EFTA00014086

Epstein Depositions

10. 11. 12. l3. 14. 16. 17. l8. 19. Jeffrey Epstein v. Bradley J. Edwards, et Case No.: 50 2009 CA Attachments to Statement of Undisputed Facts Deposition of Jeffrey Epstein taken March 17, 2010 Deposition of Jane Doe taken March 11, 2010 (Pages 379, 380, 527, 564?67, 568) Deposition of LM. taken September 24, 2009 (Pages 73, 74, 164, 141, 605, 416) Deposition ofE.W. taken May 6, 2010 (1 15, 1.16, 255, 205, 215?216) Deposition of Jane Doe #4 (32-34, 136) Deposition of Jeffrey Eps

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH

Deposition excerpt shows heated exchange among attorneys with no substantive allegations

The passage is a routine courtroom deposition transcript featuring lawyers arguing over procedure. It contains no names of influential actors, no financial or misconduct details, and offers no actiona The excerpt records a dispute between attorneys (Mr. Tein, Mr. Goldberger, Mr. Leopold) about taking No mention of any high‑profile individuals, agencies, or controversial actions. The content is pro

Deposition excerpt referencing a $50‑million lawsuit filed by Mr. Herman and attorney‑client privilege objections

Deposition excerpt referencing a $50‑million lawsuit filed by Mr. Herman and attorney‑client privilege objections The passage provides a vague reference to a high‑value lawsuit ($50 million) filed by an individual named Mr. Herman, but offers no concrete details about the parties, the nature of the claim, or any wrongdoing. The focus is on procedural objections rather than substantive allegations, limiting investigative usefulness. While the monetary figure and involvement of a named litigant hint at a potentially significant dispute, the lack of context, dates, or connections to powerful officials keeps the lead in the low‑to‑moderate range. Key insights: Mr. Herman filed a $50‑million lawsuit on behalf of an unnamed client.; The deposition includes repeated attorney‑client privilege objections by Mr. Tein and Mr. Leopold.; The excerpt suggests a press conference was held after the filing, indicating public attention.

EFTA02728716

Transcript excerpt from House Oversight deposition showing heated exchange over exhibit handling

The passage records a minor procedural dispute in a deposition with no concrete allegations, names, dates, or financial details. It offers little investigative value beyond confirming normal courtroom Mr. Tein accuses Mr. Leopold of misrepresenting the record. Dispute over labeling and copying of exhibits. Witness expresses willingness to disagree professionally.