Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of against Epstein On February Plaintiff filed her Second Amended Complaint against Epstein which alleges three causes of action against him Count I Sexual Assault and Battery Count II Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress and Count Ill Coercion and Enticement to Sexual Activity in violation of U.S.C The Second Amended Complaint appears to raise both Federal and Florida State substantive issues DE Plaintiff alleges among other things that she is entitled to money damages pursuant to U.S.C.A and in the wherefore clause and by virtue her claims that Epstein sexually battered her and caused her emotional distress Plaintiff alleges separate counts against Mr Epstein on which he must conduct discovery to defend this case In particular JANE DOE claims in Count I for sexual battery that she has and will suffer severe and permanent traumatic injuries including mental psychological and emotional damages 2nd Arn Comp DE In Count II for Sexual Battery plaintiff claims entitlement to recover for the impairment to her mental and emotional health 2nd Arn Comp DE and severe emotional distress and severe mental anguish and pain 2nd Arn Comp DE In Count Ill for Coercion and Enticement to Sexual Activity in violation of U.S.C plaintiff claims entitlement to recover for personal injury including mental psychological and emotional damages 2nd Arn Comp DE Plaintiff also claims entitlement to Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of punitive damages and actual and compensatory damages DE See also Exhibit A Interrogatory Response Number Epstein has a constitutional due process right to defend himself and to seek the production of information that will assist in his defense of the allegations in the 2nd Amended Complaint In this case Plaintiffs counsel objected to Epstein serving subpoenas on Plaintiffs treating physicians and other third parties Thus this motion seeks to identify JANE DOE in the style of this case to identify JANE DOE in various third-party subpoenas for discovery purposes and alternatively to dismiss this entire action sua sponte The undersigneds experience in Jane Doe lawsuits is that once a Plaintiff is identified other individuals come forward in the discovery phase with information which often directly contradicts allegations as to the events and damages For instance witnesses may testify that Plaintiff was paid by others for similar sexual acts she claims Mr Epstein forced upon her or that she willingly participated in certain act that would negate or lessen her damages This goes directly to Plaintiffs damage claim Likewise subpoenas must be issued to third-party treaters and current and former employers and those subpoenas will seek to obtain records related directly to Plaintiffs claims and her damages i.e her claim for severe and permanent traumatic injuries including mental psychological and emotional damages and loss of self-esteem as referenced above Cherenfant Nationwide Credit Inc WL S.D Fla order allowing discovery of medical records consistent with Plaintiffs allegations in complaint Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of This too goes directly to Plaintiffs damage claims Medical providers employers co-employees etc have direct and relevant personal knowledge and observations regarding damages i.e emotional state activities self-esteem etc Fed.R.Civ.Pro allows for broad discovery Epstein is not required to rely solely on Plaintiffs discovery responses in defending this case nor is Epstein required by any statute or law to rely only upon what Plaintiff produces in discovery or may obtain from her own medical treaters through her counsel and to then provide to Epstein only after Plaintiff has reviewed same In certain related state court actions involving Epstein the undersigned offered to serve certain subpoenas on the medical treaters and other third-parties with full name date of birth and Plaintiffs social security number last four digits but agreed that the subpoenas filed with the clerk would be redacted Several attorneys agreed to this procedure in those cases In Federal Court subpoenas are not filed with the clerk Thus in this matter the undersigned offered to serve the third-party subpoenas with plaintiffs full name date of birth and social security number last four digits and would agree to redact any identifying information on any documents filed with this court if that ultimately became necessary As discussed below Plaintiffs counsel did not agree Further Plaintiffs counsel claims a HIPPA complaint protective order is necessary Such is not the case when a Plaintiff places her mental emotional psychological and physical condition at issue Moreover when an order from the court is attached to the Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Subpoena treaters and other third parties produce the records and show up to the depositions with the records requested because the deponent knows what to bring by virtue of knowing the identity of the Plaintiff Epsteins counsel intends to serve and depose witnesses duces tecum If Epstein is not permitted to identify JANE DOE how will any deponent know who the parties are and what to bring to the deposition pursuant to the duces tecum Further how will Epstein be able to defend the claims Just like the Plaintiff Epstein is entitled to due process While it is within the sound discretion of this court to allow a party to proceed anonymously Plaintiff should not attempt to utilize that discretion as a shield from legitimate and necessary discovery Epstein has a fundamental due process right to conduct discovery Motion To Identify JANE DOE In Style Of This Case As discussed below Epstein has fundamental due process right to defend himself in this civil litigation While JANE DOE travels under a pseudonym various newspaper articles identifying Epstein have been released discussing the alleged claims against him Allowing JANE DOE to litigate this matter under a pseudonym is preventing Epstein from defending this suit including but not limited to preventing him from locating individuals that may have information about this lawsuit and information about JANE DOE that may discredit her allegations and/or lessen the monetary damages she seeks to recover It is the undersigneds experience that once identified witnesses begin to come forward See supra Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of In Doe Lepley F.R.D Ct NV a sexual harassment case the court reasoned that there is no express or implied right to bring an action anonymously Id at Moreover Fed Civ a requires that the complaint include the names of the parties Id When Plaintiffs are permitted to proceed anonymously the court must employ a balancing test to decide if the plaintiff has a substantial privacy interest that outweighs the presumption of openness in judicial proceedings Id citing Doe Frank F.2d th Cir requiring complaint to include the names of the parties serves more than administrative convenience it protects the publics legitimate interests in knowing all the facts involved including the identity of the parties thus denying request to proceed anonymously The factors include a whether the plaintiff is challenging governmental activity whether the party defending the suit would be prejudiced whether the plaintiff is required to disclose information of utmost intimacy whether the plaintiff is compelled to admit an intention to engage in illegal conduct thereby risking criminal prosecution whether the Plaintiff would risk suffering injury if identified whether the interests of children are at stake and whether there are less drastic means of protecting the legitimate interests of either party Doe Frank F.2d at Plaintiff does not fall under any of the factors Moreover even if she did meet one of the factors the fact that a Doe Plaintiff may suffer some Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of personal embarrassment standing alone does not require the granting of a request to proceed under a pseudonym Id see also Doe Rostker F.R.D N.D Calif Any substantial privacy interests JANE DOE has must outweigh the customary and constitutionally embedded presumption of openness to judicial proceedings Doe Frank F.2d at Doe Bergstron WL Or denying request to proceed anonymously in civil action by Plaintiff where Plaintiffs arrest prosecution and acquittal were matters of public record In Sweetland State So.2d Fla st DCA the court reasoned that the purpose of discovery is to eliminate the likelihood of surprise and to insure a fair opportunity to prepare for trial Florida Rule of Civil Procedure see also Surf Drugs Inc Vermette So.2d Fla stating that the rules of discovery should be afforded broad and liberal treatment to effectuate their purpose citing Hickman Taylor U.S Next the right to go to court to resolve disputes is a fundamental right D.R Lakes Inc Brandsmart U.S.A of West Palm Beach So.2d Fla th DCA All litigants are afforded an equal opportunity Lingle Dion So.2d Fla th DCA The Florida Constitution establishes the right commonly known as access to courts Mitchell Moore So.2d Fla Courts shall be open to any person for the redress of any injury and justice shall be administered without sale denial or delay Art I Fla Const Fla Jur 2d Constitutional Law Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of If Jane Does name is not disclosed and identified Mr Epstein will not be afforded his fundamental right to fairly litigate this dispute and prepare for trial Accordingly Epstein requests that JANE DOE be identified by her legal name in the pleadings Motion To Identify JANE DOE In Third-Party Subpoenas While discovery in this matter is underway Epstein is effectively being denied due process rights by Plaintiffs counsel from conducting broad open and liberal discovery in that Plaintiffs counsel has objected to among other things Epstein identifying JANE DOE in various third-party subpoenas to her medical providers and other third parties The undersigned must serve subpoenas on medical doctors to obtain medical information on JANE DOEs alleged psychological and physical damages as same goes to the heart of Epsteins defenses and Plaintiffs damages Plaintiff is claiming emotional/psychological damages See Exhibit A Interrogatory Response Number Therefore Epstein is entitled to know her psychological condition before and after the alleged incident she references in the Second Amended Complaint In particular JANE DOE alleges specific disorders as a result of Epsteins alleged conduct mental and emotional injuries depressive episodes anger low self-esteem flashbacks mood swings lack of trust generally and lack of trust in men particularly of older men around Plaintiffs daughter Emphasis Added Id Epstein is also entitled to know among other things whether she had any physical complaints or whether there was ever any evidence of physical battery on JANE DOEs body Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of from the acts she complains of in the nd Amended Complaint The need to serve third-party subpoenas on medical doctors is a basic discovery need related to the claims alleged by JANE DOE for which Plaintiffs counsel refuses to compromise Balas Ruzzo So.2d Fla th DCA rev denied So.2d Fla discoverability of Plaintiffs history of sexual activity is relevant to damages United States Bear Stops F.2d th Cir deals with admissibility of other acts of sexual abuse by individuals other than the defendant to explain why a victim of abuse exhibited behavioral manifestations of a sexually abused child If Plaintiff saw a psychologist or other physician during or after the time periods she claims she was assaulted by Epstein but either did not discuss or did discuss the incidents or lack thereof would be directly relevant to her damage claims Plaintiff seeks physical and emotional/mental personal injury type damages and the Epstein must conduct his own discovery thereon See supra No valid discovery objections or exemptions exist preventing necessary and reasonable discovery To hold otherwise prevents Mr Epstein from preparing and defending this matter In defending this lawsuit Mr Epstein should be permitted broad discovery whether admissible at trial or not Fed.R.Civ.Pro provides in pertinent part that parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter not privileged which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action Plaintiffs counsels refusal to identify JANE DOE in the third-party subpoenas referenced above is prejudicing Mr Epstein by virtue of preventing discovery all together which is in complete contradiction of the discovery rules and Epsteins Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of substantive due process rights In addition subpoenas must also be served upon various local and state institutions in order to determine what crimes if any JANE DOE has committed i.e crimes that involve dishonesty and/or false statement Obviously this goes directly to the heart of JANE DOEs damages she claims mental and emotional injuries depressive episodes anger low self-esteem flashbacks mood swings lack of trust generally and lack of trust in men particularly of older men around Plaintiffs daughter caused by Epstein or other events in her life for which a jury is entitled to hear about at trial and certified records must be obtained from the clerk should JANE DOE answer certain questions regarding her crimes incorrectly See Exhibit A Esptein is entitled to know whether Jane Doe committed and/or was charged with any crimes If Jane Doe was charged with crimes Epstein is entitled to obtain certified copies of those crimes Plaintiff may have committed for purposes of discovery and impeachment Questions will be asked regarding those crimes e.g Have you been convicted of a crime of dishonesty or false statement If so how many times Have you been convicted of a felony If so how many times To hold otherwise would not only prevent broad discovery but would ultimately result in reversible error at any trial II Conclusion Epstein requests the following relief a That JANE DOE be identified by her legal name in the style of this case That Epstein be granted leave to identify JANE DOE by her Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of legal name in Third-Party Subpoenas but not file them in Court or if required in a redacted form and That on an alternative basis this court dismiss this action Sua Sponte until such time as JANE DOE identifies herself in the style of this matter Doe Rostker F.R.D.at WHEREFORE Epstein Jeffrey Epstein respectfully requests that this Court enter said order granting the relief requested a ve and for such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and By ROB rr 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 day of Adam Horowitz Esq 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 Esq Atterbury Goldberger Weiss P.A Australian Avenue South Suite West Palm Beach FL Fax jagesq bellsouth.net Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein TTON JR ESQ Florida Bar No rcrit bclclaw.com MICHAEL PIKE ESQ Florida Bar mpike bclclaw.com Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of BURMAN CRITTON LUTTIER COLEMAN Flagler Drive Suite West Palm Beach FL Phone Fax Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein
15,673 characters
