Case 9:08-9v-80119-KAM

Case 9:08-9v-80119-KAM Document 207-4 Entered on FLSD Docket C.7/20120.49 . Page 15.af_48_ 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 15 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 Bales v. Ruzzo, 703 So.2d 1076 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997), rev. dented, 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 Plaintiff's 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 3 In Bales v. Ru7zo supra, the Plaintiffs alleged a muiticount complaint Including claims for "coercion of prostitution" pursuant to §796.09, Fla. Stat.; 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. EFTA01070501 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-4 Entered on FISD.D.ock et 071201.2009. _Rag e_16_of_46. Case 9:08-cv-80611-KAM Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 , Page 16 of 18 C.M.A. v. Epstein, et al. 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, 15th 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, Plaintiffs 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. Epstein'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 EFTA01070502 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page_17 of 46 Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009; Page 17 of 18 C.M.A. v. Epstein, et al. 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. Plaintiff's 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. C Attorney for efendant Epstein yn, Jr. Certificate of Service I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically flied 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 re j entitled on the following Service. List in the manner specified by CMIECF on thi ay of April, 2009 EFTA01070503 Cese.9:08-oy:§0119-KAM pospnent.207:4 filtered on FLSD DooKet.01/2_9/2QQL_Page_113of.46. Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 64 c.mA. v. Epstein, et al. Page 1B Richard Horace Willits, Esq. Richard vviiins, P.A. 22901001 Avenue North Suite 404 L 33461 F Counsel for P alntiff C.M.A. realrhwfahotmail.com Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 18 of 18 Jack Scarola, Esq. Jack P. Hill, Esq. Seamy Denney Scarola Bamhart Shipley, P.A. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard ach, FL 33409 Fax: s) js@serslasgin 1phesearcvlaw.com Co-Counsel for Philntiff Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. OkAlbe, got' & W0133,1;.A. 250 Australian Avenue South , Suite 1400 ach, FL 33401-5012 F Jeoesaebellsouth.net Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein Bruce Reinhart, Esq. & Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A. 250 S. Australian Avenue Suite 1400 ach, FL 33401 Fax: ecfabrucereinhartlaw Counsel for Defendan. Respectfully subm' red, By: ROBERT D. ITTON, JR., ESQ. Florida Bar •. 224162 rcrit(Obcicia .com MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. Florida Bar #617298 molkenbolclaw.conl BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN 615 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 ; h, FL 33401 Phone Fax (Cou nsel for D•efendant Jeffrey Epstein) EFTA01070504 Case popyrne.nt?Q7.-.4 on Fi-54 P0CKet 07/20/2,Q0_9__Page..19_0146 Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/201)9 Page 1 of 2 C.M.A. vs. Epstein, et case No.: 08-CV-80811-CIV-MARINJOHNSON Platatiff's Answers to Defendant's First Interroptories School behavioral problems, received counseling prior • 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 complaidt? 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 Trurripets". 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 bipolar disorder and manic depression.1 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. § 2255.1 Discovery is ongoing. 11. List the names and business addresses of each physician (including psychiatrist, psychologist, chiropractor or medical provider) who hes treated or examined you, 13 stiv EXHIBIT :17 EFTA01070505 Coe 9118-cv-801111cAM Document 20724_ Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54-2 C.M.A. vs. Epstein, et el. Case No.: 03-CV-80811-CIV-MARRAC0HNS0N Plaintiff's Answers to Defendant's First Intecrogatortes ....Entered on.ELSD.Dockel.07/20/2009.....RageZlof.46. Entered on FLED Docket 04102120th Page 2 of 2 and w ere yo a 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 2151 45 Street to the Doctor's records. West Palm Beach, FL. 33407 a Pope (Counselor/Therapist) Data: Since high school. Ongoing. 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 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 (3112/04, 312.6108) Child Birth 1309 N Flagler Dr West Palm Beach, FL 33401 St. Mary's Hospital (4107) DNC 901 4511' Street West Palm Beach, FL 33407 Gloria C. Hakkarainen, MD OblGyn 2925 101h Avenue North, Suite 305 Palm Springs, FL. 33461 Theodore Ritota, DDS Dentist 14 EFTA01070506 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 21 of 46 Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54-3 VVestiam 703 So.2d 1076 703 So.2d 1076,22 Fla. L. Weekly D2375, 23 Fla. I. Weekly D169 (Cite as; 703 So.2d 1076) Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 91fA Page 1 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. Oct. 10, 1997. As MoOfled on Grant of Clarification Jan. 2, 1998. 307A Pretrial Procedure rev own% €6. rt 5.. -zit k no , 307A11 Depositions and Discovery ; Plaintiffs brought action against alleged house of keteri3). 307All(A) Discovery in General prostitution for, inter ado, coercion of prostitution. 307Ak36 Particular Subjects of Disclos- um The Circuit Court, Brevard County, Frank Pound, 307Ak36.1 k. In General. Most Cited J., granted in part defendants' motion to compel die- Cases covery. Plaintiffs filed petition for writ of carder- 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 ides with alleged house of prostitution against their revenues relating to such activities was dis• which they had filed suit, was disceverable, where covetable. plaintiffs brought action not only for coercion of prostitution, but also for battery, false imprison- Petition denied. meat, invasion of privaoy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, violation of their civil rights, 11111113, J., concurred specially and Bled opinion. and racketeering. Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, § 40302, 'a West Headnotes 13961; West's FS.A. §{1 772.014, 796.09; West's F.S.A. RCP Rule 1280(*(1). D3 Pretrial Procedure 307A C=P31 *1076 Richard E. Johnson and Heather Fisher Lind- say, of Spriggs & Johnson, Tallahassee, for Peti- tioners. Mark S. Peters of Amad, Theriac 4 Eisemnenger, P.A., Cocoa, for Respondents. 307Ak31 k. Relevancy and Materiality. Most Cited Cases Party may be permitted to discover: evidence that would be inadmissible at trial, if It Would load to discovery of relevant evidence. West's P.S.A. RCP Rule 1.280(6)(1). [31 Pretrial Procedure 307A C=36.1 307A Pretrial Procedure 307A11 Depositions and Discovery 307A11(A) Discovery In General 307Ak31 k. Relevancy and Materiality. Most Cited Oases 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 P.S.A. RCP Rule 12B0(6)(1). 123 Pretrial Procedure 307A ca=31 307A Pretrial Procedure 307AE Depositions and Discovery 307A11(A) Discovery in General W. SHARP, Judge. Baths and Shumate petition this court for a writ of certiorari to review certain portions of the lower court's order which granted, In pea, a motion to compel discovery Bled by respondents Rune and Exec., Inc. Petitioners argue that theise portions de- part from the essential requirements Of law and will cause them irreparable harm because they will be 2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. EXHIBIT yj http://web2.vvestlaw.corn/printlprintstream.aspx?sr--Split8cprft=HTIALFAifmnNotSetiont.. 3/26/2009 EFTA01070507 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 22 of 46 Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54-3 Pgge 2 of 8 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 2 of 8 703 So.2d 1076 703 So.2d 1076, 22 Fla. L. Weekly D2375,23 Pla. L. Weekly D169 (Cite as: 703 So.2d 1076) compelled to disclose Intimate details of their sexu- msteryrate,mog„040 ry the unit ntrertinrari Bales and Shumate filed suit against Ruzzo and Ex- ec, Inc., doing business as 'The Boardroom." Ac- cording to Baku and Shumate, The Boardroom op- crates ostensibly as 9077 a leisure spa but actually is a house of prostitution. Batas 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 Ruzzo 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, Russo 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. Balsa end Shumate's second amended complaint against Russo contains seven counts. Count I is an action for coercion of prostitution pursuant to sec- tion 796.09, Plorlda 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 In Is a claim for false Imprisonment for physically confining the per Page 2 titioners against their will. Count IV alleges that re- spondents' actions constituted an Invasion of peti- tioners' privacy. Count V is a claim )or the inten- tional Infliction of emotional distress.,Count VI al- leges a civil rights action-that respondents have vi- olated petitioner? 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, FloridaiStatutes. 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 am being re- quked to respond Is as follows: I. Interrogatory 8: Please advise how long have you been engaged In prostitution... Interrogatory 22: State with specificity the man- ner in which the acts as described !in your Com- plaint have materially affected ho'/ you Interact with your husband, boyfriend, nuncio' [sic] or any other individual of the opposite sex. Request for Production 30: A copy of any photo- graphs, movies or videotapes in which you per- formed sexual acts and/or simulatUd sexual acts In exchange for money or other consideration. IV. Interrogatory 16: Please list the names, addressee, telephone numbers and rates of pay for all em- ployers for which you worked. including the © 2009 Thomson Reuters/West No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx'?sv—Split&prftr-HlivILE&ifnr-NotSet&rnt... 3/26/2009 EFTA01070508 Case 9:08-tv-801 1 9-KAM Document 207-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 23 of 46 • " ' Page of 8 Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 3 of 8 703 So.2d 1076 703 So.2d 1076,22 Fla. L. Weekly D2375, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D169 (Cite as: 703 So.2d 1076) nature of the work, during the five yens immedi- dtanmeshig4herdare amppinyenrnt "6th Ihr 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 locome 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 selfamp)oyment or owned business ventures in the last 5 years, including any records or list of customers, "special customer lists" or "sugar daddy's list." 11112) 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 (Fia.1995); Ametue n Newman, 653 Sold 1030 (FI41995); Russell v. Stardust Cruis- ers, Inc., 69D So.2d 743 (Pia. 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 tisk if it would lead to the discovery of relevant evidence, Allstate; Arnente. 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 olaim or defense of any other party, Including the existence, description. Page 3 nature, custody, condition, and location of any hnnkc. 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 ;carets or work product. Discovery was never intended to be used es 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. Sykes!, 672 So.2d 517 (Pla.1996). Hem 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 penon to remain in prosti- tution, or who uses coercion to collect or receive any part of that person's earning& derived from prostitution. In the course of Iltlgafion under this section, any transaction about which ? 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.aspx7svt-Split&prft=HTMLE&ifm-NotSet&mt... 3/26/2009 EFTA01070509 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 24 of 46.i Case 9:08-ov-80811-KAM Document 54-3 Entered on FWD Docket 04/02/2009 Wel of 8 703 Sold 1076 703 So.2d 1076,22 Fla. L. Weekly D2375,23 Fla. L. Weekly ID169 (Cite as: 703 So.2d 1076) ness for the plaintiffs cannot be used against the vaunt-fro Of WillianT1- 27Irttinia proceeding, except ono 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 bo 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 arc 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 arrested. Page 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 tonsUlc- ted so that prostitutes will not be embarrassed, har- assed or hindered in their actions. • t3) Had the petitioners brought their lawsuit against Ruzzo and The Boardroom only undcr 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 he relevant or may Iced to the discovery of admissible evidence in one or more of these other causes of action or to determination of damages, we cannon conclude that the trial court departed from the essential require- ments of law in granting this discovery. See Smith v. 778 Bank of the Keys, 687 So.2d 895 (Fla. 3d DCA 199'7) (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 vendor, and the state of her mental health, including memoryl 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.HARRIS, Judge, concurring specially: CJ 2009 Thomson Reuicrs[Wcsi No Claim to0rIg. US Gov. Works. http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx7sv--Split&prft=liTMLE&ifmt.NotSet&ynt.. 3/26/2009 EFTA01070510 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 25 of 46 Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04102/2069 Pn eg5eqgf 8 703 Sad 1076 70380.2d 1076.22 Pb. L. Weedily D2375,23 FIL L. Weekly D169 (Cite eel 703 So.2d 1076) Page 5 There is a temptation in cases such as this to inquire any part of that person's earnings derived from which, the pot or the Kau°, trIMtruetrwith—thr prostriet 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 am 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 defendant are the owner/operators of a "social club" whose primary service is prostitution; the plaintiffs am employees of tire club who provide such services. The employees are cuing 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 flied certain interrogatories for the employees to answer. These interrogatories$1080 request such information as how long the employ- ees have been engaged in prostitution; how the em- ployees have bean 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; 1,b) A person who coerces that person to remain in prostitution, or ',e) A person who uses coercion to collect or receive 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 detente 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, !'coerced" 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: (1) to restrain or dominate by force, (2). to compel an act or choice, or (3) to enforce or tiring about by force or threat. In sexual battery cases, the legis- lature has adopted the common moaning 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 Drifters° or viol- ence if the victim reasonably believes the perpetrat- or has the present ability to exciting, 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.loz And in sexual battery. cases, the le- gislature hos vitiated what might otherwise be con- O 2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Oov. Works. http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstrearn.aspx7sv=Split&prft-TiTIvILE&ifm—NotSeteimt... 3/26/2009 EFTA01070511 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 26 of 46 Page 6 of 8 Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 6 of 8 703 So.2d 1076 703 So.2d 1076, 22 Fla. L, 'iVeokly D2375, 23 Fla. L. Weekly 0169 (ate ass 703 So.2d 1076) sidered as consensual If one exploits a known phys- 1,1) Promise of greater financial rewards! Page 6 or her goal or takes advantage of one who is phys- ically helpless or involuntarily intoxioateduc Therefore, even 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 tire victim. PHI. Section 794.011(4)(b), Florida Stat- utes. P142. Section 794.011(4)(c), Florida Stat- utes. PN3. Section 794.011(4)00,(d),00, and (I), Florida Statutes. But then we get to the definition of "coercion" con- tained in section 796.09(3): 1,3) As used in this section, Oro 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. eludes, but is not limited to: a) Phys teal force or throats of physical force. :b) Physical or mental torture. :c) Kidnapping. "1081 (d) Blackmail. ;e) Extortion or claims of indebtedness. 1) Threats of legal complaint or report of delin- quency. ;g) Threat to interfere with parental rights or re- sponsibilities, whether by judicial or administrat- ive action or otherwise. 10 Promise of legal benefit. 3) Promise of marriage. 10 Restraint of Speech or communications with others. ) Exploitation of a condition of developmental disability, cognitive limitation, affeetiva disorder, or substance dependency. :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 heroin is the "promise of a greater financial reward." Whether the requested information is relevant r, the issue of coercion in this case will depend on what the legis- lature intended by subsection (1) in the meaning of "coercion." 1 agree with Judge Altenbernd's thoughtful analysis In State e Brigham, 694 So.2d 793 (19.97): 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 ease in which to remind ourselves of Learned Band'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. If, for example, the legislature defined "canine" as including cats, although one might, Jurisprodon- daily speaking, expect to hear a meow emanate from a Great Dane, the courts should nevertheless closely examine the legislative history to sec if that Is really what the legislature Intended. The court in Young v. O'Keefe, 246 Iowa 1182, 60 N.W2d 534, 537 (1955), stated this principle as', follows: But O 2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http://web2.westlaw.eont/print/printsteam.aspx7svaSplit&prft=HTMLE&ifm—NotSet&mt.„ 3/26/2009 EFTA01070512 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 27 of 46 R Ae 7 of Case 9:08--cv-80811-KAM Document 54-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 PVargo of 8 703 So.2d 1076 703 So.2e1 1076, 22 Pla. L. Weakly 132375, 23 Pia. L Weekly D169 (ate as: 703 So.2d 1076) before a definition is construed so as to expand the muwhing u onym the intention of the legislature to that ef- fect must be clear." As Judge Campbell observed in Carron v. Roger Bohn, D.C., P.A., 580 So.2d 814, 818 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991): ft la our primary duty to give effect to legislative intent and, if a literal interpretation of a statute leads to unreasonable results, then wo should ex- ercise our power to interpret reason and logic to it. r*** r! 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 end 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 cou- p of tr, t-rt Rut Rttlitertinn (I) can also mean *1082 that the promise of 'a greater reward is coercion only If 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 rneet the test of section 796.99(1). At oral argument herein, it was suggested without oontradiction, that at least one of the employees has a college degree and gave up a weir-paying, legit- imate Job in order to engage in this profession for the greater reward. Section 796.09 doss 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 coemlye 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 prOvided for one who makes a reasoned and voluntary exercise of their free will to enter or continuo blithe profession solely for financial rewards (assuming "coercion" is given the definition more consistent iwIth its com- monly accepted meaning and assuming that my In- terpretation of legislative intent is emirect), coercion becomes the critical issue in the trial of such action. Tho interrogatories propounded by defendants ap- pear relevant to the issue of coercion. O 2009 Thomson ReetersfiVest. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http://web2.wastlaw.corn/print/printstscamaspx?sw-Split&prft=HTWELE&ifm—NotSet&mt... 3/26/2009 EFTA01070513 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 28 of 46 e 8 of 8 Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Pm rage of B 703 So.2d 1076 703 So.2d 1076, 22 Fla. L. Weekly 132375, 23 Ha. Weekly 13169 (Cite as: 703 So.2d 1076) This Is a case of first impression based one relat- ively new statute, its unnttatil, legielaCyt. JAL 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 end 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 tame tooting 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 (and I am not unsympathetic with this view), that does not appear to be the policy behind the current statute. Therefore, in eases where coer- cion is not present (and this may or may not be one), 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 plc. 703, 26 So.2d 884 (1946); Thomas v. Rattner. 462 So.24 1157, 1160 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), rev. dented 472 So.2d 1182 (fla.1985) ("An action may Ile for Interference with an unenforceable contract and even perhaps a void- able contract. No such cause of action lies for inter- ference with a contract void as against public policy (another's representation of a client obtained by a cloctollavryer's illegal personal Minty solicitation Page in the hospital) and which makes one who is a party .L. br pp Pll reit In the insInnt haRn Milli,/ of a criminal act for entering into such an agree- ment") 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 deity the Writ I suggest we certify the following question: DOES ONE, FREE FROM FORM, INTIMIDA- TION, OR DISADVANTAGEOUS CIRCUM- STANCE, WHO MARES A REASONED DE- CISION TO BECOME OR REMAIN A PROSTI- TUTE( OR TO SHARE TUB PROCEEDS THEREOF BECAUSE! OP A PROMISE OP A GREATER PD4ANCLAL REWARD HAVE A CAUSE OP ACTION UNDER SECTION 796.09(1), FLORIDA STATUTES/ • ON MOTIONS FOR REERARING, FOR CLAN, FICAVON, FOR CER27FICATION, AND FOR REP MARINO RN BANC W. SHARP, Judge. Petitioners Bales and Shumate have, flied motions for rehearing, clarification and certification. We deny the motions in full except for qna regard. We delete the sentence in the last full paragraph of the opinion which reads: "These other causes of action carry no such protection from dist-only." Motion for Clarification GRANTED as stated abovr, Motion for Rehearing and Certification DENIM HARRIS and THOMPSON, D., cone*. Fla.App. 5 Dlst.,1997. Bales V. R1121.0 703 So.2d 1076, 22 Ha. L. Weekly D2375, 23 Fla. L. Noddy D169 END OP DOCUMENT © 2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to trig. US Gov. Works. hap://wob2.wostlaw.com/prInt/printstrcamaispx?sr-Split&prft--IITMLE&ifm—NotSoteina... 3/26/2009 EFTA01070514 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 29 of 46 • Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54-4 Entered on ELSD pocket 04/02/2009 Page 1 of 2 • IN THE COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM DCACI I COUNTY, FLORIDA A.C., Plaintiff, v. ail E. EPSTEIN, and CASE NO. 502008CA025129)COO(MB Al • Defendants. ORDER ON DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FIRST REQUEST TO PRODUCE TO PLAINTIFF AND TO OVERRULE PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS, & FO 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 O'jrerruie Plaintiff's 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 denied a, ,to 4 22. 41 /7 4 eglg AA-) Ovnittae? Lt asap Jabdim-td- to bk. Wave, DONE AND ORDERED at Palnech Cou urthouse, West Palm 7, Beach, Florida, this , day of •• ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Defendants Motion Is hereby grarited/ tsion‘L.L4 1 2r, SOMnae.... Edward A. I arrison Circuit Judge Copies furnished: ROBERT D. CRYTTON, JRL, E&Q, and MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESCL, 515 North Gaoler DIM% Stifle 400, Won Palm Beach, M. 33401; JACK SCAROLA, ESQ., AND JACK P. HILL, ESQ., Seamy Denney Soarola Barnhart & ilhcra ptPA, 2139 Palm Beech Lakes Blvd., West Palm Beach, FL 33409, and JACK A. oas, ESQ., Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, PA, One Clearleke Centre, SuIte 1400, 250 Australian Avenue South, West Palm Beach, FL 33401 I lel ty EXHIBI T 1 EFTA01070515 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 30 of 46 — — • • Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/209 Page 2 of 2 3r A.G., • Rai*, v. Mit E. EPSTEIN, and Defendants. IN THE COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN. AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNT , I • CASE NO. 502008CA025129)0,0004E3 Al • ORDER ON DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES AND TO OVERRULE PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS, & FOR DEPENDANT'S EXPENSES; INCLUDING ATTORNEYS' FEES THIS CAUSE came before the Court on Defendant Epstein's Motion To Compel Answers To Interrogatories And To Ovenuie Plaintiff's Objections, .5 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/ Stet •c .z. 1-k, 415, 12 iS 4.2 , flEver".242„ at-o L JOAtta.,29 eh dar. DONE AND ORDERED at Palm Beach Cougly Courthouse, West Palm Beach, Florida, this 23 day of fai award A. Garrison Circuit Judge Copies furnished: ROBERT D. CRITIC:N, JR., ESQ., end MICHAEL J. FEE, ESQ.. 61s North Finder Dam Guns 400, West Parm Beach, FL 33401; JACK SCAROLA, ESQ., AND JACK P. HILL, ESQ., Seamy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A., 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., West Palm Beach, FL 33409, and JACK A. GOLDBERGER, ESQ., Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A., One Cleadake Centre, Butte 1400, 260 Australian Avenue South, West Palm Beach, FL 33401 EFTA01070516 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page A1 of 46_ • / Case 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. 50 2008CA020614XXXgMB At 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. Legal' Support EXHIBIT // 1 EFTA01070517 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 32 of 46 se 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 64-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 2 of 14 1 2 2 APPEARANCES: a 4 5 6 7 8 10 . 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2C 25 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 I EFTA01070518 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 33 of 46 • • • • Case 9:08-cv 80811-KAM Document 54-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 3 of 14 11 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1/ 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 tb contact the other ua ti saying, you 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 rot saying consolidate. I'm saying transfer. . It's not a consolidation issue. Everybody get 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 L- 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 Jana Doe. THE COURT: You know who Jane Doe is I take U.S. Legal Support EFTA01070519 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 34 of 46 Case 9:08-cv 86811-KAM Document 54-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 4 of 14 12 3. 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 10 11 12 13 7.4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 it? MR. CRITTON: Right. THE COURT: xoulalow w u Lhe Jane Die+ is? MR. CRITTON: Yes, correct. And so this particular lady has kept in part a diary and 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 Saker Acted, she started drinking beer at -16, she started Xanax at'16, started marijuina 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. Le al Su out'. EFTA01070520 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 35 of 46 Case 9:O8•cv 80811-KAM Document 54-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 5 of 14 13 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 this sexual assault and whatever occurred during these events is that -- has caused her damage. d therefore damagoo in the code sunk' 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. tho 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. Le al Sue ort EFTA01070521 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 36 of 46 Case 9:08-cv 80811-KAM Document 54-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2006 Page 6 of 14 14 1 2 .1 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 16 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. III day and Lynn, whdL du I du wILl. 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 1..c 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 onefway 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 fitbtor 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 discbvery 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 EFTA01070522 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 37 of 46 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 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 my ability to trust men and my sexual relationships with other men, which is part of lk her interpersonal retationsnips, ukay, ley-a to 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 o£ '03 through November of '04. MR. GARCIA: She was I believe 16at.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 discolflarY 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 Su ort EFTA01070523 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 38 of 46 Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 8 of 14 16 2 3 4 THE COURT: This is damages. There'S no they weren't seeking damages at the time.! 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. GARCIA: Right. And we nave not.aiseged in the complaint or in the answers to interrogatories that her ability to have a relationship with a man has been affectedby Mr. Epstein's conduct. We have alleged that she has been hospitalized for depression, anxiety but 4e 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 EFTA01070524 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 39 of 46 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 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1B 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. GARCIA: Maybe not, but certainit 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. Legal Support EFTA01070525 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 40 of 4q.. Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 10 of 14 18 1 2 other -- THE COURT: She didn't receive treatment? 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 minimis. Again as an example, Judge, didlthe 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 4 5 6 ' 7 9 9 to 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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 ihe 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.B. Legal Su >ort EFTA01070526 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 41 of 46_, • . 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 5 6 7 8 9 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 damades. Ana what: tht CuuLL acid THE COURT: How old is she now? MR. GARCIA: She's 21 no*. MR. CRITT0N: 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 the other causes of action or determination of damages, we cannot conclude the trial:court parted fr#a 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 exorable is U.S. Legal' Support EFTA01070527 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 42 of 46 Case 9:08-cv-80B11-KAM Document 54-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 12 of 14 20 1 2 one of the cases that I have is there's ECyoung lady who claims that she was molested in the past 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and raped, pretty signiticant issues, welt 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 we's a young or old man assaulted her in some fabhion, 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 thoee people a letter and tell them that U.S. Legal Support EFTA01070528 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 43 of 46 . _ . . Case 9:08-cv-80811 -KAM Document 54-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2003 Page 13 of 14 21 2 3 you're going to disclose them and if they have a problem with it that they come to see me before 4 5 6 7 B 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 you disclose lt. 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 heaking 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 seeki damages, you've got to do it -- if you could put that in an order so that we have a time far him to do this. Just fill out an order, hand it back up to me and I'll deal with it. (The proceedings were concluded1) U.S. mI iimai al rt EFTA01070529 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 44 of 46 Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document,54-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 14 of 14 22 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 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE THE STATE OF FLORTDA. 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 I further certify that I am not a relative, employee, attorney or counsel of any of the patties, 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 TERESIf BELL, Court Reporter U.S. Legal Support EFTA01070530 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 8 of 9 and Gloria C. Hakkarainen, M.D. until such time as the Court decides whether the statutory damages pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §2255 are available to a victim of an enumerated sexual offense on a per incident basis. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL RULE 7.1 Counsel for the movant conferred via telephone with counsel for the Defendant and counsel for the Defendant is not in agreement with Plaintiff's Motion For Protective Order Regarding Treatment Records From the Parent-Child Center, Inc., Dr. Serge Thys, Dominique Hyppolite/School District of Palm Beach County, Good Samaritan Hospital, St. Mary's Hospital, Florida Atlantic University and Gloria C. Hakkarainen, M.D. and Incorporated Memorandum of Law. /s/ Jack P. Hill CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 20th day of July, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court by using CM/ECF system, which will send a notice of electronic filing to all counsel of record on the attached service list. /s/ lank P Hill Jack Scarola Florida Bar No.: 169440 Jack P. Hill Florida Bar No.: 0547808 Searcy Denney Scarola Bamhart & Shipley, P.A. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach. 409 Phone: Fax: Attorneys for Plaintiff 8 EFTA01070531 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 9 of 9 COUNSEL LIST Richard H. Willits, Esquire Richard H. Willits, P.A. 2290 10th Avenue North, Suite 404 Lake Worth, FL 33461 Phone: Fax: Robert Critton, Esquire Burman Critton Luttier & Coleman LLP 515 North Flagler Drive, Suite 400 West Palm Beach FL 33414 Phone: Fax: Jack A. Goldberger, Esquire Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South West Palm Beach FL 33401 Phone: Bruce E. Reinhart, Esquire Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A. 250 South Australian Avenue Suite 1400 West Palm B h F 3401 Phone: Fax: 9 EFTA01070532