spirit and letter of the law by filing a motion for in camera inspection of a generic quality and leaving the substantive discussion of those e-mails under seal by way of memorandum This is precisely what was accomplished by Epstein Disappointingly Edwards prefers that Epstein be silenced from making any appellate record which simply is not the law Edwards unmeritorious Motion to Strike must be denied EPSTEINS COMPLIANCE WITH THE COURTS NOVEMBER HEARING After ruling that Epstein would not be allowed to use certain exhibits identified since March on his Clerks Trial Exhibit List under a Binger analysis this Court raised the pending issue of the e-mails that Edwards claims are privileged and Epsteins pending request for an in camera review As to those documents the Court found I think that they do have a bit of a different connotation and import as it relates to whether or not late-filed because if they were contained in the privilege log its very difficult to suggest that there would be prejudice as to knowledge on the part of those documents being potentially utilized Hearing Tr The Court then instructed the parties to submit briefing on the issue So what I will need is the emails sent to my office under seal I will be the only one to review those emails What I then would need from you is the motion thats filed and I dont know how there can be a viable discussion without discussing the contents of the emails in a setting that the memoranda is sent under seal and for attorneys eyes only I think the best approach would be for a motion to be filed of a generic quality that does not mention any contents of these emails but simply tees it up so to speak with the understanding on this record today that any substantive discussion of those emails will be done under seal by way of memorandum and that will be done under seal and Bingerv King Pest Control So 2d Fla Excerpts of the November Hearing Transcript are attached as Exhibit A will continue to be under seal and will be filed under seal in case of a need for appellate review So that is going to be the direction of the Court that the motion be filed but that the memorandum be sent under seal to this Court hand-delivered to me sealed And the same response memorandum be sent to be under seal by Mr Edwards counsel a week later Hearing Tr This Court only limited Epstein to a motion generic in nature to the extent that the motion could not specifically quote any of the e-mails or specifically discuss their contents which the motion most certainly did not do However this Court also recognized the need for Epsteins motion to tee up the argument and then provide the specific references to the e-mails in the sealed memorandum The Courts oral ruling was reduced to a proposed written Order by Epsteins counsel with one minor change by Edwards counsel and remained consistent with the oral ruling that any specific citations and references to the e-mails would be in the memorandum filed under seal There can be no legitimate dispute Epstein complied with the sealing of the memorandum that specifically cited to and quoted the e-mails Edwards seems to take issue with the fact that Epstein fully pages and specifically as required by the law raised his legal arguments in the motion Edwards flawed argument avoids the obvious Epstein never once cited or quoted a specific e-mail despite how compelling a public argument each e-mail presents for relevance and for no privilege or protection in light of Edwards defective and misleading privilege log and Edwards sworn testimony in this lawsuit Rather Epstein complied with Florida law by articulating his specific legal arguments as to why the mails are relevant never had any attorney-client privilege no longer have protection of work product given Edwards noncompliance with Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and a defective if not worse privilege log as well as producing all of the e-mails to an adversary issue injection Edwards sworn testimony and the crime fraud exception found in the Florida Evidence Code FLORIDA SUPREME COURT REQUIRES SPECIFIC LEGAL ARGUMENT FOR APPELLATE PRESERVATION Edwards trial counsel knows the law having been involved in at least one appeal addressing this legal tenet See Eagleman Korzeniowski So 2d Fla th DCA In order to be preserved for appellate review the specific argument made on appeal must have been raised when the party objected in the trial court In fact the Fourth District Court of Appeal concluded that it defies logic for a party to expect to be able to take no position on an issue in the trial court and then take whatever position is most advantageous to it on appeal a party must take some position below in order for this court to review how the trial court ruled on that position Id at In Edwards view of the law Epstein should be damed ifhe does damed if he does not Had Epstein not articulated the specific legal bases in his motion Edwards would have claimed lack of preservation on appeal See Diaz Wells Fargo Bank N.A So 3d Fla th DCA To preserve an issue for appellate review the specific legal ground upon which a claim is based must be raised at trial citing Aills Boemi So 3d Fla Cadavieco Castle Key Ins Co So 3d Fla 3d DCA affirmed citing civil cases holding that in order to be preserved for appellate review issue must be presented to lower court and the specific legal argument raised Accordingly Epstein complied with this Courts Order and Florida law by making his specific legal argument and being generic in his reference to the e-mails Not once did Epstein quote or specifically reference an e-mail in his motion In addition Epstein did not say anything in his motion that has not already been said multiple times before in public filings EDWARDS COMMITTED THE PRECISE FOUL HE CLAIMS AGAINST EPSTEIN Edwards himself has repeatedly emphasized in his own multiple public filings the complained ofreferences by Epstein to the e-mails D.E Date D.E Document Edwards Response to Epsteins Motion for Court to Declare Relevance and Non-Privile ed Nature of Documents etc In his Notice of Piling Appendix Epstein through counsel includes privileged materials under a section titled Edwards Direct Involvement in Rothsteins Ponzi Scheme If nothing but consistent Epstein through counsel then sprinkles throughout the Motion for Court to Declare Relevance direct accusations and implicit insinuations that regardless of whether Epstein had probable cause to institute or continue his malicious lawsuit against Edwards it turns out that Edwards was secretly involved in the Ponzi scheme after all For example Epstein claims that the emails are evidence that shows Edwards direct participation with Rothstein to avoid the structured settlement statute for an Epstein case and questions whether these mails were turned over to the U.S Attorney Edwards Motion for Sanctions for Violation of Court Order 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 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 In fact Edwards counterclaim is thoroughly disproved by direct documentary evidence of Edwards own misconduct and credibility that Epstein is currently asking the trial court to review for resentation to the when this case is tried D.E Date Document Recent events appeal and stay and the discovery of e-mails that totally 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 th DCA Edwards Motion to Strike All References to the Alleged Contents of Material Which Epstein and His Counsel Unlawfully Possessed uotin steins statement Denied the th DCA In fact Edwards counterclaim is thoroughly disproved by direct documentary evidence of Edwards own misconduct and credibility that Epstein is currently asking the trial court to review for resentation to the when this case is tried Edwards cannot complain about Epsteins generic references when Edwards himself has repeatedly highlighted and emphasized those statements multiple times in his own publicly filed documents EDWARDS RECOGNITION OF WAIVED WORK PRODUCT More likely than not Edwards makes this desperate striking attempt to again hide the truth by claiming Epstein disregarded this Courts rulings and the sacrosanct nature of a privilege assertion because Edwards knows he is in trouble Despite his belated claims of sacrosanct privilege which the Court can plainly see does not exist in any one of the e-mails Edwards clearly waived any work-product protection he may have had by among other compelling reasons his complete failure to comply with Florida Rule of Civil Procedure With Epsteins citation in his motion to the Fourth District Court of Appeals controlling case of General Motors Corp McGee So 2d Fla th DCA Edwards is about to suffer the same fate as GM based on his Rule 1.280-noncompliant privilege log and the central issues to Edwards lawsuit that the e-mails implicate As the trial judge in the GM case this Court cannot as suggested by Counsel asserting the privilege simply forget about these documents and continue on with this trial as though they Id at dont exist This Court still adheres to the belief that We who labor here seek only truth In fact McGee establishes the very legal basis why Epstein had to articulate Edwards deliberate attempt to conceal the e-mails in a misleading privilege log falsely assert attorney client privilege where none existed between an attorney and client issue injection given his deposition testimony in this lawsuit as recently as November and the crime-fraud exception found in section Florida Statutes In truth there is nothing violative of this Courts order to argue that the e-mails are case-ending That is argument not specific citation to the content of the e-mails CONCLUSION Edwards Motion to Strike must be seen for what it is yet another attempt to divert those who labor here seeking only truth Epstein complied with this Courts ruling and Florida law in filing a motion for in camera review of e-mails not once citing or specifically referencing the e-mails content but raising specific legal argument as required by law Epstein next followed both the spirit and letter of the law in filing under seal his memorandum which quoted and cited the specific e-mails which never were protected by attorney-client privilege have no arguable work product cloak given Edwards actions with waiver and a non-compliant privilege log designed to deceive the recipient Epstein Edwards attempt to hide the truth must be denied and the e-mails be illuminated by the light of this courtroom CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that the foregoing document has been furnished to the attorneys listed on the Service List below on November 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 Counsel for Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein SERVICE LIST Philip Burlington Nichole Segal Burlington Rockenbach P.A Searcy Denny Scarola Barnhart Shipley P.A Courthouse Commons Suite Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Railroad A venue West Palm Beach FL West Palm Beach FL mep searcylaw.com pmb FLAppellateLaw.com jsx searcylaw.com njs FLAppellateLaw.com dvitale searcylaw.com kbt FLAppellateLaw.com scarolateam searcylaw.com Co-Counsel for Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff terryteam searcylaw.com Bradley Edwards 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 St Australian Avenue Suite Salt Lake City UT West Palm Beach FL cassellp law utah edu goldberger agwpa.com Limited Intervenor Co-Counsel for L.M smahoney agwpa.com and Jane Doe Co-Counsel for Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein Jay Howell Jay Howell Associates Cesery Blvd Suite Jacksonville FL jay jayhowell.com Limited Intervenor Co-Counsel for L.M and Jane Doe EXHIBIT A IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY FLORIDA JEFFREY EPSTEIN Petitioner/Counter-Defendant vs No SCOTT ROTHSTEIN individually and BRADLEY EDWARDS individually Defendants/Counter-Plaintiff West Palm Beach Florida November 2nd a.m p.m Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Epsteins Motion to Allow Amendment to Exhibit List et al The above-styled cause came on for hearing before the Honorable Donald Hafele Presiding Judge at the Palm Beach County Courthouse West Palm Beach Palm Beach County Florida on the 2nd day of November Palm Beach Reporting Service Inc CD IQ 1J defense challenge to that privilege log MR LINK Thats correct MR SCAROLA And while well I dont want to get too deep into these arguments THE COURT Lel::s Cg eep into Enem because Enink EIT1 Eney Di:E Yfferent connotati"on ill import ID Iates EQ neEner or Iate-fTTecl.;J because lf Eney were containecl ii Eli 02IQ Wf"vTieg log iT:sJ very YrfTcul:E fQ ji.ggfil.tl EIT1 Ene"r:eJ wQula ucl.Tce as fQ lmowl.ea On Eli En"o"s"e ocuments being potential"ly ufTTizecl So what I would like you to do then is were getting dangerously close on time MR VITALE Your Honor just a clarification for the record Along with the disk there was a folder containing hard copies of materials that Fowler White printed from the disk If my memory serves me correctly of those documents were listed on Mr Edwards privilege log one of them had handwritten notations So in terms of the discovery issue I just wanted the record to reflect that hard copies were in fact in possession of Palm Beach Reporting Service Inc say Not a magistrate special master MR SCAROLA After which Judge Crow made it very clear that he would be ruling on issues of privilege with regard to any privilege assertions in a case in which the subpoena was issued over which he was presiding So Judge Carney never made MR LINK We dont disagree Judge Hafele MR SCAROLA Judge Carney never made any privilege THE COURT No Im not suggesting he did That wasnt really my intent at all And even if he did I dont think that it would be any way shape or form binding here MR LINK We agree youre the person THE COURT Sp fiat CT TTl neea 251lli emaTl::;s Sent ill Sa rri"ce na.er seal fTl 251lli Conly cone cr:e5i::ew Eno"s"e emaTTs Wnat Enen Qula nee a from YQ moJTon EnaT:;s IiTecl.:;J aQQ CT onJ Know Ene:r:e ccan 6ia15Te ca 267iscussi"on Wi no:u::El ca 267iscussing 251lli contents 251lli naTl::;s ii setting 251lli memoranaa sent na.er seal ana Cf attornevs:,:J Y.es Only Palm Beach Reporting Service Inc attorneys-eyes-only documents that were handed over that do not include the documents that are listed on the privilege log And thats what were talking about here Were talking about privileged documents The fact that they obtained those documents improperly does not give them any greater right if anything it gives them a lesser right to challenge at this point the assertion of privilege THE COURT Well that may be That may be fine for legal argument but I want to get to the practical aspects of trying to for my own purpose be able to adequately review the legal arguments in connection with the emails at issue And at least from the attorneys standpoint and Mr Epsteins standpoint as I understand it the cat is out of the bag in that regard So I cant undo whats already been done and thats been years ago MR SCAROLA So we dont want to aggravate the problem THE COURT And I agree Thats why Im saying that Eninl Eli pproach wQulci Cf moJTon ill fTlecl gen er is guaTi ty EITI does menti"on fill contents Elles"e Palm Beach Reporting Service Inc CD IQ 1J emaT1-TI QN.t1 Tmply tees ill lip_ cm pealQ wi"En una.erstanding record EQa.:y 1lli iostanti lscussi::om Eno"e emaITs wi"Tl one ncl.er seal filQ memorandum ITd wi"Tl one una.er seal and wi"Tl contime cm una.er seal and EIJ fTled una.er seal ii case need Cf a"pperraTe rey"i::ew going cm lrecti::om Court oJJ::om fTTecl.:;J QN.t memorandum una.er seal cm Eni::;s Court ffana cteTi vered cm me ealed And same response memorandum sent cm una.er seal filQ Mr Eawaras counsel weeK later MR LINK And shared with each other though THE COURT Absolutely for attorneys eyes only MR LINK Understood THE COURT Okay And Mr Edwards I understand is co-counsel so he has the right to look at them But its not to be distributed to anyone else MR LINK Understand Its very clear THE COURT until I issue an order of Palm Beach Reporting Service Inc A A 4A E0 A4 DE a qr?q rq qrCX HhL Kg lg d?a d6U a M3 flW y??S m/y t0 I F/Z V/j 1a qC KS u?v vZ O5 a qr rCX qC 0V I I dc rM?M rM 10Cy n??m?n k?o?h I A I w?!ac qr MCX 10Cy ITy qr M3 Ґ??1rA5R h?H?T3P K?z X?K H?o I Idc rM?M rM 10Cy f헊?f?Tz e?e:Aa I v"x i X5 EO5 5a r?q CX 9r Cy rq rqC M3 ş?:c p/p0 5H V)V 6T Y2 G5 qrM?r?qr?r9 q?10Cy rCX qr l1 X?l 3K fm?Q Z2f CX CX gT L??T 2E Cy 3P EM3 J4T L?h??M q?ᡚ?Y r??O?rJt CTX 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 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
