052.pdf
56.3 KB
Extraction Summary
25
People
2
Organizations
2
Locations
1
Events
3
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal motion (motion for protective order)
File Size:
56.3 KB
Summary
This document is a Motion for Protective Order filed on July 29, 2009, in the Southern District of Florida by Plaintiffs 'Jane Does 2-7' against Jeffrey Epstein. The plaintiffs allege that Epstein hired private investigators to harass and intimidate them by contacting their former employers, ex-boyfriends, and friends to ask intrusive personal questions and potentially 'out' them as sexual abuse victims. The motion seeks a court order to stop Epstein's investigators from making ex parte contacts with nonparties associated with the plaintiffs.
People (25)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Jeffrey Epstein | Defendant |
Sued by multiple Jane Doe plaintiffs; accused of employing investigators to harass nonparties.
|
| Jane Doe No. 2 | Plaintiff |
Plaintiff in Case No. 08-CV-80119.
|
| Jane Doe No. 3 | Plaintiff |
Plaintiff in Case No. 08-CV-80232.
|
| Jane Doe No. 4 | Plaintiff |
Plaintiff in Case No. 08-CV-80380; former employer contacted repeatedly by investigators.
|
| Jane Doe No. 5 | Plaintiff |
Plaintiff in Case No. 08-CV-80381.
|
| Jane Doe No. 6 | Plaintiff |
Plaintiff in Case No. 08-CV-80994; former employer contacted by investigators.
|
| Jane Doe No. 7 | Plaintiff |
Plaintiff in Case No. 08-CV-80993.
|
| C.M.A. | Plaintiff |
Plaintiff in Case No. 08-CV-80811.
|
| Jane Doe | Plaintiff |
Plaintiff in Case No. 08-CV-80893.
|
| Doe II | Plaintiff |
Plaintiff in Case No. 08-CV-80469.
|
| Jane Doe No. 101 | Plaintiff |
Plaintiff in Case No. 08-CV-80591.
|
| Jane Doe No. 102 | Plaintiff |
Plaintiff in Case No. 08-CV-80656.
|
| Gilbert Kliman, M.D. | Declarant |
Provided a declaration (Exhibit A) regarding psychological harm.
|
| Adam D. Horowitz | Attorney |
Attorney for Plaintiffs; Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A.
|
| Stuart S. Mermelstein | Attorney |
Attorney for Plaintiffs; Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A.
|
| Jack Alan Goldberger | Attorney |
Listed on Service List.
|
| Robert D. Critton | Attorney |
Listed on Service List.
|
| Bradley James Edwards | Attorney |
Listed on Service List.
|
| Isidro Manuel Garcia | Attorney |
Listed on Service List.
|
| Jack Patrick Hill | Attorney |
Listed on Service List.
|
| Katherine Warthen Ezell | Attorney |
Listed on Service List.
|
| Michael James Pike | Attorney |
Listed on Service List.
|
| Paul G. Cassell | Attorney |
Listed on Service List.
|
| Richard Horace Willits | Attorney |
Listed on Service List.
|
| Robert C. Josefsberg | Attorney |
Listed on Service List.
|
Organizations (2)
Timeline (1 events)
2009-07-29
Filing of Plaintiffs Jane Does' 2-7 Motion for Protective Order
United States District Court, Southern District of Florida
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
Relationships (3)
Defendant vs Plaintiffs in multiple civil cases.
Motion states Epstein 'has employed investigators'.
Signed motion as 'Attorneys for Plaintiffs'.
Key Quotes (4)
"Defendant Jeffrey Epstein has employed investigators who have made repeated contacts with ex-boyfriends, former employers, and others who know nothing of the underlying facts of the case."Source
052.pdf
Quote #1
"The Defendant’s repeated contacts with these nonparties is harassing and designed to intimidate the Plaintiffs."Source
052.pdf
Quote #2
"Plaintiffs have a well-grounded fear that the investigators will use the opportunity of their contacts with these nonparties to 'out' the Plaintiffs’ as alleged childhood sexual abuse victims of Jeffrey Epstein."Source
052.pdf
Quote #3
"three of Defendant’s investigators recently called the former employer of Jane Doe 4 on repeated occasions over a two-day period"Source
052.pdf
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (9,025 characters)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JANE DOE NO. 2, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON
Plaintiff,
vs.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant.
____________________________________/
JANE DOE NO. 3, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/JOHNSON
Plaintiff,
vs.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant.
____________________________________/
JANE DOE NO. 4, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/JOHNSON
Plaintiff,
vs.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant.
____________________________________/
JANE DOE NO. 5, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/JOHNSON
Plaintiff,
vs.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant.
____________________________________/
Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 52 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2009 Page 1 of 8
Plaintiff,
vs.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant.
____________________________________/
JANE DOE NO. 3, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/JOHNSON
Plaintiff,
vs.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant.
____________________________________/
JANE DOE NO. 4, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/JOHNSON
Plaintiff,
vs.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant.
____________________________________/
JANE DOE NO. 5, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/JOHNSON
Plaintiff,
vs.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant.
____________________________________/
Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 52 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2009 Page 1 of 8
JANE DOE NO. 6, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80994-MARRA/JOHNSON
Plaintiff,
vs.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant.
____________________________________/
JANE DOE NO. 7, CASE NO.: 08- CV-80993-MARRA/JOHNSON
Plaintiff,
vs.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant.
____________________________________/
C.M.A., CASE NO.: 08- CV-80811 -MARRA/JOHNSON
Plaintiff,
vs.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant.
____________________________________/
JANE DOE, CASE NO.: 08- CV-80893-MARRA/JOHNSON
Plaintiff,
vs.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et al.,
Defendant.
____________________________________/
DOE II, CASE NO.: 08-CV- 80469-MARRA/JOHNSON
Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 52 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2009 Page 2 of 8
Plaintiff,
vs.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant.
____________________________________/
JANE DOE NO. 7, CASE NO.: 08- CV-80993-MARRA/JOHNSON
Plaintiff,
vs.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant.
____________________________________/
C.M.A., CASE NO.: 08- CV-80811 -MARRA/JOHNSON
Plaintiff,
vs.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant.
____________________________________/
JANE DOE, CASE NO.: 08- CV-80893-MARRA/JOHNSON
Plaintiff,
vs.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et al.,
Defendant.
____________________________________/
DOE II, CASE NO.: 08-CV- 80469-MARRA/JOHNSON
Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 52 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2009 Page 2 of 8
Plaintiff,
vs.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al.,
Defendant.
____________________________________/
JANE DOE NO. 101, CASE NO.: 08- CV-80591-MARRA/JOHNSON
Plaintiff,
vs.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant.
____________________________________/
JANE DOE NO. 102, CASE NO.: 08- CV-80656-MARRA/JOHNSON
Plaintiff,
vs.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant.
____________________________________/
vs.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al.,
Defendant.
____________________________________/
JANE DOE NO. 101, CASE NO.: 08- CV-80591-MARRA/JOHNSON
Plaintiff,
vs.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant.
____________________________________/
JANE DOE NO. 102, CASE NO.: 08- CV-80656-MARRA/JOHNSON
Plaintiff,
vs.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant.
____________________________________/
PLAINTIFFS JANE DOES’ 2- 7 MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE
ORDER AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW
ORDER AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW
Plaintiffs, Jane Does 2-7 (“Plaintiffs” or individually, “Plaintiff”), by and through
undersigned counsel, hereby file Plaintiffs’ Motion for Protective Order, pursuant to
S.D.Fla.L.R. 7.1, and state as follows:
undersigned counsel, hereby file Plaintiffs’ Motion for Protective Order, pursuant to
S.D.Fla.L.R. 7.1, and state as follows:
1. Plaintiffs Jane Does 2-7 are proceeding with a Jane Doe pseudonym as this case
involves facts of the utmost intimacy and there is a genuine risk of psychological harm if their
identities are disclosed. See Exhibit “A” (Declaration of Gilbert Kliman, M.D.) (See also DE
144, Jane Does’ 2-7 Response to Defendant’s Motion to Compel Identity, et al.).
Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 52 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2009 Page 3 of 8
involves facts of the utmost intimacy and there is a genuine risk of psychological harm if their
identities are disclosed. See Exhibit “A” (Declaration of Gilbert Kliman, M.D.) (See also DE
144, Jane Does’ 2-7 Response to Defendant’s Motion to Compel Identity, et al.).
Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 52 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2009 Page 3 of 8
2. Despite the obvious need for Plaintiffs to have their identities protected,
Defendant Jeffrey Epstein has employed investigators who have made repeated contacts with ex-boyfriends, former employers, and others who know nothing of the underlying facts of the case.
These investigators have contacted such nonparties asking them for extensive personal
information about a Plaintiff, such as names and contact information of former boyfriends and
other friends and acquaintances in the Plaintiff’s community.
Defendant Jeffrey Epstein has employed investigators who have made repeated contacts with ex-boyfriends, former employers, and others who know nothing of the underlying facts of the case.
These investigators have contacted such nonparties asking them for extensive personal
information about a Plaintiff, such as names and contact information of former boyfriends and
other friends and acquaintances in the Plaintiff’s community.
3. The Defendant’s repeated contacts with these nonparties is harassing and
designed to intimidate the Plaintiffs. The purpose and intent of these contacts is to brand the
Plaintiffs as alleged sexual abuse victims to their families, friends and communities.
designed to intimidate the Plaintiffs. The purpose and intent of these contacts is to brand the
Plaintiffs as alleged sexual abuse victims to their families, friends and communities.
4. A Motion is pending in which this Court is being asked to determine whether and
how Defendant may obtain discovery from nonparties. (DE 91, 144). Defendant’s investigative
efforts improperly circumvent the issues in the pending Motion, and only serve to highlight the
need for this Court to implement appropriate protective measures to prevent Defendant from
harassing, intimidating, and intruding unnecessarily into the personal lives of the Plaintiffs.
how Defendant may obtain discovery from nonparties. (DE 91, 144). Defendant’s investigative
efforts improperly circumvent the issues in the pending Motion, and only serve to highlight the
need for this Court to implement appropriate protective measures to prevent Defendant from
harassing, intimidating, and intruding unnecessarily into the personal lives of the Plaintiffs.
5. While it is not unusual for a defendant to use appropriate means to obtain records
from former employers and others referenced in a plaintiff’s discovery responses, it is not
customary for a defendant to retain private investigators to make personal contact with these
individuals. Indeed, this practice is particularly inappropriate in a sexual abuse case where these
nonparties are unaware of the underlying abuse. Plaintiffs have a well-grounded fear that the
investigators will use the opportunity of their contacts with these nonparties to “out” the
Plaintiffs’ as alleged childhood sexual abuse victims of Jeffrey Epstein. (See Kliman Decl., Exh.
“A” hereto).
Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 52 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2009 Page 4 of 8
from former employers and others referenced in a plaintiff’s discovery responses, it is not
customary for a defendant to retain private investigators to make personal contact with these
individuals. Indeed, this practice is particularly inappropriate in a sexual abuse case where these
nonparties are unaware of the underlying abuse. Plaintiffs have a well-grounded fear that the
investigators will use the opportunity of their contacts with these nonparties to “out” the
Plaintiffs’ as alleged childhood sexual abuse victims of Jeffrey Epstein. (See Kliman Decl., Exh.
“A” hereto).
Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 52 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2009 Page 4 of 8
6. As an example of the investigators’ intimidation tactics, three of Defendant’s
investigators recently called the former employer of Jane Doe 4 on repeated occasions over a
two-day period, asking personal questions about her, including the name and telephone number
of her ex-boyfriend. See Exhibit “B”, Declaration of Jane Doe 4.
investigators recently called the former employer of Jane Doe 4 on repeated occasions over a
two-day period, asking personal questions about her, including the name and telephone number
of her ex-boyfriend. See Exhibit “B”, Declaration of Jane Doe 4.
7. Similarly, one of Defendant’s investigators contacted the former employer of Jane
Doe 6. See Exhibit “C”, Declaration of Jane Doe 6.
Doe 6. See Exhibit “C”, Declaration of Jane Doe 6.
8. There is no basis for Defendant or his multiple investigators to make repeated
personal contacts with former employers and ex-boyfriends to ask personal questions about a
Plaintiff. It is apparent that these contacts are not designed to obtain relevant information, but
rather are intended to intimidate the Plaintiffs and to reveal that they are childhood sexual abuse
victims.
personal contacts with former employers and ex-boyfriends to ask personal questions about a
Plaintiff. It is apparent that these contacts are not designed to obtain relevant information, but
rather are intended to intimidate the Plaintiffs and to reveal that they are childhood sexual abuse
victims.
9. Accordingly, Plaintiffs request the entry of a protective order that would prevent
Defendant, his attorneys and investigators from making ex parte contacts concerning this
litigation with nonparties who have no knowledge that a Plaintiff was a childhood sexual abuse
victim of Jeffrey Epstein.
Defendant, his attorneys and investigators from making ex parte contacts concerning this
litigation with nonparties who have no knowledge that a Plaintiff was a childhood sexual abuse
victim of Jeffrey Epstein.
10. This Court has discretion to enter a protective order designed to protect a party
from, among other things, annoyance or embarrassment. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c). As set forth above,
given the investigators’ conduct, a protective order is appropriate to prevent unnecessary
intrusion into the Plaintiffs’ personal lives and divulgation of Plaintiffs in their communities as
childhood sexual abuse victims.
from, among other things, annoyance or embarrassment. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c). As set forth above,
given the investigators’ conduct, a protective order is appropriate to prevent unnecessary
intrusion into the Plaintiffs’ personal lives and divulgation of Plaintiffs in their communities as
childhood sexual abuse victims.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Jane Does 2-7, respectfully request that this Court grant
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Protective Order, as follows: (i) order Defendant, his attorneys and
investigators to cease making ex parte contacts with nonparties identified in plaintiffs’ discovery
Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 52 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2009 Page 5 of 8
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Protective Order, as follows: (i) order Defendant, his attorneys and
investigators to cease making ex parte contacts with nonparties identified in plaintiffs’ discovery
Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 52 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2009 Page 5 of 8
responses, such as, for example, former employers; (ii) order Defendant, his attorneys and
investigators to cease making ex parte contacts with nonparties found during the course of
discovery or investigation who know the Plaintiff or live in her community, such as, for example,
current and former boyfriends and family friends of the Plaintiffs; (iii) order Defendant, his
attorneys and investigators to cease making ex parte contacts with nonparties who otherwise
know one of the Plaintiffs personally but who are unaware that she is an alleged victim of
childhood sexual abuse by Jeffrey Epstein; and (iv) grant all such other relief this Court deems
just and appropriate.
investigators to cease making ex parte contacts with nonparties found during the course of
discovery or investigation who know the Plaintiff or live in her community, such as, for example,
current and former boyfriends and family friends of the Plaintiffs; (iii) order Defendant, his
attorneys and investigators to cease making ex parte contacts with nonparties who otherwise
know one of the Plaintiffs personally but who are unaware that she is an alleged victim of
childhood sexual abuse by Jeffrey Epstein; and (iv) grant all such other relief this Court deems
just and appropriate.
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL RULE 7.1.A.3
Undersigned counsel has conferred with Defendant’s counsel in a good faith effort to
resolve the issues raised in this motion, and has been unable to do so, as Defendant’s counsel has
advised that Defendant opposes this motion.
Undersigned counsel has conferred with Defendant’s counsel in a good faith effort to
resolve the issues raised in this motion, and has been unable to do so, as Defendant’s counsel has
advised that Defendant opposes this motion.
Dated: July 29, 2009 Respectfully submitted,
By: s/ Adam D. Horowitz
Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245)
ssm@sexabuseattorney.com
Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980)
ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com
MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P.A.
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218
Miami, Florida 33160
Tel: (305) 931-2200
Fax: (305) 931-0877
Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 52 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2009 Page 6 of 8
By: s/ Adam D. Horowitz
Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245)
ssm@sexabuseattorney.com
Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980)
ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com
MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P.A.
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218
Miami, Florida 33160
Tel: (305) 931-2200
Fax: (305) 931-0877
Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 52 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2009 Page 6 of 8
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on July 29, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing document with
the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served
this day to all parties on the attached Service List in the manner specified, either via transmission
of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for
those parties who are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing.
I hereby certify that on July 29, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing document with
the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served
this day to all parties on the attached Service List in the manner specified, either via transmission
of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for
those parties who are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing.
/s/ Adam D. Horowitz .
Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 52 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2009 Page 7 of 8
Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 52 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2009 Page 7 of 8
SERVICE LIST
DOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN
United States District Court, Southern District of Florida
Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq.
jgoldberger@agwpa.com
Robert D. Critton, Esq.
rcritton@bclclaw.com
Bradley James Edwards
bedwards@rra-law.com
Isidro Manuel Garcia
isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net
Jack Patrick Hill
jph@searcylaw.com
Katherine Warthen Ezell
KEzell@podhurst.com
Michael James Pike
MPike@bclclaw.com
Paul G. Cassell
cassellp@law.utah.edu
Richard Horace Willits
lawyerwillits@aol.com
Robert C. Josefsberg
rjosefsberg@podhurst.com
DOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN
United States District Court, Southern District of Florida
Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq.
jgoldberger@agwpa.com
Robert D. Critton, Esq.
rcritton@bclclaw.com
Bradley James Edwards
bedwards@rra-law.com
Isidro Manuel Garcia
isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net
Jack Patrick Hill
jph@searcylaw.com
Katherine Warthen Ezell
KEzell@podhurst.com
Michael James Pike
MPike@bclclaw.com
Paul G. Cassell
cassellp@law.utah.edu
Richard Horace Willits
lawyerwillits@aol.com
Robert C. Josefsberg
rjosefsberg@podhurst.com
/s/ Adam D. Horowitz
Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 52 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2009 Page 8 of 8
Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 52 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2009 Page 8 of 8
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document