IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15th JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION AG CASE NO Judge David Crow JEFFREY EPSTEIN Plaintiff vs SCOTT ROTHSTEIN individually BRADLEY EDWARDS individually Defendants I PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEINS RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT/COUNTERPLAINTIFF BRADLEY EDWARDS MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES PURSUANT TO FLA STAT Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN Epstein by and through his undersigned counsel hereby offers the following Response In Opposition To Defendant/Counterplaintiff Bradley Edwards Motion For Attorneys Fees Pursuant To Fla Stat and states as follows I SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT Edwards motion for attorneys fees pursuant to Fla Stat motion is frivolous Edwards seeks sanctions against Epstein based upon Epsteins service of a notice of intent directed to Edwards Counterclaim for abuse of process Epstein asserted in his motion that Edwards abuse of process counterclaim was legally insufficient because it did not allege any abuse of process after Epstein filed his Complaint At a September hearing this Court expressed the same concern that Edwards Counterclaim for abuse of process did not state a valid claim because it failed to allege any improper process by Epstein subsequent A A 4A E0 A4 DE a qr?q rq qrCX HhL Kg lg d?a d6U a M3 flW y??S m/y t0 I F/Z V/j 1a qC KS u?v vZ O5 a qr rCX qC 0V I I dc rM?M rM 10Cy n??m?n k?o?h I A I w?!ac qr MCX 10Cy ITy qr M3 Ґ??1rA5R h?H?T3P K?z X?K I v"x i X5 EO5 5a r?q CX 9r Cy rq rqC M3 ş?:c p/p0 5H V)V 6T Y2 G5 qrM?r?qr?r9 q?10Cy rCX qr l1 X?l 3K fm?Q Z2f CX CX gT L??T 2E Cy 3P EM3 J4T L?h??M q?ᡚ?Y r??O?rJt CTX i P!e i I CTX rC YY I 1e 2j CTX X0T1i k3v Jh/e0h1 H(K W/Q0 CTX j?!k 5B r2 CTX A A A 4v z"p A A A0A?A AK CTX A A?!k CX qCX YCX i!d A fi8 l8 yuZ 6L pH m?c sP;0 6ZR Ni P0 0Q X(P0s s(s p0 Pp CTX qq dR B/J Va A N?q qr NEeD 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 AG to the filing of the Complaint In response to the Courts concerns on October Edwards filed an Amended Counterclaim for abuse of process and malicious prosecution The next day after filing an Amended Counterclaim Edwards nevertheless filed the subject sanctions motion contending that Epsteins motion was frivolous because Edwards initial Counterclaim for abuse of process was valid But Epsteins contentions regarding the invalidity of Edwards abuse of process claim have been validated by both this Courts statements at the September hearing and by Edwards own decision to amend his counterclaim As a result Edwards cannot credibly claim that his initial abuse of process claim was valid much less that he is entitled to sanctions on that basis Edwards sanctions motion should also be denied because a motion cannot be based on an unfiled motion Finally Edwards motion should be denied and stricken because it reveals the general amount of a proposal for settlement that Epstein made to Edwards in this litigation which information is confidential and inadmissible II BACKGROUND In December Epstein through prior counsel filed a Complaint naming Edwards as a defendant Edwards filed an Answer and Counterclaim for abuse of process followed by a motion for summary judgment and motion for leave to assert punitive damages The Court denied Edwards summary judgment motion and denied without prejudice Edwards motion for leave to assert punitive damages Epstein filed an Amended Complaint which Edwards moved to dismiss The Court granted Edwards motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint with leave to amend Epstein then filed a Second Amended Complaint containing a single count against Edwards for abuse of process and a single count against Rothstein for conspiracy which Edwards moved to dismiss Case No AG On or about August Epstein sent Edwards a proposal for settlement directed to Edwards Counterclaim On or about September Epstein served Edwards with a notice of intent pursuant to Fla Stat and a motion alleging that Edwards abuse of process counterclaim was legally insufficient because it was based solely on the filing of an allegedly baseless complaint and not on any post-issuance process At a September hearing on Edwards motion to dismiss Epsteins Second Amended Complaint the Court expressed serious concerns as to whether Edwards Counterclaim stated a viable claim for abuse of process and explained that abuse of process required improper use of process after it issued Hearing Tr at On October Edwards filed an Amended Counterclaim for abuse of process Count I and malicious prosecution Count II The Amended Counterclaim alleged inter alia that Epstein.filed civil claims against Edwards and others to intimidate them Epstein knew and knows that his prior Complaint had no factual support in filing and continuing to prosecute each of the claims against Edwards Epstein acted maliciously and to extort Edwards into abandoning his claims against Epstein and each pleading motion subpoena and request for production by Epstein was extortion and constituted a perversion of process after its initial service On October Edwards served the subject one-and-a-half-page motion seeking sanctions based on Epsteins filing a Notice of Intent to File a F.S motion seeking to sanction Edwards and his counsel for the prosecution of Edwards Counterclaim against Epstein Edwards entire argument is as follows id The assertion that the Counterclaim lacked factual and legal support is clearly spurious in light of the factual and legal support detailed in EDWARDS pending Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion to Assert Claim for Punitive Damages Moreover at Case No AG the very same time that EPSTEIN takes the position in his motion that EDWARDS claim is baseless he has filed a Proposal for Settlement offering to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to settle that same claim I ARGUMENT A LEGALSTANDARDS Section Fla Stat provides as follows Upon the courts initiative or motion of any party the court shall award a reasonable attorneys fee including prejudgment interest to be paid to the prevailing party in equal amounts by the losing party and the losing partys attorney on any claim or defense at any time during a civil proceeding or action in which the court finds that the losing party or the losing partys attorney knew or should have known that a claim or defense when initially presented to the court or at any time before trial a Was not supported by the material facts necessary to establish the claim or defense or Would not be supported by the application of then-existing law to those material facts Section Fla Stat states A motion by a party seeking sanctions under this section must be served but may not be filed with or presented to the court unless within days after service of the motion the challenged paper claim defense contention allegation or denial is not withdrawn or appropriately corrected EDWARDS MOTION IS IMPROPERLY DIRECTED TO A NOTICE OF INTENT UNDER FLA.STAT Edwards motion seeks sanctions based on the notice of intent that Epstein served on Edwards Edwards incorrectly states in his motion that Epstein filed his notice of intent Section Fla Stat however does not authorize the imposition of sanctions based on the service of a notice of intent Rather the statute limits a motion to seeking attorneys fees on the basis of an unsupportable claim or defense An untiled notice of intent Case No AG served pursuant to the statutes mandatory safe-harbor provision is not a claim or defense It is nothing more than a procedural condition precedent to seeking attorneys fees pursuant to the statute and by its terms does not authorize a party to seek attorneys fees from an opposing party who has done nothing more than comply with the statutes notice of intent requirement Indeed if attorneys fees could be awarded solely on the basis of a notice of intent the courts judicial system would become mired in endless rounds of retaliatory motions Edwards motion would trigger a retaliatory motion and so on Section however does not license such gamesmanship EDWARDS MOTION IS FRIVOLOUS BECAUSE EDWARDS COUNTERCLAIM FOR ABUSE OF PROCESS FAILED TO STATE AV ALID CLAIM FOR RELIEF Assuming arguendo that a motion can properly be based on a notice of intent Edwards motion should still be denied because it is patently untenable Edwards has not demonstrated that Epsteins notice of intent was frivolous when served nor can he To the contrary as Epstein argued in his recently filed motion to dismiss Edwards counterclaim for abuse of process is and has always been factually and legally unsupported All that Edwards has demonstrated is that his own motion is baseless Edwards cannot credibly argue that Epsteins notice of intent was clearly spurious Edwards motion at for at least two reasons First this Court expressed precisely the same serious concerns as to whether Edwards Counterclaim for abuse of process was viable see Tr at as those that Epstein raised in his notice of intent Second in response to the Courts serious concerns Edwards immediately amended his counterclaim for abuse of process It is staggering that one week after the Court vindicated Epsteins position that Edwards abuse of process claim was not actionable Edwards turned around and sought sanctions on the ground that Epsteins argument was spurious Given the inescapable fact that Case No AG this Court effectively agreed with Epstein that Edwards abuse of process claim was legally insufficient Edwards subsequent filing of a motion directed to Epsteins notice of intent is abusive and sanctionable EDWARDS MOTION SHOULD BE STRICKEN BECAUSE IT DISCLOSES CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION Edwards contends that he is entitled to sanctions because Epstein filed a Proposal for Settlement offering to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to settle that claim Edwards motion should be denied and stricken on the additional ground that it improperly discloses the fact and general amount of Epsteins Proposal for Settlement Fla Civ i states that evidence of a proposal is admissible only in proceedings to enforce an accepted proposal or to determine the imposition of sanctions Emphasis added Thus pursuant to Rule the fact or amount of a proposal for settlement is confidential and may not be disclosed until the end of the case and then only if the result is better than the proposal as provided by the Rule Edwards disclosure of confidential information in the public domain is impermissible and inexcusable requiring denial of his motion Moreover as Edwards and his attorneys are well aware the making of a proposal for settlement does not indicate in any way that a claim has merit or that a motion directed to that claim is without merit Accordingly Epsteins proposal for settlement is not probative of whether Edwards abuse of process claim was actionable Similarly under Fla Stat evidence of an offer of judgment is admissible only in proceedings to enforce an accepted offer or to determine the imposition of sanctions under this section denied Case No AG IV CONCLUSION Based upon the foregoing arguments and authorities Edwards motion should be Respectfully submitted Florida Bar No FOWLER WHITE Case No AG CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was sent via U.S Mail on this th day of October to Jack Scarola Esq Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart Shipley P.A Palm Beach Lakes Blvd West Palm Beach FL Jack A Goldberger Esq Atterbury Goldberger Weiss P.A Australian A venue South Suite West Palm Beach FL Marc Nurik Esq Law Offices of Marc Nurik One Broward Blvd Suite Ft Lauderdale FL By Lt7 Joeph Ackerman Jr
