admissible enidence: Otherwise, every deposition that turned out to be a false alarm would lead
Epstein Suite indexes the text; the original document lives at its official source. We don't host the original file — view it on the official release to read it in full.
View the original on the official releasePeople & organizations named in this document
Being named here is not an accusation of wrongdoing.
Document text
Text is machine OCR and may contain errors. Confirm against the original source above.
admissible enidence: Otherwise, every deposition that turned out to be a false alarm would lead
to ira “abuse of process” claim. Moreover, the rules of discovery themselves provide that a
deposition need only be “reasonably calculated to /ead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”
Fla, R. Civ. P. 1.280(b) (emphasis added).
Moreover, the discovery that Edwards pursued has to be considered against the backdrop
of Epstein’s obstructionist tactics. As the Court is aware, in both this case and all other cases
filed against him, Epstein has asserted his Fifth Amendment privilege rather than answer any
substantive questions. Epstein has also helped secure attorneys for his other household staff who
assisted in the process of recruiting the minor girls, who in turn also asserted their Fifth
Amendment rights rather than explain what happened behind closed doors in Epstein’s mansion
in West Palm Beach. See Statement of Undisputed Facts. It is against this backdrop that
Edwards followed up on one of the mily remaining lines of inquiry open to him: discovery aimed
at Epstein’s friends who might have been in a position to corroborate the fact that Epstein was
sexually abusing young girls.
| In the context of the sexual assault cases that Edwards had filed against Epstein, any act
of sexual abuse had undeniable relevance to the case — even acts of abuse Epstein committed
against minor girls other than L.M., E.W., or Jane Doe. Both federal and state evidence rules
make acts of child abuse against other girls admissible in the plaintiffs case in chief as proof of
“modus operandi” or “motive” or “common scheme or plan.” See Fed. R. Evid. 415 (evidence of
other acts of sexual abuse automatically admissible in a civil case); Fla. Stat. Ann. 90.404(b)
(evidence of common scheme admissible); Williams v. State, 110 So.2d 654 (Fla. 1959) (other
acts of potential sexual misconduct admissible).
15
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013384
Have a question about what this document contains?
Ask the documents