Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Jane Doe No Epstein Page2 to assert and argue the factual basis for the additional objections and privileges See part II.A herein I Defendant EPSTEIN has properly asserted his constitutional claims of privilege and effective assistance of counsel as guaranteed under the Fifth Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution to each of the specified interrogatories and production requests In accordance with applicable law EPSTEIN has properly asserted his claims of privilege and effective assistance of counsel as guaranteed by the Fifth Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution to each of the interrogatories propounded by Plaintiff in her first set of Interrogatories and first production request See Exhibit A to Plaintiffs Motion to Compel for Defendants Response and Objections to Plaintiffs Amended Interrogatories and Exhibit to Plaintiffs motion for production requests and Defendants responses thereto Contrary to Plaintiffs assertion that Defendant made an improper blanket objection Defendant examined and responded to each of the discovery requests and raised constitutional privileges along with other alternative objections applicable to the specific interrogatory or production request See Exhibit A and to Plaintiffs motion Although Defendant sets forth each of the interrogatories and requests below because Plaintiff has attached the responses as Exhibits to her motion Defendant does not retype the responses in their entirety herein The circumstances of this case and the others are such that not only does Defendant EPSTEIN face allegations of sexual misconduct with and abuse exploitation and sexual battery of alleged minors in this and other civil actions but he also faces criminal prosecution based on the same factual allegations The Plaintiffs attorney represents Jane Doe Nos and in civil actions against EPSTEIN filed in Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Jane Doe No Epstein Page this Court There are additional state and federal civil actions against EPSTEIN In this and the other civil actions the Plaintiffs reference federal and state criminal statutes in an attempt to allege claims ranging from sexual battery to intentional infliction of emotional distress to a violation of U.S.C entitled Coercion and enticement contained in Title Crimes and Criminal Procedure Part I Crimes Chapter Transportation for Illegal Sexual Activity and Related Crimes to a cause of action pursuant to U.S.C which creates a civil remedy for personal injuries where a plaintiff can show a violation of specified statutory criminal statues Plaintiff is attempting to allege a violation of U.S.C See endnote for current text of U.S.C along with amended text See Exhibit hereto copy of Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint Plaintiff alleges that Haley Robson a Palm Beach Community College student was an integral player in Epsteins Florida scheme she recruited girls ostensibly to give a wealthy man a massage for monetary compensation 2d Am Complaint In civil actions by Jane Doe No and Jane Doe No also before this court the Plaintiffs therein allege that Sarah Kellen Epsteins assistant was a part of Epsteins plan and scheme which reflected a particular pattern and method in the alleged recruiting of girls to come to EPSTEINs Palm Beach mansion and give him massages in exchange for money Jane Doe No.2 and Jane Doe No nd Am Complaint According to the complaint allegations Upon information and belief Epstein has a sexual preference and obsession for underage minor girls TS Once at Epsteins Palm Beach mansion the victim would be led up a flight of stairs to a bedroom that contained a massage table The girl would be alone with EPSTEIN EPSTEIN Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Jane Doe No Epstein Page4 would be wearing only a towel to cover his private area Epstein then would lay down on the massage table and perform one or more lewd lascivious and sexual acts including masturbation and touching the girl sexually nd Am Complaint Exhibit Plaintiff alleges that in she then approximately years old fell into Epsteins trap and became one of his victims ra Jane Doe No further alleges that Haley Robson brought her to Epsteins Palm Beach mansion where she was led up a flight of stairs a room with a massage table She was alone in the room when Epstein arrived wearing a towel to cover his private parts Plaintiff alleges that Epstein sexually assaulted her and masturbated during the massage 2d Am Complaint Plaintiff also alleges that EPSTEIN maintains his principal home in New York and also owns residences in New Mexico St Thomas and Palm Beach FL Id Upon information and belief Jeffrey Epstein carried out his scheme and assaulted girls in Florida New York and on his private island known as Little St James in St Thomas Id r9 The nature of the allegations is obviously serious The threat of criminal prosecution is real and present as EPSTEIN remains under the scrutiny of the United States Attorneys Office USAO which as explained more fully herein possesses the power to move forward with its criminal prosecution against EPSTEIN EPSTEIN entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement NPA with United States Attorney Generals Office for the Federal Southern District of Florida The terms and conditions of the NPA also entailed EPSTEIN entering into a Plea Agreement with the State Attorneys Office Palm Beach County State of Florida By its terms the NPA took effect on June As well pursuant to the NPA any criminal prosecution Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Jane Doe No Epstein Page against EPSTEIN is deferred as long as the terms and conditions of the NPA are fulfilled by EPSTEIN Criminal matters against EPSTEIN remain ongoing until the NPA expires by its terms in late and as long as the USAO determines that EPSTEIN has complied with those terms and conditions The threat of criminal prosecution against EPSTEIN by the USAO continues presently and through late The USAO possesses the right to declare that the agreement has been breached give EPSTEINs counsel notice and attempt to move forward with the prosecution In other words the fact that there exists a NPA does not mean that EPSTEIN is free from future criminal prosecution In fact the threat of prosecution is real substantial and present See attached Exhibit A Affidavit of Jack A Goldberger a board certified criminal defense attorney who has in the past and is currently representing EPSTEIN A Memorandum of Law Supporting Application of Constitutional Privileges The Fifth Amendment provides in relevant part that No person shall be compelled in any Criminal Case to be a witness against himself Hoffman United States U.S S.Ct citing Feldman United States U.S S.Ct L.Ed The Fifth Amendments privilege against self-incrimination is accorded liberal construction in favor of the right it was intended to secure The immediate and potential evils of compulsory self disclosure transcend any difficulties that the exercise of the privilege may impose on society in the detection and prosecution of a crime at and In re Keller Financial Svcs of Fla Inc B.R M.D Fla The privilege not only extends to answers that would in themselves support a conviction under a criminal statute but likewise embraces those which would furnish a link in the chain of evidence Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Jane Doe No Epstein Page6 needed to prosecute the claimant for a crime Id citing Blau United States U.S S.Ct The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination permits a person not to answer official questions put to him in any other proceeding civil or criminal formal or informal where the answers might incriminate him in future criminal proceedings Edwin Price F.2d th Cir citing Lefkowitz Turley U.S S.C See also Ohio Reiner U.S S.Ct The Fifth Amendment privilege is also available to those who claim innocence One of the Fifth Amendments basic functions is to protect innocent men who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances Malloy Hogan S.Ct the Fifth Amendments Self-Incrimination Clause applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment it would be incongruous to have different standards determine the validity of a claim of privilege based on the same feared prosecution depending on whether the claim was asserted in state or federal court Kastigar U.S U.S S.Ct The Fifth Amendment privilege can be asserted in any proceeding civil or criminal administrative or judicial investigatory or adjudicatory and it protects against any disclosures which the witness reasonably believes could be used in a criminal prosecution or could lead to other evidence that might be so used This Court has been zealous to safeguard the values which underlie the privilege Emphasis added As EPSTEIN is here the claimant must be confronted by substantial and real and not merely trifling or imaginary hazards of incrimination See generally United States Apfelbaum U.S S.Ct L.Ed.2d Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Jane Doe No Epstein Page See also United States Neff F.2d 9th Cir cert denied U.S S.Ct L.Ed.2d Information is protected by the privilege not only if it would support a criminal conviction but even if the responses would merely provide a lead or clue to evidence having a tendency to incriminate The United States Supreme Court has made clear that the scope of the Fifth Amendment Privilege also encompasses the circumstance where the act of producing documents in response to a subpoena or production request has a compelled testimonial aspect United States Hubbell U.S S.Ct see also Fisher United States U.S McCormick on Evidence Title Chap The Privilege Against Self-Incrimination th Ed In explaining the application of the privilege the Supreme Court stated We have held that the act of production itself may implicitly communicate statements of fact By producing documents in compliance with a subpoena the witness would admit that the papers existed were in his possession or control and were authentic."FN Moreover as was true in this case when the custodian of documents responds to a subpoena he may be compelled to take the witness stand and answer questions designed to determine whether he has produced everything demanded by the subpoena FN The answers to those questions as well as the act of production itself may certainly communicate information about the existence custody and authenticity of the documents Whether the constitutional privilege protects the answers to such questions or protects the act of production itself is a question that is distinct from the question whether the unprotected contents of the documents themselves are incriminating FN19 The issue presented in those cases was whether the act of producing subpoenaed documents not itself the making of a statement might nonetheless have some protected testimonial aspects The Court concluded that the act of production could constitute protected testimonial communication because it might entail implicit statements of fact by producing documents in compliance with a subpoena the witness would admit that the papers existed were in his possession or control and were authentic United States Doe U.S at and S.Ct Fisher U.S at S.Ct id at S.Ct concurring opinions See Braswell United States Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Jane Doe No Epstein Page U.S at S.Ct id at S.Ct dissenting opinion Thus the Court made clear that the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination applies to acts that imply assertions of fact An examination of the Courts application of these principles in other cases indicates the Courts recognition that in order to be testimonial an accuseds communication must itself explicitly or implicitly relate a factual assertion or disclose information Only then is a person compelled to be a witness against himself Doe United States U.S at S.Ct footnote omitted FN20 See App Thus for example after respondent had been duly sworn by the grand jury foreman the prosecutor called his attention to paragraph A of the Subpoena Rider reproduced in the Appendix infra at and asked whether he had produced all those documents App Finally the phrase in any criminal case in the text of the Fifth Amendment might have been read to limit its coverage to compelled testimony that is used against the defendant in the trial itself It has however long been settled that its protection encompasses compelled statements that lead to the discovery of incriminating evidence even though the statements themselves are not incriminating and are not introduced into evidence Thus a half century ago we held that a trial judge had erroneously rejected a defendants claim of privilege on the ground that his answer to the pending question would not itself constitute evidence of the charged offense As we explained The privilege afforded not only extends to answers that would in themselves support a conviction under a federal criminal statute but likewise embraces those which would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute the claimant for a federal crime Hoffman United States U.S S.Ct L.Ed Compelled testimony that communicates information that may lead to incriminating evidence is privileged even if the information itself is not inculpatory Doe United States U.S S.Ct L.Ed.2d Its the Fifth Amendments protection against the prosecutors use of incriminating information derived directly or indirectly from the compelled testimony of the respondent that is of primary relevance in this case In summarizing its holding regarding the application of the Fifth Amendment Privilege to a production request the Hubbell Court left no doubt that the constitutional privilege against self incrimination protects not only the target of a grand jury investigation from being compelled to answer questions designed to elicit information Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Jane Doe No Epstein Page about the existence of sources of potentially incriminating evidence but the privilege also has the same application to the testimonial aspect of a response to a subpoena seeking discovery of those sources At and The privilege against self-incrimination may be asserted during discovery when a litigant has reasonable grounds to believe that the response would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prove a crime against a litigant A witness including a civil defendant is entitled to invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege whenever there is a realistic possibility that the answer to a question could be used in anyway to convict the witness of a crime or could aid in the development of other incriminating evidence that can be used at trial kl_ Pillsbury Company Conboy U.S S.Ct See also Hubbell supra quoted above as to what is encompassed by the phrase in any criminal case contained in the Fifth Amendment As noted the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination is broad Hoffman In re Keller Financial Svcs supra To deny a witness the right to invoke the privilege the judge must be perfectly clear from a careful consideration of all the circumstances in the case that the witness is mistaken and that the answers cannot possibly have such tendency to incriminate kl_ at Recognizing the breadth and magnitude of this constitutional privilege the United States Supreme Court in discussing how a court is to analyze the application of the privilege stated It is for the court to say whether his silence is justified Rogers United States U.S S.Ct and to require him to answer if it clearly appears to the court that he is mistaken Temple Commonwealth Va However if the witness upon interposing his claim were required to prove the hazard in the sense in which a claim is usually required to be established in court he would be compelled to surrender the very protection which the privilege is designed to guarantee To sustain the privilege it need only be evident from the implications of the question in the Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Jane Doe No Epstein Page setting in which it is asked that a responsive answer to the question or an explanation of why it cannot be answered might be dangerous because injurious disclosure could result The trial judge in appraising the claim must be governed as much by his personal perception of the peculiarities of the case as by the facts actually in evidence Hoffman supra at Hoffman and its progeny establish that in view of the liberal construction of the provision protecting against self-incrimination after a witness has asserted the privilege he should be compelled to provide the requested information only if it clearly appears to the court that the witness was mistaken in his invocation of the privilege Emphasis added In re Keller Financial Svcs supra at citing Hoffman at Finally in order to preserve the privilege against self-incrimination as EPSTEIN has properly done is response to each discovery request the privilege must be asserted or one risks the loss or waiver of this liberty ensuring protection See generally U.S White F.2d th Cir First it ignores the settled principle which requires a witness to assert his Fifth Amendment rights A witness who testifies at any proceeding instead of asserting his Fifth Amendment rights loses the privilege A civil deponent cannot choose to answer questions with the expectation of later asserting the Fifth Amendment In the instant case the privilege applies as Defendant EPSTEIN has reasonable cause to apprehend danger from a direct answer The risk of incrimination resulting from answering each of the interrogatories and requests for production is substantial and real and not trifling or imaginary haphazards of communication See generally In re Keller Financial Svcs supra at Based on the nature of Plaintiffs claims along with the ongoing scrutiny of the USAO in the criminal matters EPSTEIN has Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Jane Doe No Epstein Page reasonable grounds to believe that his responses to the discovery would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prove a crime against him The very nature of the claims brought and the discovery being sought by Plaintiff in order to attempt to prove those claims establish a realistic possibility that the answer to an interrogatory or production request could be used in a type of way to convict EPSTEIN of a crime or aid in the development of other incriminating evidence that can be used at a criminal trial Under the circumstances of this case the threat of criminal prosecution is not imaginary See Exhibits A and to Plaintiffs Motion to Compel This Court is well aware of the peculiarities of this action as it has before it other civil actions against EPSTEIN all alleging similar underlying facts of sexual misconduct involving minors The allegations of this action and others entail EPSTEIN allegedly recruiting Plaintiff and other minors to come to his home in Palm Beach to give him massages which allegedly became sexually inappropriate in nature and EPSTEIN in turn would pay the minors See Chapter of Title United States Code Annotated and predicate acts specified in U.S.C Also applicable in upholding the assertion of Defendants Fifth Amendment privilege is the guarantee of effective assistance of counsel by the Sixth Amendment of the U.S Constitution See Yarborough Gentry S.Ct U.S L.Ed.2d Sixth Amendment guarantees criminal defendants effective assistance of counsel on remand F.3d The United States Constitutional guarantees are applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment Obviously EPSTEINs assertion of his constitutional privileges and protections is on the advice of counsel EPSTEIN continues to face criminal prosecution by the USAO until the expiration of the Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Jane Doe No Epstein Page NPA under the constitutional guarantee of effective assistance of counsel he is entitled to follow the recommended advice of his criminal defense attorney See Exhibit A hereto A review of the complaint allegations and the circumstances of this case including multiple civil actions attempting to allege claims based upon sexual abuse and exploitation of minors parallel criminal matter under which EPSTEIN continues to face prosecution for crimes based on the same allegations until the terms of the NPA have expired and been fulfilled as determined by the USAO establish that EPSTEINs invocation of his constitutional protections of the Fifth Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments be upheld otherwise such constitutional protections would be rendered meaningless Circuit Court State of Florida recently entered order upholding assertion of Fifth Amendment and constitutional based protections in response to discovery Further requiring the sustaining of Defendants assertions of his constitutional protections the th Judicial Circuit Court in and for Palm Beach County State of Florida recently entered an order sustaining Defendants assertion of his th th and th Amendment privileges and protections in response to Plaintiff A.C.s request for production in A.C Epstein Case No Al The Order dated February and the production requests and Defendants responses are attached hereto as Composite Exhibit Compare Requests for Production Nos and in the instant case with the production request no in Composite Exhibit hereto compare requests nos and in this case with nos and in Comp Ex and compare information sought in interrogatories nos and in this case with information sought in request nos and in Comp Ex Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Jane Doe No Epstein Page Even if the Court were to agree with Plaintiffs assertion that Defendant has asserted a blank privilege under the Fifth Amendment under the facts and circumstances of this case such assertion would be proper Plaintiff claims that Defendant has improperly asserted a blanket privilege to the discovery As stated above Defendant disagrees Defendant evaluated each and every discovery request in asserting applicable constitutional privileges and other objections The facts and circumstances of this case are such that in evaluating each of the interrogatories and production requests on an individual basis the constitutional protections asserted by Defendant apply to each The Court will note that the additional objections raised are also tailored to each interrogatory and production request Even the Courts analysis of the discovery will be on an individualized basis However simply for the sake of argument as to Plaintiffs assertion that Defendant has made a blanket assertion under the facts and circumstances of this case such an assertion is proper In allowing a blanket assertion Courts have recognized a narrow exception to the rule that the assertion of the privilege must be to each specific question The Courts including this Circuit acknowledged an exception where based on its knowledge of the case and of the testimony expected from the witness the trial court can conclude that the witness could legitimately refuse to answer essentially all relevant questions United States Goodwin F.2d 5th Cir Fla United States Tsui F.2d 9th Cir This exception is narrow and is applicable where the trial judge has some special or extensive knowledge of the case that allows evaluation of the claimed Fifth Amendment privilege even in the absence of specific questions to the witness lg See also U.S Smith Fed.Appx th Cir Ga A district court must make a particularized inquiry evaluating whether the privilege applies with respect to each specific area that the questioning Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Jane Doe No Epstein Page party wishes to explore Melchor Moreno F.2d at The witness may be totally excused from testifying only if the court finds that he could legitimately refuse to answer essentially all relevant questions United States Goodwin F.2d 5th See also State of Washington DelGado P.3d Wa Ct of App Div There is a narrow exception allowing a blanket privilege where based on its knowledge of the case and of the testimony expected of the witness the trial court can conclude that the witness could legitimately refuse to answer essentially all relevant questions For the exception to apply the trial judge must have some special or extensive knowledge of the case that allows evaluation of the claimed privilege even in absence of specific questions to the witness Plaintiffs statement of the law in section IV pp of her motion is incorrect under the circumstances Contrary to Plaintiffs assertion an adverse inference from invocation of the Fifth Amendment in a civil case is not always permitted In section IV pp of Plaintiffs motion to compel Plaintiffs general claim that an adverse interest based on a defendants invocation of the Fifth Amendment in a civil case may be made is improper under the facts and circumstances of this case Plaintiff is correct as to the general rule that adverse inferences may be drawn in the civil context when Defendants invoke the privilege in refusing to testify in response to probative evidence offered against them F.T.C Transnet Wireless Corp F.Supp.2d fn citing Mitchell United States U.S S.Ct L.Ed.2d However there exists a well recognized exception to the general rule Courts may not draw adverse inferences however if it is the sole basis for Plaintiffs prima facie case or will cause the automatic Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Jane Doe No Epstein Page entry of summary judgment See generally F.T.C supra at fn.4 citing United States Premises Located at Route F.2d 11th citing Pervis State Farm and Cas Co F.2d 11th See also S.E.C Keith Group of Companies Inc WL S.D Fla When a party is a defendant in both a civil and criminal case and is forced to choose between waiving his Fifth Amendment privilege or losing the civil case on summary judgment an exception to the general rule applies In such a situation the Court may not make an adverse inference about the partys refusal to testify Accordingly Defendants assertion that an adverse interest under the circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights would be unreasonable and would therefore violate the constitution is both proper and required to be upheld at this time Plaintiffs Amended First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant Listed below is each of the interrogatories propounded by Plaintiff As noted above Defendant responded to each interrogatory separately in raising his constitutional privileges and guarantees and in the alternative raising specific other applicable objections to each See Exhibit A to Plaintiffs motion to compel No Identify all employees who performed work of services inside the Palm Beach Residence No Identify all Employees not identified in response to interrogatory no who at any time came to Defendants Palm Beach Residence No Identify all persons who came to the Palm Beach Residence and who gave a massage or were asked to give a massage to Defendant No Identify all persons who came to the New York Residence and who gave a massage or were asked to give a massage to Defendant No Identify all persons who came to the New Mexico Residence and who gave a massage or were asked to give a massage to Defendant Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Jane Doe No Epstein Page No Identify all persons who came to the St Thomas Residence and who gave a massage or were asked to give a massage to Defendant No List all the time periods during which Jeffrey Epstein was present in the State of Florida including for each the date he arrive and the date he departed No Identify all of Jeffrey Epstein health care providers in the past ten years including without limitation psychologists psychiatrists mental health counselors physicians hospitals and treatment facilities No Not at issue List all items in Jeffrey Epsteins possession in Palm Beach Florida at any time during the period of these interrogatories which were used or intended to be used as sexual aids sex toys massage aids and/or vibrators and for each list the manufacturer model number if applicable and its present location No Identify all persons who provide transportation services to Jeffrey Epstein whether as employees or independent contractors including without limitation chauffeurs and aircraft crew No Identify all telephone numbers used by Epstein including cellular phones and land lines in any of his residences by stating the complete telephone number and the name of the service provider No Identify all telephone numbers of employees of Epstein used in the course or scope of their employment including cellular phones and land lines in any of his residences by stating the complete telephone number and the name of the service provider No List the names and addresses of all persons who are believed or known by you your agents or your attorneys to have any knowledge concerning any of the issues in this lawsuit and specify the subject matter about which the witness has knowledge No State the name and address of every person known to you your agents or your attorneys who has knowledge about possession or custody or control of any model plat map drawing motion picture videotape or photograph pertaining to any fact or issue involved in this controversy and describe as to each what item such person has the name and address of the person who took or prepared it and the date it was taken or prepared No Identify all persons who have made a claim complaint demand or threat against you relating to alleged sexual abuse or misconduct on a minor and for each provide the following information a The persons full name last known address and telephone number The persons attorney if represented The date of the alleged incident If a civil case has been filed by or on behalf of the person the case number and identifying information Fn of Plaintiffs motion states Plaintiff does not challenge at this time Defendants Fifth Amendment privilege in response to interrogatory no which seeks information of Defendants sexual aids Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Jane Doe No Epstein Page No State the facts upon which you intend to rely for each denial of a pleading allegation and for each affirmative defense you intend to make in these cases No Identify all witnesses from whom you have obtained or requested a written transcribed or recorded statement relating to any issue in these cases and for each in addition to the witnes identifying information state the date of the statement and identify the person taking the statement Emphasis added Defendant will address interrogatories nos and above as the analysis as to the application of the constitutional privileges and protections is straightforward Nos through ask Defendant to identify anyone who gave massages or were asked to give massages to him Clearly any answer to these interrogatories involve compelled statements that would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute the Defendant in future criminal proceedings or even support a criminal conviction These interrogatories seek the precise information that the USAO investigated and continues to scrutinize See Exhibit A hereto Any answer to no which seeks information relating to alleged sexual abuse or misconduct on a minor on its face would also lead to incriminating evidence protected under the Fifth Amendment privilege The same is true for no which seeks facts upon which you intend to rely for each denial of a pleading allegation and for each affirmative defense and Nos and which seek to compel EPSTEIN to list any persons or witnesses in having any knowledge concerning any of the issues in this lawsuit in having knowledge about possession or custody or control of any model plat map drawing motion picture videotape or photograph pertaining to any fact or issue involved in this controversy and in whom you have obtained or requested a written transcribed or recorded statement relating to any issue in these cases In answering no Defendant would be compelled to testify as to his version Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Jane Doe No Epstein Page of the facts and in asserting affirmative defenses he would further be compelled to admit Plaintiffs version of the facts In listing such person or witness the Defendant is further compelled to describe the subject matter nature of the items and or statements of such witness or person Again the allegations of this action are such that in answering these interrogatories Defendant is being compelled to incriminate himself in crimes By answering the specified interrogatories Defendant is being compelled to testify as to the issues and facts not only asserted in Plaintiffs complaint but also to facts which present a real and substantial danger of self-incrimination Again the information sought all relate to claims of sexual abuse and exploitation of a minor See Chapter of Title United States Code Annotated and predicate acts specified in U.S.C and U.S.C Any answer to nos and would also be compelled testimony that tends to show that the witness himself EPSTEIN committed a crime based on the nature of the allegations As noted above Plaintiff alleges that at least one of EPSTEINs employees Sarah Kellen was part of the scheme or plan of sexual misconduct exploitation and abuse of the girls No is asking for any employee who performed work or services and no is asking EPSTEIN to testify as to anyone who came to his Palm Beach mansion Such compelled testimony is protected under the Fifth Amendment as the answers would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute the claimant for a crime Answering the questions as to who came and went from his Palm Beach mansion would provide a lead or clue to evidence having a tendency to incriminate See also U.S.C Coercion and Enticement This analysis also applies to interrogatory nos and which seek respectively all the time Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Jane Doe No Epstein Page periods during which Jeffrey Epstein was present in the State of Florida including for each the date he arrive and the date he departed and all persons who provide transportation services to Jeffrey Epstein whether as employees or independent contractors including without limitation chauffeurs and aircraft crew Plaintiff alleges a time period of as to when the alleged to when the sexual misconduct including sexual assault of a minor took place in Palm Beach Florida Plaintiff also alleges that EPSTEIN engaged in the same scheme and plan against minor girls at his other places of residence Again EPSTEINs answer as to his travels to and from Florida and within Florida would be a link in the chain of evidence needed to convict him of a crime The privilege against self-incrimination also applies to Nos and which seek respectively all telephone numbers used by Epstein including cellular phones and land lines in any of his residences by stating the complete telephone number and the name of the service provider and all telephone numbers of employees of Epstein used in the course or scope of their employment including cellular phones and land lines in any of his residences by stating the complete telephone number and the name of the service provider Again such compelled testimony would self-incriminate EPSTEIN based on the elements required to establish a violation of the criminal statute U.S.C Such information would be a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute EPSTEIN for a crime Finally the compelled testimony sought in no all of Jeffrey Epstein health care providers in the past ten years including without limitation psychologists psychiatrists mental health counselors physicians hospitals and treatment facilities Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Jane Doe No Epstein Page could also lead to a link in the chain of evidence to convict EPSTEIN based on the allegations which are criminal in nature sexual misconduct with minors and a plan and scheme to recruit such minors to fulfill Epsteins sexual preference and obsession See I8 of complaint Upon information and belief Epstein has a sexual preference and obsession for underage minor girls As explained in Hoffman EPSTEIN is not required to prove the hazard in the sense in which a claim is usually required to be established in court The United States Supreme Court recognized placing such a requirement on a person asserting his constitutional privilege is in effect tantamount compelling him to surrender the very protection which the privilege is designed to guarantee Under the facts and circumstances of this case it is evident from the implications of each of the interrogatories or an explanation of why they cant be answered might be dangerous because injurious disclosure might result Id Accordingly under applicable law and the facts of this case Defendants assertion of the constitutional privilege and guarantee under the th th and th Amendments of the United States Constitution are required to be upheld Plaintiffs First Production Request To Defendant The constitutional protections are equally applicable to the request for production propounded on Defendant by Plaintiff See Exhibit to Plaintiffs motion to compel The requests are as follows Request No The list provided to you by the U.S Attorney of individuals whom the U.S Attorney was prepared to name in an Indictment as victims of an offense by Mr Epstein enumerated in U.S.C Request No All documents referring or relating to the United States agreement with Defendant to defer federal prosecution subject to certain conditions including without limitation Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Jane Doe No Epstein Page the operative agreement between Defendant and the United States and all amendments revisions and supplements thereto Request No All documents referring or relating to Defendants agreement with the State of Florida on his plea of guilty to violations of Florida Criminal Statutes including without limitation the operative plea agreement and any amendments revisions and supplements thereto Request No.4 All documents obtained in discovery or investigation relating to either the Florida Criminal Case or the Federal Criminal Case including without limitation documents obtained from any federal state or local law enforcement agency the State Attorneys office and the United States Attorneys office Request No All telephone records and other documents reflecting telephone calls made by or to Defendant including without limitation telephone logs and message pads Request No All telephone records and other documents reflecting telephone calls made by or to Defendant including without limitation telephone logs and message pads reflecting telephone calls made by or to employees Request No All surveillance videos slides film videotape digital recording or other audio or video depiction or image of the Palm Beach Residence Request No All documents referring or relating to Plaintiff Jane Doe No including without limitation web pages social networking site pages correspondence videotapes and audiotapes Request No Not at issue All statements taken transcribed or recorded from any person referring or relating to Defendants sexual conduct massages given to Defendant or any issue in these cases Request No All documents referring to or relating to air travel and aircraft used by Defendant including without limitation flight logs and flight manifests Request No Any and all documents referring to or relating to modeling agencies including but not limited to documents relating to or reflecting communications with female models Request No Not at issue All photographs videotapes digital images and other documents depicting or showing females who at the time thereof were under the age of which were taken or created by or for Defendant and not intended for sale commercially to the public Request No Not at issue All photographs and painting of females which were displayed in any of Defendants homes or residences in the time frame of these requests including without limitation photographs in standing or sitting frames or wall frames Plaintiff concedes that the act of producing items in response to request no concerning witness statements and requests nos concerning photographs or images of females may implicate the Fifth Amendment Plaintiffs motion fn Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Jane Doe No Epstein Page Request No Any and all documents consisting of referring or relating to communications between Jeffrey Epstein and Haley Robson including but not limited to letters notes text messages messages on social networking sites and e-mails Request No Any and all documents consisting of referring or relating to communications between Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen including but not limited to letters notes text messages messages on social networking sites and e-mails Request No Any and all documents consisting of referring or relating to communications between Jeffrey Epstein and Nada Marcinkova including but not limited to letters notes text messages messages on social networking sites and e-mails Request No Any and all documents consisting of referring or relating to communications between Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell including but not limited to letters notes text messages messages on social networking sites and e-mails Request No Any and all documents and photographs placed by Defendant at any time in the period of these requests on a social networking website including without limitation Facebook.com and MySpace.com Request No Any and all documents reflecting or consisting of communications between Jeffrey Epstein and MC2 Models or Jean-Luc Brunel relating or referring to females coming into the United States from other countries to pursue a career in modeling including but not limited to letters notes and e-mails Request No Any and all documents referring or relating to gifts or loans to females under the age of including but not limited to notes receipts and car rental agreements Request No Any and all personal calendars or schedules of or for Jeffrey Epstein from January to the present Request No All documents written by Jeffrey Epstein consisting of personal thoughts feelings or descriptions of events incidents or occurrences in Defendants life including without limitation any diaries of Jeffrey Epstein Request No All documents referring to or relating to Jeffrey Epsteins purchase or consumption of prescription medicine As discussed in the supporting memorandum law herein it is well settled that the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination also encompasses situations as here where the act of production itself involves a testimonial compulsion Hubbell supra In responding to each request EPSTEIN would be compelled admit that such documents existed admit that the documents were in his possession or control and were authentic In other words the very act of production of the category of documents Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Jane Doe No Epstein Page requested would implicitly communicate statements of fact Hubbell supra Hoffman supra The act of production might not only provide evidence to support a conviction but also a link in the chain of evidence for prosecution Such compulsion to produce is the same as being compelled to testify The acts of EPSTEIN in being required to produce the requested documents imply assertions of fact admitting the documents exist admitting the documents are in his possession or control and admitting the documents are authentic Again in reading each of the production requests in Nos and like the interrogatories it is clear that the very act of production of such documents could implicate EPSTEIN in a crime As noted above EPSTEIN is constitutionally entitled to follow the advice of counsel in asserting the applicable Fifth Amendment privilege under the guarantee of effective assistance of counsel Accordingly based on the facts and circumstances of this case and under applicable law Defendants assertion of the protections afforded under the th th and th Amendments of the United States Constitution are required to be upheld II Defendants objections made in addition to the constitutional based protections are required to be upheld A Constitutional issues are required to be addressed first Obviously the constitutional issues raised in Defendants response permeate not only discovery but the entire action itself Defendant would suggest to the Court that the constitutional issues be decided before the additional objections are addressed In fact in arguing certain of the additional objections Defendants constitutional rights Should this Court overrule Defendants constitutional based privileges and guarantees Defendant will likely take an immediate appeal of such ruling Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Jane Doe No Epstein Page under the th th and th Amendments are clearly implicated In setting forth factual reasons to support the additional objections Defendant is being compelled to testify in response to a specific discovery request thus impeding his privilege against self incrimination and guarantee of effective assistance of counsel The same is true if Defendant is required to prepare privilege logs In section IV of her motion Plaintiff recognized in addressing Defendants assertion that an adverse inference would be improper that It is first necessary to determine whether the Fifth Amendment privilege is validly asserted in response to particular questions Thus Defendant also requests that should this Court rule that the Fifth Amendment does not apply to certain of the discovery requests that Defendant be given an additional days from the date of the order thereon in which to assert other objections and privileges In alternative and addition to the applicable constitutional based protections Defendant also raised objections to each of the interrogatories and requests for production See sections VI and VII pp of Plaintiffs motion to compel Defendant will address Plaintiffs arguments pertaining to the additional objections in the order presented in Plaintiffs motion Interrogatory No Production Request No Section A of plaintiffs motion pertains to interrogatory no Identify all of Jeffrey Epstein health care providers in the past ten years including without limitation psychologists psychiatrists mental health counselors physicians hospitals and treatment facilities In addition to the constitutional protections Defendant also stated In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges Defendant also objects as the interrogatory is overbroad and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of the pending action nor does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Jane Doe No Epstein Page the discovery of admissible evidence In addition such information is privileged pursuant to Rule Fed Evict and Fla.Evict Code In addition such information is protected by the provisions of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act HIPAA Federal Rule of Evidence provides that Relevant evidence means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence Pursuant to Rule the scope of discovery is as follows Unless otherwise limited by court order the scope of discovery is as follows Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any partys claim or defense--including the existence description nature custody condition and location of any documents or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons who know of any discoverable matter For good cause the court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence All discovery is subject to the limitations imposed by Rule Plaintiffs complaint alleges a time period of as to when the alleged sexual misconduct of Defendant occurred Plaintiffs request seeks to have EPSTEIN list all health care providers and hospitals and treatment facilities over a ten year period On its face the interrogatory is overbroad as it seeks information over a year period that is neither relevant nor does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence EPSTEINs physical health is not in issue in this matter Whether or not he was treated for the flu over the past ten years is not relevant to any partys claim or defense in this matter The same is true for whether or not Defendant received treatment for a physical ailment at a hospital or facility over a year period Plaintiff fails to tailor her question such that it can be determined what type of information she is seeking regarding health care providers and hospitals and treatment facilities The year period is overbroad as it seeks information approximately years prior to and four years after the alleged incident Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Jane Doe No Epstein Page As to psychologists psychiatrists mental health counselors and the hospitals and treatment facilities where Defendant may or may not have received treatment from such professionals such information would be protected under Fed Evid Rule and Fla.R.Evid Rule provides Except as otherwise required by the Constitution of the United States or provided by Act of Congress or in rules prescribed by the Supreme Court pursuant to statutory authority the privilege of a witness person government State or political subdivision thereof shall be governed by the principles of the common law as they may be interpreted by the courts of the United States in the light of reason and experience However in civil actions and proceedings with respect to an element of a claim or defense as to which State law supplies the rule of decision the privilege of a witness person government State or political subdivision thereof shall be determined in accordance with State law Emphasis added Plaintiff alleges diversity jurisdiction and thus state law of Florida controls application of the privilege nd Am Complaint rs The elements of Plaintiffs alleged claims in Counts I Sexual Battery and Counts II Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress are also controlled by state law Erie R.Co Tompkins S.Ct Accordingly the privileges recognized under state law apply to this action under Rule See for example Brickell Associates Q.B.E Ins Co F.R.D S.D Fla Attorney-client privilege is governed by state law in diversity actions Fla Stat provides A patient has a privilege to refuse to disclose and to prevent any other person from disclosing confidential communications or records made for the purpose of diagnosis or treatment of the patients mental or emotional condition including alcoholism and other drug addiction between the patient and the psychotherapist or persons who are participating in the diagnosis or treatment under the direction of the psychotherapist This privilege includes any diagnosis made and advice given by the psychotherapist in the course of that relationship As summarized in C.L Judd So.2d 2d DCA Fla Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Jane Doe No Epstein Page Under the psychotherapist-patient privilege a patient has a privilege to refuse to disclose confidential information or records made for the purpose of diagnosis or treatment of mental conditions including any diagnoses made by the psychotherapist Fla Stat see Pauker Olson So.2d Fla 2d DCA The psychotherapist-patient privilege does not apply during involuntary commitment proceedings when there is a court-ordered mental examination or when the patient raises and relies on the issue of his or her mental condition in litigation as part of any claim or defense Roberson So.2d at State Famiglietti So.2d Fla 3d DCA The privilege does not allow the invasion of a patients privileged communications with his or her psychotherapist Roberson So.2d at None of the three situations listed as exceptions to the privilege above exist in the present case to make the privilege inapplicable Plaintiffs position is that the protection afforded under Fla Stat does not apply in a case of child abuse under Florida Statute See endnote for full text of Fla Stat.2 rs Motion See Carson Jackson So.2d Fla th DCA and Doherty John Doe No So.2d th DCA A reading of these cases establishes that does not provide Plaintiff with a carte blanche access to Defendants medical history The Court is required to hold an in camera inspection to determine if the information sought by Plaintiff relates to communications involving known or expected child abuse Id As stated above on its face the interrogatory is overbroad and encompasses information that has no relevance to the claims or defenses nor is it reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence Compelling Defendant to identify each and every health care provider including psychologists psychiatrists mental health counselors and hospital or treatment facility over the past ten year period is not proper at this time Plaintiff should be required to limit the information Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Jane Doe No Epstein Page sought as well as the time period in her interrogatory thus allowing the Defendant and Court to determine whether such information is relevant and discoverable As to Defendants HIPAA Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act objection as noted in the case cited in Plaintiffs motion Allen Woodford WL E.D Cal HIPPA institutes procedural safeguards to protect the privacy of an individuals medical information and history In the context of HIPAA Courts have recognized three methods of health care discovery assuming its relevant in civil litigation Obtaining a patient authorization that complies with the requirements and criteria tailored to the specific case of HIPAA as set forth in C.F.R Court Order which also complies with the requirements of HIPAA ensuring that the privacy and confidentiality of the information is protected and Subpoena or discovery request which again comply with the strictures of HIPAA including that the person whose records are being sought has been given proper notice See Handbook of Federal Civil Discovery And Disclosure 2d Edition Chap Sect A Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act HIPAA Discovery of health care information in civil litigation and Graham Dacheikh So.2d at fn 2d DCA Fla Even under HIPAA if the records are produced during normal discovery they are typically produced in a manner that restricts the persons who may access the documents and requires their return at the end of the litigation See C.F.R In production request no Plaintiff seeks All documents referring to or relating to Jeffrey Epsteins purchase or consumption of prescription medicine On its face this production request is over broad and seeks non-relevant information For example Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Jane Doe No Epstein Page whether or not EPSTEIN takes prescription medicine for purely as an example and for argument blood pressure or cholesterol control has absolutely no relevance to this action Accordingly EPSTEINs objections to interrogatory no and production request no are required to be upheld Plaintiff is not entitled to carte blanche discovery of Defendants medical information Overbroad relevance objections to discovery As to Plaintiffs argument regarding Defendants objections based on relevancy and the over-breadth of Plaintiffs discovery requests Part VI A pp of Is Motion To Compel in her motion Plaintiff represents that she is seeking the discovery for a time period beginning January to the present As to interrogatory nos and Defendant disagrees that time period proposed by Plaintiff is reasonable Plaintiffs complaint alleges that the conduct involving her took place in The scope and breadth of these interrogatories evidences that information sought has absolutely no relevance and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence The same is true for production request nos and As discussed more fully below the length of the time period along with the scope and breadth of the information and items sought makes such requests improper under the rules governing discovery Without waiving any of the other alternative and additional objections asserted Defendant does not disagree with the time period of January to present as to interrogatory nos and and production request nos and Defendant addresses the additional alternative objections below Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Jane Doe No Epstein Page Plaintiffs motion to compel fails to address each of the discovery requests on an individual basis with respect to the objections asserted A reading of each of the discovery requests set forth above herein establishes that each of the interrogatories and production requests is overbroad on its face and thus seeks non-relevant information All of the interrogatories and production requests are phrased such that they encompass all persons all Employees all telephone numbers all documents any and all and so on Contrary to Plaintiffs assertion the definition of employee is on its face over broad and encompasses non-relevant information pp of Plaintiffs motion Plaintiff should be required to restrict the information that is sought to the issues relevant to this action and the claims asserted by her and defenses to those claims Work Product Attorney Client Privilege Plaintiff asserts that Defendant failed to provide a privilege log in asserting his objections based on attorney-client and work product privileges to interrogatories nos and and production requests nos and First a reading of the particular discovery requests reveals that the encompass attorney-client and work product privileged material Secondly as set forth above herein in being compelled to create a privileged log is in essence compelled testimony to which Defendants constitutional protections would apply Again as stated previously it makes judicial sense to decide the constitutional issues first before deciding the additional objections to the discovery requests Rules and Fed Evid Code Fla Stat Production requests nos Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Jane Doe No Epstein Page Production requests nos set forth above herein all pertain to the negotiation and eventual entering into of a Non-Prosecution Agreement NPA with the United States Attorneys Office USAO for the Southern District of Florida See part I above herein Again the constitutional issues raised in Defendants response permeate these discovery requests The full text of Federal Evidence Rules and and Florida Statute are set forth in endnote Under the protections afforded by these evidentiary rules such documents are not subject to discovery Third Party Privacy Rights In production requests nos and Defendant has raised the additional objection that the privacy rights of third parties are implicated See specified requests As noted by the United States Supreme Court in Eisenstadtv Baird U.S S.Ct atfn In Stanley U.S at S.Ct at the Court stated A lso fundamental is the right to be free except in very limited circumstances from unwanted governmental intrusions into ones privacy The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness They recognized the significance of mans spiritual nature of his feelings and of his intellect They knew that only a part of the pain pleasure and satisfactions of life are to be found in material things They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs their thoughts their emotions and their sensations They conferred as against the Government the right to be let alone-the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized man Citations omitted The fundamental right of privacy is not only guaranteed under by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution but also under the Constitution of the State of Florida Art I Sect As summarized by the Florida Supreme Court in Shaktman State So.2d Fla The right of privacy assured to Floridas citizens demands that individuals be free from uninvited observation of or interference in those aspects of their lives which fall within the ambit of this zone of privacy unless the intrusion is Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Jane Doe No Epstein Page warranted by the necessity of a compelling state interest In an opinion which predated the adoption of section the First District aptly characterized the nature of this right A fundamental aspect of personhoods integrity is the power to control what we shall reveal about our intimate selves to whom and for what purpose Bryon Harless Schaffer Reid Assocs Inc State ex rel Schellenberg So.2d Fla 1st DCA quashed and remanded on other grounds So.2d Because this power is exercised in varying degrees by differing individuals the parameters of an individuals privacy can be dictated only by that individual The central concern is the inviolability of ones own thought person and personal action The inviolability of that right assures its preeminence over majoritarian sentiment and thus cannot be universally defined by consensus Emphasis added Clearly the nature of the questions and production requests identified would require EPSTEIN to identify third parties and necessarily thwart such individuals rights to assert their constitutional right of privacy as guaranteed under the United States and Florida Constitutions See generally Eisenstadt Baird supra at The right encompasses privacy in ones sexual matters and is not limited to the marital relationship Ill Conclusion Under applicable law and the facts and circumstances of this case Defendants assertions of his constitutional privileges and guarantees are required to be upheld To rule otherwise would render EPSTEINs constitutional protections meaningless Also the constitution issues so permeate this action that this Court should first decide those issues before deciding the merits of any additional objections raised by EPSTEIN EPSTEIN is between the proverbial rock and a hard place in asserting is constitutional guarantees and then being compelled to make factual arguments regarding the Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Jane Doe No Epstein Page application of his additional objections EPSTEINs additional objections as discussed herein are also required to be upheld WHEREFORE Defendant requests that this Court deny Plaintiffs motion to compel and uphold EPSTEINs assertion of his constitutional protections and in the alternative or in addition to uphold his addi requests laintiffs discovery 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 record identified on the following Service List in the manner specified by CM/ECF on this th day of March Stuart Mermelstein Esq Adam Horowitz Esq Mermelstein Horowitz P.A Biscayne Boulevard Suite Miami FL Fax ssm sexabuseattorney.com ahorowitz sexabuseattorney.com Counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe Jack Alan Goldberger Atterbury Goldberger Weiss P.A Australian Avenue South Suite West Palm Beach FL Fax jagesq bellsouth.net Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein I By tt RO Florida Bar No rcrit bclclaw.com MICHAEL PIKE ESQ Florida Bar mpike bclclaw.com BURMAN CRITTON LUTTIER COLEMAN Flagler Drive Suite Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Jane Doe No Epstein Page Title Crimes and Criminal Procedure Part I Crimes West Palm Beach FL Phone Fax Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein Chapter Transportation for Illegal Sexual Activity and Related Crimes Coercion and enticement a Whoever knowingly persuades induces entices or coerces any individual to travel in interstate or foreign commerce or in any Territory or Possession of the United States to engage in prostitution or in any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense or attempts to do so shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than years or both Whoever using the mail or any facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States knowingly persuades induces entices or coerces any individual who has not attained the age of years to engage in prostitution or any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense or attempts to do so shall be fined under this title and imprisoned not less than years or for life Amendments Subsec Pub.L struck out not less than years and not more than years and inserted not less than years orfor life Amendments Subsec a Pub.L a A struck out and inserted Subsec Pub.L a struck out and inserted Pub.L A i struck out imprisoned and inserted and imprisoned not less than years and Pub.L A ii struck out or both at end of subsec Abrogation of privileged communications in cases involving child abuse abandonment or neglect The privileged quality of communication between husband and wife and between any professional person and his or her patient or client and any other privileged communication except that between attorney and client or the privilege provided in as such communication relates both to the competency of the witness and to the exclusion of confidential communications shall not apply to any communication involving the perpetrator or alleged perpetrator in any situation involving known or suspected child abuse abandonment or neglect and shall not constitute grounds for failure to report as required by regardless of the source of the information requiring the report failure to cooperate with law enforcement or the department in its activities pursuant to this chapter or Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Jane Doe No Epstein Page failure to give evidence in any judicial proceeding relating to child abuse abandonment or neglect Emphasis added Relevancy and Its Limits Rule Compromise and Offers to Compromise a Prohibited uses.--Evidence of the following is not admissible on behalf of any party when offered to prove liability for invalidity of or amount of a claim that was disputed as to validity or amount or to impeach through a prior inconsistent statement or contradiction furnishing or offering or promising to furnish--or accepting or offering or promising to accept a valuable consideration in compromising or attempting to compromise the claim and conduct or statements made in compromise negotiations regarding the claim except when offered in a criminal case and the negotiations related to a claim by a public office or agency in the exercise of regulatory investigative or enforcement authority Permitted uses.--This rule does not require exclusion if the evidence is offered for purposes not prohibited by subdivision a Examples of permissible purposes include proving a witnes bias or prejudice negating a contention of undue delay and proving an effort to obstruct a criminal investigation or prosecution CREDIT Pub.L Jan Stat Apr eff Dec Rule Inadmissibility of Pleas Plea Discussions and Related Statements Except as otherwise provided in this rule evidence of the following is not in any civil or criminal proceeding admissible against the defendant who made the plea or was a participant in the plea discussions a plea of guilty which was later withdrawn a plea of nolo contendere any statement made in the course of any proceedings under Rule of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure or comparable state procedure regarding either of the foregoing pleas or any statement made in the course of plea discussions with an attorney for the prosecuting authority which do not result in a plea of guilty or which result in a plea of guilty later withdrawn However such a statement is admissible i in any proceeding wherein another statement made in the course of the same plea or plea discussions has been introduced and the statement ought in fairness be considered contemporaneously with it or ii in a criminal proceeding for perjury or false statement if the statement was made by the defendant under oath on the record and in the presence of counsel Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Jane Doe No Epstein Page CREDIT Pub.L Jan Stat Pub.L Dec Stat Apr eff Dec Florida Evidence Code Offer to plead guilty nolo contendere withdrawn pleas of guilty Evidence of a plea of guilty later withdrawn a plea of nolo contendere or an offer to plead guilty or nolo contendere to the crime charged or any other crime is inadmissible in any civil or criminal proceeding Evidence of statements made in connection with any of the pleas or offers is inadmissible except when such statements are offered in a prosecution under chapter CREDIT Laws Laws
69,212 characters
