124.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 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 1 of 17 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. ____________________________________/ C.M.A., CASE NO.: 08-CV-80811-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 2 of 17 ____________________________________/ JANE DOE, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80893-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. 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. 102, CASE NO.: 09-CV-80656- MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 3 of 17 vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. ____________________________________/ PLAINTIFFS JANE DOE NO. 101 AND JANE DOE NO. 102’s REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO PROCEED ANONYMOUSLY AND RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL AND/OR IDENTIFY JANE DOE NO. 101 AND JANE DOE NO. 102 IN THIRD-PARTY SUBPOENAS FOR PURPOSES OF DISCOVERY 1 Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and Jane Doe No. 102 (together, “Plaintiffs”), by and through their undersigned attorneys, hereby file their Reply in Support of Motion to Proceed Anonymously and Response in Opposition to Motion to Compel and/or Identify Jane Doe No. 101 and Jane Doe No. 102 in Third-Party Subpoenas for Purposes of Discovery, and, as grounds, state as follows: 1. Exposure of Plaintiffs to the public disclosure of their identity and the resultant shame and humiliation accompanying their sexual exploitation is wholly unnecessary and premature, and may cause further damage. Plaintiffs respectfully assert that this Court should first decide the threshold issues of retroactivity and calculation of damages. Plaintiffs, and all other victims of Defendant who have filed an action against Defendant in federal court, will have to litigate these two following threshold issues being reviewed by the Court in the C.M.A. action against Defendant (Case No. 08-CV- 80811-MARRA/ JOHNSON): 1) whether the most recent version of the statute, which provides for a minimum recovery of $150,000 (instead of the previous minimum of 1 Plaintiffs respectfully file this Reply in the consolidated action, as the issue at hand pertains to discovery issues. Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 4 of 17 $50,000) applies to cases arising from incidents predating the 2006 amendment to the statute; and 2) whether the applicable minimum amount is recoverable per incident and/or per count, or per victim. Defendant has attempted to force settlements on any victims as possible without considering the possibility that the minimum amount recoverable under 18 U.S.C. § 2255 is $150,000 per count and/or per incident. Much of this Court’s caseload will be alleviated once the Court resolves these issues related to the minimum recovery; at that point, many of Defendant’s victims will likely agree to settle for the minimum statutory damages to which they are entitled, thus obviating Defendant’s specified need to destroy his victims’ anonymity and expose them to further harm and humiliation. 2. This Court has discretion to deny Defendant’s Motion to Compel and/or Identify Plaintiffs in Third Party Subpoenas for Purposes of Discovery. See Doe v. Stegall, 653 F.2d 180, 184 (5th Cir. Aug. 10, 1981) 2 (“Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c) vests in the trial court discretion over litigants’ requests for protection from ‘annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense’ in the discovery process.”) (internal quotation omitted). As more fully discussed in Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendant’s Motion to Stay, which is adopted and incorporated herein, Defendant waived his right to contest liability in actions filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255. Thus, third party discovery is relevant only if Plaintiffs seek recovery of damages in excess of the statutory minimum. Additionally, if and when the parties are ready to proceed with discovery from non-party sources, the Court can put numerous measures in place to maximize Plaintiffs’ anonymity. At the outset, Defendant can obtain records from 2 In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), this circuit adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down before October 1, 1981. Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 5 of 17 various non-party sources through Plaintiffs’ counsel, who can demonstrate and certify that they have obtained the very records being sought, or through an independent special master, who could be given releases by Plaintiffs to obtain such records on behalf of Defendant to eliminate any question of authenticity or completeness. If Defendant nevertheless insists on conducting his own third-party discovery (needlessly increasing the cost of litigating these actions and causing unnecessary delay), subpoenas seeking doc