Jeffrey_Epstein_Part_22_of_22_p0019.png

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 305-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Page 4 of 11 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document296 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/11/2009 Page 4 of 33 Page 4 the plaintiffs either directly or indirectly. However, there is no prohibition against Mr. Epstein’s attendance at a deposition where, as is reflected in the order, the communication will be made to the plaintiff solely through defense counsel with one or more of plaintiffs’ counsel of record present in the room in a videotaped deposition. Obviously, any inappropriate contact or communication will certainly be flagged by the attorneys in attendance. As such, Plaintiffs really have the cart before the horse in this instance (ie., nothing prevents Epstein from attending these depositions and, to the extent Plaintiffs believe that something improper occurs at any deposition, only then can that circumstance be addressed by a motion such as the instant one.) 41. Next, Plaintiffs, Jane Does 2-8, attempt to use the Affidavit of Dr. Kliman for every motion for protective order/objection filed to date. This also includes the two most recent motions, which attempt to prevent Defendant’s investigators from doing their job, such that the Defendant and his attorneys can defend the claims asserted in these cases. Plaintiffs lose sight of the fact that the court, in discussing the Non-Prosecution Agreement, inquired as to whether Epstein and his counsel could fully defend the case, which included discovery and investigation. All plaintiffs’ counsel and the USAO responded in the affirmative. In fact, Plaintiffs universally agreed at the June 12, 2009 hearing on Defendant’s Motion to Stay that regular discovery could proceed. See Composite Exhibit “4” at pages 26-30 & 33-34. For instance, the court asked Plaintiffs’ attorneys the following questions: The Court: {] So again, I just want to make sure that if the cases go forward and if Mr. Epstein defends the case as someone ordinarily would defend a case being prosecuted against him or her, that that in and of itself is not going to cause him to be subject to criminal prosecution? (Ex. “A,” p.26). ae The Court: You agree he should be able to take the ordinary steps that a defendant in a civil action can take and not be concerned about having to be prosecuted? (Ex. “A,” p.27). 03956-10997