535.pdf

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 535 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/28/2010 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. ---------------~/ Related cases: 08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591,09-80656,09-80802,09-81092 I Response To Plaintifrs, Jane Doe No.: 4, Motion for Protective Order {DE 534), With Incorporated Memorandum Of Law Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN ("Epstein" or "Defendant"), by and through his undersigned attorneys, hereby files his Response In Opposition to Plaintiffs', Jane Doe's Motion for Protective Order (DE 534), With Incorporated Memorandum Of Law (the "Motion for Protective Order"). In support, Epstein states as follows: I. Introduction & Argument I. Plaintiff and her counsel have now resurrected their collective efforts to prevent discovery relating to Plaintiffs psychological, criminal and employment histories, as well as their general backgrounds. Plaintiff unreasonably continues to delay discovery knowing full well that the court has already entered orders allowing for discovery as to third parties. Plaintiffs once again requests that this court preclude Epstein from investigating these matters through one of the most traditional methods available in 1 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 535 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/28/2010 Page 2 of 9 the justice system, depositions. 2. Epstein has been faced with several motions seeking to prevent or limit discovery with the primary goal being to send Epstein to trial with little or no discovery. Plaintiff continues to avert discovery, and now she wishes to shelter her pasts by requesting that this court enter an order broadly limiting the rules of discovery and thus preventing Epstein from deposing third parties, including two individuals that were Jane Doe 4's soccer coaches for years (i.e., Rocky Orezzoli and Bill Brown). Limiting such discovery would undoubtedly result in reversible error. Plaintiff claims Epstein is harassing her by way of seeking those depositions; however, such is not the case. Coaches have an identifiably close relationship with their players and, often times, their players confide in them about events which they would not address with their very own parents. As such, these two deponents are clearly relevant, and their depositions are not being set as a means of harassment. Moreover, Defendant does not intend to violate the court's order at DE 433. 3. As the court knows, Plaintiffs' have several preexisting and diagnosed conditions for which they now attempt to pawn off on Epstein in an effort to increase their damages. For instance, prior to any of their alleged encounters with Epstein, certain Plaintiffs have been raped, sexually abused, molested and physically and verbally abused. Some of them have been diagnosed with post traumatic stress disorder or obsessive compulsive disorder, and some have suicidal thoughts and/or have attempted suicide on more than one occasion. Moreover, some of the Plaintiffs have witnessed close friends or family members commit suicide. While the above incidents are nothing less than tragic, the impact of those incidents on each of the Plaintiffs must be taken into consideration 2 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 535 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/28/2010 Page 3 of 9 with the claims they make and the damages they seek against from Epstein. 4. Plaintiff has objected to all meaningful discovery, and now she seeks to halt or limit traditional discovery methods at the very time she suspects Epstein is going to learn information that may diminish or disprove her claims. In fact, the questions outlined on pages 3-4 of DE 534 are clearly relevant to Plaintiffs general background (see infra), her sexually explicit experiences including, but not limited to, events taking place at strip clubs where Plaintiff was employed. Obviously, these questions go to the heart of the Epstein's defenses, including that of consent and ability to consent. 5. If this court precludes Epstein's lawyers from seeking information from third parties about the claims asserted against him by Jane Doe 4 ( and others) it will undoubtedly violate Epstein's due process rights by preventing him from defending the allegations made against him and it will further open the floodgates to additional challenges from others. This would result in rewriting the rules of discovery, and the intended purpose of the rules would largely be disregarded (i.e., to obtain information necessary to prosecute and/or defend claims such that the element of unfair surprise is diminished). The overall purpose of discovery under the Federal Rules is to obtain a full and accurate understanding of the true facts in order to obtain a fair and just result. United States v. Proctor & Gamble Co., 356 U.S. 677,682, 78 S.Ct. 983 (1958). This is evidenced through the intent of rule 26 disclosures. 6. As this court has recognized, Defendant should not have to rely on only those "handpicked witnesses disclosed by Plaintiff]] in discovery, and would thereby prejudice Epstein in mounting his defense to the claims raised against him. (DE 299, p.4)(Exhibit "A"). Likewise, at DE 432 (Exhibit "B"), this court denied Defendant's 3 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 535 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/28/2010 Page 4 of 9 Motion for Protective Order seeking to prevent the deposition of Third Party witness Igor Zinoview despite the fact that Mr. Zinoview was employed by Epstein post-dates giving rise to the facts alleged in these actions. This was the case even though several affidavits were provided supporting Zinoview's Motion for Protective Order. The court found that an order completely prohibiting the deposition from going forward is rare, Salter v. Upiohn co., 593 F.2d 649, 651 (5 th Cir. 1979), and that Zinoview's conclusory affidavit in which he denies knowledge of the facts giving rise to these cases provide anything even approaching the rise of "extraordinary circumstances" necessary to prohibit the deposition. (DE 432). The same result should be reached here. 7. The party resisting discovery has a heavy burden of showing why the requested discovery should not be permitted. Rossbach v. Runde!, 128 F.Supp.2d 1348, 1354 (S.D. Fl. 2000) ("The onus is on the party resisting discovery to demonstrate specifically how the objected-to information is unnecessary, unreasonable or otherwise unduly burdensome."); Dunkin Donuts, Inc. v. Mary's Donuts, Inc., 2001 WL 34079319 (S.D. Fla. 2001) ("the burden of showing that the requested information is not relevant to the issues in the case is on the party resisting discovery") citation omitted); Gober v. City of Lees berg, 197 F .R.D. 519, 521 (M.D. Fla. 2000)("The party resisting production of information bears the burden of establishing lack of relevancy or undue burden in supplying the requested information"). To meet this burden, the party resisting discovery must demonstrate specifically how the objected-to request is unreasonable or otherwise unduly burdensome. See Fed. R. Civ. P.33(b)(4); Panola Land Buyers Ass'n v. Shuman, 762 F.2d 1550, 1559 (11 th Cir. 1985); Rossbach, 128 F.Supp.2d at 1353. Thus, to even merit consideration, "an objection must show specifically how a discovery request is 4 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 535 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/28/2010 Page 5 of 9 overly broad, burdensome or oppressive, by submitting evidence or offering evidence which reveals the nature of the burden." Coker v. duke & Co .. , 1777 F.R.D. 682, 686 (M.D. Ala. 1998). Plaintiff has failed to make such a showing. Therefore, her Motion for Protective Order should be denied. See M·, DE 377, Exhibit "C". 8. Obviously, Defendant is entitled to test Plaintiffs cre