RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND In Edwards filed civil lawsuits against Epstein on behalf of three females who were sexually molested by Epstein as minors Edwards demanded compensatory and punitive damages against Epstein on behalf of those three victims Edwards also filed an action under the Crime Victims Rights Act CVRA against the United States of America claiming that the rights of Epsteins victims were violated when the Government secretly entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement NP A with Epstein In Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein filed suit against attorney Bradley Edwards alleging that Mr Edwards had fabricated the civil claims against Epstein as part of a fraudulent Ponzi scheme that Edwards was running with Scott Rothstein and one of Edwardss clients L.M More specifically Epstein accused Edwards of fraudulent practices false pretenses fraud forgery extortion shar ing fees with non-lawyers us ing investor money to pay Plaintiffs conduct ing wiretaps in violation of Federal laws and perjury as well as other crimes Epsteins alleged proof that Edwards was engaging in this illegal activity was that Edwards was sanctioning depositions unrelated to any litigation purpose filing legal motions unrelated to merit of cases pursuing flight data knowing full well no underage women were onboard deposing Epsteins pilots asking in deposition outrageous questions of Epstein demanding excessive money from Epstein in civil cases when the cases were actually weak and had minimal value and notifying an intent to take depositions of celebrities After three years of litigation and faced with a Motion for Summary Judgment Epstein dismissed his claims against Edwards when it became obvious that the Court would see that the complaint Epstein filed against Edwards had no merit and Epstein knew at the time of the filing that the allegations had no merit Consequently Edwards filed a claim against Epstein for malicious prosecution which is the only remaining count in this case Succeeding on a claim of malicious prosecution requires Edwards to prove a civil proceeding was commenced against Edwards Epstein caused that proceeding there was a bonafide termination of that proceeding in Edwardss favor there was an absence of probable cause for Epsteins original proceeding Epstein acted with malice and Edwards suffered damage as a result Rivernider Meyer So 3d Fla 4th DCA Any discovery being requested must be relevant to proving or disproving an element of this action including whether Epstein acted with malice whether he had probable cause for the filing of his civil action against Edwards and whether Edwards has suffered damages as a consequence of Epsteins initiation of the civil proceeding The types of damages requested dictate the type and breadth of discovery warranted as well Edwards has claimed the following losses injury to his reputation mental anguish embarrassment and anxiety fear of physical injury to himself and members of his family the loss of value of his time required to be diverted from his professional responsibilities and the cost of defending against Epsteins spurious and baseless claims See Edwards Fourth Amended Counterclaim Punitive damages are also an issue in this case LEGAL ARGUMENT Under Florida law trial courts are imbued with broad discretion in discovery matters National Convenience Stores Inc Embrey So.2d Fla 4th DCA Although Courts are to give liberal construction to the rules of discovery and Courts have broad discretion in discovery matters such discretion is limited and must be exercised within the permissible scope of discovery as set forth in the rules See Nat Convenience Stores Inc Embrey So 2d Fla 4th DCA Discovery in civil cases must be relevant to the subject matter of the case and must be admissible or reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence Estate of McPherson Church of Scientology Flag Servs Org Inc So 2d Fla 2d DCA In determining whether production of documents should be required in any given case relevance of the information sought must be weighed against burdensomeness of production See Krypton Broadcasting of Jacksonville Inc MGM-Pathe Communications Co So 2d Fla 1st DCA overruled on other grounds It is axiomatic that information sought in discovery must relate to the issues involved in the litigation as framed in all pleadings Krypton Broadcasting of Jacksonville Inc MGM-Pathe Communications Co So 2d Fla 1st DCA emphasis added disapproved on other grounds by Alterra Healthcare Corp Estate of Shelley So 2d Fla see also Caribbean Sec Systems Inc Security Control Systems Inc So 2d Fla 3d DCA The purpose of modern discovery is to disclose items that may lead to evidence on the issues as framed by the pleadings emphasis added Furthermore arties may obtain discovery regarding any matter not privileged that is relevant to the subject matter of the pending action or if the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence Fla Civ emphasis added Pursuant to Rule when a party withholds information otherwise discoverable under these rules by claiming that it is privileged or subject to protection as trial preparation material the party shall make the claim expressly and shall describe the nature of the documents communications or things not produced or disclosed in a manner that without revealing information itself privileged or protected will enable other parties to assess the applicability of the privilege or protection As set forth in this memorandum Edwards objections to all of Epsteins requests were properly asserted and are wholly sufficient as a matter of law Consequently this Court should deny Epsteins attempt to muddy the issues and further delay the impending trial LEGAL ARGUMENT The discovery requests addressed in Epsteins motion fall into one of the following categories Costs spent litigating the underlying sexual molestation cases against Epstein Fee agreements between Edwards as an attorney for clients or as a client himself in this case Personal financial income of Edwards and Communications with press and law enforcement Epsteins motion however grossly misconstrues both cases it relies on repeatedly-Murray Van Storage Inc Murray So 2d Fla 4th DCA and TIG Insurance Corp of America Johnson So 2d Fla 4th DCA At the outset Epstein seeks to strike blanket objections stating as grounds that objections such as relevance overbroad and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence are impermissible and legally insufficient In making this assertion and relying on Murray So 2d at case solely addressing the scope of discovery by deposition upon oral examination-Epstein mischaracterizes the state of the law in this state Instead in Allstate Ins Co Langston the Florida Supreme Court made it clear that discovery in civil cases must be relevant to the subject matter of the case and must be admissible or reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence So 2d Fla citing Brooks So 2d at Krypton So 2d at It is axiomatic that information sought in discovery must relate to the issues involved in the litigation as framed in all pleadings Fla Civ discovery must be relevant to the subject matter of the pending action General Inadmissible Discovery Sought by Epstein In the present case the totality of the discovery requested by Epstein is clearly not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence nor is it relevant Relevant evidence is that which tends to prove or disprove a material fact Fla Stat As Professor Ehrhardt explains in his treatise on Florida evidence for evidence to be relevant it must have a logical tendency to prove or disprove a fact which is of consequence to the outcome of the action Shaw Jain So 2d Fla 1st DCA citing Charles Ehrhardt Florida Evidence at ed accord Zahner Howard Johnsons Inc of Fla So.2d Fla.4th Dist Summarily it appears that Epstein seeks to discover the costs incurred by Edwards and his law firm in representing the three minor victims referenced above as well as the identity of all individuals that Edwards has ever spoken to in order to argue that he was perpetrating a fraud Unfortunately this logic is flawed insofar as Epstein dropped his case against Edwards in To the extent that Epstein argues this same information is discoverable as it goes to probable cause the element of probable cause relates to the probable cause that Epstein had at the time that he filed the Complaint on December Epstein is not now permitted to attempt to discover new information that he was not aware of at the time of his filing in in hopes that he can find something and apply it retroactively to establish now the probable cause that he did not have then As a consequence retroactively discovered information sought eight years after the filing of Epsteins initial complaint cannot possibly bear any relevance or be in any way admissible to the element of probable cause that either did or did not exist in Moreover the information sought relating to costs and financial discovery in and of itself cannot possibly be relevant in this regard Time Sheets For all of the reasons cited above it is likewise not permissible to require Edwards to tum over every time and billing record related to every single case that he has worked on in order to prove the loss of value of his time required to be diverted from his professional responsibilities In response to discovery on this point Edwards properly turned over time records showing the time that he lost defending this case which was responsive to the request propounded The time that he spent on any other case that he was working on is wholly irrelevant to the damage claimed herein as it does not relate to the time that he was required to put into this matter and this information is sought solely in an effort to harass Edwards Regardless of any time Edwards was able to spend on other matters it cannot change the fact that he lost time defending this matter Work-Product Privilege Next Epstein moves to strike privilege objections pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure and TIG Insurance So 2d at stating that if the material sought is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and not overly burdensome then work product can be discoverable after a showing of the need for the information and inability to obtain the substantial equivalent by other means First it is well-established that waiver of the attorney-client and work-product privileges is not favored in Florida TIG Ins Corp of Am Johnson So 2d Fla 4th DCA citing Liberty Mut Ins Co Lease Am Inc So.2d Fla 4th DCA The judiciary of this state should protect communications which Floridians recognize as privileged without being hobbled by less important considerations Moreover to demonstrate a need sufficient to compel discovery of work product materials a party must present testimony or evidence demonstrating that the material requested is critical to the theory of the requesters case or to some significant aspect of the case A Fla Jur 2d Discovery and Depositions The need and undue hardship required for production of work product documents cannot be demonstrated solely by the bare assertions of counsel Id Epstein has filed no affidavit and submitted no evidence of his claimed hardship As such his eleventh-hour request to invade the work-product privilege should be denied Financial Discovery Florida law is clear private individual financial information is not discoverable when there is no financial issue pending in the case to which the discovery applies Friedman Heart Inst of Port St Lucie So 2d Aspex Eyewear Inc Ross So 2d Fla 4th DCA the financial records of a party are not discoverable unless the documents themselves or the status which they evidence is somehow at issue in the case Epstein has no punitive damage claim pending against Edwards nor a judgment to be executed upon In fact Epstein does not even have any claims still pending having dismissed his underlying complaint in Epstein therefore has no ability or entitlement to the Counter Plaintiffs personal financial information Epstein however attempts to circumvent this black letter law with the following In the case at hand it is irrefutable that Edwardss financial information is relevant in fact it was he who put it at issue in his claims for damages The damages allegedly suffered by Edwards are not only a contested issue in this case but also a requisite element to his causes of action What Epstein is suggesting is that because Edwards asserted a claim for damages Edwards must tum over carte-blanche financial discovery in this case This argument has no basis in law and would upend decades of jurisprudence on financial discovery A plaintiff does not put his financial In an apparent attempt to confuse the issues Epstein states on multiple occasions that Plaintiff having requested punitive damages somehow places the Plaintiffs finances at issue To the contrary a claim for punitive damages puts Epsteins finances at issues information at issue by seeking damages which is a required element of every legal cause of action For Epstein to claim otherwise is an affront to the American ideal of open access to the courts and completely ignores countless decisions by the Florida courts on this very issue Privilege Log Finally Epstein argues that Edwards made a series of impermissible objections in response to Epsteins Request to Produce dated December Epstein Motion to Compel at Epstein then asserts that Edwards has waived the respectively asserted privileges due to his failure to provide a privilege log Id at However a party is required to file a log only if the information is otherwise discoverable Gosman Luzinski So 2d Fla 4th DCA holding that until a trial court rules on a partys objection to discovery based on it being overly burdensome and harassing the party asserting a privilege is not required to file a privilege log Morton Plant Hosp Assn Shahbas ex rel Shahbas So.2d Fla 2d DCA noting that until a trial court rules on a partys other objections to discovery the party asserting the privilege need not file a privilege log Here Edwards raised privilege and non privilege objections Epstein did not seek ruling as to the non-privilege objections Thus Edwards did not have a duty to file a privilege log for those items on which other objections were raised until the court had determined that those items were otherwise discoverable Moreover even when only work-product objections are asserted that does not mandate waiver of the work-product privilege Rather as stated by the Second District Court of Appeal in Nevin Palm Beach County Sch Bd waiver for failure to file a privilege log should not apply where assertion of the privilege is not document-specific but category specific and the category itself is plainly In the event that the Court were even inclined to consider Epsteins improper request for the Counter-Plaintiffs financial information the Court would be required to conduct an in-camera inspection of any records and perform a balancing test of Epsteins right to know against the Counter-Plaintiffs well-established right to privacy See Alterra Healthcare Corp Estate a/Shelley So 2d Fla protected So 2d Fla 1st DCA As the Court can see Edwards objections were category specific where the categories themselves were clearly covered by the privilege Accordingly Edwards did not waive his right to assert the privilege CONCLUSION Wherefore Counter-Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court deny Jeffrey Epsteins Motion to Compel Discovery Responses from Bradley Edwards I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was sent via E-Serve JACKS RO1 Florid ar k5 Atto ey Mail jsx searcylaw.com and mm nn searcylaw.com Primary E-Mail _scarolateam searcylaw.com Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart Shipley P.A Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach Florida Phone Fax Attorneys for Bradley Edwards COUNSEL LIST William Chester Brewer Esquire wcblaw aol.com wcblawasst gmail.com Australian A venue Suite West Palm Beach FL Phone Fax Attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein Jack A Goldberger Esquire jgoldberger agwpa.com smahoney agwpa.com Atterbury Goldberger Weiss P.A Australian A venue Suite West Palm Beach FL Phone Fax Attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein Nichole Segal Esquire njs FLAppellateLaw.com kbt FLAppellateLaw.com Burlington Rockenbach P.A Railroad Avenue Suite West Palm Beach FL Phone Attorneys for Bradley Edwards Bradley Edwards Esquire staff.efile pathtojustice.com Farmer Jaffe Weissing Edwards Fistos Lehrman P.L Andrews A venue Suite Fort Lauderdale FL Phone Fax Fred Haddad Esquire Dee FredHaddadLaw.com Fred FredHaddadLaw.com Fred Haddad P.A One Financial Plaza Suite Fort Lauderdale FL Phone Fax Attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein Tonja Haddad Coleman Esquire tonja tonjahaddad.com efiling tonjahaddad.com Tonja Haddad P.A SE 7th Street Suite Fort Lauderdale FL Phone Fax Attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein Marc Nurik Esquire marc nuriklaw.com One Broward Blvd Suite Fort Lauderdale FL Phone Fax Attorneys for Scott Rothstein 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 K?i N?M?qr EeD k??O GH FT 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
