032.pdf

Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 32 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2009 Page 1 of 11
JANE DOE NO. 2,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant.
-UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-
MARRA/JOHNSON
----------------'/
JANE DOE NO. 3,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant.
CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-
MARRA/JOHNSON
----------------'/
JANE DOE NO. 4,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant.
CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-
MARRA/JOHNSON
______________ /
JANE DOE NO. 5, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-
MARRA/JOHNSON

Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 32 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2009 Page 2 of 11
Plaintiff,
vs.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant.
I --------------
JANE DOE NO. 6,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
CASE NO.: 08-CV-80994-
MARRA/JOHNSON
Defendant.
-------------~/
JANE DOE NO. 7,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant.
CASE NO.: 08-CV-80993-
MARRA/JOHNSON
-------------~/
C.M.A.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant.
CASE NO.: 08-CV-80811-MARRA/JOHNSON

Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 32 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2009 Page 3 of 11

JANE DOE,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant.
JANE DOE NO. II,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant.
JANE DOE NO. 101,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant.
JANE DOE NO. 102,
Plaintiff,
CASE NO.: 08-CV-80893-MARRA/JOHNSON
CASE NO.: 08-CV-80469-
MARRA/JOHNSON
CASE NO.: 09-CV-80591-
MARRA/JOHNSON
CASE NO.: 09-CV-80656-
MARRA/JOHNSON

Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 32 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2009 Page 4 of 11
vs.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant.
PLAINTIFFS JANE DOE NO. 101 AND JANE DOE NO. 102's
REPLY TO DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS
JANE DOE NO. 101 AND JANE DOE NO. 102'S MOTION FOR A NO CONTACT ORDER
Plaintiffs, JANE DOE No. 101 and JANE DOE No. 102 (together, the
"Plaintiffs"), by and through undersigned counsel, hereby reply to Defendant Jeffrey
Epstein's Response to Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and Jane Doe No. 102's Motion for a
No-Contact Order(" Response") as follows:
1. Plaintiffs have not, and will not, engage in any name-calling. For
purposes of Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and Jane Doe No. 102's Motion for a No Contact Order ("Motion"), it does not matter whether "many of the alleged victims ...
were or are admitted prostitutes, dancers at strip clubs ... or have criminal records or
warrants for their arrests ... ," Def. 's Resp. 4, or whether they were living in a monastery
or planning on becoming nuns, lawyers, or judges. This matter is quite simple: The
allegations are that, when these victims were minors, Defendant sexually exploited,
abused, molested, and/or battered them. Regardless of the victims' character or
Defendant's character, it is obvious that Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, a 55-year-old
designated sexual offender and convicted felon, should have no contact with his victims.
2. Defendant makes much ado that one victim allegedly telephoned Jack
Goldberger's office to complain that Mr. Goldberger was holding up the matter. Def.'s

Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 32 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2009 Page 5 of 11
Resp. 5. We have no reason to doubt the truth of that statement by defense counsel.
Unsurprisingly, a 21-year-old homeless, ill, and desperate victim who had waited for
settlement funds for seven weeks regretfully may have called Mr. Goldberger's office;
but whether she did so has nothing to do with Plaintiffs' Motion. Likewise, if Defendant
attempts to telephone undersigned counsel to complain or have any other contact with
undersigned counsel, undersigned counsel will handle the matter as professionally as Jack
Goldberger did~by refusing to speak to the opposing party.
3. The troublesome part of Defendant's position is his counsel's statement in
the attached correspondence that, pursuant to Rule 4-4.2 of the Rules of Professional
Conduct, "parties to a matter may communicate directly with each other .... " In this
case, Plaintiffs' counsel are concerned that Defendant or his agents may assert that
alleged right, and we vehemently disagree that they should have that prerogative in these
Plaintiffs' cases. No legal justification exists for Defendant or his agents to have any
direct communications with victims whom Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, sexually
exploited, abused, molested, and/or battered.
In his Response, see Def. 's Resp. 4, and in his letter, counsel for Defendant,
Jeffrey Epstein, professes that "it is not Mr. Epstein's intention to have any direct contact
with [our] clients." This statement poses two significant problems. First, it leaves the
door open for Defendant's investigator(s) or other agent(s) to contact the victims. Such
contact would not be direct and would not be inconsistent with his professed intention to
refrain from direct contact with his victims. See, e.g., Cook v. All State Home Mortgage,
Inc., No. 08-3564, 2009 WL 1391527, at *1 (6th Cir. May 15, 2009) (intimidation of
plaintiffs-loan officers with contentious relationship with defendant-mortgage company

Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 32 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2009 Page 6 of 11
through threatening phone calls by defendant's employees considered indirect contact in
violation of no-contact order in civil suit claiming violation of Fair Labor Standards Act);
Commonwealth v. Butler, 661 N.E. 2d 666, 666-67 (Mass. App. Ct. 1996) (defendant's
anonymous delivery of flowers to victim considered indirect contact in violation of no contact order). Second, Defendant's counsel does not state that Defendant will not have
any contact with his victims. He merely states Defendant's intentions. Unfortunately,
the last five months is replete with other incidents in which Defendant, through his
counsel, has stated his intentions and thereafter changed his mind. Defendant, Jeffrey
Epstein, feels free-and actually is free-to change his mind and his stated intentions.
His victims deserve more than that. Because they are traumatized and fearful, they
require for their security a firm, unambiguous commitment that Defendant will not
directly or indirectly contact either of them; considering the situation, any secure
commitment is attainable only via a Court order. Plaintiffs cannot emotionally afford to
be in a position in which Defendant can unilaterally change his mind.
4. In the event that Defendant wants to be present at the deposition of a
Plaintiff or at a Court hearing where a Plaintiff is to attend, the Court can easily resolve
such situations at that time. Meanwhile, the sole purpose of Defendant's refusal to agree
to not contact these Plaintiffs is to leave them intimidated and in fear of being in the
presence of the man who has sexually exploited, abused, molested, and/or battered them.
One would think that, instead, Defendant would have voluntarily agreed with Plaintiffs'
prior request to have no contact directly or indirectly, including through his agents, and
would want to demonstrate to the Court that he will not contact his victims; his refusal to
stay away from them is nothing short of disturbing.

Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 32 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2009 Page 7 of 11
5. Although not requested, if Defendant's counsel seeks some type of
reciprocity, Plaintiffs' counsel would agree in writing, and would not oppose a Court
order prohibiting Plaintiffs from contacting Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein. It is obvious to
undersigned counsel that there should be absolutely no contact between the parties to
these lawsuits.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request this Court to enter an Order prohibiting
Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, and/or his agents from directly or indirectly contacting them.
Dated: June 4, 2009.
Respectfully submitted,
PODHURST ORSECK, P.A.
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Jane Doe No.
101 and Jane Doe No. 102
By: s/ Robert C. Josefsberg
Robert C. Josefsberg
Fla. Bar No. 040856
riosefsberg@podhurst.com
Katherine W. Ezell
Fla. Bar No. 114771
kezell@podhurst.com
City National Bank Building
25 W. Flagler Street, Ste. 800
Miami, FL 33130
Telephone: (305) 358-2800
Facsimile: (305) 358-2382

Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 32 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2009 Page 8 of 11
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
WE HEREBY CERTIFY that, on this 4th day of June, 2009, we electronically
filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. We also certify
that the foregoing document is being served this day on all counsel of record identified on
the attached Service List either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated
by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those counsel or parties who are not
authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing.
Respectfully submitted,
PODHURST ORSECK, P.A.
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Jane Doe No.
101 and Jane Doe No. 102
By: s/Katherine W. Ezell
Robert C. Josefsberg
Fla. Bar No. 040856
rjosefsberg@podhurst.com
Katherine W. Ezell
Fla. Bar No. 114771
kezell@podhurst.com
City National Bank Building
25 W. Flagler Street, Ste. 800
Miami, FL 33130
Telephone: (305) 358-2800
Facsimile: (305) 358-2382

Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 32 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2009 Page 9 of 11
SERVICE LIST
JANE DOE NO. 2 v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN
Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON
United States District Court, Southern District of Florida
Robert Critton, Esq.
Michael J. Pike, Esq.
Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman LLP
515 North Flagler Drive, Suite 400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Phone: (561) 842-2820
Fax: (561) 515-3148
rcrit@,bclclaw.com
mpike@bclclaw.com
Counsel for Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein
Jack Goldberger, Esq.
Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A.
250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Phone: (561) 659-8300
Fax: (561) 835-8691
jagesg@bellsouth.net
Co-Counsel for Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein
Bruce E. Reinhart, Esq.
Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A.
250 South Australian Avenue, Suite 1400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Phone: (561) 202-6360
Fax: (561) 828-0983
ecf@brucereinhartlaw.com
Counsel for Co-Defendant, Sarah Kellen
Jack Scarola, Esq.
Jack P. Hill, Esq.
Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A.
2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard
West Palm Beach, Florida 33409
Phone: (561) 686-6300
Fax: (561) 383-9456
jsx@searcylaw.com
jph@searcylaw.com
Counsel for PlaintifJC.MA.

Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 32 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2009 Page 10 of 11
Adam Horowitz, Esq.
Stuart Mermelstein, Esq.
Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A.
18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218
Miami, FL 33160
Phone: (305) 931-2200
Fax: (305) 931-0877
ahorowitz@sexabuseattomey.com
smennelstein@sexabuseattomey.com
Counsel.for Plaintiffs in Related Case Nos. 08-80069, 08-80119,08-80232, 08-80380, 08-
80381, 08-80993, 08-80994
Spencer Todd Kuvin, Esq.
Theodore Jon Leopold, Esq.
Leopold Kuvin, P.A.
2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
Phone: (561) 515-1400
Fax: (561) 515-1401
skuvin@leopoldkuvin.com
tleopold@leopoldkuvin.com
Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-08804
Richard Willits, Esq.
Richard H. Willits, P.A.
2290 10th Ave North, Suite 404
Lake Worth, FL 33461
Phone: (561) 582-7600
Fax: (561) 588-8819
lawyerwillits@aol.com
reelrhw@hotmail.com
Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80811
Brad Edwards, Esq.
Law Office of Brad Edwards & Associates, LLC
2028 Harrison Street, Suite 202
Hollywood, FL 33020
Phone: (954) 414-8033
Fax: (954) 924-1530
bedwards@rra-law.com
be@bradedwardslaw.com
Counsel.for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80893
Isidro Manuel Garcia, Esq.
Garcia Elkins & Boehringer

Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 32 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2009 Page 11 of 11
224 Datura Avenue, Suite 900
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Phone: (561) 832-8033
Fax: (561) 832-7137
isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net
Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80469