Filing E-Filed AM JEFFREY EPSTEIN Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant SCOTT ROTHSTEIN individually and BRADLEY EDWARDS individually Defendants/Counter-Plaintiff IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY FLORIDA Case No PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEINS RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT/COUNTER-PLAINTIFF BRADLEY EDWARDS MOTION IN LIMINE FILED FEBRUARY Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein Epstein opposes the Motion in Limine filed by Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Bradley Edwards Edwards on February D.E and states BACKGROUND In yet another Motion in Limine Edwards seeks to prohibit Epstein from making any logical and common-sense comparison between the settlement amounts of Edwards three clients L.M E.W and Jane Doe and Edwards claimed damages in his malicious prosecution Counterclaim Edwards contends that his three clients L.M E.W and Jane Doe are not named parties to and have asserted no claims in this lawsuit Mot at I7 Despite this position here Edwards identified L.M E.W and Jane Doe as witnesses in support of his Counterclaim D.E FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL SHARON BOCK CLERK AM Further the parties have stipulated that Epstein settled the claims of Edwards three clients in July See Joint Pretrial Stipulation at D.E Finally Edwards also has suggested that the amount of his three clients settlements are relevant to show that Epstein lacked probable cause because Edwards cases against Epstein were not fabricated So are you telling this jury that the three clients that you represented the settlements that you obtained for them were somehow impacted by your inability to fulfill your professional obligations as a result of this counterclaim this lawsuit being filed against you A No Im telling you thats what Jeffrey Epstein wanted to happen but I didnt let happen He failed is that right A Look at the numbers He said it was a fabricated case He paid millions of dollars for these allegedly fabricated cases It was all a big fat lie that he put in that complaint which the jury is going to get to hear about So his intent was to shut you down and make you not settle the cases or to somehow give them away He failed because you on behalf of your clients got every single penny they deserved didnt you A I did well for them Edwards Depo We talked earlier about the settlement with the three clients that you represented when you were at Rothstein and I think the number was million A It was million It settled in July of Edwards Depo Excerpts of Edwards deposition transcript are attached as Exhibit A Thus Edwards has placed the settlement amount of Edwards clients cases at issue and advanced its admissibility at every tum Therefore any comparison between the amount and Edwards own alleged damages will be a fair comment on the evidence INTRODUCTION In Edwards Motion in Limine Edwards requests an order precluding Epstein from making any reference in front of the jury to the following a comparison between the settlement amounts of L.M E.W and Jane Doe and the damages sought by Edwards which he deems a comparative verdict argument that Edwards is forcing his clients to testify for selfish motivations and the fact that Edwards three clients will not be awarded any portion of any damages award against Epstein Edwards contends that all of these remarks are irrelevant highly prejudicial intentioned to mislead and confuse the jury and that a comparative verdict argument is barred by black letter Florida law Edwards Motion should be denied for the following reasons First the above remarks if made at all will be fair commentary on the evidence Second Edwards comparative verdict cases are inapposite and distinguishable on their facts Third the arguments are relevant to Edwards credibility as to his malicious prosecution Counterclaim and alleged damages ARGUMENT A The Subject Comments are Not Improper as They Will be Fair Commentary on the Evidence and Relevant to Edwards Credibility Fair Comment on the Evidence is Permissible Judges have discretion to allow attorneys wide latitude in making legitimate arguments to the jury including assertions of logical inferences Reyes State So 2d Fla 4th DCA Merely arguing a conclusion that can be drawn from the evidence is permissible fair comment Mann State So 2d Fla During closing argument for example it is proper to review the evidence and to explicate those inferences which may reasonably be drawn from the evidence Frazier State So 2d Fla 4th DCA quoting Bertolotti State So 2d Fla It is even permissible for counsel to argue based on the record that one witness should be believed and another should not Covington State So 2d Fla 3d DCA Edwards first takes issue with Epstein arguing to the jury that Edwards now seeks tens of millions of dollars more for his claimed emotional distress than he recovered collectively for all three of his clients combined Mot at IL But as a result of Edwards litigation strategy this will be a fair comment on the evidence Edwards has identified his three clients as witnesses the parties have stipulated that Edwards three clients settled with Epstein in and Edwards has indicated he will introduce the amount of his three clients settlements to show that his cases against Epstein were not fabricated In fact Edwards has argued in Court that Epstein filed his original civil proceeding lacking in probable cause because of the threat of Edwards clients and all the other Plaintiffs who Edwards now claims to have been the lead lawyer for Thus any statement that Edwards is seeking millions of dollars more for his purported damages than he recovered for all three of his clients combined will be a fair comment on the evidence-or one that may be reasonably inferred from the evidence Edwards also takes issue with the comments that he for his own financial gain plans to have his three clients testify about their intensely personal claims and that Edwards three clients have no interest in and will receive no benefit from the outcome of this litigation and in fact released their claims against Epstein in July These comments are not intended to demonize Edwards as he alleges but are fair comments on the evidence too Edwards plans to call his three clients as witnesses to support his burden of proof that Epstein lacked probable cause to file his lawsuit These individuals have settled their claims with Epstein are not parties to this suit and thus it is fair to say that their forced involvement is solely for Edwards financial gain i.e a damages award This will be obvious to the jury even if Epstein does not make the challenged remarks Edwards Comparative Verdict Cases are lnapposite Contrary to Edwards assertion a comment that Edwards seeks millions more than he recovered for his clients is not a comparative verdict argument intended to cap Edwards damages A comparative verdict argument occurs in personal injury cases when plaintiffs counsel suggests to the jury that his or her client is no less entitled to recovery of a verdict than other injured plaintiffs Div of Corr Wynn So 2d Fla 1st DCA This is not Epsteins potential fair comment on the evidence whatsoever In Wynn for example the First District Court of Appeal found it was improper jury argument for plaintiffs counsel to name two successful plaintiffs Carol Burnett and Miss Wyoming who won large recoveries in recent and widely publicized damage suits Id at The First District Court of Appeal declined to reverse however as the error was unpreserved and the comments did not rise to the level of fundamental error Id Wright Ford Millworks Inc Long So 2d Fla 5th DCA also cited by Edwards is distinguishable too In Long plaintiffs counsel stated in closing that Carol Burnett had recently recovered million for slander counsel then stated his clients were entitled to no less than anyone else Id at Fla 5th DCA In reversing based upon this comparative verdict argument the Fifth District Court of Appeal concluded there was no logical connection between Carol Burnetts punitive damage award against a national magazine for slander and a compensatory damage award to Long for his foot injury Id at Here in contrast to Wynn and Wright no jury awards or verdicts are being compared Nor is Epstein arguing that Edwards damages should be capped at million Mot at I5 Rather the statement at issue will be fair commentary on the evidence and thus bear a logical connection to the facts in this case Edwards will have the opportunity to present evidence of the full extent of his damages He will not be prejudiced The Comments Speak to Edwards Credibility As noted above It is permissible for counsel to argue based on the record that one witness should be believed and another should not Covington So 2d at Here the fact that Edwards is seeking millions more in damages than he recovered for his three clients combined-alleged victims of sexual molestation as children by Epstein-is relevant to Edwards credibility Edwards suggests that Epstein is merely trying to portray him in a bad light and that this is impermissible bad character evidence Not so Epstein recognizes and has attempted to prevent Edwards from so arguing that in a civil case evidence of a persons conduct is never admissible to prove that the person acted in conformity with that character trait Here however Epstein is not trying to show Edwards is a bad guy but to impeach Edwards credibility as to the exorbitant amount of damages he is claiming for his alleged excessive anxiety that he has suffered every single day from December through today CONCLUSION Epstein respectfully requests this Court to deny Edwards Motion Limine filed February CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that the foregoing document has been furnished to the attorneys listed on the Service List below on February through the Courts e-filing portal pursuant to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 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 Jack Scarola Searcy Denny Scarola Barnhart Shipley P.A Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach FL mep searcylaw.com jsx searcylaw.com scarolateam searcylaw.com Co-Counsel for Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Bradley Edwards Nichole Segal Burlington Rockenbach P.A Courthouse Commons Suite West Railroad A venue 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 A venue 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 Avenue 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 vs SCOTT ROTHSTEIN individually BRADLEY EDWARDS individually Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs I VOLUME I VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF BRADLEY EDWARDS Taken on Behalf of Plaintiff Friday November 10th a.m p.m Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach Florida Examination of the witness taken before Sonja Hall Palm Beach Reporting Service Inc Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard Suite West Palm Beach FL Palm Beach Reporting Service Inc now being served with by Mr Epstein A Did I interrupt you No I will finish right there Good I didnt want to interrupt you So are you telling this jury that the three clients that you represented the settlements that you obtained for them were somehow impacted by your inability to fulfill your professional obligations as a result of this counterclaim this lawsuit being filed against you A No Im telling you thats what Jeffrey Epstein wanted to happen but I didnt let happen A He failed is that right Look at the numbers He said it was a fabricated case He paid millions of dollars for these allegedly fabricated cases It was all a big fat lie that he put in that complaint which the jury is going to get to hear about So his intent was to shut you down and make you not settle the cases or to somehow give them away He failed because you on behalf of your clients got every single penny they deserved didnt you A I did well for them You wouldnt have settled them if you Palm Beach Reporting Service Inc A Worked at the Rothstein firm Yes And did he join the firm that you guys set up Farmer A A Lehrman A No Tell me the name of the firm again Farmer Jaffe Weissing Edwards Fistos Did not join them No Did you work with him while he was at Rothstein when you were employed there A files A an IT guy We were both employed there Did you work with him on any of the Epstein No He didnt work on Epstein files He was I understand Did you use him for any part of the Epstein cases A I dont think he worked on any we didnt have any IT needs I dont believe We talked earlier about the settlement with the three clients that you represented when you were at Rothstein and I think the number was Palm Beach Reporting Service Inc million A It was million It settled in July of not while I was at Rothstein No I understand They were the three same three clients you represented while you were at Rothsteins right A Yes Can you tell me of the how much did the three collectively collect from that A I dont remember that You didnt take those cases on a pro bono basis did you A No It was a contingency arrangement similar to my arrangement with Mr Scarola in this case Okay I understand I understand So that contingency do you remember what percentage the contingency was A A I dont Was it a third percent Probably I dont know But the standard is between zero and a million percent if its in litigation to million percent and then over million percent or something Theres a sliding scale Thats probably what was used Palm Beach Reporting Service Inc 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 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 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
