EFTA00067398.pdf
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 1 of 37
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA-JOHNSON
JANE DOE NO. 2,
Plaintiff,
v.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant.
DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE & OBJECTIONS
TO PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through his undersigned attorneys,
serves his responses and objections to Plaintiffs December 9, 2008 Amended First Set
Of Interrogatories To Defendant Jeffrey Epstein, attached hereto.
Certificate of Service
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing has been sent by fax and
U.S. Mail to the following addressees this 26th day of January, 2009:
Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. Jack Alan Goldberger
Jeffrey Marc Herman, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss. P.A.
Stuart S. Mermelstein Es
Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein
ounse • r aintiff Jane Doe #2
Corn P /I(EXHIBIT '02
EFTA00067398
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 2 of 37
Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein
Page 2
Respectfully su itted,
By:
ROBERT RITTON, JR., ESQ.
Florida Ba
SQ.
, LUTTIER & COLEMAN
(Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein)
EFTA00067399
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 3 of 37
Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein
Page 3
DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S ANSWERS AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Interrogatory No. 1. Identify all employees who performed work of services inside
the Palm Beach Residence.
Answer: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as
well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions
regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide
answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk
losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my
federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as
guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under
these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional
rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. In addition
to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, Defendant objects as the
interrogatory is overbroad and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject
matter of the pending action nor does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiffs Complaint alleges a time period of "in or
about 2004-2005." Plaintiffs interrogatory seeks information for a time period from
January 1, 2003 until present. Also, see "Employee" as defined in paragraph g of
Plaintiffs interrogatories.
Interrogatory No. 2. Identify all Employees not identified in response to
interrogatory no. 1 who at any time came to Defendant's Palm Beach Residence.
Answer: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as
well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions
regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide
answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk
losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my
federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as
guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under
these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional
rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. In addition
to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, Defendant objects as the
interrogatory is overbroad and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject
matter of the pending action nor does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiffs Complaint alleges a time period of "in or
about 2004-2005." Plaintiffs interrogatory seeks information for "all Employees" "who at
any time" came to the residence. Also, see "Employee" as defined in paragraph g of
Plaintiffs interrogatories.
EFTA00067400
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 4 of 37
Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein
Page 4
Interrogatory No. 3. Identify all persons who came to the Palm Beach Residence
and who gave a massage or were asked to give a massage to Defendant.
Answer: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as
well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions
regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide
answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk
losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my
federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as
guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under
these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional
rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. In addition
to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, Defendant objects as the
interrogatory is overbroad and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject
matter of the pending action nor does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiffs Complaint alleges a time period of "in or
about 2004-2005."
Interrogatory No. 4. Identify all persons who came to the New York Residence
and who gave a massage or were asked to give a massage to Defendant.
Answer: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as
well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions
regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide
answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk
losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my
federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as
guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under
these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional
rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. In addition
to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, Defendant objects as the
interrogatory is overbroad and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject
matter of the pending action nor does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiffs Complaint alleges a time period of "in or
about 2004-2005."
Interrogatory No. 5. Identify all persons who came to the New Mexico Residence
and who gave a massage or were asked to give a massage to Defendant.
Answer: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as
well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions
regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide
answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk
losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my
EFTA00067401
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 5 of 37
Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein
Page 5
federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as
guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under
these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional
rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. In addition
to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, Defendant objects as the
interrogatory is overbroad and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject
matter of the pending action nor does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff's Complaint alleges a time period of "in or
about 2004-2005."
Interrogatory No. 6. Identify all persons who came to the St. Thomas Residence
and who gave a massage or were asked to give a massage to Defendant.
Answer: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as
well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions
regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide
answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk
losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my
federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as
guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under
these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional
rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. In addition
to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, Defendant objects as the
interrogatory is overbroad and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject
matter of the pending action nor does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiffs Complaint alleges a time period of "in or
about 2004-2005."
Interrogatory No. 7. List all the time periods during which Jeffrey Epstein was
present in the State of Florida, including for each the date he arrive and the date he
departed.
Answer: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as
well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions
regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide
answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk
losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my
federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as
guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under
these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional
rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. In addition
to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, Defendant also objects as the
interrogatory is overbroad and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject
matter of the pending action nor does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the
EFTA00067402
Cise 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 6 of 37
Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein
Page 6
discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiffs Complaint alleges a time period of "in or
about 2004-2005." Plaintiffs interrogatory seeks information for a time period from
January 1, 2003 until present.
Interrogatory No. 8. Identify all of Jeffrey Epstein health care providers in the
past (10) ten years, including without limitation, psychologists, psychiatrists, mental
health counselors, physicians, hospitals and treatment facilities.
Answer: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as
well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions
regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide
answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk
losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my
federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as
guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under
these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional
rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. In addition
to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, Defendant also objects as the
interrogatory is overbroad and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject
matter of the pending action nor does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence. In addition, such information is privileged pursuant to
Rule 501, Fed. Evid., and §90.503, FIa.Evid. Code. In addition, such information is
protected by the provisions of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
(HIPAA).
Interrogatory No. 9. List all items in Jeffrey Epstein's possession in Palm Beach,
Florida, at any time during the period of these interrogatories, which were used or
intended to be used as sexual aids, sex toys, massage aids, and/or vibrators, and for
each, list the manufacturer, model number (if applicable), and its present location.
Answer: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as
well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions
regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide
answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk
losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my
federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as
guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under
these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional
rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. In addition
to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, Defendant also objects as the
interrogatory is overbroad and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject
matter of the pending action nor does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiffs Amended Complaint alleges a time period
of "in or about 2004 — 2005," while Plaintiffs interrogatory seeks information from
EFTA00067403
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 7 of 37
Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein
Page 7
January 1, 2003, until present. Further, the request is meant to embarrass and harass
the Defendant.
Interrogatory No. 10. Identify all persons who provide transportation services to
Jeffrey Epstein, whether as employees or independent contractors, including without
limitation, chauffeurs and aircraft crew.
Answer: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as
well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions
regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide
answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk
losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my
federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as
guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under
these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional
rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. In addition
to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, Defendant also objects as the
interrogatory is overbroad and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject
matter of the pending action nor does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff places no time limitation.
Interrogatory No. 11. Identify all telephone numbers used by Epstein, including
cellular phones and land lines in any of his residences, by stating the complete
telephone number and the name of the service provider.
Answer: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as
well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions
regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide
answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk
losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my
federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as
guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under
these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional
rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. In addition
to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, Defendant also objects as the
interrogatory is overbroad and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject
matter of the pending action nor does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiffs allegations claim a time period of "in or
about 2004-2005" and involve Defendant's Palm Beach residence.
Interrogatory No. 12. Identify all telephone numbers of employees of Epstein,
used in the course or scope of their employment, including cellular phones and land
lines in any of his residences, by stating the complete telephone number and the name
of the service provider.
EFTA00067404
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 8 of 37
Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein
Page 8
Answer: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as
well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions
regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide
answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk
losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my
federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as
guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under
these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional
rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. In addition
to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, Defendant objects as the
interrogatory is overbroad and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject
matter of the pending action nor does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiffs allegations claim a time period of min or
about 2004-2005" and involve Defendant's Palm Beach residence.
Interrogatory No. 13. List the names and addresses of all persons who are
believed or known by your, your agents, or your attorneys to have any knowledge
concerning any of the issues in this lawsuit; and specify the subject matter about which
the witness has knowledge.
Answer: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as
well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions
regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide
answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk
losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my
federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as
guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under
these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional
rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. In addition
to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, the interrogatory seeks information
that is attorney-client and work product privileged as it seeks information known by
Defendant's attorneys. The interrogatory is so overbroad that Defendant cannot
reasonably form a response, including the raising of additional privileges which may
apply. Without waiving any objection, see Rule 26 disclosures made by Defendant's
counsel in this case.
Interrogatory No. 14. State the name and address of every person known to you,
your agents, or your attorneys who has knowledge about, possession, or custody, or
control of, any model, plat, map, drawing, motion picture, videotape or photograph
pertaining to any fact or issue involved in this controversy; and describe as to each,
what item such person has, the name and address of the person who took or prepared
it, and the date it was taken or prepared.
EFTA00067405
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 9 of 37
Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein
Page 9
Answer: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as
well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions
regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide
answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk
losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my
federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as
guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under
these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional
rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. In addition
to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, the interrogatory seeks information
that is attorney-client and work product privileged as it seeks information known by
Defendant's attorneys.
Interrogatory No. 15. Identify all persons who have made a claim, complaint,
demand or threat against you relating to alleged sexual abuse or misconduct on a
minor, and for each provide the following information:
a. The person's full name, last known address and telephone number;
b. The person's attorney, if represented;
c. The date of the alleged incident(s);
d. If a civil case has been filed by or on behalf of the person, the case number
and identifying information.
Answer: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as
well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions
regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide
answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk
losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my
federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as
guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under
these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional
rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. In addition
to and without waiving his constitutional privileges and without waiving such objection,
with regard to subparagraph (d), Defendant's counsel states that such information is
public record and equally attainable by Plaintiff.
Interrogatory No. 16. State the facts upon which you intend to rely for each denial
of a pleading allegation and for each affirmative defense you intend to make in these
cases.
Answer: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as
well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions
regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide
answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk
EFTA00067406
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 10 of 37
Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein
Page 10
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, no answer to the Amended
Complaint has been filed by defense counsel in this case; however, Defendant does not
intend to waive his constitutional privilege against self-incrimination. Defendant further
objects in that Plaintiffs interrogatory attempts to obtain discovery in other cases filed
by her undersigned counsel.
Interrogatory No. 17. Identify all witnesses from whom you have obtained or
requested a written, transcribed or recorded statement relating to any issue in these
cases, and for each, in addition to the witness's identifying information, state the date of
the statement and identify the person taking the statement.
Answer: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as well
as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions
regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide
answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk
losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my
federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as
guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under
these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional
rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. In addition
to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, Defendant objects to this
interrogatory in that it seeks information that is attorney-client and work product
privileged. In addition, the request is overbroad in that it seeks information "relating to
any issue."
STATE OF Flor.‘
COUNTY OF 9c,\. Ckery )
I hereby certify that on this day, before me, an officer duly authorized to administer oaths
and take acknowledgments, personally appeared e_sccrr..z.i , known to
me to be the person described in and who executed the foregoing Interrogatories who
EFTA00067407
. Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 11 of 37
Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein
Page 11
acknowledged before me that he/she executed the same, that I relied upon the following form of
identification of the above-named person: personally known/identification and that an oath
was/was not taken.
WITNESS my hand and official seal in the County and State last aforesaid this 2.6*
day of \ar‘..acar..‘ 2009.
•
•••••
NOTARY PUBLIC-STATE OF FLORIDA PRelatrvIE: cs14/ krxr..en.. Mrktit
?trial Notary Public/State of Florida
(SEAL) Commission
(* Expires: D Commission #:
BONDED THRU Amur= BONDING CO, Bic My Commission Expires:
EFTA00067408
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 12 of 37
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA-JOHNSON
JANE DOE NO. 2,
Plaintiff,
v.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant.
DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE & OBJECTIONS TO
SECOND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, dated December 19, 2008
Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through his undersigned
attorneys, serves his responses and objections to the Request to Produce, dated
December 19, 2008 and states:
Request No. 1. All policies of insurance, including the declarations
page and all binders, amendments, and endorsements, covering Defendant's
residence at 358 El Brillo Way, Palm Beach, FL 33480.
Response: Objection, overly broad, not relevant and material and not
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff alleged
claims occurred during a specific time period in 2004 - 2005, yet to be
specifically identified. Yet, no time period whatsoever is set forth in the Request
for Production. Additionally, Defendant objects in that the policies contain value
and/or asset information which is not relevant, material nor calculated to lead to
the discovery of admissible evidence at this point in time; said information is both
private and confidential.
ecier*lis
EFTA00067409
lase 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 13 of 37
Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein
Page 2
Certificate of Service
WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing has been sent
via U.S. Mail and facsimile to the following addressees this 26th day of
January 2009.
Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. Jack Alan Goldberger
Jeffrey Marc Herman, Esq. A
Stuart S. M rmelstein Es
o- ounse or Defendant Jeffrey
Epstein
Counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe #2
Respectfull sub ed
By:
ROBER
Florida Ba
MICHAEL J. PIKE ESQ.
Florida Bar
BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER &
COLEMAN
(Co-counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein)
EFTA00067410
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 14 of 37
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA-JOHNSON
JANE DOE NO. 2,
Plaintiff,
v.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant.
DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE & OBJECTIONS
TO PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION
Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through his undersigned counsel,
serves his responses and objections to Plaintiff's Amended First Request For
Production To Defendant, dated December 9, 2008.
Request No. 1. The list provided to you by the U.S. Attorney of individuals
whom the U.S. Attorney was prepared to name in an Indictment as victims of an
offense by Mr. Epstein enumerated in 18 U.S.C. §2255.
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
EFTA00067411
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 15 of 37
Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein
Page 2
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 is overly broad, work product,
attorney-client privileged, and confidential. In addition, the request seeks
information concerning persons, not parties to this litigation, whose privacy rights
are implicated.
Request No. 2. All documents referring or relating to the United States'
agreement with Defendant to defer federal prosecution subject to certain
conditions, including without limitation, the operative agreement between
Defendant and the United States and all amendments, revisions and
supplements thereto.
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
EFTA00067412
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 16 of 37
Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein
Page 3
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 is overly broad, work product,
attorney-client privileged, and confidential. In addition, the request seeks
information concerning persons, not parties to this litigation, whose privacy rights
are implicated.
Request No. 3. All documents referring or relating to Defendant's agreement
with the State of Florida on his plea of guilty to violations of Florida Criminal
Statutes, including without limitation, the operative plea agreement and any
amendments, revisions and supplements thereto.
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
EFTA00067413
Cse 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 17 of 37
Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein
Page 4
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 is overly broad, work product,
attorney-client privileged, and confidential. In addition, the request seeks
information concerning persons, not parties to this litigation, whose privacy rights
are implicated. Whatever public documents exist are in the State Court file and
equally accessible to Plaintiff.
Request No.4. All documents obtained in discovery or investigation relating
to either the Florida Criminal Case or the Federal Criminal Case, including
without limitation, documents obtained from any federal, state, or local law
enforcement agency, the State Attorney's office and the United States Attorney's
office.
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
EFTA00067414
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 18 of 37
Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein
Page 5
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 is overly broad, work product,
attorney-client privileged, and confidential. In addition, the request seeks
information concerning persons, not parties to this litigation, whose privacy rights
are implicated. Request No. 4 seeks documents that are attorney-client and
work product privileged in that it seeks "all documents obtained in discovery or
investigation relating either to the Florida Criminal Case or the Federal Criminal
Case ... ." In addition, such documents are privileged and confidential as they
are the subject of a pending investigation.
Request No. 5. All telephone records and other documents reflecting telephone
calls made by or to Defendant, including without limitation, telephone logs and
message pads.
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
EFTA00067415
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 19 of 37
Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein
Page 6
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 is overly broad, work product,
attorney-client privileged, and confidential. In addition, the request seeks
information concerning persons, not parties to this litigation, whose privacy rights
are implicated. Defendant objects as the request is overbroad and seeks
information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of the pending action nor
does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence. Plaintiff's complaint alleges a time period of "in or about 2004 — 2005."
Plaintiffs request seeks information for a time period of January 1, 2003 until
present regarding any and all telephone records and other documents reflecting
any and all telephone calls made to or by Defendant. As phrased, the request
includes attorney-client and work product privileged information, as well as
records and documents of calls having absolutely no relationship to any of the
allegations in this action.
Request No. 6. All telephone records and other documents reflecting telephone
calls made by or to Defendant, including without limitation, telephone logs and
message pads, reflecting telephone calls made by or to employees.
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
EFTA00067416
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 20 of 37
Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein
Page 7
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 is overly broad, work product,
attorney-client privileged, and confidential. In addition, as defined by Plaintiff in
paragraph g of her request, the term employee is overly broad and encompasses
information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of the pending action nor
does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence. Further, the request seeks information pertaining to person who are
not parties to this action and whose privacy rights are implicated.
Request No. 7. All surveillance videos, slides, film, videotape, digital recording
or other audio or video depiction or image of the Palm Beach Residence.
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
EFTA00067417
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 21 of 37
Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein
Page 8
Sixth Amendment right to effective representation.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA-JOHNSON
JANE DOE NO. 2,
Plaintiff,
v.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant.
DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE & OBJECTIONS
TO PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through his undersigned attorneys,
serves his responses and objections to Plaintiffs December 9, 2008 Amended First Set
Of Interrogatories To Defendant Jeffrey Epstein, attached hereto.
Certificate of Service
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing has been sent by fax and
U.S. Mail to the following addressees this 26th day of January, 2009:
Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. Jack Alan Goldberger
Jeffrey Marc Herman, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss. P.A.
Stuart S. Mermelstein Es
Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein
ounse • r aintiff Jane Doe #2
Corn P /I(EXHIBIT '02
EFTA00067398
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 2 of 37
Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein
Page 2
Respectfully su itted,
By:
ROBERT RITTON, JR., ESQ.
Florida Ba
SQ.
, LUTTIER & COLEMAN
(Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein)
EFTA00067399
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 3 of 37
Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein
Page 3
DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S ANSWERS AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Interrogatory No. 1. Identify all employees who performed work of services inside
the Palm Beach Residence.
Answer: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as
well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions
regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide
answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk
losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my
federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as
guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under
these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional
rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. In addition
to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, Defendant objects as the
interrogatory is overbroad and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject
matter of the pending action nor does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiffs Complaint alleges a time period of "in or
about 2004-2005." Plaintiffs interrogatory seeks information for a time period from
January 1, 2003 until present. Also, see "Employee" as defined in paragraph g of
Plaintiffs interrogatories.
Interrogatory No. 2. Identify all Employees not identified in response to
interrogatory no. 1 who at any time came to Defendant's Palm Beach Residence.
Answer: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as
well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions
regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide
answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk
losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my
federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as
guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under
these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional
rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. In addition
to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, Defendant objects as the
interrogatory is overbroad and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject
matter of the pending action nor does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiffs Complaint alleges a time period of "in or
about 2004-2005." Plaintiffs interrogatory seeks information for "all Employees" "who at
any time" came to the residence. Also, see "Employee" as defined in paragraph g of
Plaintiffs interrogatories.
EFTA00067400
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 4 of 37
Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein
Page 4
Interrogatory No. 3. Identify all persons who came to the Palm Beach Residence
and who gave a massage or were asked to give a massage to Defendant.
Answer: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as
well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions
regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide
answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk
losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my
federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as
guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under
these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional
rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. In addition
to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, Defendant objects as the
interrogatory is overbroad and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject
matter of the pending action nor does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiffs Complaint alleges a time period of "in or
about 2004-2005."
Interrogatory No. 4. Identify all persons who came to the New York Residence
and who gave a massage or were asked to give a massage to Defendant.
Answer: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as
well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions
regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide
answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk
losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my
federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as
guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under
these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional
rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. In addition
to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, Defendant objects as the
interrogatory is overbroad and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject
matter of the pending action nor does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiffs Complaint alleges a time period of "in or
about 2004-2005."
Interrogatory No. 5. Identify all persons who came to the New Mexico Residence
and who gave a massage or were asked to give a massage to Defendant.
Answer: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as
well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions
regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide
answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk
losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my
EFTA00067401
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 5 of 37
Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein
Page 5
federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as
guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under
these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional
rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. In addition
to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, Defendant objects as the
interrogatory is overbroad and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject
matter of the pending action nor does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff's Complaint alleges a time period of "in or
about 2004-2005."
Interrogatory No. 6. Identify all persons who came to the St. Thomas Residence
and who gave a massage or were asked to give a massage to Defendant.
Answer: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as
well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions
regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide
answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk
losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my
federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as
guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under
these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional
rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. In addition
to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, Defendant objects as the
interrogatory is overbroad and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject
matter of the pending action nor does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiffs Complaint alleges a time period of "in or
about 2004-2005."
Interrogatory No. 7. List all the time periods during which Jeffrey Epstein was
present in the State of Florida, including for each the date he arrive and the date he
departed.
Answer: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as
well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions
regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide
answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk
losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my
federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as
guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under
these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional
rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. In addition
to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, Defendant also objects as the
interrogatory is overbroad and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject
matter of the pending action nor does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the
EFTA00067402
Cise 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 6 of 37
Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein
Page 6
discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiffs Complaint alleges a time period of "in or
about 2004-2005." Plaintiffs interrogatory seeks information for a time period from
January 1, 2003 until present.
Interrogatory No. 8. Identify all of Jeffrey Epstein health care providers in the
past (10) ten years, including without limitation, psychologists, psychiatrists, mental
health counselors, physicians, hospitals and treatment facilities.
Answer: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as
well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions
regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide
answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk
losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my
federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as
guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under
these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional
rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. In addition
to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, Defendant also objects as the
interrogatory is overbroad and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject
matter of the pending action nor does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence. In addition, such information is privileged pursuant to
Rule 501, Fed. Evid., and §90.503, FIa.Evid. Code. In addition, such information is
protected by the provisions of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
(HIPAA).
Interrogatory No. 9. List all items in Jeffrey Epstein's possession in Palm Beach,
Florida, at any time during the period of these interrogatories, which were used or
intended to be used as sexual aids, sex toys, massage aids, and/or vibrators, and for
each, list the manufacturer, model number (if applicable), and its present location.
Answer: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as
well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions
regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide
answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk
losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my
federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as
guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under
these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional
rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. In addition
to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, Defendant also objects as the
interrogatory is overbroad and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject
matter of the pending action nor does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiffs Amended Complaint alleges a time period
of "in or about 2004 — 2005," while Plaintiffs interrogatory seeks information from
EFTA00067403
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 7 of 37
Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein
Page 7
January 1, 2003, until present. Further, the request is meant to embarrass and harass
the Defendant.
Interrogatory No. 10. Identify all persons who provide transportation services to
Jeffrey Epstein, whether as employees or independent contractors, including without
limitation, chauffeurs and aircraft crew.
Answer: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as
well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions
regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide
answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk
losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my
federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as
guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under
these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional
rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. In addition
to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, Defendant also objects as the
interrogatory is overbroad and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject
matter of the pending action nor does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff places no time limitation.
Interrogatory No. 11. Identify all telephone numbers used by Epstein, including
cellular phones and land lines in any of his residences, by stating the complete
telephone number and the name of the service provider.
Answer: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as
well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions
regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide
answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk
losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my
federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as
guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under
these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional
rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. In addition
to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, Defendant also objects as the
interrogatory is overbroad and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject
matter of the pending action nor does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiffs allegations claim a time period of "in or
about 2004-2005" and involve Defendant's Palm Beach residence.
Interrogatory No. 12. Identify all telephone numbers of employees of Epstein,
used in the course or scope of their employment, including cellular phones and land
lines in any of his residences, by stating the complete telephone number and the name
of the service provider.
EFTA00067404
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 8 of 37
Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein
Page 8
Answer: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as
well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions
regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide
answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk
losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my
federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as
guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under
these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional
rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. In addition
to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, Defendant objects as the
interrogatory is overbroad and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject
matter of the pending action nor does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiffs allegations claim a time period of min or
about 2004-2005" and involve Defendant's Palm Beach residence.
Interrogatory No. 13. List the names and addresses of all persons who are
believed or known by your, your agents, or your attorneys to have any knowledge
concerning any of the issues in this lawsuit; and specify the subject matter about which
the witness has knowledge.
Answer: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as
well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions
regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide
answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk
losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my
federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as
guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under
these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional
rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. In addition
to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, the interrogatory seeks information
that is attorney-client and work product privileged as it seeks information known by
Defendant's attorneys. The interrogatory is so overbroad that Defendant cannot
reasonably form a response, including the raising of additional privileges which may
apply. Without waiving any objection, see Rule 26 disclosures made by Defendant's
counsel in this case.
Interrogatory No. 14. State the name and address of every person known to you,
your agents, or your attorneys who has knowledge about, possession, or custody, or
control of, any model, plat, map, drawing, motion picture, videotape or photograph
pertaining to any fact or issue involved in this controversy; and describe as to each,
what item such person has, the name and address of the person who took or prepared
it, and the date it was taken or prepared.
EFTA00067405
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 9 of 37
Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein
Page 9
Answer: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as
well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions
regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide
answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk
losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my
federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as
guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under
these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional
rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. In addition
to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, the interrogatory seeks information
that is attorney-client and work product privileged as it seeks information known by
Defendant's attorneys.
Interrogatory No. 15. Identify all persons who have made a claim, complaint,
demand or threat against you relating to alleged sexual abuse or misconduct on a
minor, and for each provide the following information:
a. The person's full name, last known address and telephone number;
b. The person's attorney, if represented;
c. The date of the alleged incident(s);
d. If a civil case has been filed by or on behalf of the person, the case number
and identifying information.
Answer: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as
well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions
regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide
answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk
losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my
federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as
guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under
these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional
rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. In addition
to and without waiving his constitutional privileges and without waiving such objection,
with regard to subparagraph (d), Defendant's counsel states that such information is
public record and equally attainable by Plaintiff.
Interrogatory No. 16. State the facts upon which you intend to rely for each denial
of a pleading allegation and for each affirmative defense you intend to make in these
cases.
Answer: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as
well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions
regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide
answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk
EFTA00067406
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 10 of 37
Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein
Page 10
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, no answer to the Amended
Complaint has been filed by defense counsel in this case; however, Defendant does not
intend to waive his constitutional privilege against self-incrimination. Defendant further
objects in that Plaintiffs interrogatory attempts to obtain discovery in other cases filed
by her undersigned counsel.
Interrogatory No. 17. Identify all witnesses from whom you have obtained or
requested a written, transcribed or recorded statement relating to any issue in these
cases, and for each, in addition to the witness's identifying information, state the date of
the statement and identify the person taking the statement.
Answer: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as well
as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions
regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide
answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk
losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my
federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as
guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under
these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional
rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. In addition
to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, Defendant objects to this
interrogatory in that it seeks information that is attorney-client and work product
privileged. In addition, the request is overbroad in that it seeks information "relating to
any issue."
STATE OF Flor.‘
COUNTY OF 9c,\. Ckery )
I hereby certify that on this day, before me, an officer duly authorized to administer oaths
and take acknowledgments, personally appeared e_sccrr..z.i , known to
me to be the person described in and who executed the foregoing Interrogatories who
EFTA00067407
. Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 11 of 37
Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein
Page 11
acknowledged before me that he/she executed the same, that I relied upon the following form of
identification of the above-named person: personally known/identification and that an oath
was/was not taken.
WITNESS my hand and official seal in the County and State last aforesaid this 2.6*
day of \ar‘..acar..‘ 2009.
•
•••••
NOTARY PUBLIC-STATE OF FLORIDA PRelatrvIE: cs14/ krxr..en.. Mrktit
?trial Notary Public/State of Florida
(SEAL) Commission
(* Expires: D Commission #:
BONDED THRU Amur= BONDING CO, Bic My Commission Expires:
EFTA00067408
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 12 of 37
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA-JOHNSON
JANE DOE NO. 2,
Plaintiff,
v.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant.
DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE & OBJECTIONS TO
SECOND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, dated December 19, 2008
Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through his undersigned
attorneys, serves his responses and objections to the Request to Produce, dated
December 19, 2008 and states:
Request No. 1. All policies of insurance, including the declarations
page and all binders, amendments, and endorsements, covering Defendant's
residence at 358 El Brillo Way, Palm Beach, FL 33480.
Response: Objection, overly broad, not relevant and material and not
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff alleged
claims occurred during a specific time period in 2004 - 2005, yet to be
specifically identified. Yet, no time period whatsoever is set forth in the Request
for Production. Additionally, Defendant objects in that the policies contain value
and/or asset information which is not relevant, material nor calculated to lead to
the discovery of admissible evidence at this point in time; said information is both
private and confidential.
ecier*lis
EFTA00067409
lase 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 13 of 37
Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein
Page 2
Certificate of Service
WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing has been sent
via U.S. Mail and facsimile to the following addressees this 26th day of
January 2009.
Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. Jack Alan Goldberger
Jeffrey Marc Herman, Esq. A
Stuart S. M rmelstein Es
o- ounse or Defendant Jeffrey
Epstein
Counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe #2
Respectfull sub ed
By:
ROBER
Florida Ba
MICHAEL J. PIKE ESQ.
Florida Bar
BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER &
COLEMAN
(Co-counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein)
EFTA00067410
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 14 of 37
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA-JOHNSON
JANE DOE NO. 2,
Plaintiff,
v.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant.
DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE & OBJECTIONS
TO PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION
Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through his undersigned counsel,
serves his responses and objections to Plaintiff's Amended First Request For
Production To Defendant, dated December 9, 2008.
Request No. 1. The list provided to you by the U.S. Attorney of individuals
whom the U.S. Attorney was prepared to name in an Indictment as victims of an
offense by Mr. Epstein enumerated in 18 U.S.C. §2255.
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
EFTA00067411
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 15 of 37
Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein
Page 2
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 is overly broad, work product,
attorney-client privileged, and confidential. In addition, the request seeks
information concerning persons, not parties to this litigation, whose privacy rights
are implicated.
Request No. 2. All documents referring or relating to the United States'
agreement with Defendant to defer federal prosecution subject to certain
conditions, including without limitation, the operative agreement between
Defendant and the United States and all amendments, revisions and
supplements thereto.
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
EFTA00067412
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 16 of 37
Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein
Page 3
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 is overly broad, work product,
attorney-client privileged, and confidential. In addition, the request seeks
information concerning persons, not parties to this litigation, whose privacy rights
are implicated.
Request No. 3. All documents referring or relating to Defendant's agreement
with the State of Florida on his plea of guilty to violations of Florida Criminal
Statutes, including without limitation, the operative plea agreement and any
amendments, revisions and supplements thereto.
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
EFTA00067413
Cse 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 17 of 37
Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein
Page 4
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 is overly broad, work product,
attorney-client privileged, and confidential. In addition, the request seeks
information concerning persons, not parties to this litigation, whose privacy rights
are implicated. Whatever public documents exist are in the State Court file and
equally accessible to Plaintiff.
Request No.4. All documents obtained in discovery or investigation relating
to either the Florida Criminal Case or the Federal Criminal Case, including
without limitation, documents obtained from any federal, state, or local law
enforcement agency, the State Attorney's office and the United States Attorney's
office.
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
EFTA00067414
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 18 of 37
Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein
Page 5
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 is overly broad, work product,
attorney-client privileged, and confidential. In addition, the request seeks
information concerning persons, not parties to this litigation, whose privacy rights
are implicated. Request No. 4 seeks documents that are attorney-client and
work product privileged in that it seeks "all documents obtained in discovery or
investigation relating either to the Florida Criminal Case or the Federal Criminal
Case ... ." In addition, such documents are privileged and confidential as they
are the subject of a pending investigation.
Request No. 5. All telephone records and other documents reflecting telephone
calls made by or to Defendant, including without limitation, telephone logs and
message pads.
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
EFTA00067415
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 19 of 37
Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein
Page 6
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 is overly broad, work product,
attorney-client privileged, and confidential. In addition, the request seeks
information concerning persons, not parties to this litigation, whose privacy rights
are implicated. Defendant objects as the request is overbroad and seeks
information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of the pending action nor
does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence. Plaintiff's complaint alleges a time period of "in or about 2004 — 2005."
Plaintiffs request seeks information for a time period of January 1, 2003 until
present regarding any and all telephone records and other documents reflecting
any and all telephone calls made to or by Defendant. As phrased, the request
includes attorney-client and work product privileged information, as well as
records and documents of calls having absolutely no relationship to any of the
allegations in this action.
Request No. 6. All telephone records and other documents reflecting telephone
calls made by or to Defendant, including without limitation, telephone logs and
message pads, reflecting telephone calls made by or to employees.
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
EFTA00067416
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 20 of 37
Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein
Page 7
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 is overly broad, work product,
attorney-client privileged, and confidential. In addition, as defined by Plaintiff in
paragraph g of her request, the term employee is overly broad and encompasses
information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of the pending action nor
does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence. Further, the request seeks information pertaining to person who are
not parties to this action and whose privacy rights are implicated.
Request No. 7. All surveillance videos, slides, film, videotape, digital recording
or other audio or video depiction or image of the Palm Beach Residence.
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
EFTA00067417
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 21 of 37
Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein
Page 8
Sixth Amendment right to effective representation.