017-19.pdf

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JANE DOE, CASE NO. 08-CV-80893-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON
Plaintiff,
Vs.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et al.
Defendant.
_________________________________/
Related Cases:
08-80119, 08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381,
08-80994, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469,
09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092
__________________________________/

PLAINTIFF JANE DOE’S EMERGENCY MOTION TO HAVE EPSTEIN HELD IN
CONTEMPT FOR FAILING TO PRODUCE STATE DISCOVERY AND
CORRESPONDENCE AND FOR PRODUCING ONLY REDACTED CORRESPONDENCE
WITH THE U.S. ATTORNEY’S OFFICE AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
Plaintiff, Jane Doe, through undersigned counsel, hereby files this motion to have defendant
Epstein held in contempt for (1) failing to produce any state criminal discovery and any
correspondence with state prosecutors, and (2) producing only redacted correspondence with the U.S.
Attorney’s Office. Both of these failures stand in clear violation of this Court’s discovery orders. Jane
Doe further asks that Epstein be directed to produce these materials forthwith and that the Court
impose appropriate sanctions. Jane Doe respectfully asks that this motion be decided rapidly.
As the Court is well aware, there has now been more than eleven months of litigation on
whether defendant was going to produce any discovery to Jane Doe. More than a year ago, Jane Doe
propounded three discovery requests:
Request No. 7: All discovery information obtained by you or your attorneys as a result
of the exchange of discovery in the State criminal case against you or the Federal
investigation against you.
Case 9:10-cv-81111-WPD Document 17-19 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2010 Page 1 of 20 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 190 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2010 Page 1 of 20

CASE NO: 08-CV-80893-MARRA/JOHNSON
2
Request No. 9: Any documents or other evidentiary materials provided to local, state,
or federal law enforcement investigators or local, state or federal prosecutors
investigating your sexual activities with minors.
Request No. 10: All correspondence between you and your attorneys and state or
federal law enforcement or prosecutors (includes, but not limited to, letters to and from
the States Attorney’s office or any agents thereof).
After innumerable motions and continuances and delays, this Court’s order to produce these
items came due yesterday. Jane Doe finally received her discovery last night. Remarkably, however,
Epstein deliberately limited his discovery in two ways.
First, while Requests No. 7, 9, and 10 clearly cover discovery information that Epstein obtained
in both federal and state proceedings, Epstein produced only federal discovery (or, more precisely,
because he claims to have received no federal discovery, he provided nothing at all). In addition, while
Request No. 10 clearly covers correspondence with both federal and state prosecutors, Epstein has
produced only correspondence with federal prosecutors. There is no basis for limiting production to
federal materials.
Second, while Request No. 10 clearly covers correspondence both to and from Epstein’s
criminal defense attorneys, Epstein has redacted all of this correspondence so that only correspondence
to him is revealed. The resulting mishmash of redactions means that much of the correspondence –
and virtually all of the correspondence most useful to Jane Doe – has been withheld by Epstein.
These deliberate violations of the Court’s orders are part of a persistent pattern by Epstein to
thwart legitimate discovery by Jane Doe.1
Accordingly, the Court should order production of these
items forthwith. Jane Doe seeks production on an emergency basis because she has been compelled to
attend a second settlement conference on July 6, 2010, at 9:30 a.m., and these items of discovery might

1
For another blatant example of improper delays during discovery, see Plaintiff’s Motion to Prevent Improper
Use of 5th Amendment and Memorandum of Law, case no. 9:08-cv-80893, doc. #178 (Epstein’s filibustering
and insertion of irrelevant and prejudicial information during his deposition).
Case 9:10-cv-81111-WPD Document 17-19 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2010 Page 2 of 20 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 190 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2010 Page 2 of 20

CASE NO: 08-CV-80893-MARRA/JOHNSON
3
put her in a much better position to understand the strength of her case at that time. Jane Doe therefore
respectfully requests that the Court rule on this motion rapidly by Friday, July 2, 2010. (Monday, July
5, 2010, is a federal holiday.) Jane Doe also seeks appropriate sanctions.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
For the convenience of the Court, here is the full saga of several straightforward discovery
requests that Jane Doe has filed in this case. On July 20, 2009, Jane Doe filed a motion to compel
production of various previously-requested documents, including discovery provided to Epstein by
state and federal prosecutors in the criminal cases against him and correspondence between his
criminal defense attorneys and state and federal prosecutors during the criminal investigation. Case
No. 9:08-cv-80119, doc. #210. Specifically, her motion sought production of the following:
Request No. 7: All discovery information obtained by you or your attorneys as a result
of the exchange of discovery in the State criminal case against you or the Federal
investigation against you.
Request No. 9: Any documents or other evidentiary materials provided to local, state,
or federal law enforcement investigators or local, state or federal prosecutors
investigating your sexual activities with minors.
Request No. 10: All correspondence between you and your attorneys and state or
federal law enforcement or prosecutors (includes, but not limited to, letters to and from
the States Attorney’s office or any agents thereof).
(doc. #210 at pp. 10-12 (emphases added)). Epstein obtained an extension of time in which to respond
and, two-and-a-half months later, on October 6, 2009, Epstein filed an objection to producing these
items primarily on Fifth Amendment grounds (doc. #339). On October 16, 2009, Jane Doe promptly
filed a reply in support of her motion (doc. #354). On January 22, 2010, Jane Doe filed a notice that
more than 90 days had elapsed since the filing of her motion (doc. #453).
On February 4, 2010, the magistrate judge granted in part and denied in part Jane Doe’s motion
to compel, specifically ruling that Epstein had to produce the discovery provided to him by state and
Case 9:10-cv-81111-WPD Document 17-19 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2010 Page 3 of 20 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 190 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2010 Page 3 of 20

CASE NO: 08-CV-80893-MARRA/JOHNSON
4
federal prosecutors and the requested correspondence, rejecting Fifth Amendment and other objections
raised by Epstein. (case no. 9:08-cv-80119, doc. #462). The magistrate judge specifically granted
requests 7, 9, and 10. Id. at 10 (“Accordingly, Epstein is ordered to produce the documents subjects to
these Requests [i.e., requests 7, 9, and 10] within ten (10) days from the date hereof.”).
Epstein then filed for an extension of time in which to appeal (doc. #464), which Jane Doe
opposed on grounds of delay (doc. #465). On February 11, 2010, the Court granted in part and denied
in part the extension of time, specifically warning Epstein that “[i]n the event that Magistrate Judge
Johnson’s February 4, 2010 Order is affirmed on appeal, Defendant will have three (3) business days
from the date of this Court’s order to produce the documents at issue.” (doc. #468). Epstein then
ultimately filed his appeal/motion for reconsideration of the magistrate decision on February 26, 2010.
(doc. #477). On March 10, 2010, Jane Doe then filed her response in Opposition to Defendant’s
Motion for reconsideration. (doc. #. 485).
On April 1, 2010, the magistrate judge rejected Epstein’s challenge, reaffirming his earlier
order that “compelled production from state and federal prosecutors in the criminal case against him.”
(doc. #513).
On May 6, 2010, the court held a status conference on the appeal (which also involved other
consolidated cases raising similar appeals and issues). The Court asked the parties to attempt to reach
a resolution of issues surrounding Epstein’s net worth.
On May 12, 2010, Epstein filed a “Consolidated” Rule 4 Review and Appeal of Portions of the
Magistrate Judge’s orders (doc. #545). On May 27, 2010, Jane Doe filed a “protective” response to the
consolidated reply, noting that she had previously responded to all of the arguments raised by the
appeal and that the “consolidated” appeal did not require any new response from her (doc. #551). The
response also noted Jane Doe and Epstein had been unable to resolve disputed net worth issues.
Case 9:10-cv-81111-WPD Document 17-19 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2010 Page 4 of 20 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 190 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2010 Page 4 of 20

CASE NO: 08-CV-80893-MARRA/JOHNSON
5
On Friday, June 25, 2010, this Court entered an order affirming the magistrate judge’s
discovery orders in all respects (Case No. 9:08-cv-80119-KAM, doc. #572) and, as it previously
warned Epstein, requiring Epstein to produce the discovery materials within three business days.
At this point, despite having had a year to assemble the requested discovery items and prepare
for their production – and more than four months since this Court’s warning to be prepared to produce
the documents on three days notice – Epstein began filing motions to restrict production. On Monday
evening, June 28, 2010, at approximately 5:11 p.m., Epstein filed a motion for a protective order
regarding dissemination of the materials (Case No. 9:09-cv-80893, doc. #170). On Tuesday morning,
June 29, 2010, at approximately 9:31 a.m., this Court summarily denied the motion (doc. #172). Then,
as the deadline for production drew even nearer, on Wednesday, June 30, 2010, at approximately 2:19
p.m., Epstein filed a motion for a right to redact tax returns that were being produced and informed the
Court in his Motion that he was going to go ahead and only produce redacted tax returns (doc. #182).
Shortly thereafter, Epstein began transmitting redacted returns to Jane Doe’s counsel via email. Acting
with impressive speed, at approximately 2:33 p.m., the Court summarily denied Epstein’s motion (doc.
#183).
Following these actions by the Court, yesterday defendant Epstein made his production of
unredacted tax returns electronically to Jane Doe’s counsel. However, Epstein remarkably still failed
to produce materials he was required to produce in two critical ways. First, Epstein did not produce
any information he had obtained from the state during discovery of the criminal investigation against
him. Indeed, because he had not (apparently in his view) obtained any federal discovery during the
criminal investigation, he turned over nothing at all responsive to Jane Doe’s Requests No. 7 and No.
9. And similarly, with regard to correspondence from the prosecutors, Epstein also produced only
correspondence with federal prosecutors – not with state prosecutors. Of course, this significantly
Case 9:10-cv-81111-WPD Document 17-19 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2010 Page 5 of 20 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 190 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2010 Page 5 of 20

CASE NO: 08-CV-80893-MARRA/JOHNSON
6
limited the production he made, as Epstein pled guilty to state sex charges rather than federal sex
charges – leaving Jane Doe with no correspondence or discovery from the State.
Second, with regard to his correspondence with federal prosecutors that he did produce, Epstein
redacted anything coming from attorneys, leaving only the responses from the federal prosecutors.
The result is an often unintelligible mishmash of back-and-forth emails, where only half of what is
being said is disclosed. It forces Jane Doe to read everything out of context and severely limits the
utility of what was produced. To give but two of what are literally dozens of examples of the
unintelligibility, consider these e-mail chains – or, more precisely, half e-mail chains:
Case 9:10-cv-81111-WPD Document 17-19 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2010 Page 6 of 20 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 190 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2010 Page 6 of 20
That is fine. I'm sorry I didn't get your e-mail
sooner. Since I am out of the office, the best way to
reach me is on my cell, or you can send an e-mail
(which becomes a text message) to
56160l2301@cingularme.com
Tomorrow I am available early in the morning (7:00 to
7:45), or at 8:30, or at 5;00, or after 6:45.
Thanks.
A. Marie Villafana
Assistant U. S. Attorney
561 209-1047
Fax 561 820-8777
-

CASE NO: 08-CV-80893-MARRA/JOHNSON
7
Exhibit 1, found as Correspondence 5 from defense counsel (June 30, 2010).
Exhibit 2, found as Correspondence 3 from defense counsel (June 30, 2010).
The net result of these redactions, of course, is that what is produced is of essentially no value
to Jane Doe for discovery or at trial – what is left is merely statements from prosecutors, rather than
statements from agents of Mr. Epstein that could be used to help build Jane Doe’s case.
EPSTEIN SHOULD BE HELD IN CONTEMPT AND SANCTIONED FOR DELIBERATE
VIOLATIONS OF THE ORDER TO PRODUCE
I. EPSTEIN SHOULD BE HELD IN CONTEMPT FOR FAILING TO PRODUCE
STATE DISCOVERY AND STATE CORRESPONDENCE RESPONSIVE TO
REQUESTS NOS. 7, 9, AND 10
As noted above, Jane Doe’s Requests for Production No. 7 and 9 plainly requested that Epstein
produce discovery provided to him in both the federal and state criminal cases. See, e.g., Request No.
7 (requesting production of “[a]ll discovery information obtained by you or your attorneys as a result
Case 9:10-cv-81111-WPD Document 17-19 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2010 Page 7 of 20 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 190 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2010 Page 7 of 20
Jay - I hate to have to be finn about this, but we need to wrap this up by
Monday. I will not miss my indictment date when this has dragged on
for several weeks already and then, if things fall apart, be left in a less
advantageous position than before the negotiations. I have had an
82-page pros memo and 53-page indictment sitting on the shelf since
May to engage in these negotiations. There has to be an ending date,
and that date is Monday.
A. Marie Villafana
Assistant U.S. Attorney
561 209-1047

CASE NO: 08-CV-80893-MARRA/JOHNSON
8
of the exchange of discovery in the State criminal case against you or the Federal investigation against
you” (emphasis added)). In addition, Request No. 10 plainly requested “[a]ll correspondence between
you and your attorneys and state or federal law enforcement or prosecutors (including, but not limited
to, letters to and from the States Attorney’s office or any agents thereof (emphasis added)).” Indeed,
given the intertwined nature of these two investigations (with a federal non-prosecution agreement
ultimately resulting when Epstein pled guilty to state sex charges), it would be difficult to segregate
the two. Of course, Jane Doe would want discovery and correspondence from both cases – it makes no
difference to her the source of the documents or correspondence. And the legal principles governing
production would not vary between federal and state investigations.
Astonishingly then, Epstein now after 11 months of litigation has decided that Jane Doe’s
request – and the magistrate judge’s order affirming that request – are somehow to be limited to merely
the federal criminal investigation. And, with amazing convenience for Epstein, since he apparently
deems all the discovery his criminal defense team received to be purely state discovery, he has to
produce nothing on request for production nos. 7 and 9, and only half of what would be expected for
request for production no. 10.
In the context of this case, it should be readily apparent to the Court that Epstein has
deliberately decided to produce substantially less information than he is required to produce. He is
doing so by taking a ridiculous and absurd position that is not supported by any reasonable reading of
the discovery requests or this Court’s rulings. And he is doing so in a civil case, where discovery is
supposed to be freely and readily exchanged.
The only even arguable basis for Epstein’s deliberate intransigence is that he is apparently
taking the position that a single sentence in one of Jane Doe’s many pleadings on these issues should
be deemed to have “narrowed” the plain language of her clear Requests for Production. In a reply brief
Case 9:10-cv-81111-WPD Document 17-19 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2010 Page 8 of 20 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 190 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2010 Page 8 of 20

CASE NO: 08-CV-80893-MARRA/JOHNSON
9
in October 2009, counsel for Jane Doe in briefly described the nature of requests for production nos. 7,
9, and 10, writing one sentence that referred to the requests as covering materials from the federal
government. See Plaintiff’s Jane Doe’s Reply to Response to Motion to Compel, doc. #354 at 3
(referring to requests as seeking “information that the federal government gave to Epstein in the course
of its plea discussions with him”). In reviewing that single sentence, it should have been obvious that
Jane Doe was not suddenly – and for no apparent reason – narrowing her request to half of the material
that she would otherwise have been entitled to receive. At the very most (and this is debatable), it
appears that one could argue that Jane Doe’s counsel spoke loosely or made a typographical error, as
the sentence could have more clearly said “federal and state government.” Whatever can be said of
this single sentence, the remaining sentences in this pleading immediately following this sentence
plainly refer to both the federal and state governments, as there is no limitation to the federal
government in approximately nine other sentences in close proximity to the sentence Epstein
apparently seizes upon. See, e.g.,id. at 4 (“The government itself gave Epstein the documents!”
(emphasis in original)); id. at 6 “the government was showing him the documents in the first place to
convince him to plead guilty to a crime” (emphasis added)); id. at 9 (“Jane Doe’s requests for
production number 7 and 9, which seek respectively discovery provided by the government and
“evidentiary materials’ provided by the government” (emphasis added)). And, eliminating any
legitimate confusion, at the end of this section in this brief, Jane Doe explained quite clearly that she
was seeking not only correspondence with the U.S. Attorney’s Office but more general with
“government agencies,” -- i.e., both federal and state agencies. Id. at 10.
Regardless of how Epstein might have intentionally misconstrued this single sentence in the
Jane Doe’s reply, the magistrate judge ultimately ruled on the actual request for production. The
magistrate judge in using a shorthand to describing the nature of the Requests for Production, also
Case 9:10-cv-81111-WPD Document 17-19 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2010 Page 9 of 20 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 190 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2010 Page 9 of 20

CASE NO: 08-CV-80893-MARRA/JOHNSON
10
referred at one point to “the federal government” and at another point to “the government.” Compare
case no. 9:08-CV-80893, doc. 462 at 8 (describing Requests 7, 9 and 10 as involving “documents the
federal government gave to Epstein”) with id. (describing requests as “documents the government itself
gave to Epstein”). But the Court’s ultimate order was that the Request for Productions 7, 9, and 10
was granted. Id. Nothing in the context of the magistrate judge’s decision indicated any principle of
law that would make federal information and correspondence discoverable and state information and
correspondence non-discoverable. Indeed, the magistrate judge made clear on the next page of the
order that he understood he was reviewing a discovery matter relating to documents involving
“Epstein’s Florida guilty” plea and “federal or state criminal investigations.” Id. at 9 (emphases
added). Nor would there have been any logical reason for the magistrate judge to have awarded to
Jane Doe production of only half of the materials she sought (i.e., awarded her only production of
federal materials, but not state materials on the same subject).
Following the magistrate judge’s ruling, Epstein filed a motion to reconsider. If Epstein
believed that the order only obligated him to produce federal discovery materials/correspondence and
that he had no such materials – it would have been a simple matter for him to have simply said that and
not appeal the ruling on Requests Nos. 7 and 9 (and to a large extent 10). To the contrary, however,
Epstein spent nine pages asking the magistrate judge to reverse its rulings on these three requests for
production. (Case No. 9:08-cv- 80119-KAM, doc. #477, at 3-11). Epstein also stated that he did not
have discovery information or evidentiary information provided to him by the federal government. Id.
at 4.
In response, Jane Doe noted Epstein’s glass-is-half-empty representations that he had no
federal discovery materials and objected to his “semantic games.” Plaintiff Jane Doe’s Response to
Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration and/or Request for Rule 4 Review, Case No. 9:08-cv-80119-
Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 190 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2010 Page 10 of 20 Case 9:10-cv-81111-WPD Document 17-19 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2010 Page 10 of
20

CASE NO: 08-CV-80893-MARRA/JOHNSON
11
KAM, doc. #485, at 3. She made clear that she expected Epstein to honor the Request for Productions
as they were written and produce both federal and state materials:
Jane Doe does not take these representations to mean that Epstein possesses no
information responsive to these requests. If this were the case, Epstein could have
avoided seven months of litigation by simply making this representation to the Court at
the outset. Rather, Epstein seems to be playing semantic games. With regard to
discovery request no. 7, Epstein represents only that he has no discovery information
from the federal government – not contesting the obvious fact (as Jane Doe has been
reliably informed) that he received significant discovery in connection with the state
criminal charges to which he pled guilty. With regard to discovery request no. 9,
Epstein represents only that he has not been given evidentiary documents by the federal
government – again not contest the obvious fact (as Jane Doe has been reliably
informed) that he received documents from both the state and federal authorities
working on his case. If Epstein is going to continue to mince words in this fashion,
Jane Doe asks that he clearly explain to the Court in any reply pleading that he may file
what materials responsive to the requests for production he has so that the Court may
make an informed ruling.
Id. (emphases in original). Jane Doe also noted specifically that request no. 10 “covers correspondence
with ‘state or federal law enforcement or prosecutors.’ For convenience, the request will be described
as being for correspondence with ‘the Government.’” Id. at 5 n.2.
In his reply to Jane Doe’s response, Epstein cited the single sentence in Jane Doe’s October
pleading discussed above and made an argument that the magistrate judge had somehow impliedly
adopted it as narrowing the scope of the her requests. Defendant’s Reply to Plaintiff’s Response to
Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration, Case No. 9:08-cv-80119-KAM, doc. #502, at 2-3. Epstein
then went on to spend seven pages arguing on the merits that he should not be required to produce state
discovery materials. He made two detailed arguments against producing state discovery materials. He
first argued that the request for state materials was somehow “improper” because Jane Doe’s counsel
had received some materials from state prosecutors. Id. at 3-5.2
Epstein then argued that the state
materials were “work product” because his attorney had picked out certain materials from the state

2
To be clear, Jane Doe’s counsel believes that Epstein possesses significant state discovery materials that have
never been seen by Jane Doe.
Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 190 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2010 Page 11 of 20 Case 9:10-cv-81111-WPD Document 17-19 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2010 Page 11 of
20

CASE NO: 08-CV-80893-MARRA/JOHNSON
12
prosecutor. In support of this argument, Epstein for the first time attached an affidavit from Jack
Goldberger, his criminal defense attorney, about the process of obtaining the state discovery materials.
Id. at 5-7.
As has been the case with many other claims presented by the Epstein in the course of this
litigation, the magistrate judge was not impressed with these arguments against producing both federal
and state discovery materials. In the final order on the subject on April 1, 2010, the magistrate judge
explained: “Epstein takes issue with that portion of the Order which compelled production of discovery
from state and federal prosecutors in the criminal case against him, his recent tax returns, and his
passport. The Court stands behind each of these decisions for the reasons stated in its Order and is not
persuaded by any of Epstein’s arguments to the contrary.” Omnibus Order, Case No. 9:08-cv-80119-
KAM, doc. #513 at 2 (emphases added). Notably, the magistrate judge was not persuaded by “any” of
Epstein’s arguments – including, of course, his argument that the single sentence in Jane Doe’s earlier
pleading has magically “narrowed” the plain meaning of her requests. And notably, the magistrate
judge himself – in the face of a challenge from Epstein that the court order only required Epstein to
produce federal materials – specifically described the order as including “production of discovery
from state and federal prosecutors.”
After various further delays engineered by Epstein as recounted above, pleadings were filed
before this Court (Marra, J.), on the appeal of the magistrate judge’s ruling. Epstein’s pleadings were
essentially “cut and paste” pleadings from his pleading with the magistrate judge. Most important for
present purposes, the pleadings revealed no doubt that Epstein understood that Jane Doe was
requesting – and that the the magistrate judge had ordered -- production of both federal and state
materials. See, e.g., doc. #545 at 5 (discussing breadth of Jane Doe’s request), at 15 (challenging
obligation to produce materials from state and local police agencies); at 17 (arguing that materials in
Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 190 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2010 Page 12 of 20 Case 9:10-cv-81111-WPD Document 17-19 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2010 Page 12 of
20

CASE NO: 08-CV-80893-MARRA/JOHNSON
13
“Palm Beach state Attorney’s File” were somehow work product material). And on June 25, 2010, this
Court affirmed all of the magistrate judge’s discovery rulings. (Case No. 9:08-cv-80119-KAM, doc.
#572).
Jane Doe has reviewed these pleadings in detail because they point to only one conclusion:
defendant Epstein is deliberately violating the clear order of Magistrate Judge Johnson that he produce
“discovery from state and federal prosecutors in the criminal case against him” Indeed, Epstein has
specifically presented his extraordinary and crabbed interpretation of the order (i.e., that it only extends
to the federal government materials) to the magistrate judge, and the magistrate judge told him the
interpretation was rejected. And this Court affirmed. Epstein is therefore plainly in contempt of this
Court’s order. He should be directed to immediately produce the discovery and other information he
received from state prosecutions and correspondence with state prosecution and be subject to other
sanctions as explained below.
II. EPSTEIN SHOULD BE HELD IN CONTEMPT FOR FAILING TO PRODUCE
UNREDACTED CORRESPONDENCE WITH FEDERAL PROSECUTORS
Defendant Epstein, making use of yet another dilatory tactic, has also deliberately violated this
Court’s discovery order by failing to produce unredacted correspondence with federal prosecutors.
Instead, he has produced redacted discovery that is essentially gibberish and, in any event, unusable by
Jane Doe because it contains no statements from Epstein or his representatives and forces Jane Doe to
read all communications about Epstein’s crimes against minors out of context.
Epstein apparently takes the position that he is somehow entitled to redact the correspondence,
even though none of the underlying magistrate judge orders regarding the correspondence even
mention redaction and even though Epstein has never even raised redaction. Perhaps Epstein was
thinking about filing a motion for authorizing redaction – only to be scared off by this Court’s 14-
minute turnaround time yesterday in rejecting his frivolous motion to redact the tax returns he was
Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 190 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2010 Page 13 of 20 Case 9:10-cv-81111-WPD Document 17-19 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2010 Page 13 of
20

CASE NO: 08-CV-80893-MARRA/JOHNSON
14
producing. (Case No. 9:08-cv-80893-KAM, doc. #183). In light of these circumstances, it appears
that Epstein’s legal counsel have calculated that it is better to force Jane Doe’s attorney to file a motion
objecting to redaction rather than to present this preposterous idea to the Court for summary rejection.
The redaction is in clear defiance of the orders in this case. Jane Doe’s Request for Production
No. 10 plainly and broadly requested “[a]ll correspondence between you and your attorneys and state
or federal law enforcement or prosecutors (includes, but not limited to, letters to and from the States
Attorney’s office or any agents thereof).” (Case No. 9:08-cv-80119, doc. #210 at 10). The magistrate
judge rejected Epstein’s arguments against production. (doc. #462 at 10). The magistrate judge
“rejected out of hand” any claim that the correspondence was somehow protected by the attorney client privilege or work-product doctrine, noting that the correspondence with state and federal
prosecutors could hardly be regarded as somehow “confidential.” Id. at 9. The magistrate judge
therefore ordered Epstein to comply with Request for Production No. 10 “involving settlement
discussions and plea negotiations.” Id. at 10.
Once again, defendant Epstein filed for reconsideration, making it quite clear that the Request
for Production covered not only what prosecutors were saying to his representatives, but also what his
representatives were saying back. Thus, Epstein asked the magistrate judge to reconsider not only
because it was purportedly protected by the attorney-client privilege, but also for a new reason:
settlement discussion confidentially. Epstein argued that because “[t]he requested communications
include the views of Epstein’s counsel in the criminal case regarding why a federal prosecution was
inappropriate . . . . It also includes Epstein’s counsel’s views on the limits and inapplicability of certain
elements of 18 U.S.C. § 2255 . . . .This opinion work product should not be disclosed . . . .”
Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration and/or Request for Rule 4 Review, Case No. 9:08-cv-80119-
KAM, doc. #477 at 7-8. Epstein also put in a cryptic sentence stating: “Concomitantly, to the extent
Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 190 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2010 Page 14 of 20 Case 9:10-cv-81111-WPD Document 17-19 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2010 Page 14 of
20

CASE NO: 08-CV-80893-MARRA/JOHNSON
15
that the request is now limited to communications form the Government to Epstein, see DE 54, pgs 3
and 8, the narrowed request implicate[s] the same concerns for the opinions, the work product, and the
expectations of the privacy of the United States Attorney . . . .” Id. at 8.
Jane Doe responded by explaining “[t]here is nothing confidential about materials being
exchanged between Epstein and government prosecutors – regardless of whether the materials or
correspondence were being sent from the prosecutors to Epstein or from Epstein to the prosecutors.”
Plaintiff Jane Doe’s Response to Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration, doc. #485 at 13 (emphasis
added). Jane Doe also objected that Epstein was improperly raising arguments concerning settlement
confidentiality for the first time on reconsideration. Id. at 5-6. Jane Doe went on to note the “cryptic
sentence” in Epstein’s pleading, and explained: “It’s hard to understand what Epstein means by this
sentence. The cited docket entry – DE 543
– has nothing to do with the discovery request at hand.
Perhaps this sentence is simply a mistaken remnant of a botched ‘cut and paste’ from another pleading
in another case where docket entry 564 would relevant. In any event, to be clear, Jane Doe has not
‘narrowed’ her request to only one-half of the relevant correspondence and thus the magistrate judge’s
order is not limited to one-half of the correspondence.” Id. at 13 n.4. Epstein did not press the point in
his reply brief. (doc. #502 at 1-3 (not raising this issue)).
The magistrate judge – once again – rejected all of Epstein’s arguments, reaffirming that
Epstein was obligated to comply with Request for Production No. 10. The Court singled out Epstein’s
argument about settlement confidentiality as specifically flawed: “Epstein’s final argument, raised now
for the first time, concerns settlement discussion confidentiality. Because Epstein never presented this
argument to the undersigned it is inappropriate to raise it now for the first time. . . . Even were the

3
Docket entry 54 is this Court’s Opinion and order granting and denying in part Motion to Dismiss and Motion
for a More Definite Statement, entered on February 12, 2009 – before any of the discovery requests at issue here
at even been propounded.
Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 190 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2010 Page 15 of 20 Case 9:10-cv-81111-WPD Document 17-19 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2010 Page 15 of
20

CASE NO: 08-CV-80893-MARRA/JOHNSON
16
Court to consider the argument on its merits, for the reasons explained in Jane Doe’s Response
Memorandum (D.E. #485), pp. 4-9, the Court finds said argument without merit.” Omnibus Order,
Case No. 9:08-cv-80119-KAM, doc. #513, at 2-3.
As noted above, after various further delays engineered by Epstein, pleadings were filed before
this Court (Marra, J.), on the appeal of the magistrate judge’s ruling. Here again, Epstein’s pleadings
make it crystal clear that he knew he was obligated to produce not only what prosecutors said to him,
but what he and his representatives said to them. He objected to producing correspondence involving
“the opinion of each counsel, Epstein’s and the United States Attorney’s[,] [which] were exchanged
with each other pursuant to the overall expectation that they were safeguarded from disclosure by the
policies of confidentiality that protect communications during settlement and plea negotiations. The
requested communications include the views of Epstein’s counsel in the criminal cases regarding why
federal prosecution was inappropriate [and other subjects].” (Case No. 9:08-cv-80119, doc. #545 at
11 (emphasis added)). And on June 25, 2010, this Court rejected all of Epstein’s arguments and
affirmed all of the magistrate judge’s discovery rulings. (Case No. 9:08-cv-80119-KAM, doc. #572).
Once again, it is quite clear that Epstein stands in clear and deliberate defiance of this Court’s
discovery order obligating him to produce correspondence as directed in Request for Production No.
10. Epstein should be directed to produce the discovery and other information he received from state
prosecutions and correspondence with state prosecution forthwith and be subject to other sanctions as
explained below.
III. THE COURT SHOULD SANCTION EPSTEIN BY DIRECTING PRODUCTION
FORTHWITH, IMPOSING A FINE AND BY DEEMING ALL OF THE
MATERIALS WITHHELD TO BE ADMISSIBLE AT TRIAL.
Jane Doe’s counsel apologizes for forcing this Court to read this entire discovery saga. But the
bottom line remains that after eleven months of litigation, when Jane Doe was receiving her first
Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 190 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2010 Page 16 of 20 Case 9:10-cv-81111-WPD Document 17-19 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2010 Page 16 of
20

CASE NO: 08-CV-80893-MARRA/JOHNSON
17
discovery production from Epstein yesterday, he clearly and deliberately defied this Court’s orders
about the scope of that production. Moreover, as the events recounted above make clear, the refusal to
produce is willful. They also seemed to be calculated to force Jane Doe’s legal counsel to spend a
significant amount of time writing a pleading to obtain production, just when she has been ordered (at
Epstein’s demand) to another settlement conference and while preparing for trial in this matter.4

Indeed, it seems probable that Epstein is seeking to prevent Jane Doe from having these materials to
review before the settlement conference – and perhaps to block her from having these materials when
her trial starts in less than three weeks.
It is hard to view Epstein’s maneuvers – and Epstein’s recent attempts to restrict discovery that
this Court has summarily rejected – as anything other than a signal that Epstein and his legal counsel
believe that they need not follow the rules that apply to other litigants. Perhaps the vast wealth of the
defendant and the legal fees that he is paying his attorneys has engendered this attitude. Regardless of
the reason, this Court should not tolerate such clear intransigence and impose appropriate sanctions.
Epstein should be found to be in contempt of court. To find contempt, “the Court must
determine whether there is clear and convincing evidence that (1) the allegedly violated order was
valid and lawful; (2) the order was clear, definite and unambiguous; and (3) the alleged violator had
the ability to comply with the order.” Brauchle v. Southern Sports Grill, Inc., 2008 WL 4753707, at *1
(S.D.Fla.,2008) (citing McGregor v. Chierico, 206 F.3d 1378, 1383 (11th Cir. 2000)). For the reasons
described in detail above, the discovery orders at issue here were clearly valid, unambiguous about
their breadth, and Epstein plainly had the ability to comply. Indeed, given all the circumstances
recounted here, it is clear that Epstein made a deliberate choice not to comply. The Court accordingly

4
Judge Palermo has ordered Jane Doe to prepare a confidential settlement statement and file it by 5 p.m. today
as part of that conference. Jane Doe’s completion of that statement has been interrupted by the need to file this
motion.
Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 190 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2010 Page 17 of 20 Case 9:10-cv-81111-WPD Document 17-19 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2010 Page 17 of
20

CASE NO: 08-CV-80893-MARRA/JOHNSON
18
should use the full panoply of powers that it possesses to punish this blatant contempt. The Court also
has additional powers under Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to deter discovery
abuses.
Jane Doe respectfully requests the Court impose the following sanctions:
First, Epstein should be required to produce forthwith all discovery information, documents,
and other evidentiary materials covered by Requests No. 7, 9, and 10 – e.g.., all discovery and
evidentiary information from both the federal and state prosecuting and investigating authorities and
all correspondence – in unredacted form – both from and to federal and state prosecuting and
investigating authorities.5
Jane Doe respectfully requests that the Court rule on this motion before her
mandated settlement conference, so that she can have the benefit of those materials at that time.
Second, Epstein’s counsel should be required to pay $5,000 to the Court and instructed not to
play any further games as this case moves to trial.
Third, Epstein should be deemed to have waived any objection to the use by Jane Doe at trial of
any of the materials subject to the discovery demands at issue here (Requests for Production Nol. 7, 9,
and 10). See Fed. R. Crim. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(i) (allowing the Court to award as a sanction for discovery
violation “prohibiting the disobedient party from supporting or opposing designated claims or
defenses”).
CONFERENCE WITH COUNSEL
Jane Doe’s counsel understands Epstein to object to this motion.

5
The full terms of the discovery requests speak for themselves.
Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 190 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2010 Page 18 of 20 Case 9:10-cv-81111-WPD Document 17-19 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2010 Page 18 of
20

CASE NO: 08-CV-80893-MARRA/JOHNSON
19
CONCLUSION
The Court should find that Epstein has deliberately violated its discovery orders, hold him in
contempt of court, direct that the requested discovery be produced forthwith, and impose appropriate
sanctions as described above.
DATED: July 1, 2010
Respectfully Submitted,
s/ Bradley J. Edwards
Bradley J. Edwards
FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS,
FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
Telephone (954) 524-2820
Facsimile (954) 524-2822
Florida Bar No.: 542075
E-mail: brad@pathtojustice.com
and
Paul G. Cassell
Pro Hac Vice
332 S. 1400 E.
Salt Lake City, UT 84112
Telephone: 801-585-5202
Facsimile: 801-585-6833
E-Mail: cassellp@law.utah.edu
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on July 1, 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 on 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 filed Notices of Electronic Filing.

/s/ Bradley J. Edwards
Bradley J. Edwards
Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 190 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2010 Page 19 of 20 Case 9:10-cv-81111-WPD Document 17-19 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2010 Page 19 of
20

CASE NO: 08-CV-80893-MARRA/JOHNSON
20
SERVICE LIST
Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein
United States District Court, Southern District of Florida
Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq.
Jgoldberger@agwpa.com
Robert D. Critton, Esq.
rcritton@bclclaw.com
Isidro Manual Garcia
isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net
Michael James Pike
MPike@bclclaw.com
Paul G. Cassell
cassellp@law.utah.com
Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 190 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2010 Page 20 of 20 Case 9:10-cv-81111-WPD Document 17-19 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2010 Page 20 of
20