017-17.pdf
289 KB
Extraction Summary
8
People
4
Organizations
4
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal motion (motion for leave/protective order)
File Size:
289 KB
Summary
This document is a Motion for Protective Order filed on June 30, 2010, by Jeffrey Epstein's defense team in the civil case Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein. Epstein seeks permission to redact specific portions of his tax returns regarding investment vehicles, claiming they contain trade secrets and confidential business information. The motion argues that Plaintiff's counsel, Brad Edwards, has a history of sharing discovery material with media and investigators, specifically citing an instance involving Alfredo Rodriguez's journal.
People (8)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Jeffrey Epstein | Defendant |
Filing motion to redact tax records; seeking protection for trade secrets.
|
| Jane Doe | Plaintiff |
Opposing party in the civil suit.
|
| Brad Edwards | Attorney for Plaintiff |
Accused by defense of providing Alfredo Rodriguez's journal to investigators; noted for responding to media inquiries.
|
| Alfredo Rodriguez | Mentioned Person |
Source of a journal/book that Edwards allegedly provided to investigators.
|
| Robert D. Critton, Jr. | Attorney for Defendant |
Signatory on the motion; represents Epstein.
|
| Michael J. Pike | Attorney for Defendant |
Listed on signature block.
|
| Paul G. Cassell | Attorney for Plaintiff |
Co-counsel admitted Pro Hac Vice.
|
| Jack Alan Goldberger | Attorney for Defendant |
Co-counsel for Epstein.
|
Timeline (2 events)
2010-02-04
Court entered order (DE 462) requiring Epstein to produce tax returns and passport.
US District Court Southern District of Florida
Jeffrey Epstein
Court
2010-06-30
Deadline for Epstein to comply with discovery order DE 572.
US District Court Southern District of Florida
Locations (4)
Relationships (2)
Motion states Edwards provided Rodriguez's journal/book to investigators.
Critton is listed as Attorney for Defendant Epstein.
Key Quotes (4)
"Plaintiff's counsel here, and in other cases, has always been quick to respond to media inquiries."Source
017-17.pdf
Quote #1
"Mr. Edwards admittedly has provided the journal and/or book secured from Alfredo Rodriguez to his investigators "who are now following-up [alleged] significant discovery leads found in the book.""Source
017-17.pdf
Quote #2
"The commercially sensitive and trade secret information contained in the tax returns could result in irreparable harm to Epstein if disseminated, and thus should be protected."Source
017-17.pdf
Quote #3
"Defendant expects that the information contained therein will be afforded that same protection."Source
017-17.pdf
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (9,265 characters)
Case 9:10-cv-81111-WPD Document 17-17 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2010 Page 1 of 6 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 182 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2010 Page 1 of 6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO.: 08-CIV- 80893 -MARRA/JOHNSON
JANE DOE,
Plaintiff,
v.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendants.
____________ __:!
EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR LEAVE/PROTECTIVE ORDER TO REDACT PORTIONS
OF TAX RECORDS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAST PORTION OF DE 572 AND
INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW
Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN ("Epstein"), pursuant to Rule 26(c), Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, moves for the entry of an order, protective order or modification of the order
under DE 572 allowing for the redaction of certain tax records, or that the records are for
"Attorneys or Experts' Eyes Only," and states:
I. On February 4, 2010, this Court entered an order (DE 462) requiring that Epstein
produce his tax returns, passport and certain information provided to him by the federal
government during certain criminal proceedings.
2. After Motions for Reconsideration and Rule 4 Appeal/Responses were fully
briefed, this court entered its order at DE 572 requiring that Jeffrey Epstein produce his tax
returns, his passport and the information the federal government gave to Epstein's lawyers
during said criminal proceedings. See DEs 462 and 572. The Order requires that Epstein,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO.: 08-CIV- 80893 -MARRA/JOHNSON
JANE DOE,
Plaintiff,
v.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendants.
____________ __:!
EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR LEAVE/PROTECTIVE ORDER TO REDACT PORTIONS
OF TAX RECORDS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAST PORTION OF DE 572 AND
INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW
Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN ("Epstein"), pursuant to Rule 26(c), Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, moves for the entry of an order, protective order or modification of the order
under DE 572 allowing for the redaction of certain tax records, or that the records are for
"Attorneys or Experts' Eyes Only," and states:
I. On February 4, 2010, this Court entered an order (DE 462) requiring that Epstein
produce his tax returns, passport and certain information provided to him by the federal
government during certain criminal proceedings.
2. After Motions for Reconsideration and Rule 4 Appeal/Responses were fully
briefed, this court entered its order at DE 572 requiring that Jeffrey Epstein produce his tax
returns, his passport and the information the federal government gave to Epstein's lawyers
during said criminal proceedings. See DEs 462 and 572. The Order requires that Epstein,
Case 9:10-cv-81111-WPD Document 17-17 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2010 Page 2 of 6 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 182 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2010 Page 2 of 6
through his couusel, comply within 3 days (i.e., by Juue 30, 2010). As such, this motion must be
timely addressed.
3. As part of that order at DE 572, this court ruled that" ... Plaintiff shall not disclose
Defendant's tax returns to any third parties without Defendant's consent and/or further court
order. .. [ and] Plaintiff may disclose this information to an expert witness retained to testify at
trial, but only on condition that the expert will agree to retain the confidentiality of the
information and not disclose it to any third parties without the agreement of defendant or further
order of the Court." The order went on to state that it " .. .is without prejudice to any future
motion by defendant to exclude any of the information produced pursuant to this order at trial."
4. Plaintiff's counsel here, and in other cases, has always been quick to respond to
media inquiries. The court has directed that the tax returns themselves remain confidential.
Defendant expects that the information contained therein will be afforded that same protection.
However, if Plaintiff's couusel provides information (such as the identification and sources of
Defendant's income) to others (i.e., non-lawyers, investigators, etc ... ), they will use that
information in an improper manner and in violation of the court's order. As set forth in DE 569,
Mr. Edwards admittedly has provided the journal and/or book secured from Alfredo Rodriguez
to his investigators "who are now following-up [alleged] significant discovery leads found in the
book."
5. Therefore, Epstein, in good faith, moves this court for an order allowing him to
redact certain information or designate the documents produced "Attorneys and Experts' Eyes
Only."
6. While the tax returns in this case are to be maintained as confidential, certain
information should be redacted in those tax returns including, but not limited to, the names of the
2
through his couusel, comply within 3 days (i.e., by Juue 30, 2010). As such, this motion must be
timely addressed.
3. As part of that order at DE 572, this court ruled that" ... Plaintiff shall not disclose
Defendant's tax returns to any third parties without Defendant's consent and/or further court
order. .. [ and] Plaintiff may disclose this information to an expert witness retained to testify at
trial, but only on condition that the expert will agree to retain the confidentiality of the
information and not disclose it to any third parties without the agreement of defendant or further
order of the Court." The order went on to state that it " .. .is without prejudice to any future
motion by defendant to exclude any of the information produced pursuant to this order at trial."
4. Plaintiff's counsel here, and in other cases, has always been quick to respond to
media inquiries. The court has directed that the tax returns themselves remain confidential.
Defendant expects that the information contained therein will be afforded that same protection.
However, if Plaintiff's couusel provides information (such as the identification and sources of
Defendant's income) to others (i.e., non-lawyers, investigators, etc ... ), they will use that
information in an improper manner and in violation of the court's order. As set forth in DE 569,
Mr. Edwards admittedly has provided the journal and/or book secured from Alfredo Rodriguez
to his investigators "who are now following-up [alleged] significant discovery leads found in the
book."
5. Therefore, Epstein, in good faith, moves this court for an order allowing him to
redact certain information or designate the documents produced "Attorneys and Experts' Eyes
Only."
6. While the tax returns in this case are to be maintained as confidential, certain
information should be redacted in those tax returns including, but not limited to, the names of the
2
Case 9:10-cv-81111-WPD Document 17-17 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2010 Page 3 of 6 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 182 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2010 Page 3 of 6
companies, trusts, properties and other investment vehicles EPSTEIN has invested in over the
years. This information is personal, confidential and trade secret information. The commercially
sensitive and trade secret information contained in the tax returns could result in irreparable harm
to Epstein if disseminated, and thus should be protected. Lynch v. Silcox, 2001 WL 1200656
(S.D. Fla. 2001); Saye v. Old Hill Partners, Inc., 478 F.Supp. 248, 274-276 (D.Ct. Conn.
2007)(question of fact existed as to whether investment company's business formula, which
included investment trading strategy, investor lists, portfolios, financing methods ... was trade secret); see also U.S. v. Baez-Alcaino, 718 F. Supp. 1503, 1505-06 (M.D. Fla. 1989) (affirming
lower court's decision to file redacted plea agreements to serve compelling government
interests); In re Duque, 134 B.R. 679, 687 (S.D. Fla. 1991) (finding that court's procedure
requiring attorneys to provide privileged documents to court for in-camera inspection while
providing redacted versions to the bankruptcy trustee was proper).
7. No figures or income information in the tax returns will be redacted.
8. Moreover, the right to privacy encompasses at least two different kinds of
interests, the individual interests of disclosing personal matters and the interest in independence
in making certain kinds of important decisions. Favalora v. Sidaway, 966 So.2d 895 (Fla. 4th
DCA 2008). Likewise, Article I, s. 23, Right of Privacy, provides that every natural person has
the right to be let alone and free from governmental intrusion into the person's private life.
Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367, 387 (1986); State v. Jardines, 9 So.3d I (Fla. 3d DCA
2008)(the Fourth Amendment clearly protects the right of people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers and effects from intrusion).
9. While the scope of discovery is broad, it is not without limits. Washington v.
Brown & Williamson Tobacco, 959 F.2d 1566, 1570 (11th Cir. 1992). Courts have long held
3
companies, trusts, properties and other investment vehicles EPSTEIN has invested in over the
years. This information is personal, confidential and trade secret information. The commercially
sensitive and trade secret information contained in the tax returns could result in irreparable harm
to Epstein if disseminated, and thus should be protected. Lynch v. Silcox, 2001 WL 1200656
(S.D. Fla. 2001); Saye v. Old Hill Partners, Inc., 478 F.Supp. 248, 274-276 (D.Ct. Conn.
2007)(question of fact existed as to whether investment company's business formula, which
included investment trading strategy, investor lists, portfolios, financing methods ... was trade secret); see also U.S. v. Baez-Alcaino, 718 F. Supp. 1503, 1505-06 (M.D. Fla. 1989) (affirming
lower court's decision to file redacted plea agreements to serve compelling government
interests); In re Duque, 134 B.R. 679, 687 (S.D. Fla. 1991) (finding that court's procedure
requiring attorneys to provide privileged documents to court for in-camera inspection while
providing redacted versions to the bankruptcy trustee was proper).
7. No figures or income information in the tax returns will be redacted.
8. Moreover, the right to privacy encompasses at least two different kinds of
interests, the individual interests of disclosing personal matters and the interest in independence
in making certain kinds of important decisions. Favalora v. Sidaway, 966 So.2d 895 (Fla. 4th
DCA 2008). Likewise, Article I, s. 23, Right of Privacy, provides that every natural person has
the right to be let alone and free from governmental intrusion into the person's private life.
Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367, 387 (1986); State v. Jardines, 9 So.3d I (Fla. 3d DCA
2008)(the Fourth Amendment clearly protects the right of people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers and effects from intrusion).
9. While the scope of discovery is broad, it is not without limits. Washington v.
Brown & Williamson Tobacco, 959 F.2d 1566, 1570 (11th Cir. 1992). Courts have long held
3
Case 9:10-cv-81111-WPD Document 17-17 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2010 Page 4 of 6 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 182 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2010 Page 4 of 6
that while the standard of relevancy in discovery is a liberal one, it is not so liberal as to allow a
party to roam in the shadow zones of relevancy and to explore matters which does not presently
appear germane on the theory that it might conceivably become so. Food Lion, Inc. v. United
Food & Commercial Workers Intern. Union, 103 F.3d 1007, 1012-13 (C.A. D.C. 1997) (string
cite omitted). See also Capco Properties, LLC v. Monterry Gardens of Pinecrest Condo., 982 So.
2d 1211, (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (holding that 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
evidence); Morton Plant Hospital Ass'n, Inc. v. Shahbas, 960 So. 2d 820, 824 (Fla. 2d DCA
2007) (holding that "discovery should be denied when it has been established that the
information requested is neither relevant to any pending claim or defense nor will it lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence," citing Tanchel v. Shoemaker, 928 So. 2d 440, 442 (Fla. 5th
DCA 2006)).
10. At this juncture, and in an effort to comply with the above order, Epstein is
producing the redacted versions of the tax returns until further order from the court.
WHEREFORE, Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, requests the Court enter an order
and/or protective order allowing Epstein to redact the above information and grant any additional
relief the Court deems just and proper.
Local Rule 7.1 Statement
Pursuant to the above rule, the undersigned counsel and Plaintiffs counsel have
conferred and were unable to reach an agreement.
/s/ Robert D. Critton, Jr.
Robert D. Critton, Attorney for
Defendant Epstein
Certificate of Service
4
that while the standard of relevancy in discovery is a liberal one, it is not so liberal as to allow a
party to roam in the shadow zones of relevancy and to explore matters which does not presently
appear germane on the theory that it might conceivably become so. Food Lion, Inc. v. United
Food & Commercial Workers Intern. Union, 103 F.3d 1007, 1012-13 (C.A. D.C. 1997) (string
cite omitted). See also Capco Properties, LLC v. Monterry Gardens of Pinecrest Condo., 982 So.
2d 1211, (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (holding that 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
evidence); Morton Plant Hospital Ass'n, Inc. v. Shahbas, 960 So. 2d 820, 824 (Fla. 2d DCA
2007) (holding that "discovery should be denied when it has been established that the
information requested is neither relevant to any pending claim or defense nor will it lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence," citing Tanchel v. Shoemaker, 928 So. 2d 440, 442 (Fla. 5th
DCA 2006)).
10. At this juncture, and in an effort to comply with the above order, Epstein is
producing the redacted versions of the tax returns until further order from the court.
WHEREFORE, Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, requests the Court enter an order
and/or protective order allowing Epstein to redact the above information and grant any additional
relief the Court deems just and proper.
Local Rule 7.1 Statement
Pursuant to the above rule, the undersigned counsel and Plaintiffs counsel have
conferred and were unable to reach an agreement.
/s/ Robert D. Critton, Jr.
Robert D. Critton, Attorney for
Defendant Epstein
Certificate of Service
4
Case 9:10-cv-81111-WPD Document 17-17 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2010 Page 5 of 6 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 182 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2010 Page 5 of 6
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 via
transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF on this 30 day of June
2010:
Brad Edwards, Esq.
Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos
& Lehrman, PL
425 N. Andrews Ave.
Suite #2
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: 954-524-2820
Fax: 954-524-2822
Brad@pathtojustice.com
Paul G. Cassell, Esq.
Pro Hae Vice
332 South 1400 E, Room 101
Salt Lake City, UT 84112
801-585-5202
801-585-6833 Fax
cassellp@law.utah.edu
Co-counsel for Plaintiff
Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq.
Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A.
250 Australian Avenue South
Suite 1400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012
561-659-8300
561-835-8691 Fax
jagesg@bellsouth.net
Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein
Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/ Robert D. Critton Jr.
ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ.
Florida Bar No. 224162
rcrit@bclclaw.com
MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ.
Florida Bar #617296
mpike@bclclaw.com
BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN, LLP
303 Banyan Boulevard, Suite 400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
561/842-2820 Phone
561/243-0164 Fax
5
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 via
transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF on this 30 day of June
2010:
Brad Edwards, Esq.
Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos
& Lehrman, PL
425 N. Andrews Ave.
Suite #2
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: 954-524-2820
Fax: 954-524-2822
Brad@pathtojustice.com
Paul G. Cassell, Esq.
Pro Hae Vice
332 South 1400 E, Room 101
Salt Lake City, UT 84112
801-585-5202
801-585-6833 Fax
cassellp@law.utah.edu
Co-counsel for Plaintiff
Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq.
Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A.
250 Australian Avenue South
Suite 1400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012
561-659-8300
561-835-8691 Fax
jagesg@bellsouth.net
Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein
Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/ Robert D. Critton Jr.
ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ.
Florida Bar No. 224162
rcrit@bclclaw.com
MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ.
Florida Bar #617296
mpike@bclclaw.com
BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN, LLP
303 Banyan Boulevard, Suite 400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
561/842-2820 Phone
561/243-0164 Fax
5
Case 9:10-cv-81111-WPD Document 17-17 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2010 Page 6 of 6 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 182 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2010 Page 6 of 6
( Co-Counsel for
6
( Co-Counsel for
6
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document