Edwards adv Epstein Case No Response in Opposition to Epsteins Motion to Remove Case from Trial Docket in Order to Comply with the Mandate Set Forth in Rule Action Epstein Rothstein Second Amended Complaint First Epstein has a claim for Conspiracy to Commit Abuse of Process against Scott Rothstein That claim is pled in the Second Amended Complaint which was filed on August Edwards however is not a party to that case as Epstein voluntarily dismissed Edwards from the Second Amended Complaint on August That point alone nullifies Epsteins entire argument that Edwards Motion to Set Case for Trial was not ripe Rule on which Epstein relies unequivocally states that only a party may notice an action for trial Thereafter any party may file and serve a notice that the action is at issue and ready to be set for trial As a non-party to the Second Amended Complaint Edwards clearly had no ability to notice Epsteins case against Rothstein for trial and he never attempted to do so Epstein however has conceded that his action against Rothstein may not be set for trial given inter alia the Motion for Default Against Rothstein that was filed yesterday Thus if Epstein would like to try his action against Rothstein assuming Epstein has finally figured out what case he is actually pursuing against that uncollectible defendant in federal prison he apparently has a lot of work left to do including demonstrating that the Second Amended Complaint and this latest Motion for Default were properly served on Rothstein and that Rothstein was given opportunity to respond Edwards however has no dog in that fight because he is not a party to the Second Amended Complaint Among other reasons Epsteins voluntary dismissal of Edwards resulted in a bona fide termination of Action I in Edwards favor a necessary element for Edwards independent malicious prosecution claim in Action Edwards adv Epstein Case No Response in Opposition to Epsteins Motion to Remove Case from Trial Docket in Order to Comply with the Mandate Set Forth in Rule Action Edwards Epstein Fourth Amended Counterclaim The second action pending is a claim for Malicious Prosecution filed by Edwards against Epstein That claim is pled in the Fourth Amended Counterclaim filed on January after Edwards was dismissed from Action Rothstein is not a party to this separate action There is no question that Edwards Malicious Prosecution claim against Epstein has been properly set for trial Epstein does not even attempt to argue otherwise in his spurious motion The case law cited by Epstein is also factually distinguishable for the simple reason that all of the claims or counterclaims in those cases involved the same parties that were involved in the underlying complaint For example in Gawker Media LLC Bollea So 3d Fla 2d the case primarily relied upon by Epstein the plaintiff Bollea sued multiple defendants one of whom Blogwire contested Floridas long arm-jurisdiction over it After an initial unsuccessful attempt to sever the claims against Blogwire and go forward with a trial on his claims against the remaining defendants Bolea dismissed his claims against Blogwire with prejudice He then filed an amended complaint seeking punitive damages against the remaining defendants and requested that the trial court reset the case for trial Although none of the remaining defendants had answered the amended complaint the trial court set the case for trial The defendants then sought a writ of mandamus in the appellate court which granted the petition on the basis that the trial courts order setting the trial before the defendants answered the amended complaint violated Rule requirement of a minimum of days between service of the last pleading and commencement of trial Edwards adv Epstein Case No Response in Opposition to Epsteins Motion to Remove Case from Trial Docket in Order to Comply with the Mandate Set F01ih in Rule Gawker is simply inapplicable here The Fourth Amended Counterclaim is an independent action filed after Edwards was dismissed from Action a necessary element to the Malicious Prosecution claim The pleadings in Action the Malicious Prosecution claim have been closed for years and it is undisputed that the case is at issue Edwards is simply no longer a party to Action having been dismissed from that Action long ago Contending that Edwards could notice Action for trial is equivalent to saying that defendant Blogwire in the Gawker case could have noticed the case there for trial after having been dismissed from the case Therefore Action is more akin to a crossclaim which is exempt from Rule In any event given that Edwards is actually a party to the Fourth Amended Counterclaim he properly moved to notice that cause for trial The Court granted that motion and entered its Order Specially Setting Trial on July The parties to Action Edwards and Epstein have proceeded under that valid Order for months and are ready to try Edwards Malicious Prosecution claim against Epstein The fact that Epstein has failed to pursue his claim against Rothstein in Action is to be blunt irrelevant Epsteins Counsel Continues to Knowingly Inject Privileged Materials into the Public Record Edwards asks the Court to direct its attention to page of Epsteins Motion to Remove Case from Trial Docket in which Epsteins counsel again references privileged e-mail correspondence listed on Edwards Privilege Log Both Mr Link and Ms Rockenbach have been notified repeatedly that they are in possession of privileged materials listed on Edwards Privilege Log Both have ignored requests to turn over or destroy that information And it appears that they will continue to use these privileged materials without regard for their ethical obligations not to do so Edwards adv Epstein Case No Response in Opposition to Epsteins Motion to Remove Case from Trial Docket in Order to Comply with the Mandate.Set Forth in Rule Contemporaneous with this filing Edwards will be filing a Response in Opposition to Epsteins Motion for Court to Declare Relevance et al in which Epsteins counsel once again cites to privileged materials despite being on notice that these communications are on Edwards privilege log and were never produced in this case As the Court will see Epsteins counsel has jumped the shark and are claiming to have evidence that Brad Edwards as well as other RRA attorneys and certain other individuals were in fact knowingly involved in Rothsteins Ponzi scheme What the F.B.I and Justice Department missed in their years long investigation into Rothsteins criminal enterprise and their review of every aspect ofRRAs internal documents and servers Epstein and his counsel have possessed for years without explanation as to how they obtained it overlooked without explanation as to how or why for years and have now found days before the scheduled start of trial Obviously Epsteins ploy is a desperate attempt to avoid what is clearly the case that he lacked probable cause to either institute or continue the underlying proceeding against Edwards But Epstein will not admit his wrongdoing and is once again attempting to drag Brad Edwards name and reputation through the mud and this time wants to drag many others in as well Epstein and his counsel however benefit so far from Floridas absolute litigation privilege which prevents Edwards and the other victims from pursuing an independent tort claim for actions that occur in this proceeding So although the litigation privilege dooms Epstein on probable cause it provides cover for his ridiculous and embarrassing claim to have found proof that Edwards and apparently a host of others were actually involved in Rothsteins Ponzi scheme Edwards adv Epstein Case No Response in Opposition to Epsteins Motion to Remove Case from Trial Docket in Order to Comply with the Mandate Set Forth in Rule Conclusion For the foregoing reasons Epsteins attempt to once agam continue the Malicious Prosecution Action should be denied 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_ day of March VITALE JR Attorney E-Mails 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 to Remove Case from Trial Docket in Order to Comply with the Mandate Set Forth in Rule Scott Link Esq Link Rockenbach P.A Scott Iinkrocklaw.com Kara linkrocklaw.com Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard Suite West Palm Beach FL Phone Fax Attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein 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 Bradley Edwards Esquire staff.efile pathtojustice.com Andrews A venue Suite Fort Lauderdale FL Phone Fax 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 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
