Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 183 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/14/2013 Page 1 of 5
Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson
JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2
v.
UNITED STATES
JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF
COME NOW Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 (also referred to as "the victims"), by and
through undersigned counsel, to file this motion to compel production of court-ordered discovery
and for a prompt ruling on this motion.
As the Court is aware, the victims filed this case alleging Government violations of the
CVRA in July 2008. Through more than four-and-a-half years of litigation, however, the
Government has refused to reach a stipulated set of facts regarding how it treated the victims.
Accordingly, nearly two years ago, on March 21, 2011 the victims filed a motion to have their
detailed recitation of the facts accepted because of the Government's failure to contest their facts
(DE 49). On September 26, 2011, the Court denied that motion on the ground that the victims
would instead be allowed some discovery to develop a factual record (DE 99 at 11). The court
specifically ruled that it would "permit [the victims] the opportunity to conduct limited
discovery in the form of document requests and requests for admissions from the U.S. Attorney's
Office.:" Id.
1
EFTA01081791
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 183 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/14/2013 Page 2 of 5
As specifically authorized in the Court's order, the victims then sent limited discovery
requests to the Government. On November 8, 2011, the same day that the production of
discovery was due, rather than produce a single item of discovery or stipulate to a single fact, the
Government filed a motion to dismiss the victims' case.
The Government also filed an
accompanying motion for a stay in this case. I
On December 5, 2011, the victims filed a response to Government's motion to stay. The
victims strenuously objected to the Government's approach, alleging specifically that "delay
appears to be the Government's motivation for filing the motion to dismiss." DE 129 at 2. The
victims went on to recount the fact that the Government had waited three years to file a motion to
dismiss, concluding that "as a practical matter, the Government's motion has had the desired
effect of delay: While its motion remains pending, the victims have been effectively denied any
ability to obtain discovery from the Government." DE 129 at 2-3.
A year and a day later, on December 6, 2012, the victims filed a Motion for a Prompt
Ruling Denying the Government's Motion for a Stay (DE 179). The motion explained that it had
been more than a year since the Government had filed its motion for a stay and that the
Government's refusal to produce any information continues to effectively block the victims from
learning what happened during the Government's plea negotiations with the man who sexually
abused them. The Government filed a response in opposition to that motion (DE 182).
I In an effort to keep the public for learning what it was doing, the Government asked that
all of these motions be placed under seal. The victims can see no basis for sealing virtually all of
the Government's pleadings. The victims' responses to the Government's sealed pleadings have
been left in the public Court file. In an effort to make the proceedings in this case more
accessible to the public, on February 7, 2012, the victims filed a motion requesting an order from
the Court directing the Government to file redacted pleadings in the public court file (DE 150).
That motion remains pending.
2
EFTA01081792
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 183 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/14/2013 Page 3 of 5
On February 25, 2013, counsel for the victims sent a request to the Government that, in
view of that fact that its requested stay had never been granted, it should begin fulfilling its
court-ordered discovery obligations:
The victims believe that in view of fact that it has been more than fifteen
months since the Government filed its motion for a stay of discovery and yet the
Court has not granted that motion, the Court's discovery order is in effect and
controlling. Accordingly, the victims respectfully request that by March 8, 2013,
the Government produce all of the materials which is covered by the victims'
discovery requests. If the Government has not produced those materials by
March 8, 2013, the victims may be forced to seek the intervention of the Court to
order the Government to follow its obligations.
If you would like to discuss this further, please feel free to set up a time
where we can talk to you over the phone about all this. We are happy to work
with you to try and minimize any unnecessary burden from your discovery
obligations.
E-mail from Paul G. Cassell & Bradley J. Edwards to Dexter Lee, et al., Counsel for the
Government (February 25, 2013).
The Government ignored the e-mail and did not respond in any way.
Accordingly, in view of the Government's recalcitrance and refusal to even discuss its
discovery obligations, the victims must resort to the Court to direct the Government to comply
with the discovery obligations that it ordered in September 2011 — approximately one-and-a-half
years ago. Despite the Court's clear order that the Government would have to respond to
discovery requests from the victims, the Government has yet to produce even a single item of
discovery. This delay makes it impossible for the victims to proceed with their case. It is also
possible that evidence subject to the victims' discovery requests is being lost, destroyed, or
otherwise dissipated. Regardless, there is no reason to allow the Government to continue to
ignore court-ordered discovery obligations indefinitely. Since the Government waited until the
3
EFTA01081793
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 183 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/14/2013 Page 4 of 5
last minute to file its Motion to Dismiss instead of properly fulfilling its obligations to respond to
discovery, the Government presumably acted in good-faith and already gathered all of the
documents requested and prepared responses in preparation of complying with the Court's
Order. Therefore, the responses should take no additional time to prepare and provide to the
victims. Accordingly, the victims request that the Court order the Government to produce the
requested discovery. An order to that effect is attached to this motion.
The victims respectfully request that the Court rule on this motion quickly so that they
can receive the rights that Congress promised them in the Crime Victims' Rights Act. In the
CVRA, Congress directed that crime victims have "[t]he right to proceedings free from
unreasonable delay" and the courts must "take up and decide any motion asserting a victim's
right forthwith." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(7) & (d)(3) (emphasis added). The victims respectfully
suggest that the Government's stall tactics are improperly interfering with those rights. The
Court should reject those tactics and allow discovery to proceed.
Accordingly, for all these reasons, the Court should promptly enter an order directing the
Government to produce the discovery requested by the victims.
DATED: March 14 2013
Respectfully Submitted,
s/ Bradley J. Edwards
Bradley J. Edwards
4
EFTA01081794
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 183 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/14/2013 Page 5 of 5
and
Paul G. Cassell
Pro Hac Vice
S.J. Quinney College of Law at the
ni_v_ersity of Utah
Attorneys for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2
The foregoing document was served on March 14, 2013, on the following using the Court's
CM/ECF system:
Dexter Lee
A. Marie Villafafia
Assistant U.S. Attorneys
Attorneys for the Government
Joseph L. Ackerman, Jr.
Fowler White Burnett PA
Criminal Defense Counsel for Jeffrey Epstein
(courtesy copy of pleading via U.S. mail)
5
EFTA01081795