EFTA00730362

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
JANE DOE NO. 2, 
Plaintiff, 
CASE NO.: 08-C1V-80119-NIARRA/JOHNSON 
vs. 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 
Defendant. 
Related cases: 
08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 
08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 
09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092 
/ 
Defendant's Supplementary Brief Pursuant To The Magistrate's Order (DE 2421 
Requesting A More Particularized Showing Demonstrating How The 5'h Amendment May 
Be Asserted To Plaintiff's Requests For Production, With Memorandum Of Law 
Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter "Epstein"), by and through his 
undersigned attorneys, hereby files his Supplementary Brief Pursuant to the Magistrate's 
Order (DE 242) relative to Plaintiff's Request for Production Numbers 10, II, 19 and 21. 
In support, Epstein states: 
I. 
Procedural Background 
1. 
Plaintiff served her First Request for Production, and Epstein served his 
responses and objections thereto. ee Exhibit "A." Plaintiff filed her Motion to Compel 
(DE 57), and Epstein filed his Response thereto (the "Response Memorandum"). (DE 
63) 
The objections and responses set forth in Epstein's initial response and the 
arguments set forth in his Response Memorandum are incorporated herein such that a 
concise statement and more particularized showing can be made herein as to why 
Epstein's Fifth Amendment Privilege as to Request for Production Numbers 10, 11, 19 
and 21 should be sustained. 
1 
EFTA00730362

2. 
This court entered an order (DE 242) stating that Epstein must supplement 
his Response Memorandum to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel as to request for production 
numbers 10, 11, 19 and 21 (collectively, the "Specified Requests"). (DE 242, p. 19). 
Defendant's time to respond and submit this supplementary brief was extended to August 
31, 2009. 
3. 
Epstein is submitting this Supplementary Brief with supporting case law 
only as to the Specified Requests. An Amended Response will be provided as to Request 
to Produce Number 18. 
IL 
Supplementary Brief, With Incorporated Memorandum of Law 
The Magistrate's Order (DE 242) Correctly Sustained Epstein's Sth Amendment 
Privilege As To Several Requests And Interrogatories Seeking Testimonial And 
Incriminating Information Similar To The Specified Requests 
4. 
The Magistrate Judge found that several of the requests were ". . . 
testimonial in nature, in that by production, Epstein would be implicitly communicating 
'statements of fact' to which the Fifth Amendment privilege may be validly asserted." 
(DE 242, p. 10). On that basis, and as a limited example, this Court denied request 
number 5 (seeking telephone records of calls made by Epstein) and request number 6 
(seeking telephone calls made by Epstein to his employees). Likewise, this court denied 
interrogatory numbers 1, 2, 10 and 12 because those interrogatories sought the names of 
Epstein's employees or their telephone numbers and thus "would furnish a link in the 
chain of evidence needed to prosecute Epstein of a crime." 
(DE 242, p.8-9). 
Additionally, this court denied interrogatory numbers 13, 14 and 17 because those asked 
Epstein to identify persons or witnesses that have knowledge of the events in question. Id. 
at p. 8. In making the decision, the court recognized, much like this Supplementary Brief 
2 
EFTA00730363

contends infra, that ". . . the facts alleged in the Complaints, the elements needed to 
convict Epstein of a crime, and . . . the Court's knowledge concerning the cases at issue" 
provide a basis for Epstein to raise the privilege based upon "genuinely threatening 
questions" which could furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to convict Epstein 
of a crime. (DE 242, p.18) United States v. Goodwin, 625 F.2d 693, 701 (5th Cir. 1980). 
5. 
As detailed below, the Specified Requests seek similar information or will 
lead to the production of the exact information that this court has already ruled is 
protected by Epstein's Fifth Amendment Privilege. 
The Background Of This Case And Other Related Cases As Well As The Federal 
Statutory Claims And Elements Of Those Offenses Must Be Considered In 
Connection With Epstein's More Particularized Showing Demonstrating How The 5th 
Amendment Is Validly Applied To Plaintiff's Requests For Production 
6. 
The circumstances of this case (and in other related cases) are such that 
not only does Epstein face allegations of sexual misconduct with and abuse, exploitation, 
and sexual battery of alleged minors in this and other civil actions in the State of Florida, 
but he also faces a potential federal criminal prosecution based on the same factual 
allegations. The Plaintiff's attorney represents Jane Doe Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, in civil 
actions against Epstein filed in this Court. In this and the other civil actions, the Plaintiffs 
reference federal and state criminal statutes in an attempt to allege claims ranging from 
sexual battery to intentional infliction of emotional distress, including, as to Jane Doe 2 
violations of 18 U.S.C. 2422, entitled "Coercion and enticement", contained in Title 18, 
"Crimes and Criminal Procedure," Part I — "Crimes," Chapter 117 — "Transportation for 
Illegal Sexual Activity and Related Crimes," and as to other Jane Does violations of 18 
U.S.C. 2423(b) which criminalizes interstate or foreign travel for the purpose of having 
illicit sexual activity, each of which in turn is a potential predicate for federal damages 
3 
EFTA00730364

lawsuits pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §2255 — which creates a civil remedy for personal injuries 
where a plaintiff can show a violation of specified statutory criminal statues. See current 
text of 18 U.S.C. §2422, along with pre-2006 amended text. See Exhibit "B" hereto — 
copy of Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint, see also 18 U.S.C. 2423(b) appended 
hereto as Exhibit "B-I" Most importantly, the lynchpin for the exercise of federal 
criminal jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. 2422(b) is "the use of "any facility or means of 
interstate or foreign commerce" and the analogous essential element of 18 U.S.C. 
2423(b) is "travel{s} in interstate commerce or travels into the United States or {as} to a 
United States citizen...travels in foreign commerce". Thus, facially, an essential proof of 
any allegation of 18 U.S.C. 2422(b) — the statutory precondition alleged by Jane Doe 2 
for a 2255 civil damage recover - includes telephone, cellular phone, e-mail records or 
other "communications" as a facility of interstate commerce during which use there was 
persuasion, inducement, enticing, or coercing of an underage person to engage in 
prostitution or sexual activity). As more fully discussed, infra, contested requests for 
production numbers 10, 11, 19 and 21 ask that Epstein produce information (i.e., 
documents reflecting Epstein's air travel, aircraft used and flight manifests, all 
communications with female models, MC2 models or Jean Luc Brunel relating to or 
referring to females coming into the United States from other countries and his personal 
calendars and schedules and his personal calendars and schedules) that could reveal the 
availability to him or such interstate facilities and thus would constitute a link in the 
chain of evidence that could potentially expose him to the hazards of self-incrimination 
as to 18 U.S.C. 2422(b) federal criminal violations. 
4 
EFTA00730365

7. 
Likewise, other Jane Does such as Jane Doe 102 have contended that they 
are entitled to 18 U.S.C. 2255 damages based on Epstein's violation of 18 U.S.C. 
2423(b), a separate federal criminal statute that prohibits "a person who travels in 
interstate commerce or travels into the United States...for the purpose of engaging in 
illicit sexual activity". As more fully discussed, infra, contested request to produce 
numbers 10, II, 19 and 21 ask Epstein to produce information that could provide a link in 
the chain of evidence regarding: (a) Epstein's air travel within the United States and 
Foreign Territories; (b) Epstein's communications with female models, MC2 models, or 
Jean Luc Brunel relating to or referring to females coming into the United States from 
other countries; and (c) Epstein's personal calendars and schedules. Given that the 
essential proof of an allegation of 18 U.S.C. 2423(b) (an alternative predicate for 2255 
claims) includes travel records, schedules regarding trips and locations, flight records, 
and calendars evidencing Epstein's whereabouts, the requested information could furnish 
evidence that could potentially expose him to the hazards of self-incrimination as to 18 
U.S.C. 2423(b) violations. The is especially true given that, according to Jane Doe 2's 
complaint, he has residences and businesses in New York and the Virgin Islands as well 
as Florida. 
8. 
Moreover, both 18 U.S.C. 2422(b) and 18 U.S.C. 2423(b) were amongst 
the target offenses of a joint FBI-United States Attorney investigation further 
demonstrating the extent to which Epstein's refusal to respond or produce information to 
each request is, as required, based on a specific apprehension of a compelled production 
and disclosure providing a link in the chain of evidence adverse to him. Blau v. United 
States, 340 U.S. 159 (1950). 
5 
EFTA00730366

Responding to the Specified Requests Would Violate Epstein's 
Amendment Privilege And 
Would Expose Him to the Hazards of 18 U.S.C. 2422110 And The 18 U.S.C. 2423(b) 
9. 
Request for Production Numbers 10, 11, 19 and 21 seek the following 
information: 
Request No. 10. All documents referring to or relating to air travel and 
aircraft used by Defendant, including without limitation, flight logs and 
flight manifests. 
Request No. 11. Any and all documents referring to or relating to 
modeling agencies, including but not limited to documents relating to or 
reflecting communications with female models. 
Request No. 19. Any and all documents reflecting or consisting of 
communications between Jeffrey Epstein and MC2 Models or Jean-Luc 
Brunel, relating or referring to females coming into the United States from 
other countries to pursue a career in modeling, including, but not limited 
to, letters, notes and e-mails. 
Request No. 21. Any and all personal calendars or schedules of or for 
Jeffrey Epstein from January 1, 2003 to the present. 
10. 
As discussed below, production of the specified information is tantamount 
to compelled testimonial authentication of the information, its existence, its authenticity, 
and as well Epstein's alleged possession, custody or control of same. 
Production may 
result in self incrimination and potential federal-criminal prosecution of Epstein. 
II. 
The Second Amended Complaint includes allegations that 
Epstein's =Mt" 
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. 
ee 2nd Am. 
Complaint, 111-12. Given the allegations of violations of 18 U.S.C. 2422 in Count III, 
the plaintiff is alleging the recruiting occurred over the telephone, see par 9-10 of the 
Second Amended Complaint. (Paragraph 10 includes an averment that it was 
routine to seek telephone contact information from the plaintiff) According to the 
6 
EFTA00730367

allegations — "Upon information and belief Epstein has a sexual preference and obsession 
for underage minor girls." Id. ¶8. 
would "bring the girl up a flight of 
stairs to a bedroom that contained a massage table [in his Palm Beach mansion]...." 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 perform one or more lewd, 
lascivious and sexual acts, including masturbation and touching the girl's vagina." Id. 
¶11, Exhibit B. Plaintiff alleges that Epstein "sexually assaulted" her. Id. ¶12 Plaintiff 
also alleges that Epstein "maintains his principal home in New York and also owns 
residences in New Mexico, St. Thomas and Palm Beach, FL." Id. ¶7. "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." Id. ¶9. The 
nature of the allegations are serious, and state clearly that the alleged assaults occurred in 
Florida, New York and in St. Thomas. 
12. 
The foregoing allegations demonstrate clearly how the requested 
documents, if produced, as to Epstein's air travel information and his personal calendar 
and schedules and his communications with participants in a modeling agency as well as 
the foreign travel of models from the MC2 agency would be compelled testimonial 
authentication by Epstein of the genuineness, the existence, and his control of such 
records and as such his principled refusal to respond to the requests for production based 
on his "act of production" Fifth Amendment is squarely supported by Supreme Court 
case law as more fully discussed herein. Based upon the foregoing, Epstein has a well-
founded, non-speculative fear that voluntary production would constitute evidence (or a 
clue or link in the chain of evidence) that would subject him to a risk of self-
7 
EFTA00730368

incrimination i.e. that his assertion of his act of production privilege is warranted and 
non-speculative and entitled to judicial approval. Ste infra. 
13. 
The Second Amended Complaint also includes an averment that Epstein 
both resided in and engaged in illegal sexual conduct in districts outside the Southern 
District of Florida, see ¶¶ 7 and 9. In other words, the fact that there exists a NPA (see 
infra) does not mean that Epstein is free from future criminal prosecution. (DE 242, p.4) 
Here, there is too close a nexus between the information requested in request numbers 
10, 11, 19 and 21 and the pivotal jurisdictional requisites of 18 U.S.C. 2422(b)(the use of 
"interstate facilities" such as telephones, cellulars and e-mail — all of which could be 
gleaned from the requested records themselves or Epstein's personal calendars and 
schedules or his alleged e-mail communications with models) and 18 U.S.C. 2423(b)(the 
requirement of interstate travel i.e., Epstein's air travel, his use of aircraft, flight logs, 
flight manifests, as well as his alleged communications with models and those models 
coming into and out of the United States and from other countries — all of which could be 
gleaned his personal calendars or schedules). 
As such, responses and responsive 
documents will obviously reveal Epstein's whereabouts through his travel information, 
whom he might have traveled with, the individuals Epstein communicated with through 
such "interstate facilities", the content of those communications, the time and place 
where the communications occurred and his scheduling of events, all of which could 
provide leads to other evidence, identities of other potential witnesses, and would 
themselves constitute records that would therefore provide the links in the chain of 
evidence that could inculpate Epstein. If Epstein is compelled to provide any information 
relative to the Specified Requests that information could subsequently be used to 
8 
EFTA00730369

incriminate him and it might be used to establish the elements of two separate federal 
criminal offenses identified above, each of which was an active target offense of the FBI-
United States Attorney's investigation of Epstein. 
14. 
Significantly, producing the specified information would result in 
testimonial disclosures that would communicate statements of fact by admitting that 
Epstein did travel to and from Florida and/or throughout the United States or other 
foreign jurisdictions, thereby requiring him to admit the very facts upon which Plaintiff's 
Second Amended Complaint is based (i.e., presence in Florida (or other jurisdictions) at 
the time of an allegation of misconduct or control of a particular telephone or other 
means of communication (e.g., e-mail) at the time of a claim that the plaintiff was 
recruited and persuaded or enticed in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2422(6)). The resulting 
hazard is that Epstein's travel records, his communication records (i.e., by telephone, 
cellular, or by e-mail) and/or his personal calendars or schedules can predictably be used 
to bolster the criminal-related allegations against Epstein and provide links in the chain 
that no citizen is required to produce. See infra — 5'h Amendment Application. Again, 
the information sought relates to potential federal claims of violations of 18 U.S.C. 
2422(b), 18 U.S.C. 2423(b), and 18 U.S.C. 1591. Production would therefore constitute a 
testimonial admission of the genuineness, the existence, and Epstein's control of such 
records, and thus presents a real and substantial danger of self-incrimination in this case, 
in other related cases and as well in areas that could result in criminal prosecution. See 
generally Hoffman v United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486 (1951) and United States v. 
Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 36, 120 S.Ct. 2037, 2043 (2000). Plaintiff is free to obtain this 
information from other sources but not from Epstein. See infra. 
9 
EFTA00730370

15. 
As to the two particular requests for information regarding models and 
modeling agency (requests numbers 11 and 19), such information was within the criminal 
investigatory objectives of the FBI-United States Attorney's Office joint investigation of 
Epstein. Both the FBI case agent 
and Assistant United States 
Attorney 
traveled to New York and attempted to interview the owner of 
MC2 modeling, Jean-Luc Brunel to further their joint criminal investigation of Epstein. 
On information and belief the subject matter of the intended interview was alleged 
violations of 18 U.S.C. 2423(b) and 18 U.S.C. 2422(b). 
Producing and therefore 
authenticating evidence of communications between Epstein and Brunel, or producing 
and therefore authenticating evidence of communications with other models and 
modeling agencies is again tantamount to testimonial admissions of the communications, 
of the relationships, and of the identities of the various parties to the travel and 
communication (i.e., it too would provide links in the chain of evidence towards self-
incrimination, in violation, if compelled, of the core of a citizen's privilege against self-
incrimination). See infra - Application of the Fifth Amendment. 
Responding to the Specified Requests Would Violate Enstein's 51* Amendment Privilege And 
Would Expose Wm to the hazards of 18 U.S.C. 2422(a) And The 18 U.S.C. 2423(b) 
16. 
Likewise, 18 U.S.C. 2422(a) also criminalizes interstate or foreign travel 
for the purpose of having illicit sexual activity, and is also a potential predicate for 
federal damages lawsuits pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §2255 which, as set forth above, creates 
a civil remedy for personal injuries where a plaintiff can show a violation of specified 
statutory criminal statues. 
17. 
Here, there is also too close a nexus between the information requested in 
request numbers 10, 19 and 21 and the pivotal jurisdictional requisites of 18 U.S.C. 
10 
EFTA00730371

2422(a)(the requirement of interstate travel i.e., Epstein's air travel, his use of aircraft, 
flight logs, flight manifests, as well as his alleged communications with models and those 
models coming into and out of the United States and from other countries — all of which 
could be gleaned his personal calendars or schedules). Moreover, responding to request 
numbers 10, 19 and 21 may expose Epstein to the hazards of 18 U.S.C. 2423(b), which 
was a target offenses of the joint FBI-United States Attorney investigation discussed 
above. 
18. 
Accordingly, for the same reasons set forth supra, the requested 
information would provide links in the chain of evidence towards self-incrimination, in 
violation, if compelled, of the core of a citizen's privilege against self-incrimination, and 
may result in criminal prosecution for an alleged violation of 18 U.S.C. 2422(a) and 
2423(b). See supra, ¶¶6-15 
The NPA And The Underlying Criminal Investigation 
That Led To The NPA Must Also Be Considered In Connection With 
Epstein's More Particularized Showing Demonstrating How The .51" 
Amendment Is Validly Applied To Plaintiffs Requests For Production 
19. 
The threat of criminal prosecution is real and present as Epstein remains 
under the scrutiny of the United States Attorney's Office ("USAO"), which is explained 
and acknowledged in the Court's Order (DE 242). As this Court knows, Epstein entered 
into a Non-Prosecution Agreement ("NPA") with United States Attorney Office for the 
Federal Southern District of Florida. The terms and conditions of the NPA also entailed 
Epstein entering into a Plea Agreement with the State Attorney's Office, Palm Beach 
County, State of Florida. By its terms, the NPA took effect on June 30, 2008. As well, 
pursuant to the NPA, any criminal prosecution against Epstein is deferred as long as the 
terms and conditions of the NPA are fulfilled by Epstein. The federal grand jury 
11 
EFTA00730372

investigation against Epstein is held in abeyance i.e. it is not concluded with finality until 
the NPA expires by its terms in late 2010 and as long as the USAO determines that 
Epstein has complied with those terms and conditions. The threat of criminal prosecution 
against Epstein by the USAO continues presently and through late 2010. The USAO 
possesses the right to declare that the agreement has been breached, give Epstein's 
counsel notice, and attempt to move forward with the prosecution. Moreover, the NPA 
does not provide Epstein with any protection from criminal investigation or prosecution 
in any federal district other than the Southern District of Florida. 
20. 
Additionally, the underlying criminal investigation that led to the NPA 
was focused as well on violations of 18 U.S.C. 1952. This statute titled the Interstate and 
Foreign travel or Transportation in Aid of Racketeering Enterprises, has the following 
underlying criminal elements - ". .. travels in interstate or foreign commerce or uses the 
mail or any facility in interstate or foreign commerce, with intent to. . . (I) distribute the 
proceeds of any unlawful activity; or (2) commit any crime of violence to further any 
unlawful activity; or (3) otherwise promote, manage, establish, carry on, or facilitate the 
promotion, management, establishment, or carrying on, of any unlawful activity, all in 
connection with, among other things, `prostitution'. (emphasis added). Clearly, the 
request for travel information (or other form of communications by telephone, cellular, e-
mail or schedules or calendars that could authenticate same) would be a link in the chain 
to further any investigation of this statute. 
Application Of The 0 Amendment 
21. 
In the instant case, it is evident from the requests themselves, the 
allegations in the various Complaints, and the facts and circumstances surrounding these 
12 
EFTA00730373

cases, that to demand from Epstein a more particularized showing, requires Epstein to 
walk a thin line with regard to "surrender[ing] the very protection which the privilege is 
designed to guarantee." Hoffman, 341 U.S. at 479. The United States Supreme Court 
has made clear that the scope of the Fifth Amendment Privilege also encompasses the 
circumstance where "the act of producing documents in response to a subpoena (or 
production request) has a compelled testimonial aspect." United States v. Hubbell 530 
U.S. at 36; see also Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (1976); McCormick on 
Evidence Title 6, Chap. 13. The Privilege Against Self-Incrimination, §138 (6th Ed.). 
The "implicit authentication" rationale appears to be the prevailing justification for the 
Fifth Amendment's application to documentary subpoenas, which is no different from 
producing documents responsive to a request for production. att U.S. v Hubbell, 530 
U.S. 27, 36 (2000); Schmerber v. California 384 U.S., 757, 763-764, (1966) ("the 
privilege reaches . . . the compulsion of responses which are also communications, for 
example, compliance with a subpoena to produce one's papers); Couch v. United States, 
409 U.S. 322, 344-46 (1973) (the person complying with the subpoena "implicitly 
testifies that the evidence he brings forth is in fact the evidence demanded"); People v. 
Defore. 242 N.Y. 13. 27 (1926) ("A defendant is 'protected from producing his 
documents in response to a Subpoena duces tecum, for his production of them in court 
would be his voucher of their genuineness.' There would then be 'testimonial 
compulsion"). 
22. 
As stated, in responding to each request, Epstein would be compelled to 
provide assertions of fact, thereby admitting that such documents existed and further 
admitting that the documents were in his possession or control, and were authentic. In 
13 
EFTA00730374

other words, the very act of production of the category of documents requested would 
implicitly communicate "statements of fact." Hubbell supra; Hoffman v. United States, 
341 U.S. 479, 71 S.Ct. 814 (1951). As such, the act of production might not only provide 
evidence to support a conviction, but also a link in the chain of evidence for prosecution. 
Importantly, such compulsion to produce is the same as being compelled to testify. Thus, 
in those instances where the existence and/or location of the requested documents are 
unknown, or where the production would "implicitly authenticate" the requested 
documents, the act of producing responsive documents is considered "testimonial" and is 
protected by the Fifth Amendment. In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 1 F.3d 87, 93 (2" Cir. 
1993)• see also Fisher v. U.S. 425 U.S. 391, 410 (1976)(issue expressed as whether 
compliance with a document request or subpoena "tactically conceded" the items 
authenticity, existence or possession by defendant). Even more egregious is that fact that 
producing or responding to the Specified Requests could result in self-incrimination and 
potential prosecution. 
23. 
The United States Supreme Court has expressly encompassed the innocent 
citizen as well as the guilty within the ambit of Fifth Amendment protections (i.e., that 
Epstein may deny any allegation that he violated either of the above-described federal 
statutes is not in conflict with his constitutional right not to be compelled by requests to 
make disclosures that would further any investigation against him or incriminate him.) 
The Fifth Amendment privilege against self incrimination is accorded "liberal 
construction," Hoffman, 341 U.S. at 486, and extends not only to answers that would in 
themselves support a criminal conviction, but extends also to those answers (or responses 
as in the instant matter) that would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to 
14 
EFTA00730375

prosecute the claimant for a crime. Id. The Fifth Amendment serves as a guarantee 
against testimonial compulsion and provides, in relevant part, that "[n]o person...shall be 
compelled in any Criminal Case to be a witness against himself." (DE 242, p.5). In 
practice, the Fifth Amendment's 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 criminal 
proceedings." Edwin v. Price, 778 F.2d 668, 669 (11'h Cir. 1985), citing Lefkowitz v. 
Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 77 (1973)). Thus, 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." 
United States v.. Neff, 615 F.2d 1235, 1239 (9'h Cir.), cert. denied, 447 U.S. 825 (1980). 
"The claimant must [also] be `confronted by substantial and `real,' and not merely trifling 
or imaginary, hazards of incrimination." United States v. Apfelbaum 445 U.S. 115, 128 
(1980). Accordingly, responses to the requests propounded upon Epstein would provide 
information which is protected by the privilege i.e., "the responses [c]ould merely 
provide a `lead or clue' to evidence having a tendency to incriminate [Epstein]" United 
States v.. Neff, 615 F.2d 1235, 1239 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 447 U.S. 825 (1980). 
Brief Conclusion 
For all of the foregoing reasons, this Court should sustain Epstein's objections to 
the Specified Requests and uphold Epstein's right to assert his 5th Amendment Privilege 
in connection with same. 
Wherefore, Epstein respectfully requests that this Court issue and order: 
15 
EFTA00730376

a. 
finding that the danger Epstein faces by being forced to respond 
and produce documents relative to request numbers 10, 11, 19 and 21 is 
substantial and real, and not merely trifling or imaginary; 
b. 
sustaining Epstein's Fifth Amendment Privilege as it relates to 
request numbers 10, 11, 19 and 21 and denying Plaintiff's Motion in that regard; 
and 
c. 
for such other and further relief as this Court deems just and 
proper. 
MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. 
Florida Bar #617296 
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. 
Respectfully submitted, 
By: 
ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. 
Florida Bar No. 224162 
MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. 
Florida Bar #617296 
BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & 
COLEMAN 
Phone 
Fax 
(Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) 
Certificate of Service 
Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein 
Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON 
16 
EFTA00730377

Stuart S. Menne'stein, Esq. 
Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. 
Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. 
Fax: Sam 
Counsel for Plaintiffs 
In related Cases Nos. 08-80069, 08-80119, 
08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80993, 
08-80994 
Richard Horace Willits, Esq. 
Richard H. Willits, P.A. 
Fax: 
Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 
08-80811 
Jack Scarola, Esq. 
Jack P. Hill, Esq. 
Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, 
P.A. 
Counsel for Plaintiff C.M.A. 
Bruce Reinhart, Esq. 
Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A. 
Brad Edwards, Esq. 
Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler 
Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 
08-80893 
Paul G. Cassell, Esq. 
Pro Hac Vice 
Co-counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe 
Isidro M. Garcia, Esq. 
Garcia Law Firm, P.A. 
F 
Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 
08-80469 
Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq. 
Katherine W. Ezell, Esq. 
Podhurst Orseck, P.A. 
Counsel for Plaintiffs in Related Cases 
Nos. 09-80591 and 09-80656 
Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. 
Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 
17 
EFTA00730378

Fax: 
Counsel for Defendan 
Theodore J. Leopold, Esq. 
Spencer T. Kuvin, Esq. 
Leopold, Kuvin, P.A. 
Fax: 
Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 
08-08804 
Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein 
18 
EFTA00730379