EFTA00185206

Case 9:08-cv 80119-KAM 
Document 180 
Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 
Page 6 of 51 
6 
1 
yourself to a claim for a breach by the United States of the 
2 non-prosecution agreement? 
3 
MR. CRITTON: Robert Critton. 
4 
Your Honor, our position on this case is, I'd say is 
5 somewhat different. When this issue originally came before the 
6 Court, as you are aware prior to my firm's involvement in the 
7 case, there was a motion filed on behalf of Mr. Epstein seeking 
8 a stay. And I think it was in Jane Doe 102 and then 
9 subsequently Jane Doe 2 through 5 because all of those cases 
10 were filed on or about the same time. 
11 
And at that time the Court looked at the issue and it 
12 was based upon a statutory provision at that time. And the 
13 Court said I don't find that it's applicable, or for whatever 
14 reason I think the Court said I don't consider that to be a 
15 pending proceeding or a proceeding at that particular time. 
16 
In that same order, which was in Jane Doe 2, I 
17 believe it's -- not I believe, I know it's docket entry 33, the 
18 Court also went on to talk about at that particular point in 
19 time dealt with the issue of the discretionary stay. 
20 
And the Court said at that time, I'm paraphrasing, but 
21 the Court also does not believe a discretionary stay is 
22 warranted. And what the Court went on to say is that if 
23 defendant does not breach the agreement, then he should have no 
24 concerns regarding his Fifth Amendment right against 
25 self-incrimination. 
TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION 
EFTA00185286

Case 9:08-cv 80119-KAM 
Document 180 
Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 
Page 7 of 51 
7 
1 
The fact that the U.S. Attorney or other law 
2 enforcement officials may object to some discovery in these 
3 civil cases is not in and of itself a reason to stay the civil 
4 litigation, so that any such issue shall be resolved as they 
5 arise in the course of the litigation. 
6 
And I would respectfully submit to the Court that the 
7 position that the Government has taken in its most recent 
8 filings changes the playing field dramatically. Because what 
9 the Government in essence has said as distinct from the U.S. 
10 saying is, well, we object to some discovery, or we may object 
11 to some discovery in the civil cases. 
12 
What they have, in essence, said is if you take some 
13 action, Mr. Epstein, that we believe unilaterally, and this is 
14 on pages 13 and 14 of their pleading or of their response memo 
15 to the Court's inquiry, they say if Mr. Epstein breaches the 
16 agreement. They said it's basically like a contract, and if 
17 one side breaches, the other side can sue. 
18 
In this instance what the Government will do is if we 
19 believe that Mr. Epstein has breached the agreement, we'll 
20 indict him. We will indict him. And his remedy under that 
21 circumstance, which is an incredible and catastrophic catch 22 
22 is, we'll indict him and then he can move to dismiss. That's a 
23 great option. 
24 
In this particular instance my mandate in defending --
25 and that's a dramatic change in the Government's position, 
TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION 
EFTA00185287

Case 9:08-cv 80119-KAM 
Document 180 
Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 
Page 8 of 51 
8 
1 because the Government is not saying, and the Court was pretty 
2 specific in what you asked the Government for in its response 
3 is, in essence, and it's the same question in a more limited 
4 fashion you're posing today is whether Mr. Epstein's defense of 
5 the civil action violates the NPA agreement, the 
6 non-prosecution agreement, between the U.S. and Mr. Epstein. 
7 
And the Government refuses to answer that question. 
8 They won't come out and say, yes, it will, or no, it won't. 
9 What they're doing is they want to sit on the sideline, and as 
10 their papers suggest is, they want us to lay in wait and that 
11 if, in fact, they believe he violates a provision of the NPA as 
12 it relates to the defense of this case or these multitude of 
13 cases, then they can come in and indict him -- no notice, no 
14 opportunity to cure. 
15 
We don't think that's what the NPA says, but that's 
16 certainly what their papers say. We'll indict him, no notice, 
17 no opportunity to cure. We will indict him, and his remedy 
18 under that circumstance is that he can move to dismiss the 
19 indictment. 
20 
Well, that's great except Mr. Epstein, his mandate to 
21 me and I know his mandate to his criminal lawyers, is: Make 
22 certain I don't do anything, in particular in these civil cases 
23 that would in any way suggest that I am in willful violation of 
24 the NPA. 
25 
Now, in the Court's prior ruling in the docket entry 
TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION 
EFTA00185288

Case 9:08-cv 80119-KAM 
Document 180 
Entered on FLSD Docket06/24/2009 
Page9of51 
1 33, certainly some aspects of the NPA are within Mr. Epstein's 
2 control. There's no question about that. But aspects that 
3 relate to the defense of these cases, either in terms of the 
4 civil lawyers who are defending these, I think there's 12 or 13 
5 pending cases in front of you, there's another four cases in 
6 the state court, is the risk is substantial, it's real, and it 
7 presents a chilling effect for the civil lawyers in moving 
8 forward to determine whether or not we're taking some action 
9 that in some way may be a violation of the NPA. 
10 
And the Government's, again, refusal or non-position 
11 with regard to past acts that have been taken in the civil case 
12 with regard to the defense or future acts that we may take with 
13 regard to these contested litigation casts an extraordinary 
14 cloud of doubt and uncertainty and fear that the defense of 
15 these cases could jeopardize Mr. Epstein and put him in the 
16 irreparable position of violating the NPA and then subsequently 
17 being indicted. 
18 
In this particular instance, again, Mr. Epstein has no 
19 intention of willfully violating the NPA, but it's of great 
20 concern to him. And I'd say with the position that the 
21 Government has taken, no notice, no cure period, no opportunity 
22 to discuss. Again, we think that's not what the NPA provides, 
23 it's not what the deal was between the two contracting parties, 
24 the United States and Mr. Epstein. But that's clearly what 
25 their papers say under the circumstances, and it would create 
TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION 
EFTA00185289

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 
Document 180 
Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 
Page 10 of 51 10
1 this irreparable harm to Mr. Epstein under the circumstances. 
2 
In essence, we're left with a catch 22 in defending 
3 the civil cases. We have a mandate to take no action, to take 
4 any action which may be deemed to be a violation of the NPA, 
5 either in the past or in the future, which would in any way 
6 risk Mr. Epstein being indicted by the United States. 
7 
He has the clear risk of an indictment based upon the 
8 papers that the Government filed. It's real, it's not remote, 
9 and it's not speculative. It chills the action of the defense 
10 in this instance of both Mr. Epstein and his attorneys in 
11 trying to defend these cases and decide under the circumstances 
12 can we do this, can we take this position with regard to 
13 depositions, can we take this legal position with regard to 
14 motions to dismiss, with regard to responses, with regard to 
15 replies? 
16 
And we send out paper discovery. Is this in some way 
17 if we contact someone who may be an associate of these 
18 individuals as part of our investigation, is that potentially 
19 in any way a violation of the NPA? Again, we don't think so. 
20 
And, obviously, again, my direction has been from my 
21 client: Don't take any action that would result in me being 
22 indicted under the NPA. Well, that's great. But, generally, 
23 civil lawyers or civil lawyers in defending a personal injury 
24 case or a tort case, which is exactly what these are, and from 
25 a practical standpoint, we use various tools to do discovery. 
TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION 
EFTA00185290

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 
Document 180 
Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 
Page 11 of 51 n 
1 They're standard. They're specific. They're very temporary. 
2 Very typical. 
3 
But in this instance, as the Court knows, things are 
4 not typical with regard to this case in any way, shape or form. 
5 We can't even serve subpoenaes, there's objections and there's 
6 -- we can't even serve objections to third parties so we can 
7 obtain documents unless we have to filter it through the 
8 plaintiffs' attorneys. They won't allow us to use their 
9 clients' names, even in a subpoena that would never be filed in 
10 the court. 
11 
How do we do a deposition of a third party? We wanted 
12 to take the deposition of Jane Doe 4. Well, who is she? Well, 
13 we can't tell you that. Well, who's the defendant? Well, we 
14 can't tell you that because nobody wants anybody to know 
15 anything about the case. They want to present it strictly 
16 through rose-colored glasses. 
17 
And in this particular instance, we simply can't 
18 defend this case or take certain action with the spector 
19 hanging over us that, in fact, the Government may deem it to be 
20 a violation of the NPA, because very clearly in their response 
21 papers, they don't say. They say we don't take the position, 
22 and then they take a substantial position is we think there's 
23 not all that substantial factors that would entitle him to a 
24 stay. 
25 
Except for the one major issue which the Court posed 
TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION 
EFTA00185291

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 
Document 180 
Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 
Page 12 of 51 12 
1 in the question is, is can he defend these cases? That's what 
2 I really want to know. Can he defend these cases and, in 
3 essence, what he has done in the past or what his defense team 
4 has done in the past and what they're going to do in the 
5 future, can you give him, Epstein, assurances that the 
6 Government under this situation, whatever he does, based on 
7 advice of counsel, that that cannot be a willful violation of 
8 the NPA, which they can -- they, the U.S. -- can then turn 
9 around and say that's a violation of the agreement and, 
10 therefore, we're going to go proceed to indict you under the 
11 circumstances. 
12 
Our position is, Your Honor, is that the U.S. has now 
13 cavalierly suggested that, as they did in picking up on the 
14 court's docket entry or prior order, is, look, compliance with 
15 the NPA is solely up to Mr. Epstein. In this type of balance 
16 of equities, it doesn't speak in favor of a stay. 
17 
Well, that's great. And maybe that was the position 
18 back in '08, on August 5th of '08, when the issue came up in 
19 front of the Court with regard to the initial stay. 
20 
But the Government's papers under these. circumstances 
21 suggested a very different set of circumstances. Their own 
22 unilateral, which is the issue that we argued in the motion for 
23 stay, is that the Government's position is that we can 
24 unilaterally indict this man if we think he's breached the NPA. 
25 
We don't think that's right, but we have no buffer 
TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION 
EFTA00185292

Case9:08-cv-80119-KAM 
Document 180 
Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 
Page 13 of 51 13 
1 between us and the Government. They'll say, and as the Court 
2 knows, the Government has substantial power. The Government 
3 does what it wants. Most of the time hopefully they're right. 
4 Sometimes they make mistakes. 
5 
But in this particular instance, my client has rights. 
6 We think that there's notice provisions, we think there's cure 
7 provisions under the NPA. That's not what their paper says 
8 under the circumstances. 
9 
And what we'd like to know from the Government, and 
10 maybe the answer is basically what the Court asks is, let the 
11 Government come forward today and say, based on the knowledge 
12 that we have, or as of today's date, June 12th, 2009, we, the 
13 Government, agree that there is no set of circumstances, not 
14 that we're not aware of, but as of today's date, there is 
15 nothing that exists that would be a violation of the NPA. 
16 
THE COURT: Well, that's way beyond what I'm 
17 interested in. I don't know what Mr. Epstein may have done 
18 outside the context of defending this case that may constitute 
19 a violation. And if he has done something outside the context 
20 of defending this case that's a violation, I don't care. 
21 That's between the United States and Mr. Epstein. 
22 
I'm only concerned about whether anything he does in 
23 defending these civil actions is going to be a violation of the 
24 non-prosecution agreement. If he has done something else, it's 
25 none of my business, and I don't care, and I'm not going to 
TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION 
EFTA00185293

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 
Document 180 
Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 
Page 14of51 14 
1 even ask the Government to give you an assurance that he hasn't 
2 done anything that might have violated the agreement up till 
3 today. I'm only interested in defending these civil actions. 
4 
MR. CRITTON: Then I would respectfully submit to the 
5 Court that the Government be asked in that limited context, are 
6 they as of today, whether there were or not, but as of today is 
7 there anything that has been done or will you take the 
8 position, the United States, that any position that Mr. Epstein 
9 has taken with regard to defending these civil cases is in any 
10 way a violation of the NPA? 
11 
THE COURT: Well, I'm not sure what they're going to 
12 say, but that might -- that cures the problem up to this point. 
13 But then we have to deal with what's going to happen from here 
14 on in. And that's another issue that we have to deal with. 
15 
So I understand your position. 
16 
But has anyone suggested to you on behalf of the 
17 United States that there is something that you've done in 
18 defending this case that they believe may or could be construed 
19 as a violation of the non-prosecution agreement? Has anyone 
20 pointed to anything that you've done? For example, the fact 
21 that you've wanted to take their -- I don't know if you've 
22 noticed depositions or not in this case, but if you've sent 
23 notice of taking deposition, if you sent requests for 
24 production of documents, if you sent interrogatories, if you 
25 issued third party subpoenas? Is anything you've done thus far 
TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION 
EFTA00185294

Case 9.08-cv-80119-KAM 
Document 180 
Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 
Page 15 of 51 15 
in the context of this case been brought to your attention as a 
) potential violation? 
MR. CRITTON: I have received no notification nor am 1. 
4 aware that we've received any notification of any action that 
5 we have taken today. As I suggested to the Court, I don't know 
6 when they've done or not. And in their papers they suggested, 
7 well, we don't know everything that's gone on in the civil 
8 litigation. 
9 
But from a practical standpoint, it was a number of 
10 comments that were made in their papers is, we can indict, we 
11 can see if there's a breach. 
12 
Judge, I may have some --
13 
THE COURT: Before you go on. 
14 
MR. CRITTON: I'm sorry. 
15 
THE COURT: You've focused a great deal on the 
16 Government's response to my inquiry as supporting your position 
17 that you're in jeopardy. But you've made the suggestion, even 
18 before this brief was filed, that defending the case was going 
19 to potentially result in an assertion or allegation that you 
20 breached the non-prosecution agreement. 
21 
So what was it that caused you to make that initial 
22 assertion? Because that's what caught my attention, was not --
23 this brief that the Government has filed was in response to 
24 something that you filed initially in your most recent motion 
25 for a stay which raised the issue. 
TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION 
EFTA00185295

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 
Document 180 
Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 
Page 16 of 51 16 
1 
So what was it that gave you some concern to even 
2 raise the issue that defending this case is going to constitute 
3 a breach? 
4 
MR. CRITTON: Because there are other instances where 
5 counsel other than myself, not in the civil aspects, where 
6 allegations have been made and letters have been sent by the 
7 United States suggesting that there's been a violation of the 
8 NPA. And under those circumstances, some notification was 
9 provided. 
10 
THE COURT: Did it have anything to do with defending 
11 the civil actions? 
12 
MR. CRITTON: It did not. 
13 
THE COURT: So then why was that issue raised by you 
14 in the first instance? 
15 
MR. CRITTON: Because of the prospect that the 
16 defendant could take, that the U.S. would take the position 
17 under the circumstances that a position that we took with 
18 regard to the contested litigation may well impact, that the 
19 Government may have a very different view of what the 
20 interpretation of the agreement is. 
21 
And as an example is a number of the parties, and I 
22 know the Court doesn't want to get into a discussion, the issue 
23 is, is under 2255 is that from the defendant's perspective the 
24 deal that was cut on that, it was a very specific deal. It 
25 dealt with both consensual and contested litigation. It dealt 
TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION 
EFTA00185296

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 
Document 180 
Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 
Page 17 of 51 17 
1 with a secret list of individuals who we had no idea who was on 
2 the list, and a commitment that he would under certain 
3 circumstances be required to pay a minimum amount of damages, 
4 which our position is under 2255 based upon the statute that 
5 was in effect at the time, a $50,000 as to anyone who wanted --
6 who came forward who was on the list and met certain criteria. 
7 
The position that now has been asserted by a number of 
8 the plaintiffs under the circumstances, and it's been pled, and 
9 actually a number of the complainants is, is Epstein agreed, 
10 and they cite to a letter that was sent by Ms. 
from 
11 the Government, that says he has to plead guilty or he can't 
12 contest liability. That may be true under very, very limited 
13 or specific circumstances. 
14 
But what the plaintiffs have done in a number of the 
15 cases, and these are pending motions, is they've said is, well, 
16 we think C.M.A. cases is a good example, they've pled 30 
17 separate counts of 2255 alleged violations. And they're saying 
18 under the circumstances is, therefore, we have 2255 violations, 
19 there's 30 of them, so 30 times 150, or should be, or whether 
20 it's 150, that's the amount of money that we want, so maybe $15 
21 million, or whatever the number is. 
22 
Some of the other plaintiffs' lawyers have been even 
23 more creative. They've said is, well, we'll agree that it's 
24 only one cause of action but that each number of violations; 
25 that is, if 20 alleged incidents occurred, that we would 
TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION 
EFTA00185297

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 
Document 180 
Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 
Page 18 of 51 18 
1 consider to be, or that we will argue are violations, then we 
2 can take 20 times the 50, or the 150, depending on which 
3 statute is applicable. 
4 
So the Government under that set of circumstance could 
5 say, and, again, this is one of the reasons that we raised it, 
6 they could say, look, our deal with you was that you couldn't 
7 contest liability, that you were waiving liability, or your 
8 ability to contest an enumerated offense under 2255. 
9 
Again, part of the deal was as to an enumerated 
10 offense. Okay. Well, what's that mean? What did he plead to? 
11 Well, he really didn't plead to anything, which is another 
12 issue associated with the 2255. But if the Government comes in 
13 and says, no, wait a minute, our position was, is that you're 
14 stuck with 2255 and the language within the NPA. And, 
15 therefore, whether it's an offense or whether it's multiple 
16 offenses or violations or each one represents an individual 
17 cause of action, if the Government takes the position that's 
18 adverse to what we think the clear reading of the agreement was 
19 under those circumstances, they could claim a violation. 
20 
And as a result -- and that's one of the reasons we 
21 put -- that was the most glaring one to us, so we raised that 
22 issue. And then when the Government's response came with 
23 regard to, is we can just proceed to indict if we think that 
24 there's been a breach of the agreement. 
25 
That puts us at substantial risk and chills our 
TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION 
EFTA00185298

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 
Document 180 
Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 
Page 19of51 ig 
1 ability to move forward. Thank you, Your Honor. 
2 
THE COURT: Thank you. Who wants to be heard from the 
3 plaintiffs first? 
4 
Is there any plaintiff's attorney who is contending 
5 that the defense of these civil actions by Mr. Epstein is going 
6 to constitute a breach of the non-prosecution agreement? 
7 
MR. JOSEFSBERG: Your Honor, this is Bob Josefsberg. 
8 May I speak? 
9 
THE COURT: Yes, sir. 
10 
MR. JOSEFSBERG: We're not quite confident that any 
11 breaches of any agreement, which were third-party 
12 beneficiaries, should be resolved by you. We're not saying it 
13 shouldn't. But we have not raised any breach of agreement. We 
14 think that is between the United States and Mr. Epstein. 
15 
What I find incredulous and disingenuous is that 
16 Mr. Epstein is saying that he wants a stay because he may be 
17 forced into taking actions in the defense of this case that 
18 would violate the agreement. 
19 
And let me make our position clear on that. If he 
20 wants to move to take depositions, interrogatories, production, 
21 and they are according to your rulings appropriate, not 
22 invasive of the privacy of someone, and they are relevant, then 
23 I don't know how those could in any way be violations of the 
24 agreement. 
25 
What I find hypocritical is that there are two parts 
TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION 
EFTA00185299

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 
Document 180 
Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 
Page 20 of 51 PO 
1 to the agreement that I am a beneficiary of. One of them is 
2 that he has agreed that on any action brought in the 2255, he 
3 will admit to liability. 
4 
And I received on May 26 a motion to dismiss, which 
5 we're prepared to respond to and disagree with, but totally 
6 contesting liability, saying that the statute doesn't apply 
7 because the girls are no longer minors and saying, and this is 
8 the great one, saying that the predicate of the conviction 
9 under 2255 has not been satisfied. 
10 
Now, the understanding that I have is the agreement 
11 between the Government and Mr. Epstein was that the Government 
12 desired to see these victims made whole, and wanted them to be 
13 in the same position as if Mr. Epstein had been prosecuted and 
14 pled or convicted. And they would be able to have the 
15 predicate of that criminal conviction, which just as a matter 
16 of liability would just be introduced as proof that he's done 
17 this. 
18 
They, under the agreement, are supposed to admit to 
19 liability on limited something that's under 2255. He has 
20 filed, but since there is no conviction, there can be no civil 
21 suit under 2255, with which we disagree. But it is totally in 
22 opposite of the NPA. 
23 
The second part is there are many young ladies, and 
24 this perhaps he can use this to his great advantage, who are 
25 humiliated about this entire situation. Some of them won't 
TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION 
EFTA00185300

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 
Document 180 
Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 
Page 21 of 51 21 
1 come forward. 
2 
We were appointed by Judge Davis as a Special Master 
3 to represent these young ladies. And some of them don't even 
4 want to file suit. They don't even want to be known as Jane 
5 Doe 103. They don't want any of the risks for these motions 
6 that are pending. 
7 
And part of the agreement was that if we represented 
8 them and they settle, Mr. Epstein would pay our fees. And he 
9 has written us as of yesterday that he is under no obligation 
10 to pay our fees on settling cases. 
11 
Now, those two matters, I believe, may be breaches. 
12 But I am not asking this Court at this time to do anything 
13 about them. Nor am I telling the Government, I'm not running 
14 to the Government and saying indict him because I want you to 
15 pressure him to do what he agreed to. 
16 
I'm a third-party beneficiary for that agreement, and 
17 I may move to enforce certain parts of it. But as far as the 
18 issue of staying the litigation, that is the exact opposite of 
19 the intent and the letter of the NPA. The purpose of the NPA 
20 was so that these 34 young ladies, these victims who have been 
21 severely traumatized, may move on with their lives. 
22 
And to stay this action would be the exact opposite of 
23 the purpose of that agreement and would be horrible 
24 psychologically for all of my clients. 
25 
THE COURT: Mr. Josefsberg, I understand your 
TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION 
EFTA00185301

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 
Document 180 
Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 
Page 22 of 51 22 
1 position. And I don't want to argue the merits of whether a 
2 stay should or should not be granted. 
3 
I'm just trying to understand what the ground rules 
4 are going to be if I grant a stay or if I deny a stay. And 
5 I've already denied a stay once. I have to decide this current 
6 motion, and I just want to know what is going to happen if I 
7 deny the stay in terms of Mr. Epstein's exposure under the 
8 non-prosecution agreement. That's my concern. 
9 
So if you're telling me that you're not going to urge 
10 the United States, on behalf of any of your clients, to take 
11 the position that he's breached the agreement because he's 
12 taking depositions, because he's pursuing discovery, because 
13 he's conducting investigations that anyone in any other type of 
14 civil litigation might conduct with respect to plaintiffs that 
15 are pursuing claims against a defendant, that those typical 
16 types of actions, in your judgment, are not breaches of the 
17 agreement and that he can go forward and defend the case as any 
18 other defendant could defend, and you're not going to run to 
19 the United States and say, hey, he's breaching the agreement by 
20 taking depositions and he's breaching the agreement by issuing 
21 subpoenas to third parties in order to gather information 
22 necessary to defend, then I don't have a problem. But if he's 
23 going to be accused of breaching the agreement because he sends 
24 out a notice of deposition of one of your clients, how is he 
25 supposed to defend the case? 
TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION 
EFTA00185302

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 
Document 180 
Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 
Page 23 of 51 23 
1 
MR. JOSEFSBERG: Your Honor, you're totally correct. 
2 He can depose my client. That's not a problem. But the 
3 problem is that these are not typical clients and this is not a 
4 typical case. He has written in his pleadings that he wants to 
5 publish the names of these girls in the newspapers so that 
6 other people may come forward to discuss their sexual 
7 activities with these different plaintiffs. That's not your 
8 typical case. But are rulings that you'll make in this case, 
9 and they're not part of the NPA. 
10 
As far as my going to the Government is concerned, I 
11 find it very uncomfortable for me to use the Government to try 
12 to pursue my financial interest in litigation. And I know that 
13 Mr. Epstein and his counsel will make much ado about it. So I 
14 am not going to be running there. 
15 
However, if they start taking depositions regarding 
16 liability, I will consider that to be a breach because they're 
17 supposed to have admitted liability. 
18 
THE COURT: But, again, I don't have the agreement and 
19 I don't remember reading the agreement. But what I'm being 
20 told is the part of the agreement that admits liability is only 
21 as to a 2255 claim, and there are numerous other personal 
22 injury tort claims other than 2255 claims. 
23 
And there's a limit of damages on the 2255 claim, as I 
24 understand it, but I presume that all the plaintiffs are going 
25 to seek more than the limited or capped amount of damages in 
TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION 
EFTA00185303

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 
Document 180 
Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 
Page 24 of 51 24 
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 
the non-prosecution agreement as to the other claims. 
And so why aren't they entitled to defend and limit 
the amount of damages that your client is seeking on the 
non-2255 tort claims? 
MR. JOSEFSBERG: Your Honor, you are correct. On 
non-2255 tort claims, they are permitted to do the defense, 
whatever is appropriate. 
My cases are pure 2255 on which liability under the 
agreement is supposed to be admitted. Now, as to the amount of 
damages, there are legal issues that will be before you and 
under the C.M.A. cases that are getting before you, as to 
whether it is 50 or 150. That has nothing to do with the NPA. 
There are legal issues that are before you as to 
whether it is per statute, per count or per incident or per 
plaintiff. Those have nothing to do with the NPA. There is no 
amount in NPA. Those will be resolved. 
Anyone who has brought a case that is outside of 2255, 
the defense is permitted to contest liability under the NPA. 
That's no violation. 
Under the NPA if someone brought a case under just 
2255, Mr. Epstein, if he is to keep his word, cannot contest 
liability. And there would no need to stay this. Because it 
is a self-fulfilling agreement. He can contest liability. And 
as far as the amount of damages, anyone that wants to go over 
the statutory minimums, of course, he can contest that in any 
TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION 
EFTA00185304

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 
Document 180 
Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 
Page 25 of 51 25 
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 
way that is proper under the Rules of Evidence and your 
rulings. The NPA has no limitation on his contesting damages 
above the minimum statutory amount. 
The only thing that he has done is in his actions of 
refusing to pay for settling defendants, and in his saying that 
he has no liability under 2255, those appear to be contrary to 
what's in the NPA. 
But I'm not in any position right now to claim a 
breach, and I don't know whether I'd be claiming a breach or 
enforcing it in front of you, suing him for fees, asking you to 
have him admit liability, or complaining to the Government. 
And that's why I'm not that helpful in this situation because I 
think it's the Government's role. 
But I do not waive the right to be a third-party 
beneficiary because pursuant to my appointment, which was 
agreed to by Mr. Epstein, I and my clients have certain rights, 
and we want to enforce them. 
But his defending this lawsuit will not in any way be 
a violation. His getting this lawsuit stayed would be a 
violation of the spirit of taking care of these girls, and 
there would be other issues. Like if there is a stay, Your 
Honor, would he be posting a bond? 
THE COURT: We don't need to talk about those issues. 
That's not my concern. 
MR. JOSEFSBERG: I agree, Your Honor, we don't. 
TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION 
EFTA00185305