15. Defendant also demands items like personal financial documents from this non-party

15. Defendant also demands items like personal financial documents from this non-party including payments she received from convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and the men he “lent” this minor child out to from 1999 — 2002. See Exhibit 6, Request no. 20. It is without question that Defendant is abusing the subpoena power in this case to conduct a fishing expedition in an effort to intimidate and harass this victim and to try to dig up information he can use in his openly stated “goal” to send this non-party to “jail.” Jane Doe No. 3 is rightfully fearful of Defendant as he is an incredibly powerful individual and the legal counselor to convicted Jeffrey Epstein who sexually trafficked Jane Doe No. 3 for years when she was a minor child. See Exhibit 8, Affidavit of Jane Doe No. 3. Jane Doe No. 3 believes Defendant’s goal is to abuse the subpoena power to get her into a deposition so he can harass and intimidate her by forcing her to discuss the abuse she had to withstand as a minor child. See Exhibit 8, Affidavit of Jane Doe No. 3. None of that childhood abuse is relevant to this case which involves the narrow issue of whether Defendant defamed two lawyers. Defendant’s subpoena is both unreasonable and oppressive and should be quashed. See Matthews v. Kant, 427 So. 2d 369, 370 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). 2. The Court Should Quash The Subpoena In Its Entirety, But At A Minimum, It Should Severely Limit The Production Requirements. In addition to its power to quash the subpoena, Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(c) also allows the Court to protect a non-party from discovery that would result in “annoyance, embarrassment, oppression or undue burden or expense...” Al/state Ins. Co. v. Langston, 655 So. 2d 91, 94 (Fla. 2003) (Florida Supreme Court overturning denial of protective order and holding that “[d]iscovery of certain kinds of information ‘may reasonably cause material injury of an irreparable nature.’”) (internal quotations omitted). Matthews v. City of Maitland, 923 So. 2d 591, 595 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (quashing discovery order where “[t]he compelled disclosure... would create a chilling effect on [petitioners] rights...”). The Court may determine that “the discovery HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015603