IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO: 502008CA037319X3OOCMB AB B.B, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. MOTION TO COMPEL PROPER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S SUPPLEMENTAL REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION DATED FEBRUARY 4, 2010 Plaintiff, B.B., by and through undersigned counsel, hereby files this Motion to Compel Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, to properly respond to Plaintiff's Requests for Admission Dated February 4, 2010, and as grounds therefore states as follows: 1. On February 4, 2010, Plaintiff served Defendant with twelve Requests for Admissions. (Exhibit "A"). 2. On March 17, 2010, Defendant responded to each Request identically (Exhibit "A") — in essence acknowledging that Defendant intends to respond to all relevant discovery but at the moment is asserting his U.S. Constitutional privileges. 3. Florida Statute § 775.15 prescribes the statute of limitations for the criminal acts Defendant committed upon Plaintiff. Statute attached hereto as Exhibit "B." 4. Plaintiff is a victim of the second degree felonies prescribed under Florida Statutes §§ 800.04 ("Lewd or lascivious offenses committed upon or in the presence of persons EFTA01126028 less than 16 years of age") and 794.011 ("Sexual battery"). Statutes attached hereto as Exhibit 5. The statute of limitation for a second degree felony is three years. However, due to the nature of the crime' the statute of limitation did not begin to run until after the Plaintiff turned eighteen years old. 6. The crime occurred before the Plaintiff turned eighteen years old. 7. The Plaintiff turned eighteen years old before March, 2007. 8. Accordingly, the statute of limitations expired before March, 2010. As of today, the Defendant no longer fears criminal prosecution for the crimes he committed upon Plaintiff. 9. In response to Plaintiff's Requests for Admissions, after the statute of limitation ran, Defendant asserted his Constitutional privileges. Defendant's assertion is improper. The statue of limitations expired; Defendant no longer fears criminal prosecution for his acts against Plaintiff. 10. Accordingly, Defendant should no longer be allowed to hide behind his U.S. Constitutional privileges. It is time for Defendant to fulfill his intention and respond to all relevant discovery regarding this lawsuit. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests this honorable Court to require Defendant to properly Respond to Plaintiffs Requests for Admissions dated February 4, 2010. Fla. Stat. § 775.15(13Xa)"(13Xa) If the victim of a violation of 4. 794.011 former s. 794.05 Florida Statutes 1995, s. 800.04, 4 826.04, or s. 847.0135(5) is under the age of 18, the applicable period of limitation, if any, does not begin to run until the victim has reached the age of 18 or the violation is reported to a law enforcement agency or other governmental agency, whichever occurs earlier. Such law enforcement agency or other governmental agency shall promptly report such allegation to the state attorney for the judicial circuit in which the alleged violation occurred. If the offense is a first or second degree felony violation of s. 794.011, and the offense is reported within 72 hours after its commission, the prosecution for such offense may be commenced at any time. This paragraph applies to any such offense except an offense the prosecution of which would have been barred by subsection (2) on or before December 31, 1984." Page 2 of 3 EFTA01126029 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was furnished by U. S. Mail, postage prepaid, thisi day of 1, 2_010 to Jack A. Goldberger, Esq., 250 Australian Avenue, Suite 1400, West Palm Beach, FL 33401; Bruce E. Reinhart, Esq., 250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400, West Palm Beach, FL 33401; Robert D. Critton, Jr., Michael J. Pike, 303 Banyan Boulevard, Suite 400, West Palm Beach, FL 33401. LEOPOLD-KUVIN, 2925 PGA Boulevard Suite 200 Palm Beach s dens, FL 33410 By: Ile) T. KUVIN Florida Bar No.: 0089737 ADAM J. LANCING Florida Bar No.: 0031368 Page 3 of 3 EFTA01126030 03/17/2010 03:11 FAX BURMAN CRITTON LUTTIER 002/0i4 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA B.B, CASE NO: 502008CA037319XXXXIVIB AB Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT. JEFFERY EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S SUPPLF.MENTAL REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS RATED 2/4/10 Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through the undersigned attorneys, and pursuant to F.R.C.P. 1.350, hereby responds to Plaintiff, B.B.'s Request for Admissions, dated February 4, 2010, as follows: 1. Admit that Jeffrey Epstein had a motive to sexually assault the Plaintiff. Response: In response, Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges as specified herein. I intend to respond to all relevant discovery regarding this lawsuit, however, my- attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any discovery relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation and my Fifth Amendment Privilege. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. Defendant asserts his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. See peLisi v. Bankers Ins. Company, 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Malloy v. Hiqgark 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964)(the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination Clause applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment - "[i]t would be incongruous to have different standards determine the validity of a claim of privilege based on the same feared prosecution, depending on whether the claim was asserted in state or federal court."); 5 Fed.Prac. & Proc. Civ. 3d §1280 Effect of Failure to Deny — Privilege Against Self-Incrimination ("...court must treat the defendant's claim of privilege as equivalent to a specific denial."). See also 24 Fla.Jur.2d Evidence §592. Defendants in civil actions. — "... a civil defendant who raises an affirmative defense is not precluded from asserting the privilege [against self-incrimination], because affirmative defenses do not constitute the kind of voluntary EFTA01126031 03/17/2010 OS:11 FAX BURMAN CRITTON LUTTIER 003/G14 application for affirmative relief' which would prevent a plaintiff bringing a claim seeking affirmative relief from asserting the privilege. 2. Admit that Jeffrey Epstein had the opportunity to sexually assault the Plaintiff. Response: In response, Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges as specified herein. I intend to respond to all relevant discovery regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any discovery relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation and my Fifth Amendment Privilege, Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. Defendant asserts his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. See PeLisi v. Bankers Ins. Company, 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4i° DCA 1983); Malloy v. Hogan, 84 S,Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964)(the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination Clause applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment - "[i]t would be incongruous to have different standards determine the validity of a claim of privilege based on the same feared prosecution, depending on whether the claim was asserted in state or federal court."); 5 Fed.Prac. & Proc. Civ. 3d §1280 Effect of Failure to Deny— Privilege Against Self-Incrimination ("...court must treat the defendant's claim of privilege as equivalent to a specific denial."). See also 24 Fla,Jur.2d Evidence §592. Defendants in civil actions. — "... a civil defendant who raises an affirmative defense is not precluded from asserting the privilege [against self-incrimination], because affirmative defenses do not constitute the kind of voluntary application for affirmative relief' which would prevent a plaintiff bringing a claim seeking affirmative relief from asserting the privilege. 3. Admit that Jeffrey Epstein had the opportunity to meet the Plaintiff. Response: In response, Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges as specified herein. I intend to respond to all relevant discovery regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any discovery relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation and my Fifth Amendment Privilege. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution, Defendant asserts his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. See 1)eLisi v, Bankers Ins. Cornpa y 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Malloy v. Hogan 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964)(the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination Clause applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment - "[i]t would be incongruous to have different standards determine the validity of a claim of privilege based on the same feared prosecution, depending on whether the claim was asserted in state or federal court"); 5 Fed.Prac. & Proc. Civ, 3d §1280 Effect of Failure to Deny — Privilege Against Page 2 of 8 EFTA01126032 03/17/2010 08:11 FAX BURMAN CRITTON LUTTIER 0004/014 Self-Incrimination ("...court must treat the defendant's claim of privilege as equivalent to a specific denial."). See also 24 Flaiur,2d Evidence §592. Defendants in civil actions. - "... a civil defendant who raises an affirmative defense is not precluded from asserting the privilege [against self-incrimination], because affirmative defenses do not constitute the kind of voluntary application for affirmative relief' which would prevent a plaintiff bringing a claim seeking affirmative relief from asserting the privilege. 4. Admit that Jeffrey Epstein had the opportunity to have the Plaintiff in his home in the year 2005. Response: In response, Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges as specified herein. I intend to respond to all relevant discovery regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any discovery relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation and my Fifth Amendment Privilege. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution, Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. Defendant asserts his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Sec ,DeLisi v. Bankers Jns. Company, 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Malloy v. Hogan, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (I 964)(the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination Clause applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment - "113t would be incongruous to have different standards determine the validity of a claim of privilege based on the same feared prosecution, depending on whether the claim was asserted in state or federal court."); 5 Fed.Prac. & Proc. Civ. 3d §1280 Effect of Failure to Deny — Privilege Against Self-Incrimination ("...court must treat the defendant's claim of privilege as equivalent to a specific denial."). See also 24 Fla.Jur.2d Evidence §592. Defendants in civil actions. — "... a _ civil defendant who raises an affirmative defense is not precluded from asserting the privilege [against self-incrimination], because affirmative defenses do not constitute the kind of voluntary application for affirmative relief' which would prevent a plaintiff bringing a claim seeking affirmative relief from asserting the privilege. 4. Admit that Jeffrey Epstein had the intent to sexually assault the Plaintiff. Response: In response, Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges as specified herein. I intend to respond to all relevant discovery regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any discovery relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation and my Fifth Amendment Privilege. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. Defendant asserts his Fifth Amendment privilege Page 3 of 8 EFTA01126033 03/17/2010 09:11 FAX BURMAN CRITTON LUTTIER ON005/014 against self-incrimination. See DeLisi v. Bankers Ins. Company, 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Malloy v. Hogan. 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964)(the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination Clause applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment - "[i]t would be incongruous to have different standards determine the validity of a claim of privilege based on the same feared prosecution, depending on whether the claim was asserted in state or federal court."); 5 Fed.Prac. &. Proc, Civ. 3d §1280 Effect of Failure to Deny — Privilege Against Self-Incrimination ("...court must treat the defendant's claim of privilege as equivalent to a specific denial."). See also 24 FlaJur.2d Evidence §592. Defendants in civil actions. — "... a civil defendant who raises an affirmative defense is not precluded from asserting the privilege [against self-incrimination], because affirmative defenses do not constitute the kind of voluntary application for affirmative relief' which would prevent a plaintiff bringing a claim seeking affirmative relief from asserting the privilege. 6. Admit that Jeffrey Epstein had a plan in place to sexually assault the Plaintiff. Response: In response, Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges as specified herein. I intend to respond to all relevant discovery regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any discovery relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation and my Fifth Amendment Privilege. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. Defendant asserts his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. See DeLisi v. Bankers Ins. Company, 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Malloy v. Hogan, 84 S.O. 1489, 1495 (1964)(the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination Clause applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment - "[ijt would be incongruous to have different standards determine the validity of a claim of privilege based on the same feared prosecution, depending on whether the claim was asserted in state or federal court"); 5 Fed.Prac. & Proc. Civ. 3d §1280 Effect of Failure to Deny — Privilege Against Self-Incrimination (",..court must treat the defendant's claim of privilege -as equivalent to a specific denial."). See also 24 f la.Sur.2d Evidence §592. Defendants in civil actions. — "... a civil defendant who raises an affirmative defense is not precluded from asserting the privilege [against self-incrimination], because affirmative defenses do not constitute the kind of voluntary application for affirmative relief' which would prevent a plaintiff bringing a claim seeking affirmative relief from asserting the privilege. 7. Admit that Jeffrey Epstein had a plan in place to procure girls under the age of eighteen to come to his home for nude massages in 2005. Response: In response, Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges as specified herein. I intend to respond to all relevant discovery regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any discovery relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation and my Fifth Amendment Privilege. Accordingly, I assert my federal Page 4 of 8 EFTA01126034 03/17/2010 09:11 FAX BURMAN CRITTON LUTTIER 008/C14 constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. Defendant asserts his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. See DeItisi v. Bankers Ins, Company 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Malloy v. Hogan. 84 S,Ct, 1489, 1495 (1 964)(the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination Clause applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment - "[i]x would be incongruous to have different standards determine the validity of a claim of privilege based on the same feared prosecution, depending on whether the claim was asserted in state or federal court."); 5 Fed.Prac. & Proc, Civ. 3d §1280 Effect of Failure to Deny — Privilege Against Self-Incrimination ("...court must treat the defendant's claim of privilege as equivalent to a specific denial."). See also 24 yla.Jur,2d Evidence §592. Defendants in civil actions. — "... a civil defendant who raises an affirmative defense is not precluded from asserting the privilege [against self-incrimination], because affirmative defenses do not constitute the kind of voluntary application for affirmative relief' which would prevent a plaintiff bringing a claim seeking affirmative relief from asserting the privilege. 8. Admit that Jeffrey Epstein had knowledge that Plaintiff was under the age of eighteen when she carne to his home fora nude massage in 2005. Response: In response, Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges as specified herein. I intend to respond to all relevant discovery regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any discovery relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation and my Fifth Amendment Privilege. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. Defendant asserts his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, See PeLisi v, Bankers Ins. Company, 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Malloy v. Hogan, 84 S.Ct, 1489, 1495 (1964)(the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination Clause applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment - "[i]t would be incongruous to have different standards determine the validity of a claim of privilege based on the same feared prosecution, depending on whether the claim was asserted in state or federal court."); 5 Fed.Prac. & Proc. Civ. 3d §1280 Effect of Failure to Dc-ny — Privilege Against Self:Incrimination ("...court must treat the defendant's claim of privilege as equivalent to a specific denial."). See also 24 Fla.Jurld Evidence §592. Defendants in civil actions. — "... a civil defendant who raises an affirmative defense is not precluded from asserting the privilege [against self-incrimination], because affirmative defenses do not constitute the kind of voluntary application for affirmative relief' which would prevent a plaintiff bringing a claim seeking affirmative relief from asserting the privilege. 9. Admit that Jeffrey Epstein did not make a mistake regarding Plaintiffs age at the time she came to his home for a nude massage. Page 5 of 8 EFTA01126035 03/17/2010 09:12 FAX BURMAN CRITTON LUTTIER lb 007/014 Response: In response, Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges as specified herein. I intend to respond to all relevant discovery regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any discovery relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation and my Fifth Amendment Privilege. Accordingly, 1 assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference undcr these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. Defendant asserts his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. See PeLisi v, Bankers Ins. Conmany, 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4'h DCA 1983); Malloy v. Hogan, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964)(the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination Clause applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment - "[i]l would be incongruous to have different standards determine the validity of a claim of privilege based on the same feared prosecution, depending on whether the claim was asserted in statc or federal court"); 5 Fed.Prac. & Proc. Civ. 3d §1280 Effect of Failure to Deny — Privilege Against Self-Incrimination ("...court must treat the defendant's claim of privilege as equivalent to a specific denial."). See also 24 Fla.Jur.2d Evidence §592. Defendants in civil actions. — "... a civil defendant who raises an affirmative defense is not precluded from asserting the privilege [against self-incrimination), because affirmative defenses do not constitute the kind of voluntary application for affirmative relief' which would prevent a plaintiff bringing a claim seeking affirmative relief from asserting the privilege. 10. Admit that Jeffrey Epstein did not make a mistake about the age of any of the girls which came to his home in the years 2004, 2005 or 2006 regarding their ages being under eighteen. Response: In response, Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges as specified herein. I intend to respond to all relevant discovery regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any discovery relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation and my Fifth Amendment Privilege. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution, Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. Defendant asserts his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. See DeLisi v. Bankers Ins. Company, 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4`h DCA 1983); yallov v. Hogan, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964)(the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination Clause applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment - "[i]t would be incongruous to have different standards determine the validity of a claim of privilege based on the same feared prosecution, depending on whether the claim was asserted in state or federal court."); 5 Fed.Prac. & Proc. Civ. 3d §1280 Effect of Failure to Deny— Privilege Against Self-Incrimination ("...court must treat the defendant's claim of privilege as equivalent to a specific denial."). See also 24 Fla.Jur.2d Evidence §592. Defendants in civil actions. — "... a civil defendant who raises an affirmative defense is not precluded from asserting the privilege Page 6 of 8 EFTA01126036 03/17/2010 09:12 FAX BURNAN CRITTON LUTTIER '&08/014 [against self-incrimination], because affirmative defenses do not constitute the kind of voluntary application for affirmative relief' which would prevent a plaintiff bringing a claim seeking affirmative relief from asserting the privilege. 11. Admit that Jeffrey Epstein had knowledge that all the girls that came to his home for nude massages in 2004, 2005 or 2006 were under the age of eighteen. Response: In response, Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges as specified herein. I intend to respond to all relevant discovery regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any discovery relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation and my Fifth Amendment Privilege. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. Defendant asserts his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. See DeLisi v. Bankers Ins. Company, 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Malloy v. Hogan, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964)(the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination Clause applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment - "[i]t would be incongruous to have different standards determine the validity of a claim of privilege based on the same feared prosecution, depending on whether the claim was asserted in state or federal court"); 5 Fed.Prac. & Proc. Civ. 3d §1280 Effect of Failure to Derry— Privilege Against Self Incrimination ("...court must treat the defendant's claim of privilege as equivalent to a specific denial."). See also 24 Fla.Jur.2d Evidence §592. Defendants in civil actions. — "... a civil defendant who raises an affirmative defense is not precluded from asserting the privilege [against self-incrimination], because affirmative defenses do not constitute the kind of voluntary application for affirmative relief' which would prevent a plaintiff bringing a claim seeking affirmative relief from asserting the privilege. 12. Admit that Jeffrey Epstein had knowledge that some the girls that came to his home for nude massages in 2004, 2005 or 2006 were under the age of eighteen. Response: In response, Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges as specified herein. I intend to respond to all relevant discovery regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any discovery relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation and my Fifth Amendment Privilege. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. Defendant asserts his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. See PeLisi v. Bankers Ins. Company, 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Malloy v. Hogan 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964)(the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination Clause applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment - "Mt Page 7 of 8 EFTA01126037 03/17/2010 09:12 FAX BURMAN BRITTON LUTTIER Z009/014 would be incongruous to have different standards determine the validity of a claim of privilege based on the same feared prosecution, depending on whether the claim was asserted in state or federal court."); 5 Fed.Prac. & Proc. Civ. 3d §1280 Effect of Failure to Deny — Privilege Against Self-Incrimination ("...court must treat the defendant's claim of privilege as equivalent to a specific denial."). See also 24 Fla.Jur,2d Evidence §592. Defendants in civil actions. — "... a civil defendant who raises an affirmative defense is not precluded from asserting the privilege [against self-incrimination), because affirmative defenses do not constitute the kind of voluntary application for affirmative relief' which would prevent a plaintiff bringing a claim seeking affirmative relief from asserting the privilege. WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was sent by fax and U.S. Mail to the following addressees on this It-day of March, 2010. Theodore J. Leopold, Esq. Spencer T. Kuvin, Esq, Leopold-Kuvin, P.A. 2925 PGA Blvd., Suite 200 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Fax: Counsel for Plaintiff Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 Fax: Co-Counse orDefendant Jeffrey Epstein BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN, LLP 303 Banyan Blvd., Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 By: Robert D. Critter', Jr. Florida Bar *224162 Michael J. Pike Florida Bar #617296 (Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) Page 8 of 8 EFTA01126038 03/17/2010 09:12 FAX BURMAN CRITTON LUtTIER 010/014 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA B.B, CASE NO: Plaintiff, 502008CA037319XXXXMB AB vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT, JEFFERY EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through the undersigned attorneys, and pursuant to F.R.C.P. 1.350, hereby responds to Plaintiff, B.8.'5 Request for Admissions, as follows: 1. Admit that B.B. suffered emotional trauma as a result of what occurred at Jeffrey Epstein's home. Response: In response, Defrndant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges as specified herein. I intend to respond to all relevant discovery regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any discovery relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation and my Fifth Amendment Privilege. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. Defendant asserts his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. See DeLisi v. Bankers Ins. Company, 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Malloy v. Hogan, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964)(the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination Clause applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment - "(iMt would be incongruous to have different standards determine the validity of a claim of privilege based on the same feared prosecution, depending on whether the claim was asserted in state or federal court."); 5 Fed.Prac. & Proc. Civ, 3d §1280 Effect of Failure to Deny — Privilege Against Self-Incrimination ("...court must treat the defendant's claim of privilege as equivalent to a specific denial."). See also 24 F1a.Jur.2d Evidence §592. Defendants in civil action& — "... a civil defendant who raises an affirmative defense is not precluded from asserting the privilege EFTA01126039 08/17/2010 08:12 FAX BURMAN CRITTON LUTTIER ib011/01A [against self-incrimination], because affirmative defenses do not constitute the kind of voluntary application for affirmative relief' which would prevent a plaintiff bringing a claim seeking affirmative relief from asserting the privilege. However, Epstein's attorneys state that his expert, Dr. Hall, will provide information/testimony that will refine this allegation. 2. Admit that Dr. Mary Littlefield's diagnosis of B.B. with having post traumatic stress disorder as a result of what occurred at Jeffrey Epstein's home is a correct diagnosis. Response: In response, Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges as specified herein. I intend to respond to all relevant discovery regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any discovery relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation and my Fifth Amendment Privilege. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. Defendant asserts his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. See DeLisi v. Bankers Ins. Company, 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Malloy v, Hogan, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964)(the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination Clause applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment - "[It would be incongruous to have different standards determine the validity of a claim of privilege based on the same feared prosecution, depending on whether the claim was asserted in state or federal court.")• 5 Fed,Pru. & Proc. Civ. 3d §1280 Effect of Failure to Deny — Privilege Against Self-Incrimination ("...court must treat the defendant's claim of privilege as equivalent to a specific denial."). See also 24 Fla.Jur.2d Evidence §592. Defendants in civil actions. — "... a civil defendant who raises an affirmative defense is not precluded from asserting the privilege [against self-incrimination], because affirmative defenses do not constitute the kind of voluntary application for affirmative relief' which would prevent a plaintiff bringing a claim seeking affirmative relief from asserting the privilege. However, Epstein's attorneys state that his expert, Dr. Hall, will provide information/testimony that will refute this allegation. 3. Admit from the date of incident at Jeffrey Epstein's home, B.B. has not faked or exaggerated her emotional trauma or symptoms on any occasion. Response: In response, Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges as specified herein. I intend to respond to all relevant discovery regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any discovery relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation and my Fifth Amendment Privilege. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would Page 2 of 5 EFTA01126040 03/17/2010 09:12 FAX BURMAN BRITTON LUTTIER a012/014 unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. Defendant asserts his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. See DeLisi v. Bankers Ins. Company. 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4`b DCA 1983); Malloy v. Hogan 84 S.Q. 1489, 1495 (1964)(the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination Clause applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment - "[l]t would be incongruous to have different standards determine the validity of a claim of privilege based on the same feared prosecution, depending on whether the claim was asserted in state or federal court."); 5 Fedirac. & Proc. Ciy,_3d §1280 Effect of Failure to Deny — Privilege Against Self-Incrimination ("...court must treat the defendant's claim of privilege as equivalent to a specific denial."). See also 24 F1aJur.2d Evidence §592. Defendants in civil actions. — "... a civil defendant who raises an affirmative defense is not precluded from asserting the privilege [against self-incrimination], because affirmative defenses do not constitute the kind of voluntary application for affirmative relief' which would prevent a plaintiff bringing a claim seeking affirmative relief from asserting the privilege. However, Epstein's attorneys state that his expert, Dr. Hall, will provide information/testimony that will refute this allegation. 4. Admit that a 15 year old girl can suffer from emotional trauma as a result of sexual activity with an adult male over 50 years old. Response: In response, Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges as specified herein. I intend to respond to all relevant discovery regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any discovery relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation and my Fifth Amendment Privilege. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. Defendant asserts his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. See DeLisi v. Bankers Ins. Company, 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Malloy v. Hogan, 84 S.Ct, 1489, 1495 (1964)(the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination Clause applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment - "bit would be incongruous to have different standards determine the validity of a claim of privilege based on the same feared prosecution, depending on whether the claim was asserted in state or federal court"); 5 Fed.Prac. & Proc. Civ. 3d §1280 Effect of Failure to Deny — Privilege Against Self-Incrimination ("...court must treat the defendant's claim of privilege as equivalent to a specific denial."). See also 24 Fla.Jur.2d Evidence §592. Defendants in civil actions. — "... a civil defendant who raises an affinnative defense is not precluded from asserting the privilege [against self-incrimination], because affirmative defenses do not constitute the kind of voluntary application for affirmative relief' which would prevent a plaintiff bringing a claim seeking affirmative relief from asserting the privilege. Page 3 of 5 EFTA01126041 03/17/2010 09:13 FAX BURMAN CRITTON LUTTIER I? 0'..;0t There are insufficient facts asserted for Epstein's attorneys and experts to admit or deny these allegations. 5. Admit that B.B. is having difficulties with intimacy in her relationships with boys her age as a result of the incident that occurred with Jeffrey Epstein. Response: In response, Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges as specified herein. I intend to respond to all relevant discovery regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any discovery relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation and my Fifth Amendment Privilege. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. Defendant asserts his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. See DeLisi y. Bankers Ins, Company 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Malloy v. Bogen 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964)(the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination Clause applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment - "[j]t would be incongruous to have different standards determine the validity of a claim of privilege based on the same feared prosecution, depending on whether the claim was asserted in state or federal court"); 5 Fed.Prac. & Proc. Civ. 3d §1280 Effect of Failure to Deny— Privilege Against Self-Incrimination ("...court must treat the defendant's claim of privilege as equivalent to a specific denial."). See also 24 Fla,Jur.2d Evidence §592. Defendants in civil actions. — "... civil defendant who raises an affirmative defense is not precluded from asserting the privilege [against self-incrimination], because affirmative defenses do not constitute the kind of voluntary application for affirmative relief' which would prevent a plaintiff bringing a claim seeking affirmative relief from asserting the privilege. There are insufficient facts asserted for Epstein's attorneys and experts to admit or deny these allegations. WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was sent by fax and U.S. Mail to the following addressees on this j7 day of March, 2010, Theodore J. Leopold, Esq. Spencer T. Kuvin, Esq. Leopold-Kuvin, P.A. 2925 PGA Blvd., Suite 200 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Fax: Counsel for Plaintiff Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 Fax: Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN, LLP Page 4 of 5 EFTA01126042 03/17/2010 09:13 FAX BURMAN CRITTON LUTTIER ® 014/014 303 Banyan Bly West Palm By: Suite 400 L 3340] ritton, Jr. Florida ar 224162 Michael I. Pike Florida Bar #617296 (Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) Page 5 of 5 EFTA01126043 Page 1 of 5 Westlaw. West's F.S.A. § 775.15 Effective: October 1, 2008 West's Florida Statutes Annotated Currentness Title XLVI. Crimes (Chapters 775-899) Ks Chapter 775. Definitions; General Penalties; Registration of Criminals (Refs & Annos) - 775.15. Time limitations; general time limitations; exceptions Page ) (I) A prosecution for a capital felony, a life felony, or a felony that resulted in a death may be commenced at any time. If the death penalty is held to be unconstitutional by the Florida Supreme Court or the United States Supreme Court, all crimes designated as capital felonies shall be considered life felonies for the purposes of this section, and prosecution for such crimes may be commenced at any time. (2) Except as otherwise provided in this section, prosecutions for other offenses are subject to the following periods of limitation: (a) A prosecution for a felony of the first degree must be commenced within 4 years after it is committed. (b) A prosecution for any other felony must be commenced within 3 years after it is committed. (c) A prosecution for a misdemeanor of the first degree must be commenced within 2 years after it is committed. (d) A prosecution for a misdemeanor of the second degree or a noncriminal violation must be commenced within 1 year after it is committed. (3) An offense is committed either when every element has occurred or, if a legislative purpose to prohibit a continuing course of conduct plainly appears, at the time when the course of conduct or the defendant's compli- city therein is terminated. Time starts to run on the day after the offense is committed. (4)(a) Prosecution on a charge on which the defendant has previously been arrested or served with a summons is commenced by the filing of an indictment, information, or other charging document. (b) A prosecution on a charge on which the defendant has not previously been arrested or served with a sum- mons is commenced when either an indictment or information is filed, provided the capias, summons, or other process issued on such indictment or information is executed without unreasonable delay. In determining what is reasonable, inability to locate the defendant after diligent search or the defendant's absence from the state shall be considered. The failure to execute process on or extradite a defendant in another state who has been charged O 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. https://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?prft=HTMLE&ifm=NotSet&destination=atp&sv—Splits... 4/8/2010 EFTA01126044 Page 2 of 5 West's F.S.A. § 775.15 Page 2 by information or indictment with a crime in this state shall not constitute an unreasonable delay. (c) If, however, an indictment or information has been filed within the time period prescribed in this section and the indictment or information is dismissed or set aside because of a defect in its content or form after the time period has elapsed, the period for commencing prosecution shall be extended 3 months from the time the indict- ment or information is dismissed or set aside. (5) The period of limitation does not run during any time when the defendant is continuously absent from the state or has no reasonably ascertainable place of abode or work within the state. This provision shall not extend the period of limitation otherwise applicable by more than 3 years, but shall not be construed to limit the prosec- ution of a defendant who has been timely charged by indictment or information or other charging document and who has not been arrested due to his or her absence from this state or has not been extradited for prosecution from another state. (6) A prosecution for perjury in an official proceeding that relates to the prosecution of a capital felony may be commenced at any time. (7) A prosecution for a felony that resulted in injury to any person, when such felony arises from the use of a "destructive device," as defined in s. 790.001, may be commenced within 10 years. (8) A prosecution for a felony violation of chapter 517 or s. 409.920 must be commenced within 5 years after the violation is committed. (9) A prosecution for a felony violation of chapter 403 must be commenced within 5 years after the date of dis- covery of the violation. (10) A prosecution for a felony violation of s. 825.102 or s. 825.103 must be commenced within 5 years after it is committed. (I I) A prosecution for a felony violation of ss. 440.105 and 817.234 must be commenced within 5 years after the violation is committed. (12) If the period prescribed in subsection (2), subsection (8), subsection (9), subsection (10), or subsection (I I) has expired, a prosecution may nevertheless be commenced for: (a) Any offense, a material element of which is either fraud or a breach of fiduciary obligation, within 1 year after discovery of the offense by an aggrieved party or by a person who has a legal duty to represent an ag- grieved party and who is himself or herself not a party to the offense, but in no case shall this provision extend the period of limitation otherwise applicable by more than 3 years. O 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. https://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstrearn.aspx?prft=HTMLE2tifm=NotSet&destination=atp&sv--Split&rs... 4/8/2010 EFTA01126045 Page 3 of 5 West's F.S.A. § 775.15 Page 3 (b) Any offense based upon misconduct in office by a public officer or employee at any time when the defendant is in public office or employment, within 2 years from the time he or she leaves public office or employment, or during any time permitted by any other part of this section, whichever time is greater. (13Xa) If the victim of a violation of s. 794.011, former s. 794.05, Florida Statutes 1995, s. 800.04, s. 826.04, or s. 847.0135(5) is under the age of 18, the applicable period of limitation, if any, does not begin to run until the victim has reached the age of 18 or the violation is reported to a law enforcement agency or other governmental agency, whichever occurs earlier. Such law enforcement agency or other governmental agency shall promptly report such allegation to the state attorney for the judicial circuit in which the alleged violation occurred. If the offense is a first or second degree felony violation of s. 794.011, and the offense is reported within 72 hours after its commission, the prosecution for such offense may be commenced at any time. This paragraph applies to any such offense except an offense the prosecution of which would have been barred by subsection (2) on or be- fore December 31, 1984. (b) If the offense is a first degree felony violation of s. 794.011 and the victim was under 18 years of age at the time the offense was committed, a prosecution of the offense may be commenced at any time. This paragraph applies to any such offense e