Court Records
Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 76 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 1 of 7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA
JANE DOE NO. 4
Plaintiff,
v.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant.
DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S ANSWER & AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, (hereinafter "EPSTEIN"), by and through his
undersigned attorneys, files his Answer to the Second Amended Complaint and states:
1. Without knowledge and deny.
2. As to the allegations in paragraphs 2, Defendant asserts his Fifth Amendment
privilege against self-incrimination. See DeLisi v. Bankers Ins. Company 436 So.2d
1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Malloy v. Hogan, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964)(the Fifth
Amendment's Self-Incrimination Clause applies to the states through the Due Process
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment - "[i]t would be incongruous to have different
standards determine the validity of a claim of privilege based on the same feared
prosecution, depending on whether the claim was asserted in state or federal court."); 5
Fed.Prac. & Proc. Civ. 3d §1280 Effect of Failure to Deny — Privilege Against Self-
Incrimination ("...court must treat the defendant's claim of privilege as equivalent to a
specific denial."). See also 24 FIa.Jur.2d Evidence §592. Defendants in civil actions. —
"... a civil defendant who raises an affirmative defense is not precluded from asserting
EFTA02740891
Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 76 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 2 of 7
Jane Doe No. 4 v. Epstein
Page 2
the privilege [against self-incrimination], because affirmative defenses do not constitute
the kind of voluntary application for affirmative relief" which would prevent a plaintiff
bringing a claim seeking affirmative relief from asserting the privilege.
3. As to the allegations in paragraph 3, deny.
4. As to the allegations in paragraph 4, deny.
5. As to the allegations in paragraph 5, without knowledge and deny.
6. As to the allegations in paragraphs 6, Defendant asserts his Fifth Amendment
privilege against self-incrimination. See DeLisi v. Bankers Ins. Company 436 So.2d
1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Malloy v. Hogan 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964)(the Fifth
Amendment's Self-Incrimination Clause applies to the states through the Due Process
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment - lilt would be incongruous to have different
standards determine the validity of a claim of privilege based on the same feared
prosecution, depending on whether the claim was asserted in state or federal court."); 5
Fed.Prac. & Proc. Civ. 3d §1280 Effect of Failure to Deny — Privilege Against Self-
Incrimination ("...court must treat the defendant's claim of privilege as equivalent to a
specific denial."). See also 24 Fla.Jur.2d Evidence §592. Defendants in civil actions. —
"... a civil defendant who raises an affirmative defense is not precluded from asserting
the privilege [against self-incrimination], because affirmative defenses do not constitute
the kind of voluntary application for affirmative relief' which would prevent a plaintiff
bringing a claim seeking affirmative relief from asserting the privilege.
7. As to the allegations in paragraphs 7 through 15 of Plaintiff's Second Amended
Complaint, Defendant exercises his Fifth Amendment Privilege against self-
EFTA02740892
Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 76 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 3 of 7
Jane Doe No. 4 v. Epstein
Page 3
incrimination. See DeLisi v. Bankers Ins. Company, 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA
1983); Malloy v. Hogan, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964)(the Fifth Amendment's Self-
Incrimination Clause applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment - "[i]t would be incongruous to have different standards
determine the validity of a claim of privilege based on the same feared prosecution,
depending on whether the claim was asserted in state or federal court."); 5 Fed.Prac. &
Proc. Civ. 3d §1280 Effect of Failure to Deny — Privilege Against Self-Incrimination
("...court must treat the defendant's claim of privilege as equivalent to a specific
denial."). See also 24 Fla.Jur.2d Evidence §592. Defendants in civil actions. — "... a civil
defendant who raises an affirmative defense is not precluded from asserting the
privilege [against self-incrimination], because affirmative defenses do not constitute the
kind of voluntary application for affirmative relief" which would prevent a plaintiff bringing
a claim seeking affirmative relief from asserting the privilege.
8. In response to the allegations of paragraph 16, Defendant realleges and adopts
his responses to paragraphs 1 through 15 of the Second Amended Complaint set forth
in paragraphs 1 through 7 above herein.
9. Defendant asserts the Fifth Amendment Privilege against self-incrimination to
the allegations set forth in paragraphs 17 through 22 of the Second Amended
Complaint. See DeLisi v. Bankers Ins. Company, 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983);
Malloy v. Hogan, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964)(the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination
Clause applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment - "[i]t would be incongruous to have different standards determine the
EFTA02740893
Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 76 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 4 of 7
Jane Doe No. 4 v. Epstein
Page 4
validity of a claim of privilege based on the same feared prosecution, depending on
whether the claim was asserted in state or federal court."); 5 Fed.Prac. & Proc. Civ. 3d
§1280 Effect of Failure to Deny — Privilege Against Self-Incrimination ("...court must
treat the defendant's claim of privilege as equivalent to a specific denial."). See also 24
Fla.Jur.2d Evidence §592. Defendants in civil actions. —"... a civil defendant who raises
an affirmative defense is not precluded from asserting the privilege [against self-
incrimination], because affirmative defenses do not constitute the kind of voluntary
application for affirmative relief" which would prevent a plaintiff bringing a claim seeking
affirmative relief from asserting the privilege.
10. In response to the allegations of paragraph 23, Defendant realleges and adopts
his responses to paragraphs 1 through 15 of the Second Amended Complaint set forth
in paragraphs 1 through 7 above herein.
11. Defendant asserts the Fifth Amendment Privilege against self-incrimination to
the allegations set forth in paragraphs 24 through 28 of the Second Amended
Complaint. See DeLisi v. Bankers Ins. Company, 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983);
Malloy v. Hogan, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964)(the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination
Clause applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment - "[lit would be incongruous to have different standards determine the
validity of a claim of privilege based on the same feared prosecution, depending on
whether the claim was asserted in state or federal court."); 5 Fed.Prac. & Proc. Civ. 3d
§1280 Effect of Failure to Deny - Privilege Against Self-Incrimination ("...court must
treat the defendant's claim of privilege as equivalent to a specific denial."). See also 24
EFTA02740894
Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 76 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 5 of 7
Jane Doe No. 4 v. Epstein
Page 5
Fla.Jur.2d Evidence §592. Defendants in civil actions. — "... a civil defendant who raises
an affirmative defense is not precluded from asserting the privilege [against self-
incrimination], because affirmative defenses do not constitute the kind of voluntary
application for affirmative relief" which would prevent a plaintiff bringing a claim seeking
affirmative relief from asserting the privilege.
12. In response to the allegations of paragraph 29, Defendant realleges and adopts
his responses to paragraphs 1 through 15 of the Second Amended Complaint set forth
in paragraphs 1 through 7 above herein.
13. Defendant asserts the Fifth Amendment Privilege against self-incrimination to
the allegations set forth in paragraphs 30 through 35 of the Second Amended
Complaint. See DeLisi v. Bankers Ins. Company, 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983);
Malloy v. Hogan 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964)(the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination
Clause applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment - "[i]t would be incongruous to have different standards determine the
validity of a claim of privilege based on the same feared prosecution, depending on
whether the claim was asserted in state or federal court."); 5 Fed.Prac. & Proc. Civ. 3d
§1280 Effect of Failure to Deny — Privilege Against Self-Incrimination ("...court must
treat the defendant's claim of privilege as equivalent to a specific denial."). See also 24
Fla.Jur.2d Evidence §592. Defendants in civil actions. —"... a civil defendant who raises
an affirmative defense is not precluded from asserting the privilege [against self-
incrimination], because affirmative defenses do not constitute the kind of voluntary
EFTA02740895
Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 76 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 6 of 7
Jane Doe No. 4 v. Epstein
Page 6
application for affirmative relief' which would prevent a plaintiff bringing a claim seeking
affirmative relief from asserting the privilege.
WHEREFORE, Defendant requests that this Court deny the relief sought by Plaintiff.
Affirmative Defenses
1. As to all counts, Plaintiff consented to and was a willing participant in the acts
alleged.
2. As to all counts alleged, Plaintiff consented to and participated in conduct similar
and/or identical to the acts alleged with other persons which were the sole or
contributing cause of Plaintiffs alleged damages
3. As to all counts, Defendant reasonably believed that the Plaintiff had attained the
age of 18 years old at the time of the alleged acts.
4. Plaintiffs claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations.
WHEREFORE Defendant requests that this Court deny the rel ought by Plaintiff.
Robert D. C on, Jr.
Attorney for I efendant Epstein
Certificate of Service
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with
the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being
served this day on all counsel of recorq identified on the following Service List in the
manner specified by CM/ECF on thiso2nay of April , 2009:
EFTA02740896
Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 76 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 7 of 7
Jane Doe No. 4 v. Epstein
Page 7
Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq.
Adam D. Horowitz, Esq.
Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A.
18205 Biscayne Boulevard
Suite 2218
Miami, FL 33160
[Phone Redacted]
Fax: [Phone Redacted]
ssmAsexabuseattornev.com
ahorowitzesexabuseattornev.com
Counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe #4
Jack Alan Goldberger
Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A.
250 Australian Avenue South
Suite 1400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012
[Phone Redacted]
Fax: [Phone Redacted]
janesqe.bellsouth.net
Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein
Respectfully submitte
By:
ROBERT D. CRI ON, JR., ESQ.
Florida Bar No. 24162
rcritAbciclaw.c m
MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ.
Florida Bar #617296
mpikeabcIclaw.com
BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN
515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
561/842-2820 Phone
561/515-3148 Fax
(Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein)
EFTA02740897