06-04-'09 15:16 FROM-THOMAS & UXICER0

06-04-'09 15:16 FROM-THOMAS & UXICER0 THOMAS8139843070 IOCICFRO BRALOW 400 N. Ashley Driveo$Uite I I00•Tampa. FL 33602 813.984.3060 (Phone)s8I3-984-3070 (Fax) Toll Free: 866-395-7100 facsimile transmittal To: R. Alexander Acosta, Esq. Fax: (561) 820-8777 Judith Stevenson Arco, Esq. (561)355-7351 Michael McAuliffe, Esq. Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. (561) 835-8691 Bradley J. Edwards, Esq. (954) 527.8663 William J. Berger, Esq. From: Deanna K. Shullman, Esq. Date: 06/04/2009 Re: State v. J. Epstein Pages: 6 Cc: Marilyn Judicial Assistant to Judge 561.355-1616 Colbath T-995 F001/023 F-849 Urgent O For review n Please comment-O Please see attached Motion to Intervene and Petition for Access Please reply Please recycle fl CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMCNT This eketrome message transmission contains infommicti from the law form of Thomas, Latices* & &Maw PL and is ocelideetial or omitted. The information is minded to he foe the we of the individual or entity named *ova. If you se not the intended recipes. be aware that any disclosure. copying, drshibudon or use of the wawa *HIM inforandmi is prolitilted. If you here received din electronic umminission in gap, please notify in by telephone (ID) 964-3060 immediately. Thank you Brow rooporalion IRS Circuits 230 Disclosure To the extern this corrupondoece caul= federal tax Make, such advice was not Wended to a mod, end gonna be used by any taxpayer. fm the impose of (i) avoidest paella under the Wand Revenue Code or tilsounotins. makeDnj. or itoommoutios to grater party any transaction or meta 'darned Mein. If you would like us to prepare Wan= DX *Moo designedto provide penalty protectun, please counts Us and we well be happy to discuss the meta with you is more Dina 09/12/2019 confidentiat rncytoAgencyRequet:19,11 CONFIDENTIAL SDNY_GM_00331938 EFTA_002 04664 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.: 2006-CF9454-AXX & 2008-938ICF-AX X JEFFREY EPSTEIN PALM BEACH POST'S MOTION TO INTERVENE AND PETITION FOR ACCESS Palm Beach Newspapers, Inc., d/bla 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 PCONFIDENTIAL Agency to Agency Requet: 19-411 SDNY_GM_00331939 EFTA_002 04665 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.tUnitesLaSiairaDistria Court, 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 CONFPI159gNTIAL Agency to Agency Requet: 19-017 SDNY_GM_00331940 EFTA_002 04666 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."' 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, "1 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. Sec Sarasota Herald Tribune, Div. See, et, Doe v. Epstein Case No. 08-80069 (S.D. Fla. 2008); Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Case No. 08-80119 (S.D. Fla. 2008); Doe No. 3. v. Epstein Case No. 08-80232 (S.D. Fla. 2008); Doe No. 4. v. Epstein, Case No. 08-80380 (S.D. Fla. 2008); Doe No. 5 v. Epstein, Case No. 08- 80381 (S.D. Fla. 2008); C.M.A. v. Epstein Case No. 08-80811 (S.D. Fla. 2008); Doe v. Epstein, Case No. 08-80893 (S.D. Fla. 2008); Doe No. 7 v. Epstein, Case No. 08-80993 (S.D. Ha. 2008); Doc No. 6 v. Epstein Case No. 08-80994 (S.D. Fla. 2008)- Doe II v. Epstein, Case No. 09-80469 (S.D. Fla. 2009); Doe No. 101 v. Epstein Case No. 09-80591 (S.D. Fla. 2009) Doe No. 102 v. Epstein, Case No. 09-80656 (S.D. Fla. 2009); Doe No. 8 v. Epstein, Case No. 09-80802 (S.D. Fla. 2009). 2 See In rc: Jane Doe Case No. 08-80736 (S.D. Fla. 2008). 09/12/2019 PlanCONF NTIAL Agency to Agency Requet: 19-411 SDNY_GM_00331941 EFTA_002 04667 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 proceedings. 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. 3 See, e.g.. "Defendants Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen's Motion for Stay," C.M.A. v. Epstein, Case No. 08-80811 (S.D. Fla. July 25, 2008) (filed publicly Jan. 7, 2009). 09/12/2079 CONFIDENTIAL Agency to Agency Requet: 19-411 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 (16anna K. Shu Florida Bar No.: 0514462 James B. Lake Florida Bar No.: 0023477 101 N.E. Third Avenue, Suite 1500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (813) 984-3060 Facsimile: (813) 984-3070 pit W-41- A, agyOn Attorneys for The Palm Beach Post CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished via facsimile and U.S. Mail to: R. Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney's Office - Southern District, 500 S. Australian Ave., Ste. 400, West Palm Beach, FL 33401 (fax: 561-820-8777); Michael McAuliffe, Esq., and Judith Stevenson Arco, Esq., State Attorney's Office - West Palm Beach, 401 North Dixie Highway, West Palm Beach, FL 33401 (fax: 561-355-7351); Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq., Atterbury Goldberger, et al., 250 S. Australian Ave., Ste. 1400, West Palm Beach, FL 33401 (fax: 561-835-8691); and Bradley J. Edwards, Esq. and William J. Berger, Esq., Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler, 401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1650, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394 (fax: 954-527-8663) on this 1st day of June, 2009. 09112/2019 CONFIbENTIAL Agency to Agency Requet: 19-011 SDNY_GM_00331943 EFTA_002 04669 EFTA02729653 THOMAS June 1, 2009 I OCICFRO BRALOW 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: Tampa 40D N. Maley Dr., Ste. 1100. Tampa. FL 33002 P.O. Box 2002. Tempe. FL 33801-2602 FP 813 90 3080 fax 813-984-3070 toll five 888-395.7100 Ft. Lauderdale f 01 N.E. Thad Ave.. Su. 1500 FL LlUdilfdale. FL 33301 oh 954-332-3619 lex 877-967-2244 tol hee 886-967.2009 Nene York City 220 E 42nd Si.. 1001 Floor New Yak. NY 10017 Pi 212-210-2893 lax 212-21D-2663 tetealeattita0.= Deanna K. Shuarnan Direct DOI: (561) 967-2009 Deanna.SlailmangtolawfirM.com Reply To Tampa 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 that Bradley Edwards and William Berger of Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler have filed a similar motion on behalf of a non-party known as "E.W.," and that E.W.'s 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. cc: Counsel of Record 09/12/2019 Sincerely, THOMAS, LOCICERO & BRALOW PL i-etta at— `C)" n Deanna K. Shullman CONFPITTENTIAL Agency to Agency Requet: 19-411 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 D Li July 1, 2009 nn-22-r JUL 7 - 2C'u Elkkb tr1/4-) — sV CASE NO.: 4D09-2554 L.T. No.: 200t8CF009381A 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: Sharon R. Bock, Clerk Robert D. Critton, Jr. Deanna K. Shullman Hon. Jeffrey J. Colbath dl Barbara J. Compiani Jane Kreusler-Walsh Spencer T. Kuvin /3-esertn.na RILWN EUTTENMULLER, Clerk Fourth District Coun of Appeal 09/12/2019 Jack A. Goldberger O.S. Attorneys Office William J. Berger Page 923 CONFIDENTIAL Agency to Agency Requet: 19-011 SDNY_GM_00331945 EFTA 0020467I EFTA02729655 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CRIMINAL DIVISION "W" CASE NO. 502008CF009381AXXMB 502006CF009454AXXMB 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, MOM day of June, 2009. 09/12/2019 J CON F PlaIntattat JUL 1 - 2C09 \'OUvLi APPEALS DIV. Agency to Agency Requet: 19-411 SDNY_GM_00331946 EFTA_00204672 EFTA02729656 • Page Two Case No. 502008CF009381AXXMB/502006CF009454A)0CMB Order Denying Motion to Stay Disclosure Agreement Copies furnished: R. Alexander Acosta, U.S. Attorney's Office - Southern District 500 South Australian Avenue, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Barbara Burns, Esq., State Attorney's Office 401 North Dixie Highway West Palm Beach, FL 33401 William J. Berger, Esq. Bradley .). Edwards, Esq. Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler 401 East Las Olas Boulevard., Suite 1650 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33394 Robert D. Critton, Esq. Burman, Critton, Luther & Coleman 515 North Flagler Drive, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 lack A. Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Spencer T. Kuvin, Esq. Leopold-Kuvin, P.A. 2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Deanna K. Shullman, Esq. P. O. Box 2602 Tampa, FL 33602 09/12/2019 CONFIDENTIAL Agency to Agency Requet: 19-411 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. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. Case Nos.2006-CF9454 AMC 2008-9381CF AMC NONPARTY E.W.'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS E.W., a nonparty, moves pursuant to Administrative Rule 2.303 for attorneys fees and costs on the following grounds: 1. EW is filed a motion to vacate the agreed order sealing records and to unseal the nonprosecutuion agreement and addendum in this file. Also, E.W. opposed defendant's motion to unseal said records. E.W.'s motion was granted and defendant's was denied at hearing on June 26, 2009. 2. E.W. 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 E.W.'s motion were not made in good faith and were not supported by a sound legal or factual basis. 3. E.W. adopts and incorporates by reference all arguments in the motion for fees filed by The Palm Beach Post. I HEREBY CERTIFY that a ttue and correct copy of the foregoing has been served via U.S. Mail this art{ day of July, 2009 to: Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq., Atterbury Goldberger et al., 250 Australian Ave. South, Suite 1400, West Palm Beach, FL 33401; OW1212019 PageCONFIDENTIAL Agency to Agency Requet 19-411 SDNY_GM_00331948 EFTA_00204674 EFTA02729658 Michael McAuliffe, Esq. and Judith Stevenson Arco, Esq., State Attorney's Office-West Palm Beach, 401 North Dixie Highway, West Palm Beach, FL 33401; and Deanna K. Shullman, Esq. and James B. Lake, Esq., 101 N.E. Third Avenue, Suite 1500, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301. ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER Attorneys for E.W. 401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1650 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33394 Telephone (954) 522-3456 Telecopier (954) 527-8663 By: TCX William J. Berger Florida Bar No. 197701 wbergerrikra-law.com H Isurdocs‘09-22784 Wild v. EpsteitikEPSTEIN M.FEES.doc 09112/2019 PEECONF NTIAL Agency to Agency Requet: 19-411 SDNY_GM_00331949 EFTA_00204675 EFTA02729659 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CRIMINAL DIVISION "W" CASE NO. 502008CF009381AXXMB 502006CF009454AXXM8 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 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. JUN 2 6 2009 JUDGE JEFFREY!. COLBATH Pe JEFFREY J. COLBATI1 09112/2019 aae Agency to Agency Requet: 19-411 CON rigiN°11 SDNY_GM_00331950 EFTA 00204676 EFTA02729660 Page Two Case No. 502008CF009381A,VMB/502006CF009454/00MB Order Denying Motion to Stay Disclosure Agreement Copies furnished: R. Alexander Acosta, U.S. Attorney's Office - Southern District 500 South Australian Avenue, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Barbara Burns, Esq., State Attorneys Office 401 North Dixie Highway West Palm Beach, FL 33401 William J. Berger, Esq. Bradley). Edwards, Esq. Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler 401 East Las Olas Boulevard., Suite 1650 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33394 Robert D. Critton, Esq. Burman, Critton, Luther & Coleman 515 North Flagler Drive, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Jack A. Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Spencer T. Kuvin, Esq. Leopold-Kwin, P.A. 2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Deanna K. Shullman, Esq. P. O. Box 2602 Tampa, FL 33602 09/12/2019 PCONFIDENTIAL Agency to Agency Requet: 19-411 SDNY_GM_00331951 EFTA J)0204677 EFTA02729661 O 0 m, of m§ Z961£C0CVM -ANOS • :/ " Ces1/4tw‘N ‘ - • Judge Jeffrey J. Colbath 205 North Dixie Highway • West Palm Beach, FL 33401 ra I ral..04 orACH. PLOKII1A 3.14111 ()) °Abrtfr 4uditla-Steveaseakto,..Esq_, State Attorney's Office- West Palm Beach 401 North Dixie Highway West Palm Beach, FL 33401 33401+4296 ems\ fescrat-aw.--r $ 00.44° 02 11.1 0004249544 MAILED FROM ZIP CODE 33401 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.: 2006-CF9454-AXX & 2008-9381CF-A)0C RECEIVED FOR FILlivi JEFFREY EPSTEIN COPY UN 2 R. 211° BOCK9INTERVENOR PALM BEACH POST'S acitiniCOMr^ TROLLS N IL DIVISION MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS SHARON CL r Palm Beach Newspapers, Inc.. &bin The Palm Beach Post (the -Post-) moveg 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 panted 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 agi cwent that xas 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 I I. 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 0911212019 Page CONFIDENTIAL Agency to Agency Requet 19-411 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 Jud. 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. THQ!t1AS, LOCICERO & BRALOW PL Deanna K. Shullman — Florida Bar No.: 0514462 James B. Lake Florida Bar No: 0023477 101 N.E. Third Avenue. Suite 1500 Fort Lauderdale. FL 33301 Telephone: (813) 984-3060 Facsimile: (313) 984-3070 Attorneys for The Palm Beach Post 09112/2019 CONFIDENTIALAgency to Agency Requet: 19-411 SDNY_GM_00331954 EFTA_00204680 EFTA02729664 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CE "IFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished 4 Os II via hand ivery to Jac Alan Goldberger, Esq.. Atterbury Goldberger, et al., 250 S. Australian Ave.. Ste. 1400. West Palm Beach. FL 33401 (fax: 561-835-8691 and via U.S, mail to Michael McAuliffe, Esq., and Judith Stevenson Arco, Esq.. State Attorney's Office - West Palm Beach. 401 North Dixie Highway. West Palm Beach, FL 33401 (fax: 561-355-7351);); on this d"--ti day of June. 2009- Attorney 09/12/2019 CONFIDENTIAL Agency to Agency Requet 19-411 SDNY_GM_00331955 EFTA_0020468 I EFTA02729665 THOMAS LOCICERO BRALOW 400 N. Ashley Or. Suit 1100. Tanya. R 33602 P.O. Box 2602. Tama. FL 3360I-2602 Ira &tit* 4.2.516 kodidA (bomb' c )titt--an-Arto, Esq. State Attorneys Office - West Palm Beach 401 North Dixie Highway West Palm Beach, FL 33401 11111111111111111 C $0.44 12 j US POSTAGE FIRST-CLASS ' < 08250005522993 33602 t! WIER r koz LL z 0 0 SDNY_GM_00331956 go LuLu EFTA02729666 Cs se 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 305 Entered on FLSO Docket 09/17/2009 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CY-80119-MARRA-JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, PlaintifC v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. Related Cases: 08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80581, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092. DEFENDANTS, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AND TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF JANE DOE NO. 4 AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOF Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through his undersigned attorneys, moves this court for an order granting sanctions pursuant to Rule 30(dX2) aril (3)(A) and (C) (referencing Rule 37(aX5)), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and compelling the deposition of Jane Doe No. 4 within fifteen (15) days and as grounds therefore would state: 1. On August 16, 2009, the deposition of Jane Doe No. 4 was noticed for September 16, 2009 to begin at 1:00 p.m. Plaintiff's counsel had advised that Jane Doe No. 4 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 Plaintiffs 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. 09112/2019 P9CONFIDENTIAL Agency to Agency Requet: 19-411 SDNY_GM_00331957 EFTA_00204683 EFTA02729667 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 305 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Page 2 of 8 3. The undersigned's office began attempting to set the deposition of Jane Doe No. 4 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. Oa 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 for Jane Doe No. 4 flied a motion for protective order on September 9, 2009 attempting to prohibit MrEpstein's presence at the deposition. The Defendant immediately filed a response (an Emergency Motion) on September II, 2009 requesting that the coon enter an order 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 Jane Doe No. 4 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 Exhibit 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. Luttier, 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 14i° 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 deposition that would have allowed Mr. Epstein to attend, be was readily available. 2 09/12/2019 CONFiange eNTIAL Agency to Agency Requet: 19-011 SDNY_GM_0033195 8 EFTA_002 04684 EFTA02729668 Case 9:08-ov-80119-KAM Document 305 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. Luttier 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. Lanier 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, Mr. Hill on behalf of C.M..A., Adam Langino on behalf of B.B., William Berger on behalf of three Plaintiffs were present for the deposition. 3 09/12/2019 PageCONFIDENTIAL Agency to Agency Requet 19-411 SDNY_GM_00331959 EFTA 00204685 EFTA02729669 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 305 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Page 4 of 8 14. Any suggestion that the chance "visual" between lv1r. Epstein and Jane Doe No. 4 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). (See Affidavit of Robert D. Critton, Jr., Mark T. Lottler and Deposition Transcript, Exhibits 6, 7, and 8 respectively). 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 JE'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 of Law In support of Motion A substantial amount of administrative time went into the setting up the deposition of Jane Doe No. 4. Almost two months passed from the time that the Defendant's counsel first 4 0911212019 PaCONFIDENTIAL Agency to Agency Requet: 19-411 SDNY_GM_00331960 EFTA_00204686 EFTA02729670 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 305 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Page 5 of 8 requested a date for the deposition of Jane Doe No. 4. The deposition of Jane Doe No. 4 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 Plaintiffs 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 tenninatekancel 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 Jane Doe No. 4, 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, Dr. Kliman, by her own comments, her significant emotional trauma relates to physical and verbal abuse by a prior boyfriend, Preston Vineyard, and deaths associated with two close friends, Chris and Jen. 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 CONFIal5ENTIAL Agency to Agency Requet 19-111 SDNY_GM_00331961 EFTA_00204687 EFTA02729671 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 305 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Page 6 of 8 Buie 7.1 A. 3. Certlficadon of Pre-Filine Conference Counsel for Defendant conferred with Counsel for Plaintiff by telephone and by e-mail; however, an agreement has not been 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 lane Doe No. 4 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 Plaintiff's deposition when lane Doe No. 4 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 te day of September 2009. 09/12/2019 Certificate of Service Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON 6 PCONFIDENTIAL Agency to Agency Requet: 19-411 SDNY_GM_00331962 EFTA 00204688 EFTA02729672 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 305 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Page 7 of 8 Stuart S. Mennelatein, Esq. Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. Mamehtein & Horowitz, P.A. 18205 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 2218 Miami, FL 33160 305-931-2200 Fax: 305-931-0877 onensexaboseattorriev.coM [email protected] Counsel for Plaintiffs In related Cases Nos. 08-80069, 0840119, 08- 80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80993, 08- 80994 Richard Horace Willits, Esq. Richard H. Willits, PA 229010°i Avenue North Suite 404 Lake Worth, FL 33461 561-582-7600 Fax: 561-588-8819 Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08- 80811 yin jib m Loa ra Jack Scarola, Esq. Jack P. Hill, Esq. Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach, FL 33409 561-686.6300 Fax: 561-383-9424 inesearcvlaw,com iobasearcvlaw.corn Counsel for Plaintiff C.M.A. Bruce Reinhart, Esq. Bruce E. Reinhart, PA 250 S. Australian Avenue Suite 1400 09/12/2019 7 Brad Edwards, Esq. Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler 401 East Las Olas Boulevard Suite 1650 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: 954-522-3456 Fax: 954-527-8663 bedwardaarra-law.com Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08- 80893 Paul G. Cassell, Esq. Pro Sac Vice 332 South 1400 E, Room 101 Salt Lake City, UT 84112 801-585-5202 801-585-6833 Fax gassellaillaw.utahedu Co-counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe Isidro M. Garcia, Esq. Garcia Law Finn, PA 224 Damn Street, Suite 900 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 561-832-7732 561.832-7137 F isidrogarcia@bellsouthoet Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08- 80469 Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq. Katherine W. Ezell, Esq. Podhurst Orseck, P.A. 25 West Hagler Street, Suite 800 Miami, FL 33130 305 358-2800 Fax: 305 358.2382 riosefsbetaloodhurstcom Isegellgyodhurstcom Counsel for Plaintiffs in Related Qua Nos. 0940591 and 09-40656 Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. PCONFIDENTIAL Agency to Agency Requet: 19-011 SDNY_GM_00331963 EFTA_002 04689 EFTA02729673 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 305 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Page 8 of 8 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 561-202-6360 Fax: 561.828.0983 scfebrucereinhardaw.com Counsel for Defendant Sarah Kellen Theodore J. Leopold, Esq. Spencer T. Kuvin, Esq. Leopold-Kuvin,P.A. 2925 PGA Blvd., Suite 200 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 561-684-6500 Fax: 561-515-2610 Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-08804 akuvinr*iccastw.com [email protected] 09112/2019 Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 561-659-8300 Fax: 561-835-8691 Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein Respectfully subm By: ROBERT D. Florida Bar Ilfo. 224162 RnToN, JR., ESQ. MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. Florida Bar #617296 rupikeabelclawsom BURMAN, CRTITON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN 303 Banyan Boulevard, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 561/842-2820 Phone 561/2134164 Fax (Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) 8 CONFIDENTIALTAgency to Agency Requet: 19-411 SDNY_GM_00331964 EFTA 00204690 EFTA02729674 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 305-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Page 1 of 1 6.4 J. MICHAEL WRMANL PAM (MOM W. CO. •••••• PA ADM! D. CAMON. it. PA lEMJARD MADDER MARX LIMIER PA JII/RLYC Rnn MICHAEL J. PIKE MIAMI* MCNAMARA RUDA DAVID YMIIMA 'nets mon 'ammo MR WAL vent iANIITTOD TO rucncs M PWRICIA COWIA00 Sent by E.Mall and U.S. Mail Stuart S. Mermelsteln, Esq. Herman & Mermelsteln, PA 18205 Biscayne Blvd. Suite 2218 Miami, FL 33160 BURMANSRITTON LUTTIER&COLEMANLLP YOUR TRUSTED ADVOCATES A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP August 27, 2009 Re: Jane Doe No. 4 v. Epstein Dear Stuart AirntvitilgaNTI ISTIGATOO, JESSICA CM>WILL WISH M. MOUNIM AMP S1DX4N-ISAPING SIM STOKES PAULIOALS PITA ff. SUONTK OP COW114‘ ED RICO ==1,, 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. Cordiall Robe Crttton, Jr. RDC/clz cc: Jack A. Goldberger, Esq. EXHIBIT / 303 BANYAN BOULEVARD. stun 400 • WEST PALM BEACH. FL 33401 • PHONk S61-842-2820 • FAL 561.844-6929 • mAHAPICLCLAW.COM WWW8CLCLAW.COM 09/12/2019 CONFIDENTIALTAgency to Agency Requet: 19-411 SDNY_GM_00331965 EFTA_00204691 EFTA02729675 Codo-996 eoiraiam Dert.umunt age 1 o 11 Case 9:08-cv80119-KAM Document 296 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/11/2009 Page 1 of 33 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA-JOYfNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant Rented Caste: 0480232, 08-80380, 08-$0381, 0840991, 0840993, 08-80811, 081I0893, 09-00419, 0940581, 0940656, 09-80802, 0941092. Defendant Epstein's Emergency Motion To Strike Plaintiff's Motion For Protective Order fDE 292) And Emergency Motion To Allow The Attendance CHJeffrev Epstein At The Deposition Of Plaintiffs And Response In Opposition To Mutants', Jane Doe Nos. 2-8, Motion For Protective Order As To 'effigy Entail's Attendance At The Deposition Of Plaintiffs. Who Incorporated Memorandum of Law Defendant, Jeffity Epstein, by and through his undersigned counsel, and pursuant to all applicable rules, including Local Rule 7.1(e) and Local Rule 12, hereby tiles and saves his Emergency Motion To Strike Plaintiff's Motion For Protective Order (DE 292) And Emergency Motion To Allow The Attendance Of Jeffrey Epstein At The Deposition Of Plaintiffs And Response In Opposition To Plaintiffs', Jane Doe Nos. 2-8, Motion For Protective Order As To Jeffrey Epstein's Attendance At The Deposition Of Plaintiffs. In support, Epstein states: Introduction and Backstround 1. On August 19, 2009. Defendant sent a Notice for Taking the Deposition of Jane Doe No. 4 for September 16, 2009. ace ExItibit "1" 09112)2019 CONFPITTENTIAL EXHIBIT 2 Agency to Agency Requet: 19-411 SDNY_GM_00331966 EFTA 00204692 EFTA02729676 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 305-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Page 2 of 11 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 296 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/11/2009 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 Jane Doe No. 4, which was the only deposition set relative to the Jane Doe 2.8 Plaintiffs. 4. On August 27, 2009, the undersigned counsel sent a letter to counsel for Jane Doe No. 4 concerning her deposition and the scheduling of same on the above date. See Exhibit "2". 5. No response was received until counsel for Jane Doe No. 4 called 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 Epstein to trial without any meaningful discovery, but now wish to ban Epstein from any depositions, thereby preventing him from assisting his attorneys in his very own defense. What's next — will Plaintiffs seek to prevent Epstein from attending any of the trials that result from the lawsuits Jane Does 2-8 have initiated? Plaintiffs sec millions of dollars in damages, both compensatory and punitive, against Defendant 6. 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 Jane Doe No. 4, 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 him. Does a Defendant not have a right to be present at depositions or other court proceedings to assist counsel with the defense of his case? Does a Defendant, no matter what the charges or the allegations, have full and unbridled access to the court system and the proceedings it governs, 09,12,'2019 PaCONFIDENTIAL Agency to Agency Requet 19-411 SDNCGM00331967 EFTA_00204693 EFTA02729677 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 305-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Page 3 of 11 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 296 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/11/2009 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 State 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 slated that "Please be advised that Mr. Epstein plans 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. Interestingly, in Jane Doe 11, the state court case, attorney Sid Garcia took the deposition of the Defendant and his client, Jane Doe II, was present throughout the deposition. This is despite her claims of "emotional trauma" set forth in her complaint. Jane Doe No. 11 is also a Plaintiff in the federal court proceeding Jane Doe // v. Jeffrey Epstein (Case No. 09-C1V- 80469). 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 CONFia1534ENTIAL Agency to Agency Requet: 19-411 SDNY_GM_00331968 EFTA 00214694 EFTA02729678 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 305-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Page 4 of 11 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 296 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/11/2009 Page 4 of 33 Page 4 the plaintiffs either directly or indirectly. However, there is no prohibition against Mr. F.pstein'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, Jane Does 2-8, attempt to use the Affidavit of Dr. Kliman 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 the's. eases. 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. la 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