Court Records
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 127 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 1 of 9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JANE DOE NO. 2,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN
Defendant.
JANE DOE NO. 3,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN
Defendant.
JANE DOE NO. 4,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN
Defendant.
JANE DOE NO. 5,
CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA
CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA
CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/JOHNSON
CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA
EFTA02744542
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 127 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 2 of 9
Doe 101 v. Epstein
Page 2
Plaintiff,
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant.
CASE NO.: 08-80994-CIV-MARRAJJOHNSON
JANE DOE NO. 6,
Plaintiff,
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant.
CASE NO.: 08-80993-C1V-MARRA/
JANE DOE NO. 7,
Plaintiff,
JEFFREY EPSTEIN
Defendant.
C.M.A., CASE NO.: 08-80811-CIV-MARRA/
Plaintiff
JEFFREY EPSTEIN
Defendant.
JANE DOE, CASE NO.: 08-80893-CIV-MARRA/
EFTA02744543
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 127 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 3 of 9
Doe 101 v. Epstein
Page 3
Plaintiff;
JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al,
Defendants.
DOE II,
Plaintiff,
JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al,
Defendants.
JANE DOE NO. 101,
Plaintiff,
JEFFREY EPSTEIN
Defendant.
JANE DOE NO. 102,
Plaintiff,
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant.
CASE NO.: 09-80469-CIV-MARRA
CASE NO.: 09-80591-CIV-MARRA-.
CASE NO.: 09-80656-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON
DEFENDANT, JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S, RESPONSE TO JANE DOE NO. 101 AND JANE
DOE NO. 102'S MOTION FOR A NO CONTACT ORDER
EFTA02744544
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 127 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 4 of 9
Doe 101 v. Epstein
Page 4
Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, ("MR. EPSTEIN"), by and through his undersigned
attorneys responds to the Plaintiffs' Jane Doe No. 101 and Jane Doe No. 102 ("Plaintiffs")
Motion for a No Contact Order [DE 113] and states:
1. Plaintiffs' Motion was completely unnecessary and a waste of attorney time and
judicial resources. Plaintiffs' motion was filed to cast a false light on Mr. Epstein and his
attorneys, and to draw attention away from the fact that many of the alleged "victims" on the
referenced "list" were or are admitted prostitutes, dancers at strip clubs (Platinum Gold, Cheetah,
Diamond Dolls, T's Lounge, Flashdance, etc.) or have criminal records or warrants for their
arrests, to reference only a few issues about them.
2. Plaintiffs seek an advisory opinion on an issue which does not exist. Neither
Mr. Epstein nor his attorneys have initiated any contact, direct or indirect, with any alleged
"victims", nor does Plaintiffs' counsel or any alleged person by way of affidavit alleged any type
of contact, direct or indirect. The undersigned's May 21, 2009 (Exhibit 1 hereto) letter could
not have been clearer as to the position of Mr. Epstein and his attorneys, i.e. "To my knowledge,
neither Mr. Epstein nor any attorney or agent of those attorneys who represent Mr. Epstein, have
contacted or attempted to contact your clients. Given that it is not Mr. Epstein's intention to
have any direct contact with your clients, it is unnecessary to respond point by point to any
statements attributed to my co-counsel." To the extent it was not clear in the undersigned's
letter, neither Mr. Epstein nor his attorneys, nor their agents intend to have any direct or indirect
contact with Plaintiffs counsels' clients. What else is there to say?
3. Is Plaintiffs' counsel suggesting that Mr. Epstein cannot even be at the
depositions of his clients as parties or witnesses? That certainly will be direct `eye' contact at a
EFTA02744545
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 127 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 5 of 9
Doe 101 v. Epstein
Page 5
minimum. If that is Plaintiffs' position then Jane Doe 101 and 102, and any other matters where
Plaintiffs' firm's clients are involved, should be stayed until expiration of the Non-Prosecution
Agreement, otherwise Mr. Epstein will be denied his due process right of any civil party to be
present at opposing party's deposition.
4. Rather than to mislead the court by providing a substantially redacted copy of the
undersigned's May 18, 2009 letter, a full copy of the letter redacting only the client's full name
is attached as Exhibit 2. The letter is important in that the Defendant and his attorneys recognize
that no contact included not serving his client with a deposition subpoena through a process
server, i.e. potentially an "agent" by serving her attorney. As this court will note from paragraph
2 of Exhibit 1, a very cautious approach was taken by Defendant and his attorneys, in stating
"However, based on the position that you, Bob, have taken, I am providing/serving you with the
subpoena for L.S.P.'s deposition on June 1 I."
5. Plaintiffs' counsel further tries to obfuscate Defendant's position by redacting the
last paragraph of the May 18, 2009 letter, which states "Finally as I also indicated in our
telephone conversation, your client contacted Jack Goldberger's [one of Mr. Epstein's attorneys]
office last week suggesting that Jack was holding up the settlement. He did not speak with her. I
don't know where Ms. P got that idea." Plaintiffs' counsel should be more concerned about
controlling their own clients.
6. Rather than the Plaintiffs filing this needless, unwarranted and excessive motion
where they take another shot at Mr. Epstein so they can remind the court of their alleged
damages, maybe, they should focus more on the background of their own clients, including the
individual referenced in the May 18, 2009 letter.
EFTA02744546
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 127 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 6 of 9
Doe 101 v. Epstein
Page 6
7. Finally, Mr. Epstein pled guilty to one count of felony solicitation (which was not
related to a minor), under §796.07(2)(f), F.S. and one count of procuring a minor for prostitution
under §796.03 F. S. Plaintiffs' reference to both counts being related to "minors" is again
misleading and incorrect.
8. At the time of the state court plea on June 30, 2008, neither Defendant nor his
counsel nor the state attorney's office had seen the "secret" list of alleged victims, i.e. Mr.
Epstein was forced to agree to a list of individuals that the USAO refused to provide pre-plea.
The list was not provided to Mr. Epstein's attorney until after the plea and Mr. Epstein was in
jail. With the parties to the plea completely unaware who would be on the list, how then could
the state plea be construed as a limitless no contact order. Mr. Epstein is doing more than the
law requires.
WHEREFORE, Defendant, Mr. Epstein, requests this court deny the motion as premature
and unnecessary based on the current state of the facts.
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 296 day of May , 2009
EFTA02744547
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 127 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 7 of 9
Doe 101 v. Epstein
Page 7
Respectfully sub
By:
ROBERT D. RITTON, JR., ESQ.
Florida Bar o. 224162
[Email Redacted]
MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ.
Florida Bar #617296
moikeabc1claw.com
BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTHER & COLEMAN
515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
561/842-2820 Phone
561/515-3148 Fax
(Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein)
EFTA02744548
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 127 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 8 of 9
Doe 101 v. Epstein
Page 8
Certificate of Service
Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey E stein
Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/
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]
[Email Redacted]
[Email Redacted]
Counsel for Plaintiffs in Related Cases Nos.
08-80069, 08-80119, 08-80232, 08-80380, 08-
80381, 08-80993, 08-80994
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 in Related Case No. 08-
80811
[Email Redacted]
Jack Scarola, 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]
inhQsearcvlaw.com
Counsel for Plaintiff, C.M.A.
Brad , Esq.
Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler
401 East Las Olas Boulevard
Suite 1650
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: [Phone Redacted]
Fax: [Phone Redacted]
[Email Redacted]
Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-
80893
Paul G. Cassell, Esq.
Pro Hac Vice
332 South 1400 E, Room 101
Salt Lake City, UT 84112
[Phone Redacted]
[Phone Redacted] Fax
casselltalaw.utah.edu
Co-counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe
Isidro M. Esq.
Law Firm, P.A.
224 Datura Street, Suite 900
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
[Phone Redacted]
[Phone Redacted] F
isidrogarciaabellsouth.net
Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-
80469
Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq.
Katherine W. Ezell, Esq.
Podhurst Orseck, P.A.
25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800
Miami, FL 33130
[Phone Redacted]
Fax: [Phone Redacted]
EFTA02744549
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 127 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 9 of 9
Doe 101 v. Epstein
Page 9
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 bnicereinhar v.com
Counsel for Defendant
Theodore J. Leopold, Esq.
Spencer T. Kuvin, Esq.
Ricci-Leopold, P.A.
2925 PGA Blvd., Suite 200
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
[Phone Redacted]
Fax: [Phone Redacted]
Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-
08804
[Email Redacted]
[Email Redacted]
[Email Redacted]
[Email Redacted]
Counsel for Plaintiffs in Related Cases Nos.
09-80591 and 09-80656
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]
[Email Redacted]
Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein
EFTA02744550