EFTA00722736.pdf

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 79 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2009 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA-JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND TO QUASH SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION OF JANE DOE NO.3. MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES FOR PURPOSES OF DISCOVERY, AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through his undersigned counsel, serves his Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order and to Quash Subpoena for Deposition of Jane Doe no.3, Motion to Consolidate Cases for Purposes of Discovery, and Incorporated Memorandum of Law (hereinafter, the Motion"), with incorporated memorandum of law. In support, Defendant states: L RESPONSE WITH INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW AS TO DEPOSITION OF JANE DOE. NO.3 AND MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE a. The Depositions Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 2, filed this federal lawsuit against Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein. In another separate matter, a Plaintiff, Jane Doe, No. 3., filed her own separate lawsuit against Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein. Plaintiff's counsel represents all Jane Does in cases Jane Doe Nos. 2 through 7 before this court. -Fl EFTA00722736 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 79 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2009 Page 2 of 7 Page 2 Plaintiff, Jane Doe. No. 3, served answers to interrogatories wherein she lists certain witness that may have knowledge regarding the facts and allegations alleged in her complaint including, but not limited to, Jane Doe No. 2. §se Exhibit "A", Answer to Interrogatories, No. 5, in redacted form. An unredacted copy of the responses will be provided to the court upon the court's request and/or in camera. In particular, the response to interrogatory number 5 states that Jane Doe numbers 2 and 3 accompanied each other to Defendant's estate. Plaintiff admits this much in her Motion. Defendant seeks to take the deposition of Jane Doe. No. 3 as a witness in the instant matter and as a party in Plaintiff her own case, which she is an unidentified Plaintiff traveling under Jane Doe. No. 3. In an attempt to resolve this matter by letter correspondence, Defendant agreed and offered only to take the deposition of Jane Doe. No. 3 as a witness in all Jane Doe 2-7 cases only one time and separately one time as a Party Plaintiff in the matter Jane Doe No. 3 filed against Jeffrey Epstein. While this is a reasonable compromise in that Defendant has agreed not to take her deposition three (3) times as Plaintiff suspected, Plaintiff's counsel refused to agree. Plaintiff cannot file a lawsuit and then expect this court to protect her from being deposed as a party for the time period proscribed under the federal rules while at the same time asking this court to limit or prevent her deposition testimony as a witness in the instant matter or other Jane Doe matters where she has been identified as a witness. It is well settled that a Defendant may take the deposition of a _s► and/or a witness before trial. Rule 26, Fed.R.Civ. P., Rule 30, Fed.R. Civ.,P. and Leve v. General Motors Corp., 43 F.R.D. 508 (S.D.N.Y. 2967). Jane Doe. Nos. 2 and 3 commenced separate civil actions upon the filing of same against Jeffrey Epstein. Therefore, Defendant is entitled to depose Jane Doe Nos. 2 and 3 in their own cases at least one time for the proscribed time periods and then as a EFTA00722737 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 79 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2009 Page 3 of 7 Page 3 witness in the instant matter or any matter they have knowledge of as reflected in the interrogatory responses. Therefore, Defendant has a right to depose each party-plaintiff separately and then as a witness at least once. Deposing Jane Doe No. 3 as a witness in the instant matter is necessary as that deposition will be tailored toward facts known by Jane Doe. No. 3 as those facts pertain to Jane Doe. No. 2's claims in her complaint as opposed to the facts alleged by Jane Doe. No. 3 in her individual action. Plaintiff's attorneys claim that sitting for more than one deposition will be traumatizing does not modify the rules and/or the law with regard to the right to take party and witness depositions. Plaintiff offers no expert medical or psychological support, by an affidavit of an expert or the Plaintiff herself, to support her position. In almost all instances, none of the Plaintiff's sought or received any psychological counseling until the concept of a lawsuit and money was introduced. A party may, by oral questions take the deposition of any person, without leave of court. Rule 30, Fed.R. Civ.,P. Conducting these depositions separately will allow for the proper preparation as to each deponent's knowledge as that knowledge pertains to the specific case at hand (i.e., whether the deponent is a witness and/or a party plaintiff). Again, Defendant is willing to conduct one (1) deposition in connection with each matter before this court wherein a party to one matter is listed as a "witness" in another. That is, if Jane Doe No. 3 has knowledge as a witness to one or more matters, one "witness" deposition will be held. However, Defendant is also permitted to separately take a party-plaintiff deposition of any party- plaintiff that happens to be a witness of and/or have knowledge of any other party-plaintiff's deposition. As such, only two depositions will occur. There is no legal basis supporting Plaintiff's proposition that Defendant not be allowed to take the deposition of Jane Doe. No. 3 as a witness in the instant matter and as a party-plaintiff in EFTA00722738 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 79 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2009 Page 4 of 7 Page 4 Jane Doe. No.3's separately filed action. In fact, Plaintiff's theory flies in the face of the Federal Rules. Despite Plaintiff's contention, Defendant is not attempting to depose or call a witness for a second deposition without leave of court. Quite the opposite, Plaintiff is simply doing what the rules allow for — the taking of a deposition of a party and a witness. b. Consolidation For Discovery Is Not Practical Next, if this case is consolidated for discovery purposes and depositions are limited only to one (I) deposition for a party plaintiff and for a witness that happens to be a party plaintiff in another matter, then confusion will result and motions in limine will undoubtedly be filed at a later date preventing the use of certain testimony at particular hearings and ultimately at trial. Further, since there remain separate party-plaintiffs, admissions or answers to discovery by one party, arguably, cannot be used by the Defendant in a consolidated discovery matter against another party-plaintiff. As such, consolidation in the instant matter is not warranted in that not all common issues of fact are present and the parties are not identical. Kelly v. Kelly, 911 F.Supp. 66 (N.D. NY 1996Xconsolidation refused because it would only serve purpose of convenience of some witnesses, actions did not share all witnesses and parties were not identical); Borough of Olvphant v. PPL Comoration et al., 153 Fed.Appx. 80, 2005 WL 2673489 (CA.3 (P.A.)); Ford Motor Credit Company v. Chiorazzo 529 F.Supp.2d 535 (D. N.J. 2008). Under Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 42, the decision to consolidate cases for discovery is not mandatory but that decision remains within the sound discretion of the court. In this instance, various Jane Does seek to consolidate the cases for discovery purposes. Very clearly, the facts and circumstances, as pled and as is reflected in answers to interrogatories, are different for each individual, i.e. the dates, the ages, the events, their experiences, witnesses, medical and/or psychological treatment, etc. Each of the Plaintiffs alleged incident history and post EFTA00722739 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 79 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2009 Page 5 of 7 Page 5 incident history and background is unique to those individuals. While Jane Doe Plaintiffs may wish to serve a "standard" set of interrogatories, request for production, or any other type of discovery, the Defendant's discovery to the individual Plaintiffs, and certainly their responses, is unique to that individual. There will be multiple instances where the discovery is applicable only to a specific Jane Doe and not all, such as, physicians, psychologists, parents, siblings, friends, employers, teachers, individuals with whom the Plaintiff has had relationships — many of these depositions will go to damage related issues wherein the Plaintiffs seek millions of dollars in the form of compensation. There are some instances where the deposition of a particular individual may be applicable to all cases, and defense counsel will suggest, as he did in correspondence directed to Plaintiff's counsel that that particular deposition be used in all cases. However, in a vast majority of the instances where discovery, deposition and/or paper discovery is being utilized, including subpoena which will be sent to many different sources for each of the six Jane Does, consolidation serves no purpose. Even if this court consolidated the matters requested by Plaintiff, the undersigned would still be entitled to additional time to depose any party-plaintiff that is also listed or who has knowledge of any aspect of any other patty-plaintiff's claim against Jeffrey Epstein. In addition, this Court has before it each of the cases filed by certain Plaintiffs against Jeffrey Epstein. Therefore, there is no chance of "conflicting results" as to rulings made by the same court and the same judge. As such, no true need exists for consolidation. Under Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 42, consolidation for discovery is not required, but remains within the sound discretion of the court. EFTA00722740 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 79 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2009 Page 6 of 7 Page 6 Conclusion In sum, if Jane Doe No. 3 has knowledge as a witness to one or more matters, one "witness" deposition will be held as to her witness knowledge. However, Defendant is also permitted to separately take Jane Doe. No. 3's deposition as a party-plaintiff. WHEREFORE, Defendant requests that this Court deny the Motion, enter an order allowing for the relief requested herein and for such other relief ap5bis court deems just and proper. obert D. Critton, Jr. Attorney for Defendant Epstein 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 day of April, 2009: Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. I 0 ./ Counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe #2 Jack Alan Goldberger Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein EFTA00722741 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 79 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2009 Page 7 of 7 Page 7 Respectfully sub By: ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. Milit 4162 MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. ER & COLEMAN Phone Fax (Co-Couruel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) EFTA00722742 37 93dge 9:08-01301VRAIr•bocument 79-2 Entered on FLSD efeektf(54/1 Mae ° Page ?Bab UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA-JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 3, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. PLAINTIFF JANE DOE 3'S ANSWERS TO DEFENDANTS FIRST INTERROGATORIES Plaintiff, JANE DOE 3, by and through their undersigned counsel, and pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 33, hereby responds to Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff as follows: General Oblections 1. Plaintiff objects to Defendant's Interrogatories to the extent that the interrogatories call for the disclosure of information protected by the attorney-client privilege, attorney work-product doctrine, or other applicable privilege or Immunity, whether created by statute or common law. Plaintiff claims such privileges and protectiOns to the extent implicated by each Interrogatory, and excludes privileged and kotected information from any responses to Defendant's discovery. Any disclosure is Inadvertent and is not intended to waive those privileges or protections, which are specifically reserved. 2. Plaintiff objects to Defendants interrogatories to the extent that same are vague, ambiguous, incomprehensible and/or overly broad. A P EFTA00722743 Case 9:08-c0801491ftatTelst•Inesocument 79-2 Entered on FLSD 080ifel1/17,202l92"Page Doe No. 3 v. Epstein Page 6 Royal Palm Beach, FL 4. Have you ever been convicted of a crime, other than any juvenile adjudication, which under the law under which you were convicted was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of 1 year, or that involved dishonesty or a false statement regardless of the punishment? If so, state as to each conviction the specific crime and the date and place of conviction. Answer: No. 5. Please provide the name, address, telephone number, place of employment and job title of any person who has, claims to have or whom you believe may have knowledge or information pertaining to any fact alleged In the pleadings (as defined in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7(a) filed in this action, or any fact underlying the subject matter of this action. Answer Plaintiff Other victims making similar allegations of sexual misconduct against Defendant Epstein who have brought civil claims against Epstein In Florida State and Federal courts. Defendant a Defendant's assistant Unknown staff members of Defendant, including the chef/cook, gardener, and maid S Accompanied Plaintiff to Defendants estate on at least one occasion Accompafiigd Plaintiff to Defendant's estate on at least one occasion Millilliaintiff to Defendant's estate on at least one occasion Accom panied Plaintiff to Defendant's estate on at least one occasion EFTA00722744 Case 9:08-013‘Wer9419k1ie Document 79-2 Entered on FLSD 0/641tectP021/177416bers Page PiP3 Doe No. 3 v. Epstein Page 7 Plaintiff has seen Dr. ....for therapy since Jan. 2008. liar ag iaga Plaintiff has seen Dr. mom for medication management since Nov. 2007. v/ S IMI5 o treated Plaintiff from Aug. 2007-Dec. 2007. Discovery is ongoing and will be supplemented in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 6. Please state the specific nature and substance of the knowledge that you believe the person(s) identified in your response to interrogatory no. 5 may have. Answer: See Plaintiff's Answer to Interrogatory No. 5. 7. Were you suffering from physical infirmity, disability, disease, sickness, or psychiatric/psychological condition at the time of the incident(s) described in the complaint? If so, what was the nature of the infirmity, disability, or sickness? Answer: 8. Did you consume any alcoholic beverages or take any drugs or medications within 12 hours before the time of each incident(s) described In the complaint? If so, state the type and amount of alcoholic beverages, drugs, or medication which were consumed, and when and where you consumed them. Answer: EFTA00722745 `1Q'ocA444.4, 4-7 (frgel,o& mat A:4-c , 11/7/0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA-JOHNSON JANE DOE NO.3, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AGAINST PIECEMEAL DEPOSITIONS OF JANE DOE NO.3. MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES FOR PURPOSES OF DISCOVERY, AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through his undersigned counsel, serves his Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order Against Piecemeal Depositions of Jane Doe No.3, Motion to Consolidate Cases for Purposes of Discovery, and Incorporated Memorandum of Law (hereinafter, the Motion"), with incorporated memorandum of law. In support, Defendant states: I. RESPONSE WITH INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW AS TO DEPOSITION OF JANE DOE. NO.3 AND MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE a. The Depositions Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 3, filed this federal lawsuit against Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein. In other separate matters, Plaintiffs, Jane Does, Nos. 2, 4-7, filed their own separate lawsuits against Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein. Plaintiff's counsel represents all Jane Does in cases Jane Doe Nos. 2 through 7 before this court. EFTA00722746 Page 2 Plaintiff, Jane Doe. No. 3, served answers to interrogatories wherein she lists certain witness that may have knowledge regarding the facts and allegations alleged in her complaint including, but not limited to, Jane Doe No. 2. See Exhibit "A", Answer to Interrogatories, No. 5, in redacted form. An unredacted copy of the responses will be provided to the court upon the court's request and/or in camera. In particular, the response to interrogatory number 5 states that Jane Doe numbers 2 and 3 accompanied each other to Defendant's estate. Plaintiff admits this much in her Motion. Defendant seeks to take the deposition of Jane Doe. No. 3 as a witness in that matter (or any other matter she has knowledge of) and as a party in her own case, which she is an unidentified Plaintiff traveling under Jane Doe. No. 3. In an attempt to resolve this matter by letter correspondence, Defendant agreed and offered only to take the deposition of Jane Doe. No. 3 as a witness in all Jane Doe 2-7 cases only one time and separately one time as a Party Plaintiff in this matter in which Jane Doe No. 3 filed against Jeffrey Epstein. While this is a reasonable compromise in that Defendant has agreed not to take her deposition three (3) times as Plaintiff suspected, Plaintiff's counsel refused to agree. Plaintiff cannot file a lawsuit and then expect this court to protect her from being deposed as a party for the time period proscribed under the federal rules while at the same time asking this court to limit or prevent her deposition testimony as a witness in the instant matter or other Jane Doe matters where she has been identified as a witness. It is well settled that a Defendant may take the deposition of a party and/or a witness before trial. Rule 26, Fed.R.Civ. P., Rule 30, Fed.R. Civ.,P. and Leve v. General Motors Corp., 43 F.R.D. 508 (S.D.N.Y. 2967). Jane Doe. Nos. 2-7 commenced separate civil actions upon the filing of same against Jeffrey Epstein. Therefore, Defendant is entitled to depose Jane Doe Nos. 2 -7 in their own cases at least one time for the proscribed time periods and then as a witness in EFTA00722747 Page 3 the instant matter or any matter they have knowledge of as reflected in the interrogatory responses or the pleadings. Therefore, Defendant has a right to depose each party-plaintiff separately and then as a witness at least once. Deposing Jane Doe No. 3 as a witness in the companion matters is necessary as that deposition will be tailored toward facts known by Jane Doe. No. 3 as those facts pertain to Jane Doe. Nos. 2, 4-7 claims in their complaints as opposed to the facts alleged by Jane Doe. No. 3 in this individual action. Plaintiff's attorneys claim that sitting for more than one deposition will be traumatizing does not modify the rules and/or the law with regard to the right to take party and witness depositions. Plaintiff offers no expert medical or psychological support, by an affidavit of an expert or the Plaintiff herself, to support her position. In almost all instances, none of the Plaintiff's sought or received any psychological counseling until the concept of a lawsuit and money was introduced. A party may, by oral questions take the deposition of any person, without leave of court. Rule 30, Fed.R. Civ.,P. Conducting these depositions separately will allow for the proper preparation as to each deponent's knowledge as that knowledge pertains to the specific case at hand (i.e., whether the deponent is a witness and/or a party plaintiff). Again, Defendant is willing to conduct one (1) deposition in connection with each matter before this court wherein a party to one matter is listed as a "witness" in another. That is, if Jane Doe No. 3 has knowledge as a witness to one or more matters, one "witness" deposition will be held. However, Defendant is also permitted to separately take a party-plaintiff deposition of any party- plaintiff that happens to be a witness of and/or have knowledge of any other party-plaintiffs deposition. As such, only two depositions will occur. There is no legal basis supporting Plaintiff's proposition that Defendant not be allowed to take the deposition of Jane Doe. No. 3 as a witness in the other matters and as a party-plaintiff in EFTA00722748 Page 4 Jane Doe. No.3's separately filed action. In fact, Plaintiff's theory flies in the face of the Federal Rules. Despite Plaintiff's contention, Defendant is not attempting to depose or call a witness for a second deposition without leave of court. Quite the opposite, Plaintiff is simply doing what the rules allow for — the taking of a deposition of a party and a witness. b. Consolidation For Discovery Is Not Practical Next, if this case is consolidated for discovery purposes arid depositions are limited only to one (1) deposition for a party plaintiff and for a witness that happens to be a party plaintiff in another matter, then confusion will result and motions in limine will undoubtedly be filed at a later date preventing the use of certain testimony at particular hearings and ultimately at trial. Further, since there remain separate party-plaintiffs, admissions or answers to discovery by one party, arguably, cannot be used by the Defendant in a consolidated discovery matter against another party-plaintiff. As such, consolidation in the instant matter is not warranted in that not all common issues of fact are present and the parties are not identical. Kelly v. Kelly, 911 F.Supp. 66 (N.D. NY 1996)(consolidation refused because it would only serve purpose of convenience of some witnesses, actions did not share all witnesses and parties were not identical); Borough of Olvvhant v. PPL Corporation et al. 153 Fed.Appx. 80, 2005 WI. 2673489 (C.A.3 (P.A.)); Ford Motor Credit Company v. Chiorazzo, 529 F.Supp.2d 535 (D. N.J. 2008). Under Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 42, the decision to consolidate cases for discovery is not mandatory but that decision remains within the sound discretion of the court. In this instance, various Jane Does seek to consolidate the cases for discovery purposes. Very clearly, the facts and circumstances, as pled and as is reflected in answers to interrogatories, are different for each individual, i.e. the dates, the ages, the events, their experiences, witnesses, medical and/or psychological treatment, etc. Each of the Plaintiffs alleged incident history and post EFTA00722749 Page 5 incident history and background is unique to those individuals. While the Jane Doe Plaintiffs may wish to serve a "standard" set of interrogatories, request for production, or any other type of discovery, the Defendant's discovery to the individual Plaintiffs, and certainly their responses, is unique to that individual. There will be multiple instances where the discovery is applicable only to a specific Jane Doe and not all, such as, physicians, psychologists, parents, siblings, friends, employers, teachers, individuals with whom the Plaintiff has had relationships — many of these depositions will go to damage related issues wherein the Plaintiffs seek millions of dollars in the form of compensation. There are some instances where the deposition of a particular individual may be applicable to all cases, and defense counsel will suggest, as he did in correspondence directed to Plaintiff's counsel that that particular deposition be used in all cases. However, in a vast majority of the instances where discovery, deposition and/or paper discovery is being utilized, including subpoena which will be sent to many different sources for each of the six Jane Does, consolidation serves no purpose. Even if this court consolidated the matters requested by Plaintiff, the undersigned would still be entitled to additional time to depose any party-plaintiff that is also listed or who has knowledge of any aspect of any other party-plaintiff's claim against Jeffrey Epstein. In addition, this Court has before it each of the cases filed by certain Plaintiffs against Jeffrey Epstein. Therefore, there is no chance of "conflicting results" as to rulings made by the same court and the same judge. As such, no true need exists for consolidation. Under Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 42, consolidation for discovery is not required, but remains within the sound discretion of the court. EFTA00722750 Page 6 11. Conclusion In sum, if Jane Doe No. 3 has knowledge as a witness to one or more matters, one "witness" deposition will be held as to her witness knowledge. However, Defendant is also permitted to separately take Jane Doe. No. 3's deposition as a party-plaintiff. WHEREFORE, Defendant requests that this Court deny the Motion, enter an order allowing for the relief requested herein and for such other re f as this court deems just and proper. 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 ecord iden • ied on following Service List in the manner specified by CM/ECF on this ft day of , 2009: Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. Mermelstein & Horowitz. P.A. Counsellor Plaintiff Jane Doe 03 Jack Alan Goldberger Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. Cd-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein EFTA00722751 Page 7 Respectfully submitted, By: ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. Florida Bar N . 224162 MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. Florida Bar #617296 BURMAN. CRITTON. LUTTIER & COLEMAN Phone Fax (Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffley Epstein) EFTA00722752 307312200 Herman &MenneHteln,P 1Q%3:45 p.m. 26-01-2009 38/53 atr.r•-• UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-802324VIARRA-JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 3, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. PLAINTIFF JANE DOE 3'S ANSWERS TO DEFENDANT'S FIRST INTERROGATORIES Plaintiff, JANE DOE 3, by and through their undersigned counsel, and pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 33, hereby responds to Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff as follows: General Objections 1. Plaintiff objects to Defendant's Interrogatories to the extent that the Interrogatories call for the disclosure of information protected by the attorney-client privilege, attorney work-product doctrine, or other applicable privilege or immunity, whether created by statute or common law. Plaintiff claims such privileges and protections to the extent implicated by each Interrogatory, and excludes privileged and protected information from any responses to Defendant's discovery. Any disclosure is inadvertent and is not intended to waive those privileges or protections, which are specifically reserved. 2. Plaintiff objects to Defendant's Interrogatories to the extent that same are vague, ambiguous, incomprehensible and/or overly broad. n Aft EFTA00722753 Herman &MermeIsteln 0 ^11:14:33 p.m. 26-01-2009 43/53 Doe No. 3 v. Epstein Page 6 Royal Palm Beach, FL 4. Have you ever been convicted of a crime, other than any juvenile adjudication, which under the law under which you were convicted was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of 1 year, or that involved dishonesty or a false statement regardless of the punishment? If so, state as to each conviction the specific crime and the date and place of conviction. Answer: No. 5. Please provide the name, address, telephone number, place of employment and job title of any person who has, claims to have or whom you believe may have knowledge or information pertaining to any fact alleged in the pleadings (as defined in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7(a) filed in this action, or any fact underlying the subject matter of this action. Answer Plaintiff Other victims making similar allegations of sexual misconduct against Defendant Epstein who have brought civil claims against Epstein in Florida State and Federal courts. Defendant a Defendant's assistant Unknown staff members of Defendant, including the chef/cook, gardener, and maid Accompanied Plaintiff to Defendant's estate on at least one occasion Accompanied Plaintiff to Defendant's estate on at least one occasion ORIMPFlaintiff to Defendant's estate on at least one occasion Accompanied Plaintiff to Defendant's estate on at least one occasion EFTA00722754 Herman &Mermelsteln, P ":14:45 p.m. 26-01-2009 44 /53 Doe No. 3 v. Epstein Page 7 11.1111/P ME Plaintiff has seen Dr. Sfor therapy since Jan. 2008. Withir et ak Plaintiff has seen Dr. mom for medication management since Nov. 2007. who treated Plaintiff from Aug. 2007-Dec. 2007. Discovery is ongoing and will be supplemented in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 6. Please state the specific nature and substance of the knowledge that you believe the person(s) identified in your response to interrogatory no. 5 may have. Answer: See Plaintiffs Answer to Interrogatory No. 5. 7. Were you suffering from physical infirmity, disability, disease, sickness, or psychiatric/psychological condition at the time of the incident(s) described in the complaint? If so, what was the nature of the infirmity, disability, or sickness? Answer: 8. Did you consume any alcoholic beverages or take any drugs or medications within 12 hours before the time of each incident(s) described in the complaint? If so, state the type and amount of alcoholic beverages, drugs, or medication which were consumed, and when and where you consumed them. Answer: EFTA00722755 Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 86 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2009 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA-JOHNSON JANE DOE NO.4, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AGAINST PIECEMEAL DEPOSITIONS OF JANE DOE NO.4, MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES FOR PURPOSES OF DISCOVERY, AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through his undersigned counsel, serves his Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order Against Piecemeal Depositions of Jane Doe No.4, Motion to Consolidate Cases for Purposes of Discovery, and Incorporated Memorandum of Law (hereinafter, the Motion"), with incorporated memorandum of law. In support, Defendant states: 1. RESPONSE WITH INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW AS TO DEPOSITION OF JANE DOE. NO.4 AND MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE a. The Depositions Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 4, filed this federal lawsuit against Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein. In other separate matters, Plaintiffs, Jane Does, Nos. 2, 3, 5-7, filed their own separate lawsuits against Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein. Plaintiff's counsel represents all Jane Does in cases Jane Doe Nos. 2 through 7 before this court EFTA00722756 Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 86 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2009 Page 2 of 7 Page 2 Plaintiff, Jane Doe. No. 4, served answers to interrogatories wherein she lists certain witness that may have knowledge regarding the facts and allegations alleged in her complaint. See page three of Plaintiff's Motion wherein she admits that two of the other Plaintiff's in related cases talked to her about giving massages. In particular, the response to interrogatory number 16 states that Jane Doe numbers 3 and 7 talked about giving massages. Defendant seeks to take the deposition of Jane Doe. No. 4 as a witness in those matter (or any other matter she has knowledge oft and as a party in her own case, which she is an unidentified Plaintiff traveling under Jane Doe. No. 4. In an attempt to resolve this matter by letter correspondence, Defendant agreed and offered only to take the deposition of Jane Doe. No. 4 as a witness in all Jane Doe 2-7 cases only one time and separately one time as a Party Plaintiff in this matter in which Jane Doe No. 4 filed against Jeffrey Epstein. While this is a reasonable compromise in that Defendant has agreed not to take her deposition three (3) times as Plaintiff suspected, Plaintiff's counsel refused to agree. Plaintiff cannot file a lawsuit and then expect this court to protect her from being deposed as a party for the time period proscribed under the federal rules while at the same time asking this court to limit or prevent her deposition testimony as a witness in the instant matter or other Jane Doe matters where she has been identified as a witness. It is well settled that a Defendant may take the deposition of a ma and/or a witty-cc before trial. Rule 26, Fed.R.Civ. P., Rule 30, Fed.R. Civ.,P. and lave v. General Motors Corp., 43 F.R.D. 508 (S.D.N.Y. 2967). Jane Doe. Nos. 2-7 commenced separate civil actions upon the filing of same against Jeffrey Epstein. Therefore, Defendant is entitled to depose Jane Doe Nos. 2 -7 in their own cases at least one time for the proscribed time periods and then as a witness in the instant matter or any matter they have knowledge of as reflected in the interrogatory EFTA00722757 Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 86 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2009 Page 3 of 7 Page 3 responses or the pleadings. Therefore, Defendant has a right to depose each party-plaintiff separately and then as a witness at least once. Deposing Jane Doe No. 4 as a witness in the other matters is necessary as that deposition will be tailored toward facts known by Jane Doe. No. 4 as those facts pertain to Jane Doe. Nos. 2, 4-7 claims in their complaints as opposed to the facts alleged by Jane Doe. No. 4 in this individual action. Plaintiff's attorneys claim that sitting for more than one deposition will be traumatizing does not modify the rules and/or the law with regard to the right to take party and witness depositions. Plaintiff offers no expert medical or psychological support, by an affidavit of an expert or the Plaintiff herself; to support her position. In almost all instances, none of the Plaintiff's sought or received any psychological counseling until the concept of a lawsuit and money was introduced. A party may, by oral questions take the deposition of any person, without leave of court. Rule 30, Fed.R. Civ.,P. Conducting these depositions separately will allow for the proper preparation as to each deponent's knowledge as that knowledge pertains to the specific case at hand (i.e., whether the deponent is a witness and/or a party plaintiff). Again, Defendant is willing to conduct one (1) deposition in connection with each matter before this court wherein a party to one matter is listed as a "witness" in another. That is, if Jane Doe No. 4 has knowledge as a witness to one or more matters, one "witness" deposition will be held. However, Defendant is also permitted to separately take a party-plaintiff deposition of any party- plaintiff that happens to be a witness of and/or have knowledge of any other party-plaintiff's deposition. As such, only two depositions will occur. There is no legal basis supporting Plaintiff's proposition that Defendant not be allowed to take the deposition of Jane Doe. No. 4 as a witness in the other matters and as a party-plaintiff in Jane Doe. No. 4's separately filed action. In fact, Plaintiff's theory flies in the face of the EFTA00722758 Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 86 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2009 Page 4 of 7 Page 4 Federal Rules. Despite Plaintiff's contention, Defendant is not attempting to depose or call a witness for a second deposition without leave of court. Quite the opposite, Plaintiff is simply doing what the rules allow for — the taking of a deposition of a party and a witness. b. Consolidation For Discovery Is Not Practical Next, if this case is consolidated for discovery purposes and depositions are limited only to one (1) deposition for a party plaintiff and for a witness that happens to be a party plaintiff in another matter, then confusion will result and motions in limine will undoubtedly be filed at a later date preventing the use of certain testimony at particular hearings and ultimately at trial. Further, since there remain separate party-plaintiffs, admissions or answers to discovery by one party, arguably, cannot be used by the Defendant in a consolidated discovery matter against another party-plaintiff. As such, consolidation in the instant matter is not warranted in that not all common issues of fact are present and the parties are not identical. Kelly v. Kelly, 911 F.Supp. 66 (N.D. NY 1996Xconsolidation refused because it would only serve purpose of convenience of some witnesses, actions did not share all witnesses and parties were not identical); $orouah of Olvoliant v. PPL Corporation et al. 153 Fed.Appx. 80, 2005 WL 2673489 (C.A.3 (P.A.)); Ford Motor Credit Cornrow v. Chiorazzo, 529 F.Supp.2d 535 (D. N.J. 2008). Under Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 42, the decision to consolidate cases for discovery is not mandatory but that decision remains within the sound discretion of the court. In this instance, various Jane Does seek to consolidate the cases for discovery purposes. Very clearly, the facts and circumstances, as pled and as is reflected in answers to interrogatories, are different for each individual, i.e. the dates, the ages, the events, their experiences, witnesses, medical and/or psychological treatment, etc. Each of the Plaintiffs alleged incident history and post incident history and background is unique to those individuals. While the Jane Doe Plaintiffs EFTA00722759 Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 86 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2009 Page 5 of 7 Page 6 may wish to serve a "standard" set of interrogatories, request for production, or any other type of discovery, the Defendant's discovery to the individual Plaintiffs, and certainly their responses, is unique to that individual. There will be multiple instances where the discovery is applicable only to a specific Jane Doe and not all, such as, physicians, psychologists, parents, siblings, friends, employers, teachers, individuals with whom the Plaintiff has had relationships — many of these depositions will go to damage related issues wherein the Plaintiffs seek millions of dollars in the form of compensation. There are some instances where the deposition of a particular individual may be applicable to all cases, and defense counsel will suggest, as he did in correspondence directed to Plaintiff's counsel that that particular deposition be used in all cases. However, in a vast majority of the instances where discovery, deposition and/or paper discovery is being utilind, including subpoena which will be sent to many different sources for each of the six Jane Does, consolidation serves no purpose. Even if this court consolidated the matters requested by Plaintiff, the undersigned would still be entitled to additional time to depose any party-plaintiff that is also listed or who has knowledge of any aspect of any other party-plaintiff's claim against Jeffrey Epstein. In addition, this Court has before it each of the cases filed by certain Plaintiffs against Jeffrey Epstein. Therefore, there is no chance of "conflicting results" as to rulings made by the same court and the same judge. As such, no true need exists for consolidation. Under Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 42, consolidation for discovery is not required, but remains within the sound discretion of the court. EFTA00722760 Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 86 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2009 Page 6 of 7 Page 6 IL Conclusion In sum, if Jane Doe No. 4 has knowledge as a witness to one or more matters, one "witness" deposition will be held as to her witness knowledge. However, Defendant is also permitted to separately take Jane Doe. No. 4's deposition as a party-plaintiff. WHEREFORE, Defendant requests that this Court deny the Motion, enter an order allowing for the relief requested herein and for such other relief as this court deems just and proper. By: ROBERT D CRITTON, JR., ESQ. 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 o record identi on the owing Service List in the manner specified by CM/ECF on this ay of 009: Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. Mermelstein & Horowitz. P.A. Counsel for PlaintiffJane Doe 114 Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein Respectfully submitted, EFTA00722761 Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 86 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2009 Page 7 of 7 Page 7 By: ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. Florida F3ar No 224162 MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. ilaii ER & COLEMAN Phone Fax (Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) EFTA00722762 Case 9:08-cv-80993-KAM Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2009 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80993-MARRA JANE DOE NO.7, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND TO QUASH DEPOSITION OF JANE DOE NO.7, MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES FOR PURPOSES OF DISCOVERY. AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through his undersigned counsel, serves his Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order and To Quash Deposition of Jane Doe No.7, Motion to Consolidate Cases for Purposes of Discovery, and Incorporated Memorandum of Law (hereinafter, the Motion"), with incorporated memorandum of law. In support, Defendant states: L RESPONSE WITH INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW AS TO DEPOSITION OF JANE DOE. NO.7 AND MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE a. The Depositions Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 7, filed this federal lawsuit against Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein. In other separate matters, Plaintiffs, Jane Does, Nos. 2-6, filed their own separate lawsuits against Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein. Plaintiff's counsel represents all Jane Does in cases Jane Doe Nos. 2 through 7 before this court. EFTA00722763 Case 9:08-cv-80993-KAM Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2009 Page 2 of 7 Page 2 Plaintiff, Jane Doe. No. 7, served answers to interrogatories wherein she lists certain witness that may have knowledge regarding the facts and allegations alleged in her complaint. See page three of Plaintiffs Motion wherein she acknowledges that she allegedly brought two of the other Plaintiffs in related cases to Defendant's home. In particular, the response to interrogatory number 4 states that Jane Doe numbers 2 and 4 were brought o the mansion by Jane Doe. No. 7. Defendant seeks to take the deposition of Jane Doe. No. 7 as a witness in those matters (or any other matter she has knowledge of) and as a party in her own case, which she is an unidentified Plaintiff traveling under Jane Doe. No. 7. In an attempt to resolve this matter by letter correspondence, Defendant agreed and offered only to take the deposition of Jane Doe. No. 7 as a witness in all Jane Doe 2-6 cases only one time and separately one time as a Party Plaintiff in this matter in which Jane Doe No. 7 filed against Jeffrey Epstein. While this is a reasonable compromise in that Defendant has agreed not to take her deposition three (3) times as Plaintiff suspected, Plaintiffs counsel refused to agree. Plaintiff cannot file a lawsuit and then expect this court to protect her from being deposed as a party for the time period proscribed under the federal rules while at the same time asking this court to limit or prevent her deposition testimony as a witness in the instant matter or other Jane Doe matters where she has been identified as a witness. It is well settled that a Defendant may take the deposition of a party and/or a witness before trial. Rule 26, Fed.R.Civ. P., Rule 30, Fed.R. Civ.,P. and ,eve v. General Motors Coro., 43 F.R.D. 508 (S.D.N.Y. 2967). Jane Doe. Nos. 2-7 commenced separate civil actions upon the filing of same against Jeffrey Epstein. Therefore, Defendant is entitled to depose Jane Doe Nos. 2 -7 in their own cases at least one time for the proscribed time periods and then as a witness in the instant matter or any matter they have knowledge of as reflected in the interrogatory EFTA00722764 Case 9:08-cv-80993-KAM Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2009 Page 3 of 7 Page 3 responses or the pleadings. Therefore, Defendant has a right to depose each party-plaintiff separately and then as a witness at least once. Deposing Jane Doe No. 7 as a witness in the other matters is nernsary as that deposition will be tailored toward facts known by Jane Doe. No. 7 as those facts pertain to Jane Doe. Nos. 2-6 claims in their complaints as opposed to the facts alleged by Jane Doe. No. 7 in this individual action. Plaintiff's attorneys claim that sitting for more than one deposition will be traumatizing does not modify the rules and/or the law with regard to the right to take party and witness depositions. Plaintiff offers no expert medical or psychological support, by an affidavit of an expert or the Plaintiff herself to support her position. In almost all instances, none of the Plaintiff's sought or received any psychological counseling until the concept of a lawsuit and money was introduced. A party may, by oral questions take the deposition of any person, without leave of court. Rule 30, Fed.R. Civ.,P. Conducting these depositions separately will allow for the proper preparation as to each deponent's knowledge as that knowledge pertains to the specific case at hand (i.e., whether the deponent is a witness and/or a party plaintiff). Again, Defendant is willing to conduct one (1) deposition in connection with each matter before this court wherein a party to one matter is listed as a "witness" in another. That is, if Jane Doe No. 7 as knowledge as a witness to one or more matters, one "witness" deposition will be held. However, Defendant is also permitted to separately take a party-plaintiff deposition of any party- plaintiff that happens to be a witness of and/or have knowledge of any other party-plaintiff's deposition. As such, only two depositions will occur. There is no legal basis supporting Plaintiffs proposition that Defendant not be allowed to take the deposition of Jane Doe. No. 7 as a witness in the other matters and as a party-plaintiff in Jane Doe. No. 7's separately filed action. In fact, Plaintiffs theory flies in the face of the EFTA00722765 Case 9:08-cv-80993-KAM Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2009 Page 4 of 7 Page 4 Federal Rules. Despite Plaintiff's contention, Defendant is not attempting to depose or call a witness for a second deposition without leave of court. Quite the opposite, Plaintiff is simply doing what the rules allow for - the taking of a deposition of a party and a witness. b. Consolidation For Discovery Is Not Practical Next, if this case is consolidated for discovery purposes and depositions are limited only to one (1) deposition for a party plaintiff and for a witness that happens to be a party plaintiff in another matter, then confusion will result and motions in limine will undoubtedly be filed at a later date preventing the use of certain testimony at particular hearings and ultimately at trial. Fluther, since there remain separate party-plaintiffs, admissions or answers to discovery by one party, arguably, cannot be used by the Defendant in a consolidated discovery matter against another party-plaintiff. As such, consolidation in the instant matter is not warranted in that not all common issues of fact are present and the parties are not identical. Kelly v. Kelly 911 F.Supp. 66 (N.D. NY 1996Xconsolidation refused because it would only serve purpose of convenience of some witnesses, actions did not share all witnesses and parties were not identical); Borough of Olyphant v. PPL Corporation et al. 153 Fed.Appx. 80, 2005 WL 2673489 (C.A.3 (P.A.)); Ford Motor Credit Company v. Chiorazzo, 529 F.Supp.2d 535 (D. N.J. 2008). Under Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 42, the decision to consolidate cases for discovery is not mandatory but that decision remains within the sound discretion of the court. In this instance, various Jane Does seek to consolidate the cases for discovery purposes. Very clearly, the facts and circumstances, as pled and as is reflected in answers to interrogatories, are different for each individual, i.e. the dates, the ages, the events, their experiences, witnesses, medical and/or psychological treatment, etc. Bach of the Plaintiffs alleged incident history and post incident history and background is unique to those individuals. While the Jane Doe Plaintiffs EFTA00722766 Case 9:08-cv-80993-KAM Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2009 Page 5 of 7 Page 5 may wish to serve a "standard" set of interrogatories, request for production, or any other type of discovery, the Defendant's discovery to the individual Plaintiffs, and certainly their responses, is unique to that individual. There will be multiple instances where the discovery is applicable only to a specific Jane Doe and not all, such as, physicians, psychologists, parents, siblings, friends, employers, teachers, individuals with whom the Plaintiff has had relationships — many of these depositions will go to damage related issues wherein the Plaintiffs seek millions of dollars in the form of compensation. There are some instances where the deposition of a particular individual may be applicable to all cases, and defense counsel will suggest, as he did in correspondence directed to Plaintiff's counsel that that particular deposition be used in all cases However, in a vast majority of the instances where discovery, deposition and/or paper discovery is being utilized, including subpoena which will be sent to many different sources for each of the six Jane Does, consolidation serves no purpose. Even if this court consolidated the matters requested by Plaintiff, the undersigned would still be entitled to additional time to depose any party-plaintiff that is also listed or who has knowledge of any aspect of any other party-plaintiff's claim against Jeffrey Epstein. In addition, this Court has before it each of the cases filed by certain Plaintiffs against Jeffrey Epstein. Therefore, there is no chance of "conflicting results" as to rulings made by the same court and the same judge. As such, no true need exists for consolidation. Under Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 42, consolidation for discovery is not required, but remains within the sound discretion of the court. EFTA00722767 Case 9:08-cv-80993-KAM Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2009 Page 6 of 7 Page 8 IL Conclusion In swn, if Jane Doe No. 7has knowledge as a witness to one or more matters, one `Svitness" deposition will be held as to her witness knowledge. However, Defendant is also permitted to separately take Jane Doe. No. 7s deposition as a party-plaintiff. WHEREFORE, Defendant requests that this Court deny the Motion, enter an order allowing for the relief requested herein and for such other relief as s court deems just and proper. ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. 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 f record icadpthe following Service List in the manner specified by CM/ECF on this ay of 2009: Stuart S. Mermeistein, Esq. Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. . • . Counsel for Plaintifflane Doe 07 Respec By: ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. Florida Bar No. 224162 EFTA00722768 Case 9:08-cv-80993-KAM Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2009 Page 7 of 7 Page 7 PRIPPIII, ESQ. Fbrida Bar #617296 IIIIIINLUTTIER &COLEMAN Ore Fax ounse orDefendant Jeffrey Epstein) EFTA00722769 Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 60 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2009 Page 1 of 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80811-NIARRA/JOHNSON C.M. A., Plaintiff, v. i EPSTEIN and Defendants, DEFENDANT's MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME IN WHICH TO FILE A REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFEDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, (hereinafter "Epstein") by and through his undersigned attorneys, respectfully moves this Court for an extension of time in which to reply to Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint dated, April 13, 2009. Defendant seeks an extension until May 8, 2009, to file his reply. As good cause In support of granting the motion, Defendant states: 1. On April 13, 2009 Plaintiff filed a Memorandum in Response [DE58] to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint [DE 47]. Defendant's reply would be due on April 23, 2009 (5 days to reply excluding weekends). 2. There are several other cases filed with this Court in which Jeffrey Epstein is named a Defendant. In those cases, the undersigned has been preparing responses to Motions for Protective Order and handling other matters associated therewith. EFTA00722770 Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 60 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2009 Page 2 of 3 C.M.A. v. Epstein, et al. Page 2 3. Additionally, Defendant's counsel is in the midst of preparing for a state court trial. CARDIOPULMONARY & PRIMARY CARE ASSOC. OF TREASURE COAST, P.A v. LEWIS, M.D., Case No. 562008CA001726, specially set for trial beginning May 13 through 15, 2009). Discovery in that case is ongoing with several depositions set to prepare for trial. 4. The requested extension is fair in reasonable under the circumstances as it will provide time to allow the Defendant, EPSTEIN, to fully and adequately reply. 5. An extension until May 8, 2009, is fair and reasonable under the circumstances. The undersigned is in need of the additional time In order to fully and adequately prepare a response on behalf of EPSTEIN to the First Amended Complaint. 6. As certified below, counsel for Defendant conferred with counsel for Plaintiff, and Plaintiff's counsel is in agreement with the requested extension. WHEREFORE Defendant respectfully requests that this Court enter an order granting an extension until May 8, 2009, to file a reply to Plaintiffs Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint. Local Rule 7.1 Statement Counsel for the movant conferred by telephone with counsel for the Plaintiff and Counsel for Plaintiff is in agreement with the requested extension until May 8, 2009 for Defendant to reply to Plaintiffs Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint. 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 EFTA00722771 Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 60 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2009 Page 3 of 3 C.M.A. v. Epstein, et al. Page 3 served this day on all counsel of reco d identified on the following Service List in the manner specified by CM/ECF on this ay of April, 2009 Richard Horace Willits, Esq. Fax: Counsel for Plaintiff C.M.A. reelrhwethotmall.com Jack Scarola, Esq. Jack P. Hill, Esq. Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. s, P.A. Counsel for De =ndant Jeffrey Epstein Bruce Reinhart, Esq. Co-Counsel for Plaintiff Counsel for Defendant Respectful' su • fitted, By: ROB D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. & COLEMAN Phone Fax (Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) EFTA00722772