## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-cv-80119-MARRA/ JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. Related cases: 08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092 ## EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAIN'TIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF PLAINTIFFS' SWORN STATEMENTS TO FBI INVESTIGATORS Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN ("Epstein"), submits his Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs', Jane Doe Nos. 2-7 ("Plaintiff?) Motion to Compel Production of Jane Doe Nos. 2- 7's Sworn Statements to FBI Investigators ("Motion") (DE #489) and states: - 1. On March 17, 2010, Plaintiffs filed their Motion seeking their sworn statements made to the FBI pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §552a(b)(11),I - 2. Plaintiffs' Motion is premature as the procedures set forth in 28 C.F.R. §16.21, et seq., in requesting records from the FBI have not been followed. The Court should therefore deny Plaintiffs' Motion. - 3. Plaintiff? subpoena to the FBI for the requested information (Exhibit A to Plaintiffs' Motion) is dated March 12, 2010, five days before Plaintiffs filed their Motion. In the companion case Jane Doe v. Epstein Case No. 08-CV-80893, Jane Doe £tied a similar motion (DE #486). Epstein adopts the arguments in his Response in Opposition to said motion (DE #510) and incorporates them herein by reference. 4. The FBI is required to follow a certain protocol in responding to a subpoena for records and has not had the opportunity to do so since Plaintiffs served the subpoena days before filing their Motion. See 28 C.F.R. §16.21, es seq. 1. Next, Plaintiffs' assertion that "[t]he FBI informed Plaintiffs' counsel that it requires further authorization in order to release the Plaintiffs' own sworn statements..." is disingenuous. See Motion at 2. There is nothing in the record, either by way of a paper filed by the FBI, affidavit of an FBI representative or even a letter or e-mail, to corroborate Plaintiffs' statement. 1. And it is doubtful the FBI made such a statement as 28 C.F.R. §16.22(a) provides that "no employee or former employee of the Department of Justice shall, in response to a demand, produce any material contained in the files of the Department ... without prior approval of the proper Department official in accordance with §§16.24 and 16.25 of this part." Section §16.24 requires the matter to be referred to a U.S. Attorney and mandates specific procedures to be followed in determining whether and under what circumstances the requested information should be disclosed. Moreover, the U.S. Attorney must request and receive a summary of the information sought and its relevance to the proceeding. See 28 C.F.R. §16.22(d). Only after these procedures are followed can the FBI and the U.S. Attorney produce responsive materials. 1. Moreover, 28 C.F.R. §16.26(a), outlines various factors the Department must consider in determining whether to disclose records; §16.26(b) provides circumstances under which disclosure will not be made. 1. And even if the Court granted Plaintiffs' Motion, the FBI and U.S. Attorney may "respectfully decline to comply" if the requirements of 28 C.F.R. §§16.24 and 16.25 have not been met. See 28 C.F.R. §16.28. 1. Plaintiffs, by their Motion, are attempting to short-circuit the above-described procedure. 1. The Court should therefore deny Plaintiffs' Motion as it is premature and since the procedures and requirements outlined in 28 C.P.R. §16.21, et seg have not yet been satisfied. WHEREFORE, Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, respectfully requests the Court deny Plaintiffs', JANE DOE NOS. 2-7's, Motion (DE #489) and grant any additional relief the Court deems just and proper. > By: s/Michael J. Pike Robert D. Critton, Jr. Florida Bar #224162 Michael J. Pike Florida Bar #617296 ## Certificate of Service I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on all counsel of record identified on the following Service List in the manner specified by CM/ECF on this 31'1 day of March 2009. Respectfully submitted, By: s/Michael J. Pike ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. Florida Bar No. 224162 rcrit@bciclaw.com MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. Florida Bar #617296 mpike®bc1claw.com BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTHER & COLEMAN 303 Banyan Blvd., 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 Epstein**\ **Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/J** [REDACTED] Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq.\ Adam D. Horowitz, Esq.\ Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A.\ 18205 Biscayne Boulevard\ Suite 2218\ Miami, FL 33160\ 305-931-2200\ Fax: 305-931-0877\ [ssm@sexabuseattorney.com](mailto:ssm@sexabuseattorney.com)\ [ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com](mailto:ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com) *Counsel for Plaintiffs*\ *In related Cases Nos. 08-80069, 08-80119, 08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80993, 08-80994* 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\ [jagesq@bellsouth.net](mailto:jagesq@bellsouth.net) *Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Estein* [REDACTED], Jaffe, Weissing, [REDACTED] Fistos & Lehrman, PL\ 425 N. Andrews Avenue\ Suite 2\ Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301\ Phone: 954-524-2820\ Fax: 954-524-2822\ [brad@pathtojustice.com](mailto:brad@pathtojustice.com)\ *Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80893* Paul G. Cassell, Esq.\ *Pro Hac Vice*\ 332 South 1400 E, Room 101\ Salt Lake City, UT 84112\ 801-585-5202\ 801-585-6833 Fax\ [cassellp@law.utah.edu](mailto:cassellp@law.utah.edu) *Co-counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe* Isidro M. [REDACTED] Esq.\ [REDACTED] Law Firm, P.A.\ 224 Datura Street, Suite 900\ West Palm Beach, FL 33401\ 561-832-7732\ 561-832-7137 F\ [isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net](mailto:isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net) *Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80469*