HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013385.jpg

A second reason exists for making discovery of Epstein’s acts of abuse of other minor girls admissible. Juries considering punitive damages issues are plainly entitled to consider “the euisionce and frequency of similar past conduct.” TXO Production Corp. v. Alliance Resources Corp., 509 U.S. 443, 462 0.28 (1993). This is because the Supreme Court recognizes “that a recidivist may be punished more severely than a first offender . . . [because] repeated misconduct is more reprehensible than an individual instance of malfeasance.” BMW of North America, Inc. Vv. Gore, 517 U.S. 559, 577 (1996) (supporting citations omitted). In addition, juries can consider other similar acts evidence as part of the deterrence calculation in awarding punitive damages, because “evidence that a defendant has repeatedly engaged in prohibited conduct while knowing .. that it was unlawful would provide relevant support for an argument that strong medicine is realined to cure the defendant’s disrespect for the law.” Jd. at 576-77. In the cases Edwards filed against Epstein, his clients were entitled to attempt to prove that Epstein “repeatedly engaged in prohibited conduct” — i.e., because he was a predatory pedophile, he sexually assaulted doves and dozens of minor girls. The discovery of Epstein’s friends who might have had direct or circumstantial evidence of other acts of sexual assault was accordingly entirely proper. Edwards is therefore entitled summary judgment to the extent his claim is based on efforts by Edwards to obtain discovery of Epstein’s friends. mu. EPSTEIN’S LAWSUIT MUST BE DISMISSED BECAUSE OF HIS REFUSAL TO : PARTICIPATE IN REASONABLE DISCOVERY. As is readily apparent from the facts of this case, Epstein has filed a lawsuit but then refused to allow any real discovery about the merits of his case. Instead, when asked hard questions about whether he has any legitimate claim at all, Epstein has hidden behind the Fifth 16 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013385