Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Jane Doe No Epstein Case No.08-CIV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON Epsteins Response in Opposition to Jane Does Motion for Protective Order Barring Second Day of Deposition and Incorporated Motion to Strike Page of9 take into account lunch and other breaks When taking into account the various breaks Jane Doe was actually deposed for hours and minutes.2 Per the Courts May Order Consolidating Cases for Purposes of Discovery DE Local Rule limiting deposition time to one day of seven hours is waived so as to allow each party an adequate opportunity to develop fully the record as it may relate to that party Jane Doe is seeking in excess of in damages in this case primarily to hurt Jeffrey Epstein See Deposition Transcript of Jane Doe JD Depo at Yet Jane Doe admitted that Epstein never threatened her never used physical force never restrained her and never provided her with drugs or alcohol See JD Depo at Moreover Jane Doe did not give or receive oral sex from Mr Epstein did not engage in anal or vaginal sex with Mr Epstein See JD Depo at When counsel for Epstein adjourned Jane Does deposition he attempted to coordinate the completion of her deposition which he estimated would take approximately three hours But Jane Does counsel opposed additional time and took the position that the Courts Order DE only waived the seven-hour time limit in instances where multiple Plaintiffs attorneys are questioning the witness See Excerpts of JD Depo at attached as Exhibit A In adjourning Jane Does deposition counsel for Epstein noted that he intended to cover the following topics in the completion of Jane Does deposition which he estimated would take approximately two and a half to three hours a Background information not disclosed in answers to interrogatories and family background information See Exhibit A at Counsel for Epstein confirmed the actual time with the court reporter Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Jane Doe No Epstein Case No 08-CIV-80119-MARRNJOHNSON Epsteins Response in Opposition to Jane Does Motion for Protective Order Barring Second Day of Deposition and Incorporated Motion to Strike Page of9 The details of each time Jane Doe went to Mr Epsteins house which was not addressed at her September deposition Counsel for Mr Epstein only had time to question Jane Doe generally about her visits to Mr Epsteins house Id at The various counts of the complaint separate and apart from the allegations of the various visits Mt Jane Does knowledge of other witnesses/Plaintiffs including LM and EW also clients of Brad Edwards Esq Id at and School records and medical records including Milton School Planned Parenthood St Marys Medical Center Wellington Regional Hospital and Pace Center for Girls Mt Epstein is also entitled to depose Jane Doe regarding her past sexual history an opportunity he did not have when he began her deposition since the Court had not ruled on Epsteins Motion to Compel DE which sought information related to Plaintiffs past sexual history Jane Does counsel instructed her not to answer any questions relateed to sexual partners names or sexual positions See Exhibit A at However on October the Court granted Epsteins Motions to Compel DE related to Plaintiffs past sexual history In its Order DE the Court poignantly acknowledged nder the circumstances of this case where Plaintiff has alleged that Epstein sexually assault her Plaintiff has put the nature of her claimed injuries and source and extent of her damages at issue such that Epstein is entitled to discover evidence which would show the nature of Plaintiffs relationship with males whether she has suffered other acts of sexual misconduct as alleged in her Complaint and whether she suffered injury Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Jane Doe No Epstein Case No.08-CJV-80119-MARRNJOHNSON Epsteins Response in Opposition to Jane Does Motion for Protective Order Barring Second Day of Deposition and Incorporated Motion to Strike Page of9 and/or damages as a result of the other claimed sexual misconduct with males See DE at The Court went on the requests at issue go to the very heart of Plaintiffs damage claims requesting not only general information relating to Plaintiffs sexual history but inquiring as to specific instances wherein Plaintiff received compensation or consideration for sex acts claim other males sexually assaulted her and/or claim other males committed lewd or lascivious acts on her As a global matter Plaintiffs clearly and unequivocally place their sexual history at issue by their allegations To deny Epstein this discovery would be tantamount to barring him from mounting a defense See DE at emphasis added I Moreover there are a myriad of relevant issues that cannot not be adequately covered in seven hours such as Jane Does drug use see JD Depo at her employment at strip clubs id at numerous incidents of violence and drug use in her home id at running away from home id at the murder of Joey Torres by her father her witnessing her father physically abuse Joey prior to his death and the psychological effect it had on Jane Doe including post-traumatic stress disorder which she is also claiming in this case id at Jane Doe is also a witness to other related cases and testified she was friends with LM and EW Plaintiffs in companion state court cases See JD Depo at Next Jane Doe improperly refused to answer questions regarding her address other persons living with her and the identity of her landlord See JD Depo at Her attorney plainly said go to the Court to get the information Id at She also admitted to lying under oath in a deposition as well as a court proceeding id at and testified that the father of her child was a cocaine dealer id at Based on Jane Does Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Jane Doe No Epstein Case No.08-CIV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON Epsteins Response in Opposition to Jane Does Motion for Protective Order Barring Second Day of Deposition and Incorporated Motion to Strike Page of9 eventful past history and the multitude of relevant issues deposing her for an additional three hours is clearly warranted under the circumstances Indeed in its Order denying Plaintiffs C.M.A Motion for Protective Order DE requesting the Court limit her independent psychological/psychiatric medical examination to six hours and to prohibit repeated questions regarding Plaintiffs medical history psychiatric history sexual history social history sexual abuse history and substance abuse history the Court noted that Plaintiff is seeking millions of dollars in personal injury damages and that full knowledge of Plaintiffs past and present medical psychological familial and social histories is essential See DE at The Court therefore allowed eight hours the full amount of time requested by Epsteins expert to conduct the examination Moreover with respect to Plaintiffs motion to limited repeated questions the Court agree with Defendant that to restrict the number of times defense counsel may ask Plaintiff personal and sensitive questions concerning some of the pivotal issues in this case would work an injustice by preventing Defendant from being able to defend himself See DE at Epstein simply requests an additional three hours to complete Jane Does deposition Given that Jane Does counsel instructed her not to answer crucial questions related to her past sexual history and considering the Court recently ruled this information is not only discoverable but goes to the heart of Plaintiffs damages Epstein should be permitted three hours to finish Jane Does deposition Although the Court waived the seven hour time limit in S.D Fla L.R also found in Fed Civ Osborne Columbia Helicopters Inc WL S.D.W.Va is illustrative and supports Epsteins request for additional time to depose Plaintiffs In Osborne a personal injury case the defendant requested additional time to depose Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Jane Doe No Epstein Case No 08-CJV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON Epsteins Response in Opposition to Jane Does Motion/or Protective Order Barring Second Day of Deposition and Incorporated Motion to Strike Page of9 the plaintiff because the plaintiff testified to prior injuries employers medical providers and witnesses which were not included in his written discovery responses Id In granting the defendant an additional day of hours to depose the plaintiff the court reasoned that because the plaintiff provided incomplete written discovery responses the defendant did not have a full opportunity to examine Mr Osborne respecting all of the information which might properly be considered in his discovery deposition Id emphasis added Just like the defendant in Osborne Epstein has not had a full opportunity to examine Jane Doe as to all information which might properly be considered in her deposition such as information not disclosed in her interrogatories and since she refused to answers questions both in her deposition and in response to written discovery regarding her past sexual history Per the Courts Order DE Epstein is entitled to discover information regarding Jane Does past sexual history If the Court were to grant Jane Does Motion it would essentially be punishing Epstein for timely proceeding with discovery while his Motions to Compel DE related to past sexual history were still pending which Epstein was required to do because the Court denied an earlier motion for continuance DE I and said in essence do your discovery Granting Jane Does Motion would also allow her to circumvent the Courts Order DE by denying Epstein the opportunity to obtain discovery that is central to the defense of this and other cases Accordingly the Court should deny Jane Does Motion DE and permit Epstein an additional three hours to complete Jane Does deposition Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Jane Doe No Epstein Case No 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON Epsteins Response in Opposition to Jane Does Motion/or Protective Order Barring Second Day of Deposition and Incorporated Motion to Strike Page of9 Motion to Strike Jane Does Motion As a threshold matter the Court should strike Jane Does Motion for failure to comply with the Courts August Order DE Specifically the Order provides hereinafter all motions and other court filings that relate to discovery shall be styled consistent with the styling of this Order Any motions styled incorrectly or filed in multiple cases will be stricken from the docket for failure to follow the Courts Order See DE Jane Does Motion DE which is a motion for protective order and therefore relate to discovery is clearly styled incorrectly and is not consistent with the styling of the Courts August Order DE Accordingly the Court should strike Jane Does Motion WHEREFORE Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN respectfully requests the Court strike Jane Does Motion DE for failure to comply with the Courts August Order DE or alternatively deny Jane Does Motion DE and permit an additional three hours for the completion of Jane Does deposition and grant any additional relief the Court deems just and proper By ROBERT CRITTON JR ESQ Florida Bru No rcrit bclclaw.com Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Jane Doe No Epstein Case No 08-CIV-80119-MARRNJOHNSON Epsteins Response in Opposition to Jane Does Motion for Protective Order Barring Second Day of Deposition and Incorporated Motion to Strike Page of9 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 12th day of November By ROBERT CRITTON JR ESQ Florida No rcrit bclclaw.com MICHAEL PIKE ESQ Florida Bar mpike bclclaw.com BURMAN CRITTON LUTTIER COLEMAN Banyan Boulevard 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 I 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 Brad Edwards Esq Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler I 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 IOI Salt Lake City UT Fax cassellp law.utah.edu Co-counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe Isidro Garcia Esq Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Jane Doe No Epstein Case No.08-C!V-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON 243"pstein Response in Opposition to Jane Does Motion for Protective Order Barring Second Day of Deposition and Incorporated Motion to Strike Page of9 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.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 skuvin leopoldkuvin.com Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No 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 Atterbury Goldberger Weiss P.A Australian Avenue South Suite West Palm Beach FL Fax jagesg bellsouth.net Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein
13,933 characters
