Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 64-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/24/2009 Page 1 of 10 • Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/09/2009! Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No.: 08-CIV-80893 - MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STAY COMPLAINT . Plaintiff, Jane Doe, hereby responds to the motion by defendant Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein') to stay this action until late 2010. The motion for a stay should be denied. Defendant has not carried his heavy burden of justifying a stay in the action. A stay pending resolution of a related criminal prosecution is proper only when "special circumstances so require in the interests of justice." United States v. tot 5, Fox Grove, Alachua County, Fla., 23 F.3d 359, 364 (11th Cir. 1994) (internal quotations omitted). Of course, "The proponent of a stay bears the burden of establishing its need: Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 708 (1997). To stay a civil action in light of criminal proceedings, "a party bears the heavy burden of demonstrating that there would be a clear case of hardship if a stay did hot issue." GLL GmbH & Co. Messeturm KG v. La Vecchia, 247 F.R.D. 231, 233 (D. Me. 2008) (internal quotations omitted). Epstein's motion fails for at least three reasons. First, Epstein has failed to show that any criminal charges are pending against him. Second, there are no special circumstances here justifying a stay. And third, the interests of justice strongly weigh t PLAINTIFF'S • EXHIBIT i_ 4 • EFTA00201236