EFTA00175589

Case 9:08-cv-8, 
9-KAM 
Documi..... 42 
Entered . FLSD Docket 
2008 
Page 6 of 8 
Dated: September 22, 2008 
Respectfully submitted, 
By: 
s/ Jeffrey M. Herman 
Jeffre M. Berman FL Bar No. 521647) 
Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245) 
Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980) 
11ERMAN & MERMELSTEIN, P.A. 
Attorneys for Plaintiff 
18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 
Miami, Florida 33160 
Tel: 
Fax: 
- 6 - 
EFTA00175649

Case 9:08-cv-L .19-KAM 
Docuri. 142 
Enterer .1 FLSD Docket 09,.. i2008 
Page 7 of 8 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
I hereby certify that on September 22, 2008, I electronically filed the foregoing document 
with the Clerk of the Court using CM/E.CF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being 
served this day to all parties on the attached Service List in the manner specified, either via 
transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized 
manner for those parties who are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic 
Filing. 
/s/ Jeffrey M. Herman 
- 7 - 
EFTA00175650

Case 9:08-cy-b. . I 9-KAM 
Docunrit....i 42 
Entered 
FLSD Docket 09/.-,2008 
Page 8 of 8 
SERVICE LIST 
DOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN 
CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/JOHNSON 
United States District Court, Southern District of Florida 
Jack Alan Cioldbcr er Esq. 
Michael R. Tein Esq. 
Robert D. Critton
Michael 
Es 
E . 
/s/ Jeffrey M. Herman 
- 8 - 
EFTA00175651

Case 9:08-1. )119-KAM 
Docur.....it 41 
Enters_ on FLSD Docket 09,_2/2008 
Page 1 of 4 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON 
JANE DOE NO. 2, 
Plaintiff, 
VS. 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 
Defendant. 
PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM IN RESPONSE 
TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS 
Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 2, ("Jane" or "Jane Doe"), by and through her undersigned counsel, 
files this Memorandum in Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, and states as follows: 
1. 
Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein is alleged to have sexually abused Jane Doe when she was 
a minor. The Complaint is in two Counts: Count I is labeled "Sexual Assault", and alleges an 
intentional tort based on the actions of Jeffrey Epstein; Count II alleges the tort of intentional 
infliction of emotional distress based on the same factual allegations. Defendant Epstein has moved 
to dismiss only Count I of the Complaint, contending that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim. 
Simultaneously herewith, Plaintiff intends to file an Amended Complaint which substantially revises 
Count I and moots the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.' 
2. 
In any event, the Complaint sufficiently alleged a claim for sexual assault and battery. 
I 
mended Complaint also adds as Count III a federal claim against Defendant Epstein under 18 
§§2422 and 2255. Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a), a party may amend the pleading once as a 
matter of course before being served with a "responsive pleading". Defendant has not to date filed a 
"responsive pleading" in this case within the meaning of Fed.R.Civ.P. 7(a). It is established in the 
courts of the Eleventh Circuit that a motion to dismiss is not a "responsive pleading" and does not 
affect a plaintiff's right to amend the pleading once as a matter of course. Williams'. Board of 
Regents, 477 F.3d 1282, 1291 (11th Cir. 2007). 
HERMAN & MERMELSTEIN, P. A. 
- 1 - 
EFTA00175652

Case 9:08-cv 
,119-KAM 
Doom 
41 
Entere. Jr' FLSD Docket 0(o. .z/2008 
Page 2 of 4 
The gravamen of the claims in Count I is set forth in paragraph 16 of the Complaint: "Epstein 
tortiously assaulted Jane Doe sexually. Epstein's acts were intentional, unlawful, offensive and 
harmful." 
3. 
Count I does not purport to be brought under the criminal statutes.2 Whether a 
Complaint states a claim for relief is not based on labels or conclusions; rather it is determined by 
the factual allegations, which "must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." 
Bell Atlantic Com. 1 Twombley, 127 5. Ct. 1955, 1965 (2007). Here, the factual allegations 
establish an intentional tort claim for sexual assault and battery.3 See Paul I Holbrook, 696 So.2d 
1311 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) ("[a] battery consists of the infliction of a harmful or offensive contact 
upon another with the intent to cause such contact or the apprehension that such contact is 
imminent"); Scelta I Delicatessen Support Services. Inc., 57 F.Supp. 2d 1327, 1358-59 (M.D. Fla. 
1999) (allegation that defendant attempted to put his hands down plaintiff's dress, and that there was 
an actual and intentional touching, sufficient to state a claim for battery); Hogan I Tavzel, 660 
So.2d 350 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (tortfeasor may be liable for battery for infecting another with a 
sexually transmitted disease); see also Restatement (Second) of Torts Assault, § 21 (1965) (stating 
that an assault occurs when a person "acts intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the 
person of the other, or an imminent apprehension of such contact, and the other is thereby put in 
such imminent apprehension"). 
2Chapter 800 of the Florida Statutes is mentioned in the Complaint (118) because conduct against a 
person in violation of the criminal laws of the State generally give rise to a civil claim for intentional 
tort. Count I does not purport to bring a separate civil claim for violation of a strictly criminal 
statute. 
Assault and battery are fjosely related common law intentional torts that are commonly alleged 
together. See Herzfeld I. Herzfeld 781 So.2d 1070 (Fla.2001) (noting that plaintgf alleged 
intentional tort of "assault and battery" based on allegations of sexual abuse). Sullivan I Atlantic 
Federal Savings & Loan 454 So.2d 52 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984) (holding that a cause of action for 
assault and battery cannot be based entirely on an omission). 
HERMAN & MERMELSTEIN. P. A. 
-2-
EFTA00175653

Case 9:08+. ,119-KAM 
Docui....it 41 
Enterer. 
FLSD Docket 06. .z12008 
Page 3 of 4 
4. 
Epstein's conduct as alleged in this case of masterbating during the massage, 
directing the Plaintiff to remove her clothes, and touching the Plaintiff, constitutes the intentional 
tort of assault and battery. Accordingly, even if the Complaint had not been amended, it sufficiently 
alleges facts establishing an assault and battery. 
Based on the foregoing, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is moot, and, in any event, not well 
founded, and therefore should be denied. 
Dated: September 22, 2008. 
Respectfully submitted, 
By: 
s/ Jeffrey M. Herman 
Jeffre M. Herman FL Bar No. 521647) 
Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245) 
Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980) 
HERMAN & MERMELSTEIN, P.A. 
Attorneys for Plainafty Jane Doe 
18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 
Miami. Florida 33160 
Tel: 
Fax: 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
I hereby certify that on September 22, 2008, I electronically filed the foregoing document 
with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being 
served this day to all parties on the attached Service List in the manner specified, either via 
transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized 
manner for those parties who are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic 
Filing. 
HERMAN & MERMELSTEIN. P. A. 
/s/ Jeffrey M. Herman 
- 3 - 
EFTA00175654

Case 9:08-cv 
,119-KAM 
Docur,. .it 41 
Enters in FLSD Docket OS. _/2008 
Page 4 of 4 
SERVICE LIST 
DOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN 
CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON 
United States District Court, Southern District of Florida 
Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. 
Michael R. Tein, Esq. 
Robert D. Critton, Es . 
Michael Pike, Es . 
/s/ Jeffrey M. Herman 
HERMAN & MERMELSTEIN. P. A. 
- 4 - 
EFTA00175655

Case 9:08-cv-L .19-KAM 
Docun. .c 40 
Enteret. -n FLSD Docket 09,.. ,12008 
Page 1 of 8 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
CASE NO.: 08-80119-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON 
JANE DOE NO. 2, 
Plaintiff, 
vs. 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN 
Defendant. 
MOTION TO DISMISS 
Defendant Jeffrey Epstein, pursuant to Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of 
Civil Procedure and Rule 7.1(A) of the Local Rules for the Southern District of 
Florida, moves to dismiss Count I of plaintiffs complaint,' and states as follows: 
' The time to answer the remaining allegations 2f the complaint is tolled pending the Court's 
ruling on the present motion. See Beaulieu 
Bd. of Trustees of Univ. of W. Fla., No. 
3:07cv30/RWEMT, 2007 WL 2020161, * 2 (N.D. Fla. July 9, 2007) (holding that defendant's 
partial motion to dismiss "automatically exteills its time to answer . . . until after the court has 
ruled on [its] motion to dismiss"); Finnegan I Univ. of Rochester Med. Ctr., 180 F.R.D. 247, 
249 (W.D.N.Y. 1998) (concluding "that the filing of a motion that only addresses part of a 
complaint suspends the time to reipond to the entire complaint, not just to the claims that are the 
subject of the motion"); Schwartz 
Berry College, Inc., No. Civ.A. 4:96CV338-HLM, 1997 WL 
579166, *1 (ND. Oa. July 3, 1997) (noting that there is significant case law to support the 
position that "when a defendant files a Rule 12(b) motion to dismiss, addressing only some of 
the claims contained in the plaintiff's complaint, the defendant is not required to file an answer 
until the court rules on the motion to dismiss"). 
EFTA00175656

Case 9 08-cv-t, ,19-KAM 
Docurn,..i 40 
Enterei. 
FLSD Docket 09k, ./2008 
Page 2 of 8 
CASE NO.: 08-80119-CIV-MARRAJJOHNSON 
ALLEGATIONS IN PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT 
This action arises out of the alleged assault of the plaintiff. According to the 
allegations in her complaint, the plaintiff went to Mr. Epstein's house to give him 
"a massage for monetary compensation" (Compl. ¶ 12), where Mr. Epstein 
allegedly assaulted her "in violation of Chapter 800 of the Florida Statutes." 
(Compl. ¶ 18). 
The plaintiff tries to assert a claim for sexual assault (Compl. ¶¶ 15-19.) 
This theory of liability, however, cannot be supported by the allegations in the 
complaint. In fact, even if everything in the complaint were true, recovery against 
Jeffrey Epstein, for Count I, under any formulation, is impossible under Florida 
law. Accordingly, this count must be dismissed. 
ARGUMENT 
A motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(6)(6) should be granted when a 
court cannot identify "each of the material elements necessary to sustain a 
recovery under some viable legal theory." Snow'. DirectTV, Inc., 450 F.3d 1314, 
1320 (11th Cir. 2006) (quoting Roe'. Aware Woman Ctr. For Choice, Inc., 253 
F.3d 678, 684 (11th Cir. 2001)). Moreover, a court should dismiss a complaint 
"when, on the basis of a dispositive issue of law, no construction of the factual 
allegations will support a cause of action." Marshall County Bd. of Educ. 
Marshal County Gas Dist, 992 F.2d 1171, 1174 (11th Cir. 1993). "[TI survive a 
2 
EFTA00175657

Case 9:08-cv-b,. . 19-KAM 
Docurrk..., 40 
Entereo 
FLSD Docket 09/L .,2008 
Page 3 of 8 
CASE NO.: 08-80119-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON 
motion to dismiss, plaintiffs must do more than merely state legal conclusions; 
they are required to allege some specific factual bases for those conclusions . . . ." 
Grist, No. 06-14617, 2007 WL 1156938, *2 (11th Cir. Apr. 19, 2007). As 
such, "conclusory allegations, unwarranted deductions of facts or legal conclusions 
masquerading as facts will not prevent dismissal." Snow, 450 F.3d at 1320. 
1. 
Count I Fails to State a Cause of Action For Assault Recognized by 
Florida Law. 
The plaintiff attempts to plead a cause of action against Mr. Epstein for 
"sexual assault" based on a "violation of Chapter 800 of the Florida Statutes"2 for 
the "lewd and lascivious acts committed by Epstein upon Jane Doe." (Compl. 
18.) Plaintiff cannot assert a cause of action for "violation of Chapter 800, Florida 
Statutes" because there is no private right of action under that Chapter. See 
generally Am. Home Assurance Co... Plaza Materials Corp., 908 So. 2d 360, 374 
(Fla. 2005) (observing that "not every statutory violation carries a civil remedy" 
(citing Villazonl. Prudential Health Care Plan, Inc., 843 So. 2d 842, 852 (Fla. 
2003)). See also, e.g., Miami Herald Publ'g Co. 1. Ferre, 636 F. Supp. 970 (S.D. 
Fla. 1985) (King, 
(holding that violation of Florida's criminal extortion 
statute does not give rise to a civil cause of action for damages). 
2 Chapter 800, Florida Statutes, is entitled, "Lewdness; Indecent Exposure." 
3 
EFTA00175658

Case 9:08-cv-b,.. .19-KAM 
Documt....140 
Entereo 
FLSD Docket 091u ..2008 
Page 4 of 8 
CASE NO.: 08-80119-CIV-MARRAJJOI-INSON 
Where a plaintiff brings a civil action pursuant to a criminal statute that 
provides no civil remedy, her complaint is properly dismissed for failure to state a 
cause of action. See Mantoothl. Richards, 557 So. 2d 646, 646 (Fla. 4th DCA 
1990) (per curiam) (affirming dismissal of plaintiff's claim for parental kidnapping 
where "the mentioned statutes concern only criminal violations and do not afford 
a civil remedy") (citation omitted) (emphasis added). 
Even if Chapter 800 provided a civil remedy (which it does not) the statute 
does not apply to the plaintiff. The statute prohibits sexual activity with or lewd or 
lascivious offenses against "a person 
. less than 16 years of age." § 800.04, Fla. 
Stat. (2008) (emphasis added). 
By her own admission, the plaintiff was 
"approximately 16 years old." (Compl. ¶ 8.) (emphasis added). Plainly, the 
plaintiff falls outside of the scope of the statute's protection. Accordingly, the 
plaintiff's claim for sexual assault against Mr. Epstein, pursuant to a violation of 
Chapter 800, Florida Statutes, must be dismissed. 
Should the Court look beyond the plain language of the plaintiff's complaint 
and construe Count I as a claim for common-law assault, that claim would also 
fail. As the court explained in Lay' Kremer, 411 So. 2d 1347, 1349 (Ha. 1st 
DCA 1982), an assault is "an intentional, unlawful offer of corporal injury to 
another by force, or force unlawfully directed toward another under such 
circumstances as to create a fear of imminent peril, coupled with the apparent 
4 
EFTA00175659

Case 9:08-cv-t, .19-KAM 
Docum. .40 
Enterec. 
FLSD Docket 09k .,2008 
Page 5 of 8 
CASE NO.: 08-80119-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON 
present ability to effectuate the attempt." An assault thus requires "an affirmative 
act—a threat to use force, or the actual exertion of force." Sullivan'. All. Fed. 
Say. & Loan Assoc., 454 So. 2d 52, 54 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984) (affirming dismissal of 
assault claim where there was no affirmative act). 
In this case, there is no such affirmative act. The only thing that Mr. Epstein 
is alleged to have said to the plaintiff is "to take off her clothes" and "to give him a 
massage." (Compl. ¶ 12.) These allegations fall far short of an "offer of corporal 
injury by force." There are no allegations that Jane Doe was placed in any fear of 
imminent peril. See Gatto'. Publix Supermarket, Inc., 387 So. 2d 377, 379 (Fla. 
3d DCA 1980) (holding that where there was no evidence to show that Gatto was 
placed in fear of imminent peril, there was no assault). In fact, the plaintiff does 
not even allege that Mr. Epstein touched her. Thus, there was no assault. 
Accordingly, because the plaintiff has failed to plead a cause of action for 
assault recognized in Florida, Count I against Mr. Epstein must be dismissed. 
Conclusion 
For the reasons set forth herein, Defendant Jeffrey Epstein respectfully 
requests that Count I of the plaintiff's complaint be dismissed. 
5 
EFTA00175660

Case 9:08-cv-b. 19-KAM 
Documt. . 40 
Entered 
FLSD Docket o911..2008 
Page 6 of 8 
CASE NO.: 08-80119-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON 
Respectfully submitted, 
LEWIS TE1N, P.L. 
3059 Grand Avenue, Suite 340 
Coconut Grove. Florida 33133 
Tel: 
Fax: 
By: /s/ Michael R. Tein 
GUY A. LEWIS 
Fla. Bar No. 623740 
lewis@lewistein.com 
MICHAEL R. TEN 
Fla. Bar No. 993522 
ATTERBURY, GOLDBERGER & 
WEISS, P.A. 
250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400 
West Palm Beach. Florida 33401 
Tel. 
Fax. 
By: Jack A. Goldberger 
Fla. Bar No. 262013 
BURMA/4, CRITTON, LUTTIER & 
COLEMAN, LLP 
515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 
West Palm Beach. Florida 33401 
Tel. 
Fax. 
6 
EFTA00175661

Case 9:08-cv-8u . '9-KAM 
Docume. . 40 
Entered. . FLSD Docket 09/C _008 
Page 7 of 8 
CASE NO.: 08-80119-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON 
By: 
Robert D. Critton, Esq. 
Fla. Bar No. 224162 
Michael J. Pike, Esq. 
Fla. Bar No. 617296 
Attorneys for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein 
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL RULE 7.1 
Undersigned counsel has conferred in good faith with counsel for the 
plaintiff, who opposes the relief requested in this motion. 
/s/ Michael R. Tein 
Michael R. Tein 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on September 4, 2008, I electronically filed the 
foregoing document with the Clerk of Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the 
foregoing document is being served this day on all individuals on the following 
service list via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF. 
/s/ Michael It Tein 
Michael IL Tein 
7 
EFTA00175662

Case 9:08-cv-8U i9-KAM 
Docume... 40 
Entered 
FLSD Docket 09/0•.._008 
Page 8 of 8 
CASE NO.: 08-80119-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON 
Service List 
Jeffrey M. Herman, Esq. 
Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. 
Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. 
Herman & Mermelstein, P.A. 
18205 Biscayne Blvd, Suite 2218 
Miami, Florida 33160 
Fax: 
8 
EFTA00175663

Case 9:081, J119-KAM 
Docum.. .. 34 
Enter.. Jr) F LSD Docket 08i. .2008 
Page 1 of 2 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
NO. 08-80119-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON 
JANE DOE NO. 2, 
Plaintiff, 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 
Defendant. 
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEAL 
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to File 
Under Seal, filed July 28, 2008. Defendant seeks to file his reply to his Motion to Stay under 
seal.' The Court has carefully considered the motion and the record and is otherwise fully 
advised in the premises. 
As the Court has previously explained to the parties, the Local Rules for the Southern 
District of Florida state that "proceedings in the United States District Court are public and Court 
filings arc matters of public record." S.D. Fla. L.R. 5.4(A). It is well settled that the media and 
the public in general possess a common-law right to inspect and copy judicial records. See Nixon 
I. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). "The right to inspect and copy 
records is not absolute, however. As with other forms of access, it may interfere with the 
administration of justice and hence may have to be curtailed."Mil I. Graddick, 696 F.2d 
'The parties are reminded that all documents filed conventionally (including those filed 
under seal) must be filed with the Clerk's Office in West Palm Beach, Florida. 
EFTA00175664

Case 9:08-D, 
J119-KAM 
Docurn. a 34 
Entert.... on FLSD Docket 08r,,.,i2008 
Page 2 of 2 
796, 803 (11th Cir.1983). This right of access creates a presumption in favor of openness of court 
records, which "must be balanced against any competing interest advanced." United States 
Noriega, 752 F. Supp. 1037, 1040 (S.D. Fla.1990). For example, courts may look to see whether 
the records sought are for illegitimate purposes. Ma 
696 F.2d at 803. Likewise, the Court 
may consider whether "the press has already been permitted substantial access to the contents of 
the records." Id. 
In his motion to seal, Defendant states that he seeks to file this document under seal "to 
comply with the confidentiality clause" in the agreement between Defendant and the U.S. 
Attorney cited in his brief. (Def. Mot. 2.) The Court is familiar with the U.S. Attorney's 
objections to unsealing any part of the agreement, see In re: Jane Doe, No. 08-80736-CIV (S.D. 
Fla. July 11, 2008). However, as the Court has previously held, the U.S. Attorney's objections 
do not outweigh the public interest in having access to court records. Further, the details of the 
agreement contained in Defendant's Reply brief have, in large part, already been unsealed and 
released to the public. The Court finds no justification to keep these documents under seal. 
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant's Motion to File 
Under Seal is DENIED. The Clerk shall UNSEAL docket entries 29 and 30 and make them 
available for public inspection through CM/ECF at the earliest possible time. 
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, 
Florida, this 4th day of August, 2008. 
KENNET!! A. MARRA 
United States District Judge 
Copies furnished to: all counsel of record 
2 
EFTA00175665

Case 9:08-cv-8u I19-KAM 
Document 38 
Enterea on FLSD Docket 08i It/2008 
Page 1 of 13 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
JANE DOE NO. 2, 
vs. 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN. 
/ 
JANE DOE NO. 3, 
vs. 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN. 
JANE DOE NO. 4, 
vs. 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN. 
JANE DOE NO. 5, 
vs. 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN. 
CASE NO.: 08-80119-CIV-KAM-L 
JUL 2 8 2008 
- 0 C. 
t_
 
STEVEN M. 
RI 
CLERKoFF   a 
us. eA" CTE 
AMJ 
CASE NO.: 08-80232-CIV-K
"------- 
CASE NO.: 08-80380-CIV-KAM-LRJ 
CASE NO.: 08-80381-CIV-KAM-LRJ 
FILED UNDER SEAL.
EPSTEIN'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STAY 
This motion is filed under seal because the deferred-prosecution agreement between the United States Attorney's 
Office and Mr. Epstein. discussed herein, contains a confidentiality clause. 
A motion to seal has been filed 
contemporaneously. 
so/5 
EFTA00175666

Case 9:08-cv-8u'19-KAM 
Documw it 38 
Enterea vtl FLSD Docket 08/ I e./2008 
Page 2 of 13 
The Pending Federal Criminal Action 
In 2006, a Florida state grand jury indicted Jeffrey Epstein on allegations similar to those in 
the instant actions (State of Florida I  Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 2006 CF 09454, Fifteenth Judicial 
Circuit, Palm Beach County) (the "Florida Criminal Actiont Shortly thereafter, the United States 
Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (the "USAO") began a federal grand-jury 
investigation into allegations arising out of the same incidents alleged in the instant actions (Grand 
Jury No. 07-103 (WPB)2 United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida) (the 
"Federal Criminal Action"). 
In September 2007, the USAO and Mr. Epstein entered into a highly unusual and 
unprecedented deferred-prosecution agreement (the "Agreement"), in which the USAO agreed to 
defer (not dismiss or close) the Federal Criminal Action on the condition that Mr. Epstein continue 
to comply with numerous obligations, the first of which was pleading guilty to certain state charges 
in the Florida Criminal Action. The Agreement itself uses the term "deferred" (rather than 
"dismissed" or "closed") to describe the status of the Federal Criminal Action: 
THEREFORE, on the authority of R. Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney for the 
Southern District of Florida, prosecution in this District for these offenses shall be 
deferred in favor of prosecution by the State of Florida, provided that Epstein abides by 
the following conditions and the requirements of this Agreement . .. . 
Agreement, at 2. 
By no stretch did the USAO finalize, close, complete, dismiss or abandon the Federal 
Criminal Action. Indeed, as the lead federal prosecutor recently explained, the USAO merely 
I Since the filing of the motion to stay, Mr. Epstein has pled guilty and been sentenced in the Florida Criminal Action. 
See Notice Concerning Motion to Stay (7/1/08). Accordingly, the Florida Criminal Action is no longer a basis for this 
stay. Epstein relies exclusively on the pending Federal Criminal Action for this motion and therefore here provides 
additional background information relating to that action. 
2 At the USAO's request, we wish to clarify a minor issue regarding the form of' a citation in Epstein's initial 
memorandum supporting his motion to stay. That memorandum cites to the Federal Criminal Action as "hvi Grand 
Jury No. 07.103 (WPB)," rather than citing it simply as "Grand Jury No. 107.103 (WPB)." See Motion to Stay, at 2 
(6/20/08). Technically, a citation to "In re Grand Jury No. 07-103 (WPB)" could be interpreted as referring to 
litigation arising from Epstein's motion to quash a subpoena previously issued by "Grand Jury No. 07-103 (WPB)," 
which subpoena, according to the terms of the deferred-prosecution agreement between Epstein and the USA() 
described Infra at 1.3, the USAO is presently holding in abeyance. Accordingly, we hereby clarify that our citation on 
Page 2 of our motion to stay denoted the grand-jury investigation itself, not litigation arising from that grand jury 
investigation. 
EFTA00175667

• 
Case 9:08-cv-bvi19-KAM 
Docurntot 38 
Enterea un FLSD Docket 08/ .42008 
Page 3 of 13 
"agreed to defer federal prosecution in favor of prosecution by the State of Florida . . . ." See In 
re. Jane Doe, Case No. 08-80736-C1V-Marra/Johnson (S.D. Fla.) (DE 14), Decl. of AUSA 
, 07/09/08,1 5, attached hereto as Exhibit "A" (emphasis added). Under the Agreement, 
the USAO presently retains the continuing right to indict Mr. Epstein - - or to unseal "any" 
already-existing federal "charges" that may already have been handed up by the federal grand jury 
and sealed - - should he breach any of its provisions. Agreement, at 2. 
The period of the deferral continues until three months after Mr. Epstein completes service 
of his sentence in the Florida Criminal Action. Id. Indeed, the final three months of the 
Agreement's term constitute an extended period during which the USAO expressly retains the 
ability to evaluate whether Epstein committed any breaches of his numerous obligations under the 
Agreement while he was serving his state sentence, and, if it so determines, reserves the right to 
indict (or unseal an existing indictment against) Mr. Epstein - - even after he has completed 
serving his entire state sentence. 
The Agreement further provides that upon Epstein's execution of a plea agreement in the 
State Criminal Case, the Federal Criminal Action "will be suspended" and all pending grand-jury 
subpoenas "will be held in abeyance unless and until the defendant violates any term of this 
agreement." Agreement, at 5 (emphasis added). The Agreement directs the USAO and Epstein to 
-maintain their evidence, specifically evidence requested by or directly related to the grand jury 
subpoenas that have been issued," and to maintain such evidence "inviolate." Id. (emphasis 
added). It also expressly provides that the grand-jury subpoenas continue to remain "outstanding" 
until "the successful completion of the terms of this agreement." Id. (emphasis added). 
Finally, the Agreement provides that the USAO's declination of prosecution for certain 
enumerated offenses and dismissal of any existing (sealed) charges will not occur until 90 days 
following the completion of his state sentence: 
If the United States Attorney should determine, based on reliable evidence, that, 
during the period of the Agreement, Epstein willfully violated any of the conditions 
of this Agreement, then the United States Attorney may, within ninety (90) days 
following the expiration of the term of home confinement discussed below, provide 
Epstein with timely notice specifying the condition(s) of the Agreement that he has 
2 
EFTA00175668