EFTA00192927.pdf

eiasErg:08-cv 80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 1 of 51 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 2 WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION 3 CASE NO. 08-80119-CIV-MARRA 4 WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA JANE DOE, et al., 5 Plaintiffs, JUNE 12, 2009 6 vs. 7 JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 8 Defendant. 9 10 TRANSCRIPT OF MOTION HEARING 11 BEFORE THE HONORABLE KENNETH A. MARRA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 APPEARANCES: 13 FOR THE PLAINTIFFS: ADAM D. HOROWITZ, ESQ. 14 Mermelstein & Horowitz 18205 Biscayne Boulevard 15 Miami, FL 33160 305.931.2200 For Jane Doe 16 BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, ESQ. 17 Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler 401 East Las Olas Boulevard 18 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Jane Doe 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 19 954.522.3456 20 ISIDRO M. GARCIA, ESQ. Garcia Elkins Boehringer 21 224 Datura Avenue West Palm Beach, FL 33401 22 Jane DOE II 561.832.8033 23 RICHARD H. WILLITS, ESQ. 2290 10th Avenue North 24 Lake Worth, FL 33461 For C.M.A. 561.582.7600 25 TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00192927 • Case 9:08-cv 80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 2 of 51 2 1 ROBERT C. JOSEFSBERG, ESQ. 2 Podhurst Orseck Josefsberg 25 West Flagler Street 3 Miami, FL 33130 For Jane Doe 101 305.358.2800 4 (Via telephone) 5 KATHERINE W. EZELL, ESQ. Podhurst Orseck Josefsberg 6 25 West Flagler Street Miami, FL 33130 7 For Jane Doe 101 305.358.2800 8 FOR THE DEFENDANT: ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. MICHAEL BURMAN, ESQ. 9 Burman Critton, etc. 515 North Flagler Street 10 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 561.842.2820 11 JACK A. GOLDBERGER, ESQ. 12 Atterbury Goldberger Weiss 250 Australian Avenue South 13 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 561.659.8300 14 15 AsAmicus cukrAc.: ANN MARIE VILLAFANA, ESQ. Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 East Broward Boulevard 16 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394 For U.S.A. 954.356.7255 17 MARTIN G. WEINBERG, ESQ. 18 20 Park Plaza Boston MA 02116 19 (Via telephone) 617.227.3700 20 JAY LEFKOWITZ, ESQ. (Via telephone) 21 REPORTED BY: LARRY HERR, RPR-RMR-FCRR-AE 22 Official United States Court Reporter Federally Certified Realtime Reporter 23 400 North Miami Avenue, Room 8N09 Miami, FL 33128 305.523.5290 24 25 TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00192928 Case 9:08-cv 80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 3 of 51 3 1 THE COURT: We are here in the various Doe vs. Epstein 2 cases. 3 May I have counsel state their appearances? 4 MR. HOROWITZ: Adam Horowitz, counsel for plaintiffs 5 Jane 2 through Jane Doe 7. 6 THE COURT: Good morning. 7 MR. EDWARDS: Brad Edwards, counsel for plaintiff Jane 8 Doe. 9 THE COURT: Good morning. 10 MR. GARCIA: Good morning, Your Honor. Sid Garcia for 11 Jane Doe II. 12 THE COURT: Good morning. 13 MR. WILLITS: Good morning, Your Honor. Richard 14 Willits, here on behalf of the plaintiff C.M.A.. 15 THE COURT: Good morning. 16 MS. EZELL: Good morning, Your Honor. I'm Katherine 17 Ezell from Podhurst Orseck, here with Amy Adderly and Susan 18 Bennett, and I believe my partner, Bob Josefsberg, is going to 19 appear by telephone. 20 THE COURT: Mr. Josefsberg, are you there? 21 MR. JOSEFSBERG: I am, Your Honor. 22 THE COURT: Good morning. 23 MR. JOSEFSBERG: Good morning. 24 THE COURT: All right. Do we have all the plaintiffs 25 stated their appearances? Okay. TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00192929 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 4 of 51 4 1 Defense? 2 MR. CRITTON: Your Honor, Robert Critton on behalf of 3 Mr. Epstein, and my partner, Michael Burman. 4 THE COURT: Good morning. 5 MR. GOLDBERGER: Good morning, Your Honor. Jack 6 Goldberger on behalf of Mr. Epstein. 7 THE COURT: I see we have some representatives from 8 the United States Attorney's Office here. 9 MS. VILLAFANA: Good morning, Your Honor. Ann Marie 10 Villafana for the U.S. Attorney's office. 11 THE COURT: Good morning. 12 Who else do we have on the phone? 13 MR. CRITTON: Your Honor, we have two members of the 14 defense team are on the phone, also. 15 THE COURT: Who do we have on the phone? 16 MR. WEINBERG: Martin Weinberg. Good morning,. Your 17 Honor. 18 MR. LEFKOWITZ: Jay Lefkowitz. Good morning, Your 19 Honor. 20 THE COURT: Good morning. 21 I scheduled this hearing for very limited issues 22 which, as you all know, there's been a motion by Mr. Epstein to 23 stay the civil proceedings against him. The one issue I have 24 concern about is Mr. Epstein's contention or assertion that by 25 defending against the allegations in the civil proceedings, he TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00192930 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 5 of 51 5 1 may expose himself to an allegation by the United States in the 2 non-prosecution agreement that he's violated that agreement and 3 therefore would subject himself to potential federal charges. 4 I had asked for some briefing on this. I asked the 5 United States to present its position to me. And I received 6 the Government's written response, which I frankly didn't find 7 very helpful. And I still am not sure I understand what the 8 Government's position is on it. 9 So first let me hear from Mr. Epstein's attorneys as 10 to what do you believe the concern is. I don't believe the 11 non-prosecution agreement has ever been filed in this Court; am 12 I correct? 13 MR. CRITTON: To my knowledge, Your Honor, it has not. 14 THE COURT: So I don't believe I've ever seen the 15 entire agreement. I've seen portions of it. 16 MR. EDWARDS: Your Honor, I believe that it was filed 17 under Jane Doe 1 and 2 vs. United States of America, case under 18 seal in your court. 19 THE COURT: Okay. 20 MR. EDWARDS: In a separate case. 21 THE COURT: In that case, okay. Was it actually filed 22 in that case? 23 MR. EDWARDS: I filed it under seal. 24 THE COURT: In any event, what's Mr. Epstein's concern 25 about if you defend the civil actions, you're going to expose TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00192931 Case 9:08-cv 80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 6 of 51 6 1 yourself to a claim for a breach by the United States of the 2 non-prosecution agreement? 3 MR. CRITTON: Robert Critton. 4 Your Honor, our position on this case is, I'd say is 5 somewhat different. When this issue originally came before the 6 Court, as you are aware prior to my firm's involvement in the 7 case, there was a motion filed on behalf of Mr. Epstein seeking a stay. And I think it was in Jane Doe 102 and then 9 subsequently Jane Doe 2 through 5 because all of those cases 10 were filed on or about the same time. 11 And at that time the Court looked at the issue and it 12 was based upon a statutory provision at that time. And the 13 Court said I don't find that it's applicable, or for whatever 14 reason I think the Court said I don't consider that to be a 15 pending proceeding or a proceeding at that particular time. 16 In that same order, which was in Jane Doe 2, I 17 believe it's -- not I believe, I know it's docket entry 33, the 18 ,Court also went on to talk about at that particular point in 19 time dealt with the issue of the discretionary stay. 20 And the Court said at that time, I'm paraphrasing, but 21 the Court also does not believe a discretionary stay is 22 warranted. And what the Court went on to say is that if 23 defendant does not breach the agreement, then he should have no 24 concerns regarding his Fifth Amendment right against 25 self-incrimination. TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00192932 Case `9:08-cv 80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 7 of 51 1 The fact that the U.S. Attorney or other law 2 enforcement officials may object to some discovery in these 3 civil cases is not in and of itself a reason to stay the civil 4 litigation, so that any such issue shall be resolved as they 5 arise in the course of the litigation. 6 And I would respectfully submit to the Court that the 7 position that the Government has taken in its most recent 8 filings changes the playing field dramatically. Because what 9 the Government in essence has said as distinct from the U.S. 10 saying is, well, we object to some discovery, or we may object 11 to some discovery in the civil cases. 12 what they have, in essence, said is if you take some 13 action, Mr. Epstein, that we believe unilaterally, and this is 14 on pages 13 and 14 of their pleading or of their response memo 15 to the Court's inquiry, they say if Mr. Epstein breaches the 16 agreement. They said it's basically like a contract, and if 17 one side breaches, the other side can sue. 18 In this instance what the Government will do is if we 19 believe that Mr. Epstein has breached the agreement, we'll 20 indict him. We will indict him. And his remedy under that 21 circumstance, which is an incredible and catastrophic catch 22 22 is, we'll indict him and then he can move to dismiss. That's a 23 great option. 24 In this particular instance my mandate in defending -- 25 and that's a dramatic change in the Government's position, TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00192933 Case 9:08-cv 80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 8 of 51 8 1 because the Government is not saying, and the Court was pretty 2 specific in what you asked the Government for in its response 3 is, in essence, and it's the same question in a more limited 4 fashion you're posing today is whether Mr. Epstein's defense of 5 the civil action violates the NPA agreement, the 6 non-prosecution agreement, between the U.S. and Mr. Epstein. 7 And the Government refuses to answer that question. 8 They won't come out and say, yes, it will, or no, it won't. 9 What they're doing is they want to sit on the sideline, and as 10 their papers suggest is, they want us to lay in wait and that 11 if, in fact, they believe he violates a provision of the NPA as 12 it relates to the defense of this case or these multitude of 13 cases, then they can come in and indict him -- no notice, no 14 opportunity to cure. 15 We don't think that's what the NPA says, but that's 16 certainly what their papers say. We'll indict him, no notice, 17 no opportunity to cure. We will indict him, and his remedy 18 under that circumstance is that he can move to dismiss the 19 indictment. 20 well, that's great except Mr. Epstein, his mandate to 21 me and I know his mandate to his criminal lawyers, is: Make 22 certain I don't do anything, in particular in these civil cases 23 that would in any way suggest that I am in willful violation of 24 the NPA. 25 Now, in the Court's prior ruling in the docket entry TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00192934 Case 9:08-cv 80119-MM Document 180 Entered on PLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 9 of 51 g 1 33, certainly some aspects of the NPA are within Mr. Epstein's 2 control. There's no question about that. But aspects that 3 relate to the defense of these cases, either in terms of the 4 civil lawyers who are defending these, I think there's 12 or 13 5 pending cases in front of you, there's another four cases in 6 the state court, is the risk is substantial, it's real, and it 7 presents a chilling effect for the civil lawyers in moving 8 forward to determine whether or not we're taking some action 9 that in some way may be a violation of the NPA. 10 And the Government's, again, refusal or non-position 11 with regard to past acts that have been taken in the civil case 12 with regard to the defense or future acts that we may take with 13 regard to these contested litigation casts an extraordinary 14 cloud of doubt and uncertainty and fear that the defense of 15 these cases could jeopardize Mr. Epstein and put him in the 16 irreparable position of violating the NPA and then subsequently 17 being indicted. 18 In this particular instance, again, Mr. Epstein has no 19 intention of willfully violating the NPA, but it's of great 20 concern to him. And I'd say with the position that the 21 Government has taken, no notice, no cure period, no opportunity 22 to discuss. Again, we think that's not what the NPA provides, 23 it's not what the deal was between the two contracting parties, 24 the United States and Mr. Epstein. But that's clearly what 25 their papers say under the circumstances, and it would create TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00192935 Case9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 10 of 51 10 1 this irreparable harm to Mr. Epstein under the circumstances. 2 In essence, we're left with a catch 22 in defending 3 the civil cases. We have a mandate to take no action, to take 4 any action which may be deemed to be a violation of the NPA, 5 either in the past or in the future, which would in any way 6 risk Mr. Epstein being indicted by the United States. 7 He has the clear risk of an indictment based upon the 8 papers that the Government filed. It's real, it's not remote, 9 and it's not speculative. It chills the action of the defense 10 in this instance of both Mr. Epstein and his attorneys in 11 trying to defend these cases and decide under the circumstances 12 can we do this, can we take this position with regard to 13 depositions, can we take this legal position with regard to 14 motions to dismiss, with regard to responses, with regard to 15 replies? 16 And we send out paper discovery. Is this in some way 17 if we contact someone who may be an associate of these 18 individuals as part of our investigation, is that potentially 19 in any way a violation of the NPA? Again, we don't think so. 20 And, obviously, again, my direction has been from my 21 client: Don't take any action that would result in me being 22 indicted under the NPA. Well, that's great. But, generally, 23 civil lawyers or civil lawyers in defending a personal injury 24 case or a tort case, which is exactly what these are, and from 25 a practical standpoint, we use various tools to do discovery. TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00192936 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 11 of 51 1 They're standard. They're specific. They're very temporary. 2 Very typical. 3 But in this instance, as the Court knows, things are 4 not typical with regard to this case in any way, shape or form. 5 We can't even serve subpoenaes, there's objections and there's 6 we can't even serve objections to third parties so we can 7 obtain documents unless we have to filter it through the 8 plaintiffs' attorneys. They won't allow us to use their 9 clients' names, even in a subpoena that would never be filed in 10 the court. 11 How do we do a deposition of a third party? We wanted 12 to take the deposition of Jane Doe 4. Well, who is she? Well, 13 we can't tell you that. Well, who's the defendant? Well, we 14 can't tell you that because nobody wants anybody to know 15 anything about the case. They want to present it strictly 16 through rose-colored glasses. 17 And in this particular instance, we simply can't 18 defend this case or take certain action with the spector 19 hanging over us that, in fact, the Government may deem it to be 20 a violation of the NPA, because very clearly in their response 21 papers, they don't say. They say we don't take the position, 22 and then they take a substantial position is we think there's 23 not all that substantial factors that would entitle him to a 24 stay. 25 Except for the one major issue which the Court posed TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00192937 Case.9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 12 of 51 12 1 in the question is, is can he defend these cases? That's what 2 I really want to know. Can he defend these cases and, in 3 essence, what he has done in the past or what his defense team 4 has done in the past and what they're going to do in the 5 future, can you give him, Epstein, assurances that the 6 Government under this situation, whatever he does, based on 7 advice of counsel, that that cannot be a willful violation of 8 the NPA, which they can -- they, the U.S. -- can then turn 9 around and say that's a violation of the agreement and, 10 therefore, we're going to go proceed to indict you under the 11 circumstances. 12 Our position is, Your Honor, is that the U.S. has now 13 cavalierly suggested that, as they did in picking up on the 14 court's docket entry or prior order, is, look, compliance with 15 the NPA is solely up to Mr. Epstein. In this type of balance 16 of equities, it doesn't speak in favor of a stay. 17 Well, that's great. And maybe that was the position 18 back in '08, on August 5th of '08, when the issue came up in 19 front of the Court with regard to the initial stay. 20 But the Government's papers under these circumstances 21 suggested a very different set of circumstances. Their own 22 unilateral, which is the issue that we argued in the motion for 23 stay, is that the Government's position is that we can 24 unilaterally indict this man if we think he's breached the NPA. 25 We don't think that's right, but we have no buffer TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00192938 • Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 13 of 51 13 1 between us and the Government. They'll say, and as the Court 2 knows, the Government has substantial power. The Government 3 does what it wants. Most of the time hopefully they're right. 4 Sometimes they make mistakes. 5 But in this particular instance, my client has rights. We think that there's notice provisions, we think there's cure 7 provisions under the NPA. That's not what their paper says 8 under the circumstances. 9 And what we'd like to know from the Government, and 10 maybe the answer is basically what the Court asks is, let the 11 Government come forward today and say, based on the knowledge 12 that we have, or as of today's date, June 12th, 2009,/ we, the 13 Government, agree that there is no set of circumstances, not 14 that we're not aware of, but as of today's date, there is 15 nothing that exists that would be a violation of the NPA. 16 THE COURT: Well, that's way beyond what I'm 17 interested in. I don't know what Mr. Epstein may have done 18 outside the context of defending this case that may constitute 19 a violation. And if he has done something outside the context 20 of defending this case that's a violation, I don't care. 21 That's between the United States and Mr. Epstein. 22 I'm only concerned about whether anything he does in 23 defending these civil actions is going to be a violation of the 24 non-prosecution agreement. If he has done something else, it's 25 none of my business, and I don't care, and I'm not going to TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00192939 'Case9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 14 of 51 14 1 even ask the Government to give you an assurance that he hasn't 2 done anything that might have violated the agreement up till 3 today. I'm only interested in defending these civil actions. 4 MR. CRITTON: Then I would respectfully submit to the 5 Court that the Government be asked in that limited context, are 6 they as of today, whether there were or not, but as of today is 7 there anything that has been done or will you take the 8 position, the United States, that any position that Mr. Epstein 9 has taken with regard to defending these civil cases is in any 10 way a violation of the NPA? 11 THE COURT: Well, I'm not sure what they're going to 12 say, but that might -- that cures the problem up to this point. 13 But then we have to deal with what's going to happen from here 14 on in. And that's another issue that we have to deal with. 15 So I understand your position. 16 But has anyone suggested to you on behalf of the 17 United States that there is something that you've done in 18 defending this case that they believe may or could be construed 19 as a violation of the non-prosecution agreement? Has anyone 20 pointed to anything that you've done? For example, the fact 21 that you've wanted to take their -- I don't know if you've 22 noticed depositions or not in this case, but if you've sent 23 notice of taking deposition, if you sent requests for 24 production of documents, if you sent interrogatories, if you 25 issued third party subpoenas? Is anything you've done thus far TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00192940 Case9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 15 of 51 is 1 in the context of this case been brought to your attention as a 2 potential violation? 3 MR. CRITTON: I have received no notification nor am I 4 aware that we've received any notification of any action that 5 we have taken today. As I suggested to the Court, I don't know 6 when they've done or not. And in their papers they suggested, 7 well, we don't know everything that's gone on in the civil B litigation. 9 But from a practical standpoint, it was a number of 10 comments that were made in their papers is, we can indict, we 11 can see if there's a breach. 12 Judge, I may have some -- 13 THE COURT: Before you go on. 14 MR. CRITTON: I'm sorry. 15 THE COURT: You've focused a great deal on the 16 Government's response to my inquiry as supporting your position 17 that you're in jeopardy. But you've made the suggestion, even 18 before this brief was filed, that defending the case was going 19 to potentially result in an assertion or allegation that you 20 breached the non-prosecution agreement. 21 So what was it that caused you to make that initial 22 assertion? Because that's what caught my attention, was not -- 23 this brief that the Government has filed was in response to 24 something that you filed initially in your most recent motion 25 for a stay which raised the issue. TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00192941 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 16 of 51 16 1 So what was it that gave you some concern to even 2 raise the issue that defending this case is going to constitute 3 a breach? 4 MR. CRITTON: Because there are other instances where 5 counsel other than myself, not in the civil aspects, where 6 allegations have been made and letters have been sent by the 7 United States suggesting that there's been a violation of the 8 NPA. And under those circumstances, some notification was 9 provided. 10 THE COURT: Did it have anything to do with defending 11 the civil actions? 12 MR. CRITTON: It did not. 13 THE COURT: So then why was that issue raised by you 14 in the first instance? 15 MR. CRITTON: Because of the prospect that the 16 defendant could take, that the U.S. would take the position 17 under the circumstances that a position that we took with 18 regard to the contested litigation may well impact, that the 19 Government may have a very different view of what the 20 interpretation of the agreement is. 21 And as an example is a number of the parties, and I 22 know the Court doesn't want to get into a discussion, the issue 23 is, is under 2255 is that from the defendant's perspective the 24 deal that was cut on that, it was a very specific deal. It 25 dealt with both consensual and contested litigation. It dealt TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00192942 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 17 of 51 17 1 with a secret list of individuals who we had no idea who was on 2 the list, and a commitment that he would under certain 3 circumstances be required to pay a minimum amount of damages, 4 which our position is under 2255 based upon the statute that 5 was in effect at the time, a $50,000 as to anyone who wanted -- 6 who came forward who was on the list and met certain criteria. 7 The position that now has been asserted by a number of 8 the plaintiffs under the circumstances, and it's been pled, and 9 actually a number of the complainants is, is Epstein agreed, 10 and they cite to a letter that was sent by Ms. Villafana from 11 the Government, that says he has to plead guilty or he can't 12 contest liability. That may be true under very, very limited 13 or specific circumstances. 14 But what the plaintiffs have done in a number of the 15 cases, and these are pending motions, is they've said is, well, 16 we think C.M.A. cases is a good example, they've pled 30 17 separate counts of 2255 alleged violations. And they're saying 18 under the circumstances is, therefore, we have 2255 violations, 19 there's 30 of them, so 30 times 150, or should be, or whether 20 it's 150, that's the amount of money that we want, so maybe $15 21 million, or whatever the number is. 22 Some of the other plaintiffs' lawyers have been even 23 more creative. They've said is, well, we'll agree that it's 24 only one cause of action but that each number of violations; 25 that is, if 20 alleged incidents occurred, that we would TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00192943 Case9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page180151 18 1 consider to be, or that we will argue are violations, then we 2 can take 20 times the 50, or the 150, depending on which 3 statute is applicable. 4 So the Government under that set of circumstance could 5 say, and, again, this is one of the reasons that we raised it, 6 they could say, look, our deal with you was that you couldn't 7 contest liability, that you were waiving liability, or your 8 ability to contest an enumerated offense under 2255. 9 Again, part of the deal was as to an enumerated 10 offense. Okay. Well, what's that mean? What did he plead to? 11 Well, he really didn't plead to anything, which is another 12 issue associated with the 2255. But if the Government comes in 13 and says, no, wait a minute, our position was, is that you're 14 stuck with 2255 and the language within the NPA. And, 15 therefore, whether it's an offense or whether it's multiple 16 offenses or violations or each one represents an individual 17 cause of action, if the Government takes the position that's 16 adverse to what we think the clear reading of the agreement was 19 under those circumstances, they could claim a violation. 20 And as a result -- and that's one of the reasons we 21 put -- that was the most glaring one to us, so we raised that 22 issue. And then when the Government's response came with 23 regard to, is we can just proceed to indict if we think that 24 there's been a breach of the agreement. 25 That puts us at substantial risk and chills our TOTALACCESSCOURTROOMNETWORKREAMMETRANSCRIPTION EFTA00192944 • Case.9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 19 of 51 19 1 ability to move forward. Thank you, Your Honor. 2 THE COURT: Thank you. Who wants to be heard from the 3 plaintiffs first? 4 Is there any plaintiff's attorney who is contending 5 that the defense of these civil actions by Mr. Epstein is going 6 to constitute a breach of the non-prosecution agreement? 7 MR. JOSEFSBERG: Your Honor, this is Bob Josefsberg. 8 May I speak? 9 THE COURT: Yes, sir. 10 MR. JOSEFSBERG: We're not quite confident that any 11 breaches of any agreement, which were third-party 12 beneficiaries, should be resolved by you. We're not saying it 13 shouldn't. But we have not raised any breach of agreement. We 14 think that is between the United States and Mr. Epstein. 15 What I find incredulous and disingenuous is that 16 Mr. Epstein is saying that he wants a stay because he may be 17 forced into taking actions in the defense of this case that 18 would violate the agreement. 19 And let me make our position clear on that. If he 20 wants to move to take depositions, interrogatories, production, 21 and they are according to your rulings appropriate, not 22 invasive of the privacy of someone, and they are relevant, then 23 I don't know how those could in any way be violations of the 24 agreement. 25 What I find hypocritical is that there are two parts TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00192945 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 20 of 51 20 1 to the agreement that I am a beneficiary of. One of them is 2 that he has agreed that on any action brought in the 2255, he 3 will admit to liability. 4 And I received on May 26 a motion to dismiss, which 5 we're prepared to respond to and disagree with, but totally 6 contesting liability, saying that the statute doesn't apply 7 because the girls are no longer minors and saying, and this is 8 the great one, saying that the predicate of the conviction 9 under 2255 has not been satisfied. 10 Now, the understanding that I have is the agreement 11 between the Government and Mr. Epstein was that the Government 12 desired to see these victims made whole, and wanted them to be 13 in the same position as if Mr. Epstein had been prosecuted and 14 pled or convicted. And they would be able to have the 15 predicate of that criminal conviction, which just as a matter 16 of liability would just be introduced as proof that he's done 17 this. 18 They, under the agreement, are supposed to admit to 19 liability on limited something that's under 2255. He has 20 filed, but since there is no conviction, there can be no civil 21 suit under 2255, with which we disagree. But it is totally in 22 opposite of the NPA. 23 The second part is there are many young ladies, and 24 this perhaps he can use this to his great advantage, who are 25 humiliated about this entire situation. Some of them won't TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00192946 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 21 of 51 21 1 come forward. 2 We were appointed by Judge illIllas a Special Master 3 to represent these young ladies. And some of them don't even 4 want to file suit. They don't even want to be known as Jane 5 Doe 103. They don't want any of the risks for these motions 6 that are pending. 7 And part of the agreement was that if we represented 8 them and they settle, Mr. Epstein would pay our fees. And he 9 has written us as of yesterday that he is under no obligation 10 to pay our fees on settling cases. 13. Now, those two matters, I believe, may be breaches. 12 But I am not asking this Court at this time to do anything 13 about them. Nor am I telling the Government, I'm not running 14 to the Government and saying indict him because I want you to '15 pressure him to do what he agreed to. 16 I'm a third-party beneficiary for that agreement, and 17 I may move to enforce certain parts of it. But as far as the 18 issue of staying the litigation, that is the exact opposite of 19 the intent and the letter of the NPA. The purpose of the NPA 20 was so that these 34 young ladies, these victims who have been 21 severely traumatized, may move on with their lives. 22 And to stay this action would be the exact opposite of 23 the purpose of that agreement and would be horrible 24 psychologically for all of my clients. 25 THE COURT: Mr. Josefsberg, I understand your TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00192947 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 22 of 51 22 1 position. And I don't want to argue the merits of whether a 2 stay should or should not be granted. 3 I'm just trying to understand what the ground rules 4 are going to be if I grant a stay or if I deny a stay. And 5 I've already denied a stay once. I have to decide this current 6 motion, and I just want to know what is going to happen if I 7 deny the stay in terms of Mr. Epstein's exposure under the 8 non-prosecution agreement. That's my concern. 9 So if you're telling me that you're not going to urge 10 the United States, on behalf of any of your clients, to take 11 the position that he's breached the agreement because he's 12 taking depositions, because he's pursuing discovery, because 13 he's conducting investigations that anyone in any other type of 14 civil litigation might conduct with respect to plaintiffs that 15 are pursuing claims against a defendant, that those typical 16 types of actions, in your judgment, are not breaches of the 17 agreement and that he can go forward and defend the case as any 18 other defendant could defend, and you're not going to run to 19 the United States and say, hey, he's breaching the agreement by 20 taking depositions and he's breaching the agreement by issuing 21 subpoenas to third parties in order to gather information 22 necessary to defend, then I don't have a problem. But if he's 23 going to be accused of breaching the agreement because he sends 24 out a notice of deposition of one of your clients, how is he 25 supposed to defend the case? TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00192948 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 23 of 51 23 1 MR. JOSEFSBERG: Your Honor, you're totally correct. 2 He can depose my client. That's not a problem. But the 3 problem is that these are not typical clients and this is not a 4 typical case. He has written in his pleadings that he wants to 5 publish the names of these girls in the newspapers so that 6 other people may come forward to discuss their sexual 7 activities with these different plaintiffs. That's not your 8 typical case. But are rulings that you'll make in this case, 9 and they're not part of the NPA. 10 As far as my going to the Government is concerned, I 11 find it very uncomfortable for me to use the Government to try 12 to pursue my financial interest in litigation. And I know that 13 Mr. Epstein and hid counsel will make much ado about it. So I 14 am not going to be running there. 15 However, if they start taking depositions regarding 16 liability, I will consider that to be a breach because they're 17 supposed to have admitted liability. 18 THE COURT: But, again, I don't have the agreement and 19 I don't remember reading the agreement. But what I'm being 20 told is the part of the agreement that admits liability is only 21 as to a 2255 claim, and there are numerous other personal 22 injury tort claims other than 2255 claims. 23 And there's a limit of damages on the 2255 claim, as I 24 understand it, but I presume that all the plaintiffs are going 25 to seek more than the limited or capped amount of damages in TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00192949 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 24 of 51 24 1 the non-prosecution agreement as to the oth