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-CIV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON Related cases DEFENDANTS JEFFREY EPSTEIN RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS JANE DOE MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFFS INTERROGATORIES DE Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN hereby files his Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs JANE DOE Motion to Compel Answers to Plaintiffs Interrogatories dated July DE Consolidated Case No DE I Procedural Background Plaintiffs Motion to Compel is filed at DE The Motion to Compel was voluminous and orders had been entered by this court DE and addressing other th Amendment issues therefore the undersigned counsel endeavored to eliminate certain requests outlined in Plaintiffs a Motion to Compel As a result a Joint Notice of Agreement was entered advising the court that several of the requests had been addressed by counsel alleviating the court from having to rule on same DE Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Doe Epstein Page No Defendant filed his Rule Appeal DE and his Supplementary Brief DE which address several of the th Amendment arguments applicable to the requests outlined herein Portions of DE and were provided to the court in camera pursuant to the courts order DE Therefore for the Courts ease of reference and in an attempt to maintain brevity Defendant hereby incorporates those arguments and case law as if fully set forth herein Significantly these cases have been consolidated for discovery Therefore consistent rulings should apply In making those rulings this Court must continue to recognize that the allegations in the related cases cannot be forgotten E.g see DE and Answers to discovery requests in one case could provide a link in the chain of evidence used to prosecute Epstein for a crime or provide an indirect link to incriminating evidence in another case Id and infra The Interrogatories and the responses thereto are attached as Composite Exhibit A II The Interrogatories Argument And Memorandum Of Law a Interrogatory Numbers Interrogatory No Do you intend to elicit testimony of witnesses other than Plaintiff regarding any statements she has ever made If so what statements do you intend to produce through testimony Through which witness do you intend to elicit such statement And for what purpose do you intend to admit such statement Interrogatory No Provide the names addresses and phone numbers of all your current accountants financial planners or money managers handling or assisting in the handling of your money or assets Interrogatory No State the facts upon which you rely for each affirmative defense in your answer Answer Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as well as his U.S constitutional privileges I intend to respond to all relevant The only difference between the response to Interrogatory Number is that it raises the attorney-client work product privileges at the conclusion of the answer Otherwise the responses to Interrogatory Numbers and are identical to the response to Interrogatory Number Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Doe Epstein Page No questions regarding this lawsuit however my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk waiving my Fifth Amendment rights and losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation Accordingly I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights would be unreasonable and would therefore violate the Constitution In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges Defendant objects as the interrogatory is so overbroad and thus seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of the pending action nor does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence Additionally work-product and attorney-client In Jane Doe No Epstein Case No the Magistrate Judge found in Epstein entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement NPA with the United States Attorney Generals Office for the Federal Southern District of Florida USAO and the State Attorneys Office for Palm Beach County Under the terms of the NPA any criminal prosecution against Epstein is deferred as long as he abides by the certain terms and conditions contained therein If at any time the USAOs Office has reason to believe Epstein is in breach of the Agreement it need only provide Epsteins counsel with notice of the breach and then move forward with Epsteins prosecution Accordingly the undersigned would agree with Epstein that the fact there exists a NP A does not mean that Epstein is free from future criminal prosecution and that in fact the threat of prosecution is real substantial and present See August Order DE and September Omnibus Order DE and Manson United States U.S Moreover as this court knows the NPA only defers prosecution in the Southern District of Florida not other districts Therefore Epstein is confronted by a substantial and real and not merely trifling or imaginary hazard of incrimination when it comes to Plaintiffs discovery requests United States Apfelbaum U.S Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Doe Epstein Page No The Fifth Amendment serves as a guarantee against testimonial compulsion and provides in relevant part that Jo person shall be compelled in any Criminal Case to be a witness against himself DE see also Edwin Price F.2d 11th Cir citing Lefkowitz Turley U.S The privilege is accorded liberal construction in favor of the right and extends not only to answers that would support a criminal conviction but extends also to those answers which would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute the claimant for a crime See Hoffman United States U.S Information is protected by the privilege not only if it would support a criminal conviction but also in those instances where the responses would merely provide a lead or clue to evidence having a tendency to incriminate See United States Neff F.2d 9th Cir cert denied U.S Blau United States U.S SEC Leach F.Supp.2d E.D PA The Court has already ruled on questions similar to the ones posed by Jane Doe i.e Interrogatory Numbers and and which seek similar identifying information that could be used to incriminate Epstein would furnish a link in the chain of evidence used to prosecute him and would require Epstein if answers were provided to be a witness against himself For instance Jane Doe asked the following No 13.List the names and addresses of all persons who are believed or known by you your agents or your attorneys to have any knowledge concerning any of the issues in this lawsuit and specify the subject matter about which the witness has knowledge No 14.State the name and address of every person known to you your agents or your attorneys who has knowledge about possession or custody or control of any model plat map drawing motion picture videotape or photograph pertaining to any fact or issue involved in this controversy and describe as to each what item such person has the name and address of the person who took or prepared it and the date it was taken or prepared Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Doe Epstein Page No No 15.Identify all persons who have made a claim complaint demand or threat against you relating to alleged sexual abuse or misconduct on a minor and for each provide the following information a The persons full name last known address and telephone number The persons attorney if represented The date of the alleged incident If a civil case has been filed by or on behalf of the person the case number and identifying information No 16.State the facts upon which you intend to rely for each denial of a pleading allegation and for each affirmative defense you intend to make in these cases No 17.Identify all witnesses from whom you have obtained or requested a written transcribed or recorded statement relating to any issue in these cases and for each in addition to the witnes identifying information state the date of the statement and identify the person taking the statement The court sustained Epsteins Fifth Amendment Privilege as it related to the above interrogatories DE Here Jane Does Interrogatory No is the same as Jane Doe Interrogatory Numbers and in that Interrogatory No seeks compelled statements that could reasonably furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute Epstein in future criminal proceedings or even support a criminal conviction Interrogatory Numbers and ask Epstein to identify persons or witnesses who mayhave knowledge of the events in question DE Asking Epstein to identify those individuals that may have information or that will provide a statement on his behalf including the identity of his accountants financial planners or money managers will implicate the Fifth Amendment in that by requiring Epstein to list such persons or witnesses Epstein is being forced to incriminate himself in the commission of crimes and is further forcing Epstein to provide compelled information as to his version of the facts e.g witness statements which at this juncture are also protected by the attorney-client and work-product privileges See infra and DE Asking Epstein to identify his accountants financial planners or money managers is the same thing as Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Doe Epstein Page No asking him to identify and provide a list of his employees which the court has already ruled would implicate Epsteins Fifth Amendment privilege as it is be tantamount to asking Epstein to identify potential witnesses against him DE In addition Interrogatory Number and the information sought relates to potential federal claims of violations See infra for more detailed and incorporated argument and DE and in camera Next Interrogatory Number seeks an answer delineating the facts upon which Epstein relies for each affirmative defense in his answer First an answer has not yet been filed in this matter as Defendants Motion to Dismiss remains pending Second this court has also ruled that such an interrogatory is a contention interrogatory seeking the facts upon which Epstein relies to support each of his pleading allegation denials and for each affirmative defense DE p8 The court reasoned as Epstein correctly observes forcing him to answer this contention interrogatory unconstitutionally places him in the position of being compelled to testify as to his version of the facts and in asserting affirmative defenses being compelled to admit to Plaintiffs version of the facts De That same ruling must apply here and may also be applied to Interrogatory Number Requiring Epstein to list these individuals would constitute compelled testimonial admissions that could potentially provide a lead or clue or a link in the chain of evidence having a tendency to incriminate Epstein and would threaten to invade his privilege against being In Jane Doe No Epstein the Court sustained Epsteins Fifth Amendment objections to interrogatories asking Epstein to identify all employees who perfonned work inside his Palm Beach residence and all other employees who came to the residence asking Epstein to identify any who gave or were asked to give him massages requesting information regarding the identity of persons who provided transportation services seeking a list of Epsteins employees telephone numbers asking Epstein to identify any persons or witnesses who have knowledge or are in possession of physical evidence pertaining to the events in question seeking information related to alleged sexual abuse or misconduct on a minor and seeking the facts on upon which Epstein relies to support pleading denials and affirmative defenses See DE Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Doe Epstein Page No required to produce and/or testify Rudy-Glanzer Glanzer F.3d th Cir the privilege against self-incrimination does not depend upon the likelihood but upon the possibility of prosecution and also covers those circumstances where the disclosures would not be directly incriminating but could provide an indirect link to incriminating evidence Clearly this court has already ruled that Epstein can properly invoke his Fifth Amendment right to not identify a person who may have information pertaining to the alleged events For these reasons Epsteins justified concern with regard to answering the above interrogatories and the resulting waiver of his Fifth Amendment Privilege in this regard and/or providing self-incriminating information is substantial real and not merely imaginative Accordingly based on the facts and circumstances of this case and under applicable law Defendants assertion of the protections afforded under the th and th Amendments of the United States Constitution are required to be upheld Interrogatory Numbers and Interrogatory No Describe financial assets that are under your control directly or indirectly including interests in corporations or other business entities Interrogatory No Describe which financial assets listed in your answer to interrogatory that are located outside the states of the United States and where they are located Interrogatory No Describe your net worth including income and expenses for and Interrogatory No Describe any real property in which you have a total or partial ownership interest either directly or indirectly Interrogatory No Describe which real properties listed in your answer to interrogatory are located outside the United States and where the properties are located Interrogatory No Describe any transfer of assets under your control either directly or indirectly to locations outside the United States in and Interrogatory No Are you transferring or do you plan to or might you transfer money or assets out of the country during the course of this litigation Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Doe Epstein Page No Interrogatory No Describe each property owned by you including location approximate value and whether there is a mortgage on the property and the amount of any such mortgage Interrogatory No Describe with specificity the amount of money available to you in cash or that can be readily liquidated as such Include the bank financial institution holding company or other location of this money and the name of the account Answer Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as well as his U.S constitutional privileges I intend to respond to all relevant questions regarding this lawsuit however my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk waiving my Fifth Amendment rights and losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation Accordingly I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights would be unreasonable and would therefore violate the Constitution In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges Defendant objects as the interrogatory is so overbroad and thus seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of the pending action nor does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence The Fifth Amendment As set forth in more detail in DE and which were provided to the court in camera Epstein cannot provide answers/responses to questions relating to his financial history and condition without waiving his Fifth Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution The requests are unreasonable overbroad confidential proprietary in nature and seek information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of the pending action nor does it appear to be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence Responding to the above financial requests would require Epstein to identify information regarding matters as set forth in more detail in DE and which were provided to the Court in camera Identifying the specified information would result in testimonial disclosures that would communicate statements of fact Again the information sought relates to potential federal claims of violations See DE and in camera Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Doe Epstein Page No Responding would therefore constitute a testimonial admission and thus presents a real and substantial danger of self-incrimination in this case in other related cases and as well in areas that could result in criminal prosecution See generally Hoffman United States U.S and United States Hubbell U.S S.Ct The Fifth Amendment is a safe harbor for all citizens including those who are innocent of any underlying offense These interrogatories if answered may result in compelled testimonial communications from Epstein regarding his financial status and history and would require him to waive his right to decline to respond to other inquiries related to the same subject matter Responding to this and other related inquiries would have the potential to provide a link in a chain of information and/or leads to other evidence or witnesses that would have the specific risk of furthering an investigation against him and therefore are protected from compulsion by Epsteins constitutional privilege Accordingly any compelled testimony that provides a lead or clue to a source of evidence of such a crime is protected by Fifth Amendment SEC Leach F.Supp.2d E.D PA I See supra Questions seeking testimony regarding names of witnesses leads to phone or travel records or financial records that would provide leads to tax or money laundering or unlicensed money transmittal investigations are protected See also Hoffman United States U.S the right against self-incrimination may be invoked if the answer would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute for a crime See also Hoffman United States U.S the right against self-incrimination may be invoked if the answer would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute for a crime Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Doe Epstein Page No To the extent Plaintiff claims she needs the information concerning asset transfers based on her nnsupported presumption that Epstein is fraudulently transferring assets same is premature and nnsupported by the law for the reasons set forth in Epsteins Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Injunction Restraining Fraudulent Transfer of Assets DE The court will note that as worded that similar interrogatories seek information regarding Epsteins assets ownership of assets and transfer of assets in locations inside and outside the United States Defendant has already provided this court with sufficient argument at DE and DE detailing why the production or identification of information showing or providing a clue as to Epsteins whereabouts could provide a link in the chain of evidence regarding a Epsteins air travel within the United States and Foreign Territories Epsteins communications with others relating to or referring to females coming into the United States from other countries and Epsteins personal calendars and schedules Given that the essential proof of an allegation of U.S.C would include travel records schedules regarding trips and locations flight records calendars and transportation arrangements the court found that Epstein had made a more particularized showing because producing such information could reveal the availability to him and/or use by him of interstate facilities and thus would constitute a link in the chain of evidence that could potentially expose Epstein to the dangers of self incrimination DE Here Plaintiffs request that Epsteins identify his financial information ownership of assets and transfers of assets inside and outside the United States of assets could reveal the availability to him and/or use by him of interstate facilities and thus would constitute a link in the chain of evidence that could potentially expose Epstein to the dangers of self incrimination Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Doe Epstein Page No DE Plaintiff wishes to obtain this information to corroborate her request for Epsteins passport and pages attached thereto identifying the locations Epstein has traveled outside of the United States which is no different from the requests this Court has already ruled upon and sustained Epsteins Fifth Amendment privilege in response thereto DE In summary this court reasoned that in this and the other civil actions Plaintiffs allege that Epstein violated certain federal and state criminal statutes in an attempt to make claims against Epstein ranging from sexual battery to intentional infliction of emotional distress The lynchpin for the exercise of federal criminal jurisdiction under U.S.C which figures in some of the complaints filed is the use of any facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce and the analogous essential element of U.S.C which also figures in some of the Complaints is travels in interstate commerce or travels into the United States or travels in foreign commerce Accordingly requiring Epstein to provide responses would in essence be compelling him to provide assertions of fact While these interrogatories appear to be general-identification type information which on their face may not appear to infringe upon Epsteins rights under the th Amendment responding to same would furnish Plaintiff with the ability to serve subpoenas on certain institutions entities and possibly individuals that may furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to convict Epstein of a crime See DE and in camera Epstein cannot be required to waive his privileges under the Fifth Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and provide compelled testimony and information that may directly or indirectly furnish Plaintiff a clue or link in the chain of evidence used to prosecute him Rudy-Glanzer Glanzer F.3d at the privilege against self-incrimination does not depend upon the likelihood but upon the possibility of prosecution and also covers those circumstances where the disclosures would not be directly incriminating but could provide an indirect link to incriminating evidence Essentially Plaintiffs interrogatories seek to have Epstein be a witness Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Doe Epstein Page No against himself assist with Plaintiffs investigation and identify areas that could result in future prosecution of Epstein As an example Jane Doe asked the following question No Identify all telephone numbers used by Epstein including cellular phones and land lines in any of his residences by stating the complete telephone number and the name of the service provider After making a more particularized showing this court reasoned in light of the additional information provided in DE the court is now persuaded that Epsteins whereabouts are crucial issues in this case and other related cases and that if he is forced to reveal this information these testimonial disclosures could subsequently be used to incriminate him and/or prosecute him for a criminal offense DE The court has correctly recognized that the lynchpin for the exercise of federal criminal jurisdiction under U.S.C which figures in some of the complaints filed is the use of any facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce and the analogous essential element of U.S.C which also figures in some of the Complaints is travels in interstate commerce or travels into the United States or travels in foreign commerce Accordingly if Epsteins telephone records are protected from disclosure under the Fifth Amendment it goes without saying that his financial information is also protected from disclosure as revealing same could result in subsequent subpoenas for information that may identify his whereabouts on a particular day and time and may also lead to the identity of witnesses that may have knowledge of the alleged events Plaintiffs attempt to backdoor this information though Epstein by virtue of her artfully phrased interrogatories must fail Clearly this court has already ruled that Epstein can properly invoke his Fifth Amendment right to not identify a person who may have information pertaining to the alleged events Stated differently Epstein cannot be compelled to provide information that would lead Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Doe Epstein Page No to the identity of witnesses that may have knowledge of the alleged events In sum Epstein cannot be required to be a witness against himself or provide information that may incriminate him and lead to future prosecution For these reasons Epsteins justified concern with regard to answering the above interrogatories and the resulting waiver of his Fifth Amendment Privilege in this regard and/or providing self-incriminating information is substantial real and not merely imaginative Accordingly based on the facts and circumstances of this case and under applicable law Defendants assertion of the protections afforded under the and th Amendments of the United States Constitution are required to be upheld Wherefore Epstein respectfully requests that this Court issue and order a finding that the danger Epstein faces by being forced to testify in this case relative to the above interrogatories is substantial and real and not merely trifling or imaginary sustammg Epsteins Fifth Amendment Privilege and other delineated constitutional privileges as it relates to the above interrogatories and denying Plaintiffs Motion in that regard and for such other and further relief as this Court dee By MIC 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 counse_ f..,.mcord identified on the following Service List in the marmer specified by CM/ECF on this uay of October Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Doe Epstein Page No By ROBE CRITTON JR ESQ 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 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 aborowitz sexabuseattorney.com Counsel for Plaintif.fe In related Cases Nos Richard Horace Willits Esq Richard Willits P.A th A venue North Suite Lake Worth FL Fax Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No Brad Edwards Esq Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler East Las Olas Boulevard Suite Fort Lauderdale FL Phone 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.utab.edu Co-counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe Isidro Garcia Esq Garcia Law Firm P.A Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Doe Epstein Page 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.MA 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 Leopold Kuvin P.A PGA Blvd Suite Palm Beach Gardens FL Fax Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No 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 Plaintifft 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
28,447 characters
