Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE NO.2 Plaintiff vs JEFFREY EPSTEIN Defendant JANE DOE NO.3 Plaintiff vs JEFFREY EPSTEIN Defendant JANEDOENO.4 Plaintiff vs JEFFREY EPSTEIN Defendant JANE DOE NO Plaintiff vs JEFFREY 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 I DOE II Plaintiff vs JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al 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 NO 08-CV-80469-MARRA/JOHNSON Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Page3 Defendants JANE DOE NO Plaintiff vs JEFFREY EPSTEIN Defendant JANE DOE NO Plaintiff vs JEFFREY EPSTEIN Defendant CASE NO 08-CV-80591-MARRA/JOHNSON CASE NO 08-CV-80656-MARRA/JOHNSON Defendant Jeffrey Epsteins Reply To Memorandums In Opposition To Epsteins Motion To Compel Answers To First Set Of Interrogatories And First Request To Produce Directed To Jane Doe Numbers2-7 Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN hereinafter EPSTEIN by and through his undersigned attorneys hereby files his Reply to the Memorandums In Opposition To Epsteins Motions To Compel Answers To First Set Of Interrogatories And First Request To Produce DE and In support EPSTEIN states I Epsteins Motion To Compel Should Be Granted Because The Information Sought Goes To The Heart Of Plaintiffs Claims For Damages a Introduction Plaintiffs forget Epstein has due process rights to defend himself in these lawsuits As set forth in Epsteins Motion to Compel Plaintiffs allege they suffered and will continue to suffer Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Page4 severe and permanent traumatic injuries including mental psychological and emotional damages and severe mental anguish and pain and suffering See Composite Exhibit A Interrogatory Response Number Each of the Jane Does seek to recover in excess of one million dollars in damages The discovery sought goes directly to the heart of Plaintiffs alleged damage claims As to the interrogatories Epstein seeks discovery regarding Plaintiffs sexual activity with males since age including whether she received any compensation or consideration therefore in interrogatory no whether she claims other males committed sexual assault or battery on her in no whether she claims other males committed lewd and lascivious conduct to her in no and whether other males committed lewd or lascivious exhibition to her in no which are all relevant to Plaintiffs damage claims and the type of injuries they claim to have suffered Significantly as stated in the Motion to Compel Plaintiffs did NOT object to relevancy As to the requests for production numbers and Epstein seeks tax information and photographs videos and the like wherein Plaintiffs performed sexual acts or simulated sexual acts as well as documents related to Plaintiffs sexual histories See Motion to Compel Despite the specific wording of the discovery requests Plaintiffs attempt to dissuade this court from allowing Epstein to discover any information that will directly negate or reduce Plaintiffs alleged damage claims by citing a host of wholly irrelevant cases that deal specifically with employer liability for workplace sexual harassment claims Plaintiffs rely on those cases to bolster their misplaced argument that Rule prevents Epstein from obtaining all the discovery sought however this court must note that Plaintiffs argument is intended to apply only to Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Page5 interrogatory number and requests numbers and i.e discovery regarding sexual history not instances where Plaintiffs have been assaulted prostituted or the subject of lewd and lascivious acts As mentioned below Plaintiffs Response consents to discovery involving claims similar to the ones alleged in the complaints See infra Argument The information sought above is relevant and discoverable even if not admissible at trial 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 In Bear Stops the Defendant was entitled to admission of evidence relating to victims a six-year old sexual assault by older boys to establish alternative explanation for why victim exhibited behavioral manifestations of a sexually abused child United States Bear Stops F.2d at That is exactly what Epstein seeks to obtain in the instant matter For example Epstein is entitled to know whether Plaintiffs were molested or the subject of other sexual activity or lewd and lascivious conduct in order to determine whether there is an alternative basis for the psychological disorders Plaintiffs claim to have sustained See infra The discovery requests specifically seek to determine whether Plaintiffs exhibited any of their alleged behavioral manifestations as a result of incidents that occurred prior to those alleged in their complaints While the information sought is relevant and admissible or may lead to the discovery of admissible evidence we are not at the admissibility stage of these proceedings We are in the discovery phase See Composite Exhibit A Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Page6 Plaintiffs claim that inquiring of instances from the age of years is unreasonable Yet if the Plaintiffs had no sexual experiences good or bad until their alleged contact with Epstein their objections are meaningless in that they could answer none On the other hand Plaintiffs allege they were between the ages of at the time of their alleged contacts with Epstein Therefore asking questions in interrogatories or at deposition beginning at age is not unreasonable in that obtaining a year history in personal injury matters is standard All of the Plaintiffs in the Epstein related matters alleged that his actions caused all of their claimed damages But a or or year old who may have had a sexual experience or some form of sexual activity with another person minor young adult older adult male female guardian family member could have a profound impact on them psychologically which may explain their alleged damages in whole or in part rather than their alleged contact with Epstein In fact Jane Doe in responding to her First Request to Produce produced a psychiatric evaluation Exhibit dated October in which she told a doctor a she was sexually molested at age by her friends brother and raped at age Jane Doe did not claim to see Epstein until age In light of the foregoing can Plaintiffs counsel legitimately assert to this court that the requested information is not relevant Next despite Plaintiffs strained interpretation and application of the discovery requests in Balas Ruzzo So.2d Fla th DCA rev denied So.2d Fla that case is instrumental in that once again we are at the discovery phase not the admissibility phase of the proceedings The discovery requests in Balas seek to obtain similar information as those in the instant matter For example answers to the interrogatories may yield that Plaintiffs did engage in prostitution or other similar type acts Interrogatory No Balas Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Page how certain acts alleged in the complaint materially affected Plaintiffs relationships with others or how those acts did not have such an affect on those relationships Interrogatory No Balas and/or whether Plaintiffs suffered from the alleged emotional and psychological disorders as a result of other sexual acts prior to the acts alleged in their respective complaints The probative value of obtaining full and complete answers to interrogatory numbers is outweighed by any danger of harm to the Plaintiff in that the answer goes to the heart of Plaintiffs damages or lack thereof United States Begay F.2d 10th error to prevent defendant from cross-examining child about prior sexual contacts that might have caused the childs physical conditions citing Fed.R.Evid and Further Epstein cannot obtain the discovery from any other persons but the Plaintiffs The cases cited by Plaintiffs to suppo1t their argument that Rule prevents the discoverability of Plaintiffs sexual activities is misplaced Each of the cases cited by Plaintiff in support of their argument that Rule prevents discovery of Plaintiffs sexual activities deal specifically with employer liability for workplace sexual harassment claims See Barta City and County of Honolulu F.R.D Haw reasoning in a sexual harassment case employer was entitled to Plaintiffs sexual history while on-duty but not her entire sexual history off-duty While those cases are distinguishable from the instant matters on a factual and Title VII basis if this court accepted Plaintiffs strained interpretation of Barta then employers would not be able to ask plaintiffs bringing sexual harassment claims whether they filed similar claims in the past If this court applies Plaintiffs interpretation of Barta and its companion cases to the instant matter then Epstein will be prevented from learning whether the Plaintiffs were Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Page8 battered sexually assaulted or the subject of other lewd and lascivious acts prior to the acts alleged in their complaints These questions go to the heart of Plaintiffs damage claims Next the discovery requests here seek not only Plaintiffs sexual history but also specific instances wherein the Plaintiffs a received compensation or consideration for sex acts claim other males committed sexual assault or battery on them claim other males committed lewd and lascivious conduct/acts on them and claim other males committed lewd or lascivious acts on them On page of Plaintiffs Response they each concede that discovery should be had if it involve similar criminal circumstances such as those involving Epstein Here the majority of the discovery sought centers around similar incidents See supra As such it is without question that interrogatory numbers must be fully answered and documents responsive to request for production numbers must be supplied Interrogatory number must be fully answered and documents responsive to request for production numbers must be supplied in connection with Plaintiffs sexual activities from age See Alberts Wickes Lumber Co WL at N.D Ill evidence of victims sexual relationships after alleged assault were held admissible where effects on such relationships were part of plaintiffs damage claims to allow plaintiff to use these alleged experiences as evidence of her damages but at the same time deny defendant the opportunity to prove that these claims are not true would be to turn the rape shield law into a sword solely for the plaintiffs benefit I In Interrogatory Response Number Plaintiffs place their sexual history at issue given their claims that their relationships have been affected by among other things distrust in men sexual intimacy problems diminished trust social problems problems in personal Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Page9 relationships feelings of stress around men premature teenage pregnancy antisocial behaviors and hyper-sexuality and promiscuity Composite Exhibit A Plaintiffs should not be permitted to turn the rape shield law into a sword solely for the plaintiffs benefits If Plaintiffs choose to base their case for damages on events taking place after and as a result of the alleged Epstein incidents e.g intimacy problems then Rule cannot be deemed to bar Epstein from mounting a defense against such claims by the mo direct and traditional of metlmd Le proof ilifil rnch drum Smpfy oot true Id ob rt Critton Jr Attorney for Defendant Epstein 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 May 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 A venue South Suite West Palm Beach FL Fax jagesq bellsouth.net Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Page Florida Bar No rcrit bclclaw.com MICHAEL PIKE ESQ Florida Bar mpike bclclaw.com BURMAN CRITTON LUTTIER COLEMAN Flagler Drive Suite West Palm Beach FL Phone Fax Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein
12,956 characters
