Jeffrey_Epstein_Part_22_of_22_p0010.png

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document305 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Page 4 of 8 14. Any suggestion that the chance “visual” between Mr. Epstein and Jane Doe No. 4 was “pre-planned” would be absurd, disingenuous and false. The undersigned counsel went out of his way to make certain Mr. Epstein would not be in the building after the time the deposition was set to begin. Had the Plaintiff and her counsel been in the deposition room at the appointed time, no visual contact would have occurred. 15. It is possible that Plaintiffs counsel, by filing their motion for protective order on September 9, 2009 and then advising the undersigned on September 14, 2009 that the deposition would not go forward unless the undersigned agreed to exclude Mr. Epstein from the deposition, were not prepared and/or did not want to proceed with the deposition. 16. The unilateral termination of the deposition was unnecessary, inappropriate and a substantial waste of attorney time and the costs related to the deposition (court reporter and videographer). (See Affidavit of Robert D. Critton, Jr., Mark T. Luttier and Deposition Transcript, Exhibits 6, 7, and 8 respectively). 17. Had the “visual” been premeditated, the cancellation of the deposition may have been justified, however, under these circumstances, it was grandstanding and improper. In that the Plaintiff has stated that she voluntary went to JE’s home 50 plus times without trauma until she filed a lawsuit, this brief visual encounter from a distance should not have resulted in the unilateral cancellation of her deposition. 18. The costs associated with the court reporter and videographer total $428.80. See Exhibit 9. Memorandum of Law In support of Motion A substantial amount of administrative time went into the setting up the deposition of Jane Doe No. 4. Almost two months passed from the time that the Defendant’s counsel first 4 03956-10988