Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of JANE DOE NO Plaintiff vs JEFFREY EPSTEIN Defendant UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO 08-cv-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO CASE NO 08-CV-80232-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff vs JEFFREY EPSTEIN Defendant CASE NO 08-CV-80380-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO Plaintiff vs JEFFREY EPSTEIN Defendant I Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Page2 JANE DOE NO Plaintiff JEFFREY EPSTEIN Defendant JANE DOE NO Plaintiff JEFFREY EPSTEIN Defendant JANE DOE NO Plaintiff JEFFREY EPSTEIN Defendant C.M.A Plaintiff JEFFREY EPSTEIN Defendant CASE NO 08-CV-80381-MARRA/JOHNSON CASE NO 08-80994-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON CASE NO 08-80993-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON I CASE NO 08-80811-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Page3 JANE DOE CASE NO 08-80893-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al Defendants I DOE II CASE NO 09-80469-CIV-MARRA-JOHNSON Plaintiff JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al Defendants I JANE DOE NO CASE NO 09-80591-CIV-MARRA-JOHNSON Plaintiff JEFFREY EPSTEIN Defendant I JANE DOE NO CASE NO 09-80656-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff JEFFREY EPSTEIN Defendant I Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Page4 Defendant Jeffrey Epsteins Response In Opposition to Plaintiff Carolyn Margaret Andrianos Motions For Protective Order Regarding Treatment Records From Parent-Child Center Inc And Dr Serge Thys Records Of Dominique Hyppolite/School District Of Palm Beach County Good Samaritan Hospital St Marys Hospital Florida Atlantic University And Gloria Hakkarainen M.D With Incorporated Memorandum Of Law DE Motion to Strike C.M.A.S Conditional Notice Of Intent To Exclusively Rely On Statutory Damages Provided BY U.S.C DE With Incorporated Memorandum Of Law Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN hereinafter EPSTEIN by and through his undersigned attorneys hereby files his Response In Opposition to Plaintiff Carolyn Margaret Andrianas Motions For Protective Order Regarding Treatment Records From Parent-Child Center Inc And Dr Serge Thys and Records Of Dominique Hyppolite/School District Of Palm Beach County Good Samaritan Hospital St Marys Hospital Florida Atlantic University And Gloria Hakkarainen M.D previously DE and now combined in DE the Motions for Protective Orders And Motion to Strike C.M.A.S Conditional Notice Of Intent To Exclusively Rely On Statutory Damages Provided by U.S.C DE the Notice of Conditional Reliance With Incorporated Memorandum of Law An expeditious ruling by this Court is now critical In support Epstein states DE and DE were stricken because they were incorrectly filed pursuant to the Courts Order consolidating cases Plaintiff refilled as one Protective Order DE Epstein is now re-filing his Response previously DE with minor changes The Response in Opposition to the Motions for Protective Order and the Motion to Strike are inextricably woven together in that each deal with critical discovery issues Thus the Response and the Motion to Strike must be handled simultaneously by the Court CMA blocked all direct third party discovery by Epstein stating use of her name on a third party subpoena would violate anonymity Just when CMA capitulated and allowed Epstein to use her name she filed protective orders regarding records on June Instead of being fully briefed so that critical discovery could proceed the Court struck their Motions for Protective Order DE and DE Plaintiff filed the motion again and the clock has been reset The Court denied Epsteins motion to move the trial date Epstein is staring at discovery cutoffs and yet Epstein cannot serve third party subpoenas Epstein is being denied his due process right to defend himself Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Page5 I Background C.M.A was filed on February The case was removed to federal court on July A Motion for Stay was filed on July DE which this Court subsequently denied on December DE The case was transferred from Judge Zloch to this division on September DE 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 and addresses several of the arguments set forth in C.M.A Conditional Notice of Intent to Exclusively Rely of Statutory Damages Provided By U.S.C and therefore same is incorporated herein by reference Up until May Plaintiff refused to allow Defendant to identify her by name in various third-party subpoenas which Defendant intended to serve directed to Plaintiffs health care providers past and current which involves basic personal injury discovery If Defendant could not use CMAs name how could the provider have provided records from solely a CMA designation Defendant did not want to violate the courts order on anonymity Thus Defendant served its April Motion to Identify DE and Reply DE requesting the right to serve third-party subpoenas and/or dismissed Plaintiffs case Plaintiff offered to allow Defendant access to her medical history only after her attorneys were able to obtain and filter through same Only then would Plaintiff turnover the filtered relevant information Obviously such an offer is unrealistic and does not comport with the basic discovery rules or afford Epstein his constitutional due process rights to defend himself On May C.M.A capitulated and filed her Notice of Withdrawal of Previously Raised Objections to Epsteins Motion to Compel and/or Identify C.M.A in the Style of this Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Page6 Case and Motion to Identify C.M.A in Third-Party Subpoenas for Purposes of Discovery or Alternatively Motion to Dismiss Sue Sponte DE the Notice of Withdrawal Obviously by filing the Notice of Withdrawal Plaintiff recognized that her attempts to prevent meaningful discovery were delaying this matter and would ultimately delay her trial Defendant expeditiously set about to obtain basic background discovery on C.M.A for use for her deposition and for an eventual medical/psychological exam But then on June C.M.A filed a Motion for Protective Order Regarding Treatment Records From Parent Child Center Inc and Dr Serge Thys DE and of even date she filed her Conditional Notice of Intent to Exclusively Rely on the Statutory Damages provided by U.S.C DE On June Plaintiff then filed a subsequent Motion for Protective Order Regarding Treatment Records From Palm Beach County School District Good Samaritan Hospital St Marys Hospital Dr Gloria Hakkarinen and Florida Atlantic University DE The Court struck DE on July because the pleading was incorrectly filed pursuant to the Courts Order consolidated cases The Plaintiff refilled one Motion for Protective Order DE While Plaintiff agreed to allow Defendant to identify her in various third-party subpoenas directed to her physicians she now employed yet another strategy to block discovery of her past medical and psychological history from being discovered by and through the Conditional Notice and the Motions for Protective Order Without the health care provider information including psychological psychiatric records it will be impossible to conduct a thorough deposition of C.M.A and have a meaningful compulsory psychological examination by a defense expert C.M.A knows full well that such discovery is relevant to the claims she asserts against Epstein Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Page Plaintiff opposed Defendants motion to strike the current trial date and this court in denying Defendants motion instructed Defendant to move forward with discovery Yet Plaintiffs own strategy prevents the very discovery this court said Defendant should undertake Comically Plaintiff claims in the Notice of Conditional Reliance Notice and in the Motions for Protective Order which rely solely on the Notice of Conditional Reliance that if she is successful in opposing Defendants Motion to Dismiss she intends to rely exclusively on the statutory damages provided under U.S.C rather than those damages provided for under common law state tort claims On the flipside Plaintiff then claims that should the court rule that the statutory damage floor can only be applied once Plaintiff will be pursuing any and all damages available to her whether they be pursuant to statute or by common law DE at and DE The undersigned assumes this is part of the conditional aspect of the notice Defendant can find no cases dealing with such a notice in any Federal Court in the United States Based upon the courts ruling referenced below such a position is not warranted at Motion to Dismiss stage What if this motion is not ruled upon until after the discovery cutoff or only the week before the trial Under that scenario the Defendant will be prevented from obtaining critical discovery to defend this case When has a Plaintiff ever been afforded the option to conditionally prove damages Never Is Epstein forced to take C.M.A deposition without having allowed access to any prior or current medical/psychological treatment Defendant will request a compulsory medical examination of Plaintiff If the Plaintiff has it her way the examiner will perform the examination in a vacuum It appears C.M.A intends to further stall discovery pending the outcome of the Motion to Dismiss and any future Motion for Summary Judgment See infra That is C.M.A wishes to Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Page8 rely on the statutory damage floor if she is successful in opposing Defendants motion to dismiss She then will assert that her medical history will not be at issue at trial and thus no evidence regarding her physical emotional and pecuniary injuries will be presented at trial First that is not what is cmTently alleged in the 89-page Amended Complaint Second paragraph of Plaintiffs Motion for Protective Order DE is cleverly worded in that it states plaintiff will not be presenting any evidence of the extent of her physical emotional or pecuniary injuries beyond evidence that she was a victim of sexual contact to which she was legally incapable of consenting by virtue of her age including pain and suffering emotional distress psychological trauma mental anguish humiliation embarrassment loss of self-esteem loss of dignity invasion of her privacy and loss of the capacity to enjoy life This court must ask what Plaintiff intends to use beyond evidence of the extent of her physical emotional or pecuniary injuries Does beyond mean Plaintiff still intends to produce evidence of her pain and suffering emotional distress psychological trauma etc even if she is successful at Motion to Dismiss Third Plaintiff misconstrues the application of the statute as delineated below This court ruled in its May Order that issues regarding the minimum amount of damages available to Plaintiff under U.S.C do not affect whether plaintiff has stated a claim and are not appropriate for Motion to Dismiss These damages issues will be resolved at summary judgment or trial See Order DE Hence if this Court accepts Plaintiffs position and her bogus Notice of Conditional Reliance Defendant may not be permitted unless Plaintiffs motion for protective order are immediately denied discovery as to C.M.A.s damages alleged in the Amended Complaint until a Motion for Summary Judgment is Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Page9 ruled upon which could be right before and/or at trial Certainly such a result would be inherently unfair but exactly what Plaintiff is strategizing to accomplish Moreover it is unreasonable for this court to accept Plaintiffs position set forth in the Notice of Conditional Reliance and in the Motions for Protective Order because this court has already ruled that Plaintiff can only be deposed once Case DE at Defendant is limited to a single deposition of each Plaintiff during which defendant may depose the Plaintiff as both a party and a witness As such Plaintiff cannot force the taking of her deposition and any expert depositions while key discovery remains unavailable due to the Plaintiffs Motions for Protective Order Moreover if Defendant prematurely takes Plaintiffs deposition based on one theory of recovery which is exactly what Plaintiff is attempting to accomplish then under this Courts prior ruling an additional deposition of Plaintiff may not be allowed despite Plaintiffs success at Motion to Dismiss or Motion for Summary Judgment in connection with her U.S.C claims and/or conditional reliance or even if allowed there will be no time to conduct necessary relevant discovery Recognizing Plaintiffs delay tactics and refusal to produce meaningful discovery Epstein requested that this court strike this case from the current docket continue the trial and/or to modify the courts scheduling order DE On July the Comt denied that Motion DE Plaintiff now uses her delay tactics and the courts order as sword and shield That is Epstein is now precluded from taking and/or receiving meaningful basic personal injury discovery in connection with C.M.A.s claims which is substantively unfair and directly violates Epsteins due process rights yet he is being forced to trial Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Page II Argument and Memorandum of Law a The Motions For Protective Order Should Be Denied or Stricken In order to understand the absurdity of Plaintiffs motions the Court needs some background on CMA to conclude that the information sought is relevant and material and may lead to the discovery of admissible evidence A CMA was born on January and has two children by two different men CMA had her first child at the age of seventeen and her second at the age of twenty-one Plaintiffs counsel without waiving his work product privilege has information which suggests CMA had drug and psychological problems that pre-dates any contact by CMA with Epstein CMA is Answers to Interrogatories indicates that her mother Dorothy Groenert her brother Joseph Andriano and the father of her first child Shawn Haught all drove her to Epsteins house on various occasions These people had to have known what CMA was allegedly doing at Epsteins house So the question remains who is CMA what is her history and why is the information being sought relevant CMA is seeking millions of dollars in personal injury damages The following represents conduct and events that had to have had a substantial effect on CMAs life and emotional/psychological makeup These are merely examples and just the tip of the iceberg On March in Palm Beach County Sheriffs Office Case CMA threw a cinder block at her mothers boyfriends car On April in Palm Beach County Sheriffs Office Case officers responded to the house in reference to child abuse involving CMA her brothers and her mother Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Page On June in Palm Beach County Sheriffs Office Case CMAs mother contacted the police after hearing CMA friends threaten to kill her CMA On July in Palm Beach County Sheriffs Office Case officers responded in reference to Criminal Mischief CMA was a victim of having her window broken at her house by a Tonya White White stated she went to CMAs house to confront CMA about CMA having sexual relations with her boyfriend CMA would have been thirteen years old at this time On August in Palm Beach County Sheriffs Office Case CMA was arrested for aggravated assault after chasing her brother around the house with a knife On September in Palm Beach County Sheriffs Office Case CMAs mother reported her missing At the time CMA was on house detention for previous crimes and for being truant from school A pick-up order was in effect and CMA was subsequently detained On November in Palm Beach County Sheriffs Office Case officers responded in reference to a Battery CMA and her brother witnessed their mother being beaten by her then boyfriend Lance Bell On March in Palm Beach County Sheriffs Office Case officers responded to the house in reference to child abuse involving CMA her brothers and her mother On April in Palm Beach County Sheriffs Office Case CMAs mother was arrested for possession of crack cocaine and CMA and her brothers were removed from their home On October in Palm Beach County Case CMAs mother filed a Marchman Act Petition naming CMA after she told a judge that she was hospitalized for overdosing on Xanax and Marijuana was truant from school has anger issues mental disabilities and needs treatment for self inflicting wounds The case was closed on October because CMA was to be in court the following day for a probation violation On July in Palm Beach County Case CMAs mother filed a Marchman Act Petition naming CMA after she told a judge that she was constantly testing positive for cocaine and marijuana Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Page On August in Palm Beach County Case CMAs mother filed a Marchman Act Petition naming CMA after she told a judge that treatment at home was not working and a residential facility would be needed On August in Palm Beach County Case CMAs mother filed a case naming CMA for a Petition for Involuntary Assessment for Substance Abuse CMAs mother stated that CMA was homeless unclean and prostituting herself On August in Palm Beach County Case CMAs mother filed a case naming CMA for a Petition for Involuntary Assessment for Substance Abuse CMAs mother claimed that CMA was homeless unclean has been prostitution herself for crack cocaine is addicted to Xanax is a cutter and self mutilator living in a hotel and has been diagnosed as Bipolar and Schizophrenic As stated above Plaintiff filed the Motions for Protective regarding medical psychological and school records in an effort to chill discovery As to the Motion for Protective Order concerning Records from Parent Child-Center Inc Dr Serge Thys Palm Beach County School District Good Samaritan Hospital St Marys Hospital Dr Gloria Hakkarinen and Florida Atlantic University DE Plaintiff raises in each the Notice of Conditional reliance as authority for this court to consider in granting same Accordingly for the same reasons set out in section II a above this court should strike or deny the Motions for Protective Order as Plaintiff must still prove actual damages under the statute thereby making her medical and psychological history relevant Rule Motion to Strike the court may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant immaterial impertinent or scandalous matter Next Plaintiff states in her Motions for Protective Order that ordinarily a plaintiff does not place her mental condition in controversy merely by requesting damages for mental anguish or garden variety emotional distress In order to place a partys mental condition in Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Page controversy the party must allege a specific mental or psychiatric disorder or intend to offer expert testimony to support their claim of emotional distress DE Plaintiff cites Turner Imperial Stores F.R.D S.D Cal however that case dealt primarily with compelling the mental examination of a patient not the production of records Nonetheless the case supports Defendants position for the production of information by subpoena For instance Plaintiff once again seems to forget her answers to interrogatories and the allegations in her First Amended Complaint which is the OPERATIVE pleading For instance in her answers to interrogatory nos and which seek information about C.M.A damage claims Plaintiff answered that I have bi-polar disorder and manic depression I lost my self-esteem I began cutting myself on my arms and legs and developed drug problems Permanent injuries are psychological Interrog No I am claiming compensation for mental anguish mental pain psychic trauma and loss of enjoyment of life These damages will be evaluated by a jury who will provide their own methods of computation in an amount of at least the statutory minimum established by U.S.C.A Interrog No In her st Amended Complaint relevant to her damages claims Plaintiff alleges C.M.A has in the past suffered and will in the future suffer physical injury pain and suffering emotional distress psychological trauma mental anguish humiliation embarrassment loss of self-esteem loss of dignity invasion of her privacy and other damages The then minor Plaintiff incurred medical and psychological expenses and will in the future suffer additional medical and psychological expenses The Plaintiff C.M.A has suffered loss of income a loss of the capacity to earn income in the future and a loss of capacity to enjoy life These injuries are permanent in nature and the Plaintiff C.M.A will continue to suffer these losses in the future st Am Complaint Counts I U.S.C Count XI Sexual Battery Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Page See Fajardo Pierce County WL W.D Wash allegations of specific disorders amount to more than garden variety disorders and thus Plaintiff waived physician patient privilege as it involved a complex medical issue Alexander City of Bellingham WL W.D Wash Grit Target Corp WL M.D Fla Trenary Bush Entertainment Corp WL M.D Fla responses to interrogatories placed plaintiffs mental condition at issue Tracey Sarasota County WL M.D Fla responses to interrogatories delineating depression and bi-polar disorder are more than simple allegations of emotional distress thus placing plaintiffs mental condition at issue Clearly Plaintiff has alleged specific psychological disorders bi-polar and manic depression and seeks to recover medical expenses associated with those complex medical issues Accordingly the Motions for Protective Order should be denied and/or stricken See also United States Bear Stops F.2d th Cir dealing 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 Fed.R.Evid and Here the information sought by subpoena may show that Plaintiff suffered from bi polar disorder and manic depression specifically pied by her as a result of other life events or sexual activity prior to during or after the acts alleged in the Amended Complaint Did other life events and/or other sexual activity with others which may be similar to alleged Epstein conduct cause emotional distress psychological trauma Joss of dignity humiliation or embarrassment and if so or not why See Interrogatory Numbers and Exhibit A Accordingly the Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Page probative value of obtaining full and complete copies of the basic personal injury discovery sought by subpoena goes to the heart of Plaintiffs damages or lack thereof including medical psychiatric psychological employment and school records i.e standard personal injury discovery The Notice of Conditional Reliance Allegedly Under U.S.C Lacks Substantial Merit And Conflicts With the Allegations In The First Amended Complaint Plaintiffs Motions for Protective Order rely solely upon her twisted interpretation of U.S.C as set forth in her Notice of Conditional Reliance In an effort to artificially inflate her alleged damages beyond that of which the statute permits Plaintiff claims that U.S.C creates a statutory damage floor for recovery of damages for each commission of an enumerated sex offense listed under said statute and therefore prevents her from having to prove actual damages or any damages if Plaintiffs theory is accepted Defendant claims in his Motion to Dismiss that the civil remedy afforded creates only a single civil remedy or cause of action one recovery on behalf of a minor plaintiff against a defendant In other words there is nothing in the statute which would allow a plaintiff to duplicate or multiply her actual damages sustained and proven on a per violation or per count basis A plaintiff is entitled to a single recovery of her actual damages if she sustains and proves an amount Jess than the statutory minimum she recovers at least that amount Of course she can prove her actual damages were greater At this juncture Plaintiff wishes to have it both ways That is if she is successful at Motion to Dismiss and her interpretation of U.S.C is accepted then Plaintiff claims Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Page she will only seek statutory damages available thereunder DE If however Plaintiff is not successful at Motion to Dismiss she will then seek any and all damages available to her whether they be pursuant to statute or common law In short Plaintiff wishes to prevent basic discovery until such time as she decides what damages she will seek based upon her success on certain outstanding substantive motions and that determination can only be made after Motion to Dismiss and/or Motion for Summary Judgment Thus discovery will be conveniently stayed for Plaintiff until that time thereby prejudicing the Defendant and deny him his due process rights Moreover if this Court chooses not to rule on the Motion to Dismiss solely as to Plaintiffs loose interpretation of U.S.C Plaintiff will then file a Motion for Summary Judgment and will refuse to produce any meaningful discovery until such time as the court rules on that motion This court must not delay critical discovery based upon Plaintiffs misplaced interpretation of the subject statute and her hope that she will be successful at Motion to Dismiss or Motion for Summary Judgment The court has told Defendant to move forward yet the Plaintiff continues to throw up roadblocks While Epsteins Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint DE fully sets fo1th why Plaintiffs argument concerning the statutory damages floor should not apply a brief summary is required herein to explain why Plaintiffs Notice of Conditional Reliance is meritless Contrary to Plaintiffs attempted assertion of separate counts pursuant to U.S.C.A Civil Remedy for Personal Injuries U.S.C creates a single federal cause of action or civil remedy recovery for a minor victim of sexual abuse molestation and exploitation Even if this Court were to agree with Plaintiff that a Plaintiff could allege multiple causes of action or counts the Plaintiff is still entitled to only a single recovery of her Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Page actual damages in an amount no less than minimum Under the plain meaning of the statutory text does not create separate causes of action on behalf of a minor against a defendant on a per violation basis Nowhere in the statutory text is there any reference to the civil remedy afforded by this statute as being on a per violation basis U.S.C a creates a civil remedy for a minor who is a victim of a violation of section or of this title and who suffers personal injury as a result of such violation See Smith Husband F.Supp.2d E.D Va Smith Husband F.Supp.2d E.D Va Doe Liberatore F.Supp.2d M.D Pa and the recent cases in front of this court on Defendants Motions to Dismiss and For More Definite There is no reported case supporting Plaintiffs tortured and nonsensical interpretation of In all of these cases cited above each of the Plaintiffs brought a single count or cause of action attempting to allege numerous violations of the predicate acts specifically identified in U.S.C gives victims of sexual conduct who are minors a private right of action Martinez White F.Supp.2d N.D Cal emphasis added U.S.C.A merely provides a cause of action for damages in any appropriate United States District Court Id at Moreover Sexual Exploitation and Other Abuse of Children U.S.C the statute in effect at the time of the alleged incident is entitled Civil remedy for personal injuries and specifically provides a Any minor who is a victim of a violation of section or of this title and who suffers personal injury as a result of such violation may sue in any appropriate United Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Page States District Court and shall recover the actual damages such minor sustains and the cost of the suit including a reasonable attorneys fee Any minor as described in the preceding sentence shall be deemed to have sustained damages of no less than in value Any action commenced under this section shall be barred unless the complaint is filed within six years after the right of action first accrues or in the case of a person under a legal disability not later than three years after the disability Reading the entire statute in context no where is there any language indicating that a minor plaintiff has a private right of action against a defendant per violation Under the statutory rules of construction had the legislature intended to give a plaintiff multiple causes of action against a defendant on a per violation basis the statute would have included such language Had Congress wanted to create such a remedy as Plaintiff attempts to bring it could have easily included language of per violation after the presumptive damages amount in subsection a By its own terms the statute provides for the single recovery of actual damages the minor sustains and the cost of the suit including attorneys fees Moreover even if Plaintiffs strained interpretation of the statute were accepted by this court it does not relieve Plaintiff from having to prove actual damages as set forth in subsection a above Importantly the statute reads that any minor as described in the preceding sentence shall be deemed to have sustained damages of no less than in value Id That is if Plaintiff shows that she sustained only in actual personal injury damages she would still receive no less than As well Plaintiff can be awarded or whatever amount of actual damages that are awarded by the fact finder i.e has no cap Thus under both scenarios Plaintiff is not relieved from proving actual damages Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Page Defendant does not have the luxury of waiting for a ruling on the issues Instead he must complete discovery as per this courts order C.M.A and her attorneys wish to control how discovery will take place and who will be deposed control what questions will be asked and to whom and Plaintiff wishes to decide what damages she may seek pending the outcome of a substantive motion despite what her Amended Complaint already alleges Epsteins due process rights in connection with the defense of this matter are being violated by the Plaintiff who wishes to force Epstein to trial with various legal issues up in the air and incomplete discovery In sum C.M.A motions for protective orders reflect her tactics to delay and prevent meaningful discovery in hopes that C.M.A will be able to prevent Epstein from putting on critical evidence in defense of his case Epstein cannot defend this matter when 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 Plaintiffs trial by ambush tactics should not be tolerated Accordingly the Notice of Conditional reliance should be stricken from the record pursuant to Rule Motion to Strike the court may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant immaterial impertinent or scandalous matter Moreover to the extent necessary this portion of this Motion shall also serve as any Opposition Response to the Notice of Conditional Reliance Rule Certification I hereby certify that counsel for the respective parties communicated by telephone in a good faith effort to resolve the discovery issues prior to the filing of this motion to compel Counsel was unable to resolve the issues outlined herein Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Page20 WHEREFORE Epstein through his counsel requests that this court enter an Order a striking the Notice of Conditional Reliance striking and/or denying the Motions for Protective Order allowing the Defendant to obtain all documents which are the subject of the subpoenas associated with the Motions for Protective Order and for such other and further relief as this court dee just and proper By ROBERT CRITTON JR ESQ Florida No MICHAEL PIKE ESQ Florida Bar 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 st day of July RITTON JR ESQ Florida Bar 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 Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Page Certificate of Service Jane Doe No Jeffrey Epstein Case No 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON Stuart Mermelstein Esq Adam Horowitz Esq Mermelstein Horowitz P.A Biscayne Boulevard Suite Miami FL Fax ssm sexabuseattorney.com ahorowitz sexabuseattorney.com Counsel for Plaintiffs In related Cases Nos Richard Horace Willits Esq Richard Willits P.A th Avenue North Suite Lake Worth FL Fax Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No 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 Counsel for Plaintiff C.M.A Brad Edwards Esq Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler East Las Olas Boulevard Suite Fort Lauderdale FL Fax bedwards rra-law.com Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No Paul Cassell Esq Pro Hae Vice South Room Salt Lake City UT Fax cassellp law.utah.edu Co-counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe Isidro Garcia Esq Garcia Law Firm P.A Datura Street Suite West Palm Beach FL isidrogarcia bellsouth.net Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No Robert Josefsberg Esq Katherine Ezell Esq Podhurst Orseck P.A West Flagler Street Suite Miami FL Fax Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Page Bruce Reinhart Esq Bruce Reinhart P.A Australian Avenue Suite West Palm Beach FL Fax ecf brucereinhartlaw.com Counsel for Defendant Sarah Kellen Theodore Leopold Esq Spencer Kuvin Esq Ricci-Leopold P.A PGA Blvd Suite Palm Beach Gardens FL Fax Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No skuvin riccilaw.com tleopold riccilaw.com riosefsberg podhurst.com kezell podhurst.com Counsel for Plaintiffs in Related Cases Nos and Jack Alan Goldberger Esq Atterbury Goldberger Weiss P.A Australian A venue South Suite West Palm Beach FL Fax jagesg bellsouth.net Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein
34,260 characters
