Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 214 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2010 Page 1 of 10

Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 214 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2010 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FT. LAUDERDALE DIVISION Case No. 08-CIV-80893-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE, Plaintiff• v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT, JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND OBJECTION TO DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN DOCUMENTS WITH INTEGRATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"), by and through his undersigned counsel and pursuant to a Joint Stipulation Regarding Certain Documentation files this his Motion for Protective Order and Objection to Disclosure of Certain Correspondence and Discovery for the reasons set forth below: I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT During the underlying litigation, Epstein vigorously sought protection from the Court that these and other documents produced would be used for purposes other than those contemplated by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for discovery, i.o., dissemination in the media. His rights to contest this type ofuse were preserved as part of the settlement of these proceedings, which provided for confidentiality of the settlement as well as provisions to bring these matters to a close. Now, the fears that led to Epstein's efforts to seek protection from the court have now come to pass. The intended use of these documents is now leading to more litigation that the settlement of these cases was designed to end. Epstein requests that the court grant protection so that this does not occur. YOWL311 Marl /31)11}14r7, PA. • NICLIPSPOINT - Wen TOWalt, SW= 904771804M* /140Lat Diun,IVirr Luas Banat, ItCOUDA 33401 •(961)802.9094 EFTA01069394 Natalie A. Trompet From: Jacqueline M. Borrero Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2010 4:45 PM To: Natalie A. Trompet Subject: LAS login CM/ECF SDFL (LAS) user: a pass: 1 EFTA01069395 Case 9:08-ov-80893-KAM Document 214 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2010 Page 2 of 10 Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein Case No. 08-CIV-80893-MARRA/JOHNSON Epstein's MPO, Objections and Integrated Memo of Law et aL Tl STATEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS 1. In July 2010, the Defendant, pursuant to certain discovery orders (D.E. 462 and 572) entered by this court produced correspondence and documentation between Epstein's attorneys/agents and federal prosecutors ("Correspondences). 2. Shortly thereafter, the parties entered into settlement agreements in the above-styled matter and in matters of ■ v. Epstein, Case No. 502008 CA028051 XXXXMB AB in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County and in El vs. Epstein, Case No. 502008 CA028058 >OOOCMB AB, filed in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida. 3. The parties entered into a Joint Stipulation, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "1" to govern the use of public disclosure of discovery of the Correspondence. The Court reserved jurisdiction to enforce the Stipulation. 4, On August 26, 2010, counsel for the Plaintiff served notice of its intent to use the Correspondence in two court proceedings, an internal Justice Department Complaint procedure, and other, essentially public matters. It is also anticipated that the documents will be released to the media. A copy of the Notice of Intent to Use is attached hereto as Exhibit 1". 5. The Joint Stipulation provides that if Epstein chooses to serve an objection, the Correspondence will remain confidential until the court has had an adequate opportunity to review the materials and enter a ruling. -2- Pavia Want Lam, TA • pmu-os POW • Win Tow" Sin 901,m SOuni rim= WIST PAW BUCK. Plank 33401 • EFTA01069396 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 214 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2010 Page 3 of 10 Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein Case No. 08-C1V-80893-MARRA/JOIHNSON Epstein's MPO, Objections and Integrated Memo of Law et al. 6. On August 30, 2010, the undersigned's firm requested counsel for the Plaintiff to identify the documents they intend to use so that Epstein would be in a position to prepare an appropriate response, which was rejected. The undersigned's law firm understands that the correspondence in question is in excess of 100 documents. In general, the documents consist of communications between Mr. Epstein's defense counsel and the United States Attorney's Office regarding the investigation, negotiation and settlement of potential criminal charges against Mr. Epstein. DESCRIPTION OF INTENDED USE Epstein respectfully submits that a brief description of the proceedings that counsel for the Plaintiff has stated that they intend to use the Correspondence will be helpful to the court: A. Epstein v. Edwards Case No. 502009 CA040800,OOOCMB AG The Plaintiff Epstein commenced an action on December 7, 2009 seeking damages against Defendants, Scott Rothstein, Bradley Y. Edwards, and LM,' based on an alleged illegal Pon zi scheme by the Defendants, and the Plaintiff believes others as well, to market investments to outside investors in lawsuits brought against Epstein by a number of Plaintiffs, represented by the now defunct Law Firm of Rothstein, Rosenfeldt & Adler, P.A. ("RRA"). Some of the lawsuits were transferred to a newly formed firm of Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, PL ("Farmer Jaffe"). Epstein has alleged and believes that the Defendants and perhaps other former employees of ERA conspired to use the Epstoin/LM litigation before this court and perhaps other ' The claim against LM was dismissed pursuant to a settlement agreement. FOWLER WAITE B1111181T, P.A. • PHILLIPS Pcun - Won TOWLE, SUITE 901, 777 Scum 1.)-00in Dove, Wm PAIN BEACH, FUAIDA 77401 • EFTA01069397 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 214 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2010 Page 4 of 10 Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein Case No. 08-CIV-80893-MARRA/JOHNSON Epstein's MPO, Objections and Integrated Memo of Law et al. litigation to lure investors in to making approximately $13 million dollars worth of investments into phoney settlements by using pending real cases. Counsel for those investors, William Scherer, whose is also a member of the Creditor's Committee in the RRA bankruptcy, represented to the bankruptcy court that a number of his clients and their lawyer went into the ARA conference room and were allowed to go through the LM cast file boxes, approximately 10 of them, and concluded that the Epstein case was a real case and ultimately invested money. A copy of the transcript ofthis bearing is attached hereto as Exhibit "3". Mr. Scherer's remarks appear on pages 17-227 On August 13,2010, Bankruptcy Judge Raymond Rayordered in response to a subpoena from Epstein the appointment of a special master to review in excess of 6,000 electronically stored documents of RRA that relate to Epstein and other litigation to prepare a privilege log in anticipation of production of relevant non-privileged documents. A copy of that Order is attached hereto as Exhibit "4". B. In Re: Jane Doe, Case No. 08-80736-Marra/Johnson In 2008, Jane Doe filed an action under the Crime Victims Rights Act ("CVRA"), 18 U.S. Code § 3771 on behalf of two alleged victims of the alleged sexual assault by Epstein. Since 2008 there has been little if any activity on that file. The articulated purpose of the use of these documents is in an effort to set aside the "Non Prosecution Agreement" which Epstein entered into 'It is difficult to believe that if what Mr. Scherer has stated is true, that Mr. Edwards was not aware that his case files were being shown to outside investors. WIZ Patna BIJANITT. PA • Faults poNr -4- 'ar Tows; SUITS 901,777 sours BAGIsk DI WEST PALM BnAC11, Matra 33401. (MI) 80240414 EFTA01069398 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 214 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2010 Page 5 of 10 Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein Casc No. 08-C1V-80893-MARRADOHNSON Epstein's MPO, Objections and Integrated Memo of Law et al. with the federal government. Neither victim has met the requirements of 18 U.S. Code § 3771(d)(5)(A-C), which requires the court to assert her rights before and during the proceeding and to petition the court of appeals for a writ of mandamus if such right is denied. (See: Docket Entries for Doe v. U.S., 9:08-80736-KAM). It is hard to believe that a case that has been languishing in excess of two years will be revived to invalidate an agreement that the U.S. Attorneys Office entered into with Epstein after the agreement has been fully performed. C. Justice Department Ombudsman and other uses The Code of Federal Regulations has set out the procedures to promote compliance with crime victims' rights. 28 C.F.R. § 45.10. In order to take advantage of this complaint process, the Code of Federal Regulations requires that complaints must be submitted within ninety (90) days of the victim's knowledge of a violation, but not more than one (1) year after the actual violation. 28 C.F.R. § 45.10(c)(3). It is obvious from the inaction of these proceedings and earlier filed pleading that this time frame has expired. Therefore the articulated intended use of the documents in this complaint proceeding is suspect on its face, thus leaving the only other articulated purposes which essentially is to allow the documents to go into the public domain. IV. MEMORANDUM OF LAW The policies behind FRE 408, and 410 provide this court for basis of sustaining Epstein's objections to the production of these documents. The intended use contravenes a critical public policy of encouniging resolution o f criminal prosecutions without trial. Defendants are considerably Fowusot What B4.9.747T, P.A. • r: MILS POINT Varr rCars., Sun" 901, 777 SWIll PLAGLES DOVE, WM PAW Bncn, PLO.I:DA 33401 • (561)1102.9044 EFTA01069399 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 214 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2010 Page 6 of 10 Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein Case No. 08-C1V-80893-MARRA/JOHNSON Epstein's MPO, Objections and Integrated Memo of Law et al. more likely to engage in full and frank discussions with the government if they do not fear that statements they or their counsel make to government prosecutors will be used against them to their detriment in other proceedings. More specifically, Rule 408 prohibits the use of any evidence offered to prove liability for, invalidity of, or the amount of any claim that was disputed. Rule 410 makes inadmissible pleas, plea discussions and related statements. The exceptions under each of these rules do not apply. Evidence of statements made during plea negotiations are also not admissible under Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.1720). They are not admissible in any civil or criminal proceeding against the person who made the plea or offer or who conducted the negotiations. Similar provisions in Florida Evidence Code exist. Statements made as part of settlement negotiations are inadmissible. The exception under each of these rules also do not apply. See: §§ 90.408 and 90.410, Fla. Stat (1976). The Florida Rule, like its Federal Rule Counterpart, was adopted to promote plea bargaining by allowing a defendant to negotiate without waiving Fifth Amendment protection. The most significant factor in the rules of adoption was the need for free and open discussion between the prosecution and defense during attempts to reach a compromise United States v. Davis, 617 F. 2d 677, 683 (DC Cir. 1979), cited in Nunes v State of Florida, 988 So. 2d 636 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008). It would obviously present a chilling effect on any settlement discussions if such discussions could later be used as admissions of liability at trial or in any other proceeding. Bank Card America, Inc. v. Universal Bank Card Systems, Inc., 203 F. 3d 477, 483 (7m Cir. 2000). One court in the -6 FowaR Wan Bvvwn, PA -Pxu n Pow • WM Town, Sum 901,777 So M PLAOLNI Days, Wen PA1M Bans, DAM tun 33401 • (561)403.9044 EFTA01069400 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 214 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2010 Page 7 of 10 Jane Doe v, Jeffrey Epstein Case No. 08-CIV-80893-MARRAUOHNSON Epstein's MPO, Objections and Integrated Memo of Law et al. federal court system has held that communications falling within the parameters of Rule 408 are covered by settlement privilege which insulates them not just from admission into evidence but from discovery as well. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company v. Chiles Power Supply, Inc., 332 F. 3d 976, 979-983 (6th Cir. 2003). The court specifically slated: There exists a strong public interest in favor of secrecy of matters discussed by parties during settlement negotiations...the ability to negotiate and settle a case without trial fosters a more efficient, more cost effective, and significantly less burden to the judicial systern...parties must be able to abandon their adversarial tendencies to some degree. They must be able to make hypothetical concessions, offer creative quid pro quos, and generally make statements that would otherwise belie their litigation efforts. Goodyear Tire, Id. at 980. The same is no less true in the plea negotiation context particularly where a central component of the discussions and negotiations between counsel for Epstein and counsel for the United States Attorney was to reach an agreement on conditions relating to compensation for his alleged victims. The court ordered discovery of this Correspondence so the Plaintiff could determine if it contained any admissible information that would advance a stand-alone federal civil action. Instead, Epstein submits that the real use of this Correspondence will be to further counsel for the Plaintiffs legislative, political and philosophical mission to expand victim rights. This kind of extrinsic use of such discovery chills and compromises the presumptive confidentiality of written and often frank discussions between counsel. Epstein intended his communications with United States Attorney's Office to be private and protected by FRE 410. The communications from the U.S. POwLiiii MUTE Buvistr, PA,- hoist; Poofr - WAS/ Town, Stun 901.77/Sotrrn ElAaux Dues, Warr PALM BkA I, FLOXIDA 33401 • EFTA01069401 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 214 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2010 Page 6 of 10 Jane Doc v. Jeffrey Epstein Case No. 08-CP/-80893-MARRA/JOHNSON Epstein's MPO, Objections and Integrated Memo of Law et al. Attorney to Epstein's counsel reflect these discussions and were also intended to be private. Now, after the fact to allow it to be disseminated to victim's rights advocates to change legislation totally defeats the public policy consideration of encouraging the resolution of criminal prosecutions without trial. V. RELIEF REQUESTED Epstein requests that this Court grantthe Motion forProtective Order by preventing disclosure and order Plaintiffs' counsel to return, without keeping copies, the Correspondence to counsel for Epstein. Alternatively, there aro in excess of 100 documents of Correspondence; and as noted, counsel for Plaintiff has refused to agree to designate which they intend to use. Therefore, in the event this court is inclined to order the release of said correspondence, then Epstein requests an in-camera inspection of which documents Plaintiff intends to use to determine what, if any, documents are related to the foregoing pleas and what documents are not. Along the same lines, Epstein requests an in-camera inspection in an effort redact any information that may violate thirdparty privacy rights or information that would implicate Epstein's Fifth Amendment rights and to thither brief these issues. VI. LOCAL RULE 7.1 STATEMENT Pursuant to the above Rule, the undersigned counsel and Plaintiff's counsel have conferred and are unable to resolve this matter. Fowia Wang BUR.NITT. PA • PavanFiona - War TOwni. sir. 3 901,777 Soy H Fuca.. Dula, War PALK MACH, ?LOAM* 33401._ EFTA01069402 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 214 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2010 Page 9 of 10 Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein Case No. 08-CIV-8089344ARRA/JOHNSON Epstein's MPO, Objections and Integrated Memo of Law et al. VII. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using CWECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on all counsel of record identified on the following service list in the manner specified via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CNVECF on this 2nd day of September, 2010. Brad Edwards, Esq. Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, PL 423 N. Andrews Avenue Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Fax -9- Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue, South Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 Fax Co-counse or Je rey Epstein Swum Wins Ituassrr, P.A. • Muss Pont • War Town, Suns 901,77) SOVIII Pumas Dans, Wm PALMBOALW, nosnm 33401. (561)5024044 EFTA01069403 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 214 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2010 Page 10 of 10 Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein Case No. 08-CIV-80893-MARRA/JOHNSON Epstein's MPO, Objections and Integrated Memo of Law et al. Paul G. Cassell, Esq. Pro Hae Vice 33 2 South 1400 E, Room 101 Salt Lake City, UT 84112 Co-Counsel for Plaintiff Respectfully submitted, /s/ Joseph L. Ackerman. Jr. Joseph L. Ackerman, Jr. Fla. Bar No. 235954 Lilly Ann Sanchez Fla. Bar No. 195677 FOWLER WHITE BURNETT P.A. 901 Phillips Point West 777 South Plagler Drive a West Palm Florida 33401 Telephone: Facsimile: Co-Counsel for Defendant Affrey Epstein Ml WM0143 \1411illt03/444Kso Ox Protado• O.4. WOC Dee vEriskAA(9/2110-/S39) -10- FOWLS Wens Swarm P.A. • hates POINT • WIWI Town. Ain 901,177 SOWN FLA,Milt Dna, Win PALM WIACII, FLOM L33401 • EFTA01069404 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 214-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2010 Page 1 of 5 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 207 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2010 Page 1 of 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CIV- 80893 —MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE, Plaintiff, • v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendants. Joint Stipulation plaintiff, JANE DOB and Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN ("Epstein"), hereby file their Joint Stipulation Regarding Certain Correspondence Obtained By Jane Doe's attorneys during discovery, and each state: 1. In July 2010, the law firm of Palmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos and Lehrman, PL. (the "Law Firm"), Paul O. Cassell, Esq. and Jay Howell, Esq. ("Counsel") received through discovery certain correspondence and documents (including content thereof) between Epstein's attorneys/agents and federal prosecutors (the "Correspondence"). 2. Counsel for Jane Doe and Counsel for Epstein disagree whether the Correspondence is confidential. 3. Without in any way altering the obligations set forth in the Addenda to Settlement Agreements entered into in the above-styled matter and in the matters ofIlLia, Bosse n, CASE NO. 502008 CA028051 XJQCCMB AB and CASE NO. 502008 CA028058 /OOO11133 AB, Counsel may wish to use the Correspondence in pending cases of Bpstein agggsio, CASE NO. 502009CA040800)DCOCMB AO and In Re: Jane Does 1 and2, CASE 1 FJCHIBIT 1 1 EFTA01069405 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 214-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2010 Page 2 of 5 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 207 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2010 Page 2 of 3 NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON. If Counsel (or Mr. Edwards as a Defendant in the Epstein v. Rothstein case) desires to file, use or disclose the Correspondence or contents thereof to anyone, Counsel agrees that prior to using any of the Correspondence in these proceedings or prior to providing or making the Correspondence available to anyone else, that they will provide seven (7) days notice to Epstein's counsel (Robert D. Critton, Jr. at and Michael J. Pike at MIIIIMEMI of their intent to use or provide the Conespondence or in the alternative, file the Correspondence under sent. If Epstein chooses to serve an objection based on a claim that the Correspondence should remain confidential, his objection must be served within seven (7) days from the date of the notice. If Epstein does serve an objection, Counsel (or Mr. Edwards as a defendant) will not file (unless filed under seal) nor disclose the Correspondence to the public or third parties until the court has ruled on the objection. However, Counsel (or Mr. Edwards as a defendant) may file the Correspondence under seal or provide the Correspondence to the court for an in camera inspection if any objection is made such that the court is in a position to rule on the objection. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff and Defendant requests that the Court enter an order on the above stipulation and grant any additional relief the Court deems just and proper. Local Rule 7.1 Slattille111 Pursuant to the above rule, the undersigned counsel and Plaintiff's counsel have conferred and have agreed to same. RespectthIly submitted, BY:J.O31;4Kit D Critton. Jr. ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. Florida Bar No. 224162 2 EFTA01069406 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM . Document 214-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2010 Page 3 of 5 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 207 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2010 Page 3 of 3 catfiegaptfiegna I HEREBY CERTIFY &statue copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECP. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on all counsel of record identified on the following service list in the =mot specified via transmission of Notices of Eeetronio Filing getended by CM/ECP on this 19th day of July, 2010: Brad Edwards, Esq. Farmer, Jaffe, \Wining, Edwards, Pisan & Lehmaan, PL 425 N. Andrews Ave. Suite #2 Port 33301 Phon • Fax: Paulo. Cassell, Esq. Pro Hac Ytce 332 South 1400 E, Room 101 Salt Lake ,UT 84112 Fax unsulor Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1400 FL 33401-5012 Co-Counsel fir Defendant Jeffrey Epstein By: /1/ Robert D. Critton. h. ROBERT D. CR1TTON, JR., ESQ. Florida Bar No. 224162 raig(a>i;?!*i,Esin la.m MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. Florida Bar #611296 mulkoVelotave.corn BU'RMAN, CRITTON, LOTT= & COLEMAN, LLP 303 Banyan Boulevard, Suite 400 FL 33401 Phone Fax for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) 3 EFTA01069407 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 214-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2010 Page 4 of 5 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 207-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2010 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-C1V- 80893 - MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendants. Order Adopting and Entering joint Stipulation This matter came before the Court on Plaintiff, Jane Doe, and Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein's Joint Stipulation, and counsel being in agreement with the entry of the Stipulation, it is HEREBY ORDERED and ADJUDGED that 1. The Joint Stipulation is hereby Adopted and Entered. 2. Without in any way altering the obligations set forth in the Addenda to Settlement Agreements entered into in the above-styled matter and in the matters of vs. Epstein, CASE NO. 502008 CA028051 riCialvfa AB and 1._vs, Epstein. CASE NO. 502008 CA028058 )OODCMB AB, Counsel may \Nish to use the Correspondence in pending cases of Epstein v. Rothstein CASE NO. 502009CA040800XXXX3v1B AG and In Re: Jane Does I and 2, CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON. If Counsel (or Mr. Edwards as a Defendant in the Epstein v. Rothstein case) desires to file, use or disclose the Correspondence or contents thereof to anyone, Counsel agrees that prior to using any of the Correspondence in these proceedings or prior to providing or making the Correspondence available to anyone else, that they will provide seven (7) days notice to EFTA01069408 Case 9:08-cv-50893-KAM Document 214-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2010 Page 5 of 5 Case 9:08-cv-80893•KAM Document 207-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07119/2010 Page 2 of 2 Epstein's counsel (Robert D. Critic]; Jr. at and Michael J. Pike at JIMEMEI) of their intent to use or provide the Correspondence or in the alternative, file the Correspondence under seal. 3. If Epstein chooses to serve an objection based on a claim that the Correspondence should remain confidential, his objection must be served within seven (7) days from the date of the notice. If Epstein does serve an objection, Counsel (or Mr. Edwards as a defendant) will not file (unless filed under seal) nor disclose the Correspondence to the public or third parties until the court has ruled on the objection. However, Counsel (or Mr. Edwards as a defendant) may tile the Correspondence under seal or provide the Correspondence to the court for an in camera inspection if any objection is made such that the court Is in a position to rule on the objection. DONE and ORDERED this day of Courtesy Copies: Judge Kenneth Marra Counsel of Record , 2010. Linnea IL Johnson United States Magistrate Judge EFTA01069409 Case 9:08-cv-80593-KAM Document 214-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2010 Page 1 of 3 Pig Tun Class taloa Foetal Wuri weenevilkatth Canwerclei lltintbn PATNTOJII STILL . C0M Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos Et Lehrman, P.L. August 26,2010 Robert D. Critton, Jr., Esq. BURMAN. GLUTTON, et at 303 Banyan Boulevard Suite 400 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Dear Mr. Critton, We are writing to advise you of our intention to use in two pending court cases and a Justice Department complaint process correspondence between Epstein's representatives and federal prosecutors. As we have indicated to you in the past, we do not believe that we are under any restrictions with regard to using these materials in filed court cases and are not aware of any court order restricting our use of this correspondence. You have not directed us to any such court order. Nonetheless, you apparently believe that some sort of restriction exists. Accordingly, we have agreed to give you notice of our intention to use the correspondence so that you can, if you so choose, file an objection. As you know, Epstein recently chose to settle the lawsuit of Doe v. Frmin, Case Na 08- CV-80893-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON, shortly before trial. The settlement he reached followed a few days after he provided to us, as Jane Doe's legal counsel, correspondence between his representatives and the U.S. Attorney's Office in connection with a federal prosecution related to sex offenses against minors that the U.S. Attorney's Office was conducting. That correspondence demonstrates that Epstein was prepared to plead guilty to sexually abusing children. As you also know, Epstein has chosen to ale a lawsuit against one of us (Brad Edwards, Esq.) in which he alleges that civil lawsuits against him for sexually abusing children were trumned up as some sort of a scheme to extort money from him. As you also know, Epstein took the S during his deposition on all relevant questions rather than providing supporting responses for his lawsuit. Finally, as you know, there is currently pending before Judge Mann a case filed under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. 5 3771, in which two victims of sexual assault by 425 North An Suite 2, office ale, Florida 33301 fax EFTA01069410 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 214-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2010 Page 2 of 3 Robert D. Craton, Jr., Esq. August 26, 2010 Page 2 Epstein allege they were deprived of their rights under the Act. For example, the victims allege that there were deprived of notice of pending plea bargain arrangements and an opportunity to be heard as well as the right to meaningfully confer with prosecutors. The correspondence provided to us is compelling evidence in support of their claims, as it demonstrates that federal prosecutors were conducting plea discussions with Epstein months before they alerted the victims to any possible plea bargain. The correspondence also demonstrates a willful plan to keep the victims in the dark about the plea discussions. In light of these facts, we intend to make use of this correspondence in the two lawsuits mentioned above. Of course, because of the redaction you made to the documents (and we challenged and firmly believe was a dear violation of Judge Marra's Order), no actual statements from Epstein's representatives are disclosed In the documents — only statements from federal prosecutors. Our currently planned use includes the following: gpstein y: Edwards Mr. Jack Scarola, Esq., will file a motion for summary Judgment on Epstein's meritless lawsuit against Brad Edwards, Esq., as well as pursuing Edwards' counterclaim for abuse of process. To demonstrate that Epstein knew that he was guilty of the crime of sexually abusing children, he intends to attach relevant parts of the correspondence as exhibits to our motion for summary Judgment and various motions pursuing the counterclaim. Mr. Scarola, as Edwards counsel and someone with whom Edwards has an attorney client relationship and privilege, received the documents in question before the settlement agreement was reached and is not a party to the setdement agreement. Nonetheless, out of an abundance of caution, we are giving you notice of his upcoming additional intended use of the documents. Jn lite:Jane Doc, Case No. 08-00735-MARRA/IOFINSON Now that the civil cases have been favorably resolved, we will shortly be filing additional pleadings in the CVRA case. These pleadings will ask for remedies to protect the victims' rights under the CVRA, as well as the invalidating of the non-prosecution agreement that the U.S. Attorneys Office entered with Epstein in violation of the CVRA. Related to these efforts to secure relief under the CVIZA, we will be seeking to have a legislative initiative made to modify the CVRA so that It better protects victims of sexual abuse and other serious crimes. As part of that effort, we intend to share the correspondence with Susan Howley, Legislative Director for the National Center for Victims of Crime, who is currently in discussions with legislative aides to Senator Leahy about modifications to the CVRA. We hardier intend to share the correspondence with Meg Garvin, Fixative Director of the Nadonal Crime Victims Law Institute in Portland, Oregon. As you may know, Ms. Garvin worked with the victims in the CVRA matter early on. Ms. Garvin is also in contact with congressional staff about the need for modifications to the CVRA. She has also been in discussions with the General Accounting Office (GAO), which Issued a report about the effectiveness of the CVRA. See GAO, Increasing Awareness, Modifying the Compliant Process, 425 North Ara Solt* 2,Cislaidalle. Florida 33301 offke MIIMMM fax EFTA01069411 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 214-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2010 Page 3 of 3 Robert D. Critton, Jr., Esq. August 26, 2010 Page 3 and Enhancing Compliance Monitoring with Improve Implementation of the Act (Dec. 2008). The GAO is continuing to monitor compliance with the Act, and we intend to ask Ma Garvin to share the correspondence with the GAO. As you may know, in the past crime victims groups have succeeded in changing victim's rights' laws and then having those changes applied to currently pending cases. Sec cg.., Paul G. retell Barbarians at the Gates? A Reply co the Critics of tisc Victims' Rights Amendment, 1999 Utah L Rev. 479, 518-19 (discussing remedial legislation passed by Congress to protect victims of the Oklahoma City bombing which Congress intended to apply to pending trials). Justice Department Ombudsman The Justice Department also has a process for considering complaints by mime victims about their treatment in the criminal justice process They have an ombudsman, who will consider specific complaints. We intend to file a complaint with the Ombudsman about the i • handling of this case, and in doing so plan to share our documents with the Ombudsman and seek advice from other attorneys who work in the legal clinics for the National Crime Victims Law Institute about how to most effectively file such a complaint. The uses listed above are examples and are not intended to be exclusive descriptions of our intention to use these documents in judicial and legislative fors Unless we hear from you within seven days that you have initiated legal action to bar us from malting the above-described uses of the correspondence, we will move forward with doing so. •- 425 North An Suite j • e, Florida 33301 office fax EFTA01069412 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 214-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2010 Page 1 of 10 I Piss I OW TED STATE& BANXRVYTCY COURT I hp 3 THE COURT: Rothstein Rosonfeldt & Adler. SOUTHERN ourwaror FLORIDA 2 All right May I have appearances. Please? 7 3 3 MR. L1CHTMAN: Good morning, Judge. 4 4 Chuck Lichtma Berger Singe:man, for the trustee. 1 CASE 7107 117447914ECRER 5 MR. NEIW1RTH: Good morning, your Honor. 6 In go 6 Ronald Nedwirth, Fowler White Burnett, on behalf of 7 ROTHSTIONROssNYELDT Attn. r. o... 7 the avant, Epstein, and with me today are two of my 8 DobHt. 8 partners, Chris Knight and Lilly Ann Sanchez— 9 9 MS. SANCIIEZ: Good morning, your honor. ID 10 MR. KNIGHT: Good morning, your Honor. It II MR. NEIW1RTH: — both of whom are more atoms VO Coat PIDDDUCtICH or oocuars PROM mum 12 familiar with the State Court angle on this then I I1 PURSVANT TODOCI.0&24 PRODUCTION PROTOCOL klErAELISHED 13 ern, so they camo dons to be able to elucidate that St 13411672607& AMENDED 140110N FOR PRUTECTIVE ORDER 14 end of it 11 (819) 15 MR. FARMER: Good morning, your Honor. 14 If Afloat 4,2010 16 Gary Fairer on behalf of LM, Brad Edwards, and 18 . 17 the Farmer Jaffe WeissIng law firm. We are an 17 tto abcootn0Oxl flue WM corer 18 interested party and have filed a motion for is barks tem du HONORAI51,14 RAY/4070a RAY. 19 protective order as to the subpoena that is at 19 as or IM Sip, oft)* (ROM STATES BANKRUPTCY 20 issue lame today. 20 COURT, to sod for the SOUTHERN DIM/CIO? FLORIDA, 21 THE COURT: AU right. Insofar as the 21 13 •1299Eul Ilsord MA. can tax4a171,,B monad Oaanly, Florida, oa Toady. Awat 4,3010, 22 TD Bank motion, Docket Entry 780, that has been the 23 asmascreln as or 12.4590 am. ed VS roma: 23 subject matter of an agreed order that was submitted 24 proodint4 wore /me 24 tome. 7.5 Reasoffly: Napa' Musa 25 MR. LICHI'MAN: Correct Judge. hp 2 Pena I APPEARANCES. 1 THE COURT Mr. Sauer. 1 J m wat amo H attwot 7:"QuiRi ma RS H. 1.1CWAN, 2 3 MR. SCHEREFt: Yes, sit your Honor. gm William Scherer and l'm hero on behalf of a 4 on Ixba1f of Os hums 4 number of victims In thc State Court action, as s 6 CONRAD & WILMER b7* 5 well as tbe clubman of the authors' committee WILLIAM R. SCHERER ESQUIRE 6 In the bankruptcy. 7 gm tottollot7trlow 7 THE COURT: Ail right That lawn us with 8 9 POWL.ER warn smart. by 8 Docket Entry 807 and 819. 807 is Jeffrey Eprtein's RONALD O. hEIVIIRT1L ESQUIRE 9 motion. 10 LILLY ANN SANC:1032, ATTORNEY.AT.LAW 10 MR. NE1WIRTH: Thank you, your Honer, end OIRISTOPIER B. KNIC911-, ESQUIRE i i II3SEM L ACKERMAN, ESQUIRE 11 again, good morning. We represent Jeffrey Epstein. 'actuator kern II4otaln 12 He has a civil claim pending In State Court in 22 13 Paint Beach County. He had served a subpoena on 13 FARMER JANE WEESSNO EDWARDS ELS1D5 & Llat2M/314. by 14 Mr. Stain requesting documents Erom the RRA tate. 74 CARY FARMER, ESQUIRE 15 That was book in April. BEAD EDWARDS. agora :5 0,11 WIN! a L.24, Brad Edson& and 16 While this was still in process, In Farmai .1s.lb Wtisting &Nardi Flew & Lotman 17 May, under Docket Entry 672, your Honor tittered 16 18 an order standardizing procedures for obtaining 11 19 disoovery from Mr. Stettin and the RBA estate, IS 20 and al last on the face of it, it takes 19 to 21 Jurisdiction over all discovery offous against a: 22 the trustee. That loft us in a quandary. 22 23 we had a subpoena pmding In State 23 24 24 Court No had correspondence from Berger 25 25 Shiva= on behalf of the trate° that they had EFTA01069413 ' Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 214-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2010 Page 2 of 10 Par 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 S 10 II 12 13 14 Is 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 identified information and they wore procesaiug it, including vetting for attorney/client privilege Issues, but then in the meantime came your Honor's order on May 18th, so we had to go back and reinvent the wheel and go through the necessary hoops in order to comply with that. In the meantime, as we sit hero now, we still have no production. We have a trial date coming up in October, and we have a motion for promotive order coming from a party who's already settled out, the LM party. They no longer have anything directly to do with this. Further, we are advised by the creditors' committee that in addition to what was proffered to us, that at some point in time there had been something like ten boxes of records pertaining to these particular issues and someone on behalf of the victims had been given, or several someones, had been given access to those ten boxes and had viewed them, which would vitiate any attorney/cheat privilege in any event So what we are trying to do Is fashion a mechanism so we can comply with your order, Docket 672, about standardized means of getting I taken jurisdiction over those discovery mailers 2 and attempted to standardize discovery efforts 3 for the trustee. There's a lot of people that 4 want things from the trustee. 5 The trustee is overseeing an creme 6 which involved somewhere in excess of 70 lawyers 7 and lots of oases and lots of problems, and 8 literally millions of documents, and wo have 9 absolutely no problem with the standardized 10 order, but that means that somehow or other we 11 have to be table to deal with tt in a standardized 12 manner, Instead of Mr. Farmer's suggestion, which 13 is go back to State Court and deal with it over 14 there. 15 THE COURT: What b the status of the State 16 Court proceeding? 17 MR. NEIW1RTH: May I defer to my partner, 18 whorls mom familia with that? 19 MR. KNIGHT: Your Honor, Christopher 20 Knight, if I may? While we were waiting for the 21 documents from the Stettin office, we obviously 22 wanted to go down two tracks because we had en 23 October trial date. The statue of it is we could not 24 come to an agreement with the other side. 25 Mr. Ackerman was at the last bearing, in which the 2 3 $ 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 L6 17 IR 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Papa production from the trustee, allow for the appropriate vetting of the materials for attorney/orient privilege, and we roust bear in mind that this is one objector, there's a lot more documents than that. To the best of our knowkdge, the documents that pertain to the 124 party, who Is settled anyway, may be 15 percent of those which are responsive to the Inquiry that we made of the trustee, but in any event, someone has to vet them for annoy/client privilege and do a privilege log. Now, Mr. Fannels office on behalf of LM wants to do that. We don't think that's appropriate. We think the privilege at this point, since the case b settled, Iles with RRA and, therefore, the trustee, rather than Mr. Farmer and his client, because as to them the case is over. Furthermore, we don't think there is any privilege because the boxes Dave been vetted before and we'll liar more about that from Mr. Scherer, I assume, because he was the one that was aware of that. And last, but not least, your Honor has ti bon I judge said, one, I need a representative of the 1 2 trustee here and two, shouldn't this be beck before 4 3 you, Judge Ray. 4 THE COURT: You can't proceed agairot 5 Rothstein in the State Court, they're here. 6 MR. KNIGHT: And that is %haunt thing I 7 think Judge Crow recognized, end that's why were 8 heck hero, end Mats why wo had to file the motion. 9 MIL ACKERMAN: no claim sgairat 10 Rothstein is against him individually, and it's II against Brad Edwards Individually, and it was 12 against one of the claimants, LM 13 THE COURT: So It's not against the debtor 14 estate. 15 MR. ACICERMAN: That's correct. 16 MIL KNIGHT: Just to go a little Amber on 17 what Mr. Neksirth was saying,. Out of those documents 18 we've been asking for for a long time, very few of 19 them would even have privilege on their face because 20 they have nothing to do with the clients that wane 21 represented, what's been called as LM. 22 if there's going to be If 23 there's any aced, which l don't think that is 24 because 1 think privilege has boon waived, it 25 7100:53 tO be a leg put together by the trust" 1 tI 2 (Pages 5 to 8) OUELLETTE & MAIM. REPORTERS. INC. EFTA01069414 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 214-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2010 Page 3 of 10 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 Naga not anybody else that has some sort of interest In it. If there's a problem with payment for those, et cetera, our client has already offered to the trustee, to Mr. Litththan, we will pay for whether it's a special master or whether Ifs a contract attorney, if they aced to do tint, but I don't think we even need to reach that I think these documents are long overdue. They have been produced to others, they have been used in depositions for others, they are out there, and I think the privilege issue is Just being used as a smoke screen to keep our client from being able to got the documents he needs to bo able to prove his case. Thank you. MR. ACKERMAN: Your Honor, one other matter. Judge Crow expressed a concern about entering any order against the unto( or his counsel without them being present. Initially we had filed a motion to compel in the State Court, but we didn't realize at the time or it was unclear, because we had Just taken over the case from another law firm, that the Court had entered Its order. Npn 1 everybody Ent. 2 MR. KNICEIT: Okay. 3 MR. FARMER: Thank you, your Honor, may it 4 please the Court. Agaln, Cary Farmer on behalfof 5 the interested earle., LM, also on behalf of 6 Bred Edwards and Tm cony, your Honor, Mr. Edwards 7 Es here with me. I neglected to introduce him to the 8 Oaurt earlier, 9 MR. EDWARDS: Good morning, your Honor. 10 MR. FARMER: Them has been a lot of 11 discussion here about your Honor's standardized 12 production order and I think that you need to 13 widen:trod that this particular matter, which Is 14 before you today, Is anything but standard or common 15 to the taunters before this Cote. 16 You need to understand the nature of 17 the we. Jeffrey Epstein is an admitted 18 convicted pedophile. He sexually assaulted 19 dozens and dozens of young girls under the age of 20 15. lie pkd guilty to this and he has settled 21 every civil lawsuit filed against hbn on this V Issue. 23 Despite all o f this, Mr. Epstein has 24 seen fit to file u lawsuit against 1../4, who is one 25 of the plaintiff§ against Elm; against 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Ps5z to There was some discussion prior to the hearing and when wo went to the !noting, It was clear that them was no agreement that had existed and Judge Crow said, Pm not entering an order, Pm not doing anything on this motion until the bankruptcy trustee is represented. He was ponces-zed because this Court's order had set up the standardized procedure for dealing with these tegument, and had reserved jurisdiction relating to any subpoena or request for documents Prom the Casten so that's why we're here now. THE COURT: All right MR. KNIGHT: Your Honor, Just ono other point. We tried to work, and we've been working with Mr. Lichtman, tried to work out a protective order between the trustee and Epstein regarding the subpoena. Mr. Licht:man and Ms. Sanchez agreed to language on it have a copy of it. Mr. Fanner, with his motion for protective order, would not agree to that, but If the Court would like to haven copy of what the draft was, I will approach your cleric, but ifyou 24 do not want that 1 also — 25 THE. COURT: Well, let me hear from 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 Pate 12 Brad Edwards, LM's attorney; and against Mr. Rothstein. Now, Edwards, mYself, and all the 111003b4.11 of our firm were RRA attorneys when Mr. Rothstein took his ill-Cated trip to Morocco and did the things which are now so well known, but the fact of the matter is that this discovery request is a blatant attempt to obtain clearly privileged documents related to the representation of LM end many other victims, by the way. And if I can show your Honor a copy of the subpoena Static I don't think that the breadth of the subpoena bas been adequately represented to the Court. If you peruse this, you will see they are asking for communications with private investigators, they're asking for contingency fee contracts, they're asking for every communication between any member of the form, and they throw Rothstein in just to make It sexy, about those can Now, your Honor, clearly communication about the representation o f a client mils under not only the work product, but if the client is involved In the communication, also the 3 (Pages 9 to 12) 0UrEarny C te1A MOAT nktl'0RTERS,174C. EFTA01069415 ' Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 214-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2010 Page 4 of 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 S 10 11 12 13 I4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Apr3 attorney/client privilege. Now, most of this stuff we've already responded and said none, none, none, but for many of these items, we have asserted the privilege and we continue to assert the privilege. Now, the only reason the trustee is here — THE COURT: Walt, there's bean a privilege asserted in the State Court proceeding? MR. FARMER: Y63, air. THE COURT: And there is a privilege log and the Judge has made a ruling? MR. FARMER: No. The dispute now really is over who's going to fie the privilege log and respectfully, Judge, what we suggest a that the trustee has been thrust into this matter simply because the trustee stands In the shoes of an the former attorneys at RRA, and the trustee is likewise bound by the privileges that attach to the cases and to the lawyer that were at the rim The matte ha repeatedly acknowledged the feet that it Is bound by those privileges and, of course, as your Honor knows, the privilege belongs to the client, not to any lawyer or any law finn. /Mc IS 1 Ms. Scherore clknts, who lave claims before 2 this Court, and hopefully they will get some forte 3 of relief from the Bankruptcy Court, Epstein is 4 not seeking any bankruptcy assets. He's suing 5 Bred Edwards and LM personally, and Scott 6 Rothstein, and Ws not en estate dais, It's 7 against Scott Rothstein personalty. 8 So my suggestion, your Honor, is that 9 you Instruct the trustee to turn this electronic ID documentation information over to us. We will 11 file the appropriate privilege log with the 12 Circuit Court judge who is presiding over the 13 case, who b most familiar with the case, who 14 will be considering the upcoming motion for 15 surunary Judgment, and possibly trying the case, 16 and that way your Honor is not burdened with this 17 matter, the trustee dots not Incur foes and 18 expenses of havhig to go through all of these 19 domenents, prepare a privilege log and our 20 clients and Mr. Edwards — Mr. Edwards is also a 21 party of that lawsuit. He enjoys his own 22 privilege, your Honor, ova and above, or in 23 arldidon to, I should say, the privilege 24 possessed by our former clients and, of count, 25 I31oW CO011Sel knows that the privilege extends 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 IS 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Past is So the trustee is really kind of stuck in the middle here. You've got the pedophile who wants documents related to the cases ha already settled and pled guilty for. Those documents, the electronic documents, at least, the emaila electronically stored information Is how it's referred to in the discovery request, your Honor, are not in our possession, they are in the possession of the trustee because the trustee took the computer system. So the trustee doesn't went to incur the cost and expense of filing a privilege log and, frankly, I don't know that the trustee has a WU appreciation of the nature and specific acts of the cases that would enable it to conduct a complete privilege So my suggestion, your Honor, and ifs been rejected — 11xlieve Wa acceptable to the trustee, but it's been rejected by Mr. Epstein's counsel, is the trustee be removed from this equation. There's no need that we come back before you. This case, this Epstein case, is not a matter which would involve bankruptcy estate assets going to Mr. Epstein. Unlike I beyond the litigetion. 2 So although Mr. Epstein paid a ton of 3 money for this claim that is supposedly 4 frivolous, it has been settled, but the privilege 5 sill extends and it remains In place, So we 6 simply want to make sure that our Investigative 7 materials, our reports, other documentation 8 relating to the calms we hare and have tad 9 against Jeffrey Epstein are not put into the 10 hands of Jeffrey Epstein's attorneys. 11 Now, we just want the chance to review 12 these documents and prepare the privilege log rind 13 the trustee Is kind of stuck In the middle here, 14 Judge. Remove the trustee from the equation, let 15 us get the documents, we'll filo the privilege 16 log, and then Mr. Epstein and vs can go before 17 Judge Crow. He can review the privilege log, 18 review the documents in tamest I9 All that is going to be pretty time 20 consuming, but ho's much mom suited, a better 21 suited judge because he's more familiar with the 22 (WAS to engage in that inquiry. 23 THE COURT: Thank you. 24 MR. FARMER: Thank you, your Honor. 25 THE COURT: Mr. Wellman, Mr. Scherer, your v .% ••., • OUELLETTE & MAROON REPORTERS, LNC. ........•••••••al•M4 0 .471.3,6J 4 (Pages13 to i6) EFTA01069416 ' Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 214-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2010 Page 5 of 10 his IT I input, phase. 2 MR. LICHTMAN: Pm going to let Mr. Sta . 3 go first. 4 MR. SCHERER: I thick he wanUmo to go 5 first. 6 TIM COURT: AU right. 7 MR. SCHERER: Your Honor, in November 8 we filed a lawsuit in State Court and we alleged 9 that as a part of Mr. Rothstein and the Cam, wad 10 the firm's employees, and maybe some of the 11 fm's attorneys, conspired to use the Epstein/LM 12 litigation in order to lure S13.5 million worth 13 of my victims, my clients, into making 14 investments in those phoney settlements. 15 And as we alleged in that State Court 16 proceeding, and we've sharpened the allegations 17 tu we've emended a few dunes, we allege that 18 sometime in late October, that my clients wore 19 Invited into the Rothstein firm with 20 Mr. Rothstein, arid be explained that he had a 21 litigation going in State Court with Mr. Edwards 22 representing LM, a victim of Mr. Epstein, and 23 these are kind of sensational allegations and 24 it's been printed widely. 25 And my clients, a number of them and hie /9 I allegations in the LM case that they know were 2 not true, b order to entice my clients into 3 believing that DUI Clinton was on the airplane 4 with Mr. Epstein and these young svernan and other 5 parsonages, I can't remember who they are, and 6 all seas of other allegations that really were 7 not even related to the LM case. 8 And to the extent that any lawyers from 9 the RRA finn, former lawyer., made a ton of money 10 or however Mr. Farmer talked about it, we're II Interested in that ton of money be-mots if they 12 were Involved in this scheme, this fraud, there's 13 a crime fraud exceptions. and in addition, 1 want 14 to see the ten boxes that they brought down. 15 The trustee does not have those too 16 boxes. Those ton boxes were taken by Mr. Edwards 17 when he /oft the law firm,1 presume. So we want 18 the tea boxes, we want all the communications and 19 we want to look through everything on behalf of 20 my State Court case, but also on behalf of the 21 creditor? committee brosnse the creditor,' 22 committee is looking to see If argbody else In 23 the firm, other than Rothstein, was Involved In 24 this manias fraud that used the Epstein case. 25 The model of using an existing case and 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 rep is their lawyer, wont into the Rothstein conference room and Mr. Rothstein brought down — summoned the investigators, two of them, two or three of them, to bring down the Epstein file. And the lawyer that my clients brought from a national firm, went through the Ltd boxes, tan of them that the investigators brought down, and concluded that the Epstein case was a real case, And what Mr. Rothstein did with that real case, of causes, Is he told everybody that not only did he have the LM client of Mr. Edwards, that there were a number of other young ladies, that was widely published in the newspaper, that the firm was representing and that wanted to settle with Mr. Epstein on confidential basis. So ho used the real ease In order to defraud my clients into investing Into those phoney settlements and paid 13 and a half million dollen. I believe that Mr. Rothstein and others In the firm also told that story toe lot of other people, end let a lot of other people examine those ton boxes of the real case. In addition, as wo have alleged, that Mr. Edwards and the firm put sensational 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 Is 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 then spbming off a fraud from it is the same that was perpetrated on the Morse — in the Morse simile°, as has been alleged and widely produced. I can't conceive that Mr. Edwards and the predecessor law firm would have any standing to prepare privilege logs or anything else, given what 1 just told the Court. That would be like having the fox guard the hen house, That Epstein case Is settled, and to the extent Ifs the ton boxes of stuff that we looked through, and I'll hove to got the boxes to see If Ow attorney who looked through them, and bow much time he spent Iooldng through them — THE COURT: Where arc the tan boxes? MR.. SCHERER: Theta a good question. Its trustee does not have the ten boxes. I presume the ten boxes are residing with the lawyers who took the case, Mr. Edwards and the sirens°, law firm. The trustee does not have them. And then In addition, there's about 6,000 amalle that the trustee has, and I bet you when we look at Qtask, theses going to be a boatload more. My clients were also advised daring OUELLETTE & MA REPORTERS, 1 5 Vega 17 to 20) EFTA01069417 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 214-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2010 Page 6 of 10 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 hp 71 their duo diligence, short due diligence to settle these cases with these young ladles — these putative, young ladies who had to get the money and leave town because of whatever the stories were, that thorn were other members of the finis that told my clients that they, We'd had oven identifiod more of those victims that Ms. Rothstein didn't even know about at that time. So we know it vAun't just Mr. Rothstein spinning the tale, there ware a lot of people in the firm. We've alleged almost all of this in our State Court action that we filed lo November, vp to where we are right now, but, your Honor, I think your Honor Is going to have to deal with these issues in this court and I would urge you to have the trustee got involved end let the trustee do its job with respect to whether there are privileges that need to be protected, work product or attorney/olient privileges, given what's going on, and I believe the vista will be investigating whether the trustee wants to bring any clams on behalf of the estate by virtue of what I'verjust laid out for you. 'Munk you. ?err is I to take those ten boxes to taut with. 2 THE COURT: All tight. Mr. ',Salami:ix 3 MR. LIC7dTMAN: Good mondog, Judge. I'm 4 going to try to walk you through sort of 5 chronologiadly the trustee's perspective of what has 6 happened here. I think that what Tye hoard from all 7 the parties are comments that are coned, and not 8 necessarily corral, and Pm not suggesting 9 falsehoods. Wo just hava kind of a dif keens 10 perspective of some things and there are some points II that ought to ha ccmaotcd. 12 Mr. Stettin received a subpoena in a 13 Palm Basch State Court action for production of 14 documents, and as wo had done in virtually every 15 subpoena, we went to our forensic accountants, 16 the Berkowitz Dick Pollack & Brant Croat, and 17 said, okay, we need to produce c-malls and we 18 need to also then, with the staff that wo have at 19 Berger Singetman and elsewhere, and look to see 20 if there am any hard documents that we can find, 21 notwithstanding what we'll call the Issues as to 22 the RRA hard drive that contain client files. 23 We quickly realized that this is a 24 Islam different than all of tho other subpoenas. 25 The subpoenas that we had bean receiving from 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 to 11 12 13 14 Is 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Utz THE COURT: So your lawsuit In State Court names these people as defendants? MR. SCHERER: It names Rothstein. It does not name Mr. Edwards. It just names Rothstein, not the Eng and lays out the foots and says other people in the firm. We did not name them because we want to see the documents and see whether they had Involvement But the facts that I have alleged for you, your Honor, Is pretty much what Tye alleged In my first through third amended complaint in Stale Court. THE COURT: So, In essence, your position in this manta- would be to support the motion to compel and deny the motion for protective order? MR. SCHERER: Yes, sir, notwithstanding that Mr. Epstein 1$ a convicted pedophile. I want to ma that on rho record. You know, he's served his time and whatever, but I support the same position that he — that be has asked the Court, and that is to have the trustee deal with this, get these documents and deal with it with you, rather than allow the successor law firm to have thcm. I don't know where they had the right 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 IS id 17 18 19 20 21 V 23 24 23 virtually every other party in the case were requests for production of documents relarrd to claims that those moving parties or requesting parties would have as it pertains to them trying to recover some aspect of money as pertained to the Penal scheme. Okay. Like Mr. Scherer, who said I need a bunch of dOCUMenth cat you help us? So we would enter Into, on a ono by one bads, a proactive order that was very, very tightly negotiated. These is no standard form protective order In this case, contrary to what everybody has told you. We have a form that wo use, and everybody that las come to us, we said, wo need to have a protective order in place — THE COURT: We have Docket Entry 672, which apparently Is the document production protocol. MR- LK:117MM: We have that, yes, bat then we also, as an example, Document 685, have ■ protective order that was entered with Mr. Schuas atoms. Wo haves as cm estesnple, Document 715 that pertains to MS Capital, and on end on. Sq in any event, what we mansions the case with respect to the Epstein vs. Scott Rothstein, &milky Edwards case, h this Is • 6 (Payee 21 to24 °UM-LETTS & MA REPORTERS, EFTA01069418 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 214-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2010 Page 7 of 10 P&P 25 1 different. This Is not an asset either to the 2 RRA estate, nor Is it really an asset to any 3 potential creditor of the RRA estate that Is 4 inveatigating dal= that can tiring a recovery 5 that can hely in terms of the overall dollars 6 into either RRA or to a particular creditor on 7 their individual lawsuits. 8 The Epstein case, rather, is a lawsuit 9 between a third party that was being sued by the 0 Rothstein firm against Rothstein lawyers, and we 1 bad a different privilege Issue than we had 2 focused on with all these other document 3 productions. 4 So we get the 6,000 o-malls, and on the 5 eve of one of my concaves getting ready to 6 enter into — either enter into one of these 7 protective orders or say, here, take them, like 8 we've done with eve ybody else, we looked up and 9 Mr. Stettin and k said, time out. Wo havoc 20 legitimate privilege issue here. 21 And I want to be clear, we don't want 22 to come anywhere close to stepping In the mess of 23 waiving attorney/client privilege, unless and 24 until the Court tells us to, end f want to also 25 be clear, we wish we weren't hero. Wo would hit n 1 MR. LICHTMAN: Qtask La nut pint of this 2 equation as of rigid now. Now, it may bo, cud Nero 3 still trying to get that. I'm just talking about 4 internal c-malls where we would put ins name search, 5 give it to the Berkowitz ram and sq.run an e-mall 6 search on the following names. 7 And when we realized the volume of 8 work, and you can imagine, you know, Ile from a 9 ream of payer, 500 sheets of paper, and you 10 multiply that out raid you get to 12 roams of that 11 paper, takes up a lot of paper, it takes up a 12 tremendous amount of time. This Is not en =set 13 of the estate that we can, if we have to, warrant 14 doing the work, the hard work, as we've done on 15 many of the other claims, some of which already 16 are before you for settlement purposes. This is 17 a liability to the estate and an expensive one. 18 So wo really didn't went to go through 19 the undertaking of having to protect the 20 privilege, though wo would, and candidly, 21 Epstein's counsel has said we'll pay you to do 22 it, but then there's also the manpower issue 23 bemuse wo era pressed very bard to get certain 24 adverse:los moving as quickly as we can and we're 25 fighting a lot of battles on a lot of different 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 IS 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Trot 25 prefer not to have a fight on any of this stuff and on one hand, we don't care who does the privilege log and who gets the documents, and on the other hand, because of some things that Mr. Schtrerjust commented on, that I learned literally today, and because of the common Interest agreement that everybody knows we have with Mr. Scherer and the committee, in some respects, !don't think h prudent for rat to discuss why I would want to look at some of those documents. But be that as it may, we found that there were 6,000 smalls and this was the one time that rather than go through the usual protocol of preparing the stipulated protective order that is effectively a mirror Image of that which is provided by Federal Rule of Evidence 502, we said there is a need for a real privilege log here. There aro 6,000 e-mails, give or take, and we quickly assessed that the time to review 6,000 e-mails, this could not be done by a paralegal, it would have to bo done by a lawyer. THE COURT: Does this include Qtask or is this in addition to? 1.4*25 1 grounds, we still really don't vrant to do that 2 and also because we dont brow the Epstein case 3 well enough to be able to assess what is 4 privileged, what is not. and preparing a 5 privilege log the proper way is really a time 6 consuming mess, 7 Sol teed flap for both aides and 8 said, here's what Fm willing to do. Puking 9 aside the issue as to really whether or not the IO Court does have jurisdiction on a State Court 11 subpoena, which ultimately I leave to you, wo 12 said, were still willing to enter into a 13 modified version of the protective order that we 14 gave to you, which effectively provides the 15 additional language of no claims can be brought 16 against Mr. Stettin or the estate if we produce 17 these documents. 18 We doe't really have a tom to pick in 19 this mess, we just want to make sure that we 20 follow all of the ethical boundaries required by 21 Florida law, by rules of professional conduct. 22 We don't wish to ner'es•nrily waive somebody 23 else's privilege. We don't think that's 24 necessarily prudent, but we really don't want to 25 have a fight in this battle, end we wanted the 141,4 • ...nav e.. V • • n, 7 (Por.s2.51c 2 ) oupnErnianisiiii REPORTERS, INC. EFTA01069419 ' Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 214-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2010 Page 8 of 10 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Pap ID Court to approve — whatever It is you went as to do, to toll you the truth, were happy to do. We just want to make sure that Mr. Stettin is personally insulated and that the estate is Insulated in whatever it b — TUB COURT: All 1 see is — MR. UCHTMAN: — you direct 711E COURT: — the potraitil of a claim against Stettin and des estate for breach of the attorney/client privilege. MR. LiCliTMAN: correct. THE COURT: So the hub — MR. LICHTMAN: And hence the dilemma. THE COURT: — for the claim Is there. MR. LICHTMAN: Yeah, right, hence the dilemma. Now wo come to the issue of hard documents because the e-mails are ono thing, and 1 had a number of oonvereadons candidly with Ms. Sanchez, where I think that we had told her originally we had heard taro wore, as en example, some loan files or transaction files related to Ponzl deals milted to Mr. Epstein, because 1 renumber myself even hearing that going book many, many, many months ago. Pia 31 1 they had been counsel for LM and others in 2 litigation respecting Epstein, and that we 3 assumed that they would have been files they 4 would wort; and B, because at the dine that thls 5 matter on the subpoena temp before the State 6 Court judge, we stood outside the courtroom and 7 here's what happened. I was effectively going to S toll the State Court judge basically the same 9 story Tye told you in complete detail and say, 10 we don't really care. We just want to make sure 11 Mr. Stettin Is promoted and the estate is 12 protected. 13 And we bad reached an agreement that 14 day, which was we were going to turn over the 15 boxes to Mr. Formes firm and we wore going to 16 give e-malls to them, end they were going to do 17 the privilege log because that would save us a 18 ton of time, important time, and as important, a 19 lot of money to the estate, and we did not wish 20 to burden the creditors of the estate with legal 21 fees for putting together the privilege log, so 22 it was agreed that we would do that. 23 1, personally, reiterated the terms to 24 all the lawyers that were standing outside the 25 courtroom, as to what was to be reflected in a 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 It 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Faye 311 Suffice it to say, that 1 have conducted a very thorough discussion, without waiving our internal privileges or work product. and we can't find those, and it appears as if they really did not exist, that what had occulted is that somehow Epstein was listed on a sheet for a potential deal that non closed, hi terms of the ten boxes of dcaments, one of the function, the trustee served early on in the cue was to facilitate transfers of files — THE COURT. I remember that. MR. LICHINIAN: - from two attorneys that were }ladling oases. Al right. I had a general understanding that most of the files were picked up by the Farmer firm because they were continuing on with that litigation, and that would have made some sense, but then we had also beard that there were some boxes that ware left behind. I believe there are two boxes, I'm not positive of that, two boxes I think that we may still have, and I'm pretty sure we've sent e-mal le a couple of times to the Fanner firm saying, come get your documents, Now, why would wo do tar/ A, because 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 22 23 24 25 hp 32 I written order because I didn't want to leave it 2 to cameo as to what was agmed on. 3 Since it to say, when the lawyers for 4 Mr. Efrain and the lawyers for Mr. Edwards were 5 teak to try to reduce to writing that which was 6 In part agreed upon outside the courtroom, they 7 were unabk to do so, and that teed up the filing 8 of the motion before you to compel us to produce 9 the a-malls and the documents. wish to reiterate, 1 think that 1 Mr. Scherer has shared something with me that we 2 need to investigate and will, and I was assure 3 of that literally until I rode up the elevator 4 with him this morning. And 1 don't wish to spend 5 more time ou It thm that right now, but I take 6 him at his word because an awful lot of what I've 7 seen him work on so far has borne fruit. I don't care what you want us to do. 9 All I want to know is that at the end 1 can walk 0 out of court with an order that protects the 1 estate and protects Mr. Stettin. So I have told you the story and leave it to you to fluke° what remedy you think appropriate. If I can answer any questions, rm happy 8 (Page.29 to 32 OUELLETTE le MA REPORTERS, INC. EFTA01069420 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 214-3 Entered on FLED Docket 09/02/2010 Page 9 of 10 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 :1 :2 13 :4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 hot 33 11413 COURT: Well, the trustee knows what the trustee has, obviously. MR. LICHTMAN; Yes. THE COURT: So the trustee Is capable of preparing a log °Isabel he has. MR. L1CH'TMAN: Meaning we have the following data. THE COURT: Yes. MR. LICHIMAN: Yes, wo can do that. THE COURT: Then the parties can than argue whether or not that is subject to privilege. The plaintiff can still get from Mr, Fenner and his clients in the State Cowt discovery. The discovery being sought bete D from the trustee — MR. L1CJITMAN: Comet THE COURT: — and would be subject to the trustees responsibility for the privilege log because of his potential liability. MR. LICHTMAN: Yes, and I think you understand, though, why If we can somehow deflect that responsibility, because of the extreme amount of cost and time to do that, we would be happy to do that because, you know, otherwise, we submit the petitions that show a nemer.dous amount of time on something that doesn't produce an asset to the rasa MR. FARMER: Yes, your Honor. Just vay 2 briefly. I thank you for the opportunity to address 3 the Court again. 1 just wanted to clear something 4 up, your Honor. Understand that when this all 5 happened, there were six of us now who ma partners, 6 who had dozens and dozens of omgolog cases. 7 THE COURT: I remember we held hearings and 8 1 authorized the truetee 9 MR. EARNIBRi And you authorized, yet 10 111B COURT: to deliver the information 11 so the lawyers could continue to represent the 12 clients. 13 MR. FARMER: h just seemed to be maybe 14 suggested hero today that something untoward <mewed 15 as far es the moon' of these boxes. Those WON 16 litigation files, pleadings, Invesilgaive reports, 17 all of thao things. 18 So we needed to get on with those 19 ones, but I think you've heard now from the 20 trustee that this trot en asset and it Ss an 21 expense. I still thick that we me the paw who 22 should prepare this privilege log• We are most 23 familiar — 24 THE COURT: Weill, no, if I appoint a 25 imolai nook; you will have an input into that Aze 1 estate, just a liability. 2 THE COURT: Right. This is not an asset of 3 the stab. 4 MR. L1CHTMAN: No, ifa.hat 5 THE COURT: But could he a substantial 6 liability. 7 MR. LICHTMAN: Hence the diltaurus 8 THE COURT: Well, I can appoint a special 9 master to do it at the expense of the movant end not 10 release the information until the special master 11 reports back to me and I authorise the release. 12 What 1 propose to do by my authorizing 13 the release — I'm sorry, Stettin, as trustee, to 14 release the information, I would, therefore, be 15 protecting the estate from any claims for the 16 release of that i aromatic°. 17 MR. LICH-MAN: We would be happy to do 18 that, your Honor, and lm; 1 don't wish to speak 19 for the Epstein lawyers, they actually offered to pay 20 time for us doing that, and 1 said, well, you know, 21 that's pert of the equation, the other port Is — 22 THE COURT: No, no, no, I can appoint a 23 special master. 24 MR. L1CHTMAN: Yee. 25 THE COURT: All right. Mr. Farmer, 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 I 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 rep 36 special molter and you'll have an opportunity to be heard before me before I authorize the release of the Information, beams ultimately the order that's going to authorize the release of the information is going to provide protection to the tmsteo and the estate. MR. FARMER: And, thank you, Judge, I Jost wanted to make sure, and 1 was going to request, that we have an opportunity to review whatever the master does and if we think they've salad a privilege or are wrong In an assertion, that we have an opportuniV to address that. THE COURT: There is going to be a hearing before the information gets released. MR. FARMER: Understood. Thank you, your Honor. THE COURT: All right. Mr. Liehmuln LICHIMAN: Yen. THE COURT: — I watt you to prepare the order. I'm going to continua the hearing on the two motions, Docket Entry 807 and 819, and I'm going to have you draft en order appointing a special master, the expense of which will be borne by the Epstein movaots. The 'pedal master will meet with both skies, Epstein and Edwards, and then with the 9 Vasa 33 to 36) 002.1.flITE & MA Ith.Pos CTRS, INC. EFTA01069421 ' Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 214-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2010 Page 10 of 10 Par 37 Pisan1 1 mulct, and will prepare a privilege legi t* 1 2 release of which will be noticed for hearing in front 2 3 of me. 3 CERTIPICAllON 4 MR. LICHTMAN: Do I pick the special roaster 4 5 or do you? 5 STATE OF FLORIDA: 6 THB COURT: You eau-- If you all can — 1 6 COUNTY OF DADE: 7 7 hate to use the word woe, but if you all can agree, 3 1, Margaret Franzen, Shorthanel Repoeter 8 that's fine. If you cant give me thee eeilieS 9 end Notary Public in and for the Stale of Heads 9 to choose from. 10 at Largo, do hereby certify that the Beeping 10 MR. LICHTMAN: Okay 11 proceedings were taken before rue lathe date and 11 THE COURT: You're going to have to check 12 place as natal In the caption hereto on Page I; 12 with this, quote, "special master" to make sure they 13 that the foregoing amperes-aided transcription Is 13 have the lime to review the privative log. 14 strut record of my stenagrepWo noes taken at geld 14 MR. LICHTMAN: The documents. 15 prceocefings. 15 THE COURT: And it has to be somebody that 16 WITNESS my laud this 5th day of 16 doesn't have a conflict of Interest. 17 August, 2010. 17 MR. LICHTMAN: Right. Okay. IS 19 IS THE COURT: All right. Run the order by 20 19 Mr. Neiwitth sad Mr. Partner. Margaret Franzen 20 MR. LICHTMAN: Thank you. 21 Court Reporter and Notary Public 21 MR. FARMER: Thank you, your Honor. in and for the State of Florida at Mega 22 MR. NEINVIFtTH: Your Honor, may it please 22 My Controls:Mon P4Ires: April 14, 2014 23 the Court7 23 24 THE COURT: Yee. 24 25 MR. NBIWIRTH: Can we say something about 25 tait 34 1 the time frame because as we sit here right now we 2 still have a Mal coming in October. 3 THE COURT: Well, I understand thut, but 1 4 probably have between five and 6,000 active cases 5 right now and within the Rothstein ease, I don't even 6 know how many adversaries and contested matters are 7 pending. 1111 get to it as soon as t can. s B ot you can proceed to obtain the 9 in Comedian from Edwards and LM in the State 0 Court proceeding. All Pm governing Is what the I trustee is going to Meese from the debtor 2 estate. 3 All right. Mr. Lichtroso, see to the 4 order. 5 MR. EDWARDS: Thank you, your Honor. 6 MR. FARMER.: Thank you fur yew time, your 7 Honor. 8 MR. NEIWIRTH: Thank you, Judge. 9 (T)rernsupor4 the hearing was concluded) 20 21 22 23 24 25 . - 10 (Pages 37 Co 39) °mums & Masi* R13PORTERS, INC EFTA01069422 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 214-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2010 Page 1 of 3 Case 09-34791 -RBR Doc 888 Filed 08/13/10 Pagel of 3 ORDERED In the Southern District of Florida on Raymond B. Ray, Judge United status Bankruptcy Court UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT LAUDERDALE DIVLSION www.flsbuscourtssov IN RE: ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER, P.A., CHAVIER 11 Debtor. ORDER RESPECTING PRODUCTION OF pOCUMTNIS aEGARDING JEFFREY EPSTEIN MIS CAUSE came before the Court fbr hearing on August 4, 2010 upon (i) Motion to Compel Production of Documents from Trustee Pursuant to Document Production Protocol, as established by D.E. #672 (D.E. 47307); (11) Motion for Protective Order filed by Interested Party Parma, Jaffe, Waissing, Edwards, lentos sod Lehrman, P.L. ("Pawner, Jaffe") (D.E. itsis) and its related amendment (D.E. #819). The Court heard argument of au cowtscl present at the bearing, and being otherwise duly advised In the promises, CASE NO.: 09.34791-RER EFTA01069423 Case 9:08-cv-80893•KAM Document 214-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2010 Page 2 of 3 Case 09-3479141BR Doc 888 Flied 08/13/10 Page 2 of 3 DOES HEREBY ORDER: I. The Court appoints former fireweed County Circuit Judge Robert Carney as Special Master who shall work with counsel for the Trustee to obtain documents responsive to the subpoena served upon the Ttustee by feffrey Epstein to: (i) review all electroakelly stored information ("EST) and other documents in the Trustee's possession, including Qtask data for purposes of determining the applicability of the attorney/client and work product privileges that may inure to the benefit of L.M., Brad Edwards, and other current or former clients of Farmer, Jaffe; (ii) segregate any such privileged documents: and (iii) prepare a privilege log in accordance with standard practice and law. 2. Prior to engaging in this document review, the Special Muter shall meet with counsel for Epsteiu, counsel for Farmer, Jaffe and counsel for the Trustee to bear their respective positions concerning these matters. Upon completion of the review by the Special Muter, the Special Master shall prepare and file a privilege log with the Court. No documents or BSI shall be released to anyone until such lime as the Special Master has notified the Court that he has concluded his review of the responsive documents and is in a position to report to the Court his findings and to obtain further Instruction, Upon the filing of such notice by the Special Master, the Court shall set a continued hearing On the pending motions identified above. AU legal fees and COsill incurred by the Special Master shall be paid by Epstein, who has agreed to pay directly all such foes and costs. #111 2 EFTA01069424 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 214-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2010 Page 3 of 3 Casa 09-34791-FtBR Doc 838 Flied 08/1W10 Pegs 3 of 3 5ubmine4 by: Charles H. Lichtrnau, Esq. B/3RGER S1NGERMAN, PA, 350 East Las Olaf Boulevard, Suite 1000 Pat Laud a 3 1 Telephone: . . to ern Copy furnished to: Charles H. Lichiman, Esq. (Charles IL Lichtotan is directed to serve this Order to all parties of mitres and to file a Certificate of Service.) 3 EFTA01069425 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 207-1 Entered on FLSD Do..,Ket 07/19/2010 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-C1V- 80893 — MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendants. Order Adopting and Entering Joint Stipulation This matter came before the Court on Plaintiff, Jane Doe, and Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein's Joint Stipulation, and counsel being in agreement with the entry of the Stipulation, it is HEREBY ORDERED and ADJUDGED that: 1. The Joint Stipulation is hereby Adopted and Entered. 2. Without in any way altering the obligations set forth in the Addenda to Settlement Agreements entered into in the above-styled matter and in the matters of vs. Epstein, CASE NO. 502008 CA028051 XXXXMB AB and ■. vs. Epstein, CASE NO. 502008 CA028058 XXXXMB AB, Counsel may wish to use the Correspondence in pending cases of Epstein v. Rothstein, CASE NO. 502009CA040800XXXXMB AG and In Re: Jane Does 1 and 2, CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON. If Counsel (or Mr. Edwards as a Defendant in the Epstein v. Rothstein case) desires to file, use or disclose the Correspondence or contents thereof to anyone, Counsel agrees that prior to using any of the Correspondence in these proceedings or prior to providing or making the Correspondence available to anyone else, that they will provide seven (7) days notice to EFTA01069426 Case £:08-cv-80893-KAM L.ocument 207-1 Entered on F LSD Du„net 07/19/2010 Page 2 of 2 Epstein's counsel (Robert D. Critton, Jr. at and Michael J. Pike at of their intent to use or provide the Correspondence or in the alternative, file the Correspondence under seal. 3. If Epstein chooses to serve an objection based on a claim that the Correspondence should remain confidential, his objection must be served within seven (7) days from the date of the notice, If Epstein does serve an objection, Counsel (or Mr. Edwards as a defendant) will not file (unless filed under seal) nor disclose the Correspondence to the public or third parties until the court has ruled on the objection. However, Counsel (or Mr. Edwards as a defendant) may file the Correspondence under seal or provide the Correspondence to the court for an in camera inspection if any objection is made such that the court is in a position to rule on the objection. DONE and ORDERED this day of Courtesy Copies: Judge Kenneth Marra Counsel of Record , 2010. Linnea R. Johnson United States Magistrate Judge EFTA01069427