Epstein Rothstein and Edwards Case No AG Jeffrey Epsteins Motion to Continue Fla.R.Civ.P provides that the Court may refuse the application for summary judgment or may order a continuance to permit affidavits to be obtained or depositions to be taken as is just It is well established that summary judgment should not be granted until all discovery has been completed SICA Sam Caliendo Designing So.2d Fla th DCA Up until December Scott Rothstein was not available for deposition District Court Judge Cohn had sustained objections of the United States Government to efforts to depose Scott Rothstein prior to that date See Exhibit Pursuant to and of the Fla Statutes Epstein requests this Court take judicial notice of Exhibit Presently pursuant to this Courts Order setting the hearing for Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment submission papers by both parties are due February In addition Edwards seeks to re-depose Epstein prior to the February hearing Given that it is not possible nor has it been possible for Epstein to take Scott Rothsteins deposition until February and since the deposition can not occur before the dates set by District Court Judge James Cohn Epstein respectfully submits that the hearing scheduled for February on the Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment should be postponed until after the deposition of Scott Rothstein takes place in June Rothstein is a party in this case and his testimony is necessary and material to an adjudication of the claims especially Edwards claim for Summary Judgment Epstein Rothstein and Edwards Case No AG Jeffrey Epsteins Motion to Continue The undersigned certifies that he has contacted counsel for the Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Bradley Edwards Jack Scarola in an effort to resolve this matter without the need of a hearing and will continue to do so Respectfully submitted an Florida Bar No FOWLER WHITE Epstein Rothstein and Edwards Case No AG Jeffrey Epsteins Motion to Continue West Palm Beach FL and Marc Nurik Esq Law Offices of Marc Nurik One East Broward Blvd Suite Fort Lauderdale FL flh-i seph Ackerman Jr Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO CIV-COHN In Re ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER P.A Debtor I ORDER GRANTING THE MOTIONS OF THE TRUSTEE AND JEFFREY EPSTEIN TO ISSUE A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AD TESTIFICANDUM THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Trustee Herbert Stettins Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum for Second Deposition of Scott Rothstein DE Brian Levys Motion to Take the Deposition of Scott Rothstein DE Jeffrey Epsteins Motion for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum to Depose Scott Rothstein and to be included in the Next Session of Rothsteins de.position DE the responses to the Trustees Motion of the Brauser Adversary Defendants DE the Insurance Companies DE Emess Capital LLC DE Ballamor Capital Management Inc and LLC and Barry Bekkedam DE National Uriion Insurance Company of Pittsburgh DE SFS Funding LLC Frank Preve and Preve and Associates LLC DE SPD Group Inc DE Michael Kent and Mikent Inc DE the Regent Defendants DE Associates Jacob Mussry Nassim Mussry Scott Morgan Harvey Wolinetz Viceroy Global Investments Inc and Concorde Capital Inc DE These companies are RLI Insurance Company Columbia Casualty Company Zurich American Insurance Company lronshore Indemnity Co Westchester Insurance Company and St Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company The Regent Defendants are Regent Capital Partners LLC Laura Huberfeld Murry Huberfeld Naomi Bodner David Bodner the Bodner Family Foundation Dahlia Kalter and Mark Nordlicht EXHIBIT Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of and Razorback Funding LLC Razorback Victims DE along with the Governments Reply DE and the Trustees Reply DE The Court has carefully considered all of these filings and the entire record in this action has heard the argument of counsel at todays hearlng and is otherw.ise fully ad ised in the premises I BACKGROUND Scott Rothstein Rothstein the central figure in a criminal action brought by the United States of America regarding fraudulent activities undertaken by Rothstein while he controlled the now bankrupt law firm of Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler P.A RRA was examined in the RRA bankruptcy proceeding and deposed by various parties in some of the related civil actions pending in federal and state courts from December through December by Or er of this Court These parties previously had filed motions to depose Rothstein in the RRA bankruptcy proceeding resulting in the Bankruptcy Court Order certifying the Order to this Court for its approval as Rothstein is currently serving a sentence imposed by this Court in Case No Just prior to the deposition in conjunction with its statutory duties and deadlines the Trustee filed additional adversary actions against numerous parties Some of those parties sought to be included in the December deposition of Scott Rothstein but due to the time needed to complete security protocols those parties were not able to be accommodated On November this Court denied the Trustees motion to For additional background the Courtrefers the parties to its Orders entered at docket entries and available at In re RRA WL S.D Fla July In re RRA WL S.D Fla Sept In re RRA WL S.D Fla Nov respectively Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of continu the December deposition and deferred ruling on the motion to bifurcate the deposition stating Any party who demonstrates a need to participate in a deposition of Scott Rothstein who is unable to participate in the December session because of the security restrictions imposed by the Marshals Service shall be afforded an opportunity to make a separate application for another deposition in early spring of Simply being sued by the Trustee in an dversary action is not by itself sufficient cause Those parties who believe that they have sufficient cause to participate in a second deposition of Scott Rothstein shall coordinate their requests with the Trustee who shall 267file a motion for such relief by January The Trustee along with two other parties have now moved the Court to issue a writ for a second deposition of Scott.Rothstein II DISCUSSION The Trustee proposes a ten day deposition of Scott Rothstein broken up into smaller depositions pertaining to of the bankruptcy adversary actions Upon agreement with the Government the second deposition would take place from June through.June will taken by video-conference and will not be videotaped No party opposes the deposition taking place As the Court stated in todays hearing before addressing the objections to the manner in which the Trustee and Government propose to take the deposition by video-conferencing without videotaping the time limits to be placed upon the parties time to question Rothstein and whether particular parties will be part of this deposition the Court first concludes that it will grant the Trustees motion and will set the deposition of Scott Rothstein for the ten business day period from June through June Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of A No Video-taping Various parties filed responses and presented oral argument objecting to the lack of videotaping of the depositions These objections focused on the importance of a jury seeing critical non-verbal credibility information about Rothsteins demeanor in answering questions While the Court recognizes the validity of this argument as previously stated in its September Order the Government has shown good cause and specifically identified a serious harm to justify elimination of videotaping of Rothsteins deposition The Court incorporates its prior analysis and conclusion on this issue In re RRA WL S.D Fla Sept Use of Video-Conference Although some parties raised an objection to the use of video-conference in their responses to the Trustees motion no further argument was made on this point at the hearing The logistics of allowing an in-person,_deposition such as took place in December at the first deposition of Scott Rothstein are significant and create a substantial financial and resource burden on the United States Marshals Service The Court finds that rio party will be prejudiced by using video.:.conferencing which allows the witness to remain in an undisclosed location As for the issue regarding how to get documents to the witness ahead of the deposition the Government states that it will facilitate counsels sending of-documents to Rothstein for use in questioning him during the deposition This Court leaves the logistics of any deadline for identification of such One party raised an issue not addressed by the Trustee or the Government or brought up at the hearing which is who else is going to be with Rothstein at his end of the video-conference The Court assumes that the only person who could possibly be there would be Rothsteins counsel The Court will leave that decision up to Rothsteins Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of documents to the parties to negotiate and for Judge Ray to include in a protocol governing.the deposition Time Limits The Insurers National Union the Ballamor Defendants Frank Preve and SFS Funding the Brauser Adversary Defendants and the Regent Defendants all object to the time limits placed upon their questioning of Rothstein as violations of Fed Civ or infringements on their due process rights The Trustee proposes that the ten days be broken up into separate deposit.ions one for each adversary case although some of those cases can be consolidated The Trustee proposed that the questioning attorneys rotate into the video-conference room so that each deposition is separate from the others The Insurers argue that their opponents in a separate coverage action involving their insured Banyon had the opportunity to question Rothstein in person and at length in December and therefore the Insurers should have the same opportunity They seek a total of hours among the eight in urance companies They contend that Judge Ray in denying without prejudice their motion to depose Rothstein signaled that he believed that _no court would deny due process to such defendants See DE at pp The Trustee notes that counsel for the Insurers were present in pecember at the I first deposition but agrees they were not able to ask estidns If they are able to counsel The Court does not expect either the Governments counsel or the s_tenographer to be at Rothsteins location There are two actions pending between these parties before other courts both of which are stayed because Banyan i.s in involuntary bankruptcy Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of participate the Trustee contends that their time should be limited further by having one counsel ask questions for all the insurance companies and be directed not to repeat areas already covered in the first deposition The Trustee contends that a full transcript of the first deposition should be deemed admissible for use in their litigation At the hearing the Insurers contended that they are each entitled to question Rothstein as conflict among the insurers is possible They note that collectively there is million of exposure at stake As the Court made clear it does not have the authority to make evidentiary rulings that extend to other cases before other courts The Governments Reply addresses the ti.me limit issue by stating that the first deposition resulted in pages of testimony and that repetitive testimony should not be allowed if the litigants all agree that the deposition can be utilized in all proceedings The Government cites to In re Katrina Canal Breaches Consolidated Litigation WL E.D La in which the district court cited Fed Civ as giving it the authority to impose limitations on the length of depositions allowed under Rule That case involved a year history of alleged Army Corps negligence leading up to the catastrophic loss of life and property after Hurricane Katrina That court limited the depositions to business days Given that Rothstein has already sat for ten days of deposition albeit with regard to other litigation beyond the scope of the parties presently before the Court on this motion an additional ten day period is more than sufficient for questioning of Rothstein on all of the adversary actions and non-bankruptcy actions involving the parties before the Court While this Court will not rule on how to parcel out the hours included in the ten day period the Court is confident that the parties can either work together to divide Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of the time in a fair manner or the matter is referred to Judge Ray to impose a schedule within any protocol adopted to govern the second deposition Who Can Participate The remaining issue involves who can participate in this second deposition The Trustee states in his reply that he has no objection to the inclusion of SFS Frank Preve and the Regent Defendants Reply at SPD Group Reply at VI and the Bra user Defendants Ballamore Defendants and Michael Kent Reply at VII Therefore those parties shall be included in the second deposition The Trustee opposes the participation of the Insurer Defendants stating that their action involving claims against Banyon has nothing to do with the Trustees bankruptcy adversary actions The Trustee contends that he should not have to give up his deposition time to these private litigants in his efforts to obtain assets to benefit the creditors and victims of RRA However as noted above the insurers opponents were able.to question Rothstein in the first action This Court concludes that under these circumstances the insurers have demonstrated a need to depose Scott Rothstein However as stated in the prior section their participation is subject to time limitations 267imposed by Judge Ray in the protocols to be worked out by the parties and Judge Ray The Court notes that the Trustee did not file any objection to Brian Levys motion to be included in the second deposition Mr Levy asserts that he sold his business to RRA and has been sued by the Trustee to return the proceeds of that transaction He alleges that the Trustee asked Rothstein questions about this transaction at the first deposition Mr Levy also references February discovery deadlines in his adversary action before Judge Ray This Court concludes that it is best to defer a decision on Mr Levys motion to Judge Ray who is in a better position to manage his docket The Court has no objection to Mr Levys participation in the second deposition if Judge Ray and/or the Trustee finds it necessary based upon due process grounds Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of As to Emess Capital DE and certain Razorback Defendants DE the Trustee states in his reply that he may be open to a very limited collective deposition involving these parties Reply at This Court believes that these adversary defendants have demonstrated a need to participate although that participation is subject to significant limitation in conjunctio_n with this Courts referral to Judge Ray ofthe need for a scheduling protocol to divide the ten day period among the parties As for parties who participated in the first deposition such as the Razorback victims DE the Trustee contends that further participation uld open the do to several other parties who participated in the first deposition to seek additional involvement The Razorback victims only seek further participation if their opponents in their private actions the Insurers are allowed to participate However because the Razorback victims already participated the Court will grant them access to the deposition to observe the Insurers questioning of Rothstein but absent a demonstration of specific need the Razorback victims will not be allowed to further question Rothstein Finally the Trustee opposes the 267participation of Jeffrey Epstein on the grounds that his action has nothing to do with the bankruptcy actions and will open the floodgates to request by private parties to depose Rothstein Mr Epstein filed his qwn motion for writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum to question Rothstein regarding his separate state court action in Palm Beach County Circuit Court against Rothstein and former RRA partner Bradley Edwards for abuse of process Epstein was the defendant in the cases that Rothstein used to create structured settlements that were used to perpetuate his Ponzi scheme Epstein reports that he attempted to secure a deposition through his state court action but the state court judge concluded he did not have the authority to Case cv Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of issue a writ The Government confir ed that while a state court judge can i_ssue a writ compliance with such a writ by the federal Bureau of Prisons is discretionary under federal regulations Epstein recognizes tharabsent this ongoing bankruptcy proceeding his chances of obtaining access to depose Rothstein are small Upon a review of the record Epsteins motion is supported by specific evidence that Rothstein had personal involvement in the civil actions filed against Epstein which supported the Ponzi scheme Epstein has also undertaken all the steps he could take to secure Rothsteins deposition While it is somewhat fortuitous for him that the Trustee is seeking a second deposition for Rothstein a this time the co 267urt concludes that Epstein has met his burden to_ be included in this second deposition of Scott Rothstein Epsteins participation shall be subject to time limits set by the parties and Judge Ray CONCLUSION Accordingly it is hereby ORDERED AND_ ADJUDGED as follows Trustee Herbert Stettins Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum for Second Deposition of Scott Rothstein DE is hereby GRANTED Brian Levys Motion to Take the Deposition of Scott Rothstein DE is hereby DENIED w_ithout prejudice and to be decided by United States Bankruptcy Judge Raymond Ray Jeffrey Epsteins Motion for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum to Depose Scott Rothstein and to be included in the Next Session of Rothsteins deposition DE is hereby GRANTED The Trustee shall prepare and forward to the Court a form of a Writ for Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of The deposition of Scott Rothstein shall proceed for ten business days by video conference commencing June The deposition of Scott Rothstein shall NOT be videotaped The Trustee shall be responsible for coordinating the establishment of acceptable and appropriate protocols for the procedures and scheduling of the depqsition subject to approval by United States Bankruptcy Judge Raymond Ray DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale Broward County Flor!da on this th day of February States District Ju cc copies to counsel of record on CM/ECF Trustees counsel shall forward this Order to any party not receiving notice via CM/ECF Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO In Re ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER P.A Debtor ORDER GRANTING STAY OF BANKRUPTCY COURTS ORDER GRANTING THE MOTION OF TRUSTEE TO ISSUE A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AD TESTIFICANDUM THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon the Bankruptcy Courts certification of its Order Granting in Part the Motion of Trustee Herbert Stettin to Issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum Gilbraltar Private Bank Trusts Gilbraltar Motion for Leave to Depose 267Scott Rothstein and Razorback Creditors Motion for Issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum to Depose Scott Rothstein in State Court Litigation DE the Bankruptcy Court Order the Governments Objection to the Order and Motion to Stay Taking of Deposition DE the Trustees Response DE the Responses of Gilbraltar TD Bank Razorback Victims and Platinum Partners Value Arbitrage Fund LP Platinum DE and the Governments Reply DE The Court has carefully considered the Bankruptcy Courts Order the Governments Objection and Motion to Stay the various Responses and the Reply has heard the argument of counsel at todays hearing and is otherwise fully advised in the premises Scott Rothstein Rothstein the central figure in a criminal action brought by the The Court has also considered the Governments Ex Parte Submission in Support of its Objection and Motion to Stay DE filed under seal This Court authorized the filing under seal as the submission contains specific information regarding the Governments pending criminal investigation that is subject to grand jury rules EXHIBIT c2 I I Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of United States of America regarding fraudulent activities undertaken by Rothstein while he controlled the now bankrupt law firm of Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler P.A RRAj is sought to be deposed in various civil actions pending in federal and state courts The bankruptcy court-appointed Trustee for RRA plaintiff victims and defendants in separate actions brought by the Trustee and fraud victims all seek to examine or depose Rothstein regarding his knowledge of events related to the operations of RRA and those civil actions The parties filed motions to depose Rothstein in the RRA bankruptcy proceeding resulting in the Bankruptcy Court Order certifying the Order to this Court for its approval as Rothstein is currently serving a fifty year sentence imposed by this Court in Case No The United States Government seeks to stay any deposition of Rothstein for a period of at least six months I BACKGROUND On November an _involuntary petition for bankruptcy was filed regarding the RRA law firm A trustee was appointed shortly thereafter by the bankruptcy court On December the United States by way of an information charged Rothstein with RICO money laundering and mail and wire fraud conspiracies in violation of U.S.C and and with substantive wire fraud in violation of U.S.C The Information also contained criminal forfeiture allegations On January Rothstein pied guilty to all of the charges contained in the Information Rothstein also agreed to forfeit his right in the properties described in the Information and the Bill of Particulars SB DE at Thus on April the Court entered a Preliminary Order of Forfeiture The Preliminary Order of Forfeiture Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page forfeited all of Rothsteins right title and interest in all property involved in the RICO and money laundering conspiracies and all P.roperty derived from the ma!I and wire fraud offenses Sn KL Significant litigation then ensued in this Court in the criminal action regarding various third-party claims in the forfeiture action and restitution proceeding ultimately leading to the First Final Order of Forfeiture on February While the criminal matter and related proceedings progressed in this Court civil litigation surrounding RRA Rothstein.s victims and RRAs creditors and business partners abounded in bankruptcy court state court and other federal district courts Several of these other actions have upcoming filing and discovery deadlines Thus the Trustee and other parties understandably seek to examine and depose othstein However according to the recent Motion to Reduce Sentence filed by the Government in the criminal action Rothstein is continuing to cooperate in the Governments criminal investigation DE in Case No II DISCUSSION This Court is once again asked to balance the conflicting needs of the Government prosecuting alleged criminal acts the Bankruptcy Trustee charged with marshaling assets of a defunct law firm and distributing funds to RRAs creditors victims of Rothsteins fraud schemes and parties litigating civil actions with potentially millions of dollars of liability at issue For example one of the civil actions in federal district court is set for trial in late October the Trustee has a November deadline to file additional adversary actions in bankruptcy court and discovery deadlines in both state court and federal court.actions are also set for the.fall of this year Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of A Balancing Teat Factors Federal courts have long recognized that discovery in civil actions should sometimes be stayed pending completion of parallel cri inal prosecutions in the interest of justice United States Kord U.S collecting cases The decision as Justice Cardozo noted calls for the exercise of judgment which must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance Landis North American Co U.S Each decision should be made on a case by case basis though several factors to be weighed include the interest of the plaintiffs in proceeding expeditiously with this litigation or any particuiar aspect of it and the potential prejudice to plaintiffs of a delay the burden which any particular aspect of the proceedings may impose defendants the convenience of the court in the management of its cases and the efficient use of judicial resources the interests of persons not parti to the civil litigation and the interest of the public in the pending civil and criminal litigation Keating Office of Thrift Supervision F.3d th Cir The Government contends that it requires a six month stay of any deposition of Rothstein to alleviate the burden upon it to complete its criminal investigation of the numerous co-conspirators in Rothstein;s wide-ranging criminal activity including mail and wire fraud campaign finance fraud tax fraud extortion payments of unlawful gratuities bank fraud money laundering and other crimes Due to.the use of a law firm A United States Magistrate Judge in the District of Columbia stated that the movant is required to make a clear 267showing by direct or indirect proof that the issues in the civil action are related as well as substantially similar to the issues in the criminal investigation make a clear showing of hardship or inequality if required to go forward with the civil case while the criminal investigation is pending and must establish that the duration of the requested stay is not immoderate or unreasonable Hom District of Columbia F.R.D D.D.C quoting St Paul Fire Marine Ins co United states c1 ct I Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of as Rothsteins criminal enterprise the Government has had two different teams of law enforcement personnel reviewing the more than potentially relevant e-mail messages found on RRAs computers in order to avoid prosecutors viewing any attorney-client communications The Government anticipates that a deposition of Rothstein would disclose the evidence which forms the basis of the governments proposed.._case to putative defendants and other targets of the criminal investigation some of whom are parties to this action and therefore corroborating evidence could be concealed altered or destroyed The Government asse that its criminal investigation will be harmed by allowing the deposition to go forward at this time The Government relies in part on the fact that civil discovery rules are more liberal than those in place in criminal cases Campbell Eastland F.2d th Cir Courts must be sensitive to the difference and not allow criminal defendants to obtain discovery through a civil action that they would not otherwise be allowed Jg S.E.C Downe WL S.D.N.Y The Government also contends that allowing the criminal matter to proceed will moot and clarify issues in civil actions or increase the possibility of settlement of those actions leading to a more efficient use of judicial resources Finally the Government suggests that the public interest in bringing to justice additional wrongdoers supports their request for six-month stay of the deposition The decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit as that court existed on 267september handed down by that court prior to the close of business on that date shall be binding as precedent in the Eleventh Circuit for this court the district courts and the bankruptcy courts in the Circuit Bonner Pritchard F.2d 11th Cir en bane Case JIC Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of The Trust responds to the Governments Motion by noting its statutory deadline of November to file additional adversary actions to obtain more assets for creditors and victims cannot be extended by law The Trustee argues that it requires access to Rothstein to avoid irreparable harm to its investigation of RRAs activities The Government proposes to alleviate this burden by making Rothstein available to the Trustee for an interview to avoid this harm Gilbratar and TD Bank oppose any kind of special access that provides an advantage to the Trustee or the Razorback Plaintiffs in the related civil actions With regard to the stay of Rothsteins deposition Gilbraltar TD Bank and Platinum Partners argue that under the line of cases cited by the Government all civil discovery in the related cases should be stayed as defendants in those actions will be prejudiced by having to defend those civil actions without the opportunity to depose Rothstein and gain potentially exculpatory evidence or having to continue with discovery and then redo certain depositions after Rothsteins December deposition These parties argue that the Government has completely ignored the burdens and prejudice faced by these parties in the other litigation In its Reply the Government confirms that it is only seeking to stay Rothsteins deposition and whether other civil actions will need to be continued will be up to those courts presiding over those cases This Court agrees with the Government and will only decide whether to stay Rothsteins deposition In that regard the Court concludes that under the unique The Court will separately address this proposal in the next section This Court recognizes the inconvenience this decision may have on those courts presiding over the other civil actions Whether Gilbraltar TD Bank or Platinum Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of circumstances of this case where a wide-ranging criminal conspiracy operated from a functioning law firm with attorneys plus support staff was unraveled and dropped at the Governments front door in early November of the Governments request to delay Rothsteins deposition for six months is reasonable despite the hardship such an extension may impose on the Trustee and private parties The Court reaches this decision upon consideration of all the factors courts have used to weigh the compelling yet competing interests on all sides of this dispute Trustee Special Access Gilbraltar and TD Bank oppose the Governments proposed accommodation of allowing the Trustee to interview Rothstein in lieu of a Bankruptcy Rule e".Camination They argue that such preferential treatment to a party that is in litigation against other interested parties is grossly unfair The Trustee and the Government suggest that the Trustee would limit its interview to investigate the possibility of bringing actions against new parties not to gather further evidence in pending cases Governments Reply at In fact following argument by TD Bank counsel seeking safeguards if access to Rothstein is allowed counsel for the Trustee confirmed in open court that the Trustee and his counsel will treat their notes of an interview with Rothstein as work-product will not obtain an affidavit or declaration from Rothstein to use against the adversary case defendants and will not share the information gleaned from Rothstein with the plaintiffs in the civil cases The Trustee is granted this access solely because of his statutory obligations to hring new claims properly supported are entitled to a complete stay of discovery or a continuance of deadlines should be decided by those courts presiding over those cases Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of under Rule by early November Ill CONCLUSION In granting the Governments motion for a stay the Court concludes that no further stay will be granted The parties opposing the stay are rightly concerned that the Government could come back to this Court after it completes its investigation and potentially obtains further indictments to seek a further stay of Rothsteins deposition pending resolution of the new criminal cases The Court shares that concern For that reason the Court is setting a specific week in December for the Rothstein deposition to take place This definite time frame for the deposition will allow all parties including the Government to govern themselves accordingly and allow the other courts presiding over related civil actions to have confidence that no further delays will occur in the taking of the deposition The Court intends to follow Judge Rays protocol for Rothsteins deposition as contained in his June Order which the Court understands was negotiated by all the parties involved except the Government However for security reasons the Court will allow the Government time to file specific objections to portions of that Order Accordingly it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows The Governments Motion to Stay Taking of Deposition DE is hereby GRANTED The examination/deposition of Scott Rothstein shall take place commencing December under the protocol described in Judge Rays proposed Writ except as modified by this Court in a future order The United States Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Government shall coordinate the time and location of Rothsteins deposition The Government shall file their objections and proposed revisions to particular portions of Judge Rays Order by August in a public filing though the Government may attach a sealed filing containing any basis that must remain sealed due to security concerns By August all parties including the Government shall file a joint proposed Writ of Habeas Corpus Testificandum DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort La Florida on this st day of July Copies provided to Counsel of record on CM/ECF ICT JUDGE 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 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
