IN THE COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO. 502008CA037319XXXXMB AB Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EP T IN and Defendants. EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO STRIKE RE-NOTICE OF HEARING Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN ("Epstein"), moves to strike Plaintiffs, M. (11"), Re-Notice of Hearing on Plaintiff's Request for Entry Upon Land, and states: 1. On August 13, 2009, served her Request for Entry Upon Land ("Request") seeking to inspect the residence located at 358 El Brillo Way. 2. On September 2, 2009, • served a Re-Notice of Hearing for said Request to occur on September 15, 2009 at 8:45 a.m. 3. Since Request was served by mail only, Epstein's response is not due until September 17, 2009, two days after the scheduled hearing. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.350(b) (providing that a party has 30-days to respond to a request for entry on land); Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.090(e) (providing for an additional 5 days to the prescribed time period if the paper is served by mail). 4. Thus, the Re-Notice of Hearing should be stricken on this ground alone. EFTA00726296 I v. Eostein se No. 502008CA037319XXXXMBAS Motion to Strike Re-Notice of Hearing Page 2 of 3 5. Moreover, Ill obviously noticed this hearing before Epstein responded to the Request. Accordingly, Mhos no idea whether this matter is appropriate for an 8:45 a.m. hearing. Indeed, it is not. 6. Epstein intends to file Objections to i Request for Entry Upon Land, Motion for Protective Order and Incorporated Memorandum of Law, which will likely exceed 15 pages. 7. The issues set forth in Epstein's Objections, Motion for Protective Order and Incorporated Memorandum of Law are complex and the Court must consider the application of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution as well as relevance, overbreadth, burdensomeness and the constitutional right of privacy. 8. If the Court permits the inspection, Epstein moved for a protective order to limit the scope of the inspection, so the Court may have to hear argument on those issues as well. 9. In addition, an almost identical request for entry on land was filed in the companion case of M. v. Epstein, Case No. 502008CA028058XXXXMB AB, which is also before this Court. 10. In the interest of efficiency and judicial economy and due to the complexity of the numerous issues involved, the Requests for Entry Upon Land served by ■ and EW should be set for a 30-minute special set hearing. Accordingly, Epstein requests the Court strike Re-Notice of Hearing. WHEREFORE, Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, respectfully requests the Court strike Plaintiffs, ■., Re-Notice of Hearing, order the Requests for Entry Upon Land EFTA00726297 s. v. Epstein Case No. 502008CA037319:OOO:MBAB Motion to Strike Re-Notice of Hearing Page 3 of 3 served byli and EW be set for a 30-minute special set hearing, and grant additional relief the Court deems just and proper. Certificate of Service I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was sent by fax and U.S. Mail to the following addressees on this l° day of September, 2009: Theodore J. Leopold, Esq. Spencer T. Kuvin, Esq. Leopold-Kuvin, P.A. 2925 PGA Blvd., Suite 200 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Fax: 561 697 2383 Counsel for Plaintiff any Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 Fax: 561-835-8691 Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN, LLP 515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 West Palm B FL 33401 (561) 84 (56 B obert D. Critton, Jr. r Florida Bar #224162 "(O,- Michael J. Pike Florida Bar #617296 (Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) EFTA00726298