Court Records
Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2008 Page 1 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA-JOHNSON
JANE DOE NO. 5,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant.
/
EPSTEIN'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION [DE 91 TO SET ASIDE CLERK'S DEFAULT
Discovery on service of process would be extraordinary,' unnecessary and a
waste of resources.
Mr. Barnett's affidavit is dispositive: He was the one who received the
summons at Epstein's house, but he did not reside there. If the plaintiff had
offered some evidence (e.g., a phone-book entry, a Google search-result, an
affidavit, etc.) that Mr. Barnett did reside there, or that some other person, who did
reside there, received the summons - - and if we were contesting service altogether
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1) ("A party may not seek discovery from any source before the
parties have conferred as required by Rule 26(1), except in a proceeding exempted from initial
disclosure under Rule 26(a)(1)(B), or when authorized by these rules, by stipulation, or by court
order.").
EFTA02741561
Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2008 Page 2 of 4
- - perhaps discovery would be appropriate. Instead, the plaintiff ventures a
guess (unsupported by affidavit or other evidence) that Mr. Epstein "instructed
[Barnett] to answer the door on May 7, 2008 and take service anonymously" (DE
14 at 2).
Such rank speculation about agency is insufficient to warrant "pre-discovery
discovery" on service of process. To conclude otherwise would create a rule that
any plaintiff who could not identify the person who answered the door would be
entitled to pre-discovery discovery. Cf. Patterson v. , No. 3:06cv476, 2008
WL 219965, at *8 (W.D.N.C. Jan. 24, 2008) (refusing discovery where
information sought was irrelevant to the issue of whether service of process was
valid); cf. Centennial LLC v. Becker, No. Civ.A. 3:97-CV-1126, 2000 WL
35508748, at *5 n.2 (D.S.C. Nov. 14, 2000) (stating that "Plaintiff's speculation,
grounded in nothing but a 'hunch' or a prayer, is simply insufficient to thwart the
court's finding [based on the defendant's uncontroverted sworn statement]," and
adding that "Plaintiff', instead of] provid[ing an] affidavit" to challenge the
defendant's position, put forth an "entire argument . . . grounded in nothing more
substantial than idle and baseless speculation").
As explained in our motion, because Mr. Barnett did not reside at Mr.
Epstein's house, substitute service on Mr. Barnett was effective only under New
York rules. They gave Mr. Epstein until June 23 to respond. Mr. Epstein timely
2
EFTA02741562
Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2008 Page 3 of 4
responded on June 20, by filing a motion to stay (DE 11). Accordingly, he is not
in default and the clerk's default should be set aside.
Respectfully submitted,
ATTERBURY, GOLDBERGER & WEISS, P.A.
250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Tel. [Phone Redacted]
Fax. [Phone Redacted]
By: /s/ Jack A. Goldberger
Jack A. Goldberger
Fla. Bar No. 262013
[Email Redacted]
Attorneys for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on July 7, 2008, I electronically filed the
foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that
the foregoing document is being served this day on all counsel of record identified
on the following service list via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing
generated by CM/ECF.
/s/ Jack Goldberger
Jack Goldberger
3
EFTA02741563
Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2008 Page 4 of 4
SERVICE LIST
Jeffrey M. Herman, Esq.
Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq.
Adam D. Horowitz, Esq.
HERMAN & MERMELSTEIN, P.A.
182 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218
Miami, FL 33160
Phone: (305) [Phone Redacted]
4
EFTA02741564