Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Jane Doe No Epstein Case No.08-CIV-80119-MARRNJOHNSON Epsteins Response in Opposition to Jane Doe No Motion Order as to the Scope of Inquiry at the Depositions of Jane Doe No.4s Parents Page2of8 First Jane Doe No 4s Motion is premature as Epstein has not yet set the depositions of Jane Doe No 4s parents Next this is yet another attempt by Plaintiff to control discovery and insulate herself and her witnesses by asking the Court to disallow discovery of information directly relevant and material to her damage claims on the basis that it may be embarrassing or upsetting to her parents See DE rs However the Court has ruled on a number of these issues as follows a Plaintiffs attorneys sought to preclude the Epstein from serving third party subpoenas and allowing only Plaintiffs counsel to obtain depositions and those materials and filter them to defense counsel That motion was denied and the court tailored a method such that the Epstein could obtain the records directly See DE Plaintiffs counsel sought to limit the psychological psychiatric examination in C.M.A Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen Case No as to time subject matter and scope However Magistrate Johnson entered an order denying the requested restrictions See DE Many Plaintiffs objected to discovery regarding current and past employment although they are seeking loss of income both in past and future The Court granted Epsteins Motions to Compel related to Plaintiffs tax returns and documents related to Plaintiffs earnings See DE All Plaintiffs objected to discovery of their prior sexual history consensual and forced as being irrelevant The Court granted Epsteins Motions to Compel information related to Plaintiffs past sexual history See DE Jane Doe No is seeking to recover millions of dollars in damages for confusion shame humiliation and embarrassment severe psychological and emotional injuries severe permanent traumatic injuries including mental psychological and emotional damages and severe mental anguish and pain See Second Amend Comp DE r,r1s Yet she wants to impermissibly narrow the scope of permissible discovery to serve her Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Jane Doe No Epstein Case No 08-CIV-80119-MARRNJOHNSON Epsteins Response in Opposition to Jane Doe No AJ.otion Order as to the Scope of Inquiry at the Depositions of Jane Doe No.4 Parents Page of8 own personal interests namely to continue to hide the fact she had three abortions from her parents As with many of the Plaintiffs Jane Doe No has had a complicated and eventful past history including but not limited to drug use which includes cocaine marijuana ecstasy and xanax see Deposition of Jane Doe No Jane Doe No Depo at repeated instances of domestic violence and physical and verbal abuse by her former boyfriend Preston Vinyard in which he bit her finger spit on her poured beer on her and called her degrading names such as whore slut and cunt id at three pregnancies with Vinyard that ended in three abortions which she failed to disclose to various physicians including her own psychiatric expert Dr Kliman and which she admitted caused her more emotional trauma than her encounters with Mr Epstein id at and arrests including a recent arrest in Jupiter Florida in October for domestic violence where she attacked hit and bit her current boyfriend id at However Jane Doe No never sought treatment from a mental health professional until she was sent to Dr Kliman by her attorneys after this suit was filed id at Moreover while Jane Doe No was seeing Mr Epstein both before and after she turned which she testified was between and times id at including her freshman year of college at Lynn University id at she made a sex tape depicting vaginal and oral sex with her boyfriend which she voluntarily showed to Mr Epstein id at She also admitted to lying to the police ill at and lying to physicians including her own expert Dr Kliman id at 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 Doe No Motion Order as to the Scope of Inquiry at the Depositions of Jane Doe No.4 Parents Page of8 On the other hand Jane Doe No testified that all contact and conduct with Epstein was voluntary and consensual she did not have intercourse oral or anal sex with Epstein nor did she touch his genitalia and at no time did Epstein ever restrain her or use physical force See Jane Doe No Depo at Jane Doe No 4s parents are important witnesses in that they likely have information about her psychological and emotional condition pre-Epstein during the time she was seeing Epstein and post-Epstein Jane Doe No argues since her parents are unaware of the abortions neither will be able to provide any information about when the procedures occurred her mental state at the time of each procedure whether any complications arose or any other information that could reasonably be calculated to lead to admissible evidence Epsteins counsel intends to inquire into these matters solely for the purpose of harassing embarrassing and oppressing Jane Doe No See DE iJ7 However questioning Jane Doe No 4s parents about her abortions is in fact directly relevant to her claim of damage in this case In her October deposition Jane Doe testified that having three abortions was more traumatic that her encounters with Mr Epstein See Jane Doe No Depo at Jane Doe No 4s parents are likely aware of the allegations in this case or they will be when they are deposed That Jane Doe No is comfortable with her parents knowing about allegations of sexual abuse and physical and verbal abuse by Preston Vinyard but not comfortable with them knowing about three abortions is telling as to the psychological impact the abortions had on Jane Doe No Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Jane Doe No Epstein Case No 08-CIV-80119-MARRNJOHNSON Epsteins Response in Opposition to Jane Doe No Motion Order as to the Scope of Inquiry at the Depositions of Jane Doe No.4 Parents Page of8 It is axiomatic that the discovery rules were intended to promote the search for truth which is the heart of our judicial system It follows that full knowledge of relevant facts will aid in the search for truth The converse is also true withholding relevant facts will obstruct the search for truth Permitting Jane Doe No 4s parents to be deposed regarding her alleged emotional damages without them knowing the full extent of traumatic events that may have caused or contributed to her damages could certainly skew their testimony For example if Jane Doe No 4s parents are oblivious to her having three abortions they may incorrectly attribute her alleged emotional distress to Mr Epstein when in fact it may very well have been caused by the multiple abortions Indeed the Court denied Plaintiffs C.M.A Motion for Protective Order Order at 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 In its Order the Court noted that Plaintiff is seeking millions of dollars in personal injury damages and that no authority was uncovered to support the novel positions that a Plaintiff who puts her mental emotional and psychiatric state at issue can place a limitation on the number of times defense counsel can inquire into areas relevant to these issues where the subject matter involved is highly personal embarrassing sensitive or otherwise humiliating See DE at The same reasoning applies to the instant Motion Jane Doe No cites no authority for the proposition that Epstein should be precluded from asking her parents leading Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Jane Doe No Epstein Case No.08-CIV-80119-MARRNJOHNSON Epsteins Response in Opposition to Jane Doe No Motion Order as to the Scope of Inquiry at the Depositions ofJane Doe No.4 Parents Page of8 questions regarding her three abortions events that admittedly had a substantial and traumatic impact on her To the contrary it is clearly permissible for Epsteins counsel to ask leading questions of Jane Doe No 4s parents Rule Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that the examination and cross-examination of a deponent proceed as they would at trial under the Federal Rules of Evidence except Rules and Rule Federal Rules of Evidence provides in pertinent part when a party calls a witness identified with an adverse party interrogation may be by leading questions Jane Doe No 4s parents certainly constitute witnesses identified with an adverse party and therefore Epstein may ask leading questions in their depositions For all of the foregoing reasons the Court should deny Jane Doe No 4s Motion WHEREFORE Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN respectfully requests the Court deny Jane Does Motion DE and grant any additional relief the Court deems just and proper By ls.I Robert Critton Jr ROBERT CRITTON JR ESQ Florida Bar No rcrit bclclaw.com 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 Doe No Motion Order as to the Scope of inquiry at the Depositions of Jane Doe No.4 Parents Page of8 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 20th day of November Respectfully submitted By ls.I Robert Critton Jr ROBERT CRITTON JR ESQ Florida Bar 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 Brad Edwards Esq Adam Horowitz Esq Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler Mermelstein Horowitz P.A East Las Olas Boulevard Biscayne Boulevard Suite Suite Fort Lauderdale FL Miami FL Phone Fax Fax bedwards rra-law.com ssm sexabuseattomey.com Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No ahorowitz sexabuseattomey.com Counsel for Plaintiffs In related Cases Nos Richard Horace Willits Esq Richard Willits P.A th Avenue North Paul Cassell Esq Pro Hae Vice South Room Salt Lake City UT Fax Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Jane Doe No Epstein Case No.08-CJV-80119-MARRNJOHNSON Epsteins Response in Opposition to Jane Doe No Motion Order as to the Scope of Inquiry at the Depositions of Jane Doe No.4 Parents Page of8 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.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 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 Atterbury Goldberger Weiss P.A Australian A venue South Suite West Palm Beach FL Fax jagesg bellsouth.net Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein
11,902 characters
