evidence in this case Edwards wants to gag Epstein and prevent him from being able to seek appellate review concerning the Courts striking of the exhibits a review which this Court expressly contemplated as part of its ruling or defend himself in the Bankruptcy Court proceedings initiated by Edwards In addition under a gag ruling Edwards himself would be in violation of the Courts ruling by his reference to the e-mails in filings in this Court the Appellate Court and the Bankruptcy Court In fact Epstein has taken numerous affirmative steps to ensure compliance with the Courts directives at the March hearing The disc is sealed the exhibits also referred to as e-mails are sealed and no further dissemination by Epstein or his attorneys has occurred And Epsteins general references to the e-mails in connection with requests to this Court and the Fourth District Court of Appeal for judicial relief certainly comply with the Courts rulings and provide no basis for sanctions The Bankruptcy Courts November Agreed Order issued by the Honorable Raymond Ray the November Agreed Order contains no confidentiality or non-disclosure provisions and does not itself prohibit the general references to the e-mails about which Edwards complains The November Agreed Order merely described the procedure by which Fowler White would print copies of documents to be produced in response to Epsteins Subpoena directed to the Bankruptcy Trustee and directed Fowler White not to retain any copies of the documents contained on the disc or any images of the documents in the memories of its copiers Whether or not Fowler White and/or Epstein complied with that directive is squarely and appropriately before the court that issued the Order the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida 2See March Afternoon Hearing Transcript Court allowed Epstein to file the exhibits under seal to protect his appellate rights Exhibit A Following a preliminary hearing on Edwards Motion for an Order to Show Cause held on April in the Bankruptcy Court Judge Ray ordered discovery that is focused on the allegations of federal civil contempt relating to the alleged violations of the November Agreed Order Specifically Edwards may take the depositions of Fowler Whites representative about the chain of custody of the discovery documents Epstein about his knowledge or possession of the disc or documents and Link Rockenbach PAs representative about the chain of custody of the disc The Bankruptcy Court determined that its role is only to review whether Fowler White or Epstein retained any copies of the documents contained on the disc or any images of the documents in the memories of Fowler Whites copiers Issues pertaining to the relevance of the documents contained on the disc or the applicability of any privileges to those documents are well outside both the scope of the November Agreed Order and the Bankruptcy Courts current review The Show Cause Order and Judge Rays review of Fowler Whites and Epsteins compliance with the November Agreed Order are now pending in the Bankruptcy Court and those issues need not be heard a second time by this Court Edwards Motion focuses on the pages contained on the disc However this Court recognized that not all of the documents contained on the disc were subject to Edwards claimed privilege and that in fact many thousands of pages from the disc have already been produced in the case including more than documents produced by Edwards that were listed on his privilege log Thus the Court expressly stated that its ruling was only applicable to the exhibits that Edwards identified as privileged Aft Tr The Court made it clear that it was prohibiting any reference to or use of those exhibits at the trial Aft Tr Edwards claimed it is exhibits but two of the Bates numbers he referenced were pages contained within another exhibit making the total exhibits which are in dispute This of course makes sense because the Court was not making and has not made a ruling as to whether any of the exhibits are protected by any privilege The Court expressly ruled only that the exhibits were untimely and the Court was not going to conduct an in camera review three days before trial To date the oral rulings made by this Court at the March hearing have not been reduced to a written Order To be clear however Epstein has fully complied with the Courts rulings In fact it was Epsteins current counsel who disclosed the chain of custody of the disc and the limited disclosure of documents to Epstein immediately cooperated and assisted Edwards in sealing docket entries and filed Notices of Compliance setting forth the steps taken to comply with the Courts rulings and after the Fourth District Court of Appeals stay was partially lifted moved to file the disc and the exhibits under seal and obtained an Agreed Order allowing the sealing Epstein and his current counsel have completely complied with this Courts rulings regarding the disc and the exhibits Edwards argument that this Court prohibited general references to even assertedly privileged documents in any context other than at trial is completely nonsensical Even a privilege log required under Floridas Rules of Civil Procedure as a condition to withhold documents on the basis of privilege must sufficiently identify the specific documents withheld with enough detail to facilitate the evaluation of and challenges to the privileges asserted therein TIG Ins Corp Johnson So 2d Fla 4th DCA Abbott Laboratories Alpha Therapeutic Corp No WL N.D Ill Dec Had the Court issued the expansive prohibition sought by Edwards it would have effectively precluded Epstein from seeking an appellate review of the Courts rulings and defending himself in the Bankruptcy Court proceedings relating to the November Agreed Order both of which were expressly contemplated by this Court at the March 8th hearing Aft Tr It would also have interfered with appropriate efforts by Epsteins counsel to further pursue an in camera review of the e-mails in pre-trial proceedings something which this Court recognized at the May hearing is properly before it in light of the new trial schedule created by the Fourth Districts rulings Tr Moreover none of the general references for which Edwards would have Epstein sanctioned violated any privileges or contain even arguably confidential information See paragraphs and of Edwards Motion identifying Epsteins alleged violation And the issue of whether any of those documents is even privileged has never once been determined by this or any other court Accordingly for these reasons Edwards sanctions Motion has absolutely no merit If in fact Edwards believes that he has nothing to hide in the e-mails then Epstein urges Edwards to agree post haste for the Court to determine in camera whether any privilege or work product protection exists as to the exhibits These exhibits go to the very heart of Edwards disingenuous allegation that there was a complete absence of probable cause for Epstein to sue Edwards and they readily defeat Edwards claim of purported damages Edwards nevertheless withheld them and concealed their existence through the device of a deliberately vague and legally non-compliant privilege log No court has ever reviewed the exhibits in camera and determined if in fact any are protected or if as Epstein is confident such a review will confirm they should be subject to the light of the courtroom in this civil action against Epstein Edwards seeks millions of dollars for claimed reputational damage these e-mails demonstrate the falsity of Edwards claim that he was hurt by Epsteins lawsuit and that Epstein had no reasonable basis to allege that Edwards was involved in Rothsteins Ponzi scheme using the tort claimants cases The May hearing transcript is attached as Exhibit Finally Epstein urges this Court to recognize that Edwards moving to prevent Epstein from discussing the exhibits generally is simply another transparent attempt by Edwards to hide the truth Edwards asked the Fourth District Court of Appeal to strike general statements made in briefing before it on the basis that Epstein violated this Courts ruling The Fourth District Court of Appeal however rejected Edwards argument and refused to strike Epsteins general statements that the e-mails are case-ending and defeat Edwards malicious prosecution claim against Epstein This Court should similarly reject Edwards arguments and deny his Motion for Sanctions THE COURTS MARCH HEARING On March the parties attended a special set hearing on a number of pending Motions including Edwards Motion to Strike Epsteins Untimely Supplemental Exhibits and to Strike all Exhibits and Any Reference to Documents Containing Privileged Materials Listed on Edwards Privilege Log Because the trial was only three business days away the Court found that Epsteins then recently identified exhibits were untimely and because of that the Court did not have sufficient time to conduct an in camera inspection to evaluate Edwards privilege assertions At that hearing this Court recognized that the jurisdiction over the November Agreed Order was that of the Bankruptcy Court But theyre not coming in here and I would hope elsewhere if its going to be at the sacrifice not only as to the orderly administration of justice but also in derogation of a federal bankruptcy courts order or any court of recognized jurisdictions order that would have the necessary supervisionary control of a given case but also at the potential extermination or derogation of a privilege And for all of those reasons is why I am extremely reluctant to start taking these things into consideration just a few days prior to trial Epstein made a rolling production of his newly disclosed exhibits which fell into general categories to Edwards on February February and March Epstein then individually identified each of those exhibits according to the Clerks pre-marking guidelines on his March Clerks Trial Exhibit List Aft Tr emphasis added This Courts rulings were focused on not allowing Epstein to use the late-disclosed exhibits at trial including referencing the stricken exhibits at trial and to sealing the disc and the alleged privileged exhibits to protect Epsteins appellate record MR SCAROLA Your Honor may we include in the order a direction that opposing counsel is required to relinquish possession of all copies of the privileged documents to the Court under seal THE COURT Well the only thing that obviously has to be taken into consideration is the appellate rights of Mr Epstein and how theyre going to preserve those rights in light of the fact that the Court has rejected the last-minute request for in-camera inspection for the reasons that Ive already stated at length on the record Aft Tr The Court wanted to ensure that Epstein did not either use the alleged privileged documents at trial or refer to their contents thereby getting information in by the back door Mr Epstein will be barred from referring to any of those records as it relates to the documents that were gathered from Fowler White or from any other source that would have included those records that were the subject of Judge Rays order So its to preclude anything coming in through the back door which wouldnt be allowed through the front Aft Tr Both the Court and Edwards counsel accepted Epsteins counsels representations of who the alleged privileged documents were shared with and that the documents would not be further disseminated no further dissemination is going to be made I think that goes without saying as far as the attorneys are concerned I have no doubt in my mind that they will all be respectful of the court order of non-dissemination of any of those documents hence forth And Mr Link Epsteins counsel has already represented to the Court that other than Mr Epstein and his co-counsel that there have been no eyes laid upon these documents Hence Im accepting that representation as Mr Scarola has accepted those representations during the hearing as well Aft Tr emphasis added Paul Cassell the lntervenors counsel asked that a similar representation be made by Fowler White In response the Court referenced a blanket confidentiality order to clarify that Fowler White and Epsteins other former counsel were included in the non-dissemination ruling As a general blanket order I would simply say that all attorneys who have or are representing Mr Epstein shall be subject to this order of confidentiality of sealing and of non-dissemination of any such information that is contemplated in any of the documents that are part of the umbrella order of Judge Ray And that would include all of the exhibits that we spoke about today and that have been filed as a matter of record Aft Tr emphasis added But even this clarification was focused on the non dissemination of the specific confidential information contemplated in the documents It certainly did not preclude a general reference to their existence Nor does a reference to their devastating impact on Edwards cause of action reveal the specific information contemplated in the documents and violate this blanket order While it is understandable that Edwards does not want the truth to be known Epstein submits that the blanket confidentiality order should properly be interpreted to ensure that the documents that Edwards has claimed are privileged are not used at trial or disseminated further until further order of this Court but to permit appropriate general references to the exhibits to be made in this proceeding pre-trial in the Bankruptcy Court proceeding or in the appellate court proceedings ARGUMENT General Adiective Argument is Not Disclosure Edwards examples of alleged violation fall far short of explicit disclosure Edwards referenced the following alleged improper statements made by Epstein in court filings Second the alleged eight-year-old confidential information to which Edwards refers is exhibits comprised of a series of communications between Edwards and other attorneys including Scott Rothstein that eviscerate Edwards case against Epstein in its entirety Moreover on their face all of these eight-year-old communications clearly show that Edwards claims of work product simply do not apply These inculpatory communications cannot constitute work-product They directly relate to issues that Edwards himself has made central to this case and their content provides independent grounds to reject work product protection including both the crime fraud exception and potential unprofessional conduct the trial court refused to evaluate these issues choosing instead to exclude the communications on the basis of what the Court believed was Epsteins untimely request to identify them on his Exhibit List Motion Included among those issues to be perfected at the trial court is Edwards errant claim of privilege which remains a cloud below preventing the admission of crucial evidence that Epstein maintains is dispositive of this case That evidence must be reviewed in camera by the trial court while the appellate issues are under review Consistent with this Courts interest in fairness and efficient use of the trial courts time and resources Epstein will be narrowing his request for in camera review down from pages to a readily manageable fraction exhibits numbering approximately pages Motion Recent events appeal and stay and the discovery of e-mails that total sic eviscerate Counter-Plaintiff Bradley Edwards Edwards claims and shines a light on his true motivation have prompted unprofessional behavior from Edwards and his counsel evidenced by the unilateral setting of hearings certificates of conferring that never happened and intentional ex parte attendance at a hearing despite knowing of Epsteins counsels unavailability Motion None of these statements evidence disclosure of the contents of any documents Edwards deems are privileged but rather they are made in connection with requests for judicial relief If merely referencing the documents existence is a violation of the Courts ruling then Edwards himself violated it with the filing of his Motion for Sanctions citing the alleged statements and by filing his Motion for Order to Show Cause in the Bankruptcy Court In fact the challenged statements are appropriate general statements about the nature of the documents and their impact on Edwards case consistent with this Courts own recognition in open Court that the documents are detrimental to Edwards case And I understand what youre going to tell me because Ive gotten a flavor for some of these documents that have been provided And that is that they are detrimental to the position taken by Mr Edwards and that they are helpful to the position taken by Mr Epstein Aft Tr emphasis added If the Courts ruling prohibits general statements about the e-mails including that they are detrimental or case-ending to Edwards malicious prosecution action even in court filings then Epsteins counsel would be prevented from advancing any argument for an in camera review or other relief with respect to the e-mails in this Court or the appellate court or from defending himself in the Bankruptcy Court Edwards ludicrous interpretation of this Courts ruling as a blanket gag order would effectively impede discharge by Epsteins counsel of their ethical duties to zealously advocate for Epstein The Courts ruling contains no express statement to justify an interpretation that would substantially interfere with counsels ethical duties in their representation of a client Epstein Has Fully Complied with this Courts Ruling At most this Court prohibited Epstein and his counsel from disseminating the specific information contemplated in the exhibits Edwards improperly claims are privileged However Epstein has not disseminated quoted or specifically referenced the contents of any of the exhibits Epsteins general references to the e-mails disclose nothing confidential contained therein and therefore fully comply with the Courts oral rulings Edwards bases his claims of sanctionable violations on general references to materials which although he seeks to protect them as privileged he never properly supported with a legally sufficient and G-compliant privilege log and therefore should not be presumed to be protected Ironically had Edwards provided a legally sufficient privilege log based on Edwards nonsensical interpretation of this Courts rulings even the limited descriptions legally required to withhold the exhibits contained therein would be a violation of this Courts rulings The general references to the exhibits for which Edwards seeks sanctions are far less specific than the descriptions which Edwards was required but failed to provide in a legally sufficient privilege log Despite Edwards protestations to the contrary in fact Epstein has fully complied with the Courts rulings It was Epstein who without hesitation agreed to the sealing worked with Edwards counsel to obtain an Agreed Order sealing the docket entries disc and exhibits and then filed Notices of Compliance Epstein has not once disclosed the case-ending e-mails in the press or to others or after the March hearing expressly stated their content in any pleadings before this or any other court Ignoring all of this Edwards simply seeks a gag order on the truth Fourth District Court Appeal Denied a Similar Request from Edwards In his Motion to this Court Edwards argues that no less than four times Epstein referenced the alleged privilege exhibits in filings with both this Court and the appellate court Conveniently for Edwards he neglects to disclose to this Court that he also sought to strike references to the exhibits from Epsteins appellate filings on these same grounds and the Fourth District Court of Appeal denied Edwards requested relief in both cases without even requiring Epstein to respond See April Order Epstein Rothstein and Edwards th DCA Case No April Order Epstein Rothstein and Edwards th DCA Case No Composite Exhibit CONCLUSION Epsteins general references in pre-trial filings with this Court and in the Fourth District Court of Appeal to the exhibits in question are fully compliant with the Courts rulings at the March hearing Epstein has not disseminated the exhibits that were the subject of those rulings or any of the specific information contained in those documents and in fact has taken numerous affirmative steps to ensure compliance with the Courts directives The issue of Fowler Whites and Epsteins compliance with Judge Rays Bankruptcy Court November Order is squarely before Judge Ray as a result of Edwards separate motion before that court The Fourth District Court of Appeal has already denied Edwards separate motions to strike Epsteins references to the exhibits based on asserted violations of this Courts rulings which should dictate a similar response by this Court to the instant motion Furthermore any consideration of sanctions against Epstein arising from Epsteins disclosure of any allegedly attorney-client privileged and/or work-product protected information contained in any of the exhibits necessarily requires an evaluation of whether any such privilege or work-product protection actually exists and if so to what extent it was invaded by such disclosure Epstein vehemently denies that any attorney-client privilege or work product protection applies with respect to the exhibits and neither this Court nor any other has ever affirmatively determined that any such privilege or protection exists For all of these reasons Edwards Motion for Sanctions and the lntervenors Joinder are improper and must be denied CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that the foregoing document has been furnished to the attorneys listed on the Service List below on June through the Courts e-filing portal pursuant to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration Jack Scarola Karen Terry David Vitale Jr LINK ROCKENBACH PA Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard Suite West Palm Beach Florida fax By Isl Scott Link Scott Link FBN Kara Berard Rockenbach FBN Primary Scott linkrocklaw.com Primary Kara linkrocklaw.com Secondary Tina linkrocklaw.com Secondary Troy linkrocklaw.com Trial Counsel for Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein SERVICE LIST Philip Burlington 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 dvitale searcylaw.com scarolateam searcylaw.com terryteam searcylaw.com Co-Counsel for Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Bradley Edwards West Palm Beach FL pmb FLAppellateLaw.com 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 Fort Lauderdale FL Ft Lauderdale FL brad epllc.com marc nuriklaw.com Co-Counsel for Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Counsel for Defendant Scott Rothstein Bradley Edwards Jack A Goldberger Paul Cassell Atterbury Goldberger Weiss P.A University Australian A venue Suite Salt Lake City UT West Palm Beach FL cassellp law utah edu goldberger agwpa.com Limited Intervenor Co-Counsel for L.M E.W smahoney agwpa.com and Jane Doe Co-Counsel for Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein Jay Howell Jay Howell Associates Cesery Blvd Suite Jacksonville FL jayhowell.com Limited Intervenor Co-Counsel for L.M E.W and Jane Doe 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-Plaintiffs I TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS DATE TAKEN TIME PLACE BEFORE Thursday March 8th p.m p.m Dixie Highway Room l0D 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 Elaine Williams Palm Beach Reporting Service Inc Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard Suite West Palm Beach FL Palm Beach Reporting Service Inc that was not in the hands of Mr Epsteins lawyers since whenever this all came to fruition then I would say wed have to take a different approach But the very nature of the documents that were talking about again rightly or wrongly held were in fact held by Fowler White Epsteins counsel at an incredible crucial time in this process and that being in and around when the Rothstein firm imploded when these e-mails were apparently confiscated when somebody made the decision that instead of Farmer paying for the copy costs they be handed over to Fowler White And if I have a bit of an incredulous tone to that statement its probably purposeful But the fact remains Mr Link that these materials were in the hands of Epsteins attorneys from the inception of the issue itself And to now come to the Court with not five pages of documents to look at but or whatever that number is it escapes me because of its shear mass is impossible and is not going to be countenanced here And I understand what youre going to tell me because Ive gotten a flavor for some of these documents that have been provided Palm Beach Reporting Service Inc and what I think is more important than any of this which is getting to the truth And I believe in my heart your Honor the reason Im so passionate about this and the reason I apologize for interrupting you is if this courtroom is looking for the truth then those documents have got to come into court They have got to go in front of the jury THE COURT But theyre not coming in here and I would hope elsewhere if its going to be at the sacrifice not only as to the orderly administration of justice but also in derogation of a federal bankruptcy courts order or any court of recognized jurisdictions order that would have the necessary supervisionary control of a given case but also at the potential extermination or derogation of a privilege And for all of those reasons is why I am extremely reluctant to start taking these things into consideration just a few days prior to trial Again if this was something that came into play that was being hidden by the other side and Im talking now generically and your side discovered that information at the 11th hour this would be an entirely different discussion And Palm Beach Reporting Service Inc reasons for the Courts ruling MR SCAROLA Your Honor may we include in the order a direction that opposing counsel is required to relinquish possession of all copies of the privileged documents to the Court under seal THE COURT Well the only thing that obviously has to be taken into consideration is the appellate rights of Mr Epstein and how theyre going to preserve those rights in light of the fact that the Court has rejected the last minute request for in-camera inspection for the reasons that Ive already stated at length on the record MR SCAROLA Which is why Ive suggested that they be relinquished to the Court under seal your Honor They can be given an exhibit number To the extent that the appellate court finds it reasonable and necessary to examine those documents the appellate court will have the opportunity to do that THE COURT So youre suggesting to file with the Clerk of Court under seal the documents at issue MR SCAROLA Yes sir thats correct THE COURT Thats better stated Do you have any objection Palm Beach Reporting Service Inc THE COURT Not as far as the court file is concerned MR LINK The court file only contains the I redacted version We have double checked that asked Mr Cassell to tell me if I missed a redaction Could it happen Yes it could happen We havent found one If there was one that wasnt redacted wed be glad to redact it But the only thing that was filed in the clerk file was the redacted version Thank you Judge THE COURT All right Thank you Much of which or much of the relief that has been requested has essentially been taken care of I believe through the Courts prior order that is that the one disk containing the documents that are being sought to be introduced at trial to take to record will be permitted to be filed under seal The sanitized redacted versions of those records Im also ordering to be sealed in an abundance of caution just in case there may be some error not intentional on the part of counsel who filed those records Mr Epstein will be barred from referring to any of those records as it relates to the documents Palm Beach Reporting Service Inc that were gathered from Fowler White or from any other source that would have included those records that were the subject of Judge Rays order So its to preclude anything coming in through the back door which wouldnt be allowed through the front Mr Link did you want to comment on this MR LINK Yes I wanted to remind the Court we have over a hundred exhibits that were listed on that disk that are already in the court file Weve used them in depositions So Im wondering those arent excluded THE COURT Right Im not talking about those Im talking about the ones that have been derived from Fowler White and that have been sought to be introduced as part of the or or whatever this number is or the that have been claimed as privileged and have not been ruled upon and will not be ruled upon prior to trial because of the reasons that I have explained in detail earlier MR LINK Thank you Judge THE COURT Mr Cassell did I leave out anything else MR CASSELL Yes We want to know how the Palm Beach Reporting Service Inc reserving on that as well MR CASSELL But related to that is the distribution The cat is now wandering out of the bag so time is of the essence THE COURT Right And again I think that in an abundance of caution and I understand your concerns but what the attorneys here recognize and Mr Epstein is also under this order is that no further dissemination is going to be made think that goes without saying as far as the I attorneys are concerned Ive known each of them seated at counsel table for many years as I have known Mr Scarola and Miss Terry Mr Burlington and I think they recognize that when this Court makes a statement that it is abundantly clear that it will be enforced to the letter I have no doubt in my mind that they will all be respectful of the court order of non-dissemination of any of those documents hence forth And Mr Link has already represented to the Court that other than Mr Epstein and his co-counsel that there have been no eyes laid upon these documents Hence Im accepting that representation as Mr Scarola has accepted those representations during the hearing as well Palm Beach Reporting Service Inc MR CASSELL We havent heard of course from Fowler White Will the Court direct them to make similar representations THE COURT I believe that I have sufficient authority to do that under these relatively peculiar circumstances My jurisdiction though is somewhat limited because they have withdrawn from the case As a general blanket order I would simply say that all attorneys who have or are representing Mr Epstein shall be subject to this order of confidentiality of sealing and of non dissemination of any such information that is contemplated in any of the documents that are part of the umbrella order of Judge Ray And that would include all of the exhibits that we spoke about today and that have been filed as a matter of record MR CASSELL Could they also be directed to make a representation as to who they have distributed the documents to THE COURT Mr Link has already are you talking about Fowler White MR CASSELL Fowler White THE COURT I dont think that I have that 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/Counter-Defendant vs SCOTT ROTHSTEIN individually BRADLEY EDWARDS individually Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs I TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS DATE TAKEN TIME PLACE BEFORE Wednesday May 23rd a.m a.m Dixie Highway Room l0D 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 APPEARANCES For Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant LINK ROCKENBACH P.A Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard Suite West Palm Beach FL By KARA BERARD ROCKENBACH ESQUIRE By SCOTT LINK ESQUIRE For Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART SHIPLEY P.A Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach FL By DAVID VITALE JR ESQUIRE Palm Beach Reporting Service Inc MR VITALE Good morning Your Honor MS ROCKENBACH Good morning Your Honor THE COURT Good morning We are back on a motion by Edwards to take a limited deposition of Mr Epstein I have read as much as material as I could including most of the transcript of the proceeding that transpired in front of Judge Ray the bankruptcy judge who did allow the deposition to be taken And I presume its going to be taken by members of your office Mr Vitale MR VITALE Yes sir THE COURT So what did you need beyond what Judge Ray has authorized MR VITALE What Judge Ray has authorize is a deposition related to Mr Epsteins possession of the disc What we are concerned with is enforcement of Your Honors order regarding the filed exhibits that you have stricken for use at trial Forty-seven of those at least are privileged documents that were listed on our privilege log since Palm Beach Reporting Service Inc Now through the court filings thats been made in the recent months theres been two representations The first representations is that Mr Epstein as an individual as a witness did not review or become aware of the privileged materials until March of So at a minimum even if they werent already stricken they would be irrelevant from a probable cause determination because they could not have led to a probable cause to initiate the lawsuit in and continue until The second representation that has been made is that Mr Epstein was provided a subset of the privileged documents which he did review prior to our March 5th trial date THE COURT How much prior MR VITALE My understanding and Im sure Mr Link or Ms Rockenbach can correct me if Im wrong it would have been within weeks prior to the original March 13th trial date He was provided a Palm Beach Reporting Service Inc subset of the documents Now what we are concerned about is that although theres been representations in court filings that Mr Epstein was ordered by this trial court to destroy the records theres been no affidavit or evidence put forth that he has complied with that order THE COURT Who is he MR VITALE He being Mr Epstein sir We do not know what privileged material Mr Epstein reviewed We do not know the depth of his review We do not know who he may have shared those privileged materials with Now I dont make any suggestion that opposing counsel will knowingly put a third-party witness on the stand with evidence that had knowledge of our privileged materials But if Mr Epstein gave privileged materials to the third-party witness that could occur So what we would like to be able to do is take a very limited deposition Mr Epstein is already going to be in Palm Palm Beach Reporting Service Inc Beach County We would like to know what privileged materials he reviewed Again these are privileged materials that have been on our privileged log since We would like to know the timing of that review We would like to know whether he still possesses the privileged materials or whether he has complied with the Courts order And the reason Your Honor is because if Mr Epstein on the witness stand starts giving answers that go to his knowledge of privileged materials we need to be in a position to object move to strike And Your Honor needs to be in a position to be able to timely rule on those objections or motions Right now we simply dont know what he knows We dont know what privileged materials he has THE COURT How do you see that as going beyond Judge Rays order In other words essentially three areas of inquiry whether Mr Epstein reviewed any of the documents prior to March 8th I Palm Beach Reporting Service Inc believe would be encompassed in Judge Rays order by permitting the limited deposition Whether he did or didnt comply with the Courts order of destroying the records would be essentially a very very limited inquiry that may touch on Judge Rays order allowing a limited deposition Did he share any privileged materials with anyone other than from what I recall Mr Links representations Mr Link and Ms Rockenbach and/or or Mr Goldberger again I think is encompassed fairly within Judge Rays scope of allowing the limited deposition So let me hear so is there anything else that you want to add other than the three areas that Ive covered Maybe I missed an area that you had mentioned MR VITALE Yes sir The clarification I would make is that those three areas I would term them procedural Its simply when did he review Did he share them What we are looking for is an ability at this trial to enforce the Courts order to ensure that nothing comes through Palm Beach Reporting Service Inc the backdoor that isnt allowed through the front door is to understand the substance of what exactly which privileged materials that he reviewed which privileged materials he may attempt to utilize in answers to questions in an attempt to get privileged materials in through the backdoor If he reviewed them lets say February 26th I need to know what he reviewed so I can understand his answers on the stand and Mr Scarola or I could be in a position or Ms Terry to object and to move to strike and say Judge we took his deposition on June 30th and question and answer on what he reviewed and here is what he told us he reviewed You can see the answer he just gave is derived from the privileged materials that he is not permitted to use under this Courts orders That would be THE COURT Do we even know if he is going to testify at trial in this case MR VITALE Theres been no clarification We are proceeding as if he Palm Beach Reporting Service Inc will be testifying We have been not been told definitively that he is not THE COURT Ms Rockenbach MS ROCKENBACH Thank you Your Honor Kara Rockenbach on behalf of Jeffrey Epstein Your Honor hit the nail on the head First point There are four reasons why this court should deny Mr Edwards motion And the first one is squarely what Your Honor pointed out which is this is a matter before the bankruptcy court Bankruptcy Judge Ray has already issued an order And you are correct the deposition of Mr Epstein is going forward to determine THE COURT Have you set a date yet MR LINK Your Honor we have exchanged four or five different dates We have six counsels so we dont have a date set But the evidentiary hearing in front of Judge Ray is in August so the depo will take place before then Judge THE COURT Thanks MS ROCKENBACH So thats the first Palm Beach Reporting Service Inc reason why And that alone should allow this Court to deny this request that really has no other purpose The second reason is none of the materials about which Mr Edwards seeks to depose Mr Epstein about have even been determined by this Court to be privileged or not We have requested an in-camera instruction of these documents So there hasnt even been a determination of privilege Number three Mr Scarolas or Vitales stated purpose in the motion and then here before Your Honor makes no sense The purpose or the alleged justification to take Mr Epsteins deposition in this case is pursuant to the motion that they filed to allow Edwards to identify and object to at trial all attempts by Epstein to utilize privileged materials these are very skilled able trial lawyers They know how to object They do not need to take Mr Epsteins deposition to determine what objections they should make at trial And the second or corollary reason that Palm Beach Reporting Service Inc was stated in the motion stated again this morning is they need Mr Epsteins deposition in order for this Court to know how to rule at trial on the admissibility of evidence Your Honor is well capable of enforcing your own orders and rulings and so those stated reasons just have no merit But the last and most significant reason that is important because I dont think Your Honor has seen it yet if I may approach Mr Link and I filed two notices of compliance with the Court MR VITALE May I have a copy MS ROCKENBACH Im sorry The notice of compliance that Counsel referred to this morning MR LINK There are two copies there THE COURT I have two copies They are not of the same thing MR LINK I think there are copies of each MS ROCKENBACH Sorry about that THE COURT No Thats okay I got you Palm Beach Reporting Service Inc MS ROCKENBACH But these are the notices of compliance that we have filed Your Honor we went above and beyond because this court has not actually entered a written order on Edwards motion to strike the exhibits or deemed them privileged THE COURT That hasnt been before me That hasnt been argued yet has it MS ROCKENBACH It was It was the March 8th hearing where these exhibits came to light and we discussed them And Your Honor made specific oral rulings and we detailed them in those two notices of compliance There was no objection filed by Mr Edwards whatsoever about our detailed and we cited to the hearing transcript to be completely accurate with Your Honors rulings So there was never a requirement by Your Honor that we certify compliance with the rulings Your Honor took our word as officers of the court as to how we handled the document And then we went further to assist and cooperate without court order to seal the documents and then further to Palm Beach Reporting Service Inc destroy the documents And those two notices of compliance identify I think there are bullet points and THE COURT So youve destroyed all the documents What is the position being taken relative to their admissibility some or all MS ROCKENBACH We are waiting for Your Honor has indicated that you are giving us special set time on I think the July trial docket And one of the issues is the motion for in camera for Your Honor to determine THE COURT Thats going to be firmed up now I know I told you that I might be able to find some time thats going to happen I dont think So somebody should send out a notice of hearing that puts you on this July docket with a June trial docket calendar call It runs from July 2nd to September 7th So do that formally so that we can get you on there formally MR LINK Your Honor can I comment on the non-written order so the Court Palm Beach Reporting Service Inc understands what happened THE COURT Okay MR LINK As much as I hate to raise the subject the reason the Court didnt enter an order is because of the stay and MR VITALE Competing orders were submitted MR LINK Yeah competing orders were submitted but then the case was stayed Your Honor So its not as though you were not going to enter an order on your oral rulings but we went ahead and complied with your oral rulings anyway Thats why we dont have a written order Judge THE COURT I dont remember I shouldnt say I dont remember theres so much going on this may be what youre talking about What I try to do with breaks and video depos and things like that in the trial is try and go through some of this stuff and get some work done Thats the competing orders on motion to strike Epsteins untimely supplemental MR LINK Yes Your Honor MS ROCKENBACH Thats it Palm Beach Reporting Service Inc THE COURT Does the timeliness issue is that still becomes an issue or is that moot MS ROCKENBACH Its moot MR VITALE Its not moot Your Honor Its still an issue THE COURT I guess I can enter the order but then it can be dealt with otherwise I presume MR LINK Your Honor I can tell you we have fully complied with the Courts ruling and we believe all these issues are teed up again through Mr Vitales office and our office for the hearings in July I think the Court will see all of these issues again at those hearings THE COURT That was just an extra copy with submission to the Court it I dont need MS ROCKENBACH So just to close Your Honor Judge Ray has already addressed the issue and it is not necessary for Mr Epstein to be deposed any broader than Judge Ray has already indicated And in fact Your Honor as you went Palm Beach Reporting Service Inc through the three items expressed by Plaintiffs Counsel Judge Ray is addressing that So to have Mr Epstein be deposed so that Counsel can determine what trail objections to make or how this Court should rule on admissibility is not the subject of a motion for a deposition or another deposition of Mr Epstein If it is in fact about compliance well then it would have been titled a motion to seek determination whether we complied with the Courts rulings We have And thats why I submitted to Your Honor the two notices of compliance which Your Honor didnt request those didnt order those We did that really just to show our good faith in compliance with the Courts oral rulings So we ask that Your Honor deny the request to take another deposition of Mr Epstein THE COURT Thank you Last word MR VITALE Yes Your Honor This is not an admissibility issue We understand Palm Beach Reporting Service Inc that Your Honor is more than capable of determining which of the privileged documents are admissible based on Your Honors current order They are not admissible I have no qualms and Im not standing here suggesting that Mr Link or Ms Rockenbach are going to attempt to admit exhibits that you have ruled are inadmissible Our concern is that Mr Epstein as a party has reviewed a subset of our privileged materials privileged materials that have been listed on our privilege log for eight years Our concern is that on the witness stand in response to questions he will utilize knowledge that he gained from the privileged materials he has reviewed in order to get that evidence in through the backdoor that Your Honor will not allow in through the front door The only way for Mr Scarola or myself or Ms Terry to properly object is to know what specific subset of privileged materials Palm Beach Reporting Service Inc hes reviewed so I can understand when he gives an answer we can object and we can point you to a deposition transcript saying Your Honor we asked him what he reviewed Here is what he reviewed We asked him if he had any other knowledge of this topic outside of privileged materials he said No That testimony should be stricken and the witness should be admonished So its not an issue of admissibility Its our ability to identify what hes reviewed to prevent these things As Your Honor has said theyre not coming in through the front door And your Honor made it clear in the oral ruling on March 8th that they will not come in through the backdoor We need to understand what hes reviewed in order to make those objections THE COURT Well based upon the fact that there is going to be at least from my perception and my limited exposure to these emails a continued insistence I will presume by Mr Epstein on the utilization of some of those emails and the fact that these emails have come to light subsequent Palm Beach Reporting Service Inc to the trial court my orders relative to not permitting the floodgates to open and again with respect to discovery that should have been taken prior here I dont believe thats something that would be subject to that order meaning consistent with Judge Rays ruling I too will allow Mr Epstein to be on a limited basis questioned regarding his review of any of the documents in question prior to March 18th or subsequent thereto to the present time Whether or not he has any knowledge regarding the compliance of the Courts order regarding destroying of the records thats not necessarily going to be admissible at trial although I think its discoverable Whether or not he shared any of the allegedly privileged materials with anyone other than Mr Link Ms Rockenbach or Mr Goldberger and which if any materials he plans to use to testify at trial if he so testifies the last issue can be avoided if there is a representation on the record Palm Beach Reporting Service Inc that Mr Epstein will not testify at any trial proceedings in this case However absent such a stipulation he will be compelled to answer questions as to what if any of those materials he plans to use even if he doesnt have those materials in his possession any longer based upon his review It would be So that would be the limited areas of inquiry that I would allow in conjunction with Judge Ray and to be consistent essentially with the spirit and intent of Judge Rays ruling as well as a corollary to what we are looking for in this particular case relative to those materials So if you can in preparing an order Mr Vitale track the Courts ruling I would appreciate it I wish you all a very pleasant rest of the week Is there anything else thats remaining because I think there were two hearings that were set Is there something else This is it MR LINK I believe this is the only Palm Beach Reporting Service Inc one Your Honor THE COURT Thank you for your respective participation and arguments I appreciate that very much Thank you The above proceedings were concluded at a.m Palm Beach Reporting Service Inc COURT CERTIFICATE STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF PALM BEACH ss I SONJA HALL certify that I was authorized to and did stenographically report the foregoing proceedings and that the transcript is a true record of my stenographic notes Dated this 31st day of May SONJA HALL Palm Beach Reporting Service Inc EXHIBIT IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT SOUTH TAMARIND AVENUE WEST PALM BEACH FL JEFFREY EPSTEIN Appellant Petitioner BY ORDER OF THE COURT April CASE NO L.T No AG SCOTT ROTHSTEIN individually and BRADLEY EDWARDS individually Appellee Respondent ORDERED that the respondents April motion to strike is denied Served cc Kara Berard Rockenbach Jack Alan Goldberger Bradley Edwards John Scarola Nichole Segal di LONff.WEISSBtUM Cierk oi..irth Dist ictCourt of.Appear Philip Burlington Rachel Jenny Glasser IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT SOUTH TAMARIND AVENUE WEST PALM BEACH FL JEFFREY EPSTEIN Appellant Petitioner BY ORDER OF THE COURT April CASE NO L.T No SCOTT ROTHSTEIN individually and BRADLEY EDWARDS individually Appellee Respondent ORDERED that the respondent Bradley Edwards April motion to strike all references to the alleged contents of material which Epstein and his counsel unlawfully possessed is denied Served cc Kara Berard Rockenbach Scott Link John Scarola Karen Elizabeth Terry Rachel Jenny Glasser Nichole Segal ct LbNff.WEISSBtuM Ciei-k oi..irth Dist ictCourt of.Appear Marc Nurik Jack Alan Goldberger Bradley Edwards 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 y!k N?M??N rC f?Nla3 Yz 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
