JEFFREY EPSTEIN Plaintiff vs SCOTT ROTHSTEIN individually and BRADLEY EDWARDS 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 H?o I Idc rM?M rM 10Cy f헊?f?Tz e?e:Aa I v"x i X5 EO5 5a r?q CX 9r Cy rq rqC M3 ş?:c p/p0 5H V)V 6T Y2 G5 qrM?r?qr?r9 q?10Cy rCX qr l1 X?l 3K fm?Q Z2f CX CX gT L??T 2E Cy 3P EM3 J4T L?h??M q?ᡚ?Y r??O?rJt CTX i P!e i I CTX rC YY I 1e 2j CTX X0T1i k3v Jh/e0h1 H(K W/Q0 CTX j?!k 5B r2 CTX A A A 4v z"p A A A0A?A AK CTX A A?!k CX qCX YCX i!d A fi8 l8 yuZ 6L pH m?c sP;0 6ZR Ni P0 0Q X(P0s s(s p0 Pp CTX qq dR B/J Va A N?q qr NEeD K?i N?M?qr EeD k??O I CTX U3 U3 U3 U3 S6 E"L I I I5K7C:I 9O U3 Cn qrr qr q??r?q 9qr CTX G5 qr CX rC l0 WS zN pf1 ODV8L?m jC1DxV CTX CTX A qr 10Cy rYY Ң??P?V CTX C"C rqM?rq?q?qr qr CTX YY Jb?C.y CTX CTX GG4 A A G5 C.C M??r 10Cy rq YY C?J?yO c/XE?lgF GM??H p?ݡG Dp9Oh CTX CTX CJ4 I J6 CJ4 CK qrrM?q qq 9/CX?o CX qYqr rC dd?Z c6S ttcx A CTX CTX 10Cy rq rqYY X?qiX:4 3J Db ZH uD-8 1g?BH I vS 7Oo7u E?K?O J6 UJP U0 UT??ʴ UT UT UT O(p U(u UF1 iZ qr?r CX CX Yr zKW:E A K5M P-M UW VW L1J KJ56 N/Q SQ rC 6J ߵl ߵl 5TZ w8ĥDG oj?K _4 N)?Y Hp pRqc?W26 vz?WBrz?ZB??3X H4 CTX A CTX X4 U5 P8 5D qr qr 10Cy qr YY Mo?ANp D01jJ 9F bzEV 4O 8V CTX O!o CTX KK AA qr A C5 qr rYY 1A?CC V9 a c?F CTX A G5 qr EeD?M CTX 9?rY 10Cy rq qY ȠX1 a f??B CTX 9F I CTX 6D N?qr rrqq qC O?J RmA??b"0 M?.F q?D B?G CTX CTX F4 d6P A F4 qr rYY 4G AV8 CTX UY UL0 U0 U0 U0 UF UF UFAGA UA UA UAL UL UL UL UL UL UL U7 U7 U7 U7 U7 U7 U7 2EH GTU U/U OUoU UV G1 CTX TUV 1G 7A UA UAL X7 U7 U7 U77XL UL UL ULLYX KTX 8Y GJ A UMAT UD 7M GVW GF10 MWA LL MPM M?M 4M XY qr qr qr NEeD 10Cy qYY E2 GH l1 Pd h3V g?KIq V5kL O65S d_xKKU vV 5H p1 Z6 CTX U0 U1 CTX U0 U1 A0 1D qr qr 10Cy YY K??Kl 1B AMwv 1K F1 KV yW Gd T?H CTX CTX I CK M?qr K?SK?PQZ I IRZX 8YCX 10Cy qr CX kv zg S5kB??a iG wA CTX U2 6Y CTX U2 6Y I K,,j j,s 6Y P!p qr 10Cy qr YY G?O 9K mSd X0 9r?yal 1d bY0 XNf??qN D?J CTX P!Z b!o C,C qrM 10Cy qr8 I fX2 9R lO KV CTX Oo CTX A qr r?qr rq YY Lsy7H4 C,6E IL CTX U3 CTX J,O3_3xx qrM?r q?CX Y9/C 9CX CTX Y10Cy CX CX CX YC YY FV uTl bEWa ȓjJ-8 Gc G??Q9E 9Wq CTX CTX Up i I A 9_ qr qr YY D.X 7s F??Y bc3_c iH CTX CTX A qr 10Cy YY EMq 7H AY mK9Z BY A2 P6L N7 CTX CTX a I I i qr rC CTX CTX 7O I FMM qr qr i I I3 CTX Z6 I L(K4 P:u Z6P CTX y8 attorneys at RRA In response to Epsteins original lawsuit Edwards filed a Counterclaim and after four revisions has stated two causes of action against Epstein abuse of process and malicious prosecution Edwardss Fourth Amended Counterclaim also includes an assertion to entitlement to punitive damages Epstein has denied liability as to these claims and has asserted various affirmative defenses which include Edwardss failure to state a cause of action in both abuse of process and malicious prosecution Edwardss failure to properly plead his damages Edwardss inability to overcome the absolute immunity afforded to Epstein under the litigation privilege and Edwardss lack of damages Conversely Edwards has repeatedly asserted various defenses to his actions including in a detailed affidavit upon which he relied in his Motion for Summary Judgment and purportedly intends to rely at trial However Edwards refuses to answer any questions regarding any of his asserted defenses or justifications for his actions On March counsel for Epstein deposed Edwards hereinafter the first deposition During that examination Edwards refused to answer numerous questions to which he his counsel or both objected Most of the objections asserted by Edwardss counsel were impermissibly verbose suggestive objections that were often parroted by Edwards In a continuation of that deposition hereinafter the second deposition which occurred on May Edwards was again asked all of the questions to which he initially objected and both he and his counsel asserted the same objections As demonstrated more fully below there is no basis in law for the objections asserted by Edwards and many of the questions to which Edwards refused to respond go to the very heart of the assertions in his Counterclaim against Epstein Edwards must therefore be compelled to respond or alternatively not permitted to utilize any of Rather than asking each individual question and asserting each objection again Edwards was asked if he would assert the same objections to the questions and both he and his counsel answered affirmatively this information at trial MEMORANDUM OF LAW Information supporting an allegation pled in a Complaint is the very definition of discoverable information under the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure See FLA CIV As such many of the objections raised by Edwards in his depositions were legally impermissible as were his counsels narrative objections Testimony taken during a deposition is to be completely that of the deponent not a version of the testimony which has been edited or glossed by the deponents lawyer Quantrachrome Corpage Micrometrics Instrument Corp F.R.D S.D Fla Rule of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure governs depositions upon oral examination and states in relevant part Examination and cross-examination of witnesses may proceed as permitted at the trial Any objection during a deposition shall be stated concisely and in a nonargumentative and nonsuggestive manner A party may instruct a deponent not to answer only when necessary to preserve a privilege to enforce a limitation on evidence directed by the court or to present a motion under subdivision Otherwise evidence objected to shall be taken subject to the objections FLA R.C1v emphasis added Rule permits a litigant to terminate an examination when a lawyer improperly uses speaking objections to prevent meaningful discovery Quinones State So 2d Fla 3d DCA Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp Crane So 2d Fla 3d DCA Additionally The Trial Lawyers Section of The Florida Bar promulgated a manual styled Guidelines for Professional Conduct which provides Counsel defending a deposition should limit objections to those that are well founded and permitted by the rules of civil procedure or applicable case law Counsel should bear in mind that most objections are preserved and need be interposed only when the form of a question is defective or privileged information is sought When objecting to the form of a question counsel should simply state I object to the form of the question The grounds should not be stated unless asked for by the examg attorney When the grounds are then stated they should be stated succinctly and only what is necessary to state the grounds should be stated While a question is pending counsel should not through objections or otherwise coach the deponent or suggest answers Should any lawyer do so the courts are urged to take stern action to put a stop to such practices and to serve as a deterrent to others Counsel for all parties should refrain from self-serving speeches during depositions The Florida Bar Trial Lawyers Section Guidelines for Professional Conduct Paragraphs and emphasis added During the course of Edwardss two depositions Edwards and/or his counsel asserted more than one hundred fifty-four objections In total Edwards objected approximately sixty-five times based on attorney-client privilege approximately seventy times based on work product privilege approximately eight times based on economic privacy privilege approximately six times based on relevance one time based on facts not in evidence one time based on a hypothetical question two times based on no proper predicate one time based on not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and one time based on an unspecified generic privilege More than a quarter of these objections were speaking objections by Edwardss counsel that went beyond the scope of what is permitted in a deposition by the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and relevant case law Epstein is not seeking responses to all of these questions to which there was an improper objection he only asks this Court to compel responses to those listed below As this analysis demonstrates Edwards neither complied with the spirit of Rule of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure nor the case law applicable to this issue Irrefutably This analysis does not take into account the fact that Edwards reasserted each and every objection asserted during the first deposition when so asked during the second deposition to wit When asked by counsel for Epstein As you said you would not answer any of the questions that were propounded to you before and objected to Edwards responded My objection to those previous questions would be my objection today Deposition of Edwards dated page lines the minimal testimony provided was either an edited version of Edwardss counsels speaking objection or an improper instruction from counsel that Edwards not answer the pending question Smith Gardy So 2d Fla 4th DCA stating that the witness indeed should have answered and the arrogance of the defense attorney in instructing the witness not to answer is without legal justification Nowhere in the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure is there a provision that states that an attorney may instruct a witness not to answer a question Edwards has impermissibly hidden behind unavailing privileges and objections some of which are not even recognized as proper under Florida law in an effort to thwart Epsteins attempts to gather the facts facts that were placed at issue by Edwards in his Counterclaim and are necessary to prepare for trial As such Edwardss objections must be overruled Edwards must be compelled to provide answers for these questions and counsel for Edwards must be instructed to limit his interruptions and testimony THE DEPOSITION QUESTIONS AND OBJECTIONS ON GROUNDS OF ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE AND WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGE Delineated below is each instance in which Edwards purports to impermissibly assert the attorney-client privilege the work-product privilege or both to questions that are not only relevant to Edwardss claim and Epsteins defense but also germane to topics Edwards himself injected into this case See Edwardss Fourth Amended Counterclaim Affidavit of Bradley Edwards dated April Affidavit of Bradley Edwards dated September As It is significant to note that other jurisdictions have sanctioned counsel for just this behavior during deposition See e.g Van Pilsum Iowa State University of Science and Technology F.R.D S.D Iowa The style adopted by deponent counsel will not be tolerated by this court Merely because depositions do not take place in the presence of a judge does not mean lawyers can forget their responsibilities as officers of the court They should conduct themselves accordingly The court in Van Pilsum ordered deponents counsel to pay half the cost of the deposition ordered the deposition rescheduled and barred deponents counsel from excessive interruptions demonstrated more fully below Edwards cannot repeatedly assert in his pleadings his defense of each and every action he took in the Epstein Cases with his allegations and then refuse to answer questions regarding his alleged defense of these actions In the first instance the subject matter of the deposition turned to the investigation into Epstein that was conducted by RRA at Edwards direction In this particular instance associated with Mr Epstein what investigators worked on Mr Epsteins case during the time you were at RRA Transcript of Deposition dated March at page169 line A If you want an exclusive list I dont know Id at page line Did you direct Mr Fisten to do investigations in California Id at page line A I directed Mr Fisten to interview people and ultimately it was learned that they lived in California Id at page line And did Mr Fisten go to California to interview those individuals Id at page line A To the best of my knowledge he did Id at page line Okay And who did he go interview Id at page line MR SCAROLA That is work product and I instruct you not to answer Id at page line The witness did not answer Did Mr Fisten interview an individual by the name of Michael Friedman Id at page line MR SCAROLA this is work-product and I instruct you not to answer except to the extent as may have already been disclosed to the defense in any of the three cases that are currently pending Any and all questions about investigative work will meet with the same objection and same instruction Id at page line Next the topic of the examination turned to the expenses incurred in the investigation of these cases both before Edwards joined RRA and after Who was the first investigator that you believe was involved in investigating the Epstein cases Just a name not topic Id at page line MR SCAROLA Work-product instruct you not to answer Id at page line The witness did not answer The discussion continues Who other than Mr Fisten from an investigator from an internal investigator at RRA employee worked on doing investigation on the Epstein files Transcript of Deposition dated March page line MR SCAROLA Same objection same instruction Id at page line You are claiming work-product Id at page line MR SCAROLA Yes Id at page line Did you ever direct your investigators to go through Mr Epsteins trash Id at page line MR SCAROLA I am going to object work-product attorney-client privilege Id at page line Have you directed did you ever direct that is the investigators during the time you were at RRA and thats the question youre claiming the privilege over correct Id at page line MR SCAROLA I am claiming the privilege with respect to any action that was taken by Mr Edwards or at Mr Edwards direction in connection with the investigation in prosecution of the claims against Mr Epstein Id at page line Let me make my question clear Mr Edwards With regard to your investigators you gave direction with regarding the Epstein cases during the time you were with RRA did you ever tell them or direct them to go through Mr Epsteins trash Id at page line MR SCRAOLA Same objection same instruction Id at page line Did you ever direct the investigators to go through the trash of the lawyers who were representing Mr Epstein including myself Id at page line MR SCAROLA Same objection same instruction Id at page line MR SCAROLA Mr Edwards will not answer any questions regarding what he did or didnt do.Id at page line Did you ever direct the investigators to during the time you were at RRA to conduct a surveillance on Mr Epsteins property Id at page line MR SCAROLA Same objection same instruction Id at page line Since the time you have left RRA in your current firm have you conducted surveillance on Mr Epsteins property Id at page line MR SCAROLA Same objection same instruction Id at page line Have you instructed anyone either of the in-house investigators to conduct surveillance of Mr Epsteins property Id at page line MR SCAROLA Same objection same instruction Id at page line Have you authorized investigators employed by RRA either employees of the firm or an outside investigation firm to walk around the perimeter of Mr Epsteins home on or about March 17th of Id at page line MR SCAROLA Same objection same instruction Id at page line Interestingly Edwards asks Epstein this question in his deposition and lists items found from searching through Epsteins trash as evidence he intends to use at trial Let me ask you this Were any informants did you authorize your investigators to hire informant informants Id at page line MR SCAROLA Same objection same instruction Id at page line Did you authorize your investigators to do electronic eves dropping Id at page line MR SCAROLA Same objection same instruction Id at page line Did you ever authorize any investigators to enter Mr property sic Mr Epsteins property on March Transcript of Deposition dated March page line MR SCAROLA Objection Instruct you not to answer on the basis of work product privilege Id at page line Let me just be clear Are are you aware of any investigators who entered Mr Epsteins property on March Id at page lines MR SCAROLA Same objection as well as attorney-client privilege and instruct you not to answer Id at page lines Mr Edwards did you authorize any investigators to trespass on Mr Epsteins property on March 17th of Id at page lines MR SCAROLA Same objection and instruction Id at page line Mr Edwards did you authorize investigators to hide in the bushes at Mr Epsteins house in order to take photographs of either Mr Epstein or any associated objects on his property Id at page line MR SCAROLA Same objection same instruction Id at page line The subject matter of the examination turned to other investigators Did he Mr Roberts ever perform investigation work on any of the Epstein files Transcript of Deposition dated March page line MR SCAROLA Same objection same instruction Id at page line Did Rich Fandrey did Rick perform any investigation on the Epstein did you authorize Rick to perform any investigation on the Epstein files Id at page line MR SCAROLA Same objection same instruction Id at page line 1.Objection Instruct you not to answer on the basis of work-product privilege PAGE line and Same objection as well as attorney-client privilege and instruct you not to answer Did you ever authorize or direct Mr Jenne to perform any investigation on the Epstein files Id at page line MR SCAROLA Same objection same instruction Id at page line If youre unaware of the existence of the entity called Blue Line Research and Development LLC would it be a correct statement that you have never authorized anyone from Blue Line Research and Development LLC to conduct any investigation of Jeffrey Epstein Id at page linel9-24 MR SCAROLA Same objection same instruction Id at page line Says he doesnt know them How can that be an instruction Id at page line MR SCAROLA Well because I am not going to tell you were not going to answer any questions about either what he did or what he didnt do that are part of the work product involved in his representation of the Plaintiffs with claims against Mr Epstein whom Mr Edwards is representing Id at page line MR SCAROLA So in light of that and what I have attempted to make very clear with regard to the scope of our objections If you continue to ask questions which it is clear fall within the scope of my instructions to Mr Edwards and my announced intention with regard to the scope of those instructions then we will terminate this deposition so that I can seek a protective order My suggestion is that you move onto other areas that are outside the scope of that instruction if you have any other questions outside the scope Id at page line Let me be clear with you with regard to any for purposes of following asking any follow-up questions should the court determine that I am entitled to this information you would agree that should the court determine I am entitled to ask the name of these individuals and possibly other questions is is that by not asking questions I am in no way waiving my right to ask as many questions as the court ultimately determines as appropriate proper and as the court allows correct Id at page line MR SCAROLA I absolutely agree Id at page line The subject matter of the examination then turned to Mr Edwardss purported interactions with anyone associated with Epstein case During the time that you were with RRA excuse me and had investigation done on Mr Epstein was any of your investigation that you had performed turned over to any person outside of RRA or your clients Id at page line MR SCAROLA Same objection same instruction to the extent that that would encompass other attorneys with a shared interest in the prosecution of Mr Epstein If any of those materials were turned over to persons who did not have a direct interest to lawyers who did not have a direct interest in the prosecution of the claims against Mr Epstein or to clients who did not have to persons who did not have a direct interest in the pursuit of their claims against Mr Epstein then you can answer to that extent Id at page line A Privileged Id at page line In any of the directions that you ever gave to the investigators did you ever put that in the form of a memo that is would you give them written directions Id at page line MR SCAROLA Same objection same instruction Id at page line After objecting to all the questions about investigators and their investigations on page lines though Edwards admits that he received written and oral reports from investigators before he answers though he asks Scarola if he should answer and Scarola says yeah Id at The discussion turns to the manner in which the cases were handled while Edwards was a partner at RRA The one meeting that you had in Mr Mr Rothsteins office with Russell Adler and some unknown person on the phone were you given any direction at that time that certain discovery should be done or certain tactics should be used with regard to prosecuting the Epstein cases Transcript of Deposition dated March page line MR SCAROLA Same objection same instruction Id at page line And what did what did what information did Mr Rothstein send you that involved Mr Epstein Transcript of Deposition dated March page line MR SCAROLA Same objection same instruction Id at page line At the meetings that you at the meetings that occurred where these various lawyers Berger Adler Stone Rob Busche were present and Epstein was discussed was the discovery that discovery and/or investigation regarding Mr Epstein was that ever discussed Transcript of Deposition dated March page line MR SCAROLA Same objection same instruction Id at page line The subject matter of the examination then focused on the events surrounding the prosecution of the Epstein cases in the crux of Epsteins litigation against Edwards In setting these depositions that is in requesting these deposition be taken sometime in June and July of or requesting dates for them did you have discussions with other attorneys in your firm as to the benefits that would exist in your case your three cases against Mr Epstein by taking these individuals depositions Transcript of Deposition dated March page line MR SCAROLA Objection Same as grounds previously stated instruct you not to answer.Id at page line Mr Edwards were you involved in the discussions regarding the deposing of any of the people of these individuals Mr Trump that is in discussions with any other lawyers in your firm including Scott Rothstein Id at page line MR SCAROLA Same objection same instruction Id at page line Did you ever discuss with Mr Rothstein or anyone on his behalf the value of taking the depositions of Trump Dershowitz former president Clinton David Copperfield and Leslie exner as an inducement to get Mr Epstein to settle his lawsuits Transcript of Deposition dated March page line MR SCAROLA Beyond what he has already responded we would object on the basis of work-product and attorney-client privilege and I instruct you not to answer Id at page line A okay.Id at page line Did you have any discussions within your firm with regard to taking the deposition of celebrities or famous people who were on purportedly on Mr Epsteins planes so that they could be deposed such that would be an inducement to Mr Epstein to settle his lawsuit Id at page line MR SCAROLA Same objection same instruction Id at page line Isnt it true Mr Edwards that in taking the deposition or in attempting to take the deposition of Donald Trump you had no information that Mr Trump had any knowledge of any female having that is underage female ever having been on Mr Epsteins plane and been and having been assaulted by him Id at page line MR SCAROLA What Mr Edwards knew or didnt know in connection with this prosecution of pending claims is protected by a privilege I instruct him not to answer Id at page line Counsel for Epstein then discusses Ken Jenne the convicted felon and former Sheriff who according to Edwardss own privilege log worked extensively on the Epstein cases Did Mr Jenne did you ever direct Mr Jenne to do any investigation on the Epstein cases Transcript of Deposition dated March at page line MR SCAROLA Objection work-product Id at page line Did Mr Jenne ever do any investigation on the Epstein files Id at page line MR SCAROLA Objection work-product.Id at page line At any time have you been given access to the pamphlet book and/or any of the yellow pages that have been referenced in the criminal indictment Transcript of Deposition dated March page line MR SCAROLA I am going to instruct you not answer that question on the basis of attorney-client and work-product privilege Id at page line Have you had any communication not a conversation but any communication with the criminal defense lawyer about obtaining a copy of the pamphlet and/or the pamphlet book or the yellow pages that are referenced in the criminal indictment that were at one time in the possession of Mr Rodriguez and that he apparently was trying to sell to the cooperating witness Id at page line MR SCAROLA I am going to instruct you not to answer any question about anything that you may have done in connection with the fulfillment of your responsibilities as counsel for the Plaintiffs in the three pending cases Id at page line A On what I have done or what I have not done all of that is work-product.Id at page line At his second deposition Edwards was asked the following Did you contact did you have any contact with any persons who were listed in the book that was eventually produced by Mr Rodriguez after he got arrested and the book was made public Transcript of Deposition dated May second deposition page line MR KING Let me object I dont see the relevancy immaterial Id at page line MR KING Well along the lines that were taken last time with regard to whatever work product was involved in the investigation of his cases in light of the current status of the case in which the you know pending claim is what it is I think its its even more reinforced by those objections are and were raised Id at page 90;line The reason Im asking the question is did you initiate or attempt to initiate any new lawsuits based upon what you learned in there Id at page line MR KING The same objection Instruct him not to answer Id at page line Thats not going into work product its Id at page line MR KING No it is Id at page line MR KING It goes to his mental process Id at page line Did you ever have any contact with Kendall Coffey regarding the propriety or ask him for an opinion of the propriety of taking that book from Mr Rodriguez Id at page line MR KING The same objections work product Id at page line A And attorney-client privilege Id at page line MR KING And Government privilege Id at page line In the second deposition Edwards was asked the following questions with respect to the objections asserted in his first deposition If I were to ask you each of those questions Transcript of Deposition dated May page lines A The same objection Id at line they would be the same objections your counsel would make the same objections that way I dont have to redo for two and a half hours Id at page lines MR KING Thats correct Id at page line As you said you would not answer any of the questions that were propounded to you before and objected to Id at page lines A My objection to those previous questions would be my objection today Id at page lines All right It was set for a hearing April and then again reset for another time and no one ever went the hearing never went forward so those questions are still objected to unresolved So well stopageWe will go from there see what happens Id at page lines MR GOLDBERGER Well wait a minute Just one thing So if we had asked the same questions he would have raised the same objections so not only are we going to raise the previous objections we are going to raise them as if they were made again today.Id at page line page line A I want to make a clean record too If you had asked the same questions I would have asserted at least the same objections Id at page lines MS HADDAD COLEMAN Everybody understands this deposition will be continued after the Court rules on everything Id at page lines A Everybody understand the Court is going to rule on things and order me back to a deposition or not order me back to a deposition whatever the Courts going to do Id at page lines MR KING From our from our perspective you understand we were not producing records here today the financial records because we were asserting the financial privacy privilege Id at page lines MR KING So I gather that would have put you in a position where you would not have been able to nor would you have proceeded with questions today Id at page lines MR HADDAD We wouldnt even no as long as its pending before the Court I saw no purpose in having to reestablish that you were objecting Id at page line24 page line As set forth in detail below neither the attorney-client privilege nor the work product privilege is applicable to most of these speaking and argumentative objections made by counsel and Edwards should be compelled to answer the questions/portions of the questions that are not protected thereby The specific areas of questioning delineated above undeniably sought to elicit discoverable and relevant information pertaining to Edwardss allegations against Epstein in this lawsuit and Epsteins defense thereof establishing both the impropriety of counsel for Edwardss objections and the necessity that Edwards respond to the questions ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE In Florida the attorney-client privilege renders confidential a communication between a lawyer and client if it is not intended to be disclosed to third persons other than Those to whom disclosure is in furtherance of the rendition of legal services to the client and Those reasonably necessary for the transmission of the communication FLA STAT The subject matter of the protected communication must relate to the subject matter of the attorneys employment Gold Coast Raceway Ehrenfeld So.2d Fla 4th DCA citations omitted It is important to note that attorney-client privilege for confidential communications does not encompass work product City of Williston Roadlander So.2d Fla 1st DCA The privilege is waived once the information is divulged by a third party Id Additionally the attorney-client privilege is waived when a party injects into a case an issue that requires an examination of otherwise privileged communications Choice Restaurant Acquisition Ltd Whitley Inc So 2d Fla 4th DCA When a party places information protected by the attorney-client privilege in issue through some affirmative act for his own benefit the privilege will not be allowed to protect against disclosure of such information In re Campbell B.R M.D Fla Here Edwards has made these underlying cases in which he represented these plaintiffs against Epstein the central issue of his current case against Epstein First with respect to any and all questions related to the investigators and investigation tactics utilized by Edwards the topic of the investigators conduct is directly related to Epsteins initial allegations in his suit against Edwards regarding the outrageous discovery tactics utilized by Edwards and RRA See Fourth Amended Counterclaim and Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Fourth Amended Counterclaim Furthermore Edwards has listed these investigators as witnesses in this case See Edwards Responses to Discovery As such Edwards has waived the privilege regarding this line of questioning Likewise waiver in one proceeding is waiver in all proceedings The attorney-client privilege may not be selectively waived by disclosing privileged information to one agency or party without waiving it in respect to another agency or party in another proceeding See Walker River City Logistics Inc So 3d Fla 1st DCA Employer/carriers voluntary disclosure of documents to the Claimants public defender in another proceeding waived the privileged nature of the documents I Investments Payless Flea Market Inc So 3d Fla 4th DCA Here Edwards has undeniably waived privilege regarding these matters by sharing the information with the federal government the press and in other litigation See Paragraphs and of Edwards Fourth Amended Counterclaim See pleadings in Doe United States of America Correspondence between Edwards and members of the press Privilege Log of Farmer Jaffe Weissing Edwards Fistos Lehrman Dated February as filed in this matter and in In re Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler P.A Additionally many of the questions for which Edwards asserted attorney-client privilege do not fall into this narrow definition of protected communications In fact many questions required merely a yes or no answer and as phrased were not suggestive of the attorney-client privilege or work product privilege asserted by Edwards Accordingly Edwards should be compelled to answer these questions WORK-PRODUCT DOCTRINE Attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine are not the same Confidentiality of work product is based on public policy considerations and is not strictly within the ambit of the attorney-client privilege City of Williston Roadlander So 2d Fla 1st DCA citations omitted The work-product doctrine is outlined in Rule of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure which provides that a party may obtain discovery of documents and tangible things otherwise discoverable under subdivision of this rule and prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for another party or by or for that partys representative including that partys attorney consultant surety indemnitor insurer or agent only upon a showing that the party seeking discovery has need of the materials in the preparation of the case and is unable without undue hardship to obtain the substantial equivalent of the materials by other means FLA R.Crv emphasis added See also Genovese Provident Life So 3d Fla explaining the distinction between work product privilege and attorney-client privilege Accordingly unlike attorney-client privilege which is completely immune from disclosure work product is not absolutely protected as there is a good cause exception FLA.R.CIV Further it is well-established that a Plaintiff cannot assert work product privilege to avoid answering questions regarding his own allegations in his complaint even if the information requested through questioning implicitly reveals his legal theory of his case See Dunkin Donuts Inc Marys Donuts Inc F.R.D S.D Fla work product privilege may not be asserted by deponent to avoid providing information supporting contentions in plaintiffs complaint The rationale supporting the work product doctrine is that one party is not entitled to prepare his case thorough the investigative work product of his adversary where the same or similar information is available through ordinary investigative techniques and discovery procedures Southern Bell Tel Tel Co Deason So 2d Fla Here the information sought by Epstein from Edwards in deposition is not available through ordinary investigative techniques and discovery procedures Here events surrounding the prosecution of the Epstein cases in are the crux of the litigation Epstein filed against Edwards Edwards has undeniably already waived the right to claim work product as to this information Edwardss Fourth Amended Counterclaim Affidavit of Bradley Edwards dated April Affidavit of Bradley Edwards dated September Additionally the information sought through the above-cited questions for which Edwards asserted work-product privilege his deposition 1s crucial for both Edwardss prosecution of his case and Epsteins defense of this case as it goes to the crux of Edwardss causes of action against him As such the information requested is not outside the scope of discovery See Edwardss Fourth Amended Counterclaim Epsteins Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Fourth Amended Counterclaim Affidavit of Bradley Edwards dated April Affidavit of Bradley Edwards dated September NO PROPER PREDICATE The subject matter of the examination turned to Edwardss compensation while at RRA and the payment of the expenses incurred in the litigation of the Epstein cases while at RRA Did you do any hourly billing yourself at all or were you strictly a contingency fee person Transcript of Deposition dated March at page lines A percent contingency Id at page line Where did you where did you think that the expenses incurred in the Epstein cases money was coming from that is the source of the money to pay the extensive bills that were being incurred on Epstein and other cases Id at page lines MR SCAROLA I am going to object to the extent the question calls excuse me Im going to object because there is no proper predicate to the question and that is that it was a matter that was ever given a thought by Mr Edwards Id at page lines What did you consider what did you believe was the cost that is the source of the money that was being used to be paying these extensive costs that were being incurred in Epstein and other cases Id at page lines MR SCAROLA Objection form and compound Id at page lines A The law firm Id at page line In Weyant Rawlings So 2d Fla DCA the court held that failure to lay a proper predicate was not a sufficient basis upon which to deny petitioners motion to compel even if such an objection had not been waived Rule specifically states that discovery is not subject to objection on the ground that the subject matter of the discovery will not be admissible at trial provided the matter to be discovered appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence Id at Here Edwards has already admitted that the expenditures in investigation of the Epstein cases while at RRA was between and See Deposition of Bradley Edwards Additionally the discovery tactics while the cases were prosecuted by RRA is the crux of this litigation See Edwards Fourth Amended Counterclaim Affidavit of Bradley Edwards dated April Affidavit of Bradley Edwards dated September Epsteins Answer and Affirmative Defenses Accordingly Edwards must be compelled to respond to questioning regarding this issue FINANCIAL PRIVACY While the general rule in Florida is that personal financial information is ordinarily discoverable only in aid of execution after judgment has been entered where materials sought by a party would appear to be relevant to the subject matter of the pending action the information is fully discoverable Friedman Heart Institute of Port St Lucie Inc So.2d Fla citing to Epstein Epstein So 2d Fla 3d DCA emphasis added Since Edwards has put finances related to the Epstein cases at issue he must provide the answers to the below-requested information to prove this claim Moreover questions surrounding Edwardss employment at RRA including what enticed him to become a partner at RRA are directly related to this case especially in light of the funds expended on prosecuting the Epstein cases while at RRA Edwards was asked the following regarding that issue Did Rothstein ask you how much you were making at that time or how much you had made in the preceding year Transcript of Deposition dated March at page line A I believe so Id at page line What did you tell him Id at page line MR.SCAROLA Objection Instruct you not to answer on the basis of economic privacy Id at page lines What did you tell him that you expected Id at page line MR SCAROLA Objection economic privacy Id at page line All I am interested now not necessarily what you were earning but what you told him i.e Mr Rothstein that you wanted to get or expect to earn if you considered a job at RRA Id at page lines MR.SCAROLA Objection economic privacy instruct you not to answer Its neither relevant nor material nor reasonably likely to lead to relevant material information and invades the economic privacy of the witness Id at page lines Q:And was the number that you gave him more than you had earned for the year or less Id at page line MR.SCAROLA Same objection Id at page line Or the same Id at page line MR SCAROLA Same objection same instruction Id at page line Did you tell him that you wanted to make more money than you had in the preceding year Id at page lines MR SCAROLA Same objections and instructions Id at page lines And what number did he say to you Id at page line MR SCAROLA Objection and same instruction Id at page lines Here the question as to why Edwards who owned and ran his own firm and was already prosecuting these lucrative Epstein cases was willing to join RRA needs to be answered as the discovery tactics employed while the Epstein cases were prosecuted by RRA is the crux of this litigation See Edwardss Fourth Amended Counterclaim Affidavit of Bradley Edwards dated April Affidavit of Bradley Edwards dated September Epsteins Answer and Affirmative Defenses Moreover Edwards has already admitted that the expenditures in investigation of the Epstein cases while at RRA was between and whereas when he was prosecuting them at his own firm he expended possibly more than in expenditures See Deposition of Bradley Edwards March Accordingly Edwards must be compelled to respond to questioning regarding this issue NOTICE OF EDWARDSS INTENT TO USE INFORMATION AT TRIAL Finally and most significantly Edwards intends to rely upon much of this information about which he refuses to answer at trial For example Edwardss Fourth Amended Counterclaim espouses the following While prosecuting the legitimate claims on behalf of his clients EDWARDS has not engaged in any unethical illegal or improper conduct nor has EDWARDS taken any action inconsistent with the duty he has to vigorously represent the interests of his clients EPSTEIN has no reasonable basis to believe otherwise and has never had any reasonable basis to believe otherwise See Edwardss Fourth Amended Counterclaim emphasis added Undeniably a Plaintiff cannot make such an assertion in a Complaint and not expect to be questioned about it as information supporting an allegation pled in a Complaint is the very definition of discoverable information under the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure See FLA CIV This is just one example of the conclusory allegations made in Edwardss Complaint that must be proven by Edwards Epstein therefore must be permitted question Edwards about each and every allegation therein and Edwards must be compelled to respond See Fourth Amended Counterclaim CONCLUSION For all of the foregoing reasons and in reliance upon the case law the Florida Statutes the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and the evidence and exhibits delineated above Epstein respectfully requests that this Court enter and Order compelling Edwards to respond to the questions delineated above and instructing his counsel to refrain from utilizing and interjecting improper objections WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served via electronic service to all parties on the attached service list this September Tonja Haddad Coleman Tonja Haddad Coleman Esq Florida Bar No Tonja Haddad PA SE ih Street Suite Fort Lauderdale Florida facsimile Attorneys for Epstein SERVICE LIST CASE NO Jack Scarola Esq sx searcylaw.com mep searcylaw.com Searcy Denney Scarola et al Palm Beach Lakes Blvd West Palm Beach FL Jack Goldberger Esq jgoldberger agwpa.com smahoney agwpa.com Atterbury Goldberger Weiss PA Australian Ave South Suite West Palm Beach FL Marc Nurik Esq East Broward Blvd Suite Fort Lauderdale FL Bradley Edwards Esq brad pathtojustice.com Farmer Jaffe eissing Edwards Fistos Lehrman Andrews Avenue Suite Fort Lauderdale Florida Fred Haddad Esq Dee FredHaddadLaw.com Financial Plaza Suite Fort Lauderdale FL Tonja Haddad Coleman Esquire Tonja tonjahaddad.com efiling tonjahaddad.com Law Offices of Tonja Haddad P.A SE 7th Street Suite Fort Lauderdale FL Attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein
