Edwards adv Epstein Case No Response in Opposition to Epsteins Motion for Protective Order and In Limine of Unrelated Settlements multi-million dollar recovery which was completely out of proportion to her alleged damages Id at Thus there can be no credible argument that Epstein has not put at issue the amounts voluntarily paid by Epstein to settle these purported weak claims Argument Epsteins motion once again ignores a critical fact this is his lawsuit Epstein chose to file suit against Edwards and built the playing ground on which the parties must litigate The only remaining claim is Edwards malicious prosecution counterclaim which is premised on the assertion that Epstein lacked probable cause to file the underlying complaint Thus when Epstein argues that evidence of settlement amounts related to L.M E.W and Jane Does cases are not relevant he defeats his own argument by having put the value of their cases at issue And while evidence regarding settlement amounts is admittedly highly prejudicial to Epsteins ability to support his fabricated claims against Edwards that prejudice is neither unfair nor unjust A The Timing and Settlements Paid to L.M E.W and Jane Doe are Relevant under a Analysis The Court has previously ruled that the number of claims that Epstein was facing at the time he initiated and during his continuance of this proceeding against Edwards and the significant financial exposure related to those claims is admissible although the details and merits of the claims may not be disclosed without further Court order While Edwards asks the Court to permit him to introduce evidence of the settlement amounts and date of each settlement at this time Edwards does not intend to introduce the settlement agreements between Epstein and L.M E.W and Jane Doe Epsteins trial strategy or subsequent rulings by the Court however could impact Edwards decision in that regard For example L.M settlement agreement includes reference to the underlying claims brought against her by Epstein Thus it is possible that Edwards may seek to introduce L.M.s settlement agreement into evidence to rebut assertions made by Epstein at trial Edwards adv Epstein Case No Response in Opposition to Epsteins Motion for Protective Order and In Limine of Unrelated Settlements As a result of the false charges that L.M E.W and Jane Does cases were fabricated and had minimal value Edwards intends to introduce to the jury the individual settlement amounts received by L.M E.W and Jane Doe and well as the dates that the cases were settled The relevance and probative value of these facts is straightforward they will help assist the jury in determining whether Epstein was motivated to sue Edwards as a means of attempting to evade liability to his victims whether Epstein had probable cause to believe that the cases were fabricated and weak at the time he filed the lawsuit and whether Epstein had probable cause to continue his malicious prosecution for another two years after the settlements were reached See Fla Stat The settlement amounts paid to Edwards clients are particularly relevant and material to Epsteins motive to file this baseless lawsuit Epstein knew at the time he filed suit that Edwards clients claims were exceedingly strong and represented a great risk of significant financial exposure whether via settlement or through a compensatory and punitive damage verdict Epstein therefore filed this lawsuit in order to intimidate Edwards and his clients L.M E.W and Jane Doe into cheaply compromising their valuable claims Moreover by suing the attorney representing the victims who had suffered the most Epstein was sending a message to every other victim If Epstein was willing to use his billions to sue children that he had molested or Page I of Epsteins Motion for Protective Order details the contested factual issue regarding Epsteins motive Edwards has argued that Epsteins filing of the original civil proceeding against Edwards was motivated by a desire to silence L.M E.W and Jane Doe and possibly others Epstein denies this motivation Edwards adv Epstein Case No Response in Opposition to Epsteins Motion for Protective Order and In Limine of Unrelated Settlements times and their counsel what else might he be willing to do to avoid an extended prison term and tens or even many hundreds of millions of dollars in damages The Timing and Settlements Paid to L.M E.W and Jane Doe Are Not Subject to Exclusion Under a Analysis Epsteins claim that evidence related to the settlements of L.M E.W and Jane Doe is unduly prejudicial under a analysis is baseless In order for relevant probative evidence to be deemed unfairly prejudicial it must go beyond the inherent prejudice associated with any relevant evidence Relevant evidence is inherently prejudicial however it is only unfair prejudice substantially outweighing probative value which permits exclusion of relevant matters State Gad So 3d Fla 2d DCA internal quotations omitted Relevant evidence of Epsteins having settled claims brought by L.M E.W and Jane Doe is of course inherently prejudicial because it is at least circumstantial if not direct evidence that Epstein lacked probable cause to claim that the cases were fabricated or weak There is however no unfair prejudice from this evidence which is only relevant due to Epsteins false allegations that the three victims claims were fabricated ginned up and had minimal value While the Court has understandably made efforts to sanitize the trial as much as possible the values of the claims being pursued by L.M E.W and Jane Doe are at the very heart of this case and there is no unfair prejudice to admitting this relevant evidence Edwards adv Epstein Case No Response in Opposition to Epsteins Motion for Protective Order and In Limine of Unrelated Settlements Evidence of Settlements Paid in Prior Cases is Admissible Under Florida Law Finally Section Fla Stat does not bar introduction of the amount of settlement payments made to L.M E.W and Jane Doe because the settlements are relevant to an element of Edwards claim in case two lack of probable cause and are not being used to prove Epsteins liability in the civil cases brought by those three victims case one As stated by the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Levin Ethan Allen Inc Although settlement offers are generally not admissible as evidence in the lawsuit in which the offers are made an offer of settlement in one case can be relevant in another case So 2d Fla 4th DCA emphasis added holding that the trial court erred in excluding settlement offers from case one under Section because the settlement offers were relevant to contested factual issues in case two For example in Ritter Ritter the husband to a divorce proceeding sought to include the value of his wifes pending personal injury claim as an asset in the parties equitable distribution So 2d Fla 2d DCA In order to place a value on that asset the husband sought to introduce evidence of the wifes offer to settle the claim with the at-fault partys insurance company Id The Second DCA reversed the trial courts ruling excluding that evidence under Section because the settlement offer in the personal injury case case one was relevant to a contested factual issue in the divorce proceeding case two and did not propose to settle any issue in that proceeding See id Thus Section did not bar introduction of the settlement amount offer in the divorce proceeding Id Edwards adv Epstein Case No Response in Opposition to Epsteins Motion for Protective Order and In Limine of Unrelated Settlements The value of the independent claims has been expressly placed in issue by Epsteins allegations in his maliciously filed Complaint There is no better evidence of that value than the price he chose to pay to resolve those independent claims These were not merely offers or demands they are the final contracted prices for the settlements Here we are speaking merely of Offers to settle Similarly the settlement amounts paid by Epstein are relevant both as to whether Epstein had an economic motive to extort Edwards to the extent of that motive and as to whether Epstein had probable cause to file this malicious proceeding alleging that the claims against Epstein by L.M E.W and Jane Doe were fabricated ginned up and had minimal value Moreover the settlements paid by Epstein in the victim cases did not propose to settle any claim related to Edwards in this proceeding Based on Levin and Ritter the settlement amounts are therefore admissible Conclusion For the foregoing reasons the Court should deny Jeffrey Epsteins Motion for Protective Order and In Limine of Unrelated Settlements and permit Edwards to introduce the timing and settlement amounts paid to L.M E.W and Jane Doe Edwards adv Epstein Case No Response in Opposition to Epsteins Motion for Protective Order and In Limine of Unrelated Settlements I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was sent via E-Serve to all Counsel on the attached list this __ IQ __ day of JlN t."j Florida Bar No DAVID VITALE JR Florida Bar No 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 Response in Opposition to Epsteins Motion for Protective Order and In Limine of Unrelated Settlements Bradley Edwards Esquire staff.efile pathtojustice.com Andrews Avenue Suite Fort Lauderdale FL Phone Fax COUNSEL LIST Jack A Goldberger Esquire jgoldberger agwpa.com smahoney agwpa.com Atterbury Goldberger Weiss P.A Australian A venue Suite West Palm Beach FL Phone Fax Attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein Nichole Segal Esquire njs FLAppellateLaw.com kbt FLAppellateLaw.com Burlington Rockenbach P.A Railroad Avenue Suite West Palm Beach FL Phone Attorneys for Bradley Edwards Scott Link Esquire Eservice linkrocklaw.com Scott linkrocklaw.com Kara linkrocklaw.com Angela linkrocklaw.com Tanya linkrocklaw.com tina linkrocklaw.com Link Rockenbach P.A Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard Suite West Palm Beach FL Phone Fax Attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein Marc Nurik Esquire marc nuriklaw.com Edwards adv Epstein Case No Response in Opposition to Epsteins Motion for Protective Order and In Limine of Unrelated Settlements One Broward Blvd Suite Fort Lauderdale FL Phone Fax Attorneys for Scott Rothstein 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 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 d6h N?M K?i N?M?qr EeD k??O d6 I I i i CTX 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
