Court Records
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 177 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/22/2009 Page 1 of 10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JANE DOE NO. 2,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant.
CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA I
JANE DOE NO. 3,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant.
JANE DOE NO. 4, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA
Plaintiff,
vs.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant.
CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA
JANE DOE NO. 5,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant.
CASE NO.: 08-CV-8038I-MARRA
JANE DOE NO. 6, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80994-MARRA
EFTA02744967
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 177 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/22/2009 Page 2 of 10
Plaintiff,
vs.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant.
JANE DOE NO. 7,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant.
CASE NO.: 08-CV-80993-MARRA
C.M.A., CASE NO.: 08-CV-80811-MARRA
Plaintiff.
vs.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant.
JANE DOE, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80893-MARRA
Plaintiff,
vs.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant.
JANE DOE NO. ll, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80469-MARRAI
Plaintiff,
EFTA02744968
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 177 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/22/2009 Page 3 of 10
vs.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant.
/
JANE DOE NO. 101, CASE NO.: 09-CV-80591-MARRA/JOHNSON
Plaintiff,
vs.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant.
JANE DOE NO. 102, CASE NO.: 09-CV-80656-MARRa
Plaintiff,
vs.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant.
/
PLAINTIFFS JANE DOE NO. 101 AND JANE DOE NO. 102'S REPLY
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' FOR AN ORDER FOR THE
PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE
Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and Jane Doe No. 102 (collectively, "Plaintiffs") reply to
Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for an Order for the Preservation of
Evidence ("Response") and state as follows:
I. Defendant complains that Plaintiffs "once again mislead and mischaracterize the
criminal counts to which Epstein pled guilty" (Resp. 1 1) and that Plaintiffs' allegations in
paragraphs 2 and 3 of Plaintiffs' Motion for an Order for the Preservation of Evidence ("Motion")
EFTA02744969
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 177 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/22/2009 Page 4 of 10
are without factual basis (id. 1 2). While Plaintiffs strenuously disagree with Defendant's
statements, these allegations and denials are irrelevant to this Motion for an Order for the
Preservation of Evidence.
2. Defendant asserts that he previously agreed to preserve all necessary evidence
by way of an Order, attached to his Response as Exhibit "A," which Order was entered in another
counsel's earlier-filed case, Jane Doe a/k/a Jane Doe No. I v. Epstein et at, Case No. 08-80804-
C1V-MARRal [D.E. 20]. Defendant's attorneys state that they have no objections to a
similar order being issued in the present case (see Resp. 1 4); however, defense counsel fail to
mention in their Response that the Order in Jane Doe No. I does not provide for the preservation
of evidence that Plaintiffs are requesting in the present case. The discovery request in Jane Doe No.
I pertains merely to items listed in a property receipt for evidence confiscated by the Palm Beach
Police Department. Here, Plaintiffs, through their Motion, request the preservation of relevant and
discoverable evidence beyond those confiscated items. Defendant asserts no specific objections to
any of the items listed in paragraphs 8 through 10 of Plaintiffs' Motion, but, instead, asks the Court
to enter an order similar to the Order in Jane Doe No. 1, which would be tantamount to denying
most of Jane Doe No. 101 and Jane Doe No. 102's preservation request.
3. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs' request for preservation as being "grossly overly
broad" (Resp.1 7), but fails to demonstrate any basis for this objection. Furthermore, this contention
is hypocritical, considering that Defendant issued an equally, if not more, expansive request in his
May 12, 2009 letter to Plaintiffs' counsel. See Ex. "A," attached hereto. Plaintiffs specify in
paragraphs 8 through 10 of their Motion that the list of items to be preserved consists of relevant
EFTA02744970
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 177 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/22/2009 Page 5 of 10
evidence.' In contrast, Defendant's letter requests the preservation of all computer files and
electronic data, without any specification limiting his request to potentially relevant documents.
4. Defendant complains that Plaintiffs' request to preserve evidence includes
information that is not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. However,
potential admissibility is not relevant to a preservation order, as the court recognized in Capricorn
Power Co. v. Siemens Westinghouse Power Corp., 220 F.R.D. 429, 434 (W.D. Pa. 2004): "[A]
motion for a preservation order can be granted with regard to all items of evidence which are
discoverable in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), without the necessity of
establishing that the evidence will necessarily be relevant and admissible at trial."
5. Defendant's Fifth Amendment concerns are premature, as Plaintiffs are not asking
Defendant to produce evidence. Defendant admits in his Response that "[t]he Fifth Amendment
Privilege extends to the act of production . . . ." (Resp. 1 7). Indeed, Defendant's entire Fifth
Amendment privilege argument throughout his Response rests solely on case law dealing with the
production of evidence. Defendant does not cite to any authority for his assertion that the privilege
against self-incrimination applies to preserving, as opposed to producing, evidence. Unsurprisingly,
Defendant merely posits, with no legal basis, that "Plaintiffs' motion to preserve evidence ... is in
reality no different that [sic] propounding a discovery request upon Defendant, ...." (id.) Such an
assertion is senseless. If and when a notice to produce is served, the Court will determine the
One example of a relevant request by Plaintiffs in their Motion is for "records of
domestic and international travel, including travel in Defendant's private airplanes• "
Motion 18. Considering Count Two of Jane Doe No. 101's Amended Complaint, which is
entitled "Travel with Intent to Engage in Illicit Sexual Conduct pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255 in
Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b)," (Amended Complaint 11 29-32), records of Defendant's
travel are relevant and important documents that must be preserved.
EFTA02744971
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 177 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/22/2009 Page 6 of 10
validity of any claims of Fifth Amendment privilege. Until then, briefing Fifth Amendment
privilege issues is a waste of the Court's and counsel's time.
6. Finally, whether the Non-Prosecution Agreement is, as Defendant coins it, a
"deferred prosecution agreement" (see Resp. 76), is irrelevant to Plaintiffs' Motion for an Order for
the Preservation of Evidence.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that the Court enter the order that Plaintiffs submitted with
their Motion for an Order for the Preservation of Evidence.
DATED this 22nd day of June, 2009.
Respectfully submitted,
By: s/Robert C. Josefsberg
Robert C. Josefsberg,
Bar No. 040856
Katherine W. Ezell, Bar No. 114771
Podhurst Orseck, P.A.
25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800
Miami, Florida 33130
([Phone Redacted]
([Phone Redacted] (fax)
[Email Redacted]
[Email Redacted]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
EFTA02744972
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 177 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/22/2009 Page 7 of 10
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
WE HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 22s day of June, 2009, we electronically filed the
foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. We also certify that the foregoing
document is being served this day on all counsel of record identified on the attached Service List
either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other
authorized manner for those counsel or parties who are not authorized to receive electronically
Notices of Electronic Filing.
Respectfully submitted,
PODHURST ORSECK, P.A.
Attorneys for Plaintiff
By: s/Robert C. Josefsberg
Robert C. Josefsberg
Ha. Br No. 040856
[Email Redacted]
Katherine W. Ezell
Fla. Bar No. 114771
[Email Redacted]
City National Bank Building
25 W. Flagler Street, Suite 800
Miami, FL 33130
Telephone: ([Phone Redacted]
Facsimile: ([Phone Redacted]
EFTA02744973
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 177 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/22/2009 Page 8 of 10
SERVICE LIST
JANE DOE NO. 2 v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN
Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRa
United States District Court, Southern District of Florida
Robert Critton, Esq.
Michael J. Pike, Esq.
Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman LLP
515 North Flagler Drive, Suite 400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Phone: ([Phone Redacted]
Fax: ([Phone Redacted]
[Email Redacted]
[Email Redacted]
Counsel for Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein
Jack Goldberger, Esq.
Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A.
250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Phone: ([Phone Redacted]
Fax: ([Phone Redacted]
[Email Redacted]
Co-Counsel for Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein
Bruce E. Reinhart, Esq.
Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A.
250 South Australian Avenue, Suite 1400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Phone: ([Phone Redacted]
Fax: ([Phone Redacted]
[Email Redacted]
Counsel for Co-Defendant,
Jack Scarola, Esq.
Jack P. M, Esq.
Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A.
2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard
West Palm Beach, Florida 33409
Phone: ([Phone Redacted]
Fax: ([Phone Redacted]
[Email Redacted]
[Email Redacted]
Counsel for Plaintiff C.M.A.
EFTA02744974
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 177 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/22/2009 Page 9 of 10
Adam Horowitz, Esq.
Stuart Mermelstein, Esq.
Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A.
18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218
Miami, FL 33160
Phone: ([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
Spencer Todd Kuvin, Esq.
Theodore Jon Leopold, Esq.
Leopold Kuvin, P.A.
2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
Phone: ([Phone Redacted]
Fax: ([Phone Redacted]
[Email Redacted]
[Email Redacted]
Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-08804
Richard Willits, Esq.
Richard H. Willits, P.A.
2290 10th Ave North, Suite 404
Lake Worth, FL 33461
Phone: ([Phone Redacted]
Fax: ([Phone Redacted]
Jawverwillits@aol,corn
[Email Redacted]
Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80811
Brad , Esq.
Law Office of Brad & Associates, LLC
2028 Street, Suite 202
Hollywood, FL 33020
Phone: ([Phone Redacted]
Fax: ([Phone Redacted]
[Email Redacted]
[Email Redacted]
Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80893
Isidro Manuel Esq.
Elkins & Boehringer
224 Datum Avenue, Suite 900
EFTA02744975
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 177 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/22/2009 Page 10 of 10
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Phone: ([Phone Redacted]
Fax: ([Phone Redacted]
[Email Redacted]
Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80469
EFTA02744976