Court Records
Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 50 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2009 Page 1 of 13
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JANE DOE NO.2,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant.
CASE NO.; 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON
JANE DOE NO.3, CASE NO.; 08-CV-80232-MARRA/JOHNSON
Plaintiff,
vs.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant.
JANE DOE NO.4, CASE NO.; 08-CV-80380-MARRA/JOHNSON
Plaintiff,
vs.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant.
JANE DOE NO. 5, CASE NO.; 08-CV-80381-MARRAIMIN
Plaintiff,
vs.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant.
EFTA02742918
Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 50 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2009 Page 2 of 13
Page 2
JANE DOE NO. 6,
Plaintiff, CASE NO.; 08-CV-80994-MARRA/JOHNSON
vs.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant.
JANE DOE NO. 7, CASE NO.; 08-CV-80993-MARRA/JOHNSON
Plaintiff,
vs.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant.
C.M.A., CASE NO.; 08-CV-80811-MARRA/JOHNSON
Plaintiff,
vs.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant.
JANE DOE, CASE NO.; 08-CV-80893-MARRA/JOHNSON
Plaintiff,
vs.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et al.,
Defendants.
2
EFTA02742919
Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 50 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2009 Page 3 of 13
Page 3
DOE II,
Plaintiff, CASE NO.; 08-CV-80469-MARRa
vs.
JEN-REY EPSTEIN, et al,
Defendants.
JANE DOE NO. 101, CASE NO.; 08-CV-80591-MARRa
Plaintiff,
vs.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant.
JANE DOE NO. 102, CASE NO.; 08-CV-80656-MARRA/JOHNSON
Plaintiff,
vs.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant.
Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein's Motion To Strike Cases From Current Trial Docket
And Motion to Continue Case And/Or Alternative Motion to Modify Trial and
Scheduling Order Deadlines
Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, (hereinafter "EPSTEIN") by and through his
undersigned attorneys, hereby moves this Court for the entry of an order Striking These
Cases (i.e., C.M.A., Jane Doe (80893) and Jane Does 2-7) From The Current Trial
Docket(s), Continuing The Trials And Setting Them On New Trial Dockets At Least
3
EFTA02742920
Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 50 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2009 Page 4 of 13
Page 4
Three Months After The Current Trial Dates As Set Or, Alternatively, Modifying The
Current Trial Schedule To Allow For An Additional 3 Months From Current Dates Within
Which To Complete Discovery, An Additional 2 Months From The Current Dates Within
Which To Complete All Substantive Pretrial Motions and Expert Discovery, An
Additional Month From The Current Dates Within Which To Mediate the Matters and An
Additional Month to Complete the Remaining Scheduling Deadlines under this Court's
Trial Orders. In support, EPSTEIN states:
I. Procedural Background and Argument ‘
With Incorporated Memorandum of Lawl
1. C.M.A. was filed on February 23, 2008. C.M.A. filed her First Amended
Complaint on February 10, 2009. (C.M.A. DE 39-40). Epstein's Motion to Dismiss same
was filed on March 12, 2009. (C.M.A. DE 47). The Motion to Dismiss remains
outstanding.
2. Jane Doe (80893) was filed on August 13, 2008. On April 17, 2009, Jane Doe
filed her First Amended Complaint.
3. The Jane Doe 2-7 cases were filed between February 6, 2008 and September
10, 2008. Jane Does 2-7 filed their Second Amended Complaints on February 2009.
4. Pursuant to the court's Orders Setting Trial And Discovery Deadlines, Referring
Case To Mediator And Referring Discovery Motions To U.S. Magistrate Judge (the
In an effort not to repeat certain legal arguments set out in various Motions and Replies referenced
below and identified herein by Docket Number, those motions and replies, with legal arguments, are
specifically incorporated herein by reference.
4
EFTA02742921
Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 50 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2009 Page 5 of 13
Page 5
"Trial Orders"), these matters are currently set on this court's Trial Dockets commencing
January 25, 2010, February 8, 2010 and February 22, 2010.
5. Pursuant to the Trial Orders, discovery cutoff is August 2009 for C.M.A. and Jane
Does 2-5, and October 2009 for Jane Doe and Jane Does 6-7. Substantive pretrial
motions must be completed in August 2009 for C.M.A. and Jane Does 2-5, and October
2009 for Jane Doe and Jane Does 6-7. Mediation must be completed on November
2009 for Jane Does 2-5, and December 2009 for C.M.A., Jane Doe and Jane Does 6-7.
Finally, Expert discovery must be completed on June 29, 2009 for C.M.A.
6. As to C.M.A., Jane Doe and Jane Does 2-7, each has objected to relevant
discovery. C.M.A. has even refused to produce certain information that she agreed to
produce in discovery. The foregoing delay tactics has prevented Epstein from
conducting meaningful discovery in order to defend these matters and prepare for trial.
At this juncture, Plaintiffs wish for Epstein to try this case without any discovery
whatsoever. See infra.
7. For example, in a diligent effort to obtain discovery, Epstein filed substantive
motions addressing C.M.A.'s objections to discovery, and those motions remain
outstanding? See (C.M.A. - DE 54 — Motion to Compel Responses to First Request to
Produce and First Set of Interrogatories and DE 70 — Epstein's Reply to Plaintiff's
Opposition Motion thereto). Epstein's Motion to Compel (C.M.A. DE 54) and Reply
2 The same discovery requests were served upon Jane Doe and Jane Does 2-7. Substantive Motions to Compel
seeking production of similar information in those cases were filed and remain outstanding. See Jane Doe DE 27 &
28 and Jane Doe 2-7 (specifically, Jane Doe 2 — DE 67-68, Jane Doe 3 — DE 59-60, Jane Doe 4 - DE 74-75, Jane
Doe 5 — DE 69-70, Jane Doe 6 - DE 24-25. and Jane Doe 7 — DE 26-27). Those Motions are incorporated herein by
reference.
5
EFTA02742922
Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 50 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2009 Page 6 of 13
Page 6
(C.M.A. DE 70) are incorporated herein by reference. The Motion and the Reply seek
basic and elementary discovery. For instance, the Motion and the Reply seek:
a. individual and/or joint income tax returns and supporting
documentation including W-2 and 1099 forms for 2002-2007 and, as
well as all records or documentation relative to the Plaintiff's earnings
for the current year;
b. All bills/expenses from any medical doctor, chiropractor,
psychologists, psychiatrists, mental health counselors (including any
members of the healing arts and related , i.e. drugs,
prescriptions, etc.) you claim you incurred as a result of the injuries
which are or may be the subject matter of this lawsuit;
c. All medical reports and/or records from doctors, physicians,
(including psychologists, psychiatrists, mental health counselors),
hospitals, drug or alcohol facilities or any other person or entity who
has rendered treatment to or examined you for any reason after the
incident(s) which is the subject matter of this lawsuit;
d. the names, business addresses, telephone and cell phone
numbers, dates of employment, immediate supervisor (name and
address) and rates of pay regarding all employers, including self-
employment, for whom you have worked in the past 10 years; this
includes listing all sources of income you have received. Answer this
question by year, i.e. 1998 — 2009; and
e. the names, addresses and phone numbers of all males, excluding
Mr. Epstein, with whom you have had sexual activity since age 10 (by
year) up through your current age. Describe the nature of sexual
activity, the date(s) and whether you received money or other
consideration from the person.
(DE 54 & 70)
8. C.M.A. objected to producing the tax information requested in 4(a) above, which
will show where C.M.A. worked, and she also speciously objected to the companion
interrogatory (4(d) above) wherein she refuses to identify where she worked for the
requested time period. Epstein needs the requested information so his attorneys can
6
EFTA02742923
Case 9:08-cv-80994-ICAM Document 50 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2009 Page 7 of 13
Page 7
conduct the appropriate discovery on C.M.A.'s supervisors and co-workers (and others
that may be identified during those depositions) in connection with the allegations
C.M.A. has made against Epstein in her 89-page Amended Complaint. By virtue of
C.M.A. and the other Plaintiffs concealing the above information, Epstein has been
prevented from conducting any meaningful discovery, including the taking of any
depositions of C.M.A.'s supervisors, co-workers, acquaintances, friends and other third
parties.
9. As stated above, Jane Doe and Jane Does 2-7 made similar objections which
are the subject of various Motions to Compel. Epstein needs this information to defend
the Plaintiffs' allegations and to prepare for trial.
10.Next, C.M.A. concedes in her Opposition Motion to Discovery (DE 62) that
Epstein is entitled to the information set out in 4(b) & (c) above; however, C.M.A.
refuses to produce the information and/or allow the undersigned to list C.M.A.'s full
name, date of birth and last four digits of her social security number in any third-party
subpoenas in order to obtain those records.3 While this case was filed by C.M.A. on
February 23, 2008, Epstein has been prevented from deposing any of the individuals
that treated Plaintiff at one time or another.4 This results directly from C.M.A.'s tactics to
delay and prevent meaningful discovery in hopes that C.M.A. will be able to prevent
Epstein from putting on any evidence in defense of his case. The remaining Plaintiffs
3 Attorney, Brad , in case number 08-CIV-080893, agreed to such a procedure. Counsel for
Jane Does 2-7, Stuart Mermelstein, refuses to agree to such a procedure and, therefore, continues to
substantially delay discovery. Note, many of the Plaintiffs are witnesses in the related cases. Therefore,
Plaintiffs' discovery delays negatively effect the progress and trial preparation of each case.
This same argument applies to Jane does 2-7.
7
EFTA02742924
Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 50 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2009 Page 8 of 13
Page 8
have the same exact goal. Epstein cannot defend this matter with the element of unfair
and prejudicial "surprise" is ever so present. Schearbrook Land and Livestock
Company v. U.S. et. al, 124 F.R.D. 221 (M.D. Fla. 1988).
11.ln an effort to move these cases forward and obtain meaningful discovery,
Epstein filed his Motion to Compel and Motion to Compel and/or Identify CMA (and
Jane Does 2-7) in the Style of this Case and Motion to Identify Them in Third-Party
Subpoenas ("Motions to Identify"). The Motions to Identify are incorporated herein by
reference and, for the court's edification, same remain outstanding. Should this Court
grant the Motions to Identify, Epstein will be able to obtain discovery he does not
currently have in his possession and will be able to take certain depositions of
individuals that have yet to be identified.5 Based upon the court's consolidation order,
the motion to identify equally applies to C.M.A. and the other Plaintiffs.
12. Plaintiffs must be identified in other third-party subpoenas (unrelated to those
discussed above concerning medical treatment) in order for Epstein to conduct
meaningful discovery. Epstein's right to conduct discovery and confront the witnesses
has, up through today's date, been unreasonably and unduly restricted as a result of
Plaintiffs' delay tactics.
13. Finally, the information sought in number 4(e) above has not been produced by
C.M.A. or the remaining Plaintiffs, despite the case law favoring production. United
5 In a state court matter filed against Epstein, E.W. v. Epstein, Case No.: 50.2008-CA-028058 XXXXMB
AD, the undersigned learned through discovery that the Plaintiff in that case worked at Platinum Gold,
Curves Cabaret, Platinum Showgirls, Cheetah, Diamond Dolls, Vegas Cabaret, Spearmint Rhino, T's
Lounge, Pure Platinum, Solid Gold, and The Body Shop. Substantial discovery will take place in that
matter of E.W.'s co-workers, supervisors and others that may have information regarding the claims she
asserted against Epstein. Epstein should be afforded that same right in the instant matters.
8
EFTA02742925
Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 50 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2009 Page 9 of 13
Page 9
States v. Bear Stops, 997 F.2d 451 (8th Cir. 1993); Balas v. Ruzzo 703 So.2d 1076
(Fla. 5th DCA 1997), rev. denied, 719 So.2d 286 (Fla. 1998). The information sought in
4(e) is relevant and discoverable even if not admissible at trial. See Motion to Compel
and Reply (C.M.A. DE 54 & 70). Once Plaintiffs are required to fully answer the
interrogatories, the answers may yield (at a later deposition or through paper discovery):
(a) the names of individuals that may have information about Plaintiffs that negate the
allegations in their Complaints, (b) how certain acts alleged in their Complaints
materially affected their relationships with others or how those acts did not have such an
affect on those relationships, and (3) whether Plaintiffs suffered from disorders (e.g.,
C.M.A.'s claims of bi-polar disorder and manic depression) as a result of other sexual
acts prior to the acts alleged in the Complaints. Here, evidence of Plaintiffs' sexual
activity with others may show that those sexual activities (which could include assaults
once delineated) produced the behaviors that, for instance, C.M.A. attributes to Epstein
(e.g., bi-polar and manic depression disorders). Accordingly, answers to the above
discovery requests go the heart of Plaintiffs' damages or lack thereof.
14. Further, pursuant to this Courts Order (C.M.A. DE 68 and in the related matters),
Epstein is permitted only to take the Plaintiffs' depositions one time, both as a witness in
the other related matters and as a plaintiff in their particular matters. As a result, the
discovery schedule coupled with Plaintiffs' delay tactics and the Order (DE 68) is forcing
Epstein to take each of the Plaintiffs' depositions without the benefit of other discovery
and depositions of individuals that may have knowledge of the claims asserted by
Plaintiffs. As such, in the event Plaintiffs produce information after their depositions,
9
EFTA02742926
Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 50 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2009 Page 10 of 13
Page 10
this Court's order (DE 68) and the Federal Rules effectively prevent Epstein from taking
Plaintiffs' depositions a second time. This is inherently unfair and prejudicial to Epstein.
a. Memorandum of Law
15.Modifying a trial order and the deadlines/schedules thereunder is within the
sound discretion of this court. Under the circumstances outlined above, failure to strike
these cases from the current docket, continue the trials, and/or to modify the court's
scheduling order will prejudice Epstein. Epstein has diligently attempted to comply with
the Court's scheduling order but has effectively been prevented from doing so in light of
the Plaintiffs' delay tactics during discovery. See supra; Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 16(b)(4); Altadis
USA, Inc. v. NPR, Inc., 2004 WL 444533 (M.D. Fla.)(granting motion to extend
discovery and continue trial).
16. Epstein has shown good cause to obtain a continuance of the trial of this matter
and, as well, has shown good cause in order for this court to modify the scheduling
order. Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 16(b)(4)("A [scheduling order] may be modified only for good
cause and with the judge's consent."). Epstein's counsel has complied with Local Rule
7.6 of the U.S. Southern District by executing and providing the attached Affidavit.
Exhibit "A". Epstein cannot, despite his diligence, timely complete discovery by the
times outlined in the current scheduling order as a result of the Plaintiffs' delay tactics.
Thus, as outlined above, failure to strike these cases from the docket, continue this
case to the next available docket and to extend the discovery schedule and remaining
deadlines will prejudice Epstein. Epstein has simply not been given the opportunity to
obtain and/or conduct any meaningful discovery, which violates Epstein's constitutional
10
EFTA02742927
Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 50 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2009 Page 11 of 13
Page 11
due process right to defend himself and to seek the production of information that will
assist in his defense of the allegations in respective complaints. Plaintiffs cannot
reasonably expect Epstein to try these matters with having only been afforded the
opportunity to take the deposition of one Plaintiff and not conduct any meaningful
discovery on others.
WHEREFORE, Epstein, through his counsel, requests that this court enter and
Order:
a. striking these cases from the current trial docket;
b. continuing the trials of these matters and setting same on new trial
dockets at least three months after the current trial dates; or, alternatively,
c. modifying the current trial schedule to allow for an additional 3 months
from the currently set date within which to complete discovery, an
additional 2 months from the currently set date within which to complete all
substantive pretrial motions, an additional month from the currently set
date within which to mediate this matter; and an additional month to
complete the remaining deadlines under each of the Court's Trial Orders;
and
d. for such other and further relief as this co deems just and proper.
By:
ROBERT ON, JR., ESQ.
Florida Bar No. 224162
[Email Redacted]
MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ.
Florida Bar #617296
11
EFTA02742928
Case 9:08-cv-80994-ICAM Document 50 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2009 Page 12 of 13
Page 12
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 record identified on the following Service List in the
manner specified by CM/ECF on this
Richard Horace Willits, Esq.
Richard H. Willits, P.A.
2290 10th Avenue North
Suite 404
Lake Worth, FL 33461
[Phone Redacted]
Fax: [Phone Redacted]
Counsel for Plaintiff C.M.A.
[Email Redacted]
Jack Sc la, Esq.
Jack P.M, Esq.
Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart
Shipley, P.A.
2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard
West Palm Beach, FL 33409
[Phone Redacted]
Fax: [Phone Redacted]
[Email Redacted]
[Email Redacted]
Co-Counsel for Plaintiff
8day of May , 2009
Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq.
Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A.
250 Australian Avenue South
Suite 1400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012
[Phone Redacted]
Fax: [Phone Redacted]
jaoeso@ bellsouth.net
Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein
Bruce Reinhart, Esq.
Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A.
& 250 S. Australian Avenue
Suite 1400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
[Phone Redacted]
Fax: [Phone Redacted]
ecf@bri areinharThaw.
Counsel for Defendant
Respectfully su
By:
ROB JR., ESQ.
Florida Bar No. 2241
[Email Redacted]
MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ.
Florida Bar #617296
mike CO bcIclaw.com
BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN
515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400
12
EFTA02742929
Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 50 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2009 Page 13 of 13
Page 13
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
561/842-2820 Phone
561/515-3148 Fax
(Counsel for Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein)
13
EFTA02742930