Draft: efta02740188

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA¶

CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRAJ¶

JANE DOE NO. 2,¶

Plaintiff,¶

vs.¶

JEFFREY EPSTEIN,¶

Defendant.¶

Related cases:¶

08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092¶

THIRD PARTY WITNESS, IGOR ZINOVIEW'S, MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW¶

Third Party Witness, Igor Zinoview's, ("Mr. Zinoview") by and through his undersigned attorney, moves this Court pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) for a protective order regarding his deposition and as grounds therefore would state:¶

1. As reflected on the affidavit of Igor Zinoview, attached as Exhibit A, he works for Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein ("Mr. Epstein') as a driver and bodyguard. He did not know Mr. Epstein before November of 2005. He first became employed by Mr. Epstein in November of 2005.

2. Additionally, Mr. Zinoview would testify as set forth on his affidavit, that at no time has he discussed with Mr. Epstein any issues involving Mr. Epstein's criminal case nor any of the cases or issues involved with civil plaintiffs.

3. In many of the depositions, counsel for L.M. and E.W., has asked them as witnesses to assume certain facts about which they have no knowledge, and he then asks their opinions about certain facts. See Exhibit B -Epstein's Motion for Protective Order to Prohibit Inappropriate Deposition Questions.

4. There is no information which Mr. Zinoview has relating to the facts and circumstances surrounding any of the pending civil cases, in that none of their allegations directed to Mr. Epstein extend beyond September of 2005. Therefore whatever information Mr. Zinoview may have, postdates that time.

5. Regarding the scope of discovery, Judge Linnea noted in her October 28, 2009 Omnibus Order (DE #377), "[w]hile the scope of discovery is broad, it is not without limits. Washinaton v. & Williamson Tobacco 959 F.2d 1566, 1570 (11th Cir. 1992). ... Courts have long held that `[w]hile the standard of relevancy [in discovery] is a liberal one, it is not so liberal as to allow a party to roam in the shadow zones of relevancy and to explore matter (sic) which does not presently appear germane on the theory that it might conceivably become so.' Food Lion Inc. v. United Food & Commercial Workers Intern. Union, 103 F.3d 1007, 1012-13 (CA. D.C. 1997) (string cite omitted)."

6. Rule 26(c), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, provides that, "[a] party or any person from whomn discovery is sought may move for a protective order in the court where the action is pending.... The court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, including one or more of the following: (A) forbidding the disclosure or discovery;"

7. As set forth in his affidavit, Mr. Zinoview cannot possibly have any knowledge or information that is presently germane to this action. Accordingly, the Court should enter a protective order prohibiting his deposition.

WHEREFORE, third-party witness moves this court for a protective order pursuant to Rule 26(c), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that his deposition not take place or the questioning be limited.¶

By: JACK ALAN GOLDBERGER ESQ. Florida Bar No. 262013 jagesn@bellsouth.net

¶

Rule 7.1 Certification¶

I hereby certify that counsel for the movant has conferred or attempted to confer with opposing counsel in a good faith effort to resolve the discovery issues prior to the filing of this motion for protective order but has been unable to do so.¶

Certificate of Service¶

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on all counsel of record identified on the following Service List in the manner specified by CM/ECF on this day of November, 2009¶

Respectfully submitted,¶

By: JACK ALAN GOLDBERGER ESQ. Florida Bar No. 262013 iagesa@bellsouth.net 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)¶

Certificate of Service¶

Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey E stein¶

Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/¶

Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. Brad¶

Adam D. Horowitz, Esq.¶

Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A.¶

18205 Biscayne Boulevard¶

Suite 2218¶

Miami, FL 33160¶

305-931-2200¶

Fax: 305-931-0877¶

ssm@sexabuseattornev.com¶

ahorowiteexabuseattorney,com¶

Counsel for Plaintiffs¶

In related Cases Nos. 08-80069, 08-80119,¶

08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80993,¶

08-80994¶

Richard Horace Willits, Esq.¶

Richard H. Willits, P.A.¶

2290 10th Avenue North¶

Suite 404¶

Lake Worth, FL 33461¶

561.582-7600¶

Fax: 561-588-8819¶

Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No.¶

08-80811¶

reelrhw@hotmail.com¶

Jack Scarola, Esq.¶

Jack P. M, 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¶

jsx@searcvlaw.corn¶

iph@searcvlaw.com¶

Counsel for Plaintiff C.M.A.¶

Bruce Reinhart, Esq.¶

Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A.¶

250 S. Australian Avenue¶

Suite 1400¶

West Palm Beach, FL 33401¶

Esq.¶

Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler¶

401 East Las Olas Boulevard¶

Suite 1650¶

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301¶

Phone: 954-522-3456¶

Fax: 954-527-8663¶

bedwards©rra-law.com¶

Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No.¶

08-80893¶

Paul G. Cassell, Esq.¶

Pro Hac Vice¶

332 South 1400 E, Room 101¶

Salt Lake City, UT 84112¶

801-585-5202¶

801-585-6833 Fax¶

cassellp@law.utah.edu¶

Co-counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe¶

Isidro M. =, Esq.¶

Law Firm, P.A.¶

224 Datum Street, Suite 900¶

West Palm Beach, FL 33401¶

561-832-7732¶

561-832-7137 F¶

isidrogarcia©bellsouth.net¶

Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No.¶

08-80469¶

Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq.¶

Katherine W. Ezell, Esq.¶

Podhurst Orseck, P.A.¶

25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800¶

Miami, FL 33130¶

305 358-2800¶

Fax: 305 358-2382¶

thoftut@podhurst.com¶

kezell@podhurst.com¶

Counsel for Plaintiffs in Related Cases¶

Nos. 09-80591 and 09-80656¶

Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq.¶

561-202-6360¶

Fax: 561-828-0983¶

ecf brucereinh rtl w.com¶

Counsel for Defendant¶

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¶

skuvin@lecooldkuvin.com¶

Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No.¶

08-08804¶

Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A.¶

250 Australian Avenue South¶

Suite 1400¶

West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012¶

561-659-8300¶

Fax: 561-835-8691¶

jaciescP.bellsouth.net¶

Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein¶

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA¶

CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA-..¶

JANE DOE NO. 2,¶

Plaintiff,¶

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.¶

AFFIDAVIT OF IGOR ZINOVIEV¶

STATE OF FLORIDA ) SS COUNTY OF PALM BEACH )¶

BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, personally appeared Igor Zinoviev having personal knowledge and being duly sworn, deposes and says:¶

• 1. My name is Igor Zinoview.
• 2. I began working for Mr. Epstein in November of 2005.
• 3. I did not know him until I began working for him.
• 4. I have never discussed nor has he ever attempted to discuss with me any facts or information relating to any legal matters in which he is involved.
  • 5. I work for Mr. Epstein as his driver, bodyguard and trainer.

EXHIBIT A¶

Page 2¶

FURTHER THE AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT.¶

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 Igor Zinoviev known to me to be the person described in and who executed the foregoing Affidavit, who acknowledged before me that he/she executed the same, that I relied upon the following form of identification of the above named person: Igor Zinoviev, and that an oath was/was not taken.¶

WITNESS my hand and official seal in the County and State last aforesaid this day of Nov. 9, 2009.¶

¶

IN THE COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA¶

CASE NO. 502008CA028051XXXXMB AB¶

L.M.,¶

Plaintiff,¶

v.¶

JEFFREY EPSTEIN,¶

Defendant.¶

EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER TO PROHIBIT INAPPROPRIATE DEPOSITION QUESTIONS¶

Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN ("Epstein"), pursuant to Rule 1.280(c), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, moves for a protective order to prohibit argumentative, harassing and inappropriate questions in depositions, and states:¶

1. At numerous depositions, Plaintiffs counsel has repeatedly asked argumentative and harassing questions that are irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

2. In particular, Plaintiffs counsel has asked questions that improperly sought to illicit lay opinions from fact witnesses, asked questions regarding witnesses' feelings towards Mr. Epstein and their beliefs regarding media reports of this case, asked whether they would leave their children with Mr. Epstein and asked whether they would go back to work for Mr. Epstein assuming the media reports were accurate, among other things. These questions and the responses thereto will never be admissible. They are argumentative, irrelevant and seek speculative answers and inadmissible lay opinions.

EXHIBIT 8¶

Imo/ v. Epstein¶

Case No. 502008CA028051XXXXMBAB¶

Epsteln's Motion for Protective Order to Prohibit Inappropriate Deposition Questions¶

Page 2 of 9¶

3. For example, in the deposition of Larry Visoski, one of Mr. Epstein's pilots, Plaintiffs counsel asked the following questions seeking to obtain Mr. Visoski's beliefs and opinions on Plaintiffs allegations:

Q. All right. When you read in the newspapers the allegations that Mr. Epstein was involved with numerous underage girls for sexual reasons, were you surprised?

¶

A. I didn't believe it.¶

Q. Do you believe it today?¶

A. I don't believe it.¶

Q. You don't believe that Jeffrey Epstein was involved with underage girls in a sexual way?¶

MR. CRITTON: Form.¶

THE WITNESS: You're asking for my opinion, and I don't think my opinion is relevant in that matter.¶

BY MR.¶

Q. I think it's relevant. Can you just tell me whether today you believe that Jeffrey Epstein has engaged in sex with underage girls?¶

MR. CRITTON: Form; speculation, irrelevant, always.¶

THE WITNESS: It's irrelevant.¶

BY MR.¶

Q. I need an answer.¶

A. I don't believe he had sex with underage women.¶

Q. Or engaged in any sexual acts with underage women?¶

MR. CRITTON: Form.¶

1,,M v. Epstein Case No. 502008CA028051XXXXMBAB Epstein's Motion for Protective Order to Prohibit Inappropriate Deposition Questions Page 3 of 9¶

THE WITNESS: No.¶

BY MR.¶

Q. You think that this is just a story that a bunch of underage women have made up?¶

A. Speculation.¶

• * * *¶

Q. Then we'll handle the question this way: If you were to believe based on information and evidence that Mr. Epstein engaged in sex or some form of sex acts with people of the age range of 12, 13, 14, 15 years old, would you continue your employment with Mr. Epstein?¶

MR. CRITTON: Form; speculation.¶

THE WITNESS: I would certainly be speculating and I have to discuss it with my wife long and hard. I don't think I could give you a correct and honest answer at this time.¶

See Excerpts of Deposition of Larry Visokski at 66-67; 181-82 (attached as composite Exhibit A). Other examples of similar improper questions are included in Exhibit A.¶

4. Not only do these questions seek improper lay opinions, Plaintiffs counsel asked Mr. Visoski his belief as to the truth of hearsay newspaper articles. The foregoing questions are obviously irrelevant, argumentative and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

5. Moreover, whether Mr. Visoski would continue working for Mr. Epstein if Plaintiff's allegations are true has absolutely no relevance to any claim or defense in this case. The questions are simply improper and meant to harass and embarrass the IN v. Epstein Case No. 50200BCA028051XXXXMBAB Epstein's Motion for Protective Order to Prohibit Inappropriate Deposition Questions Page 4 of 9

witness.¶

6. Mr. Visoski was questioned for over four hours and much of the time was wasted on irrelevant and harassing questions.

7. Plaintiffs counsel asked similar questions at the deposition of Larry Eugene ME, another one of Mr. Epstein's pilots:

Q. Certainly you've read certain newspaper articles about the allegations, police reports, otherwise, the allegations that occurred or have been alleged to have occurred at his Palm Beach mansion, correct?

¶

A. Uh-huh.¶

Q. Correct?¶

A. Correct.¶

Q. Given the nature of those allegations, would you leave your daughter of 17, 16, 15 years old with Mr. Epstein alone?¶

MR. PIKE: Form. Move to strike.¶

A. Yes.¶

• * • •¶

Q. And despite pleading guilty to procuring underage girls for the purposes of sex, you still feel comfortable leaving ^a 13, 14, 15-year-old girl around him?¶

MR. PIKE: Form. Move to strike.¶

A. Yes. I mean, with my daughter, yes. I don't know how he behaves around anybody else. I just know that the respect that he showed me, I feel safe with my daughter.¶

Q. And have you read in detail the reports as to what happened at his house with the girls?¶

ue v. Epstein¶

Case No. 502008CA028051XWMBAB¶

Epstein's Motion for Protective Order to Prohibit Inappropriate Deposition Questions¶

Page 5 of 9¶

A. Only —¶

MR. PIKE: Form.¶

A. — what's been in the newspapers and published.¶

Q. If you read and hear testimony given - well, I can tell you now - testimony has been given in this case that what happens is: A 13 or 14 year old is led upstairs by herself, told to get naked, he lays down on his back, there is a brief massage before he turns over, exposes himself erect, masturbates while he tells this 13 or 14 year old to pinch his nipples as hard as she can while he inserts his fingers into their vagina and ejaculates all over them before saying, "Take your money and leave."¶

MR. PIKE: Form. Move to strike.¶

BY MR.¶

Q. Okay? Then, "You can continue to come back for $200 every time or every girl you bring me within your age group and I get to do this again, I pay you $200 per person." If that is the testimony --¶

MR. PIKE: Form.¶

Q. — that what happens behind closed doors with him, do you still feel comfortable leaving a13 or 14 year old in ^a room with Jeffrey Epstein?¶

MR. PIKE: Form.¶

A. If that, in fact, is what actually happened, no.¶

Q. [Would you] go back - considering what you've read and what you may or may not believe - would you go back to working for Jeffrey Epstein?¶

MR. PIKE: Form.¶

A. I can't say. I still work for him on a maintenance - to¶

La v. Epstein¶

Case No. 502008CA028051XXXXMBAB¶

Epstein's Motion for Protective Order to Prohibit Inappropriate Deposition Questions¶

Page 6 of 9¶

maintain the airplanes and stuff like that, so.¶

See Excerpts of Deposition of Larry Eugene at 135-36; 175-76; ¹⁸⁴ (attached as composite Exhibit B).¶

8. Again, whether Mr. would work for Mr. Epstein "considering what [he has] read and what [he] may or may not believe" (i.e. considering hearsay media accounts and inadmissible lay opinion) has no bearing on the instant case.

9. In addition, questions regarding whether Mr. would leave his children alone with Mr. Epstein could have only been meant to harass and embarrass Mr. NM Nevertheless, Mr. testified that he would leave his children with Mr. Epstein. As Plaintiffs counsel was obviously not happy with the answer to this question, he proceeded to press Mr. with inflammatory statements until he got the answer he wanted.

10. Plaintiff's counsel has also asked the same improper line of questions in other witnesses' depositions.

11. The above-cited questions exceed the bounds of permissible discovery; they have absolutely no relevance to this case. Accordingly, the Court should enter ^a protective order prohibiting such questions and should sanction Plaintiff's counsel if such inappropriate questions are asked at future depositions.

12. Regarding the scope of discovery, Judge Linnea noted in her October 28, 2009 Omnibus Order,' "[w]hile the scope of discovery is broad, it is not

¹ The Omnibus Order (DE #377) was entered in the federal companion case Jane Doe No. 2 v, Epstein Case No. 08-CIV-80119 MARRia In the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida.¶

LM v. Epstein Case No. 502008CAD28051X=MBAB Epstein's Motion for Protective Order to Prohibit inappropriate Deposition Questions Page 7 of 9¶

without limits. Washington v. a& Williamson Tobacco ⁹⁵⁹F.2d 1566, 1570 (11th Cir. 1992). ... Courts have long held that '[w]hile the standard of relevancy [in discovery] is a liberal one, it is not so liberal as to allow a party to roam in the shadow zones of relevancy and to explore matter (sic) which does not presently appear germane on the theory that it might conceivably become so.' Food Lion. Inc. V. United Food & Commercial Workers Intern. Union, ¹⁰³F.3d 1007, 1012-13 (C.A. D.C. 1997) (string cite omitted)." See also Capco Properties, LLC v. Monterry Gardens of Pinecrest Condo. ⁹⁸²So. 2d 1211, (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (holding that discovery in civil cases must be relevant to the subject matter of the case and must be admissible or reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence) Morton Plant Hospital Ass'n, Inc. v. Shahbas, ⁹⁶⁰So. 2d 820, 824 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (holding that "discovery should be denied when it has been established that the information requested is neither relevant to any pending claim or defense nor will it lead to the discovery of admissible evidence," citing Tanchel v. Shoemaker, ⁹²⁸So. 2d 440, 442 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)).¶

13. As illustrated above, the questions are simply not germane to any pending claim or defense nor will they lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Whether Mr. Visoski believes or disbelieves the media accounts of this case, or whether Mr. would leave his children with Mr. Epstein is not relevant and cannot conceivably lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

14. The Court should curtail these inappropriate lines of questions and enter ^a protective order prohibiting them.

15. Rule 1.280(c), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, provides the Court with

LM v. Epstein¶

Case No. 5020D8CA028051XX)0MBAB¶

Epsteln's Motion for Protective Order to Prohibit Inappropriate Deposition Questions¶

Page 8 of 9¶

the power to "make any order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression or undue burden or expense that justice requires including ... (4) that certain matter not be inquired into, or that the scope of the discovery be limited to certain matters."¶

16. Accordingly, Epstein requests the Court enter a protective order prohibiting Plaintiffs counsel from asking witnesses' questions regarding opinions and beliefs regarding media articles and the allegations in this case and whether they would leave their children with Epstein or questions of a similar nature, and limiting the scope to the witnesses personal knowledge regarding matters relevant to the claims and defenses in this case. See Shahbas, 960 So. 2d at 824.

WHEREFORE, Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, respectfully requests the Court enter a protective order prohibiting Plaintiffs counsel from asking witnesses' questions regarding opinions and beliefs regarding media articles and the allegations in this case and whether they would leave their children with Epstein or questions of a similar nature, and limiting the scope to the witnesses personal knowledge regarding matters relevant to the claims and defenses in this case and grant any additional relief the Court deems just and proper.¶

Certificate of Service¶

^IHEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was sent by fax and U.S. Mail to the following addressees on this 3rd day of November, 2009:¶

Brad Esq. Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler 401 East Las Olas Boulevard Suite 1650¶

Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1400¶

UN V. Epstein¶

Case No. 5O2008CA02805DOOOMBAB¶

Epstein's Motion for Protective Order to Prohibit Inappropriate Deposition Questions¶

Page 9 of 9¶

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301¶

954-522-3456 Phone¶

954-527-8663 Fax¶

Counsel for Plaintiff¶

Jay Howell, Esq.¶

Jay Howell & Associates, P.A.¶

644 Cesery Boulevard¶

Suite 250¶

Jacksonville, FL 32211¶

904-680-1234 Phone¶

904-680-1238 Fax¶

Co-counsel for Plaintiff¶

West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012¶

Fax: 561-835-8691¶

Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein¶

BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN, LLP¶

303 Banyan Blvd., Suite 400¶

West Palm Be, FL 33401¶

(561) 842-¶

(561) 84¶

By:¶

Critton, Jr.¶

F orida Bar #224162¶

Michael J. Pike¶

Florida Bar #617296¶

(Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein)¶

Larry Visoski¶

October 15, 2009¶

<p>IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO. 502008CA028051XXXXMB AD</p> <p>L.M.,</p> <p>-vs-</p> <p>JEFFREY EPSTEIN,</p> <p>Defendant.</p> <hr/> <p>DEPOSITION OF LARRY VISOSKI</p> <p>Thursday, October 15, 2009 10:18 - 3:37 p.m.</p> <p>515 N. Flagler Drive Suite #200 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401</p> <p>Reported By: Wendy Beath, [REDACTED], RPR, CRR, FPR Notary Public, State of Florida Esquire Deposition Services West Palm Beach Office Job #127542</p>

<p>3</p> <p>1 ---</p> <p>2 INDEX</p> <p>3 ---</p> <p>4</p> <p>5 WITNESS: DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS</p> <p>6 LARRY VISOSKI</p> <p>7</p> <p>8 BY MR. [REDACTED] 6</p> <p>9 BY MR. [REDACTED] 214</p> <p>10 BY MR. [REDACTED] 220</p> <p>11 BY MR. CRITTON: 221</p> <p>12 ---</p> <p>13 EXHIBITS</p> <p>14 ---</p> <p>15</p> <p>16 NUMBER DESCRIPTION PAGE</p> <p>17 PLAINTIFF'S EX. 1 FLIGHT LOG BOOK (MARKED IN PREVIOUS DEPO)</p> <p>18</p> <p>19 PLAINTIFF'S EX. 2 MESSAGE PAD 119</p> <p>20 PLAINTIFF'S EX. 3 MESSAGE PAD 119</p> <p>21 PLAINTIFF'S EX. 4 COMPLAINT 139</p> <p>22 PLAINTIFF'S EX. 5 INMATE VISITOR LOG 161</p> <p>23</p> <p>24</p> <p>25</p>

<p>2</p> <p>1 APPEARANCES:</p> <p>2 On behalf of the Plaintiff:</p> <p>3 [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED] ESQUIRE</p> <p>4 ROTHSTEIN, ROSENFELDT, ADLER</p> <p>5 401 East Las Olas Boulevard</p> <p>6 Suite 1650</p> <p>7 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33364</p> <p>8</p> <p>9 On behalf of the Defendant:</p> <p>10 ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQUIRE</p> <p>11 BURMAN, CRITTON & LUTTIER</p> <p>12 303 Banyan Boulevard, Suite 400</p> <p>13 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401</p> <p>14</p> <p>15 On behalf of the Witness:</p> <p>16 BRUCE REINHART, ESQUIRE</p> <p>17 250 South Australian Avenue</p> <p>18 Suite 1400</p> <p>19 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401</p> <p>20</p> <p>21 ALSO PRESENT:</p> <p>22 CARA L. [REDACTED] ESQUIRE</p> <p>23 1220 N.W. 157th Avenue</p> <p>24 Pembroke Pines, Florida 33028</p> <p>25 ADAM D. HOROWITZ, ESQUIRE</p> <p>26 MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P.A.</p> <p>27 18205 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 2218</p> <p>28 Miami, Florida 33160</p> <p>29 RICHARD H. WILLITS, ESQUIRE (VIA TELEPHONE)</p> <p>30 RICHARD H. WILLITS, P.A.</p> <p>31 2290 10th Avenue North, Suite 404</p> <p>32 Lake Worth, Florida 33461</p> <p>33</p> <p>34</p> <p>35</p>

<p>4</p> <p>1 PROCEEDINGS</p> <p>2 ---</p> <p>3 Deposition taken before Wendy Beath [REDACTED]</p> <p>4 Certified Realline Reporter and Notary Public in and for</p> <p>5 the State of Florida at Large, in the above cause.</p> <p>6 ---</p> <p>7 MR. [REDACTED]: We're going to put something on</p> <p>8 the record about -- well, we'll do it this way --</p> <p>9 MR. REINHART: Do it at the end, after we get</p> <p>10 him -- whatever you want. It's your show.</p> <p>11 MR. [REDACTED]: Okay. There were -- I don't</p> <p>12 even think Mr. Willits is aware of this. There was</p> <p>13 a subpoena duces tecum for this witness, as well as</p> <p>14 the previous witness, which was another pilot, Dave</p> <p>15 Rogers, and that duces tecum was to bring the</p> <p>16 flight logs related from 1998 through 2005. What</p> <p>17 was produced at the previous deposition were flight</p> <p>18 logs from 2002 through 2005, and now Mr. Reinhart</p> <p>19 has agreed to produce the remainder of the flight</p> <p>20 logs requested, those going from 1998 through 2002.</p> <p>21 MR. REINHART: Correct. They're pilot logs,</p> <p>22 not flight logs. There are other records we</p> <p>23 indicated are corporate records, and with those you</p> <p>24 have to deal with Mr. Critton.</p> <p>25 MR. CRITTON: However, with the proviso, too,</p>

¶

67¶

women?¶

MR. CRITTON: Form.¶

THE WITNESS: No.¶

BY MRIMINI:¶

O. You think that this Is Just a story that a 6 bunch of underage women have made up?¶

7 A. Speculation.¶

MR. CRITTON: Objection. Now its¶

9 argumentative. Who gives a dam what he thinks one :0 way or another? f he has personal knowledge —¶

l1 MR : You're objecting to the form?¶

;2 MR. CRITTON: Its argumentative.¶

13 MRIIIM: You're objecting to the form?¶

lla MR. CRITTON: Yes.¶

X15 Min: Okay.¶

.16 BY MR¶

17 O. Is that something that you believe that a¶

18 bunch of women — some of which know each other, some 19'. don't some of which have been on the airplane and some¶

20 which haven't — made this up, that Jeffrey Epstein¶

21 engaged in some sexual conduct with them?¶

22 MR. CRITTON: Form.¶

23 THE WITNESS: What I believe doesn't matter In¶

24 Ws case, does it?¶

25¶

1 2 3 4 Q. All right. When you read in the newspapers the allegations that Mr. Epstein was involved with numerous underage girls for sexual reasons, were you surprised?¶

S A. I didn't believe it.¶

6 Q. Do you believe it today?¶

8 O. You don't believe that Jeffrey Epstein was involved with underage girls in a sexual way?¶

10 MR. CRITTON: Form.¶

11 12 13 THE WITNESS: You're asking for my opinion, and I don't think my opinion is relevant In that matter.¶

19 BY MR.¶

15 16 Q. I think It's relevant Can you just tell me whether today you believe that Jeffrey Epstein has¶

17 engaged in sex with underage girls? MR. CRITTON: Form; speculation, Irrelevant,¶

18¶

19 20 always. THE WITNESS: It's Irrelevant.¶

21 BY MR.¶

22 Q. I need an answer.¶

23 A. I don't believe he had sex with underage¶

24¶

25 0. Or engaged in any sexual acts with underage¶

66¶

A. I don't believe it¶

68¶

BY¶

2 Q. I need an answer. Do you believe It? Do you 3 believe these girls made this up?¶

4 MR. CRITTON: Form.¶

5 MR. REINHART: I'm going to instruct him not 6 to answer. Move on.¶

7 MR.-: Is there a privilege that we're 8 asserting?¶

9 MR. REINHART: No, It's irrelevant. It's 10 harassment and not likely to lead to discoverable 11 evidence.¶

12 I'm going to-put on the record 13 right now that it is — we we allowed discovery¶

14 into a RICO count. We are also allowed discovery¶

15 Into the intent of Mr. Epstein In developing a 16 criminal enterprise designed to sexually exploit¶

17 and sexually abuse underage girls. We beHave that 18 In doing so, he associated Intentionally with¶

19 people of similar beliefs that sex with underage 20 girls is okay, and that there have been many¶

21 discussions with this witness, as well as many 22 other witnesses with -- to Insure his protection¶

23 from law enforcement that they not answer these 24 specific questions. And thus, the opinions and¶

25 beliefs of all of these witnesses that we are¶

alleging associated with this criminal enterprise are certainly reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. And If you're still Instructing the witness, based on that proffer, not to answer any of these questions, tin going to continue to ask the questions and you can instruct him not to answer and we can go to the B Court MR. REINHART: My response is to his opinion whether people making allegations in this case are colluding or making up ^astory is irrelevant to what you Just said. So I am going to instruct him not to answer any question that goes to his opinion of someone else's motivation or the truth of facts to which he has no knowledge. So yes, I'm instructing him not to answer, MR. GRITTON: Let me add in my part, Is that I think — you're certainly not only capable to ask questions with regard to what his persona^l knowledge is, and If he knows something or he has reasonable basis for it; certainly you are entitled to that information. I think yotNe asked those questions and he's given you straightforward answers as to what he knew or what he didn't know under those circumstances. And as to what his¶

a A. It's an °Onion. and I believe that he has not. Q. Okay. Isn't It true that at some point in time you learned that Jeffrey Epstein has — strike that. MR. CRITTON: When you ultimately get to ^a good place to break, will you let us know? MR. : Let's break now. (A break was had at 11:28 a.m.) BY MR. =II O. MI right. Eighteen years of being a pilot for Jeffrey Epstein and In terms of being able to name somebody that you would say you've observed with Jeffrey Epstein and v•otid classify that person as Jeffrey Epstein's friend, can you name anybody? A. Nadia, Sarah; Just people that we see routinely on the airplane. Q. Mists people you see routinely In the last five to ten years, rigor? A Yes. Q. Prior to that time, anybody that youVe noticed as Jeffrey Epstein's friend may be Ghislaine Maxwell? A Mat One frame? Q. Is that a person that at some point In time¶

thoughts are on something which he has no factual basis or even en assumption to know one way or another is Irrelevant. That's ultimately for ^a fact-finder In this case. While it's interesting, it's argumentative and I don't think he's — I mean, do it on ^a question-by-question basis. If he has knowledge, that's great, but to argue your case with this witness or any other witness doesn't serve ^a purpose and I think Is, you know — I think it's not a good use of our time, I'll put it that way. But you know, you can go ahead and ask. MR. I can ask the question and if the witness is being instructed not to answer, we'll let a Judge decide whether he needs to answer the question and whether its discoverable or not. MR. REINHART: Absolutely. Make your record. BY MR. Q. Do you have any reason to believe that Jeffrey Epstein engaged In sexual activity with underage women? A. I have no reason to believe. Q. Okay. So es you sit here today, based on your 18 years of knowledge, experience and observation of Jeffrey Epstein. is a your beief that he has not had sex or engaged in sexual activity WM underage women?¶

you wotid classify as Jeffrey Epstein's Mend? A. I %%arid classify il. I don/ know if its true. O. But Mars only because they were on the airplane together? A. Yes. O. Do you know what Jeffrey Epstein does for ^{a B}Wing In yots 18 years of observing and talking wth Jeffrey Epstein? A. No. O. No idea? A. No. Q. Ever asked him? A. No, actually. Q. Ever been curious? A, Sure. O. Everdone anything to satisfy that curiosity? A. If you mean Google it, not really, actually. I mean, I really have not. Q. Okay. So in 18 years of travelng and being the plot and driving — and taking this person. Jeffrey Epstein, from one property In New York to New Mexico and Florida and around the world, you have no Idea what he does in terms of how he makes money? A. No, sin¶

156¶

2 .3¶

MR. GRIMM: Form. ⁵THE WITNESS: No.¶

6 BY MR. Q. If you had been aware that Mt. Epstein was and by this — this Is more in the form of ^a hypothetical, and that I'm not going.to suggest to you It's a fact that he was. But If you had been aware that every single day Jeffrey Epstein's goal was to locate underage girls (or the purposes of sex, and either have sex with them on the airplane or at some other designation that you were destination that you were traveling him to, would you have continued to pilot those planes?¶

AT MR. CRITTON: Form. 1e THE WITNESS: You said It was hypothetical? 19 BY MR. 20Q. Right, it is a hypothetical, 21A. Why would I want to answer that? Because 22you're being hypothetical. ^Imoan, It would obviously ;3 be wrong. la Q. Sure. Well, a hypothetical question is ^a IS legal question that I'm allowed to ask.¶

A. Okay. Q. And rm Just asking you II you did have knovAedge that Jeffrey Epstein was having sex with little gkls either on the plane or at a place that you were taking him to or from on ^adaily basks, that's what he did, would you have continued to be his SW MR. CRITTON: Lel me object Oblect to the form. 118 argumentative. It has no more value than assuming he was chopping up bodies or anybo4 was chopping up bodies In the plane you're llytig. What difference does It make? Form, MR. Ma Wnat difference does It make in a case about him having sex with little gins? rrn not going to argue with you about it. You've staled your objection. MR. CRITTON: Exactly. It's an argurnentelNe 3.7 question. is MR. Mt 90109109(9999499 you about it. MR. CRITTON: You're arguing with him about now. MR. NO, I'M inking him the hypothetical. sr PAR..= Q. Can you answer that? Would you have continuer¶

to be a pilot for somebody who's traveling to and from destinations with the goal of having sex with underage girls? MR. CRITTON: Form. THE WITNESS: It could be any person. It doesn't have to be Jeffrey Epstein, then, right? BY MR-: Q. True. ' A. No, I wouldn't pilot an airplane If there was wrongdoing going on. Q. That you knew about? A. That I knew you about, sure. Q. Me reading this complaint to you, Is tNs the first time you've heard these allegations — A Yea. Q. — against Mr. Epstein? A. Yes.¶

,¶

which he pled guilty le — MR. CRITTON: Form. MR. FtEINHART: Can we — for purposes of your ^ohypothetical, what facts do you want him to assume are true? You said the facts to which he pled guilty, but the witness already said he doesn't know what he pled guilty to. He knows the charge he doesn't know the facts. BY MR. Q. SoacitatIon of prostitution of a mince, somebody under the age of 18. MR. That's the charge, right, solicitation of prostitution of a minor? MR. CRITTON: No. I think you've got it wrong. Ill object to the form. MR. Okay. BY MR. Q, Then wel handle the question tNs way: If you were to believe based on information and evidence that Mr. Epstein engaged in sex or some form of sex act with people of the age range of 12, 13, 14,15 years ofd, would you continua your employment with . W. Epstein? MR. CRITTON: Form; speculabon. THE WITNESS: I would certainly be speculating¶

182'¶

and I have to discuss it with my wife long and • hard. I don't think I could give you a correct and honest answer at this time. BY MR. O. O ay. n the negations that have been made in this case, Is lids something that you have discussed with anyone other than your attorney? A. No, not really. Only from the fact that theyre allegations and there's stil a lot more work, I'm sure, to be discovered. MR. CRITTON: Let me put on there, for the - If this deposition li not typed — and cure request 8 — I'd like at least this portion where Mr. last question back about five pages Worth. SO Just if you could mark it from this page back about five pages. II nobody requests the deposition, rd just like those five pages. MR. I'm going to request the deposition, so... MR. CRITTON: Okay. We'll mark !Ills then, so you could tell me where It. Is, approximately. BY MR. Q. Is I ere a son why you have not discussed with Jeffrey Epstein the allegations that have been m•¶

Larry Eugene [REDACTED] - Volume I¶

October 6, 2009¶

<p>1</p> <p>IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA</p> <p>VOLUME I Pages 1 to 200</p> <p>L.M.,</p> <p>Plaintiff,</p> <p>vn.</p> <p>JEFFREY EPSTEIN,</p> <p>Defendant.</p> <p>X</p> <p>DEPOSITION OF LARRY EUGENE [REDACTED] TAKEN ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF October 6, 2009 10:55 a.m. - 2:20 p.m. 515 N. Flagler Drive West Palm Beach, FL 33401-4321</p> <p>Jennifer Dilerenzo, court reporter</p>

<p>3</p> <p>APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL 1 On behalf of the Defendant: 2 ATTERBURY, GOLDBERGER & WEISS 3 BY: JACK ALAN GOLDBERGER, ESQ., 4 250 Australian Avenue Suite 1400 5 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 561-659-8300 jgoldberger@agwpa.com 6 7 On behalf of the Defendant by telephone: 8 BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN 9 BY: MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ., 515 N. Flagler Drive 10 Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 561-842-2820 mpike@bclclaw.com 11 12 On behalf of the witness: 13 14 LAW OFFICE OF BRUCE E. REINHART 15 BY: BRUCE E. REINHART, ESQ., One Clearlake Center 16 250 S. Australian Avenue Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 561-202-6360 BReinhart@BruceREinhartLaw.com 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25</p>

<p>2</p> <p>1 APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL 2 On behalf of the Plaintiff L.M.: 3 ROTHSTEIN, ROSENEEL DT & ADLER 4 BY: [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED], ESQ. 5 and MICHAEL WHEELER, ESQ., 601 East Las Olas Boulevard Suite 1850 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394 654-522-3458 bedwards@rra-law.com mmhester@rra-law.com 9 On behalf of Plaintiff's Jane Doe 2 through 8: 10 MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P.A. BY: JESSICA D. ARBOUR, ATTORNEY-AT-LAW, 18205 Biscayne Boulevard 11 Suite 2218 Miami, FL 33160 305-931-2200 jarbour@sexabusealtorney.com 12 13 On behalf of Plaintiff's Jane Doe 101 and 102 by telephone: 14 15 PODHURST ORSECK, P.A. BY: KATHERINE W. EZELL, ATTORNEY-AT-LAW, 25 W. Flagler Street Miami, FL 33130 305-355-2800 kezell@podhurst.com 16 17 On behalf of the Plaintiff C.M.A. by telephone: 18 19 LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD WILLITS, P.A. BY: RICHARD WILLITS, ESQ., 2200 10th Avenue N. Suite 404 Lake Worth, FL 33401 661-582-7600 linyurwillis@aol.com 20 21 Plaintiff's Composite 1 was attached to the 22 original transcript and copies of the transcript. 23 24 25</p>

<p>4</p> <p>INDEX OF EXAMINATION</p> <p>WITNESS: LARRY EUGENE [REDACTED] Page DIRECT EXAMINATION By Mr. [REDACTED] #5 7 CROSS-EXAMINATION By Ms. Ezell #190 9 CROSS-EXAMINATION #195 By Mr. Willits #195 10 CROSS-EXAMINATION By Mr. Pike #196 12 FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION By Mr. [REDACTED] #199 13 14 15 16 17 Plaintiff's Description Page 18 Exhibit 1 Twenty-four pages of "JEGE, Inc., Passenger Manifest." #138 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (Plaintiff's Composite 1 was attached to the original transcript and copies of the transcript.)</p>

¶

135¶

• A. I have no idea. I dont know. 2 O. When you say the was Just 3 ccnin In the icture tahat's your understanding as to 4 Is relative to Mr. Epstein? 5 A I don't know. I don't understand. I 6 don't know. I didn't know If maybe she was like an exchange — Jeffrey alloys aPPearedlo be very Involved in education and philanthropy. I richt 9 know If she was an exchange-type student or something 10 or Mat. I don't know. 11 O. When you say he appeared to be Involved in," 12 what do you mean? 13 A. Educational things, foundations, science 1.4 foundations, and things. 15 O. Speaking of - the Florida Science Foundation 16 Is a place More, when he weer on work release, he spent a 17 lot of lime there, you're aware of that? is A. That's whet Na heard, yeah. 19'. O. what does ihat place do? 20 A I have no idea. 21 O. Does it do anything? 22 A I dont know. I don't know anything about 23 It. 24 O. Certainly you've read certain newspaper 25 artioles about the allegations. pace reports,

136¶

• 1 otherwise, the agegations that occurred or have been 2 alleged to have occurred at his Palm Beach mansion, 3 correct? 4 A. Uh-huh. 5 Cr. Coned? 6 A. Correct. 7 0. Given the nature of those allegations, would B you leave your daughter of 17, 15, 15 years old with Mt. 9 Epstein alone? .10 MR. PIKE: Form. Move to strike. 11 A Yes. 12 O. You would? 13 A. (Winne nods head.) 14 O. And why? 1s A. Because I don't fear that he would try 16 anything wish my daughter. He showed — When I 17 worked for him he showed me respect. He never — I
• 18 never He never showed me disrespect. He would ask 19 how the family is. I mean, not on a personal level, 20 but an employerfemployee. 21 O. Right. Okay. 22 A. He never showed me any reason not to trust 23 him. 24 O. But you're not a 13-year old girl, so. 25 A No, but, like I say, he never showed me

I . Q. And despite pleading guilty to procuring underage girls for the purposes of sex, you still feel comfortable leaving a 13, 14,15-year-old girl around him?¶

MR. PIKE: Form. Move to slrbe.¶

A. Yes. I mean, with my daughter. yes. I don't know how he behaves around anybody else. ^I just know that the respect that he showed ma, I feel safe with my daughter.¶

0. And have you reed In detail the reports as to what happened at hie house with the gals?

A. Only -¶

MR. PIKE: Form.¶

A. — what's been in the newspapers and published.¶

Q. If you read and hear testimony given - well, can tell you now -testimony has been given In this case lb. that what happens Is: A 13 or 14 year old Is led¶

upstairs by herself, told to get naked, he lays down on his back, there is a brief massage before he turns over, exposes himself erect, masturbates while he tells this ¹³ or 14 year oW to pinch his nipples as hard as she can while he Inserts his fingers into their vagina and ejaculates ail over them before saying, "Take your money and leave."¶

MR. PIKE: Form. Move to strike. BY PAR.Illa:¶

Q. Okay? Then, "You can continue to conic back for $200 every time or every girl you bring me within your age group and I gel to do this again, I pay you $200 per person.' If that is the testimony —¶

MR. PIKE: Form.¶

Q. — that what happens behind closed doors with him, do you still feel comforlabie leaving a13 or ¹⁴ year old In a room with Jeffrey Epstein?¶

MR, PIKE: Form.¶

A. If that, in fact, Is what actually happened, no.¶

184¶

1 you witnessed Jeffrey Epstein committing? 2 A No. 3 Q. Would you — 4 A. No. 5 0. - go back - considering what you've read and 6 what you may or may not believe- would you go back to 7 working for Jeffrey Epstein? MR. PIKE: Form. 9 A. I can't say. I still work for him on a 10 maintenance -to maintain the airplanes and stuff 11 like (hal. so. 12 Q. You're on his payroll? 13 A. Salaried, yes. 0. Do you know who else Is on his payroll? 15 A. Well, Dave and Larry. 16 Q. Certainty. If I want to know more about his 17 private life - do you know who's at his house? 18 A. No. 19 0. Do you know who his housekeeper Is? 20 A No. 21 0. Do you know who his archaecl is? 22 A. No, no. 23 0. Does Larry visit him at his house? 24 A. I would assume so. 25 Q. Why do you say you would assume so? •Thal¶