Court Records
Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 67-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 1 of 14 3?
7-
IN THE COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM
BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
A.C.,
CASE NO. 502008CA025129XXXXMB Al
Plaintiff,
v.
JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, and..
Defendants.
I
ORDER ON DEFENDANT, JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE & OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION,
DATED FEBRUARY 6, 2009
THIS CAUSE came before the Court on Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein's
Response & Objections To Plaintiffs First Request For Production, dated
February 6, 2009 and the Court having heard argument of counsel and being
fully advised in these premises, it is hereby
/ad ',42 otiral0amt
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that DefendantsiMuttbrns-hcreby-gretnteeli--
-erei- vkaGe.
DONE AND ORDERED at Palm Beach County Courthouse, West Palm
Beach, Florida, this 2y5 day of fi t>
.7k Edward A. Garrison
Circuit Judge
Copies furnished: ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ., and MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ., 515 North Flagler Drive, Suite 400, West Palm Beach. FL 33401; JACK SCAROLA, ESQ., AND JACK P. ESQ., Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A., 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., est Palm Beach, FL 33409, and JACK A. GOLDBERGER, ESQ., Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A., One Clearlake Centre, Suite 1400, 250 Australian Avenue South, West Palm Beach, FL 33401
CD PoS/T-gEXHIBIT
EFTA02741846
• Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 67-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 2 of 14
Ja
IN THE COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM
BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
A.C.,
CASE NO. 502008CA025129XXXXMB Al
Plaintiff,
v.
JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, and MEI
Defendants.
DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S AMENDED RESPONSE &
OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION
Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through his undersigned attorneys,
hereby files his Amended Response and Objections to Plaintiffs First Request For
Production To Defendant, served January 5, 2009 and states:
Introduction
This Amended Response amends Defendant's previously filed Response and
Objections to Plaintiffs First Request for Production, dated February 6, 2009. This
response does not change the legal objections previously raised but rather sets forth a
discussion of the law in support of Defendant's constitutional objections to production, in
particular, the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Except for the
discussion of law set forth herein, this response sets forth the identical responses and
objections previously filed and served. Accordingly, Plaintiff is in no way prejudiced by
this Amended Response.
Legal Basis Applicable to Each of Defendant's Objections Set Forth Below
In response to each of the items requested, set forth below, Defendant asserts
his Fifth Amendment Privilege against self-incrimination. The Fifth Amendment
EFTA02741847
• Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 67-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 3 of 14
A.C. v. Epstein, et al.
Page 2
Privilege extends to the act of production where, as here, it involves a self-incriminating
testimonial communication or "a compelled testimonial aspect." United States v.
Hubbell 530 U.S. 27, 120 S.Ct. 2037 (2000). Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391
(1976); McCormick on Evidence, Title 6, Chap. 13. The Privilege Against Self-
Incrimination, §138 (6th Ed.). See also 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."); Hoffman v. U.S. 71 S.Ct. 814, 818 (1951), and progeny).
The Fifth Amendment Privilege may be invoked in a civil action where a litigant or
witness is being asked to provide information or respond to a question that may
incriminate him in a crime. See generally DeLisi v. Bankers Ins. Company, 436 So.2d
1099 (Fla. 4m DCA 1983). The privilege against self-incrimination may be asserted
during discovery when a litigant has "reasonable grounds to believe that the response
would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prove a crime against a litigant."
A witness, including a civil defendant, is entitled to invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege
whenever there is a realistic possibility that the answer to a question could be used in
anyway to convict the witness of a crime or could aid in the development of other
incriminating evidence that can be used at trial. Id. Pillsbury Company v. Conbov 495
U.S. 248, 103 S.Ct. 608 (1983).
EFTA02741848
Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 67-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 4 of 14
A.C. v. Epstein, et al.
Page 3
The United States Supreme Court has made clear that the scope of the Fifth
Amendment Privilege includes the circumstances as here "the act of producing
documents in response to a subpoena (or production request) has a compelled
testimonial aspect." United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 36, 120 S.Ct. 2037, 2043
(2000). In explaining the application of the privilege, the Supreme Court stated:
We have held that "the act of production" itself may implicitly communicate
"statements of fact." By "producing documents in compliance with a subpoena, the witness would admit that the papers existed, were in his possession or control, and were authentic."FN19 Moreover, as was true in this case, when the custodian of documents responds to a subpoena, he may be compelled to take the witness stand and answer questions designed to determine whether he has produced everything demanded by the subpoena. FN20 The answers to those questions, as well as the act of production itself, may certainly communicate information about the existence, custody, and authenticity of the documents. Whether the constitutional privilege protects the answers to such questions, or protects the act of production itself, is a question that is distinct from the question whether the unprotected contents of the documents themselves are incriminating.
FN19. "The issue presented in those cases was whether the act of producing subpoenaed documents, not itself the making of a statement,
might nonetheless have some protected testimonial aspects. The Court concluded that the act of production could constitute protected testimonial
communication because it might entail implicit statements of fact: by producing documents in compliance with a subpoena, the witness would admit that the papers existed, were in his possession or control, and were authentic. United States v. Doe, 465 U.S., at 613, and n. 11, 104 S.Ct. 1237• Fisher, 425 U.S., at 409-410, 96 S.Ct. 1569; id., at 428, 432 96 S.Ct. 1569 (concurring opinions). See Braswell v. United States, 1487 U.S.,1 at 104, 108 S.Ct. 2284; [ id.,l at 122, 108 S.Ct. 2284 (dissenting
opinion). Thus, the Court made clear that the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination applies to acts that imply assertions of fact."... An examination of the Court's application of these principles in other cases indicates the Court's recognition that, in order to be testimonial, an accused's communication must itself, explicitly or implicitly, relate a factual assertion or disclose information. Only then is a person compelled to be a 'witness' against himself." Doe v. United States, 487 U.S., at 209-210, 108 S.Ct. 2341 (footnote omitted).
EFTA02741849
• Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 67-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 5 of 14
A.C. v. Epstein, et al.
Page 4
FN20. See App. 62-70. Thus for example, after respondent had been duly
sworn by the grand jury the prosecutor called his attention to
paragraph A of the SubpoenaRider (reproduced in the Appendix, infra, at
2048-2049) and asked whether he had produced "all those documents."
App. 65.
Finally, the phrase "in any criminal case" in the text of the Fifth Amendment
might have been read to limit its coverage to compelled testimony that is used
against the defendant in the trial itself. It has, however, long been settled that
its protection encompasses compelled statements that lead to the discovery of
incriminating evidence even though the statements themselves are not
incriminating and are not introduced into evidence. Thus, a half century ago
we held that a trial judge had erroneously rejected a defendant's claim of
privilege on the ground that his answer to the pending question would not itself
constitute evidence of the charged offense. As we explained:
"The privilege afforded not only extends to answers that would in
themselves support a conviction under a federal criminal statute but likewise
embraces those which would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to
prosecute the claimant for a federal crime." Hoffman v. United States, 341
U.S. 479. 486, 71 S.Ct. 814. 95 L.Ed. 1118 (1951).
Compelled testimony that communicates information that may "lead to
incriminating evidence" is privileged even if the information itself is not
inculpatory. Doe v. United States, 487 U.S. 201, 208, n. 6, 108 S.Ct. 2341,
101 L.Ed.2d 184 (19881. It's the Fifth Amendment's protection against the
prosecutor's use of incriminating information derived directly or indirectly from
the compelled testimony of the respondent that is of primary relevance in this
case.
In summarizing its holding regarding the application of the Fifth Amendment
Privilege to a production request, the Hubbell Court left "no doubt that the constitutional
privilege against self incrimination protects" not only "the target of a grand jury
investigation from being compelled to answer questions designed to elicit information
about the existence of sources of potentially incriminating evidence," but the privilege
also "has the same application to the testimonial aspect of a response to a subpoena
seeking discovery of those sources." At 43, and 2047.
EFTA02741850
Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 67-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 6 of 14
A.C. v. Epstein, et al.
Page 5
EPSTEIN entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement ("NPA") with United States
Attorney General's Officer ("USAO") for the Federal Southern District of Florida. The
terms and conditions of the NPA also entailed EPSTEIN entering into a Plea Agreement
with the State Attorney's Office, Palm Beach County, State of Florida. By its terms, the
NPA took effect on June 30, 2008. As well, pursuant to the NPA, any criminal
prosecution against EPSTEIN is deferred as long as the terms and conditions of the
NPA are fulfilled by EPSTEIN. Criminal matters against EPSTEIN remain ongoing until
the NPA expires by its terms in late 2010 and as long as the USAO determines that
EPSTEIN has complied with those terms and conditions. The threat of criminal
prosecution against EPSTEIN by the USAO continues presently and through late 2010.
The USAO possesses the right to declare that the agreement has been breached, give
EPSTEIN's counsel notice, and attempt to move forward with the prosecution. See
attached Exhibit "A", Affidavit of Jack A. Goldberger, a board certified criminal defense
attorney who has in the past and is currently representing EPSTEIN.
This is precisely the situation that the protection of the Fifth Amendment Privilege
is to apply. By responding to the request as opposed to asserting his constitutional
privilege, EPSTEIN would admit that the documents/items existed, were in his
possession or control, and were authentic. The act of production itself, may certainly
communicate information about the existence, custody, and authenticity of the
documents/items. "Whether the constitutional privilege protects the answers to such
questions, or protects the act of production itself, is a question that is distinct from the
EFTA02741851
Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 67-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 7 of 14
A.C. v. Epstein, et at
Page 6
question whether the unprotected contents of the documents themselves are
incriminating? United States v. Hubbell supra.
Given the type of documents requested (set forth below), the collection and
production of the of the items demanded would be "tantamount to answering a series of
interrogatories asking a witness to disclose the existence and location of particular
documents/[items] fitting certain broad descriptions." Hubbell supra at 41-2, and 2046.
Responding to the requests is "the functional equivalent of the preparation of an answer
to either a detailed written interrogatory or a series of oral questions at a discovery
deposition." Id. As stated in Hubbell, "it is undeniable that providing a catalog of
existing documents (items)" fitting within any of the requested documents "could provide
a prosecutor with a 'lead to incriminating evidence,' or 'a link in the chain of evidence
needed to prosecute.-
Accordingly, Defendant's constitutional objection is required to be upheld.
Specific Requests & Responses, Including Objections
Request No. 1: Any and all evidence required to be maintained by Epstein
and the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, specifically evidence
requested by or directly related to the grand jury subpoenas that have been issued in
connection with the investigation referenced in the Non-Prosecution Agreement, and
including certain computer equipment.
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
EFTA02741852
Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 67-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 8 of 14
A.C. v. Epstein, et al.
Page 7
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 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 may include information subject to work product or an attorney-client privilege.
Request No. 2: Any and all documents reflecting or relating to the identity of,
the scheduling of, and/or the payment of any female compensated by or on behalf of
Epstein for providing any service to Epstein that required, contemplated, or included in
the provisions of such service, any physical contact between Epstein and the female,
any act or prostitution, any illicit sexual conduct, the exposure of breast, buttocks or
genitalia, or any commercial sex act as defined in 18 U.S.C. §1591(c)(1).
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
EFTA02741853
Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 67-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 9 of 14
A.C. v. Epstein, et al.
Page 8
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
Defendants objects to the production as overly broad and seeking information that is
neither relevant to the subject matter of the pending action nor does it appear to be
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The Plaintiff in
this instance has alleged in her complaint that she was sexually abused by the
Defendant on one occasion sometime in the year 2004. The documents requested
herein have no time period provided, and therefore the information sought is grossly
overbroad.
Request No. 3: Any and all documents reflecting or relating to the identity of
and/or the nature and extent of any other person's participation in the communication
with and/or the scheduling of and/or the payment of any person who participated in any
conduct described in Request #2.
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
EFTA02741854
Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 67-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 10 of 14
A.C. v. Epstein, et al.
Page 9
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 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
Defendants objects to the production as overly broad and seeking information that is
neither relevant to the subject matter of the pending action nor does it appear to be
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The Plaintiff in
this instance has alleged in her complaint that she was sexually abused by the
Defendant on one occasion sometime in the year 2004. The documents requested
herein have no time period provided, and therefore the information sought is grossly
overbroad.
Certificate of Service
/94)P atm"
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was sent by/6.S. Mail
the following addressees on this 19th
Jack Scarola, Esq.
Jack P. Esq.
Searcy Denney Scarola
Shipley, P.A
day of February , 2009:
Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq.
Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A.
Barnhart & 250 Australian Avenue South
Suite 1400
to
EFTA02741855
Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 67-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 11 of 14
A.C. v. Epstein, et al.
Page 10
2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd.
West Palm Beach, FL 33409
[Phone Redacted] Phone
[Phone Redacted] Fax
Counsel for Plaintiff
;_iatitt
West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012
[Phone Redacted]
Fax: [Phone Redacted]
jagescAbellsouth.net
Coc.nca dants Jeffrey Epstein
and
BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER
& COLEMAN, LLP
515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
([Phone Redacted]
([Phone Redacted] Fax
By:
Robert D ritton, Jr.
Florida ar #224162
Michael J. Pike
Florida Bar #617296
(Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey E. Epstein)
EFTA02741856
Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 67-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 12 of 14
AFFIDAVIT OF JACK A. GOLDBERGER, ESQUIRE
STATE OF FLORIDA ) SS
COUNTY OF PALM BEACH )
BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, personally appeared
having personal knowledge and being duly sworn, deposes and says:
1. I, Jack A. Goldberger, have personal knowledge of the matters set
forth herein. I am an attorney licensed to practice in the State of Florida since
1978. I am a partner with the law firm of Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A.,
located at One Clearlake Centre, Suite 1400, 250 Australian Avenue South, West
Palm Beach, FL 33401.
2. My practice includes and specializes in the defense of criminal
matters. I am board certified in criminal law. I have been and currently am the
criminal defense attorney for JEFFREY EPSTEIN.
3. I represented Mr. EPSTEIN in the negotiation of and entering into a
Non-Prosecution Agreement with the United States Attorney's Office (USAO) for
the Federal Southern District of Florida. The terms and conditions of the Non-
Prosecution Agreement also entailed the entering of a Plea Agreement with the
State Attorney's Office, Palm Beach County, State of Florida. (The Non-
Prosecution Agreement shall hereinafter be referred to as the "NPA").
4. By its terms, the NPA took effect on June 30, 2008. Also, pursuant
to the terms of the NPA, any criminal prosecution against EPSTEIN is deferred
as long as the terms and conditions of the NPA are fulfilled by EPSTEIN.
EXHIBIT.
EFTA02741857
Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 67-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 13 of 14
5. The criminal matters against EPSTEIN remain ongoing until the
NPA expires by its terms in late 2010, and as long as the USAO determines
EPSTEIN has complied with those terms and conditions. The threat of criminal
prosecution against EPSTEIN by USAO in the Southern District of Florida
continues presently and through late 2010.
6. Pursuant to the terms of the NPA, the USAO possesses the right to
declare that the agreement has been breached, give EPSTEIN's counsel notice,
and attempt to move forward with a prosecution. As of the date of this Affidavit,
the USAO has taken the position on a number of occasions that it might consider
the following actions by EPSTEIN to be a breach of the NPA.
• Investigation by EPSTEIN (by and through his attorneys) of this Plaintiff
and the other Plaintiffs in other pending civil cases for purposes of
defending the civil actions;
• EPSTEIN's contesting damages in this action and other civil actions
• EPSTEIN or his legal representatives making statements to the press
about this Plaintiff or the other Plaintiffs.
• Using the word "jail" instead of "imprisonment" in the plea agreement with
the Palm Beach County State Attorney's Office.
7. EPSTEIN, through counsel, submitted a Freedom of Information
Act request to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for documents relating to
this and the other cases; the FBI denied the request stating the materials are at
this time exempt from disclosure because they are in an investigative file, i.e. the
matter is still an ongoing criminal investigation.
Page - 2 -
EFTA02741858
Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 67-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 14 of 14
8. The NPA expires in late 2010.
FURTHER THE AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT
Jack A. Goldberger, Esq.
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF PALM BEACH
I hereby Certify that on this day, before me, an officer duly authorized to
administer oaths and take acknowledgments, personally appeared
Jack A. Goldberger, Esquire, known to me to be the person described in and who
executed the foregoing Affidavit, who acknowledged before me that he/she
executed the same, that I relied upon the,following form of identification of the
above named person: Aligtim , and that an oath was/was
not taken.
WITNESS my hand and official seal in the County and State last aforesaid
this Pi v-I day of IC( 6, 14 • , 2009.
(S
) E. E- ILO 1 v-'
8-tit-
LIC/STA F FLORIDA NOTARY PU
PRINT NA ) .`I
COMMISSION NO.: bb H 89N O
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: i 1/(3 /).-009
Page - 3 -
EFTA02741859