Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO 08-CV-80119-MARRA-JOHNSON JANE DOE NO Plaintiff JEFFREY EPSTEIN Defendant __ Related Cases I DEFENDANTS JEFFREY EPSTEIN MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AND TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF JANE DOE NO AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOF Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN by and through his undersigned attorneys moves this court for an order granting sanctions pursuant to Rule and A and referencing Rule a Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and compelling the deposition of Jane Doe No within fifteen days and as grounds therefore would state On August the deposition of Jane Doe No was noticed for September to begin at p.m Plaintiffs counsel had advised that Jane Doe No could not appear for a deposition prior to that time of day i.e p.m The deposition was originally set at the offices of the undersigned but Plaintiffs counsel requested that it be moved to the court reporters office The court reporter is Prose Court Reporting located at Australian Avenue South Suite West Palm Beach FL Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of The undersigneds office began attempting to set the deposition of Jane Doe No on July Because of the number of attorneys who would be attending based on the courts consolidation order coordinating the video deposition creates logistical problems On August the undersigned wrote a letter to counsel for the Plaintiff indicating that Mr Epstein would be present at the deposition A copy of that letter is attached as Exhibit Some days later counsel for Jane Doe No filed a motion for protective order on September attempting to prohibit Mr.Epsteins presence at the deposition The Defendant immediately filed a response an Emergency Motion on September requesting that the court enter an order allowing Epstein the Defendant in this matter to attend the deposition This is common procedure See Exhibit without exhibits As of the date of the deposition the court had not ruled on these motions On Monday counsel for Jane Doe No and the undersigned spoke an agreement was reached that the deposition would proceed as scheduled and that Mr Epstein would not be in attendance other than by telephone or other means See Exhibit The deposition was originally scheduled on the th Floor and moved by Prose to a larger ground floor to accommodate the number of people who were to attend The undersigned and his partner Mark Luttier had scheduled a meeting with Mr Epstein for approximately an hour prior to the deposition It is well known through multiple newspaper articles that Mr Epsteins office at the Florida Science Foundation is located on the th Floor in the same building as the court reporter and Mr Epsteins criminal attorney Mr Goldberger As well had the court issued an order prior to the deposition that would have allowed Mr Epstein to attend he was readily available Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of As of p.m no order had been received from the court so Epsteins attorneys in good faith decided that Epstein would not attend the deposition as per the agreement if we chose to proceed which we were doing The undersigned and Mr Luttier specifically waited until just after oclock the time that the deposition was to start prior to leaving with Mr Epstein Counsel instructed Mr Epstein to leave the building Clearly Defendant and his counsel simply wish to have meaningful discovery The undersigned and Mr Luttier exited the elevator heading toward the deposition room and Mr Epstein and his driver Igor Zinoviev exited in separate elevator at the same time and turned to depart from through the front entrance such that he could go to his home to watch the deposition and assist counsel from a video feed Completely unbeknownst and unexpected by anyone apparently the Plaintiff and her attorney were at the front door where Mr Epstein was intending to exit Upon seeing two women one who might be the Plaintiff Mr Epstein immediately made a left turn and exited through a separate set of doors to the garage area See affidavit of Jeffrey Epstein and Igor Zinoviev Exhibit and respectively The entire incident was completely unknown to the undersigned and Mr Luttier until Adam Horowitz Esq came in and announced that the deposition was not going to take place in that Mr Epstein and his client saw one another she was upset and therefore the deposition was cancelled from his perspective The undersigned and his partner Mr Luttier had a court reporter and a videographer present Additionally Mr Hill on behalf of C.M A Adam Langino on behalf of B.B William Berger on behalf of three Plaintiffs were present for the deposition Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Any suggestion that the chance visual between Mr Epstein and Jane Doe No was pre-planned would be absurd disingenuous and false The undersigned counsel went out of his way to make certain Mr Epstein would not be in the building after the time the deposition was set to begin Had the Plaintiff and her counsel been in the deposition room at the appointed time no visual contact would have occurred It is possible that Plaintiffs counsel by filing their motion for protective order on September and then advising the undersigned on September that the deposition would not go forward unless the undersigned agreed to exclude Mr Epstein from the deposition were not prepared and/or did not want to proceed with the deposition The unilateral termination of the deposition was unnecessary inappropriate and a substantial waste of attorney time and the costs related to the deposition court reporter and videographer See Affidavit of Robert Critton Jr Mark Lnttier and Deposition Transcript Exhibits and respectively Had the visual been premeditated the cancellation of the deposition may have been justified however under these circumstances it was grandstanding and improper In that the Plaintiff has stated that she voluntary went to JEs home plus times without trauma until she filed a lawsuit this brief visual encounter from a distance should not have resulted in the unilateral cancellation of her deposition The costs associated with the court reporter and videographer total See Exhibit Memorandum of Law In support of Motion A substantial amount of administrative time went into the setting up the deposition of Jane Doe No Almost two months passed from the time that the Defendants counsel first Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of requested a date for the deposition of Jane Doe No The deposition of Jane Doe No was to begin at p.m based on her schedule and was moved from the undersigneds office to the office of the court reporter at her counsels request Pursuant to Rule and A and and its reference to a Federal Rules of Civil Procedure the court may impose an appropriate sanction including reasonable expenses in attorneys fees incurred by any party on a person who impedes or delays the fair examination of the deponent In this instance the brief visual encounter which was completely unintended and inadvertent should not have been grounds for Plaintiffs counsel and Plaintiff refusing to move forward with the deposition Furthermore pursuant to A and Plaintiff and Plaintiffs counsel had no right to unilaterally terminate/cancel the deposition and fail to move forward Plaintiff should have continued with the deposition and filed any motion deemed appropriate post deposition Therefore Defendant is asking for the costs associated with the attendance of the court reporter her transcript and the presence of the videographer Defendant would also request reasonable fees for hours at per hour for being required to prepare this motion and affidavits associated with same The records obtained thus far on Jane Doe No do not reflect any emotional trauma by her own account of some plus visits to the Defendants home prior to the time that she hired an attorney Even in her interview with attorneys handpicked expert Dr Kliman by her own comments her significant emotional trauma relates to physical and verbal abuse by a prior boyfriend Preston Vineyard and deaths associated with two close friends Chris and Jen Therefore the supposed emotional trauma caused by a chance encounter resulting in a glance at best should not be the basis for Plaintiff unilaterally cancelling her deposition Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Rule A Certification of Pre-Filing Conference Counsel for Defendant conferred with Counsel for Plaintiff by telephone and by e-mail however an agreement has not been reached WHEREFORE Defendant moves this court for an order granting sanctions to include attorneys fees and costs as set forth above and costs associated with the attendance of the court reporter the transcript and the presence of the videographer and direction that Jane Doe No appear for deposition within fifteen days from the date of the courts order at the court reporters office If the court has not issued an order regarding Mr Epsteins attendance at Plaintiffs deposition when Jane Doe No is to appear the Defendant will agree that Mr Epstein will not be present in the building on the date of her scheduled deposition such that no inadvertent contact will occur Robert Critton Jr Michail Pike Attorneys for Defendant Epstein Certificate of Service I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was hand-delivered to the Clerk of the Court as required by the Local Rules of the Southern District of Florida and electronically mailed to all counsel of record identified on the following Service List on this day of September Certificate of Service Jane Doe No Jeffrey Epstein Case No 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Stuart Mermelstein Esq Adam Horowitz Esq Mermelstein Horowitz P.A Biscayne Boulevard Suite Miami FL Fax ssm sexabuseattomey.com ahorowitz sexabuseattomey.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 i sx searcylaw.com iph searcylaw.com Counsel for Plaintiff C.M.A Bruce Reinhart Esq Bruce Reinhart P.A Australian Avenue Suite 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 ProHac 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 rjosefsberg podhurst.com kezell podhurst.com Counsel for Plaintiffs in Related Cases Nos and Jack Alan Goldberger Esq Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of West Palm Beach FL Fax ecf brucereinhartlaw.com Counsel for Defendant Sarah Kellen Theodore Leopold Esq Spencer Kuvin Esq Leopold-Kuvin P.A PGA Blvd Suite Palm Beach Gardens FL Atterbury Goldberger Weiss P.A Australian Avenue South Suite West Palm Beach FL Fax jagesq bellsouth.net Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No skuvin riccilaw.com tleopold riccilaw.com By ROBERT RITTON JR ESQ Florida Bar rcrit bclcl w.com MICHAEL PIKE ESQ Florida Bar mpike bclclaw.com BURMAN CRITTON LUTTIER COLEMAN Banyan Boulevard Suite West Palm Beach FL Phone Fax Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein
11,605 characters
