## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff; vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 3, Plaintiff; vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 4, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 5, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRAMOHNSON CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-NIAFtRAMIIII CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRAJIMI CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRAIIIIII Plaintiff, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 6, Plaintiff, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 7, Plaintiff, JEFFREY EPSTEIN Defendant. C.M.A., Plaintiff, JEFFREY EPSTEIN Defendant. JANE DOE, CASE NO.: 08-80994-CIV-MARRAi CASE NO.: 08-80993-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON CASE NO.: 08-80811-CIV-MARRAMMI CASE NO.: 08-80893-CIV-MARRAJ Plaintiff, JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al, Defendants. DOE U, CASE NO.: 09-80469-CIV-MARRAIIIIIII Plaintiff, JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al, Defendants. JANE DOE NO. 101, CASE NO.: 09-80591-CIV-MARRA-MMI Plaintiff, JEFFREY EPSTEIN Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 102, CASE NO.: 09-00656-CIV-MARRAIIIIIII Plaintiff, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. / / DEFENDANT, DOE JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S. RESPONSE TO JANE DOE NO. 101 AND JANE NO. 102'S MOTION FOR A NO CONTACT ORDER Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, ("MR. EPSTEIN"), by and through his undersigned attorneys responds to the Plaintiffs' Jane Doe No. 101 and Jane Doe No. 102("Plaintiffs") Motion for a No Contact Order \[DE I I3j and states: 1. Plaintiffs' Motion was completely unnecessary and awaste of attorney time and judicial resources. Plaintiffs' motion was filed to cast afalse light on Mr. Epstein and his attorneys, and to draw attention away from the fact that many of the alleged "victims" on the referenced "list" were or are admitted prostitutes, dancers at strip clubs (Platinum Gold, Cheetah, Diamond Dolls, T's Lounge, Flashdance, etc.) or have criminal records or warrants for their arrests, to reference only a few issues about them. 1. Plaintiffs seek an advisory opinion on an issue which does not exist. Neither Mr. Epstein nor his attorneys have initiated any contact, direct or indirect, with any alleged "victims", nor does Plaintiffs' counsel or any alleged person by way of affidavit alleged any type of contact, direct or indirect. The undersigned's May 21, 2009 (Exhibit I hereto) letter could not have been clearer as to the position of Mr. Epstein and his attorneys, i.e. "To my knowledge, neither Mr. Epstein nor any attorney or agent of those attorneys who represent Mr. Epstein, have contacted or attempted to contact your clients. Given that it is not Mr. Epstein's intention to have any direct contact with your clients, it is unnecessary to respond point by point to any statements attributed to my co-counsel." To the extent it was not clear in the undersigned's letter, neither Mr. Epstein nor his attorneys, nor their agents intend to have any direct or indirect contact with Plaintiffs counsels' clients. What else is there to say? 1. Is Plaintiffs' counsel suggesting that Mr. Epstein cannot even be at the depositions of his clients as parties or witnesses? That certainly will be direct 'eye' contact at a minimum. If that is Plaintiffs' position then Jane Doe 101 and 102, and any other matters where Plaintiffs' firm's clients are involved, should be stayed until expiration of the Non-Prosecution Agreement, otherwise Mr. Epstein will be denied his due process right of any civil party to be present at opposing party's deposition. 4. Rather than to mislead the court by providing a substantially redacted copy of the undersigned's May 18, 2009 letter, a full copy of the letter redacting only the client's full name is attached as Exhibit 2. The letter is important in that the Defendant and his attorneys recognize that no contact included not serving his client with adeposition subpoena through aprocess server, i.e. potentially an "agent" by serving her attorney. As this court will note from paragraph 2of Exhibit 1, avery cautious approach was taken by Defendant and his attorneys, in stating "However, based on the position that you, Bob, have taken, I am providing/serving you with the subpoena for L.S.P.'s deposition on June 11." 1. Plaintiffs' counsel further tries to obfuscate Defendant's position by redacting the last paragraph of the May 18, 2009 letter, which states "Finally as I also indicated in our telephone conversation, your client contacted Jack Goldberger's [one of Mr. Epstein's attorneys] office last week suggesting that Jack was holding up the settlement. He did not speak with her. I don't know where Ms. P got that idea." Plaintiffs' counsel should be more concerned about controlling their own clients. 1. Rather than the Plaintiffs filing this needless, unwarranted and excessive motion where they take another shot at Mr. Epstein so they can remind the court of their alleged damages, maybe, they should focus more on the background of their own clients, including the individual referenced in the May 18, 2009 letter. 1. Finally, Mr. Epstein pled guilty to one count of felony solicitation (which was not related to a minor), under §796.07(2)(f), F.S. and one count of procuring a minor for prostitution under §796.03 F. S. Plaintiffs' reference to both counts being related to "minors" is again misleading and incorrect. 1. At the time of the state court plea on June 30, 2008, neither Defendant nor his counsel nor the state attorney's office had seen the "secret" list of alleged victims, i.e. Mr. Epstein was forced to agree to a list of individuals that the USAO refused to provide pre-plea. The list was not provided to Mr. Epstein's attorney until after the plea and Mr. Epstein was in jail. With the parties to the plea completely unaware who would be on the list, how then could the state plea be construed as a limitless no contact order. Mr. Epstein is doing more than the law requires. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Mr. Epstein, requests this court deny the motion as premature and unnecessary based on the current state of the facts. ## 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 record identified on the following Service List in the manner specified by Clvf/ECF on this 29th day of May, 2009 Doe 101 v. Epstein Page 7 Respectfully sub By: ROBERT D. QRITTON, JR., ESQ. Florida Bar o. 224162 rcritAbelclaw.com MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. Florida Bar #617296 mpikeabc1claw.corn 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) #### Certificate of Service Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey E stein Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/ Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. Mermeistein & Horowitz, P.A. 18205 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 2218 Miami, FL 33160 305-931-2200 Fax: 305-931-0877 ssm@sexabuseattornev.com ahorovvitz(asexabuseattomev.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. 229010'" Avenue North Suite 404 Lake Worth, FL 33461 561-582-7600 Fax: 561-588-8819 Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08- 80811 reelrhwabotmail.corn Jack Scarola, Esq. Jack P.■ **Esq. Searcy Denney Scarola P.A. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach, FL 33409 561-686-6300 Fax: 561-383-9424 isxasearcylaw.com johOsearcylaw.com Counsel for Plaintiff, C.M.A. Barnhart & Shipley,** **Brad ME, Esq. Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler 401 East Las Olas Boulevard Suite 1650 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: 954-522-3456 Fax: 954-527-8663 bedwards@na-law.com Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08- 80893** **Paul G. Cassell, Esq. Pro Hac Vice 332South 1400 E, Room 101 Salt Lake City, UT 84112 801-585-5202 801-585-6833 Fax cassello@law.utalLedtt Co-counsel for Plaintifflane 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 isidrozarciaebellsouth.net Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08- 80469 Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq. Katherine W. Ezell, Esq. Podhurst Orseck, P.A. 25West Flagler Street, Suite 800 Miami, FL 33130 305 358-2800 Fax: 305 358-2382 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 ecfObrucereinhartlaw.com Counsel for Defendant- Theodore J. Leopold, Esq. Spencer T. Kuvin, Esq. Ricci-Leopold, P.A. 2925 PGA Blvd., Suite 200 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 561-684-6500 Fax: 561-515-2610 Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08- 08804 skuvin@riccilaw.cont tleorteldaiccilaw.com dosefsberg@podhurst.com kezell&odhurst.com Counsel for Plaintiffs in Related Cases Nos. 0940591 and 09-80656 Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 561-659-8300 Fax: 561-835-8691 iaizes4Qbellsouth.net Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein ![](_page_9_Picture_3.jpeg) I. MICHABL BURALIAI, PA' 01010ORY 74 COUTBIAN,PA. ROBTfiCt D. CRITION. IL. PA: BERNARD USTIVBXBR MARK T.11/11111. PA. JEMMY C. ASPS, Id/CHAILL J. TIX8 HBA11121t MoNAMARA kUDA PI.0701.10ANDOMMIUD CIVILIIUALIAWYSt ### BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN LLP A LITAITIM LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP Sent by E-Mail and U.S. Mai( Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq. Katherine Emil. Esq. Podhurst Orseck, PA 25 West Flagier Street, Suite 800 Miami, FL 33130 Dear Bob: May 21, 2009 ADOLQUI I. IfINAVENTE MPAISCIAL/ 1101:1010%. BAABARA AL Me/WM Ulna STOICINBAUX0 SEIM STORM nutAuximA AMA R. WON= OF COWAN& . As I advised you yesterday, I am responding to your April 17, 2009 letter. As I stated In my e-mail, I think your request is unnecessary. Despite what Roy may have said to you, my client has had no contact with any of your clients. To my knowledge, the only one who has 'breached" any agreement regarding contact is your own client, S who, as I advised you In a letter last week, contacted Jack Gokiberger's office looking for her settlement check. Mr. Goldberger, of course, did not speak with her. Lawyers who represent Mr. Epstein are well familiar with the Rules of Professional Conduct, including Rule 4-42. At the same time, I am certain you are equally familiar with that Rule. The Comment provides "Parries to a mafter may communicate directly with each other...'. To my knowledge, neither Mr. Epstein nor any attorney or agent of those attorneys who represent Mr. Epstein, have contacted or attempted to contact your clients. Given that it is not Mr. Epstein's Intention to have direct contact with your clients, It is unnecessary to respond point by point to statements attributed to my cocounsel. EXHIBIT 3. L •A•W•Y•B•R•8 SUN. FLAMER DRIVE / SUM1 400 I WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33401 113LEPRONE (56I) 842-2220 FAX (561) 844-6929 saallabololaw.00m May 21, 2009 Page 2 Rather than to be concerned about what my client Is doing, I would ask that you advise your clients not to contact Mr. Epstein's lawyers directly. Neither I nor the attorneys who represent Mr. Epstein want to be put in a position where we are set up by any of your clients. RDC/mso cc: Roy Black, Esq. Jay Lefkowttz, Esq. J. Michael Burman, Esq. Jack Goldberger, Esq. Jcadifsbesp.011.0oo ![](_page_11_Picture_2.jpeg) # BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN LLP I. MICHAEL BURMAN.PA OREOORY W. COLEMAN, PA. ROBERT D. CRITTON•JR., PA! BERNARD LEBEDBIUIR MARK t LUTTIER. P.A. JEFFREY C. PEFIN MICHAELJ. PIKE HEATHER MeNAMARA RUDA ' FLOPODA DOAAD CERTUND aYR. TRIAL LAVIYER A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP Katherine W. Ezell, Esq. Robert Josefsberg, Esq. Podhurst Orseck, P.A. 25West Flagler Street, Suite 800 Miami, FL 33130 Re: See Vaal Dear Kathy and Bob: May 18, 2009 ADELQUI I. BENAVENTE MRAUQILI DIVINTI0ATOR BARBARA M. McKEDINA ASHLUISIDICENBARDIO BETTY STOKES PARALBOALS RIIAH. BUDNYK cROOIRISaL enclosing the settlement check made payable to your firm and your client, in the amount of \$50,000.00. Upon clearance of the funds, forward the original release to me. Additionally, Bob, you wrote a letter on April 17, 2009 stating your position Non regarding "No Contact" with any of your firm's clients based on your interpretation of the Non -Prosecution Agreement. I do not concede that your position is correct nor that the However, -Prosecution Agreement prevents some forms of contact with your clients. with based on the position that you, Bob, have taken, I am providing/serving you the subpoena for ars Pass deposition on June 11. If that date and time does not work for you, please let me know and we will recoordinate a date within a reasonable time frame. As I advised you in our conversation Warrant today, May 18, 2009, there is a No-Bond for Ms. Pies arrest. Apparently your client was arrested In March of this Beach year for County one count of battery and two counts of domestic violence based upon the Palm Sheriffs office booking records. She apparently violated her SOR, and therefore aWarrant Is outstanding. While I have an obligation to provide you our firm's check made payable to your her firm which and Ms. would Plat we are specifically opposed to the disbursement of any funds to in any way suggest that Mr. Epstein or his attorneys are aiding a any fugitive. Because there is a Warrant for her arrest and she is afugitive, disbursement of funds to her maybe considered by the Palm Beach Sheriffs office to be "aiding a L'A -W•Y•E•R•S 515N. FLAGLER DRIVE / SUITE 400 / WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33401 TELEPHONE (561) 842-2820 FAX (561) 844-6929 EXHIBIT .02 May 18, 2009 Page 2 disbursement. fugitive". With the funds now under your control, you must make your own decision on Finally as I also indicated in our telephone conversation, your client contacted He Jack Goldberger's office last week suggesting that Jack was holding up the settlement. did not speak with her. I don't know where Ms. Pappgot that idea. Cordially Robe' •. Critton, Jr. RDC/dz cc: Jack Goldberger, Esq.