CVRA action against the federal government E.W is not a plaintiff in this litigation She in fact has released Epstein from any and all claims Importantly only Edwards is seeking to recover money from Epstein in this lawsuit Epstein has filed a separate Motion to Re-Open Discovery to Take Depositions of L.M and Jane Doe Epstein incorporates the arguments set forth in that Motion here INTRODUCTION This case is not about Edwards three clients civil lawsuits against Epstein which settled and were fully resolved in July Rather it is about the economic windfall that Edwards seeks for his alleged anxiety and emotional distress that he suffered as a result of Epsteins filing of a Complaint against him eight years ago Epstein has tried to focus this case on the publicly available information about Rothstein the Ponzi scheme the use of Edwards clients cases against Epstein in the Ponzi scheme and the excessive and unorthodox litigation practices engaged in by Edwards while holding himself out as a partner of Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler which caused Epstein to suspect Edwards connection to Rothstein Unfortunately Edwards trial strategy to analyze and test the veracity of each of the individual allegations made in the Complaint through the testimony of his clients makes each of them a key witness in this case Tr Edwards plans to clear his name recover damages and rid himself of his so-called anxiety and emotional distress brought on by Epsteins filing and continuing of this lawsuit by forcing his three clients including E.W into Court to rehash the details of their claims against Epstein which they settled and put behind them more than seven years ago The three individuals have no interest in and will receive no benefit from the outcome of this litigation but Edwards Excerpts of the December hearing transcript are attached hereto as Exhibit A examination into an allegation-by-allegation defamation analysis of the original Complaint requires inquiry of E.W as well as L.M into the areas alleged including the NPA the CVRA action and the details of his clients claims because Edwards has made those central to the trial of this matter E.W is a client of Edwards who asserted tort claims against Epstein Those claims were resolved through a confidential settlement agreement between E.W and Epstein in July E.W together with L.M also brought a Crimes Victims Rights Act action against the United States Government The CVRA action is ongoing and in that action E.W and L.M are attempting to set aside a Non-Prosecution Agreement NPA Epstein entered into with the United States Government Edwards has informed the Court that in order to establish his burden of proof he will among other things Establish Epsteins motive to target Bradley Edwards for extortionist purposes and prove the leadership role Bradley Edwards had in the joint prosecution effort of the multiple civil claims being prosecuted against Epstein with their attendant punitive damage exposure as well as the Crime Victims Rights Act case challenging Epsteins Non-Prosecution Agreement which was spearheaded by Bradley Edwards and exposes Epstein to lengthy incarceration for his extensive history of child molestations Edwards Response in Opposition to Epsteins Revised Omnibus Motion in Limine e.s D.E Edwards intends to prove that Epsteins motive for filing this action was to among other things force Edwards to abandon his efforts to set aside the NP A through the CVRA action And we intend to prove that Jeffrey Epsteins motive in filing these knowingly false claims against Brad Edwards his motive was to extort Bradley Edwards into L.M also resolved her claims more than seven years ago in July abandoning or cheaply compromising the rights of his clients and abandoning his efforts through the Crime Victims Rights Act case to set aside the non-prosecution agreement Tr e.s And Mr Epstein clearly knows that Mr Edwards is lead counsel in this Crime Victims Rights Act case He clearly knows because hes a participant in that case He has intervened in the case He knows that the consequences of that Crime Victims Rights Act case could be that he loses the immunity that he negotiated with the U.S Attorneys Office So being able to push Brad Edwards aside as the primary moving force in the Crime Victims Rights Act case is obviously a reasonable conclusion from those circumstances Tr e.s Edwards has argued that the jury must be informed about both the NP A and the CVRA MR SCAROLA Your Honor I believe that it is unavoidable that the jury be informed as to what the non-prosecution agreement is It would be our intention to enter it into evidence They need to understand what the Crime Victims Rights Act is Tr Edwards has identified E.W on his Witness List D.E Edwards has also designated and cross designated portions ofE.W.s testimony to be used at the trial of this matter D.E D.E Because E.W is incarcerated the parties can only rely on her deposition testimony at trial Excerpts of the November hearing transcript are attached hereto as Exhibit The Court has made it clear that it intends to allow Edwards to present evidence and testimony concerning Edwards representation of his three clients E.W L.M and Jane Doe of claims they brought against Epstein THE COURT The only thing I would say to that Mr Scarola is I dont want to mix apples and oranges And that is I dont want to place the Courts incriminator sic on getting too far afield and turning this into a case about alleged sexual exploitation particularly of others outside of Mr Edwards representation That would serve only to inflame the jury and again would cause the playing field to become unleveled because the defense to the malicious prosecution claim i.e Epstein and his attorneys would have to be fighting claims that they may not even know about much much less the ones that they do So again I want to center on those three claims that were brought by Mr Edwards on behalf of his clients and center on those aspects that would be relevant to the malicious prosecution claim and the alleged ginning up of those claims the alleged attempt to align himself with Rothstein the alleged attempt to factor these cases potentially Mr Edwards conduct as it related to those factoring matters Tr e.s The Court has also recognized that the NP A and the CVRA action are going to become a part of the trial there is no way around the fact that the NPA is going to become a part of this trial Tr THE COURT The NPA I have already indicated that the inclination would be if properly predicated would be allowed Tr Pleadings of Jane Doe and vs US case MR SCAROLA Thats the CVRA case Your Honor THE COURT That will likely be discussed obviously it will be discussed How much of the pleadings that need to be addressed will be a matter of the Courts consideration later Tr OCTOBER DEPOSITION On October Epsteins counsel commenced but did not conclude because of Edwards counsels direction to the witness not to answer questions until the issue of a protective order had been resolved the deposition of E.W at the Gadsden Correctional Facility where E.W is incarcerated until April Although E.W was represented by Edwards himself during her deposition Edwards counsel who was not representing E.W instructed her not to answer questions that related to the CVRA action because he claimed they were not relevant and because E.W did not have the opportunity to prepare for that line of questioning Specifically Edwards counsel asserted MR SCAROLA Excuse me Im going to interrupt for just a moment Do you have other questions relating to the Crime Victims Rights Act case MR GOLDBERGER I do MR SCAROLA Okay I am going to object to your examination of E.W on issues relating to another case Those matters dont have any relevance or materiality to this lawsuit in which she is being deposed her counsel has not had an opportunity to prepare her for a deposition in the Crime Victims Rights Act case I am going to instruct her not to answer any additional questions regarding the Crime Victims Rights Act case You may proffer the additional questions that youd like to ask for the record but she will not answer those pending our ability to obtain a protective order MR GOLDBERGER Well we have lots of questions that we intend to ask about the Crime Victims Rights Act and based on your cause of action land your theory that youve explained to the court as to why Mr Epstein filed a claim against your client it is relevant and I recognize that you are advising the client not to answer the question or MR SCAROLA Shes not my client this is a witness MR GOLDBERGER And youre instructing MR SCAROLA And I am instructing her I am informing you that additional questions relating to the Crime Victims Rights Act case beyond those that have already been asked and answered are not relevant or material or reasonably calculated to lead to relevant and material information E.W.s Tr e.s D.E MR SCAROLA Yes The questions are irrelevant immaterial not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant and material information in this lawsuit MR SCAROLA In addition to that this witness was not noticed as being deposed in a separate CVRA action Her counsel with regard to the separate CVRA action were not noticed therefore her counsel have not had an opportunity to consult with her regarding giving testimony in the separate CVRA MR SCAROLA action So those are the objections that were previously raised in addition to others stated as to specific questions they are of the objections that I will incorporate simply by saying same objection same instruction for purposes of not burdening the record with repetition of the same objection and same instructions E.W.s Tr D.E Edwards counsel suggested that questions to E.W be proffered on the record and he would raise the appropriate objections and move for a protective order and that E.W would not answer those questions until he had the ability to move for a protective order thus leaving this issue open for further deposition testimony E.W.s Tr D.E The following questions were posed to E.W to which she was instructed not to answer based on these objections At any time did the FBI agents did any FBI agents tell you that Mr Epstein was pleading guilty in state court to avoid federal prosecution Did you ask the FBI at any time to speak to prosecutors prior to Mr Epstein entering into his guilty plea Did you have the prosecutors phone number so you could call her Did you in fact receive a victims notification letter And on that letter did it not have the prosecutors direct-dial number And did the prosecutor in fact tell you in person that you could call her at any time to discuss this matter Do you recall receiving a letter from Ms Villafania when you met with the FBI at Publix in Do you deny that you had Ms Villafanias direct phone number to call her if you so decided Do you know whether the non-prosecution agreement made it easier for you to seek damages against Mr Epstein How many times did you meet with the FBI at Publix to discuss the non prosecution agreement involving Jeffrey Epstein Do you recall when you did meet with Special Agent Nesbitt Kuyrkendall at no time did you ask to confer with anyone from the government about any potential criminal charges decisions or about any partial resolution of the matter involving Jeffrey Epstein Is it true that between the time of that interview in August of and September of when Mr Epstein signed his non-prosecution agreement you never contacted either Agent Nesbitt Kuyrkendall or her co-agent asking for information about the investigation or asking to confer with anyone from the government about any potential criminal charges decisions or about the resolution of the matter What were your goals as a plaintiff in filing the CVRA case Was one of your goals to invalidate the non-prosecution agreement Have you ever discussed with L.M the filing of the CVRA lawsuit Have you ever discussed with any non-lawyer or someone working for a lawyer the reasons for filing the CVRA case Do you realize that if you prevail on the CVRA case and the non-prosecution agreement is ruled void any civil settlement that relied on the Civil Victims Rights Act case could be vacated Are you seeking an apology from the government for the filing of the CVRA case Is that important to you E.W.s Tr D.E ARGUMENT In his Complaint Epstein alleged that after Edwards joined Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler he filed a Motion asking the Court to make the NPA public D.E That motion was filed in May in one of Edwards clients individual civil actions against Epstein not in the CVRA action Jane Doe Epstein Case No D.E At the time Edwards filed the motion he and his three clients had the NP A and there was no legitimate purpose for them to make the agreement public Furthermore the CVRA court had then recently February denied Edwards Motion to Unseal the NPA in that action Jane Doe U.S Case No D.E Edwards wants the Court to believe however that Epsteins motive in filing this action was to stop Edwards from challenging the NP A through the CVRA action What Edwards failed to inform the Court about at the recent hearings however is that at the time Epstein filed suit against Rothstein and Edwards in December the CVRA action had been sitting dormant since February and that he took no further action in that matter until after Edwards settled his clients cases with Epstein and then only after the Court administratively closed the case in September Edwards also failed to inform the Court that in August he advised the CVRA court that he was unsure if the relief he was seeking was in his clients best interest Because of the legal consequences of invalidating the current agreement it is likely not in my clients best interest to ask for the relief that we initially asked for Tr Ex Furthermore in each of their Complaints against Epstein Edwards three clients relied on the NPA as a basis that Epstein could not deny liability of their claims when they initiated their civil lawsuits against Epstein in August and September E.W Epstein th Judicial Circuit Case No D.E r,r L.M Epstein th Judicial Circuit Case No D.E r,r Jane Doe Epstein U.S District Court Southern District of Florida Case No D.E The filing of his clients Complaints coupled with Edwards statements to the CVRA court led Epstein to believe that Edwards clients were not pursing their remedies in the CVRA action It was not until March about a year after settling their lawsuits with Epstein when E.W and L.M filed their Motion for Summary Judgment for Finding Violations of the NPA that it was clear that E.W and L.M were continuing with their efforts to invalidate the NP A Epstein should be able to present evidence at trial to show that E.W and L.M.s pursuit in invalidating the NP A was not a motive for filing his action against Rothstein and Edwards The types of questions posed to E.W during her deposition and the many logical follow-up questions concerning the CVRA action are relevant They shed light on the timing of the filing of the CVRA action the lack of prosecution of the case how the NPA actually benefited E.W up to the point she settled her case with Epstein her discussions with third parties including law enforcement about the alleged acts and her past recollections and positions In addition E.W.s responses to the questions are expected to undermine her credibility because her statements have been inconsistent Finally it is believed that E.W.s responses will demonstrate a lack of memory as to events that occurred years ago when the alleged acts occurred The testimony sought is relevant and will allow the jury to weigh E.W.s testimony and credibility at trial On October Edwards filed a Motion for Protective Order asking that the Court preclude E.W from responding to those questions proffered on the record with respect to the CVRA action D.E During the deposition Edwards counsel who did not and does not represent E.W instructed E.W not to respond to questions relating to the CVRA action and objected to the line of questioning claiming the information was irrelevant immaterial not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant and material information in this lawsuit and because E.W did not have an opportunity to prepare for that line of questioning Edwards counsel indicated that before E.W would answer the questions he needed the ability to move for a protective order thus leaving this issue open for further deposition discovery E.W Tr D.E As set forth above Edwards himself has taken the position that the CVRA action is relevant and has made it a central focus of Epsteins alleged motive for bringing this action Edwards cannot have it both ways He cannot instruct E.W not to answer questions about the CVRA action on the grounds that they are irrelevant but then argue that the CVRA action is the motive behind Epsteins filing of this case Epstein continues to maintain that Edwards malicious prosecution Counterclaim is limited to an analysis of the civil proceeding filed by Epstein against Edwards which does not relate to the merits of the cases filed by Edwards clients against Epstein The case is not about whether Edwards clients tort claims are true but rather it is about whether Epstein lacked probable cause to initiate and continue the original proceeding To prevail on his Counterclaim for malicious prosecution Edwards must prove that Epstein filed a civil proceeding against him without probable cause See Korman Kent So 2d Fla 4th DCA Edwards burden is onerous See Burns GCC Beverages Inc So 2d Fla While Epstein disagrees that he is required to prove that each allegation of the Complaint is true he must now be allowed to defend the allegations Accordingly he should be allowed to re-open E.W.s deposition to ask the proffered questions and reasonable follow up about the CVRA action and any other issues that may now be a central focus of this case in light of the Courts recent rulings CONCLUSION Edwards himself has insisted that the CVRA action is relevant to establish Epsteins motive for initiating this proceeding Accordingly the Court should deny Edwards Motion for Protective Order and grant Epsteins request to re-open E.W.s deposition both as to the CVRA action and follow up as well as other questions that are relevant to this proceeding Because E.W is incarcerated and will not be released until after the special set trial of this matter Epstein will be prejudiced ifhe is not allowed to re-open the deposition CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that the foregoing document has been furnished to the attorneys listed on the Service List below on January through the Courts e-filing portal pursuant to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration Jack Scarola LINK ROCKENBACH PA Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard Suite West Palm Beach Florida fax By Isl Scott Link Scott Link FBN Kara Berard Rockenbach FBN Angela Many FBN Primary Scott linkrocklaw.com Primary Kara linkrocklaw.com Primary Angela linkrocklaw.com Secondary Tina linkrocklaw.com Secondary Troy linkrocklaw.com Secondary Tanya linkrocklaw.com Secondary Eservice linkrocklaw.com Trial Counsel for Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein SERVICE LIST Nichole Segal Searcy Denny Scarola Barnhart Shipley P.A Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard Burlington Rockenbach P.A Courthouse Commons Suite West Railroad A venue West Palm Beach FL mep searcylaw.com jsx searcylaw.com scarolateam searcylaw.com Co-Counsel for Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Bradley Edwards West Palm Beach FL njs FLAppellateLaw.com kbt FLAppellateLaw.com Co-Counsel for Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Bradley Edwards Bradley Edwards Marc Nurik Edwards Pottinger LLC Law Offices of Marc Nurik Andrews Avenue Suite One Broward Boulevard Suite Ft Lauderdale FL Ft Lauderdale FL brad epllc.com marc nuriklaw.com staff.efile pathtojustice.com Counsel for Defendant Scott Rothstein Co-Counsel for Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Bradley Edwards Jack A Goldberger Atterbury Goldberger Weiss P.A Australian A venue Suite West Palm Beach FL goldberger agwpa.com smahoney agwpa.com Co-Counsel for Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein EXHIBIT A IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY FLORIDA Case No JEFFREY EPSTEIN Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant vs SCOTT ROTHSTEIN individually BRADLEY EDWARDS individually Defendants/Counter-Plaintiff I VOLUME I TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS DATE TAKEN TIME PLACE BEFORE Tuesday December 5th a.m p.m Dixie Highway Room l0C West Palm Beach Florida Donald Hafele Presiding Judge This cause came on to be heard at the time and place aforesaid when and where the following proceedings were reported by Sonja Hall Palm Beach Reporting Service Inc Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard Suite West Palm Beach FL Palm Beach Reporting Service Inc TI about children being transported on the airplane THE COURT The latter is the one that will have to be discussed further again as I pointed out earlier when the context comes up and its introduced or attempted to be introduced outside the presence of the jury To the what I perceive to be three questions the two former questions the answer would be yes MR SCAROLA Will the Court take judicial notice of Florida Statute which is commonly referred to as the Williams Rule and Federal Rule which expressly permits the introduction of evidence with regard to other sexual assaults against children so that the jury is aware of the fact that Mr Edwards not only had a good faith basis to conduct this discovery but quite arguably would have been grossly negligent to have failed to pursue it 1ill COURT Q;.IT only Ening Qula Enat tMD Scarola is GD onJ want mix Palm Beach Reporting Service Inc C2 CD IQ QJJ ru CD CD cm I em 0J TI TI gpples ana orang Ana onU pl"ac"e Courf incriminator on getting Ci afTela ITQ turning QIT into lSQITf al sexual exj51oitation particularl_y Q1 Q:Eners outsia.e Q1 Eawarcl.s:J representation wQITTii serve liy inTl lme ury ana gain wQITTii cause QI playing fiela become unleveTecl.:;J because QI fens QI malicious prosecution claim pstein ana IT attorneys wQITTii have fignting claims Eney mayJ even Know glSQITf muclf QI ones Eney ITT Sp _gEl:.Q want center on En"o":se El claims were broughl QY Eawarcl.s on befiarf Q1 IT clients ana center QTI En"o":se aspects wQITTii levant alicious prosecution cTaTm ana QI al ginning fill Q1 En"o":se claims QI al attempt himself RoEnstein QI al attempt factor Ene"s"e cases potentiaTly Eawarcl.s:J concluc:-E as CTI latecl En"o":se factoring matters MR SCAROLA I am I am sorry I Palm Beach Reporting Service Inc IQ QJJ ru CD Q3 CD cm I number is Hyperion Air passenger manifest Same ruling Same thing with the flight information Eighty-nine Passenger list same ruling Notepad/notes Maria MR SCAROLA Same argument THE COURT Same ruling PTeaaing Jane Doe ana vs::J lli case SCKROLAJ Tnal:;s CVR:m Your Honor 1ill COURT CTilli.t wil1 lTKfily iscusseaJ 515viously fill wirl is cuss ea pieacl.Tiigs neea aclo.ressea matter Courf::;s consiaeration later Epstein Fifth Amendment speech MR SCAROLA Those are just a reference to deposition excerpts THE COURT Reiter letter to Krischer Thats already been talked about Thats a duplication unless he wrote another one I think its a duplication You can check Palm Beach Reporting Service Inc EXHIBIT IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY FLORIDA Case No JEFFREY EPSTEIN Plaintiff vs SCOTT ROTHSTEIN individually BRADLEY EDWARDS individually Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs I TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS DATE TAKEN TIME PLACE BEFORE Wednesday November 29th a.m p.m Dixie Highway Room l0C West Palm Beach Florida Donald Hafele Presiding Judge This cause came on to be heard at the time and place aforesaid when and where the following proceedings were reported by Sonja Hall Palm Beach Reporting Service Inc Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard Suite West Palm Beach FL PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC plaintiffs lawyers and Im going to target one of these victims Im going to sue them both and Im going to show them what happens when you try to take on this billionaire Thats what he was trying to do Plain and simple And we are entitled I respectfully suggest to be able to prove just how big a motive that was whats at stake THE COURT Im not in disagreement with you When this went on the board my first response to Mr Link and his presentation as to Mr Epsteins reasons were what Was that this can be turned around directly to harm potentially Mr Epstein and provide Mr Edwards with the motivation So Im not in disagreement with you The only thing I am concerned with certainly one of the more pertinent things that I am concerned with for todays hearing again relates back to how far we are going to permit the jury to hear or how much we are going to permit the jury to hear as it relates to these other claims PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC Now as you further described it again subject to Mr Links rebuttal ffhere is no way around the fact that the NPN going to become a 2art of this trial As I have indicated earlier and the reason for my question was to ensure that my understanding was correct that the principle reason or a principle reason Mr Epstein continues to invoke the Fifth Amendment is because of the pendency of this NPA case correct MR LINK Generally yes Its not the pending of the NPA case but its the case THE COURT The potential of a criminal further criminal exposure if the NPA gets revoked or whatever the terminology is MR LINK Thats correction Your Honor THE COURT in Judge Marras court assuming hes still the Judge on the case MR SCAROLA Just to clarify that point if I could THE COURT Sure PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC Theres no way around it MR LINK We understand that Judge THE COURT Fine The question that I am going to pose to you and Mr Scarola now is how far we are going to go with that agreement and where the analysis has to focus So Not now When you have your opportunity Mr Scarola MR LINK Champing at the bit Your Honor MR SCAROLA Your Honor I believe that it is unavoidable that the jJ:!EY informed as to what the non-2rosecution greement is It would be our intention to enter it into evidence Tii need to understand what the Crime Victims Righ Act is What they dont need to do is to resolve the legitimacy of other plaintiffs claims Now some of Mr Epsteins sic clients in fact I think all three of them are identified in the non-prosecution agreement So Mr Epstein PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC as part of the non-prosecution agreement agrees to compensate each of these people under specific circumstances And that gets us into a discussion as to why the federal lawsuit was filed And this is something that we have referenced briefly in argument before Your Honor earlier But THE COURT I want to stay on this subject for just a moment if I could And that is tell me why you believe that the motivation that Mr Epstein may have had to file this suit was relating to or is related to this Jane Doe moving to unseal the NPA Explain that to me again please MR SCAROLA Yes sir I think that obviously motive can only be proven through circumstantial evidence if the defendant is not confessing And not only is Mr Epstein not confessing hes refusing to give considerable relevant testimony because of his assertion of both the attorney-client privilege in the absence of any assertion of advice of counsel defense as we have already established and his Fifth Amendment privilege So we need PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC to prove what his motive is circumstantially nd Mr E2stein clearly knows thatj Mr Edwards is lead counsel in this Crime Victims Rights Act case He clearly knows because hes a 2artici2ant in that case He has intervened in the case He knows that ffhe consequences of that Crime Victims ffi..i.ghts Act case could be that he loses the immunity that he negotiated with the U.S Attorneys Office So being able to push Brad Edwards aside as the primary moving force in the Crime Victims Rights Act case is obviously a reasonable conclusion from those circumstances But it goes beyond that because direct threats were made to Bradley Edwards by Jeffrey Epstein THE COURT So the suggestion I guess from the defense the malicious prosecution claim of Mr Epstein is that he found it necessary to file the lawsuit strike that Yeah He found it necessary to file the lawsuit against Rothstein Edwards and PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC collateral to the summary judgment the summary judgment motion was made and then not challenged For those reasons Im going to sustain the objection at this time again subject to context for being able to readdress it if necessary MR SCAROLA Number four is sustained THE COURT Yes sir for the reasons stated in the record MR SCAROLA Understood THE COURT The NPA I have already indicated that the inclination would be 243.L:2ror2erly_r2redicated would be allowed The Jane Doe one of two complainants I dont see any what would be the grounds for objecting to that MS ROCKENBACH Im not sure what the relevance is Im not the proponent of the evidence but I dont see what relevance there would be of Jane Does complaint The relevance in this malicious prosecution action might be the allegations of this complaint this action But when we start bringing in other complaints as exhibits for a jury to read I think that PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC EXHIBIT Page UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE Petitioner UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Respondent Case No West Palm Beach Florida August TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING BEFORE THE HONORABLE Page Page I Call to the order of the Court agreement and at that point in time I think we can meet I THE COURT Good afternoon again and probably resolve our disputes amongst ourselves VOICES Good afternoon Your Honor THE COURT All right So do I understand that THE COURT All right This is the case ofln Re youre modifying your claim for relief at this point and only Jane Does and case number MARRA seeking me to compel the Government to produce the plea May I have counsel state appearances please and agreement or are you or is this a a preliminary step if you can please try and speak up so we can hear you after which youre then going to evaluate whether you want me MR EDWARDS Okay Brad Edwards on behalf of to do something further Jane Doe and MR EDWARDS I think its the latter Your Honor MR CASSELL Paul Cassell along with Mr Edwards It is and it will likely always be our position that the THE COURT Good afternoon victims rights are violated However because of the leg MR LEE Good afternoon Your Honor For the conseguences of invalidating the current g!eemen it is United States Government Dexter Lee Assistant U.S likel:r not in clients best interest to ask for the relief Attorney and Marie Villafana that we initiall:r asked forJ THE COURT All right Good afternoon So in order to effectively evaluate the situation Mr everyone were having trouble hearing you and ask for the appropriate relief we would just be asking so if you can try and speak up and also if you could Your Honor at this point in time to allow us to see the full identify yourself before you begin speaking so the reporter entire plea agreement that is purportedly drafted to protect I can accurately indicate on the record who is speaking I my victims That only seems fair to know you know what the appreciate that plea agreement says especially in light of the fact that I scheduled this for a status conference in order Mr Epstein knows what the plea agreement says to determine whether Im going to need additional as far THE COURT All right And then ifl grant that as the parties were concerned whether either of the parties relief you will evaluate the agreement and then decide thought that I needed additional information in order to whether to either dismiss your case or go forward and ask for proceed with the pending motion by the Plaintiffs or whether some additional relief Page Page we have a complete record based upon whats already been MR EDWARDS Thats correct Your Honorl submitted and I wasnt quite sure where we were on that THE COURT Is it your plan or is there any kind since we last met of been any kind of discussion between you and the So if I can hear from Mr Edwards or Mr Cassell Government as to what you if I grant the relief of first what the Plaintiffs position as far as where we stand requiring the Government to at least present you with the on the record in terms of whether I need additional facts agreement and let you view it has there been any discussion evidence or theres going to be a stipulation submitted to about you keeping it confidential and not letting it go any me upon which I can rely further than your clients and using it for your I MR EDWARDS Sure decision-making purposes or do you wish to have it released Your Honor this is Brad Edwards to you and you would be able to use it however you wished I believe that you do have a sufficient record in MR EDWARDS Well Your Honor we would prefer that I dont think that I think that were in agreement that it be produced to us and not have to keep it that additional evidence does not need to be taken in the confidential I think that that creates an undue hardship on case for Your Honor to make a ruling We have actually met us However ifit was Your Honors order that we do with the U.S Attorney and weve had meaningful discussions maintain some confidentiality of the agreement we would in an attempt to resolve our issues I think the only issue certainly abide by it we can probably agree to this right now is that the victims The reason we want it is not so that its are unable at this point in time to go any further with disseminated everywhere however there is a public interest requesting a remedy from the Court without the full and in viewing what happens in the court process and this is complete plea agreement being produced to us from the U.S just part of it Theres no reason that it hould be sealed Government and the Governments hands are tied in that or kept confidential Seems to be an overwhelming reason theres a confidentiality agreement within that plea to to make it public However thats not ou intention agreement that prohibits them from turning that over Our intention is just to view it represent my clients and So at this point in time we would be asking Your then evaluate it and ask the Court for the appropriate relief Honor to enter an order compelling them to tum over that after weve seen it Pages to 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 d6 I I i i CTX 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
