JEFFREY EPSTEIN Plaintiff vs SCOTT ROTHSTEIN individually BRADLEY EDWARDS Individually and L.M individually Defendants Electronically Filed PM 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 y!k N?M??N rC f?Nla3 Yz N?q qr NEeD K?i N?M?qr EeD k??O I CTX U3 U3 U3 U3 S6 E"L I I I5K7C:I 9O U3 Cn qrr qr q??r?q 9qr CTX G5 qr CX rC l0 WS zN pf1 ODV8L?m jC1DxV CTX CTX A qr 10Cy rYY Ң??P?V CTX C"C rqM?rq?q?qr qr CTX YY Jb?C.y CTX CTX GG4 A A G5 C.C M??r 10Cy rq YY C?J?yO c/XE?lgF GM??H p?ݡG Dp9Oh CTX CTX CJ4 I J6 CJ4 CK qrrM?q qq 9/CX?o CX qYqr rC dd?Z c6S ttcx A CTX CTX 10Cy rq rqYY X?qiX:4 3J Db ZH uD-8 1g?BH I vS 7Oo7u E?K?O J6 UJP U0 UT??ʴ UT UT UT O(p U(u UF1 iZ qr?r CX CX Yr zKW:E A K5M P-M UW VW L1J KJ56 N/Q SQ rC 6J ߵl ߵl 5TZ w8ĥDG oj?K _4 N)?Y Hp pRqc?W26 vz?WBrz?ZB??3X H4 CTX A CTX X4 U5 P8 5D qr qr 10Cy qr YY Mo?ANp D01jJ 9F bzEV 4O 8V CTX O!o CTX KK AA qr A C5 qr rYY 1A?CC V9 a c?F CTX A G5 qr EeD?M CTX 9?rY 10Cy rq qY ȠX1 a f??B CTX 9F I CTX 6D N?qr rrqq qC O?J RmA??b"0 M?.F q?D B?G CTX CTX F4 d6P A F4 qr rYY 4G AV8 CTX UY UL0 U0 U0 U0 UF UF UFAGA UA UA UAL UL UL UL UL UL UL U7 U7 U7 U7 U7 U7 U7 2EH GTU U/U OUoU UV G1 CTX TUV 1G 7A UA UAL X7 U7 U7 U77XL UL UL ULLYX KTX 8Y GJ A UMAT UD 7M GVW GF10 MWA LL MPM M?M 4M XY qr qr qr NEeD 10Cy qYY E2 GH l1 Pd h3V g?KIq V5kL O65S d_xKKU vV 5H p1 Z6 CTX U0 U1 CTX U0 U1 A0 1D qr qr 10Cy YY K??Kl 1B AMwv 1K F1 KV yW Gd T?H CTX CTX I CK M?qr K?SK?PQZ I IRZX 8YCX 10Cy qr CX kv zg S5kB??a iG wA CTX U2 6Y CTX U2 6Y I K,,j j,s 6Y P!p qr 10Cy qr YY G?O 9K mSd X0 9r?yal 1d bY0 XNf??qN D?J CTX P!Z b!o C,C qrM 10Cy qr8 I fX2 9R lO KV CTX Oo CTX A qr r?qr rq YY Lsy7H4 C,6E IL CTX U3 CTX J,O3_3xx qrM?r q?CX Y9/C 9CX CTX Y10Cy CX CX CX YC YY FV uTl bEWa ȓjJ-8 Gc G??Q9E 9Wq CTX CTX Up i I A 9_ qr qr YY D.X 7s F??Y bc3_c iH CTX CTX A qr 10Cy YY EMq 7H AY mK9Z BY A2 P6L N7 CTX CTX a I I i qr rC CTX CTX 7O I FMM qr qr i I I3 CTX Z6 I L(K4 P:u Z6P CTX y8 reasons set forth below as well as those that will be presented at hearing this Motion should be denied MEMORANDUM OF LAW Edwardss Motion seeks two unrelated items of relief a request for a jury instruction seeking an impermissibly broad negative inference and an Order precluding Epstein from offering any evidence at trial regarding matters about which he asserted a privilege during pre trial discovery Edwardss request for a jury instruction regarding negative inference should be denied because Edwardss Motion fails to identify any specific questions/requests for which he is seeking a negative inference and as delineated below neglects to provide any applicable rule or body of law permitting him to prematurely request and/or receive such a jury instruction based exclusively on unspecified pre-trial discovery Edwardss second request for an Order precluding Epstein from offering any evidence at trial regarding any matters for which he asserted privilege during pre-trial discovery must likewise be denied Edwardss reliance upon Rule of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and Securities and Exchange Commission American Beryllium and Oil Corp F.Supp in support of his request is misplaced as neither the rule nor the case to which he cites permits such preclusion on the facts of the instant case For these reasons as demonstrated more fully in this Memorandum of Law Edwardss Motion should be denied I EDWARDSS REQUEST FOR A JURY INSTRUCTION REGARDING NEGATIVE INFERENCE MUST BE DENIED The sole case upon which Edwards relies in support of his request for an impermissibly broad negative inference jury instruction is Baxter Palmigiano U.S According to Edwards own Motion this case stands for the proposition that a Defendant can be compelled to take the stand and assert the privilege in response to questioning before the fact finder The plaintiff is then entitled to an adverse inference in response to the unanswered questions and counsel is entitled to argue that adverse inference Edwardss Motion page emphasis added The procedure as delineated by the court in Baxter requires that the party asserting the privilege to do so in front of the fact finder after a question is asked Thereafter under certain specific circumstances as to which Edwards has made no assertions whatsoever in his Motion the Plaintiff may be entitled to some adverse inference limited in scope to the specific question that is asked Baxter is neither on point nor analogous to the improper request Edwards has put before this Court Edwards has requested an inconceivably broad and general negative inference without reference to any specific question as to which such an inference might be made or any showing of the requisite conditions for such an inference Moreover Edwardss request is based solely on Epsteins properly asserted privilege made during the discovery phase of litigation outside the presence of the fact finder As such Baxter provides no legal justification for the blanket negative inference requested by Edwards and Edwardss Motion as to such negative inference should be denied II EDW ARDSS REQUEST FOR PRECLUSION FROM OFFERING EVIDENCE AT TRIAL SHOULD BE DENIED Edwardss assertion of and reliance upon Rule of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure is equally inapposite to the relief he requests in the instant Motion Rule of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure is applicable only in matters where a party has failed to comply with a court order It provides in relevant part Failure to Comply With Order If a party or an officer director or managing agent of a party or a person designated under rule or a to testify on behalf of a party fails to obey an order to provide or permit discovery including an order made under subdivision a of this rule or rule the court in which the action is pending may make any of the following orders An order refusing to allow the disobedient party to support or oppose designated claims or defenses or prohibiting that party from introducing designated matters in evidence FLA R.C1v This Rule is irrefutably inapplicable to the facts presented in this Motion Likewise the case of Securities and Exchange Commission American Beryllium and Oil Corp F.Supp the only case submitted by Edwards in support of the preclusion sought in his Motion is inapplicable In American Beryllium the defendant failed to comply with a court order compelling him to turn over certain discovery The defendant also failed to timely raise his Fifth Amendment Privilege as the defendant did not assert it until after he had violated the court order The court then held that the documents should be precluded because the defendant failed to raise the asserted privilege before Judge MacMahon or to at least respond on or before December as ordered Id at In the case at hand Epstein timely asserted his Fifth Amendment Privilege In fact Edwards has never challenged that assertion Moreover Edwards does not allege that Epstein has failed to comply with a court order Neither the rule nor the case law relied upon by Edwards states that an assertion of privilege is deemed a failure to comply with a discovery order Again American Beryllium is neither on point nor analogous to the facts of the instant case Finally Edwardss ambiguous and overly-broad request that Epstein be precluded from offering evidence or testimony as to any matter about which he has declined on the basis of the assertion of privilege to provide pre-trial discovery completely disregards the fact that Epstein has timely and properly provided Edwards with his trial exhibit and witness list If there is a specific document/item/witness with which Edwards takes issue Edwards should properly identify same either through a proper motion or at trial so that this Court can properly examine the issue and rule on Edwardss request that it be precluded See Tomlinson-McKenzie Prince So 2d Fla 4th DCA Aguila-Rojas City Management Group Corp So.2d Fla 3d DCA CONCLUSION Based on the arguments presented above and the complete absence of any applicable or relevant legal authority cited by Edwards in support of his untenable and premature requests Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein respectfully requests that this Court enter an Order denying Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Bradley Edwardss Motion to Determine Entitlement to Adverse Inference and Precluding Epstein from Offering Evidence at Trial and grant such other and further relief as deemed necessary and proper WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served upon all parties listed below via Electronic Service this September Tonja Haddad Coleman Tonja Haddad Coleman Esq Fla Bar No LAW OFFICES OF TONJA HADDAD PA SE ih Street Suite Fort Lauderdale Florida facsimile Tonja tonjahaddad.com Electronic Service List Jack Scarola Esq Searcy Denney Scarola et al Palm Beach Lakes Blvd West Palm Beach FL JSX SearcyLaw.com MEP Searcylaw.com Jack Goldberger Esq Atterbury Goldberger Weiss PA Australian Ave South Suite West Palm Beach FL jgoldberger agwpa.com Marc Nurik Esq I East Broward Blvd Suite Fort Lauderdale FL marc nuriklaw.com Bradley Edwards Esq Farmer Jaffe eissing Edwards FistosLehrman Andrews A venue Suite Fort Lauderdale Florida bje.efile pathtojustice.com Fred Haddad Esq Financial Plaza Suite Fort Lauderdale FL Dee FredHaddadLaw.com
