Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE NO.2 Plaintiff vs IBFFREY EPSTEIN Defendant JANEDOENO.3 Plaintiff vs IBFFREY EPSTEIN Defendant JANE DOE NO.4 Plaintiff vs JEFFREY EPSTEIN Defendant JANE DOE NO Plaintiff vs IBFFREY EPSTEIN Defendant CASE NO 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON CASE NO 08-CV-80232-MARRA/JOHNSON CASE NO 08-CV-80380-MARRA/JOHNSON CASE NO 08-CV-80381-MARRA/JOHNSON Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Page2 JANE DOE NO Plaintiff vs JEFFREY EPSTEIN Defendant JANE DOE NO Plaintiff vs JEFFREY EPSTEIN Defendant C.M.A Plaintiff vs JEFFREY EPSTEIN Defendant JANE DOE Plaintiff vs JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al Defendants CASE NO 08-CV-80994-MARRA/JOHNSON CASE NO 08-CV-80993-MARRA/JOHNSON CASE NO 08-CV-80811-MARRA/JOHNSON CASE NO 08-CV-80893-MARRA/JOHNSON Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Page3 DOE II Plaintiff vs JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al Defendants JANE DOE NO Plaintiff vs JEFFREY EPSTEIN Defendant JANE DOE NO Plaintiff vs JEFFREY EPSTEIN Defendant CASE NO 08-CV-80469-MARRA/JOHNSON CASE NO 08-CV-80591-MARRA/JOHNSON CASE NO 08-CV-80656-MARRA/JOHNSON Defendant Jeffrey Epsteins Motion To Strike Cases From Current Trial Docket And Motion to Continue Case And/Or Alternative Motion to Modify Trial and Scheduling Order Deadlines Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN hereinafter EPSTEIN by and through his undersigned attorneys hereby moves this Court for the entry of an order Striking These Cases i.e C.M.A Jane Doe and Jane Does From The Current Trial Docket Continuing The Trials And Setting Them On New Trial Dockets At Least Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Page4 Three Months After The Current Trial Dates As Set Or Alternatively Modifying The Current Trial Schedule To Allow For An Additional Months From Current Dates Within Which To Complete Discovery An Additional Months From The Current Dates Within Which To Complete All Substantive Pretrial Motions and Expert Discovery An Additional Month From The Current Dates Within Which To Mediate the Matters and An Additional Month to Complete the Remaining Scheduling Deadlines under this Courts Trial Orders In support EPSTEIN states I Procedural Background and Argument With Incorporated Memorandum of Law C.M.A was filed on February C.M.A filed her First Amended Complaint on February C.M.A DE Epsteins Motion to Dismiss same was filed on March C.M.A DE The Motion to Dismiss remains outstanding Jane Doe was filed on August On April Jane Doe filed her First Amended Complaint The Jane Doe cases were filed between February and September Jane Does filed their Second Amended Complaints on February Pursuant to the courts Orders Setting Trial And Discovery Deadlines Referring Case To Mediator And Referring Discovery Motions To U.S Magistrate Judge the In an effort not to repeat certain legal arguments set out in various Motions and Replies referenced below and identified herein by Docket Number those motions and replies with legal arguments are specifically incorporated herein by reference Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Page5 Trial Orders these matters are currently set on this courts Trial Dockets commencing January February and February Pursuant to the Trial Orders discovery cutoff is August for C.M.A and Jane Does and October for Jane Doe and Jane Does Substantive pretrial motions must be completed in August for C.M.A and Jane Does and October for Jane Doe and Jane Does Mediation must be completed on November for Jane Does and December for C.M.A Jane Doe and Jane Does Finally Expert discovery must be completed on June for C.M.A As to C.M.A Jane Doe and Jane Does each has objected to relevant discovery C.M.A has even refused to produce certain information that she agreed to produce in discovery The foregoing delay tactics has prevented Epstein from conducting meaningful discovery in order to defend these matters and prepare for trial At this juncture Plaintiffs wish for Epstein to try this case without any discovery whatsoever See infra For example in a diligent effort to obtain discovery Epstein filed substantive motions addressing C.M.A.s objections to discovery and those motions remain outstanding.2 See C.M.A DE Motion to Compel Responses to First Request to Produce and First Set of Interrogatories and DE Epsteins Reply to Plaintiffs Opposition Motion thereto Epsteins Motion to Compel C.M.A DE and Reply The same discovery requests were served upon Jane Doe and Jane Does Substantive Motions to Compel seeking production of similar information in those cases were filed and remain outstanding See Jane Doe DE and Jane Doe specifically Jane Doe DE Jane Doe DE Jane Doe DE Jane Doe DE Jane Doe DE and Jane Doe DE Those Motions are incorporated herein by reference Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Page6 C.M.A DE are incorporated herein by reference The Motion and the Reply seek basic and elementary discovery For instance the Motion and the Reply seek a individual and/or joint income tax returns and supporting documentation including and forms for and as well as all records or documentation relative to the Plaintiffs earnings for the current year All bills/expenses from any medical doctor chiropractor psychologists psychiatrists mental health counselors including any members of the healing arts and related fields i.e drugs prescriptions etc you claim you incurred as a result of the injuries which are or may be the subject matter of this lawsuit All medical reports and/or records from doctors physicians including psychologists psychiatrists mental health counselors hospitals drug or alcohol facilities or any other person or entity who has rendered treatment to or examined you for any reason after the incident which is the subject matter of this lawsuit the names business addresses telephone and cell phone numbers dates of employment immediate supervisor name and address and rates of pay regarding all employers including self employment for whom you have worked in the past years this includes listing all sources of income you have received Answer this question by year i.e and the names addresses and phone numbers of all males excluding Mr Epstein with whom you have had sexual activity since age by year up through your current age Describe the nature of sexual activity the date and whether you received money or other consideration from the person DE C.M.A objected to producing the tax information requested in a above which will show where C.M.A worked and she also speciously objected to the companion interrogatory above wherein she refuses to identify where she worked for the requested time period Epstein needs the requested information so his attorneys can Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Page conduct the appropriate discovery on C.M.A.s supervisors and co-workers and others that may be identified during those depositions in connection with the allegations C.M.A has made against Epstein in her 89-page Amended Complaint By virtue of C.M.A and the other Plaintiffs concealing the above information Epstein has been prevented from conducting any meaningful discovery including the taking of any depositions of C.M.A.s supervisors co-workers acquaintances friends and other third parties As stated above Jane Doe and Jane Does made similar objections which are the subject of various Motions to Compel Epstein needs this information to defend the Plaintiffs allegations and to prepare for trial Next C.M.A concedes in her Opposition Motion to Discovery DE that Epstein is entitled to the information set out in above however C.M.A refuses to produce the information and/or allow the undersigned to list C.M.A.s full name date of birth and last four digits of her social security number in any third-party subpoenas in order to obtain those records.3 While this case was filed by C.M.A on February Epstein has been prevented from deposing any of the individuals that treated Plaintiff at one time or another This results directly from C.M.A.s tactics to delay and prevent meaningful discovery in hopes that C.M.A will be able to prevent Epstein from putting on any evidence in defense of his case The remaining Plaintiffs Attorney Brad Edwards in case number agreed to such a procedure Counsel for Jane Does Stuart Mermelstein refuses to agree to such a procedure and therefore continues to substantially delay discovery Note many of the Plaintiffs are witnesses in the related cases Therefore Plaintiffs discovery delays negatively effect the progress and trial preparation of each case This same argument applies to Jane does Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Page8 have the same exact goal Epstein cannot defend this matter with the element of unfair and prejudicial surprise is ever so present Schearbrook Land and Livestock Company U.S et al F.R.D M.D Fla In an effort to move these cases forward and obtain meaningful discovery Epstein filed his Motion to Compel and Motion to Compel and/or Identify CMA and Jane Does in the Style of this Case and Motion to Identify Them in Third-Party Subpoenas Motions to Identify The Motions to Identify are incorporated herein by reference and for the courts edification same remain outstanding Should this Court grant the Motions to Identify Epstein will be able to obtain discovery he does not currently have in his possession and will be able to take certain depositions of individuals that have yet to be identified Based upon the courts consolidation order the motion to identify equally applies to C.M.A and the other Plaintiffs Plaintiffs must be identified in other third-party subpoenas unrelated to those discussed above concerning medical treatment in order for Epstein to conduct meaningful discovery Epsteins right to conduct discovery and confront the witnesses has up through todays date been unreasonably and unduly restricted as a result of Plaintiffs delay tactics Finally the information sought in number above has not been produced by C.M.A or the remaining Plaintiffs despite the case law favoring production United In a state court matter filed against Epstein E.W Epstein Case No XMB AD the undersigned learned through discovery that the Plaintiff in that case worked at Platinum Gold Curves Cabaret Platinum Showgirls Cheetah Diamond Dolls Vegas Cabaret Spearmint Rhino Ts Lounge Pure Platinum Solid Gold and The Body Shop Substantial discovery will take place in that matter of E.W co-workers supervisors and others that may have information regarding the claims she asserted against Epstein Epstein should be afforded that same right in the instant matters Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Page9 States Bear Stops F.2d th Cir Balas Ruzzo So.2d Fla th DCA rev denied So.2d Fla The information sought in is relevant and discoverable even if not admissible at trial See Motion to Compel and Reply C.M.A DE Once Plaintiffs are required to fully answer the interrogatories the answers may yield at a later deposition or through paper discovery a the names of individuals that may have information about Plaintiffs that negate the allegations in their Complaints how certain acts alleged in their Complaints materially affected their relationships with others or how those acts did not have such an affect on those relationships and whether Plaintiffs suffered from disorders e.g C.M.A.s claims of bi-polar disorder and manic depression as a result of other sexual acts prior to the acts alleged in the Complaints Here evidence of Plaintiffs sexual activity with others may show that those sexual activities which could include assaults once delineated produced the behaviors that for instance C.M.A attributes to Epstein e.g bi-polar and manic depression disorders Accordingly answers to the above discovery requests go the heart of Plaintiffs damages or lack thereof Further pursuant to this Courts Order C.M.A DE and in the related matters Epstein is permitted only to take the Plaintiffs depositions one time both as a witness in the other related matters and as a plaintiff in their particular matters As a result the discovery schedule coupled with Plaintiffs delay tactics and the Order DE is forcing Epstein to take each of the Plaintiffs depositions without the benefit of other discovery and depositions of individuals that may have knowledge of the claims asserted by Plaintiffs As such in the event Plaintiffs produce information after their depositions Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Page this Courts order DE and the Federal Rules effectively prevent Epstein from taking Plaintiffs depositions a second time This is inherently unfair and prejudicial to Epstein a Memorandum of Law Modifying a trial order and the deadlines/schedules thereunder is within the sound discretion of this court Under the circumstances outlined above failure to strike these cases from the current docket continue the trials and/or to modify the courts scheduling order will prejudice Epstein Epstein has diligently attempted to comply with the Courts scheduling order but has effectively been prevented from doing so in light of the Plaintiffs delay tactics during discovery See supra Fed.R.Civ.Pro Altadis USA Inc NPR Inc WL M.D Fla granting motion to extend discovery and continue trial Epstein has shown good cause to obtain a continuance of the trial of this matter and as well has shown good cause in order for this court to modify the scheduling order Fed.R.Civ.Pro A scheduling order may be modified only for good cause and with the judges consent Epsteins counsel has complied with Local Rule of the U.S Southern District by executing and providing the attached Affidavit Exhibit A Epstein cannot despite his diligence timely complete discovery by the times outlined in the current scheduling order as a result of the Plaintiffs delay tactics Thus as outlined above failure to strike these cases from the docket continue this case to the next available docket and to extend the discovery schedule and remaining deadlines will prejudice Epstein Epstein has simply not been given the opportunity to obtain and/or conduct any meaningful discovery which violates Epsteins constitutional Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Page due process right to defend himself and to seek the production of information that will assist in his defense of the allegations in respective complaints Plaintiffs cannot reasonably expect Epstein to try these matters with having only been afforded the opportunity to take the deposition of one Plaintiff and not conduct any meaningful discovery on others WHEREFORE Epstein through his counsel requests that this court enter and Order a striking these cases from the current trial docket continuing the trials of these matters and setting same on new trial dockets at least three months after the current trial dates or alternatively modifying the current trial schedule to allow for an additional months from the currently set date within which to complete discovery an additional months from the currently set date within which to complete all substantive pretrial motions an additional month from the currently set date within which to mediate this matter and an additional month to complete the remaining deadlines under each of the Courts Trial Orders and for such other and further relief as this co By i:nf ROBERT ON JR ESQ Florida Bar No rcrit bclclaw.com MICHAEL PIKE ESQ Florida Bar Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Page 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 _fi_ day of Mfil._ Richard Horace Willits Esq Richard Willits P.A th Avenue North Suite Lake Worth FL Fax Counsel for Plaintiff C.M.A reelrhw hotmail.com Jack Scarola Esq Jack Hill Esq Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart Shipley P.A Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach FL Fax jsx searcylaw.com jph searcylaw.com Co-Counsel for Plaintiff Jack Alan Goldberger Esq Atterbury Goldberger Weiss P.A Australian Avenue South Suite West Palm Beach FL Fax jagesq bellsouth.net Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein Bruce Reinhart Esq Bruce Reinhart P.A Australian Avenue Suite West Palm Beach FL Fax ecf brucereinhartlaw.com Counsel for Defendant Sarah Kellen By 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 Page West Palm Beach FL Phone Fax Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein
16,655 characters
