Filing # 66507496 E-Filed 01/12/2018 04:26:17 PM

Filing # 66507496 E-Filed 01/12/2018 04:26:17 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff, vs. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, and L.M., individually, Defendant, RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO REOPEN DISCOVERY TO TAKE DEPOSITIONS Counter-Plaintiff, Bradley J. Edwards, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby files this Response in Oppositions to Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to Reopen Discovery to Take Depositions, and as grounds therefor states as follows: The Motion Fails to Meet the Court's Requirements to Reopen Discovery 1. On November 27, 2017, the Court entered its Order on Motion to Reconfirm Existing Pre-Trial Deadlines, in which the Court ruled that additional discovery will only be permitted if "the discovery requests are impacted by the Court's rulings on motions currently pending to be heard on November 29'h, December 6th and 7'h." At the hearing preceding the Order, the Court outlined the standard by which any such additional discovery requests would be considered: So what I am going to do is this. Because there are issues that need to be addressed -- and I'm hoping I will have orders out as soon as possible after those hearings are done -- is that I am going to require motions to be filed I A copy of the Court's Order is attached hereto as Exhibit 'A'. EFTA00793345 Edwards adv. Epstein Case No.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG Response in Opposition to Epstein's Motion to Reopen Discovery Page 2 of 8 on a discovery issue-by-discovery issue, deposition by deposition, so as to find out several things. One, is the need to take that deposition and whether that need has been either clarified or required by virtue of a court order that will be entered subsequently to the commencement of Wednesday's hearings and thereafter on those days that I provided. If it cannot be demonstrated to the Court that these witnesses need to be taken solely as a result the Court's ruling, then those requests will be denied because, again, we were set to try the case next week. *** So 20 some-odd deposition, unless they can be proven and shown to the Court as being required as a result of the rulings of the Court, will not be entertained. They should have been done before. And if not done before, I will need a reason for that as well. 11/27/2017 Hearing Tr. at 12:11-25 and 13:1-6, 17-23.2 2. Thus, Epstein has the burden to establish that (a) the new depositions are required solely as a result of a recent Court ruling, and, if so, (2) that the depositions could not have been taken before. Epstein's motion clearly fails to meet either requirement, and therefore the motion should be denied.3 A. Epstein Has Been Aware of the Relevance of the Testimony of These Witnesses for Years and Could Have Deposed Them Long Before the Discovery Cutoff. 3. As an initial matter, L.M. was a named defendant in this lawsuit filed by Epstein. Allegations regarding L.M.'s role in the Ponzi scheme and her fabricated claim are replete 2 Excerpts of the November 27, 2017 hearing transcript are attached as Exhibit Perhaps understanding the Motion's futility, Epstein spends the first four pages arguing about Edwards' damages and, incredibly, accusing Edwards of using L.M., E.W. and Jane Doe for his own personal gain. As Epstein is all too aware, the only person who has forced these victims to do anything against their will is Epstein, and the suggestion that these victims have by now "put behind them" the atrocious sexual misconduct committed against them by Epstein is yet another example of Epstein's indifference to the permanent damage he inflicted on his child victims. 2 EFTA00793346 Edwards adv. Epstein Case No.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG Response in Opposition to Epstein's Motion to Reopen Discovery Page 3 of 8 throughout Epstein's Initial Complaint. Any suggestion that L.M.'s deposition is needed "solely" as a result of the Court's December 5, 2017 ruling is therefore absurd. 4. Jane Doe is also named repeatedly throughout Epstein's malicious and baseless Initial Complaint, and she was also alleged to be pursuing claims against Epstein that had "minimal" value. Edwards' first witness list, filed June 30, 2010, listed all named victims ofJeffrey Epstein as fact witnesses for trial, which of course included Jane Doe. As such, any argument that Jane Doe's deposition is needed "solely" as a result of a recent Court ruling is also absurd. 5. Rather, Epstein was obviously well-aware of the relevance of the testimony of L.M. and Jane Doe long before the Court's recent rulings. There is no need, however, to accept Edwards' argument to that effect. Rather, the Court need only consider the fact that in August 2017 Epstein requested and received dates to take L.M. and Jane Doe's depositions in early October 2017 (before the discovery deadline). Epstein, however, voluntarily chose not to set either witness for deposition. 6. Thus, Epstein clearly fails to meet the first requirement enunciated by the Court, that the depositions be needed "solely" as a result of a recent ruling, and the Motion should be denied on those grounds alone. B. Epstein's Prior Counsel Failed to Set L.M. and Jane Doe's Depositions, Despite Requesting and Receiving Dates for Their Depositions in August 2017. 7. The Motion should further be denied because, although Epstein could have taken these depositions months ago, he voluntarily chose not to so. 3 EFTA00793347 Edwards adv. Epstein Case No.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG Response in Opposition to Epstein's Motion to Reopen Discovery Page 4 of 8 8. Specifically, on August 2, 2017, Epstein's prior counsel requested deposition dates for L.M. and Jane Doe (the email also sought the depositions of E.W. and That same day, undersigned counsel's office responded via email and stated that dates were available in early October, and to call to clear specific dates for these depositions. 9. On August 3, 2017, Edwards, as counsel for L.M., E.W. and Jane Doe, stated that he would accept service of subpoenas for his clients' depositions. 10. On August 14, 2017, after some back and forth email exchanges, Epstein's prior counsel instructed undersigned counsel's office to hold 10/5, 10/11 and 10/12 for depositions. 11. On August 16, 2017, Edwards confirmed that he would make L.M., E.W., and Jane Doe available on any date. 12. Epstein then set ' deposition for 10/5 and E.W's deposition for 10/12. No depositions were set for 10/11. 13. On September 26, 2017, Epstein unilaterally cancelled the 10/5 deposition of after Ms. Roberts had travelled to New York from Australia solely for purposes of sitting for the deposition. 14. Epstein failed to set L.M. and Jane Doe for deposition on 10/5, despite Edwards' notice that he could make them available on that date. 15. As such, no depositions were taken on 10/5 16. Epstein also failed to take any depositions on 10/11. 17. Instead, Epstein used only 10/12 to take the deposition of E.W. 4 EFTA00793348 Edwards adv. Epstein Case No.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG Response in Opposition to Epstein's Motion to Reopen Discovery Page 5 of 8 18. Thus, when the Court asks Epstein's counsel for the reason why L.M. and Jane Doe's depositions have not been taken, the answer is quite simple: because Epstein chose not to take them. C. Epstein's Current Counsel Chose Not to Set Any Depositions Prior to the Close of Discovery. 19. After Epstein's prior counsel failed to use either the 10/5 or 10/11 dates to take the depositions of L.M. and Jane Doe, his current counsel made efforts to set witness depositions prior to the November 24, 2017 discovery deadline. 20. Specifically, on November 13, 2017, Epstein's counsel requested deposition dates for a number of attorneys who had represented other Epstein victims. 21. Notably, however, Epstein's current counsel failed to request new deposition dates for either L.M. or Jane Doe. 22. On November 13, 2017, undersigned counsel's office advised Epstein's counsel that it was available for depositions each day, apart from Thanksgiving, until the discovery cutoff on November 24th. Thus, Epstein could have set depositions on 11/14, 11/15, 11/16, 11/17, 11/18, 11/19, 11/20, 11/21, 11/22, or 11/24. 23. Epstein failed to set any depositions, whether of the attorney witnesses or of L.M. and Jane Doe, on the dates given. 24. In total, Epstein therefore declined to use twelve (12) days provided by undersigned counsel to schedule the depositions of L.M. and Jane Doe prior to the discovery cut- off. As such, the only reason these witnesses have not been deposed, witnesses whose importance 5 EFTA00793349 Edwards adv. Epstein Case No.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG Response in Opposition to Epstein's Motion to Reopen Discovery Page 6 of 8 Epstein has been aware of for years, is because Epstein affirmatively chose not to depose them. Epstein's current remorse over that litigation tactic certainly fails to meet the Court's requirements to reopen discovery, particularly on the eve of trial in this eight (8) year old case. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, Epstein's Motion to Reopen Discovery should be denied. I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was sent via E-Serve to all Counsel on the attached list, this Id- --day of '--. A-°" 1111 2018. JACK/SC RO Flola ar No.: 169440 DA I i P. VITALE JR. Flo • a Bar No.: 115179 Attorney E-Mail(s): [email protected] and [email protected] Primary E-Mail: [email protected] Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 Phone: (561) 686-6300 Fax: (561) 383-9451 Attorneys for Bradley J. Edwards 6 EFTA00793350 Edwards adv. Epstein Case No.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG Response in Opposition to Epstein's Motion to Reopen Discovery Page 7 of 8 COUNSEL LIST Bradley J. Edwards, Esquire [email protected] 425 N Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954)-524-2820 Fax: (954)-524-2822 Jack A. Goldberger, Esquire [email protected]; [email protected] Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue S, Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone: (561)-659-8300 Fax: (561)-835-8691 Attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein Nichole J. Segal, Esquire njs®FLAppellateLaw.com; [email protected] Burlington & Rockenbach, P.A. 444 W Railroad Avenue, Suite 350 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone: (561)-721-0400 Attorneys for Bradley J. Edwards Scott J. Link, Esquire [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Angela®linlcrocldaw.com; [email protected]; [email protected] Link & Rockenbach, P.A. 1555 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard Suite 301 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone: (561)-727-3600 Fax: (561)-727-3601 Attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein Marc S. Nurik, Esquire [email protected] EFTA00793351 Edwards adv. Epstein Case No.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG Response in Opposition to Epstein's Motion to Reopen Discovery Page 8 of 8 One E Broward Blvd., Suite 700 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954)-745-5849 Fax: (954)-745-3556 Attorneys for Scott Rothstein 8 EFTA00793352 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY. FLORIDA CASE NO.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG JEFFREY EPSTEIN, vs. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN. individually, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, and L.M., individually, Defendant(s). ORDER ON MOTION TO RECONFIRM EXISTING PRETRIAL DEADLINES g,v 25 73ne riem$4 -17.74497-.4t/ THIS CAUSE having come to be considered upon Bradley J. Edwards' MOTION TO RECONFIRM EXISTING PRETRIAL DEADLINES, and the Court having reviewed the file and being fully advised in the premises. it is hereby. ORDERED and ADJUDGED: Va."- PAC 7/4•44n c yzee.44,4 )- pi 44VC, CY(Aa 441446-MA antaPean. 44i> /ell 1 -e- -de 001-17 DONE AND ORDERED at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County. Florida. this c? 7 day of 6.43•• , 2017. DO ALD HAFT, IRCUIT JUDGE *aced", -OfeteZt AineeLe ke-Atutf4=7 norst--494.4 7 s it cora.t4 Copies h ve been furnkshed o all cot nsel o,t; the attached consel list. I t.,4 nztvenerg,44.61-24, cg ;c;zaa.9) at. ardai %7 A EFTA00793353 Edwards adv. Epstein Case No.: 502009CA040800XXXXMRAC Order on Motion to Reconfirm Existing Pretrial Deadlines COUNSEL LIST Jack Scarola, Esquire _scarolateam©searcylaw.com Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley PA 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach, FL 33409 Phone: (561) 686-6300 Fax: 561-383-9451 Attorneys for Bradley J. Edwards Bradley J. Edwards, Esquire staff [email protected] 425 N Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954)-524-2820 Fax: (954)-524-2822 Nichole J. Segal, Esquire njs©FLAppellateLaw.com; kbt©FLAppellateLaw.com Burlington & Rockenbach, P.A. 444 W Railroad Avenue, Suite 350 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone: (561)-721-0400 Attorneys for Bradley J. Edwards Jack A. Goldberger, Esquire jgoldberger©agwpa.com; [email protected] Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue S, Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone: (561)-659-8300 Fax: (561)-835-8691 Attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein Scott J. Link, Esquire [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Tanya©Iinknxklaw.com; [email protected] 2 EFTA00793354 Edwards adv. Epstein Case No.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG Order on Motion to Reconfirm Existing Pretrial Deadlines Link & Rockenbach, l'.A. 1555 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard Suite 301 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone: (561)-727-3600 Fax: (561)-727-3601 Attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein Marc S. Nurik, Esquire [email protected] One E Broward Blvd., Suite 700 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954)-745-5849 Fax: (954)-745-3556 Attorneys for Scott Rothstein 3 EFTA00793355 IN THE CIROLIIT COURT OF Tile PIPTED1111 JI7DICIAL CIRCOIT, IN AND MR PAW RAM CCUM, FLORIDA Casa No. 50200PCJU)401100:03C0111 dant( EPSTEIN, Plaintiff, SCOT( ROTIMEIN, individually, BRADLEY MAIDS, individually, Defer&Saats/Countax-Plaintif fa. 1 2 3 5 4 9 Id II 22 I) Ii 14 17 le 29 20 21 TRANSCRIPT Or PROCEW1K03 DATE PARDO: Nooday, November 27th, 2017 $:01 a.m. - 9:27 a.m. PLACE 205 S. nixie Sighway. Room IOC West Palm Reach, Florida BEFORE: whale Motel*, Presiding Judge This cause ease on to be heard et tie Um and place aforesaid, when and whore the following propeediegs vete repotted by: Sonja D. Rill 22 Palm Reach Reporting Service, Inc. 1465 Pals leach Lakes Boulevard, Suite 1001 23 Nast Pala Beach, it )2401 24 1541) 471-2995 25 2 2 APPEARANCES: 1 2 For Plaintiff: 2 3 LIKK & ROCKENBACH, P.A. 1555 Palm Bondi Lakes Boulevard, Suite 301 4 Reim Palm Beach, FL 33401 By KAM BERARD ROOM/MACH, REWIRE 5 3 S For Bradley Edwards: SERACT, DIMMY, SCAROtA, MNOWIT & a SHIPLRY, P.A. a 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beech, FL 33409 10 By MC( sCAMM. ES0UIRE 11 By DAVID P. VITALS, JR. 10 13 11 Ia 12 13 If 14 17 16 le :1 If 19 If 20 20 21 21 22 22 27 2) 24 34 21 25 3 MS. ROCKENBACH: Good morning, Your Honor. MR. SCAROLA: Good morning. THE COURT: Good morning. Thank you for sending me the legal issues that need to be addraased and the anticipated amount of time that you are going to need. I appreciate that. This motion I have before me is to reconfirm and Edwards' opposition to the existing pretrial deadlines, which were set in contemplation of the ease going to trial in December. SCAROLA: Almost, sir. THE COURT: Pardon? MR. SCAROLA: Almost. Your Honor has it backwards. It is Mr. Edwards who is seeking to reconfirm the deadline. Mr. Epstein is objecting to that reconfirmation. THE COURT: My error. Sorry about that. MR. SCAROLA: That's all right. A mistake that we all make repeatedly. THE COURT: Mr. Edwards is seeking to confirm or reconfirm the existing deadlines, Mr. Epstein is objecting. Okay. All right. So I guess the place to start is from Mr. Edwards' standpoint as the punitive plaintiff here. Is there any discovery that's necessary from your standpoint at this juncture? MR. SCMOLA• Ho sir TIC COURT: Ns. RecRenbach7 NS. ROCKINBACN: Yes, Your Honor. If you recall, your order that granted the motion to continue sets forth in it -- which la November 14th -- that both parties don't know how the Court will ultimately rule on Critical issues, which will require counsel to try to strategize and plan their respective teen under extreme uncertainty and duress. And that was a quote fres your order, which you correctly identified. And as a result, Your honor opened up additlonai days on your caiendar so that we could hear those incredibly significant diapositive legal motions that are pending. We are going to be before the Court on Wednesday, and then next week. on 4 Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. 561-471-2995 Fx. EFTA00793356 9 5 r Io II 22 33 Is 15 it IS le 19 20 zi 22 23 24 21 Keeping these deadline, in place, freezing this case in the position that it was in on the eve of trial and ready to be tried is the only way to prevent those kind: of last-minute delays. There has been an avalanche of motions that have already been filed, but we have plenty of tine now to dispose of those notions. Md if there is a reasonable basis upon disposition of those motions for Your Honor to consider on a case-by-case basis -- and that's the only way it should be done, an extension of a deadline or an exception to a deadline -- then Mr. Epstein. through his very able counsel, has every aeons by which to present those issues On a case-by -case basis to the Court. But the deadlines previously set should be enforced. Thank you, Your Honor. MS. ROCKENBACH: Your Honor, I want to try this case on March 13th. THE COURT: We are going to try the Case on March 13th. MS. ROCXENBACH There's no question that both parties are respecting this was in Europe and that vas the date :hat war 2 provided. lie contradicts Mr. Edwards• answers to interrogatories about damages. 4 So this case -- there are no additional notions to be filed. Your Honor has then. 6 all, in addition to the response:. what w„ • do need is to proceed in an orderly fashion • and allow these deadlines to be reset in • conformance with a standard pretrial order to for a March 13th trial setting. TICE COURT: Thank you. 12 Ply intention was not to Open the 11 floodgates to allow wholesale discovery, as •+ pointed out, and not -- it really wasn't ➢o ze nuch the Court's schedule, but respective 14 counsel's vacation schedules, which took up 17 essentially a month of time where I wasn't able to set anything substantively during is that period and had to thereafter wait. 20 BeCause there la tine that Opens up and zi 1 know -- or at least counsel that 22 represented Hr. Epstein in the past -- they 21 typically were amenable to setting things • s and getting hearings set if the COUrt had 2) tine open. Mr. Scarola and his office have to 11 IS 13 II IS la IT le If 20 21 22 23 25 10 Court's order on November loth setting that specifically. But as Your Honor has identified, these critical issues have yet to be ruled on by this Court. Md Mr. Scarola makes my point in raising the three claimants that Mr. Edwards previously represented and settled their cases. That'➢ a very Significant 11See that this court will rule on on Wednesday to determine whether their testimony is even relevant. I see that we're getting a preview about the fabrication issues. But I look forward to Wednesday and discussing it with the court. The attorneys that Mr. Scarola identifies as designated for years. they were not. they were fact witnesses and only recently identified as expert witnesses, so appropriate discovery was propounded and their depositions were requested. The new expert that Hr. Edwards has listed -- brand-new expert -- Is being deposed this Friday, which incidentally is past the discovery cut-off date. i think he 2 4 12 13 14 13 17 11) 13 20 21 22 23 24 25 12 always been very accommodating in that regard. SO it was not with the anticipation that we are going to open the floodgates for discovery to essentially recOMMenCe. Again, it's a 2009 case. I know the counterclaim was filed a little bit later than that, but It is an old case -- has an appellate history -- that needs t0 get tried in March. So what I an going to do is this. Because there are issues that need to be addressed -- and I'm hoping I will have Orders out as soon as passible after tho➢e hearing: are done -- is that I am going to require notions to be filed on a discovery issue-by-discovery Issue, deposition by deposition, so as to find out several things. One, is the need to take that deposition and whether that need has been either clarified or required by virtue of a court order that will be entered subsequently to the conmencement of Wednesday's hearings and thereafter on those day➢ that I provided. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. 561-471-2995 EFTA00793357 13 If it cannot be demonstrated to the • Court that these witnesses need to be taken 3 solely as a result the Court's ruling, then 4 those requests will be denied, because, 5 again, we were set to try the case next • week. 7 An0 but for the legal Issues that • retained and the feet that the Court did not • want to put anyone's back against the wall. to Including itself, in the short period of it time that we had between trial and the 12 hearings that had been set, and those were le just for a ono-day period and not enough 24 time -- It vas not contemplated that IS discovery was going to be open again, at 16 least on the wholesale basis. SO 20 some-odd depOtiltion, unless they le can be proven and shown to the Court as it being required as a result of the rulings of ie the Court, will not be entertained. They 21 should have been done before. MO if not 22 done before, I will need a reason for that 23 as well. 24 HS. ROCXENBACH: Thank you, Your Honor. xi Md so for clarification, that notion 2 1 4 S 7 0 15 stipulation. Those issues are going to be significantly impacted by the Court's legal rulings. THE COURT; I'm sorry. I didn't follow that. eis. ROTKENSACH: lin sorry. Joint pretrial stipulation is Pa -- was due. In our response to Hr. tdweeds' unilateral pretrial stipulation. we noted Io that based on the fact that Your Honor le 11 going to be making significant legal rulings 12 On November 29th, December 5th and 13 December 7th, it was impossible for us t0 frame the issues to be tried In this case. IS there are pending legal motions that Your if Honor is going to be ruling on probably on Wednesday. SO my request is that we be is allowed additional tun following those 19 hearings to reconvene and arrive at a joint 20 pretrial Stipulation. 21 THE COURT: All I can say is the 22 elements of malicious prosecution are well 23 set out In Florida law. rf MS. ROCHE/COACH: Agreed. 23 THE COAT; And so anticipating 1 2 3 10 li IS 13 11 15 Is 21, I, It 20 21 22 23 24 23 14 that Your Honor is referencing would be filed after Your Honor's rulings on November 29th or December 5th or December Ith? THE COURT: Meaning any notions that will be filed after the Court rulings relative to whether or not those deponents or the discovery was occasioned by the Court's ruling? ROCHEIMIACH: Correct. THE COURT: Correct. We don't know what that is going to be as of yet. MS. ROCKEHOACH: Thank you. And as far as the pretrial -- the joint pretrial stipulation, Your Honor, my point in that was not knowing how the Court will rule on critical issues requires -- it causes extreme uncertainty with regard to the issues to be tried. Mr. Scarola -- Mr. Edwards filed a unilateral pretrial stipulation. I am going to ask the Court to allow us to reconvene following the hearings that are pending before and scheduled before Your Honor so that we can arrive at a joint pretrial 1 2 4 1 10 II Ii 14 Is 17 le If 20 21 21 23 24 23 16 witnesses CO testify as to those issues shouldn't be en extraordinary tasks at this point in time. What I was going to say is I recognize that those lints night be tailored in accordance with the Court's rulings, but it shouldn't hold back -- just like pending notions in limine that are In every Case, subsequent to -- either filed or filed before or after the pretrial is filed and heard. Md It may reduce. increase or whatever the number of witnesses, but it wouldn't Change the issues that have to be tried as it relates to a malicious prosecution action. MS. ROCICENOACH: I would tend to agree with Your Honor. However, the recent filings by Mr. Edwards ihOw that perhaps there are a mixing or misunderstanding of those legal elements as compared to a defamationCM. SO I think this will be cleared up on Wednesday when Your SOW sees our motion', hears our acgusents, and substantively rules on the pending real issues to be tried. And Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. 561-471-2995 EFTA00793358