DS9 Document EFTA00788035

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Peer I UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA IN RE: CASE NO. 09-34791-RBR ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER, PA, Debtor. ECF #6421, 6440, 6455, 6456, 6457 September 27, 2018 The above-entitled cause came on for hearing before the Honorable RAYMOND B. RAY, one of the Judges in the UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT, in and for the SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA, at 299 E. Broward Blvd., Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida on September 27, 2018, commencing at or about 10:00 a.m., and the following proceedings were had. Transcribed from a digital recording by: Cheryl L. Jenkins, RPR, RMR OUELLETTE & MAULDIN COURT REPORTERS. INC. (305) 358-8875 EFTA00788035 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Rwc 2 APPEARANCES: SEARCY DENNY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, by DAVID VITALE, Esquire On behalf of Bradley J. Edwards LINK & ROCKENBACH, by SCOTT LINK, Esquire and RICE PUGATCH ROBINSON STORFER & COHEN, by CHAD P. PUGATCH, Esquire On behalf of Jeffrey Epstein CARLTON FIELDS, BY NIALL McLACHLAN, Esquire On behalf of Fowler White Barnett, P.A. PAUL G. CASSELL, Esquire (via telephone) On behalf of L.M., E.W. and Jane Doe EDWARDS POTTINGER, by BRITTANY HENDERSON, Esquire On behalf of Farmer Jaffe Weissing ALSO PRESENT ECRO - Electronic Court Reporting Operator OUELLETTE & MAULDIN COURT REPORTERS. INC. (305) 358-8875 EFTA00788036 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 3 THE COURT: Rothstein Rosenfeldt & Adler. MR. McLACHLAN: Good morning, your Honor. Niall McLachlan from Carlton Fields on behalf of Fowler White Barnett. MR. PUGATCH: Good morning, your Honor. Chad Pugatch, P-u-g-a-t-c-h, on behalf of Jeffrey Epstein. Co-counsel, Scott Link -- MR. LINK: Over here. MR. PUGATCH: -- is here with me, L-i-n-k. MR. LINK: Good morning, Judge. THE COURT: Good morning. MR. VITALE: Good morning, your Honor. David Vitale, V, as in Victor, i-t-a-l-e, on behalf of Mr. Edwards. MS. HENDERSON: Good morning, your Honor. Brittany Henderson on behalf of Farmer Jaffe Weissing. MR. CASSELL: Good morning, your Honor. This is Paul Cassell, C-a-s-s-e-1-1, appearing by phone for intervenors L.M., E.W. and Jane Doe. THE COURT: And, Ms. Henderson, you're representing who? MS. HENDERSON: Farmer Jaffe Weissing, your Honor. THE COURT: All right. Mr. McLachlan. MR. McLACHLAN: Yes, thank you, Judge, and OUELLETTE & MAULDIN COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 358-8875 EFTA00788037 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 4 just for the court reporter, my last name is M-c-L-a-c-h-1-a-n. I omitted that earlier. Judge, we have several matters on the calendar this morning. We have the continued hearing on Fowler White's motion for protective order, that's Docket Entry 6421. You may recall we had a hearing earlier, and the Court indicated that it would give, it would give Mr. Edwards time to file a response. He filed that response at 6437, and Fowler White filed a reply at 6443. We also have a couple motions by Mr. Epstein, but the other motion of Fowler White, apart from the ones of Mr. Epstein, that Fowler White joined, is Fowler White's motion for order bifurcating proceedings, which is Docket Entry Number 6455, to which most of the parties have re -- or I think all of the parties have responded. I'm not sure which order you'd like to take these in. The motion for protective order actually relates to documents they're seeking, I think, for really for liability purposes. So we probably need to address that regardless of how your Honor rules on the bifurcation motion, but however you want -- whatever order you prefer, Judge. THE COURT: Well, I think if we try the OUELLETTE & MAULDIN COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 358-8875 EFTA00788038 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 5 motion to strike first, that will determine who will be involved in the proceeding. MR. McLACHLAN: Correct, yes, Judge. THE COURT: Then we'll deal with the motion to bifurcate as to liability and as to damages, and then we'll get into the discovery issues and damages. So we'll deal with bifurcation first. MR. McLACHLAN: With bifurcation first? THE COURT: I'm sorry, no, no, with the motion to strike. MR. McLACHLAN: Very good. Thank you, Judge. MR. PUGATCH: Good morning, your Honor. Again, Chad Pugatch, as co-counsel for Jeffrey Epstein. Judge, it's our motion to strike. This is directed toward the intervenors, and it's directed toward their standing to proceed in this matter, other than that you've entered an order allowing them to intervene with regard to the issue of liability and the issue of the documents, but this is directed to their ability to seek damages, and to make it clear, there are three intervenors, there is L.W., and then there are two others, it's E.R. and Jane Doe, and --- THE COURT: E.R.? MR. PUGATCH: E.W., I'm sorry, E.W. and OUELLETTE & MAULDIN COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 358-8875 EFTA00788039 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 6 Jane Doe. Those two were not parties to the original motion that led to your November 2010 order, they were not parties to the order. THE COURT: Well, let me stop you there for a minute. Give me some background data. Did E.W. and Jane Doe have pending state court litigation against Epstein? MR. PUGATCH: That Mr. Link would have to answer. MR. LINK: At which time, your Honor? Back when the agreed order was entered? THE COURT: Any time. MR. LINK: They did, yes, sir. THE COURT: So they've had a trial and they've had an adjudication? MR. LINK: Those cases were settled in June or July of 2010, over eight years ago. THE COURT: About the same time this discovery was going down? MR. LINK: Yes, sir, your Honor. Those cases were fully resolved and -- and, I'm sorry, for the court reporter, Scott Link, L-i-n-k. ECRO: Make sure your microphone is on. MR. LINK: Oh, I'm sorry, no. MR. PUGATCH: It's on. I see the --- OUELLETTE & MAULDIN COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 358-8875 EFTA00788040 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 7 MR. LINK: I have a green light. MR. PUGATCH: The light is on. MR. LINK: It may not be plugged in. Your Honor, may I approach? THE COURT: Yes. MR. LINK: I'm sorry about that, madam court reporter. Is that better? ECRO: (No verbal response.) MR. LINK: Great. Your Honor, for the -- from a procedural standpoint, all three of the intervenors' claims were resolved by settlement and the exchange of releases. There are no pending claims, and there have not been for over eight years by the three folks that have intervened in this case. THE COURT: But Epstein brought a cause of action against Edwards? MR. LINK: Yes, sir. THE COURT: What happened to that? MR. LINK: So, that action was dismissed in 2012. Mr. Epstein still has a pending action against Mr. Rothstein, but the action against Mr. Edwards was dismissed in 2012, and Mr. Edwards filed a THE COURT: As a claim in the Rothstein OUELLETTE & MAULDIN COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 358-8875 EFTA00788041 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 8 bankruptcy? MR. LINK: No, sir. THE COURT: A claim against Mr. Rothstein individually? MR. LINK: Individually, yes, sir, in the state court, Palm Beach County, and in that action Mr. Edwards has pending today a claim against Mr. Epstein for malicious prosecution. THE COURT: So, the pending litigation right now is Edwards against Epstein for malicious prosecution? MR. LINK: That's one, and the second is Epstein against Rothstein. THE COURT: But Rothstein is in prison for 50 years. MR. LINK: Yes, he is. THE COURT: And has -- MR. LINK: There may not --- THE COURT: -- incredible judgments against him? MR. LINK: Probably not collectible, your Honor, but the case is still pending. THE COURT: Well, it's going to be pending for 50 years because Judge Cohn, when they moved to vacate the sentence, said no. So apparently he's going to do his full term. OUELLETTE & MAULDIN COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 358-8875 EFTA00788042 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 9 MR. LINK: I believe he is, yes, sir. THE COURT: So the only litigation that's actually pending -- MR. LINK: The actual --- THE COURT: -- is Edwards versus Epstein for malicious prosecution? MR. LINK: Yes, sir, and that is set on Judge Hafele, the state court's trial docket -- December 4th or 10th? December 4th, specially set. THE COURT: So at the time the -- what was it, 26 boxes of documents? MR. LINK: Roughly, yes, sir. THE COURT: (Inaudible) filed in 2010. The law firm withdrew in 2012? MR. LINK: Correct, that's right. THE COURT: And they boxed the records, and they sat there for six or eight years? MR. LINK: Yes, sir, until they were delivered to my office in 2018, this year. THE COURT: And then when you got the records, you found the disk, and attached it to some discovery or exhibits, and it was brought to everyone's attention. MR. LINK: That's exactly right, Judge, that's the chronology, yes, sir. OUELLETTE & NIAULDIN COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 358-8875 EFTA00788043 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 10 THE COURT: All right. Mr. Pugatch, I didn't mean to cut you off. MR. PUGATCH: That's okay, Judge. THE COURT: I wanted to make the record clear. MR. PUGATCH: I absolutely wanted it to be clear, and there is no way that I could clarify it, as Mr. Link just did. So --- THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Link. MR. PUGATCH: Okay. MR. LINK: You're welcome, your Honor. MR. PUGATCH: So, we come back to why we're here in Bankruptcy Court, Judge. We're here in Bankruptcy Court because they brought a petition for order to show cause why there should not be contempt and sanctions against Jeffrey Epstein and Fowler White, and that is based upon the allegation that your November 2010 order, which ordered that these, that these records be -- and the disk be not copied, and not be disseminated to anyone, that that order was allegedly violated. Now, in order to claim those rights, and to claim damages flowing from, or sanctions flowing from that, these parties need to be parties to your order, or covered by the order, and clearly if you look at the motion and you go back to your order, the only party that OUELLETTE & NIAULDIN COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 358-8875 EFTA00788044 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Pale n was covered in that was L.M., and of course Mr. Edwards and the firm. E.W. and Jane Doe were not parties to the motion. They were not parties to the order. They're not covered by the order. Mr. Cassell moved to intervene on their behalf. You allowed that intervention, we believe because in the state court action there is this companion issue of the attorney/client privilege related to these documents, and so the issue --- THE COURT: That's before the state court judge. judge. MR. PUGATCH: It's before the state court THE COURT: The intervenors have been allowed to intervene in that state court proceeding -- MR. PUGATCH: Yes, that's my understanding. THE COURT: -- and they are being heard? MR. PUGATCH: That's correct. MR. LINK: That is correct, your Honor. They're --- THE COURT: And that judge has the documents under his control. There is apparently a special master. MR. LINK: It's not a special master. Judge Hafele is doing it himself. OUELLETTE & MAULDIN COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 358-8875 EFTA00788045 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 12 THE COURT: So he's got both hands on? MR. LINK: He's got both hands on. THE COURT: All right. Continue. MR. LINK: So the record is clear, the three intervenors intervened in the state court action, not as parties to the litigation, but for the limited purpose of asserting an attorney/client privilege. THE COURT: Which he has yet to rule on. MR. LINK: Which he has not ruled on, that's correct, Judge. THE COURT: All right. MR. PUGATCH: So, Judge, the simple issue here is how can these parties, E.W. and Jane Doe, seek to be covered by sanctions or damages for violation of an order when they were not parties to the order? Plain and simple. So, we've asked that the order be entered striking their standing to participate on that basis. As you pointed out in suggesting this motion be heard first, that would substantially limit the playing field as to who can complain, and we can move on to the other motions based upon that. THE COURT: Well, I've read the two motions, Docket Entry 6456, 6457, and the response, 6464. Let me hear from the respondent. OUELLETTE & NIAULDIN COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 358-8875 EFTA00788046 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 13 MR. CASSELL: Thank you, your Honor. This is Paul Cassell on behalf of the three intervenors. I think in terms of making the record clear, an important piece of the puzzle has been left out. I represent both L.M. and E.W. in an action that is in front of Judge Marra in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. That was filed in July of 2008, and it remains pending today. Both L.M. and E.W. have summary judgment motions pending in that action. That action is filed as Jane Does' -- that is L.M. and E.W. -- versus United States, but Mr. Epstein has moved to intervene, and intervention has been granted. So he is an intervenor in that case. THE COURT: So there is litigation -- MR. CASSELL: That's an important part --- THE COURT: -- going in the District Court between the three intervenors, the government and Mr. Epstein? MR. LINK: Your Honor --- MR. CASSELL: Two intervenors, L.M. and E.W. Jane Doe is not a party to that litigation, and the reason that's important to be in the record, your Honor, is the materials that are at issue in this case could be used by Mr. Epstein in connection with that action, should he OUELLETTE & NIAULDIN COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 358-8875 EFTA00788047 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 14 decide to file motions of various types there. Now, with regard to the motion to strike specifically, I think it's important, again, to recall why we're here in front of you, rather than in front of Judge Hafele. We asked Judge Hafele to take jurisdiction over Fowler White, and he said, I have no jurisdiction over Fowler White. That is for the bankruptcy judge. And so that is why we've ended up here in front of you. Frankly, we're a bit surprised to see this motion to strike being presented now. As your Honor is aware, on March 30th of this year we filed -- that is E.W. and Jane Doe filed a motion to intervene, and in that motion they asked to intervene both as a matter of right and permissibly to, quote, protect their privileges, protections and confidentiality interests in the materials covered by this order, and to seek sanctions for violations of that order. That was their motion to intervene, and there were, I think, approximately five pages of explanation as to why E.W. and Jane Doe believe they have an interest in the confidentiality and the material that was covered by this Court's order. And on April 16th, then this Court granted the motion to intervene, that's Docket Entry 6360, and it was granted not only as to L.M., but also as to E.W. and OUELLETTE & NIAULDIN COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 358-8875 EFTA00788048 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 15 Jane Doe. The motion that is in front of you right now attempts to, in our view, relitigate your decision allowing them to intervene in this case, and of course the only issue that's presented in the current motion in front of you is that E.W. and Jane Doe lack standing to proceed, but in order to have standing all a litigant needs to do is allege some actual injury resulting from the action in question, and we have five pages of argument explaining why E.W. and Jane Doe had actual injury resulting from the breach of the order. So we think the issue was already decided, but if your Honor wants to revisit it, we think there are five pages in the record very clearly explaining why E.W. and Jane Doe have interest in the confidentiality order that your Honor entered back in 2010. MR. PUGATCH: Judge, there is a difference between this is Chad Pugatch again. There is a difference between having standing to argue about the confidentiality or the attorney/client privilege related to the documents, and having standing to seek damages by virtue of a violation of an order when you were not party to the motion and order, and there is a difference between damages that you seek as an intervenor due to a course of conduct, which is normally brought in a lawsuit, and OUELLETTE & NIAULDIN COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 358-8875 EFTA00788049 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 16 sanctions that are being sought for alleged contempt of court for violating a court order. We're here with regard to the latter. This is an action seeking contempt and sanctions for violation of a court order, when these two parties, these two intervenors were not parties to the motion or the order. Our understanding was, when this was all pointed out to you, and you were aware of the state court issues regarding attorney/client privilege, and Mr. McLachlan, I believe, raised that very issue, and we joined in that issue, and you said you were going to allow the intervention because of the companion issues in the state court. It was never an understanding that that was determining the issue of whether these parties were entitled to seek damages, and that's why we're here, and that's why we filed the motion, limited to standing, and their motion to strike the damage claims, and their two separate motions to strike. We're really dealing with the argument on both of them at this time, just so the record is clear. There is the one that we started with, which is 6456, then there is 6457, the other motion to strike, which relates to the damage claims. And, again, there is nothing in the argument that Mr. Cassell made that supports that those two OUELLETTE & NIAULDIN COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 358-8875 EFTA00788050 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 17 intervenors have damage claims in this action, and that's what we're seeking to limit. THE COURT: Now, and Edwards' client at the time this Bankruptcy Court order was entered was the attorney for L.W.? MR. PUGATCH: L.M. THE COURT: L.M. MR. PUGATCH: I misspoke, it's L.M., E.W. and Jane Doe. MR. McLACHLAN: Judge, if I may be heard -- THE COURT: Yes. MR. McLACHLAN: -- whenever it's convenient? Niall McLachlan, again, for Fowler White. And the reason I'd like to be heard, Judge, is we joined -- Mr. Epstein raised this issue in a footnote to his motion to compel discovery. We then joined on that issue expressly in our limited joinder to that after the intervenors' claimed, well, it's insufficient to raise an issue by footnote. What we pointed out in our limited joinder, which is at Docket Entry 6454, is cancelling hearing, which is what about, and that's the order under that the agreed this whole case which the Court order is reserved jurisdiction to enter sanctions in favor of Farmer Jaffe, OUELLETTE & NIAULDIN COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 358-8875 EFTA00788051 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 18 Brad Edwards and his client, singular, that order was entered on L.M. and Brad Edwards' motion for relief of an amended order, which is on Docket Entry Number 1120. It was L.M. and Edwards who had sought the relief on which the order, from which everyone is trying to claim damages, was entered, and I just want that to be very clear. I think that's why the order specifically says, Mr. Edwards, Farmer Jaffe, or his client, singular, because only one client had joined in any request for relief. THE COURT: Your motion to sever, Mr. Pugatch, is directed to E.W. and Jane Doe? MR. PUGATCH: The motion to strike. THE COURT: Motion to strike. MR. PUGATCH: Yes, the two motions to strike are directed to those two parties, E.W. and Jane Doe, your Honor, and so the record is clear, the original November 10th order is Docket Entry 1068, and the language that Mr. McLachlan just quoted from is in the order itself, and it's cited in our motion to strike, Docket Entry 6457, in the middle of Page 2. I'm sorry, the agreed order is 1194. MR. CASSELL: Your Honor, this is Paul Cassell, if I may just briefly respond? THE COURT: Yes. OUELLETTE & NIAULDIN COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 358-8875 EFTA00788052 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 19 MR. CASSELL: Your Honor, going back to 2010, it's true the order related only to L.M., because L.M. was the only of the -- the only one of the three victims before the Court at that time. However, the underlying documents at issue involve three victims, and that is why, when the breach of this Court's order became apparent earlier this year, the three people who have confidentiality interests and stakes, that is privileged, protections, work product information, security concerns, all came -- all three of them came before you to intervene, and I think what we have -- THE COURT: But they can protect those rights in state court. MR. CASSELL: Not against Fowler White, your Honor. The state court judge indicated that he did not have jurisdiction over Fowler White, which is why we then came over to this Court, because the state judge had told us that only you have jurisdiction over Fowler White, and we raised all these issues in our motion to intervene, and I think we have essentially a word game going on from the other side. We sought to intervene, quote, to seek sanctions for violation, close quote, of the Court's order. So we are now seeking sanctions for violation of OUELLETTE & NIAULDIN COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 358-8875 EFTA00788053 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 20 the order, specifically damages, among other things, and if we're not allowed to seek damages, I'm not clear as to what sanctions the other side thinks that we would be entitled to seek. So all we're asking is that your Court adhere to your early ruling, allowing all three of the victims to intervene in this case for purposes of, quote, seeking sanctions, close quote, for violation of the Court's order. THE COURT: There was no finding that there was a violation of the Court's order. MR. PUGATCH: That has not been litigated -- MR. CASSELL: Correct. MR. PUGATCH: -- yet, Judge. That's --- THE COURT: All right. MR. PUGATCH: That's what's set for trial. THE COURT: Anything further from the parties in reference to Docket Entry 6456, 6457? MR. PUGATCH: No, sir. MR. McLACHLAN: No, your Honor. THE COURT: All right. I'm going to MR. CASSELL: No, your Honor. THE COURT: All right. I'm going to grant the motion to strike, order by Mr. Pugatch, for the reasons argued in the pleadings and the arguments today OUELLETTE & MAULDIN COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 358-8875 EFTA00788054 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 21 before me. MR. PUGATCH: Thank you, Judge. THE COURT: Mr. Pugatch, see to the order. MR. PUGATCH: Yes, sir. MR. VITALE: Your Honor? THE COURT: Yes. MR. VITALE: David Vitale, V-i-t-a-l-e. May I have a clarification on that order? Oh, I'm sorry, I apologize. The striking of E.W. and Jane Doe for the purposes of seeking damages, are they still -- are those two parties still intervenors for purposes of liability? Because my understanding from Mr. Pugatch's argument was that they may have standing to argue for liability, but because they're not parties to the order they don't have standing to claim damages, and I just want to understand that point, because I think it will be relevant to the bifurcation issue. THE COURT: Response. MR. LINK: Yes, sir. I don't know how they can have standing to argue about liability if they were not party to that order. Our position has been they certainly have standing if they want to assert privilege. This Court has said that issue is for the state court, and that issue is OUELLETTE & NIAULDIN COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 358-8875 EFTA00788055 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 22 before the state court. So, the only issue before this Court, the very narrow issue is, was there a violation of the order by Fowler White and by Mr. Epstein and, if so, were there any damages to the parties to that order? So, these folks are not parties, so I'm not sure --- THE COURT: They're not parties to the order. MR. LINK: They're not parties to the order, your Honor, for liability or damages. Thank you, Judge, and thank you for letting me speak. THE COURT: Does that answer your question? MR. CASSELL: Your Honor, this is Paul Cassell. If I could just briefly be heard? Back in April this Court granted both E.W. and Jane Doe permission to intervene in this matter, that's Docket Entry 63 --- THE COURT: There was no finding that they were entitled to damages or that they had a claim. MR. CASSELL: We were entitled to --- THE COURT: They asked to intervene and take a position. MR. CASSELL: We asked to intervene to seek sanctions for violation of the Court's order and -- OUELLETTE & MAULDIN COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 358-8875 EFTA00788056 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 23 THE COURT: My ruling --- MR. CASSELL: -- and to provide clarity --- THE COURT: -- has been dictated into the record. Mr. Pugatch, see to the order. MR. PUGATCH: Thank you, your Honor. THE COURT: Turning now to the motion to bifurcate liability and damages, Docket Entry 6455, response 6463, 6465, 6466. MR. LINK: Your Honor, before we start on that motion, can I just make the Court aware that your ruling will moot Mr. Epstein's motion THE COURT: To compel. MR. LINK: -- to compel, yes, sir. THE COURT: All right. I'm going to get to that next. MR. LINK: Okay. Thank you, Judge. MR. McLACHLAN: Thank you, your Honor. Niall McLachlan again for Fowler White. This is the motion to bifurcate, Docket Entry 6455. All the parties have responded to the motion. I won't spend a lot of time on the motion. THE COURT: Well, Epstein is the only person that's objected. MR. McLACHLAN: That's exactly what I was about to say, Judge, that's right. OUELLETTE & MAULDIN COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 358-8875 EFTA00788057 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 24 MR. LINK: Would you like to hear from us, your Honor? THE COURT: Yes. MR. PUGATCH: We can make the response very quick, Judge. Mr. Epstein didn't do anything wrong. You've got already filed his sworn testimony, when we had to comply with your pretrial order, that says I didn't have it, I didn't disseminate it, I didn't do anything with it, and so we want this over with. We don't want this dragged out. It's already been dragged out for months, and so you've set a trial date, and we want the whole thing dealt with all at once. So we're asking that if there is going to be a trial, it deal very -- it will be very quick dealing with the issue of who did what, and I agree the depositions should determine whether there is liability out there or not, and then if we get beyond that, we have the day set aside, we should litigate the issue of damages. And for clarification purposes, our motion to compel on the depositions is only mooted as to the two parties where you just struck standing. There is still one pending as to the one -- THE COURT: That's why I was going to take OUELLETTE & MAULDIN COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 358-8875 EFTA00788058 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 25 it separately. MR. PUGATCH: -- yes, remaining intervenor. So, Judge, it's your discretion to do as you will, but Mr. Epstein wants to make it clear, he wants to get this over with. Thank you. THE COURT: Mr. McLachlan. MR. McLACHLAN: Thank you, your Honor. I think all of the parties want to get this over with, but there are important issues of due process at stake. Fowler White, in order to defend any damage claim, needs time to get discovery. The intervenors, in particular, have been very coy, and have not indicated, despite numerous requests, how do they intend to prove their emotional distress claims, or now we are only down to one, so I'll back off on that, I know there is only one intervenor left, but intervenors' counsel has refused to say whether they're going to hire an expert, whether they're going an appear themselves. What he's actually said so far, and he just put this in his response, I think it was filed yesterday, is, well, we don't think we're going to hire an expert, but they're going to be able to prove their emotional distress damages -- the remaining intervenor is going to be able to prove her emotional OUELLETTE & MAULDIN COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 358-8875 EFTA00788059 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 26 distress damages based purely on the testimony of Mr. Epstein and Fowler White's representative. That's -- let's just put it, it's unsupported, and it's an unsupportable position. So, given that the hearing is scheduled for October 26th, we believe it would be both in the interest of due process, which is paramount, but also, of course, in the interest of judicial economy. Fowler White continues to believe the Court will find, if not compliance with the order, then substantial good faith compliance and, therefore, no contempt. And if that's the case, we don't need to go into a day, or two, or three -- maybe two days of expert testimony. We believe we need extensive discovery. We also need discovery not only from the remaining intervenor at this point, but also from the lawyers who are all claiming attorney's fees, and there is simply no time for that sort of discovery prior to October 26th, and so for those two reasons, Judge, we respectfully maintain that bifurcation would be in the parties' interest, Fowler White's interest, certainly. Thank you, Judge. THE COURT: All right. The motion to bifurcate, Docket Entry 6455, will be granted, order by Mr. McLachlan. OUELLETTE & MAULDIN COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 358-8875 EFTA00788060 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 27 MR. McLACHLAN: Thank you, Judge. THE COURT: All right. The motion to compel intervenors, Docket Entry 6440 brought by Epstein. MR. PUGATCH: Yes, Judge. We'll leave that in your discretion. We could argue it now, or we could await the outcome of the liability trial, now that you've -- THE COURT: No, we're going to -- MR. PUGATCH: -- bifurcated it. THE COURT: -- on the motion to compel, we're going to strike E.W. and Jane Doe from the motion to compel -- MR. PUGATCH: Yes, sir. THE COURT: -- because they're no longer at issue in this case. MR. PUGATCH: Yes, sir. So, we can argue it now, or if you want to await the outcome of your liability decision, because if you rule that there is no liability, that would moot the need to even deal with this. So we're prepared either way. THE COURT: We'll continue L.M. to be heard after the liability phase -- MR. PUGATCH: Yes, sir. THE COURT: -- has been determined. MR. PUGATCH: Judge, may I suggest, maybe OUELLETTE & MAULDIN COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 358-8875 EFTA00788061 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 28 just for housekeeping, you want to carry that motion over to October 26th, with the understanding that this is the place saver, and then you can THE COURT: Status conference. MR. PUGATCH: Yes. THE COURT: All right. Strike or deny the motion to compel to E.W. and Jane Doe for the reasons MR. PUGATCH: It's moot. THE COURT: -- we're discussed, and continue the motion to compel against L.M., to be heard at a later date, and a status conference will be scheduled on the motion -- MR. PUGATCH: Right. THE COURT: -- for whatever date we have. MR. PUGATCH: Yes, sir. And, Judge, if it wasn't clear, when I said it was moot, I meant the motion to compel, not obviously the motion to strike. THE COURT: All right, that then takes us to the motion for protective order, Docket Entry 6421, response 6437, reply 6443. MR. McLACHLAN: Thank you, Judge. Niall McLachlan again for Fowler White. We -- as I mentioned earlier, we briefed this motion a few months ago. A couple months ago we had OUELLETTE & MAULDIN COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 358-8875 EFTA00788062 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 29 a preliminary hearing. It was set on just a few days notice. So you Honor, after hearing argument, gave Mr. Edwards an opportunity to file a response. He did that. Fowler White then filed a reply at Docket Entry 6443. Mr. Edwards' response is at 6437. Judge, we believe the motion should be granted based primarily on the motion for sanctions, which wasn't just a motion for sanctions, it was called motion for issuance of order to show cause why Fowler White and Jeffrey Epstein should not be held in contempt, to permit discovery, and for other relief. We had a hearing on that motion, and the parties' responses on April 13th, at which, and I've quoted the transcript in depth, there was substantial discussion about discovery, and your Honor said we're not getting into all of that, you can have two depositions. You can depose Mr. Epstein and you can depose Fowler White's corporate representative on very limited issues, and that was, chain of custody of the disk, and the alleged violation of the agreed order -- I'm sorry, chain of custody of documents on the disk, and the alleged violation of the agreed order. I think the ruling was fairly clear from the Court's comments, and I've, as I said, quoted them extensively in our motion. OUELLETTE & MAULDIN COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 358-8875 EFTA00788063 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 30 The order to show cause echoed the Court's oral pronouncement, and that was two depositions -- it actually said more, it said people at Fowler White who may have knowledge of the custody of the disk, but there was no reference to production of documents, as was specifically requested in Mr. Edwards or Farmer Jaffe's motion. In addition, Judge, we believe that the scope of what Mr. Edwards is seeking is almost ridiculously overbroad. His request, essentially, are all communications between Fowler White, Mr. Epstein and any representative of Mr. Epstein which relate to the subject disk, or any information derived from documents or data on the disk. Now, your Honor probably remembers that there were 27,540 pages of documents produced. Over 21,500 pages, there was no dispute Fowler White was supposed to get those because they were produced back to Fowler White as non-privileged documents. There was only approximately 6,400 documents which remain on the privilege log. So to ask for all documents which relate to any information derived from documents or data on the disk, especially during the period that Fowler White represented Mr. Epstein, for about a year after the order OUELLETTE & MAULDIN COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 358-8875 EFTA00788064 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 31 was entered, by definition calls for attorney/client privilege, because any lawyer, when discussing the status of a case with his client, is going to discuss the non-privileged materials that have been turned over, the 21,000 pages of non-privileged materials. Now, Mr. Edwards in his response says, oh, Judge, there is an admission for you, because if Fowler White contends that there was any attorney/client privilege materials, that's a gotcha, they must be talking about the privileged documents. But as I just explained, that couldn't be further from the truth. Additionally, Mr. Edwards argued that because your Honor's order to show cause talked about the parties submitting exhibit binders, well, exhibits mean documents and, therefore, you have to have anticipated document production. Well, that doesn't make sense, because it was a standard order for an evidentiary hearing, and under the local rule any exhibit binder would have to, at a minimum, include written declarations of the direct testimony, and if Mr. Edwards has documents which can show that these were actually privileged materials, which were filed in the state court, we think it's his burden, obviously those documents would have to be in the file -- in the exhibit binder. OUELLETTE & MAULDIN COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 358-8875 EFTA00788065 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 32 So, I don't know that -- it seems, and especially if you look at the limited scope of the issues before the Court, the volume of documents would be inordinate, and is out of proportion to the narrow issues in this case. Interestingly, as I point out in the reply at 6443, I spoke to Mr. Edwards' counsel, and I said, look, just to be very clear on this, so we don't waste the Court's time, if really what you're asking for is communications regarding privileged materials on the disk, there aren't any. So, any suggestion that that's really what they're seeking here, and not the broader universe of documents, which could take months to prepare a privilege log, is just -- it doesn't hold water, Judge, and it just seems -- I think the pronouncements at the hearing were clear, the order to show cause is clear, they can take the deposition of Fowler White's representative, he will testify, and I think it's going to be fairly clear. To give them every communication with Mr. Epstein or his lawyers relating to any document that may have been on the disk far exceeds what was -- THE COURT: How did -- MR. McLACHLAN: -- anticipated. THE COURT: -- Fowler White come to have the OUELLETTE & MAULDIN COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 358-8875 EFTA00788066 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 33 disk in its possession? MR. McLACHLAN: Yes, Judge. Well, that's an interesting point in and of itself, that we don't know the answer to, but here is what we do know, under your --- THE COURT: Somebody made the disk. MR. McLACHLAN: Somebody made the -- well, we know who made the disk. We know who made the disk, because Fowler White, and this is in our response to the motion for order to show cause, Fowler White was told, you will get the original CDs, and you will then print the documents after you Bates number them. The only way for that to be done, and we've put that in a motion for order to show cause, is you copy the documents into a short term temp file, then you transpose the Bates number over those documents and burn the results onto the disk. That's the disk that we returned. We returned original disks to Judge Carney, we have an email to that effect. That disk was then -- well, we produced the, I think, seven bankers boxes of documents to Farmer Jaffe within three days of us receiving the disks from Judge Carney, and now what we're left with is an allegation that a disk that contained every one of the documents was in one of the 36 boxes that was delivered to Mr. Epstein's new counsel, Mr. Link, seven and a half years after the documents were Bates numbered and printed OUELLETTE & MAULDIN COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 358-8875 EFTA00788067 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 34 in accordance with the order. We don't know how the disk got in the box. We haven't been able to examine the disk. Mr. Vitale indicated, I think this morning, that he would be willing to agree to some relief that would allow Fowler White to examine it, because we had a couple of theories, Judge, three theories, I think there are only three. If the disk that was in one of the 36 boxes contained all of the documents, privileged and non-privileged, there are really three ways that I can envision anyway, and I'm purely guessing. One of them is Judge Carney, when he got finished with his duties, said, hey, Fowler White, here is a disk you guys sent me a year and a half ago, and someone at Fowler White just went, Epstein, oh, we're finished with this case, and just threw it in the box. The second theory is that in one of the five boxes of bankers boxes -- one of five banker boxes of documents, of non-privileged documents that were produced back to us by Farmer Jaffe, that a paralegal printed the documents off the disk and mistakenly left it in the box, and the third issue, which is possible, but we just don't know, is that whoever -- the IT person who burned the disk somehow kept a copy and dropped it in the file. But what will be testified to by the OUELLETTE & MAULDIN COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 358-8875 EFTA00788068 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 35 corporate representative is, we have no idea -- if that was the disk, we have no idea how to got there. However, we have found no indication that anyone looked at any privileged materials, there is no time entered for that. And so the only thing that is clear, is that from whenever the disk was received by Fowler White, and whether it was in November two thousand -- or actually it was December 7, 2010, when the original disks were delivered to us for copying, or some time thereafter, what we do know is the disk was never used. It was in a box that was in storage. The first time these privileged materials surfaced was seven and a half years later, when Mr. Link said, please send me all of Mr. Epstein's files, and Fowler White sent him the 36 boxes of documents, and Mr. Link contends that there was a disk in that, one of those 36 boxes that had all of the documents on it. THE COURT: That he had no knowledge of. MR. McLACHLAN: He had no prior knowledge of it, right. Mr. Link said, oh, what's this? It's a disk. Let me look at some documents, and that's how this whole case came about. THE COURT: Well, it came about when he apparently added it as an exhibit or something in the state court proceeding, and then the other side said, wait OUELLETTE & MAULDIN COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 358-8875 EFTA00788069 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 a minute. That's right. Page 36 MR. McLACHLAN: That's exactly right, Judge. THE COURT: All right. Response. MR. VITALE: Thank you, your Honor. David Vitale, V, as in Victor, i-t-a-l-e. Your Honor asked how did the disk get into the box, and Mr. McLachlan gave you three theories. I presume he came up with those three theories by reviewing documentation relevant to the chain of custody of the disk. And he finished with --- THE COURT: Wait a second. They don't know who made the disk. MR. VITALE: I believe they said they did know who made the disk. MR. McLACHLAN: We understand, Judge -- Niall McLachlan again. We understand that in order to Bates number and print the documents a disk would have had to have been made. What we don't understand, and for counsel to say he believes I understand this from our review of documents is simply inaccurate, because these exact same theories, and that's all they are, were in our initial OUELLETTE & MAULDIN COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 358-8875 EFTA00788070 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 37 response to the motion for order to show cause because we simply didn't know. MR. VITALE: Well, I would just point out that I believe what was said in part was that we have an email to that effect. So there is definitely some correspondence that must have been relied upon unless these three theories are being hatched by presumptions and speculation. THE COURT: Well, you won't know until you take the deposition of the Fowler White representative. MR. VITALE: Or, your Honor, I would know if we have -- correct, once we take the deposition, presuming that Fowler White is going to produce the limited documents that we've requested, that deal directly with chain of custody and documents on the disk and, you know, to go back to the evidentiary hearing and move forward to it, Mr. Edwards is going to have the burden based on clear and convincing evidence to show that this Court's order was violated. That is a very high burden, and Fowler White has expressed concerns for due process in defending against this charge. Mr. Edwards should also be entitled to reasonable discovery to meet a very high evidentiary burden. THE COURT: What's reasonable discovery, OUELLETTE & MAULDIN COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 358-8875 EFTA00788071 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I'ajc 38 every email that transpired in the time Fowler White -- when Fowler White got the documents in the discovery from the trustee? MR. McLACHLAN: Yes, Judge, the documents came from the trustee, that's correct. THE COURT: And then they were copied and given to Farmer Jaffe? MR. McLACHLAN: Well, they were printed and --- THE COURT: Printed and given to Farmer Jaffe. MR. McLACHLAN: That's right, and, Judge, just to reference the email, the email that I'm referring to, that's the email that was attached to our response to the motion for order to show cause. Counsel has those emails. They were the emails where Farmer Jaffe and Fowler White's representatives said -- Farmer Jaffe said, I'm sending you the disk -- or Fowler White said, I'm sending someone over to pick up the disks from Judge Carney. We'll print them, we'll deliver them to you, and we understand that you don't want to have a representative there at the time. Three days later we printed the documents, we're sending them to you, and we're returning the original disk to Judge Carney. Those emails are attached OUELLETTE & MAULDIN COURT REPORTERS. INC. (305) 358-8875 EFTA00788072 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 39 to the response to the order to show cause. emails? THE COURT: All right. So you have those MR. VITALE: Those emails, your Honor, and I'll go through the duces tecum request, I think that might be the best way to handle it. Your Honor asked what limited discovery are we looking for. The first request is all communications and all records relating to the chain of custody of the subject disk itself and/or relating to the chain of custody of information derived from documents or data contained on the subject disk. That's two requests. The first is, I'd like everything you have related to the chain of custody of this disk. The representation has been made repeatedly that this disk sat in a box for seven or eight years. Well, there should be communications to that effect, once the printing was done, once everything was done. THE COURT: Not if anybody didn't know that the disk was in the box. MR. VITALE: There would be a time record, your Honor, from Fowler White. Whoever handled the copying and was handling the subject disk, the person who they alleged physically put that in the box, that's a paralegal or an attorney. Fowler White keeps time records. Those time records will show us about chain of OUELLETTE & NIAULDIN COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 358-8875 EFTA00788073 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 40 custody of the disk. The second portion relating to information derived from --- THE COURT: And what time period would that be? MR. VITALE: That would be from the date of your order to the present. They should -- the order is very clear they were not to retain the subject disk. There is a subject disk that has been retained. Chain of custody from November 2010 to present is relevant for the determination of liability at the show cause hearing. I can't think of a more targeted request than give me all the documents, time sheets, emails, written papers that relate to the chain of custody of the subject disk that we allege you are in possession of in violation of this Court's order. The second part of number one, your Honor, and I want to be clear to what this asks for, because I think the claim being made is, well, your Honor, we ended up getting a bunch of these emails anyway, we had 5,000 or however many there were, there is no question we were entitled to those. That's not what we're asking for. We're asking for documents from this disk. This disk, inclusive of what we contend are privileged communications and --- OUELLETTE & NIAULDIN COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 358-8875 EFTA00788074 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page41 THE COURT: Do you have a copy of the disk? MR. VITALE: The copy is -- there is a copy of the disk under seal with Judge Hafele, and Mr. Link sent us a jump drive of the disk that I believe my office still has possession of, but I would need to confirm that. MR. LINK: May I answer the question for the Court? THE COURT: Yes. MR. LINK: Scott Link, your Honor. We provided them, once they raised -- once Brad Edwards' team of lawyers raised the issue, that they thought there were privileged documents on that disk, we immediately made a copy of the disk and sent it to them. So they, in fact, are the only ones that have access to the disk. Judge Hafele, Judge Hafele had us seal the disk, which we did, and then there is an original in a box in my office, which pursuant to the Court's order sits in that box. Fowler White does not have a copy of the disk any more. MR. VITALE: We have a junk drive copy. Who has the original disk, is that in a box in your office, sealed? MR. LINK: There are two disks. MR. VITALE: Okay. MR. LINK: Two disks, one sealed with the OUELLETTE & NIAULDIN COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 358-8875 EFTA00788075 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 42 state court, and one that sits in a box in my office. MR. VITALE: Sealed? MR. LINK: Exactly as it came to me, correct. So they have --- MR. VITALE: We have the documents, your Honor. What I don't have -- this is not about the -- this is not just about the copy that we received to show us what was on the disk. This is about the subject disk itself to determine chain of custody, and I think that goes to Mr. McLachlan's point earlier, which was also raised in his motion for protective order, that they would like an IT expert to examine the disk in question, to determine whether any chain of custody issues can be resolved, for instance, who opened the disk, who opened documents on the disk, whether an IT forensic expert can make that determination. We don't object to that request, subject to our ability to potentially hire our own competing expert, but the issue of the chain of custody of the disk is obviously highly relevant to the show cause hearing coming up on October 26th. THE COURT: Response. MR. McLACHLAN: Thank you, Judge. As I've already indicated, and as I've indicated to counsel, there are no emails or documents OUELLETTE & MAULDIN COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 358-8875 EFTA00788076 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 43 related to privileged information on the disk, but that's not what they're asking for, and then don't -- I think the Court understands, but I'm going to point it out one more time, it's not in our request, all communications relating to any information derived from documents or data on the disk, 21,000-plus unprivileged emails. There are about 6,400 emails which remain on the amended privilege log. So, if the request said documents or data relating to the disk or any privileged information on the disk, that would be somewhat more manageable, and it's going to be a pretty limited production, from what I understand. There is another issue that I just saw raised in Mr. Link's response, and he says that the Razorback documents are similar to the Fowler White documents -- I mean, the documents on the disk, but we don't know that to be the case, whether or not it is, but we do know that Razorback produced documents to Fowler White, and so it's -- I mean, if it was production of documents reflecting communications concerning the privileged materials on the disk, or the custody of the disk itself, that would be more manageable, but what they're asking for -- yes, Judge. THE COURT: On the motion for protective order and the response thereto, I'm going to grant the OUELLETTE & MAULDIN COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 358-8875 EFTA00788077 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 44 motion for protective order without prejudice to future discovery request of a specific nature, more specific nature. Mr. McLachlan, see to a simple order. MR. McLACHLAN: Thank you, Judge. THE COURT: Thank you. That concludes on Rothstein Rosenfeldt & Adler. MR. LINK: Your Honor, thank you very much time for your time today. MR. VITALE: Thank you, your Honor. MR. PUGATCH: Thank you, Judge. MR. McLACHLAN: Thank you, Judge. Have a great day. thank you. MR. LINK: And Court personnel as well, MR. CASSELL: Thank you, your Honor. ECRO: CourtCall, we'll disconnect. (Thereupon, the hearing was concluded.) OUELLETTE & MAULDIN COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 358-8875 EFTA00788078 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Ikwc 45 CERTIFICATION STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE : I, Cheryl L. Jenkins, RPR, RMR, Shorthand Reporter and Notary Public in and for the State of Florida at Large, do hereby certify that the foregoing proceedings were transcribed by me from a digital recording held on the date and from the place as stated in the caption hereto on Page 1 to the best of my ability. WITNESS my hand this 14th day of October, 2018. CHERYL L. JENKINS, RPR, RMR Court Reporter and Notary Public in and for the State of Florida at Large Commission #GG 138863 December 27, 2021 OUELLETTE & MAULDIN COURT REPORTERS. INC. (305) 358-8875 EFTA00788079