HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015610.jpg

victim to foster his goal of putting her into “jail” or of bringing a new action against Jane Doe No. 3. See Peisach v. Antuna, 539 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); see also Citimortgage, Inc. v. Davis, No. 50 2009 CA 030523, 2011 WL 3360318 (Fla. 15" Cir. Ct. Apr. 4, 2011). Defendant should be precluded from asking any questions about Jane Doe No. 3’s experiences as a sexually trafficked minor. Defendant should be precluded from questioning Jane Doe No. 3 about individuals that she was sexually trafficked to or about other victims or individuals involved in the sexual trafficking orchestrated by Jeffrey Epstein. Defendant should be precluded from questioning Jane Doe No. 3 about any rapes that occurred when she was a minor child. Defendant should be precluded from questioning Jane Doe No. 3 about anything related to her sexual activity either as a minor or thereafter as these questions would only be intended to embarrass and harass this non-party witness. b. Language and Harassment Limitations In addition, Jane Doe No. 3 requests that the Court provide counsel with a cautionary notice, that counsel for Defendant may not harass the non-party victim in any way during the deposition. With respect to the language used at the deposition, the Defendant’s counsel should be directed by the Court to not use any of the derogatory terms the Defendant has used in the press including calling Jane Doe No. 3 a “prostitute,” a “liar,” or a “bad mother” or any other similar derogatory and harassing language. c. Physical Location Limitations Non-party Jane Doe No. 3 has a valid and real basis to fear being in physical proximity of the Defendant. See Exhibit 8, Affidavit of Jane Doe No. 3. Accordingly, to the extent a deposition is to go forward, we would request that the Court direct that the Defendant not be present in the same room as non-party Jane Doe No. 3 and, instead, follow the testimony electronically from a separate location. In addition, non-party Jane Doe No. 3 respectfully requests that the Court hold that the physical location of the deposition should be the offices of 12 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015610