EFTA00183791 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION CASE NO. 08-80119-CIV-MARRA WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA DOE, et al., Plaintiffs, JUNE 12, 2009 vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. TRANSCRIPT OF MOTION HEARING BEFORE THE HONORABLE KENNETH A. MARRA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE APPEARANCES: FOR THE PLAINTIFFS: ADAM D. HOROWITZ, ESQ. Mermelstein & Horowitz 18205 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, FL 33160 305.931.2200 For Doe BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, ESQ. Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler 401 East Las Olas Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Doe 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 954.522.3456 IŞIDRO M. GARCIA, ESQ. Garcia Elkins Boehringer 224 Datura Avenue West Palm Beach, FL 33401 DOE II 561.832.8033 RICHARD H. WILLITS, ESQ. 2290 10th Avenue North Lake Worth, FL 33461 For 561.582.7600 TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00183792 ROBERT J. JOSEFSBERG, ESQ. Podhurst Orseck Josefsberg 25 West Flagler Street Miami, FL 33130 For Doe 101 305.358.2800 (Via telephone) KATHERINE W. EZELL, ESQ. Podhurst Orseck Josefsberg 25 West Flagler Street Miami, FL 33130 For Doe 101 305.358.2800 FOR THE DEFENDANT: ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. MICHAEL BURMAN, ESQ. Burman Critton, etc. 515 North Flagler Street West Palm Beach, FL 33401 561.842.2820 JACK A. GOLDBERGER, ESQ. Atterbury Goldberger Weiss 250 Australian Avenue South West Palm Beach, FL 33401 561.659.8300 ASSISTANT U.S. Attorney 500 East Broward Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394 For U.S.A. 954.356.7255 MARTIN G. WEINBERG, ESQ. 20 Park Plaza Boston MA 02116 (Via telephone) 617.227.3700 JAY LEFKOWITZ, ESQ. (Via telephone) REPORTED BY: LARRY HERR, RPR-RMR-FCRR-AE Official United States Court Reported Federally Certified Realtime Reporter 400 North Miami Avenue, Room 8N09 Miami, FL 33128 305.523.525 TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00183793 THE COURT: We are here in the various Doe vs. Epstein cases. May I have counsel state their appearances? MR. HOROWITZ: Adam Horowitz, counsel for plaintiffs 2 through Doe 7. THE COURT: Good morning. MR. EDWARDS: Brad Edwards, counsel for plaintiff Doe. THE COURT: Good morning. MR. GARCIA: Good morning, Your Honor. Sid Garcia for Doe II. THE COURT: Good morning. MR. WILLITS: Good morning, Your Honor. Richard Willits, here on behalf of the plaintiff. THE COURT: Good morning. MS. EZELL: Good morning, Your Honor. I'm Katherine Ezell from Podhurst Orseck, here with Amy Adderly and Susan Bennett, and I believe my partner, Bob Josefsberg, is going to appear by telephone. THE COURT: Mr. Josefsberg, are you there? MR. JOSEFSBERG: I am, Your Honor. THE COURT: Good morning. MR. JOSEFSBERG: Good morning. THE COURT: All right. Do we have all the plaintiffs stated their appearances? Okay. EFTA00183794 29 as a shield against the plaintiffs that he was supposed to make restitution for. And, certainly, he can take my client's depo. He's done extensive discovery in the state court case -- very intrusive, I might add. And we don't care, because we can win this case with the prosecution agreement or without the prosecution agreement. We are ready to go forward. THE COURT: You're not going to assert to the United States Government that what he's doing in defending the case is a violation for which he should be further prosecuted? MR. GARCIA: Absolutely not. THE COURT: Anyone else for the plaintiffs? MR. HOROWITZ: Judge, Adam Horowitz, counsel for plaintiffs Doe 2 through 7. I just wanted to address a point that I think you've articulated it. I just want to make sure it's crystal clear, which is that we can't paint a broad brush for all of the cases. The provision relating to Mr. Epstein being unable to contest liability pertains only to those plaintiffs who have chosen as their sole remedy the federal statute. My clients, Doe 2 through 7, have elected to bring additional causes of action, and it's for that reason we were silent when you said does anyone here find Mr. Epstein to be in breach of the non-prosecution agreement. That provision, as we understand TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00183795 30 it, it doesn't relate to our clients. THE COURT: Okay. But, again, you're in agreement with everyone else so far that's spoken on behalf of a plaintiff that defending the case in the normal course of conducting discovery and filing motions would not be a breach? MR. HOROWITZ: Subject to your rulings, of course, yes. THE COURT: Thank you. Anyone else have anything to say from the plaintiffs? Ms. if you would be so kind as to maybe help us out. I appreciate the fact that you're here, and I know you're not a party to these cases and under no obligation to respond to my inquiries. But as I indicated, it would be helpful for me to understand the Government's position. MS. Thank you, Your Honor. And we, of course, are always happy to try to help the Court as much as possible. But we are not a party to any of these lawsuits, and in some ways we are at a disadvantage because we don't have access. My access is limited to what's on Pacer. So I don't really know what positions Mr. Epstein may have taken either in correspondence or in discovery responses that aren't filed in the case file. But your first order was really just what do you think about a stay, and then the second order related to this hearing and asked a much more specific question, which is whether we TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION