Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2009 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. CASE NO.: 08-CIV- 80893 — MARRA/JOHNSON Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein's Reply to Plaintiff's Response In Opposition To Defendant's Motion To Stay And/Or Continue Action For Time Certain With Incorporated Memorandum Of Law Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, (hereinafter "EPSTEIN") by and through his undersigned attorneys, hereby files his Reply to Plaintiffs Response In Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Stay Complaint (SIC)(DE 31), and states: 1. Introduction and Argument Plaintiff's Response in Opposition challenging the stay should not prevail when 5'h Amendment principles are at issue and when there exists a real, substantial and not remote possibility that Epstein may face criminal prosecution by the United States Attorneys' Office ("USAO") if the USAO unilaterally determines that Epstein somehow violated that certain Non- Prosecution Agreement dated June 30, 2008 ("NPA") and/or if Epstein is forced to waive those 5th Amendment rights and participate in civil discovery in order to defend this civil action. Epstein should not be confronted with the substantial risk of loosing this civil action by virtue of asserting his 5th Amendment privileges. Also, waiver of Epstein's 5th Amendment privileges should not be compelled to defend this civil action (and could be remedied by a reasonable stay), especially when civil discovery may lead to the USAO unilaterally declaring a violation of the NPA. In fact, Plaintiff concedes this fact on pp. 2-3 of the Opposition Motion EFTA00234808