EFTA00221691

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 
Document 67 
Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 
Page 1 of 12 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA-JOHNSON 
JANE DOE NO. 2 
Plaintiff, 
v. 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 
Defendant. 
DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF, JANE DOE NO. 
2, TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANT'S FIRST REQUEST TO PRODUCE & TO 
OVERRULE OBJECTIONS. & FOR AN AWARD OF DEFENDANT'S 
REASONABLE EXPENSES 
Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through his undersigned attorneys, 
moves this Court for an order compelling Plaintiff, JANE DOE No. 2 To respond to 
specified production requests and to overrule her objections asserted in Plaintiffs 
Responses To Defendant's First Request To Produce, dated January 26, 2009. 
Defendant further seeks an award of his reasonable expenses, including expenses, 
associated with the making of this 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: 
Introduction 
Prior to the filing of this motion, counsel for Defendant and counsel for Plaintiff 
corresponded with each other and were able to resolve some of the discovery issues 
related to Defendant's First Request to Produce and Plaintiffs Response thereto. By 
letter, dated March 3, 2009, the Plaintiff agreed to withdraw her "General Objections" 
set forth in her response. As well, issues as to production request no. 14 are presently 
EFTA00221691

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 
Document 67 
Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 
Page 2 of 12 
Doe 2 v. Epstein 
Page No. 2 
resolved. This motion addresses those requests on which the parties were unable to 
come to an agreement. 
Also, Defendant has filed simultaneously with this motion a Motion To Compel 
directed to certain of Plaintiff's Answers to Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories, also 
dated January 26, 2009, and which addresses identical discovery issues. Both motions 
should be determined at the same time. 
Motion To Compel Responses to Nos. 1, 10, 11. 17, & 18 
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: 
Plaintiff objects to this request as overbroad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably 
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving this 
objection, copy of Plaintiff's 2006 and 2007 1040 forms are attached. 
Legal Argument Supporting Entitlement to Discovery Sought in No. 1 
Plaintiff does not make a relevancy objection, but instead claims that the request 
is "not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." Plaintiff 
also claims that the request is "overbroad" and "unduly burdensome," but fails to make 
any showing whatsoever how the request is overbroad or unduly burdensome as 
required under Rule 26(c) and Local Gen. Rule 26.1 H (S.D. Fla. (2008). On its face, 
the six year time period of 2002-2007 for Plaintiffs tax return's and supporting 
documentation is reasonable. Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint alleges that the 
alleged sexual abuse and exploitation of her by Defendant occurred in "in 2004-2005." 
2d Am. Complaint, ¶8. (Plaintiff did produce copies of her 2006 and 2007 1040 forms, 
but nothing else.) 
EFTA00221692

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 
Document 67 
Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 
Page 3 of 12 
Doe 2 v. Epstein 
Page No. 3 
Also, 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.; 
Donahay 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. Donahay, 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. 
Plaintiffs tax returns, along with the requested supporting documentation, for the 
six year period are relevant to Plaintiffs damages claims detailed below herein. Such 
information would show 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 incident. 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. 
In her Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff attempts to allege claims in Count I 
for "Sexual Assault and Battery," Count II for "Intentional Infliction of Emotional 
Distress," and in Count III for "Coercion and Enticement to Sexual Activity in Violation of 
18 U.S.C.A. §2422," and seeks damages pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §2255(a). (Plaintiff 
alleges diversity of citizenship as a basis for this Court's jurisdiction. 2d Am. Complaint, 
¶5). Counts I and II are brought pursuant to state law. 
EFTA00221693

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 
Document 67 
Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 
Page 4 of 12 
Doe 2 v. Epstein 
Page No. 4 
In her complaint, Plaintiff alleges that "she has suffered and will continue to suffer 
severe and permanent traumatic injuries, including mental, psychological and emotional 
damages," and "severe mental anguish and pain." In her answers to interrogatories 
nos. 9 and 10, Plaintiff further states that: 
Plaintiff has suffered severe psychological and emotional injuries, including 
without limitation, anxiety, low self-esteem, feelings of guilt, self-blame, 
distrustfulness, burdened often by sadness and depression, suicidal thoughts, 
difficulty trusting others (particularly men), irritability, anger, feeling helpless and 
powerless, escapism through excessive partying, lack of confidence, loss of 
innocence. (Interrog. No. 9). 
... she seeks damages arising from her psychological and emotional 
injuries. These damages include pain and suffering, costs of psychological care 
and treatment, and loss of earning capacity. ... (Interrog. No. 10). 
As discussed above, the tax returns, and supporting documentation, will provide 
direct evidence as to Plaintiffs claimed damages, not only her loss of earning capacity 
claim, but also her emotional/psychological/mental health type damages. The time 
period will allow Defendant to compare how Plaintiff was doing in her life prior to, during, 
and after the alleged incident. 
Accordingly, Plaintiff's objection is required to be 
overruled, and Defendant is entitled to the documents requested for each of the years 
2002-2007. 
Production Requests Nos. 10, 11, 17, & 18 
10. 
All photographs, movies, dvds, and videotapes in which you performed 
sexual acts or simulated sexual acts. 
11. 
All photographs, movies, dvds, and videotapes in which you performed 
sexual acts or simulated sexual acts in exchange for money or other consideration. 
17. 
All documents reflecting the names and addresses of other individuals 
with whom you have had sexual activity from January 1, 2000 — December 31, 2005. 
18. 
All documents reflecting the names and addresses of other individuals 
with whom you have had sexual activity from January 1, 2006 through November 30, 
2008. 
EFTA00221694

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 
Document 67 
Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 
Page 5 of 12 
Doe 2 v. Epstein 
Page No. 5 
Plaintiff asserted the identical answer to each of the above stated interrogatories: 
Response: 
Plaintiff objects to this request as harassing and not reasonably calculated to lead to 
discovery of admissible evidence. More over, this interrogatory [sic] is outrageous, 
offensive and is apparently posed for the purpose of intimidating the Plaintiff. Any 
evidence that could conceivably be obtained through this request would not be 
admissible under Fed.R.Evid. 412. Without waiving this objection, none to Plaintiffs 
knowledge. 
Legal Argument Supporting Entitlement to Discovery Sought In 10, 11, 17, & 18 
Plaintiff does not make a relevancy objection, but instead claims that the 
requests are "not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 
evidence," claiming that such "evidence ... would not be admissible under Fed.R.Evid. 
412." Plaintiff further claims, without making any showing in her answer and without 
moving for a protective order in accordance with Rule 26(c) and Local Gen. Rule 26.1 H 
(S.D. Fla. 2008), that the interrogatory is "harassing,' "outrageous, offensive and is 
apparently posed for the purpose of intimidating Plaintiff." See Defendant's Motion to 
Compel directed to Plaintiff's Answers to Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories, 
addressing identical discovery issues. Both Defendant's interrogatories and production 
requests seek information regarding Plaintiff's sexual conduct and history; Plaintiff 
raised the same objections. 
In each of her responses, Plaintiff also states that — "Without waiving this 
objection, none to Plaintiffs knowledge." Plaintiffs response is evasive — either the 
requested items exist or do not exist. Defendant is entitled to a better response 
specifically indicating whether the items requested in each of the production requests 
nos. 10, 11, 17, and 18 - (1) exist or do not exist; (2) are in the possession or control of 
Plaintiff or some other person that Plaintiff is able to identify; and (3) why Plaintiff 
EFTA00221695

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 
Document 67 
Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 
Page 6 of 12 
Doe 2 v. Epstein 
Page No. 6 
qualifies her answer of "none" with the phrase "to Plaintiff's knowledge." (Did such 
items exist and Plaintiff destroyed or deleted them?) 
As to the relevance of the information sought, 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.; Donahay v. Palm Beach Tours & trans.. Inc., 242 F.R.D. 685 (S.D. Fla. 
2007). Contrary to Plaintiffs assertion, Rule 412 does not automatically result in a 
determination that such sexual history and sexual activity/behavior information is never 
admissible. In fact, written into the Rule are the procedures to follow in determining 
when such information is admissible at trial. The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 
412, Fed.R.Evid, makes clear that the procedures to determine admissibility of an 
alleged victim's/plaintiffs sexual conduct or activity in civil cases does not apply to 
discovery of such information. Rather, 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." Id. 
Rule 412, entitled "Sex Offense Cases; Relevance of Alleged Victim's Past 
Sexual Behavior or Alleged Sexual Predisposition," provides in relevant part - 
(a) Evidence generally inadmissible.--The following evidence is not admissible 
in any civil ... proceeding involving alleged sexual misconduct except as 
provided in subdivisions (b) and (c): 
(1) Evidence offered to prove that any alleged victim engaged in other sexual 
behavior. 
(2) Evidence offered to prove any alleged victim's sexual predisposition. 
EFTA00221696

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 
Document 67 
Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 
Page 7 of 12 
Doe 2 v. Epstein 
Page No. 7 
(b) Exceptions.—
• 
• 
(2) In a civil case, evidence offered to prove the sexual behavior or sexual 
predisposition of any alleged victim is admissible if it is otherwise admissible 
under these rules and its probative value substantially outweighs the danger of 
harm to any victim and of unfair prejudice to any party. Evidence of an alleged 
victim's reputation is admissible only if it has been placed in controversy by the 
alleged victim. 
(c) Procedure to determine admissibility.—
(1) A party intending to offer evidence under subdivision (b) must-
(A) file a written motion at least 14 days before trial specifically describing 
the evidence and stating the purpose for which it is offered unless the court, for 
good cause requires a different time for filing or permits filing during trial; and 
(B) serve the motion on all parties and notify the alleged victim or, when 
appropriate, the alleged victim's guardian or representative. 
(2) Before admitting evidence under this rule the court must conduct a 
hearing in camera and afford the victim and parties a right to attend and be 
heard. The motion, related papers, and the record of the hearing must be 
sealed and remain under seal unless the court orders otherwise. 
In confirming that Rule 412 does not control the discoverability of such 
information, the Advisory Committee Notes (1994 Amendments) state - 
The procedures set forth in subdivision (c) do not apply to discovery of a 
victim's past sexual conduct or predisposition in civil cases, which will be 
continued to be governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. In order not to undermine the 
rationale of Rule 412, however, courts should enter appropriate orders pursuant 
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 (c) to protect the victim against unwarranted inquiries and 
to ensure confidentiality. Courts should presumptively issue protective orders 
barring discovery unless the party seeking discovery makes a showing that 
the evidence sought to be discovered would be relevant under the facts 
and theories of the particular case, and cannot be obtained except 
through discovery. In an action for sexual harassment, for instance, while 
some evidence of the alleged victim's sexual behavior and/or predisposition in 
the workplace may perhaps be relevant, non-work place conduct will usually be 
irrelevant. Cf. Bums v. McGregor Electronic Industries, Inc., 989 F.2d 959, 962-
63 (8th Cir. 1993) (posing for a nude magazine outside work hours is irrelevant 
EFTA00221697

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 
Document 67 
Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 
Page 8 of 12 
Doe 2 v. Epstein 
Page No. 8 
to issue of unwelcomeness of sexual advances at work). Confidentiality 
orders should be presumptively granted as well. 
(Emphasis added). 
In accordance with Rule 412 and Rule 26, the discovery sought regarding any 
photos, movies, dvds, and videotapes as decscribed in requests nos. 10 and 11, and 
Plaintiff's sexual activity with males, as described in nos. 17 and 18, including whether 
she received any compensation or consideration therefore, are all relevant to Plaintiffs 
damages claims and the type of injury she claims she has suffered. Defendant has no 
other 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(c) whether such information will be 
admissible at trial. See Rule 412(c) quoted above. 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. 
In her Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff attempts to allege claims in Count I for 
"Sexual Assault and Battery," Count II for "Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress," 
and in Count III for "Coercion and Enticement to Sexual Activity in Violation of 18 
U.S.C.A. §2422," and seeks damages pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §2255(a). (Plaintiff alleges 
diversity of citizenship as a basis for this Court's jurisdiction. 2d Am. Complaint, ¶5). 
Counts I and II are brought pursuant to state law. 
In her complaint, Plaintiff alleges that "she has suffered and will continue to suffer 
severe and permanent traumatic injuries, including mental, psychological and emotional 
damages," and "severe mental anguish and pain." In her answers to interrogatories 
nos. 9 and 10, dated January 26, 2009, Plaintiff further states that 
EFTA00221698

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 
Document 67 
Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 
Page 9 of 12 
Doe 2 v. Epstein 
Page No. 9 
Plaintiff has suffered severe psychological and emotional injuries, including 
without limitation, anxiety, low self-esteem, feelings of guilt, self-blame, 
distrustfulness, burdened often by sadness and depression, suicidal thoughts, 
difficulty trusting others (particularly men), irritability, anger, feeling helpless and 
powerless, escapism through excessive partying, lack of confidence, loss of 
innocence. (Interrog. No. 9). 
... she seeks damages arising from her psychological and emotional injuries. 
These damages include pain and suffering, costs of psychological care and 
treatment, and loss of earning capacity. ... (Interrog. No. 10). 
Plaintiff also alleges that "I 
Epstein's assistant" was a part of "Epstein's 
plan and scheme (which) reflected a particular pattern and method" in the alleged 
recruiting of girl's to come to EPSTEIN's Palm Beach mansion and give him "massages" 
in exchange for money. 2nd Am. Complaint, ¶11-12. According to the complaint 
allegations — "Upon information and belief Epstein has a sexual preference and 
obsession for underage minor girls." ¶8. 
would "bring the girl up a flight 
of stairs to a bedroom that contained a massage table ... ." The girl would be alone with 
EPSTEIN. EPSTEIN would "lie naked on the massage table, and direct the girl to 
remove her clothes." "Epstein would then 
2nd Am. Complaint, 
¶11. Plaintiff alleges that "in 2004-2005," she, "then approximately 16 years old, fell into 
Epstein's trap and became one of his victims." ¶8. Plaintiff alleges that Epstein 
exposed himself to her and "sexually assaulted" her. ¶12 Plaintiff further alleges that 
"Epstein committed willful acts of child sexual abuse" on her, which resulted in "mental 
or sexual injury," and "caused or likely to cause Jane Doe's mental or emotional health 
to be significantly impaired." 2d Am. Complaint, ¶25. 
The items sought are clearly relevant to the injuries and damages claimed by 
Plaintiff. The nature of her claimed injuries and damages are such that Defendant is 
EFTA00221699

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 
Document 67 
Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 
Page 10 of 12 
Doe 2 v. Epstein 
Page No. 10 
entitled to evidence which would show the nature of her relationship with males, 
whether she has suffered other acts of sexual misconduct, including exploitation and 
abuse, as alleged in her complaint, whether she suffered injury and damages as a result 
of the other claimed sexual misconduct with males, and whether she has willingly or not 
willingly engaged in sexual activity that has been photographed, or filmed by means of 
movie, dvd or videotapes. See United States v. Bear Stops, 997 F.2d 451 (8th Cir. 
1993)(Defendant charged with sexual abuse of six year old boy was entitled to 
admission of evidence relating to victim's sexual assault by 3 older boys to establish 
alternative explanation for why victim exhibited behavioral manifestations of sexually 
abused child.). 
In further support of Defendants motion, a copy of Balas v. Ruzzo, 703 So.2d 
1076 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997), rev. denied, 719 So.2d 286 (Fla. 1998), is attached hereto as 
Exhibit A as it is on point to the discovery issues in this action, and the relevancy and 
discoverability of Plaintiffs history of sexual activity and any payment, therefore. See 
interrogatories 8, 22 and 30 propounded in the Balas case and footnote 1 herein. 1
Additionally and significantly, in other pending state court civil actions against Defendant 
EPSTEIN attempting to assert similar claims and damages, the Circuit Court Judges 
have already ruled that such information is discoverable as it is relevant to the damages 
claims of Plaintiff. See Composite Exhibits B and C hereto. Composite Exhibit B 
are the Orders, dated February 23, 2009, entered in the case of A.C. v. Epstein, and 
In Balas v. Ruzzo, supra, the Plaintiffs alleged a multicount complaint including claims 
for "coercion of prostitution" pursuant to §796.09, Fla. Stat.; for battery for the unwanted 
and offensive touching of petitioners' bodies; false imprisonment for physically confining 
the petitioners against their will; invasion of privacy; and intentional infliction of 
emotional distress. 
EFTA00221700

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 
Document 67 
Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 
Page 11 of 12 
Doe 2 v. Epstein 
Page No. 11 
Kellen, Case No. 502008CA025129 MB Al, 15th Judicial Circuit, In and For Palm Beach 
County, State of Florida, which granted Defendant's motion to compel therein directed 
to discovery identical to interrogatory no. 18 above, and to requests for production nos. 
17 and 18 addressed below herein. (In the A.C. case, the Plaintiff answered without 
objection interrogatories identical to nos. 19, 20, and 21 herein.) Composite Exhibit C 
is a portion the transcript from a March 3, 2009 hearing on Defendant's motion to 
compel discovery in the case of Jane Doe II v. Epstein, and 
Case No. 
502008CA020614 MB AF, 15th Judicial Circuit Court, In and For Palm Beach County, 
State of Florida. Again, the Circuit Court Judge determined that the information sought 
is relevant to the issue of damages and, thus, discoverable. 
WHEREFORE, Defendant requests that this Court enter an order granting 
Defendant's motion to compel, overruling Plaintiff's objections, and compelling Plaintiff 
be to produce the items sought and/or to better respond to the requests as specified 
above. Defendant further requests that this Court award his attorney's fees and costs, 
associated with this motion, in accordance with Rule 37, Fed.R.Civ.P., and applicable 
Local Rules. 
Rule 7.1 Certification 
I hereby certify that counsel for the respective parties communicated by letters in 
a good faith effort to resolve the discovery issues prior to the 
g of this motion to 
compel. Some of the issues were resolved. 
Robert D Critton, Jr. 
Attorne for Defendant Epstein 
EFTA00221701

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 
Document 67 
Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 
Page 12 of 12 
Doe 2 v. Epstein 
Page No. 12 
Certificate of Service 
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with 
the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being 
served this day on all counsel of re rd *dentified on the following Service List in the 
manner specified by CM/ECF on thi 
day of  April, 2009: 
Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. 
Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. 
Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. 
Counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe #1 
Jack Alan Goldberger 
Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss. P.A. 
Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein 
Respectfully sub 
By: 
ROBERT D. RITTON, JR., ESQ. 
Florida Bar o. 224162 
rcritabcIclaw.com 
MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. 
Florida Bar #617296 
mpike(abciclaw.com 
EMAN 
EFTA00221702