Edwards' Opposition to Epstein's Motion for Summary Judgment alleges Epstein filed claims to intimidate and burden Edwards

Case No.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG Edwards' Opposition to Epstein's Motion for Summary Judgment Page 2 of 15 they were true. Epstein knew that he had in fact molested each of the minors represented by Brad Edwards. He also knew that each litigation decision by Brad Edwards was grounded in proper litigation judgment about the need to pursue effective discovery against Epstein, particularly in the face of Epstein’s stonewalling tactics. Epstein also knew that he suffered no legally cognizable injury proximately caused by the falsely alleged wrongdoing on the part of Edwards. Moreover, Epstein had no intention of waiving his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination in order to avoid providing relevant and material discovery that Epstein would need in the course of prosecuting his claims and to which Edwards was entitled in defending those claims. Epstein knew that his prosecution of his claims would be barred by the sword-shield doctrine. Most significantly, the evidence submitted in the supporting papers would compel a fact finder to determine that Epstein had no basis in law or in fact to pursue his claims against Edwards and that Epstein was motivated by a single ulterior motive to attempt to intimidate Edwards and his clients and others into abandoning or settling their legitimate claims for less than their just and reasonable value. The evidence demonstrates that Epstein did not file these claims for the purpose of collecting money damages since he knew that he never suffered any damage as a consequence of any alleged wrongdoing by Edwards but filed the claim to require Edwards to expend time, energy and resources on his own defense, to embarrass Edwards and impugn his integrity and deter others with legitimate claims against Epstein from pursuing those claims. Indeed, the evidence demonstrates that Epstein continued to pursue his claims by filing the Second Amended Complaint alleging abuse of process against Edwards even after he had paid significant sums in settlement of the claims instituted by Mr. Edwards’ clients against Mr. Epstein.’ "The evidence marshalled in support of these assertions is set forth in the previously filed documents in this Court. Those documents include Exhibit “A” — Edwards’ Statement of Undisputed Facts; Exhibit “B” — Edwards’ Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment; Exhibit “C” — Edwards’ October 19, 2012 Second Renewed Motion for Leave to Assert Claim for Punitive Damages; Exhibit “D” — Edwards’ Notice of Filing of Transcript of Telephone Interview of Virginia Roberts in Support of Motion for Leave to Amended to Assert Punitive Damages; Exhibit “E” — Transcript of Deposition of Jeffrey Epstein dated January 25, 2012; Exhibit “F’ — Deposition of Bradley Edwards dated March 23, 2010; Exhibit “G” - Deposition of Scott Rothstein dated June 14, 2012; Exhibit “H” — Order of HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013305