EFTA00067398.pdf

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 1 of 37 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA-JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE & OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through his undersigned attorneys, serves his responses and objections to Plaintiffs December 9, 2008 Amended First Set Of Interrogatories To Defendant Jeffrey Epstein, attached hereto. Certificate of Service I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing has been sent by fax and U.S. Mail to the following addressees this 26th day of January, 2009: Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. Jack Alan Goldberger Jeffrey Marc Herman, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss. P.A. Stuart S. Mermelstein Es Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein ounse • r aintiff Jane Doe #2 Corn P /I(EXHIBIT '02 EFTA00067398 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 2 of 37 Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Page 2 Respectfully su itted, By: ROBERT RITTON, JR., ESQ. Florida Ba SQ. , LUTTIER & COLEMAN (Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) EFTA00067399 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 3 of 37 Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Page 3 DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S ANSWERS AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES Interrogatory No. 1. Identify all employees who performed work of services inside the Palm Beach Residence. Answer: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, Defendant objects as the interrogatory is overbroad and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of the pending action nor does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiffs Complaint alleges a time period of "in or about 2004-2005." Plaintiffs interrogatory seeks information for a time period from January 1, 2003 until present. Also, see "Employee" as defined in paragraph g of Plaintiffs interrogatories. Interrogatory No. 2. Identify all Employees not identified in response to interrogatory no. 1 who at any time came to Defendant's Palm Beach Residence. Answer: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, Defendant objects as the interrogatory is overbroad and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of the pending action nor does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiffs Complaint alleges a time period of "in or about 2004-2005." Plaintiffs interrogatory seeks information for "all Employees" "who at any time" came to the residence. Also, see "Employee" as defined in paragraph g of Plaintiffs interrogatories. EFTA00067400 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 4 of 37 Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Page 4 Interrogatory No. 3. Identify all persons who came to the Palm Beach Residence and who gave a massage or were asked to give a massage to Defendant. Answer: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, Defendant objects as the interrogatory is overbroad and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of the pending action nor does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiffs Complaint alleges a time period of "in or about 2004-2005." Interrogatory No. 4. Identify all persons who came to the New York Residence and who gave a massage or were asked to give a massage to Defendant. Answer: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, Defendant objects as the interrogatory is overbroad and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of the pending action nor does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiffs Complaint alleges a time period of "in or about 2004-2005." Interrogatory No. 5. Identify all persons who came to the New Mexico Residence and who gave a massage or were asked to give a massage to Defendant. Answer: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my EFTA00067401 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 5 of 37 Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Page 5 federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, Defendant objects as the interrogatory is overbroad and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of the pending action nor does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff's Complaint alleges a time period of "in or about 2004-2005." Interrogatory No. 6. Identify all persons who came to the St. Thomas Residence and who gave a massage or were asked to give a massage to Defendant. Answer: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, Defendant objects as the interrogatory is overbroad and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of the pending action nor does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiffs Complaint alleges a time period of "in or about 2004-2005." Interrogatory No. 7. List all the time periods during which Jeffrey Epstein was present in the State of Florida, including for each the date he arrive and the date he departed. Answer: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, Defendant also objects as the interrogatory is overbroad and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of the pending action nor does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the EFTA00067402 Cise 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 6 of 37 Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Page 6 discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiffs Complaint alleges a time period of "in or about 2004-2005." Plaintiffs interrogatory seeks information for a time period from January 1, 2003 until present. Interrogatory No. 8. Identify all of Jeffrey Epstein health care providers in the past (10) ten years, including without limitation, psychologists, psychiatrists, mental health counselors, physicians, hospitals and treatment facilities. Answer: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, Defendant also objects as the interrogatory is overbroad and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of the pending action nor does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. In addition, such information is privileged pursuant to Rule 501, Fed. Evid., and §90.503, FIa.Evid. Code. In addition, such information is protected by the provisions of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). Interrogatory No. 9. List all items in Jeffrey Epstein's possession in Palm Beach, Florida, at any time during the period of these interrogatories, which were used or intended to be used as sexual aids, sex toys, massage aids, and/or vibrators, and for each, list the manufacturer, model number (if applicable), and its present location. Answer: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, Defendant also objects as the interrogatory is overbroad and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of the pending action nor does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiffs Amended Complaint alleges a time period of "in or about 2004 — 2005," while Plaintiffs interrogatory seeks information from EFTA00067403 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 7 of 37 Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Page 7 January 1, 2003, until present. Further, the request is meant to embarrass and harass the Defendant. Interrogatory No. 10. Identify all persons who provide transportation services to Jeffrey Epstein, whether as employees or independent contractors, including without limitation, chauffeurs and aircraft crew. Answer: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, Defendant also objects as the interrogatory is overbroad and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of the pending action nor does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff places no time limitation. Interrogatory No. 11. Identify all telephone numbers used by Epstein, including cellular phones and land lines in any of his residences, by stating the complete telephone number and the name of the service provider. Answer: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, Defendant also objects as the interrogatory is overbroad and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of the pending action nor does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiffs allegations claim a time period of "in or about 2004-2005" and involve Defendant's Palm Beach residence. Interrogatory No. 12. Identify all telephone numbers of employees of Epstein, used in the course or scope of their employment, including cellular phones and land lines in any of his residences, by stating the complete telephone number and the name of the service provider. EFTA00067404 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 8 of 37 Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Page 8 Answer: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, Defendant objects as the interrogatory is overbroad and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of the pending action nor does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiffs allegations claim a time period of min or about 2004-2005" and involve Defendant's Palm Beach residence. Interrogatory No. 13. List the names and addresses of all persons who are believed or known by your, your agents, or your attorneys to have any knowledge concerning any of the issues in this lawsuit; and specify the subject matter about which the witness has knowledge. Answer: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, the interrogatory seeks information that is attorney-client and work product privileged as it seeks information known by Defendant's attorneys. The interrogatory is so overbroad that Defendant cannot reasonably form a response, including the raising of additional privileges which may apply. Without waiving any objection, see Rule 26 disclosures made by Defendant's counsel in this case. Interrogatory No. 14. State the name and address of every person known to you, your agents, or your attorneys who has knowledge about, possession, or custody, or control of, any model, plat, map, drawing, motion picture, videotape or photograph pertaining to any fact or issue involved in this controversy; and describe as to each, what item such person has, the name and address of the person who took or prepared it, and the date it was taken or prepared. EFTA00067405 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 9 of 37 Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Page 9 Answer: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, the interrogatory seeks information that is attorney-client and work product privileged as it seeks information known by Defendant's attorneys. Interrogatory No. 15. Identify all persons who have made a claim, complaint, demand or threat against you relating to alleged sexual abuse or misconduct on a minor, and for each provide the following information: a. The person's full name, last known address and telephone number; b. The person's attorney, if represented; c. The date of the alleged incident(s); d. If a civil case has been filed by or on behalf of the person, the case number and identifying information. Answer: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges and without waiving such objection, with regard to subparagraph (d), Defendant's counsel states that such information is public record and equally attainable by Plaintiff. Interrogatory No. 16. State the facts upon which you intend to rely for each denial of a pleading allegation and for each affirmative defense you intend to make in these cases. Answer: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk EFTA00067406 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 10 of 37 Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Page 10 losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, no answer to the Amended Complaint has been filed by defense counsel in this case; however, Defendant does not intend to waive his constitutional privilege against self-incrimination. Defendant further objects in that Plaintiffs interrogatory attempts to obtain discovery in other cases filed by her undersigned counsel. Interrogatory No. 17. Identify all witnesses from whom you have obtained or requested a written, transcribed or recorded statement relating to any issue in these cases, and for each, in addition to the witness's identifying information, state the date of the statement and identify the person taking the statement. Answer: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, Defendant objects to this interrogatory in that it seeks information that is attorney-client and work product privileged. In addition, the request is overbroad in that it seeks information "relating to any issue." STATE OF Flor.‘ COUNTY OF 9c,\. Ckery ) I hereby certify that on this day, before me, an officer duly authorized to administer oaths and take acknowledgments, personally appeared e_sccrr..z.i , known to me to be the person described in and who executed the foregoing Interrogatories who EFTA00067407 . Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 11 of 37 Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Page 11 acknowledged before me that he/she executed the same, that I relied upon the following form of identification of the above-named person: personally known/identification and that an oath was/was not taken. WITNESS my hand and official seal in the County and State last aforesaid this 2.6* day of \ar‘..acar..‘ 2009. • ••••• NOTARY PUBLIC-STATE OF FLORIDA PRelatrvIE: cs14/ krxr..en.. Mrktit ?trial Notary Public/State of Florida (SEAL) Commission (* Expires: D Commission #: BONDED THRU Amur= BONDING CO, Bic My Commission Expires: EFTA00067408 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 12 of 37 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA-JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE & OBJECTIONS TO SECOND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, dated December 19, 2008 Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through his undersigned attorneys, serves his responses and objections to the Request to Produce, dated December 19, 2008 and states: Request No. 1. All policies of insurance, including the declarations page and all binders, amendments, and endorsements, covering Defendant's residence at 358 El Brillo Way, Palm Beach, FL 33480. Response: Objection, overly broad, not relevant and material and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff alleged claims occurred during a specific time period in 2004 - 2005, yet to be specifically identified. Yet, no time period whatsoever is set forth in the Request for Production. Additionally, Defendant objects in that the policies contain value and/or asset information which is not relevant, material nor calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence at this point in time; said information is both private and confidential. ecier*lis EFTA00067409 lase 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 13 of 37 Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Page 2 Certificate of Service WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing has been sent via U.S. Mail and facsimile to the following addressees this 26th day of January 2009. Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. Jack Alan Goldberger Jeffrey Marc Herman, Esq. A Stuart S. M rmelstein Es o- ounse or Defendant Jeffrey Epstein Counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe #2 Respectfull sub ed By: ROBER Florida Ba MICHAEL J. PIKE ESQ. Florida Bar BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN (Co-counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) EFTA00067410 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 14 of 37 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA-JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE & OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through his undersigned counsel, serves his responses and objections to Plaintiff's Amended First Request For Production To Defendant, dated December 9, 2008. Request No. 1. The list provided to you by the U.S. Attorney of individuals whom the U.S. Attorney was prepared to name in an Indictment as victims of an offense by Mr. Epstein enumerated in 18 U.S.C. §2255. Response: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all relevant documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference EFTA00067411 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 15 of 37 Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Page 2 under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, the information sought is privileged and confidential, and inadmissible pursuant to the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement, Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and 408, and §90.410, Fla. Stat. Further, the request is overly broad, work product, attorney-client privileged, and confidential. In addition, the request seeks information concerning persons, not parties to this litigation, whose privacy rights are implicated. Request No. 2. All documents referring or relating to the United States' agreement with Defendant to defer federal prosecution subject to certain conditions, including without limitation, the operative agreement between Defendant and the United States and all amendments, revisions and supplements thereto. Response: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all relevant documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my EFTA00067412 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 16 of 37 Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Page 3 constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, the information sought is privileged and confidential, and inadmissible pursuant to the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement, Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and 408, and §90.410, Fla. Stat. Further, the request is overly broad, work product, attorney-client privileged, and confidential. In addition, the request seeks information concerning persons, not parties to this litigation, whose privacy rights are implicated. Request No. 3. All documents referring or relating to Defendant's agreement with the State of Florida on his plea of guilty to violations of Florida Criminal Statutes, including without limitation, the operative plea agreement and any amendments, revisions and supplements thereto. Response: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all relevant documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, the EFTA00067413 Cse 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 17 of 37 Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Page 4 information sought is privileged and confidential, and inadmissible pursuant to the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement, Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and 408, and §90.410, Fla. Stat. Further, the request is overly broad, work product, attorney-client privileged, and confidential. In addition, the request seeks information concerning persons, not parties to this litigation, whose privacy rights are implicated. Whatever public documents exist are in the State Court file and equally accessible to Plaintiff. Request No.4. All documents obtained in discovery or investigation relating to either the Florida Criminal Case or the Federal Criminal Case, including without limitation, documents obtained from any federal, state, or local law enforcement agency, the State Attorney's office and the United States Attorney's office. Response: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all relevant documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, the EFTA00067414 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 18 of 37 Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Page 5 information sought is privileged and confidential, and inadmissible pursuant to the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement, Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and 408, and §90.410, Fla. Stat. Further, the request is overly broad, work product, attorney-client privileged, and confidential. In addition, the request seeks information concerning persons, not parties to this litigation, whose privacy rights are implicated. Request No. 4 seeks documents that are attorney-client and work product privileged in that it seeks "all documents obtained in discovery or investigation relating either to the Florida Criminal Case or the Federal Criminal Case ... ." In addition, such documents are privileged and confidential as they are the subject of a pending investigation. Request No. 5. All telephone records and other documents reflecting telephone calls made by or to Defendant, including without limitation, telephone logs and message pads. Response: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all relevant documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the EFTA00067415 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 19 of 37 Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Page 6 Constitution. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, the information sought is privileged and confidential, and inadmissible pursuant to the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement, Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and 408, and §90.410, Fla. Stat. Further, the request is overly broad, work product, attorney-client privileged, and confidential. In addition, the request seeks information concerning persons, not parties to this litigation, whose privacy rights are implicated. Defendant objects as the request is overbroad and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of the pending action nor does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff's complaint alleges a time period of "in or about 2004 — 2005." Plaintiffs request seeks information for a time period of January 1, 2003 until present regarding any and all telephone records and other documents reflecting any and all telephone calls made to or by Defendant. As phrased, the request includes attorney-client and work product privileged information, as well as records and documents of calls having absolutely no relationship to any of the allegations in this action. Request No. 6. All telephone records and other documents reflecting telephone calls made by or to Defendant, including without limitation, telephone logs and message pads, reflecting telephone calls made by or to employees. Response: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all relevant documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce EFTA00067416 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 20 of 37 Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Page 7 documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, the information sought is privileged and confidential, and inadmissible pursuant to the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement, Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and 408, and §90.410, Fla. Stat. Further, the request is overly broad, work product, attorney-client privileged, and confidential. In addition, as defined by Plaintiff in paragraph g of her request, the term employee is overly broad and encompasses information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of the pending action nor does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, the request seeks information pertaining to person who are not parties to this action and whose privacy rights are implicated. Request No. 7. All surveillance videos, slides, film, videotape, digital recording or other audio or video depiction or image of the Palm Beach Residence. Response: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all relevant documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my EFTA00067417 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 21 of 37 Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Page 8 Sixth Amendment right to effective representation.