EFTA01093175

Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos Et Lehrman, P.L. 
January 19, 2010 
Honorable 
Main Judici 
omp ex 
Palm Beach County Courthouse 
Re: ill 
v. Jeffrey Epstein / Case No. 502008CA02805DCXXXMB AB 
1 2 10 @ 8:45 AM UMC Hearing on Defendant's Motion to Compel Presidential 
Women's Center to Comply with Subpoena Duces Tecum 
Dear Judge 
With reference to the above captioned Hearing, enclosed please find a copy of Plaintiff's 
Objection to Defendant's Subpoena Duces Tecum Directed to Presidential Women's Center and 
Motion for Protective Order and Response to Defendant's Motion to Compel same. 
A copy of the case cited in the Objection and Response is also enclosed. 
Should you have any questions, please feel free to call. 
Thank you for your consideration and interest. 
Bradley J. Edwards 
BJE/bw 
Enc. 
cc: Michael Burman, Esq. 
Jack A. Goldberger, Esq. 
EFTA01093175

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15th 
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM 
BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA 
CASE NO: 502008CA028051XXXXMB AB 
Plaintiff, 
v. 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 
Defendant. 
OBJECTION TO DEFENDANT'S SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM DIRECTED TO 
PRESIDENTIAL WOMEN'S CENTER AND MOTION FOR PROECTIVE ORDER 
AND RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL PRESIDENTIAL 
WOMEN'S CENTER TO COMPLY WITH SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM 
Plaintiff 
hereby files her Objection to the Subpoena Duces Tecum 
served up Presidential Women's Center and Response to Defendant's Motion to 
Compel Presidential Women's Center to comply with Subpoena Duces Tecum 
and as grounds states as follows: 
OBJECTION TO THE SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM FOR DEPOSITION 
SERVED ON PRESIDENTIAL WOMEN'S CENTER 
1. 
Defendant Epstein served a Subpoena Duces Tecum for 
Deposition (records only) on Presidential Women's Center on November 13, 
2009 (Attached hereto as Exhibit "A"). 
2. 
At the time when the subpoena was apparently served, Defendant 
Epstein and his counsel were fully aware that the undersigned's firm (RRA) had 
recently disbanded and thus the undersigned was without a working office, 
EFTA01093176

without firm affiliation, and that Plaintiff was without counsel to represent her or 
file any motions or objections on her behalf at that time. 
3. 
In addition to Defendant serving said Subpoena, the Notice of 
Deposition that was filed contemporaneously was mailed to the undersigned's 
former law firm address, as evidenced by the Certificate of Service on the Notice 
— an office that has not been in effect since March of 2009, a fact that was well 
known to Defendant. 
4. 
Defendant either made a clerical mistake or intentionally chose the 
time to serve this subpoena at a fax number and address that they knew had not 
been in use for almost a year. 
5. 
So while Defendant Epstein has taken the position that any 
objection to the Subpoena was waived, Plaintiff disputes that allegation citing the 
aforementioned reasons in either event. 
6. 
At this time, and pursuant to Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, 
Plaintiff objects to the Subpoena and the production of such records, as clearly 
those records are only being sought for the purpose of harassing and humiliating 
Plaintiff, and this discovery attempt is not reasonably calculated to lead to the 
discovery of admissible evidence. See Peisach v. Antuna, 539 So.2d 544 (Fla. 
3d DCA 1989). 
7. 
This objection is further explained below in Plaintiffs response to 
Defendant's Motion to Compel directed at Presidential Women's Clinic. 
8. 
Wherefore, Plaintiff requests that this Court find this Objection 
timely, given the circumstances, and hear the merits of the Objection. 
EFTA01093177

MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S 
MOTION TO COMPEL PRESIDENTIAL WOMEN'S CENTER TO COMPLY 
WITH SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM 
1. 
Defendant Epstein, filed his Motion to Compel Presidential 
Women's Center to produce records related to a possible abortion or other 
female issue that may have been had by Plaintiff. 
2. 
In his Motion, Defendant, consistent with his litigation pattern in this 
and related cases, has cited and attached Federal Court Orders from related 
cases in support of his Motion. 
3. 
Attachment B and C to Defendant's Motion are Orders entered by 
Magistrate 
related to other cases and that address specific 
issues related to those other cases, and as the Court can see upon review are 
not relevant to the Motion to Compel at hand. 
4. 
Not surprisingly, Defendant attached DE #413, an Omnibus Order 
in Case #08-80119, which does in fact address the issue of abortions related to 
another Plaintiff, and Defendant cites to the language from that Order that best 
serves his purpose. 
5. 
What Defendant forgot to tell the Court was that DE #413 was 
appealed (DE #430 of 08-80119) and overturned (DE #433 of 08-90119). DE 
#430 is attached as Exhibit B and DE #433 is attached as Exhibit C. 
6. 
As is clear from a reading of Exhibit C to this Motion, Defendant's 
were admonished for the ..."repetitive questioning about exceedingly sensitive 
issues such as ...abortions...". 
EFTA01093178

7. 
That Court further warned Defense counsel about questioning that 
appears to be "badgering and harassing" and that serve to "needlessly 
revictimize, embarrass, and humiliate" the victims. 
8. 
The discovery being sought in this instance is ONLY being sought 
to humiliate and harass Plaintiff, and could not possibly serve any other purpose. 
9. 
The choice to have an abortion is a legal right of any person, yet it 
is one of the most sensitive and controversial subjects and has been for years. 
10. 
The undersigned would not object to Defendant asking Plaintiff 
whether she has had any abortions and whether or not it had a psychological 
impact; however, these records are not relevant to any of the current liability or 
damage issues and are only an attempt by Defendant to intimidate and humiliate 
Plaintiff. 
11. 
This subpoena is not the first tactic employed by Defendant to 
intimidate and harass Plaintiff; in fact, Defendant has made it quite clear that 
intimidation is Defendant's primary objective. 
12. 
In that vein, Defendant has served two letters on the undersigned 
with instructions to share the letters with Plaintiff, and while under the guise of a 
"Confidential Settlement" letter, each letter is filled with threats. 
13. 
Due to the fact that each letter was titled as a "Confidential 
Settlement" document, the undersigned has not attached these letters, but invites 
the Court to inspect each letter in-camera, so that the Court is aware of 
Defendant's true intentions, when he subpoenas information such as he is doing 
here. 
EFTA01093179

14. 
The letters go well beyond any real settlement negotiations, and 
can only be interpreted as threatening and a clear attempt to further intimidate 
Plaintiff. 
15. 
Defendant's Subpoena for any records related to any possible 
abortion should be stricken and a Protective Order entered as the purpose for 
such a request is abundantly clear and has no relevance whatsoever in this law 
suit. 
CERTICATE OF SERVICE 
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the original of the above and a copy of the 
foregoing has been provided this I\ 147clay of January 2010 via U.S. Mail and 
email transmittal to all those on the attached service list. 
Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, 
Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, P.L. 
Florida Bar No.: 542075 
EFTA01093180

SERVICE LIST 
Robert D. Critton, Jr. 
BURMAN, CRITTON, et al. 
Jay Howell, Esq. 
Jay Howell & Assoc. 
Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. 
Atterbu 
Goldber er et al. 
EFTA01093181

01/12/2010 17:05 FAX 
BURMAN CRITTON LUTTIER 
O 045/071 
S 
Plaintiff, 
v. 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 
Defendant. 
IN THE COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH 
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM 
BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA 
CASE NO. 502008CA0280513OOOOv1B AB 
NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION DTJCES TECUM 
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the undersigned attorney will take the deposition duces 
tecum (See attached Exhibit "A") of: 
DEPONENT 
DATE & TIME 
LOCATION OF DEPOSITION 
Records Custodian 
November 30, 2009 
Burman Critton Luttier & Coleman, 
Presidential Women's Center 
10:30 a.m. 
LLC 
upon oral examination, before Prose Court Reporting, a Notary Public, or any other officer 
authorized by law to take depositions in the State of Florida. The oral examination is being taken for 
the purpose of discovery, for use at trial, or for such other purposes as are permitted under the 
applicable Statutes of Rules of Court. 
Certificate of Service 
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was sent by fax and U.S. Mail to the 
following addressees on this 13th  day of November, 2009: 
Brad Edwards, Esq. 
Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. 
Brad Edwards and Associates, LLC 
Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 
Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein 
Counsel for Plaintiff 
EFTA01093182

01/12/2010 17:05 FAX 
BURMAN CRITTON LUTTIER 
0048/071 
I 
v. Epstein 
Page 2 
Jay Howell, Esq. 
Jay Howell & Associates, P.A. 
Co-counsel for Plaintiff 
BURMAN, CRITT0N, LUTTIER & COLEMAN, LLP 
By: 
Robert t . Crittoo, Jr. 
Florida aril...PP 
Michael J. Pike 
Florida Bar MOP 
(Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) 
EFTA01093183

01/12/2010 17:05 FAX 
BURMAN CRITTON LUTTIER 
Le]047/071 
v. Epstein 
age 3 
EXHIBIT "A" - DUCES TECUM 
A copy of the entire file of 'ate 
of Birth: 
Social Security No. XXX-XX-
Viiii including but not limited to any forms completed by the patient, medical records, reports, lab 
or diagnostic test results, psychological test results, raw test data, letters of protection, fee 
agreements, consultants' reports, letters to and from the patient, handwritten office notes by any 
person, telephone messages, computer data kept on the patient, attorney letters, photographs, 
charts, intake forms, release forms and consultations from January 1, 2002 through the date of this 
Subpoena. if you require the entire Social Security number, please contact our office a 
I lland ask for Bobbie McKenna. 
EFTA01093184

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 430 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 1 of 16 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON 
JANE DOE NO. 2, 
Plaintiff, 
vs. 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 
Defendant. 
Related Cases: 
08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 
08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 
09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092, 
JANE DOE NO. 4's APPEAL PURSUANT TO S.D.FLA.L.MAG.R. 4 
OF ORDER DENYING HER MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER 
AGAINST SECOND DAY OF DEPOSITION EXTENDING PAST SEVEN HOURS 
Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 4 ("Plaintiff'), by and through undersigned counsel, files this 
Appeal, pursuant to S.D.Fla.Mag.J.R. 4 and 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(I)(A), of the Magistrate Judge's 
Omnibus Order entered on November 17, 2009 (DE 413), which denied Jane Doe No. 4's 
Motion for Protective Order Against Second Day of Deposition Extending Past Seven Hours, on 
the grounds set forth below. 
I. 
Introduction and Summary 
Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's demonstrated strategy in defense of these cases has been to 
harass, intimidate, embarrass and humiliate the Plaintiffs. 
He has done this through the 
aggressive use of investigators; extensive and invasive discovery on the details of the Plaintiffs' 
sexual histories with men other than Epstein; and now, by means of a badgering and berating the 
EXHIBIT 
EFTA01093185

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 430 
Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 2 of 16 
Plaintiffs at deposition.' The Plaintiffs in these cases — who generally have low socio-economic 
backgrounds and poor self-esteem — are particularly vulnerable to Defendant's nefarious tactics, 
and indeed it may fairly be inferred that this is a significant reason why Jeffrey Epstein, a 
convicted sex offender, selected them to be his victims in the first place. By denying Plaintiff's 
Motion for Protective Order in its entirety, the Magistrate Judge's Order (DE 413) is clearly 
erroneous and contrary to law. This Order compels Jane Doe No. 4 to sit for an additional four 
hours of deposition, after having her deposition taken for five hours and thirty-five minutes 
(excluding breaks) over the course of a full day. Plaintiff appeals this Order on the grounds that 
it fails entirely to recognize or acknowledge that: 
• 
Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(d)(1) and S.D.Fla.L.R. 26.1(K), the 7-hour time limit for 
depositions is presumptive; it is clearly Defendant's burden by motion to show cause 
for a longer deposition, which Defendant fails entirely to satisfy.2
• 
Under S.D.Fla.L.R. 30.1(A)(5), the questioning of Jane Doe No. 4 during the first 5 /2 
hours of her deposition was abusive. It demonstrates that no more than 7 hours are 
necessary for a fair and appropriate deposition, and that the additional four hours of 
deposition time ordered by the Magistrate Judge will undoubtedly subject Jane Doe 
No. 4 to further abuse as described in S.D.Fla.L.R. 30.1(A)($). 
• 
Under this Court's Order Consolidating Cases dated May 14, 2009 (DE 98), any 
waiver of the 7 hour limit is subject to the admonition that no party has the authority 
Plaintiffs, Jane Does Nos. 2-8, sought in prior motion practice various protections against the 
conduct of Epstein's investigators and discovery of the Plaintiffs' sexual histories. In both of 
these instances, the Magistrate Judge denied Plaintiffs any relief. aeg infra 
2 Defendant not only fails to satisfy this burden, but the 446 pages of transcripts of the existing 
deposition, in three volumes, demonstrate by themselves that Defendant should not be permitted 
to exceed the 7-hour limit. See infra and attached Exhibits 1-3. 
2 
EFTA01093186

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 430 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 3 of 16 
"to take unnecessarily long depositions, or abuse the process." (¶ 8). The Magistrate 
Judge's Order contains no such admonition, yet the transcripts of the existing 
deposition of Jane Doe No. 4 demonstrate vividly Defendant's abuse of the 
deposition process. 
Rules 26(c) and 30(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are designed to prevent 
exactly the misconduct demonstrated in the present case - Jeffrey Epstein's use of discovery as a 
tactic with the ulterior motive to harass and humiliate the Plaintiff. The Magistrate Judge's 
failure to provide any protection to Plaintiff whatsoever under these circumstances, and 
perfunctorily grant Defendant carte blanche in discovery,3 is clearly erroneous. 
II. 
Procedural Background 
Jane Doe No. 4's deposition was originally scheduled for September 16, 2009. On that 
date, while Plaintiff was walking to the conference room where the deposition was to be taken 
pursuant to Jeffrey Epstein's notice, Jeffrey Epstein appeared within a few feet of Plaintiff, in 
contravention of the express agreement of Epstein's counsel and in violation of the No-contact 
Order entered by this Court. (DE 238). This gave rise to motion practice that was resolved by 
the Magistrate Judge's Order dated October 23, 2009 (DE 369), which required that Jane Doe 
No. 4 sit for deposition on October 27, 2009 at 11:00 a.m., and prohibited Jeffrey Epstein from 
appearing at the deposition. 
Prior to the deposition, Plaintiffs' counsel advised Defendant's counsel of their position 
that the deposition could go no longer than 7 hours absent court order. Jane Doe No. 4 appeared 
' As discussed below, the Magistrate Judge issued her decision granting Defendant all the relief 
requested in his Response Memorandum before Plaintiff had an opportunity to file a Reply to 
Defendant's Response Memorandum, and without the benefit of the transcripts of Jane Doe No. 
4's existing deposition, which had not been filed at the time that the Order was entered. 
3 
EFTA01093187

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 430 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 4 of 16 
for deposition at the court ordered date and time. Jane Doe's deposition proceeded from 11:11 
a.m. until 6:05 p.m. The deposition transcript is in three volumes and at this point 446 pages in 
length. A complete copy of the deposition transcripts, volumes I-III, is attached hereto as 
Exhibits 1-3, respectively. 
Subsequent to the deposition, the parties attempted to reach agreement on the remaining 
time for a second day of deposition of Jane Doe No. 4. Plaintiff's counsel calculated the 
aggregate time of Jane Doe No. 4 in deposition on October 27, 2009 (excluding breaks) as 5 
hours, 35 minutes, which Defendant's counsel did not dispute. Defendant's counsel, however, 
insisted on taking Jane Doe No. 4's deposition for an additional 4 hours, giving Defendant 
almost 10 hours of aggregate deposition time of Jane Doe No. 4 over two days. As a result, 
Plaintiff filed a Motion for Protective Order on November 3, 2009 (DE 392). Prior to the filing 
of this Motion, another Plaintiff in these cases represented by different counsel, Jane Doe, filed a 
similar Motion for Protective Order (DE 378), attempting to limit Defendant from taking a 
second day of Jane Doe's deposition. The principal argument set forth in both Motions 
concerned interpretation of the Court's Order Consolidating Cases dated May 14, 2009 (DE 98). 
Plaintiffs contended that the waiver of the 7-hour deposition limit set forth in paragraph 8 of that 
Order did not authorize the Defendant to take a deposition exceeding 7 hours of a Plaintiff absent 
court order. On November 12, 2009, Defendant filed his response in opposition to Jane Doe No. 
4's Motion for Protective Order. (DE 404). 
Under S.D.Fla.L.R. 7.1, Plaintiff had until 
November 23, 2009 to file a Reply. However, well prior to this date, on November 17, 2009, the 
Magistrate Judge issued an Omnibus Order (DE 413) which denied the relief sought in the 
4 
EFTA01093188

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 430 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 5 of 16 
Motions of both Jane Doe and Jane Doe No. 4 in their entirety.4 The decretal portion of this 
Omnibus Order, which Jane Doe No. 4 appeals, is as follows: 
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff Jane Doe's Motion 
for Protective Order Barring Second Deposition and for Sanctions. 
(D.E. #378); and Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 4's Motion for Protective 
re Second Day of Deposition (D.E. # 392) are DENIED. Epstein's 
counsel is hereby given leave to re-depose Jane Doe for up to 3 
additional hours and hereby given leave to re-depose Jane Doe 4 
for up to 4 additional hours. 
III. 
Abusive Deposition Questioning 
The transcripts of Jane Doe No. 4's deposition, attached hereto as Exhibits 1-3, are 
replete with instances of abusive deposition conduct, consisting of harassing, humiliating and 
irrelevant questions having no legitimate discovery purpose. This abusive and unnecessary 
questioning demonstrates that: (1) the deposition of Jane Doe No. 4, as well as the other 
Plaintiffs in these cases, can be fairly completed within 7 hours; and (2) providing Defendant 
with an additional four hours of deposition time for Jane Doe No. 4 will more likely than not 
subject Jane Doe No. 4 to additional abuse. 
For example, Defendant's counsel asked Jane Doe the following sequence of questions in 
response to her testimony that she has had three abortions: 
Q. — you went and aborted three kids? Why wouldn't you want 
people to know that? 
Q. Does it cause you any upset to know that you aborted three 
kids in your life? 
Plaintiff in her Motion for Protective Order described the nature and extent of the abusive 
questioning at Jane Doe No. 4's deposition, and stated her intent to file the transcript when it 
became available. (Motion (DE 392) at pp. 3-4 & n.1). Nonetheless, the Court issued the 
Omnibus Order without the benefit of the three-volume transcript, which is now filed as Exhibits 
1-3 to this Appeal. 
EFTA01093189

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 430 
Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 6 of 16 
Q. Were you told before each of these abortions that you had what 
they call viable fetuses? 
Q. Does it give you any, any emotional pain that you aborted three 
fetuses? 
Q. It's contrary to everything you ever learned as a child as a 
Roman Catholic, isn't it? 
Q. Does your mom know you aborted three kids? 
Q. Does your dad know you aborted three kids? 
Q. What do you think they'd think? 
Q. Do you think they're going to be happy about that? 
Q. Is it going to cause you a little emotional upset? 
Q. My question is, is it going to cause you any emotional upset? 
Q. Wouldn't you agree with me that aborting three fetuses - . 
would be far more traumatic than giving a man a massage in the 
nude? 
Q. I want you to tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury whether 
or not aborting three fetuses is more traumatic than giving a man a 
massage in the nude. 
(Transcript, Exh. 2, pp. 301-305). 
While it may not be inappropriate to ask a plaintiff in a 
personal injury case a question about whether having abortions caused her emotional distress, the 
foregoing questions were intended and designed to provoke, harass, embarrass and humiliate 
Jane Doe No. 4. Early in this line of questioning, Jane Doe No. 4 answered "of course" to the 
question of whether having these abortions caused her upset. (Id., p. 301, line 19). Despite this, 
Defendant's counsel proceeds through four additional pages of deposition transcript asking 
essentially the identical question in different ways, unmercifully badgering Jane Doe No. 4 on an 
6 
EFTA01093190

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 430 
Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 7 of 16 
enonnously sensitive topic, and going so far as to intimate that he will disclose the abortions to 
her parents.5
As another example, Defendant's counsel marked as Exhibit 1 to the Deposition the 
Proposal for Settlement that was served on Plaintiffs' counsel in March, 2009. (Transcript, Exh. 
1, p. 71). He proceeds to ask Jane Doe No. 4 a series of questions about this Proposal for 
Settlement, including whether she has seen and had an opportunity to review the Proposal. Of 
course, such questions could never lead to competent, admissible evidence at trial. (Id., pp. 71-
73). See S.D.Fla.L.R. 30.1(A)(5).6
Defendant's counsel asked Jane Doe No. 4 a number of repetitive questions, over 
approximately 9 transcript pages, regarding how she came to see Plaintiffs' forensic expert, Dr. 
Gilbert Kliman, who has been retained in this case by Plaintiffs' counsel pursuant to 
Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(2) and Fed.R.Evid. 702. (Transcript, Exh. 2, pp. 237-244, 267). Defendant's 
counsel had previously received extensive expert discovery from Dr. Kliman, including his 
interviews and testing of the Plaintiffs. Such deposition questions by Defendant's counsel were 
pointless and plainly not calculated to lead to competent, admissible evidence at trial. 
There are many other examples that may be gleaned from the attached transcripts. 
Defendant's counsel asked repetitive questions regarding exact dates that various types of sexual 
conduct occurred during the course of numerous massages given to Epstein by Jane Doe No. 4 
over an approximate two year period, badgering the Plaintiff when Jane Doe No. 4 could only 
' This line of questioning is the subject of a separate Motion for Protective Order to prevent 
Defendant's counsel from asking Plaintiff's parents leading questions about the abortions at her 
deposition. (DE 420). 
Defendant's counsel also asked Plaintiff an inordinate number of repetitive, intimidating 
questions concerning the oath and her duty to tell the truth to police officers. (See Transcript, 
Exh. 1, pp. 7-10, 52-53). 
7 
EFTA01093191

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 430 
Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 8 of 16 
recall generally the months that certain sexual conduct commenced during her junior year of high 
school. (Transcript, Exh. 2, pp. 143-153). Defendant's counsel asked Plaintiff a number of 
questions regarding how Epstein had treated the Plaintiff, and then later in the deposition asked 
virtually the identical series of questions again. (Compare Transcript, Exh. 2, pp. 163-177, with 
pp. 288-296). 
The foregoing demonstrates that much of the deposition time consumed by Defendant's 
counsel was wasted with harassing, repetitive and badgering questions. An examination of the 
446 existing pages of deposition transcripts reveals that Defendant's counsel does not require 
more than 7 hours to conduct a fair deposition of Plaintiff. 
IV. 
Argument 
A. 
THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S ORDER IS CONTRARY TO LAW 
The Magistrate Judge's decision to grant Defendant Epstein a second day of deposition of 
Jane Doe No. 4, for an additional four hours, is contrary to law. The error is apparent in the 
following portion of the Court's decision: 
Epstein contends the Court's May 14, 2009 Consolidation Order, 
which provides that "Local Rule 26.1K (limiting deposition time to 
one day of seven hours) is waived so as to allow each party an 
adequate opportunity to develop fully the record as it may relate to 
that party," effectively waives L.R. 26.1K's limitation on the 
length of a deposition, thereby relieving Epstein from the seven 
hour deposition limit. 
The Court need not reach this issue, 
however, in that Epstein has provided sufficient and reasonable 
grounds in his Response Memorandum to sustain his burden, to the 
extent it is his burden, of showing additional time to depose Jane 
Doe and Jane Doe 4 is needed, to fully and fairly prepare his 
defense. 
(Omnibus Order (DE 413), p. 3) (emphasis supplied). Initially, as noted in the highlighted 
language above, the Magistrate Judge is equivocal on the issue of whether it is Epstein's burden 
to show cause for a deposition exceeding 7 hours. Yet the Advisory Committee's Note to 
8 
EFTA01093192

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 430 
Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 9 of 16 
Fed.R.Civ.P. p. 30 makes clear that Title party seeking a court order to extend the examination 
. . . is expected to show good cause to justify such an order." Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(d) Advisory 
Committee's Note (2000 Amendment) (emphasis supplied). 
Rule 30(d)(I) establishes the 
"presumptive duration" of a deposition as 7 hours. See Home Design Services, Inc. v. W. Gargas 
Constr.. Inc., 2009 WL 3190462 (N.D. Fla. 2009). It is incumbent upon the party seeking a 
longer deposition to move the court for additional time and show cause. Here, the Court 
erroneously found sufficient cause in the Defendant's Response Memorandum to Plaintiff's 
Motion for Protective Order. 
B. 
THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FINDINGS ARE NOT SUPPORTED 
BY THE RECORD, INCONSISTENT WITH THE TRANSCRIPTS OF 
JANE DOE NO. 4'S DEPOSITION, AND THUS CLEARLY ERRONEOUS 
The Court's finding of cause is clearly erroneous. 
The first ground stated by the 
Magistrate Judge to support substantial added deposition time of Jane Doe No. 4 is that Plaintiffs 
are "seeking millions of dollars." This ground has been stated by the Magistrate Judge in 
rejecting, in their entirety, the prior attempts by Plaintiffs to place limits on the Defendant's 
abusive discovery conduct. (See DE 299 (Order dated September 15, 2009, denying Plaintiffs' 
Motion for Protective Order on conduct of Epstein's investigators, p. 5); DE 377 (Omnibus 
Order dated October 28, 2009, granting Defendant's Motion to Compel Answers to 
Interrogatories and Request for Production regarding Plaintiffs' sexual histories, p. 4)). Yet the 
Magistrate Judge has not in any of these instances articulated why the Plaintiffs' seeking millions 
of dollars warrants granting the Defendant carte blanche in discovery, thereby facilitating 
Defendant's thinly veiled strategy to harass, badger, embarrass and humiliate the Plaintiffs. 
Indeed, the Magistrate Judge never mentions that Epstein is a reputed billionaire. While a 
plaintiff's demand for millions of dollars would in the typical case threaten the financial well 
EFTA01093193

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 430 
Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 10 of 16 
being of the defendant, this is not the typical case. Every indication is that the "millions of 
dollars" sought by Defendant's sex abuse victims are, or at least could be, a trivial sum to 
Defendant Epstein.?
The Magistrate Judge in the Omnibus Order states additional reasons for granting 
Defendant four additional hours of deposition of Jane Doe No. 4, including the need to ask 
questions about: (1) Jane Doe No. 4's alleged dmg use; (2) repeated instances of domestic 
violence; (3) multiple aborted pregnancies; (4) arrests; and (5) details regarding her past sexual 
history. (Omnibus Order, p. 4). With regard to topics (I) through (4), a review of the 446 pages 
of existing deposition transcripts reveals that Jane Doe No. 4 has already been questioned 
extensively on each of these topics! As to past sexual history, Jane Doe No. 4 pursuant to Court 
Order has recently answered interrogatories detailing her past sexual history. The instances in 
which Jane Doe No. 4, on her counsel's advice, refused to answer questions at deposition 
regarding her sexual history are de minimus. (am Exh. 1 p. 5, Exh. 2, p. 182, Exh. 3, pp. 314-
317, 368). Indeed, she answered at her deposition most of questions concerning her sexual 
history with men other than Epstein. (
, e.g., Transcript, Exh. 3, pp. 323-350, 354-355). Any 
remaining questions regarding Jane Doe No. 4's sexual history can easily and fairly be covered 
' It should also be noted that Plaintiffs seek millions of dollars inclusive of punitive damages. 
The discovery sought by Defendant through the deposition of Jane Doe No. 4 is not pertinent to 
the issue of punitive damages, which focuses on the willful and wanton acts of Epstein in 
sexually molesting teenage girls. 
I 
° See the following portions of the attached transcripts:
I 
a. alleged drug use (Exh. 1, pp. 86-88, Exh. 2, pp. 213-223). 
b. instances of domestic violence (Exh. 1, pp. 26-32, Exh. 2, pp. 200-206, Exh. 3, pp. 349-359, 
1 
425). 
c. aborted pregnancies (Exh. 2, pp. 301-307, Exh. 3, pp. 311-318, 426). 
I 
d. arrests (Exh. 1, pp. 25-26, Exh. 3, pp. 338-349).
10 
EFTA01093194