EFTA02746151

Extracted Text #

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 266 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2009 Page 1 of 9 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRa 
JANE DOE NO. 2, 
Plaintiff, 
vs. 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 
Defendant. 
Related Cases: 
08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 
08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 
09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092, 
PLAINTIFFS' JANE DOES 2-7 REPLY MEMORANDUM 
IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER 
Summary of Argument in Reply 
Through hyperbole and grandiose statements, Defendant Epstein seeks to mask the true 
purpose and motive of his private "investigation" into the Plaintiffs' claims. The private 
investigators' activities, some of which have been documented through the Declarations of Jane 
Doe No. 4, r Jane Doe No. 6, Jane Doe No. 7 and Jane Doe No. 4's sister, Y.B., are not intended 
to receive information from relevant witnesses, but rather to give information about the Plaintiff 
to persons who are generally within the Plaintiff's circle of friends, family and community, but 
who are unaware that she is a civil Plaintiff making claims of child sex abuse against Jeffrey 
Epstein. While the investigators may not be stating to these persons directly that the Plaintiff is 
Jane Doe No. 4 has submitted two Declarations, dated July 17, 2009 and August 14, 2009, 
respectively. 
1 
EFTA02746151

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 266 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2009 Page 2 of 9 
a "Jane Doe" who has brought a civil case against Jeffrey Epstein alleging particular facts of 
child sexual abuse, they are in a calculated manner through their questions offering information 
that makes these facts very clear to the persons contacted. They are doing so in an aggressive 
and obnoxious manner, harassing the persons contacted. These persons are otherwise marginal 
or peripheral as witnesses, whom one would not expect an investigator to personally contact in a 
typical case. 
The Plaintiffs have great fear and concern of their identities being disclosed as Epstein's 
victims, and the resulting damage to their reputations. As set forth in the report of Gilbert 
Kliman, M.D., the release of this information "will an exacerbation and magnification of 
symptoms leading to increased risk of revictimization and retraumatization." (Exh. A to Motion 
for Protective Order, DE 226, 1 21). By means of his investigators, Defendant Epstein seeks to 
release this information not publicly through court filings, but person-by-person to the 
individuals who are either close to Plaintiff or in a position to damage her reputation and who 
are otherwise unaware of the Plaintiff's involvement with Epstein. In this manner, it is 
Defendant's intent not to defend these cases on their merits, but to intimidate and shame the 
Plaintiffs into either dismissing their cases or settling them for a nominal sum. This illegitimate 
strategy can only be thwarted through an appropriate protective order under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c). 
Plaintiffs Have Not Delayed or Stonewalled 
Defendant in His Nonparty Discovery 
In support of his use of private investigators in these cases, Defendant falsely accuses 
Plaintiffs of unreasonably delaying discovery, particularly relating to "the Plaintiffs" medical, 
psychological, criminal and employment histories, as well as their general backgrounds." The 
absurdity of this accusation is reflected in the Court's recent Order dated August 7, 2009, on the 
Defendant's Motion to Compel and/or Identify Jane Doe a at (DE 253). The Defendant's 
2 
EFTA02746152

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 266 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2009 Page 3 of 9 
Motion sought to disclose the Plaintiff's names in the style of the case or, alternatively, in 
discovery subpoenas containing the captions of these cases. If the Defendant were allowed to 
proceed in this manner, anyone receiving a subpoena would readily discover that Plaintiff is a 
Jane Doe bringing a civil suit against Defendant Epstein. The Court struck a balance between 
the Plaintiffs' concerns regarding such disclosure of their identities and the Defendant's interest 
in obtaining nonparty discovery, holding that the Plaintiffs shall remain anonymous in the style 
of the cases and that any nonparty subpoenas must use the caption "In re [plaintiff's legal 
name"), and not reference or identify Defendant by name. Accordingly, it was only 
Defendant's insistence that standard nonparty subpoenas be issued in these cases without regard 
to the Plaintiffs' anonymity that caused Defendant any delay in discovery. Defendant is now 
free to serve nonparty subpoenas in compliance with the Court's Order. Plaintiffs have 
otherwise worked cooperatively with Defendant in providing relevant discovery. Plaintiffs' 
counsel initiated a draft of a HIPAA compliant protective order, which was stipulated by the 
parties and entered by the Court on July 2, 2009. Additionally, Plaintiffs have provided 
Defendant with extensive discovery from Plaintiff's forensic psychiatric expert, Dr. Kliman, 
including videotaped interviews of Plaintiffs, which have been provided to and used by the 
Defendant's expert, Richard C.W. M.D.2
Defendant therefore is not by any stretch being unreasonably delayed or thwarted in 
obtaining nonparty discovery through the rules of civil procedure on the Plaintiffs' medical, 
psychological, criminal and employment histories. The notion that information from private 
investigators is critical because Plaintiffs are otherwise preventing Defendant from obtaining 
2 Plaintiffs have also provided Epstein's counsel with signed authorizations for school records 
and Epstein's counsel is currently requesting them. 
3 
EFTA02746153

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 266 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2009 Page 4 of 9 
non party discovery is false and misleading.' 
Defendant is Not Using Investigators 
for Legitimate Purposes in Good Faith 
Defendant asserts that private investigators are "one of the most traditional methods [for 
discovery) in the justice system", and a "common and well accepted method by which parties 
seek to obtain information not easily or otherwise obtainable about the claims asserted". 
(Defendant's Response, pp. 4, 6, DE 262). Plaintiffs do not contend that Defendant should be 
prohibited from using private investigators in good faith, as a defendant might ordinarily do in a 
case of this nature. The problem and concern raised by Plaintiffs in their Motion for Protective 
Order is that Defendant is not using private investigators in a good faith effort to obtain relevant 
evidence, but rather for the ulterior motive of intimidating and harassing the Plaintiffs. The 
Declarations filed in support of the Plaintiffs' Motion for Protective Order demonstrate the 
following: 
• The private investigators are casting a wide net, making personal contacts with friends, 
acquaintances, employers, and even immediate family members of the Plaintiffs. (See 
Decls. of Jane Doe No. 7, Jane Doe No. 4 (dated 8-14-09), Jane Doe No. 4's sister, 
Y.B.). 
• The private investigators are making personal contacts with employers, asking questions 
that extend beyond the scope of the Plaintiffs' employment to the Plaintiffs' personal 
and intimate lives, including identities of their current and former boyfriends. (See 
Decls. of Jane Doe No. 4 (dated 7-17-09) and Jane Doe No. 6). 
Defendant within the same paragraph of his Response duplicitously discusses the detailed 
psychological information on Plaintiffs that Defendant has received in discovery, and then 
asserts that "Plaintiffs have objected to all meaningful discovery." (Defendant's Response, pp. 
5-6, 15, DE 262). 
4 
EFTA02746154

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 266 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2009 Page 5 of 9 
• The private investigators are seeking out the Plaintiffs' boyfriends apparently to ask 
intimate questions regarding the Plaintiffs' sexual histories. (See Decls. of Jane Doe No. 
7 and No. 4 (dated 7-17-09 and 8-14-09)). 
• The private investigators are aggressive and harassing to the persons they contact, 
including making multiple contacts with a person after being advised that he does not 
wish to talk to them. (Decl. of Jane Doe No. 4 (dated 8-14-09)). 
• The private investigators are asking questions of friends and acquaintances transparently 
designed not to obtain information but to destroy the Plaintiffs' anonymity. (See Decl. 
of Jane Doe No. 7) (e& also discussion below). 
Questions asked by one of Epstein's investigators about Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 7, as set 
forth in her Declaration, demonstrate the private investigators' ulterior motive. These questions 
were as follows: 
• Was [she] promiscuous in high school? 
• What was [her] reputation in high school? 
• How many guys [has she] been with? 
• Did [she] date older, rich guys? 
• Did [she] give massages for money? 
• Who were [her] friends in high school and what is their contact information? 
(DE 251). The activities of billionaire Epstein with underage girls which have resulted in a 
criminal conviction, jail sentence and require him to register as a sex offender, have been 
heavily publicized and are well known. References to "massages" and "older, rich guys" in the 
questions asked by the investigator effectively inform the person contacted that Jane Doe No. 7 
alleges that she is a victim of Defendant Epstein. The investigator is at the same time informing 
5 
EFTA02746155

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 266 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2009 Page 6 of 9 
the person contacted that the Plaintiff has brought a civil suit. (See Declaration of Y.B.). 
The questions asked by the investigator are notable for the information they provide to 
the contact person. Any information that these individuals would provide in response to the 
investigator's questions would be of little if any relevance. For instance, there is no legitimate 
purpose in asking a friend or acquaintance of the Plaintiff whether the Plaintiff dates "older, rich 
guys" or gives "massages" for money. Epstein's plan and scheme of luring underage girls for 
"massages" was unique, the product of his apparent ingenious creativity in satisfying his 
perverse desires. No one can seriously contend in these cases that the high school girls who 
came to Epstein's mansion were professional or even amateur masseuses who gave massages 
for money to anyone other than Jeffrey Epstein. Accordingly, the investigator's questions about 
whether the Plaintiff provided "massages" to "older, rich guys" is disingenuous, and only serves 
to link the Plaintiff with Epstein in the mind of the person being questioned. 
The other questions asked about Jane Doe No. 7 — her reputation in high school, 
promiscuity, etc. — pertain to the Plaintiff's sexual contacts with other men, which under 
Fed.R.Evid. 412 would not be admissible. Rule 412 has served as a basis for the courts to limit 
discovery of a sexual abuse victim's sexual history for cogent policy reasons. (See Plaintiffs' 
Memorandum in Opposition to Epstein's Motion to Compel Answers to First Set of 
Interrogatories, pp. 3-6, DE 93, and cases cited therein).4 It recognizes that the rules of liberal, 
broad discovery must yield to protect victims of sexual misconduct from unnecessary 
embarrassment and intrusion into their private lives. A defendant's investigators should not be 
allowed to ask a Plaintiff's friends, acquaintances and family about the Plaintiff's sexual 
4 Epstein's Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories et at, which raises issues concerning 
discovery of Plaintiffs' sexual histories, has been briefed and is pending before the Court. 
6 
EFTA02746156

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 266 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2009 Page 7 of 9 
history, thereby evading the limitations on discovery and admissibility found in Rule 412 for the 
only conceivable purpose of harassing the Plaintiff. 
Defendant asserts that he seeks to use investigators to ask ex-boyfriends and friends of 
the Plaintiff specific questions concerning the Plaintiff's massages and contacts with Epstein, 
and "whether Plaintiff ever seemed disturbed or traumatized about her alleged experiences with 
Epstein." (Defendants' Response, p. 9, DE 262). Such questions are not reasonably calculated 
to lead to discoverable information, yet fully identify the Plaintiff to the purported witness as an 
alleged victim of Epstein bringing a civil case and inform that person of the specific allegations 
being made by the Plaintiff. Of course, a person who was previously unaware of a Plaintiff's 
alleged experiences with Epstein would not be able to meaningfully comment on whether the 
Plaintiff ever seemed disturbed or traumatized about those experiences. Such questions of 
nonparties by investigators will, on the other hand, render the Plaintiffs' anonymity as Jane 
Does' meaningless, defeat the Court's intent to strike an appropriate balance between the 
Defendant's discovery and the Plaintiffs' psychological well being, and otherwise cause the 
revictimization and retraumatization of the Plaintiffs. 
Conclusion 
Plaintiffs respectfully request that an order be entered imposing appropriate restrictions 
on the activities of the Defendants' investigators, including without limitation, preventing ex 
pane contacts with persons not disclosed in Plaintiffs' discovery responses as having been 
informed of the allegations made by Plaintiffs. 
7 
EFTA02746157

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 266 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2009 Page 8 of 9 
Dated: August 14, 2009. Respectfully submitted, 
By:  s/ Stuart S. Mermelstein 
Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245) 
[Email Redacted] 
Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980) 
[Email Redacted] 
MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P.A. 
Attorneys for Plaintiffs 
18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 
Miami, Florida 33160 
Tel: ([Phone Redacted] 
Fax: ([Phone Redacted] 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
I hereby certify that on August 14, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing document 
with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being 
served this day to all parties on the attached Service List in the manner specified, either via 
transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized 
manner for those parties who are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic 
Filing. 
/s/ Stuart S. Mermelstein 
8 
EFTA02746158

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 266 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2009 Page 9 of 9 
SERVICE LIST 
DOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN 
United States District Court, Southern District of Florida 
Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. 
[Email Redacted] 
Robert D. Critton, Esq. 
[Email Redacted] 
James 
[Email Redacted] 
Isidro Manuel 
[Email Redacted] 
Jack 
[Email Redacted] 
U 
Katherine Warthen Ezell 
[Email Redacted] 
Michael James Pike 
[Email Redacted] 
Paul G. Cassell 
[Email Redacted] 
Richard Horace Willits 
[Email Redacted] 
Robert C. Josefsberg 
[Email Redacted] 
9 
EFTA02746159