Filing E-Filed PM JEFFREY EPSTEIN Plaintiff vs SCOTT ROTHSTEIN individually BRADLEY EDWARDS individually and L.M individually Defendant I IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY FLORIDA CASE NO RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEINS MOTION FOR SANCTIONS PURSUANT TO VIOLATION OF CONFIDENTIAL EDWARDS ADV EPSTEIN Case No Edwards Opposition to Epsteins Motion for Sanctions paid by Epstein to victims LM EW and Jane Doe Specifically Epstein requested that Mr Edwards state identify and describe the amount of each payment and also requested that Mr Edwards list the aggregate amount of such proceeds of settlement for each of LM EW and Jane Doe retained by you and/or your law firm to satisfy cost and attorney fee liens Epstein further requested a detailed description of all trust arrangements or other financial structures established by and/or for the benefit of each of LM EW and Jane Doe regarding the receipt administration and/or payment or distribution of the proceeds of settlement of claims by LM EW or Jane Doe against Jeffrey Epstein Epsteins interrogatories therefore demanded a complete accounting of every penny of settlement proceeds paid to LM EW and Jane Doe and effectively sought to discover the contents of the settlement statements prepared for these three victims Epstein wanted to know who was paid when they were paid and exactly how much was paid Although most of this requested information is protected by the attorney-client and work-product privileges Mr Edwards was compelled to disclose all responsive non-privileged and discoverable information to wit the total amount of the settlement proceeds which is relevant to Mr Edwards malicious prosecution claim as Epstein claimed that Mr Edwards ginned up or pumped otherwise weak sexual abuse claims by LM EW and Jane Doe If Epstein did not want this information disclosed and used as evidence he should not have served the interrogatories at issue Any alleged prejudice to Epstein is therefore caused solely by Epsteins own actions and he cannot shift the blame on Mr Edwards and undersigned counsel for EDWARDS ADV EPSTEIN Case No Edwards Opposition to Epsteins Motion for Sanctions simply fulfilling their obligations under Rule As such Epsteins Motion for Sanctions should be denied Independent of the discovery request to which Mr Edwards was obligated to respond the allegations raised by Epstein in his claims against Mr Edwards clearly placed the value of the civil lawsuits against Epstein in material dispute Consequently the amount voluntarily paid by Epstein after full disclosure of the alleged misconduct by Mr Edwards is of obvious relevance to a determination of whether the claims against Epstein were ginned up or fabricated If the settlement amounts were not disclosed in response to Epsteins request that they be disclosed they would have been required to be disclosed anyway Interrogatories at Issue Epsteins September discovery request included the following numbered interrogatories A Interrogatory For each payment or distribution made by you and/or your law firm any entity with which you are affiliated or pursuant to a joint agreement regarding the proceeds of settlement paid by Jeffrey Epstein in connection with the settlement of claims of LM EW and Jane Doe against Jeffrey Epstein state identify and describe the amount of payment the date of payment the payee and any promises contracts agreements understandings and arrangements regarding said payment and all amendments modification and supplements of the same pursuant to which such payment was made Include in your response the aggregate amount of such proceeds of settlement for each of LM EW and Jane Doe retained by you and/or your law firm the amount of such retained proceeds retained by your law firm as its share of any contingency fee and the EDWARDS ADV EPSTEIN Case No Edwards Opposition to Epsteins Motion for Sanctions amount of such retained proceeds allocated to you as distinguished from your law firm whether or not paid to you and your share of the fee payable Interrogatory propounded by Epstein therefore sought a line-item breakdown of every payment made from the settlement proceeds received from the settlements of claims by LM EW and Jane Doe Epstein made clear that this request included not only payments of settlement proceeds made to third-parties but also the exact amounts of the settlement proceeds retained by Mr Edwards and/or his law firm to satisfy attorney fee and cost liens Clearly the sum of these line-items would equal the total settlement monies paid by Epstein to resolve the sexual abuse claims at issue Essentially Epstein was requesting a copy of the settlement statements prepared for LM EW and Jane Doe Interrogatory State identify and describe with particularity any and all trust arrangements guardian arrangements custodial arrangements or similar arrangements including accounts established by and/or for the benefit of each of LM EW and Jane Doe regarding the receipt administration and/or payment or distribution of the proceeds of settlement of claims by LM EW or Jane Doe against Jeffrey Epstein Include in your response a description of the agreements contracts and instruments and all amendments modifications and supplements thereto pursuant to which such arrangements were established the dates of the same the names addresses email addresses and telephone numbers of all settlors grantors trustees guardians custodians other fiduciaries and beneficiaries including without limitation contingent beneficiaries of such arrangements the names of the account holders the names of the authorized signatories the account numbers and the names addresses telephone numbers of individual contacts of the financial institutions for all accounts established to receive and hold such proceeds of settlement EDWARDS ADV EPSTEIN Case No Edwards Opposition to Epsteins Motion for Sanctions Interrogatory propounded by Jeffrey Epstein requested Mr Edwards to describe with particularity all financial structures and accounts established for LM EW and Jane Doe regarding the payment or distribution of proceeds of settlement of claims by LM EW or Jane Doe and required that Mr Edward include a description of the agreements in question Although the specifics are clearly protected by the attorney-client and work-product privileges Mr Edwards answered this interrogatory subject to the constraints of those privileges by providing the total amount of settlement proceeds eligible to be placed in any such accounts This disclosure was made per Epsteins request to describe the accounts with particularity without Mr Edwards waiving his validly asserted objections Memorandum of Law Suffering from a severe case of buyers remorse Epstein has filed the instant motion seeking sanctions against Mr Edwards and undersigned counsel for simply responding to this discovery request Epstein alleges that by fulfilling their obligations under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure Mr Edwards and undersigned counsel violated the confidentiality provisions of the settlement agreements between Epstein and victims LM EW and Jane Doe In support Epstein offers the following unpersuasive arguments the interrogatories did not call for disclosure of the aggregate settlement amounts and even if they did Mr Edwards failed to EDWARDS ADV EPSTEIN Case No Edwards Opposition to Epsteins Motion for Sanctions adhere to the notice requirements contained in the settlement agreements at issue For the reasons set forth below each argument should be rejected A Epsteins Interrogatories Requested the Amount of All Settlement Proceeds As an initial matter Epstein is estopped from complaining that the settlement amounts were disclosed in discovery because Epstein is the one who requested that the information be disclosed in the first place Equitable estoppel is based on principals of fair play and essential justice that arises when one party lulls another party into a disadvantageous legal position Bueno Workman So 3d Fla 4th DCA The elements of equitable estoppel are a representation as to a material fact that is contrary to a later-asserted position reliance on that representation and a change in position detrimental to the party claiming estoppel caused by the representation and reliance thereon Id Florida courts have applied equitable estoppel in a myriad of circumstances to prevent one party from taking an unfair advantage of another See e.g Glantzis State Auto Mut Ins Co So 2d Fla 4th DCA holding that a party was equitably estopped from relying on a statute of limitations defense where that party lulled the opposition into a false sense Epstein also suggests that sanctions are warranted because Mr Edwards filed his interrogatory answers in the court record This argument however is unavailing because it is premised on Epsteins mistaken belief that the interrogatories he drafted and served did not require Mr Edwards to disclose the settlement amounts in the first place Moreover even considering this argument on the merits Rule makes clear that interrogatory answers may be filed when the court should consider the answers to interrogatories in determining any matter pending before the court The committee notes to Rule state that the filing of answers is permissible as long as the party has good cause Mr Edwards respectfully submits that opposing summary judgment constitutes good cause to file the answers into the court record See Fla Civ stating that the court may consider answers to interrogatories when ruling on a motion for summary judgment EDWARDS ADV EPSTEIN Case No Edwards Opposition to Epsteins Motion for Sanctions of security which the Court deemed a gotcha practice Rodriguez Di Lido Beach Hotel Corp So 2d Fla 3d DCA Gudgrnent in favor of the defendant predicated on plaintiffs failure to give the proper address of the property at issue was reversed and the court held defendant equitably estopped from raising as a defense the failure of the complaint to provide the right address of the property at issue when defendant knew of the error but failed to raise it until after statute oflirnitation had run Quality Shell Hornes Supply Co Roley So 2d Fla 1st DCA employer who refused injured workers claim for payment of workers compensation benefits by telling him no workers compensation benefits were available was equitably estopped from raising workers compensation as exclusive remedy as a defense Epstein certainly lulled Mr Edwards into a false sense of security by propounding discovery under Rule requiring a detailed breakdown by amount of every distribution that was made from the settlement proceeds paid by Epstein to victims LM EW and Jane Doe In particular Epstein sought the following information with regards to the settlement proceeds received by each victim The amount of all proceeds paid to third-parties e.g distributions to satisfy medical and insurance liens if any The amount of all proceeds paid to the victims attorneys to satisfy any cost liens The amount of all proceeds paid to the victims attorneys for attorney fees and The amount of all net proceeds received by LM EW and Jane Doe EDWARDS ADV EPSTEIN Case No Edwards Opposition to Epsteins Motion for Sanctions There is no doubt that this request sought to recreate the settlement statement prepared for each victim In fact Rule would have permitted Mr Edwards to simply attach copies of the settlement statements in response and Epstein even invited Mr Edwards to do so in the Definitions portion of the Interrogatories where Epstein made clear that in lieu of identifying any document a true and correct copy may be annexed to and incorporated in the answers to these interrogatories Epstein cannot now seek to sanction Mr Edwards and undersigned counsel for simply responding to the interrogatories that Epstein drafted and propounded in the first place When Epstein sent interrogatories requesting a line-item breakdown of each and every distribution of the settlement proceeds did he not understand that such a response sought the total amount of the settlement proceeds paid by Epstein What did he think would happen when the individual disbursements were all added together Regardless Epstein cannot propound discovery that Mr Edwards is required to respond to under Florida law and then seek sanctions when Mr Edwards simply answers the questions that Epstein chose to ask Such underhanded conduct is the exact type of gotcha litigation practice that is foreclosed by the principle of equitable estoppel See Glantzis So 2d at Epstein Had Notice of the Interrogatories He Was The One Who Served Them Next Epstein contends that even if the interrogatories he drafted called for the disclosure of the settlement amounts paid to LM EW and Jane Doe Mr Edwards should have provided EDWARDS ADV EPSTEIN Case No Edwards Opposition to Epsteins Motion for Sanctions Epstein notice of that fact In support of this rather circular reasoning Epstein points to the following language in the settlement agreements If any of the Parties are served with a valid subpoena court order government agency order or subpoena or other compulsory legal process pursuant to which disclosure of this Settlement Agreement the settlement amount or other terms hereof is requested the Party so served shall give counsel for the other Party notice thereof within five days of such service and prior to making such disclosure shall give counsel to such other Party at least ten days to commence necessary proceedings to obtain a court order preventing limiting or otherwise restricting such disclosure See Epsteins Mot at emphasis added This language by its very terms concerns situations where a signatory to the settlement agreements at issue is not a party to litigation where there is a pending request calling for disclosure of information covered by those agreements Specifically by permitting a potentially aggrieved party to the settlement agreement ten days to commence necessary proceedings to obtain a court order regarding the alleged confidential information at issue the language allows a non-party to intervene in pending litigation to for example quash a pending subpoena for information deemed confidential under the settlement agreements between Epstein and his victims The notice requirement is necessary because without it the non-party to the litigation would have never know that confidential information may be called for in answering certain discovery requests Such is not the case here where Epstein clearly had notice of the discovery he drafted and served Why would Mr Edwards be required to give Epstein notice of something Epstein created And Epstein had thirty days to withdraw his interrogatories before Mr EDWARDS ADV EPSTEIN Case No Edwards Opposition to Epsteins Motion for Sanctions Edwards answers came due rather than the mere ten days provided for in the settlement agreement and he did not need a Court order to do so The Court should reject this baseless argument Conclusion Epstein through counsel drafted and served detailed interrogatories requesting a line-item breakdown of how his victims settlement proceeds were disbursed Epstein wanted to know who was paid when they were paid and exactly how much each person received Epstein wanted to recreate the settlement statements received by LM EW and Jane Doe and in the absence of privilege restrictions Mr Edwards would have been entitled to provide copies of those documents under Rule in response to these interrogatories Virtually all of the requested information is privileged and shielded from discovery Still Mr Edwards was required to provide all non-privileged information in response to Epsteins discovery request and he therefore provided the total amount of the settlements paid to LM EW and Jane Doe Surely Epstein understood that by requesting a line item breakdown of every single disbursement made from the settlement proceeds he was seeking disclosure of the gross settlement amounts The instant motion however suggests otherwise and Epstein apparently has buyers remorse over his own discovery Fortunately for Mr Edwards and undersigned counsel buyers remorse is insufficient to establish breach of the settlement agreements nor does it justify the imposition of sanctions The Court should therefore deny Epsteins motion EDWARDS ADV EPSTEIN Case No Edwards Opposition to Epsteins Motion for Sanctions I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was sent via E-Serve i-r to all Counsel on the attached list this day of No OLA No VITALE JR Attorney E-Mail jsx searcylaw.com and mmccann searcylaw.com Primary E-Mail _scarolateam searcylaw.com Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart Shipley P.A Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach Florida Phone Fax Attorneys for Bradley Edwards EDWARDS ADV EPSTEIN Case No Edwards Opposition to Epsteins Motion for Sanctions COUNSEL LIST William Chester Brewer Esquire wcblaw aol.com wcbcg aol.com Australian A venue Suite West Palm Beach FL Phone Fax Attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein Jack A Goldberger Esquire jgoldberger agwpa.com smahoney agwpa.com Atterbury Goldberger Weiss P.A Australian Avenue South Suite West Palm Beach FL Phone Fax Attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein Bradley Edwards Esquire staff.efile pathtojustice.com Farmer Jaffe Weissing Edwards Fistos Lehrman,FL North Andrews A venue Suite Fort Lauderdale FL Phone Fax Fred Haddad Esquire Dee FredHaddadLaw.com haddadfm aol.com fred fredhaddadlaw.com Fred Haddad P.A One Financial Plaza Suite Fort Lauderdale FL Phone Fax Marc Nurik Esquire marc nuriklaw.com Law Offices of Marc Nurik One Broward Blvd Suite Fort Lauderdale FL Phone Fax Attorneys for Scott Rothstein Tonja Haddad Coleman Esquire tonja tonjahaddad.com Debbie Tonjahaddad.com efiling tonjahaddad.com Tonja Haddad P.A SE 7th Street Suite Fort Lauderdale FL Phone Fax Attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein A A 4A E0 A4 DE a qr?q rq qrCX HhL Kg lg d?a d6U a M3 flW y??S m/y t0 I F/Z V/j 1a qC KS u?v vZ O5 a qr rCX qC 0V I I dc rM?M rM 10Cy n??m?n k?o?h I A I w?!ac qr MCX 10Cy ITy qr M3 Ґ??1rA5R h?H?T3P K?z X?K H?o I Idc rM?M rM 10Cy f헊?f?Tz e?e:Aa I v"x i X5 EO5 5a r?q CX 9r Cy rq rqC M3 ş?:c p/p0 5H V)V 6T Y2 G5 qrM?r?qr?r9 q?10Cy rCX qr l1 X?l 3K fm?Q Z2f CX CX gT L??T 2E Cy 3P EM3 J4T L?h??M q?ᡚ?Y r??O?rJt CTX i P!e i I CTX rC YY I 1e 2j CTX X0T1i k3v Jh/e0h1 H(K W/Q0 CTX j?!k 5B r2 CTX A A A 4v z"p A A A0A?A AK CTX A A?!k CX qCX YCX i!d A fi8 l8 yuZ 6L pH m?c sP;0 6ZR Ni P0 0Q X(P0s s(s p0 Pp CTX qq dR B/J Va A N?q qr NEeD K?i N?M?qr EeD k??O GH FT I CTX U3 U3 U3 U3 S6 E"L I I I5K7C:I 9O U3 Cn qrr qr q??r?q 9qr CTX G5 qr CX rC l0 WS zN pf1 ODV8L?m jC1DxV CTX CTX A qr 10Cy rYY Ң??P?V CTX C"C rqM?rq?q?qr qr CTX YY Jb?C.y CTX CTX GG4 A A G5 C.C M??r 10Cy rq YY C?J?yO c/XE?lgF GM??H p?ݡG Dp9Oh CTX CTX CJ4 I J6 CJ4 CK qrrM?q qq 9/CX?o CX qYqr rC dd?Z c6S ttcx A CTX CTX 10Cy rq rqYY X?qiX:4 3J Db ZH uD-8 1g?BH I vS 7Oo7u E?K?O J6 UJP U0 UT??ʴ UT UT UT O(p U(u UF1 iZ qr?r CX CX Yr zKW:E A K5M P-M UW VW L1J KJ56 N/Q SQ rC 6J ߵl ߵl 5TZ w8ĥDG oj?K _4 N)?Y Hp pRqc?W26 vz?WBrz?ZB??3X H4 CTX A CTX X4 U5 P8 5D qr qr 10Cy qr YY Mo?ANp D01jJ 9F bzEV 4O 8V CTX O!o CTX KK AA qr A C5 qr rYY 1A?CC V9 a c?F CTX A G5 qr EeD?M CTX 9?rY 10Cy rq qY ȠX1 a f??B CTX 9F I CTX 6D N?qr rrqq qC O?J RmA??b"0 M?.F q?D B?G CTX CTX F4 d6P A F4 qr rYY 4G AV8 CTX UY UL0 U0 U0 U0 UF UF UFAGA UA UA UAL UL UL UL UL UL UL U7 U7 U7 U7 U7 U7 U7 2EH GTU U/U OUoU UV G1 CTX TUV 1G 7A UA UAL X7 U7 U7 U77XL UL UL ULLYX KTX 8Y GJ A UMAT UD 7M GVW GF10 MWA LL MPM M?M 4M XY qr qr qr NEeD 10Cy qYY E2 GH l1 Pd h3V g?KIq V5kL O65S d_xKKU vV 5H p1 Z6 CTX U0 U1 CTX U0 U1 A0 1D qr qr 10Cy YY K??Kl 1B AMwv 1K F1 KV yW Gd T?H CTX CTX I CK M?qr K?SK?PQZ I IRZX 8YCX 10Cy qr CX kv zg S5kB??a iG wA CTX U2 6Y CTX U2 6Y I K,,j j,s 6Y P!p qr 10Cy qr YY G?O 9K mSd X0 9r?yal 1d bY0 XNf??qN D?J CTX P!Z b!o C,C qrM 10Cy qr8 I fX2 9R lO KV CTX Oo CTX A qr r?qr rq YY Lsy7H4 C,6E IL CTX U3 CTX J,O3_3xx qrM?r q?CX Y9/C 9CX CTX Y10Cy CX CX CX YC YY FV uTl bEWa ȓjJ-8 Gc G??Q9E 9Wq CTX CTX Up i I A 9_ qr qr YY D.X 7s F??Y bc3_c iH CTX CTX A qr 10Cy YY EMq 7H AY mK9Z BY A2 P6L N7 CTX CTX a I I i qr rC CTX CTX 7O I FMM qr qr i I I3 CTX Z6 I L(K4 P:u Z6P CTX y8
