• Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 94 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/14/2010 Page 1 of 9 +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRAL +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +JUN 1 4 2010 +STEVEN US, SORE +S.D. OF FLA. - W.PB +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 +Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein's Emergency Motion For Protective Order, Motion to +Quash and Motion for Attorneys' Fees, With Incorporated Memorandum Of Law +Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, (hereinafter "EPSTEIN") by and through his +undersigned attorneys, hereby files his Emergency Motion For Protective Order, Motion +to Quash and Motion for Attorneys' fees and Costs, With Incorporated Memorandum Of +Law. In support, Defendant states as follows: +1. As this Court is well aware, these cases have been consolidated for discovery. +However, on April 1, 2010, Plaintiff's counsel, Spencer Kuvin, filed C.L. v. Epstein, +Case No. 10-80447-cv-Marra/ +Ill, and that case has not been consolidated with the +other related cases for purposes of discovery. +2. On April 20, 2010, Mr. Kuvin served Maritza Milagros Vasquez with a subpoena +for deposition, which is set to occur tomorrow. See Exhibit "A". However, this Notice +and subpoena for deposition must be stricken/quashed as Mr. Kuvin, on behalf of his +client, has failed to comply with Fed.R.Civ.P. 26 (d). That rule states, in pertinent part, + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 94 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/14/2010 Page 2 of 9 +that: "[a] party may not seek discovery from any source before the parties have conferred +as required by Rule 26(f)...." Mr. Kuvin, on behalf of his client, has not complied with +Rule 26(f) and, therefore, the subpoena for deposition must be stricken/quashed and a +Protective Order should be entered pursuant to Rule 26(c) forbidding the deposition from +occurring for non-compliance with the applicable rules. In Varo, Inc. v. Litton Systems. +Inc., 129 F.R.D. 139, 141 (N.D. TX 1989), the court held that one cannot be compelled to +comply with a withdrawn subpoena. Id. Likewise, the court here cannot compel Maritza +Milagros Vasquez to attend any deposition when the subpoena itself is invalid, especially +when it will require those involved in these matters to incur substantial attorneys' fees. +3. Next, Mr. Brad +, counsel for Jane Doe, cross-noticed Maritza Milagros +Vasquez's deposition in Jane Doe (#08-80893 - Exhibit "B"), which matter is already set +for trial in July 2010. Discovery concluded on May 31, 2010 (see DE 531). +Accordingly, the cross notice served by Jane Doe must be stricken/quashed and a +protective order entered because the subpoena itself in invalid due to C.L's counsel's +failure to comply with Rule 26(d) and discovery in Jane Doe (80893) has concluded. +Rule 7.1 Certification +I hereby certify that counsel for the respective parties communicated by e-mail in a +good faith effort to resolve the issues set forth above prior to the filing of this Motion and +none of the issues were resolved. +WHEREFORE, Defendant requests that this Court enter an order granting +Defendant's motion for protective order and motion to quash. Defendant further requests +that this Court award his attorney's fees and costs associated with this motion, in +accordance with Rule 37, Fed.R.Civ.P. and applicable Local Rules and specifically: +a. Quash CL's subpoena attached as Exhibit "A"; + + +• Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 94 +Entered on FLSD Docket 06/14/2010 Page 3 of 9 +b. Quash and/or strike Jane Doe's cross notice as to Exhibit "A" because +Exhibit "A" is invalid and discovery has concluded in Jane Doe; +c. Award attorneys to Defendant for CL and Jane Doe's noncompliance with +these discovery matters; and +MICHAELS. PIKÉ, 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 144 day of June, 2010 +Respectfully submitted +ROBERY +Flotida Bar No. 224162 +rcrit@bclclaw.com +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ +Florida Bar #617296 +mpike@bclclaw.com +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & +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) +Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. +Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. +Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. +18205 Biscayne Boulevard +Certificate of Service +Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein +Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRAJ| +Brad +_ Esq. +Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler +401 East Las Olas Boulevard +Suite 1650 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 94 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/14/2010 Page 4 of 9 +Suite 2218 +Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 +Miami, FL 33160 +Phone: 954-522-3456 +305-931-2200 +Fax: 954-527-8663 +Fax: 305-931-0877 +bedwards@rra-law.com +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +08-80893 +Counsel for Plaintiffs +In related Cases Nos. 08-80069, 08-80119, Paul G. Cassell, Esq. +08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80993, +Pro Hac Vice +08-80994 +332 South 1400 E, Room 101 +Salt Lake City, UT 84112 +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +801-585-5202 +Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +801-585-6833 Fax +250 Australian Avenue South +cassellp@law.utah.edu +Suite 1400 +Co-counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe +West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 +561-659-8300 +Fax: 561-835-8691 +jagesq@bellsouth.net +Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein +Isidro M. Esq. +|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 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 94. Entered on FLSD Docket 06/14/2010 Page 5 of 9 +AO 88A (Rev. 06/09) Subpoene to Testify at a Deposition in a Civil Action +for the +Southern District of Florida +C.L. +Plaintiff +V. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Civil Action No. 10-80447-cv-Marra/ +(If the action is pending in another district, state where: +Defendant +SUBPOENA TO TESTIFY AT A DEPOSITION IN A CIVIL ACTION +To: MARITZA MILAGROS VASQUEZ, 1253 SW 21ST TERRACE, APT 21, MIAMI, FL 33145-2922 +• Testimony: YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear at the time, date, and place set forth below to testify at a +deposition to be taken in this civil action. If you are an organization that is not a party in this case, you must designate +one or more officers, directors, or managing agents, or designate other persons who consent to testify on your behalf +about the following matters, or those set forth in an attachment: +Place: INTELLIGENT OFFICE, 701 BRICKELL AVENUE, +SUITE 1550, MIAMI, FL 33131 +Date and Time: +05/18/2010 10:00 am +The deposition will be recorded by this method: VIDEOGRAPHER AND COURT. REPORTER +D Production: You, or your representatives, must also bring with you to the deposition the following documents, +electronically stored information, or objects, and permit their inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of the +material: +The provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c), relating to your protection as a person subject to a subpoena, and Rule +at achend (e), relating to yourduty to respond to this subpoena and the potential consequences of not doing so, are +Date: +04/08/2010 +CLERK OF COURT +Sigrature of Clerk of Deputy Clerk +The name, address, e-mail, and telephone number of the attorney representing (name of party) +C.L. +., who issues or requests this subpoena, are: +SPENCER T. KUVIN, ESQ., LEOPOLD-KUVIN, P.A., 2925 PGA BOULEVARD, SUITE 200, PALM BEACH GARDENS, +FLORIDA 33410 +T: 561-515-1400 +F: 561-515-1401 +"A" + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM +. Document 94 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/14/2010 Page 6 of 9 +AO 8BA (Rev. 06/09) Subpoena to Testify at a Deposition in a Civil Action (Page 2) +Civil Action No. 10-80447-cv-Marra/ +PROOF OF SERVICE +(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed, R. Civ. P. 45.) +This subpoena for (name of individual and tille, if any) +was received by me on (date) +• I served the subpoena by delivering a copy to the named individual as follows: +on (date) +; or +• I returned the subpoena unexecuted because: +Unless the subpoena was issued on behalf of the United States, or one of its officers or agents, I have also +tendered to the witness fees for one day's attendance, and the mileage allowed by law, in the amount of +$ +My fees are $ +for travel and S +I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true. +for services, for a total of $ +0.00 +Date: +Server's signatyre +Printed name and title +Server's address +Additional information regarding attempted service, etc: + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 94 +Entered on FLSD Docket 06/14/2010 Page 7 of 9 +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO. 08-CV-80893-CIV-MARRAI +Vs. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et al. +Defendant. +Related Cases: +08-80119, 08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, +08-80994, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, +09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092 +PLAINTIFF'S CROSS-NOTICE OF VIDEO DEPOSITION OF +MARITZA MILAGROS VASQUEZ +PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that plaintiff, Jane Doe, will take the video deposition by +oral examination, of the persons named below, at the time, on the date, at the hour of +the place indicated: +NAME +Maritza Milagros Vasquez +DATE AND +[PLACE OF TAKING DEPOSITON +TIME +June 15, 2010 @ +Intelligent Office +10:00AM +701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1550 +Miami, FL 33131 +upon oral examination before Videographer and a Notary Public, or any other notary +public or officer authorized by law to take depositions in the State of Florida. The oral +examination will continue from day to day until completed. The depositions are being +"B + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 94 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/14/2010 Page 8 of 9 +CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA +taken for the purpose of discovery, for use at trial, or for such other purposes as are +permitted under the Rules of Court. +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing was served by e-mail on May 12, +2010 to: See attached service list. +Jaffe, Weissing, +Fistos & Lehrman, PL +425 N. Andrews Ave., Suite 2 +Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 +(954) 524-2820 +(954) 524-2822 fax +brad@pathtojustice.com +By: +Florida Bar No.: 542075 +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 94 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/14/2010 Page 9 of 9 +CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA +SERVICE LIST +Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein +United States District Court - Southern District of Florida +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +Jgoldberger@agwpa.com +Isidro@aaa@belisoutn.net +Jack +iph@searcylaw.com +Katherine Warthen Ezell +KEzell@podhurst.com +Michael James Pike +MPike@bclclaw.com +Paul G. Cassell +cassellp@law.utah.edu +Richard Horace Willits +lawyerswillits@aol.com +Robert C. Josefsberg +rjosefsberg@podhurst.com +Stuart S. Mermelstein +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +3 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a7c06bc1dbc49f1386e1a10c88986541a84642938381d9a5dc4e0737f8788fe1.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a7c06bc1dbc49f1386e1a10c88986541a84642938381d9a5dc4e0737f8788fe1.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..efbf46c1f2df69ff413841f1509bab59ac3ccee2 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a7c06bc1dbc49f1386e1a10c88986541a84642938381d9a5dc4e0737f8788fe1.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -196, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "a7c06bc1dbc49f1386e1a10c88986541a84642938381d9a5dc4e0737f8788fe1", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 10, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "0072eb272dcea4f8aa3e3994d6d54c705d4df9f5c8ea3de3aab788e89a2c5f24", + "output_sha256": "920ab73d0f623e6e27dbd2100bf85ec1ca97597b84a5e8e7f0dcdbfa56dc5a5d", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a7db378d1a3ecced418ef27a877db95962b46bee2034997be90bd61688c56b2c.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a7db378d1a3ecced418ef27a877db95962b46bee2034997be90bd61688c56b2c.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9236bd75987c18974c3904c8dd8cc51524b5ddee --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a7db378d1a3ecced418ef27a877db95962b46bee2034997be90bd61688c56b2c.md @@ -0,0 +1,79 @@ +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 66 +Filed 08/12/20 Page 1 of 2 +HADDON +N +Haddon, +and +Laura A. Menninger +150 East 10th Avenue +Denver, Colorado 80203 +PH 303.831.7364 x 303.832.2628 +www.hmflaw.com +Imenninger@hmflaw.com +August 12, 2020 +VIA ECF +Hon. Debra Freeman +United States Magistrate Judge +Daniel +Moynihan +United States Courthouse +500 Pearl St. +New York, NY 10007-1312 +Re: +Order of August 5, 2020 (ECF 62) +20-cv-00484 (JGK-DCF), Doe v. Indyke, et al. +Dear Judge Freeman. +On behalf of defendant Ghislaine Maxwell, I write in reference to Your +Honor's Order of August 5, 2020 which directed, in part, that the "parties ... confer +further regarding deadlines contained in paragraphs 4 and 5, and to submit a joint +letter regarding those deadlines by" today. Respectfully, I seek one additional week +to address deadlines in the Scheduling Order as well as other issues raised by Your +Honor during the initial scheduling conference of August 5, 2020. +First and foremost, I have not had the ability to meaningfully confer with my +client regarding her decision whether to request a stay in this action and, if so, +whether it might be a request for a partial stay only as to her or a request for the entire +action to be stayed. As the Court is aware, Ms. Maxwell is currently in pretrial +detention in the Metropolitan Detention Center ("MDC"). There is no ability to visit +her in person there, nor to have any video conference with her. While she is being +allowed phone calls with counsel, they must be scheduled three days in advance. +When one lawyer for her team is allowed a call, others are permitted to be patched +through, but the calls are of limited duration and encompass a number of issues +relevant to her two active civil cases, one active civil appeal and one active criminal +case. A brief review of the dockets in those other matters reveals the number of' +issues on which she has an absolute right to consult with counsel. Oftentimes the +calls are cut short by the MDC staff. There is no ability to email her, for example, +with draft protective orders. Between last Wednesday and today, undersigned +counsel simply has not been able to confer with her sufficiently regarding this case to +answer that question, which would affect our position on the scheduling order. +Counsel does have a call scheduled for this Friday, August 14, 2020, and expects to + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 66 Filed 08/12/20 Page 2 of 2 +Hon. Debra Freeman +August 12, 2020 +Page 2 +be able to confer with her regarding this case. Ms. Maxwell therefore respectfully +requests until next Wednesday, August 19, 2020, to either agree to extended dates for +the Scheduling Order or to move for a stay. +Second, to report to Your Honor, counsel for the parties engaged in a +conferral call for over an hour on Monday, August 10. During that call, I conveyed to +the other parties that I had been unable to sufficiently confer with my client and also +that I believed our position would be at least a partial stay as to Ms. Maxwell's +deposition and written discovery. When Plaintiff's counsel asked whether "initial +disclosures" would be included in a written discovery stay, I said that it would, and +still need to confer with my client before producing those, in the event we do not ask +for a stay. He indicated he understood the challenges I am having communicating +Third, Mr. Glassman still has not made the damages disclosure ordered by +Your Honor during the August 5, 2020, call. Additionally on the call, Mr. Glassman +would not state whether he has served Rule 45 subpoenas on third parties for +documents nor whether he has obtained documents from third parties all without +notice to the parties, as required in advance by Rule 45(a)(4). Instead, Mr. Glassman +depose on dates from tie tire eques of the sate Hathen haked bather id yone was +recording the telephone call. +It is difficult to have a meaningful conferral process with such baseless +accusations and refusals to answer simple questions. Counsel is open to any relief +that Your Honor thinks appropriate, including having the conferral calls with the +Court on the line. +Respectfully Submitted, +Laura A. Menninger +CC: Counsel of Record via ECF diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a7db378d1a3ecced418ef27a877db95962b46bee2034997be90bd61688c56b2c.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a7db378d1a3ecced418ef27a877db95962b46bee2034997be90bd61688c56b2c.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..23db39794f3db66c7b5078aa1d1d84800393ce30 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a7db378d1a3ecced418ef27a877db95962b46bee2034997be90bd61688c56b2c.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -24, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "a7db378d1a3ecced418ef27a877db95962b46bee2034997be90bd61688c56b2c", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "fb373992dda22744457dc5a73d87e8c45b3c002a4428972c8d87f8a51bac6f5f", + "output_sha256": "d1aebd48a6adc4c9f3776873ef063a4914ad50f496f81b6fb9887199cd761ef4", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a7eba3510b5c14cdae5d9b00a14bfc00e76ec90aa9f7c15a6393c1689ae13c6d.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a7eba3510b5c14cdae5d9b00a14bfc00e76ec90aa9f7c15a6393c1689ae13c6d.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ac52ceeb99d189f2a63a38de1fb8a5592fbc7ba2 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a7eba3510b5c14cdae5d9b00a14bfc00e76ec90aa9f7c15a6393c1689ae13c6d.md @@ -0,0 +1,95 @@ +Case 1:19-cv-10577-LJL-DCF Document 5 +Filed 11/18/19 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK +Jane Doe 1000, +X + +USDC SPNY +DOCUMENT +ELECTRONICALLY FILED +DOC#:_ +DATE FILED: November 18, 2019 +Plaintiff(s), +-against- +19 Civ. 10577 (LGS) +ORDER +Darren K. Indyke, et al., +Defendants), : +X +LORNA G. SCHOFIELD, District Judge: +This case has been assigned to me for all purposes. It is hereby ORDERED that counsel +for all parties appear for an initial pretrial conference with the Court at the time and place listed +below. All pretrial conferences must be attended by the attorney who will serve as principal trial +counsel. Parties who are not local (within the Metropolitan tri-state area may request to attend +by phone by filing a letter motion via ECF. Any open legal issues can be addressed at the +conference. +All parties are required to register promptly as filing users on ECF. Counsel are further +required to review and comply with the Court's Individual Rules and Procedures ("Individual +Rules") (available at the Court's website, http://nysd.uscourts.gov/judge/Schofield). +Counsel are directed to confer with each other prior to the conference regarding settlement +and each of the other subjects to be considered at a Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 conference. Additionally, +in accordance with the Court's Individual Rules, the parties are hereby ORDERED to prepare a +joint Proposed Civil Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order in the form available at the +Court's website (http://nysd.uscourts.gov/judge/Schofield) and append it to their joint letter +described below. The parties must propose dates for the various deadlines even if they intend to +request a stay of discovery. +IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall file a joint letter on ECF at least seven +calendar days prior to the initial pre-trial conference, not to exceed 5 pages, providing the +following information in separate paragraphs: +(1) +A brief statement of the nature of the case, the principal claims and defenses, and the +major legal and factual issues that are most important to resolving the case, whether by +trial, settlement or dispositive motion; +(2) +A brief statement by plaintiff as to the basis of subject matter jurisdiction and venue, +and a brief statement by each other party as to the presence or absence of subject +matter jurisdiction and venue. Statements shall include citations to relevant statutes. + + +Case 1:19-cv-10577-LJL-DCF Document 5 Filed 11/18/19 Page 2 of 3 +In addition, in cases for which subject matter jurisdiction is founded on diversity of +citizenship, the parties shall explain the factual basis for such jurisdiction, including (i) +in the case of a corporation, the principal place of business and place of incorporation, +(ii) in the case of a partnership, limited liability company or trust, the citizenship of +each of the entity's members, shareholders, partners and/or trustees. If this information +is lengthy, it may be included in an Appendix to the letter, not to be included in the +page limit. +(3) A brief description of any (i) motions that any party seeks or intends to file, including +the principal legal and other grounds in support of and opposition to the motion, (ii) +pending motions and (iii) other applications that are expected to be made at the status +conference; +(4) +A brief description of any discovery that has already taken place, and any discovery +that is likely to be admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence and material to +proof of claims and defenses raised in the pleadings. (This is narrower than the general +scope of discovery stated in Rule 26(b)(1)); +(5) A computation of each category of damages claimed, see Fed. R. Civ. P. +26(a)(1)(A)(iil); +(6) +A statement describing the status of any settlement discussions and whether the parties +would like a settlement conference; and +(7) Any other information that the parties believe may assist this Court in resolving the +action. +If this case has been settled or otherwise terminated, counsel are not required to appear, +provided that a stipulation of discontinuance, voluntary dismissal, or other proof of termination is +sent prior to the date of the conference via email to the Orders and Judgment Clerk at the +following email address: orders_and_judgments@nysd.uscourts.gov. +Any request for an extension or adjournment shall be made only by letter as provided in +Individual Rule I.B.2 and must be received at least 48 hours before the deadline or conference. +Unless counsel are notified that the conference has been adjourned, it will be held as scheduled. +Counsel who have noticed an appearance as of the issuance of this order are directed +2 + + +Case 1:19-cv-10577-LJL-DCF Document 5 Filed 11/18/19 Page 3 of 3 +DATE AND PLACE OF CONFERENCE: January 9, 2020 +at 10:40 a.m, in +Courtroom 1106 of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, +Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse at 40 Foley Square, New York, New York. Please +monitor the docket the day before the conference, as the time may change slightly. +Dated: November 18, 2019 +New York, New York +7A.A51 +UNITED STATES DISTrICT JUDGE +3 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a7eba3510b5c14cdae5d9b00a14bfc00e76ec90aa9f7c15a6393c1689ae13c6d.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a7eba3510b5c14cdae5d9b00a14bfc00e76ec90aa9f7c15a6393c1689ae13c6d.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..48245fcfdf2b62a683c04e79ca26f4fb940d51fa --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a7eba3510b5c14cdae5d9b00a14bfc00e76ec90aa9f7c15a6393c1689ae13c6d.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -47, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "a7eba3510b5c14cdae5d9b00a14bfc00e76ec90aa9f7c15a6393c1689ae13c6d", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 4, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "60ab7f4f30b206a0097ecf669e2fcc299a31a7886d6e2d00fb8196fb077db243", + "output_sha256": "7099d1a6b779f3067fd5f8bc7e3b599a1a8d66d066868432d4db7e6d5332c0d3", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a80a9131af63ec84fda712d2ab6e9a25245b5b5f93448bda20fd1bae96a88ce4.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a80a9131af63ec84fda712d2ab6e9a25245b5b5f93448bda20fd1bae96a88ce4.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7819d5f286d407d9ceb2bd452439d4550df0ef2d --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a80a9131af63ec84fda712d2ab6e9a25245b5b5f93448bda20fd1bae96a88ce4.md @@ -0,0 +1,70 @@ +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 44 Filed 01/14/20 Page 1 of 2 +The Clerk of Court of the Southern District of New York is directed to docket the within ORDER +in each of the following actions: +VE v. Nine East 71st Street et al., No. 1:19-cv-07625 (AJN) (DF) +Katlyn Doe v. Indyke et al., No. 1:19-cv-07771 (PKC) (DF) +Priscilla Doe v. Indyke et al., No. 1:19-cv-07772 (ALC) (DF) +Lisa Doe v. Indyke et al., No. 1:19-cv-07773 (ER) (DF) +L'SDC SDNY +DOCUMENT +ELECTRONICALLY FILED +DOC#:. +DATE FILED: + +114/2020 +Jane Doe v. Indyke et al., No. 1:19-cv-08673 (KPF) (DF) +v. Indyke et al., No. 1:19-cv-10475 (LGS) (DF) +v. Indyke et al., No. 1:19-cv-10476 (PGG) (DF) +v. Indyke et al., No. 1:19-cv-10479 (ALC) (DF) +Jane Doe 1000 v. Indyke et al., No. 1:19-cv-10577 (LGS) (DF) +Jane Doe 15 v. Indyke et al., No. 1:19-cv-10653 (PAE) (DF) +Mary Doe v. Indyke et al., No. 1:19-cv-10758 (PAE) (DF) +v. Indyke et al., No. 1:19-cv-10788 (GHW) (DF) +Anastasia Doe v. Indyke et al., No. 1:19-cv-11869 (AJN) (DF) +DEBRA FREEMAN, United States Magistrate Judge: +The above-referenced cases - all brought by plaintiffs claiming that they were sexually +abused by Jeffrey Epstein and seeking damages from his estate - have been neither consolidated +for any purpose, nor designated as "related" by the Court. Nonetheless, these cases (together +with certain other, similar cases, not listed above) have been referred to the undersigned for +general pretrial supervision, so that discovery - and potentially settlement - may be coordinated +as reasonable. While, at the parties' request, discovery in the other Jeffrey Epstein cases referred +to this Court has been stayed pending a further report on the parties' settlement efforts, the +parties to each of the above-referenced cases have requested, by submissions dated January 10, +2020, that this Court set a discovery schedule. This Court's having reviewed the parties' +submissions, it is hereby ORDERED that: +1. +In each of the above-referenced cases in which the parties have not yet submitted +a jointly proposed discovery plan pursuant to Rule 26(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, +the parties are directed to submit a proposed discovery schedule for this Court's review no later + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 44 Filed 01/14/20 + +than February 6, 2020. This submission should address all of the matters set out in Rule 26(f)(3), +and should specifically include proposed deadlines for: +a. +service of initial disclosures under Rule 26(a)(1); +b. +service of initial document requests and interrogatories; +c. +any motion for joinder of other parties or amendment of the pleadings; +d. +completion of fact discovery; and +e. +expert disclosures and the completion of expert discovery, if any. +2. +As to each of the above-referenced cases, this Court will hold a pretrial +conference pursuant to Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on February 11, 2020, at +10:00 a.m., in Courtroom 17A at the United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY +10007. The parties should be aware, however, that the mere fact that this Court will be holding a +single, joint case-management conference does not necessarily mean that this Court will set an +identical discovery schedule in each case. At the conference, counsel should be prepared to +address whether there are reasons why these cases should be treated differently for scheduling +purposes. +Dated: New York, New York +January 14, 2019 +SO ORDERED +DEBRA FREEMAN +United States Magistrate Judge +Copies to: +All counsel in the above-referenced cases (via ECF) +2 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a80a9131af63ec84fda712d2ab6e9a25245b5b5f93448bda20fd1bae96a88ce4.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a80a9131af63ec84fda712d2ab6e9a25245b5b5f93448bda20fd1bae96a88ce4.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..038eef53cab5abcd56395688f48cec8aea1e3ecf --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a80a9131af63ec84fda712d2ab6e9a25245b5b5f93448bda20fd1bae96a88ce4.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -35, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "a80a9131af63ec84fda712d2ab6e9a25245b5b5f93448bda20fd1bae96a88ce4", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 3, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "78c72a4755d438d64e6b7c51fa1fb77730887200cd7593c6e602d187dee19b49", + "output_sha256": "ba42c9f055167651a16b30b9bb5accb59938b97e3418738f004f3945d44da139", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a80ab25e2778d451438941922212370ade274e3dd4e253d86fc6aaf3c317852a.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a80ab25e2778d451438941922212370ade274e3dd4e253d86fc6aaf3c317852a.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..49d71acaca8dff7ffffeca256fbe94b9d39dd120 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a80ab25e2778d451438941922212370ade274e3dd4e253d86fc6aaf3c317852a.md @@ -0,0 +1,225 @@ +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 91-1 +Filed 01/15/21 Page 1 of 9 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff, +V. +DARREN K. INDYKE and RICHARD D. +KAHN, in their capacities as executors of the +ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, an individual, +Defendants. +Case No. 1:20-cv-00484-JGK +PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF HER MOTION TO +DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE PURSUANT TO FRCP 41(a)(2) + + +Case 1:20-Cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 91-1 Filed 01/15/21 Page 2 of 9 +TABLE OF CONTENTS +Page +I. +INTRODUCTION +II. BRIEF BACKGROUND. +III. THE COURT HAS THE AUTHORITY TO DISMISS THIS CASE +IV. ALTERNATIVE RELIEF +V. DISMISSAL OF THIS ACTION DOES NOT PREJUDICE MAXWELL +VI. CONCLUSION +.1 +.2 +3 +.3 +.4 + + +Case 1:20-Cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 91-1 Filed 01/15/21 Page 3 of 9 +TABLE OF AUTHORITIES +Page +CASES +Colombrito v. Kelly, +764 F2d 122, 133-34 (2d Cir. 1985.. +v. Indyke et al.. +19-cv-10475-LGS-DCF. +OTHER AUTHORITIES +F.R.C.P. Rule 41(a)(2)... +3 +1,4 +1,2,3 +ii + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 91-1 Filed 01/15/21 Page 4 of 9 +I. +INTRODUCTION +As the Court has been previously advised, this case settled following Plaintiff's +acceptance of a settlement offer made by the Epstein Victims' Compensation Program +("EVCP"). Dismissal of this action with prejudice is a condition of the settlement set forth in the +settlement release executed by Plaintiff. Despite Plaintiff's best and repeated efforts to reach a +stipulated dismissal of this action both before and after the December 23, 2020 status conference +this Court held regarding the case dismissal, those efforts have been met with resistance by +Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell and the parties have been unsuccessful in reaching a resolution. +For the foregoing reasons and those that follow, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court +dismiss this action with prejudice, with each side to bear their own costs and fees, pursuant to +F.R.C.P. Rule 41(a)(2) and according to the terms set forth in the previously submitted +stipulation for dismissal executed by both plaintiff Jane Doe and defendants Darren Indyke and +Richard Kahn, Co-Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey Epstein (ECF 87). +II. BRIEF BACKGROUND +Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell and her counsel have attempted at every turn to delay this +case from moving towards a resolution by trial, settlement or, now, through Plaintiff's +participation in the EVCP. At first, counsel for Ms. Maxwell refused to accept service on her +behalf of the complaint, despite already being litigation counsel for Ms. Maxwell in another +pending SDNY case brought by another Epstein/Maxwell victim ( +v. Indyke et al., 19-cv- +10475-LGS-DCF), forcing Plaintiff to seek an order approving alternative service. (ECF 45). +Then, within a matter of weeks after making her first appearance in this case (ECF 52-53), Ms. +Maxwell pleaded with Magistrate Judge Freeman to stay these proceedings on August 19, 2020 +to avoid having to answer questions under oath about the abuse she and Jeffrey Epstein +committed against Plaintiff as she remains jailed in New York and awaits her criminal trial in +1 + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 91-1 Filed 01/15/21 Page 5 of 9 +which she is accused of recruiting and enticing minors to travel to engage in illegal sex acts. +(ECF 69). Over Plaintiff's opposition, that motion was granted following briefs filed in support +of Ms. Maxwell's request for a stay by the Estate of Jeffrey Epstein and the U.S. Government. +(ECF 81). +And now, Ms. Maxwell has inexplicably refused to stipulate to a voluntary dismissal by +Plaintiff of her lawsuit with prejudice following her acceptance of a settlement offer made by the +EVCP. Ms. Maxwell claims, without any legal support, that she is first entitled to learn the +amount of the settlement offer made to Plaintiff in connection to the confidential EVCP before +she will consent to a dismissal. However, the EVCP did not involve Ms. Maxwell, she is not a +party or signatory to the settlement release agreement and she is not contributing any money to +the settlement. Despite this and without any obligation to do so, Plaintiff offered to make +available to Ms. Maxwell and her counsel a redacted copy of the confidential settlement release +agreement which Ms. Maxwell rejected. Plaintiff even proposed producing the release to Ms. +Maxwell with the amount un-redacted if Plaintiff's name would remain redacted to protect her +court ordered anonymity. Ms. Maxwell rejected that proposal too which calls into question her +stated reason for refusing to stipulate to the dismissal. +III. THE COURT HAS THE AUTHORITY TO DISMISS THIS CASE +F.R.C.P. Rule 41(a)(2) states that "an action may be dismissed at the plaintiff's request +only by court order, on terms that the court considers proper." +Plaintiff is requesting that the Court dismiss this action with prejudice, with each side to +2 + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 91-1 Filed 01/15/21 Page 6 of 9 +bear their own costs and fees'. +, according to the terms set forth in the previously submitted +stipulation for dismissal executed by both plaintiff Jane Doe and defendants Darren Indyke and +Richard Kahn, Co-Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey Epstein (ECF 87). In light of Plaintiff's +successful participation in the EVCP, dismissing the case with each party bearing its own fees +and costs is proper. There are no counterclaims and Ms. Maxwell should not now be allowed to +prevent Plaintiff from finalizing her successful participation in the Program, which Plaintiff was +encouraged to participate in by Ms. Maxwell herself when she moved to stay these proceedings +back in August of last year. +IV. ALTERNATIVE RELIEF +Alternatively, Plaintiff requests that the Court enter dismissal with prejudice as to +defendants Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn, Co-Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey Epstein only, +with each side to bear their own costs and fees, and allow Plaintiff to continue the prosecution of +her case against Ms. Maxwell after the stay is lifted following the completion of Ms. Maxwell's +criminal case. This relief is requested only if the EVCP agrees to its settlement obligations +despite Ms. Maxwell's ongoing participation in the case. +V. DISMISSAL OF THIS ACTION DOES NOT PREJUDICE MAXWELL +Plaintiff expects Ms. Maxwell to oppose this straightforward motion with a laundry list of +excuses and grievances. One such anticipated argument is that Ms. Maxwell would be +' It is anticipated that Ms. Maxwell will argue that she is entitled to costs and fees. However, +Ms. Maxwell is unable to obtain costs and fees from Plaintiff if this case is dismissed with +prejudice. Colombrito v. Kelly, 764 F2d 122, 133-34 (2d Cir. 1985) ("attorney's fees have almost +never been awarded" when a lawsuit is voluntarily dismissed with prejudice under Rule +41(a)(2)." +3 + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 91-1 Filed 01/15/21 Page 7 of 9 +prejudiced should the case be dismissed according to the terms set forth in the previously +submitted stipulation for dismissal. Ms. Maxwell, however, cannot seriously argue that she +would somehow be prejudiced by the plaintiff's voluntary dismissal of a lawsuit against her with +prejudice following a settlement reached between the plaintiff and another party. +Indeed, any such arguments raised by Ms. Maxwell in opposition to this motion must be +met with suspicion in light of Ms. Maxwell's "lack of candor" to the Southern District of New +York as recently noted by Judge Nathan in connection to Ms. Maxwell's second request for bail, +which Judge Nathan, again, denied. (20-er-330, ECF 106). Moreover, in the case of +v. +Indyke et al., 19-cv-10475-LGS-DCF, where Ms. Maxwell is also strangely objecting to the +dismissal by the plaintiff following her acceptance of an offer in the EVCP, Judge Schofield +recently questioned whether Ms. Maxwell's position is tenable in light of "the very substantial +requests [she is] making." "US Judge Appears Unlikely to Require Disclosure of Epstein +Accuser's Settlement With Estate," https://www.law.com/newyorklawjournal/2021/01/14/usjudge-appears-unlikely-to-require-disclosure-of-epstein-accusers-settlement-withestate/?slreturn=20210014235043. +VI. CONCLUSION +Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court dismiss her case with prejudice and in +accordance with the terms set forth in the partially executed stipulation for dismissal so she can +satisfy the terms set forth in the EVCP rules, the Court can clear this case from its docket and the +parties can move on. +Dated: January 15, 2021 +Respectfully submitted, +By: Is/ Robert Glassman +Robert Glassman +PANISH SHEA & BOYLE LLP +11111 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 700 +Los Angeles, CA 90025 +Telephone: (310) 477-1700 +Facsimile: (310) 477-1699 +glassman@psblaw.com +Attorneys for Plaintiff +4 + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 91-1 Filed 01/15/21 Page 8 of 9 +CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE +1, Robert S. Glassman, hereby certify that Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in Support of +Her Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice Pursuant to FRCP 41(a)(2) contains 1,119 words and +complies with the formatting rules set forth in the Individual Practices of Judge John G. Koeltl. +Dated: January 15, 2021 +Respectfully submitted, +By: Is/ Robert Glassman +Robert Glassman +PANISH SHEA & BOYLE LLP +11111 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 700 +Los Angeles, CA 90025 +Telephone: (310) 477-1700 +Facsimile: (310) 477-1699 +glassman@psblaw.com +Attorneys for Plaintiff +5 + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 91-1 Filed 01/15/21 Page 9 of 9 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I hereby certify that on this 15 day of January, 2021, I electronically filed the +foregoing PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF HER MOTION +TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE PURSUANT TO FRCP 41(a)(2) with the Clerk of the +Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following: +Bennet Jerome Moskowitz +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca +Charles +Glover +Laura A. Menninger +Mary +Metcalfe +Haddon +and +Molly S DiRago +150 East 10th Avenue +Troutman Pepper +Sanders LLP +Denver, CO 80203 +875 Third Avenue +(303)-831-7364 +New York, NY 10022 +Fax: (303)-832-2628 +212-704-6000 +jpagliuca@hmflaw.com +bennet.moskowitz@troutmansanders.com +Imenninger @hmflaw.com +Charles.Glover@troutman.com +marygrace.metcalfe@troutman.com +Attorney for Defendant, Ghislaine +molly.dirago@troutman.com +Maxwell +Attorney for Defendant, Darren K. +Indyke and Richard D Kahn in their +capacities as executors of the Estate of +Jeffrev E. Epstein +/s/ Robert Glassman +Robert Glassman +6 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a80ab25e2778d451438941922212370ade274e3dd4e253d86fc6aaf3c317852a.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a80ab25e2778d451438941922212370ade274e3dd4e253d86fc6aaf3c317852a.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4f0761942ea20ca27dc633da83bdcf740f5b1917 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a80ab25e2778d451438941922212370ade274e3dd4e253d86fc6aaf3c317852a.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -112, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "a80ab25e2778d451438941922212370ade274e3dd4e253d86fc6aaf3c317852a", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 11, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "4eb72ffda5206f1f8d4592a095f1937ed132a6e384f52829f6f04f1aef47850a", + "output_sha256": "077241f296dca90385af942ac6ab81cc0a1b4e5afda65b091c0c4a65cc8c99ea", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a82ae232918069af795e3ac0e96693072c80e104408ba2e1c1632c0e985d454a.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a82ae232918069af795e3ac0e96693072c80e104408ba2e1c1632c0e985d454a.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..62ee7c14553b215cd9776f5b2e8afc5c4685137c --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a82ae232918069af795e3ac0e96693072c80e104408ba2e1c1632c0e985d454a.md @@ -0,0 +1,42 @@ +Troutman Sanders LLP +875 Third Avenue +New York, NY 10022 +troutman.com +troutman™ +sanders +Bennet Moskowitz +bennet.moskowitz@troutman.com +MEMORANDUM ENDORSED +February 14, 2020 +Hon. +J. Liman +United States Courthouse +500 Pearl St. +Courtroom 15C +New York, NY 10007 +SO ORDERED. +USDC SDNY +DOCUMENT +ELECTRONICALLY FILED +D. LIMAN +United Sures Distrat ede +DOC#: +DATE FILED: 2/18/2020 +SO ORDERED. +2/18/2020 +Re: +Jane Doe 1000 v. Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, Co-Executors of the +Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, Case No. 1:19-cV-10577 (LJL) (DCF) +Dear Judge Liman: +We represent Defendants Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, Co-Executors of the Estate of +Jeffrey E. Epstein. We write on behalf of all parties to respectfully request the Court's approval +of the parties' agreed upon briefing schedule for Defendants' anticipated motion to dismiss, as +follows: +• Defendants will file their motion to dismiss on or before February 28, 2020. +• Plaintiff will file her response to Defendants' motion to dismiss on or before March 30, +2020. +• Defendants will file their reply on or before April 13, 2020. +The parties respectfully request that the Court enter the above briefing schedule. +Respectfully submitted, +Is/ Bennet Moskowitz +Bennet Moskowitz diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a82ae232918069af795e3ac0e96693072c80e104408ba2e1c1632c0e985d454a.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a82ae232918069af795e3ac0e96693072c80e104408ba2e1c1632c0e985d454a.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..54463b462c84173396a7ad09d76a08ffc5e12db0 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a82ae232918069af795e3ac0e96693072c80e104408ba2e1c1632c0e985d454a.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "a82ae232918069af795e3ac0e96693072c80e104408ba2e1c1632c0e985d454a", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "6a1ab921938acfbb1627b9f01d2e6b2cadeaeac448fc08f67967b39f9f14aeef", + "output_sha256": "592af913c433516ec3c841b98c39873887953672cb8be5be7fde06be55694ef9", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a830643c4975f2bd4abe5dc31c1c87b46cc5cd4bfb4722dfc65eba79eadcd57c.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a830643c4975f2bd4abe5dc31c1c87b46cc5cd4bfb4722dfc65eba79eadcd57c.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f0b5ec1ea3cb7296ffc61dd48d88b1f7b1e96a09 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a830643c4975f2bd4abe5dc31c1c87b46cc5cd4bfb4722dfc65eba79eadcd57c.md @@ -0,0 +1,169 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 372 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/26/2009 Page 1 of 4 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/ +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 +DEFENDANT'S RE-NOTICE (DATE CHANGE ONLY) OF INDEPENDENT +MEDICAL EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF, JANE DOE #7 (80993) +Defendant, JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, pursuant to Rule 35, Fed. R. Civ. P., notices +the Plaintiff for an independent/psychological medical examination and states: +1. +An appointment for examination of the Plaintiff has been made with Ryan +I, M.D. of C.W. +M.D., P.A. at 9:00 a.m. on November 13, 2009 at Prose Court +Reporting, One Clearlake Centre, 250 Australian Avenue South, Suite #1500, West Palm +Beach, FL, 33401. The Plaintiff is to wear comfortable clothing and bring a sweater. +The examination shall consist of an interview and testing and will likely last until 5:30 +p.m. See infra and Motion attached at DE (319) for scope, time and place of IME. See +Exhibits attached as well. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 372 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/26/2009 Page 2 of 4 +Plaintiff has not provided an available date; however, unless a timely and +valid objection to this Notice is made, the Plaintiff is required by this Rule to be in +attendance at the above-scheduled examination. +Pursuant to Rule 35, if the psychiatrist performing the examination is +called as a witness, the psychiatrist shall not be identified as one appointed by the Court. +4. +The cost of the examination will be originally borne by the Defendant but +is subject to taxation by the Court upon proper motion. +5. +The interview will be videotaped. +6. Dr. Halls' specialties and qualifications are attached to the Motion +to Compel the IME at DE (319). The time, place, manner, conditions and scope +of the examination are attached to the Motion to Compel the IME at DE (319). +See Affidavit attached thereto. All of the above documents have been provided +to the Plaintiff's counsel and, therefore, sufficient notice has been made. +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. +Flofida Bar #617296 +Certificate of Service +I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed +vith the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document i +eing served this day on all counsel of record identified on the following Service List i +the manner specified by CM/ECF on this 26™H day of October, 2009 +Respectfully submitted, +ROBERTD. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. +Florida Bar No. 224162 +rcrit@/belctaw.com + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 372 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/26/2009 Page 3 of 4 +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. +Florida Bar #617296 +mpike@bclclaw.com +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & +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/J +Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. +Brad +1 Esq. +Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. +Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler +Mermelstein & 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 +bedwards@rra-law.com +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +08-80893 +Counsel for Plaintiffs +In related Cases Nos. 08-80069, +08-80119, +08-80232, +. 08-80380, +: 08-80381, 08-80993, Paul G. Cassell, Esq. +08-80994 +Pro Hac Vice +332 South 1400 E, Room 101 +Richard Horace Willits, Esq. +Salt Lake City, UT 84112 +Richard H. Willits, P.A. +801-585-5202 +2290 10* Avenue North +801-585-6833 Fax +Suite 404 +cassellp@law.utah.edu +Lake Worth, FL 33461 +Co-counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe +561-582-7600 +Fax: 561-588-8819 +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. +08-80811 +reelrhw@hotmail.com +Jack Scarola, Esq. +Jack P. +_ Esq. +Isidro M. +• Esq. +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. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 372 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/26/2009 Page 4 of 4 +Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, 08-80469 +P.A. +2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard +West Palm Beach, FL 33409 +561-686-6300 +Fax: 561-383-9424 +jsx@searcylaw.com +jph@searcylaw.com +Counsel for Plaintiff, C.M.A. +Bruce Reinhart, Esq. +Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A. +250 S. Australian Avenue +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561-202-6360 +Fax: 561-828-0983 +ecf@brucereinhartlaw.com +Counsel for Defendant +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 +rjosefsberg@podhurst.com +kezell@podhurst.com +Counsel for Plaintiffs 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 +jagesq@bellsouth.net +Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a830643c4975f2bd4abe5dc31c1c87b46cc5cd4bfb4722dfc65eba79eadcd57c.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a830643c4975f2bd4abe5dc31c1c87b46cc5cd4bfb4722dfc65eba79eadcd57c.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e2c3d4948f34edb6f1a9fffb92dfaf63c1200290 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a830643c4975f2bd4abe5dc31c1c87b46cc5cd4bfb4722dfc65eba79eadcd57c.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -48, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "a830643c4975f2bd4abe5dc31c1c87b46cc5cd4bfb4722dfc65eba79eadcd57c", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 4, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "e0b1371de69b7af9109cd38ff74cd66460a05c2606334d257b74f463b7dbffad", + "output_sha256": "ad8c42f508f5d25341a733baff4325c63a01919815163e9bb007e557b8409668", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a872290c685f143c3099b131674894e1eeb0d8c464b35507d5b618d552e62cdd.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a872290c685f143c3099b131674894e1eeb0d8c464b35507d5b618d552e62cdd.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2dd3d0a1f90aa1f2c4ed04fcaf4a880ff59416cc --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a872290c685f143c3099b131674894e1eeb0d8c464b35507d5b618d552e62cdd.md @@ -0,0 +1,250 @@ +Aug 0£9809588-CV-80349#KAMHotEment 247-6 Entered on FLSD DEK3{88/59/2009 PageP123f 10 +Jane Doe #6 +V. +Jeffrey Epstein +AFFIDAVIT OF RICHARD C.W.! +M.D. +STATE OF FLORIDA +COUNTY OF SEMINOLE +On this day personally appeared before me, the undersigned authority, Richard +C.W.) +M.D., who, being by me first duly sworn under oath deposes and says: +My name is Richard C.W. +M.D. Iam over the age of majority, and make +this affidavit and declaration upon the basis of personal knowledge of the factual matters +contained herein. +2. +I have maintained a private practice in psychiatry and forensic psychiatry +since 1996. +3. +I, also, currently serve as a Courtesy Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at the +University of Florida, College of Medicine, Gainesville, Florida; Affiliate Professor, Dept of +Psychiatry and Behavioral Medicine, University of South Florida; and Professor of +Psychiatry, Department of Medical Education, University of Central Florida College +Medicine. +4. +University and +Ireceived my undergraduate degree from the Johns +1 + + +Aug of 0564588-CV-8Q7hark AMHall, Abment 247-6 Entered on FLSD Deck0228165/2009 Page 230f 10 +medical degree from the University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, Florida. +5. +I served as a Lieutenant Commander in the United States Navy, where I +researched and evaluated biological and neurochemical factors associated with the onset of +psychiatric disorders and served as a representative to the Joint Services Task Force +planning Operation Homecoming, the return of POW's from Vietnam. +I have previously served as an assistant clinical professor at the University of +South Florida College of Medicine, directed one of the ten model mental health centers in +the United States, and served as a medical consultant to the Kennedy Space Center. +7. +I am a former member of the academic faculty at the University of Texas, in +Houston, Texas where I served as Assistant Professor and then Associate Professor of +Psychiatry and Internal Medicine, Director of Clinical Research, Director of Residency +Training, Chief of the Consultation/Liaison Service, and Chief Psychiatrist at the M.D. +Cancer Hospital in Houston. +1, also, have served as a Professor of Internal Medicine and Psychiatry at the +Medical College of Wisconsin where I was appointed Chief of Psychiatry at the Milwaukee +County and Froedtert Hospitals. +9. +In addition, I have served as a Professor of Psychiatry and Internal Medicine +and Associate +10. +lat the University of Tennessee College of Medicine, Memphis. +The amended complaint filed by Jane Doe #6 against Jeffrey Epstein makes +2 + + +Aug of 8564588-CV-8Qtchark AM Hall, Atment 247-6 Entered on FLSD D02402208165/2009 Page 340f10 +sensitive allegations of sexual assault and abuse upon a minor and seek damages in excess +of $50 million. Jane Doe #6 alleges confusion, shame, humiliation, embarrassment, and +severe psychological and emotional injuries. It is further alleged that she suffered, and will +continue to suffer, +severe and permanent traumatic injuries, including mental, +psychological, and emotional damages. +11. +She alleges the intentional infliction of emotional distress and that Mr. +Epstein's conduct caused severe emotional distress, severe mental anguish and pain. +12. +She further alleges that she has suffered personal injury including mental, +psychological and emotional damage. +13. Plaintiff's counsel has retained an expert witness, Dr. Kliman of the +Psychological Trauma Center, a division of Preventive Psychiatry Associates Medical +Group, Inc., of San Francisco, California, of which Gilbert W. Kliman, MD, is the medical +director. Dr. Kliman's initial records indicate the following concerning Jane Doe #6. +14. +Plaintiff's interrogatories note a diagnosis of PTSD following an auto accident +in 2003. (Pre-Epstein) (Page 5, Plaintiff's Answers to Defendant's First Interrogatories) +15. Plaintiff noted "nervous about driving here. Hit by a semi June 2003. I wasn't +hurt but Mom was." (Page 1, GK Contemp notes, Interview Part 1) +16. +"Seroquel ... for bad dreams after the car accident... longest therapy six +months court ordered. I am on probation for stupid stuff I did 2-3 years ago... really +3 + + +Aug 0f8582:98-Cv-8QtidhailkAM Hal, Myment 247-6 Entered on FLSD D90k8208185/2009 Pagep&f 10 +dumb, I got in trouble, arrested." (Page 2, GK Contemp notes) +17. +A Petition for Involuntary Assessment for Substance Abuse, dated July 19, +2006, noted a domestic disturbance at plaintiff's home with "threats to several family +members as well as threats of suicide... appeared to be under the influence of Zanax [sic] +bars... She found her grandmother dead three weeks ago, may have pushed her over the +edge." (Page 1, Petition for Involuntary Assessment for Substance Abuse, Circuit Court of +the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida). On January 31, 2007, +Plaintiff pled guilty to grand theft and burglary, and was sentenced to a 30-day substance +abuse program, 9 months community control, and 2 years probation. On February 25, +2007, Plaintiff cutoff her monitoring bracelet and fled her residence violating probation. +She was arrested on March 9, 2007 and April 2, 2007 and was ordered to undergo a mental +health evaluation. On August 8, 2007, she was arrested for possession of drug +paraphernalia and violated her probation again. She was in jail for a period of 30 days until +September 6, 2007 when she was found guilty of the violation of probation and sentenced +to remain in jail for evaluation and treatment and then outpatient treatment as well as +parenting classes. +18. +A Notice of Related Case reports an incident of the plaintiff being charged +with possession of a weapon on school property in November 2004. (Page 2, Notice of +Related Case, Circuit Court of the 15% Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, +4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 247-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 5 of 10 +Florida) +19. +On 4/13/06, in response to a call of child abuse, an officer received a report +from DCF noting that "since the age of 13, Plaintiff has been smoking marijuana with her +father every other day... Mom is aware of (blacked out) smoking marijuana with dad... +She placed her daughter in Growing Together Treatment Center on 3/10/06. Then Baker +Acted her on 4/ 7/06 to (blacked out)." (Police Offense Report) +20. +On 4/12/05, police responded to a domestic violence call, which involved +plaintiff and her brother kicking and hitting each other at their residence. (Police Offense +Report) +21. A police report of 5/24/04 notes that police responded to a delayed battery +charge, in which the plaintiff was involved in a verbal argument with a friend who then +punched the plaintiff with a closed fist to the forehead area. (Police Offense Report) +22. A police report of 11/22/03 noted a physical altercation involving the plaintiff +and another individual, which resulted in the plaintiff being struck in her left eye with a +closed fist. (Police Offense Report) +23. +On 3/02/03, police responded to a call of a suspicious person at the plaintiff's +residence. The plaintiff reported that when she entered her shed to do her laundry, she +came in contact with an unknown male, who had some of her underwear inside his mouth. +She reported that the male took the underwear out of his mouth, put them in the dryer, and +5 + + +Aug of 0584598-CV-8RtcharkAMHall, ibment 247-6 Entered on FLSD D90k8208105/2009 Pagep@of 10 +then ran away. (Police Offense Report) +24. +A police report notes an incident of 8/27/02 in which plaintiff was followed +home from school by four girls and allegedly battered by two of the girls subsequent to a +verbal conflict at school. (Police Offense Report) +25. +"I met Mr. Jeffrey August 2004... I was between repeating sixth grade... I +was not yet 14. +came to my house to get me to go and we called a cab to go to +Jeffrey's. She told me I had to tell him a different age, 16 or over because I wouldn't get +paid." (Page 1, GK notes) +26. Plaintiff reported, "I wasn'ta virgin. I might have had sex with one person. I +was around 13 or 14 that I lost my virginity with a little kid, a childhood friend." (Page 2, +GK notes) +27. +"I smoked some weed during the Xanax... drank a little but not into it." (Page +2, V. +wi GK III, 12/6/08) +28. +Plaintiff reported "Cause I don't like the way it made me feel and I'd fall +asleep on it and yea ... that's a little bit after I got into that car accident, that's 2006. I +started getting bad dreams and they started taking me to therapists and I started getting +like anxiety attacks in the car .. It was bad... that's the longest therapist I've ever seen and +that was because it was court ordered." "I went to her like six months." (Page 9, Tape 1) +29. +Question: "Have you been more irritable since this happened to you?" +6 + + +Aug 0f0584198 cv-89tichaAM HaR,oRtment 247-6 Entered on FLSD De0k8208/08/2009 PageRBf 10 +Plaintiff response, "I don't know."(Page 12, Tape 3). +30. Plaintiff failed to report to Dr. Kliman that on April 10, 2005 she witnessed a +friend get electrocuted. On December 22, 2006, Plaintiff got into a fight with her thenboyfriend, who had been out all night, and the boyfriend went out in the street in front of +their house and put a gun to his head and killed himself. +31. +All of the above show that this plaintiff came from an unstable and disturbed +home, had been subject to previous physical and sexual abuse, was fearful, isolated, and +had had suicidal ideation prior to meeting Mr. Epstein. For further elaboration of her +history and background, access to all available records is crucial if one is to fully +understand the impact of any of these events on her subsequent behavior and proportion +the impact of specific events, if any, or her current and future level of function. +32. In Dr. Kliman's initial replenishment retainer agreement and fee schedule +(date 7/18/08), in a heading entitled "Regarding Full Disclosure," Dr. Kliman notes that +prior to deposition, counsel will make every effort necessary to provide experts with +information requested by the experts including: 1) a list of all depositions, statements, +declarations, and motions in the case, 2) a copy of any requested items, and 3) most +importantly, a list of all medical, clinical, school, and work records known to the attorney +in the case. +33. +Dr. Kliman notes on page 8 of his contract opinion formation that he will not +7 + + +ug 0405@2008-cv-8QrldhartAMHaR, ADment 247-6 Entered on FLSD D60k6228189/2009 Page8of 10 +form opinions, give reports, or testify in certain circumstances. +These include +circumstances where he has reason to believe a retaining attorney has "available important +and relevant documents which are being deliberately withheld from us." "We define such +as documents in possession of retaining attorney, which we have requested or that we have +stated would ordinarily be part of medical opinion formation on the topics concerning. +which our input is requested." We request the same. +34. It is critical for an IME examiner to be able to make a cogent assessment of +any plaintiff and to understand their medical, social, academic, psychological and +psychiatric condition/state prior to any act of alleged victimization. There are a number of +variables that combine to determine the effects of such alleged victimization, including the +type and character of the alleged assault, and key victim variables such as demographics, +psychological reactions at the time of the trauma, previous psychiatric or psychological +history, previous victimization history, current or previous psychological difficulties, and +general personality dynamics and coping style, as well as sociocultural factors such as drug +use/abuse; poverty; social inequity and/or inadequate social support; any previous history +of abuse within or outside the family; whether individuals were abused by strangers, +acquaintances or family members; and whether there was any history of indiscriminate +behavior that may have placed them at increased risk. It is important to know if there had +been previous sexual conduct, contact with police or welfare agencies, alcohol or drug +8 + + +Case 9:08 cv-80119-KAM _Document 247-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08705/2009 Page 9 of 10- +use/abuse, voluntary sexual activity, contraceptive use, genital infections, or apparent +indifference to previous abuse. +35. +It is also essential to understand the plaintiff's level of emotional support, +whether any significant psychiatric illnesses were present, whether they were taking any +medications (prescribed or non-prescribed), whether there had been previous suicide +attempts, thoughts, plans, etc. + + +Aug 046985:8088-CV-gRidilataKAMall Prument 247-6 +Entered on FLSD D0zk2208695/2009 Page320 of +Respectfully submitted, +Richard C. W. +Courtesy Clinical Professor of Psychiatry, University of Florida, College of Medicine +Affiliate Professor, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Medicine, University of South +Florida +Professor of Psychiatry, Department of Medical Education, University of Central Florida +College of Medicine +STATE OF FLORIDA +COUNTY OF SEMINOLE +BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, personally appeared RICHARD C.W. +M.D., who is () personally known to me or ( ) who has produced +_ as identification, and who did take an oath, deposes and says that +the attached Affidavit is true and correct to the best of his knowledge and belief. +SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED before me on this 4th day of Augost. +2009. +MARCIA I CHAPMAN +Comma DD0561004 +Expires 6/6/2010 +V pucia Uhoman +Notary Public +Printed Name: MARcIA CHAPnAN +My Commission Expires: +10 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a872290c685f143c3099b131674894e1eeb0d8c464b35507d5b618d552e62cdd.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a872290c685f143c3099b131674894e1eeb0d8c464b35507d5b618d552e62cdd.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b1525b7928e13355b10b2c09eb0f9475bbf74e3a --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a872290c685f143c3099b131674894e1eeb0d8c464b35507d5b618d552e62cdd.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -122, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "a872290c685f143c3099b131674894e1eeb0d8c464b35507d5b618d552e62cdd", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 11, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "ebacf132dc2dfb372ac8a11ac3b9744af060598c6182f9c644ff2c4d69d838e9", + "output_sha256": "be2c0e5cda7d62cb796b588eddebe38908a43a8af75971e11726d804fb0e7eed", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a8854eccb8b75c68fae6b237668a5e7a45c36d621879e8bec336c577f8dc7277.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a8854eccb8b75c68fae6b237668a5e7a45c36d621879e8bec336c577f8dc7277.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4f1d6e79c30cad4dcf1d4caf6f81bc514b807d14 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a8854eccb8b75c68fae6b237668a5e7a45c36d621879e8bec336c577f8dc7277.md @@ -0,0 +1,126 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 240 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2009 Page 1 of 5 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRAJ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff, +vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRAJ +JANE DOE NO. 5, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/ +VS. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 240 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2009 Page 2 of 5 +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 6, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-80994-CIV-MARRA +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 7, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-80993-CIV-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +C.M.A., +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-80811-CIV-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08- 80893-CIV-MARRAJ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al, +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 240 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2009 Page 3 of 5 +Defendants. +DOE II, +CASE NO.: 09- 80469-CIV-MARRAJ +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al, +Defendants. +JANE DOE NO. 101, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 09- 80591-CIV-MARRAJ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 102 +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 09- +80656-CIV-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +ORDER +THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendant's Response in Opposition to +Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order Regarding Treatment Records and Motion to Strike +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 240 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2009 Page 4 of 5 +C.M.A.'s Conditional Notice of Intent to Rely Exclusively on Statutory Damages (D.E. +#216). Forthe following reasons said Motion is deferred to the United States District Court +as the undersigned is without authority to grant the relief sought. The Response in +Opposition, filed as part of the Motion, shall be considered by the undersigned when +addressing Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order. +By this Motion Plaintiff seeks two distinct forms of relief each of which, due to the +nature of the relief sought, require a ruling by two different judges, the District Judge +(regarding Motion to Strike C.M.A.'s Conditional Notice of Intent to Rely Exclusively on +Statutory Damages) and the Magistrate Judge (regarding Defendant's Response in +Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order Regarding Treatment Records ). This +fact was brought to the attention of Plaintiff's counsel's office prior to filing of the instant +motion, and for purposes of judicial efficiency and docket control, it was requested that +instead of filing one motion seeking the dual relief sought here, Plaintiff instead file two +separate motions. +Rather than heed the Court's suggestion, however, Plaintiff's counsel has filed one +motion seeking the dual relief described above, stating in a footnote "It]he Response in +Opposition to the Motions for Protective Order and the Motion to Strike are inextricably +woven together in that each deal with critical discovery issues. Thus the Response and the +Motion to Strike must be handled simultaneously by the Court." Def's Resp. and Mtn., p.4 +(emphasis added). Obviously what the Court "must" do is for the Court, and not any +particular party, to decide. Decision-making is and always has been the exclusive province +of a judge, while a party's role is limited to that of requesting relief. This is a fact all parties +would do well to remember. Having reviewed the pleadings filed incident to this Motion, +4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 240 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2009 Page 5 of 5 +and being otherwise duly advised in the premises, it is hereby +ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant's Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's +Motion for Protective Order Regarding Treatment Records and Motion to Strike C.M.A.'s +Conditional Notice of Intent to Rely Exclusively on Statutory Damages (D.E. #216) is +DEFERRED TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, as the undersigned is without +authority to grant the relief sought. Epstein's Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion +for Protective Order, filed as part of the Motion, shall be considered by the undersigned +when addressing Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order. +DONE AND ORDERED this August 4, 2009, in | +I. at West Palm Beach, +Florida. +LINNEA R. JOHNSON +UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE +CC: The Honorable Kenneth A. Marra +All Counsel of Record +5 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a8854eccb8b75c68fae6b237668a5e7a45c36d621879e8bec336c577f8dc7277.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a8854eccb8b75c68fae6b237668a5e7a45c36d621879e8bec336c577f8dc7277.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..baef658b8759bbe27cd0c9389309a9a0787f68cb --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a8854eccb8b75c68fae6b237668a5e7a45c36d621879e8bec336c577f8dc7277.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -60, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "a8854eccb8b75c68fae6b237668a5e7a45c36d621879e8bec336c577f8dc7277", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 5, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "098f1cdb641d67d532ce886e3b8bd986666b354d772bda8e2371efca0235aa44", + "output_sha256": "75d47689c3faa739b616d8cc6a26d259ce0b92dc9b6f98fd22e0455e33d6e8c3", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a88e92f0c48d5065acf1fa351e1a0679004ea1883215d1be9783b50ac9684999.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a88e92f0c48d5065acf1fa351e1a0679004ea1883215d1be9783b50ac9684999.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..38b1e49b2fef9225f1e5e907a3500630417d0bd8 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a88e92f0c48d5065acf1fa351e1a0679004ea1883215d1be9783b50ac9684999.md @@ -0,0 +1,756 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 477 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/26/2010 Page 1 of 24 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/L +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 +DEFENDANT'S, MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND/OR REQUEST FOR +RULE 4 REVIEW AND APPEAL OF PORTIONS OF THE MAGISTRATE'S ORDER +DATED FEBRUARY 4, 2010 (DE 462), 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 462) 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 Background +Plaintiff's Motion to Compel is filed at DE (194). Defendant's Response in Opposition is +filed at DE (339), and the arguments set forth therein are incorporated herein by reference as if +completely set forth herein as each apply to request numbers 10, 12 and 13. +Significantly, these cases have been consolidated for discovery. Therefore, consistent +rulings must apply. In making those rulings, this Court must continue to recognize that the +allegations in the related cases cannot be forgotten. (E.g., see DE 242, 293, and 462). +1 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 477 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/26/2010 Page 2 of 24 +Production of information in one case could provide a link in the chain of evidence used to +prosecute Epstein for a crime or provide an indirect link to incriminating evidence in another +case and in another jurisdiction. Id. and infra. +The Request for Production and the responses thereto are attached as Composite Exhibit +"A". +Il. +The Fifth Amendment +The Fifth Amendment serves as a guarantee against testimonial compulsion and provides, +in relevant part, that "Injo person...shall be compelled in any Criminal Case to be a witness +against himself." (DE 242, p.5); see also 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 and extends not only to answers that would 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. See Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486 +(1951). 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." See United States v. Neff, 315 F.2d 1235, +1239 (9th Cir.), cert denied, 447 U.S. 925 (1980); Blau v. United States, 340 U.S. 159 (1950); +SEC v Leach, 156 F.Supp.2d 491, 494 (E.D. PA. 2001). +Moreover, the act of production itself may implicitly communicate statements and, for +this reason, the Fifth Amendment privilege also encompasses the circumstances where the act of +producing documents in response to a subpoena or production request has a compelled +testimonial aspect. See United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 35-36 (2000). Thus, where the +existence or location of the requested documents are unknown, or where production would +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 477 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/26/2010 Page 3 of 24 +"implicitly authenticate" the requested documents, the act of producing responsive documents is +considered testimonial and is protected by the Fifth Amendment. See In re Grand Jury +Subpoena, 1 F.3d 87, 93 (2nd Cir. 1993); Rudy-Glanzer v. Glanzer, 232 F.3d 1258, 1263 (9'" Cir. +2000)(the "privilege" against self-incrimination does 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). +II. The Requests For Production, Argument And Memorandum Of Law +a. +Requests Numbers 7, 9 and 10 +Request No. 7: +All discovery information obtained by you or your +attorneys as a result of the exchange of discovery in the State criminal case +against you or the Federal investigation against you. +Request No. 9: +Any documents or other evidentiary materials provided to +local, state, or federal law enforcement investigators or local, state or federal +prosecutors investigating your sexual activities with minors. +Request No. 10: +All correspondence between you and your attorneys and +state or federal law enforcement or prosecutors (includes, but not limited to, +letters to and from the State Attorney's office or any agents thereof). +Response to Request Numbers 7, 9 and 10: 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 and 1 must accept +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, the information sought is privileged and confidential, +and inadmissible pursuant to the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement, +Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and 408, and §90.410, Fla. Stat. Further, the request +may include information subject to work product or an attorney-client privilege. +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 477 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/26/2010 Page 4 of 24 +In light of the Court's Order and the Reply which further defines exactly what Plaintiff +seeks (DE 354, p. 3), Epstein is now permitted to cautiously elaborate on his responses. +As to Request Number 7, Epstein and his attorneys do not have any "discovery +information" provided to them by the federal government.' +As to Request Number 9, Epstein has not been given any evidentiary materials or +evidentiary documents by the federal government. +Request No. 10 contravenes the critical public policy of encouraging the resolution of +criminal prosecutions without trial and the concomitant understanding that defendants will be +considerably more likely to engage in full and +discussions with the government if they +need not fear that statements they or their counsel make to government prosecutors will be used +against them to their detriment. The critical importance of plea bargaining to the criminal justice +system has long been recognized. "[W]hatever might be the situation in an ideal world, the fact is +that the guilty plea and the often concomitant plea bargain are important components of this +country's criminal justice system. Properly administered, they can benefit all concerned." +Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 361-62 (1978), quoting Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. +63, 71 (1977). To encourage defendants to participate in the plea negotiation process, rules have +developed to prohibit admission into evidence against the defendant of any and all statements he +or his counsel acting on his behalf makes to government prosecutors during the plea negotiation +process. This confidentiality protection is embodied in both Fed. R. Evid. 410 and Fed. R. Crim. +P. 11(f). While these rules by their express terms refer only to admissibility of evidence, the +' As set forth infra, the federal government provided Epstein with the NPA and the list attached thereto. The NPA is +now a public document and the list, pursuant to Brad Edward's Agreement with Judge J. Colbath, remains +confidential. +FRE 410(4) is particularly directed to communications in matters which, like Epstein's, did not result in a plea of +guilty to any federal charge. Fla. Stat. §90.410 provides parallel protections in state criminal matters. +4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 477 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/26/2010 Page 5 of 24 +purposes and policies underlying these rules in instructive in this context, in which a civil +plaintiff seeks discovery of documents falling within the scope of these two rules. +Rule 410 was created to promote active plea negotiations and plea bargains, which our +Supreme Court has acknowledged are "important components of this country's criminal +justice system."... Our Court of Appeals has held that "in order for plea bargaining to +work effectively and fairly, a defendant must be free to negotiate without fear that this +statements will later be used against him."... Indeed, absent the protection of Rule 410, +"the possibility of self-incrimination would discourage defendants from being completely +candid and open during plea negotiations." +S.E.C. V.. +, 534 F.Supp.2d 63, 66-67 (D.D.C. 2008), quoting United States v. 617 +F.2d 677, 683 (D.C.Cir. 1980). See, e.g., United States v. Mezzanatto, 513 U.S. 196, 205, 207 +(1995)(purpose of the rules is to encourage plea bargaining, and rules "create], in effect, a +privilege of the defendant," quoting 2 J. Weinstein & M. Berger, Weinstein's Evidence 9410[05] +at 410-43 (1994)); United States v. Barrow, 400 F.3d 109, 116 (2d Cir. 2005)("The underlying +purpose of Rule 410 is to promote plea negotiations by permitting defendants to talk to +prosecutors without sacrificing their ability to defend themselves if no disposition agreement is +reached"); Fed. R. Crim. P. 11, Advisory Committee Notes, 1979 Amendment ("the purpose of +Fed. R. Ev. 410 and Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(e)(6) [now Rule 11(f)] is to promote the unrestrained +candor which produces effective plea discussions")? +Additional illustration of the high degree of confidentially accorded settlement +negotiations is found in Fed. R. Evid. 408, which precludes the introduction into evidence +communications made during settlement negotiations. The purposes underlying Rule 408 are +essentially the same as those underlying Rules 11(f) and 410: "to encourage non-litigious +solutions to disputes." Reichenbach v. I +, 528 F.2d 1072, 1074 (11th Cir. 1976). See, e.g. +Stockman v. Oakerest Dental Center, P.C., 480 F.3d 791, 805 (6th Cir. 2007)("the purpose +underlying Rule 408 +• is the promotion of the public policy favoring the compromise and +5 + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 477 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/26/2010 Page 6 of 24 +settlement of disputes that would otherwise be discouraged with the admission of such +evidence"); Bankcard America, Inc. v. Universal Bancard Systems, Inc., 203 F.3d 477, 483 (7th +Cir. 2000)("Because settlement talks might be chilled if such discussions could later be used as +admissions of liability at trial, the rule's purpose is to encourage settlements"); In re A.H. Robins +Co., Inc., 197 B.R. 568, 572 (E.D.Va. 1994)("Rule 408 aims to +settlement discussions in +an individual lawsuit, and therefore insulates the particular parties to a settlement discussion +from possible adverse consequences of their +and open statements"). So crucial is this +policy of confidentiality to the functioning of our federal court system that some courts have held +that communications falling within the parameters of Rule 408 are covered by a settlement +privilege which insulates them not just from admission into evidence but from discovery as well. +See, e.g., Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Chiles Power Supply, Inc., 332 F.3d 976, 979-983 (6th +Cir. 2003). +Given the powerful and long-standing policy of according confidentiality to settlement +negotiations in both the civil and criminal context, civil plaintiffs should, at a minimum, be +required to demonstrate real and concrete need for the material. They should not be permitted to +rummage through such sensitive documents based on nothing more than a vague and contentless +statement that the materials are "likely to lead to the discovery of other admissible evidence." +Motion to Compel at 12 n.3, which is all that plaintiff offers as to Request No. 10. This is +particularly so given the reality that parties often take positions or offer potential compromise +solutions during plea negotiations which are inconsistent with the litigation strategy they will +pursue if the case goes to trial. As one court has explained in the civil context: +6 + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 477 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/26/2010 Page 7 of 24 +There exists a strong public interest in favor of secrecy of matters discussed by parties +during settlement negotiations. ... The ability to negotiate and settle a case without trial +fosters a more efficient, more cost-effective, and significantly less burdened judicial +system... Parties must be able to abandon their adversarial tendencies to some degree. +They must be able to make hypothetical concessions, offer creative quid pro quos, and +generally make statements that would otherwise belie their litigation efforts. +Goodyear Tire, 332 F.3d at 980. The same is no less true in the plea negotiation context. The free +availability in discovery to civil plaintiffs of communications made during the plea negotiation +process has profound potential to chill H +and open communications during that process so +crucial to the functioning of the criminal justice system in any criminal case which has potential +to become a civil or regulatory matter as well. Such defendants will be loath to be fully +forthcoming during plea discussions or communications and indeed, if the potential civil or +regulatory consequences are sufficiently severe, may decline to enter into plea negotiations at all, +if they must fear that their communications will be made available to civil plaintiffs in discovery, +thus entirely defeating both the purpose and spirit of Rules 410 and 11(f). +In addition, the communications made during the plea negotiation process contain fact +and opinion attorney work product of both Mr. Epstein's attorneys and government attorneys. +Particularly given the strong public policy in favor of confidentiality of plea/settlement +negotiations, the disclosure of such information should be treated as falling within the selective +waiver provisions of Fed. R. Evid. 502 and not be treated as an open-ended waiver of the +attorney-client and work product privileges. +The correspondence in question contained what would constitute paradigm opinion work +product with the single caveat that the opinions of each counsel, Epstein's and the United States +Attorney's were exchanged with each other pursuant to the overall expectation that they were +safeguarded from disclosure by the policies of confidentiality that protect communications +during settlement and plea negotiations. The requested communications include the views of + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 477 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/26/2010 Page 8 of 24 +Page No. 8 +Epstein's counsel in the criminal case regarding why a federal prosecution was inappropriate, +why the federal statutes did not fit the alleged offense conduct, why certain of the alleged victims +were not credible. It also includes Epstein's counsel's views on the limits and inapplicability of +certain elements of 18 U.S.C. §2255, one of the principal causes of action in the Jane Doe cases. +This opinion work product should not be disclosed when it was incorporated into heartland plea +negotiations that are accorded protection under the federal rules of evidence. It is the disclosure +of such legal opinions - and not just their admissibility - that should be protected from a civil +discovery request that lacked any statement as to why this information was even necessary to the +fair litigation of the civil cases. +Concomitantly, to the extent that the request is now limited to communications from the +Government to Epstein, see DE 54, Pgs 3 and 8, the narrowed request implicate the same +concerns for the opinions, the work product, and the expectation of privacy of the United States +Attorney or Assistant United States Attorney who authored the many letters received by counsel +for Epstein. As such, to the extent that the Court is considering affirming any part of the +Magistrate-Judge's opinion allowing request 10 that would result in the required disclosure of +communications from the Government counsel to Epstein, that notice be provided to the United +States Attorney so they may intervene to protect their opinion work product, assert their rights to +confidentiality under FRE 408 and 410, and assert where appropriate their interests in grand jury +secrecy and in the privacy rights of their witness who in at least one document are identified. +The defendant requests that if the Court were considering allowing the disclosure of any portion +of the communications sent by Epstein to the Government which are within the original request +for production but apparently not plaintiff's latest filing, DE 354, pg 3, the Court first consider +8 + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 477 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/26/2010 Page 9 of 24 +Page No. 9 +permitting the defendant to provide a privilege log that would identify specific portions of the +correspondence that contains the opinion work product of counsel for Epstein +Here, the information requested involves negotiations with the USAO and its +investigation. If the USAO cannot be compelled to release its investigation(s) and related workproduct, how can Epstein be compelled to disclose same in violation of his constitutional rights? +He cannot. Rules 11(f), 408, and 410 all counsel strongly against the discoverability of such +documents. The court, is requested to reverse the Magistrate-Judge's order as to paragraph 10. +Alternatively, the Court is requested to permit a privilege log that would be filed by Epstein's +counsel - and if they so desire the Government - particularizing the prejudice to their work +product and to the values otherwise protected by FRE 408 and 410 on a document by document +basis +Epstein also continues to maintain that the requested correspondence is protected under +the Fifth Amendment, as it could furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute him +for a crime or provide the federal government with information that provides a lead or clue to +evidence having a tendency to incriminate Epstein. See infra; Hoffman v. United States, 341 +U.S. at 486; United States v. Neff, 315 F.2d at 1239; Blau v. United States, 340 U.S. at 159; and +SEC v Leach, 156 F.Supp.2d at 494. +As this court has recognized, the threat of criminal prosecution is real and present as +Epstein remains under the scrutiny of the USAO, which is explained and/or acknowledged in the +Court's Orders (DE 242 and 462). As this Court knows, Epstein entered into a Non-Prosecution +Agreement ("NPA") with the USAO for the Federal Southern District of Florida. However, the +NPA does not provide Epstein with any protection from criminal investigation or prosecution in +other than in the Southern District of Florida. As the court has acknowledged in its orders (e.g., + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 477 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/26/2010 Page 10 of 24 +Page No. 10 +DE 462), complaints in these related matters allege that Epstein both resided in and allegedly +engaged in illegal sexual conduct in districts outside the Southern District of Florida, and that he +allegedly lured economically disadvantaged girls to homes other than in Palm Beach. Thus, the +fact that there exists a NPA does not mean that Epstein is free from a reasonable fear of future +criminal prosecution. In fact, this court 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). +As such, in the event Epstein is required to produce information provided to him by the +federal government - or provided by Epstein to the Government - that information could +provide a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute Epstein of a crime outside the +protections of the NPA. 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 request Number 10, especially since it is broad enough to encompass +information that could violate Epstein's Fifth Amendment Privileges. Hubbell, supra. In +responding to the request, Epstein would be compelled admit that such documents exist, admit +that the documents were in his possession or control, and were authentic. In other words, the +very act of production of the category of documents requested would implicitly communicate +"statements of fact." Hubbell, supra; Hoffman, supra. +Moreover, the production of such information may lead to the identity of witnesses that could +testify against Epstein and those that may have knowledge or are in possession of evidence that +could be used against Epstein in another district. This court has already ruled that Epstein can +properly invoke his Fifth Amendment right to not identify a person who may have a photograph + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 477 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/26/2010 Page 11 of 24 +Page No. 11 +or physical evidence pertaining to the alleged events. (DE 242). For these reasons, Epstein's +justified concern with regard to answering the above request 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. +Third Party Privacy Rights And Judge Jeffrey's Colbath's Order +The Magistrate's Order does not consider the privacy rights of other alleged victims. As +this Court knows full well, attached to the NPA is a list which delineates alleged victims. Once +the NPA was made public, Judge Colbath, with the agreement of the Palm Beach Post, Brad +Esq. and Spencer Kuvin, Esq. agreed that the "list" would remain private. +As such, +Request for Production Number 10 seeks information that may violate others third-party privacy +rights in that certain names may be mentioned in correspondence, including those on the "list." +As noted in Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438, 454, 92 S.Ct. 1029, 1038, at fin. 10 (1972): +In Stanley, 394 U.S., at 564, 89 S.Ct., at 1247, the Court stated:" (A)Iso +fundamental is the right to be free, except in very limited circumstances, from +unwanted governmental intrusions into one's privacy." The makers of our +Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness. +They recognized the significance of man's spiritual nature, of his feelings and of +his intellect. They knew that only a part of the pain, pleasure and satisfactions of +life are to be found in material things. They sought to protect Americans in their +beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions, and their sensations. They conferred, as +against the Government, the right to be let alone-the most comprehensive of rights +and the right most valued by civilized man.' [Citations omitted]. +The fundamental right of privacy is not only guaranteed under by the Fourteenth +Amendment of the United States Constitution, but also under the Constitution of the State of +Florida, Art. I, Sect. 23. As summarized by the Florida Supreme Court in Shaktman v. State, 553 +So.2d 148, 150-51 (Fla. 1989): +The right of privacy, assured to Florida's citizens, demands that individuals be +free from uninvited observation of or interference in those aspects of their lives +which fall within the ambit of this zone of privacy unless the intrusion is + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 477 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/26/2010 Page 12 of 24 +Page No. 12 +warranted by the necessity of a compelling state interest. In an opinion which +predated the adoption of section 23, the First District aptly characterized the +nature of this right. +A fundamental aspect of personhood's integrity is the power to control what we +shall reveal about our intimate selves, to whom, and for what purpose. +Bryon, Harless, Schaffer, Reid & Assocs., Inc. v. State ex rel, Schellenberg, 360 +So.2d 83, 92 (Fla. Ist DCA 1978), quashed and remanded on other grounds, 379 +So.2d 633 (Fla. 1980). Because this power is exercised in varying degrees by +differing individuals. the parameters of an individual's privacy can be dictated +only by that individual. The central concern is the inviolability of one's own +thought, person, and personal action. The inviolability of that right assures its +preeminence over "majoritarian sentiment" and thus cannot be universally defined +by consensus. +(Emphasis added). +Clearly, the nature of the question would require Epstein to produce information that may +identify third parties (including alleged victims), which would necessarily thwart such +individuals' rights to assert their constitutional right of privacy as guaranteed under the United +States and Florida Constitutions. +See generally Eisenstadt v. Baird, supra at 454-455 (the right +encompasses privacy in one's sexual matters and is not limited to the marital relationship). The +Magistrate's Order did not address this issue. +Federal law provides crime victims with rights similar to those afforded by the Florida +constitution which includes, but is not limited to, "the right to reasonable, accurate, and timely +notice of any pubic court.. proceeding involving the crime...," "the right not to be excluded +from any public court proceeding...," and "the right to be heard." 15 Fla. Jur.2d Crim. Proc. +§1839; Fla. Stat. 960.0021. Based upon the foregoing, any alleged victim that may be identified +in any of the requested information must first be notified, which means that this court must, at +the very least, conduct an in camera inspection of any and all information to determine which +alleged victim must be placed on notice that their identity may be revealed or redact their names +12 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 477 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/26/2010 Page 13 of 24 +Page No. 13 +in camera. +See also Fla. Stat. §794.03, §794.024 and §794.026. The right to privacy +encompasses at least two different kinds of interests, the individual interests of disclosing +personal matters and the interest in independence in making certain kinds of important decisions. +Favalora v. Sidaway, 966 So.2d 895 (Fla. 4'" 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 st", 6t*, and 14" 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. +b. Request Number 12 +Personal tax returns for all years from 2002 through the +Request No. 12: +present. +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, Epstein cannot provide answers/responses to questions relating to his financial history +and condition without waiving his Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by +the United States Constitution, which includes his tax returns. 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 +13 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 477 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/26/2010 Page 14 of 24 +Page No. 14 +reasonably calculated 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 +of violations. +See DE 282 and 283, in camera. +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. See generally Hoffman y +United States, 341 U.S. at 486; United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. at 36 and United States v. +Apfelbaum, 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. See 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 documents) 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 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 477 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/26/2010 Page 15 of 24 +Page No. 15 +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 [f]or 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." Id. 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 +15 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 477 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/26/2010 Page 16 of 24 +Page No. 16 +§6103] 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 Sav. & +Loan Ins. Corp. v. Krueger, 55 F.R.D. 514-15 (N.D. III. 1972)("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"); see also +Premium Service Corp. 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 (s" Cir. 1993); DeMasi v. Weiss, Inc., 669 F.2d 114, +119-20 (3d Cir. 1982)(noting existence of public policy against disclosure of tax returns); +Premium Serv. Corp. v. Sperry & Hutchinson Co., 511 F.2d 225, 229 ('"' 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. Id. at *2; +see also Dunkin Donuts, Inc. v. Mary's Donuts, Inc., 2001 WL 34079319 (S.D. Fla. 2001); +16 + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 477 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/26/2010 Page 17 of 24 +Page No. 17 +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 networth 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 would agree to +stipulate, through his attorneys, that he has a net worth of over $50,000,000. Such a stipulation +more than satisfies any necessity for the disclosure of the tax returns or any additional net worth +information. +This court already ruled in DE 462 that Epstein is not required to produce his financial +history information to the extent same seeks to identify Epstein's assets, where such assets are +located and whether such assets have been transferred. Id. Moreover, the names and addresses +of his accounts, financial planners and money managers were also sustained pursuant to the Fifth +Amendment. Id. Therefore, 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. 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. +Furthermore, 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, +17 + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 477 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/26/2010 Page 18 of 24 +Page No. 18 +if 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. 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"). +c. +Request Number 13 +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: Defendant asserts 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 risking waiver of my Fifth +Amendment 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 +18 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 477 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/26/2010 Page 19 of 24 +Page No. 19 +and privileges, the scope of information is so overbroad that it seeks information +that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of +admissible evidence; compiling such information over a six year period would be +unduly burdensome and time consuming. +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. +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." Id. 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. +19 + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 477 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/26/2010 Page 20 of 24 +Page No. 20 +For instance, CBP 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? 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 hardpressed 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 +has conducted +and/or departing out of the United States. As this court knows, Mr. +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 +See e.g. http://www.customs.gov/xp/cgov/travel/trusted_traveler/global_entry/ +• See e.g., http://www.customs.gov/xp/cgov/travel/vacation/sample_declaration_form.xm| +20 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 477 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/26/2010 Page 21 of 24 +Page No. 21 +"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: +"Tiln 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 +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. Koppel, 916 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 4th DCA +21 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 477 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/26/2010 Page 22 of 24 +Page No. 22 +2005); see also 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. +Wherefore, Epstein respectfully requests that this Court issue and order: +finding that the danger Epstein faces by being forced to testify in this case +relative to the above requests is substantial and real, and not merely trifling or imaginary; +b. +sustaining Epstein's Fifth Amendment Privilege as it relates to the above +requests and denying Plaintiff's Motion in that regard; +reversing and/or revising the Magistrate's Order (DE 462) relative to +Request Numbers 10, 12 and 13 and entering an amended order sustaining Epstein' +›bjections to the Magistrate's Order as to those specific requests and not requiring him to +produce information relative to same; and/or +d. +remanding this appeal to the Magistrate-Judge for her reconsideration of +these portions of her order; +alternatively, if this court rules that any of the information requested +herein is relavent, it shall only do so after an in camera hearing and only after this court +ensures that each and every documents produced is the subject of a heightenedconfidentality order; +f. +for such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. +Respectfully Limited, +MICHAEL T. PIKE, ESQ. +Florida Bar #617296 +22 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 477 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/26/2010 Page 23 of 24 +Page No. 23 +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 26 day of February, 2010. +Respectfully submitted, +By: _ +ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. +Florida Bar No. 224162 +rcrit@bclclawleom +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. +Florida Bar #617296 +mpike@bclclaw.com +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & 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) +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@sexabuseattorney.com +Certificate of Service +lane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstei +'ase No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/ +. Jaffe, Weissing, +, Fistos & +Lehrman, PL +425 N. Andrews Avenue +Suite 2 +Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 +Phone: 954-524-2820 +Fax: 954-524-2822 +brad@pathtojustice.com +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08- +23 + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 477 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/26/2010 Page 24 of 24 +Page No. 24 +ahorowitz/@sexabuseattorney.com +80893 +Counsel for Plaintiffs +In related Cases Nos. 08-80069, 08-80119, 08- Paul G. Cassell, Esq. +80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80993, +, 08- Pro Hac Vice +80994 +332 South 1400 E, Room 101 +Salt Lake City, UT 84112 +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 +jagesq@bellsouth.net +Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Estein +801-585-5202 +801-585-6833 Fax +cassellp@law.utah.edu +Co-counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe +Isidro M. +,, Esq. +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- +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 +tjosefsberg@podhurst.com +kezell@podhurst.com +Counsel for Plaintiffs in Related Case \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a88e92f0c48d5065acf1fa351e1a0679004ea1883215d1be9783b50ac9684999.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a88e92f0c48d5065acf1fa351e1a0679004ea1883215d1be9783b50ac9684999.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..68c222ffb3f71f768093c07eb66c2c795796eef5 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a88e92f0c48d5065acf1fa351e1a0679004ea1883215d1be9783b50ac9684999.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -737, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "a88e92f0c48d5065acf1fa351e1a0679004ea1883215d1be9783b50ac9684999", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 28, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "9d465e767041dbeac5ee0943dac00734a33bc984c3303b4b22609857dcd693c0", + "output_sha256": "1b9d1d7143d497c34b03b474188ed167686cdd679bbd6db7e8c7f1053b607b18", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a892b0749c4314766e9a1dfb8ba734c39fac16d070cae2717291548988243a1b.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a892b0749c4314766e9a1dfb8ba734c39fac16d070cae2717291548988243a1b.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..68064d82c0bbfdcda1d7c98b51f61b99269fa228 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a892b0749c4314766e9a1dfb8ba734c39fac16d070cae2717291548988243a1b.md @@ -0,0 +1,303 @@ +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 297 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/11/2009 Page 1 of 11 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO. 08-CV-80893-CIV-MARRA/ +Vs. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et al. +Defendant. +Related Cases: +08-80119, 08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, +08-80994, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, +09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092 +PLAINTIFF, JANE DOE'S MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER ENFORCING NO +CONTACT ORDER AND INCORPROATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW +Plaintiff, Jane Doe, hereby joins in Jane Doe Nos. 2-8's motion for a protective +order (Case No. 08-CV-80119, dkt. #292) preventing defendant Epstein from attending +her upcoming deposition and supplements the arguments in support of the motion. +Epstein's counsel has informed Jane Doe's counsel that Epstein plans to attend +her upcoming deposition. As a convicted sex offender now on post-sentence release, +Epstein's transparent purpose in attending the deposition is to attempt to intimidate and +harass Jane Doe by sitting a few feet away from her. Regardless of his motivation, +however, such action is forbidden by the no-contact order of the state judge who +sentenced him (not to mention a parallel order from this Court). Accordingly, this Court +should respect that state court judgment and enter a protective order forbidding Epstein + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 297 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/11/2009 Page 2 of 11 +from being in the same room with Jane Doe during the deposition. (Jane Doe has no +objection to him observing the deposition via video-camera and assisting his attorneys +without coming into contact with Jane Doe.) +BACKGROUND +1. Jane Doe incorporates and adopts the facts set forth in the pending motion for +a protective order filed by Jane Does 2-8.' Jane Doe supplements those facts with the +following facts. +2. On June 30, 2008, Jeffrey Epstein pled guilty to one count of procuring a +person under 18 for prostitution and one count of felony solicitation to prostitution before +the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida. +He was sentenced to 18 months in jail. +3. In the course of the plea/sentencing colloquy, Palm Beach Circuit Court Judge +Deborah Dale Pucillio explicitly instructed Defendant as follows: +Court: Okay. [Item] D is, you shall not have any contact with the victim, .. +[is] there more than one victim? +Ms. Belohlavek: There's several. +Court: Several, all of the victims. So this should be plural. I'm making that +plural. You are not to have any contact direct or indirect, and in this day +and age I find it necessary to go over exactly what we mean by indirect. +By indirect, we mean no text messages, no e-mail, no Face Book, no My +Space, no telephone calls, no voice mails, no messages through carrier +pigeon, no messages through third parties, no "hey would you tell so and +so for me," no having a friend, acquaintance or stranger approach any of +these victims with a message of any sort from you, is that clear? +' Jane Doe's 2-8 have filed an affidavit of Dr. Kliman attesting to the psychological harm +that they will suffer if Epstein is allowed to intimidate them by attending their deposition. +Jane Doe is prepared to file an parallel affidavit from a similarly qualified psychologist if +the court believes that such an affidavit is necessary. +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 297 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/11/2009 Page 3 of 11 +Defendant: Yes, +Transcript of Plea Conference at 20-21. +4. Read in context, Judge Pucillio was referring to all victims of sex offenses +committed by defendant Epstein, whose names were listed in a document that has been +described as an appendix to a non-prosecution agreement with the United States +Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida. Jane Doe is listed in that +document. +5. The issue of the breadth of the no contact order has previously been before +this Court. Several of the plaintiff/victims with suits pending against Epstein before this +Court filed a motion +for an order prohibiting defendant or his agents from +communicating with them directly or indirectly Epstein opposed the requests as +"needless, unwarranted and excessive." Dkt. #127 at 5. This Court, however, firmly +overruled Epstein's objections. This Court entered its own, additional no-contact order, +ruling: +In light of Defendant's response to Plaintiff's motion for no contact order, +suggesting that the state court's order only applies to some victims and +that parties are always allowed to contact each other directly, the Court +finds it necessary to state clearly that Defendant is under this court's order +not to have direct or indirect contact with any plaintiffs, regardless of the +intended scope of the state court court's order. +Order, Dkt. #238 at 4-5. +6. In spite of two separate court orders from a state and federal court barring +direct and indirect contact by Epstein with the victims in this case, on August 27, 2009, +counsel for Epstein sent a letter to counsel for Jane Doe that stated: +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 297 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/11/2009 Page 4 of 11 +Please be advised that Mr. Epstein plans to be in attendance at the +deposition of your clients. +He does not intend to engage in any +conversation with your clients. However, it is certainly his right as a partydefendant in the lawsuit to be present and to assist counsel in the defense +of any case. +See Exhibit "A," Letter from Robert D. Critton, Jr. to Brad +Esq. (Aug. 27, +2009). +7. As counsel for Epstein knew when sending the letter on August 27, 2009, +undersigned counsel had serious back surgery scheduled for the next day, August 28. +On August 28, 2009, undersigned counsel had the back surgery performed and was in +the hospital for the next two days. He then returned home and remained under heavy +medication for the following week, preventing him from attending to matters pertaining +to this or any other case. On September 8, 2009, undersigned counsel was able to +circulate the letter from counsel for Epstein to other members of the legal team working +on this case, leading to this pleading three days later. +ARGUMENT +8. +Jane Doe Nos. 2 through 8 have explained at length why Epstein has no +right to attend the upcoming deposition of the victims in this case and why doing so +would lead to psychological harm to the victims. In the interests of brevity, Jane Doe +simply relies on those arguments as well. +Jane Doe has one additional argument to present. For this Court to +authorize Epstein to attend the deposition of Jane Doe would violate the right of a state +court judge to set conditions of a state criminal judgment. As noted above, Judge +Pucillio has ruled that Epstein is not to have "any contact direct or indirect" with Jane +4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 297 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/11/2009 Page 5 of 11 +Doe. Obviously the "no contact" order would bar Epstein from sitting a few feet away +from Jane Doe in a deposition. Sitting next to Jane Doe at the deposition would +certainly amount to "contact" with Jane Doe. For example, Epstein presumably intends +on making eye contact with Jane Doe at her deposition. +10. Epstein would apparently read the "no contact" order as allowing him to do +anything to Jane Doe except to talk to her or touch her. This bizarre reading would +undermine all sorts of Florida rules designed to physically separate persons via "no +contact" orders. See e.g., FLORIDA RULES OF JUVENILE PROCEDUre, FORM 8.962 +(standard motion for injunction in a domestic violence case containing "no contact" +provision). For example, it would allow the abusive boyfriend of a woman subject to a +"no contact" order to walk a few feet away from the woman, stare her in the eye, and +argue that merely because he had not talked to her he had not had "contact." The law +does not take such an absurdly narrow view of what amounts to "contact." See, e.g., +BRyAN A. GarNEr, BLACK's LAW DICTIoNaRY (8'" ed. 2004) (defining "no contact" order as +the same as a "stay-away order" and noting that a "stay-away order" usually "prohibits +the defendant from coming within a certain number of feet of the victim's home, school, +work, or other specific place"); Ore. Rev. STAT. § 163.730(3) (defining "contact" in antistalking statute as "[c]oming into the visual or physical presence of the other person"); +State v. Maxwell, 998 P.2d 680, 685-86 (Or. App. 2000) (affirming criminal conviction for +violation of a +"no contact" order where defendant had merely come into the visual +presence of his ex-girl friend). +5 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 297 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/11/2009 Page 6 of 11 +11. Judge Pucillio's order should not be implicitly altered by actions of this +federal court. In Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 377 (1971), the Supreme Court counseled +federal courts to avoid litigating matters properly before the state courts in state criminal +proceedings. The Court explained that federal courts "should not act to restrain a +criminal prosecution, when the moving party has an adequate remedy at law." Id. at 43. +This Younger doctrine is "an important one" that "derives from the vital considerations of +comity between the state and national governments." 31 +Children v. Bush, 329 +F.3d 1255, 1274 (11" Cir. 2003). +12. Epstein's transparent strategy before this Court is to obtain a ruling that he +is permitted to attend the deposition. He will then use that ruling of this Court as a +defense to any claim in state court that he has violated the no contact requirement of +the criminal judgment. See, e.g., Michael v. State, 992 So.2d 367, 369 (Fla. App. +2008) (violation of a no contact condition has to be willful to be punished). In short, he +is using litigation in this federal court to effectively alter the judgment entered against +him when he pled guilty to a state sex offense. +13. +If Epstein suddenly and genuinely found some reason that he needs to +attend the deposition of Jane Doe? and believes that Judge Pucillio's order unduly or +unfairly restricts his ability to do so, he is free to take up the matter with Judge Pucillio. +Unless and until he does so, the State of Florida obviously has a compelling interest in +enforcing its criminal judgment barring Epstein has a convicted sex offender from +< Epstein has not shown any interest in any other depositions that have been held in +this case and has not attended any other depositions. +6 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 297 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/11/2009 Page 7 of 11 +CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/_ +having any contact with his victims. Accordingly, this Court should give effect to the +state court judgment by entering a protective order. +CONCLUSION +The Court should enter a protective order precluding defendant Epstein from +attending her upcoming deposition (but allowing him to view the deposition via +videocamera and providing assistance to his counsel outside of the room in which the +deposition is being taken). +DATED this 11th day of September 2009. +Respectfully Submitted, +J. +ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER +Las Olas City Centre +401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1650 +Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 +Telephone (954) 522-3456 +Facsimile (954) 527-8663 +Florida Bar No.: 542075 +E-mail: bedwards@rra-law.com +and +Paul G. Cassell +Pro Hac Vice +332 S. 1400 E. +Salt Lake City, UT 84112 +Telephone: 801-585-5202 +Facsimile: +801-585-6833 +E-Mail: +cassellp@law.utah.edu +7 + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 297 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/11/2009 Page 8 of 11 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +1 HEREBY CERTIFY that on September 11, 2009, I electronically filed the +foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECE. I also certify that the +foregoing document is being served this day on all parties on the attached Service List +in the manner specified, either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated +by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those parties who are not +authorized to receive electronically filed Notices of Electronic Filing. +SERVICE LIST +Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +Jgoldberger@agwpa.com +Robert D. Critton, Esq. +rcritton@bclclaw.com +Isidro Manual +isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net +Jack +iph@searcylaw.com +Katherine Warthen Ezell +KEzell@podhurst.com +Michael James Pike +MPike@bclclaw.com +Paul G. Cassell +cassellp@bclclaw.com +8 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 297 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/11/2009 Page 9 of 11 +Richard Horace Willits +lawyerswillits@aol.com +Robert C. Josefsberg +rjosefsberg@podhurst.com +Adam D. Horowitz +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +Stuart S. Mermelstein +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +William J. Berger +wberger@rra-law.com +9 + + +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 297 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/11/2009 Page 10 of 11 +DOE v. EPSTEIN, Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA + + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 297 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/11/2009 Page 11 of 11 +BC. BURMAN. CRITTON +LUTTIER COLEMAN, LLP +TRUSTED ADVOCATES +A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP +I. MICHAEL BURMAN, PAN +GREGORY W. COLEMAN, PA +ROBERT D. CRITTON. JR. PA. * +BERNARD LEBEDEKER +MARK T. LUTTIER, PA. +JEFFREY C. PEPIN +MICHAEL J. PIKE +HEATHER MCNAMARA RUDA +DAVID YAREMA +'FLORIDA BOARD CERTIFIED CIVIL TRIAL LAWYER +ADMITTED TO PRACTICE IN FLORIDA AND COLORADO +August 27, 2009 +ADELQUI). BENAVENTE +PARALEGAL/INVESTIGATOR +JESSICA CADWELL +BOBBE M. MCKENNA +ASHLIE STOKEN-BARING +ETTY STOKE +ARALEGAL +TA H. BUDNY +F COUNS +ED RICCI +PECIAL CONSUME +USTICE COUNSE +Sent by E-mail and U.S. Mail +Brad +Esq. +Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler +401 East Las Olas Boulevard +Suite 1650 +Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 +Re: +Doe v. Epstein +L.M. v. Epstein +E.W. v. Epstein +Dear Brad: +Please be advised that Mr. Epstein plans to be in attendance at the deposition of +your clients. He does not intend to engage in any conversation with your clients. +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. +Cordal ou +Robeft D. Critton, Jr. +RDC/clz +CC: +Jack A. Goldberger, Esq. +303 BANYAN BOULEVARD • SUITE 400 - WEST PALM BEACH. FL 33401 - PHONE: 561-842-2820 - FAX: 561-844-6929 - MAIL@BCLCLAW.COM +WWW.BCLCLAW.COM \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a892b0749c4314766e9a1dfb8ba734c39fac16d070cae2717291548988243a1b.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a892b0749c4314766e9a1dfb8ba734c39fac16d070cae2717291548988243a1b.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8fea5e03dc9427307c23bc97bf50007079397f8d --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a892b0749c4314766e9a1dfb8ba734c39fac16d070cae2717291548988243a1b.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -342, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "a892b0749c4314766e9a1dfb8ba734c39fac16d070cae2717291548988243a1b", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 15, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "48e50784f7ddddddd838e02f19a6c5bac03190d42644d1e17ae7edc6fa1fe866", + "output_sha256": "d2933e1fdaec09470b5a02676220a5d108988300b94369375179db3b47c07316", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a8d3653950ad82e1c8805657852b283cc7735891fcc162b47e8bec167cc382c7.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a8d3653950ad82e1c8805657852b283cc7735891fcc162b47e8bec167cc382c7.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7fc9f241549fab1a5c4caa609ebe80ea175084c6 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a8d3653950ad82e1c8805657852b283cc7735891fcc162b47e8bec167cc382c7.md @@ -0,0 +1,101 @@ +• Filing # 99909771 E-Filed 12/06/2019 11:07:57 AM +IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT +IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC, +Publisher of the PALM BEACH POST, +Plaintiff, +V. +DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of +Palm Beach County, Florida; SHARON R. +BOCK, as Clerk and Comptroller of Palm +Beach County, Florida. +Defendants. +CASE NO.: 19-CA-014681 +COPY +MOTION TO DISMISS +Défendant, DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of Palm Beach County, Florida, by and +through the undersigned counsel, hereby files this Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint for failure to +state a cause of action, and in support thereof states: +MOITON TO DISMISS STANDARD +When confronted with a motion to dismiss, the Court must determine whether the Complaint as +phrased within its four comers sufficiently states a cause of action, whereby relief can be granted. Fox v. +Professional Wrecker Operations, 801 So. 2d 173, 178 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). A motion to dismiss tests +whether the plaintiff has stated a cause of action. The test for a motion to dismiss under Florida Rule of +Civil Procedure (.140(b) is whether the pleader could prove any set of facts as alleged in the Complaint to +support his or her claim. See, Connolly v. Sebeco, Inc., 89 So. 2d 482, 484 (Fla, 1956); Wasua Ins. Co. v. +Haynes, 683 So. 2d 1123 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). +In order to meet this test, "a complaint must allege sufficient ultimate facts to show that a pleader +is entitled to relief." W.R. Townsend Contr., Inc. v. Jensen Civ. Constr. Inc., 728 So. 2d 297, 300 (Fla. +Ist DCA 1999) (quoting +v. Cosgrove, 464 So. 2d 664, 665 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Fla. R. Civ. P. +1,110(b)). +The court need not accept interally inconsistent factual claims, conclusory allegations, +unwarranted deductions, or mere legal conclusions made by a party. Id. (citing Response Oncology, Inc. +Party_JOINT +ID#. J06 EV#J06 +DATE ADMITTED: 4/6/2022 +Case No. 2019-CA-014681 +CA/Aronberg obatorI BEACH COUNTY, FLUSEMIF BRUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 2:57:43 PM +Joint Exhibit +J06 + + +y. Metrahcalth Insurance Co., 978 F. Supp. 1052, 1058 (S.D. Fla. 1997)); Oxford Asset Mgmt. v. Jaharis, +297 F.3d 1182, 1188 (11th Cir. 2002) ("[On a motion to dismiss,] the plaintiff's factual allegations are +accepted as true.... However, legal conclusions masquerading as facts will not prevent dismissal."). To +avoid dismissal, a pleading "must allege a cause of action recognized under law" against the defending +party. Kislak v. Kreedian, 95 So. 2d 510, 514 (Fla. 1957). +COUNT! +(Florida Statutes Section 905,27) +Plaintiff attempts to assert a cause of actión, in the interest of "furthering Justice", under Florida +Statute § 905.27; however, a review of the statute in question reveals that no cause of action is provided +for therein and consequently Plaintiff's Complaint must be dismissed as a matter of law. Despite +Plaintiff's extensive recitation of the factual background regarding Jeffery Epstein and the testimony and +evidence presented to the 2006 grand jury in Palm Beach County, Florida, Fla, Stat. § 905.27, merely +explains the exceptions to the disclosure of grand jury testimony and does not set forth in ariy way a cause +of action upon which to initiate a valid law suit, +Moreover, a review of the statute at issue clearly indicates that even if § 905.27, Fla. Stat. +provided a basis for a cause of action, Plaintiff is barred from access to the records it seeks. To wit, in +perținent part, Fla. Stat. § 905.27(2) states: +When such disclosure is ordered by a court pursuant to subsection (I) for use in a civil +case, it may be disclosed to all partics to the case and to their attomeys and by the latter +to their legal associates and employees, However, the grand jury testimony afforded such +persons by the court can only be used in the defense or prosecution. of the civil or +criminal case and for no other purpose whatsoever. +Here, despite the clear statutory guidelines for disclosure of grand jury materials in a civil case, +Plaintiff is improperly seeking the requested 2006 grand jury materials for the purposes of public +disclosure pursuant to the court's inherent authority and supervisory powers over the grand jury. [See, +Complaint 11 8, 62]. Again, even if Plaintiff properly asserted a cause of action under Fla, Stat: 905.27, +the statute unambiguously states that grand jury testimony "can only be used in the defense or prosecution +of the civil or criminal case and for no other purpose whatsoever", which is distinctly different from +CA/Aronber@00Q102 BEACH COUNTY, FL, +ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 2:57:43 PM + + +Plaintiff's intended purpose for public disclosure of the grand jury evidence. | Fla. Stat. § 905.27(2). +Finally, it is significant to note that despite Plaintiff's allegations to the contrary; Defendant Aronberg is +not in custody of control of the records sought and is therefore not a proper party to this action. +WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing argument and supporting authority, Defendant, DAVE +ARONBERG, as State Attorney of Pali Beach County, Florida, respectfully requests that this Honorable +Court grant the instant Motion and dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint with prejudice, and grant Defendant +Aronberg all other and further relief deemed just and proper, including attorey's fees and costs for +defending this frivolous action +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +! HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 6th day of December, 2019, a copy of the foregoing has been +electronically filed with the Florida E-File Portal for e-service on all parties of record herein. +JACOBS SCHOLZ & WYLER, LLC +NOT A +/s/ Douglas A. Wyler +Arthur I. +, Esq: +Fla. Bar No.: 10249 +Richard J. Scholz, Esq: +Fla. Bar No.: 0021261 +Douglas A. Wyler, Esq. +5l8 Gateway B7vd, Suite 201-1 +(904) 2613 Beach, Florida 32034 +Primary: jacobsscholzlaw(@)comcast.net +General Counsel for the Florida Prosecuting +Attorney's Association +CA/Aronber@ODQ103 BEACH COUNTY, FL, D +ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 2:57:43 PM diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a8d3653950ad82e1c8805657852b283cc7735891fcc162b47e8bec167cc382c7.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a8d3653950ad82e1c8805657852b283cc7735891fcc162b47e8bec167cc382c7.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..299243ff75c4573e730e6a5aa9b6dc75e9fd2995 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a8d3653950ad82e1c8805657852b283cc7735891fcc162b47e8bec167cc382c7.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -36, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "a8d3653950ad82e1c8805657852b283cc7735891fcc162b47e8bec167cc382c7", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 3, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "99ef91ce0d88667294ccb8c82afc0bc9b71d9486c75006f6e907b5cec0380290", + "output_sha256": "ac2a6908363d5dc34bf301e5c5c133d330e69ca9d333a83d06dd7e887c86afe0", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a8fec42e0265721857a0fcdea04a4746669fd318bd1f5a1b0f7d8a3fc789d484.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a8fec42e0265721857a0fcdea04a4746669fd318bd1f5a1b0f7d8a3fc789d484.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e2c2c574a2597d1ac699562ed0e195f7f907b5d4 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a8fec42e0265721857a0fcdea04a4746669fd318bd1f5a1b0f7d8a3fc789d484.md @@ -0,0 +1,196 @@ +Case 9:08-CV-80381-KAM Document 114-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 1 of 5 +The Psychological Trauma Center +a division of Preventive Psychiatry Associates Medical Group, Inc. +Medical Director: Gilbert W. Kliman, M. D. +2105 Divisadero St., San Francisco, CA 94115 +Phone (415)292-7119 Fax (415) 749-2802 +www.expertchildpsuchiatry.com +Forensic Child Psychiatric Evaluations, Life Care Plans de Testimony +DECLARATION OF GILBERT KLIMAN, M. D. +June 4, 2009 +RE: EXPECTATION OF HARM FROM DISCLOSING THE PLAINTIFFS' IDENTITIES +IN DOES V JEFFREY EPSTEIN +1. 1, Gilbert W. Kliman, M.D., of 2105 Divisadero Street, San Francisco, California, +CA. Physicians License G55912, declare the following under penalty of perjury: +2. I have been retained by plaintiffs' law firm, Mermelstein & Horowitz, to give expert +testimony. If called as a witness, I would testify truthfully and competently concerning +my psychiatric findings about each of the plaintiffs' alleged experiences of sexual abuse, +and the enduring effects that I find each of the young women have suffered as a direct +result of the sexual acts perpetrated by the defendant. +3. I have been asked to respond to the Defense motion, which requests that some of the +plaintiffs, who are now adults, should be publicly named. It is my opinion that +involuntary public disclosure will result in the plaintiffs experiencing revictimization, +albeit by a justice system that is designed to protect them. If their identities are released, +the victims will be at-risk of having their personal lives scrutinized by friends, extended +family, spouses, children, fellow students, employers and fellow employees, the media +and general public. This type of exposure humiliates many victims and represents another +betrayal of trust. Public exposure places the plaintiffs at further risk of stigmatization, +shame and retraumatization. +4. Due to traumatization the plaintiffs are arrested in their development, and even those +who are now legally adults are arrested in part to adolescent aspects of psychology. +5. The plaintiffs do not hold their heads high with pride for having been sexually +controlled by Mr. Epstein. They hold their heads low with shame. The internal life of a +typical adolescent, into late adolescence and early adult years in the best of +circumstances, usually involves generous proportions of self-consciousness, shame, selfabsorption and self-doubt and self-blame about sexual acts. + + + +Case 9:08-CV-80381-KAM Document 114-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 2 of 5 +6. Clinically harmful levels of shame, self-consciousness, self-doubt and self-blame are +even more prominent among victims of molestations than among the general population. +7. Molested teenagers are particularly vulnerable to wrongful manipulations and special +clinical harms from the experiences of shame and humiliation. In fact, shame and efforts +to cope with it played an underlying role in the harm to each plaintiff. Each was lured +into Mr. Epstein's sexual lair with the promise of overcoming bodily and sexual shame +by earning money and bettering their lot in life. The defendant capitalized on their sexual +naiveté, insecurities and effort to better themselves, and he worked hard to overcome +their shame at his enlistment of them in his selfish gratifications. +8. The defendant who wishes to make their identities public is one whom the criminal +justice system has already determined is a person who has already committed a crime of +child molestation. That surely means he has already exploited and manipulated the girls' +state of adolescent sexuality, including their embarrassment, awkwardness and bodily +self-consciousness. He perverted their nascent and developing moral structures by posing +as a generous, avuncular mentor who could coach them about their bodies, sex and love. +The exploitation of adolescent bodies, sex and love is - from a psychoanalytic point of +view - an influence on the developing moral conscience of the children, as well as on +their sexual urges. Now the ravaging of their internal and private moral conscience is +intended by the perpetrator to be made a public ravaging. +9. Among sexual trauma victims, the insidious and destructive persistence of shame, +humiliation and associated self-blame is well-documented (Finkelhor and +Stigmatization, as experienced by a sexual trauma victim, has especially painful and +pathologic consequences. Shame lingers and becomes integrated within the adolescent +victim's malleable emerging identity, character structure and self image. Moral clarity is +distorted. Perceptions of self-blame and guilt are magnified. The impact of shame lends +to cultivating a self image of being "spoiled goods." +10. Stigmatization following sexual trauma results in long-term risks that can negatively +shape multiple facets of adult development: sexual, emotional, interpersonal and +vocational. Stigmatization, which is generally to be avoided among psychiatric patients, +increases risks among those - as in our plaintiffs as a group - who experience clinical +depression and self-destructive behaviors: drug use, criminal activity, even prostitution. +Stigmatization following abuse is associated with delinquency due to increased anger +and affiliation with deviant peers (Feiring et al., 2007). +11. Shame and guilt are important dimensions of both complex and single event, +posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Symptoms of shame are associated with feelings of +helplessness and powerlessness, which each of the plaintiffs endorsed experiencing in +relation to Mr. Epstein. +2 + + +Case 9:08-CV-80381-KAM Document 114-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 3 of 5 +12. The DSM-IV-TR recognizes both powerlessness and helplessness as requisite parts of +the traumatic experience in Criterion A for the diagnosis of posttraumatic stress disorder +Seligman, recent Past President of the American Psychological +Association, coined relevant terms of "learned helplessness and "Loss of Personal Locus +of Control." See Seligman, M.P. 1975: Helplessness, Depression, Development and +Death. W. H. Freeman, San Francisco). The teenaged girls suffered the loss of personal +locus of control to a much more experienced, sexually aggressive, powerful and +dominant, manipulative perpetrator. +13. Releasing names of the plaintiffs to the public will reenact experiences of +powerlessness and helplessness in the face of a boundary violation. Repetition and +reenactment represent central features of Criterion B in the DSM-IV-TR diagnosis of' +posttraumatic stress disorder trauma. In effect, release of their identity and public +intrusion into their personal life represents a reenactment of the shame of sexual +traumatization. Repetition and reenactment are central pathologies that afflict sexual +trauma survivors. +14. Victims of sexual abuse often rely upon some form of dissociation, splitting or denial, +as a defensive means to manage overwhelming affects associated with the sexual trauma. +Each of the plaintiff girls has employed some variation of this defense, both during the +massages and then subsequently following disclosure of the abuse. Primitive, +maladaptive responses of this nature will become additionally reinforced as a result of +public disclosure. +15. Another aspect of the plaintiffs' experience, which is recognized by DSM-IV-TR, is +that the trauma was associated with human design factors (such as cruel intention to do +harm, rape, torture). Trauma of this origin has a tendency to produce more "severe or +long lasting" posttraumatic stress disorder than natural events (DSM IV TR p. 464). A +policy of deliberate revelation of the names of the victims would reinforce the sense of +design, pattern and policy of human intentions. +16. Negative expectations about significant activities are noted in DSM-IV-TR, as part of +Criterion C. Symptoms of foreshortened future are characteristic of a traumatized +individual's clinical course (C4). They expect revictimization. They expect bad outcomes +(C7) in their social, educational, vocational, relational plans. They are hypervigilant +(Criterion D4) for further trauma, and this affects lifestyle choices and future planning. +Hypervigilance is part of the arousal set of criteria. Public disclosure of the victims' +identity will aggravate existing symptoms of hypervigilance. +17. The DSM-IV-TR diagnostic category of "chronic" is justified for each of the +plaintiffs. Scientific literature shows that the prognostic consequences of PTSD and +residual effects may last for decades (U.S. Dept. of Health, 2005; Issues in Child Abuse +Prevention Number 9 Autumn1998: Long-term Effects of Child Sexual Abuse, Paul E +Mullen and Jillian Fleming). The lasting impact upon character, identity and moral +development will probably affect long-term influences upon adult development. It is +more probable than not that stigmatization associated with public disclosure of the +3 + + +Case 9:08-CV-80381-KAM Document 114-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 4 of 5 +plaintiffs' identities will intensify the scope, nature and severity of the chronic symptom +course. +18. In addition to PTSD, shame and humiliation themselves have also been associated +with causing clinical depression. Coexisting PTSD and clinical depression places the +plaintiff's at increased risk for re-victimization and high risk sexual behaviors (e.g., +sexually transmitted disease, premature pregnancy, rape) (Nelson, 2002), and at greater +risk to victimize others (Filipas and Ullman, 2006; Desai, Centers for Disease Control, +2002) who are in their control. Studies have also shown that chronic symptoms of PTSD, +in association with a single episode of Major Depressive Disorder, can produce lifetime +adjustment difficulties, which include suicidality (Oquendo et al, 2005; Dube et al, CDC, +2001; Rohde, J. Am. Acad. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 2005). The plaintiffs will be +additionally vulnerable to these clinical outcomes, if they suffer the stigmatization and +humiliation associated with public disclosure of their identities. +19. Alternative hypothesis: I have applied the evidence shown from examination and +testing of the plaintiffs and relevant observations and information from other +professionals while testing an alternative hypothesis: that no harm would result from +public disclosure of the plaintiffs' identities. During the evaluations with the six +plaintiffs, I used generally acceptable criteria for establishing whether a DSM-IV-TR +disorder occurred. I established that there were provable and diagnosable injuries, +primarily posttraumatic stress disorder and comorbid depression. Based upon these +diagnostic signs, it is more probable than not, that exposing the plaintiff's identity to the +public is not a trivial concern or one without substantial clinical repercussions. I believe +that most child, adolescent and adult psychiatrists would share the opinion that additional +psychiatric injury will result from such exposure. +20. However, consider for the sake of argument, that my diagnostic conclusions are +incorrect, notwithstanding having fulfilled standard psychiatric evaluation procedures of +taking a history from multiple sources, videotaping and transcribing my initial interview, +and reviewing available medical and legal documents. Even if this was the case, and my +diagnostic conclusions were faulty, I believe that multiple experts, even those who may +now propose publication of the victims' names, would still come to a conclusion that the +plaintiff's suffered sexual abuse, and in some cases, multiple acts of ongoing abuse, at the +hands of Jeffery Epstein. Even without developing a subsequent disorder, there is much +clinical evidence and scientific literature showing likelihood of substantial psychiatric +harm to these sexually abused plaintiffs. +21. To form these conclusions, I have used my extensive experience in forming these +opinions. That experience is both as a treating child psychiatrist and separately as a +forensic psychiatrist. I have treated hundreds of minor patients, as well as additionally +evaluated hundreds of children and adolescents who have suffered sexual abuse. I have +made long term followups of many of the children and have treated many adults who +have been molested as adolescents. It is my opinion, with a reasonably high degree of +medical certainty that the defense motion to allow public disclosure of the plaintiffs' +identities is clinically and ethically a wrongful plan. The act of revealing their identities +against their wishes places the plaintiffs at risk, in the best of circumstances, of suffering +4 + + +Case 9:08-CV-80381-KAM Document 114-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 5 of 5 +an aggravation of existing diagnostic concerns. It is more probable than not that releasing +personal identities will +an exacerbation and magnification of symptoms lending to +increased risk of revictimization and retraumatization. +I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the +foregoing statements are true and correct, and that this declaration was executed at San +Francisco, California on June 4, 2009. +Sincerely, +Babel Kia 1D +Gilbert Kliman, M.D. +Distinguished Life Fellow, American Psychiatric Association +Senior Fellow, American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry +Brockman Award Holder, for Distinguished Lifetime Contributions to +Psychoanalysis and Psychiatry, bestowed by the American College of Psychoanalysis and +Psychiatry +LEONID NAKHODKIN < +Сомм.# 1791115 +NOTARY PUBLIC- CALIFORNIA +ÔTY & COUNTY OF SAR FRANCISCO +Mr Cova, EXP. FEE. 27, 2012 7 +State of California, City & County of San Francisco +Subscribed and sworn to (or affirmed) before me on this +do t more, by Gilbert Kinceeu +proved to me on the basis of sailstactory evidence +5 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a8fec42e0265721857a0fcdea04a4746669fd318bd1f5a1b0f7d8a3fc789d484.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a8fec42e0265721857a0fcdea04a4746669fd318bd1f5a1b0f7d8a3fc789d484.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e804d445812a4f9a3f6ab885dc41df6bbd163ef2 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a8fec42e0265721857a0fcdea04a4746669fd318bd1f5a1b0f7d8a3fc789d484.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -73, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "a8fec42e0265721857a0fcdea04a4746669fd318bd1f5a1b0f7d8a3fc789d484", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 7, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "4d483b16641bfaa25662566dd2c9fe5f11c63c869437d9be4c06f25e27386e8d", + "output_sha256": "ca199d901591cf296f0374ca6df5d629b1e807885b2f358ddd8ee39f84e207c8", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a9020c710755491f08872a24e46a808b122e0d4fad4b6ee1cb254ecdcb1a6991.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a9020c710755491f08872a24e46a808b122e0d4fad4b6ee1cb254ecdcb1a6991.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c0bb303afe5ecc8f2c182f8442377d9d655e459d --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a9020c710755491f08872a24e46a808b122e0d4fad4b6ee1cb254ecdcb1a6991.md @@ -0,0 +1,104 @@ +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/29/2009 Page 1 of 4 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff, +vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 5, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/29/2009 Page 2 of 4 +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 6, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-80994-CIV-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 7, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-80993-CIV-MARRA/_ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +C.M.A., +CASE NO.: 08-80811-CIV-MARRA/_ +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08- 80893-CIV-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al, +2 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/29/2009 Page 3 of 4 +Defendants. +DOE II, +CASE NO.: 09- 80469-CIV-MARRA +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al, +Defendants. +JANE DOE NO. 101, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 09- 80591-CIV-MARRA +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +ORDER +THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion for Protective Order Against +Piecemeal Depositions of Jane Doe No.'s 2, 3, 4, and 7 and Motion to Consolidate Cases for +Purposes of Discovery (DE 66 in 08-80119; DE 58 in 08-80232; DE 73 in 08-80380; DE 23 in +08-80993). The Court has reviewed the motions, responses, replies, and is otherwise fully +advised in the premesis. It is hereby +ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: +Plaintiffs' Motion for Protective Order Against Piecemeal Depositions is GRANTED, +pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). As to each of the ten above-styled cases, Defendant is limited +3 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/29/2009 Page 4 of 4 +to a single deposition of each Plaintiff, during which Defendant may depose the plaintiff as both +a party and a witness to all other cases of a similar nature of which the plaintiff deposed is aware. +Defendant should not expect to be able to re-depose any plaintiff relative to any new cases that +may be filed. Therefore, Defendant should examine each plaintiff about the facts relating to all +individuals of whom they are aware, regardless of whether an individual has in fact filed a claim +against Defendant. In the event additional cases are filed, upon a showing of good cause, the +Court will determine whether Defendant will be permitted to re-depose any of the plaintifts as +witnesses to the allegations made in those newly filed cases. +Plaintiffs' Motion to Consolidate Cases for Purposes of Discovery is GRANTED. In the +interests of judicial economy and efficiency, cases 08-80119, 08-80232, 08-80380, and 08-80993 +are hereby CONSOLIDATED for purposes of discovery only. +Additionally, the parties in the other six above-styled causes (08-80381, 08-80994, +08-80811, 08-80893 09-80469, 09-80591) are hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE on or +before May 5, 2009 why all of the cases should not be consolidated for discovery purposes. +DONE AND ORDERED in +at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, +Florida, this 28" day of April, 2009 +Copies furnished to: +all counsel of record +KENNETH A. MARRA +United States District Judge +4 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a9020c710755491f08872a24e46a808b122e0d4fad4b6ee1cb254ecdcb1a6991.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a9020c710755491f08872a24e46a808b122e0d4fad4b6ee1cb254ecdcb1a6991.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..95efa1dd1c8e8a4cdc2d5adfea387d9eee2aadcf --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a9020c710755491f08872a24e46a808b122e0d4fad4b6ee1cb254ecdcb1a6991.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -48, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "a9020c710755491f08872a24e46a808b122e0d4fad4b6ee1cb254ecdcb1a6991", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 4, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "b8b2b6a34ede971c6d41d8a11fd98f3adbdbf37ee5c7f5a60935ea74231412d8", + "output_sha256": "c5058e8ba27748cef3661c7582efb4e12d11c77c692bf2f693aca20ac1ac53c0", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a93d545ff63b096be6e78d8b13100cd76dce69ebc6171c3835d16b850da76cba.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a93d545ff63b096be6e78d8b13100cd76dce69ebc6171c3835d16b850da76cba.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..dc3a0d0762bd543ccd0cad0480c2edbc9bbce8f8 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a93d545ff63b096be6e78d8b13100cd76dce69ebc6171c3835d16b850da76cba.md @@ -0,0 +1,9300 @@ +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 430-1 +Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 1 of 45 +Page 1 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +JANE DOE NO. 2, +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/ +Plaintiff, +- VS- +VOLUME I OF III +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 +VIDEO-CONFERENCED AND VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF +JANE DOE NO. 4 +Tuesday, October 27, 2009 +11:11 - 6:05 p.m. +250 Australian Avenue South +Suite 115 +West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 +Reported By: +Cynthia +, RPR, FPR +Notary Public, State of Florida +Prose Court Reporting +(561) 832-7500 PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC. + + +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +19 +20 +22 +23 +24 +25 +1 +2 +3 ++ in +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 430-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 2 of 45 +APPEARANCES: +On behalf of the Plaintiff, L.M. and E.W.: +MICHAEL J. WHEELER, ESQUIRE +ROTHSTEIN, ROSENFELDT, ADLER +401 East Las Olas Boulevard +Suite 1650 +Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 +Phone: 954.522.3456 +On behalf of Jane Does 1 through 8: +ADAM D. HOROWITZ, ESQUIRE +STUART S. MERMELSTEIN, ESQUIRE +MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P.A. +18205 Biscayne Boulevard +Suite 2218 +Miami, Florida 33160 +Phone: 305.931.2200 +E-mail: Ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +On behalf of C.M.A.: +RICHARD HORACE WILLITS, ESQUIRE +RICHARD H. WILLITS, P.A. +2290 10th Avenue North +Suite 404 +Lake Worth, Florida 33461 +Phone: 561.582.7600 +(Via Telephone) +Page 2 +Page 4 +PROCEEDINGS +Deposition taken before Cynthia +Registered Professional Reporter and Florida +Professional Reporter, and Notary Public in and for +the State of Florida at Large, in the above cause. +URMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN, LL +03 Banyan Boulevar +West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 +Phone: 561.842.2820 +ALSO PRESENT destry degra, via video conference +-. Videographer +Visual Evidence, Incorporated +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 3 +INDEX +WITNESS: +DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS +JANE DOE NO. 4 +2 +3 +5 +6 +BY MR. LUTTIER 4 +EXHIBITS + +DESCRIPTION +PAGE +DEFENDANT'S EX. 1 Proposal for Settlement +DEFENDANT'S EX. 2 Answers to Interrogatories 232 +DEFENDANT'S EX. 3 Petition for Injunction 348 +DEFENDANT'S EX. 4 Handwritten Note +384 +DEFENDANT'S EX. 5 Psychological/Social History 394 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This is the 27th day of +October, 2009. The time is 11:11 a.m. This is +the videotape deposition of Jane Doe No. 4 in +the matter of Jane Doe No. 4 versus Epstein. +This deposition is being held at 250 South +Australian Avenue, West Palm Beach, Florida. +My name is Jeff +1. I am the +videographer representing Visual Evidence, +Incorporated. +Will the attorneys please announce their +appearances for the record. +MR. HOROWITZ: Sure. Adam Horowitz, +counsel for Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 4. +MR. LUTTIER: Mark Luttier, counsel for +Jeff Epstein. +MR. CRITTON: Robert Critton on behalf of +Mr. Epstein. +MR. HOROWITZ: Let me just do a -- +Page 5 +MR. WILLITS: Rick Willits on behalf of +MR. HOROWITZ: Let me just note a brief +objection. Per the letter that we have written +to you, we intend to object and instruct our +client not to answer to the extent there are +questions whose answers will implicate Rule +412. The issue of Rule 412 is, is before the +court in a pending motion, and before the depo +was set, we fully briefed the issue before the +court and have noted our intent to object to +questions which implicate that question - that +rule. +MR. CRITTON: 412 deals with the -- +MR. HOROWITZ: Sexual, sexual history. +MR. CRITTON: -- sexual history, and our, +we briefed it - +MR. HOROWITZ: We briefed it. +MR. CRITTON: - on both sides, and our +position is, is Judge +I was pretty clear +in her order with regard to CME and with regard +to this medical exam that was done by Dr. +in the +case as to why it's +relevant, and why it's material and why it's +important. We understand your position, don't +2 (Pages 2 to 5) + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 3 of 45 +Page 6 +Page 8 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +1 +5 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +agree with it, and well proceed. +MR. LUTTIER: Ready? +THE COURT REPORTER: Yes. +MR. LUTTIER: Please state your name. +you have to swear her in. +Thereupon, +(JANE DOE NO. 4) +Having been first duly sworn or affirmed, was +examined and testified as follows: +THE WITNESS: Yes. +DIRECT EXAMINATION +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. What is your name, +A. Jane Doe No. 4. +Q. And how do you spell your middle name? +A. +(Witness spells middle name.) +Q. And your last name is -- (Mr. Luttier +spelled the witness's last name.) +A. Yes. +Q. Okay. Jane Doe No. 4, when were you born? +A. June 6, 1987. +MR. WILLITS: I can barely hear the +witness. Can we get it a little closer to her? +MR. HOROWITZ: Yes. +Page 7 +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Have you ever been known by any other +name? +A. No. +Q. Have you ever been deposed before? +A. Deposed? +Q. That is have your deposition taken as +we're doing today. +A. No. +Q. Have you ever given anybody any kind of +statement under oath before? +A. The police reports, you mean? +Q. Could be, yeah. +A. Yeah. +Q. All right. Do you know what the +significance of an oath is? +A. Yeah, where you tell the truth. +Q. Okay. You understand you are under oath 18 +today? +A. Yes. +Q. Do you know what the significance of +violating an oath is? +A. (Witness shakes head.) +Q. Like, if you don't tell the truth when +you're under oath, do you know - +1 +A. Yeah, you're in trouble. +2 +3 +Q. Okay. You know that's against the law to +do that? +4 +A. Yeah. +5 +6 +Q. All right. And you know there are +criminal sanctions associated with - +7 +A. Yes. +8 +Q. - lying under oath? And have you been, +9 +have you been taught at any time in your lifetime +10 +the importance of telling the truth? +11 +A. Yeah. +12 +Q. And when do you recall first being taught +13 +the importance of telling the truth? +14 +A. Ever since I was a little girl, my parents +15 +taught me. +16 +Q. Okay. And have - to the best of your +17 +knowledge have you always told the truth when you +18 +are under oath? +19 +A. Yeah. Well, when I was -- well, certain +20 +times, yeah, when I was scared, I didn't know what +21 +22 +to do. I mean, yeah, I mean like under an +interview, like what are you trying to -- +23 +Q. Have you always told the truth when you've +24 +25 +been under oath? That's my question to you. +A. Like as if today? +Page 9 +1 +2 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Q. As of from the day you were born until +today as you sit here now. +A. Yeah. +Q. What was your answer? +A. Yeah. +Q. All right. So at any point in time that +you ever told anybody - +A. Under oath, is that like when police ask +you a question; is that being under oath? +Q. I mean when somebody - +A. Because I don't think I've -- I don't +think I've ever been under oath like -- besides like +this moment. +Q. I think when somebody asks you and tells +you that you are giving a sworn statement. +A. I guess like if I were - +MR. HOROWITZ: Are you testifying? Let me +object to the form. +MR. LUTTIER: My question stands. +MR. HOROWITZ: Object to the form. +THE WITNESS: Like, if you write a, like, +pre-statement or something like that? +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. No. If someone says to you, or asks you, +is everything that you say true and correct. +3 (Pages 6 to 9) + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 4 of 45 +Page 10 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +1 +2 +4 +5 +6 +7 +:8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +A. Yeah. +Q. And if you answer yes to that, you +understand you're telling them that what you have +told them is true and correct? +MR. HOROWITZ: Object to the form. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Is that right? +A. Yeah. +Q. Okay. So, at any point in time that you +have given a statement to anyone under oath, you've +always told the truth, correct? +MR. HOROWITZ: Object to the form. +THE WITNESS: Yeah. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Do you know of times that you've lied when +you are under oath? +A. Not under oath, but when I've been asked +questions by the police, I've been scared not +know -- not knowing what to do, that I didn't, like +speak the whole truth. +Q. Well, your parents, when you were taught +from a young age to tell the truth, did they, did +they tell you to tell the truth to police officers? +A. I've - my parents never sat me down and +was like if you're going to be in front of the +5 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 11 +police, tell the truth. They never thought in their +wildest dreams that I would be under, be in the +presence of police officers, so they're not -- they +1 +2 +3 +don't sit me down if a police officer asks you, they +have only just told me, tell the truth. +Q. They have told you -- +A. They have never said, +if a police +officer comes up to you and asks you to speak the +truth, tell them the truth. They have never, they +just told me like knowledge like the parents give to +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +kids, like teaching their kids to grow. +Q. So, they taught you to tell the truth +12 +under all circumstances, whether you are under oath +13 +or not under oath; is that right? +14 +A. Yeah. +15 +Q. And they told you to tell the truth to +16 +everybody, whether they were a police officer or not +17 +a police officer, correct? +18 +A. Yeah. +19 +Q. And you certainly know that if someone +20 +says to you and asks you a question specifically, is +21 +everything that you have said is true, you know that +22 +they're asking you whether or not what you have just 23 +told them is true, don't you? +24 +A. Yeah. +25 +Page 12 +Q. Okay. Have you always answered that +question when it's been asked of you truthfully? +A. Yes, most of the time. Yes. +Q. That wasn't my question. My question was +have you always answered that question truthfully? +MR. HOROWITZ: Form. +THE WITNESS: I feel like you're asking me +the same question and I've already answered. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. You just answer my question, +Do +you need the court reporter to read it back to you? +MR. HOROWITZ: Object to the form. Asked +and answered. +THE WITNESS: Ask me again. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Have you always answered the question, if +someone says to you, is everything you've told me +true and correct, have you always answered that +question truthfully? +A. In the past, no. +Q. So you've lied in the past; is that right? +MR. HOROWITZ: Form. +THE WITNESS: Yeah. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Okay. Who did you lie to, +Page 13 +A. The police officers that first invest - +asked me questions whenever this whole thing went +down. +Q. You lied to police officers? +A. No, I didn't lie to them. I was scared +and I didn't tell them the whole truth. +Q. Did you tell them the truth or did you not +tell them the truth? +A. No, I did tell them the truth, but I +didn't tell them everything. +Q. Did you answer their questions truthfully? +A. Yes. Most of the questions that they +asked me, I don't remember. +Q. Well, I don't mean most, I want to know if +you answered every question that - +MR. HOROWITZ: That's her answer. Object +to the form. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. - they asked you truthfully. +A. I don't -- I don't recali the questions +they were asking me. +Q. Well, have you seen a transcript of the +interrogation and the questioning that they had with +you? +A. Probably three years ago. +4 (Pages 10 to 13) + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 5 of 45 +Page 14 +Page 16 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Q. Okay. Well, when you read the +transcript - +A. I don't remember. I don't recall. +MR. HOROWITZ: Just wait -- +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. You need to let me finish my question. +MR. HOROWITZ: Let him finish his +question. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. When you read the transcript, were your +answers all truthful? +A. I don't remember the questions that they +asked. I don't remember the questions. I don't +know what exact questions. +Q. I don't want to play semantics with you, +7. My question is, when you read the transcript +were all of your answers truthful? +MR. HOROWITZ: Object to the form, asked +and answered +THE WITNESS: I don't - +MR. HOROWITZ: You already answered. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Go ahead and answer my question. +A. I don't, I don't -- yeah, I already +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +answered your question. I don't know what you want 25 +Page 15 +me to say. +Q. It's not what I want you to say, +want you to answer my question. And my question was +when you read the transcript were all, and I +emphasize the word all, of your answers as reflected +in that transcript truthful? +A. No. +Q. So, and this was about three years ago you +claim you saw a transcript of some interview between +you and some police officers? +A. The police officer with -- regarding +Jeffrey Epstein. The question -- the first +interview -- the first interview I had with the +police officers. +Q. And you say this happened three years ago? +A. No. Last time I looked over it. First +time I got interviewed, I don't remember what date +it was. It was probably like four years ago, and +this happened 2005 when I first got interviewed by +those cops. +Q. You're talking about the police officers? +A. That they came and asked me questions. +Q. And where did they come to ask you +questions? +A. At my school. +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Q. And that was what school? +A. +h University. +Q. And it was two officers from what agency? +A. I don't even know how many officers there +was. I don't remember. +Q. You just -- it's just a blank in your +mind? +A. I know that there were officers there. +Q. Is it a blank in your mind how many +officers were there? +A. Yes. I don't recall. +Q. Do you have any problem with your memory? +A. No. +Q. Okay. Do you know why you can't recall +how many officers were there? +MR. HOROWITZ: Form. +THE WITNESS: Because it was a while ago. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Was it more -- well, okay. +A. It was a scary situation. +Q. So you're saying that as time passes, your +recollection begins to fade; is that right? +A. No. +MR. HOROWITZ: Object to the form. +Page 17 +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Your recollection doesn't fade with the +passage of time; is that right? +MR. HOROWITZ: Object to the form. +THE WITNESS: No. I remember certain -- I +remember certain things, but small details like +that -- +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Okay. Small detail, what you've +A. The cops, like, they're might have been +two. There might have been three. I don't -- I +wasn't paying attention. Like, how many cops there +was, I don't know. +Q. Are you describing, when you say small +detail, are you describing -- +A. No, not small detail. I didn't mean it +like, say it like that. I don't know how many cops +there were. I don't -- +Q. Are you describing the event where, where +police officers interview you as being a small +detail? +MR. HOROWITZ: Form. +THE WITNESS: No. It's not a small +detail. +5 (Pages 14 to 17) + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 6 of 45 +Page 18 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +1 +NM +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Was it a significant event in your life? +A. Yes, it was. +Q. Had police officers often interviewed you +before that? +A. No. I have had before, but no, this was +just - +Q. You'd had interaction with police agencies +before this interview revolving, involving +Mr. Epstein, hadn't you? +A. Yeah, but that's -- +MR. HOROWITZ: Just answer his question -- +THE WITNESS: Right. +MR. HOROWITZ: -- yes or no. +THE WITNESS: Yeah. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q What police agencies had you had +interaction with before you had this interview with +regard to Mr. Epstein? +A. +Palm Beach cops. +Q. And did you tell them the truth or did you +lie to them? +A. Yes, I told them the truth. +Q. So, on that occasion -- +A. Yes. +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 19 +Q. - you knew that what you should do is +tell the truth? +A. Uh-huh. +Q. All right. And how did you know that what +you ought to do is tell the +Palm Beach Police +the truth? +A. Because -- do you mean, like, how do I +know it was the right thing to do? Because it was +the truth. +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +9 +Q. How did you know it was the right thing to +do? +10 +11 +A. Because it was the truth and my parents, +12 +like, taught me to tell the truth. +13 +Q. And how long was it before this interview +14 +in the Epstein matter that you - you had +15 +interaction with the +Palm Beach Police? +16 +(Mr. Wheeler entered the room.) +17 +MR. WHEELER: Good morning. +18 +THE WITNESS: A year maybe. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +19 +20 +Q. Okay. So one year prior to your interview +21 +with police officers with respect to the Jeffrey +22 +Epstein matter, you had been interviewed by the +23 +Palm Beach Police and you knew to tell them 24 +the truth, correct? +25 +Page 20 +A. Yeah. +Q. Now, did anything happen between the date +that you were interviewed by the +| Palm Beach +Police officers, and you knew to tell the truth, and +the date that you interviewed -- were interviewed by +the police officers with Jeffrey Epstein, that +caused you to forget that you should tell the truth +when you're being interviewed by police officers? +MR. HOROWITZ: Object to the form. +THE WITNESS: I was sexually abused, and I +was scared. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. And as a result of that, you forgot that +you were supposed to tell the truth? +A. I didn't forget. I was scared. +Q. So, you intentionally didn't tell the +truth to the police officers; is that correct? +A. No, I didn't know what to -- I didn't know +if I was going to get in trouble. I was -- I didn't +know. I thought -- I didn't know what to do. +Q. Did -- +A. I was scared. +Q. Did someone tell you that if you were +going to get in trouble that was an excuse not to +tell the truth? +Page 21 +MR. HOROWITZ: Object, form. +THE WITNESS: No. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. You knew that it was an important matter +that the police officers were coming to talk to you +about, didn't you? +A. Yeah. +Q. It was a very significant matter in your +life, wasn't it? +A. Of course. +Q. And you knew what you had to do was tell +these officers the truth, didn't you? +MR. HOROWITZ: Object to the form. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Correct? +A. For the most -- yes. +Q. Well, you knew that that's what you were +supposed to do, right? +A. Yeah. +Q. That was the right thing to do and that's +what you'd always been taught to do; isn't that +right? +A. Yeah. +Q. Okay. Now, from, from this point in time +that you say the police officers came to interview +6 (Pages 18 to 21) + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 430-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 7 of 45 +1 +2 +3 +4 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 22 +you at University, do you recall what year that +1 +was? +2 +A. 2005. +3 +Q. And do you remember what month it was? +4 +A. +No. Probably -- no. Middle of my +5 +freshman year. +6 +Q. Does October refresh your recollection? +7 +A. October, November. +8 +Q. So October or November of '05, you were +9 +interviewed by one or more police officers at +10 +University; is that correct? +11 +A. Yeah. +12 +Q. But you don't know how many officers? +13 +A. No. +14 +Q. Do you know what agency they were from? +15 +A. Palm Beach, Florida. +16 +Q. And how do you recall that the police were +17 +from Palm Beach -- the, the individuals interviewing +18 +you were from the Palm Beach police? +19 +A. +Because that's where everything happened +20 +was in Palm Beach. +21 +Q. Well, you have been interviewed by other +22 +police agencies besides the Palm Beach police, +23 +haven't you? +24 +MR. HOROWITZ: Form. +25 +Page 23 +THE WITNESS: Yeah. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +1 +2 +Q. Who else has interviewed you? +MR. HOROWITZ: Form. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. What other police agencies have +interviewed you? +Palm, Palm Beach, and Jupiter. +Q. Any other police agency? And by police +agency I mean any kind of police agency - +10 +A. FBI. +11 +Q. - federal agency, state agency, local +12 +agency, any type of police agency. +13 +A. FBI. +14 +Q. So you're adding FBI now to your list? +15 +A. Well, is that -- is that part, is that +16 +part of this? +17 +Q. Yeah, the FBI is a police agency. +18 +A. FBI, somebody from -- I don't remember +19 +what, it was like somebody, I am guessing the State, +20 +somebody that was, wanted to see me, like help me +21 +like psychologic, like, help me like through this. +22 +I don't remember, I'm guess - yeah, that's all, I'm +23 +sure. +24 +Q. So you have | +Palm police, the Palm +25 +Page 24 +Beach police, the Jupiter police and the FBI. +You've been interviewed by all those police agencies +in the past? +A. Yes. +Q. And each time one of those police agencies +interviewed you, you knew you were to tell the +truth, correct? +A. Yeah. +MR. HOROWITZ: Object to the form. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Did you - when you were interviewed by +I Palm Police agency, what was it with respect +to? +A. It was about - what do you mean, what was +it with respect to? +Q. What were they interviewing you about? +A. My ex-boyfriend. +Q. Who is that? +A. Preston. +Q. Preston who? +A. Vinyard. +Q. Is that the only time you were interviewed +by the Palm Beach Police? +MR. HOROWITZ: Object to the form. +THE WITNESS: Yeah. +Page 25 +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Have you ever been arrested by the +Palm Beach Police Department? +A. Yeah. +Q. And when was that? +A. When I was -- when was that? +Q. Uh-huh. +A. When I was 17. +Q. Okay. And when was that? What's the +date? +A. The exact date, I don't -- +Q. Roughly. +A. - remember. I don't remember. +Q. Do you know -- well, when's your birthday? +It's in June, right? +A. June 6. +Q. Okay. And it was -- it was when you were +17, between the ages of 17 and 18? +A. Uh-huh. +Q. And what were you - what were you +arrested for? +A. It was the middle - it was during the +school year when I was 17, and I don't remember date +or month. +Q. And what were you arrested for? +7 (Pages 22 to 25) + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 430-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 8 of 45 +Page 26 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +25 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +A. DUI. +Q. Okay. And did, did you have a discussion +or an interview with the police agency when they +arrested you for DUI? +A. No. +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +Q. Did you have any discussion with a police +officer at that time when you were arrested? +7 +A. They, they - no, it was for DUI, like +8 +they don't sit and interview you or write a +9 +statement. +10 +Q. Did they ask you any questions? +11 +A. Yeah, have you been drinking. +12 +Q. Did you answer any questions that the +13 +police asked you on that occasion? +14 +A. Yes. +15 +Q. Did you answer truthfully? +16 +A. Yes. +Q. Did you know that that's what you were +17 +supposed to do? +18 +19 +A. Yes. +20 +MR. HOROWITZ: Form. +21 +BY MR. LUTTIER: +22 +Q. Okay. Have you -- have you had any other +23 +interaction with the +Palm Beach Police +24 +Department other than when you were arrested for DUI +25 +Page 27 +and an interview about your ex-boyfriend Preston +Vinyard? +A. No. +Q. How many times were you interviewed by the +Palm Beach Police Department with respect to +Preston Vinyard? +A. Maybe twice or three times. +Q. And do you recall when that was? +A. No, I don't. +Q. And was that a significant event to you, +that is, you being interviewed by the +Palm +Beach Police Department with respect to your +ex-boyfriend Preston Vinyard? +A. Was it significant? +Q. Yeah, an important event in your life? +A. Yeah, any - from the police, yeah. It +was the police interviewing me about my +relationship, yeah. +Q. So, so you considered that to be an +important event in your life? +A. It wasn't - not now, no. +Q. At the time was it an important event? +A. Yeah. +Q. And on the first time that they +interviewed you about your ex-boyfriend, +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 28 +Preston Vinyard, what did they ask you about? +A. I don't remember. I don't know what the +first time. There was several. I mean, I don't +remember. +Q. There were several times that the police +interviewed you with respect to something. +A. Two or three times. I told you that. +Q. And generally what were those interviews +about? +A. Our relationship. +Q. And what caused the police to be +interviewing you on two or three occasions about +your ex-boyfriend, Preston Vinyard? +MR. HOROWITZ: Object to the form. +THE WITNESS: His drink -- our +relationship. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. What do you mean your relationship? +Explain what you mean by that. +A. His drinking. +Q. Why would the police be interviewing you +about your boyfriend's drinking? +MR. HOROWITZ: Object to the form. +THE WITNESS: Because there was an abusive +situation at one time. +Page 29 +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. What do you mean by abusive? +A. Where he, he -- it was -- I don't even +remember. It was, it was a while. It was just one +time. I mean, we got in like an argument and I +think the cops were called, and that was what +happened. +Q. Well, you said it had to do with a, if I +remember your testimony, an abusive situation. And +I've asked you to clarify what you mean by abusive +situation. And you say there was an argument and +the cops were called. Can you give me more -- +A No, there was -- +Q - specifics about what this abusive +situation was? +A. There was a time where he, he would drink +a lot. He was an alcoholic, and he would get out of +control when he drank. And he would raise his +voice, get loud. And there was one time where he +got violent with me. +Q. What do you mean by, he got violent with +you? +A. He was in my face and bit my finger. +Q. What do you mean when you say he was in +your face? +8 (Pages 26 to 29) + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +1 +2 +3 +6 +:8 +:9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 430-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 9 of 45 +Page 30 +A. It means he was in my face. We were +arguing, argument. +Q. You mean he was close -- +A. +Yes. +Q. - his face was close in proximity to +yours? +A. Yeah. +Q. And he bit your finger? +A. +Uh-huh. +Q. Was that -- +MR. HOROWITZ: Instead of uh-huh just say +yes. +THE WITNESS: Yes. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. I assume that while that event was +transpiring it was a significant event to you. +A. Yeah, when it happened. +Q. Did it scare you? +A. Uh-huh. +Q. Did it -- did it cause - +A. Yes. +MR. HOROWITZ: Thank you. +THE WITNESS: Sorry. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Did it cause you to have fear? +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 31 +A. Yeah. +1 +Q. Fear of him, I would assume. +2 +A. Yeah. +Q. Has -- up to that point in time, how did +3 +4 +it compare to any other event that had happened in +5 +your life in terms of the shock to you and the +6 +trauma it caused you? +7 +A. It was shocking, but it made me strong, +8 +and I've moved on from that. +9 +Q. At the point in time that this interaction +10 +happened that you've described between you and +111 +Mr. Vinyard where he bit your finger and he was in +12 +your face - +13 +A. Uh-huh. +Q. - was that the most traumatic thing that +14 +15 +had ever happened to you in your life as of that +16 +point in time? +17 +A. No. +18 +Q. Had you had other boyfriends do the same +19 +thing to you? +20 +A. No. +21 +Q. What was a more traumatic event that had +|22 +happened to you at that point in time than the event | 23 +where your ex-boyfriend was in your face and bit +24 +your finger? +25 +Page 32 +MR. HOROWITZ: Object to the form. +THE WITNESS: What is a more traumatic +time? +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Yeah. What was more traumatic than that +that had happened to you in your life as of that +point in time? +A. Meeting Jeffrey Epstein. +Q. Meeting Mr. Epstein. Do you mean +physically being introduced to the man? +A. No, being sexually abused by Mr. Epstein. +Q. Okay. And what do you mean by sexually +abused? +MR. HOROWITZ: Take your time. +THE WITNESS: Being fingered by him, +having him use a vibrator on me, grabbing my +nipples, smelling my butt, jerking off in front +of me, licking my clit, several times. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. What several times, licking your clit +several times? +A. Fingering me several times. +Q. So, licking your clit was not several +times? +MR. HOROWITZ: Object to the form. +Page 33 +THE WITNESS: No. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Now, when did this -- anything else? +A. (Witness shakes head.) +Q. Is the answer, no? +A. Yes, it's no. +MR. HOROWITZ: Object to the form. I +don't think she even understands what the last +question was. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q I said anything else. +A. No. +• Q. Now, when was the date that this event +occurred where the police were summoned with +Mr. Vinyard? +A. With Mr.- when what? +Q. With Preston Vinyard, when you say he was +in your face and he bit your finger. +A. Yeah. +Q. When did that happen? +A. I don't remember. +Q. What year? +A. Maybe '06, or no, I -- sorry. I graduated +'05 - 03 maybe, '04. +Q. Had you met Mr. Epstein at the time that +9 (Pages 30 to 33) +(561) 832-7500 PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC. ( + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +7 +1 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM +Document 430-1 +Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 10 of +Page 34 +this event that you've described with Mr. Vinyard +occurred where he was in your face and bit your +finger? +A. I don't remember. Yeah, because I met +Mr. Epstein before or around the same time that I +met Preston. +Q. Well -- +A. I met him before I hung -- started, before +I was serious with Preston, so yeah. +Q. Well, do you know when you first met +Mr. Epstein? +A. Yeah, when I was 15 years old. +Q. And how do you know that's when you first +met him? +A. Because it was the middle of my sophomore +year. I was 15 years old my sophomore year. +Q. And how do you know it was the middle of +your sophomore year? +A. +Because that's when I was in class with +n and that's how I knew her and that's +who brought me there. +Q. Do you have any record of when you first +met Mr. Epstein; that is any written record +anywhere? +A. Any written record? +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 35 +Q. Yep. +A. On paper? +Q. Whether it's -- examples, but I don't mean +to limit my question, examples could be you made a +note somewhere, you noted it on a calendar, you +wrote it down someplace. +A. No. +Q. Is there any record to the best of your +knowledge anywhere in the world that establishes the +first date upon which you met Mr. Epstein? +A. No. +Q. So, the sole basis for you to have -- for +you claiming that you met Mr. Epstein in the middle +of your sophomore year- +A. I did. +Q. - is your recollection; is that right? +A. Yes. +Q. Have you ever told anyone in the world +that you met Mr. Epstein for the first time at some +other time? +A. No. +Q. Are you sure? +A. From what I can recall, yeah. I don't - +I mean, I don't recall, but I don't see why I +wouldn't tell the truth, like tell them that's when +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +25 +Page 36 +I met him when I did. +Q. Well, we're going to come back to why you +would tell people something that is not true, but +I'll get to that later. +MR. HOROWITZ: Move to strike, +argumentative. +BY MR. LUTTER: +Q. Now, you say you first met Mr. Epstein +when you were 15 in the middle of vour sophomore +year, and you said somebody, +n, you +mentioned -- +A. Yes. +Q. -- she introduced you to him? +A. Uh-huh. +Q. What do you mean she introduced you to +him? +A. She brought me to his house. +Q. What do you mean she brought you to his +house? +A. She drove me to her -- his house. +O. Had vou had some sort of discussion with +n about going to Mr. Epstein's before she +drove you to his house for the first occasion? +A. Yeah. +Q. Had you had more than one discussion with +Page 37 +about going to Mr. Epstein's house +before she drove you there for the first time? +A. More than one conversation about going +there? +Q. Yep. +A. Yeah. +With And how many conversations did you have +about going to Mr. Epstein's house +before you went there for the first time? +A. +• Probably two, once on the phone and once +on the way there. +Q. And how, how long was it or approximately +how long was it before you went there that you had +your conversations with +about going to +Mr. Epstein's house before you went there for the +first time? +A. Ask that one more time, please. +Q. Do you know what the word prior means? It +means before - +A. Before it happened. +Q. Okay. Prior to you going to Mr. Epstein's +house for the first time, how long was it before +that that you had this conversation with +? Was it like a month beforehand, two months +beforehand, six months beforehand? +10 (Pages 34 to 37) + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 11 of +Page 38 +A. I don't remember. +Q. Do you, do you have any idea at all? +A. No. +Q. Do you have any approximation? +A. No. +Q. Do you have any record of your +conversations with her? +A. No. +Q. Whether it's writing or recorded or -- +A. No. +Q. - or any other manner? Have you ever had +discussions with +n about Mr. Epstein +since you went there for the first time? +A. Yeah. +Q. Have you had discussions with +about Mr. Epstein since you were interviewed at +University by the police department? +A. About Jeffrey Epstein? +Q. About anything. +A. Yeah. +Q. Okay. Have you had discussions with +a since you were interviewed at +by the police department about Jeffrey Epstein? +A. Yeah. +Q. And when did you last have a conversation +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +University +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 39 +with +about Jeffrey Epstein? +A. +When we were out. +Q. Out? What do you mean by -- +A. I ran into her in a club. +Q. What club? +A. Dr. Feelgood's. +Q. And where is Dr. Feelgood's located? +A. Downtown Clematis. +Q. And when did you run into her at +Dr. Feelgood's? +A. Probably January, maybe. +Q. January of what year? +A. '09 or '08 or it was, maybe 2008, 2009, +somewhere between. +Q. Which is it, 2008 or 2009? +A. It was like January, like right before, in +like January. +Q You mean -- +A '08, like -- +Q. The end of 08 - +A. - like December. +Q. Okay. +A. Yeah, the end of '08, beginning of '09. I +don't remember exactly what month, but I know it was +in that time frame, approximately. +1 +2 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +Page 40 +Q. So, sometime between December of '08 and +January of 09 you, to use your words, ran into +h at Dr. Feelgood's -- +A. Uh-huh. +Q. - in downtown West Palm Beach? +A. Yeah. +Q. Was it an accidental meeting - +A. Yes. +Q. - or was it a planned meeting? +MR. HOROWITZ: This will help you out. +Just kind of wait until he's - +THE WITNESS: Done talking. +MR. HOROWITZ: -- he's done talking, yeah, +because, you know, it's for both of your +benefits. +THE WITNESS: Sorry. What? +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Was it a coincidental meeting, or had you +planned to meet her there? +A. Coincidental. +Q. And why were you going to Dr. Feelgood's +on this occasion when you ran into her? +A. To hang out with friends. +Q. Were you going alone or were you alone? +A. No, I wasn't. +Page 41 +Q. Who were you with? +A. Lauren. +Q. Lauren who? +A. +Q. And who is +? +A. Used to be one of my friends. +Q. I assume - +A. Friend, a friend of mine. +Q. Okay. +A. Not used to be a friend of mine. +Q. Okay. Was anybody else -- did vou go to +Dr. Feelgood's with this friend +A. Yes. +0. Was there anybody else with you and +r when you went to Dr. Feelgood's? +A. No. +Q. So, the two of you had hooked up, as they +say, and were heading to Dr. Feelgood's? +A. We went out together. +Q. Okay. And had you gone with +to some other place before you went to +Dr. Feelgood'si +A. No, we got ready at her - her place, and +then went together. +Q. Her place meaning what? +11 (Pages 38 to 41) + + +1 +5 +6 +8 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +1 +2 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 430-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 12 of +Page 42 +A. Her house where she's staying. +1 +Q. Does she live here locally, or did she at +2 +that time? +3 +A. Yeah. +4 +Q. And where did she live? +5 +A. Briar Bay. +6 +Q. Briar, B-r-i-a-r? +7 +A. Uh-huh. +8 +Q. Did she have a house or an apartment or +9 +something there? +10 +A. She was staying with her boyfriend. +Q. And who was that? +11 +12 +A. Brian. +13 +Q. Brian who? +14 +A. I don't, I don't know his last name. +15 +Q. Had you met him before? +16 +A. Uh-huh. +17 +MR. HOROWITZ: Yes? +18 +THE WITNESS: Yes. Sorry. +19 +BY MR. LUTTIER: +20 +Q. And who drove on this occasion that you 21 +went to Dr. Feelgood's? +22 +A. I don't remember. +23 +Q. Did you have a car then? +24 +A. Yes. +25 +Page 43 +Q. What car did you have then? +A. A +Saturn. +Q. Did +have a car then? +A. Yes. +Q. What did she have? +A. An Ultima. +Q. Is there any record anywhere that you +could consult to refresh your memory about who drove +on this occasion -- +A No. +Q - when you went to Dr. Feelgood's? +A. Huh-uh. +Q. What kind of car did you say she had? +A. An Ultima. +Q. Do you remember the color? +A. Silver. +Q. And why were you and +I getting +together to go to Dr. Feelgood's on this occasion in +December of '08 or January of '09? +A. To hang out. +Q. And now by December of '0B, were you +already a student at +University? +A. +I was still a student at +University, +yes. +Q. And was +a student there, +1 +2 +3 +4 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 44 +too? +A. I think she took the semester off because +she had something happen with her family. I +remember -- +Q But she- +A I don't know if she was still in school or +if she was already off. I don't remember. +Q. But this is atl +n University? +A. Lauren? +Q. Yeah. +A. No. +Q. And you said she took the semester off. +A. She didn't go to +Q. , she went to a different -- do you know +where she went? +A. FAU. +Q. FAU. What campus? +A. Boca, I'm pretty sure. +Q. All right. So, all right. How long had +it been since you had seen +r before you +got together to go to Dr. Feelgood's? +A. She's a good friend of mine. I see her, I +mean, saw her often. +Q. And you two were at different colleges, +correct? +Page 45 +A. Uh-huh. +Q. Would you see her often while you were +each enrolled in your different colleges? +A. Yes. +Q. With what degree of frequency did you see +? +A. Well, we were friends. We saw each other +often. Sometimes we -- maybe a week. Sometimes I'd +see her every day. +Q. Even while you were at college? +A. I have been friends with her for years. +Yes. +Q. Well, let's talk about in the year 2008. +A. Uh-huh. +Q. In the year 2008, you were a student at +University for that entire year, correct? +A. In the beginning of the year, I probably +saw her about maybe once a week, not even, maybe +two - maybe twice every two weeks. I mean, I +don't, I don't remember. +Q. Let's break this down. In the calendar +year 2008, you were a student at +University for +the entire year, correct? +A. Yes. +Q. In the calendar year 2008,l +was +12 (Pages 42 to 45) + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 13 of +1 +2 +5 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +1 +3 +5 +7 +8 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 46 +a student at FAU for the entire year? +A. Yes. I don't know if she was there for +the entire year. +Q. All right. For some period, at least, she +was a student? +A. Yeah. +Q. You lived -- did you live on the campus at +n? +A. I lived on campus. +Q. Where did +live? +A. With her boyfriend. +Q. On the FAU campus? +A. No, in Briar Bay. +Q.. +And Briar Bay is in what city? +A. +Palm Beach. +Q. +So, so +was commuting from - +A. Yes. +Q. - +Boca? +Palm Beach to the FAU campus in +A. Yes. +O. When, when I asked you if you were living 21 +at +• University on campus, I, I meant that to +mean full time. Did you understand that? +A. Yeah, freshman through senior year. +Q. Did you have an apartment or something +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +23 +24 +25 +Page 47 +there? +1 +A. No. +2 +Q. Did you have a house there? +3 +A. No. +4 +Q. Did you have a dorm there? +5 +A. Dorm. +6 +Q. Okay. What dorm did you live in? +7 +A. Newland. +8 +Q. N-e-w-l-a-n-d? +9 +A. Uh-huh. +10 +Q. And you were -- were you in the same dorm +11 +during the entire period of time in 2008? +12 +A. From junior to senior year. +13 +Q. And your junior year was what year, +14 +calendar year? +15 +A. '08 to '09. +16 +e. Okay. All right. Now, during the time +that you were living in that dorm and +17 +was 18 +commuting back and forth to FAU from +Beach, in the calendar year 2008 with what degree or +frequency did you personally see +? +21 +A. Of 08? +Q. Of '08. +A. I don't know. She was my friend. I saw +her once a week maybe. +24 +25 +Page 48 +Q. Earlier you mentioned that in the +beginning of the year you thought you might have +seen her every day. +A. On weekends, like when I -- when I had -- +I played soccer. I don't know exactly my - when I +was in my soccer schedule, when I was traveling a +lot for soccer, I had soccer games. So whenever I +wasn't playing soccer, I hung out with Lauren. +Q. All right. Then give me your -- if you +can't give me more specifics, give me your best +approximation of what degree of frequency. +A. Once a week maybe. +Q. Okay. And that would be -- +A. Or maybe I would -- maybe I would see her +maybe twice that month. +Q. Did there come a time in the calendar year +2008 that you saw her with greater frequency? +A. When my season, soccer season ended. +Q. And when is that? +A. It ended in October. +Q. So, starting in October of '08, did you +begin to see +more frequently? +A. Yes. +Q. Now, how long had +been a +friend of yours? +Page 49 +A. Maybe five, six years. Wait, sophomore, +junior, senior, freshman. Yeah, like five years. +Q. And when did you first meet her, when you +were in high school? +A. Uh-huh. Yes. +Q. Was she in the same class as you were? +A. No. +Q. Was she ahead of you in high school? +A. Yes. +Q. How many years? +A. One year. +0. +All right. On this occasion when you and +went to Dr. Feelgood's and ran into +did -- vou indicated that you had a +conversation with +about Jeff Epstein. +Do you recall that testimony? +A. Yes. +Q. And was it just the three of you that were +present for this conversation, that is you, +and +A. No, it was just me and Haley. +Just you and haley. And where was +at the time of this conversation? +A. Dancing and hanging out with a guy. She +wasn't sober. +13 (Pages 46 to 49) +(561) 832-7500 PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC. + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +1 +2 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +19 +20 +21 +22 +24 +25 +Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 14 of +Page 50 +Q. Was there ever -- she what? +A. She wasn't sober. +Q. Were you sober? +A. Yes. +Q. And did this interaction occur when you +first got there or after you had been there for some +period of time? +A. We had been there probably 30 minutes. +Q. Was +sober when she got +there? +MR. CRITTON: Are you saying Lauren or +Haley? I'm sorry. +MR. LUTTIER: No, Lauren. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q +Yeah, was +there? +sober when you got +MR. HOROWITZ: Object to the form. +THE WITNESS: No, we both went there +together. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q Was +there. +sober when you got +MR. HOROWITZ: Form. +THE WITNESS: No. Well, yeah. When we +left Dr. Feelgood's, no. We went to +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 51 +first. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. When did you, how long had you been at +1 +2 +3 +4 +A. +• Maybe like two hours. +Q. Was there any time on this occasion when +you went to Dr. Feelgood's that you and +and +were together talking? +A. Lauren didn't really talk to Haley much +that night. She, she was, she said hi to her, but +she was like, more like, she wasn't like there. She +was like dancing, having a good time, so we just +left. +Q. And what was the conversation that +transpired between you and +regarding +Jeff Epstein? +A. She asked me if I was suing Mr. Epstein. +Q. And what did you say? +A. I told her no, because I didn't want to - +I didn't want to talk to her about the situation. I +was out. +Q. And so you lied to your friend +A. She's not my -- she's not a friend. +Q. Was she ever a friend of yours? +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 52 +A. More of an acquaintance than a friend. Me +and her were never - never really hung out. Like +moderations, like, hung out maybe for a month and +then we wouldn't talk for four months. +Q. Okay. But in any event, you were +dishonest with her when she asked you if you were +suing Jeff Epstein? +A. Uh-huh, because I didn't want to speak +about it to her. +Q. Well, what else did you and she discuss +about Jeff Epstein on that occasion? +A. Nothing. I told her I wasn't seeing him, +and I didn't want to talk about it. +Q. Well, there wouldn't have been anything to +talk about if you weren't seeing him, right? +A. Yeah. +MR. HOROWITZ: Object to the form. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. So, what did you mean when you said you +didn't want to talk about it? +A. Nothing, I just -- I didn't tell her I +didn't want to talk about it. I just said no, and +then I just -- we talked about what, where she's +been for the last, like, while. +Q. Now, I just want to clarify: You +Page 53 +understand that today you are under oath, right? +A. Yes. +Q. And you understand that means that you +have sworn that you are going to tell the truth? +A. Yes. +MR. HOROWITZ: Let me just -- you have +instructed her, and she -- she said she +understood the oath, so I'm not sure where you +are going. I object to the form and move to +strike. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Did you say anything else to +on this occasion at Dr. Feelgood's about Jeffrey +Epstein? +MR. HOROWITZ: Form. +THE WITNESS: No. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Are you sure? +A. Yes. +Q. Did you say anything to l +on +this occasion at Dr. Feelgood's -- +A No. +Q - about Jeff Epstein? +A. No, I told her that I - she saw Lauren +there. Me and her both seen Haley for the first +14 (Pages 50 to 53) +(561) 832-7500 PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC. (561) 832-7506 + + +1 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +• +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM +Document 430-1 +Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 15 of +Page 54 +time in years, and we saw her. We were just like in +shock and that was it. That's all we talked about, +like, God, I can't see -- I can't believe we're +seeing Haley here since the whole Jeffrey Epstein. +That's the only conversation that me and Lauren had. +Q. So, how long did the conversation between +you and Haley take? +A. About, about Mr. Epstein? +Q. Yeah. +A. Like five seconds. +Q. And that was the only thing that was said +was what you just told me? +A. About Mr. Epstein, yes. +9. Now, you kind of indicated that you said +was an acquaintance of yours? +A. Uh-huh. +Q. But did you tell me earlier that I +was the person that drove you over to +Mr. Epstein's the first time? +A. Yeah. +Q. So, at that time, that is the time she +drove you over to Mr. Epstein's, was she more than +an acquaintance of yours? +A. We were friends on and off. I never +trust, I could never trust her. +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 55 +Q. Why couldn't you trust her? +A. Because she wasn't, like, truthful. She +was, she -- there was -- she was shady about +situations. She'd be your friend one minute and +then behind your back the next. +Q. And how long did you know +A. How long have I known her or how long did +I know her? +Q. No, at that time how long had you known +her? +A. I met her my sophomore year, I don't +think - I don't know. +Q. So, from the beginning, the first day you +met her, you -- +A. No, I met her in class. It was - I know +it was my Spanish class. I don't know if it was +fall or spring. I just know I met her in my Spanish +class. +Q. In your junior year - +A +No. +Q +- or sophomore year? +A. My sophomore year. +Q. So, from the first time you met her, did +you know that she was somebody you couldn't trust? +A. No. +1 +2 +3 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +14 +15 +16 +18 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 56 +Q. What did you -- +A. In high school you're, you're friends with +somebody one day and you're not the next. +Q. So when did you first learn that you felt +that you couldn't trust +A. Whenever I introduced her to some of my +friends and I later found out that she was talking +about me behind my back. +Q. What did you learn she was saying about +you behind your back? +A. I don't remember exactly what it was. I +just remember that she was saying stuff behind my +back, and that was the reason why we didn't get +along. We fought because of that occasion. We got +into a fistfight. +Q. When did you get into a fistfight with +A. Probably like, I don't know. I don't even +remember. Sometime in high school, sophomore, +Junior year -- or sophomore to junior, junior year, +sometime around then. I don't remember. +Q. Which was it? You said you met her -- +A. I met her in -- +Q. - in your sophomore year. +A. Yeah, sophomore year. +Page 57 +Q. So- +MR. CRITTON: You guys are talking over +one another. +MR. LUTTIER: Thank you. +MR. CRITTON: We're going to have a +miserable record. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. So, was it the year that you met her that +you got into a fistfight with her or the next year? +A. I don't remember. +Q. So anything, any record from which you +could consult to refresh your memory? +A. No. +Q. And where did this fistfight occur? +A. I don't remember. +Q. Was it a significant event in your life +that you're having a fistfight with another girl in +your sophomore year of high school or junior year of +high school? +A. I mean, at that time I'm sure, but not -- +Q. Was that something that often happened in +your life that way - +A. No. +Q. - you'd have a fistfight with another +girl? +15 (Pages 54 to 57) + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM +Document 430-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 16 of +2 +3 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +1 +2 +3 +.4 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 58 +A. No, never. +Q. And you have no -- +A. She, like, came at me. +MR. HOROWITZ: Just answer what he asks. +THE WITNESS: Sorry. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. What do you mean, she came at you? +A. +Fighting me with her hands. +Q. But you can't recall where that happened? +A. At a party in high school. +Q. So, now you do recall where it happened? +A. I don't know where it was. We were out +one night. +Q. And what was the cause of the fight? +A. Her talking behind my back and me asking +her about it and -- +Q. Well, what did she say behind your back? +A. I don't remember. +Q. This event that was -- you've described as +being significant, you don't recall what the +specific cause of it was? +MR. HOROWITZ: Object to the form. +THE WITNESS: No. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. And how long did this fistfight go on at +Page 59 +this party? +A. It wasn't - she just came at me. We +didn't, like, touch each other, like people pulled +us back, but it was about to like, like become a +fight. She was like coming at me and somebody +pulled her, like, off me. +Q. +And when did this occur in relationship to +when she took you to Mr. Epstein's for the first +time? +A. I don't remember. +Q. Before or after she took you to +Mr. Epstein's for the first time? +A. +1, this was after. +Q. So there was some period of time between +when you first met her in your sophomore year and +this fight that you were friendly with her? +A. When I first met her, yes. I didn't know. +MR. HOROWITZ: Just answer what he asks. +THE WITNESS: Sorry. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Now, you said that you had two +conversations with +before you went - +she took you to Mr. Epstein's for the first time, +correct? +A. Uh-huh. +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +1 +2 +3 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 60 +Q. And you said one of those was on the phone +and one was in the car on the way to Mr. Epstein's. +Have I got that right? +A. Not on the phone. In a car, she drove me +there in the car talking about it. +Q. So there was two conversations. The first +conversation was between you and her on the phone. +A. Yeah. +Q. The second conversation was when you were +in the car driving to Mr. Epstein's? +A. Yes. +Q. All right. Now, how is it that you are +able to recall that there were only two +conversations between the two of you about -- +A. I said -- +MR. HOROWITZ: Wait for him to finish the +question. +THE WITNESS: Sorry. I said it was +possibly two conversations. I didn't say that +there was. But from what I remember I said +there was possibly two conversations. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Could there have been more? +A. Yeah. Maybe. I don't remember. +Q. Okay. And do you recall when the first +Page 61 +phone conversation with +was in +relationship to the point in time that you were +actually taken to Mr. Epstein's? +A. Do I remember -- sorry, ask the question +again. +Q. Was it a month, two months beforehand? +A. No, I don't remember. +Q. What was the substance of your first +conversation with +about Jeffrey +Epstein, the one that you described as having taken +place on the phone? +A. What did the conversation consist of? +Q. Yes. +A. She said that there's this guy in Palm +Beach that she knows, that you get $200 if you give +him a massage, and that you don't have to -- she +said that like, if he asks about your age, don't say +anything, like, not to tell him, and I mean that was +pretty much it. +Q. Did she tell you anything else? +A. No. +MR. LUTTIER: Would you go back and read +her answer for me? +(The requested portion of the record was +read by the reporter.) +16 (Pages 58 to 61) + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +1 +2 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 17 of +Page 62 +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. What did you mean when you started to say +you don't have to? What were you talking about, +don't have to? What was she referring to? +A. What do you mean, don't -- nothing, I +Q. Well, you said that she told you, you +don't have to, and then you went off on something +else. +A. Nothing. I know there was nothing that +she said I don't have to. I misphrased my words. +Q. So she didn't say to you anything that you +don't have to? +A. No. What do you mean don't - like, I +don't have to tell him how old you are, like your +age. I rephrased. +Q. So, what she said to you, your best +recollection is - +A. Yeah, she said, like, don't tell him -- +Q. - you don't have to tell him your age or +don't tell him your age? +A. Don't tell him your age. +Q. Okay. And did she say anything else to +you? +A. Not that -- I mean, no. +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 63 +Q. Did she tell you anything else about what +to expect or what would be expected of you? +No, she said that, like, he -- well, she +said, I don't -- no, I mean, no. She said, like, +she made it seem like it wasn't like a big deal, +like, all you're going to go there, you're going to +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +give him a massage, you're going to get $200 for it, +and then you're going to leave. +Q. That wasn't my question. My question was, +did she tell you anything else -- +10 +A. No. +- about what to expect? Not a single +12 +word from her mouth about what to expect? +13 +A. No. You mean to give him a massage? +14 +Q. Okay. I got that. You said she said you +15 +have to give him a massage and don't tell him how +16 +old you are. Those are the only two things she told 17 +you before you went to Jeffrey Epstein's? +A. About Mr. Epstein? Yes. +Q. Well, about anything else before you went +to Mr. Epstein's? +A. Conversations? +Q. Yeah. Anything else she said to you +before you went to Mr. Epstein's? +A. No. +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 64 +Q. So the only thing you knew was you were +going to somebody's house in Palm Beach and you were +going to give him a massage, but you weren't to tell +him your age. Is that what you're telling me? +MR. HOROWITZ: Object to the form. +THE WITNESS: (Witness nods head.) +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. You need to -- audibly. +A. Yeah. +Q. And are you sure about that? +A. Yeah. +Q. Okay. Have you ever told anybody in the +world any different story about what you were told +by +MR. HOROWITZ: Object to the form. +THE WITNESS: I mean, not that I remember. +I don't, I never really talked to anybody about +this situation. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Well, that's not true. We talked to -- +MR. HOROWITZ: Excuse me. Move to strike. +You can't testify. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Well, didn't you tell me earlier that you +talked to the Palm Beach Police, you talked to the +Page 65 +FBI, you thought you talked to somebody from the +State about this situation? +A. Yeah, other than people that come -- like +ask me about it, not like friends or like -- what +are you -- like, never mind, I won't even -- +Q. My question was have you ever told anybody +in the world anything different about what +A. +Not that I remember, no. +Q. - told you? +A. No, not that I remember. +Q. You wouldn't have just made stuff up -- +A. No. +Q. - and told somebody some fabricated +story, would you? +A. No. +Q. So, if you told somebody something else -- +A. No, but no, I -- +Q. - it would have been the truth; is that +right? +A. (No verbal response.) +Q. If you told somebody anything else about +what +told you about what to expect, it +would have been the truth even though you don't +recall it now; is that correct? +17 (Pages 62 to 65) + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +24 +25 +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM +Document 430-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 18 of +Page 66 +Page 68 +MR. HOROWITZ: Object to the form. +THE WITNESS: No. Like -- +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. No? +A. +Sorry. Say that one more time. I'm so +confused. Say that one more time. +Q. You wouldn't have made something up and +told somebody something that wasn't true about what +n told you to expect? +A. No, I would not make something up. +MR. HOROWITZ: Object to the form. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. So, if there is testimony about you +telling others what +h told you to expect, +it would have been truthful - +MR. HOROWITZ: Object to form. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. - what you told them, correct? +MR. HOROWITZ: Object to the form. +THE WITNESS: If that's what I said? +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Yeah. +A. If it was written down, yeah. +Q. For example, let's just assume, for +purposes of this question, you told the police +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +THE WITNESS: I don't remember, no. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. - to expect at Jeffrey Epstein's; is that +correct? +MR. HOROWITZ: Object to form. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Do you want her to read it back to you? +A. Yeah. +Q. She'll read it back to you. +(The requested portion of the record was +read by the reporter.) +THE WITNESS: No, she could have. I don't +remember. +BY MR. LUTTER: +Q. So, +could have told you a lot +of other things about what to expect at +Mr. Epstein's, but you just don't recall what she +said as you sit here now; is that right? +A. Yeah. +0. Okay. Like, as you think about it now, +h actually told you what to expect in +terms of what you should wear or not wear, didn't +she? +A. No. +MR. HOROWITZ: Object to the form. +Page 67 +officers that +told you more than what +you just told me. +A. Well, then I forgot what I said to the +police officers. +Q. Wait, wait a minute. +A. I am just remembering the specific details +that I remembered that I will never forget. +Q. That's not my point. Well, you've - +apparently, you are not sure if you forgot other +things, right? +A. No. If there's other -- there was like -- +•, never mind. +Q. no we're going to -- +A +I don't understand what you're trying to +ask. +Q. - get. I want to go through this. I +want to make sure that we're very clear about what +your recollection is. +A. I am sorry, I don't remember. +Q. Let me put it to you straight. +A. I am telling you what I remember. +Q. Okay. So you're not denying that you told +police officers that +told you more than +what you just told me she told you to expect -- +MR. HOROWITZ: Object to form. +Page 69 +1 +2 +3 +6 +7 +8 +9 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. You're sure of that? +A. Yeah. +0. +Did you ever tell anybody that +told you what to expect in terms of what you +should wear or not wear - +MR. HOROWITZ: Object to the form. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. - when you went to Mr. Epstein's? +A. What I should wear? +Q. Wear or not wear. What was to be expected +of you; i.e., would you be clothed, would you not be +clothed, that kind of stuff. +A. Yeah, to wear clothes. +Q. So that's all you recall as -- well, +strike that. +What did Haley tell you about what to wear +or not wear? +A. I don't remember. +Q. You are not denying that she said +something to you; you just don't recall? +A. I don't see why she would tell me to wear +something. +Q. That's not my question. You're not +denying that she told you something about what to +18 (Pages 66 to 69) + + +1 +2 +3 +1 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +1 +2 +:6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM +Document 430-1 +Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 19 of +Page 70 +wear or not wear? +A. I don't remember. +Q. How about were there any statements H +made to you of whether it would be expected +that you would have your clothes on or you would +remove any portion of your clothes during the +massage? +A. No, that I'd keep my clothes on. +Q. Did that - did you have that conversation +9 +with H +before you went to Jeffrey +10 +Epstein's the first time? +11 +A. I don't remember. +12 +Q. So, you don't know? You're not telling us +13 +under oath today that +told you that you +14 +were going to go to Jeffrey Epstein's house, give +15 +him a massage, you were going to leave all your +16 +clothes on, and you were going to get paid $200? +MR. HOROWITZ: Object to the form. +17 +18 +THE WITNESS: Yeah, why would I take my - +19 +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. I am not asking you why, +The "why" +20 +21 +is no matter. I want to know whether you're +22 +denying - +A. No, I don't remember. +23 +24 +Q. - that, that she told you anything about +25 +Page 71 +what would be expected in terms of whether you were +going to have your clothes on. +MR. HOROWITZ: Object to the form. +THE WITNESS: No, I don't remember. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Good, but you're not denying that -- +MR. HOROWITZ: Object to the form. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. - she said something about it? +MR. HOROWITZ: That's the fifth time +you've asked that question. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Correct? Is it yes or no? +MR. HOROWITZ: Well, it's not a yes or no. +Object to the form. +MR. LUTTIER: I get to ask the questions. +MR. HOROWITZ: Yeah, and she said -- she +gets to answer them. She said I don't know. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Is it a yes or a no? +A. I don't -- +MR. HOROWITZ: I don't know is her answer. +Move on. +MR. LUTTER: Let me show you something, +• Let's mark this as Exhibit No. 1. +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 72 +THE WITNESS: What am I reading? +MR. HOROWITZ: Nothing. Just look it +over. Can we take a break? +MR. LUTTIER: Yeah, I was going to ask you +just to let her look at that while we take a +break. +MR. HOROWITZ: We're going an hour, so -- +MR. LUTTIER: Just mark that as Exhibit 1. +(Defendant's Exhibit No. 1 was marked for +identification.) +THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Off the record at +12:07. +(A brief recess was held.) +THE VIDEOGRAPHER: It is now 12:15. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. +i I have now handed you what's been +marked as Exhibit No. 1. Can you -- have you ever +seen that document before? +A Yeah, with my lawyer. +Q. Have you ever seen that document? +MR. HOROWITZ: She said yes with her +lawyer. +MR. LUTTIER: +did she? Okay. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. So, you have had an opportunity to review +Page 73 +this before today? +A. Uh-huh. +Q. And you're aware of its contents? +MR. HOROWITZ: Let me just object to the, +to the exhibit as being used for any purpose +in, in this litigation. And by that definition +it can't be. It's a statutory proposal for +settlement. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. All right. And, and do you recall +approximately how long ago you first saw this +document? +A. A while ago. +Q. What's your best approximation? +A. I don't-- +MR. HOROWITZ: Don't wait for me. We're +on record. +THE WITNESS: I don't know. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Okay. Was it six months, a year? Just a +rough approximation. +A. Yeah. +Q. Do you understand what it is? +A. Uh-huh. +Q. Okay. That's a yes? +19 (Pages 70 to 73) + + +1 +3 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +1 +2 +6 +7 +8 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM +Document 430-1 +Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 20 of +Page 74 +A. Yeah. +Q. All right. Now, you say you -- your, your +recollection is that you first saw Mr. Epstein in +the middle of your sophomore year. When was the +last time that you were, that you went to +Mr. Epstein's or saw him? By "saw him"I mean +performed a massage on him or went to his house. +A. It was like my freshman year in college. +Q. That's +University? +A. Uh-huh. +e. And that would be the year 2005? +A. 2005, 2006. +Q. Okay. Well, you graduated from high +school in -- +A. '05. +Q. - June of '05. That would have been when +you turned 18, right? +A. Uh-huh. +Q. Okay. Then you started at +University +in about August of '05 - +A. Fall. +Q. - is that correct? +A. Uh-huh, correct, in the fall. +Q. So, and then it was after you had started +University you, you were still going to +Page 75 +Mr. Epstein's, correct? +A. Uh-huh. +Q. And do you recall when the last time you +went to Mr. Epstein's in relationship to when you +were interviewed by the Palm Beach Police +Department? +A. Do I -- sorry, ask the question again. +Q. Yeah. When was the last time you went to +Mr. Epstein's in relationship to when you were +interviewed by the police at +| University? +A. Sometime in '05, like right before I +went- +Q. +• Literally it was days before you were +interviewed by the police that you had been to +Mr. Epstein's, wasn't it? +A. I don't know. Probably. +Q. It was like October of '05 that the police +came to see you at |||| University? +A. Maybe. I don't know. I know - I don't +remember. I know it was like sometime in '05. I +don't remember. It was between like the middle of +my freshman year. +Q. Did you, do you recall that when the +police were there seeing you that, that you had been +to Mr. Epstein's within less than ten days before +1 +2 +4 +5 +6 +7 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 76 +they came to see you? +A. Probably, yeah. I was there. +Q. And with what degree of frequency did you +go to Mr. Epstein's between June of '05 and October +of '05? That covers the summer of '05 and the fall +of '05. +A. Maybe twice a week. Every single time. +MR. HOROWITZ: He's saying summer and fall +of '05. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Right, do you know specifically - +A. Maybe like whenever -- every time he was +in town, maybe like two to three times a week. +Q. So, for the month of June '05, July '05, +August 05, September '05, and October '05, that's +five months, your recollection is that you were +going to Mr. Epstein's twice a week during that +period? +A. Two or three times. +MR. HOROWITZ: Object to the form. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Two or three times per week? +A. Uh-huh. Every single time -- or every +time he was in the States or in Palm Beach. +Q. Well, was he in Palm Beach for the entire +Page 77 +period from June 1st of '05 to October of '05? +MR. HOROWITZ: Form. +THE WITNESS: No, not that I can remember. +He was always traveling. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Do you know for what period of time he was +in Palm Beach between June and October of '05? +A. No. Like, whenever he would come down, he +would stay for, I don't even know, I mean -- +Q. So it would be a fair statement to say you +don't know how often you went to Mr. Epstein's? +A. Yeah, I do. I went there every two or +three times. But I just don't -- every time he came +he would come for the week and he'd leave or maybe +he'd come for two days and then leave. Maybe he'd +be down here for a month and then leave. +Q. Can you tell me how many times you went to +Mr. Epstein's between June 1st of 2005 and +October 31st of 2005? +MR. HOROWITZ: Form. +THE WITNESS: How many times I went? +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Uh-huh. +A. Well, approximately, approximately like 30 +or, I don't know, but approximately like 30 to 50 +20 (Pages 74 to 77) +(561) 832-7500 PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC. (561) 832-7506 + + +1 +2 +4 +8 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +1 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM +Document 430-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 21 of +Page 78 +times. +Q. Okay. In that time period? +A. Like, or yeah. +Q. Okay. Now, during that entire time +period, actually from the 6th of June until +October 31st of '05, you were 18 years of age, +correct? +A. How old? From June -- yeah. +Q. From June 6th, 2005, until October 31st, +2005, you were 18 years of age -- +A. +Uh-huh. +Q. -- correct? On each occasion that you +went to Mr. Epstein's during the period from +June 1st of 2005 through October 31st of 2005, you +went voluntarily, correct? +A. Yeah, I went there. +Q. As a matter of fact, every time that you +went to Mr. Epstein's, you went voluntarily? +MR. HOROWITZ: Object to the form. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Isn't that correct? +MR. HOROWITZ: Objection. +THE WITNESS: Yeah, I went there. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Okay. You went voluntarily. Nobody +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 79 +forced you to go to Mr. Epstein's, correct? +1 +MR. HOROWITZ: Object to the form, +2 +compound. +3 +THE WITNESS: Yeah. +4 +BY MR. LUTTIER: +5 +Q. All right. And that would be true from +6 +the time +took you on the first time +until you last went sometime in October of '05? +7 +8 +MR. HOROWITZ: Object to the form. +9 +BY MR. LUTTIER: +10 +Q. Correct? +11 +A. Uh-huh. +Q. And on the very first visit that you went +12 +13 +to Mr. Epstein's when +took you there, +14 +what occurred? +15 +A. From the first occasion? +16 +Q. Yes. +17 +A. Nothing. I went there. I went, went +there, met with Sarah. She brought me upstairs. +18 +19 +Table was set up. He was in the office or upstairs +20 +in the bathroom. And showed me where the lotion +21 +was, gave me lotion and told me that he was going to 22 +be in, be coming in through the bathroom. +23 +And then whenever he got in there, the +24 +first time I went, he was on -- he has a phone right +25 +Page 80 +next to like a massage booth, and he was on the +phone like, like the whole time that I was in there +giving him a massage. I think he said hi to me. I +think I talked to him a whole matter of maybe five +minutes. And then he left the money on the bathroom +and I left. +Q. And were you fully clothed during -- +A. Yes. +Q. - that entire time? +A. Yes. +Q. And did you get paid money? +A. Yeah. +Q. What did you get paid? +A. $200. +Q. And did +| get paid money? +A. Yes. For my - +Q. What did she get paid? +A. $200. +Q. And were you aware of that at the time? +A. Yeah. +Q. And did she tell you that? +A. Uh-huh. +Q. And when did she tell you that, before you +went or after you went? +A. I don't remember. +Page 81 +Q. Was there a significant gap in time before +you went back to Mr. Epstein? +A. Yeah. +Q. Approximately how long, a year? +A. No, less than a year. Probably about like +five to six months. +Q. Have you ever told anyone that it was +close to a year before you went back to Mr. Epstein? +A. Maybe. I don't, I don't know. +Q. Was it -- when you went back to +Mr. Epstein's for the second time, how did you get +there? +A. I think Jane Doe No. 3 took -- this girl +Jane Doe No. 3 took me. +Q. What is Jane Doe No. 3's name? +A. Jane Doe No. 3. What do you mean, what's +her name? +Q. What's her name? What's her last name? +A. Jane Doe No. 3. wait, yeah. +Q. And was she a friend of yours? +A. Yeah. +Q. And why was she taking you to +Mr. Epstein's? +MR. HOROWITZ: Object to the form. +THE WITNESS: Because I didn't have a +21 (Pages 78 to 81) + + +1 +5 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +23 +24 +25 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM +Document 430-1 +Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 22 of +Page 82 +vehicle to travel. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Well, did Jane Doe No. 3 contact you about +going to Mr. Epstein's, or did you contact Jane Doe +No. 3 about going to Mr. Epstein's? +A. No, I think Haley, Haley was bringing me +back there for a second time, and Jane Doe No. 3 +drove me there. +Q. What do you mean, Haley was bringing you +back? +A. She made the appointment for me to go, and +I didn't -- she didn't bring me there. Jane Doe No. +3 drove me there. +Q. Had Jane Doe No. 3 ever been there? +A. I don't know. +Q. Did you have a discussion with Jane Doe +No. 3 on the way there? +A. About what? +Q. About anything, about what you were going +to do or why you were going there. +A. I'm sure, but I don't remember the +conversation. +Q. Well, what was the substance of the +conversation? +A. I don't, I mean, if she's bringing me +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 83 +there, I'm sure there is conversation. I don't know +1 +what we talked about. +2 +Q. Well, did you tell her why you were going? +3 +A. I am sure she already knew. +4 +Q. How would she know? +5 +A. Because she's the one that gave Haley the +6 +money, $200. +7 +Q. What do you mean, she gave Haley the +8 +money? +9 +A. +I'm guess -- I mean, I don't know. I am +10 +guessing. +11 +Q. Well, are you guessing about all of this, +or do you have a specific recollection? +12 +13 +A. No, I'm not guessing about all this. I +14 +just don't know. +Q. Well, what is the difference between +15 +16 +saying you don't know and saying you're guessing? 17 +MR. HOROWITZ: Objection, argumentative. 18 +BY MR. LUTTIER: +19 +Q. Is there a difference between those two? +A. Yeah, there is. I don't know. +20 +21 +Q. Well, had Jane Doe No. 3 been there +22 +before? +23 +A. I don't know. +24 +Q. How did she know how to get there? +25 +Page 84 +MR. HOROWITZ: Object to the form. +THE WITNESS: Because I had been there. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Did you give her -- +A I don't -- +Q - directions on how to get there? +A. I don't remember if I gave her directions. +I don't remember -- +Q. You don't remember anything about it, but +you remember Jane Doe No. 3 got $200? +A. I don't know if she'd been there. I don't +know at that time if she'd been there. I don't +remember if I gave her directions. I don't know if +I drove her there. I don't remember. +Q. Are you telling us that you don't recall +anything about your conversation with her on the way +there? +MR. HOROWITZ: Object to the form. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Is that your testimony under oath? +A. Yeah, I don't, don't know what we talked +about on the way there. +Q. Did you discuss the fact that - +A. I don't know. +Q. - you were going there to give a massage +Page 85 +and get $200? +A. No. I don't know. I am sure she knew. +Q. How would she know? +MR. HOROWITZ: Object to the form. +THE WITNESS: I'm sure -- I don't think -- +I don't know. Maybe we talked about it, but I +don't know if we talked about it on the way +there. I don't know -- I'm sure she -- she was +my, one of my friends. I am sure, she -- we +talked about it, but I don't know if it was on +the way there. I don't remember the +conversation we had on the way there. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Is she still your friend? +A. Yes. +Q. Is +still your friend? +A. +• No. +0. +Is - what was the other girl's name, +• is she still your friend? +A. +We're civil, but we don't hang out. +Q. Did something happen in your relationship +or -- +A. I mean, we just don't hang out anymore. +Q. Why don't you hang out anymore? +A. I got a boyfriend. +22 (Pages 82 to 85) + + +1 +8 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +1 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +23 +24 +25 +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 430-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 23 of +Page 86 +Q. Who is that? +A. Ricky. +Q. Ricky who? +A. Bullard. +Q. B-u-l-l-a-r-d? +A. Uh-huh. I don't go out at much as I used +to. +Q. And how long has Ricky Bullard been your +boyfriend? +A. A year and like two months. +Q. So that's what, from sometime in the +beginning of 2008? +A. Uh-huh. +Q. Is that a yes? +A. Yes. Sorry, sorry. +Q. Did you ever do any drugs with +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +Mr. Bullard? +A. Drinking. Is that considered a drug? +18 +Q. Did you ever do any drugs with +19 +Mr. Bullard? I don't consider alcohol to be a drug. +20 +A. No. Trying to think. Cigarettes. +21 +Q. No, I am talking about drugs? +22 +A No. +/23 +Q You know. +24 +A. No. +25 +Page B7 +Q. You know what I am talking about by drugs, +don't you? +A. Yes, drugs, yeah. +Q. You have never done any with Mr. Bullard? +A. No. +Q. Did you ever get any from Mr. Bullard? +A. +NO. +Q. Did you ever see Mr. Bullard do any drugs? +A. No. +Q. Are you sure? +A. Uh-huh. +Q. Do you know whether or not Mr. Bullard has +ever done any drugs? +A. I'm sure. +Q. Okay. Why are you sure? +A. Who hasn't? +Q. So, you said you're sure, why are you +A. Iam, I don't -- in high school, I mean, I +don't know. I don't know. +Q. I didn't ask when. +A. I'm sure. I don't know. +Q. So it's you don't know if he did drugs, +not that you know he did do drugs? +A. No, I don't know then. +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 88 +Q. Okay. Did you ever see him deal drugs? +A. No. +Q. Did you ever tell any of your friends that +Mr. Bullard dealt drugs? +A. No. +Q. Are you sure about that? +A. Yes. +Q. Okay. Now, who was your boyfriend before +Mr. Bullard? +A. Alan. +Q. Alan who? +A. Hatfield. +Q. And how long was he your boyfriend? +A. Like two years, maybe a little -- two. +Q. And who was your boyfriend before that? +A. Preston. +Q. Preston Vinyard? +A. Uh-huh. +Q. Okay. Now, back at Mr. Epstein's, the +second time you went, what occurred? +A. +when was the second time? +Q. What occurred the second time you went to +Mr. Epstein's? +A. Same thing. +Q. Same thing as the first time? +Page 89 +A. Yeah. +Q. You remained fully clothed? +A. Uh-huh. Yes. Sorry, sorry. +Q. Got paid $200? +A. Uh-huh. Yes. +Q. Did this Jane Doe No. 3 wait for you to do +whatever you were doing to give him the massage? +A. Yeah. +Q. She got paid $200 for bringing you? +A. Yeah. +Q. And you knew she was getting paid to bring +you? +A. Yeah. +Q. Did you ever wonder why people were +getting paid money just for driving you over there? +A. A lot of girls in high school were going +there. Haley was bringing a bunch of people there. +Q. Did you ever wonder why they were getting +paid money to bring you there? +A. To give, give him a massage. +Q. Yeah, but why would Jane Doe No. 3 be +being paid money just to bring you there? +A. She wasn't. She took me there. +MR. HOROWITZ: Object to the form. +23 (Pages 86 to 89) + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 430-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 24 of +1 +Page 90 +3 +5 +6 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +BY MR. LUTTIER: +1 +Q. That's what I'm saying. Why was she +getting paid money just to take you there? +3 +MR. HOROWITZ: Object to the form. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Did you ever wonder about that? +6 +A. No. +7 +Q. Did you ever ask them? +8 +A. (Witness shakes head.) +9 +Q. Did you ever ask Haley, why are you +10 +getting paid $200 for just driving me over here? +11 +A. +I mean, because she referred girls? She +12 +brought several girls there, so I guess it was +13 +because she brought somebody over there. I don't 14 +know. +15 +Q. Just a referral fee? +16 +A. Yeah. +17 +Q. But you knew people were getting paid +18 +money to bring you to Mr. Epstein's, correct? +A. Haley, yeah. +19 +20 +Q. Okay. Well, and then did anybody else get 21 +paid money for bringing you there? +22 +A. No. +23 +Q. Between the first time you went, and then +24 +the five-or six-month gap until the second time, +25 +1 +Page 91 +2 +did you contact Mr. Epstein or did someone from +Mr. Epstein's contact you to come the second time? +3 +A. It was an appointment. I didn't contact +4 +him. I was brought there again. +5 +Q. What do you mean -- +6 +MR. HOROWITZ: Mr. Luttier, you can't +7 +interrupt her. +8 +BY MR. LUTTIER: +10 finish. +Q. I thought you were done. Go ahead, +11 +A. No. I was brought there again. I had, +12 +13 +because Haley gets -- for every girl that she +brought a different person, she would get $200. And +14 +she wouldn't get another $200 for the same girl that +15 +she brought there. She would only get $200 for +16 +every different girl. +17 +The first time I went, it had been a while +18 +since I went the second time, so she got another +19 +$200 on top of me because they didn't even recognize +20 +me for the second time that I went there. +21 +So -- +22 +A So, they didn't contact me. +23 +Q. How did you know -- +24 +A. She made the appointment. +25 +Q. Who, who is she, Haley? +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 92 +A. Yeah. +Q. So, Haley called you up then and said go +to Jeffrey Epstein's on some date? +A. No. Yeah. +Q. That's how that happened? +A. Yeah. +Q. And you said okay? +A. Yeah, because I had gone there once and it +wasn't -- it was awkward, but it wasn't, I didn't +take any clothes off. It wasn't -- I gave him a +massage, $200, 20 minutes, and then I was out of +there. +Q. What was awkward about it the first time? +A. Being upstairs in the bathroom, not +knowing who the person is. +Q. Well, when you say upstairs, this wasn't a +bathroom? +A. Yeah, it was. It was like there was a +shower in it. There was a room that went into a +toilet. +Q. How big was the room? +A. It was big. It was like, probably like +the size of this room. +Q. Any other -- you said there was a phone in +there? +Page 93 +A. Yeah. +Q. Was there a desk in there? +A. No. +Q. Any other kind of seating facilities? +A. Like a +Q. A l +A. Uh-huh. +Q. So this bathroom had a MH in it? +A. Like a -- yeah. +Q. Okay. All right. So on the second +occasion that you went there, you went there +voluntarily, correct? +A. Yeah. +Q. All right. And did anybody, did Haley +tell you anything about what to expect when you went +the second time? +A. No. +Q. When was the third time you went? +A. I don't remember. Probably shortly right +after. +Q. You say probably. How long was it? +A. Probably - +Q. You say it was five to six months between +the first and second visit. +A. No. +24 (Pages 90 to 93) + + +1 +2 +3 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +1 +2 +3 +4 +6 +7 +8 +.9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Case 9:08-Cv-80119-KAM Document 430-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 25 of +Page 94 +Q. And now we're talking about - +A. No, not five or six months. It was -- I +don't remember exactly, but after the second time I +went, the third and after, after the second time I +went, it would be like twice a month I would, once a +month, twice a month. And then it progressively got +worse -- I mean, not worse, but progressively I went +there more often. +Q. Well, you say it was once or twice a month +after the third time? +A. After the second time I went. +Q. Yeah. Do, do you have any records from +which you can determine? You say once a month, then +you say twice a month, then you say - +A. No, I said, I went -- the first time I +went, then I didn't go for like five or six months. +And after the second time I went, I was going there +like twice a month, and then it was like every +single time he was in - every single time he was in +town I would go. +Q. How do you know you went every time he was +in town? +A. Because I -- well, I'm sure it was every +single time 1 (sic) was in town. +Q. My question is how do you know you went +Page 95 +every time he was in town? How do you know when he +was this town? +A. +Because there were other girls that were +going there too. +Q. How do you know if he was there? Do you +know what his schedule was? +A. No. +Q. So you don't know if he was in town or +not, right? +A. Well, towards the end, whenever I was +going there all the time, he said that I was his +favorite girl and like he would want -- like he +always - every time when he came in town, like, +that's what I am guessing like, you know. I know +that I was there like every single time that he was +in town. +Q. Now, you mentioned toward the end that he +made that statement to you. Are you talking about +now October of -- +A. And he would -- +Q. Wait a minute. You're talking about now +the period between June and October of '05? +A. Wait. What? Say that one more time. +Q. You said at the end he told you you were +his favorite girl. +1 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +25 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 96 +A. No. I- +Q. When you say the end, are you talking +about - +A. No, my junior -- no, my junior year. +Sorry. +MR. HOROWITZ: Both of you are talking +over each other. +MR. LUTTIER: But she is now. +MR. HOROWITZ: No. Fine. Jane Doe No. +4- +THE WITNESS: Sorry. +MR. HOROWITZ: -- wait until he's done +asking his question. And if he interrupts you, +I'm going to say the same thing to him. Okay? +THE WITNESS: Okay. Sorry. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Are you talking about the period now +between June and October of '05 that he made this +statement to you that you were his favorite? +A. From '04 to '05? +Q. No, from June of '05 to October of '05. +A. Is that whenever he said that? +MR. HOROWITZ: Is that a question? +THE WITNESS: Is that - +Page 97 +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. You said in the end he told you that you +were his favorite. And my question is - +A. No. i +Q. - when you say the end, are you talking +about the period from June of '05 to October of '05? +A. No. +Q. What period are you talking about? +A. From '04 - well, let me think. From '04 +so on. +Q. What do you mean, so on? +A. The last time I went. +Q. Okay. The fact of the matter is you have +no record from which you can tell us with any kind +of accuracy how many times you went to +Mr. Epstein's; is that correct? +MR. HOROWITZ: Object to the form. +THE WITNESS: How many times I went? +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Right. +A. Approximately I can, like, approximately +tell you how many times I went. +Q. You don't have any record that you can +look at and say I can tell you I went -- +A. No, I don't have a written record, no. +25 (Pages 94 to 97) + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +1 +2 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM +Document 430-1 +Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 26 of +Page 98 +Q. - this number of times. All you're doing +is you're guessing now about how often you think you +went -- +MR. HOROWITZ: Object - +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. - isn't that right? +MR. HOROWITZ: Object to the form. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q Correct? +A. No, I am not guessing. +Q. Well, you don't even know when Mr. Epstein +was in town, do you? +MR. HOROWITZ: Object to the form. +THE WITNESS: When he was in town he would +call me. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Tell me in the year 2004 when he was in +town. +A. Tell - how, like, what do you mean? +Q. Was he there in January of 2004? +A. I am sure. +Q. How do you know that? +A. Because I went there. I'm sure. I +don't - +Q. You don't know if you went there in +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 99 +January of '04, do you? +A. (No verbal response.) +Q. You don't know, do you? +A. I know I went -- +1 +2 +3 +4 +Q. You don't know if you went there -- +A. - approximate dates, no, I don't know. +MR. HOROWITZ: Hold on. Now you're +interrupting her. +8 +BY MR. HOROWITZ: +Q. Okay. You don't know if you went to see +9 +10 +him -- +11 +A I don't know approximate dates, I'm sorry. +Q. Was he there in Jan -- in February of +12 +13 +2004? +A. I don't know. +14 +Q. Was he there in March of 2004? +15 +16 +A. No, I don't know. +Q. Was he there in April of 2004? +17 +18 +A. I don't know. +19 +Q. Was he there in May of 2004? +20 +A. I don't know. +21 +Q. Was he there in June of 2004? +A. I don't know. +22 +Q. Was he there in July of 2004? +23 +24 +A. I don't know. +25 +Page 100 +Q. Was he there in August of 2004? +A. I don't know. +Q. Was he there in September of 2004? +A. I don't know. +Q. Was he there in October of 2004? +A. I don't know. +Q. Was he there in November of 2004? +A. I don't know. +Q. Was he there in December of 2004? +A. I don't know. +Q. Was he there in January of 2005? +A. I don't know. +Q. Was he there in February of 2005? +A. I don't know. +Q. Was he there in March of 2005? +A. I don't know. +Q. Was he there in April of 2005? +A. I don't know. +Q. Was he there in May of 2005? +A. I don't know. +Q. The fact of the matter is you don't know +when Mr. Epstein was in town, do you? +MR. HOROWITZ: Object to the form. +THE WITNESS: I don't have exact dates, +no. +Page 101 +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Did you ever personally call Mr. Epstein +on the phone? +A. I know I think I have his personal number. +I had Sarah's personal number I think. +Q. Wasn't my question. +MR. HOROWITZ: You keep doing it. You +keep interrupting. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Did you ever personally call Mr. Epstein +on the phone? When I say call, talk to him +personally on the phone. +A. Talk to him on the phone? Yes. +Q. When? +A. When I found out that the cops were +investigating girls. +Q. And when was that? +A. Probably like, probably sometime, June or +August -- September, October. +Q. Of '05? +A. Yeah. No. Yeah. Wait -- +Q. And how did you find out -- +A. - it's '05, '06, I think. Wait, yeah. +Q. And how did you find out the cops were +investigating? +26 (Pages 98 to 101) + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM +Document 430-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 27 of +Page 102 +A. Because word got -- there was a lot of +girls that went there, and word got around that one +of the girls that had gone there was maybe 13 years +old. +Q. Well, how did you find out about it? +A. How did I find out about it? +Q. Somebody call you? +A. Probably found out from one of the girls +that were going there in high school. +Q. Who called you? +A. Nobody. I mean, there was a lot of young +girls that were going there. +Q. Who called you and told you? +A. One of the girls that was hanging out that +went there. I don't know. +Q. Which girl? +A. Jane Doe No. 7, Jane Doe No. 7. +Q. Jane Doe No. 7 who? +A. Jane Doe No. 3. It was -- Haley brought +some girl from high school that was 13 years old. +Q. How do you know that? +A. Because it was her cousin's girlfriend. +Q. Who told you that Haley brought somebody +that was 13 years old? +A It was in high school. +Palm Beach +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 103 +is a small high school. +Q. My question is who told you that Jane Doe +No. 7 brought somebody - I mean that Haley brought +somebody that was 13 years old? +A. Jane Doe No. 7 or Jane Doe No. 3 or one of +the girls that were going there at the time that +knew the girl, that knew that girl. +Q. So you don't know of your own personal +knowledge whether someone who was 13 years old went 9 +there or not, do you? +A. I, 1 heard about her. I know how she is, +like, how she looks like. +Q. You don't know of your own personal +knowledge. You weren't there. You didn't see this +person? +A. No, I wasn't there. +Q. All you know is what somebody told you +among your little friends, your group of friends? +MR. HOROWITZ: Excuse me, Counsel. Take +it easy. +MR. LUTTIER: Okay. +MR. HOROWITZ: There is no, reason, no, no +reason to point at the witness. +MR. LUTTIER: Okay. +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 104 +BY MR. LUTTER: +Q. This group of friends that you had, all +you know is what they told you, right? +A. Yeah. +Q. All right. And Jane Doe No. 7, what's +Jane Doe No. 7's last name? +A. Doe. +Q. Doe. She was a regular there, right? +A. (Witness nods head.) +Right? +A. She went there, yeah. +O. And a matter of fact, your friend I +was somebody that went, wasn't she? +A. (Witness nods head.) +Q. Wasn't she? +A. Yes. +Q. And you were the one that took her there, +weren't you? +A. Yeah. +Q. And on the third time that you went, what +occurred? +A. When I went there, same thing, like, we +would go there and Sarah would walk you up to the +room. There would be a massage table. Sometimes +there wouldn't be a massage table, and you would +Page 105 +have to, you would help her set it up or you would +set it up yourself. Just kind of like from the +third time on it just kind of like, something like, +like, like - +MR. HOROWITZ: Take your time. Take your +time. +THE WITNESS: Like - the third time I +went there, it was like I was giving him a +massage. He was on the phone. On the third +time, like more conversation. From the third +time on, it got worse, I would go in and -- +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Well, first, I'm asking you about the +third time. What occurred on the third time? +A. Same thing, you give him a massage. He +was more friendly, more talkative. I kept my +clothes on, but this time he was more like, I +1, this +is what I do. It was more conversation, like. +First time I went like he was on the phone. The +second time on the phone doing business calls, but +then talking at the same time. The third time like +just talking to me, like it was like a friend. +Q. Isn't it a fact, +,, that -- or did +anything else happen on the third occasion? +A. (Witness shakes head.) +27 (Pages 102 to 105) + + +1 +2 +3 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +1 +2 +3 +4 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM +Document 430-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 28 of +Page 106 +Q. So you gave him a massage -- +A. No. +Q. - fully clothed, right? +A. Yeah. +Q. And you got paid $200 and you left? +A. Uh-huh. +Q. And by now, we're up to what point in +time? +A. It was -- +Q. This is - +A. The second time I went it was probably +like a week later, maybe a month later, like a month +later that I went. +Q. Well, let's go through this. You said the +first time it was in the middle of your sophomore +year. It was five or six months later before you +went a second time. So by now are you into your +senior year? +A. No. +Q. When is the second time, then? +MR. HOROWITZ: You skipped a year of high +school. +MR. LUTTIER: I did. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Are you into your junior year by then? +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 107 +A. Second time I went, I was like middle of +my sophomore year. Second time - first time I went +1 +2 +it was the middle of my sophomore year. +Q. Okay. You say the first time you went was +4 +in the middle of your sophomore year? +5 +A. Like the middle of my sophomore year. +6 +Q. Okay. All right. +7 +A. And then the second time I went was like +8 +in the summer of my sophomore year when I would +9 +go -- +10 +Q. Was it after your birthday in the summer? +11 +A. Yeah, like, right around that area. +Q. So, you're 16 at that point, right? +12 +13 +A. Uh-huh, yeah. +14 +Q. All right. So the third time is when, +15 +sometime during your junior year? +16 +A. Yeah, beginning of my, like, the end of +17 +summer, end of summer, like beginning of my junior +18 +year. +19 +Q. Now, okay, isn't it true -- +20 +A. Like the end of the summer, yeah. +21 +Q. Isn't it true, +that +22 +told you before she took you there the first time +23 +that you were going to go give a massage to a guy in |24 +Palm Beach, you were going to get paid $200, that he 25 +Page 108 +was a nice guy, that you didn't have to do anything +you didn't want to do, that he might ask you to take +your top off or take part of your clothes off, but +if you didn't want to, you didn't have to do +anything; isn't that what you were told? +MR. HOROWITZ: Object to the form. +THE WITNESS: I don't remember. I don't +remember what Haley - the conversation between +me and her. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Okay. But you knew that when you went +that you, you may be asked to take your top off, but +you didn't have to if you didn't want to, right? +MR. HOROWITZ: Form. +THE WITNESS: No, but - +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Correct, you knew that, right? +MR. HOROWITZ: Form. +THE WITNESS: No. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. You didn't know that? +A. No, why would I take my top off? +Q. Did you tell the police when they +interviewed you from the Palm Beach Police +Department when you were a freshman in college that +Page 109 +you knew before you went there exactly what was +going to be expected? Did you tell that to the +police? +A. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know +what I had -- I don't remember. I don't know what I +wrote. I don't know what I said to them. +Q. Well, if you, if the transcript of that +interview shows that that's what you said to them, +you didn't just make it up, did you? +A. No. +MR. HOROWITZ: Object to the form. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Okay. Now, when was the last -- you say +three years ago you saw this transcript, right? +That's the transcript of your interview with the +police department. +A. Probably about three -- when was it, four +years ago, my freshman year. +Q. And what did you do with it? What did you +do with the transcript? +A. Of a copy of it? +Q. Yeah. +A. My statement? +Q. Your interview with the police department, +you said you saw a transcript. It means it's in +28 (Pages 106 to 109) + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM +Document 430-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 29 of +Page 110 +writing. +A. +I don't know what I did with it. +Q. But you were given a copy, right? +A. I don't even know if I was given a copy. +I don't remember if I was given a copy. +Q. You just got done testifying earlier in +this deposition that about three years ago you read +a transcript of it. +A. Yeah, it was probably about three years +ago. +Q. Well, where did you read this transcript +if it wasn't given to you? +A. Whenever I got -- hired my lawyer, or +not - when I talked to my lawyers. Whenever +everything came out, like looking over it. +Q. So, you, that was the first time you saw +• N +it? +A. Yeah. +Q. All right. Was it given to you? +A. Yeah, I think so. +Q. Have you got it in your papers someplace +at home or something? +A. I don't know where it's at. +Q. Okay. But when you read it, did you call +the Palm Beach Police Department up and tell them | 25 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +Page 111 +there were any, any inaccuracies in it? +A. No, I didn't call. +Q. You didn't call and tell them? +A. Unh-unh. +Q. Okay. Now, when you were interviewed by +the FBI, you said you were interviewed by them, too, +right? Do you know when that happened? +A. I don't remember when that happened. It +was sometime afterward. +Q. After what, after the Palm Beach Police? +A. Maybe my sophomore year in college. I +don't -- possibly, I don't remember. +Q. Where did that interview happen? +A. When they came? Let me think, when they +came to my school they, they asked me questions and +I didn't want to -- I don't know. They, they came +to my school and then they -- once, yeah, at my +school. +Q. Okay. So this is just like the Palm Beach +Police, they came to +University and interviewed +you, right? +A. They asked me, they wanted to ask me +questions, and I said I wasn't going to answer any +questions because I was scared. And they said they +were going to have to give me a subpoena to court if +1 +2 +4 +5 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 112 +I didn't answer their questions, which made me even +more scared, so I didn't -- so I answered their +questions. +Q. Well, it was the FBI, right? +A. Yeah. +Q. They identified themselves as the Federal +Bureau of Investigation, right? +A. (Witness nods head.) +Q. Correct? +A. Yeah. +Q. You know to say - +A Yeah. +Q You know who the FBI is, don't you? +A. Yeah. +Q. So they came and identified themselves and +said they wanted to ask you questions? +A. Uh-huh. Yes. +Q. All right. And you sat down and did you +answer their questions? +A. Yeah. +Q. And did you tell them the truth? +A. Yeah. +Q. Do you have a transcript of that +interview? +A. No. +Page 113 +Q. Did you tell them something different than +what you told the Palm Beach Police Department? +A. Yeah, yeah. +Q. Why did you -- and what you're telling us +is you didn't tell the truth to the Palm Beach +Police Department, but you did to the FBI; is that +right? +A. Yeah. +Q. How many people interviewed you from the +FBI on that occasion? +A. I don't remember. There were two people +that came and asked me questions. +Q. And did you -- and was the statement +recorded? +A. I don't remember. +Q. Do you remember having somebody with a +tape recorder going? +A. I don't remember. I think it was off +record, but I can't remember. +Q. How long did it take? +A. I know they asked me questions there +several times. Like afterwards where I would call +them up and tell them more. +Q. You called them or they called you? +A. I called them, like, after interviewing. +29 (Pages 110 to 113) + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 += N +3 +4 +7 +8 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 430-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 30 of +Page 114 +Q. And why did you call them? +A. Because she said if there is anything else +that you want to get off your chest, let me know. +Q. All right. So now we know there was a +"she" involved? +A. (Witness nods head.) +Q. Who was the she? +A. I don't remember her name. +Q. Was that somebody from the U.S. Attorney's +office? +A. No, FBI. +Q. FBI. So we had one female FBI agent, +and -- +A. A male FBI agent. +Q. - one male. And you don't remember +either of their names? +A. +I don't remember the male. I remember the +female. +Q. What was her name? +A. Nestek. +Q. Nestek, N-e-s-t-e-k? +A. I don't know how to spell that name, and +I'm pronouncing it to my best ability. +Q. And to your recollection that would have +been your second year at +University? +2 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 115 +A. Yes. +Q. Were you interviewed by the FBI on any +occasion other than when they came to +University in your sophomore year? +MR. HOROWITZ: Form. +THE WITNESS: At +, no. I mean, like +what do you mean? Sorry. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Did any FBI come to see you any other +time? +A. On -- I'm trying to think. I met with the +FBI afterwards. I don't think she came to see me. +Q. What, what do you mean, you met with the +FBI afterwards? +A. I came here to court. +Q. What court? +A. A court in downtown West Palm. +Q. With a judge in a court proceeding? +A. No. +Q. Okay. Well, what do you mean by you came +to court? +A. Just with her, to meet with her, and - +Q. You mean you came to a courthouse? +A. Not a courthouse, like it's the +courthouse. I don't know what room. Somewhere -- +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 116 +it was one of those rooms in there. +Q. In the courthouse? +A. Yeah. +Q. Are you talking about the Federal +courthouse? +A. Yeah, I think it was the Federal +courthouse or it might -- somewhere downtown. +Q. And who did you meet with? +A. Detective Nestek. +Q. Anybody else? +A. Another lady. +Q. Who was the other lady? +A. I don't remember her name. +Q. What was, what was her role? +A. They were to help me through my situation. +Q. Did she say who she was or who she was +with? +A. I don't know. I don't remember. I +forgot. She was some, somebody there just to talk +about, like, what was going on because I had more to +say about what had gone on, but I had more to say +about what had happened. +Q. Was it somebody from the United States +Attorney's office? +A. I don't know. I don't who the lady - I +Page 117 +don't know what this lady's role played. I don't +know. +Q. How about Maria Villafana; does that name +ring a bell? +A. I had -- she gave me, I don't remember her +name. She gave me a card, business card a long time +ago. I don't have it. I don't know. +Q. Was anybody else present for this +interview or this meeting that occurred? +A. I think it might have -- no, it was just +us two. I think there might have been another lady, +three ladies in the room. +Q. Three total or four total, three other +women and you? +A. No, three. +Q. All right, three. +A. I think there was two, but I think that +one came out of the room and then she left, and +another lady came in. So there was like two, there +was like three, two to three. +Q. Did you have a lawyer there? +A. No. +Q. Had you retained a lawyer by then? +A. No. +Q. All right. So that's your second meeting +30 (Pages 114 to 117) + + +1 +2 +3 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM +Document 430-1 +Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 31 of +Page 118 +with the FBI. Did you have another meeting with the +FBI? +A. No, not that I remember, no. +Q. Did you talk to anybody from the United +States Attorney's office? +MR. HOROWITZ: Form. +THE WITNESS: What do you mean, the United +States Attorney's? +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. A lawyer representing the government. +A. Like for the FBI? Like a lawyer for the +FBI? +Q. It could be anybody. The U.S. Attorney's +office is just an office of government lawyers that +represent the government. It could represent an +agency or anything else. This Maria Villafana is, I +believe, the person that was heading it up, but +there might have been somebody else from that +agency. +A. +I think 1 might have called somebody to +talk to them because I didn't -- I was confused. I +didn't know anything that was going on. But I don't +think, I don't like -- I don't know who -- what her +name was. I don't know -- +Q. Did anyone from any of those agencies, the +Page 119 +FBI or anybody else that you talked to, explain to +you anything about what was going on? +A. No. +Q. You didn't have any idea why they were +talking to you or what was going on? +A. No. They, they said that I can tell them +what happened. +Q. Did you say you called Jeff Epstein to let +him know that the -- that somebody was -- +A. Yeah. +Q. - asking questions? And did you call him +before or after the Palm Beach Police came? +A. +Before the Palm Beach Police came and +talked to me. +Q. And, and what did you tell him? +A. I told him, I said girls are being -- +police are going to the girls that have been going +to the house, just to let him aware of what was +going on. I don't remember the exact conversation. +I just remember letting him know, like, did you know +that there was cops interviewing girls that have +been going to the house. +Q. And, and that conversation happens +sometime after the Palm Beach Police meet you? +A. No, that was before. +1 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 120 +Q. Or right before that? +A. It was before. +Q. But while you were at +A. It was while I was at +It was before +the cops came because I didn't know - I heard about +them going to all these girls and I was at school. +I didn't know what was going on. +Q. Other than that conversation with +Mr. Epstein, have you ever had any other phone +conversation directly with Mr. Epstein? +A. After that? +Q. At any time, right up until today. +A. No, I think he rented me a vehicle. +Q. No. I am going to have to ask about phone +conversations. +A. Yeah, I think so. About the vehicle that +he rented me. +Q. You had a conversation with Mr. Epstein +directly? +A. Sarah or Mr. Epstein, it was one of them. +Q. So you're not sure? +A. No, I'm not sure. +Q. But you are sure you had one conversation +with Mr. Epstein sometime while you were a freshman +at W University about the police asking +Page 121 +questions? +A. Yeah, because I talked to him before I got +interviewed. +Q. Okay. Other than the possibility of -- +A. I and then, I think I talked to him +again after I got interviewed by the cops because he +had me meet with one of his lawyers to go over the +questions that the cops had asked me, and -- +Q. Okay. Do you know whether it was a lawyer +that you met with? +A. Yeah, it was, I, I have his business - I +don't have it on me right now, but it was one of +his - some older guy, like I could like show you a +*- show me a picture and I could point him out. +Q. Did you tell that person the truth? +A. I told him everything that I -- he asked +me everything that I had gone - that the cops had +asked me and all my questions to what the cops -- +all my answers to what the cops had asked me, like +they wanted to know everything that the cops were +asking me and what my answers were to them, just +about what the cops were asking me. +Q. Okay. So, did you tell him the truth? +A. Yeah, I told him -- well, it was, I think +the day after or two days or a week after I had +31 (Pages 118 to 121) +(561) 832-7500 PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC. (561) 832-7506 + + +1 +2 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +1 +4 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM +Document 430-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 32 of +Page 122 +talked to the cops, I talked to him. So it was +fresh in my memory, so I told him everything that I +had told the cops. +Q. As a matter of fact, at the time that +the - well, strike that. +Was Mr. Epstein good to you? +MR. HOROWITZ: Object to the form. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Was Mr. Epstein good to you? +A. Yeah. +Q. Okay. I mean, didn't he -- did he give +you some gifts? +A. Yeah. +Q. What kind of gifts did he give you? +A. Well, he rented me a car. +Q. Okay. +A. +Rented me a car and bought me lingerie +from Victoria Secret, bought me a vibrator. What +else? Like, gave me like a brush. It was a +vibrating brush. I mean, it was pretty much it. +Offered me to go like out of the, offered me to +travel. +Q. Did you ever travel with Mr. Epstein? +A. I was not old enough to travel. +Q. Did you ever see Mr. Epstein -- when I say +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 123 +"see" I mean have one of these massages that you +1 +gave Mr. Epstein - any place other than his house +in Palm Beach? +A. No. +Q. All right. Other than the phone +5 +conversation you had with Mr. Epstein after -- or +when the police were about to interview you, and a +conversation you may have had about renting a car, +8 +have you ever had any other direct phone +9 +conversation with Mr. Epstein? +10 +A. Can you ask that question one more time? +Q. Other than the phone conversation you had +11 +12 +with Mr. Epstein wherein you told him that the +13 +police were asking questions, and the possibility +that you may have spoken with either him or Sarah +14 +15 +about renting a car, have you had any other phone +conversation with Mr. Epstein directly? +16 +17 +A. No, no. +18 +Q. Have you -- and you say you've never +19 +performed a massage on Mr. Epstein or any other act | 20 +physically with him other than at his house in Palm +21 +Beach? +22 +A. Yeah, just at the house in Palm Beach. +23 +Q. Okay. And by the way, are you a person +24 +that's, are you proficient with computers? +25 +Page 124 +A. Am I good with computers? +Q. Yeah. Do you use the computer? +A. Yeah, I use the computer. +Q. Do you have any social web site that you +have for yourself? +A. Yeah, Facebook. +Q. Okay. Do you have anything besides +Facebook? +A. My e-mail account, Yahoo. +Q. And what's your Facebook address? +A. Jane Doe No. +Q. And on your Facebook, is it still up +today? +A. Uh-huh. +Q. Have you deleted anything from your +Facebook about discussions concerning Mr. Epstein? +A. I don't even know if I ever - I don't +think I've ever put any discussions up that's +regarding Mr. Epstein. +Q. Have you ever communicated with +Mr. Epstein via the computer? +A. No. +Q. That would be e-mail, or - +A. Yeah, no. +Q. - however else they do it these days. +Page 125 +Texting, do you ever text Mr. Epstein? +A. (Witness shakes head.) +MR. HOROWITZ: You have to answer -- +THE WITNESS: No. +MR. HOROWITZ: -- instead of shaking your +head, no. +THE WITNESS: I said, no. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Have you in the last, since 2004, have you +gone to the City of Chicago, Illinois? +A. Yeah. +Q. When did you go to Chicago? +A. My junior, junior year. +Q. Junior year of what? +A. My summer, junior going into my senior +year, that summer. +Q. Of what, of +University? +A. Yeah. +Q. So junior -- +A. Of 'O -- what is it, 'O - sorry, I can't +give you an accurate date. Summer, '06, '08, '09, +so, yeah, '08. +Q. If '05 was your freshman year. +A. Yeah, so it was my junior year. +Q. And '06 would have been your sophomore +32 (Pages 122 to 125) + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM +Document 430-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 33 of +Page 126 +year. +A +7,'8. +Q "07 would have been your junior year, and +08 would be your senior year. +A. +, then '07, but January, after January +of that summer - +Q. No, I am not -- +A +- is 08. +Q I don't want to put the date in your mind. +I just went through - +A. No. +Q. - that chronology. +A. Of 08, that summer. +Q. Summer of '08? +A. Yeah. +Q. When you say Summer of '08, what month are +you talking about? +A. Probably the end of June. End of June, +end, middle - +Q. So this is approximately three years after +the last time you saw Mr. Epstein? +A. Uh-huh. +Q. Okay. Tell us -- and is that the only +time you've been to Chicago, Illinois? +A. Uh-huh. +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 127 +Q. Okay. +THE COURT REPORTER: Yes? +THE WITNESS: Yes. Sorry, sorry. I keep +forgetting. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +A. Tell us who you went to chicago with. +• Jane Doe No. 7, Sylvia, Chelsea, Vanessa, +another giri named Vanessa. +Q. And what are -- what's Sylvia, Chelsea and +Vanessa's last names. +A. I am not sure what their last names are. +Q. Did you know them? +A. +Yeah. +Q. How did you know them? +A. From living in Orlando. +Q. Well, you were living in Orlando? +A. Yeah. +Q. Okay. And you lived there during what +period of time? +A. The summer of '08. +Q. And where did you live in Orlando? +A. Jefferson Lofts. +Q. And why were you living there? +A. To work and go to school. +Q. Well, were you going to school in Orlando +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 128 +at that time? +A. Yeah. I withdrew from that class. +Q. What class were you going to there? +A. Biology. +Q. And where were you going to school? +A. The community college. +Q. What school? +A. What is it called? I am drawing a blank +of what the university was called. It won't come to +me right now. I can't recall it. +Q. This is while you were still enrolled at +1 University? +A. No. I had the summer off. Yeah, I was +enrolled at +off. +I University, but I had the summer +Q. And who were you living with when you were +in Orlando? +A. I had two roommates. +Q. And who were they? +A. I forgot. I didn't socialize with them. +It's a, it's like a, like a -- Jefferson Lofts is +like a living -- you don't know who your roommates +are. I was supposed to --. I was supposed to take +over -- +MR. HOROWITZ: Just answer his question. +Page 129 +THE WITNESS: I don't know. I don't know. +Sorry. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. All right. So who were you living with +was the question. +MR. HOROWITZ: Unless you want to hear the +whole story. +THE WITNESS: Two girls, two other girls +and I don't remember, I think one girl's name +was Kate, and I don't remember the other +roommate. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. When you originally went there you were +going to live with who? +A. Jane Doe No. 7. +Q. And Jane Doe No. 7's roommate was who -- +A. I don't know. +Q. - at the time? +A. I don't know. +Q. And you were going to take Jane Doe No. +7's roommate's place? +A. Yeah. +Q. All right. Now, did you know Sylvia, +Chelsea, and Vanessa before you went to Orlando? +A. No. I just met them through Jane Doe No. +33 (Pages 126 to 129) + + +1 +3 +5 +6 +7 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +1 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM +Document 430-1 +Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 34 of +Page 130 +7. +Q. And who is it that paid for this trip to +Chicago? +A. Jane Doe No. 7's friend Mario. +Q. And who is Mario? +A. Some friend's Jane Doe No. 7, friends' -- +Jane Doe No. 7's friend +Q. How old was this person? +A. I'm not sure. I don't know how old he +was. +Q. Roughly. +A. Probably like 30s, 40s maybe. +Q. And anybody else go on this trip? +• Yeah. +Q. Who else? +A. Jane Doe No. 7, Sylvia, Chelsea and +Vanessa. +Q. I mean other than those people. And did +Mario go on this trip, too? +A. +He's, he is the one lives, he lives in +Chicago. +Q. Okay. And did you stay at Mario's when +you went to Chicago? +A. We stayed -- yeah, not his place. Well, +John -- one of his places, I guess. +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 131 +Q. Where did you stay in Chicago? +A. John Hancock building. +Q. And in a, in a room there? +A. Yeah. +Q. Anybody named Charley along? +A. I think that was one of his friends that +went out with us one night, one of his older +friends. +Q. And how old is Charley? +A. He is older. He is - I'm not sure how +old he is, but maybe 50s. +Q. And did you have any interaction with +Charley? +A. No. +Q. Did you get any gifts from Charley? +A. No. +Q. Did you discuss this trip with anybody +else? +A. Yeah. +Q. Who? +A. I don't know. I put -- people that asked, +I guess, by my pictures. +Q. Did you ever describe this person Charley +as another Jeff Epstein to any of your friends? +A. No, I didn't even talk to Charley. I only +1 +2 +3 +4 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 132 +talked to him for five minutes that night, maybe. +Q. Did you tell any of your friends that - +A. So there is no reason for me to want to +talk about him if I wasn't at - if I only had like +a five, ten minute conversation with him. +Q. Did you tell any of your friends or anyone +whether you consider them a friend or not, that you +had met someone that was like Mr. Epstein named +Charley and that he had taken you to Chicago? +A. No, no. +Q. No one in the world? +A. Charley didn't take me to Chicago. +Q. Okay. So that never happened? That +conversation -- +A. No. +Q. - never took place? All right. And how +is it that you got invited to go on this trip? +A. Jane Doe No. 7 invited me. +Q. And Jane Doe No. 7 was another person that +would go to Mr. Epstein's, right? +A. Yes. +Q. Did you take Jane Doe No. 7 to Epstein's? +A. No, I don't think so. +Q. +taking +Did you get paid $200 from Mr. Epstein for +there? +Page 133 +A. Yeah. +Q. And what did you tell -- what, if +anything, did you tell Lauren -- well, strike that. +was Lauren's first visit to Mr. Epstein +the one that you took her to? +A. Yeah. +Q. Okay. What did you tell Lauren about -- +A. I don't remember. +Q. Wait a minute, let me finish my question. +What did you tell Lauren about what to expect from +the first visit to Mr. Epstein? +A. I don't remember. +Q. And when did you take Lauren to +Mr. Epstein? +A. I don't remember. +Q. Do you remember a year? +A. Maybe my senior year. I don't remember. +Q. So how many times had you been to +Mr. Epstein's at the point in time that you took +Lauren there? +A. It might have been my junior year or my +senior year that I took her. I don't remember when +I took her. +Q. Well, at the time that you took her, +whenever it was, how many times had you been to +34 (Pages 130 to 133) +(561) 832-7500 PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC. (561) 832-7506 + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +1 +2 +3 +4 +6 +7 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM +Document 430-1 +Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 35 of +Page 134 +Mr. Epstein's? +A. Probably a few times. +Q. How many? +A. Before I took -- I don't remember when I +took Lauren, so I can't tell you how many times I +had been there before I took her. +Q. What's your best estimate? +A. I don't know when I took her, so i don't +know how to answer that question. +Q. Well, do you know if it was more than +three times? +A. I am sure. +Q. Was -- how old was Lauren when you took +her there? +A. I don't know how old Lauren was when I +took her there. I think she was 18. +Q. So, Lauren was out of high school by then? +A. She might have been a senior in high +school or she could have been out of high school. +Q. And she was one year ahead of you? +A. Yeah. +Q. So, that would have meant that you were +taking her - +A. She could have been her senior year in +high school, or she, I could have been a senior year +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 135 +in high school. +Q. So, it could have been in your junior or +senior year of high school? +A. Yeah. +Q. And you said you first went in the middle +of your sophomore year, right? +A. Uh-huh. +Q. So, under your recollection of events +would it be a fair characterization that at the +point in time that you took Lauren to Mr. Epstein's, +you had been to Mr. Epstein's on several occasions? +A. Yeah. +Q. At the point -- as of the point in time +that you took Lauren there, had you -- had all the +massages that you performed for Mr. Epstein been +conducted in the same manner as what you have +described in the first three visits? +MR. HOROWITZ: Object to the form. +THE WITNESS: I don't know when I brought +her there, so I don't know - you're asking me +the same question. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. At the point in time that you brought her, +had all the massages that you had performed for +Mr. Epstein been like the first three? +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 136 +A. I don't remember when I saw her there, so +I don't know, like, if they were the same. +Q. Okay. Well -- +A. What are you, like, I -- +Q. Did there come a point in time after the +third massage that the way you performed massages on +Mr. Epstein changed? +A. It progressively got worse, yes, but I +don't recall. +Q. When you say worse, what do you mean by +worse? +A. +He would get more, like, aggressive, like, +he would be more friendly. Like after, like, going +there a couple of times, then he would ask me, I +will you take your top off, and then the next time +when I would get up and go to leave, he goes, take +your bra off or, you know, next time you go can you +take your pants off, or it progressively got worse, +and then next time it was like, he like used a +vibrator on me, and then the next time he used a +vibrator and fingering me, and then the next time he +would do that and then licking my clit, and then +before that, grabbing my nipples and at last, I mean +it progressively got worse. +Q. When you say the next time, you mean there +Page 137 +was one visit, and then literally the next visit he +said, take your top off, and it was literally the +next visit that he said something else, and +literally the next visit he said something else -- +A Yeah. +Q or were there more than one visit -- +A. It progressively got worse. +Q. Was there more than one time you performed +massages between these events? +MR. HOROWITZ: Object to the form. +THE WITNESS: Ask that again. What do +you -- you talk like... +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Let's take the fourth visit, what happened +on the fourth visit? +A. Got a massage, takes my shirt off, take my +underwear, like I just said. +Q. Well, I'm asking you about the fourth +visit now. First of all, can you tell me when the +fourth visit happened? +A. It happened after the third visit. +Q. Okay. Probably happened before the fifth +visit, too, right? +A Yeah. +MR. HOROWITZ: Argumentative. Can we take +35 (Pages 134 to 137) +(561) 832-7500 PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC. (561) 832-7506 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 430-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 36 of +Page 138 +1 +2 +3 +4 +MR. LUTTIER: Yeah. +MR. HOROWITZ: I need to catch a flight. +My partner is going to take over. +MR. CRITTON: We need to change the tape. +THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Off the record at 1:10. +End of Tape 1. +(A Luncheon recess was held from 1:10 p.m. +until 1:59 p.m. and Mr. Mermelstein entered the +deposition room and Mr. Horowitz was absent.) +8 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +36 (Page 138) + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 37 of +A +t 2:24 4:14 +ability 114:23 +able 60:13 +absent 138:10 +abused 20:10 32:11,13 +abusive 28:24 29:2,9 +29:10,14 +accidental 40:7 +account 124:9 +accuracy 97:15 +accurate 125:21 +acquaintance 52:1 +54:15,23 +act 123:20 +Adam 2:8 4:19 +adding 23:15 +address 124:10 +ADLER 2:3 +affirmed 6:8 +afterward 111:9 +age 10:22 61:17 62:16 +62:20,21,22 64:4 +agencies 18:8,17 22:23 +23:6 24:2,5 118:25 +agency 16:3 22:15 23:9 +23:10,10,12,12,13,13 +23:18 24:12 26:3 +118:16,19 +agent 114:12,14 +ages 25:18 +aggressive 136:12 +ago 13:25 15:8,15,18 +16:17 73:11,13 +109:14,18 110:7,10 +117:7 +agree 6:1 +ahead 14:23 49:8 91:9 +134:20 +Ahorowitz@sexabus... +2:11 +Alan 88:10,11 +alcohol 86:20 +alcoholic 9222. +1 5:2,23 +announce 4:17 +answer 5:6 9:4 10:2 +12:10 13:11,16 14:23 +15:3 18:12 26:13,16 +33:5 58:4 59:18 +61:23 71:18,22 +111:23 112:1,19 +125:3 128:25 134:9 +answered 12:1,5,8,13 +12:16,18 13:15 14:19 +14:21,25 112:2 +answers 3:15 5:7 14:11 +14:17 15:5 121:19,21 +anybody 7:10 9:7 +41:11,14 64:12,17 +65:6 69:4 90:21 +93:14 116:10 117:8 +118:4,13 119:1 +130:13 131:5,17 +anymore 85:23,24 +apartment 42:9 46:25 +apparently 67:9 +appearances 2:1 4:18 +appointment 82:11 +91:3,24 +approximate 99:6,12 +approximately 37:12 +39:25 73:11 77:24,24 +77:25 81:4 97:21,21 +126:20 +approximation 38:4 +48:11 73:14,21 +April 99:18 100:17 +area 107:12 +arguing 30:2 +argument 29:5,1 | 30:2 +argumentative 36:6 +83:18 137:25 +arrested 25:2,21,25 +26:4,7,25 +asked 10:17 12:2,12 +13:2,13,19 14:13,18 +15:22 26:14 29:10 +46:21 51:17 52:6 +71:11 108:12 111:15 +111:22 113:12,21 +121:8,16,18,19 +131:21 +asking 11:23 12:7 +13:21 58:15 70:21 +96:13 105:13 119:11 +120:25 121:21,22 +123:14 135:20 +137:18 +asks 9:14,24 11:4,8,21 +58:4 59:18 61:17 +associated 8:6 +assume 30:15 31:2 41:7 +66:24 +attention 17:13 +attorneys 4:17 +Attorney's 114:9 +116:24 118:5,8,13 +audibly 64:8 +August 74:20 76:15 +100:1101:19 +Australian 1:17 4:13 +Avenue 1:17 2:15 4:13 +aware 73:3 80:19 +119:18 +awkward 92:9,13 +a.m 4:9 +back 12:11 36:2 47:19 +55:5 56:8,10,13 +58:15,17 59:4 61:22 +68:7,9 81:2,8,10 82:7 +Banyan 2:20 +bathroom 79:21,23 +80:5 92:14,17 93:8 +Bay 42:6 46:13,14 +Beach 1:18 2:21 4:13 +18:20 19:5,16,24 +20:3 22:16,18,19,21 +22:23 23:8 24:1,23 +25:3 26:24 27:5,12 +40:5 46:15,18 47:20 +61:15 64:2,25 75:5 +76:24,25 77:7 102:25 +107:25 108:24 +110:25 111:10,19 +113:2,5 119:12,13,24 +beginning 39:23 45:17 +48:2 55:13 86:12 +begins 16:22 +behalf 2:2,7,13,18 4:23 +believe 54:3 118:17 +bell 117:4 +benefits 40:15 +best 8:16 35:8 48:10 +62:17 73:14 114:23 +134:7 +big 63:5 92:21,22 +Biology 128:4 +birthday 25:14 107:11 +Biscayne 2:9 +bit 29:23 30:8 31:12,24 +33:18 34:2 +blank 16:6,9 128:8 +Boca 44:18 46:19 +booth 80:1 +born 6:20 9:1 +bought 122:17,18 +Boulevard 2:4,9,20 +boyfriend 42:11 46:11 +85:25 86:9 88:8,13 +Page 1 +Briar 42:6,7 46:13,14 +brief 5:3 72:13 +briefed 5:10,17,18 +bring 82:12 89:11,19 +bringing 82:6,9,25 89:9 +chest 114:3 +Chicago 125:10,12 +126:24 127:6 130:3 +130:21,23 131:1 +brought 34:21 36:17 +36:18 79:19 90:13,14 +91:4,11,13,15 102:19 +102:23 103:3,3 +chronology 126:12 +Cigarettes 86:21 +circumstances 11:13 +city 46:14 125:10 +boyfriends 31:19 +boyfriend's 28:22 +bra 136:17 +| 50:25 51:4 +break 45:21 72:3,6 +138:1 +Brian 42:13,14 +brush 122:19,20 +building 131:2 +Bullard 86:4,8,17,20 +87:4,6,8,12 88:4,9 +bunch 89:17 +Bureau 112:7 +BURMAN 2:20 +business 105:20 117:6 +121:11 +butt 32:17 +B-r-i-a-r 42:7 +B-u-I-I-a-r-d 86:5 +C +C4:1 +calendar 35:5 45:21,25 +47:15,20 48:16 +call 98:15 101:2,10,11 +102:7 110:24 111:2,3 +113:22 114:1 119:11 +called 29:6,12 92:2 +102:10,13 113:24,24 +113:25 118:20 119:8 +128:8,9 +calls 105:20 +campus 44:17 46:7,9 +46:12,18,22 +car 42:24 43:1,3,13 +60:2,4,5,10 122:15 +122:17 123:8,16 +card 117:6,6 +Carolyn 5:2,23 +case 1:3 5:23 +cases 1:9 +catch 138:3 +cause 4:6 30:20,25 +58:14,21 +caused 20:728:11 31:7 +certain 8:19 17:5,6 +certainly 11:20 +change 138:5 +changed 136:7 +characterization 135:9 +Charley 131:5,9,13,15 +131:23,25 132:9,12 +Chelsea 127:7,9 129:24 +130:16 +claiming 35:13 +clarify 29:10 52:25 +class 34:19 49:6 55:15 +55:16,18 128:2,3 +clear 5:20 67:17 +Clematis 39:8 +client 5:6 +clit 32:18,20,23 136:22 +close 30:3,5 81:8 +closer 6:23 +clothed 69:12,13 80:7 +89:2 106:3 +clothes 69:14 70:5,6,8 +70:17 71:2 92:10 +105:17 108:3 +club 39:4,5 +CME 5:21 +coincidental 40:18,20 +COLEMAN 2:20 +college 45:10 74:8 +108:25 111:11 128:6 +colleges 44:24 45:3 +color 43:15 +come 15:23 36:2 48:16 +65:3 77:8,14,15 91:2 +115:9 128:9 136:5 +comes 11:8 +coming 21:5 59:5 79:23 +communicated 124:20 +community 128:6 +commuting 46:16 +47:19 +compare 31:5 +compound 79:3 +computer 124:2,3,21 +conifers 12325 +concerning 124:16 +conducted 135:16 +conference 2:24 +confused 66:6 118:21 +consider 86:20 132:7 +considered 27:19 86:18 +consist 61:12 +consult 43:8 57:12 +contact 82:3,4 91:1,2,3 +91:22 +contents 73:3 +(561) 832-7500 PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC. (561) 832-7506 + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 38 of +control 29:18 +conversation 37:3,23 +38:25 49:15,19,23 +51:14 54:5,6 60:7,9 +61:1,9,12 70:9 82:22 +82:24 83:1 84:16 +85:12 105:10,18 +108:8 119:19,23 +120:8,10,18,23 123:6 +123:8,10,12,17 132:5 +conversations 37:7,14 +38:7 59:22 60:6,14 +60:19,21 63:22 +cops 15:20 17:11,13,18 +18:20 29:6,12 101:15 +121:6,8,17,18,19,20 +121:22 122:1,3 +copy 109:21 110:3,4,5 +correct 9:25 10:4,11 +20:1721:15 22:11 +24:7 44:25 45:16,23 +59:24 65:25 66:18 +68:4 71:13 74:22,23 +79:1,11 90:19 93:12 +97:16 98:9 108:17 +93:5,6,8 +counsel 4:20,21 103:19 +couple 136:14 +course 21:10 +court 1:1,22 5:9,11 6:3 +12:11 111:25 115:15 +115:16,17,18,21 +127:2 +courthouse 115:23,24 +115:25 116:2,5,7 +cousin's 102:22 +covers 76:5 +criminal 8:6 +Critton 2:19,20 4:23,23 +5:14,16,19 50:11 +57:2,5 138:5 +CROSS 3:4 +Cynthia 1:21 4:3 +C.M.A 2:13 +D +D 2:8,19 3:2 4:1 +dancing 49:24 51:12 +date 15:17 20:2,5 25:10 +25:11,23 33:13 35:10 +92:3 125:21 126:9 +dates 99:6,12 100:24 +day 4:8 9:1 45:9 48:3 +55:13 56:3 121:25 +days 75:13,25 77:15 +121:25 124:25 +deal 63:5 88:1 +December 39:21 40:1 +43:19,21 100:9 +Defendant 1:8 2:18 +Defendant's 3:14,15,16 +3:17,18 72:9 +definition 73:6 +degree 45:5 47:20 +denying 67:22 69:20,25 +department 25:3 26:25 +27:5,12 38:17,23 +75:6 108:25 109:16 +109:24 110:25 113:2 +depo 5:9 +deposed 7:5,6 +deposition 1:12 4:3,10 +4: 12 7:7 110:7 +138:10 +describe 131:23 +described 17:10 31:11 +34:1 58:19 61:10 +135:17 +describing 17:15,16,20 +DESCRIPTION 3:13 +desk 93:2 +detail 17:9,16,17,22,25 +details 17:6 67:6 +Detective 116:9 +determine 94:13 +difference 83:16,20 +different 44:14,24 45:3 +64:13 65:791:13,16 +113:1 +direct 3:4 6:11 123:9 +directions 84:6,7,13 +directly 120:10,19 +123:17 +discuss 52:10 84:23 +131:17 +discussion 26:2,6 36:21 +36:25 82:16 +discussions 38:12,15,21 +124:16,18 +dishonest 52:6 +DISTRICT I:1,1 +document 72:18,20 +73:12 +Doe 1:4,13 3:5 4:10,11 +4:20 6:7,14,20 81:13 +81:14,15,16,19 82:3 +82:4,7,12,14,16 +83:22 84:10 89:6,21 +96:9 102:17,17,18,19 +103:2,5,5 104:5,6,7,8 +124:11 127:7 129:15 +129:16,20,25 130:4,6 +130:7,16 132:18,19 +doing 7:8 89:7 98:1 +101:7 105:20 +dorm 47:5,6,7,11,18 +downtown 39:8 40:5 +115:17 116:7 +Dr 5:22 39:6,7,10 40:3 +40:21 41:12,15,18,22 +42:22 43:11,18 44:21 +49:13 50:25 51:7 +drank 29:18 +drawing 128:8 +dreams 11:2 +drinking 26:12 28:20 +28:22 86:18 +driving 60:10 89:15 +drove 36:20,23 37:2 +42:21 43:8 54:18,22 +60:4 82:8,13 84:14 +drug 86:18,20 +drugs 86:16,19,22 87:1 +87:3,8,13,23,24 88:1 +DUI 26:1,4,8,25 +duly 6:8 +E +E 3:2,10 4:1,1 +earlier 48:1 54:17 +64:24 110:6 +East 2:4 +easy 103:20 +either 114:16 123:15 +emphasize 15:5 +ended 48:18,20 +enrolled 45:3 128:11 +128:14 +entered 19:17 138:9 +entire 45:16,23 46:1,3 +47:12 76:25 78:4 +Epstein 1:7 2:18,24 +4:11,22,24 15:12 +18:10,19 19:15,23 +20:6 32:8,9,11 33:25 +34:5,11,23 35:10,13 +35:19 36:8 38:12,16 +38:18,23 39:1 49:15 +51:16,17 52:7,11 +53:14,23 54:4,8,13 +61:10 63:19 74:3 +81:2,8 91:1 98:11 +100:22 101:2,10 +119:8 120:9,10,18,20 +120:24 122:6,9,23,25 +123:2,6,10,13,17,20 +124:16,19,21 125:1 +126:21 131:24 132:8 +132:24 133:4,11,14 +Epstein's 36:22 37:1,8 +37:15,21 54:19,22 +59:8,12,23 60:2,10 +61:363:18,21,24 +68:3,17 69:9 70:11 +70:15 74:6 75:1,4,9 +75:15,25 76:4,17 +77:11,18 78:13,18 +79:1,14 81:11,23 +82:4,5 88:19,23 +90:19 91:2 92:3 +97:16 132:20,22 +133:19 134:1 135:10 +ESQUIRE 2:3,8,8,14 +2:19,19 +establishes 35:9 +estimate 134:7 +event 17:20 18:2 27:10 +27:15,20,22 30:15,16 +31:5,22,23 33:13 +34:1 52:5 57:16 +58:19 +events 135:8 137:9 +everybody 11:17 +Evidence 2:25 4:15 +EX 3:14,15,16,17,18 +exact 14:14 25:11 +100:24 119:19 +exactly 39:24 48:5 +56:11 94:3 109:1 +exam 5:22 +EXAMINATION 6:11 +examined 6:9 +example 66:24 +examples 35:3,4 +excuse 20:24 64:21 +103:19 +exhibit 3:13 71:25 72:8 +72:9,17 73:5 +expect 63:2,12,13 +65:23 66:9,14 67:24 +68:3,16,21 69:5 +93:15 133:10 +expected 63:2 69:11 +70:4 71:1 109:2 +explain 28:19 119:1 +extent 5:6 +Page 2 +ex-boyfriend 24:17 +27:1,13,25 28:13 +e-mail 2:11 124:9,23 +face 29:23,25 30:1,5 +31:13,24 33:18 34:2 +Facebook 124:6,8,10 +124:12,16 +fact 78:17 84:23 97:13 +100:21 104:12 +105:23 122:4 +fade 16:22 17:2 +fair 77:10 135:9 +fall 55:17 74:21,23 +family 44:3 +FAU 44:16, 17 46:1,12 +46:18 47:19 +favorite 95:12,25 96:19 +FBI 23:11,14,15,18,19 +24:1 65:1 111:6 +112:4,13 113:6,10 +114:11,12,12,14 +115:2,9,12,14 118:1 +118:2,11,12 119:1 +fear 30:25 31:2 +February 99:13 100:13 +federal 23:12 112:6 +Feelgood's 39:6,7,10 +40:3,21 41:12,15,18 +41:22 42:22 43:11,18 +44:21 49:13 50:25 +51:7 53:13,21 +female 114:12,18 +fifth 71:10 137:22 +fight 58:14 59:5,16 +Fighting 58:8 +find 101:22,24 102:5,6 +Fine 96:9 +finger 29:23 30:8 31:12 +31:25 33:18 34:3 +fingered 32:15 +fingering 32:22 136:21 +finish 14:6,7 60:16 +91:10 133:9 +first 6:88:12 13:1 +15:12,13,16,19 27:24 +28:3 34:10,13,22 +35:10,19 36:8,23 +(561) 832-7500 PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC. (561) 832-7506 + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 39 of +37:2,9,16,22 38:13 +49:3 50:6 51:1 53:25 +54:19 55:13,23 56:4 +59:8,12,15,17,23 +60:6,25 61:8 70:11 +73:11 74:3 79:7,13 +79:16,25 88:25 90:24 +91:17 92:13 93:24 +94:15 105:13,19 +106:15 107:2,4,23 +110:16 133:4,11 +135:5,17,25 137:19 +fistfight 56:15,16 57:9 +57:14,17,24 58:25 +five 49:1,2 54:10 76:16 +80:4 81:6 90:25 +93:23 94:2,16 106:16 +fresh 122:2 +freshman 22:6 46:24 +49:2 74:8 75:22 +108:25 109:18 +120:24 125:23 +friend 41:8,8,10,12 +44:22 47:24 48:25 +51:22,24,25 52:1 +55:4 81:20 85:14,16 +85:19 104:12 105:22 +130:4,7 132:7 +friendly 59:16 105:16 +104:23 105:11 +106:14 107:10,24 +121:7 122:21 125:12 +127:24 130:13,19 +132:17,20 136:16,17 +friends 40:23 41:6 45:7 +45:11 54:24 56:2,7 +103:18,18 104:2 +130:6 131:6,8,24 +flight 138:3 +Florida 1:1,18,22 2:5 +2:10,16,21 4:4,6,13 +friend's 130:6 +front 10:25 32:17 +follows 6:9 +foreed 79:1 +forget 20:7,15 67:7 +forgetting 127:4 +forgot 20:13 67:3,9 +116:19 128:20 +form 9:18,20 10:5,12 +12:6,12,22 13:17 +14:18 16:16,24 17:4 +17:23 20:921:1,13 +22:25 23:4 24:9,24 +26:21 28:14,23 32:1 +32:25 33:7 50:17,23 +52:17 53:9,15 58:22 +64:5,15 66:1,11,16 +66:19 67:25 68:5,25 +69:7 70:18 71:3,7,15 +76:20 77:2,20 78:19 +79:2,9 81:24 84:1,18 +85:4 89:24 90:4 +97:17 98:7,13 100:23 +108:6,14,18 109:11 +115:5 118:6 122:7 +135:18 137:10 +fully 5:10 80:7 89:2 +G +gap 81:1 90:25 +generally 28:8 +getting 43:17 89:11,15 +89:18 90:3,11,18 +gifts 122:12,14 131:15 +girl 8:14 57:17,25 +81:13 91:12,14,16 +95:12,25 102:16,20 +103:7,7 127:8 +girlfriend 102:22 +girls 89:16 90:12,13 +95:3 101:16 102:2,3 +102:8,12,14 103:6 +119:16,17,21 120:6 +fought 56:14 +found 56:7 101:15 +four 15:18 52:4 109:17 +fourth 137:14,15,18,20 +frame 39:25 +frequency 45:5 47:21 +48:11,17 76:3 +frequently 48:22 +girl's 85:18 129:9 +give 11:10 29:12 48:9 +48:10,10 61:15 63:7 +63:14,16 64:3 70:15 +84:4,25 89:7,20,20 +105:15 107:24 +111:25 122:11,14 +given 7:10 10:10 110:3 +110:4,5,12,19 +giving 9:15 80:3 105:8 +go 14:23 41:11 43:18 +44:13,21 58:25 61:22 +63:6 67:16 70:15 +76:4 79:1 82:11 86:6 +91:9 92:2 94:16,20 +going 10:25 20:19,24 +36:2,22 37:1,3,8,14 +37:21 40:21,24 53:4 +53:9 57:5 63:6,6,7,8 +64:2,3 67:13 70:15 +70:16,17 71:2 72:4,7 +74:25 76:17 79:22 +82:4,5,19,20 83:3 +84:25 89:16 94:17 +95:4,11 96:14 102:9 +102:12 103:6 107:24 +107:25 109:2 111:23 +111:25 113:17 +116:20 118:22 119:2 +119:5,17,17,19,22 +120:6,7,14 125:15 +127:25 128:3,5 +129:14,20 136:13 +good 19:18 44:22 51:12 +government 118:10,14 +grabbing 32:16 136:23 +graduated 33:23 74:13 +greater 48:17 +group 103:18 104:2 +guess 9:16 23:23 83:10 +90:13 130:25 131:22 +guessing 23:20 83:11 +83:12,14,17 95:14 +guy 49:24 61:14 107:24 +108:1 121:13 +guys 57:2 +Haley 34:20 36:10,22 +37:1,8,14,23 38:12 +38:15,21 39:1 40:3 +49:14,15,20,21,22 +50:12 51:7,9,15,22 +53:12,25 54:4,7,15 +54:17 55:6 56:5,17 +59:22 61:1,9 64:14 +65:7,23 66:9,14 67:1 +67:23 68:15,21 69:4 +69:17 70:3,10,14 +79:7,14 80: 15 82:6,6 +82:9 83:6,8 85:16 +89:17 90:10,20 91:12 +91:25 92:2 93:14 +102:19,23 103:3 +Hancock 131:2 +handed 72:16 +Handwritten 3:17 +hang 40:23 43:20 85:20 +hanging 49:24 102:14 +happen 20:2 33:20 +44:3 85:21 105:24 +happened 15:15,19 +31:5,11,16,23 32:6 +37:20 57:21 58:9,11 +92:5 111:7,8 116:22 +119:7 132:13 137:14 +Page 3 +50:23 52:17 53:6,15 +58:4,22 59:18 60:16 +64:5,15,21 66:1,11 +66:16,19 67:25 68:5 +68:25 69:7 70:18 +71:3,7,10,14,17,22 +72:2,7,21 73:4,16 +76:8,20 77:2,20 +78:19,22 79:2,9 +81:24 83:18 84:1,18 +85:4 89:24 90:4 91:6 +96:6,9,12,23 97:17 +98:4,7,13 99:7,9 +100:23 101:7 103:19 +103:22 105:5 106:21 +108:6,14,18 109:11 +115:5 118:6 122:7 +125:3,5 128:25 129:6 +135:18 137:10,25 +happens 119:23 +Hatfield 88:12 +head 7:23 33:4 64:6 +90:9 104:9,14 105:25 +112:8 114:6 125:2,6 +heading 41:18 118:17 +hear 6:22 129:6 +heard 103:11 120:5 +held 4:12 72:13 138:8 +help 23:21,22 40:10 +105:1 116:15 +hi 51:10 80:3 +high 49:4,8 56:2,19 +57:18,19 58:10 74:13 +87:19 89:16 102:9,20 +102:25 103:1 106:21 +134:17,18,19,25 +135:1,3 +him "1 74:6 +hired 110:13 +history 3:185:15,16 +Hold 99:7 +home 110:22 +hooked 1:27 +| 1:21 4:3 +HORACE 2:14 +Horowitz 2:8,9 4:19,19 +4:25 5:3,15,18 6:24 +9:17,20 10:5,12 12:6 +12:12,22 13:16 14:4 +14:7,18,21 16:16,24 +17:4,23 18:12,14 +20:9 21:1,13 22:25 +23:4 24:9,24 26:21 +28:14,23 30:11,22 +32:1,14,25 33:7 36:5 +40:10,13 42:18 50:17 +hour 72:7 +hours 51:5 +house 36:17,19,20,23 +37:1,8,15,22 42:1,9 +47:3 64:2 70:15 74:7 +119:18,22 123:2,21 +123:23 +Huh-uh 43:12 +hung 34:8 48:8 52:2,3 +idea 38:2 119:4 +identification 72:10 +identified 112:6,15 +Illinois 125:10 126:24 +implicate 5:7,12 +importance 8:10,13 +important 5:25 21:4 +27:15,20,22 +inaccuracies 111:1 +Incorporated 2:25 4:16 +indicated 49:14 54:14 +individuals 22:18 +Injunction 3:16 +instruct 5:5 +instructed 53:7 +intend 5:5 +intent 5:11 +intentionally 20:16 +interaction 18:8,18 +19:16 26:24 31:10 +50:5 131:12 +interrogation 13:23 +Interrogatories 3:15 +interrupt 91:7 +interrupting 99:8 +101:8 +interrupts 96:13 +(561) 832-7500 PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC. (561) 832-7506 + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 40 of +interview 8:22 15:9,13 +15:13 17:21 18:9,18 +19:14,21 21:25 26:3 +26:9 27:1 109:8,15 +109:24 111:13 +112:24 117:9 123:7 +interviewed 15:17,19 +18:4 19:23 20:3,5,5,8 +22:10,22 23:3,7 24:2 +24:6,11,22 27:4,11 +27:25 28:6 38:16,22 +75:5,10,14 108:24 +111:5,6,20 113:9 +115:2 121:3,6 +interviewing 22:18 +24:16 27:17 28:12,21 +113:25 119:21 +interviews 28:8 +introduced 32:10 36:13 +36:15 56:6 +invest 13:1 +investigating 101:16,25 +Investigation 112:7 +invited 132:17,18 +involved 114:5 +involving 18:9 +issue 5:8,10 +i.e 69:12 +J +J 2:3 +Jan 99:13 +Jane 1:4,13 2:7 3:5 +4:10,11,20 6:7,14,20 +81:13,14,15,16,19 +82:3,4,7,12,14,16 +83:22 84:10 89:6,21 +96:9102:17,17,18,19 +103:2,5,5 104:5,6 +124:11 127:7 129:15 +129:16,20,25 130:4,6 +130:7,16 132:18,19 +132:22 +January 39:11,12,16 +39:17 40:2 43:19 +98:20 99:1 100:11 +126:5,5 +Jeff 2:24 4:14,22 49:15 +• 51:16 52:7,11 53:23 +119:8 131:24 +Jefferson 127:22 +128:21 +Jeffrey 1:7 2:18,24 +15:12 19:22 20:6 +32:8 38:18,23 39:1 +53:13 54:4 61:9 +63:18 68:3 70:10,15 +92:3 +jerking 32:17 +John 130:25 131:2 +5:20 +JR 2:19 +judge 5:20 115:18 +July 76:14 99:24 +June 6:21 25:15,16 +74:16 76:4,14 77:1,7 +77:18 78:5,8,9,14 +95:22 96:18,21 97:6 +99:22 101:18 126:18 +126:18 +junior 47:13,14 49:2 +55:19 56:20,20,20 +57:18 96:4,4 106:25 +107:16,18 125:13,13 +125:14,15,19,24 +126:3 133:21 135:2 +Jupiter 23:8 24:1 +Kate 129:10 +keep 70:8 101:7,8 +kids 1:11,11 +kind 7:10 23:10 40:11 +43:13 54:14 69:13 +93:4 97:14 105:2,3 +knew 19:1,24 20:4 21:4 +21:11,17 24:6 34:20 +64:1 83:4 85:2 89:11 +90:18 103:7,7 108:11 +know 7:15,21,25 8:2,5 +8:20 10:15,19 11:20 +11:22 13:14 14:14,25 +16:4,8,14 17:14,18 +19:4,8,10 20:18,18 +20:20,20 22:13,15 +25:14 26:18 28:2 +34:10,13,17 37:18 +39:24 40:14 42:15 +44:6,14 46:2 47:24 +48:5 55:6,8,12,15,16 +55:17,24 56:18 58:12 +59:17 62:10 70:13,22 +71:18,22 73:18 75:16 +75:19,19,20 76:11 +77:6,9,11,25 81:9 +82:1583:1,5,10,15 +83:17,21,24,25 84:11 +84:12,13,21,24 85:2 +85:3,6,7,8,10 86:24 +87:1,12,20,20,22,23 +87:24,25 90:15 91:23 +94:21,25 95:1,5,6,8 +95:14,14 98:11,22,25 +99:3,4,5,6,10,12,15 +99:17,19,21,23,25 +100:2,4,6,8,10,12,14 +100:16,18,20,21 +101:4 102:15,21 +103:8,11,13,17 104:3 +108:21 109:4,4,4,5,6 +110:2,4,23 111:7,16 +112:11,13 113:21 +114:3,4,22 115:25 +116:18,25 117:1,2,7 +118:22,23,24 119:9 +119:20,20 120:5,7 +121:9,20 124:17 +127:12,14 128:22 +129:1,1,17,19,23 +130:9 131:21 134:8,9 +134:10,15 135:19,20 +knowing 10:19 92:15 +knowledge 8:17 11:10 +35:9 103:9,14 +known 7:2 55:7,9 +knows 61:15 +lady 116:11,12,25 +Lauderdale 2:5 +Lauren 41:2,3,5,12,15 +41:20 43:3,17,25 +44:9,20 45:6 48:8,24 +49:13,19,22 50:9,11 +50:13,15,21 51:8,9 +53:20,24 54:5 85:19 +104:12 132:25 133:3 +133:7,10,13,20 134:5 +134:13,15,17 135:10 +Lauren's 133:4 +lawyer 72:19,22 110:13 +117:21,23 118:10,11 +lawyers 110:14 118:14 +leave 63:8 70:16 77:14 +77:15,16 136:16 +left 50:25 51:13 80:5,6 +106:5 117:18 +letting | 19:20 +let's 45:13,21 66:24 +71:25 106:14 137:14 +licking 32:18,20,23 +lie 12:25 13:5 18:22 +lied 10:15 12:21 13:4 +life 18:2 21:9 27:15,20 +31:6,16 32:6 57:16 +lingerie 122:17 +literally 75:13 137:1,2 +litigation 73:6 +little 6:23 8:14 88:14 +live 42:2,5 46:7,10 47:7 +127:21 129:14 +lived 46:7,9 127:18 +lives 130:20,20 +living 46:21 47:18 +127:15,16,23 128:16 +128:22 129:4 +locally 42:2 +Lofts 127:22 128:21 +long 19:14 37:12,13,22 +44:19 48:24 51:3 +54:6 55:6,7,7,9 58:25 +73:11 81:4 86:8 +88:13 93:21 113:20 +look 72:2,5 97:24 +looked 15:16 +looking 110:15 +looks 103:12 +lot 29:17 48:7 68:15 +89:16 102:1,11 +lotion 79:21,22 +Luncheon 138:8 +Luttier 2:19,20 3:6 +4:21,21 6:2,4,12,17 +7:1 9:19,23 10:6,14 +12:9,15,24 13:18 +14:5,9,22 16:18 17:1 +17:8 18:1,16 19:20 +20:12 21:3,14 23:2,5 +24:10 25:1 26:22 +28:17 29:1 30:14,24 +32:4,19 33:2,10 36:7 +40:17 42:20 50:13,14 +50:20 51:2 52:18 +53:11,17 57:4,7 58:6 +58:24 59:20 60:22 +61:22 62:1 64:7,19 +Page 4 +64:23 66:3,12,17,21 +68:2,6,14 69:1,8 +70:20 71:5,8,12,16 +71:19,24 72:4,8,15 +72:23,24 73:9,19 +76:10,21 77:5,22 +78:20,24 79:5,10 +82:2 83:19 84:3,19 +85:13 90:1,5 91:6,8 +96:8,16 97:1,19 98:5 +98:8,16 101:1,9 +103:21,24 104:1 +105:12 106:23,24 +108:10,16,20 109:12 +115:8 118:9 122:8 +125:8 127:5 129:3,12 +135:22 137:13 138:2 +lying 8:8 +| 16:2 22:1,10 +38:16,22 43:22,23 +44:8, 13 45:16,22 +46:8,22 74:9,19,25 +75:10,18 111:20 +114:25 115:3,6 120:3 +120:4,25 125:17 +128:12,14 +L.M 2:2 +M +male 114:14,15,17 +man 32:10 +manner 38:11 135:16 +March 99:16 100:15 +Maria 117:3 118:16 +Mario 130:4,5,19 +Mario's 130:22 +marked 72:9,17 +massage 61:16 63:7,14 +63:16 64:3 70:7,16 +74:7 80:1,3 84:25 +89:7,20 92:11 104:24 +104:25 105:9,15 +106:1 107:24 123:20 +136:6 137:16 +massages 123:1 135:15 +135:24 136:6 137:9 +material 5:24 +matter 4:11 19:15,23 +21:4,8 70:22 78:17 +80:4 97:13 100:21 +6:13 12:10,25 +14:16 15:2 70:21 +71:25 72:16 105:23 +mean 7:12 8:21,21 9:10 +13:14 17:17 19:7 +(561) 832-7500 PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC. (561) 832-7506 + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 41 of +23:10 24:14 28:3,18 +28:19 29:2,5,10,21 +29:24 30:3 32:9,12 +35:3,24 36:15,18 +39:3,18 44:23 45:19 +46:23 52:19 57:20 +58:7 61:18 62:2,5,14 +62:25 63:4,14 64:16 +74:6 77:9 81:16 82:9 +82:25 83:8,10 85:23 +87:19 90:1291:5 +94:7 97:11 98:19 +102:11 103:3 115:6,7 +115:13,20,23 118:7 +122:11,20 123:1 +130:18 136:10,23,25 +meaning 41:25 +means 30:l 37:18,19 +53:3 109:25 +meant 46:22 134:22 +medical 5:22 +meet 40:19 49:3 115:22 +116:8 119:24 121:7 +meeting 32:8,9 40:7,9 +40:18 117:9,25 118:1 +memory 16:12 43:8 +57:12 122:2 +mentioned 36:11 48:1 +95:17 +Mermelstein 2:8,9 +138:9 +met 33:25 34:4,6,8,10 +34:14,23 35:10,13,19 +36:1,8 42: 16 55:11 +55:14,15,17,23 56:22 +56:23 57:8 59:15,17 +79:19 115:11,13 +121:10 129:25 132:8 +MICHAEL 2:3 +middle 6:15,16 22:5 +25:22 34:15,17 35:13 +36:9 74:4 75:21 +106:15 107:1,3,5,6 +126:19 135:5 +mind 16:7,9 65:5 67:12 +month 22:4 25:24 +37:24 39:24 48:15 +52:3 61:6 76:14 +77:16 94:5,6,6,9,13 +94:14,18 106:12,12 +126:16 +months 37:24,25 52:4 +61:6 73:20 76:16 +81:6 86:10 93:23 +94:2,16 106:16 +morning 19:18 +motion 5:9 +mouth 63:13 +move 36:5 53:9 64:21 +71:23 +moved 31:9 +41:4,5,12,15 +41:20 43:3,17,25 +44:20 45:6,25 46:10 +46:16 47:18,21 48:22 +48:24 49:13,20,23 +50:9,15,21 51:8 +53:20 85:19 104:13 +132:25 +N +N 3:24:1 +name 4:14 6:4,13,15,16 +6:17,18 7:3 42:15 +81:15,17,18,18 85:18 +104:6 114:8,19,22 +116:13 117:3,6 +118:24 129:9 +named 127:8 131:5 +names 114:16 127:10 +need 12:11 14:6 64:8 +Nestek 114:20,21 116:9 +never 10:24 11:1,7,9 +52:2,2 54:24,25 58:1 +64:17 65:5 67:7,12 +87:4 123:19 132:13 +Newland 47:8 +night 51:10 58:13 +minute 55:4 67:5 95:21 +minutes 50:8 80:5 +miserable 57:6 +misphrased 62:11 +moderations 52:3 +moment 9:13 +money 80:5,11,15 83:7 +83:9 89:15,19,22 +90:3,19,22 +nipples 32:17 136:23 +nods 64:6 104:9,14 +North 2:15 +Notary 1:22 4:5 +note 3:17 5:3 35:5 +noted 5:11 35:5 +November 22:8,9 100:7 +number 98:1 101:4,5 +N-e-s-t-e-k 114:21 +Page 5 +N-e-w-I-a-n-d 47:9 +0 +oath 7:11,16,18,22,25 +8:8,18,24 9:8,9,12 +10:10,16,17 11:13,14 +53:1,8 70:14 84:20 +object 5:5,11 9:18,20 +10:5,12 12:12 13:16 +14:18 16:24 17:4 +20:9 21:1,13 24:9,24 +28:14,23 32:1,25 +33:7 50:17 52:17 +53:958:22 64:5,15 +66:1,11,16,19 67:25 +68:5,25 69:7 70:18 +71:3,7,15 73:4 76:20 +78:19 79:2,9 81:24 +84:1,18 85:4 89:24 +90:4 97:17 98:4,7,13 +100:23 108:6 109:11 +122:7 135:18 137:10 +objection 5:4 78:22 +119:12,13,24 123:3 +papers 110:21 +parents 8:14 10:21,24 +occasion 18:24 26:14 +36:23 40:22 42:21 +43:9,18 49:12 51:6 +52:11 53:13,21 56:14 +78:12 79:16 93:11 +105:24 113:10 115:3 +occasions 28:12 135:11 +occur 50:5 57:14 59:7 +occurred 33:14 34:2 +79:15 88:20,22 +104:21 105:14 117:9 +October 1:14 4:9 22:7 +22:8,9 48:20,21 +75:17 76:4,15 77:1,7 +77:19 78:6,9,14 79:8 +95:19,22 96:18,21 +97:6 100:5 101:19 +offered 122:21,21 +office 79:20 114:10 +116:24 118:5,14,14 +officer 11:4,8,17,18 +officers 10:23 11:3 +13:1,4 15:10,14,21 +16:3,4,8,10,15 17:21 +18:4 19:22 20:4,6,8 +20:17 21:5,12,25 +22:10,13 67:1,4,23 +6:4 11:7 44:14 59:13 +67:12,13 72:23 81:19 +88:21 91:9 105:17 +121:5 126:5 136:14 +okay 6:20 7:18 8:2,16 +10:9 12:1,25 14:1 +16:14,19 17:9 19:21 +21:24 25:9,17 26:2 +26:23 32:12 37:21 +38:21 39:22 41:9,11 +41:20 47:7,17 48:13 +52:5 60:25 62:23 +63:15 64:12 67:22 +68:20 72:23 73:20,25 +74:13,19 78:2,4,25 +87:15 88:1,8,19 +90:21 92:793:10 +96:14,15 97:13 99:10 +103:21,24 107:4,7,20 +108:11 109:13 +110:24 111:5,19 +115:20 121:4,9,23 +122:11,16 123:24 +124:7 126:23 127:1 +127:18 130:22 +132:13 133:7 136:3 +part 23:16,17 108:3 +partner 138:4 +party 58:10 59:1 +paying 17:13 +old 34:12,16 62:15 +63:17 78:8 102:4,20 +102:24 103:4,9 +122:24 130:8,9 131:9 +131:11 134:13,15 +older 121:13 131:7,10 +once 37:10,10 45:18 +47:25 48:12 92:8 +94:5,9,13 111:17 +order 5:21 +originally 129:13 +Orlando 127:15,16,21 +127:25 128:17 +129:24 +ought 19:5 +P +paid 70:17 80:11,13,15 +80:17 89:4,9,11,15 +89:19,22 90:3,11,18 +90:22 106:5 107:25 +130:2 132:24 +18:20 19:5,16,24 +20:3 22:16,18,19,21 +22:23 23:8,8,25,25 +24:12,23 25:3 26:24 +27:5,11 40:5 46:15 +46:18 47:19 61:14 +64:2,25 75:5 76:24 +76:25 77:7 102:25 +107:25 108:24 +113:2,5 115:17 +people 36:3 59:3 65:3 +89:14,17 90:18 113:9 +113:11 130:18 +performed 74:7 123:20 +135:15,24 136:6 +period 46:4 47:12 50:7 +59:14 76:18 77:1,6 +78:2,5,13 95:22 +96:17 97:6,8 127:19 +person 54:18 91:13 +92:15 103:15 118:17 +121:15 123:24 130:8 +personal 101:4,5 103:8 +personally 47:21 101:2 +101:10,12 +Petition 3:16 +phone 2:5,11,16,22 +37:10 60:1,4,7 61:1 +61:11 79:25 80:2 +92:24 101:3,11,12,13 +105:9,19,20 120:9,14 +123:5,9,12,16 +physically 32:10 +picture 121:14 +pictures 131:22 +place 41:21,23,25 +61:1 | 123:2 129:21 +130:24 132:16 +places 130:25 +Plaintiff 1:5 2:2 4:20 +planned 40:9,19 +play 14:15 +played 48:5 117:1 +playing 48:8 +please 4:17 6:4 37:17 +point 9:6 10:9 21:24 +31:4,10,17,23 32:7 +61:2 67:8 103:23 +106:7 107:13 121:14 +133:19 135:10,13,13 +(561) 832-7500 PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC. (561) 832-7506 + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 42 of +135:23 136:5 +police 7:12 9:8 10:18 +10:23 11:1,3,4,7,17 +11:18 13:1,4 15:10 +15:11,14,21 17:21 +18:4,8,17 19:5,16,22 +19:24 20:4,6,8,17 +21:5,25 22:10,17,19 +22:23,23 23:6,9,9,10 +23:13,18,25 24:1,1,2 +24:5,12,23 25:3 26:3 +26:6,14,24 27:5,12 +27:16,17 28:5,11,21 +33:14 38:17,23 64:25 +66:25 67:4,23 75:5 +75:10,14,17,24 +108:23,24 109:3,16 +109:24 110:25 +111:10,20 113:2,6 +119:12,13,17,24 +120:25 123:7,14 +portion 61:24 68:10 +psychologie 23:22 +Psychological/Social +Public 1:22 4:5 +pulled 59:3,6 +purpose 73:5 +purposes 66:25 +put 67:20 124:18 126:9 +83:13 114:24 135:8 +record 4:18 34:22,23 +34:25 35:8 38:6 43:7 +57:6,11 61:24 68:10 +72:11 73:17 97:14,23 +97:25 113:19 138:6 +recorded 38:9 113:14 +p.m 1:15 138:8,9 +records 94:12 +RECROSS 3:4 +REDIRECT 3:4 +referral 90:16 +relerred 90:12 +referring 62:4 +9:19 11:21 12:2,4,4,5 +reflected 15:5 +12:8,10,16,19 13:15 +refresh 22:7 43:8 57:12 +14:6,8,16,23,25 15:3 +regard 5:21,21 18:19 +15:3,12 18:12 33:9 +regarding 15:11 51:15 +35:4 60:17 61:4 63:9 +63:9 65:6 66:25 +69:24 71:11 75:7 +94:25 96:13,23 97:3 +101:6 103:2 123:11 +Registered 4:4 +regular 104:8 +Reported 1:21 +reporter 4:4,5 6:3 +12:1161:25 68:11 +127:2 +Reporting 1:22 +reports 7:12 +represent 118:15,15 +representing 4:15 +118:10 +requested 61:24 68:10 +respeet 19:22 24:12,15 +27:5,12 28:6 +response 65:21 99:2 +result 20:13 +retained 117:23 +review 72:25 +revolving 18:9 +RICHARD 2:14,14 +Rick 5:1 +Ricky 86:2,3,8 +right 7:15 8:5 9:6 10:7 +138:10 +roommate 129:11,16 +roommates 128:18,22 +roommate's 129:21 +rooms 116:1 +ROSENFELDT 2:3 +ROTHSTEIN 2:3 +rough 73:21 +toughly 25:12 130:11 +1I 18:20 19:5,16,24 +20:3 23:8,25 24:12 +24:23 25:2 26:24 +27:5,11 46:15,18 +47:19 102:25 +RPR 1:21 +rule 5:7,8,13 +run 39:9 +S +S2:8 3:10 4:1 +sanctions 8:6 +Sarah 79:19 104:23 +17:3 18:13 19:4,8,10 +120:20 123:15 +position 5:20,25 +possibility 121:4 +21:18,20,22 25:15 +Sarah's 101:5 +possibly 60:19,21 +presence 11:3 +Preston 24:19,20 27:1 +27:6,13 28:1,13 +33:17 34:6,9 88:16 +134:9 135:21 +questioning 13:23 +questions 5:7,12 10:18 +13:2,11,12,20 14:12 +14:13,14 15:22,24 +26:11,13 71:16 +111:15,23,24 112:1,3 +112:16,19 113:12,21 +119:11 121:1,8,18 +relationship 27:18 +28:10,16,18 59:7 +61:2 75:4,9 85:21 +relevant 5:24 +remained 89:2 +35:16 39:16 44:19,19 +sat 10:24 112:18 +46:4 47:17 48:9 +Saturn 43:2 +49:12 52:15 53:1 +saw 15:944:23 45:7,18 +60:3,12 65:20 67:10 +47:24 48:17 53:24 +14:12,13 15:17 16:5 +17:5,6 22:4 23:19,23 +25:13,13,23 28:2,4 +29:4,9 33:21 34:4 +68:18 73:10 74:2,17 +54:1 73:11 74:3,6,6 +75:11 76:11 79:6,25 +109:14,25 110:16 +93:10,14,19 95:9 +126:21 136:1 +97:20 98:6 104:3,5,8 +saying 16:21 50:11 +104:10 106:3 107:7 +56:9,12 76:8 83:17 +pretty 5:20 44:18 61:19 +R +122:20 +43:15 44:4,7 45:20 +56:11,12,19,21 57:10 +57:15 58:18 59:10 +60:20,24 61:4,7 +107:12,13,15 108:13 +83:17 90:2 +108:17 109:14 110:3 +says 9:24 11:21 12:17 +110:19 111:7,21 +112:4,7,18 113:7 +scared 8:20 I0:18 13:5 +pre-statement 9:22 +raise 29:18 +114:4 117:16,25 +prior 19:21 37:18,21 +ran 39:4 40:2,22 49:13 +20:11,15,22 111:24 +67:21 68:1,13 69:19 +120:1,12 121:12 +probably 13:25 15:18 +read 12:11 14:1,10,16 +70:2,12,24 71:4 +123:5 128:10 129:4 +22:5 37:10 39:11 +15:4 61:22,25 68:7,9 +75:20,21 77:3 80:25 +45:17 50:8 56:18 +129:23 132:16,20 +schedule 48:6 95:6 +68:11 110:7,11,24 +82:21 84:7,8,9,10,13 +135:6 137:23 +school 15:25 16:1 +75:16 76:2 81:5 +reading 72:1 +84:14 85:11 93:19 +92:22 93:19,21,22 +25:23 44:6 49:4,8 +ready 6:2 41:23 +94:3 108:7,8 109:5 +Robert 2:19 4:23 +101:18,18 102:8 +56:2,19 57:18,19 +really 51:9 52:2 64:17 +110:5 111:8,12 +34:20 36:10,22 +106:11 109:17 110:9 +58: 10 74:14 87:19 +reason 56:13 103:22,23 +113:11,15,16,18,19 +37:1,8,14,24 38:12 +126:18 130:12 134:2 +132:3 +89:16 102:9,20,25 +114:8,15,17,17 +38:15,22 39:1 40:3 +103:1 106:22 111:15 +recall 8:12 13:20 14:3 +116:13,18 117:5 +problem 16:12 +49:14,15,20 51:7,15 +111:17,18 120:6 +16:11,14 22:1,17 +118:3 119:19,20 +51:23 53:12 54:15,18 +proceed 6:1 +127:24,25 128:5,7 +• 27:8 35:23,24 49:16 +129:9,10 133:8,12,15 +55:6 56:5,17 59:22 +proceeding 115:18 +134:17,19,19,25 +58:9,11,20 60:13,25 +133:16,17,22 134:4 +61:1,9 64:14 65:8,23 +Professional 4:4,5 +65:25 68:17 69:15,21 +66:9,14 67:1,23 +proficient 123:25 +73:10 75:3,23 84:15 +progressively 94:6,7 +128:10 136:9 +136:8,18,24 137:7 +recess 72:13 138:8 +pronouncing 114:23 +recognize 91:19 +proposal 3:14 73:7 +recollection 16:22 17:2 +Prose 1:22 +proximity 30:5 +22:7 35:16 62:18 +67:18 74:3 76:16 +remembered 67:7 +remembering 67:6 +remove 70:6 +rented 120:13,17 +122:15,17 +renting 123:8,16 +rephrased 62:16 +68:15,21 69:5 70:4 +70:10,14 79:7,14 +role 116:14 117:1 +room 19:17 92:19,21 +92:23 104:24 115:25 +117:12,18 131:3 +season 48:18.18 +seating 93:4 +second 60:9 81:11 82:7 +88:20,21,22 90:25 +91:2,18,20 93:10,16 +93:24 94:3,4,11,17 +105:20 106:11,17,20 +107:1,2,8 114:25 +Page 6 +(561) 832-7500 PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC. (561) 832-7506 + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 43 of +117:25 +seconds 54:10 +Secret 122:18 +see 23:21 35:24 44:22 +45:2,5,9 47:21 48:14 +48:22 54:3 69:22 +75:18 76:1 87:8 88:1 +99:10 103:14 115:9 +115:12 122:25 123:1 +seeing 52:12,15 54:4 +75:24 +seen 13:22 44:20 48:3 +53:25 72:18,20 +semantics 14:15 +semester 44:2,12 +senior 46:24 47:13 49:2 +106:18 125:15 126:4 +133:17,22 134:18,24 +134:25 135:3 +September 76:15 100:3 +101:19 +serious 34:9 +set 5:10 79:20 105:1,2 +settlement 3:14 73:8 +sexual 5:15,15,16 +sexually 20:10 32:11 +32:12 +shady 55:3 +shakes 7:23 33:4 90:9 +105:25 125:2 +shaking 125:5 +she'd 55:4 84:11,12 +She'll 68:9 +shirt 137:16 +shock 31:6 54:2 +shocking 31:8 +shortly 93:19 +show 71:24 121:13,14 +showed 79:21 +shower 92:19 +shows 109:8 +sie 94:24 +sides 5:19 +significance 7:16,21 +significant 18:2 21:8 +27:10,14 30:16 57:16 +58:20 81:1 +Silver 43:16 +single 63:12 76:7,23 +94:19,19,24 95:15 +sit 9:2 11:4 26:9 68:18 +site 124:4 +situation 16:20 28:25 +29:9,11,15 51:20 +64:18 65:2 116:15 +situations 55:4 +six 37:25 49:1 73:20 +81:6 93:23 94:2,16 +106:16 +six-month 90:25 +size 92:23 +skipped 106:21 +small 17:6,9,15,17,21 +17:24 103:1 +smelling 32:17 +sober 49:25 50:2,3,9,15 +50:21 +soccer 48:5,6,7,7,8,18 +social 124:4 +socialize 128:20 +10:10 26:10 77:10 +95:18 96:19 109:23 +statements 70:3 +States 1:1 76:24 116:23 +statutory 73:7 +stay 77:9 130:22 131:1 +stayed 130:24 +staying 42:1,11 +story 64:13 65:15 +talk 21:5 45:13 51:9,20 +52:4,13,15,20,22 +101:11,13 116:19 +118:4,21 131:25 +132:4 137:12 +talkative 105:16 +talked 52:23 54:2 +64:17,20,25,25 65:1 +80:4 83:2 84:21 85:6 +85:7,10 110:14 119:1 +119:14 121:2,5 122:1 +Thank 30:22 57:4 +thing 13:2 19:8,10 +21:20 31:15,20 54:11 +64:1 88:24,25 96:14 +somebody 9:10,14 +23:19,20,21 36:10 +55:24 56:3 59:5 65:1 +65:14,17,22 66:8 +90:14 102:7,23 103:3 +103:4,17 104:13 +113:16 114:9 116:19 +116:23 118:18,20 +straight 67:20 +strike 36:5 53:10 64:21 +69:16 122:5 133:3 +STUART 2:8 +student 43:22,23,25 +45:15,22 46:1,5 +stuff 56:12 65:12 69:13 +subpoena 111:25 +substance 61:8 82:23 +suing 51:17 52:7 +Suite 1:17 2:4,10,15,21 +talking 15:21 40:12,13 +51:8 56:7 57:2 58:15 +60:5 62:3 86:22 87:1 +94:1 95:18,21 96:2,6 +96:17 97:5,8 105:21 +105:22 116:4 119:5 +tape 113:17 138:5,7 +somebody's 64:2 +someplace 35:6 110:21 +sophomore 34:15,16,18 +35:14 36:9 49:1 +55:11,21,22 56:19,20 +56:24,25 57:18 59:15 +74:4 106:15 107:2,3 +107:5,6,9 111:11 +115:4 125:25 135:6 +sorry 30:23 33:23 +40:16 42:19 50:12 +58:5 59:19 60:18 +61:4 66:5 67:19 75:7 +86:15,15 89:3,3 96:5 +96:11,15 99:12 115:7 +125:20 127:3,3 129:2 +taught 8:9,12,15 10:21 +11:12 19:13 21:21 +teaching 1:11 +Telephone 2:17 +107:11,18,18,21 +125:15,16,21 126:6 +126:13,14,16 127:20 +tell 7:17,24 10:22,23,23 +11:1,5,9,12,16 13:6,7 +13:8,9,10 18:21 19:2 +19:5,13,24 20:4,7,14 +20:16,23,25 21:11 +supposed 20:14 21:18 +24:6 35:25,25 36:3 +26:19 128:23,23 +52:21 53:4 54:17 +sure 4:19 23:24 35:22 +61:18,20 62:15,19,20 +44:18 53:8,18 57:20 +62:21,22 63:1,10,16 +64:10 67:9,17 69:2 +64:3,24 69:4,17,22 +82:21 83:1,4 85:2,5,8 +77:17 80:21,23 83:3 +85:9 87:10,14,15,17 +88:3 93:15 97:14,22 +87:18,22 88:6 94:23 +South 1:17 4:12 +97:24 98:17,19 +98:21,23 120:21,22 +108:23 109:2 110:25 +SOUTHERN 1:1 +120:23 127:11 130:9 +117:3 112:21 113:1,5 +Spanish 55:16,17 +131:10 134:12 +113:23 119:6,15 +speak 10:20 11:8 52:8 +121:15,23 126:23 +specific 58:21 67:6 +sworn 6:8 9:15 53:4 +127:6 132:2,6 133:2 +83:13 +Sylvia 127:7,9 129:23 +133:3,7,10 134:5 +specifically 11:21 +76:11 +telling 8:10,13 10:3 +specifies 29:14 48:10 +64:4 66:14 67:21 +spell 6:15 |14:22 +T2:193:10 +70:13 84:15 113:4 +spelled 6:18 +table 79:20 104:24,25 +spells 6:16 +take 32:14 54:7 70:19 +spoken 123:15 +72:3,5 90:3 92:10 +ten 75:25 132:5 +terms 31:6 68:22 69:5 +spring 55:17 +103:19 105:5,5 108:2 +stands 9:19 +108:3,12,22 113:20 +started 34:8 62:2 74:19 +128:23 129:20 +74:24 +132:12,22 133:13 +starting 48:21 +136:15,16,18 137:2 +state 1:22 4:6 6:4 23:12 +137:14,16,25 138:4 +testifying 9:17 110:6 +testimony 29:9 49:16 +66:13 84:20 +23:20 65:2 +taken 4:3 7:7 61:3,10 +statement 7:11 9:15 +Texting 125:1 +things 17:6 63:17 67:10 +think 9:11,12,14 29:6 +33:844:2 55:12 +68:20 80:3,4 81:13 +82:6 85:5 86:21 97:9 +98:2 101:4,5,23 +113:18 115:11,12 +116:6 117:10,11,17 +117:17 118:20,23 +120:13,16 121:5,24 +124:18 129:9 131:6 +132:23 134:16 +third 93:18 94:4,10 +104:20 105:3,7,9,10 +105:14,14,21,24 +107:15 136:6 137:21 +thought 11:1 20:20 +48:2 65:191:9 +three 13:25 15:8,15 +17:12 27:7 28:7,12 +49:18 76:13,19,22 +77:13 109:14,17 +110:7,9 117:12,13,13 +117:15,16,20,20 +126:20 134:11 +time 4:9 8:9 9:6 10:9 +12:3 15:16,17 16:21 +17:3 21:24 24:5,22 +26:7 27:22,24 28:3 +28:25 29:5,16,19 +31:4,10,17,23 32:3,7 +32:14 33:25 34:5 +35:19,20 37:2,9,16 +37:17,22 38:13 39:25 +42:3 46:23 47:12,17 +48:16 49:23 50:7 +51:6,12 54:1,19,21 +54:21 55:9,23 57:20 +59:9,12,14,23 61:2 +66:5,6 70:11 71:10 +74:5 75:3,8 76:7,12 +76:23,24 77:6,13 +78:2,4,17 79:7,7,25 +80:2,9,19 81:1,11 +82:7 84:12 88:20,21 +88:22,25 90:24,25 +91:2,17,18,20 92:13 +93:16,18 94:3,4,10 +94:11,15,17,19,19,21 +94:24 95:1,11,13,15 +95:23 97:12 103:6 + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 44 of +104:20 105:3,5,6,7 +105:10,11,14,14,17 +105:19,20,21,21 +106:8,11,15,17,20 +107:1,2,2,4,8,15,23 +110:16 115:10 117:6 +120:12 122:4 123:11 +126:21,24 127:19 +128:1 129:18 133:19 +133:24 135:10,13,23 +136:5,15,17,19,20,21 +136:25 137:8 +times 8:20 10:15 27:4,7 +28:5,7 32:18,20,21 +32:22,24 76:13,19,22 +77:13,17,21 78:1 +97:15,18,22 98:1 +113:22 133:18,25 +134:2,5,11 136:14 +today 7:8,19 8:25 9:2 +53:1 70:14 73:1 +120:12 124:13 +toilet 92:20 +told 8:17,23 9:7 10:4 +10:11 11:5,6,10,16 +11:24 12:17 18:23 +28:7 35:18 51:19 +52:12 53:24 54:12 +62:7 63:17 64:12,13 +65:6,10,14,17,22,23 +66:8,9,14, 18,25 67:1 +67:2,22,23,24,24 +68:15,21 69:5,25 +70:14,25 79:22 81:7 +95:24 97:2 102:13,23 +103:2,17 104:3 +107:23 108:5 113:2 +119:16 121:16,24 +122:2,3 123:13 +top 91:19 108:3,12,22 +136:15 137:2 +total 117:13,13 +touch 59:3 +town 76:13 94:20,22,24 +95:1,2,8,13,16 98:12 +98:14,18 100:22 +transcript 13:22 14:2 +14:10,16 15:4,6,9 +109:7,14,15,20,25 +110:8,11 112:23 +transpired 51:15 +transpiring 30:16 +trauma 31:7 +traumatic 31:15,22 +32:2,5 +travel 82:1 122:22,23 +122:24 +traveling 48:6 77:4 +trip 130:2,13,19 131:17 +Page 8 +132:17 +trouble 8:1 20:19,24 +true 9:25 10:4 11:22,24 +12:18 36:3 64:20 +66:8 79:6 107:20,22 +trust 54:25,25 55:1,24 +56:5 +truth 7:17,24 8:10,13 +8:17,23 10:11,20,22 +10:23 11:1,5,9,9,12 +11:16 13:6,7,8,9 +18:21,23 19:2,6,9,12 +19:13,25 20:4,7,14 +20:17,25 21:12 24:7 +35:25 53:4 65:19,24 +112:21 113:5 121:15 +121:23 +truthful 14:11,17 15:6 +55:2 66:15 +truthfully 12:2,5,19 +13:11,19 26:16 +trying 8:22 67:14 86:21 +Tuesday 1:14 +turned 74:17 +76:7,17 94:5,6,9,14 +two 16:3 17:12 28:7,12 +37:10,24 41:17 44:24 +45:19,19 51:5 59:21 +60:6,13,14,19,21 +61:6 63:17 76:13,19 +76:22 77:12, 15 83:20 +86:10 88:14,14 +113:11 117:11,17,19 +117:20 121:25 +128:18 129:8,8 +type 23:13 +U +uh-huh 19:3 25:7,19 +30:9,11,19 31:14 +36:14 40:4 42:8,17 +45:1,14 47:10 49:5 +52:8 54:16 59:25 +73:2,24 74:10,18,23 +75:2 76:23 77:23 +78:11 79:12 80:22 +86:6, 13 87:11 88:18 +89:3,5 93:7 106:6 +107:14 112:17 +124:14 126:22,25 +Ultima 43:6,14 +understand 5:25 7:18 +10:3 46:23 53:1,3 +67:14 73:23 +understands 33:8 +understood 53:8 +underwear 137:17 +Unh-unh 111:4 +United 1:1 116:23 +118:4,7 +university 16:2 22:1,11 +38:17,22 43:22,23 +44:8 45:16,22 46:22 +74:9,19,25 75:10,18 +111:20 114:25 115:4 +120:25 125:17 128:9 +128:12,14 +upstairs 79:19,20 +92:14,16 +use 32:16 40:2 124:2,3 +U.S 114:9 118:13 +walk 104:23 +want 13:14 14:15,25 +15:2,3 51:19,20 52:8 +52:13,20,22,25 67:16 +67:17 68:7 70:22 +95:12 108:2,4,13 +111:16 114:3 126:9 +Vanessa 127:7,8 +129:24 130:17 +Vanessa's 127:10 +vehicle 82:1 120:13,16 +vibrating 122:20 +vibrator 32:16 122:18 +Victoria 122:18 +videographer 2:24 4:8 +4:15 72:11,14 138:6 +videotape 4:10 +VIDEOTAPED 1:12 +VIDEO-CONFERE... +Villafana 117:3 118:16 +Vinyard 24:21 27:2,6 +27:13 28:1,13 31:12 +33:15,17 34:1 88:17 +violating 7:22 +violent 29:20,21 +visit 79:13 93:24 133:4 +133:11 137:1,1,3,4,6 +137:14,15,19,20,21 +137:23 +visits 135:17 +Visual 2:25 4:15 +voice 29:19 +VOLUME 1:6 +voluntarily 78:15,18 +78:25 93:12 +vs 1:6 +W +wait 14:4 40:11 49:1 +60:16 67:5,5 73:16 +81:19 89:6 95:21,23 +96:12 101:21,23 +133:9 +112:16 121:20 +wasn't 12:4 17:13 21:9 +27:21 40:25 48:8 +49:25 50:2 51:11 +52:12 55:2 59:2 63:5 +63:9 66:8 75:15 +89:23 92:9,9,10,16 +101:6 103:16 104:13 +104:15 110:12 +111:23 132:4 +way 37:11 57:22 60:2 +82:17 84:16,22 85:7 +85:11,12 123:24 +136:6 +wear 68:22,22 69:6,6 +69:10,11,11,14,17,18 +69:22 70:1,1 +web 124:4 +week 45:8,18 47:25 +48:12 76:7,13,17,22 +77:14 106:12 121:25 +weekends 48:4 +weeks 45:19 +went 13:2 37:9,13,15 +38:1341:15,19,21,24 +42:22 43:11 44:14,15 +49:13 50:18,25 51:7 +59:22 62:8 63:18,20 +63:24 69:9 70:10 +74:5,7 75:4,8,12 +77:11,12,17,21 78:13 +78:15,16,18,18,23,25 +79:8,13,18,18,18,25 +80:24,24 81:2,8,10 +88:20,22 90:24 91:17 +91:18,20 92:19 93:11 +93:11,15,18 94:4,5,7 +94:11,15,16,17,21,25 +97:12,15,18,22,24 +98:3,23,25 99:4,5,10 +102:2,15 103:9 +104:11,13,20,22 +105:8,19 106:11,13 +106:17 107:1,2,4,8 +108:11 109:1 126:10 +127:6 129:13,24 +130:23 131:7 135:5 +weren't 52:15 64:3 +103:14 104:18 +West 1:18 2:21 4:13 +40:5 115:17 +we'll 6:1 +we're 7:8 36:2 54:3 +57:5 67:13,17 72:7 +73:16 85:20 94:1 +106:7 +Wheeler 2:3 19:17,18 +when's 25:14 +· 43:2 +wildest 11:2 +Willits 2:14,14 5:1,1 +6:22 +withdrew 128:2 +witness 3:4 6:10,16,23 +7:23 9:21 10:13 12:7 +17:5,24 18:13,15 +19:19 20:10 21:2 +23:1 24:25 28:15,24 +30:13,23 32:2,15 +33:1,440:12,16 +42:19 50:18,24 53:16 +58:5,23 59:19 60:18 +64:6,6, 16 66:2,20 +68:1,12 70:19 71:4 +72:1 73:18 77:3,21 +78:23 79:4 81:25 +84:2 85:5 90:9 96:11 +96:15,24 97:18 98:14 +100:24 103:23 104:9 +104:14 105:7,25 +108:7,15,19 112:8 +114:6 115:6 118:7 +129:1,8 135:19 +women 117:14 +wonder 89:14,18 90:6 +word 15:5 37:18 63:13 +words 40:2 62:11 +worse 94:7,7 105:11 +136:8,10,11,18,24 +Worth 2:16 +wouldn't 35:25 52:4,14 +65:12 66:791:14 +write 9:21 26:9 +writing 38:9 110:1 +written 5:4 34:23,25 +66:23 97:25 + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 45 of +X 3:2,10 +Y +yeah 7:13,14,17 8:1,4 +8:11,19,20,21 9:3,5 +10:1,8,13 11:15,19 +11:25 12:23 14:24 +18:11,15 20:1 21:7 +21:19,23 22:12 23:1 +23:18,23 24:8,25 +25:4 26:12 27:15,16 +27:16,18,23 30:7,17 +31:1,3 32:5 33:19 +34:4,9,12 35:23 +36:24 37:6 38:14,20 +42:4 44:10 46:6,24 +49:2 50:15,24 52:16 +54:9,20 56:25 60:8 +60:24 62:19 63:23 +66:23 68:8,19 69:3 +69:14 70:19 71:17 +72:4,19 73:22 74:1 +75:8 76:2 77:12 78:3 +78:8,16,23 79:4 +80:12,20 81:3,19,21 +83:21 84:21 87:3 +89:1,8,10,13,21 +90:17,20 92:1,4,6,8 +92:18 93:1,9,13 +94:12 101:21,21,23 +104:4,11,19 106:4 +107:12,14,17,21 +109:22 110:9,18,20 +111:17 112:5,10,12 +112:14,20,22 113:3,3 +113:8 116:3,6 119:10 +120:16 121:2,11,24 +122:10,13 123:23 +124:2,3,6,24 125:11 +125:18,22,24 126:15 +127:13,17 128:2,13 +129:22 130:14,24 +131:4,19 133:1,6 +134:21 135:4,12 +137:5,24 138:2 +year 19:19,21 22:1,6 +25:23 33:22 34:16,16 +34:18 35:14 36:10 +39:12 45:13,15,16,17 +45:22,23,25 46:1,3 +46:24 47:13,14,14,15 +55:11,19,21,22 56:20 +56:20,24,25 57:8,9 +57:18,18 59:15 73:20 +74:4,8,11 75:22 81:4 +81:5,8 86:10 96:4 +98:17 106:16,18,21 +106:25 107:2,3,5,6,9 +107:16,19 109:18 +111:11 114:25 115:4 +125:13,14,16,23,24 +126:1,3,4 133:16,17 +133:21,22 134:20,24 +134:25 135:3,6 +years 13:25 15:8,15,18 +34:12,16 45:11 49:1 +49:2,10 54:1 78:6,10 +88:14 102:3,20,24 +103:4,9 109:14,18 +110:7,9 126:20 +Yep 35:1 37:5 +young 10:22 102:11 +S200 61:15 63:7 70:17 +80:14,18 83:7 84:10 +85:1 89:4,9 90:11 +91:13,14,15,19 92:11 +106:5 107:25 132:24 +0 125:20,20 +04 33:24 96:20 97:9,9 +05 22:9 33:24 74:15,16 +74:20 75:11,17,20 +76:4,5,5,6,9,14,14,15 +76:15,15 77:1,1,7 +78:6 79:8 95:22 +96:18,20,21,21 97:6 +97:6 101:20,23 +06 33:23 101:23 125:21 +43:19,21 47:16,22,23 +48:21 125:21,22 +126:4,8,13,14,16 +08-CV-80119-MAR... +08-08380 1:10 +08-80381 1:10 +08-80811 1:10 +08-80893 1:10 +08-80993 1:10 +09 39:13,23 40:2 43:19 +47:16 125:21 +09-80469 1:10 +09-80591 1:11 +09-80656 1:11 +09-80802 1:11 +09-81092 1:11 +1 +12:7 3:14 71:25 72:8,9 +72:17 138:7 +Ist 77:1,18 78:14 +1:10 138:6,8 +1:59 138:9 +10th 2:15 +11:11 1:154:9 +115 1:17 +12:07 72:12 +12:15 72:14 +13 102:3,20,24 103:4,9 +15 34:12,16 36:9 +16 107:13 +1650 2:4 +1725:8,18,18,23 +1825:18 74:17 78:6,10 +134:16 +18205 2:9 +1987 6:21 +2 +21:43:15 +20 92:11 +004 98:17,20 99:14,16 +99:18,20,22,24 100: +100:3,5,7,9 125:9 +2005 15:19 22:3 74:11 +74:12 77:18,19 78:9 +78:10,14,14 100:11 +100:13,15,17,19 +2006 74:12 +2008 39:13,15 45:13,15 +45:22,25 47:12,20 +48:17 86:12 +2009 1:14 4:9 39:13,15 +22182:10 +2290 2:15 +2323:15 +250 1:174:12 +27 1:14 +27th 4:8 +3 +33:1681:13,14,16,19 +82:3,5,7,13,14,17 +83:22 84:10 89:6,21 +102:19 103:5 +3's 81:15 +30 50:8 77:24,25 +30s 130:12 +3032:20 +305.931.2200 2:11 +31st 77:19 78:6,9,14 +33160 2:10 +33301 2:5 +33401 1:18 2:21 +33461 2:16 +3483:16 +384 3:17 +3943:18 +4 +41:133:5,6,17 4:10,11 +4:20 6:7,14,20 96:10 +124:11 +40s 130:12 +4002:21 +401 2:4 +404 2:15 +412 5:8,8,14 +5 +53:18 +50 77:25 +50s 131:11 +561.582.76002:16 +561.842.2820 2:22 + +6th 78:5,9 +6:051:15 +7 +7 102:17,17,18 103:3,5 +104:5 126:2 127:7 +129:15 130:1,6,16 +132:18,19,22 +7's 104:6 129:16,21 +130:4,7 +723:14 +8 +82:7 126:2 +9 +954.522.3456 2:5 +Page 9 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a93d545ff63b096be6e78d8b13100cd76dce69ebc6171c3835d16b850da76cba.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a93d545ff63b096be6e78d8b13100cd76dce69ebc6171c3835d16b850da76cba.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6eeb7b4589d069c5aac58823d1cfaf68644ab7d0 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a93d545ff63b096be6e78d8b13100cd76dce69ebc6171c3835d16b850da76cba.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -3263, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "a93d545ff63b096be6e78d8b13100cd76dce69ebc6171c3835d16b850da76cba", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 48, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.digits-only\", \"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "ea4c64cade94d37b7b5e51faf8ce6b414cc6554d40bbcf57afe5d8a7e58627a4", + "output_sha256": "cdfe67bd99a769e27301f2a7da9b35bce55d852e0ca0c3baffeab8eb3fe9b917", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a94966c7401966fa8a86570dcdf8b5db70ef0964fbbed6746beed0fc3be549e0.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a94966c7401966fa8a86570dcdf8b5db70ef0964fbbed6746beed0fc3be549e0.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1cf6acd653604123c9d83bb9e124d341a056aa1e --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a94966c7401966fa8a86570dcdf8b5db70ef0964fbbed6746beed0fc3be549e0.md @@ -0,0 +1,124 @@ +Entered on FLSD Docket 03/06/2009 Page 1 of 4 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME IN WHICH TO RESPOND +TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES +AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS +Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, (hereinafter "Epstein") by and through his +undersigned attorneys, respectfully moves this Court for an extension of time in which to +respond to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories And Production of +Documents, dated March 2, 2009. Local General Rule 7.1 A.1 and Rule 6, Fed. R. Civ. +P. (2009). Defendant seeks an extension until March 25, 2009, to file his response. As +good cause in support of granting the motion, Defendant states: +1. Defendant's response to the motion to compel would be due on March 16, 2009 +(10 days to respond, not including weekends). As certified below, Plaintiff's counsel is +in agreement with the requested extension of March 25, 2009. +2. Plaintiff's counsel also represents other Plaintiffs pursuing claims against +Defendant, EPSTEIN. A total of four of the Plaintiffs have also filed motions to compel +bearing the same dates. In order to fully and adequately respond to this and the other +motions, Defendant is in need of an extension until March 25, 2009. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/06/2009 Page 2 of 4 +Jane Doe No. 3 v. Epstein +Page 2 +3. In addition to the multiple motions to compel, good cause for the extension also +includes that counsel has been attempting to resolve discovery issues in this and other +cases against Defendant, EPSTEIN; an associate of Defendant's undersigned counsel +who works extensively on this case was out of the office for two weeks during the month +February caring for two of her children who had the flu, and the associate herself also +caught the flu; Defendant's counsel is also in the midst of preparing for two state court +trials - one on a March trial docket and the other specially set in mid-May, (OLD +MARSH GOLF CLUB, INC. v. OLD MARSH PARTNERS, et al, Case No. 50 +2006CA001667XXXXMBAD - set on trial docket beginning March 16, 2009; +CARDIOPULMONARY & PRIMARY CARE ASSOC. OF TREASURE COAST, P.A v. +i. M.D., Case No. 562008CA001726, specially set for trial beginning May 13 +through 15, 2009). Discovery in both of these cases is ongoing with several depositions +set to prepare for trial. +4. The requested extension is fair in reasonable under the circumstances as it will +provide time to allow the Defendant, EPSTEIN, to fully and adequately respond to this +and the other motions to compel. +WHEREFORE, Defendant requests that this Court enter an order granting the +Defendant an extension until March 25, 2009, in which to respond to Plaintiff's Motion to +Compel Answers to Interrogatories and Production of documents. +Local Rule 7.1 Certification +Counsel for the movant conferred by telephone with counsel for the Plaintiff and +Counsel for Plaintiff is in agreement with the requested extension until March 25, 2009 + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 03/06/2009 Page 3 of 4 +Jane Doe No. 3 v. Epstein +Page 3 +for Defendant to respond to the motion to compel. +Robert D. Critton, Jr. +Attorney for Defendant Epstein +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 +a nous Lacy of March, 2on the following Service List in the manner specied by +Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. +Jack Alan Goldberger +Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. +Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South +18205 Biscayne Boulevard +Suite 1400 +Suite 2218 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 +Miami, FL 33160 +561-659-8300 +305-931-2200 +Fax: 561-835-8691 +Fax: 305-931-0877 +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +jagesq@bellsouth.net +Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +Counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe #3 +Respectfully submitted, +ROBERT D/CRITTON, JR., ESQ. +Florida Bar No. 224162 +rcrit@bclclaw.com +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. +Florida Bar #617296 +npike@bclclaw.com +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN +515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561/842-2820 Phone +561/515-3148 Fax +(Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 03/06/2009 Page 4 of 4 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA-| +JANE DOE NO. 3, +V. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Plaintiff, +Defendant. +ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME IN WHICH TO +RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO +INTERROGATORIES AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS +This matter came before the Court on Defendant's, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Motion +For Extension of Time in Which to Respond to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Answers to +Interrogatories and Production of Documents. Having considered Defendant's motion +and Plaintiff's counsel being in agreement with the requested extension, it is HEREBY +ORDERED and ADJUDGED that: +Defendant's motion is GRANTED. Defendant shall respond to Plaintiff's Motion +to Compel Answers to Interrogatories and Production of Documents on or before March +25, 2009. +DONE and ORDERED this +_day of +_ 2009. +Kenneth A. Marra +United States District Judge +Courtesy Copies: Counsel of Record \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a94966c7401966fa8a86570dcdf8b5db70ef0964fbbed6746beed0fc3be549e0.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a94966c7401966fa8a86570dcdf8b5db70ef0964fbbed6746beed0fc3be549e0.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6aed4265a97a78647b8aff5ae152539a69690c79 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a94966c7401966fa8a86570dcdf8b5db70ef0964fbbed6746beed0fc3be549e0.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -154, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "a94966c7401966fa8a86570dcdf8b5db70ef0964fbbed6746beed0fc3be549e0", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 5, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "ba11ecfc405effc57de60cc616f5e0185d19682343816398d62555e13a37fc47", + "output_sha256": "db4661ce6cf8d8710a0abbca33c99bb30a433073e98d020c79d419a202611ebe", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a96faaa7d92c4e7af2ea8259fae5716476e67d880f1099276d76906063565da9.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a96faaa7d92c4e7af2ea8259fae5716476e67d880f1099276d76906063565da9.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..729f065480ae8d1e70eb5e836333a8a6bb3ae377 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a96faaa7d92c4e7af2ea8259fae5716476e67d880f1099276d76906063565da9.md @@ -0,0 +1,289 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 60 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2011 Page 1 of 10 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/ +JANE DOES #1 AND #2, +Petitioners, +v. +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, +Respondent. +UNITED STATES' RESPONSE TO PETITIONERS' MOTION +TO USE CORRESPONDENCE TO PROVE VIOLATIONS OF THE +CRIME VICTIMS' RIGHTS ACT AND TO HAVE THEIR +UNREDACTED PLEADINGS UNSEALED [DE51] +The United States of America, by and through the undersigned, hereby files this Response +in partial opposition to Petitioners' Motion to Use Correspondence to Prove Violations of the Crime +Victims' Rights Act and to Have Their Unredacted Pleadings Unsealed (DES1). As explained in the +United States' Response to Petitioners' Motion for Finding of Violations of the Crime Victims +Rights Act (DE48), and Petitioners' Motion to Have Their Facts Accepted (DE49), it is the position +of the United States that this case presents a straightforward legal issue and no additional facts or +evidence are necessary for the resolution of the matter. The United States also was not a party to the +action wherein Petitioners were ordered to obtain court approval prior to using the correspondence +as evidence.' Accordingly, the United States takes no position as to that portion of Petitioners' +'The Government does note, however, that Petitioners have filed the Non-Prosecution +Agreement ("NPA") in the public portion of the Court file. (DE48, Ex. E.) That document is the +subject of a Protective Order in the instant suit. (See DE26.) Petitioners have previously moved to + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 60 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2011 Page 2 of 10 +Motion, although it notes that merely attaching the correspondence to a motion without +authenticating it does not make it admissible evidence. +With regard to Petitioners' Motion to Unseal, when Petitioners' originally conferred with the +government, the undersigned stated that there was no objection to the motion to unseal. However, +a copy of what Petitioners intended to file was not provided. Also, upon undertaking some research +in preparation for a response to DE49, it was determined that the Government could not, in +accordance with our legal obligations, agree to unsealing the documents referenced herein. +Accordingly, for the reasons set forth herein, the United States opposes, in part, Petitioners' Motion +to Unseal. Instead, the United States has filed herewith, under seal, a redacted version of DE48 and +the relevant portions of Exhibit A, and asks the Court to unseal only redacted versions, if the Court +decides to grant Petitioners' Motion to Unseal. +CERTAIN PORTIONS OF PETITIONERS' PLEADINGS RUN AFOUL OF FED. R. +CRIM. P. 6(e) AND/OR CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATES. +Several of the "facts" that Petitioners include in their Statement of Undisputed Facts allege +that Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") and others have committed crimes for which they were never +charged or convicted. Others refer to matters that were occurring before the grand jury. The +documents contained in Exhibit A to their pleading contain similar materials. The Federal Rules of +Criminal Procedure and constitutional mandates dictate that these should be kept sealed. +A. +Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e) +Rule 6(e) states that "an attorney for the government" "must not disclose a matter occurring +unseal the NPA in this action, (see DE28,) which the Court has denied. (DE36.) Although the +Government acknowledges that the NPA is a matter of public record in other courts, it is not a public +record here. As discussed below, its disclosure, which includes names of uncharged persons, +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 60 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2011 Page 3 of 10 +before the grand jury." Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(2)(B). Furthermore, court hearings and court records +and orders must be sealed "to the extent and as long as necessary to prevent the unauthorized +disclosure of a matter occurring before a grand jury." Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(5) & (6). +Courts have construed "a matter occurring before the grand jury" to include "events which +have already occurred before the grand jury, such as a witness's testimony, [and] matters which will +occur, such as statements which reveal the identity of persons who will be called to testify or which +report when the grand jury will return an indictment." In re Grand Jury Investigation, 610 F.2d +202, 216-17 (5th Cir. 1980). +While Petitioners were merely asking the Government to agree with their assertions of "fact" +based upon materials Petitioners had received from counsel for Epstein, rather than asking the +Government to make affirmative disclosures of grand jury material, "Rule 6(e) does not create a type +"It is worth noting that, within the same case, a court can take differing positions on this. +Compare: +[T]he disclosure of information obtained from a source independent of the grand jury +proceedings, such as a prior government investigation, does not violate Rule 6(e). +A discussion of actions taken by government attorneys or officials, e.g., a +recommendation by the Justice Department attorneys to department officials that an +indictment be sought against an individual does not reveal any information about +matters occurring before the grand jury. Nor does a statement of opinion as to an +individual's potential criminal liability violate the dictates of Rule 6(e). +With: +Disclosures which expressly identify when an indictment would be presented to the +grand Jury, the nature of the crimes which would be charged, and the number of +persons who would be charged run afoul of the secrecy requirements codified in Rule +6(e). +In re Grand Jury Investigation, 610 F.2d at 217, 218. In light of these conflicting directives, the +government must err, if at all, on the side of treating all information related to grand jury proceedings +as "matters occurring before the grand jury." +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 60 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2011 Page 4 of 10 +of secrecy which is waived once public disclosure occurs." In re Motions of Dow +& Co., Inc., +142 F.3d 496, 505 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (quoting In re North, 16 F.3d 1234, 1245 (D.C. Cir. 1994)). +"[E]ven if material concerning the grand jury investigation had been disclosed to the public, the +Government attorney ... had a duty to maintain grand jury secrecy. This attorney could neither +confirm nor deny the information presented by the 'external party."" Senate of the Commonwealth +of Puerto Rico v. United States Dep't of Justice, 1992 WL 119127 at *3 (D.D.C. May 13, 1992) +(citing Barry v. United States, 740 F. Supp. 888, 891 (D.D.C. 1990) ("Rule 6(e) does not create a +type of secrecy which is waived once public disclosure occurs. The Government is obligated to +stand silent regardless of what is reported, accurate or not, by the press."). +The reasons for Rule 6(e) are multiple: +In addition to preventing adverse pretrial publicity about a person who may be +indicted and subsequently tried, secrecy protects the reputation of a person under +investigation who is not indicted. The secrecy requirement also encourages reluctant +witnesses to testify without fear of reprisals from those against whom testimony is +given, prevents tampering with grand jury witnesses in an effort to alter their trial +testimony, and permits the grand jury to deliberate free from the influence of +publicity. Finally, secrecy prevents disclosures to persons who may be interested in +the investigation if the facts are known or might attempt to escape if they have reason +to believe certain indictments will issue. +United States v. Eisenberg, 711 F.2d 959, 961 (11th Cir. 1983) (citing United States v. Procter & +Gamble Co., 356 U.S. 677, 681 n.6 (1958)). +Several of the "facts" contained in Petitioners' submission contain allegations related to +matters occurring before the grand jury. Pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e), the Government cannot +confirm or deny the accuracy of those allegations. Likewise, portions of Exhibit A to Docket Entry +48 refer to matters occurring before the Grand Jury. Notwithstanding Petitioners' citations to the +First Amendment and the interest of the press and the public in this case, the First Amendment right +4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 60 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2011 Page 5 of 10 +of access is not absolute and sealing is appropriate in connection with grand jury proceedings. As +explained by Judge Jordan in United States v. Steinger, 626 F. Supp. 2d 1231 (S.D. Fl. 2009): +"The proper functioning of our grand jury system depends upon the secrecy of grand +jury proceedings," Douglas Oil Co. v. Petrol Stops Northwest, 441 U.S. 211, 218 +(1979), and this expectation of privacy is generally codified in Rule 6(e) of the +Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. ...• +There is a second reason why sealing is currently appropriate. As noted above, the +Public Integrity Section has determined that six former or present public officials had +no knowledge of, or involvement in, the alleged wrongdoing, and its probe continues +against others who have yet to be indicted or cleared. The sealed documents and +transcripts refer to many of those individuals by name. Disclosure of those names, +and the matters being investigated, could have devastating consequences for those +persons who have been cleared of any misconduct, as well as for those still under +investigation. As William Shakespeare put it centuries ago, "the purest treasure +mortal times afford is spotless reputation; that away, men are but guilded loam, or +painted clay." W. Shakespeare, RICHARD II, ACT 1, ScENE 1, lines 177-78 (1597). +And if it is true that "at every word a reputation dies," A. Pope, THE RAPE OF THE +Lock, CAnto IlI, line 16 (1712), then public access to the sealed documents and +transcripts here could easily kill many reputations. This overriding interest is, I +believe, of a higher value under [Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 464 U.S +501 (1984)] so as to warrant sealing, and provides good cause under the common-law +access balancing test to preclude disclosure. +Steinger, 626 F. Supp. 2d at 1235-36 (brackets in original omitted). See also In re Petition of +American Historical Ass'n, 62 F. Supp. 2d 1100, 1103 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) (*A cornerstone of the grand +jury secrecy rule is the protection of the reputations and well-being of individuals who are subjects +of grand jury proceedings, but are never indicted ... [T]he rule of secrecy seeks to protect ... +unindicted individuals from the anxiety, embarrassment, and publie castigation that may result from +disclosure.") (cited in Steinger). + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 60 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2011 Page 6 of 10 +B. +Due Process +As noted above, one of the reasons behind 6(e) is to protect the reputations of persons who +are under investigation but not indicted. This is a corollary to what the Court of Appeals found to +be a due process protection afforded by the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution - +namely, "that the liberty and property concepts of the Fifth Amendment protect an individual from +being publicly and officially accused of having committed a serious crime, particularly where the +accusations gain wide notoriety." See In rel +,, 656 F.2d 1101, 1106 (5th Cir. 1981) (citation +omitted).? In +, the petitioner filed a motion seeking to have his name stricken from the factual +proffers of two criminal defendants. +had not been criminally charged or convicted. The Court +of Appeals agreed with +, castigating the Government: +no legitimate governmental interest is served by an official public smear of an +individual when that individual has not been provided a forum in which to vindicate +his rights.... +[W]e completely fail to perceive how the interests of criminal justice were advanced +at the time of the plea hearings by such an attack on the Petitioner's character. The +presumption of innocence, to which every criminal defendant is entitled, was +forgotten by the Assistant United States Attorney in drafting and reading aloud in +open court the factual resumes which implicated the Petitioner in criminal conduct +without affording him a forum for vindication. +Id. at 1106, 1107. The Court of Appeals ordered the District Court Clerk's Office to "completely +and permanently obliterate and strike from the records of the pleas of guilty ... any and all +identifying reference to or name of Mr. +the Petitioner, so that such references may not be used +as a public record to impugn the reputation of Petitioner." Id. at 1107. The Court further ordered +that all of the pleadings in the case be sealed. Id. +"This opinion of the Fifth Circuit was made binding precedent in the Eleventh Circuit +pursuant to Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc). +6 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 60 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2011 Page 7 of 10 +Courts have interpreted +_ to apply not only to references to unindicted co-conspirators +in indictments and factual proffers, but also to motion papers. See, e.g., United States v. +55 F. Supp. 2d 1163, 1168 (D. Kan. 1999) ("After carefully reviewing the government's moving +papers on the conflict of interest issue, the court can find no reason why the government might have +"forgotten' the presumption of innocence in such a public pleading ...") (citing | +656 F.2d at +1107); United States v. Holy Land Foundation, 624 F.3d 685 (5th Cir. 2010) (Fifth Amendment +rights of organization were violated when its name was listed among 246 unindicted coconspirators +in pre-trial brief). +Petitioners' "Statement of Undisputed Material Facts," and Exhibit A to DE48 contain +allegations related to uncharged crimes against not only Epstein but several other individuals.* In +keeping with the First Amendment's limited right of access, the United States does not oppose the +motion to unseal in full, rather, pursuant to +redacted. See, e.g.. +and its progeny, the relevant allegations should be +656 F.2d at 1107 (ordering Clerk's Office to "completely and permanently +obliterate and strike from the records... any and all identifying reference to or name of Mr. +and sealing all other related records); United States v. +, 55 F. Supp. 2d 1163, 1170 (D. Kan. +1999) (ordering Clerk's Office to "completely and permanently strike" all references to petitioners); +Steinger, 626 F. Supp. 2d at 1237 (concluding that documents must be kept fully sealed because +"redactions would be so heavy as to make the released versions incomprehensible and +unintelligible"). +Filed herewith, under seal in accordance with Rule 6(e), is a proposed redacted copy of DE48 +and the relevant pages of Exhibit A. With respect to DE48 itself, the Government has only redacted +*The NPA also contains such references. +7 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 60 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2011 Page 8 of 10 +language that in some way suggests that the Government (including the FBI) is the source of the +allegation. However, the Government reiterates, as it has stated in its opposition to "Petitioners' +Motion to Have Their Statement of Undisputed Material Facts Accepted" that it denies all of the +allegations contained in Petitioners' Statement that aver violations of law by Epstein or others that +have not resulted in a conviction, including but not limited to paragraphs 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 11, 17, 37, +52, and 53. With respect to Exhibit A, out of 359 pages, the United States only seeks to redact 40 +full pages, and seeks to redact individual words or sentences on an additional 20 pages. +The United States further respectfully requests that the Court allow it to redact the personal +telephone number and email address of its personnel, that appears on eighteen pages in Exhibit A +to DE48. The information serves no evidentiary purpose. +The United States has conferred with counsel for Petitioners on these matters. Petitioners +have no objection to the redaction of the personal telephone number and email address of +government personnel and to the redaction of individual statutory references in Exhibit A. +Petitioners object to redactions of DE48 and to further redactions of Exhibit A. For ease of reference +by the Court, the redactions that are agreed to are marked in blue; those that are in dispute are +marked in red. Redactions that appear in plain black are pre-existing (i.e., they are redactions done +either by Petitioners or by Epstein's counsel). +CONCLUSION +For the foregoing reasons, the United States respectfully requests that the Court deny, in part, +Petitioners' Motion to Unseal its Motion for Finding of Violations of Crime Victim's Rights Act and +Request for Hearing on Appropriate Remedies [DE48] and Exhibit A thereto and, instead, that the +Court unseal only a redacted version of those pleadings, that is, the redacted documents filed +8 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 60 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2011 Page 9 of 10 +herewith. +Respectfully submitted, +WIFREDO A. FERRER +UNITED STATES ATTORNEY +By: +s/ Dexter A. Lee +DEXTER A. LEE +Assistant U.S. Attorney +Fla. Bar No. 0936693 +99 N.E. 4" Street +Miami, Florida 33132 +(305) 961-9320 +Fax: (305) 530-7139 +E-mail: dexter.lee@usdoj.gov +Attorney for Respondent +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I HEREBY CERTIFY that on April 7, 2011, 1 electronically filed the foregoing document +with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. +s/ Dexter A. Lee +DEXTER A. LEE +Assistant U.S. Attorney + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 60 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2011 Page 10 of 10 +SERVICE LIST +Jane Does 1 and 2 v. United States, +Case No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +Esq.. +, Jaffe, Weissing, +425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 +Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 +(954) 524-2820 +Fax: (954) 524-2822 +E-mail: brad@pathtojustice.com +Paul G. Cassell +S.J. Quinney College of Law at the +University of Utah +332 S. 1400 E. +Salt Lake City, Utah 84112 +(801) 585-5202 +Fax: (801) 585-6833 +E-mail: casselp@law.utah.edu +Attorneys for Jane Doe # 1 and Jane Doe # 2 +Fistos & Lehrman, P.L. +10 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a96faaa7d92c4e7af2ea8259fae5716476e67d880f1099276d76906063565da9.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a96faaa7d92c4e7af2ea8259fae5716476e67d880f1099276d76906063565da9.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..15fb1f90ea611ec422cbdd05a31f5735e98465c2 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a96faaa7d92c4e7af2ea8259fae5716476e67d880f1099276d76906063565da9.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -120, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "a96faaa7d92c4e7af2ea8259fae5716476e67d880f1099276d76906063565da9", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 10, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "724674303c25fcf68a5e8d2ba16871a16f8af988acbb08a6a0a195870704d27f", + "output_sha256": "c57f52a228f578754ff5aaa87c823ac60d9c3e52fc5ebd3a1d16d8b7d6ba8685", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a98e8ebaa734cdaf4dbd29baaabbf131822022ca0e0cea196596925c1113f824.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a98e8ebaa734cdaf4dbd29baaabbf131822022ca0e0cea196596925c1113f824.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..47f36f7130a242bad3e1a23b948abb8ed43fdb65 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a98e8ebaa734cdaf4dbd29baaabbf131822022ca0e0cea196596925c1113f824.md @@ -0,0 +1,56 @@ +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 545-9.. Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2010 Page 1 of 2 +AFFIDAVIT OF JACK A. GOLDBERGER, ESQUIRE +STATE OF FLORIDA +COUNTY OF PALM BEACH +BEFORE ME, the +undersigned authority personally appeared +having personal knowledge and being duly sworn, deposes and says: +1, Jack A. Goldberger, have personal knowledge of the matters set +forth herein. I am an attorney licensed to practice in the State of Florida since +1978. I am a partner with the law firm of Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A., +located at One Clearlake Centre, Suite 1400, 250 Australian Avenue South, West +Palm Beach, FL 33401. +2. My practice includes and specializes in the defense of criminal +matters. I am board certified in criminal law. I have been and currently am the +criminal defense attorney for JEFFREY EPSTEIN. +3. +With regard to the Palm Beach State Attorney's Office file +concerning Jeffrey Epstein, after I filed My Demand for Discovery, I personally +hand selected documents from that file and, therefore, same are my work +product. The Palm Beach State Attorney's Office did not produce any evidence +or the like directly to me. Again, the information was personally selected by me +and does nöt constitute the entire file. Therefore, the information is highly +protected, opinion, work-product. +FURTHER THE AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT. +lack A. Goldberger, Esq. + + + +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 545-9 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2010 Page 2 of 2 +STATE OF FLORIDA +COUNTY OF PALM BEACH +I hereby Certify that on this day, before me, an officer duly authorized to +administer +acknowledgments, +personally +appeared +Jack A. Goldberger, Esquire, known to me to be the person described in and who +executed the foregoing Affidavit, who acknowledged before me that he/she +executed the same, that I relied upon the following form of identification of the +above named person: _ +, and that an oath was/was +WITNESS my hand and official seal in the County and State last aforesaid +this que day of +Februang +, 2010. +(SEAL) +NOTARY: +My Comm. Expires +May 28, 2010 +No. DD519867 +RINT NAME +Is 7 Mahe +a NOTARY PUBLICISTATÉ OF FLORIDA +L ICOMMISSION NO.: 00519807 +MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: 5|28|10 +Page - 2 - diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a98e8ebaa734cdaf4dbd29baaabbf131822022ca0e0cea196596925c1113f824.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a98e8ebaa734cdaf4dbd29baaabbf131822022ca0e0cea196596925c1113f824.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4fdfe9349e2dfb39069f7629621ace676c734675 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a98e8ebaa734cdaf4dbd29baaabbf131822022ca0e0cea196596925c1113f824.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -31, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "a98e8ebaa734cdaf4dbd29baaabbf131822022ca0e0cea196596925c1113f824", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 3, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "8942f5a0a360667073dc0d70a642c2d4cdc0c1913afc8bcd0d7e4c2154ac3432", + "output_sha256": "a3bbad2995ea83005844b3f7b7fea86d4b40c4b733bd29aa3f6110236e1b51f9", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a9a2f4e942909544f0d0ff20f2f160a985b9c01661255958f9c587d2fe1687ce.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a9a2f4e942909544f0d0ff20f2f160a985b9c01661255958f9c587d2fe1687ce.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..862c171fb03d1b1008321b2c1e884f6b02cf5f0c --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a9a2f4e942909544f0d0ff20f2f160a985b9c01661255958f9c587d2fe1687ce.md @@ -0,0 +1,328 @@ +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2009 Page 1 of 11 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 09-CIV- 80469 - MARRA| | +JANE DOE II, +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, ("EPSTEIN"), by and through his undersigned +attorneys, replies to and moves to strike Point 4 of Plaintiff's Memorandum Of Law In +Opposition To Defendant Epstein's Motion To Dismiss, dated May 22, 2009, ("MOL"). +Accordingly, Defendant states: +1. Legal Standard (pp. 1-2 of Plaintiff's MOL) +Plaintiff's reliance on Conley V. +1, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957), as the Rule +12(b)(6) pleading standard is misplaced. As discussed in Defendant's motion to +dismiss, (pp. 16 - 17), the standard as detailed in Bell Atlantic Corp. V. Twombly, 127 +S.Ct. 1955 (2007), is now the applicable standard, not Conley. Although the complaint +need not provide detailed factual allegations, the basis for relief in the complaint must +state "more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a +cause of action will not do." Twombly, at 1965. Further, "Ifjactual allegations must be +enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level ... on the assumption that all +the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact)." Id. The United States +Supreme Court very recently made clear in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, No. 07-1015 (U.S. May 18, + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2009 Page 2 of 11 +Page 2 +2009)(slip copy op. at 20), that Iwombly expounded the pleading standard for "all civil +actions" and not just pleadings made in the context of an antitrust dispute. Significantly, +the Supreme Court in Twombly abrogated the often cited observation from Conley that +"a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears +beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which +would entitle him to relief." Id, (abrogating and quoting Conley, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 +S.Ct. 99, 102, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957)). The Supreme Court rejected the notion that "a +wholly conclusory statement of claim [can] survive a motion to dismiss whenever the +pleadings leave] open the possibility that a plaintiff might later establish some 'set of +[undisclosed] facts' to support recovery." Id. See also Berry v. Budget Rent A Car +Systems, Inc., 497 F.Supp.2d 1361, 1364 (S.D. Fla. 2007)("... pursuant to Twombly, to +survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must now contain factual allegations which are +'enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level, on the assumption that all +the allegations in the complaint are true.'). +Il. ARGUMENT +Point 1. There is already pending a previously filed state action arising from the +same factual allegations requiring dismissal of the federal action. (MOL, pp. 2- +7). +First and foremost, contrary to Plaintiff's assertion that Defendant's argument +regarding jurisdiction is "frivolous" is without basis. As discussed in Defendant's motion, +Plaintiff chose to file a prior action based on the identical underlying facts in state court. +It makes no sense for two actions - involving the same parties, witnesses, evidence, +etc., to proceed separately in two separate forums. Plaintiff cites to no case law to + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2009 Page 3 of 11 +Page 3 +counter and does not appear to directly dispute Defendant's position that the state court +would have concurrent jurisdiction over the claim brought pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §2255. +Secondly, Plaintiff's assertion, (MOL, p.2, fn. 1), that it is somehow improper to +attach a copy of this same Plaintiff's Complaint from the state court proceeding in +support of Defendant's motion is ridiculous. It is completely proper and in essence +required of any party to give notice to a court of a related pending proceeding. (See for +example, Loc. Gen. Rule 3.8 (S.D. Fla. 2009).' The fact that there does exists a +previously filed action by Plaintiff against Defendant is directly relevant to this Court's +decision of whether or not to exercise jurisdiction over the §2255 claim when there +exists a previously filed proceeding in which the claim might also be brought. Needless +to say, whether or not a Court exercises jurisdiction over a matter is a critical issue. +Finally, Plaintiff completely mischaracterizes what she herself alleged in +paragraph 15 of her Complaint. In her MOL, p. 7, Plaintiff falsely asserts that in par. 15 +she "pled that Defendant made an agreement with the United States Attorney's Office to +not contest the jurisdiction of this Court in exchange for avoiding prosecution under +federal law for solicitation of minors for prostitution." What is actually alleged in par. 15 +is the following: "Defendant EPSTEIN has made an agreement with the United +States Attorney's Office to not contest liability for claims brought exclusively +'See also +& Gillespie Management LLC v. Lexington Ins. Co., 2008 WL 4826115, 1 (M.D. +Fla. 2008) - "It]he Court 'may take notice of proceedings in other courts, both within and without +the federal judicial system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue! St. +Louis, Baptist Temple, Inc. V. FDIC, 605 F.2d 1169, 1172 (10th Cir.1979); accord Coney v +738 F.2d 1199, 1200 (11th Cir.1984). Counsel should be given notice of and an +opportunity to be heard as to the propriety of taking judicial notice. Fed. R.Civ.P. 201(e)." Here, +Plaintiff filed the state court action and is, thusly, well of aware of its existence and details. + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2009 Page 4 of 11 +Page 4 +pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §2255, in exchange for avoiding federal prosecution under +18 U.S.C. §2422(b), which provides a sentence of 10 years for each violation of the +law." (See also p. 14 of MOL, where Plaintiff again misrepresents what is actually +alleged in her Complaint). Not only does Plaintiff misrepresent what is alleged in her +complaint, but she also ignores the fact that she chose to bring claims (in the first filed +state court action) in addition to the 18 U.S.C. §2255 claim. Thus, there is no violation +of the alleged agreement and EPSTEIN has not agreed to not contest liability (or +jurisdiction); Plaintiff did not choose to proceed exclusively under §2255. +Accordingly, it is well within this Court's discretion to require that Plaintiff bring +her §2255 claim in the previously filed state court action. +Point 2. The issue of the applicable version of 18 U.S.C. §2255 is properly raised +at this time as Plaintiff alleged in her complaint that the 2006 version applies to +conduct that occurred prior to the effective date of the amendment. (pp. 7 - 13 +Plaintiff's MOL). +Contrary to Plaintiff's assertion, what version of 18 U.S.C. §2255 is appropriately +raised in Defendant's motion to dismiss. Plaintiff's complaint attempts to allege a cause +of action based on the 2006 amended version of the statute. As discussed in +Defendant's motion, it is Defendant's position that Plaintiff has failed to state a cause of +action thereunder as she is improperly bringing her claim under the 2006 amended +version instead of the statute in effect at the time of the complained of conduct, the +2005 version. Related to the issue of what version of §2255 applies to this action is +Plaintiff's improper attempt to multiply the presumptive minimum of actual damages, +($50,000 under the 2005 statute; $150,000 under the 2006 amended version), based on +the number of incidents alleged, notwithstanding that the plain language of the statute + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2009 Page 5 of 11 +Page 5 +does not provide for a multiplier and speaks in terms of "personal injury" suffered and +"actual damages." +Supporting the fact that Defendant properly raised these issues in his motion to +dismiss are the allegations set forth in Plaintiff's complaint. In paragraph 11, Jane Doe +Il alleges that - "From about June, 2003 until about February, 2005, Defendants, +EPSTEIN and +persuaded, induced, or enticed Plaintiff to come to Defendant +EPSTEIN's home and provide Defendant EPSTEIN with 'massages' ...." In paragraph +13, Plaintiff further alleges - "In violation of §2422(b), Defendants EPSTEIN and +knowingly persuaded, induced, or enticed the Plaintiff to engage in acts of +prostitution, when the Plainitff was undr the age of 18, approximately on or about the +following dates that Plaintiff can document based on payments received: 6/16/03, +712/03, 4/9/04, 6/7/04, 7/30/04, 8/30/04, 10/9/04, 10/12/04 and 11/9/04. ...." In +paragraph 14, Plaintiff alleges - "Plaintiff seeks damages for personal injury in +accordance with 18 U.S.C. §2255(a) for each of the acts of prostitution set forth above +which Defendants solicited her, $150,000 for each violation, for a total range of +damages between $1.5 million dollars and $4.5 million dollars, jointly and severally, and +a reasonable attorney's fees and costs, as permitted by the statute." +Plaintiff chooses to analyze whether the statute in effect at the time of the alleged +conduct or the amended statute applies under a procedural versus substantive analysis. +Plaintiff, in short, argues that "the change in the civil remedies available of a statute is a +procedural, not a substantive change in the law, and procedural changes to a statute +are routinely applied retroactively." (MOL, p. 9). Clearly, the change to the statute was + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2009 Page 6 of 11 +Page 6 +not a procedural one. As discussed more fully in Defendant's motion to dismiss, the +statutory scheme enacted and amended under "Masha's Law" is consitently referred to +as criminal penalties and punishments directed at those who sexually exploit and abuse +minors. +Also, Plaintiff ignores the axiom that courts generally apply the statute in effect +at the time of the underlying conduct unless there is a clear statement that an +amendment is to apply retroactively to prior conduct. See, e.g., Hughes Aircraft Co. V. +U.S. ex rel Schumer, 520 U.S. 939, 952 (1997)("Given the absence of a clear statutory +expression of congressional intent to apply the 1986 amendment to conduct competed +before its enactment, we ... hold that, under the relevant 1982 version of the [statute], +the District court was obliged to dismiss the action."). There is absolutely no expression +of any intent that the amended version of the statute is to apply retroactively. This lack +of clear of expression can be contrasted with those statutory enactments or +amendments where such intent is clearly expressed by including language to the effect +that the amendment applies in proceedings "commenced on or after the date of +enactment." See generally, Tello v. +1283 (11" Cir. 2005). +Witter +Inc., 410 F.3d 1275, 1282- +In Tello v. +Witter +Inc., 410 F.3d 1275, 1283 (11* Cir. 2005), this +Circuit discussed in detail the presumption against retroactivity where there is no clear +expression that a statute is to apply retroactively in the text. In amending §2255, there +does not exist any statement by Congress of its unambiguous intention that the statute +apply retroactively to pre-enactment conduct. The Tello Court's analysis is worth + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2009 Page 7 of 11 +Page 7 +quoting as it confirms and supports that an amendment to a statute, such as in the +instant case - increasing the penalty or liability for damages by at least triple fold, or +under Plaintiff's analysis, by 90 times from $50,000 to $4.5 million! - and with no +expression that it is to apply retroactively - will not be interpreted to apply retroactively. +Congress may prescribe the temporal reach of a statute by stating that it +applies to pre-enactment conduct, the first step in the Landgraf analysis, or a +statute may be silent regarding temporal reach, in which case courts +apply the judicial presumption against retroactivity. This presumption and +analysis, however, are unwarranted when Congress states its unambiguous +intention that the statute apply retroactively to pre-enactment conduct, in +language comparable to § 1658(b), that the new or amended statute applies to +proceedings commenced on or after enactment. See Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 259- +60, 114 S.Ct. at 1494 (stating that, if had Congress intended retroactive +application, then "it surely would have used language comparable to ... 'shall +apply to all proceedings pending on or commenced after the date of enactment' +") (citation omitted); accord INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289, 318-19 & n. 43, 121 +S.Ct. 2271, 2289-90 & n. 43, 150 L.Ed.2d 347 (2001) (collecting examples of +unambiguous temporal statutory language providing that the statute applies to +actions filed "on or after" the date of enactment, which includes violative +conduct that occurred prior to the effective date of the statute); +v. Hadix, +527 U.S. 343, 354, 119 S.Ct. 1998, 2004, 144 L.Ed.2d 347 (1999) (stating that " +'new provisions shall apply to all proceedings pending on or commenced after +the date of enactment,' " referenced in Landgraf, "unambiguously addresses the +temporal reach of the statute" (citation omitted)); Lindh v. +521 U.S. +320, 329 n. 4, 117 S.Ct. 2059, 2064 n. 4, 138 L.Ed.2d 481 (1997) (recognizing +from Landgraf that statutory language such as, " '[This Act] shall apply to all +proceedings pending on or commenced after the date of enactment of this Act,' +"might possibly have qualified as a clear statement for retroactive effect" +(quoting Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 260, 114 S.Ct. at 1494)); Rivers v. Roadway +Express, Inc., 511 U.S. 298, 307-08, 114 S.Ct. 1510, 1517, 128 L.Ed.2d 274 +provisions"). ... +Unlike other statutory enactments or amendments (cited above) where Congress +unambiguously expressed its intent regarding retroactive application, there is no +expression with respect to Masha's Law, the 2006 amended version of §2255. An + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2009 Page 8 of 11 +Jane Doe Ii v. Epstein, et al. +Page 8 +example where Congress expressed its intent regarding retroactivity was when it +enacted an expanded sex-offender registry ("SORNA") meant to bolster tracking of +convicted sex offenders, like Masha's Law, also enacted as part of the Adam Walsh Act. +See Pub.L. 109-248 §91-155, 120 Stat. 587, 590-611 (2006). Congress recognized that +applying expanded version of SORNA to past offenders would raise retroactivity +concerns, and therefore, expressly addressed the concern - +The Attorney General shall have the authority to specify the applicability of the +requirements of this subchapter to sex offenders convicted before July 27, 2006 +or its implementation in a particular jurisdiction, and to prescribe rules for the +registration of any such sex offenders. 42 U.S.C. §16913(d). +As the Supreme Court and this Circuit have long observed, "where Congress +includes particular language in one section of a statute but it omits it in another section +of the same Act, it is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally and +purposefully in disparate inclusion or exclusion." U.S. V. Jordan, 915 F.2d 622, 628 +(11" Cir. 1990), quoting Rodriguez v. U.S., 480 U.S. 522, 525 (1987). In this case, +there is no basis for departing from this well established rule. The only evidence +regarding §2255, as amended 2006, is that Congress did not intend it to apply +retroactively, and, accordingly, the 2005 version of the statute applies. +Accordingly, under well established legal principles, the statute in effect at the time +of the alleged conduct applies, not the amended version. +Point 3. 18 U.S.C. §2255 does not allow Plaintiff assert multiple claims against a +Defendant in an effort to multiply the presumptive actual damages minimum. +(pp. 14-15, Plaintiff's MOL). +Plaintiff cites to no case law in support of its nonsensical view that §2255 allows +them to multiply the presumptive damages amount on a per incident basis. As + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2009 Page 9 of 11 +Page 9 +discussed in Part III, A. of Defendant's motion to dismiss, unlike other statutes, there is +absolutely no language in the statute that suggest that the presumptive damages +amount is subject to multiplication on a per violation/incident basis. The statute on its +face speaks in terms of "actual damages" and "personal injury suffered." +The recent case of United States v. Berdeal, 595 F.Supp.2d 1326 (S.D. Fla. +2009), further supports Defendant's argument that the "rule of lenity," (Part. III.C. of +Defendant's motion), requires that the Court resolve the statutory interpretation conflict +in favor of Defendant. Assuming for the sake of argument that Plaintiff's multiple +causes of action, leading to a multiplication of the statutory damages amount, is a +reasonable interpretation, like Defendant's reasonable interpretation, under the "rule of +lenity," any ambiguity is resolved in favor of the least draconian measure. In Berdeal, +applying the rule of lenity, the Court sided with the Defendants' interpretation of the +Lacey Act which makes illegal the possession of snook caught in specified jurisdictions. +The snook had been caught in Nicaraguan waters. The defendants filed a motion to +dismiss asserting the statute did not encompass snook caught in foreign waters. The +United States disagreed. Both sides presented reasonable interpretations regarding the +reach of the statute. In dismissing the indictment, the Court determined that the rule of +lenity required it to accept defendants' interpretation. +Point 4. Point 4 is required to be stricken as Plaintiff attempts to argue facts not +alleged in the Complaint, and misrepresents what is alleged in the Complaint. +Point 4 of Plaintiff's MOL, p. 15-17, is required to be stricken as it not only argues +facts outside of the four corners of the complaint, but it continues to misrepresent what +is actually alleged in paragraph 15 of Plaintiff's complaint. See discussion under "Point + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2009 Page 10 of 11 +Page 10 +1" above herein. Rather than address the deficiencies of her Complaint, Plaintiff +attempts to argue the merits of her case by asserting what the evidence may (or may +not) show. If Plaintiff is seeking to reallege her claims, she should do so by proper +procedure requesting she be allowed to amend. The discussion in Point 4 addresses +none of the arguments in Defendant's motion to dismiss and should be stricken. Rule +12(f), Fed.R.Civ.P. (2009). Defendant stands on its position that Plaintiff has failed to +sufficiently plead the requisite predicate acts as set forth in his motion to dismiss. +Point 5. +Plaintiff has failed to plead the requisite predicate acts or any +conspiracy to commit such acts. (MOL, pp 17-18). +Finally, Plaintiff has failed to allege under the Twombly standard of pleading +sufficient facts to allege the underlying predicate acts required by §2255. See Part III. B +and C of Defendant's motion. +WHEREFORE, Defendant requests that this Court grant his motion to dismiss +and strike. +ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. +Florida Bắr No. 224162 +rcrit@bclclaw.com +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. +Florida Bar #617296 +mpike@bclclaw.com +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 +ma this day or a transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by MECF + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2009 Page 11 of 11 +Page 11 +Isidro M. +Esq. +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 +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 +561-659-8300 +561-835-8691 Fax +jagesq@bellsouth.net +Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein +Respectilly submitted, +ROBERT D. /CRITTON, JR., ESQ. +Florida Bar No. 224162 +rcrit@bclclaw.com +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. +Florida Bar #617296 +mpike@bclclaw.com +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN +515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561-842-2820 +Fax: 561-515-3148 +(Co-counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a9a2f4e942909544f0d0ff20f2f160a985b9c01661255958f9c587d2fe1687ce.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a9a2f4e942909544f0d0ff20f2f160a985b9c01661255958f9c587d2fe1687ce.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c6dd1129f3608b7bb30c9ae894743a9add7df89d --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a9a2f4e942909544f0d0ff20f2f160a985b9c01661255958f9c587d2fe1687ce.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -412, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "a9a2f4e942909544f0d0ff20f2f160a985b9c01661255958f9c587d2fe1687ce", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 12, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "58b662442ee1de5bdb38bf5a7f8ad2bd6e7f40f9102ac7c4b735711162d02208", + "output_sha256": "d36ece31243219319a504bf093c5d9d46f1e39bba705bc68bf931a447c6af19c", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a9a7f6572e59e827257477a6673c82744fe7db4913ed366687174718215d15af.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a9a7f6572e59e827257477a6673c82744fe7db4913ed366687174718215d15af.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2d9d0d7a36f2f71fb8e2fe57a298c44c5b4a96ec --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a9a7f6572e59e827257477a6673c82744fe7db4913ed366687174718215d15af.md @@ -0,0 +1,160 @@ +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 87 Filed 12/21/20 Page 1 of 5 +PANISH +SHEA & +BOYLE +LLP +December 21, 2020 +VIA ECE +Hon. John G. Koeltl +Daniel +Moynihan +United States Courthouse +500 Pearl Street +New York, NY 10007 +Re: Doe v. Indyke, et al., 1:20-cv-000484-JGK-DCF +Letter Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to FRCP 41(a)(2) +Dear Judge Koeltl: +Pursuant to FRCP 41(a)(2), plaintiff Jane Doe in the above-referenced action hereby +requests that the Court dismiss this case forthwith in accordance with the terms set forth in the +concurrently submitted stipulation for dismissal executed by both plaintiff Jane Doe and +defendants Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn, Co-Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey Epstein. +Only defendant Ghislaine Maxwell is refusing to stipulate to the dismissal. +Brief Background +Following the filing of this lawsuit, plaintiff Jane Doe was consistently encouraged by the +parties to stay this case so that she may participate in the Epstein Victims' Compensation +rogram ("the Program"). Because, however, the Program rules clearly stated that "[i]ndividual +who have filed a lawsuit need not agree to a stay of litigation or make any other concession it +any pending litigation to be eligible to participate in the Program," plaintiff did not agree to such +a stay. Instead, defendant Ghislaine Maxwell brought a motion to stay these proceedings which +was then joined by the Epstein Estate and the U.S. Government. Magistrate Judge Freeman +granted the stay. +Since that time, plaintiff submitted a claim to the Program. The Program administrator +made a monetary offer to plaintiff which plaintiff accepted. The Epstein Estate and Ghislaine +Maxwell mandated that Ms. Maxwell be included in the Program settlement release (presumably +because when she committed her tortious and criminal conduct against the victims she was doing +so as an agent and/or employee in the scope of her agency and/or employment with Mr. Epstein). +Plaintiff signed the release and sent it back to the Program administrator. The Program rules +state, in part, that payment cannot be disbursed to the plaintiff until a dismissal has been entered +in this action. +11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700 • Los Angeles, California 90025 • 310.477.1700 phone • 310.477.1699 fax • www.psblaw.com + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 87 Filed 12/21/20 +PARİSA +SHEA & +BOYLE™ +Hon. John G. Koelti +Daniel T +Moynihan +United States Courthouse +December 21, 2020 +Page 2 +Now, however, after Ms. Maxwell is the one who sought to stay this case and push +Plaintiff into the Program, she is now also the one who is preventing Plaintiff from dismissing +this action in a timely and expedient manner pursuant to the terms of the Program. +Despite the straightforward nature of the dismissal, counsel for Ms. Maxwell has found +one excuse after another not to stipulate to the enclosed dismissal executed by the other parties. +And despite Plaintiff's counsel's multiple attempts to secure Ms. Maxwell's stipulation, it has +become increasingly obvious that she will inexplicably not provide it. Indeed, just today, +counsel for Ms. Maxwell stated, for the very first time, that "I will be able to get back to you +after I have had a chance to meaningfully discuss with my client. I do not know when that will +occur but I am reasonably confident we will be able to meet the Court's January 12 deadline." +Not one time did counsel for Ms. Maxwell bring this up during the meet and confer process +concerning the dismissal. Nor did she raise it to Judge Freeman at a recent status conference +concerning the dismissal that she is also blocking in another Epstein case entitled +v. Darren K. Indyke, Richard D. Kahn, & Ghislaine Maxwell 19-10475-LGS-DCF. +Conclusion +There is no good faith basis in fact or law for defendant Ghislaine Maxwell to prevent +this case from being dismissed following the settlement reached among the parties. The only +conceivable reason is that she is being difficult for the sake of being difficult. Ms. Maxwell has +already done unimaginable harm to Plaintiff when she was a child. She should not be permitted +to perpetuate that harm by not allowing Plaintiff to bring much needed closure to this chapter in +her life. Plaintiff is respectfully requesting that the Court exercise its discretion and dismiss her +case in accordance with the terms set forth in the partially executed stipulation for dismissal so +she can satisfy the terms set forth in the Program rules, the Court can clear this case from its +docket and the parties can move on. +Respectfully submitted, +PANISH SHEA & BOYLE +Is/ Robert Glassman +Robert Glassman +Encl. + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 87 Filed 12/21/20 Page 3 of 5 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff, +V. +DARREN K. INDYKE and RICHARD +). KAHN +eXecutors of the ESTATE O +JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, GHISLAINE +MAXWELL, an individual, +Defendants. +Case No. 1:20-cv-00484- +JGK +JOINT STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL OF ENTIRE ACTION +WITH PREJUDICE +IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between all Parties to this action, by +and through their undersigned counsel of record, that the action be dismissed in its +entirety, with prejudice, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). +IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED that each party shall bear its own attorney's +fees and costs of suit. +IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED that nothing herein shall be construed to +preclude Ms. Maxwell from seeking fees or costs related to this matter from the +Estate Of Jeffrey E. Epstein, Darren K. Indyke, in his capacity as Executor of the +Estate Of Jeffrey E. Epstein, Richard D. Kahn, in his capacity as Executor of the +Estate Of Jeffrey E. Epstein, or NES, LLC, a New York Limited Liability Company, +or release any such claims as between the Defendants. Nor does anything herein +prejudice the Estate Of Jeffrey E. Epstein, Darren K. Indyke, in his capacity as +1 + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 87 Filed 12/21/20 Page 4 of 5 +Executor of the Estate Of Jeffrey E. Epstein, Richard D. Kahn, in his capacity as +Executor of the Estate Of Jeffrey E. Epstein, or NES, LLC's rights and legal +positions with respect to Ms. Maxwell's seeking of fees or costs related to this +matter, all of which rights and legal positions are hereby expressly preserved. +Respectfully submitted, +PANISH SHEA & BOYLE LLP +Dated: December 21, 2020 +Dated: December 21, 2020 +By: +By: /s/ Robert Glassman +Robert Glassman, Esq. +Panish Shea & Boyle LLP +11111 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 700 +Los Angeles, CA 90025 +Tel: (310) 477-1700 +glassman@psblaw.com +Attorneys for Plaintiff +pas +Bennet Moskowitz, Esq. +Troutman Pepper +875 Third Avenue +New York, New York 10022 +Tel: (212) 704-6087 +bennet.moskowitz@troutman.com +Sanders LLP +Attorneys for Defendants Darren K. +Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, Co- +Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey +Edward Epstein +2. + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 87 Filed 12/21/20 Page 5 of 5 +Dated: +By: +Lauran Menninger, Esq. +Haddon, +& +, P.C. +150 East 10" Avenue +Denver, CO 80203 +Tel: (303) 831-7364 +LMenninger@HMFLaw.com +Attorneys for Defendant Ghislaine +Maxwell +3 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a9a7f6572e59e827257477a6673c82744fe7db4913ed366687174718215d15af.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a9a7f6572e59e827257477a6673c82744fe7db4913ed366687174718215d15af.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..859c40b18e9eceab51996f49337bf4aaa6b6e5c1 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a9a7f6572e59e827257477a6673c82744fe7db4913ed366687174718215d15af.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -60, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "a9a7f6572e59e827257477a6673c82744fe7db4913ed366687174718215d15af", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 5, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "82073ec901bede937c27655efe559542d54fefbcd817f3336a41b0f06f39c0f9", + "output_sha256": "fc0dfe7db485825cbf9b0df930b9e53b7f020ef27847b04b24abb8892d5cb6e3", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a9a81a0514a9c01c1891213adb576932d7cba5a820603a1b71e430a355985fb9.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a9a81a0514a9c01c1891213adb576932d7cba5a820603a1b71e430a355985fb9.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5629eb0c5c5fd14af330fcb2553d7ef7485284d2 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a9a81a0514a9c01c1891213adb576932d7cba5a820603a1b71e430a355985fb9.md @@ -0,0 +1,242 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 59 +Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2011 Page 1 of 9 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA +JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, +Petitioners, +VS. +UNITED STATES, +Respondent. +UNITED STATES' RESPONSE TO JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S +MOTION FOR ORDER DIRECTING THE U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE NOT +TO WITHHOLD RELEVANT EVIDENCE +Respondent, United States of America, by and through its undersigned counsel, files its +Response to Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2's Motion for Order Directing The U.S. Attorney's +Office Not to Withhold Relevant Evidence, and states: +THE CRIME VICTIMS RIGHTS ACT CREATES NO LEGAL DUTY UPON +THE U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO PROVIDE RELEVANT EVIDENCE +Petitioners maintain the U.S. Attorney's Office is "withholding" relevant evidence, which +suggests there is a legal obligation to disclose such information to them. +Petitioners contend +the government has an obligation under 18 U.S.C. § 3771(c)(1) "to make their best efforts to see +that crime victims are notified of, and accorded, the rights described in subsection (a)." +Section 3771(c)(1) is no authority to impose a duty upon the U.S. Attorney's Office to +provide evidence to petitioners, or allow them a right of access to records maintained by the U.S. +Attorney's Office. +Petitioners do not point to any of the eight rights enumerated in section + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2011 Page 2 of 9 +3771(a) that provides a right to access to information in the government's possession, either in +the context of the criminal case in which the requesting individual is a crime victim under section +3771(e), or in a motion for relief filed under section 3771(d)(3). +Petitioners' attempt to engraft a right of access to government information to section +3771(c)(1) should be rejected. In Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 (1987), the Supreme +Court recognized that the Confrontation Clause grants a criminal defendant a trial right to crossexamine a witness. +It hastened to add, "[t Jhe ability to question adverse witnesses, however, +does not include the power to require the pretrial disclosure of any and all information that might +be useful in contradicting unfavorable testimony." Id. at 52 (footnote omitted). In the same vein, +the obligation of the government to use its best efforts "to see that crime victims are notified of, +and accorded, the rights described in subsection (a)," does not include a duty to provide +information supporting whatever claim a victim may wish to assert in a motion for relief under +section 3771(d)(3). +In United States v. Rubin, 558 F.Supp.2d 411 (E.D.N.Y. 2008), an alleged victim of a +swindle claimed the right to confer in section 3771(a)(5) included a right to obtain +information to base his views to express to the court. This argument was rejected by the district +court, which noted that "[a]ny information-gathering aspect of the right to confer is necessarily +circumscribed, in the first instance, by its relevance to a victim's right to participate in the federal +criminal proceedings at hand and to do so within the bounds demarked by the CVRA." Id. at +425(citation omitted). +The court found the CVRA no more requires disclosure of the presentence report to meet its remedial goal of giving crime victims a voice in sentencing than it +does disclosure of all discovery in a criminal case to promote the goal of giving victims a voice at +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2011 Page 3 of 9 +plea proceedings. Id., citing United States v. Ingrassia, 2005 WL 2875220 at *17 (E.D.N.Y. Sep. +7, 2005). The district court concluded, "[the CVRA, therefore, does not authorize an unbridled +gallop to any and all information in the government's files." 558 F.Supp.2d at 425. +Similarly, in United States v. Coxton, 598 F.Supp.2d 737 (W.D.N.C. 2009), several crime +victims invoked the CVRA in at attempt to obtain portions of the pre-sentence investigation +report (PSR). The victims argued that the CVRA granted them the implicit right to access to +the request portions of the PSR in order to prepare for sentencing. Id. at 739. The district court +rejected the victims' argument. The court first noted the confidential nature of a PSR, Id. at 738- +39, and then found that a victim's right to be reasonably heard at sentencing did not grant a right +of access to the PSR. The court relied upon In re Brock, 262 Fed.Appx. 510 (4" Cir. 2008), +which held that a victim's right to be heard does not afford access to a PSR, since the victim had +been provided ample information concerning the applicable Sentencing Guidelines and other +issues related to the defendants" sentencing. The district court in Coxton found that the victims +in that case were present during trial and continued to enjoy access to the United States +Attorney's Office. Id. at 740. +The district court also rejected the victim's argument that their right to restitution granted +a right of access to the PSR. Id. The Coxton court relied upon United States v. Sacane, 2007 +WL 951666 (D.Conn. Mar. 28, 2007), where the victim of a fraud sought access to the convicted +defendant's financial status by invoking the CVRA. The Sacane court relied upon the caselaw +finding a victim had no right to the defendant's PSR, and found that, "if the CVRA does not +provide crime victims with a right to disclosure of the presentence report, that a fortiori it would +not provide crime victims with a right to obtain such disclosures directly from a defendant." +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2011 Page 4 of 9 +2007 WL 951666 at *1. +Other attempts to engraft discovery rights onto the CVRA have also been rejected. In +United States v. Moussaoui, 483 F.3d 220 (4" Cir. 2007), several victims in the September 11, +2001 terrorist attacks sought access to files and records provided by the government to defendant +Moussaoui, in satisfaction of the government's criminal discovery obligations. The victims +were plaintiffs in civil actions filed in the Southern District of New York, against private airlines, +airports, and security services. +. Id. at 224. The victims sought non-public criminal discovery +materials for use in their civil actions. +In its opinion, the Fourth Circuit noted the victims had relied heavily upon the CVRA and +the Air Transportation Safety and Stabilization Act (ATSSSA) in the district court, to support +their claim of a right to access the criminal discovery information. Id. at 234. On appeal, +however, the civil plaintiffs abandoned the argument that those two statutes provided the district +court the authority to enter an order compelling the government to provide to the civil plaintiffs +certain categories of information. The appellate court observed that, "[t]his was wise strategy, +as nothing in those two statutes supports the district court's exercise of power." Id. +As to the CVRA, the Fourth Circuit found "It ]he rights codified by the CVRA, however, +are limited to the criminal justice process; the Act is therefore silent and unconcerned with +victims' rights to file civil claims against their assailants." Id. at 234-35, citing In re Kenna, 453 +F.3d 1136, 1137 (9" Cir. 2006). There is no criminal justice process in the instant case since no +criminal charges have been filed. +Even if the criminal justice process has been initiated by the +filing of charges, courts have rejected claims by victims that one or more of the rights in section +3771(a) create a right of access to information in the government's possession; Coxton (no right +4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2011 Page 5 of 9 +to PSR); Kenna (same); and Sacane (no right to financial information from defendant). The +CVRA imposes no duty on the U.S. Attorney's Office to provide evidence to petitioners to assist +them in presenting their claims under the CVRA. +PETITIONERS HAVE NO DUE PROCESS RIGHTS UNDER THE CVRA +Petitioners also contend they have a right to due process under the CVRA, and liken their +situation to the rights enjoyed by criminal defendants. DE 50 at 5-9. This argument suffers +from a fundamental defect, the absence of any protected life, liberty, or property interest, which +would trigger the due process clause. +"The necessary first step in evaluating any procedural due process claim is determining +whether a constitutionally protected interest has been implicated." Tefel v. Reno, 180 F.3d 1286, +1299 (11" Cir. 1999), citing Economic Dev. Corp. v. Stierheim, 782 F.2d 952, 954-55 (11" Cir. +1986)("In assessing a claim based on an alleged denial of procedural due process a court must +first decide whether the complaining party has been deprived of a constitutionally protected +liberty or property interest. Absent such a deprivation, there can be no denial of due process."). +Petitioners concede that "the victims in this case do not rely on a federal constitutional right to +due process." DE 50 at 6(emphasis in original). +However, they contend that section 3771(a)(8), which provides that a crime victim should +be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim's dignity and privacy, creates a statutory +right. Petitioners argue that Congress intended to provide a substantive due process right to +crime victims. DE 50 at 6. This argument is plainly incorrect. There is no life, liberty, or +property interest implicated in the CVRA, and courts are hesitant to find that a substantive due +process right has been created. +See +v. City of Harker Heights, Texas, 503 U.S. 115, +5 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2011 Page 6 of 9 +125 (1992)("As a general matter, the Court has always been reluctant to expand the concept of +substantive due process because guideposts for responsible decisionmaking in this uncharted area +are scarce and open ended. (citation omitted). The doctrine of judicial self-restraint requires us to +exercise the utmost care whenever we are asked to break new ground in this field."). This +judicial reluctance would be particularly well-founded in the instant case, where petitioners are +maintaining that Congress's use of the amorphous terms "fairness" and "respect for the victim's +dignity and privacy" have created a substantive due process right. +Similarly unavailing is petitioners' reliance upon Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), +and other criminal law cases finding a due process obligation on the government's part to +disclose exculpatory and impeachment information. Petitioners are charged with no crime, and +they are in no jeopardy of losing their liberty. Consequently, the government has no due process +obligation to provide information to petitioners. +IIIS PETITIONERS HAVE NO RIGHT TO DISCOVERY UNDER THE FEDERAL +RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE +Petitioners argue they are entitled to discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil +Procedure, but they point to no particular rule, or case, which provides that such a discovery +rights exists. Instead, petitioners seize upon the government's assertion that the right to confer +under section 3771(a)(5) only applied to the criminal case, not to a civil action filed to attempt to +enforce rights under the CVRA. +Petitioners filed their motion for relief under section 3771(d)(3). Such motions for relief +are filed in the district court "in which a defendant is being prosecuted for the crime," or "if no +prosecution is underway, in the district court in which the crime occurred." If a motion under +6 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2011 Page 7 of 9 +section 3371(d)(3) is filed in the district court in which the defendant is being prosecuted, the +motion is being entertained as part of the criminal case, not a civil action. In the instant case, +petitioners filed their motion under the second provision. Presumably, because there was no +criminal case, the Clerk's Office assigned the motion a civil case number. +Congress created a procedure by which a putative victim could seek relief for alleged +violations of CVRA rights. If a section 3771(d)(3) motion were filed in an existing criminal +case, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure would not apply, since it is not a civil case. Under +petitioners' theory, because of the happenstance that no criminal case was pending, and the +Clerk's Office assigned the motion a civil case number, they are entitled to full discovery under +the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. +Petitioner's theory is illogical because there is no basis for believing that Congress +intended individuals seeking relief under section 3771(d)(3) to enjoy widely differing procedural +rights, depending on whether there was a criminal case pending. If a putative victim filing a +motion in an existing criminal case would be entitled to no discovery under the Federal Rules of +Civil Procedure, then none should exist where there is no existing criminal case. +IV. +THE GOVERNMENT ATTORNEYS' DUTY OF CANDOR DOES NOT +CREATE A RIGHT OF ACCESS TO INFORMATION +Petitioners argue that, because the government's attorneys owe a duty of candor to the +Court, they are entitled to have access to government records in order to ensure the government +attorneys are honoring their ethical obligations. DE 50 at 11-13. +The government's attorneys are well-aware of their obligations of candor to the Court. If +the Court believes any attorney in the instant case has breached that ethical duty, it has the +7 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2011 Page 8 of 9 +authority to take remedial action to factually determine whether the duty has been breached. +However, the mere existence of' an attorney's duty of candor to a court does not a right of access +to information in the opposing party, to ensure the ethical duty is being met. +CONCLUSION +Petitioners' motion for order directing the U.S. Attorney's Office not to withhold relevant +evidence should be denied. +Respectfully submitted, +WIFREDO A. FERRER +UNITED STATES ATTORNEY +By: +s/ Dexter A. Lee +DEXTER A. LEE +Assistant U.S. Attorney +Fla. Bar No. 0936693 +99 N.E. 4* Street +Miami, Florida 33132 +(305) 961-9320 +Fax: (305) 530-7139 +E-mail: dexter.lee@ usdoj-gov +Attorney for Respondent +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I HEREBY CERTIFY that on April 7, 2011, I electronically filed the foregoing document +with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. +s/ Dexter A. Lee +DEXTER A. LEE +Assistant U.S. Attorney +8 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2011 Page 9 of 9 +SERVICE LIST +Jane Does 1 and 2 v. United States, +Case No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +Esq. +, Jaffe, Weissing, +425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 +Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 +(954) 524-2820 +Fax: (954) 524-2822 +E-mail: brad@pathtojustice.com +Paul G. Cassell +S.J. Quinney College of Law at the +University of Utah +332 S. 1400 E. +Salt Lake City, Utah 84112 +(801) 585-5202 +Fax: (801) 585-6833 +E-mail: casselp@law.utah.edu +Attorneys for Jane Doe # 1 and Jane Doe # 2 +Fistos & Lehrman, P.L. diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a9a81a0514a9c01c1891213adb576932d7cba5a820603a1b71e430a355985fb9.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a9a81a0514a9c01c1891213adb576932d7cba5a820603a1b71e430a355985fb9.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e00925786f51d4071456731096f3cbd1f513cf7d --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a9a81a0514a9c01c1891213adb576932d7cba5a820603a1b71e430a355985fb9.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -112, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "a9a81a0514a9c01c1891213adb576932d7cba5a820603a1b71e430a355985fb9", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 11, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "ab01278250892773c633cf768190d42ba9eff51d168b056cae6ff84847b92e14", + "output_sha256": "27306fe12e35e6d6a4d0f9518f437eceed2b2a96bdaad0a321fe23b9fe464165", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a9b435eefe117ceb19f9df9570d1eed0ac4924220d4b4762b7bce906097a7f26.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a9b435eefe117ceb19f9df9570d1eed0ac4924220d4b4762b7bce906097a7f26.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3f0221f63af09616f584f2a85ebfde4a4ae040c1 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a9b435eefe117ceb19f9df9570d1eed0ac4924220d4b4762b7bce906097a7f26.md @@ -0,0 +1,23 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 126-1 +Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2011 Page 1 of 1 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +Case No. 08-80736-Civ-MarralM +JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2 +V. +UNITED STATES +[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S MOTION FOR +FOUR EXTRA PAGES TO RESPOND TO GOVERNMENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS +THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2's Unopposed +Motion for Four Extra Pages to Respond to Government's Motion to Dismiss. Having reviewed +the Motion and the Court file, and good cause having been shown, +It is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion is GRANTED. The Court shall allow +Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 an additional four pages (a total of 24 pages) to respond to +Government's Motion to Dismiss (Sealed Document). +DONE AND ORDERED in +at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, +this +day of +2011. +KENNETH A. MARRA +United States District Judge diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a9b435eefe117ceb19f9df9570d1eed0ac4924220d4b4762b7bce906097a7f26.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a9b435eefe117ceb19f9df9570d1eed0ac4924220d4b4762b7bce906097a7f26.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7447fb7615e774288c14ff0d2f3fa0dc7bb51887 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a9b435eefe117ceb19f9df9570d1eed0ac4924220d4b4762b7bce906097a7f26.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "a9b435eefe117ceb19f9df9570d1eed0ac4924220d4b4762b7bce906097a7f26", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "9758cfaf4bb2e5d7f3800ea3e29039b4d0b19a24197555add164f80e6b012ca4", + "output_sha256": "7d5b21eb90278ef7b1306972cbcc2a66c8228a9d6db55f17dda51d332056a74f", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a9bee12a850fd889d9dee06cbb73ea766b0a00fd7cebfc8e299cf4b95485cd79.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a9bee12a850fd889d9dee06cbb73ea766b0a00fd7cebfc8e299cf4b95485cd79.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ad55deccf2e7c41f2514b18a2c480bec67b950fb --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a9bee12a850fd889d9dee06cbb73ea766b0a00fd7cebfc8e299cf4b95485cd79.md @@ -0,0 +1,279 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 140 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2010 Page 1 of 10 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/ +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, +PLAINTIFES JANE DOES 2-8' MEMORANDUM IN +RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S RULE 4 APPEAL +Plaintiffs, Jane Does 2-8 ("Plaintiffs"), by and through undersigned counsel, file this +Memorandum in Response to Defendant's Rule 4 Appeal of the Magistrate Judge's Orders (DE +480 and DE 513) directing Defendant to produce his income tax returns, as follows: +Introduction +Defendant appeals the Magistrate Judge's Orders (DE 480 and DE 513) compelling +Defendant to produce income tax returns and related forms and schedules. He fails, however, to +demonstrate that the Magistrate Judge's decision as to tax returns is clearly erroneous or contrary +to law. The applicable case law establishes that the tax returns are not protected from discovery +by the Fifth Amendment privilege under the act of production doctrine, or alternatively, that they +fall within the "required records" exception to the Fifth Amendment privilege. +The tax returns are indisputably relevant in these cases, particularly as to Plaintiff's +claims for punitive damages, and given the Defendant's invocation of the Fifth Amendment in + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 140 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2010 Page 2 of 10 +blanket fashion to all requests for net worth discovery, there is a compelling need for this +discovery. Even if Plaintiffs could not demonstrate a compelling need for the tax returns in +discovery, under applicable Eleventh Circuit precedent and reported cases in this District, +Plaintiffs would be entitled to this discovery under the broad relevance standard of Fed. R. Civ. +P. 26(b). Finally, there is no basis to delay this discovery, as the tax returns are relevant to +punitive damages, which is an important, current issue in these cases. For the reasons set forth +herein, Plaintiff's request that the Magistrate Judge's Orders as to Defendant's tax returns be +affirmed and that Defendant be ordered to produce the tax return discovery requested by +Plaintiffs. +Argument +I. +DEFENDANT HAS BURDEN TO SHOW THAT MAGISTRATE +JUDGE'S ORDER IS CLEARLY ERRONEOUS OR CONTRARY TO LAW +In seeking reversal of the Magistrate Judge's Order as to discovery of tax returns, it is the +Defendant's burden to show that the order is "clearly erroneous or contrary to law". 28 U.S.C. +§636(b)(1). Absent such a showing, the Magistrate Judge's decision "shall not be disturbed." +Emmisive Energy Corp. v. Novatac, Inc., 2009 WL 2834841 *1 (S.D. Fla. 2009). In the instant +appeal, Defendant has not shown that the Magistrate Judge's Order to produce tax returns is +clearly erroneous or contrary to law. +Il. +THE ACT OF PRODUCTION OF TAX RETURNS IS NOT +PROTECTED BY THE FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE +The Plaintiffs served the following document request in discovery, to which Defendant +asserted the Fifth Amendment privilege: +Request No. 1: All Federal and State income tax returns, including all W-2 +forms, 1099 forms and schedules, for tax years 2003-2008. +The Magistrate Judge rejected the Defendant's privilege assertion as to tax returns. (De 480, pp. +8-9). In so holding, the Magistrate Judge applied the act of production doctrine set forth in +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 140 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2010 Page 3 of 10 +Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 410 (1976) and United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 35- +36 (2000). As noted by the Magistrate Judge, "Defendant cannot reasonably and in good faith +argue that in producing these documents to Plaintiff he will somehow be incriminating himself." +(Order, p. 9). Yet, Defendant argues just that. In Hubbell, the Supreme Court made express +reference to tax returns in discussing documents that cannot be protected by the Fifth +Amendment privilege under the act of production doctrine: +[T]he fact that incriminating evidence may be the byproduct of +obedience to a regulatory requirement, such as filing an income +tax return, maintaining required records, or reporting an accident, +does not clothe such required conduct with the testimonial +privilege. +120 U.S. at 2043, 530 U.S. at 35 (footnotes omitted) (emphasis supplied). Accord United States +v. Hammes, 3 F.3d 1081, 1083 (7th Cir. 1993) (*[wle reject [defendant's] compulsory selfincrimination claim because the government may use voluntarily filed tax returns against a +defendant without violating the Fifth Amendment"). See also Garner v. United States, 96 S.Ct. +1178, 424 U.S. 648 (1976) (holding that disclosures in tax returns are not compelled +incriminations and may be used as evidence in criminal prosecution); Ebay, Inc. v. Digital Point +Solutions, Inc., 2010 WL 147967 *8 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (holding that a person cannot incriminate +himself by turning over a document already in the government's possession); Federal Savings +and Loan Ins. Corp. v. Hardee, 686 F. Supp 885 (N.D. Fla. 1988) (holding that personal income +tax returns and supporting schedules are not protected by the "act of production" doctrine under +Fisher). +As an alternative to finding that the Fifth Amendment privilege does not apply because +the act of producing documents is not testimonial and communicative, courts have invoked the +"required records" exception to the act of production doctrine. See Federal Saving & Loan Ins. +Corp. v. Rodrigues, 717 F. Supp. 1424, 1427 (N.D. Cal 1988) ("required records" exception is a +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 140 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2010 Page 4 of 10 +distinct basis to deny Fifth Amendment privilege alternative to the "foregone conclusion" +rationale under Fisher). The "required records" exception defeats the Fifth Amendment privilege +where: "(1) because of the public aspect of the required records the individual admits little of +significance by their production; and (2) by doing business in an area where the government +requires record keeping, an individual may be deemed to have waived the Fifth Amendment +privilege as to the production of those records." In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 21 F.3d 226, 229 +(8th Cir. 1994). +Defendant contends that the "required records" exception does not apply to tax returns +because they cannot be accessed by the public. This is wrong, however, as the "required +records" exception requires only that there be "public aspects" to the documents at issue. Id. +Numerous courts that have addressed this precise issue have found that tax returns have "public +aspects". See Rodrigues, 717 F. Supp. at 1426-27 (citing cases); accord Doe v. United States, +711 F.2d 1187, 1191 (2d Cir. 1983).' Accordingly, the "required records" exception applies to +the production of tax returns. In Rodrigues, the Court denied the Fifth Amendment privilege for +the act of producing tax returns under the "required records" exception, noting that "records filed +with a public body pursuant to a valid regulatory scheme have been held to have public aspects." +Id. at 1427. Accordingly, the fact that federal tax returns cannot be accessed by the general +public does not aid the Defendant. Accord Resolution Trust Corp. v. +1, 794 F. Supp. 1, 3 +(D.D.C. 1992). +Thus, there are two alternative grounds for holding that Defendant's assertion of the Fifth +Amendment privilege to production of tax returns is invalid: (1) the tax returns are in the +' Defendant further appears to argue that the "required records" exception should be limited to +"highly regulated business (e.g., physicians)", citing In re Dr. John Doe, 97 F.R.D. 640, 641-643 +(S.D.N.Y. 1982). In Dr. John Doe, however, the Court held contrary to Defendant's assertion +and consistent with the case law cited herein stating, "[w]e agree that some of these records (e.g +W-2 and other tax forms) may indeed fall within the required records exception." Id. at 644 +(ordering that Dr. Doe comply with subpoena for W-2 forms). +4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 140 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2010 Page 5 of 10 +possession of the government, their existence is a foregone conclusion, and there is no risk of +"implicit authentication" by Defendant's production of these documents; or (2) tax returns fall +within the "required records" exception to the act of production doctrine, and are thus not +protected by the Fifth Amendment. Under either of these grounds, the Defendant's tax returns +are not privileged and must be produced in discovery. +II. THERE IS NO HEIGHTENED BURDEN +FOR DISCOVERY OF TAX RETURNS +Defendant asserts that there is a heightened burden on a party seeking discovery of tax +returns, requiring that party to show not only relevance, but also that "a compelling need for the +tax returns exists because the information contained therein is not otherwise available." (Appeal, +p. 24). However, in the Eleventh Circuit this heightened burden has been rejected. "IT]he +Eleventh Circuit does not require a showing of compelling need before tax information may be +obtained by a party in discovery." Bellosa v. Universal Tile Restoration, Inc.., 2008 WL 2620735 +(S.D. Fla. 2008) (citing Maddow v. Procter & Gamble Co., 107 F.3d 846 (11th Cir. 1997)); +accord U.S. v. Certain Real Property, 444 F.Supp. 2d 1258 (S.D.Fla. 2006); Platypus Wear, Inc. +y. Clarke Modet & Co., 2008 W.L. 728540 (S.D. Fla. 2008); Preferred Care Partners Holding +Corp. v. Humana, Inc., 2008 WL 4500258 (S.D. Fla. 2008); Ruskin Co. v. Greenheck Fan Corp., +2009 WL 383349 (S.D. Fla. 2009). Significantly, in both Preferred Care and Ruskin the Court +affirmed the decision of a Magistrate Judge rejecting a higher standard for production of tax +returns, holding that, despite an arguable split of authority, ' the Magistrate Judge's decision was +not "contrary to law." Id. Likewise, the Magistrate Judge's decision in this case compelling +* Defendant relies upon Pendlebury v. Starbucks Coffee Co., 2008 WL 2105024 (S.D. Fla. 2005) +and Dunkin Donuts, Inc. v. Mary's Donuts, Inc., 2001 WL 34079319 (S.D. Fla. 2001), in which +the Court applied the higher standard. These cases do not consider the Eleventh Circuit's +opinion in Maddow, and the federal judges in this District over the past five years since +Pendlebury have consistently rejected the "compelling need" standard for production of tax +returns. See cases cited above. +5 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 140 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2010 Page 6 of 10 +production of tax returns is consistent with authority in this District and the Eleventh Circuit, and +thus should be affirmed. +III. EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT'S FINANCIAL +STATUS AND HISTORY IS RELEVANT TO +PUNITIVE DAMAGES, AMONG OTHER ISSUES +Defendant does not go so far as to contend that the discovery of his tax returns is not +relevant under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26. Defendant only argues that the Magistrate Judge did not address +the relevancy standard in her Order. (Appeal, p. 25). As a result, Defendant does nothing to +show that the Magistrate Judge's Order as to tax returns is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. +In any event, it is abundantly clear that Defendant's financial status and history are relevant to +punitive damages, among other issues in these cases, and in this regard the Defendant's tax +returns are pertinent and discoverable. Tennant v. Charlton, 377 So.2d 1169 (Fla. 1979) (holding +that party may obtain tax returns for purposes of net worth discovery on issue of punitive +damages). See also State v. O'Malley, 53 S. W. 3d 623 (Mo. App. 2001) ("fiJt is well settled that +when a plaintiff seeks punitive damages against a defendant, evidence of the defendant's +financial status is both relevant and admissible"); Interstate Narrow Fabrics, Inc. V. Century +USA, Inc., 2004 WL 444570 (M.D. N.C. 2004) (holding that tax returns are relevant to the jury's +determination of the amount of punitive damages to award); E.J. Lavino & Co. v. Universal +Health Services, Inc., 1991 WL 275767 (E.D. Pa. 1991) ("[m]ost courts that have considered this +issue have held that a plaintiff seeking punitive damages may discovery information pertaining +to a defendant's net worth"). +Defendant further argues that he should not have to produce his tax returns until it +becomes apparent" that "punitive damages will be an issue." (Appeal, p. 26). This argument +ignores Florida law on punitive damages. It is well established that "punitive damages are +always recoverable in intentional tort cases where malice is one of the essential elements of the +6 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 140 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2010 Page 7 of 10 +tort." Ciamar Marcay, Inc. v. Monteiro Da Costa, 508 So.2d 1282 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) +(emphasis supplied). "In Florida it is clear that an act of intentional assault and battery +committed without legal justification supplies proof of malice." Joab, Inc. v. Thrall, 245 So.2d +291 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971). Therefore, it is clear in this intentional tort case that punitive damages +are an issue. As this Court knows, Defendant Epstein is alleged to have perpetrated a plan and +scheme to sexually molest dozens of underage teenage girls." +Even assuming that the "compelling need" standard were applicable for discovery of tax +returns, clearly in this case there is a compelling need. Defendant has provided no net worth +discovery, asserting a blanket Fifth Amendment privilege.* Defendant nonetheless contends that +there exists an "alternative" - not to discovery of the necessary information, but through his offer +to "stipulate" to a net worth in the nine figures. Of course, a stipulation requires the consent of +the parties and there is no agreement in this case on the Defendant's net worth. Defendant +cannot unilaterally by fiat claim a certain net worth for purposes of trial. The law is well +established that a jury may determine punitive damages "by exacting from [the defendant's] +pocketbook a sum of money which, according to his financial ability, will hurt, but not +" Defendant's reliance on Gallina v. Commerce and Industry Ins., 2008 WL 3895918 (M.D. Fla. +2008) is misplaced. Gallina is an insurance bad faith case and does not involve a claim of +punitive damages against an intentional tortfeasor. Moreover, in the present case it would make +no sense to have a different "stage" for punitive damages discovery or trial. +4 "[T]he burden to identify an alternative source of the information lies with the resisting party." +Interstate Narrow Fabrics, 2004 WL 444570 at *2. Here, Epstein's blanket Fifth Amendment +privilege assertion to all net worth discovery makes it clear that there is a compelling need for +any net worth discovery not protected by the Fifth Amendment privilege. +S Defendant relies upon Myers v. Central Florida Investment, Inc., 592 F.3d 1201 (11th Cir. +2010) for its "stipulation" argument. In Myers, however, the district court heard testimony +regarding each of the defendant's net worth. There was no unilateral statement of net worth in +Myers as Defendant wishes to create in the instant case. To the extent that Defendant relies +upon the Court's holding in Myers regarding the reasonableness of the trial court's award of +punitive damages, the issue of reasonableness is determined by the particular facts and +circumstances of the case and the discussion in Myers of this issue has no relevance here. Id. +7 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 140 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2010 Page 8 of 10 +bankrupt." Joab, Inc. v. Thrall, 245 So.2d 291 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971) (emphasis supplied). +Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to discovery on the Defendant's real net worth so that the jury +will be in a position to make an award that "will hurt". In any event, it seems beyond dispute +that Defendant's tax returns are relevant and discoverable, either under a straight relevance test +under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26 or a heightened "compelling need" standard. +Conclusion +Based on the foregoing, the Magistrate Judge's Orders as to Defendant's production of +tax returns in response to Plaintiffs" document request no. 1 are not clearly erroneous and not +contrary to law. As a result, the Magistrate Judge's Orders as to production of tax returns should +be affirmed. Plaintiffs respectfully request that the documents responsive to Plaintiffs' document +request no. 1 be ordered to be produced forthwith. +Dated: May 28, 2010. +Respectfully submitted, +By: s/ Stuart S. Mermelstein +Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245) +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980) +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P.A. +Attorneys for Plaintiffs +18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 +Miami, Florida 33160 +Tel: (305) 931-2200 +Fax: (305) 931-0877 +8 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 140 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2010 Page 9 of 10 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I hereby certify that on May 28, 2010, I electronically filed the foregoing document with +the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served +this day to all parties on the attached Service List in the manner specified, either via transmission +of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for +those parties who are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing. +Is/ Stuart S. Mermelstein + + +Case 9:08-cV-80381-KAM Document 140 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2010 Page 10 of 10 +SERVICE LIST +DOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +jgoldberger@agwpa.com +Robert D. Critton, Esq. +rcritton @bclclaw.com +James +bedwards@rra-law.com +Isidro Manuel +isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net +Jack +jph@searcylaw.com +Katherine Warthen Ezell +KEzell@podhurst.com +Michael James Pike +MPike@bclclaw.com +Paul G. Cassell +cassellp@law.utah.edu +Richard Horace Willits +lawyerwillits@aol.com +Robert C. Josefsberg +rjosefsberg@ podhurst.com +10 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a9bee12a850fd889d9dee06cbb73ea766b0a00fd7cebfc8e299cf4b95485cd79.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a9bee12a850fd889d9dee06cbb73ea766b0a00fd7cebfc8e299cf4b95485cd79.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..489bd898b8d2edcb823c5170ed2cc3835a84dcc7 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a9bee12a850fd889d9dee06cbb73ea766b0a00fd7cebfc8e299cf4b95485cd79.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -122, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "a9bee12a850fd889d9dee06cbb73ea766b0a00fd7cebfc8e299cf4b95485cd79", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 11, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "bc0d75bff1361bdc7af048c79e8cb7c4dfc5a8c30fd5c9abf13f7f22d78e5801", + "output_sha256": "e1312b5de1a29aa411d6f57ad0c21800cb0b146b16f07f9d84d6566f95b062bb", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a9d30d4ac3922077e1e6b208e845e99c906cf01001586f9825e4e76a78ec5b26.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a9d30d4ac3922077e1e6b208e845e99c906cf01001586f9825e4e76a78ec5b26.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8051b0431b519ae2bb1abda7d777510863fb8345 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a9d30d4ac3922077e1e6b208e845e99c906cf01001586f9825e4e76a78ec5b26.md @@ -0,0 +1,279 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 158 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2010 Page 1 of 10 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/ +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, +PLAINTIFES JANE DOES 2-8' MEMORANDUM IN +RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S RULE 4 APPEAL +Plaintiffs, Jane Does 2-8 ("Plaintiffs"), by and through undersigned counsel, file this +Memorandum in Response to Defendant's Rule 4 Appeal of the Magistrate Judge's Orders (DE +480 and DE 513) directing Defendant to produce his income tax returns, as follows: +Introduction +Defendant appeals the Magistrate Judge's Orders (DE 480 and DE 513) compelling +Defendant to produce income tax returns and related forms and schedules. He fails, however, to +demonstrate that the Magistrate Judge's decision as to tax returns is clearly erroneous or contrary +to law. The applicable case law establishes that the tax returns are not protected from discovery +by the Fifth Amendment privilege under the act of production doctrine, or alternatively, that they +fall within the "required records" exception to the Fifth Amendment privilege. +The tax returns are indisputably relevant in these cases, particularly as to Plaintiff's +claims for punitive damages, and given the Defendant's invocation of the Fifth Amendment in + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 158 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2010 Page 2 of 10 +blanket fashion to all requests for net worth discovery, there is a compelling need for this +discovery. Even if Plaintiffs could not demonstrate a compelling need for the tax returns in +discovery, under applicable Eleventh Circuit precedent and reported cases in this District, +Plaintiffs would be entitled to this discovery under the broad relevance standard of Fed. R. Civ. +P. 26(b). Finally, there is no basis to delay this discovery, as the tax returns are relevant to +punitive damages, which is an important, current issue in these cases. For the reasons set forth +herein, Plaintiff's request that the Magistrate Judge's Orders as to Defendant's tax returns be +affirmed and that Defendant be ordered to produce the tax return discovery requested by +Plaintiffs. +Argument +I. +DEFENDANT HAS BURDEN TO SHOW THAT MAGISTRATE +JUDGE'S ORDER IS CLEARLY ERRONEOUS OR CONTRARY TO LAW +In seeking reversal of the Magistrate Judge's Order as to discovery of tax returns, it is the +Defendant's burden to show that the order is "clearly erroneous or contrary to law". 28 U.S.C. +§636(b)(1). Absent such a showing, the Magistrate Judge's decision "shall not be disturbed." +Emmisive Energy Corp. v. Novatac, Inc., 2009 WL 2834841 *1 (S.D. Fla. 2009). In the instant +appeal, Defendant has not shown that the Magistrate Judge's Order to produce tax returns is +clearly erroneous or contrary to law. +Il. +THE ACT OF PRODUCTION OF TAX RETURNS IS NOT +PROTECTED BY THE FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE +The Plaintiffs served the following document request in discovery, to which Defendant +asserted the Fifth Amendment privilege: +Request No. 1: All Federal and State income tax returns, including all W-2 +forms, 1099 forms and schedules, for tax years 2003-2008. +The Magistrate Judge rejected the Defendant's privilege assertion as to tax returns. (De 480, pp. +8-9). In so holding, the Magistrate Judge applied the act of production doctrine set forth in +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 158 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2010 Page 3 of 10 +Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 410 (1976) and United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 35- +36 (2000). As noted by the Magistrate Judge, "Defendant cannot reasonably and in good faith +argue that in producing these documents to Plaintiff he will somehow be incriminating himself." +(Order, p. 9). Yet, Defendant argues just that. In Hubbell, the Supreme Court made express +reference to tax returns in discussing documents that cannot be protected by the Fifth +Amendment privilege under the act of production doctrine: +[T]he fact that incriminating evidence may be the byproduct of +obedience to a regulatory requirement, such as filing an income +tax return, maintaining required records, or reporting an accident, +does not clothe such required conduct with the testimonial +privilege. +120 U.S. at 2043, 530 U.S. at 35 (footnotes omitted) (emphasis supplied). Accord United States +v. Hammes, 3 F.3d 1081, 1083 (7th Cir. 1993) (*[wle reject [defendant's] compulsory selfincrimination claim because the government may use voluntarily filed tax returns against a +defendant without violating the Fifth Amendment"). See also Garner v. United States, 96 S.Ct. +1178, 424 U.S. 648 (1976) (holding that disclosures in tax returns are not compelled +incriminations and may be used as evidence in criminal prosecution); Ebay, Inc. v. Digital Point +Solutions, Inc., 2010 WL 147967 *8 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (holding that a person cannot incriminate +himself by turning over a document already in the government's possession); Federal Savings +and Loan Ins. Corp. v. Hardee, 686 F. Supp 885 (N.D. Fla. 1988) (holding that personal income +tax returns and supporting schedules are not protected by the "act of production" doctrine under +Fisher). +As an alternative to finding that the Fifth Amendment privilege does not apply because +the act of producing documents is not testimonial and communicative, courts have invoked the +"required records" exception to the act of production doctrine. See Federal Saving & Loan Ins. +Corp. v. Rodrigues, 717 F. Supp. 1424, 1427 (N.D. Cal 1988) ("required records" exception is a +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 158 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2010 Page 4 of 10 +distinct basis to deny Fifth Amendment privilege alternative to the "foregone conclusion" +rationale under Fisher). The "required records" exception defeats the Fifth Amendment privilege +where: "(1) because of the public aspect of the required records the individual admits little of +significance by their production; and (2) by doing business in an area where the government +requires record keeping, an individual may be deemed to have waived the Fifth Amendment +privilege as to the production of those records." In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 21 F.3d 226, 229 +(8th Cir. 1994). +Defendant contends that the "required records" exception does not apply to tax returns +because they cannot be accessed by the public. This is wrong, however, as the "required +records" exception requires only that there be "public aspects" to the documents at issue. Id. +Numerous courts that have addressed this precise issue have found that tax returns have "public +aspects". See Rodrigues, 717 F. Supp. at 1426-27 (citing cases); accord Doe v. United States, +711 F.2d 1187, 1191 (2d Cir. 1983).' Accordingly, the "required records" exception applies to +the production of tax returns. In Rodrigues, the Court denied the Fifth Amendment privilege for +the act of producing tax returns under the "required records" exception, noting that "records filed +with a public body pursuant to a valid regulatory scheme have been held to have public aspects." +Id. at 1427. Accordingly, the fact that federal tax returns cannot be accessed by the general +public does not aid the Defendant. Accord Resolution Trust Corp. v. +1, 794 F. Supp. 1, 3 +(D.D.C. 1992). +Thus, there are two alternative grounds for holding that Defendant's assertion of the Fifth +Amendment privilege to production of tax returns is invalid: (1) the tax returns are in the +' Defendant further appears to argue that the "required records" exception should be limited to +"highly regulated business (e.g., physicians)", citing In re Dr. John Doe, 97 F.R.D. 640, 641-643 +(S.D.N.Y. 1982). In Dr. John Doe, however, the Court held contrary to Defendant's assertion +and consistent with the case law cited herein stating, "[w]e agree that some of these records (e.g +W-2 and other tax forms) may indeed fall within the required records exception." Id. at 644 +(ordering that Dr. Doe comply with subpoena for W-2 forms). +4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 158 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2010 Page 5 of 10 +possession of the government, their existence is a foregone conclusion, and there is no risk of +"implicit authentication" by Defendant's production of these documents; or (2) tax returns fall +within the "required records" exception to the act of production doctrine, and are thus not +protected by the Fifth Amendment. Under either of these grounds, the Defendant's tax returns +are not privileged and must be produced in discovery. +II. THERE IS NO HEIGHTENED BURDEN +FOR DISCOVERY OF TAX RETURNS +Defendant asserts that there is a heightened burden on a party seeking discovery of tax +returns, requiring that party to show not only relevance, but also that "a compelling need for the +tax returns exists because the information contained therein is not otherwise available." (Appeal, +p. 24). However, in the Eleventh Circuit this heightened burden has been rejected. "IT]he +Eleventh Circuit does not require a showing of compelling need before tax information may be +obtained by a party in discovery." Bellosa v. Universal Tile Restoration, Inc.., 2008 WL 2620735 +(S.D. Fla. 2008) (citing Maddow v. Procter & Gamble Co., 107 F.3d 846 (11th Cir. 1997)); +accord U.S. v. Certain Real Property, 444 F.Supp. 2d 1258 (S.D.Fla. 2006); Platypus Wear, Inc. +y. Clarke Modet & Co., 2008 W.L. 728540 (S.D. Fla. 2008); Preferred Care Partners Holding +Corp. v. Humana, Inc., 2008 WL 4500258 (S.D. Fla. 2008); Ruskin Co. v. Greenheck Fan Corp., +2009 WL 383349 (S.D. Fla. 2009). Significantly, in both Preferred Care and Ruskin the Court +affirmed the decision of a Magistrate Judge rejecting a higher standard for production of tax +returns, holding that, despite an arguable split of authority, ' the Magistrate Judge's decision was +not "contrary to law." Id. Likewise, the Magistrate Judge's decision in this case compelling +* Defendant relies upon Pendlebury v. Starbucks Coffee Co., 2008 WL 2105024 (S.D. Fla. 2005) +and Dunkin Donuts, Inc. v. Mary's Donuts, Inc., 2001 WL 34079319 (S.D. Fla. 2001), in which +the Court applied the higher standard. These cases do not consider the Eleventh Circuit's +opinion in Maddow, and the federal judges in this District over the past five years since +Pendlebury have consistently rejected the "compelling need" standard for production of tax +returns. See cases cited above. +5 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 158 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2010 Page 6 of 10 +production of tax returns is consistent with authority in this District and the Eleventh Circuit, and +thus should be affirmed. +III. EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT'S FINANCIAL +STATUS AND HISTORY IS RELEVANT TO +PUNITIVE DAMAGES, AMONG OTHER ISSUES +Defendant does not go so far as to contend that the discovery of his tax returns is not +relevant under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26. Defendant only argues that the Magistrate Judge did not address +the relevancy standard in her Order. (Appeal, p. 25). As a result, Defendant does nothing to +show that the Magistrate Judge's Order as to tax returns is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. +In any event, it is abundantly clear that Defendant's financial status and history are relevant to +punitive damages, among other issues in these cases, and in this regard the Defendant's tax +returns are pertinent and discoverable. Tennant v. Charlton, 377 So.2d 1169 (Fla. 1979) (holding +that party may obtain tax returns for purposes of net worth discovery on issue of punitive +damages). See also State v. O'Malley, 53 S. W. 3d 623 (Mo. App. 2001) (li]t is well settled that +when a plaintiff seeks punitive damages against a defendant, evidence of the defendant's +financial status is both relevant and admissible"); Interstate Narrow Fabrics, Inc. V. Century +USA, Inc., 2004 WL 444570 (M.D. N.C. 2004) (holding that tax returns are relevant to the jury's +determination of the amount of punitive damages to award); E.J. Lavino & Co. v. Universal +Health Services, Inc., 1991 WL 275767 (E.D. Pa. 1991) ("[m]ost courts that have considered this +issue have held that a plaintiff seeking punitive damages may discovery information pertaining +to a defendant's net worth"). +Defendant further argues that he should not have to produce his tax returns until it +becomes apparent" that "punitive damages will be an issue." (Appeal, p. 26). This argument +ignores Florida law on punitive damages. It is well established that "punitive damages are +always recoverable in intentional tort cases where malice is one of the essential elements of the +6 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 158 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2010 Page 7 of 10 +tort." Ciamar Marcay, Inc. v. Monteiro Da Costa, 508 So.2d 1282 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) +(emphasis supplied). "In Florida it is clear that an act of intentional assault and battery +committed without legal justification supplies proof of malice." Joab, Inc. v. Thrall, 245 So.2d +291 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971). Therefore, it is clear in this intentional tort case that punitive damages +are an issue. As this Court knows, Defendant Epstein is alleged to have perpetrated a plan and +scheme to sexually molest dozens of underage teenage girls." +Even assuming that the "compelling need" standard were applicable for discovery of tax +returns, clearly in this case there is a compelling need. Defendant has provided no net worth +discovery, asserting a blanket Fifth Amendment privilege.* Defendant nonetheless contends that +there exists an "alternative" - not to discovery of the necessary information, but through his offer +to "stipulate" to a net worth in the nine figures. Of course, a stipulation requires the consent of +the parties and there is no agreement in this case on the Defendant's net worth. Defendant +cannot unilaterally by fiat claim a certain net worth for purposes of trial. The law is well +established that a jury may determine punitive damages "by exacting from [the defendant's] +pocketbook a sum of money which, according to his financial ability, will hurt, but not +" Defendant's reliance on Gallina v. Commerce and Industry Ins., 2008 WL 3895918 (M.D. Fla. +2008) is misplaced. Gallina is an insurance bad faith case and does not involve a claim of +punitive damages against an intentional tortfeasor. Moreover, in the present case it would make +no sense to have a different "stage" for punitive damages discovery or trial. +4 "[T]he burden to identify an alternative source of the information lies with the resisting party." +Interstate Narrow Fabrics, 2004 WL 444570 at *2. Here, Epstein's blanket Fifth Amendment +privilege assertion to all net worth discovery makes it clear that there is a compelling need for +any net worth discovery not protected by the Fifth Amendment privilege. +S Defendant relies upon Myers v. Central Florida Investment, Inc., 592 F.3d 1201 (11th Cir. +2010) for its "stipulation" argument. In Myers, however, the district court heard testimony +regarding each of the defendant's net worth. There was no unilateral statement of net worth in +Myers as Defendant wishes to create in the instant case. To the extent that Defendant relies +upon the Court's holding in Myers regarding the reasonableness of the trial court's award of +punitive damages, the issue of reasonableness is determined by the particular facts and +circumstances of the case and the discussion in Myers of this issue has no relevance here. Id. +7 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 158 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2010 Page 8 of 10 +bankrupt." Joab, Inc. v. Thrall, 245 So.2d 291 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971) (emphasis supplied). +Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to discovery on the Defendant's real net worth so that the jury +will be in a position to make an award that "will hurt". In any event, it seems beyond dispute +that Defendant's tax returns are relevant and discoverable, either under a straight relevance test +under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26 or a heightened "compelling need" standard. +Conclusion +Based on the foregoing, the Magistrate Judge's Orders as to Defendant's production of +tax returns in response to Plaintiffs" document request no. 1 are not clearly erroneous and not +contrary to law. As a result, the Magistrate Judge's Orders as to production of tax returns should +be affirmed. Plaintiffs respectfully request that the documents responsive to Plaintiffs' document +request no. 1 be ordered to be produced forthwith. +Dated: May 28, 2010. +Respectfully submitted, +By: s/ Stuart S. Mermelstein +Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245) +ssm(@sexabuseattorney.com +Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980) +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P.A. +Attorneys for Plaintiffs +18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 +Miami, Florida 33160 +Tel: (305) 931-2200 +Fax: (305) 931-0877 +8 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 158 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2010 Page 9 of 10 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I hereby certify that on May 28, 2010, I electronically filed the foregoing document with +the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served +this day to all parties on the attached Service List in the manner specified, either via transmission +of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for +those parties who are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing. +Is/ Stuart S. Mermelstein + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 158 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2010 Page 10 of 10 +SERVICE LIST +DOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +jgoldberger@agwpa.com +Robert D. Critton, Esq. +rcritton @bclclaw.com +James +bedwards@rra-law.com +Isidro Manuel +isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net +Jack +jph@searcylaw.com +Katherine Warthen Ezell +KEzell@podhurst.com +Michael James Pike +MPike@bclclaw.com +Paul G. Cassell +cassellp@law.utah.edu +Richard Horace Willits +lawyerwillits@aol.com +Robert C. Josefsberg +rjosefsberg@ podhurst.com +10 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a9d30d4ac3922077e1e6b208e845e99c906cf01001586f9825e4e76a78ec5b26.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a9d30d4ac3922077e1e6b208e845e99c906cf01001586f9825e4e76a78ec5b26.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a409554ceab6904941af1d3132f30b06ba985151 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a9d30d4ac3922077e1e6b208e845e99c906cf01001586f9825e4e76a78ec5b26.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -122, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "a9d30d4ac3922077e1e6b208e845e99c906cf01001586f9825e4e76a78ec5b26", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 11, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "72da543696e0c09bf144e9c923385cb2e706de6de52346d7db02ba3496d73495", + "output_sha256": "63faceedae220e49c822215e9b2eb19e8ef134906e279a70a10f74a9e0f8a8ec", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a9d4721ec08ecb8730ced3d8f55674a8695f4dc463f552bc4ca79331ee8444e7.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a9d4721ec08ecb8730ced3d8f55674a8695f4dc463f552bc4ca79331ee8444e7.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..28002d04f4e78d4f36a5b99558131907705c940c --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a9d4721ec08ecb8730ced3d8f55674a8695f4dc463f552bc4ca79331ee8444e7.md @@ -0,0 +1,342 @@ +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 93 Filed 01/29/21 + +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK +X +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff, +V. +DARREN K. INDYKE and RICHARD D. +KAHN, in their capacities as executors of +the ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, an individual, +Defendants. +20-cv-00484-JGK +------ +DEFENDANT GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO +DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE PURSUANT TO FRCP 41(A)(2) +Laura A. Menninger +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca +HADDON, _ +150 East 10" Avenue +Denver, CO 80203 +303.831.7364 +, AND +P.C. + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 93 Filed 01/29/21 Page 2 of 12 +Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell hereby responds to plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss with +Prejudice Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). +INTRODUCTION +This Court has the authority to -- and should -- impose two additional conditions on +plaintiff's requested dismissal with prejudice. First, the Court should order plaintiff to disclose +to Ms. Maxwell the signed release she executed with the Estate of Epstein that purports to +release Ms. Maxwell as a former employee of an Epstein-related entity. Disclosure of the release +will protect Ms. Maxwell's legal interests in (a) any future civil proceeding involving these +parties, by serving as evidence of the actual name of the releasor, and (b) in her upcoming +criminal trial, where she enjoys a constitutional, inviolate right to confront her accusers, +including with evidence of their financial motive to fabricate stories against her. +Second, the Court should strike from plaintiff's proposed order the request for each party +to bear its own costs and fees. Although Ms. Maxwell is not seeking an order for her fees and +costs in connection with the dismissal of this case from this Court, she reserves her right to do so +in any future litigation against plaintiff and by way of her currently-filed indemnification lawsuit +against the Estate in the U.S. Virgin Islands. Ms. Maxwell believes that plaintiff knew at the +time she moved for service of her Complaint on Ms. Maxwell that she intended to participate in +the Epstein Victim's Compensation Fund ("EVCF"), that Ms. Maxwell would be released as a +result of her participation in that fund, and also that Ms. Maxwell would shortly be indicted in +the Southern District of New York. Ms. Maxwell should not be prejudiced in her ability to +pursue claims against plaintiff for abuse of process or malicious prosecution for bringing this +lawsuit and to therein seek as damages recovery of her fees and costs in connection with her +defense here. +1 + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 93 Filed 01/29/21 Page 3 of 12 +Both conditions are necessary "terms" that are "proper" within the meaning of Rule +41(a)(2), and Ms. Maxwell respectfully requests that the Court order them as such. +Legal Standards +Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2) provides "an action may be dismissed at the plaintiff's request +only by court order, on terms that the court considers proper." Additional terms may be +necessary to protect the interests of the defendant. See Mercer Tool Corp. v. Friedr. Dick +GmbH, 175 F.R.D. 173, 175 (E.D.N.Y. 1997) ("The primary purpose of Rule 41(a)(2) is to +protect the interest of the defendant.") (citations omitted). The Second Circuit specifically +authorizes the imposition of additional conditions to a plaintiff's request for a voluntary +dismissal. See Cross Westchester Dev. Corp. v. Chiulli, 887 F.2d 431, 432 (2d Cir. 1989) ("The +purpose of authorizing terms and conditions on a voluntary dismissal is to protect the defendant +from prejudice."); see also Gravatt v. Columbia Univ., 845 F.2d 54, 56 (2d Cir. 1988); 9 Fed. +Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 2366 (4th ed.) ("The terms and conditions imposed by the district court +upon granting a Rule 41(a)(2) voluntary dismissal motion generally are for the defendant's +protection"). +"The terms and conditions that may be imposed on a Rule 41(a)(2) dismissal are not +limited to paying money. The district court may grant a dismissal on condition that the plaintiff +produce documents or agree to allow any discovery in the dismissed action to be used in any +subsequent action or otherwise reduce the inconvenience to the defendant caused by the +dismissed case." 9 Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 2366 (4th ed.); see also In re Wellbutrin XL +Antitrust Litigation, 268 F.R.D. 539, 543-44 (E.D. Pa. 2010) ("Courts have imposed a variety of +terms and conditions, including the imposition of costs or attorneys' fees or requirements that +2 + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 93 Filed 01/29/21 Page 4 of 12 +the plaintiff produce documents or agree to allow discovery to be used in any subsequent +action.") (citing 9| +& +, Federal Practice and Procedure, $ 2366)). +In its most recent decision on the "rarely litigated" Rule 41(a)(2), the Second Circuit +concluded that a district court can impose conditions on a proposed dismissal with prejudice so +long as the plaintiff is permitted the opportunity to accept dismissal on those conditions or +continue the litigation if it deems those conditions too onerous. Paysys Int'l, Inc. v. Atos IT* +Servs. Ltd., 901 F.3d 105, 109 (2d Cir. 2018). Specifically, the Circuit concluded that courts +have the power to impose conditions on the dismissal (in that case, the imposition of attorneys" +fees), and plaintiff then had "the choice between accepting the conditions and obtaining +dismissal" or "if he feels that the conditions are too burdensome, withdrawing his dismissal +motion and proceeding with the case on the merits." Id. (quotation omitted). +Later cases are in accord, holding that courts can impose conditions to overcome +prejudice to the defendant by the dismissal sought by the plaintiff, giving the plaintiff the +opportunity to accept the conditions and obtain the dismissal or reject the conditions and +continue suit. In +J. Burchett Photography, Inc. v. A.P. Moller Maersk A/S, No. 19 CIV. +1576 (KPF), 2020 WL 1285511, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 17, 2020), one of the conditions requested +is a condition requested here - removal or revision of language that the parties would bear their +own attorneys' fees and costs. The Court noted the American Rule and expressed no opinion on +whether the defendant might be able to obtain fees and costs in later litigation. However, given +the possibility of recovery, as a condition of the requested Rule 41(a)(2) dismissal, the Court +adopted the defendants' proposed language regarding fees as a condition of dismissal, affording +the plaintiff the opportunity to accept or reject that conditions to obtain the dismissal order +sought. Id.; accord Grgurev v. Licul, No. 1:15-CV-9805-GHW, 2020 WL 2415698, at *4 +3 + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 93 Filed 01/29/21 Page 5 of 12 +(S.D.N.Y. May 12, 2020) (granting 41(a)(2) dismissal on condition that "Plaintiffs must stipulate +that Defendants will be permitted to litigate their counterclaims in state court to cure prejudice to +the Defendants"). +Ms. Maxwell thus requests that the Court impose the above conditions on the Rule +41(a)(2) order of dismissal requested by plaintiff. At that point, plaintiff can elect to accept those +conditions and obtain the dismissal she seeks or proceed with the case on its merits. +I. The Requested Conditions Are Necessary to Preserve Ms. Maxwell's Legal +Interests +A. Condition 1: Disclosure of an Unredacted Copy of Plaintiff's Release +Necessary for Future Litigation Purposes +1. Protects Ms. Maxwell against any future civil litigation from plaintiff. +Plaintiff brought this suit anonymously - yet she resists disclosure of a signed, authentic +copy of her release which, counsel can only presume, would bar plaintiff from bringing a future +lawsuit in some other forum at some other time against Ms. Maxwell. Plaintiff's name is not on +this lawsuit, so a dismissal with prejudice of this case would not evidence this particular Jane +Doe's prohibition on re-litigation. See Dkt. 5 (Motion to Proceed by Pseudonym); Dkt. 87 +(plaintiff's proposed terms of dismissal lacking any reference to her name). A simple search on +the CM/ECF system reveals the dozens of Jane Doe lawsuits brought against Epstein and his +Estate following the passage of New York's claim revival statute. +A simple review of the release purportedly signed by plaintiff in connection with her +decision to accept an offer from the EVCP reveals why Ms. Maxwell needs a signed, authentic +copy. First, Ms. Maxwell's name is not specifically spelled out on the release itself. See Ex. A +("General Release from the Epstein Victims' Compensation Program"). Rather, the release +purportedly extends to the Estate, Epstein Entities, and a number of different persons associated +4 + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 93 Filed 01/29/21 Page 6 of 12 +with the Estate or Epstein. Id. at 2-3. Based on the representations of counsel, Ms. Maxwell +believes that she would be covered by any release signed by plaintiff. Notably, however, the +release contains a provision that states, "This General Release specifically does not include +as a Releasee or released party under this Agreement." Id. at 4. Did plaintiff include +Ms. Maxwell's name in that blank before signing the release? Ms. Maxwell certainly does not +know. The release also contains the amount of compensation offered to plaintiff in consideration +for her release. Id. at 1. +Should plaintiff (Jane Doe) opt to sue Ms. Maxwell in some other jurisdiction in some +other court of law at some unspecified time in the future, Ms. Maxwell needs the signed, +authentic, unredacted copy of this release as the proof she needs to plead claim and issue +preclusion as a defense to any such lawsuit. A copy of the Complaint and dismissal in this case +will not suffice; the suit was brought anonymously and there is no pleading containing plaintiff's +true name on the docket or associated with plaintiff's motion to dismiss with prejudice. Without +an authentic copy of the release, Ms. Maxwell would be unable to establish who had sued her +previously and the extent of the associated dismissal. See, e.g., Ex. A at 1-2 (release extends to +all claims "whether now existing, hereafter existing or revived in the future" and whether they +arose *in Florida, New Mexico, New York, the United States Virgin Islands, France or any other +country, state, territory, possession or jurisdiction or otherwise"). +Plaintiff offers no justification for her refusal to provide a signed and executed copy to +Ms. Maxwell, one of the purported releasees. Certainly, the EVCP does not prohibit her from +sharing the information. The confidentiality of the program expressly does not prohibit any of +the claimants from sharing information associated with their claim or compensation. See Epstein +Victims' Compensation Program at 8-9 (May 29, 2020) ("Individual Claimants are not bound +5 + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 93 Filed 01/29/21 Page 7 of 12 +through the Program by any rules of confidentiality.").' Despite knowing this was a requested +term, plaintiff completely failed to address the request in her Motion. There simply is no +justification for keeping a copy of the release from one of the putative releasees and the person +against whom plaintiff instituted this anonymous action. Ms. Maxwell needs a signed and +executed release so that she has a legally enforceable document to seek dismissal of any future +claim brought by plaintiff. +2. Protects Ms. Maxwell's confrontation rights in her criminal trial +Ms. Maxwell further needs a copy of the signed, authentic release to pursue her +constitutional right to confront her accusers in her ongoing criminal case. Plaintiff has not +denied that she is a likely witness in the upcoming criminal trial in United States v. Maxwell, 20 +cr 330 (AJN).? The allegations in this civil complaint track closely with those contained in the +Indictment against Ms. Maxwell, thus there is a reasonable assumption that plaintiff may be a +government witness. If so, Ms. Maxwell is entitled to cross examine her on the allegations in the +Complaint, including her demands for millions of dollars at the same time she was pursuing a +criminal case against Ms. Maxwell. The lack of the signed, unredacted release including the +amount of compensation prejudices Ms. Maxwell's ability to confront plaintiff during her +criminal trial on her bias and motive for fabrication. A criminal defendant "states a violation of +the Confrontation Clause by showing that [s]he was prohibited from engaging in otherwise +appropriate cross-examination designed to show a prototypical form of bias on the part of the +'https://www.epsteinvcp.com/documents/4 +2 The U.S. Attorney's Office still refuses to identify to Ms. Maxwell the accusers +mentioned in the Indictment. See Dkt. # 80 (Government motion to intervene and stay case) at 3 +n.3 ("Judge Nathan held that Maxwell is not entitled to know who the Government's trial +witnesses are at this stage of the criminal case [so] the Government is not including detailec +information in this letter about who those trial witnesses might be and will not engage with +Maxwell's speculation as to who those witnesses might be."). +6 + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 93 Filed 01/29/21 Page 8 of 12 +witness, and thereby 'to expose to the jury the facts from which jurors could appropriately draw +inferences relating to the reliability of the witness." Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 +(1986) (quoting +v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 318, (1974)). "[T]he exposure of a witness' +motivation in testifying is a proper and important function of the constitutionally protected right +of cross-examination.'" Olden v. Kentucky, 488 U.S. 227, 231 (1988) (quoting| +, 415 U.S. at +316-17). The amount of money plaintiff sought, and accepted, from the EVCP, qualifies as +exculpatory Brady material. C. f. Moore v. Marr, 254 F.3d 1235, 1244 (10th Cir. 2001) +(witness's "application for victim compensation payments and application for and receipt of +emergency victim compensation payments may well have been 'favorable' within the meaning +of Brady," requiring government disclosure of exculpatory evidence to criminal defendants).3 +Without knowledge of the complete terms of plaintiff's agreement with the Estate, +including the settlement obtained, Ms. Maxwell and her counsel are precluded from fully crossexamining plaintiff. If the sum is large, the motive for fabrication of stories and the existence of +bias are obvious. If the sum is small, yet was accepted, the credibility of any of plaintiff's +allegations are cast into serious doubt. Regardless, Ms. Maxwell is entitled to the information of +complete terms, including economic terms, of the agreement with the Epstein Estate under the +EVCP to enable her to fully exercise her Constitutional rights under the Confrontation Clause at +her criminal trial in the cross examination of plaintiff should she appear as a witness. Including +the production of an unredacted copy of the release executed by plaintiff as a condition of +dismissal of this case will prevent the legal prejudice of impairing Ms. Maxwell's rights under +3 It is unknown if the Government, who intervened in this case, is in possession of a nonredacted copy of plaintiff's agreements and, if so, when it plans to produce them as Brady or +Giglio material in the criminal matter if plaintiff is indeed a prosecution witness. +7 + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 93 Filed 01/29/21 Page 9 of 12 +the Sixth Amendment to confront the witnesses against her and to the assistance of effective +counsel. See U.S. Const. amend. 6; Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004). +B. Condition 2: Inclusion of clause requiring each party to bear its own costs +and fees prejudices Ms. Maxwell's right to prevailing party costs and to +bring future suit for abuse of process or malicious prosecution +Ms. Maxwell seeks the second condition - removal of the language "each party shall bear +its own attorney's fees and costs of suit" 4 - to preserve her rights to seek her costs as the +prevailing party and to sue plaintiff for damages. +First, Ms. Maxwell is the prevailing party as a result of plaintiff's voluntary dismissal +with prejudice and therefore is entitled to costs as a matter of law. Rule 54(d)(1) provides that +"[u]nless a federal statute, these rules, or a court order provides otherwise, costs—other than +attorney's fees— should be allowed to the prevailing party." "Courts consistently have found +defendants to be prevailing parties where the action against them was voluntarily dismissed with +prejudice." Ctr. for Discovery, Inc. v. D.P., No. 16-CV-3936 (MK) BRER, 2018 WL 1583971, at +*14 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2018); see Beer v. John Hancock Life Ins. Co., 211 F.R.D. 67, 70 +(N.D.N.Y. 2002) ("All circuit courts to have directly addressed this issue have concluded that a +defendant [who has obtained a voluntary dismissal with prejudice] is a prevailing party, or +alternatively, that a district court has discretion to award costs to the defendant."); see +also Carter v. Inc. Vill. of Ocean Beach, 759 F.3d 159, 165 (2d Cir. 2014) (disclaiming prior ++ Plaintiff failed to submit an actual Proposed Order, instead asking that the "Court +dismiss her case with prejudice and in accordance with the terms set forth in the partially +executed stipulation for dismissal." See Motion, Conclusion, at 7. Putting aside the procedural +deficiency in the failure to provide a Proposed Order, this Court cannot enter an "order" that is +stated in terms of a "Stipulation" to which the parties have not agreed, including terms such as +"It is hereby Stipulated" and "It is Further Stipulated." Compare Rule 41(a)(1)(2) (permitting +dismissal by a stipulation "signed by all parties who have appeared"). Ms. Maxwell is aware of +no rule or precedent that would permit the Court to order her to "stipulate" to something to +which she has not agreed. +8 + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 93 Filed 01/29/21 Page 10 of 12 +Second Circuit dicta which stated that "generally the defendant is not considered the prevailing +party when, as here, there is a voluntary dismissal of the action by the plaintiff with prejudice." +(citations omitted)). "A voluntary dismissal of an action with prejudice [is considered to +materially alter the relationship of the parties], because it constitutes an adjudication on the +merits for purposes of res judicata."" Carter, 759 F.3d at 165 (citation omitted). +In this response, Ms. Maxwell is not presently seeking attorneys' fees from plaintiff. Yet, +plaintiff's proposed language would prejudice Ms. Maxwell from pursuing all future legal +remedies against plaintiff for her false and baseless allegations here. Ms. Maxwell should not be +precluded from pursuing damages (including her attorneys' fees incurred in defending this +action) in a different civil action premised upon the torts of abuse of process or malicious +prosecution. +Ms. Maxwell is legally entitled to be deemed the prevailing party, with all rights that +flow naturally therefrom, including an award of costs in this case as the prevailing party and the +right to pursue claims any appropriate legal remedies should she later so choose. Inclusion of the +language in the "stipulation" proposed by plaintiff legally prejudices Ms. Maxwell's ability to do +SO. +II. Plaintiff's Request for Alternative Relief Unsupported by Law +Without any legal support, plaintiff seeks as "alternative relief" an order by this Court rewriting the terms of the EVCP, carving out the portion of the release that admittedly applies to +Ms. Maxwell as a former employee of Epstein-related entities. Not only does plaintiff fail to cite +any legal support for this request, but she also makes it contingent upon an agreement by the +EVCP (not a party to this action) to its "settlement obligations." Motion at 3. +Because there is no legal (or factual) support for plaintiff's request, Ms. Maxwell asks +this Court to deny the "alternative" relief sought. +9 + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 93 Filed 01/29/21 Page 11 of 12 +CONCLUSION +For the foregoing reasons, Ms. Maxwell respectfully requests that the Court impose as +conditions of any Rule 41(a)(2) Order of Dismissal with Prejudice that: +1. Plaintiff shall provide to Ms. Maxwell an unredacted and signed copy of the release +she has executed with the Epstein Victims' Compensation Program, including the amount of +compensation she stands to receive in exchange for such release and including her legal name; +and +2. Remove any language ordering each party to bear its own costs and attorneys' fees in +connection with this action. +A Proposed Order is provided herewith for the Court's convenience. +Dated: January 29, 2021 +Respectfully submitted, +s/ Laura A. Menninger +Laura A. Menninger (LM-1374) +Jeffrey S. Pagliuca (pro hac vice) +HADDON, +AND +150 East 10* Avenue +Denver, CO 80203 +Phone: +303.831.7364 +Fax: +303.832.2628 +Imenninger@hmflaw.com +jpagliuca@hmflaw.com +Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell +P.C. +10 + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 93 Filed 01/29/21 Page 12 of 12 +Certificate of Service +I hereby certify that on January 29, 2021, I electronically filed the foregoing Defendant +Ghislaine Maxwell's Response to Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice Pursuant To +FRCP 41(A)(2) with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification +of such filing to the following: +Kevin Boyle +Robert Glassman +Panish, Shea & Boyle +11111 Santa Monica Blvd., Ste 700 +Los Angeles, CA 90025 +boyle@psblaw.com +glassman@psblaw.com +Bennet J. Moskowitz +Charles L. Glover +Mary L +W. Metcalfe +Troutman Pepper L +Sanders LLP +875 Third Avenue +New York, NY 10022 +bennet.moskowitz@troutman.com +charles.glover@troutman.com +marygrace.metcalfe@troutman.com +Molly S. DiRago +Sanders LLP +Chicago, IL 60606 +molly.dirago@troutman.com +s/ Nicole +11 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a9d4721ec08ecb8730ced3d8f55674a8695f4dc463f552bc4ca79331ee8444e7.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a9d4721ec08ecb8730ced3d8f55674a8695f4dc463f552bc4ca79331ee8444e7.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ed59f2198796a4ea93a40aa98bfd549e9ed4140b --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a9d4721ec08ecb8730ced3d8f55674a8695f4dc463f552bc4ca79331ee8444e7.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -162, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "a9d4721ec08ecb8730ced3d8f55674a8695f4dc463f552bc4ca79331ee8444e7", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 16, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "2a7777cbe100dcea52383f12fd80eb3b06914ba7e97c835085dfa179468a8f9d", + "output_sha256": "ccec533a81189856e05d8ef64833b62d6933348c1d98313f197edf45deb71714", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a9e69c48b4d7203ad89e1dc3cf6dd978e2aa6238b50f294f7bc24ca703d900a5.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a9e69c48b4d7203ad89e1dc3cf6dd978e2aa6238b50f294f7bc24ca703d900a5.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..063c20109f1cb027a6201a7ed15c52db73ac900e --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a9e69c48b4d7203ad89e1dc3cf6dd978e2aa6238b50f294f7bc24ca703d900a5.md @@ -0,0 +1,37 @@ +Filing # 113753790 E-Filed 09/22/2020 12:05:28 PM +IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT +IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC, +Publisher of THE PALM BEACH POST, +Plaintiff, +V. +DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of +Palm Beach County, Florida, SHARON R. BOCK, +as Clerk & Comptroller, Palm Beach County, +Florida, +Defendants. +CASE NO: 2019-CA-014681 +DIVISION: AG +NOTICE OF HEARING +. Hurley Courthouse, 205 North Dixie Hwy., West Palm Beach, FL 33401 via Court Call. To join the +hearing, five (5) minutes prior to the above time, dial (855) 855-8556 and dial access code 2267793#. +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 22nd day of S +electronically filed with the Florida E-File Poral for e-ser +py of the foregoing has been +record herein. +& WYLER, LLC +Is/ Douglas A. Wyler +Arthur I. +_ Esq. +Fla. Bar No.: 10249 +Richard J. Scholz, Esq. +Fla. Bar No.: 0021261 +Douglas A. Wyler, Esq. +Fla. Bar No.: 119979 +961687 Gateway Blvd., Suite 201-1 +Fernandina Beach, Florida 32034 +(904) 261-3693 +(904) 261-7879 Fax +Primary: jacobsscholzlaw@comcast.net +*** FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL SHARON R BOCK, CLERK. 09/22/2020 12:05:28 PM *** diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/a9e69c48b4d7203ad89e1dc3cf6dd978e2aa6238b50f294f7bc24ca703d900a5.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a9e69c48b4d7203ad89e1dc3cf6dd978e2aa6238b50f294f7bc24ca703d900a5.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e0a65509f1a104992bf1145516ee550e324a903e --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/a9e69c48b4d7203ad89e1dc3cf6dd978e2aa6238b50f294f7bc24ca703d900a5.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "a9e69c48b4d7203ad89e1dc3cf6dd978e2aa6238b50f294f7bc24ca703d900a5", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "0a1c3af2f927c63a171c550f615f1417558e3f971c756090c858ebc60961d634", + "output_sha256": "400d0579f8b895202e4e47a3b173d9b8753fc3c5b0c787f39b217f54c10baa5d", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +}