Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO Plaintiff vs JEFFREY EPSTEIN Defendant Related cases I Response To Plaintifrs Jane Doe No Motion for Protective Order DE With Incorporated Memorandum Of Law Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN Epstein or Defendant by and through his undersigned attorneys hereby files his Response In Opposition to Plaintiffs Jane Does Motion for Protective Order DE With Incorporated Memorandum Of Law the Motion for Protective Order In support Epstein states as follows I Introduction Argument I Plaintiff and her counsel have now resurrected their collective efforts to prevent discovery relating to Plaintiffs psychological criminal and employment histories as well as their general backgrounds Plaintiff unreasonably continues to delay discovery knowing full well that the court has already entered orders allowing for discovery as to third parties Plaintiffs once again requests that this court preclude Epstein from investigating these matters through one of the most traditional methods available in Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of the justice system depositions Epstein has been faced with several motions seeking to prevent or limit discovery with the primary goal being to send Epstein to trial with little or no discovery Plaintiff continues to avert discovery and now she wishes to shelter her pasts by requesting that this court enter an order broadly limiting the rules of discovery and thus preventing Epstein from deposing third parties including two individuals that were Jane Doe 4s soccer coaches for years i.e Rocky Orezzoli and Bill Brown Limiting such discovery would undoubtedly result in reversible error Plaintiff claims Epstein is harassing her by way of seeking those depositions however such is not the case Coaches have an identifiably close relationship with their players and often times their players confide in them about events which they would not address with their very own parents As such these two deponents are clearly relevant and their depositions are not being set as a means of harassment Moreover Defendant does not intend to violate the courts order at DE As the court knows Plaintiffs have several preexisting and diagnosed conditions for which they now attempt to pawn off on Epstein in an effort to increase their damages For instance prior to any of their alleged encounters with Epstein certain Plaintiffs have been raped sexually abused molested and physically and verbally abused Some of them have been diagnosed with post traumatic stress disorder or obsessive compulsive disorder and some have suicidal thoughts and/or have attempted suicide on more than one occasion Moreover some of the Plaintiffs have witnessed close friends or family members commit suicide While the above incidents are nothing less than tragic the impact of those incidents on each of the Plaintiffs must be taken into consideration Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of with the claims they make and the damages they seek against from Epstein Plaintiff has objected to all meaningful discovery and now she seeks to halt or limit traditional discovery methods at the very time she suspects Epstein is going to learn information that may diminish or disprove her claims In fact the questions outlined on pages of DE are clearly relevant to Plaintiffs general background see infra her sexually explicit experiences including but not limited to events taking place at strip clubs where Plaintiff was employed Obviously these questions go to the heart of the Epsteins defenses including that of consent and ability to consent If this court precludes Epsteins lawyers from seeking information from third parties about the claims asserted against him by Jane Doe and others it will undoubtedly violate Epsteins due process rights by preventing him from defending the allegations made against him and it will further open the floodgates to additional challenges from others This would result in rewriting the rules of discovery and the intended purpose of the rules would largely be disregarded i.e to obtain information necessary to prosecute and/or defend claims such that the element of unfair surprise is diminished The overall purpose of discovery under the Federal Rules is to obtain a full and accurate understanding of the true facts in order to obtain a fair and just result United States Proctor Gamble Co U.S S.Ct This is evidenced through the intent of rule disclosures As this court has recognized Defendant should not have to rely on only those handpicked witnesses disclosed by Plaintiff in discovery and would thereby prejudice Epstein in mounting his defense to the claims raised against him DE Exhibit A Likewise at DE Exhibit this court denied Defendants Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Motion for Protective Order seeking to prevent the deposition of Third Party witness Igor Zinoview despite the fact that Mr Zinoview was employed by Epstein post-dates giving rise to the facts alleged in these actions This was the case even though several affidavits were provided supporting Zinoviews Motion for Protective Order The court found that an order completely prohibiting the deposition from going forward is rare Salter Upiohn co F.2d th Cir and that Zinoviews conclusory affidavit in which he denies knowledge of the facts giving rise to these cases provide anything even approaching the rise of extraordinary circumstances necessary to prohibit the deposition DE The same result should be reached here The party resisting discovery has a heavy burden of showing why the requested discovery should not be permitted Rossbach Runde F.Supp.2d S.D Fl The onus is on the party resisting discovery to demonstrate specifically how the objected-to information is unnecessary unreasonable or otherwise unduly burdensome Dunkin Donuts Inc Marys Donuts Inc WL S.D Fla the burden of showing that the requested information is not relevant to the issues in the case is on the party resisting discovery citation omitted Gober City of Lees berg R.D M.D Fla The party resisting production of information bears the burden of establishing lack of relevancy or undue burden in supplying the requested information To meet this burden the party resisting discovery must demonstrate specifically how the objected-to request is unreasonable or otherwise unduly burdensome See Fed Civ Panola Land Buyers Assn Shuman F.2d th Cir Rossbach F.Supp.2d at Thus to even merit consideration an objection must show specifically how a discovery request is Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of overly broad burdensome or oppressive by submitting evidence or offering evidence which reveals the nature of the burden Coker duke Co F.R.D M.D Ala Plaintiff has failed to make such a showing Therefore her Motion for Protective Order should be denied See DE Exhibit Obviously Defendant is entitled to test Plaintiffs credibility as to her alleged involvement with Epstein to determine the alleged effects on her as a result of any involvement with Epstein to determine whether she ever spoke of any alleged psychological trauma with the deponents and to determine if the deponents have any information supporting or denying Plaintiffs claim that she sustained damages as a result of their alleged involvement with Epstein It is well settled that relevant information is discoverable even if not admissible at trial so long as the discovery is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence Rule Fed.R.Civ.P Donahay Palm Beach Tours trans Inc F.R.D S.D Fla See Hickman Taylor U.S Oppenheimer Fund Inc Sanders U.S In Oppenheimer the Supreme Court discussed the concept of relevance in relation to Fed Civ and noted that The key phrase in this definition relevant to the subject matter in the pending action has been construed broadly to encompass any matter that bears on or that reasonably could lead to other matters that could bear on any issue that is or may be in the case Consistent with the notice pleading system established by the Rules discovery is not limited to issues raised by the pleadings for discovery itself is designed to help define and clarify the issues Nor is discovery limited to the merits of a case for a variety of fact-oriented issues may arise during litigation that are not related to the merits See also Carenehaner Alber Corp F.R.D S.D Fla I Many Plaintiffs including Jane Doe claim Epstein is the sole or Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of substantial contributing cause of their physical psychological and emotional damages However as this court is aware Plaintiffs have experienced several incidents in their lives which affected them emotionally and psychologically See Exhibit Affidavit of Richard C.W Hall outlining the psychological issues experienced by Jane Doe as a result of incidents in her life prior to Epstein which cannot be discounted As such Plaintiffs should not once again be able to handpick who Defendant deposes to refute their allegations Accordingly Plaintiffs cam10t expect this court to limit Epsteins discovery of the claims asserted against him To hold otherwise will negatively effect information sought thereby prejudicing Epstein and impacting the one day he will have in court to defend these allegations Furthermore the pendency of a motion for protective order does not excuse the moving party from responding to discovery requests Vipre Systems LLC NITV LLC WL M.D Fla and Sutherland Mesa Air Group Inc WL S.D Fla I Conclusion and Requested Relief It is critical for this entire case that Epstein be able to conduct regular discovery which includes investigating the claims Plaintiff makes against him As Dr Hall stated in his affidavit there are a number of variables that combine to determine the effects of such alleged victimization including the type and character of the alleged assault and key victim variables such as demographics psychological reactions at the time of the trauma previous psychiatric or psychological history previous victimization history general personality dynamics and coping style as well as sociocultural Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of factors such as drug use/abuse poverty social inequity and/or inadequate social support any previous history of abuse within or outside the family whether individuals were abused by strangers acquaintances or family members and whether there was any history of indiscriminate behavior that may have placed them at increased risk Id It is also important to know about Plaintffs previous sexual conduct contact with police or welfare agencies alcohol or drug use/abuse voluntary sexual activity contraceptive use genital infections or apparent indifference to previous abuse whether any significant psychiatric illnesses were present whether they were taking any medications prescribed or non-prescribed whether there had been previous suicide attempts thoughts plans etc and whether Plaintiffs relationships with their families and familial factors including social disadvantage family instability impaired parent/child relationship and parental adjustment difficulties were present Id It is therefore critical for Epstein to conduct a thorough discovery which will confirm or rebut Plaintiffs allegations To hold otherwise would cause this conrt to accept Plaintiffs allegations as true without allowing Epstein to retain information to refute same Wherefore Epstein requests that this court deny Plaintf Order and for such other and further relief as this court By ROBER RITTON JR ESQ Florida Bar MICHAEL PIKE ESQ Florida Bar Certificate of Service I HEREBY CERT that a true copy of the foregoing was being served this day on all counsel of identified ng Service List via electronic mail EMAIL on thi Pg day of Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of JR ESQ ondaBarNo rcrit bclclaw.com MICHAEL PIKE ESQ Florida Bar mpike bclclaw.com BURMAN CRITTON LUTTIER COLEMAN Banyan Blvd 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 a sexabuseattorney.com ahorowitz sexabuseattorney.com Counsel for Plaintiffs In related Cases Nos Jack Alan Goldberger Esq Atterbury Goldberger Weiss P.A Australian A venue South Suite West Palm Beach FL Fax Brad Edwards Esq Farmer Jaffe Weissing Edwards Fistos Lehrman PL Andrews Ave Suite Fort Lauderdale FL Phone Fax Brad pathtojustice.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 Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of jagesg bellsouth.net Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein Co-counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe Isidro Garcia Esq Tara A Finnigan Esq Garcia Law Firm P.A Datura Street Suite West Palm Beach FL isidrogarcia bellsouth.net Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No
13,064 characters
