EFTA00175214.pdf

Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 5 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2009 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 09-80656-CIV-Ryskamp JANE DOE No. 102, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant, RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO PROCEED ANONYMOUSLY AND EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO COMPEL AND/OR IDENTIFY JANE DOE #102 IN THE STYLE OF THIS CASE AND MOTION TO IDENTIFY JANE DOE #102 IN THIRD-PARTY SUBPOENAS FOR PURPOSES OF DISCOVERY, WITH INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN ("Epstein" or "Defendant"), by and through his undersigned attorneys, hereby files his Response In Opposition to Plaintiff, Jane Doe #102's Motion to Proceed Anonymously and files his Motion requesting that this Court enter an order identifying in the style of this case the complete legal name of the Plaintiff, JANE DOE #102 ("JANE DOE"), to substitute her complete legal name In this case in place of "JANE DOE" and, equally important, allowing Defendant to identify her in various subpoenas that Epstein must serve so Epstein can defend this case. In support, Mr. Epstein states as follows: EFTA00175214 • Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 5 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2009 Page 3 of 12 denied, but Epstein's Motion to Identify Jane Doe must be granted. Despite Plaintiff's allegations in the Motion to Proceed Anonymously, this Court has not "allowed" any Plaintiff to proceed anonymously. Quite simply, that is the way each Plaintiff chose to file each of their respective cases, all of which are currently being challenged in those other matters by Motion to Identify. 4. Importantly, JANE DOE claims that she has and will suffer ". . .physical injury, pain and suffering, emotional distress, psychological and psychiatric trauma, mental anguish, humiliation, confusion, embarrassment, loss of educational opportunities, loss of self-esteem, loss of dignity, invasion of her privacy, separation from her family . . . , and medical and psychological expenses. . . , loss on income, loss of the capacity to earn income In the future, and loss of the capacity to enjoy life" ¶¶28, Comp. DE 1; see also ¶¶36, 40, 44, 48, 52, 56, 61, 65, and 69, Comp., DE 1. 5. Epstein has a constitutional due process right to defend himself and to seek the production of information that will assist in his defense of the allegations in the Complaint. In this case, Plaintiffs counsel intends on serving subpoenas on Plaintiffs treating physicians and other third parties. Thus, this motion seeks not only a denial Plaintiffs Motion to Proceed Anonymously but to Identify JANE DOE In the style of this case and to identify JANE DOE in various third-party subpoenas for discovery purposes. 6. The undersigned's experience In "Jane Doe" lawsuits is that once a Plaintiff is identified, other individuals come forward in the discovery phase with information which often directly contradicts allegations as to the events and 3 EFTA00175215 Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 5 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2009 Page 5 of 12 agreed that the subpoenas filed with the clerk would be redacted. Several attorneys agreed to this procedure in those cases. In Federal Court, subpoenas are not filed with the clerk. Thus, In this matter, the undersigned offered to serve the third-party subpoenas with plaintiff's full name, date of birth and social security number (last four digits) and would agree to redact any identifying information on any documents filed with this court if that ultimately became necessary. 9. Moreover, when an order from the court is attached to the Subpoena, treaters and other third parties produce the records and show up to the depositions with the records requested because the deponent knows what to bring by virtue of knowing the identity of the Plaintiff. 10. Epstein's counsel intends to serve and depose witnesses duces tecum. If Epstein is not permitted to identify JANE DOE (thus allowing her to proceed anonymously), how will any deponent know who the parties are and what to bring to the deposition pursuant to the duces tecum? Further, how will Epstein be able to defend the claims. Just like the Plaintiff, Epstein is entitled to due process. If the Court allows Jane Doe to proceed anonymously, Jane Doe will be permitted to present her case and Epstein will be limited in his defenses. 11. While it is within the sound discretion of this court to allow a party to proceed anonymously, Plaintiff should not attempt to utilize that discretion as a shield from legitimate and necessary discovery. Epstein has a fundamental due process right to conduct discovery. EFTA00175216 Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 5 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2009 Page 7 of 12 b. whether the party defending the suit would be prejudiced; c. whether the plaintiff is required to disclose information of utmost intimacy; d. whether the plaintiff is compelled to admit an intention to engage in illegal conduct, thereby risking criminal prosecution; e. whether the Plaintiff would risk suffering injury if identified; f. whether the interests of children are at stake; and g. whether there are less drastic means of protecting the legitimate interests of either party. Doe v. Frank 951 F.2d at 323. Plaintiff does not fall under any of the factors. Moreover, even If she did meet one of the factors, "[t]he fact that [a] Doe [Plaintiff] may suffer some personal embarrassment, standing alone, does not require the granting of a request to proceed under a pseudonym." Id' see also Doe v. Rostker, 89 F.R.D. 159 (N.D. Calif. 1981). Any substantial privacy interests JANE DOE has must outweigh the customary and constitutionally embedded presumption of openness to judicial proceedings. Doe v. Frank, 951 F.2d at 323; Doe v. Berostron, 2009 WL 528623 (C.A.9(Or.))(denying request to proceed anonymously in civil action by Plaintiff where Plaintiff's arrest, prosecution and acquittal were matters of public record). 14. In Sweetland v. State, 535 So.2d 646 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988), the court reasoned that the purpose of discovery is to eliminate the likelihood of surprise and to Insure a fair opportunity to prepare for trial. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(1)• see also Surf Drugs. Inc.. v. Vermette 236 So.2d 108, 111 (Fla. 7 EFTA00175217 Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 5 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2009 Page 9 of 12 damages. Plaintiff is claiming emotional/psychological damages. Therefore, Epstein is entitled to know her psychological condition(s) before and after the alleged incident(s) she references in the Complaint. In particular, JANE DOE alleges specific disorders as a result of Epstein's alleged conduct — suffer . .physical injury, pain and suffering, emotional distress, psychological and psychiatric trauma, mental anguish, humiliation, confusion, embarrassment, loss of educational opportunities, loss of self-esteem, loss of dignity, invasion of her privacy, separation from her family . . . , and medical and psychological expenses. . . , loss on income, loss of the capacity to earn income in the future, and loss of the capacity to enjoy life." (Emphasis Added). See supra. Epstein is also entitled to know, among other things, whether she had any physical complaints or whether there was ever any evidence of physical battery on JANE DOE's body from the acts she complains of in the Complaint. The need to serve third-party subpoenas on medical doctors is a basic discovery need related to the claims alleged by JANE DOE for which Plaintiff's counsel refuses to compromise. Balas v. Ruzzo 703 So.2d 1076 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997), rev. denied, 719 So.2d 286 (Fla. 1998)(discoverability of Plaintiff's history of sexual activity is relevant to damages); United States v. Bear Stops 997 F.2d 451 (81h Cir. 1993)(deals with "admissibility of other acts of sexual abuse by individuals other than the defendant to explain why a victim of abuse exhibited behavioral manifestations of a sexually abused child.") If Plaintiff saw a psychologist or other physician during or after the time periods she claims she was assaulted by Epstein but either did not discuss or did discuss the incidents (or lack thereof) would be 9 EFTA00175218 • Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 5 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2009 Page 11 of 12 was charged with any crimes. If Jane Doe was charged with crimes, Epstein is entitled to obtain certified copies of those crimes Plaintiff may have committed for purposes of discovery and impeachment. Questions will be asked regarding those crimes (e.g., Have you been convicted of a crime of dishonesty or false statement? If so, how many times? Have you been convicted of a felony? If so, how many times?) To hold otherwise would not only prevent broad discovery but would ultimately result in reversible error at any trial. II. Conclusion and Prayer for Relief 22. Epstein requests the following relief: a. That JANE DOE's Motion to Proceed Anonymously be denied; b. That this Court grant Epstein's Motion and that JANE DOE be identified by her legal name in the style of this case; and c. That Epstein be granted leave to identify JANE DOE by her legal name in Third-Party Subpoenas (but not file them in Court or, if required, in a redacted form). WHEREFORE, Epstein, Jeffrey Epstein, respectfully requests that this Court enter said order granting the relief requested above, and for such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper. By: ROBERT D. C ITTON, JR., ESQ. MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. Certificate of Service I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on all counsel of record identified on the following Service List in the manner specified by CM/ECF on this _EL day of Mav, 2009 11 EFTA00175219 CM/ECF - Live Database - flsd Page 1 of 7 AEV U.S. District Court Southern District of Florida (West Palm Beach) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Doe No. 102 v. Epstein Date Filed: 05/01/2009 Assigned to: Judge Kenneth A. Marra Jury Demand: Plaintiff Lead case: 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Nature of Suit: 360 P.I.: Other Member case: (View Member Case) Jurisdiction: Federal Question Cause: 28:1391 Personal Injury Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 102 represented by Katherine Warthen Ezell Podhurst Orseck Josefsberg et al City National Bank Building 25 W Flagler Street Suite 800 Miami FL 33130-1780 Fax: Email: LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Robert C. Josefsberg Podhurst Orseck Josefsberg et al City National Bank Building 25 W Flagler Street Suite 800 Miami FL 33130-1780 Fax: Email: LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED V. Defendant Jeffrey Epstein represented by Robert Deweese Critton , Jr. Burman Critton Luttier & Coleman https://ecf.flsd.useourts.gov/egi-bin/DIctRpt.p17825839498761356-L_801_0-1 6/10/2009 EFTA00175220 CM/ECF - Live Database - flsd Page 2 of 7 515 N Flagler Drive Suite 400 West Palm Beach , FL 33401-2918 Fax: Email: LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Amicus United States of America represented by United States Attorney's Office 500 East Broward Blvd 7th Floor Ft Lauderdale , FL 33394 xt. 3546 Fax: Email: LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Date Filed # dear Docket Text 05/01/2009 1 COMPLAINT and Demand for Jury Trial against Jeffrey Epstein. Filing fee r $350.00. Receipt No. 100030, filed by Jane Doe No. 102.(caw) (Entered: 05/04/2009) 05/01/2009 2 r Summons Issued as to Jeffrey Epstein. (caw) (Entered: 05/04/2009) 05/01/2009 3 Sealed Document. (igo) (Entered: 05/04/2009) 05/01/2009 4 Sealed Document. (igo) (Entered: 05/04/2009) 05/11/2009 5 RESPONSE/REPLY to 4 Sealed Document, 3 Sealed Document r Opposition to Motion to Proceed Anonymously by Jeffrey Epstein. (Critton, Robert) (Entered: 05/11/2009) 05/11/2009 6 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Robert Deweese Critton, Jr on behalf r of Jeffrey Epstein (Critton, Robert) (Entered: 05/11/2009) 05/11/2009 7 MOTION to Compel and/or identifyJane doe #102 in the style of this case ( Responses due by 5/29/2009), MOTION to identify jane doe #102 in the third-party subpoenas for purposes of discovery, with incorporated memorandum of law by Jeffrey Epstein.(see docket entry 5 for image) (tas) (Entered: 05/12/2009) https://eef.flsd.uscourts.gov/egi-bin/DktRpt.p17825839498761356-L_801 0-1 6/10/2009 EFTA00175221 CM/ECF - Live Database - flsd Page 3 of 7 05/12/2009 8 Clerks Notice of Docket Correction and Instruction to Filer re 5 Response/Reply (Other) Error - Two or More Document Events Filed as One; Correction - Additional event(s) 7 MOTION to Compel and/or identiftJane doe #102 in the style of this case MOTION to identify jane doe #102 in the third-party subpoenas for purposes of discovery, with incorporated memorandum of law. docketed by Clerk. Instruction to Filer - In the future, please select all applicable events. It is not necessary to refile this document. (tas) (Entered: 05/12/2009) 05/13/2009 9 ORDER of Transfer/REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Judge Kenneth A. Marra for all further proceedings. Senior Judge Kenneth L. r Ryskamp no longer assigned to case. Signed by Senior Judge Kenneth L. Ryskamp on 5/12/2009. (tas) (Entered: 05/14/2009) 05/14/2009 Cases associated. (ir) (Entered: 05/14/2009) 05/14/2009 10 ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES. Hereinafter all motions and other court filings that relate to discovery and all procedural motions that relate to multiple cases shall be styled with all of the case names and numbers and n shall be filed in Case No. 08-80119-CIV-MARRA. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 5/14/2009. Associated Cases: 9:08-cv-80119-KAM et al. (ir) (Entered: 05/14/2009) 05/14/2009 11 ORDER REQUESTING UNITED STATES PROVIDE POSITION TO r MOTION TO STAY. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 5/14/2009. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Motion to Stay DE 51) Associated Cases: 9:08-cv-80119-ICAM et al. 00 (Entered: 05/14/2009) 05/14/2009 12 ORDER terminating 7 Motion to Compel; terminating 7 Motion. See Order consolidating cases. See procedural motions pending: DE 91 in 08-80119.. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 5/14/2009. (1c3) (Entered: 05/14/2009) 05/20/2009 13 NOTICE by Filing Withdrawal of Previously Raised Ob'ections to Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to Compel And/Or Identi in the Style of This Case and Motion to Identify . in Third- arty n Subpoenasfor Purposes of Discovery, Or, Alternatively, Motion to Dismiss Sua Sponte, With Inorporated Memorandum of Law Associated Cases: 9:08-cv-80119-KAM et al.(Hill, Jack) (Entered: 05/20/2009) 05/20/2009 14 ORDER S G in all Epstein cases EXCEPT case no. 08-80119: Notice by M. of Filing Withdrawal of Previously Raised Objections to Epstein's Motion to Compel and/or Identify. This Notice should only be filed in 08-80119, not in all of the Epstein cases.. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 5/20/2009. Associated Cases: 9:08-cv-80119-KAM et al. (1c3) (Entered: 05/20/2009) 05/22/2009 15 Clerks Notice of Docket Correction and Instruction to Filer re 11 Notice (Other), Notice (Other) filed by .. Error - Incorrect Document https://eef.flsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?825839498761356-L_801_0-1 6/10/2009 EFTA00175222 CM/ECF - Live Database - flsd Page 4 of 7 Link/No Link;. Instruction to filer - In the future, please link the document to the proper entry. It is not necessary to refile this document. (Is) (Entered: 05/22/2009) 05/26/2009 16 Plaintiffs MOTION to Preserve Evidence Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and Jane Doe No. 102's Motion for an Orderfor the Preservation of Evidence and Incorporated Memorandum of Law by Jane Doe No. 101, Jane Doe No. n 102. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit "A", # 2 Exhibit "B", # 3 Text of Proposed Order)Associated Cases: 9:08-cv-80119-KAM, 9:09-cv-80591-KAM, 9:09- cv-80656-KAM(Ezell, Katherine) (Entered: 05/26/2009) 05/27/2009 17 ORDER terminating(28) Motion to Preserve Evidence in case 9:09-cv- 80591-KAM; terminating(16) Motion to Preserve Evidence in case 9:09- cv-80656-KAM This motion is pending ONLY in case no. 08-80119.. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 5/27/2009. (1c3) (Entered: 05/27/2009) 05/27/2009 18 NOTICE by Jane Doe re (111 in 9:08-cv-80119-KAM) Plaintiffs MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response as to (91 in 9:08-cv-80119-KAM) Defendant's MOTION to Compel Identity ofDoe in Style of Case and Third-Party Subpoenas (replaces Docket entry 90)Plaintiffs MOTION for r Extension of Time to File Response as to (91 in 9:08-cv-80119-ICAM) Defendant's MOTION to Compel Identity of Doe in Style of Case and Third-Party Subpoenas (replaces Docket entry 90) (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)Associated Cases: 9:08-cv-80119-KAM et al.(Horowitz, Adam) (Entered: 05/27/2009) 05/28/2009 19 ORDER STRIKING Notice by Jane Doe in all Epstein cases EXCEPT in case 08-80119. This Notice should only be filed in 08-80119, not in all of the Epstein cases... Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 5/28/2009. Associated Cases: 9:08-cv-80119-KAM et al. (1c3) (Entered: 05/28/2009) 05/29/2009 20 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by on behalf of r United States of America Associated Cases: 9:08-cv-80119-KAM et al. , IM) (Entered: 05/29/2009) 05/29/2009 21 RESPONSE to Motion re (72 in 9:08-cv-80380-KAM) Defendant's MOTION to Stay re (62) Amended Complaint, (57 in 9:08-cv-80232- KAM) Defendant's MOTION to Stay re (50) Amended Complaint, (24 in 9:08-cv-80893-KAM) Defendant's MOTION to Stay re (1) Complaint, (23 in 9:08-cv-80994-KAM) Defendant's MOTION to Stay re (18) Amended Complaint, (22 in 9:08-cv-80993-KAM) Defendant's MOTION to Stay re n (19) Amended Complaint, (65 in 9:08-cv-80119-KAM) Defendant's MOTION to Stay re (56) Amended Complaint, (68 in 9:08-cv-80381- KAM) Defendant's MOTION to Stay re (60) Amended Complaint, (51 in 9:08-cv-80811-KAM) Defendant's MOTION to Stay re (40) Amended Complaint and or Continue Action Filed Pursuant to Court's Order Requesting Government's Position filed by United States of America. https://ec£flsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?825839498761356-L_801_0-1 6/10/2009 EFTA00175223 CM/ECF - Live Database - 11. d Page 5 of 7 Rtlue17.6/8/2009. Associated Cases: 9:08-cv-80119-ICAM et al. ( , M =) (Entered: 05/29/2009) 05/29/2009 22 RESPONSE in Opposition re (90 in 9:08-cv-80119-ICAM) Defendant's MOTION to Compel Identify Doe in Style of Case and in Third-Party Subpoenas, (91 in 9:08-cv-80119-KAM) Defendant's MOTION to Compel Identity of Doe in Style of Case and Third-Party Subpoenas (replaces Docket entry 90) filed by Jane Doe No. 102, Jane Doe No. 101. Associated Cases: 9:08-cv-80119-KAM et al.(Ezell, Katherine) (Entered: 05/29/2009) 05/29/2009 23 ORDER STRIKING (124 in 9:08-cv-80119-KAM, 105 in 9:08-cv-80811- ICAM, 74 in 9:08-cv-80993-KAM, 72 in 9:08-cv-80893-KAM, 106 in 9:08- cv-80232-KAM, 123 in 9:08-cv-80380-KAM, 35 in 9:09-cv-80591-KAM, 25 in 9:09-cv-80469-KAM, 60 in 9:08-cv-80994-KAM, 22 in 9:09-cv- 80656-1CAM, 107 in 9:08-cv-80381-KAM) Response in Opposition to Motion, filed by Jane Doe No. 102, Jane Doe No. 101 DO NOT FILE IN EVERY EPSTEIN CASE. SEE ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES.. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 5/29/2009. Associated Cases: 9:08- cv-80119-KAM et al. (Ic3) (Entered: 05/29/2009) 05/29/2009 24 MOTION for Leave to File UNDER SEAL RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO STAY OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO r UNSEAL THE NONPROSECUTION AGREEMENT by Jane Doe No. 102, Jane Doe No. 101. Associated Cases: 9:08-cv-80119-ICAM et al.(Ezell, Katherine) (Entered: 05/29/2009) 05/29/2009 25 MOTION for Hearing MOTION TO RESCHEDULE HEARING by Jane r Doe No. 102, Jane Doe No. 101. Associated Cases: 9:08-cv-80119-KAM et al.(Josefsberg, Robert) (Entered: 05/29/2009) 06/01/2009 26 ORDER STRIKING (28 in 9:09-cv-80469-KAM, 126 in 9:08-cv-80380- KAM, 109 in 9:08-cv-80232-KAM, 25 in 9:09-cv-80656-KAM, 77 in 9:08- cv-80993-KAM, 38 in 9:09-cv-80591-KAM, 110 in 9:08-cv-80381-KAM, 63 in 9:08-cv-80994-KAM, 75 in 9:08-cv-80893-KAM, 108 in 9:08-cv- 80811-KAM) Motion to Continue Hearing filed by Jane Doe No. 102, Jane Doe No. 101, (76 in 9:08-cv-80993-ICAM, 109 in 9:08-cv-80381-KAM, 108 in 9:08-cv-80232-KAM, 62 in 9:08-cv-80994-KAM, 125 in 9:08-cv- 80380-KAM, 74 in 9:08-cv-80893-KAM, 24 in 9:09-cv-80656-KAM, 37 in 9:09-cv-80591-KAM, 107 in 9:08-cv-80811-KAM, 27 in 9:09-cv-80469- KAM) Motion for Leave to File, filed by Jane Doe No. 102, Jane Doe No. 101. THESE DOCUMENTS SHOULD BE FILED ONLY IN 08-80119. SEE CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER.. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 6/1/2009. (1c3) (Entered: 06/01/2009) 06/04/2009 27 REPLY to Response to Motion re (113 in 9:08-cv-80119-ICAM) Plaintiffs MOTION Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and Jane Doe 102's Motion for No- r Contact Order Plaints Jane Doe No. 101 and Jane Doe No. 102's Reply to Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Response to Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and https://ecf.flsd.useourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.p17825839498761356-L_801_0-1 6/10/2009 EFTA00175224 CM/ECF - Live Database - tlsd Page 6 of 7 Jane Doe No. 102's Motionfor a No-Contact Order filed by Jane Doe No. 101, Jane Doe No. 102. Associated Cases: 9:08-cv-80119-KAM et al. (Ezell, Katherine) (Entered: 06/04/2009) 06/04/2009 28 ORDER STRIKING (112 in 9:08-cv-80381-ICAM, 111 in 9:08-cv-80232- KAM, 136 in 9:08-cv-80119-KAM, 111 in 9:08-cv-80811-KAM, 128 in 9:08-cv-80380-KAM, 65 in 9:08-cv-80994-KAM, 79 in 9:08-cv-80893- KAM, 42 in 9:09-cv-80591-KAM, 27 in 9:09-cv-80656-KAM, 32 in 9:09- cv-80469-KAM, 79 in 9:08-cv-80993-ICAM) Reply to Response to Motion, filed by Jane Doe No. 102, Jane Doe No. 101 Document stricken for failure to follow Courts orders. DO NOT FILE A DOCUMENT IN EVERY EPSTEIN CASE if it is to be filed only in 08-80119. See Case Management Order and contact CM/ECF Support for assistance in proper filing.. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 6/4/2009. Associated Cases: 9:08-cv-80119- KAM et al. (1c3) (Entered: 06/04/2009) 06/08/2009 29 RESPONSE to Motion re (91 in 9:08-cv-80119-KAM) Defendant's MOTION to Compel Identity of Doe in Style of Case and Third-Party ri Subpoenas (replaces Docket entry 90) filed by Jane Doe. Replies due by 6/18/2009. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)Associated Cases: 9:08-cv-80119-KAM et al.(Horowitz, Adam) (Entered: 06/08/2009) 06/08/2009 30 NOTICE by Jane Doe re (113 in 9:08-cv-80119-KAM) Plaintiffs MOTION r Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and Jane Doe 102's Motionfor No-Contact Order -Plaintiffs Jane Does 2-7 Notice of Joinder Associated Cases: 9:08- cv-80119-KAM et al.(Horowitz, Adam) (Entered: 06/08/2009) 06/10/2009 31 Clerks Notice of Docket Correction and Instruction to Filer re 29 Response to Motion, filed by Jane Doe. Error - Document Incomplete, i.e. Missing Page 1 on Attachments: #2 Exhibit B . (Is) (Entered: 06/10/2009) 06/10/2009 32 Clerks Notice of Docket Correction and Instruction to Filer re 30 Notice (Other), Notice (Other) filed by Jane Doe. Error - Wrong Event Selected;. Instruction to Filer - In the future, please select the proper event, i.e. Notice of Adoption. It is not necessary to refile this document. (ls) (Entered: 06/10/2009) View Selected or Download Selected PACER Service Center Transaction Receipt 06/10/2009 14:37:13 PACER du4480 Client Code: Login: r it https://ecf.flsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.p ?825839498761356-L_801 0-1 6/10/2009 EFTA00175225 CM/ECF - Live Database - flsd Page 7 of 7 !Description: Billable Docket Report !!Search Criteria: 9:09-cv-80656- KAM 4 Cost: 0.32 Pages: https://ecf.flsd.uscourts.gov/egi-bin/DktRpt.pl?825839498761356-L_801_0-1 6/10/2009 EFTA00175226 Case 9:08-cv-80993-KAM Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/27/2009 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08- 80993-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 7, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. AMENDED COMPLAINT Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 7 ("Jane" or "Jane Doe"), brings this Complaint against Jeffrey Epstein, as follows: Parties, Jurisdiction and Venue 1. Jane Doe No. 7 is a citizen and resident of the State of Florida, and is sui juris. 2. This Complaint is brought under a fictitious name to protect the identity of the Plaintiff because this Complaint makes sensitive allegations of sexual assault and abuse upon a minor. 3. Defendant Jeffrey Epstein is a citizen and resident of the State of New York. 4. This is an action for damages in excess of $50 million. 5. This Court has jurisdiction of this action and the claims set forth herein pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1332(a), as the matter in controversy (i) exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs; and (ii) is between citizens of different states. 6. Additionally, this Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331 because Plaintiff alleges a claim under the laws of the United States. This Court has supplemental - 1- EFTA00175227 Case 9:08-cv-80993-KAM Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/27/2009 Page 3 of 8 generally $200 to $300 per "massage" session - and who were perceived as less likely to complain to authorities or have credibility if allegations of improper conduct were made. This was an important element of Epstein's plan. 12. Epstein's plan and scheme reflected a particular pattern and method. The underage victim would be brought to Epstein's mansion, where she would be introduced to Epstein's assistant. Mould then bring the girl up a flight of stairs to a bedroom that contained a massage table in addition to other furnishings. The girl would then find herself alone in the room with Epstein, who would be wearing only a towel. He woulddirect he rigl to give him a massage. Epstein would then perform one or more lewd, lascivious and sexual acts, including 13. Consistent with the foregoing plan and scheme, when Jane Doe was 16 years old, she was recruited o give Epstein a massage for monetary compensation. Jane was by=It brought to Epstein's mansion in Palm Beach. Once there, Jane was introduced to all who led her up the flight of stairs to the room with the massage table. In this room, Jane was directed by Epstein to give him a massage. During this massage, Epstein sexually assaulted Jane and Epstein then paid Jane money. 14. Jane returned on many occasions to the Palm Beach mansion to provide Epstein with massages for money. On those occasions, Epstein engaged in sexual contact and activity with Jane, which included, among other things, Epstein touching Jane's placing on her his sexual abuse continued over a period of approximately 18-24 months. 15. As a result of these encounters with Epstein, Jane experienced confusion, shame, humiliation and embarrassment, and has suffered severe psychological and emotional injuries. -3- EFTA00175228 , Case 9:08-cv-80993-KAM Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/27/2009 Page 5 of 8 in mental or sexual injury that caused or were likely to cause Jane Doe's mental or emotional health to be significantly impaired. 26. Epstein's conduct caused severe emotional distress to Jane Doe. Epstein knew or had reason to know that his intentional and outrageous conduct would cause emotional distress and damage to Jane Doe, or Epstein acted with reckless disregard of the high probability of causing severe emotional distress to Jane Doe. 27. As a direct and proximate result of Epstein's intentional or reckless conduct, Jane Doe, has suffered and will continue to suffer severe mental anguish and pain. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 7 demands judgment against Defendant Jeffrey Epstein for compensatory damages, costs, punitive damages, and such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. COUNT III Coercion and Enticement to Sexual Activity in Violation of 18 U.S.C. ti2422 28. Plaintiff Jane Doe repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through I5 above. 29. Epstein used a facility or means of interstate commerce to knowingly persuade, induce or entice Jane Doe, when she was under the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution or sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense. 30. On June 30, 2008, Epstein entered a plea of guilty to violations of Florida §§ 796.07 and 796.03, in the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County (Case nos. 2008-cf- 00938 I AXX XMB and 2006-cf-009454AXXXMB), for conduct involving the same plan and scheme as alleged herein. 31. As to Plaintiff Jane Doe, Epstein could have been charged with criminal violations of Florida Statute §796.07(2) (including subsections (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), and (h) thereof), and other -5- EFTA00175229 Case 9:08-cv-80993-KAM Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/27/2009 Page 7 of 8 Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those parties who are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing. /s/ Adam D. Horowitz -7- EFTA00175230 Case 9:08-cv-80993-KAM Document 86 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2009 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80993-MARRA-JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 7 Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S FIRST AMENDED ANSWER & AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFF'S (FIRST) AMENDED COMPLAINT Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, (hereinafter "EPSTEIN"), by and through his undersigned attorneys, files his Answer to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint [DE 19] and states: 1. Without knowledge and deny. 2. As to the allegations in paragraphs 2, Defendant asserts his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. See DeLisi v. Bankers Ins. Company, 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Malloy v. Hogan, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964)(the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination Clause applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment - "Olt would be incongruous to have different standards determine the validity of a claim of privilege based on the same feared prosecution, depending on whether the claim was asserted in state or federal court."); 5 Fed.Prac. & Proc. Civ. ad §1280 Effect of Failure to Deny — Privilege Against Self- Incrimination (".,.court must treat the defendant's claim of privilege as equivalent to a specific denial."). See also 24 Fla.Jur.2d Evidence §592. Defendants in civil actions. - EFTA00175231 Case 9:08-cv-80993-KAM Document 86 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2009 Page 3 of 10 Jane Doe No. 7 v. Epstein Page 3 7. As to the allegations in paragraphs 7 through 15 of Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint, Defendant exercises his Fifth Amendment Privilege against self- incrimination. See DeLisi v. Bankers Ins. Company, 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Malloy v. Hogan 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964)(the Fifth Amendment's Self- Incrimination Clause applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment - `lilt would be incongruous to have different standards determine the validity of a claim of privilege based on the same feared prosecution, depending on whether the claim was asserted in state or federal court."); 5 Fed.Prac. & Proc. Civ. 3d §1280 Effect of Failure to Deny — Privilege Against Self-incrimination ("...court must treat the defendant's claim of privilege as equivalent to a specific denial."). See also 24 FIa.Jur.2d Evidence §592. Defendants In civil actions. —"... a civil defendant who raises an affirmative defense is not precluded from asserting the privilege [against self-incrimination], because affirmative defenses do not constitute the kind of voluntary application for affirmative relief' which would prevent a plaintiff bringing a claim seeking affirmative relief from asserting the privilege. 8. In response to the allegations of paragraph 16, Defendant realleges and adopts his responses to paragraphs 1 through 15 of the Second Amended Complaint set forth in paragraphs 1 through 7 above herein. 9. Defendant asserts the Fifth Amendment Privilege against self-Incrimination to the allegations set forth in paragraphs 17 through 22 of the Second Amended Complaint. See DeLisi v. Bankers Ins. Company, 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4Ih DCA 1983); Malloy v. Hogan, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964)(the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination EFTA00175232 Casa 9:08-cv-80993-KAM Document 86 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2009 Page 5 of 10 Jane Doe No. 7 v. Epstein Page 5 §1280 Effect of Failure to Deny — Privilege Against Self-incrimination ("...court must treat the defendant's claim of privilege as equivalent to a specific denial."). See also 24 FIa.Jur.2d Evidence §592. Defendants In civil actions. —"... a civil defendant who raises an affirmative defense is not precluded from asserting the privilege [against self- incrimination], because affirmative defenses do not constitute the kind of voluntary application for affirmative relief" which would prevent a plaintiff bringing a claim seeking affirmative relief from asserting the privilege. 12. In response to the allegations of paragraph 29, Defendant realleges and adopts his responses to paragraphs 1 through 15 of the Second Amended Complaint set forth in paragraphs 1 through 7 above herein. 13. Defendant asserts the Fifth Amendment Privilege against self-incrimination to the allegations set forth in paragraphs 30 through 35 of the Second Amended Complaint. See DeLisi v. Bankers Ins. Company, 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Malloy v. Hogan, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964)(the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination Clause applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment - lilt would be incongruous to have different standards determine the validity of a claim of privilege based on the same feared prosecution, depending on whether the claim was asserted in state or federal court."); 5 Fed.Prac. & Proc. Civ. 3d §1280 Effect of Failure to Deny — Privilege Against Self-Incrimination ("...court must treat the defendant's claim of privilege as equivalent to a specific denial."). See also 24 FIa.Jur.2d Evidence §592. Defendants in civil actions. —"... a civil defendant who raises an affirmative defense is not precluded from asserting the privilege [against self- EFTA00175233 Case 9:08-cv-80993-KAM Document 86 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2009 Page 7 of 10 Jane Doe No. 7 v. Epstein Page 7 7. Plaintiff's claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. 8. As to Plaintiff's claims for punitive damages in Count I — "Sexual Assault & Battery," and Count II — "Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress," such claims are subject to the limitations as set forth in §768.72, et seq., Florida Statutes. 9. As to Plaintiff's claims for punitive damages in Count I — "Sexual Assault & Battery," and Count II — "Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress," such claims are subject to the constitutional limitations and guideposts as set for