ARGUMENT 1. This Court Should Quash Defendant’s Abusive Subpoena In Its Entirety. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.410(c)(1) provides that the Court may “quash or modify the subpoena if it is unreasonable and oppressive.” /d. The Court has discretion to evaluate the circumstances in determining whether the subpoena is “unreasonable and oppressive.” Matthews v. Kant, 427 So. 2d 369, 370 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). “The sufficiency thereof is a factual determination for the trial judge who is vested with broad judicial discretion in the matter, and whose order will not be overturned absent a clear showing of abuse of discretion.” Jd.; see also Sunrise Shopping Center, Inc. v. Allied Stores Corp., 270 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972) (Fourth DCA quashing lengthy subpoena served on non-party who was not in control of documents as being “oppressive and unreasonable.”). It is undisputed that Jane Doe No. 3 was sexually trafficked as a minor child by Jeffrey Epstein and he was sentenced for his crimes. Allowing the Defendant in this case to force this non-party to provide discovery on this highly sensitive topic would be both oppressive and unreasonable and serves no purpose other than to foster Defendant’s publicly admitted and utterly baseless campaign to try to send Jane Doe No. 3 to “jail.” The documents requested in Defendant’s subpoena demonstrate the oppressive and unreasonable nature of the requests. Defendant, for example, seeks highly personal and sensitive information from this victim of sexual trafficking, including requesting her personal diary during the time when she was being sexually abused as a minor child. See Exhibit 6, Request no. 16. Defendant also demands that this non-party produce photographs and videos of her as a minor child while she was being sexually trafficked by convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. See Exhibit 6, Request nos. 2, 3, 4 and 10. Defendant’s unreasonable subpoena even includes a demand for this non-party’s personal cell phone records