034.pdf

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-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. ____________________________________/ JANE DOE NO. 5, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. ____________________________________/ Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 34 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 1 of 15 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. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et al., Defendant. ____________________________________/ DOE II, CASE NO.: 08-CV- 80469-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. 2 Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 34 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 2 of 15 JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al., Defendant. ____________________________________/ JANE DOE NO. 101, CASE NO.: 08- CV-80591-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. ____________________________________/ JANE DOE NO. 102, CASE NO.: 08- CV-80656-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. ____________________________________/ PLAINTIFFS JANE DOES 2-7’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL AND/OR IDENTIFY PLAINTIFFS IN THE STYLE OF THIS CASE AND MOTION TO IDENTIFY JANE DOE IN THIRD-PARTY SUBPOENAS FOR PURPOSES OF DISCOVERY, OR ALTERNATIVELY, MOTION TO DISMISS “SUA SPONTE”, WITH INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW Plaintiffs, JANE DOES 2-7, hereby serve their Response to Defendant’s Motion to Compel and/or Identify Plaintiffs in the Style of this Case and Motion to Identify Jane Doe in Third-Party Subpoenas for Purposes of Discovery, or Alternatively, Motion to Dismiss “Sua Sponte”, With Incorporated Memorandum of Law, and state as follows: 1. The lawsuits filed by JANE DOES 2-7 involve private, intimate facts pertaining to their own childhood sexual abuse and exploitation by Defendant Jeffrey Epstein. 3 Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 34 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 3 of 15 2. Jane Does 2-7 filed their suits under a pseudonym 1 to prevent public disclosure of the private, highly sensitive and intimate facts pertaining to their sexual assaults, and the public association of their identities with Defendant Epstein and these assaults. 3. Dr. Gilbert Kliman, 2 a well-known forensic psychiatrist with an expertise in the field of child trauma, has met with and evaluated each of Jane Does 2-7 and opined that public disclosure of their real names would create a substantial risk to them of further psychological harm. See Exhibit “A”, Declaration of Gilbert Kliman, M.D. 4. Dr. Kliman opines as follows: Releasing names of the plaintiffs to the public will reenact experiences of powerlessness and helplessness in the face of a boundary violation. Repetition and reenactment represent central features of Criterion B in the DSM-IV-TR diagnosis of posttraumatic stress disorder trauma. In effect, release of their identity and public intrusion into their personal life represents a reenactment of the shame of sexual traumatization. Repetition and reenactment are central pathologies that afflict sexual trauma survivors. Victims of sexual abuse often rely upon some form of dissociation, splitting or denial, as a defensive means to manage overwhelming affects associated with the sexual trauma. Each of the plaintiff girls has employed some variation of this defense, both during the massages and then subsequently following disclosure of the abuse. Primitive, maladaptive responses of this nature will become additionally reinforced as a result of public disclosure. Another aspect of the plaintiffs’ experience, which is recognized by DSM-IV-TR, is that the trauma was associated with human design factors (such as cruel intention to do harm, rape, torture). Trauma of this origin has a tendency to produce more “severe or long lasting” posttraumatic stress disorder than natural events (DSM IV TR p. 464). A policy of deliberate revelation of the names of the victims would reinforce the sense of design, pattern and policy of human intentions. It is my opinion, with a reasonably high degree of medical certainty that the defense motion to allow public disclosure of the plaintiffs’ identity is clinically 1 Defendant and his counsel are aware of the real names of Jane Does 2-7. 2 A copy of the curriculum vitae of Dr. Gilbert Kliman is attached hereto as Exhibit “B”. 4 Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 34 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 4 of 15 and ethically a wrongful plan. The act of revealing their identity against their wishes places the plaintiffs at risk, in the best of circumstances, of suffering an aggravation of existing diagnostic concerns. It is more probable than not that releasing personal identities will foster an exacerbation and magnification of symptoms lending to increased risk of revictimization and retraumatization. See Exhibit “A”, ¶¶ 13-15, 21 5. Given the private nature of the allegations in this lawsuit and the serious risk of harm to the mental health of Jane Does 2-7 if a public disclosure of their identities were required, Jane Does 2-7 should be permitted to continue using a pseudonym in this lawsuit. 6. Notably, in one of the cases consolidated for purposes of discovery, Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 08-80893, this Court recognized the harm likely to result from public disclosure of the victims’ identities in these cases, and allowed the Plaintiff in that case to “proceed in this action under the pseudonym ‘Jane Doe’ ”, by Order dated October 6, 2008. 7. Jeffrey Epstein sets forth no facts to support his bare contention that Jane Does 2- 7 use of a pseudonym in these proceedings interferes with his “constitutional due process right.” See Motion to Compel, p. 3. Defendant and his counsel know the identities of these Plaintiffs. 8. Defendant also requests the Court’s permission to use the real names of Jane Does 2-7 in various third-party subpoenas for discovery purposes. Defendant does not identify any of the entities or persons to whom he intends to send subpoenas. An order granting the relief requested without limitations would essentially nullify Jane Does 2-7’s right to proceed anonymously. Jane Does 2-7 therefore object to the issuance of third-party subpoenas, and submit that Defen