Jeffrey_Epstein_Part_22_of_22_p0024.png

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 305-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Page 9 of 11 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document296 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/11/2008 Page 9 of 33 Page 9 * * * * In seeking to prevent the Defendant from being present in the room where the Plaintiffs are being deposed, Plaintiffs generally rely on treatise material from Wright & Miller, 8 Federal Practice & Procedure Civ.2d, §2041, and cases cited therein. The case of Gaella v. Onassis, 487 F.2d 986; at 997 (2d Cir. 1973), cited by Plaintiffs, makes clear that the exclusion of a party from a deposition “should be ordered rarely indeed.” Unlike the Gaella case, there is no showing by each of the Plaintiffs that there has been any conduct by Epstein, in rightfully defending the actions filed against him, reflecting “an irrepressible intent to continue ... harassment” of any Plaintiff or a complete disregard of the judicial process, i.e. prior alleged conduct versus any action/conduct displayed in this or other cases that would justify extraordinary relief. There is absolutely no basis in the record to indicate that Epstein will act other than properly and with the proper decorum at the depositions of the Plaintiffs and abide in all respects with the No-Contact Order. Wherefore, Epstein respectfully requests that this Court enter an order denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for Protective Order, provide that Epstein is permitted to attend the depositions of the Plaintiffs that have asserted claims against him in the related matters, and for such other and further relief as this court deems just and proper. Attorney for Defendant Epstein 03956-11002