EFTA00722801.pdf

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 113 Entered on FLSD Docket O5/22/2009 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE NO. 2, CASE NO.: 013CV80119-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 DOB NO. 5, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/JOITNSON Plaintiff vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Podhurst Orseck, P.A. 25 West ?beer Street, Suite 800. Miami, FL 33152 Neeral Fax 305355.2382 • Port Leudetdale Anvir.porthurit.corn EFTA00722801 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 113 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2009 Page 2 of 12 Defendant. 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. 2 Podhurst Orseck, P.A. 25 Wnt Meer Street. Suite 800. Al'NM FL 33130, Maud Pax 305.3582362 • Pun Lauderdale www.podlozst.oza EFTA00722802 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 113 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2009 Page 3 of 12 JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. JANE DOE NO. II, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80469-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 101, CASE NO.: 09-CV-80591-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 10'2, CASE NO.: 09-CV-80656-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant 3 Podhurst One*, PA. 25 Went Flagler Street, Suite 800, Miami, FL 33130, Miura 305358.21300 Part • Fort Lauderdale www.podhuratcom EFTA00722803 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 113 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2009 Page 4 of 12 PLAINTIFFS JANE DOE NO. 101 and JANE DOE NO. 102'S MOTION FOR NO-CONTACT ORDER Plaintiffs, Jane Doe No. 101 and Jane Doe No. 102 (together, the "Plaintiffs") hereby move this Court for a No-Contact Order directed to Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, and, as grounds, state as follows: 1. After investigations by the Palm Beach Police Department, the Palm Beach State Attorney's Office, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (the "USAO"), Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, in June 2008, entered pleas of "guilty" in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in Palm Beach Count, Florida, to various Florida state crimes involving the solicitation of minors for prostitution and the procurement of minors for the purposes of prostitution. 2. During the course of Defendant's state plea conference of June 30, 2008, Palm Beach Circuit Court Judge Deborah Dale Pucillo °Meted Defendant "not to have any contact, direct or indirect" with any victims. (Transcript of the Plea Conference at 20, relevant pages attached hereto as Exhibit A). Judge Dale Pacific) went on to clarify that, by "indirect," she meant that Defendant should not send any text messages, e-mails, Facebook contact, My Space contact, telephone calls, voicemails, or messages through third parties to "any of these victims." Id. Judge Dale Pucillo expressly stated that the no-contact order should apply to "all of the victims." Id. 3. In addition, after Defendant entered into a non-prosecution agreement with the USAO, Assistant United States Attorney Marie Villafaila provided Defendant's attorneys with a list of individuals whom the USAO bad identified as victims of child sex exploitation as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2255 (the "USAO List"). The USAO was prepared to indict Defendant based upon Defendant's sexual exploitation of these minor victims. It was the intent of the USAO to place these identified victims in the same position as they would have been had Defendant been 4 Podburst Orseck, P.A. 25 West Flagier Street. Suite BOO. Miami, PL. 33130, Mimed Pa • Porttauelenfate www.podlitestace EFTA00722804 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 113 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2009 Page 5 of 12 convicted at trial. Thus, upon information and belief, AUSA Marie Vil!alas and Mr. Michael Tein, former counsel for Defendant, along with Mr. Jack Goldberger, who still represents Defendant, entered into a verbal agreement at the time AUSA Vil!sleets provided the USA() List to them, whereby neither Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, nor his agents would have any direct or indirect contact with the victims named on the USAO List. 4. Nevertheless, during a March 25i6 meeting with Defendant's counsel, Defendant's counsel told Plaintiffs' counsel that it is Defendant's position that the no-contact order agreed to during the state plea conference does not apply to anyone other than those three victims who were officially part of Defendant's state plea. 5. Upon Plaintiffs' counsel seeking reassurance from Defendant's counsel that neither Defendant nor his agents would contact victims on the USAO List, Defendant's counsel responded that Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, would not contact any of undersigned counsel's clients as long as Mr. Josefsberg was representing them in connection with settlement discussions. 6. As a result, on April 17, 2009, Plaintiffs' counsel sent defense counsel a letter requesting that Defendant provide written confirmation that neither he nor his agents will directly or indirectly contact any of the victims represented by Plaintiffs' counsel (the "No- Contact Letter") (April 17, 2009 Letter attached hereto as Exhibit B). On May 18, 2009, Plaintiffs' counsel again requested this written confirmation (E-mail correspondence attached hereto as Exhibit C). Despite Plaintiffs' reasonable requests, Defendant's counsel first responded by stating that the Non-Prosecution Agreement does not prevent some form of contact with undersigned counsel's clients. (Redacted May 18, 2009 Letter from Mr. Robert Critton is attached hereto as Exhibit D). Defendant's counsel then sent a letter on May 21, 2009 citing the Comment to Rule 4-4.2 of the Rules of Professional Conduct that states that "(pJarties to a matter S Podhtnst Orseck, P.A. 25 West Flagkx Street, suite aeo, Maud, El. 33130, Miami Fax • Fat Lauderdale EFTA00722805 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 113 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2009 Page 6 of 12 may communicate directly with each other." (Redacted May 21, 2009 Letter from Mr. Critton is attached hereto as Exhibit E). Thus, despite Mr. Critton's statement that it is not Defendant's intention to have direct contact with undersigned counsel's clients, Defendant obviously believes he can change his intentions if he so chooses. 7. Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, is a designated sexual offender who sexually abused Jane Doe No. 101 and Jane Doe No. 102 when the victims were minors. As a result of his abuse, Plaintiffs have in the past suffered, now suffer, and will in the future continue to suffer, physical injury, pain and suffering, emotional distress, psychological and/or psychiatric trauma, mental anguish, humiliation, confusion, embarrassment, loss of educational opportunities, loss of self- esteem, loss of dignity, and invasion of their privacy. Any thither direct or indirect contact with Defendant and/or his agents would cause a great deal of additional damages. Moreover, any desire or need on the part of Defendant to contact these victims—implied by virtue of his refusal to unambiguously confirm that he will not contact them—is disturbing and snapett, at best. At a minimum, Defendant's refusal to avoid contact works as a ploy to attempt to keep Plaintiffs in "victim mode." WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court to enter an order prohibiting Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, and any of his agents from any direct or indirect contact with Plaintiffs, except through Plaintiffs' attorney of record through the duration of this Court's order. Memorandum In Support As previously stated, during the course of Defendant's state plea conference of June 30, 2008, Palm Beach Circuit Court Judge Deborah Dale Pucillo ordered Defendant "not to have any contact, direct or indirect" with any of Defendant's victims. However, for what could only be dubious purposes, Defendant seeks to take advantage of the fact that only three of Defendant's numerous victims were officially a part of the State of Florida's criminal prosecution of 6 Podhurst Orseck, P.A. 25 West plaglea street, Sage 803. Maud, PL S3130, Miami Fax • Rat Lauderdale www.podbatitcom EFTA00722806 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 113 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2009 Page 7 of 12 Defendant and that he entered into a non-prosecution agreement with the USAO. Thus, despite the no-contact order being considered a standard condition of probation or community control for sex offenders such as Defendant, and despite his counsel having agreed to a no-contact order with AUSA Villafaita for all of Defendant's victims on the USAO List, Defendant is now taking the position that neither Judge Dale Pucillo's no-contact order nor his agreement with the USAO via his counsel restricts him from contacting any of the victims except for the three victims directly involved in the state plea. Because of the non-prosecution agreement, there is no federal conviction against Defendant with respect to Plaintiffs and other victims on the USAO List who are similarly situated and, thus, no accompanying sentencing court to issue a no-contact order. However, each of the victims on the USAO List is supposed to be in the same position as if Defendant had been convicted in federal court In crimes involving victims, at the time of sentencing, a sentencing judge generally has wide discretion to order that the defendant have no contact with the victim or victims of the crime or crimes for which the defendant is being sentenced. Where the defendant is given a sentence of probation or community control, the no- contact order can be made a condition of the defendrint's supervision. The case for judicial intervention is heightened in cases such as this one, where Defendant has sexually exploited numerous minors. Jane Doe No. 101 and Jane Doe No. 102, like all of the other young women on the USAO List, were sexually abuscd by Defendant; any further direct contact with Defendant and/or his agents would cause a great deal of additional damages. Previous contact by Defendant and his agents with other victims has had a terrible effect on the young women's ability to heal the scars of Defendant's abuse. Additionally, Defendant's contacting his victims also has the predictable effect of undermining the victims' willingness to proceed with their civil actions against Defendant. Defendant's demonstrated use of his wealth, power, and influence has the immediate effect of intimidating young women who have already been traumatized by 7 Podhurat Orsecic,P.A. 25 Wea Flagler Sflet, seat MO, MLad, 51.33130, items • PorMaktdde www.padhussecom EFTA00722807 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 113 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2009 Page 8 of 12 his sexual exploitation. Indeed, any desire or need on the part of Defendant to contact his victims, implied by virtue of his refusal to confirm that he will not contact them directly or indirectly, is disturbing and suspect, at best. Plaintiffs thus ask this Court to provide the protection and peace of mind that each of them needs. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully move this Court to enter an order granting Plaintiff? Motion for No-Contact Order prohibiting Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, from any contact or communication with Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and Jane Doe No. 102, either directly or indirectly, except through Plaintiffs' attorney of record for the duration of the order. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL RULE 7.1.A.3 On May 18, 2009, undersigned counsel conferred with counsel for Defendant in a good faith effort to resolve the issues raised in this motion, and Defendant's counsel advised that Defendant opposes this motion. Date: May 22, 2009 /s/Febert C. Josefsberg Robert C. Josefsberg, Bar No. 040856 Katherine W. Ezell, Bar No. 114771 Podhurst Orseck, P.A. (fax) Attorneysfor Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and Jane Doe No. 102 Certificate of Service I hereby certify that, on May 22, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/BCF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on all counsel of record identified 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 8 Poditurst Orsecic P.A. fax • Port Lauderdale vnew.pOdhuntcom EFTA00722808 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 113 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2009 Page 9 of 12 authorized manner for those counsel or parties who are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing. /s/ Robert Josefsberr Robert C. Josefsberg, Bar No. 040856 Katherine W. Ezell, Bar No. 114771 Podhurst Orseck, P.A. (fax) Attorneysfor Plaintiffs Jane Doe Na 101 and Jane Doe No. 102 9 Podhurst Orseck, P.A. 25 West Filagler Street, Spite 8CO, Man% FL 33130, MSami la • Fat Lauderdsde innv.podlauettota EFTA00722809 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 113 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2009 Page 10 of 12 SERVICE LIST JANE DOE NO. 2 v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOIINSON United States District Court, Southern District of Florida Robert Critton, Esq. Michael J. Pike, Esq. : Ill tl .• It Phon Counselfor Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein Jack Goldberger, Esq. Co-Counselfor Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein Enloe E. Reinhart, Esq. Phon Counselfor Co-Defendant, Jack Scarola, Esq. Jack P. Hill, Esq. (4.1 kelt I Shipley, P.A. • Counselfor PlattitiffC.M.A. 10 Podhurst Orsecic„ P.A. 75 West Hagler Street, Sake SW, Mang, FL 33130. ma • psi...dna .pciaawitcom EFTA00722810 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 113 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2009 Page 11 of 12 Adam Horowitz, Esq. Stuart Menne'stein, Esq. in & Counselfor Plaintiffs in Related Cases 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. Counselfor Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-08804 Richard Willits, Esq. Willits P Phon Fat Counselfor Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80811 Brad Edwards, Esq. w Office of Brad Edwards Associates, LLC Pho Fax: Counselfor Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80893 11 Podhurst Orseck, P.A. 25 West Meer Street, Salle SOO, lvhsaa, F133130, Mtal Pia • Port Leasaerde/e wirer.poihunteozn EFTA00722811  Document 113 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2009 Page 12 of. 12 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Isidro Manuel Garcia, Esq. CounselforPlaintiffIn Related Case No. 08-80469 12 Podhurst Orseck, 25 Wes Meer StrvtL 9atte800, Miarni,FL 33110,Mama- Fax • 1Port Lauderdale vronv.podharsLcom EFTA00722812 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 113-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2009 Page 1 of 4 EXHIBIT A to Plaintiffs Jane Doe 101 and Jane Doe 102's Motion for No-Contact Order EFTA00722813  Document 113-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2009 Page 2 of 4 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 1 1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT 2 IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CRIMINAL DIVISION 3 4 STATE OF FLORIDA ) ) vs ) CASE NO. 06 CF9454AMBB 6 ) 08 9381CFAM JEFFREY EPSTEIN ) 7 ) Defendant. ) 8 ) 9 ' • PLEA CONFERENCE 10 11 PRESIDING: HONORABLE DEBORAH DALE PUCILLO 12 APPEARANCES: 13 ON BEHALF OF THE STATE: BARRY E. KRISCHER, ESQUIRE 14 State AtLorne • By: LANNA BELOHLAVEK, ESQUIRE 16 Assistant State Attorney 17 ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT: ATTERBURY GOLDBERGER & WEISS,P.A. 18 19 By: JACK GOLDBERGER, ESQUIRE 20 21 CERTIFIED COT( 22 23 June 30, 2008 24 Palm Beach County Courthouse West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 25 Beginning at 8:40 o'clock, a.m. PHYLLIS A. DAMES, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER EFTA00722814 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 113-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2009 Page 3 of 4 20 1 regularly congregate? 2 MS. BELOHLAVEK: I personally do not 3 know. 4 THE COURT: Neither do I, which is why I'm asking. Has that been 6 investigated? 7 MR. GOLDBERGER: We have done our due 8 diligence, for what it's worth, there is a 9 residential street. There are not children 10 congregating on that street. We think the 11 address applies, if it doesn't, we fully 12 recognize that he can't live there. 13 THE COURT: Okay. D is, you shall 14 not have any contact with the victim, are 15 there more than one victim? 16 MS. BELOHLAVEK: There's several. 17 THE COURT: Several, all of the 18 victims. So this should be plural. I'm 19 making that plural. You are not to have 20 any contact direct or indirect, and in this 21 day and age I find it necessary to go over 22 exactly what we mean by indirect. By 23 indirect, we mean no text messages, no 24 ezmail, no Face Book, no My Space, no 25 telephone calls, no voice mails, no PHYLLIS A. DAMES, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER EFTA00722815  Document 113-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2009 Page 4 of 4 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 21. 1 messages through carrier pigeon, no 2 messages through third parties, no hey 3 would you tell so and so for me, no having 4 a friend, acquaintance or stranger approach S any of these victims with a message of any 6 sort from you, is that clear? 7 THE DEFENDANT: Yes, ma'am 8 THE COURT: And then it states, 9 unless approved by the victim, the 10 therapist and the sentencing court. Okay. 11 THE DEFENDANT: I understand. 12 THE COURT: And the sentencing court. 13 So, if there is a desire which, I would 14 think would be a bit strange to have 15 contact with any of the victims the court 16 must approve it. 17 MS. BELOHLAVEK: Correct. 18 THE COURT: If the victim was under 19 the age of 18, which was the Case, you 20 shall not until you have successfully 21 attended and completed the sex offender 22 program. So, is this sex offender program 23 becoming a condition of probation? 24 MS. BELOHLAVEK: That is not. I 25 don't believe I circled that one. PHYLLIS A. DAMES, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER EFTA00722816 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 113-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2009 Page 1 of 4 EXHIBIT B to Plaintiffs Jane Doe 101 and Jane Doe 102's Motion for No-Contact Order EFTA00722817 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAN1 Document 113-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2009 Page 2 of 4 Podhurst Orseck TRIAL Zr APPELLATE LAWYERS Rob ut Coeck (1934-1978) Anon S. Podlitast Robert C.Jcsiefsbeug Walter H. Beckham, Jr. 'WM. Eaton Karen Podhurst Den Steven C Marla Of Counsel Victor M. Mein Kaaba:line W. Rai Stephen S. Roo:need Ricardo M Martinez-Cid Ramon A- Rat100 Alexander T. Rtmdlet John <innovate, IR Carolina Mahathin April 17, 2009 VIA FACSINLLE David S 'cer Robert Critton, Esq. B CrittonLuttier & Coleman LLP Jack Goldberger, Esq. Atteib Goldb & Weis P.A. Gentlemen: During our recent meeting with Mr. Black, we were told that it is your client's position that the no-contact order agreed to during the state plea colloquy does not apply to any of our clients except for those victims who were part ofMr. Epstein's state plea. Our tmdastanding is that AUSA Villafena and Messrs. Twin and Goldberger entered a verbal agreement at the time that the list of victims was provided to those defense counsel.that Mr. Epstein, including his agents, would have' no direct or indirect contact with the victims named on this list. In addiditon, under applicable Florida Bar Rules governing contact by attorneys and their agents with persons represented by counsel, any contact with any of our clients or their family members by Mr. Epstein, his counsel and/or his agents must strictly be through us. Mr. Le&owitz had previously reassured us that Mr. Epstein would not contact any of our clients as long as I am "representing them in connection with settlement discussions." Due to our differences regarding the retroactivity issue and the "per plaintiff" v. pa incident/count issue, we have apparently reached a dead end regarding settlement www.podkarestact EFTA00722818 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 113-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2009 Page 3 of 4 We are concerned that Mr. Epstein could misconstrue our impasse in conjunction with Mr. Lefkowitz' e-mail to mean that now that we are no longer "representing them in connection with settlement discussions," be may contact them. Plessebe assuredthat it is ourpositiontliatregardless of whether we arerepresenting our clients duringsettlement discussions and/or trial preparation, we, and the rules of professional conduct, prohibit contact. In order to be crystal clear as to whom we represent, we have attached a list of our present clients. We expect each member of Mr. Epstein's defense team to abide by the applicable rules of professional conduct. We request mitten confirmation from Mr. Epstein that neither he nor his agents will contact any of the victims represented by us. If this correspondence is in any way unclear, please contact us. Sincerely, Robert C. Joierfsberg cc: Roy Black, Esq. w/ enclosures Jay Lefkowitz, Esq. w/ enclosures EFTA00722819 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 113-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2009 Page 4 of 4 List of Clients Represented by Podhumt,Orseck As of April 17 20921 ' We will supplement this list as necessary. EFTA00722820 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 113-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2009 Page 1 of 2 EXHIBIT C to Plaintiffs Jane Doe 101 and Jane Doe 102's Motion For No-Contact Order EFTA00722821 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 113-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2009 Page 2 of 2 Page 1 of I ROBERT C. JOSEFSBERG From: RCNNERTC.JOSEFSBERG: Sent Monday,May18.20094:46PM To: Subject Epstein No Contact Letter Importance: High Attachments: NoContactLetterofAprg 17.pdf Gentlemen: we On April 17, 2009 we sent your team the attached No Contact Letter. To date, have not heard back from you or any other members of Hr. Epstein's defense team. relief in If we don't hear back from you by Wednesday, May 2O, 2009, we will seer court. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Robert C. Joaefeberq 5/19/2009 EFTA00722822 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 113-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2009 Page 1 of 3 EXHIBIT D to Plaintiffs Jane Doe 101 and Jane Doe 102's Motion for No-Contact Order EFTA00722823 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 113-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2009 Page 2 of 3 BURMAN, CRITTON, LIMITER & COLEMAN LLP /.1.110IAEE.BURMAN.PA., AM= LaMar PARTNEUBIIP ADELQW).BENAVEME TAItALWAL I SMISTAATUR OREGOXY W. COLMAN. PA. • ROM: D. CRWItif, JR., PA., BARBARA U. BMWARD LIIIMDPICER MHOS STOKFIN-BARNO MARKT. WITIER, PA. we C PEPIN May 18, 2009 WITT STOKES MAMMALS LIKIIAlt 1. PIK8 genital MoNAMARA RUM BMA R. BM:VIM ILOPJDA lona ammo OP =OHM. OVILTICALIAVICA Katherine W. Ezell, Esq. Robert Josefsberg, Esq. Podhurst 0rseck, PA. 25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800 Miami, FL 33130 Re: 11111111111111 Dear Kathy and Bob: Additionally, Bob, you wrote a letter on April 17, 2009 stating your position regarding No Contact' with any of your fimts clients based on your interpretation of the Non-Prosecution Agreement. I do not concede that your position Is correct nor that the Non-Prosecution Agreement prevents some forms of oo with your clients. 111111111Pme L•A•W•Y• li •R•S 515 N. FLAMER DRIVE / SUITE 400 / WEST PALM BEAMFLORIDA 33401 MEMO:a FAX mailebolatiw.00m EFTA00722824 Case 9:08-ov-80119-KAM Document 113-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2009 Page 3 of 3 May 18, 2009 Per 2 Cordially •'!rs, Robe • Cdtton, Jr. RDC/ctz cc: Jack Goldberger, Esq. *no* EFTA00722825 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 113-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2009 Page 1 of 3 EXHIBIT E to Plaintiffs Jane Doe 101 and Jane Doe 102's Motion for No-Contact Order EFTA00722826  Document 113-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2009 Page 2 of 3 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM de••••••• BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN LLP A UNITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP ADELQUI J. BENAVENTE J. IACHAEL BURMAN,PA.' MALIN:AL tOIVE3T10/101t GREGORY W. COLSMAN.PA. ROBERT D. MUTTON. JR..PA.' BARBARA M.MeXENNA BERNARD LERDEKER ASHUR STOIEWBARINO MARX T. LUTTIBR, PA. BETTY STORM JEFFREY PARALWALS MICHAEL 1. PIKE MEATIER WHAMARA RUDA RITA H. BUONYK I PLORIDA 10APDCB4TI~RD May 21.2009 OPCOVMEL OWL17JAL LAWS. Sent by E-Mail and U.S. Mail Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq. Katherine Ezell, Esq. Dear Bob: As I advised you yesterday, I am responding to your April 17, 2009 letter. As I stated in my e-mall, I think your request Is unnecessary. Despite what Roy may have said to you, my client has had no contact with any of your clients. To my knowledge, the only one who has "breached" any agreement regarding contact Is your own dent, a who, as I advised you in a letter last week, contacted Jack Gokiberger's office looking for her settlement check. Mr. Goldberger, of course, did not speak with her. Lawyers who represent Mr. Epstein are well familiar with the Rules of Professional Conduct, including Rule 4-4.2. At the same time, i am certain you are equally familiar with that Rule. The Comment provides "Parties to a matter may communicate directly with each other...". To my knowledge, neither Mr. Epstein nor any attorney or agent of those attorneys who represent Mr. Epstein, have contacted or attempted to contact your clients. Given that it is not Mr. Epstein's Intention to have direct contact with your clients, it is unnecessary to respond point by point to statements attributed to my co- counsel. L •A•W•Y•E•R•S TELEPHONE FAX mail@ bc1claw.00m EFTA00722827 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 113-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2009 Page 3 of 3 May 21, 2009 Page 2 Rather than to be concerned about what my client is doing, I would ask that you advise your clients not to contact Mr. Epstein's lawyers directly. Neither I nor the attorneys who represent Mr. Epstein want to be put in a position where we are set up by any of your clients. RDC/msc cc: Roy Black, Esq. Jay Lefkowitz, Esq. J. Michael Burman, Esq. Jack Goldberger, Esq. Josefsberg.Oltdoe EFTA00722828 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 113-7 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2009 Page 1 of 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 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-MARRNJOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 5, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRAJJOIINSON Plaintiff, VS. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, EFTA00722829 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 113-7 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2009 Page 2 of 4 Defendant. 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.: 0S-CV-80811-MARRA/IOHNSON Plaintiff vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. JANE DOE, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80893-MARRAnoliNSON Plaintiff, VS. EFTA00722830 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 113-7 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2009 Page 3 of 4 JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. JANE DOE NO. II, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80469-MARRAIJOHNSON Plaintiff vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 101, CASE NO.: 09-CV-80591-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 102, CASE NO.: 09-CV-80656-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. ORDER THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion for No-Contact Order (DE C), filed May 22, 2009. Plaintiffs represent that Defendant has not agreed to the relief EFTA00722831  Document 113-7 Entered on FL.SD Docket 05/22/2009 Page 4 of 4 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM requested in this motion. Defendant was given reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard sufficient to protect Defendant's right to due process before this order was issued. The Court has carefully considered the motion and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. It is ORDERED AND ADJUGED that Plaintiffs' Motion for No-Contact Order (DE # is GRANTED. Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, is prohibited from communicating with Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and Jane Doe No. 102, either personally or through investigators or agents, by telephone, writing or any other means, except that Defendant may communicate with Plaintiffs only through Plaintiffs' attorneys of record for the duration of the other. This order applies immediately to Defendant and shall remain in full force and effect until modified or terminated by this Court after notice and hearing. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, this of 2009. KENNETH A. MARRA United States District Court Judge Copies to: All counsel of record t• I EFTA00722832 Robert D. Critton Jr. From: 111 11111111111.1111 Friday, May Sent: To: Itsd_cmect n for Miscellaneous Relief Subject: Activity in Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Doe v. Epstein Motio e DO NOT RESPOND generated by the CM/ECF system. Pleas This is an automatic e-mail message PUBLI C ACCES S USERS*** is unattended.***NOTE TO to this e-mail because the mail box permi ts attor neys of recor d and parties in States polic y Judicial Conference of the United copy of all documents to receive one free electronic a case (including pro se litigants) direc ted by the filer . PACER access required by law or filed electronically, if receipt is each document later charges, download a copy of fees apply to all other users. To avoid is a trans cript , the free if the referenced document during this first viewing. However, . copy and 30 page limit do not apply U.S. District Court Southern District of Florida Notice of Electronic Filing on 5/22/2009 ed by Josefsberg, Robert The following transaction was enter 4:23 PM EDT and filed on 5/22/ 2009 Case Name: Doe v. Epstein pl?309403 ://ecf.flsd.uscourts.gov/cg