EFTA02739836

Extracted Text #

Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 83 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 1 of 9 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
JANE DOE NO. 2, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA I 
Plaintiff, 
vs. 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 
Defendant. 
JANE DOE NO. 3, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA 
Plaintiff, 
vs. 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 
Defendant. 
JANE DOE NO. 4, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA 
Plaintiff, 
vs. 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 
Defendant. 
JANE DOE NO. 5, CASE NO.: 08-CV-8038I-MARRA 
Plaintiff, 
vs. 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 
Defendant. 
EFTA02739836

Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 83 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 2 of 9 
JANE DOE NO. 6, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80994-MARRA 
Plaintiff, 
vs. 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 
Defendant. 
JANE DOE NO. 7, CASE NO.: 08- 80993-CIV-MARRA I 
Plaintiff, 
vs. 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 
Defendant. 
PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION 
TO EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO FIRST SET OF 
INTERROGATORIES AND FOR AN AWARD OF REASONABLE EXPENSES 
Plaintiffs, JANE DOES 2-7, by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby file this 
Memorandum in Opposition to Epstein's Motion to Compel Plaintiffs to Answer First Set of 
Interrogatories and for an Award of Reasonable Expenses, and state as follows: 
I. Introduction 
Defendant Epstein served an Interrogatory (# 18) seeking to unearth explicit information on 
every bit of possible sexual conduct and activity in chronological order which each Jane Doe might 
have engaged in since age 10, including the names and phone numbers of all persons with whom 
they had sexual contact.' Plaintiffs properly objected to these interrogatories in that discovery on 
Plaintiffs also object to Interrogatory nos. 19, 20, and 21, served on each of them, which seek the 
identities and contact information of any men whom Plaintiffs' claim committed sexual assault or 
-2-
EFTA02739837

Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 83 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 3 of 9 
the sexual history of a childhood abuse victim is substantially limited in federal court, "courts should 
presumptively issue protective orders barring discovery unless the party seeking discovery makes a 
showing that the evidence sought to be discovered would be relevant under the facts and theories of 
the particular case and cannot be obtained except through discovery." See Fed. R. Evid. 412, 
Advisory Committee Notes to 1994 Amendments, subdivision (c). Defendant has made no such 
showing in his Motion to Compel to overcome this presumption. Accordingly, Defendant's Motion 
to Compel must be denied in its entirety. 
H. Argument 
Epstein incorrectly argues that Fed.R.Evid 412 is strictly an evidentiary rule and that Rule 
26(b) must be read exclusively to determine whether information about an abuse victim's sexual 
history is discoverable. The Rule 412 Advisory Committee Notes, however, instruct that Rule 412 
affects not only the admissibility of evidence at trial, but must also "inform the discovery process." 
Barta v. City and County of Honolulu, 169 F.R.D. 132 (D. Haw. 1996). The Committee Notes state, 
in relevant part, as follows: 
Courts should presumptively issue protective orders barring 
discovery unless the party seeking discovery makes a showing that 
the evidence sought to be discovered would be relevant under the 
battery, or engaged in lewd and lascivious conduct or exhibition, against them. Unlike interrogatory 
no. 18, which asks for information regarding all men other than Epstein with whom the Plaintiffs 
have had sexual activity, interrogatory nos. 19-21 are at least limited to criminal conduct. 
Nonetheless, these interrogatories are overbroad and unnecessarily infringe on the Plaintiffs' privacy 
interests, particularly since they seek identity and contact information of men other than Epstein 
whom Plaintiffs claim committed sexual crimes against them. As discussed infra, discovery on a 
victim in a case of this nature is tempered by Fed.R.Evid., 412, and, as a result, a party is not entitled 
to carte blanche discovery on sexual matters involving the victim. There must be a balancing of 
interests based on the discovery sought. Here, Defendant contends that the information it seeks in 
interrogatory nos. 19-21 is relevant to Plaintiffs' damages claims, but fails to state in this regard why 
the perpetrator's identity and contact information specifically is relevant and should be 
discoverable. This discovery should not therefore be allowed. 
-3-
EFTA02739838

Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 83 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 4 of 9 
facts and theories of the particular case and cannot be obtained except 
through discovery. 
Nowhere in Defendant's Motion is it explained how or why this presumption should be 
overcome. It is well established under Fed.R.Evid. 412 that a victim's past sexual behavior is 
wholly irrelevant to the credibility of her testimony, and that her prior and subsequent sexual activity 
with third parties has no bearing on the issue of whether she consented to or complied with the 
sexual acts charged. ee United States v.  M, 472 F.2d 909, 919 (5th Cir. 1973). Virgin Islands v. 
=, 634 F.Supp. 933, 936-37 (D. V.I. 1986) (policy of rule disallowing evidence to show 
character of assault victim); Dept. of Professional Regulation v. Wise 575 So.2d 713 (Fla. 1st DCA 
1991) (holding that evidence of sexual relations with a person other than an accused is not relevant). 
One commentator has noted that once the identity of persons and similarity of circumstances are 
removed, "probative value all but disappears." See Ordover, Admissibility of Patterns of Similar 
Sexual Conduct: The Unlamented Death of Character for Chastity, 63 Cornell L. Rev. 96, 106 
(1977). The discovery at issue is not limited to sexual contact involving similar circumstances, and 
is therefore lacking in probative value. Defendant fails in his Motion to demonstrate otherwise. 
Defendant's argument that Rule 412 is merely an evidentiary rule that should be disregarded 
in discovery disputes has been routinely rejected in federal courts. See a, Barta v. City and 
County of Honolulu, 169 F.R.D. 132 (D. Haw. 1996) (granting protective order pursuant to Rule 412 
to prevent a sexual battery and harassment victim from having to disclose off-duty sexual contacts 
with persons other than defendant in discovery); Herron v. Eastern Industries. Inc. 2007 WL 
2781211 (N.D. Fla. Sept. 19, 2007); Gibbons v. Food Lion, Inc. 1999 WL 33226474 (M.D. Fla. 
Feb. 19, 1999); P.J. Herchenroeder v. John Univ. Applied Physical Lab, 171 F.RD. 179 (D. 
Md. 1997) (looking at both Rule 26 and Rule 412 in resolving discovery motion); v. 
166 F.R.D. 500 (D. N.M. 1996) (explaining that "[a]Ithough the present motion arises in the context 
-4-
EFTA02739839

Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 83 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 5 of 9 
of discovery under Rule 26, the Court must remain mindful of Rule 412 and its implications); 
Stalnaker v. Kmart Cup, 1996 WL 397563 (D. Kan. 1996) (noting that Rule 412 "is applicable and 
has significance in deciding certain discovery motions"). 
As the above-referenced cases make abundantly clear, childhood sexual abuse cases are not 
garden-variety litigation subject to traditional broad discovery concerning a victim's sexual history. 
Rule 412 is designed to protect victims of sexual misconduct from undue embarrassment and 
intrusion into their private affairs. See Fed R.Evid. 412. The committee notes explain that the Rule 
is also intended to prevent "sexual stereotyping that is associated with public disclosure of intimate 
sexual details and the infusion of sexual innuendo into the factfinding process." Rule 412, Advisory 
Committee Notes to 1994 Amendments. Common sense dictates that requiring a sexual abuse 
victim to disclose the intimate details sought by Epstein during the discovery process — which then 
would presumably lead to additional discovery of the victim's other sexual partners — would be at 
least as embarrassing and intrusive during the discovery process as it would be if the victim were 
questioned about these facts at trial, if not more. Thus, in order to carry out its purpose, Rule 412 
"must inform the discovery process" and the Court "must impose certain restriction on discovery to 
preclude inquiry into areas which will clearly fail to satisfy the balancing test" set forth in Rule 412. 
See Barta v. City and County of Honolulu, 169 F.R.D. at 135. 
In Barta the Court confronted this issue in the context of a discovery motion in a civil case. 
169 F.R.D. at 133. A former employee brought a sexual harassment and battery claim against her 
former employer and individual employees. Id. The defendants asked questions at deposition which 
delved into the plaintiff's sexual conduct outside the workplace. Id. at 134. The Court did not allow 
these questions and wait until trial to determine admissibility. Id. at 135. Instead, the Court 
sustained the plaintiff's objections. Id. The Court based its decision on Fed.R.Evid. 412. Id. 
-5-
EFTA02739840

Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 83 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 6 of 9 
Although noting that Rule 412 controls the admissibility of evidence, the Court explained that it 
must also apply Rule 412 to "impose certain restrictions on discovery to preclude inquiry into areas 
which will clearly satisfy the balancing test of 412(b)(2)..." Id. Thus, the Court concluded that the 
defendants should not be permitted to inquire into the plaintiff's conduct while she was off-duty, 
outside the workplace, and which did not involve the same defendants. The same rationale should 
apply here. The Defendant should not be permitted to seek intimate details of Plaintiff's sexual 
conduct throughout her life — particularly if it did not involve similar criminal circumstances such as 
those involving Epstein. 
Defendant attached three Florida state court orders to its Motion, two of which are trial court 
decisions. These cases do not serve as precedent for this Court, and in any event, they are not 
persuasive. Unlike state courts, federal courts must focus on the interplay between Fed.R.Evid. 412 
and Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b), and in this regard must be concerned with embarrassment to the victim and 
protection of her privacy. Indeed, it does not appear that an analogous argument was made in any 
of the state court cases relied upon by Defendant. Furthermore, the discovery in Balas v. Russo, 703 
So.2d 1076 (Ha. 3d DCA 1997) was far narrower than that which is at issue here. It was limited to 
asking plaintiffs for their employment history (which admittedly included prostitution), employment 
records, electronic recording of the conduct which was the subject of the complaint, and a 
description of her damages. 703 So.2d 1077-78. At no time were the plaintiffs in Balas asked to 
disclose their entire sexually history beginning at age 10. Id. Thus, the three state court cases cited 
in the Motion are not helpful to the Defendant, and should not deflect attention from the burden 
placed on the party in federal court seeking discovery of a victim's other sexual contacts. 
Finally, Defendant's request for attorney's fees and costs is completely unwarranted. The 
present motion and response involve good-faith, timely and well-founded objections by Plaintiffs to 
-6-
EFTA02739841

Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 83 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 7 of 9 
over-reaching and harassing discovery efforts. Accordingly. Defendant's request for award of 
reasonable expenses should be denied. 
Conclusion 
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs respectfully request that Defendant Epstein's Motions to 
Compel Plaintiffs to Answer First Set of Interrogatories and for an Award of Reasonable Expenses 
be denied in their entirety. 
Dated: May 6, 2009 Respectfully submitted, 
By: s/ Adam D. Horowitz 
Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245) 
[Email Redacted] 
Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980) 
[Email Redacted] 
MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P.A. 
Attorneys for Plaintiffs 
18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 
Miami, Florida 33160 
Tel: ([Phone Redacted] 
Fax: ([Phone Redacted] 
-7-
EFTA02739842

Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 83 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 8 of 9 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
I hereby certify that on May 6, 2009, I electronically tiled the foregoing document with the 
Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this 
day to all parties on the attached Service List in the manner specified, either via transmission of 
Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those 
parties who are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing. 
/s/ Adam D. Horowitz 
-8-
EFTA02739843

Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 83 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 9 of 9 
SERVICE LIST 
DOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN 
United States District Court, Southern District of Florida 
Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. 
[Email Redacted] 
Roben D. Critton, Esq. 
[Email Redacted] 
/s/ Adam D. Horowitz 
-9-
EFTA02739844