UNITE-4.1D DI-6.9STRICT COURT-4.1 SOUTHERN DIST-3.4RI-6.2CT OF FL-3.4ORIDA JANE CASE NO V-MARRA/JOHNSON Vs JEFFREY E-4.9PSTEIN et al Defendant Related PLAINTIF-4.6F JANE DOE?S EMERGENCY MO TION TO HAVE EP STEIN HELD IN CONTEMP-4.6T1.6 FOR FAI-6.2L1.6ING TO PRODUCE STAT-4E DI-6.8SCOVERY AND CORRES-4.9P-5.3ONDENCE-4.1 AND FOR PRODUCI-6.9NG ONLY CORRE-3.8S.4PONDE-3.8NCE WITH THE U.S ATT-3.5O-2.7RNEY?S OFFI CE AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS Plaintiff Jane Doe through undersigned counsel hereby files this m7.8o0tion to have defendant Epstein held in contempt for failing to produce any state crim7.9in al discovery and any correspondence with state prosecuto rs and producing only redact ed correspondence with the U.S Attorney?s Office Both of these failures stand in cl ear violation of this Court discovery orders Jane Doe further asks that Epstein be directed to produce these m8.2a-.8teri als5.1 f3.9o.9rthwith a4.7nd that the Court im8pose appropriate sanctions Jane Doe respectfu lly asks that this m8o.2tion be decided rapidly the Court is well aware there has now een than eleven months of litigation on whether defendant was going to produce any discovery to Jane Doe More than a year ago Jane Doe propounded three discovery requests Request No All discovery inform7.9ation obtained by you or your a ttorneys as a result of the exchange of discovery in the State crim8.1inal case agains4.5t you5.3 or the Fed5.3e-.9ral investigation against you Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of CA-6SE Request No Any docum8.3ents or other ev iden6.1tia4.9ry m8.9a-.1terials prov6.1ided6.1 to loca4.9l or f4e-.2deral law enf4o1rcem8.8ent investiga4.8t-1.2ors o6r4 local state or federal prosecutors investigating your sexual activities w7.9ith Request No All correspondence between you and your attorneys and state or federal law enforcem8.4ent or prosecutors includes but not lim8.4ited to letters to and from the Sta5.2t-2es Attorney?s office or any ag5.4ents th5.4ereof 2620After innumerable m8.1o.3tions and continuances an delays this Court?s order to produce these cam7.8e due yesterday Jane Doe re5.1ce5.1ived he5.1r scovery last night Remarkably however Epstein deliberately lim8.2ited hi discovery in two ways while Requests No and clearly co ver discovery inform8.1ation that Epstein obtained in both federal and state proceedings Epstein produced only fe dera4.9l d6.1i3.9scovery precisely,6.1 because he claim8.4s-.2 to have receiv5.6e-.6d no federal dis4.8c-.6ove ry he p5.5r-1.5ovided noth5.5i-1.7ng at all In addition while Request No clearly covers correspondence with both f8.3e-.9deral and state prosecutors Epstein has produced only correspondence with federal prosecutors There is no basis for lim8.2iting production to f4.3e.1deral 2500Second while Request No cl-6.8early covers correspondence both to and from Epstein?s crim8.3inal defense attorneys Epstein has redacted a ll of this correspondence so that only correspondence to him8.2 is revealed The resulting mishm8.2a-.8sh of re dactions m8eans that much of the correspondence and virtually all of the correspondence m8o.2st useful to Jane Doe has been withheld by Epstein 2660These deliberate violations of th Court?s orders are part of a persistent pattern by Epstein to thwart legitim8.1a-.9te discovery by Jane Doe Accordingly the Court shou ld order production of these forthwith Jane Doe seeks production on an em ergency basis because she has been com8.3p.5elled to attend a second settlem8.2e-.8nt conferen ce on July at a nd these of discovery For another 5.4blatant exa-3.5m2.6ple of im8proper duri ng 5.4discovery see Plaintiff?-5.1s Motion to 5.4Prevent Im8pr-5.1oper Use of th Amend-7m8.5ent an-7d Mem8.5o-1.5randum8.5 of Law 5.5case no doc filibus7.7tering and insertion irrelevant and prejudici al inform8.6atio-6.9n duri5.9ng his 5.5d4e2.5position Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of CA-6SE put her4.1 a much bette4.9r position6.1 u6.1nderstand6.1 th6.1e stre ngth5.5 her case4.3 at that Ja4.4ne Doe the4.3r3.5ef3.5ore respectfully requests that the ourt rule on this motion rapidly by Friday July Monday July is a federal holiday Jane also seeks appropriate sanctions PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND the con5.9v.9enience4.7 the Cour3.9t here is th full saga of several st raightforward discovery requests that Jane Doe has filed in this case On July Ja ne Doe filed a motion to production of various previously-requested docum8.1e nts including discovery provided to Epstein by state and federal prosecutors in the crim8.4inal cases ag5.8ain5.8s0t him8.6 and corresp5.8ond5.8ence between his5 crim8.8inal def9e-.2nse a4.8tto6rne4.8y1s and and prosecu6tors5.2 during6 the4.8 crim8.8inal inv6e-.2stig6ation.6 Case No doc Specifically her mo tion sought production of the following Request No All discovery inform7.9ation obtained by you or your a ttorneys as a result of the exchange of discovery in the State crim8.1inal case agains4.5t you5.3 or the Fed5.3e-.9ral investigation against you Request No Any docum8.1e-.9nts or other eviden tia4.9ry m8.9a-.1terials prov6.1ided6.1 to loc4.9a0l or f4e-.2deral law enf4o1rcem8.8ent investiga4.8t-1.2ors o6r4 local state or federal prosecutors investigating your sexual activities w7.9ith Request No All correspondence betw een you and your attorn eys and state or federal law enforcem8.4ent or prosecutors includes but not lim8.4ited to letters to and from the Sta5.2t-2es Attorney?s office or any ag5.4ents th5.4ereof doc at pp em7.7phases a dded Epstein obtained an exte nsion of tim7.8e in which to respond and two-and-a-half later on October Epstein filed an objection to producing these on Fifth Am8.4endm8.4ent grounds doc On October Jane Doe promptly filed a reply in support of her m8.4o.6tion doc On January Jane Doe filed a notice that more than days had elapsed since the filing of her m8.1o.3tion doc February the m8.1a-.9gistrate judge granted in part and denied in part Jane Doe?s m8.5o.7tion to com8.2p.4el specifically ruling that Epstein had to produce the discovery provided to him by state and Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of CA-6SE federal and5.6 the reques4.8t-1.6ed correspon5.6dence rejecting Fifth A7.6m8.2endmen and other objections-6.2 raised by E5.7p-.1stein case no doc m7.8a-1.2gistra te judge specifically granted requests and Id.6 at Accordingly Epst ein is ordered to produce th docum7.7ents subjects to these Requests i.e requests and within ten days from)8.1 the date hereof 2615Epstein then6.2 f4.2iled an extension tim9e0 in which to appeal doc which Jane opposed on grounds of delay doc On Februa ry the Court grante in part and denied in part the extension of tim7.8e sp ecifically warning Epstei that in the event that Magistrate Judge Johnson?s February Order is affir-6.7m8.1ed on app eal Defendant will have three business days from8.7 the date of this Court?s order to produce the docum8.4ents at issue doc Epstein then ultim8.5ately filed his4.9 appeal/m8.5otion for recon5.7s-.1iderati on of the m8.5a-.5gistrate on F6.9e-.5bruary doc On March Jane Doe then filed her respons4.5e in Oppositio5.3n to Defendant?s4.5 Motion for reconsideration doc April the m8.2a-.8gistrate judge rejected Epstein?s challenge eaffirm7.7ing his earlier order that com8.3pelled production from8.3 state and f4.5e.3deral pro6.5s5.7ecutors5.7 in th6.5e crim9.3inal aga5.4i-.7nst doc May the court held a status confer ence on the appeal which also involved other consolid6.2ated6.2 cases5.4 rais5.4in6.2g sim9ilar ap6.2peals and is5.4sues The Court the5 par4.2ties5.4 to attem9p1.2t rea5c0h a resolution of issues surr ounding Epstein?s net worth May Epstein filed a C7.2onsolidated Rule Review and Appeal of Portions of the Magistrate Judge?s orders doc On May Jane Doe file a protective response to the consolidated reply noting that sh had previously responded to all of the argum8ents raised by the appeal and that the consolidated appeal did not require any new response from8 her doc The response also noted Jane Doe and Epstein had been unable to resolve disput ed net worth issues Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of CA-6SE Friday June this Court entered an order affir-6.7m8.1ing the m8.1a-.9gistrate judge?s discovery orders in all respects Case No doc and as it previously warned Epstein requiring Epstein to produce the discovery m8.2a-.8terials within three business days this point despite having had a y6ear to assem8.8b1le the requ ested discovery item8.1s and prepare for their production and m7.8o0re than four m7.8onths since this Court?s wa rning to be prepared to produce the docum7.9ents three days notice Epstein bega filing5.4 motions4.6 to res4.6t-1.8rict p5.4r-1.6oduction On Mo5.4nday5.4 evening June at approxim7.9ately Epstein filed a motion for a protective order regarding dissem8i-2nation of the m8a-1terials Case No doc On Tuesday m7.8o0rning June at approxim8.4a-.6tely this Cour summ8.5arily denied the m8.5o.7tion doc Then as the deadline for production drew even nearer on W9.5e-.5dnesday June at approxim8.5a-.5tely Epstein filed a for a ri g6h1t to6 reda4.8ct tax re4.8turns5.2 th6at we re being produced and inform8ed the Court in his Motion that he was going to go ahead and only produce redacted tax returns doc Shortly th5.8ereafter Epstein began tr ansm8.7itting redacted returns to Jane Doe?s counsel via em8.7ail Acting5.9 with im8.3pressive speed at approxim8.3ately the Court summarily denied Epstein?s m8.1o.3tion doc 2550Following these actions by the Court yesterda defendant Epstein de his production unredacted tax returns electro nically to Jane Doe?s counsel Howeve Epstein rem8a-1rkably still failed to produce m8.5a-.5terials he was require to produce in two critical ways First Epstein did not produce any inform8a-6tion he had obtained from8 the state during disco5.8v.8ery the crim8.6inal inv5.8e-.4stig5.8ation5.8 a4.6g.8ains5t Indeed because had not a pparently his any federa6.3l discovery during the crim8.2inal investigation he turned over nothing at all responsive to Jane Doe?s Requests No and No And sim8ilarly with regard to correspondence from7.9 the prosecut ors Epstein also produced only correspondence with fe5.2deral prosecutors not with state prosecuto rs Of course this significantly Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of CA-6 SE MA-6 RR-6 HN-6 SON lim8.5 ited the production he ade as Epstein ed guilty5.7 to state sex arges rather than federal sex5.5 charges leaving Jane Doe with no corre spondence or discovery from7.9 he State Second with regard to his corr11.3 espondence with federa prosecutors that he did produce Epstein redacted anything com8.1 ng from8.1 attorneys leaving onl the responses from7.8 the federal prosecutors The result is an ten uninte4.4 llig5.6 ible4.4 shm8.4 sh back-and-f4 o1 rth ails where only half4 of4 what being said is disclosed It forces Jane Doe to read everything out of ontext and severely lim8.2 its the utility of what was produced To give but two of what-7.3 are literally do zens of exam8.3 ples of the uninte4.7 llig5.9 ibility conside4.7 these ail cha4.7 ns re precisely alf3.9 ail chains Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of That is fine Im sorry I didnt get your e-mail sooner Since I am out of the office the best way to reach me is on my cell or you can send an e-mail which becomes a text message to cingularme.com Tomorrow I am available early in the morning to or at or at after Thanks A Marie Villafana Assistant Attorney Fax CA-6 SE MA-6 RR-6 HN-6 SON Exhibit found as Correspondence from7.9 defens-5.7 counsel June Exhibit found as Correspondence from7.9 defens-5.7 counsel June The net resu6.2 lt the5 se re5 daction6.2 of course is that what is pr oduced is of essentially no value to Jane Doe for discovery or at tria what is lef3.6 is rely sta4.4 ents prosecutors,5.6 the4.5 than statem8.1 ents from8.1 agents of Mr Epstein that could be used to help build Jane Doe 2s case EPSTEIN HOULD BE HELD IN CONTEM PT AND ANCTIONED FOR DELIBERATE VIOLATIONS OF THE ORDE-3.6 TO PRODUCE I EPSTEIN SHOULD BE HELD IN CO NTEMPT FOR FAILING TO PRODUCE STAT-3.9 DISCOVERY AND STAT-3.9 CO RRESPO-8.5 RESPONSIVE REQUES-4.5 NOS AND As noted above Jane Doe 2s Requests for Producti on No and plainly requested that Epstein produce discovery provided to him8.2 in both the federal and state crim8.2 inal cases See e.g Request No requesting production of ll discovery inform8.6 ation obtained by you or your attorneys as a result Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Jay I hate to have to be finn about this but we need to wrap this up by Monday I will not miss my indictment date when this has dragged on for several weeks already and then if things fall apart be left in a less advantageous position than before the negotiations I have had an 82-page pros memo and 53-page indictment sitting on the shelf since May to engage in these negotiations There has to be an ending date and that date is Monday A Marie Villafana Assistant U.S Attorney CA-6SE of the exchange of discovery in the State crim8.1inal case against you or th Federal investigation against you em8.4p.6hasis added5.6 In addition5.6,.6 Request No plainly5.6 requested all corresp5.6ondence between you and your attorneys and state or federal law enforcem8.3ent or pr osecutors including but not lim8.4ited to letters to and from States Atto rney?s office or any agents thereof em8.1phasis added Indeed given th6e in6ter4t-1.2wined n6a-.2ture of4 two inve4.8stiga4.8tions a federal non-prosecution agreem7.6ent-7.4 ultim8.5ately5.7 r3.7e-.5sulting wh5.7en Epste4.5i-1.5n pled gu5.7ilty5.7 to sex charges it would be to6 se4.8gregate4.9 the two Of course Jane Doe would want discov ery and correspondence from8.5 both cases it no difference to her the source of the docum8.3ents or co rrespondence And the lega principles governing production would not vary between fede ral and state investigations 25Astonishingly then Epstein now af8.1ter m7.9ont hs of litigation has decided that Jane Doe?s-6 request and the m8.4a-.6gistrate judge?s order affirming th at request are som7.4e-1.6how to be lim9.4ited to m9.4e.4rely the federal crim8.7inal investigati on And with am8.2azing convenience fo Epstein since he apparently deem8.3s all the discovery his crim8.3inal defense team8.3 received to be purely state he has to produce nothing on request for production nos and and only half of what would be expected for request for production no the context of this5 case it should be readily apparent to the Court Epstein deliberately decided to produce substa ntially less inform8.3ation than he is required to produce He is doing so by taking a ridiculous and absurd position that is not suppor ted by any reasonable reading of the discovery requests or this Court?s rulings And he is doing so in a civil case where discovery is supposed to be freely and readily exchanged only even arguable basis for Epstein6?-1s intr4ansigenc4.8e that apparen6tly taking the position that a single sentence in one of Jane ple-6a-1.1dings on these issues should be deem7.9ed to have narrowed the plain language of her clear Requests for Produc tion In a reply brief Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of CA-6SE in October counsel for Jane Doe in briefly de scribed the nature of re quests for production nos and writing on5.4e senten5.4ce th5.4at referred to the requests covering m8.1a-.9terials from8.1 the federal governm8.3e-.7nt See Plaintiff?s Jane Doe?s Reply to Res ponse to Motion to Com8.2p.4el doc at referring to6 requests as seeking inform8.4a-.6tion that the fed5.8e-.4ral government gave to Epstein in the course of its plea discussions with In reviewing th at single sentence it should have been obvious that Jane Doe not suddenly and for no apparent reas on narrowing her request to half of the m8a-1terial that she would otherwise have been entitled to rece4.5ive At the very most and this4.9 is debatable it appears that one could argue that Jane Doe?s counsel spoke loosely or a typographical error as the sentence could have clear ly said federal and state governm7.8e nt W9.9h1atever can be said of this s5.2e-.2ntence,6 the4.8 rem8.8a-.2ining sentenc4.8e-.2s in6 th is pleading fo llowing this sentence plainly refer to both the federal and state govern as there no lim8.9itation to the governm8e-1nt in approxim8a-1tely nine other sentences in close to the sentence Epstein apparently seizes upon See e.g.,id at The government its5.3elf Epstein6.1 the documents em8phasis in original id at th5.3e government was showing him8.3 the docum8.3ents in the first place to convince h5.5im to plead5.5 guilty to a crim8.3e emphasis ad5.5ded id at Jane Doe?s requests for production num8.3b.5er and which seek respectively discovery provided by the government eviden6.6tia5.4ry6.6 m9.4a.4teri als provided by the government emphasis added And elim8.3inating any legitim8.4ate confusion at the end of this section in th is brief Jane Doe explained quite clearly that she was seeking not only correspondence with the U.S Attorney?s Office but more general with governm8.5e-.5nt agencies i.e both fede ral and state agencies Id at 2620Regardless of how Epstein have intentio nally m8.9i-1.1sconstrued single sen6.1t3.9ence in the4.9 Jane Doe?s reply the m8.6a-.4gistrate judge ultim8.6atel ruled on the actual request for production.5.4 m8.2a-.8gistrate judge in using a shorthand to describi ng the nature of the Requests for Production also Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of CA-6SE referred at one point to the fe deral governm8.1e-.9nt and at another point to the governm8.1e-.9nt Compare-6.8 case no doc at describing Reque sts and as involving docum7.8ents the federal governm8.2e-.8nt gave to Epstein with id describing requests as docum8.4ents the governm8.4e-.6nt itself8.6 gave Eps4.7t-1.7ein But the Court?s ultim)8.3ate ord5.5e was that the Reques4.4t3 for Productions and was granted Id Nothing in the context of the m8.5a-.5gistrate judge?s decision indicated any principle of law that would fe-5.9deral information and co rrespondence discoverable and state inform8.4ation and correspondence non-discoverable Indeed the m8.2a-.8gistra te judge clear on the next page of the order that he understood he was reviewing a discovery re lating to docum8.1e-.8nts involving Epstein6.2?s Florida guilty plea an5.7d federal or state cr4.1iminal inve4.9stig6.1ations.6.1?0 Id at added Nor would there have been any logical re ason for the m8.2a-.8gistrate judge to have awarded to Jane Doe production of only half of the m8.5a-.5terials she sought i.e awarded her only production of federal m8.1a-.9terials but not state terials on the subject 2511Following the m7.9a-1.1gistrate judge?s ruling Epstei filed a motion to rec onsider If Epstein believed that the order only obligated to pr oduce federal discovery m8.4a-.6terials/correspondence and that he had no such m8.7a-.3terials it would have been a sim9.4p1.6le m9.4a.4tter to have sim9.4p1.6ly said that and not appeal the ruling on Requests No and and to a large extent To the contrary however Epstein spent nine pages asking the m8.3a-.7gistrate judge to reverse its rulings on these th ree requests production Case No KAM doc at Epstein also stated th at he did not have discovery inform7.9ation or evidentiary inform ation provided to him8.4 by the federal governm8.4e-.6nt Id at response Jane Doe noted Epstein?s glass-is-half-em8.2pty re presentations that he had no federal discovery m8.4a-.6terials and objected to his sem antic Plaintiff Jane Doe?s Response to Defendant?s Motion for Reconsider ation and/or Request for Rule Review Case Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of CA-6SE KAM doc at She clear that she expected Epstein to honor the Request for Productions as they were written and produce both federal and state Jane Doe does not these rep5.5r-1.5esentati ons to m8.4ean that Epstein5.6 possesses no inform8.1ation responsive to thes requests If this were the case Epstein could have avoided seven m8.1onths of litigation by sim8.1p.3ly this representa tion to the Court at the outset.5.7 Rather,5.7 Epstein5.7 seem8.5s to be pl aying sem8.2a-.8ntic W9.3ith regard to discovery request no Epstein represents only that he has no discovery inform8.5ation fed6.4e.2ral governm7.9e-1.1nt not contesting the obvious fact as Jane Doe has been reliably that he rece)4.9ived6.1 signif4.1i-1.1can6.1t discovery connection6.1 with the state crim8.8inal ch6arges to which he pled guilty W9.1ith regard to discovery request no Epstein represents only that he has not been given evidentiary docum8.4ents by the feder5.7a1.5l governm8.1e-.9nt again not contest the obvious fact as Jane Doe has been reliably inform8ed that he received docum)8ents fr both the state and federal authorities working on his case Epstein is going to continue to words in this fashion Jane Doe as4.3ks that clearly5.1 explain to the Court in any reply pleading that he file what m8.3a-.7terials responsive to the requests for production he has so that the Court an inform8.6ed ruling Id em8.1phases in original Jane Doe also noted sp ecifically that request no covers correspondence with state federal law enforce-5.6m3.4ent or prosecutors.5.6 For convenience the reques4.8t-1.6 will be des4.8c-.5ribed5.6 as being for correspondence with the Governm8.1e-5.9nt Id at his to Jane Doe?s respon5.6se Epstein cited the single sentence in Jane Doe?s October pleading discussed above and an argum8.1ent th at the m8.2a-.8gistrate judge had som8.1e-.9how i-6.9m8.1pliedly adopted it as narrowing the scope of the her requests Defendant?s Reply to Plaintiff?s Response to Defendant?s Motion for Reconsideration Case No doc at E5.8p0stein then went on to spend seven pages arguing on the m8.3e-.7rits that he should not be required to produce state discovery materials He two detailed argum8.3e-.7nts against producin state d5.2i-2scov5.2ery m8a-1terials He first argued that the req5.7u.7est for state m8.1a-.9terials was som8.1e-.9how ope-6r becau5.2se Jane Doe?s counsel had some from7.9 state prosecutors Id at Epstein th5.4en arg5.4u.4ed that the4.3 state4.3 m8.4a-.6terials were work product because his attorney had picked out certain m8.1a-.8terials from the state To be clear Jane c-3.9ounsel believes that Epstei possesses si-6.2gnificant state discovery-8.1 5.5materi-6.2als that-6.2 have never been se-4en by-8 Jane Doe Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of CA-6SE prosecutor In support of this argum8.5e-.5nt Epstein for the first tim attached an affidavit from8.3 Jack Goldberger his crim8.4inal defense attorney about the process of obtaining the state discovery m8.4a-.6terials Id at has been the case with other claim8.1s-.5 presented4.9 by the Epstein in the of this4.1 litigation the m8.2a-.8gist rate judge was not im8.6pressed with thes argum8.3ents against producing both federal and state discovery m8.3a-.7terials In the final order on the subject on April the m8.3a-.7gistrate judge explained Epstein takes issue ith that portion of the Order which compelled production of discovery state and federal prosecuto5.9rs in the crim8.7inal case ag5.9ainst his recen5.9t tax returns and his5.1 passport Court stands behind each of these decisions for the reasons stated in its Order and is not persuaded by any of Epstein?s arguments to the contrary Om7.9nibus Order Case No KAM doc at emphases added Notably the m8.5a-.5gistrate judge was not persuaded by any of Epstein?s argum8.3e-.7nts including of ourse his argum8.7ent that the single sentence in Jane Doe?s earlier pleading5.6 has m8.4a-.6gically5.6 narrowed the plain meaning of her requests And notably the m7.6a-1.4gistrate judge him8.3s-.3elf in th5.5e face of a ch allenge from8.1 Epstein that the cou5.3r o5r-2der on5ly required Epstein to5 produce federal m8.4a-.6terials specifically described th order as including production of discovery state and federal prosecutors 2610After various further delays engineered by Ep stein as recounted above pleadings were filed before this Court Marra on th appeal of the m8a-1gistra te judge?s ruling Ep stein?s pleadings were essentially cut and paste pleadings from8.3 his pleadi ng with the m8.5a-.5gistrate judge Most im8.5portant for present purposes the pleadings revealed no doubt that Epstein understood that Jane requesting and that the the m8.2a-.8gistrate judge had ordered production of both federal and state See e.g doc at discussing br eadth of Jane Doe?s re quest at challenging obligation to produce m8.4a-.6terials from8.4 state and local pol ice agencies at arguing that m8.4a-.6terials Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of CA-6SE Palm8.1 Beach state Attorney?s File were som8.1e-.9how wo rk pro5.6duct m8.4a-.6terial And on June this Court affirmed all of the m8a-1gistrate judge?s di scovery rulings Case No doc Jane Doe these in il because they point to only one conclusion defendant Epstein is deliberately vi olating the clear order of Magistra te Judge Johnson that he produce discovery from8.7 state and federal prosecutors the crim8.7inal case again5.9s.1t Indeed Epstein5.9 has specifically presented his extraord5.5in5.5ar and crabbed interpretation of the order i.e that it only extends to the federal governm7.7e-6.3nt m7.7a-1.3terials to the m8.3a-.7gistrate judge and th m8.3a-.7gistrate judge told him8.3 inte5rpre5tatio6.2n1.2 was rejected And this Court Epstein is therefore plainly in contem8.7pt of this-4.9 Court?s order He should be directed to ately produce the discovery and other inform7.5ation he received from state pros4.8ecution5.6s-.2 an5.6d correspondence with state prosecution and be subject to other sanctions as explained below II 1294EPSTEIN SHOULD BE HELD IN CO NTEMPT FOR FAILING TO PRODUCE UNREDACTED 2745CORRESPONDENCE FEDERAL 2710Defendant Epstein use of yet another dilato ry has also de4.2liberately v5.4i-1.8olated this4.6 Court?s d5.1i-2.1scovery order by failing5.1 to produce unredacted correspond5.2en ce with federal prosecutors Instead he has produced redacted di scovery that is essentially gibberish and in any event unusable by Jane Doe because it con5.4t3.2ains no s4.6t-1.8atem8.2ents from8.2 Epst ein rep5.6r-1.4esen5.6tatives and forces Jane Do5.6e to read all com8.1m3.1unications about Epstein?s cr im8.1es against out of context 2710Epstein apparently takes the position that he is som8.6e-.4how entitled to re dact the correspondence even though none of the underlyi ng m8.2a-.8gistrate judge orders re garding the correspondence even m8.4e-.6ntion redaction and even though Epstein has neve even raised redaction Perhaps Epstein thinking about filing a motion for au thorizing redaction only to be scared off by this Court?s turnaround tim8.6e yesterday in rejecting his fri volous m8.5o.7tion to redact the tax returns he Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of CA-6SE producing Case No KAM doc In light of these circum)8stances it appears that lega4.8l coun6sel have4.8 calc4.8u1lated it is bette5.5r-.3 to Doe?s to f4.7ile motion objecting to redaction rather than to present this preposterous idea to the C7.4ourt for summ8.2ary rejection redaction is in clear defiance of the orders in this case Jane Doe?s R7.2e-1quest for P6.4r-1.8oduction No plainly and broadly requested correspondence between you and your attorneys and state or federal law enforcement or prosecutors includes but not lim8.6ited to le tters to and the State5s5.4 Attorney?s office or any agents thereof ase No doc at The m)8.1a-.9gistrate judge rejected Epstein?s argum7.9ents against produc tion doc at The m8.5a-.5gistrate judge rejected out of hand any claim8.2 that the corre spondence was som8.3e-.7how protected by the attorney client privilege or work-product doctrine noti ng that the correspondence with state and federal prosecutors could hardly be rega rd5.5ed as som8.3e-5.7how confidential Id6 at The m7.2a-1.8gistrate judge therefore ordered Epstein to with Request for Production No involving settlem8ent discussions and plea negotiations Id at again defendant Epstein fi led for reconsideration it quite clear that the Request for Production covered not only what pr osecutors were saying to his repr esentatives but also what his representatives were saying back Thus Epstein asked the m7.7a-1.3gistra te judge to rec onsider not only because it was purportedly p4.8r-2.2otecte by the attorn5.5ey-clien5.5t-1.7 privileg but also for a new reason settlem8.3e-.7nt discuss4.7i-1.7on co5.5nfidentially.5.5 Epstein argue that b5.4ecause the requested communications4.6 include the views of Epstein5.6?-1.4s coun5.6sel in the cr im8inal case regarding why a federal prosecution was inappropriate It also includes E5.8p0stein?s counse l?s views on the lim7.9its and inapplicability of certain elem8.3ents of U.S.C This opinion wo rk product should not be disclosed Defendant?s Motion for Reconsider ation and/or Request for Rule Review Case KAM doc at Epstein also put in a cryptic sentence stating Concom8.3itantly to the extent Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of CA-6SE that the request is now lim8.4ited to communications form7.9 the Governm7.9e to Epstein see DE pgs and the narrowed request im8.1plicates the oncerns for the opinions the work product and the expectations of the privacy of the United States A7.3ttorney Id at 2465Jane Doe responded by explaining there is nothing confidential about m8.2a-.8terials being exchanged between Epstein a nd governm8e-1nt prosecutors regardless of whether the materials or correspondence were being sent from the prosecutors to Epstein or from Epstein to the prosecutors Plaintiff Jane Doe?s Response to Defendant?s Motion for Reconsid eration doc at em7.5p-5.3hasis added Doe also objected that Epstein was im8.4properly raising argum8.4e-.6nts concerning settlem8.4e-.6nt-6.6 conf3.9identia4.7lity th5.9e on re4.7consider3.9atio5.9n Id.6 at Jane Doe went on the sentence in Epstein?s pleading an explained It?s hard to unders tand what Epstein m8eans by this sentence The cited docket entry DE has nothing to do with the discovery request at hand Perhaps th6is5.2 sentence is sim8.8p1ly a m8.8i-6.2staken rem8.8n-4ant of a botched cut and paste from another pleading in another case where docket entr would relevant In any event to be clear Jane Doe has not narrowed her request to only one-h alf of the relevant correspondence and thus the m7.7a-1.3gistrate judge?s order is not lim8.5ited to one-ha lf of the correspon5.4dence Id at Epstein did not press the point in his reply brief doc at not raising this issue m8.1a-.9gistrate judge once ag ain rejected all of Epstein argum8.4ents reaffirm8.4ing that Epstein was obligated to com8.2p.4ly with Request fo Production No The Court singled out Epstein?s argum8.3ent about settlem8.3e-.7nt confidentiality as specifi cally flawed Epstein?s fi nal argum9e.1nt raised now for the firs5t concerns settlem8.6e-.4nt discu5.8ssion onfidentiality Because Epstein presented5.2 this4.4 argum8.6ent to the undersigned it is inappropriate to rais it now for the first Even were the Docket entr6.3y is Opini5.8o3.9n and3.9 order 5.5g3.9r.9anting and3.9 in 5.5part Motio3.9n and Motion3.9 for a More Definite Statement entere on February-6.1 be8.8fore of the discovery-8.2 requests at even been propo4.1unded.5.5 Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of CA-6SE Court to consider the argum8.1ent on its m8.1e-.9rits fo the reasons explained in Jane Doe?s Response-5.8 Mem8.4o.6randum8.4 D.E pp th Court finds said argum8ent wit hout Om7.7nibus Order Case No doc at noted above after various further delays en gineered by E5.9p.1stein pleadings were filed before this Court Marra on the appeal of the magistrate judge?s ruling Here again E6.5p.7stein?s pleadings it crystal clear that he knew was obligated to produce not only what prosecutors said to but what he and his representatives said to them He objected to producing correspondence involving the of each counsel Epstein?s and th5.2e Un ited States Attorney5.3?s which were exchanged with each other pursuant to the ov erall expectation that were safeguarded from7.6 disclosure by the polic4.7ies conf3.9identia4.7lity that prote4.7c-.3t comm8.7unicatio ns during settlem8.1e-5.9n.3t and plea negotiations The requested communications include the views of Epstein5.8?-1.2s co5.8unsel in the criminal cases regarding federal prosecution was inappropriate and other subjects Cas No doc at em8.1phasis added And on Ju ne this Court rejected all of Epstein?s argum7.5ents and affir-6.5m8.3ed all of the judge?s discovery rulings ase No doc again,5.5 it is qu5.5ite clear that Eps4.7t-1.7ein stands in clear and5.4 deliberate d5.4e-.8fiance of th5.4is Court?s discovery order obligating him to produce corresponde nce as directed in Request for Production No Epstein should be directed to produce the discove ry and other inform7.8ation he received from state prosecutions and correspondence with state prosecuti on forthwith and be subjec to other sanctions as explained below I 885THE COURT SHOULD SANCTION EPSTEIN BY DIRECTI-5.9N2.1G PRODUCTION 1945FORTHWITH IMPOSING A FINE AND DEEMING OF WITHHELD TO BE ADMISS-4.5I-1.5BLE AT TRIAL.-5.7 Jane Doe?s counsel apologizes for forcing this C7.3our to read this entire di scovery saga But the bottom8.8 line rem8.8a-.2ins that after elev en m8.1onths of litigation5.3,.3 when Jane Doe was her first-6.9 Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of CA-6SE discovery production from8.4 Epstein yesterday he clear ly and deliberately defied this Court?s orders about the scope of that production Moreover as the events recounted above clear the refusal to produce is willful They also seem8.4ed to be ated force Jane Doe?s legal counsel to a significan5.6t amount of writing a pl eading to obtain pro5.5duction when she has been ordered at Epstein6.1?-.9s to another)4.1 se4.9ttlem8.9e-.1nt conf4.1erence4.9 and6.1 while th6.1is Indeed it seem7.9s probable that Epst ein is seeking5.8 to Jane Doe from7.9 having these m7.9a-1.1terials to review before the settlem8.4e-.6nt conference and perh aps to block her from having these m8.4a-.6terials when her tr4ia4.8l sta4.8r-1ts in tha4.8n1 three week6s is hard to view Epstein?s m8a-1neuvers and Epst ein6?-1s rec4.8e-.1nt attem8.8p1ts to restric4.8t-1.2 disc4.8overy this Cour3.8t summ8.6arily reje4.6cted as anything other than a signal th at Epstein and his legal counsel believ6e-.2 they need n6o1t f4o1llow th6e rules apply to litig6ants Perhap the5 vast wealth6.2 the defendant and the legal fees that he is paying his attorneys has engender ed th6.1is attitu6.1de Regardless the reason this Court should not tole rate such clear intransigence a nd im8pose appropriate sanctions 2530.7Epstein should be found to be in contem8.2pt of court To find contempt the Court determ8.5ine whether there is clear and convincing evid ence that the allegedly violated order was valid and lawful the order wa clear definite and unambiguous and the alleged violator had the ability com8.9p1.1ly with the Brauchle Southern Sports Grill Inc at citing McGregor Chierico F.3d th Cir For the reasons described in detail above the di scovery orders at issu here were clearly valid unam7.6biguous about their breadth and Epstein plainly had the ability to Indeed given all the circum8.2stances recounted it is clea that Epstein a d5.6e-.6liberate ch5.6oice no5.4t to com8.2p.4ly The Court acco5.4rdingly5.4 Judge Palerm8.1o has ordered Jane Doe to prepare a confid ential settlem8.1e2nt statement and file it toda7.5y as part of that-5.9 conference 5.4Jane of 5.4that has been int-5.8e1.7rrupted the need to this7.1 m9o-1tion Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of CA-6SE should use the full panoply of powers that it possesses to puni sh this blatant contem8.1pt The Court also has additional powers under Rule of the Fe-5.8deral Rules of Cri-6.8m8.2inal Procedure to deter discovery abuses 2751Jane Doe res5p.8ectfully req5.8u.8ests th5.8e ourt im8.1pose the following sanctions 2615First Epstein should be requi red to produce forthwith all disc overy infor-6.9m7.9ation docum7.9e-1.1nts and other evidentiary m8.3a-.7terials covered by Re quests No and e.g all discovery and evidentiary inform8.1ation from8.1 both the federal and state prosecuting and investigating authorities and all correspondence in unr edacted both from7.6 and to federal and state prosecuting and investigatin5.5g author3.5ities4.7 Jane4.7 Doe respec4.7tf3.9ully requests th5.7at the Cour3.7t on this motion before her m8.3a-.7ndated settlem8.3ent conference so that she can have the ben6.2e0f4.2it those m9a0terials that tim9e 2680Second Epstein?s counsel should be required to pay to the Court a nd instructed not to play any further as this case m8.1oves to trial 2745Third Epstein should be deem8.2ed to have waived any objection to the by Do5.2e at trial of any of the m8.6a-.4terials subject to th discovery dem8.4a-.6nds at issue here Requests for Production Nol and See Fed A i allowing the Court to award as a sanction for discovery violation prohibiting the disobe dient party from7.7 supporting or opp osing designated claims or defenses CONFERE-3.9NCE COUNS-4.7EL Jane Doe?s counsel understands Epst ein to object to this m8.1o.3tion The full terms of the discovery-7.8 requests speak for themselve-3.9s Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of CA-6SE CONCL-3.9US-4.7ION The Court should find that Epstein has deliberately violated its discovery orders hold him7.5 in contem8.1pt of court direct that the requested discovery be produced forthwith and im8.2pose appropriate sanctions as described above DATED July Respectf4.3u1.3lly6.3 Subm9.1itted,6.3 Bradley Edwards Bradley E6.3d.5wards FARMER WEI-7.8SSING EDWARDS FISTOS LEHRMAN P.L North Andrews Avenue Suite Fort Lauderdale Florida Telephone Facsim8.1ile Florida Bar No brad6 pathtoju6s.2tice.com8.8 and Salt 2750Lake 2750City Telephone Facsim8ile E-Mail 110cassellp law.utah.edu CERTIFICATE OF HEREBY CERTIFY on July I elect ronically filed the foregoing docum7.9ent with the Clerk the Court using CM/ECF I also certif that the foregoing docum7.8ent is being served this day on all parties on the at tached5.6 Service List the m8.4a-.6nner either transm8.4ission of Notices of Electronic F6.5iling generated by CM/ECF or in other authorized m8.6a-.4nner for those parties who are not authorized to receive electronically file Notices of Electronic Bradley Edwards Bradley E6.3d.5wards Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of CA-6SE SERVI-7.4CE LIST Jane Doe Jeffrey Epstein6.5 United States District Court Southern District of Jack Alan Goldberger Jgoldberger agwpa.com Robert Critton Esq rcritton bclclaw.com Isidro Manu6al Garc4.8ia4.8 isidrog6.2a0rc5ia5 bellsou6.2th.6.2n1.2et Michael Pike-5.8 MPike bclclaw.com Paul Cassell cassellp law.utah.com Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of
