Court Records
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 147 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 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,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant.
CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MAR
CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA
CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA,
CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA
EFTA02744720
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 147 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 2 of 9
JANE DOE NO. 6,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant.
JANE DOE NO. 7,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant.
C.M.A.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant.
JANE DOE,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant.
CASE NO.: 08-CV-80994-MARRA
CASE NO.: 08-CV-80993-MARRA
CASE NO.: 08-CV-80811-MARRA
CASE NO.: 08-CV-80893-MARRA
EFTA02744721
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 147 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 3 of 9
DOE II,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant.
JANE DOE NO. 101,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant.
JANE DOE NO. 102,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant.
CASE NO.: 09-CV-80469-MARRA
CASE NO.: 09-CV-80591-MARRA
CASE NO.: 09-CV-80656-MARRA
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO 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
The Plaintiff, C.M.A., by and through undersigned counsel, files this Response to
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 (D.E. 104), and further states as follows:
EFTA02744722
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 147 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 4 of 9
1. Defendant EPSTEIN seeks to have this case (and others that are
presently pending) stricken from the trial docket, or continued for at least an additional
three months or have the existing pretrial deadlines extended. In light of Plaintiffs filing
of her Conditional Notice of Intent to Exclusively Rely on Statutory Damages Provided
by 18 U.S.C. 52255 (D.E. 113) on June 5, 2009, Plaintiff agrees to a modification of the
pretrial schedule as outlined in Defendant EPSTEIN's Motion to Strike (D.E. 104); to wit,
extending discovery for an additional three months from the currently set deadline of
August 28, 2009, extending the current deadline of October 15, 2009 by two months to
file substantive pretrial motions, extending the current deadline of December 21, 2009
by one month to mediate this matter, and extending the deadline of June 29, 2009 by
one month to exchange expert witness reports.'
2. EPSTEIN's requests to have this case stricken from the trial docket, or in
the alternative, continued for three months, however, are not warranted under the
circumstances and would unreasonably and unnecessarily delay the resolution of this
case. The filing of the instant motion marks the third different way EPSTEIN has sought
to delay the trial on this matter. First, it was Defendant's Motion for Stay (D.E. 33),
which was denied by the Court on December 17, 2008. Next, it was Defendant's
second Motion for Stay (D.E. 51), which is presently pending before the Court. Third,
and unfortunately, probably not the last, is Defendant's latest attempt to delay the trial of
this case.
With regards to the last requested modification of the pretrial order, EPSTEIN requests "an additional
month to complete the remaining deadlines under each of the Court's Trial Orders." Given that each of
the other deadlines not specifically listed above are to take place 15 days or less from the calendar call
date of February 19, 2010 (which is 3 days from the trial date of February 22, 2010), the only logical
deadline EPSTEIN could be referring to is the expert witness report exchange.
EFTA02744723
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 147 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 5 of 9
3. In order to justify his latest attempt to delay the trial of this case, EPSTEIN
argues that Plaintiffs conduct has prevented him from "conducting any meaningful
discovery, including the taking of C.M.A.'s supervisors, co-workers, acquaintances,
friends, and other third parties."(D.E. 104, pg. 7). The sworn affidavit by counsel for
Defendant, Michael Pike, Esq. repeats the same allegation ("As a result, the
undersigned has not had an opportunity to depose any individuals that may have
information about the allegations made by Plaintiffs."(D.E. 042-2, paragraph 4).
4, Defendant's Motion and affidavit are simply not supported by the history of
this case. First, this case was filed in state court on February 21, 2008. Defendant
EPSTEIN was served with a summons and complaint on July 2, 2008. For reasons that
are known only to himself and his counsel in this case, EPSTEIN waited a full six
months before propounding any discovery of any kind upon Plaintiff. EPSTEIN filed his
first set of interrogatories on January 16, 2009, and his first set of requests to produce
on January 16, 2009. EPSTEIN's choice to wait a half a year before engaging in formal
discovery is not the Plaintiffs fault, nor can he now be allowed to argue that the current
trial setting is unworkable because of his failures.
5. Second, Plaintiff provided answers to Defendant's first set of
interrogatories on February 18, 2009 (Attached as Exhibit "1"). Plaintiffs answers to
interrogatories identifies thirty six (36) people, other than herself and EPSTEIN, who
have or may have knowledge regarding the subject matter of the instant law suit. This
list of individuals includes Plaintiffs relatives, mental health providers, a former
boyfriend, her friends, other victims of EPSTEIN, members of law enforcement who
investigated EPSTEIN, and former employees and/or associates of EPSTEIN. Armed
EFTA02744724
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 147 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 6 of 9
with the identities of these crucial fact witnesses for almost the last four (4) months,
EPSTEIN had not set a single one of them for deposition as of the time he filed the
instant motion. Defendant's claims that he has been absolutely prevented from
engaging in any discovery as a result of Plaintiffs "delay tactics" are absolutely belied
by the fact that he actually has much of the information he complains Plaintiff is
concealing from him, but has chosen to do nothing with it over the last four months.
6. Plaintiff also filed on February 2, 2009 her Initial Disclosure which likewise
identified multiple individuals who had or may have knowledge regarding the subject
matter of the instant suit (Attached as Exhibit "2"). Defendant failed to set any of those
indentified individuals for deposition either.
7. Once again, Defendant cannot bury his head in the sand by failing to take
available discovery and then turn around and complain that he cannot get ready for trial
scheduled in February of 2010.
8. Third, EPSTEIN inappropriately characterizes Plaintiffs assertions of the
protections afforded to her under the applicable rules of procedure and case law with
respect to unreasonably invasive and irrelevant discovery propounded by EPSTEIN as
an attempt to conceal evidence from EPSTEIN and delay the discovery of same.
Defendant's allegations in this regard are flat out wrong. Plaintiff, just like EPSTEIN,
has certain rights and privileges with respect to the scope of permissible discovery.
Plaintiff has every right to avail herself of the protections available to her under the rules
of discovery without fear of claims from EPSTEIN that she is concealing or delaying
anything. Indeed, it is ironic that EPSTEIN takes issue with a litigant invoking the
protections available to her with regards to inappropriate and unreasonable discovery
EFTA02744725
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 147 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 7 of 9
when he himself has failed to respond to any discovery propounded to him by Plaintiff,
but instead has invoked his 5th Amendment privilege.
9. Fourth, in the event that the Court rules that Plaintiff can recover the
statutory damage floor established in 18 U.S.C. §2255 for each proven incident of
abuse committed by EPSTEIN upon her, the discovery which EPSTEIN presently seeks
will not be relevant or material in any way given Plaintiffs Conditional Notice of Intent to
Exclusively Rely on Statutory Damages Provided by 18 U.S.C. §2255.
10. Defendant asserts as justification for continuing this case what can fairly
be characterized as routine and ordinary discovery disputes. Nothing contained in
either his motion or supporting affidavit rises to the level of "exceptional circumstances"
required by Local Rule 7.6 to continue a trial setting. Any issues related to discovery
can certainly be cured by extending the trial deadlines as proposed by EPSTEIN.
Delaying the trial of this case is simply not necessary nor justified.
EFTA02744726
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 147 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 8 of 9
WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing, the Plaintiff respectfully requests this
Court enter an order denying 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.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/Jack P ■
JACK SCAROLA
Florida BarUp. 169440
JACK P.
Florida Bar No.: 0547808
Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A.
2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard
West Palm Beach, Florida 33409
Phone: ([Phone Redacted]
Fax: ([Phone Redacted]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on June 8th, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing
document with the Clerk of Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing
document is being served this day on all counsel of record identified above via
transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF.
/s/Jack P ■
JACK SCAROLA
Florida B&Up. 169440
JACK P. MI
Florida Bar No.: 0547808
Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A.
2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard
West Palm Beach, Florida 33409
Phone: ([Phone Redacted]
Fax: ([Phone Redacted]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
EFTA02744727
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 147 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 9 of 9
COUNSEL LIST
Robert Critton, Esquire
Burman Critton Luttier & Coleman LLP
515 North Flagler Drive, Suite 400
West Palm Beach, FL 33414
Phone: ([Phone Redacted]
Fax: ([Phone Redacted]
Jack A. Goldberger, Esquire
Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A.
250 Australian Avenue S.
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Phone: ([Phone Redacted]
Richard H. Willits, Esquire
Richard H. Willits, P.A.
2290 10th Avenue North
Suite 404
Lake Worth, FL 33461
Phone: ([Phone Redacted]
Fax: ([Phone Redacted]
Bruce E. Reinhart, Esquire
Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A.
250 South Australian Avenue
Suite 1400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Phone: ([Phone Redacted]
Fax: ([Phone Redacted]
EFTA02744728