040.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 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2009 Page 1 of 20 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 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2009 Page 2 of 20 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 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2009 Page 3 of 20 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 SET OF INTERROGATORIES Plaintiff Jane Doe, hereby moves this Court for an order compelling defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, to answer her first set of interrogatories or, in the alternative, to prove that his invocation of his Fifth Amendment privilege is proper. Jane Doe has propounded 23 interrogatories, including such straightforward requests as: Interrogatory No. 2: Describe financial assets that are under your control, directly or indirectly, including interests in corporations or other business entities. Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2009 Page 4 of 20 CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON 5 Interrogatory No. 3: Describe which financial assets listed in your answer to interrogatory #2 are located outside the 50 states of the United States and where they are located. Interrogatory No. 4: Describe your net worth, including income and expenses for 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008. Interrogatory No. 5: Describe any real property in which you have a total or partial interest, either directly or indirectly. Interrogatory No. 7: Describe any transfer of assets under your control, either directly or indirectly, to locations outside the 50 United States in 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008. Interrogatory No. 8: Describe, with specificity, your travel to locations outside the 50 states of the United states in 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008, including your dates of travel, location to which you traveled and persons that accompanied you in each such travel. Interrogatory No. 11: Have you heard or do you know about any statement or remark (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of any party to this lawsuit, other than yourself, concerning any issue in this lawsuit? If so, state the name and address of each person who heard or read it, and the date, time, place and substance of each statement or remark. Interrogatory No. 12: Do you intend to elicit testimony of witnesses other than Plaintiff regarding any statements she has ever made? If so, what statements do you Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2009 Page 5 of 20 CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON 6 intend to produce through testimony? Through which witness do you intend to elicit such statement? And for what purpose do you intend to admit such statement? Interrogatory No. 23: State the facts upon which you rely for each affirmative defense in your answer. In response to these interrogatories, Epstein has given the following response (with only slight variations on the overbreadth objection): 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 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 so overbroad and, thus, 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. This Court should order Epstein to answer all of these interrogatories 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 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2009 Page 6 of 20 CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON 7 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 the question: Do you intend to elicit testimony of witnesses other than Plaintiff r