Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 127 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 3, Plaintiff; vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 4, Plaintiff; vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 5, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-IVIARRA/JOHNSON CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/JOHNSON CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRAJJOHNSON EFTA00222226 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 127 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 2 of 9 Doe 101 v. Epstein Page 2 Plaintiff; JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. CASE NO.: 08-80994-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 6, Plaintiff" JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. CASE NO.: 08-80993-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 7, Plaintiff; JEFFREY EPSTEIN Defendant. CASE NO.: 08-80811-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintifr JEFFREY EPSTEIN Defendant. JANE DOE, CASE NO.: 08-80893-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON EFTA00222227 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 127 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 3 of 9 Doe 101 v. Epstein Page 3 Plaintiff, JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al, Defendants. DOB II, Plaintiff JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al, Defendants. JANE DOE NO. 101, Plaintiff, JEFFREY EPSTEIN Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 102, Plaintiff, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. CASE NO.: 09-80469-CIV-MARRA-JOHNSON CASE NO.: 09-80591-CIV-MARRA-JOHNSON CASE NO.: 09-80656-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON DEFENDANT. JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S. RESPONSE TO JANE DOE NO. 101 AND JANE DOE NO. 102'S MOTION FOR A NO CONTACT ORDER EFTA00222228 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 127 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 4 of 9 Doe 101 v. Epstein Page 4 Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, ("MR. EPSTEIN"), by and through his undersigned attorneys responds to the Plaintiffs' Jane Doe No. 101 and Jane Doe No. 102 ("Plaintiffs") Motion for a No Contact Order IDE 113] and states: 1. Plaintiffs' Motion was completely unnecessary and a waste of attorney time and judicial resources. Plaintiffs' motion was filed to cast a false light on Mr. Epstein and his attorneys, and to draw attention away from the fact that many of the alleged "victims" on the referenced "list" were or are admitted prostitutes, dancers at strip clubs (Platinum Gold, Cheetah, Diamond Dolls, T's Lounge, Flashdance, etc.) or have criminal records or warrants for their arrests, to reference only a few issues about them. 2. Plaintiffs seek an advisory opinion on an issue which does not exist. Neither Mr. Epstein nor his attorneys have initiated any contact, direct or indirect, with any alleged "victims", nor does Plaintiffs' counsel or any alleged person by way of affidavit alleged any type of contact, direct or indirect. The undersigned's May 21, 2009 (Exhibit 1 hereto) letter could not have been clearer as to the position of Mr. Epstein and his attorneys, i.e. "To my knowledge, neither Mr. Epstein nor any attorney or agent of those attorneys who represent Mr. Epstein, have contacted or attempted to contact your clients. Given that it is not Mr. Epstein's intention to have any direct contact with your clients, it is unnecessary to respond point by point to any statements attributed to my co-counsel." To the extent it was not clear in the undersigned's letter, neither Mr. Epstein nor his attorneys, nor their agents intend to have any direct or indirect contact with Plaintiffs counsels' clients. What else is there to say? 3. Is Plaintiffs' counsel suggesting that Mr. Epstein cannot even be at the depositions of his clients as parties or witnesses? That certainly will be direct 'eye' contact at a EFTA00222229 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 127 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 5 of 9 Doe 101 v. Epstein Page 5 minimum. If that is Plaintiffs' position then Jane Doe 101 and 102, and any other matters where Plaintiffs' firm's clients are involved, should be stayed until expiration of the Non-Prosecution Agreement, otherwise Mr. Epstein will be denied his due process right of any civil party to be present at opposing party's deposition. 4. Rather than to mislead the court by providing a substantially redacted copy of the undersigned's May 18, 2009 letter, a full copy of the letter redacting only the client's full name is attached as Exhibit 2. The letter is important in that the Defendant and his attorneys recognize that no contact included not serving his client with a deposition subpoena through a process server, i.e. potentially an "agent" by serving her attorney. As this court will note from paragraph 2 of Exhibit 1, a very cautious approach was taken by Defendant and his attorneys, in stating "However, based on the position that you, Bob, have taken, I am providing/serving you with the subpoena for L.S.P.'s deposition on June I I." 5. Plaintiffs' counsel further tries to obfuscate Defendant's position by redacting the last paragraph of the May 18, 2009 letter, which states "Finally as I also indicated in our telephone conversation, your client contacted Jack Goldberger's [one of Mr. Epstein's attorneys] office last week suggesting that Jack was holding up the settlement. He did not speak with her. I don't know where Ms. P got that idea." Plaintiffs' counsel should be more concerned about controlling their own clients. 6. Rather than the Plaintiffs filing this needless, unwarranted and excessive motion where they take another shot at Mr. Epstein so they can remind the court of their alleged damages, maybe, they should focus more on the background of their own clients, including the individual referenced in the May 18, 2009 letter. EFTA00222230 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 127 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 6 of 9 Doe 101 v. Epstein Page 6 7. Finally, Mr. Epstein pled guilty to one count of felony solicitation (which was not related to a minor), under §796.07(2)(f), F.S. and one count of procuring a minor for prostitution under §796.03 F. S. Plaintiffs' reference to both counts being related to "minors" is again misleading and incorrect. 8. At the time of the state court plea on June 30, 2008, neither Defendant nor his counsel nor the state attorney's office had seen the "secret" list of alleged victims, i.e. Mr. Epstein was forced to agree to a list of individuals that the USAO refused to provide pre-plea. The list was not provided to Mr. Epstein's attorney until after the plea and Mr. Epstein was in jail. With the parties to the plea completely unaware who would be on the list, how then could the state plea be construed as a limitless no contact order. Mr. Epstein is doing more than the law requires. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Mr. Epstein, requests this court deny the motion as premature and unnececsary based on the current state of the facts. Certificate of Service I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on all counsel of record identified on the following Service List in the manner specified by CM/ECF on this 29th day of May , 2009 EFTA00222231 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 127 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 7 of 9 Doe 101 v. Epstein Page 7 Respectfully sub By: ROBERT D. ON, JR., ESQ. Florida Bar o. 224162 MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. Florida Bar #617296 LUTHER & COLEMAN 515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 ounse or en ant Jeffrey Epstein) EFTA00222232 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 127 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 8 of 9 Doe 101 v. Epstein Page 8 Certificate of Service Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. 18205 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 2218 Miami, FL 33160 Counsel for Plaintiff, in Related Cases Nos. 08-80069, 08-80119, 0840232, 08-80380, 08- 80381, 08-80993, 08-80994 Richard Horace Willits, Esq. Richard H. Willits, P.A. 229010° Avenue North Suite 404 Lake Worth, FL 33461 Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08- 80811 Brad Edwards, Esq. Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler 401 East Las Olas Boulevard Suite 1650 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 lack Scarola, Esq. Jack P. Hill, Esq. Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach, FL 33409 Counsel for Plaintiff, C.M.A. Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08- 80893 Paul G. Cassell, Esq. Pro Hae Vice 332 South 1400 E, Room 101 Salt Lake City, UT 84112 Co-counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe Isidro M. Garcia, Esq. Garcia Law Finn, P.A. 224 Datura Street, Suite 900 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 561-832-7732 561-832-7137 F jsidroaarcia@beilsouth.net Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08- 80469 Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq. Katherine W. Ezell, Esq. Podhurst Orseck, P.A. 25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800 Miami, FL 33130 EFTA00222233 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 127 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 9 of 9 Doe 101 v. Epstein Page 9 Bruce Reinhart, Esq. Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A. 250 S. Australian Avenue Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Counsel for Defendant Sarah Kellen Theodore J. Leopold, Esq. Spencer T. Kuvin, Esq. Ricci-Leopold, P.A. 2925 PGA Blvd., Suite 200 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Counse or tints in Related Case No. 08- 08804 Counsel for Plaintiffs in Related Cases Nos. 09-80591 and 09-80656 Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein EFTA00222234