Epstein's interrogatory responses invoking constitutional privileges, Jan. 2009

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009¶

Page 1 of 37¶

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA¶

CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA-JOHNSON¶

JANE DOE NO. 2,¶

V.¶

Plaintiff,¶

JEFFREY EPSTEIN,¶

Defendant.¶

DEFENDANT EPSTEIN’S RESPONSE & OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES¶

Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through his undersigned attorneys,¶

Of Interrogatories To Defendant Jeffrey Epstein, attached hereto.¶

serves his responses and objections to Plaintiff’s December 9, 2008 Amended First Set¶

Certificate of Service¶

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing has been sent by fax and U.S. Mail to the following addressees this 26th day of January, 2009:¶

Adam D. Horowitz, Esq.¶

Jeffrey Marc Herman, Esq.¶

Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq.¶

Counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe #2¶

Jack Alan Goldberger Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A.¶

Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein¶

COMPOSITE EXHIBIT “C”¶

EFTA00067398¶

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009¶

Page 2 of 37¶

Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Page 2¶

(Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein)¶

EFTA00067399¶

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009¶

Page 3 of 37¶

Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Page 3¶

DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN’S ANSWERS AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES¶

Interrogatory No. 1. Identify all employees who performed work of services inside the Palm Beach Residence.¶

Answer: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. 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. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, Defendant objects as the interrogatory is overbroad and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of the pending action nor does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges a time period of “in or about 2004-2005.” Plaintiff’s interrogatory seeks information for a time period from January 1, 2003 until present. Also, see “Employee” as defined in paragraph g of Plaintiff’s interrogatories.¶

Interrogatory No. 2. Identify all Employees not identified in response to interrogatory no. 1 who at any time came to Defendant’s Palm Beach Residence.¶

Answer: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. 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. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, Defendant objects as the interrogatory is overbroad and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of the pending action nor does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges a time period of “in or about 2004-2005.” Plaintiff’s interrogatory seeks information for “all Employees” “who at any time” came to the residence. Also, see “Employee” as defined in paragraph g of Plaintiff’s interrogatories.¶

EFTA00067400¶

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009¶

Page 4 of 37¶

Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein¶

Page 4¶

Interrogatory No. 3. Identify all persons who came to the Palm Beach Residence and who gave a massage or were asked to give a massage to Defendant.¶

Interrogatory No. 4. Identify all persons who came to the New York Residence and who gave a massage or were asked to give a massage to Defendant.¶

Interrogatory No. 5. Identify all persons who came to the New Mexico Residence and who gave a massage or were asked to give a massage to Defendant.¶

EFTA00067401¶

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009¶

Page 5 of 37¶

Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein¶

Page 5¶

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. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, Defendant objects as the interrogatory is overbroad and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of the pending action nor does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges a time period of “in or about 2004-2005.”¶

Interrogatory No. 6. Identify all persons who came to the St. Thomas Residence and who gave a massage or were asked to give a massage to Defendant.¶

Interrogatory No. 7. List all the time periods during which Jeffrey Epstein was present in the State of Florida, including for each the date he arrive and the date he departed.¶

Answer: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. 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. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, Defendant also objects as the interrogatory is overbroad and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of the pending action nor does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the¶

EFTA00067402¶

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009¶

Page 6 of 37¶

Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Page 6¶

discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges a time period of “in or about 2004-2005.” Plaintiff’s interrogatory seeks information for a time period from January 1, 2003 until present.¶

Interrogatory No. 8. Identify all of Jeffrey Epstein health care providers in the past (10) ten years, including without limitation, psychologists, psychiatrists, mental health counselors, physicians, hospitals and treatment facilities.¶

Answer: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. 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. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, Defendant also objects as the interrogatory is overbroad and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of the pending action nor does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. In addition, such information is privileged pursuant to Rule 501, Fed. Evid., and §90.503, Fla.Evid. Code. In addition, such information is protected by the provisions of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA).¶

Interrogatory No. 9. List all items in Jeffrey Epstein’s possession in Palm Beach, Florida, at any time during the period of these interrogatories, which were used or intended to be used as sexual aids, sex toys, massage aids, and/or vibrators, and for each, list the manufacturer, model number (if applicable), and its present location.¶

Answer: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. 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. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, Defendant also objects as the interrogatory is overbroad and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of the pending action nor does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint alleges a time period of “in or about 2004 – 2005,” while Plaintiff’s interrogatory seeks information from¶

EFTA00067403¶

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009¶

Page 7 of 37¶

Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein¶

Page 7¶

January 1, 2003, until present. Further, the request is meant to embarrass and harass the Defendant.¶

Interrogatory No. 10. Identify all persons who provide transportation services to Jeffrey Epstein, whether as employees or independent contractors, including without limitation, chauffeurs and aircraft crew.¶

Answer: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. 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. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, Defendant also objects as the interrogatory is overbroad and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of the pending action nor does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff places no time limitation.¶

Interrogatory No. 11. Identify all telephone numbers used by Epstein, including cellular phones and land lines in any of his residences, by stating the complete telephone number and the name of the service provider.¶

Answer: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. 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. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, Defendant also objects as the interrogatory is overbroad and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of the pending action nor does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff’s allegations claim a time period of “in or about 2004-2005” and involve Defendant’s Palm Beach residence.¶

Interrogatory No. 12. Identify all telephone numbers of employees of Epstein, used in the course or scope of their employment, including cellular phones and land lines in any of his residences, by stating the complete telephone number and the name of the service provider.¶

EFTA00067404¶

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM¶

Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009¶

Page 8 of 37¶

Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein¶

Page 8¶

Answer: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. 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. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, Defendant objects as the interrogatory is overbroad and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of the pending action nor does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff’s allegations claim a time period of “in or about 2004-2005” and involve Defendant’s Palm Beach residence.¶

Interrogatory No. 13. List the names and addresses of all persons who are believed or known by your, your agents, or your attorneys to have any knowledge concerning any of the issues in this lawsuit; and specify the subject matter about which the witness has knowledge.¶

Answer: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. 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. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, the interrogatory seeks information that is attorney-client and work product privileged as it seeks information known by Defendant’s attorneys. The interrogatory is so overbroad that Defendant cannot reasonably form a response, including the raising of additional privileges which may apply. Without waiving any objection, see Rule 26 disclosures made by Defendant’s counsel in this case.¶

Interrogatory No.14. State the name and address of every person known to you, your agents, or your attorneys who has knowledge about, possession, or custody, or control of, any model, plat, map, drawing, motion picture, videotape or photograph pertaining to any fact or issue involved in this controversy; and describe as to each, what item such person has, the name and address of the person who took or prepared it, and the date it was taken or prepared.¶

EFTA00067405¶

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM¶

Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009¶

Page 9 of 37¶

Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein¶

Page 9¶

Answer: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. 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. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, the interrogatory seeks information that is attorney-client and work product privileged as it seeks information known by Defendant’s attorneys.¶

Interrogatory No. 15. Identify all persons who have made a claim, complaint, demand or threat against you relating to alleged sexual abuse or misconduct on a minor, and for each provide the following information:¶

a. The person’s full name, last known address and telephone number;¶

b. The person’s attorney, if represented;¶

c. The date of the alleged incident(s);¶

d. If a civil case has been filed by or on behalf of the person, the case number and identifying information.¶

Answer: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. 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. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges and without waiving such objection, with regard to subparagraph (d), Defendant’s counsel states that such information is public record and equally attainable by Plaintiff.¶

Interrogatory No. 16. State the facts upon which you intend to rely for each denial of a pleading allegation and for each affirmative defense you intend to make in these cases.¶

EFTA00067406¶

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM¶

Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009¶

Page 10 of 37¶

Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Page 10¶

losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. 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. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, no answer to the Amended Complaint has been filed by defense counsel in this case; however, Defendant does not intend to waive his constitutional privilege against self-incrimination. Defendant further objects in that Plaintiff’s interrogatory attempts to obtain discovery in other cases filed by her undersigned counsel.¶

Interrogatory No.17. Identify all witnesses from whom you have obtained or requested a written, transcribed or recorded statement relating to any issue in these cases, and for each, in addition to the witness’s identifying information, state the date of the statement and identify the person taking the statement.¶

Answer: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. 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. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, Defendant objects to this interrogatory in that it seeks information that is attorney-client and work product privileged. In addition, the request is overbroad in that it seeks information “relating to any issue.”¶

STATE OF Florida )¶

COUNTY OF Palm Beach )¶

I hereby certify that on this day, before me, an officer duly authorized to administer oaths and take acknowledgments, personally appeared Jeffrey Epstein , known to me to be the person described in and who executed the foregoing Interrogatories who¶

EFTA00067407¶

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009¶

Page 11 of 37¶

Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Page 11¶

acknowledged before me that he/she executed the same, that I relied upon the following form of identification of the above-named person: personally known/identification, and that an oath was/was not taken.¶

WITNESS my hand and official seal in the County and State last aforesaid this 26 day of January, 2009.¶

(SEAL)¶

PRINT’NAME: Nayanica Alanis¶

Notary Public/State of Florida¶

Commission #:___¶

My Commission Expires:___¶

EFTA00067408¶

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM

Document 65-4

Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009

Page 12 of 37¶

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT¶

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA¶

CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA-JOHNSON¶

JANE DOE NO. 2,¶

V.¶

Plaintiff,¶

JEFFREY EPSTEIN,¶

Defendant.¶

DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN’S RESPONSE & OBJECTIONS TO SECOND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, dated December 19, 2008¶

Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through his undersigned attorneys, serves his responses and objections to the Request to Produce, dated December 19, 2008 and states:¶

Request No. 1. All policies of insurance, including the declarations page and all binders, amendments, and endorsements, covering Defendant’s residence at 358 El Brillo Way, Palm Beach, FL 33480.¶

Response: Objection, overly broad, not relevant and material and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff alleged claims occurred during a specific time period in 2004 – 2005, yet to be specifically identified. Yet, no time period whatsoever is set forth in the Request for Production. Additionally, Defendant objects in that the policies contain value and/or asset information which is not relevant, material nor calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence at this point in time; said information is both private and confidential.¶

EFTA00067409¶

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009¶

Page 13 of 37¶

Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Page 2¶

Certificate of Service¶

WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing has been sent via U.S. Mail and facsimile to the following addressees this 26th day of January, 2009.¶

Adam D. Horowitz, Esq.¶

Jeffrey Marc Herman, Esq.¶

Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq.¶

Counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe #2¶

Jack Alan Goldberger¶

Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein¶

Respectfully submitted.¶

By: ___¶

ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ.¶

Florida Bar No.¶

MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ.¶

Florida Bar¶

BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN¶

(Co-counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein)¶

EFTA00067410¶

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009¶

Page 14 of 37¶

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA¶

CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA-JOHNSON¶

JANE DOE NO. 2,¶

Plaintiff,¶

JEFFREY EPSTEIN,¶

Defendant.¶

DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN’S RESPONSE & OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION¶

Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through his undersigned counsel, serves his responses and objections to Plaintiff’s Amended First Request For Production To Defendant, dated December 9, 2008.¶

Request No. 1. The list provided to you by the U.S. Attorney of individuals whom the U.S. Attorney was prepared to name in an Indictment as victims of an offense by Mr. Epstein enumerated in 18 U.S.C. §2255.¶

EFTA00067411¶

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM¶

Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009¶

Page 15 of 37¶

Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Page 2¶

under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, the information sought is privileged and confidential, and inadmissible pursuant to the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement, Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and 408, and §90.410, Fla. Stat. Further, the request is overly broad, work product, attorney-client privileged, and confidential. In addition, the request seeks information concerning persons, not parties to this litigation, whose privacy rights are implicated.¶

Request No. 2. All documents referring or relating to the United States’ agreement with Defendant to defer federal prosecution subject to certain conditions, including without limitation, the operative agreement between Defendant and the United States and all amendments, revisions and supplements thereto.¶

EFTA00067412¶

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM¶

Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009¶

Page 16 of 37¶

Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Page 3¶

constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, the information sought is privileged and confidential, and inadmissible pursuant to the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement, Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and 408, and §90.410, Fla. Stat. Further, the request is overly broad, work product, attorney-client privileged, and confidential. In addition, the request seeks information concerning persons, not parties to this litigation, whose privacy rights are implicated.¶

Request No. 3. All documents referring or relating to Defendant’s agreement with the State of Florida on his plea of guilty to violations of Florida Criminal Statutes, including without limitation, the operative plea agreement and any amendments, revisions and supplements thereto.¶

EFTA00067413¶

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM¶

Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009¶

Page 17 of 37¶

Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Page 4¶

Request No.4. All documents obtained in discovery or investigation relating to either the Florida Criminal Case or the Federal Criminal Case, including without limitation, documents obtained from any federal, state, or local law enforcement agency, the State Attorney’s office and the United States Attorney’s office.¶

EFTA00067414¶

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM¶

Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009¶

Page 18 of 37¶

Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Page 5¶

information sought is privileged and confidential, and inadmissible pursuant to the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement, Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and 408, and §90.410, Fla. Stat. Further, the request is overly broad, work product, attorney-client privileged, and confidential. In addition, the request seeks information concerning persons, not parties to this litigation, whose privacy rights are implicated. Request No. 4 seeks documents that are attorney-client and work product privileged in that it seeks “all documents obtained in discovery or investigation relating either to the Florida Criminal Case or the Federal Criminal Case …” In addition, such documents are privileged and confidential as they are the subject of a pending investigation.¶

Request No. 5. All telephone records and other documents reflecting telephone calls made by or to Defendant, including without limitation, telephone logs and message pads.¶

EFTA00067415¶

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM¶

Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009¶

Page 19 of 37¶

Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Page 6¶

Constitution. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, the information sought is privileged and confidential, and inadmissible pursuant to the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement, Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and 408, and §90.410, Fla. Stat. Further, the request is overly broad, work product, attorney-client privileged, and confidential. In addition, the request seeks information concerning persons, not parties to this litigation, whose privacy rights are implicated. Defendant objects as the request is overbroad and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of the pending action nor does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff’s complaint alleges a time period of “in or about 2004 – 2005.” Plaintiff’s request seeks information for a time period of January 1, 2003 until present regarding any and all telephone records and other documents reflecting any and all telephone calls made to or by Defendant. As phrased, the request includes attorney-client and work product privileged information, as well as records and documents of calls having absolutely no relationship to any of the allegations in this action.¶

Request No. 6. All telephone records and other documents reflecting telephone calls made by or to Defendant, including without limitation, telephone logs and message pads, reflecting telephone calls made by or to employees.¶

EFTA00067416¶

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM¶

Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009¶

Page 20 of 37¶

Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Page 7¶

documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. 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. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, the information sought is privileged and confidential, and inadmissible pursuant to the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement, Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and 408, and §90.410, Fla. Stat. Further, the request is overly broad, work product, attorney-client privileged, and confidential. In addition, as defined by Plaintiff in paragraph g of her request, the term employee is overly broad and encompasses information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of the pending action nor does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, the request seeks information pertaining to person who are not parties to this action and whose privacy rights are implicated.¶

Request No. 7. All surveillance videos, slides, film, videotape, digital recording or other audio or video depiction or image of the Palm Beach Residence.¶

EFTA00067417¶

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009¶

Page 21 of 37¶

Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Page 8¶

Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. 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. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, the information sought is privileged and confidential, and inadmissible pursuant to the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement, Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and 408, and §90.410, Fla. Stat. Further, the request is overly broad, work product, attorney-client privileged, and confidential. In addition, the request seeks information concerning persons, not parties to this litigation, whose privacy rights are implicated. Plaintiff’s complaint alleges a time period of “in or about 2004 – 2005.” Plaintiff’s request seeks information for a time period of January 1, 2003 until present regarding “all surveillance videos, etc., or image of the Palm Beach Residence.”¶

Request No. 8. All documents referring or relating to Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 2, including without limitation, web pages, social networking site pages, correspondence, videotapes and audiotapes.¶

EFTA00067418¶

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM¶

Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009¶

Page 22 of 37¶

Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Page 9¶

Request No. 9. All statements taken, transcribed or recorded from any person referring or relating to Defendant’s sexual conduct, massages given to Defendant or any issue in these cases.¶

EFTA00067419¶

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM¶

Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009¶

Page 23 of 37¶

Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Page 10¶

Request No. 10. All documents referring to or relating to air travel and aircraft used by Defendant, including without limitation, flight logs and flight manifests.¶

Response: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all relevant documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. 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. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, the information sought is privileged and confidential, and inadmissible pursuant to the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement, Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and 408, and §90.410, Fla. Stat. Further, the request is overly broad, work product, attorney-client privileged, and confidential. Plaintiff’s complaint alleges a time period of “in or about 2004 – 2005.” Plaintiff’s request seeks documents for a¶

EFTA00067420¶

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM¶

Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009¶

Page 24 of 37¶

Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Page 11¶

time period of January 1, 2003 until present regarding air travel and aircraft used by Defendant.¶

Request No. 11. Any and all documents referring to or relating to modeling agencies, including but not limited to documents relating to or reflecting communications with female models.¶

Response: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all relevant documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. 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. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, the information sought is privileged and confidential, and inadmissible pursuant to the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement, Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and 408, and §90.410, Fla. Stat. Further, the request is overly broad, work product, attorney-client privileged, and confidential. In addition, the request seeks information concerning persons, not parties to this litigation, whose privacy rights are implicated. Plaintiff’s complaint alleges a time period of “in or about 2004 – 2005.” Plaintiff’s request has no time limitation.¶

EFTA00067421¶

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM¶

Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009¶

Page 25 of 37¶

Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Page 12¶

Request No. 12. All photographs, videotapes, digital images and other documents depicting or showing females who, at the time thereof, were under the age of 21, which were taken or created by or for Defendant and not intended for sale commercially to the public.¶

Response: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all relevant documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. 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. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, the information sought is privileged and confidential, and inadmissible pursuant to the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement, Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and 408, and §90.410, Fla. Stat. Further, the request is overly broad, work product, attorney-client privileged, and confidential. In addition, the request seeks information concerning persons, not parties to this litigation, whose privacy rights are implicated. Plaintiff’s complaint alleges a time period of “in or about 2004 – 2005.” Plaintiff’s request has no time limitation.¶

EFTA00067422¶

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009¶

Page 26 of 37¶

Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Page 13¶

Request No. 13. All photographs and painting of females which were displayed in any of Defendant’s homes or residences in the time frame of these requests, including without limitation, photographs in standing or sitting frames or wall frames.¶

Response: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all relevant documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. 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. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, the information sought is privileged and confidential, and inadmissible pursuant to the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement, Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and 408, and §90.410, Fla. Stat. Further, the request is overly broad, work product, attorney-client privileged, and confidential. In addition, the request seeks information concerning persons, not parties to this litigation, whose privacy rights are implicated. Plaintiff’s complaint alleges a time period of “in or about 2004 – 2005.” Plaintiff’s request has no time limitation.¶

EFTA00067423¶

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM¶

Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009¶

Page 27 of 37¶

Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Page 14¶

Request No. 14. Any and all documents consisting of, referring or relating to communications between Jeffrey Epstein and Haley Robson, including, but not limited to, letters, notes, text messages, messages on social networking sites, and e-mails.¶

Response: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all relevant documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. 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. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, the information sought is privileged and confidential, and inadmissible pursuant to the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement, Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and 408, and §90.410, Fla. Stat. Further, the request is overly broad, work product, attorney-client privileged, and confidential. In addition, the request seeks information concerning persons, not parties to this litigation, whose privacy rights are implicated. Plaintiff’s complaint alleges a time period of “in or about 2004 – 2005.” Plaintiff’s request has no time limitation.¶

EFTA00067424¶

Câse 9:08-cv-80119-KAM¶

Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009¶

Page 28 of 37¶

Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Page 15¶

Request No. 15. Any and all documents consisting of, referring or relating to communications between Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen, including, but not limited to, letters, notes, text messages, messages on social networking sites, and e-mails.¶

Response: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all relevant documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. 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. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, the information sought is privileged and confidential, and inadmissible pursuant to the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement, Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and 408, and §90.410, Fla. Stat. Further, the request is overly broad, work product, attorney-client privileged, and confidential. In addition, the request seeks information concerning persons, not parties to this litigation, whose privacy rights are implicated. Plaintiff’s complaint alleges a time period of “in or about 2004 – 2005.” Plaintiff’s request has no time limitation.¶

EFTA00067425¶

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM¶

Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009¶

Page 29 of 37¶

Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Page 16¶

Request No. 16. Any and all documents consisting of, referring or relating to communications between Jeffrey Epstein and Nada Marcinkova, including, but not limited to, letters, notes, text messages, messages on social networking sites, and e-mails.¶

Response: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all relevant documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. 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. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, the information sought is privileged and confidential, and inadmissible pursuant to the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement, Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and 408, and §90.410, Fla. Stat. Further, the request is overly broad, work product, attorney-client privileged, and confidential. In addition, the request seeks information concerning persons, not parties to this litigation, whose privacy rights are implicated. Plaintiff’s complaint alleges a time period of “in or about 2004 – 2005.” Plaintiff’s request has no time limitation.¶

EFTA00067426¶

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM¶

Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009¶

Page 30 of 37¶

Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Page 17¶

Request No. 17. Any and all documents consisting of, referring or relating to communications between Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, including, but not limited to, letters, notes, text messages, messages on social networking sites, and e-mails.¶

Response: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all relevant documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. 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. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, the information sought is privileged and confidential, and inadmissible pursuant to the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement, Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and 408, and §90.410, Fla. Stat. Further, the request is overly broad, work product, attorney-client privileged, and confidential. In addition, the request seeks information concerning persons, not parties to this litigation, whose privacy rights are implicated. Plaintiff’s complaint alleges a time period of “in or about 2004 – 2005.” Plaintiff’s request has no time limitation.¶

EFTA00067427¶

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM¶

Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009¶

Page 31 of 37¶

Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Page 18¶

Request No. 18. Any and all documents and photographs placed by Defendant at any time in the period of these requests on a social networking website, including without limitation, Facebook.com and MySpace.com.¶

Response: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all relevant documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. 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. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, the information sought is privileged and confidential, and inadmissible pursuant to the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement, Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and 408, and §90.410, Fla. Stat. Further, the request is overly broad, work product, attorney-client privileged, and confidential. In addition, the request seeks information concerning persons, not parties to this litigation, whose privacy rights are implicated. Plaintiff’s complaint alleges a time period of “in or about 2004 – 2005.” Plaintiff’s request seeks documents and photographs for a time period of January 1, 2003 until present.¶

EFTA00067428¶

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM¶

Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009¶

Page 32 of 37¶

Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Page 19¶

Request No. 19. Any and all documents reflecting or consisting of communications between Jeffrey Epstein and MC2 Models or Jean-Luc Brunel, relating or referring to females coming into the United States from other countries to pursue a career in modeling, including, but not limited to, letters, notes and e-mails.¶

Response: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all relevant documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. 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. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, the information sought is privileged and confidential, and inadmissible pursuant to the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement, Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and 408, and §90.410, Fla. Stat. Further, the request is overly broad, work product, attorney-client privileged, and confidential. In addition, the request seeks information concerning persons, not parties to this litigation, whose privacy rights are implicated. Plaintiff’s complaint alleges a time period of “in or about 2004 –¶

EFTA00067429¶

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM¶

Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009¶

Page 33 of 37¶

Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Page 20¶

” In addition, the request seeks documents pertaining to females who are not non-parties, and who possess privacy rights.

Request No. 20. Any and all documents referring or relating to gifts or loans to females under the age of 21, including, but not limited to, notes, receipts and car rental agreements.¶

Response: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all relevant documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. 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. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, the information sought is privileged and confidential, and inadmissible pursuant to the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement, Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and 408, and §90.410, Fla. Stat. Further, the request is overly broad, work product, attorney-client privileged, and confidential. In addition, the request seeks information concerning persons, not parties to this litigation, whose privacy rights are implicated. Plaintiff’s complaint alleges a time period of “in or about 2004 – 2005.” Plaintiff’s request has no time limitation.¶

EFTA00067430¶

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM¶

Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009¶

Page 34 of 37¶

Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Page 21¶

Request No. 21. Any and all personal calendars or schedules of or for Jeffrey Epstein from January 1, 2003 to the present.¶

Response: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all relevant documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. 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. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, the information sought is privileged and confidential, and inadmissible pursuant to the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement, Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and 408, and §90.410, Fla. Stat. Further, the request is overly broad, work product, attorney-client privileged, and confidential. In addition, the request seeks information concerning persons, not parties to this litigation, whose privacy rights are implicated. Plaintiff’s complaint alleges a time period of “in or about 2004 – 2005.” In addition, the request encompasses attorney-client privileged material.¶

Request No. 22. All documents written by Jeffrey Epstein consisting of personal thoughts, feelings or descriptions of events, incidents or occurrences in Defendant’s life, including without limitation, any diaries of Jeffrey Epstein.¶

EFTA00067431¶

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM¶

Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009¶

Page 35 of 37¶

Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Page 22¶

Response: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all relevant documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. 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. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, the information sought is privileged and confidential, and inadmissible pursuant to the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement, Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and 408, and §90.410, Fla. Stat. Further, the request is overly broad, work product, attorney-client privileged, and confidential. In addition, the request seeks information concerning persons, not parties to this litigation, whose privacy rights are implicated. Plaintiff’s complaint alleges a time period of “in or about 2004 – 2005.” On its fact, the request goes beyond the scope of allowable discovery and is meant to harass, embarrass and overburden the Defendant. Further, the request is so overly broad that it includes attorney-client and work product privileged materials.¶

Request No. 23. All documents referring to or relating to Jeffrey Epstein’s purchase or consumption of prescription medicine.¶

EFTA00067432¶

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM¶

Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009¶

Page 36 of 37¶

Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Page 23¶

Response: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all relevant documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. 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. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, the information sought is privileged and confidential, and inadmissible pursuant to the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement, Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and 408, and §90.410, Fla. Stat. Further, the request is overly broad, work product, attorney-client privileged, and confidential. In addition, the request seeks information concerning persons, not parties to this litigation, whose privacy rights are implicated. Plaintiff’s complaint alleges a time period of “in or about 2004 – 2005.” Defendant’s medical condition is not at issue in this action. Such a request is meant to harass and embarrass Defendant. Further, such information is privileged pursuant to Fed. Rule 501 and §90.503, Fla. Stat. In addition, such information is protected by the provisions of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA).¶

EFTA00067433¶

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009¶

Page 37 of 37¶

Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Page 24¶

Certificate of Service¶

WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing has been sent via U.S. Mail and facsimile to the following addressees this 26th day of January, 2009.¶

Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. Jeffrey Marc Herman, Esq. Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq.¶

Counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe #2¶

Jack Alan Goldberger Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A.¶

Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein¶

By:¶

ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ.¶

Florida Bar No.¶

MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ.¶

Florida Bar¶

BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN¶

(Co-counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein)¶

EFTA00067434¶

Keyboard shortcuts

Go to a page: `g` then

Epstein's interrogatory responses invoking constitutional privileges, Jan. 2009

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA¶

CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA-JOHNSON¶

V.¶

Certificate of Service¶

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT¶

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA¶

CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA-JOHNSON¶