EFTA02726811

3 1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF EKE 2 INDEX FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN ASO 1 WITNESS DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT FOR RAJA BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA 4 DR. BERNARD J. JANSEN CASE NO.: 50-2009CA040 800XXXXNBAC (By Mr. Link) 5 -- 81 (By Mr. Scarola) -- 68 -- 4 JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, EXHIBITS FOR IDENTIFICATION va @ Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 1 Page 5 SCOTT RCUHSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff. 10 - Curriculum Vitae Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 2 Page: 14 - Report / II Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 3 Page: 31 - Appendix 12 VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 4 Page: 35 DR. BERNARD J. JANSEN 29 - Article Taken on Behalf of the Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant and Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff 24 Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 5 Page: 37 - Article 15 DATE TAKEN: Friday, December 1, 2017 Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 6 Page 39 TINE: 9:23 a.m. - 11:21 a.m. 16 - Article PLACE: Law Offices of Edwards Pottinger, LW 27 Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 7 Page 40 - Article 30 Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 8 Page: 46 )9 - Article Exanlnation of the witness taken before: 20 plaintiff's Exhibit No. 9 Page: 54 Mena Logo, Court Reporter - Article Palm Beach Reporting 21 Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 10 Page: 59 22 - Article 23 24 25 2 4 1 APPEARANCES 1 - - - 2 2 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Today is the let day of For the Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant: 9 3 De ter 2017. The time le 9:23 a.m. This Sc the LINK a ROCKENBACH, P.A. 4 videotaped deposition of Doctor Bernard Jensen in 4 BY: SCOTT J. LINK, ESQ. S the matter of Epstein versus Rothstein and Edwards. KARA B. ROCKENBACH, ESQ. 5 6 This deposition is being held a I 6 o Ily none Sc Robert Barfield. l'n the 7 For the Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff: 0 SEARCY, DENNY, SCAROLA, BARNHART 9 videographer from Visual Evidence, Inc. 4 SHIPLEY, P.A. 10 Would the attorneys please announce their 9 BY: JACK SCAROLA, ESQ. 11 appearances for the record? . 12 Wt. LINK: Yoa. 21 12 Wt. SCM01.1.: 11y sumo Is Jack Scare's. I'm Also Present: 22 14 00.20901 on behalf of the Plaintiff, Bradley ROBERT BARFIELD, Videographor, Visual Evidence IS Edwards. And Mr. Edwards la also present. 29 16 RR. LINK: Scott Link and Kara Rackenbach on BRADLEY J. EL:BARDS, Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff 14 17 behalf of Mr. Epstein. 15 10 Mere.liSO4, Doctor Bernard J. Janson vas duly 16 10 swain.) 17 it, 20 Wt. SCAROIA: I'n going to offer a stipulation 19 21 co you. And that la that rather than go through 20 21 22 cho &mails of the witness' background, training, 22 21 and experience, we would agree chat his curricula 25 24 vitae will be worked es en exhibit to this 24 25 25 deposition and any portions of it soy be read by Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA02726811 5 7 either party as if those entries in the CV wore 2 responsive to appropriate quoations during the 3 course of the deposition. 4 MR. LINK: That's acceptable. MR. SCAROLA: Cood. Thank you. 4 MR. LINK: Shall we go ahead and mark that as 7 Exhibit 1? MR. SCAROLA: That'a a good idea. iThecoupon, the docunent referred to was 10 marked Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 1 for identification.1 II TREREUPCM: 12 DOCTOR BERNARD J. JANSEN 13 was called as a witness and, having been previously duly 14 sworn and responded 'I do,• was examined and testified is as follows: 14 DIRECT EXAMINATION I BY MR. LINK: Q. Mr. Jansen, would you please take a look at I' what we Just marked as Exhibit 1 and tell ea what that 20 is, 21 This la my Cv, my curriculum vitae. 22 And is that current through today? 23 I could chock every page. but it's a fairly 24 recent CV. 25 Q. Okay. Mr. Janson, toll ma what your opinions A. Aa I outlined LA ay report in one of the 2 paragraphs that we can go through, I outlined explicitly • what the atatements were that I used. 4 Q. 1 understand 'ihat a 'statement is. I don't 5 have any problem with you doing research. The research 4 that you did makes sane to ne. If you plugged in a 7 ➢entente and wanted to ➢ee hem many tines it was u➢ed, a that ekes ➢anon to ne. • A. Oh-huh. Is Q. I'm trying to under➢tand the language and the II decision you mole about a statement being defamatory, 12 andlwant to know how you madeadecisica that whatever 13 statenere you were researching was a defamatory 14 statenent. 15 A. The defamatory statements was something that I 16 was provided, as 1 state in my report, that it was these 1? stetenents that linked Mr. Edwards to the Panel velum, le of Mc. Rothstein. That's what was provided to no. That 19 was my assignment. 20 O. Okay. So you were told by either Mc. Edwards 21 or Mc. Scarp'a what statement they thought was 22 defamatory. 23 h. Those were the aaaaa ',ant* I was told to look 24 for, yes. 25 O. Okay. So did you nake any determination of 6 I are that you have reached in this case. 2 A. Tho -- my opinion is that the defamatory 3 atatements against Mr. Edwards leaking into the Pony,. 4 schema of Mr. Rothstein were disseminated to 74 3 different media sites, in 104 different articles, to I 9,665,542 daily media visitors. • Q. You just used the words •defamatory • atataments.• Old you make a determination that there • was a statement in ➢ome publication that was defamatory? 10 A. I was given the gist of the statements that -- II the statements that linked Mr. Edwards to the Pons' 12 scheme of Mr. Rothstein, and than I chocked for the 13 explicit statement, tho➢e particular statements in each 14 of the 104 articles. IS Q. I understand that, but I'm talking about the 14 word •defamatory.• 17 •Defametory is a legal words is it not? 18 I don't know whether it'➢ a legal word or not. 19 51511, what does it moan? When you were doing re your work you said you used •defamatory statements.' 21 And I want to know what you concluded was a defamatory 22 statement and we'll talk about -- 33 Sure. 24 -- the credentials you have to make that 35 determination for -- to say that to a jury. 1 what's defamatory? 2 A. No. 3 Q. All right. Is there a way that you could 4 describe the statement from your words what you were 5 doing? Because the word 'defamatory' is not your word, 6 la it, in this report? That's one of the layer's 7 words. 8 A. Nell, it was a description I used for those 9 particular statements. It was provided to no, what 10 those statement, were. 11 Q. Okay. So you chose the word 'defamatory 12 statements'? Is I didn't say that, no. I w➢ provided that 14 these are the defamatory aaaaa rent* to look for. 15 O. Right. So the parson who nade the deci➢ion to 1.3 label whatever statement➢ you researched defamatory was 17 not you? 10 A. Nhother they were defamatory or not was not my is doci➢lon. 20 O. Okay. I➢ there something about my question 21 that's cau➢ing you pause? 22 A. A little bit, yeah. I did an IT 23 inve➢tigation. You're a➢king ne kind of a legal 24 question. 25 Q. Oh -huh. 8 Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA02726812 9 11 A. And I'm just telling you that I was provided 2 those statements. 3 And the reason I'm asking la you told ne your 4 opinion was about defamatory ➢tatementa. And that has a 5 lot of significance to it. And I want to understand who • detenined what statements were defamatory, whether you / did that or the lawyers for Mr. Edwards did that. • MR. SOMOZA: Objection, repetitious, asked • and answered. 10 A. Yeah, your question is asking kind of two II question➢. 12 BY MR. LINK: 13 You nay answer both. Co ahead. A. All right. The statements linking Mr. Edwards Is to this Boost scheme by Mr. Rothstein, I noon, those 14 were statements I looked for. I looked for the explicit 17 statement, you know, those particular expression of 14 those statements. At -- the aspect of whether they were It defamatory or not from a legal aspect is not within my 20 purview. 21 Q. Right. Okay. So that must mean that the 22 language •defamatory statement• was provided to you by 23 either Mr. Scarola or Mr. Edwards. 24 Noll, yeah -- yea, that particular subject 25 matter was provided, yea. 0. Okay. So then what aro the ➢ub-categories of 2 opinion➢ thaw. you have? • A. Well, we can go over ny report but -- and I'll • provide those. • 0. 1 have your report, but I want you to tell no 4 what opinions you're planning to provide to the jury. HA. SCAPULA: And you ahouid understand that • co the extent that It aaaaaaa you in providing an • accurate response to any question that i➢ asked to during the course of this deposition, you're free II to refer to anything that you'd like to. 12 I have a copy of your report here. If you 13 want to look at that, you ere free to do that. As long as Mt. Link knows what it is you're looking 15 et, if it helps you to give honest and accurate 16 answers, you're free to look at that. 17 f0.. LINK: Jack, I don't agree to that. I 10 don't want you to hand hin exhibits -- 19 KR. SCAROIA: l'n carry that -- 20 pt. LINK: -- and tell him whet he can do. 21 KR. SCAROIA: I'n aorcy that you don't 22 23 KA. LINK. I don't. 24 MA. SCUOLA: -- but that happens to be a 25 natter of law. Ka ha➢ a right to refresh hi➢ 10 Q. Okay. Ca you have any other opinions in this 2 ease other than the one you just shared with no? 3 A. Well, there's supporting opinions that I • outline in my report but that's the major -- that's what 3 I was asked to do, dlasemination of those defamatory 4 statements. 7 O. So -- okay, SO you keep saying •defamatory S statments.• And when you say that, the reason it 9 causes ne concern is whether a statement is defamatory 10 la for a judge or jury to decide. IS A. Okay. Then maybe l'n -- 12 You're not the judge or jury in this case. 13 I making that statement in a colloquial sense 14 rather than the legal sons* you're using it in. IS O. So what we're really talking about, though, is If a statement and how many times that statement wan picked 17 up by the press; is that right? IS The press -- yes, it was available on-line -- 19 O. Do you -- 20 A. -- a particular typo of subject matter for 21 these particular statements, yea. 22 Q. Right. Okay. And so whethor or not that 23 statement was defamatory or not la not an analysts you 24 engaged Sn? 23 A. The defamatory part, no. 12 recollection to refer to anything that he wants to 2 during the course of the deposition as long as you 3 ace aware of the fact that he's referring to • something and have a chance to look at it yourself. 5 KR. LINK: I don't want to ergue with you. 6 Please let ne take fly deposition the way I want to. 7 KR. SCAROIA: You're free to do that. • BY MR. LINK: 9 So what l'n asking la whet your opinions are. 10 A. Oh-huh. 11 And we'll get co your report. And if you 12 don't remoter something, ju➢t toll ne you don't 13 rOffAabOr. 14 But, I want to know as you ➢lt here %tat IS you're going to tell the jury. And I understand opinion 14 amber one i➢ that you took a statement given to you by 17 Hr. Edwards and Nr. Scarola and you did your research to 10 ➢ee how many Lima you mad find it in the prem.; 14 right? 20 A statement, ye➢, or ➢imilar ➢tatmmnta that 21 related to it, yes. 22 O. Cot lc. 23 what other conelualona or opinion➢ did you 24 reach other than that one? 25 A. Nell, the other sub-supporting -- sub-opinions Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA02726813 13 15 that anymore that particular opinion. 2 I'm asking what are they, air. 3 A. Okay. Well, that the statements were 4 distributed to 74 different on-line sites, that I S calculated the traffic to those particular altos. Tho 4 sites that I couldn't verify the traffic or didn't feel / I had reliable traffic numbers I didn't include. The • 104 articles, I looked through each of those articles s for defamatory statements, using that colloquially. I 10 outlined 12 different steps of why that is a 11 conservative estimate, that 9,635,542, and give several 12 examples in my report. Is Q. Okay. So that just sounds like the numbera 14 that you found when you did your singular opinion, which Is la to see where this statement provided to you by the 14 lawyers was replicated in the press, and that's the 15 number of times that you saw that; is that right? 14 A. Noll, that was ono of my main opinion but you Is asked for the sub-opinions and I've outlined it, that 20 9,665,542 -- ft Q. Yeah. 22 was a conservative animate. 23 okay. Any other opinions? 24 No can go through paragraph by paragraph in 25 the report but I gave you the -- 1 with In deciding Mather you would bo retained in this 2 case was Mr. Scarola, not Mr. Edwards? That is correct. 4 Did you have contact with Mr. Edwards about 5 the content of your report? 4 Yes. And did you haws contact with Mr. Edwards • about what -- the way your report la written? Well, yes, ho -- Mr. Edwards towhead a draft 10 of the report. II Q. And gave you comments on the writing of the 12 report? 13 A. Yea, basically. 14 Made some changes to it? IS A. Made some suggestions, yes. 16 Okay. And did you accept his suggestions? 17 A. Most of then wording changes, yes, and there 10 was one recommendation that he asked if I could include 19 in my report. 20 And did you do that? 21 A. Yea. 22 O. Okay. So you took his wording changes and you 23 made a notarial change co your report based on 24 Mr. Edwards asking you co de so: is chat right? 25 A. He asked if I could include somothing and I 14 That's it? 2 -- broadest opinion. 3 Okay. when wore you retained in this case, 4 air? 5 By October 2017, on or about. 4 MR. LINK: Okay. Let's go ahead and mark the 5 report as Exhibit 2. S Intereupon, a brief discussion was held off 9 the record, after which the deposition continued as 10 follows:I Il IThereupon, the document referred to was 12 marked Plaintiff's Exhibit Umber 2 for identification.) 13 BY NR. LINK: 14 Q. Ready? Let's turn to page 3, air. On page 3 15 you outline what your assignment was. If And who provided you with the assignment? who 17 gave you what's In paragraph 9? IS That would be Ns. Scarola. 19 Mr. Scarola gave you paragraph 9? 20 Yeah. It's a -- and I added sone words to the 21 thing to sake it more in lino with what I had to do but 22 that's basically just to looking for -- 23 okay. 24 -- those types of words. 25 All right. So the person that you had contact 16 I felt it was in line, so yea. 2 Okay. So back to paragraph 9 for a second. 3 The question that you were asked by Mr. Scarola and 4 Mr. Edwards is: what is the level of diasomination of 5 defaning statements? 4 Did they give you any definition of what • •dofaning• moans? 8 A. The -- again, this .defamingw La kind of a 9 legal thing you're harping on here. I use it in a 10 colloquial expression. And they gave ma what the Il statements I was to look for. 12 Right. So la the word "defaming• here really 13 superfluous from your standpoint? What you really 14 flooded wore the statements and not an adjective to 15 describe them for you to do your work? If For me to do my work? 17 Yea, sir. 18 A. I needed the state manta to look for. 19 So if the word 'defaming• wasn't in here it 20 wouldn't have changed the way you wont about doing your 21 wort; would it? 32 A. Aa long as I had the statements, no, it 23 wouldn't change my work. 24 Q. Okay. Tarn to pogo 5, please. Look at 25 paragraph l5, if you would. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA02726814 17 19 1 Yes. 2 It ➢ays: •The defusing ➢tatements associating ) Mr. Edwards with the illegal activities of • Mr. Rothstein...• 5 Do you see that? Yea. what is the statement that you searched [or? • Well, It was -- it varied slightly, you know, s docuaent to doctment, but it was an association with -- 10 that Mr. Edwards was somehow knowingly involved with the 11 illegal activities of Mr. Rothstein. 12 what was the word search that you used? 13 Nell, again, to find the articles or the 14 statements in the articles. 15 Q. I want to know the word search that you were 14 Looking for. A9 I understand your assigneent, it was to 1/ take the connection of Mr. Edwards with Mr. Rothstein 14 and Mr. Rothstein'➢ illegal activities and prepare a Is report and identify ovary place that there was a 20 reference to Hr. Edwards and Hr. Rothstein and the 21 illegal activities. Is that right? 22 You're going to have to ➢ay that one sere 2) time. 24 Okay. 25 Sorry. 1 involved with Rocascain's illegal activities? 12 • that -- is that fight? 3 A. That Mk. Edward,. was involved with these • illegal activities and chat so -- you're writing it don 5 like that was the only aaaaa ment I searched for. But, a as I said, in each of these 104 articles that verbiage 7 changed likely article co article. • Q. Okay. Well, Mr. dcarola corrected no and * added the word •knowing.• That's why I added he wo d 10 to My SOM01104.. Was that not a word that was Srportent to you 12 in deternining whether the statement you were supposed 13 to find was included in en article? 14 A. I don't understand the question. 15 O. Nell, I just asked you if the statement that If you were asked to locate to see how many tines it wee 17 disseninated was the vex that reads like this: That 10 Edwards was knowingly involved with Rothstein'a illegal 19 activity. 20 A. And I'n going to refer you to paragraph 15 21 that clearly states: Defaning statements associating 22 Mr. Bradley with illegal activities of Mt. Rothstein... 23 O. Okay. So whether it was Mr. Edwards knew 24 about it or not was not germane to your x aaaaa eh? 25 A. That's not what I laid. 18 Q. I thought I understood that the assignment 2 that you had was to simply take Mr. Rothstein, 3 Mr. Edwards, and the concept of illegal activities, and 4 then search and see where in the Internet, the 5 newspapers, that combination of words exists. • MR. SCAROLA: I'm going to object to the 7 ntscharacterization of the an➢wer that was S previously given, which included a reference to the 1 fact that Bradley Edwards was a knowing participant 10 in the illegal activities. 11 MR. LINK: Thank you for that clarification. 12 MR. SCAROLA: You're volcano. 1) Well, I can take your question two different 14 ways, okay. Ono, what I used to look at these IS documents, and those I outline in my report. If BY NB. LINK: I/ Oh-huh. IS A. And than the actual statements in each of IS these documents. And those atatomonta vary slightly, 24 you know, article to article. But it was somehow there 21 I a➢ a reader of these articles would -- that the 22 article expressed that Mr. Edwards was ➢omehow knowingly 23 involved in these illegal activities of Hr. Rothstein. 24 Q. Okay. So is that the key to this? Tho 25 article needed to show that Mr. Edwards was knowingly 20 Well, I just read what you wrote here and it 2 just says associating him. It doesn't say whether he 3 know or didn't know. • And I'm trying to really understand if you 5 wore looking [or articles that simply say: Edwards and 4 Rothstein. And Rothstein has illegal activity. Or you 7 were looking [or articles that said: Mr. Edwards was a S known participant in the Pearl scheme. 9 MR. SCA/IOLA: Object to the fore of the 10 question as it excludes the possibility that both II were included. 12 13 Ia IS If 17 MR. LINK: Good coaching. BY RR. LINK: Co right ahead. A. I don't understand the torment about the coaching. IS No, it was just for Hr. Scarola's purposes. It okay. Could you repeat the question? 20 Q, I probably can't. I don't reminder what I 21 asked now, but I'll cane up with another question. 22 MR. SCAROLA: I'd be happy to help, if you'd 23 like -- 24 MR. LINK: No, no -- 25 MR. SCARCER: -- cause I resenber it. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA02726815 21 23 1 MR. LINK: -- I'll figure it out. 2 MR. SCAROLA: Okay. 3 MR. LINK: I'll figure it out. 4 BY KR. LINK: 5 I'm trying to understand what was important to 4 you in doing your search -- 7 A. Uh-huh. • Q. -- because I understand the number➢. That * makes sense to me. That's sort of the easy part of l0 this. What I'm trying to understand la what you were 11 searching to find, so that I can then talk to you about 12 whether the articles you located satisfy the ➢earch 12 request you wore soaking. 14 Does that sake sense? is And when I read your sentence to paragraph 15, 14 if that'➢ what you wore looking for, chon whether IS Mr. Edwards know or didn't know would not bo important 14 to you in your search. Nah, I -- you know, well, you can argue and 20 interpreter it how you would like. But as I explain in 21 my report, you know, I looked in those -- in the 22 articles where that Mr. Edwards W➢ involved, knew 23 about, contributed to, that somehow had to get across in 24 these article➢ to me. 25 Okay. With the illegal activities. 2 COI IC. Okay. 2 All eight. Will you turn co page 13, please. • When you were identifying articles in which there MAO 5 reference made to Nr. Rachstein'a illegal activities and 4 Mr. Id.ards' lAVOIVeneht or Contribution to or knowledge 7 about those activities, did It matter co you where that. • infornacion cane from? And here is what I moan. Did you exclude, for 10 example, press statements by Mr. Scarola? 11 A. Nell, there's two questions there. Let me 12 deal with the last one. I mean, I don't recall any 13 press -- looking at any press releases from M. Sterol., 16 so I don't think I included those. 15 Q. Now about statements to the press by 14 Ht. Scarole? )7 A. The -- well, let me answer your other le question, which was -- which right now I forgot. 19 Q. Okay. So let's deal with the question of when 20 you were -- 21 A. Nell, I went to make sure I answer your 22 question. It was a -- it actually was a very good 23 question and now I -- 24 O. We're going to got back co it. 25 RR. SCAROLA: Do you want the earlier coapound 22 So the exact -- yeah. 2 Involved, know about -- and I biased the third 4 Involved, knew about -- 2 Somehow involved, is that what to was? 6 MR. LINK: Sack, do you remaabort 7 MS. ROCKENBACH: Contributed to. MR. LINK: Contributed to. 9 MR. SCAROLA: Knew about. 10 MR. LINK: Involved, knew about, contributed 11 12 13 MR. SCAROLA: Contributed to. MR. LINK: Cot lt. Thank you. 1• BY NR. LINK: IS Q. Okay. So -- ➢o then you were focused on not 14 Just that Mr. Edwards was employed at the Rothstein firm 1* and that the Rothstein firm was involved in illegal IS activities. You wore looking for articles that 19 connected Mr. Edwards to that illegal activity. 20 A. That la a very good example. Yes, there were 21 articles that, for exasple, said that Ns. Edwards was 32 employed in Ns. Rothatein'a firm, and those articles I 33 didn't include. It had to be somehow that he was 24 somehow associated with this. 33 Q. With the illegal activities? 24 1 question reed back to you? 2 THE WITNESS: Yes, the earlier compound 3 question reed back. 4 KR. LINK: Read it back. Saw about lt? 5 Objection sustained. 4 (Thereupon, the following was read by the 7 Court Reporter: 8 •question: All right. Mill you turn to page 9 19, please. Nhen you were identifying articles in 10 which there was reference made to It. Rothstein's 11 illegal activities and Mr. Edwards' involvement or 13 contribution to or knowledge about chose 13 activities, did it matter to you where that 14 information cane from? IS •And here is what I mean. Old you exclude, 16 for example, press statements by Mr. Scarola?•1 17 h. Yea to the first quostlon. Yes, it did matter 10 where it cats from. lo BY NA. LINK: 20 Q. Okay. trplain to no why and what you did to at narrow the field. 33 h. For example, I ignored several -- chore's a 23 lot of docunonto -- court decumenta about this case that 24 are available on-line. I didn't link those bells. You 25 know, I Just hit -- I -- Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA02726816 25 27 Q. You did not? 2 A. Specifically court documents, no, I did not 3 include those. 4 They're, identified in your report, the court 5 docunenta. Where are they identified? 7 Okay. We will look at that. 4 So you excluded court documents? Yea. Now, if -- the only disclose -- just to 10 clarify that, if an article referenced a court document 11 or had a snippet free a court dominant, you know, like 12 [rem a news article, than I included it. But if it was 13 just, you know, about none Florida Court Association 14 repository, no, I didn't include those. 15 All right. Any other limitations? 14 They -- if, far exanple, there ware articles If that just mentioned the case -- is Oh-huh. It -- but didn't mention that -- had the 20 statements about Mr. Edwards being involved In these 21 illegal activities, I didn't include those. 22 There may have bean soma other exanpies. But 23 my real -- my real aspect was to focus on sone type of 24 explicit publishing of chase statements. 25 Q. All right. And so I take it than that you atatenenta or articles or interviews were created 2 by Mr. Edwards or Mr. Scarola, those are still • included in the realer of hens you identified with 4 atatenenta?•) a BY MR. LINK: O Q. Okay. bac so ask the question again. I think 7 MO elated a couple of words. Let me sea if I can break • it down. So let's take It then -- for exisple, the 10 first article listed on page 13. Do you see that that's 11 en October 6th, 2017 article? 12 A. Nell, I Just want to -- that's a -- this Se a 13 search result, a snippet linked to en article. 14 O. Right. And I assume that that article that's 15 referenced here is one that you included es a hit in 16 looking for a statement, that's why you're showing it. I? A. Nell. no, because in Figure 1 I lust give -- le trying to explain what I did in tent of search *marlin. 19 I would have to check that particular link, if I 20 included that first link in my report. O. Nell, this -- okay, so all you're doing in 22 this example, and maybe I read it wrong, is it says: 23 Figure 1. 24 This is Figure 1, I thinks right? 25 A. That is correct. 26 1 were not eliminating articles that, for example, it 2 Mr. Scarola or Mr. Edwards spoke, to a reporter which led 3 to an article being written or they invited a reporter 4 to a hearing or had lunch with a reporter to talk about a the case, which created an article, you didn't exclude 4 those free your analysis? MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me. Objection, no proper predicate, and compound. 9 BY MR. LINK: 10 Q. You can answer it. II A. In each ar the 104 doctoonta I looked for the 12 expression of the statement that linked Mr. Edwards to 13 these illegal activities. 14 Q. So that if -- so that if soma of the 15 statements or articles ar interviews ware created by If Mr. Edwards or Mr. Scarola, those are still included in 1, the number of item you identified with statements? II MR. SCAROLA: Objection, no proper predicate, 15 2ASU002 facts not in evidence, no good faith basis 20 to suggest such things over happened. 21 Can I have the question back? 32 MR. LINK: Please. 33 (Thereupon, the following was read by the 24 Court Reporter: 35 "position: So that IC sane of the 28 1 Q. Geogle search peewits for search: edwards 2 epstein Pearl scheme. Right? 4 A. Yee. 5 Q. So these are the items that popped on that 6 search, and then you would read the article to see what • it said? O A. Yea, these are the first -- well, these are 9 the first five articles from that particular query. And 10 then I'd open into the article and then read what the 11 article said. 12 Q. Okay. And were you provided any parameters 13 from Hr. Scarola or Nr. Edwards for the time frame that 34 you ahould search for? 15 Prom then specifically I was not provided with 14 a tine frame. 17 Q. Okay. Did they ask you to limit your search 10 to the time period that Hr. Epateln'a Complaint against 19 I . Rothstein and Mr. Edwards was pending? 30 Not explicitly, no. 21 Okay. Did you limit your search to that tine 32 period? 23 Yes. 24 All right. So that your search should not 25 contain any articles that go peat 2012? Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA02726817 2 3 4 S 29 That is Incorrect. All right. So then you did search for articles that came into existence after dr. Epstein's Complaint against Mr. Rothstein and Mr. Edwards was dismissed? 2 3 4 31 Okay. You have an appendix co Exhibit 2, which is your written report in this case, that identifies -- 1G. SCAAOLA: Did you nean to give me this copy? A. Let me -- let me go back. I misunderstood your question. KR. LINK: I meant to. KR. SCAROLA: Oh, okay. Oh-huh. • 1G. LINK: I anent to. And the reason I did All right. I -- the lawyer talk of •claims,• • is all of chase articles aro going co correspond co 10 •counterclaims,• is throwing me a little bit. I did it the actual article itself, Jack, so we can Lie than 11 from the original lawsuit from Mr. Epstein against II in together. 12 Mr. Rothstein and Kr. Edwards and ono other person. 12 hen. SCAROLA: Gat it. Thank you. 13 Oh-huh. 13 ml. LINK: Let's go ahead and fork this 14 So, yeah, that's what -- when you said the Exhibit S. 13 •lawsuit• that's what I was -- IS (Thereupon, the document referred to was 14 0. So you !carted your search December lth, 2009. 16 mocked Plaintiff's Exhibit Rusher S for identification.) 17 That's when the lawsuit I7 BY KR. LIME: 1• Correct. 18 Q. All right. we're looking et Exhibit S, which la -- was filed. And when did you and your 19 la the appendix to the written report you prepared In 20 search to look for articles that would have been related 20 this oases is that right? 21 to that lawsuit? 21 A. Yea. 22 Tho -- well, I stopped searching In around 17, 22 Q. And under Reports and Articles Referenced, 23 19, October. So I included every article that I ran 22 those aro the reports and articles that you found 24 into. 24 contained the statemant about Mr. Edwarda and 25 And were you aware when you dad your search 25 Kr. Rothstein and illegal activities: is that right? 30 32 1 that the Dec➢nber 7th, 2009 lawsuit was dismissed in 1 A. Nell, no, not exactly. 2 2012? 2 Now do I have it wrong? 3 I don't know exactly what you nean by 3 A. These reports and articles ere articlea that I 4 aaaaa .4 But in articles I've read, I read the • referenced in ny report as footnotes and things like 3 lawsuit was no longer pending. 9 that to support the textual things I'm writing. 4 0. And that -- was that information that the 6 Q. Nell, were there additional articles that you 7 lawsuit was no longer pending in 2012 Important to the 7 did not list in your report that you reviewed that • gathering of the articles that contained information 8 contain the statement that you were searching for? 9 about Mr. Edwards and Kr. Rothstein? 9 A. Yea, there were. 10 Mr. -- for what I had to do, no. 10 Okay. So I thought I heard you say that there Il Okay. Do you know the tine period that 11 were approximately 109 articles you reviewed. On here 12 Mr. Edwards filed his counterclaim against Mr. Epst0in, 12 it lists 121. Mich of th0 109 articles that you 13 when that happened? 13 reviewed that contain the statement have you not 14 Except for hove, no, I do not. 14 identified in your appendix, sir? IS Did it influence any of the research that you Nell, ono correction. It's 104. If did that Mr. Edward➢ filed a public counterclaim lawsuit la 104. Thank you. 17 against Kr. Epstein within 30 days of Detests[ 9th, 12 And I do include the 104 articles. IS 2009? is So then when I asked if every article char. 19 I -- again, all the lawsuit stuff I don't Is Included the statement about Mr. Rothstein and 20 know. 20 Kr. Edwards and illegal activity that is part of your 21 All right. Did you find any articles between 21 calculation, if it was included In the appendix, the 22 December 7th and when mar. Edwards and his lawyer, 22 answer is ye➢? 23 Kr. Scarola, filed their counterclaim lawsuit against 22 A. Nell, that's not the question you asked me. 24 Kr. Epstein? 24 If you're asking re if all of those articles are listed 25 A. I have no idea what that mean➢. 25 here in Appendix C, then the answer is yes. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA02726818 33 35 Okay. Croat. So let's start with item number 2 2, which is -- 3 MR. SCAROLA: Could I make a ➢ugge➢tion? 4 MR. LINK: Yes, sir. 5 MR. SCAROLA: Because I think maybe you're a little bit confused and It might be helpful if we • clarify ➢omething. MR. LINK: Please. MR. SCAROLA: There's a separate appendix that Ie appears at page 87. You are referencing an It appendix at page 79. 12 MR. LINK: Yeah. II MR. SCAROLA: It's the list that begins at II page 87, which is specifically labeled Links to II Articles Containing the Defaming Statements. 14 Do you see that? MR. LINK: Yeah, but those are not the IS articles. MR. SCAROLA: If you're going -- 20 MR. LINK: Those are just links to them. You 21 can't actually get the article from doing that. We 22 tried. 23 MR. SCAROLA: Well, okay, I'm just ➢ugge➢ting 24 to you that maybe -- 25 MR. LINK: I understand. 1 RR. SCAROLA: No. 2 RR. LINK: LWa go ahead and mark this as o Exhibit 4, please. 4 (Thereupon, the docunent referred co was 5 marked Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 4 for identification.) 4 THE WITNESS: Can I stand up and get ny water? MR. LINK: Absolutely. MR. SCAROLA: Pant to take a short break? o Nave been going for about an hour. is IRE WITNESS: Yeah, that would be good. THE VIDEIRMAPRER: The time is 9:59. going 12 off the record. 13 (Thereupon, et 9:59 inn. a recess was taken 14 until 10:04 a.m., after which the deposition continued 15 as follows:1 16 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 10:04. We are i? bock on the record. 18 BY MR. LINK: 19 Q. All right. So Jansen Exhibit 4, which 20 correlates to number 2, is this an article that contains 21 a statenent in it that you then looked to see how many 22 touches or how many people logged an to read it? 23 A. I don't know. I can check it, if you want. 24 Q. Would you please? 2s A. I don't see a stater:ant. 34 MR. SCAROLA: -- maybe you want to clarify the 2 relationship between Appendix C and Appendix D. 3 You night be -- you night be able to focus 4 on where you want to go if you do that. 5 MR. LINK: I think I'm okay. 4 MR. SCAROLA: Okay. 7 MR. LINK: This la the only way we can get the • articles up because they were not attached. 9 THE WITNESS: I provided all the articles. 10 MR. LINK: Right. Some of then -- actually, 11 sane I got, sone were not there. 12 THE WITNESS: No, I provided hard copies -- I) electronic copies of every single ono. 14 MR. LINK: To? IS THE WITNESS: Someone from your law firm who 14 contacted me. In MR. LINK: Okay. Well, we printed them. It IS 19 35 21 22 23 24 25 doesn't really natter. I think we have them. So we will go through them. And we're looking at number -- what are we on, 4? THE COURT REPORTER: Uh-huh. MR. LINK: *Mich should have a number corresponding to number 2 on here. iiek, did I give you an article? 36 1 Q. Okay. So this would not be an article then 2 that would he included in your limbers? 3 A. If it doesn't contain the statement no, it 4 would not be included in the number. 5 Q. Could you explain to me why it's cemented • upon in your written report if it doesn't contain the • statement? 8 A. Again, beck to this section here. These are 9 reports and articles that were actually referenced an vy 10 report as citations for some statements. This is not 11 the list of articles that contain the defaming 12 aaaaa mama. 12 0. 1 understand that, but you told ma all 104 of 14 then aro listed in this section of the appendix. is A. No, I did not. It's in Web Page Printouts Ic section of this appendix. 17 So if I turn in your report to page -- IS Kt LINK: Mr. Sterols is going to help ma. 1, 161. SCAPULA: 8?. 20 BY 1G. LINK: 21 0. -- 87, that's the list of articles: is that 22 right? 22 A. IC's actually in two places. I have it in 24 that appendix with a nice List of each of the articles 25 and the domains. And then I eLso have it in Appendix C Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA02726819 37 39 hero in Nab Page Printouts, which is a different section 2 of this appendix. 3 Nob Page Printouts. 4 Okay. So if I go to Nob Page Printouts those 5 are the articles? Yea, air. 7 Okay. Good. That helped. All right. So I'm • on the right appendix, wrong place. So it starts with what I have numbered as 10. as Okay. Q. Very helpful. Thank you. as A. Yea, sir. 13 Q. I don't have 18 here but I have 19. So let's 14 take a look at that. to MR. LINK: Lot's go ahead and nark this as 14 Exhibit 5. 17 IThareupon, the document referred to was Is marked Plaintiff's Exhibit Mwnber 5 for identification.? is BY KR. LINK: 20 Q. Okay. So Exhibit 5 correlates on page 80 to IL the handwritten number 19. 22 MR. SOASOLA: Aro you testifying? 23 MR. LINK: No. I'm making sure that -- I'm 24 not. I'm making sure that you understand what 25 we're looking at. 1 I grabbed the screenshota for each of these articles and 7 provide the link in the report and an actual screenshoc 3 of the article in the collection of documents in ny 4 report chat was provided to, I guess, both attorneys. NR. LINK: All right. Okay. Let's mark this 6 as the next exhibit, Exhibit 6. (Thereupon, the document referred co was • narked Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 6 for identification.) * BY MA. LINK: Q. This Exhibit 6 -- I'll do It a different way 11 now. This Exhibit 6, does that correlate to the 12 handwritten nunber 18 on page SO of Exhibit 3? 12 A. Nell, the WI is not here but the title is the 14 same. So, I roan -- yeah, the title is the same. The IS UAL la not here, so I can't say for sure it's the exact 16 sere article but the title is the sane. 37 O. Okay. Md is this the article that you would 18 have reviewed? 19 A. I can't remember all 104 articles. But, like 20 I said, the Urn, is not here, so I can't really say for 21 sure, but the title is the same. 22 Do you see this -- 23 NA. SCAMLA: Lac me also point out that what 24 you have narked as Exhibit Number 6 clearly is only as a portion of this article. 3 4 6 8 9 10 IL 12 13 14 15 IB 11 IS 38 MR. SOAAOLA: Because that didn't sound like a question. MR. SOAAOLA: It's not. It's to make Sure that the record is -- A. I don't think I've seen this before, this particular printout. BY NR. LINK: You haven't seen this article? No. All right. I don't recall seeing it. Okay. So then if you haven't seen it, then it would not have bean rereferenced in the data that you collected? Noll, this article. I moan -- Okay. -- this link is 19 so -- Okay. Md then you don't believe that this 19 article that is marked as Exhibit 5 is the article to PO that link? 21 I can almost toll you it's not. 22 All right. 23 I can explain that, if you'd like. 24 Sure. Go ahead. 25 A. Yeah, this Preasheader la -- I included all -- 1 NR. LINK: Oh, I understand that. l'n just 2 trying to make sure we've got the right articles. 3 NR. SCAROLA: Okay. Kell, you don't have the 4 right article if all you've narked is a piece of 5 the article. We know that that's the case. • Correct? 7 NR. LINK: I'm not asking him to ccanent on 8 the article. Just if I've got the right -- 9 BY NA. LINK: 30 0. Is this the -- forget what all of the 11 Information contained in the article. le this the 17 article, title and author that is -- ties into 13 handwritten number 18, if you can toil? 14 A. Yeah, to be really honest with you, I can't IS tell because the ML is not here. You know, the title to is the same. 17 NA. LINK: All right. le Let's nark this as Exhibit 7. Is (Thereupon, the document referred co was 70 marked Plaintiff's Exhibit Nuaber 7 for identification.) 21 BY MA. MU: 22 Q. Exhibit 7 is an article from the New York 13 Peat, October 5th, 2017. Does that tie -- is this the 74 article, if you look at the top, pressresder.ccm, that 25 ties into handwritten nutter 19? 40 Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA02726820 41 43 A. Yea, the URL la the same. This looks like one 2 of my screenshota. So I believe this ties into number 3 19 that you've annotated on this appendix. 4 Q. Okay. So is this one of the articles that you • located that contained the atatemont you were searching 6 for? 7 I recall -- I recall this particular article, • so yea. All right. And what is the atatemont in hero 25 that you found to fit the description of what you were 11 looking for? 12 A. If I recall this correctly, I believe it was 13 paragraph 6 that -- 1, 2, 1 -- excuse. mm, paragraph 5 is 14 why I included this. II Q. Okay. Anything else in here? Is A. The article included at least ono statement. 27 I moan, I can read the entire article but looks like la paragraph 5 there not my criteria. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Okay. And you say that this article cane out in October of this year, just a couple of months ago? Yea, I see that. All right. And do you know where the information for this article came from? A. The. Nov York Post. Q. No, I understand that. I mean for Lia information they were quoted on included ono of the 2 statements you were looking for? 3 A. I can't -- I wasn't specifically looking for 4 that. I can't recall. • Q. Okay. So who made the statement was not 4 important to you, simply that the atatomenc existed? That it occurred within the article; correct? • And since this one wet in 2017, that's about • five years after Mr. Bpstelea lawsuit against 10 Mr. Rothstein -- against Mr. Erhard was dismissed; II right? 12 A. I don't know. 13 Q. Nell, you know that 2017 is five years more 14 than 2012? 15 16 37 A. Yes. I can do the meth. Okay. Then was the first article that you found from -- l'n talking about from a timing le standpoint. What is the date of the first article that 19 you found that contained one of the statements you were 20 looking for? 21 A. I can't recall. 22 Q. Is there something you can look at that will 23 toll us the date of the first article chat cane our chat 24 contained the statement chat Mr. ScaroLa and Hr. Ectearda as asked you to find? 42 I Euatachowich, the author of the article. 2 A. I didn't investigate whore the reporter or -- 3 Or the source or where the information cane 4 from or who she spoke with? • A. No, I did not. 4 Q. Do you know whether there are any quotes in 7 any of the articles you reviewed that wore made by 4 Mr. Epstein? 9 MR. SCAROLA: Separate and apart from 10 Mr. Epstedn'S statements in the Complaint? Il MR. LINK: Yea. I'm asking about the article. 12 MR. SCAROLA: I'm just asking to clarify the I) question. 14 BY KR. LINK: 15 Q. Did Mr. Epstein give any quotes in any of the If articles that you researched? 17 Well, I wasn't looking for that, so IS really -- I don't know. 19 Q. Did Hr. Epatein'a lawyers give any quotes in 25 any of the articles that you researched? 31 A. I can't say for sure but there seem to be 32 plenty of lawyer quotes so -- 33 Q. I agree shore are loco of lawyer quotes. I'm 24 asking if Mr. Epstein's lawyers, not Mr. Edwards' 95 lawyers, Mr. Epstein') lawyers were ever quoted and the 44 A. Nell, if we had all the electronic copies of 2 the articles we could look at the dates that they were 3 pUblished. 4 Q. Do you have something with you that you can 5 look at? 6 A. I don't have -- I provided -- I provided those 7 particular documents, so I don't have then with me. 8 O. You didn't keep a copy or on your computer or 9 anything? 10 A. Oh, yes, I have it. 11 You have It? 12 I have the d0cuents). 13 Okay. So is there a way of looking at this 14 appendix or the report to determine the very first tine 15 and which article you wore able to locate one of the 14 statements you were searching for? 17 Not by looking at the report, no. le when you go through -- when I'm looking at 14 this report I see dates on here, a lot of 2O17a, 2015. 20 Can you identify one of these char has a 2009 21 publication date? 22 I moan, I can look through each of these 104 23 URLs, if you want me to. 24 25 A. I don't know. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA02726821 45 47 Q. By taking a look at your appendix can you make. 2 that determination? 3 Well, lot no look at the URLa. 4 Okay. 5 Now, just -- you know, a lot of those l/RLs I don't have dates. • Q. I understand. In looking at what's available • to you today can you find ono of those that Oxlatood in s 2009? is A. Noll, lot no look. it MR. SCAPOLA: Have you done the search of 13 Because if you've done it and you tell us II that it's not there for 2009, I'm willing to iw stipulate to that. Is By MR. LINK: 14 Co ahead. You can keep going. I/ No. Based on the URLa -- looking at the URLa Is I cannot coma co an article free 2009, if I recall the is que➢tion correctly. 20 Okay. And in looking at the URLa can you toll 21 me how many of those articles were in existence before 22 2012 when the lawsuit against Mr. Edwards vas dismissed? 23 A. Nell, I could go through and look at then 24 again but it'➢ probably just very ➢inllar. And to kind 25 of outline, in ny reports, you know, there aro certainly 1 And then: 'Weird& worked at...• 2 O. Okay. So what la It in paragraph -- 1'n going 3 to put a bracket -- would you put a bracket around the 4 two paragraphs for so, please? Or just identify than 5 with a star, however you want to, so we know which ones 4 we're looking at. (Witness complied.) • Okay. The first paragraph, what is it in that 9 aaaaa nem or in that paragraph contains the statement 10 that you were searching for? 11 A. Nell, '...alleging the attorney was involved 12 in false claims made by Pond. schemer Scott Rothstein. • 13 And then explains the illegal activities. 14 And then on the next paragraph it addresses IS Edwards as being the attorney -- 16 O. Okay. I? A. -- that the previous paragraph referenced. 10 O. And this was a 2011 article, April 22nd, 2011? 19 A. That is the date. 20 O. And In what paper was this article written? 21 A. Based on the URL, the Palm Beach Daily News. 22 Q. Are you faniliar with that newspaper? 23 No, I'm not. 24 Do you know what its subacription is, the 25 number? 46 I documents that are no longer available. 2 Yeah, looking at these URAL. no. 3 All right. Shank you. 4 aloroupon, a document was marked Plaintiff's 3 Exhibit Number 8 for identification.) 4 BY KR. LINK: 7 Q. Exhibit 8 I bellow ties into handwritten 8 number 20. Could you take a look and see if I have that 10 Il 12 13 right? Bo far I think I'm about 1 for 10. Maybe 2 for 10. But definitely not making the Nall of Fame. The URL la cut off but this looks like what 14 you have annotated here as number 20. IS If 17 IS Q. All right. And this is an article that you have included a➢ one of the article➢ that contain➢ the statement about Mr. Edwards you wore searching for? correct? It Yes. 30 0. Can you show no where the aaaaa sant la that 31 caused you to select this document? 32 A. Paragraphs 7 and B. 33 Q. Paragraph 7 that starts with the words: 34 •Edwards worked at...• 25 A. No. •Ep➢tein filed its original lawsuit..." 48 1 A. I can look at ny report. 2 O. Okay. Where in your report does it say that? 3 A. Yea. On page 17, ranter 62, Palm Beach Daily 4 Hews, daily traffic 8,320. 5 Q. Okay. I'm sorry. I was distracted. Can you 6 do that one note time for ne? I apologize. • A. Yea, sir. Page 17. 8 Pape 1?? 9 A. And there's a table at the top. 10 Uh -huh. 11 And item number 62. 13 Yeah. 13 The Palm Beach Daily Wows. Is that the 14 correct? And than 0,320. Is All right. So is that the nuvber of hits that 14 were on this article en June -- on April 22nd, 2011? 17 A. That's the daily traffic that that particular is site received. Is On that day? 20 Well, it's -- as I said In ny report, they 21 typically have sore -- you knew, it's average over a 23 week or month or something like chat. It's typically -- 23 there's now. -- you can't look at a particular date. 24 O. Over what period of tine did you consider? So 25 this is an April 22nd, 2011 article. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA02726822 I 2 3 4 • Is It 52 13 II Is 14 1/ la It 20 21 22 23 24 2S 49 A. Uh-huh. Q. What time franc did you consider In determining 8,320 people reviewed this article? The -- I went to Slmilarlfeb, went to the appropriate time period and then got the daily unique traffic. And so for that time period there wa➢ an average daily traffic for the paper or for this article? A. As I explained in the report, for the paper. For the paper? The vebsite. So how many people on April 22nd, 2011 read thi➢ article? That's what this number provide➢. The exact readership nunbers are not typically available for the individual article➢. Okay. Can you tell me of the 8,320 people that looked at Tho Shiny Sheet during sone period of time in April 2011 how many actually read this article? The -- let ma kind of go back. I thought you were referring to the palmbeachdallynews.com, not this Shiny Sheet. But thi➢ particular -- these numbers are used for the particular readership. So lt would be -- a way of looking at it would be this would be a max but a 1 2 s • 6 • le 11 12 13 la IS 16 1? l• 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 51 calculation, so I did the average. All right. So you cane up with doing the math 8,320? Correct. And that's the approximate number of people that logged into the on-line site? Or visited that particular site. Or visited that particular site. But it's hitting the site, not this article? A. That is correct. Q. All right. So you can't tell me hew nany of the folks that logged on to the Palm Beach Daily News en April 22nd, 2011 actually even reed the article about It. Epstein and Br. Edwards? A. I did find out exact readership is difficult to nearly irpossible, especially when it cones to on-line newspapers and things like that, because the way people read. Q. I understand that. So isn't my statenent true, you can't tell ne how nany people on that day actually read this article? A. No, that's not exactly true. What -- I think the way to look ac this muter is this is an approxinatIon -- a good approxlmatlen of the readership, and It specifically addresses try particular assignment, 1 50 conservative number on the number of readerships. I 52 which was to valor a dassenination of these particular 2 Q. Okay. Lot's try this again. As I understand, 2 statements. 3 there were 8,320 people approximately because you did an 3 Q. Well, as a palm of your assignment, as I 4 average based on sons period of [Imo' right? 4 understand it, the number you cane up with would be the A. Well, it's not I did an average. That'➢ S number of individuals who this intern:Mica was 4 typically how it's done if you're looking for a 6 disseninated to. / particular period, you know, there. Because, especially 7 A. That is correct. going back this far, you know, it'➢ typically available 8 Which means they had to reed It; right? for a month or a given period. So these traffic 9 If it's going to Insect pie and l'n going to 10 services, they do the averaging many [loos. IS torn en opinion about Hr. Edwards based on that read, if 11 Oh, ao the 8,320 was provided to you by a II I don't read it, then is hasn't impact my view of him. 12 service? 12 Bo you agree with that? 13 Well, yes, I use -- it's ono of the traffic 13 A. IL depends what you near by • read.• 14 services I use. 14 Well. if I don't read chla article, I don't IS Q. And so the date -- the question I'm asking Is: IS sea the statement., do I? If Did you take a month of information, and then -- let's is Well, If you -- you know, I gem many e -nails 1/ assume there were 30 day➢ in it, and total that up and 17 from different newspapers and I go to different 18 then divide it by 30 -- l• newspaper site➢ and a lot of tines there will be mini IS Yeah. la stories on the pages and I'll read the headline and the 20 0. -- to get an average? 20 snippet from the particular paragraph and then road some 31 A. That would be a way daily traffic is 21 stories. 32 calculated. 22 And so -- but you're asking a question that I 33 Q. But did you do that or dad you pull it Cron a 23 was not asked to actually investigate, the exact 34 service is what I'm asking you? 24 readership of these particular articles. I was asked 33 A. I be lieve similargeb gives a monthly 25 the dissemination of theca particular statements. And Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA02726823 53 55 1 that was ny 9,669,542. 2 Q. But you're not telling ua that number of 3 people actually road any ono of these atatementa; are 4 you? 5 The exact readership, no. Okay. And you can't toll me as you sit hero / today how many people actually road this article, • Exhibit 8, dated April 22nd, 2011; can you? • A. I could say it's -- you know, the number that 10 were dialeminatod to was 8,320. But, no, I can't say 11 the exact readership of that particular article. Q. Okay. And you can't tell me the exact 13 readership of any of the articles that you located; can 14 you? I'm going to go back to my role as an export. 14 I moan, this is not like counting loose change in your 1/ pocket. I moan, it's -- there's multiple -- there's 14 traffic numbers. And so these -- these particular Is traffic numbers are what's used in the industry for 20 readership in audits. 21 Q. So lot me try ny question ono sore time. 22 Sir, you can't tell ne the actual number of 21 people that road any ono of those articles that you have 24 identified, can you, sir? 25 A. Although, as I tried to explain, but on the I articles were from the same 'Mesita, I just included one 2 traffic number. • O. Okay. So was It your assunptIon that the 4 exact same number of people chat looked at the April 5 22nd, 2011 article looked at the October 20th, 2013 4 article? • A. Ic could have bean more. It could have been • less. It could vary day by day a little bit. Only a little bit over a tun-year period of 10 time? II A. I did not look -- we could look at e 12 particular site but if you look at -- if we can look at 13 the table, I wean, this particular newspaper published 14 seven different articles on this that contained the 15 defaming statements. I only counted one and so used one 16 unique physical period. 1? O. Okay. So you just used the tern 'defaming le statenente again. Is that because that's what you were 19 told by Mr. Sterol. and Mc. Edwards? 20 A. l'n using that as a way to look at it as naybe 21 some shorthand for the statements that were set forth in 22 the articles. 23 O. Okay. So really what you were looking for 24 were statements, without giving chow any color, is that 25 right, or characterization? 54 1 technical aspects of it but, no, the exact readership, 2 3 Q. Take a look at this next one. 4 MR. SCAROLA: Exhibit number 9? TEE COURT REPORTER: Yea. 4 MR. LINK: Yea, sir. 7 ITToroupon, the document referred to was a marked Plaintiff's Exhibit Nuidser 9 for identification.) 9 BY RR. LINK: 10 Q. All right. If I have done this right, Exhibit IL 9 I believe correlates to item handwritten =door 21. 12 Okay. Lot me chock. 11 Yea, it looks like this is that particular 14 15 If 17 IS article. All right. Can you please toll re the number of hits on October 20, 2013 to the Palm Beach Daily News on-line paper for that day? Nell, there was wo just looked at that. It 19 was 8,320. 20 Q. And you told me that was for a month period of 21 time in 2011. Thin is two years later. So l'n 22 asking -- you're not telling us that two years later the 33 exact sane nunbor of people wore touching the web:site; 24 are you? 25 A. The -- in ay report if an article -- multiple 56 1 A. The statements that associated Mr. Edwards. 2 with Memel activities. That's what I'm looking for. 3 So I'm just trying to figure out the 4 thoroughness of what you did. S A. Sure. 6 Q. So I understand that in 2011 you looked at a 2 month of log -ca activity and then divided that number by O 30 to case up with 0,000-some-odd muter that we looked 9 at; right? 10 A. Nell, I calculated the unique daily visitors. II Again, this particular webalte that you're pointing out 12 pubilished seven different articles. 13 Yes, sir, buy. not -- I apologise. I oust be 14 doing a lousy ).213 of asking questions and communicating 15 today. I thought we had really hartnered this h0222, 14 which was that in 2011 you personally went to a service 12 and got 30 days of hits on the Pals Beach Shiny Sheet 10 m01,0124 -- 10 Yeah. 20 -- and then did the nach? 21 That's correct. 22 You didn't do chat In 2013? 23 Let ise -- let me -- I see where you're getting 24 at now. 25 So, yes. Teak, for the particular sites that Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA02726824 57 59 1 published multiple articles, yeah, I can't renambar the 1 But I can look -- 2 exact particular date I nod in this ono. They had 2 Q. So in doing your search if you found a 3 seven different article➢ published on those ➢tatements, 3 statement then you would atop reading the article; is • so I ignored ➢ix of then and just used one occurrence. 0 that correct? 5 Okay. So you ignored then. I got it. A. I didn't say that. I Just said I would Let's take a look at Exhibit 9. 0 include it if it contained the atatamant. Can you clarify that statement? I don't 7 Q. Did you read the entire. article once you • understand by •I ignored them.• 0 identified a statement? You don't understand what? 1 sonatina I did. Sonatina I did not. 10 Your aaaaa neon. to Okay. Than you go, air. 11 Which atatement, sir? II irherewpon, the document referred to was 12 The statement that ➢aid I ignored than. And I 12 marked Plaintiff's Exhibit Munber 10 for 13 want to ;rake sure that you understood my response 13 Identification-1 14 correctly. 14 BY RR. LINK: Q. I think you used the word •ignored.• That's 13 Q. Lot's look at Exhibit 10, , and I 14 what you said, you ignored -- you looked at ono and 10 believe this ti➢s in with handwritten item 23. 1/ ignored ➢ix. That'➢ what you said. 17 Yea. Okay. rs Okay. So you sea this as an August 2012 If MR. SCAROLA: The record will reflect what the Is article -- 20 testimony was. 20 Yea. 2l Tilt WITNESS: Yeah. 2L -- that was In the Palm Beach Post? 22 BY RR. LINK: 21 Yea. 23 That's what you said. 23 And this article announces that Mr. Epstein 24 So let ins -- 24 has dropped his suit against Kr. Edwards; correct? 25 You don't like that choice of words by 25 A. Says: •Billionaire sox offender drops...• 58 60 1 yourself? 1 'Billionaire sex offender drops suit against 2 If you're focu➢ing on that particular word -- 2 Scott Rothstein and one of hie partners.• Yes. 2 well, you know what, you're right, I guess I did 3 Q. Okay. Can you tell ne in this article that • ignore -- I dad ignore six article➢. 4 announces that Mt. Edwards is no longer a defendant in That's what you aald. 5 the lawsuit brought by Mt. Epstein what is the phrase 4 Yeah. that you isolated or located to fit your search? Okay. So now let's look at this article. 7 A. Let ne read the article. Sure. 8 Oh-huh. 9 What statement in Exhibit 9 dld you identify 9 A. Yes. That would be the combination of the 10 that met the parameters of your search? 10 first three paragraphs. 11 I b➢ileve. it would be paragraph 9. 11 Okay. And turn to page 2, if you will, of the 12 okay. Will you put a star by the paragraph? 13 article. This l➢ in October -- I 'n sorry, August 2012; 13 fWitneas complied.) 13 Correct? 14 One, two, three, four, five -- the ono that 14 Yea, August 2012. 15 starts with •Aeons...• 15 All right. And do you see Mr. Sterols quoted If Yaa. 14 In chla article? I/ Okay. Any other statements in ham? 17 A. Yea. 18 MR. SCAROLA: Could we read that into the t• p. And do you see where Mr. Searola says: 19 record? Sorry. 10 •Despite throe years of crying, Epstein never produced 20 MR. LINK: That's an exhibit in the record 20 any Ovldirft04 to share up hla allegations, said attorney 31 already. I don't think we need to read it. 21 Jack Soarola.• 22 BY NR. SCAROLA: 22 Yes, I see that. 33 Were there any other atataments in here? 23 Okay. And you toe Mr. SearOla in the next A. Well, I can read the rest of the article. but 20 paragraph is voted as well that; •We...' 1106111119 23 if the article contained ono ➢tatement I included it. 25 Epstein, •...filed these baseless, scurrilous...• -- and Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA02726825 61 63 1 that's a word only Kr. Scarola could gat out of his 2 much in an articulate way -- for the purpose 3 of trying to extort Hr. Edwards into abandoning the 4 lawsuits on behalf of Hr. Epatein's young attorney S Na1c1?• Do you see that? Oh, Hr. Epatein'a young victims. • Q. Young victim. Thank you. • A. Yes, I see that. MR. SCAROLA: So that the record is clear, the 10 first paragraph attributes a statement to me but It it's not a quote. Agreed? 12 MR. LINK: Yea, air. 13 MR. SCAROLA: But the Second paragraph is a quote. 15 MR. LINK: I agree. The second one la a It quote. MR. SCAROLA: Although I would acknowledge the IS atatamant attributed to ma la at leant an accurate If ammary of what I said. 20 MR. LINK: Sounds like something you would 21 say. 22 MR. SCAROLA: It does. 2) MR. LINK: I agree. 24 BY NR. LINK: 15 Q. Did you take into consideration when you ware KR. LINK: I'll cake that. 2 KR. SCAROLA: I knew you would. KR. LINK: That was really good. 4 Did you write down the next question? That • was excellent. That was excellent. THE WITNESS: You two have a relationship 7 here. • KR. LINK: For 30 years. Some days good.: none • days bad. Depends on how we're doing. to THE WITNESS: Yeah, chat's a long 11 relationship. 12 KR. SCAROLA: It's more a moment by moment. 13 KR. LINK: I think it is a moment by moment, le but always very such in respect of this gentleman. IS THE WITNESS: That's right. That's the way it 16 should be. If BY KR. LINK: IS Q. So let we try that again. 19 KR. LINK: Did you write that down? 20 KR. OCAROLAi Na, I didn't, but it's on the SI record. 22 A. I think I follow that. 23 BY Now. LINK: 24 0. Okay. 25 h. I just looked if the article contained the 62 I looking at articles after August 2012 the fact that 2 Mr. Scarola had publicly denounced what Hr. Epstein had 3 done and said to the world that Mr. Edwards was free and • clear of any taint or allegations essentially that 3 Mr. Epstein brought? 4 MR. SCAROLA: I'm going so object to the 7 question as compound. S I was going to say, you kind of lost me on the 9 main point there. 10 By KR. LINK: II Let me try it again. 12 So there are two statements in here that are 13 attributed to Hr. Scarola and one direct quote. Do you 14 agree with that? IS A. Yea, I agree. If Q. And Hr. Scarola la making it clear that what It Mr. Epstein filed against Mr. Edwards had absolutely no IS basis' true? 19 A. Y09, that seems to be the point taken. 25 Q. And did you take into consideration when doing 21 your Internet research that on August 17th, 2012 there 22 was a public statement by Mr. Edwards' lawyer that he 23 had essentially been -- 24 MR. SCAROLA: Successful In discrediting 25 Mr. Epetelfen Charges. 64 I StatenentS that I was looking for and whether whatever 2 0190 was in the article. 3 Q. Okay. Did you do any research to see what • impact the atatesunts had on any of the readership? No. 4 Did you de any research into whether -- what 7 opinions were feigned about Hr. Edwards by anyone who • read any of the articles? 9 A. 10 Q. Did you de any research into whether the impact on the readership in farming an opinion about 12 Mr. Edwards was different after Mr. Scarola made his 1) statements in 2012 to the press? 14 A. No. IS Q. If I/ IS When you did your research did you Interview any readers that actually read one of the articles that you cite to In your report? 19 0. Can you quantify the total number of people te that have read any one singular article about 24 Mr. Edwards, just one article out of all of the ones 22 that you have identified? 23 I don't understand quantify. 24 Yeah, you found 104 articles -- 23 Correct. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA02726826 2 3 65 Q. -- right? Can you identify ono parson that actually read ono of the 104 articles? I didn't look for a parson, so no. 1 2 67 with hin on another -- on chat ease. O. Well, it's a case chat you list with Mr. Edward's name on in your rOlUTO; isn't it? • Okay. • A. Yea. That's %tat I neat.. Be kind of 5 Noll, beyond ne. 5 originally retained M but then went to another law Noll, you road chain as part of your • firm, SO I just didn't understand. 7 assignment. O. Explain corm what you roan by that, please. A. That's correct. • So Mr. Edwards originally retained you and then that How many hours did it take you to locate all 5 happened? 10 of the articles? 15 A. Then a different law firm -- I kind of dealt 11 I can ballpark it. 11 with a lawyer °loose exclusively from a different tiro. 12 That's fair. 12 So, you know, I dent know -- I listed them both. 13 17.25. 13 Q. All right. Md what work were you asked to do That's a ballpark? 14 in that case? IS Yea. Because [heron also sone other stuff IS A. In that particular case I was asked to -- It going on there. 16 and so I had to 17 Q. Bo's bettor than you. I? look up the dissominatica of those particular statements is MR. SCAROLA: He's a scientist at ballparking. l• on-line. Is BY KR. LINK: 19 O. So you were essentially doing the awe work in 20 Q. 17.25? You can't get it a little tighter than 20 that case for Kr. Edwards that you're doing in this case 21 that? That's is good as it gets? 21 for Kr. Edwards? 21 I had to eliminate .20110 tiros that I wasn't 22 A. Other than the statements being different, 23 actually looking for articles. 23 It's very similar. And there were some other things in 24 Q. 17.25. Md how many hours in total have you 24 this particular CASS. 25 spent in developing your opinion that you're providing 25 O. l'n sorry, I didn't understand you. 66 68 i today? A. What I'm saying there were a few other things 2 In developing the opinion? For today? 2 but the basic process and procedures watt the same. 3 Up through today. I ialaUlia -- 3 Q. Okay. And the stetenent that you were provide • • in the case, was that -- that you were supposed -- you can't talk about the future. 5 to research, was that provided to you by Kr. Edwards? • Yeah. I said I billed 17.25. And than, you 6 A. Not by Hr. Edwards, no. 7 knew, I did -- read some -- re-road my report and stuff O. By his co-cconsel? for deposition, so it would be three or four tore hours. 0 A. Mother lawyer involved in the case, yes. 9 9 NR. LINK: All right. I don't have any other 10 20, something like that. 10 questions. II 2O-something, okay. 11 Jack. 12 And you charge how nuch an hour? 12 CROSS EXAMINATIfel 13 $400. Is BY NA. SCABOlA- 14 All right. Do you have any other opinions 1• O. You wore asked questions about articles that IS that you're working on in this case? 1a quoted um and whether you had seen any articles chat If A. In this case, no. 16 quoted defense counsel. Co you recall that? 17 And you have worked as an export for 17 A. Yes, I recall that. IS Mr. Edwards before; correct? I• 0. C.C. back to tchlblt MUIVbar 9, if you would, It Yea. 15 please. 20 Q. In what caso was that, sir? 20 Yea, sir. 21 A. That was the case. 21 In this exhibit chore is in paragraph 4 a 22 Again, it was a little -- I don't know. Yeah, 22 direct claims attributed to WO -- 23 the whole lawyering, how you lawyers handle this. I 21 Yea. 24 don't understand. 24 correct? 25 But, yes, as a lay person I would say I worked 25 A. I see that. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA02726827 69 71 Q. It aaya, quote: •This has been a long tine 2 coming, and we're extremely anxious to have the 3 opportunity, for the first tine, to lay out in detail 4 the terrible nature of Jeffrey Epstein'➢ serial abuse of 5 Sevens and dozens of children,• unquote; correct? A. Correct. 7 O. It's not possible to make a determination from a what's included in this article whether that quote was from a atatemont made in court or out of court; is lt? Not to mm, no. II Okay. 12 Going down two more paragraphs it roads: •At 13 a calendar call on Friday, Crow told lawyers for both 14 sides that he would have to specially sot the trial Is because of several factors: its estimated length, 'Mr. 14 Epstein'➢ criminal issues,' Penn-scheme allegations 17 surrounding Edward➢' former tom, and the expected la length of the time it will tate to select jurors.• It I want you to assume that the •Crow• that is 20 referenced as la described in 1, 2, 3, 4 -- the fifth 21 paragraph is Circuit Judge David Crow. Okay? 22 okay. 23 The nowt quote that appears is a quote from 24 the Judg➢ himself, quote: •'With Kr. Scarola doing the 25 voir dire, it's going to take a long time to get through 4 That would to a taken, yea. Or at least after cho scheduling session? Yeah. Whether the conversation took place in the 5 courtroom after the mum proceeding or outside the 6 courtroom, this report -- Yeah. • -- suggests that the lawyer was speaking to 9 the press after the court proceeding. lo And is goes on to say, quote. •'so it's going 11 to take a lot of prospective aurora to find somebody 12 that doesn't already have en opinion In regard to some 13 of the people involved.'• Correct? le A. Correct. 15 Q. Okay. Then we have the specific paragraph 14 that you identified as a paragraph that qualified this 19 article for inclusion in your count; correct? 18 A. Correct. 19 And if we go down to the bottom of the page, 20 we then have the following statenent, one paragraph up: 21 •Fred sodded. Epstein's attorney, declined to my 22 whether hie client will be in the courtroom and/or 23 whether he will testify.• 24 Then we have a direct quote attributed to 25 another one of Mr. bpstemes lawyers, according to this 70 1 the process,' Scarola said.• 2 So we know that the Judge is being quoted as 3 well; correct? 4 Uh-huh, correct. I And It is probably a reasonable -- 4 MR. LINK: And I second the statement by Judge 7 Crow. MR. SCASOLA: Both you and Judge Crow aro 9 likely accurate in that regard. 10 BY MR. SCAROLA: 11 Q. But, apparently chore's some court proceeding 12 that was going on at which the Judge mad* this 13 statement, reasonable a➢sumption? 14 A. Reasonable assumption based on chose two 15 paragraphs, yeah. If Q. Then the next paragraph roads, quote: •'The 1/ people involved aro pretty well-known,' said Chester IS Brewer, one of the Bpatoin's attorneys, after the 19 scheduling session.• 20 Do you see that? at Yea, I see that. 22 So, we know, assuming the accuracy of this 23 report, that Mr. Epacein'a lawyers wore speaking or one 24 of Mr. Epstein's lawyers was speaking to the press n outside the courtrooni correct? 72 1 article, Fred Wadded, quote: •'We're defending this and 2 we'll mete decisions based upon what the plaintiffs do,' 3 Wadded paid. 'Then you're on the defense, you have to 4 see what the offense does first. The trial will be very 5 interesting. There are a lot of legal issues as well as 4 factual issues.'• Did I reed that accurately? 8 A. It peened accurate to me, yea. 9 Okay. So going back to a question that was 10 asked of you by Mr. Link earlier, he asked to whether 11 there were quotes from Mt. Eptcoln's lawyers in any of 12 the press articles, we have now confirmed that in at 13 least this one article, two of Mr. Epacein'a lawyers 14 were both ➢peaking co the press outside the courtroom; Is correct? 10 Correct. 17 Okay. Did you actually read each of the 104 10 articles that you were able co identify to be sure that 19 there was a ➢catmmnt included in each of chose 104 20 articles chat linked Bradley Edwards to participation in 21 Scott somateinis massive Penal scheme? 22 A. Yes. I read either the entire article or up 23 to the point whore I found this stateroom. 24 0. All right. So Mr. Link has gone through a few 25 of those, and l'n not sure how he °elected the ones that Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA02726828 73 75 he selected, but he's gone through a few. But if we 2 were to go through each of these 104 article➢ you would 3 b➢ able to identify a specific atatement that associated 4 Bradley Edwards as a participant in this mealy* Ponsl 5 scheme; is that correct? A. That's correct, I did it. • Q. Y➢u have reached the conclusion that that • Information was disseminated to an audience of over 9.6 • million people; correct? A. Correct. II Q. Did you cone to a conclusion as to the 12 likelihood of whether the actual number of individuals 13 to whom that statement was disseminated exceeded 9.6 14 million people? IS MR. LINK: Object to the form. IS If 20 21 22 23 24 25 Well, yea, as I -- MR. SCAROLA: I'm sorry. Before you answer the question, what's the problem with the form? MR. LINK: It assumes that -- the way you aakod that readers actually saw the aaaaa neat versus it being disseminated in the web page that people touched. He testified he could not identify who in fact or the number that saw the aaaaa sent. MR. SCAROLA: Okay. Well, I think you've mlscharacterised my question, but just to ba ➢ure I 9,665,542. The first is that obviously I couldn't 2 locate all the articles by the time I filed my report. 3 So there's certainly articles out there that I haven't 4 located by the tire I submitted th0 report. I only 5 looked at on-line sources. I didn't deal with prints or 4 broadcasts or anything like that. I didn't • Q. So, for example -- and I apologise for • interrupting you. But one of the websites that we've 9 particularly focused on is the Palo Beach Daily News, 10 also phone as The Shiny Sheet. But what you looked at II were electronic accesses to their website; correct? 12 A. That is correct. 13 14 15 16 37 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0. You did not include the number of individuals who subscribe to that newspaper and have it delivered to their hone; correct? A. That's correct, I did not include those. Q. You didn't lock et the number of tines that people went to their local retail store and bought a copy of The Shiny Sheet? That's not included in your calculations; correct? A. Correct. O. And the sane would be true with regard to each of chose wwb➢iter. which also has a corresponding hard copy publication, the Palm Beach Daily Mews, the -- excuse no, the Paln Seidl Poat, the Sun-Sentinel, the 74 let no make sure that I ask the question in the way 2 I intended it to to answered. 3 BY I . SCAROLA: • Q. Can you tell ua whether the conclusion you 5 reached that those ➢tatements were aaaaaa 'skated to an 4 audience of 9.6 million people is a conservative - MR. LINK: Same objection. 8 BY RR. SCAROLA: 9 -- conclusion? 10 Yes, it's a conservative -- very conservative II number as I outlined in my report. 12 13 14 15 It 11 IS 19 Q. And describe [or the benefit of the jurors, if you would, please, why it is your opinion that the more than 9.6 million number to which you have testified is a conservative assessment of the number of people to whom these statements were disseminated? Okay. MR. LINE: Object to the form. I think to address this properly if I can just 24 refer to my report -- 21 By all moan. 22 -- as the best way to address it. 23 Well, I had like 12 reasons why I took a very 24 conservative approach to the dissemination number 35 calculation. So likely much -- much more than 76 I Miani Herald, The Hew York Tines, or any of the other 2 periodicals that have both herd copies and website 3 access; correct? 4 A. Correct. • Q. Okay. So you were describing the reasons Irby 6 your number of distributions is conservative and I 7 interrupted you. So pick up, if you would, please. 8 A. Yes. I also didn't include atatenents in the 9 book Filthy Rich that wee distributed, written by I4 Mr. Janes Patterson. 11 Q. Okay. There was an exhibit marked that made 12 reference to that book. That was Exhibit Amber 4. And 13 While this exhibit makes reference to the book, it is 14 not one of those articles that contained -- Exhibit 35 Bunker 4 is not an article that contained an express 14 reference to the relationship between Bradley Edwards 17 and the Rothstein Ponsi scheme; correct? A. That's correct. 19 O. But do you know whether the book itself 20 contains express references to allegations that Bradley 21 Edwards was a knowing participant LA the Ruud scheme? 22 Yes, I know it does. 23 Okay. But you didn't include any of those 24 James Pettef64a books that were sold in hard copy, that 25 got distributed through electronic means or wound up as Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA02726829 77 79 audio books? Noma of that's included; correct? 2 A. Correct. 3 Q. And obviously you don't know how many tines • people who bought that book loaned it out to their spouses, their friends, and neighbors, so that they 4 could read it; correct? • A. Correct. • Q. Okay. I have been given a notice that we are • almost about to run out of tape, so we'll break right 10 there. We'll take a short break; lot then change the II tape. lx THE VIOZOORAPNER: The tine la 11:04. We're II now going off the record. II 4Theroupon, at 11:04 p.m. a recess was taken is until 11:11 a.n., after which the deposition continued 14 as follows:) If THE VIOZOORAPNER: The tine la 11:11. We're IS IS 20 fl int. SChROLA: back on the record. Thi➢ la the beginning of Tape 21 Q. At the point at which we took our break you 22 ware describing for the benefit of the Jury why the more 23 than 9.6 million nunber is a conservative estinate of 24 the number of people to when the statements that you 2S have identified were distributed, acknowledging that A. Aa I mentioned -- talked about this in ny 2 report. They wore typically sites that were very, very 2 large or very small. • So like, you know, some the larger sites, it's 5 that -- maybe I'll give you a good example here. Like • the pressReader, for example, that la a alto that 7 present* a lot of articles from a lot of different • newspapers. And so the traffic numbers that I was * getting wore, you know, very inflated I felt, so I did 10 not include those numbers. On the other sites, there ace a lot of bldg 12 sites end stuff like that from individuals that didn't 13 get a lot of traffic. Again, I felt that those traffic 14 numbers were not reliable or I couldn't get then, so I 15 did not include those. 16 Okay. Continue, if you would, describing -- 1? A. Yea. I8 O. -- the basis for your assertion that the 0.6 19 million dollar numbers -- excuse me, the 9.6 nillion 20 number is a conservative number. 21 A. Yea. I didn't include sites that hod articles 22 where they didn't have the statements but a link to an 23 article that had the atatementa. So unless it actually 24 appeared exactly in the article, I didn't include it. 25 So Allet410 could be at a different alto, follow the link 78 whether they road them or not to not something that 2 you've looked at, but these were people to whoa they 2 were distributed. • So why -- why else do you consider the number 5 to be a conservative number? • A. Yea. I didn't Include any face-to-face • dissemination of people talking about the State/MASI. 1 ▪ didn't include any private on-line correapendence, like • o-mall, and stuff like that. 10 There are more than likely altos that had the II atatomenta that I can no longer access. And, actually, 12 I ran into a few of those. I just couldn't get the 13 article, the activities, a few things like that. So I 14 didn't include those. IS Of these 74 sites that contained the article, If I only included traffic for 58 percent of then because I/ the traffic number for the other sites -- the other 43 IS sites I just didn't feel comfortable that the numbers 19 were valid. So of the 74 sites -- of that 9.6 million 24 plus, even though the article -- I know the article was 21 posted on the 74 altos, I only included the traffic for 22 SI percent of those sites. 23 Q. And why did you con➢ider the other traffic 24 numbers not to be reliable? What distinguished those 25 from those that you felt were sufficiently reliable? 80 I end could actually see it, but I didn't include those. 2 Many of these sites publish multiple articles 3 on multiple different days that contains the statements. 4 And there is an aspect of return readership. So I • didn't want to double-count traffic, so lust to make it 6 very conservative even if they pUblished seven articles 7 or five, I only counted it one time. So I didn't count O the multiple days. 9 And then also aearch results. Saw of the 10 queries that I AS using, you could submit the query and 11 you could see the actual aaaaa rent* In the search 12 results. You didn't need co go co the site. 13 So, like m ny report on page 21 1 give sere 14 examples there that just enter a query and you see the 15 actual statements in the search results. You don't even 14 need co go co the site co -- I moan, you don't even need 17 to technically read the article. You just like search 10 and type in the query. 19 Q. Did you AA into account In any way AM 20 multiple individuals maybe accessing the altos 21 simultaneously? Comm on over here and take a look at my 22 monitor and see what's being reported about Brad 23 Edwards. 24 A. No, I did not include those. 25 Q. And what about the private forwarding of Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA02726830 81 83 webalto information, did you take that into account at 2 all? 3 A. As I mentioned, no, I didn't do any e-mail or 4 private forwarding, or anything like that. 5 Q. In conducting this work, did you rely upon sources that are generally relied upon and considered to 7 be credible and authoritative within your area of ▪ expertise? Yes. la Did you utilize methodologies that aro II generally accepted within your area of expertise as II accurate moan➢ by which to reach the contusions that 13 you've reached? 14 Yoa. Is And aro the opinion➢ that you have expressed, 14 both in your written report and in your sworn testimony 17 today, opinions that you hold to a reasonable degree of 14 scientific certainty within your area of expertise? is Yoa. 20 MR. SCAROLA: Thank you. I have no further 21 questions. 22 MR. LINK: Just a couple. 23 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 24 25 BY NE. LINK: Q. Take a look at Exhibit 9 that Mr. Scarola was O. No, the statement➢ from the lawyers. 2 Mr. Scarola went through in a painstaking way to show 3 you the three references in chla article to 4 Mr. Epstein'. lawyers. And I'm asking you if 5 Mr. Epstein's lawyers made any statement about 4 Mr. Edwards that would have triggered a hit in your 7 search results? • Not that I see, no. o Can you point to any article that you reviewed 10 that contains a statement -- a game by Mr. Epstein'➢ II lawyer that would have triggered a hit on your search 12 request? 13 A. Okay. Again, I was just looking for the 14 particular statements. I didn't analyze if it was a 15 quote from a lawyer, but I don't recall any. 16 0. And do you recall any quotes from Mr. Epstein I? himself in any of the news articles that you reviewed, 10 all 104 that you told Kr. Scarola that you read the 19 entire article, that had a quote from Kr. Epstein that 20 would have hit your search request? 21 A. Before I answer this, I lust want to clarify. 22 You said that I -- I said that I either read the entire 23 article or read is up to the point where I found the 24 statement, but I don't recall a stateroom from 25 Mr. Epstein. 82 I asking you about, 2 A. Yoa, air. 3 Q. It's The Shiny Sheet article, October 2Oth, 4 2013. Da you have that in front of you? • A. Yoa, air. 4 Q. Mr. Scarola pointed out a couple of placed 7 where Mr. Epstein'➢ lawyers wore either quoted or had a S statement attributed to themm correct? 9 Correct. 10 Would you point to anywhere in this 11 article whore Mr. Epatein's attorneys said anything 12 &bent Mr. Edwards? 13 A. Well, let me just look in the article. I 14 don't see a quote. IS Q. All right. And Mr. Scarola pointed out three If different statements. Ono by Mr. Brower and two by 12 Mr. Haddad. IS And is there anything in what Mr. Brewer or 19 Mr. Haddad said to the press that fits ono of the hearth 20 parameters you wore looking for? 21 From tho➢e atatementa? 32 Yes, air, that you were ➢earthing for. 33 No. I thought that my question wa➢ -- you 24 mean In terms of the article or in terms of the 25 statemonta from those lawyers? 84 1 Q. Do you remember seeing a press release by 2 Mr. Epstein related to Kr. Edwards In any way? 3 A. A press release free Mr. Epstein? 4 Q. Yea, sir. 5 A. I don't recall a press release from • Mr. Epstein. 7 KR. LINK: Okay I have no other questions. KR. SCAROTA: And I have no further questions. 9 KR. LINK: Thank you. 10 KR. SCAROTA: Be will read. 11 THE VIDECCRAPNER: The tine is 11.21. Ile are 12 off the record. This concludes tears deposition. 13 (Thereupon, the taking of the deposition was 14 concluded at 11:21 9.511 15 16 17 15 19 20 21 22 31 24 25 Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA02726831 85 87 1 EXCEPT FOR THE CORRECTIONS RADE 1 CERTIFICATE OF OATH HEREIN ON THE ERRATA SHEET BY ME, 2 2 I CERTIFY THIS IS A TRUE AND STATE OF FLORIDA, ACCURATE TRANSCRIPT. FURTHER 2 I SS 3 DEPONENT SATEEN NOT. COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADEI 4 4 5 I, the undersigned authority, certify that DR. BERNARD J. JANSEN 5 4 DR. BERNARD J. JANSEN personally appeared before se and 6 STATE OF FLORIDAI 7 vas duly sworn. 4 WITNESS my hand and official seal this 4th day 7 I SS: COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADEI 9 of Deceaber, 2027. 8 10 9 Sworn and subscribed to before me 11 10 this day of 2017. 11 PERSONALLY _ KNOWN OR I.D. 12 ILIANA LU00 12 Notary Public - State of Florida 39 13 Commission No. 00133630 Notary Public in and for the Conmission Expires: 11/08/2019 24 State of Florida at Large is My Commission Expires: is 15 14 16 I, 17 Is 10 9 10 20 20 II 21 22 22 23 23 24 24 25 25 86 88 , ERRATA SHEET 1 REPORTER'S DEFCGITIIN CERTIFICATE 2 IN RE: Jeffrey Epstein v. Scott Rothstein, et al. 2 Case No. 50 -2009C4.040800XXXXIIBAC STATE OF FLORIDAI 3 DEPO OF: DR. BERNARD J. JANSEN 12/1/17 3 I SS 4 DO NOT MITE ON TRANSCRIPT - ENTER ANY CHANCES HERE COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADEI 5 Page-Line 4 Change Reason 4 4 5 1, !Ilene Lugo, Court Reporter, certify that I 7 6 was authorised to and did stenographleally report the 0 7 deposition of DR. BERNARD J. JANSEN; that a review of 9 is • the transcript was regaested; and that the transcript is 9 a true and correct record of ay stenographic notes. I1 12 le 1 further certify that I an not a relative, 13 II ereloyee, attorney or counsel of any of the parties, is 12 parties' attorney, or counsel connected with the action, II 13 nor an I financially interested in the action. 14 14 DATED this 0th day of Decenber, 2017. 17 IS 14 STATE OF FLORIDA, I SS In !LIANA LUGO, Court Reporter 19 COUNTY Of MIAMI-DADE) )7 20 Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I 1$ have read my deposition transcript, and it is true and 19 21 correct subject to any changes in corn or substance 20 entered here. 21 32 33 22 Date Signature 23 36 6 2 25 25 Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA02726832 l 89 December S, 2017 2 DR. BERNARD J. JANSEN 3 c/o Searcy, Denny, Scarola, Barnhart a Shipley, P.A. a Attn: lack Scarola, Es . I 4 In Re: Jeffrey Epstein v. Scott Rothstein, et al. Case No.: 50-2009CA040800XXXXXBAC 7 Depo of: Dr. Bernard J. Jansen Taken on: December 1, 2017 8 a of pages: 88 Held Until: January 6, 2018 * Dear Dr. Jansen: is This letter is to advise you that the transcript of your deposition taken in the above-referenced Ii cause has been 0001210ted and is awaiting your reading and signing. 12 Please contact our office to make arrangenents co read 13 and sign your deposition transcript. 14 Our information is as follow•: Paint Beach Reporting I, • 7.210010n0 I, If the reading and signing has not boon cortleted 18 prior to January 8, 2018, we shall conclude that you have waived the reading and signing of the is transcript. 20 Your prompt attention to this natter is appreciated. 2L Sincerely, 22 !liana Lugo, Court Reporter 23 cc Scott J. Link, Esq., Esq. 21 Jack Scarola, Lag. 23 Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA02726833