Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
E
Edwards
Tonja Haddad Coleman
Mr. Scarola:
On September 26 we received the following email from yet another attorney for
Boles Schiller will be representing
as a non-party witness at her deposition in this action. As
testimony may implicate sensitive issues of sexual trafficking as a minor, we are requesting your agreement that
the deposition will be designated as confidential and subject to an agreed protective order confirming its
confidential treatment. Please confirm that you are agreeable, because if you are not, then we will need to
postpone the deposition to seek a Court order with respect to the confidential nature of the deposition.
This email came did not come from Stan Pottinger who Brad twice advised me was representing
It
came from Sigrid McCawley, Brad's current co-counsel on a number of other matters relating to Mr. E stein. So,
ou were no doubt aware of her intent to require confidentiality and seek a protective order regarding
deposition well before Ms. McCawley sent us that last minute email. In that email she made it very clear
that if we did not agree to confidentiality, the deposition would be postponed while she sought a court order. We
did not agree and responded to her accordingly with the understanding, based on Ms. McCawley's clear message,
that the deposition would be postponed. As your office has made clear to me on several occasions, available
dates in your own schedule are taken quickly, so it should come as no surprise to you that when the deposition
was postponed the date was filled quickly so that Mr. Epstein's counsel could meet other equally pressing
commitments. Moreover, Ms. McCawley responded in her email hours later (and after Mr. Epstein's counsel
committed to other matters) simply with the statement that "I understand your position", rather than conceding
that no confidentialit would be sought. My client will not, and should not, be forced to incur the expense of this
deposition if
is simply going to refuse to answer questions based on claims of confidentiality
regarding matters she has made very public. We received no assurances otherwise in Mrs. McCawley's response.
Consequently,
deposition is not taking place on October 5, 2017, and neither you nor she should
make travel arrangements to attend.
While we are on the sub'ect of schedulin , I have asked ou several times now to provide me with available
dates for depositions of
and have yet to receive any from you.
Tonja Haddad Coleman, Esq.
Advocate Buildin
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
EFTA01005843
www.TonjaHaddad.com
The information contained in this transmission may contain privileged and confidential information. It is
intended only for the use of the person(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or duplication of this communication is strictly prohibited. If
you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original
message.
Original Message
Brewer
; Jack Goldberger
Cc: M
Stan Pottinger <MI=Ele;
Chester
Based upon the persistent refusal of every defense lawyer on this and other requests to clarify your discovery
intentions, I am confirming my travel arrangements and schedule for this coming week based upon all of the
rn
attoey depositions and the deposition of
proceeding as noticed in NY. Should any of these
depositions not proceed for any reason attributable to you, including the continued assertion of attorney client
privilege, be on notice of our intention to seek sanctions in the form of costs and fees for all of the time wasted
as a direct result of your clearly unprofessional conduct.
On Sep 26, 2017, at 7:28 PM, Jack Scarola <=I=
> wrote:
deposition has been scheduled at a time and place selected by you. It was scheduled to take
advantage of one of the very limited number of dates available to conduct discovery. We did not cancel the
deposition. The fact that an attorney representing a witness asked a question about confidentiality of the
deposition transcript, which you rejected, followed almost immediately by the attorney's concession, does not
justify cancellation of the deposition. It is obvious that you have seized upon the discussion of confidentiality to
manufacture yet another excuse to try to postpone this trial.
Please be on notice that you either show up and take the deposition as ou noticed it or you will have forfeited
the right to take the deposition, and we don't care either way. Ms.
will be testifying at trial.
I Privileged and Confidential I Electronic communication is not a secure mode of communication and may be
accessed by unauthorized persons. This communication originates from the law firm of Searcy Denney Scarola
Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. and is protected under the Electronic Communication Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. S2510-
2521. The information contained in this E-mail message is privileged and confidential under Fla. R. Jud. Admin.
2.420 and information intended only for the use of the individual(s) named above. If the reader of this message is
not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copy of this
communication is strictly prohibited. Personal messages express views solely of the sender and shall not be
attributed to the law firm. If you received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by
e-mail or by telephone at (800) 780-8607 and destroy all copies of the original message. Thank you.
EFTA01005844