Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON JAN DOE NO Plaintiff vs Defendant Related q.ses __ EPSTEINS MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING THE DEPOSITION OF STORY COWLES AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN Epstein pursuant to Rule Federal Rules of Civil Procedure moves for a protective order to prohibit the deposition of Story Cowles and states Plaintiff Jane Doe Case No noticed the deposition of Story Cowles for May Notice and Subpoena attached as Exhibit A Mr Cowles was hired by Jack Goldberger Esq co-counsel for Mr Epstein on I July and has been employed by Mr Goldberger since that time Mr Cowl.es was hired as Mr Goldbergers law office assistant to be directly involved only with Mr Epsteins case while he was serving his jail sentence at the Palm Beach County Stockade Mr Cowles was employed to be among other things a conduit for information between the attorneys criminal Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of and civil and Mr Epstein See Affidavit of Jack Goldberger attached as Exhibit and affidavit of Story Cowles attached as Exhibit Mr Goldberger as well as Mr Epsteins civil attorneys have used Mr Cowles to transmit attorney-client and work product information and documents to Mr Epstein with the clear understating and belief that the communications to Mr Epstein from his attorneys and staff work product privileges See Exhibit see also Affidavit of Robert Critton Jr attached as Exhibit Mr Cowles did not know nor did he have any knowledge of Mr Epstein prior to his employment with Mr Goldberger See Exhibit Mr Cowles did not know nor did he have any knowledge of Sarah Kellen prior to his employment with Mr Goldberger See Exhibit While Mr Cowles and Ms Kellen have dated and continue to date they specifically have not and do not discuss the facts of the cases against her and Mr Epstein See Exhibit Moreover all plaintiffs who have sued Mr Epstein have based their claims on a time period prior to October or even earlier As Mr Cowles was not hired by Mr Goldberger until July he has no personal knowledge of any relevant information See Exhibit Mr Epstein has never discussed the claims asserted against him with Mr Cowles other than when his attorneys were present or when he was transmitting information between Epstei11 and his attorneys See Exhibit i I Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of In October Mr Cowles was subpoenaed for a deposition in the companion state court case B.B Epstein for the purpose of establishing the address of Sarah Kellen Counsel for Jane Doe was also seeking to depose Mr Cowles See Correspondence attached as Exhibit Thereafter counsel for Jane Doe counsel for B.B and Epsteins counsel agreed on a conference call that Mr Cowles would not be deposed if Ms Kellen was made available for her deposition which she was in April See Affidavit of Michael Pike attached as Exhibit and E-mail from Spencer Kuvin attached as Exhibit While counsel for Jane Doe did not confirm this agreement in writing he represented same in the aforementioned telephone conference See Exhibit Now counsel for Jane Doe appears to be going back on his word and reneging on his agreement by attempting to depose Mr Cowles The Court should not condone this type of duplicitous conduct and hold counsel for Jane Doe to his word Rule Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a party or any person from whom discovery is sought may move for a protective order in the court where the action is pending The court may for good cause issue an order to protect a party or person from aimoyance embarrassment oppression or undue burden or expense including one or more of the following A forbidding the disclosure or discovery Moreover a party may not discover documents and tangible things that are prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for another party or its representative including the other partys attorney or agent See Fed Civ A emphasis added The court must also protect against disclosure of the mental impressions conclusions opinions or legal theories of a partys attorney or other representative concerning the litigation See Fed Civ emphasis added Rule makes clear that the work Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of product privilege extends to paralegals investigators and legal assistants agents or representatives of a partys attorney The attorney-client privilege also extends to subordinates of a partys attorney See Seebeck General Motors Corp WL N.D Ga In Seebeck the court noted that to invoke the attorney client privilege the asserted holder of the privilege is a client the person to whom the communication was made a is a member ofa bar of a court or his subordinate and in c01mection with this communication is acting as a lawyer the communication relates to a fact of which the attorney was informed a by his client without the presence of strangers for the purpose of securing primarily either i an opinion on law or ii legal services or i assistant in some legal proceedings and not for the purpose of committing a crime or tort and the privilege has been a claimed and not waived by the client Id at emphasis added citing U.S Noriega F.2d 11th Cir In Seeback the court granted a protective order where a party sought to discover information from a partys investigator The investigator submitted an affidavit substantially similar to the affidavits submitted in support of the instant motion in which he attested that he was hired by GM with the understanding that communications would be protected by the attorney-client privilege that he was retained to perform work in anticipation of litigation and that the identities of persons interviewed by the him and legal assistants reflected attorney-client communications and work product information WL at The court agreed and entered a protective order concluding that the nature of the information set forth in the affidavit is sufficiently compressive to establish the privileged nature of the material sought Id at See also S.E.C World-Wide Coin Investments Ltd F.R.D N.D Ga denying defendants motion to compel an investigator to produce documents and answer deposition questions finding that the documents prepared by the investigator were protected by Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of the work product privilege and that any communications between the investigator and attorneys and staff were protected by the attorney-client privilege Huet Tromp So 2d Fla 5th DCA quashing trial comfs discovery order denying motion for protective order to prohibit deposhion of defendants investig-a1:01 Quarles Brady LLP Birdsall So 2d Fla 2d DCA quashing order compelling law firm secretary to answer deposition questions regarding her conversations with hei supervising partner as the questions invaded the attorney-client privilege Regarding the scope of discovery Judge Linnea Johnson noted in her October Omnibus Order DE while the scope of discovery is broad it is not without limits Washington Brown Williamson Tobacco F.2d 11th Cir Indeed the Amendment to Rule has effectively limited the scope of discoverable information to those matters which are relevant to a claim or defense in the lawsuit Dellacas LLC Jolm Moriarty Ass of Fla Inc WL at S.D Fla Courts have long held that hile the standard of relevancy in discovery is a liberal one it is not so liberal as to allow a party to roam in the shadow zones of relevancy and to explore matter which does not presently appear germane on the the01y that it might conceivably become so Food Lion Inc Unlted Food Commercial Workers Intern Union F.3d C.A D.C string cite omitted Emphasis added Also the related matter of Epstein Rothstein Case No Judge Crow entered an order on April attached as I Exhibit in which he granted a protective order regarding the depositions of Michael Fisten and Rick Fandrey investigators previously employed by Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler RRA As the Court may recall RRA represented Jane Doe prior to its implosion Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of While Epstein sought to depose Mr Fisten and Mr Fandrey regarding their knowledge of Scott Rothsteins Ponzi scheme the Court nevertheless entered a protective order prohibiting their depositions until Epstein can establish the relevance and discoverability of the information See Exhibit Yet unlike Fisten and Fandrey who likely have non-privileged information regarding Scott Rothsteins massive fraud and admitted criminal activity any information that Mr Cowles might have is protected by the attorney-client and work product privileges lo a practical matter if the Court permits the deposition of Mr Cowles what is to prevent Jane Doe and other plaintiffs from attempting to depose other paralegals secretaries legal assistants investigators or even attorneys employed by Epstein As Judge Johnson noted while the scope of discovery is broad it is not without limits See DE Jane Doe is clearly attempting to exceed the limits of permissible discovery in attempting to depose Mr Cowles Given the foregoing it appears Jane Doe is attempting to depose Mr Cowles for the sole purpose of harassing and intimidating him as he clearly has no discoverable information to which Jane Doe is entitled Accordingly the Court should enter a pi 267otective order to prohibit his deposition as he cannot possibly provide any information that is not protected by the attorney-client and work product privileges WHEREFORE Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN requests the Court enter a protective order prohibiting the deposition of Story Cowles and grant any additional relief the Comi deems just and proper By Jack Alan Goldberger Florida Bar No Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of 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 clay on all counsef of record identified the following Service List the ma1u1er specified by CM/ECF on this __ clay of April Respectfully submitted By:/stJaclcAlanGoldberger Jack Alan Goldberger Esq Florida Bar No Atterbury Goldberger Weiss P.A Australian A venue South Suite West Palm Beach FL Fax iagesq cv,bellsouth.net Counsel for Defendant Jeffiey 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 ahorowitz sexabuseattorney.com Counsel for Plaintiffs In related Cases Nos I I Robert Josefsberg Esq Katherine Ezell Esq Brad Edwards Esq Farmer Jaffe Weissing Edwards Fistos Lehrman PL Andrews Avenue Suite Fort Lauderdale FL Phone Fax bracl pathtojustice.com Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No Paul Cassell Esq Pro Hae Vice South Room Salt Lake City UT Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Podhurst Orseck P.A West Flagler Street Suite Miami FL Fax __ ri osefsberg cv,podhurst.com kezell podhurst.com Counsel for Plaintiff 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 isidro garcia ci bellsouth.net Counsel Jo Plaintijfzn Re7atedCase No.OE
