Filing E-Filed PM 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 COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEINS RESPONSE TO COUNTER-PLAINTIFF BRADLEY EDWARDS MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF TRIAL ORDER AND CROSS MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein Epstein responds to the Motion for Clarification of Trial Order filed by Counter-Plaintiff Bradley Edwards Edwards on August and cross moves seeking clarification of the Courts Trial Order and states INTRODUCTION This Court properly established new pre-trial deadlines in its August Order Setting Jury Trial the Trial Order because this is the first trial setting on Edwards severed claims and the trial of the severed claims is special set in December The only clarification needed is how the deadlines should be calculated That is the Trial Order establishes deadlines based on calendar call yet does not set forth a calendar call date Epstein seeks clarification that the deadlines should logically be calculated from the first day of trial i.e December as the Court has done in three trial orders in the past FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL SHARON BOCK CLERK PM RESPONSE TO EDWARDS MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION Within an hour of the Courts issuance of the Trial Order Edwards filed his Motion for Clarification seeking clarification that it was not the Courts intent to reopen discovery Without conferring Edwards counsel noticed the Motion for a UMC hearing on August While Epstein agrees that the Court may limit discovery Epstein disagrees that no discovery should be conducted as explained more fully below Further while not addressed specifically in the Motion Edwards has also taken the position that the parties should neither exchange new Exhibit and Witness Lists nor file a new Pre-Trial Stipulation Epstein also disagrees with these positions EPSTEINS CROSS MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION A This is the First Trial Setting on Edwards Severed Claims For the more than eight years this case has been pending and as set forth in the parties December Pre-Trial Stipulation Epsteins claim against Rothstein and Edwards claim against Epstein were going to be tried together On March just days before the scheduled trial date Edwards for the first time asked that the claims be severed At the March hearing on Edwards Motion and as memorialized in its March Order the Court granted that request Epstein sought certiorari review but the decision was upheld by the Fourth District Court of Appeal without prejudice to Epsteins ability to appeal that decision later 1n the Notice of Hearing Edwards counsel certified that he had spoken in person or by telephone with Epsteins counsel before noticing the matter for hearing however no such communication ever took place before the Notice was filed After the fact Epsteins counsel opposed setting the matter for a UMC hearing on August because another issue is already set that day and Epsteins counsel did not believe ten minutes is sufficient time to address both issues Edwards counsel refused Epsteins counsels suggestion to have the matter heard at the August hearing The Court would be well within its authority to refuse to consider Edwards Motion for Clarification based on Edwards counsels unprofessional failure to confer All of the parties previously filed pre-trial documents Exhibit Lists Witness Lists Rebuttal Witness Lists Expert Disclosures Pre-Trial Stipulation Deposition Designations Jury Instructions and Verdict Forms were prepared and are based on the claims proceeding together The Court properly established new deadlines in the Trial Order to allow the parties to file new pre-trial documents based on the severed claims and new trial date The Trial Order however established deadlines based on calendar call yet does not set forth a calendar call date Epstein seeks clarification that the Court logically intended for the deadlines to be calculated based on the trial date as follows Deadline Calculation Due Date Exhibit Lists Witness Lists Expert days before trial October Witness Lists Expert Disclosures Rebuttal Witness Lists days before trial October Objections to Exhibits Parties to Meet days before trial November and Confer to Discuss Settlement and Prepare Pre-Trial Stipulation Pre-Trial Stipulation Deposition days before trial November Designations Discovery Deadline Counter days before trial November Deposition Designations Objections to Deposition Designations Mediation Before trial December Limited Discovery Should be Allowed Epstein is not seeking to open the flood gates to conduct extensive discovery However in light of the passage of time and the fact that the trial will now be on Edwards claim only limited deposition discovery is needed i Epstein is Entitled to an Updated Deposition Regarding Edwards Damages The Courts October Order on Epsteins Motion to Strike Edwards Discovery Objections and Compel Responses allowed Epstein to take Edwards deposition to ask among other things questions concerning Edwards alleged damages Exhibit A Order Exhibit Hearing Tr Pursuant to those rulings Edwards deposition was conducted on November As to damages Edwards testified What were your damages on December 21st A It was the same types of damages that I am claiming now in that the complaint that was filed against me was and it was intentionally designed to link me to Scott Rothstein Since that point in time those damages have continued to increase But they began right from the time that this was filed So whatever damages whatever cause of damage that I was seeking back then its the same thing as now And I asked you earlier if the dismissal of that lawsuit stopped the damages that you are claiming and you said No it carries all the way on to today A It carries on until a jury decides otherwise decides that these things against me were untrue and hurtful Exhibit Edwards Depo Tr emphasis added Simply put Edwards is seeking damages through trial Because trial is now set for a time more than one year after Edwards November deposition Epstein seeks a very narrowed updated deposition limited to two hours on Edwards claims of damages sustained after his November deposition Clearly this is information Epstein needs and is entitled to ii Epstein is Entitled to Take Virginia Roberts Giuffres Deposition Should the Court Allow her to Testify at Trial On April Edwards and his counsel conducted a telephone interview of Virginia Roberts Giuffre Ms Roberts Epsteins counsel did not attend participate in or know about the interview While Ms Roberts brought tort claims against Epstein she was not one of Edwards three clients On May Edwards filed an unofficial transcript of Ms Roberts April interview in support of his Motion for Leave to Amend to Assert a Punitive Damages Claim In December Epstein served a discovery request seeking witness statements you intend to use in this case which included recordings of sound Edwards responded that none existed which was not true and failed to produce the April audio tape At the November hearing the Court determined that it would allow Edwards to present evidence concerning his three clients E.W L.M and Jane Doe claims and general evidence about the number of other claims and Edwards role in litigating those matters of other tort claims who were not represented by Edwards Exhibit Tr Exhibit Tr Epstein interprets this to mean that other tort claimants including Ms Roberts would not be allowed to testify at trial about their specific claims Edwards counsel however advised the Court that Ms Roberts in fact would be testifying at trial Epsteins counsel then made an ore tenus motion to be allowed to take Ms Roberts deposition but that request was not granted Exhibit Tr Whether the Court currently intends to permit Ms Roberts to testify at trial is unclear In light of the Courts rulings on January Epsteins counsel asked Edwards counsel for a copy of the audio tape Failing to provide it on February Epstein moved to compel and set the motion for hearing On March the day before the hearing on the Motion to Compel Edwards produced the audio tape Epstein hired a court reporter to prepare a certified transcript of the audio tape The court reporter found discrepancies between the unofficial transcript that Edwards filed with the Court in May and the audio tape These discrepancies bolster Epsteins need to take Ms Roberts deposition if she will be testifying against him at trial If the Court is going to allow Ms Roberts to testify at trial then Epstein will be prejudiced if he is not allowed to take her deposition in this matter to question her about issues raised by the audio tape among other things Establishing New Deadlines Moots Pending Motions There are twenty-two matters currently set for hearing on August The following Motions however can be resolved by allowing the parties to adhere to the new pre-trial deadline schedule because new Exhibit and Witness Lists will be filed No Matter Set for Hearin2 Edwards Motion in Limine Addressing the Admissibility of Exhibit No New York Post article Epsteins Motion in Limine on Edwards Newly Disclosed Trial Exhibits and to Exclude Deposition Testimony of Witnesses Who Were not Deposed in this Matter Epsteins Motion to Allow Amendment to Exhibit List Epsteins Motion for Leave to Disclose Expert Witnesses That is according to the August Trial Order because the Court is allowing the parties to file new Exhibit and Witness Lists then issues relating to the parties prior Exhibit and Witness Lists are moot The Court Re-Established Deadlines in the Past While this is the first trial setting of Edwards severed claims this Court has established new deadlines almost every time the trial of all claims was set as follows Date of First Day of Special New Deadlines Judge Order Trial Docket Docket Docket Yes based on Crow Calendar Call Date of First Day of Special New Deadlines Judge Order Trial Docket Docket Docket No Crow Docket Yes based on Crow Calendar Call Special Yes based on Crow Trial Special Yes based on Crow Trial Docket Yes based on Hafele Calendar Call Docket Yes based on Hafele Calendar Call Special Yes based on Hafele Trial Special No Hafele Establishing new deadlines based on a new trial date and Edwards severed claims is the proper thing to do and Edwards will not be prejudiced See infra Binger King Pest Control So 2d Fla Gaspars Passage LLC RaceTrac Petroleum Inc So 3d Fla 2d DCA Beck Holloway So 2d Fla 1st DCA Fla Civ If the court finds the action ready to be set for trial it shall enter an order fixing a date for trial 15th Jud Cir Admin Order Sept providing that the form attached to the order except for time deadlines requiring an exchange of lists of exhibits and witnesses before calendar call shall constitute the uniform pretrial orders for circuit court civil actions emphasis added The Circuits form pretrial order further provides that at trial the parties shall be strictly limited to exhibits and witnesses disclosed and objections reserved on the schedules attached to the Pre-Trial Stipulation prepared in accordance with paragraphs and absent agreement specifically stated in in the Pre-Trial Stipulation or order of the Court upon good cause shown It is an Abuse of the Courts Discretion if it Does Not Consider the New Trial Date in Relation to What Exhibits the Parties May Use at Trial The Trial Order requires the parties to file new Exhibit and Witness Lists This is the way it should be Under Binger and its progeny any limitation on the use of exhibits that does not consider the new trial date and specifically the lack of prejudice to Edwards would be an abuse of this Courts otherwise broad discretion The principles of and analysis required by Binger apply to trial exhibits as well as a witnes testimony Although a judge has broad discretion in determining whether to exclude evidence due to a partys failure to disclose the evidence within the time required by a pretrial order the exclusion of such evidence is a drastic remedy which should pertain in only the most compelling circumstances and only after the judge has made a case-specific determination as to whether admission of the evidence would result in actual procedural prejudice to the objecting party Med Logistics Inc Marchines So 2d Fla 1st DCA see also Tomlinson McKenzie Prince So 2d Fla 4th DCA noting that the courts discretion in such an analysis should be guided primarily by whether the objecting party would be prejudiced by the admission of the evidence An objecting party is prejudiced by the admission of evidence that was not timely disclosed if the party might have taken some action to protect itself had it had timely notice of the witness or exhibit and there exists no other alternative to alleviate the prejudice Id As explained in Binger the Court should also consider the objecting partys ability to cure the prejudice its independent knowledge of an exhibit the moving partys possible intentional or bad faith noncompliance with a pretrial order and possible disruption of the orderly and efficient trial of the case Id Importantly an objecting party may not having closed its eyes to the existence of evidence prior to trial claim that the admission of that evidence would disrupt the orderly and efficient trial of the case Id These principles are highlighted in the recent case of Gaspars Passage LLC RaceTrac Petroleum Inc So 3d Fla 2d DCA In Gaspars Passage the appellate court reversed a million judgment because the trial court had erred by refusing to permit the appellant to add additional witnesses or exhibits after granting a continuance of the trial Id at Specifically the trial court had continued a trial to allow the defendant/counter-claimant RaceTrac to add additional parties to its complaint Before the new trial the court suggested the parties were starting from where they stopped id at and that Gaspar could not start adding new exhibits or experts Three months before the new trial Gaspar noticed its intent to have the court consider its request to designate an expert witness on the issue of damages and take the deposition of RaceTracs expert witness The trial court again suggested that Gaspar was sort of stuck with what happened with the attorney that they hired back at the beginning and in large part granted a motion to strike filed by RaceTrac Id at Later Gaspar moved to amend its exhibit list seeking to add documents it claimed were relevant to all claims and defenses such as notices of proposed property taxes emails land surveys a brokers opinion of value and an environmental site investigation report Id Notably Gaspars counsel had pointed out that some of these documents were public records The court did not permit Gaspar to amend its exhibit list on the grounds that you cant include stuff as documents youre going to use at trial that youve never provided Id The Second District reversed the substantial judgment for RaceTrac concluding with regard to Gaspars ability to use the exhibits The trial court also abused its discretion by denying Gaspars motion to amend its exhibit list in August several weeks before trial The intended exhibits became relevant as a result of the amended pleadings but again the trial court failed to conduct the required prejudice analysis before denying the motion Ultimately the trial court agreed with RaceTracs hearsay and gamesmanship arguments concluding that Gaspar was not entitled to add additional exhibits that youve never provided But a finding that a party engaged in gamesmanship is not the equivalent of a finding that RaceTrac would be prejudiced by the addition of the exhibits Further if as Gaspars counsel alleged some of the exhibits were public record RaceTrac would have difficulty establishing prejudice Indeed the transcript reflects that RaceTrac was aware of at least the property appraiser records-which are public record-because its expert had relied on a report that incorporated those records Id at citations and parenthetical explanations omitted See also Beck Holloway So 2d Fla 1st DCA reversing a trial courts exclusion of surveillance video evidence of the plaintiff that was disclosed four weeks before trial based on issues associated with a fifth videotape where there was no possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff the videotape the defense sought to introduce in evidence had been fully disclosed and was listed as an exhibit Gaspars Passage-and a long line of cases before it-establish that the trial courts discretion to preclude a party from using exhibits at trial based on timing concerns cannot be exercised in a vacuum In the present case the Courts ruling on March that Epstein would not be permitted to use certain exhibits based on concerns of trial efficiency because trial was slated to begin the following week is irrelevant to where the parties stand in relation to the current trial date To the extent the purpose of Edwards Motion for Clarification is to attempt to impose any limitations on Epsteins ability to use exhibits at trial or call witnesses based on the timeline of this matter the acceptance of such an argument would be an abuse of discretion Because four months remain before trial the Courts Trial Order properly allows both parties to submit new Exhibit and Witness Lists as attachments to the forthcoming Pre-trial Stipulation Florida case law Analogously some of Epsteins exhibits that Edwards takes issue with in the present case are also public records the Rules of Civil Procedure and even the Local Rules of this Circuit demonstrate that there is no prejudice to Edwards from this standard procedure Allowing New Pre-Trial Filings Will Ensure a Fair Trial The trial of this case should focus on uncovering the truth related to Edwards claim against Epstein which Edwards contends is directly related to the truth of Epsteins claims against Rothstein and Edwards not about hiding relevant evidence Allowing the parties to file new pre trial documents in accordance with the Trial Order will achieve this goal and ensure a fair trial That is the parties will be able to present evidence that goes to the very heart of Edwards allegations Edwards should not oppose this request because he has taken the position that he has nothing to hide For instance during motions practice concerning the documents gathered in response to the Subpoena to the Trustee for Rothstein Rosenfeld and Adler Edwards counsel made the following statement as much as we might like to take all of this and put it on the floor in the courtroom for Your Honor and everybody else in the world to take a look at because we have nothing to hide we cant do that Hearing Tr emphasis added Exhibit Furthermore Edwards will not be prejudiced if the parties are allowed to file new Exhibit and Witness Lists The Trial Order gives the parties days advance notice before trial for the exchange of Exhibit and Witness Lists This is a reasonable amount of time before trial and will not prejudice the parties In addition Epstein has already identified and provided Edwards with a substantial number of exhibits he may use at trial Therefore there will be no surprise and it would be an abuse of this Courts discretion not to allow the parties to file new Exhibit and Witness Lists and other pre-trial documents pursuant to the Trial Orders deadlines As Epstein shows in greater detail above the seminal Florida Supreme Court case of Binger King Pest Control So 2d Fla placed a limitation on trial courts discretion however broad to exclude witnesses and exhibits at trial on timeliness grounds The Supreme Court in Binger explained that the following factors must always be considered when a party seeks to introduce relevant and admissible evidence at trial The discretion to exclude an undisclosed witness must not be exercised blindly however and should be guided largely by a determination as to whether use of the undisclosed witness will prejudice the opposing party Prejudice in this sense refers to the surprise in fact of the objecting party and it is not dependent on the adverse nature of the testimony or evidence Other factors which may enter into the trial courts exercise of its discretion are i the objecting partys ability to cure the prejudice or similarly his independent knowledge of the existence of the witness or evidence ii the calling partys possible intentional or bad faith noncompliance with the pretrial order and i the possible disruption and efficient trial of the case or other cases If after considering these factors and any others that are relevant the trial court concludes that use of the undisclosed witness will not substantially endanger the fairness of the proceeding the pretrial order mandating disclosure should be modified and the witness or evidence should be allowed to testify or be introduced Binger So 2d at A Binger analysis demonstrates that it would be an abuse of this Courts discretion not to allow additional exhibits and witnesses given the time remaining before trial Because four months remain before trial and because the exhibits were provided to Edwards in March five months ago there is no surprise in fact to Edwards from anything that Epstein is now permitted to disclose in accordance with the Trial Order Thus whether Edwards can cure anything is not even an issue The true reason Edwards does not want the Court to establish new deadlines is because he wants to thwart Epsteins efforts for a fair trial As the Court is aware Epsteins new counsel made efforts to review and identify trial exhibits Once Edwards became aware that Epstein planned to use evidence that is detrimental to his claim he has taken extreme efforts to keep that evidence out of the jurys view These tactics should no longer be allowed Rather the parties should be allowed to file new pre-trial documents based on Edwards severed claims in accordance with the Courts new Trial Order Epstein recognizes that the Court must still make rulings concerning the exhibits that Edwards claims are privileged Epstein is not trying to circumvent the Courts prior rulings on those matters and will not be listing them as exhibits until the Court orders that he can use those documents at trial CONCLUSION This Court properly established new pre-trial deadlines on Edwards severed claims Epstein respectfully requests that the Court uphold those new deadlines but clarify the Trial Order to establish that the calculations are based on the trial date Epstein asks the Court to confirm that its Trial Order allows the parties to file new Exhibit Lists Witness Lists Expert Witness Lists Expert Disclosures Rebuttal Witness Lists Jury Instructions Verdict Forms Objections to Exhibits Deposition Designations4 Objections to Deposition Designations Counter Deposition Designations and the Pre-Trial Stipulation in accordance with the schedule set forth above Epstein also asks that discovery be reopened for the limited purpose of taking Edwards deposition on damages from November to the present for no more than two hours and Ms Roberts deposition if a possibility remains that the Court will permit her to testify at trial Epstein suggests that the parties only file deposition designations for new depositions CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that the foregoing document has been furnished to the attorneys listed on the Service List below on August 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 ffrey 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 Filing E-Filed PM JEFFREY EPSTEIN Paiiltiff vs SCOTT ROTHSTEIN individuaUy BRADLEY EDWARDS individually anq L.M individually Defendant IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY FLORIDA CASE NO ORDER ON COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPST-E OTION TO STRIKE EDWARDS DISCOVERY OBJECTIONS ANih OMPEL RESPONSES THIS CAUSE having 267come to be considered UNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEINS MOTION TO STRIKE EDWA RESPONSES and the Court having revi,ev.z VERY OBJECTIONS AND COMPEL I Ile and being fuily advised in the premises it is.hereby _ORDERED.and-ADJ said motion is DENIED However Jeffrey Epstein shall i ma raise such objections as he considers are appropriate to the specific The deposition shall take place wfrhin the next days ORDERED at West Palm Beach Palm Beach 267county Florida this A vt I Copies have been furnished to an counsel on he attached unsel list FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL SHARON BOCK CLERK PM EXHIBIT 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 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS VOLUME II DATE TAKEN Tuesday OcEo15er 3ra Z0T7 a.m p.m TIME PLACE BEFORE Dixie Highway Room l0C 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 has to be proven as well Lets look at the questions Lets scroll down a little bit and see if we might be able to find a reasonable median so as to get this moving MS HADDAD COLEMAN Im sorry Your Honor what you are looking at THE COURT Im looking at the unverified responses that were filed recently MR SCAROLA As to which theres no motion pending presently Your Honor THE COURT Well what I was going to say is we can do this by or we can do this now It was recently filed I understand there may not be motion pending as far as these are concerned I would like to get them done because I am going to order that Mr Edwards be redeposed IT going fQ oroer tiaf 1mayJ IQ quesfioned ID jJJ relat::e:s fQ tie 1b dl 1probal:5Te cause areas Qt inguiryJ tiaf nave CearlTer eaTtJ 1w i--c:n Ana ru also going fQ oroer t:naf tesflfyj ana IQ examined regaraing t:lie Palm Beach Reporting Service Inc amag t:na I aTlegeary sustained resuTt t:lfe 1rnaTicious 1prosecu-ci::om claim So he would be required to be forthcoming I thought that we may be able to save a little time if we go through these interrogatories and determine what may be appropriate and what may not be appropriate because there may be areas that I believe are far too private and of that nature so that I could save you the trouble of having to come back But if theres a due process issue of notice then I have no problem with waiting for another day MR SCAROLA Your Honor I am pleased to try to proceed as far as we can with the understanding that I havent even had an opportunity to consult with my client about any motion to compel because there is no motion to compel But I agree weve got some time available I would prefer not to waste that time I would strongly prefer that we can resolve whatever issues need to be resolved so that if theres further discovery to be 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 vs SCOTT ROTHSTEIN individually BRADLEY EDWARDS individually Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs I VOLUME I VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF BRA:DLEY EDWKRD Taken on Behalf of Plaintiff Friday Novernl5er T0TII;J Z0T7 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 MR SCAROLA So far you havent asked one that Im going to let him answer MR LINK Thats fine BY MR LINK Y.our amages sir wnat were Y.our amag on Decem.15"er Zffo-9 was QI same t_yQ amag GD am c.laiming now in QI complaint was fTiecl _gainst me was ana CTI intentionally esignea IQ _linK me S,co:-IT RoEnstein wno I moment was QJJ most ha tea person in SouEn FlorTa.a ill linK filJID ill was as il S,co:-IT RoEnstein ana GD tQgetner were running Enis P_onzT CS:Cneme:J Q3 Ana IT ill CTI Jgr Epstein ia Enis CD I time wnen every_one every_one CTI lo 260Cci"Tly E3 ana as saia nationally was ing CT attention EQ story so as cause QI most amag possib"l::e STnce point in tJili Ell"o"se amag have continued increase Eney 0J fiQ QI CE!IT was ITlecl.:J Sp wnatever ll amages wnatever cause amag GD was see:J.cing CD bacK Enen QI same Ening as now I got it So its the filing of the complaint that caused damages not its being Palm Beach Reporting Service Inc remember a specific conversation like that Well the lawsuit Mr Epstein filed against you was dismissed in A Three years later okay ill s:Keci ear"l"Ter il Dlli ismissal CZ Q1 lawsuit t_Qpped Dlli amag are claiming and NQJ carries aTl Dlli wayJ on cru Eooa:v 243QID rememlS"er Efil"Iing me EnaT carries on until Gury ecTa.es Q:Enerwise QJJ ecTa.es Ell"e"s"e Ening _gainst me were untrue and ru hurtTITl What I have been asking you is you filed a counterclaim on December 15th days after the lawsuit was filed And I am trying when that A its A A A I think thats 7th to the 21st The 17th is when its filed The 21st is stamped Oh it is Okay Whether its the 17th or the 21st Okay Ones ones 14th right Yeah Very soon after Had you been contacted by the press during window to ask you questions about 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 vs SCOTT ROTHSTEIN individually BRADLEY EDWARDS individually Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs I TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS DATE TAKEN TIME Wednesday November 29th a.m p.m PLACE BEFORE Dixie Highway Room l0C 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 specifically on this aspect of the case because one of the things that the defense is attempting to exclude is any reference to anything other than L.M E.W and Jane Doe cases Your Honor sug9ested and I thoug that I heard you correctly that evidence with regard to other claims actually filed gainst E2stein would be relevant and material And clearly it is THE COURT I believe what I said was those cases filed by Mr Edwards or anyj claims that were made against E2stein by_ii lient re2resented by Mr Edwards Tell me why you think that the aggregate cases not having anything to do with Mr Edwards representation or Rothstein firms representation because Mr Berger I think was involved in some respects as well MR SCAROLA Co-counsel THE COURT Solely as co-counsel I believe that to be the case are you suggesting that the aggregate cases would be relevant PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC publicize and to sensationalize the circumstances so as to increase the value of at least the claims that were held by the Rothstein firm MR SCAROLA Which I think is what every lawyer is supposed to do within the bounds of propriety obviously But our job is to maximize the value of our clients claims THE COURT And on the other side of the coin is Mr Edwards taking the position that the impetus or an impetus for filing the complaint at bar was the exposure of Mr Epstein once again to the ignominy of having to face the publicity of a non-prosecutorial agreement where there were admissions where there were agreements perhaps not admissions but agreements that limited the prosecution of him as it relates to multiple claimants or multiple potential victims again my ruling on that is if thercl fure questions that have to do with thi tissue globally they will be allowed to bcl fusked subject to further argument as itj PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC relates to the multi2licity of the numerous bictims that we are dealing with here as allegii4 Same as it goes with this 234-page federal complaint If there were any questions that were asked of Mr Epstein where he refused to answer on Fifth Amendment grounds I find that the information would be relevant Therefore his failure to answer would be would be able to be utilized if such questions were asked of him regarding the 234-page federal complaint filed on behalf of L.M by Mr Edwards MR SCAROLA Let me just clarify one point and that is we have been focusing on questions that have already been asked of Mr Epstein Obviously we have the right to call Mr Epstein as an adverse witness We have the right to put him in that witness chair in front of the jury and to ask him questions that Your Honor has considered to be appropriate that may not have been asked at the time of his deposition So I want to make it clear that we PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC complaint include the transport of Jane Doe Number on Mr Epsteins private jets to various homes owned by Mr Epstein in various locations inside and outside the United States THE COURT Shes exr2ected to be a witness MR SCAROLA Yes sir THE COURT Live witness MR SCAROLA Live THE COURT At this point Im going to find that if in fact she is a witness that it would be cumulative and hence I am going to sustain the objection on those grounds MR SCAROLA May I just finish my argument as to why this complaint was of significance Because she does she does allege in the complaint that she was molested onboard the airplane and that she was prostituted out to third parties onboard the airplane which provided the basis for Mr Edwards seeking airplane logs and the testimony of pilots and the testimony of others identified in the flight logs as PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC being present on the plane THE COURT Thats fine I dont have a problem with Mr Edwards testifying If it becomes an issue in terms of credibility or whatever it might be then I will take another look at it But on the basis of the arguments that I have heard the objection is sustained for the reasons that I provided MR SCAROLA Understood Thank you sir MS ROCKENBACH Your Honor before we Ueave based on Your Honors ruling I woul make an ore tenus motion for leave to de yfrginia Roberts because now it has become clear that she is to be testifyJ:.gg ased on Mr Scarolas statement and Yourj Honors ruling:J THE COURT Wasnt she scheduled to ome to court from Australia asnt thatj the lady.1 MR SCAROLA Thats where shes living:J She was scheduled to come to court She was available to be de2osed 2reviously_J ttfuiy chose not to take her de2osition She PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC fuas been listed as a witness for years ifil this matter THE COURT You have to do a written otion I want to be consistent witfil what I said recently and that is that its fuot the continuance is not and I 2hasize not designed to be a wholesale 2ening of discovery that the Court would ffake that UR on an issue-by-issue basisJ but without 2re-deciding thing unless it can be demonstrated to the Court that ffhere was unavailability that there was aj late filing that there was some ty2e of inability of a witness to testify something along those lines These witnesses have been listed for a lengthy period of time Again this was not the purpose of the motion that was filed and it was not the import of the order of the Court Lets talk about number seven MS ROCKENBACH Messages taken from message pads found at Mr Epsteins home THE COURT What do the messages say MR SCAROLA They relate to arranging 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 vs SCOTT ROTHSTEIN individually BRADLEY EDWARDS individually Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs I TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS DATE TAKEN TIME PLACE BEFORE Thursday December Ql::tf;J Z0T7J a.m p.m Dixie Highway Room llB 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 that were brought by Edwards clients E.W L.M and Jane Doe were relevant So I just wanted for the record to be definitive in that we are not trying the other claims that may have been represented by other attorneys like Mr Scarola Mr Josefsberg because they would be not only irrelevant they would be very prejudicial to my client receiving a fair trial THE COURT Mr Scarola MR SCAROLA It is not my intent to get into the merits of any of the other claims However because motive is clearly relevant and material and because malice is relevant and material both with regard to the primary claim and with regard to the punitive damages claim we respectfully suggest that it is error if we were not permitted to talk about what Mr Epsteins motive was for taking the extraordinary step of filing a baseless claim against Bradley Edwards THE COURT WeTl until We Cg LlJi.tQ Palm Beach Reporting Service Inc C2 CD IQ QJJ ru CD Q3 CD cm I em 0J TI TI 615viouslv nat mayJ Qn s:Keci Q1 Mr Eawarcl.s ana tMQ pstein principaTly on Ene"se cases or Ene"se issues lTI:l lo15al ora.er Q1 E!I CQrrJ wQITla Ell"o"se incl.Iviaual c.laims wQITla su15J iscussion as E!I merits as Scaroli IT tipulatecl However It felates botn cause motive ana al ice E!I mmjoer Q1 claims ITI:I.1 is Ring terms Q1 vpTume Mr pstein was facing E!I time IT broug E!I suit ana continued E!I prosecution Q1 suit wQITla levant::J Sp Enat":s E!I istinction being r:awm QY E!I Court E!I etail E!I merits natever mayJ have iscoverea as It Iates Ell"o"se cases wQITla incl.Iviaual"l_yJ aa.rni ib7-"e in ey:Ta.e or By Q1 Ell"o"se et a i rfl om Ell"o"se case However as E!I sneer urnoer Q1 cases may levant tena prove Qn isprove material It rates p:fJ515afil"e cause ana malice Sp Enat":s EQ ecision Next issue please Palm Beach Reporting Service Inc C2 CD IQ QJJ ru CD Q3 MR SCAROLA Excuse me May I also ask for this clarification Your Honor WlTl we permi ttea is cuss DI Eawaras aa Cfal i leaclersfilp ron ill coora.inating DI prosecution Q1 aTl Q1 Elmse C_laims is CTI was CTI was mTfiecl eTf on DI Q1 ulTipTe firms Eawaras was playing leaclersfilp role nich CTe:9 15asis focus tipon Eawaras because Q1 leaclersfilp le 1ill COURT_ Ga Ellaf:;s basea on fact Ellen 15eiieve CTI WQITTii WQITTii 15Te cm cintroa.uce Enat:;J MR SCAROLA Thank you sir THE COURT Because again it tends to prove or disprove a material fact i.e probable cause motive malice Again whether or not the jury accepts that its going to be up to the jury to accept it reject it give it the weight it deserves or to infer anything that they reasonably believe would be inferrible as a result of that information The next issue please Palm Beach Reporting Service Inc EXHIBIT JEFFREY EPSTEIN Plaintiff vs IN THE CIRCUIT COURT 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY FLORIDA CASE NO CA SCOTT ROTHSTEIN individually BRADLEY EDWARDS individually And L.M individually Defendants HEARING BEFORE DATE TAKEN TIME PLACE REPORTED BY HONORABLE DAVID CROW July a.m to p.m Palm Beach County Courthouse Dixie Highway Room 9C West Palm Beach Florida Kathleen Ames RPR ORANGE REPORTING attorney-client privilege Unlike the Fifth Amendment privilege which is controlled by Mr Epstein much as we might like to take all of this and put it on the floor this courtroom for Your Honor and every.!2.2.QY else in th world to take a look at because we have nothing to hide we cant do that THE COURT I understand that MR SCAROLA Okay So were obliged to assert our privilege THE COURT Its not your privilege MR SCAROLA We are obliged to assert the privilege on behalf of our clients Not only on behalf the clients who we represented whose claims were settled but also because that same information is relevant and of material to ongoing claims against Mr Epstein we must protect the work-product privilege as well because of the obligation that we have to protect the interests of those other clients Thats the position that we are in Now before we ever get to questions about privilege and an obligation to prepare a privilege log and an in camera inspection the threshold issue is relevance And it was as a consequence of Your Honors recognition of the fact that there was a threshold relevance issue that Your Honor stayed enforcement of any subpoena or production request in this Court until such time as the pleadings were clarified ORANGE REPORTING 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 N?q qr NEeD K?i N?M?qr EeD k??O d6 I I i i CTX 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
