UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. Related cases: 08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092 Defendant's Motion To Strike Declarations Attached And Cited In Plaintiffs' Reply In Support Of Their Motion For Protective Order (DE 266), And Incorporated Memorandum Of Law Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter "Epstein" or Defendant), by and through his undersigned attorneys, respectfully moves this Court for an order Striking The Declarations attached to and cited in Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of their Motion for Protective Order (DE 266). Local Rule 12 allows for this court to strike same. As good cause in support of granting the motion, Defendant states: 1. On July 29, 2009, Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Protective Order seeking to prevent any investigation of the Plaintiffs and/or the claims they assert against Jeffrey Epstein in their respective Complaints.(DE 226) Plaintiffs Motion for Protective Order attached the Affidavits of Dr. Kliman - Ex. "A," the Declaration of Jane Doe 4 — Ex. "B," and the Declaration of Jane Doe 6 - Ex. "C". EFTA00723045 2. On August 11, 2009, Defendant filed his Response In Opposition to the above Motion for Protective Order. (DE 262) 3. On August 14, 2009, Plaintiffs filed their Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion for Protective Order (DE 266), and attached and cited newly filed declarations for which Defendant does not have an opportunity to respond to under the rules. Therefore, the declarations delineated below are outside the scope of Plaintiffs' initial Motion for Protective Order and the Defendants' Response in Opposition. Moreover, the declarations are untimely. 4. In particular, Plaintiffs attach to or cite in their Reply the declaration of Jane Doe 4 (dated August 14, 2009 — a newly filed declaration - DE 267-2), the declaration of Jane Doe 6 (a declaration not attached to the Reply or linked to any other motion by docket entry citation), the declaration of Jane Doe 7 (a declaration not attached to the Reply and referenced as a new August 14, 2009 declaration) and the declaration of Jane Doe 4's sister (Y.B.'s newly filed declaration dated August 18, 2009 - DE 267-3). 5. Based upon the foregoing, the Defendant does not have an opportunity to respond to the newly filed declarations or those declarations cited in the Reply but not attached or linked to any other motion. To the extent Plaintiffs" intention was to link the missing declarations to another motion, response or reply previously filed by Plaintiffs, same has not been specified in their Reply. 6. Note, Defendant is not moving to strike the declaration of Jane Doe 4 dated July 17, 2009 because that declaration is attached to Plaintiffs' initial motion. EFTA00723046 Memorandum of Law 7. Ivory v. Hoime, 2009 WL 513720 (M.D. Fla. 2009)(striking affidavits as untimely). Wherefore, Defendant respectfully requests that this court enter an order: a. striking the declaration of Jane Doe 4 (dated August 14, 2009 — a newly filed declaration - DE 267-2): b. striking the declaration of Jane Doe 6 (a declaration not attached to the Reply or linked to any other motion by docket entry citation); c. striking the declaration of Jane Doe 7 (a declaration not attached to the Reply and referenced as a new August 14, 2009 declaration); d. the declaration of Jane Doe 4's sister (Y.B.'s newly filed declaration dated August 18, 2009 — DE 267-3); or, alternatively; e. require Plaintiffs to file the missing declarations and allow Defendant 10 days within which to file a Supplemental Brief addressing same; and f. for such other and further relief as this court deems just and proper. By: L MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. Florida Bar #617296 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 foliopt' g S ice List in the manner specified by CM/ECF on this 76) day of 2009 EFTA00723047 ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. Florida MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. Florida Bar #617296 BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & LEMAN Phone Fax (Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) Certificate of Service Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. Brad Edwards, Esq. Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler M- m P.A. 411 as Olas Boulevard Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80893 Counsel for Plaintiffs In related Cases Nos. 08-80069, 08- 80119, 08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, Paul G. Cassell, Esq. 08-80993, 08-80994 Richard Horace Willits, Esq. P Pro Hac Vice Fax Co-counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe Fax: Isidro M. Garcia, Esq. Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. Garcia Law Firm. P.A 08-80811 EFTA00723048 Jack Scarola, Esq. 111.1 ... i Jack P. Hill, Esq. ounse or awn in elated Case Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & No. 08-80469 Shipley. P.A. Fax: a Counsel or Plaintt C.M.A. Bruce Reinhart, Esq. Bruce E. Reinhart P.A. Fax: Counsel for I e Theodore J. Leopold, Esq. Spencer T. Kuvin, Esq. Leopold, Kuvin P.A. Fax: Counsel or Plaint in Related Case No. 08-08804 Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq. Katherine W. Ezell, Esq. Podhurst Orseck, P.A. ounse aintt s in Related Cases Nos. 09-80591 and 09-80656 Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. ounsel or en ant Jeffrey Epstein EFTA00723049