Court Records
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 1 of 46
Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009, Page 1 of 18
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SMITHFRN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80811-MARRA/Ila
C.M. A.,
Plaintiff,
v.
Y
EPSTEIN and
Defendants,
DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF C.M.A. TO RESPOND TO
DEFENDANT'S FIRST REQUEST TO PRODUCE AND ANSWER DEFENDANT'S
FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES, AND TO OVERRULE OBJECTIONS, AND FOR
AN AWARD OF DEFENDANT'S REASONABLE EXPENSES
Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through his undersigned attorneys,
moves this Court for an order compelling Plaintiff, C.M.A. to respond to Defendant's
First Request To Produce and to answer Defendant's First Set of Interrogatodes, and to
overrule her objections asserted in Plaintiffs Response To Defendant's First Request
To Produce, dated February 13, 2009, and in Plaintiffs Notice of Serving Answers To
Interrogatories, dated February 18, 2009. Defendant further seeks an award of his •
reasonable expenses, including expenses, associated with the making of this motion.
Rule 37, Fed.R.Civ.P. (2008); Local Gen. Rules 7.1 and 26.1 H (S.D. Fla. 2008). In
support of his motion, Defendant states:
Prior to the filing of this motion, on April 1, 2009, Defendant's counsel
communicated by telephone with Plaintiffs counsel In a good faith effort to resolve the
discovery Issues herein. This motion addresses those discovery Items which remain at
EXHIBIT
EFTA02745239
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 2 of 46
Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/200Y Page 2 of 18
C.M.A. v. Epstein, et al.
Page 2
issue. Also, rather than file 2 separate motions to compel, Defendant filed one
addressing the production requests and interrogatories because the discovery Issues
overlap.
Motion To Compel Responses to Production Requests Nos. 1, 2, 4.5. and 19,
and Answers to Interrogatories Nos. 2, 18. and 23.
Production Request No.
1. 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 Plaintiffs earnings for the current year.
Response:
Objection. Irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery
of admissible information.
Legal Argument Supporting Entitlement to Discovery
Plaintiffs tax retums and supporting documentation are relevant to Plaintiffs
damages claims and, thus, discoverable. Plaintiffs complaint alleges in part that
"beginning in approximately late May or early June of 2002, and continuing until
approximately August of 2003, the Defendant coerced and enticed the impressionable,
vulnerable, and economically deprived then minor Plaintiff to commit various acts of
sexual misconduct." 1st Am. Complaint, ¶13. (Plaintiff also refused to answer
Interrogatory no. 2 which sought her employment history for the past ten years asserting
the same general objection).
Such Information Is both relevant and reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence. It is well settled that relevant Information is
discoverable, even if not admissible at trial, so long as the discovery is reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Rule 26(b)(1), Fed.R.Civ.P.;
EFTA02745240
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 3 of 46
Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 3 of 18
C.M.A. v. Epstein, et al.
Page 3
Donahav v. Palm Beach Tours & trans.. Inc. 242 F.R.D. 685 (S.D. Fla. 2007).
Discoverability of such information Is governed by Rule 26, Fed.R.Civ.P., pursuant to
which the scope of discovery is broad. ponahav, supra, at 686, and cases cited therein.
"Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to
the claims or defense of any party involved in the pending action." Id.
Plaintiffs tax returns, along with the requested supporting documentation, for the
six year period, and documents relevant to her current earnings, are relevant to
Plaintiffs damages claims detailed below herein. Such information would show
Plaintiffs employment and earning history, as well as provide evidence as to how
Plaintiff has been able to function in her daily life before, during and after the alleged
incidents. Was she self-sufficient? Was she able to get out of bed each morning and
support herself? What type of job did she hold? One's ability to earn a living and be
self-supporting has not only a financial component, but also an
emotional/psychological/mental component.
C.M.A.'s First Amended Complaint attempts to allege 32 counts. Counts I
through XXX are purportedly brought pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §2255 — Civil Remedies for
Personal injuries; Count XXXI is entitled "Sexual Battery," and Count XXXII is entitled
"Conspiracy to Commit Tortious Assault only against Defendant,
in her answers to Interrogatory nos. 9 and 10, which seek Information about
C.M.A.'s damages claims, Plaintiff answered that:
' Defendant's Motion To Dismiss directed to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint is pending.
EFTA02745241
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 4 of 46 _ .
Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 4 of 18
C.M.A. v. Epstein, et al.
Page 4
I have bi-polar disorder and manic depression. I lost my self-esteem. I began
cutting myself on my arms and legs and developer, drug problems. Permanent
injuries are psychological. (Interrog. No. 9).
I am claiming compensation for mental anguish, mental pain, psychic trauma,
and loss of enjoyment of life. These damages will be evaluated by a jury who
will provide their own methods of computation In an amount of at least the
statutory minimum established by 18 U.S.C.A. §2255. (Interrog. No. 10).
In her 1st Amended Complaint, relevant to her damages claims, Plaintiff alleges:
C.M.A., has in the past suffered, and will in the future suffer, physical injury,
pain and suffering, emotional distress, psychological trauma, mental anguish,
humiliation, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, loss of dignity, invasion of her
privacy and other damages ... . The then minor Plaintiff incurred medical and
psychological expenses ... and will in the future suffer additional medical and
psychological expenses. The Plaintiff C.M.A. has suffered loss of income, a
loss of the capacity to earn income in the future, and a loss of capacity to enjoy
life. These Injuries are permanent in nature and the Plaintiff, C.M.A., will
continue to suffer these losses in the future.
(15t Am. Complaint, Counts I - XXX (18 U.S.C. §2255), 31, 37, 43, 49, 55,
61, 67, 73, 79, 85, 91, 97, 103, 109, 115, 121, 127, 133, 139, 145, 151, 157,
163, 169, 175, 181, 187, 193; Count XXXI (Sexual Battery), ¶199.)
in each of her "Wherefore" clauses, Plaintiff seeks "compensatory damages of at
least the minimum provided by law." 18 U.S.C. §2255, pursuant to which Plaintiff
attempts to bring certain of her claims, allows for recovery of **actual damages." See fn.
2 herein for applicable statutory text.2
As discussed above, the tax returns, and supporting documentation, will provide
direct evidence as to Plaintiffs claimed damages. Such information does not only go to
(a) 2 Any minor who is a victim of a violation of section 2241(c), 2242, 2243, 2251,
2251A, 2252, 2252A, 2260, 2421, 2422, or 2423 of this title and who suffers personal Injury
as a result of such violation may sue In any appropriate United States District Court and
shall recover the actual damages such minor sustains and the cost of the suit, including
a reasonable attorney's fee. My minor as described in the preceding sentence shall be
deemed to have sustained damages of no less than $50,000 in value. [Emphasis added.]
EFTA02745242
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 5 of 46
Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 5 of 18
C.M.A. v. Epstein, et al.
Page 5
compensatory or actual damages or loss of income/loss of capacity to earn Income type
damages, but also her emotional/psychological/mental health type damages. In the
telephone communication between counsel for the respective parties, Plaintiffs counsel
indicated that Plaintiff was not seeking loss of income/earning capacity type damages;
(Defendant is not aware that there has been any formal withdrawal of such damages
claimed); notwithstanding, the Information sought Is still relevant and discoverable
based on the additional damages claimed by Plaintiff. The time period will allow
Defendant to compare how Plaintiff was doing In her life prior to, during, and after the
alleged incident. Again, the type of jobs Plaintiff has been able to hold and her earnings
and ability to support herself clearly have not only a financial component, but an
emotional/psychological/mental health component as well. Accordingly, Plaintiffs
objection is required to be overruled, and Defendant is entitled to the documents
requested.
Production Request No. 2
2. All bills/expenses from any medical doctor, chiropractor, psychologists,
psychi mental health counselors (Including any members of the healing arts and
relatedlik, 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
Response:
None In our possession. These will be provided upon receipt. Discovery is ongoing.
1..egal Argument Supporting Entitlement to Discovery
Plaintiff makes no objection to the documents requested, but has failed to
produce any documents responsive to this request Clearly, the documents are relevant
and discoverable as they go to proof of Plaintiffs claimed injuries. In the April 1, 2009,
EFTA02745243
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 6 of 46
Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009. Page 6 of 18
C.MA v. Epstein, et al.
Page 6
telephone communication Plaintiffs counsel Indicated that Plaintiff was still not in
possession of such documents. The First Request for Production was served on
Plaintiff on January 16, 2009. In her answer to Interrogatory no. 11, (Notice of Serving
Answers, dated February 18, 2009, identifies a psychiatrist and a counselor/therapist
from whom she claims she is receiving "treatment or examination for the Injuries for
which [she] seeks damages." See Exhibit A hereto for copy C.M.A.'s ;answer to
Interrogatory no. 11. Regarding the date of treatment from the psychiatrist — she
asserts "I would defer to the Doctors records." She claims the treatment from the
counselor/therapist has been "since high school" and "ongoing." Defendant is entitled to
the documents sought and Plaintiff is in control of and has the ability to obtain the
requested medical bills and expenses she claims were incurred as result of her Injuries
claimed in this action. Plaintiff should be required to immediately produce the requested
documents to Defendant.
Production Request No. 4
4. All reports, evaluations, recommendations and/or analysis submitted by
any expert which relate to or cover the Incident which Is the subject matter of this
lawsuit and/or any injuries, damages or losses you allege were caused by the incident.
Response:
Any reports generated by any retained experts not yet disclosed are protected by the
work product privilege. Notwithstanding same, none.
Legal Argument Supporting Entitlement to Discovery
Plaintiff, through counsel, in the April 1, 2009, telephone communication,
indicated that she does not have any responsive documents and stands by her
objection. Rule 26 provides In relevant part —
EFTA02745244
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 7 of 46
Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 7 of 18
C.M.A. v. Epstein, et al.
Page 7
2) Disclosure of Expert Testimony.
(A) In General. In addition to the disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1), a party must
disclose to the other parties the Identity of any witness It may use at trial to present
evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, 703, or 705.
(B) Written Report. Unless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, this
disclosure must be accompanied by a written report--prepared and signed by the witness—if
the witness is one retained or specially employed to provide expert testimony in the
case or one whose duties as the party's employee regularly involve giving expert tostimony.
The report must contain:
(i) a complete statement of all opinions the witness will express and the basis and
reasons for them;
(II) the data or other information considered by the witness in forming them;
(iii) any exhibits that will be used to summarize or support them;
(iv) the witness's qualifications, Including a list of all publications authored in the
previous 10 years;
(v) a list of all other cases in which, during the previous four years, the witness
testified as an expert at trial or by deposition; and
(vi) a statement of the compensation to be paid for the study and testimony in the
case.
(C) Time to Disclose Expert Testimony. A party must make these disclosures at the
times and in the sequence that the court orders. Absent a stipulation or a court order, the
disclosures must be made:
(i) at least 90 days before the date set for trial or for the case to be ready for trial; or
(Ii) if the evidence is intended solely to contradict or rebut evidence on the same
subject matter identified by another party under Rule 26(a)(2)(B), within 30 days after the
other party's disclosure.
(e) Supplementing Disclosures and Responses.
(1) In General. A party who has made a disclosure under Rule 26(a)--or who has
responded to an interrogatory, request for production, or request for admission--must
supplement or correct its disclosure or response:
(A) in a timely manner If the party learns that in some material respect the
disclosure or response is incomplete or incorrect, and if the additional or corrective
EFTA02745245
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 8 of 46
Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 8 of 18
C.M.A. v. Epstein, et al.
Page 8
Information has not otherwise been made known to the other parties during the
tllbuuve,y out.ebb
(B) as ordered by the court.
(2) Expert Witness. For an expert whose report must be disclosed under Rule
26(a)(2)(B), the party's duty to supplement extends both to information included In
the report and to Information given during the expert's deposition. Any additions or
changes to this information must be disclosed by the time the party's pretrial disclosures
under Rule 26(a)(3) are due.
Accordingly, Defendant requests that should Plaintiff be in possession of any
such reports, evaluations, recommendations and/or analysis prepared by an expert
expected to testify at trial or deposition, or to be used by an expert expected to testify at
trial or deposition, that such documents be produced as required by Rule 26,
Fed.R.C1v.P. quoted above.
Production Request No. 5
5. 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.
Response:
None in our possession. Discovery is ongoing.
Legal Argument Supporting Entitlement to Discovery
Once again, Plaintiff should be required to immediately produce the requested
documents. In support of ordering immediate production, Defendant reaileges and
incorporates his "Legal Argument Supporting Entitlement To Discovery" to request no. 5
above herein.
EFTA02745246
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 9 of 46
Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 9 of 18
C.M.A. v. Epstein, et al.
Page 9
Interrogatory No. Z
2. List 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.
Answer:
Objection. Irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of
admissible evidence.
Legal Argument Supporting Entitlement to Discovery
Such information is clearly relevant to the damages and injuries claimed by
Plaintiff in this action. Plaintiffs complaint alleges in part that "beginning in
approximately late May or early June of 2002, and continuing until approximately
August of 2003, the Defendant coerced and enticed the impressionable, vulnerable, and
economically deprived then minor Plaintiff to commit various acts of sexual misconduct."
1s' Am. Complaint, ¶13. (See discussion of Production Request no. 1 above herein).
Such information is both relevant and reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence. It is well settled that relevant information is
discoverable, even if not admissible at trial, so long as the discovery is reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Rule 26(b)(1), Fed.R.Civ.P.;
Donahav v. Palm Beach Tours & trans.. Inc., 242 F.R.D. 685 (S.D. Fla. 2007).
Discoverability of such Information is governed by Rule 26, Fed.R.Civ.P., pursuant to
which the scope of discovery is broad. Donahav, supra, at 686, and cases cited therein.
"Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to
the claims or defense of any party involved in the pending action." id.
EFTA02745247
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 10 of
46 • -
Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 , Page 10 of 18
C.M.A. v. Epstein, et al.
Page 10
Plaintiffs employment and earnings history prior to and after the alleged
Incidents are relevant to her claimed damages and injuries. Such information would not
only evidence Plaintiffs employment and earning history, but also provide evidence as
to how Plaintiff has been able to function in her daily life before, during and after the
alleged incidents. Was she self-sufficient? Was she able to get out of bed each
moming and support herself? What type of job did she hold? One's ability to earn a
living and be self-supporting has not only a financial component, but also an
emotIonaVpsychological/mental component.
C.M.A.'s First Amended Complaint attempts to allege 32 counts. Counts I
through XXX are purportedly brought pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §2255 — Civil Remedies for
Personal Injuries; Count XXXI is entitled "Sexual Battery," and Count XXXff is entitled
"Conspiracy to Commit Tortious Assault only against Defendant,
In her answers to interrogatory nos. 9 and 10, which seek information about
C.M.A.'s damages claims, Plaintiff answered that
I have bi-polar disorder and manic depression. I lost my self-esteem. I began
cutting myself on my arms and legs and developed drug problems. Permanent
injuries are psychological. (Interrog. No. 9).
I am claiming compensation for mental anguish, mental pain, psychic trauma,
and loss of enjoyment of life. These damages will be evaluated by a jury who
will provide their own methods of computation in an amount of at least the
statutory minimum established by 18 U.S.C.A. §2255. (Interrog. No. 10).
In her 1st Amended Complaint, relevant to her damages claims, Plaintiff alleges:
C.M.A., has in the past suffered, and will In the future suffer, physical injury,
pain and suffering, emotional distress, psychological trauma, mental anguish,
humiliation, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, loss of dignity, Invasion of her
privacy and other damages ... . The then minor Plaintiff incurred medical and
psychological expenses ... and will in the future suffer additional medical and
psychological expenses. The Plaintiff C.M.A. has suffered loss of income, a
EFTA02745248
Case 9:08-cv-80119-ICAM Document 207-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 11 of
46
Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 11 of 18
C.M.A. v. Epstein, et al.
Page 11
loss of the capacity to earn income in the future, and a loss of capacity to enjoy
life. These Injuries are permanent in nature ana the Plaintiff, G.M.A., will
continue to suffer these losses in the future.
(1st Am. Complaint, Counts I — XXX (18 U.S.C. §2255), ¶¶25, 31, 37, 43, 49, 55,
61, 67, 73, 79, 85, 91, 97, 103, 109, 115, 121, 127, 133, 139, 145, 151, 157,
163, 169, 175, 181, 187, 193; Count XXXI (Sexual Battery), ¶199.)
In each of her 'Wherefore" clauses, Plaintiff seeks "compensatory damages of at
least the minimum provided by law." 18 U.S.C. §2255, pursuant to which Plaintiff
attempts to bring certain of her claims, allows for recovery of "actual damages." See fn.
2 herein for applicable statutory text.
As discussed above, C.M.A.'s employment and earnings history will provide direct
evidence as to Plaintiffs claimed damages. Such Information does not only go to
compensatory or actual damages or loss of income/loss of capacity to earn income type
damages, but also her emotionapsychologIcal/mental health type damages. In the
telephone communication between counsel for the respective parties, Plaintiffs counsel
indicated that Plaintiff was not seeking loss of Income/earning capacity type damages;
(Defendant Is not aware that there has been any formal withdrawal of such damages
claimed); notwithstanding, the information sought Is still relevant and discoverable
based on the additional damages claimed by Plaintiff. The time period will allow
Defendant to compare how Plaintiff was doing in her life prior to, during, and after the
alleged Incident. Again, the type of jobs Plaintiff has been able to hold and her earnings
and ability to support herself dearly have not only a financial component, but an
emotional/psychological/mental health component as well. Accordingly, Plaintiffs
EFTA02745249
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 12 of
46
Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 12 of 18
C.M.A. v. Epstein, et al.
Page 12
objection is required to be overruled, and Defendant is entitled to the information sought
in the interrogatory.
Interrogatory No.18
18. List separately 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.
Answer:
Objection. Relevance and overbroad.
Legal Argument Supporting Entitlement to Discovery
Plaintiffs only objection is relevancy and overbroad, without any facttlal support
or showing as required by Rule 26(c) and Local Gen. Rule 26.1 H (S.D. Fla. 2008).
Nowhere does C.M.A. explain how such interrogatory is overbroad.
It is well settled that relevant Information is discoverable, even if not admissible at
trial, so long as the discovery is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence. Rule 26(bX1), Fed.R.Civ.P.; Donahav v. Patm Beath Tours &
trans., Inc., 242 F.R.D. 685 (S.D. Fla. 2007). Discoverability of an alleged
victim's/plaintiff's sexual conduct or activity in civil cases is governed by Rule 26,
Fed.R.Civ.P., pursuant to which the scope of discovery is broad. Donahav, supra, at
686, and cases cited therein. "Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not
privileged, which is relevant to the claims or defense of any party involved in the
pending action." id.
In accordance with Rule 26, the discovery sought regarding Plaintiff's sexual
activity with males and the nature thereof, including whether she received any
EFTA02745250
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 13 of
46 - "
Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 13 of 18
C.M.A. v. Epstein, et at.
Page 13
compensation or consideration therefore, in Interrogatory no. 18, are all relevant to
Plaintiffs damages claims and the type of injury she claims she has, suffered.
Defendant has no other means of obtaining such information and obtaining such
information through Plaintiff will better protect the confidentiality until the Court can
make a determination in accordance with the procedures under Rule 412(c) whether
such information will be admissible at trial. See Rule 412(c), Fed.R.Civ.P. Defendant
will agree to an order keeping the confidentiality of the information obtained through
discovery.
The evidence sought is relevant based on the facts and theories of this action.
C.M.A.'s First Amended Complaint attempts to allege 32 counts. Counts I through XXX
are purportedly brought pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §2255 — Civil Remedies for Personal
Injuries;- Count XXXI is -entitled "Sexual Battery,"__and_ Count_ XXXII is entitled
"Conspiracy to Commit Tortlous Assault only against Defendant,
In her answers to interrogatory nos. 9 and 10, which seek information about
C.M.A.'s damages claims, Plaintiff answered that:
I have bl-polar disorder and manic depression. I lost my self-esteem. I began
cutting myself on my arms and legs and developed drug problems. Permanent
Injuries are psychological. (Interrog. No. 9).
I am claiming compensation for mental anguish, mental pain, psychic trauma,
and loss of enjoyment of life. These damages will be evaluated by a jury who
will provide their own methods of computation in an amount of at least the
statutory minimum established by 18 U.S.C.A. §2255. (Interrog. No. 10).
In her l et Amended Complaint, relevant to her damages claims, Plaintiff alleges:
C.MA., has in the past suffered, and will in the future suffer, physical injury,
pain and suffering, emotional distress, psychological trauma, mental anguish,
humiliation, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, loss of dignity, invasion of her
EFTA02745251
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 1.49f
46
Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 14 of 18
C.M.A. v. Epstein, et al.
Page 14
privacy and other damages ... . The then minor Plaintiff Incurred medical and
psychological expenses ... arid will in llue futunt, suffer additional medical and
psychological expenses. The Plaintiff C.M.A. has suffered loss of Income, a
loss of the capacity to earn income in the future, and a loss of capacity to enjoy
life. These Injuries are permanent in nature and the Plaintiff, C.M.A., will
continue to suffer these losses in the future.
(t at Am. Complaint, Counts I — XXX (18 U.S.C. §2255), ¶125, 31, 37, 43, 49, 55,
61, 67, 73, 79, 85, 91, 97, 103, 109, 115, 121, 127, 133, 139, 145, 151, 157,
163, 169, 175, 181, 187, 193; Count XXXI (Sexual Battery), ¶199.)
In each of her 'Wherefore" clauses, Plaintiff seeks "compensatory damages of at
least the minimum provided by law." 18 U.S.C. §2255, pursuant to which Plaintiff
attempts to bring certain of her claims, allows for recovery of °actual damages." See fn.
2 herein for applicable statutory text.
C.M.A. also alleges that Defendant's conduct was "sexual assault and child
abuse of a then minor." ¶2. She alleges that °beginning in approximately late May or
early June of 2002, and continuing until approximately August of 2003, the .Defendant
coerced and enticed the impressionable, vulnerable, and economically deprived then
minor Plaintiff to commit various acts of sexual misconduct.°113.
... These acts included, but were not limited to, fondling and Inappropriate and
illegal sexual touching of the then minor Plaintiff, sexual misconduct and
masturbation of the Defendant in the presence of the then minor Plaintiff,
soliciting and enticing the then minor Plaintiff to engage In sexual acts with
another female in EPSTEIN's presence, and encouraging the then minor
Plaintiff to become involved in prostitution; Defendant committed numerous
criminal sexual offenses against the then minor Plaintiff including, but not
limited to, sexual battery, solicitation or prostitution, procurement of a minor for
the purpose of prostitution, and lewd and lascivious assaults upon the person of
the then minor plaintiff. (1st Am. Complaint¶13).
The information sought Is clearly relevant to the injuries and damages claimed by
Plaintiff. The nature of her claimed Injuries and damages are such that Defendant is
EFTA02745252
Case 9:08-cv-80119-ICAM Document 207-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 15 of
46 •
Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 15 of 18
C.M.A. v. Epstein, et al.
Page 15
entitled to evidence which would show the nature of her relationship with males,
whether she has suffered or engaged in other acts of sexual misconduct or activity as
alleged in her complaint, and whether she suffered injury and damages as a result of
the other claimed sexual misconduct or activity. See United States v, Bear Stops, 997
F.2d 451 (8th Cir. 1993)(Defendant charged with sexual abuse of six year old boy was
entitled to admission of evidence relating to victim's sexual assault by 3 older boys to
establish alternative explanation for why victim exhibited behavioral manIfestatbns of
sexually abused child.).
In further support of Defendant's motion, a copy of Balas v, Ruzzo, 703 So.2d
1076 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997), rev. denied, 719 So.2d 286 (Fla. 1998), is attached hereto as
Exhibit B as it is on point to the discovery issues in this action, and the relevancy and
discoverability of Plaintiffs history of sexual activity and any payment, therefore. See
interrogatories 8, 22 and 30 propounded in the Balas case and footnote 1 herein. 3
Additionally and significantly, in other pending state court civil actions against. Defendant
EPSTEIN attempting to assert similar claims and damages, the Circuit Court Judges
have already ruled that such information is discoverable as it is relevant to the damages
claims of Plaintiff. See Composite Exhibits C and D hereto. Composite Exhibit C
are the Orders, dated February 23, 2009, entered in the case of A.C. v. Epstein, and
a Case No. 502008CA025129 MB Al, 15th Judicial Circuit, In and For Palm Beach
County, State of Florida, which granted Defendants motion to compel therein directed
3 In Dalas v. Ruzzo, supra, the Plaintiffs alleged a multicount complaint Including claims for
"coercion of prostitution' pursuant to §796.09, Ha. Stat.; for battery for the unwanted and
offensive touching of petitioners' bodies; false imprisonment for physically confining the
petitioners against their will; invasion of privacy; and Intentional infliction of emotional distress.
EFTA02745253
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 16 of
46
Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 16 of 18
C.M.A. v. Epstein, et al.
Page 16
to discovery identical to interrogatory no. 18 above. (In the A.C. case, the Plaintiff
answered without objection interrogatories identical to not 19, 20, and 21 herein.)
Composite Exhibit D is a portion the transcript from a March 3, 2009 hearing on
Defendant's motion to compel discovery in the case of Jane Doe II v. Epstein, and
a Case No. 502008CA020614 MB AF, 15°' Judicial Circuit Court, In and For Palm
Beach County, State of Florida. Again, the Circuit Court Judge determined that the
Information sought is relevant to the issue of damages and, thus, discoverable.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs objections are required to be overruled and Defendant is
entitled to the discovery sought.
Inter ociatory No. 23
23. State the names, addresses, ages, phone numbers and dates of all
females whom you claim were brought by you to Mr. Epstein's home to give him a
massage or for any other reason. As to each female, state the amount of money you
claim you were paid to bring each female.
Answer:
A.L. Age: 22
West Palm Beach, FL
I was paid $100.00
Legal Argument Supporting Entitlement to Discovery
Counsel for the respective parties also discussed this interrogatory In an effort to
come to a resolution. Plaintiff does not object to the discovery requested. Plaintiff's
counsel indicated that he had a "problem" disclosing the identity of A.L. to the extent
she was a minor at the time. Defendant would agree to an order protecting public
disclosure of the true Identity of A.L. if she were indeed a minor at the time; however, as
part of the order, Plaintiff should also be required to provide Defendant with the full
EFTA02745254
Case 9:08-cv-80119-ICAM Document 207-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 17 of
46
Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 , Page 17 of 18
C.M.A. v. Epstein, et al.
Page 17
name of A.L. so that Defendant may conduct meaningful discovery. It is Plaintiff who
claims she brought A.L. to Epstein's home as part of the alleged "scheme." In addition,
Plaintiff failed to provide any date or dates as to when she brought A.L. to Epstein's
home. Plaintiff's counsel indicated they would attempt to provide this information.
Accordingly, in granting Defendants motion to compel discovery, with respect t
this Interrogatory, Plaintiff should be required to provide the full name of A.L. (which
Defendant agrees to keep confidential at this time), the date or dates which she brought
A.L. or any female to Epstein's home, and how much she was allegedly paid each time.
WHEREFORE, Defendant requests that this Court grant Defendants motion to
compel and award Defendants reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees,
associated with this motion.
Rule 7.1 Certification
I hereby certify that counsel for the respective parties communicated by
telephone in a good faith effort to resolve the discovery issues prior to the filing of this
motion to compel. Some of the issues were resolved or in the process of being
resolved.
Robert D. Cri
Attorney for
, Jr.
efendant 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 r entified on the following Service List in the
manner specified by CM/ECF on thi ay of April 2009
EFTA02745255
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 18 of
46
Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 18 of 18
C.M.A. v. Epstein, et al.
Page 18
Richard Horace Willits, Esq.
Richard H. vviiiits,
2290 10th Avenue North
Suite 404
Lake Worth, FL 33461
[Phone Redacted]
Fax: [Phone Redacted]
Counsel for Plaintiff C.M.A.
reelrhwehotmail.com
Jack Sole, Esq.
Jack P. Esq.
Searcy enney Scarola Bamhart
Shipley, P.A.
2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard
West Palm Beach, FL 33409
[Phone Redacted]
Fax: [Phone Redacted]
jsxesearcvlaw.com
lohfasearcvlaw.com
Co-Counsel for Plaintiff
Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq.
Attuitaby Guldbervor & W0193, P.A.
250 Australian Avenue South
Suite 1400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012
[Phone Redacted]
Fax: [Phone Redacted]
Jaaescabellsouth.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]
ectabrucereinhartlaw.
Counsel for Defendantcis.
Respectfully subm
By:
ROBERT D. ITTON, JR., ESQ.
Florida Bar IV . 224162
rcritebdcla4v.com
MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ.
Florida Bar #617296
molkeeboldaw.com
BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & 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)
EFTA02745256
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 19 of
46
Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 1 of 2
C.M.A. vs. Epstein, et al.
Case No.: OS-CV-80811-CW-
Plaintiff's Answers to Defenda ries
School behavioral problems, received counseling prior to the ii rt.ideiit.
8. Did you consume any alcoholic beverages or take any drugs or medications
within 12 hours before the time of each Incident(s) described In the complaint? If
so, state the type and amount of alcoholic beverages, drugs, or medication which
were consumed, and when (dates) and where you consumed them.
ANSWER
1. On one occasion I had taken "Morning Glory" and "Angel Trumpets". I
do not recall the date.
2. On another occasion I used cocaine powder. I do not recall the date.
9. Describe each injury (physical, emotional, mental) for which you are claimind
damages In this case, specifying the part of your body that was injured, the
nature of the injury and as to any injuries you contend are permanent, the effects
on you that you claim are permanent.
ANSWER
I have bi-polar disorder and manic depression. I lost my self-esteem. I
began cutting myself on my arms and legs and developed drug problems.
Permanent Injuries are psychological.
10. Please state each item of damage that you claim, and Include in your answer. the
count to which the item of damages relates; the factual basis for each item of
damages; and an explanation of how you computed each item of damages,
including any mathematical formula used.
ANSWER
I am claiming compensation for mental anguish, mental pain, psychic
trauma, and loss of enjoyment of life. These damages will be evaluated by
a jury who will provide their own methods of computation in an amount of
at least the statutory minimum established by 18 U.S.C.A. § 2255.
Discovery is ongoing.
11. List the names and business addresses of each physician (including psychiatrist,
psychologist, chiropractor or medical provider) who has treated or examined you,
13 "
EXHIBIT :A
EFTA02745257
Case 9:08-cv-80119-ICAM Document 207-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 20 of
46
Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 2 of 2
C.M.A. vs. Epstein, et at
CaseNo.: 08-CV-80811-CIV-MARRAIM
Plaintiffs Answers to Defendant's First taro ties
and each medical tacility where you have received any tlaahnestrt o' e:wtni„atio„
for the injuries for which you seek damages in this case; and state as to each the
date of treatment or examination and the Injury or condition for which you were
examined or treated.
ANSWER
Dr. Serge Thys (Psychiatrist)
2151 45th Street
West Palm Beach, FL 33407
Date: I do not recall the date. I would defer
to the Doctors records.
Susan Pope (Counselor/Therapist) Date: Since high school. Ongoing.
Parent Child Center
2001 W. Blue Heron Boulevard
12. List the names and business addresses of all other physicians, medical facilities,
rehab facilities (drug, alcohol or psychiatric) or other health care' providers
including psychiatrist, psychologist, mental health counselor and chiropractors by
whom or at which you have been examined or treated In the past 10 years; and
state as to each the dates of examination or treatment and the condition or injury
for which you were examined or treated.
ANSWER
Good Samaritan Hospital (3/12/04, 3/25/08)
Child Birth
1309 N Flagler Dr
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
St. Mary's Hospital (4/07)
DNC
901 45th Street
West Palm Beach, FL 33407
Gloria C. Hakkaralnen, MD
Ob/Gyn
2926 10th Avenue North, Suite 305
Palm Springs, FL. 33461
Theodore Ritota, DDS
Dentist
14
EFTA02745258
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 21 of
46-- •
Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Pgr ge ?Ift4 8 Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54-3
VVe'stla w.
703 So.2d 1076
703 So.2d 1076.22 Fla. L. Weekly D2375, 23 Pia. L Weekly DI69
(Cite am 703 So.2d 1076)
Page 1
District Court of Appeal of Florida,
Fifth District.
Kimberly BALAS and Teresa Shumate, Petitioners,
v.
Marjorie A. RUZZO, and Exec., Inc., etc., Re-
spondents.
No. 97-82.
307Ak31 k Relevancy and Materiality.
Most Cited Cases
Party may be permitted to discover. evidence that
would be inadmissible at trial, if it would load to
discovery of relevant evidence. West's F.S.A. RCP
Rule 1.280(b)(1).
(3) Pretrial Procedure 307A 4;:=36.1
Oct. 10, 1997.
As Modified on Grant of Clarification Jan. 2, 1998. ,,,,..,
n
307A Pretrial Procedure
rev - der,; ea rl t'1 v..--2-ck 216 k a • 307AII Depositions and Discovery ,
Plaintiffs brought action against alleged house of \ (ken ) . 307A11(A) Discovery In General
prostitution for, inter ails, coercion titudon. 307A166 Particular Subjects of Diselos- tire
The Circuit Court, Brevard County, Pound, 307Ak36.1 k In General. Most Cited
J., granted in part defendants' motion to compel dis- Cases
covery. Plaintiffs filed petition for writ of certior- Evidence of plaintiffs' past prostitution and their
art. Tho District Court of Appeal, W. Sharp, J., held revenues relating to such activities, including activ-
that evidence of plaintiffs' past prostitution and ides with alleged house of prostitution against
their revenues relating to such activities was dis- which they had filed suit, was discoverable, where
covetable. plaintiffs brought action not only for coercion of
prostitution, but also for battery, false imprison-
Petition denied. meet, invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of
emotional distress, violation of their civil rights,
Millis, J., concurred specially end filed opinion. and racketeering. Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act of 1994, § 40302, '42 U.S.C.A. §
West Headnotes 13981; West's P.S.A. §§ 772.014, 796.09; West's
F.S.A. RCP Rule 1).
DI Pretrial Procedure 307A (C=r31 *1076 RI chard E. nd Heather Fisher Lind-
say, of Spriggs & , Tallahassee. for Peti-
tioners.
Mark S. Peters of Anul, Theriac & Eismunenger,
P.A., Cocoa, for Respondents.
307A Pretrial Procedure
307A.11 Depositions and Discovery
307AII(A) Discovery in General
307Ak31 k. Relevancy and Materiality.
Most Cited Cases
Discovery In civil cases must be relevant to subject
matter of case and must be admissible or reason- W. SHARP, Judge.
ably calculated to lead to admissible evidence.
West's F.S.A. RCP Rule 1.280(b)(1). Bolas and Shumate petition this court for a writ of
certiorari to review certain portions of the lower
(21 Pretrial Procedure 307A rE=31 court's order which granted, in part, a motion to
compel discovery filed by respondents Ruzzo and
307A Pretrial Procedure Exec., Inc. Petitioners argue that these portions de-
307.411 Depositions and Discovery part from the essential requirements of law and will
307A11(A) Discovery in General cause them irreparable harm because they will be
tito 2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. //
EXHIBIT
littp://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstrearn.aspx?sw4plit&prft-HTIALE&Ifm-NotSet&mt... 3/26/2009
EFTA02745259
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 22 of
46
e 8
Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54-3 Entere d on FLSD D oc ket 04/02/2009 page 2 of of 8
703 So.2d 1076
703 So.2d 1076, 22 Fla. L. Weekly D2375, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D169
(Cite as: 703 So.2d 1076)
compelled to disclose intimate details of their sexu-
al de^linso tacit/. ,hr Writ of errtinran
Batas and Shumate filed suit against Ruzzo and Ex-
ec, Inc., doing business as "The Boardroom." Ac-
cording to Balas and Shumate, The Boardroom op-
crates ostensibly as *1077 a leisure spa but actually
is a house of prostitution. Batas worked at The
Boardroom from December 1993 until February
1996; Shumate worked there from October 1992
until March 1996. Ruzzo, the sole officer and
shareholder of Exec, Inc., collected about fifty to
sixty percent of each employees earnings from per-
forming sexual acts.
According to Batas and Shumate, Ruzzo exerted
mental and emotional control over her employees
and thus she was able to exploit them as prostitutes.
Ruzzo required her employees to pay her substan-
tial sums of money to attend "metaphysical work-
shops" conducted by Ruzzo or persons associated
with her. At the work place, the employees were re-
quired to participate in religious and quasi-religious
"circles," rituals and incantations. These practices
were allegedly designed to break down the person-
of the women who worked for Ruzzo and to
dependency and loyalty to herself. At one
time when the earnings of a new employee were
missing and believed to be stolen, Ruzzo required
that the petitioners be strip searched and body cav-
ity searched. Ruzzo caused the petitioners to be-
lieve their continued employment was dependent on
their submission to these searches and that they
might be arrested on felony charges if they refused
to submit to the searches.
Batas and Shumate's second amended complaint
against Ruzzo contains seven counts. Count I is an
action for coercion of prostitution pursuant to sec-
tion 796.09, Florida Statutes. Petitioners allege the
requirement that they perform sexual acts to retain
their employment constitutes inducement and coer-
cion to engage in prostitution. Count II is a claim
for battery for the unwanted and offensive touching
of the petitioners' bodies. Count III is a claim for
false imprisonment for physically confining the pe-
Page 2
titioners against their will. Count IV alleges that re-
spondents' actions constituted an invasion of peti-
tioners' privacy. Count V is a claim )or the inten-
tional infliction of emotional distress.:Count VI al-
leges a civil rights action-that respondents have vi-
olated petitioners' right to be free from crimes of vi-
olence motivated by gender within the meaning of
42 U.S.C. section 13981. Finally, count VII seeks
civil remedies for criminal practices or racketeering
pursuant to section 772.104, Florida Statutes. The
petitioners claim that they suffered emotional pain,
anguish, humiliation, insult, indignity, loss of self-
esteem, inconvenience, hurt and emotional distress.
They seek an award of general and punitive dam-
ages, among other relief.
The discovery to which the petitioners are being re-
quired to respond is as follows:
I.
Interrogatory 8: Please advise how long have you
been engaged in prostitution....
D.
Interrogatory 22: State with specificity the man-
ner in which the acts as described in your Com-
plaint have materially affected how you interact
with your husband, boyfriend, fianc6e [sic] or
any other individual of the opposite sex.
Request for Production 30: A copy of any photo-
graphs, movies or videotapes in which you per-
formed sexual acts and/or simulated sexual acts
in exchange for money or other consideration.
IV.
Interrogatory 16: Please list the names, addresses,
telephone numbers and rates of pay for all em-
ployers for which you worked, including the
O 2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?sv=Split&prft=HTMLE&ifm=NotSet&mt...
3/26/2009
EFTA02745260
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 23 of
46
Page 3 of 8
Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 3 of 8
703 So.2d 1076
703 So.2d 1076,22 Fla. L. Weekly D2375, 23 Fla. L. Weekly O169
(Cite as: 703 So.2d 1076)
nature of the work, during the five years human-
J..k. of amploreet th
Boardroom and from the date of your termination
with the Boardroom to the present, providing the
names of your immediate supervisors at each
place of employment and the reason for your
leaving each place of employment.
V.
Interrogatory 26: Please state your total income
while employed at the Boardroom, and state the
source of that income including any income from
other employment or *1078 income earned from
prostitution other than at the Boardroom.
VI.
Request for Production 34: Business records from
any selfemployrnent or owned business ventures
in the last 5 years, including any records or list of
customers, "special customer lists" or "sugar
daddy's list."
(1)12) Discovery in civil cases must be relevant to
the subject matter of the case and must be admiss-
ible or reasonably calculated to lead to admissible
a tevidence. See Allstate Insurance Co. v. non,
655 So.2d 91 (Pla.1995). Amente v. 653
So.2d 1030 (Fla.1995); IR v. Stardust ruls-
ers, Inc., 690 Sold 743 a. th DCA 1997). The
concept of relevancy is broader in the discovery
context than in the trial context and a party may be
permitted to discover evidence that would be inad-
missible at trial, if it would lead to the discovery of
relevant evidence. Allstate; Amente. Florida Rule of
Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(1) delineates the proper
scope of discovery:
In General. Parties may obtain discovery regard-
ing any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to
the subject matter of the pending action, whether
it relates to the claim or defense of the party
seeking discovery or the claim or defense of any
other party, including the existence, description,
Page 3
nature custody, condition, and location of any
documents, or other tangible things and
e i entity and location of persons:havinglcnow-
ledge of any discoverable matter. It. is not ground
for objection that the information sought will be
inadmissible at the trial if the information sought
appears reasonably calculated to lead to the dis-
covery of admissible evidence.
Nonetheless, the discovery of certain kinds of in-
formation may cause material injury:of an irrepar-
able nature. This Includes the "cat-out-of-the-bag"
material that could be used to injure another person
or party outside the context of the litigation, materi-
al protected by privilege, trade secrets or work
product Discovery was never intended to be used
as a tactical tool to harass, embarrass or annoy
ones adversary. Rather, pretrial discovery was im-
plemented to simplify the issues in a case, to elim-
inate the elements of surprise, to encourage the set-
tlement of cases, to avoid the cost of litigation, and
to achieve a balanced search for the tin h to ensure
a fair trial. filkint v. Syken, 672 So.2d 517 (Pla.1996).
•
Here the petitioners argue that the information
sought to be discovered regarding prostitution and
their sexual activities was propounded solely to em-
barrass them and to invade their right to privacy.
The petitioners also claim that this information is
privileged under section 796.09 and is not calcu-
lated to lead to evidence which would be admiss-
ible at trial.
Section 796.09 provides a person with a civil cause
of action for compensatory and punitive damages
against anyone who coerces that person into prosti-
tution, who coerces that person to remain in prosti-
tution, or who uses coercion to collect or receive
any part of that person's earnings derived from
prostitution. In the course of litigation under this
section, any transaction about which a plaintiff test-
ifies or produces evidence does not subject the
plaintiff to criminal prosecution or to any penalty or
forfeiture. In addition, any testimony or evidence or
any information produced by the plaintiff or wit-
O 2009 Thomson Reuters/West- No Claim to Orig. US Oov. Works.
http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx7sv--SplitBcprft=HTMLE8cifrn•NotSetasmt... 3/26/2009
EFTA02745261
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 24 of
46
641
Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54-3 Entere d on FLSD D ocket 04/02/2009 Pa2 vage 0 84 of B
703 So.2d 1076
703 So.2d 1076, 22 Fla. L. Weekly D2375, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D169
(Cite as: 703 So.2d 1076)
ness for the plaintiffs cannot be used against the
' • •pante or any 1111 Igdl V
proceeding, except one for perjury.
Section 79609(5) specifically provides that it is not
a defense that the plaintiff was paid or otherwise
compensated for prostitution. that the plaintiff had
engaged in prostitution prior to any involvement
with the defendant or that the plaintiff made no at-
tempt to escape from the defendant Section
796.09(6) provides that convictions for prostitution
or prostitution-related offenses are inadmissible for
the purpose of attacking the plaintiffs' credibility.
This legislation was the result of the Florida Su-
preme Court (lender Bias Study Commission,
which conducted an extensive investigation of pros-
titution in this state. The Commission's activities
included interviews with law enforcement and cor-
rections personnel,w1079 judges, public defenders,
prosecutors, drug rehabilitation counselors, social
workers, medical personnel, prostitutes, clients and
pimps. The Commission found prostitution to be
prevalent and uniform throughout the state and law
enforcement largely unable to deter it under pre-
vailing social attitudes and judicial practices. The
Commission further found that prostitutes are often
victims of economic, physical, and psychological
coercion, that most persons do not chose to become
prostitutes, but do so to survive, and that ninety
percent of street prostitutes, both adult and chil-
dren, are controlled by pimps who use a variety of
coercive methods to maintain this control. The
Commission determined that clients and pimps are
rarely prosecuted and, when prosecuted, receive
light sentences; whereas prostitutes, who are mainly
females, are frequently prosecuted and receive
harsher treatment in the courts. The Commission
recommended changes in the methods of interven-
tion in prostitution from punitive to therapeutic,
changes in the law to require more equal treatment
by the courts of the prostitute in relation to the cli-
ent and the pimp and to lessen the incentive to
traffic in human flesh by giving the prostitute ac-
cess to the judicial system without first having to be
arrested.
Page 4
Under section 796.09, the petitioners' prior involve-
ment in prostitution and their earnings from prosti-
tution would be irrelevant. Hence discovery should
not be permitted because such information would
not be admissible at trial nor would it be reasonably
calculated to lead to evidence ultimately admissible
at trial. Even though the scope of discovery is gen-
erally quite broad, section 796.09 is designed to en-
courage prostitutes to sue their pimps. Thus the
usually broad scope of discovery may be constric-
ted so that prostitutes will not be embarrassed, har-
assed or hindered in their actions. •
133 Had the petitioners brought their lawsuit against
Ruzzo and The Boardroom only under section
796.09, evidence of petitioners' past prostitution,
including with the Boardroom, and their earnings
relating to such activities, may not have been dis-
coverable. However, the petitioners filed a multi-
count complaint for compensatory and punitive
damages, alleging numerous causes of action
against the respondents. These other causes carry
no such protection from discovery. Since the in-
formation sought by discovery may be relevant or
may lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in
one or more of these other causes of action or to
determination of damages, we cannot conclude that
the trial court departed from the essential r
ments of law in granting this discovery. See
v. TIES Bank of the Keys, 687 So.2d 895 (Fla. 3d
DCA 1997) (by alleging fraud as well as breach of
contract, purchaser placed at issue her reliance on
venders' assertions, the veracity of financial docu-
ments she submitted to the vender, and the state of
her mental health, including memory problems she
was experiencing et the time of the alleged tortious
conduct, thus deposition questions concerning her
state of mind were relevant).
Petition for Writ of Certiorari DENIED.
THOMPSON, J., concurs.
HARRIS, l.. concurs specially with opin-
ion.HARRIS, Judge, concurring specially:
0 2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to prig. US Gov. Works.
littp://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?sv=Split&prit=liTMLE8ciftwallotSet&mt...
3/26/2009
EFTA02745262
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 25 of
46
Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 PK% Seggf 8
703 So.2d 1076
703 So.2d 1076.22 Ma. L. Weekly D2375, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D169
(Cite as: 703 So.2d 1076)
There is a temptation in cases such as this to inquire
which, the pot or the Ke is imbued with ti w
darker hue. Indeed that may ultimately be the ques-
tion uppermost in the Jurors' minds. But the issue
presently before us is simply whether the pot, in or-
der to establish the parties' comparative complex-
ion, may discover the historical condition and the
inherent characteristics of the kettle.
We are here involved with parties that the limited
record before us indicates were co-conspirators in a
joint effort to violate Florida's laws against prosti-
tution. The defendants are the owner/operators of a
"social club" whose primary service is prostitution;
the plaintiffs am employees of the club who
provide such services. The employees are suing the
owner/operators for, among other counts, taking ad-
vantage of their vulnerabilities ("coercing" them to
be prostitutes) through manipulation and exploita-
tion. In order to prepare a defense to the action, de-
fendants have filed certain interrogatories for the
employees to answer. These interrogatoriess1080
request such information as how long the employ-
ees have been engaged in prostitution; how the em-
ployees have been affected by the defendants' con-
duct; copies of photographs, movies, and video-
tapes in which the employees have performed sexu-
al acts or simulated sexual acts; the names of previ-
ous employers and previous rates of pay; and a
statement of income received from defendants.
These interrogatories survived the employees' ob-
jections. I agree certiorari should be denied.
The employees' primary cause of action is based on
section 796.09(1), Florida Statutes, which provides:
(1) A person has a cause of action for compensatory
and punitive damages against:
',a) A person who coerces that person Into prostitu-
lion;
:b) A person who coerces that person to remain in
prostitution, or
:c) A person who uses coercion to collect or receive
Page 5
any part of that person's earnings derived from
The employees resist discovery of their past prosti-
tution or their past or present earning experience on
the basis of subparagraph 5 of section 796.09:
:5) It does not constitute a defense to a complaint
under this section that:
a) The plaintiff was paid or otherwise compensated
for acts of prostitution;
b) The plaintiff engaged in acts of piostitution pri-
or to any involvement with the defendant ...
But the question before us is not whether prior acts
of prostitution (or the receipts of earnings there-
from) which might be revealed by answering the in-
terrogatories could be used as a defense to the com-
plaint, but rather whether evidence of such conduct
or such earnings would be relevant in determining
whether the employees were, in fact, "coerced" into
prostitution, into remaining prostitutes, or into shar-
ing the proceeds of their services with defendants.
The relevancy of this information' depends, of
course, on what constitutes coercion.
If we apply the definition of "coercion" which is
commonly accepted, then the relevancy of the re-
quested information is apparent and this appeal has
no merit at all. Webster defines "coercion" as: (1)
to restrain or dominate by force, (2) to compel an
act or choice, or (3) to enforce or bring about by
force or threat. In sexual battery cases, the legis-
lature has adopted the common meaning of the
word "coercion" and has even placed limits on it. It
has provided that consent will not be recognized if
submission is coerced by threats of force or viol-
ence vale victim reasonably belleveS the perpetrat-
or has the present ability to execute the threat')."
Consent also will not be recognized if submission is
coerced by a threat of retaliation against the victim
or another ff the victim reasonably believes that the
perpetrator has the ability to execute the threat in
the future.fm And in sexual battery cases, the le-
gislature has vitiated what might otherwise be con-
O 2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Clov. Works.
http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?sv=Split&prfv-HTMLFPifm=NotSet&mt... 3/26/2009
EFTA02745263
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 26 of
46
Page 6 of 8
Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 6 of 8
703 So.2d 1076
703 So.2d 1076, 22 Fla. L. Weekly D2375, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D169
(ale as: 703 So.2d 1076)
sIdered as consensual if one exploits a known phys-
Ltd Vl IMAM WCYLIWS of the victim to achieve his
or her goal or takes advantage of one who is phys-
ically helpless or involuntarily intoxicated.no
Therefore, even in sexual battery cases, before co-
ercion or exploitation will vitiate consent, the free
will of the victim must be overcome by force or
threat or some unfortunate circumstance suffered
by the victim.
FN1. Section 794.011(4)(b), Florida Stat-
utes.
P142. Section 794.011(4Xc), Florida Stat-
utes.
PN3. Section 794.011(4)(a),(d),(c), and (f),
Florida Statutes.
But then we get to the definition of "coercion" con-
tained in section 796.09(3):
;3) As used In this section, the term "coercion"
means any practice of dominion, restraint, or in-
ducement for the purpose of or with the reason-
ably foreseeable effect of causing another person
to engage in or remain in prostitution or to relin-
quish earnings derived from prostitution, and in-
cludes, but is not limited to:
.r,a) Physical force or throats of physical force.
r.b) Physical or mental torture.
Is) Kidnapping.
"1081 (d) Blackmail.
'A Extortion or claims of indebtedness.
v,f) Threats of legal complaint or report of delin-
quency.
',g) Threat to interfere with parental rights or re-
sponsibilities, whether by judicial or administrat-
ive action or otherwise.
31) Promise of legal benefit
'1) Promise of greater financial rewards.
Page 6
ej) Promise of marriage.
1,1c) Restraint of Speech or communications with
others.
) Exploitation of a condition of developmental
disability, cognitive limitation, affective disorder,
or substance dependency.
:m) Exploitation of victimization by sexual abuse.
:n) Exploitation of pornographic performance.
',o) Exploitation of human needs for food, shelter,
safety, or affection.
The definition urged by the employees herein is the
"promise of a greater financial reward." Whether
the requested information is relevant to the issue of
coercion in this case will depend on what the legis-
lature intended by subsection (I) in the meaning of
"coercion."
I agree with fudge Altenbernd's thoughtful analysis
in State v. Brigham, 694 So.2d 793 (1997):
There can be no dispute that the legislature's unusu-
al definition of "percent" is not a: common dic-
tionary definition. This Is perhaps an appropriate
case in which to remind ourselves of Learned
Hands famous observation that a "mature and de-
veloped Jurisprudence" does not "make a fortress
out of the dictionary."
But even so, one would expect some nexus between
the commonly accepted meaning of a word and the
definition of that word ascribed by the legislature.
If, for example, the legislature defined "canine" as
Including cats, although one might, jurispruden-
tially speaking, expect to hear a meow emanate
from a Great Dane, the courts should nevertheless
closely examine the legislative history to see if that
Is really what the legislature intended. The court in
Young v. O'Keefe, 246 Iowa 1182, 69 N.W.2d 534,
537 (1955), stated this principle as: follows: "But
(0 2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspesvtSplit&prft..HTMLEZtiftw•NotSet&int... 3/26/2009
EFTA02745264
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 27 of
46
Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 PK 7e Q/f gf 8
703 So.2d 1076
703 So.2d 1076, 22 Pla. L Weekly D2375, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D169
(Cite es: 703 Sold 1076)
before a definition is construed so as to expand the
onym ..., the intention of the le 'stature to that ef-
fect must be clear." As Judge observed in
Carron v. Roger Bohn, D.C., . So.2d 814,
818 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991):
it is our primary duty to give effect to legislative
intent and, if a literal interpretation of a statute
leads to unreasonable results, then we should ex-
ercise our power to interpret reason and logic to it.
Unfortunately, it is apparent that in enacting this le-
gislation, the legislature has, without redefining
the terms for the purposes of this legislation, of-
ten used terms with commonly accepted mean-
ings for purposes at great variance from those
commonly accepted meanings.
In our case, the legislature did define the term for
the purpose of the act. But because the term
(coercion) as so defined can be interpreted two
ways-one consistent with the commonly accepted
meaning and one at variance-we should not accept
the "antonym" unless such legislative intent is
clear. A free will decision, even if based on a hope
of financial gain, is the opposite of a coerced de-
cision.
The employees urge that the mere promise of a
greater reward brings them within the act. But if the
mere promise of a greater reward is sufficient to es-
tablish coercion, then anyone who makes a volun-
tary and reasoned exercise of free will motivated by
the hope of economic gain has been coerced. This
definition removes the element of compulsion im-
plicit in the commonly accepted meaning of coer-
cion and substitutes therefor the mere desire for fin-
ancial gain. The employees herein assert that since
they were offered "a greater financial reward" for
providing the services performed by them through
defendants' establishment, they were coerced into
their prostitution activities. This equates the giving
Page 7
of an opportunity to make a decision with the coer-
mean *1082 that the promise of 'a greater reward is
coercion only If such promised reward is sufficient
to overcome ones natural revulsion to selling one's
body for money. If there is no such revulsion, there
can be no coercion. Becoming a prostitute only be-
cause one likes the hours and wages or "because it
beats the heck out of working for a living" simply
should not meet the test of section 796.09(1).
At oral argument herein, it was suggested without
contradiction, that at least one of the employees has
a college degree and gave up a well-paying, legit-
imate job in order to engage in this profession for
the greater reward. Section 796.09 does not appear
to be a general prostitute's relief act. It is based on a
report by the Gender Bias Study Commission which
recommended the equalization of treatment in rein"
tion to the prostitute, the client and the "pimp." It is
based on the premise that prostitutes are generally
victims of economic, physical, and psychological
coercion and choose prostitution in order to sur-
vive. Further, the Commission was concerned that
90 percent of the street prostitutes are controlled by
"pimps" who use a variety of coercive methods to
maintain control. It seems clear that the legislature
was not intending to depart from the precepts of the
commonly understood meaning of "coercion" and
to redefine it to include both free will decisions and
compelled decisions.. The interpretation urged by
the employees seems at variance with the stated
goal of the legislature and the Gender Bias Com-
mission.
Since there is no cause of action provided for ono
who makes a reasoned and voluntary exercise of
their free will to enter or continue in the profession
solely for financial rewards (assuming "coercion" is
given the definition more consistent with its com-
monly accepted meaning and assuming that my in-
terpretation of legislative intent is coirect), coercion
becomes the critical issue in the trial of such action.
The interrogatories propounded by defendants ap-
pear relevant to the issue of coercion.
0 2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Goy. Works.
http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstreamaspx?sv=Split&prft=1 -ITMLE&ifmr-NotSet&mt... 3/26/2009
EFTA02745265
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 28 of
46
of8
Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54-3 Entere d on FLSD D ocket 04/02/2009 "Page 8 of 8
703 So.2d 1076
703 So.2d 1076, 22 Fla. L. Weekly D2375, 23 Ha. L. Weekly D169
(Cite as: 703 So.2d 1076)
This is a case of first impression based on a Falai-
rimy new statute. As numattm, the
tory of the new law suggests that the statute is de-
signed to assist those who were forced to enter
prostitution In order to keep a roof over their heads
or food on their table. It does not appear to be in-
tended to aid those who voluntarily enter the pro-
koglon in order to drive a Mercedes instead of a
The limited record before us indicates that
even beginning employees of the defendants (those
who do not have an established clientele) bring in
$700 a day and can keep 50% of their earnings.
Based on a five-day work week, this would reflect
an income of $87,500 a year even with a two week
vacation. And the employees herein are not begin-
ners.
There is no indication that the legislature intended
to legalize prostitution or to make it a respectable
profession. It merely intended to place the prosti-
tute on the same footing with the client and the
"pimp." If a prostitute voluntarily makes the de-
cision to participate, free from force, intimidation,
or disadvantageous circumstance, then he or she is
on the same footing as the other participants and
should be treated the same.
Although it might well serve a legitimate public
purpose to permit the cannibalistic demise of such
enterprises (and I am not unsympathetic with this
view), that does not appear to be the policy behind
the current statute. Therefore, in cases where coer-
cion is not present (and this may or may not be
one), the court should continue its tradition of not
interceding in civil conflicts involving transactions
that are either illegal or are against public policy.
See Wecharj a Novak, 157 Fla. 703, 26 So.2d 884
(1946); NM v. Rainer. 462 So.2d 1157, 1160
(Pla. 3d DCA 1984), rev. dented, 472 So.2d 1182
(Fla.1985) ("An action may lie for interference with
an unenforceable contract and even perhaps a void-
able contract. No such cause of action lies for Inter-
ference with a contract void as against public policy
(another's representation of a client obtained by a
doctor/lawyer's illegal personal injury solicitation
Page 8
in the hospital) and which makes one who is a party
thew°, ac q„. "ratan, in the Instant iikae, utility of
a criminal act for entering into such an agree- ment.")
We are not asked in this proceeding to rule on the
admissibility of the discovered information as evid-
ence at the trial of this cause. We are to determine
only if the information might lead •to admissible
evidence. Even *1083 though we deny the Writ I
suggest we certify the following question:
DOES ONE, FREE PROM FORCE. INTIMIDA-
TION, OR DISADVANTAGEOUS CIRCUM-
STANCE, WHO MAKES A REASONED DE-
CISION TO BECOME OR REMAIN A PROSTI-
TUTE OR TO SHARE THE PROCEEDS
THEREOF BECAUSE OP A PROMISE OP A
GREATER FINANCIAL REWARD HAVE A
CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER SECTION
796.09(1), FLORIDA STATUTES?
ON MOTIONS FOR REHEARING, SOR CLARI-FICATION, FOR CERTIFICATION, AND FOR RS-NEARING EN BANC I
W. SHARP, Judge.
Petitioners Batas and Shumate have. filed motions
for rehearing, clarification and certification. We
deny the motions in full except for one regard. We
delete the sentence In the last full paragraph of the
opinion which reads: 'These other causes of action
carry no such protection from discovery."
Motion for Clarification GRANTED as stated
above; Motion for Rehearing and Certification
DENIED.
HARRIS and THOMPSON, D., cone*.
FlaApp. 5 Dist.,1997.
Batas v. Ruzzo
703 So.2d 1076, 22 Fla. L. Weekly D2375, 23 Fla.
Weeldy D169
END OF DOCUMENT
© 2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
http://webZwestlaw.com/print/printstreamaspx?sm-Split&prft=HTMLE8ciforNotSet&mt...
3/26/2009
EFTA02745266
Case 9:08-cv-80119-ICAM Document 207-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 29 of
_46
Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54-4 Entered on ELSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 1 of 2 3V
IN THE COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM
°EACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
A.C., CASE NO. 502008CA025129XXXXMB Al
Plaintiff,
v.
E. EPSTEIN, and all
Defendants.
ORDER ON DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO
FIRST REQUEST TO PRODUCE TO PLAINTIFF AND TO OVERRULE
PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS, & FOR DEFENDANTS EXPENSES;
INCLUDING ATTORNEYS' FEES
THIS CAUSE came before the Court on Defendant Epstein's Motion To
Compel Responses To First Request To Produce To Plaintiff And To Overrule
Plaintiffs Objections, & For Defendant's Expenses, Including Attorneys' Fees
and the Court having heard argument of counsel and being fully advised in these
premises, it is hereby
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Defendant's Motion is hereby granted/
dented a„, 4 17 4 .18) t dont)...aa€ ) .
a.2 ±.0 4 22 a...a-) OvradoLef . Tesen4.0." 4
DONE AND ORDERED at Palm,Beach Cou C urthouse, West Palm
Beach, Florida, this Z, 5 day of 1-03 0
Edward A. Garrison
Circuit Judge
Copies furnished: ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ., and MICHAEL J. PIKE,
FL 33401; JACK SCAROtA, ESQ., AND JACK P.
Shipley, PA. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd.,
GOLDBERGER, ESQ., Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss,
Australian Avenue South, West Palm Beach, FL 33401
15 *dB Flagler Drive, Stine 400, Weal Palm Beath,
ESQ., Seamy Denney Scarola Bamhart &
t Palm Beach, FL 33409, and JACK A.
P.A., One Clearlake Centre, Salle 1400, 250
A ? if
EXHIBIT (-%
EFTA02745267
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 30 of
46
Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 2 of 2
IN THE COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN. AND FOR PALM
A.C., CASE NO. 502008CA025129WOCMB Al
v.
E. EPSTEIN, and=
Defendants.
ORDER ON DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO
INTERROGATORIES AND TO OVERRULE PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS. & FOR
DEFENDANT'S EXPENSES, INCLUDING ATTORNEYS' FEES
THIS CAUSE came before the Court on Defendant Epstein's Motion To
Compel Answers To Interrogatories And To Overrule Plaintiff's Objections, & For
Defendant's Expenses, Including Attorneys' Fees, and the Court having heard
argument of counsel and being fully advised In these premises, It Is hereby
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Defendant's Motion Is hereby granted!
"Mr ct4 " -e 4151 12 4 1 8 dan,:cor eta
it. 4 .2 . fester.a-e.. 260 etc .0.04,40e hien
10 der.
DONE AND ORDERED at Palm Beach Cou y Courthouse, West Palm
Beach, Florida, this 2 3 day of la 00
dward A. Garr son
Circuit Judge
Copies furnished:
ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ., and MICHAEL J. PEE, WIL515 North Fleeter Drive, Suite 400, West Pain Beach,
FL 33401; JACK SCAROLA, ESQ., AND JACK P. a, ESQ., Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart &
Shipley, P.A., 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., West Palm Beach, FL 33409, and JACK A.
GOLDBERGER, ESQ., Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A., One Cleadake Centre, Suite 1400, 250
Australian Avenue South, West Palm Beach, FL 394O1
I
lC
Nrae-is
EFTA02745268
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 31 of
46
/ ,Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 1 of 14
IN THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT
IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NO. 50 200SCA020614XXXXMB AF
JANE DOE II,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN and
Defendants.
COPY
COURT REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF
PROCEEDINGS HAD BEFORE
THE HONORABLE DIANA
DATE: March 3, 2009
PLACE: Palm Beach County Courthouse
205 N. Dixie Highway
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
U.S. Legal . Support
([Phone Redacted] EXHIBIT
.//
EFTA02745269
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 32 of
46
se 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2000 Page 2 of 14
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24'
25
2
APPEARANCES:
IIIIIIILAW FIRM, P.A.
224 Datura Avenue
Suite 900
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Counsel for Plaintiff
BY: ISIDRO M. all ESQUIRE
BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN
515 N. Flagler Drive
Suite 400
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Counsel for Defendant
BY: ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQUIRE
U.S. Legal Support
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA02745270
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 33 of
46
Case 9:08-cv 80811-KAM Document 54-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 3 of 14
11
1
2
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that but I'd just like to do that.
THE COURT: Right. And if you want to
•-•..013,•GLYA.. LJAG 1•41.41V-LUCC46a0 1,.04
I'm the one that's questioning whether or not
these need to be before one judge. You may have
a different perspective than your colleagues who
are prosecuting some of the cases.
I understand the damages. I'm not
saying consolidate. I'm saying transfer. it's
not a consolidation issue. Everybody gets that
confused for some reason. The words are very
different out of my mouth, your mouth and how
they're written.
So let me go ahead and take a gander at
this. I did read it last night. I'm not sure
that we need to get -- we need names?
MR. CRITTON: Right. Well, here's what some
of the issues are is that, as an example -- if I
could approach the bench.
THE COURT: Sure.
MR. CRITTON: This is some of the
information that we've obtained through discovery
from some of the -- from at least in this
instance, it would be this particular Jane Doe.
THE COURT: You know who Jane Doe is I take
U.S. Legal Support
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA02745271
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 34 of
46
Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 4 of 14
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
it?
MR. CRITTON: Right.
InG lAAJfll; LUIS hIlVW W13) WIC U011
MR. CRITTON: Yes, correct. And so this
particular lady has kept in part a diary and
she -- which appears to have started some time --
this is not in any way significant -- but some
time after she learned that she could file a
lawsuit. I think she's also been to Oakwood
Center some time after she learned she could file
a lawsuit and seek damages from Mr. Epstein.
There's no history of this lady
beforehand other than. in some of the Oakwood
records where she, was -Baker Acted, she started
•
drinking beerat.16, she started Xanax at 16,
started marijuIna at 15, that she's sexually
active:
So how she has interacted -- she has a
claim. for emotional damages, mental pain and
anguish, psychiatric -type damages. How she's
interacted with friends, with family, the events
in her life, school, work, her interpersonal
relationships both with men and let's -- we'll
use an'example men here, but other individuals.
She's saying that this event with Mr. Epstein,
U.S. Legal Support
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA02745272
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 35 of
46
Case 9:08-ov-50811-KAM Document 54-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 5 of 14
13
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
this sexual assault and whatever occurred during
these events is that -- has caused her damage.
as the emotional, mental, psychiatric -type
damages are completely subjective, I mean
separate and apart from any medical bills that
may be -- which are clearly intangible. So these
are intangible damages. And the jury is
instructed, you know, you advise the greater
weight of the evidence, what's fair and
reasonable under the circumstances.
So what we would have is basically this
young lady's testimony as to what she claims her
damages are and what the circumstances are with
her situation with Mr. Epstein. She claims on
page 13, you know, I love this guy, I'm dating
this guy Chris. On page 15 --
THE COURT: Is this part of a diary for
treatment?
MR. CRITTON: I have no idea what it is. It
was just produced in response to discovery. And
she apparently started in, I think this is
December of '08. You know I took Jay Lyntenis'
girl to the zoo, had an amazing day, I love her,
i.e., the girl. We have so much fun. I want a
U.S. Legal Support
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA02745273
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 36 of
46
Case 9:08-cv 80811-KAM Document 54-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 6 of 14
14
1
2
4
5
6
7
B
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
baby especially with him. Okay. So I know who
this person is. We are all so open together,
AWV £SSZLt CAW -4 VgAy afl..4 EMMA, Wflt24 VW 1 44.1 WyLIt
Chris, who is another guy in her life.
All right. This is circumstances where
this young lady is saying, look, Jeffrey Epstein
has ruined my life from a damage standpoint,
okay. Let me depose other individuals with whom
you've had a relationship. And what if it turns
out -- as with some of these girls did -- is they
had relationships or had escapades or
circumstances with individuals, older men similar
to Mr. Epstein well before Mr. Epstein.
And this girl, I don't know one way or
the other, but let's assume she had a situation
where she was assaulted or molested or raped, '
that all is going to affect her emotional and her
mental pain and anguish and it will all factor
into evaluating damages.
You know, it's not something that I'm
going to spread around. b'm happy to keep it,
you know, within the confines of the discovery of
this case. But if she says every other
relationship in my life has been perfect but Jeff
Epstein has done this to me and it has affected
U.S. Legal Support
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA02745274
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 37 of
Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 7 of 14
15
1
2
my ability to trust men and my sexual
relationships with other men, which is part of
4
5
7
$
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
her interpersonal relationships, uAay, let
to ME
THE COURT: When does your client allege
that she had her first encounter with
Mr. Epstein?
MR. WM At what age?
THE COURT: Well, what year?
MR. CRITTON: June of '03.
MR. UM June of '03, Judge.
'MR. CRITTON: She claims from June of '03
through November of '04.
MR. : She was i believe 16 at the
beginning and ended at 17. She was a minor
during all this time.
THE COURT: June of '03 to now is six years.
Let me hear from Mr.
MR. Judge, in the criminal case
that was filed against Mr. Epstein, he would not
have had a right to do this type of discovery and
I -- if I could hand up --
THE COURT: They wouldn't care about the
women.
MR. : Right. Well, I mean --
.U.S. Legal Support
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA02745275
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 38 of
46
Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 8 of 14
16
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
THE COURT: This is damages. There's no
they weren't seeking damages at the time.
MR. nstgaL. nnu we nave not.a4seyeu
in the complaint or in the answers to
interrogatories that her ability to have a
relationship with a man has been affected by
Mr. Epstein's conduct.
We have alleged that she has been
hospitalized for depression, anxiety but we have
not alleged any damages concerning -- the, only
reason this would be relevant is if we were
making a claim at her ability to have either
sexual relations or to have emotional relations
with men was effected by her experience with
Mr. Epstein.
So this damages' claim is just a smoke
screen to attempt to get evidence to show the
jury that this woman has had other consensual
relationships with young men that are
approximately her age what I would characterize
as a slut defense. She had it coming to her
because she engaged in other voluntarily
consensual --
THE COURT: Mr. Critton wouldn't try the
slut defense in my courtroom, I'm sure.
U.S. Legal Support
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA02745276
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 39 of
46
Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 9 of 14
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
$
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. IIIIII : Maybe not, but certainly that's
the way this discovery is going. And, Judge,
what --
THE COURT: What are the damages you think
your client is seeking?
MR. : She is seeking emotional
distress damages for depression and anxiety and
she has been hospitalized at the Oakwood Center.
Her friend -- she was on the phone to a friend
who called the sheriff's office because she
thought she was suicidal. The sheriffs
responded. They Baker Acted her that day and
they took her eventually to the Oakwood Center.
THE COURT: How do we know it's not
intertwined with her rejection by three other men
since Mr. Epstein?
MR. : Well, even if it was related to
her rejection by three other men you mean
other men's rejection of her?
THE COURT: Yeah. Well, how do you not know
that? I mean you'can't do it until you do
discovery. Has anybody attempted to review the
records from Oakwood to find out what's going on?
MR. CRITTON: It's like a one-time visit
when she was Baker Acted and then there's some
U.S. Legal Support
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA02745277
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 40 of
-46
Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 10 of 14
1
2
18
other --
THE COURT: She didn't receive treatment?
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Mn nnymmewt. CIL ..... -
that day and she's been back a couple of times.
She's on medication. Again, I don't know what or
the extent but she's got -- her medical bills are
de minimis.
Again as an example, Judge, did the
Court have an opportunity to look at the case
that I also attached to the motion? Because
there's a case that's almost on all fours with
this which I attached to our motion which is
called Balles versus Russo.
THE COURT: Right.
MR. CRITTON: It was a case where the
plaintiff was sued -- the plaintiff sued the
former owners of a house of prostitution. So
that part is different, but within it there were
a number of claims including a sexual assault
claim and they sought emotional pain, humiliation
and emotional distress.
Within the complaint that was filed in
this particular case, she is seeking severe
emotional distress, mental anguish, humiliation,
embarrassment, past and future, compensatory
U.S. Legal Support
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA02745278
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 41 of
46
. Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 11 of 14
19
1
2
4
5
6
7
9
10
7.1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
27.
22
23
24
25
humiliation, loss of reputation, mental anguish,
pain and suffering, the same type of damages.
nn4 fl n4, ..... 4q}14
THE COURT: How old is she now?
MR. She's 21 now.
MR. CRITTON: She's 21 now. What the Court
said is, you know, if you'd only brought this
claim under 796 evidence of past issues, it's not
an issue. You can't use this defense for
anything, but because you brought these other
claims which include, you know, sexual assault
and you're seeking damages for other causes of
action since the information sought by discovery
may be relevant or may lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence in one or more of the other
causes of action or determination of damages, we
cannot conclude the trial court parted from
essential requirements of law in granting --
THE COURT: So in other words, she's'not
only seeking -- she's seeking current emotional
damage as a result of this relationship and
you're trying to find out if she had prior
relationships. that perhaps could be intertwined
with it so that it's not just Mr. Epstein's --
MR. CRITTON: Right. A perfect example is
U.S. Legal Support
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA02745279
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 42 of
46
Case 9:08-cv-B0811-KAM Document 54-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 12 of 14
20
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
one of the cases that I have is there's a' young
lady who claims that she was molested in the past
• oi 4 °nu saycm, F.t.c‘Ly 0Syll1111.:0116 Sa*UC3f WC4S Ill
advance of her even meeting with Mr. Epstein.
And they seem to play a large role in her
psychiatric and psychological evaluation.
We're going to come to the Court in
this case as we have others and ask for a
psychological evaluation of this lady, and if she
was raped or if she was molested or just she had
a bad experience or some -- whether it was a
young or old man assaulted her in some fashion,
that may play a role in her damages and what --
THE COURT: What I'm going to allow for
discovery purposes only not necessarily getting
it in at the time trial are two years before her
first encounter with Mr. Epstein and anything
subsequent.
MR. : Judge, I just wanted totsay on
the record because I forgot to mention it,
there's also -- I did state an objection to the
identity of people that are unrepresented in this
courtroom. They have rights too. So what i --
THE COURT: Well, my suggestion is that you
send those people a letter and tell them that
U.S. Legal Support
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA02745280
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 43 of
46
Case 9:08-ov-50811-KAM Document 54-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 13 of 14
• 21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
you're going to disclose them and if they have a
problem with it that they come to see me before
you usscsose
So I'm going to give you 20 days to
respond to this rather than the usual five and
that will give you time to put these people on
notice and if they want to come visit with me and
have a John Doe, I'll have a John Doe hearing
but, you know, this is her case. She's doing it.
She's the one seeking damages, and he is entitled
to be able to confront other individuals to find
out information that may be relevant to the
damages she's seeking or she can drop the
damages. That's her choice. If you seek.
damages, you've got to do it -- if you could put
that in an order so that we have a time for him
to do this.
Just fill out an order, hand it back up
to me and I'll deal with it.
(The proceedings were concluded.)
U.S. Legal Support
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA02745281
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 44 of
46
Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document,54-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02J200S Page 14 of 14
22
3.
2
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COUNTY OF PALM BEACH.
I, Teresa Bell, Court Reporter, certify that
I was authorized to and did stenographically report
the foregoing proceedings and that the transcript is a
true and complete record of my stenographic notes.
I further certify that the proceedings were
taken at the time and place shown herein and that all
counsel and persons as hereinabove shown were present
I further certify that I am not a relative,
employee, attorney or counsel of any of the parties,
•
nor am I a relative or employee of any of the parties'
attorney or counsel connected with the action, nor am
I financially interested in the a tion.
Dated this 11th day
TERESK BELL,
Court Reporter
U.S. Legal Support
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA02745282
Case 9:08-cv-80119-ICAM Document 207-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 45 of
46 ... .
Kikka M. Claudio
From: [Email Redacted]
Sent: April 02, 20091:54 PM
To: flsd_cmecf [Email Redacted]
Subject: Activity in Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM C.M.A. v. Epstein et al Motion to Compel
This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to
this e-mail because the mail box is unattended.
***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits
attorneys of record and parties in a case (including pro se litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of
all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees
apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first
viewing. However, if the referenced document is a transcript, the free copy and 30 page limit do not
apply.
U.S. District Court
Southern District of Florida
Notice of Electronic Filing
The following transaction was entered by Critton, Robert on 4/2/2009 at 1:53 PM EDT and filed on 4/2/2009
Case Name: C.M.A. v. Epstein et al
Case Number: 9:08-cv-80$11
Filer: Jeffrey Epstein
Document Number: 54
Docket Text:
Defendant's MOTION to Compel Response to 1st RTP and 1st Interrogs by Jeffrey Epstein.
Responses due by 4/20/2009 (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A, # (2) Exhibit B, # (3) Exhibit C, # (4)
Exhibit D)(Critton, Robert)
9:08-cv-80811 Notice has been electronically mailed to:
Bruce Reinhart ecf®brucereinhartlaw.com
Guy Alan -
Jack Alan Goldberger [Email Redacted], nalanis®agwoa.com
Jack ivh@,searcvlaw.com, [Email Redacted], kmclasearcvlaw,com, [Email Redacted]
sas@,searcvlaw.corn, [Email Redacted]
Michael James Pike [Email Redacted]
Michael - Tein [Email Redacted], [Email Redacted], [Email Redacted]
Richard Horace Willits reelrhwethottnaitcon3, [Email Redacted]
EFTA02745283
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 46 of
46
Robert Deweese Critton , Jr Tcritabc1claw.com, [Email Redacted]
9:08-cv-80811 Notice bas not been delivered electronically to those listed below and will be provided by
other means. For further assistance, please contact our Help Desk at [Phone Redacted].:
The following document(s) are associated with this transaction:
Document description:Main Document
Original filename:n/a
Electronic document Stamp:
[STAMP dcecfStamp_ED=[Phone Redacted] [Date=4/2/2009] [FileNumber=6195964-0]
[49f0c2d75486f6d6a6101a08c395b2c7992778ee9920e8793e30a05701c38a82a7ccl
0c0764948284cbee2a315cedf37038a790bd53308696a153=35dd4a2eb]]
Document description:Exhibit A
Original filename:n/a
Electronic document Stamp:
[STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=[Phone Redacted] [Date=4/2/2009] [FileNumber=6195964-1]
[5442dd228c17016a18a93a482a085529427a84c328a0e54754cdf751967853bb92be
ecb01757337952095593597ccfc9a41571176b352bb55db83a21a343d276])
Document description:Exhibit B
Original filename:n/a
Electronic document Stamp:
[STAMP dcecfEtampiD=[Phone Redacted] [Date=4/2/2009] [FileNumber=6195964-2]
[25cedd880cca3d8978be178b71fldefe7a045549a477d2d9547e32020ef01488969e
bad8c2e920f70317c10d9120ceca0890948393f1d74268del8e9f188192d]]
Document description:Exhibit C
Original filename:n/a
Electronic document Stamp:
[STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=[Phone Redacted] [Date=4/2/2009] [FileNumber=6195964-3]
[378 92711fafeel0f7c7b9b1c0cadl0ac25fillcfa940376210a3a511f5b8fc66e25
7a72e8a82acif8d04c63aa2721bce8e1445577efdde123db7e50acecc99aJ]
Document description:Exhibit D
Original filename:n/a
Electronic document Stamp:
[STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=[Phone Redacted] [Date=4/2/2009] [FileNumber=6195964-4]
[30891fd9cd081f85da5c8b8446571f54389e681aa2a5lbf899667fcfbea8f86fccf8
b5cc59c87a711c75abbeaaf0e49106318132669f8731cecdd18b8714e895]]
2
EFTA02745284