EFTA00723218

YE, 
J. MICHAEL BURMAN. PAN 
GREGORY W. COLEMAN. PA. 
ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR. P.A. 
BERNARD LESEDEKER. 
MARK T. LL/TTIER. P.A. 
JEFFREY C. PEPIN 
MICHAEL J. PIKE 
HEATHER. MCNAMARA RUDA 
DAVID YAREMA 
I FIORJOA BOARD GUMMED CM!. TRW. LAWYER 
IAOMITIIID TO PRACTICE IN IRMO* AND COLORADO 
BURtvtAN, CRITTON 
LUTTIER&COLEMAN.LLY 
YOUR TRUSTED ADVOCATES 
A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP 
December 9, 2009 
BY HAND DELIVERY 
Judge Donald Hafele 
Fifteenth Judicial Circuit 
Palm Beach Conn Courthouse 
Re: 
acember 14, 2009 UMC Hearing 
v. Jeffrey Epstein 
CASE NO.: 502008CA037319)OOOCMB AM 
ADELQI,PI J. BENAVENTE 
PAPALIOAL/INV7411GATOR 
JESSICA CADWEU. 
BOBBIE M. MCKENNA 
ASHLIE STOKEN-BARING 
BETTY STOKES 
PARALEGALS 
RITA H. BUDNYK 
OP COUNSEL 
ED RICCI 
SPECIAL CONSUMER 
JUSTICE COUNSEL 
Dear Judge Hafele: 
Enclosed, please find Jeffrey Epstein's Response in Opposition to ll's Motion for 
Inspection and to Compel Discovery, which are set for hearing before Your Honor on December 
14, 2009 at 8:30 a.m. The case law is also enclosed. 
id your Honor have any questions or 
concerns regarding the foregoing, please contact th 
'gned's office. 
V 
ours, 
Critton, Jr. 
Enclosures 
cc. 
Spencer Kuvin, Esq. (via facsimile w/o enclosures) 
Jack A. Goldberger, Esq. (via facsimile w/o enclosures) 
• PHONE: 
• PAX: 
WWW.BCLCLAW.COM 
• MAILJNBCLCIAW.COM 
EFTA00723218

IN THE COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH 
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR 
PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA 
CASE NO. 502008CA037319XWMB AB 
Plaintiff, 
v. 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 
Defendants. 
EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR INSPECTION AND TO 
COMPEL DISCOVERY AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND 
INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW 
Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN ("Epstein"), by and through his undersigned 
attorneys, hereby files his Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs, 
("."), Motion for 
Inspection and to Compel Discovery (Photographs) (the "Request") (attached as 
Exhibit "A") and further moves for a protective order pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 
1.280(c), and states: 
I. 
Introduction 
1. 
Mr. Epstein's deposition was set for September 2, 2009, and Mr. Epstein 
was in attendance for said deposition. Directly after asking Mr. Epstein his name, Mr. 
Kuvin then asked Mr. Epstein, "[ijs it true, sir, that you have what's been described as 
an egg-shaped penis." 
Accordingly, Mr. Kuvin immediately set the tone of the 
deposition in a sarcastic and demeaning manner in an effort to harass, embarrass, 
humiliate and intimidate Mr. Epstein. Mr. Kuvin continued with this line of questioning 
EFTA00723219

i. 
v. Epstein 
Case No. 502008CA037319XXXXMB AB 
Page 2 of 14 
by referencing a document that Mr. Kuvin did not provide to the witness or to 
undersigned counsel and then by asking the following: Isjir, according to the police 
department's probable cause affidavit, one witness described your penis as oval shaped 
and claim[ed], when erect, it was thick towards the bottom but was thin and small - -
towards the head portion, and called it egg-shaped . . ." It was clear that Mr. Kuvin's 
goal was to use the deposition process to embarrass, humiliate, intimidate and harass 
Mr. Epstein and thereafter contact the media and provide it with a copy of said 
deposition. 
2. 
One day after the deposition and only a few days before the video of 
Epstein's deposition was released to the media, 
on September 3, 2009, served her 
Request seeking to photograph Epstein's penis. Obviously, this was done in an effort to 
bolster media attention and to harass, intimidate and humiliate Epstein. 
3. 
Interestingly, Plaintiff's deposition has yet to occur, and her interrogatory 
responses and her Complaint do not provide that she ever saw Epstein's penis or that 
he penetrated her with his penis.' In fact, once 
deposition occurs it will be clear 
that she never saw Epstein's penis, which is consistent with what she told others. 
Accordingly, at least at this juncture, the request (as explained below) is irrelevant, 
harassing, embarrassing and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 
admissible evidence. Since 
deposition has not yet occurred, the Request and 
subsequent inspection can be utilized by her to bolster, fabricate and tailor her 
' The Interrogatory Responses will be provided at the hearing if requested. 
EFTA00723220

R
v. Epstein 
e No. 502008CA037319XMXMB AB 
Page 3 of 14 
testimony such that it conforms to what, if anything, she would learn from the inspection 
and photographing. 
4. 
Epstein objects to the Request on the following grounds: 
a. Violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth 
Amendments in that this Court is being asked to authorize a 
general search and seizure by a private party in violation of 
Epstein's right to privacy and due process; 
b. Violation of the Fifth Amendment protection against self-
incrimination; 
c. Not relevant, material or reasonably calculated to lead to the 
discovery of admissible evidence; further, has the capacity to 
compromise the accuracy of the memories of ■ 
and any other 
witness who is permitted to view the photo and is therefore in 
conflict with the parties interest in a trustworthy fact-finding process; 
d. Overbroad, unduly burdensome, violation of constitutional right of 
privacy; and harassing; 
e. May allow 
to fabricate and tailor her testimony before her 
deposition occurs; and 
f. It is an Improper Medical Examination pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. Pro. 
1.360, and Defendant has not placed any medical condition at 
issue. 
EFTA00723221

n. 
Epstein 
Case No. 502008CA037319XXXXMB AB 
Page 4 of 14 
II. 
The Request Violates Epstein's Fifth Amendment Rights Against Self -
Incrimination 
5. 
The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination "permits a person 
not to answer official questions put to him in any other proceeding, civil or criminal, 
formal or informal, where the answers might incriminate him in future proceedings." 
See Edwin v. Price, 778 F.2d 668, 669 (11th Cir. 1985) (citing Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 
U.S. 70, 77 (1973)). The privilege is accorded liberal construction in favor of the right 
and extends not only to answers that would support a criminal conviction, but extends 
also to those answers which would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to 
prosecute the claimant for a crime. See Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486 
(1951). Information is protected by the privilege not only if it would support a criminal 
conviction, but also in those instances where "the responses would merely 'provide a 
lead or clue' to evidence having a tendency to incriminate." See United States v. Neff, 
615 F.2d 1235, 1239 (9th Cir.), cert denied, 447 U.S. 925 (1980). 
6. 
Moreover, the act of production itself may implicitly communicate 
statements of fact and, for this reason, the Fifth Amendment privilege also 
encompasses the circumstances where the act of producing documents in response to 
a subpoena or production request has a compelled testimonial aspect. See United 
States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 35-36 (2000). Thus, where the existence or location of 
the requested documents are unknown, or where production would "implicitly 
authenticate" the requested documents, the act of producing responsive documents is 
EFTA00723222

v, Epstein 
Case No. 502008CA037319XXXXMB AB 
Page 5 of 14 
considered testimonial and is protected by the Fifth Amendment. See In re Grand Jury 
Subpoena, 1 F.3d 87, 93 (2nd Cir. 1993). 
7. 
In the instant case, 
requests, for example, to inspect Epstein's 
genitalia. See Exhibit "A". Any compelled "production" by Epstein in this regard would 
directly violate his Fifth Amendment rights in that he is implicitly being asked to 
authenticate same. This is not the same as asking Epstein to open his home to film the 
limited scope-pathways which 
allegedly took as Epstein, in that instance, is not 
being asked to authenticate or show anything. In this instance, however, Epstein would 
be required to perform a positive act by showing his genitalia which, in turn, would 
require him to authenticate same. If you accept 
allegations in her Request as true, 
photographing Epstein's genitalia could potentially provide a 'lead or clue' to evidence 
having a tendency to incriminate. 
8. 
In 
Jane 
Doe 
No. 
2 
v. 
Epstein, 
Case 
No. 
08-CIV-80119 
MARRA/JOHNSON, the Court sustained Epstein's Fifth Amendment objections to 
several interrogatories asking Epstein to identify information potentially related to the 
case(s) including, but not limited to, all employees who performed work inside his Palm 
Beach residence, all other employees who came to the residence (Interrogatory Nos. 1 
— 2), those who gave or were asked to give him massages (Interrogatories Nos. 3 — 6), 
information regarding the identity of persons who provided transportation services 
(Interrogatory No. 9), a list of Epstein's employees' telephone numbers (Interrogatory 
No. 12), any persons or witnesses who have knowledge or are in possession of physical 
evidence pertaining to the events in question (Interrogatories Nos. 13, 14 and 17), and 
EFTA00723223

in v. Epstein 
Case No. 502008CA037319X)MMB AB 
Page 6 of 14 
seeking information related to alleged sexual abuse or misconduct on a minor 
(Interrogatory No. 15). See August 4, 2009 Order on Plaintiff's Motion to Compel 
Answers to Interrogatories and Production of Documents. See Infra for Attachments. 
9. 
If the Fifth Amendment protects Epstein from disclosing the identity of any 
person who has knowledge or are in possession of physical evidence (i.e. photographs, 
videos, written statements, etc.) pertaining the events in question (Interrogatory Nos. 
13, 14 and 17 supra), it follows that Epstein's production of his genitalia by photograph 
also violates his Fifth Amendment rights. 
10. 
Epstein has asserted his Fifth Amendment right in this matter. To the 
extent that right has been asserted with regard to the proposed questioning regarding 
the alleged shape of his genitalia, the Plaintiff will argue for an adverse inference 
relative to same. If the II is afforded the adverse inference, that is where the Fifth 
Amendment halts 
further inquiry relative to her Request. Holding otherwise would 
require Epstein to produce himself, which could provide a clue or a link in the chain of 
evidence used to convict him and would therefore violate his Fifth Amendment rights. 
See infra. 
11. 
As this court knows, Epstein's Fifth Amendment concerns are not 
unwarranted. In a federal companion case, Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein, Case No. 08-
CIV-80119 MARRA/JOHNSON, in the United States District Court for the Southern 
District of Florida, United States Magistrate Judge Linnea R. Johnson found, "pin 2008, 
Epstein entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement with the United States Attorney 
General's Office for the Federal Southern District of Florida and the State Attorney's 
EFTA00723224

Case No. 502008CA037319XXXXN1B AB 
Page 7 of 14 
Office for Palm Beach County. Under the terms of the Non-Prosecution Agreement, 
any criminal prosecution against Epstein is deferred as long as he abides by the certain 
terms and conditions contained therein. If at any time the United State's Attorney's 
Office has reason to believe Epstein is in breach of the Agreement, it need only provide 
Epstein's counsel with notice of the breach and then move forward with Epstein's 
prosecution. Accordingly, the undersigned would agree with Epstein ... that the 
fact there exists a Non-Prosecution Agreement does not mean that Epstein is free 
from future criminal prosecution, and that in fact, `the threat of prosecution is 
real, substantial and present!" See August 4, 2009 Order on Plaintiff's Motion to 
Compel Answers to Interrogatories and Production of Documents at 4 (attached as 
Exhibit "B") and September 9, 2009 Omnibus Order at 2 (attached as Exhibit "C"). 
12. 
Based upon the foregoing, this court cannot logically hold that the 
Requested inspection is not testimonial or communicative in nature, especially in light of 
the real, substantial and present threat of future criminal prosecution. 
III. 
The Request Is Irrelevant, Harassing, Interposed As A Means To Humiliate 
And Embarrass Epstein And Is Not Reasonably Calculated To Lead To The 
Discovery Of Admissible Evidence 
13. 
The Request and the law surrounding same should be taken seriously, 
and BBs attempt to argue same in a fashion to "pump" the media should be 
disregarded. 
14. 
Rule 1.280(b), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, provides in pertinent part, 
1pjarties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to 
the subject matter  of the pending action, whether it relates to the claim or defense of 
EFTA00723225

I/SEWS 
ease No. 502008CA037319XXXXMB AB 
Page 8 of 14 
the party seeking discovery or the claim or defense of any other party...." (Emphasis 
added). 
15. 
"Relevant evidence is evidence tending to prove or disprove a material 
fact." See Fla. Stat. §90.401. In the instant case, there are no allegations in 
complaint that would be proven or disproven by evidence obtained from the 
Request/inspection, and the inspection will not lead to the discovery of admissible 
evidence. This is not a criminal case where the alleged perpetrator is sought to be 
identified. Quite the contrary. If 
allegations are accepted as true, she knows 
exactly who Epstein is, what he looked like etc. . . . Moreover,. has failed to allege 
any allegations in her complaint or in her responses to interrogatories that she saw 
Epstein's penis or that he penetrated her with his penis. Further, as stated above, her 
deposition has yet to occur in this matter and, as a result, her claims in the Request 
have yet to be challenged. The allegations in the Amended Complaint are as follows: 
. .Mr. Epstein came into a bathroom and shut the door behind him, told 
both girls to remove their clothes and undressed himself. Mr. Epstein 
then placed a small washcloth over his genitals and asked both girls to 
rub to 
on his naked body. . . . Mr. Epstein then began to masturbate 
while 
was massaging him. ¶14, Amended Complaint. Exhibit "D". 
16. 
Nowhere in the Amended Complaint or in her answers to interrogatories 
does II allege that Epstein removed his towel or that she ever saw Epstein's penis. In 
that regard, there is not a material fact in controversy pursuant to which the Request 
could lead to the discovery of relevant and admissible evidence. 
17. 
cite to Harrell v. Hense, 2009 Wt. 409875 (C.D.CaI.) could not better 
support Epstein's argument herein. Harrell involves a matter where the petitioner was 
EFTA00723226

R
v. Epstein 
e No. 502008CAD37319XXXXMB AB 
Page 9 of 14 
convicted of unlawfully possessing a controlled substance including, but not limited to, a 
black baggie containing crack cocaine allegedly tucked away in the foreskin of his 
uncircumcised penis. Id. at *2. In Harrell, photographs were placed into evidence by 
Defense Counsel to show that petitioner was allegedly circumcised in an effort to show 
the jury that it was impossible for petitioner to hide the crack cocaine in a penis that was 
circumcised. Id. Accordingly in Harrell, there was a material question placed in front of 
the jury by defense counsel, to wit whether the physiology of petitioner's penis allowed 
him to hide crack cocaine in his foreskin.2 During the prosecutor's case-in-chief, a 
motion was made to require petitioner to submit to a physical examination to 
photograph petitioners penis such that the prosecution could use its own photos to aid 
their case. Counsel for petitioner, as the court noted, did not object to the inspection 
and only asked to be present at the examination. In the instant matter, there are no 
allegations or quandaries alleged as to the shape of Epstein's genitalia. As stated 
above, to the extent such allegations were made and Epstein invoked his Fifth 
Amendment right thereto,. would argue for an adverse inference — which halts the 
inquiry. See supra. Harrell provides an outline for this court, even though the case is 
clearly distinguishable, that any such inspection could only be had if Epstein places his 
genitalia in question and only right before or during trial. 
18. 
In Boyle v. Buck, 858 So.2d 391 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003), the court ordered a 
Defendant to produce his vehicle involved in an accident resulting in a death. Id. The 
Court found that the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination was not violated 
2 No similar allegations exist in the Instant matter making Epstein's genitalia material. 
EFTA00723227

IS v. Epstein 
Case No. 502008CA037319XXXXIMB AB 
Page 10 of 14 
because the vehicle itself did not amount to the production of testimonial or 
communicative evidence; however, the court noted that the Fifth Amendment privilege 
against self-incrimination exists primarily to assure an individual is not compelled to 
produce evidence which later may be used against him as an accused in a criminal 
action. Id. at 392. Here, as stated supra, producing Epstein for the inspection could 
later be used as a link in the chain of evidence used to convict him of a crime and/or 
could aid in the development of other incriminating evidence that can be used at trial. 
Id. at 292-293. 
This request goes to the heart of testimonial and communicative 
evidence, especially in light of the NPA. See supra. 
19. 
Based upon the foregoing, an inspection of Epstein's genitalia would 
violate his constitutional right to privacy. See Fla. Const., Art I. §23. The constitutional 
right of privacy in the Florida Constitution is broader than the protection provided in the 
United States Constitution. See Berkeley v. Eisen, 699 So. 2d 789, 790 (Fla. 4th DCA 
1997), citing Rasmussen v. South Fla. Blood Serv., Inc., 500 So. 2d 533, 536 (Fla. 
1987). Orders compelling discovery constitute state action that may impinge on the 
constitutional right of privacy. See Berkeley, 699 So. 2d at 790. The court must 
balance the competing interests, privacy versus the need for discovery, that would be 
served by granting or denying discovery. Id. at 791. 
20. 
The fact 
wants to photograph Epstein's genitalia amplifies the invasion 
of privacy. 
Again, the Fifth Amendment is implicated and, as well, the Fourth 
Amendment could be implicated here for the reasons set forth in Epstein's Objections 
To 
Request For Entry Upon Land, Motion For Protective Order And Incorporated 
EFTA00723228

v. Epstein 
Case No. 502008CA037319XWMB AB 
Page 11 of 14 
Memorandum Of Law previously filed with this court and incorporated herein by 
reference. Exhibit "E". The physical violation of his person is the chief evil against 
which the Fourth Amendment is directed and a principal protection against unnecessary 
intrusions. See Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740 (1984). 
21. 
For the foregoing reasons, the Court should deny'. Request and enter 
a protective order, pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(c), prohibiting such discovery as it is 
harassing, humiliating, and not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the 
discovery of admissible evidence and it violates Epstein's constitutional right to privacy. 
IV. 
Alternatively, If An 
ection Occurs, It Should Be Sal 
To Further 
Court Ruling Based Upon
 Deposition Testimony, Only Afte 
Deposition 
Has Occurred And Just Prior To Trial And Only After The Appropriate Motion Can 
BeF
ully And Intelligently Briefed and Ruled Upon By This Court Based Upon 
Deposition Testimony 
22. 
If this court allows the inspection, it should: (a) be subject to further court 
ruling based upon 
deposition testimony; (b) occur after IM deposition has 
occurred and just prior to trial; (c) occur only after the appropriate motion can be fully 
and intelligently briefed and ruled upon by this court based upon 
deposition 
testimony; and (d) the photograph should be strictly limited by confidentiality agreement 
and should, among other things, not be disclosed to any person other than BBs counsel 
and returned to Epstein after the conclusion of this litigation. Likewise, any expert 
permitted to view the photographs should be required to sign an assurance providing 
that he or she agrees to abide by the terms of a confidentiality order, and disclosure will 
occur only after good cause has been shown to the court. 
EFTA00723229

I
t
 v. Epstein 
ase No. 502008CA037319)000(MB AB 
Page 12 of 14 
23. 
Due to the substantial due process and privacy concerns articulated 
herein, the Court should further order that a violation of the confidentiality order be 
punishable by contempt of court. In 
attorneys have not been shy about contacting 
the press. 
24. 
If the Court permits an inspection, it should also take place shortly before 
trial, but only after 
has been deposed to avoid any attempt by 
to tailor her 
testimony to the information obtained from the inspection and only after a subsequent 
Motion has been filed detailing deposition testimony. An analogy can be made to 
cases involving impermissibly suggestive showups.3 See e.g. Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 
188 (1972). In Neil, the United States Supreme Court, addressing suggestive showups, 
noted that the primary evil to be avoided is a very substantial likelihood of irreparable 
misidentification." Id. at 198. (Internal quotations omitted). It went on to state that 
suggestive confrontations are disapproved because they increase the likelihood of 
misidentification, which would violate a defendant's due process rights. Id. 
25. 
Just like a victim's propensity to misidentify a criminal suspect in a 
suggestive showup, there is a strong likelihood that 
will tailor her recollection and 
testimony to the photographs taken at the inspection. There would be no way to test 
whether her testimony was a result of independent recollection of the alleged events or 
from viewing the photographs. This would, of course, violate Epstein's due process 
rights. 
3 A "showup" is a pretrial identification procedure in which a suspect is confronted with a witness to or the 
victim of a crime. Unlike a lineup, a showup is a one-on-one confrontation. See Black's Law Dictionary 
(8th ed. 2004). 
EFTA00723230

l
v. Epstein 
e No. 502008CA037319XXXXMB AB 
Page 13 of 14 
26. 
On the other hand,. will not be prejudiced by postponing the inspection 
until after her deposition and another hearing is had regarding this subject matter. 
WHEREFORE, Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, respectfully requests the Court 
deny the Request and enter the appropriate protective order or, in the alternative, enter 
a protective order limiting the inspection as follows: (a) be subject to further court ruling 
based upon 
deposition testimony; (b) occur afters deposition has occurred and 
just prior to trial; (c) occur after the appropriate motion can be fully and intelligently 
briefed and ruled upon by this court based upon. deposition testimony; and (d) the 
photograph should be strictly limited by confidentiality agreement and should, among 
other things, not be disclosed to any person other than BBs counsel and returned to 
Epstein after the conclusion of this litigation. 
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 £ day of December, 2009: 
Theodore J. Leopold, Esq. 
Spencer T. Kuvin, Esq. 
Fax: 
Counsel for Plaintiff'''. 
Jack Goldberger, Esq.
ss, P.A. 
Fax: 
Co-counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein 
EFTA00723231

v. Epstein 
Case No. 502008CA037319XXXXMB AB 
Page 14 of 14 
BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER 
& COLEMAN, LLP 
(561) 515-31 
ax 
By: 
R 
D. Critton, Jr. 
orida Bar #224162 
Michael J. Pike 
Florida Bar #617296 
(Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) 
EFTA00723232

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 
15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND 
FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, 
FLORIDA 
CASE NO: 
502008CA037319XXXXMli All 
• 
Plaintiff, 
vs. 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 
Defendant. 
MOTION FOR INSPECTION AND TO COMPEL DISCOVERY (PHOTOGRAPHS) 
Plaintiff, M., by and through undersigned counsel, hereby files this Motion for 
Inspection and to Compel Discovery and requests this Court to order Defendant, JEFFREY 
EPSTEIN, to submit to have his genitalia photographed by an independent medical examiner; 
and as grounds therefore states as follows: 
1. Relevant evidence is defined as any evidence tending to prove or disprove a material fact. 
Fla. Stat. § 90.401 (2009). If evidence is logically probative, it is relevant and admissible 
unless there is an independent reason for not allowing the jury to consider it. Lavallee v. 
State, 958 So.2d 509, (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (citations omitted). 
2. Count I of Plaintiffs Complaint charges Defendant with Sexual Battery. 
3. Defendant has not admitted to any sexual contact with Plaintiff. 
t's DEFENDANT'S 
EXHIBIT 
 
, 
5  A 
EFTA00723233

4. Unless Defendant admits Plaintiff observed his genitalia an inherent factual issue exists as to 
whether any sexual contact occurred. Whether Plaintiff can identify Defendant's genitalia at 
trial will become a crucial factual issue if Defendant argues the incident never occurred. 
5. The shape of Defendant's genitalia is unique. In the Probable Cause Affidavit (Probable 
Cause Affidavit attached hereto as Exhibit "A'), Defendant's genitalia is described as 
"deformed," "oval shaped," and "egg-shaped." 
6. Defendant's attorneys have refused to allow Defendant to answer questions regarding the 
shape of his penis. (Deposition of Jeffrey Epstein taken September 2, 2009, attached hereto 
as Exhibit "B"). 
7. The proposed photographs of Defendant's genitalia are non-testimonial in nature which 
means the Defendant cannot assert his Fifth Amendment Right against self-incrimination. 
Boyle v. Buck, 858 So.2d 391, 393 (Fla. 416 DCA 2003) ("The Fifth Amendment privilege 
does not shield every kind of incriminating evidence. Rather, it protects only testimonial or 
communicative evidence, not real or physical evidence which is not testimonial or 
communicative in nature.") (citations omitted). 
8. Defendant may aigue such photographs are embarrassing and harassing however Defendant 
should not now be able to clothe from inspection the same genitalia he exposed to then 
fifteen year old Plaintiff in order to avoid civil prosecution. 
9. In Harrell v. Hense, 2009 WL 409875 (C.D.Cal. 2009), the court denied Defendant's Habeas 
Corpus petition and held that the court OrdeiclijilVicadexamination of Defendant's penis 
was proper. The court stated the examination did not violate Defendant's Fourth 
Amendment rights as the examination was necessary for the jury to evaluate the facts of the 
case. Id. at 10. "In sum, the examination was ordered for reasonable purpose in a reasonable 
• ..... 
• 
,.... 
.. 
Nli..le 
. 
. 
Page 2 of 3 
EFTA00723234

manner and thus was neither compulsory self-incrimination nor an unlawful search and 
seizure." Id. (citations omitted). 
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court order Defendant, JEFFREY 
EPSTEIN, submit to have his genitalia photographed by an independent medical examiner. 
HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was furnished by U. S. 
Mail, postage prepaid, this 
day ofe 1  2-CO9 to Jack A Goldberger, Esq., 250 Australian 
Avenue, Suite 1400, West Palm Beach, FL 334101; Bruce E. Reinhart, Esq., 
MO Robert D. Critton, Jr., Michael J. Pike, 
LEOPOLD-KUVIN, P.A. 
1.1
M1
(561) 5 
facsimile) 
•••••...1
By: 
ENCER KUVIN, Esq. 
Florida Bar No.: 0089737 
ADAM J. LANGINO, Esq. 
Florida Bar No.: 0031368 
Page 3 of 3 
EFTA00723235

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 242 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2009 Page 1 of 22 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
JANE DOE NO. 2, 
Plaintiff, 
vs. 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 
Defendant. 
CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON 
JANE DOE NO. 3, 
CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/JOHNSON 
Plaintiff, 
vs. 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 
Defendant. 
JANE DOE NO. 4, 
Plaintiff, 
vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 
Defendant. 
CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/JOHNSON 
JANE DOE NO. 5, 
CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/JOHNSON 
Plaintiff, 
VS. 
1 
[
DEFENDANT'S 
g 
IT
1 
EFTA00723236

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 242 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2009 Page 2 of 22 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 
Defendant. 
JANE DOE NO. 6, 
CASE NO.: 08-80994-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON 
Plaintiff, 
vs. 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 
Defendant. 
JANE DOE NO. 7, 
CASE NO.: 08-80993-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON 
Plaintiff, 
vs. 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 
Defendant. 
C.M.A., 
CASE NO.: 08-80811-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON 
Plaintiff, 
vs. 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 
Defendant. 
JANE DOE, 
CASE NO.: 08- 80893-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON 
Plaintiff, 
VS. 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al, 
2 
EFTA00723237