EFTA00722862

J. MICHAEL BURMAN. RA' 
GREGORY W. COLEMAN. PA. 
ROBERT D. CRITTON. JR.. PA.' 
BERNARD LEBEDEKER 
MARK T. LUTTIER, PA. 
JEFFREY C. PEPIN 
MICHAEL J. PIKE 
HEATHER McNAMARA RUDA 
FLORIDA BOARD CERTIFIED 
OFIL TRIAL. LAWYER 
i V er
BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER 
& COLEMAN LLP 
A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP 
July 8, 2009 
SENT BY FEDERAL EXPRESS 
A. Marie Villafana, Esq. 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
Southern District of Florida 
500 East Broward Boulevard, 79' Floor 
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33394 
Re: 
Jane Doe No. 8 v. Jeffrey Epstein 
Case No. 09-CV-80802-Marra/Johnson 
Dear Ms. Villafana: 
ADELQUI I. BENAVENTE 
PARALEGAL! INVESTIGATOR 
BARBARA M. McKBNNA 
ASHLIE STOKEN•BARING 
DEITY STOKES 
PARALEGALS 
RITA H. BUDNYK 
OF COMMA. 
As you are aware, I am Mr. Epstein's attorney in the civil cases that have been 
filed against him. While I am certainly familiar with the NPA, it is clear to me that my 
interpretation of it may differ from yours (USAO) or one of the many plaintiffs' attorneys 
as it relates to what I can do or assert in defense of Mr. Epstein. 
As I expressed to Judge Marra, my charge from Mr. Epstein is to take no action 
that could reasonably be considered to be a violation of the NPA. With that in mind, I 
am sending our motion to dismiss in Jane Doe #8, along with a copy of her complaint. 
While I know you expressed to Mr. Lefkowitz that you (USAO) were not inclined 
to review pleadings and offer advisory opinions, I would ask that you reconsider and 
review our motion. 
The Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 8 is not exclusively asserting a claim pursuant to 18 
U.S.C. §2255, and thus, the terms of the NPA are not implicated. In fact, Jane Doe No. 
8's counsel, Adam Horowitz, who also is counsel for Plaintiffs Jane Does Nos. 2 through 
7 in other civil actions against Mr. Epstein, in the June 12, 2009 hearing before U.S. 
District Judge Kenneth Marra (at which you were also present) conceded that —
The provision (of the NPA) relating to Mr. Epstein being unable to contest 
liability pertains only to those plaintiffs who have chosen as their sole remedy 
L •A•W•Y•E
•R
•S 
515 N. FLAGLER DRIVE / SUITE 400 / WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33401 
TELEPHONE (561) 842-2820 FAX (561) 8444929 
EFTA00722862

July 8, 2009 
Page 2 
the federal statute. My clients, Jane Doe 2 through 7, have elected to bring 
additional causes of action, and it's for that reason we were silent when you 
said does anyone here find Mr. Epstein to be in breach of the non-
prosecution agreement. This provision, as we understand it, it does not 
relate to our clients. 
June 12, 2009, Transcript of hearin
 Jane Doe, et al v. Epstein, Case No. 08- 
80119-Civ-Marra, U.S. District Ct., M. Fla., p. 29, line 19-25, p. 30, line 1. A 
copy of the relevant portions of the hearing transcript is enclosed. 
I agree with his comments as they relate to all of his clients, including Jane Doe 8. 
I believe that nothing in this motion involves any aspect of the NPA. If you disagree, 
would you please contact me as soon as possible. I must file this motion by July 14th as 
per my extension agreement with Mr. Horowitz. However, I stand ready to have a 
discussion or meeting with you regarding this motion or any other civil related pleadings 
or matter that may implicate the NPA. I look forward to your response. 
Cordially y- frs, 
Rob- D. Critton, Jr. 
RDC/clz 
cc by pdf: 
Jack A. Goldberger, Esq. 
Martin G. Weinberg, Esq. 
Roy Black, Esq. 
Jay Lefkowitz, Esq. 
EFTA00722863

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
CASE NO.: 09-CV-80802-MARRA-JOHNSON 
JANE DOE NO. 8 
Plaintiff, 
v. 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 
Defendant. 
DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT 
Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN ("Epstein"), by and through his attorneys, moves 
to dismiss Counts I and III of Plaintiff's Complaint as the causes of action are barred by 
the applicable statute of limitations.' Rule 12(b)(6); Local Gen. Rule 7.1 (S.D. Fla. 
2009). In support of dismissal, Defendant states: 
Plaintiff's Complaint attempts to allege three Counts; the first two counts are 
pursuant to state common law, and the third count is brought pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 
§2255. Civil remedy for personal injuries. Count I attempts to allege a cause of action 
for "Sexual Assault and Battery," Count II for "Intentional Infliction of Emotional 
Distress;" and Count III for "Coercion and Enticement to Sexual Activity in Violation of 
18 U.S.C. §2422," pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §2255. 
Plaintiffs Complaint attempts to assert both state common law claims and a claim pursuant to 
18 U.S.C. §2255. Since Jane Doe 8 did not relinquish her state claims and correspondingly did 
not file her complaint relying, exclusively, on 18 USC 2255, she is not entitled to the litigation 
benefits including certain waivers that directly or indirectly accrue to other civil plaintiffs from the 
defendant's fulfilling obligations resulting from his separate confidential agreement with the 
United Staes Attorney's Office. Plaintiff's counsel conceded that the provisions of the NPA are 
not implicated where a plaintiff brings additional causes of action and does not proceed 
exclusively under §2255. See June 12, 2009, Hearing Transcript in Jane Doe, et al v. Epstein, 
Case No. 08-80119-Civ-Marra, p. 29, line 19-25, p. 30, line 1. 
EFTA00722864

Jane Doe No. 8 v. Epstein 
Page 2 
Pursuant to the allegations on the face of Plaintiffs complaint, Count I, based on 
Florida's common law of assault and battery, and Count Ill, brought pursuant to 18 
U.S.C. §2255, are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Although a statute of 
limitations bar to a claim is an affirmative defense, and a plaintiff is not required to 
negate an affirmative defense in her complaint, a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal on statute of 
limitations grounds is appropriate where, as here, "it is 'apparent from the face of the 
complaint' that the claim is time-barred." See generally, La Grasta v. First Union 
Securities, Inc., 358 F.3d 840, 845 -846 (11th Cir. 2004). 
Count I is barred by the applicable statute of limitations. 
As to Count I, which is plead pursuant to state law, it is well settled that this Court 
is to apply Florida law. Erie R.Co. v. Tompkins, 58 S.Ct. 817 (1938). Pursuant to 
Florida law, the statute of limitations for assault and battery is four years, §95.11(3)(o)., 
Fla. Stat. §95.11(3)(o), Fla. Stat., provides —
Actions other than for recovery of real property shall be commenced as 
follows: 
(3) Within four years.—
* 
(o) An action for assault, battery, false arrest, malicious prosecution, 
malicious interference, false imprisonment, or any other intentional tort, 
except as provided in subsections (4), (5), and (7). 
In her Complaint, Plaintiff alleges in relevant part that — 
9. ... In or about 2001, Jane Doe, then approximately 16 years old, fell 
into Epstein's trap and became one of his victims. 
According to the allegations of the Complaint, Jane Doe had one encounter with 
Defendant at his Palm Beach mansion in or about 2001 when Jane was approximately 
EFTA00722865

Jane Doe No. 8 v. Epstein 
Page 3 
16 years old. See Complaint, ¶13, endnote 1 hereto.1 Based on the allegations of the 
Complaint, it has been at least 8 years since the alleged conduct by EPSTEIN, well past 
the four year statute of limitations, thus requiring dismissal of Count I. Based on the 
allegations, Plaintiff is now at least 24 years old. 
Subsections (4) and (5) referenced in §95.11(3)(o) are not applicable. Plaintiff 
may attempt to argue that subsection (7) of §95.11, Fla. Stat. applies. See endnote 2 
hereto for statutory text of subsection (7), including statutes referenced therein.2
However, a review of Plaintiff's allegations in Count I establish that Plaintiff is attempting 
to assert a cause of action based on the elements of Florida's common law assault and 
battery to which a four year statute of limitation applies. (Compare Count II, ¶24, 
wherein Plaintiff tracks the language §39.01(2), Fla. Stat. (2001), pertaining to "abuse."). 
Pursuant to Florida law, although the term "assault and battery" is most 
commonly referred to as if it were a legal unit, or a single concept, "assault and battery 
are separate and distinct legal concepts, assault being the beginning of an act which, if 
consummated, constitutes battery." 3A Fla.Jur.2d Assault §1. An assault and battery 
are intentional acts. See generally, Spivey v. Battaglia, 258 So.2d 815 (Fla. 1972); and 
Travelers Indem. Co. v. PCR. Inc., 889 So.2d 779 (Fla. 2004). 
On the face of the Complaint, the applicable four year statute of limitations has 
expired, and accordingly. Count I is barred an required to be dismissed. 
Count III - 18 U.S.C. V255 
EFTA00722866

Jane Doe No. 8 v. Epstein 
Page 4 
As to the applicable statute of limitations for Count III which is brought pursuant to 
18 U.S.C. §2255, §2255(b), (both the 2001 version, which Defendant asserts is the 
applicable statute, and the amended version, effective July 27, 2006), provides: 
(b) Statute of limitations.—Any action commenced under this section 
shall be barred unless the complaint is filed within six years after the right 
of action first accrues or in the case of a person under a legal disability, 
not later than three years after the disability. 
As noted above, according to the allegations of the Complaint, Jane Doe had one 
encounter with Defendant at his Palm Beach mansion in or about 2001 when Jane was 
approximately 16 years old. See Complaint, ¶13, endnote 1 hereto. Based on the 
allegations of the Complaint, it has been at least 8 years since the alleged conduct by 
EPSTEIN, well past the six year statute of limitations, thus requiring dismissal of Count 
III. Based on the allegations, Plaintiff is now at least 24 years old, well pass the age of 
majority. (The age of majority under both federal and state law is 18 years old. See 18 
U.S.C. §2256(1), defining a "minor" as "any person under the age of eighteen years;" 
and §1.01, Definitions, Fla. Stat., defining "minor" to include "any person who has not 
attained the age of 18 years."). Thus, on the face of the Complaint, Count III is timed 
barred and required to be dismissed. 
Conclusion 
Accordingly, Counts I and III of Plaintiffs Complaint are subject to dismissal. On 
the face of the Complaint, the causes of action which Plaintiff attempts to allege are 
barred by the applicable statute of limitations of 4 and 6 years, respectively. 
WHEREFORE, Defendant requests that this Court dismiss Counts I and III of 
Plaintiffs Complaint with prejudice. 
EFTA00722867

Jane Doe No. 8 v. Epstein 
Page 5 
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 record identified on the following Service List in the 
manner specified by CM/ECF on this 
day of 
 2009: 
Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. 
Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. 
18205 Biscayne Boulevard 
Suite 2218 
Miami, FL 33160 
305-931-2200 
Fax: 305-931-0877 
ahorowi 
Irivera 
Counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe #8 
Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. 
Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 
250 Australian Avenue South 
Suite 1400 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 
561-659-8300 
ounse or e en an Jeffrey Epstein 
Respectfully submitted, 
BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER 
& COLEMAN, LLP 
515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
(561) 842-2820 
By: 
Robert D. Critton, Jr. 
Florida Bar #224162 
Michael J. Pike 
Florida Bar #617296 
Couns If r 
f n nt 
ffrey Epstein 
m ike 
I Complaint, ¶13 alleges in relevant part — 
... Jane Doe was recruited by another girl, who told her that she could make some 
money, but did not tell her what was involved. At all relevant times, the girl who 
recruited Jane Doe was acting on behalf of and as an agent for Epstein. Jane was 
EFTA00722868

Jane Doe No. 8 v. Epstein 
Page 6 
contacted by this girl by telephone. Jane was then picked up and brought to 
Epstein's mansion in Palm Beach. Once there, she was lead up a flight of stairs to 
the room with the massage table. Epstein came into the room and directed Jane 
to remove her clothes and give him a massage. Jane was frightened and felt 
trapped. As directed by Epstein, Jane removed her clothes. Epstein then during 
the massage touched Jane on her breasts and vagina, and he grabbed her hand 
and placed it on his penis. Epstein masturbated himself during the massage. 
Epstein then left money for Jane. 
2 §95.11(7), Fla. Stat. — 
(7) For intentional torts based on abuse.—An action founded on alleged abuse, 
as defined in s. 39.01, s. 415.102, or s. 984.03, or incest, as defined in s. 826.04, 
may be commenced at any time within 7 years after the age of majority, or within 4 
years after the injured person leaves the dependency of the abuser, or within 4 
years from the time of discovery by the injured party of both the injury and the 
causal relationship between the injury and the abuse, whichever occurs later. 
§39.01(2), Fla. Stat. (2001)—
(2) "Abuse" means any willful act or threatened act that results in any physical, 
mental, or sexual injury or harm that causes or is likely to cause the child's 
physical, mental, or emotional health to be significantly impaired. Abuse of a child 
includes acts or omissions. Corporal discipline of a child by a parent or legal 
custodian for disciplinary purposes does not in itself constitute abuse when it does 
not result in harm to the child. 
§415.102(1), Fla. Stat. (2001)—
(1) "Abuse" means any willful act or threatened act that causes or is likely to cause 
significant impairment to a vulnerable adult's physical, mental, or emotional 
health. Abuse includes acts and omissions. 
§984.03 (2), Fla. Stat. (2001) — 
"Abuse" means any willful act that results in any physical, mental, or sexual injury 
that causes or is likely to cause the child's physical, mental, or emotional health to 
be significantly impaired. Corporal discipline of a child by a parent or guardian for 
disciplinary purposes does not in itself constitute abuse when it does not result in 
harm to the child as defined in s. 39.01. 
EFTA00722869

305-9312200 
Herman &Mame'stein, P 
02:33:18 
01-06-2009 
418 
r
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
CASE NO.: 09-CV-80802-Marra-Johnson 
JANE DOE NO. 8, 
Plaintiff, 
vs. 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 
Defendant. 
FILED by VT 
May 28, 2009 
STEKM /A. tARIMORE 
CAVIL US. OIST. 
R.D. of ftA,. MIAMI 
COMPLAINT 
Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 8 ("Jane" or "Jane Doe"), brings this Complaint against Jeffrey 
Epstein, as follows: 
Parties. Jurisdiction and Venue 
I. 
Jane Doe No. 8 ("Jane Doe") is a citizen and resident of the State of Florida, and is 
sui jufis. 
2. 
This Complaint is brought under a fictitious name to protect the identity of the 
Plaintiff because this Complaint makes sensitive allegations of sexual assault and abuse upon a 
minor. 
3. 
Defendant Jeffrey Epstein is a citizen and resident of the State of New York, and 
presently serving a prison sentence in Palm Beach County, Florida for, inter alia, solicitation of 
prostitution and solicitation of minors to engage in prostitution.. 
4. 
This is an action for damages in excess of S50 million. 
5. 
This Court has jurisdiction of this action and the claims set forth herein pursuant to 28 
U.S.C. §1332(a), as the matter in controversy (i) exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs; 
Mepmetsreim & Hopowrrz. P. A. 
et7 
- I - 
EFTA00722870

30S-931220D 
Herman &Mermetneln, P 
02:33:3M. 
01-06-2009 
5/a 
and (ii) is between citizens of different states. 
6. 
Additionally, this Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331 because 
Plaintiff alleges a claim under the laws of the United States. This Court has supplemental 
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367(a) over all other claims set forth herein which form pail of 
the same case or controversy. 
7. 
This Court has venue of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1391(a) and 1391(b) as a 
substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in this District. 
Factual Allegations 
8. 
At all relevant times, Defendant Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein') was an adult male in his 
early 50's. Epstein is a financier and money manager with a secret clientele limited exclusively to 
billionaires. He is himself a man of tremendous wealth, power and influence. He maintains his 
principal home in New York and also owns residences in New Mexico, St. Thomas and Palm Beach, 
FL. The allegations herein concern Epstein's conduct while at his lavish estate in Palm Beach. 
9. 
Upon information and belief, Epstein has a sexual preference and obsession for 
underage minor girls. He engaged in a plan and scheme in which he gained access to primarily 
economically disadvantaged minor girls in his home, sexually assaulted these girls, and then gave 
them money. In or about 2001, Jane Do; then approximately 16 years old, fell into Epstein's trap 
and became one of his victims. 
10. 
Upon information and belief, Jeffrey Epstein carried out his scheme and assaulted 
girls in Florida, New York and on his private island, known as Little St. James, in St. Thomas. 
11. 
Epstein's scheme involved the use of young girls to recruit underage girls. These 
underage girls were recruited ostensibly to give a wealthy man a massage for monetary compensation 
HERMELSTE1N & HOROWITZ. P. A. 
- 2 - 
EFTA00722871

305-9312200 
Herman &PAermateln, P 
02:34:03 
01-06-2009 
6/8 
in his Palm Beach mansion. Epstein, upon information and belief, generally sought out economically 
disadvantaged underage girls from Palm Beach County who would be enticed by the money being 
offered - generally $200 to $300 per "massage" session - and who were perceived as less likely to 
complain to authorities or have credibility if allegations of improper conduct were made. 
12. 
Epstein's plan and scheme reflected a particular pattern and method. The underage 
victim would be brought or directed to Epstein's mansion, where she would be led up a flight of 
stairs to a room that contained a massage table in addition to other furnishings. The girl would then 
find herself alone in the room with Epstein, who would be wearing only a towel. He would then 
remove his towel and lie naked on the massage table, and direct the girl to remove her clothes. 
Epstein would then perform one or more lewd, lascivious and sexual acts. 
13. 
Consistent with the foregoing plan and scheme, Jane Doe was recruited by another 
girl, who told her that she could make some money, but did not tell her what was involved. At all 
relevant times, the girl who recruited Jane Doe was acting on behalf of and as agent for Epstein. 
Jane was contacted by this girl by telephone. Jane was then picked up and brought to Epstein's 
mansion in Palm Beach Once there, she was led up the flight of stairs to the room with the massage 
table. Epstein came into the room and directed Jane to remove her clothes and give him a massage. 
Jane was frightened and felt trapped. As directed by Epstein, Jane removed her clothes. Epstein 
then during the massage touched Jane on her breasts and vagina, and he grabbed her hand and placed 
it on his penis. Epstein masturbated himself during the massage. Epstein then left money for Jane. 
14. 
As a result of this encounter with Epstein, Jane experienced confusion, shame, 
humiliation and embarrassment, and has suffered severe psychological and emotional injuries. 
MERMELSTEDI Ea HOROWITZ, P. A. 
- 3 - 
EFTA00722872

305-9312200 
Herman &Merme!stein, P 
02:35:06 
01-06-2009 
718 
24. 
Epstein committed willful acts of child sexual abuse on Jane Doe. These acts resulted 
in mental or sexual injury that caused or were likely to cause Jane Doe's mental or emotional health 
to be significantly impaired. 
25. 
Epstein's conduct caused severe emotional distress to Jane Doe. Epstein knew or had 
reason to know that his intentional and outrageous conduct would cause emotional distress and 
damage to Jane Doe, or Epstein acted with reckless disregard of the high probability of causing 
severe emotional distress to Jane Doe. 
26. 
As a direct and proximate result of Epstein' s intentional or reckless conduct, Jane Doe 
has suffered and will continue to suffer severe mental anguish and pain, psychological and emotional 
injuries and los of enjoyment of life. . 
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 6 demands judgment against Defendant Jeffrey 
Epstein for compensatory damages, costs, punitive damages, and such other and further relief as this 
Court deems just and proper. 
COUNT In 
Coercion and Enticement to Sexual Activity in Violation of 18 U.S.C. 82422 
27. 
Plaintiff Jane Doe repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 14 above. 
28. 
Epstein used a facility or means of interstate commerce to knowingly persuade, 
induce or entice Jane Do; when she was under the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution or 
sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense. 
29. 
On June 30, 2008, Epstein entered a plea of guilty to violations of Florida §§ 796.07 
and 796.03, in the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County (Case nos. 2008-cf-
009381A)COCIAB and 2006-ef-009454400aMB), for conduct involving the same plan and 
scheme as alleged herein. 
MCPHEE-STEIN & HOROWITZ, P. A. 
- 5 - 
EFTA00722873

305-9312200 
Herman &Mermelsteln, P 
02:35:42 
01-06-2009 
818 
30. 
As to Plaintiff Jane Doe, Epstein could have been charged with criminal violations of 
Florida Statute §796.07(2) (including subsections (c), (d), (e), (1), (g), and (h) thereof), and other 
criminal offenses including violations of Florida Statutes §§798.02 and 800.04 (including 
subsections (5), (6) and (7) thereof). 
31. 
Epstein's acts and conduct are in violation of 18 U.S.C. §2422. 
32. 
As a result of Epstein's violation of 18 U.S.C. §2422, Plaintiff has suffered personal 
injury, including mental, psychological and emotional damages. 
33. 
Plaintiff hired Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. (ffida Herman & Mermelstein, PA.), in 
this matter and agreed to pay them a reasonable attorneys' fee. 
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 6 demands judgment against Defendant Jeffrey 
Epstein for all damages available under 18 U.S.C. §2255(a), including without limitation, actual and 
compensatory damages, costs of suit, and attorneys' fees, and such other and further relief as this 
Court deems just and proper. 
JURY TRIAL DEMAND 
Plaintiff demands a jury trial in this action on all claims so triable. 
Dated: May 2:7 2009 
MERMELSTE1N & HOROWITZ, P. A. 
Respectfully submitted, 
By: 
C .
- 6 - 
Stuart S. Mermelstein 
No. 947245) 
Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980) 
MERNIELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P.A. 
Attorneys for Plaintiff 
18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 
Miami, Florida 33160 
Tel: 305-931-2200 
Fax: 305-931-0877 
EFTA00722874

1 
2 
3 
4 
S 
6 
7 
B 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION 
CASE NO. 08-80119-CIV-MARRA 
JANE DOE, et al., 
Plaintiffs, 
vs. 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 
Defendant. 
9 
10 
TRANSCRIPT OF MOTION HEARING 
11 
BEFORE THE HONORABLE KENNETH A. MARRA, 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 
JUNE 12, 2009 
12 
APPEARANCES: 
13 
FOR THE PLAINTIFFS: 
ADAM D. HOROWITZ, ESQ. 
14 
Mermelstein & Horowitz 
18205 Biscayne Boulevard 
15 
Miami, FL 33160 
305.931.2200 
For Jane Doe 
16 
BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, ESQ. 
17 
Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler 
401 East Las Olas Boulevard 
18 
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 
Jane Doe 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 
19 
954.522.3456 
20 
ISIDRO M. GARCIA, ESQ. 
Garcia Elkins Boehringer 
21 
224 Datura Avenue 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
22 
Jane DOE II 
561.832.8033 
23 
RICHARD H. WILLITS, ESQ. 
2290 10th Avenue North 
24 
Lake Worth, FL 33461 
For 
561.582.7600 
25 
TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION 
EFTA00722875

2 
ROBERT C. JOSEFSBERG, ESQ. 
2 
Podhuret Orseck Josefsberg 
25 West Flagler Street 
3 
Miami, FL 33130 
For Jane Doe 101 
305.358.2800 
4 
(Via telephone) 
5 
KATHERINE W. EZELL, ESQ. 
Podhurst Orseck Josefsberg 
6 
25 West Flagler Street 
Miami, FL 33130 
7 
For Jane Doe 101 
305.358.2800 
8 FOR THE DEFENDANT: 
ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. 
MICHAEL BURMAN, ESQ. 
9 
Burman Critton, etc. 
515 North Flagler Street 
10 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
561.842.2820 
11 
JACK A. GOLDBERGER, ESQ. 
12 
Atterbury Goldberger Weiss 
250 Australian Avenue South 
13 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
561.659.8300 
14 
ANN MARIE VILLAFANA, ESQ. 
15 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
500 East Broward Boulevard 
16 
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394 
For U.S.A. 
954.356.7255 
17 
MARTIN G. WEINBERG, ESQ. 
18 
20 Park Plaza 
Boston MA 02116 
19 
(Via telephone) 
617.227.3700 
20 
JAY LEFKOWITZ, ESQ. 
(Via telephone) 
21 
REPORTED BY: 
LARRY HERR, RPR-RMR-FCRR-AE 
22 
Official United States Court Reporter 
Federally Certified Realtime Reporter 
23 
400 North Miami Avenue, Room 8N09 
Miami, FL 33128 
305.523.5290 
24 
25 
TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION 
EFTA00722876

1 
2 
3 
THE COURT: We are here in the various Doe vs. Epstein 
cases. 
May I have counsel state their appearances? 
4 
MR. HOROWITZ: Adam Horowitz, counsel for plaintiffs 
5 Jane 2 through Jane Doe 7. 
6 
THE COURT: Good morning. 
7 
MR. EDWARDS: Brad Edwards, counsel for plaintiff Jane 
8 Doe. 
9 
THE COURT: Good morning. 
10 
MR. GARCIA: Good morning, Your Honor. Sid Garcia for 
11 Jane Doe II. 
12 
THE COURT: Good morning. 
13 
MR. WILLITS: Good morning, Your Honor. Richard 
14 Willits, here on behalf of the plaintiff 
15 
THE COURT: Good morning. 
16 
MS. EZELL: Good morning, Your Honor. I'm Katherine 
17 Ezell from Podhurat Orseck, here with Amy Adderly and Susan 
18 Bennett, and I believe my partner, Bob Josefsberg, is going to 
19 appear by telephone. 
20 
THE COURT: Mr. Josefsberg, are you there? 
21 
MR. JOSEFSBERO: I am, Your Honor. 
22 
THE COURT: Good morning. 
23 
MR. JOSEFSBERG: Good morning. 
24 
THE COURT: All right. Do we have all the plaintiffs 
25 stated their appearances? 
Okay. 
TOTALAMPCSCOURIROGMNETWORKREALTIMETWNSOUPTION 
EFTA00722877

29 
1 as a shield against the plaintiffs that he was supposed to make 
2 restitution for. 
3 
And, certainly, he can take my client's depo. He's 
4 done extensive discovery in the state court case -- very 
5 intrusive, I might add. And we don't care, because we can win 
6 this case with the prosecution agreement or without the 
7 prosecution agreement. We are ready to go forward. 
8 
THE COURT: You're not going to assert to the United 
9 States Government that what he's doing in defending the case is 
10 a violation for which he should be further prosecuted? 
11 
MR. GARCIA: Absolutely not. 
12 
THE COURT: Anyone else for the plaintiffs? 
13 
MR. HOROWITZ: Judge, Adam Horowitz, counsel for 
14 plaintiffs Jane Doe 2 through 7. 
15 
I just wanted to address a point that I think you've 
16 articulated it. I just want to make sure it's crystal clear, 
17 which is that we can't paint a broad brush for all of the 
18 cases. 
19 
The provision relating to Mr. Epstein being unable to 
20 contest liability pertains only to those plaintiffs who have 
21 chosen as their sole remedy the federal statute. My clients, 
22 Jane Doe 2 through 7, have elected to bring additional causes 
23 of action, and it's for that reason we were silent when you 
24 said does anyone here find Mr. Epstein to be in breach of the 
25 non-prosecution agreement. That provision, as we understand 
TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION 
EFTA00722878

30 
1 it, it doesn't relate to our clients. 
2 
THE COURT: Okay. But, again, you're in agreement 
3 with everyone else so far that's spoken on behalf of a 
4 plaintiff that defending the case in the normal course of 
5 conducting discovery and filing motions would not be a breach? 
6 
MR. HOROWITZ: Subject to your rulings, of course, 
7 yes. 
8 
THE COURT: Thank you. 
9 
Anyone else have anything to say from the plaintiffs? 
10 
Ms. Villafana, if you would be so kind as to maybe 
11 help us out. I appreciate the fact that you're here, and I 
12 know you're not a party to these cases and under no obligation 
13 to respond to my inquiries. But as I indicated, it would be 
14 helpful for me to understand the Government's position. 
15 
MS. VILLAFANA: Thank you, Your 'Honor. And we, of 
16 course, are always happy to try to help the Court as much as 
17 possible. But we are not a party to any of these lawsuits, and 
18 in some ways we are at a disadvantage because we don't have 
19 access. My access is limited to what's on Pacer. So I don't .
20 really know what positions Mr. Epstein may have taken either in 
21 correspondence or in discovery responses that aren't filed in 
22 the case file. 
23 
But your first order was really just what do you think 
24 about a stay, and then the second order related to this hearing 
25 and asked a much more specific question, which is whether we 
TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION 
EFTA00722879