012.pdf

Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 12 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2009 Page 1 of 5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO.: 09-80591-MARRA/JOHNSON
JANE DOE No. 101,
Plaintiff,
v.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant,
/
DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO THIS COURT'S ORDER TO
SHOW CAUSE AS WHY ALL CASES SHOULD NOT BE CONSOLIDATED FOR DISCOVERY
PURPOSES AND MOTION TO CLARIFY THE COURT'S ORDER DATED APRIL 28, 2009
Defendant, JEFFERY EPSTEIN, (EPSTEIN), by and through his undersigned
attorneys, hereby files his Response in Opposition to this Court's Order to Show Cause
as to Why All Cases Should Not be Consolidated for Purposes of Discovery and Motion
for Clarification of this Court's Order on general consolidation of discovery (DE 6), and
states:
I. Response In Opposition
Defendant has no further objections to consolidating these cases for
purposes of depositions as outlined in this Court's April 28, 2009 Order.
However, to consolidate the cases for purposes of all "discovery" including, but
not limited to, motion practice and related orders thereto will, without question, confuse
many of the individual discovery issues raised not only by Epstein as to the individual
Plaintiffs that have brought separate lawsuits against him, but will also confuse the

Page 2
individual discovery issues raised by those same individual Plaintiffs as to Epstein. This
will undoubtedly lead to several motions to clarify certain orders which will seek
explanation from the court as to how those orders affect Epstein as to each individual
Plaintiff's discovery requests and vice versa (i.e., how those future orders affect the
individual Plaintiffs' discovery requests directed to Epstein).
It is important to note that each related Federal matter before this court has its
very own distinct set of facts and defenses thereto. In fact, this is the newly most filed
cause of action against Epstein, and, as such, a separate discovery schedule is
warranted. The discovery served and the responses received are particular and
individualized as to both Plaintiff and Defendant. As such, discovery of "all" cases for
general discovery consolidation (separate and apart from depositions) will only cloud
rulings on discovery and will result in more attorney labor and judicial resources, which
will inevitably be spent on motions for clarification.
Each Plaintiff and Epstein have served and will in the future serve separate
requests for production, separate interrogatories, separate requests for admissions, and
separate motions to compel, responses and replies addressing certain discovery issues.
Obviously, both Plaintiff and Defendant will base their discovery related arguments on
the particularized facts of each case, which are separate and distinct from one another.
Moreover, the Plaintiffs will likely seek to retain different experts to support their
individual claims. In that regard, how will a general consolidation of discovery impact
discovery related to those experts' individualized opinions?
As this court is aware, certain case management orders are in place setting the
parameters of discovery. It is unclear how Plaintiffs' Motion to Consolidate and the

Page 3
Courts Order will handle the potential problems and any other potential discovery
related issues outlined above. In fact, it appears that Jane Doe, in Case No. 08-CV-
80893 (DE 47), has expressed her own reasons for opposing the consolidation all the
cases for discovery purposes. Obviously, Jane Doe's counsel, like the undersigned,
anticipates that discovery issues will present themselves if general consolidation occurs
and does not want it to impact her case. In fact, the debates have already begun in
light of this Court's April 29, 2009 Order and the responses filed addressing same. This
provides the court with a glimpse of what will occur if general consolidation occurs, in
particular, how attorney resources and judicial resources will be unnecessarily used.
In addition, the initial style of each case should be maintained in pleadings and in
orders in an effort to maintain organization and application of the rulings this court
espouses for each case. Utilizing a compound multiple-type style will only confuse
cases that should be kept separate for all discovery purposes.
II. Motion for Clarification of this Court’s April 28, 2009 Order
This Court ruled that cases 08-80119, 08-80232, 08-80380 and 08-80993 are
consolidated for discovery purposes. Epstein not only objects to the court's
consolidation order but seeks clarification from this Court as to how consolidation of
general discovery will impact motion practice and orders in the above cases. What does
the court mean when it says the above cases are consolidated "for purposes of
discovery only?" How does consolidation operate? The concerns addressing general
discovery consolidation are set out above and are therefore incorporated herein.
Likewise, for those reasons, the court should reverse its ruling on consolidation and
issue a new order maintaining the individuality of each case for discovery purposes.

Page 4
In addition, Epstein not only objects to the court's potential consolidation of case
numbers 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469 and 09-80591 for
general discovery purposes, but respectfully requests that this court clarify how
consolidation of general discovery will impact motion practice and orders in the above
cases should this court choose to consolidate same for discovery. Again, how does
consolidation operate? The concerns addressing general discovery consolidation are
set out above and are therefore incorporated herein.
In short, the Motions seeking consolidation for discovery purposes only do not
delineate how consolidation operates. As such, the Order granting the Motions to
Consolidate for discovery purposes only does not provide any additional information
addressing how consolidation will operate.
WHEREFORE, Defendant requests that this Court not consolidate case numbers
08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469 and 09-80591, that it clarify its
order as to consolidation of case numbers 08-80119, 08-80232, 08-80380 and 08-
80993 (or the future consolidation of other cases) and that it reverse its April 28, 2009
ruling on general consolidation in light of the potential problems presented in this
response, that an order be entered requiring the parties to utilize the style secured by
the initial case filing and not a compound-case style incorporating all case styles in one
particular document, and for such other and further relief as this Court deems just and
proper.
Certificate of Service
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with
the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being

Page 5
served this day on all counsel of record identified on the following Service List in the
manner specified by CM/ECF on this 4 day of May, 2009

Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq.
Katherine W. Ezell, Esq.
Podhurst Orseck, P.A.
25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800
Miami, FL 33130
305 358-2800
Fax: 305 358-2382
rjosefsberg@podhurst.com
kezell@podhurst.com
Counsel for Plaintiff

Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq.
Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A.
250 Australian Avenue South
Suite 1400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012
561-659-8300
Fax: 561-835-8691
jagesg@bellsouth.net
Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein

Respectfully submitted,
By: [Signature]
ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ.
Florida Bar No. 224162
rcrit@bclclaw.com
MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ.
Florida Bar #617296
mpike@bclclaw.com
BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN
515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
561/842-2820 Phone
561/515-3148 Fax
(Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein)