Cag$9_9_101_-CV-8019:KAM

Cag$9_9_101_-CV-8019:KAM Document 207-4 Entered on FLSD. Docket 07/20/2009 Page 20_of 46. 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 a Cose No.: 08-CV-80811-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff's Answers to Defendant's First Interrogatonin and each medical -Facility where you have received y III nation 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 451h Street to the Doctor's records. West Palm Beach, FL. 3M07 MI Pope (Counselor/Therapist) 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 (3/12/04, 3/25/08) Child Birth 1309 N Flagler Dr West Palm Beach, FL 33401 St. Mary's Hospital (4/07) DNC 901 45th Street West Palm Beach, FL 33407 Gloria C. Hakkarainen, MD Ob/Gyn 2926 10th Avenue North, Suite 306 Palm Springs, FL. 33461 Theodore Ritota, DDS Dentist 14 EFTA01070533 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 21 of 46 0 PiSge 9lf.A Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/20_9 ag 703 So.2d 1076 703 So.2d 1076, 22 Fla. L. Weekly 172375,23 14a. L. Weekly D169 (Cite at 703 So.2d 1076) Page 1 District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fifth District. Kimberly EALAS and Teresa Shumate, Petitioners, v. Marjorie A. RUZZO, and Exec., Inc., etc., Re- spondents. No. 97-82. Oct. 10, 1997. As Modified on Grant of Clarification Jan. 2, 1998., 307A Pretrial Procedure kkaskm p ‘ci 5.na I.: tic% • 307AII Depositions and Discovery i Plaintiffs brought action against alleged house of ‘cc‘en ), 307A11(A) Discovery In General prostitution for, inter ails, coercion of prostitution. 307Ak36 Particular Subjects cif Disclos- ure The Circuit Court, Brevard County, Frank Pound, J., granted in part defendants' motion to compel dis- covery. Plaintiffs filed petition for writ of certior- ari. The District Court of Appeal, W. Sharp, J., held that evidence of plaintiffs' past prostitution and their revenues relating to such activities was dis- coverable. 307Ak31 k. Relevancy end Materiality. Most Cited Cases Party may be permitted to discover:evidence that would be inadmissible at alai, if it would lead to discovery of relevant evidence. Westb P.S.A. RCP Rule 1.280(6)(1). 83] Pretrial Procedure 307A oti=36.3 Petition denied. Harris, J., concurred specially and filed opinion. West Headnotes co Pretrial Procedure 307A C=>31 307A Pretrial Procedure 307A11 Depositions and Discovery 307A11(A) Discovery in General 307Ak31 lc Relevancy and Materiality. Most Cited Cases Discovery In civil cases must be relevant to subject matter of case and must bo admissible or reason- ably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. West's RSA. RCP Rule 1.280(b)(1). 12] Pretrial Procedure 307A rO=31 307A Pretrial Procedure 307All Depositions and Discovery 307A11(A) Discovery in General 307Ak36.1 k in General. Most Cited Cases Evidence of plaintiffs' past prostitution and their revenues relating to such activities, including activ- ities with alleged house of prostitution against which they had filed suit, was discoverable, where plaintiffs brought action not only for coercion of prostitution, but also for battery, fplse imprison- ment, invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, violation of their civil rights, and racketeering. Violent Crime Coital and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, § 40302, U.S.C.A. § 13981; West's F.S.A. §6 772.014, 796.09; West's fr SA. RCP Rule 1.280(b)(1). 41076 Richard E. Johnson and Heather Fisher Lind- say, of Spriggs & Johnson, Tallahassee, for Peti- tioners. Mark S. Peters of Arerui, Therlac Bc Elsenmenger, P.A., Cocoa, for Respondents. W. SHARP. Judge. Balm and Shumate petition this court for a writ of certiorari to review certain portions of the lower court's order which granted, in pert, a motion to compel discovery filed by respondents Ruzzo and RCM, Inc. Petitioners argue that Chase portions de- part from Me essential requirements Of law end will cause them irreparable harm because they will be 2009 Thomson Routers/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. ESCHIBIT p Split&prft=HTMLE&ifm 3/26/2009 EFTA01070534 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 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 PPaeg2e5gf 8 703 So.2d 1076 703 So.2d 1076,22 Fla. I,. Weekly D2375, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D169 (Cite as: 703 So.2d 1076) compelled to disclose intimate details of their sexu- al hist Bales and Shumate filed suit against Ramo and Ex- ec, Inc., doing business as "The Boardroom." Ac- cording to Bales and Shumate, The Boardroom op- erates ostensibly as *1077 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 employee? earnings from per- forming sexual acts. According to Bales and Shumate, Rune 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, 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 end coer- cion to engage in prostitution. Count II Is a claim for battery for the unwanted and offensive touching of the petitioners' bodies. Count III is a claim for false imprisonment for physically confining the pe- Page 2 titionere against their will. Count IV alleges that re- s Ondente actions constituted an invasion of peti- tioners' privacy. Count sac m donut infliction of emotional distress. ,Count VI al- leges a civil rights action-that respondents have vi- olated petitioners' right to be free from mimes 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 of racketeering pursuant to section 772.104, Florida tStatutes. 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- gutted to respond Is as follows: I. Interrogatory 8; Please advise how long have you been engaged in prostitution.... IL Interrogatory 221 State with &peachy the man- ner in which the acts as described in your Com- plaint have materially affected hod.: you interact with your husband, boyfriend, fiancee' [sic] or any other individual of the opposite Sex. lit 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 2009 Thomson ReutersfWest. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. liltp://web2.vatatlaw.com/ptint/printstream.aspx?sv=Split&prffr-HTMI,E&ifta=NotSet&mt... 3/26/2009 EFTA01070535 Case 9:08-ov-80119-KAM Document 207-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 23 of 46 Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2099 703 So.2d 1076 703 Sold 1076,22 PIe. L. Weekly 1)2375, 23 FILL Weekly 1)169 (Cite Mt 703 So.2d 1076) nature of the work, during the five years inttnetti- day the data of employm t *di th 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 far 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 non 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 last 5 years, including any records or list of customers, "special customer lisle or "sugar daddy's list." MR) 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); Amerce v. Newman, 653 So.2d 1030 (Fla-1995); Russell v. Stardust Cnds- ers, Inc., 690 So.2d 743 (Phi. 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 bid, 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 party, including the existence, description, Page 3 of 8 F".ge 3 of 8 Page 3 nature, custody, condition, and location of any bunks, 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 inforination 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, mated- al protected by privilege, trade mortis or work product. Discovery was never intended to be used as a tactical tool to harass, embarrass or annoy ones 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 Guth to ensure a fair trial. Elkins v. Syken, 672 Sold 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 alto 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 eamingsi derived from prostitution. In the course of litigation under this section, any transaction about which 'p plaintiff test- ifies or produces evidence does Apt 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- O 2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Oov. Works. http://web2.westlaw.com/prInt/printstrearn.aspx7sv-ThSplit&prft=HTMLE&ifm-NotSet&mt... 3/26/2009 EFTA01070536 Case 9:08-cv-80119-MM Document 207-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2000_ Page 24 of 46. Pm Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 nge4o 3 4 of 8 703 So.2d 1076 703 So.2d 1076, 22 Pla. L. Weekly D2375,2314. L Weekly DI@ (Cite as: 703 So.2d 1076) • • • Pap 4 ness for the plaintiffs cannot be used against the arrested. --------mrarrviThirtnnruthrhnestitsefrer----r--- proteedi pain s ng o , except one for perjury. Under section 796.09, the petitioner.' prior Involve- ment in prostitution and their earnings born prosti- Section 796.09(5) specifically provides that it Is not tution would be Irrelevant. Hence discovery should a defense that the plaintiff was paid or otherwise not be permitted because such inforination would compensated for prostitution, that the plaintiff had not be admissible at trial nor would it be reasonably engaged in prostitution prior to any involvement calculated to lead to evidence ultimately admissible with the defendant or that the plaintiff made no at- at trial. Even though the scope of discovery is gen- tempt to escape from the defendant Section erally quite broad. section 796.09 is designed to en- 796.09(6) provides that convictions for prostitution courage prostitutes to sue their pimps. Thus the or prostitution-related offenses are inadmissible for usually broad scope of discovery may be constrie- OTC pnrpose of attacking the plaintiffs' credibility. ted so that prostitutes will not be embarrassed, har- assed or hindered in their actions. • 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:1'1079 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 cowls. 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 133 Had the petitioners brought their lawsuit against Ruzzo and The Boardroom only under section 796O9, 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 end 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. 778 Bank of the Keys, 687 Sold 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 vendor, and the state of her mental health, including memory problems she was experiencing at the time of the alleged tedious conduct, thus deposition questions convening her state of mind were relevant). Petition for Writ of Certiorari DENIED. THOMPSON, L, concurs. HARRIS, J., concurs specially • with opin- tortHARRIS, Judge, concurring specially: O 2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Cloy. Works. http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx7sr—Split&prft=HTMLE&ifmNotSet&pat.. 3/26/2009 EFTA01070537 • Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 25 of 46... ... • Case 9:0B-cv-80811-KAM Document 54-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04102120d9 PKI1Of 8 703 Sold 1076 703 So.2d 1076, 22 Fla. L Weekly O2375, 23 Fla. L. Weekly 0169 (Cite as: 703 So.2d 1076) There is a temptation in cases such as this to Inquire w , 5 po or e e, 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 partied comparative complex- ion, may discover the historical condition and the inherent characteristics of the kettle. Pag65 any part of that person's earnings derived from 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 defendants are the owner/operators of a "social club" whose primary service is prostitution; the plaintiffs am 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 interrogatories-41080 request such information as how long the employ- ees have been engaged in prostitution; how the em- ployees have been effected 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 796.090X Florida Statutes, which provides: (1) A person has a cause of action for compensatory and punitive damages against la) A person who coerces that person into prostitu- tion; '33) A person who coerces that person to remain in prostitution, or :c) A person who uses coercion to collect or receive The employees resist discovery of their past prosti- tution or their past or present earning experience on the basis of subparagraph 5 of section 796.09: 1,5) 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 piostitutlon 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 defeat., 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 thing about by force or threat. In sexual battery cases, the legis- lature has adopted the common meaning of the word "coercion" and has even placedlimits on it. It has provided that consent will not be recognized if submission is coerced by threats of ;force or viol- ence (f the victim reasonably believe the perpetrat- or has the present ability to execute the threaten 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 exec* the threat In the futurePa And in sexual battery cases, the le- gislature has vitiated what might otherwise be con- 0 2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx7sw--Split&prft4ITMLE&ifm—NotSct&pa... 3/26/2009 EFTA01070538 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 26 of 46 Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/200! P6ge flif 8 703 So.2d 1076 703 Sold 1076, 22 Fla. L. Weekly D2375, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D169 (Cite as: 703 So.2d 1076) Mitered as consensual if one exploits a known phys- jay. Me or her goal or takes advantage of on: who is phys- ically helpless or involuntarily intoxicated.no 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. FP71. Section 794.011(4)(b), Florida Stet- °tea. PN2-. Section 794.011(4Xo), Florida Stat- utes. P113. Section 794.011(4Xa),(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: ',a) Physical force or throats of physical force. :b) Physical or mental torture. :c) Kidnapping. 41081 (d) Blackmail. 1,:e) Extortion or claims of indebtedness. :f) Threats of legal complaint or report of delin- quency. ig) Threat to interfere with parental rights or re- sponsibilities, whether by Judicial or administrat- ive action or otherwise. ;h) Promise of legal benefit. 1) Promise of greater financial rewards! Page 6 J) Promise of marriage. • lc) Restraint of Speech or communications with others. ;1 ) Exploitation of a condition of developmental disability, cognitive limitation, affective 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, dr affection. The definition urged by the employees heroin is the "promise of a greater financial rewire Whether the requested information is relevant fo 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 Altenbemd's thodghtful 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 ri word and the definition of that word ascribed by the legislature. If, 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 la really what the legislature Intended. The court in Young v. O'Keefe, 246 town 1182, 69 N.W.2d 534, 537 (1955), stated this principle as'. follows: "But 2009 Thomson Reuters/West No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. littp://web2.westlaw.corniprintiprintstream.aspx7sv-t:Split&prft=HTWILE&i.fm- NOtSet&mt... 3/26/2009 EFTA01070539 Case 9:08-cv480119-KAM Document 207-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 27 of 46 Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 PAtegg cfgf 8 703 So.2d 1076 703 So.2d 1076, 2.2 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 uf-erweildknowymci-to-hreieet, its-imt onym the intention of the legislature to that ef- fect must be clear." As Judge Campbell observed in Cowan v. Roger Bohn, D.C, PA, 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 tans 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 team (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 more 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- owl, of 42,s' dpritinn non sullen-nen on can also mean *1082 that the promise of 'a greater reward is coercion only V such promised reward Is sufficient to overcome one's natural revulsion to soiling 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 fora 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 wolf-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 tit "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- to. 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" end to redefine it to include both free will decisions arid compelled decisions.. The interpretation urged by the employees seems at variance with the stated goal of the legislature and the Gander 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 continue blithe profession solely for financial rewards (assuming "coercion" la given the definition more consistent ;with its com- monly accepted meaning and assuming that my In• terpretation of legislative intent is coked), coercion becomes the critical issue In the trial of such action. The interrogatories propounded by defendants ap- pear relevant to the issue of coercion. © 2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http://weblwestlaw.corn/print/printstream.aspx7gv—Split&prft=HTMLE&ifm-NotSet&mt.. 3/26/2009 EFTA01070540 Case 9:08-oV-80119-KAM Document 207-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 28 of 46. Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 iWn8 703 Sa2d 1076 703 So.2d 1076, 22 Ha. L. Weekly D2375, 23 Ha. L. Weekly D169 (Cite as: 703 So.2d 1076) This is a case of first impression based on a relat- ivoiy new statute. As ullutted, de. kla stufaA. ir6 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 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 5056 of their earnings. Based on a five-day work week, this would reflect en income of 887,500 a year oven 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 (and I am not unsympathetic with this view), that does not appear to be the policy behind the current statute. Therefore, in cases 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 pubilo policy. See Wechsler v. Novak 157 Plc 703, 26 So.2d 884 (1946); Thomas v. Refines; 462 So.2d 1157, 1160 (Pia. 3d DCA 1984), rev. derge4 472 So.2d 1182 (Ple.i985) ("An action may lie 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 dectodlawyer's illegal personal injury solicitation Page 8 in the hospital) and which makes one who is a party th foon,rae4he appellant in the ifighnt i`PACI guilty 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 MOM FORCE, mum- TION, OR DISADVANTAGEOUS CIRCUM- STANCE, WHO MAKES A REASONED DE- CISION TO BECOME OR M3MAIN A PROSTI- TUTE OR TO SHARE ME 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 REHEARING, ITOR CLARA. FIC4770N, FOR CER77FICATION, AND FOR RE- HEARING EN BANC W. SHARP, Judge. Petitioners Bakal and Shumate have filed motions for rehearing, clarification and certificadon. We deny the motions in full except for one 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 discoveiy." Motion for Clarification GRAN BD as stated above; Motion for Rehearing and Certification DENIED. HARMS and THOMPSON, D., conceit. Flaapp. 5 Dist.,1997. Bolas v. Ruzzo 703 Sold 1076, 22 Pit L. Weekly D2375, 23 Fla. L. Weedy D169 END OF DOCUMENT CD 2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http://wcb2.westlaw.corn/print/printstream.aspx7sv—Split&prft=HTMLE&ifin=NotSet&mt.. 3/26/2009 EFTA01070541 Case 9:08-cv-80119-I<AM 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 3V IN THE COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM °CACI I COUNTY, FLORIDA A.C., Plaintiff, v. lig E. EPSTEIN, and a CASE NO. 50200SCA026129)$O0(M. B AI Defendants. ORDER 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 THIS CAUSE came before the Court on Defendant Epstein's Motion To •.. Compel Responses To First Request To Produce To Plaintiff And To 0Yerrule Plaintiffs Objections, & For Defendant's Expenses, Including Attorney 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 grated/ denied ae. 9 17 4 411g erionu-e-4 *0 4 2 Z w Onia.4.ate .1 2.0searica.a. kup am' AriAnack- *tfaiih MART. DONE AND ORDERED at Paingliach Coyat urthouse, West Palm -1 Beach, Florida, this , day of Ed yard A. Garrison Circuit Judge Copies furnished: ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESCL. and MICHAEL J. PEE, ESQ., 515 North Peeler Ortiee Sone 400, West Fan Beach, Ft. 33401; JACK SCAROLA, ESQ., AND JACK P. HILL, ESQ., Seamy Denney Smola Barnhart & Shipley, PA:, 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., West Palm Beaoh, FL 33409, and JACK A. SOLDBF-RGER, ESQ., Atterbuly Goldbeiger & Weiss. P.A. One Cleadake Centre, Suite 1400, 250 Australian Avenue South, West Patin Beach. FL33401 I ly) If EXHIBIT Les- EFTA01070542 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 2074 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 30 of 46 Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 2 of 2 14— IN THE COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN.AND FOR PALM A.G., • v. CASE NO. 502008CA025129)0,00•CMB Al • E, EPSTEIN, and SARAH Defendants. ORDER ON DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES AND TO OVERRULE PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS. & FOR DEFENDANT'S EXPENSES; INCLUDING ATTORNEYS' FEES THIS CAUSE came before the Court on Defendant Epsteln'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/ 1-0 1 sr / 2. 4 ie 4,1 /14.4w,4 ts‘.aei o 4.2 , fwro ste,,, 76* L atiwor ktleir be, cat. DONE AND ORDERED at Palm Beach Cougly Courthouse, West Palm Beach, Florida, this Z 3 day of and A. Garrison Circuit Judge Copies furnished: ROBERT D. cRtrroN, JR.. ESQ., and MICHAEL J. PlICE, ESQ., 516 Not Fleeter Drive, Sulte 400, West Petrn Boaob, Ft. 33401; JACK SCAROLA, ESQ., AND JACK P. HILL, ESQ., Seamy Denney Soweto Barnhart & Shipley, PA, 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., West Palm Beach, FL 33409, and JACK A. GOLDBERGER, ESQ., Atterbory Goldberger 4 Weiss, PA, One Clearlake Contra, Suite 1400, 250 Australian Avenue South, West Palm Beach, FL 33401 EFTA01070543 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 31 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 2008CA020614XXXXMB 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 EFTA01070544 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 32 of 46 se 9:06-cv-80811-KAM Document 54-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 2 of 14 2 2 APPEARANCES: 3 4 5 6 8 10 11 12 .13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 GARCIA LAW FIRM, P.A. 224 Datura Avenue Suite 900 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Counsel for Plaintiff BY: TSIDRO 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.iiilliiiiiiiirt EFTA01070545 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 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 tb contact the uthes individecle saying, yeu k 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 getO 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. Le al Su ort EFTA01070546 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 34 of 46 • Case 9:08-ov-66811-KAM Document 54-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 4 of 14 12 1 2 3 4 it? MR. CRITTON: Right. 6 9 to 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THS Wows: YOU xnvw who ug MR. CRITTON: Yes, correct. And so this particular lady has kept in part a diary end she -- which appears to have started some time this is not in any way significant -- butisome ' 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 -Baker Acted, she stiTted drinking beerst.16, she started Eanak 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, V.S. Legal Support' EFTA01070547 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 35 of 46 Case 9:013-cv 80811-KAM Document 54-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 5 of 14 13 1 2 a 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 theretor-c-elmougoo in tho cad° suet 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. Bo 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 lox. 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 Lyn4nis' 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 EFTA01070548 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 04/02/2009 Page 61 at 14 4 1 2 baby especially with him. Okay. So I know who this person is. We are all so open together, I 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 love him ana iay and Lynn, what dv I dv 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 iC 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's/ay 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. Z'm happy to keej 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.S. Legal Support EFTA01070549 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 37 of 46 Case 9:08-cv-80611-KAM Document 54-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 7 of 14 15 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 my ability to trust men and my sexual relationships with other men, which is part of her interpersonal relationships, u ay,loo's to Sam Smith. THE COURT: When does your client allege that she had her first encounter with Mr. Epstein? 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 16at.the beginning and ended at 17. She was a minbr 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 disco4rery 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 S ort EFTA01070550 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Pap 38 of 46 • Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 6 of 14 • • 2 3 16 THE COURT: This is damages. There'S no they weren't seeking damages at the time. 1 4 5 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. GARCIA: Right. And we nave not.alseged 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 we have not alleged any damages concerning -- the ionly 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 4 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 EFTA01070551 Case 9:0B-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 39 of 46 Case 9:0B-cv-B0811-KAM Document 54-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/200 Page 9 of 14 17 1 2 3 MR. GARCIA: Maybe not, but certainly that's the way this discovery is going. And, Judge, 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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 fiend 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 V.S. Legal Support EFTA01070552 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 40 of 46 Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 10 of 14 18 1 2 4 5 6 . 7 8 9 10 13. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 23. 22 23 24 25 other -- THE COURT: She didn't receive treatment? 'R ^RTTT^M; g*Ies rereived treatment Trtr 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 blls are de minimis. Again as an example, Judge, did'the Court have an opportunity to look ht the case that I also attached to the motion? Becadse 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 tihe 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 EFTA01070553 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 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 15 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 humiliation, loss of reputation, mental anguish, pain and suffering, the same type of damages. Had what.. Lists CuuLL acid 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 theiother causes of action or determination of damages, we cannot conclude the trial court parted frm 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 EFTA01070554 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 42 of 46 • Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 12 0 14 20 1 2 one of the cases that I have is there's a!young lady who claims that she was molested in the past 4 5 6 7 9 10 11. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21. 22 23 24 25 and raped, pretty significant issues, welt in advance of her even meeting with Mr. Epstein. And they seem to play a large role in heri 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 waa 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 EFTA01070555 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 04/02/2009 Page 13 of 14 21 2 3 you're going to disclose them and if theyihave a problem with it that they come to see me before 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 you cisciose 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 heaing 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 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 concluded;) V.S. Legal Support EFTA01070556 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 44 of 46 Case 9:08-cv-80B11-KAM Documenk54-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2008 Page 14 o 14 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 16 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 TERESK BELL, Court Reporter U.S. Legal Support EFTA01070557 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 45 of 46 Kikka M. Claudio From: [email protected] Sent: April 02, 20091:64 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Activity In Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM C.M.A. v. Epstein et al Motion to Compel This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United Stateg policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case (including pro se litigants) to receive one free'electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. However, if the referenced document is a transcript, the free copy and 30 page limit do not apply. U.S. District Court Southern District of Florida Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered by Critton, Robert on 4/2/2009 at 1:53 PM EDT and filed on 4/2/2009 Case Name: C.M.A. v. Epstein et al Case Number: 9:08-ov-80811 Filer; Jeffrey Epstein Document Number: 54 Docket Text: Defendant's MOTION to Compel Response to 1st RTP and 1st Interrogs by Jeffrey Epstein. Responses due by 4/20/2009 (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A, # (2) Exhibit B, # (3) Exhibit C, # (4) Exhibit D)(Critton, Robert) 9:08-cv-80811 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Bruce Reinhart [email protected] Guy Man Lewis [email protected] Jack Alan Goldberger iagescabellsouth.net, [email protected] Jack Patrick Hill iolCsearcvlaw.com clwcEisearcvlaw.com, [email protected] s.slater®searcvlaw.com, sas(e)searcvlaw.com, [email protected] Michael James Pike MPikeabelelaw.cont Michael Ross Tein [email protected], [email protected] [email protected] Richard Horace Willits [email protected]. [email protected] EFTA01070558 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Pake 46 of 46. Robert Deweese Critton , Jr rcritigibelelaw.com. bobbie(gbeiclaw.com 9:08-cv-80811 Notice has not been delivered electronically to those list ill be provided by other means. For further assistance, please contact our Help Desk at 1 S.: 111 The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dceefStamp lD=1105629215 [Date=4/2/2009] [FileNumber6195964-0] (49f0c2d75486f6d6a6101a080395b2e7992778ee9920e8793e30a05701c38a82a7cd 0c0764948284cbee2a315cedf37038a790bc153308696a153cee35dd4a2eb]] Document description:Exhibit A Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP deectStamp_M=1105629215 [Darr-4/2/2009] [FileNumba=6195964-1] [5442dd228617016a18a93a482a085529427a840328a0e54754cdf751967853bb92be ecb01757337952695593597cefe9a41571176b352bb55db83a2la343d276]] Document description:Exhibit B Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP deedStamp )D-1105629215 [Date=4/2/2009] [FileNumber=6195964-2) [25cedd880cca3d8978be178b71fldefo7a045549a477d2d9547e32020ef014889690 bad8c2e920f70317c10d9120eeca0890948393fid74268del8e9ff8819251) Document description:Exhibit C Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dceefStamp_ED=1105629215 [Date=4/2/2009] [FileNumber=6195964-3) [37892711faff5e10f7O7b9ble0eadlOae25fl 1 leia940376210a3a511f5b8fe66e25 7a72e8a82ac1f8d04c63aa2721bce8e1445577efdde123db7e50acecc99a]] Document description:Exhibit D Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP deectEtamp_ID=1105629215 [Dat -e=4/2/2009] [FileNumber=6195964-4] [30891fd9cd081D35da5c8b8446571f54389e681aa2a5lbf89966ifeibca8f86feen b5ec59O37a711c75abbeaaiDe49106318132669f8731cecddl8b8714e895]] 2 EFTA01070559 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2009 Page 1 of 46 • ••• Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/200gi Page 1 of 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT snilTI4FRN nisnacr OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CIV.80811-MARRAMOHNSON C.M. A., Plaintiff, v. an EPSTEIN and Defendants, DEPENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF C.M.A. TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANTS FIRST REQUEST TO PRODUCE AND ANSWER DEFENDANT'S 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.MA. to respond to Defendants First Request To Produce and to answer Defendants First Set of Interrogator)es, and to overrule her objections asserted In Plaintiff's Response To Defendants FirSt Request To Produce, dated February 13, 2009, and in Plaintiff's 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 tis 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 EFTA01070560 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207..4 ... iltereSt911 ELSD.QAcket_01/20/2Q01.. .Page_tot.46.:. Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 2 of 18 C.M.A. V. Epstein, et al. Pape 2 issue. Also, rather than the 2 separate motions to compel, Defendant lied 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 Plaintiff's tax returns and supporting documentation are relevant to Plaintiffs damages claims and, thus, discoverable. Plaintiffs complaint alleges Iri 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." l st 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 26(b)(1), Fed.R.Civ.P.; EFTA01070561 _ease 9'08a410.1.19:KANL_QQaunnertt..2(27-4..., Entered .0n.ELSO Dock.et.07/2012009__Page_a_of_46_.. Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54 Entered on ELSE) Docket 04102/200D Page 3 of 18 C.M.A. v. Epstein, et al. Page 3 Donali_av 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." A. 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 Plaintiffs damages claims detailed below herein. Such information weuld show i Plaintiffs 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 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.MA.'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 :00(l is entitled °Sexual Battery," and Count WOE is entitled "Conspiracy to Commit Tortlous Assault only against Defendant, ." In her answers to Interrogatory nos. 9 and 10, which seek Information about C.MA.'s damages claims, Plaintiff answered that ' Defendant's Motion To Dismiss directed to Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint is pending. EFTA01070562 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 4_of 45 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 el. Page 4 I have bi-polar disorder and manic depression. I lost my self-esteem. I began cuffing myself on my arms and legs and developed drug problems. Perredirel it 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 181 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 loss of the capacity to earn Income in the future, and a loss of capacity td enjoy life. These injuries are permanent in nature and the Plaintiff, C.M.A., will continue to suffer these losses In the future. (151 Am. Complaint, Counts I — XXX (18 U.S.C. §2255), ¶¶25, 31, 37, 43, 49, 65, 61, 67, 73, 79, 85, 91, 97, 103, 109, 115, 121, 127, 133, 139, 145, 161, 157, 163, 169, 176, 181, 187, 193; Count )O0<l (Sexual Battery), ¶199.) in each of her 'Wherefore" clauses, Plaintiff seeks "compensatory damlages 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, 2262A, 2260, 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 st)it, including a reasonable attorney's fee. My minor as described In the preceding sentence shall be deemed to have sustained damages of no less than $50,000 in value. (Emphasis added.] EFTA01070563 Case 9:OP:9y-801197KM pocument 207-4 Entered on FLSD Pocket 07/20/2009 Pag.e.5 Case 9:08-cv-8.0811-KAM Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009. Page 5 of 18 C.M.A. v. Epstein, et el. 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, EFTA01070564 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 6 of 46 Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009, Page 6 of 18 C.M.A, v. Epstein, et al. Page 6 telephone communication Plaintiff's 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 counselerltherapist 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 Arqumont 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 — EFTA01070565 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207.4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/2_0/2009_ Page 7 of 46 Case 9:08-cv-50811-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), d 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 (li) if the evidence is intended solely to contradict or rebut evidence en the same subject matter identified by another party under Rule 26(a)(2XB), within 30 days after the other party's disclosure. * • Y (e) Supplementing Disclosures and Responses. (1) In General. A party who has made a disclosure under Rule 26(a)7or 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 EFTA01070566 9:08-9.V.-11(8197K AM Document 20774 . griterPd Qn FL$PDQQ1set.01129/2909 _P.ageli_ofA6 Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/09/2009" Page 8 of 18 C.M.A. v. Epstein, et el. Page 8 information has not otherwise been made known to the other parties ,during the . Isiallntti y UlAI I of n wane, (B) as ordered by the court (2) Expert VVilness, For an expert whose report must be disclosed under Rule 26(a)(2)03), 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 possesijon 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 fo 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 incidents) which is the subject matter of this lawsuit. Response: None in our possession. Discovery Is ongoing. Legal Argument Supporting Entitlement hxDiscovery 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. EFTA01070567 Case 9:08-cv-80119: KAM Document 207_4_.. cnterect.on ELSDiaocket_0740(2009 Page 9 of 46 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 2. List the names, business addresses, telephone and cell phone numbers, dates of employment, immediate supervisor (name and address) and rates of pay regarding all 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. 1996 - 2009. Answer: Objection. Irrelevant, Immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. Legal Argument Supporting Entitlement to Discovery Such Information is clearly relevant to the damages and Injuries claimed by Plaintiff in this action. Plaintiff's complaint alleges in part that bbebinning 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" 1'r Am. Complaint, ¶13. (See discussion of Production Request no. 1 above herein). Such Information Is both relevant and reasonably calculated to bad 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 26(b)(1), Fed.R.C1v.P.; Donahay v. Palm Beach Tours & trans., Inc., 242 F.R.D. 685 (S.D. Ha. 2007). Discoverabillty of such information is governed by Rule 26, Fed.R.Clv.P., pursubnt to which the scope of discovery is broad. Donahaj, 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. EFTA01070568 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document ?07-4 Entered on FLSD„Docket_07/?0.,/2009-,. Page,,1O of 46.. Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 10 of 18 C.M.A. v. Epstein, et el. Page 10 Plaintiffs 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 eirldence 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 — Civil Remedies for Personal injuries; Count XXXI is entitled "Sexual Battery," and Count XXXII, is entitled "Conspiracy to Commit Tortious Assault only against Defendant,e." 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. le 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 r i 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 ahguish, 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 EFTA01070569 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 11 of 46 Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 11 of 18 C.ioi.A. 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 ana the Plaintiff, G.M.A., wilt continue to suffer these losses in the future. (151 Am. Complaint, Counts I - XXX (18 U.S.C. §2255), 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, Plaintiff's 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 typo 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 EFTA01070570 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 97/2QaNa...._Eage..12..91.46 Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 12 of 18 C.M.A. 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 ago 10 (by year) up through your current ago. 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.Clv.P.; Donahay v. Palm Beath 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, Fod.R.Civ.P., pursuant to which the scope of discovery Is broad. Donahav, supra, at 666, 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 EFTA01070571 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-4 Entered oriFL§D pocket.97120/?909 Case 9:08-cv-80811-RAM 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 othor 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(e) 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 XXXII is "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 1D1 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 EFTA01070572 ....caW92.0..Q7PL-101:19-KAM Document 207-4 .Entered on FLSO D.ocket 07/2012.00a Page.14.of 46 • Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 14 of 18 CALA. v. Epstein, et al. Page 14 privacy and other damages ... . The then minor Plaintiff Incurred medical and psychological expenses ... arid wilt in the future sulfur odditionaknedi,.al 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. (18t 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 kW (Sexual Battery), ¶199.) In each of her 'Wherefore" clauses, Plaintiff seeks "compensator/ 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 Defendants 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 Defendant 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' Am. Complaint 1113). Tho Information sought is clearly relevant to the injuries and damages claimed by Plaintiff. The nature of her claimed Injuries and damages are such that DOfendant is EFTA01070573