EFTA02729648

06-04-'09 15:16 FROM-TIMAS & WCICF130 8139843070 T-995 P001/003 F-849 THOMAS I OCICFRO gr BRA LOW •••••• ••• L facsimile transmittal To: Pax: From: Daze: 1~ Re: State v. J. Epstein Pages: Cc: Marilyn Judicial Assistant to Judge Colbatli Organ O [For review n Please commentU Please reply Please recycle fl Pkase see attached Motion to Intervene and Petition for Access CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMCN1 This decimal< message irmarnusion contains information from the law fin of Thomas, LoCieero t grain Pl. and is ccordential or privileged. The infonneiion is mended to be fog the use of the individual or entity named above. If you ate nee the intended mama. De Ivan that any disclosure. copyimp.dimibutin or we of me contents of this intonation is prohibited. If you have received this electronic transmission t <nor, please notify us by telephone (80)984-1060 immediately Thank you for year cooperation IRS Circular 230 Disclosure. To the extent thin correspondence conins federal tax advice. each advice was not intended to be wed, and cannot be used by any taxpayer. for the pwpose of (0 avoiding penalties wider the Inland Revenue Code or (i) worming. madmen& or recommending at anodic party any transaction or miner addressed herein If you would like in to prepare mitten tocadvim designed to provide MINDY MoIceRcni please Ontiel us and we wdl be happy hi discuss the matter with you in more detail 09/12/2019 confidential CONFIDENTIAL Agency to Agency Requet: 19-411 SDW_GM_00331938 EFTA_00204664 EFTA02729648 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CRIMINAL DIVISION STATE OF FLORIDA vs. Case Nos.: JEFFREY EPSTEIN PALM BEACH POST'S MOTION TO INTERVENE AND PETITION FOR ACCESS Palm Beach Newspapers, Inc., d/b/a The Palm Beach Post (the "Post") moves to intervene in this action for the limited purpose of seeking access to documents filed under seal. The documents relate directly to the Defendant's guilty plea and sentence. Thus, the sealed documents go to the heart of the disposition of this case. But in requesting that Judge Pucillo seal these documents, the parties failed to comply with Florida's strict procedural and substantive requirements for sealing judicial records. In addition, continued sealing of these documents is pointless, because these documents have been discussed repeatedly in open court records. For all of these reasons, the documents must be unsealed. As grounds for this Motion, the Post states: 1. The Post is a daily newspaper that has covered this matter and related proceedings. In an effort to inform its readers concerning these matters, the Post relies upon (among other things) law enforcement records and judicial records. 2. As a member of the news media, the Post has a right to intervene in criminal proceedings for the limited purpose of seeking access to proceedings and records. See Barron v. Florida Freedom Newspapers, Inc., 531 So. 2d 113, 118 (Fla. 1988) (news media have standing to challenge any closure order); Miami Herald Publ'a Co. v. Lewis, 426 So. 2d I, 7 (Fla. 1982) (news media must be given an opportunity to be heard on question of closure). 09/12/2019 Agency to Agency Requet: 19-411 CONFIDE Pa NTIAL SDNY_GM_00331939 EFTA_00204665 EFTA02729649 3. The particular documents under seal in this case are a non-prosecution agreement that was docketed on July 2, 2008, and an addendum docketed on August 25, 2008. Together, these documents apparently restrict any federal prosecution of the Defendant for offenses related to the conduct to which he pleaded guilty in this case. Judge Pucillo accepted the agreement for filing during a bench conference on June 30, 2008. The agreement, Judge Pucillo found, was "a significant inducement in accepting this plea." Such agreements and related documents typically are public record. Sec QrggsmianimbliakingCa.tUnitesLaSiairaDistriaCourt, 920 F.2d 1462, 1465 (9th Cir. 199O) ("plea agreements have typically been open to the public"). I Inked States v Kooislca, 796 F.3d 1390, 1390-91 (11th Cir. 1986) (documents relating to defendant's change of plea and sentencing could be sealed only upon finding of a compelling interest that justified denial of public access). 4. The Florida Constitution provides that judicial branch records generally must be open for public inspection. See Art. I, § 24(a), Fla. Const. Closure of such records is allowed only under narrow circumstances, such as to "prevent a serious and imminent threat to the fair, impartial and orderly administration ofjustice," or to protect a compelling governmental interest. See Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.420(cX9)(A). Additionally, closure must be effective and no broader than necessary to accomplish the desired purpose, and is lawful only if no less restrictive measures will accomplish that purpose. See Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2. 420(c)(9)(B) & (C); Lewis, 426 So. 2d at 3. 5. In this case, the non-prosecution agreement and, later, the addendum were sealed without any of the requisite findings. Rather, it appears from the record, the documents were scaled merely because the Defendant's counsel represented to Judge Pucillo that the non- prosecution agreement "is a confidential document." See Plea Conference Transcript page 38 09/12/2079 Agency to Agency Requet: 19-017 CONFPI159gNTIAL SDNY_GM_00331940 EFTA_00204666 EFTA02729650 (June 30, 2008). Such a representation falls well short of demonstrating a compelling interest, a genuine necessity, narrow tailoring, and that no less restrictive measures will suffice. Consequently, the sealing was improper and ought to be set aside. 6. In addition, at this time good cause exists for unsealing the documents because of their public significance. Since the Defendant pleaded guilty to soliciting a minor for prostitution, he has been named in at least 12 civil lawsuits that — like the charges in this case — allege he brought and paid teenage girls to come his home for sex and/or "massages.s' At least I I cases are pending. In another lawsuit, one of the Defendant's accusers has alleged that federal prosecutors failed to consult with her regarding the disposition of possible charges against the Defendant.2 State prosecutors also have been criticized: The Palm Beach Police Chief has faulted the State Attorney's handing of these cases as "highly unusual" and called for the State Attorney's disqualification. Consequently, this case — and particularly the Defendant's agreements with prosecutors - are of considerable public interest and concern. 7. The Defendant's non-prosecution agreement with federal prosecutors also was important to Judge Pucillo. As she noted in the June 2008 plea conference, "I would view [the non-prosecution agreement] as a significant inducement in accepting this plea." See Plea Conference Transcript page 39. Florida law recognizes a strong public right of access to documents a court considers in connection with sentencing. age Sarasota Herald Tribune, Div. 09/12/2019 Agency to Agency Requet: 19411 CONF IPT59gNTIAL SDNY_GM_00331941 EFTA_00204667 EFTA02729651 of the New York Times Co. v. Holtzendorf, 507 So. 2d 667, 668 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987) ("While a judge may impose whatever legal sentence he chooses, if such sentence is based on a tangible proceeding or document, it is within the public domain unless otherwise privileged."). In this case, no interest justifies continued sealing of these "significant" documents that Judge Pucillo considered in accepting the plea and sentencing the Defendant. The lack of any such compelling interest —as well as the parties' failure to comply with the standards for sealing documents initially —provide good cause for unsealing the documents at this time. 8. Finally, continued closure of these documents is pointless, because many portions of the sealed documents already have been made public. For example, court papers quoting excerpts of the agreement have been made public in related federal proeeedings.3 As the Florida Supreme Court has noted, "there would be little justification for closing a pretrial hearing in order to prevent only the disclosure of details which had already been publicized." Lewis 426 So. 2d at 8. Similarly, in this case, to the extent that information already has been made public, continued closure is pointless and, therefore, unconstitutional. 9. The Post has no objection to the redaction of victims' names (if any) that appear in the sealed documents. In addition, insofar as the Defendant or State Attorney seek continued closure, the Post requests that the Court inspect the documents in camera in order to assess whether, in fact, continued closure is proper. 09112/2019 Agency to Agency Requet: 19-411 CONFIDENTIAL SDNY_GM_00331942 EFTA_00204668 EFTA02729652 WHEREFORE, the Post respectfully requests that this Court unseal the non prosecution agreement and addendum and grant the Post such other relief as the Court deems proper. Respectfully submitted, THOMAS, LOCICERO & BRALOW PL pit W-41- avqo aft anna K. Shu Florida Bar No James B. Lake Florida Bar No.: 101 N.E. Third Avenue, Suite 1500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Attorneys for The Palm Beach Post 09112/2019 Agency to Agency Requet: 19-411 CONFIDENTIAL SDNY_GM_00331943 EFTA_00204669 EFTA02729653 Tempe 400 N. Ashley Cr.. Ste. 1100. Tempe, FL 33602 P.O. Box 2002. Tempt. Ft. 33001-2002 THOMAS I OCICFRO Ft. Lauderdale BRALOW 101 N E Card Aye.. Ste. 1500 Ft Lauderdale FL 33301 New York City 220 E 42nd St. 10th Floor New York. NY 10017 'rwor 201Erathot tom r Deanna K. h 1 n Reply To Tampa June 1, 2009 VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS OVERNIGHT MAIL The Honorable Jeffrey Colbath Fifteenth Judicial Circuit-Palm Beach Palm Beach County Courthouse Main Judicial Complex 205 N. Dixie Highway, Room 11F West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Re: Dear Judge Colbath: Enclosed is a courtesy copy of non-party Palm Beach Newspapers, Inc. d/b/a The Palm Beach Post's (the "Post") Motion to Intervene and Petition for Access to certain court records in this case. It is our understanding 'hated ve filed a similar motion on behalf of a non-party known as' and that motion is set for hearing on June 10, 2009. The Post requests an opportunity to be heard on the issue of access to these records at that time. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions or comments. Sincerely, THOMAS, LOCICERO & BRALOW PL i -eed litat— Deanna K. Shullman 2" 12 cc: Counsel of Record 09112/2019 Agency to Agency Requet: 19-011 CONFIDENTIAL P SDNY_GM_00331944 EFTA_00204670 EFTA02729654 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT, 1525 PALM BEACH LAKES BLVD., WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33401 &crab 6A4,/41) s- s V uk. July 1, 2009 n JUL 7 - 'ALS MI,' JEFFREY EPSTEIN v. STATE OF FLORIDA Appellant I Petitioner(s), Appellee I Respondent(s). BY ORDER OF THE COURT: ORDERED that the motion to file under seal is granted. ORDERED FURTHER that this court grants the Motion to Use One Appendix to Support the Emergency Petition for Writ of Certiorari and Emergency Motion to Review Denial of Stay. ORDERED FURTHER that this court grants petitioners Emergency Motion to Review the Order June 26, 2009, that denies the motion for stay. The June 25, 2009, order granting the motion to unseal is stayed pending further order of this court. ORDERED FURTHER that within ten (10) days of this order respondent shall show cause why the petition should not be granted. Respondent shall address this court's jurisdiction to review the order as well as the merits of the petition. ORDERED FURTHER that petitioner may have ten (10) days thereafter to reply. I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of the original court order. Served: dl ideseanmse.lac. l a idgriEUTTENMULLER, Clerk Fourth District Coun of Appeal 09/12/2019 Agency to Agency Requet: 19-011 CONFIDENTIAL Pag SDNY_GM_00331945 EFTA 00204671 EFTA02729655 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CRIMINAL DIVISION "W" CASE NO. STATE OF FLORIDA, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT THIS MATTER came before the Court at a hearing on June 26, 2009, on Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to Stay the Disclosure of the Non-Prosecution Agreement and the Addendum thereto. The Court notes the parties were present and represented by counsel. Based upon argument, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that 1. The Motion to Stay is denied. 2. The Clerk of Court shall make the documents available for disclosure at noon on Thursday, July 2, 2009. It is the intent of the Court to give the Defendant, Mr. Epstein, and his attorney an opportunity to have this Court's orders reviewed by the 4th DCA. If the Clerk gets no direction from the Appellate Court, she shall disclose the documents on the date referred to above. DONE AND ORDERED in West Palm Bea 1. Palm Beach County, day of June, 2009. JUL 1 - 2009 Lii.t 11 la APPEALS DIV. J 09112/2019 Agency to Agency Requet: 19-411 CONFIDENTIAL SDNY_GM_00331946 EFTA_00204672 EFTA02729656 Page Two Case No. Order Denying Motion to Stay Disclosure Agreement Copies furnished: 09112/2019 Page Agency to Agency Requet: 19-011 CONFIDENTIAL SDNY_GM_00331947 EFTA_00204673 EFTA02729657 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY FLORIDA, CRIMINAL DIVISION STATE OF FLORIDA, vs. Case JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. NONPARTY E.W.'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS a nonparty, moves pursuant to Administrative Rule 2.303 for attorneys fees and costs on the following grounds: 1.■is filed a motion to vacate the agreed order scaling records and to unseal the nonprosecutuion agreement and addendum in this file. Also, opposed defendant's motion to unseal said records. motion was granted and defendant's was denied at hearing on June 26, 2009. 2. ■ is entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys fees and costs pursuant to said Administrative Rule. Defendant's motion to seal and his opposition to motion were not made in good faith and were not supported by a sound legal or factual basis. 3. adopts and incorporates by reference all arguments in the motion for fees filed by The Palm Beach Post. I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been served via U.S. Mail this Abl. day of July, 2009 to: 09/12/2019 Agency to Agency Requet 19-411 CONF 1 IDENTIAL SDNYGM_00331948 EFTA_00204674 EFTA02729658 • 0..2019 CONFin NTIAL A-' ''''-' ' SDNY_GM_0033.9 EFTA_00204675 EFTA02729659 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CRIMINAL DIVISION "W" CASE NO. STATE OF FLORIDA, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant ORDER DENYING MOTION±1QSTAY DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT THIS MATTER came before the Court at a hearing on June 26, 2009, on Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to Stay the Disclosure of the Non-Prosecution Agreement and the Addendum thereto. The Court notes the parties were present and represented by counsel. Based upon argument, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that 1. The Motion to Stay is denied. 2. The Clerk of Court shall make the documents available for disclosure at noon on Thursday, July 2, 2009. It is the intent of the Court to give the Defendant, Mr. Epstein, and his attorney an opportunity to have this Court's orders reviewed by the e DCA. If the Clerk gets no direction from the Appellate Court, she shall disclose the documents on the date referred to above. DONE AND ORDERED in West Palm Beach, lorida this day of June, 2009. 09/12/2079 CONF JEFFREY J. COLBATFI ?Mtn jAc r Agency to Agency Requet: 19-011 SDNY_GM_00331950 EFTA 00204676 EFTA02729660 Page T Case No. Order Denying Motion to Stay Disclosure Agreement Copies furnished: 09112/2019 Agency to Agency Requet: 19-011 CONFIDENTIAL Pag SDNY_GM_00331951 EFTA_00204677 EFTA02729661 S O 0 0 Z T ems-% mi -- • fe,,ems-Aimst. Judge Jeffrey J. Colbath 02 1M $ 00.44° 205 North Dixie Highway 0004249544 MAILED FROM ZIPCOOE 33401 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 ro ra. raum ouch. PlAhUUA 334111 r 6 State Attomey's Palm Beach 401 North Dixie Highway West Palm Beach, FL 33401 ED Z961£C0CVM-ANOS 33401+4296 EFTA02729662 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY. FLORIDA CRIMINAL DIVISION STATE OF FLORIDA vs. Case Nos.: JEFFREY EPSTEIN C RECEIVEDFOR FILIN INTERVENOR PALM BEACH POST'S JUN 2 6 2009 MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS SHARON R. BOCK CL arF Palm Beach Newspapers, Inc.. diva The Palm Beach Post (the - Post-) move MPTROLLER It. DIVISION for an award of attorneys' fees and costs in connection with this matter. In support thereof, the Post states: The Post is a daily newspaper that has covered this matter and related proceedings. In an effort to inform its readers concerning these matters, the Post relies upon (among other things) law enforcement records and judicial records. 2. On June 10. 2009, the Court granted the Post's Motion to Intervene in this action for the purpose of seeking access to court records. Specifically. the Post sought access to a non- prosecution ag, went that was docketed on July 2. 2008, and an addendum docketed on August 25, 2008. 3. On June 25. 2009, the Court heard oral argument on the Post's (and other non- parties') motions. The Court found that the documents has not properly been sealed in the first instance and further denied Defendant's Motion to Make Court Records Confidential dated June 11. 2009. 4. The Post is entitled to its fess and costs in this matter pursuant to Administrative Order Number 2.303 of this Court. Specifically, Rule 2.303 allows sanctions to be imposed 09112/2019 Page Agency to Agency Requet 19-411 CONFIDENTIAL SDNY_GM_00331953 EF1'A_00204679 EFTA02729663 • against the moving party -if a motion to seal is not made in good faith and is not supported by a sound legal and factual basis." Admin. Or. 15th Jut Cir. Fla. 2.303. 5. In this case. Mr. Epstein's Motion to Make Court Records Confidential was neither made in good faith nor supported by a sound legal and factual basis. Defendant's Motion asserted four interests that ostensibly would be protected by closure, but the motion cited no facts in support of that assertion. At the hearing on the motion, Defendant made no additional effort to demonstrate how and why the asserted interests would be served by closure. Instead. Defendant's arguments addressed extraneous. inapplicable issues that did not support closure and demonstrated the Defendant's lack of good faith in bringing his motion. In sum, the motion was wholly without merit, and the Post is entitled to an award of its fees and costs in defending its rights of access. WHEREFORE, the Post respectfully requests that this Court award to it its fees and costs in connection with this matter and grant such other relief as the Court deems proper. Respectfully submitted. THOMAS, LOCICERO & BRALOW PL Deanna K. Shull Florida Bar No.: James B. Lake Florida Bar No: 101 N.E. Third Avenue. Suite 1500 Fort Lauderdale Telephone: Facsimile: Attorneys for I he Palm Beach Post 09112/2019 Agency to Agency Requet: 19-411 CONFIDENTIAL SDNY_GM_00331954 EFTA_00204680 EFTA02729664 CERTIFICATE Of SERVICE Attorney 09/12/2019 Agency to Agency Requet: 19-011 CONFIDENTIAL SDNY_GM_00331955 EFTA_0020468 EFTA02729665 EFTA02729666 SDNY_GM_00331956 a Of 0 C $0:4421 j US POSTAGE FIRST-CLASS t: < THOMAS LOC.ICERO 062S0005522993 . •0 • 33602 r r BRALOW It; Z LLI 400 N AtAloy Or., Suite 1100. Tampa. R 33602 P.O. Box 2602. Tama. R. 3360I-2602 LL 0 State Attorney's Office - West Palm Beach 401 North Dixie Highway West Palm Beach, FL 33401 IS1:401.1.42.906 11111111111111111 ILI„L1LII.I1111L111I,,Pd 1111111 0 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Page 1 018 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: Plaintiff v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. Related Cases: a IrEF :k NDANT'S, JEFFREY Emm EPSTEIN. MOM a FOR SANCTIONS AND COMPEL DEPOSITION AND MEMORANDUM SUPPORT THEREOF Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through his undersigned attorneys, moves this court for an order granting sanctions pursuant to Rule 30(dX2) and (3)(A) and (C) (referencing Rule 37(aX5)), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure end compelling the deposition of- within fifteen (15) days and as grounds therefore would state: 1. On August 16, 2009, the deposition ofMMwas noticed for September 16, 2009 to begin at 1:00 p.m. Plaintiff's counsel had advised that could not appear for a deposition prior to that time of day, i.e. 1:00 p.m. 2. The deposition was originally set at the offices of the undersigned, but Plaintiff's counsel requested that it be moved to the court reporter's office. The court reporter is Prose Court Reporting located at 250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 115, West Palm Beach, FL 33401. 09/12/2019 Agency to Agency Requet: 19-011 CONF T 9 IDENTIAL SDNY_GM_00331957 EFTA_00204683 EFTA02729667 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Page 2 of 8 3. The undersigned's office began attempting to set the deposition cit.= on July 21, 2009. Because of the number of attorneys who would be attending (based on the court's consolidation order) coordinating the video deposition creates logistical problems. 4. On August 27, 2009, the undersigned wrote a letter to counsel for the Plaintiff indicating that Mr. Epstein would be present at the deposition. A copy of that letter is attached as Exhibit 1. 5. Some 13 days later, counsel loran. flied a motion for protective order on September 9, 2009 attempting to prohibit Mr.Epstein's presence at the deposition. The Defendant immediately filed a response (an Emerg ency Motion) on September II, 2009 requesting that the court enter an oat allowing Epstein, the Defendant in this matter, to attend the deposition. This is common procedure. See Exhibit 2, without exhibits. As of the date of the deposition, the court had not ruled on these motions. 6. On Monday, counsel for and the undersigned spoke, an agreement was reached that the deposition would proceed as scheduled, and that Mr. Epstein would not be in attendance other than by telephone or other means. See Exhibi t 3. 7. The deposition was originally scheduled on the 15th Floor and moved by Prose to a larger ground floor to accommodate the number of people who were to attend 8. The undersigned and his partner, Mark T. Lustier, had scheduled a meeting with Mr. Epstein for approximately an hour prior to the deposition. It is well known through multiple newspaper articles that Mr. Epstein's office at the Florida Science Foundation is located on the 14th Floor in the same building as the court reporter and Mr. Epstein's criminal attorney, Mr. Goldberger. As well, had the court issued an order prior to the deposi tion that would have allowed Mr. Epstein to attend, he was readily available. 2 09/12/2019 Agency to Agency Requet: 19-411 CONFPITIENTIAL SDNY_GM_00331958 EFTA_00204684 EFTA02729668 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Page 3 of 8 9. As of 1:00 p.m., no order had been received from the court, so Epstein's attorneys, in good faith, decided that Epstein would not attend the deposition (as per the agreement), if we chose to proceed, which we were doing. The undersigned and Mr. Luttier specifically waited until just after 1:00 o'clock, the time that the deposition was to start, prior to leaving with Mr. Epstein. Counsel instructed Mr. Epstein to leave the building. Clearly, Defendant and his counsel simply wish to have meaningful discovery. 10. The undersigned and Mr. Loftier exited the elevator heading toward the deposition room and Mr. Epstein and his driver, Igor Zinoviev exited in separate elevator at the same time and turned to depart from through the front entrance such that he could go to his home to watch the deposition and assist counsel, from a video feed. 11. Completely unbeknownst and unexpected by anyone, apparently the Plaintiff and her attorney(s) were at the front door where Mr. Epstein was intending to exit. Upon seeing two women, one who might be the Plaintiff, Mr. Epstein immediately made a left turn and exited through a separate set of doors to the garage area. See affidavit of Jeffrey Epstein and Igor Zinoviev, Exhibit 4 and 5, respectively. 12. The entire incident was completely unknown to the undersigned and Mr. Luttier until Adam Horowitz, Esq. came in and announced that the deposition was not going to take place in that Mr. Epstein and his client saw one another, she was upset and therefore the deposition was cancelled from his perspective. 13. The undersigned and his partner, Mr. Luttier, had a court reporter and a videographer present. Additionally, were present for the deposition. 3 09/12/2019 Page Agency to Agency Requet 19-411 CONFIDENTIAL SDNY_GM_00331959 EFTA_00204685 EFTA02729669 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Page 4 o' 8 14. Any suggestion that the chance "visual" between Mr. Epstein and was "pre-planned" would be absurd, disingenuous and false. The undersigned counsel went out of his way to make certain Mr. Epstein would not be in the building after the time the deposition was set to begin. Had the Plaintiff and her counsel been in the deposition room at the appointed time, no visual contact would have occurred. 15. It is possible that Plaintiffs counsel, by filing their motion for protective order on September 9, 2009 and then advising the undersigned on September 14, 2009 that the deposition would not go forward unless the undersigned agreed to exclude Mr. Epstein from the deposition, were not prepared and/or did not want to proceed with the deposition. 16. The unilateral termination of the deposition was unnecessary, inappropriate and a substantial waste of attorney time and the costs related to the deposition (court reporter and videographer). 17. Had the "visual" been premeditated, the cancellation of the deposition may have been justified, however, under these circumstances, it was grandstanding and improper. In that the Plaintiff has stated that she voluntary went to 113's home 50 plus times without trauma until she filed a lawsuit, this brief visual encounter from a distance should not have resulted in the unilateral cancellation of her deposition. 18. The costs associated with the court reporter and videographer total $428.80. See Exhibit 9. Memorandum or Law In support of Motion A substantial amount of administrative lime went into the setting up the deposition of Almost two months passed from the time that the Defendant's counsel first 4 09/12/2019 Agency to Agency Requet 19-411 CONFIDENTIAL Pa SDNY_GM_00331960 EFTA_00204686 EFTA02729670 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Page 5 of 8 requested a date for the deposition o The deposition of was to begin at 1:00 p.m, based on her schedule, and was moved from the undersigned's office to the office of the court reporter at her counsel's request. Pursuant to Rule 30(d)(2) and (3)(A) and (C) and its reference to 37(a)(5)), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court may impose an appropriate sanction, including reasonable expenses in attorneys fees incurred by any party on a person who impedes or delays the fair examination of the deponent In this instance, the brief visual encounter, which was completely unintended and inadvertent, should not have been grounds for Plaintiff's counsel and Plaintiff refusing to move forward with the deposition. Furthermore, pursuant to (3)(A) and (C), Plaintiff and Plaintiff's counsel had no right to unilaterally tenninateicancel the deposition and fail to move forward. Plaintiff should have continued with the deposition and filed any motion deemed appropriate post deposition. Therefore, Defendant is asking for the costs associated with the attendance of the court reporter, her transcript and the presence of the videographer. Defendant would also request reasonable fees for 2.5 hours at 5500 per hour for being required to prepare this motion and affidavits associated with same. The records obtained thus far on do not reflect any "emotional trauma" by her own account of some 50 plus visits to the Defendant's home prior to the time that she hired an attorney. Even in her interview with attorney's handpicked expert, by her own comments, her significant emotional trauma relates to physical and verbal abuse by a prior boyfriend, and deaths associated with two close friends, Therefore, the supposed "emotional trauma" caused by a chance encounter resulting in a "glance" at best, should not be the basis for Plaintiff unilaterally cancelling her deposition. 5 09/12/2019 Page Agency to Agency Requet 19-111 CONFIDENTIAL SDNY_GM_00331961 EFTA_00204687 EFTA02729671 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Page 6 of 8 Rule 7.1 A. 3. Certlficadoo of Pre-Fillog Conference Counsel for Defendant conferred with Counsel for Plaintiff by telephone and by e-mail; however, an agreement has not boon reached. WHEREFORE, Defendant moves this court for an order granting sanctions to include attorneys fees and costs as set forth above and costs associated with the attendance of the court reporter, the transcript and the presence of the videographer and direction that - appear for deposition within fifteen (15) days from the date of the court's order at the court reporter's office. If the court has not issued an order regarding Mr. Epstein's attendance at Plaintiffs deposition when- is to appear, the Defendant will agree that Mr. Epstein will not be present in the building on the date of her scheduled deposition such that no "inadvertent" contact will occur. Certificate of Service I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was hand-delivered to the Clerk of the Court as required by the Local Rules of the Southern District of Florida and electronically mailed to all counsel of record identified on the following Service List on this F° day of September 2009. Certificate of Service 6 09/12/2019 Agency to Agency Requet: 19-411 CONF T IDENTIAL SDNY_GM_00331962 EFTA_00204688 EFTA02729672 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Page 7 of 8 09112/2019 Agency to Agency Requet: 19-011 CONFIDENTIAL P SDNY_GM_00331963 EFTA_00204689 EFTA02729673 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Page 8 of 8 Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 561-659-8300 Fax:561-835-8691 elfor Defendant Jeffrey Epstein Respectfully subm By: ROBERT D. Q. Florida Bat ESQ. N, LUTTIER & COLEMAN 303 Banyan Boulevard, Suite 400 West Palm Beach. FL 33401 (Co-Cottnrelfor Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) 8 09112/2019 Agency to Agency Requet: 19-411 CONFPa IDENTIAL SDNY_GM_00331964 EFTA 00204690 EFTA02729674 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Page 1 of 1 6.4 BURMAN CRITTON LUTTIER&COLEMAN• TJ-P YOUR TRUSTED ADVOCATES A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP J. MICHAEL SURMAHL WA - AplajtEHAVINTI ORPOOP W.CO.1.mi/ PA =GATOR REMIT D. CRTITON. IL PA' . HSEICA CADWILL WHAM/ lleUXILIR BONN M. MCKINNA MARK T. ELMIRA PA ASHUR SHUSH-UNDO JIFEREYC Pin,. BMW MICITAIL J. DU PRJAWMIS HEATHER MCNAMARA RUDA RITA H. SVONIX DAVID TARIM& Or DOWN.. ED NCO 'MORMIA Mob On cmcINK vent iMMYTTOD TO ',writs N KCVOS AND COWIA00 =83= i August 27.2009 Dunn ...LA U.S. lie Melt l Re: v. Epstein Dear Please be advised that Mr. Epstein plans to be in attendance at the deposition of your client. He does not Intend to engage In any conversation with your client. However, It is certainly his right as a party-defendant In the lawsuit to be present and to assist counsel In the defense of any case. Cordially Robe . Creston, Jr. cc: Jack A. Goldberger, Esq. EXHIBIT / WWW.SCLC1AW.COM 09/12/2019 903 Agency to Agency Requet: 19-41t CONFIDENTIAL T SDNY_GM_00331965 EFT/XJ.)0204691 EFTA02729675 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant Reared eases. Defendant Epstein's Emertency Motion To Strike Plaintiff's Motion For Protective Order (DE 292) And Emergency Motion To Allow The Atte nee f Jeff E At The skim' Of Plaintiffs And Res o In Opposition To Plaintiffs' otion For Protective Order As To Jeffrey Epstein's Attendance At The e position Of Plaintiffs, With Incorporated Memorandum of Law all Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, by and through his undersigned counsel, and pursuant to serves his applicable rules, including Intal Rule 7.1(e) and Local Rule 12, hereby files and Emergency Emergency Motion To Strike Plaintiff's Motion For Protective Order (DE 292) And And Motion To Allow The Attendance Of Jeffrey Epstein At The Deposition Of Plaintiffs Response In Opposition To Plaintiffs', Motion For Protective Order As To states: Jeffrey Epstein's Attendance At The Deposition Of Plaintiffs. In support, Epstein Introduction and Background 1. On August 19, 2009, Defendant sent a Notice for Taking the Deposition of. for September 16, 2009. Exhibit 'I" EXHIBIT 2. 09/11/2019 Agency to Agency Requet 19411 CONFIDENTIAL SDNY_GM00331966 EFTA 0020469? EFTA02729676 Page 2 of 11 Page 2 of 33 Page 2 2. Additionally, notices were sent out in other cases in connection with deposing additional Plaintiffs. 3. No objection(s) was/were received for . which was the only deposition set relative to theMMIlaintiffs. 4. On August 27, 2009, the undersigned counsel sent a letter to counsel foil= El concerning her deposition and the scheduling of same on the above date. See Exhibit "2". 5. No response was received until counsel for ailed on September 8, 2009, approximately eight days prior to the scheduled deposition, to indicate that they now had an objection and would be filing a motion for protective order seeking to prevent Epstein from attending the deposition. Once again, Plaintiffs are attempting to stifle this litigation through their own delay tactics during discovery. Plaintiffs wish not only to attempt to force any Epstein to trial without any meaningful discovery, but now wish to ban Epstein from depositions, thereby preventing him from assisting his attorneys in his very own defense. What's from the next — will Plaintiffs seek to prevent Epstein from attending any of the trials that result lawsuits have initiated? Plaintiffs sec millions of dollars in damages, both compensatory and punitive, against Defendant B. Defendant is filing this emergency motion and his immediate response to the motion for protective order to guarantee his right to be present and assist counsel in deposing not only but other plaintiffs and witnesses in these cases. To hold otherwise would violate Epstein's due process rights to defend the very allegations Plaintiffs have alleged against proceedings to him. Does a Defendant not have a right to be present at depositions or other court or the assist counsel with the defense of his case? Does a Defendant, no matter what the charges it governs, allegations, have full and is-bridled access to the court system and the proceedings 09 12+20"9 945 Agency to Agency Requet 19-411 CONFPI IDENTIAL SDNY_GM_00331967 EFTA_00204693 EFTA02729677 Page 3 of 11 Page 3 of 33 Page 3 including discovery? The short answer is unequivocally, yes. To hold otherwise would be a direct violation of Epstein's constitutional due process rights. Plaintiffs' attempts to play fast and loose with the law should not be tolerated. 7. As the court is aware, plaintiffs and defendants routinely attend depositions of parties and other witnesses in both Stale and Federal court proceedings. In fact, parties have a right under the law to attend such depositions. 8. As the court will note from Exhibit 2, counsel for the Defendant specifically stated that "Please be advised that Mr. Epstein pler,s to be in attendance at the deposition of your client. lie does rot intend to engage in any conversation with your client. However, it is certainly his right as a party-defendant in the lawsuit to be present and to assist counsel in the defense of any case." Despite this right, Plaintiffs continue to attempt to control how discovery is conducted in this case and how this court has historically governed discovery. 9. Lmerestingly, in the state court case, attorney took the deposition of the Defendant and his client, was present throughout the deposition. This is despite her claims of "emotional trauma" set forth in her complaint. is also a Plaintiff in the federal court proceeding Is this court going to start a precedent where it allows Plaintiffs to attend the depositions of Jeffrey Epstein, but not allow Epstein to attend their depositions (i.e., the very Plaintiffs that have asserted claims against him for millions of dollars)? This court should not condone such a practice. 10. The undersigned is well aware of the court's No-Contact Order entered on July 31, 2009 (DE 238). A copy of the order is attached as Exhibit "3". In fact, the order provides that the defendant have no direct or indirect contact with the plaintiffs, nor communications with 09/12/2019 Agency to Agency Requet: 19-111 Pa 34 CONFIDENTIAL SDNY_GM_00331968 EFTA 00204694 EFTA02729678 Page 4 of 11 age 4 of 33 Page 4 the plaintiffs either directly or indirectly. However, there is no prohibition against Mr. Epstein's attendance at a deposition where, as is reflected in the order, the communication wilt be made to the plaintiff solely through defense counsel with one or more of plaintiffs' counsel of record present in the room in a videotaped deposition. Obviously, any inappropriate contact or communication will certainly be flagged by the attorneys in attendance, As such, Plaintiffs really have the cart before the horse in this instance (i.e., nothing prevents Epstein from attending these depositions and, to the extent Plaintiffs believe that something improper occurs at any deposition only then can that circumstance be addressed by a motion such as the instant one.) 11. Next, Plaintiffs, attempt to use the Affidavit of Dr. for every motion for protective order/objection filed to date. This also includes the two most recent motions, which attempt to prevent Defendant's investigators from doing their job, such that the Defendant and his attorneys can defend the claims asserted in these cases. Plaintiffs lose sight of the fact that the court, in discussing the Non-Prosecution Agreement, inquired as to whether Epstein and his counsel could fully defend the case, which included discovery and investigation. All plaintiffs' counsel and the USAO responded in the affirmative. In fact, Plaintiffs universally agreed at the June 12, 2009 hearing on Defendant's Motion to Stay that regular discovery could proceed. kg Composite Exhibit "4" at pages 26-30 & 33-34. For instance, the court asked Plaintiffs' attorneys the following questions: The Court: [) So again, I just want to make sure that if the cases go forward and if Mr. Epstein defends the case as someone ordinarily would defend a case being prosecuted against him or her, that that in and of itself is not going to cause him to be subject to criminal prosecution? (Ex. "A," p.26). •tir • The Court: You agree he should be able to take the ordinary steps that a defendant in a civil action can take and not be concerned about having to be prosecuted? (Ex. "A," p.27). 09/12/2019 age3947 Agency to Agency Requet 19-111 CONFIDENTIAL SDNY_GM_00331969 EFTA_00204695 EFTA02729679 IMMIIMINES Page Sof 11 age 5 of 33 Page ••• The Court Otcay. But again, you're in agreement with everyone else so far tint's spoken on behalf of a plaintiff that defending the case in the normal course of conducting discovery and filing motions would not be a breach? (Ex, "A," Pie). Subject to your rulings, of course, yes. (Et "A," p.30). The Court: But you're not taking the position that other than possibly doing something in litigation which is any other discovery, motion practice, In Pesti/rations that someone would ordinarily do in the course of defending a civil case would constitute a violation of the agreement? (Ex. "A," p.34). No, your honor. I mean, civil litigation is civil litigation, and being able to e discovery is part of what civil litigation is all about... But . . , Mr. Epstein is entitled to take the deposition of a Plaintiff and to subpoena records, etc. (Ex. "A," p.34) 12. It is clear from the transcript attached as Exhibit "4" that each of the Plaintiffs' attorneys, including expected and conceded that regulatitraditional discovery would take place (i.e., discovery, motion practice, depositions, requests for records, and investigations). 13. Importantly, Plaintiffs' counsel advised the undersigned that they coordinate their two efforts in joint conference calls at least two times per month. At recent depositions of witnesses, Alfredo Rodriguez and Juan Alessi, five different plaintiffs' attorneys questioned the witnesses for approximately six to eight hours, often repeating the same or similar questions that had previously been asked. 14. Clearly, the Plaintiffs' counsel wish to control discovery and how the Defendant ruled on a is allowed to obtain information to defend these cases. However, the court has number of these issues as follows: A. Plaintiffs' counsels sought to preclude the Defendant from serving third party subpoenas and allowing only Plaintiffs' counsel to obtain 09/12/2019 Page Agency to Agency Requet 19-411 CONF ' IDENTIAL SDNY_GM_00331970 EFTA_00204696 EFTA02729680 al Page 6 l. Page 6 of 11 age 6 of 33 depositions and those materials and "filter them" to defense counse That motion was denied , and the court tailored a method such that the Defendant could obtain the morels directly. tric B. Plaintiffs' counsels sou t to limit the sychological psychia examination as to time, subject matter and scope. However, agistrate !M uted an order denying the requested restrictions. requested C. Other Plaintiffs' attorneys have said that they object to client(s ), thus motion s for such exams will psychological exam of their for to be filed; yet all seek million s of dollars in damage s now need alleged psychological and emotional trauma and past Ea Many Plaintiffs' object to discovery regarding current past and loss of income , both in employment (although they an seeking Mute). sual and forced as E. All Plaintiffs object to prior sexual history, consen that are now many of the medica l records being irrelevant, although in =MI done byM being obtained, as well as the psychiatric exams ships (both ation, abusive relation there is reference to rape, molest abuse. prior abortio ns, illegal drugs and alcohol physical and verbal), r, they forget that they must 15. Clearly, Plaintiffs wish to make allegations., howeve and disproving those allegations is not meet their burden by proving same. Meeting that burden control the discovery process. possible if this court allows Plaintiffs to stifle and/or Specifically, with regard to which is the deposition set for next 16. past (see affidavit of Richard C.W. Hall, week, September 16, 2009, the plaintiff has in her conduct exams on various claimants.) aie M an expert psychiatrist retained by Defendant to Exhibit ar n, specifically with A. Sought counseling due to a dysfunctional borne situatio angry, bitter, regard to her father. She describ ed herself as being depressed and having body image problems; Had an ex-boyfriend, who was, on information and B. belief, a drug dealer who she lived with; C. Had drug and alcohol problems herself, and 09/12/2019 Page'949 Agency to Agency Roque: 19.411 CONFIDENTIAL SDNY_GM00331971 EFTA_00204697 EFTA02729681 Page 7 of 11 age 7 of 33 D. Spoke with two ps ychiatrists when she this lawsuit!) and was sixteen or seve did not reference nteen (before boyfriend and family Epstein, but did issues. reference her 17. There are police rep orts that reflect that: A. In S 2004, a banery rep and ort was filed regarding on an argument where began spitting on her an he grabbed her y d calling her a cheater. e neck and B. * eptember 2004, there was a domestic was physically and virile verbally abusive to here girlfriend at the time. There is reference tha relationship in January t the o started a se his 2002, when she was on rious ly fourteen (14) yea C. rs old. 11111 was arres ted in December 2003 driving and leaving the , and . scene of the accident wi cicless their vehicle hit a tree th when and they fled. 18. Moreover, an ex-boyfrie nd of _died in a DUI accident an her two years to get over d it took his death, and another good friend of hers,Ilidie d in an automobile accident involving dri nking. Within her Am ended Co mplaint and Answers she indicates that she we to Interrogatories, nt to Epstein's house on several orea-ions. Howe ver, at no time did she call the police, at no time did she report any traumatic or severe em otional trauma, nor alle coercion, force or impro ged per behavior by Epste in until she got a "lawy er and is now pursuing claims for millions of do llars. Epstein's assistance to his attorneys at these de positions regarding the above issues is not only a constitutional du e process tight afforded to him but essential giv the fact that this court en has ruled that Plaintiffs' depositions can only occur one tintl, no bite" absent a court ord "second er. 19. Given the breadth of the allegations made ag ainst Epstein and the damages sought, Epste substantial in ha s an unequivocal and co nstitutional right to deposition such that he be present at any can assist his counsel with the defense of these cas es. Zes infra. - 0901120'9 Page 3950 , Agency to Agenc 19-411 CONFIDENTIAL y Roque: SONY_GM_O0331972 EFTA _002046c EFTA02729682 Page 8 of 11 Page 8 of 33 Page 8 are attached to DE IMIIMMEIMMEavhich 247. Memorandum Of Law meet their burden 20. Plaintiffs' motion is required to be denied as they have failed to good cause to support a showing the "extraordinary circumstances" necessary to establish of preventing a named party protective order which would grant the extraordinarily rare relief party. Also requiring denial of from attending in person the deposition of another named from all the depositions of all the Plaintiffs' motion is the fact that it seeks to exclude Epstein unprecedented and attempts to have this Plaintiffs in actions before this Court. Such relief is analyzing each case based on facts versus Court look at the Plaintiffs' collectively as opposed to tances" exist on a case by case basis. in other broad speculation whether "extraordinary circums d to determine whether each Plaintiff words, the standard is such that the Court would be require adopting such extraordinary relief. On its face, has met her burden, should the Court consider or the motion does not meet the necessary burden as to Requested Protective Order Pixyltss ion ofLaw Requi rime the Denial of the protective orders, provides in relevant Rule 26(eX1XE), Fed.R.Civ.P. (2009), governing pan that: discovery is sought may move for (1) In GeneraL A party or any person from whom is pending—or as an alternative on a protective order in the court where the action the district where the deposition will matters relating to a deposition, in the court for a certific ation that the movant has in good faith be taken. The motion must include in an effort to resolve the conferred or attempted to confer with other affected parties issue an order to may, for good cause, dispute without court action. The court embarrassment, oppression, or protect a party or person from annoyance, of the following: undue burden or expense, including one or more • • while the discovery is conducted; (E) designating the persons who may be present 09/12/2019 951 Agency to Agency Rennet 19-411 IDENTIAL CONFPa SDNY_GM00331973 EFTA_00204699 EFTA02729683 Page 9 of 11 Page 9 of 33 Page 9 • • • In seeking to prevent the Defendant from being present in the room where the Plaintiffs are being deposed, Plaintiffs generally rely on treatise material from Wright & Miller, 8 &dicta( 487 Pnictice 4 Procedure Civ.2d, §2041, and cases cited therein. The case of goella v. Onassis, F.2d 986, at 997 (2d CG. 1973), cited by Plaintiffs, makes clear that the exclusion of a party from a deposition "should be ordered rarely indeed." Unlike the Gaella case, there is no showing by etch of the Plaintiffs that there has been any conduct by Epstein, in rightfully defending the actions filed against him, reflecting "an irrepressible intent to continue ... harassment" of any versus any Plaintiff or a complete disregard of the judicial process, i.e. prior alleged conduct action/conduct displayed in this or other cases that would justify extraordinary relief. There is with the absolutely no basis in the record to indicate that Epstein will act other than properly and No-Contact proper decorum at the depositions of the Plaintiffs and abide in all respects with the Order. Wherefore, Epstein respectfully requests that this Court enter an order denying Plaintiffs' of the Motion for Protective Order, provide that Epstein is permitted to attend the depositions other and Plaintiffs that have asserted claims against him in the related matters, and for such further relief as this court deems just and proper. Robert D. C ton, Jr. Michael). tke Attorney for Defendant Epstein 09/12/2019 Agency to Agency Requer: 19-411 CONFPIIDENTIAL SDNY_GM_00331974 EFTA 00204700 EFTA02729684 Page 10 of 11 Page 10 of 33 Page 10 Certificate of Service I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was hand-delivered to the Clerk of the Court as required by the Local Rules of the Southern District of Florida and electronically mailed to all counsel of record identified on the following Service List on this I I th day of Scoternhei• 2009. Certificate of Service Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein Case No. 08-CV-.8.0119-MAHRAJJOHNSON 09/12/2019 Page Agency to Agency Requet: 19-011 CONFIDENTIAL SONY_GM_00331975 EFTA_00204701 EFTA02729685 Page 11 of 11 Page 11 of 33 Page 1', ack Alan Goldberger, Esq. tterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 50 Australian Avenue South uite 1400 West Palm Bea • FL 33401-5012 OUnSe or rat Jeffrey Epstein Respectfully su By: ROBERT CRITTON JR., ESQ. Florida No. MICHAEL L P SQ. BURMAN, CR1TTON, LUTT1ER & COLEMAN 303 Banyan Blvd., Suite 400 FL 33401 (Co-Counselfor Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) 09112/2019 Agency to Agency Requet: 19-411 CONFPIDENTIAL SDNY_GM_00331976 EFTA 00204702 EFTA02729686 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Page 1 of 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY a N, Defendant. Related Cases: LN AF,F1DAVIT OF JEFFREY E. RpSTE STATE OF FLORIDA ) SS COUNTY OF PALM BEACH ) lly appeared Jeffrey E. Epstein BEFORE Ma the undersigned authority, persona deposes and says: having personal knowledge and being duly sworn, South, 14Th Floor, West Palm 1. My office is located at 250 Australian Avenue publicized in the news. Beach, Florida Its location has been well Mark T. Luttler, at 12:30 p.m. 2. I met with my attorneys, Robert D. Critton, Jr. and h was to take place beginning at 1:00 in preparation for the deposition of whic p.m. on September 16, 2009. had been served in this case 3. I was aware of the motion for protective order which Motion For by counsel fora.= and the Emergency Motion To Strike Plaintiff's EXHIBIT OT12;2019 CONFlat5ge 55 Agency to Agency Requet: 19-411 39ENTIAL SDNY_GM_00331977 EFTA_00204703 EFTA02729687 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Pliftfgbef of 2 1". Robert D. Critton Jr. From: Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 11:43 AM To: Michael J. Pike: Robert D. Critton Jr. Cc: Subject: . Epstein Please allow this to confirm that Jeffrey Epstein will not attend tomorrow's deposition of in the absence of a Court order permitting him to attend). We understand you may wish to have your clientlisten in by telephone or view a videofeed of the deposition, but will not be seen by our client. Regards, From: Michael J. Pike [mallbs:MPIkeetddaw.ccrn] Sen Tuesday September IS 7009 10.54 AM To: Cc Robert D. cli allaaraisiessica Cadwell Subject: FWMMi. Epstein Gentlemen: I sent the e-ma weeks ago. I have not heard back from you. I'm entitled to the questionnaires ad your clients fill out and which he utilized to formulate his opinions. I need them by tomorrow since they are well over due. If not, I will have no other choice to file a motion, which I do not want to do given how we have worked together on these Issues in the past. Let me know, pike. From: Michael J. Pike Sent T 8 2009 1. 7 AM To: Subject v. Epstein From reviewing the transcripts, it seems lized Questionnaire's with all of your clients. I need them. Please advise of your .p isE l.til'm sure you will produce since they are EXHIBIT 3 9/15/2009 09/12/2079 Agency to Agency Requet: 19-411 CONFIDENTIAL PI 39 SDNY_GM_00331978 EFTA 00204704 EFTA02729688 Entered on FISD Docket 09/17/2009 }Pleti ea 2 discoverable. Thanks. Michael J. Pike, Esq. Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman 515 N. Flagler Dr., Ste. 400 Wen PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION The information contained in this transmission is attorney/clien t privileged and/or attorney work product. If you arc not the addressee ox authorized by the addressee to receive this message, you shall not review, disclose, copy, distribute or otherwise use this message (lnchid ing any attachments). If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and destroy the message (including attachments) and all copies. Thank you. 9/15/2009 09112/2019 Agency to Agency Requet: 19-411 CONFPITTENTIAL SDNY_GM_00331979 EFTA 00204705 EFTA02729689 Page 2 of 3 R igs Epstein Protective Order AM Emergency Motion To Allow The Attendance Of Jeffrey Epstein Al The Deposition Of Plaintiffs And Response In Opposition To Plaintiffs', Motion For Protective Order As To Jeffrey Epstein's Attendance At The Deposition Of Plaintiffs, With Efitileithidaiti of liacivida tia bee mid 68 my belndf ilia that I &Am grew • • the deposition and assist my attorneys in my &those. 4. I also understood that as of 1:00 p.m. on September 16, after I bed finished speaking with my attorneys that the court had not ruled regarding the above -referenced motions. S. I was instructed by my attorneys that I could not attend the deposition and therefore a video feed was set up such that I could view the deposition ftorn my home. 6. I also understood that my attorneys did not want me in the building after the deposition began. 7. At 1:04 p.m. after we assumed that everyone would be in the deposition room, my lawyers went down on one elevator and I went down on another elevator with my driver, Igor Zinoviev, both exiting at approximately the tame time. 8. I asked Igor where he had parked, and he said "out front". We exited the elevator, I walked toward the front dodr. Near the front door, I saw a taller woman and a shorter woman who I thought might be and immediately turned to my left and went out a separate exit to the garage. 9. At no time did I speak with or attempt to interact with either women. FURTHER THE AFP1ANT SAYETH NAUGHT. 09/12/2019 Agency to Agency Requet: 19-011 CONFPITTENTIAL SDNY_GM_00331980 EFTA 00204706 EFTA02729690 Entered on FLSD Docket 0W17/2009 Page 3 of 3 la Wel^ Peas 3 STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF PALM BEACH i ltaeby Catty that on this daY, before a* isilhoriiet to administer oaths and take acknowledgments, personally appeared Jeffrey B. Epstein known to me to be the person described in and who executed the brregoing Affidavit, who acknowledge d before me that he/she executed the same, that I relied upon the following form of identification of the above named palon: res4-0 fin a and that an oath was/was not taken. WfIVESS my band and official seal in the County and State last aforesaid this day of Sr..p4. t Z 2009. Mat cintn tr a41aL. (SEAL) .• NOTARY PUBLIC/STATE OF FLORIDA i COMMISSION NO.: • MY COMMISSION EXPIRBS: .titi €14411 AbeOttfil: ets My Oomen.2010ame lArall, S, tip. roamer • . 19):'. 4°6800./.11 '0 ............. OF 09/12/2019 Page 3959 Agency to Agency Requet: 19-411 CONFIDENTIAL SDNY_GM_00331981 EFTA 00204707 EFTA02729691 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: Plaintif‘ - v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. Related Cans: AFFIDAVIT OF IGOR ZINOVBEV STATE OF FLORIDA ) SS COUNTY OF PALM BEACH ) BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, peracmally appeared Igor Zinoviev having personal knowledge and being duly sworn, deposes and says: 1. I work for Jeffrey Epstein. I as well drive him from place to place. 2. At approximately 1:04 p.m., Mr. Epstein and I went down in the elevator from the 14th floor to the round level. I was to drive Mr. Epstein to his home. His lawyers went down at approximately the same time in a separate elevator. 3. I parked the car at the front entrance. As I walked toward the front door end noticed that Mr. Epstein quickly turned to the left so as to exit through the door to the garage of the building rather than the front entrance. EXHIBIT 09/12/2019 age3960 Agency to Agency Requet: 19-011 CONFIDENTIAL SDNY_GM_00331982 EFTA 00204708 EFTA02729692 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Page 2 of 2 . Epstein 4. At no time did Mr. Epstein speak or gesture to anyone, including the individuals whom I saw near the front door. S. At no time did I speak with the individuals at the main entrance. TOMER TEE AFFIANTSAYETEINXIJOHT. dratcyeY STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF PALM BEACH I hereby Certify that on this day, before me, an officer duly authorized to arlmirdata oaths and take acknowledgments, personally appeared Igor Zinoviev !mown to me to be the person desathed in and who executed the foregoing Affidavit, who acknowledged before me that he/she executed the same, disci relied upon the following Sum of idaatifloation of the above named person: a etrivi Pp (hi?, , end that an oath wealwas not takut WITNESS my hand and official seal In the County and State last aforesaid this day of Stet. /1 r 2009. lis")r• ,, citARio toes OS: \ .fir ows° 1,443TAliY PUBLIC/STATE OF F (SEAL) A Pural."4:11$ COMMISSION NO.: 1:424;*........ (rs , ,,,,,,,,, MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: 09/12/2019 Agency to Agency Requet: 19-011 CONFPag IDENTIAL SDNY_GM_00331983 EFTA_00204709 EFTA02729693 Entered on FLED Docket 09/17/2009 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: i Plaintiff v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. Related C.aserr AFFIDAVIT OF ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR, STATE OF FLORIDA ) SS COUNTY OF PALM BEACH ) BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, personally appeared Robert D. Critton, Jr., having personal knowledge and being duly sworn, deposes and says: I. I am counsel for Jeffrey Epstein in the above-styled matter and other civil lawsuits. 2. The information contained in motion, paragraphs 1 through 9, 1I, 13, 14 and 16 is true end accurate based on my personal knowledge. 3. The costs and fees set forth in the motion are true, correct and reasonable. FURTHER THE AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT. Robert . Critton, Jr. NHIBIT 6 09/12/2019 Agency to Agency Requet: 19-411 CONFIDE P NTIAL SDNY_GM_00331984 EFTA 00204710 EFTA02729694 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Page 2 of 2 IM Mv. Epstein STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF PALM BEACH I hereby Certify that on this day, before me, an officer duly authorized to administer oaths and take acknowledgments, personally appeared Robert D. Critton, Jr- known to me to be the person described in and who executed the foregoing Affidavit, who acknowledged before me that he/she execu the sent, that I relied upon the following form o 'on of the above named person: OM" Afeink? and that an oath WITNESS my hand and official seal in the County and State last aforesaid this day of n j .94,410,4,/, 2009. a C•13usierTha) NOT LIC/STATB OF FLORIDA COMMISSION NO.: at) 8536,P 9 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: 04 "/ p 3 09112/2019 Agency to Agency Requet: 19411 CONFIDENTIAL SDNY_GM_00331985 EFTA_002047 I EFTA02729695 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Page 1 ot 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: Plaintiff v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. Related Cases: AFFIDAVIT OF MARK T. L11317Fa STATE OF FLORIDA ) SS COUNTY OF PALM BEACH ) BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, personally appeared Mark T. Luther., having personal knowledge and being duly sworn, deposes end says: 1. I am counsel for Jeffrey Epstein in the above-styled matter and other civil lawsuits. 2. The information contained in motion, paragraphs I through 10, 11, 13, 14 and 16 is true and accurate based on my personal knowledge. FURTHER THE AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT. YlAtilt cJrLuthere,ts Mark T. EXHIBIT 7 09112/2019 Agency to Agency Requet: 19-411 CONFPITIENTIAL SDNY_GM_00331986 EFTA 00204712 EFTA02729696 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Page 2 of 2 IOW v. Epstein STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF PALM BEACH I hereby Certify that on this day, before me, an officer duly authorized to administer oaths and take acknowledgments, personally appeared Mark T. Luther, known to me to be the person described in and who executed the foregoing Affidavit, who acknowledged before me that he/she exec ted the same that I relied upon the following form of identification of the above ieth named person: tercet -3i , and that an oath was/was not taken. a hand and official seal in the County and State last aforesaid this /7 7w day of • 2009. 124/ 141-14-e e PRINT NAME-7 5S/Ci el iAfEtt NOTARY PUBLIC/STATE OF FLORIDA COMMISSION NO.: 0.b 6535 cPc? MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: 41.909// .? 09/12/2019 Agency to Agency Requet: 19-411 CONFIDE P NTIAL SDNY_GM_00331987 EFTA 00204713 EFTA02729697 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Page 1 of 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. Plaintiff, -vs- JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. Related Cases: DEPOSITION OF Wednesday, September 16, 2009 1:03 - 1:08 p.m. 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 115 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Reported By: Cynthia Hopkins, RPR, FPR Notary Public, State of Florida Prose Court Reporting EXHIBIT Ig PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC. OMMO4e042464M1-6687Walea Electronteeny signed by eynthle bootees OT12, 2019 ge Agency to Agency Raquel: 19-411 CONFIa1539ENTIAL SDNY_GM_00331988 EFTA_002047 14 EFTA02729698 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Page 2 of 3 Page 2 Page 4 1 IIIIM APPWA 1 PROCEEDINGS 2 4 3 4 5 MR. (=YON: Cindy, wS lime is it? 6 si ssin 7 8 9 10 10 It 11 12 On Wulfoflathy Epooln: 13 JA(X ALAN GOWSEROTA MIME 12 ATTERISURY. 0014)11ERGER k WS3S. PA 13 14 210 Mental Awn. SoqA Saite 1400 14 2$ WeA a 1)4014012 15 MR. CRITTON: Robert critton on behalf of now 1.4 16 Defendant, kfIreY Festal- 17 17 14 18 t• 19 20 20 21 21 22 22 23 23 24 24 13 25 Page 3 1 2 3 • 5 APPEARNO*3 CONTINUED— 1 2 3 4 L ICCIUTION: t see any contact because I, obviously, was not out there. We started at about — when you came in it was 6 approximately 1:03. Mr. Epstein has an office 6 7 here at the Florida Science Foundation. Had 8 you been here at 1:00, your paths never would 7 have crossed because Mr. Epstein was leaving a 10 the building. I instructed him to leave the 11 building so that he would not be We. 10 12 He was going to appear by way of Skype so 11 12 13 that he could be on a video camera so that he 13 14 could see this. 14 15 (Mr. Goldberger entered the room) IS 16 MR. CRITTON: Had you been here on time, 16 17 and net faulting, lam just saying had you bees 17 18 here co time at 1:00, as ‘oerytoe else seemed 18 19 to be here at least get here before you did, 19 20 Adam, you and your diem, your paths never 20 21 21 would have crossed 22 22 I directed Mr. Epstein to leave the 23 23 buildingm he would not be here so Maltese 24 24 would be no way that your paths could have 25 25 crossed. It was neither my intent nor was it 2 (Pages 2 to 5) PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC. Ellicirforticatly signed by cyrittia hopiciste . €2•436•3•95f3-42•6-96414Wd2difin5 09,12,2019 Agency to Agency Requet: 19-411 CONFIDENTIAL P SIDNY_GM_00331989 EFTA 0(1204715 EFTA02729699 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Page 3 of 3 Page 6 Page 8 1 1 my chairs intent specifically, because I also 1 CERTIFICATE 2 advised him that he was net to cross paths, not 2 3 to have any contact with your client, and 3 STATE OF FLORIDA 4 certainly by our agreement not to be here today 4 COUNTY OF PALM BEACH 5 for the • - • • :bon. 5 6 6 7 7 I, Cynthia Hopkins, Registered Professional a 8 Reporter and Florida Professional Reporter, State of 9 9 Florida at large, califY that I was authorized to 10 10 and did stenographically report the foregoing 11 11 proceedings and that the transcript is a true and 12 12 complete record ofmy stenographic notes. 13 13 Dated this 16th day ofSeptember, 2009. 14 14 15 15 16 16 tt if eiau"S alt NOpkins. RP 17 17 18 18 19 19 20 MR. CRITTON: Again I instructed 20 21 Mr. Evict& to leave the building so absolutely 21 22 no contact could occur between he and 22 23 Mr. Horowitz and his client nor anyone else. 23 24 Until the court, tmtil either Judge Marra or 24 25 Judge Raison nded on the issue as to whether 25 Page 7 1 or not he could r at the depositions of 2 not only t any other individuals, 3 so you do what you need to do. 4 MR. HOROWITZ: Off the record 5 (The Deposition was concluded.) 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 (Pages 6 to 8) PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC. Electronbcally signed by crow tweltbst (14314161476-2934) 4244.3643-050-420-9441-668/42011943 09122010 Page3968 Agency to Agency Raquel: 19-411 CONFIDENTIAL SDNY_GM_00331990 EFTA_00204716 EFTA02729700