Court Records
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 69 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 1 of 7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA-
JANE DOE NO. 2
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 - 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
EFTA02744097
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 69 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 2 of 7
Jane Doe No. 2 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 - "[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.
7. As to the allegations in paragraphs 7 through 14 of Plaintiffs Second Amended
Complaint, Defendant exercises his Fifth Amendment Privilege against self-
EFTA02744098
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 69 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 3 of 7
Jane Doe No. 2 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 15, Defendant realleges and adopts
his responses to paragraphs 1 through 14 of the Second Amended Complaint set forth
in paragraphs 1 through 6 above herein.
9. Defendant asserts the Fifth Amendment Privilege against self-incrimination to
the allegations set forth in paragraphs 16 through 21 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 - "lilt would be incongruous to have different standards determine the
EFTA02744099
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 69 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 4 of 7
Jane Doe No. 2 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
FIa.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 22, Defendant realleges and adopts
his responses to paragraphs 1 through 14 of the Second Amended Complaint set forth
in paragraphs 1 through 6 above herein.
11. Defendant asserts the Fifth Amendment Privilege against self-incrimination to
the allegations set forth in paragraphs 23 through 27 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
EFTA02744100
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 69 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 5 of 7
Jane Doe No. 2 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 28, Defendant realleges and adopts
his responses to paragraphs 1 through 14 of the Second Amended Complaint set forth
in paragraphs 1 through 6 above herein.
13. Defendant asserts the Fifth Amendment Privilege against self-incrimination to
the allegations set forth in paragraphs 29 through 34 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 Amendments 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
EFTA02744101
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 69 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 6 of 7
Jane Doe No. 2 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 Plaintiff's 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. Plaintiff's claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations.
WHEREFORE Defendant requests that this Court deny the reef sought by Plaintiff.
Robert D. itton, Jr.
Attorney f r Defendant 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 record i entitled on the following Service List in the
manner specified by CM/ECF on this ay of April , 2009:
EFTA02744102
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 69 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 7 of 7
Jane Doe No. 2 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]
ssmsexabuseattornev.com
ahorowitzasexabuseattornev.com
Counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe #2
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]
jaqesq(@bellsouth.net
Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein
Respectfully sub
By:
ROBERT D RITTON, JR., ESQ.
Florida Bar o. 224162
rcritabc1c w.com
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)
EFTA02744103