EFTA00144187.pdf

DataSet-10 Unknown 7 pages

-1 of 7 - FD-302 (Rev. 5-8-10) FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Date of entry 11/04/2021 JANUSZ BANASIAK (BANASIAK), date of birth (DOB) , was interviewed at 380 Trinity Place, West Palm Beach FL. Present for this interview was . After being advised of the identity of the above listed individual and the nature of the interview, BANASIAK provided the following information: BANASIAK wants to make correction on a previous statement he made about the phone book with black cover. He states its not black, its maybe silver or metal square on the front and back. He had previously mentioned that it was black because he remembers people saying someone was trying to sell the black book. The pages were in between the metal squares. In 1980 BANASIAK moved to the United States. He first lived in New York. Then he moved toto Virginia to work for Seagrams. BANASIAK then back to New York to apply for jobs. He moved to Brooklyn and was living with a friend. BANASIAK applied for the job with EPSTEIN through an employment agency. BANASIAK got a call about the job and then he interviewed with MAXWELL. That interview was in MAXWELL's New York house. This house was between Lexington Avenue and Park Avenue. It was a regular townhouse. Her office was on the first floor. The interview was about 3D minutes. MAXWELL asked BANASIAK where he worked before. MAXWELL tells BANASIAK that he will next be interviewing with EPSTEIN. BANASIAK then he interviewed with EPSTEIN about 2-3 days later. He interviewed with EPSTEIN in his office on Madison Avenue. It was about a 20 minute interview. They had told BANASIAK that the job opportunity is in Florida. Sometime later BANASIAK receives a call from the agency telling him that he got the job. He takes his belongings and moves to Florida. Banasiak lives in a small house on EPSTEIN's property. This house had about 3 bedrooms. BANASIAK lived there by himself. Investigationon 10/19/2021 at West Palm Beach, Florida, United States (In Person) File # 50D-NY-3027571 Datedraftcd 10/26/2021 by This document contains neither recommendations nor conclusions of the FBI. It is the piup rty of the FBI and is loaned to your agency; it and its contents arc not to be distributed outside your agency. EFTA00144187 FD-302a (Rev. 5-8-10) SOD-NY-3027571 Comthwdion of FD-302 of (U) Interview of JANUSZ BANASIAK ,o, 10/19/2021 ,page 2 of 7 BANASIAK's job was to make sure the house was ready for when they arrived. He would make sure the pool was clean, would garden, shop, buy flowers and clean windows. BANASIAK would drive EPSTEIN and his assistants including MAXWELL. When BANASIAK started working for EPSTEIN there was a manual. He doesn't remember who gave it to him but he did read it. The manual explains how to prepare the house. There was also another person working named LUELLA. LUELLA had mentioned something to BANASIAK about what EPSTEIN likes but most of the information BANASIAK got was from MAXWELL. MAXWELL tells BANASIAK what EPSTEIN's favorite foods are, what flowers he likes, where to buy groceries, how to answer phone and what he likes. BANASIAK remembers meeting with FBI previously and he gave them the receipts of purchases he made for the house using petty cash. It was either MAXWELL or the accountant the told BANASIAK how to use the petty cash. BANASIAK would remove money from the bank for gas, groceries and such ($2000 at a time). BANASIAK would make a report on the computer of all the expenses. BANASIAK was taught how to do this when he first got hired. After he spends the $2000 BANASIAK would take out another $2000 cash. This was prior to them moving to credit card purchases. BANASIAK IS SHOWN COPY OF THE HOUSEHOLD MANUAL. BANASIAK states "Yes I recognize this, this is the manual that I mentioned to you guys." BANASIAK states this is what he had previously described to "you" (Moe, Pomerantz, Byrne) over the phone. BANASIAK read this on his first day while in bed. BANASIAK does not remember if it was a bound book. BANASIAK thinks it may have just been paper like this and stapled together. BANASIAK recognizes the text in the manual for example how to answer the phone and how to maintain the bathrooms. EPSTEIN did not answer the phones. MAXWELL tells BANASIAK to answer the phones and what to say. BANASIAK is told to introduce myself and say this is EPSTEIN residence. BANASIAK is not allowed to tell that person on the phone if EPSTEIN is there or not. BANASIAK would take a message and then write it down in a message book. If it was a short message BANASIAK would write it down right away while still on the phone. If it was a long message BANASIAK might write it after he hangs up. Either way the message was to be EFTA00144188 FD-302a (Rev. 5-8-10) 50D-NY-3027571 ComthuationafFD-302of (U) Interview of JANUSZ BANASIAK on 10/19/2021 i pag, 3 of 7 written right away and never the next day. BANASIAK IS THEN SHOWN MESSAGE PADS ITEM #2 1B1-2A (exhibit 1) BANASIAK states this is the message book that they would write all the messages in when people call. BANASIAK recognize his handwriting and signature on the following messages: 2/2/05 2,3,4 2/5/05 2 2/13/05 3,4 2/16/05 1,2 2/18/05 2,4 2/24/05 1,2 ITEM #2 181-2C (exhibit 3) BANASIAK does not recognize his handwriting in this book. 182-36 (exhibit 4) BANASIAK recognize his handwriting and signature on the following messages: 2/4/05 2,3,4 2/4/05 1(CHELA),2,3,4 2/12/05 3,4 2/15/04 1,2,3 2/22/05 1,2,3,4 EFTA00144189 FD-302a (Rev. 5-8-10) 50D-NY-3027571 ComthuationafFD-302of (U) Interview of JANUSZ BANASIAK .o n 10/19/2021 m g, 4 of 7 2/26/05 3 2/28/05 1,2,3,4 2/28/05 1(LARRY NEWMAN),2 3/1/05 3 3/5/05 1,3 3/8/05 1,2,3,4 3/9/05 1(TATHUM),2,3,4 2/18/05 1(DR GARECKI),2,4 3/18/05 2(JEFF STELY),4 3/22/05 3,4 3/29/05 1,2,3,4 4/1/05 1,2,3,4 4/10/05 1,2,3,4 4/10/05 1(GEORGE DAWSON),2,3,4 4/11/05 1,2,3,4 4/20/05 1,3,4 5/7/05 1,2,4 5/5/05 2,3 5/21/05 1,2,3,4 5/23/05 1,2,3,4 5/29/05 1,2,3 6/10/05 1,2,4 6/12/05 1,3 EFTA00144190 FD-302a (Rev. 5-8-10) 50D-NY-3027571 ComthuationafFD-302of (U) Interview of JANUSZ BANASIAK a 10/19/2021 mg, 5 of 7 6/18/05 3,4 6/22/05 1,2,3,4 7/1/05 1 7/7/05 1,2,4 7/17/05 1,2,3,4 7/23/05 1,3,4 8/15/05 1,2,4 8/18/05 2,4 8/20/05 1,2,3,4 8/20/05 1(TONY),2,3,4 9/3/05 1,2,3,4 When EPSTEIN would arrive with the girls BANASIAK would try to give them space or privacy so he wouldn't answer as many phone calls during that time. BANASIAK started working for EPSTEIN in 2005 and stopped in 2017. BANASIAK is asked if he ever learned that there was an investigation into EPSTEIN. BANASIAK states that one day police showed up with a search warrant at the house. That's when BANASIAK learned that there was an investigation. BANASIAK sitting at his computer in the home on the property that he was living in. He saw 4-5 guys show up through the window. They stepped in and introduced themselves, showed and read BANASIAK the search warrant. They told me they had to search the house. BANASIAK was present for the search. There was also a designer for the house present as well. They put everyone aside during the search. BANASIAK then learned what EPSTEIN was accused of in the newspapers. BANASIAK lived in that small house on the property until 2017. BANASIAK is EFTA00144191 FD-302a (Rev. 5-8-10) SOD-NY-3027571 continuation of FD-302 of (U) Interview of JANUSZ BANASIAK ,o, 10/19/2021 ,page 6 of 7 asked if he ever came to understand what was going on with EPSTEIN's case. BANASIAK remembers that EPSTEIN wasn't present on the day of the search warrant. BANASIAK called the New York office. They called him back and wanted BANASIAK to deliver the warrant papers to EPSTEIN's lawyer. BANASIAK believes he called after the warrant was done because police asked them to not make any calls. After the warrant BANASIAK learned about what EPSTEIN was accused of in the papers and on TV. BANASIAK never talked to EPSTEIN about it. EPSTEIN didn't talk very friendly with the staff. If EPSTEIN wanted something to be done in the house he would tell the office and then they would tell BANASIAK. EPSTEIN spent the whole year traveling from one house to another (New York, New Mexico, Paris and FLorida). EPSTEIN never stayed in Palm Beach for more than a week. After the warrant they renovated the house. They rebuilt the walls and floor and EPSTEIN was not there during this time which was about 6-8 months. BANASIAK did not talk to EPSTEIN during this time. BANASIAK thought maybe EPSTEIN was in New York or other places. EPSTEIN showed up one day to appear in court in Palm Beach. This is the time BANASIAK saw him after the warrant. Since then BANASIAK learns that EPSTEIN pleads guilty and goes to jail. BANASIAK had picked EPSTEIN up at the airport. EPSTEIN stayed for 2-3 days prior to his court date. BANASIAK knew he was going to court because BANASIAK drove him to the court. BANASIAK read in the news that EPSTEIN plead guilty to solicitation of underage prostitution. BANASIAK was shocked when he learned this. BANASIAK has not seen anything that what EPSTEIN was accused of. BANASIAK knew they were coming and going but didn't see anyone being forced. If he would have known something was going on he would have said something. BANASIAK thought about changing his job. He even looked and called around. BANASIAK thought it was better to stay than to find another job. There wasn't a lot of work for BANASIAK to do with EPSTEIN because he was in jail. As time went on BANASIAK couldn't find anything better to work. BANASIAK was disappointed with EPSTEIN in what he was accused of. BANASIAK thinks it was wrong but he was settled down with his situation. BANASIAK started at $65,000 and got raises every year. After EPSTEIN got arrested, EFTA00144192 FD-302a (Rev. 5-8-10) 50D-NY-3027571 ComthuationafFD-302of (U) Interview of JANUSZ BANASIAK a 10/19/2021 ins, 7 of 7 BANASIAK was told EPSTEIN cut 10 % from everyone's pay. After EPSTEIN finished his sentence, he did not raise the employees back 10%. BANASIAK then seriously considered changing his job but nothing came up. The household manual was maybe given to BANASIAK by someone in the house but he is not sure who. BANASIAK doesn't know who wrote it. BANASIAK shared this manual with his coworkers. BANASIAK IS THEN SHOWN THE CHECKLISTS WITHIN THE HOUSEHOLD MANUAL BANASIAK recognizes the date and the signature portion. BANASIAK does not remember if he was ever asked to fill these out. BANASIAK remembers a copy of the manual being in the house but he is not sure where it was kept. EFTA00144193

EFTA01184011.pdf

DataSet-10 Unknown 71 pages

1 G3hdgium 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 2 3 4 Plaintiff, New York, N.Y. 5 v. 15 Civ. 7433(RWS) 6 GHISLAINE MAXWELL, 7 Defendant. 8 9 March 17, 2016 2:18 p.m. 10 Before: 11 HON. ROBERT W. SWEET, 12 District Judge 13 APPEARANCES 14 BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP 15 Attorneys for Plaintiff BY: SIGRID S. McCAWLEY 16 HADDON MORGAN AND FOREMAN, P.C. 17 Attorneys for Defendant BY: JEFFREY PAGLIUCA 18 LAURA A. MENNINGER 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA01184011 (212) 805-0300 EFTA01184012  2 G3hdgium 1 THE COURT: Thank you all very much. I'm sorry for 2 the inconvenience that I have imposed upon you. I'm sorry 3 about the inconvenience that you have imposed upon me. 4 But having said all of that, this really is the first 5 time that we've had an opportunity, I think, to get together on 6 this case. And let me just say, I think -- I mean, I'm not 7 sure but I think I understand the difficulties of this case. 8 There is an emotional element, obviously, throughout the case 9 on both sides, and I understand that. Fortunately, we're 10 blessed by excellent counsel and it would be nice if they can 11 avoid adopting the emotional flavor of their clients, and I 12 presume that they will be able to do that, it certainly will 13 help, because these issues are going to be difficult and I'm 14 well aware of it. 15 Now, at the outset, there is some discussion in these 16 papers about meet and confer. Let me make clear what I would 17 like from this day forward. On any discovery issues, I would 18 like to have a meet and confer. Now, I understand that defense 19 counsel are living in God's country and they're not cursed with 20 the metropolitan residence. I salute their good judgment in 21 that. And so I will say that I will not require you to meet in 22 person, but I will require you to meet. 23 And I would say this. If you have a meet and confer, 24 I would like to have correspondence between the parties as to 25 what the subject is so that there is an agreed agenda that's SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA01184013 (212) 805-0300 EFTA01184014  3 G3hdgium 1 written and we know that both sides know what it is, and that 2 will help me if, ultimately, the problem gets back to me. So I 3 would say exchange writing as to what it's going to be and have 4 a meeting. It doesn't have to be in person, but it certainly 5 has to be a significant meeting; it can't be just one 6 ten-minute telephone call. 7 So that's how I feel about the meet and confer. 8 Now, I'm not going to get into whether that's relevant 9 or not to the problems which we face today. That's just going 10 forward. As I say, I do hope that you all can -- it won't be 11 easy, but if you deal with these problems as the excellent 12 professionals that you are without the emotional implications, 13 having said that. 14 Now, how to go forward today? My thought is the 15 following. I have read your papers, and to say that I 16 understand the problems would be, I guess, a lie, but I'm 17 trying and you'll help me. I have a list of what I think our 18 issues are and I would like to go through this with you, and 19 then when I'm finished, if we have missed something, I'm sure 20 you will correct me. And I'd be pleased to hear if I determine 21 something, if you think that I'm wrong, that's fine, too. I 22 mean, you can tell me why you think I'm wrong. 23 Now, the first problem is the document -- the issue 24 about improper privilege claims. As I understand that issue, 25 it is the presence of Gow, Cohen and maybe somebody else as SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA01184015 (212) 805-0300 EFTA01184016  4 G3hdgium 1 defeating the privilege, on the one hand. On the other hand, 2 the assertion by the defense that their participation as 3 whatever they are, managers, public relations people, whatever, 4 is necessary for the rendering of legal advice. 5 Parenthetically, there is a subtext there about whose 6 law applies. Let me say, I think we are going to apply New 7 York law in this case. British law may become relevant in some 8 way or other down the road, but for this privilege purpose, I 9 think that's where we are. 10 I think what I would like is I would like any 11 materials that -- the obligation to establish this privilege is 12 obviously Ms. Maxwell's, and I would like any materials that 13 she wants to present to me about these meetings to establish 14 that it was necessary for the rendering of legal advice, I'll 15 review those materials in camera and try to reach a decision. 16 I may need something further after I have looked at them, but I 17 think that's the way I ought to deal with that particular 18 privilege issue. 19 There is a list of documents as to which objections 20 have been made on a variety of bases. I will say probably a 21 catalog of every objection known to the mind of excellent 22 attorneys, and I think we will try to deal with those this 23 afternoon and maybe we'll fail, but let's put those aside just 24 for the moment. 25 The question about a protective order, of course there SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA01184017 (212) 805-0300 EFTA01184018  5 G3hdgium 1 should be a protective order in this case. You are good 2 lawyers and you have been around this track more times than I 3 have and so you can prepare consensually a better protective 4 order than I can, and I urge you to do that. And, in fact, I 5 will give you two weeks to do that. Should you fail, you can 6 present whatever materials you wish to me and I will decide 7 what the protective order is going to be. That's not a good 8 idea because you know the case better than I do, obviously, and 9 so I urge you to resolve it by your litigation skills and not 10 leave it up to the ignorant district court judge who doesn't 11 really get into this kind of thing very often. So you run a 12 risk if you leave it to me. 13 Now, I would say two weeks, and then if you can't get 14 an agreement, maybe three weeks from now we wrestle with that. 15 Hopefully we won't. I have to do that. 16 The deposition -- the defendant of course will be 17 deposed, and we can work out right now when. Obviously, you 18 don't want that deposition until the protective order is 19 completed. So what do we do about that? Do you want to deal 20 with that today, the actual date of the deposition, or should 21 we pass that until we accomplish the protective order? What do 22 you all think about that? 23 MS. McCAWLEY: Can I be heard on that, your Honor? 24 This is Sigrid McCawley. I am counsel for Ms. 25 With respect to the deposition date, the 25th was the SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA01184019 (212) 805-0300 EFTA01184020  6 G3hdgium 1 date that my opposing counsel proposed as possibly being 2 available. So we set it for that date, which is next Friday. 3 We also offered to hold that deposition transcript confidential 4 until such time as the protective order could be issued so that 5 there is no barrier to us being able to take this deposition. 6 THE COURT: How about that? Is that OK? 7 MR. PAGLIUCA: Frankly, it is not, your Honor, and the 8 reason is we, clearly from the papers submitted so far and the 9 exchange of counsel, we have a significant disagreement at this 10 point as to what the word "confidential" actually means, and we 11 have proposed to the plaintiff a protective order that we 12 believe is appropriate and neutral -- 13 THE COURT: Well, maybe I can -- can we get over -- if 14 that's the primary issue on the protective order, can we deal 15 with that now? 16 MR. PAGLIUCA: I think there is a secondary -- well, 17 it may not even be secondary. There is another issue that is 18 directly related to that, your Honor, and that is the lack of 19 production of documents from the plaintiff. The Court has not 20 seen these papers yet, but there are in my view significant 21 deficiencies with the Rule 26 disclosures. There have been 22 failure to produce documents. And it is unfair at this point 23 to push these depositions forward without the required exchange 24 of discovery. 25 THE COURT: Let me ask the plaintiff. You really -- SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA01184021 (212) 805-0300 EFTA01184022  7 G3hdgium 1 MS. McCAWLEY: Could I be heard on that? Thank you, 2 your Honor. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt you. 3 THE COURT: What do you think? 4 MS. McCAWLEY: Right. The issue is so I issued my 5 deposition notice before they even served discovery requests. 6 THE COURT: OK. All right. 7 MS. McCAWLEY: I've done 3,000 pages. They've done 8 two emails. 9 THE COURT: Look, doesn't it make sense to resolve any 10 document discovery issues perhaps before the deposition? 11 MS. McCAWLEY: I don't think so, your Honor. I want 12 the testimony of this defendant in order to move this case 13 forward. Our discovery closes in July. I issued my discovery 14 requests in October. I have not gotten the deposition of the 15 defendant yet. This is a date she is available. She is not 16 leaving the country. She is not going anywhere. I have her in 17 town next Friday. 18 I'll even agree to their protective order if it means 19 I can get her deposition, your Honor. I just need to get this 20 case moving forward. I need one deposition, the deposition of 21 the defendant in this case, who has called my client a liar. 22 We are entitled to depose her and see if she is going to answer 23 the questions about why she was 24 THE COURT: All right. OK. 25 MS. McCAWLEY: I am entitled to answers. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA01184023 (212) 805-0300 EFTA01184024  8 G3hdgium 1 THE COURT: Well -- 2 MR. PAGLIUCA: Your Honor, I think this is a good 3 meeting and it is a meeting that should have happened a long 4 time ago. Let me say to the Court that we proposed to meet 5 with plaintiff's counsel early on in this case to put together 6 a discovery schedule that made sense. We proposed that orally 7 and in writing. That proposal was ignored and rebuffed. And 8 counsel for the plaintiff then unilaterally scheduled a bunch 9 of depositions without conferring on dates. Unilaterally, 10 here's the dates, here are the depositions. We then tried to 11 work through that issue, at the same time trying to work 12 through the protective order issue and the document issue, and 13 we get no response. And I think the agenda here is to gain a 14 tactical advantage by not responding to these requests. 15 THE COURT: Well, I can't believe that lawyers would 16 seek a tactical advantage. I can't believe such a thing. 17 MR. PAGLIUCA: I am shocked. 18 THE COURT: OK. Tell you what we're going to do. 19 We'll -- three weeks, let's see. Her deposition -- this 20 question about document production, that hasn't been teed up, 21 so I don't know -- 22 MS. McCAWLEY: And can I be heard on that really 23 quickly? I mean, If that were the standard, that they could 24 wait to -- 25 THE COURT: No. It hasn't been teed up, I agree. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA01184025 (212) 805-0300 EFTA01184026  9 G3hdgium 1 (Pause) 2 OK. Then I think what we should do is I'm assuming we 3 will resolve the protective order problem we've sort of slug 4 over the -- can we resolve what's confidential? Is that 5 possible? Could we do that this afternoon, or is that too 6 complicated? 7 MS. McCAWLEY: Your Honor, I can have the deposition 8 of the defendant in this case and move this case forward. I 9 will agree to their protective order. I just want that 10 deposition. 11 THE COURT: Yes. 12 MS. McCAWLEY: It is that important to me. 13 THE COURT: I get your point. I understand that. But 14 at the same time, I think, given the nature of all that lies in 15 this, I think it is fair to say no side would like to have this 16 aired, and so we've got to have a protective order that 17 everybody feels comfortable with. 18 MS. McCAWLEY: Your Honor, you can today enter the 19 protective order that they submit. I will disregard my 20 objections if I get the deposition. 21 THE COURT: Will you agree now to the protective 22 order? 23 MS. McCAWLEY: Yes. If it means I can get her 24 deposition, yes, I will do that. 25 THE COURT: Oh, OK. Good. Well, that solved that. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA01184027 (212) 805-0300 EFTA01184028  10 G3hdgium 1 MR. PAGLIUCA: It is not as simple as that, your 2 Honor, because this quid pro quo, I'll agree to their 3 protective order if I can have the deposition on the 25th, 4 doesn't solve the problem. 5 THE COURT: At least we've separated it. She has 6 agreed to the protective order. OK? So that's done. OK? 7 Now, why can't we have her deposition upon, whatever 8 it is, a week from Friday? 9 MS. McCAWLEY: Friday, the 25th, this coming Friday, a 10 week from tomorrow. 11 THE COURT: Oh, a week from tomorrow, yes. 12 MS. McCAWLEY: Yes. 13 MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, we served discovery 14 requests on plaintiff on February 12th. 15 THE COURT: Well, look, that's nice. That's good. 16 But I don't have that, and I think she's right that there is no 17 rule that says you have to get your discovery requests 18 satisfied before the deposition, so 19 MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, the responses were due 20 last night yesterday, so that is prior to Ms. Maxwell for the 21 25th. However, as a part of producing that discovery response, 22 they have said they're going to take a month to roll out their 23 production, not just 24 THE COURT: Look. I'll tell you what let's do. I 25 don't have that, but let's -- we'll hold the deposition date. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA01184029 (212) 805-0300 EFTA01184030  11 G3hdgium 1 When we get through with the rest of this stuff, we'll find out 2 if there is something in particular that you want prior to next 3 Friday and see what that is and see if we can get it. How is 4 that? 5 (Pause) 6 OK. Who pays for what and counsel, all of that? 7 Those are interesting problems and who knows how they all come 8 out. I think all of that is best served by reserving them 9 until the conclusion of the case, which is what I shall do. 10 The plaintiff wants to produce on a rolling basis and 11 to amend or add to the privilege log as the production goes 12 forward. I don't see any problem with that. 13 MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, that's actually the issue 14 I was just alluding to. I understand -- and I have said I 15 don't have a problem with plaintiff producing her documents 16 over the course of the month because she has said that it is a 17 hardship for her to produce them all last night, which is when 18 they were due. However, she's trying to take our client's 19 deposition in the middle of her rolling production, in other 20 words, show up at the deposition with the documents she happens 21 to get -- 22 THE COURT: That's what I'm saying. Maybe what we'll 23 do is to deal with the document production issue separately. 24 MS. MENNINGER: OK. 25 THE COURT: And if there are some documents that SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA01184031 (212) 805-0300 EFTA01184032  12 G3hdgium 1 really seem to be important and they cannot be produced, then 2 maybe we'll put over the -- we'll see how that works. 3 MS. McCAWLEY: Your Honor, I may be able to short 4 circuit this. 5 THE COURT: Pardon me? 6 MS. McCAWLEY: I may be able to short circuit this a 7 little bit. We produced 3,000 pages last night. We are 8 continuing that production. We are moving as fast as we can. 9 We produced a privilege log with over 134 entries on it. We 10 are continuing to move that forward as quickly as we can. 11 With respect to her deposition, your Honor, I'm happy 12 to provide them in advance every document I will be using at 13 her deposition. In other words, if that is their issue, if it 14 means I can get her deposition next Friday, I will share with 15 them any document I intend to use at that deposition. 16 THE COURT: That seems to solve the problem, don't you 17 think? 18 MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, I have to disagree. I got 19 this responsive objection last night at 9:30 p.m., while I was 20 here in New York. I've taken a look at it, and I can give your 21 Honor a sense of the types of objections that plaintiff has 22 lodged to our document request. For example, their client sold 23 her diary to Radar Online. It was published on Radar Online. 24 This diary contains plaintiff's allegations against my client. 25 So I asked for the diary that was sold to Radar Online. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA01184033 (212) 805-0300 EFTA01184034  13 G3hdgium 1 THE COURT: You get it. 2 MS. MENNINGER: It is copyright and proprietary 3 protected. We're not going to produce it. So that's the kind 4 of example -- 5 THE COURT: No. You get it. 6 MS. McCAWLEY: She doesn't have a diary. She might be 7 referring to something else. I mean, my client doesn't have a 8 diary to produce. She doesn't have one. Those were 9 handwritten notes that she gave a reporter. She doesn't have 10 one. 11 THE COURT: So you are saying -- 12 MS. McCAWLEY: That request is broader. I mean 13 THE COURT: No. 14 MS. McCAWLEY: I didn't know we were going to be 15 addressing my requests today -- 16 THE COURT: as to the diary, you say it doesn't 17 exist. There is no diary, there are no notes, and whatever 18 there is has been the subject of the printed material? 19 MS. McCAWLEY: Yes. 20 MS. MENNINGER: Excerpts -- excerpts, your Honor, with 21 my client's name on them in plaintiff's handwriting were sold 22 to Radar Online, not the entire document. And when I asked for 23 the entire document, I was told that it is proprietary and 24 copyright protected. 25 THE COURT: What is "proprietary"? SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA01184035 (212) 805-0300 EFTA01184036  14 G3hdgium 1 MS. McCAWLEY: I think she's referring to a broader 2 request. My client doesn't have a diary, which is what she's 3 addressing right now. I don't have my requests in front of me, 4 your Honor. We were here on their requests. But if you want 5 to read the whole request, I can try and remember what 6 THE COURT: What are we talking -- 7 MS. McCAWLEY: Did they say I was withholding 8 documents? I don't think I said I was withholding documents on 9 that request. But, again, I don't have it in front of me and I 10 apologize. 11 MS. MENNINGER: The request number 16 reads: "Any 12 diary, journal, or calendar concerning your activity between 13 '96 and '02." 14 Response: Ms. objects to this request to the 15 extent it seeks proprietary- and copyright-protected material. 16 Ms. objects in that it seeks information protected by 17 the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product 18 privilege, the joint defense, interest privilege, the agency 19 privilege, the investigative privilege, the spousal privilege, 20 the accountant/client privilege, and any other applicable 21 privilege." 22 THE COURT: Hot dog. I tell you, that's great. 23 MS. McCAWLEY: But did I say I didn't have -- 24 THE COURT: Shall we use that as the standard 25 objection to every document request and then let's forget about SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA01184037 (212) 805-0300 EFTA01184038  15 G3hdgium 1 it? OK, let's do this. 2 MS. McCAWLEY: Your Honor, may I be heard on just one 3 point on this issue? 4 If the standard were that someone could wait in a case 5 to request documents and then push off depositions by 6 continuing to file new requests, it's apparently -- 7 THE COURT: Yes. I hear you. I understand that 8 point. Look, obviously if there are documents that are covered 9 by the privilege, they have to be identified and logged. So 10 that's the privilege. 11 I don't know, what is this proprietary thing? What is 12 that all about? 13 MS. McCAWLEY: To the extent she has commercially 14 valuable material that she has written, that's covered by -- 15 it's covered by the protective order basically, that it would 16 be produced in a confidential format with a copyright-protected 17 format. So it is a general objection -- 18 THE COURT: So she will produce that, she will produce 19 everything -- 20 MS. McCAWLEY: If she has something like that, yes. 21 Like I said, we produced 3,000 pages yesterday. 22 THE COURT: And calendars and all of the rest of them? 23 MS. McCAWLEY: To the extent she has any of that, we 24 will produce it, your Honor. 25 THE COURT: All right. In other words, you are going SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA01184039 (212) 805-0300 EFTA01184040  16 G3hdgium 1 to produce everything except anything that you have that you 2 claim privilege as to which you will log? 3 MS. McCAWLEY: Yes. We have been logging -- 4 THE COURT: Well -- 5 MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, on this particular one, 6 she says her client does not have any nonprivileged documents 7 created during the time period responsive to this request, and 8 then there are no privileged documents related to this log on 9 the privilege log. So I don't have any way to read this 10 request in a privilege log and figure out whether there are 11 noncopyright materials that weren't withheld or there are 12 privileged because all of these privileges were raised -- 13 THE COURT: I take it that what's being said is that 14 she has no privileged documents that would be covered by that 15 request? 16 MS. MENNINGER: That's not what the objection says. 17 And, your Honor, since she sold her handwritten notes about my 18 client to Radar Online, I know they exist because they were 19 excerpted on the Internet. 20 THE COURT: Yes, but she said she doesn't have them. 21 She said -- I mean, correct me if I am wrong. 22 MS. McCAWLEY: No, she doesn't have them. But, your 23 Honor, I am happy to have -- first of all, she hasn't conferred 24 on these issues that we are talking about here today. I am 25 happy to address them fully. I feel very comfortable with our SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA01184041 (212) 805-0300 EFTA01184042  17 G3hdgium 1 discovery production in this case. We will continue to roll it 2 out; we have done it timely. Unlike like the defendants, who I 3 served their discovery requests October 27th, your Honor. We 4 are now in March. I received two emails, two emails in 5 response. I produced 3,000 pages -- 6 MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, she is -- 7 (Unintelligible crosstalk) 8 THE COURT: Ladies, we're not going to get anywhere if 9 we "who struck John." 10 MS. McCAWLEY: I understand, your Honor. 11 I think I proposed something very fair by saying that 12 I would share with her any document I intend to use at that 13 deposition. I just need the deposition. 14 THE COURT: I understand. I got you. OK. 15 Now, you will identify any document -- I mean, you 16 tell them -- give them any documents that you are going to use 17 in the deposition. 18 MS. McCAWLEY: Yes. 19 THE COURT: OK. Now, is there -- the business of this 20 production on -- you are going to have to -- well, wait a 21 minute. Let me put it this way. The objections to this 16 are 22 overruled except for the privilege. OK? 23 MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, I've proposed dates for my 24 client to be available in two or three weeks, once we have 25 received a complete document production, which was due last SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA01184043 (212) 805-0300 EFTA01184044  18 G3hdgium 1 night, and I have been told we're not going to talk about dates 2 in two or three weeks. We haven't asked to set them out into 3 May or June. We've just asked for the documents that were due 4 last night to be produced to us before our client's deposition. 5 This isn't some kind of game. It's just she's been litigating 6 this case for seven years -- 7 THE COURT: OK. Well, we've dealt with the first 8 objection. Now, is there another one? 9 MS. McCAWLEY: Right. So we're here on my motion to 10 compel production of documents. I am just getting a little 11 confused because I don't -- we are here -- my motion to compel 12 production of documents from her based on my request that -- 13 THE COURT: Let's not worry about the -- 14 MS. McCAWLEY: OK. I just wanted to be clear. I 15 don't have in front of me the request that she is referring to. 16 THE COURT: OK. Anything else that you think you need 17 besides the documents she is going to use, the response to 16? 18 Anything else -- 19 MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor -- 20 THE COURT: -- that is critical for the deposition? 21 MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, these were filed last 22 night at 9:30 p.m., the 3,000 pages were produced to my office, 23 which is in Colorado. I haven't looked at the 3,000 pages that 24 were produced last night. I will have to ask leave of the 25 Court to go back, look at the documents that were produced and SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA01184045 (212) 805-0300 EFTA01184046  19 G3hdgium 1 see what I am missing. 2 THE COURT: All right. If you want to, you can come 3 back on Thursday next week and we can argue about whether or 4 not the deposition should go forward on Friday. 5 MS. MENNINGER: OK. 6 THE COURT: That is all right with me. 7 MS. MENNINGER: That is acceptable, your Honor. 8 THE COURT: OK. So maybe we've solved that problem. 9 OK. Maybe. 10 Now, on the improper objections by the defendants. I 11 suppose I can assume that the defendants' objections are just 12 exactly the same as the plaintiff's objections. 13 MR. PAGLIUCA: No, your Honor. They are not. 14 MS. McCAWLEY: Oh, I'm sorry. This is my motion to 15 compel. Can I just address it initially so that I can lay out 16 for the Court what the issues are that we are raising on the 17 motion to compel? 18 THE COURT: I'm sorry. 19 MS. McCAWLEY: This is my motion to compel now. Can I 20 address -- am I able to address that? 21 THE COURT: Yes. 22 MS. McCAWLEY: So with respect to our motion to compel 23 the documents from the defendant, as you know, your Honor, 24 there are two main objections that I think have to be overcome 25 in order for us to get that production properly. The first SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA01184047 (212) 805-0300 EFTA01184048  20 G3hdgium 1 main objection is the fact that they are objecting to the time 2 period. So we have sought requests from 1999, which is in 3 around the time when my client contends she was involved with 4 these individuals, to the present. They objected that that 5 time period is overly broad. They only agreed to produce for 6 the period of 1999 to 2002 and for one month, from December 31, 7 2014 to January 31, 2015. So they cut out all the years in 8 between and anything post January 31, 2015. 9 Now, with respect to your Honor maybe saying why would 10 that time period be relevant, the entire time period is 11 relevant for a number of reasons. First, in 1999, that's when 12 my client first recalls being -- 13 THE COURT: We can agree think we can agree at 14 the outset that '99 to what is it? 15 MS. McCAWLEY: 2002. 16 THE COURT: 2002 is relevant. 17 MS. McCAWLEY: Right. 18 THE COURT: So what we're talking about is the what 19 happened in 2002? 20 MS. McCAWLEY: My client was sent to Thailand by 21 Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell for a training and to pick up 22 another -- 23 THE COURT: So she is no longer -- 24 MS. McCAWLEY: And she left. She fled to Australia. 25 THE COURT: OK. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA01184049 (212) 805-0300 EFTA01184050  21 G3hdgium 1 MS. McCAWLEY: So with respect to these requests, I 2 just want to -- you know, because the Court has mentioned this 3 and it is worthy of referencing, that if you look at the 4 defendants' request to us, they actually request a longer time 5 period; they request from 1996 to the present. So while they 6 don't want us to -- they don't want to produce to us except for 7 that short window, they are requesting the entire period. In 8 some cases they request and I did a chart. Your Honor, 9 would you mind if I just pass this up to you for reference? 10 THE COURT: OK. 11 MS. McCAWLEY: I did a chart, I believe it is on page 12 10, and it has for you the various requests and what the time 13 periods are, and for many of the requests there is no time 14 period at all. 15 MR. PAGLIUCA: I have it. I don't need it. 16 MS. McCAWLEY: Oh, you have that? 17 MR. PAGLIUCA: I do not need it. 18 MS. McCAWLEY: OK. I'm sorry. 19 So that time period shows that many of those requests 20 don't have a time period at all; so it is even broader, from 21 infancy to present. So, in fairness, our requests are 1999 to 22 the present, which we believe is the critical time period. 23 Now, what happens in 2002? So my client does flee to 24 Australia away from these individuals, but the conduct 25 continues. So we have, for example, the law enforcement trash SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA01184051 (212) 805-0300 EFTA01184052  22 G3hdgium 1 pulls that show the message pads of the back and forth of 2 arranging these underaged minors to come for massages, things 3 of that nature. We have the flight logs that show Ms. Maxwell 4 flying 360 times with Jeffrey Epstein, 20 of which were with my 5 client when she was underage. We have the Palm Beach police 6 report, which shows over 30 minors who reported during that 7 time period, to up until now 2006, being abused in that 8 circumstance in Palm Beach. Then we have the arrest that 9 happens of Jeffrey Epstein in 2006. 10 Thereafter, my client in 2008 is -- I'm sorry, she 11 receives from the U.S. government a victim notification letter. 12 At that point, in 2009, Ms. Maxwell's deposition is sought in 13 underlying civil cases. She flees from that deposition, says 14 her mother is ill in England, she has to leave the country, 15 cannot be deposed. She then shows up three weeks later at 16 Chelsea Clinton's wedding. So clearly she was around, she was 17 able to do something, but she avoided that deposition. Her 18 testimony was never taken in that case. 19 So that's in 2009. Then we have in 2011 my client is 20 interviewed by the FBI about the issues that have happened. 21 Then we have in 2011 Ms. Maxwell starts issuing different 22 statements to the press. She continues that, issues a 23 statement in 2015, which is the statement that we are here 24 about in this case. 25 So I contend, your Honor, that all of those years have SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA01184053 (212) 805-0300 EFTA01184054  23 G3hdgium 1 relevant information in them with respect to my client. 2 THE COURT: OK. I understand. 3 Let's hear from the defendant. 4 MR. PAGLIUCA: So, your Honor, I have tried to refrain 5 from responding in kind, but the problem here is all of this -- 6 the agenda behind all of this is not really the issue in this 7 case but it is to make inflammatory statements like counsel 8 just made as fact when they are speculation, at best, your 9 Honor, and to pack into the record things that are demonstrably 10 not true but counsel says them like they are true and then 11 refers to her own declaration to support the fact of what she 12 is saying may or may not be true. So let's get to the issue 13 here in terms of the relevant timeframe. 14 First, the plaintiff goes to Thailand on her own 15 volition, gets married, and moves to Australia, where she 16 resides for some 12/13 years after, and has no contact with 17 Ms. Maxwell or Mr. Epstein. So everything that happens from 18 2002 forward has absolutely nothing to do with the plaintiff in 19 this case, and she has absolutely no personal knowledge about 20 what did or didn't happen in Florida or elsewhere from that 21 timeframe forward. 22 You know, I carefully, your Honor, read your ruling on 23 the motion to dismiss, and I believe that you characterized the 24 issue in this case very narrowly, and that is is what the 25 plaintiff said about Ms. Maxwell, and from 1999 to 2002, true SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA01184055 (212) 805-0300 EFTA01184056  24 G3hdgium 1 or not. Those two individuals have the facts that relate to 2 that, and anything outside of that, quite frankly, is opinion 3 and not a subject matter of this litigation. 4 Now, you have to focus not only on this expansive 5 timeframe in which the plaintiff is not even in this 6 hemisphere, which is combined with the overbroad requests that 7 don't ask for things that might be arguably relevant under a 8 404(b) analysis -- you know, for example, did this happen with 9 Ms. Maxwell and someone else in 2005, let's say -- those aren't 10 what the requests are. The requests are for all communications 11 for 17 years with plug in the individual, all documents 12 relating to whatever you want to plug in there for 17 years. 13 And so those two things combined create a grossly overbroad and 14 unmanageable document request. Hence, the objections. 15 Now, had we had the ability to confer about this, we 16 may have been able to get down to, here, these are really the 17 relevant timeframes, or you need to modify your requests for 18 production to say things like any communication with Jeffrey 19 Epstein related to the plaintiff, any communication with this 20 person related to the plaintiff. But that's not what the 21 requests are. And so what you are left with is an unmanageable 22 pile of requests for production of documents. 23 I will note, your Honor, so the Court has this in 24 context, there are 39 requests that have been proposed to 25 Ms. Maxwell. She has no responsive documents, and I've so SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA01184057 (212) 805-0300 EFTA01184058  25 G3hdgium 1 indicated to 17 of those requests. So we then winnow this down 2 to the ones that we are objecting to for very good reason. The 3 timeframe we have proposed is the appropriate timeframe. If 4 there are narrowly tailored requests for production for 5 something that may be relevant outside that timeframe, then 6 they should propose that and not what they are proposing 7 currently, which makes the entire process unwieldy and 8 unreliable. 9 MS. McCAWLEY: Your Honor, the underlying issue in 10 this case is whether or not Ms. Maxwell lied when she said my 11 client was not subject to the abuse that she said she was 12 subject to. So in order to prove that, for defamation with 13 malice, we have to prove that my client was abused by these 14 individuals, that these individuals did take advantage of her 15 in the way that she expressed. 16 What's relevant to that is the sexual trafficking 17 ring. If after my client left they are also trafficking other 18 underaged girls repetitively, that is relevant to prove the 19 truth of my client's allegations as well. We are entitled to 20 that in discovery, your Honor. One of the requests is the 21 documents relating to communications of Jeffrey Epstein. If 22 she is e-mailing Jeffrey Epstein about the girls she's going to 23 send over to him in 2004, before he is arrested, that's 24 relevant to my client's claim, your Honor. So we shouldn't be 25 told that we're not entitled to these documents or that we're SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA01184059 (212) 805-0300 EFTA01184060  26 G3hdgium 1 only entitled to two emails out of all of our requests. 2 In addition, he says that there are 17 requests that 3 they have no documents for, your Honor, but, again, they have 4 restricted the time period to this very short window and then 5 they answered in their responses. OK. So -- 6 MR. PAGLIUCA: That is not true. If you read -- 7 actually read the response, there is no restriction because we 8 have looked and there are no documents. We're actually trying 9 to move this ball forward, your Honor, and what's happening 10 here is we keep getting sucked back into this morass of maybe 11 something happened. If you listen to the words that counsel is 12 saying, your Honor, it is very illustrative of the fishing 13 expedition. If there is this, then it is relevant. But that 14 is not what they are asking for. And you have to go back to 15 the request. "All documents" -- Request No. 1: "All documents 16 relating to communications with Jeffrey Epstein from 1990 to 17 present." Well, that's not all documents concerning 18 trafficking or underaged girls, that's all documents relating 19 to, which could be anything in the universe. 20 Those are the reasons why I objected. 21 Request No. 3: "All documents relating to 22 communications with Andrew Albert Christian Edward, Duke of 23 York, from 1990 to present." You know, what the heck does a 24 communication with the Duke in 2013, any old communication, 25 have to do with anything in this case? Nothing. If you SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA01184061 (212) 805-0300 EFTA01184062  27 G3hdgium 1 said -- if you give me a request for production of documents 2 that said give me any documents that talk about your press 3 release with the Duke, well, that might be relevant and 4 discoverable, but these are grossly overbroad. 5 If they had conferred with us, we would have been able 6 to narrow this down, but they haven't because there is an 7 agenda here that, quite frankly, I don't understand, your 8 Honor. But what I think it is is to simply pack the record, 9 the written record and the oral record, with these very 10 specious, quite frankly, disgusting allegations about my 11 client, and that's not what we're here for. If they want 12 something, they should ask for it specifically. If they just 13 want to, you know, kind of throw things around -- if this, then 14 that -- then that's what we're about here. 15 MS. McCAWLEY: Your Honor -- 16 THE COURT: All right. I think I understand this 17 issue. 18 What else do we have? We have the timeframe and the 19 specificity. 20 MS. McCAWLEY: Right. So, your Honor, there is the 21 timeframe for the request, and then, right, I assume that they 22 are alleging that these are overbroad in some way as 23 THE COURT: I would rather think I just heard that. 24 MS. McCAWLEY: Right. Exactly. So, your Honor, just 25 to touch on that very quickly. Not only -- and you will see it SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA01184063 (212) 805-0300 EFTA01184064  28 G3hdgium 1 in our papers, but we also give specific examples of why these 2 are relevant, for example, and not overbroad. For example, two 3 of the people we asked for documents and communications with, 4 and when they were asked in 5 their depositions about Ms. Maxwell sexually trafficking 6 underaged girls, both of those individuals took the Fifth. If 7 there are documents between Ms. Maxwell and 8 discussing those issues at any time from 1990 to present, we 9 want those documents, your Honor. And while they say that 10 day-to-day communications with Jeffrey Epstein wouldn't be 11 relevant, they would. If they're communicating on a daily 12 basis, that's relevant. 13 THE COURT: I understand that point. 14 MS. McCAWLEY: So, your Honor,

EFTA00588667.pdf

DataSet-10 Unknown 71 pages

1 G3hdgium 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 2 3 4 Plaintiff, New York, N.Y. 5 v. 6 GHISLAINE MAXWELL, 7 Defendant. 8 9 March 17, 2016 2:18 p.m. 10 Before: 11 HON. ROBERT W. SWEET, 12 District Judge 13 APPEARANCES 14 15 Attorne s for Plaintiff BY: 16 HADDON MORGAN AND FOREMAN, P.C. 17 Attorneys for Defendant BY: JEFFREY PAGLIUCA 18 LAURA A. MENNINGER 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA00588667 (212) 805-0300 EFTA00588668  2 G3hdgium 1 THE COURT: Thank you all very much. I'm sorry for 2 the inconvenience that I have imposed upon you. I'm sorry 3 about the inconvenience that you have imposed upon me. 4 But having said all of that, this really is the first 5 time that we've had an opportunity, I think, to get together on 6 this case. And let me just say, I think -- I mean, I'm not 7 sure but I think I understand the difficulties of this case. 8 There is an emotional element, obviously, throughout the case 9 on both sides, and I understand that. Fortunately, we're 10 blessed by excellent counsel and it would be nice if they can 11 avoid adopting the emotional flavor of their clients, and I 12 presume that they will be able to do that, it certainly will 13 help, because these issues are going to be difficult and I'm 14 well aware of it. 15 Now, at the outset, there is some discussion in these 16 papers about meet and confer. Let me make clear what I would 17 like from this day forward. On any discovery issues, I would 18 like to have a meet and confer. Now, I understand that defense 19 counsel are living in God's country and they're not cursed with 20 the metropolitan residence. I salute their good judgment in 21 that. And so I will say that I will not require you to meet in 22 person, but I will require you to meet. 23 And I would say this. If you have a meet and confer, 24 I would like to have correspondence between the parties as to 25 what the subject is so that there is an agreed agenda that's SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA00588669 (212) 805-0300 EFTA00588670  3 G3hdgium 1 written and we know that both sides know what it is, and that 2 will help me if, ultimately, the problem gets back to me. So I 3 would say exchange writing as to what it's going to be and have 4 a meeting. It doesn't have to be in person, but it certainly 5 has to be a significant meeting; it can't be just one 6 ten-minute telephone call. 7 So that's how I feel about the meet and confer. 8 Now, I'm not going to get into whether that's relevant 9 or not to the problems which we face today. That's just going 10 forward. As I say, I do hope that you all can -- it won't be 11 easy, but if you deal with these problems as the excellent 12 professionals that you are without the emotional implications, 13 having said that. 14 Now, how to go forward today? My thought is the 15 following. I have read your papers, and to say that I 16 understand the problems would be, I guess, a lie, but I'm 17 trying and you'll help me. I have a list of what I think our 18 issues are and I would like to go through this with you, and 19 then when I'm finished, if we have missed something, I'm sure 20 you will correct me. And I'd be pleased to hear if I determine 21 something, if you think that I'm wrong, that's fine, too. I 22 mean, you can tell me why you think I'm wrong. 23 Now, the first problem is the document -- the issue 24 about improper privilege claims. As I understand that issue, 25 it is the presence of Gow, Cohen and maybe somebody else as SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA00588671 (212) 805-0300 EFTA00588672  4 G3hdgium 1 defeating the privilege, on the one hand. On the other hand, 2 the assertion by the defense that their participation as 3 whatever they are, managers, public relations people, whatever, 4 is necessary for the rendering of legal advice. 5 Parenthetically, there is a subtext there about whose 6 law applies. Let me say, I think we are going to apply New 7 York law in this case. British law may become relevant in some 8 way or other down the road, but for this privilege purpose, I 9 think that's where we are. 10 I think what I would like is I would like any 11 materials that -- the obligation to establish this privilege is 12 obviously Ms. Maxwell's, and I would like any materials that 13 she wants to present to me about these meetings to establish 14 that it was necessary for the rendering of legal advice, I'll 15 review those materials in camera and try to reach a decision. 16 I may need something further after I have looked at them, but I 17 think that's the way I ought to deal with that particular 18 privilege issue. 19 There is a list of documents as to which objections 20 have been made on a variety of bases. I will say probably a 21 catalog of every objection known to the mind of excellent 22 attorneys, and I think we will try to deal with those this 23 afternoon and maybe we'll fail, but let's put those aside just 24 for the moment. 25 The question about a protective order, of course there SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA00588673 (212) 805-0300 EFTA00588674  5 G3hdgium 1 should be a protective order in this case. You are good 2 lawyers and you have been around this track more times than I 3 have and so you can prepare consensually a better protective 4 order than I can, and I urge you to do that. And, in fact, I 5 will give you two weeks to do that. Should you fail, you can 6 present whatever materials you wish to me and I will decide 7 what the protective order is going to be. That's not a good 8 idea because you know the case better than I do, obviously, and 9 so I urge you to resolve it by your litigation skills and not 10 leave it up to the ignorant district court judge who doesn't 11 really get into this kind of thing very often. So you run a 12 risk if you leave it to me. 13 Now, I would say two weeks, and then if you can't get 14 an agreement, maybe three weeks from now we wrestle with that. 15 Hopefully we won't. I have to do that. 16 The deposition -- the defendant of course will be 17 deposed, and we can work out right now when. Obviously, you 18 don't want that deposition until the protective order is 19 completed. So what do we do about that? Do you want to deal 20 with that today, the actual date of the deposition, or should 21 we pass that until we accomplish the protective order? What do 22 you all think about that? 23 MS. Can I be heard on that, your Honor? 24 This is I am counsel for Ms. 25 With respect to the deposition date, the 25th was the SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA00588675 (212) 805-0300 EFTA00588676  6 G3hdgium 1 date that my opposing counsel proposed as possibly being 2 available. So we set it for that date, which is next Friday. 3 We also offered to hold that deposition transcript confidential 4 until such time as the protective order could be issued so that 5 there is no barrier to us being able to take this deposition. 6 THE COURT: How about that? Is that OK? 7 MR. PAGLIUCA: Frankly, it is not, your Honor, and the 8 reason is we, clearly from the papers submitted so far and the 9 exchange of counsel, we have a significant disagreement at this 10 point as to what the word "confidential" actually means, and we 11 have proposed to the plaintiff a protective order that we 12 believe is appropriate and neutral -- 13 THE COURT: Well, maybe I can -- can we get over -- if 14 that's the primary issue on the protective order, can we deal 15 with that now? 16 MR. PAGLIUCA: I think there is a secondary -- well, 17 it may not even be secondary. There is another issue that is 18 directly related to that, your Honor, and that is the lack of 19 production of documents from the plaintiff. The Court has not 20 seen these papers yet, but there are in my view significant 21 deficiencies with the Rule 26 disclosures. There have been 22 failure to produce documents. And it is unfair at this point 23 to push these depositions forward without the required exchange 24 of discovery. 25 THE COURT: Let me ask the plaintiff. You really -- SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA00588677 (212) 805-0300 EFTA00588678  7 G3hdgium 1 MS. Could I be heard on that? Thank you, 2 your Honor. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt you. 3 THE COURT: What do you think? 4 MS. Right. The issue is so I issued my 5 deposition notice before they even served discovery requests. 6 THE COURT: OK. All right. 7 MS. I've done 3,000 pages. They've done 8 two emails. 9 THE COURT: Look, doesn't it make sense to resolve any 10 document discovery issues perhaps before the deposition? 11 MS. I don't think so, your Honor. I want 12 the testimony of this defendant in order to move this case 13 forward. Our discovery closes in July. I issued my discovery 14 requests in October. I have not gotten the deposition of the 15 defendant yet. This is a date she is available. She is not 16 leaving the country. She is not going anywhere. I have her in 17 town next Friday. 18 I'll even agree to their protective order if it means 19 I can get her deposition, your Honor. I just need to get this 20 case moving forward. I need one deposition, the deposition of 21 the defendant in this case, who has called my client a liar. 22 We are entitled to depose her and see if she is going to answer 23 the questions about why she was -- 24 THE COURT: All right. OK. 25 MS. I am entitled to answers. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA00588679 (212) 805-0300 EFTA00588680  8 G3hdgium 1 THE COURT: Well -- 2 MR. PAGLIUCA: Your Honor, I think this is a good 3 meeting and it is a meeting that should have happened a long 4 time ago. Let me say to the Court that we proposed to meet 5 with plaintiff's counsel early on in this case to put together 6 a discovery schedule that made sense. We proposed that orally 7 and in writing. That proposal was ignored and rebuffed. And 8 counsel for the plaintiff then unilaterally scheduled a bunch 9 of depositions without conferring on dates. Unilaterally, 10 here's the dates, here are the depositions. We then tried to 11 work through that issue, at the same time trying to work 12 through the protective order issue and the document issue, and 13 we get no response. And I think the agenda here is to gain a 14 tactical advantage by not responding to these requests. 15 THE COURT: Well, I can't believe that lawyers would 16 seek a tactical advantage. I can't believe such a thing. 17 MR. PAGLIUCA: I am shocked. 18 THE COURT: OK. Tell you what we're going to do. 19 We'll -- three weeks, let's see. Her deposition -- this 20 question about document production, that hasn't been teed up, 21 so I don't know -- 22 MS. And can I be heard on that really 23 quickly? I mean, If that were the standard, that they could 24 wait to -- 25 THE COURT: No. It hasn't been teed up, I agree. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA00588681 (212) 805-0300 EFTA00588682  9 G3hdgium 1 (Pause) 2 OK. Then I think what we should do is I'm assuming we 3 will resolve the protective order problem we've sort of slug 4 over the -- can we resolve what's confidential? Is that 5 possible? Could we do that this afternoon, or is that too 6 complicated? 7 MS. Your Honor, I can have the deposition 8 of the defendant in this case and move this case forward. I 9 will agree to their protective order. I just want that 10 deposition. 11 THE COURT: Yes. 12 MS. It is that important to me. 13 THE COURT: I get your point. I understand that. But 14 at the same time, I think, given the nature of all that lies in 15 this, I think it is fair to say no side would like to have this 16 aired, and so we've got to have a protective order that 17 everybody feels comfortable with. 18 MS. Your Honor, you can today enter the 19 protective order that they submit. I will disregard my 20 objections if I get the deposition. 21 THE COURT: Will you agree now to the protective 22 order? 23 MS. Yes. If it means I can get her 24 deposition, yes, I will do that. 25 THE COURT: Oh, OK. Good. Well, that solved that. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA00588683 (212) 805-0300 EFTA00588684  10 G3hdgium 1 MR. PAGLIUCA: It is not as simple as that, your 2 Honor, because this quid pro quo, I'll agree to their 3 protective order if I can have the deposition on the 25th, 4 doesn't solve the problem. 5 THE COURT: At least we've separated it. She has 6 agreed to the protective order. OK? So that's done. OK? 7 Now, why can't we have her deposition upon, whatever 8 it is, a week from Friday? 9 MS. Friday, the 25th, this coming Friday, a 10 week from tomorrow. 11 THE COURT: Oh, a week from tomorrow, yes. 12 MS. Yes. 13 MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, we served discovery 14 requests on plaintiff on February 12th. 15 THE COURT: Well, look, that's nice. That's good. 16 But I don't have that, and I think she's right that there is no 17 rule that says you have to get your discovery requests 18 satisfied before the deposition, so 19 MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, the responses were due 20 last night yesterday, so that is prior to Ms. Maxwell for the 21 25th. However, as a part of producing that discovery response, 22 they have said they're going to take a month to roll out their 23 production, not just 24 THE COURT: Look. I'll tell you what let's do. I 25 don't have that, but let's -- we'll hold the deposition date. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA00588685 (212) 805-0300 EFTA00588686  11 G3hdgium 1 When we get through with the rest of this stuff, we'll find out 2 if there is something in particular that you want prior to next 3 Friday and see what that is and see if we can get it. How is 4 that? 5 (Pause) 6 OK. Who pays for what and counsel, all of that? 7 Those are interesting problems and who knows how they all come 8 out. I think all of that is best served by reserving them 9 until the conclusion of the case, which is what I shall do. 10 The plaintiff wants to produce on a rolling basis and 11 to amend or add to the privilege log as the production goes 12 forward. I don't see any problem with that. 13 MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, that's actually the issue 14 I was just alluding to. I understand -- and I have said I 15 don't have a problem with plaintiff producing her documents 16 over the course of the month because she has said that it is a 17 hardship for her to produce them all last night, which is when 18 they were due. However, she's trying to take our client's 19 deposition in the middle of her rolling production, in other 20 words, show up at the deposition with the documents she happens 21 to get -- 22 THE COURT: That's what I'm saying. Maybe what we'll 23 do is to deal with the document production issue separately. 24 MS. MENNINGER: OK. 25 THE COURT: And if there are some documents that SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA00588687 (212) 805-0300 EFTA00588688  12 G3hdgium 1 really seem to be important and they cannot be produced, then 2 maybe we'll put over the -- we'll see how that works. 3 MS. Your Honor, I may be able to short 4 circuit this. 5 THE COURT: Pardon me? 6 MS. I may be able to short circuit this a 7 little bit. We produced 3,000 pages last night. We are 8 continuing that production. We are moving as fast as we can. 9 We produced a privilege log with over 134 entries on it. We 10 are continuing to move that forward as quickly as we can. 11 With respect to her deposition, your Honor, I'm happy 12 to provide them in advance every document I will be using at 13 her deposition. In other words, if that is their issue, if it 14 means I can get her deposition next Friday, I will share with 15 them any document I intend to use at that deposition. 16 THE COURT: That seems to solve the problem, don't you 17 think? 18 MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, I have to disagree. I got 19 this responsive objection last night at 9:30 p.m., while I was 20 here in New York. I've taken a look at it, and I can give your 21 Honor a sense of the types of objections that plaintiff has 22 lodged to our document request. For example, their client sold 23 her diary to Radar Online. It was published on Radar Online. 24 This diary contains plaintiff's allegations against my client. 25 So I asked for the diary that was sold to Radar Online. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA00588689 (212) 805-0300 EFTA00588690  13 G3hdgium 1 THE COURT: You get it. 2 MS. MENNINGER: It is copyright and proprietary 3 protected. We're not going to produce it. So that's the kind 4 of example -- 5 THE COURT: No. You get it. 6 MS. She doesn't have a diary. She might be 7 referring to something else. I mean, my client doesn't have a 8 diary to produce. She doesn't have one. Those were 9 handwritten notes that she gave a reporter. She doesn't have 10 one. 11 THE COURT: So you are saying -- 12 MS. That request is broader. I mean -- 13 THE COURT: No. 14 MS. I didn't know we were going to be 15 addressing my requests today -- 16 THE COURT: as to the diary, you say it doesn't 17 exist. There is no diary, there are no notes, and whatever 18 there is has been the subject of the printed material? 19 MS. Yes. 20 MS. MENNINGER: Excerpts -- excerpts, your Honor, with 21 my client's name on them in plaintiff's handwriting were sold 22 to Radar Online, not the entire document. And when I asked for 23 the entire document, I was told that it is proprietary and 24 copyright protected. 25 THE COURT: What is "proprietary"? SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA00588691 (212) 805-0300 EFTA00588692  14 G3hdgium 1 MS. I think she's referring to a broader 2 request. My client doesn't have a diary, which is what she's 3 addressing right now. I don't have my requests in front of me, 4 your Honor. We were here on their requests. But if you want 5 to read the whole request, I can try and remember what 6 THE COURT: What are we talking -- 7 MS. Did they say I was withholding 8 documents? I don't think I said I was withholding documents on 9 that request. But, again, I don't have it in front of me and I 10 apologize. 11 MS. MENNINGER: The request number 16 reads: "Any 12 diary, journal, or calendar concerning your activity between 13 '96 and '02." 14 Response: Ms. objects to this request to the 15 extent it seeks proprietary- and copyright-protected material. 16 Ms. objects in that it seeks information protected by 17 the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product 18 privilege, the joint defense, interest privilege, the agency 19 privilege, the investigative privilege, the spousal privilege, 20 the accountant/client privilege, and any other applicable 21 privilege." 22 THE COURT: Hot dog. I tell you, that's great. 23 MS. But did I say I didn't have -- 24 THE COURT: Shall we use that as the standard 25 objection to every document request and then let's forget about SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA00588693 (212) 805-0300 EFTA00588694  15 G3hdgium 1 it? OK, let's do this. 2 MS. Your Honor, may I be heard on just one 3 point on this issue? 4 If the standard were that someone could wait in a case 5 to request documents and then push off depositions by 6 continuing to file new requests, it's apparently -- 7 THE COURT: Yes. I hear you. I understand that 8 point. Look, obviously if there are documents that are covered 9 by the privilege, they have to be identified and logged. So 10 that's the privilege. 11 I don't know, what is this proprietary thing? What is 12 that all about? 13 MS. To the extent she has commercially 14 valuable material that she has written, that's covered by -- 15 it's covered by the protective order basically, that it would 16 be produced in a confidential format with a copyright-protected 17 format. So it is a general objection 18 THE COURT: So she will produce that, she will produce 19 everything -- 20 MS. If she has something like that, yes. 21 Like I said, we produced 3,000 pages yesterday. 22 THE COURT: And calendars and all of the rest of them? 23 MS. To the extent she has any of that, we 24 will produce it, your Honor. 25 THE COURT: All right. In other words, you are going SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA00588695 (212) 805-0300 EFTA00588696  16 G3hdgium 1 to produce everything except anything that you have that you 2 claim privilege as to which you will log? 3 MS. Yes. We have been logging -- 4 THE COURT: Well -- 5 MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, on this particular one, 6 she says her client does not have any nonprivileged documents 7 created during the time period responsive to this request, and 8 then there are no privileged documents related to this log on 9 the privilege log. So I don't have any way to read this 10 request in a privilege log and figure out whether there are 11 noncopyright materials that weren't withheld or there are 12 privileged because all of these privileges were raised -- 13 THE COURT: I take it that what's being said is that 14 she has no privileged documents that would be covered by that 15 request? 16 MS. MENNINGER: That's not what the objection says. 17 And, your Honor, since she sold her handwritten notes about my 18 client to Radar Online, I know they exist because they were 19 excerpted on the Internet. 20 THE COURT: Yes, but she said she doesn't have them. 21 She said -- I mean, correct me if I am wrong. 22 MS. No, she doesn't have them. But, your 23 Honor, I am happy to have -- first of all, she hasn't conferred 24 on these issues that we are talking about here today. I am 25 happy to address them fully. I feel very comfortable with our SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA00588697 (212) 805-0300 EFTA00588698  17 G3hdgium 1 discovery production in this case. We will continue to roll it 2 out; we have done it timely. Unlike like the defendants, who I 3 served their discovery requests October 27th, your Honor. We 4 are now in March. I received two emails, two emails in 5 response. I produced 3,000 pages -- 6 MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, she is 7 (Unintelligible crosstalk) 8 THE COURT: Ladies, we're not going to get anywhere if 9 we "who struck John." 10 MS. I understand, your Honor. 11 I think I proposed something very fair by saying that 12 I would share with her any document I intend to use at that 13 deposition. I just need the deposition. 14 THE COURT: I understand. I got you. OK. 15 Now, you will identify any document -- I mean, you 16 tell them -- give them any documents that you are going to use 17 in the deposition. 18 MS. Yes. 19 THE COURT: OK. Now, is there -- the business of this 20 production on -- you are going to have to -- well, wait a 21 minute. Let me put it this way. The objections to this 16 are 22 overruled except for the privilege. OK? 23 MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, I've proposed dates for my 24 client to be available in two or three weeks, once we have 25 received a complete document production, which was due last SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA00588699 (212) 805-0300 EFTA00588700  18 G3hdgium 1 night, and I have been told we're not going to talk about dates 2 in two or three weeks. We haven't asked to set them out into 3 May or June. We've just asked for the documents that were due 4 last night to be produced to us before our client's deposition. 5 This isn't some kind of game. It's just she's been litigating 6 this case for seven years -- 7 THE COURT: OK. Well, we've dealt with the first 8 objection. Now, is there another one? 9 MS. Right. So we're here on my motion to 10 compel production of documents. I am just getting a little 11 confused because I don't -- we are here -- my motion to compel 12 production of documents from her based on my request that -- 13 THE COURT: Let's not worry about the -- 14 MS. OK. I just wanted to be clear. I 15 don't have in front of me the request that she is referring to. 16 THE COURT: OK. Anything else that you think you need 17 besides the documents she is going to use, the response to 16? 18 Anything else -- 19 MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor -- 20 THE COURT: -- that is critical for the deposition? 21 MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, these were filed last 22 night at 9:30 p.m., the 3,000 pages were produced to my office, 23 which is in Colorado. I haven't looked at the 3,000 pages that 24 were produced last night. I will have to ask leave of the 25 Court to go back, look at the documents that were produced and SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA00588701 (212) 805-0300 EFTA00588702  19 G3hdgium 1 see what I am missing. 2 THE COURT: All right. If you want to, you can come 3 back on Thursday next week and we can argue about whether or 4 not the deposition should go forward on Friday. 5 MS. MENNINGER: OK. 6 THE COURT: That is all right with me. 7 MS. MENNINGER: That is acceptable, your Honor. 8 THE COURT: OK. So maybe we've solved that problem. 9 OK. Maybe. 10 Now, on the improper objections by the defendants. I 11 suppose I can assume that the defendants' objections are just 12 exactly the same as the plaintiff's objections. 13 MR. PAGLIUCA: No, your Honor. They are not. 14 MS. Oh, I'm sorry. This is my motion to 15 compel. Can I just address it initially so that I can lay out 16 for the Court what the issues are that we are raising on the 17 motion to compel? 18 THE COURT: I'm sorry. 19 MS. This is my motion to compel now. Can I 20 address -- am I able to address that? 21 THE COURT: Yes. 22 MS. So with respect to our motion to compel 23 the documents from the defendant, as you know, your Honor, 24 there are two main objections that I think have to be overcome 25 in order for us to get that production properly. The first SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA00588703 (212) 805-0300 EFTA00588704  20 G3hdgium 1 main objection is the fact that they are objecting to the time 2 period. So we have sought requests from 1999, which is in 3 around the time when my client contends she was involved with 4 these individuals, to the present. They objected that that 5 time period is overly broad. They only agreed to produce for 6 the period of 1999 to 2002 and for one month, from December 31, 7 2014 to January 31, 2015. So they cut out all the years in 8 between and anything post January 31, 2015. 9 Now, with respect to your Honor maybe saying why would 10 that time period be relevant, the entire time period is 11 relevant for a number of reasons. First, in 1999, that's when 12 my client first recalls being -- 13 THE COURT: We can agree think we can agree at 14 the outset that '99 to what is it? 15 MS. 2002. 16 THE COURT: 2002 is relevant. 17 MS. Right. 18 THE COURT: So what we're talking about is the what 19 happened in 2002? 20 MS. My client was sent to by 21 Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell for a training and to pick up 22 another -- 23 THE COURT: So she is no longer -- 24 MS. And she left. She fled to Australia. 25 THE COURT: OK. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA00588705 (212) 805-0300 EFTA00588706  21 G3hdgium 1 MS. So with respect to these requests, I 2 just want to -- you know, because the Court has mentioned this 3 and it is worthy of referencing, that if you look at the 4 defendants' request to us, they actually request a longer time 5 period; they request from 1996 to the present. So while they 6 don't want us to -- they don't want to produce to us except for 7 that short window, they are requesting the entire period. In 8 some cases they request and I did a chart. Your Honor, 9 would you mind if I just pass this up to you for reference? 10 THE COURT: OK. 11 MS. I did a chart, I believe it is on page 12 10, and it has for you the various requests and what the time 13 periods are, and for many of the requests there is no time 14 period at all. 15 MR. PAGLIUCA: I have it. I don't need it. 16 MS. Oh, you have that? 17 MR. PAGLIUCA: I do not need it. 18 MS. OK. I'm sorry. 19 So that time period shows that many of those requests 20 don't have a time period at all; so it is even broader, from 21 infancy to present. So, in fairness, our requests are 1999 to 22 the present, which we believe is the critical time period. 23 Now, what happens in 2002? So my client does flee to 24 Australia away from these individuals, but the conduct 25 continues. So we have, for example, the law enforcement trash SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA00588707 (212) 805-0300 EFTA00588708  22 G3hdgium 1 pulls that show the message pads of the back and forth of 2 arranging these underaged minors to come for massages, things 3 of that nature. We have the flight logs that show Ms. Maxwell 4 flying 360 times with Jeffrey Epstein, 20 of which were with my 5 client when she was underage. We have the Palm Beach police 6 report, which shows over 30 minors who reported during that 7 time period, to up until now 2006, being abused in that 8 circumstance in Palm Beach. Then we have the arrest that 9 happens of Jeffrey Epstein in 2006. 10 Thereafter, my client in 2008 is -- I'm sorry, she 11 receives from the U.S. government a victim notification letter. 12 At that point, in 2009, Ms. Maxwell's deposition is sought in 13 underlying civil cases. She flees from that deposition, says 14 her mother is ill in England, she has to leave the country, 15 cannot be deposed. She then shows up three weeks later at 16 Chelsea Clinton's wedding. So clearly she was around, she was 17 able to do something, but she avoided that deposition. Her 18 testimony was never taken in that case. 19 So that's in 2009. Then we have in 2011 my client is 20 interviewed by the FBI about the issues that have happened. 21 Then we have in 2011 Ms. Maxwell starts issuing different 22 statements to the press. She continues that, issues a 23 statement in 2015, which is the statement that we are here 24 about in this case. 25 So I contend, your Honor, that all of those years have SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA00588709 (212) 805-0300 EFTA00588710  23 G3hdgium 1 relevant information in them with respect to my client. 2 THE COURT: OK. I understand. 3 Let's hear from the defendant. 4 MR. PAGLIUCA: So, your Honor, I have tried to refrain 5 from responding in kind, but the problem here is all of this -- 6 the agenda behind all of this is not really the issue in this 7 case but it is to make inflammatory statements like counsel 8 just made as fact when they are speculation, at best, your 9 Honor, and to pack into the record things that are demonstrably 10 not true but counsel says them like they are true and then 11 refers to her own declaration to support the fact of what she 12 is saying may or may not be true. So let's get to the issue 13 here in terms of the relevant timeframe. 14 has no contact with 17 Ms. Maxwell or Mr. Epstein. So everything that happens from 18 2002 forward has absolutely nothing to do with the plaintiff in 19 this case, and she has absolutely no personal knowledge about 20 what did or didn't happen in Florida or elsewhere from that 21 timeframe forward. 22 You know, I carefully, your Honor, read your ruling on 23 the motion to dismiss, and I believe that you characterized the 24 issue in this case very narrowly, and that is is what the 25 plaintiff said about Ms. Maxwell, and from 1999 to 2002, true SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA00588711 (212) 805-0300 EFTA00588712  24 G3hdgium 1 or not. Those two individuals have the facts that relate to 2 that, and anything outside of that, quite frankly, is opinion 3 and not a subject matter of this litigation. 4 Now, you have to focus not only on this expansive 5 timeframe in which the plaintiff is not even in this 6 hemisphere, which is combined with the overbroad requests that 7 don't ask for things that might be arguably relevant under a 8 404(b) analysis -- you know, for example, did this happen with 9 Ms. Maxwell and someone else in 2005, let's say -- those aren't 10 what the requests are. The requests are for all communications 11 for 17 years with plug in the individual, all documents 12 relating to whatever you want to plug in there for 17 years. 13 And so those two things combined create a grossly overbroad and 14 unmanageable document request. Hence, the objections. 15 Now, had we had the ability to confer about this, we 16 may have been able to get down to, here, these are really the 17 relevant timeframes, or you need to modify your requests for 18 production to say things like any communication with Jeffrey 19 Epstein related to the plaintiff, any communication with this 20 person related to the plaintiff. But that's not what the 21 requests are. And so what you are left with is an unmanageable 22 pile of requests for production of documents. 23 I will note, your Honor, so the Court has this in 24 context, there are 39 requests that have been proposed to 25 Ms. Maxwell. She has no responsive documents, and I've so SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA00588713 (212) 805-0300 EFTA00588714  25 G3hdgium 1 indicated to 17 of those requests. So we then winnow this down 2 to the ones that we are objecting to for very good reason. The 3 timeframe we have proposed is the appropriate timeframe. If 4 there are narrowly tailored requests for production for 5 something that may be relevant outside that timeframe, then 6 they should propose that and not what they are proposing 7 currently, which makes the entire process unwieldy and 8 unreliable. 9 MS. Your Honor, the underlying issue in 10 this case is whether or not Ms. Maxwell lied when she said my 11 client was not subject to the abuse that she said she was 12 subject to. So in order to prove that, for defamation with 13 malice, we have to prove that my client was abused by these 14 individuals, that these individuals did take advantage of her 15 in the way that she expressed. 16 What's relevant to that is the sexual trafficking 17 ring. If after my client left they are also trafficking other 18 underaged girls repetitively, that is relevant to prove the 19 truth of my client's allegations as well. We are entitled to 20 that in discovery, your Honor. One of the requests is the 21 documents relating to communications of Jeffrey Epstein. If 22 she is e-mailing Jeffrey Epstein about the girls she's going to 23 send over to him in 2004, before he is arrested, that's 24 relevant to my client's claim, your Honor. So we shouldn't be 25 told that we're not entitled to these documents or that we're SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA00588715 (212) 805-0300 EFTA00588716  26 G3hdgium 1 only entitled to two emails out of all of our requests. 2 In addition, he says that there are 17 requests that 3 they have no documents for, your Honor, but, again, they have 4 restricted the time period to this very short window and then 5 they answered in their responses. OK. So -- 6 MR. PAGLIUCA: That is not true. If you read -- 7 actually read the response, there is no restriction because we 8 have looked and there are no documents. We're actually trying 9 to move this ball forward, your Honor, and what's happening 10 here is we keep getting sucked back into this morass of maybe 11 something happened. If you listen to the words that counsel is 12 saying, your Honor, it is very illustrative of the fishing 13 expedition. If there is this, then it is relevant. But that 14 is not what they are asking for. And you have to go back to 15 the request. "All documents" -- Request No. 1: "All documents 16 relating to communications with Jeffrey Epstein from 1990 to 17 present." Well, that's not all documents concerning 18 trafficking or underaged girls, that's all documents relating 19 to, which could be anything in the universe. 20 Those are the reasons why I objected. 21 Request No. 3: "All documents relating to 22 communications with Andrew Albert Christian Edward, Duke of 23 York, from 1990 to present." You know, what the heck does a 24 communication with the Duke in 2013, any old communication, 25 have to do with anything in this case? Nothing. If you SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA00588717 (212) 805-0300 EFTA00588718  27 G3hdgium 1 said -- if you give me a request for production of documents 2 that said give me any documents that talk about your press 3 release with the Duke, well, that might be relevant and 4 discoverable, but these are grossly overbroad. 5 If they had conferred with us, we would have been able 6 to narrow this down, but they haven't because there is an 7 agenda here that, quite frankly, I don't understand, your 8 Honor. But what I think it is is to simply pack the record, 9 the written record and the oral record, with these very 10 specious, quite frankly, disgusting allegations about my 11 client, and that's not what we're here for. If they want 12 something, they should ask for it specifically. If they just 13 want to, you know, kind of throw things around -- if this, then 14 that -- then that's what we're about here. 15 MS. Your Honor -- 16 THE COURT: All right. I think I understand this 17 issue. 18 What else do we have? We have the timeframe and the 19 specificity. 20 MS. Right. So, your Honor, there is the 21 timeframe for the request, and then, right, I assume that they 22 are alleging that these are overbroad in some way as 23 THE COURT: I would rather think I just heard that. 24 MS. Right. Exactly. So, your Honor, just 25 to touch on that very quickly. Not only -- and you will see it SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA00588719 (212) 805-0300 EFTA00588720  28 G3hdgium 1 in our papers, but we also give specific examples of why these 2 are relevant, for example, and not overbroad. For example, two 3 of the people we asked for documents and communications with, 4 and when they were asked in 5 their depositions about Ms. Maxwell sexually trafficking 6 underaged girls, both of those individuals took the Fifth. If 7 there are documents between Ms. Maxwell and 8 discussing those issues at any time from 1990 to present, we 9 want those documents, your Honor. And while they say that 10 day-to-day communications with Jeffrey Epstein wouldn't be 11 relevant, they would. If they're communicating on a daily 12 basis, that's relevant. 13 THE COURT: I understand that point. 14 MS. So, your Honor, those are the two key 15 issues as I understand it, the time period and then the 16 overbreadth of the request, that they have been objecting to.

EFTA00615939.pdf

DataSet-10 Unknown 31 pages

Case 1:17-cv-00616-JGK Document 45 Filed 06/05/17 Page 1 of 31 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK CASE NO.: 1:17-CV-00616 JANE DOE 43, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN GHISLAINE MAXWELL, AND Defendants. / FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Plaintiff JANE DOE 43, by and through her undersigned counsel, for her claims against Defendants Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, , and , alleges upon personal knowledge with respect to her own acts and status, and upon personal knowledge, information and belief as to all other matters, as follows: 1. This cause of action arises under federal statutes and jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C. section 1331. 2. Plaintiff files this Complaint under a pseudonym in order to protect her identity because this Complaint makes allegations of a sensitive sexual nature the disclosure of which, in association with her name, would cause further harm to her. I EFTA00615939  Case 1:17-cv-00616-JGK Document 45 Filed 06/05/17 Page 2 of 31 3. At all times material to the events alleged in this cause of action the Plaintiff was 4. At all times material to this cause of action Defendant Jeffrey Epstein had multiple residences, including in New York, New York (within the Southern District of New York) and the United States Virgin Islands. He is currently a citizen of the United States and claims to be a resident of the U.S. Virgin Islands. 5. At all times material to this cause of action Defendant Jeffrey Epstein was an adult male born in 1953. 6. At all times material to this cause of action Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell was residing in in New York, New York and was a citizen of Great Britain and France. 7. At all times material to this cause of action 8. At all times material to this cause of action 9. 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 that District. 28 U.S.C. section 1391(b)(2) 2 EFTA00615940  Case 1:17-cv-00616-3GK Document 45 Filed 06/05/17 Page 3 of 31 10. At all times material to this cause of action, Defendants Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, and owed a duty to Plaintiff to treat her in a non-negligent manner and not to commit or conspire to commit intentional, criminal, fraudulent, or tortious acts against her, including any acts in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1595. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 11. At all times material to this cause of action, Defendant Jeffrey Epstein was an adult male over 50 years old. Defendant Epstein is widely recognized as a billionaire who uses his extraordinary wealth to commit illegal sexual crimes in violation of federal and state statutes and to employ and conspire with a group of numerous others, including each of the named Defendants, to assist in committing those crimes and additional torts as well as to conceal the crimes and torts of the Epstein sex trafficking group from being discovered. 12. Defendant Epstein displays his enormous wealth, power and influence to his employees; to the victims procured for sexual purposes; and to the public in order to advance and carry out his crimes and torts. At all relevant times, Defendant Epstein owned and continues to own, directly or through nominee individuals used to conceal his interests, a fleet of airplanes, motor vehicles, boats and one or more helicopters. For example, he owned (directly or indirectly) a Boeing aircraft (of make and model B-727-31H with tail number N908JE) and a Gulfstream aircraft 3 EFTA00615941  Case 1:17-cv-00616-3GK Document 45 Filed 06/05/17 Page 4 of 31 (of make and model G-1159B with tail number N909JE). He also owned numerous properties and homes, including a 51,000-square-foot mansion in Manhattan; a $30 Million, 7,500-acre ranch in New Mexico; a 70-acre private island formerly known as Little St. James in or near St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands; a home in Paris, France; and a mansion in Palm Beach County, Florida. The allegations herein primarily concern the defendant's conduct while at his townhouse in New York; on one or more of his private airplanes; and on his private island in the United States Virgin Islands. Epstein used all of the real and personal property described in this paragraph to facilitate the illegal sex trafficking venture and enterprise described in this Complaint and in furtherance of that venture and enterprise. 13. Defendant Epstein has a compulsive sexual preference for young females as young as 13 and as "old" as 25. Through information and belief Defendant Epstein engages in sexual acts with this age range every day and developed, through the employment of and conspiracy with the other Defendants, a sex trafficking venture and enterprise designed to fulfill his sexual desires and conceal the operation of the venture and enterprise and conduct of its participants. As part of the venture and enterprise, Epstein also provided young females for sexual purposes to his friends in order to secure social, business, and other contacts as well as other things of value. 4 EFTA00615942  Case 1:17-cv-00616-3GK Document 45 Filed 06/05/17 Page 5 of 31 14. Defendant Maxwell was for decades the highest-ranking employee of the Defendants' sex trafficking venture and enterprise. She herself recruited young, including underage, females; oversaw and trained other recruiters on how best to recruit girls for sex; developed and executed schemes designed to recruit young females; and ensured that all participants of the Defendants' sex trafficking scheme acted in certain specific ways in order to advance the purposes of the scheme, including providing young females to Epstein for sexual purposes on a daily basis, and concealing these activities from law enforcement. 5 EFTA00615943  Case 1:17-cv-00616-3GK Document 45 Filed 06/05/17 Page 6 of 31 Recruiters were taught by Defendants Epstein, Maxwell =II to inform targeted victims that Epstein possessed extraordinary wealth, power, resources and influence; that he was a philanthropist who would help female victims advance their careers and lives; and that the recruits needed only to provide Epstein with body massages in order to avail themselves of his financial assistance and influence. In fact, however, these representations were fraudulent. and the Defendants did not help nor intend to help advance the victims' careers. Victims were also paid to bring Epstein other young females for sex and were told by Defendants Epstein, Maxwell, and that those young females who brought other females would further benefit from bringing other girls. 6 EFTA00615944  Case 1:17-cv-00616-JGK Document 45 Filed 06/05/17 Page 7 of 31 18. The Defendants, led primarily by Defendants Epstein and Maxwell, fulfilled Epstein's compulsive need for sex with young females by preying on their personal, psychological, financial, and related vulnerabilities. The Defendants' tactics included promising the victims money, shelter, transportation, gifts, employment, admission into educational institutions, educational tuition, protection, and other things of value in exchange for sex. Defendants also took possession of the victims' passports to coerce compliance with their demands. Defendants also trafficked young females to Epstein's friends and acquaintances in order to secure financial and other benefits as well as social, educational, and business connections. 19. Defendants' sex trafficking venture and enterprise operated in a hierarchal structure with Defendants Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell at the top. Defendants Epstein and Maxwell operated the sex trafficking scheme dating back to at least the mid-nineties, and over the years perfected their roles and the roles of others, both in terms of the ability to increase the volume of young females recruited for sex and in insulating the enterprise from criminal investigation or prosecution. 7 EFTA00615945  Case 1:17-cv-00616-JGK Document 45 Filed 06/05/17 Page 8 of 31 Underlings unnamed co- conspirators such as various housekeepers and butlers; an airplane pilot; and various employees, assistants and associates. Wittingly and unwittingly, such underlings performed their respective roles with the purpose and effect of insuring that the enterprise supplied young females to Defendant Epstein and others for sexual purposes. At all times materials to this complaint, the venture and enterprise was a group of two or more individuals associated in fact and deed. 20. Defendants Epstein and Maxwell, with help from assistants, associates and underlings, recruited and procured hundreds of girls over the decades of the operation of their scheme. Such recruitment and procurement included fraud, coercion, threats, intimidation, fear, the threat of coercion, and a combination of these and similar tactics. Following the Defendants' recruitment and procurement of the young females to join Epstein in New York and the U.S. Virgin Islands, the Defendants used fraudulent promises, coercion, and threats of coercion in order to entice and coerce the females into sex and, once sexual activities ensued, to cause them to remain in the enterprise. The Defendants also transported females in 8 EFTA00615946  Case 1:17-cv-00616-JGK Document 45 Filed 06/05/17 Page 9 of 31 interstate and foreign commerce and in ways that affected interstate and foreign commerce. The sex acts were commercial in nature, because the Defendants promised to provide financial and other compensation to the females in exchange for providing sex acts to Epstein. 22. Additionally, Defendants always made clear to every young female that they were wealthy, well-connected and could either help or hurt the females depending on their degree of cooperation. In fact, Defendants Epstein and Maxwell have been known to threaten young females with physical harm. It is unknown exactly how long the Defendants' criminal and illegal venture and enterprise operated, although it was at least continuously and actively in operation from the mid-1990's through and including the calendar year 2007. 23. Defendant Epstein has continued the venture and enterprise up to the present time in some form or another and with additional co-conspirators and participants. 24. In 2005, Defendant Epstein and numerous co-conspirators within the venture and enterprise were the subjects of a Palm Beach, Florida Police Department criminal investigation which revealed that Defendant Epstein had engaged in 9 EFTA00615947  Case 1:17-cv-00616-JGK Document 45 Filed 06/05/17 Page 10 of 31 25. In 2006, the Palm Beach Police Department investigation was turned over to the FBI and the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida. The United States Attorney's Office investigated Defendant Epstein and his co-conspirators for their violations of numerous federal statutes, including 18 U.S.C. Section 1591, one of the statutory bases for this complaint. 26. The United States Attorney's investigation continued from 2006 through September 2007, at which time a Non-Prosecution Agreement was signed between Jeffrey Epstein and the United States Attorney's Office deferring federal prosecution of Defendant Epstein and his numerous co-conspirators, for identified federal sex crimes against more than 30 minors. 27. From late 2006 through September 2007, Epstein's team of lawyers negotiated with the federal government in an effort to avoid a fifty-three-page Federal felony indictment from being filed against Epstein. During these 10 EFTA00615948  Case 1:17-cv-00616-JGK Document 45 Filed 06/05/17 Page 11 of 31 negotiations, Defendant Epstein decamped from Palm Beach to New York and the U.S. Virgin Islands in order to convey an image to prosecutors that he and his co- conspirators had stopped committing sex crimes. 28. Remarkably, however—as this case will highlight—Defendant Epstein and his co-Defendants, including the other defendants named herein, did not abandon their sex trafficking venture and enterprise even while they were under state and federal investigation for crimes committed in violation of 18 U.S.C. section 1591, among other laws, and even as Defendants and their attorneys were busy arguing Epstein's innocence and publicly defaming his victims as liars. Rather, Defendants merely changed their location. Instead of targeting local Palm Beach Florida school girls, the Defendants transported young females from other places in the U.S. (including the Southern District of New York) and abroad and brought them to Defendant Epstein's mansion in New York City and his private island in the Virgin Islands. 29. In June of 2008, Epstein pleaded guilty to Florida state felony sex offenses for procuring a minor for prostitution and soliciting prostitution by minors and registered as a Sex Offender for Life. 30. Defendants Epstein and Maxwell developed and implemented a sophisticated system designed to insulate them from criminal and civil liability by protecting them from potential testimony of knowledgeable subordinates. II EFTA00615949  Case 1:17-cv-00616-JGK Document 45 Filed 06/05/17 Page 12 of 31 31. In 2005, Defendant Epstein and other co-conspirators, aware that law enforcement officials were preparing imminently to execute a search warrant for his home, removed computer systems that logged information about Epstein and his co-conspirators' illegal and criminal conduct; the identities of witnesses; nude 12 EFTA00615950  Case 1:17-cv-00616-JGK Document 45 Filed 06/05/17 Page 13 of 31 photographs of young females; scheduling books; message pads; tangible items such as vibrators and toys; and other incriminating matter. 32. The sex recruiting and trafficking venture and enterprise designed to procure young females for sexual purposes and to conceal those activities was developed and fine-tuned over time, and each of the named Defendants had a well-defined role and improved in his/her role over time, with practice and experience. By the time Plaintiff was recruited into victimization, each Defendant had years of experience perfecting methods of coercion, understanding Epstein's requirements, and becoming more loyal to the continuance and survival of the venture and enterprise. All of the Defendant's knew about the activities of the venture and enterprise and worked in concert for the goals of the venture and knowingly benefitted, financially and by receiving things of value, from their participation in the venture and enterprise. 33. A typical ■ the Defendants procured young females for sex with Defendant Epstein was to make false promises of a modeling opportunity, offer a better life, offer payment for a formal education, or offer other money or consideration. 34. Beginning in approximately October 2006 and continuing through April 2007, 13 EFTA00615951 Case 1:17-cv-00616-JGK Document 45 Filed 06/05/17 Page 14 of 31 14 EFTA00615952  Case 1:17-cv-00616-JGK Document 45 Filed 06/05/17 Page 15 of 31 39. Defendant Maxwell told Plaintiff she would need to provide Defendant Epstein with body massages in order to reap the benefits of his and Maxwell's connections. 40. All Defendants, including Maxwell, Epstein, and knew that Plaintiff was actually being recruited for sexual purposes, and each knowingly and deliberately made false representations to ensure that Plaintiff would cooperate in fulfilling Epstein's sexual desires. These false and flaudulent representations included Defendants' telling Plaintiff that Epstein would use his connections to have her admitted into . or a similar institute, college, university or school of higher learning and provide her with employment opportunities. Plaintiff reasonably relied on these representations and had a credible basis for such reliance, including the credible representations of Epstein and the other Defendants that they possessed extensive political, business, financial, social, and educational influence and connections. Epstein and the other Defendants represented to Plaintiff in manners that were persuasive, credible, and reasonable to Plaintiff, as they would have been to any other person similarly situated, that they had the political, business, financial, social, educational, and other influence and 15 EFTA00615953  Case 1:17-cv-00616-JGK Document 45 Filed 06/05/17 Page 16 of 31 connections sufficient to arrange for and insure her admission into . or a similar school of higher learning. 41. Maxwell and Epstein also threatened Plaintiff that. while they had the ability to advance her education and career, they also had the ability to make sure that Plaintiff would not obtain formal education f she failed to provide the sexual favors desired by Defendant Epstein or abide by the instructions given her by Defendants Epstein, M, and Maxwell. 42. Plaintiff reasonably believed that her compliance with Defendants' demands was crucial to her physical, psychological, financial. and reputational well-being and survival. 44. Maxwell and Epstein informed Plaintiff that other young females in Epstein's company were there also to perform sexual acts for Epstein and his friends. 16 EFTA00615954  Case 1:17-cv-00616-JGK Document 45 Filed 06/05/17 Page 17 of 31 The Defendants all participated in arranging for Plaintiff to be transported in interstate and foreign commerce, and affecting interstate and foreign commerce, for these sexual purposes. The Defendants Epstein, Maxwell, and 46. During many sexual encounters, Defendant Epstein gave Plaintiff no option, opportunity, or choice not to participate in the prescribed sexual acts. 47. Defendant Maxwell frequently controlled the assignment, or "rotation," of Plaintiff and the other young females concerning the time, place and manner of the sex acts they were told to provide to Defendant Epstein. 17 EFTA00615955  Case 1:17-cv-00616-JGK Document 45 Filed 06/05/17 Page 18 of 31 50. Defendant Epstein's wealth, influence, power and connections were used by Defendants Maxwell, and M, both as an inducement to provide sex (in exchange for promises of support to Plaintiff) and as a means of threatening punishment (in the event Plaintiff refused to comply with Defendants' instructions to provide sex to Epstein and others). 51. In addition to Plaintiffs being trafficked on Epstein's private airplane, Defendants IM, Maxwell and , with the knowledge of and instruction by Defendant Epstein, 18 EFTA00615956  Case 1:17-cv-00616-JGK Document 45 Filed 06/05/17 Page 19 of 31 53. The relationship between Plaintiff and Defendants Epstein and Maxwell was defined and characterized by Defendant Epstein's and Defendant Maxwell's frequent and persistent fraudulent representations that they would provide Plaintiff with a formal education and career advancement if she provided sex to Defendant 19 EFTA00615957  Case 1:17-cv-00616-JGK Document 45 Filed 06/05/17 Page 20 of 31 Epstein and others in the times, places and manners demanded by Defendants. Plaintiff reasonably relied on these representations. In fact, however, these representations were knowingly false, were not acted upon by Defendants, and were made by Defendants Epstein, M , =, and Maxwell solely for the purpose of maintaining Plaintiffs financial dependence on, emotional vulnerability to, and sexual compliance with Defendant Epstein's demands. The other Defendants intentionally repeated these representations and intentionally made statements designed to convince Plaintiff that the representations were true and could be relied upon. These representations and statements were made to Plaintiff in furtherance of the sex trafficking venture and enterprise for which they were each employed. 20 EFTA00615958  Case 1:17-cv-00616-JGK Document 45 Filed 06/05/17 Page 21 of 31 55. In January 2007, as part of their illegal venture and enterprise, Defendants sent Plaintiff from New York City, in the Southern District of New York, to o recruit, for a promised fee, one or more aspiring female models supposedly for Epstein to use as a personal assistant. The Defendants did not care whether the prospective female was qualified to work as a personal assistant because each knew that the female recruit would be immediately placed into the same sexually vulnerable position as Plaintiff (and the dozens of other victims of the sex trafficking enterprise) and would be induced and coerced into being used for sex through fraudulent representations and other means. 21 EFTA00615959  Case 1:17-cv-00616-JGK Document 45 Filed 06/05/17 Page 22 of 31 57. As part of their ongoing scheme, Defendants inflicted serious emotional and psychological harm on Plaintiff as a means of coercing her to continue engaging in commercial sex acts with Epstein and others. While Plaintiff was in South Africa, Defendants Epstein and Maxwell informed Plaintiff that she would not be permitted to return to the United States to receive her promised education unless she underwent a diet and lowered her body weight 22 EFTA00615960  Case 1:17-cv-00616-JGK Document 45 Filed 06/05/17 Page 23 of 31 58. As part of their scheme, Defendants Epstein and Maxwell called Plaintiff's parents in South Africa to tell them that Defendant Epstein would take good care of Plaintiff when she returned to the United States, and that Defendants Maxwell and Epstein would use their connections and influence to have her admitted to or another well-regarded fashion school or school of higher learning. 59. As part of their scheme, Epstein and told Plaintiff that she should fill out an application for admission to , and supporting essay, and send it to Epstein for his review. Pursuant to these instructions, Plaintiff completed an application, and supporting essay, and sent it to Epstein. As part of his scheme, Epstein told Plaintiff that he had reviewed these materials. His statements were intended to convince Plaintiff, and had the effect of convincing plaintiff (as they would have convinced any reasonable person), that her admission to was a "done deal" if she would comply with his instructions. also made the same representations to plaintiff on Epstein's behalf. Plaintiff reasonably relied on these representations by Epstein and 60. As part of their scheme, Epstein and Maxwell told Plaintiff that they had contacts at and at modeling agencies who could ensure her admission to and advance Plaintiff's career. As part of their scheme, Epstein and Maxwell told Plaintiff about Epstein's vast wealth and specifically identified him as a billionaire. Epstein and Maxwell told Plaintiff that they had extensive 23 EFTA00615961  Case 1:17-cv-00616-JGK Document 45 Filed 06/05/17 Page 24 of 31 contacts, in addition to those identified above, throughout New York City and elsewhere. 61. In February of 2007, in reliance on promises made by the Defendants, Plaintiff ainti Plaintiff knew that if she did not comply, Defendants Maxwell and Epstein would use their power, influence and connections in order to ensure that Plaintiff was unable to gain admission to . or a comparable school, and that they would destroy her career, just as they had destroyed the careers of others who had failed to comply with their demands. 62. Defendants Epstein and Maxwell continued to provide Plaintiff with things of value in exchange for Plaintiff's continued compliance with Epstein's sexual demands; however, they failed and refused to perform their promises to help Plaintiff be admitted to or another school, or to provide financial support for 24 EFTA00615962  Case 1:17-cv-00616-JGK Document 45 Filed 06/05/17 Page 25 of 31 college admission or on-going education, false promises they repeatedly made in order to coerce her into commercial sex acts. 63. Defendants' sexual demands on Plaintiff continued while she was in New York City, in the Southern District of New York, or in other locations in close proximity to the Defendants. 64. In May, 2007, Plaintiff left the United States and did not return. Between returning from in February 2007 and leaving in May 2007, 65. In and after May 2007, Defendants actively concealed and covered up what they had done to Plaintiff and other similarly situated females. Defendant's cover- up included efforts to intimidate witnesses who might provide corroborating testimony to Plaintiff as well as destruction of documents and other evidence regarding what they had done. 25 EFTA00615963  Case 1:17-cv-00616-JGK Document 45 Filed 06/05/17 Page 26 of 31 66. Unknown to Plaintiff, Defendants' representations and promises to Plaintiff were all false and fraudulent. Plaintiff reasonably relied on the representations and promises of the Defendants. Plaintiff also considered the Defendants' threats against the current and future well-being and safety of Plaintiff to be real and credible. All such representations, promises, and threats were made solely for the purpose of coercing and otherwise inducing Plaintiff into prolonged sexual compliance. Defendants knowingly benefitted financially and received things of value as a result of coercing and inducing Plaintiff into sexual compliance and otherwise participating in their illegal venture and enterprise. COUNT I CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1595 67. Plaintiff adopts and realleges paragraphs 1 through 66 above. 68. Defendants individually and together, 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, maintained, patronized, solicited, threatened, forced, and coerced Plaintiff to engage in commercial sex acts. Such actions by Defendants were undertaken with knowledge and/or reckless disregard of the fact that their threats of force, fraud, coercion, and combinations of such means would 26 EFTA00615964  Case 1:17-cv-00616-JGK Document 45 Filed 06/05/17 Page 27 of 31 be used, and were in fact used, in order to cause Plaintiff to engage in commercial sex acts. In so doing, Defendants violated 18 U.S.C. §1591. 69. Additionally, Defendants Epstein, Maxwell, and individually and together, knowingly doing, Defendants violated 18 U.S.C. § 1592. These Defendants also obstructed, and attempted to obstruct and to interfere with the enforcement of 18 U.S.C. § 1592. 70. Additionally, Defendants 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, Defendants violated 18 U.S.C. § 1593A. 71. Additionally, Defendants attempted to violate 18 U.S.C. § 1591. In so doing, Defendants violated 18 U.S.C. § 1594(a). 27 EFTA00615965  Case 1:17-cv-00616-JGK Document 45 Filed 06/05/17 Page 28 of 31 72. Additionally, Defendants conspired with each other, and with other persons known and unknown, to violate 18 U.S.C. § 1592. In so doing, Defendants violated 18 U.S.C. § 1594(b). 73. Additionally, Defendants conspired with each other, and with other persons known and unknown, to violate 18 U.S.C. § 1591. In so doing, Defendants violated 18 U.S.C. § 1594(c). 74. By virtue of their violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591, 1592, 1593A, and 1594, Defendants are subject to civil causes of action under 18 U.S.C. § 1595 by Plaintiff, who is a victim of their violations. 75. Certain property of Defendant Epstein's was essential to the commission of the federal crimes and torts described herein, including 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 aircraft, along with other of Defendants' property, were used as means and instruments of Defendants' tortious and criminal offenses and, as such, are subject to forfeiture. 76. Additionally, Defendant Epstein's New York mansion, located at 9 East 71st Street, New York, New York, in the Southern District of New York, and his private island located in the United States Virgin Islands, were used as means and 28 EFTA00615966  Case 1:17-cv-00616-JGK Document 45 Filed 06/05/17 Page 29 of 31 instruments of Defendants' tortious and criminal offenses and, as such, are subject to forfeiture. 77. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' commission of the aforementioned criminal offenses enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 1591, 1592, 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 Defendants' 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 he required do so in the future. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants 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. Dated: June 5, 2017. Respectfully Submitted, FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING. EDWARDS, FISTOS, LEHRMAN,. 29 EFTA00615967  Case 1:17-cv-00616-JGK Document 45 Filed 06/05/17 Page 30 of 31 By: /s/ Bradley J. Edwards Bradley J. Edwards PRO HAC VICE BOLES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP David Boies Boles Schiller & Flexner LLP Sigrid McCawley Meredith Schultz Boles Schiller & Flexner LLP PRO HAC VICE Paul G Cassell S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah PRO HAC VICE This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only and is not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah for this private representation 30 EFTA00615968  Case 1:17-cv-00616-JGK Document 45 Filed 06/05/17 Page 31 of 31 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 5th day of June, 2017, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on the individuals identified below via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF. STEPTOE & JOHNSON, LLP Michael C. Miller Justin Y.K. Chu Attorneys for Defendants Jeffrey Epstein & By: /s/ Bradley J. Edwards 31 EFTA00615969

EFTA00081180.pdf

DataSet-10 Unknown 40 pages

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 291-15 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/21/2015 Page 1 of 40 EXHIBIT 16 EFTA00081180 Case 1349pept Z91-15 _EriterM ocp WERocisstifolf/E15 Page 2 of 9:08-cv-807m09 roio-< uoc 16q0,3 e 0 EXHIBIT C Epstein vs. Edwards Undisputed Statement of Facts EFTA00081181 Case 9:08-cv-807ailaVs kigsyffigt 28415-c1p6Arger p hri N 7NRocieatgfe)10/§815 Page 3 of IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA Case No.: 50 2009 CA 040800XXXKMBAG JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff, VS. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY I EDWARDS, individually, Defendants, STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS Defendant Bradley J. Edwards, Esq., offers the following specific facts as the undisputed material facts in this case. Each of the following facts is numbered separately and individually to facilitate Epstein's required compliance with Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(c) ("The adverse party shall identify . . . any summary judgment evidence on which the adverse party relies."). Sexual Abuse of Children By Epstein 1. Defendant Epstein has a sexual preference for young children. Deposition of Jeffrey Epstein, Mar. 17, 2010, at 110 (hereinafter "Epstein Depo.") (Deposition Attachment #1).1 2. Epstein repeatedly sexually assaulted more than forty (40) young girls on numerous When questioned about this subject at his deposition, Epstein invoked his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent rather than make an incriminating admission. Accordingly, Edwards is entitled to the adverse inference against Epstein that, had Epstein answered, the answer would have been unfavorable to him. "[1]t is well-settled that the Fifth Amendment does not forbid adverse inferences against parties to civil actions when they refuse to testify in response to probative evidence offered against them." Baxter v. Pahnigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 318 (1976); accord Vasquez v. State, 777 So.2d 1200, 1203 (Fla. App. 2001). The reason for this rule "is both logical and utilitarian. A party may not trample upon the rights of others and then escape the consequences by invoking a constitutional privilege — at least not in a civil setting." Fraser v. Security and Inv. Corp., 615 So.2d 841, 842 (Fla. App. 1993). EFTA00081182 Case 9:08.cv_807agg3498mot 2rKali564rgerNeocp0F4lapi yocisstggy aig15 Page 4 of orrasions between 2002 and 2005 in his mansion in West Palm Beach, Florida. These sexual assaults included vaginal penetration. Epstein abused many of the girls dozens if not hundreds of times. Epstein Depo. at 109 ("Q: How many times have you engaged in oral sex with females under the age of 18?" A: [Invocation of the Fifth Amendment]); Deposition of Jane Doe, September 24, 2009 and continued March 11, 2010, at 527 (minor girl sexually abused at least 17 times by Epstein) (hereinafter "Jane Doe Depo") (Deposition Attachment #2); id 564-67 (vaginal penetration by Epstein with his finger), 568 (vaginal penetration by Epstein with a massager); Deposition of L.M., September 24, 2009, at 73 (hereinafter "L.M. Depo") (Deposition Attachment #3) (describing the manner in which Epstein abused her beginning when LM was 13 years old, touching her vagina with his forgers and vibrator) at 74, line 12-13 (she was personally molested by Epstein more than 50 times), at 164, line 19-23 and 141, line 12-13 and 605, line 3-6 (describing that in addition to being personally molested by Epstein she was paid $200 per underage girl she brought Epstein and she brought him more than seventy (70) underage girls - she told him that she did not want to bring him any more girls and he insisted that she continue to bring him underage girls); Deposition of E.W., May 6, 2010 (hereinafter "E.W. Depo") (Deposition Attachment #4) at 115-116, 131 and 255 (describing Epstein's abuse of her beginning at age 14 when he paid her for touching her vagina, inserting his fingers and using a vibrator and he also paid her $200 for each other underage female E.W. brought him to molest. She brought him between 20 and 30 underage females); Deposition of Jane Doe #4, date (hereinafter "Jane Doe #4 Depo") (Deposition Attachment #5) at 32-34, and 136 (she describes first being taken to Epstein at 15 years old, "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."). 2 EFTA00081183 Case 9:08-cv-807mAdv34198 .1mt 28,?).-cdpa ggergleodi0F4layoc ilistali2y3.015 Page 5 of 3. At all relevant times Edwards has had a good faith basis to conclude and did conclude2 that Epstein was able to access a large number of underage girls through a pyramid abuse scheme in which he paid underage victims $200-$300 cash for each other underage victim that she brought to him. See Palm Beach Police Incident Report at 87 (hereinafter "Incident Report") (Exhibit "A").3 The Palm Beach Police Incident Report details Epstein's scheme for molesting underage females. Among other things, the Incident Report outlines some of the experiences of other Epstein victims. When S.G, a 14 year old minor at the time, was brought to Epstein's home, she was taken upstairs by a woman she believed to be Epstein's assistant. The woman started to fix up the room, putting covers on the massage table and bringing lotions out. The "assistant" then left the room and told S.G. that Epstein would be up in a second. Epstein walked over to S.G. and told her to take her clothes off in a stem voice. S.G. states in the report she did not know what to do, as she was the only one there. S.G. took off her shirt, leaving her bra on. Epstein, then in a towel told her to take off everything. S.G. removed her pants leaving on her thong panties. Epstein then instructed S.G to give him a massage. As S.G gave Epstein a massage, Epstein turned around and masturbated. S.G. was so disgusted, she did not say anything; Epstein told her she "had a really hot body." Id. at 14. In the report, S.G. admitted seeing Jeffrey Epstein's penis and stated she thought Epstein was on steroids because he was a "really built guy and his wee wee was very tiny." Id at 15. 4. The exact number of minor girls who Epstein assaulted is known only to Epstein. However, Edwards had a good faith basis to believe and did in fact believe that Epstein's victims were substantially more than forty (40) in number. In addition to the deposition excerpts from two of his many victims above about the number of underage girls brought to Epstein and the Palm Beach 2 In support of all assertions concerning the actions Edwards took, what Edwards learned in the course of his representation of his clients, Edwards's good faith beliefs and the foundation for those beliefs, see Edwards Affidavit and specifically paragraphs 25 and 25 of that Affidavit. For clarity, depositions attached to this memorandum will be identified numerically as attachments #1, #2, #3, etc., while exhibits attached to this memorandum will be identified alphabetically as exhibits A, B, C, etc. 3 EFTA00081184 Case 9:08-cv-807ae Kte349mwt 28,:li alpeirger leocpcf4WhyoliVig204915 Page 6 of incident report, there is overwhelming proof that the number of underage girls molested by Epstein through his scheme was in the hundreds. See Complaint, Jane Doe 102 v. Epstein, (hereinafter Jane Doe 102 complaint) (Exhibit "B"); see also Deposition of Jeffrey Epstein, April 14, 2010, at 442, 443, and 444 (Epstein invoking the 5th on questions about his daily abuse and molestation of children) (Deposition Attachment #6). 5. At all relevant times Edwards has had a good faith basis to believe and did in fact believe that Epstein and his attorneys knew of the seriousness of the criminal investigation against him and corresponded constantly with the United States Attorney's Office in an attempt to avoid the filing of numerous federal felony offenses, which effort was successful. See Correspondence from U.S. Attorney's Office to Epstein (hereinafter "U.S. Attorney's Correspondence") (Composite Exhibit "C) (provided in discovery during the Jane Doe v. Epstein case). 6. At all relevant times Edwards has had a good faith basis to believe and did in fact believe that, more specifically, Epstein's attorneys knew of Epstein's scheme to recruit minors for sex and also knew that these minors had civil actions that they could bring against him. In fact, there was much communication between Epstein's attorneys and the United States Prosecutors in a joint attempt to minimize Epstein's civil exposure. For example, on October 3, 2007, Assistant U.S. Attorney Marie Villafafia sent an email (attached hereto as Exhibit "D") to Jay Lefkowitz, counsel for Epstein, with attached proposed letter to special master regarding handling numerous expected civil claims against Epstein. The letter reads in pertinent part, "The undersigned, as counsel for the United States of America and Jeffrey Epstein, jointly write to you to provide information relevant to your service as a Special Master in the selection of an attorney to represent several young women who may have civil damages claims against Mr. Epstein. The U.S. Attorney's Office and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (jointly referred to as the "United States") have conducted an investigation of Jeffrey Epstein regarding his solicitation of minor females in Palm Beach County to engage in prostitution. Mr. Epstein, through his assistants, would recruit underage females to travel to his home in Palm Beach to 4 EFTA00081185 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 291-15 Entered Docket 01121/21015 Page 7 of ailed u4iusitt Page b Ot Case 09-34791-RBR Doc 16*3 Filed engage in lewd conduct in exchange for money. Based upon the investigation, the United States has identified forty (40) young women who can be characterized as victims pursuant to 18 USC 2255. Some of those women went to Mr. Epstein's home only once, some went there as much as 100 times or more. Some of the women's conduct was limited to performing a topless or nude massage while Mr. Epstein masturbated himself. For other women, the conduct escalated to full sexual intercourse. As part of the resolution of the case, Epstein has agreed that he would not contest jurisdiction in the Southern District of Florida for any victim who chose to sue bim for damages pursuant to 18 USC 2255. Mr. Epstein agreed to provide an attorney for victims who elected to proceed exclusively pursuant to that section, and agreed to waive any challenge to liability under that section up to an amount agreed to by the parties. The parties have agreed to submit the selection of an attorney to a Special Master...." 7. At all relevant times Edwards has had a good faith basis to believe and did in fact believe that L.M. was, in fact, a victim of Epstein's criminal abuse because L.M. was one of the minor females that the United States Attorney's Office recognized as a victim. L.M.'s sworn deposition testimony and the adverse inference drawn from Epstein's refusal to testify confirm that Epstein began sexually assaulting L.M. when she was 13 years old and continued to molest her on more than fifty (50) occasions over three (3) years. Epstein Depo., Attachment #1, at 17 ("Q: Did you . . . ever engage in any sexual conduct with L.M.?" A: [Invocation of the Fifth Amendment].); see also Epstein Depo., April 14, 2010, Attachment #6, at 456 ("Q: LM was an underage female that you first abused when she was 13 years old; is that correct?" A: [Invocation of Fifth Amendment].) 8. Epstein was also given ample opportunity to explain why he engaged in sexual activity with L.M. beginning when L.M. was 13 years old and why he has molested minors on an everyday basis for years, and he invoked his 5th amendment right rather than provide explanation. See Epstein Deposition, February 17, 2010, at 11-12, 30-31 (Deposition Attachment # 7). 9. Epstein also sexually assaulted E.W., beginning when she was 14 years old and did so on numerous occasions. See E.W. Depo., Attachment #4 at 215-216. 10. Another of the minor girls Epstein sexually assaulted was Jane Doe; the abuse began 5 EFTA00081186 Case 9:08-cv-807a= 31:3gst....mt 2gA gi n j ierNapif 4La iyolstggy2O1f/N15 Page 8 of when Jane Doe was 14 years old. Rather than incriminate himself, Epstein invoked the 5th amendment to questions about him digitally penetrating Doe's vagina, using vibrators on her vagina and masturbating and ejaculating in her presence. Epstein Depo., April 14, 2010, Attachment #6, at 420, 464, 468. 11. When Edwards's clients L.M., E.W., and Jane Doe were 13 or 14 years old, each was brought to Epstein's home multiple times by another underage victim. Epstein engaged in one or more of the following acts with each of the then-minor girls at his mansion: receiving a topless or completely nude massage; using a vibrator on her vagina; masturbating in her presence; ejaculating in her presence; touching her breast or buttocks or vagina or the clothes covering her sexual organs; and demanding that she bring him other underage girls. Epstein and his co-conspirators used the telephone to contact these girls to entice or induce them into going to his mansion for sexual abuse. Epstein also made E.W. perform oral sex on him and was to perform sex acts on Nadia Marcinkova (Epstein's live- in sex slave) in Epstein's presence. See Plaintiff Jane Doe's Notice Regarding Evidence of Similar Acts of Sexual Assault, filed in Jane Doe v. Epstein, No. 08-cv-80893 (S.D. Fla. 2010), as DE 197, (hereinafter "Rule 413 Notice") (Exhibit "E"); Jane Doe Depo., Attachment #2, at 379-380; L.M. Depo., Attachment #3, at 416; E.W. Depo, Attachment #4, at 205. 12. At all relevant times Edwards has had a good faith basis to believe and did in fact believe that yet another of the minor girls Epstein sexually assaulted was C.L. When she was approximately 15 years old, C.L. was brought to Epstein's home by another underage victim. While a minor, she was at Epstein's home on multiple occasions. Epstein engaged in one or more of the following acts with her while she was a minor at his house - topless or completely nude massage on Epstein; Epstein used a vibrator on her vagina; Epstein masturbated in her presence; Epstein ejaculated in her presence; Epstein also demanded that she bring him other underage girls. See Rule 413 Notice, 6 EFTA00081187 Case 9:08-cv-807ae lmassage on Epstein; Epstein used a vibrator on her vagina; Epstein masturbated in her presence; Epstein ejaculated in her presence; Epstein touched her breast or buttock or vagina or the clothes covering her sexual organs; was made to perform sex acts on Epstein; made to perform sex acts on Nadia Marcinkova in Epstein's presence. Epstein also forcibly raped this underage victim, as he held her head down against her will and pumped his penis inside her while she was screaming "No". See Rule 413 Notice, Exhibit "E"; Incident Report, Exhibit "A", at 41 (specifically discussing the rape): "[AR.] remembered that she climaxed and was removing herself from the massage table. [A.H.] asked for a sheet of paper and drew the massage table in the master bathroom and where Epstein, Marcinkova and she were. Epstein turned [A.H.] on to her stomach on the massage bed and inserted his penis into her vagina. [A.H.] stated Epstein began to pump his penis in her vagina. [A.H.] became upset over this. She said her head was being held against the bed forcibly, as he continued to pump inside her. She screamed no, and Epstein stopped ...." "[AIL] advised there were times that she was so sore when she left Epstein's house. [A.H.] advised she was ripped, torn, in her vagina area. [A.H.] advised she had difficulty walking to the car after leaving the house because she was so sore." 14. Without detailing each fact known about Epstein's abuse of the many underage girls, Edwards has had a good faith basis to believe and did in fact believe at all relevant times that Epstein also abused other victims in ways closely similar to those described in the preceding paragraphs. Epstein's additional victims include the following (among many other) young girls: S.G.; A.D.; V.A.; N.R.; J.S.; V.Z.; J.A.; T.E.; M.L.; M.D.; D.D.; and D.N. These girls were between the ages of 13 and 7 EFTA00081188 Case 9:08-cv-807pa-sIM -3 9imgW 1.16 .I645ereMigg umtRocIgg0elqcin15 Page 10 of 17 when Epstein abused them. See Rule 413 Notice, Exhibit E; Deposition of E.W., Deposition Attachment #4. 15. One of Mr. Epstein's household employees, Mr. Alfredo Rodriguez, saw numerous underage girls coming into Epstein's mansion for purported "massages." See Rodriguez Depo. at 242- 44 (Deposition Attachment #8). Rodriguez was aware that "sex toys" and vibrators were found in Epstein's bedroom after the purported massages. Id at 223-28. Rodriguez thought what Epstein was doing was wrong, given the extreme youth of the girls he saw. Id. at 230-31. 16. Alfredo Rodriguez took a journal from Epstein's computer that reflected many of the names of underage females Epstein abused across the country and the world, including locations such as Michigan, California, West Palm Beach, New York, New Mexico, and Paris, France. See Journal (hereinafter "The Journal" or "Holy Grail") (Exhibit "F") (identifying, among other Epstein acquaintances, females that Rodriguez believes were underage under the heading labeled "Massages"). 17. Rodriguez was later charged in a criminal complaint with obstruction of justice in connection with trying to obtain $50,000 from civil attorneys pursuing civil sexual assault cases against Epstein as payment for producing the book to the attorneys. See Criminal Complaint at 2, U.S. v. Rodriguez, No. 9:10-CR-80015-KAM (S.D. Fla. 2010) (Exhibit "G"). Rodriguez stated be needed money because the journal was his "property" and that he was afraid that Jeffrey Epstein would make him "disappear" unless he had an "insurance policy" (i.e., the journal). Id at 3. Because of the importance of the information in the journal to the civil cases, Mr. Rodriguez called it "The Holy Grail." 18. In the "Holy Grail" or "The Journal," among the many names listed (along with the abused girls) are some of the people that Epstein alleges in his Complaint had "no connection whatsoever" with the litigation in this case. See, e.g., Journal, Exhibit F, at 85 (Donald Trump); at 9 8 EFTA00081189 Case 9:08-cv-807attotAme 2Niall ogerrl eocroFaCAyocitaWW015 Page 11 of (Bill Clinton phone numbers listed under "Doug Bands"). Federal Investigation and Plea Agreement With Epstein 19. In approximately 2005, the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida learned of Epstein's repeated sexual abuse of minor girls. They began a criminal investigation into federal offenses related to his crimes. See U.S. Attorney's Correspondence, Exhibit "C". 20. At all relevant times Edwards has had a good faith basis to believe and did in fact believe that to avoid the Government learning about his abuse of minor girls, Epstein threatened his employees and demanded that they not cooperate with the government. Epstein's aggressive witness tampering was so severe that the United States Attorney's Office prepared negotiated plea agreements containing these charges. For example, in a September 18, 2007, email from AUSA Villafafia to Lefkowitz (attached hereto as Exhibit "H"), she attached the proposed plea agreement describing Epstein's witness tampering as follows: "UNITED STATES vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN PLEA PROFFER" On August 21, 2007, FBI Special Agents E. Nesbitt Kuyrkendall and Jason Richards traveled to the home of Leslie Groff to serve her with a federal grand jury subpoena with an investigation pending in the Southern.District of Florida. Ms. Groff works as the personal assistant of the defendant. Ms. Groff began speaking with the agents and then excused herself to go upstairs to check on her sleeping child. While upstairs, Ms. Groff telephoned the defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, and informed him that the FBI agents were at her home. Mr. Epstein instructed Ms. Groff not to speak with the agents and reprimanded her for allowing them into her home. Mr. Epstein applied pressure to keep Ms. Groff from complying with the grand jury subpoenas that the agents had served upon her. In particular, Mr. Epstein warned Ms. Groff against turning over documents and electronic evidence responsive to the subpoena and pressured her to delay her appearance before the grand jury in the Southern District of Florida. This conversation occurred when Mr. Epstein was aboard his privately owned civilian aircraft in Miami in the Southern District of Florida. His pilot had filed a flight plan showing the parties were about to return to Teterboro, NJ. After the conversation with Ms. Grog Mr. Epstein became concerned that the FBI would try to serve his traveling companion, Nadia Marcinkova, with a similar grand jury subpoena. In fact, the agents were 9 EFTA00081190 Case 9:08-cv-80722s-It/1-349vi vot 28(25-c1f6aertocrAIRE9RocisstgaSRlaya5 Page 12 of preparing to serve Ms. Marcinkova with a target letter when the flight landed in Teterboro. Mr. Epstein then redirected his airplane, making the pilot file a new flight plan to travel to the US Virgin Islands instead of the New York City area, thereby keeping the Special Agents from serving the target letter on Nadia Marcinkova. During the flight, the defendant verbally harassed Ms. Marcinkova, harassing and pressuring her not to cooperate with the grand jury's investigation, thereby hindering and dissuading her from reporting the commission of a violation of federal law to a law enforcement officer, namely, Special Agents of the FBI. Epstein also threatened and harassed Sarah Kellen against cooperating against him as well. 21. Edwards learned that the Palm Beach police department investigation ultimately led to the execution of a search warrant at Epstein's mansion in October 2005. See Police Incident Report, Exhibit "A". 22. Edwards learned that at around the same time, the Palm Beach Police Department also began investigating Epstein's sexual abuse of minor girls. They also collected evidence of Epstein's involvement with minor girls and his obsession with training sex slaves, including pulling information from Epstein's trash. Their investigation showed that Epstein ordered from Amazon.com on about September 4, 2005, such books as: SM101: A Realistic Introduction, by Jay Wiseman; SlaveCraft: Roadmaps for Erotic Servitude - Principles, Skills, and Tools, by Guy Baldwin; and Training with Miss Abernathy: A Workbook for Erotic Slaves and Their Owners, by Christina Abernathy. See Receipt for Sex Slave Books (Exhibit "I"). 23. The Palm Beach incident reports provided Edwards with the names of numerous witnesses that participated in Epstein's child molestation criminal enterprise and also provided Edwards with some insight into how far-reaching Epstein's power was and how addicted Epstein was to sex with children. See Incident Report, Exhibit "A". 24. The Palm Beach Police Department also collected Epstein's message pads, which provided other names of people that also knew Epstein's scheme to molest children. See Message Pads (Exhibit "3") (note: the names of underage females have been redacted to protect the anonymity 10 EFTA00081191 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 291-15 Entere_d on FL,a0P Docket 01/21/2015 Page 13 of Case 09-34791-RBR Doc 160463 Foe° 04/us/11 rage of au of the underage sex abuse victims). Those message pads show clear indication that Epstein's staff was frequently working to schedule multiple young girls between the ages of 12 and 16 years old literally every day, often two or three times per day. Id 25. In light of all of the information of numerous crimes committed by Epstein, Edwards learned that the U.S. Attorney's Office began preparing the filing of federal criminal charges against Epstein. For example, in addition to the witness tampering and money laundering charges the U.S. Attorney's Office prepared an 82-page prosecution memo and a 53-page indictment of Epstein related to his sexual abuse of children. On September 19, 2007, at 12:14 PM, AUSA Villafinla wrote to Epstein's counsel, Jay Lefkowitz, "Jay - I hate to have to be firm about this, but we need to wrap this up by Monday. I will not miss my indictment date when this has dragged on for several weeks already and then, if things fall apart, be left in a less advantageous position than before the negotiations. I have had an 82-page pros memo and 53-page indictment sitting on the shelf since May to engage in these negotiations. There has to be an ending date, and that date is Monday." These and other communications are within the correspondence attached as Composite Exhibit "C." 26. Edwards learned that rather than face the filing of federal felony criminal charges, Epstein (through his attorneys) engaged in plea bargain discussions. As a result of those discussions, on September 24, 2007, Epstein signed an agreement with the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida. Under the agreement, Epstein agreed to plead guilty to an indictment pending against him in the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County charging him with solicitation of prostitution and procurement of minors for prostitution. Epstein also agreed that he would receive a thirty month sentence, including 18 months of jail time and 12 months of community control. In exchange, the U.S. Attorney's Office agreed not to pursue any federal charges against Epstein. See Non-Prosecution Agreement (Exhibit "K"). 11 EFTA00081192 Case 9:08-ov-807_36-KAM.. .Document 291-15. Wered orLFLSD Docket 01/21/2015 Page 14 of Case 09-34791-KBK Uoc MO u4iuorl rage of 27. Part of the Non-Prosecution Agreement that Epstein negotiated was a provision in which the federal government agreed not to prosecute Epstein's co-conspirators. The co-conspirators procured minor females to be molested by Epstein. One of the co-conspirators - Nadia Marcinkova - even participated in the sex acts with minors (including E.W.) and Epstein. See Incident Report, Exhibit "A", at 40-42, 49-51; Deposition of Nadia Marcinkova, April 13, 2010, (hereinafter "Marcinkova Depo.") at 11 (Deposition attachment #9). 28. Under the Non-Prosecution Agreement, Epstein was to use his "best efforts" to enter into his guilty pleas by October 26, 2007. However, Edwards learned that Epstein violated his agreement with the U.S. Attorney's Office to do so and delayed entry of his plea. See Letter from U.S. Attorney R. Alexander Acosta to Lilly Ann Sanchez, Dec. 19, 2007 (Exhibit "L"). 29. On January 10, 2008 and again on May 30, 2008 E.W. and L.M. received letters from the FBI advising them that "[t]his case is currently under investigation. This can be a lengthy process and we request your continued patience while we conduct a thorough investigation." Letters attached at Composite Exhibit "M". This document is evidence that the FBI did not notify E.W. and L.M. that a plea agreement had already been reached that would block federal prosecution of Epstein. Nor did the FBI notify E.W. and L.M. of any of the parts of the plea agreement. Nor did the FBI or other federal authorities confer with E.W. and L.M. about the plea. See id. 30. In 2008, Edwards believed in good faith that criminal prosecution of Epstein was extremely important to his clients E.W. and L.M. and that they desired to be consulted by the FBI and/or other representatives of the federal government about the prosecution of Epstein. The letters that they had received around January 10, 2008, suggested that a criminal investigation of Epstein was on-going and that they would be contacted before the federal government reached any final resolution of that investigation. See id 12 EFTA00081193 Case 9:08-cv-807e=g34198Aeliit 2aLli60igtergieccipoya i yocgaRWIef2.12cp Page 15 of Edwards Agrees to Serve as Legal Counsel for Three Victims of Eostein's Sexual Assaults 31. In about April 2008, Bradley J. Edwards, Esq., was a licensed attorney in Florida, practicing as a sole practitioner. As a former prosecutor, he was well versed in civil cases that involved criminal acts, including sexual assaults. Three of the many girls Epstein had abused — L.M., E.W., and Jane Doe — all requested that Edwards represent them civilly and secure appropriate monetary damages against Epstein for repeated acts of sexual abuse while they were minor girls. Two of the girls (L.M. and E.W.) also requested that Edwards represent them in connection with a concern that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and U.S. Attorney's Office might be arranging a plea bargain for the criminal offenses committed by Epstein without providing them the legal rights to which they were entitled (including the right to be notified of plea discussions and the right to confer with prosecutors about any plea arrangement). See Affidavit of Bradley J. Edwards, Esq. at ¶1 - 2,14 (hereinafter "Edwards Affidavit") (Exhibit "N"). 32. On June 13, 2008, attorney Edwards agreed to represent E.W.; on July 2, 2008, attorney Edwards agreed to represent Jane Doe; and, on July 7, 2008, attorney Edwards agreed to represent L.M. in connection with the sexual assaults committed by Epstein and to insure that their rights as victims of crimes were protected in the criminal process on-going against Epstein. Mr. Edwards and his three clients executed written retention agreements. See id. at ¶2. 33. In mid June of 2008, Edwards contacted AUSA Villafafia to inform her that he represented Jane Doe #1 and, later, Jane Doe #2. AUSA Villafafia did not advise that a plea agreement had already been negotiated with Epstein's attorneys that would block federal prosecution. To the contrary, AUSA Villafafia mentioned a possible indictment. AUSA Villafafia did indicate that federal investigators had concrete evidence and information that Epstein had sexually molested many underage minor females, including E.W., LM, and Jane Doe. See id. at 13 EFTA00081194 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 291-15_ igtered on_FLSD Docket 01/21=5 Page 16 of ease 09-34 uoc m0 Hiea urttuoil rage ro or .39 34. Edwards also requested from the U.S. Attorney's Office the information that they had collected regarding Epstein's sexual abuse of his clients. However, the U.S. Attorney's Office, declined to provide any such information to Edwards. It similarly declined to provide any such information to the other attorneys who represented victims of Epstein's sexual assaults. At the very least, this includes the items that were confiscated in the search warrant of Epstein's home, including dildos, vibrators, massage table, oils, and additional message pads. See Property Receipt (Exhibit 35. On Friday, June 27, 2008, at approximately 4:15 p.m., AUSA Villafafia received a copy of Epstein's proposed state plea agreement and learned that the plea was scheduled for 8:30 a.m., Monday, June 30, 2008. AUSA Villafafia called Edwards to provide notice to his clients regarding the hearing. AUSA Villafafia did not tell Attorney Edwards that the guilty pleas in state court would bring an end to the possibility of federal prosecution pursuant to the plea agreement. See Edwards Affidavit, Exhibit "N", at ¶6. 36. Under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771, victims of federal crimes — including E.W. and L.M. — are entitled to basic rights during any plea bargaining process, including the right to be treated with fairness, the right to confer with prosecutors regarding any plea, and the right to be heard regarding any plea. The process that was followed leading to the non- prosecution of Epstein violated these rights of E.W. and L.M. See Emergency Petn. for Victim's Enforcement of Crime Victim's Rights, No. 9:08-CV-80736-KAM (S.D. Fla. 2008) (Exhibit "P"). 37. Because of the violation of the CVRA, on July 7, 2008, Edwards filed an action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Case No. 9:08-CV-80736, seeking to enforce the rights of E.W. and L.M. That action alleged that the U.S. Attorney's Office had failed to provide E.W. and L.M. the rights to which they were entitled under the Act, including the right to be notified 14 EFTA00081195 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM_ Document 291-15 Entered ortELSID Docket 01/21/21015 Page 17 of ease 09-S4/91-K16R UOC 1601463 Hien u4rubill Fage to 01 about a plea agreement and to confer with prosecutors regarding it. See id. 38. On July 11, 2008, Edwards took E.W. and L.M. with him to the hearing on the CVRA action. It was only at this hearing that both victims learned for the first time that the plea deal was already done with Epstein and that the criminal case against Epstein had been effectively terminated by the U.S. Attorney's office. See Hearing Transcript, July 11, 2008 (Exhibit "Q"). 39. Edwards learned that Jane Doe felt so strongly that the plea bargain was inappropriate that she made her own determination to appear on a television program and exercise her First Amendment rights to criticize the unduly lenient plea bargain Epstein received in a criminal case. 40. The CVRA action that Edwards filed was recently administratively closed and Edwards filed a Motion to reopen that proceeding. See No. 9:08-CV-80736 (S.D. Fla.). Epstein's Entry ofGuilty Pleas to Sex Offenses 41. Ultimately, on June 30, 2008, in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in Palm Beach County, Florida, defendant Epstein, entered pleas of "guilty" to various Florida state crimes involving the solicitation of minors for prostitution and the procurement of minors for the purposes of prostitution. See Plea Colloquy (Exhibit "R"). 42. As a condition of that plea, and in exchange for the Federal Government not prosecuting the Defendant, Epstein additionally entered into an agreement with the Federal Government acknowledging that approximately thirty-four (34) other young girls could receive payments from him under the federal statute providing for compensation to victims of child sexual abuse, 18 U.S.C. § 2255. As had been agreed months before, the U.S. Attorney's Office did not prosecute Epstein federally for his sexual abuse of these minor girls. See Addendum to Non- Prosecution Agreement (Exhibit "S") (in redacted form to protect the identities of the minors involved). 15 EFTA00081196 Case 9:08-cv-807agilMastifot 2glo-cliCer rlesinahRocisst9C41,q1c/a.5 Page 18 of 43. Because Epstein became a convicted sex offender, he was not to have contact with any of his victims. During the course of his guilty pleas on June 30, 2008, Palm Beach Circuit Court Judge Deborah Dale Pucillo ordered Epstein "not to have any contact, direct or indirect" with any victims. She also expressly stated that her no-contact order applied to "all of the victims." Similar orders were entered by the federal court handling some of the civil cases against Epstein. The federal court stated that it "finds it necessary to state clearly that Defendant is under this court's order not to have direct or indirect contact with any plaintiffs . . . ." Order, Case No. 9:08-cv-80119 (S.D. Fla. 2008), [DE 238] at 4-5 (emphasis added); see also Order, Case No. 9:08-cv-80893, [DE 193] at 2 (emphasis added). Edwards. Files Civil Suits Azainst Epstein 44. Edwards had a good faith belief that his clients felt angry and betrayed by the criminal system and wished to prosecute and punish Epstein for his crimes against them in whatever avenue remained open to them. On August 12, 2008, at the request of his client Jane Doe, Brad Edwards filed a civil suit against Jeffrey Epstein to recover damages for his sexual assault of Jane Doe. See Edwards Affidavit, "N" at ¶7. Included in this complaint was a RICO count that explained how Epstein ran a criminal conspiracy to procure young girls for him to sexually abuse. See Complaint, Jane Doe v. Epstein (Exhibit "T"). 45. On September 11, 2008, at the request of his client E.W., Brad Edwards filed a civil suit against Jeffrey Epstein to recover damages for his sexual assault of E.W. See Complaint, E.W. v. Epstein (Exhibit "U"). 46. On September 11, 2008, at the request of his client L.M.., Brad Edwards filed a civil suit against Jeffrey Epstein to recover damages for his sexual assault of L.M. See Complaint, L.M. v. Epstein, (Exhibit "V"). 47. Jane Doe's federal complaint indicated that she sought damages of more than $50,000,000. 16 EFTA00081197 Case 9:08-cv-807_36-KMA .DocuncLent 291-15.. Wered on_FLSD Docket 01/21/2M5 Page 19 of ease 0s-34/91-M3K UOC ib0 Hiea u4ruidel vage MOT .J9 Listing the amount of damages sought in the complaint was in accord with other civil suits that were filed against Epstein (before any lawsuit filed by Edwards). See Complaint, Jane Doe #4 v. Epstein (Exhibit "W") (filed by Herman and Mermelstein, PA). 48. At about the same time as Edwards filed his three lawsuits against Epstein, other civil attorneys were filing similar lawsuits against Epstein. For example, on or about April 14, 2008 another law firm, Herman and Mermelstein, filed the first civil action against Epstein on behalf of one of its seven clients who were molested by Epstein. The complaints that attorney Herman filed on behalf of his seven clients were similar in tenor and tone to the complaint that Edwards filed on behalf of his three clients. See id. 49. Over the next year and a half, more than 20 other similar civil actions were filed by various attorneys against Epstein alleging sexual assault of minor girls. These complaints were also similar in tenor and tone to the complaint that Edwards filed on behalf of his clients. These complaints are all public record and have not been attached, but are available in this Court's files and the files of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. 50. In addition to the complaints filed against Epstein in Florida, a female in New York, Ava Cordero, filed a lawsuit against Epstein in New York making similar allegations - that Epstein paid her for a massage then forced her to give him oral sex and molested her in other ways when she was only 16 years old. Cordero was born a male, and in her complaint she alleges that Epstein told her during the "massage", "I love how young you are. You have a tight butt like a baby". See Jeff Epstein Sued for "Repeated Sexual Assaults" on Teen, New York Post, October 17, 2007, by Dareh Gregorian, link at: http://www.nvoost.com/p/newskegionaUitem 44z1WyLUFH7R1OUtKYGPbP sessionid=6CA3EBF1 BEF68F5DE14BFB2CAA5C37E0. See Article attached hereto as Exhibit "X". 17 EFTA00081198 Case 9:08-cv-807avm.4-3498mee 2N.ailowern eocr oF4RA?ostbgiawsp Page 20 of 51. Edwards's three complaints against Epstein contained less detail about sexual abuse than (as one example) a complaint filed by attorney Robert Josephsberg from the law firm of Podhurst Orseck. See Complaint, Jane Doe 102 v. Epstein (Exhibit "B"). As recounted in detail in this Complaint, Jane Doe 102 was 15 years old when Ghislaine Maxwell discovered her and lured her to Epstein's house. Maxwell and Epstein forced her to have sex with both of them and within weeks Maxwell and Epstein were flying her all over the world. According to the Complaint, Jane Doe 102 was forced to live as one of Epstein's underage sex slaves for years and was forced to have sex with not only Maxwell and Epstein but also other politicians, businessmen, royalty, academicians, etc. She was even made to watch Epstein have sex with three 12-year-old French girls that were sent to him for his birthday by a French citizen that is a friend of Epstein's. Luckily, Jane Doe 102 escaped to Australia to get away from Epstein and Maxwell's sexual abuse. 52. Edwards learned that in addition to civil suits that were filed in court against Epstein, at around the same time other attorneys engaged in pre-filing settlement discussions with Epstein. Rather than face filed civil suits in these cases, Epstein paid money settlements to more than 15 other women who had sexually abused while they were minors. See articles regarding settlements attached hereto as Composite Exhibit "Y." Epstein's Obstruction of Normal Discovery and Attacks on His Victim. 53. Once Edwards filed his civil complaints for his three clients, he began the normal process of discovery for cases such as these. He sent standard discovery requests to Epstein about his sexual abuse of the minor girls, including requests for admissions, request for production, and interrogatories. See Edwards Affidavit, Exhibit "N", at ¶¶11-19 and 25. Rather than answer any substantive questions about his sexual abuse and his conspiracy for procuring minor girls for him to abuse, Epstein invoked his 5th amendment right against self-incrimination. An 18 EFTA00081199 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 291-15 Entered on Fl 5f) Docket 01/21/2a15 Page 21 of ease 09-34 /91 -KIJK UOC 1604b3 Fitea 04/ubul yage zu OT example of Epstein's refusal to answer is attached as Composite Exhibit "Z" (original discovery propounded to Epstein and his responses invoking 5th amendment). 54. During the discovery phase of the civil cases filed against Epstein, Epstein's deposition was taken at least five times. During all of those depositions, Epstein refused to answer any substantive questions about his sexual abuse of minor girls. See, e.g., Deposition Attachments 1, 6 and 7. 55. During these depositions, Epstein further attempted to obstruct legitimate questioning by inserting a variety of irrelevant information about his case. As one of innumerable examples, on March 8, 2010, Mr. Horowitz, representing seven victims, Jane Doe's 2-8, asked, "Q: In 2004, did you rub Jane Doe 3's vagina? A: Excuse me. I'd like to answer that question, as I would like to answer mostly every question you've asked me here today; however, upon advice of counsel, I cannot answer that question. They've advised me I must assert my Sixth Amendment, Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment Rights against self--excuse me, against--u

EFTA01245444.pdf

DataSet-10 Unknown 3 pages

FD-1037 (Rev. 5-8-10) (Overall Document Classification Required) FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Electronic Communication Title: (U//FOLIO) TO SET LEADS FOR CAPTIONED Date: 12/04/2018 INVESTIGATION. Approved By: Drafted By: Case ID #: 31E-MM-NEW (U) EPSTEIN, JEFFREY Details: Precedence: ROUTINE Date: 02/06/2008 To: New York Attn: SSA Peter F. Grupe Squad C-20 From: Miami PB-2/PBCRA Contact: SA II Approved By: Drafted By: E Case ID I: 31E-MM-108062 (Pending) Title: JEFFREY EPSTEIN; -; GHISLAINE N. MAXWELL; WSTA - CHILD PROSTITUTION Synopsis: To set leads for captioned investigation. Reference: 31E-MM-108062 Serial 125 Enclosure (s): Enclosed for New York is a copy of referenced serial, FD-302 of . Details: On 07/24/2006 the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Palm Beach County Resident Agency (PBCRA), began investigating Jeffrey Epstein, a part-time resident of Palm Beach, along with his personal assistants, and Ghislaine Maxwell. PBCRA obtained information from the City of Palm Beach Police Department (PBPD) that a fourteen- year-old girl who lives in Loxahatchee, Florida, in the Southern District of Florida, and who attended Royal Palm Beach High School, provided Epstein "sexual massages". The fourteen-year-old girl informed PBPD that she had been paid $300.00 by Jeffrey Epstein to perform a "sexual massage", which entailed providing a massage to Epstein while he was naked and the fourteen-year-old was wearing only her thong panties. During the massage, Epstein masturbated himself, digitally penetrated and used a vibrator/massager on the fourteen-year- old's vagina. Following the receipt of the case files from the PBPD, PBCRA began interviewing a series of girls, ranging in age from fourteen through mid to early twenties, who reported a similar series of events. In particular, the girls described how contact was made via telephone, primarily with , Epstein's assistant, to arrange times for the girls to "work" at Epstein's home in Palm Beach. The girls would travel to Epstein's residence, usually in the company of another girl. The girls would enter Epstein's home via the kitchen, where they would be met by Epstein and/or . The girls would be escorted up to Epstein's bedroom where a massage table was accessible. (Overall Document Classification Required) 3501.018-007 Page I of 3 CONFIDENTIAL EFTA 00056864 EFTA01245444  (Overall Document Classification Required) Title: (U//FOUO) TO SET LEADS FOR CAPTIONED INVESTIGATION. Re: 31E-MM-NEW, 12/04/2018 The girls were told to undress - some undressed only partially and some undressed completely. Epstein would enter the room partially dressed, usually wearing only a towel. He would get onto the massage table face down. While lying face down, Epstein instructed the girl how to massage him. After a period of time when the girl massaged Epstein's back, he would turn over and lie face up. While lying face up, Epstein would continue to instruct the girl on how to conduct the massage. Epstein also would masturbate himself and, occasionally, manually fondle the vaginal area of the girl - sometimes over the panties, sometimes under the panties, and sometimes digitally penetrating the girl's vagina. On some instances, Epstein also used a vibrator or massager on the girl's vaginal area. When Epstein ejaculated, the "massage" was over. The girls received between $200 and $300 for the sexual massages. In addition to these sexual massages, some of the girls were paid additional sums to perform more sexual activity, for example, engaging in sexual activity with another female Epstein employee, , while Epstein watched. During the course of PBPD's investigation, a search warrant for Epstein's home was obtained and executed. Many of Epstein's belongings were removed from the home prior to the execution of the search warrant - for example, the computer processing units (CPUs) were removed from the house but the computer screens, keyboards, cords, etc. were left behind. The missing CPU's were never recovered. During the search, several telephone message pads were recovered. These message pads show messages taken from several of the girls who were interviewed and admitted to engaging in sexual massages or other sexual activity with Epstein. The messages contained text such as "I have a female for him" and "has girl for tonight." Some of the messages from the girls were addressed to Epstein and others were addressed to Epstein's assistant. Additional messages recovered during the search contained text confirming appointment times. During the PBCRA's investigation, the girls related that would contact the girls while and Epstein were still in New York or elsewhere, in order to arrange "massage" times upon his arrival in Palm Beach. The PBCRA's investigation has collected the flight manifest for Epstein's two private planes during the period of January 2004 through December 2005 as well as cellular phone records for Epstein and his assistants. The investigation revealed that prior to the flights to Palm Beach, would contact some of the girls via cell phone. The massage pads show evidence that the girls responded to those telephone calls and in some instances appointment confirmations were left for Epstein. In addition to the home in Palm (Overall Document Classification Required) 2 3501.018-007 Page 2 of 3 CONFIDENTIAL EFTA 00056865 EFTA01245445  (Overall Document Classification Required) Title: (U//FOLIO) TO SET LEADS FOR CAPTIONED INVESTIGATION. Re: 31E-MM-NEW, 12/04/2018 Beach, Epstein also maintains residences in the U.S. Virgin Islands, New Mexico and his New York residence, 9 E. 71st Street, New York, NY 10021. Based on the ongoing criminal investigation, the PBCRA is requesting assistance in establishing Epstein's criminal activity utilizing interstate commerce and the travel in interstate commerce to engage in illicit sexual conduct and prostitution. On 10/05/2007, was telephonically interviewed. advised that she and additional minor females had participated in similar activity with Epstein in the New York area. Epstein utilized the same modus operandi which has been documented in multiple interviews of minor females in the Palm Beach, Florida area. Prior to conducting captioned leads, it is requested that the lead agent(s) contact SA for investigative direction and questions. LEAD(s): Set Lead 1: (Action) NEW YORK AT NEW YORK, NY Locate and interview DOB , cellular telephone , Choicepoint database reflects her most recent address as New York, NY. Determine from any additional minor females who may have interacted with captioned subjects. Set Lead 2: (Action) NEW YORK AT MASTIC, NY Locate and interview III, DOB , telephone Choicepoint database reflects her most recent address as NY. Determine from III any additional minor females who may have interacted with captioned subjects. ** (Overall Document Classification Required) 3501.018-007 Page 3 of 3 CONFIDENTIAL EFTA_00056866 EFTA01245446

EFTA01117340.pdf

DataSet-10 Unknown 37 pages

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 545 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2010 Page 1 of 37 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARR A/JOHNSON 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, CONSOLIDATED RULE 4 REVIEW AND APPEAL OF PORTIONS OF THE MAGISTRATE'S ORDERS DATED FEBRUARY 4, 2010 (DE 462), (DE 480) AND APRIL 1, 2010 (DE 513), WITH INCORPORATED OBJECTIONS AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter "Epstein"), by and through his undersigned attorneys, hereby files his Consolidated Rule 4 Review and Appeal of Portions of the Magistrate's Orders (DE 462), (DE 480) and (DE 513) pursuant to Rule 60, Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 4, Rule 4(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(e). In support, Epstein states: L Introduction The Fifth Amendment serves as a guarantee against testimonial compulsion and provides, in relevant part, that "[n]o person...shall be compelled in any Criminal Case to be a witness against himself" (DE 242, p.5); see also Edwin v. Price, 778 F.2d 668, 669 (1 1 th 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 EFTA01117340 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 545 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2010 Page 2 of 37 Doe v. Epstein 08-CV80119 Page No. 2 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." &,.g United States v. Neff, 315 F.2d 1235, 1239 (9th Cir.), cent 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). Add new case from my e-mail of yesterday: (Court in Englebrick v Worthington Industries Inc 670 F Supp2d 1048 (CD Cal, 2009) rejected motion to compel in helpful language: "A valid assertion of the privilege does not require an imminent criminal prosecution or investigation: 'The right to assert one's privilege against self-incrimination does not depend upon the likelihood, but upon the possibility of prosecution' cite omitted ...a possibility of prosecution exists where the witness has not received a grant of immunity, the statute of limitations has not run, double jeopardy does not apply, and there are no other concrete indications that criminal prosecution is barred. See also Belmonte v Lawson., 750 F. Supp. 735, 739 (ED. Va. 1990X"Courts should avoid engaging in crystal ball forecasts about what a prosecutor may or may not do...). 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. (&g., sag DE 242, 293). 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. M. and infra. EFTA01117341 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 545 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2010 Page 3 of 37 Doe v. Epstein 08-CV80119 Page No. 3 Moreover, in addition to the testimonial privilege discussed herein, the Fifth Amendment includes an act of production which encompasses circumstances highly relevant to certain of the discovery requests at issue where the act of producing documents in response to a subpoena or production request has a compelled testimonial aspect in that it would constitute an implied admission as to the defendant's possession or control of the requested documents, as to their authenticity, and as to the defendant's selection of them as meeting the requests for production. ate 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 "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 (9th Cir. 2000Xthe "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). In addition, several of the requests outlined below implicate Federal Rules of Evidence 408, 410 and 502, and the confidentiality protections intrinsic to federal tax returns that would be unavailable under 26 U.S.C. 6103 even if a subpoena is served upon the IRS. Furthermore, H. Procedural Background Epstein filed his Motions for Reconsideration or, Alternatively, Rule 4 Appeal, at DE 477 and 488. However, this court entered an order (DE 513) allowing for Consolidated Rule 4 Appeals relative to the above docket entries. EFTA01117342 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 545 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2010 Page 4 of 37 Doe v. Epstein 08-CV80119 Page No. 4 (a) Jane Doe Plaintiff, Jane Doe'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. (b) Jane Does 2-8 Plaintiffs, Jane Doe 2-8s' Motion to Compel is filed at DE (333). Defendant's Response in Opposition is filed at DE (390) and the arguments set forth therein are incorporated herein by reference as if completely set forth herein as each apply to request number 1 of Plaintiff's First request to produce Net Worth Discovery. The Request for Production and the responses thereto arc attached as Composite Exhibits "A" and "B". III. The Requests For Production, Argument And Memorandum Of Law a. Jane Doe - 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 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. EFTA01117343 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 545 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2010 Page 5 of 37 Doe v. Epstein 08-CV80119 Page No. 5 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. It appears there is now a direct conflict with what Jane Doe requests (m Lg., DE 354, p. 3). In short, Plaintiff is fast and loose in her argument regarding what she seeks (i.e., she states in no uncertain terms (DE 354, p.3) that she seeks information that the Federal government gave to Epstein. However, in her Reply to the Response in Opposition, she now seeks everything that the government gave to Epstein's lawyers and what his lawyers gave to the Federal government (i.e., the full breadth of the requests). The far broader ambit of the requests implicates whether the Plaintiff is seeking just the communications provided by USAO to Epstein's counsel or all Epstein's counsel's communications with, g., the USAO, the State Attorneys' Office or any other local, state or Federal law enforcement. If Jane Doe seeks "all" communications, it deeply implicates the work product of Epstein's lawyers. If Plaintiff seeks just the communication provided by the USAO or the State Attorney, it deeply implicates the work product of the USAO and the State Attorney negotiating and communicating with Epstein's counsel which include, but are not limited to, information that resulted in a plea and information that did NOT result in a plea and information that may have resulted in the entering of the Non-Prosecution Agreement ("NPA"). Either way, the requests deeply implicate the protections and policies of FRE 408, 410 and 502 as more fully set forth infra. Before this limitation was made by Plaintiff, Epstein argued in his response in opposition (DE 339, p.7-8) that these requests are the same type requests the court found subject to the Fifth Amendment. With the limitation made by Plaintiff and her counsel in the Reply, the court ruled "(t)hat the earlier requests referenced by Epstein were significantly broader than the narrow EFTA01117344 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 545 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2010 Page 6 of 37 Doe v. Epstein 08-CV80119 Page No. 6 requests at issue here, including for example, a request for all documents 'relating to' the federal non—prosecution agreement, and all documents 'relating to' either the federal or state criminal investigations. These requests would have required Epstein to pick and choose which documents were responsive and in this way force Epstein to use to effectively make 'use of the content his mind,' an action that would undeniably implicate the Fifth Amendment." (DE 462, p.9) Clearly the instant requests are exactly the same type of broad requests this court has already ruled upon. Had the Plaintiff not limited the scope of the requests in her Reply (DE 354, p.3), the court would not have labeled these requests as "narrow" because these requests now seek all information related to the federal non—prosecution agreement and all documents relating to either the federal or state criminal investigations, which clearly require Epstein to effectively make use of the content his mind to determine what is and what is not responsive to these broad requests. As a result of the limitation made by Plaintiff in her Reply (DE 354) and as a result of this court's Order (DE 462), Epstein responded - "[a]s to Request Number 7, Epstein and his attorneys do not have any "discovery information" provided to them by the federal government and [a]s to Request Number 9, Epstein has not been given any evidentiary materials or evidentiary documents by the federal government." (DE 477) Certainly, these responses were not intended to "gild the lily" as Plaintiff contends nor are they misleading. Despite what the interrogatory sought, Plaintff chose to limit same in her Reply to only what the Federal Government gave Epstein, and that is exactly how the Magistrate interpreted same. The responses were made based upon Plaintiff's limitation in what she sought from Epstein and because this court entered an Order based upon that limitation. Had the limitation not been made, neither this court nor Epstein would have been misled down this primrose path. EFTA01117345 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 545 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2010 Page 7 of 37 Doe v. Epstein 08-CV80119 Page No. 7 Nonetheless, Plaintiff now seeks to obtain the full breadth of information sought under request numbers 7, 9 and 10. However, that argument shall meet a short death in that Plaintiff herself limited the scope of the requests in her Reply and failed to timely file her own Rule 4 Appeal after the court entered its order at DE 462, which adopted Plaintiff `s limited scope of the requests (which Plaintiff now wishes to change). See S.D. Fla., Rule 4(a)(1), Mag. J. 2009. If the court made a mistake in adopting the limited scope of the requests (which it did not), Plaintiff should have timely appealed, which she did not. As such, Plaintiff's requested relief in this regard should be denied. Next, the Magistrate's order as to Request No.: 10 must be reversed because it contravenes critical public policy of encouraging resolution of criminal prosecutions without trial and the concomitant understanding that defendants will be considerably more likely to engage in full and frank 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 policies behind FRE 408, 410 and 502 provide this court with a basis for sustaining Epstein's objections to Request No.: 10. For instance, 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. Critn. EFTA01117346 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 545 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2010 Page 8 of 37 Doe v. Epstein 08-CV80119 Page No. 8 P. 11(f). While these rules by their express terms refer only to admissibility of evidence, the purposes and policies underlying these rules is 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. Johnson, 534 F.Supp.2d 63, 66-67 (D.D.C. 2008), quoting United States v. Davis, 617 F.2d 677, 683 (D.C.Cir. 1980). See, United States v. MezzanattQ, 513 U.S. 196, 205, 207 (1995)(purpose of the rules is to encourage plea bargaining, and rules "creat[e], in effect, a privilege of the defendant," quoting 2 J. Weinstein & M. Berger, Weinstein's Evidence 1410[05] at 410-43 (1994)); United States v. Barrow, 400 F.3d 109, 116 (2d Cir. 2005X"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(eX6) [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 2 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 slate criminal matters. Epstein pled guilty to Fla. Stat. 796.07(2)(1), Unlawful to Solicit, Induce, Entice, or Procure Another to Commit Prostitution, Lewdness or Assignation, and Fla. Stat. 796.03, Procuring Person Under Age of 18 For Prostitution. Therefore, in the event this court orders production of said correspondence, then it must first hold an in camera inspection to determine what, if any, documents aro related to the foregoing pleas and what documents are not. Along those same lines, an in camera inspection must be had in an effort to redact any information that may violate third-party privacy rights or information that would implicate Epstein's Fifth Amendment rights. infra. EFTA01117347 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 545 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2010 Page 9 of 37 Doe v. Epstein 08-CV80119 Page No. 9 communications made during settlement negotiations. The purposes underlying Rule 408 are essentially the same as those underlying Fed. R. Crim, P. 11(f) and 410: "to encourage non- litigious solutions to disputes." Reichenbach v. Smith, 528 F.2d 1072, 1074 (11th Cir. 1976). ee ug. Stockman v. Oakcrest 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 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 foster settlement discussions in an individual lawsuit, and therefore insulates the particular parties to a settlement discussion from possible adverse consequences of their frank 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. aLL, tl,g Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Chiles Power Stumlva 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 EFTA01117348 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 545 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2010 Page 10 of 37 Doe v. Epstein 08-CV80119 Page No. 10 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: 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 particularly where a central component of the discussions and negotiations between counsel for Epstein and counsel for the USAO was to reach an agreement on conditions relating to 18 USC 2255 including certain waivers and other obligations of Epstein's NPA. The plaintiffs have contended that such provisions relating to 2255 are civil in nature, thus squarely implicating FRE 408 protections. The free availability in discovery to civil plaintiffs of communications made during the plea negotiation process has profound potential to chill frank 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 EFTA01117349 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 545 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2010 Page 11 of 37 Doe v. Epstein 08-CV80119 Page No. 11 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, and, if the discovery order is upheld as to request 10 a request for an order pursuant to FRE 502(d) mandating that the communications that led to the execution of a Non-Prosecution Agreement and communications regarding its implementation should be, to the extent they involve fact or opinion work product, not disclosed to third parties in civil litigation outside the criminal proceedings to which they relate. FRE 502(D) provides: ". . . a Federal court may order that the privilege or protection is not waived by disclosure connected with the litigation pending before the court - -in which event disclosure is also not a waiver in any other Federal or State proceeding." 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 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 EFTA01117350 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 545 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2010 Page 12 of 37 Doe v. Epstein 08-CV80119 Page No. 12 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 implicates 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 plaintiffs latest filing, DE 354, pg 3, the Court first consider 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 and permitting leave to seek an order under FRE 502(d) that would protect such communications from disclosure to third parties such as requested in this matter. If the USAO cannot be compelled to release its investigation(s) and related work-product directly due to the protections of Fed. R. Crim. Pro. 6, Epstein cannot be compelled to disclose same in violation of his constitutional rights? He cannot Rules 408, and 410 all counsel strongly against the discoverability of such documents. The court is requested to reverse the EFTA01117351 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 545 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2010 Page 13 of 37 Doe v. Epstein 08-CV80119 Page No. 13 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. 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, p.4 and 462, p.2). 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 other than in the Southern District of Florida. As the court has acknowledged in its orders (e.g., 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). EFTA01117352 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 545 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2010 Page 14 of 37 Doe v. Epstein 08-CV80119 Page No. 14 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 further admit that the documents produced were authentic. In other words, the very act of production of the category of documents requested would implicitly communicate "statements of fact." as well as authenticate the letters as genuine examples of communications that include disclosures made by Epstein's attorney i.e., his agent on his behalf, Hubbell, supra; Hama, supra. The defendant requests that the Court order that the documents in question are protected by FRE 408 and 410, that if not they should be subject to a "selective waiver" order under FRE 502(d) given their inclusion of attorney opinion and fact work product that was only disclosed in reasonable expectation they would be solely used to further plea and settlement discussions. o the extent this court orders production of any of the requested materials, the information should first be produced in camera to determine what portions of the materials should be redacted to protect the attorneys' mental impressions and to assist the Court in making further determinations as to what information , should be protected by Federal Rules 408, 410, and 502. See supra. Again, as set forth in the Reply attached hereto as Exhibit "B", the USAO and the EFTA01117353 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 545 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2010 Page 15 of 37 Doe v. Epstein 08-CV80119 Page No. 15 Palm Beach State Attorneys' Office should be put on notice that their underlying files are being requested by and through backdoor methods. (b) Plaintiffs' Attorneys Already Have Much Of The Information They Seek Pursuant To This Improver Motion Practice And Have No Demonstrable Need For More Several depositions have occurred over the last 4 weeks wherein it appears Mr. Edwards already has the information he seeks responsive to these requests, which is likely the reason Mr. Edwards has not filed any affidavits supporting the specious arguments set forth in Plaintiff's Motions. As such, there is no substance or factual representations made by Plaintiff to support her argument. Plaintiff is wasting attorney time and judicial resources in her effort to obtain what she already has in her possession. For example, at a deposition of Mr. Epstein on February 17, 2010, the following exchange occurred: Mr. Edwards: The 87-page Palm Beach Police Department incident report where there are numerous underage females describing their interaction with Mr. Epstein at his house. I'm specifically reading from page 41 related to A.H., who was one of the victims he pled guilty to. Mr. Pike: Is that the same document that you're seeking production of, in this same exact case? Mr. Edwards: I don't know what you're talking about. This is something from the state attorneys' file. It is clear from Mr. Edwards's response above (attached as Exhibit "C") that he has the information from the Palm Beach Police Department and the information from the State Attorneys' file. This begs the question — if plaintiff already has the information she seeks, why is Plaintiff wasting valuable attorney time and judicial resources to obtain what is already in hand? Sic also Exhibits "D-1" and "D-2" and "E," a copy of the 89-page incident report marked as an Exhibit by Plaintiff's counsel at Detective Recarey's deposition as well as certain message pads Plaintiff claims was pulled from the residence at 358 Brillo Way. EFTA01117354 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 545 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2010 Page 16 of 37 Doe v. Epstein 08-CV80119 Page No. 16 Moreover, at the deposition of AR on March 15, 2010, the following exchange occurred: Mr. Edwards: Well, at some point in time what's been marked as defense Exhibit "1", you received a grand jury investigation target letter, correct? sit Mr. Edwards: There's another message from 9/11/05 saying "I got a car for," and then the name is blotted out. The State Attorneys' Office blotted the names of minors out sometimes in their file.... sit Once again, Mr. Edwards's response above (attached as Exhibit "F") establishes that he has the information from both the Palm Beach Police Department and the State Attorneys' file. In fact, as argued infra, Mr. Edwards has certain information from the Palm Beach Police Department, which resulted from various alleged "trash pulls" from a residence on Palm Beach (e.g., certain notepads). Finally, at the deposition of Detective Recarey of the Palm Beach Police Department, on March 19, 2010, the following exchange occurred: Mr. Kuvin: Okay. And what were the dates of the surveillance? Witness: [Referencing his Report] It appears she met with members of the B.S.F. unit, Burglary Strike Force.... sss Mr. Kuvin: [Referencing the Report] If we go down to page 40 in your report, first let me back up... . Mr. Kuvin: Okay. So the chain of custody which we have marked as Exhibit 5 shows that all the evidence you had in this case was given to the FBI. . .. aeg Exhibit "G". The undersigned was at Detective Recarey's deposition. Mr. Kuvin and Mr. Edwards had copies of various reports and also had copies of various message pads claimed to be "pulled" from Epstein's trash by the Palm Beach Police Department. See infra. It is clear from the EFTA01117355 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 545 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2010 Page 17 of 37 Doe v. Epstein 08-CV80119 Page No. 17 deposition that opposing counsel has the information from the Palm Beach Police Department and the State Attorneys' file. also, /OA for additional argument. (i) Work-Product - Palm Beach State Attorneys' File Next, as to any information obtained from the State Attorney at any phase (request numbers 801), the State Attorney has not provided anything to Epstein or his attorneys. While the State Attorneys' file was made available for inspection, Jack Goldberger, Epstein's criminal lawyer, went over to the State Attorneys' Office and hand selected information from the file for copying, including certain witness interviews. Egg Exhibit "H" Affidavit of Jack Goldberger. Accordingly, the information hand selected by Mr. Goldberger falls under the work-product doctrine as production of same would reveal Mr. Goldberger's mental impressions, thought processes and strategy relative to the defense of Epstein. Smith v. Florida Power & Light Company 632 Sold 696, 698 (Fla. 3 rd DCA 1994Xeven if individual documents are not work- product, "the selection process itself represents defense counsel's mental impressions and legal opinions as to how the evidence in the documents relates to the issues and the defenses in the litigation"). W. The information simply falls under the "highly protected category of opinion work-product." Id; see also Fla.R.Civ.Pro. 1.280. Also, Counsel for Jane Does 2-8 in the Federal companion cases apparently obtained a copy of the file retained by the Palm Beach State Attorneys' Office. It is reasonably believed that all Plaintiffs' attorneys in this action have extensive materials from the State Attorney and the Palm Beach Police Department pursuant to various public records requests. Certainly, Mr. EFTA01117356 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 545 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2010 Page 18 of 37 Doe v. Epstein 08-CV80119 Page No. 18 Edwards is able make such public records requests or can subpoena the requested information, neither of which would implicate the work product privilege as outlined above. Here, the standard is a showing of a need to obtain the information, and the inability to obtain the substantial equivalent without undue hardship. Metric Engineering, Inc. v. Small, 861 So. 2d 1248, 1250 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)(To show `need,' a party must present testimony or evidence demonstrating the material requested is critical to the theory of the requestor's case, or to some significant aspect of the case); Ashemimry v. Ba Nafa, 847 So.2d 603 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). In addition, Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(3), does allow discovery of fact work product where the requesting party can show need and the inability to obtain the substantial equivalent by other means without undue hardship. Vesta Fire Ins. Corp. v. Figueroa, 821 So.2d 1233. 1234 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)(the showing of need and undue hardship necessary to overcome the work product immunity must include specific explanations and reasons). Again, Mr. Edwards fails to submit any affidavit or any other document meeting the above criteria. Additionally, this court should consider placing the Palm Beach State Attorney and the USAO on Notice that their investigative files are being requested. Since Plaintiff seeks information given by federal government and the state attorney to Epstein, including correspondence, Epstein reincorporates the arguments set out in his initial Rule 4 Appeal as that information is within the penumbra of the protections of Federal Rules of Evidence 408 and 410. Moreover, despite Plaintiffs contention, Federal Rule of Evidence 410 is applicable because negotiations did not end with a federal plea. Furthermore, Federal Rule of Evidence 408 is applicable given that 18 U.S.C. 2255 is quasi-civil remedy. Clearly, the information sought by Plaintiff has no evidentiary value - given that Plaintiffs have the raw materials and police reports and affidavits resulting from state investigation. Accordingly, there is a chance that the Palm EFTA01117357 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 545 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2010 Page 19 of 37 Doe v. Epstein 08-CV80119 Page No. 19 Beach State Attorney and the USAO may not want to disclose their files for one reason or another. (ii) 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, 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 Edwards, Esq. and Spencer Kuvin, Esq. agreed that the "list" would remain private. As such, Request for Production Numbers 7, 9 and 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 fn. 10 (1972): In 5tanley, 394 U.S., at 564, 89 S.Ct, at 1247, the Court stated:`(A)lso 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 Shalom/1 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 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. EFTA01117358 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 545 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2010 Page 20 of 37 Doe v. Epstein 08-CV80119 Page No. 20 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. Hatless. Schaffer. Reid & Assocs.. Inc. v. State ex rel. Schellenberg. 360 So.2d 83, 92 (Fla. 1st 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. (Es pbasis 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. &2e generally Eisenstadt v. Baird, supra at 454-455 (the right encompasses privacy in ones 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 in camera. Ste gt,%2 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 EFTA01117359 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 545 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2010 Page 21 of 37 Doe v. Epstein 08-CV80119 Page No. 21 personal matters and the interest in independence in making certain kinds of important decisions. Favalora v. Sideway, 966 So.2d 895 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). Accordingly, based on the facts and circumstances of this case, and under applicable law, Defendant's assertion of the protections afforded under the 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments of the United States Constitution are required to be upheld. In addition, this Court must address t

EFTA01104320.pdf

DataSet-10 Unknown 19 pages

AFFIDAVIT OF BRADLEY JAMES EDWARDS 1. I am an attorney in good standing with the Florida Bar and admitted to practice in the Southern District of Florida. I am a partner in the law firm of Farmer Jaffe Weissing Edwards Fistos and Lehrman. 2. I am the lead attorney currently representing "Jane Doe" in the case of Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein, case number 08-80893 in federal Court in the Southern District of Florida. I am the lead attorney representing Jane Doe, whose civil complaint alleges that Epstein sexually molested her numerous occasions when she was a minor. 3. Defendant Epstein has entered into a "non-prosecution agreement" (NPA) with the federal government for sex crimes against minors. Under that agreement, the federal government has agreed not to file criminal charges against Epstein for sex crimes committed against approximately thirty girls, including Jane Doe. In exchange, Epstein agreed to plead guilty to state law criminal charges involving solicitation of prostitution and procuring a minor for prostitution. The victim of the criminal charges to which he has pled was not Jane Doe. 4. Under the NPA, Epstein has agreed not to contest civil liability of any of his approximately thirty victims — provided that the victim agrees to limit themselves to the damages provided by 18 U.S.C. § 2255 (currently set at $150,000). Jane Doe has not agreed to limit herself to pursuing only $150,000-in damages. Therefore, the terms of the NPA purport to prevent Jane Doe from using the NPA to prove liability. S. Epstein has filed an answer to Jane Doe's complaint, in which he has invoked his Fifth Amendment right to silence with respect to the allegations that he molested her as a child. Epstein has further argued that this Fifth Amendment invocation is the functional equivalent of, and must be treated as, a specific denial of the allegations. 6. Defendant Epstein's deposition has been taken on several occasions, in this and other related cases, and he has not provided any substantive discovery whatsoever. Instead, he invoked his S1° amendment privilege against self-incrimination when asked questions about his abuse of Jane Doe or other girls. 7. Defendant Epstein has also been served with Interrogatories and requests for production; all requests have been met with 5f° amendment assertions and Epstein has not given Jane Doe any substantive testimony related her allegations. 8. Jane Doe's complaint contains a punitive damages claim, and Mr. Epstein has also elected'to invoke the 5th Amendment on all questions that would relate to punitive damages issues, such as his intent when committing the crimes, his lack of remorse and his intent to recidivate. 9. Epstein has taken Jane Doe's deposition. During that deposition he has asked numerous questions of Jane Doe that suggest that she is fabricating her allegation of abuse by Epstein. 10. In addition to deposing Mr. Epstein, other attorneys and I have taken the depositions of hi y the federal government in the NPA), including . Each of those individuals was employed by Epstein to bring him underage girls for him to molest and to ensure that he was protected from detection by law enforcement, and thus those individuals could likely provide general testimony that would assist Plaintiff in proving liability and damages, including punitive damages. However, none of these individuals were EFTA01104320 present during acts of sexual abuse by Epstein. In any event, ALL of those individuals have also invoked their 5th amendment rights against self-incrimination, and thus have left Plaintiff with no information about what Epstein or other conspirators inside his house were doing during the sexual abuse of Jane Doe and other minors girls. This creates a serious issue for Jane Doe in proving her sexual molestation claim against Epstein. By its nature, sexual molestation takes place in private, with only the abuser and the victim typically available to testify. In this case, Epstein's abuse of Jane Doe took place in private, with only Epstein and Jane Doe present during the abuse. Jane Doe has no other reasonable avenues of discovery to provide direct proof of claim of sexual abuse by Epstein. 11. Additionally, Mr. Epstein has recently filed a lawsuit against me personally that has no merit whatsoever, a fact known to Mr. Epstein and his attorneys. He filed the lawsuit against Brad Edwards, Scott Rothstein, and L.M. (another Epstein victim of his molestation). That lawsuit implies that L.M.'s civil case against him (currently pending in Florida state court) is fabricated and that L.M. and I have conspired to commit fraud against him (presumably that she made up the case against him, implying that he does not know L.M.). While the present subpoena before the Court has been filed by Jane Doe, the Court should be aware that attorneys representing L.M. may also file a subpoena for the George Rush tape shortly. 12. Despite Mr. Epstein and all of his co-conspirators, asserting a 5th amendment privilege against self-incrimination, George Rush of the New York Daily news did contact me to inform me that Mr. Epstein spoke personally with him about issues related to the various charges of sex abuse against him. 13. Paraphrasing from memory of my conversation with Mr. Rush, Mr. Epstein told him that he may have come "too close to the line" but that he should not have been punished as severely as he was and that his conduct was at most worthy of a $100 fine. This is a statement that shows two things of great importance to Jane Doe's pending civil action. First, it is in effect an admission by Epstein of his • liability to Jane Doe for sexually abusing her. Jane Doe does not have any other admission of Epstein of his sexual abuse of her and Epstein has filed an answer to Jane Doe's complaint that has the functional effect of denying abuse of her. Jane Doe has diligently pursued all possible ways of obtaining an admission from Epstein of his molestation of Jane Doe without success. Second, the statement to Mr. Rush is a clear demonstration that Epstein lacks remorse for committing felony child molestation against Jane Doe. This will be a central issue in the punitive damages case against Epstein at trial. Here again, Jane Doe has diligently pursued all possible ways of obtaining a statement from Epstein about his lack of remorse for abusing Jane Doe without success. There are no other reasonable means of obtaining a statement from Epstein on these subjects. 14. Mr. Rush also told me that Mr. Epstein spoke specifically about one of my clients, L.M., and he made derogatory remarks about her. 15. Additionally, Mr. Rush said that Epstein spoke directly about another civil case that was filed against him (Jane Doe 102 v. Epstein); that case alleges that Epstein repeatedly sexually abused a 15 year old girl, forced her to have sex with his friends and flew her on his private plane nationally and internationally for the purposes of sexually molesting and abusing her. Epstein flippantly told George Rush that that case was dismissed, in a way to indicate that the allegationi are ridiculous and untrue. 16. Mr. Rush indicated that he taped the conversation between him and Mr. Epstein. 17. Mr. Rush also spoke at length to Mithael Fisten, an investigator with my firm that was assisting with the investigation of the case. Mr. Fisten reported to me shortly after the conversation with Mr. Rush that he had such a conversation. EFTA01104321  18. While research by other plaintiffs' attorneys and myself has uncovered other persons that were acquaintances of Mr. Epstein, specifically Donald Trump, Alan Dershowitz, Bill Clinton, Tommy Mottola, and David Copperfield, we have no information that any of those people (other than Mr. Dershowitz) have spoken to Mr. Epstein about Jane Doe or any of the other specific victims of Mr. I Epstein's molestation. Mr. Dershowitz is acting as an attorney for Mr. Epstein, and therefore it is presumably unlikely to question him about any admissions that Epstein may have made regarding Jane Doe or other minors girls. Additionally, we have no information that any of those individuals or any other individuals have any taped statements of Epstein's own voice relating to these matters. George Rush's taped conversation with Mr. Epstein is the only known one in existence, making it very unique and it contains information not otherwise obtainable through other means or sources. Indeed, without the Rush tape conversation, the jury that handles the case will not hear any words from Epstein himself about his abuse of Jane Doe and other young girls. I have been informed by Epstein's attorney that Epstein intends to invoke his Fifth Amendment rights rather than answer any substantive questions about the abuse of Jane Doe and other girls at trial. 19. The Rush interview is, in any event, unique and not otherwise obtainable from other witnesses because it can be used to prove perjury (a federal crime) on the part of Epstein. Epstein lied about not knowing George Rush. See deposition of Jeffrey Epstein, taken in L.M. v. Jeffrey Epstein, case 50-2008-CA-028051, page 154, line 4 through 155 line 9, wherein Jeffrey Epstein clearly impresses that he does not recognize George Rush from the New York Daily News, despite the fact that he gave a personal interview that we all now know to have been tape recorded. It is therefore evidence of a criminal event. If we receive the tape, we intend to alert the appropriate law enforcement authorities, both federal and state, so that they can pursue any appropriate criminal investigation perjury charges. 20. The tape is also crucial for L.M. to dismiss the frivolous complaint filed by Jeffrey Epstein against her, as he clearly acknowledges knowing L.M., contrary to claims he makes in his complaint against her and also contradictory to other statements he has made in depositions related to knowing L.M. In that regard, this tape provides evidence of other false statements Epstein has made under oath. 21. During a telephone call with George Rush, he provided me more than a description of the tape, and in fact described the general tenor of the entire interview, so that nothing in the interview can be fairly regarded as confidential at this point. 22. As George Rush admitted in his affidavit, he played the tape for at least two other persons who also confirmed Epstein's arrogance as he speaks about his actions with minors. 23. The people for whom George Rush played the tape or told in detail of the information on the tape were not "sources" in the tradition sense of the word — all individuals were simply chatting with Mr. Rush about Mr. Epstein and his propensity to molest children. For example; when I discussed the tape with Mr. Rush, I was not a "source" in the traditional sense of that term. At no point did Mr. Rush tell me that I was a "source" for his reporting. 24. Because Epstein and all other co-conspirators have invoked the Sth amendment as to all relevant questions, this tape is the only way that Jane Doe can put Epstein's own perceptions of what he has done before the jury and the only way that Jane Doe can put Epstein's admissions and statement s before the jury. As even a quick perusal of the more than 500 entries on the docket sheet for Jane Doe's (consolidated) case will confirm (see Case no. 9:08-80119 (S.D. Fla.) (case number for consolidated cases on discovery), lane Doe and other plaintiffs have made exhaustive attempts to obtain information from Epstein about his abuse. These attempts have included repeated requests for admission, requests for production, interrogatories, and depositions — all the means that are listed in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for obtaining discovery. These means have all been exhausted without success. Neither EFTA01104322 Jane Doe nor any of the other plaintiffs have been able to obtain even a single word of information from Epstein about his abuse of minor girls. 25. I made a good faith, albeit unsuccessful, effort to resolve this matter with Anne B. Carroll, representing the Daily News in order to avoid any court intervention. I explained that we needed this tape for several reasons, including those cited by her in her pleading. The tape is detrimental to Epstein's personal complaint against LM. and me; the tape is evidence of perjury committed by Epstein; the tape is the Best Evidence of his lack of remorse for his actions and will be presented in the punitive damages phase of the civil trials against him; and, perhaps most important, the tape is the only way that the jury considering Jane Doe's case will be able to hear Epstein's voice and own statements about his abuse of Jane Doe and other minor girls. Without the tape, the jury will not have the opportunity to hear Epstein give any substantive information about Jane Doe's complaint. Indeed, they will not have the opportunity to even hear Epstein's voice utter any substantive words other than (in essence) 'I take the Fifth." As part of our discussion, Ms. Carroll told me that it was a "stupid move" for Mr. Rush to play the tape or disclose the tape to other people as he likely waived any privilege and that, as a result of disclosing the tape, he was at risk of losing his job. I responded that it did not seem fair that Mr. Rush lose his job or be punished in any way, but that I had an absolute duty to represent my client and that I would be failing in that duty if I did not pursue this critical piece of evidence. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT. Dated this 23rd day of April, 2010. Brad Edwards, Esq. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 2? day of April, 2010 by BRAD EDWARDS, who is personally known to me. NO Pri P ame: My Commission Expires: EFTA01104323 DEFENDANT BRADLEYJ. EDWARDS'S STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS Epstein v. Edwards, et al. Case No.: 50 2009 CA 040800110LYMBAG EXHIBIT N EFTA01104324  AFFIDAVIT OF BRADLEY JAMES EDWARDS 1. I am an attorney in good standing with the Florida Bar and admitted to practice in the Southern District of Florida. I am currently a partner in the law firm of Fanner, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, P.L. 2. In 2008, I was a sole practitioner running a personal injury law firm in Hollywood, FL. While a sole practitioner I was retained by three clients, L.M., E.W., and Jane Doe to pursue civil litigation against Jeffrey Epstein for sexually abusing them while they were minor girls. I agreed to represent these girls, along with attorney Jay Howell (an attorney in Jacksonville, Florida with Jay Howell & Associates) and Professor Paul Cassell (a law professor at the University of Utah College Of Law). I filed state court actions on behalf of L.M. and E.W. and a federal court action on behalf of Jane Doe. All of the cases were filed in the summer of 2008. 3. My clients received correspondence from the U.S. Department of Justice regarding their rights as victims of Epstein's federal sex offenses. (True and accurate copies of the letters are attached to Statement of Undisputed Facts as Exhibit "M") 4. In mid June 2008, I contacted Assistant United States Attorney Marie Villafafia to inform her that I represented Jane Doe #1(E.W.) and, later, Jane Doe #2(L.M.). I asked to meet to provide information regarding Epstein. AUSA Villa-Ma did not advise me C) that a plea agreement had already been negotiated with Epstein's attorneys that would block federal prosecution. AUSA Villafafia did indicate that federal investigators had concrete evidence and information that Epstein had sexually molested at least 40 underage minor females, including E.W., Jane Doe and L.M. 5. I also requested from the U.S. Attorney's Office the information and evidence that they had collected regarding Epstein's sexual abuse of his clients. However, the U.S. Attorney's Office declined to provide any such information to me. The U.S. Attorney's Office also declined to provide any such information to the other attorneys who represented victims of Epstein's sexual assaults. 6. I was informed that on Friday, June 27, 2008, at approximately 4:15 p.m., AUSA Villafafia received a copy of Epstein's proposed state plea agreement and learned that the plea was scheduled for 8:30 am., Monday, June 30, 2008. She called me to provide notice to my clients regarding the hearing. She did not tell me that the guilty pleas in state court would bring an end to the possibility of federal prosecution pursuant to the plea agreement. My clients did not learn and understand this fact until July 11, 2008, when the agreement was described during a hearing held before Judge Marra on the Crime Victims' Rights Act action that I had filed. 7. In the summer of 2008 I filed complaints against Jeffrey Epstein on behalf of L.M., E.W., and Jane Doe. EFTA01104325 8. In the Spring of 2009 (approximately April), I joined the law firm of Rothstein, Rosenfeldt and Adler, P.A. ("RRA"). I brought my existing clients with me when I joined RRA, including L.M., E.W., and Jane Doe. When I joined the firm, I was not aware that Scott Rothstein was running a Ponzi scheme at RRA. Had I known such a Ponzi scheme was in place, I would never have joined RRA. 9. I am now aware that it has been alleged that Scott Rothstein made fraudulent presentations to investors about the lawsuits that I had filed on behalf of my clients against Epstein and that it has been alleged that these lawsuits were used to fraudulently lure investors into Rothstein's Ponzi scheme. I never met a single investor, had no part in any such presentations and had no knowledge any such fraud was occurring. If these allegations are true, I had no knowledge that any such fraudulent presentations were occurring and no knowledge of any such improper use of the case files. 10. Epstein's Complaint against me alleges that Rothstein made false statements about cases filed against Epstein, i.e., that RRA had 50 anonymous females who had filed suit against Epstein; that Rothstein sold an interest in personal injury lawsuits, reached agreements to share attorneys fees with non-lawyers, paid clients "up front" money; and that he used the judicial process to further his Ponzi scheme. If Rothstein did any of these things, I had no knowledge of his actions. Because I maintained close contact with my clients, EW, LM and Jane Doe, and Scott Rothstein never met any of them, I know for certain that none of my clients were paid "up front" money by anyone. 11. Epstein alleges that I attempted to take the depositions of his "high profile friends and acquaintances" for no legitimate litigation purpose. This is untrue, as all of my actions in representing L.M., E.W., and Jane Doe were aimed at providing them effective representation in their civil suits. With regard to Epstein's friends, through documents and information obtained in discovery and other means of investigation, I learned that Epstein was sexually molesting minor girls on a daily basis and had been for many years. I also learned the unsurprising fact that he was molesting the girls in the privacy of his mansion in West Palm Beach, meaning that locating witnesses to corroborate their testimony would be difficult to find. I also learned, from the course of the litigation, that Epstein and his lawyers were constantly attacking the credibility of the girls, that Epstein's employees were all represented by lawyers who apparently were paid for (directly or indirectly) by Epstein, that co-conspirators whose representation was also apparently paid for by Epstein were all taking the Fifth (like Epstein) rather thanprovide 0 , information in discovery. For example, I was given reason to believe that Larry Visoski, Larry Harrison, David Rogers, Ghislaine Maxwell, Mark Epstein, and Janusz Banasiak all had lawyers par or y pstein. Because Epstein and the co-conspirators in his child molestation criminal enterprise blocked normal discovery avenues, I needed to search for other ordinary approaches to strengthen the cases of my clients. Consistent with my training and experience, these other ordinary approaches included finding other witnesses who could corroborate allegations of sexual abuse of my clients or other girls. Some of these witnesses were friends of Epstein. Given his social status, it also turned out that some of his friends were high-profile individuals. EFTA01104326 12. In light of information I received suggesting that British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell, former girlfriend and long-time friend of Epstein's, was involved in managing Epstein's affairs and companies I had her served for deposition for August 17, 2009. (Deposition Notice attached to Statement of Undisputed Facts as Exhibit BB). Maxwell was represented by Brett Jaffe of the New York funs of Cohen and Gresser, and I understood that her attorney was paid for (directly or indirectly) by Epstein. She was reluctant to give her deposition, and I tried to work with her attorney to take her deposition on terms that would be acceptable to both sides. Her attorney and I negotiated a confidentiality agreement, under which Maxwell agreed to drop any objections to the deposition. Maxwell, however, still avoided the deposition. On June 29, 2010, one day before I was to fly to NY to take Maxwell's deposition, her attorney informed me that Maxwell's mother was deathly ill and Maxwell was consequently flying to England with no intention of returning and certainly would not return to the United States before the conclusion of Jane Doe's trial period (August 6, 2010). Despite that assertion, I later learned that Ghislaine Maxwell was in fact in the country on approximately July 31, 2010, as she attended the wedding of Chelsea Clinton (former President Clinton's daughter) and was captured in a photograph taken for US Weekly magazine. 13. Epstein alleges that there was something improper in the fact that I notified him that I intended to take Donald Trump's deposition in the civil suits against him. Trump was properly noticed because: (a) after review of the message pads confiscated from Epstein's home, the legal and investigative team assisting my clients learned that Trump called Epstein's West Palm Beach mansion on several occasions during the time period most relevant to my clients' complaints; (b) Trump was quoted in a Vanity Fair article about Epstein as saying "I've known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy." "He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that be likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it — Jeffrey enjoys his social life." Jeffrey Epstein: International Moneyman of Mystery; He's pals with a passel of Nobel Prize—winning scientists, CEOs like Leslie Wexner of the Limited, socialite Ghislaine Maxwell, even Donald Trump. But it wasn't until he flew Bill Clinton, Kevin Spacey, and Chris Tucker to Africa on his private Boeing 727 that the world began to wonder who he is. By Landon Thomas Jr.; (c) I learned through a source that Trump banned Epstein from his Maralago Club in West Palm Beach because Epstein sexually assaulted an underage girl at the club; (d) Jane Doe No. 102's complaint alleged that Jane Doe 102 was initially approached at Trump's Maralago by Ghislaine Maxwell and recruited to be Maxwell and Epstein's underage sex slave; (e) Mark Epstein (Jeffrey Epstein's brother) testified that Trump flew on Jeffrey Epstein's plane with him (the same plane that Jane Doe 102 alleged was used to have sex with underage girls) deposition of Mark Epstein, September 21, 2009 at 48-50; (f) Trump visited Epstein at his home in Palm Beach — the same home where Epstein abused minor girls daily; (g) Epstein's phone directory from his computer contains 14 phone numbers for Donald Trump, including emergency numbers, car numbers, and numbers to Trump's security guard and houseman. Based on this information, I believed that EFTA01104327 (-) Trump might have relevant information to provide in the cases against Jeffrey Epstein and accordingly provided notice of a possible deposition. 14. Epstein alleges that there was something improper in the fact that I notified him that I intended to take Alan Dershowitz's deposition in the civil suits against him. Dershowitz was properly noticed because: (a) Dershowitz has been friends with Epstein for many years; (b) in one news article Dershowitz comments that, "I'm on my 20th book... The only person outside of my immediate family that I send drafts to is Jeffrey" The Talented Mr. Epstein, By Vicky Ward on January, 2005 in Published Work, Vanity Fair, (c) Epstein's housekeeper Alfredo Rodriguez testified that Dershowitz stayed at Epstein's house during the years most relevant to my clients; (d) Rodriguez testified that Dershowitz was at Epstein's house at times when underage females where there being molested by Epstein (see Alfredo Rodriguez deposition at 278-280, 385, 426- 427); (e) Dershowitz was reportedly involved in persuading the Palm Beach State Attorney's office not to file felony criminal charges against Epstein because the underage females lacked credibility and thus could not be believed that they were at Epstein's house, despite him being an eyewitness that the underage girls were actually there; (f) Jane Doe No. 102 stated generally that Epstein forced her to be sexually exploited by not only Epstein but also Epstein's "adult male peers, including royalty, politicians, academicians, businessmen, and/or other professional and personal acquaintances" — categories that Dershowitz and acquaintances of Dershowitz fall into; (g) during the years 2002-2005 Alan Dershowitz was on Epstein's plane on several occasions according to the flight logs produced by Epstein's pilot and information (described above) suggested that sexual assaults may have taken place on the plane; (h) Epstein donated Harvard $30 Million dollars one year, and Harvard was one of the only institutions that did not return Epstein's donation after he was charged with sex offenses against children. Based on this information, I believed that Dershowitz might have relevant information to provide in the cases against Jeffrey Epstein and accordingly provided notice of a possible deposition. 15. Epstein alleges that there was something improper in the fact that I notified him that I intended to take Bill Clinton's deposition. Clinton was properly noticed beranse: (a) it was well known that Clinton was friends with Ghislaine Maxwell, and several witnesses had provided information that Maxwell helped to run Epstcin's companies, kept images of naked underage children on her computer, helped to recruit underage children for Epstein, engaged in lesbian sex with underage females that she procured for Epstein, and photographed underage females in sexually explicit poses and kept child pornography on her computer, (b) newpaper articles stated that Clinton had an affair with Ghislaine Maxwell, who was thought to be second in charge of Epstein's child molestation ring. The Cleveland Leader newspaper, April 10, 2009; (c) it was national news when Clinton traveled with Epstein (and Maxwell) aboard Epstein's private plane to Africa and the news articles classified Clinton as Epstein's friend; (d) the flight logs for the relevant years 2002 - 2005 showed Clinton traveling on Epstein's plane on more than 10 occasions and his assistant, Doug Band, traveled on many more occasions; (e) Jane Doe No. 102 stated generally that she was required by Epstein to be sexually EFTA01104328 C) exploited by not only Epstein but also Epstein's "adult male peers, including royalty, politicians, academicians, businessmen, and/or other professional and personal acquaintances" — categories Clinton and acquaintances of Clinton fall into; (1) loos showed that Clinton took many flights with Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, -- all employees and/or co-conspirators of Epstein's that were c ose y connec o pstein's child exploitation and sexual abuse; (g) Clinton frequently flew with Epstein aboard his plane, then suddenly stopped — raising the suspicion that the friendship abruptly ended, perhaps because of events related to Epstein's sexual abuse of children; (h) Epstein's personal phone directory from his computer contains e-mail addresses for Clinton along with 21 phone numbers for him, including those for his assistant (Doug Band), his schedulers, and what appear to be Clinton's personal numbers. Based on this information, I believed that Clinton might have relevant information to provide in the cases against Jeffrey Epstein and accordingly provided notice of a possible deposition. 16. Epstein alleges that Tommy Mottola was improperly noticed with a deposition. I did not notice Mattola for deposition. He was noticed for deposition by a law firm representing another one of Epstein's victims — not by me. 17. Epstein alleges that there was something improper in the fact that I notified him that I intended to take the illusionist David Copperfield's deposition. Copperfield was properly noticed because: (a) Epstein's housekeeper Alfredo Rodriguez testified that David Copperfield was a guest on several occasions at Epstein's house; (b) according to the message pads confiscated from Epstein's house, Copperfield called Epstein quite frequently and left messages that indicated they socialized together; (c) Copperfield himself has had similar allegations made against him by women claiming he sexually abused them; (d) one of Epstein's sexual assault victims also alleged that Copperfield had touched her in an improper sexual way while she was at Epstein's house. Based on this information, I believed that Copperfield might have relevant information to provide in the cases against Jeffrey Epstein and accordingly provided notice of a possible deposition. 18. Epstein alleges that there was something improper in the fact that I identified Bill Richardson as a possible witness against him in the civil cases. Richardson was properly identified as a possible witness because Epstein's personal pilot testified to Richardson joining Epstein at Epstein's New Mexico Ranch. See deposition of Larry Morrison, October 6, 2009, at 167-169. There was information indicating that Epstein had young girls at his ranch which, given the circumstances of the case, raised the reasonable inference he was sexually abusing these girls since he had regularly and frequently abused girls in West Palm Beach and elsewhere. Richardson had also returned campaign donations that were given to him by Epstein, indicating that he believed that there was something about Epstein that he did not want to be associated with. Richardson was not called to testify nor was he ever subpoenaed to testify. 19. Epstein alleges that discovery of plane and pilot logs was improper during discovery in the civil cases against him. Discovery of these subjects was clearly proper an EFTA01104329 E) necessary because: (a) Jane Doe filed a federal RICO claim against Epstein that was an active claim through much of the litigation. The RICO claim alleged that Epstein ran an expansive criminal enterprise that involved and depended upon his plane travel. Although Judge Marra dismissed the RICO claim at some point in the federal litigation, the legal team representing my clients intended to pursue an appeal of that dismissal. Moreover, all of the subjects mentioned in the RICO claim remained relevant to other aspects of Jane Doe's claims against Epstein, including in particular her claim for punitive damages; (b) Jane Doe also filed and was proceeding to trial on a federal claim under 18 U.S.C. § 2255. Section 2255 is a federal statute which (unlike other state statutes) guaranteed a minimum level of recovery for Jane Doe. Proceeding under the statute, however, required a "federal nexus" to the sexual assaults. Jane Doe had two grounds on which to argue that such a nexus existed to her abuse by Epstein: first, his use of the telephone to arrange for girls to be abused; and, second, his travel on planes in interstate commerce. During the course of the litigation, I anticipated that Epstein would argue that Jane Doe's proof of the federal nexus was inadequate. These fears were realized when Epstein filed a summary judgment motion raising this argument In respo-nse, the other attorneys and I representing Jane Doe used the flight log evidence to respond to Epstein's summary judgment motion, explaining that the flight logs demonstrated that Epstein had traveled in interstate commerce for the purpose of facilitating his sexual assaults. Because Epstein chose to settle the case before trial, Judge Marra did not rule on the summary judgment motion. (c) Jane Doe No. 102's complaint outlined Epstein's daily sexual exploitation and abuse of underage minors as young as 12 years old and alleged that he used his plane to transport underage females to be sexually abused by him and his friends. The flight logs accordingly might have information about either additional girls who were victims of Epstein's abuse or friends of Epstein who may have witnessed or even participated in the abuse. Based on this information, I believed that the flight logs and related information was relevant information to prove the cases against Jeffrey Epstein and accordingly I pursued them in discovery. 20. In approximately November 2009, the existence of Scott Rothstein's Ponzi scheme became public knowledge. It was at that time that I, along with many other reputable attorneys at RRA, first became aware of Rothstein criminal scheme. At that time, I left RRA with several other RRA attorneys to form the law firm of Farmer Jaffe Weissing Edwards Fistos and Lehrman ("Farmer Jaffe"). I was thus with RRA for less than one year. 21. In July 2010, along with other attorneys at Farmer Jaffe and Professor Cassell, I reached favorable settlement terms for my three clients L.M., E.W., and Jane Doe in their lawsuits against Epstein. 22. On July 20, 2010, I received a letter from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida — the office responsible for prosecuting Rothstein's Ponzi scheme. The letter indicated that law enforcement agencies had determined that I was "a victim (or potential victim)" of Scott Rothstein's federal crimes. The letter informed me of my rights as a victim of Rothstein's federal crimes and promised to keep me informed about EFTA01104330 r) subsequent developments in his prosecution. A copy of this letter is attached to this Affidavit. (A copy of the letter is attached to Statement of Undisputed Facts as Exhibit UU) 23. Jeffrey Epstein also filed a complaint with the Florida Bar against me. His complaint alleged that I had been involved in Rothstein's scheme and had thereby violated various rules of professional responsibility. The Florida Bar investigated and dismissed the complaint 24. I have reviewed the Statement of Undisputed Facts filed contemporaneously with this Affidavit. Each of the assertions concerning what I learned, what I did, and the good faith beliefs formed by me in the course of my prosecutions of claims against Jeffrey Epstein as contained in the Statement of Undisputed Facts is true, and the foundations set out as support for my beliefs are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. 25. All actions taken by me in the course of my prosecution of claims against Jeffrey Epstein were based upon a good faith belief that they were reasonable, necessary, and ethically proper to fulfill my obligation to zealously represent the interests of my clients. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct Dated: /Pt 2010 Bradley J. Edwards, Esq. a EFTA01104331 DEFENDANT BRADLEY J. EDWARDS'S MOTION FOR FINAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT Epstein v. Edwards, et al. Case No.: 50 2009 CA 040800XXXAMBAG EXHIBIT A EFTA01104332 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 168 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/28/2010 Page 1 of 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80893-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION TO DIRECT PARTIES' BACK TO MEDIATION Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through his undersigned attorneys, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules for the Southern District of Florida, moves this Court for an order requiring the parties to attend a Settlement Conference before Magistrate Judge Linnea R. Johnson, or in the alternative, for an Order directing the parties to reconvene at a second mediation on or before July 1, 2010, and as grounds set forth would state: 1. The above-styled matter is currently scheduled on the Court's trial docket beginning July 19, 2010. (D.E. #119, Order Re-Setting Trial Date and Pretrial Deadlines). The Court's Mandatory Pretrial Stipulation and Motions in Limine deadlines are set for July 1, 2010. In this regard, if the parties could reach an agreement at a settlement conference or a mediation before these pre-trial deadlines, it would result in substantial conservation of judicial resources and preparation time. 2. The parties attended mediation on April 5, 2010, at Matrix Mediation, LLC, with Rodney Romano serving as mediator, but were unable to reach an agreement (See D.E. #139). EFTA01104333 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 168 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/28/2010 Page 2 of 4 Doe v. Epstein CASE NO.: O8•CN-80893•MARRA/JOHNSON Page 2 3. Since the April 5, 2010 mediation, additional discovery has been completed and exchanged, including each parties' psychological (Plaintiff) and psychiatric (Defendant) expert depositions. As well, Defendant filed his Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion for Bifurcation. Both parties have exchanged witness and exhibit lists. Each party will be filing extensive Motions in Limine. Plaintiff's Trial Witness List has identified over 170 potential witnesses, and further, Plaintiff identifies over 140 trial exhibits, including composite exhibits that are hundreds of pages in length. It is conceivable this case could last 12- 20 trial days. 4. Additionally, since the parties attended mediation on April 5, 2010, Defendant has resolved all pending lawsuits, including Plaintiff, C.L. (Case No.: 10-80447) and JANE DOES Nos. 2-8 (Case Nos.: 08-80119, 08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80802), C.M.A. (Case No.08-80811), Jane Does Nos. 101, 102 and 103 (Case Nos. 09-80591, 09-80656, 10-80309), another Jane Doe (Case No. 08-80804), Jane Doe II (Case No. 09-80469), as well as other non-filed claims. Furthermore, Defendant has also resolved three state court claims. The only cases not resolved are this case and two (2) cases in state court (all three Plaintiffs are represented by Plaintiff's counsel, Brad Edwards, Esq. and his firm). I 5. Plaintiffs in other filed cases were represented by various law firms as the court is aware. 6. With the additional discovery completed to date and with the motions, trial preparation and judicial rulings necessary to try this case, all yet to be done, Defendant Them is also a case *led ISM r. Jefflev Postale CASE NO • 09-CIV-S1092 — MARRA/JOHNSON, which was never served on ihe Defendant. Delhodant has Medea/lotion Co Dist EFTA01104334 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 168 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/28/2010 Page 3 of 4 Doe v. Epstein CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80893-MARRA/JOHNSON Page 3 believes that a settlement conference or mediation is in the best interest of both parties to attempt resolution. There is no prejudice to either party. 7. Therefore, Defendant requests the Court issue an order directing the parties to attend a Settlement Conference before Magistrate Judge Johnson or that the Court direct the parties to attend a further mediation before July 1, 2010. Both Magistrate Judge Johnson and Rodney Romano (as the mediator in this case) are very familiar with the particular case and other claims that were asserted. 8. Defendant's Counsel has spoken with the secretary for the mediator, Rodney Romano, and she believes that he would be able to schedule a 2-3 hour mediation on short notice this week. WHEREFORE, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN respectfully requests the Court to enter an Order directing the parties to attend a Settlement Conference before Magistrate Judge Linnea R. Johnson, or in the alternative, a mediation on or before July 1, 2010. Rule 7.1 Certification I hereby certify that counsel has communicated by telephone with Plaintiffs counsel in a good faith effort to resolve the issues set forth herein. Plaintiff's position is that the parties have already complied with the mediation requirements. By: ,s/Robert D. Critton. Jr. Robert D. Critton, Jr. Michael J. Pike Attorneys for Defendant Epstein EFTA01104335 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 168 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/28/2010 Page 4 of 4 Doe v. Epstein CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80893-MARRAZIOHNSON Page 4 Certificate of Service I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using CMJECF. 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 28th day of June, 2010: Brad Edwards, Esq. Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, R.A. & Lehrman, PL 2 S Co-Counselfor Defendant Jeffrey Epstein Paul G. Cassell, Esq. Pro Hac Vice Co-counselfor Plaintiff Respectfully submitted, By: /s/ Robert D. Critton. Jr. ROBERT D. CRTTTON, JR., ESQ. Florida Bar No. 7111.19 MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. N LUTHER & one ax (Co-Cow:setfor Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) EFTA01104336  1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff, vs. No. 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendants. 500 East Broward Boulevard, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida Thursday, June 14, 2012 9:14 a.m. - 12:37 p.m. DEPOSITION Of SCOTT ROTHSTEIN (Via Video Conference) Taken on behalf of the Trustee pursuant to a notice of taking deposition - - - FRIEDMAN, LOMBARDI & OLSON 305-371-6677 EFTA01104337  Page 1 Page 3 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL 1 CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM

EFTA01184082.pdf

DataSet-10 Unknown 35 pages

1 G3hdgium 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 2 3 4 Plaintiff, New York, N.Y. 5 v. 15 Civ. 7433(RWS) 6 GHISLAINE MAXWELL, 7 Defendant. a 9 March 17, 2016 2:18 p.m. 10 Before: 11 HON. ROBERT W. SWEET, 12 District Judge 13 APPEARANCES 14 BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP 15 Attorneys for Plaintiff BY: SIGRID S. McCAWLEY 16 HADDON MORGAN AND FOREMAN, P.C. 17 Attorneys for Defendant BY: JEFFREY PAGLIUCA 18 LAURA A. MENNINGER 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 EFTA01184082  2 G3hdgium 1 THE COURT: Thank you all very much. I'm sorry for 2 the inconvenience that I have imposed upon you. I'm sorry 3 about the inconvenience that you have imposed upon me. 4 But having said all of that, this really is the first 5 time that we've had an opportunity, I think, to get together on 6 this case. And let me just say, I think -- I mean, I'm not 7 sure but I think I understand the difficulties of this case. 8 There is an emotional element, obviously, throughout the case 9 on both sides, and I understand that. Fortunately, we're 10 blessed by excellent counsel and it would be nice if they can 11 avoid adopting the emotional flavor of their clients, and I 12 presume that they will be able to do that, it certainly will 13 help, because these issues are going to be difficult and I'm 14 well aware of it. 15 Now, at the outset, there is some discussion in these 16 papers about meet and confer. Let me make clear what I would 17 like from this day forward. On any discovery issues, I would 18 like to have a meet and confer. Now, I understand that defense 19 counsel are living in God's country and they're not cursed with 20 the metropolitan residence. I salute their good judgment in 21 that. And so I will say that I will not require you to meet in 22 person, but I will require you to meet. 23 And I would say this. If you have a meet and confer, 24 I would like to have correspondence between the parties as to 25 what the subject is so that there is an agreed agenda that's SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 EFTA01184083  3 G3hdgium 1 written and we know that both sides know what it is, and that 2 will help me if, ultimately, the problem gets back to me. So I 3 would say exchange writing as to what it's going to be and have 4 a meeting. It doesn't have to be in person, but it certainly 5 has to be a significant meeting; it can't be just one 6 ten-minute telephone call. 7 So that's how I feel about the meet and confer. 8 Now, I'm not going to get into whether that's relevant 9 or not to the problems which we face today. That's just going 10 forward. As I say, I do hope that you all can -- it won't be 11 easy, but if you deal with these problems as the excellent 12 professionals that you are without the emotional implications, 13 having said that. 14 Now, how to go forward today? My thought is the 15 following. I have read your papers, and to say that I 16 understand the problems would be, I guess, a lie, but I'm 17 trying and you'll help me. I have a list of what I think our 18 issues are and I would like to go through this with you, and 19 then when I'm finished, if we have missed something, I'm sure 20 you will correct me. And I'd be pleased to hear if I determine 21 something, if you think that I'm wrong, that's fine, too. I 22 mean, you can tell me why you think I'm wrong. 23 Now, the first problem is the document -- the issue 24 about improper privilege claims. As I understand that issue, 25 it is the presence of Gow, Cohen and maybe somebody else as SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 EFTA01184084  4 G3hdgium 1 defeating the privilege, on the one hand. On the other hand, 2 the assertion by the defense that their participation as 3 whatever they are, managers, public relations people, whatever, 4 is necessary for the rendering of legal advice. 5 Parenthetically, there is a subtext there about whose 6 law applies. Let me say, I think we are going to apply New 7 York law in this case. British law may become relevant in some 8 way or other down the road, but for this privilege purpose, I 9 think that's where we are. 10 I think what I would like is I would like any 11 materials that -- the obligation to establish this privilege is 12 obviously Ms. Maxwell's, and I would like any materials that 13 she wants to present to me about these meetings to establish 14 that it was necessary for the rendering of legal advice, I'll 15 review those materials in camera and try to reach a decision. 16 I may need something further after I have looked at them, but I 17 think that's the way I ought to deal with that particular 18 privilege issue. 19 There is a list of documents as to which objections 20 have been made on a variety of bases. I will say probably a 21 catalog of every objection known to the mind of excellent 22 attorneys, and I think we will try to deal with those this 23 afternoon and maybe we'll fail, but let's put those aside just 24 for the moment. 25 The question about a protective order, of course there SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 EFTA01184085  5 G3hdgium 1 should be a protective order in this case. You are good 2 lawyers and you have been around this track more times than I 3 have and so you can prepare consensually a better protective 4 order than I can, and I urge you to do that. And, in fact, I 5 will give you two weeks to do that. Should you fail, you can 6 present whatever materials you wish to me and I will decide 7 what the protective order is going to be. That's not a good 8 idea because you know the case better than I do, obviously, and 9 so I urge you to resolve it by your litigation skills and not 10 leave it up to the ignorant district court judge who doesn't 11 really get into this kind of thing very often. So you run a 12 risk if you leave it to me. 13 Now, I would say two weeks, and then if you can't get 14 an agreement, maybe three weeks from now we wrestle with that. 15 Hopefully we won't. I have to do that. 16 The deposition -- the defendant of course will be 17 deposed, and we can work out right now when. Obviously, you 18 don't want that deposition until the protective order is 19 completed. So what do we do about that? Do you want to deal 20 with that today, the actual date of the deposition, or should 21 we pass that until we accomplish the protective order? What do 22 you all think about that? 23 MS. McCAWLEY: Can I be heard on that, your Honor? 24 This is Sigrid McCawley. I am counsel for Ms. 25 With respect to the deposition date, the 25th was the SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 EFTA01184086  6 G3hdgium 1 date that my opposing counsel proposed as possibly being 2 available. So we set it for that date, which is next Friday. 3 We also offered to hold that deposition transcript confidential 4 until such time as the protective order could be issued so that 5 there is no barrier to us being able to take this deposition. 6 THE COURT: How about that? Is that OK? 7 MR. PAGLIUCA: Frankly, it is not, your Honor, and the 8 reason is we, clearly from the papers submitted so far and the 9 exchange of counsel, we have a significant disagreement at this 10 point as to what the word "confidential" actually means, and we 11 have proposed to the plaintiff a protective order that we 12 believe is appropriate and neutral -- 13 THE COURT: Well, maybe I can -- can we get over -- if 14 that's the primary issue on the protective order, can we deal 15 with that now? 16 MR. PAGLIUCA: I think there is a secondary -- well, 17 it may not even be secondary. There is another issue that is 18 directly related to that, your Honor, and that is the lack of 19 production of documents from the plaintiff. The Court has not 20 seen these papers yet, but there are in my view significant 21 deficiencies with the Rule 26 disclosures. There have been 22 failure to produce documents. And it is unfair at this point 23 to push these depositions forward without the required exchange 24 of discovery. 25 THE COURT: Let me ask the plaintiff. You really -- SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 EFTA01184087  7 G3hdgium 1 MS. McCAWLEY: Could I be heard on that? Thank you, 2 your Honor. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt you. 3 THE COURT: What do you think? 4 MS. McCAWLEY: Right. The issue is so I issued my 5 deposition notice before they even served discovery requests. 6 THE COURT: OK. All right. 7 MS. McCAWLEY: I've done 3,000 pages. They've done 8 two emails. 9 THE COURT: Look, doesn't it make sense to resolve any 10 document discovery issues perhaps before the deposition? 11 MS. McCAWLEY: I don't think so, your Honor. I want 12 the testimony of this defendant in order to move this case 13 forward. Our discovery closes in July. I issued my discovery 14 requests in October. I have not gotten the deposition of the 15 defendant yet. This is a date she is available. She is not 16 leaving the country. She is not going anywhere. I have her in 17 town next Friday. 18 I'll even agree to their protective order if it means 19 I can get her deposition, your Honor. I just need to get this 20 case moving forward. I need one deposition, the deposition of 21 the defendant in this case, who has called my client a liar. 22 We are entitled to depose her and see if she is going to answer 23 the questions about why she was -- 24 THE COURT: All right. OK. 25 MS. McCAWLEY: I am entitled to answers. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 EFTA01184088  8 G3hdgium 1 THE COURT: Well -- 2 MR. PAGLIUCA: Your Honor, I think this is a good 3 meeting and it is a meeting that should have happened a long 4 time ago. Let me say to the Court that we proposed to meet 5 with plaintiff's counsel early on in this case to put together 6 a discovery schedule that made sense. We proposed that orally 7 and in writing. That proposal was ignored and rebuffed. And 8 counsel for the plaintiff then unilaterally scheduled a bunch 9 of depositions without conferring on dates. Unilaterally, 10 here's the dates, here are the depositions. We then tried to 11 work through that issue, at the same time trying to work 12 through the protective order issue and the document issue, and 13 we get no response. And I think the agenda here is to gain a 14 tactical advantage by not responding to these requests. 15 THE COURT: Well, I can't believe that lawyers would 16 seek a tactical advantage. I can't believe such a thing. 17 MR. PAGLIUCA: I am shocked. 18 THE COURT: OK. Tell you what we're going to do. 19 We'll -- three weeks, let's see. Her deposition -- this 20 question about document production, that hasn't been teed up, 21 so I don't know -- 22 MS. McCAWLEY: And can I be heard on that really 23 quickly? I mean, If that were the standard, that they could 24 wait to -- 25 THE COURT: No. It hasn't been teed up, I agree. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 EFTA01184089  9 G3hdgium 1 (Pause) 2 OK. Then I think what we should do is I'm assuming we 3 will resolve the protective order problem -- we've sort of slug 4 over the -- can we resolve what's confidential? Is that 5 possible? Could we do that this afternoon, or is that too 6 complicated? 7 MS. McCAWLEY: Your Honor, I can have the deposition 8 of the defendant in this case and move this case forward. I 9 will agree to their protective order. I just want that 10 deposition. 11 THE COURT: Yes. 12 MS. McCAWLEY: It is that important to me. 13 THE COURT: I get your point. I understand that. But 14 at the same time, I think, given the nature of all that lies in 15 this, I think it is fair to say no side would like to have this 16 aired, and so we've got to have a protective order that 17 everybody feels comfortable with. 18 MS. McCAWLEY: Your Honor, you can today enter the 19 protective order that they submit. I will disregard my 20 objections if I get the deposition. 21 THE COURT: Will you agree now to the protective 22 order? 23 MS. McCAWLEY: Yes. If it means I can get her 24 deposition, yes, I will do that. 25 THE COURT: Oh, OK. Good. Well, that solved that. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 EFTA01184090  10 G3hdgium 1 MR. PAGLIUCA: It is not as simple as that, your 2 Honor, because this quid pro quo, I'll agree to their 3 protective order if I can have the deposition on the 25th, 4 doesn't solve the problem. 5 THE COURT: At least we've separated it. She has 6 agreed to the protective order. OK? So that's done. OK? 7 Now, why can't we have her deposition upon, whatever 8 it is, a week from Friday? 9 MS. McCAWLEY: Friday, the 25th, this coming Friday, a 10 week from tomorrow. 11 THE COURT: Oh, a week from tomorrow, yes. 12 MS. McCAWLEY: Yes. 13 MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, we served discovery 14 requests on plaintiff on February 12th. 15 THE COURT: Well, look, that's nice. That's good. 16 But I don't have that, and I think she's right that there is no 17 rule that says you have to get your discovery requests 18 satisfied before the deposition, so -- 19 MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, the responses were due 20 last night yesterday, so that is prior to Ms. Maxwell for the 21 25th. However, as a part of producing that discovery response, 22 they have said they're going to take a month to roll out their 23 production, not just -- 24 THE COURT: Look. I'll tell you what let's do. I 25 don't have that, but let's -- we'll hold the deposition date. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 EFTA01184091  11 G3hdgium 1 When we get through with the rest of this stuff, we'll find out 2 if there is something in particular that you want prior to next 3 Friday and see what that is and see if we can get it. How is 4 that? 5 (Pause) 6 OK. Who pays for what and counsel, all of that? 7 Those are interesting problems and who knows how they all come 8 out. I think all of that is best served by reserving them 9 until the conclusion of the case, which is what I shall do. 10 The plaintiff wants to produce on a rolling basis and 11 to amend or add to the privilege log as the production goes 12 forward. I don't see any problem with that. 13 MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, that's actually the issue 14 I was just alluding to. I understand -- and I have said I 15 don't have a problem with plaintiff producing her documents 16 over the course of the month because she has said that it is a 17 hardship for her to produce them all last night, which is when 18 they were due. However, she's trying to take our client's 19 deposition in the middle of her rolling production, in other 20 words, show up at the deposition with the documents she happens 21 to get -- 22 THE COURT: That's what I'm saying. Maybe what we'll 23 do is to deal with the document production issue separately. 24 MS. MENNINGER: OK. 25 THE COURT: And if there are some documents that SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 EFTA01184092  12 G3hdgium 1 really seem to be important and they cannot be produced, then 2 maybe we'll put over the -- we'll see how that works. 3 MS. McCAWLEY: Your Honor, I may be able to short 4 circuit this. 5 THE COURT: Pardon me? 6 MS. McCAWLEY: I may be able to short circuit this a 7 little bit. We produced 3,000 pages last night. We are 8 continuing that production. We are moving as fast as we can. 9 We produced a privilege log with over 134 entries on it. We 10 are continuing to move that forward as quickly as we can. 11 With respect to her deposition, your Honor, I'm happy 12 to provide them in advance every document I will be using at 13 her deposition. In other words, if that is their issue, if it 14 means I can get her deposition next Friday, I will share with 15 them any document I intend to use at that deposition. 16 THE COURT: That seems to solve the problem, don't you 17 think? 18 MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, I have to disagree. I got 19 this responsive objection last night at 9:30 p.m., while I was 20 here in New York. I've taken a look at it, and I can give your 21 Honor a sense of the types of objections that plaintiff has 22 lodged to our document request. For example, their client sold 23 her diary to Radar Online. It was published on Radar Online. 24 This diary contains plaintiff's allegations against my client. 25 So I asked for the diary that was sold to Radar Online. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 EFTA01184093  13 G3hdgium 1 THE COURT: You get it. 2 MS. MENNINGER: It is copyright and proprietary 3 protected. We're not going to produce it. So that's the kind 4 of example -- 5 THE COURT: No. You get it. 6 MS. McCAWLEY: She doesn't have a diary. She might be 7 referring to something else. I mean, my client doesn't have a 8 diary to produce. She doesn't have one. Those were 9 handwritten notes that she gave a reporter. She doesn't have 10 one. 11 THE COURT: So you are saying -- 12 MS. McCAWLEY: That request is broader. I mean 13 THE COURT: No. 14 MS. McCAWLEY: I didn't know we were going to be 15 addressing my requests today -- 16 THE COURT: -- as to the diary, you say it doesn't 17 exist. There is no diary, there are no notes, and whatever 18 there is has been the subject of the printed material? 19 MS. McCAWLEY: Yes. 20 MS. MENNINGER: Excerpts -- excerpts, your Honor, with 21 my client's name on them in plaintiff's handwriting were sold 22 to Radar Online, not the entire document. And when I asked for 23 the entire document, I was told that it is proprietary and 24 copyright protected. 25 THE COURT: What is "proprietary"? SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 EFTA01184094  14 G3hdgium 1 MS. McCAWLEY: I think she's referring to a broader 2 request. My client doesn't have a diary, which is what she's 3 addressing right now. I don't have my requests in front of me, 4 your Honor. We were here on their requests. But if you want 5 to read the whole request, I can try and remember what 6 THE COURT: What are we talking -- 7 MS. McCAWLEY: Did they say I was withholding 8 documents? I don't think I said I was withholding documents on 9 that request. But, again, I don't have it in front of me and I 10 apologize. 11 MS. MENNINGER: The request number 16 reads: "Any 12 diary, journal, or calendar concerning your activity between 13 '96 and '02." 14 Response: Ms. objects to this request to the 15 extent it seeks proprietary- and copyright-protected material. 16 Ms. objects in that it seeks information protected by 17 the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product 18 privilege, the joint defense, interest privilege, the agency 19 privilege, the investigative privilege, the spousal privilege, 20 the accountant/client privilege, and any other applicable 21 privilege." 22 THE COURT: Hot dog. I tell you, that's great. 23 MS. McCAWLEY: But did I say I didn't have -- 24 THE COURT: Shall we use that as the standard 25 objection to every document request and then let's forget about SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 EFTA01184095  15 G3hdgium 1 it? OK, let's do this. 2 MS. McCAWLEY: Your Honor, may I be heard on just one 3 point on this issue? 4 If the standard were that someone could wait in a case 5 to request documents and then push off depositions by 6 continuing to file new requests, it's apparently -- 7 THE COURT: Yes. I hear you. I understand that 8 point. Look, obviously if there are documents that are covered 9 by the privilege, they have to be identified and logged. So 10 that's the privilege. 11 I don't know, what is this proprietary thing? What is 12 that all about? 13 MS. McCAWLEY: To the extent she has commercially 14 valuable material that she has written, that's covered by -- 15 it's covered by the protective order basically, that it would 16 be produced in a confidential format with a copyright-protected 17 format. So it is a general objection -- 18 THE COURT: So she will produce that, she will produce 19 everything -- 20 MS. McCAWLEY: If she has something like that, yes. 21 Like I said, we produced 3,000 pages yesterday. 22 THE COURT: And calendars and all of the rest of them? 23 MS. McCAWLEY: To the extent she has any of that, we 24 will produce it, your Honor. 25 THE COURT: All right. In other words, you are going SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 EFTA01184096  16 G3hdgium 1 to produce everything except anything that you have that you 2 claim privilege as to which you will log? 3 MS. McCAWLEY: Yes. We have been logging -- 4 THE COURT: Well -- 5 MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, on this particular one, 6 she says her client does not have any nonprivileged documents 7 created during the time period responsive to this request, and 8 then there are no privileged documents related to this log on 9 the privilege log. So I don't have any way to read this 10 request in a privilege log and figure out whether there are 11 noncopyright materials that weren't withheld or there are 12 privileged because all of these privileges were raised -- 13 THE COURT: I take it that what's being said is that 14 she has no privileged documents that would be covered by that 15 request? 16 MS. MENNINGER: That's not what the objection says. 17 And, your Honor, since she sold her handwritten notes about my 18 client to Radar Online, I know they exist because they were 19 excerpted on the Internet. 20 THE COURT: Yes, but she said she doesn't have them. 21 She said -- I mean, correct me if I am wrong. 22 MS. McCAWLEY: No, she doesn't have them. But, your 23 Honor, I am happy to have -- first of all, she hasn't conferred 24 on these issues that we are talking about here today. I am 25 happy to address them fully. I feel very comfortable with our SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 EFTA01184097  17 G3hdgium 1 discovery production in this case. We will continue to roll it 2 out; we have done it timely. Unlike like the defendants, who I 3 served their discovery requests October 27th, your Honor. We 4 are now in March. I received two emails, two emails in 5 response. I produced 3,000 pages 6 MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, she is 7 (Unintelligible crosstalk) 8 THE COURT: Ladies, we're not going to get anywhere if 9 we "who struck John." 10 MS. McCAWLEY: I understand, your Honor. 11 I think I proposed something very fair by saying that 12 I would share with her any document I intend to use at that 13 deposition. I just need the deposition. 14 THE COURT: I understand. I got you. OK. 15 Now, you will identify any document -- I mean, you 16 tell them -- give them any documents that you are going to use 17 in the deposition. 18 MS. McCAWLEY: Yes. 19 THE COURT: OK. Now, is there -- the business of this 20 production on -- you are going to have to -- well, wait a 21 minute. Let me put it this way. The objections to this 16 are 22 overruled except for the privilege. OK? 23 MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, I've proposed dates for my 24 client to be available in two or three weeks, once we have 25 received a complete document production, which was due last SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 EFTA01184098  18 G3hdgium 1 night, and I have been told we're not going to talk about dates 2 in two or three weeks. We haven't asked to set them out into 3 May or June. We've just asked for the documents that were due 4 last night to be produced to us before our client's deposition. 5 This isn't some kind of game. It's just she's been litigating 6 this case for seven years 7 THE COURT: OK. Well, we've dealt with the first 8 objection. Now, is there another one? 9 MS. McCAWLEY: Right. So we're here on my motion to 10 compel production of documents. I am just getting a little 11 confused because I don't -- we are here -- my motion to compel 12 production of documents from her based on my request that -- 13 THE COURT: Let's not worry about the -- 14 MS. McCAWLEY: OK. I just wanted to be clear. I 15 don't have in front of me the request that she is referring to. 16 THE COURT: OK. Anything else that you think you need 17 besides the documents she is going to use, the response to 16? 18 Anything else -- 19 MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor -- 20 THE COURT: -- that is critical for the deposition? 21 MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, these were filed last 22 night at 9:30 p.m., the 3,000 pages were produced to my office, 23 which is in Colorado. I haven't looked at the 3,000 pages that 24 were produced last night. I will have to ask leave of the 25 Court to go back, look at the documents that were produced and SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 EFTA01184099  19 G3hdgium 1 see what I am missing. 2 THE COURT: All right. If you want to, you can come 3 back on Thursday next week and we can argue about whether or 4 not the deposition should go forward on Friday. 5 MS. MENNINGER: OK. 6 THE COURT: That is all right with me. 7 MS. MENNINGER: That is acceptable, your Honor. 8 THE COURT: OK. So maybe we've solved that problem. 9 OK. Maybe. 10 Now, on the improper objections by the defendants. I 11 suppose I can assume that the defendants' objections are just 12 exactly the same as the plaintiff's objections. 13 MR. PAGLIUCA: No, your Honor. They are not. 14 MS. McCAWLEY: Oh, I'm sorry. This is my motion to 15 compel. Can I just address it initially so that I can lay out 16 for the Court what the issues are that we are raising on the 17 motion to compel? 18 THE COURT: I'm sorry. 19 MS. McCAWLEY: This is my motion to compel now. Can I 20 address -- am I able to address that? 21 THE COURT: Yes. 22 MS. McCAWLEY: So with respect to our motion to compel 23 the documents from the defendant, as you know, your Honor, 24 there are two main objections that I think have to be overcome 25 in order for us to get that production properly. The first SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 EFTA01184100  20 G3hdgium 1 main objection is the fact that they are objecting to the time 2 period. So we have sought requests from 1999, which is in 3 around the time when my client contends she was involved with 4 these individuals, to the present. They objected that that 5 time period is overly broad. They only agreed to produce for 6 the period of 1999 to 2002 and for one month, from December 31, 7 2014 to January 31, 2015. So they cut out all the years in 8 between and anything post January 31, 2015. 9 Now, with respect to your Honor maybe saying why would 10 that time period be relevant, the entire time period is 11 relevant for a number of reasons. First, in 1999, that's when 12 my client first recalls being -- 13 THE COURT: We can agree -- I think we can agree at 14 the outset that '99 to what is it? 15 MS. McCAWLEY: 2002. 16 THE COURT: 2002 is relevant. 17 MS. McCAWLEY: Right. 18 THE COURT: So what we're talking about is the -- what 19 happened in 2002? 20 MS. McCAWLEY: My client was sent to Thailand by 21 Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell for a training and to pick up 22 another -- 23 THE COURT: So she is no longer -- 24 MS. McCAWLEY: And she left. She fled to 25 THE COURT: OK. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 EFTA01184101  21 G3hdgium 1 MS. McCAWLEY: So with respect to these requests, I 2 just want to -- you know, because the Court has mentioned this 3 and it is worthy of referencing, that if you look at the 4 defendants' request to us, they actually request a longer time 5 period; they request from 1996 to the present. So while they 6 don't want us to -- they don't want to produce to us except for 7 that short window, they are requesting the entire period. In 8 some cases they request -- and I did a chart. Your Honor, 9 would you mind if I just pass this up to you for reference? 10 THE COURT: OK. 11 MS. McCAWLEY: I did a chart, I believe it is on page 12 10, and it has for you the various requests and what the time 13 periods are, and for many of the requests there is no time 14 period at all. 15 MR. PAGLIUCA: I have it. I don't need it. 16 MS. McCAWLEY: Oh, you have that? 17 MR. PAGLIUCA: I do not need it. 18 MS. McCAWLEY: OK. I'm sorry. 19 So that time period shows that many of those requests 20 don't have a time period at all; so it is even broader, from 21 infancy to present. So, in fairness, our requests are 1999 to 22 the present, which we believe is the critical time period. 23 Now, what happens in 2002? So my client does flee to 24 away from these individuals, but the conduct 25 continues. So we have, for example, the law enforcement trash SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 EFTA01184102  22 G3hdgium 1 pulls that show the message pads of the back and forth of 2 arranging these underaged minors to come for massages, things 3 of that nature. We have the flight logs that show Ms. Maxwell 4 flying 360 times with Jeffrey Epstein, 20 of which were with my 5 client when she was underage. We have the Palm Beach police 6 report, which shows over 30 minors who reported during that 7 time period, to up until now 2006, being abused in that 8 circumstance in Palm Beach. Then we have the arrest that 9 happens of Jeffrey Epstein in 2006. 10 Thereafter, my client in 2008 is -- I'm sorry, she 11 receives from the U.S. government a victim notification letter. 12 At that point, in 2009, Ms. Maxwell's deposition is sought in 13 underlying civil cases. She flees from that deposition, says 14 her mother is ill in England, she has to leave the country, 15 cannot be deposed. She then shows up three weeks later at 16 Chelsea Clinton's wedding. So clearly she was around, she was 17 able to do something, but she avoided that deposition. Her 18 testimony was never taken in that case. 19 So that's in 2009. Then we have in 2011 my client is 20 interviewed by the FBI about the issues that have happened. 21 Then we have in 2011 Ms. Maxwell starts issuing different 22 statements to the press. She continues that, issues a 23 statement in 2015, which is the statement that we are here 24 about in this case. 25 So I contend, your Honor, that all of those years have SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 EFTA01184103  23 G3hdgium 1 relevant information in them with respect to my client. 2 THE COURT: OK. I understand. 3 Let's hear from the defendant. 4 MR. PAGLIUCA: So, your Honor, I have tried to refrain 5 from responding in kind, but the problem here is all of this -- 6 the agenda behind all of this is not really the issue in this 7 case but it is to make inflammatory statements like counsel 8 just made as fact when they are speculation, at best, your 9 Honor, and to pack into the record things that are demonstrably 10 not true but counsel says them like they are true and then 11 refers to her own declaration to support the fact of what she 12 is saying may or may not be true. So let's get to the issue 13 here in terms of the relevant timeframe. 14 First, the plaintiff goes to on her own 15 volition where she 16 resides for some 12/13 years after, and has no contact with 17 Ms. Maxwell or Mr. Epstein. So everything that happens from 18 2002 forward has absolutely nothing to do with the plaintiff in 19 this case, and she has absolutely no personal knowledge about 20 what did or didn't happen in Florida or elsewhere from that 21 timeframe forward. 22 You know, I carefully, your Honor, read your ruling on 23 the motion to dismiss, and I believe that you characterized the 24 issue in this case very narrowly, and that is is what the 25 plaintiff said about Ms. Maxwell, and from 1999 to 2002, true SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 EFTA01184104  24 G3hdgium 1 or not. Those two individuals have the facts that relate to 2 that, and anything outside of that, quite frankly, is opinion 3 and not a subject matter of this litigation. 4 Now, you have to focus not only on this expansive 5 timeframe in which the plaintiff is not even in this 6 hemisphere, which is combined with the overbroad requests that 7 don't ask for things that might be arguably relevant under a 8 404(b) analysis -- you know, for example, did this happen with 9 Ms. Maxwell and someone else in 2005, let's say -- those aren't 10 what the requests are. The requests are for all communications 11 for 17 years with plug in the individual, all documents 12 relating to whatever you want to plug in there for 17 years. 13 And so those two things combined create a grossly overbroad and 14 unmanageable document request. Hence, the objections. 15 Now, had we had the ability to confer about this, we 16 may have been able to get down to, here, these are really the 17 relevant timeframes, or you need to modify your requests for 18 production to say things like any communication with Jeffrey 19 Epstein related to the plaintiff, any communication with this 20 person related to the plaintiff. But that's not what the 21 requests are. And so what you are left with is an unmanageable 22 pile of requests for production of documents. 23 I will note, your Honor, so the Court has this in 24 context, there are 39 requests that have been proposed to 25 Ms. Maxwell. She has no responsive documents, and I've so SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 EFTA01184105  25 G3hdgium 1 indicated to 17 of those requests. So we then winnow this down 2 to the ones that we are objecting to for very good reason. The 3 timeframe we have proposed is the appropriate timeframe. If 4 there are narrowly tailored requests for production for 5 something that may be relevant outside that timeframe, then 6 they should propose that and not what they are proposing 7 currently, which makes the entire process unwieldy and 8 unreliable. 9 MS. McCAWLEY: Your Honor, the underlying issue in 10 this case is whether or not Ms. Maxwell lied when she said my 11 client was not subject to the abuse that she said she was 12 subject to. So in order to prove that, for defamation with 13 malice, we have to prove that my client was abused by these 14 individuals, that these individuals did take advantage of her 15 in the way that she expressed. 16 What's relevant to that is the sexual trafficking 17 ring. If after my client left they are also trafficking other 18 underaged girls repetitively, that is relevant to prove the 19 truth of my client's allegations as well. We are entitled to 20 that in discovery, your Honor. One of the requests is the 21 documents relating to communications of Jeffrey Epstein. If 22 she is e-mailing Jeffrey Epstein about the girls she's going to 23 send over to him in 2004, before he is arrested, that's 24 relevant to my client's claim, your Honor. So we shouldn't be 25 told that we're not entitled to these documents or that we're SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 EFTA01184106  26 G3hdgium 1 only entitled to two emails out of all of our requests. 2 In addition, he says that there are 17 requests that 3 they have no documents for, your Honor, but, again, they have 4 restricted the time period to this very short window and then 5 they answered in their responses. OK. So -- 6 MR. PAGLIUCA: That is not true. If you read -- 7 actually read the response, there is no restriction because we 8 have looked and there are no documents. We're actually trying 9 to move this ball forward, your Honor, and what's happening 10 here is we keep getting sucked back into this morass of maybe 11 something happened. If you listen to the words that counsel is 12 saying, your Honor, it is very illustrative of the fishing 13 expedition. If there is this, then it is relevant. But that 14 is not what they are asking for. And you have to go back to 15 the request. "All documents" -- Request No. 1: "All documents 16 relating to communications with Jeffrey Epstein from 1990 to 17 present." Well, that's not all documents concerning 18 trafficking or underaged girls, that's all documents relating 19 to, which could be anything in the universe. 20 Those are the reasons why I objected. 21 Request No. 3: "All documents relating to 22 communications with Andrew Albert Christian Edward, Duke of 23 York, from 1990 to present." You know, what the heck does a 24 communication with the Duke in 2013, any old communication, 25 have to do with anything in this case? Nothing. If you SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 EFTA01184107  27 G3hdgium 1 said -- if you give me a request for production of documents 2 that said give me any documents that talk about your press 3 release with the Duke, well, that might be relevant and 4 discoverable, but these are grossly overbroad. 5 If they had conferred with us, we would have been able 6 to narrow this down, but they haven't because there is an 7 agenda here that, quite frankly, I don't understand, your 8 Honor. But what I think it is is to simply pack the record, 9 the written record and the oral record, with these very 10 specious, quite frankly, disgusting allegations about my 11 client, and that's not what we're here for. If they want 12 something, they should ask for it specifically. If they just 13 want to, you know, kind of throw things around -- if this, then 14 that -- then that's what we're about here. 15 MS. McCAWLEY: Your Honor -- 16 THE COURT: All right. I think I understand this 17 issue. 18 What else do we have? We have the timeframe and the 19 specificity. 20 MS. McCAWLEY: Right. So, your Honor, there is the 21 timeframe for the request, and then, right, I assume that they 22 are alleging that these are overbroad in some way as 23 THE COURT: I would rather think I just heard that. 24 MS. McCAWLEY: Right. Exactly. So, your Honor, just 25 to touch on that very quickly. Not only -- and you will see it SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 EFTA01184108  28 G3hdgium 1 in our papers, but we also give specific examples of why these 2 are relevant, for example, and not overbroad. For example, two 3 of the people we asked for documents and communications with, 4 when they were asked in 5 their depositions about Ms. Maxwell sexually trafficking 6 underaged girls, both of those individuals took the Fifth. If 7 there are documents between Ms. Maxwell and 8 discussing those issues at any time from 1990 to present, we 9 want those documents, your Honor. And while they say that 10 day-to-day communications with Jeffrey Epstein wouldn't be 11 relevant, they would. If they're communicating on a daily 12 basis, that's relevant. 13 THE COURT: I understand that point. 14 MS. McCAWLEY: So, your Honor, those are the two key 15 issues as I understand it, the time period and then the 16 overbreadth of the re

EFTA00725998.pdf

DataSet-10 Unknown 39 pages

EXHIBIT G EFTA00725998  IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA Case No.: 50 2009 CA 040800XXXXMEAG JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff, vs. SCOTT ROTHSTEN, individually, and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendants, STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS Defendant Bradley J. Edwards, Esq., offers the following specific facts as the undisputed material facts in this case. Each of the following facts is numbered separately and individually to facilitate Epstein's required compliance with Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(c) ("The adverse party shall identify . . . any summary judgment evidence on which the adverse party relies."). Sexual Abuse of Children Dv Epstein 1. Defendant Epstein has a sexual preference for young children. Deposition of Jeffrey Epstein, Mar. 17, 2010, at 110 (hereinafter "Epstein Depo.") (Deposition Attachment #1).1 2. Epstein repeatedly sexually assaulted more than forty (40) young girls on numerous 1 When questioned about this subject at his deposition, Epstein invoked his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent rather than make an incriminating admission. Accordingly, Edwards is entitled to the adverse inference against Epstein that, had Epstein answered, the answer would have been unfavorable to him. "[I]t is well-settled that the Fifth Amendment does not forbid adverse inferences against parties to civil actions when they refuse to testify in respqmLwprobative evidence offered against them." Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 318 (1976); accord v. State, 777 So.2d 1200, 1203 (Fla. App. 2001). The reason for this rule "is both logical and utilitarian. A party may not trample upon the rights of others and then escape the consequences by invoking a constitutional privilege — at least not in a civil setting." Fraser v. Security and Inv. Corp., 615 So.2d 841, 842 (Fla. App. 1993). EFTA00725999 occasions between 2002 and 2005 in his mansion in West Palm Beach, Florida. These sexual assaults included vaginal penetration. Epstein abused many of the girls dozens if not hundreds of times. Epstein Depo. at 109 ("Q: How many times have you engaged in oral sex with females under the age of 18?" A: [Invocation of the Fifth Amendment]); Deposition of Jane Doe, September 24, 2009 and continued March 11, 2010, at 527 (minor girl sexually abused at least 17 times by Epstein) (hereinafter "Jane Doe Depo") (Deposition Attachment #2); id. 564-67 (vaginal penetration by Epstein with his finger), 568 (vaginal penetration by Epstein with a massager); Deposition °l1., September 24, 2009, at 73 (hereinafter .. Depo") (Deposition Attachment #3) (describing the manner in which Epstein abused her beginning when was 13 years old, touching her vagina with his fingers and vibrator) at 74, line 12-13 (she was personally molested by Epstein more than 50 times), at 164, line 19-23 and 141, line 12-13 and 605, line 3-6 (describing that in addition to being personally molested by Epstein she was paid $200 per underage girl she brought Epstein and she brought him more than seventy (70) underage girls - she told him that she did not want to bring him any more girls and he insisted that she continue to bring him underage girls); Deposition of.., May 6, 2010 (hereinafter Depo") (Deposition Attachment #4) at 115-116, 131 and 255 (describing Epstein's abuse of her beginning at age 14 when he paid her for touching her vagina, inserting his fingers and using a vibrator and he also paid her $200 for each other underage female.. brought him to molest. She brought him between 20 and 30 underage females); Deposition of Jane Doe #4, date (hereinafter "Jane Doe #4 Depo") (Deposition Attachment #5) at 32-34, and 136 (she describes first being taken to Epstein at 15 years old, "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."). 2 EFTA00726000  3. At all relevant times Edwards has had a good basis to conclude and did conclude2 that Epstein was able to access a large number of underage girls through a pyramid abuse scheme in which he paid underage victims $200-$300 cash for each other underage victim that she brought to him. See Palm Beach Police Incident Report at 87 (hereinafter "Incident Report") (Exhibit "A").3 The Palm Beach Police Incident Report details Epstein's scheme for molesting underage females. Among other things, the Incident Report outlines some of the experiences of other Epstein victims. Whet, a 14 year old minor at the time, was brought to Epstein's home, she was taken upstairs by a woman she believed to be Epstein's assistant. The woman started to fix up the mom, putting covers on the massage table and bringing lotions out. The "assistant" then left the room and toll'. that Epstein would be up in a second. Epstein walked over toe. and told her to take her clothes off in a stem voice. S. states in the report she did not know what to do, as she was the only one there.. took off her shirt, leaving her bra on. Epstein, then in a towel told her to take off everything... removed her pants leaving on her thong panties. Epstein then instructeS to give him a massage. AS gave Epstein a massage, Epstein turned around and masturbated. was so disgusted, she did not say anything; Epstein told her she "had a really hot body." Id. at 14. In the reports. admitted seeing Jeffrey Epstein's penis and stated she thought Epstein was on steroids because he was a "really built guy and his wee wee was very tiny." Id. at 15. 4. The exact number of minor girls who Epstein assaulted is known only to Epstein. However, Edwards had a good basis to believe and did in fact believe that Epstein's victims were substantially more than forty (40) in number. In addition to the deposition excerpts from two of his many victims above about the number of underage girls brought to Epstein and the Palm Beach 2 In support of ns co 'rig the actions Edwards took, what Edwards learned in the course of his representation of his clients, goo beliefs and the foundation for those beliefs, see Edwards Affidavit and specifically paragraphs 25 and 25 of that A [davit. For clarity, depositions attached to this memorandum will be identified numerically as attachments #1, #2, #3, etc., while exhibits attached to this memorandum will be identified alphabetically as exhibits A, B, C, etc. 3 EFTA00726001 incident report, there is overwhelming proof that the number of underage girls molested by Epstein through his scheme was in the hundreds. See Complaint, Jane Doe 102 v. Epstein, (hereinafter Jane Doe 102 complaint) (Exhibit "B"); see also Deposition of Jeffrey Epstein, April 14, 2010, at 442, 443, and 444 (Epstein invoking the 5th on questions about his daily abuse and molestation of children) (Deposition Attachment #6). 5. At all relevant times Edwards has had a good IM basis to believe and did in fact believe that Epstein and his attorneys knew of the seriousness of the criminal investigation against him and corresponded constantly with the United States Attorney's Office in an attempt to avoid the filing of numerous federal felony offenses, which effort was successful. See Correspondence from U.S. Attorney's Office to Epstein (hereinafter "U.S. Attorney's Correspondence") (Composite Exhibit "C) (provided in discovery during the Jane Doe v. Epstein case). 6. At all relevant times Edwards has had a good basis to believe and did in fact believe that, more specifically, Epstein's attorneys knew of Epstein's scheme to recruit minors for sex and also knew that these minors had civil actions that they could bring against him. In fact, there was much communication between Epstein's attorneys and the United States Prosecutors in a joint attempt to minimize Epstein's civil exposure. For example, on October 3, 2007, Assistant U.S. Attorney Marie sent an email (attached hereto as Exhibit "D") to Jay Lefkowitz, counsel for Epstein, with attached proposed letter to special master regarding handling numerous expected civil claims against Epstein. The letter reads in pertinent part, "The undersigned, as counsel for the United States of America and Jeffrey Epstein, jointly write to you to provide information relevant to your service as a Special Master in the selection of an attorney to represent several young women who may have civil damages claims against Mr. Epstein. The U.S. Attorney's Office and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (jointly referred to as the "United States") have conducted an investigation of Jeffrey Epstein regarding his solicitation of minor females in Palm Beach County to engage in prostitution. Mr. Epstein, through his assistants, would recruit underage females to travel to his home in Palm Beach to 4 EFTA00726002  engage in lewd conduct in exchange for money. Based upon the investigation, the United States has identified forty (40) young women who can be characterized as victims pursuant to 18 USC 2255. Some of those women went to Mr. Epstein's home only once, some went there as much as 100 times or more. Some of the women's conduct was limited to performing a topless or nude massage while Mr. Epstein masturbated himself. For other women, the conduct escalated to full sexual intercourse. As part of the resolution of the case, Epstein has agreed that he would not contest jurisdiction in the Southern District of Florida for any victim who chose to him for damages pursuant to 18 USC 2255. Mr. Epstein agreed to provide an attorney for victims who elected to proceed exclusively pursuant to that section, and agreed to waive any challenge to liability under that section up to an amount agreed to by the parties. The parties have agreed to submit the selection of an attorney to a Special Master...." 7. At all relevant times Edwards has had a good basis to believe and did in fact believe that was, in fact, a victim of Epstein's criminal abuse because.. was one of the minor females that the United States Attorney's Office recognized as a victim..I.'s sworn deposition testimony and the adverse inference drawn from Epstein's refusal to testify confirm that Epstein began sexually assaulting when she was 13 years old and continued to molest her on more than fifty (50) occasions over three (3) years. Epstein Depo., Attachment #1, at 17 ("Q: Did you . . . ever engage in any sexual conduct with ■.?" A: [Invocation of the Fifth Amendment].); see also Epstein Depo., April 14, 2010, Attachment #6, at 456 ("QS was an underage female that you first abused when she was 13 years old; is that correct?" A: [Invocation of Fifth Amendment].) 8. Epstein was also given ample opportunity to explain why he engaged in sexual activity with beginning when was 13 years old and why he has molested minors on an everyday basis for years, and he invoked his 5th amendment right rather than provide explanation. See Epstein Deposition, February 17, 2010, at 11-12, 30-31 (Deposition Attachment # 7). 9. Epstein also sexually assaulted.., beginning when she was 14 years old and did so on numerous occasions. See.. Depo., Attachment #4 at 215-216. 10. Mother of the minor girls Epstein sexually assaulted was Jane Doe; the abuse began 5 EFTA00726003 when Jane Doe was 14 years old. Rather than incriminate himself, Epstein invoked the 5th amendment to questions about him digitally penetrating Doe's vagina, using vibrators on her vagina and masturbating and ejaculating in her presence. Epstein Depo., April 14, 2010, Attachment #6, at 420, 464, 468. 11. When clients IN and Jane Doe were 13 or 14 years old, each was brought to Epstein's home multiple times by another underage victim. Epstein engaged in one or more of the following acts with each of the then-minor girls at his mansion: receiving a topless or completely nude massage; using a vibrator on her vagina; masturbating in her presence; ejaculating in her presence; touching her breast or buttocks or vagina or the clothes covering her sexual organs; and demanding that she bring him other underage girls. Epstein and his co-conspirators used the telephone to contact these girls to entice or induce them into going to his mansion for sexual abuse. Epstein also made perform oral sex on him and was to perform sex acts on (Epstein's live- in sex slave) in Epstein's presence. See Plaintiff Jane Doe's Notice Regarding Evidence of Similar Acts of Sexual Assault, filed in Jane Doe v. Epstein, No. 08-cv-80893 (S.D. Fla. 2010), as DE 197, (hereinafter "Rule 413 Notice") (Exhibit "E"); Jane Doe Depo., Attachment #2, at 379-381.1. Depo., Attachment #3, at 416;M. Depo, Attachment #4, at 205. 12. At all relevant times Edwards has had a good basis to believe and did in fact believe that yet another of the minor girls Epstein sexually assaulted was... When she was approximately 15 years old, ■. was brought to Epstein's home by another underage victim. While a minor, she was at Epstein's home on multiple occasions. Epstein engaged in one or more of the following acts with her while she was a minor at his house - topless or completely nude massage on Epstein; Epstein used a vibrator on her vagina; Epstein masturbated in her presence; Epstein ejaculated in her presence; Epstein also demanded that she bring him other underage girls. See Rule 413 Notice, 6 EFTA00726004 Exhibit "E"; Incident Report, Exhibit "A." 13. At all relevant times Edwards has had a good basis to believe and did in fact believe that yet another girl Epstein sexually assault was A.H. When she was approximately 16 years old, she was brought to Epstein's home by another underage victim. While a minor, she was at Epstein's home on multiple occasions. Epstein engaged in one or more of the following acts with her while she was a minor at his house - topless or completely nude massage on Epstein; Epstein used a vibrator on her vagina; Epstein masturbated in her presence; Epstein ejaculated in her presence; Epstein touched her breast or buttock or vagina or the clothes covering her sexual organs; was made to perform sex acts on Epstein; made to perform sex acts o in Epstein's presence. Epstein also forcibly raped this underage victim, as he held her head down against her will and pumped his penis inside her while she was screaming "No". See Rule 413 Notice, Exhibit "E"; Incident Report, Exhibit "A", at 41 (specifically discussing the rape): "[A.H.] remembered that she climaxed and was removing herself from the massage table. [A.11.] asked for a sheet of a er and drew the massage table in the master bathroom and where Epstein, and she were. Epstein turned [A.H.] on to her stomach on the massage bed and inserted his penis into her vagina. [A.H.] stated Epstein began to pump his penis in her vagina. [A.H.] became upset over this. She said her head was being held against the bed forcibly, as he continued to pump inside her. She screamed no, and Epstein stopped ...." "[A.H.] advised there were times that she was so sore when she left Epstein's house. [AIL] advised she was ripped, torn, in her vagina area. [Alt] advised she had difficulty walking to the car after leaving the house because she was so sore." 14. Without detailing each fact known about Epstein's abuse of the many underage girls, Edwards has had a good basis to believe and did in fact believe at all relevant times that Epstein also abused other victims in ways closely similar to those described in the preceding paragraphs. Epstein's additional victims include the following (among many other) young girls: These girls were between the ages of 13 and 7 EFTA00726005 17 when Epstein abused them. See Rule 413 Notice, Exhibit E; Deposition ofe., Deposition Attachment #4. 15. One of Mr. Epstein's household employees, Mr. Alfredo Rodriguez, saw numerous underage girls coming into Epstein's mansion for purported "massages." See Rodriguez Depo. at 242- 44 (Deposition Attachment #8). Rodriguez was aware that "sex toys" and vibrators were found in Epstein's bedroom after the purported massages. Id. at 223-28. Rodriguez thought what Epstein was doing was wrong, given the extreme youth of the girls he saw. Id. at 230-31. 16. Alfredo Rodriguez took a journal from Epstein's computer that reflected many of the names of underage females Epstein abused across the country and the world, including locations such as Michigan, California, West Palm Beach, New York, New Mexico, and Paris, France. See Journal (hereinafter "The Journal" or "Holy Grail") (Exhibit "F") (identifying, among other Epstein acquaintances, females that Rodriguez believes were underage under the heading labeled "Massages"). 17. Rodriguez was later charged in a criminal complaint with obstruction of justice in connection with trying to obtain $50,000 from civil attorneys pursuing civil sexual assault cases against Epstein as payment for producing the book to the attorneys. See Criminal Complaint at 2, U.S. v. Rodriguez, No. 9:10-CR-80015-KAM (S.D. Fla. 2010) (Exhibit "G"). Rodriguez stated he needed money because the journal was his "property" and that he was afraid that Jeffrey Epstein would make him "disappear" unless he had an "insurance policy" (i.e., the journal). Id. at 3. Because of the importance of the information in the journal to the civil cases, Mr. Rodriguez called it "The Holy Grail." 18. In the "Holy Grail" or "The Journal," among the many names listed (along with the abused girls) are some of the people that Epstein alleges in his Complaint had "no connection whatsoever" with the litigation in this case. See, e.g., Journal, Exhibit F, at 85 (Donald Trump); at 9 8 EFTA00726006 (Bill Clinton phone numbers listed under "Doug Bands"). Federal Investigation and Plea ARreement With Epstein 19. In approximately 2005, the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida learned of Epstein's repeated sexual abuse of minor girls. They began a criminal investigation into federal offenses related to his crimes. See U.S. Attorney's Correspondence, Exhibit 20. At all relevant times Edwards has had a good basis to believe and did in fact believe that to avoid the Government learning about his abuse of minor girls, Epstein threatened his employees and demanded that they not cooperate with the government. Epstein's aggressive witness tampering was so severe that the United States Attorney's Office prepared negotiated plea agreements containing these charges. For example, in a September 18, 2007, email from AUSA Villafaila to Lefkowitz (attached hereto as Exhibit "H"), she attached the proposed plea agreement describing Epstein's witness tampering as follows: "UNITED STATES vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN PLEA PROFFER" On August 21, 2007, FBI cia.gents E. Nesbitt Kuyrkendall and Jason Richards traveled to the home of to serve her with a federal grand 'u subpoena with an investigation pending in the Southern District of Florida. Ms.= works as the personal assistant of the defendant. Ms.= began speaking with the agents and then excused herself to go upstairs to check on her sleeping child. While upstairs, Ms. telephoned the defendant, Jeffrey Epsteiriand informed him that the FBI agents were at her home. Mr. Epstein instructed Ms= not to speak with the agents and reprimanded her for allowing them into her home. Mr. Epstein applied pressure to keep Ms. from complying with the grand jury subpoenas that the agents had served upon her. In particular, Mr. Epstein warned Ms against turning over documents and electronic evidence responsive to the subpoena and pressured her to delay her appearance before the grand jury in the Southern District of Florida. This conversation occurred when Mr. Epstein was aboard his privately owned civilian aircraft in Miami in the Southern District of Florida. His pilot had filed a flight plan showinale arties were about to return to Teterboro, NJ. After the conversation with M , Mr. lan became concerned that the FBI would try to serve his traveling companion, with a similar grand jury subpoena. In fact, the agents were 9 EFTA00726007  preparing to serve Ms. with a target letter when the flight landed in Teterboro. Mr. Epstein then redirected his airplane, making the pilot file a new flight plan to travel to the US Virgin Islands instead of the New York Cit area, thereby keeping the Special Agents from serving the tar et letter on . During the flight, the defendant verbally harassed Ms. , arassing an pressuring her not to cooperate with the grand jury's investigation, thereby hindering and dissuading her from reporting the commission of a violation of federal law to a law enforce cer namely, Special Agents of the FBI. Epstein also threatened and harassed against cooperating against him as well. 21. Edwards learned that the Palm Beach police department investigation ultimately led to the execution of a search warrant at Epstein's mansion in October 2005. See Police Incident Report, Exhibit "A". 22. Edwards learned that at around the same time, the Palm Beach Police Department also began investigating Epstein's sexual abuse of minor girls. They also collected evidence of Epstein's involvement with minor girls and his obsession with training sex slaves, including pulling information from Epstein's trash. Their investigation showed that Epstein ordered from Amazon.com on about September 4, 2005, such books as: SM101: A Realistic Introduction, by Jay Wiseman; SlaveCraft: Roadmaps for Erotic Servitude - Principles, Skills, and Tools, by Guy Baldwin; and Training with Miss Abernathy: A Workbook for Erotic Slaves and Their Owners, be Abernathy. See Receipt for Sex Slave Books (Exhibit "I"). 23. The Palm Beach incident reports provided Edwards with the names of numerous witnesses that participated in Epstein's child molestation criminal enterprise and also provided Edwards with some insight into how far-reaching Epstein's power was and how addicted Epstein was to sex with children. See Incident Report, Exhibit "A". 24. The Palm Beach Police Department also collected Epstein's message pads, which provided other names of people that also knew Epstein's scheme to molest children. See Message Pads (Exhibit "J") (note: the names of underage females have been redacted to protect the anonymity 10 EFTA00726008 of the underage sex abuse victims). Those message pads show clear indication that Epstein's staff was frequently working to schedule multiple young girls between the ages of 12 and 16 years old literally every day, often two or three times per day. Id. 25. In light of all of the information of numerous crimes committed by Epstein, Edwards learned that the U.S. Attorney's Office began preparing the filing of federal criminal charges against Epstein. For example, in addition to the witness tampering and money laundering charges the U.S. Attorney's Office prepared an 82-page prosecution memo and a 53-page indictment of Epstein related to his sexual abuse of children. On September 19, 2007, at 12:14 PM, AUSA wrote to Epstein's counsel, Jay Lefkowitz, "Jay - I hate to have to be firm about this, but we need to wrap this up by Monday. I will not miss my indictment date when this has dragged on for several weeks already and then, if things fall apart, be left in a less advantageous position than before the negotiations. I have had an 82-page pros memo and 53-page indictment sitting on the shelf since May to engage in these negotiations. There has to be an ending date, and that date is Monday." These and other communications are within the correspondence attached as Composite Exhibit "C." 26. Edwards learned that rather than face the filing of federal felony criminal charges, Epstein (through his attorneys) engaged in plea bargain discussions. As a result of those discussions, on September 24, 2007, Epstein signed an agreement with the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida. Under the agreement, Epstein agreed to plead guilty to an indictment pending against him in the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County charging him with solicitation of prostitution and procurement of minors for prostitution. Epstein also agreed that he would receive a thirty month sentence, including 18 months of jail time and 12 months of community control. In exchange, the U.S. Attorney's Office agreed not to pursue any federal charges against Epstein. See Non-Prosecution Agreement (Exhibit "K"). 11 EFTA00726009  27. Part of the Non-Prosecution Agreement that Epstein negotiated was a provision in which the federal government agreed not to prosecute Epstein's co-conspirators. The co-conspirators procured minor females to be molested by Epstein. One of the co-conspirators even participated in the sex acts with minors (including..) and Epstein. See Incident Report, Exhibit "A", at 40-42, 49-51; Deposition o April 13, 2010, (hereinafter Depo.") at 11 (Deposition attachment #9). 28. Under the Non-Prosecution Agreement, Epstein was to use his "best efforts" to enter into his guilty pleas by October 26, 2007. However, Edwards learned that Epstein violated his agreement with the U.S. Attorney's Office to do so and delayed entry of his plea. See Letter from U.S. Attorney R. Alexander Acosta to Lilly Ann Sanchez, Dec. 19, 2007 (Exhibit "L"). 29. On January 10, 2008 and again on May 30, 2008.. and.. received letters from the FBI advising them that "[t]his case is currently under investigation. This can be a lengthy process and we request your continued patience while we conduct a thorough investigation." Letters attached at Composite Exhibit "M". This document is evidence that the FBI did not notify. an.. that a plea agreement had already been reached that would block federal prosecution of Epstein. Nor did the FBI notify and of any of the parts of the plea agreement. Nor did the FBI or other federal authorities confer with.. and. about the plea. See id. 30. In 2008, Edwards believed in good that criminal prosecution of Epstein was extremely important to his clients and ■. and that they desired to be consulted by the FBI and/or other representatives of the federal government about the prosecution of Epstein. The letters that they had received around January 10, 2008, suggested that a criminal investigation of Epstein was on-going and that they would be contacted before the federal government reached any final resolution of that investigation. See id. 12 EFTA00726010  Edwards Agrees to Serve as Legal Counsel for Three Victims of Epstein's Sexual Assaults 31. In about April 2008, Bradley J. Edwards, Esq., was a licensed attorney in Florida, practicing as a sole practitioner. As a former prosecutor, he was well versed in civil cases that involved criminal acts, including sexual assaults. Three of the many girls Epstein had abused and Jane Doe — all requested that Edwards represent them civilly and secure appropriate monetary damages against Epstein for repeated acts of sexual abuse while they were minor girls. Two of the girls M. and also requested that Edwards represent them in connection with a concern that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and U.S. Attorney's Office might be arranging a plea bargain for the criminal offenses committed by Epstein without providing them the legal rights to which they were entitled (including the right to be notified of plea discussions and the right to confer with prosecutors about any plea arrangement). See Affidavit of Bradley J. Edwards, Esq. at ¶1 - 2, ¶4 (hereinafter "Edwards Affidavit") (Exhibit "N"). 32. On June 13, 2008, attorney Edwards agreed to represent..; on July 2, 2008, attorney Edwards agreed to represent Jane Doe; and, on July 7, 2008, attorney Edwards agreed to represent in connection with the sexual assaults committed by Epstein and to insure that their rights as victims of crimes were protected in the criminal process on-going against Epstein. Mr. Edwards and his three clients executed written retention agreements. See id. at ¶2. 33. In mid June of 2008, Edwards contacted AUSA to inform her that he represented Jane Doe #1 and, later, Jane Doe #2. AUSA Villafaria did not advise that a plea agreement had already been negotiated with Epstein's attorneys that would block federal prosecution. To the contrary, AUSA Villafafia mentioned a possible indictment. AUSA Villafafia did indicate that federal investigators had concrete evidence and information that Epstein had sexually molested many underage minor females, including..., and Jane Doe. See id at ¶4. 13 EFTA00726011  34. Edwards also requested from the U.S. Attorney's Office the information that they had collected regarding Epstein's sexual abuse of his clients. However, the U.S. Attorney's Office, declined to provide any such information to Edwards. It similarly declined to provide any such information to the other attorneys who represented victims of Epstein's sexual assaults. At the very least, this includes the items that were confiscated in the search warrant of Epstein's home, including dildos, vibrators, massage table, oils, and additional message pads. See Property Receipt (Exhibit "CP). 35. On Friday, June 27, 2008, at approximately 4:15 p.m., AUSA Villafafia received a copy of Epstein's proposed state plea agreement and learned that the plea was scheduled for 8:30 a.m., Monday, June 30, 2008. AUSA Villafafia called Edwards to provide notice to his clients regarding the hearing. AUSA Villafafia did not tell Attorney Edwards that the guilty pleas in state court would bring an end to the possibility of federal prosecution pursuant to the plea agreement. See Edwards Affidavit, Exhibit "N", at ¶6. 36. Under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771, victims of federal crimes — including and — are entitled to basic rights during any plea bargaining process, including the right to be treated with fairness, the right to confer with prosecutors regarding any plea, and the right to be heard regarding any plea. The process that was followed leading to the non- prosecution of Epstein violated these rights of.. am.. See Emergency Petri. for Victim's Enforcement of Crime Victim's Rights, No. 9:08-CV-80736-KAM (S.D. Fla. 2008) (Exhibit "P"). 37. Because of the violation of the CVRA, on July 7, 2008, Edwards filed an action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Case No. 9:08-CV-80736, seeking to enforce the rights of-. and That action alleged that the U.S. Attorney's Office had failed to provide and M. the rights to which they were entitled under the Act, including the right to be notified 14 EFTA00726012 about a plea agreement and to confer with prosecutors regarding it. See id. 38. On July 11, 2008, Edwards took MI and with him to the hearing on the CVRA action. It was only at this hearing that both victims learned for the first time that the plea deal was already done with Epstein and that the criminal case against Epstein had been effectively terminated by the U.S. Attorney's office. See Hearing Transcript, July 11, 2008 (Exhibit "Q"). 39. Edwards learned that Jane Doe felt so strongly that the plea bargain was inappropriate that she made her own determination to appear on a television program and exercise her First Amendment rights to criticize the unduly lenient plea bargain Epstein received in a criminal case. 40. The CVRA action that Edwards filed was recently administratively closed and Edwards filed a Motion to reopen that proceeding. See No. 9:08-CV-80736 (S.D. Fla.). Epstein's Entry ofGuilty Pleas to Sex Offenses 41. Ultimately, on June 30, 2008, in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in Palm Beach County, Florida, defendant Epstein, entered pleas of "guilty" to various Florida state crimes involving the solicitation of minors for prostitution and the procurement of minors for the purposes of prostitution. See Plea Colloquy (Exhibit "R"). 42. As a condition of that plea, and in exchange for the Federal Government not prosecuting the Defendant, Epstein additionally entered into an agreement with the Federal Government acknowledging that approximately thirty-four (34) other young girls could receive payments from him under the federal statute providing for compensation to victims of child sexual abuse, 18 U.S.C. § 2255. As had been agreed months before, the U.S. Attorney's Office did not prosecute Epstein federally for his sexual abuse of these minor girls. See Addendum to Non- Prosecution Agreement (Exhibit "5") (in redacted form to protect the identities of the minors involved). 15 EFTA00726013  43. Because Epstein became a convicted sex offender, he was not to have contact with any of his victims. During the course of his guilty pleas on June 30, 2008, Palm Beach Circuit Court Judge Deborah Dale Pucillo ordered Epstein "not to have any contact, direct or indirect" with any victims. She also expressly stated that her no-contact order applied to "all of the victims." Similar orders were entered by the federal court handling some of the civil cases against Epstein. The federal court stated that it "finds it necessary to state clearly that Defendant is under this court's order not to have direct or indirect contact with any plaintiffs . . .." Order, Case No. 9:08-cv-80119 (S.D. Fla. 2008), [DE 238] at 4-5 (emphasis added); see also Order, Case No. 9:08-cv-80893, [DE 193] at 2 (emphasis added). Edwards Files Civil Suits Against Epstein 44. Edwards had a good belief that his clients felt angry and betrayed by the criminal system and wished to prosecute and punish Epstein for his crimes against them in whatever avenue remained open to them. On August 12, 2008, at the request of his client Jane Doe, Edwards filed a civil suit against Jeffrey Epstein to recover damages for his sexual assault of Jane Doe. See Edwards Affidavit, "N" at ¶7. Included in this complaint was a RICO count that explained how Epstein ran a criminal conspiracy to procure young girls for him to sexually abuse. See Complaint, Jane Doe v. Epstein (Exhibit "T"). 45. On September 11, 2008, at the request of his client '.1.1 Edwards filed a civil suit against Jeffrey Epstein to recover damages for his sexual assault on. See Complaint, v. Epstein (Exhibit "U"). 46. On September 11, 2008, at the request of his clientM.., Edwards filed a civil suit against Jeffrey Epstein to recover damages for his sexual assault ot. See Complaint, v. Epstein, (Exhibit "V"). 47. Jane Doe's federal complaint indicated that she sought damages of more than $50,000,000. 16 EFTA00726014 Listing the amount of damages sought in the complaint was in accord with other civil suits that were filed against Epstein (before any lawsuit filed by Edwards). See Complaint, Jane Doe #4 v. Epstein (Exhibit "W") (filed by Herman and Mermelstein, PA). 48. At about the same time as Edwards filed his three lawsuits against Epstein, other civil attorneys were filing similar lawsuits against Epstein. For example, on or about April 14, 2008 another law firm, Herman and Mermelstein, filed the first civil action against Epstein on behalf of one of its seven clients who were molested by Epstein. The complaints that attorney Herman filed on behalf of his seven clients were similar in tenor and tone to the complaint that Edwards filed on behalf of his three clients. See id. 49. Over the next year and a half, more than 20 other similar civil actions were filed by various attorneys against Epstein alleging sexual assault of minor girls. These complaints were also similar in tenor and tone to the complaint that Edwards filed on behalf of his clients. These complaints are all public record and have not been attached, but are available in this Court's files and the files of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. 50. In addition to the complaints filed against Epstein in Florida, a female in New York, Ava Cordero, filed a lawsuit against Epstein in New York making similar allegations - that Epstein paid her for a massage then forced her to give him oral sex and molested her in other ways when she was only 16 years old. Cordero was born a male, and in her complaint she alleges that Epstein told her during the "massage", "I love how young you are. You have a tight butt like a baby". See Jeff Epstein Sued for "Repeated Sexual Assaults" on Teen, New York Post, October 17, 2007, by Dareh Gregorian, link at: http://www.nypost.com/n/news/regionallitem 44z1WvLUFH7RIOUtKYGPbP:isessionid=6CA3EBF1 BEF68F5DE14BFB2CAA5C37E0. See Article attached hereto as Exhibit "X". 17 EFTA00726015  51. three complaints against Epstein contained less detail about sexual abuse than (as one example) a complaint filed by attorney= Josephsberg from the law firm of Podhurst Orseck. See Complaint, Jane Doe 102 v. Epstein (Exhibit "B"). As recounted in detail in this Complaint, Jane Doe 102 was 15 years old when Ghislaine Maxwell discovered her and lured her to Epstein's house. Maxwell and Epstein forced her to have sex with both of them and within weeks Maxwell and Epstein were flying her all over the world. According to the Complaint, Jane Doe 102 was forced to live as one of Epstein's underage sex slaves for years and was forced to have sex with not only Maxwell and Epstein but also other politicians, businessmen, royalty, academicians, etc. She was even made to watch Epstein have sex with three 12-year-old French girls that were sent to him for his birthday by a French citizen that is a friend of Epstein's. Luckily, Jane Doe 102 escaped to Australia to get away from Epstein and Maxwell's sexual abuse. 52. Edwards learned that in addition to civil suits that were filed in court against Epstein, at around the same time other attorneys engaged in pre-filing settlement discussions with Epstein. Rather than face filed civil suits in these cases, Epstein paid money settlements to more than 15 other women who had sexually abused while they were minors. See articles regarding settlements attached hereto as Composite Exhibit "Y." Epstein's Obstruction ofNormal Discovery and Attacks on His Victims 53. Once Edwards filed his civil complaints for his three clients, he began the normal process of discovery for cases such as these. He sent standard discovery requests to Epstein about his sexual abuse of the minor girls, including requests for admissions, request for production, and interrogatories. See Edwards Affidavit, Exhibit "N", at ¶¶l 1-19 and 25. Rather than answer any substantive questions about his sexual abuse and his conspiracy for procuring minor girls for him to abuse, Epstein invoked his 5th amendment right against self-incrimination. An IS EFTA00726016 example of Epstein's refusal to answer is attached as Composite Exhibit "Z" (original discovery propounded to Epstein and his responses invoking 5th amendment). 54. During the discovery phase of the civil cases filed against Epstein, Epstein's deposition was taken at least five times. During all of those depositions, Epstein refused to answer any substantive questions about his sexual abuse of minor girls. See, e.g., Deposition Attachments 1, 6 and 7. 55. During these depositions, Epstein further attempted to obstruct legitimate questioning by inserting a variety of irrelevant information about his case. As one of innumerable examples, on March 8, 2010, Mr. Horowitz, representing seven victims, Jane Doe's 2-8, asked, "Q: In 2004, did you rub Jane Doe 3's vagina? A: Excuse me. I'd like to answer that question, as I would like to answer mostly every question you've asked me here today; however, upon advice of counsel, I cannot answer that question. They've advised me I must assert my Sixth Amendment, Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment Rights against self--excuse me, against--under the Constitution. And though your partner, Jeffrey Herman, was disbarred after filing this lawsuit [a statement that was untrue], Mr. Edwards' partner sits in jail for fabricating cases of a sexual nature fleecing unsuspecting Florida investors and others out of millions of dollars for cases of a sexual nature with--I'd like to answer your questions; however if I--I'm told that if I do so, I risk losing my counsel's representation; therefore I must accept their advice." Epstein deposition, March 8, 2010, at 106 (Deposition attachment #10). 56. When Edwards had the opportunity to take Epstein's deposition, he only asked reasonable questions, all of which related to the merits of the cases against Epstein. All depositions of Epstein in which Mr. Edwards participated on behalf of his clients are attached to this motion. See Edwards Affidavit, Exhibit "N" at ¶11 and Deposition attachments #1, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, and 13. Cf. with Deposition of Epstein taken by an attorney representing ■ (one in which Edwards was not 19 EFTA00726017 participating), http://www.voutube.com/watch?v=V-dqoEvflx4; and h //www outube com/watch9v=YCNiY1tW-r0 57. efforts to obtain information about Epstein's organization for procuring young girls was also blocked because Epstein's co-conspirators took the Fifth. Deposition oa March 24, 2010 (hereinafter Depo.") (Deposition attachment #14); Deposition of April 13, 2010, (Deposition attachment #9); Deposition oe, March 15, 2010 (hereinafter Depo.") (Deposition attachment #15). Each of these co- conspirators invoked their respective rights against self-incrimination as to all relevant questions, and the depositions have been attached. 58. At all relevant times Edwards has had a good ■ basis to believe and did in fact believe was an employee of Epstein's and had been identified as a defendant in at least one of the complaints against Epstein for her role in bringing girls to Epstein's mansion to be abused. At the deposition, she was represented by Bruce Reinhart. She invoked the Fifth on all substantive questions regarding her role in arranging for minor girls to come to Epstein's mansion to be sexually abused. Reinhart had previously been an Assistant United States Attorney in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida when Epstein was being investigated criminally by Reinhart's office. Reinhart left the United States Attorney's Office and was immediately hired by Epstein to represent Epstein's pilots and certain co-conspirators during the civil cases against Epstein. See Edwards Affidavit, Exhibit "N" at ¶11. 59. Edwards also had other lines of legitimate discovery blocked through the efforts of Epstein and others. For example, Edwards learned through deposition that Ghislaine Maxwell was involved in managing Epstein's affairs and companies. See deposition of Epstein's house manager Janusz Banziak, February 16, 2010 at page 14, lines 20-23 (Deposition Attachment #16); See 20 EFTA00726018 deposition of Epstein's housekeeper October 20, 2009, page 9, lines 17-25 (Deposition Attachment #17); See deposition of Epstein's pilot Larry Eugene Morrison, October 6, 2009, page 102-103 (Deposition Attachment #18); See deposition of Alfredo Rodriguez, August 7, 2009, page 302-306 and 348 (Deposition Attachment #8); See also Prince Andrew's Friend, Ghislaine Maxwell, Some Underage Girls and A Very Disturbing Story, September 23, 2007 by WendyM, link at http://www.redicecreations.corn/article.php?id=189 . Exhibit "AA". 60. Alfredo Rodriguez testified that Maxwell took photos of girls without the girls' knowledge, kept the images on her computer, knew the names of the underage girls and their respective phone numbers and other underage victims were molested by Epstein and Maxwell together. See Deposition of Rodriguez, Deposition attachment # 8 at 64, 169-170 and 236. 61. In reasonable reliance on this and other information, Edwards served Maxwell for deposition in 2009. See Deposition Notice attac

EFTA00616147.pdf

DataSet-10 Unknown 29 pages

Case 9:10-cv-81111-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2010 Page 1 of 29 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: M.J., Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN and SARAH KELLEN, Defendants. COMPLAINT Plaintiff, M.J., by and through her undersigned counsel, sues the Defendants, Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen, and alleges: I. This is an action in an amount in excess of $15,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs and is within the jurisdictional limits of this Court. 2. This Complaint is brought under a fictitious name in order to protect the identity of the Plaintiff because this Complaint makes allegations of sensitive nature of offenses against a then minor child. 3. At all times material to this cause of action, the Plaintiff, M.J. (hereinafter referred to as "Plaintiff"), was a resident of Palm Beach County, Florida. 4. At all times material to this cause of action, Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, had a residence located at 358 El Brillo Way, West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida. 5. Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, is currently a citizen of the United States Virgin Islands. EFTA00616147 Case 9:10-cv-81111-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2010 Page 2 of 29 6. At all times material to this cause of action, Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, was an adult male born in 1953. 7. Defendant, Sarah Kellen, is currently a citizen ofNew York, where she currently resides. 8. At all times material, the Defendants Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen both owed a duty unto Plaintiff to treat her in a non-negligent manner and to not commit or conspire to commit intentional or tortious illegal acts against her. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 9. At all times material, Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, was an adult male, over 50 years old. Defendant Epstein is known as a billionaire, yet even those closest to him, including family members, long time employees and those that he considers his closest friends have no idea what he does or did to earn money to support his lifestyle. 10. Defendant Epstein owns, directly or through nominee individuals used to conceal his interests, a fleet of airplanes, motor vehicles, boats and a helicopter. He owns numerous properties and homes, including a 51,000-square-foot mansion in Manhattan, a $30 Million 7,500-acre ranch in New Mexico, a 70-acre private island formerly known as Little St. James in St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands (he is alleged to have renamed this island Little St. Jeff's after himself), a mansion in London, England, a home in Paris, France, and a mansion in Palm Beach County, FL. The allegations herein primarily concern the defendant's conduct while at his mansion in Palm Beach County, FL. II. Defendant Epstein has a sexual preference and obsession for underage minor females, specifically targeting female children age 12 to 17, and Defendant Epstein acts on that obsession by luring underage minor females to him where he attempts to sexually molest and batter these 2 EFTA00616148 Case 9:10-cv-81111-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2010 Page 3 of 29 underage minor females on an everyday basis, oftentimes 2 or 3 different underage minor females on one day. 12. Sometime prior to 1998, Defendant Epstein devised a complex plan, scheme and criminal enterprise to gain access to countless underage minor females, some as young as 12 years old, for the purpose of coercing the minor females into various acts of sexual misconduct that he committed upon them. His enterprise operated with a definite hierarchal structure with his various employees/assistants and associates, including Defendant Sarah Kellen, Jean Luc Brunel, Ghislaine Maxwell, Leslie Groff. Adriana Ross. Nadia Marcinkova, various housekeepers, butlers and pilots, performing their respective roles to ensure the goals of the enterprise: operate an organized and efficient system to maximize the number of underage minor females for Defendant Epstein (and others) to sexually abuse and exploit while avoiding law enforcement detection. 13. Defendant Epstein, with help from his assistants and associates, recruited and procured underage minor females, lured them to one of his mansions, had the underage minor female taken to a room to be alone with him, then he would appear naked or wearing only a towel and sexually batter or otherwise sexually exploit the underage minor female. He would then pay the underage minor female for the sex acts he committed against her (typically between $200 and $300 per molestation session, or as his criminal enterprise commonly refers to it — per "massage"). Prior to leaving, Defendant Epstein's assistant would get the phone number of the underage minor female and input it into his computer system or otherwise keep it on file. He would then offer the underage minor female to return to his house to make money in exchange for him committing sexual acts against her, and he also typically informed her of another option - make more money recruiting and procuring other underage minor females for him to sexually 3 EFTA00616149 Case 9:10-cv-81111-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2010 Page 4 of 29 abuse. He would tell the underage minor female that he will pay her for each underage minor female that she brings to him (again, typically between $200 and $300), and he encouraged, and oftentimes forcefully demanded, her to bring him as many underage minor females as she was able. Through this general pitch, Defendant Epstein created a vast pyramid of underage minor females recruiting and procuring other underage minor females for his purpose of coercing these underage females into sexual acts for money. 14. Defendants Epstein and Kellen and the criminal enterprise specifically targeted underprivileged and economically disadvantaged children to sexually exploit and molest and otherwise prey upon the vulnerabilities of these young girls. 15. It is unknown exactly how long Defendant Epstein's aforementioned criminal enterprise operated, although information and belief indicates that it was continuously and actively in operation from at least 1998 through Defendant Epstein's criminal arrest in 2006. 16. The complete list of underage minor females that were sexually abused by Defendant Epstein over the years is believed to have been kept on a computer system controlled by Defendant Epstein and accessible by several of his employees, including Defendant Sarah Kellen. It is also known that much of the data regarding the names, addresses and whereabouts of each underage minor female was input by one of his assistants, including Defendant Kellen. 17. Defendant Sarah Kellen was listed in the Federal Non-prosecution Agreement related to Defendant Epstein's criminal plea on sex charges against minors as a criminal co-conspirator for her role in the criminal activity that was committed by Defendant Epstein against many underage minor females. She was employed by Defendant Epstein to maintain his schedule, arrange for underage minor females to be with Defendant Epstein, maintain contact with the underage minor females, schedule the underage minor females' transportation to and from Defendant Epstein's 4 EFTA00616150 Case 9:10-cv-81111-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2010 Page 5 of 29 mansion, and greet the underage minor female at the house before taking her upstairs to be alone with Mr. Epstein. Upon information and belief, Defendant Kellen remains employed by Defendant Epstein and continues to work for Defendant Epstein in furtherance of the goals of the criminal enterprise. 18. Defendant Epstein used his vast wealth and power to lure underprivileged minor females to him, and to coerce them into prostitution once he was alone with the underage minor female. He sexually battered, molested, committed lewd and lascivious acts upon and otherwise exploited numerous underage minor females and then gave them money. So long as the underage minor female followed his demands and advances, he assumed the role of a friend or mentor or father figure to the minor female in an attempt to groom the minor female; however, if any minor female resisted his sexual advances, Defendant Epstein became frustrated, angry and threatening towards the underage minor. His intent was to groom each minor female into engaging in sexual acts with him as well as to "work" for him, i.c. bring him other underage minor females to sexually molest, batter and exploit. He was masterful in his exploitation and grooming of these minor females with an additional intent of gaining trust and cooperation from these minors to prevent any one of them from reporting his criminal acts to law enforcement. Certain of his many co-conspirator associates, including Ghislane Maxwell and Jean Luc Brunel, helped in this recruiting process by creating the impression that legitimate modeling opportunities were available for the minor females. 19. Through information and belief, Defendant Epstein has been successful in luring hundreds of underage minor girls to him for the purpose of him (and sometimes others) sexually abusing them. He intentionally preys upon underage minor females that are middle school or high school children who are not working prostitutes, and he takes pleasure in using his power 5 EFTA00616151 Case 9:10-cv-81111-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2010 Page 6 of 29 and influence to coerce these minor females into acts of prostitution with him personally and sometimes with his friends and associates as well, including but not limited to Ghislaine Maxwell and Nadia Marcinkova. 20. Over time, Defendant Epstein fine-tuned his operation to further his goals of gaining access to a greater number and variety of underage girls while avoiding detection by law enforcement. He also provided the roadmap for his enterprise should the illegal sexual exploitation of the enterprise be detected — he or the criminal enterprise would (and did) retain legal representation for each criminal enterprise member who would instruct each member to invoke his/her S'h amendment rights, they would hide behind the 5th amendment to avoid turning over incriminating materials (i.e. computer system that logged information about the underage sexual molestation victims, scheduling books, message pads, and tangible items such as vibrators and dildos), they would destroy evidence and refuse all cooperation with law enforcement. 21. The plan and scheme was developed by Defendant Epstein, and he and his assistants and associates carried it out with each underage minor female in a well-planned and ritualistic manner; Epstein ran this criminal enterprise as an experienced Mob boss would run any organized crime family — in a well-planned, organized, arrogant and ruthless manner, with complete cooperation from his co-conspirator associates and underlings and an absolute dedication to carrying out the illegal operations of the criminal enterprise. 22. Defendant Epstein frequently traveled between his various mansions and either he or an authorized agent would call to inform a recruiter, assistant, or scheduler at his next destination as to his arrival time. His scheduler, usually Defendant Sarah Kellen, would then contact an underage minor female and schedule her to be at Defendant Epstein's mansion or to bring another underage minor female to his mansion at a particular time. Once the minor female was 6 EFTA00616152 Case 9:10-cv-81111-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2010 Page 7 of 29 brought to Defendant Epstein's residence, she was greeted at the door of the mansion and lead inside by one of Defendant Epstein's employees, oftentimes Defendant Sarah Kellen. 23. Defendant Sarah Kellen would lead the underage minor female up to Defendant Epstein's room and leave the underage minor alone in the room. Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, himself would then appear naked or wearing only a towel. He would then demand a massage and during the massage he would attempt, usually successfully, to perform one or more lewd, lascivious, and sexual acts, including, but not limited to, masturbation, touching of the underage minor female's sexual organs, coercing or forcing the underage minor female to perform sex acts with him, using vibrators or sexual toys on the underage minor female, coercing the underage minor female into sexual intercourse with himself or others, and digitally penetrating the underage minor female. He would then give the Plaintiff money for engaging in this sexual activity. 24. Consistent with Defendants Epstein and Kellen's foregoing scheme or plan, in or around the summer of 2002, Plaintiff, an economically poor and vulnerable child, was told by another one of Epstein's underage minor sex abuse victims, that she could make $300 cash by giving an old man a massage on Palm Beach. 25. Plaintiff's then minor acquaintance (also a sexual abuse victim of Epstein) telephoned Defendant Epstein and scheduled for Plaintiff to go to Defendant Epstein's house to give him a massage. During that call, Defendant Epstein himself got on the phone and spoke with Plaintiff MJ and asked her personally to come to his mansion in Palm Beach. 26. Plaintiff then took a taxicab to Defendant Epstein's mansion and was greeted by Epstein's top assistant, Defendant Sarah Kellen. 27. Defendant Kellen, in furtherance of the scheme to exploit Plaintiff, escorted Plaintiff upstairs to Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's large bathroom, where Defendant Kellen set up the 7 EFTA00616153 Case 9:10-cv-81111-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2010 Page 8 of 29 massage table and showed Plaintiff different massage lotions to use. Defendant Kellen then left Plaintiff alone in the room. Plaintiff was alone in Defendant Epstein's bathroom until Defendant Jeffrey Epstein emerged wearing only a towel. 28. Defendant Epstein then walked to the massage table that was already open in the room. He lied face down on the table and told Plaintiff to start massaging him, at which time he engaged in a conversation with Plaintiff. During the conversation, Defendant Epstein asked Plaintiff her age and she told him she had recently turned 16. 29. Consistent with all of Defendant Epstein's known underage minor female victims, Plaintiff had no massage experience whatsoever and she informed him of that, and Defendant Epstein began instructing Plaintiff on how he liked his massage. 30. After approximately 15 minutes, Defendant Epstein turned over onto his back, and he commanded Plaintiff to massage his chest. 31. Defendant Epstein then suddenly removed his towel and his penis was already erect. He then commanded Plaintiff to remove her shin and bra and to begin "pinching his nipples" as he began masturbating with his right hand. 32. As he was masturbating, Defendant Epstein began fondling Plaintiffs breasts. 33. Defendant Jeffrey Epstein, while masturbating with his right hand, reached out his left hand and grabbed Plaintiff's vagina and butt over her clothes. Plaintiff pushed Defendant's hand away and told him repeatedly not to touch her like that. Epstein was persistent in his attempt to grab Plaintiff's vagina and continued to grab her vagina and butt on multiple occasions after she told him not to. 34. Defendant Epstein continued to masturbate his exposed penis until he ejaculated in front of the then minor Plaintiff. 8 EFTA00616154 Case 9:10-cv-81111-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2010 Page 9 of 29 35. Plaintiff was shocked and embarrassed by the events and Defendant Epstein talked to her to persuade her that everything he was doing with he was normal. 36. Epstein paid Plaintiff $300 for allowing him to grope her and masturbate in her presence. 37. Plaintiff returned to Epstein's home on approximately 20 occasions. On each occasion Epstein grabbed Plaintiff's bare breasts, exposed his penis, masturbated and ejaculated in Plaintiff's presence, and paid her $300 each time. 38. Defendant Epstein coerced Plaintiff into acts of prostitution, preying on her low economic status and troubled upbringing, complimenting Plaintiff for being "special" to him and having a "very pretty body" and making promises to Plaintiff such as — he told Plaintiff that if she graduated high school, then he would buy her a computer, something that she wanted yet could not afford. 39. On multiple occasions Defendant Epstein pressured Plaintiff to bring him other underage minor females to abuse; he told Plaintiff that he would pay her $300 for each girl she brought him, but Plaintiff refused to bring other girls. 40. Defendant Epstein told Plaintiff that he would pay her more money if she would give him oral sex and that he would pay her $600 for actual sexual intercourse. Plaintiff refused. 41. Defendant Epstein personally called Plaintiff at least five times to tell her when she should be at his house to "work" or give him a "massage" (Epstein's criminal enterprise's learned code words for paying minors for Epstein and others to interact with them sexually). 42. Every other time (approximately 15) Defendant Kellen called to inform Plaintiff of the date and time when she needed and was expected to be at Epstein's mansion to "work". 43. The acts referenced above, committed by Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, against the then minor Plaintiff were committed in violation of numerous State and Federal criminal statutes 9 EFTA00616155 Case 9:10-cv-81111-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2010 Page 10 of 29 condemning battery, assault and the exploitation of minor children, contributing to the delinquency of a minor and other crimes, specifically including, but not limited to, those criminal offenses outlined in Chapters 796, 800, and 827 of the Florida Statutes, as well as those designated in Florida Statutes §796.03, §796.07, §796.045, §796.04, §796.09, §39.01, §450.151, and §827.04. 44. The above-described acts took place in Palm Beach County, Florida at the residence of the Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein. Any assertions by Defendants, Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen, that they were unaware of the age of the then minor Plaintiff are belied by their actions and rendered irrelevant by the provisions of applicable Florida Statutes concerning the sexual exploitation and abuse of a minor child. The Defendants, Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen, at all times material to this cause of action, knew and should have known of the Plaintiffs minority as Plaintiff specifically told Epstein her age and Defendant Epstein and criminal organization has a history of seeking out underage minor children to sexually abuse. In fact, one primary goal of the organization is to sexually abuse females who are under the age of 18, and oftentimes Defendant Epstein has turned away females (i.e. refused to engage in sexual acts with them) for being "too old" once she reaches 18 years of age, and he has reprimanded girls for bringing him other girls who are over the age of majority. 45. In June 2008, in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in Palm Beach County, Florida, Defendant Epstein entered pleas of "guilty" to various Florida State crimes related to his exploitation of minors for sex. 46. As a condition of that plea and in exchange for the Federal Government entering into a Non-Prosecution Agreement with Defendant Epstein, wherein the Federal Government agreed to effectively stay any prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein, Sarah Kellen and other criminal co- 10 EFTA00616156 Case 9:10-cv-81111-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17;2010 Page 11 of 29 conspirators Nadia Marcinkova and Leslie Groff, Defendant Epstein agreed to admit that approximately 40 underage minor females, whose names were provided to Defendant Epstein, were his victims. Plaintiff was not included in that list as she moved away from the West Palm Beach area in part to escape from Epstein, and she has lived in fear of Epstein and his organization and has not yet been contacted by law enforcement. 47. Beginning in or about June 2008 and continuing to the present time, defendant Epstein has been aware he faces significant financial liability for his sexual offenses, both to MJ and to many other similarly-situated girls whom he abused. MJ and these other girls are creditors of Epstein, in that have filed and can file tort actions against him under both Florida and Federal laws. Accordingly, Epstein has conveyed substantial assets and property into the names of other persons and into overseas bank accounts and other financial institutions. These assets and properties could have been attachable and used to pay the debts owed to MJ and to the other girls that Epstein has abused. 48. As an example of the fraudulent conveyances that Epstein has attempted, in approximately October 2009, Epstein placed his personal 727 aircraft up for sale, with the intent that the proceeds of that sale would be hidden so that MJ and other creditors of Epstein would not be able to secure payment from that substantial asset. 49. While Epstein is clearly distinct from the criminal enterprise that he oversees that asset, as well as his other airplanes and helicopters and other assets, have been used continuously and repeatedly to further the interest and endeavors of Epstein and his criminal enterprise. 50. As another example of the fraudulent transfers that Epstein has made, Epstein has titled a Ford F-I50 Truck in the name of Larry Visoki (Epstein's personal pilot). Visoski was unaware that the truck was titled in his name when he was questioned under oath in a deposition. II EFTA00616157 Case 9:10-cv-81111-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09:1712010 Page 12 of 29 51. In approximately 2009, Defendant Epstein purchased a $68,000 Land Rover and registered it in Visoski's name with the intent to hide this asset from MJ and other creditors. 52. In approximately 2009, Defendant Epstein purchased a Mercedes-Benz 2005 by wiring funds to Visoski and then placing the car in Visoski's name. 53. In approximately 2009, Defendant Epstein bought a Jaguar X-Type 2005 so that he (Epstein) would have another car around Palm Beach available for his friends to use and then placed the car in Visoski's name. 54. In approximately September 2009, Visoski attempted to sell a Ferrari owned by Epstein for $159,000. Epstein intended for the sale to hide the value of this Ferrari and prevent MJ and other creditors from recovering from him. 55. Epstein is concealing substantial assets through a new corporation, Shmitka Air, Inc., whose representative is Larry Visoski. In September 2010, Epstein attempted to sell a 1999 Bell Helicopter for approximately $1,900,000. This sale was an attempt to prevent MJ and other creditors from recovering from him. 56. Epstein is also concealing substantial assets through an entity known at JEGE, Inc. He is currently attempting to sell an aircraft for $10,000,000 through that entity in an attempt to prevent MJ and other creditors from recovering from him. 57. Through information and belief, Epstein and/or his criminal enterprise provides the financial support for his various employees, co-conspirators, other criminal enterprise members and associates. 58. In addition to Epstein's various houses, he owns or controls other condominiums, including approximately 8 to 10 units at 301 East 66 Street, in New York City, where certain of his or his Criminal Enterprise associates live or reside, including Jean Luc Brunel, Nadia 12 EFTA00616158 Case 9:10-cv-81111-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2010 Page 13 of 29 Marcinkova, Sarah Kellen, and at times various underage minor girls are stashed at this location as well. 59. Defendant Epstein has numerous overseas contacts and accounts and sophistication in international business transactions. He previously served as a trader at Bcar Steams and founded his own financial management firm, J. Epstein and Col. (later called Financial Trust Co.) located on his private island in the U.S. Virgin Islands where, until his recent incarceration, according to him he allegedly managed the assets of billionaire clients. 60. After extensive investigation into Epstein's employment history, including questioning of Epstein's family, those whom Epstein considers friends and longtime employees of Epstein, the only known client of Epstein was Limited, Inc. Founder Leslie Wexner, although it is believed that even that relationship has been severed. No other legitimate means of income have been reported. COUNT I BATTERY AGAINST DEFENDANT EPSTEIN 61. Plaintiff M.J. adopts and =lieges paragraphs I through 60 above. 62. In the summer of 2002, just after Plaintiff turned 16 years old, Defendant Epstein committed battery against Plaintiff when he intentionally touched intimate areas of her body and person in an offensive manner while she was a minor child. 63. Defendant Epstein intentionally touched Plaintiff MJ's private areas multiple times against the will of MJ. 64. Defendant Epstein's tortious commission of battery upon Plaintiff was done willfully. 65. As a direct and proximate result of the offenses committed by Defendant Epstein against the then minor Plaintiff, MJ, she has in the past suffered and will in the future suffer injury, pain 13 EFTA00616159 Case 9:10-cv-81111-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09 17 2010 Page 14 of 29 and suffering, 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 her privacy and other damages associated with Defendant's manipulation and leading her into a perverse and unhealthy way of life. Plaintiff will incur medical and psychological expenses. Plaintiff has suffered a loss of income, a loss of the capacity to earn income in the future, and loss of proper and complete education. These injuries are permanent in nature and Plaintiff MJ will continue to suffer these losses in the future. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff MJ demands judgment against Defendant Epstein for compensatory damages, punitive damages and such other relief as this Court deems proper and hereby demands trial by jury on all issues triable as of right by a jury. COUNT II INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AGAINST DEFENDANT EPSTEIN 66. The Plaintiff adopts and realleges paragraphs 1 through 60 above. 67. Defendant Epstein's extreme and outrageous conduct towards the then minor Plaintiff was intentional and reckless. 68. Defendant Epstein acted with the intent to cause severe emotional distress or with reckless disregard for the high probability of causing severe emotional distress. 69. As a direct and proximate result of the offenses committed by Defendant Epstein against the then minor Plaintiff, MJ, she has in the past suffered and will in the future suffer injury, pain and suffering, 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 her privacy and other damages associated with Defendant's manipulation and leading her into a perverse and unhealthy way of life. Plaintiff will incur medical and 14 EFTA00616160 Case 9:10-cv-81111-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2010 Page 15 of 29 psychological expenses. Plaintiff has suffered a loss of income, a loss of the capacity to earn income in the future, loss of proper and complete education. These injuries are permanent in nature and Plaintiff MJ will continue to suffer these losses in the future. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff M.J. demands judgment against Defendant Epstein for compensatory damages, punitive damages and such other relief as this Court deems proper and hereby demands trial by jury on all issues triable as of right by a jury. COUNT III CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT TORTIOUS ASSAULT OR BATTERY AGAINST DEFENDANT SARAH KELLEN 70. The Plaintiff adopts and realleges paragraphs I through 60 above. 71. Defendant Kellen is one of Defendant Epstein's top assistants, as referenced previously in this Complaint. Defendant Epstein, Defendant Kellen and others reached an agreement amongst and between them and otherwise conspired for the purpose of allowing Defendant Epstein and others to commit the tortious and illegal acts described above against Plaintiff MJ. 72. Defendant Kellen aided, abetted and assisted Defendant Epstein in his organized scheme and plan to sexually exploit Plaintiff and commit battery against her and/or commit or attempt to commit numerous other crimes against her, including coercing her into prostitution. 73. Defendant Kellen conspired with Defendant Epstein to commit tortious and illegal conduct against Plaintiff, and in furtherance of the conspiracy Kellen specifically engaged in overt acts such as contacting Plaintiff MJ on many occasions, scheduling the then minor Plaintiffs appointment for a "massage" knowing that Defendant Epstein was going to commit battery against Plaintiff, attempt sexual battery against Plaintiff, and force her into prostitution and otherwise did everything in her ability to conceal the illegal operation and refuse cooperation with law enforcement. 15 EFTA00616161 Case 9:10-cv-81111-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2010 Page 16 of 29 74. Additionally, Defendant Kellen greeted Plaintiff on the occasions when Plaintiff arrived at Epstein's home and personally lead Plaintiff to Defendant Epstein's bathroom where Epstein appeared for the purposes of committing crimes against Plaintiff. 75. Defendant Epstein's battery against Plaintiff was facilitated by Defendant Kellen and the conspiracy resulted in the various aforementioned crimes being committed against Plaintiff MJ as well as many other underage minor females. 76. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant, Sarah Kellen's, participation in the aforementioned conspiracy, Plaintiff, MJ, she has in the past suffered and will in the future suffer injury, pain and suffering, 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 her privacy and other damages associated with Defendant's manipulation and leading her into a perverse and unhealthy way of life. Plaintiff will incur medical and psychological expenses. Plaintiff has suffered a loss of income, a loss of the capacity to earn income in the future, loss of proper and complete education. These injuries are permanent in nature and Plaintiff MJ will continue to suffer these losses in the future. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff MJ demands judgment against Defendant Sarah Kellen for compensatory damages, punitive damages and such other relief as this Court deems proper and hereby demands trial by jury on all issues triable as of right by a jury. COUNTS IV THROUGH XXIII CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS EPSTEIN AND KELLEN PURSUANT TO IS USC 42255 IN VIOLATION OF VARIOUS ENUMERATED OFFENSES CONTAINED WITHIN THAT FEDERAL STATUTE 77. Plaintiff, MJ, adopts and realleges paragraphs I through 60 above. 78. The allegations contained herein in Counts IV through XXIII are separate and distinct legal remedies. 16 EFTA00616162 Case 9:10-cv-81111-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2010 Page 17 of 29 79. As a condition of Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein's criminal plea, and in exchange for the Federal Government not prosecuting the Defendant for numerous federal offenses, the Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement with the Federal Government; that agreement governed not only Defendant Epstein's conduct but also the conduct of his "co-conspirators" including Defendant Kellen as she played an essential and criminal role in the commission of these offenses. 80. The Plaintiff, MJ, was in fact a victim of one or more offenses enumerated in Title 18, United States Code, Section 2255, and as such asserts a cause of action against the Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, and against Defendant Kellen pursuant to this Section of the United States Code and the agreement between the Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, and the United States Government. 81. Specifically, Defendants Epstein and Kellen: (a) knowingly conspired with others known and unknown to use a facility or means of interstate commerce to knowingly persuade, induce, or entice minor females, including Plaintiff MJ, to engage in prostitution, in violation of title IS, United States Code, Section 2422(b). (b) knowingly and willfully conspired with others known and unknown to travel in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct with minors, including Plaintiff MJ, 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); (c) used a facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce to knowingly persuade, induce, or entice minor females, including Plaintiff MJ, to engage in prostitution; in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2422(b); 17 EFTA00616163 Case 9:10-cv-81111-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09!1712010 Page 18 of 29 (d) traveled in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2423(f), with minor females, including Plaintiff MJ; in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2423(b). 82. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned criminal offenses enumerated in Title IS, United States Code, Section 2255, being committed against the then minor Plaintiff, Plaintiff, MJ, she has in the past suffered and will in the future suffer injury, pain and suffering, 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 her privacy and other damages associated with Defendant's manipulation and leading her into a perverse and unhealthy way of life. Plaintiff will incur medical and psychological expenses. These injuries are permanent in nature and Plaintiff MJ will continue to suffer these losses in the future. Plaintiff, M.J., has also incurred attorneys' fees. 83. With regard to each of the following counts, Plaintiff suffered personal injury, as outlined above from the acts above, as a result of the violations of federal criminal law by Defendant Epstein enumerated in paragraph 33, on approximately 20 occasions, and while the dates are not all precisely documented or diaried by Plaintiff, Defendants Epstein and Kellen committed these crimes and inflicted said injuries on or about the following dates: COUNT IV August 2002 COUNT V September 2002 COUNT VI October 2002 COUNT VII November 2002 COUNT VIII December 2002 COUNT IX January 2003 18 EFTA00616164 Case 9:10-cv-81111-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2010 Page 19 of 29 COUNT X February 2003 COUNT XI March 2003 COUNT XII April 2003 COUNT XIII May 2003 COUNT XIV June 2003 COUNT XV July 2003 COUNT XVI August 2003 COUNT XVII September 2003 COUNT XVIII October 2003 COUNT XIX November 2003 COUNT XX December 2003 COUNT XXI January 2004 COUNT XXII February 2004 COUNT XXIII March 2004 WHEREFORE, with regard to each and every one of these counts, Plaintiff, MJ, demands judgment against Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, for compensatory damages, loss of income, a loss of the capacity to earn income in the future, attorney's fees, and such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper, and hereby demands trial by jury on all issues triable as of right by a jury. COUNT XXIV Civil Remedy for Criminal Practices 84. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs I through 60 above and for the purposes of this count incorporates and alleges the RICO Statement that has been filed contemporaneously herewith as Exhibit "A." 19 EFTA00616165 Case 9:10-cv-81111-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17;2010 Page 20 of 29 85. The allegations contained herein in Count XXIV are a separate and distinct legal remedy brought pursuant to Florida Statute 772.104(1) and (2). 86. Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, was associated with an enterprise, a group of individuals associated in fact although not a legal entity, which was comprised of at least Defendant Jeffrey Epstein, Sarah Kellen, Leslie Groff, Jean Luc Brunel, Ghislaine Maxwell, and Nadia Marcinkova (and likely many other yet unknown persons); Defendant Epstein participated in this enterprise, or conspired or endeavored to so participate, through a pattern of criminal activity in violation of Florida Statutes §772.103(3)-(4), as further outlined in detail in the RICO statement filed with this court. 87. This enterprise was separate and distinct from Epstein himself and had a definite hierarchical structure. Epstein served informally but effectively as the leader, C.E.O. or "boss" of this organization similar to the way an experienced mob boss runs his organized crime family, directing his underlings how to recruit and procure underage girls for his sexual activities and the sexual activities of others, developing the use of slang or code words to be used to discuss the illegal activities of the organization, designing a plan or scheme to gain the cooperation of underage minor females, developing methods and techniques to otherwise avoid detection from law enforcement including making large charitable donations to law enforcement agencies, powerful politicians, businessmen and world leaders, associating with powerful social people and highly influential politicians and attorneys, gathering information to blackmail or extort powerful people, devising a plan to attack the credibility and character of anyone that dare unveil the illegal operations of the enterprise and to take an oath to remain silent and/or lie when confronted by law enforcement about the illegal operations and activities of the criminal organization. Epstein's key "lieutenant" in the local Palm Beach branch of the National 20 EFTA00616166 Case 9:10-cv-81111-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/1712010 Page 21 of 29 organization was Kellen, who served as both his scheduler and a recruiter/procurer of the girls. Marcinkova also served as a recruiter and helped Epstein satisfy his criminal sexual desires by, on occasion, directly participating in sexual abuse and prostitution of the minor girls. Epstein also used otherwise-legitimate business activities to help further the purpose of the criminal enterprise. These apparently legitimate activities provided "cover" for Epstein and his associates to commit the crimes. Epstein and his associates maintained the appearance of running an upstanding investment business, as well as other legitimate businesses with connections to modeling agencies and other powerful business and political people, to discourage the minor girls from reporting the abuse to law enforcement. Ghislane Maxwell and Jean Luc Brunel helped to provide "cover" by creating the impression that legitimate modeling opportunities were available for the girls. There are many other known and unknown associates of the criminal organization, that worked throughout the country and possibly internationally, who performed functions to perpetuate the criminal activities of the organization. 88. Defendant Jeffrey Epstein participated in this enterprise through a pattern of criminal activity in that he engaged in at least two incidents of criminal activity, as defined and required in Florida Statute 772.102 and as described below, that have the same or similar intents, results, accomplices, victims, or methods of commission and are not isolated incidents. 89. Defendant Jeffrey Epstein engaged in criminal activity by committing, attempting to commit, conspiring to commit or soliciting, coercing or intimidating another person to commit one or more of the following predicate acts as outlined and defined in Florida Statute 772.102: (a) Procuring for prostitution, or causing to be prostituted, any person who is under the age of 18 years in violation of Florida Statutes Chapter 796.03; (b) Acts of battery in violation of Florida Statutes Chapter 784; 21 EFTA00616167 Case 9:10-cv-81111-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2010 Page 22 of 29 (c) Forcing, compelling or coercing another to become a prostitute in violation ofFlorida Statutes Chapter 796.04; (d) knowingly recruiting, enticing, harboring, transporting, providing or otherwise obtaining by any means a person, knowing that coercion would be used to cause that person to engage in prostitution in violation of Florida Statutes Chapter 796.045; (e) tampering with a witness in violation of Florida Statutes Chapter 914.22; (f) altering, destroying, removing, or concealing records or documents or other evidence with the purpose to impair its verity or availability in violation of Florida Statutes Chapter 918.13; (g) maintaining a place (or more accurately "places") for the purpose of lewdness or prostitution; offering or securing another for the purpose of prostitution or for some other lewd or indecent act; receiving persons into his Palm Beach mansion for the purpose of prostitution or lewdness; directing, taking or transporting or agreeing to direct take or transport persons to his Palm Beach mansion with knowledge or reasonable belief that the purpose of such directing, taking or transporting was prostitution or lewdness; all in violation of Florida Statutes Chapter 796.07. 90. The criminal acts of Defendant Epstein occurred repeatedly over a substantial period of time and were not isolated events. 91. Under Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein's plan, scheme, and enterprise, Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, paid employees and underlings, including but not limited to Sarah Kellen, to bring him minor girls to his Palm Beach mansion in order for the Defendant to solicit, induce, coerce, entice, compel or force such girls to engage in acts of prostitution and sexual misconduct with 22 EFTA00616168 Case 9:10-cv-81111-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09 17 2010 Page 23 of 29 Defendant Epstein and sometimes Nadia Marcinkova, and to otherwise commit acts of sexual battery thereon, and further Defendant Epstein worked in concert as part of the enterprise with those who were free to act independently and advance their own interests, including Ghislaine Maxwell and Jean Luc Brunel, to obtain minor girls for sexual purposes. 92. Plaintiff, MJ, was the victim of Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein's plan, scheme, and enterprise and was so injured by reason of his violations of the provisions of s. 772.104. Plaintiff, MJ, was called

EFTA00098785.pdf

DataSet-10 Unknown 4 pages

From: ' To: " ((JSANYS) [Contractor]" < (USANYS)" Subject: RE: Maxwell To-dos Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2021 22:00:29 +0000 Thanks very much. This is not what the FBI was supposed to be providing us. These files have the same errors and issues that I asked CART to fix months ago (the 16,000 files are each tiny clips of surveillance videos — when separated out like this they are useless, so I asked CART to see if it is possible to combine them together to show the full-length video(s)). So we should not produce these because many are unviewable and even those with some content are just a couple useless seconds of grainy video. I've spoken with S who is going to speak with CART about actually completing the project I asked for. would ou mind movin: all of these out of the Discover folder and ins e From: (USANYS) [Contractor] < Sent: Tuesday, July 6, 2021 5:33 PM To: I< >; (USANYS) < >; Subject: RE: Maxwell To-dos Just got the files from • they're saved here They're voluminous in terms of the number of files (16,000) but not in data size (0.5 GB). From: Sent: Tuesday, July 6, 2021 2:06 PM To: (USANYS) (Contractor) (NY) (FBI) Cc: < *; (USANYS) < Subject: RE: Maxwell To-dos Checking in on this—= were you able to get these files from From: (USANYS) [Contractor] < Sent: Friday, July 2, 2021 10:03 AM To: )< >; (NY) (FBI) < >; Cc: < >) (USANYS) < Subject: RE: Maxwell To-dos Sure thing! — I'll be around until 230 today if you're available to drop them off. From: Sent: Friday, July 2, 2021 9:55 AM To: (NY) (FBI) t :"; (USANYS) [Contractor] EFTA00098785 Cc: < .>; (USANYS) < Subject: RE: Maxwell To-dos Thanks M, would you please coordinate getting these from S then circle up with me to discuss prepping for production? From: Sent: Thursday, July 1, 2021 3:23 PM To: (USANYS) [Contractor) Cc: (USANYS) < Subject: RE: Maxwell To-dos We have the files from CART. let me know a good time to coordinate to turn them over to you. Special Agent FBI New York Field Office Child Exploitation/Human Trafficking Desk: From: Sent: Friday, June 4, 2021 12:47 PM To: (NYPD) Cc: (NY) (FBI) ; ) (USANYS) Subject: [EXTERNAL EMAIL) - RE: Maxwell To-dos Thanks! From: Sent: Friday, June 4, 2021 10:12 AM To: Cc: (NY) (FBI) ) (USANYS) Subject: Re: Maxwell To-dos Sure let me check on that today when I'm in. On Jun 3, 2021, at 21:57, > wrote: Hi M, Checking in again on the .avi files from CART. Any update? EFTA00098786 Thanks, From: Sent: Monday, April 19, 2021 2:40 PM To: c ); N. (NY) (FBI) •( > Cc: c *; (USANYS) Subject: RE: Maxwell To-dos Hi M, Any update from CART regarding the .avi files, please? And any luck with the review of images for Thanks, From: < Sent: Thursday, February 4, 2021 1:24 PM To: N. (NY) (FBI) < Cc: (USANYS) Subject: Re: Maxwell To-dos Hey guys, To answer your questions: • you should have 302's from by now. • These photos are still under review. • We have not forgotten about the .avi files they are also still being processed. • Palm Beach PD Captain is the POC for this task. His phone number is (cell) (office) and email is We will let you know as soon as the photo and video tasks are completed. Let us know if there's anything else. Detective NYPD / FBI Child Exploitation Human Trafficking Task Force Office: Cell: Fax: EFTA00098787 From: Sent: Tuesday, February 2, 2021 4:03 PM To: M, N. (NY) (FBI) <= >, < Cc: c > (USANYS) Subject: Maxwell To-dos Hi ands, Just wanted to check in on a few tasks for Maxwell. Not a huge rush, but wanted to make sure these stay on your radar: • Please send me the draft 302s from the 1/20 and 1/21 interviews of for review • Review of images in FBI office for photos of • The .avi files from , I know CART has been under water with the Capitol investigation, but wanted to ping on this to make sure we don't forget it) • Finding PBPD witness who can authenticate the message pads and other items that were seized from Epstein's Palm Beach residence. On this, I've gone through the reports, and below are the PBPD personnel who I think might be able to provide this testimony. If you could please get me contact information for a point of contact at PBPD, I'm happy to hound them for contact info for these individuals (ranked in order of how likely they are to be useful witnesses for these purposes): o Evidence Specialist (inventory return, documentation of property receipts, and collection and bagging of evidence — ideally we could just call her to authenticate everything that was seized from the property) (searched garage, towel closet and pantry off the kitchen, kitchen phone message book, office room, green bathroom on first floor, closet by green bathroom, two bedrooms on second floor with sex toys, pool cabana, living quarters) (searched garage, towel closet and pantry off the kitchen, kitchen phone message book, officer room, green bathroom on first floor, closet by green bathroom, two bedrooms on second floor with sex toys, pool cabana, living quarters) (read warrant, video scene) o CSI (photographer) (pantry next to kitchen, yellow and blue room with photos, main entrance, blue room with photos, sliding glass door room, cars) o Detective (pantry next to kitchen, yellow and blue room with photos, main entrance, blue room with photos, sliding glass door room, cars) o (electronic devices) Thanks very much, Assistant United States Attorney Southern District of New York New York, NY 10007 EFTA00098788

EFTA00156400.pdf

DataSet-10 Unknown 45 pages

Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 657 Filed 04/29/22 Page 1 of 45 USDC SDNY DOCUMENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ELECTRONICALLY FILED SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC //: DATE FILED: 4/29/22 United States of America, 20-CR-330 (MN) —v— OPINION & ORDER Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. ALISON J. NATHAN, Circuit Judge, sitting by designation: In 2020, the Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell was indicted for her participation in a scheme to entice, transport, and traffic underage girls for sexual abuse by and with Jeffrey Epstein, her longtime companion. The Government at trial presented extensive witness testimony from multiple victim witnesses and others, as well as corroborating documentary and physical evidence. The testimony and other trial evidence established the Defendant's role in grooming and recruiting underage girls and using the cover of massage to perpetrate sexual abuse. Following the thirteen-day trial, the Court submitted to the jury the six counts in the Indictment. The jury deliberated for over five days and returned a verdict of guilty on five of the six counts. Two of these counts of conviction charged the Defendant with substantive violations of federal statutes that target sexual abuse of minors—the Mann Act as to Count Four and the Trafficking Victims Protection Act as to Count Six. The other three counts of conviction, Counts One, Three, and Five, charged the Defendant with conspiring with Jeffrey Epstein to violate those same statutes from 1994 to 2004. Before the Court are the Defendant's post-trial motions making four alternative arguments for vacating some or all of her five counts of conviction. First, the Defendant argues that judgment may be imposed on only one of the three conspiracy counts (i.e., Counts One, EFTA00156400  Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 657 Filed 04/29/22 Page 2 of 45 Three, and Five) because they are "multiplicitous"—meaning that they all charge the same offense—and therefore entry ofjudgment on all three counts would violate the Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause. Second, she requests under Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure that the Court acquit her of all counts because there is insufficient evidence for any rational juror to find her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Third, the Defendant moves to vacate Counts One, Three, and Four under Rule 33 because, she claims, the convictions were based on a constructive amendment of, or variance from, the Indictment. And fourth, she requests that the Court vacate all five convictions because the Government intentionally and prejudicially delayed its prosecution. With one exception, the motions are denied. The Rule 29 motion challenging all counts of conviction is denied because the jury's guilty verdicts were readily supported by the extensive witness testimony and documentary evidence admitted at trial. Further, those counts of conviction matched the core of criminality charged in the Indictment, presented by the Government at trial, and on which the jury was accurately instructed. The Defendant's contrary claim of a constructive amendment of or variance from the Indictment rests on an implausible and speculative interpretation of a single ambiguous jury note. In addition, the Court concludes that the Government did not intentionally delay its prosecution and, in any event, the Defendant's ability to prepare a defense was not prejudiced by any delay. The Court does conclude, however, that the three conspiracy counts charge the same offense, and, accordingly, are multiplicitous. The Government concedes that Count One is multiplicitous with Count Three but argues that Count Three and Count Five nevertheless involve distinct conspiracies. The Court concludes that Count Five, like Counts One and Three, charges the Defendant's participation in the same decade-long unlawful agreement with the 2 EFTA00156401  Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 657 Filed 04/29/22 Page 3 of 45 Defendant's continuous coconspirator, Jeffrey Epstein. The overarching conspiracy—which, as the Government argued and proved at trial, employed a single "playback" to groom and sexually abuse underage girls—constitutes a single conspiracy offense with multiple victims. Because the Double Jeopardy Clause prohibits the Court from imposing multiple punishments for the same offense, the Court will enter judgment on Count Three alone among the conspiracy counts. This legal conclusion in no way calls into question the factual findings made by the July. Rather, it underscores that the jury unanimously found—three times over—that the Defendant is guilty of conspiring with Epstein to entice, transport, and traffic underage girls for sexual abuse. I. The Court grants the Defendant's multiplicity claim. The Defendant was indicted on six counts: (I) conspiracy to entice individuals under the age of seventeen to travel in interstate commerce with intent to engage in sexual activity illegal under New York law, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371; (2) enticement of individuals under the age of seventeen to travel in interstate commerce with intent to engage in sexual activity illegal under New York law, and aiding and abetting the same, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2422, 2; (3) conspiracy to transport individuals under the age of seventeen to travel in interstate commerce with intent to engage in sexual activity illegal under New York law, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371; (4) transportation of an individual under the age of seventeen with intent to engage in sexual activity illegal under New York law, and aiding and abetting the same, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2423(a), 2; (5) conspiracy to commit sex trafficking of individuals under the age of eighteen, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371; and (6) sex trafficking of an individual under the age of 3 EFTA00156402  Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 657 Filed 04/29/22 Page 4 of 45 eighteen, and aiding and abetting the same, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591, 2. S2 Indictment, Dkt. No. 187.' In two prior pretrial motions, the Defendant requested that the Court dismiss two of the three conspiracy counts—that is, Counts One, Three, and Five—as multiplicitous, given that all three were premised on the Defendant's participation in a single criminal conspiracy with Epstein. To punish her for all three counts, she argued, would violate the Double Jeopardy Clause. In opinions dated April 16, 2021, and August 13, 2021, the Court denied those motions as premature because the Double Jeopardy Clause would prohibit only multiple punishments for the same offense, but not indictments for the same offense. United States v. Maxwell, 534 F. Supp. 3d 299, 322 (S.D.N.Y. 2021) (citing United States v. Josephberg, 459 F.3d 350, 355 (2d Cir. 2006)); United States v. Maxwell, No. 20-CR-330 (AJN), 2021 WL 3591801, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 13, 2021). Because the jury convicted the Defendant on all three conspiracy counts, the Defendant now requests that the Court impose judgment on only one of these counts. Maxwell Br. at 19, Dkt. No. 600. The Government concedes that Counts One and Three are multiplicitous and agrees that the Court should not impose judgment on Count One, but it argues that Counts Three and Five are distinct offenses premised on distinct criminal conspiracies, and so the Court should impose judgment on both. Gov. Br. at 24, Dkt. No. 621. On consent of both parties, the Court will not impose judgment on Count One because it is multiplicitous. For the reasons that follow, the Court further grants the Defendant's motion to also not enter judgment on Count Count Five because it is also multiplicitous with Count Three. I The original and S2 Indictments also included two counts of perjury. See S2 IndictmentII 28-31. The Court granted the Defendant's motion to sever those counts for a separate trial. United States v. Maxwell, 534 F. Supp. 3d 299, 321 (S.D.N.Y. 2021). 4 EFTA00156403  Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 657 Filed 04/29/22 Page 5 of 45 A. Applicable law The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment guarantees that no person shall "be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb." U.S. Const. amend. V. That guarantee "serves principally as a restraint on courts and prosecutors," ensuring that a court does not "exceed its legislative authorization by imposing multiple punishments for the same offense." Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161, 165 (1977); see also Morris v. Reynolds, 264 F.3d 38, 48 (2d Cir. 2001). An indictment is multiplicitous, and therefore implicates double jeopardy, "when it charges a single offense as an offense multiple times, in separate counts, when, in law and fact, only one crime has been committed." Maxwell, 534 F. Supp. 3d at 322 (quoting United States v. Chacko, 169 F.3d 140, 145 (2d Cir. 1999)). "A claim of multiplicity cannot succeed, however, 'unless the charged offenses are the same in fact and in law.'" United States v. Jones, 482 F.3d 60, 72 (2d Cir. 2006) (quoting United States v. Estrada, 320 F.3d 173, 180 (2d Cir. 2003)). If the two offenses at issue are both conspiracies charged under the same statute, then the multiplicity inquiry turns on whether the two conspiracies are the same "in fact," meaning they involve the same agreement. United States v. Araujo, No. 17-CR-438 (VEC), 2018 WL 3222527, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. July 2, 2018) (citing United States v. Ansaldi, 372 F.3d 118, 124-25 (2d Cir. 2004)); United States v. Gaskin, 364 F.3d 438, 454 (2d Cir. 2004) ("[T]o survive a double jeopardy attack, the government would have to show that the two schemes involved 'distinct' agreements."). Yet "whether the evidence shows a single conspiracy or more than one conspiracy is often not determinable as a matter of law or subject to bright-line formulations." Jones, 482 F.3d at 72. Rather, the parties agree that the Court's inquiry is guided by the Second Circuit's Kmfant factors. See, e.g., United States v. Diallo, 507 F. App'x 89, 91 (2d Cir. 2013) 5 EFTA00156404  Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 657 Filed 04/29/22 Page 6 of 45 (summary order) (citing United States v. Korfant, 771 F.2d 660, 662 (2d Cir. 1985) (per curiam)); United States v. Villa, 744 F. App'x 716, 720 (2d Cir. 2018) (summary order). Those factors include: (1) the criminal offenses charged in successive indictments; (2) the overlap of participants; (3) the overlap of time; (4) similarity of operation; (5) the existence of common overt acts; (6) the geographic scope of the alleged conspiracies or location where overt acts occurred; (7) common objectives; and (8) the degree of interdependence between alleged distinct conspiracies. United States v. Macchia, 35 F.3d 662, 667 (2d Cir. 1994) (quoting Korfant, 771 F.2d at 662). In applying the Korfant factors, "no dominant factor or single touchstone" determines whether two allegedly distinct conspiracies "'appear in fact and in law the same." Id. at 668 (quoting United States v. Reiter, 848 F.2d 336, 340 (2d Cir. 1988)). Moreover, "the Korfant list is not exhaustive, and every case must be assessed on its own terms . . . based on the entire record." United States v. Maslin, 356 F.3d 191, 196 (2d Cir. 2004). In assessing the evidence, the Second Circuit applies a burden-shifting framework. The defendant carries the initial burden of making a non-frivolous showing that the two counts in fact charge only one conspiracy. If met, the burden then shifts to the Government to show, "by a preponderance of the evidence, that there are in fact two distinct conspiracies and that the defendant is not being placed in jeopardy twice for the same crime." United States v. Lopez, 356 F.3d 463, 467 (2d Cir. 2004) (per curiam) (citing United States v. DelVecchio, 800 F.2d 21, 22 (2d Cir. 1986)); see also United States v. Mallah, 503 F.2d 971, 986 (2d Cir. 1974) (applying this burden-shifting approach post-conviction); United States v. Hernandez, No. 09-CR-625 (HB), 2009 WL 3169226, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 1, 2009). 6 EFTA00156405  Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 657 Filed 04/29/22 Page 7 of 45 B. Analysis A further summary of the two counts at issue is required. As briefly outlined above, Count Three of the Indictment charged the Defendant under 18 U.S.C. § 371, the general federal conspiracy statute, with conspiring to violate 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a) (the Mann Act), by transporting minors across state lines with the intent to engage in sexual activity criminalized by state law. S2 Indictment ¶¶ 16-18. In this case, the relevant state offense was New York Penal Law Section 130.55, which criminalizes sexual contact with an individual known to be under the age of seventeen. Trial Tr. 3034-35. The Count Three conspiracy spanned from 1994 to 2004. S2 Indictment 1 17. As the Government explained in its summation, the jury could convict the Defendant under Count Three based on evidence related ta three victims who testified at trial. Trial Tr. at 2895.2 Count Five of the Indictment also charged the Defendant under 18 U.S.C. § 371, but for conspiring to violate 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591(a) & (b) (the Trafficking Victims Protection Act), by trafficking individuals under the age of eighteen for commercial sex acts that affect interstate commerce. S2 Indictment 9¶ 22-24. Count Five's conspiracy spanned from 2001 to 2004. Id. 123. The Government explained to the jury that it could convict the Defendant on Count Five based on evidence related to Trial Tr. at 2896. The Defendant primarily contends that Count Five is a subset of, is subsumed in, or is otherwise too similar to Count Three under the Korfant factors. The Court agrees. Although some Korfant factors favor the Government, the weight of the factors-supplemented by a review of the Government's case presented at trial—demonstrates that the Government has not 2The Court permitted certain victim witnesses to testify using a pseudonym or first name. See Nov. I, 2021 Tr. at 6-7. 7 EFTA00156406  Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 657 Filed 04/29/22 Page 8 of 45 met its burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the counts are not multiplicitous. The offenses charged and common objectives. Both Counts Three and Five are charged under the same statute, 18 U.S.C. § 371, for conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States. But going beyond this "general level" of similarity, the statutory objectives of the two counts differ. Macchia, 35 F.3d at 669. Count Three is a conspiracy to violate § 2423(a) and Count Five a conspiracy to violate § 1591. These differing statutory objectives entail legal differences. Count Three, for example, charges unlawful sexual activity (defined as sexual touching of a minor) while Count Five charges commercial sexual activity with a minor. And each provision defines "minor" differently: under seventeen years old for Count Three but under eighteen years old for Count Five. Further, Count Three requires an agreement with intent to transport across state lines, while Count Five's agreement requires only intent of sexual activity that affects interstate commerce. These differences push the first Korfant factor in the Government's favor. See Estrada, 320 F.3d at 182 (distinguishing between a conspiracy to distribute cocaine and one to distribute crack); United States v. Villa, No. 3:12-CR-40 (JBA), 2014 WL 252013, at *4 (D. Conn. Jan. 22, 2014), aff'd, 744 F. App'x 716 (2d Cir. 2018) (summary order) (distinguishing between a § 371 conspiracy to "commit theft from an interstate shipment and to transport stolen property across state lines" and one to "sell stolen property"). The Government, however, ens in suggesting that this factor alone is "fatal" to the Defendant's multiplicity claim. Gov. Br. at 29. To the contrary, no single Koifant factor is dominant or dispositive. Macchia, 35 F.3d at 668. And courts in this district have found two conspiracy counts to be the same offense even when they have different statutory objectives because both counts can arise from the same agreement. E.g., Hernandez, 2009 WL 3169226, at 8 EFTA00156407  Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 657 Filed 04/29/22 Page 9 of 45 *11 (concluding that conspiracies to defraud the United States and to commit mail and wire fraud were the same conspiracy as earlier conspiracy to use or transfer false IDs). After all, "[a] single agreement to commit several crimes constitutes one conspiracy." United States v. Broce, 488 U.S. 563, 570-71 (1989). The Government implicitly conceded this point of law when it agreed that Counts One and Three were multiplicitous. Count One charges a conspiracy to entice minors to travel across state lines in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422 while Count Three charges a conspiracy to transport minors across state lines in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a). Despite distinct statutory predicates for these two § 371 conspiracies, the Government did not contest that they were the same offense. Though Count Five is unquestionably less similar to Count Three than is Count One, the difference in statutory predicates does not end the matter. It is well established that a single conspiracy can contain multiple objectives, particularly if the objectives share important similarities, as they do here. United States v. Salameh, 152 F.3d 88, 148 (2d Cir. 1998) (citing United States v. 4/Irani, 968 F.2d 1512, 1518 (2d Cir. 1992)). Overlap ofparticipants. The participants in the two conspiracies in Counts Three and Five substantially overlap with one another. Of course, the defendant will always overlap between two allegedly multiplicitous conspiracies, so their participation in both conspiracies has negligible significance. Villa, 2014 WL 252013, at *5. More importantly here, Epstein was the Defendant's primary coconspirator in both conspiracies, and the Government argued that in both conspiracies the Defendant played the same role of acquiring underage girls for Epstein to sexually abuse. They were, the Government explained, "partners in crime" over the decade alleged in the Indictment. E.g., Trial Tr. at 34, 2842, 2885; see also id. at 41 ("For a decade, the defendant played an essential role in this scheme."). This overlap in key participants, and in core 9 EFTA00156408  Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 657 Filed 04/29/22 Page 10 of 45 roles played by those participants, significantly favors the Defendant as to the second Korfant factor. See Macchia, 35 F.3d at 669; Hernandez, 2009 WL 3169226, at *II. The Government responds that the Count Five conspiracy included who was not involved in Count Three. Yet received far less attention than other conspirators in the Government's case, being mentioned only briefly in the Government's opening statement and closing arguments. E.g., Trial Tr. at 2876 (noting, "and sometimes would call, too"). Conspiracies often change membership without forming a new, distinct conspiracy, particularly if key members of the conspiracy remain over the course of a decade. See United States v. Eppolito, 543 F.3d 25, 48 (2d Cir. 2008). participation beginning in 2001 therefore does not shift the import of the second Korfant factor. Overlap of time. The time periods of the two counts overlap completely. Namely, Count Five's period of 2001 to 2004 is "wholly within the time frame" of Count Three from 1994 to 2004, which substantially favors the Defendant on this Korfant factor. United States v. Calderone, 982 F.2d 42, 47 (2d Cir. 1992). The Government's attempt to minimize this factor by noting that most overt acts for Count Three occurred in the 1990s is simply not reflected in this circuit's case law. See, e.g., Macchia, 35 F.3d at 669 (focusing on the overlap in time frame alleged in the indictment). The overlap in time here raises the inference that one conspiracy wholly encompasses the other, and that inference tips in the Defendant's favor. See Araujo, 2018 WL 3222527, at *6. Similarity of operations. Counts Three and Five involve significant similarities in operations. The methods by which the Defendant groomed and facilitated the sexual abuse of minor victims was a central focus of both parties' cases at trial. The Government called as an expert witness Dr. Lisa Rocchio, who identified the typical steps in sexual abusers' grooming of 10 EFTA00156409  Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 657 Filed 04/29/22 Page 11 of 45 minors for sexual abuse. Trial Tr. at 714-19. Applying that expert testimony to the witnesses' testimony, the Government argued that the Defendant's conduct as to each victim followed a uniform "playbook." E.g., id. at 2184 ("She ran the same playbook again and again and again. She manipulated her victims and she groomed them for sexual abuse."), 2853 ("The patterns you saw throughout this trial, the playbook that Maxwell ran for years, is just one of the many ways that you know that Maxwell is guilty."). And the Government emphasized the many similarities in the Defendant's conduct as recounted by all four witnesses. Id. at 2848 ("The similarities between what happened to e incredibly powerful evidence of the defendant's guilt. So I want to talk to you about the playbook that Maxwell ran again and again and again."), 2901 ("Four women have testified at this trial about Maxwell. They all describe the same woman, the same playbook."). Carolyn was the only witness who testified regarding Count Five. The Government argued that her testimony "was corroborated by what Annie an old [the jury] about Maxwell and how she operated for years." Id. at 2880; see also id. at 2895-96 ("Maxwell groomed both as part of a broader agreement with Epstein to provide him with underage girls for abuse."). The Government, in short, argued that the Defendant engaged in substantially the same operations for a decade as to all victims under both Counts Three and Five. The Government responds that while the Defendant and Epstein continuously conspired to sexually abuse minor victims, their conduct beginning in 2001 evolved from developing one- on-one relationships with their victims to include a "pyramid scheme of abuse," by which they acquired underage girls by paying them for so-called "massage" appointments. Gov. Br. at 32 (quoting Trial Tr. at 40). To be sure, the Government in both its opening statement and its closing arguments explained that the Defendant and Epstein's abuse "evolved over the course of 11 EFTA00156410  Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 657 Filed 04/29/22 Page 12 of 45 a decade," having both the "earlier phase" and the later "pyramid scheme." Trial Tr. at 40; see also, e.g., id. at 2886 (describing 2001 as "the beginning of the pyramid scheme of abuse"). But a single conspiracy can enter "two or more phases or spheres of operation" without creating a discontinuity in the underlying unlawful agreement, particularly if the same people are serving the same roles in each phase. United States v. Pena, 846 F. App'x 49, 51 (2d Cir. 2021) (summary order) (quoting United States v. Berger, 224 F.3d 107, 114-15 (2d Cir. 2000)); see also United States v. Maldonado-Rivera, 922 F.2d 934, 963 (2d Cir. 1990). Notably, the Government, after distinguishing between earlier and later phases in the pattern of abuse, immediately emphasized that "[fJor a decade, the defendant played an essential role in this scheme," blurring any difference between the two phases. Trial Tr. at 41. Moreover, though these phases did involve some differing means to acquire minor victims, the differences presented at trial were not as great as the Government suggests in its brief. As to both counts, both before and after 2001, the Government emphasized that massage was a primary means by which the Defendant and Epstein normalized bodily contact and also the means by which the Defendant and Epstein commonly instigated instances of sexual abuse. Compare id. at 40 ("You will learn that in the 1990s, they used the cover of mentoring young girls ... to introduce massage . . . and that you will learn that they used these so called massages as a way to sexually abuse the victims."), with id. at 41 ("Under this pyramid scheme of abuse, the defendant could just call girls to schedule massage appointments and hand them cash afterwards . .. ."); e.g., id. at 35 ("You will learn that the cover of massage was the primary way the defendant and Epstein lured girls into sexual abuse."), 2852 ("Again and again throughout this trial, you heard about how these girls were asked to perform sexualized massages on Jeffrey Epstein."). 12 EFTA00156411  Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 657 Filed 04/29/22 Page 13 of 45 Further, in both counts, the witnesses testified that they received financial gifts and payments as a means by which the Defendant and Epstein acquired their victims' trust and extended the period of sexual abuse. E.g., id. at 302 (Jane testified that she was given money "[a]lmost every visit" and that Epstein paid for things like voice lessons and clothes). The Government emphasized such financial gifts as one step in the Defendant's playbook of grooming. E.g., id. at 2851 ("Then came the next step in the playbook: Making these girls feel special, giving them gifts, making friends, giving them money, promising to help with their futures, promises like sending Annie on a trip to Thailand or helping to pay for Jane's voice lessons and tuition."), 2890 ("[Jane] told you that Epstein gave her money and gifts and paid for school. That money wasn't free .... That is inducement, that is enticement, that is coercion."). The financial quid pro quo may have become more explicit beginning in 2001, but that shift in approach is not nearly so dramatic as to suggest that the Defendant and Epstein at that time entered "a wholly new agreement" with a new "conspiratorial objective." Haji v. Miller, 584 F. Supp. 2d 498, 519 (E.D.N.Y. 2008). The similarity-of-operations factor therefore favors the Defendant. Overlap ofgeographic scope. There is some, albeit incomplete, geographic overlap between the two counts. Count Three focused on travel to New York because the ultimate objective of the conspiracy was to transport minors to New York to engage in criminal sexual activity in violation of New York law. Count Five, by contrast, focused on Epstein's residence in Florida, wher were paid to give Epstein sexualized massages. Nevertheless, some geographic overlap between the two counts remained. All four witnesses testified about sexual conduct by the Defendant or Epstein in locations other than New York, whether Florida, New Mexico, or London. The Court admitted such testimony concerning 13 EFTA00156412  Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 657 Filed 04/29/22 Page 14 of 45 sexual conduct outside of New York as relevant to Count Three because it tended to establish the existence of a conspiracy and of the Defendant and Epstein's intent to abuse the victims in New York. In sum, the same locations—particularly Florida—were part of the Government's case for both counts. And over time, a conspiracy's "shifting emphasis in the location of operations do[es] not necessarily require a finding of more than one conspiracy." Eppolito, 543 F.3d at 48 (quoting Jones, 482 F.3d at 72). This factor therefore favors the Defendant or, at least, is neutral. Common overt acts. The Government correctly notes that the overt acts provided to the jury for Counts Three and Five are distinct. See Jury Charge, Dkt. No. 565 at 49-50. This factor therefore tips toward the Government—but only slightly. A number of the overt acts listed for Count Three could have been prosecuted under Count Five but for the fact that 18 U.S.C. § 1591, the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, was not enacted until 2000. See Gov. Br. at 28. That some identical overt acts were not listed for both conspiracies is therefore more a function of legal timing than an indication of two distinct conspiracies. Cf. Hernandez, 2009 WL 3169226, at *12. Interdependence. Counts Three and Five are not interdependent because the success or failure of one conspiracy is independent of the success or failure of the other. See Macchia, 35 F.3d at 671. In other words, the success of the Defendant and Epstein's scheme to abuse Carolyn from 2001 to 2004 was not made more or less likely by the prior success or failure to abuse Jane, Annie, or any other underage girl. This factor, however, makes little difference in the final analysis if "what was ultimately proven was one common conspiracy." Maslin, 356 F.3d at 197. The Government's theory at trial. The Second Circuit has instructed district courts to consider not only the enumerated Kotfant factors but to consider the entire record. See id. at 196; United States v. Olmeda, 461 F.3d 271, 282 (2d Cir. 2006). In Masan, the Second Circuit 14 EFTA00156413  Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 657 Filed 04/29/22 Page 15 of 45 first explained that applying the Korfant factors led to the conclusion that successive prosecutions for conspiracies to distribute marijuana were barred by double jeopardy, but then continued, stating that "several additional factors ... not directly addressed in Kolfant ... further point toward a finding of double jeopardy," namely, "the fact that the Government, in its opening and closing arguments, presented both cases to the jury as broad conspiracies of an essentially identical nature." 356 F.3d at 197. The same is true here. As explained above, the Government's opening statement and closing arguments presented a theory of a singular conspiracy, highlighting: The degree of similarity between each victim witness's experience over a decade; the common "playbook" that the Defendant ran "over and over and over again," Trial Tr. at 2848; and the tight partnership between the Defendant and Epstein. And each of those features was accompanied by references to a singular "scheme" to abuse all victim witnesses. Id. at 36, 2843, 2853. At bottom, the case presented to the jury by the Government was of a single decade-long conspiracy by the Defendant and Epstein to sexually abuse underage girls. Having pursued such a broad and encompassing conspiracy, the Government cannot now claim, and cannot carry its burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence, that Count Five was legally and factually distinct. See Maslin, 356 F.3d at 197. Because Count Three and Count Five are multiplicitous, the proper remedy is to enter judgment on only one of the counts. See Josephberg, 459 F.3d at 355 ("If the jury convicts on more than one multiplicitous count, the defendant's right not to suffer multiple punishments for the same offense will be protected by having the court enter judgment on only one of the multiplicitous counts." (citing Ball v. United States, 470 U.S. 856, 865 (1985))). Because Count Five is factually subsumed by Count Three, the Court will impose judgment only on Count Three. The Court emphasizes, however, that finding Count Five to be multiplicitous "does not 15 EFTA00156414  Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 657 Filed 04/29/22 Page 16 of 45 overturn any of the factual findings made by the jury" —it means only that, "as a matter of law, the jury found the same thing twice." Ansaldi, 372 F.3d at 125. Or, in this case, three times. II. The Court denies the Defendant's Rule 29 motion. The Defendant argues there was insufficient evidence to support any of her five counts of conviction, and, therefore, the Court should enter a judgment of acquittal as to all counts under Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Rule 29 provides, in relevant part, that "[a]fter the government closes its evidence or after the close of all the evidence, the court on the defendant's motion must enter a judgment of acquittal of any offense for which the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction." Fed. R. Crim. P. 29(a); United States v. Pugh, 945 F.3d 9, 19 (2d Cir. 2019). "[T]he critical inquiry on review of the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction must be . . . to determine whether the record evidence could reasonably support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." Jackson v. Viiginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318 (1979). "The court must make that determination with the evidence against a particular defendant, viewed in the light most favorable to the government, and with all reasonable inferences resolved in favor of the government." Pugh, 945 F.3d at 19 (cleaned up) (quoting Eppolito, 543 F.3d at 45). Under this inquiry, "the relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319 (citing Johnson v. Louisiana, 406 U.S. 356, 362 (1972)); United States v. Zhong, 26 F.4th 536, 560 (2d Cir. 2022). At the close of the Government's case, the Defendant made her Rule 29 application "with respect to every count in the S2 indictment," but "confine[d] [her] comments to address specifically Counts One and Two." Trial Tr. at 2266. The Court denied the motion. Id. at 2274. 16 EFTA00156415  Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 657 Filed 04/29/22 Page 17 of 45 Following the close of the defense case, the Defendant renewed her previous Rule 29 application. Id. at 2736. In her brief, the Defendant reiterates her request that the Court "enter a judgment of acquittal as to all counts." Maxwell Br. at 30. The Court has deemed Counts One and Five multiplicitous, see supra Part I, and therefore the Court will not enter judgment on those counts. And at trial, the jury found the Defendant not guilty on Count Two. Thus, the Court will consider the sufficiency of the evidence for the remaining counts: Three, Four, and Six. After considering the arguments and evidence, the Court denies the Defendant's Rule 29 motion. The Court first notes that the Defendant has not provided substantive argument on the sufficiency of the evidence—in either the oral application or the post-conviction briefing—for Counts Three, Four, or Six. Instead, for these remaining counts, the Defendant simply asserts that the Court should "enter a judgment of acquittal as to all counts under Rule 29 . . because the government failed to prove each element of the charges beyond a reasonable doubt." Maxwell Reply at 18, Dkt. No. 647; Maxwell Br. at 30. The Court disagrees. The Court first considers the substantive counts. Count Four charged the Defendant with the substantive count of transportation of an individual under the age of seventeen with intent to engage in sexual activity in violation of New York law. This count related only to Jane during the period 1994 to 1997. The Government was required to establish the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) that the Defendant knowingly transported an individual in interstate commerce, as alleged in the Indictment; (2) that the Defendant transported the individual with the intent that the individual would engage in sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense under New York law, as alleged in the Indictment; and (3) that the Defendant knew that the individual was less than seventeen years old at the time 17 EFTA00156416  Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 657 Filed 04/29/22 Page 18 of 45 of the acts alleged in Count Four; or that the Defendant aided and abetted the same. Jury Charge at 26,37. The Court concludes that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find the Defendant guilty of Count Four beyond a reasonable doubt. Jane testified that Epstein first engaged in sexual activity with her in Palm Beach when she was fourteen years old. Trial Tr. at 305. She then began traveling from Palm Beach to New York with the Defendant and Epstein at that same age. Id. at 315-16. Jane explained that she traveled on commercial flights and Epstein's private jet. Id. at 316. She testified that the Defendant also traveled on some of these flights, and that the Defendant assisted her in making her travel arrangements to New York. Id. at 316-17. On one occasion when she was fifteen, Jane recounted, she had trouble getting on a commercial flight because she did not have proper identification. However, the Defendant "made it happen" for her by making a call and helping her get on the flight. Id. at 323-24. Jane also testified that the Defendant was present on some occasions when Epstein sexually abused Jane in New York when she was under the age of seventeen. Id. at 320. The Court concludes that this evidence, taken together, was sufficient for the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant knowingly transported Jane to New York with the intent to engage in sexual activity illegal under New York law, or at minimum, aided and abetted Epstein in doing so. Next, the Court concludes that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find the Defendant guilty of Count Six. Count Six charged the Defendant with the substantive count of sex trafficking of an individual under the age of eighteen. The Government was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that: (1) the Defendant knowingly recruited, enticed, harbored, transported, provided, or obtained a person; (2) the Defendant knew that the person was under the age of eighteen; (3) the Defendant knew the person would be caused to engage in a 18 EFTA00156417  Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 657 Filed 04/29/22 Page 19 of 45 commercial sex act; and (4) the Defendant's acts were in or affecting interstate commerce; or that the Defendant aided and abetted the same. Jury Charge at 32, 37. Count Six applied solely to Carolyn during the period 2001 to 2004. Id. at 32. Carolyn testified that when she was under the age of eighteen, the Defendant would call her to set up appointments for Carolyn to perform sexualized massages on Epstein. Trial Tr. 1527, 1530. Carolyn explained the sexual activities that occurred during the massages. Id. at 1544-47. Carolyn testified that the Defendant saw her naked in the massage room and continued to call Carolyn to schedule appointments with Epstein. Id. at 1538. She recalled a specific incident when she was fourteen in which she was naked in the massage room and the Defendant touched her breasts and commented that Carolyn "had a great body for Mr. Epstein and his friends." Id. at 1536-38. Carolyn testified that the Defendant knew that she was under the age of eighteen and continued to call her to schedule appointments with Epstein after learning that fact. Id. at 1535. Carolyn further testified that she received money in exchange for performing sexualized massages on Epstein. E.g., id. 1523. She recalled that while money was often left on the sink outside of the massage room, the Defendant paid her directly after massages on one or two occasions. Id. at 1540-41. Carolyn's testimony was corroborated by boyfriend at the time, and physical evidence including phone message pads. This evidence was plainly sufficient for the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant committed sex trafficking of an individual under eighteen, or aided and abetted Epstein in doing so.3 3 If the Court were to conclude that Count Five is not multiplicitous, it would deny the Defendant's Rule 29 motion as to Count Five. Count Five charged the Defendant with participating in a conspiracy to commit sex trafficking of individuals under the age of eighteen from about 2001 to 2004. The evidence that supports the Defendant's conviction of Count Six, the substantive count, also t Five conspiracy conviction. Additionally, Juan Alessi testified that the Defendant approached n a parking lot and that he then saw her at Epstein's Palm Beach residence later that day. Tria ocumentary evidence, including flight records, established that Virginia was under the age of eighteen when she met the Defendant and Epstein. See, e.g., id. at 1855 (December 2000 flight record including Epstein, the Defendant, and Virginia); see also GX-I4 (birth certificate). Carolyn testified that Virginia recruited her and that Virginia performed sexualized massages on 19 EFTA00156418  Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 657 Filed 04/29/22 Page 20 of 45 Finally, Count Three charged the Defendant with conspiracy to transport individuals under the age of seventeen to travel in interstate commerce with intent to engage in illegal sexual activity in violation of New York law. The Government was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) that two or more persons entered into the unlawful agreement charged; (2) the Defendant knowingly and willfully became a member of that conspiracy; (3) one of the members of the conspiracy knowingly committed at least one overt act; and (4) the overt act that the jury found to have been committed was committed in furtherance of that conspiracy. Jury Charge at 41. The Court concludes that the trial evidence supported a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for each element of Count Three. The Government presented evidence that could lead a reasonable juror to conclude that the Defendant worked with Epstein between 1994 and 2004 to groom minor victims in an effort to transport them to New York to engage in sexual activity illegal under New York law. As noted above,■testified in detail about her travel to New York with the Defendant and Epstein where she was sexually abused. Trial Tr. at 319-20. Jane also testified about the steps taken by the Defendant and Epstein to make her feel comfortable before they began engaging in sexual activity with her and inviting her to travel. Id. 299-303; see also id. at 348 .testifying that their behavior toward her made her "feel special"). Other witnesses testified to similar conduct. Annie testified that after she met Epstein in New York, she was invited to travel with the Defendant and Epstein to New Mexico when she was sixteen. Id. at 2068-69,2075-77. She testified that on this trip, the Defendant and Epstein took her shopping and to the movies. Id. at 2080-81. She also testified that the Defendant Epstein in exchange for money. Trial Tr. 1518-24. The Court concludes that the evidence related to Carolyn and Virginia was sufficient for the jury to convict the Defendant on Count Five. 20 EFTA00156419  Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 657 Filed 04/29/22 Page 21 of 45 encouraged her to massage Epstein's feet, and that the Defendant then gave her a massage during which the Defendant touched Annie's breasts. Id. at 2083-86. As noted above, Carolyn testified that the Defendant paid her for performing sexualized massages on Epstein. She also testified that Epstein and the Defendant asked her about her life and family and discussed sexual topics with her. Id. at 1533-36. Epstein then invited her to travel generally, and the Defendant invited her to travel to Epstein's private island in the Caribbean. Id. at 1535,1540. A reasonable juror could have concluded that the Defendant's and Epstein's actions, including their efforts to normalize sexual conduct and invitations for underage girls to travel to New Mexico and the Caribbean, were in furtherance of the conspiracy's goal of transporting minors to New York for the purpose of engaging in sexual activity illegal under New York law. Finally, although the jury was instructed that it could not convict the Defendant solely on the basis of testimony, her testimony corroborated the testimony of other witnesses as to the Defendant's knowledge and role in the conspiracy. Id. at 1177-90. The Court concludes that this evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to convict the Defendant for conspiring to transport individuals in interstate commerce with intent to engage in sexual activity illegal under New York law. Accordingly, the Court denies the Defendant's Rule 29 motion for a judgment of acquittal. III. The Court denies the Defendant's motion claiming a construct iv e amendment or prejudicial variance. The Defendant also seeks to vacate her convictions as to Counts One, Three, and Four (the Mann Act counts) pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33. She contends that the jury convicted her of intending that Jane engage in sexual activity in New Mexico, rather than New York, thus resulting in a constructive amendment of the Indictment, or in the alternative, a 21 EFTA00156420  Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 657 Filed 04/29/22 Page 22 of 45 prejudicial variance. For the following reasons, the Court disagrees and denies the Defendant's motion on this basis. A. Applicable Law Under the Fifth Amendment's Grand Jury Clause, "a defendant has the right to be tried only on charges contained in an indictment returned by a grand jury." United States v. Wozniak, 126 F.3d 105, 109 (2d Cir. 1997). "[W]hen the charge upon which the defendant is tried differs significantly from the charge upon which the grand jury voted," a constructive amendment occurs and reversal is required. United States v. Khalupsky, 5 F.4th 279, 293 (2d Cir. 2021). "To prevail on a constructive amendment claim, a

EFTA01182866.pdf

DataSet-10 Unknown 15 pages

Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 96 Filed 04/13/16 Page 1 of 15 United States District Court Southern District of New York Virginia L. Giuffre, Plaintiff, Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS v. Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. PLAINTIFF VIRGINIA GIUFFRE'S MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF COURT'S ORDER AND FOR FORENSIC EXAMINATION BOLES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP David Boies Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP 333 Main Street Armonk, NY 10504 Sigrid McCawley (Pro Hac Vice) Meredith Schultz (Pro Hac Vice) Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 (954) 356-0011 EFTA01182866  Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 96 Filed 04/13/16 Page 2 of 15 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ii I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. CLARIFICATION OF THIS COURT'S MARCH 17, 2016 RULING 3 A. Documents Evidencing Communications and Interactions With Co-Conspirators 3 B. Documents Concerning Sexual Abuse And Trafficking Of Females 4 III. ARGUMENT - FORENSIC EXAMINATION 7 CONCLUSION 10 EFTA01182867  Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 96 Filed 04/13/16 Page 3 of 15 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page Cases Byrnie v. Town ofCromwell, Bd. OfEduc„ 243 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2001) 8 Genworth Fin. Wealth Mgmt., Inc. v. McMullan, 267 F.R.D. 443 (D. Conn. 2010) 10 In re Vitamin C Antitrust Litig., No. 05 Civ. 453, 2013 WL 504257 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 8, 2013) 8 Stinson v. City ofNew York 10 CIV. 4228 (RWS), 2015 WL 4610422 (S.D.N.Y. July 23, 2015) 9, 10 Statutes Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 8 Other In re: Pilot Project Regarding Case Management Techniquesfor Complex Civil Cases in the Southern District ofNew York, M10-468 9 Sedona Principlesfor Electronic Document Production, Second Edition, 2007 9 EFTA01182868  Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 96 Filed 04/13/16 Page 4 of 15 Plaintiff Virginia L. Giuffre, by and through her undersigned counsel, respectfully submits this Motion for Clarification regarding this Court's Ruling at the March 17, 2016 hearing, and seeks a forensic examination of defendant's computers and states as follows. I. INTRODUCTION Ms. Giuffre served Defendant with discovery requests on October 27, 2015. Now, mid- April of the following year, Defendant has still only produced exactly two documents. Ms. Giuffre moved to compel Defendant to produce responsive documents and the Court held a hearing on March 17, 2016. During the hearing, the Court granted in part, Ms. Giuffre's Motion to Compel. Now, twenty-six (26) days later, Defendant has still failed to produce sa additional documents. In contrast, to date, Ms. Giuffre has produced over 4,700 pages of documents in response to Defendant's overbroad discovery requests. Ms. Giuffre requested Defendant's production by April 6, 2016, which provided Defendant with twenty (20) days from the date of the Court's hearing compelling production. See Declaration of Sigrid McCawley ("McCawley Decl.") at Exhibit 1, March 28, 2016 Correspondence. Defendant failed to respond and failed to produce anything, and therefore, Ms. Giuffre scheduled a "meet and confer" conference on April 11, 2016 to determine when, if ever, Defendant planned to produce the documents as directed by the Court. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 2, April 7, 2016 Correspondence. At the meet and confer, the Defendant took the position that she would not produce any additional documents until the Court ruled at the April 21, 2016 hearing on the Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice of former federal Judge Paul Cassell, and Co-Counsel Brad Edwards' filings. Defendant's position, as Ms. Giuffre understands it, is that the documents are "confidential" and Ms. Giuffre respectfully requests that, if possible, this Motion for Clarification be set for hearing on an expedited basis in order to be heard at the hearing already scheduled on other related discovery issues on April 21, 2016 at 11:00 am. 1 EFTA01182869  Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 96 Filed 04/13/16 Page 5 of 15 she will not produce them until the Court rules on whether or not Ms. Giuffre's other lawyers, Paul Cassell and Bradley Edwards, are "actively working on this case" under the terms of the Protective Order, such that they are entitled to receive confidential information. Ms. Giuffre views this as simply another attempt to stall and refuse to engage in discovery. Fact discovery ends in a little over six weeks. Defendant's refusal to comply with her discovery obligations, and her refusal to turn over documents knowing that Defendant is being deposed on April 22, 2016, shows her belief that she can get away with producing a mere two emails and run out the clock on discovery. It also became clear during the meet and confer conference that Defendant's interpretation of this Court's ruling was vastly different than Ms. Giuffre's understanding.2 Ms. Giuffre contends that the Court's ruling on March 17, 2016, granting in part Ms. Giuffre's Motion to Compel, held the following: (1) Directed that the relevant time period of Defendant's search and production of documents would be 2000 — present. (2) Directed the production of documents responsive to Ms. Giuffre's requests for production that sought Defendant's communications with certain, named individuals in the requests. For example, Request no. 1 seeks all "communications with Jeffrey Epstein from 1999 — present." Request no. 6 seeks all "communications with ... Emmy Taylor, Sarah Kellen, Eva Dubin, Glen Dubin, Jean Luc Brunel and Nadia Marcinkova" from 1999 — present.) (The other requests that fit into this category are Request Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 17, 32, 37, and 38). (3) Directed the production of documents responsive to Ms. Giuffre's remaining requests but limited those documents to documents that relate to the subject matter of the "sexual abuse or sexual trafficking" of "females." For example, Request No. 24 seeks "all documents relating to contact lists, phone lists or address books for you or Jeffrey Epstein from 1999 — present." This request was limited by the Court to require production if the materials relate to the subject matter of "sexual abuse or sexual trafficking of females." It is already public knowledge that law enforcement 2 Defendant's understanding of the ruling is so narrow that in Defendant's view, the only remaining volume of documents she would be required to produce — other than the two initial documents she produced -- is approximately "50" pages of documents that presumably date from the last 18 months. Of course, she has still not produced these documents to Ms. Giuffre. 2 EFTA01182870  Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 96 Filed 04/13/16 Page 6 of 15 retrieved at least one "black book" wherein Jeffrey Epstein and the Defendant kept lists of females who were utilized for "massages." Now, in this civil discovery, Defendant should be producing contact lists or records she kept of the females she contacted to perform these "massages" for convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. (The Requests that fall into this category relating to the sexual abuse and sex trafficking of females are Request Nos. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 33 and 39). In contrast, Defendant's position, as Ms. Giuffre understands from the meet and confer, is that she only has to produce documents which include a communication with an individual which directly discuss or reference the sex abuse or sexual trafficking of females. Defendant contends that all other requests were denied. Accordingly, Ms. Giuffre requests clarification of this Court's ruling in order to further discovery in this case. II. CLARIFICATION OF THIS COURT'S MARCH 17, 2016 RULING A. Documents Evidencing Communications and Interactions with Co- Conspirators Defendant admitted to withholding documents responsive to requests that sought documents concerning interactions and communications with particular, named individuals.; It is Ms. Giuffre's understanding that the Court directed the production of those documents. At the hearing, Ms. Giuffre argued in detail as to why documents showing communications between Maxwell and various individuals, for example, Sarah Kellen, are highly relevant. MS. McCAWLEY: For example, two of the people we asked for documents and communications with, Sarah Kellen and Nadia Marcinkova, when they were asked in their depositions about Ms. Maxwell sexually trafficking underage girls, both of those individuals took the Fifth. If there are documents between Ms. Maxwell and Sarah Kellen discussing those issues at any time from 1999 to present, we want those documents, your Honor. And while they say that day-to-day communications with Jeffrey Epstein wouldn't be relevant, they would. If they're communicating on a daily basis, that's relevant. 3 See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 3, Defendant's Responses and Objections to Plaintiffs Requests for Production, Requests Nos. I, 3, 4, 6, 17, 32, 37, and 38. 3 EFTA01182871  Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 96 Filed 04/13/16 Page 7 of 15 See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 4, March 17, 2016 Hearing before Judge Robert Sweet, at 28:2- 12. After hearing arguments, the Court ruled as follows: "I think any documents with named individuals, that's fine." Judge Sweet, March 17, 2016, Hearing Transcript at 30:4-5. Despite this apparent ruling, Defendant has failed to produce the responsive documents. Defendant also takes the position that she is not required to produce communications with these individuals unless they specifically discuss the "sexual abuse" or "sexual trafficking" of "females." However, it is Ms. Giuffre's understanding that she is entitled to communications with the key named individuals, and it is not limited only to a document between the individuals explicitly discussing "sexual abuse." Ms. Giuffre respectfully requests that the Court direct Defendant to produce the documents she has -- but is withholding -- as to Request Nos. I, 3, 4, 6, 17, 32, 37, and 38. B. Documents Concerning Sexual Ahuse and Trafficking of Females MS. Giuffre interpreted this Court's ruling to award Ms. Giuffre discovery on her remaining requests for production (not specifically limited to named individuals) to the extent those requests relate to the "sexual abuse or sexual trafficking of females." That ruling would include the following Request Nos. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 33, and 39. Specifically, the Court ruled: THE COURT: And then I would say any documents that relate to the duties to be performed by Maxwell. And it may be that there are other definitional categories that would be appropriate but they don't occur to me at the moment. Now, let me ask the plaintiff, how do you want to define the activities? MS. McCAWLEY: I'm comfortable defining "activities," your Honor. I think you said any documents which relate to the activities of defendant with respect to the practice, which we would say would be sexual abuse or trafficking of minors. THE COURT: OK. 4 EFTA01182872  Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 96 Filed 04/13/16 Page 8 of 15 MS. McCAWLEY: And I think that everybody has an understanding of what that is. So if there is emails about girls getting massages for those sorts of -- THE COURT: All right. So what do you all think about that? MR. PAGLIUCA: If we're limiting it to minors, which I understand this to be limited to, I think that's fine. I mean, we are talking about -- the allegation in this case is, according to Ms. Giuffre, is that she was an underage minor, trafficked individual, and my client has vehemently denied that in the press and here. And so that's the issue. And I think if that's what we are talking about, we are fine with that. MS. McCAWLEY: Your Honor, can I just clarify really quickly? There was trafficking of both underage and women that were over 18. So I wouldn't feel comfortable limiting it to just the minors, under 18. MR. PAGLIUCA: You can't traffic somebody -- MS. McCAWLEY: You can prosecute someone over international lines, and that is a federal offense if they are -- THE COURT: Let's -- MR. PAGLIUCA: That's not the definition. THE COURT: Let me -- if we skip the minors, what would it be? It would be any -- yes, it would be any -- MS. McCAWLEY: Females. THE COURT: The documents relating to trafficking, what for? MS. McCAWLEY: Sexual trafficking or sexual abuse of any female. THE COURT: That is OK. MR. PAGLIUCA: To be clear, we talking about something that is illegal, right? THE COURT: Are we? I don't think it has to be illegal in the context of the defamation. MR. PAGLIUCA: Let me sort of recap, your Honor. Because the defamation is that Ms. Giuffre was a minor and from 1999 to 2002 somehow was, quote-unquote, sexually trafficked. THE COURT: Your client's statement is that she was a liar and -- I mean, I don't mean to prejudge that, but I mean that's the issue as I understand it. MR. PAGLIUCA: Well, and the Court narrowed this down in the Court's order on the motion to dismiss, which is that the statements relating to Ms. Maxwell's participation in the trafficking of the plaintiff were untrue or unfounded. Those are the statements. THE COURT: OK. 5 EFTA01182873  Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 96 Filed 04/13/16 Page 9 of 15 MS. McCAWLEY: Yes. THE COURT: Then I think it is conceivable that it wouldn't be limited to minors. What Pm trying to say is if there were trafficking other than with minors, that might also be relevant to the existence of the practice. MS. McCAWLEY: Exactly. THE COURT: OK. So it isn't limited to minors. MS. McCAWLEY: Thank you, your Honor. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 4, March 17, 2016, Hearing Transcript at 30:10-33:1 (Emphasis added). It is Ms. Giuffre's counsel's position that activities related to the sexual abuse or sexual trafficking are sought in many of Ms. Giuffre's requests for production. For example, Request no. 7 seeks "All video tapes, audio tapes, photographs or any other print or electronic media relating to females under the age of 18 from the period of 1999 — present." If there are pictures with Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, and a female, and that female was being sexually trafficked or abused, the Defendant should produce that picture. Alfredo Rodriguez, former house staff, testified in a prior case that Defendant had pictures of underage females on her computer. Q. "Did they appear to be doing any sexual? A. Yes, ma'am. Q. And in these instances were there girls doing sexual things with other girls? A. Yes, ma'am. Q. And I'm still talking about the pictures on Ms. Maxwell's computer. A. Yes, ma'am." See Decl. of Sigrid McCawley at Exhibit 5, Alfredo Rodriguez August 7, 2009 Dep. Tr. at 311- 312. Yet, Defendant has failed to produce any documents in response to this request. It is Ms. Giuffre's counsel's understanding that this Court required production of all documents related to sexual abuse or sex trafficking. Through the April 11, 2016, meet and confer, it became apparent that opposing counsel's view is that, since Defendant denies sexually trafficking females, Defendant is not required to 6 EFTA01182874  Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 96 Filed 04/13/16 Page 10 of 15 produce documents that tend to show the sexual abuse or sexual trafficking, only documents that • specifically discuss sexual traffickmg.4 Defendant's view would exclude from production documents such as flight manifests listing the girls Defendant flew over to Jeffrey Epstein's island, and payments made from Epstein to Defendant for her services. Under Ms. Giuffre's interpretation, such documents relate to the "sexual abuse and sex trafficking of females," and therefore are discoverable under this Court's ruling. III. ARGUMENT - FORENSIC EXAMINATION Ms. Giuffre attempted to negotiate an electronic protocol to ensure the proper collection of discovery materials, and Defendant rejected that proposal. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 6, March 10, 2016 Correspondence. Ms. Giuffre's attorneys have expended considerable sums of money on the retention of an outside e-discovery management company to assist in a thorough collection, review, and production of responsive documents to ensure compliance with her discovery obligations. Ms. Giuffre's attorneys have also spent many hours identifying, reviewing, and producing responsive documents. To date, Ms. Giuffre has produced nearly five thousand pages of documents, including documents responsive to Defendant's request that she produce 18 years of correspondence with her various family members. In addition to searching hard-copy documents and other sources, Ms. Giuffre's counsel have imaged Ms. Giuffre's computer to collect its electronically stored data. Further, Ms. 4 Ms. Giuffre does not expect the evidence of sex trafficking to be found in, for example, a 2001 memo from Defendant to Jeffrey Epstein with a subject line stating "Our Sex Trafficking Plan." Instead, Ms. Giuffre seeks evidence of sex trafficking akin to the evidence that is publicly available, such as the flight logs Ms. Giuffre produced showing Defendant taking Ms. Giuffre on more than 20 trips with Jeffrey Epstein when she was a minor, and the message pads seized by the police that Ms. Giuffre produced wherein Defendant supplied Epstein with the names and numbers of underage girls. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 7, Flight Logs and Exhibit 8, message pads. Defendant was intimately involved in the day-to- day life of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, flying on his private planes over 360 times. Yet she has only produced two responsive documents in this case. Ms. Giuffre is entitled to such discovery to prove her claim at issue in this case, and Defendant should not be allowed to refuse to produce critically relevant information. 7 EFTA01182875  Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 96 Filed 04/13/16 Page 11 of 15 Giuffre's counsel captured all of Ms. Giuffre's emails in order to collect that electronically stored information (ESI). Ms. Giuffre has made this collection in compliance with a standard ESI Protocol that was provided to Defendant, but that Defendant has refused to comply with. Courts have found this to be the best practice to ensure compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. Finally, Ms. Giuffre's counsel applied close to 200 broadly-drafted search terms to the collected ESI to locate documents that may be responsive to Defendant's far-reaching requests. Despite this, and despite attempting to have dialogue about collection procedures, Defendant has refused to discuss her questionable collection processes that yielded a mere two responsive documents. Defendant's response during the meet and confer was that she didn't believe this dialogue was "appropriate." Defendant's refusal necessitates a forensic review of her electronic data in order to ensure that Defendant is not wrongfully withholding discoverable material.5 Defendant has also declared that she regularly deletes documents. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 3, Defendant's Responses and Objections at ¶ 16. As the Court knows, once litigation is contemplated, a person is under a duty not to destroy electronic information. The duty to preserve arises, not when litigation is certain, but rather when it is "reasonably foreseeable." Byrnie v. Town of Cromwell, Bd. of Ethic., 243 F.3d 93, 107 (2d Cir. 2001); In re Vitamin C Antitrust Litig., No. 05 Civ. 453, 2013 WL 504257, at *9 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 8, 2013) ("[T]he law is clear that the obligation to preserve evidence arises when the party has notice that the evidence is relevant to litigation, and that this obligation may arise prior to the filing of a suit if the litigation is reasonably anticipated.") (quotations omitted). A forensic exam can recover certain types of "deleted" data, and it can show how and when certain data was "deleted" or "erased." $ Defendant claims that she contemplated filing a lawsuit back in 2011. Accordingly, at a minimum, she should have been retaining her electronic data from that date forward. 8 EFTA01182876  Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 96 Filed 04/13/16 Page 12 of 15 At the meet and confer, Ms. Giuffre sought again to have a dialogue about the discovery collection procedures as employed by Defendant, particularly since Defendant's search only yielded two documents. Defendant's counsel told Ms. Giuffre's counsel that it was not "appropriate" to disclose her document collection processes, and refused to provide any information regarding what type of search was done on Defendant's documents that, in fact, yielded a mere two responsive documents. What is the Defendant hiding? Defendant's claim - that discussion and/or negotiation of ESI collection procedures is "inappropriate" - is perplexing. The US District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) issued a Standing Order for certain types of cases that is instructive here as it addresses the discovery of electronically stored information, M10-468, In re: Pilot Project Regarding Case Management Techniquesfor Complex Civil Cases in the Southern District of New York. The M10-468 Order requires a Joint E-Discovery Submission, requiring the parties to address, prior to the preliminary conference, their (1) preservation obligations, (2) search and review protocols, and (3) sources of ESI production. Under this model order, the parties are required to discuss methods for search and review, including potential keyword searches, date restrictions, and whether backup files should be searched. See also The Sedona Principlesfor Electronic Document Production, Second Edition, 2007, at p ii: "Parties should confer early in discovery regarding the preservation and production of electronically stored information .. and seek to agree on the scope of each party's rights and responsibilities.". Given this authority, and given modern jurisprudence on the same, e.g., Stinson v. City of New York, No. 10 CIV. 4228 RWS, 2015 WL 4610422, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. July 23, 2015) (Sweet, J.), it is further shocking that Defendant refuses to have a dialogue about the procedures she has undertaken to collect electronic documents. 9 EFTA01182877  Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 96 Filed 04/13/16 Page 13 of 15 Again, Defendant refuses to disclose any information whatsoever about what was done to collect Defendant's documents, including her ESI, and has produced only two documents. The secrecy and near complete failure to produce necessitates a forensic review. Therefore, Ms. Giuffre requests expert forensic examination of Defendant's computers to perform the following: (1) Run basic search terms, including the names of the individuals in the discovery requests, to determine if Defendant properly searched her electronic data. (2) Determine the pattern and practice of deletion utilized by Defendant. (3) Determine whether Defendant ran any deletion programs on her computer, and the date they were run, including but not limited to, evidence of "wipes" of Defendant's hard drive. Specifically, Ms. Giuffre's counsel requests that the Court order a neutral, third party forensic examiner, who would be subject to the Protective Order, to perform a forensic examination of Defendant's computers as described above.6 See Genworth Fin. Wealth Mgmt., Inc. v. McMullan, 267 F.R.D. 443, 449 (D. Conn. 2010) ("grant[ing] the Plaintiffs motion to compel forensic imaging to be performed by a neutral court-appointed expert" under a confidentiality agreement). CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, Ms. Giuffre respectfully requests clarification that this Court's March 17, 2016, Ruling requires the production of documents concerning named individuals in Request Nos. I, 3, 4, 6, 17, 32, 37, and 38, documents concerning sex abuse and trafficking in Request Nos. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 33, and 39, and requests that the 6Alternatively, Ms. Giuffre seeks this Court to Order that Defendant image her computers, collect her email, and run negotiated search terms across the resultant data in order to identify responsive documents. Stinson v. City of New York, No. 10 CIV. 4228 RWS, 2015 WL 4610422, at •7 (S.D.N.Y. July 23, 2015) (Sweet, J.) (granting in part a motion to compel, holding "the Plaintiffs are entitled to all relevant and non-privileged documents within the ESI . [t]he parties shall meet and confer in order to set a search protocol ...." Stinson v. City of New York, No. 10 CIV. 4228 RWS, 2015 WL 4610422, at •7 (S.D.N.Y. July 23, 2015). 10 EFTA01182878  Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 96 Filed 04/13/16 Page 14 of 15 Court allow a neutral third party to conduct a forensic exam be completed upon Defendant's computers as detailed above. Dated: April 13, 2016 Respectfully Submitted, BOLES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP By: Is/ Sigrid McCawley Sigrid McCawley (Pro Hac Vice) Meredith Schultz (Pro Hac Vice) Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 (954) 356-0011 David Boies Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP 333 Main Street Armonk, NY 10504 11 EFTA01182879  Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 96 Filed 04/13/16 Page 15 of 15 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on April 13, 2016, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on the individuals identified below via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF. Laura A. Menninger, Esq. Jeffrey S. Pagliuca, Esq. HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN, P.C. 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 Tel: (303) 831-7364 Fax: (303) 832-2628 Email: Imenninger@hmflaw.com Email: ipaRiluca@hmflaw.com Is/ Sigrid S. McCawley Sigrid S. McCawley 12 EFTA01182880

EFTA00194822.pdf

DataSet-10 Unknown 18 pages

EPSTEIN BOX INVENTORY Box A: Redwell with different files for each Jane Doe I. Epstein case Cd's with Documents on 2nd Supplemental Privilege Log (2) and Bates Its 002111-002266 Redwell with printout of Documents in the 2" Supplemental Privilege Log 6001 Orders 6001 Immunity Request folder Jane Doe I. U.S. 6/23/15 production (redwell) with documents 2" Supplemental Privilege Log Box 4 2" Supplemental Privilege Log Letter 6-23-15 to Box B: Data Demonstratives Kirkland & Ellis LLP — 6 bound copies and 1 color copy Plea Negotiations (redwell) — folders: Non Prosecution Agreement — Final; Attorney Notes re Revised Indictment; Research re Boehm case; Research re possible misdemeanors; Notes re Plea Negotiations; Plea Agreement drafts; Draft Non Prosecution Agreements; Information Packet drafts (file folder) green file folder) Re: Epstein Corp. Records (green file folder) Non Pros Agrmt & Addendum (file folder) Mtg w/ Ken Starr, RAA, JS, Drew (file folder) Target Letter (file folder) Notes re Post Agreement Communications (file folder) file folder) 6/19/08 Submission to the DAG (file folder) 6/3/08nubmission to the DAG (file folder) 5/27/08 Submission to the DAG (file folder) 5/15/08 Ltr (file folder) EFTA00194822 Draft Itr frorato re termination (file folder) Redwell — Folders: 5/22/07 • 6/18/07 EL I I 6/25/07 no 7/6/07 7/25/07 a to 8/2/07 ; 8/3/07 • 9/17/0Sto ; 10/25/07 Itr to 11/8/07 to ; 11/13/07 ito (was this sent?); 11/28/0711 11/29/0 toM; 11/30/0 to • 12/4/0a to 12/5/0 to 12/6/07 • 12/7/0 tol ; 12/7/07 to 12/11/07 t. • 12/13/07aa 12/21/0 toM 12/26/07 to Redwell — Folders: 11/15/06 to ; 11/16/06 to ; 11/21/06 to ; 11/29/06 to ll ; 12/1/06 to l ; 1/5/07 to 1/8/07 to l l; 1/17/07 to l l; 1/18/07 to 1/22/07 to M; 1/23/07 to ; 2/1/07 to ; 2/5/07 to 2/12/07 toMM; 2/23/07 to Box C: White binder with correspondence filed by Janes Does with Court — clipped section of documents with notes White binder labeled Leap Year J Marra Issue with notes and opinion and filed documents Redwell labeled Telephone Charts with a post it saying Duplicate White binder with additional documents filed in Jane Doe case White binder with CVRA Research White binder labeled Duplicate Box D: Empty file folder Jane Does I. U.S. Standing/Ripeness Research & 6(e) & Due Process Confidentiality Research (redwell) Jane Does I. US Supplemental Briefing (redwell) Redwell with notes; transcript of 8/14/08 hearing in Jane Doe case (DE27); DE 99 Order; Westlaw research on Obstruction of Justice Charges can be based on false statements in state depositions, including Civil depo, if it is likely to be turned over to federal investigation; DE15-2 Exhibit A; "Prince's friendship with pedophile causes furor across the pond" 3/9/11 article from Palm Beach Post; additional notes; highlighted Federal Register notices; draft letter from to Captain David PBSO re Epstein's Work Release Application; CVRA research with notes and Westlaw printouts; CVRA Research (green file folder) EFTA00194823 Jane Does I. U.S. Misc (green file folder) Florida Bar (redwell) with Self Report folder and 9/16/08 Ltr to Box E: (green file folder) Motion to Quash (file folder) Motion to Quash Riley Subpoenas (red file folder) Stolen Globe - M. (red file folder) Cases (file folder) Research (green file folder) Westlaw case printouts Box F: Jane Does Litigation (redwell) with 2 email printouts, Sealed Document Tracking Form with Motion to Seal Opposition to Petitioner's Motion Requesting an Order Directing the Government to File Redacted Pleadings in the Public Court File, and Red File Folder with documents filed in Jane Doe case Jane Does 1 & 2 I. U.S. (redwell) with CD inside mailing from and original redacted documents from Clipped research with Attachment to Subpoena NES, LLC; article titled "Working for Top Bosses on Wall St. Has Its Perks" research; Jeffrey Epstein (file folder) Kastigar Letters (file folder) 2703 Motion & Order-Cingular (red file folder) Grand Jury Transcripts (redwell) with folders for Transcript 2/6/07; Transcript 2/27/07; Transcript 3/20/07; Transcript 4/24/07; Transcript 4/24/07; Transcript 5/8/07; Transcript 5/8/07; Transcript 5/15/07; Transcript 5/22/07; Transcript 3/18/08; Transcript 4/29/08 Pros Memo (file folder) labeled Duplicate Proposed Jury Instructions for Violations of 18 USC 2423(b) [Travel in Interstate or Foreign Commerce to Engage in Illicit Sexual Conduct] Pages 1-6 (of 7 pages) of Non-Prosecution Agreement with highlighted portions EFTA00194824  file folder with 6/23/08 letter from (DAG) to and =; 11/2/2010 Privileged Communication letter re Litigation Hold; clipped Non-Prosecution Agreement Doe (..) I. Epstein, 08-80893-CV-KAM (red file folder) Box II: (labeled GJ Presentation Materials) Federal Criminal Code and Rules 2006 Edition with multiple post-its File folder with Testimony 5/8/07; Testimony 4/24/07; Testimony 5/8/07; Testimony 2/6/07; 2/27/07 (post it says All About_); Testimony 4/24/07; Testimony 5/15/07; Testimony 3/20/07; Testimony 5/22/07 US Attorneys' Bulletin: Crafting Helpful Indictments Box H: Green file folder with Grand Jury Subpoena Log — Operation Stolen Globe 12/19/07 letter with post it — to be produced after stay is lifted Op Stolen Globe (redwell) 4/29/2008 Grand Jury Presentation for Operation Leap Year with Indictment cd Jane Does I. U.S. Bates Nos 000670-002110 cd Jane Does I. U.S. 0001-1652 cd Orange Composition notebook with notes Redwell with documents provided to on cd (000670-002110) Redwell with correspondence between Epstein's attorney's and USAO 10/21/2009 letter to from 12/9/2009 Ltr re Complaints (green file folder) Epstein redwell with correspondence Printout of arrest Yellow Notepad with notes Enforcing Victim's Rights —April 26, 2012 Index of Victim Notification Letters EFTA00194825 CD — 3 calls Alfredo Rodriguez and FBI UCE 10.29.09 CD — Call Alfredo Rodriguez and CW 10.28.09 CD — Call Alfredo Rodriguez and FBI UCE 11.2.09 CD — Call Alfredo Rodriguez and FBI UCE 11.3.09 CD — Meet Alfredo Rodriguez and FBI UCE Audio 11.3.09 CD — Meet Alfredo Rodriguez and FBI UCE Audio and Video 11.3.09 Box I: White binder with Victim information Witness/Victim Names Contact List (green file folder) Flight Manifests (file folder) Recent Atty Notes (file folder) file folder) Summary of Sexual Activity (file folder) White binder with Victim information — (15), (16) (17), (18), (19), Past Employees — Misc Witnesses Flight Manifests White Binder with Victim Information --1(1), (2), (3), (4), 1(5), (6), BM (8) White binder with victim call records Box 1: Redwell with no label — contains (front section) Email titled Fw: Epstein Letter; 5/15/2008 letter tom from handwritten list of victims; 2 copies of Privilege Log; (middle section) copies of privileged documents Jane Doe (redwell) — contains green file folder with Sealed Document Tracking Form with Government's Sealed Ex Parte Motion for Modification; Order and Motion to Seal Motion to Disclose Grand Jury Information; Sealed Document Tracking Form with Motion to Seal Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction; Sealed Order Granting Government's motion for Limited Disclosure of Grand Jury Material; Sealed Document Tracking Form with Motion to Seal Motion to Stay Discovery Pending Ruling Upon Respondent's Motion to Dismiss; printed stickers with "Privileged Documents Submitted Ex Parte By the United States for in Camera Review Pursuant to DE 190"; printed stickers with "Jane Doe #1 & EFTA00194826 Jane Doe #2I. United States, 08-80736-CV-Marra/Matthewman; DE 216 and DE 219 — Notice of Filing Supplemental Privilege Log; Notepad with notes; Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2's Appellee Brief (red cover); Florida Law Review from Daily Business Review Thursday, August 29, 2013; Printout of Opinion from In Re: Stake Center Locating, Inc.; DE 224; DE 225; DE 226; DE 230; email from to and Ed 'ME; Draft Respondent's Opposition to Petitioner's Motion to Compel Production of Documents that are not Privileged; printout of brief regardin Westlaw printouts Redwell with emails from 2007-2008 Box K: FBI Palm Beach County RA, Jeffrey E. Epstein, 31E-MM White binder with PBPD Reports Palm Beach Police/SAO Records Redwell with post it that says "This whole stack is for opposing counsel" — includes file folders Req for IMI.; Probably Cause Aff.; Req for Epstein Request for =; Incident Report; State Indictment Work Release Notification (green file folder) 12/11/08 Ltr to PBSO re work release ( file folder) 6/12/09 Breach Ltr file folder) — post it says Epstein Defense 3 (Kelly) 7/29/11 Letter to from regarding NPA being a confidential document Notice of Removal (DEtf1) in 08-CV-8084-KAM Jane Doe case Redwell with Epstein's Motion to Seal Non-Pros Agreement Epstein New York Case (Redwell) 12/10/10, 3/1/11, and 9/29/11 letters from MI. CD — Finished Work Box L: Redwell with Notes and Jeffrey Epstein deposition documents and cds Redwell with Breach Memo documents and documents filed by Final Contact (file folder) with Non Prosecution Agreement M. & M. Civil Complaints (green file folder) White binder with Westlaw cases CD — Epstein Files to FBI 3.8.2011 provided by CD — Epstein Depo of Jeffrey Epstein 2.17.2010 provided by (part 1) EFTA00194827 CD — Mt Epstein Depo of Jeffrey Epstein 2.17.2010 provided by (part 2) Box M: Redwell — Stolen Globe folder with draft indictment and documents from case; copies of phone number lists; copies of case law; green folder with attorney notes Operation Leap Year composition book with notes Yellow Interoffice envelope with image of 2 naked girls 02/14/02 - 03/07/02 2nd 30 days binder with tabs for individual women Redwell titled Indictment Packet Prep Materials — folders for victim list, key documents, attorney notes, and drafts Binder with Child Molesters: a Behavioral Analysis File folder: FBI E. Log File folder no name — includes September 17, 2009 letter to M= from (handwritten notes) File folder: Responses to Arguments from JE counsel File folder: Overt Act Lists File folder: Breach Memo File folder: 6/12/09 Victim Notif Log File folder: 6/9/09 Signed Indictment Pkg Binder — Motion to Quash Riley Subpoenas Redwell — (victims) Additional 302s Redwell — originals from 12/12/07 Indictment package Plea Agreement CD — Epstein Address Book Box N: Epstein — Docs provided by (redwell) Certified Copy of State of Florida I. Jeffrey Epstein Plea Conference transcript Correspondence: 6/27/2008 letter from to and regarding not receiving copy of proposed plea agreement; Palm Beach Post printout 9/4/2009 "Appeals court backs unsealing of EFTA00194828 Epstein's 07 deal with feds"; 6/27/2008 letter from to and regarding the plea agreement does not comply with the NPA; 7/17/2008 letter to from Grand Jury Log Vol. 2 Redwell — State Court Criminal Pleadings; State Motion to Unseal NPA; Supplemental Appendix to Palm Beach Newspapers, Inc. Response to Emergency Petition for Writ of Certiorari Redwell with Post DC Correspondence, Epstein Attorney's Fees Correspondence Redwell with Correspondence with Victims Correspondence Box O: White Binder — Operation Leap Year Response to Motion to Quash Research CDs: 4/24/2007 Interview; PBPD U6-1078 Interview with=, PBPD 061078 Interview with = sr= Cassette tapes: Interview with= #2; PBPD Voicemail from PBPD Voicemail PBPD Conversation with • PBPD Statement of PBPD Follow-up phone call with VHS: PBPD Interview of Interview w Interview w/MM,=; Interview w/ Interview w/ Statement of & Private Island Helicopter Box of Cassette tapes: Statement of IM; Statement Statement of , Voicemail message C work; Statement ca, Box of cassette tapes: Statement of Control call Saise; Conversation of — drive to station; Statement ca, • Phone call w/ Statement Statement of MM, • Statement of NM • empty case Box P. Settlement Negotiations & Settlement Statements redwell) including 5/16/2016 Settlement Conference Summary letter to Honorable Dave. Brannon from ; Confidential Memorandum on Behalf of Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2 Regarding Mediation; printout of docket for 08-CV- 80736; printout of Crime Victims' Services for Attorney General Pam Bondi Empty file folder SORNA and Victims' Services Info Clean Copies of Agreement without App D & E (file folder) EFTA00194829 Relevant Privileged Docs ( redwell) — 2 copies clipped with Bates Numbers P-003713-P-003746; P- 008516; P-009105-P-009111; P-012624-P-012642; P-012646; P-014011-P-014025; P-014059-P-014061; P-014440; P-014444; P-014521-P-014522; P-014559-P-014562; P-014569-P-014573; P-014666-P- 014693; P-014712-P-014716; P-014866-P-014883 Privilege Logs ( redwell) — all privilege logs clipped together Jane Does Intervenors at Mediation (file folder) — includes notes and Westlaw printouts Victim List (file folder) — includes 7/10/2008 Final Notification of Identified Victims Victim List (file folder) — includes 7/5/2016 letter to Wells Fargo, 6/16/2016 email from to and 7/10/2008 Notification of Identified Victims to MI Declarations (file folder) — includes 3 printouts of Declaration of A. in Suppport of United States' Response to Victim's Emergency Petition for Enforcement of Crime Victim Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. 3771 Yellow envelope from to with Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2's Supplemental Request for Production to the Government Regarding "Victim" Status Jane Doe case (Redwell) — includes Draft letters and settlement agreements, Jane Doe Mediation (file folder), and Jane Does Settlement Agreement and Apology Letter (file folder) Jane Doe Document Production (redwell) — includes 3 cds, and documents Order Closing Case & Timeline (file folder) Jane Does — Writ Ad Test (file fodler) includes Westlaw printout of U.S.'. Louis Rinchack Box Q: 6/2/2017 Declaration ( redwell) Second Declaration o (file folder) Jane Doe I. U.S. Summary Judgment prep redwell) — light green file folder with notes, bright green file folder with notes and documents, and rubber-banded exhibits Motion to Disclose Grand Jury Material ( redwell) — with Copy of Motion, light green file folder with signed sealed Orders, and light green file folder with Exhibits to Motion to Unseal Grand Jury Materials White binder with Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2's Consolidated Statement of Undisputed Material Facts and Motion for Partial Summary Judgment with Incorporated Memorandum of Law Box R: re Subpoenas (file folder) EFTA00194830 File folders for individual subpoenas: M-01through M-81 Ritz Compact Flash SW (file folder) PNY Technologies Compact Flash SW (flash drive) JE Corporations (green file folder) Capital One (green file folder) DTG Operations/Dollar Rent-a-Car (green file folder) JP Morgan Chase (green file folder) Washington Mutual (green file folder) Redwell with folders — Computer Search; Attorney Notes from Doc Review; Notes from FedEx Records Colonial Bank Records (redwell) with folders: JEGE, Inc.; NES, LLC Epstein Corporate Records M-51,1.1-52, M-53,M-54 (red folder) Colonial Bank (green file folder) JEGE & Hyperion from M-46 & M-47 (file folder) Box 5: Research re JE websites (file folder) Victim Civil Suits (file folder) (NY AUSA) - (file folder) (file folder) Interview (file folder) Research re Travel for Prostitution (file folder) Transcript (empty file folder) (green file folder) PBPD Investigative File (redwell) (redwell) FedEx (file folder) subpoena response with Certification Documents 53909-004 (green file folder) State of Delaware records (file folder) Jet Blue records (file folder) EFTA00194831 FL Employment Recs (file folder) (green file folder) Records (green file folder) (file folder) Bear Sterns Research (file folder) Lawsuits involving Epstein Corps (file folder) New York Trip (file folder) (green file folder) SEC records (green file folder) Message Pads (file folder) (green file folder) Redwell with= Statement (file folder), (green file folder) and Info Re Planes (green file folder) Police Reports & PC Affidavit (file folder) Subpoena Response (file folder) Transcript of Interview and al Transcript (file folder) 2006R01181 Operation Leap Year Criminal Complaint folder with Expert Witness Forms (green file folder) and asset forfeiture folder Extra Copies (green file folder) Box T: (labeled Legal Research) Epstein Redwell — folders titled: 1591 & Money Laundering; 18 USC 2425; Knowledge of Age; 2423(b) Constitutionality and Purpose of Travel; Immunity; Mistake not a defense; Research re "pandering"; Research re Grand Jury Instructions; Telephone=Facility of Commerce; Def of Prostitution; Research re Crime Victims Rights; Relevant Florida Statutes; Unit of Prosecution Research Research re Grand Jury Transcript (file folder) 18 USC 2255 (file folder) Research re Grand Jury Transcript (file folder) Original proposed Ind (file folder) — includes original indictment Research re Overt Acts and Witness Testimony (green file folder) EFTA00194832 Extradition (green file folder) Corporate Liability Research (green file folder) Research re Knowledge of Age Unnecessary (file folder) 1960 & Aiding/Abetting (green file folder) Money Laundering (green file folder) Attorney General Guidelines for Victim and Witness Assistance May 2005 Purpose of Travel Cases (green file folder) Redwell with folders titled: Interstate Commerce Cases; Attorney Conflict Research; Mann Act/Travel to Have Sex with a Minor; Travel Act; Florida Prostitution/Lewdness Statutes Box U: Folder with notes subpoena (green file folder) Research re State Incarc (redwell) with Epstein's Motion to Return Property (file folder) and State Docket Sheets (file folder) Redwell with CD with nothing written on it (contains videos) and cd; Notes and Westlaw printouts Leap Year Filing (redwell) JE Work Release (file folder) Protective Order Samples (green file folder) Letter to FBI Research Victim and Articles Press Coverage re Work Release (green file folder) FOIA Requests (redwell) with Lewis- FOIA Request to FBI folder and Ltr to FBI Demanding Case File folder Docs from Civil Suits (file folder) SARS (file folder) Signed Protective Orders (file folder) Re Ethics Issue (file folder) Signed Protective Order (green file folder) Notice of Withdrawal of Motion to Quash (green file folder) EFTA00194833 Epstein press coverage; Research re Florida Procurement and Sentencing Guidelines; Operation Leap Year Revised Indictment Summary Chart (by Victim) Research re FL DOC Regs (file folder) Research re BOP Regs (file folder) Supervised Release Rules (green file folder) al Transcripts redwell with Transcript 3/20/07; Transcript 5/15/07; Transcript 5/22/07; Transcript 3/18/08 Redwell with Newspaper Articles and Press Coverage Box s: (labeled Phone Records) Redwell with phone records for (victim 5), (Victim 14), (Victim 9), Jane Doe #4, Jane Doe #12 Redwell Corrected Phone Records 5/13/07 phone records (file folder) Lists of Identified Phone Numbers (file folder) Redwell with Master Phone Records Redwell with Epstein; Phone Records Box W: Redwell with 8/3/2015 Doc Production Jane Doe I. U.S. Relevant Jane Doe I. U.S. Items (Redwell) — Reinhart review (file folder), Attorney General Guidelines for Victim and Witness Assistance May 2005, United States of America's Response to Petitioners' Request for Production, Items marked as removed as non-responsive 12-7-2007 draft Crime Victims' Rights — Notification of Resolution of Epstein Investigation with envelopes (redwell) Redwell with Items Produced to 7/19/2013 and cd copies (1 for and 1 for Judge) Redwell with Joint Statement of Undisputed Facts, Stipulation, and Intervenors' Motion for a Protective Confidentiality Order and Incorporated Memorandum of Law = binder with Doe case documents CDs: 2nd supplemental privilege log P-013970 thru P-014923; Epstein- ; Items from Supp Priv Log filed 7.26.13 P-013279 thru P-013969; pictures and summaries; Lit Hold; Lit Hold PST; Sealed yellow envelope to and A. from EFTA00194834 Redwell with Already Produced documents 2 yellow Note pads with notes Redwell with Copies of Victim Notification Letters Blue folder with Intervenor documents CD from redwell with 8/3/15 Doc Production Jane Doe I. US labeled: Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 I. US 08-80736-cv-Marra Items from 30 Suppl Priv Log P-014924 thru P-015267, 8.3.15 CDs from Binder with Doe Case Documents labeled: Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 . US 08-80736- cv-Marra Items from Suppl Priv Log Filed 7.26.13; Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 I. USA, 08-80736-cv- KAM Privileged Docs 7.19.2013; Jane Doe I. Us 08-80736-cv-Marra Items from 2nd Suppl Priv Log Filed 6.23.15 Box X: West's Florida Statutes Annotated Sections 934.08 to 944.29 Book White binder with tax returns Epstein State Court File (redwell) with PBSO Inmate Rules and Work Release Regulations PTD Research (redwell) Supreme Court case The Florida Bar vs. Box Y: Box (unlabeled by it): -- found when she was packing to leave 6(e) application and Order Sealed in Red Interoffice envelope Attorney General Guidelines for Victim and Witness Assistance 2000 Book 11 additional books re statutes and victims with notes Box Z: OPR Prep Box 1 4-29-08 Grand Jury Presentation package 5-15-08 Oosterbaan letter 5-27-08 submission to DAG 6-19-08 I= submission to DAG 6-24-08=. email to 7-09-08 Victim Notification letters EFTA00194835 8-15-08aMemail re agreement 9-17-08 Letter to , =, re PB Daily News 11-24-08 Letter to = re Breach Breach memo Doe I. Epstein Motion Transcript Information Meeting Timeline Non Prosecution Agreement M al Log Volume 2 OPR Prep Mail & Communication Volume 1 OPR Prep Mail & Communication Volume 2 PBSO DOC information Plea Agreement Victim letters Westlaw research Box AA: OPR Prep Box 2 6-25-08 Victim Notification 6-27-08 Letter to = and 7-22-0a email 8-05-08 email re correct agreement 9-17-09 Letter to Emails Red folder Redacted Three document agreement Timeline summary with draft responses to OPR Westlaw Florida Statute — Prostitution EFTA00194836 Box BB: OPR Prep Box 3 OPR Response Exhibits 1-23-07 to letter 2-5-07 to letter 2-23-07 to letter 3-18-08 al Testimony Transcript 6-3-08 letter to DAG 6-25-08 Victim Notification letters 6-27-08 Letter to = and 7-22-08 email 8-05-08 email re correct agreement 9-17-09 Letter to I= 10-25-07 letter to 11-8-07 letter to 11-13-07 letter to 11-28-07 = letter to Attorney General 11-28-07 = letter to 11-30-07 letter to 12-4-07 letter to 12-5-07 = letter to 12-6-07 letter to 12-7-07 letter to 12-7-07 = letter to 12-11-07 =, & letter to 12-21-07 letter to 12-26-07 letter to 2007 FL Statute 921 BOP Designations Box notes EFTA00194837 Crime Victim Rights Duplicate victim letters Emails re plea negotiations Emails Internal correspondence Key Correspondence Money Laundering Post NPA Timeline Red folder Redacted Three document agreement Subpoena M-24 Timeline summary Victim Notification Index Westlaw FL Statute Prostitution Westlaw Grady I. FL Westlaw Kobel'. FL Westlaw McCann I. FL Westlaw Petty I. FL Box CC: White Box 1 Redwell with Misc Notes (green folder), Yellow notepad with notes, Case Docket with Westlaw cases Redwell with Victims' Rights Suit with Suppl Decl Original folder, Filed-Stamped Response and Declaration folder, Possible Exhibits for Decl Folder, Internal = re Suit folder Red folder Jane Does I. United States 08-80736-CIV-MARRA Redwell with IM re Victims' Rights Suit with Signed Protective Order folder, Non Prosecution Argreement folder, Addendum to Non-Pros Agrmt folder, 8/1/08 Ltr to M folder, 8/15/08 e-mail to M & folder, 9/3/08 Itr to folder Folder with Victims' Rights Action documents Redwell with with 9/3/08 Ltr to folder, 9/15/08 Ltr to El folder, CVs from folder, Signed Protective Orders folder EFTA00194838 Box DD: White Box 2 Redwell Final Agreements with Agrmts Filed in State Court folder, 12/19/07 Ltr folder Loose Papers: Flight Manifest 11/26/08 email M= to , 7/3/08 email to 12/6/07 Letter to a 12/6/07 Draft Victim Notification Letter, 12.6.07 two Fax Cover Sheets, 6/25/07 Letter to and Handwritten Notes Most recent Indictments & Good Cases folder FBI Summary Charts folder Folder with Revised Indictment Summary Chart, Indictment, Subpoena Response Chart, and Flight Manifest Red Folder IM Grand Jury Log M-01 Through -50 Redwell with Yellow Notepad, al Presentation Outline, Indictment Packet, and Victim List Immunity Request folder Redwell with /Jane Doe #4 folder, -./Jane Doe #5 folder, /lane Doe #6 folder, /lane Doe #7 folder, "lane Doe #8 folder Green folder Certified Copy of State Case File Meeting Timeline folder Redwell with ./Jane Doe #9 folder, ./Jane Doe #13 folder, -./Jane Doe #12 folder, "a"M folder, folder Redwell with /Jane Doe #1 folder, /Jane Doe #2 folder, ./Jane Doe #3 folder EFTA00194839

EFTA00750938.pdf

DataSet-10 Unknown 31 pages

00001 1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA 2 3 4 5 Plaintiff, 6 vs. Case No. 502008CA028058 7 XXXXMB AD JEFFREY EPSTEIN, a Defendant. 9 10 11 PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE 12 HONORABLE JUDGE DONALD W. HAFELE 13 14 July 31, 2009 8:30 a.m. - 9:05 a.m. 15 16 205 N. Dixie Highway 17 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 , court reporter 25 EFTA00750938 00002 1 APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL 2 3 On behalf of the Plaintiff: 4 ROTHSTEIN, ROSENFELDT & ADLER BY: WILLIAM J. BERGER, ESQ., 5 Mizner Park Office Tower Suite 675 6 225 NE Mizner Boulevard Boca Raton FL 33432 7 8 ROTHSTEIN, ROSENFELDT & ADLER 9 BY: BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, ESQ., 401 East Las Olas Boulevard 10 Suite 1650 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394 11 12 13 On behalf of the Defendant: 14 BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN BY: ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ., 15 515 North Flagler Drive Suite 400 16 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 EFTA00750939 00003 1 Proceedings in the Matter of vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN. 2 July 31, 2009 8:30 3 THE COURT: Good morning, gentlemen. 4 We're here this morning on the Plaintiff's 5 motions to add punitive damages. Who will be 6 arguing on behalf of the Plaintiff? 7 MR. EDWARDS: Brad Edwards, Your Honor. 8 THE COURT: Alright, Mr. Edwards. 9 MR. EDWARDS: Do I need to go to the 10 podium or is right here fine? 11 THE COURT: Whichever you prefer. 12 MR. EDWARDS: Your Honor, with our motion 13 we filed - and, I believe, Your Honor has it - 14 the discovery that was submitted to Mr. Epstein, 15 which consists of Requests for Admissions, 16 Requests for Production, Interrogatories, as 17 well as Interrogatory responses under oath by my 18 client. 19 THE COURT: Do you have any cases that 20 speak to the presumption relative to the 21 Defendant exercising his Fifth and Sixth 22 Amendment rights during the deposition testimony 23 and/or during any other discovery? 24 MR. EDWARDS: Sure, Your Honor. 25 THE COURT: I know that Mr. Critton in his EFTA00750940 00004 1 reply memorandum indicated some conflict in 2 terms of the nature of the discussions of the 3 appellate courts relative to that issue. 4 MR. EDWARDS: May I approach? 5 THE COURT: Thank you. 6 MR. EDWARDS: I'm going to present the 7 case of Fraser vs. Security and Investment out 8 of the Fourth DCA. 9 The pertinent part, it says: "Our 10 conclusion is consistent with the prevailing 11 rule that the Fifth Amendment does not forbid 12 adverse inferences against parties to civil 13 actions when they refuse to testify in response 14 to probative evidence offered against them: the 15 amendment 'does not preclude the inference where 16 the privilege is claimed by a party to a civil 17 cause.'" 18 It skips down and says: "Such a rule is 19 both logical and utilitarian. A party may not 20 trample upon the rights of others and then 21 escape the consequences by invoking a 22 constitutional privilege - at least not in a 23 civil setting." 24 The final paragraph on that page says: 25 "Nor are we persuaded that the fact of EFTA00750941 00005 1 invocation of the privilege is irrelevant and 2 immaterial." "In the case" -- Sorry, "Mr. 3 Justice Brandeis... observed that 'Silence is 4 often evidence of the most persuasive 5 character.'" 6 Clearly, this case, out of our district 7 court, is an indication that adverse inferences 8 may be drawn. 9 Right now we are at a punitive damages 10 stage. We are not at a stage where we are 11 talking about the admissibility of evidence. We 12 are -- 13 THE COURT: Speaking only of a proffer to 14 establish punitive damages as required under 15 768.721, correct? 16 MR. EDWARDS: Exactly, and I was going to, 17 for the record, read that part of 768.721: "In 18 a civil action, there is a" -- 19 THE COURT: I think we can skip that. 20 MR. EDWARDS: Okay. 21 THE COURT: The statute speaks for itself 22 and it's a part of the record today, so why 23 don't you go ahead and proceed? 24 MR. EDWARDS: The reasonable showing, by 25 way of proffer, that there is an intentional EFTA00750942 00006 1 misconduct or gross negligence on behalf of the 2 Defendant. 3 Intentional misconduct is defined as "the 4 Defendant had actual knowledge of the wrong 5 permissible conduct and the high probability 6 that injury or damage to the claimant would 7 result and, despite that knowledge, 8 intentionally pursued that course of conduct 9 resulting in injury or damage." 10 In this case, we have intentional 11 misconduct of the worse kind. This is a case 12 that has been presented to the public through 13 public relations •eo•le for the Defendant at 14 times as 15 16 and that's not 17 the case at all. 18 What the evidence is really going to show 19 is that Mr. Epstein - at least dating back as 20 far as our investigation and resources have 21 permitted, back to 1997 or '98 - has every 22 single day of his life, made an attempt to 23 sexually abuse children. 24 We're not talking about five, we're not 25 talking about 20, we're not talking about 100, EFTA00750943 00007 1 we're not talking about 400, which, I believe, 2 is the number known to law enforcement, we are 3 talking about thousands of children, and it is 4 through a very intricate and complicated system 5 that he devised where he has as many as 20 6 people working underneath him that he is paying 7 well to schedule these appointments, to locate 8 these girls. 9 He particularly goes after a very 10 vulnerable and impressionable age group that -- 11 THE COURT: To use the quotation, "the 12 evidence will show the Defendant sought out 13 underprivileged and economically disadvantaged 14 minor females," and later go on to say, 15 "influenced them away from the typical 16 adolescent lifestyle as a result of his 17 allegedly criminal acts." 18 MR. EDWARDS: And that is exactly what 19 he's done. The age group begins as young as 20 12 years old and as old as 16 years old. There 21 will be evidence that at 16 years old, many of 22 the girls are told, "You're getting too old for 23 me." 24 He very clearly targets this specific age 25 group and has a method to this; that is, "Get EFTA00750944 00008 1 the girls inside the house and I will do the 2 rest," and he creates this God-like aura for 3 these girls and -- 4 THE COURT: Let's talk about - pardon me 5 for interrupting you - let's talk about the 6 precise claim hat are being made here. You're 7 dealing with and l'i. - they're pseudonyms 8 for purposes o t is litigation. Why don't we 9 speak to those two individuals at this juncture 10 and how the punitive damage proffer is 11 sufficient or insufficient relative to them 12 individually, please? 13 I understand the global allegations and I 14 understand the allegedly wide scale situation 15 that you're suggesting as you've alleged here, 16 but I want to go now to the precise claims made 17 by these two Plaintiffs who are in front of the 18 Court today, and whether or not that proffer is 19 sufficient to satisfy the case law, including 20 the case that Mr. Critton cited, and that is: 21 The Estate of Despain, D-E-S-P-A-I-N, vs. Avante 22 Group, Inc., which is found at 900 So.2d. 637, 23 and that was a Fifth District Court of Appeal 24 case, decided in 2005. 25 MR. EDWARDS: Yes, Your Honor, and that is EFTA00750945 00009 1 the case that states: "a 'proffer' according to 2 traditional notions of the term, connotes merely 3 an 'offer' of evidence and neither the term 4 standing alone nor the statute itself calls for 5 an adjudication of the underlying veracity...is 6 merely a representation of what evidence the 7 defendant proposes to present." 8 We can turn to the sworn Interrogatory 9 answers, No. 8, wherein III. and, similarly, 10 , in slightly different words, states: "I 11 was touched, battered, and fondled by Defendant 12 Jeffrey Epstein during the incidents described 13 in the complaint. I observed the Defendant 14 touch and fondle himself. I observed the 15 Defendant ejaculate numerous times. I was made 16 to touch the Defendant. I also observed sexual 17 acts and had sexual acts perpetrated on me by 18 Defendant Jeffrey Epstein. At various times I 19 was unclothed, as was the Defendant and others. 20 At all times material, I was a child under the 21 age of 18 years old. The Defendant also used me 22 to bring him other minor girls and he controlled 23 and brainwashed me" -- 24 THE COURT: Just a second. 25 (Telephone interruption.) EFTA00750946 00010 1 MR. EDWARDS: -- "and brainwashed me into 2 believing this lifestyle was healthy and normal 3 for a girl my age. I was a victim of various 4 criminal acts and sexual exploitation. I was 5 induced and coerced by Defendant into acts of 6 prostitution." 7 While we're on the coercion and 8 prostitution, there is a specific -- 9 THE COURT: Before you move on, that's 10 III-'s -- 11 MR. EDWARDS: Yes, Your Honor 12 THE COURT: -- Answer to Int ries? 13 Why don't you read into the record Answer 14 to Interrogatories so the record is clear? 15 MR. EDWARDS: I apologize, Your Honor. 16 THE COURT: Take your time. 17 MR EDWARDS: Answer to Interrogatory No. 18 8 for M indicates: "My injuries are 19 emotional and psychological and are the direct 20 result of Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's actions. 21 I was touched, battered, and fondled by the 22 Defendant during the incidents described in the 23 complaints. I observed the Defendant touch and 24 fondle himself. I observed the Defendant 25 ejaculate numerous times. I was made to touch EFTA00750947 00011 1 the Defendant. I also observed sexual acts and 2 had sexual acts perpetrated on me and was forced 3 to perform on me, including oral sex and other 4 activities. At various times I was unclothed, 5 as was Defendant and others. At all times 6 material, I was a child under the age of 7 18 years. I was a victim of various criminal 8 acts and sexual exploitation. I was induced and 9 coerced by the Defendant into acts of 10 prostitution." 11 THE COURT: Thank you. You were going to 12 speak to a legal point -- 13 MR. EDWARDS: Right. 14 THE COURT: -- before I asked you to read 15 into the record those Interrogatory answers. Go 16 ahead. 17 MR. EDWARDS: Where we left off was the 18 coercion into prostitution. What makes these 19 crimes so egregious is the fact that these girls 20 that we're talking about were all beginning 21 their grooming process with Mr. Epstein when 22 they're 14 and 15 and 16 years old. 23 There is a specific statute, which we have 24 filed, and a cause of action under our 25 complaint, that is under 796.09, Coercion, civil EFTA00750948 00012 1 cause of action. 2 Reading 796.09, Paragraph 1: "A person 3 has a cause of action for compensatory and 4 punitive damages" - this is in the statute - 5 "against a person who coerced them into 6 prostitution," and it goes on to define what 7 coercion means, and it is exactly what happened 8 in this case. 9 This statute allows for punitive damages 10 on a statutory level irrespective of the age of 11 the person that is coerced into prostitution. 12 THE COURT: And the coercion that you're 13 talking about are the alleged acts as between 14 these two Plaintiffs and Mr. Epstein as opposed 15 to, I think, there's something in one of the 16 Interrogatories that suggests that there may 17 have been prostitution that followed, at least 18 one of the Plaintiff's, involvement with Mr. 19 Epstein, but you're speaking solely about the 20 prostitution issues as it concerns the 21 Plaintiffs here and Epstein; is that accurate? 22 MR. EDWARDS: I believe, if I understand 23 what you are saying, I mean, in terms of 24 damages, if one of the Plaintiffs - and I can 25 represent - if one of the Plaintiffs was led EFTA00750949 00013 1 into a life of prostitution after being 2 indoctrinated into this deviant lifestyle at an 3 early age by Mr. Epstein - she was not a 4 prostitute prior to that - and I relate that 5 similar to kids of that age being brought over 6 to somebody's house that is as powerful and 7 wealthy as him and he has, let's say, cocaine on 8 the table, and they do that for three years. 9 They think it's fun at the time, but after that 10 they have this addiction that continues on. 11 This is something similar to what happened to 12 one of the clients. 13 But, yes, the coercion into prostitution 14 is something that on a statutory level already 15 allows for punitive damages, and that's 16 irrespective of the age. 17 THE COURT: Again, I'm trying to 18 understand the factual basis. There's 19 allegations that Mr. Epstein paid these young 20 ladies $200 to massage him and then subsequent 21 thereto, there was some type of alleged sexual 22 activity. Are you speaking to that specifically 23 when you're talking about the statutory remedy 24 or are you speaking about something distinct 25 from that? EFTA00750950 00014 1 MR. EDWARDS: No, that's specifically what 2 I am talking about -- 3 THE COURT: Okay. 4 MR. EDWARDS: -- Mr. Epstein paying them 5 and using their age, their economic - their lack 6 of wealth - the fact that these are poor, 7 disadvantaged children with very little parental 8 guidance to his advantage to induce them into 9 acts of prostitution. 10 THE COURT: I'll give you two minutes to 11 wrap up, please. 12 MR. EDWARDS: Okay. 13 Your liiii, while I know that we are 14 focusing on and III., there are certain 15 defenses that have been made such as, "The girls 16 were" - "we didn't know that they were over 18, 17 otherwise we wouldn't have done this," where we 18 are going to be able to show there are hundreds 19 and hundreds and hundreds of girls and none of 20 them were over the age of 18. 21 Many of these girls, including my clients, 22 told him that they were under the age of 18 and 23 he continued to do this misconduct, which is 24 exactly what the statute or what the punitive 25 damages statute speaks to when it talks about EFTA00750951 00015 1 intentional misconduct and/or gross negligence. 2 I think the record is very clear at this 3 point, especially after this proffer, that if 4 any case is deservant of punitive damages being 5 added, it's this one. 6 THE COURT: Alright. Thank you. I'll 7 give you a couple minutes to wrap up after Mr. 8 Critton finishes his argument. 9 MR. EDWARDS: Thank you, Your Honor. 10 THE COURT: Thank you. 11 MR. CRITTON: May it please the Court. As 12 the Court knows, I represent Mr. Epstein in this 13 matter. 14 Your Honor, a couple of things to start - 15 the case that Mr. Edwards cites deals with 16 inferences, deals with inferences at trial time 17 as distinct from inferences that, I believe, are 18 sufficient to carry the day, so-to-speak, in the 19 absence of other evidence with Mr. Epstein's 20 claim of Fifth Amendment privilege. As well, we 21 cited to the court cases - and I'll get to in 22 just a minute - that specifically address that 23 issue. 24 Secondly, we're not here on - and I think 25 the Court, I think, I kind of at least got the EFTA00750952 00016 1 drift is we're not here on other claims - we're 2 here on and §§§.'s claim today to add 3 punitive damages and, in fact, "Do they meet the 4 standard under the applicable statute in this 5 instance?" 6 What I think is the most striking part 7 about this - and while I believe that the 8 evidence may be - their perception, the 9 Plaintiffs' perception of the evidence - may be 10 different than ourselves, but I think the 11 evidence in this case will show, at least III. 12 and , were prostitutes before they ever met 13 Mr. Epstein, they remain prostitutes, and they 14 are still prostitutes today. 15 THE COURT: But is my role today one of 16 weighing the evidence or one of determining 17 whether or not there's a sufficient record in 18 order to allow a punitive damage claim to stand? 19 I mean, in one of the cases, I believe - 20 it's the case of State of Wisconsin Investment 21 Board vs. Plantation Square Associates, that's 22 found at 761 F.Supp 1569 - Judge Bugler 23 (phonetic) of the federal court provided an 24 excellent discussion of the distinction between 25 the proofs necessary to sustain a claim for EFTA00750953 00017 1 punitive damages even at summary judgment, much 2 less a trial, and compared that with the 3 relatively lighter burden of simply making a 4 proffer of record evidence to support a claim 5 for punitive damages. 6 MR. CRITTON: Right. 7 THE COURT: Aren't we at that stage; that 8 is, the latter stage right now? 9 MR. CRITTON: Yes, and I very well 10 understand the distinction and, I believe, I 11 understand what the Court's role is in this 12 particular instance in making that 13 determination. 14 A couple of the issues though, in 15 particular - with a camera here today, for some 16 unknown reason, showing up at this hearing - is 17 there were references to drugs, alcohol, other 18 instances that are not applicable to this case. 19 There's no pleadings on that particular issue, 20 and I'm concerned about that, is that there's an 21 attempt to jack this up in the media, as I said, 22 with the camera here today, for no other 23 hearing. It's ridiculous under the 24 circumstances, and to make all of these wild 25 allegations against Mr. Epstein for which there EFTA00750954 00018 1 is absolutely no evidentiary proof nor was that 2 submitted here in support of their proffer, I 3 did want to address at that. 4 So let me get to the heart of the issue. 5 I think the most distinguishing part of this 6 particular case that's different; that is, §§§. 7 and , is the fact that l'i. gave a sworn 8 statement to the FBI in this instance. 9 Again, there's a strong distinction. She 10 gave a sworn statement back in '05 or in '06. 11 She had - Ili. did - she had an attorney, Mr. 12 Eisenberg, it was before she had a civil lawyer 13 who's seeking millions of dollars under these 14 circumstances, and the testimony of III. at that 15 time was very significant and it flies directly 16 in the face of her "sworn testimony" or her 17 "sworn interrogatories." 18 The Court had Mr. Edwards read in ff .'s 19 answer andlipillanswer to their 20 Interrogator es as to what allegedly occurred 21 with Mr. Epstein and, "Oh, surprise," they were 22 almost verbatim, word for word, as to what 23 allegedly happened. 24 But at the time of her sworn statement to 25 the FBI, III. said on 4/24/07 - again, it was an EFTA00750955 00019 1 FBI agent and a U.S. attorney that was there at 2 the time - and she talked about going over to 3 Mr. Epstein's house. She said, "I had a fake 4 ID." She was told to make certain that she was 5 18. She told Mr. Epstein she was 18, and she 6 said it was her understanding that all of the 7 other girls that she brought for this horrific 8 experience - she continued to bring other girls 9 and go herself on a number of occasions. 10 She said that she, herself -- On Page 8, 11 it asks, "Did she ever call you?" - and I assume 12 that was someone else - and she goes, "No. I 13 gave Jeffrey my number and, I said, you know, if 14 you want me to give you a massage again, 15 basically I'm more than anxious to come." 16 On Page 9, §§§. says, "I willingly took" - 17 "so I willingly, the first time, took off my top 18 when I gave him the massage and nothing more 19 than that." 20 She goes on to say in her testimony at 21 Page 10, her sworn statement, "I said, I told 22 Jeffrey, 'I heard that you like massages 23 topless.'" 24 "And he said 'Like, yeah.' He said, 'But 25 you don't have to do anything that you don't EFTA00750956 00020 1 feel comfortable with.'" 2 "And I said, 'Okay,' but I willingly took 3 it off" - this is III. at the time. This is her 4 sworn testimony. 5 At Page 17, the police officer or the FBI 6 agent says, "and when he turned over then did he 7 touch you at all or was he just" -- Her answer 8 was, "No, I did not touch him, he did not touch 9 me. He didn't even want..." and I assume to 10 "touch you." 11 She goes on to say, "He didn't want me to 12 touch him and he didn't touch me." 13 She goes on and on in this statement, 14 III., in the statement and she says, "We had 15 fun." 16 "It was positive," on Page 18. 17 On Page 19, "You know, I would wear 18 panties. Willingly one time, because we were 19 making jokes and everything, and willingly one 20 time, I had, yes, I was totally nude, but I was 21 fine with that." 22 She talks about within the statement the 23 other girls that she brought over. Again, she's 24 testified or she gives the Interrogatory answer 25 that this was outrageous to her, but, yet she EFTA00750957 00021 1 brought other girls to experience this. She 2 says - now that she has a civil lawyer seeking 3 money damages - now "it's a bad experience." 4 Now all of a sudden, "He touched me, he did 5 these things to me." 6 She references - at least, on Page 29 of 7 the statement Judge - there's a that's 8 ref ed. I would represent to be in 9 the comPitr int, and I think we established 10 that w en Mr. Berger and I were ariersa prior 11 motion to you. So she talks about on Page 12 29. 13 That's when she starts saying, she says, 14 he." meanin 15 16 Then on Page 30, "How old was 17 "She was 17." 18 Alright, so you have 12, 13, 14, 15, 16. 19 You have III. saying was 17 at the time. 20 "And what happened when came over?" 21 She said the same thing, "She went a few 22 times." 23 On Page 31, III. testified under oath to 24 the FBI and the United States attorney, "None of 25 my girls ever had a problem. And they'd call EFTA00750958 00022 1 me. They begged me, you know, for us to go to 2 Jeffrey's house because they loved Jeffrey. 3 Jeffrey is a respectful man, he really is. I 4 mean, he all thought we were of age, always, 5 that's what's so sad about it." 6 And she goes on, Page 36, and the FBI says 7 to her, "Now, when you were working for him, you 8 were going over to Jeffrey's house to give him 9 massages, did you have a boyfriend?" 10 "Yeah." 11 "And how did your boyfriend feel about 12 it?" 13 "He was" -- 1.0. says, "He was a jealous 14 little boy, but he didn't care, 'Bring home the 15 bacon,'" and the statement goes on and on, Your 16 Honor. I know you've had an opportunity read it 17 before and I reference again today. 18 There's clearly a distinction conflict 19 between III., now that she has a civil lawyer 20 and she wants money, versus at the time that she 21 didn't want money and she gave a statement under 22 oath to the FBI and the United States attorney's 23 office. 24 I recognize the Court's role in this. I 25 recognize the standard. I recognize that both EFTA00750959 00023 1 III. and in their Answers to 2 Interrogator es have made all sorts of, what we 3 believe in part, are baseless or in large part 4 baseless allegations, but we also have sworn 5 testimony of III. on this instance. 6 We don't have it of but we have §§§. 7 testifying about her own experience under oath: 8 That it was positive; that he never used force, 9 that she willingly did a number of times 10 including giving topless massages; that Mr. 11 Epstein never touched her; that she never 12 touched him inappropriately, all she did was 13 basically give him massages; that , in this 14 instance, as well as all the other girls that 15 she took, she spoke with them afterwards, they 16 begged to go back to Mr. Epstein's home, and 17 none of them, not one of them ever complained. 18 So there's a large chasm between what is 19 now being asserted in Answers to Interrogatories 20 and mere allegations in the complaint between 21 what the sworn testimony, at least ill., was 22 under the circumstances, as it relates to 23 herself and what she was told by and other 24 girls. 25 Thank you, Your Honor. EFTA00750960 00024 1 THE COURT: Thank you. 2 Mr. Edwards, I'll give you a couple 3 minutes here. 4 MR. EDWARDS: Your Honor, I want to 5 address the statement that was made by III. to 6 the FBI and how that even came about. This is a 7 girl who, at the time of the statement, was 8 fairly unaware of the investigation against Mr. 9 Epstein, who is now, as we know, a convicted sex 10 offender. 11 An attorney showed up to her house, paid 12 for by Mr. Epstein, to represent her despite - 13 and told her that, "For your role, you could 14 possibly be implicated in some wrongdoing." 15 MR. CRITTON: Your Honor, just -- 16 MR. EDWARDS: He represent -- 17 MR. CRITTON: -- note my objection. This 18 is complete hearsay here. He was aware of what 19 was filed. He didn't file any affidavits for 20 his client in opposition. I would object to any 21 of this. 22 THE COURT: Alright. I don't want to get 23 into any of the details. I don't think it's 24 necessary at this juncture, which probably leads 25 me to my question to you; that is: Is the EFTA00750961 00025 1 weighing of evidence appropriate at this 2 juncture? 3 MR. EDWARDS: No, Your Honor, I don't 4 believe that's the standard at this stage 5 anyway, and I don't think that Mr. Critton 6 believes that either. 7 Just so the record's clear, we had nothing 8 to do with the video camera being here, although 9 that was implied. I don't know who did. I 10 don't know if it was Mr. Critton, but it wasn't 11 me. 12 THE COURT: Dan is always welcome here. 13 MR. EDWARDS: It's perfectly fine, but I 14 don't like that being on the record, that it 15 looks like I did it when I didn't. 16 THE COURT: I understand. We have a 17 record here. The official record is being taken 18 down by our fine court reporter, so. 19 MR. EDWARDS: Either way, sounds like what 20 we just heard, that the reason that punitive 21 should not be allowed here is because these 22 14-year-old girls did this willingly. 23 We know that they're 14 years old, Mr. 24 Critton knows they were 14, 15 year olds. There 25 were message pads and scheduling books in EFTA00750962 00026 1 Epstein's possession indicating the dates, which 2 would show how old those girls were, and that's 3 evidence that will be presented in this case. 4 There are serious statutes to protect 5 these kids from this kind of conduct, and these 6 second and third degree felonies were committed 7 repeatedly against them, and this is a case 8 where, at least in a civil case, punitive 9 damages are warranted, Your Honor. 10 Thank you, Your Honor. 11 THE COURT: Thank you both. I'm going to 12 grant the motion. In conformance with and 13 following the Despain case, the Court indicates, 14 in following the analysis of Judge Hugler - and, 15 by the way, that analysis of Judge Hugler is 16 commented upon on a supportive basis by several 17 appellate courts - and in the Despain case under 18 headnote 7 and 8 on Page 642 it states: "a 19 'proffer' according to traditional notions of 20 the term, connotes merely an 'offer' of evidence 21 and neither the term standing alone nor the 22 statute itself calls for an adjudication of the 23 underlying veracity of that which is submitted, 24 much less for countervailing evidentiary 25 submissions." EFTA00750963 00027 1 The Court finds that, while I appreciate 2 Mr. Critton's argument and while I appreciate 3 his submission, that essentially at this stage, 4 respectfully, he is, at this point, presenting 5 countervailing evidentiary submissions. 6 The Court further goes on in paraphrasing 7 and then directly quoting Judge Hugler: 8 "Therefore a proffer is merely a representation 9 of what evidence the defendant proposes to 10 present and is not actual evidence." Actually, 11 that's a quote from Grim vs. State, 841 So.2d. 12 455, 462, and that, I believe, is a Florida 13 Supreme Court case, even though the citation 14 itself is not complete. 15 It goes on to say importantly - and that 16 is in the Despain case - "A reasonable showing 17 by evidence in the record would typically 18 include depositions, interrogatories, and 19 requests for admissions that have been filed 20 with the court. Hence, an evidentiary hearing 21 where witnesses testify and evidence is offered 22 and scrutinized under the pertinent evidentiary 23 rules, as in a trial, is neither contemplated 24 nor mandated by the statute in order to 25 determine whether a reasonable basis has been EFTA00750964 00028 1 established to plead punitive damages," and I'll 2 admit this citation from the Fifth District 3 Court of Appeal, but, again, that is cited in 4 Despain. 5 Likewise, in Strasser vs. Yalamanchi, 677 6 So.2d. 22, which is a Florida Fourth District 7 Court of Appeal case from 1996, which is one of 8 the paradigm cases on the proffering of punitive 9 damage evidence, that states that "there was 10 reasonable basis for recovery of punitive 11 damages" can be demonstrated by either a 12 presentation of supporting evidence already in 13 the record or by a proffer of the evidence to 14 come. 15 I find that a combination of the Answers 16 to Interrogatories - I will take into account, 17 though, give little weight to the Fifth 18 Amendment arguments of Plaintiffs - but 19 certainly the Answers to Interrogatories on 20 behalf of both of these individual Plaintiffs in 21 this Court's view, and particularly in 22 conjunction with the Coercion statute relative 23 to prostitution, 796.09, would form a reasonable 24 basis to establish at least a claim for punitive 25 damages, recognizing that, again, the courts EFTA00750965 00029 1 have made clear that the proffer and the burden 2 on the moving party is much less than at summary 3 judgment or at trial, so I will allow the 4 amendments to proceed and, therefore, we do have 5 an amended complaint, so how much time will you 6 need, Mr. Critton, to respond? 7 MR. CRITTON: I just wrote to Mr. Berger 8 20 days I would like for both of them, if that's 9 agreeable with the Court. 10 THE COURT: Fine with me, as long as it's 11 fine with the Plaintiffs. 12 MR. BERGER: Yes, Your Honor. I drafted 13 an order and just showed it to Mr. Critton. It 14 just says: "Granted for reasons stated on the 15 record. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint 16 to allege a count for battery" - which is also 17 part of our motion, which was unopposed - "and 18 punitive damages. The defense shall have 20 19 days to respond." 20 THE COURT: I believe you already filed 21 the proposed amended complaint. 22 MR. EDWARDS: Yes, Your Honor. I filed it 23 with the motion. 24 MR. BERGER: I'll correct that. 25 THE COURT: You can indicate in there EFTA00750966 00030 1 MR. CRITTON: Deemed filed. 2 THE COURT: -- "the amended complaint 3 shall be deemed filed as of the date of this 4 order from today." 5 MR. BERGER: We'll draft it out there and 6 present it to the bailiff. 7 THE COURT: Not a problem. Thank you very 8 much. Gentlemen, thank you for your arguments 9 and your submissions and have a good rest of the 10 week. 11 MR. CRITTON: If they get it typed I'll 12 take a copy. 13 (The hearing concluded at 9:05 a.m.) 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 EFTA00750967 00031 1 CERTIFICATE 2 3 STATE OF FLORIDA ) 4 COUNTY OF BROWARD ) 5 6 7 I, Shorthand 8 Reporter, certify that I was authorized to and did 9 stenographically report the foregoing proceedings and 10 that the transcript is a true and complete record of 11 my stenographic notes. 12 13 Dated this 5th day of August, 2009. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 IIIPPIRWe 21 22 23 24 25 EFTA00750968

EFTA00269741.pdf

DataSet-10 Unknown 3 pages

FD-1057 (Rev. 5-8-(0) (Overall Document Classification Required) FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Electronic Communication Title: (U//FOUO) TO SET LEADS FOR CAPTIONED Date: 01/14/2019 INVESTIGATION. Approved By: Drafted By: Case ID #: 31E-MM-NEW (U) EPSTEIN, JEFFREY Details: Precedence: ROUTINE Date: 02/06/2008 To: New York Attn: SSA I Squad C-20 From: Miami PB-2/PBCRA Contact: SA E. Approved By: Drafted By: Kuyrkendall E Nesbitt:enk Case ID #: 31E-MM-108062 (Pending) Title: JEFFREY EPSTEIN; ; GHISLAINE N. MAXWELL; WSTA - CHILD PROSTITUTION Synopsis: To set leads for captioned investigation. Reference: 31E-MM-108062 Serial 125 Enclosure (s): Enclosed for New York is a copy of referenced serial, FD-302 of . Details: On 07/24/2006 the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Palm Beach County Resident Agency (PBCRA), began investigating Jeffrey Epstein, a part-time resident of Palm Beach, along with his personal assistants, and Ghislaine Maxwell. PBCRA obtained information from the City of Palm Beach Police Department (PBPD) that a fourteen- year-old girl who lives in , Florida, in the Southern District of Florida, and who attended High School, provided Epstein "sexual massages". The fourteen-year-old girl informed PBPD that she had been paid $300.00 by Jeffrey Epstein to perform a "sexual massage", which entailed providing a massage to Epstein while he was naked and the fourteen-year-old was wearing only her thong panties. During the massage, Epstein masturbated himself, digitally penetrated and used a vibrator/massager on the fourteen-year- old's vagina. Following the receipt of the case files from the PBPD, PBCRA began interviewing a series of girls, ranging in age from fourteen through mid to early twenties, who reported a similar series of events. In particular, the girls described how contact was made via telephone, primarily with , Epstein's assistant, to arrange times for the girls to "work" at Epstein's home in Palm Beach. The girls would travel to Epstein's residence, usually in the company of another girl. The girls would enter Epstein's home via the kitchen, where they would be met by Epstein and/or . The girls would be escorted up to Epstein's bedroom where a massage table was accessible. (Overall Document Classification Required) EFTA00269741  (Overall Document Classification Required) Title: (TE/FOUO) TO SET LEADS FOR CAPTIONED INVESTIGATION. Re: 31E-MM-NEW, 01/14/2019 The girls were told to undress - some undressed only partially and some undressed completely. Epstein would enter the room partially dressed, usually wearing only a towel. He would get onto the massage table face down. While lying face down, Epstein instructed the girl how to massage him. After a period of time when the girl massaged Epstein's back, he would turn over and lie face up. While lying face up, Epstein would continue to instruct the girl on how to conduct the massage. Epstein also would masturbate himself and, occasionally, manually fondle the vaginal area of the girl - sometimes over the panties, sometimes under the panties, and sometimes digitally penetrating the girl's vagina. On some instances, Epstein also used a vibrator or massager on the girl's vaginal area. When Epstein ejaculated, the "massage" was over. The girls received between $200 and $300 for the sexual massages. In addition to these sexual massages, some of the girls were paid additional sums to perform more sexual activity, for example, engaging in sexual activity with another female Epstein employee, , while Epstein watched. During the course of PBPD's investigation, a search warrant for Epstein's home was obtained and executed. Many of Epstein's belongings were removed from the home prior to the execution of the search warrant - for example, the computer processing units (CPUs) were removed from the house but the computer screens, keyboards, cords, etc. were left behind. The missing CPU's were never recovered. During the search, several telephone message pads were recovered. These message pads show messages taken from several of the girls who were interviewed and admitted to engaging in sexual massages or other sexual activity with Epstein. The messages contained text such as "I have a female for him" and "has girl for tonight." Some of the messages from the girls were addressed to Epstein and others were addressed to , Epstein's assistant. Additional messages recovered during the search contained text confirming appointment times. During the PBCRA's investigation, the girls related that would contact the girls while and Epstein were still in New York or elsewhere, in order to arrange "massage" times upon his arrival in Palm Beach. The PBCRA's investigation has collected the flight manifest for Epstein's two private planes during the period of January 2004 through December 2005 as well as cellular phone records for Epstein and his assistants. The investigation revealed that prior to the flights to Palm Beach, would contact some of the girls via cell phone. The massage pads show evidence that the girls responded to those telephone calls and in some instances appointment confirmations were left for Epstein. In addition to the home in Palm (Overall Document Classification Required) 2 EFTA00269742  (Overall Document Classification Required) Title: (U//FO0O) TO SET LEADS FOR CAPTIONED INVESTIGATION. Re: 31E-MM-NEW, 01/14/2019 Beach, Epstein also maintains residences in the U.S. Virgin Islands, New Mexico and his New York residence, 9 E. 71st Street, New York, NY 10021. Based on the ongoing criminal investigation, the PBCRA is requesting assistance in establishing Epstein's criminal activity utilizing interstate commerce and the travel in interstate commerce to engage in illicit sexual conduct and prostitution. On 10/05/2007, was telephonically interviewed. advised that she and additional minor females had participated in similar activity with Epstein in the New York area. Epstein utilized the same modus operandi which has been documented in multiple interviews of minor females in the Palm Beach, Florida area. Prior to conducting captioned leads, it is requested that the lead agent(s) contact SA for investigative direction and questions. LEAD(s): Set Lead 1: (Action) NEW YORK AT NEW YORK, NY Locate and interview DOB cellular telephone , Choicepoint database reflects her most recent address as . Determine from any additional minor females who may have interacted with captioned subjects. Set Lead 2: (Action) NEW YORK AT MASTIC, NY Locate and interview DOB telephone Choicepoint database reflects her most recent address as . Determine from III any additional minor females who may have interacted with captioned subjects. ** .• (Overall Document Classification Required) 3 EFTA00269743

EFTA00234705.pdf

DataSet-10 Unknown 5 pages

A E F G DOBIM VICTIM WITNESS P E. Jane al Jane Doe #4 Doe #5 1 WOG CCegti I , AGE AT FIRST 16 17 17 2 CONTACT 3 HIGH SCHOOL Ili Palm Beach HS Royal Palm Beach HS Royal Palm Beach HS BROUGHT BY R. EIMP. MI 4 . . DATES OF 4/25/2004 - 10/06/2005 Sometime between 11/12/2004 - 03/29/2005 CONTACT/ SOURCE SK Telephone 04/2004 - 07/2004 via FP SK Telephone & AH Telephones -Start 5 Date only. GIRLS RECRUITED ri Giselle H., E. N/A (20-21yoa) Paid $200.00 each by SK 6 NUMBER OF 3-4 times 3-4 times More than 10 MASSAGES 7 ENTICEMENT 8 Title 18 USC 2422(b) Interstate Commerce Telephone records Number unidentified SK Telephone Records Connection 9 . • . Phone calls with From SK - 60 Total From SK - 31 - Approx 100 (104) Total - Approx 70 10 Phone calls with 0 0 11 Phone calls with 2 Total - 7 12 • . Under 18 at time of YES - 16 YES - 17 YES - 17 sexual activity 13 . . Advised if asked to YES - R. YES - SV Advised state they were over Advised FP would make she would make $200.00, 18/Advised by $200.00, dress cute, wear something sexy and whom? might touch, say if 18 you if asked uncomfortable and JE 14 stop JANE Does 4 qfigi ri p 1 0C- 5 EFTA00234705  A E F G VICTIM WITNESS DOB Jane a Mar Jane Doe #4 Does 1 TpNCDOEgikIZ Knowledge or FP told JE she was a After a while, somebody During first massage JE Discussion of Age Junior at Royal Palm told him. asked FE how old she with JE? Beach High School. FP was, FE said 18. A told JE that she and VZ couple massages later, were good friends and JE and FE were went to same school and discussing if FE had any in same class. FP and JE plans for her birthday. JE discussed VZ b/c of girls said So you're going to be frdshp. (VZ said FP was eighteen? FE said yes worried b/c she had and laughed. They mentioned prom to JE.) continued on with massage. 15 Payment for YES/$200.00 YES/$300.00 max YES/$300.00 services?/Amount 16 Payment for .$200.00 per girl YES/FE stated $200.00 NO 17 recruitment Payments made by Epstein and Kellen Epstein Epstein 18 Taken upstairs by 19 Clothing worn Bra and Underwear 3rd time-Bra/Undwr Bra and Underwear during massage 4th time-Undwr also nude 20 _JANE bcCs41 Lifiqrlpy 2 or 5 EFTA00234706  A E F G VICTIM WITNESS P. DOB Jane a E Jane Doe #4 Doe #5 1 Sexual activity JE pulled FP bra down JE touched SV's bare JE grabbed FE's buttocks. and grabbed her breast. breasts and buttocks. JE FE massaged JE's chest He attempted to touch her touched SV's vagina over and JE masturbated vagina. He grabbed her her underwear. JE pulled under a towel. JE used a butt. Asked her to pinch SV close to him as he vibrator on FE and his chest while she masturbated. digitally penetrated FE's massaged him. vagina. JE performed oral sex on FE. JE and FE had intercourse on JE's bed. 21 Masturbation YES, made moaning YES YES noises while touching 22 himself. Ejaculation She believed he ' NO Uncertain, but guessing ejaculated. by his breathing, she 23 believed he did. Statements made by Asked her to take her JE offered SV $100.00 iWhy don't you take that Epstein clothes off. Told her she more just to take her shirt off. FE stated He would could make more money off. JE tried to talk to SV try to talk you into it. He if she would do more. just to make her did not force her. Told her she could make comfortable with the more money if she situation. "How much brought her pretty friends money do you make at You should know what to work, you could make expect when you come more with me." During here. Do you have sex the first massage, JE with your boyfriend? You asked SV to remove her don't like sex? clothes and she replied no. She also stated it was kind of weird that he asked me to take my clothes off. 24 bou-s 4,6 it i--7 pay 3 of 5 EFTA00234707  A E F G VICTIM WITNESS P. DOB Jane IMr E. Jane 1 Doe #4 _SW WE,* I Doe EAS Asked to bring YES/ Kellen and Epstein Unknown N/A others/By whom? 25 Gifts NO NO (SV knew AN was YES - Western Union - offered more money and 12/23/2004 AN received a blue $200.00 Christmas Dodge.) present. JE gave FE a book on poetry and lingerie bra and panty sets. 26 Physical Evidence MP - 1 MP - 1 MP - 3 (i.e. Message Pads, Western Union - Trash Pulls, Search 12/23/2004 Warrant, Payment $200.00 Christmas Documentation, etc.) present. Book of Poetry and a set of lingerie. 27 28 Counts 29 TRAVEL Title 30 18 USC 2423(b) Dates of 31 Travel/Aircraft 32 TRANSPORTATION 33 Title 18 USC 2421 Dates of NA NA NA 34 Travel/Aircraft Sexual activi with No No No 35 36 Counts 37 HUMAN SEX TRAFFICKING 38 Title 18 USC 1591(a) JANE DOGS -4-- HIC -4- —1 pCy 4' OF EFTA00234708  A VICTIM WITNESS DOB E P. Jane E. Jane Doe #4 tk-A: -4/ I 1 Doe #5 1 Who Scheduled SK, NM SK, AM called and SV SK Appointments? said she did not want to 39 do it anymore. 40 Counts 41 Interviewed by PBPD Yes Yes Yes 42 43 Interviewed by FBI Yes No No 44 Miscellaneous FP believed HR told her SV observed pictures of Third time, FE started about the vibrator naked people while going massaging JE in her bra provided to VZ prior to up the stairs at JE's and underwear. JE asked Spring 2005. FP knew of residence. JE asked FP FE, "Why do you keep JE's offer to take VZ and for SV's telephone looking at the clock?" FE LM to New York or his number. SV stopped replied, "Because my island. FP knew of gifts going because she was boyfriend is going to come JE provided to VZ i.e. VS scared JE was going to do pick me up." JE said, lingerie, birthday flowers, something. HR told SV to "Well your supposed to be vibrator and rental car. say she was 18 if asked. making me enjoy my massage right now, please do not keep looking at the clock." JE stated, "If you don't want to do this then you don't have to do it." 45 JANE, Dc6s4t-Lii5) i? par 5 cf 5 EFTA00234709

EFTA00726470.pdf

DataSet-10 Unknown 13 pages

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 477-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 0226/2010 Page 1 of • • 13 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO: 08-CV-80893-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE, Plaintiff vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant PLAINTIFF'S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANT COMES NOW the Plaintiff, JANE DOE, by and through her undersigned counsel, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 34 and S.D. Fla. 26.10., and requests the Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, to produce the original or best copy of the items listed hereinbelow, at the offices of the Plaintiffs undersigned counsel, for inspection and/or copying within thirty (30) days of service. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT I. These requests for production are deemed continuing. Pursuant to Rule 26(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and applicable law, if any information sought by said requests for production is not learned until after they are answered, or if any answers for any reason should later become incorrect, there shall be a continuing duty on the party answering said requests to supplement or change answers previously submitted. DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS 1. Communication. The term "communication" means the transmittal of information (in the form of facts, ideas, inquiries or otherwise). 2. Document. The term "document" is defined to be synonymous in meaning and equal in scope to the usage of this term in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(a), including, without limitation, electronic or computerized data compilations. A draft or non-identical copy is a separate document within the meaning of this term. EFTA00726470 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 477-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/26/2010 Page 2 of 13 n, "to identify" means to 3. Identify (with respect to person). When referring to a perso nt or last known address, and when give, to the extent known, the person's full name, prese n place of employment. Once referring to a natural person, additionally, the present or last know ragraph, only the name of the person a person has been identified in accordance with this subpa the identification of that person. need be listed in response to subsequent discovery requesting documents, "to identify" 4. Identify (with respect to documents). When referring to (ii) general subject matter, (iii) means to give, to the extent known, the (i) type of documents; recipient(s). date of the document; and (iv) author(s), addressee(s) and s full or abbreviated 5. Parties. The terms "plaintiff' and "defendant" as, well as a party' and, where applicable, its officers, name or a pronoun referring to a party means the party or affiliates. This definition is not directors, employees, partners, corporate parent, subsidiaries is not a party to the litigation. intended to impose a discovery obligation on any person who Person. The term "person" is defined as any natura l person or any business, legal or 6. governmental entity or association. ing to, descr ibing, 7. Concerning. The term "concerning" means relating to, referr evidencing or constituting. all and each. 8. All/Each. The terms "all" and "each" shall be construed as either disjunctively or 9. And/Or. The connectives "and" and "or" shall be construed discovery request all responses that conjunctively as necessary to bring within the scope of the might otherwise be construed to be outside of its scope. plural and vice versa. 10. Number. The use of the singular form of any word includes the statement about, discuss, 11. Refer/Relate to. "Refer" or "relate to" means to make a establish, comprise, list, evidence, describe, reflect, constitute, identify, deal with, consist ct. substantiate or in any way pertain, in whole to in part, to the subje l shall ;Delude the singular, 12. As used herein the singular shall include the plural, the plura of the other genders. and the masculine, feminine and neuter shall include each DOCUMENTS REQUESTED from 2002 — 1. Copies of all telephone records in your or your attorneys' possession owned by you or that were used to 2005 that in any way relate to you (including all phone lines contact girls for the purposes of scheduling massages for you). EFTA00726471 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 477-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/26/2010 Page 3 of 13 uter calendars or scheduling 2. All massage appointment books, diaries, comp pondence that contains the names of any entries, scheduling books or any other writing or corres or who otherwise went to your home located of the girls that were called, contacted, scheduled, purpose of giving you a massage. at 358 El Brillo Way, Palm Beach, Florida, for the contains Plaintiff's name or 3. Any and all documentation in your possession that emails, letters, message pads, diaries, that refers to Plaintiff, directly or indirectly, (includes appointment books, computer print outs). or any other visual 4. Any and all photos, videos, downloaded digital prints suspe cted minor females introduced to you, depiction of Plaintiff, or of any other known or directly or indirectly, by Plaintiff. Brillo Way, Palm Beach, 5. Photos of the inside of your home located at 358 El place (including massage table). Florida, that depict the room(s) where the massages took evidence of payment to 6. Any and all documentation of cancelled checks or Plaintiff of any kind and for any reason whatsoever. eys as a result of the 7. All discovery information obtained by you or your attorn or the Federal investigation against exchange of discovery in the State criminal case against you you. from 2005 to the present for 8. All financial documents evidencing asset transfers d by you. you personally or any company or corporation owne to local, state, or federal 9. Any documents or other evidentiary materials provided prosecutors investigating your sexual law enforcement investigators or local, state or federal activities with minors. EFTA00726472 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 477-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02126/2010 Page 4 of 13 10. All correspondence between you or your attorneys and state or federal law enforcement or . prosecutors (includes, but is not limited to, letters to and from the State Attorney's office or any agents thereof). 11. Any and all documents reflecting your current net worth. 12. Personal tax returns for all years from 2002 through the present. 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. 14. A sworn statement of your net worth (including a detailed financial statement depicting all current assets and liabilities). 15. All financial statements or affidavits produced by you for any reason, to any person, company, entity or corporation since 2005. 16. All medical records of Defendant Epstein from Dr. Stephan Alexander. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing has been provided via United States mail to the following addressees, this Th day of March, 2009. Robert D. Critton, Jr., Esquire Michael J. Pike, Esquire urman. Critton, Luther & Coleman, LLP aim Beach, Florida 33401 EFTA00726473 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 477-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/26/2010 Page 5 of 13 Jack Alan Goldberger, Esquire Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Michael R. Tein, Esquire Lewis Tein P.L. Coconut Grove, Florida 33133 Respectfully Submitted, THE LAW OFFICE OF BRAD EDWARDS & ASSOCIATES, LLC By: Brad Edwards, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff Florida Bar No. 542075 IME MS Hollywood, Florida 33020 Telephone: Facsimile: E-Mail: Paul G. Cassell Attorney for Plaintiff Pro Hac Vice Salt Lake City UT 84112 Telephone: Facsimile: E-Mail: EFTA00726474 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 477-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/26/2010 Page 13 6 PId UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CIV- 80893 - MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE & OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION (dated 03/23/09) Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, ('EPSTEIN"), by and through his undersigned attorneys, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P., 34, and S.D. Fla. 26.1.G., serves his response to Plaintiff JANE DOE's First Request For Production, dated March 23, 2009. Request No. 1: Copies of all telephone records in your or your attorneys' 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.) 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 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. 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 EFTA00726475 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 477-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/26/2010 Page 7 of 13 Jane Doe v. Epstein, et al. Page 2 otherwise went to your home located at 358 El Brillo Way, Palm Beach, Florida, for the purpose of giving you a massage. 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 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 Plaintiffs name or that refers to Plaintiff, directly or indirectly, (includes e-mails, letters, message pads, diaries, appointment books, computer print outs). 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 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. 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. 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 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. EFTA00726476 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 477-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/26/2010 Page 8 of 13 Jane Doe v. Epstein, et al. Page 3 Request No. 5: Photos of the inside of your home located at 358 El Brillo Way, Palm Beach, Florida, that depict the room(s) where the massages took place (including massage table). 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 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. Response: Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all relevant documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attomeys 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. 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. Response: 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 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 EFTA00726477 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 477-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/26/2010 Page 9 of 13 Jane Doe v. Epstein, et al. Page 4 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. Request No. 8: All financial documents evidencing asset transfers from 2005 to the present for you personally or any company or corporation owned by you. Response: 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 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. 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. Response: 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 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. 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 State Attorney's office or any agents thereof). EFTA00726478 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 477-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/26/2010 Page 10 of 13 Jane Doe v. Epstein, et al. Page 5 Response: 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 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. 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. 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 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. 12: Personal tax returns for all years from 2002 through the present. 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 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 2020 and 2008, EFTA00726479 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 477-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/26/2010 Page 11 of 13 Jane Doe v. Epstein, et al. Page 6 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 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 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. Request No. 14: A sworn statement of your net worth (including a detailed financial statement depicting all current assets and liabilities). 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 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. 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 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. EFTA00726480 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 477-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/26/2010 Page 12 of 13 Jane Doe v. Epstein, et al. Page 7 Request No. 16: All medical records of Defendant Epstein from Dr. Stephan Alexander. Response: 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 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. Certificate of Service WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the f regoing has been sent via U.S. Mail and facsimile to the following addressees this day of May, 2009. Brad Edwards, Esq. Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. h tein Rosenfeldt Adler Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. Fort Lauderdale. FL 33301 st Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 Phone: Fax: Fax Counsel for Plaintiff Co- ounse or e en ant Jeffrey Epstein Paul G. Cassell, Esq. Pro Hac Vice . Salt Lake Cit , UT 84112 t Fax Co-counsel for Plaintif Respectfully subm RITTON, JR., ESQ. EFTA00726481 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 477-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/26/2010 Page 13 of 13 Jane Doe v. Epstein, et al. Page 8 Florida Bar No. BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN ach, FL 33401 Phone Fax (Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) EFTA00726482

EFTA01093549.pdf

DataSet-10 Unknown 43 pages

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA Case No.:50 2009 CA 040800XXXXIMBAG JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff, vs. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendants, STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS Defendant Bradley J. Edwards, Esq., offers the following specific facts as the undisputed material facts in this case. Each of the following facts is numbered separately and individually to facilitate Epstein's required compliance with Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(c) ("The adverse party shall identify . . . any summary judgment evidence on which the adverse party relies."). All referenced exhibits and attachments have previously been filed with the Court and provided to Epstein. Sexual Abuse of Children By Epstein I. Defendant Epstein has a sexual preference for young children. Deposition of Jeffrey Epstein, Mar. 17, 2010, at 110 (hereinafter "Epstein Depo.") (Deposition Attachment #1).' When questioned about this subject at his deposition, Epstein invoked his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent rather than make an incriminating admission. Accordingly, Edwards is entitled to the adverse inference against Epstein that, had Epstein answered, the answer would have been unfavorable to him. "Mt is well-settled that the Fifth Amendment does not forbid adverse inferences against parties to EFTA01093549  2. Epstein repeatedly sexually assaulted more than forty (40) young girls on numerous occasions between 2002 and 2005 in his mansion in West Palm Beach, Florida. These sexual assaults included vaginal penetration. Epstein abused many of the girls dozens if not hundreds of times. Epstein Depo. at 109 ("Q: How many times have you engaged in oral sex with females under the age of 18?" A: [Invocation of the Fifth Amendment]); Deposition of Jane Doe, September 24, 2009 and continued March 11, 2010, at 527 (minor girl sexually abused at least 17 times by Epstein) (hereinafter "Jane Doe Depo") (Deposition Attachment #2); id. 564-67 (vaginal penetration by Epstein with his finger), 568 (vaginal penetration by Epstein with a massager); Deposition of September 24, 2009, at 73 (hereinafter a Depo") (Deposition Attachment #3) (describing the manner in which Epstein abused her beginning when was 13 years old, touching her vagina with his fingers and vibrator) at 74, line 12-13 (she was personally molested by Epstein more than 50 times), at 164, line 19-23 and 141, line 12-13 and 605, line 3-6 (describing that in addition to being personally molested by Epstein she was paid $200 per underage girl she brought Epstein and she brought him more than seventy (70) underage girls - she told him that she did not want to bring him any more girls and he insisted that she continue to bring him underage girls); Deposition of May 6, 2010 (hereinafter ■ Depo") (Deposition Attachment #4) at 115-116, 131 and 255 (describing Epstein's abuse of her beginning at age 14 when he paid her for touching her vagina, inserting his fingers and civil actions when they refuse to testify in response to probative evidence offered against them." Baxter v. Paintigiatto, 425 U.S. 308, 318 (1976); accord Vasquez v. State, 777 So.2d 1200, 1203 (Fla. App. 2001). The reason for this rule "is both logical and utilitarian. A party may not trample upon the rights of others and then escape the consequences by invoking a constitutional privilege — at least not in a civil setting." Fraser v. Security and Inv. Corp., 615 So.2d 841, 842 (Fla. App. 1993). 2 EFTA01093550 using a vibrator and he also paid her $200 for each other underage female brought him to molest. She brought him between 20 and 30 underage females); Deposition of Jane Doe #4, date (hereinafter "Jane Doe #4 Depo") (Deposition Attachment #5) at 32-34, and 136 (she describes first being taken to Epstein at 15 years old, "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."). 3. At all relevant times Edwards has had a good faith basis to conclude and did conclude2 that Epstein was able to access a large number of underage girls through a pyramid abuse scheme in which he paid underage victims $200-$300 cash for each other underage victim that she brought to him. See Palm Beach Police Incident Report at 87 (hereinafter "Incident Report") (Exhibit "A").3 The Palm Beach Police Incident Report details Epstein's scheme for molesting underage females. Among other things, the Incident Report outlines some of the experiences of other Epstein victims. When ■ a 14 year old minor at the time, was brought to Epstein's home, she was taken upstairs by a woman she believed to be Epstein's assistant. The woman started to fix up the room, putting covers on the massage table and bringing lotions out. The "assistant" then left the room and told that Epstein would be up in a second. Epstein walked over to =tnd told her to take her clothes off in a stem voice= states in the report she did not know what to do, as she was the only one there... took off her shirt, leaving her bra on. Epstein, then in a towel told her to take off everything. • removed her pants leaving 2 In support of all assertions concerning the actions Edwards took, what Edwards learned in the course of his representation of his clients, Edwards's good faith beliefs and the foundation for those beliefs, see Edwards Affidavit and specifically paragraphs 25 and 25 of that Affidavit. 3 For clarity, depositions attached to this memorandum will be identified numerically as attachments #1, #2, #3, etc., while exhibits attached to this memorandum will be identified alphabetically as exhibits A, B, C, etc. 3 EFTA01093551 on her thong panties. Epstein then instructed■ to give him a massage. As Mave Epstein a massage, Epstein turned around and masturbated was so disgusted, she did not say anything; Epstein told her she "had a really hot body." Id. at 14. In the report admitted seeing Jeffrey Epstein's penis and stated she thought Epstein was on steroids because he was a "really built guy and his wee wee was very tiny." Id. at 15. 4. The exact number of minor girls who Epstein assaulted is known only to Epstein. However, Edwards had a good faith basis to believe and did in fact believe that Epstein's victims were substantially more than forty (40) in number. In addition to the deposition excerpts from two of his many victims above about the number of underage girls brought to Epstein and the Palm Beach incident report, there is overwhelming proof that the number of underage girls molested by Epstein through his scheme was in the hundreds. See Complaint, Jane Doe 102 v. Epstein, (hereinafter Jane Doe 102 complaint) (Exhibit "B"); see also Deposition of Jeffrey Epstein, April 14, 2010, at 442, 443, and 444 (Epstein invoking the 5th on questions about his daily abuse and molestation of children) (Deposition Attachment #6). 5. At all relevant times Edwards has had a good faith basis to believe and did in fact believe that Epstein and his attorneys knew of the seriousness of the criminal investigation against him and corresponded constantly with the United States Attorney's Office in an attempt to avoid the filing of numerous federal felony offenses, which effort was successful. See Correspondence from U.S. Attorney's Office to Epstein (hereinafter "U.S. Attorney's Correspondence") (Composite Exhibit "C) (provided in discovery during the Jane Doe v. Epstein case). 4 EFTA01093552  6. At all relevant times Edwards has had a good faith basis to believe and did in fact believe that, more specifically, Epstein's attorneys knew of Epstein's scheme to recruit minors for sex and also knew that these minors had civil actions that they could bring against him. In fact, there was much communication between Epstein's attorneys and the United States Prosecutors in a joint attempt to minimize Epstein's civil exposure. For example, on October 3, 2007, Assistant U.S. Attorney sent an email (attached hereto as Exhibit "D") to Jay Lefkowitz, counsel for Epstein, with attached proposed letter to special master regarding handling numerous expected civil claims against Epstein. The letter reads in pertinent part, "The undersigned, as counsel for the United States of America and Jeffrey Epstein, jointly write to you to provide information relevant to your service as a Special Master in the selection of an attorney to represent several young women who may have civil damages claims against Mr. Epstein. The U.S. Attorney's Office and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (jointly referred to as the "United States") have conducted an investigation of Jeffrey Epstein regarding his solicitation of minor females in Palm Beach County to engage in prostitution. Mr. Epstein, through his assistants, would recruit underage females to travel to his home in Palm Beach to engage in lewd conduct in exchange for money. Based upon the investigation, the United States has identified forty (40) young women who can be characterized as victims pursuant to 18 USC 2255. Some of those women went to Mr. Epstein's home only once, some went there as much as 100 times or more. Some of the women's conduct was limited to performing a topless or nude massage while Mr. Epstein masturbated himself. For other women, the conduct escalated to full sexual intercourse. As part of the resolution of the case, Epstein has agreed that he would not contest jurisdiction in the Southern District of Florida for any victim who chose to sue him for damages pursuant to 18 USC 2255. Mr. Epstein agreed to provide an attorney for victims who elected to proceed exclusively pursuant to that section, and agreed to waive any challenge to liability under that section up to an amount agreed to by the parties. The parties have agreed to submit the selection of an attorney to a Special Master...." 7. At all relevant times Edwards has had a good faith basis to believe and did in fact believe tha■was, in fact, a victim of Epstein's criminal abuse because was one of the 5 EFTA01093553 minor females that the United States Attorney's Office recognized as a victim. sworn deposition testimony and the adverse inference drawn from Epstein's refusal to testify confirm that Epstein began sexually assaulting.. when she was 13 years old and continued to molest her on more than fifty (50) occasions over three (3) years. Epstein Depo., Attachment #1, at 17 ("Q: Did you . . . ever engage in any sexual conduct with M.?" A: [Invocation of the Fifth Amendment].); see also Epstein Depo., April 14, 2010, Attachment #6, at 456 ("Q: ■ was an underage female that you first abused when she was 13 years old; is that correct?" A: [Invocation of Fifth Amendment].) 8. Epstein was also given ample opportunity to explain why he engaged in sexual activity with.. beginning when ■. was 13 years old and why he has molested minors on an everyday basis for years, and he invoked his 5th amendment right rather than provide explanation. See Epstein Deposition, February 17, 2010, at 11-12, 30-31 (Deposition Attachment # 7). 9. Epstein also sexually assaulted.., beginning when she was 14 years old and did so on numerous occasions. See.. Depo., Attachment #4 at 215-216. 10. Another of the minor girls Epstein sexually assaulted was Jane Doe; the abuse began when Jane Doe was 14 years old. Rather than incriminate himself, Epstein invoked the 5th amendment to questions about him digitally penetrating Doe's vagina, using vibrators on her vagina and masturbating and ejaculating in her presence. Epstein Depo., April 14, 2010, Attachment #6, at 420, 464, 468. 11. When Edwards's clients ■.,.., and Jane Doe were 13 or 14 years old, each was brought to Epstein's home multiple times by another underage victim. Epstein engaged in 6 EFTA01093554 one or more of the following acts with each of the then-minor girls at his mansion: receiving a topless or completely nude massage; using a vibrator on her vagina; masturbating in her presence; ejaculating in her presence; touching her breast or buttocks or vagina or the clothes covering her sexual organs; and demanding that she bring him other underage girls. Epstein and his co-conspirators used the telephone to contact these girls to entice or induce them into going to his mansion for sexual abuse. Epstein also made ■. perform oral sex on him and was to perform sex acts on Epstein's live-in sex slave) in Epstein's presence. See Plaintiff Jane Doe's Notice Regarding Evidence of Similar Acts of Sexual Assault, filed in Jane Doe v. Epstein, No. 08-cv-80893 (S.D. Fla. 2010), as DE 197, (hereinafter "Rule 413 Notice") (Exhibit "E"); Jane Doe Depo., Attachment #2, at 379-380; ■. Depo., Attachment #3, at 416; M. Depo, Attachment #4, at 205. 12. At all relevant times Edwards has had a good faith basis to believe and did in fact believe that yet another of the minor girls Epstein sexually assaulted was When she was approximately 15 years old, was brought to Epstein's home by another underage victim. While a minor, she was at Epstein's home on multiple occasions. Epstein engaged in one or more of the following acts with her while she was a minor at his house - topless or completely nude massage on Epstein; Epstein used a vibrator on her vagina; Epstein masturbated in her presence; Epstein ejaculated in her presence; Epstein also demanded that she bring him other underage girls. See Rule 413 Notice, Exhibit "E"; Incident Report, Exhibit "A." 13. At all relevant times Edwards has had a good faith basis to believe and did in fact believe that yet another girl Epstein sexually assault wain When she was approximately 16 years old, she was brought to Epstein's home by another underage victim. While a minor, she 7 EFTA01093555 was at Epstein's home on multiple occasions. Epstein engaged in one or more of the following acts with her while she was a minor at his house - topless or completely nude massage on Epstein; Epstein used a vibrator on her vagina; Epstein masturbated in her presence; Epstein ejaculated in her presence; Epstein touched her breast or buttock or vagina or the clothes covering her sexual organs; was made to perform sex acts on Epstein; made to perform sex acts on in Epstein's presence. Epstein also forcibly raped this underage victim, as he held her head down against her will and pumped his penis inside her while she was screaming "No". See Rule 413 Notice, Exhibit "E"; Incident Report, Exhibit "A", at 41 (specifically discussing the rape): "ni remem d that she climaxed and was removing herself from the massage table. .] asked for a sheet of a er and drew the massage table in the r bathroom and where Epstein, and she were. Epstein turned Ai ]o her stomach on the massage bed and inserted his penis into her vagina. [M.] stated Epstein began to pump his penis in her vagina. [ .] became upset over this. She said her head was being held against the bed forcibly, as he continued to pump inside her. She screamed no, and Epstein stopped ...." "EN.,a house. ised there were times that she was so sore when she left Epstein's .] advised she was ripped, torn, in her vagina area. S.] advised she had difficulty walking to the car after leaving the house because she was so sore." 14. Without detailing each fact known about Epstein's abuse of the many underage girls, Edwards has had a good faith basis to believe and did in fact believe at all relevant times that Epstein also abused other victims in ways closely similar to those described in the preceding paragraphs. Epstein's additional victims include the following (among many other) young girls: These girls were between the ages of 13 and 17 when Epstein abused them. See Rule 413 Notice, Exhibit E; Deposition of Deposition Attachment #4. 8 EFTA01093556  15. One of Mr. Epstein's household employees, Mr. Alfredo Rodriguez, saw numerous underage girls coming into Epstein's mansion for purported "massages." See Rodriguez Depo. at 242-44 (Deposition Attachment #8). Rodriguez was aware that "sex toys" and vibrators were found in Epstein's bedroom after the purported massages. Id. at 223-28. Rodriguez thought what Epstein was doing was wrong, given the extreme youth of the girls he saw. Id. at 230-31. 16. Alfredo Rodriguez took a journal from Epstein's computer that reflected many of the names of underage females Epstein abused across the country and the world, including locations such as Michigan, California, West Palm Beach, New York, New Mexico, and Paris, France. See Journal (hereinafter "The Journal" or "Holy Grail") (Exhibit "F") (identifying, among other Epstein acquaintances, females that Rodriguez believes were underage under the heading labeled "Massages"). 17. Rodriguez was later charged in a criminal complaint with obstruction of justice in connection with trying to obtain $50,000 from civil attorneys pursuing civil sexual assault cases against Epstein as payment for producing the book to the attorneys. See Criminal Complaint at 2, U.S. v. Rodriguez, No. 9:10-CR-80015-KAM (S.D. Fla. 2010) (Exhibit "G"). Rodriguez stated he needed money because the journal was his "property" and that he was afraid that Jeffrey Epstein would make him "disappear" unless he had an "insurance policy" (i.e., the journal). Id. at 3. Because of the importance of the information in the journal to the civil cases, Mr. Rodriguez called it "The Holy Grail." 18. In the "Holy Grail" or "The Journal," among the many names listed (along with the abused girls) are some of the people that Epstein alleges in his Complaint had "no connection 9 EFTA01093557 whatsoever" with the litigation in this case. See, e.g., Journal, Exhibit F, at 85 (Donald Trump); at 9 (Bill Clinton phone numbers listed under "Doug Bands"). Federal Investigation and Plea Azreenzent With Epstein 19. In approximately 2005, the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida learned of Epstein's repeated sexual abuse of minor girls. They began a criminal investigation into federal offenses related to his crimes. See U.S. Attorney's Correspondence, Exhibit "C". 20. At all relevant times Edwards has had a good faith basis to believe and did in fact believe that to avoid the Government learning about his abuse of minor girls, Epstein threatened his employees and demanded that they not cooperate with the government. Epstein's aggressive witness tampering was so severe that the United States Attorney's Office prepared negotiated plea agreements containing these charges. For example, in a September 18, 2007, email from AUSA to Lefkowitz (attached hereto as Exhibit "H"), she attached the proposed plea agreement describing Epstein's witness tampering as follows: "UNITED STATES vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN PLEA PROFFER" On August 21, 2007, FBI and .M traveled to the home of Leslie Groff to serve her with a federal grand jury subpoena with an investigation pending in the Southern District of Florida. Ms. Groff works as the personal assistant of the defendant. Ms. Groff began speaking with the agents and then excused herself to go upstairs to check on her sleeping child. While upstairs, Ms. Groff telephoned the defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, and informed him that the FBI agents were at her home. Mr. Epstein instructed Ms. Groff not to speak with the agents and reprimanded her for allowing them into her home. Mr. Epstein applied pressure to keep Ms. Groff from complying with the grand jury subpoenas that the agents had served upon her. In particular, Mr. Epstein warned Ms. Groff against turning over documents and electronic evidence responsive to the subpoena and pressured her to delay her 10 EFTA01093558  appearance before the grand jury in the Southern District of Florida. This conversation occurred when Mr. Epstein was aboard his privately owned civilian aircraft in Miami in the Southern District of Florida. His pilot had filed a flight plan showing the parties were about to return to Teterboro, NJ. After the conversation with Ms. Groff, Mr. Epstein became concerned that the FBI would try to serve his traveling companion, , with a similar =rand jury subpoena. In fact, the agents were preparing to serve with a target letter when the flight landed in Teterboro. Mr. Epstein then redirected his airplane, making the pilot file a new flight plan to travel to the US Virgin Islands instead of the New York City area thereb keeping the Special Agents from serving the target letter on During the flight, the defendant verbally harassed harassing and pressuring her not to cooperate with the grand jury's investigation, thereby hindering and dissuading her from reporting the commission of a violation of federal law to a law enforcement officer, namely, Special Agents of the FBI. Epstein also threatened and harassed against cooperating against him as well. 21. Edwards learned that the Palm Beach police department investigation ultimately led to the execution of a search warrant at Epstein's mansion in October 2005. See Police Incident Report, Exhibit "A". 22. Edwards learned that at around the same time, the Palm Beach Police Department also began investigating Epstein's sexual abuse of minor girls. They also collected evidence of Epstein's involvement with minor girls and his obsession with training sex slaves, including pulling information from Epstein's trash. Their investigation showed that Epstein ordered from Amazon.com on about September 4, 2005, such books as: SM101: A Realistic Introduction, by Jay Wiseman; SlaveCraft: Roadmaps for Erotic Servitude - Principles, Skills, and Tools, by Guy Baldwin; and Training with Miss Abernathy: A Workbook for Erotic Slaves and Their Owners, by Christina Abernathy. See Receipt for Sex Slave Books (Exhibit "I"). 23. The Palm Beach incident reports provided Edwards with the names of numerous witnesses that participated in Epstein's child molestation criminal enterprise and also provided 11 EFTA01093559 Edwards with some insight into how far-reaching Epstein's power was and how addicted Epstein was to sex with children. See Incident Report, Exhibit "A". 24. The Palm Beach Police Department also collected Epstein's message pads, which provided other names of people that also knew Epstein's scheme to molest children. See Message Pads (Exhibit "J") (note: the names of underage females have been redacted to protect the anonymity of the underage sex abuse victims). Those message pads show clear indication that Epstein's staff was frequently working to schedule multiple young girls between the ages of 12 and 16 years old literally every day, often two or three times per day. Id. 25. In light of all of the information of numerous crimes committed by Epstein, Edwards learned that the U.S. Attorney's Office began preparing the filing of federal criminal charges against Epstein. For example, in addition to the witness tampering and money laundering charges the U.S. Attorney's Office prepared an 82-page prosecution memo and a 53- page indictment of Epstein related to his sexual abuse of children. On September 19, 2007, at 12:14 PM, wrote to Epstein's counsel, Jay Lefkowitz, "Jay - I hate to have to be firm about this, but we need to wrap this up by Monday. I will not miss my indictment date when this has dragged on for several weeks already and then, if things fall apart, be left in a less advantageous position than before the negotiations. I have had an 82-page pros memo and 53- page indictment sitting on the shelf since May to engage in these negotiations. There has to be an ending date, and that date is Monday." These and other communications are within the correspondence attached as Composite Exhibit "C." 26. Edwards learned that rather than face the filing of federal felony criminal charges, Epstein (through his attorneys) engaged in plea bargain discussions. As a result of those 12 EFTA01093560 discussions, on September 24, 2007, Epstein signed an agreement with the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida. Under the agreement, Epstein agreed to plead guilty to an indictment pending against him in the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County charging him with solicitation of prostitution and procurement of minors for prostitution. Epstein also agreed that he would receive a thirty month sentence, including 18 months of jail time and 12 months of community control. In exchange, the U.S. Attorney's Office agreed not to pursue any federal charges against Epstein. See Non-Prosecution Agreement (Exhibit "K"). 27. Part of the Non-Prosecution Agreement that Epstein negotiated was a provision in which the federal government agreed not to prosecute Epstein's co-conspirators. The co- conspirators procured minor females to be molested by Epstein. One of the co-conspirators - -even participated in the sex acts with minors (including..) and Epstein. See Incident Report, Exhibit "A", at 40-42, 49-51; Deposition of -April 13, 2010, (hereinafter Depo.") at 11 (Deposition attachment #9). 28. Under the Non-Prosecution Agreement, Epstein was to use his "best efforts" to enter into his guilty pleas by October 26, 2007. However, Edwards learned that Epstein violated his agreement with the U.S. Attorney's Office to do so and delayed entry of his plea. See Letter from U.S. Attorney R. Alexander Acosta to Lilly Ann Sanchez, Dec. 19, 2007 (Exhibit "L"). 29. On January 10, 2008 and again on May 30, 2008 M. and M. received letters from the FBI advising them that "[t]his case is currently under investigation. This can be a lengthy process and we request your continued patience while we conduct a thorough investigation." Letters attached at Composite Exhibit "M". This document is evidence that the FBI did not notify.. and.. that a plea agreement had already been reached that would 13 EFTA01093561 block federal prosecution of Epstein. Nor did the FBI notify ■. and of any of the pans of the plea agreement. Nor did the FBI or other federal authorities confer with ■. and ■. about the plea. See id. 30. In 2008, Edwards believed in good faith that criminal prosecution of Epstein was extremely important to his clients and and that they desired to be consulted by the FBI and/or other representatives of the federal government about the prosecution of Epstein. The letters that they had received around January 10, 2008, suggested that a criminal investigation of Epstein was on-going and that they would be contacted before the federal government reached any final resolution of that investigation. See id. Edwards Azrees to Serve as Legal Counsel for Three Victims of Epstein's Sexual Assaults 31. In about April 2008, Bradley J. Edwards, Esq., was a licensed attorney in Florida, practicing as a sole practitioner. As a former prosecutor, he was well versed in civil cases that involved criminal acts, including sexual assaults. Three of the many girls Epstein had abused — , ■., and Jane Doe — all requested that Edwards represent them civilly and secure appropriate monetary damages against Epstein for repeated acts of sexual abuse while they were minor girls. Two of the girls (E. and ■.) also requested that Edwards represent them in connection with a concern that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and U.S. Attorney's Office might be arranging a plea bargain for the criminal offenses committed by Epstein without providing them the legal rights to which they were entitled (including the right to be notified of plea discussions and the right to confer with prosecutors about any plea arrangement). See 14 EFTA01093562 Affidavit of Bradley J. Edwards, Esq. at ¶1 - 2, ¶4 (hereinafter "Edwards Affidavit") (Exhibit "N"). 32. On June 13, 2008, attorney Edwards agreed to represent M.; on July 2, 2008, attorney Edwards agreed to represent Jane Doe; and, on July 7, 2008, attorney Edwards agreed to represent M. in connection with the sexual assaults committed by Epstein and to insure that their rights as victims of crimes were protected in the criminal process on-going against Epstein. Mr. Edwards and his three clients executed written retention agreements. See id. at ¶2. 33. In mid June of 2008, Edwards contacted to inform her that he represented Jane Doe #1 and, later, Jane Doe #2. did not advise that a plea agreement had already been negotiated with Epstein's attorneys that would block federal prosecution. To the contrary, mentioned a possible indictment. AUSA did indicate that federal investigators had concrete evidence and information that Epstein had sexually molested many underage minor females, including M, and Jane Doe. See id. at ¶4. 34. Edwards also requested from the U.S. Attorney's Office the information that they had collected regarding Epstein's sexual abuse of his clients. However, the U.S. Attorney's Office, declined to provide any such information to Edwards. It similarly declined to provide any such information to the other attorneys who represented victims of Epstein's sexual assaults. At the very least, this includes the items that were confiscated in the search warrant of Epstein's home, including dildos, vibrators, massage table, oils, and additional message pads. See Property Receipt (Exhibit "O"). 15 EFTA01093563  35. On Friday, June 27, 2008, at approximately 4:15 p.m., AUSA received a copy of Epstein's proposed state plea agreement and learned that the plea was scheduled for 8:30 a.m., Monday, June 30, 2008. AUSA called Edwards to provide notice to his clients regarding the hearing. AUSA did not tell Attorney Edwards that the guilty pleas in state court would bring an end to the possibility of federal prosecution pursuant to the plea agreement. See Edwards Affidavit, Exhibit "N", at ¶6. 36. Under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771, victims of federal crimes — including ■. and M. — are entitled to basic rights during any plea bargaining process, including the right to be treated with fairness, the right to confer with prosecutors regarding any plea, and the right to be heard regarding any plea. The process that was followed leading to the non-prosecution of Epstein violated these rights of ■. and ■. See Emergency Petn. for Victim's Enforcement of Crime Victim's Rights, No. 9:08-CV-80736- KAM (S.D. Fla. 2008) (Exhibit "P"). 37. Because of the violation of the CVRA, on July 7, 2008, Edwards filed an action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Case No. 9:08-CV-80736, seeking to enforce the rights of and ■. That action alleged that the U.S. Attorney's Office had failed to provide ■. and ■. the rights to which they were entitled under the Act, including the right to be notified about a plea agreement and to confer with prosecutors regarding it. See id. 38. On July 11, 2008, Edwards took and ■. with him to the hearing on the CVRA action. It was only at this hearing that both victims learned for the first time that the plea deal was already done with Epstein and that the criminal case against Epstein had been 16 EFTA01093564 effectively terminated by the U.S. Attorney's office. See Hearing Transcript, July 11, 2008 (Exhibit "Q"). 39. Edwards learned that Jane Doe felt so strongly that the plea bargain was inappropriate that she made her own determination to appear on a television program and exercise her First Amendment rights to criticize the unduly lenient plea bargain Epstein received in a criminal case. 40. The CVRA action that Edwards filed was recently administratively closed and Edwards filed a Motion to reopen that proceeding. See No. 9:08-CV-80736 (S.D. Fla.). Epstein's Entry of Guilty Pleas to Sex Offenses 41. Ultimately, on June 30, 2008, in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in Palm Beach County, Florida, defendant Epstein, entered pleas of "guilty" to various Florida state crimes involving the solicitation of minors for prostitution and the procurement of minors for the purposes of prostitution. See Plea Colloquy (Exhibit "R"). 42. As a condition of that plea, and in exchange for the Federal Government not prosecuting the Defendant, Epstein additionally entered into an agreement with the Federal Government acknowledging that approximately thirty-four (34) other young girls could receive payments from him under the federal statute providing for compensation to victims of child sexual abuse, 18 U.S.C. § 2255. As had been agreed months before, the U.S. Attorney's Office did not prosecute Epstein federally for his sexual abuse of these minor girls. See Addendum to Non-Prosecution Agreement (Exhibit "S") (in redacted form to protect the identities of the minors involved). 17 EFTA01093565  43. Because Epstein became a convicted sex offender, he was not to have contact with any of his victims. During the course of his guilty pleas on June 30, 2008, Palm Beach Circuit Court Judge ordered Epstein "not to have any contact, direct or indirect" with any victims. She also expressly stated that her no-contact order applied to "all of the victims." Similar orders were entered by the federal court handling some of the civil cases against Epstein. The federal court stated that it "finds it necessary to state clearly that Defendant is under this court's order not to have direct or indirect contact with any plaintiffs . . . ." Order, Case No. 9:08-cv-80119 (S.D. Ha. 2008), [DE 238] at 4-5 (emphasis added); see also Order, Case No. 9:08-cv-80893, [DE 193] at 2 (emphasis added). Edwards Files Civil Suits Against Epstein 44. Edwards had a good faith belief that his clients felt angry and betrayed by the criminal system and wished to prosecute and punish Epstein for his crimes against them in whatever avenue remained open to them. On August 12, 2008, at the request of his client Jane Doe, Brad Edwards filed a civil suit against Jeffrey Epstein to recover damages for his sexual assault of Jane Doe. See Edwards Affidavit, "N" at ¶7. Included in this complaint was a RICO count that explained how Epstein ran a criminal conspiracy to procure young girls for him to sexually abuse. See Complaint, Jane Doe v. Epstein (Exhibit "T"). 45. On September 11, 2008, at the request of his client ■., Brad Edwards filed a civil suit against Jeffrey Epstein to recover damages for his sexual assault of ■. See Complaint, v. Epstein (Exhibit "U"). 18 EFTA01093566  46. On September 11, 2008, at the request of his client ■.., Brad Edwards filed a civil suit against Jeffrey Epstein to recover damages for his sexual assault of See Complaint, v. Epstein, (Exhibit "V"). 47. Jane Doe's federal complaint indicated that she sought damages of more than $50,000,000. Listing the amount of damages sought in the complaint was in accord with other civil suits that were. filed against Epstein (before any lawsuit filed by Edwards). See Complaint, Jane Doe #4 v. Epstein (Exhibit "W") (filed by Herman and Mermelstein, PA). 48. At about the same time as Edwards filed his three lawsuits against Epstein, other civil attorneys were filing similar lawsuits against Epstein. For example, on or about April 14, 2008 another law firm, Herman and Mermelstein, filed the first civil action against Epstein on behalf of one of its seven clients who were molested by Epstein. The complaints that attorney Herman filed on behalf of his seven clients were similar in tenor and tone to the complaint that Edwards filed on behalf of his three clients. See id. 49. Over the next year and a half, more than 20 other similar civil actions were filed by various attorneys against Epstein alleging sexual assault of minor girls. These complaints were also similar in tenor and tone to the complaint that Edwards filed on behalf of his clients. These complaints are all public record and have not been attached, but are available in this Court's files and the files of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. 50. In addition to the complaints filed against Epstein in Florida, a female in New York, filed a lawsuit against Epstein in New York making similar allegations - that Epstein paid her for a massage then forced her to give him oral sex and molested her in other ways when she was only 16 years old. MI was born a male, and in her complaint she 19 EFTA01093567 alleges that Epstein told her during the "massage", "I love how young you are. You have a tight butt like a baby". See Jeff Epstein Sued for "Repeated Sexual Assaults" on Teen, New York Post, October 17, 2007, by Dareh Gregorian, link at: htto://www.nvoost.com/p/news/regional/item 44z1WyLUFH7R1OUtKYGPbPjsessionid=6CA3 EBF1BEF68F5DE14BFB2CAA5C37E0. See Article attached hereto as Exhibit "X". 51. Edwards's three complaints against Epstein contained less detail about sexual abuse than (as one example) a complaint filed by attorney Robert Josephsberg from the law firm of Podhurst Orseck. See Complaint, Jane Doe 102 v. Epstein (Exhibit "B"). As recounted in detail in this Complaint, Jane Doe 102 was 15 years old when Ghislaine Maxwell discovered her and lured her to Epstein's house. Maxwell and Epstein forced her to have sex with both of them and within weeks Maxwell and Epstein were flying her all over the world. According to the Complaint, Jane Doe 102 was forced to live as one of Epstein's underage sex slaves for years and was forced to have sex with not only Maxwell and Epstein but also other politicians, businessmen, royalty, academicians, etc. She was even made to watch Epstein have sex with three 12-year-old French girls that were sent to him for his birthday by a French citizen that is a friend of Epstein's. Luckily, Jane Doe 102 escaped to Australia to get away from Epstein and Maxwell's sexual abuse. 52. Edwards learned that in addition to civil suits that were filed in court against Epstein, at around the same time other attorneys engaged in pre-filing settlement discussions with Epstein. Rather than face filed civil suits in these cases, Epstein paid money settlements to more than 15 other women who had sexually abused while they were minors. See articles regarding settlements attached hereto as Composite Exhibit "Y." 20 EFTA01093568  Epstein's Obstruction ofNormal Discover), and Attacks on His Victims 53. Once Edwards filed his civil complaints for his three clients, he began the normal process of discovery for cases such as these. He sent standard discovery requests to Epstein about his sexual abuse of the minor girls, including requests for admissions, request for production, and interrogatories. See Edwards Affidavit, Exhibit "N", at ¶¶11-19 and 25. Rather than answer any substantive questions about his sexual abuse and his conspiracy for procuring minor girls for him to abuse, Epstein invoked his 5th amendment right against self- incrimination. An example of Epstein's refusal to answer is attached as Composite Exhibit "Z" (original discovery propounded to Epstein and his responses invoking 5th amendment). 54. During the discovery phase of the civil cases filed against Epstein, Epstein's deposition was taken at least five times. During all of those depositions, Epstein refused to answer any substantive questions about his sexual abuse of minor girls. See, e.g., Deposition Attachments 1, 6 and 7. 55. During these depositions, Epstein further attempted to obstruct legitimate questioning by inserting a variety of irrelevant information about his case. As one of innumerable examples, on March 8, 2010, Mr. Horowitz, representing seven victims, Jane Doe's 2-8, asked, "Q: In 2004, did you rub Jane Doe 3's vagina? A: Excuse me. I'd like to answer that question, as I would like to answer mostly every question you've asked me here today; however, upon advice of counsel, I cannot answer that question. They've advised me I must assert my Sixth Amendment, Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment Rights against self--excuse me, against--under the Constitution. And though your partner, Jeffrey Herman, was disbarred after filing this lawsuit [a statement that was untrue], Mr. Edwards' partner sits in jail for 21 EFTA01093569 fabricating cases of a sexual nature fleecing unsuspecting Florida investors and others out of millions of dollars for cases of a sexual nature with--I'd like to answer your questions; however if I--I'm told that if I do so, I risk losing my counsel's representation; therefore I must accept their advice." Epstein deposition, March 8, 2010, at 106 (Deposition attachment #10). 56. When Edwards had the opportunity to take Epstein's deposition, he only asked reasonable questions, all of which related to the merits of the cases against Epstein. All depositions of Epstein in which Mr. Edwards participated on behalf of his clients are attached to this motion. See Edwards Affidavit, Exhibit "N" at ¶11 and Deposition attachments #1, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, and 13. Cf. with Deposition of Epstein taken by an attorney representing BB (one in which Edwards was not participating), httn://www.voutube.com/watch?v=V-dqoEyYXx4; and http://www.youtube.corn/watch?v=YCNiY1tW-r0 57. Edwards's efforts to obtain information about Epstein's organization for procuring young girls was also blocked because Epstein's co-conspirators took the Fifth. Deposition of March 24, 2010 (hereinafter ) (Deposition attachment #14); Deposition of April 13, 2010, (Deposition attachment #9); Deposition of March 15, 2010 (hereinafter Depo.") (Deposition attachment #15). Each of these co-conspirators invoked their respective rights against self- incrimination as to all relevant questions, and the depositions have been attached. 58. At all relevant times Edwards has had a good faith basis to believe and did in fact believe was an employee of Epstein's and had been identified as a defendant in at least one of the complaints against Epstein for her role in bringing girls to Epstein's mansion to be abused. At the deposition, she was represented by Bruce Reinhart. She invoked the Fifth on 22 EFTA01093570 all substantive questions regarding her role in arranging for minor girls to come to Epstein's mansion to be sexually abused. Reinhart had previously been an Assistant United States Attorney in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida when Epstein was being investigated criminally by Reinhart's office. Reinhart left the United States Attorney's Office and was immediately hired by Epstein to represent Epstein's pilots and certain co- conspirators during the civil cases against Epstein. See Edwards Affidavit, Exhibit "N" at ¶11. 59. Edwards also had other lines of legitimate discovery blocked through the efforts of Epstein and others. For example, Edwards learned through deposition that Ghislaine Maxwell was involved in managing Epstein's affairs and companies. See deposition of Epstein's house manager Janusz Banziak, February 16, 2010 at page 14, lines 20-23 (Deposition Attachment #16); See deposition of Epstein's housekeeper October 20, 2009, page 9, lines 17-25 (Deposition Attachment #17); See deposition of Epstein's pilot Larry Eugene Morrison, October 6, 2009, page 102-103 (Deposition Attachment #18); See deposition of Alfredo Rodriguez, August 7, 2009, page 302-306 and 348 (Deposition Attachment #8); See also Prince Andrew's Friend, Ghislaine Maxwell, Some Underage Girls and A Very Disturbing Story, September 23, 2007 by Wendy Leigh, link at http://www.redicecreations.comiarticle.php?id=1895OHANNA SJOBERG. Exhibit "AA". 60. Alfredo Rodriguez testified that Maxwell took photos of girls without the girls' knowledge, kept the images on her computer, knew the names of the underage girls and their respective phone n