211.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 _______________________________/ Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 211 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 1 of 10 CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON 2 JANE DOE NO. 5, CASE NO: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 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 ________________________________/ Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 211 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 2 of 10 CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON 3 CASE NO: 08-CV-80811-MARRA/JOHNSON C.M.A., Plaintiff vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant ______________________________/ JANE DOE, CASE NO. 08-CV-80893-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, Vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et al. Defendant. ______________________________/ DOE II, CASE NO: 09-CV-80469-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et al. Defendants. _______________________________/ Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 211 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 3 of 10 CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON 4 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 _______________________________/ PLAINTIFF JANE DOE’S MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO PLAINTFF’S FIRST REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS TO DEFENDANT Plaintiff Jane Doe, hereby moves this Court for an order compelling defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, to answer her first requests for admissions or, in the alternative, to prove that his invocation of his Fifth Amendment privilege is proper. Jane Doe has propounded 23 requests for admission to Epstein, including such straightforward requests as: • Your net worth is greater than $1 billion. Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 211 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 4 of 10 CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON 5 • You own or control, directly or indirectly, real estate property in foreign countries. • You are moving significant financial assets overseas, outside of the direct territorial reach of the U.S. and Florida Courts. • You currently have the ability to post a bond of $15 million to satisfy a judgment in this case without financial or other difficulty. In response to each and every one of these questions, Epstein has given the following response: In response, Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges as specified herein. I intend to respond to all relevant discovery regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any discovery 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. This Court should order Epstein to answer all of the requests for admission or, in the alternative, prove that his Fifth Amendment invocations are valid. It is for the court, not the claimant, to determine whether the hazard of incrimination is justified. United States v. Argomaniz, 925 F.2d 1349, 1355 (11th Cir. 1991). “A court must make a particularized inquiry, deciding, in connection with each specific area that the questioning party wishes to explore, whether or not the privilege is well-founded.” Id. Typically this is done in an in camera proceeding wherein the person asserting the privilege is given the opportunity “to substantiate his claims of the privilege and the Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 211 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 5 of 10 CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON 6 district court is able to consider the questions asked and the documents requested by the summons.” Id. Here Epstein has made boilerplate invocation of the Fifth Amendment to each and every question propounded by Jane Doe, including for example a request that he admit that his net worth is more than $500 million. It is not apparent how admitting his net worth is incriminating in the circumstances of this case. In any event, the Fifth Amendment does not operate in this fashion. It is Epstein’s obligation to explain his claims on a “question-by-question basis.” Id. The only issue before the Court is Epstein’s Fifth Amendment privilege. Epstein has only asserted a Fifth Amendment objection to production. As a result, any other objections to production are deemed waived. See Local Rule 26.1G.3.(a) (“Any ground [for an objection] not stated in an objection within the time provided by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or any extensions thereof, shall be waived.”). SPECIFIC REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION For the convenience of the court – and in compliance with Local Rule 26.1 H (party filing motion to compel shall list specific requests in succession) – Jane Doe’s requests for admission are as follows: 1. Your net worth is greater than $10 million. 2. Your net worth is greater than $50 million. 3. Your net worth is greater than $100 million. 4. Your net worth is greater than $500 million. 5. Your net worth is greater than $1 billion. Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 211 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 6 of 10 CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON 7 6. Since being incarcerated you have, directly or indirectly (through the services or assistance