Draft: efta02745239

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SMITHFRN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA¶

CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80811-MARRA/Ila¶

C.M. A.,¶

Plaintiff,¶

v.¶

Y EPSTEIN and¶

Defendants,¶

DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF C.M.A. TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANT'S FIRST REQUEST TO PRODUCE AND ANSWER DEFENDANT'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES, AND TO OVERRULE OBJECTIONS, AND FOR AN AWARD OF DEFENDANT'S REASONABLE EXPENSES¶

Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through his undersigned attorneys, moves this Court for an order compelling Plaintiff, C.M.A. to respond to Defendant's First Request To Produce and to answer Defendant's First Set of Interrogatodes, and to overrule her objections asserted in Plaintiffs Response To Defendant's First Request To Produce, dated February 13, 2009, and in Plaintiffs Notice of Serving Answers To Interrogatories, dated February 18, 2009. Defendant further seeks an award of his • reasonable expenses, including expenses, associated with the making of this motion. Rule 37, Fed.R.Civ.P. (2008); Local Gen. Rules 7.1 and 26.1 H (S.D. Fla. 2008). In support of his motion, Defendant states:¶

Prior to the filing of this motion, on April 1, 2009, Defendant's counsel communicated by telephone with Plaintiffs counsel In agood faith effort to resolve the discovery Issues herein. This motion addresses those discovery Items which remain at¶

¶

issue. Also, rather than file 2 separate motions to compel, Defendant filed one addressing the production requests and interrogatories because the discovery Issues overlap.¶

Motion To Compel Responses to Production Requests Nos. 1, 2, 4.5. and 19, and Answers to Interrogatories Nos. 2, 18. and 23.¶

Production Request No.¶

1. Individual and/or joint income tax returns and supporting documentation including W-2 and 1099 forms for 2002-2007 and, as well as all records or documentation relative to the Plaintiffs earnings for the current year.

Response:¶

Objection. Irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible information.¶

Legal Argument Supporting Entitlement to Discovery¶

Plaintiffs tax retums and supporting documentation are relevant to Plaintiffs damages claims and, thus, discoverable. Plaintiffs complaint alleges in part that "beginning in approximately late May or early June of 2002, and continuing until approximately August of 2003, the Defendant coerced and enticed the impressionable, vulnerable, and economically deprived then minor Plaintiff to commit various acts of sexual misconduct." 1st Am. Complaint, ¶13. (Plaintiff also refused to answer Interrogatory no. 2 which sought her employment history for the past ten years asserting the same general objection).¶

Such Information Is both relevant and reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. It is well settled that relevant Information is discoverable, even if not admissible at trial, so long as the discovery is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Rule 26(b)(1), Fed.R.Civ.P.;¶

Donahav v. Palm Beach Tours & trans.. Inc. ²⁴²F.R.D. 685 (S.D. Fla. 2007).¶

Discoverability of such information Is governed by Rule 26, Fed.R.Civ.P., pursuant to which the scope of discovery is broad. ponahav, supra, at 686, and cases cited therein. "Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the claims or defense of any party involved in the pending action." Id.¶

Plaintiffs tax returns, along with the requested supporting documentation, for the six year period, and documents relevant to her current earnings, are relevant to Plaintiffs damages claims detailed below herein. Such information would show Plaintiffs employment and earning history, as well as provide evidence as to how Plaintiff has been able to function in her daily life before, during and after the alleged incidents. Was she self-sufficient? Was she able to get out of bed each morning and support herself? What type of job did she hold? One's ability to earn ^aliving and be self-supporting has not only afinancial component, but also an emotional/psychological/mental component.¶

C.M.A.'s First Amended Complaint attempts to allege 32 counts. Counts ^I through XXX are purportedly brought pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §2255 — Civil Remedies for Personal injuries; Count XXXI is entitled "Sexual Battery," and Count XXXII is entitled "Conspiracy to Commit Tortious Assault only against Defendant,¶

in her answers to Interrogatory nos. 9 and 10, which seek Information about C.M.A.'s damages claims, Plaintiff answered that:¶

^' Defendant's Motion To Dismiss directed to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint is pending.¶

C.M.A. v. Epstein, et al. Page 4¶

^Ihave bi-polar disorder and manic depression. I lost my self-esteem. I began cutting myself on my arms and legs and developer, drug problems. Permanent injuries are psychological. (Interrog. No. 9).

¶

^Iam claiming compensation for mental anguish, mental pain, psychic trauma, and loss of enjoyment of life. These damages will be evaluated by a jury who will provide their own methods of computation In an amount of at least the statutory minimum established by 18 U.S.C.A. §2255. (Interrog. No. 10).

¶

In her 1st Amended Complaint, relevant to her damages claims, Plaintiff alleges:¶

C.M.A., has in the past suffered, and will in the future suffer, physical injury, pain and suffering, emotional distress, psychological trauma, mental anguish, humiliation, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, loss of dignity, invasion of her privacy and other damages ... . The then minor Plaintiff incurred medical and psychological expenses ... and will in the future suffer additional medical and psychological expenses. The Plaintiff C.M.A. has suffered loss of income, ^a loss of the capacity to earn income in the future, and a loss of capacity to enjoy life. These Injuries are permanent in nature and the Plaintiff, C.M.A., will continue to suffer these losses in the future.¶

(15t Am. Complaint, Counts I - XXX (18 U.S.C. §2255), 31, 37, 43, 49, 55, 61, 67, 73, 79, 85, 91, 97, 103, 109, 115, 121, 127, 133, 139, 145, 151, 157, 163, 169, 175, 181, 187, 193; Count XXXI (Sexual Battery), ¶199.)¶

in each of her "Wherefore" clauses, Plaintiff seeks "compensatory damages of at least the minimum provided by law." 18 U.S.C. §2255, pursuant to which Plaintiff attempts to bring certain of her claims, allows for recovery of **actual damages." See fn. ²herein for applicable statutory text.²¶

As discussed above, the tax returns, and supporting documentation, will provide direct evidence as to Plaintiffs claimed damages. Such information does not only go to¶

⁽a) ² Any minor who is a victim of a violation of section 2241(c), 2242, 2243, 2251, 2251A, 2252, 2252A, 2260, 2421, 2422, or 2423 of this title and who suffers personal Injury as a result of such violation may sue In any appropriate United States District Court and shall recover the actual damages such minor sustains and the cost of the suit, including ^areasonable attorney's fee. My minor as described in the preceding sentence shall be deemed to have sustained damages of no less than $50,000 in value. [Emphasis added.]¶

compensatory or actual damages or loss of income/loss of capacity to earn Income type damages, but also her emotional/psychological/mental health type damages. In the telephone communication between counsel for the respective parties, Plaintiffs counsel indicated that Plaintiff was not seeking loss of income/earning capacity type damages; (Defendant is not aware that there has been any formal withdrawal of such damages claimed); notwithstanding, the Information sought Is still relevant and discoverable based on the additional damages claimed by Plaintiff. The time period will allow Defendant to compare how Plaintiff was doing In her life prior to, during, and after the alleged incident. Again, the type of jobs Plaintiff has been able to hold and her earnings and ability to support herself clearly have not only afinancial component, but an emotional/psychological/mental health component as well. Accordingly, Plaintiffs objection is required to be overruled, and Defendant is entitled to the documents requested.¶

Production Request No. 2¶

2. All bills/expenses from any medical doctor, chiropractor, psychologists, psychi mental health counselors (Including any members of the healing arts and relatedlik, i.e. drugs, prescriptions, etc.) you claim you incurred as a result of the injuries which are or may be the subject matter of this lawsuit

Response:¶

None In our possession. These will be provided upon receipt. Discovery is ongoing.¶

1..egal Argument Supporting Entitlement to Discovery¶

Plaintiff makes no objection to the documents requested, but has failed to produce any documents responsive to this request Clearly, the documents are relevant and discoverable as they go to proof of Plaintiffs claimed injuries. In the April 1, 2009,¶

telephone communication Plaintiffs counsel Indicated that Plaintiff was still not in possession of such documents. The First Request for Production was served on Plaintiff on January 16, 2009. In her answer to Interrogatory no. 11, (Notice of Serving Answers, dated February 18, 2009, identifies a psychiatrist and a counselor/therapist from whom she claims she is receiving "treatment or examination for the Injuries for which [she] seeks damages." See Exhibit A hereto for copy C.M.A.'s ;answer to Interrogatory no. 11. Regarding the date of treatment from the psychiatrist — she asserts "I would defer to the Doctors records." She claims the treatment from the counselor/therapist has been "since high school" and "ongoing." Defendant is entitled to the documents sought and Plaintiff is in control of and has the ability to obtain the requested medical bills and expenses she claims were incurred as result of her Injuries claimed in this action. Plaintiff should be required to immediately produce the requested documents to Defendant.¶

Production Request No. 4¶

4. All reports, evaluations, recommendations and/or analysis submitted by any expert which relate to or cover the Incident which Is the subject matter of this lawsuit and/or any injuries, damages or losses you allege were caused by the incident.

Response:¶

Any reports generated by any retained experts not yet disclosed are protected by the work product privilege. Notwithstanding same, none.¶

Legal Argument Supporting Entitlement to Discovery¶

Plaintiff, through counsel, in the April 1, 2009, telephone communication, indicated that she does not have any responsive documents and stands by her objection. Rule 26 provides In relevant part —¶

2) Disclosure of Expert Testimony.¶

(A) In General. In addition to the disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1), a party must disclose to the other parties the Identity of any witness It may use at trial to present evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, 703, or 705.¶

(B) Written Report. Unless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, this disclosure must be accompanied by awritten report--prepared and signed by the witness—if the witness is one retained or specially employed to provide expert testimony in the case or one whose duties as the party's employee regularly involve giving expert tostimony. The report must contain:¶

(i) a complete statement of all opinions the witness will express and the basis and reasons for them;¶

(II) the data or other information considered by the witness in forming them;¶

(iii) any exhibits that will be used to summarize or support them;¶

(iv) the witness's qualifications, Including alist of all publications authored in the previous 10 years;¶

(v) alist of all other cases in which, during the previous four years, the witness testified as an expert at trial or by deposition; and¶

(vi) astatement of the compensation to be paid for the study and testimony in the case.¶

(C) Time to Disclose Expert Testimony. A party must make these disclosures at the times and in the sequence that the court orders. Absent a stipulation or a court order, the disclosures must be made:¶

(i) at least 90 days before the date set for trial or for the case to be ready for trial; or¶

(Ii) if the evidence is intended solely to contradict or rebut evidence on the same subject matter identified by another party under Rule 26(a)(2)(B), within 30 days after the other party's disclosure.¶

(e) Supplementing Disclosures and Responses.¶

(1) In General. A party who has made a disclosure under Rule 26(a)--or who has responded to an interrogatory, request for production, or request for admission--must supplement or correct its disclosure or response:¶

(A) in atimely manner If the party learns that in some material respect the disclosure or response is incomplete or incorrect, and if the additional or corrective¶

Information has not otherwise been made known to the other parties during the tllbuuve,y out.ebb

¶

(B) as ordered by the court.¶

(2) Expert Witness. For an expert whose report must be disclosed under Rule 26(a)(2)(B), the party's duty to supplement extends both to information included In the report and to Information given during the expert's deposition. Any additions or changes to this information must be disclosed by the time the party's pretrial disclosures under Rule 26(a)(3) are due.¶

Accordingly, Defendant requests that should Plaintiff be in possession of any such reports, evaluations, recommendations and/or analysis prepared by an expert expected to testify at trial or deposition, or to be used by an expert expected to testify at trial or deposition, that such documents be produced as required by Rule 26, Fed.R.C1v.P. quoted above.¶

Production Request No. 5¶

5. All medical reports and/or records from doctors, physicians, (including psychologists, psychiatrists, mental health counselors), hospitals, drug or alcohol facilities or any other person or entity who has rendered treatment to or examined you for any reason after the incident(s) which is the subject matter of this lawsuit.

Response:¶

None in our possession. Discovery is ongoing.¶

Legal Argument Supporting Entitlement to Discovery¶

Once again, Plaintiff should be required to immediately produce the requested documents. In support of ordering immediate production, Defendant reaileges and incorporates his "Legal Argument Supporting Entitlement To Discovery" to request no. ⁵ above herein.¶

Interrogatory No. Z¶

2. List the names, business addresses, telephone and cell phone numbers, dates of employment, immediate supervisor (name and address) and rates of pay regarding all employers, including self-employment, for whom you have worked in the past 10 years; this Includes listing all sources of income you have received. Answer this question by year, i.e. 1998 - 2009.

Answer:¶

Objection. Irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence.¶

Legal Argument Supporting Entitlement to Discovery¶

Such information is clearly relevant to the damages and injuries claimed by Plaintiff in this action. Plaintiffs complaint alleges in part that "beginning in approximately late May or early June of 2002, and continuing until approximately August of 2003, the Defendant coerced and enticed the impressionable, vulnerable, and economically deprived then minor Plaintiff to commit various acts of sexual misconduct." ¹s' Am. Complaint, ¶13. (See discussion of Production Request no. 1 above herein).¶

Such information is both relevant and reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. It is well settled that relevant information is discoverable, even if not admissible at trial, so long as the discovery is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Rule 26(b)(1), Fed.R.Civ.P.; Donahav v. Palm Beach Tours & trans.. Inc., ²⁴²F.R.D. 685 (S.D. Fla. 2007). Discoverability of such Information is governed by Rule 26, Fed.R.Civ.P., pursuant to which the scope of discovery is broad. Donahav, supra, at 686, and cases cited therein. "Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the claims or defense of any party involved in the pending action." id.¶

Plaintiffs employment and earnings history prior to and after the alleged¶

Incidents are relevant to her claimed damages and injuries. Such information would not only evidence Plaintiffs employment and earning history, but also provide evidence as to how Plaintiff has been able to function in her daily life before, during and after the alleged incidents. Was she self-sufficient? Was she able to get out of bed each moming and support herself? What type of job did she hold? One's ability to earn ^a living and be self-supporting has not only afinancial component, but also an emotIonaVpsychological/mental component.¶

C.M.A.'s First Amended Complaint attempts to allege 32 counts. Counts ^I through XXX are purportedly brought pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §2255 — Civil Remedies for Personal Injuries; Count XXXI is entitled "Sexual Battery," and Count XXXff is entitled "Conspiracy to Commit Tortious Assault only against Defendant,¶

In her answers to interrogatory nos. 9 and 10, which seek information about C.M.A.'s damages claims, Plaintiff answered that¶

^Ihave bi-polar disorder and manic depression. I lost my self-esteem. I began cutting myself on my arms and legs and developed drug problems. Permanent injuries are psychological. (Interrog. No. 9).¶

^Iam claiming compensation for mental anguish, mental pain, psychic trauma, and loss of enjoyment of life. These damages will be evaluated by a jury who will provide their own methods of computation in an amount of at least the statutory minimum established by 18 U.S.C.A. §2255. (Interrog. No. 10).¶

In her 1s^t Amended Complaint, relevant to her damages claims, Plaintiff alleges:¶

C.M.A., has in the past suffered, and will In the future suffer, physical injury, pain and suffering, emotional distress, psychological trauma, mental anguish, humiliation, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, loss of dignity, Invasion of her privacy and other damages ... . The then minor Plaintiff incurred medical and psychological expenses ... and will in the future suffer additional medical and psychological expenses. The Plaintiff C.M.A. has suffered loss of income, ^a¶

loss of the capacity to earn income in the future, and a loss of capacity to enjoy life. These Injuries are permanent in nature ana the Plaintiff, G.M.A., will continue to suffer these losses in the future.

¶

(1st Am. Complaint, Counts I — XXX (18 U.S.C. §2255), ¶¶25, 31, 37, 43, 49, 55, 61, 67, 73, 79, 85, 91, 97, 103, 109, 115, 121, 127, 133, 139, 145, 151, 157, 163, 169, 175, 181, 187, 193; Count XXXI (Sexual Battery), ¶199.)

¶

In each of her 'Wherefore" clauses, Plaintiff seeks "compensatory damages of at least the minimum provided by law." 18 U.S.C. §2255, pursuant to which Plaintiff attempts to bring certain of her claims, allows for recovery of "actual damages." See fn. 2 herein for applicable statutory text.¶

As discussed above, C.M.A.'s employment and earnings history will provide direct evidence as to Plaintiffs claimed damages. Such Information does not only go to compensatory or actual damages or loss of income/loss of capacity to earn income type damages, but also her emotionapsychologIcal/mental health type damages. In the telephone communication between counsel for the respective parties, Plaintiffs counsel indicated that Plaintiff was not seeking loss of Income/earning capacity type damages; (Defendant Is not aware that there has been any formal withdrawal of such damages claimed); notwithstanding, the information sought Is still relevant and discoverable based on the additional damages claimed by Plaintiff. The time period will allow Defendant to compare how Plaintiff was doing in her life prior to, during, and after the alleged Incident. Again, the type of jobs Plaintiff has been able to hold and her earnings and ability to support herself dearly have not only afinancial component, but an emotional/psychological/mental health component as well. Accordingly, Plaintiffs¶

objection is required to be overruled, and Defendant is entitled to the information sought in the interrogatory.¶

Interrogatory No.18¶

18. List separately the names, addresses and phone numbers of all males, excluding Mr. Epstein, with whom you have had sexual activity since age 10 (by year) up through your current age. Describe the nature of sexual activity, the date(s) and whether you received money or other consideration from the person.

Answer:¶

Objection. Relevance and overbroad.¶

Legal Argument Supporting Entitlement to Discovery¶

Plaintiffs only objection is relevancy and overbroad, without any facttlal support or showing as required by Rule 26(c) and Local Gen. Rule 26.1 H (S.D. Fla. 2008). Nowhere does C.M.A. explain how such interrogatory is overbroad.¶

It is well settled that relevant Information is discoverable, even if not admissible at trial, so long as the discovery is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Rule 26(bX1), Fed.R.Civ.P.; Donahav v. Patm Beath Tours & trans., Inc., ²⁴²F.R.D. 685 (S.D. Fla. 2007). Discoverability of an alleged victim's/plaintiff's sexual conduct or activity in civil cases is governed by Rule 26, Fed.R.Civ.P., pursuant to which the scope of discovery is broad. Donahav, supra, at 686, and cases cited therein. "Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the claims or defense of any party involved in the pending action." id.¶

In accordance with Rule 26, the discovery sought regarding Plaintiff's sexual activity with males and the nature thereof, including whether she received any C.M.A. v. Epstein, et at.¶

Page 13¶

compensation or consideration therefore, in Interrogatory no. 18, are all relevant to¶

Plaintiffs damages claims and the type of injury she claims she has, suffered. Defendant has no other means of obtaining such information and obtaining such information through Plaintiff will better protect the confidentiality until the Court can make a determination in accordance with the procedures under Rule 412(c) whether such information will be admissible at trial. See Rule 412(c), Fed.R.Civ.P. Defendant will agree to an order keeping the confidentiality of the information obtained through discovery.¶

The evidence sought is relevant based on the facts and theories of this action. C.M.A.'s First Amended Complaint attempts to allege 32 counts. Counts I through XXX are purportedly brought pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §2255 — Civil Remedies for Personal Injuries;- Count XXXI is -entitled "Sexual Battery,"__and_ Count_ XXXII is entitled "Conspiracy to Commit Tortlous Assault only against Defendant,¶

In her answers to interrogatory nos. 9 and 10, which seek information about C.M.A.'s damages claims, Plaintiff answered that:¶

^Ihave bl-polar disorder and manic depression. I lost my self-esteem. I began cutting myself on my arms and legs and developed drug problems. Permanent Injuries are psychological. (Interrog. No. 9).¶

^Iam claiming compensation for mental anguish, mental pain, psychic trauma, and loss of enjoyment of life. These damages will be evaluated by a jury who will provide their own methods of computation in an amount of at least the statutory minimum established by 18 U.S.C.A. §2255. (Interrog. No. 10).¶

In her ^l et Amended Complaint, relevant to her damages claims, Plaintiff alleges:¶

C.MA., has in the past suffered, and will in the future suffer, physical injury, pain and suffering, emotional distress, psychological trauma, mental anguish, humiliation, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, loss of dignity, invasion of her¶

privacy and other damages ... . The then minor Plaintiff Incurred medical and psychological expenses ... arid will in llue futunt, suffer additional medical and psychological expenses. The Plaintiff C.M.A. has suffered loss of Income, ^a loss of the capacity to earn income in the future, and a loss of capacity to enjoy life. These Injuries are permanent in nature and the Plaintiff, C.M.A., will continue to suffer these losses in the future.

¶

(tat Am. Complaint, Counts I — XXX (18 U.S.C. §2255), ¶125, 31, 37, 43, 49, 55, 61, 67, 73, 79, 85, 91, 97, 103, 109, 115, 121, 127, 133, 139, 145, 151, 157, 163, 169, 175, 181, 187, 193; Count XXXI (Sexual Battery), ¶199.)

¶

In each of her 'Wherefore" clauses, Plaintiff seeks "compensatory damages of at least the minimum provided by law." 18 U.S.C. §2255, pursuant to which Plaintiff attempts to bring certain of her claims, allows for recovery of °actual damages." See fn. 2 herein for applicable statutory text.¶

C.M.A. also alleges that Defendant's conduct was "sexual assault and child abuse of a then minor." ¶2. She alleges that °beginning in approximately late May or early June of 2002, and continuing until approximately August of 2003, the .Defendant coerced and enticed the impressionable, vulnerable, and economically deprived then minor Plaintiff to commit various acts of sexual misconduct.°113.¶

... These acts included, but were not limited to, fondling and Inappropriate and illegal sexual touching of the then minor Plaintiff, sexual misconduct and masturbation of the Defendant in the presence of the then minor Plaintiff, soliciting and enticing the then minor Plaintiff to engage In sexual acts with another female in EPSTEIN's presence, and encouraging the then minor Plaintiff to become involved in prostitution; Defendant committed numerous criminal sexual offenses against the then minor Plaintiff including, but not limited to, sexual battery, solicitation or prostitution, procurement of a minor for the purpose of prostitution, and lewd and lascivious assaults upon the person of the then minor plaintiff. (1s^t Am. Complaint¶13).¶

The information sought Is clearly relevant to the injuries and damages claimed by Plaintiff. The nature of her claimed Injuries and damages are such that Defendant is¶

entitled to evidence which would show the nature of her relationship with males, whether she has suffered or engaged in other acts of sexual misconduct or activity as alleged in her complaint, and whether she suffered injury and damages as a result of the other claimed sexual misconduct or activity. See United States v, Bear Stops, ⁹⁹⁷ F.2d 451 (8th Cir. 1993)(Defendant charged with sexual abuse of six year old boy was entitled to admission of evidence relating to victim's sexual assault by 3 older boys to establish alternative explanation for why victim exhibited behavioral manIfestatbns of sexually abused child.).¶

In further support of Defendant's motion, a copy of Balas v, Ruzzo, ⁷⁰³So.2d ¹⁰⁷⁶(Fla. 5th DCA 1997), rev. denied, 719 So.2d 286 (Fla. 1998), is attached hereto as Exhibit B as it is on point to the discovery issues in this action, and the relevancy and discoverability of Plaintiffs history of sexual activity and any payment, therefore. See interrogatories 8, 22 and 30 propounded in the Balas case and footnote 1 herein. ³ Additionally and significantly, in other pending state court civil actions against. Defendant EPSTEIN attempting to assert similar claims and damages, the Circuit Court Judges have already ruled that such information is discoverable as it is relevant to the damages claims of Plaintiff. See Composite Exhibits C and D hereto. Composite Exhibit ^C are the Orders, dated February 23, 2009, entered in the case of A.C. v. Epstein, and ^aCase No. 502008CA025129 MB Al, 15th Judicial Circuit, In and For Palm Beach County, State of Florida, which granted Defendants motion to compel therein directed¶

³ In Dalas v. Ruzzo, supra, the Plaintiffs alleged amulticount complaint Including claims for "coercion of prostitution' pursuant to §796.09, Ha. Stat.; for battery for the unwanted and offensive touching of petitioners' bodies; false imprisonment for physically confining the petitioners against their will; invasion of privacy; and Intentional infliction of emotional distress.¶

Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 16 of 18¶

C.M.A. v. Epstein, et al. Page 16¶

to discovery identical to interrogatory no. 18 above. (In the A.C. case, the Plaintiff¶

answered without objection interrogatories identical to not 19, 20, and 21 herein.)¶

Composite Exhibit D is a portion the transcript from a March 3, 2009 hearing on Defendant's motion to compel discovery in the case of Jane Doe II v. Epstein, and¶

^aCase No. 502008CA020614 MB AF, 15°' Judicial Circuit Court, In and For Palm Beach County, State of Florida. Again, the Circuit Court Judge determined that the Information sought is relevant to the issue of damages and, thus, discoverable.¶

Accordingly, Plaintiffs objections are required to be overruled and Defendant is entitled to the discovery sought.¶

Inter ociatory No. 23¶

23. State the names, addresses, ages, phone numbers and dates of all females whom you claim were brought by you to Mr. Epstein's home to give him ^a massage or for any other reason. As to each female, state the amount of money you claim you were paid to bring each female.

Answer:¶

A.L. Age: 22 West Palm Beach, FL I was paid $100.00¶

Legal Argument Supporting Entitlement to Discovery¶

Counsel for the respective parties also discussed this interrogatory In an effort to come to a resolution. Plaintiff does not object to the discovery requested. Plaintiff's counsel indicated that he had a "problem" disclosing the identity of A.L. to the extent she was a minor at the time. Defendant would agree to an order protecting public disclosure of the true Identity of A.L. if she were indeed a minor at the time; however, as part of the order, Plaintiff should also be required to provide Defendant with the full¶

name of A.L. so that Defendant may conduct meaningful discovery. It is Plaintiff who claims she brought A.L. to Epstein's home as part of the alleged "scheme." In addition, Plaintiff failed to provide any date or dates as to when she brought A.L. to Epstein's home. Plaintiff's counsel indicated they would attempt to provide this information.¶

Accordingly, in granting Defendants motion to compel discovery, with respect ^t this Interrogatory, Plaintiff should be required to provide the full name of A.L. (which Defendant agrees to keep confidential at this time), the date or dates which she brought A.L. or any female to Epstein's home, and how much she was allegedly paid each time.¶

WHEREFORE, Defendant requests that this Court grant Defendants motion to compel and award Defendants reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, associated with this motion.¶

Rule 7.1 Certification¶

^Ihereby certify that counsel for the respective parties communicated by telephone in agood faith effort to resolve the discovery issues prior to the filing of this motion to compel. Some of the issues were resolved or in the process of being resolved.¶

Robert D. Cri Attorney for, Jr. efendant Epstein

¶

Certificate of Service¶

^IHEREBY 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 r entified on the following Service List in the manner specified by CM/ECF on thi ay of April ²⁰⁰⁹¶

Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 18 of 18¶

C.M.A. v. Epstein, et al. Page 18¶

Richard Horace Willits, Esq. Richard H. vviiiits, 2290 10th Avenue North Suite 404 Lake Worth, FL 33461 561-582-7600 Fax: 561-588-8819 Counsel for Plaintiff C.M.A. reelrhwehotmail.com¶

Jack Sole, Esq. Jack P. Esq. Searcy enney Scarola Bamhart Shipley, P.A. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach, FL 33409 561-686-6300 Fax: 561-383-9424 jsxesearcvlaw.com lohfasearcvlaw.com Co-Counsel for Plaintiff¶

Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Attuitaby Guldbervor & W0193, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 561-659-8300 Fax: 561-835-8691 Jaaescabellsouth.net Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein¶

Bruce Reinhart, Esq. & Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A. 250 S. Australian Avenue Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 561-202-6360 Fax: 561-828-0983 ectabrucereinhartlaw. Counsel for Defendantcis.¶

Respectfully subm¶

By: ROBERT D. ITTON, JR., ESQ. Florida Bar IV . 224162 rcritebdcla4v.com MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. Florida Bar #617296 molkeeboldaw.com BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN 515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 561/842-2820 Phone 561/515-3148 Fax (Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein)¶

C.M.A. vs. Epstein, et al. Case No.: OS-CV-80811-CW-Plaintiff's Answers to Defenda ries¶

School behavioral problems, received counseling prior to the ii rt.ideiit.¶

• 8. Did you consume any alcoholic beverages or take any drugs or medications within 12 hours before the time of each Incident(s) described In the complaint? If so, state the type and amount of alcoholic beverages, drugs, or medication which were consumed, and when (dates) and where you consumed them.

ANSWER¶

• 1. On one occasion I had taken "Morning Glory" and "Angel Trumpets". ^I do not recall the date.
• 2. On another occasion I used cocaine powder. I do not recall the date.
• 9. Describe each injury (physical, emotional, mental) for which you are claimind damages In this case, specifying the part of your body that was injured, the nature of the injury and as to any injuries you contend are permanent, the effects on you that you claim are permanent.

ANSWER¶

Ihave bi-polar disorder and manic depression. I lost my self-esteem. ^I began cutting myself on my arms and legs and developed drug problems. Permanent Injuries are psychological.¶

• 10. Please state each item of damage that you claim, and Include in your answer. the count to which the item of damages relates; the factual basis for each item of damages; and an explanation of how you computed each item of damages, including any mathematical formula used.

ANSWER¶

^Iam claiming compensation for mental anguish, mental pain, psychic trauma, and loss of enjoyment of life. These damages will be evaluated by ajury who will provide their own methods of computation in an amount of at least the statutory minimum established by 18 U.S.C.A. § 2255.¶

Discovery is ongoing.¶

• 11. List the names and business addresses of each physician (including psychiatrist, psychologist, chiropractor or medical provider) who has treated or examined you,

¹³" EXHIBIT :A¶

C.M.A. vs. Epstein, et at CaseNo.: 08-CV-80811-CIV-MARRAIM Plaintiffs Answers to Defendant's First taro ties¶

and each medical tacility where you have received any tlaahnestrt o' e:wtni"atio" for the injuries for which you seek damages in this case; and state as to each the date of treatment or examination and the Injury or condition for which you were examined or treated.

¶

ANSWER¶

Dr. Serge Thys (Psychiatrist) 2151 45th Street West Palm Beach, FL 33407 Date: I do not recall the date. I would defer to the Doctors records.¶

Susan Pope (Counselor/Therapist) Date: Since high school. Ongoing. Parent Child Center 2001 W. Blue Heron Boulevard¶

• 12. List the names and business addresses of all other physicians, medical facilities, rehab facilities (drug, alcohol or psychiatric) or other health care' providers including psychiatrist, psychologist, mental health counselor and chiropractors by whom or at which you have been examined or treated In the past 10 years; and state as to each the dates of examination or treatment and the condition or injury for which you were examined or treated.

ANSWER¶

Good Samaritan Hospital (3/12/04, 3/25/08) Child Birth 1309 N Flagler Dr West Palm Beach, FL 33401¶

St. Mary's Hospital (4/07) DNC ⁹⁰¹45th Street West Palm Beach, FL 33407¶

Gloria C. Hakkaralnen, MD Ob/Gyn 2926 10th Avenue North, Suite 305 Palm Springs, FL. 33461¶

Theodore Ritota, DDS Dentist¶

VVe'stla w.¶

703 So.2d 1076 ⁷⁰³So.2d 1076.22 Fla. L. Weekly D2375, 23 Pia. L Weekly DI69 (Cite am 703 So.2d 1076)¶

Page 1¶

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District. Kimberly BALAS and Teresa Shumate, Petitioners, v. Marjorie A. RUZZO, and Exec., Inc., etc., Respondents. No. 97-82.¶

307Ak31 k Relevancy and Materiality. Most Cited Cases Party may be permitted to discover. evidence that would be inadmissible at trial, if it would load to discovery of relevant evidence. West's F.S.A. RCP Rule 1.280(b)(1).¶

(3) Pretrial Procedure 307A 4;:=36.1¶

Oct. 10, 1997.¶

As Modified on Grant of Clarification Jan. 2, 1998. ,,,,.., nrev - der,; ea rl t'1 v..--2-ck 216 ^ka• 307AII Depositions and Discovery, Plaintiffs brought action against alleged house of \ (ken ) . 307A11(A) Discovery In General prostitution for, inter ails, coercion titudon. 307A166 Particular Subjects of Diselos- tire The Circuit Court, Brevard County, Pound, 307Ak36.1 k In General. Most Cited J., granted in part defendants' motion to compel dis- Cases covery. Plaintiffs filed petition for writ of certior- Evidence of plaintiffs' past prostitution and their art. Tho District Court of Appeal, W. Sharp, J., held revenues relating to such activities, including activthat evidence of plaintiffs' past prostitution and ides with alleged house of prostitution against their revenues relating to such activities was dis- which they had filed suit, was discoverable, where covetable. plaintiffs brought action not only for coercion of¶

307A Pretrial Procedure¶

prostitution, but also for battery, false imprison-Petition denied. meet, invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, violation of their civil rights, Millis, J., concurred specially end filed opinion. and racketeering. Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, § 40302, '42 U.S.C.A. § West Headnotes 13981; West's P.S.A. §§ 772.014, 796.09; West's F.S.A. RCP Rule 1).¶

DI Pretrial Procedure 307A (C=r31 *1076 RI chard E. nd Heather Fisher Lind-¶

say, of Spriggs & , Tallahassee. for Peti-¶

tioners.¶

Mark S. Peters of Anul, Theriac & Eismunenger, P.A., Cocoa, for Respondents.¶

307A Pretrial Procedure¶

307A.11 Depositions and Discovery 307AII(A) Discovery in General 307Ak31 k. Relevancy and Materiality.¶

Most Cited Cases Discovery In civil cases must be relevant to subject matter of case and must be admissible or reason- W. SHARP, Judge. ably calculated to lead to admissible evidence.¶

West's F.S.A. RCP Rule 1.280(b)(1). Bolas and Shumate petition this court for awrit of certiorari to review certain portions of the lower (21 Pretrial Procedure 307A rE=31 court's order which granted, in part, amotion to compel discovery filed by respondents Ruzzo and 307A Pretrial Procedure Exec., Inc. Petitioners argue that these portions de-307.411 Depositions and Discovery part from the essential requirements of law and will 307A11(A) Discovery in General cause them irreparable harm because they will be¶

EXHIBIT¶

703 So.2d 1076
703 So.2d 1076, 22 Fla. L. Weekly D2375, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D169
(Cite as: 703 So.2d 1076)¶

Page 2¶

compelled to disclose intimate details of their sexual history. We decline to issue the writ of certiorari.¶

Balas and Shumate filed suit against Ruzzo and Exec, Inc., doing business as "The Boardroom." According to Balas and Shumate, The Boardroom operates ostensibly as *1077 a leisure spa but actually is a house of prostitution. Balas worked at The Boardroom from December 1993 until February 1996; Shumate worked there from October 1992 until March 1996. Ruzzo, the sole officer and shareholder of Exec, Inc., collected about fifty to sixty percent of each employees' earnings from performing sexual acts.¶

According to Balas and Shumate, Ruzzo exerted mental and emotional control over her employees and thus she was able to exploit them as prostitutes. Ruzzo required her employees to pay her substantial sums of money to attend "metaphysical workshops" conducted by Ruzzo or persons associated with her. At the work place, the employees were required to participate in religious and quasi-religious "circles," rituals and incantations. These practices were allegedly designed to break down the personalities of the women who worked for Ruzzo and to dependency and loyalty to herself. At one time when the earnings of a new employee were missing and believed to be stolen, Ruzzo required that the petitioners be strip searched and body cavity searched. Ruzzo caused the petitioners to believe their continued employment was dependent on their submission to these searches and that they might be arrested on felony charges if they refused to submit to the searches.¶

Balas and Shumate's second amended complaint against Ruzzo contains seven counts. Count I is an action for coercion of prostitution pursuant to section 796.09, Florida Statutes. Petitioners allege the requirement that they perform sexual acts to retain their employment constitutes inducement and coercion to engage in prostitution. Count II is a claim for battery for the unwanted and offensive touching of the petitioners' bodies. Count III is a claim for false imprisonment for physically confining the pe-¶

titioners against their will. Count IV alleges that respondents' actions constituted an invasion of petitioners' privacy. Count V is a claim for the intentional infliction of emotional distress. Count VI alleges a civil rights action that respondents have violated petitioners' right to be free from crimes of violence motivated by gender within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. section 13981. Finally, count VII seeks civil remedies for criminal practices or racketeering pursuant to section 772.104, Florida Statutes. The petitioners claim that they suffered emotional pain, anguish, humiliation, insult, indignity, loss of self-esteem, inconvenience, hurt and emotional distress. They seek an award of general and punitive damages, among other relief.¶

The discovery to which the petitioners are being required to respond is as follows:¶

I.¶

Interrogatory 8: Please advise how long have you been engaged in prostitution....¶

II.¶

Interrogatory 22: State with specificity the manner in which the acts as described in your Complaint have materially affected how you interact with your husband, boyfriend, fiancée' [sic] or any other individual of the opposite sex.¶

III.¶

Request for Production 30: A copy of any photographs, movies or videotapes in which you performed sexual acts and/or simulated sexual acts in exchange for money or other consideration.¶

IV.¶

Interrogatory 16: Please list the names, addresses, telephone numbers and rates of pay for all employers for which you worked, including the¶

nature of the work, during the five years human-J..k. of amploreet th Boardroom and from the date of your termination with the Boardroom to the present, providing the names of your immediate supervisors at each ^place of employment and the reason for your leaving each place of employment.¶

V.¶

Interrogatory 26: Please state your total income while employed at the Boardroom, and state the source of that income including any income from other employment or *1078 income earned from prostitution other than at the Boardroom.¶

VI.¶

Request for Production 34: Business records from any selfemployrnent or owned business ventures in the last 5 years, including any records or list of customers, "special customer lists" or "sugar daddy's list."¶

(1)12) 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 ^{a t} evidence. See Allstate Insurance Co. v. non, 655 So.2d 91 (Pla.1995). Amente v. 653 So.2d 1030 (Fla.1995); IRv. Stardust rulsers, Inc., 690 Sold 743 a. th DCA 1997). The concept of relevancy is broader in the discovery context than in the trial context and a party may be permitted to discover evidence that would be inadmissible at trial, if it would lead to the discovery of relevant evidence. Allstate; Amente. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(1) delineates the proper scope of discovery:¶

In General. Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter of the pending action, whether it relates to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or the claim or defense of any other party, including the existence, description, Page 3¶

nature custody, condition, and location of any documents, or other tangible things and ei entity and location of persons:havinglcnowledge of any discoverable matter. It. is not groun^d for objection that the information sought will be inadmissible at the trial if the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.¶

Nonetheless, the discovery of certain kinds of information may cause material injury:of an irreparable nature. This Includes the "cat-out-of-the-bag" material that could be used to injure another person or party outside the context of the litigation, material protected by privilege, trade secrets or work product Discovery was never intended to be used as ^atactical tool to harass, embarrass or annoy ones adversary. Rather, pretrial discovery was implemented to simplify the issues in a case, to eliminate the elements of surprise, to encourage the settlement of cases, to avoid the cost of litigation, and to achieve abalanced search for the tin h to ensure ^afair trial. filkint v. Syken, 672 So.2d 517 (Pla.1996).¶

• Here the petitioners argue that the information sought to be discovered regarding prostitution and their sexual activities was propounded solely to embarrass them and to invade their right to privacy. The petitioners also claim that this information is privileged under section 796.09 and is not calculated to lead to evidence which would be admissible at trial.¶

Section 796.09 provides a person with acivil cause of action for compensatory and punitive damages against anyone who coerces that person into prostitution, who coerces that person to remain in prostitution, or who uses coercion to collect or receive any part of that person's earnings derived from prostitution. In the course of litigation under this section, any transaction about which a plaintiff testifies or produces evidence does not subject the ^plaintiff to criminal prosecution or to any penalty or forfeiture. In addition, any testimony or evidence or any information produced by the plaintiff or wit-¶

703 So.2d 1076
703 So.2d 1076, 22 Fla. L. Weekly D2375, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D169
(Cite as: 703 So.2d 1076)¶

Page 4¶

ness for the plaintiffs cannot be used against the plaintiffs or witness in any other investigation or proceeding, except one for perjury.¶

Section 796.09(5) specifically provides that it is not a defense that the plaintiff was paid or otherwise compensated for prostitution, that the plaintiff had engaged in prostitution prior to any involvement with the defendant or that the plaintiff made no attempt to escape from the defendant. Section 796.09(6) provides that convictions for prostitution or prostitution-related offenses are inadmissible for the purpose of attacking the plaintiffs' credibility.¶

This legislation was the result of the Florida Supreme Court Gender Bias Study Commission, which conducted an extensive investigation of prostitution in this state. The Commission's activities included interviews with law enforcement and corrections personnel, *1079 judges, public defenders, prosecutors, drug rehabilitation counselors, social workers, medical personnel, prostitutes, clients and pimps. The Commission found prostitution to be prevalent and uniform throughout the state and law enforcement largely unable to deter it under prevailing social attitudes and judicial practices. The Commission further found that prostitutes are often victims of economic, physical, and psychological coercion, that most persons do not choose to become prostitutes, but do so to survive, and that ninety percent of street prostitutes, both adult and children, are controlled by pimps who use a variety of coercive methods to maintain this control. The Commission determined that clients and pimps are rarely prosecuted and, when prosecuted, receive light sentences; whereas prostitutes, who are mainly females, are frequently prosecuted and receive harsher treatment in the courts. The Commission recommended changes in the methods of intervention in prostitution from punitive to therapeutic, changes in the law to require more equal treatment by the courts of the prostitute in relation to the client and the pimp and to lessen the incentive to traffic in human flesh by giving the prostitute access to the judicial system without first having to be¶

arrested.¶

Under section 796.09, the petitioners' prior involvement in prostitution and their earnings from prostitution would be irrelevant. Hence discovery should not be permitted because such information would not be admissible at trial nor would it be reasonably calculated to lead to evidence ultimately admissible at trial. Even though the scope of discovery is generally quite broad, section 796.09 is designed to encourage prostitutes to sue their pimps. Thus the usually broad scope of discovery may be constricted so that prostitutes will not be embarrassed, harassed or hindered in their actions.¶

[3] Had the petitioners brought their lawsuit against Ruzzo and The Boardroom only under section 796.09, evidence of petitioners' past prostitution, including with the Boardroom, and their earnings relating to such activities, may not have been discoverable. However, the petitioners filed a multi-count complaint for compensatory and punitive damages, alleging numerous causes of action against the respondents. These other causes carry no such protection from discovery. Since the information sought by discovery may be relevant or may lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in one or more of these other causes of action or to determination of damages, we cannot conclude that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law in granting this discovery. See [REDACTED] v. TIB Bank of the Keys, 687 So.2d 895 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (by alleging fraud as well as breach of contract, purchaser placed at issue her reliance on venders' assertions, the veracity of financial documents she submitted to the vender, and the state of her mental health, including memory problems she was experiencing at the time of the alleged tortious conduct, thus deposition questions concerning her state of mind were relevant).¶

Petition for Writ of Certiorari DENIED.¶

THOMPSON, J., concurs.
HARRIS, J., concurs specially with opinion.HARRIS, Judge, concurring specially:¶

© 2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.¶

703 So.2d 1076¶

703 So.2d 1076, 22 Fla. L. Weekly D2375, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D169¶

(Cite as: 703 So.2d 1076)¶

Page 5¶

There is a temptation in cases such as this to inquire which, the pot or the kettle, is imbued with the darker hue. Indeed that may ultimately be the question uppermost in the jurors' minds. But the issue presently before us is simply whether the pot, in order to establish the parties' comparative complexion, may discover the historical condition and the inherent characteristics of the kettle.¶

any part of that person's earnings derived from prostitution.¶

The employees resist discovery of their past prostitution or their past or present earning experience on the basis of subparagraph 5 of section 796.09:¶

(5) It does not constitute a defense to a complaint under this section that:¶

• a) The plaintiff was paid or otherwise compensated for acts of prostitution;
• b) The plaintiff engaged in acts of prostitution prior to any involvement with the defendant ...

We are here involved with parties that the limited record before us indicates were co-conspirators in a joint effort to violate Florida's laws against prostitution. The defendants are the owner/operators of a "social club" whose primary service is prostitution; the plaintiffs are employees of the club who provide such services. The employees are suing the owner/operators for, among other counts, taking advantage of their vulnerabilities ("coercing" them to be prostitutes) through manipulation and exploitation. In order to prepare a defense to the action, defendants have filed certain interrogatories for the employees to answer. These interrogatories*1080 request such information as how long the employees have been engaged in prostitution; how the employees have been affected by the defendants' conduct; copies of photographs, movies, and videotapes in which the employees have performed sexual acts or simulated sexual acts; the names of previous employers and previous rates of pay; and a statement of income received from defendants. These interrogatories survived the employees' objections. I agree certiorari should be denied.¶

The employees' primary cause of action is based on section 796.09(1), Florida Statutes, which provides:¶

• (1) A person has a cause of action for compensatory and punitive damages against:
  • (a) A person who coerces that person into prostitution;
  • (b) A person who coerces that person to remain in prostitution, or
  • (c) A person who uses coercion to collect or receive

But the question before us is not whether prior acts of prostitution (or the receipts of earnings therefrom) which might be revealed by answering the interrogatories could be used as a defense to the complaint, but rather whether evidence of such conduct or such earnings would be relevant in determining whether the employees were, in fact, "coerced" into prostitution, into remaining prostitutes, or into sharing the proceeds of their services with defendants. The relevancy of this information depends, of course, on what constitutes coercion.¶

If we apply the definition of "coercion" which is commonly accepted, then the relevancy of the requested information is apparent and this appeal has no merit at all. Webster defines "coercion" as: (1) to restrain or dominate by force, (2) to compel an act or choice, or (3) to enforce or bring about by force or threat. In sexual battery cases, the legislature has adopted the common meaning of the word "coercion" and has even placed limits on it. It has provided that consent will not be recognized if submission is coerced by threats of force or violence if the victim reasonably believes the perpetrator has the present ability to execute the threat.^[n] Consent also will not be recognized if submission is coerced by a threat of retaliation against the victim or another if the victim reasonably believes that the perpetrator has the ability to execute the threat in the future.^[n] And in sexual battery cases, the legislature has vitiated what might otherwise be con-¶

703 So.2d 1076 ⁷⁰³So.2d 1076, 22 Fla. L. Weekly D2375, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D169 (ale as: 703 So.2d 1076)¶

sIdered as consensual if one exploits a known phys-Ltd Vl IMAM WCYLIWS of the victim to achieve his or her goal or takes advantage of one who is physically helpless or involuntarily intoxicated.no Therefore, even in sexual battery cases, before coercion or exploitation will vitiate consent, the free will of the victim must be overcome by force or threat or some unfortunate circumstance suffered by the victim.¶

FN1. Section 794.011(4)(b), Florida Statutes.

¶

P142. Section 794.011(4Xc), Florida Statutes.

¶

PN3. Section 794.011(4)(a),(d),(c), and (f), Florida Statutes.¶

But then we get to the definition of "coercion" contained in section 796.09(3):¶

;3) As used In this section, the term "coercion" means any practice of dominion, restraint, or inducement for the purpose of or with the reasonably foreseeable effect of causing another person to engage in or remain in prostitution or to relinquish earnings derived from prostitution, and includes, but is not limited to:¶

.r,a) Physical force or throats of physical force.¶

.b) ^r Physical or mental torture.¶

Is) Kidnapping.¶

"1081 (d) Blackmail.¶

'AExtortion or claims of indebtedness.¶

v,f) Threats of legal complaint or report of delinquency.¶

',g) Threat to interfere with parental rights or responsibilities, whether by judicial or administrative action or otherwise.¶

31. Promise of legal benefit

'1) Promise of greater financial rewards.¶

Page 6¶

ej) Promise of marriage.¶

1,1c) Restraint of Speech or communications with others.¶

) Exploitation of acondition of developmental disability, cognitive limitation, affective disorder, or substance dependency.¶

:m) Exploitation of victimization by sexual abuse.¶

:n) Exploitation of pornographic performance.¶

',o) Exploitation of human needs for food, shelter, safety, or affection.¶

The definition urged by the employees herein is the "promise of a greater financial reward." Whether the requested information is relevant to the issue of coercion in this case will depend on what the legislature intended by subsection (I) in the meaning of "coercion."¶

^Iagree with fudge Altenbernd's thoughtful analysis in State v. Brigham, 694 So.2d 793 (1997):¶

There can be no dispute that the legislature's unusual definition of "percent" is not a: common dictionary definition. This Is perhaps an appropriate case in which to remind ourselves of Learned Hands famous observation that a"mature and developed Jurisprudence" does not "make afortress out of the dictionary."¶

But even so, one would expect some nexus between the commonly accepted meaning of aword and the definition of that word ascribed by the legislature. If, for example, the legislature defined "canine" as Including cats, although one might, jurisprudentially speaking, expect to hear ameow emanate from aGreat Dane, the courts should nevertheless closely examine the legislative history to see if that Is really what the legislature intended. The court in Young v. O'Keefe, 246 Iowa 1182, 69 N.W.2d 534, ⁵³⁷(1955), stated this principle as: follows: "But¶

(0 2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.¶

703 So.2d 1076 ⁷⁰³So.2d 1076, 22 Pla. L Weekly D2375, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D169 (Cite es: 703 Sold 1076)¶

before a definition is construed so as to expand the onym ..., the intention of the le 'stature to that effect must be clear." As Judge observed in Carron v. Roger Bohn, D.C., . So.2d 814, 818 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991):¶

it is our primary duty to give effect to legislative intent and, if a literal interpretation of a statute leads to unreasonable results, then we should exercise our power to interpret reason and logic to it.¶

Unfortunately, it is apparent that in enacting this legislation, the legislature has, without redefining the terms for the purposes of this legislation, often used terms with commonly accepted meanings for purposes at great variance from those commonly accepted meanings.¶

In our case, the legislature did define the term for the purpose of the act. But because the term (coercion) as so defined can be interpreted two ways-one consistent with the commonly accepted meaning and one at variance-we should not accept the "antonym" unless such legislative intent is clear. A free will decision, even if based on ^ahope of financial gain, is the opposite of a coerced decision.¶

The employees urge that the mere promise of ^a greater reward brings them within the act. But if the mere promise of a greater reward is sufficient to establish coercion, then anyone who makes a voluntary and reasoned exercise of free will motivated by the hope of economic gain has been coerced. This definition removes the element of compulsion implicit in the commonly accepted meaning of coercion and substitutes therefor the mere desire for financial gain. The employees herein assert that since they were offered "a greater financial reward" for providing the services performed by them through defendants' establishment, they were coerced into their prostitution activities. This equates the giving Page 7¶

of an opportunity to make a decision with the coermean *1082 that the promise of 'a greater reward is coercion only If such promised reward is sufficient to overcome ones natural revulsion to selling one's body for money. If there is no such revulsion, there can be no coercion. Becoming a prostitute only because one likes the hours and wages or "because it beats the heck out of working for a living" simply should not meet the test of section 796.09(1).¶

At oral argument herein, it was suggested without contradiction, that at least one of the employees has acollege degree and gave up a well-paying, legitimate job in order to engage in this profession for the greater reward. Section 796.09 does not appear to be a general prostitute's relief act. It is based on ^a report by the Gender Bias Study Commission which recommended the equalization of treatment in rein" tion to the prostitute, the client and the "pimp." It is based on the premise that prostitutes are generally victims of economic, physical, and psychological coercion and choose prostitution in order to survive. Further, the Commission was concerned that ⁹⁰percent of the street prostitutes are controlled by "pimps" who use ^avariety of coercive methods to maintain control. It seems clear that the legislature was not intending to depart from the precepts of the commonly understood meaning of "coercion" and to redefine it to include both free will decisions and compelled decisions.. The interpretation urged by the employees seems at variance with the stated goal of the legislature and the Gender Bias Commission.¶

Since there is no cause of action provided for ono who makes a reasoned and voluntary exercise of their free will to enter or continue in the profession solely for financial rewards (assuming "coercion" is given the definition more consistent with its commonly accepted meaning and assuming that my interpretation of legislative intent is coirect), coercion becomes the critical issue in the trial of such action. The interrogatories propounded by defendants appear relevant to the issue of coercion.¶

0 2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Goy. Works.¶

703 So.2d 1076
703 So.2d 1076, 22 Fla. L. Weekly D2375, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D169
(Cite as: 703 So.2d 1076)¶

Page 8¶

This is a case of first impression based on a relatively new statute. As indicated, the legislative history of the new law suggests that the statute is designed to assist those who were forced to enter prostitution in order to keep a roof over their heads or food on their table. It does not appear to be intended to aid those who voluntarily enter the profession in order to drive a Mercedes instead of a [REDACTED]. The limited record before us indicates that even beginning employees of the defendants (those who do not have an established clientele) bring in $700 a day and can keep 50% of their earnings. Based on a five-day work week, this would reflect an income of $87,500 a year even with a two week vacation. And the employees herein are not beginners.¶

There is no indication that the legislature intended to legalize prostitution or to make it a respectable profession. It merely intended to place the prostitute on the same footing with the client and the "pimp." If a prostitute voluntarily makes the decision to participate, free from force, intimidation, or disadvantageous circumstance, then he or she is on the same footing as the other participants and should be treated the same.¶

Although it might well serve a legitimate public purpose to permit the cannibalistic demise of such enterprises (and I am not unsympathetic with this view), that does not appear to be the policy behind the current statute. Therefore, in cases where coercion is not present (and this may or may not be one), the court should continue its tradition of not interceding in civil conflicts involving transactions that are either illegal or are against public policy. See Wechsler v. Novak, 157 Fla. 703, 26 So.2d 884 (1946); v. Ratiner, 462 So.2d 1157, 1160 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), rev. denied, 472 So.2d 1182 (Fla. 1985) ("An action may lie for interference with an unenforceable contract and even perhaps a voidable contract. No such cause of action lies for interference with a contract void as against public policy [another's representation of a client obtained by a doctor/lawyer's illegal personal injury solicitation¶

in the hospital] and which makes one who is a party thereto, as the appellant in the instant case, guilty of a criminal act for entering into such an agreement.")¶

We are not asked in this proceeding to rule on the admissibility of the discovered information as evidence at the trial of this cause. We are to determine only if the information might lead to admissible evidence. Even *1083 though we deny the Writ I suggest we certify the following question:¶

DOES ONE, FREE FROM FORCE, INTIMIDATION, OR DISADVANTAGEOUS CIRCUMSTANCE, WHO MAKES A REASONED DECISION TO BECOME OR REMAIN A PROSTITUTE OR TO SHARE THE PROCEEDS THEREOF BECAUSE OF A PROMISE OF A GREATER FINANCIAL REWARD HAVE A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER SECTION 796.09(1), FLORIDA STATUTES?¶

ON MOTIONS FOR REHEARING, FOR CLARIFICATION, FOR CERTIFICATION, AND FOR REHEARING EN BANC¶

W. SHARP, Judge.
Petitioners Balas and Shumate have filed motions for rehearing, clarification and certification. We deny the motions in full except for one regard. We delete the sentence in the last full paragraph of the opinion which reads: "These other causes of action carry no such protection from discovery."¶

Motion for Clarification GRANTED as stated above; Motion for Rehearing and Certification DENIED.¶

HARRIS and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
Fla.App. 5 Dist., 1997.
Balas v. Ruzzo
703 So.2d 1076, 22 Fla. L. Weekly D2375, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D169¶

END OF DOCUMENT¶

© 2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.¶

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

A.C.,¶

CASE NO. 502008CA025129XXXXMB Al¶

Plaintiff,¶

v.¶

E. EPSTEIN, and all¶

Defendants.¶

ORDER ON DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FIRST REQUEST TO PRODUCE TO PLAINTIFF AND TO OVERRULE PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS, & FOR DEFENDANTS EXPENSES; INCLUDING ATTORNEYS' FEES¶

THIS CAUSE came before the Court on Defendant Epstein's Motion To Compel Responses To First Request To Produce To Plaintiff And To Overrule Plaintiffs Objections, & For Defendant's Expenses, Including Attorneys' Fees and the Court having heard argument of counsel and being fully advised in these premises, it is hereby¶

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Defendant's Motion is hereby granted/ dented a", ^{4 17}4 .18) ^tdont)...aa€ ) . a.² ±.0 ^{4 22} a...a-) OvradoLef . Tesen4.0." ⁴¶

DONE AND ORDERED at Palm,Beach Cou C urthouse, West Palm Beach, Florida, this Z,5 day of 1-03 ⁰¶

Edward A. Garrison Circuit Judge

¶

Copies furnished: ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ., and MICHAEL J. PIKE, FL 33401; JACK SCAROtA, ESQ., AND JACK P. Shipley, PA. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., GOLDBERGER, ESQ., Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, Australian Avenue South, West Palm Beach, FL 33401 ¹⁵*dB Flagler Drive, Stine 400, Weal Palm Beath, ESQ., Seamy Denney Scarola Bamhart & ^tPalm Beach, FL 33409, and JACK A. P.A., One Clearlake Centre, Salle 1400, ²⁵⁰ A? if¶

EXHIBIT (-%¶

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

A.C.,¶

CASE NO. 502008CA025129XXXXMB AI¶

Plaintiff;¶

v.¶

JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, and [REDACTED],¶

Defendants.¶

ORDER ON DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO
INTERROGATORIES AND TO OVERRULE PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS, & FOR
DEFENDANT'S EXPENSES, INCLUDING ATTORNEYS' FEES¶

THIS CAUSE came before the Court on Defendant Epstein's Motion To
Compel Answers To Interrogatories And To Overrule Plaintiff's Objections, & For
Defendant's Expenses, Including Attorneys' Fees, and the Court having heard
argument of counsel and being fully advised in these premises, it is hereby¶

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Defendant's Motion is hereby granted/¶

~~denied~~ as to #5, 12 #18 ; denied as
to #2. Response to be severe w/in
10 days.¶

DONE AND ORDERED at Palm Beach County Courthouse, West Palm
Beach, Florida, this 73 day of 200 2009¶

Copies furnished:¶

ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ., and MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ., 515 North Flagler Drive, Suite 400, West Palm Beach,
FL 33401; JACK SCAROLA, ESQ., AND JACK P. [REDACTED], ESQ., Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart &
Shipley, P.A., 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., West Palm Beach, FL 33409, and JACK A.
GOLDBERGER, ESQ., Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A., One Clearlake Centre, Suite 1400, 250
Australian Avenue South, West Palm Beach, FL 33401¶

CC: JEN6, DE
CB: file being
in [REDACTED] for
2d of 10
3/06¶

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

CASE NO. 50 200SCA020614XXXXMB AF¶

JANE DOE II,¶

Plaintiff,¶

vs.¶

JEFFREY EPSTEIN and¶

Defendants.¶

COPY¶

COURT REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS HAD BEFORE THE HONORABLE DIANA¶

DATE: March 3, 2009¶

PLACE: Palm Beach County Courthouse 205 N. Dixie Highway West Palm Beach, Florida 33401¶

U.S. Legal. Support (561) 835-0220 EXHIBIT

¶

.//¶

24'¶

APPEARANCES:¶

IIIIIIILAW FIRM, P.A. Datura Avenue Suite 900 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Counsel for Plaintiff BY: ISIDRO M. all ESQUIRE¶

BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN N. Flagler Drive Suite 400 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Counsel for Defendant BY: ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQUIRE¶

that but I'd just like to do that.¶

THE COURT: Right. And if you want to •-•..013,•GLYA.. LJAG 1•41.41V-LUCC46a0 1,.04 I'm the one that's questioning whether or not these need to be before one judge. You may have ^adifferent perspective than your colleagues who are prosecuting some of the cases.¶

^Iunderstand the damages. I'm not saying consolidate. I'm saying transfer. it's not aconsolidation issue. Everybody gets that confused for some reason. The words are very different out of my mouth, your mouth and how they're written.¶

So let me go ahead and take a gander at this. I did read it last night. I'm not sure that we need to get -- we need names?¶

MR. CRITTON: Right. Well, here's what some of the issues are is that, as an example -- if ^I could approach the bench.¶

THE COURT: Sure.¶

MR. CRITTON: This is some of the information that we've obtained through discovery from some of the -- from at least in this instance, it would be this particular Jane Doe.¶

THE COURT: You know who Jane Doe is I take¶

1¶

2¶

3¶

4¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

it?¶

MR. CRITTON: Right.¶

InG lAAJfll; LUIS hIlVW W13) WIC U011¶

MR. CRITTON: Yes, correct. And so this particular lady has kept in part a diary and she -- which appears to have started some time - this is not in any way significant -- but some time after she learned that she could file ^a lawsuit. I think she's also been to Oakwood Center some time after she learned she could file alawsuit and seek damages from Mr. Epstein.¶

There's no history of this lady¶

beforehand other than. in some of the Oakwood¶

records where she, was -Baker Acted, she started¶

•¶

drinking beerat.16, she started Xanax at 16,¶

started marijuIna at 15, that she's sexually¶

active:¶

So how she has interacted -- she has ^a claim. for emotional damages, mental pain and anguish, psychiatric-type damages. How she's interacted with friends, with family, the events in her life, school, work, her interpersona^l relationships both with men and let's -- we'll use an'example men here, but other individuals. She's saying that this event with Mr. Epstein,¶

1 this sexual assault and whatever occurred during
2 these events is that -- has caused her damage.¶

3 And therefore damages in the case such¶

4 as the emotional, mental, psychiatric-type
5 damages are completely subjective, I mean
6 separate and apart from any medical bills that
7 may be -- which are clearly intangible. So these
8 are intangible damages. And the jury is
9 instructed, you know, you advise the greater
10 weight of the evidence, what's fair and
11 reasonable under the circumstances.¶

12 So what we would have is basically this
13 young lady's testimony as to what she claims her
14 damages are and what the circumstances are with
15 her situation with Mr. Epstein. She claims on
16 page 13, you know, I love this guy, I'm dating
17 this guy Chris. On page 15 --¶

18 THE COURT: Is this part of a diary for
19 treatment?¶

20 MR. CRITTON: I have no idea what it is. It
21 was just produced in response to discovery. And
22 she apparently started in, I think this is
23 December of '08. You know I took Jay Lyntenis'
24 girl to the zoo, had an amazing day, I love her,
25 i.e., the girl. We have so much fun. I want a¶

Case 9:08-cv 80811-KAM Document 54-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 6 of 14¶

14¶

1 2 4 baby especially with him. Okay. So I know who this person is. We are all so open together, AWV £SSZLt CAW-4 VgAy afl..4 EMMA, Wflt24 VW 1 44.1 WyLIt Chris, who is another guy in her life.¶

5 6 7 B 9 10 11 12 13 All right. This is circumstances where this young lady is saying, look, Jeffrey Epstein has ruined my life from a damage standpoint, okay. Let me depose other individuals with whom you've had arelationship. And what if it turns out -- as with some of these girls did -- is they had relationships or had escapades or circumstances with individuals, older men similar to Mr. Epstein well before Mr. Epstein.¶

14 15 16 17 18 19 And this girl, I don't know one way or the other, but let's assume she had asituation where she was assaulted or molested or raped, ' that all is going to affect her emotional and her mental pain and anguish and it will all factor into evaluating damages.¶

20 21 22 23 24 25 You know, it's not something that I'm going to spread around. b'm happy to keep it, you know, within the confines of the discovery of this case. But if she says every other relationship in my life has been perfect but Jeff Epstein has done this to me and it has affected¶

my ability to trust men and my sexual relationships with other men, which is part of her interpersonal relationships, uAay, let to ME¶

24¶

25¶

THE COURT: When does your client allege that she had her first encounter with Mr. Epstein?¶

MR. WM At what age?¶

THE COURT: Well, what year?¶

MR. CRITTON: June of '03.¶

MR. UM June of '03, Judge.¶

'MR. CRITTON: She claims from June of '03 through November of '04.¶

MR. : She was i believe 16 at the beginning and ended at 17. She was ^aminor during all this time.¶

THE COURT: June of '03 to now is six years.¶

Let me hear from Mr.¶

MR. Judge, in the criminal case that was filed against Mr. Epstein, he would not have had a right to do this type of discovery and ^I-- if I could hand up --¶

THE COURT: They wouldn't care about the women.¶

MR. : Right. Well, I mean --¶

2 THE COURT: This is damages. There's no they weren't seeking damages at the time.¶

4 5 6 7 MR. nstgaL. nnu we nave not.a4seyeu in the complaint or in the answers to interrogatories that her ability to have ^a relationship with aman has been affected by Mr. Epstein's conduct.¶

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 We have alleged that she has been hospitalized for depression, anxiety but we have not alleged any damages concerning -- the, only reason this would be relevant is if we were making aclaim at her ability to have either sexual relations or to have emotional relations with men was effected by her experience with Mr. Epstein.¶

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 So this damages' claim is just asmoke screen to attempt to get evidence to show the jury that this woman has had other consensual relationships with young men that are approximately her age what I would characterize as a slut defense. She had it coming to her because she engaged in other voluntarily consensual --¶

24 25 THE COURT: Mr. Critton wouldn't try the slut defense in my courtroom, I'm sure.¶

1¶

2¶

3¶

4¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

$¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

MR. IIIIII : Maybe not, but certainly that's the way this discovery is going. And, Judge,¶

what --¶

THE COURT: What are the damages you think your client is seeking?¶

MR. : She is seeking emotional distress damages for depression and anxiety and she has been hospitalized at the Oakwood Center. Her friend -- she was on the phone to afriend who called the sheriff's office because she thought she was suicidal. The sheriffs responded. They Baker Acted her that day and they took her eventually to the Oakwood Center.¶

THE COURT: How do we know it's not intertwined with her rejection by three other men since Mr. Epstein?¶

MR. : Well, even if it was related to her rejection by three other men you mean other men's rejection of her?¶

THE COURT: Yeah. Well, how do you not know that? I mean you'can't do it until you do discovery. Has anybody attempted to review the records from Oakwood to find out what's going on?¶

MR. CRITTON: It's like aone-time visit when she was Baker Acted and then there's some¶

other --¶

THE COURT: She didn't receive treatment?¶

Mn nnymmewt. CIL ..... -¶

that day and she's been back a couple of times. She's on medication. Again, I don't know what or the extent but she's got -- her medical bills are de minimis.¶

Again as an example, Judge, did the Court have an opportunity to look at the case that I also attached to the motion? Because there's a case that's almost on all fours with this which I attached to our motion which is called Balles versus Russo.¶

THE COURT: Right.¶

MR. CRITTON: It was a case where the plaintiff was sued -- the plaintiff sued the former owners of a house of prostitution. So that part is different, but within it there were ^anumber of claims including asexual assault claim and they sought emotional pain, humiliation and emotional distress.¶

Within the complaint that was filed in this particular case, she is seeking severe emotional distress, mental anguish, humiliation, embarrassment, past and future, compensatory¶

1¶

2¶

4¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

9¶

10¶

7.1¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

humiliation, loss of reputation, mental anguish, pain and suffering, the same type of damages.¶

nn4 fln4, ..... 4q}14¶

THE COURT: How old is she now?¶

MR. She's 21 now.¶

MR. CRITTON: She's 21 now. What the Court said is, you know, if you'd only brought this claim under 796 evidence of past issues, it's not an issue. You can't use this defense for anything, but because you brought these other claims which include, you know, sexual assault and you're seeking damages for other causes of action since the information sought by discovery may be relevant or may lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in one or more of the other causes of action or determination of damages, we cannot conclude the trial court parted from essential requirements of law in granting --¶

THE COURT: So in other words, she's'not only seeking -- she's seeking current emotional damage as ^aresult of this relationship and you're trying to find out if she had prior relationships. that perhaps could be intertwined with it so that it's not just Mr. Epstein's --¶

MR. CRITTON: Right. A perfect example is¶

1 2 4 5 6 one of the cases that I have is there's a' young lady who claims that she was molested in the past • oi 4 °nu saycm, F.t.c'Ly 0Syll1111.:0116 Sa*UC3f WC4S Ill advance of her even meeting with Mr. Epstein. And they seem to play a large role in her psychiatric and psychological evaluation.¶

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 We're going to come to the Court in this case as we have others and ask for a psychological evaluation of this lady, and if she was raped or if she was molested or just she had a bad experience or some -- whether it was a young or old man assaulted her in some fashion, that may play a role in her damages and what --¶

14 15 16 17 18 THE COURT: What I'm going to allow for discovery purposes only not necessarily getting it in at the time trial are two years before her first encounter with Mr. Epstein and anything subsequent.¶

19 20 21 22 23 MR. : Judge, I just wanted tot say on the record because I forgot to mention it, there's also -- I did state an objection to the identity of people that are unrepresented in this courtroom. They have rights too. So what i --¶

24 25 THE COURT: Well, my suggestion is that you send those people a letter and tell them that¶

1¶

2¶

3¶

4¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

you're going to disclose them and if they have a problem with it that they come to see me before you usscsose¶

So I'm going to give you 20 days to respond to this rather than the usual five and that will give you time to put these people on notice and if they want to come visit with me and have a John Doe, I'll have a John Doe hearing but, you know, this is her case. She's doing it. She's the one seeking damages, and he is entitled to be able to confront other individuals to find out information that may be relevant to the damages she's seeking or she can drop the damages. That's her choice. If you seek. damages, you've got to do it -- if you could put that in an order so that we have a time for him to do this.¶

Just fill out an order, hand it back up to me and I'll deal with it.¶

(The proceedings were concluded.)¶

COUNTY OF PALM BEACH.¶

I, Teresa Bell, Court Reporter, certify that I was authorized to and did stenographically report the foregoing proceedings and that the transcript is a true and complete record of my stenographic notes.¶

I further certify that the proceedings were taken at the time and place shown herein and that all counsel and persons as hereinabove shown were present¶

I further certify that I am not a relative, employee, attorney or counsel of any of the parties, nor am I a relative or employee of any of the parties' attorney or counsel connected with the action, nor am I financially interested in the a tion.¶

Dated this 11th day¶

TERESK BELL, Court Reporter¶

Kikka M. Claudio¶

From: cmecfautosender@flsd.uscourts.gov Sent: April 02, 20091:54 PM To: flsd_cmecf notice@flsd.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM C.M.A. v. Epstein et al Motion to Compel¶

This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended.¶

***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case (including pro se litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. However, if the referenced document is a transcript, the free copy and 30 page limit do not apply.¶

U.S. District Court¶

Southern District of Florida¶

Notice of Electronic Filing¶

The following transaction was entered by Critton, Robert on 4/2/2009 at 1:53 PM EDT and filed on 4/2/2009¶

Case Name: C.M.A. v. Epstein et al¶

Case Number: 9:08-cv-80$11¶

Filer: Jeffrey Epstein¶

Document Number: 54¶

Docket Text:¶

Defendant's MOTION to Compel Response to 1st RTP and 1st Interrogs by Jeffrey Epstein. Responses due by 4/20/2009 (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A, # (2) Exhibit B, # (3) Exhibit C, # (4) Exhibit D)(Critton, Robert)¶

9:08-cv-80811 Notice has been electronically mailed to:¶

Bruce Reinhart ecf®brucereinhartlaw.com¶

Guy Alan-¶

Jack Alan Goldberger iaueso@bellsouth.net, nalanis®agwoa.com¶

Jack ivh@,searcvlaw.com, clw@searcvlaw.com, kmclasearcvlaw,com, s.slater@searcvlaw.corn sas@,searcvlaw.corn, vat@searcvlaw.com¶

Michael James Pike MPike@bc1claw.com¶

Michael - Tein tein@lewistein.com, jcmeyers@levvistein.cont, mcapote@lewistein.com¶

Robert Deweese Critton, Jr Tcritabc1claw.com, bobbie@bciclaw.com¶

9:08-cv-80811 Notice bas not been delivered electronically to those listed below and will be provided by other means. For further assistance, please contact our Help Desk at 1-888-318-2260.:¶

The following document(s) are associated with this transaction:¶

Document description:Main Document¶

Original filename:n/a¶

Electronic document Stamp:¶

[STAMP dcecfStamp_ED=1105629215 [Date=4/2/2009] [FileNumber=6195964-0]¶

[49f0c2d75486f6d6a6101a08c395b2c7992778ee9920e8793e30a05701c38a82a7ccl¶

0c0764948284cbee2a315cedf37038a790bd53308696a153=35dd4a2eb]]¶

Document description:Exhibit A¶

Original filename:n/a¶

Electronic document Stamp:¶

[STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1105629215 [Date=4/2/2009] [FileNumber=6195964-1]¶

[5442dd228c17016a18a93a482a085529427a84c328a0e54754cdf751967853bb92be¶

ecb01757337952095593597ccfc9a41571176b352bb55db83a21a343d276])¶

Document description:Exhibit B¶

Original filename:n/a¶

Electronic document Stamp:¶

[STAMP dcecfEtampiD=1105629215 [Date=4/2/2009] [FileNumber=6195964-2]¶

[25cedd880cca3d8978be178b71fldefe7a045549a477d2d9547e32020ef01488969e¶

bad8c2e920f70317c10d9120ceca0890948393f1d74268del8e9f188192d]]¶

Document description:Exhibit C¶

Original filename:n/a¶

Electronic document Stamp:¶

[STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1105629215 [Date=4/2/2009] [FileNumber=6195964-3]¶

[378 92711fafeel0f7c7b9b1c0cadl0ac25fillcfa940376210a3a511f5b8fc66e25¶

7a72e8a82acif8d04c63aa2721bce8e1445577efdde123db7e50acecc99aJ]¶

Document description:Exhibit D¶

Original filename:n/a¶

Electronic document Stamp:¶

[STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1105629215 [Date=4/2/2009] [FileNumber=6195964-4]¶

[30891fd9cd081f85da5c8b8446571f54389e681aa2a5lbf899667fcfbea8f86fccf8¶

b5cc59c87a711c75abbeaaf0e49106318132669f8731cecdd18b8714e895]]¶