Case No. 9:08.80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson
JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2
1.
UNITED STATES
JANE DOE NO. 1 AND JANE DOE NO. 2'S MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO
COME NOW Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2 (the "victims"), by and through
undersigned counsel, to file this motion to compel the Government to provide answers to certain
requests for admission and requests for production involving Alan Dershowitz or, in the
alternative, to properly assert privilege over these discovery requests.
On April 11, 2015, the victims sent a Second Request for Admissions and a Second
Request for Production to the Government, seeking to discover information relevant to various
aspects of this case. On June 18, 2015, the Government provided answers to some of the
discovery requests. With regard to the discovery requests concerning information about one of
Jeffrey Epstein's defense attorneys, Alan Dershowitz, the Government refused to provide any
information, asserting that any information about Dershowitz was irrelevant to this case and, in
some instances, was privileged from production.
Following discussions between counsel for the victims and the Government, the
Government stipulated that it had at least some information about Dershowitz that was covered by
the discovery requests. The parties, however, agreed that it would appropriate to submit to the
1
EFTA00210988
Court, via this motion to compel, the issue of the victims' discovery request are "reasonably
calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). If the Court
agrees with the Government and concludes that requests seek information that is not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, then there would be no need for further
consideration of the issue. If, on the other hand, the Court agreed with the victims and concluded
that the requests are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, then
the Government would either produce that information or produce an appropriate privilege log.'
The victims believe that the discovery requests regarding one of Epstein's defense
attorneys are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, for all the
reasons explained in this memorandum. For example, the information sought would go directly
to important motive issues in this case — by supporting the victims' central claim that the
Government and Epstein worked together to conceal the non-prosecution agreement from the
vicdtims. Accordingly, the Court should grant the motion to compel and direct the Government
to either provide the information or produce a privilege log regarding the information.
As relevant to this motion, on April II, 2015, the victims sent a Second Request for
Admissions (RFAs) and a Second Request for Production (RFPs) to the Government, seeking to
discover information relevant to aspects of this case. See Attachment 1 and Attachment 2.2 Some
' Before filing this motion, victims' counsel also conferred with counsel for Jeffrey Epstein
and for Alan Dershowitz. They took the position that
2 These attachments are integrated documents which include: (1) the relevant discovery
requests from the victims immediately followed by (2) the Government later-provided answers to
each request.
2
EFTA00210989
of those discovery requests concerned Epstein's criminal defense attorney Alan Dershowitz. For
example, in Request for Production 3(g), the victims requested information in the Government's
possession about Dershowitz being present in the company of females under the age of 18 with
Epstein or on Epstein-controlled property. RFP 3(g). As another example, in Request for
Production 3(m), the victims sought information in the Government's possession "suggesting that
Dershowitz had a motive for approval of, or would receive a benefit from, a non-prosecution
agreement (NPA) with Epstein that extended to any `potential co-conspirator of Epstein."'; As
another example, in Request for Admission 24, the victims asked the Government to admit that
"[a] part of its criminal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein between 2005 and the date on which the
investigation concluded, the Government collected or became aware of information suggesting
that Alan Dershowitz was in close proximity to Jeffrey Epstein at a time when young females
(under the age of 18) were also in close proximity to Epstein." And as a last example, in Request
for Admission 25, the victims asked the Government to admit that it "has investigated allegations
or acquired information about whether Alan Dershowitz was involved with Epstein's sexual abuse
of young females (under the age of 18)."
After extensions of time agreed to by the victims, on June 18, 2015, the Government
provided answers to some of the discovery requests. But with regard to the discovery requests
concerning information about Dershowitz, the Government refused to provide any information.
The Government gave various reasons. The Government's central argument was that "[t]he factual
3 The Court will recall that the NPA ultimately reached in this case between the
Government and Epstein blocked prosecution for sex offenses committed not only by Epstein, but
also by any "potential co-conspirator" of Epstein. NPA at 5.
3
EFTA00210990
details regarding with whom and where the Jane Does engaged in sexual activities are immaterial
and impertinent" to the issues of the Government's CVRA duties. The Government also pointed
out that this Court had previously stricken allegations made about Dershowitz and proffered in
support of her motion to join this action. See Corrected Motion for Joinder (DE 280); Order
Denying Motion to Join (DE 324). As a fallback position, in some instances, the Government
asserted that the information sought was barred from discovery law enforcement investigative
privilege and work product doctrine.
The Government has stipulated that it has some information about Dershowitz responsive
to the victims' various discovery requests, and the parties have agreed to submit the dispute about
the discoverability of this information to the Court.
DISCUSSION
The victims' discovery requests for information about Alan Dershowitz are well-founded
and is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant information at trial. Accordingly,
the Court should order the Government to either produce the information or produce a proper
privilege log about the information.
I.
THE VICTIMS' DISCOVERY REQUESTS ARE WELL-FOUNDED.
To pursue discovery on an issue, a party must have a "good faith basis" for believing
discoverable information exists. See In re Southeast Banking Corp, 204 F.3d 1322, 1328 (II' Cir.
2000). Accordingly, counsel for Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 represent that they have a good faith
basis for seeking discovery about sex abuse committed by Alan Dershowitz in concert with Jeffrey
Epstein. This abuse took place before Dershowitz began actively negotiating a plea deal for
Epstein on the sex abuse charges at the center of this case.
4
EFTA00210991
Counsel have received credible information that numerous underage girls were trafficked
by Epstein for sexual purposes to various powerful individuals. One such powerful individual to
whom Epstein trafficked girls was Alan Dershowitz, a close friend of Epstein's and well-known
criminal defense attorney. Epstein required (at least) one underage girl to have sexual relations
with Dershowitz on numerous occasions while she was a minor, not only in Florida but also on
private planes, in New York, New Mexico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. In addition to being a
participant in the abuse of this particular girl (and, apparently, other girls as well), Dershowitz was
an eye-witness to the sexual abuse of many other minor girls by Epstein and several of Epstein's
co-conspirators. Dershowitz would later play a significant role in negotiating the NPA on Epstein's
behalf. Indeed, as discussed at greater length below, Dershowitz helped negotiate an agreement
that extended immunity from federal prosecution in the Southern District of Florida not only to
Epstein, but also to "any potential co-conspirators of Epstein." NPA at 5. And, as alleged
throughout the case, the victims have credible evidence that the provisions of this agreement were
concealed from Epstein's victims to ensure that it was approved — all at the behest of Epstein's
legal defense team, a team that included Dershowitz.
The good faith basis for this belief is confirmed not only by affidavits, documents, and
other evidence in the possession of counsel for Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2,4 but also by the fact
Victims' counsel have not attached any affidavits or other supporting evidence to this
proffer at this time, because they do not believe that the Government will contest the good faith
basis for the pertinent discovery requests. Should the Government contest that such a basis exists
(or should the Court request further information), counsel will file this supporting evidence in its
reply.
5
EFTA00210992
that rather than simply denying that it has any such information, the Government has instead
confirmed that it possesses some responsive information but objects to producing that information.
II.
IS BARRED.
In its answers to the victims' discovery requests, the Government repeatedly notes that this
Court had stricken earlier allegations about sexual abuse by Dershowitz. The Government
apparently contends that this action means that the Court has already ruled that any discovery about
Dershowitz is barred.
The Court has not made any such decision. Instead, the Court handed down a carefully-
crafted order that struck allegations by one victim from her motion to join this case. DE 324. The
Court first ruled that it was unnecessary to add additional plaintiffs to this case beyond Jane Doe
I and Jane Doe 2. The Court explained that other victims could testify as fact witnesses in the
cases to appropriate facts. Id. at 7. The Court emphasized that other victims "can participate in
this litigated effort to vindicate the rights of similarly situated victims — there is no requirement
that the evidentiary proof submitted in this case come only from the named parties." Id. at 8
(emphasis in original).
Of particular importance to this motion, in its earlier ruling the Court specifically stated
that other victims could participate in this case on some issues, including discovery issues: "The
necessary `participation' of [other victims] . . . in this case can be satisfied by offering their
properly supported — and relevant, admissible, and non-cumulative — testimony as needed, whether
6
EFTA00210993
through testimony at trial . . . or affidavits submitted to support the relevancy of discovery requests
...." DE 324 at 8 (second emphases added)?
The Court also pointed out that the ultimate issue in this case was "a determination of
whether the Government violated the rights of Jane Doe I, Jane Doe 2, and all `other similarly
situated victims' under the CVRA. [Other victims] . . . may offer relevant, admissible, and non-
cumulative evidence that advances that determination, but their participation as listed parties is not
necessary in that regard." Id. at 9 (emphasis deleted). The Court also noted that "[t]he Court
expresses no opinion at this time whether any of the attestations made by [other victims] . . . in
support of their motion will be" admissible in later proceedings. Id. at 9 n.5.
In short, while the Court concluded that allegations about Dershowitz in the earlier
pleading were unnecessary, the Court left open whether such allegations would be appropriate in
later pleadings. Accordingly, we turn now to the issue of whether the victims' discovery requests
about Dershowitz are proper.
III.
THE VICTIMS' DISCOVERY REQUESTS ARE REASONABLY CALCULATED
Jane Doe I and Jane Doe 2's have propounded discovery requests regarding Dershowitz
seeking information that is highly relevant to the case. Accordingly, the requests easily meet the
governing standard that they be "reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b).
5 Because the Government does not appear to be disputing the good faith factual basis of
victims' counsel pursuing discovery requests about Dershowitz, victims' counsel have not attached
supporting affidavit, but it prepared to do so if the facts are disputed.
7
EFTA00210994
A. The Legal Standard for Evaluating a Discovery Request is Not Strict Relevancy,
But Rather Whether the Request is Reasonably Calculated to Lead to the Discovery
of Admissible Evidence.
The Government has objected to the victims' discovery requests, and according bears the
burden of proving the validity of its objections. Felicia.. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., 286 F.R.D. 667,
670 (S.D. Fla. 2012) ("The burden of persuasion is on the party objecting to the discovery."). At
various points in its responses to the victims' discovery requests, the Government seems to suggest
that the requests must be assessed against a standard of trial "relevancy." In fact, discovery
requests can extend far more broadly than relevancy at trial. As this Court has explained: "The
courts have long held that relevance for discovery purposes is much broader than relevance for
trial purposes." Adelman
Boy Scouts of All!" 276 F.R.D. 681, 688 (S.D. Fla. 2011) (citing
Dunkin' Donuts, Inc.., Mary's Donuts, Inc., No. 01-0392,2001 WL 34079319, *2 (S.D.Fla. Nov.
1, 2001) (emphases deleted)). This Court has previously explained the "broad" scope of discovery
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b):6
The scope of discovery under Rule 26(b) is broad: parties may obtain discovery
regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the claims or defense of
any party involved in the pending action. Information is relevant if it is "germane,
conceivably helpful to plaintiff, or reasonably calculated to lead to admissible
evidence. Thus, under Rule 26 relevancy is construed broadly to encompass any
matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to another matter that could bear
on any issue that is or may be in the case. Discovery is not limited to the issues
raised by the pleadings because discovery itself is designed to help define and
clarify the issues. In short, information can be relevant and therefore discoverable,
even if not admissible at trial, so long as the information is reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
6 This Court has "repeatedly held that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure govern the
general course of this proceeding. DE 330 at 23 (internal quotation omitted).
8
EFTA00210995
Donahay I. Palm Beach Tours & Transp., Inc,., 242 F.R.D. 685, 687 (S.D. Fla. 2007) (internal
quotations omitted).
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are broadly written and "strongly favor full discovery
whenever possible." Farnsworth I Procter and Gamble Co., 758 F.2d 1545, 1547 (11th
Cir.1985). Thus, as this Court has previously ruled in this case, the bottom line is that "[d]iscovery
should ordinarily be allowed under the concept of relevancy unless it is clear that the information
sought has no possible bearing on the subject matter of the action." DE 330 at 17 (citing Milinazzo
I. State Farms Ins. Co., 247 F.R.D. 691, 695-96 (S.D Fla. 2007).
B.
Discovery About Dershowitz's Involvement in Epstein's Crimes is Highly
Relevant to this Action.
Discovery about Dershowitz's involvement in Epstein's crimes directly and immediately
bears on the subject matter of this action, for multiple reasons.
[INSERT ARGUMENT HERE — Will include many of the arguments previously made ....
Motive, etc. ....]
CONCLUSION
The Court should order the Government to answer Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2
discovery requests regarding Alan Dershowitz, either by producing the information or compiling
a proper privilege log.
DATED: July xxx, 2015
Respectfully Submitted,
/s/ Bradley J. Edwards
Bradley J. Edwards
9
EFTA00210996
425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
Telephone (954) 524-2820
Facsimile (954) 524-2822
E-mail:
[email protected]
And
Paul G. Cassell
Pro Hac Vice
S.J. Quinney College of Law at the
University of Utah'
332 S. 1400 E.
Salt Lake City, UT 84112
Telephone: 801-585-5202
Facsimile: 801-585-6833
E-Mail:
[email protected]
Attorneys for Jane Does No. 1, 2, 3 and 4
This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes
only and is not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah
10
EFTA00210997
I certify that the foregoing document was served on July
. 2015. on the following using
the Court's CM/ECF system:
/s/ Bradley J. Edwards
II
EFTA00210998