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, 1. Plaintiff, 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 1. Lot 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 I. 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 not issue." GLL GmbH & Co. Messeturm KG1 LaVecchia, 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 EFTA00234746