016-13.pdf

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON

JANE DOE NO. 3,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant.
____________________________________/
Related Cases:
08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994,
08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469,
09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092,
____________________________________/

PLAINTIFF JANE DOE NO. 3’s MOTION FOR
SANCTIONS, MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER,
AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW

Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 3, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby files this Motion
for Sanctions, Motion for Protective Order, and Incorporated Memorandum of Law, and states as
follows:

1. Plaintiffs in these cases have previously brought to this Court’s attention Jeffrey
Epstein’s pattern of intimidating and harassing his victims, as well as the Plaintiffs’ fear of
Jeffrey Epstein. See, e.g., Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and Jane Doe No. 102’s Motion for No Contact Order (D.E. 113); Plaintiffs Jane Does 2-7’s Response to Defendant’s Motion to
Compel and/or Identify Plaintiffs in the Style of this Case (D.E. 144); Plaintiffs Jane Does’ 2-7
Motion for Protective Order and Incorporated Memorandum of Law (D.E. 223); Plaintiffs Jane
Doe Nos. 2-8’s Motion for Protective Order as to Jeffrey Epstein’s Attendance at Deposition of
Plaintiffs, and Incorporated Memorandum of Law (D.E. 292); Affidavit of Dr. Kliman (D.E. 223,
Exh. A); Jane Doe No. 4’s Motion for Sanctions and Motion for Protective Order (D.E. 306);
Order, dated October 23, 2009 (D.E. 369) (forbidding Epstein from attending Jane Doe No. 4’s
deposition); Omnibus Order (forbidding Epstein’s attorneys from repetitive and abusive
questioning during Plaintiffs’ depositions) (D.E. 433).

2. Jane Doe No. 4 previously brought to this Court’s attention that Epstein attended
her deposition in violation of this Court’s No-Contact Order (D.E. 238), a nearly identical No Contact Order entered by the Court in Epstein’s criminal prosecution, and a stipulation between
the parties that Epstein would not appear at her deposition.

3. Yet again, on November 24, 2009, Defendant Epstein flagrantly violated multiple
Orders of this Court when he deliberately presented himself at the location of Jane Doe No. 3’s
medical examination pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 35 (the “IME”). At that time, he terrorized Jane
Doe No. 3 by crossing paths with her in a place and at a time when he must have known that his
presence was forbidden by Court Order.

4. Epstein’s counsel served the Notice of Jane Doe No. 3’s IME on October 30,
2009. The Notice included the date and location of Jane Doe No. 3’s IME, 250 S. Australian
Avenue, West Palm Beach. The Notice stated that the IME would start at 9 am and last until
approximately 5:30 p.m. A Court Order required the Plaintiff to submit to eight hours of
evaluation. Jane Doe No. 3 was the fifth plaintiff to undergo her IME. All of the previous IMEs
lasted until later than 6:15 p.m. Therefore, Epstein and his counsel knew where Jane Doe No. 3
would be on November 24, 2009, and that she would be there between 9:00 am and sometime
around 6:15 p.m. Epstein, therefore, must have known that there was a fair chance he would
encounter Jane Doe No. 3 on November 24, 2009, at the address where his attorney had
scheduled the IME.

5. On November 5, 2009, this Court entered a Joint Agreed Order, which stated that
“Defendant Jeffrey Epstein will not attend the IMEs or make himself seen by Plaintiffs on the
date of their IMEs.” (D.E. 401) (emphasis added). It was Epstein’s responsibility to ensure his
compliance with this Order. The Order further provided that the IMEs of Jane Doe Nos. 2-8
would take place at a “mutually agreeable location,” and not at the office of Epstein’s counsel.

6. Pursuant to the November 5, 2009 Order, Jane Doe No. 3 appeared at her IME.
During a brief recess in the IME, Jane Doe No. 3 and her attorney were outside the office
building where the IME was taking place, 250 S. Australian Ave., West Palm Beach. As in the
other Plaintiffs’ IMEs that took place over a two-week period, Jane Doe No. 3 took a short break
approximately every two hours when it was time to change the videotape in the camera recording
the IME. It was during the last break of the day that Defendant Epstein crossed paths with Jane
Doe No. 3, in violation of multiple Court Orders.

7. While Jane Doe No. 3 and her counsel, Jessica Arbour, were sitting on a bench
just outside the foyer of the office building, Defendant Epstein exited the building. When he
encountered Jane Doe No. 3 and her attorney, he made no attempt to stop, change his direction,
or return to the building without Jane Doe No. 3 seeing him, despite having ample opportunity to
avoid them. See Affidavit of Jessica Arbour, attached as Exhibit “A”.

8. Epstein crossed in front of Jane Doe No. 3, approximately 5-7 feet from her. Jane
Doe No. 3 immediately reacted in a terrified, emotional manner that included screaming and
crying. Her attorney physically removed her from Defendant Epstein’s vicinity and into the
safety of the building’s lobby. Jane Doe No. 3’s reaction was so emotional that the security
guard on duty and several onlookers appeared quite concerned. (See Exh. “A” ¶¶ 7-11).

9. Epstein does not dispute that he encountered Jane Doe No. 3 and her attorney.
See Exhibit B. He does not dispute that he recognized them.

10. Jane Doe No. 3 was eventually calmed enough to be taken back to the office
where her IME was being conducted, but was too distraught to continue her IME. At that point,
Jane Doe No. 3’s counsel terminated the IME.

11. At no time were Plaintiff or her counsel made aware that Defendant Epstein
would be in the building when any of the Plaintiffs would be present for their IMEs. Indeed,
Plaintiffs reasonably expected that this Court’s prior orders and the threat of sanctions would be
a sufficient deterrent to keep Epstein away.

12. Defendant Epstein’s ostensible full-time employer, the Florida Science
Foundation, is no longer located in the building where the IMEs took place. The company was
administratively dissolved several months ago, approximately the same time that his court ordered work-release program with the foundation ended. As a result, it would appear that
Epstein had no legitimate purpose in the building at 250 S. Australian Ave. on November 24,
2009. Indeed, he was dressed in an oversized sweatsuit that would not be appropriate for any
professional environment. (Arbour Aff., Exh. “A”, ¶14). The reason for his presence in the
building has never been explained to Jane Doe No. 3’s counsel.

13. In addition to violating the Agreed Order (D.E. 401), Epstein’s conduct recklessly
or intentionally violated (i) this Court’s No-Contact Order dated July 31, 2009 (D.E. 238), in
which he was specifically instructed to have no “direct or indirect contact” with Jane Doe No. 3
or any other plaintiff; and (2) the July 31, 2008, no-contact Order entered by the Court in his
criminal matter arising from the sexual assaults of numerous underage girls, including Jane Doe
No. 3. The July 31, 2009 Order mirrored the June 30, 2008 criminal sentence entered by Palm
Beach Circuit Court Judge Deborah Dale Pucillio, wherein she instructed Jeffrey Epstein that he
shall have “no direct or indirect contact” with the Plaintiffs. (D.E. 238).

14. Jane Doe No. 3 agrees to attend the remaining two hours of her IME in order to
comply fully with this Court’s Order on the IME length. However, a protective order
specifically barring the continuation of the IME from occurring anywhere not previously agreed
upon by Plaintiff’s counsel is necessary to ensure that Defendant Epstein will not be given
another opportunity to traumatize Jane Doe No. 3. Given the violation of the prior Orders as
well as a prior similar incident at the deposition of Jane Doe No. 4, a more drastic measure is
now necessary to protect Jane Doe No. 3 from Epstein.

15. Furthermore, Jane Doe No. 3 seeks sanctions against Defendant Epstein for the
violation of not one, but three court orders designed to protect Plaintiffs from the exact conduct
in which Defendant Epstein engaged. This Court has authority to sanction a party for civil
contempt for violating the terms of a court order. See Sizzler Family Steak Houses v. Western
Sizzlin Steak House, Inc., 793 F.2d 1529, 1534-35 (11th Cir. 1986) (attorneys’ fees may be
awarded for civil contempt in failure to comply with court order). Additionally, sanctions for
violation of multiple court orders are an appropriate exercise of judicial oversight.

16. Given Jeffrey Epstein’s violation of this Court’s No-Contact Order and the
Agreed Order, appropriate sanctions and other relief are necessary to compensate Plaintiff Jane
Doe No. 3.

17. Prior to filing this Motion, Plaintiff’s counsel conferred with Jeffrey Epstein’s
counsel in an attempt to reach an agreement as to the relief requested. No agreement was
reached.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 3, respectfully requests (1) an award of sanctions,
including attorneys’ fees and costs reasonably and necessarily incurred by Plaintiff due to
Defendant Jeffrey Epstein’s violation of the Court’s No-Contact Order (D.E. 238) and Agreed
Order (D.E. 401); (2) an Order requiring that the remaining two hours of Jane Doe No. 3’s IME
take place at a mutually agreeable location in a city other than West Palm Beach, with Defendant
Epstein responsible for all costs above and beyond those originally contemplated by this Court in
its Nov. 5 Order; and (3) all other relief as 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.

Dated: January 4, 2010 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

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on January 4, 2010, 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

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
brad@pathtojustice.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