Edwards adv Epstein Case No Response in Opposition to Epsteins Renewed Motion for Leave to Disclose Expert Witness expert testimony See Tomlinson-McKenzie Prince So 2d Fla 4th DCA There was no finding that appellants failed to comply with the pretrial order in bad faith The record reflects that appellants moved to amend the witness and exhibit list as soon as the surveillance tape became available emphasis added Rather the issues about which Epstein seeks to have Mr Smith testify have been known to Epstein and his extensive team of defense lawyers for years Those attorneys made the tactical decision not to retain an expert in this case and for eight years Edwards prepared his case in reliance on that decision If the Court were to permit Mr Smith to be added as a witness this case would be further delayed by the reopening of discovery the taking of Mr Smiths deposition and Edwards likely having to retain one or more rebuttal experts assuming Epstein would be able to overcome multiple legal challenges to the admissibility of Mr Smiths opinions Daubert/Fabre challenges are likely Admissibility hinges on the extent to which legal opinions invade the province of the Court to decide probable cause as a matter oflaw Prior assertions of Fifth Amendment and Attorney-Client privileges present foundational challenges Enough The parties were ready to try this case on March At the March hearing counsel for Epstein repeatedly stated on the record that they were ready to try this case which has been pending for days Any further delay in the trial of this matter severely prejudices Edwards who is entitled to his day in court to clear his name in connection with the malicious lawsuit Epstein filed on December And as the delays continue Edwards is denied access to the only effective antidote to the poison that Epstein created and spread to intentionally destroy Edwardss reputation Edwards adv Epstein Case No Response in Opposition to Epsteins Renewed Motion for Leave to Disclose Expert Witness In addition to the foregoing Edwards has included below a slightly revised version of his prior-filed Response in Opposition to Epsteins original Motion for Leave to Disclosure Expert Witness The Renewed Motion Fails to Meet the Courts Requirements to Reopen Discovery On November the Court entered its Order on Motion to Reconfirm Existing Pre-Trial Deadlines in which the Court ruled that additional discovery will only be permitted if the discovery requests are impacted by the Courts rulings on motions currently pending to be heard on November 29th December th and th At the hearing preceding the Order the Court outlined the standard by which any such additional discovery requests would be considered So what I am going to do is this Because there are issues that need to be addressed and Im hoping I will have orders out as soon as possible after those hearings are done is that I am going to require motions to be filed on a discovery issue-by-discovery issue deposition by deposition so as to find out several things One is the need to take that deposition and whether that need has been either clarified or required by virtue of a court order that will be entered subsequently to the commencement of Wednesdays hearings and thereafter on those days that I provided If it cannot be demonstrated to the Court that these witnesses need to be taken solely as a result the Courts ruling then those requests will be denied because again we were set to try the case next week So some-odd deposition unless they can be proven and shown to the Court as being required as a result of the rulings of the Court will not be entertained They should have been done before And if not done before I will need a reason for that as well Hearing Tr at and Edwards adv Epstein Case No Response in Opposition to Epsteins Renewed Motion for Leave to Disclose Expert Witness Thus Epstein must establish that Culver Smith Ills Smith proposed expert testimony is required solely as a result of a recent Court ruling Epsteins renewed motion like the prior motion that was denied by the Court clearly fails to meet this requirement and therefore the renewed motion should be denied A The Legal Ethics and Responsibility Related to the Discovery Edwards Conducted in the L.M E.W and Jane Doe Cases Has Been at Issue Since The first category of Smiths proposed expert testimony is legal ethics and responsibility regarding the legitimacy of the discovery Edwards conducted in his clients sexual molestation cases Obviously the propriety of this discovery has been challenged by Epstein since December when Epstein filed this malicious lawsuit claiming inter alia that he had somehow been damaged by Edwardss litigation conduct in those cases despite the absolute litigation privilege In fact the Court need look no further than Epsteins Summary of Action in the Complaint which includes the following allegations Attorney Scott Rothstein aided by other lawyers at the firm of Rothstein Rosenfeldt and Adler P.A for personal greed and enrichment in betrayal of the ethical legal and fiduciary duties to their own clients and professional obligations to the administrative of justice conducted egregious civil litigation abuses that resulted in profoundly serious injury to Jeffrey Epstein The misconduct featured the filing of legal motions and the pursuit of a civil litigation strategy that was unrelated to the merits or value of their clients cases As a result Epstein was subject to abusive investigatory tactics unprincipled media attacks and unsupportable legal filings Specific allegations concerning Edwards purported litigation misconduct are replete throughout the December Complaint See e.g I alleged improper pursuit of Edwards adv Epstein Case No Response in Opposition to Epsteins Renewed Motion for Leave to Disclose Expert Witness flight logs alleged improper depositions of pilots alleged improper scheduling of depositions of well-known figures Thus any purported expert testimony concermng Edwards litigation strategy and conduct in the three victims cases assuming it has any relevance in light of the litigation privilege has been challenged by Epstein since No recent ruling of the Court has impacted in any way on this subject matter so as to give rise to a previously unrecognized need for expert testimony and Edwards would be highly prejudiced in having to depose Smith at this juncture and reopen discovery in a case that has been ready for trial since March Epstein Has Been on Notice of the Attorney Witnesses Since To the extent Smith is intended to rebut testimony offered by the unretained and unpaid attorney witnesses who may provide expert opinion as to the propriety of and justification for Edwardss litigation conduct in the underlying victim cases Epstein has been aware of Edwardss intent to call these witnesses since at least Specifically Edwards witness lists over the years have included the following disclosures a June Witness List All attorneys currently prosecuting claims against Jeffrey Epstein on behalf of other victims June Witness List All attorneys currently prosecution claims against Jeffrey Epstein on behalf of other victims and Robert Josefsberg Esquire September Amended Expert Witness List Edwards adv Epstein Case No Response in Opposition to Epsteins Renewed Motion for Leave to Disclose Expert Witness Experts include all listed attorneys involved in the prosecution of civil claims against Jeffrey Epstein arising out of Epsteins serial abuse of minor females They will testify based upon their background training and experience as civil litigators and the personal involvement that each had in prosecuting claims against Jeffrey Epstein about the legal and ethical propriety of the actions taken by Bradley Edwards in fulfilling the obligations to the victims of Epsteins criminal assaults January Amended and Supplemental Witness List All attorneys currently prosecution claims against Jeffrey Epstein on behalf of other victims and Robert Josefsberg Esquire Experts include all listed witnesses involved in the prosecution of civil claims against Jeffrey Epstein arising out of Epsteins serial abuse of minor females January Amended Expert Witness List Experts include all listed attorneys involved in the prosecution of civil claims against Jeffrey Epstein arising out of Epsteins serial abuse of minor females They will testify based upon their background training and experience as civil litigators and the personal involvement that each had in prosecuting claims against Jeffrey Epstein about the legal and ethical propriety of the actions taken by Bradley Edwards in fulfilling the obligations to the victims of Epsteins criminal assaults August Second Amended and Supplemental Witness List All attorneys currently prosecution claims against Jeffrey Epstein on behalf of other victims and Robert Josefsberg Esquire Experts include all listed witnesses involved in the prosecution of civil claims against Jeffrey Epstein arising out of Epsteins serial abuse of minor females The attorneys who were obviously known to Epstein since the day he was served with civil complaints were nevertheless individually named in subsequent witness lists There can Edwards adv Epstein Case No Response in Opposition to Epsteins Renewed Motion for Leave to Disclose Expert Witness therefore be no claim that Epstein was not aware that these witnesses were expected to testify and he has had years to take discovery related to their expected testimony Tellingly he as never attempted to depose even one of them Whether Probable Cause Existed an Issue in This Case Since at Least is a Question of Law for the Court Absent a disputed material fact whether Epstein had probable cause to initiate or continue his claims against Edwards is an issue of law to be determined by the Court Florida law is clear An expert should not be allowed to testify concerning questions of law Edward Seibert A.IA Architect Planner P.A Bayport Beach Tennis Club Assn Inc So 2d Fla 2d DCA citing Devin City of Hollywood So 2d Fla 4th DCA Thus Smiths purported opinions on whether probable cause existed are improper and irrelevant And again whether Jeffrey Epstein had probable cause to initiate and continue his malicious claims against Edwards has been an issue in this case for years and Edwards specifically pled a count for malicious prosecution in his Amended Counterclaim October Second Amended Counterclaim November Third Amended Counterclaim May and Fourth Amended Counterclaim January Epstein therefore had at a minimum six years to take discovery on the issue of probable cause prior to the discovery deadline on November Any prejudice for his failure to do so is therefore entirely self-inflicted Edwards Has Pied Reputational Damages in Every Counterclaim in this Case Edwards adv Epstein Case No Response in Opposition to Epsteins Renewed Motion for Leave to Disclose Expert Witness Epstein has been on notice of Edwards reputational damages claim smce December when Edwards filed his initial counterclaim Moreover reputational damages were pled in the Malicious Prosecution counts in Edwards Amended Counterclaim October Second Amended Counterclaim November Third Amended Counterclaim May and Fourth Amended Counterclaim January Any discovery related to this issue could and should have been conducted years ago Once again any claimed prejudice is entirely self-inflicted Conclusion For the foregoing reasons Epsteins Renewed Motion for Leave to Disclose Expert Witness should be denied Edwards adv Epstein Case No Response in Opposition to Epsteins Renewed Motion for Leave to Disclose Expert Witness 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 JO of July 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 Renewed Motion for Leave to Disclose Expert Witness Bradley Edwards Esquire staff.efile pathtojustice.com Andrews A venue 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 One Broward Blvd Suite Edwards adv Epstein Case No Response in Opposition to Epsteins Renewed Motion for Leave to Disclose Expert Witness 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 H?o I Idc rM?M rM 10Cy f헊?f?Tz e?e:Aa I v"x i X5 EO5 5a r?q CX 9r Cy rq rqC M3 ş?:c p/p0 5H V)V 6T Y2 G5 qrM?r?qr?r9 q?10Cy rCX qr l1 X?l 3K fm?Q Z2f CX CX gT L??T 2E Cy 3P EM3 J4T L?h??M q?ᡚ?Y r??O?rJt CTX i P!e i I CTX rC YY I 1e 2j CTX X0T1i k3v Jh/e0h1 H(K W/Q0 CTX j?!k 5B r2 CTX A A A 4v z"p A A A0A?A AK CTX A A?!k CX qCX YCX i!d A fi8 l8 yuZ 6L pH m?c sP;0 6ZR Ni P0 0Q X(P0s s(s p0 Pp CTX qq dR B/J Va A 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
