Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM

Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 1 of 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80811-MARRAMOHNSON C.M. A., Plaintiff, v. III EPSTEIN and'''. Defendants, DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF C.M.A. TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANT'S FIRST REQUEST TO PRODUCE AND ANSWER DEFENDANTS FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES, AND TO OVERRULE OBJECTIONS. AND FOR AN AWARD OF DEFENDANTS REASONABLE EXPENSES Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through his undersigned attorneys, moves this Court for an order compelling Plaintiff, C.M.A. to respond to Defendant's First Request To Produce and to answer Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories, and to overrule her objections asserted in Plaintiffs Response To Defendant's First Request To Produce, dated February 13, 2009, and in Plaintiffs Notice of Serving Answers To Interrogatories, dated February 18, 2009. Defendant further seeks an award of his • reasonable expenses, Including expenses, associated with the making of this motion. Rule 37, Fed.R.Civ.P. (2008); Local Gen. Rules 7.1 and 26.1 H (S.D. Fla. 2008). In support of his motion, Defendant states: Prior to the filing of this motion, on April 1, 2009, Defendants counsel communicated by telephone with Plaintiffs counsel In a good faith effort to resolve the discovery Issues herein. This motion addresses those discovery items which remain at EFTA01070407 Case 9:08-cv-80811-ICAM Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 2 of 18 C.M.A. v. Epstein, et al. Page 2 issue. Also, rather than file 2 separate motions to compel, Defendant filed one addressing the production requests and interrogatories because the discovery issues overlap. Motion To Compel Responses to Production Requests Nos.1, 2, 4. 5, and 19, and Answers to Interrogatories Nos. 2, 18. and 23. Production Request No. 1 1. Individual and/or Joint income tax returns and supporting documentation including W-2 and 1099 forms for 2002-2007 and, as well as all records or documentation relative to the Plaintiffs earnings for the current year. Response: Objection. Irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible information. Legal Argument Supporting Entitlement to Discovery Plaintiffs tax returns and supporting documentation are relevant to Plaintiffs damages claims and, thus, discoverable. Plaintiffs complaint alleges in part that "beginning in approximately late May or early June of 2002, and continuing until approximately August of 2003, the Defendant coerced and enticed the Impressionable, vulnerable, and economically deprived then minor Plaintiff to commit various acts of sexual misconduct." f t Am. Complaint, ¶13. (Plaintiff also refused to answer interrogatory no. 2 which sought her employment history for the past ten years asserting the same general objection). Such information is both relevant and reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. It is well settled that relevant Information Is discoverable, even if not admissible at trial, so long as the discovery is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Rule 28(b)(1), Fed.R.Civ.P.; EFTA01070408 Case 9:08-cv-130811-1<AM Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 3 of 18 C.M.A. v. Epstein, et al. Page 3 Donahav v. Palm Beach Tours & trans.. Inc., 242 F.R.D. 685 (S.D. Fla. 2007). Discoverability of such Information Is governed by Rule 26, Fed.R.Civ.P., pursuant to which the scope of discovery Is broad. Donahav, supra, at 686, and cases cited therein. "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? Id. Plaintiff's tax returns, along with the requested supporting documentation, for the six year period, and documents relevant to her current earnings, are relevant to Plaintiff's damagep claims detailed below herein. Such information would show Plaintiff's employment and earning history, as well as provide evidence as to how Plaintiff has been able to function in her daily life before, during and after the alleged incidents. Was she setf-sufficient? Was she able to get out of bed each morning and support herself? What type of Job did she holed? One's ability to earn a living and be self-supporting has not only a financial component, but also an emotional/psychologicamental component. C.M.A.'s First Amended Complaint attempts to allege 32 counts. Counts I through XXX are purportedly brought pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §2255 — Civil Remedies for Personal Injuries; Count XXXI is entitled 'Sexual Battery," and Count XXXII. is entitled "Conspiracy to Commit Tortbus Assault only against Defendant, in her answers to interrogatory nos. 9 and 10, which seek Information about C.M.A.'s damages claims, Plaintiff answered that: ' Defendant's Motion To Dismiss directed to Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint Is pending. EFTA01070409 Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 4 of 18 C.M.A. v. Epstein, et al. Page 4 I have bi-polar disorder and manic depression. I lost my self-esteem. I began cutting myself on my arms and legs and developed drug problems. Permanent injuries are psychological. (lnterrog. No. 9). I am claiming compensation for mental anguish, mental pain, psychic trauma, and loss of enjoyment of life. These damages will be evaluated by a jury who will provide their own methods of computation In an amount of at least the statutory minimum established by 18 U.S.C.A. §2255. (Interrog. No. 10). In her 1st Amended Complaint, relevant to her damages claims, Plaintiff, alleges: C.M.A., has in the past suffered, and will in the future suffer, physical Injury, pain and suffering, emotional distress, psychological trauma, mental anguish, humiliation, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, loss of dignity, invasion of her privacy and other damages ... . The then minor Plaintiff incurred medical and psychological expenses ... and will in the future suffer additional medical and psychological expenses. The Plaintiff C.M.A. has suffered loss of income, a toss of the capacity to earn Income in the future, and a loss of capacity to enjoy life. These injuries are permanent in nature and the Plaintiff, C.M.A., will continue to suffer these losses in the future. (1st Am. Complaint, Counts I - XXX (18 U.S.C. §2255), ¶¶25, 31, 37, 43, 49, 55, 61, 67, 73, 79, 85, 91, 97, 103, 109, 115, 121, 127, 133, 139, 145, 151, 157, 163, 169, 175, 181, 187, 193; Count XXXI (Sexual Battery), ¶199.) In each of her 'Wherefore" clauses, Plaintiff seeks "compensatory damages of at least the minimum provided by law." 18 U.S.C. §2255, pursuant to which Plaintiff attempts to bring certain of her claims, allows for recovery of "actual damages." See fn. 2 herein for applicable statutory text.2 As discussed above, the tax returns, and supporting documentation, will provide direct evidence as to Plaintiffs claimed damages. Such Information does not only go to (a) 2 Any minor who is a victim of a violation of section 2241(c), 2242, 2243, 2251, 2251A, 2252, 2252A, 2280, 2421, 2422, or 2423 of this title and who suffers personal Injury as a result of such violation may sue in any appropriate United States District Court and shall recover the actual damages such minor sustains and the cost of the suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee. Any minor as described In the preceding sentence shall be deemed to have sustained damages of no less than $50,000 in value. ]Emphasis added.] EFTA01070410 Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 5 of 18 C.M.A. v. Epstein, et S. Page 6 compensatory or actual damages or loss of income/loss of capacity to earn income type damages, but also her emotional/psychological/mental health type damages. In the telephone communication between counsel for the respective parties, Plaintiffs counsel indicated that Plaintiff was not seeking loss of income/earning capacity type damages; (Defendant is not aware that there has been any formal withdrawal of such, damages claimed); notwithstanding, the information sought Is still relevant and discoverable based on the additional damages claimed by Plaintiff. The time period will allow Defendant to compare how Plaintiff was doing In her life prior to, during, and after the alleged incident. Again, the type of jobs Plaintiff has been able to hold and her earnings and ability to support herself clearly have not only a financial component, but an emotional/psychological/mental health component as well. Accordingly, Plaintiffs objection is required to be overruled, and Defendant is entitled to the documents requested. Production Request No. 2 2. All bills/expenses from any medical doctor, chiropractor, psychologists, psychiatrists, mental health counselors (Including any members of the healing arts and related fields, i.e. drugs, prescriptions, etc.) you claim you incurred as a result of the injuries which are or may be the subject matter of this lawsuit Response: None in our possession. These will be provided upon receipt. Discovery Is ongoing. Legal Argument Supporting Entitlement to Discovery Plaintiff makes no objection to the documents requested, but has failed to produce any documents responsive to this request. Clearly, the documents are relevant and discoverable as they go to proof of Plaintiffs claimed injuries. In the April 1, 2009, EFTA01070411 Case 9:08-cv-80811-I<AM Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/0212009. Page 6 of 18 c.m.A. v. Epstein. et al. Page 6 telephone communication Plaintiffs counsel Indicated that Plaintiff was still not in possession of such documents. The First Request for Production was served on Plaintiff on January 16, 2009. In her answer to interrogatory no. 11, (Notice ;of Serving Answers, dated February 18, 2009, identifies a psychiatrist and a counselor/therapist from whom she claims she is receiving "treatment or examination for the injuries for which [she] seeks damages° See Exhibit A hereto for copy C.M.A.'s answer to interrogatory no. 11. Regarding the date of treatment from the psychiatrist — she asserts "I would defer to the Doctor's records' She claims the treatment from the counselor/therapist has been "since high school" and "ongoing." Defendant is entitled to the documents sought and Plaintiff is in control of and has the ability to obtain the requested medical bills and expenses she claims were incurred as result of her injuries claimed in this action. Plaintiff should be required to immediately produce the. requested documents to Defendant. Production Request No. 4 4. All reports, evaluations, recommendations and/or analysis submitted by any expert which relate to or cover the Incident which is the subject matter of this lawsuit and/or any injuries, damages or losses you allege were caused by the incident. Response: Any reports generated by any retained experts not yet disclosed are protected by the work product privilege. Notwithstanding same, none. Legal Argument Supporting Entitlement to Discovery Plaintiff, through counsel, in the April 1, 2009, telephone communication, indicated that she does not have any responsive documents and stands by her objection. Rule 26 provides In relevant part — EFTA01070412 Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 7 of 18 C.M.A. v. Epstein, et al. Page 7 2) Disclosure of Expert Testimony. (A) In General. In addition to the disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1), a party must disclose to the other parties the Identity of any witness it may use at trial to present evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, 703, or 705. (B) Written Report. Unless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, this disclosure must be accompanied by a written report--prepared and signed by the witness—if the witness is one retained or specially employed to provide expert testimony in the case or one whose duties as the party's employee regularly involve giving expert testimony. The report must contain: (i) a complete statement of all opinions the witness will express and the basis and reasons for them; (Ii) the data or other information considered by the witness in forming them; (iii) any exhibits that will be used to summarize or support them; (iv) the witness's qualifications, Including a list of all publications authored In the previous 10 years; (v) a list of all other cases in which, during the previous four years, the witness testified as an expert at trial or by deposition; and (vi) a statement of the compensation to be paid for the study and testimony in the case. (C) Time to Disclose Expert Testimony. A party must make these disclosures at the times and in the sequence that the court orders. Absent a stipulation or a court order, the disclosures must be made: (i) at least 90 days before the date set for trial or for the case to be ready for trial; or (ii) if the evidence is intended solely to contradict or rebut evidence on the same subject matter identified by another party under Rule 26(a)(2)(8), within 30 days after the other party's disclosure. (e) Supplementing Disclosures and Responses. (1) In General. A party who has made a disclosure under Rule 26(a)--or who has responded to an interrogatory, request for production, or request for admission--must supplement or correct its disclosure or response: (A) in a timely manner If the party learns that in some material respect the disclosure or response is incomplete or Incorrect, and if the additional or corrective EFTA01070413 Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 8 of 18 C.M.A. v. Epstein, of el. Page 8 information has not otherwise been made known to the other parties during the discovery process or in writing; or (B) as ordered by the court. (2) Expert Witness. For an expert whose report must be disclosed under Rule 26(a)(2)(0), the party's duty to supplement extends both to information included in the report and to information given during the expert's deposition. Any additions or changes to this Information must be disclosed by the time the party's pretrial disclosures under Rule 26(a)(3) are due. Accordingly, Defendant requests that should Plaintiff be in possession of any such reports, evaluations, recommendations and/or analysis prepared by an expert expected to testify at trial or deposition, or to be used by an expert expected to testify at trial or deposition, that such documents be produced as required by Rule 26, Fed.R.Civ.P. quoted above. Production Request No. 5 5. All medical reports and/or records from doctors, physicians, (including psychologists, psychiatrists, mental health counselors), hospitals, drug or alcohol facilities or any other person or entity who has rendered treatment to or examined you for any reason after the incident(s) which is the subject matter of this lawsuit. Response: None in our possession. Discovery is ongoing. Legal Argument Supporting Entitlement to Discovery Once again, Plaintiff should be required to immediately produce the requested documents. In support of ordering immediate production, Defendant realleges and incorporates his "Legal Argument Supporting Entitlement To Discovery" to request no. 5 above herein. EFTA01070414 Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 9 of 18 C.M.A. v. Epstein, et al. Page 9 Interrogatory No. 2. List the names, business addresses, telephone and cell phone numbers, dates of employment, Immediate supervisor (name and address) and rates of pay regarding ail employers, including self-employment, for whom you have worked in the past 10 years; this includes listing all sources of income you have received. Answer this question by year, I.e. 1998 - 2009. Answer. Objection. Irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. j..egal Argument Supporting Entitlement to Discovery Such Information is clearly relevant to the damages and Injuries Claimed by Plaintiff In this action. Plaintiffs complaint alleges in part that "beginning In approximately late May or early June of 2002, and continuing until approximately August of 2003, the Defendant coerced and enticed the impressionable, vulnerable, and economically deprived then minor Plaintiff to commit various acts of sexual misconduct." 1st Am. Complaint, ¶13. (See discussion of Production Request no. 1 above herein). Such information Is both relevant and reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. It is well settled that relevant information is discoverable, even if not admissible at trial, so long as the discovery is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admitsible evidence. Rule 26(b)(1), Fed.R.Civ.P.; Donahav v. Palm Beach Tours & trans., Inc., 242 F.R.D. 685 (S.D. Fla. 2007). Discoverability of such information is governed by Rule 26, Fed.R.C1v.P., pursuant to which the scope of discovery is broad. Donahav, supra, at 688, and cases cited therein. 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." IA. EFTA01070415 Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009. Page 10 of 18 CMA v. Epstein, et al. Page to Plaintiff's employment and earnings history prior to and after the alleged Incidents are relevant to her claimed damages and Injuries. Such Information would not only evidence Plaintiff's employment and earning history, but also provide evidence as to how Plaintiff has been able to function in her daily life before, during and after the alleged incidents. Was she self-sufficient? Was she able to get out of bed each morning and support herself? What type of Job did she hold? One's ability to earn a living and be self-supporting has not only a financial component, but also an emotional/psychological/mental component. C.M.A.'s First Amended Complaint attempts to allege 32 counts. Counts I through XXX are purportedly brought pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §2255 — CMI Remedies for Personal Injuries; Count XXXI is entitled °Sexual Battery," and Count XXXII is entitled "Conspiracy to Commit Tortious Assault only against Defendant, =It In her answers to interrogatory nos. 9 and 10, which seek information about C.M.A.'s damages claims, Plaintiff answered that I have bi-polar disorder and manic depression. I lost my self-esteem. I began cutting myself on my arms and legs and developed drug problems. Permanent injuries are psychological. (interrog. No. 9). I am claiming compensation for mental anguish, mental pain, psychic trauma, and loss of enjoyment of life. These damages will be evaluated by a jury who will provide their own methods of computation In an amount of at least the statutory minimum established by 18 U.S.C.A. §2255. (lnterrog. No. 10). In her 1st Amended Complaint, relevant to her damages claims, Plaintiff alleges: C.M.A., has in the past suffered, and will in the future suffer, physical injury, pain and suffering, emotional distress, psychological trauma, mental anguish, humiliation, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, loss of dignity, invasion of her privacy and other damages ... . The then minor Plaintiff incurred medical and psychological expenses ... and will in the future suffer additional medical and psychological expenses. The Plaintiff C.M.A. has suffered loss of income, a EFTA01070416 Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 11 of 18 C.MA v. Epstein, et al. Page 11 loss of the capacity to earn income in the future, and a loss of capacity to enjoy life. These injuries are permanent in nature and the Plaintiff, C.M.A., will continue to suffer these losses in the future. (1st Am. Complaint, Counts I - XXX (18 U.S.C. §2255), ¶¶25, 31, 37, 43, 49, 55, 61, 67, 73, 79, 85, 91, 97, 103, 109, 115, 121, 127, 133, 139, 145, 151, 157, 163, 169, 175, 181, 187, 193; Count XXXI (Sexual Battery), ¶199.) In each of her "Wherefore" clauses, Plaintiff seeks "compensatory damages of at least the minimum provided by law." 18 U.S.C. §2255, pursuant to which Plaintiff attempts to bring certain of her claims, allows for recovery of "actual damages." See fn. 2 herein for applicable statutory text. As discussed above, C.M.A.'s employment and earnings history will provide direct evidence as to Plaintiffs claimed damages. Such information does not Only go to compensatory or actual damages or loss of income/loss of capacity to earn income type damages, but also her emotional/psychological/mental health type damages. In the telephone communication between counsel for the respective parties, Plaintiffs counsel indicated that Plaintiff was not seeking loss of income/earning capacity type, damages; (Defendant Is not aware that there has been any formal withdrawal of such damages claimed); notwithstanding, the information sought is still relevant and discoverable based on the additional damages claimed by Plaintiff. The time period will allow Defendant to compare how Plaintiff was doing In her life prior to, during, and after the alleged Incident. Again, the type of Jobs Plaintiff has been able to hold and her earnings and ability to support herself clearly have not only a financial component, but an emotional/psychological/mental health component as well. Accordingly, Plaintiffs EFTA01070417 Case 9:08-cv-80811-I<AM Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 12 of 18 C.MA. v. Epstein, et al. Page 12 objection is required to be overruled, and Defendant is entitled to the information sought in the Interrogatory. Interrogatory No. 18 • 18. List separately the names, addresses and phone numbers of all males, excluding Mr. Epstein, with whom you have had sexual activity since age 10 (by year) up through your current age. Describe the nature of sexual activity, the date(S) and whether you received money or other consideration from the person. Answer: Objection. Relevance and overbroad. Legal Argument Supporting Entitlement to Discovery Plaintiffs only objection is relevancy and overbroad, without any factual support or showing as required by Rule 26(c) and Local Gen. Rule 26.1 H (S.D. Fla. 2008). Nowhere does C.M.A. explain how such interrogatory is overbroad. It is well settled that relevant information is discoverable, even if not admissible at trial, so long as the discovery is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Rule 26(b)(1), Fed.R.Civ.P.; Donahay v. Palm Beach Tours & trans.. Inc., 242 F.R.D. 685 (S.D. Fla. 2007). Discoverability of an alleged victim's/plaintiffs sexual conduct or activity in civil cases is governed by Rule 26, Fed.R.Civ.P., pursuant to which the scope of discovery is broad. Donahav, supra, at 886, and cases cited therein. 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." Id. In accordance with Rule 26, the discovery sought regarding Plaintiffs sexual activity with males and the nature thereof, including whether she received any EFTA01070418 Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 13 of 18 C.M.A. v. Epstein, et al. Page 13 compensation or consideration therefore, in interrogatory no. 18, are all relevant to Plaintiffs damages claims and the type of injury she claims she has, suffered. Defendant has no other means of obtaining such information and obtaining such information through Plaintiff will better protect the confidentiality until the Court can make a determination in accordance with the procedures under Rule 412(c) whether such information will be admissible at trial. See Rule 412(c), Fed.R.Civ.P. Defendant will agree to an order keeping the confidentiality of the information obtained through discovery. The evidence sought is relevant based on the facts and theories of this action. C.M.A.'s First Amended Complaint attempts to allege 32 counts. Counts I through XXX are purportedly brought pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §2255 — Civil Remedies for Personal Injuries; Count XXXI is entitled "Sexual Battery," and Count XXXII Is entitled "Conspiracy to Commit Tortious Assault only against Defendant In her answers to Interrogatory nos. 9 and 10, which seek information about C.M.A.'s damages claims, Plaintiff answered that I have bi-polar disorder and manic depression. I lost my self-esteem. I began cutting myself on my arms and legs and developed drug problems. Permanent injuries are psychological. (Interrog. No. 9). I am claiming compensation for mental anguish, mental pain, psychic trauma, and loss of enjoyment of life. These damages will be evaluated by a jury who will provide their own methods of computation in an amount of at least the statutory minimum established by 18 U.S.C.A. §2255. (Interrog. No. 10). In her f t Amended Complaint, relevant to her damages claims, Plaintiff alleges: C.MA, has In the past suffered, and will in the future suffer, physical injury, pain and suffering, emotional distress, psychological trauma, mental anguish, humiliation, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, loss of dignity, invasion of her EFTA01070419 Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 14 of 18 C.M.A. v. Epstein, et al. Page 14 privacy and other damages ... . The then minor Plaintiff incurred medical and psychological expenses ... and will in the future suffer additional medical and psychological expenses. The Plaintiff C.M.A. has suffered loss of income, a loss of the capacity to earn income In the future, and a loss of capacity to enjoy life. These Injuries are permanent in nature and the Plaintiff, C.M.A., will continue to suffer these losses In the future. (1st Am. Complaint, Counts I — XXX (18 U.S.C. §2255),1125, 31, 37, 43, 49, 55, 61, 67, 73, 79, 85, 91, 97, 103, 109, 115, 121, 127, 133, 139, 145, 151, 157, 163, 169, 175, 181, 187, 193; Count XXXI (Sexual Battery), ¶199.) In each of her "Wherefore" clauses, Plaintiff seeks "compensatory daMages of at least the minimum provided by law." 18 U.S.C. §2255, pursuant to which Plaintiff attempts to bring certain of her claims, allows for recovery of "actual damages? See fn. 2 herein for applicable statutory text C.M.A. also alleges that Defendant's conduct was "sexual assault and child abuse of a then minor? ¶2. She alleges that "beginning in approximately late May or early June of 2002, and continuing until approximately August of 2003, the.Defenclant coerced and enticed the Impressionable, vulnerable, and economically deprived then minor Plaintiff to commit various acts of sexual misconduct." ¶13. ... These acts included, but were not limited to, fondling and inappropriate and Illegal sexual touching of the then minor Plaintiff, sexual misconduCt and masturbation of the Defendant In the presence of the then minor Plaintiff, soliciting and enticing the then minor Plaintiff to engage in sexual acts with another female in EPSTEIN's presence, and encouraging the then minor Plaintiff to become involved in prostitution; Defendant committed numerous criminal sexual offenses against the then minor Plaintiff including, but not limited to, sexual battery, solicitation or prostitution, procurement of a minor for the purpose of prostitution, and lewd and lascivious assaults upon the person of the then minor plaintiff. (1'4 Am. Complaint ¶13). The information sought Is clearly relevant to the injuries and damages claimed by Plaintiff. The nature of her claimed injuries and damages are such that Defendant is EFTA01070420 Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 15 of 18 C.M.A. v. Epstein, et al, Page 16 entitled to evidence which would show the nature of her relationship with males, whether she has suffered or engaged in other acts of sexual misconduct or activity as alleged in her complaint, and whether she suffered injury and damages as a result of the other claimed sexual misconduct or activity. See United States v. Bear Stops, 997 F.2d 451 (8th Cir. 1993)(Defendant charged with sexual abuse of six year old boy was entitled to admission of evidence relating to victim's sexual assault by 3 older boys to establish alternative explanation for why victim exhibited behavioral manifestations of sexually abused child.). In further support of Defendant's motion, a copy of )3alas v. Ruzzo, 703 So.2d 1076 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997), rev. denied, 719 So.2d 286 (Fla. 1998), is attached hereto as Exhibit B as it is on point to the discovery Issues in this action, and the relevancy and discoverability of Plaintiffs history of sexual activity and any payment, therefore. See interrogatories 8, 22 and 30 propounded in the Balas case and footnote 1 herein. 3 Additionally and significantly, in other pending state court civil actions against Defendant EPSTEIN attempting to assert similar claims and damages, the Circuit Court Judges have already ruled that such information is discoverable as it is relevant to the damages claims of Plaintiff. See Composite Exhibits C and D hereto. Composite Exhibit C are the Orders, dated February 23, 2009, entered in the case of A.C. v. Epstein, and Case No. 502008CA025129 MB Al, 15th Judicial Circuit, In and For Palm Beach County, State of Florida, which granted Defendant's motion to compel therein directed In Pales v. Ruzzo, supra, the Plaintiffs alleged a multicount complaint including claims for "coercion of prostitution" pursuant to §796.09, Fla. Slat; for battery for the unwanted and offensive touching of petitioners' bodies; false imprisonment for physically confining the petitioners against their will; invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. EFTA01070421 Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 04(02/2009 Page 16 of 18 C.M.A. v. Epstein, et el. Page 16 to discovery identical to interrogatory no. 18 above. (In the A.C. case, the Plaintiff answered without objection Interrogatories identical to nos. 19, 20, and 21 herein.) Composite Exhibit D is a portion the transcript from a March 3, 2009 hearing on Defendant's motion to compel discovery in the case of Jane Doe II v. Epstein, and , Case No. 502008CA020614 MB AF,15t Judicial Circuit Court, In and For Palm Beach County, State of Florida. Again, the Circuit Court Judge determined that the information sought Is relevant to the Issue of damages and, thus, discoverable. Accordingly, Plaintiff's objections are required to be overruled and Defendant is entitled to the discovery sought. Interrogatory No. 23 23. State the names, addresses, ages, phone numbers and dates of all females whom you claim were brought by you to Mr. Epsteln's home to give him a massage or for any other reason. As to each female, state the amount of money you claim you were paid to bring each female. Answer: A.L. Age: 22 West Palm Beach, FL I was paid $100.00 Legal Argument Supporting Entitlement to Discovery Counsel for the respective parties also discussed this Interrogatory in an effort to come to a resolution. Plaintiff does not object to the discovery requested. Plaintiffs counsel Indicated that he had a "problem" disclosing the identity of A.L. to the extent she was a minor at the time. Defendant would agree to an order protecting public disclosure of the true identity of A.L. if she were indeed a minor at the time; however, as part of the order, Plaintiff should also be required to provide Defendant with the full EFTA01070422 Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 17 of 18 c.MA. v. Epstein, et S. Page 17 name of A.L. so that Defendant may conduct meaningful discovery. It is Plaintiff who claims she brought A.L. to Epstein's home as part of the alleged "scheme." in addition, Plaintiff failed to provide any date or dates as to when she brought A.L. to Epstein's home. Plaintiffs counsel indicated they would attempt to provide this information. Accordingly, in granting Defendant's motion to compel discovery, with respect t this interrogatory, Plaintiff should be required to provide the full name of A.L. (which Defendant agrees to keep confidential at this time), the date or dates which she brought A.L. or any female to Epstein's home, and how much she was allegedly paid each time. WHEREFORE, Defendant requests that this Court grant Defendant's motion to compel and award Defendant's reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, associated with this motion. Rule 7.1 Certification I hereby certify that counsel for the respective parties communicated by telephone in a good faith effort to resolve the discovery issues prior to the filing of this motion to compel. Some of the issues were resolved or in the process of being resolved. Robert D. Cri n, Jr. Attorney for °fondant Epstein Certificate of Service I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using CWECF. I also certify that the foregoing document Is being served this day on all counsel of r entitled on the following Service List in the manner specified by CM/ECF on this y of April, 2009 EFTA01070423 Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 C.M.A. v. Epstein, et al. Page 18 Richard Horace Willits, Esq. Richard H. Willits, P.A. 2290 10th Avenue North Suite 404 L 33461 ax: Counsel for Plaintiff C.MA. reelrhwa hotmail.com Jack Scarola, Esq. Jack P. Hill, Esq. Seamy Denney Scarola Barnhart Shipley, P.A. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard ach, FL 33409 Fax: Jsx searcvlaw.com [email protected] Co-Counsel for Plaintiff Page 18 of 18 Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1400 ch, FL 33401-5012 net Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein Bruce Reinhart, Esq. & Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A. 250 S. Australian Avenue Suite 1400 ach, FL 33401 ecfe.•rucere n a law. Counsel for Defendant... Respectfully subm By: ROBERT D. ITTON, JR., ESQ. Florida Bar 224162 rc bcicla .co MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. Florida Bar #617296 nnolkealbolc.law.cotp BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN 515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 ach, FL 33401 Phone Fax Counse or efendant Jeffrey Epstein) EFTA01070424 Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 1 of 2 C.M.A. vs. Epstein, eta Oise No.: 08-CV-80811-CIV-MARRAIJOHNSON Plaintiffs Answers to Defendant's First Interrogatories School behavioral problems, received counseling prior to the incident 8. Did you consume any alcoholic beverages or take any drugs or medications within 12 hours before the time of each incident(s) described in the complaint? If so, state the type and amount of alcoholic beverages, drugs, or medication which were consumed, and when (dates) and where you consumed them. ANSWER 1. On one occasion I had taken "Morning Glory" and "Angel Trumpets". I do not recall the date. 2. On another occasion I used cocaine powder. I do not recall the date. 9. Describe each injury (physical, emotional, mental) for which you are claiming damages In this case, specifying the part of your body that was injured, the nature of the Injury and as to any injuries you contend are permanent, the effects on you that you claim are permanent ANSWER I have bi-polar disorder and manic depression. I lost my self-esteem. I began cutting myself on my arms and legs and developed drug problems. Permanent Injuries are psychological. 10. Please state each item of damage that you claim, and include In your answer the count to which the item of damages relates; the factual basis for each item of damages; and an explanation of how you computed each item of damages, including any mathematical formula used. ANSWER I am claiming compensation for mental anguish, mental pain, psychic trauma, and loss of enjoyment of life. These damages will be evaluated by a jury who will provide their own methods of computation in an amount of at least the statutory minimum established by 18 U.S.C.A. § 2266. Discovery Is ongoing. 11. List the names and business addresses of each physician (including psychiatrist, psychologist, chiropractor or medical provider) who has treated or examined you, 13 ti tanA EXHIBIT : EFTA01070425 . Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 2 of 2 C.M.A. vs. Epstein, et aL CaseNo.: 08-CV-8081I-CIV-MARRAB0HNS0N Plaintiff's Answers to Defendant's First Interrogatories and each medical facility where you have received any treatment or examination for the injuries for which you seek damages In this case; and state as to each the date of treatment or examination and the injury or condition for which you were examined or treated. ANSWER Dr. Serge Thys (Psychiatrist) Date: I do not recall the date. I would defer 216145° Street to the Doctor's records. West Palm Beach, FL 33407 all Pope (CounselorlTherapist) Date: Since high school. Ongoing. Parent Child Center 2001 W. Blue Heron Boulevard 12. List the names and business addresses of all other physicians, medical facilities, rehab facilities (drug, alcohol or psychiatric) or other health care t providers including psychiatrist, psychologist, mental health counselor and chiropractors by whom or at which you have been examined or treated In the past 10 years; and state as to each the dates of examination or treatment and the condition or injury for which you were examined or treated. ANSWER Good Samaritan Hospital (3112104, 3126108) Child Birth 1309 N Flagler Dr West Palm Beach, FL 33401 St. Mary's Hospital (4107) DNC 901 46th Street West Palm Beach, FL 33407 Gloria C. Hakkarainen, MD Ob/Gyn 292610th Avenue North, Suite 306 Palm Springs, FL. 33461 Theodore Ritota, DDS Dentist 14 EFTA01070426 Pne 1 off 8 ' Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Pagel of 8 \Nam 703 So.2d 1076 703 So.2d 1076,22 Fla. L. Weekly D2375,23 Pla. L. Weekly DI69 (Cite as: 703 So.2d 1076) District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District Kimberly BALAS and Teresa Shumate, Petitioners, v. Marjorie A. RUZZO, and Exec., Inc., etc., Re- spondents. No. 97-82. Page 1 307A1c31 k. Relevancy and Materiality. Most Cited Cases Party may be permitted to discover: evidence that would be inadmissible at trial, if it would lead to discovery of relevant evidence. West's P.S.A. RCP Rule 1.280(6)0). (3] Pretrial Procedure 307A at=36.7. Oct. 10, 1997. As Mo4Ifled on Grant of Clarification Jan. 2, 1998. , 307A Pretrial Procedure rev .dent ea p lei '%0:2-6, 21(O k In • , 307A11 Depositions and Discovery Plaintiffs brought action against alleged house of \ (Nen ). 307AI1(A) Discovery in General prostitution for, inter alia, coercion of prostitution. 307Ak36 Particular Subjects of Disclos- ure The Circuit Court, Brevard County, Frank Pound, 307Ak36.1 k. In General. Most Cited J., granted in part defendants' motion to compel dis- Cases covery. Plaintiffs filed petition for writ of certior- Evidence of plaintiffs' past prostitution and their art. The District Court of Appeal, W. Sharp, J.. held revenues relating to such activities, including activ- that evidence of plaintiffs' past prostitution and ilia with alleged house of prostitution against their revenues relating to such activities was dis- which they had fded suit, was d'isco'verable, where covetable. plaintiffs brought action not only fbr coercion of prostitution, but also for battery, false imprison- ment, invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, violation of their civil rights, and racketeering. Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, § 40302, 142 U.S.C.A. § 13981; West's P.S.A. §§ 772.014, 796.09; West's FS.A. RCP Rule 1280(b)(1). *1076 Richard E. Johnson and Heather Fisher Lind- say, of Spriggs I Johnson, Tallahassee, for Peti- tioners. Mark S. Peters of Amari, Therlac & Eisenmenger, P.A., Cocoa, for Respondents. Petition denied. Harris, J., concurred specially and filed opinion. West Headnotes [1) Pretrial Procedure 307A eza31 307A Pretrial Procedure 307A11 Depositions and Discovery 307All(A) Discovery In General 307Ak31 k. Relevancy and Materiality. Most Cited Cases Discovery in civil cases must be relevant to subject matter of case and must be admissible or reason- ably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. West's F.S.A. RCP Rule 1.220(b)(1). (21 Pretrial Procedure 307A €.=31 307A Pretrial Procedure 307All Depositions and Discovery 307All(A) Discovery in General W. SHARP, Judge. Bales and Shumate petition this court for a writ of certiorari to review certain portions of the lower court's order which granted, in part, a motion to compel discovery filed by respondents RU720 and Exec., Inc. Petitioners argue that these portions de- part from the essential requirements of law and will cause them irreparable harm because they will be 0 2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. EXHIBIT http://web2.westlaw.corn/print/printstrearn.aspx?sv=Split&prft=HTMLE&ifarNolSegtmt... 3/26/2009 EFTA01070427 Puge 2 of 8 Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Rage 2 of B 703 Sold 1076 703 So.2d 1076,22 Fla. I.,. Weekly D2375,23 Fla. L. Weekly D169 (Cite as: 703 Sold 1076) compelled to disclose intimate details of their sexu- al history. We decline to issue the writ of certiorari. Batas and Shumate filed suit against Ruzzo and Ex- ec, Inc., doing business as "The Boardroom." Ac- cording to Batas and Shumate, The Boardroom op- erates ostensibly as *1077 a leisure spa but actually is a house of prostitution. Balls worked at The Boardroom from December 1993 until February 1996; Shumate worked there from October 1992 until March 1996. Ruzzo, the sole officer and shareholder of Exec, Inc., collected about fifty to sixty percent of each employees earnings from per- forming sexual acts. According to Batas and Shumate, Ruzzo exerted mental and emotional control over her employees and thus she was able to exploit them as prostitutes. Ruzzo required her employees to pay her substan- tial sums of money to attend "metaphysical work- shops" conducted by Russo or persons associated with her. At the work place, the employees were re- quired to participate in religious and quasi-religious "circles," rituals and incantations. These practices were allegedly designed to break down the person- alities of the women who worked for Ruzzo and to foster dependency and loyalty to herself. At one time when the earnings of a new employee were missing and believed to be stolen, Ruzzo required that the petitioners be strip searched and body cav- ity searched. Ruzzo caused the petitioners to be- lieve their continued employment was dependent on their submission to these searches and that they might be arrested on felony charges if they refused to submit to the searches. Batas and Shumate's second amended complaint against Ruzzo contains seven counts. Count I is an action for coercion of prostitution pursuant to sec- tion 796.09, Florida Statutes. Petitioners allege the requirement that they perform sexual acts to retain their employment constitutes Inducement and coer- cion to engage in prostitution. Count II is a claim for battery for the unwanted and offensive touching of the petitioners' bodies. Count IR is a claim for false imprisonment for physically confining the pe- Page 2 tido:ten against their will. Count IV alleges that re- spondents' actions constituted an invasion of peti- doners' privacy. Count V is a claim for the inten- tional infliction of emotional distress.,Count VI al- leges a civil rights action-that respondents have vi- olated petitioners' right to be free from crimes of vi- olence motivated by gender within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. section 13981. Finally, count VII seeks civil remedies for criminal practices or racketeering pursuant to section 772.104, Florida:Statutes. The petitioners claim that they suffered emotional pain, anguish, humiliation, Insult, indignity, loss of self- esteem, inconvenience, hurt and emotional distress. They seek an award of general and punitive dam- ages, among other relief. The discovery to which the petitioners are being re- (mired to respond is as follows: I. Interrogatory 8: Please advise how long have you been engaged in prostitution.... U. Interrogatory 22: State with specificity the man- ner in which the acts as described in your Com- plaint have materially affected hoW you interact with your husband, boyfriend, fiancEe' [sic] or any other individual of the opposite PAL IR. Request for Production 30: A copy of any photo- graphs, movies or videotapes in which you per- formed sexual acts and/or simulated sexual acts in exchange for money or other consideration. IV. Interrogatory 16: Please list the names, addresses, telephone numbers and rates of pay for all em- ployers for which you worked, Including the O 2009 Thomson RtuteralWesi No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http://web2.westlaw.conVprint/printstreEun.aspx?sv=Split&prft-EMILE&ifm=NotSet&mt... 3/26/2009 EFTA01070428 Page 3 of 8 Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 3 of 8 703 So.2d 1076 703 30.7A 1076, 72 Pla. L. Weekly D2375, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D169 (Cite as: 703 So.2d 1076) nature of the work, during the five years immedi- ately preceding the date of employment with the Boardroom and from the date of your termination with the Boardroom to the present, providing the names of your immediate supervisors at each place of employment and the reason for your leaving each place of employment. V. Interrogatory 26: Please state your total income while employed at the Boardroom, and state the source of that income including any income from other employment or *1078 income earned from prostitution other than at the Boardroom. VI. Request for Production 34: Business records from any selfemployment or owned business ventures In the Iasi 5 years, including any records or list of customers, "special customer lists" or "sugar daddy's list." WIZ Discovery in civil cases must be relevant to the subject matter of the case and must be admiss- ible or reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. See Allstate Insurance Co. v. Langston, 655 So.2d 91 (Pla.1995); Amente v. Newman, 653 So.2d 1030 (Pla.1995); Russell v. Stardust Cruis- ers, Inc., 690 So.2d 743 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). The concept of relevancy Is broader in the discovery context than in the trial context and a party may be permitted to discover evidence that would be Inad- missible at trial, If it would lead to the discovery of relevant evidence. Allstate; Amente. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1280(b)(1) delineates the proper scope of discovery: In General. Parties may obtain discovery regard- ing any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter of the pending action, whether It relates to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or the claim or defense of any other patty, including the existence, description. Page 3 nature, custody, condition, and location of any books, documents, or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons ,having know- ledge of any discoverable matter. It is not ground for objection that the information Sought will be inadmissible.at the trial if the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the dis- covery of admissible evidence. Nonetheless, the discovery of certain kinds of in- formation may cause material injury ,of an irrepar- able nature, This Includes the "cat-out-of-the-bag" material that could be used to injure another person or party outside the context of the litigation, materi- al protected by privilege, trade secrets or work product. Discovery was never intended to be used as a tactical tool to harass, embarrass or annoy one's adversary. Rather, pretrial discovery was im- plemented to simplify the issues in a case, to elim- inate the elements of surprise, to encourage the set- tlement of cases, to avoid the cost of litigation, and to achieve a balanced search for the truth to ensure a fair trial. Elkins v. Syken, 672 So2d 517 (Pla.1996). Here the petitioners argue that the information sought to be discovered regarding prostitution and their sexual activities was propounded solely to em- barrass them and to invade their right to privacy. The petitioners also claim that this information is privileged under section 796.09 and is not calcu- lated to lead to evidence which would be admiss- ible at trial. Section 796.09 provides a person with a civil cause of action for compensatory and punitive damages against anyone who coerces that person into prosti- tution, who coerces that person to remain in prosti- tution, or who uses coercion to collect or receive any part of that person's earnings. derived from prostitution. In the course of litigation under this section, any transaction about which 'a plaintiff test- ifies or produces evidence does not subject the plaintiff to criminal prosecution or to any penalty or forfeiture. In addition, any testimony or evidence or any Information produced by the plaintiff or wit,- 2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?sv=Split&prft=HTMLEZtifrasNotSet8srnt... 3/26/2009 EFTA01070429 Paze 4 of 8 Case 9:08-cv-80811-I<AM Document 54-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Frage 4 of 8 703 Sold 1076 703 So.2d 1076,22 Pla. L Weekly D2375. 23 Fla. L. Weekly DI69 (Cite as: 703 So.2d 1076) ness for the plaintiffs cannot be used against the plaintiffs or witness in any other investigation or proceeding, except one for perjury. Section 796.09(5) specifically provides that it is not a defense that the plaintiff was paid or otherwise compensated for prostitution, that the plaintiff had engaged in prostitution prior to any involvement with the defendant or that the plaintiff made no at- tempt to escape from the defendant. Section 796.09(6) provides that convictions for prostitution or prostitution-related offenses are inadmissible for the purpose of attacking the plaintiffs' credibility. This legislation was the result of the Florida Su- preme Court Gender Bias Study Commission, which conducted an extensive investigation of pros- titution in this state. The Commission's activities included interviews with law enforcement and cor- rections personnel,*1079 judges, public defenders, prosecutors, drug rehabilitation counselors, social workers, medical personnel, prostitutes, clients and pimps. The Commission found prostitution to be prevalent and uniform throughout the state and law enforcement largely unable to deter it under pre- vailing social attitudes and judicial practices. The Commission further found that prostitutes are often victims of economic, physical, and psychological coercion, that most persons do not chose to become prostitutes, but do so to survive, and that ninety percent of street prostitutes, both adult and chil- dren, are controlled by pimps who use a variety of coercive methods to maintain this control. The Commission determined that clients and pimps are rarely prosecuted and, when prosecuted, receive light sentences; whereas prostitutes, who are mainly females, are frequently prosecuted and receive harsher treatment in the courts. The Commission recommended changes in the methods of interven- tion in prostitution from punitive to therapeutic, changes in the law to require more equal treatment by the courts of the prostitute in relation to the cli- ent and the pimp and to lessen the incentive to traffic in human flesh by giving the prostitute ac- cess to the judicial system without first having to be attested. Page 4 Under section 796.09, the petitioners' prior involve- ment in prostitution and their earnings from prosti- tution would be Irrelevant. Hence discovery should not be permitted because such Information would not be admissible at trial nor would It be reasonably calculated to lead to evidence ultimately admissible at trial. Even though the scope of discovery is gen- erally quite broad, section 796.09 is designed to en- courage prostitutes to sue their pimps. Thus the usually broad scope of discovery may be constric- ted so that prostitutes will not bo embarrassed, har- assed or hindered in their actions. 13) Had the petitioners brought their lawsuit against Ruzzo and The Boardroom only under section 796.09, evidence of petitioners' past prostitution, including with the Boardroom, and Their earnings relating to such activities, may not Have been dis- coverable. However, the petitioners filed a multi- count complaint for compensatory; and punitive damages, alleging numerous causes of action against the respondents. These other causes carry no such protection from discovery. Since the in- formation sought by discovery may be relevant or may lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in one or more of these other causes of action or to determination of damages, we cannot; conclude that the trial court departed from the essential require- ments of law in granting this discovery. See Smith v. TIB Bank of the Keys, 687 So.2d 895 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (by alleging fraud as well as breach of contract, purchaser placed at issue her reliance on venders' assertions, the veracity of financial docu- ments she submitted to the vender, and the state of her mental health, including memory problems she was experiencing at the time of the alleged tortious conduct, thus deposition questions concerning her state of mind were relevant). Petition for Writ of Certiorari DENIED. THOMPSON, J., concurs. HARRIS, J., concurs specially with opin- lon.HARItIS, Judge, concurring specially: © 2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to prig. US Gov. Works. http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx7sv=Split&prft=HTMLE&ifm=NotSet&mt... 3/26/2009 EFTA01070430 Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 PPASeggf 8 703 Sold 1076 703 So.2d 1076, 22 Fla. L. Weekly D2375, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D169 (Cite as: 703 Sold 1076) There is a temptation In cases such as this to inquire which, the pot or the kettle, is imbued with the darker hue. Indeed that may ultimately be the ques- tion uppermost in the jurors' minds. But the issue presently before us is simply whether the pot, in or- der to establish the parties' comparative complex- ion, may discover the historical condition and the inherent characteristics of the kettle. We are here involved with parties that the limited record before us indicates were co-conspirators in a joint effort to violate Florida's laws against prosti- tution. The defendants are the owner/operators of a "social club" whose primary service is prostitution; the plaintiffs are employees of the club who provide such services. The employees are suing the owner/operators for, among other counts, taking ad- vantage of their vulnerabilities ("coercing" them to be prostitutes) through manipulation and exploita- tion. In order to prepare a defense to the action, de- fendants have filed certain interrogatories for the employees to answer. These intenogatories+1080 request such information as how long the employ- ees have been engaged in prostitution; how the em- ployees have been affected by the defendants' con- duct; copies of photographs, movies, and video- tapes in which the employees have performed sexu- al acts or simulated sexual acts; the names of previ- ous employers and previous rates of pay; and a statement of income received from defendants. These interrogatories survived the employees' ob- jections. I agree certiorari should be denied. The employees' primary cause of action is based on section 796.09(1), Florida Statutes, which provides: (1) A person has a cause of action for compensatory and punitive damages against: ',a) A person who coerces that person into prostitu- tion; :b) A person who coerces that person to remain in prostitution, or ,It) A person who uses coercion to collect or receive Page 5 any part of that person's earnings derived from prostitution. The employees resist discovery of thdir past prosti- tution or their past or present earning experience on the basis of subparagraph 5 of section 796.09: :5) It does not constitute a defense to a complaint under this section that: a) The plaintiff was paid or otherwise compensated for acts of prostitution; b) The plaintiff engaged in acts of prostitution pri- or to any involvement with the defendant But the question before us is not whether prior acts of prostitution (or the receipts of earnings there- from) which might be revealed by answering the in- terrogatories could be used as a defenSe to the com- plaint, but rather whether evidence of such conduct or such earnings would be relevant In determining whether the employees were, in fact, reoerced" into prostitution, into remaining prostitutes, or into shar- ing the proceeds of their services with defendants. The relevancy of this information! depends, of course, on what constitutes coercion. : If we apply the definition of "coercion" which is commonly accepted, then the relevancy of the re- quested Information is apparent and this appeal has no merit at all. Webster defines "coercion" as: (L) to restrain or dominate by force, (2). to compel an act or choice, or (3) to enforce or bring about by force or threat. In sexual battery cats the legis- lature has adopted the common meaning of the word "coercion" and has even placed limits on it. It has provided that consent will not be recognized if submission is coerced by threats of:force or viol- ence if the victim reasonably belleveS the perpetrat- or has the present ability to execute the threat"" Consent also will not be recognized if submission is coerced by a threat of retaliation against the victim or another if the victim reasonably believes that the perpetrator has the ability to execute the threat in the future.nn And in sexual battery cases, the le- gislature has vitiated what might otherwise be con- © 2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.espesv— plit&prfe•HTMLE&ifm-NotSet&mt.. 3/26/2009 EFTA01070431 Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54-3 Pitge 6 of 8 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 6 of 8 703 So.2d 1076 703 So.2d 1076, 22 Fla. L. Weekly D2375, 23 Fla. L. Weekly O169 (Cite as: 703 So.2d 1076) sidered as consensual if one exploits a known phys- ical or mental weakness of the victim to achieve his or her goal or takes advantage of one who is phys- ically helpless or Involuntarily intoxicatecinn Therefore, oven in sexual battery cases, before co- ercion or exploitation will vitiate consent, the free will of the victim must be overcome by force or threat or some unfortunate circumstance suffered by the victim. F/41. Section 794.011(4)(6), Florida Stet- "tea. FM. Section 794.011(4)(c), Florida Stat- utes. PN3. Section 794.011(4)(a),(d),(e), and (f), Florida Statutes. But then we get to the definition of "coercion" con- tained in section 796.09(3): ,3) As used in this section, the term "coercion" means any practice of dominion, restraint, or in- ducement for the purpose of or with the reason- ably foreseeable effect of causing another person to engage in or remain in prostitution or to relin- quish earnings derived from prostitution, and in- cludes, but is not limited to: te) Physical force or threats of physical force. a)) Physical or mental torture. re) Kidnapping. 41081(d) Blackmail. ;e) Extortion or claims of indebtedness. ',1) Threats of legal complaint or report of delin- quency. s,g) Threat to interfere with parental rights or re- sponsibilities, whether by judicial or administrat- ive action or otherwise. ',11) Promise of legal benefit. Page 6 1) Promise of greater financial rewardsl J) Promise of marriage. 10 Restraint of Speech or communications with others. ) Exploitation of a condition of developmental disability, cognitive limitation, afiOtive disorder, or substance dependency. e,m) Exploitation of victimization by sexual abuse. '",n) Exploitation of pornographic performance. :o) Exploitation of human needs for food, shelter, safety, or affection. The definition urged by the employees herein is the "promise of a greater financial reward." Whether the requested information is relevant to the issue of coercion in this case will depend on what the legis- lature intended by subsection (I) in the meaning of "coercion." I agree with Judge Altenbernd's thoughtful analysis in State v. Brigham, 694 So.2d 793 (1997): There can be no dispute that the legislature's unusu- al definition of "percent" is not a common dic- tionary definition. This is perhaps 'an appropriate case in which to remind ourselves of Learned Hand's famous observation that a "mature and de- veloped jurisprudence" does not "make a fortress out of the dictionary." But even so, one would expect some nexus between the commonly accepted meaning of a word and the definition of that word ascribed by the legislature. for example, the legislature defined "canine" as Including cats, although one might, jurispruden- tially speaking, expect to hear a meow emanate from a Great Dane, the courts should nevertheless closely examine the legislative history to see if that is really what the legislature intended. The court In Young v. O'Keefe, 246 Iowa 1182, 69 N.W.2d 534, 537 (1955), stated this principle as follows: "But O 2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. Intp://web2.westlaw.corn/print/printstream.aspx?sv=Splitezprft=HTIVILE8cifm=NotSeteimt... 3/26/2009 EFTA01070432 Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 PA%70 131gf 8 703 So.2d 1076 703 So.2d 1076, 22 Fla. L Weekly D2375, 23 Me. L. Weekly D169 (Cite as: 703 So.2d 1076) before a definition is construed so as to expand the meaning of a well-known word to include its ant- onym ..., the intention of the legislature to that ef- fect must be clear." As Judge Campbell observed in Catron v. Roger Bohn, D.C., 580 So.2d 814, 818 (Fla- 2d DCA 1991): it is our primary duty to give effect to legislative intent and, if a literal interpretation of a statute leads to unreasonable results, then we should ex- ercise our power to interpret reason and logic to it. Unfortunately, it is apparent that In enacting this le- gislation, the legislature has, without redefining the terms for the purposes of this legislation, of- ten used terms with commonly accepted mean- ings for purposes at great variance from those commonly accepted meanings. In our case, the legislature did define the term for the purpose of the act. But because the term (coercion) as so defined can be interpreted two ways-one consistent with the commonly accepted meaning and one at variance-we should not accept the "antonym" unless such legislative intent is clear. A free will decision, even if based on a hope of financial gain, is the opposite of a coerced de- cision. The employees urge that the mere promise of a greater reward brings them within the act. But if the mere promise of a greater reward Is sufficient to es- tablish coercion, then anyone who makes a volun- tary and reasoned exercise of free will motivated by the hope of economic gain has been coerced. This definition removes the element of compulsion im- plicit in the commonly accepted meaning of coer- cion and substitutes therefor the mere desire for fin- ancial gain. The employees herein assert that since they were offered "a greater financial reward" for providing the services performed by them through defendants' establishment, they were coerced into their prostitution activities. This equates the giving Page 7 of an opportunity to make a decision with the coer- cion of that decision. But subsection (I) can also mean *1082 that the promise of a minder reward is coercion only (1 such promised reward is sufficient to overcome one's natural revulsion to selling one's body for money. If there is no such revulsion, there can be no coercion. Becoming a prostitute only be- cause one likes the hours and wages or "because it beats the heck out of working for a living" simply should not meet the test of section 796.09(1). At oral argument herein, it was suggested without contradiction, that at least one of the employees has a college degree and gave up a well-paying, legit- imate Job in order to engage in this profession for the greater reward. Section 796.09 does not appear to be a general prostitute's relief act. It is based on a report by the Gender Bias Study Commission which recommended the equalization of treatment in rela- tion to the prostitute, the client and the "pimp." It is based on the premise that prostitutes are generally victims of economic, physical, and psychological coercion and choose prostitution in order to sur- vive. Further, the Commission was concerned that 90 percent of the street prostitutes are controlled by "pimps" who use a variety of coercive methods to maintain control. It seems clear that the legislature was not intending to depart from the precepts of the commonly understood meaning of "coercion" and to redefine it to include both free will decisions and compelled decisions.. The interpretation urged by the employees seems at variance with the stated goal of the legislature and the Gender Bias Com- mission. Since there is no cause of action prOvkled for one who makes a reasoned and voluntaiy exercise of their free will to enter or continue into profession solely for financial rewards (assuming "coercion" is given the definition more consistent with its com- monly accepted meaning and assuming that my in- terpretation of legislative intent is coifed), coercion becomes the critical issue in the trial of such action. The interrogatories propounded by defendants ap- pear relevant to the issue of coercion. (g) 2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?sv=Split&prft4-1114LraifmNotSet&mt.. 3/26/2009 EFTA01070433 Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Plgroe Of 8 703 So.2d 1076 703 80.261076,22 Fla. L Weekly D2375, 23 Fla. L Weekly D169 (Cite am 703 So.2d 1076) This is a cue of first impression based on a relat- ively new statute. As indicated, the legislative his- tory of the new law suggests that the statute is de- signed to assist those who were forced to enter prostitution in order to keep a roof over their heads or food on their table. It does not appear to be in- tended to aid those who voluntarily enter the pro- fession in order to drive a Mercedes instead of a Ford. The limited record before us indicates that even beginning employees of the defendants (those who do not have an established clientele) bring in $700 a day and can keep 50% of their earnings. Based on a five-day work week, this would reflect an income of $87,500 a year even with a two week vacation. And the employees herein are not begin- ners. There is no indication that the legislature intended to legalize prostitution or to make it a respectable profession. It merely Intended to place the prosti- tute on the same footing with the client and the "pimp." If a prostitute voluntarily makes the de- cision to participate, free from force, intimidation, or disadvantageous circumstance, then he or she is on the same footing as the other participants and should be treated the same, Although it might well serve a legitimate public purpose to permit the cannibalistic demise of such enterprises (end I am not unsympathetic with this view), that does not appear to be the policy behind the current statute, Therefore, in al= where coer- cion is not present (and this may or may not be ono), the court should continue its tradition of not interceding In civil conflicts Involving transactions that are either illegal or are against public policy. See Wechsler v. Novak 157 Fla- 703, 26 So.2d 884 (1946); Thomas 14 Refiner, 462 So.2d 1157, 1160 (Pie. 3d DCA 1984), rev. dented, 472 So.2d 1182 (Fla.1985) ("An action may lie for Interference with an unenforceable contract and even perhaps a void- able contract. No such cause of action Iles for Inter- ference with a contract void as against public policy (anther's representation of a client obtained by a doctorflawyees illegal personal injury solicitation Page & in the hospital] and which makes one who is a party thereto, as the appellant in the instant ease, guilty of a criminal act for entering into such an agree- meat.") We are not asked in this proceeding to rule on the admissibility of the discovered information as evid- ence at the trial of this cause. We are to determine only if the information might lead to admissible evidence. Even *1083 though we deny the Writ I suggest we certify the following question: DOES ONE, FREE FROM FORCE, nnadom, TION, OR DISADVANTAGEOUS CIRCUM- STANCE, WHO MAKES A REASONED DE- CISION TO BECOME OR REMAIN A PROSTI- TUTE OR TO SHARE TEE PROCEEDS THEREOF BECAUSE OP A PROMISE OP A GREATER FINANCIAL REWARD HAVE A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER SECTION 796.09(1), FLORIDA STATUTES? ON MOTIONS FOR REHBARINO, FOR CLARI- FICATION, FOR CERTIFICATION, AND FOR RE- HEARING EN BANC t W. SHARP, Judge. Petitioners Bales and Shumate have filed motions for rehearing, clarification and certification. We deny the motions in full except for one regard. We delete the sentence in the lest iWl paragraph of the opinion which reads: "These other causes of action carry no such protection from discover'y." Motion for Clarification GRANTED as stated above; Motion for Rehearing and Certification DENIED. HARRIS and THOMPSON, JJ., cone*. Fla.App.5 Dist..1997. Bales v. Ruzzo 703 So.2d 1076, 22 Fla. L. Weekly 112375, 23 Pla. L. Weekly D169 END OP DOCUMENT CO 2009 Thomson Reuters/ West No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http://web2.westlaw.corn/print/printstrcam.aspx?sv=Split&prft=1-ITMLYS/iftn=NotSet&mt... 3/26/2009 EFTA01070434 Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54-4 Entered on ELSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 1 of 2 3V A.C., v. Plaintiff, E. EPSTEIN, and Defendants. IN THE COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO. 502008CA025129)OOO(MB Al ORDER ON DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FIRST REQUEST TO PRODUCE TO PLAINTIFF AND TO OVERRULE PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS, & FOR DEFENDANT'S EXPENSES INCLUDING ATTORNEYS' FEES THIS CAUSE came before the Court on Defendant Epstein's Motion To ••• Compel Responses To First Request To Produce To Plaintiff And To Overrule Plaintiffs Objections, & For Defendant's Expenses, Including Attorneys' Fees and the Court having heard argument of counsel and being fully advised in these premises, it Is hereby .. • ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Defendant's Motion is hereby granted/ denied oto 4 r7 4 411 ett2Nu__Q-4 ao. to 4 22 GLaI nbriarket . L aro ...ape,. ID Sap. DONE AND ORDERED at Paltry Beach Cotes urthouse, West Palm Beach, Florida, this '1, day of /-0 Edward A. Garrison Circuit Judge Copies furnished: ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ., and MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ.. 616 North Hagler Drive, Stile 400, West Pain Beach, FL 33401; JACK SCAROLA, ESQ., AND JACK P. HILL, ESQ., Seamy Denney Sterols Barnhart & Shipley, PA, 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., West Palm Beach, FL 33409, and JACK A. GOLDBERGER. ESQ., Alterbury Goldberger & Weise, PA, One Manage Centre, Suite 1400, 250 , Australian Avenue South, West Palm Beach, FL 33401 IJ,n if 0, Sc 10 EXHIBIT e - 6' ce A25) EFTA01070435 Beach, Florida, this 23 day of 3C. Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 2 of 2 Plain*, v. 1W E. EPSTEIN, and Defendants. IN THE COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO. 502008CA0'25129*C<MB Al ORDER ON DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES AND TO OVERRULE PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS. & FOR DEFENDANTS EXPENSES, INCLUDING ATTORNEYS' FEES THIS CAUSE came before the Court on Defendant Epstein's Motion To Compel Answers To Interrogatories And To Overrule Plaintiffs Objections, .& For Defendant's Expenses, Including Attorneys' Fees, and the Court having heard argument of counsel and being fully advised in these premises, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Defendant's Motion is hereby granted/ tom- •IAD 4 IS, 12 4 1 8 /At , Lai eta.) 4.2 to dap. DONE AND ORDERED at Palm Beach Cou oy Courthouse, West Palm dward A. Garrison Circuit Judge Copies furnished: ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ., and MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ, 515 North Fleeter Drive, Suite 400, West Pafm Beach, FL 33401; JACK SCAROLA, ESQ., AND JACK P. HILL, ESQ., Searcy Denney Scare's Barnhart & Shipley, PA, 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., West Palm Beach, FL 33409, and JACK A. GOLDBERGER, ESQ., Atterbury Goldberger & Welsa, P.A., One Clearlake Centre, Suite 1400, 250 Australian Avenue South, West Palm Beach, FL 33401 EFTA01070436 r ase 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 1 of 14 1 IN THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.. 0 2008CA020614XXXXMB AF; JANE DOE II, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN and Defendants. COPY COURT REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS HAD BEFORE THE HONORABLE DIANA LEWIS DATE: March 3, 2009 PLACE: Palm Beach County Courthouse 205 N. Dixie Highway West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 U.S. Le al' Su ore EXHIBIT EFTA01070437 se 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2000 Page 2 of 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 . 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21. 22 23 24' 25 2 APPEARANCES: GARCIA LAW FIRM, P.A. 224 Datura Avenue Suite 900 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Counsel for Plaintiff BY: ISIDRO M. GARCIA, ESQUIRE BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN 515 N. Flagler Drive Suite 400 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Counsel for Defendant BY: ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQUIRE U.S. Le al Su ort EFTA01070438 Case 9:08-cv 80811-KAM Document 54-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 3 of 14 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 3.0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that but I'd just like to do that. THE COURT: Right. And if you want to contact the other individuals saying, you know, I'm the one that's questioning whether or not these need to be before one judge. You may have a different perspective than your colleagues who are prosecuting some of the cases. I understand the damages. I'm riot saying consolidate. I'm saying transfer. It's not a consolidation issue. Everybody gets that confused for some reason. The words are very different out of my mouth, your mouth and how they're written. So let me go ahead and take a gander at this. I did read it last night. I'm not sure that we need to get -- we need names? MR, CRITTON: Right. Well, here's what some of the issues are is that, as an example -- if I could approach the bench. THE COURT: Sure. MR. CRITTON: This is some of the information that we've obtained through discovery from some of the -- from at least in this instance, it would be this particular Jane Doe. THE COURT: You know who Jane Doe is I take U.S. Legal Support EFTA01070439 Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 4 of 14 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 it? MR. CRITTON: Right. THE COURT: You know who the Jane Doe is? MR. CRITTON: Yes, correct. And so this particular lady has kept in part a diary dnd she -- which appears to have started some time -- this is not in any way significant -- but some time after she learned that she could file a lawsuit. I think she's also been to Oakwood Center some time after she learned she could file a lawsuit and seek damages from Mr. Epstein. There's no history of this lady beforehand other than. in some of the Oakwood records where she, was Taker Acted, she started drinking beerat'16, she started Xanax at 16, started mariju'na at'15, that she's sexually active. So how she has interacted -- she has a claim. for emotional damages, mental pain and anguish, psychiatric-type damages. How she's interacted with friends, with family, the events in her life, school, work, her interpersonal relationships both with men and let's -- we'll use an'example men here, but other individuals. She's saying that this event with Mr. Epstein, U.S. Legal Support: EFTA01070440 Case 9:08-cv 80811-KAM Document 54-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 5 of 14 13 1. 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 this sexual assault and whatever occurred during these events is that -- has caused her damage. And therefore damages in the cede such as the emotional, mental, psychiatric-type. damages are completely subjective, I mean' separate and apart from any medical bills that may be -- which are clearly intangible. So these are intangible damages. And the jury is instructed, you know, you advise the greater weight of the evidence, what's fair and reasonable under the circumstances. So what we would have is basically this young lady's testimony as to what she claims her damages are and what the circumstances are with her situation with Mr. Epstein. She claims on page 13, you know, I love this guy, I'm dating this guy Chris. On page 15 -- THE COURT: Is this part of a diary for treatment? MR. CRITTON: I have no idea what it is. It was just produced in response to discovery. And she apparently started in, I think this is December of '08. You know I took Jay Lyntenis' girl to the zoo, had an amazing day, I love her, i.e., the girl. We have so much fun. I want a U.S. Legal Support EFTA01070441 Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 6 of 14 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21. 22 23 24 25 baby especially with him. Okay. So I know who this person is. We are all so open together, I love him and Jay and Lynn, what do I do with Chris, who is another guy in her life. All right. This is circumstances where this young lady is saying, look, Jeffrey Epstein has ruined my life from a damage standpoint, okay. Let me depose other individuals with whom you've had a relationship. And what if it turns out -- as with some of these girls did -- is they had relationships or had escapades or circumstances with individuals, older men similar to Mr. Epstein well before Mr. Epstein. And this girl, I don't know one way or the other, but let's assume she had a situation where she was assaulted or molested or raped, ' that all is going to affect her emotional and her mental pain and anguish and it will all factor into evaluating damages. You know, it's not something that I'm going to spread around. I'm happy to keep it, you know, within the confines of the discovery of this case. But if she says every other relationship in my life has been perfect but Jeff Epstein has done this to me and it has affected U.B. Legal Support EFTA01070442 Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 7 of 14 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 10 19 20 2/ 22 23 24 25 my ability to trust men and my sexual relationships with other men, which is part of her interpersonal relationships, okay, let's talk to Sam Smith. THE COURT: When does your client allege that she had her first encounter with Mr. Epstein? MR% GARCIA: At what age? THE COURT: Well, what year? MR. CRITTON: June of '03. MR. GARCIA: June of '03, Judge. 'MR. CRITTON: She claims from June of '03 through November of '04. MR. GARCIA: She was I believe 16 at the beginning and ended at 17. She was a minor during all this time. THE COURT: June of '03 to now is six years. Let me hear from Mr. Garcia. MR. GARCIA: Judge, in the criminal case that was filed against Mr. Epstein, he would not have had a right to do this type of discoVery and I -- if I could hand up -- THE COURT: They wouldn't care about' the women. MR. GARCIA: Right. Well, I mean -- U.S. Legal Support EFTA01070443 Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2008 Page 8 of 14 16 • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 3.0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: This is damages. There's no -- they weren't seeking damages at the time.' MR. GARCIA: Right. And we have not alleged in the complaint or in the answers to interrogatories that her ability to have a relationship with a man has been affected by Mr. Epstein's conduct. We have alleged that she has been hospitalized for depression, anxiety but we have not alleged any damages concerning -- the only reason this would be relevant is if we were making a claim at her ability to have either sexual relations or to have emotional relations with men was effected by her experience with Mr. Epstein. So this damages' claim is just a smoke screen to attempt to get evidence to show the jury that this woman has had other consensual relationships with young men that are approximately her age what I would characterize as a slut defense. She had it coming to her because she engaged in other voluntarily consensual -- THE COURT: Mr. Critton wouldn't try the slut defense in my courtroom, I'm sure. U.S. Legal Support EFTA01070444 Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 9 of 14 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. GARCIA: Maybe not, but certainly that's the way this discovery is going. And, Judge, what -- THE COURT: What are the damages you think your client is seeking? MR. GARCIA: She is seeking emotional distress damages for depression and anxiety and she has been hospitalized at the Oakwood Center. Her friend -- she was on the phone to a friend who called the sheriff's office because she thought she was suicidal. The sheriffs responded. They Baker Acted her that day and they took her eventually to the Oakwood Center. THE COURT: How do we know it's not intertwined with her rejection by three other men since Mr. Epstein? MR. GARCIA: Well, even if it was related to her rejection by three other men -- you mean other men's rejection of her? THE COURT: Yeah. Well, how do you not know that? I mean you can't do it until you do discovery. Has anybody attempted to review the records from Oakwood to find out what's going on? MR. CRITTON: It's like a one-time visit when she was Baker Acted and then there's some U.S. Le al 8 ort EFTA01070445 Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 10 of 14 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 $ 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 other -- THE COURT: She didn't receive treatment? MR. CRITTON: She received treatment for that day and she's been back a couple of times. She's on medication. Again, I don't know what or the extent but she's got -- her medical bills are de minim's. Again as an example, Judge, didsthe Court have an opportunity to look at the case that I also attached to the motion? Because there's a case that's almost on all fours with . this which I attached to our motion which is called Belles versus Russo. THE COURT: Right. MR. CRITTON: It was a case where the plaintiff was sued -- the plaintiff sued the former owners of a house of prostitution.' So that part is different, but within it there were a number of claims including a sexual assault claim and they sought emotional pain, humiliation and emotional distress. Within the complaint that was filed in this particular case, she is seeking severe emotional distress, mental anguish, humiliation, embarrassment, past and future, compensatory U.S. Legal Support EFTA01070446 . Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 11 of 14 19 • 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 humiliation, loss of reputation, mental anguish, pain and suffering, the same type of damages. And what the Court said -- THE COURT: How old is she now? MR. GARCIA: She's 21 no*. MR. CRITTON: She's 21 now. What the Court said is, you know, if you'd only brought this claim under 796 evidence of past issues, it's not an issue. You can't use this defense for anything, but because you brought these other claims which include, you know, sexual assault and you're seeking damages for other causes of action since the information sought by discovery may be relevant or may lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in one or more of theother causes of action or determination of damages, we cannot conclude the trial'court parted from essential requirements of law in granting -- THE COURT: So in other words, she's'not only seeking -- she's seeking current emotional damage as a result of this relationship and you're trying to find out if she had prior relationships. that perhaps could be intertwined with it so that it's not just Mr. Epstein's -- MR. CRITTON: Right. A perfect example is U.S. Legal Support EFTA01070447 Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 12 of 14 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 one of the cases that I have is there's a young lady who claims that she was molested in the past and raped, pretty significant issues, well in advance of her even meeting with Mr. Epstein. And they seem to play a large role in her psychiatric and psychological evaluation. We're going to come to the Court in this case as we have others and ask for a' psychological evaluation of this lady, and if she was raped or if she was molested or just she had a bad experience or some -- whether it was a young or old man assaulted her in some fashion, that may play a role in her damages and what -- THE COURT: What I'm going to allow for discovery purposes only not necessarily getting it in at the time trial are two years before her first encounter with Mr. Epstein and anything subsequent. MR. GARCIA: Judge, I just wanted to say on the record because I forgot to mention it, there's also -- I did state an objection to the identity of people that are unrepresented in this courtroom. They have rights too. So what I -- THE COURT: Well, my suggestion is that you send those people a letter and tell them that U.S. Legal Support EFTA01070448 Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 13 of 14 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 you're going to disclose them and if they have a problem with it that they come to see me before you disclose it. So I'm going to give you 20 days to respond to this rather than the usual five and that will give you time to put these people on notice and if they want to come visit with me and have a John Doe, I'll have a John Doe heailng but, you know, this is her case. She's doing it. She's the one seeking damages, and he is entitled to be able to confront other individuals to find out information that may be relevant to the damages she's seeking or she can drop the damages. That's her choice. If you seek. damages, you've got to do it -- if you could put that in an order so that we have a time for him to do this. Just fill out an order, hand it back up to me and I'll deal with it. (The proceedings were concluded.) U.S. Legal Support EFTA01070449 Case 9:08-cv-80611-KAM Document 54-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 14 of 14 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 $ 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE THE STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF PALM BEACH. I, Teresa Bell, Court Reporter, certify that I was authorized to and did stenographically report the foregoing proceedings and that the transcript is a true and complete record of my stenographic notes. I further certify that the proceedings were taken at the time and place shown herein and that all counsel and persons as hereinabove shown were present. I further certify that I am not a relative, employee, attorney or counsel of any of the parties, nor am I a relative or employee of any of the parties' attorney or counsel connected with the action, nor am I financially interested in the action. Dated this 11th day TERES BELL, Court Reporter U.S. Legal Support EFTA01070450