Jeffrey Epstein repeatedly invoked constitutional defenses to block discovery in civil suits alleging sexual abuse of minors

Date

November 11, 2025

Source

House Oversight

Reference

House Oversight #010586

Pages

Persons

Integrity

No Hash Available

Summary

The passage details Epstein's obstruction tactics during civil discovery, providing specific dates, deposition excerpts, and attorney names. While it offers concrete leads for further investigation (e Epstein invoked the Fifth Amendment repeatedly to avoid answering substantive abuse questions. Depositions were taken at least five times, with excerpts dated March 8, 2010. Attorney Jeffrey Herman i

This document is from the House Oversight Committee Releases.

View Source Collection

Persons Referenced (1)

Jeffrey Epstein

“Epstein’s Obstruction of Normal Discovery and Attacks on His Victims 53. | Once Edwards filed his civil co...”

Extracted Text (OCR)

EFTA Disclosure

Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.

Epstein’s Obstruction of Normal Discovery and Attacks on His Victims 53. | Once Edwards filed his civil complaints for his three clients, he began the normal process of discovery for cases such as these. He sent standard discovery requests to Epstein about his sexual abuse of the minor girls, including requests for admissions, request for protinetion, and interrogatories. See Edwards Affidavit, Exhibit “N”, at {11-19 and 25. Rather than answer any substantive questions about his sexual abuse and his conspiracy for procuring minor girls for him to abuse, Epstein invoked his 5th amendment right against self- incrimination. An example of Epstein’s refusal to answer is attached as Composite Exhibit “Z” (original discovery propounded to Epstein and his responses invoking Sth amendment). 54. During the discovery phase of the civil cases filed against Epstein, Epstein’s deposition was taken at least five times. During all of those depositions, Epstein refused to answer any substantive questions about his sexual abuse of minor girls. See, e.g., Deposition Attachments 1, 6 and 7. 55. During these depositions, Epstein further attempted to obstruct legitimate questioning by inserting a variety of irrelevant information about his case. As one of innumerable examples, on March 8, 2010, Mr. Horowitz, representing seven victims, Jane Doe's 2-8, asked, "Q: In 2004, did you rub Jane Doe 3's vagina? A: Excuse me. I'd like to answer that question, as I would like to answer mostly every question you've asked me here today; however, upon advice of counsel, I cannot answer that question. They've advised me I must assert my Sixth Amendment, Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment Rights against self--excuse me, against--under the Constitution. And though your partner, Jeffrey Herman, was disbarred after filing this lawsuit [a statement that was untrue], Mr. Edwards! partner sits in jail for 21

Related Documents (6)

DOJ Data Set 10CorrespondenceUnknown

reached in this case, and other information in the possession of the victims, it is also possible that

reached in this case, and other information in the possession of the victims, it is also possible that other improper relationships exist between Government agents and Epstein. Please provide any documents, correspondence, and other information regarding the possibility of any improper relationship, including: a) involvement in and/or awareness of any aspect of the Government's criminal investigation and/or possible prosecution/non-prosecution of Epstein; b) Attorney liklimenvolvement in and/or awareness of the Government's interest."( witness, subject, or target of the Epstein investigation, including Sarah Ghislaine Maxwell, Nadia Marcinkova, Lesley Groff, Haley Robson, Louella Ruboyo, Larry Morrison, Larry Visoki, David Rogers, William Hammond, and Robert Roxburgh; c) All documents, correspondence, and other information reflecting telephone calls (includin telephone logs and telephone billing statements) made by or received by m Jeffrey Epstein, the Florida Science

DOJ Data Set 11OtherUnknown

EFTA02351991

OtherUnknown

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 435 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2019 Page 1 of 33

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 435 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2019 Page 1 of 33 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA JANE DOE 1 AND JANE DOE 2, Petitioners, vs. UNITED STATES, Respondent. OPINION AND ORDER This cause is before the Court upon Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (DE 361); the United States's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (DE 408); Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2's Motion to Compel Answers (DE 348) and Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2's Motion for Finding Waiver of Work Product and Similar Protections by Government and for Production of Documents (DE 414). The Motions are fully briefed and ripe for review. The Court has carefully considered the Motions and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. I. Background The facts, as culled from affidavits, exhibits, depositions, answers to interrogatories and reasonably inferred, for the purpose of these motions, are as follows: From betw

33p

Forum Discussions

This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.

Donate More ways to support →

Annotations powered by Hypothesis. Select any text on this page to annotate or highlight it.

Jeffrey Epstein repeatedly invoked constitutional defenses to block discovery in civil suits alleging sexual abuse of minors

Summary

Persons Referenced (1)

Tags

Extracted Text (OCR)

Related Documents (6)

EFTA Document EFTA02016959

EFTA00014068

EFTA02414102

reached in this case, and other information in the possession of the victims, it is also possible that

EFTA02351991

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 435 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2019 Page 1 of 33

Forum Discussions