JEFFREY EPSTEIN Plaintiff vs SCOTT ROTHSTEIN individually BRADLEY EDWARDS individually and L.M individually Defendants I IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY FLORIDA CASE NO MOTION FOR LEA VE TO AMEND TO ASSERT A CLAIM FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES Defendant Bradley Edwards Esq by and through his undersigned counsel and pursuant to Rule Florida Rules of Civil Procedure hereby moves for leave to amend to assert a claim for punitive damages and in support thereof relies upon the following evidence in the record and such additional evidence as is herein proffered I INTRODUCTION The pleadings discovery taken to date and the evidence proffered with this motion show that a reasonable basis exists to support the recovery of punitive damages against the Counter Defendant Jeffrey Epstein Not only is there an absence of competent evidence to demonstrate that Edwards participated in any fraud against Epstein the evidence uncontrovertibly demonstrates the propriety of every aspect of Edwardss involvement in the prosecution of legitimate claims against Epstein and the fact that the sole basis for the assertion of the spurious claims filed against Edwards was an attempt to intimidate Edwards into abandoning 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 y!k N?M??N rC f?Nla3 Yz 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 Case No Edwards Motion for Leave to Amend To Assert a Claim for Punitive Damages Page of27 the legitimate claims Edwards was prosecuting against Epstein on behalf of victims of Epsteins pattern of criminal sexual abuse of minors Epstein sexually abused three clients of Edwards L.M E.W and Jane Doe and Edwards properly and successfully represented them in a civil action against Epstein Nothing in Edwardss capable and competent representation of his clients could serve as the basis for a civil lawsuit against him Allegations about Edwardss participation in or knowledge of the use of the civil actions against Epstein in a Ponzi Scheme were not supported by any competent evidence and could never be supported by competent evidence as they are entirely false and Epstein never had any reason to believe otherwise The dismissal of the unsupported unsupportable and sensational allegations that Edwards was a knowing participant in a massive criminal fraud and the subsequent abandonment of those allegations is further confirmation that no reasonable basis ever existed to support any belief in the truth of those allegations A Epsteins Complaint Epsteins Complaint essentially alleged that Epstein was defrauded by Edwards acting in concert with L.M a minor female who was sexually abused by Epstein and Scott Rothstein President of the Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler law firm RRA where Edwards worked for a short period of time Epstein appears to have alleged that Edwards joined L.M and Rothstein in fabricating sexual assault cases against Epstein to pump the cases to Ponzi scheme investors As described by Epstein investor victims were told by Rothstein that three minor girls who were sexually assaulted by Epstein LM E.W and Jane Doe were to be paid up-front money to prevent those girls from settling their civil cases against Epstein In Epsteins view these child sexual assault cases had minimal value Complaint at Case No Edwards Motion for Leave to Amend To Assert a Claim for Punitive Damages Page of27 and Edwardss refusal to force his clients to accept modest settlement offers was claimed to breach some duty that Edwards owed to Epstein Interestingly Epstein never states that he actually made any settlement offers Even more interesting all of the allegations of Edwards knowing involvement in Rothsteins fraud disappeared from Epsteins first Amended Complaint along with the claims for civil remedies for criminal conduct and Florida RICO violations This is a clear admission that no probable cause existed to support any of those allegations and claims to begin with The supposed proof of the Complaints allegations against Edwards includes Edwardss alleged contacts with the media his attempts to obtain discovery from high-profile persons with whom Epstein socialized and use of ridiculously inflammatory language in arguments in court Complaint at Remarkably Epstein has filed such allegations against Edwards despite the fact that Epstein had sexually abused each of Edwardss clients and others while they were minors Indeed in recent discovery Epstein has asserted his Fifth Amendment privilege rather than answer questions about the extent of the sexual abuse of his many victims Even more remarkably since filing his suit against Edwards Epstein has now settled the three cases Edwards handled for an amount that Epstein insisted be kept confidential Without violating the strict confidentiality terms required by Epstein the cases did not settle for the minimal value that Epstein suggested in his Complaint Because Epstein relied upon the alleged discrepancy between the minimal value Epstein ascribed to the claims and the substantial value Edwards sought to recover for his clients the settlement amounts Epstein voluntarily agreed to pay while these claims against Edwards were pending will be disclosed to the court in camera Of course those false allegations have also now disappeared from the Case No Edwards Motion for Leave to Amend To Assert a Claim for Punitive Damages Page of27 most recent Amended Complaint but the amendment does not erase the fact that the baseless allegations were made Summary of the Argument The claims against Bradley Edwards Esq were patently frivolous for at least two separate reasons First because Epstein has elected to hide behind the shield of his right against self incrimination to preclude his disclosing any relevant information about the criminal activity at the center of his claims he is barred from prosecuting this case against Edwards Under the well-established sword and shield doctrine Epstein cannot seek damages from Edwards while at the same time asserting a Fifth Amendment privilege to block relevant discovery The filing of a case seeking affirmative relief when there was no intention at the time of filing to comply with the discovery obligations arising from such filing is compelling evidence that the case was filed for reasons unrelated to obtaining the relief specified in the Complaint Second and most fundamentally Epsteins lawsuit was never supported by probable cause to believe any of the spurious accusations on which it was based each and every one of which is directly contradicted by all of the record evidence From the beginning Edwards diligently represented three victims of sexual assaults perpetrated by Epstein As explained in detail below all ofEdwardss litigation decisions were grounded in proper litigation judgment about the need to pursue effective discovery against Epstein particularly in the face of Epsteins stonewalling tactics Edwardss successful representation finally forced Epstein to settle and pay appropriate damages Effective and proper representation of child victims who have Case No Edwards Motion for Leave to Amend To Assert a Claim for Punitive Damages Page of27 been repeatedly sexually assaulted cannot form the basis of a separate satellite lawsuit since even improper conduct in the course of the prosecution of a lawsuit may not form the basis of a separate claim by virtue of the absolute bar of the litigation privilege Filing a claim known to be barred by absolute privilege is further evidence that the claim was filed for reasons other than in a legitimate effort to obtain the relief sought in the Complaint The truth is the record is entirely devoid of any evidence to support Epsteins claims and is completely and consistently corroborative of Edwardss sworn assertion of innocence Put simply Epstein made allegations that had and have no basis in fact He included those allegations in a lawsuit that was and is barred by both the sword-shield doctrine and the absolute litigation privilege His lawsuit was merely a desperate measure by a serial pedophile to prevent being held accountable in compensatory and punitive damages for repeatedly sexually abusing minor females He was trying also to shut down an investigation effort by Edwards that threatened to expose him to more criminal charges and harsher penalties Epsteins ulterior motives in filing and prosecuting this lawsuit are blatantly obvious Epsteins behavior is another clear demonstration that he feels he lives above the law and that because of his wealth he can manipulate the system and pay for lawyers to do his dirty work even to the extent of having them assert baseless claims against other members of the Florida Bar Epsteins Complaint against Edwards and LM is nothing short of a far-fetched fictional fairy-tale with absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support his preposterous claims It was his last ditch effort to escape the public disclosure by Edwards and his clients of the nature extent and sordid details of his life as a serial child molester Case No Edwards Motion for Leave to Amend To Assert a Claim for Punitive Damages Page of27 II ARGUMENT THE PROFERRED FACTS ESTABLISH THAT EDWARDSS CONDUCT COULD NOT POSSIBLY FORM THE BASIS OF ANY LIABILITY IN FAVOR OF EPSTEIN This is not a complicated case for punitive damages because there is compelling and unrebutted evidence that each and every one of Epsteins claims against Edwards lacks any merit whatsoever A Edwards Was Simply Not Involved in the Rothstein Ponzi Scheme The bulk of Epsteins claims against Edwards hinged on the premise that Edwards was knowingly involved in a Ponzi scheme run by Scott Rothstein For example Epstein alleged generally that Edwardss actions constitute a fraud upon Epstein as Rothstein Rosenfeldt and Adler Scott Rothstein and the Litigation Team represented themselves to be acting in good faith and with the best interests of their clients in mind at all times when in reality Edwards was acting in furtherance of the investment or Ponzi scheme described herein Complaint if50 Similar broad allegations are scattered willy-nilly throughout the Complaint although none of the allegations provide any substance as to how Edwards might have assisted the Ponzi scheme See e.g id at TI In any event these allegations all fail for one straightforward reason Edwards was simply not involved in any Ponzi scheme He has provided sworn testimony and an affidavit in support of that assertion and there is not and could never be any credible contrary evidence Edwards has now been deposed at length in this case As his deposition makes clear he had no knowledge of any fraudulent activity in which Scott Rothstein was involved See e.g Edwards Depo at Were you aware that Scott Rothstein was trying to market Epstein cases A No Case No Edwards Motion for Leave to Amend To Assert a Claim for Punitive Damages Page of27 Edwards has supplemented his deposition answers with an Affidavit that declares in no uncertain terms his lack of involvement in any fraud perpetrated by Rothstein See e.g Edwards Affidavit attached to Statement of Undisputed Material Facts as Exhibit at r8-l Indeed no one could reasonably believe that Edwards was involved in the scheme as Edwards joined RRA well after Rothstein began his fraud and would have been already deeply in debt In fact the evidence of Epsteins crimes is now clear and Edwardss actions in this case were entirely in keeping with his obligation to provide the highest possible quality of legal representation for his clients to obtain the best result possible In view of this clear evidence rebutting all allegations against him Epstein must at least establish that he had a good faith basis to support his untrue allegations By choosing to assert his Fifth Amendment privilege to remain silent he obviously fails to meet that burden Indeed when asked at his deposition whether he had any evidence of Edwardss involvement Epstein declined to answer purportedly on attorney-client privilege grounds I want to know whether you have any knowledge of evidence that Bradley Edwards personally ever participated in devising a plan through which were sold purported confidential assignments of a structured payout settlement A Id like to answer that question by saying that the newspapers have reported that his firm was engaged in fraudulent structured settlements in order to fleece unsuspecting Florida investors With respect to my personal knowledge Im unfortunately going to today but I look forward to at some point being able to disclose it today Im going to have to assert the attorney/client privilege See Deposition of Jeffrey Epstein Mar hereinafter Epstein Depo at Case No Edwards Motion for Leave to Amend To Assert a Claim for Punitive Damages Page of27 Epstein Did Not Suffer Any Harm from Allegedly Fraudulent Presentations to Investors At various points in his Complaint Epstein seems to have alleged that he can pursue a claim against Edwards because Rothstein defrauded third-party investors Epstein alleges that various investors were given fraudulent pitches by Rothstein and were bilked out of money as a result See e.g Complaint I Even assuming that the allegations about Rothstein are true and they certainly are not challenged by this Motion Edwards is still obviously entitled to assert a claim for punitive damages for the additional reason that Epstein was not harmed by these fraudulent pitches and had no plausible basis to claim that he was Epstein was obviously not present during these presentations Indeed as review of Epsteins Complaint makes clear he did not even know about the fraud until it became public knowledge through the mass media See e.g Complaint ill The details of this fraudulent scheme are being revealed on a daily basis through various media report and court documents To proceed on any cause of action Epstein is required to prove harm See e.g Bortell White Mountains Ins Group Ltd So.3d Fla th DCA Investments Payless Flea Market Inc So.3d Fla th DCA Epstein was not harmed by Rothsteins misrepresentations to other people that he knew nothing about Epsteins Allegations Against Edwards Were and Are Unfounded and Not Actionable in Any Event At various points in his Complaint Epstein inconsistently recognized that Edwards was not involved in any Rothstein Ponzi scheme Therefore seemingly as a fallback Epstein alleged without explanation that Edwards should have known about the existence of this concealed Case No Edwards Motion for Leave to Amend To Assert a Claim for Punitive Damages Page of27 Ponzi scheme For example in his Complaint Epstein alleged Upon information and belief Edwards knew or should have known Rothstein was utilizing RRA as a front for the massive Ponzi scheme Complaint at emphasis added Among other problems this fall back negligence position suffered the fatal flaw that it does not link at all to the five counts in the complaint all of which alleged intentional fraud or conspiracy The five counts in the Complaint all allege criminal i.e intentional activity The five counts are Count Florida Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices Act FCRCPA Count Florida RICO Count Abuse of Process Count Fraud and Count Conspiracy to Commit Fraud To take Count as an example Epstein alleges that Edwards engaged in a pattern of criminal activity as defined in and Fla Stat Epstein then alleges without any elaboration that Edwards committed such crimes as fraud extortion and perjury crimes that are listed as actionable under the FCRCPA See Fla Stat Ann a Crimes such as these require proof of criminal intent Proving the crime of perjury for example requires proof that testimony was in fact false testimony and that the defendant knew of its falsity and willfully and with deliberation swore to it as true Rader State So.2d Fla emphasis added Proving the crime of fraud requires proof that the defendant acted with intent to defraud Pizzo State So.2d Fla emphasis added see also Curd Mosaic Fertilizer LLC So 3d WL at describing fraud conversion civil theft and abuse of process as intentional torts that require proof of intent Moreover not only do the underlying crimes require proof of criminal intent but the FCRCP A itself requires proof that a defendant must have acted with criminal intent Fla Stat Ann or conspired in Case No Edwards Motion for Leave to Amend To Assert a Claim for Punitive Damages Page of27 order for a cause of action to proceed Nothing in the statute allows a claim to move forward on a mere allegation of negligence Epsteins negligence claim is also deficient because it simply fails to satisfy the requirements for a negligence cause of action Four elements are necessary to sustain a negligence claim a duty or obligation recognized by the law requiring the defendant to conform to a certain standard of conduct for the protection of others against unreasonable risks A failure on the defendants part to conform to the standard required a breach of the duty A reasonably close causal connection between he conduct and the resulting injury This is what is commonly known as legal cause or proximate cause and which includes the notion of cause in fact Actual loss or damage Curd Mosaic Fertilizer LLC So.3d WL at Fla Epstein does not allege a particular duty on the part of Edwards that has been breached Nor does Epstein explain how any breach of the duty might have proximately caused him actual damages Finally for the sake of completeness it is worth noting briefly that no reasonable basis existed to claim Edwards was negligent in failing to anticipate that a managing partner at his law firm would be involved in an unprecedented Ponzi scheme Scott Rothstein deceived not only Edwards but also more than other reputable lawyers at a major law firm Cf Sun Sentinel Fort Lauderdale Dec WLNR at Sure some outlandish John Grisham murder plots sound far-fetched But if you asked me a few months ago if Scott Rothstein was fabricating federal court orders and forging a judges signature on documents to allegedly fleece his friends as federal prosecutors allege I would have said that was far-fetched too No reasonable lawyer could have expected that a fellow member of the bar would have been involved in such a plot Nobody seemed to know of Rothsteins Ponzi Case No Edwards Motion for Leave to Amend To Assert a Claim for Punitive Damages Page of27 scheme not even his best friends or the people he did business with on a daily basis or even his wife Many of the attorneys at RRA had been there for years and knew nothing Edwards was a lawyer at RRA for less than eight months and had very few personal encounters with Rothstein during his time at the firm yet Epstein claims that he should have known of Rothsteins intricate Ponzi scheme No doubt for this reason the U.S Attorneys Office has now listed Edwards as a victim of Rothsteins crimes See Statement of Undisputed Facts filed contemporaneously Epsteins Complaint does not offer any specific reason why anyone could conclude that Edwards was negligent and he chose not to offer any explanation of his claim at his deposition Edwards Was Properly Pursuing the Interests of His Three Clients Who Had Been Sexually Abused by Epstein The next claim that Epstein advances is that Edwards somehow improperly enhanced the value of the three civil cases he had filed against Epstein Edwards represented three young women L.M E.W and Jane Doe by filing civil suits against Epstein for his sexual abuse of them while they were minors Epstein purports to find a cause of action for this by alleging that Edwards somehow was involved in pumping these three cases to investors Compiaint at see also id at similar allegations of"pumping the cases As just explained to the extent that Epstein is alleging that Edwards somehow did something related to the Ponzi scheme those allegations fail for the simple reason that Edwards was not involved in any such scheme Edwards for example could not have possibly pumped the cases to investors when he never participated in any communication with Case No Edwards Motion for Leave to Amend To Assert a Claim for Punitive Damages Page of27 investors as has now been confinned under oath not only by Edwards but by every investor deposed by Epstein Epsteins pumping claims however fail for an even more basic reason Edwards was entitled indeed ethically obligated as an attorney to secure the maximum recovery for his clients during the course of his legal representation As is well known as an advocate a lawyer zealously asserts the clients position under the rules of the adversary system Fla Rules of Prof Conduct Preamble Edwards therefore was required to pursue unless otherwise instructed by his clients a maximum recovery against Epstein Edwards therefore cannot be liable for doing something that his ethical duties as an attorney required nor can he be liable for conduct that falls squarely within the absolute protection of the litigation privilege See the Fla Ct opinion in Echevarria attached Another reason that Epsteins claims that Edwards was pumping cases for investors fails is that Edwards filed all three cases ahnost a year before he was hired by RRA or even knew of Scott Rothstein Epstein makes allegations that the complaints contained sensational allegations for the purposes of luring investors however language in the complaints remained virtually unchanged from the first filing in and from the overwhelming evidence the Court can see for itself that all of the facts alleged by Edwards in the complaints were true Epstein ultimately paid to settle all three of the cases Edwards filed against him for more money than he paid to settle any of the other claims against him At Epsteins request the terms of the settlements were kept confidential but the Stipulation and Order of Dismissal in each of the cases required Epstein to bear all costs and fees incurred in his defense thus precluding him from claiming those costs and fees as damages in any action against Edwards Case No Edwards Motion for Leave to Amend To Assert a Claim for Punitive Damages Page of27 The sum that he paid to settle all these cases is not filed with this pleading and will be provided to the court for in camera review Epstein chose to make this payment as the result of a federal court ordered mediation process which he himself sought over the objection of Jane Doe Edwardss client in federal court in an effort to resolve the case See Defendants Motion for Settlement Conference or in the Alternative Motion to Direct Parties back to Mediation Doe Epstein No S.D Fla June Marra doc attached hereto as Exhibit A Notably Epstein sought this settlement conference and ultimately made his payments as a result of that conference in July I more than seven months after he filed this lawsuit against Edwards Accordingly Epstein could not have been the victim of any scheme to pump the cases against him because he never paid to settle the cases until well after Edwards had left RRA and had severed all connection with Scott Rothstein December and the scope of the Rothstein fraud was fully exposed In addition if Epstein had thought that there was some improper coercion involved in for example Jane Does case his remedy was to raise the matter before Federal District Court Judge Kenneth A Marra who was presiding over the matter Far from raising any such claim Epstein simply chose to settle that case He is therefore now barred not only by the litigation privilege but also by the doctrine of res judicata from somehow re-litigating what happened in for example the Jane Doe case The doctrine ofresjudicata makes ajudgment on the merits conclusive not only as to every matter which was offered and received to sustain or defeat the claim but as to every other matter which might with propriety have been litigated and determined in that action AMEC Civil LLC State Dept of Transp.,41 To further his effort to harass and intimidate Edwards Epstein also filed a bar complaint with the Florida Bar against Edwards The Florida Bar has dismissed that complaint See Statement of Undisputed Facts Case No Edwards Motion for Leave to Amend To Assert a Claim for Punitive Damages Page of27 So.3d WL at Fla st DCA quoting Kimbrell Paige So.2d Fla Obviously any question of improper pumping of a particular case could have been resolved in that very case rather than now re-litigated in satellite litigation Edwards is Immune From Any Claim For Abuse of Process Because He Acted Properly Within the Boundaries of the Law in Pursuit of the Legitimate Interests of his Clients Epsteins Complaint also raised the claim of abuse of process Confusingly stated allegations appear to be related to those just discussed but culminate in a separate cause of action count alleging abuse of process An abuse of process claim requires proof of three elements that the defendant made an illegal improper or perverted use of process that the defendant had ulterior motives or purposes in exercising such illegal improper or perverted use of process and that as a result of such action on the part of the defendant the plaintiff suffered damage I Investments Payless Flea Market Inc So.3d Fla th DCA internal citation omitted In fact Edwards has correctly stated this cause in his counterclaim against Epstein While Edwards claim is unassailable Epstein cannot prove these elements and never had any good faith basis to believe he could The first element of an abuse of process claim is that a defendant made an illegal improper or perverted use of process On the surface Epsteins Complaint appears to contain several allegations of such litigation-related impropriety On examination however each of these allegations amounts to nothing other than a claim that Epstein was unhappy with some discovery effort motion or argument made by Edwards This is not the stuff of an abuse of process claim particularly where Epstein fails to allege that he was damaged as the Case No Edwards Motion for Leave to Amend To Assert a Claim for Punitive Damages Page of27 result of Edwardss pursuit of the claims against him beyond the self-inflicted losses that flowed from his own criminal conduct See Marty Gresh So.2d Fla st DCA affinning summary judgment on an abuse of process claim where appellants lawsuit caused appellee to do nothing against her will In any event none of the allegations of improper process was or ever could be supported because every action Edwards took was entirely proper For purposes of completeness the following is a point-by-point refutation of Epsteins allegations Complaint a Edwards properly included listed damages in Jane Does federal action of more than because those were the damages that Edwards was going to seek at trial on behalf of Jane Doe See Statement of Undisputed Facts Complaint Edwards was entitled to help Jane Doe exercise her First Amendment rights to criticize the unduly lenient plea bargain he received in a criminal case See Statement of Undisputed Facts and criticizing what happened in the criminal case is not actionable in an unrelated civil case Complaint Edwards only asked reasonable questions of Epstein at his deposition all of which related to the merits of the case against Edwards See Statement of Undisputed Facts Complaint Edwards only pursued legitimate discovery designed to further the cases filed against Epstein See Statement of Undisputed Facts Complaint Edwards did not made ridiculously inflammatory and sound bite rich statements but rather made statements supported by the evidence For example there is ample evidence that Epstein has abused more than children See Statement of Undisputed Facts a fact that Epstein has always invoked his Fifth Amendment right of silence regarding rather than elaborate Complaint Edwards properly filed a motion seeking to restrain Epsteins fraudulent transfer of assets in federal court where Edwards had evidence that Epstein was titling cars and other assets in the names of other persons See Statement of Undisputed Facts Case No Edwards Motion for Leave to Amend To Assert a Claim for Punitive Damages Page of27 Epstein also fails to meet the second element of an abuse of process claim that Edwards had some sort of ulterior motive The case law is clear that on an abuse of process claim a plaintiff must prove that the process was used for an immediate purpose other than that for which it was designed I Investments Payless Flea Market Inc So.3d Fla th DCA citing Biondo Powers So.2d Fla th DCA As a consequence where the process was used to accomplish the result for which it was intended regardless of an incidental or concurrent motive of spite or ulterior purpose there is no abuse of process Id internal quotation omitted Here Edwards has fully denied any improper motive See Statement of Undisputed Facts and Epstein has no evidence of any such motivation Indeed it is revealing that Epstein chose not to ask even a single question about this subject during the deposition of Edwards In addition all of the actions that Epstein complains about were in fact used for the immediate purpose of furthering the lawsuits filed by L.M E.W and Jane Doe In other words these actions all accomplished the results for which they were intended whether it was securing additional discovery or presenting a legal issue to the court handling the case ultimately leading to the full recovery of damages for the victims of Epsteins molestations Pursuit of Discovery Concerning Epsteins Friends Was Reasonably Calculated to Lead to Relevant and Admissible Testimony About Epsteins Abuse of Minor Girls Epstein alleged that Edwards improperly pursued discovery from some of Epsteins close friends Such discovery Epstein claims was improper because Edwards knew that these individuals lacked any discoverable information about the sexual assault cases against Epstein Case No Edwards Motion for Leave to Amend To Assert a Claim for Punitive Damages Page of27 Each of the friends of Epstein was reasonably believed to possess discoverable information The undisputed facts show the following with regard to each of the persons referenced in each of Epsteins now dismissed complaints Complaint i With regard to Donald Trump Edwards had sound legal basis for believing Mr Trump had relevant and discoverable information See Statement of Undisputed Facts Complaint ii With regard to Alan Dershowitz Harvard Law Professor Edwards had sound legal basis for believing Mr Dershowitz had relevant and discoverable information See Statement of Undisputed Facts Complaint i With regard to former President Bill Clinton Edwards had sound legal basis for believing former President Clinton had relevant and discoverable information See Statement of Undisputed Facts Complaint iv With regard to former Sony Record executive Tommy Mottola Edwards was not the attorney that noticed Mr Mottolas deposition See Statement of Undisputed Facts Complaint With regard to illusionist David Copperfield Edwards had sound legal basis for believing Mr Copperfield had relevant and discoverable information See Statement of Undisputed Facts Complaint i With regard to former New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson Edwards had sound legal basis for naming Former New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson on his witness list See Statement of Undisputed Facts As to the existence of a reasonable basis for pursuing discovery from all of the above see also the filed transcript of the recorded conversation with Virginia Roberts It is worth noting that the standard for discovery is a very liberal one To notice someone for a deposition of course it is not required that the person deposed actually end up producing admissible evidence Otherwise every deposition that turned out to be a false alarm would lead to an abuse of process claim Moreover the rules of discovery themselves provide that a Case No Edwards Motion for Leave to Amend To Assert a Claim for Punitive Damages Page of27 deposition need only be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence Fla Civ emphasis added Moreover the discovery that Edwards pursued has to be considered against the backdrop of Epsteins obstructionist tactics As the Court is aware in both this case and all other cases filed against him Epstein has asserted his Fifth Amendment privilege rather than answer any substantive questions Epstein has also helped secure attorneys for his other household staff who assisted in the process of recruiting his minor female victims Those staff members in turn also asserted their Fifth Amendment rights rather than explain what happened behind closed doors in Epsteins mansion in West Palm Beach See Statement of Undisputed Facts It is against this backdrop that Edwards followed up on one of the only remaining lines of inquiry open to him discovery aimed at Epsteins friends who might have been outside of Epsteins sphere of influence and in a position to either directly confirm or circumstantially corroborate the fact that Epstein was sexually abusing young girls In the context of the sexual assault cases that Edwards had filed against Epstein all which included the potential for the recovery of punitive damages any act of sexual abuse had undeniable relevance to the case even acts of abuse Epstein committed against minor girls other than L.M E.W or Jane Doe Both federal and state evidence rules make acts of child abuse against other girls admissible in the plaintiffs case in chief as proof of modus operandi or motive or common scheme or plan See Fed Evid evidence of other acts of sexual abuse automatically admissible in a civil case Fla Stat Ann evidence of common scheme admissible Williams State So.2d Fla other acts of potential sexual misconduct admissible A second reason exists for making discovery of Epsteins acts of abuse of other minor girls admissible Juries considering punitive damages issues are plainly entitled to consider the existence Case No Edwards Motion for Leave to Amend To Assert a Claim for Punitive Damages Page of27 and frequency of similar past conduct TXO Production Corp Alliance Resources Corp U.S This is because the Supreme Court recognizes that a recidivist may be punished more severely than a first offender because repeated misconduct is more reprehensible than an individual instance of malfeasance BMW of North America Inc Gore U.S supporting citations omitted In addition juries can consider other similar acts evidence as part of the deterrence calculation in awarding punitive damages because evidence that a defendant has repeatedly engaged in prohibited conduct while knowing that it was unlawful would provide relevant support for an argument that strong medicine is required to cure the defendants disrespect for the law Id at In the cases Edwards filed against Epstein his clients were entitled to attempt to prove that Epstein repeatedly engaged in prohibited conduct i.e because he was a predatory pedophile he sexually assaulted dozens and dozens of minor girls The discovery of Epsteins friends who might have had direct or circumstantial evidence of other acts of sexual assault was accordingly entirely proper Assertions that Edwards Should Have Known That the Three Cases Had Minimal Value Were and Are Clearly Spurious Because the Cases in Fact Had Substantial Value A final claim made by Epstein is that Edwards knew or should have known that their three filed cases were weak and had minimal value Complaint It is now no longer necessary to speculate about the value of the three cases Epstein voluntarily paid to settle all three cases a decision made after Rothsteins fraud had been discovered and fully revealed and as a consequence of the decision to settle the cases could not have been influenced by any fraud Epstein has insisted that the sum he paid remain confidential As such the Settlement Case No Edwards Motion for Leave to Amend To Assert a Claim for Punitive Damages Page of27 Agreements have not been attached as an Exhibit but can be shown to the Court in camera In light of the sum that was paid no reasonable jury could now find that the cases had minimal value EPSTEINS LAWSUIT LACKED ANY LEGITIMATE PURPOSE FROM THE Case No Edwards Motion for Leave to Amend To Assert a Claim for Punitive Damages Page of27 Here Epstein did precisely what the well settled law forbids Specifically he sought affirmative relief i.e forcing Edwards to pay money damages while simultaneously precluding Edwards from obtaining legitimate discovery at the heart of the allegations that form the basis for the relief Epstein claimed to be seeking As recounted more fully in the statement of undisputed facts Epstein has refused to answer such basic questions about his lawsuit as Specifically what are the allegations against you which you contend Mr Edwards ginned up Well which of Mr Edwards cases do you contend were fabricated Is there anything in L.M.s Complaint that was filed against you in September of which you contend to be false I would like to know whether you ever had any physical contact with the person referred to as Jane Doe in that federal complaint Did you ever have any physical contact with E.W What is the actual value that you contend the claim of E.W against you has The matters addressed in these questions are the central focus of Epsteins claims against Edwards Epsteins refusal to answer these and literally every other substantive question put to him in discovery has deprived Edwards of even a basic understanding of the evidence alleged to support claims against him Moreover by not offering any explanation of his allegations Epstein is depriving Edwards of any opportunity to conduct third party discovery and opportunity to challenge Epsteins allegations It is the clear law that the chief purpose of our discovery rules is to assist the truth-finding function of our justice system and to avoid trial by surprise or ambush Scipio State So.2d Fla and full and fair discovery is essential to these important goals McFadden Case No Edwards Motion for Leave to Amend To Assert a Claim for Punitive Damages Page of27 State So.3d Fla th DCA Accordingly it is important for the Court to insure not only compliance with the technical provisions of the discovery rules but also adherence to the purpose and spirit of those rules in both the criminal and civil context McFadden So.3d at Epstein has repeatedly blocked full and fair discovery and obviously intended to do so from the day his claims against Edwards were filed-facts from which a reasonable inference can and must be drawn that he never intended to prosecute his spurious claims but only to use them for purposes of intimidation IV EDWARDS IS ENTITLED TO ADVERSE INFERENCES FROM EPSTEINS INVOCATION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT Epsteins repeated invocations of the Fifth Amendment raise adverse inferences against him that leave no possibility that a reasonable factfinder could ever accept his allegations against Edwards Given all of the inferences that are to be drawn against Epstein no reasonable finder of fact could conclude that Epstein was somehow the victim of improper civil lawsuits filed against him Instead a reasonable finder of fact could only find that Epstein was a serial molester of children who was being held accountable through legitimate suits brought by Edwards and others on behalf of the minor girls that Epstein victimized Regardless of whether viewed in the context of a litigant seeking affirmative relief or simply defending claims lt is well-settled that the Fifth Amendment does not forbid adverse inferences against parties to civil actions when they refuse to testify in response to probative evidence offered against them Baxter Palmigiano U.S accord Vasquez State So.2d Fla App The reason for this rule is both logical and utilitarian A party may not trample upon the rights of others and then escape the consequences by invoking a constitutional privilege at least not in a civil setting Fraser Case No Edwards Motion for Leave to Amend To Assert a Claim for Punitive Damages Page of27 Security and Inv Corp So.2d Fla th DCA And in the proper circumstances Silence is often evidence of the most persuasive character Fraser Security and Inv Corp So.2d Fla th DCA quoting United States ex rel Bilokumsky Tod U.S Brandeis In the circumstances of this case a reasonable finder of fact would have evidence of the most persuasive character from Epsteins repeated refusal to answer questions propounded to him To provide but a few examples here are questions that Epstein refused to answer and the reasonable inference that a reasonable finder of fact would draw Question not answered Specifically what are the allegations against you which you contend Mr Edwards ginned up Reasonable inference No allegations against Epstein were ginned up Question not answered Well which of Mr Edwards cases do you contend were fabricated Reasonable inference No cases filed by Edwards against Epstein were fabricated Question not answered Did sexual assaults ever take place on a private airplane on which you were a passenger Reasonable inference Epstein was on a private airplane while sexual assaults were taking place Question not answered How many minors have you procured for prostitution Reasonable inference Epstein has procured multiple minors for prostitution Question not answered Is there anything in L.M.s Complaint that was filed against you in September of which you contend to be false Reasonable inference Nothing in L.M.s complaint filed in September of was false i.e as alleged in L.M.s complaint Epstein repeatedly sexually assaulted her while she was a minor and she was entitled to substantial compensatory and punitive damages as a result Question not answered I would like to know whether you ever had any physical contact with the person referred to as Jane Doe in that federal complaint Reasonable inference Epstein had physical contact with minor Jane Doe as alleged in her federal complaint Case No Edwards Motion for Leave to Amend To Assert a Claim for Punitive Damages Page of27 Question not answered Did you ever have any physical contact with E.W Reasonable inference Epstein had physical contact with minor E.W as alleged in her complaint Question not answered What is the actual value that you contend the claim of E.W against you has Reasonable inference E.W.s claim against Epstein had substantial actual value Without repeating each and every invocation of the Fifth Amendment that Epstein has made and the reasonable inferences to be drawn from those invocations of privilege the big picture is unmistakably clear No reasonable finder of fact could rule in Epsteins favor on his claims against Edwards Accordingly Edwards is entitled to inferences that the claims against him had and have absolutely no legitimate basis in fact The inferences against Epstein are not limited to those arising from his privilege assertions Epsteins guilt is also reasonably inferred from his harassment of intimidation of efforts to exercise control over and limitation of access to witnesses who might testify against him Epsteins efforts to intimidate his victims support the inference that Epstein knew that they were going to provide compelling testimony against him The evidence that Epstein tampered with witnesses later designated as his accomplices and co-conspirators will be admissible to demonstrate his consciousness of guilt It is precisely because of the egregious nature of such conduct that the law expressly permits the jury to make adverse inferences from a partys efforts to intimidate witnesses Jost Ahmad So.2d Fla nd DCA internal quotation omitted To be clear Epsteins attempt to tamper with witnesses is not simply admissible as impeachment evidence of the tampering partys credibility The opposing party is entitled to Case No Edwards Motion for Leave to Amend To Assert a Claim for Punitive Damages Page of27 introduce facts regarding efforts to intimidate a witness as substantive evidence Id at emphasis in original internal citation omitted This substantive evidence of Epsteins witness intimidation provides yet another reason why no reasonable jury could find in favor of his claims against Edwards CONCLUSION For all the foregoing reasons the Court should grant Defendant Bradley Edwards Esq the right to assert a claim for punitive damages against Jeffrey Epstein for his intentional abuse of process for the illegitimate purpose of attempting to deter Bradley Edwards efforts to advance the interests of his clients in holding Epstein fully responsible for his serial exploitation and sexual abuse of minors Case No Edwards Motion for Leave to Amend To Assert a Claim for Punitive Damages Page of27 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on July a copy of the foregoing has been served via U.S Mail and email transmittal to all those on the attached service list Jack Scarola Esquir Florida Bar No Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart Shipley PA Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach FL Phone Fax Attorneys for Bradley Edwards All referenced materials have previously been filed with the court and delivered in support of Edwardss Motion for Final Summary Judgment Case No Edwards Motion for Leave to Amend To Assert a Claim for Punitive Damages Page of27 COUNSEL LIST Jack A Goldberger Esquire Shannon Mahoney Esquire Atterbury Goldberger Weiss P.A Australian A venue South Suite West Palm Beach FL Phone Fax Attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein Gary Fanner Jr Farmer Jaffe Weissing Edwards Fistos Lehrman PL Andrews A venue Suite Fort Lauderdale FL Phone Fax Attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein Joseph Ackerman Jr Esquire Fowler White Burnett P.A Phillips Point West Flagler Drive West Palm Beach FL Phone Fax Attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein Marc Nurik Esquire Law Offices of Marc Nurik One Broward Blvd Suite Fort Lauderdale FL Phone Fax Attorneys for Scott Rothstein Martin Weinberg P.C Park Plaza Suite Suffolk MA Attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO 08-CIV-80893-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE Plaintiff vs JEFFREY EPSTEIN Defendant I DEFENDANT EPSTEINS MOTION FOR Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Doe Epstein CASE NO 08-CIV-80893-MARRA/JOHNSON Page2 Since the April mediation additional discovery has been completed and exchanged including each parties psychological Plaintiff and psychiatric Defendant expert depositions As well Defendant filed his Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion for Bifurcation Both parties have exchanged witness and exhibit lists Each party will be filing extensive Motions in Limine Plaintiffs Trial Witness List has identified over potential witnesses and further Plaintiff identifies over trial exhibits including composite exhibits that are hundreds of pages in length It is conceivable this case could last trial days Additionally since the parties attended mediation on April Defendant has resolved all pending lawsuits including Plaintiff C.L Case No and JANE DOES Nos Case Nos C.M.A Case Jane Does Nos and Case Nos another Jane Doe Case No Jane Doe II Case No as well as other non-filed claims Furthermore Defendant has also resolved three state court claims The only cases not resolved are this case and two cases in state court all three Plaintiffs are represented by Plaintiffs counsel Brad Edwards Esq and his firm Plaintiffs in other filed cases were represented by various law firms as the court is aware With the additional discovery completed to date and with the motions trial preparation and judicial rulings necessary to try this case all yet to be done Defendant I Thc:rc is also a case yled L.M Jeffrey Epstejn CASE NO MARRA/JOHNSON which was never served on the Defendant Defendant has filed a Motion to Dismiss Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Doe Epstein CASE NO 08-CIV-80893-MARRA/JOHNSON Page3 believes that a settlement conference or mediation is in the best interest of both parties to attempt resolution There is no prejudice to either party Therefore Defendant requests the Court issue an order directing the parties to attend a Settlement Conference before Magistrate Judge Johnson or that the Court direct the parties to attend a further mediation before July Both Magistrate Judge Johnson and Rodney Romano as the mediator in this case are very familiar with the particular case and other claims that were asserted Defendants Counsel has spoken with the secretary for the mediator Rodney Romano and she believes that he would be able to schedule a hour mediation on short notice this week WHEREFORE Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN respectfully requests the Court to enter an Order directing the parties to attend a Settlement Conference before Magistrate Judge Linnea Johnson or in the alternative a mediation on or before July Rule Certification I hereby certify that counsel has communicated by telephone with Plaintiffs counsel in a good faith effort to resolve the issues set forth herein Plaintiffs position is that the parties have already complied with the mediation requirements By s/Robert Critton Jr Robert Critton Jr Michael Pike Attorneys for Defendant Epstein Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Doe Epstein CASE NO 08-CIV-80893-MARRA/JOHNSON Page4 Certificate of Service I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on all counsel of record identified on the following service list in the manner specified via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF on this th day of Jwie Brad Edwards Esq Fanner Jaffe Weissing Edwards Fistos Lehrman PL Andrews Ave Suite Fort Lauderdale FL Fax Brad pathtojustice.com Paul Cassell Esq Pro Hae Vice South Room Salt Lake City UT Fax cassellp law.utah.edu Co-counsel for Plaintiff Jack Alan Goldberger Esq Atterbury Goldberger Weiss P.A Australian A venue South Suite West Palm Beach FL Fax jagesq bellsouth.net Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein Respectfully submitted By Isl Robert Critton Jr ROBERT CR1TTON JR ESQ Florida Bar No rcrit bclclaw.com MICHAEL PIKE ESQ Florida Bar mpike bclclaw.com BURMAN CR1TTON LUTHER COLEMAN LLP Banyan Boulevard Suite West Palm Beach FL Phone Fax Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein Westlaw So.2d Fla Weekly Cite as So.2d Supreme Court of Florida ECHEVARRIA McCALLA RAYMER BAR
