DS9 Document EFTA01082923

1 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 JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff, vs. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT, 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: 50 2009 CA 040800XXXXMBAG SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, And L.M., individually, Defendants. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * HEARING BEFORE: HONORABLE DAVID F. CROW DATE TAKEN: July 13, 2011 TIME: 10:34 a.m. to 4:45 p.m. PLACE: Palm Beach County Courthouse 205 N. Dixie Highway, Room 9C West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 REPORTED BY: Kathleen M. Ames, RPR ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01082923 2 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 APPEARANCE S: JOSEPH L. ACKERMAN, JR., ESQUIRE CHRISTOPHER KNIGHT, ESQUIRE OF: FOWLER, WHITE, BURNETT, P.A. 901 Phillips Point West 777 S. Flagler Drive West Palm Beach, Florida 33401-6170 MARTIN WEINBERG, ESQUIRE OF: MARTIN WEINBERG, P.C. 20 Park Plaza, Ste. 1000 Boston, Massachusetts 02116 JACK A. GOLDBERGER, ESQUIRE OF: ATTERBURY, GOLDBERGER & WEISS, P.A. One Clearlake Centre, Ste. 1400 250 Australian Avenue South West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF JACK SCAROLA, ESQUIRE OF: SEARCY, DENNEY, SCAROLA, BARNHART & SHIPLEY, P.A. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 APPEARING ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT, EDWARDS ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01082924 3 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 MR. SCAROLA: Good morning, Your Honor. MR. KNIGHT: Good morning, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. We're here on Epstein versus Rothstein, et al. I want to thank the party that sent me the whole list of motions and I appreciate it very much. And I did have a chance to go through most of the stuff and, quite frankly, it's kind of hard to get my arms around this. There is a lot to do. My thoughts is to first kind of set-up a schedule to determine where we should go today in terms of starting in one place and where we're going to go. And seems to me the first place to start is try to get the pleadings in order, in terms of the motions that are pending that have not been ruled on. Then I would like to find out, I mean, I read the, at least, the interim report from Judge Carney. Is it Judge Carney? And I want to find out what the status of all of that is. And then I guess the best way to proceed, unless somebody has a better alternative, is to start with the motions in some type of chronological order. But before that, to kind of get an opening from both sides as to where they feel or why they feel these various issues should be decided in their favor. I know they are varied but just to give me some general background in terms of the case. Having said that then, unless somebody has a better alternative, I would like to start with there is a pending ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01082925 4 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 motion to dismiss on the, I guess, it's the second amended complaint. MR. ACKERMAN: It's the amended complaint, be the second complaint. THE COURT: Which I've read in detail the motion. Also, I think, pending is still the motion for punitive damages in regard to the counterclaim and I don't think there is any other motions pending in regard to the pleadings, are there? MR. SCAROLA: There are not, sir, no. THE COURT: Okay. I mean, I think I'm here to talk about all of those so why don't we start with the motion to dismiss because that kind of gets the thing rolling so start there. It's your motion, Mr. Scarola. MR. SCAROLA: Thank you, Your Honor. With the Court's permission, may I address the Court from a seated position today? THE COURT: Yes, I prefer you do that. MR. SCAROLA: Thank you. Your Honor, this case started out with a thirty page, seventy-nine paragraph, five count complaint that read more like a press release than a legal pleading. And was the source of substantial procedural difficulty, as a consequence of the imprecision with which an effort was made to embroil Bradley Edwards in the Rothstein Ponzi scheme. We have moved from that ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01082926 5 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 massive effuse press release to what is now a nine page, single count abuse of process case. The state civil remedy for criminal practices count gone. The state RICCO claim gone. The fraud claim gone. The conspiracy claim gone. And a whole new abusive process claim has now been asserted very different from what we were looking at previously. Indeed, the only allegation that attempts to associate Bradley Edwards with anything having to do with Rothstein is a claim that appears in Paragraph 20, which says, essentially, because so many RRA personnel, Rothstein, Rosenfeldt, Adler personnel, were involved in the prosecutions of what were, obviously, very meritorious claims on behalf of the child victims of Mr. Epstein's criminal molestations, because so many RRA personnel were involved in the prosecution Edward, quote, "knew or reasonably should have known that his, Epstein's case files, were being shown and touted to investors." Now, no allegation that he knew or reasonably should have known that they were part of a Ponzi scheme but on the non sequitur assertion that because there were a lot of people involved in these very important, very big cases. Mr. Edwards knew or reasonably should have known that someone was trying to attract investors to fund the prosecution of these claims. The first element of a motion to dismiss relating to that ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01082927 6 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 allegation is so what. A law firm has every right to raise funds to prosecute legitimate claims on behalf of its clients. And if all Bradley Edwards knew, which he didn't, but we must take the allegations of the complaint as true, if all he knew was, because there were a lot of people involved in the prosecution of these claims, he must have known that his files were being shown to and touted to investors, that, certainly, can't form the basis of any cause of action. Let's take a look at what this complaint says Bradley Edwards did that constituted abuse of process. THE COURT: Let me just say off the top here that I have one problem with the complaint because it lumps defendants together in numerous allegations without differentiating as to any of the defendants which one did what, if any, or all did. MR. SCAROLA: Your Honor has anticipated one of the points that I would make and that, clearly, is one. But even assuming that all the defendants did all of the things that are claimed to have been done by the defendants, plural, let's take a look at what they say Bradley Edwards did. In the introductory paragraph they say that he is liable for abuse of process because of four things. One, he engaged in unreasonable and vexatious discovery within the context of claims that are never ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01082928 7 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 asserted to have been anything other than legitimate claims. So one is unreasonable and vexatious discovery in the introductory paragraph not specified in any way. The second is making unfounded allegations in his lawsuits on behalf of his clients who had legitimate claims. The third is using improper investigative tools. And the fourth, interfering with a non-prosecution agreement. Now, of those four generally described elements of wrongful conduct, the only category that could possibly involve process, which means the filing of a complaint, the filing of an answer to a complaint, the filing of some pleading or a subpoena. The only category that could encompass abuse of process arguably could be engaging in unreasonable and vexatious discovery. And we're going to look at what they claim the unreasonable and vexatious discovery was in just a moment. We know from Paragraph 17 that the claims were not initiated while Mr. Edwards was an employee of RRA. Paragraph 17 tells us that he brought these legitimate cases, settled for very large sums of money voluntarily by the plaintiff. He brought those claims with him to the law firm. So it's not the filing of the claims themselves that's anywhere alleged to have been an abuse of process. ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01082929 8 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 They don't make that claim. Paragraph 27 says the defendants embarked a scheme to interfere with the non-prosecution agreement, quote, "for the purpose of upping the stakes of the litigation." Now, the non-prosecution agreement is the agreement that Mr. Epstein entered into with the federal government that allowed him, what we and our clients, or Mr. Edwards' clients contend, was an improper and sweetheart deal. But attempting to challenge unsuccessfully, at least thus far unsuccessfully, a non-prosecution agreement on the basis that the victims had a right under federal law to be consulted regarding that agreement, which right was never afforded to them. Attempting to challenge a non-prosecution agreement could not possibly be abuse of process. And to the extent that there might be some assertion that this was tortious interference in an advantageous business relationship, the law is very clear, and I'm prepared to cite the cases to Your Honor, if it's necessary. I don't know that this is going to be challenged. That unsuccessful interference is not actionable interference. A case calling Scheller versus American Medical International. So the allegations about the non-prosecution agreement, I suggest, are an absolute nullity. They can't constitute an abuse of process. ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01082930 9 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 Let's go on to Paragraph 29, because that's where presumably an effort is made to set out what the unreasonable and vexatious discovery is. Paragraph 29, Sub-paragraph One talks about asking three airplane pilots inflammatory questions during the course of the depositions of those airplane pilots. Asking questions is not an abuse of process. Asking airplane pilot questions cannot possibly have a causal connection to the damage that is alleged by Mr. Epstein in this case. Curiously the damages have also changed dramatically. We are now told that the damages constitute fees and costs incurred in the underlying litigation, any claim for which was released in the underlying litigation. We will ask the Court to take judicial notice of the orders of dismissal of the three underlying claims, which require the parties to those cases to bear their own attorney's fees and costs. Mr. Epstein, having stipulated as part of the settlement that he was going to bear his own fees and costs, cannot claim as damages, in this case, fees and costs incurred in the underlying litigation, if they could possibly form the basis of any claim of liability in light of the broad litigation privilege that exists in the state of Florida. Let me address that very briefly. If I may approach the bench, I want to provide the Court with a copy of the Florida Supreme Court decision in Echevarria, ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01082931 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 E-C-H-E-V-A-R-R-I-A, vs. Echevarria. That is the most recent Florida Supreme Court decision addressing the litigation privilege. It contains an excellent discussion of the Court's view of the scope of that privilege. And upon review of that case Your Honor will find that the Supreme Court has clearly and unequivocally held that conduct that occurs in the course of litigation is covered by the absolute litigation privilege. The Court finds, as a matter of public policy, that it would be inappropriate to allow the assertion of independant claims for conduct that occurs within the course and scope of litigation. That there are other available remedies, including ethics complaints against lawyers involved in such conduct, including contempt proceedings and the imposition of sanctions, which appropriately can control that conduct. And allowing the assertion of claims in independant actions for conduct that occurs in the course and scope of litigation would have an inappropriate and improper chilling effect. So in light of that broad privilege, anything and everything that is asserted to have occurred in the context of the underlying claims, such as asking three airplane pilots inflammatory questions, first of all, does not involve an abuse of process. And, secondly, is privileged conduct. ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01082932 11 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 Next paragraph, Sub-paragraph Two of Paragraph 29. Notifying Epstein of an intent to depose his high-profile friends. THE COURT: Let me just ask you, I've not read, quite frankly, the Echevarria case but does it still stand for the proposition that for there to be a litigation privilege it must be related to the legal proceeding itself? MR. SCAROLA: Yes, sir. THE COURT: It can't be something like -- okay. MR. SCAROLA: If I were to issue a subpoena to Mr. Edwards for the sole purpose of causing him to miss an important business appointment where he was going to make a lot of money and I'm requiring him to be in Court with no legitimate connection whatsoever to the litigation that's involved, that could constitute an abuse of process. One of the elements clearly is that it must be related to the litigation. But any conduct that occurs in relation to the litigation is conduct that is protected by an absolute privilege. There is a discussion of the Levin, Middlebrooks case where the Supreme Court makes clear that we're not just talking about statements made in the context of litigation but all tortious conduct that may be alleged. So it's a very broad privilege. It covers exactly the kind of ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01082933 12 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 conduct that is alleged to have occurred here in Paragraph One, which isn't conduct involving process in any case. Paragraph 29, Two, notifying Epstein of an intent to depose his high-profile friends. Telling somebody I'm going to depose your friends isn't process. Issuing a subpoena is process. Serving the subpoena is process. Notifying somebody that you're going to depose his friends, that's not process. Asking Epstein outrageous questions in his deposition, Sub-paragraph number Three, that's not process. Sub-paragraph Four, requesting records from the federal government regarding communications between the government and Epstein lawyers. This is where the tortious interference with the non-prosecution agreement is alleged to have occurred because requests are made to find out about communications between Epstein and the federal government with regard to the very criminal activity that forms the basis of the civil lawsuits that Mr. Edwards is legitimately prosecuting on behalf of the child victims of Mr. Epstein's criminal activity, clearly, could not constitute abuse of process. Paragraph Five, quite frankly, I just don't understand. Paragraph 29, Five, reads the representative of the trustee for RRA's bankruptcy stated that there are ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01082934 13 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 thousands of documents involving RRA's employees and government officials, including state and federal law enforcement authorities relating to Epstein. What does that mean in the context of this abuse of conduct claim against Bradley Edwards? It just doesn't make any sense. I can't respond to it because I clearly don't understand it. Six is requesting records from Dr. Bard who it is claimed didn't treat Mr. Epstein. Well, okay, so what. I guess one way to find out whether he treated Mr. Epstein is to subpoena any records that he has about Mr. Epstein. Subpoenaing records from a physician is not an abuse of process outside the scope of the litigation privilege. Paragraph Seven, filing a second amended complaint alleging Epstein forced III. to engage in oral sex. Part of the litigation privilege clearly. Attempting to depose celebrity airplane passengers. Clearly, within the course and scope of the litigation privilege in the absence of any allegation that this was entirely unrelated to the prosecution of the claims against Mr. Epstein, which allegation appears nowhere. No such allegation appears anywhere. Nine, directing third-party subpoenas be used to obtain Epstein's prescriptions from pharmacies. Now, it doesn't say that the third-party subpoenas are ever ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01082935 14 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 issued but if we can infer that they were, this is conduct that clearly falls within the scope of the litigation privilege. Paragraph 30 says that the defendants trespassed on Epstein's property and conducted surveillance of him. Now, without getting into the truthfulness of those allegations which must be taken as true, if the defendants trespassed on Mr. Epstein's property, then there may be a cause of action for trespass. There is no cause of action for abuse of process because somebody trespasses on your property. There is no cause of action for abuse of process because somebody decides that they are going to surveil you. Paragraph 31 says that Mr. Edwards tried to plead a RICCO claim. So what. And Paragraph 32 says that he tried to freeze Mr. Epstein's assets. So what. That does not constitute abuse of process and to the extent it might be characterized as a use of process in the context of the litigation on behalf of his child victims of Mr. Epstein's repeated extensive criminal activity, it is covered by the litigation privilege. There are three elements of damage that are alleged. Fees and costs in the underlying litigation, which cannot constitute damages in this case. And the installation of an enhanced security system, which presumably may have some ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01082936 15 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 causal connection to the trespass on Epstein's property and the conducted surveillance of him, but, certainly, has nothing to do with any abuse of process. And the retention of security personnel for Mr. Epstein's personal safety and to protect his property. Now, there is no possible causal connection between the alleged and privileged litigation misconduct and Mr. Epstein's desire for privacy. Another significant problem that this complaint faces is that Mr. Epstein seeks to assert these claims by way of an amended complaint when he has repeatedly and persistently refused to provide any relevant or material discovery as a consequence of the assertion of his Fifth Amendment privilege. We have previously cited to Your Honor a number of cases, a substantial body of case law relating to the sword/shield doctrine. Mr. Epstein is seeking affirmative relief. I don't challenge the validity of his assertion of Fifth Amendment privilege. There is no doubt in my mind that he faces the potential of additional criminal prosecution. There are new claims that Mr. Edwards himself has placed the defendants on notice that he is about to file so there is no doubt about the fact that Mr. Epstein faces additional potential criminal liability and has a right to assert his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. But the case law is absolutely clear he cannot come to this Court, sue Bradley ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01082937 16 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 Edwards and continue to assert his Fifth Amendment right as to matters that are relevant and material to the claims that he is attempting to prosecute. For, for all of those reasons, and if the applicability of the sword/shield doctrine is in any way challenged, I'll address that in my response. I don't know how it can be. But for all of those reasons this is a complaint, an amended complaint which can, should and finally must be released. It must be dismissed. Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Just one second. Let me read something here. MR. SCAROLA: The motion to dismiss reaches those arguments through the incorporation of all of the arguments in the summary judgment. THE COURT: You must be some kind of psychic. MR. SCAROLA: I anticipated that is where the Court was going. The motion to dismiss, Your Honor, expressly incorporates the arguments that were made during the summary judgment hearing. And, clearly, one of the principal arguments that was made in the summary judgment hearing was an argument with regard to the sword/shield doctrine. I apologize for having intruded upon your thoughts. THE COURT: Go ahead. MR. KNIGHT: Your Honor, Christopher Knight on ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01082938 17 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 behalf of Jeffrey Epstein. And let me back you up as to where we are and why we are. When we came into this lawsuit there was the original complaint, which Mr. Scarola talked about and Your Honor was allowing us to move forward with discovery before we amended the complaint, which from day one we said we will be amending the complaint to plead the cause of action that we felt was appropriate. We tried to go down that angle but plaintiffs -- I mean, excuse me, the defendants asserted privilege to pretty much each and every document which we will ever be able to get our hands on. We did get some limited privilege logs, which will come up in part of my argument, which is talks about why the frivolity of this motion to dismiss. If they want to move for a motion for summary judgment on down the line if they have the facts after we get the document, that's a horse of a different color. But you asked us to -- first, let's take the discovery. Unfortunately between Mr. Rothstein not being able to be deposed, which we, of course, need to talk to Mr. Rothstein about what Mr. Edwards' involvement was, and their blanket assertion of privilege -- THE COURT: Let me back up. I don't -- I directed you to do discovery. I think I questioned why there was never a motion to dismiss to the original complaint and I said but this is the complaint we have to ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01082939 18 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 deal with. And I can't tell from reading this thing what in the world the cause of action is and it created a lot of problems in terms of what the scope of discovery was. Without knowing what you are suing for it's very difficult to figure out the scope of discovery and that's why I directed Mr. Ackerman to file an amended complaint so we would be able to focus in on what is discoverable, what isn't, what the cause of action is and that sort of thing. MR. KNIGHT: Correct. And then we went forward with what we had to date, which is a reasonable basis for abuse of process claim which has been made. The complaint on its four corners meets all the standards which are required. And these are the cases that are already cited in our briefing and the response, is the Donna Della case, which is the 4th DCA case out of 1987, and goes through the various factors, which leads to what I must give you, which is a little bit of background so that you have it. Mr. Epstein came over to the Rothstein firm with three cases. Excuse me. Mr. Edwards. Mr. Edwards came over to the Rothstein firm with three of these files. After he got to the Rothstein firm Mr. Rothstein, Mr. Edwards, and others used the cases to pump up the Ponzi scheme. The documents that we need and the privilege logs -- MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me, Your Honor, I'm sorry. THE COURT: That's not even alleged. ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01082940 19 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 MR. SCAROLA: It is not alleged. And I cannot allow counsel to make those kinds of statements in open court in the presence of the press and leave them unchallenged. That's exactly what has repeatedly gone on in this case to besmirch Mr. Edwards' reputation. THE COURT: Let me stop you. What I'm concerned about with this complaint, okay, and what concerns me is that there are allegations that the defendants did this, the defendants did this without specifying who did what to whom and why. It seems to me if you are going to sue Mr. Edwards or anyone else, for that matter, you need to be specific as to what he did or what you accuse him of before I -- I dismiss routinely complaints like this, which generically say the defendant did something without specifying who did what to whom and why. Because it does not spell out what your claims are I don't know what Mr. Rothstein did. What Mr. Edwards did. Or -- and you also say and others. Who? I don't know who they are. And the other problem I have with it, aside from, I think there are some other issues, but your prayer for damages is specific as to some things but also has that, that, that, phrase that, that we all, you know, perk up our ears on, including but not limited to, which leads me to believe there is something else there that you're claiming in terms of damages, which is not, in fact, spelled out in ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01082941 20 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 the complaint. And if there are, in fact, special damages, I think they have to be pled, as compared to general damages. So I don't know whether you're asking for and it makes a big difference, ultimately, what, what -- if we get to the point of the discovery issue -- what the defendants can get from the plaintiff and vice-versa. I mean, if you're claiming damage to reputation, lost profit, I don't know what it is you're claiming. I don't know what including but not limited to means, quite frankly. MR. KNIGHT: Your Honor, let me break these down. THE COURT: Okay. MR. KNIGHT: You brought up the subject early on about lumping the defendants together and there was an early paragraph which did so. The Paragraph 29, which Mr. Scarola went through, is going through allegations relative to Mr. Edwards and if it needs to be divided out relative to Rothstein and Edwards, we will do so as it relates to damages. The law under abusive process is even nominal damages are enough to survive for a cause of -- THE COURT: Don't misunderstand, Counsel, I don't disagree with that proposition that you allege damages that you claim are a result of this. What I'm concerned about is you have thrown in the kitchen sink in that, which is included not limited, does that mean you're claiming other damages or not claiming other damages? I don't know what ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01082942 21 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 that means. MR. KNIGHT: At this time we're claiming the three areas of specified damages which we went into but the reason that catch-all is in there it goes back to this whole issue relative to the documents that we have been unable to receive. We believe that there will be other damages that maybe would be asserted at that time. If Your Honor is saying what he would rather have us do is once we get the documents, amend again, I fully understand. We can do so. But at the same time we don't want to be precluded from being able to move forward with our cause of action. The abuse of process cause of action is spelled out in all four corners under the Della Donna decision and, also, the SCI Funeral comments relevant to it, which have been provided in the earlier briefings. Here at the motion to dismiss stage that is where we, that's what the Court needs to look at, as we have discussed. The areas relative to litigation privilege, which Mr. Scarola went at length into, deals with tortious interference causes of action and do not deal with abuse of process. It would be nonsensical for abuse of process to have a privilege because, therefore, you will never be able to bring a cause of action for abuse of process. THE COURT: Let me disagree with you. I think that the litigation privilege would go to any process ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01082943 22 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 served in the litigation that's relevant to the litigation. It doesn't give you the right to go out and subpoena the president of the United States in a case just to get, for some reason, unrelated to the purposes of the litigation. So, I mean, there is, I read these cases. Unless this has changed the law. At least, it allows abuse of process in civil litigation if, in fact, the processes are not for a legitimate purpose. MR. KNIGHT: If the unrelated areas are -- THE COURT: His point was how can these be illegitimate, I think is what his point was. MR. KNIGHT: If that's his point but what I was taking he was using the cases of tortious interference. THE COURT: I don't think it matters what tort it is. I think the litigation privilege applies whether it's libel, slander, tortious interference, you know, abuse of process, malicious prosecution, all of those there is a litigation privilege associated with that. And it's a natural privilege. That's how I understand the law. I may be misquoting it but that's what I understood the law is. MR. KNIGHT: Understood. And the allegations which are in Paragraph 29 go into some of those areas which are outside, including Mr. Edwards' own deposition. I mean, in his lawsuit, his clients were never on these ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01082944 23 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 airplanes yet they went forward and took the depositions of these pilots, et cetera, on the airplane causing excess fees. And really what this was being used for is to be able to gain information which could be used in the underlying promotion in the Rothstein cases. And that's why I brought it up earlier when I was interrupted by Mr. Scarola. It is relevant to what we're talking about today. This is a matter where Mr. Edwards' deposition said I had very little contact with Mr. Rothstein. But at the same time we learn once we get to the privilege log and also the only time he dealt with Mr. Jenny was when Mr. Jenny, who is the investigator approached him, that they are claiming privilege related to, we counted it up, dealing with eighteen to twenty attorneys, nine paralegals, plus investigators. MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me, Your Honor, I thought we were arguing the motion to dismiss and not the privilege issue. MR. ACKERMAN: I am. But Your Honor's specific question -- I would ask Mr. Scarola to hold his arguments -- but Your Honor's specific question dealt with what are these areas which are outside of the tort or whatever is being sued on. And if those are being done for some purpose other than the underlying litigation, which were the III. and the Jane Doe and III. cases here, then ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01082945 24 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 that is abuse of process. This is at the point of allegations without us being able to get discovery. The allegations we have put into Paragraph 29 in specificity, especially, when you get into Paragraph Four under, under 29, which deals with Mr. Edwards going to the Court relative to what should be something relating to the three lawsuits that he has, when what it really is undermine the non-prosecution agreement. Why is that relevant to abuse of process? Well, all that is being used for is to find a way to ramp up our client relative to other worries, which are unrelated to the prosecution of those individual victim cases so that he ends up having to be in a situation where he has to pay exorbitant dollars, which otherwise would multiply what the amount of the actual value of those underlying cases otherwise would be. The complaint itself goes through all that is required under Della Donna. THE COURT: I presume in those underlying cases there were claims of punitive damages; is that correct. MR. KNIGHT: There are claims of punitive damages, correct. THE COURT: Okay. MR. KNIGHT: By the same thing, even looking into that, the efforts to freeze assets, things like that. There was no indication at any point that Mr. Epstein would be unable to cover whatever the compensatory damages and, ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01082946 25 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 if punitive damages were ever to be allowed, any type of punitive award. All of this was done to ramp up these cases outside of these three, which were the ones that Mr. Rothstein, and as we get through discovery, we believe Mr. Edwards were using to sell to the various investors to ramp up the Ponzi scheme. They are tied together. They are in the same firm. These are the lawsuits that were used when the various investors came into the office with Mr. Rothstein. Mr. Edwards is claiming, I believe, that I had no idea that this was going on with my lawsuits. Although, we know in the privilege log they're claiming that he's dealing with the eighteen to twenty attorneys, the nine paralegals and the investigators. They just don't add up both ways. But relative to what we're here on today, the motion to dismiss, this amended complaint does plead a cause of action under Florida law. If Your Honor wants us to go back and plead with more specificity relative to where we put in defendants, we will do so. I would suggest it would be better for us to be able to get the discovery. And the reason we have so many people here is we have Mr. Weinberg here to represent -- to talk about privilege issues. Mr. Ackerman to talk about various issues that may come up, including sword and shield. Get to those so that we don't constantly have to be coming back to the Court. ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01082947 26 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 This complaint does plead a cause of action under Florida law and the motion to dismiss should be denied. Thank you. THE COURT: Speak to the fact that some of these things I, I mean, I understand how, even though they ask you, the question in and of itself may not be abuse of process. The actual subpoenaing somebody and then asking of the questions may be abuse of process, at least, in my view. If, in fact, the only purpose of doing that is to, like you have alleged here, to somehow or another for illegal purposes or for improper purposes. But there are some of these things that you've alleged here I don't know how ever could be abuse of process. Like notifying somebody that they intend to do something, how could that possibly be abuse of process? Or saying -- or how can investigation be an abuse of process, or surveillance be an abuse of process. That's not using the process of the Court for anything. Maybe I'm missing something. Or what does this mean, the representative of the trustee for RRA's bankruptcy stated there are thousands of documents involving RRA employees and government officials including state and federal law enforcement authorities relating to Epstein. What does that have to do with abuse of process? MR. KNIGHT: That one -- THE COURT: Let me finish and then you can ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01082948 27 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 respond. MR. KNIGHT: Yes, sir. THE COURT: Why is making an allegation in a -- well, I guess that could -- I can see that. Attempting to discover information. You know, it's like -- what I'm getting at do you have any case law that says abuse of process can be not actually issuing process but thinking about it or threatening it or something like that? MR. KNIGHT: The Della Donna case doesn't go into investigation. The privilege issue really comes up as an affirmative defense, Your Honor, and that's what the cases say also. THE COURT: I'm not talking about privilege. MR. KNIGHT: As it relates to these allegations, though, if some of them can be taken apart to say, well, this one could be connected back to the process, i.e. the pilots being deposed, et cetera, and the other one is more flavor for the complaint. But to be able to spell out this complaint so the Court can understand where we're eventually going, because we haven't had these documents, I think putting that into the pleadings is the correct thing to do so that the Court can understand the complexity of this and what's involved and why we need to find out more so that we can get into the specifics. Clearly, we have enough for abuse of process. Whether or not some of these ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01082949 28 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 individual paragraphs would not survive or individual sub-part As or Bs, you may be correct. But I think the Court needs that in the amended complaint to get the overall flavor of what the abuse of process cause of action is. THE COURT: That may be. But what you've, you've alleged these as specific acts of abuse, though. You don't allege this as some kind of background or context or something like that. MR. KNIGHT: And we did -- we allege it but I understand Your Honor's point saying how is that connected to the process because they did go forward and actually -- THE COURT: It says -- MR. KNIGHT: -- they didn't serve the celebrities they just threatened to serve the celebrities. THE COURT: I'm just reading what you said. This is not my words. It says the defendants made illegal, improper and perverted use of the process by utilizing unreasonable discoveries, unnecessary discovery, or threatening to take discovery and then you list. And some of these it seems to me are not actionable as a matter of law, the way you've pled it anyway. I mean, maybe -- MR. KNIGHT: I think Your Honor's point is that it should have been more to the general allegations of the preamble rather than the specifics. ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01082950 29 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 THE COURT: I'm also concerned about the fact that you've lumped all the defendants together in one -- two defendants, I guess, together without specifying which did which. And I understand it's kind of a chicken before the egg, egg before the chicken. MR. KNIGHT: Chicken or egg or cart before the horse, Your Honor, it's all the same thing. When we look at these privilege logs we see the involvement of so many people and the Court rightfully said let's try to amend the complaint. Now, we did the best we can with the facts we have but they are still playing this we're not going to give you anything defense, which puts us, you know, in a position where certainly they should not be able to take that as an advantageous position and now say, oh, let's go ahead and dismiss this complaint and we'll still hide all of these documents from you we haven't given. Certainly, these documents, many of them are waived. Many of them are privileged on their face, et cetera. We want to know the who, the how, the when. And then there could be additional abuse of process allegations in there with more specificity but at it relates to this complaint itself, it has enough of the four corners to survive the motion to dismiss. THE COURT: Anything further? MR. SCAROLA: Yes, sir, Your Honor. What we have heard is, indeed, a cart before the horse argument. We ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01082951 30 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 filed this defective complaint because we haven't gotten the discovery that will enable us to file an appropriate complaint. You need to have the basis to sue first. And you need to state a viable cause of action first. You don't excuse obvious defects in your pleading on the basis that you haven't yet gotten the discovery that you hope is going to provide a basis for some cause of action and I don't know what it is. What Echevarria says is, quote, in the Levin case the 11th Circuit certified a question to this Court asking whether Florida's litigation privilege protects the acts of certifying to a trial Court an intent to call opposing counsel as a witness at trial in order to obtain counsel's disqualification. And later failing to subpoena and call that person as a witness from a claim of tortious interference with a business relationship. Answering in the affirmative we extended the litigation privilege to all torts finding that absolute immunity must be afforded to any act occurring during the course of the judicial proceeding, regardless of whether the act involves a defamatory statement or other tortious behavior. And here's the qualifications that Your Honor referenced earlier. So long as the act has some relation to the proceeding. There is no allegation anywhere in this amended complaint that any of these acts had no relation to the ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01082952 31 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 pending claims against Mr. Epstein, which most clearly included claims for punitive damages. And the fact that airplane pilots are not asked a single question about the particular victim in the cases being prosecuted doesn't mean that what was going on on those airplanes on a routine basis that formed part of a pattern of criminal activity on Mr. Epstein's part was not relevant and material to the punitive damage claims that were being investigated and prosecuted legitimately by Mr. Edwards. The fact that he took an aggressive, thorough approach on behalf of his clients. And took discovery reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. And there is no allegation that any of this discovery was not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence, those allegations do not appear without specifically alleging the exception recognized by the Florida Supreme Court, this complaint fails. And it is no excuse to say, maybe I'm going to find some evidence somewhere that allows me to assert some legitimate cause of action, if you allow me to proceed with discovery on a case -- on a pleading that does not state a legitimate cause of action. We start hearing again about the theory of damage that no longer appears in this complaint. That is Mr. Epstein had to pay more to settle these cases than he otherwise would have had to pay to settle these cases if Mr. Edwards ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01082953 32 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 weren't out there putting all of this pressure on him. Well, that's, that's Mr. Edwards' job to maximize the value of his client's claims by putting as much legitimate pressure on the defendant as he possibly could and he, obviously, did an extremely effective job. So this complaint clearly needs to be dismissed on all of those grounds that we have asserted. And one thing that is not addressed at all in the argument that we just heard is the sword/shield problem that they have. Now, this is an amended complaint so we know the sword/shield issue exists because we've already deposed the defendant. Excuse me. We've already deposed the plaintiff. THE COURT: Let me tell you, Mr. Scarola, I'm not going to dismiss the complaint based upon that at this stage. The reason, very simply, is that we can't really know what the sword/shield doctrine applies to until I know what the lawsuit is about. And I don't know what the lawsuit is clearly about at this point because there's certain things, obviously, that he can object to and I'm not making that determination at this point in time. I am going to dismiss the complaint with leave to amend, however. I find some serious problems with the complaint. Specifically, number one, that you have lumped together the defendants and it's not, it's not, in my view not a, not a basis to make vague allegations that are ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01082954 33 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 nonspecific to a particular defendant because you haven't gotten some privileged documents yet. Because you got to come out, if you think this gentleman, or anybody, has made, committed a tort, then you have to allege it and then you get to the discovery that you want. The abuses of process, if they occurred in this case, occurred. They're not privilege. They occurred as part of the lawsuit. Now, Mr. Edwards' involvement or lack of involvement in some alleged Ponzi -- not alleged Ponzi scheme, I guess it's a fact it's a Ponzi scheme by Mr. Rothstein, that may be subject to all of these privilege objections and how -- whether he was involved or not involved and what he did or didn't know and all of that kind of stuff. But the process was in the lawsuits. You have to know at this point in time what he did or didn't do that was an abuse of process. I don't know how you can't know at this point in time because it either, it was either calculated to do something with that litigation or it was abuse for that litigation. MR. KNIGHT: Your Honor, we will re-allege with more specificity. Thank you. THE COURT: How much time do you need? And it's been a problem with this case from day one, okay. And I know I've mentioned it several times before without ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01082955 34 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 getting, knowing what it is that we're litigating, it's very difficult to make decisions on all of these other issues you guys are talking about, including sword and shield, including privilege, including whether or not, you know, Mr. Edwards has to answer questions or Mr. Epstein has to answer questions, unless we know exactly what, number one, the claims are against -- what the abuses are. And let me back up. Some of these things the way you've alleged them, at least in my view, are not abuse of process as a matter of law. The mere threatening of doing something without doing it, I don't -- unless you get a case that says that's abuse of process, I don't see how it is. The others, I think, could be if they're alleged properly. If you're taking a deposition and asking questions in that deposition for the sole purpose of what you have alleged here or for the purpose unrelated to actually prosecuting the litigation, then I think that can be abuse of process. But the mere notifying somebody, I have trouble understanding how Paragraph Five is an abuse of process. I have trouble understanding attempting to conduct discovery. Or, I mean, some of these I just don't see how actionable. So I think you need to, to plead it more specifically. And, also, I think you need to specify. The included ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01082956 35 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 but not limited to damages doesn't cut it. If you got special damages, I think you have to plead them. Now, you can always amend, if you find out there are other damages down the line that you have not claimed. But see, one of the issues in this case is going to be what your damage claims are may have something to do with what discovery is or is not calculated to lead to admissible evidence in this case. So I'm granting the motion with leave to amend. How much time do you need? MR. KNIGHT: Thirty days, Your Honor. MR. SCAROLA: We would object to thirty days, Your Honor. This case has been going on for a very long time. This is now a single count complaint. Ten days ought to be more than adequate to get this filed. THE COURT: Well, I'm going to go ahead and give you thirty days to amend. Okay. The next issue, I guess, on the -- MR. ACKERMAN: Your Honor, I've got some blank orders on all of the motions. Do you want -- THE COURT: Well, I'm going to ask you guys to fill them out for me. It would make it easier for me. Okay. MR. ACKERMAN: Okay. THE COURT: The next one is the motion for ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01082957 36 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 punitive damages on the counterclaim, is that? MR. SCAROLA: Yes, sir. THE COURT: Let me, I don't want to take your time, Mr. Scarola, and let me tell you what I'm going to do on that. I'm going to deny the motion. I already heard an argument on it. I already read some of the materials. And here's the reason I'm denying the motion at this point, and it's without prejudice. The rule, and I think it's Rule 1.190. Is that it? Was -- yeah. 1.190, which is the rule on amended and supplemental pleadings, was amended in two thousand, I believe, 2003 pursuant to Florida Statute 768.72 to give guidance as to how you go about doing this. And the footnotes to the Civil Rules of Procedure -- and this is a problem we had before this rule came out -- cites to, it says that subsection is amended to comply with the case of Beverly, Beverly Health And Rehabilitation Services, Inc. versus Meeks. And I had been applying this case before they actually incorporated it into the rules, but that case specifically said, it set up a procedure, at least, in the Third District for motions for punitive damages. And I'll quote from paragraph -- I don't know what page it is here. But, basically, says this -- and I've been applying this in the past, as well. Accordingly, it is and shall be the practice of this Court to require a written summary of the evidentiary proffer with appropriate ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01082958 37 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 page and line citations, deposition testimony, affidavits need to be filed and served in advance of the hearing so the defendant will have a reasonable opportunity. The motion doesn't do that. MR. SCAROLA: It does, sir, respectfully. THE COURT: I pulled it. The one sitting here doesn't have it. MR. SCAROLA: May I call the Court's attention to the very first paragraph of the motion that says the counter-plaintiff, Bradley J. Edwards, moves this honorable Court for an entry of order granting him leave to assert a claim for punitive damages against the counter-defendant, Jeffrey Epstein. And in support thereof would show that the record evidence presented to the Court in support of Edwards' motion for summary judgment satisfies every statutory prerequisite for the assertion of a claim for punitive damages. That summary judgment motion, if Your Honor recalls, includes an extremely detailed recitation of record evidence and, specifically, cites to page and line numbers in supporting depositions, to specific paragraphs in supporting affidavits, and, clearly, by virtue of what is presented to the Court and incorporated by reference every conceivable requisite for a proffer is included in that incorporated summary judgment motion. Now, if what Your Honor wants us to do is to give you ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01082959 38 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 that summary judgment motion back again and change the title on the summary judgment motion to say now it's a proffer. THE COURT: I want you to make a motion pursuant to what I have just said. I don't want any incorporated things, you know. The same thing with your motion to dismiss. You know, when you incorporate something else that doesn't work for me. I need it in front of me. I need the page, line so I can read it as a motion. MR. SCAROLA: Do you really want that box of material back again? THE COURT: I got the box. I saved the box. I knew this was coming. I got the box. I need your motion. I need it to be specific because your summary judgment motion dealt with a lot of other stuff, too, not just with the evidence for punitive damages. Okay. And the other thing was that on the summary judgment motion, if I recall right, one of the reasons I denied the motion was discovery not being completed at this point, if I recall. MR. SCAROLA: I think that was the only reason that Your Honor denied the summary judgment motion, which, obviously, would not be any legitimate opposition to a motion to assert a claim for punitive damages. THE COURT: Again, Mr. Scarola, we're going to do it my way. ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01082960 39 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 MR. SCAROLA: I understand. THE COURT: I want you to file your motion, set it for hearing and I'll look at it. And then it goes on to say that what happens is the other side, okay, this has to be done, at least thirty days, at least, this rule says thirty days before the motion, before the motion is set for hearing. To give the opportunity for the defendants to file something specifically in opposition, page and line and that way I can compare and contrast. That's the way I like to do it. And it makes -- it's easy when you have an alcohol related case or something like that. It's very complex in these cases and, you know, I just do not have the ability to go back and do it. So I want you to do that. MR. SCAROLA: I understand the Court's direction. THE COURT: So that's without prejudice and file your motion. Okay. Now, having said all of that, where are we in terms of the trustee and bankruptcy and Judge Carney and where are you at? Because I read his order and his order seems to say I agree with Judge Crow has to control the discovery in this case but it runs the risk of having conflicting orders. And I kind of agree with that, as well. So where are we at in terms of discovery with the trustee? MR. ACKERMAN: Well, we need to back up a little ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01082961 40 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 bit. THE COURT: Okay. MR. ACKERMAN: Okay. Your Honor, when this matter started, and I know you've heard some of it but because it's been awhile, I would like a little latitude. THE COURT: Sure. We got the day so I'm here. MR. ACKERMAN: Initially when this case began the prior law firm representing Mr. Epstein issued a subpoena to the bankruptcy trustee that was in possession of records that we believe were related to this lawsuit. Okay. That met -- were relevant to the claims that had been pled. At that time Mr. Scarola did not object to the issuance of the subpoena and I have that here. Okay. When the subpoena was served on the bankruptcy trustee we then had four or five or six motions filed on the grounds of privilege. And since the bankruptcy trustee controlled and was directing those matters before Judge Ray a special master was agreed by the party to be appointed. Now, also at that time -- and this is going to come up in answer to one of these other motions -- one of the other creditors, razorback, had also subpoenaed substantially the same amount of documents. Substantially subpoenaed the same documents that we had subpoenaed. And it was their understanding that they were going to be participating in this proceeding with Judge Carney. Now, each time we got ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01082962 41 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 up to a deadline there was an order, order given to the Farmer firm and Mr. Edwards to prepare a privilege log. They were given numerous extensions. THE COURT: Just so I understand. The Farmer firm is now where these cases are at or went to after the Rothstein -- MR. ACKERMAN: That's correct. And that's where Mr. Edwards is now. And they had lodged only privilege objections as to attorney-client and work-product materials as to this subpoena. When the special master was appointed we began a series of meetings and hearings to try and deal with these special master issues. And what that ultimately culminated in was an agreement, a confidentiality agreement, where Mr. Scarola's clients would produce, approximately, five boxes of documents that were designated work-product, attorney's eyes only, which meant only the lawyers for Mr. Epstein could look at them. And what they designated to be irrelevant documents, which they believed had nothing to do with the case, but felt that it was easier to produce them and put them under a confidentiality order so, and those were allowed to be shown to our client. Now, if any of the parties believed that any of those documents were relevant or appropriate to be used in this proceeding, they were to take that to the special master. THE COURT: You say this proceeding, you mean my ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01082963 42 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 proceeding? MR. ACKERMAN: This case, your case. Okay. And they were to be gone to the special master. Now, about that time we were arguing the motion for summary judgment. Counsel for Edwards had argued to Judge Ray that, wait, until the summary judgment motion is argued, defer ruling. All of those were denied. At one point they had asked you to pull back the subpoena that had been issued on these matters and you denied that. So then they prepared a privilege log that was, clearly -- it's in our binder. There is two privilege logs. THE COURT: Fortunately, I looked at it. MR. ACKERMAN: The first one, clearly, doesn't meet any requirements regarding the privilege log so we filed motions directed to that. The special master ruled that you have to, at least, identify the people on it. We felt that the log was also inadequate, okay, for other reasons. And so the special master ordered a master list of the people, a master list prepared, which is here, that identified who the people were. Okay. And in the meantime Razorback went ahead and filed a motion before Judge Ray to participate in this special master hearing. Then we came in court on a hearing filed by a non-party who, Spencer Kuvin, had argued that since he was ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01082964 43 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 identified on the privilege log as receiving some of these documents, he was going to assert a joint prosecution, joint defense type of privilege. Now, when we were at that hearing, at that point in time the special master had generated his report. The special master had set up a time when we were going to go through, he was going to go through the documents with everybody in the room and, at least, eliminate the ones that are obviously not privilege, which you can do by looking at this log. I mean, one can do, okay, by obviously looking at it. And then we were going to break them down into what issues related to what privileges because there was a different standard of proof that related to the different privilege. For example, it's the burden of the plaintiff to establish the joint defense agreement and we were going to do that. Now, as that was occurring, Mr. Kuvin came in and argued his position and the Court was stating its position that you were in charge of the privileges, which we agreed. And that you were in charge of discovery, okay. And you put a stay on any discovery to the special master and it effectively shut down the special master. I mean, you put a stay on any subpoenas to the bankruptcy trustee. THE COURT: From this Court? MR. ACKERMAN: From this Court. THE COURT: I didn't do anything to anybody else. ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01082965 44 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 MR. ACKERMAN: No. You did from subpoenas issued from this Court. THE COURT: It could have only been your subpoenas or Mr. Scarola's subpoenas. MR. ACKERMAN: Correct. THE COURT: Somebody read my order otherwise. They can continue with any other -- MR. ACKERMAN: No, no, I'm not saying that. THE COURT: Okay. I'm sorry. MR. ACKERMAN: If I said that, what I'm trying to say your stay applied to subpoenas issued from this Court to the bankruptcy trustee. THE COURT: Right. MR. ACKERMAN: Okay. And at that point in time we were at the point in time where you said we were in the midst of the hearings that dealt with the amended complaint and that you needed to have the complaint done. And we had previously told you that we had, we believed we had a good faith basis for this complaint. We could demonstrate that Rothstein was definitely guilty of a crime. We could demonstrate definitely that the Epstein case files were shown to investors for the purpose of getting money that ultimately came in to the Rothstein firm. We can show that Mr. Rothstein, and some of these are in the complaint, I'm not re-arguing that, but, we could show at that time that ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01082966 45 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 Mr. Rothstein made specific representations to these investors about what he could do. And then we can show that Mr. Edwards carried those out. And that Mr. Edwards testified in his deposition that it was a very limited number of people involved. And then what, in fact, occurred was that Mr. Rothstein was meeting with Mr. Edwards and the rest of the firm on this and they were having meetings about it, thus, providing the link to the theory of our cause of action as the abuse of process. And the theory of abuse of process related to a misuse of the judicial system. The use of these proceedings for some other purpose, that purpose to further this Ponzi scheme. It meant going after his friends individually. Putting -- taking steps and taking actions that had nothing to do with those, those victim cases. Now, at that point in time we had subpoenaed the communications between Rothstein and the various investors, which is the first subpoena. And the second subpoena related to the law enforcement subpoenas. Because at that point in time, for one respect, Mr. Edwards has subpoenaed and has requested, we're going to get to it later, records between Mr. Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office. He has used those records as part of a summary judgment proceeding. We believe in the records that have been produced to us that they specifically, particularly when ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01082967 46 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 you look at some of the items in the privilege log, that they specifically undertook the course of action to further this Ponzi scheme to interfere with a non-prosecution agreement that had already been reached with the government. Okay. It's not a tortious interference claim. It's a claim where they were abusing the Court system by using discovery mechanisms to bring about a breach or get the government to come to regress or retreat from the agreement it had entered into it after Mr. Epstein had pled guilty. Had served his time. Was on probation and already had substantial reliance and change of position on agreement. And that was done, we believe, to show investors what they were doing to advance this Ponzi scheme. So when we sent a letter -- a subpoena, which is why that is in the pleading, because it's evidence relating to the interference. This was a CVR case. And that case was filed by Mr. Edwards in 2009, okay. At the time his cases were pending with Mr. Epstein. There is a long lapse of what occurred, okay, until these cases get settled. And then he files a pleading in the federal court and he had represented in the underlying case that the documents he wanted regarding the law enforcement documents were necessary because they might lead to other discoverable evidence in that case. And then in the CVR case, which is pending before Judge Marra now, ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01082968 47 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 he said I finally got the documents I wanted for the CVR case. So he, in fact, misrepresented to a magistrate why he wanted those documents. So then there is an order entered by the magistrate that says any of the documents that were produced -- and I have a copy of it here -- any of the documents that were produced pursuant to that order cannot be used in any proceeding absent a ruling by the Court on those issues. Now, some of those documents have already been filed. THE COURT: The Court meaning? MR. ACKERMAN: You. THE COURT: Okay. MR. ACKERMAN: The sitting magistrate or judge for which the documents are sought to be used, okay. And those are some of the documents that are in the summary judgment binders. Okay. And those were done for the purpose of being able to bring -- to make their summary judgment argument. Now, when we got to that stage in April, based on the Court's ruling we -- the special master proceeding stopped. We indicated to the Court at that time that we believed that on its face some of these matters in the privilege log the Court can look at and rule on and determine that they were not privilege and they are not waived and we were going to request the Court to do that. As far as Judge Ray ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01082969 48 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 is concerned, the Court, you, have the ability to determine these matters yourself in terms of how it affects your case. He is not going to be doing anything, and he stated that on the record in one of the proceedings in the bankruptcy court, that he's not going to be making an in camera review. He's going to allow you to handle that process, okay. I mean, you as opposed to him ruling on the privilege issue, is what I'm trying to say. Now, that's pretty much where we are in terms of -- THE COURT: Let me ask you a question before you proceed. If there are other parties seeking these documents for which there was a special master appointed, why did my order, which merely stayed my subpoenas, stop production of documents in the trustee if other people are seeking these documents for reasons unrelated to this lawsuit? MR. ACKERMAN: Here's what happened. Your order stopped it for us. THE COURT: I understand that. MR. ACKERMAN: Okay. And I have a copy of the pleadings, if you need to see them. But Razorback -- THE COURT: I read the order. I know what it says. MR. ACKERMAN: Razorback went in there and said we want to do a 2004 exam of Rothstein and we want these ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01082970 49 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 records. And the records are substantially the same as the ones we wanted. They filed a motion to clarify this in front of Judge Ray, okay. And this is where one of the issues came up that he was not going to be ruling on stuff that related to you. And I have in the binder there the transcript of the hearing where Mr. Scarola and his clients agreed to produce the documents that they are now claiming privilege on and have produced those documents to Razorback. So the documents that we're seeking here for which they claim privilege, for which we have a confidentiality agreement, they have produced voluntarily to a third-party. We believe there's a waiver. We believe that invalidates the confidentiality agreement. And basically what happens is we're here arguing untold privilege issues when the very documents that we're seeking they have voluntarily turned over to a third-party without any issues of privilege. Without any issues of confidentiality. And that's what happened to them. Those documents were turned over and that's why that transcript of that proceeding is in there because we're prepared to argue that many of the documents that we have requested for which privilege claims have been brought are now waived. And I've also asked to use some of the documents, to use confidential documents because I believe it supports our cause of action and I believe that the confidentiality ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01082971 50 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 provisions are now waived. So the answer to your -- THE COURT: That makes it as clear as mud. I know -- just understand my frustration. It's very complicated when you, you know, you're telling me all of this and it's not really clear to me. Let me ask a simple question. The privilege here, the attorney-client privilege belonged to the clients, are they involved in this at all? I mean, is anybody protecting the rights of these women that were -- MR. ACKERMAN: Your Honor, Mr. Farmer and Mr. Edwards have asserted attorney-client privilege on behalf of those clients but many of these privileges that they have asserted are work-product. THE COURT: Okay. MR. ACKERMAN: Or there is one with confidential source so we have no idea. THE COURT: Just so I'm understanding, are there two separate sets of documents, one is in the hands of the new law firm and the ones that are in the hands of the trustee and bankruptcy from the old Rothstein firm? MR. ACKERMAN: Yes and no. THE COURT: Yes and no. Okay. Good. MR. ACKERMAN: The first set of documents, okay, which were the subject of the first subpoena and our first ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01082972 51 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 request to produce, the trustee turned over those documents responsive to that to the special master and to the new law firm. The new law firm has also turned those documents over to Razorback. The second set of documents, which we're here on, relate to our subpoena to the trustee for law enforcement. Basically, communications between law enforcement agencies and the RRA law firm. Those documents -- and those were the basis of a specific request identifying people -- and those documents have been gathered by the trustee on a disc ready to be produced. And they have not been turned over to anyone because the Court's stay order that said any subpoena directed to the trustee is stayed. So the trustee has not turned over those documents. Those are in the possession of the trustee. THE COURT: Okay. So there are -- let me -- there are two sets of documents then. The law enforcement documents, which are in the possession of the special master of the trustee proceeding, right? MR. ACKERMAN: The law enforcement documents are just in the possession of the trustee. THE COURT: Trustee. MR. ACKERMAN: Not the special master. THE COURT: They're in possession of the trustee. The other documents, which were the old Rothstein firm ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01082973 52 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 files or materials, as well as anything for the new firm are all, Farmer has all of those documents? MR. ACKERMAN: Those were documents that came, that the trustee picked up -- MR. SCAROLA: Yes. MR. ACKERMAN: Yes. THE COURT: And they are in the hands of, in addition, they are in the hands of the special master, he has those? MR. ACKERMAN: Right. THE COURT: Okay. MR. ACKERMAN: Now, there is a third set of documents, okay. They are called Qtask and the Fortress documents, okay. Those are the softwares that managed the cases within the Rothstein firm. The trustee is still litigating to get those documents with Qtask. The Court has -- THE COURT: Who is -- help me out here. Who is 42? MR. ACKERMAN: Qtask is a company that supplied the software system for private communications and, also, for case management to the Rothstein firm. We have received through exhibits and other depositions in the bankruptcy case, that Rothstein used some of this secure software communications to communicate with the investors ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01082974 53 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 and people in his firm about his Ponzi scheme as related to the Epstein cases. Now, those records were subpoenaed and sought by the bankruptcy trustee from a company named Qtask. That company is owned and controlled by former Rothstein lawyers, Bob Buschel, and others. They have been ordered by the bankruptcy court to produce those records and have failed to do so and now are subject to -- and have been ordered under pain of contempt, including incarceration of the individuals, to produce those records. They have been assessed punitive fines and attorney's fees for not producing them as of -- THE COURT: So we have three sets of documents, am I correct now? Okay. MR. ACKERMAN: So that's one of the reasons why in terms -- I understood your question as to the ones we're dealing with now but I need to alert the Court there is another group of documents that would be responsive to our initial subpoena but that the bankruptcy trustee would need to produce when Qtask and the Fortress documents become available. THE COURT: Okay. So we have the Rothstein and Farmer documents, the file, whatever, may be in existence. We have a law enforcement file that dealt with Rothstein. And you have the Qtask, I guess, software system. ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01082975 54 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 MR. ACKERMAN: And Fortress. THE COURT: That have not been produced yet but will at some point be in possession of the trustee in bankruptcy. MR. ACKERMAN: Correct. THE COURT: What we're dealing with, at least at this point in time in terms of your production request, deals with the Rothstein/Farmer documents and the law enforcement documents; is that correct? MR. ACKERMAN: Yes. THE COURT: Okay. So where do we start then? That's where I want to -- where do you want to start with this? I mean, one of the problems, again, is that -- let me stop. Start with this. Is it possible that since Judge Carney has already spent, I imagine, countless hours looking at this, that he could do it for me as well as the trustee in bankruptcy? MR. ACKERMAN: The problem we've had, Your Honor, is that we believe that the more economical method to do this would be for you to take a look at the privilege log and determine initially whether they have been waived and some of the motions here are directed to that. And -- THE COURT: Maybe I should stop and ask how many documents are we talking about? If we're talking fifty thousand to a hundred thousand -- ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01082976 55 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 MR. ACKERMAN: No. THE COURT: -- there is no way. MR. ACKERMAN: If you look at the special master report -- THE COURT: I did read. He said like sixteen hundred documents, or. MR. ACKERMAN: Those are sixteen hundred entries. They are not necessarily documents. THE COURT: That means it could be thirty documents per entry or something like that. MR. ACKERMAN: I'm sorry, sixteen hundred documents. MR. SCAROLA: May I address the Court? MR. ACKERMAN: Twenty-eight thousand pages. THE COURT: What I'm going to do, I'm going to let him finish, take a break for lunch. We'll come back and you tell me what your position is, okay. MR. SCAROLA: I would like to take five minutes before lunch because it may keep us from coming after lunch. MR. ACKERMAN: I don't know if I can finish. But the point -- I want to answer your question is that the breakdown we're talking about, sixteen hundred documents that are identified on the privilege log. Now, we believe that if you review the privilege log and make rulings ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01082977 56 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 because of either the inadequacy of the logs, because they have failed to comply with the Teague requirements, and we believe if you go through and see that some of the matters clearly aren't privileged on their face, that number will be greatly reduced and then you can do the in camera review. It would also give you an opportunity to understand what we're trying to accomplish and what we're trying to plead in this case because then you could review the documents that we have. One of the reasons I want to use -- THE COURT: These documents are in some location? MR. ACKERMAN: Yes, they're on discs. THE COURT: Okay. MR. ACKERMAN: They're on a disc. Okay. You can have hard copies, too, if you wish, okay. Either way it can be done. But one of the reasons, one of my other motions that I wanted to get directed to goes to this matter because we had this confidentiality agreement where we agreed to keep them secret. I submitted those documents to you in camera. Those are documents we wanted to start using now in discovery for depositions because part of the issue is we can't -- THE COURT: These? MR. ACKERMAN: Those ones. THE COURT: Okay. ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01082978 57 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 MR. ACKERMAN: Okay. We can't really effectively take discovery -- MR. SCAROLA: No objection. THE COURT: I'm sorry? MR. SCAROLA: No objection. THE COURT: Okay. MR. SCAROLA: I don't mean to interrupt but I can save some time. THE COURT: Okay. Let him have five minutes and we'll come back and let you say whatever you want, Mr. Ackerman, okay. And then come back, okay. Go ahead, sir. MR. SCAROLA: There are specific documents that have been identified by Mr. Ackerman from among those documents that have been provided to them pursuant to an agreement that they would like to use. As long as it is expressly understood that by agreeing to the use of those specific documents we have not prejudiced any assertion of privilege with regard to any other documents, we're prepared to allow them to use them. They are worthless. I really don't care whether he uses them or not. I just don't want to impact upon any other privilege argument that we may make by making that concession. I am obliged to make sure that we continue to protect all of our other privileges because we don't have the right to waive ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01082979 58 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 attorney-client privilege. Unlike the Fifth Amendment privilege, which is controlled by Mr. Epstein, as much as we might like to take all of this and put it on the floor in this courtroom for Your Honor and everybody else in the world to take a look at because we have nothing to hide, we can't do that. THE COURT: I understand that. MR. SCAROLA: Okay. So we're obliged to assert our privilege. THE COURT: It's not your privilege. MR. SCAROLA: We are obliged to assert the privilege on behalf of our clients. Not only on behalf of the clients who we represented whose claims were settled but also because that same information is relevant and material to ongoing claims against Mr. Epstein, we must protect the work-product privilege, as well, because of the obligation that we have to protect the interests of those other clients. That's the position that we are in. Now, before we ever get to questions about privilege and an obligation to prepare a privilege log, and an in camera inspection, the threshold issue is relevance. And it was as a consequence of Your Honor's recognition of the fact that there was a threshold relevance issue that Your Honor stayed enforcement of any subpoena or production request in this Court until such time as the pleadings were clarified ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01082980 59 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 so that the relevance issues could be determined. We are still in that same position today as a consequence of the rulings that Your Honor has just made. We can't go any further this afternoon. As much as I would like to, to help to resolve these issues because the same threshold problem exists. We have a relevancy concern that must be addressed before any privilege concern can be addressed. That's our position, sir. So I would like to get it done today. We've got today set aside. I would love to be able to resolve all of these issues. It cannot be done and that's why I suggested that I needed five minutes before lunch, Your Honor. I don't think I took three. MR. ACKERMAN: I have a response to that but we can do it after lunch. It's up to you. THE COURT: No, go ahead. Actually, that was my concern initially because, I mean, from day one in this case, Mr. Ackerman, and I think I articulated this a number of times the problem I had initially with the complaint. I know you are not the author of the original complaint, okay, I know that. Was that I couldn't get a handle on what exactly the claims were and what the issues were going to be to determine what was relevant or calculated to lead to admissible evidence in the case. I think by filing your amended complaint, we're getting it down to, I think where we're going to ultimately end up at some point but we still ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01082981 60 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 haven't gotten to that point. One of the things that really concerns me is the vagueness of the damage claims here because that has to do with some of the discovery, for example, that they can get of you. So, I mean, I guess I can make decisions on whether or not privileges have been waived. If it's been waived, it's been waived. MR. SCAROLA: Still doesn't resolve the relevance issue, Your Honor. MR. ACKERMAN: I need to respond. THE COURT: I understand that. But I can make a determination -- I'm sorry. Go ahead. MR. ACKERMAN: I didn't mean to interrupt. I'll let you finish. THE COURT: Please, any help I can get. MR. ACKERMAN: Okay. There is a two part process with this relevance test. And the first part, we have argued this back and forth several times with you and with the special master, which is why we had some frustration with that proceeding, when this subpoena went out with the complaint that it was operating under, the first complaint that everyone has been referring to, there was absolutely no objection on relevance filed at that time. And under the rules of procedure that is when it's supposed to be done. We argued relevance. They argued, attempted to bring up relevance. Really did not bring up relevance in ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01082982 61 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 front of Judge Ray. The only motions that were filed in front of Judge Ray related to privilege. Once we got the special master we started -- they started arguing relevance again. And one of the hearings in February the special master ruled, I'm not going back to relevance. That ship has sailed. You could have objected when this subpoena went out the special master ruled. And now we're at the point of doing the privilege stuff. That's the first aspect of it. The second aspect of it is that there is enough matters here that the Court should rule on to allow some discovery without the need of another complaint. Because it allowed the process to proceed in some areas. The damages, you know, that's, that's not a significant part of this, okay. That's not -- the part we're looking for and the subpoena we're talking about deals with documents to the trustee and the firm related to the Ponzi scheme. THE COURT: Let me suggest to you, however, that the other concern here has to do with my schedule, my ability to devote time to reviewing documents and privilege logs for things that may ultimately end up not relevant to the lawsuit. Okay. We're talking about thousands and thousands and thousands of documents. I'm not a special master getting paid $300 an hour to look at documents. I've got eighteen to two thousand other cases out there. ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01082983 62 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 You guys want me to sit down and spend two days looking at documents, it seems to me that I ought to make a determination as to whether they're relevant before I do that but, you know, I understand your position. MR. ACKERMAN: The determination of the relevance is on the request. That's what they're objecting to and they have not -- they've waived the request. You can look at the subpoena. THE COURT: I understand that but then I have to look through ten thousand documents to determine whether they're privileged or not. MR. ACKERMAN: I don't think -- my point earlier was is that when you make -- THE COURT: I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying. What I'm saying is it's important to me, because I don't want to spend valuable Court time reviewing documents to determine whether they are privileged or not privileged or whether the privilege has been waived, if those documents are not relevant to this lawsuit. That's my point. Does that make any sense to you? You know, you know, there is a finite amount of time that I have available to do this and I'm going to spend as much time as necessary to get it done. But I would like to be able to, at least, do it in a rational manner rather than just go out and look at documents. And because I would have to ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01082984 63 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 look at the documents, it seems to me, unless it's been waived specifically, Mr. Ackerman, or are already, then for me to determine whether they are or are not privileged it requires me to look at them, does it not? MR. ACKERMAN: Yes. But I don't believe that the issue of relevance is part of it. THE COURT: You are not following me, I guess. MR. ACKERMAN: They have claimed. We have sent a subpoena. The subpoena has been responded to based on the subpoena. Based on specific certain terms relating to the subpoena. And the documents you are going to be reviewing are work-product relating to the Epstein case. THE COURT: Maybe I'm not making sense and I apologize. You don't understand what I'm asking or what I'm suggesting. I understand what your position is. MR. ACKERMAN: I understand the overall concept. THE COURT: I understand your position that these have been waived, okay. What I'm concerned about is the time necessary to review -- MR. ACKERMAN: That I understand. I understand the time component. THE COURT: Okay. Let's take a short break for lunch. Be back here by 1:30. We'll talk about -- I'm going to go forward this afternoon, do as much as I can on this to get as much done as I can. So, at least, on the ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01082985 64 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 confidential sealed documents, which is Tab 4C, the ones here in my hand, as I understand Mr. Scarola agreed that those documents may be utilized by the plaintiff in this lawsuit, as long as it's clear, and I so rule, that by doing so is not waiving any privilege associated with any documents whatsoever on any basis. MR. SCAROLA: Thank you, sir. MR. KNIGHT: Thank you, Your Honor. (LUNCH BREAK) THE COURT: Anybody want to say anything else before we start plowing through some of the motions? MR. SCAROLA: Did you have a nice lunch, sir? THE COURT: Well, no. The company was good. MR. ACKERMAN: May I take off my coat? THE COURT: Excuse me? MR. ACKERMAN: Mind if I take off my coat? THE COURT: Sure. MR. ACKERMAN: It's a little warm. THE COURT: My deputy has on a heavy jacket. She is saying it's cold. MR. WEINBERG: Afternoon, Your Honor. I've been nominated by Mr. Knight and Mr. Ackerman to try to respond to the Court's last set of inquiry, which is how we, as counsel, can help facilitate the privilege review and how we can narrow down the magnitude of sixteen hundred ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01082986 65 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 documents, which might, at least, theoretically require document by document review down to a more manageable perspective. I think there are two ways -- MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me. Before we proceed could I know which motion we're on? I suggest that maybe the best thing to do, if we're going to proceed here, is to focus on those matters that are currently pending. And I have no objection to taking then in the order in which they appear in the notebook with which the Court has been provided. And that would mean the first motion before the Court is our motion for reconsideration regarding our discovery request. THE COURT: First thing, I kind of asked counsel to kind of give me some overview of the discovery process and what we're dealing with here and I assume this is what we're still dealing with. MR. KNIGHT: This is in response, Your Honor. THE COURT: That's what I want to do and then we'll deal with the motions in order as we have them. Okay. MR. WEINBERG: Thank you, Your Honor. I'm not a civil lawyer. I've been asked my by colleagues to help, particularly, because of some expertise in privileged areas and that's the reason they've asked me to address this issue. There is two ways. ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01082987 66 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 One Mr. Ackerman, at an appropriate time, will address with the Court and that is whether there is a legally enforceable waiver, not of the relevancy issue that was previously addressed, but of the privilege issue that would make a particularized document by document privilege analysis unnecessary. The second is more difficult. Privilege logs are important. The case law that's been provided to Your Honor, principally, the Teague case requires more than Mr. Scarola has provided in terms of this privilege log. It's particularly important in terms of giving us the ability to narrow down from the sixteen hundred documents to have any potential ability to narrow it down so we're asking the Court to review not sixteen hundred, but two hundred, three hundred, four hundred. I can't promise you in good faith that a better privilege log will permit us to reduce the number of documents that we believe potentially could be related to the issues that ultimately will be litigated before Your Honor. But as it stands now there are privileged entries, for instance, RRA, meaning Rothstein firm lawyers, to Mr. Edwards. Mr. Edwards to Rothstein firm lawyers. We don't even know which Rothstein firm lawyers they are. The log lacks that degree of particularization which the rules and the case law requires. ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01082988 67 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 It's particularly important because once Your Honor resolves the legal issue of waivers, which I believe can be done on a category basis rather than a document by document basis, Your Honor will ultimately be looking at whatever reduced number of documents there are to put them in to three categories. Number one, these are documents that, in fact, demonstrate that Mr. Edwards gave proper ethical legal representation to his three clients. These documents are related to that representation. These documents are therefore unwaived and privileged and not subject to an exception under client fraud. The second category would be documents that may have Mr. Edwards, he's either the author or the receiver but may also involve that subset of lawyers in the Rothstein firm who were not engaged in good faith ethical legal representation of the three clients that Mr. Edwards represented. Who he represented before he came to Rothstein, who he represented afterward. There are, again, twenty lawyers and nine paralegals and many investigators and it's hard absent of a more particularized log and absent the Court's review of some of the documents. For instance, some go to Rothstein. Some go to RRA. May involve an investigator named Jenny that Mr. Edwards said he never asked him affirmatively to do anything on behalf ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01082989 68 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 of his clients. So this is that rare firm where there can't be a presumption of ethics, a presumption of legality and to simply tell us in a log the communications were with, quote, "RRA lawyers" or with, quote, "investigators" doesn't help resolve whether they're in the category of ethical lawyering or criminal fraud, which would be an exception to the privilege. There is also, as a result of one of the documents that Mr. Scarola didn't object to us using, an e-mail -- THE COURT: Let me back up. I thought the crime fraud section dealt with fraud or crime being committed by the client not the attorney. MR. WEINBERG: Not necessarily, Your Honor. Crime fraud exception has been used over and over again, for instance, by the government when they are investigating lawyers. And this really is why I'm here because before Judge Hoovler I represented a criminal defense lawyer named William Moran. He was one of many lawyers charged in the late 1990's. His law firm was searched. Many more documents than Mr. Scarola has identified in the log was seized. The Court, Judge Hoovler, appointed Lawrence Barcello, who was a former Department of Justice prosecutor, because crime fraud was key. And in that case what was key is whether it was the crime or fraud of the lawyers not of the lawyers' clients. ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01082990 69 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 In this case, and, again, I'm not hurling any -- this is not the time for me to make allegations. THE COURT: We'll deal with that later. I mean, I just finished, probably, a three day trial on crime fraud exception. I thought I read every case, including some of the similar cases dealing with tobacco manufacturers dealing with the crime fraud. And I'm having a little trouble with that but I'll deal with it when we get to that point. Because it seems to me -- MR. WEINBERG: I will, if the Court wants -- THE COURT: Not now. MR. WEINBERG: -- supplement through other cases. But clearly the lawyer can't claim work-product when his work-product is in furtherance of a crime. Mr. Rothstein is a lawyer. He could not protect his documents from litigation or from the government by saying you can't see my documents, they are work-product. If the lawyer is creating the crime, as Mr. Rothstein did, there's no privilege to prevent third-parties or Courts from reviewing the documents. THE COURT: We'll deal with that later. That's not my understanding but I didn't think it was quite as broad as you just stated but -- MR. WEINBERG: Let me supplement that piece of this argument -- ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01082991 70 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 THE COURT: What you're telling me, though, is that you feel that the amount of documents that I may be able to, or have to review, once I get past the issue of whether or not there has been a waiver on the relevance issue, is that there may be waivers in regard to the attorney-client privilege to begin with. And that second, we need a more particularized privilege log because from the log itself we can't tell whether some of these documents may or may not have other exceptions applicable to them. MR. WEINBERG: Exactly, Your Honor. And I can't say, I cannot make a representation that a better log will reduce it to the number that the Court would feel comfortable reviewing. If the Court is not comfortable with what results from a more particularized log and after hearing Mr. Ackerman on the waiver issue -- THE COURT: I'm not sure comfort is the issue. MR. WEINBERG: Economy. THE COURT: I hate to tell you but in camera reviews are probably the least favorite thing I do but you have to do them. You have to do them. Okay. Anything else you want to tell me? MR. WEINBERG: Just lastly, Judge, we now, as one of the documents Mr. Ackerman found in attorney's eyes only, we have an e-mail from Cara Holmes -- ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01082992 71 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 THE COURT: You're talking about these documents? MR. WEINBERG: One of the lawyers at the Rothstein firm. She was a former FBI agent and she says on July 29, I think our best bet is to go after those close to Epstein. And those would be the kind of gray documents that Your Honor would have to make a document by document analysis to determine does this document support good faith litigation. Is it in relation to a proper representation of Mr. Edwards' client or instead is some investigator going off on an intrusive, violative conduct that only is to further Mr. Rothstein's ambitions to try to inflate the Epstein cases to advance his own investor scheme? I don't have an answer because I don't have the documents. I'm not making accusations about where any one document will fit. I'm hopeful through a log that is more particularized we can come back and say, Judge, we would like you to look at the following three or four hundred. I can't represent we can. If we can't, we would, of course, would then go and recommend to the Court what Judge Hoovler did in this massive law firm search, which is to consider the Court looking at some of the documents, either on review or de novo, and having a special master and, perhaps, a special master with experience in crime fraud such as a former U.S. Attorney. I know Mr. Goldberger can identify a few from the community who would have ongoing experience ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01082993 72 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 from their prior jobs as an assistant U.S. Attorney, with how documents fit into these three categories. Thank you, sir. THE COURT: You know, I certainly have no objection to appointing a special master, however, I'm not a federal court. I don't have the authority to do that absent the consent of the parties, as I understand it. Although some of my colleagues try to get around that rule by appointing a mediator, I think it's still, whatever you call it, put a sign on a cow and call it a pig, it's still a cow. You want to say anything else in response to that before we get into the nitty-gritty of the specific motions here? MR. SCAROLA: Very narrowly, Your Honor. I disagree with the assertion that's been made that an attorney's involvement in a crime or fraud in which the client is not participating can constitute a waiver of the client's privilege. The crime fraud exception is an exception that waives the client's privilege when the client is using an attorney to advance the client's crime or fraud. I think that counsel is incorrect about the assertion that he's made regarding the crime fraud exception. But talking about these things in the abstract is not going to advance this. ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01082994 73 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 THE COURT: Okay. Let's go forward with so what motion would be first up then? MR. SCAROLA: It is our motion for reconsideration of Your Honor's order sustaining objections to requests for admissions and interrogatories propounded to Mr. Epstein. MR. ACKERMAN: Your Honor, before he proceeds, I think that the actual discovery requests were left out of the notebook for this. THE COURT: Yeah, I've looked at the -- MR. ACKERMAN: So I have -- the one for the request to produce is in there. I have the interrogatories and -- THE COURT: I think I've got the request. MR. ACKERMAN: Request to produce is there but I don't think request for admissions. THE COURT: The response. MR. ACKERMAN: The response is there. But the actual request and the interrogatories are not. THE COURT: Okay. MR. ACKERMAN: So you can put these in your book at Three a. I apologize for not having it. THE COURT: Okay. MR. SCAROLA: Your Honor, this motion for reconsideration cites to the now less than recent Fourth ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01082995 74 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 DCA opinion in Alvarez versus Cooper Tire where the Court finds it to have been error for the trial Court to have restricted discovery, which I suggest to Your Honor is even less clearly related to the allegations that are pending then the allegations in this case and their relationship to our request for admissions and interrogatories. If we can take a look quickly at -- THE COURT: Let me ask you a question about that. That's Judge Fine's tire case, right? MR. SCAROLA: Yes. THE COURT: As I understand, is that still on rehearing? MR. ACKERMAN: Yes, and I have a docket sheet for you to look at. THE COURT: I'm concerned that case is gone a little too far in the discovery and I, well, I don't know what's going to happen. MR. SCAROLA: Let me suggest to Your Honor that regardless of whether the broader parameters that are described in that case are or are not applicable. I think that Your Honor simply misapprehended what the appropriate scope of discovery in this case is. THE COURT: Okay. MR. SCAROLA: And I call your attention. We're looking at -- ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01082996 75 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 THE COURT: Let me read the ones again that we're talking about because I didn't have them right here in front of me, the requests themselves. MR. SCAROLA: My suggestion is that you start with the counterclaim itself because you'll understand their relevance more if you understand the counterclaim first. THE COURT: I read that this morning but let me go back and read this again. MR. SCAROLA: I would just call your attention particularly to the allegations in Paragraph Five and Nine. If you look at those first and then we go to the discovery, I think it's hard to draw the conclusion that this is not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. THE COURT: Go ahead. I'm listening. MR. SCAROLA: All right, sir. Basically, what this complaint says is that Mr. Epstein has engaged in an extensive course of conduct that subjected him to civil liability, both with regard to then pending cases and potential additional cases, as well. And what he tried to do, and continues to try to do in suing Mr. Edwards, is not to assert a legitimate claim but to make an example of Mr. Edwards to deter Mr. Edwards and others from suing him for the legitimate claims that exist that are out there ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01082997 76 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 ready to be filed. So that's the contention in the broadest terms. So request for admission number one, you have acted on sexual preference for minor females on multiple occasions over the course of, at least, the last decade. Defining the scope of Mr. Epstein's motive to conceal his misconduct both in terms of restricting his civil liability and his punitive damage exposure, I suggest to Your Honor is, at least, reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. Two, you have engaged in sexual activity with more than forty minor girls between 2002 and 2006 in your residence in West Palm Beach, Florida. Which is where Mr. Edwards' clients were assaulted. Three, among the minor females with whom you have engaged in sexual activity between 2002 and 2006 was a person identified in a civil lawsuit filed against you as, and those are the identifications of Mr. Edwards' three clients. So, clearly, an acknowledgment from Mr. Epstein that he, in fact, engaged in sexual activity with these minor clients is relevant and material to what we contend is the motive. Now, if Your Honor may recall, we understand that there is very likely to be a Fifth Amendment privilege ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01082998 77 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 asserted with regard to each of these requests for admissions. But that's not the determination that Your Honor is making right now. You're not determining whether Mr. Epstein can or cannot reasonably assert a Fifth Amendment privilege. You're determining whether this discovery is reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence to the claim, the counterclaim that we have brought against him. I'm quite frankly very puzzled as to how you could arrive at the conclusion that it is not when it's these cases we are alleging that he was attempting through this spurious lawsuit to avoid liability on. All of these cases remained pending at the time that he sued Mr. Edwards. The next question, again, relates to these same allegations with regard to these three clients of Mr. Edwards. Number five, talks about his having reason to believe that they were minors at the time. Number six goes directly to the evidence in the underlying claims. And each of these are clearly calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence regardless of what standard may be applied. What reasonable standard may be applied in terms of the scope of appropriate discovery. Now, if Mr. Epstein asserts a Fifth Amendment ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01082999 78 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 privilege with regard to these requests, we're entitled in a civil case to draw inferences from that so we're entitled to know whether he's going to assert his Fifth Amendment privilege or not. And they also continue to have bearing as long as some affirmative relief is being asserted against Mr. Edwards but because that pleading remains undefined I need to focus exclusively right now on our pending counterclaim. Each of these, and I don't know that I need to go through them because the argument is the same with regard to each of the request for admissions. They are all along the same lines. I suggest that Your Honor simply made a mistake when you denied that discovery. The interrogatories are in some respects even more puzzling. The first question is what is the full name and Florida address of the person answering these interrogatories? THE COURT: Hang on. Let me get to that. MR. SCAROLA: I'm sorry. THE COURT: Where is my order on that? MR. ACKERMAN: Your Honor, just to make things a little bit easier. You sustained the objection to interrogatory number one. And I don't have an explanation but that's not an objection to be raised. THE COURT: Which interrogatory are we talking ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083000 79 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 about because there is an interrogatory at the end of these? MR. ACKERMAN: The ones that we're talking about are two, three, four, five, six, nine, seven. THE COURT: Hang on, hang on. Where is the order? I'm trying to find the order on that. MR. ACKERMAN: It's in there. Three B. THE COURT: Okay. I'm sorry. MR. SCAROLA: No, it's not, it's not tab Three B. It's -- THE COURT: I've got the order. MR. SCAROLA: Okay. MR. ACKERMAN: I'm sorry. Three A. THE COURT: Yeah. I see where I did one, two, three, four, five, six, nine. MR. SCAROLA: You deferred as to eight. THE COURT: And seven on attorney-client privilege. MR. SCAROLA: And seven on attorney-client privilege. So I'm not sure what Your Honor was looking at but I don't see how you can sustain the objection to number one under any circumstances. THE COURT: Actually, nor do I. MR. SCAROLA: And number two, number two is going to the same issues as the request for admissions. As is ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083001 80 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 number three. As is number four. Ghislaine Maxwell is a woman who is alleged to have been a procurer for Mr. Epstein who engaged in sexual conduct with the same minor girls that Mr. Epstein was abusing. She was a participant in his illegal conduct. Number five had to do with the damages that were being claimed. And, again, I can understand how we couldn't address that one until we know what the damages are that are being claimed now. Number six has to do with engaging in sexual activities with minors again. Number seven, Your Honor has sustained on the basis of attorney-client privilege and I think that Your Honor was confused. Because William Scherer and the Conrad, Scherer Law Firm, were not lawyers who ever represented Mr. Epstein. Mr. Scherer and the Conrad, Scherer Law Firm are attorneys who represented, and continue to represent, Ponzi scheme victims. They have interests adverse to the interests of Mr. Epstein. And it is our understanding that information was provided by Mr. Epstein to the Conrad, Scherer Firm and to William Scherer. We would like to know what information they gave them that relates to these cases and I don't know how that, that falls within an attorney-client privilege. You deferred as to number eight and I'm not sure why ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083002 81 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 that was deferred but I think that, certainly, is information to which we're currently entitled. As is number nine. So I would ask the Court to take a look at these again. I think somehow there was some confusion on the Court's part. Perhaps Your Honor was focusing on the complaint and not discovery relevant and material to the counterclaim. If you focus on the allegations in the counterclaim I think it's very apparent that this is information we're entitled to have. Thank you, sir. THE COURT: Thank you. Yes, sir. MR. ACKERMAN: Okay. Your Honor, I would like to start off by saying that we had a lengthy argument about all of these issues, with the exception of number one, which I don't honestly have an explanation for. But we went through a lengthy argument about all of these issues and one of the concerns that came up at that time was that the Court was asking us whether or not, based on the complaint, that these matters were going to be at issue. We filed an amended pleading where we took these issues, to the extent that they were remotely relevant in the first complaint, out. Even if you look at the amended complaint, there is nothing there that puts these matters that he has asked with this type of particularity in issue. ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083003 82 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 MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me, Your Honor. I conceded that. We're not talking about discovery relating to the complaint. THE COURT: I'm sure he's going somewhere with this, I suspect, so I'm going to let him go. MR. SCAROLA: Okay. MR. ACKERMAN: All right. Mr. Scarola argued at that time his counterclaim issues, okay. And the Court entered its ruling and the motion for reconsideration came before this Court solely on the basis of Alvarez, okay. That's the only reason the Court granted this rehearing. And my first argument is is that if the Court is not going to consider Alvarez as the grounds, this is done. THE COURT: Well, any ruling, let me just say up front, any ruling on the discovery matters, interlocutory orders I can reconsider any time for any reason. The issue that I want to find the time to go to today is whether or not these are, in fact, calculated to lead to admissible evidence in this case. So deal with that issue because I, quite frankly, it's been awhile since you argued that issue and I made my ruling. MR. ACKERMAN: We objected, first of all, that the scopes are burden -- the scopes are extremely large. Mr. Scarola's counterclaim, which he's relying on, is an abuse of process claim. His abuse of process claim is ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083004 83 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 directed at Mr. Epstein for this lawsuit. He, therefore, has not done so in his counterclaim, needs to particularly allege what process, what acts of the judicial system were abused in this case as he has argued to this Court. And that needs to be done before we undertake this broad, extensive discovery. Now, we have objected on the grounds of the Fifth Amendment. And we have argued before on the sword and shield and I need to say something about it at this point. The issues that involve -- and the Court overruled them when it came to the motion for summary judgment. The sword and shield issues come on these lines. When a plaintiff makes a claim and then claims privilege on matters related to the case, then Mr. Scarola may have a point. But nothing in this case, and he has not particularly alleged why this case and the actions in this case that have been taken by Mr. Epstein's counsel as abuse of process raised these issues. Mr. Scarola has -- and, therefore, the sword -- and this was briefed in the response, our response to the motion for summary judgment. It was extensively briefed on the sword and shield doctrine and so I'm just going to direct the Court to that. But in this case we have, he has asked about sexual preferences, sexual activities. The scope of this is extremely broad. It's extremely harassing. And given the ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083005 84 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 limitations of what he has to prove in his counterclaim for abuse of process, nothing here remotely leads to any discoverable evidence and that's why the Court denied it to begin with. Engaged in sexual activity. So we're going to have to invade all of these collateral matters. These will take the Court, one of the arguments I made last time, on a side trip that will take forever. We're not here, this case is not here to litigate those matters. Our case and Mr. Scarola's response are related to what the law firm did with investors relating to the Epstein cases and how the judicial system was perverted for a Ponzi scheme. Mr. Scarola's response is, well, we're going to bring an abuse of process claim and, frankly, I know we're not here necessarily to re-argue it and the Court ruled in a prior order that it was an abuse of process claim. But if you look at it there is elements of defamation. There is other elements of other cases. So I think before you reach any issue with regard to whether these matters, he is going to have to be required to replead his counterclaim with the same particularity that you're requiring us to see how sexual activity with all of these minor girls are going to relate to an abuse of process claim. Okay. Secondly, number three, he wants to know who he had specific sexual activity with. That's not going to bear on an abuse of process claim. Okay. He can make generally ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083006 85 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 the allegation that maybe Mr. Epstein filed this lawsuit to harass Brad Edwards but this is not where it's going to go. Okay. We don't have to get into the number of minor females that he paid for. We don't have to get into all of these specific dates. We don't have to get into the names of this. And this relates to the motion that we have later on relating to pre-trial publicity. Because this stuff gets filed in this Court and the next thing we know it's in the newspapers or the Internet. And the Court, if this discovery proceeds, is going to be in a position of having to deal with those issues that may potentially taint the jury pool. So at this point they really have no relevance, okay. He's asked for socializing minor females in the presence of these people. There is no charge, there is no allegation that supports this. And an abuse of process claim that he has pled, as it presently exists, including transporting these and acts of trafficking minors, are going to take us on a side trip. Now, with regards to -- that's pretty much related to the requests for admissions. Most of the interrogatories fall under the same category. We did raise Fifth Amendment objections there. They are not related to pursuing whether his genitals were exposed. Whether they were clothed in underwear have nothing to do with the claim that we're proceeding with. ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083007 86 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 They cannot possibly lead to relevant evidence relating to this. All it will do is be burdensome, harassing and wasting the Court's time dealing with this. The same thing with number three whether your genitals were exposed. What was the number of times this lady, Maxwell, engaged in activity with minor females? What does that have to do with an abuse of process claim? This is merely done for the purpose of harassment and has nothing to do with the claims that are being brought, which is why, I believe, the Court ruled in this matter. Here he wants to know, number six in the interrogatories, with regard to the last time you engaged in sexual activity with a minor state the following. We don't need to get into that. This Court doesn't need to spend its time on that. There is nothing remotely related to this abuse of process claim that's going to make that relevant. The same thing with III. in number eight -- THE COURT: Let me just ask you, his argument is, essentially, that the purpose of the abuse of process here is to cover up these alleged conduct. Or to prevent exposure of this alleged conduct by Mr. Edwards and others like him. How do you respond to that? If it goes to the motive of filing or abusing the process, how is that not -- if that's true -- how is that not -- MR. ACKERMAN: Well, first of all, Your Honor, ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083008 87 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 Mr. Epstein pled guilty, okay. There was an overall settlement that dealt with a numerous number of victims as part of that, okay. He served time. He was on probation, okay. He entered into a non-prosecution agreement and whether they are happy with what the government did or not is really irrelevant. So how do you get to the point where he wants to cover up all of this when the government has concluded the investigation. They've agreed -- THE COURT: I guess it's the same reason your client pled the Fifth Amendment. I presume your concern, or not maybe concern, that doesn't protect him. I mean, I mean, that's a logical answer. I don't know what happened here. I'm just, I'm asking you to respond to his argument, which is, look, if the abuse of process here is misuse of the judicial system to silence Mr. Edwards and others like him from pursuing claims against your client for sexual activities with minor females or other sexual misconduct, if that's his motive for doing it, how is it not relevant that he's engaged in that conduct? MR. ACKERMAN: Because the abuse of process claim does not require the proof of motive. Okay. The abuse -- if you file -- THE COURT: It's not whether it requires proof of it. Whether it's relevant to the cause of action. MR. ACKERMAN: Well, if one of the elements isn't ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083009 88 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 one -- if the element of the abuse of process is that they took a pending case and abused the system to put some extortion on someone else, they got to establish that. To extort or put pressure on Mr. Edwards he has to establish that first before we go into all of these other matters. Because if the process was legitimately used, it doesn't matter what the motive is. THE COURT: Well, I thought that abuse of process, the whole theory of abuse of process was being used for purpose unrelated to the process itself, i.e. to cover up misdeeds or whatever the reason may be. At least, the allegation. That is the reason or, at least, that's their argument. MR. ACKERMAN: Your Honor -- THE COURT: I'm just asking. I'm not ruling. I'm asking questions here. So just, you know, he says the reason that it's relevant is because the process is being abused for the purpose. The reason it's being abused is to, the ulterior motive is to cover up and otherwise prevent the exposure of your client to these other allegations by Mr. Edwards or others like him that may be scared off or afraid to pursue it because of what he's doing right now. At least, that's his argument. MR. ACKERMAN: Your Honor, based on what he's asking -- ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083010 89 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 THE COURT: Uh-huh. MR. ACKERMAN: -- you don't need to ask him this way. THE COURT: Uh-huh. MR. ACKERMAN: We don't need to go through and, for example, get healthcare provider records for sexual disorder. There is no issue there. We don't need to go through, in other words, what is the name and last known address of every healthcare provider which you have been treated or evaluated for sexual disorder. We haven't placed that in issue. Okay. We don't need, and he doesn't need to be able, if the Court is correct, and to follow the Court's question, we don't need to know the date of every single one of the actions. We don't need to show in detail what he's asking about genitals. We don't need to know the number of sexual matters that were involved with Mr. Epstein to do that. He can introduce that by talking about what, you know, what he's pled guilty to. But this is such a broad request we have asserted a Fifth Amendment privilege on it and he is making this argument in defense. I mean, we were making that in defense of a counterclaim. THE COURT: I'm sorry. I'm not ruling on the Fifth Amendment privilege. I'm ruling on whether or not these are relevant to the lawsuit and not whether your client has the Fifth Amendment privilege. ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083011 90 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 MR. ACKERMAN: That's part of our objections right now. MR. SCAROLA: Which I am not asking be overruled. THE COURT: I didn't understand it to be that way. I understood it to be the question that was in front of me. Your client can always say I object on the basis but he has to specifically answer the question that way. But the question was, that I thought we were discussing, was whether or not he can be required to even give that answer because if it's not relevant or calculated to lead to admissible evidence, he doesn't have to give any answer period. MR. ACKERMAN: Your Honor, I just want to put on the record that we've raised the Fifth Amendment. THE COURT: Okay. MR. ACKERMAN: Secondly, this is not calculated to lead to any relevant evidence. It is calculated to get harassing information that is over broad and has nothing to do with, given this type of detail, with what he claims he wants to prove, okay. The Court can certainly restrict what he's asking. That's one of our objections. It's over broad. It's harassing. It's very, very personal in terms of doing it, okay. It certainly should be limited in time. There is no effort here at all to limit the time. If the Court -- he doesn't need to answer questions about his ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083012 91 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 genitals when they were exposed, okay. If the interrogatory is rephrased so that it states that were you subject to a number of victims' claims, if so, how many, he can establish that, okay. But to go through and ask when Maxwell engaged in sexual activity with a minor female, what does that have to do with Mr. Epstein? Okay. That's someone else. Okay. And whether he did these overt sexual acts that are the subject of this request, that's really the heart of the objection. I think, I still contend it's not relevant based on what is there but, certainly, if the Court is going to find that he wants to prove motive, this isn't the way to do it. We're going to have evidentiary issues with it. The Court has discretion in discovery matters to limit it so as not to waste the Court's time with unnecessary litigation. And at a minimum, I still believe the Court needs to wait until Cooper is involved, but at a minimum the Court should sustain these objections and make him reask them so that they are not, they're limited in time. They're limited in not so much detail. And that they are calculated to show why it's related to the claims in this lawsuit and these don't meet that requirement. THE COURT: Okay. Briefly, Mr. Scarola. MR. SCAROLA: Your Honor is correct that motive, while generally not an element of a tort, is always ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083013 92 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 relevant and material. And while motive is generally not an element of a tort in an abuse of process claim where we are obliged to show that the purpose behind the filing of the complaint against Mr. Edwards, which is the process that is clearly addressed in this counterclaim, the purpose was unrelated to any legitimate purpose and was intended to cover up an extremely broad pattern of conduct that could subject Mr. Epstein to both additional criminal liability and civil liability. It is a very curious argument, indeed, that Mr. Epstein has engaged in so much of this criminal and tortious conduct that it would create an enormous burden for him to answer the interrogatories about how many young women he has abused. If that's the argument that is being made, and it sounds like that's the argument that's being made, they have the burden of supporting that burdensomeness argument. But there is no way that the Court could ever conclude that you have engaged in so much misconduct that I'm not going to ask you to tell us how much because it would be too much of a burden on you. THE COURT: I didn't understand you to say that. I thought you were saying it was over broad, not burdensome. It's a different standard. MR. SCAROLA: Well, the word burdensome was spoken many times and it was related to the scope of what ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083014 93 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 was being requested and how many incidents would need to be disclosed. As far as the scope is concerned where this conduct took place, when it took place, the extent to which it is going to expose Mr. Epstein to potential criminal and civil liability is all relevant and material. There's nothing overly burdensome about this at all. MR. ACKERMAN: The burdensome part of it was the detour that this Court would go on, if we go down that path. THE COURT: Okay. I've heard enough argument on that. I'm not going to rule right off the top of my head here. You'll get an order by the end of the week. I got to think about this. Whichever way I go it's kind of like, in a sense, a roadmap of where we're going in the future so I really have to think about that more. What would be the next one here we have to deal with, guys? I mean, I got a pretty good idea what I'm going to do but I want to think about it overnight before I put it on paper. MR. SCAROLA: Your Honor, the next has to do with our motion for protective order and objections to a notice of taking deposition and appointment of special master in an effort to re-depose Mr. Edwards. MR. ACKERMAN: No, that's not the one. THE COURT: I'm sorry. MR. ACKERMAN: I don't believe that's the next ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083015 94 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 one. MR. SCAROLA: Three B. MR. ACKERMAN: The next one is Three B and Three C. Motion for protective order relating to a subpoena that we sent to the trustee seeking the law enforcement documents. MR. SCAROLA: Oh, I'm sorry. THE COURT: So Three B. MR. ACKERMAN: Three B. THE COURT: Let's me pull that. Let's take about a five minute recess. I've got something I need to take care of real quick. (BREAK TAKEN) MR. SCAROLA: Your Honor, an issue has arisen during the recess that the court reporter would like some guidance on. One of the reporters has requested the transcription of this hearing and to receive a copy and the court reporter wants the Court's guidance as to whether she can accept an order from someone other than a party in the case. MR. ACKERMAN: Your Honor, I would ask that you defer that until we get to the motion relating to prejudicial statements that we're asking the Court to enter some restrictions on because of the use that has been made of statements in this case that show up in the press that ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083016 95 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 relate to the sexual matters, which we believe aren't relevant. THE COURT: You are asking me to issue a prior restraint order, is that what you're asking me to do? MR. ACKERMAN: It's not a prior restraint order. THE COURT: Well, what is it you are asking me to do? MR. ACKERMAN: We're asking you to enter an order -- hold on a second. MR. KNIGHT: Actually, at this point I think what Joe is saying the court reporter issue, if we could take that up at the very end because it may relate to some of these other issues. THE COURT: Let's make sure we get to it. Okay. Because -- well, let's deal with it right now. Since it's come up let's deal with it and we'll deal with it again, I guess, in the order. But this is separate. This is an open proceeding. I know of no case law that prevents anybody from getting a copy of -- having a court reporter type a deposition. MR. SCAROLA: That's my understanding, sir. THE COURT: I don't know of any. I mean, can't somebody come and get a copy of anything that's in open court. I don't know, if they're willing to pay for it. Do you have any authority for that at all? ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083017 96 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 MR. ACKERMAN: Well, no, because I wasn't prepared to deal with it today. My concern, though, is that we have filed -- and this would be, if you want to take this up now? THE COURT: Well, I guess we better then we can go ahead and take it up in order. MR. ACKERMAN: Well, this would be sections Three E and Three F. THE COURT: Okay. This has actually never been presented to me for hearing before, right? MR. SCAROLA: This is new. MR. ACKERMAN: This is new. THE COURT: Okay. Give me a second, counsel. Okay. Mr. Scarola, you filed a response to this? MR. SCAROLA: Yes, sir, that's the next tab F. THE COURT: Okay. I'll hear argument. I have to tell you, gentlemen, it's been awhile since I've had this issue come up. In fact, I think it's only come up once in my judicial career but I will listen to argument. I will not rule from the bench today. I have to look at these cases again. It's been a long time since I read that Supreme Court decision but go ahead, Mr. Ackerman. MR. ACKERMAN: Yes, sir. THE COURT: Okay. And did anybody favor me with copies of these cases? ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083018 97 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 MR. SCAROLA: I did not, sir. MR. ACKERMAN: I did not, Your Honor. We can send them in. THE COURT: I can look them up. MR. ACKERMAN: One of the things that's been occurring in this case, Your Honor, and a perfect example of our position on it is the summary judgment documents. Everything that Mr. Scarola and Mr. Edwards can do to raise the issues of these sexual improprieties to insert in this case, the Court can see that they are doing. Okay. Once they file the stuff in the Court file it is then under the law and under the bar rules able to be commented on. So as a result, we've attached to the first motion and then the amended motion these articles where Mr. Scarola is being attributed to saying that he's a convicted pedophile. That's not true. Okay. One of the things I want to address in this motion is up until today Mr. Scarola has constantly referred to Mr. Epstein as a pedophile. Okay. And there has been no proof of that anywhere. And it's inappropriate to do it in a Court proceeding and for it to be quoted in this manner because it will taint the jury pool. And also has no bearing on what the issues are. Mr. Scarola is quoted in other areas about speaking to Prince Andrew. There is an address book. All of these will become issues in this case if this door gets opened. ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083019 98 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 There is articles where Mr. Scarola says they're trying to get a statement from Prince Andrew. And it's our view that these were published comments by Mr. Scarola that's clearly trying to generate articles about Mr. Epstein and that is not the place to try this case. The Court does have discretion under the Miami Herald Publishing McIntosh case to take control and prohibit extraditial commentary in order to ensure the party receives a fair trial. And you can take steps to protect against pre-trial publicity, as the Shepherd Maxwell case discussed. The limitations imposed by the Court on communications between the lawyers and/or litigants and the media are permissible for good cause in order to assure a fair trial. McIntosh case specifically states that limitations placed on lawyers, litigants, and officials directly affected by Court proceedings may be at the Court's discretion. Muzzling lawyers who may wish to make public statements has been long recognized it's within the Court's inherent power to control professional conduct. There is also a bar canon, 114-3.6 of the rules regulating the Florida Bar, called trial publicity. It talks about a lawyer shall not make an extraditial statement that a reasonable person would expect to be disseminated by means of public communication, if the lawyer knows or reasonably should know, that it will have a ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083020 99 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 prejudicial likelihood on material prejudicing an adjudicated proceeding due to its creation of an eminent and substantial detriment on that proceeding. This rule incorporates the substantial likelihood of material prejudice standard that the Supreme Court adopted. And what's occurred, and the Court can look at the docket sheet. I don't think I have it attached here. But there was a recent filing that Mr. Scarola made that he used in support of his punitive damages about an interview with another alleged victim. He files it in the Court file and then there is an article about it. That has also been the case with some of these other articles. We have in the amended motion, the article is Epstein Claim To Intimidate Attorney Edwards Prosecuting Sex Abuse Cases. He's being quoted here. Okay. Then there is another article in the Daily News, Jeffrey Epstein Introduced Woman to Prince Andrew. That's being quoted. Mr. Edwards is quoted. Then there is a marketing firm that Edwards, Mr. Edwards' law firm used where he states Mr. Edwards has successfully represented ten women between twelve and fifteen years old by proving that Mr. Epstein and his intentional sex trafficking criminal enterprise exploited these girls. There is simply no basis in fact for this, at least, based on the knowledge we have of the number of cases Mr. Edwards has handled. ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083021 100 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 We have a British publication called the Telegraph that's published convicted pedophile. Well, he hasn't been convicted as a pedophile. Okay. Much of the information is from Mr. Scarola and he's quoted in the article that we've attached and we put forth some of what he said. He wants to speak to Prince Andrew. They want to obtain additional details. We believe Prince Andrew has been in the company of Mr. Epstein. And then we talk about The Holy Grail that was reprinted. Then there is another British publication called the Observer, which Mr. Scarola is again quoted. We have another article published in the Independant discussing the same thing. And we've got the Farmer Firm on their web site issuing press releases and online articles referring to Mr. Epstein and the lawsuits. And they refer to him on the web site as the billionaire pedophile and he helped ten women seek justice. Okay. We don't believe it's appropriate to wage a media campaign, taint the jury pool and pre-try this case in the court of world opinion, particularly given the Internet. Okay. This is one of the reasons why I believe the Court should deny the earlier request that we spoke about with regard to the discovery on these specific sexual matters ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083022 101 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 because they will then be in the press. And that will be, then we will be faced with real issues about a fair trial. The Court can place these limitations -- THE COURT: Help me out here. The McIntosh case, I read this and there has been some Supreme Court cases since that decision, as I understand, that tell me what the threshold or what the standard is that I have to apply before I do that. I know I have the authority to do that. I, certainly, have the discretion to do that but there's a standard set forth in these cases, as I recall it, that tells me what you, you or the person actually seeking this restraint, is required to establish before, before I go down there. So what is it, what do the cases tell me on that? MR. ACKERMAN: The Court -- we have proposed what the Court can do. It says that no person covered by this order -- THE COURT: No, no. You misunderstand me. Let me ask the question again. I'm not asking you what you want me to do in terms of restraint. What I'm asking you is what is the threshold of the bar you have to reach in order to get such a restraint? As I understood it, if I recall right, the McIntosh case sets forth a standard that I have to utilize before I, I use my discretion by entering such an order. It's been awhile. ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083023 102 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 MR. SCAROLA: That standard is described in our memo, Your Honor. It's quoted at page three, the top of page three in our memo. THE COURT: And your memo is at? MR. SCAROLA: That's tab F. Comes right after their memo. MR. ACKERMAN: Hold on. To justify a prior restraint the activity must pose a clear and present danger or serious or eminent threat to a protecting competing interest and that such a restraint cannot be upheld or -- cannot be upheld if reasonable alternatives are available and that's what McIntosh says. MR. SCAROLA: That's a direct quote from McIntosh, Your Honor, that's correct. MR. ACKERMAN: But the Court also -- and that talks about pre-trial proceedings. Okay. This can go on between now and the time we go to Court, as long as we are discussing these issues. And by the time we get to trial, you know, and the issue I think the Court is concerned about is eminency. But we have a history right now that's been established. If the Court allows this discovery to proceed that we've previously argued and does not place -- and the case law says that a Court -- prohibition on comment is an acceptable alternative to prior restraint, which is cited in the Florida Freedom Newspapers versus ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083024 103 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 McCrary case, which is a Florida -- I'm sorry. Yeah, Florida Supreme Court case 520 So.2nd 32. And it can outline, the Court has also outlined other measures short of prior restraint on publication. Okay. And that has been held to be an appropriate way of doing it. And what the Court can do, and what we're proposing to do, is enter some pre-trial order that before any comments are made or anything is filed relating of a sexual nature, the Court review it and impose limitations on counsel before they comment to the press. These matters are on the Internet and there is really no way to deal with it. THE COURT: The order I enter isn't going to protect the Internet anyway. MR. ACKERMAN: You can't stop the Internet. What you can do is stop us, stop the lawyers from talking to reporters about stuff before it gets filed in the Court file. For example, Mr. Scarola recently filed an interview of a woman that was an alleged victim of Mr. Epstein's actions. He filed that with a pleading that said this is being filed in support of some motion, followed by an article in the paper. Okay. That's what we're asking the Court to exercise some control over. The case law, as I understand it, states that once it's in the public record the lawyers are allowed to comment on it. But what we're trying to do is prevent that so that we don't have an ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083025 104 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 unnecessary amount of pre-trial publicity on issues that may not, and the Court may ultimately rule on, have nothing to do with this case. Okay. You are not there yet on that decision, okay, on what the ultimate issues are. And until that occurs, the lawyers shouldn't be making any comments to the press about sexual conduct claims involving Mr. Epstein with the specificity Mr. Scarola has been saying. What we're proposing is that is contained on page eight and nine of the amended motion. That basically states that no person covered by this order shall make no statement to the media that could interfere with a fair trial. Notwithstanding that, the Court -- THE COURT: What page are you on? MR. ACKERMAN: I'm on page eight and nine of our amended motion. THE COURT: Does this come out of a case? MR. ACKERMAN: Yes. THE COURT: What case? Because I wouldn't know what in the world that could interfere with a fair trial or otherwise prejudice the parties in administration of justice means. That's kind of vague. You have a case that that came out of? MR. ACKERMAN: Yeah, I do, Your Honor. I have to locate it. I believe I have it. Your Honor, I don't have ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083026 105 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 a copy of it. I'll have to get it to you. I thought I had it with me. THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead. MR. ACKERMAN: But these cases do allow the Court to make a balancing test between free expression and a fair trial. And in this case, I don't -- we're asking for some protection because if we end up, for example, doing a video deposition -- THE COURT: There is a distinction between asking for protection against publicity or statements being made and asking for protection in regard to the integrity of a fair trial. Those are two different things. You understand what I'm saying? The mere fact that somebody says something that your client finds offensive or doesn't like or feels that he's been invaded by that comment is not the same thing as my concern, which is, which is that there is a fair trial in this case and can your client get a fair trial with pre-trial publicity. You see what I'm getting at? Because you seem to be focusing most on, you know, this thing affects your client, are, you know, libel or slander. Honor. MR. ACKERMAN: No, no, that's not the issue, Your THE COURT: Okay. MR. ACKERMAN: Here's the thing -- ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083027 106 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 THE COURT: Because I don't have any evidence in front me at this point that whatever pre-trial publicity has gone on or been said or whatever has been said or done, and I don't know what all has been done, has in any way affected our ability to sit six jurors in this particular case that don't know anything about this case and otherwise are able to render a fair verdict. MR. ACKERMAN: Here's what I ask the Court to consider. THE COURT: Okay. MR. ACKERMAN: Okay. Let's hypothetically, and we don't believe the Court should allow this to occur, but hypothetically, let's assume that the Court allows a substantial portion of the discovery that Mr. Scarola was arguing about before, let's assume that that gets in the Court file. Let's assume that Mr. Scarola or Mr. Edwards is allowed to make continual media releases about it between now and the time we have a hearing. Let's assume that in response to some of these discovery requests we will be filing motions under 90.404(b), which relates to other bad acts, to keep that information out because it's merely being introduced to prejudice the jury. The Court will have to conduct a balancing test in terms of whether its proposed relevancy is outweighed by the prejudicial impact. Based on the information that they are seeking, ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083028 107 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 that will be an enormous task. Based on what is likely to occur, if this occurs, there will be numerous media publications continuously now through the case gets tried. Okay. If it's tried. And at that point in time we will then be faced with a potential jury pool that will have had a steady dose of this and I believe that that is wrong to do at this point, particularly, when the Court has not solidified the issues about how extensive this will be. And at that point I think the Court, it is well within the Court's -- the Nebraska Press Association case states that while restrictive orders unquestionably are permissible within certain limits, the U.S. Supreme Court has not made any distinctions between restrictive orders and prior restraints. Instead, Nebraska focuses on balancing free expression against competing interest in a particular context. In this case what I'm trying to say is that if my hypothetical proves to be true, then we will be faced with a jury that will be tainted because of all of the publications. And we will -- if this case is limited to abuse of process, and Mr. Scarola can inject this into it, then the jury, in my opinion, and I will argue to the Court, will not be able to set aside any instructions the Court makes relating to 404(b) evidence. We have Fifth Amendment issues that are coming up. And I submit that ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083029 108 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 before any further media reports occur that the Court at least instruct the lawyers that there be no more media discussions about the sexual activities until you've ruled on whether they're relevant. And then place some control on what the lawyers say so that by the time we do get to trial the media -- the jury pool is not tainted, which clearly will occur based on the pattern we've seen right now. THE COURT: Yes, sir. MR. SCAROLA: We have filed an extensive memorandum addressing these issues. It would be unconstitutional for Your Honor to impose any type of gag order on us at this point in time. Particularly considering the fact that this matter has not even yet been set for trial. THE COURT: Not even at issue. MR. SCAROLA: Not even at issue. We don't even have a complaint filed yet. So the case law is clear that there must be a clear and present danger that a jury pool could be tainted by specific -- THE COURT: Does that standard apply to gag orders as to the attorneys, as compared to power of restraint of the press or something of that nature? MR. SCAROLA: It applies to gag orders with regard to attorneys. ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083030 109 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 THE COURT: Okay. MR. SCAROLA: Yes, sir, it does apply to gag orders with regard to attorneys. And the standards that are applicable, I suggest to Your Honor, clearly cannot be met under the present circumstances. And there is a complete and total absence of proof before Your Honor that we have engaged in any conduct whatsoever that could be prohibited under any circumstances. We have had the opportunity to appear on national television. We have had the opportunity to conduct extensive press interviews. We have had the opportunity to issue press releases. We have not engaged in any of that conduct. The press has taken a keen interest, particularly, the foreign press has taken a keen interest in this case and there have been a lot of articles that have appeared in the British press ever since a victim of Mr. Epstein's has made public statements that have associated British royalty with Mr. Epstein. They have been very interested in what is going on in this case as a consequence of that. And we have had many opportunities to speak to the foreign press about these issues. We have scrupulously limited any response that we have made to contacts initiated by the press to matters that are matters of public record and available to the press by going to the courthouse and reading this Court's ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083031 110 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 file. If Mr. Epstein is embarrassed by Mr. Epstein's conduct, that's Mr. Epstein's problem. And, quite frankly, I'm pleased to hear that he's embarrassed by his conduct. Maybe it will serve some deterrent effect in the future on Mr. Epstein. And if this case and what Mr. Edwards has been through serves the purpose of increasing Mr. Epstein's embarrassment over Mr. Epstein's misconduct, that's great. I will tell you that the focus of public attention on this case has served the interests of my client because it has produced witnesses that we otherwise might not have known about. And I welcome further public scrutiny with regard to this case for that reason because it will aid, ultimately, in the pursuit of justice. We object to any restraints. I will tell you that once this case is set for trial we will scrupulously avoid participation in any public comments with regard to this case that could possibly interfere with our ability to select a jury because the last thing we want to do is interfere with our ability to get justice in this case. Thank you, sir. MR. ACKERMAN: Your Honor. THE COURT: Yes, sir. MR. ACKERMAN: Directing your attention to pages five and six here is the bar rule and it specifically is ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083032 111 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 restricted to a lawyer shall not make extraditial statements that a reasonable person would expect to be disseminated that will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding. THE COURT: Let me ask you this question. MR. ACKERMAN: And that's incorporated into the Gentile case, which you asked about earlier. THE COURT: Okay. MR. ACKERMAN: And -- THE COURT: I'm not sure that a Florida bar rule provides legal authority for me under the constitution, to enter an order. I mean, it may result in sanctions to the lawyer. MR. ACKERMAN: The bar rule, that's exactly what Gentile says. THE COURT: Tell you what, guys, I understand both sides of the argument here. What I need to do is go back and look at the cases. Do you all have them here? It's been a long time since I read the cases that -- MR. ACKERMAN: May we submit them to you? THE COURT: No. I want to go back and take fifteen or twenty minutes and let me read the cases, make a decision. This is something you guys need to know right now because it's going to affect also what the court reporter does. ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083033 112 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 MR. ACKERMAN: I don't have the Gentile case. THE COURT: You got the cite for me? Oh, is that one 501 US 1030. I got that one. I got the McIntosh case. MR. ACKERMAN: I have McIntosh and Florida Freedom Newspapers I can give you. I've marked them with notes. THE COURT: I think I can -- do you have any of these cases, Mr. Scarola? MR. SCAROLA: I don't have the cases themselves, your Honor. They are quoted in relevant part extensively in our memorandum. THE COURT: Let me take a look at these. I'll be right back. Okay. MR. SCAROLA: Thank you, sir. (BREAK TAKEN). THE COURT: Okay. And I apologize for taking so long. It's been awhile since I've read these decisions, quite frankly. And I had an opportunity to read the ones you've given me, as well as some that were actually cited in some of the decisions cited after the ones you gave me. Seems to me in reviewing these cases that Supreme Court of Florida, as well as the Supreme Court of the United States, made a distinction between the Court's discretion in limiting comments by attorneys during or prior to a proceeding, as compared to the public's right to knowledge ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083034 113 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 of trial proceedings, as guaranteed by the freedom of the press in provisions in the United States constitution. And, specifically, has held that prohibition on comments is, in fact, different from prior restraint. And the press has a right to print anything and we can't, or should not, restrain that except in the most extreme of circumstances. But the comments of counsel can be restrained. Having said that, it seems the Supreme Court has adopted, Supreme Court of the United States has adopted a lesser standard when imposing limitations on comments by counsel, as compared to any prior restraint of the press. And the standard which is set forth seems to be substantial likelihood of material prejudice and the Supreme Court of the United States said that is a constitutional permissible balance between the First Amendment rights of attorneys and the guarantee of a fair trial. Having said all of that, at this point I will deny the motion simply on the basis that I have no evidence in front of me that would establish that that standard, that comments by counsel or anything that counsel has said, done or would do, would have a substantial effect or substantial likelihood of material prejudice to this case at this point. I think that is an evidentiary thing that requires me to make findings of fact and facts on the case before you actually say, before you enter such a gag order you ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083035 114 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 actually have to make finding of fact that would support it before you can prohibit the comments as an acceptable alternative to any prior restraint. So I'm denying the motion on that basis at this point in time because I just have nothing in front of me other than this one motion and hearsay documents, which are attached at this point in time. MR. ACKERMAN: May it be without prejudice, Your Honor? THE COURT: Oh, any ruling like this is without prejudice. Okay. But having said there, I would hope counsel, both sides, would understand the necessity for having a fair trial in this case. And one of the comments the Supreme Court made is that one of the reasons that the courts do have some restrictions on the attorneys, aside from them being officers of the Court, is sometimes their statements are taken more authoritatively than others. So, anyway, I'm denying the motion at this point and time. Let's talk about, I see nothing in the rules that would prohibit the press of obtaining a copy of this. They can be in here photographing and videoing this entire proceeding, as far as I know, without my permission. Couldn't they? MR. KNIGHT: Your Honor, the comment we made to the court reporter before is we haven't ever researched the ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083036 115 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 issue. She should check with her office. THE COURT: I'm not prohibiting it, is what I'm saying. MR. KNIGHT: I don't know what their normal standards are and we did not want to comment on it. THE COURT: Whatever she wants to do is her choice. I'm not prohibiting the press from obtaining it, if they want to obtain copies of the proceedings, they can obtain it. I'm not entering any such order because it seems to me the cases also said the press is entitled to. I also point out that most of these cases were criminal proceedings. I've never seen a civil case where there has been a gag order and, perhaps, there are. But in my twelve years, eleven years on the bench I've never seen one in this courthouse or heard of one but that doesn't mean it's not proper in the right circumstances. Okay. Having said that, let's move on. What's next? MR. ACKERMAN: Your Honor, that would be Three B and C. THE COURT: Three B and C. Okay. Go ahead. MR. SCAROLA: Your Honor, this is the defendant's motion for protective order and objections to a notice of deposition duces tecum addressed to the trustee, Herb Stettin, seeking a substantial number of e-mail communications exchanged between RRA attorneys and ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083037 116 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 government officials and law enforcement officers. The objection is to relevancy first. There are ten thousand two hundred and fourteen pages of e-mails exchanged between RRA attorneys and government officials and law enforcement officers. And in light of the fact that there is no pending claim against Mr. Edwards, that discovery certainly couldn't be relevant or material to any pending claim against Mr. Edwards. And in light of the allegations that we have made, there is no reasonable argument that could be made that that discovery is reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence with regard to anything having to do with the counterclaim. So in the present state of the pleadings no relevancy can be shown to the counterclaim. No claim is pending. The best way for Your Honor to handle this at this point is to grant our motion for protective order and if allegations are made in the primary complaint which arguably could make this discovery relevant, they can re-issue their subpoena and we'll re-address it in the context of whatever allegations are then made. I can't imagine that they are going to make any allegations that could make this information relevant or material. The primary concern that we have is that if relevancy generally were determined, we need to review ten thousand two hundred and fourteen pages of e-mails in order to make ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083038 117 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 determinations as to whether there are appropriate privilege and work-product objections. We don't want to have to do that, so -- THE COURT: Let the ask you what privilege or work-product objections would exist between a communication between the law firm and third-parties? MR. SCAROLA: The common interest privilege that existed between the prosecution of the civil claims and the criminal prosecution that was ongoing with regard to Mr. Epstein. The common interest, the common interest privilege could clearly cover both attorney-client communications and work-product. So there is potential privilege objections that need to be evaluated. There are potential privilege objections that need to be evaluated. But at this point there could be no possible relevancy as to those communications. MR. ACKERMAN: Your Honor, I think it's important, first of all, if you have -- THE COURT: Let me stop. Somebody prepare an order on the, what I just ruled. You don't have to write out all the details but just -- MR. ACKERMAN: I will. Unless you want to do it? MR. SCAROLA: No, that's quite all right. THE COURT: All right. MR. ACKERMAN: Your Honor, I think it's important ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083039 118 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 to address this now even though you've dismissed the complaint because for these reasons, and let me show you. If you can take that packet that I gave you, I can demonstrate why this is relevant. THE COURT: What packet? MR. ACKERMAN: The packet of the documents that I submitted to you -- THE COURT: Oh, okay. MR. ACKERMAN: -- that Mr. Scarola is looking at. THE COURT: Go ahead. I'm listening. MR. ACKERMAN: Okay. THE COURT: Although, I don't think I can get this thing open, it's sealed. Do you have a letter opener handy? Go ahead. MR. ACKERMAN: Preliminary basis I think it is unfair at this point to stop discovery while we amend the pleading as it relates to this claim. We will be able to prove and allege that Mr. Rothstein ran a Ponzi scheme. The e-mails that I'm going to show you here are e-mails that Mr. Rothstein sent to the investors using the Epstein cases. We have proved in deposition that the Epstein case files that Mr. Edwards was prosecuting were shown to these investors and their counsel. We can establish that the investigators that were working on Mr. Edwards' case ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083040 119 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 against Mr. Epstein were showing the law firm's case files to these investors. We can show, we can make an amendment on the damages that will clear up the issues relating to damages. And I'm going to show the Court now the relevance of why on the overall claims, so the Court doesn't delay the discovery, but, specifically, the relevance with regard to this request and the inability at this point to deal with counsel's argument on a privilege. If you look at, I think it's the first document, 01404. Okay. This is an e-mail from Russell Adler to Brad Edwards copying Mr. Nurik and it relates to the non-prosecution agreement, which is in our complaint. Mr. Adler is saying to Mr. Edwards that he had a great conversation with Mr. Nurik, who is another lawyer in the firm, about the agreement and they wanted me to discuss the possibilities. Now, this is an agreement that's already been entered into by Mr. Epstein and the government. Okay. That takes us out of the joint prosecution, joint defense argument that Mr. Scarola made. That also refers to the assets. Okay. We go to the next one, 01661. This is from Mr. Edwards to Mr. Adler dated July 18th, 2009, where Mr. Edwards said to Mr. Adler. I want to talk to you about a few things. If we make the right moves we may be able to ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083041 120 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 force Epstein to settle for a lot of money but we have a couple of issues to deal with. The next one, 05087, deals with Qtask and that is here for two reasons. One, is to demonstrate to you why we still need those records down the road. But also to show how Mr. Edwards is using the media to feature the firm and the Epstein case, which we believe was part of the Ponzi scheme. When you go to the next one, 07304, it's an e-mail from Mr. Edwards to Mr. Kassel, who is another lawyer that is representing some of the victims in the crime victims rights act, where they say we have nothing more on moving assets. And that's in the first part. And down below, section three, he says I still think collection is going to ultimately be the key issue and they have lack of proof of transfer of assets. Now, in the federal court proceeding they filed a pre-judgment motion to prevent the transfer of assets, which was denied. And here they are acknowledging potentially their lack of proof of being able to do it. The next one, 00158, is from Mr. Edwards to someone in his firm directing her to send third-party subpoenas for prescription records, which weren't at issue and which we had placed in the complaint. The next one is, 08412, is where Mr. Edwards is saying ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083042 121 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 to one of the secretaries requesting a meeting with Scott at some point to discuss Epstein. Now, this is particularly important now, and as I go through because Mr. Edwards has testified in his deposition that he only had a few, he had almost no conversations with Mr. Epstein -- MR. KNIGHT: Mr. Rothstein. MR. ACKERMAN: I'm sorry, Mr. Rothstein. Thank you. Where an expletive deleted was used and claims privilege on the other conversation. So then we have 01685. I'm sorry, I skipped one. Do you have the -- there is one from Cara Holmes, who is an ex FBI agent that is saying to Mr. Edwards, let's go -- I don't have it right in front of me because but you have it right there. THE COURT: I think our best bet is to go after the close friends. MR. ACKERMAN: Go after his friends. Which we contend supports our abuse of process claim. Then we go to 01685, which is Mr. Edwards to Mr. Fiston, one of the investigators of Mr. Jenny, who he, in his deposition, denies having this type of conduct with, and talks about audio monitoring and recording in the law firm. And that someone talking on the speaker phone can be recording that. Now, we've alleged in the complaint that ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083043 122 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 Mr. Rothstein represented to these investors that he had high-tech electronic surveillance equipment in order to make this Ponzi scheme go. With regard to this motion specifically, 05112, Mr. Edwards is directing an e-mail to two investigators, Mr. Jenny and Mr. Fiston and Mr. Roberts, is a third investigator, and Cara Holmes, the lawyer we just mentioned, speaking to the U.S. Attorney. She said if we have proof of him being out of Florida, they will be in violation of the agreement and she will prosecute him. Her and the state attorney both called on probation. This is why we want to get these records because we believe that they were purposefully going out of their way in an effort to revoke his probation and this was subsequently a portion of something that was litigated before the federal court and found not to be accurate. 05113 talks about serving Alan Dershowitz, which we discussed earlier. 01406 is talking about taking Mr. Trump's deposition. And we can put those matters into the complaint, as you talked about earlier. 01212 is the proposed subpoena for Dershowitz. And Alan Dershowitz was one of Mr. Epstein's criminal lawyers in the criminal complaint, criminal cases, and they're subpoenaing him for deposition in this case. ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083044 123 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 Now, 26477 is a memo from Ken Jenny to Scott Rothstein advising him that the lawyers and investigators working on the Epstein matter are meeting on the twelfth floor at two to discuss where we are in the investigation. And this is crucial for a number of reasons because it provides one of the links, we believe, between Mr. Rothstein and Mr. Edwards through these investigators where Mr. Scott Rothstein is going to these meetings, learning what is going on and this is the same time period where he is pumping up his cases, these Epstein cases to these investors, which we'll show in subsequent e-mails. Okay. Now, we begin the e-mails that Rothstein, Mr. Rothstein is sending to the various investors. A. J. Discala is one of the investors. And then if you go to 27303, Mr. Rothstein is sending out to Frank Priam who I believe is one of the investigators, we have no money in for this client. She left screaming. This is really bad. We can lose the entire plaintiff's group, which we believe related to Mr. Epstein's cases. If you look at 04996, again we have another meeting for Mr. Edwards to the number of people that were involved to discuss this matter on October 22nd, 2009. Mr. Rothstein in 26817 says I cannot have this blow-up in my face. These clients talk to each other. If I burn this client, I can end up losing all my clients in the ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083045 124 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 Epstein case. And this is occurring within the same day that these people are meeting to discuss the case. If you flip over to 26335, Mr. Rothstein is sending the e-mail to A.J. Discala, Clockwork, an investor, Dean Kretschmer, who I mentioned, and Frank Priam and at the last sentence he states my client clearly feels I have lied to her about her funding. She is one step away from going to another lawyer and the Florida Bar. The next one 02992, we have another meeting going to all of these people in the law firm. Okay. And then 27013 we have the documents of the Epstein case that were in Mr. Rothstein's office. So we have, contrary to what Mr. Edwards has testified in the deposition, these documents establish that Mr. Rothstein conducted the Ponzi scheme with investors for the Epstein cases and unlike Mr. Edwards' testimony, there's numerous meetings -- MR. SCAROLA: I'm sorry to interrupt, Your Honor, but Mr. Edwards has never ever denied that Mr. Rothstein was engaged in a Ponzi scheme. And to tell this Court that he has testified in his deposition that that didn't occur, that's just false. I don't know what this is all about but what we're supposed to be talking about is whether the documents that were subpoenaed with regard to the federal government have anything to do with the pending ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083046 125 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 counterclaim and I haven't heard a word about that. MR. ACKERMAN: Your Honor, I have -- THE COURT: Let's do kind of focus in on the issue here. MR. ACKERMAN: I will. The point of this was to establish the parameter from which we made the request to show the relevancy of it. The point I'm trying to make with Mr. Edwards is that he testified there was a limited number of people involved in the prosecution of this case against Mr. Epstein when these documents clearly show that that's not the case. So we have requested, because we believe at the time they get the non-prosecution agreement that deal is over with, there is no basis at all to assert a joint privilege claim. Instead what it appears to be is that they are looking to try and interfere with the non-prosecution agreement. And so, we, because that part of our theory of our case, if you go to the subpoena, Exhibit 1, we have listed all e-mail communications between the attorney and employee of this Rothstein firm, which list these people, which we believe were involved with it and we specifically list the U.S. Attorney, the State Attorney, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Palm Beach Police Department and any investigator working for the state of Florida and anyone that represented an individual with a claim. Now, if you go to -- ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083047 126 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 THE COURT: Wait a minute. Where is the -- MR. ACKERMAN: If you go to my response. THE COURT: I'm looking at your response. Okay. MR. ACKERMAN: Okay. Under the one. THE COURT: I got it. One. MR. ACKERMAN: Next page Schedule A is the -- MR. KNIGHT: Let the judge catch up with you. MR. ACKERMAN: I'm sorry. Schedule A has the documents subpoenaed. THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead. MR. ACKERMAN: If you go to Exhibit 2 in response to an e-mail from Mr. Litman, who is the attorney for the bankruptcy trustee, we gave him the specific names for a specific search for this subpoena. As you can see, there are lawyers in the U.S. Attorney's office. There are people in the Palm Beach Police Department. There are people in the FBI. And there are people in the State Attorney's Office. If you go to Exhibit 3, this is Mr. Litman's response. He talks about refined e-mail search, which sought documents reflecting the communications between RRA lawyers and government officials, which, if not all, are law enforcement officers. He has a disc of those documents that are responsive and that are Bates stamped. THE COURT: Where is that? ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083048 127 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 MR. ACKERMAN: That's Exhibit 3 to my response. THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead. Really, focus in on the issue as to relevance, at this point and time. MR. ACKERMAN: The relevance is, Your Honor, first of all, we believe that part of this Ponzi scheme was designed to do things to Mr. Epstein so that Mr. Rothstein could tout those things to these investors to increase the amount of money that they were investing. In our amended complaint we went through the things that he told the investors. That they had the eavesdropping equipment -- THE COURT: This is, this is the government. This is the government, not the investors. It's not communications with the investors. What are you, you looking for any communications between U.S. Attorneys, police and these people? How -- I mean. MR. ACKERMAN: Because we believe there was an effort to torpedo this non-prosecution agreement. We believe that they were taking steps to cause a breach or get the government to revoke it after Mr. Epstein had agreed to it. We believe that that is an abuse of process. Subpoenas in those civil cases -- THE COURT: Let me get this straight. Are you saying that an alleged victim of a crime has no right to be involved in or to petition the government or even to suggest to the state attorney or anybody else that what ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083049 128 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 they're doing is contrary to their interest and get it revoked, you think that is an abuse of process? MR. ACKERMAN: When the agreement has already been made. Okay. Your Honor, and this is, this was an agreement that was reached. Okay. And they're attempting to undermine the agreement. THE COURT: I'm having trouble here. You're telling me or you're suggesting that a victim cannot go to the government, even after a reached agreement and say, you know, this is bad. I didn't have the input put into it or whatever the reason they think it shouldn't be existing, I mean, isn't that -- MR. ACKERMAN: Your Honor, first of all -- THE COURT: You think that's an abuse of process? MR. ACKERMAN: We're not talking the victims. We're talking about RRA doing this. And not only that, we won't know until we get them to see whether they're related to the victim or related to this case. You don't have to do an in camera review. We can look at the documents and determine whether they relate to a victim. They're still not privileged. They're going to third-parties. We don't have a privilege issue here. If he is advocating a case on behalf of his victims, there is no privilege. He's potentially in an adversary situation and there is a present adversary proceeding involving this crime, which I ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083050 129 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 have placed in this complaint. But if he is advocating that, then there is no privilege and we should be able to look at those documents to see if, in fact, that's what they were doing or they were using it based on what I've given you to show that they were really trying to, to effectuate this Ponzi scheme. THE COURT: These are relevant to show what again? I'm really -- I'm sorry, I'm dense but -- MR. ACKERMAN: Your Honor, we believe that Mr. Rothstein, and we believe Mr. Edwards participated in this, undertook a number of things in the Epstein lawsuits that would assist them with the marketing of this investment. One of the things we believe they did was to proceed to interfere -- to proceed to destroy this non-prosecution agreement that had already been reached between the government and between Mr. Epstein. We believe that they undertook surveillance, for example, in order to effectuate that. We believe that had nothing to do with these cases that they were prosecuting against Mr. Epstein on these three people. We believe it was a concerted effort to attempt to have Mr. Epstein's probation violated. And if you look at the privilege log, there is a designation between Paul Kassel and Mr. Edwards relating to violating his probation. ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083051 130 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 THE COURT: Is there already a privilege log regarding these? There is not, right. MR. ACKERMAN: There is a privilege log that just describes the subject matter of that communication. It does not relate to this document because the privilege log was not prepared with the documents we're talking about. THE COURT: Okay. So we don't have a privilege log? MR. ACKERMAN: Not related to these. THE COURT: Okay. I understand. Yes, sir. MR. SCAROLA: It is extremely frustrating to have counsel repeatedly talk about what he believes when his beliefs are neither relevant, nor, based upon facts and, indeed, are directly contrary to the facts. The crime victims right act complaint filed by Mr. Edwards was filed by Mr. Edwards before Mr. Edwards ever had any association whatsoever with RRA and before he ever filed any civil action on behalf of his clients because his client victims were upset about the sweetheart deal that Mr. Epstein had gotten, he had every right, he, Mr. Edwards, had every right and, indeed, a responsibility to his clients to vigorously petition the government for the redress of what they perceived to be a serious grievance. To compound all of this, there is no complaint that is ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083052 131 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 presently pending. And when counsel repeatedly talks about interference with the non-prosecution agreement is part of the theory of our case, there is no case right now. They haven't stated a claim. And the only claim they attempted to state was an abuse of process claim, which has got nothing to do with tortious interference with a non-prosecution agreement. They, when repeatedly given an opportunity to relate this requested discovery to an effort to obtain evidence reasonably calculated to relate to the pending counterclaim, are unable to do it because it can't be done. Your Honor, respectfully, should grant our motion for a protective order. And if after they have decided what it is they want to try to sue Mr. Edwards for, they have restated another claim and they believe that evidence in the hands of the trustee with regard to communications between RRA attorneys and government officials and law enforcement officers is relevant and material to whatever new fabricated claim they attempt to state, we can come back before Your Honor and address it in that context. Thank you, sir. MR. ACKERMAN: Your Honor, may I give a brief response? THE COURT: Briefly, yes, sir. MR. ACKERMAN: Again, when I went through these ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083053 132 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 documents I'm trying to give the Court where our inferences can be that can lead to discoverable information, okay. And I think for the Court to postpone this until we have an amended complaint when we have this information in front of us, which we believe shows a link to a set of patterns where they are talking about the non-prosecution agreement, where they're going after his friends, where there are numerous meetings with the whole firm at the time this investment is being made, that that shows a plan and why this is relevant. And if the victims are adverse to the government, then they don't have a joint privilege. And I submit to you that these are relevant for what our ultimate theory of the case is going to be, which you can see, and what these documents that we have right here demonstrate. THE COURT: Okay. What is the next one? All of these orders will be out by Friday, gentlemen, because I'm going -- actually be out by tomorrow. So go ahead, what is the next one? MR. ACKERMAN: Okay. Your Honor, I would like, this one, Three D involves an amended supplemental motion based on, and to be able to compel Mr. Edwards to answer questions at a deposition. One of the things, since we have a number of issues relating to privilege, that there's one thing that I would like to address in this deposition because it deals with a request to produce on another ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083054 133 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 motion that relates to damages, okay. If the Court can turn to Three C, Three D. And I'm trying to save some time. MR. SCAROLA: May I make a suggestion to save some time? Mr. Edwards has been deposed extensively already. If there is any, any circumstance under which he's going to be deposed again, it, certainly, ought to come after he knows what the charges are against him and not before. MR. ACKERMAN: With one exception, and the reason I'm asking now are the damages in their counterclaim. Okay. The damages in their counterclaim, he was asked extensively -- THE COURT: What are you asking me to do? Are you asking me to redepose him on this one question? MR. ACKERMAN: I'm willing to defer the deposition on this one issue to a time where it makes sense to address other issues. But I don't want this objection that he's made in the deposition to keep me, keep us from getting the information for his damages in the counterclaim, which we have not received and is a subject for another motion. They raised objections as to how much you were making. We asked him -- let me back up. If you go -- THE COURT: If this is a production request, that ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083055 134 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 is the request what we're dealing with. I mean, seems nonsensical for me to decide questions in the deposition at this point until we know exactly who is suing who for what and then you can get them altogether at one time. MR. ACKERMAN: I can. The only reason I'm bringing it up is in the deposition we attempted to make an inquiry on financial parts that we believed were relevant to defending the counterclaim and he raised an objection of economic privacy. That is also raised in our request to produce. THE COURT: You can still do a request to produce, if that's what you want to do. I don't think we deal with it at the deposition stage. MR. ACKERMAN: So just defer this motion? THE COURT: I'm not going to, seems silly to me to order, unless you want him to, just to answer it by, if I grant it, answer it by way of interrogatory. I don't think you are going to like that. MR. ACKERMAN: Well, at some point we need to redepose him on the damages. THE COURT: My point being is if you're not going to accept an answer by way of interrogatories, then you're going to have to redepose him anyway. We're not going to do this today. Not that. It don't make any sense. MR. ACKERMAN: Okay. We'll defer and go to the ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083056 135 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 request to produce. THE COURT: Which one is that? MR. ACKERMAN: Okay. Four A. That also involves another issue. To simplify things at this point -- THE COURT: Four. MR. ACKERMAN: We sent a request to produce. It's attached to the motion Exhibit 1. THE COURT: Again, you're dealing with privilege issues here, as well as other stuff, right? MR. ACKERMAN: Well, there are a number of objections here that don't raise privilege. Okay. We asked for, I believe, if you go to Paragraph Five of the motion refers to Paragraph Six of the request where we requested fee sharing agreements relating to the case. He has a counterclaim that seeks damages for, among other things, his reputation, interference with professional relationship, loss of value of time, required to be diverted from his professional responsibilities. So we believe the compensation relationship between Mr. Edwards and RRA and anything related to the Epstein cases should been produced. His objection to this number six says relevance, not reasonably calculated to lead to discoverable information, and there are no agreements with investors. But we were not asking for investor agreements. ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083057 136 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 We wanted the agreements between Mr. Edwards, RRA, and Rothstein. THE COURT: It does ask for investor. MR. ACKERMAN: Pardon me? THE COURT: It says or investor. MR. ACKERMAN: Okay. THE COURT: And/or any other attorney or investor related to any aspect of any plaintiff's case. Not just -- MR. ACKERMAN: Right. So he says that he doesn't have the investor ones but he hasn't produced the ones between Edwards, RRA and Scott Rothstein. THE COURT: Okay. MR. ACKERMAN: Number nine, we ask for cost of payment that the Rothstein firm had against Mr. Edwards. There's no privilege claim there. Pardon? MR. KNIGHT: Against Mr. Epstein. MR. ACKERMAN: Against Mr. Epstein. I'm sorry, Your Honor. Okay. We felt that that was related to how the cases were being used. We believe that this Ponzi scheme was designed to raise money to fund these cases. Number ten, we ask for the documents received by you relating to the assertion of a lien by the trustee. Okay. Because that relates to his compensation on the Epstein cases, which is part of the damages of his counterclaim. Because in order to find out what he's been damaged, we ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083058 137 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 need to know what he was making at the firm at the time and how the compensation formula was set up and what he earned on the various cases. Number 22 is all documents that support your claim for damages. Okay. There is an objection to that that it's not determined. They can't formulate. He says they don't know what the damages are. Okay. So we need to get that information. THE COURT: Okay. Yes, sir. MR. SCAROLA: Not yet determined is not an objection, it is an answer. The only argument that was made that relates to relevance to the pending counterclaim is evidence with regard to damages claimed by Mr. Edwards. Mr. Edwards is not claiming that he lost any income from RRA. RRA has folded. It went into bankruptcy. It folded and went into bankruptcy as a consequence of Mr. Rothstein's criminal activity. We do not blame Mr. Epstein for the destruction of the law firm and any economic loss that resulted as a consequence of the destruction of the law firm to Mr. Edwards. Therefore, that line of inquiry is irrelevant and immaterial. What we have alleged is that Mr. Edwards has been, and continues to be, diverted from other income producing activity as a consequence of the prosecution of these spurious claims, whatever they may ultimately wind up ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083059 138 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 being, but what they have been up until now, as well, including the need to defend against Florida RICCO claims that no longer exist, and civil remedies for criminal activity claims that no longer exist against him, that his attention was diverted from other income producing activities as a consequence of the need to defend against this case. That's got nothing to do with how much money he made historically, if anything, from RRA. MR. ACKERMAN: Your Honor. THE COURT: What about the idea that past performance is a predictor of future performance in terms of -- MR. SCAROLA: We're talking about the lost value of the time, that's what we're talking about. THE COURT: I understand that. But how do we measure his time? MR. SCAROLA: Because he's got a standard hourly rate. THE COURT: Okay. But, I mean, it's like somebody saying, well, I can no longer detail cars and I make X amount of dollars detailing cars but you've been doing that work for twenty years, can't you find out what you did before. MR. SCAROLA: Well, I don't think that's an accurate analogy. In the case of an attorney, as I think ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083060 139 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 it was Abraham Lincoln observed, what we have to sell is our time. And there is only a finite amount of that time. Regardless of what Brad Edwards may have made from other sources historically or prospectively what he may make in the future, he lost time that could have been devoted to other income producing activity. What probative value does it have to know, for example, that in 2010 Brad Edwards made $5,000 and in 2011 Brad Edwards made $20,000, if Brad Edwards could have made $25,000 in 2011, if he wasn't obliged in 2011 to be sitting in this courtroom all day today as a consequence of having been sued for purposes of putting him in this courtroom instead of enabling him to make a living. So I don't know how you draw any reasonable inference from that other information. Would it be relevant to know what his standard hourly rate is, yes. Would it be relevant to know how much time he has had to devote to this case, those would be relevant and material inquiries. But how much he made from other sources is so dependant upon factors that are entirely independant of the damages claimed in this case, that they have no relevance and materiality. And, certainly, in conducting a balancing test, when they don't have probative value and we weigh against the absence of probative value the invasion into his economic privacy, I suggest to Your Honor that the ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083061 140 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 outcome of that balancing test ought to be, I'm sorry, you don't get it at this point. There just isn't enough here for you to get it on the basis that he has told you that what he has lost is his time and the value of his time. MR. ACKERMAN: May I respond? THE COURT: Yes, sir, just one second. But if he couldn't sell his time before, I mean, like you say, I just keep getting back to the fact that if his time was not productive or he couldn't sell his time before, I don't know what he made with this law firm. It may have been a lot of money, it may have been nothing. I don't know. How could we say that's not, at least, calculated to lead to admissible evidence in this case as compared to what the potential value may be. MR. SCAROLA: That, Your Honor, would be a relevant question. His ability to productively use his time in the past would be relevant. But Brad is primarily a plaintiff's lawyer. That's principally the work that he does and has been doing. Your Honor knows that this year's productivity is a consequence, or potentially a consequence, of effort that was made and begun five years earlier. THE COURT: Let me suggest to you, I've had cases where the plaintiff in a personal injury case was a practicing attorney. And they claim as a result of the ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083062 141 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 injuries sustained in the accident they're unable to work like they were and, therefore, have lost earnings or ability to earn money in the future as a result of the physical limitations, injury or whatever it is. I can't imagine in that kind of case the attorney could come and say, well, you can't find out what I made before this injury because that's not relevant to what my time is worth today. MR. SCAROLA: I absolutely agree with you. In that kind of case, I think that, I think it is a relevant and material inquiry. But let's assume those same set of circumstances and the attorney says I was, as a consequence of my injury -- I'm a lawyer who works on an hourly basis and as a consequence of my injury I missed two weeks of work. Or I work on a salary and I missed two weeks of work and this is how much I get paid and I didn't get paid for that two week period of time. All you get -- MR. ACKERMAN: Your Honor. THE COURT: Wait a minute. MR. SCAROLA: All you get in terms of discovery is what you need to know for what the value of that time was. That's all you get. And you don't get to know what he was making five years earlier at a different law firm or what he may be making today because that's not relevant to the loss that he had during that limited period of time. ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083063 142 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 And that's what we're saying, what Brad Edwards has lost is the value of that time that has to have been devoted to this case as a consequence of his having been the victim of an abusive process. MR. ACKERMAN: Your Honor, I've attached the interrogatory answers. We've asked him what the amount of the damages alleged to be, it's in excess of one million. They have said emotional distress, mental anguish, which I'm not sure is a claim that can be brought. But he's asked for loss of reputation and standing in the community. Loss of value of time spent in defense and in responding to this process. In the counterclaim he talks about damages to his reputation, interference with professional relationships, loss of a value of time. We can't begin to make that evaluation for the amount of money that's claimed without being able to look into what relationships he had, what fee agreements he had, what money he made so that we can determine whether, in fact, he has been damaged by this or by something else that's happened in his life. And one of the ways we can do it is by looking at what his compensation plan was. What agreements he had with the firm. What he had with referral lawyers so we can establish whether there has been, in fact, an interference with these professional relationships and find some way to get to this million dollars which they are claiming and ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083064 143 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 that we now have to defend. So it is relevant and likely to lead to relevant information. THE COURT: Okay. What about the -- I don't know if you mentioned this, Mr. Scarola, the documents evidencing cost and payments of bills and the trustee lien for attorney's fees and costs? MR. SCAROLA: Couldn't have any relevancy at all to the pending counterclaim and there is no pending claim. THE COURT: Okay. MR. ACKERMAN: Your Honor, that goes to, what, ultimately, there is going to be a number of factors that make up what Edwards' salary was and what he made and where it came from. Okay. And if he didn't actually net money from the cases but it had to go to the trustee, that may affect the calculation and the number. And what we're trying to do is make a determination as to the overall impact on his ability to earn money and anything that relates to what the fee is, what the costs were, or affected his income and his relationships is relevant. THE COURT: Okay. What is next? I'll tell you what, I'm going to have to take a short break. You can stretch your legs, as well. Tell me which one is the next one. MR. ACKERMAN: Hold on a second, Your Honor. I guess the next one would be the protective order relating ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083065 144 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 to the deposition of the plaintiff and a motion to compel relating to the plaintiff. And then we have some objections to request to produce that each has lodged against the others. MR. SCAROLA: We don't want to redepose Mr. Epstein until after the new complaint is filed. That can be deferred. THE COURT: Okay. So which motion you want to hear next? MR. ACKERMAN: Hold on a second. THE COURT: You all figure it out and I'll be back in a few minutes. MR. SCAROLA: Thank you, sir. (BREAK TAKEN) THE COURT: Thank you. I wasn't back there twiddling my thumbs. Unfortunately -- not unfortunately. Fortunately, I'm going on vacation Friday to see my grandchildren. And needless to say it always happens, there is all of these emergency motions that are filed that have to be ruled on by Friday so I was dealing with one of our laws clerks on issues I've never heard before in my thirty-five years practicing law. MR. SCAROLA: Law clerk? THE COURT: We have law clerks. We have to share the law clerks but we have law clerks. Okay. Which one we ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083066 145 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 doing now? MR. SCAROLA: Three G. THE COURT: Three G. Okay. MR. ACKERMAN: It's really in relation to Three G and H. THE COURT: Okay. MR. ACKERMAN: Okay. If I could also ask the Court to flip over to J. Just keep your finger there. We filed -- basically, what had occurred, is that Mr. Scarola re-noticed Mr. Epstein for deposition, for video deposition on April 13 of this past year. Now, I communicated with Mr. Scarola to find out what the nature of the deposition was going to be about since he had testified extensively already in deposition. Mr. Scarola's response was that he was going to go into inquiry relating to public statements made by the plaintiff regarding his criminal activity, any documents supporting -- he was going to take the position that the plaintiff had waived his Fifth Amendment right. He had taken the position that he had lost his Fifth Amendment rights by operation of law and that was the basis of the deposition. So I sent a request to produce out, which is in J, based on that and received objections to all of those matters. So we filed a motion for protective order based on the grounds that he had already been deposed. That no meaningful grounds had been alleged to ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083067 146 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 justify taking another deposition. Particularly, on the grounds that he had waived his Fifth Amendment and we had sought the discovery to find, understand the basis of that so we could understand why we were being, my client was being deposed again. And we had also requested in this motion that it not be a video deposition. And the reason why we were requesting that it not be a video deposition is particularly meaningful in light of the discovery request that this Court is about to rule on where he may be asked several questions of a specific sexual nature that then are placed on videotape on and then goes into the public domain and the prejudice to that is incredible and should not be allowed. So we filed this motion. We advised counsel that unless, we had to have a hearing on this, and that before he could be redeposed on this new information we needed a hearing. So we advised him in advance. Mr. Epstein, we also, I think, had a problem with a date but he did not appear for the deposition so Mr. Scarola has filed a motion to compel and for sanctions not to appear. And so our position, basically, is that the grounds that he sought to depose him on that we were advised was not appropriate. And that we did not, particularly, we had a good faith concern, in light of the discovery that he was attempting to take, of the vast information into prior sexual issues, that those become, be placed on a video ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083068 147 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 deposition and then become something in the public domain. THE COURT: Are you asking me to prohibit the deposition, prohibit the video deposition or prohibit or require him to produce the documents? I'm not sure. Or all of the above? MR. ACKERMAN: If he's going to depose him on the Fifth Amendment, I want the documents that allege that that was, that that was done. I think that's a reasonable request. It's a subject that he's claimed numerous times that that has occurred. And before any deposition occurs on that we want the documents that establish that. Secondly, we felt that he should not be deposed on that, on that issue because all it would do -- I mean, he had already been extensively deposed. And he, Mr. Scarola, needs to come in and establish why he wanted to take his deposition again and that's not in his motion to compel for sanctions. And that needs to be presented to the Court and approved before any sanctions or order compelling is set forth. And third, I can't, the rules allow a video deposition but the Court can make restrictions on how it's used. And our concern in this case, as I articulated before, that if we end up going down this rabbit trail of this, the type of discovery that they have asked for, the sexual nature, and then that is on a video deposition and it can then be ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083069 148 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 placed on the Internet, we need to have a hearing on that so that the Court can place some restriction on the use of that so there is no unfair prejudice and we can't do that at this point in time. So that was the basis of the motion. THE COURT: Yes, sir. MR. SCAROLA: This was a dually noticed video deposition. Counsel has acknowledged the fact that there were communications about the scheduling of this deposition and what we intended to do. While a motion for protective order was filed on April 8 of 2011, no effort was ever made by the plaintiff to set the motion for protective order for hearing. They just unilaterally chose not to show up. There's a certificate of non-appearance. We had a court reporter present we were there. We were ready to proceed and they simply did not appear. Mr. Epstein has made numerous public statements to reporters. And his denials about having engaged in misconduct with minors have been reported. I want to ask him about those public statements that he has made. I want to know whether the reports of those public statements are accurate or not accurate. I want to know what the denials are based upon. I want to know whether he admits having spoken to these reporters or denies having spoken to them at all. All for purposes of determining ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083070 149 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 whether there, in fact, has been a waiver of his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. Because he cannot choose to remain silent when he is deposed but speak to every court reporter who he can get in front of to tell them this is all silly because I really didn't do anything wrong. THE COURT: You said court reporter, I don't think you meant. MR. SCAROLA: I meant reporter, not court reporter, you are correct, Your Honor. There is, obviously, significant evidentiary value to having these depositions recorded on video for purposes of later presentation before a jury. The Florida Rules of Civil Procedure recognize that value. And the concerns that Mr. Ackerman has, if they need to be addressed at all, certainly, don't need to be addressed by a prohibition of the videotaping of the deposition, which while he appears to be backing off from that now, is what his motion asked for. We are entitled to take a video deposition. As I've told Your Honor, I don't want to do it until after I know what the new allegations are in the new complaint. We didn't have a new complaint as of the time of this request for deposition but I do now want to delay it until such time as the video deposition can be taken to cover all of the issues that are raised in the new complaint. ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083071 150 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 But I do want to be able to video it when we take the deposition. THE COURT: Well, I'm not going to rule on when you have to take the deposition. If I allow it, I'm just going to rule as to whether or not you're allowed to take the deposition -- MR. ACKERMAN: Your Honor, may I respond? THE COURT: -- in the areas we're talking about. Second, whether or not you have to produce the documents you have requested. MR. SCAROLA: Let me address that, Your Honor. THE COURT: And third, whether or not it can be by video and, if so, what restrictions I put on any video that's done. MR. SCAROLA: Had this deposition gone forward, as it should have gone forward on April 13, I obviously would not have been obliged to respond to a request to produce in advance of that deposition. And the selection of particular documents for use during the course of the deposition is attorney work-product. I ought not to have to give this party a script of what he is going to be asked about in advance. I don't think I'm obliged to do that. Obviously, I'm not obliged to absent an order of the court, and if the Court did order me to do it, I would do it. But I don't think that I should have to give them a script of ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083072 151 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 what I'm going to be asking about in advance and that's, basically, what they're asking for. MR. ACKERMAN: Couple of things, Your Honor. This motion was filed at the time you were basically saying I need to have an all day hearing and we're going to defer any ruling on discovery and stuff until you get your hands around this case. And so based on the statements the Court made it was set for today and it would have been set in May, if we had reached it in May, but that's why it wasn't noticed because it was my understanding that you were going to, you needed to understand what the issues were before you could -- THE COURT: Let's just deal with the subject of aspect not the procedural. MR. ACKERMAN: Okay. Secondly, Mr. Scarola hasn't shown why he needs to be deposed again. He hasn't shown why these matters weren't addressed in the previous deposition. Okay. He has already been extensively deposed already and he hasn't met his burden to show that he's entitled to be deposed again on these issues, at least until -- THE COURT: I understand the rule to be the opposite of what you just said. I understand the rule to not limit the type, scope of discovery unless it's shown that it's oppressive, burdensome. And that becomes your ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083073 152 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 burden, as I understand it, the way the rule reads. MR. ACKERMAN: I don't believe that's the case, Your Honor. THE COURT: I thought it states it doesn't limit it unless -- MR. ACKERMAN: But the case law does allow protection -- THE COURT: True. MR. ACKERMAN: -- to a party that's already been deposed. THE COURT: I agree. MR. ACKERMAN: And that's my point. He's already been extensively deposed. THE COURT: But, I guess what I'm saying, maybe I'm saying the same thing by different, different wording. MR. SCAROLA: What has repeatedly been referred to as an extensive deposition is a series of Mr. Epstein reciting a script provided to him by counsel about how he is asserting his Fifth Amendment privilege even though he would like to be able to answer my questions, but his lawyer has instructed him not to answer my questions and so I'm not going to answer your questions and it goes on for about three paragraphs. MR. ACKERMAN: Your Honor. MR. SCAROLA: And it's the same response we got ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083074 153 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 over and over and over again. MR. ACKERMAN: Your Honor. MR. SCAROLA: It was not an extensive deposition as to the merits of this case. And I have clearly stated why I need to redepose him because I believe he has now waived his right to Fifth Amendment privilege and I want to explore the basis for making that claim. And in addition to which he will have made new assertions for new affirmative relief at some point between now and thirty days from now and I want to ask him a lot of questions about every claim for affirmative relief he's making. MR. ACKERMAN: Your Honor, we keep going back to this. If you look at Mr. Epstein's deposition, when he's asked questions about the abuse, what I'm going to call the abuse of process case, he answers those. What he has taken the Fifth Amendment on are all of these sexual matters, which we have contended have no bearing on this case. THE COURT: We're not dealing with that right now. We're dealing with the questions that he wants to ask him with regard to the fact that he may or may not have waived his Fifth Amendment privilege just by making public statements or discussing it with third-parties. That's -- MR. ACKERMAN: Then I think, then I think he needs to come to this Court and produce the documents to show that that has been waived before we have to undergo a ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083075 154 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 deposition about it. He had the opportunity to do it. He hasn't shown that he could have or would have been able to do it before. And at this point in time we've made a request for it. And the Court, I believe, in order to properly protect the parties from someone that's already been deposed is to determine whether, in fact, there is a prima facie basis for a waiver, otherwise, we're going to be arguing about it in the deposition. THE COURT: See, here's part of the rule I'm talking about. It says unless the Court orders otherwise and under subdivision C, which is protecting you against oppressive, et cetera, et cetera. The frequency and use of these is not limited. I always understood you could take deposition as long as you are not abusing the system or otherwise subject to protective order because you're harassing, whatever the rules says here. I can get you the exact words. MR. ACKERMAN: But there is the case law that the Court is aware of where if the party has already been deposed they have to come -- a party seeking to redepose him has to show the basis. Now, he's -- THE COURT: You got a case that says that? MR. ACKERMAN: I don't have it with me, Your Honor. I'm relying on my memory. THE COURT: I think that's an overstatement of ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083076 155 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 what these cases say. I think they say you can protect somebody against burdensome, harassment, oppressive, repetitive discovery. I don't see it says that you can't take more than one deposition. You can take five depositions if you're not going over the line. But, you know, certainly, if you want to give me a case that says that. Okay. Guys, that's going to have to be it because I, unfortunately, have to do a couple of orders back there that I got that man working on. I'll get these orders out by tomorrow for you. And then what I want you to do is contact my JA and I would hope, what I would like to do, and I know you all don't want to do it this way necessarily. I want to get a complaint out there that withstands the motion to dismiss before we go into all these privilege things. I just want to be able to know what the heck we're talking about and what the lawsuit is about. Because some of the things you've alleged in my view in the complaint at present may not fall within the area of abuse of process unless can you show me otherwise. MR. ACKERMAN: What I would like to do, Your Honor, because I know the time is late, I would like before our complaint is due, to have a fifteen minute hearing, I don't think it will take longer that than, where I can put to the Court one area where I believe the privilege issue has been waived, and, that is, those documents that we are ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083077 156 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 arguing about here have been produced to a third-party. And I believe that that would then allow us to get the documents that are subject to the privilege and we can use that to prepare our complaint. The Court denies it, we still are on track. But it's very important because they have maintained. We have had six or seven months of litigation over these issues over privilege. You issue a stay to us that we can't go subpoena the trustee and then when they are faced with the choice of having to deal with it in the bankruptcy court they turn over the records that we are under confidentiality agreement with to a third-party without that confidentiality. THE COURT: Set your fifteen minute motion and I'll listen to that. But, otherwise, I want the other thing set, as well. Get some time so we can go through this stuff, okay. MR. SCAROLA: And that is not, that is not delaying the thirty day period that they have to file their new complaint; is that correct, Your Honor? THE COURT: No. MR. ACKERMAN: I'm just asking it be done before the thirty days so I have an opportunity to, if you agree with me, to get those documents. THE COURT: You will prepare the orders on the motion to dismiss, on the motion for punitive damages, and ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083078 157 1 2 3 on the issue about the pre-trial gag order. MR. ACKERMAN: Yes. THE COURT: I'll do the rest of these. 4 MR. KNIGHT: Enjoy your vacation. Sounds like 5 you need it. 6 THE COURT: Well, yeah. Thank you. 7 (Court adjourned 4:45 III.) 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083079 158 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 CERTIFICATE I, Kathleen M. Ames, RPR, Notary Public, State of Florida, was authorized to and did stenographically report the foregoing proceedings; and that the transcript, pages 3 through 157, is a true and accurate record of my stenographic notes. I further certify that I am not a relative, or employee, or attorney, or counsel of any of the parties' attorney or counsel connected with the action, nor am I financially interested in this action. Dated this 15th day of July, 2011. KATHLEEN M. AMES, RPR ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083080 1 WORD IND_EX_ <$> $20,000 139:8 $25,000 139:9 $300 61:24 $5,000 139:8 < . > . 112:15 <0> 2004 48:25 2006 76:12, 16 2009 1:3 46:18 119:23 2009. 123:22 2010 139:7 2011 1:13 139:8, 9, 10 148:11 2011. 158:13 205 1:15 2139 2:16 22 137:4 <9> 90.404 106:20 901 2:4 9C 1:15 < A > a 8:13 10:9 11:13, 24 12:5 14:13 17:15 22:7 24:9 29:12 30:20 31:3, 6 34:11 36:24 37:11 38:2, 22 81:13 89:18 93:18 94:10 98:4 102:20 119:24 131:1 150:22 152:23 153:11 155:17 about. 130:6 138:14 150:8 Abraham 139:1 absence 13:19 109:6 139:24 absent 47:8 67:21, 22 72:7 150:23 00158 120:21 22nd 123:22 42:24 43:22 46:14, absolute 8:24 10:8 01212 122:22 250 2:11 20 49:10 60:10 11:19 30:17 01404 119:11 26335 124:3 62:2 63:8 65:21 absolutely 15:25 01406 122:19 26477 123:1 71:22, 23, 24 72:6, 60:21 141:9 01661 119:22 26817 123:23 11 74:15 76:16 abstract 72:24 01685 121://, 20 27 8:2 78:2, 12, 21 80:1, 4 abuse 5:2 6:11, 23 02116 2:8 27013 124:11 83:12, 15 84:7, 14 7:15, 25 8:14, 25 02992 124:9 27303 123:15 91:15 93:16 94:11 9:6 10:24 11:16 040800XXXXMBAG 29 9:1 12:3, 24 97:13 98:13, 25 12:21 13:4, 12 1:3 20:14 22:23 24:3, 101:9 105:1, 11 14:9, 11, 17 15:3 04996 123:20 5 71:4 106:13 107:6, 19 18:11 21:12, 20, 21, 05087 120:3 29, 9:3 109:5 111:22 23 22:6, 17 24:1, 8 05112, 122:4 29. 11:1 112:24 113:9 26:5, 7, 12, 14, 15, 05113 122:17 119:25 120:1 16, 22 27:6, 25 07304 120:9 <3> 123:14 125:14 28:4, 7 29:20 08412 120:25 3 126:18 127:1 126:13 128:24 33:16, 19 34:9, 12, 158:5 131:6, 13 140:10, 19, 21 45:9, 10 <1> 30 14:4 15, 18, 20, 24 82:25, 25 83:17 1 125:18 31 14:13 146:15, 23 153:25 84:2, 13, 15, 22, 25 1. 135:8 32 14:15 103:2 154:3, 6 156:7, 11 85:16 86:7, 15, 19 1.190 36:9, 9 33401 1:16 2:11 A. 79:13 87:14, 20, 21 88:1, 1:30 63:23 33401-6170 2:5 A.J 124:4 8, 9 92:2 99:14 10:34 1:14 33409 2:16 a.m 1:14 107:21 121:19 1000 2:7 ability 39:13 48:1 127:20 1282 14 1030 112:3 <4> 61:20 66:12, 13 131:5 153:14, 15 114-3.6 98:20 4:45 1:14 157:7 106:5 110:18, 20 155:19 11th 30:9 404 107:24 140:16 141:3 abused 83:4 88:2, 13 1:13 145:11 4C 64:1 143:/7 18, 18 92:14 150:16 4th 18:15 able 17:10, 19 18:7 abuses 33:6 34:7 1400 2:10 21:11, 22 23:4 abusing 46:7 80:4 157 158:6 <5> 24:2 25:20 27:18 86:23 154:14 15TH 1:1 158:13 50 1:3 29:13 47:17 59:9 abusive 5:5 20:18 17 7:19, 21 501 112:3 62:23 70:3 89:12 142:4 18th 119:23 520 103:2 97:12 106:7 accept 94:19 1987 18:15 107:23 118: / 7 134:22 1990's 68:19 <7> 119:25 120:19 acceptable 102:24 768.72 36:12 129:2 132:21 114:2 <2> 777 2:4 142:16 150:1 accident 141:1 2 126:11 152:20 154:2 accomplish 56:7 20 2:7 5:9 <8> 155:15 Accordingly, 36:23 2002 76:12, 16 8 148:11 about 8:23 12:16 accurate 138:25 2003 36:11 19:7 20:13, 22 148:2Z 22 158:6 27:8 42:3 79:1, 3 ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083081 2 accurate. 122:16 accusations 71:14 accuse 19:12 ACKERMAN 2:2 4:3 18:6 23:19 25:23 35:19, 24 39:25 40:3, 7 41:7 42:2, 14 43:24 44:1, 5, 8, 10, 14 47:11, 13 48:17, 20, 24 50:11, 16, 22, 24 51:20, 23 52:3, 6, 10, 12, 20 53:15 54:1, 5, 10, 18 55:1, 3, 7, 11, 14, 21 56:12, 14, 24 57:1, 11, 14 59:13, 17 60:9, 12, 15 62:5, 12 632 5, 8, 16, 20 64:14, 16, 18, 22 66:1 70:16, 24 73:7, 11, 15, 18, 21 74:13 78:21 79:3, 7, 13 81:12 82:7, 22 86:25 87:20, 25 88:14, 24 89:2, 5 90:1, 13, 16 93:7, 23, 25 94:3, 9, 21 95:5, 8 96:1, 7, 12, 23 972 5 101:15 102:7, 15 103:14 104:15, 18, 24 105:4, 22, 25 106:8, 11 110:22, 24 111:6, 9, 14, 20 112:1, 4 114:8 115:18 117:17, 22, 25 118:6, 9, 11, 15 121:8, 18 125:2, 5 126:2, 4, 6, 8, 11 127:1, 4, 16 128:3, 13, 15 129:9 130:3, 9 131:22, 25 132:19 133:10, 16 134:5, 14, 19, 25 135:3, 7, 11 136:4, 6, 9, 13, 17 138:9 140:5 141:18 142:5 143:10, 24 144:10 145:4, 7 147:6 149:14 150:7 151:3, 15 152:2, 6, 9, 12, 24 153:2, 12, 23 154:18, 23 155:20 156:21 157:2 Ackerman. 96:22 acknowledged 148:8 acknowledging 120:19 acknowledgment 76:20 act 30:18, 19, 22 120:12 130:15 acted 76:3 action 14:9, 9, 11 17:7 18:2, 8 21:12, 19, 23 25:17 26:1 28:4 30:4, 7 31:19 45:9 46:2 49:25 130:18 158:10 action. 6:9 21:11 31:21 87:24 158:11 actionable 8:22 28:21 actionable. 34:23 actions 10:16 45:14 83:16 89:14 103:19 activities 80:11 83:24 87:17 108:3 138:6 activity 12:17, 20 14:20 31:7 76:11, 16, 21 84:4, 21, 24 86:6, 12 91:5 102:8 137:17, 24 138:4 139:6 145:16 acts 28:7 30:11, 25 83:3 85:18 91:8 106:21 actual 24:14 26:6 73:8, 19 actually 34:18 114:1 add 25:14 addition 52:8 153:7 additional 15:18, 22 29:19 75:21 92:8 100:7 address 4:16 9:23 16:5 55:13 65:24 66:1 78:16 80:8 89:9 97:17, 24 118:1 131:20 132:24 133:18 150:11 addressed 32:8 59:7 66:4 92:5 115:23 149:14, 15 151:17 addressed. 59:7 addressing 10:2 108:11 adequate 35:15 adjourned 157:7 adjudicated 99:2 adjudicative 111:4 Adler 5:11 119:11, 14, 23, 24 administration 104:21 admissible 31:12, 14 35:8 59:23 75:14 76:9 77:6, 21 82:18 90:11 116:11 140:13 admission 76:3 admissions 73:5 74:6 77:2 78:11 79:25 admissions. 73:16 85:20 admits 148:24 adopted 113:9, 9 adopted. 99:5 advance 37:2 46:14 71:12 72:21, 25 146:16 150:18, 22 151:1 advantageous 8:17 29:14 adversary 128:24, 25 adverse 80:18 132:10 advised 146:13, 16, 21 advising 123:2 advocating 128:22 129:1 affect 111:24 143:15 affected 106:5 143:19 affidavits 37:1, 21 affirmative 15:16 27:11 30:16 78:6 153:9, 11 affirmatively 67:25 afforded 8:13 30:18 afraid 88:22 after 55:19 70:15 102:5 121:16 afternoon 59:4 63:24 64:21 afterward 67:19 again 61:4 81:5 129:8 again, 67:19 68:14 again. 75:9 80:11 153:1 against 13:5, 20 98:10 116:8 119:1 125:10 138:6 139:24 144:4 154:11 agencies 51:7 agent 71:3 121:13 aggressive 31:10 agree 39:20, 22 141:9 156:22 agree. 152:11 agreed 40: / 7 49:7 56:19 64:2 87:8 127:20 agreed. 43:18 agreeing 57: / 7 agreement 8:3, 5, 5, 10, 12, 14, 24 12:14 24:8 41:13, 14 43:15 46:4, 9 49:11, 13 56:18 57:16 87:4 119:13, 16, 17 122:10 125:12, 16 127:17 128:3, 5, 9 129:16 131:2 156:11 agreement, 132:6 agreement. 7:9 46:12 128:6 131:7 agreements 135:15, 24 136:1 142:17, 2/ agreements. 135:25 ahead 29:15 35:16 42:22 59:15 75:16 96:6, 22 118:10 127:2 132:17 ahead, 57:11 ahead. 16:24 60:11 105:3 115:20 118:14 126:10 aid, 110:13 airplane 9:4, 6, 7 10:22 13:17 23:2 31:3 ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083082 3 airplanes 23:1 31:6 al 3:4 Alan 122:17, 23 alcohol 39:11 alert 53:17 all 21:13 29:15 32:6 42:7 77:12 81:14 124:10 143:7 145:22 147:5 155:14 all, 149:14 all. 93:6 allegation 5:7, 18 6:1 13:19, 21, 22 27:3 30:24 31:13 85:1, 16 88:12 allegations 6:4, 14 7:4 8:23 14:6 19:8 20:15 22:22 24:2, 3 28:24 29:20 31:15 32:25 74:4, 5 75:11 77:15 81:8 88:21 116:8, 16, 20, 21 149:21 allegations, 27:14 allegations. 69:2 allege 20:21 28:8, 10 33:5 83:3 118:18 147:7 alleged 7:25 9:9 11:24 12:1, 14 15:6 19:1 26:9, 11 28:7 33:10, 10 34:9, 14, 17 80:2 83:16 86:20, 21 99:10 103:18 121:25 127:23 137:22 142:7 145:25 155:17 alleged. 14:22 18:25 alleging 13:15 31:15 77:10 allow 10:10 19:2 31:19 48:6 57:20 61:11 105:4 106:12 147:20 150:4 152:6 156:2 allowed 8:7 25:1 41:21 61:13 103:24 106:17 146:13 150:5 allowing 10:16 17:4 allows 22:6 31:18 102:21 106:13 along 78:11 already 119:17 128:3 133:6 145:14 151:19 152:12 154:5 Also 4:6 19:18 67:15 135:3 146:17 also, 21:13 52:21 also. 27:12 alternative 3:18, 25 102:24 114:3 alternatives 102:11 Although 25:11 72:8 altogether 134:4 Alvarez 74:1 82:10, 13 always 91:25 am 53:14 ambitions 71:11 amend 21:9 29:9 32:22 35:3, 9, 17 118:16 amended 4:1, 3 13:14 15:10 16:7 17:5 18:6 25:16 28:3 30:24 32:10 36:10, 10, 15 44:16 59:24 81:20, 23 97:14 99:13 104:10, 16 127:8 132:4, 20 amending 17:6 Amendment 15:13, 17, 23 16:1 58:1 76:25 77:5, 25 78:3 83:8 85:22 87:10 89:19, 23, 25 107:25 113:15 119:2 145:18, 20 146:2 147:7 149:2 152:19 153:6, 16, 21 Amendment. 90:14 American 8:23 Ames 1:17 158:3, 19 amount 24:14 40:22 62:21 70:2 104:1 127:8 138:21 139:2 142:6, 15 an 3:19 11:12 14:25 15:10 20:13 26:15 27:10 32:10 36:5 39:10 57:15 58:19 67:11 68:6 72:16, 19 75:18 80:23 82:24 84:13, 25 92:2 93:22 95:8, 17 99:1 103:20, 25 117:19 125:24 127:16 128:4 132:3 134:6 137:10 138:24 142:4 analogy 138:25 analysis 66:6 71:7 And 1:8 3:6, 7 5:5 10:4, 16, 20 12:13 13:1 15:1, 4, 10 17:9, 20 18:21 21:19 22:18 30:3, 20 31:12 33:12 34:3, 8 36:6, 7, 13, 13, 22 39:9, 19 40:15 42:2 43:16, 19 44:17 45:9, 21 46:13 47:14 49:13, 23 50:11 51:8, 9 53:1, 22, 25 54:21, 21 55:17 57:9 58:14 59:10 61:15, 22 62:6 65:15, 24 67:21, 21 68:3 71:18 73:13 75:20 76:18 78:15 80:23 81:17 82:12, 21 83:4, 8, 22 84:8 86:2 87:4 92:9, 11 93:4 97:19 99:3, 11 102:12, 23 103:11 105:11 106:4, 11 107:9 113:3, 12, 15 114:5 115:19, 25 116:19 120:6 121:23 122:11, 16, 20, 22 123:4 125:21 126:23 128:19 132:3, 13 133:8 134:4 135:21 136:1 137:1, 16, 22 139:21 141:5, 11, 14, 16 142:1, 25 145:5 146:12 147:17, 22, 25 148:10, 16 150:24 154:11 155:12 156:2, 13, 25 and, 24:25 83:18 89:5 130:13 Andrew 97:24 98:2 99:17 100:6, 7 angle 17:8 anguish 142:8 another 53:18 100:12 132:25 answer 7:13 34:5, 6 40:20 50:2 55:22 71:13 87:12 90:7, 10, 11, 25 92:13 132:21 134:16, 17, 22 137:11 152:20, 21, 22 Answering 30:16 78:16 answers 142:6 153:15 anticipated 6:17 16:16 any 6:8 47:7 49:17 51:12 59:4 64:5 84:2, 18 107:13 137:18 145:16 151:6 anybody 33:4 43:25 50:9 64:10 95:19 96:24 127:25 Anything 70:21 103:8 anyway 28:22 114:18 134:23 anyway. 103:13 anywhere. 13:22 apart 27:15 apologize 16:22 63:14 73:22 112:16 apparent 81:9 appear 31:15 65:9 109:9 146:18 appear. 146:19 148:16 appeared 109:16 APPEARING 2:11, 17 appears 5:9 13:21, 22 31:23 125:14 149:17 applicability 16:4 applicable 70:10 74:20 109:4 ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083083 4 applied 44:11 77:22, 23 applies 22:15 32:16 108:24 apply 101:7 108:21 109:2 applying 36:17, 23 appointed 41:10 68:21 appointed, 48:12 appointed. 40:18 appointing 72:5, 9 appointment 11:13 93:21 appreciate 3:5 approach 9:23 31:11 approached 23:12 appropriate 17:7 30:2 36:25 41:23 66:1 74:21 77:24 100:19 103:5 117:1 146:22 appropriately 10:15 approved 147:18 approximately 41:15 April 47:19 145:11 148:11 150:16 are 3:12 12:25 18:12 22:24 24:11 25:7 26:10 29:17 32:25 39:18 48:14 51:15, 20 52:2 63:12 66:7, 20 67:9, 10 74:19 79:4 80:9, 17 85:18 92:3 102:17 106:7 109:4 116:17, 20 117:13 120:18 126:15, 15, 16 132:7 133:14 146:10 155:25 are. 19:18 34:7 97:22 area 155:19, 24 areas 21:3, 17 22:9, 23 23:22 61:13 65:23 97:23 150:8 aren't 95:1 arguably 7:15 116:/7 argue 49:21 107:22 argued 42:5, 6, 25 43:17 60:17, 24, 24 82:7, 20 83:4, 8 102:22 arguing 23:17 42:4 49:14 61:3 106:15 154:8 156:1 argument 16:21 17:12 29:25 32:8 36:6 57:22 69:25 78:10 81:13, 16 82:12 86:18 89:20 92:10, 14, 15, 17 93:10 96:16, 19 111:17 116:9 119:9, 20 137:11 argument, 87:13 argument. 47:18 88:13, 23 arguments 16:13, 13, 18, 20 23:21 84:6 arisen 94:14 arms 3:7 around 3:7 151:7 arrive 77:9 article 99:11, 13, 15 100:4, 12 103:21 articles 97:14 98:1, 4 99:12 100:15 109:15 articulated 59: / 7 147:22 as 10:8 16:1 33:7 34:10 39:23 41:10 58:2, 22 62:22 64:23 69:22 87:2 97:12 117:15 150:16 153:4 as, 76:17 aside 19:19 59:9 107:23 114:15 ask 26:4 148:19 153:19 asked 17:17 31:3 42:8 49:23 65:13, 22, 24 67:25 81:24 83:23 85:14 111:7 133:12, 23 135:13 142:6, 10 146:9 147:24 149:18 150:21 153:14 asking 9:4, 6, 7 10:22 12:9 20:3 26:6 30:10 34:15 63:14 66:14 81:18 87:13 88:15, 16, 25 89:15 90:3, 21 94:23 95:3, 4, 6, 8 101:19, 20 103:21 105:6, 9, 11 133:11, 14, 15 135:25 147:2 151:1, 2 156:21 aspect 61:9, 10 136:8 151:14 assaulted. 76:14 assert 15:9, 23 16:1 31:19 37:11 38:23 43:2 58:8, 11 75:23 77:4 78:3 125:13 asserted 5:5 7:1 10:21 17:9 21:7 32:7 50:12, 14 77:1 78:6 89:19 asserting 152:19 assertion 5:20 8:16 10:10, 16 15:12, 17 17:21 37:16 57:18 72:16, 23 136:22 assertions 153:8 asserts 77:25 assessed 53:11 assets 14:16 24:23 120:13, 16, 18 assets. 119:21 assist 129:12 assistant 72:1 associate 5:7 associated 22:18 64:5 109:18 Association 107:10 130:17 assume 65:15 106:13, 15, 16, 18 141:11 assuming 6:19 assure 98:13 at 29:8 36:19 40:11 43:7 54:6 62:1, 8, 24 71:16 73:22 76:8 79:20 82:7 105:19 108:1 121:2 134:2 148:4 at. 74:14 118:9 attached 97:13 99:7 100:5 114:6 135:8 142:5 attempt 129:22 131:19 attempted 60:24 131:4 134:6 attempting 8:9, 13 13:17 16:3 27:4 34:22 77:10 128:5 146:24 attempts 5:7 attention 37:8 74:24 75:10 110:9, 24 138:5 ATTERBURY 2:10 Attorney 71:24 72:2, 21 99:14 122:8, 11 125:19, 21, 22 126:12 127:25 136:7 138:25 140:25 141:5, 12 150:20 158:9, 10 attorney. 68:12 attorney-client 41:9 50:7, 12 58:1 70:6 79:17, 19 80:13, 24 117:11 attorneys 23:14 80:17 108:22 109:3 112:24 113:15 114:15 115:25 116:4 131:17 attorney's 9:16 41:16 45:22 53:11 70:24 72:17 126:15, 18 143:6 attorneys, 25:12 127:14 attorneys. 108:25 attract 5:23 attributed 97:15 audio 121:23 Australian 2:11 author 59:19 67:14 authoritatively 114:17 authorities 13:3 26:21 authority 72:6 95:25 101:8 111:11 authorized 158:4 available 10:12 62:22 102:11 109:24 available. 53:21 Avenue 2:11 ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083084 5 avoid 77:11 110:16 award 25:2 aware 154:19 awhile 40:5 82:20 96:17 112:17 104:10 145:9 146:20 151:2, 4 basis 6:8 8:10 9:21 12:18 18:10 30:3, 5, 7 31:6 108:14 110:7 119:18 128:4 135:22 138:21 145:24 152:9, 13 154:6, 19 bench 9:24 96:20 115:14 besmirch 19:5 best 3:17 29:10 65:6 71:4 116:15 awhile. 101:25 32:25 44:19 51:9 before 19:12 29:4 121:16 67:3,4 80:12 55:19 58:19 59:11 bet 71:4 121:16 <B> 82:10 90:6 99:23 64:11 68:16 72:13 better 3:17, 24 B 115:18 113:18 114:4 82:10 101:8 108:1 25:20 66:16 70:12 B. 79:7,9 94:2, 8, 9 118:15 125:13 113:24 114:2 96:5 back 17:1, 22 21:4 140:3 141:13 146:14 151:11 between 45:22 25:18, 25 27:16 145:20 146:3 155:21 156:21 102:17 106:18 34:8 38:1, 11 148:4 153:7 154:7, before. 133:9 116:3 117:6 39:13, 25 42:8 21 138:23 125:18 129:24 55:16 57:10, 11 basis. 64:6 began 40:7 41:11 131:17 136:11 60:17 61:5 63:23 Bates 126:24 begin 84:4 Beverly 36:16, 16 68:10 71:16 75:9 be 8:11, 20 14:17 begun 140:21 big 5:21 20:4 111:18, 21 112:13 16:8 19:11 22:10 BEHALF 2:11, 17 billionaire 100:17 131:20 133:23 23:3 24:25 25:20 5:13 6:2 7:5 bills 143:5 140:8 144:12, 15 30:18 34:19 35:5 12:19 14:19 17:1 binder 42:11 49:5 153:12 155:8 39:5 56:5 59:6 31:11 50:13 58:12, binders 47:16 background 3:23 60:23 66:18 67:2 12 67:25 128:23 bit 18:17 78:22 18:17 28:8 70:2 88:21 93:1 130:18 bit. 40:1 backing 149:17 98:23 108:11 behavior 30:20 blame 137:17 bad 106:21 128:10 109:4, 7 111:2 being 17:18 31:5 blank 35:19 bad. 123:17 112:12 116:9 80:6 88:9, 17 blanket 17:21 balance 113:15 121:24 127:23 92:14, 15 97:14 blow-up 123:23 balancing 105:5 135:18 139:16 99:14 103:20 Bob 53:6 106:23 107:14 144:11 146:12 138:1 146:5 body 15:14 139:22 140:1 147:25 150:12 beliefs 130:13 book 73:21 97:24 bankruptcy 12:25 154:8 believe 19:24 21:6 Boston 2:8 26:19 39:18 40:9, be, 101:1 25:4, 9 36:11 both 76:7 111:17 14, 16 43:22 44:12 be. 107:8 140:14 40:10 45:24 46:13 Boulevard 2:16 48:5 50:21 52:24 BEACH 1:2, 15, 16 49:12, 12, 24, 25 box 38:10, 12, 12, 13 53:4, 7, 19 54:17 2:5, 11, 16, 16 54:19 55:24 56:3 boxes 41:15 126:13 137:15, 16 76:13 125:23 63:5 66:17 67:2 Brad 85:2 119:11 156:10 126:16 77:17 86:10 91:16 139:3, 7, 8, 8 bankruptcy. 54:4 bear 9:16, 18 84:24 93:25 95:1 100:7, 140:17 142:1 bar 97:12 98:20, 21 bearing 78:5 97:22 19, 23 104:25 BRADLEY 1:7 4:24 101:21 110:25 153:17 106:12 107:6 5:8 6:3, 10, 22 111:10, 14 because 14:11 120:7 122:12 13:5 15:25 37:10 Bar. 124:8 40:5 46:16 56:1 123:6, 16, 18 breach 46:8 127:18 Barcello 68:22 61:12 62:16 88:6 125:12, 20 127:5, break 20:10 43:11 Bard 13:8 95:15 101:1 121:3 16, 18, 20 129:9, 10, 55:16 63:22 64:9 BARNHART 2:15 130:19 132:25 14, 17, 19, 21 94:13 112:15 based 32:14 47:19 136:23, 25 155:7 131:15 132:5 143:21 144:14 63:9, 10 81:18 because, 21:21 135:13, 20 136:19 breakdown 55:23 88:24 91:10 99:23 become 53:20 152:2 153:5 154:4 brief 131:22 106:25 107:1 been 21:5, 14 155:24 156:2 briefed 83:19, 21 108:7 129:4 33:24 45:24 53:8, believed 41:18, 22 briefing 18:14 130:13 132:21 10 60:5 63:1 44:18 47:21 134:7 briefings 21:15 145:2Z 24 148:23 64:21 65:9 89:9 believes 130:12 briefly 9:23 91:23 151:7 96:9 97:5 99:11 belonged 50:8 131:24 basically 36:22 100:2 102:21 below, 120:13 49:14 51:7 75:17 103:5 104:7 ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083085 6 bring 21:22 46:8 47:17 60:25, 25 84:12 bringing 134:6 British 100:1, 10 75:14 76:9 77:6, 21 82:18 90:10, 16, 17 91:20 116:10 131:10 135:23 140:12 44:21 46:17, 17, 22, 24, 25 47:2 48:3 52:22, 24 56:8 59:17, 23 66:8, 9, 24 68:23 69:1, 5 135:21 136:19, 24 140:23 143:14 155:1 cases. 5:21 45:15 53:2 69:12 118:21 109:16, 18 calculation 143:15 74:5, 9, 15, 20, 22 123:19 136:20 broad 9:21 10:20 call 30:12, 14 37:8 78:2 82:19 83:4, 137:3 11:25 69:23 83:25 72:10, 10 74:24 14, 15, 16, 17, 23 catch 126:7 89:19 90:18, 22 75:10 153:14 84:8, 8 88:2 94:25 catch-all 21:4 92:7, 22 called 52:13 98:21 95:18 97:6, 10, 25 categories 72:3 broad, 83:5 100:1, 10 122:11 98:7, 10, 14 99:12 categories. 67:6 broader 74:19 calling 8:22 100:20 101:23 category 7:11, 14 broadest 76:2 came 82:9 102:23 103:1, 2, 22 67:3, 13 68:5 85:22 brought 7:21, 23 came, 52:3 104:3, 17, 19, 22 causal 9:8 15:1, 5 20:12 23:6 49:22 camera 48:6 56:5, 105:6, 17 106:6, 6 cause 6:9 14:8, 9, 77:8 86:9 142:9 20 58:20 70:19 107:3, 10, 17, 20 11 17:7 182 8 Bs 28:2 128:19 108:18 109:15, 20 20:19 21:11, 12, 22 burden 43:14 campaign 100:20 110:6, 10, 13, 16, 18 25:16 26:1 28:4 82:23 92:12, 16, 20 can 20:6 21:9 111:7 113:2Z 24 30:4, 7 31:19, 21 151:19 152:1 26:14, 25 34:18 114:13 115:12 45:9 49:25 87:24 burdensome 86:2 35:3 43:9 56:14, 118:22, 25 119:1 98:13 127:18 92:23, 24 93:6, 7 16 57:7 59:14 120:7 124:1, 12 causes 21:19 151:25 155:2 60:5 71:16, 18 125:9, 11, 17 causing 11:12 23:2 burdensomeness 74:6 91:4 94:19 128:18, 22 131:3, 3 celebrities 28:14 92:17 96:5 97:2 103:2 132:13 135:15 celebrities. 28:15 Bureau 125:22 114:21 115:8 136:8 138:7, 25 celebrity 13:17 burn 123:24 116:14 118:3 139:18, 21 140:13, Centre 2:10 BURNETT 2:2 132:2 133:1 24 141:5, /0 142:3 certain 32:19 Buschel 53:6 142:18, 22 143:21 147:22 151:7 63:10 107:12 business 8:18 144:7 152:6 153:4, 15 certainly 6:8 15:2 11:13 30:15 cannot 9:7, 18 154:18, 22 155:6 29:13 72:4 81:1 but 6:4, 19 8:8 14:23 19:1 102:11 case, 18:14 101:4 90:20, 23 91:11 11:24 29:21 35:1 canon 98:20 152:2 101:9 116:6 133:7 36:19 40:4 54:2 can't 58:6 68:2 case. 3:23 9:9 139:22 149:15 55:21 58:14 69:13 70:11 95:22 141:4 12:2 35:8 63:12 155:6 78:7, 24 79:21 155:3 94:20 98:5 110:20 Certainly, 29:16 90:7, 8 99:7 Cara 70:25 121:12 112:1, 3 122:25 certificate 148:14 106:12 113:7 122:7 124:2 153:17 158:1 117:15 124:19, 22 care 57:21 94:12 cases 7:22 8:19 certified 30:9 139:18 147:21 career 96:19 9:16 15:14 18:13, certify 158:8 150:1, 24 Carney 3:15, 15 19, 22 22:5, 13 certifying 30:11 but, 91:10 39:19 40:25 54:15 23:5, 25 24:12, 15, cetera 23:2 27:17 by 7:22 10:8 31:9 carried 45:3 17 25:3 27:11 29:18 154:12, 12 40:18 53:7 64:4 cars 138:20, 21 31:4, 24, 25 39:12 challenge 8:9, 13 68:11 72:9 99:21 cart 29:6, 25 41:5 46:18, 20 15:16 113:10 130:15 CASE 1:3 4:19 52:15 61:25 69:6 challenged 8:21 148:12 150:13 5:2, 16 8:22 9:19 71:12 75:20, 21 16:5 155:10 10:5 11:5, 21 77:10, 12 80:22 chance 3:6 14:24 15:14, 24 84:10, 17 96:21, 25 change 38:1 46:12 <C> 18:15 19:5 22:3 99:14, 24 101:5, 10, changed 9:10 22:6 C 94:4 27:6, 9 30:9 31:20 13 105:4 111:18, characterized 14:18 C. 115:19 33:7, 24 34:12 19, 22 112:8, 9, 21 charge 43:18, 19 CA 1:3 35:5, 13 36:16, 18, 115:10, 11 122:24 85:15 calculated 31:12, 14 19 39:11, 21 40:7 123:10, 10 124:16 charged 68:18 33:18 35:7 59:22 41:19 42:2, 2 127:21 129:19 ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083086 7 charges 133:8 142:15 147:9 76:14, 22 77:15 126:21 127:13, 14 check 115:1 claimed. 35:4 123:24, 25 130:18, 131:16 148:9 chicken 29:4, 6 claiming 19:24 22 communications. chicken. 29:5 20:7, 8, 24, 25 21:2 client's 32:3 72:19, 117:16 child 5:13 12:19 23:12 25:9, 11 20, 21 community 71:25 14:19 49:7 137:14 142:25 clients. 68:25 76:19 community. 142:10 chilling 10:19 claims 5:13 62 6, Clockwork 124:4 company 52:20 choice 115:7 156:9 25 7:2, 19, 23, 24 close 71:4 121:17 53:4, 5 64:13 100:8 choose 149:2 9:15 10:10, 16, 22 clothed 85:24 compare 39:9 chose 148:13 13:20 15:9, 19 coat 64:14, 16 compared 20:2 CHRISTOPHER 2:2 16:2 19:16 24:18, cold. 64:20 108:22 112:25 16:25 19 31:1, 2, 8 32:3 collateral 84:5 113:11 140:13 chronological 3:19 34:7 35:6 40:11 colleagues 65:22 compel 132:21 CIRCUIT 1:1, 1 30:9 49:22 58:13, 15 72:8 144:1 146:19 circumstance 133:6 59:21 60:2 75:25 collection 120:14 147:16 circumstances 77:20 83:13 86:9 color. 17:16 compelling 147:18 109:5 141:12 87:16 90:19 91:3, come 15:25 17:12 compensation circumstances. 21 104:6 117:8 25:24 33:3 40:19 135:20 136:23 79:22 109:8 113:6 119:6 121:9 46:9 55:16 57:10, 137:2 142:21 115:16 137:25 1382 4 11 71:16 83:12 compensatory 24:25 citations 37:1 claims. 5:24 7:6 95:16, 23 96:18, 18 competing 102:9 cite 8:19 112:2 clarified 58:25 104:17 131:19 107:15 cited 15:13 18:13 clarify 49:2 133:8 141:5 complaint 4:3, 21 102:25 112:19, 20 clear 8:18 11:22 147:15 153:24 6:4, 10, 13 7:1Z 13 cites 36:14 37:19 15:25 50:3, 6 64:4 154:20 13:14 15:8, 10 73:25 102:8 108:18, 19 comes 27:10 102:5 16:7, 7 17:3, 5, 6, civil 5:2 12:18 119:3 comfort 70:17 25, 25 18:6, 11 22:7 36:13 65:22 Clearlake 2:10 comfortable 70:14, 19:7 20:1 24:15 75:19 76:7, 17 clearly 6:18 10:6 14 25:16 26:1 27:18, 78:2 92:9 93:5 11:17 12:20 13:6, coming 25:25 19 28:3 29:10, 15, 115:12 117:8 18 14:2 16:19 38:13 55:19 107:25 21 30:1, 3, 25 127:21 130:18 27:24 31:1 32:6, comment 102:24 31:17, 23 32:6, 10, 138:3 149:12 18 37:21 42:11, 14 103:10, 24 105:15 14, 21, 23 35:14 claim 5:3, 4, 4, 5, 9 56:4 69:13 74:4 114:24 115:5 44:16, 17, 19, 24 7:17 9:12, 19, 21 76:20 77:20 92:5 commentary 98:8 59:18, 24 60:20, 20 13:4 14:14 18:11 98:4 108:7 109:4 commented 97:12 61:12 75:18 81:7, 20:22 30:14 37:12, 117:11 124:6 comments 21:14 19, 22, 23 92:4 16 38:23 46:6, 6 125:10 153:4 98:3 103:7 104:5 108:18 116:17 49:10 69:13 75:23 clearly. 13:16 110:17 112:24 118:2 121:25 77:7 82:25, 25 clerk 144:23 113:3, 7, 10, 20 122:20, 24 127:9 83:13 84:13, 15, 22, clerks 144:21, 24, 1142 13 129:1 130:15, 25 25 85:17, 25 86:7, 25, 25 committed 33:4 132:4 144:6 15 87:20 92:2 client 24:10 67:12 68:11 149:21, 22 155:13, 99:13 116:6, 7, 14 68:12 71:9 72:18, common 117:7, 10, 18, 22 156:4, 19 118:17 125:14, 25 21 87:10, 16 88:20 10 complaint, 59:19 131:4, 4, 5, 15, 19 89:25 90:6 105:14, communicate 52:25 complaint. 42 4 136:15 137:4 17, 20 110:10 communicated 82:3 119:13 140:25 142:9 123:17, 25 124:6 145:11 120:24 149:25 153:7, 11 130:19 146:4 communication complaints 10:13 claim. 8:1 121:19 client. 41:21 98:24 117:5 130:4 19:13 143:8 clients 6:3 7:5 8:7, communications complete 109:6 claimed 6:20 13:9 8 22:25 31:11 12:12, 16 45:17 completed 38:19 63:8 80:7, 9 41:14 49:6 50:8, 51:7 52:21, 25 complex 39:12 137:13 139:21 13 58:12, 13, 18 68:3 98:12 115:25 complexity 27:22 67:9, 17 68:1 117:12 125:18 ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083087 8 complicated 50:5 comply 36:15 56:2 component. 63:21 compound 130:25 conceal 76:6 conceded 82:1 conceivable 37:23 concept. 63:16 concern 59:6, 7, 16 61:19 87:11 96:2 105:16 116:23 146:23 147:22 concern, 87:10 concerned 19:6 20:22 29:1 48:1 63:18 74:15 93:2 102:19 concerns 19:7 60:2 81:17 149:13 concerted 129:2/ concession 57:23 conclude 92:18 concluded 87:8 conclusion 75:13 77:9 conduct 7:11 10:7, 10, 17 11:18, 19, 24 12:1, 2 13:4 14:1 34:22 71:10 75:19 80:3 86:20, 21 87:19 92:7, 12 93:3 104:6 106:23 109:7, 10, 13 110:3 121:22 conduct, 10:13 conduct. 10:15, 25 80:5 98:19 110:4 conducted 14:5 15:2 124:15 conducting 139:22 confidential 49:24 50:16 64:1 confidentiality 41:13, 20 49:11, 13, 18, 25 56:18 156:11 confidentiality. 156:12 conflicting 39:22 confused 80:14 confusion 81:5 connected 27:16 28:11 158:10 connection 9:8 11:15 15:1, 6 Conrad 80:14, 16 Conrad, 80:20 consent 72:7 consequence 4:23 15:12 58:22 59:2 109:20 137:16, 19, 24 138:6 139:11 140:20, 21 141:12, 14 142:3 consider 71:20 82:13 consider. 106:9 considering 108:14 conspiracy 5:4 constantly 25:25 97:18 constitute 8:25 9:11 11:16 12:21 14:16, 24 72:18 constituted 6:11 constitution 111:11 constitution. 113:2 constitutional 113:14 consulted 8:12 contact 23:9 155:11 contacts 109:23 contained 104:9 contains 10:3 contempt 10:14 53:9 contend 8:8 76:22 91:10 121:19 contended 153:17 contention 76:1 context 6:25 10:21 11:23 13:4 14:18 28:8 116:19 context. 107:16 53:5 58:2 conversation 119:15 conversation. 121:10 conversations 121:5 convicted 97:15 100:2, 3 Cooper 74:1 91:17 copies 56:15 96:25 115:8 copy 9:24 47:6 48:20 94:17 95:19, 23 105:1 114:20 copying 119:12 corners 18:12 21:13 29:22 Correct 18:9 27:21 28:2 41:7 53:14 54:9 89:12 91:24 149:9 156:19 correct. 24:18, 20 44:5 54:5 102:14 cost 136:13 143:5 costs 9:11, 18, 19 14:23 143:6, /8 costs. 9:16 could 7:14 44:20 65:4 66:18 92:7 108:20 127:7 140:12 couldn't 80:7 114:23 116:7 140:7 counsel 19:2 20:20 30:12 42:5 64:24 65:13 72:22 83:17 103:9 113:7, 11, 20, 20 114:12 118:24 130:12 131:1 146:13 148:8 152:18 158:9, 10 counterclaim. 78:8 89:21 116:12 136:24 counter-defendant, 37:12 counter-plaintiff 37:10 countless 54:15 COUNTY 1:2, 15 couple 120:2 151:3 155:8 course 9:5 10:7, 11, 17 13:18 17:19 30:18 46:2 71:18 75:19 76:5 150:19 COURT 1:1 3:3 4:5, 11, 16, 18 6:12 9:14, 24, 25 10:2, 6, 8 11:4, 10, 14, 22 15:25 16:10, 15, 17, 24 17:22 18:25 19:3, 6 20:11, 20 21:16, 24 22:10, 14 24:5, 17, 21 26:3, 17, 25 27:3, 13, 19, 22 28:3, 6, 13, 16 29:1, 9, 23 30:10, 11 31:16 32:13 33:23 35:16, 21, 25 36:3, 24 37:6, 11, 14, 22 38:4, 12, 24 39:2, 16 40:2, 6 41:4, 25 42:13, 24 43:17, 23, 23, 25 44:3, 6, 9, 11, 13 46:7, 2/ 47:8, 10, 10, 12, 21, 23, 25 48:1, 5, 10, 19, 22 50:3, 15, 18, 23 51:16, 22, 24 52:7, 131:20 counsel. 96:13 11, 16, 18 53:7, 13, continual 106:17 counsel's 30:13 17, 22 54:2, 6, 11, continue 16:1 44:7 119:9 23 552 5, 9, 13, 15 57:24 78:5 80:17 count 4:21 5:2, 3 56:11, 13, 23, 25 continues 75:22 35:14 57:4, 6, 9 58:7, 10, 137:23 counted 23:13 25 59:15 60:10, 14 continuously 107:3 counterclaim 4:7 61:11, 18 62:9, 14, contrary 124:13 36:1 75:5, 6 77:7 16 63:7, 13, 17, 22 128:1 130:14 81:8, 9 82:8, 24 64:10, 13, 15, 17, 19 contrast 39:9 83:2 84:1, 19 92:5 65:9, 11, 13, 18 control 10:15 116:14 125:1 66:2, 14 68:10, 21 39:21 98:7, 19 131:11 133:11, 12, 69:3, 10, 11, 21 103:22 108:4 21 134:8 135:16 70:1, 13, 14, 17, 19 controlled 40:16 137:12 142:12 71:1, 19, 20 72:4, 6 143:8 73:1, 10, 14, 17, 20, ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083088 9 23 74:1, 2, 8, 11, 15, 23 75:1, 8, 16 78:18, 20, 25 79:5, 8, 11, 14, 17, 23 81:4, 11, 18 82:4, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14 83:4, 10, 22 84:3, 6, 14 85:8, 9 86:10, 14, 18 87:9, 23 88:8, 15 89:1, 4, 12, 22 90:4, 15, 20, 25 91:11, 13, 16, 17, 23 154:4, 9, 10, 19, 22, 25 155:24 156:4, 10, 13, 20, 24 157:3, 6, 7 court, 150:23 Court. 25:25 43:24 44:2 Courthouse 1:15 109:25 115:15 courtroom 58:4 139:10, 12 Courts 69:19 cut 35:1 CVR 46:17, 25 47:1 <D> Daily 99:16 damage 9:8 14:22 20:7 31:8, 22 35:6 60:2 76:8 damaged 136:25 142:18 damages 4:7 9:10, 11, 19 14:24 19:21, dealing 23:13 25:12 53:17 54:6 65:15, 16 69:6, 7 86:3 134:1 135:9 144:20 153:18, 19 deals 21:19 24:5 54:8 61:16 120:3 132:25 dealt 23:11, 21 38:15 44:16 53:24 68:11 87:2 Dean 124:4 92:18, 21 93:8, 10, 114:15 25 20:3, 18, 19, 21, decade 76:5 24 94:8, 10, 15, 18, Court's 4:16 10:4 25, 25 21:3, 7 decide 134:2 23 95:3, 6, 11, 14, 37:8 39:15 47:20 24:18, 20, 25 25:1 decided 3:21 19, 22, 24 96:5, 9, 51:12 64:23 67:22 35:1, Z 3 36:1,21 131:13 13, 16, 22, 24 97:4, 81:6 86:3 89:13 37:12, 17 38:16 decides 14:12 10, 11, 20 98:6, 11, 91:15 94:18 98:17, 61:14 80:6, 8 99:9 decision 9:25 10:2 16 99:5, 6, 10 19 107:10 109:25 119:3 133:1, 11, 12, 21:13 96:22 101:6 100:2/, 23 101:3, 4, 112:23 20 135:16 136:24 104:4 111:23 5, 15, 16, 18 102:4, cover 24:25 86:20 137:5, 7, 13 139:20 decisions 34:2 15, 17, 19, 21, 23 87:7 88:11, 19 142:7, 12 156:25 60:5 112:20 103:2, 3, 6, 8, 12, 16, 92:7 117:11 149:24 damages, 20:1 decisions, 112:17 22 104:2, 13, 14, 17, covered 10:7 damages. 31:2 defamation 84:16 19 105:3, 4, 9, 24 14:20 101:16 38:23 119:4 134:20 defamatory 30:20 106:1, 8, 10, 12, 13, 104:11 danger 102:8 defective 30:1 16, 22 107:7, 9, 12, covers 11:25 108:19 defects 30:5 23, 24 108:1, 9, 16, cow 72:10 DATE 1:13 18:10 defend 1382 6 21 109:1 110:23 cow. 72:11 89:13 146:17 143:1 111:5, 8, 10, 16, 21, create 92:12 dated 119:23 DEFENDANT 2:17 24 112:2, 7, 12, 16, created 18:2 158:13 19:14 32:4, 11 21, 22 113:8, 9, 13 creating 69:18 dates 85:5 33:1 37:3 114:10, 14, 16, 25 creation 99:2 DAVID 1:12 defendants 6:14, 15, 115:2, 6, 20 117:4, creditors 40:21 day 17:6 33:24 19, 21 8:2 14:4, 7 19, 24 118:5, 8, 10, crime 44:20 68:10, 40:6 59:16 69:4 15:20 17:9 19:8, 9 12 119:5, 6 120:16 11, 14, 23, 24 69:4, 124:1 139:10 20:5, 13 25:19 121:16 122:15 7, 14, 18 71:23 151:5 156:18 28:17 29:2, 3 124:20 125:3 72:17, 19, 21, 23 158:13 32:24 39:7 126:1, 3, 5, 10, 25 120:11 127:23 days 35:11, 14, 17 defendant's 115:21 127:2, 11, 22 128:7, 128:25 130:15 39:5, 6 62:1 Defendants. 1:9 14 129:7 130:1, 7, criminal 5:3, 14 153:10 156:22 defending 134:8 10 131:24 132:1, 3, 12:17, 20 14:20 days, 35:12 defense 27:11 15 133:1, 14, 25 15:19, 22 31:7 DCA 18:15 74:1 29:12 43:3, 14 134:11, 15, 21 68:6, 17 92:8, 11 de 71:22 68:17 89:21 135:2, 6, 9 136:3, 5, 93:4 99:22 115:12 deadline 41:1 119:20 142:11 7, 12 137:9 138:10, 117:9 122:23, 24, deal 8:8 18:1 defense. 89:20 15, 19 140:6, 23 24 137:17 138:3 21:20 41:11 65:19 defer 42:6 94:22 141:19 143:3, 9, 20 145:16 69:3, 8, 21 82:19 133:16 134:14, 25 144:8, 11, 15, 24 CROW 1:12 39:20 85:11 93:16 95:15, 151:5 145:3, 6, 8 146:9 crucial 123:5 16, 16 96:2 103:11 deferred 79:16 147:2, 17, 21 1482 culminated 41:13 119:8 120:2 80:25 81:1 6, 14 149:4, 6, 6, 8 curious 92:10 125:13 130:20 deferred. 144:7 150:3, 8, 12, 24 Curiously 9:10 134:13 151:13 Defining 76:5 151:7, 13, 22 152:4, currently 65:7 81:2 156:9 definitely 44:20, 21 8, 11, 14 153:18, 24 ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083089 10 degree 66:23 delay 119:6 149:23 delaying 156:18 deleted 121:9 Della 18:14 21:13 24:16 27:9 demonstrate 44:19, 21 67:8 118:4 120:4 demonstrate. 132:14 denials 148:18, 23 denied 26:2 38:18, 21 42:10 78:13 84:3 120:18 124:19 denied. 42:7 denies 121:22 148:24 156:4 DENNEY 2:15 dense 129:8 deny 36:5 100:24 113:/7 denying 36:7 114:3, 18 Department 68:22 125:23 126:16 dependant 139:19 depose 11:2 12:4, 5, 7 13:17 146:21 147:6 deposed 17:19 27:17 32:11, 12 133:5, 7 145:25 146:5 147:12, 14 149:3 151:16, 18, 20 154:6, 20 deposed. 152:10, 13 deposition 22:24 23:8 34:15, 16 37:1 45:4 93:21 105:8 115:23 118:22 121:4, 22 122:25 124:14, 21 132:2Z 24 133:17, 19 134:2, 6, 13 144:1 145:10, 10, 12, 14, 21 146:1, 6, 7, 18 147:1, 3, 3, 10, 16, 20, 25 148:8, 9 149:16, 19, 23, 24 150:4, 6, 15, 18, 20 151:18 152:17 153:3, 13 154:1, 14 155:4 deposition, 12:9 deposition. 95:20 122:19 150:2 154:8 depositions 9:5 23:1 37:20 52:23 56:21 149: / / 155:5 deputy 64:19 Dershowitz 122:17, 22, 23 described 7:10 74:20 102:1 describes 130:4 designated 41:15, 18 designation 129:23 designed 127:6 136:20 desire 15:7 destroy 129:15 destruction 137:18, 20 detail 4:5 89:14 90:19 91:20 138:20 detailed 37:18 detailing 138:21 details 100:7 117:21 deter 75:24 determination 32:20 60:11 62:3, 5 77:2 143:16 determinations 117:1 determine 3:9 47:23 48:1 54:21 59:22 62:10, 17 63:3 71:7 128:20 142:18 154:6 determined 116:24 137:6, 10 determined. 59:1 determining 77:3, 5 148:25 deterrent 110:5 detour 93:8 detriment 99:3 devote 61:20 139:17 devoted 139:5 142:2 did 6:15 29:4 33:14 84:9 did. 6:16 didn't 149:22 didn't, 6:3 difference 20:4 different 5:6 17:16 43:12, 13 92:23 105:12 113:4 141:23 152:15, 15 differentiating 6:15 difficult 18:4 34:2 66:7 difficulty 4:23 direct 83:22 102:13 directed 17:23 18:6 42:16 51:13 54:22 56:17 83:1 directing 13:23 40:16 110:24 120:22 122:5 direction. 39:15 directly 77:19 98:16 130:14 disagree 20:21 21:24 72:16 disc 51:10 56:14 126:23 Discala 123:14 124:4 disclosed 93:2 discover 27:5 discoverable 18:7 46:24 84:3 132:2 135:24 discoveries 28:19 discovery 6:25 7:2, 16, 18 9:3 15:12 17:5, 18, 23 18:3, 5 20:5 24:2 25:4, 20 28:19, 20 30:2, 6 31:11, 13, 20 33:5 35:7 38:18 39:21, 23 43:19, 20 46:7 56:21 57:2 60:3 61:12 65:12, 14 73:8 74:3, 16, 22 75:14 77:6, 21 81:7 82:2, 15 85:10 91:14 100:25 102:21 106:14, 19 116:6, 10, 18 118:16 119:7 131:9 141:20 146:3, 8, 23 147:24 151:6, 24 155:3 discovery, 75:12 discovery. 34:22 77:24 78:13 83:6 discretion 91:13 98:6, 17 101:9, 24 112:23 discs. 56:12 discuss 119:16 121:2 123:4, 22 124:2 discussed 21:17 98:11 122:18 discussing 100:12 102:18 153:22 discussing, 90:8 discussion 10:3 11:21 discussions 108:3 dismiss 4:1, 13 5:25 16:12, 17 17:13, 24 19:13 21:16 23:17 25:16 26:2 29:15 32:14, 21 38:7 155:14 156:25 dismiss. 29:22 dismissal 9:14 dismissed 16:9 32:6 118:1 disorder 89:7, 10 disqualification 30:13 disseminated 98:24 111:3 distinction 105:9 112:23 distinctions 107:13 distress 142:8 District 36:20 diverted 135:19 137:23 138:5 divided 20:16 Dixie 1:15 do 21:10, 20 33:18 36:4 38:24 39:13 43:10 54:19 62:3 75:22 90:19 95:7, 25 107:7 116:11 121:11 128:19 134:24 154:3 do, 155:11 docket 74:13 99:7 doctrine 15:15 16:5, 22 32:16 83:21 document 17:10, 15 652 2 66:5, 5 ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083090 11 67:3, 3 71:6, 6, 7, 14 130:5 document, 119:10 documents 13:1 18:23 21:5, 9 128:1, 16 129:4 138:22 140:19 145:1 dollars 24:13 138:21 142:25 eavesdropping 127:10 Echevarria 10:1 11:5 30:8 E-C-H-E-V-A-R-R-I-A effort 4:24 9:2 90:24 93:22 122:13 127:17 129:21 131:9 140:21 148:11 26:20 27:20 29:16, domain 146:11 10:1 efforts 24:23 17 33:2 40:22, 23 domain. 147:1 Echevarria, 9:25 effuse 5:1 41:15, 18, 23 43:2, done 59:8 60:24 economic 134:9 egg 29:5, 5, 6 7 46:22, 23 47:1, 5, 67:3 113:20 137:19 139:25 eight 80:25 86:17 6, 9, 14, 15 48:12, done, 106:3 economical 54:19 104:10, 15 14, 15 49:7, 8, 9, 15, done. 82:13 131:11 Economy. 70:18 eight. 79:16 19, 21, 23, 24 50:19, 150:14 Edward 5:15 eighteen 23:14 24 51:1, 3, 5, 8, 10, Donna 18:14 21:13 EDWARDS 1:7 25:12 61:25 14, 17, 18, 20, 25 27:9 2:17 4:24 5:8, 22 either 33:18, 18 52:2, 3, 13, 14, 16 Donna. 24:16 6:3, 11, 22 7:20 56:1, 15 67:14 53:18, 20, 23 54:8, don't 12:22 20:7, 11:12 12:18 13:5 71:21 9, 24 55:6, 10, 23 20 25:13 28:7 14:13 15:20 16:1 electronic 122:2 56:9, 11, 19, 20 30:5, 8 57:22 17:20 18:19, 19, 21 element 5:25 88:1 57:13, 15, 18, 19 71:12 73:16 91:22 19:5, 11, 17 20:16, 91:25 92:2 61:16, 20, 23 62:2, 121:14 128:21 17 22:24 23:8 elements 7:10 10, 17, 19, 25 63:1, 134:17 137:6 24:5 25:5, 9 31:10, 11:17 14:22 84:16, 11 64:1, 3, 6 65:1 140:2, 9 149:6 25 32:2 33:9 34:5 17 87:25 66:12, 17 67:5, 7, 9, 155:23 37:10, 15 41:2, 8 eleven 115:14 10, 13, 22 68:8, 20 door 97:25 42:5 45:3, 3, 7, 20 eliminate 43:8 69:15, 17 70:2, 9, dose 107:6 46:17 50:12 66:21, else 38:7 64:10 24 71:1, 5, 13, 21 doubt 15:18, 21 21 67:8, 14, 17, 24 70:22 72:2 114:6 118:6 down 35:4 101:13 71:9 75:22, 24, 24 else. 43:25 124:11, 14, 24 down. 20:10 76:14, 18 78:6 e-mail 68:9 70:25 125:10 126:9, 20, Dr 13:8 85:2 86:21 87:15 115:24 119:11 23 128:19 129:3 dramatically. 9:10 88:4, 21 92:4 97:8 120:9 122:5 124:4 130:6 132:1, 14 draw 75:13 78:2 99:14, 17, 18, 18, 19, 125:18 126:12, 19 136:21 137:4 139:14 25 106:16 110:6 e-mails 116:3, 25 143:4 145:17 Drive 2:4 116:6, 8 118:23, 25 118:19, 19 123:12 147:4, 7, 11 150:9, dually 148:7 119:12, 14, 23, 24 e-mails. 123:11 19 153:24 155:25 duces 115:23 120:6, 10, 21, 25 embarked 8:2 156:3 due 99:2 155:22 121:4, 13, 20 122:5 embarrassed 110:2, documents, 53:13 during 16:18 94:15 123:7, 21 124:13, 4 documents. 47:3 16, 19 125:8 embarrassment 55:8, 12 61:24 <E> 129:10, 24 130:16, 110:8 69:20 94:6 97:7 E 96:8 16, 16, 21 131:14 embroil 4:24 156:23 = 23:25 132:21 133:5 emergency 144:19 Doe 23:25 earlier 21:15 23:6 135:20 136:1, 11 eminency 102:20 does 13:3 19:15 30:22 62:12 137:14, 20, 22 eminent 99:2 102:9 31:20 86:6 87:21 100:24 141:23 139:3, 7, 8, 9 142:1 emotional 142:8 130:5 139:6 140:19 earlier. 111:7 143:12 employee 7:20 does. 111:25 122:18, 21 140:22 Edwards' 8:7 125:19 158:9 doesn't 37:7 42:14 early 20:12, 14 Edwards. 77:13, 16 employees 13:1 68:5 88:6 89:11 earn 141:3 143: / 7 93:22 136:14 26:20 105:14 115:15 earned 137:2 137:13 enable 30:2 136:9 earnings 141:2 effect 110:5 113:21 enabling 139:12 doing 26:8 34:10, ears 19:23 effect. 10:19 encompass 7:15 11 36:12 46:14 easier 35:22 41:20 effective 32:5 ends 24:12 48:3 61:8 64:5 78:22 effectively 43:21 enforceable 66:3 87:18 88:23 90:23 easy 39:10 57:1 enforcement 13:3 97:10 103:5 105:7 effectuate 129:6, 18 26:21 45:19 46:23 ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083091 12 51:7, 17, 20 53:24 54:9 58:24 94:5 116:1, 4 126:22 131:18 enforcement. 51:6 engage 13:15 engaged 6:24 67:16 75:18 76:11, 16, 21 80:3 84:4 86:6, 12 87:19 91:5 92:11, 18 109:7, 12 124:20 148:18 engaging 7:15 80:10 enhanced 14:25 Enjoy 157:4 enormous 92:12 107:1 enough 27:25 29:21 61:10 ensure 98:8 enter 94:23 95:8 103:6, 12 111:12 113:25 entered 8:6 46:10 47:4 82:9 87:4 119:18 entering 101:24 115:9 enterprise 99:22 entire 114:21 123:18 entirely 13:20 139:20 entitled 78:1, 2 81:2, 10 115:10 149:19 151:20 entries 66:20 entries. 55:7 entry 37:11 55:10 Epstein 3:3 8:6 9:9, 17 11:2 12:3, 9, 13, 16 13:3, 9, 10, 15, 21 15:9, 15, 22 17:1 18:18 24:24 26:22 31:1, 23 34:5 37:13 40:8 41:17 44:21 45:22 46:10, 19 53:2 58:2, 15 63:12 71:5, 12 75:18 76:20 77:4, 25 80:3, 4, 16, 19, 20 83:1 84:10 85:1 87:1 89:17 91:6 92:8, 11 93:4 97:18 98:5 99:13, 16, 21 100:8, 16 104:7 1102 6 117:10 118:20, 22 119:1, 18 120:1, 7 121:2, 6 123:3, 10 124:1, 11, 16 125:10 127:6, 19 129:11, 17, 20 130:20 135:21 136:17, 23 137:18 144:6 145:10 146:16 148:17 152:/7 EPSTEIN, 1:4 Epstein. 13:11 73:6 109:18 136:16 Epstein's 5:13, 16 12:20 13:24 14:5, 8, 16, 19 15:1, 4, 7 31:7 76:6 83:17 103:18 109:17 110:2, 3, 7, 8 122:23 123:19 129:22 153:13 equipment 122:2 127:10 error 74:2 especially 24:4 ESQUIRE 2:2, 2, 6, 9, 14 essentially 5:10 86:19 establish 43:14 88:3, 4 91:4 101:12 113:19 118:24 124:14 125:6 142:23 147:11, 15 established 102:21 et 3:4 23:2 27:17 29:18 154:/2, 12 ethical 67:8, 16 68:6 ethics 10:12 68:2 evaluated 89:10 117:13 evaluated. 117:14 evaluation 142:15 even 74:3 108:17 eventually 27:20 ever 13:25 130:17, 18 every 17:10 37:15, 23 89:13 149:3 everybody 43:7 58:4 everything 10:21 97:8 evidence 31:12, 14, 18 35:8 37:14, 19 38:16 46:16, 24 59:23 77:7, 19, 21 82:19 84:3 86:1 90:11, 17 106:1 107:24 113:18 116:11 131:9, 15 137:13 140:13 evidence. 75:15 76:10 evidencing 143:5 evidentiary 36:25 91:13 113:23 149:10 ex 121:12 exact 154:17 exactly 11:25 19:4 34:6 59:21 70:11 111:14 134:3 exam 48:25 example 43:13 60:4 75:23 89:6 97:6 103:17 105:7 129:18 139:7 excellent 10:3 exception 31:16 67:12 68:7, 14 69:5 72:19, 20, 24 81:14 133:10 exceptions 70:10 excess 23:2 142:7 exchanged 115:25 116:3 exclusively 78:8 excuse 17:8 18:19, 24 23:16 30:5 31:17 32:11 64:15 65:4 82:1 exercise 103:22 Exhibit 125:18 126:11, 18 127:1 135:8 exhibits 52:23 exist 75:25 117:5 138:3, 4 existed 117:8 existence. 53:23 existing 128:11 exists 9:22 32:11 59:6 85:17 exorbitant 24:13 expect 98:23 111:2 experience 71:23, 25 expertise 65:23 explanation 78:23 81:15 expletive 121:9 exploited 99:22 explore 153:7 expose 93:4 exposed 85:24 86:5 91:1 exposure 76:8 86:21 88:20 expression 105:5 107:15 expressly 16:18 57:17 extended 30:16 extensions. 41:3 extensive 14:20 75:19 83:6 107:8 108:10 109:11 152:17 153:3 extensively 83:21 112:10 133:5, 13 145:13 147:14 151:18 152:13 extent 8:16 14:17 81:21 93:3 extort 88:4 extortion 88:3 extraditial 98:8, 22 111:1 extreme 113:6 extremely 32:5 37:18 82:23 83:25, 25 92:7 130:11 eyes 41:16 70:24 < F > F. 96:8, 15 fabricated 131:19 face 29:18 47:22 56:4 123:24 faced 101:2 107:5, 18 156:9 faces 15:8, 18, 22 facie 154:7 facilitate 64:24 fact 15:22 19:25 20:1 22:7 26:3, 8 ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083092 13 29:1 31:3, 10 147:12 142:24 145:12 140:21 141:23 33:11 47:2 58:22 female, 91:5 146:3 155:4 76:21 82:18 96:18 females 76:4, 15 finding 30:17 114:1 Flagler 2:4 99:23 105:13 85:4, 14 86:6 87:17 findings 113:24 flavor 27:18 28:4 108:14 113:4, 24 few 71:25 finds 10:8 74:2 flip 124:3 145:8 114:1 116:5 129:3 fifteen 99:20 105:14 floor 58:3 123:3 140:8 142:18, 23 111:22 155:22 fines 53:11 FLORIDA 1:2, 16 148:8 149:1 156:13 Fine's 74:9 2:5, 11, 16 9:25 153:20 154:6 Fifth 15:12, 17, 23 finger 145:8 10:2 25:17 26:1 fact, 45:5 67:7 16:1 58:1 76:25 finish 26:25 55:16, 31:16 36:11 76:13 factors 18:16 77:4, 25 78:3 83:7 21 78:16 98:21 139:20 143:11 85:22 87:10 89:19, finish. 60:13 102:25 103:1, 2 facts 17:15 29:10 23, 25 90:14 finished 69:4 111:10 112:4, 22 113:24 130:13 107:24 145:18, 19 finite 62:21 139:2 122:9 124:8 facts. 130:14 146:2 147:7 149:1 firm 6:1 7:24 125:24 138:2 failed 53:8 56:2 152:19 153:6, 16, 21 18:18, 20, 21 25:7 149:12 158:4 failing 30:13 fifty 54:24 40:8 41:2, 5 44:23 Florida. 9:22 fails 31:17 figure 18:5 144:11 45:7 50:20, 21 Florida's 30:10 fair 98:9, 14 101:2 file 15:21 18:6 51:3, 3, 8, 25 52:1, focus 18:7 65:7 104:1Z 20 105:5, 30:2 39:2, 8, 16 15, 22 53:1 61:17 78:7 81:8 110:9 12, 17, 17 106:7 53:23, 24 87:22 66:21, 22, 23 67:15 125:3 127:2 113:16 114:13 97:11, 11 99:10 68:1, 19 71:3, 20 focuses 107:14 faith 44:19 66:16 103:17 106:16 80:15, 16, 21 84:9 focusing 81:6 67:16 71:7 146:23 156:18 99:18, 19 100:14 105:19 fall 85:21 155:18 file. 110:1 117:6 119:16 folded 137:15, 15 falls 14:2 80:23 filed 30:1 37:2 120:6, 22 121:24 follow 89:12 false 124:22 40:15 42:16, 22, 24 124:10 125:19 followed 103:20 far 8:9 47:25 46:17 49:2 60:22 132:8 136:14 following 63:7 74:16 93:2 114:22 61:1 76:1, 17 137:1, 18, 20 71:17 86:13 Farmer 41:2, 4 81:20 85:1, 8 96:3, 140:10 141:23 footnotes 36:13 50:11 52:2 53:23 14 103:8, 16, 17, 19, 142:22 FOR 1:1 5:3 8:3 54:8 100:14 20 108:10, 18 firm's 119:1 10:17 11:6 18:10 favor 96:24 120:17 130:15, 16, first 3:8, 11 5:25 19:20 21:21 22:3 favor. 3:21 18 144:6, 19 145:9, 10:23 17:17 30:3, 23:23 26:9 35:25 favorite 70:20 23 146:13, 18 4 37:9 42:14 37:16 39:6 47:14 FBI 71:3 121:13 148: / / 151:4 45:18 50:24, 25, 25 49:9, 21 52:22 126:17 filed. 35:15 47:9 60:16, 20 61:8 60:3 63:2, 22 feature 120:6 files 5:17 6:7 65:10, 13 73:2 67:22 68:15 73:3, February 61:4 18:20 44:21 46:20 75:12 78:15 81:21 24 74:13 75:25 federal 8:6, 11 52:1 99:10 118:23 82:12, 22 86:25 77:1 80:2 84:1 12:11, 16 13:2 119:1 88:5 97:13 113:15 89:6 92:13 97:20 26:21 46:21 72:6 filing 7:12, 13, 13, 116:2 117:18 105:10 114:12 120:16 122:15 24 13:14 59:23 119:10 120:13 120:4, 22 123:17, 124:24 125:22 86:23 92:3 99:8 127:5 128:13 21 124:15 125:23 fee 135:15 142:17 106:20 first. 75:7 130:22 131:12 143:18 fill 35:22 Fiston 121:21 133:22 137:4 feel 3:20, 21 70:2, finally 16:8 47:1 122:6 140:3 141:16 13 financial 134:7 fit 72:2 143:6 147:16 feels 105:15 124:6 financially 158:11 fit. 71:14 148:12 149:23 fees 9:11, 16, 18, 19 find 3:14, 15 10:5 five 4:21 12:22, 24 152:22 14:23 23:3 53:11 12:15 13:10 24:9 34:21 40:15 41:15 for. 149:18 151:2 143:6 27:23 31:18 32:22 55:18 57:9 59:11 force 120:1 felt 17:7 41:19 35:3 79:6 82:17 75:11 77:17 79:4, forced 13:15 42:18 136:18 91:11 136:25 15 80:6 94:11 foregoing 158:5 138:22 141:6 110:25 135:13 ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083093 14 foreign 109:14, 21 forever 84:7 form 6:8 9:20 formed 31:6 former 53:5 68:22 71:3, 24 forms 12:18 formula 137:2 formulate 137:6 forth 60:17 100:5 101:10, 23 113:12 forth. 147:19 Fortress 52:13 53:20 Fortress. 54:1 Fortunately 42:13 144:17 forty 76:12 forward 17:4 18:9 21:11 23:1 28:12 63:24 73:1 150:16 forward, 150:15 found 70:24 122:16 four 6:23 7:10 12:11 18:12 21:13 24:4 29:22 40:14 66:15 71:17 79:4, 15 80:1 135:3 Four. 135:6 fourteen 116:3, 25 fourth 7:8 73:25 FOWLER 2:2 Frank 123:15 124:5 frankly 3:7 11:5 12:22 77:8 82:20 84:13 112:18 frankly, 110:3 frankly. 20:9 fraud 5:4 68:6, 11, 11, 14, 23, 24 69:4, 7 71:23 72:17, 19, 22, 23 fraud. 67:12 free 105:5 107:14 Freedom 102:25 112:5 113:1 freeze 14:15 24:23 frequency 154:12 Friday 132:16 144:17, 20 friends 12:4, 5 45:13 121:18 132:7 friends, 12:7 friends. 11:3 121:17 frivolity 17:13 from 3:15 17:5 21:11 44:2 69:15 72:1 102:13 114:16 119:22 120:10 133:19 137:14 139:15 143:14 front 38:8 49:3 61:1, 2 75:3 82:15 90:5 106:2 113:18 114:5 121:14 132:4 149:4 frustrating 130:11 frustration 50:4 60:18 full 78:15 fully 21:9 fund 5:23 136:20 funding 124:7 funds 6:2 Funeral 21:14 further 29:23 45:12 46:2 59:4 71:11 108:1 110:12 158:8 furtherance 69:14 future 93:14 110:5 138:11 139:5 141:3 <G> G 145:4 G. 145:2 gag 108:12, 21, 24 109:2 113:25 115:13 157:1 gain 23:4 gathered 51:10 general 3:22 20:2 28:24 generally 7:10 84:25 91:25 92:1 116:24 generate 98:4 generated 43:5 generically 19:14 genitals 85:23 86:4 89:15 91:1 Gentile 111:7, 15 112:1 gentleman 33:4 gentlemen 96:17 132:16 get 3:11 20:4 21:9 90:17 118:12 127:19 142:25 get. 60:14 gets 85:8 getting 14:6 27:6 34:1 44:22 59:24 61:24 95:19 105:18 133:20 140:8 Ghislaine 80:1 girls 76:12 80:4 84:21 girls. 99:22 give 3:22 18:16 22:2 29:12 35:16 36:12 37:25 39:7 56:6 65:14 90:9, 11 96:13 112:5 131:22 132:1 150:2/, 25 155:6 given 29:16 41:1, 3 83:25 90:19 100:21 112:19 129:5 131:8 giving 66:11 go 3:6, 9, 11 9:1 16:24 17:8 21:25 22:2, 23 25:17 27:9 28:12 29:14 35:16 36:12 39:13 43:6, 6 56:3 57:11 59:3, 15 60:11 62:24 63:24 67:23, 23 71:4, 18 73:1 75:9, 12, 16 78:9 82:17 88:5 89:5, 7 91:4 93:8, 8, 13 96:6, 22 101:12 102:16, 17 105:3 111:17, 21 115:20 118:10, 14 119:22 120:9 121:3, 13, 16, 18, 20 123:14 125:17, 25 126:2, 10, 11, 18 127:2 128:8 132:17 133:24 134:25 135:13 143:14 145:15 155:14 156:8, 15 go. 82:5 85:2 122:3 goes 18:15 21:4 24:16 39:3 56:17 77:19 86:22 143:10 146:11 152:22 going 3:10 7:16 8:20 9:18 11:13 12:5, 7 14:12 16:17 19:10 20:15 24:5 25:10 27:20 29:11 30:7 31:5, 18 32:14, 21 35:5, 13, 16, 21 36:4, 5 38:24 40:19, 24 43:2, 6, 6, 11, 15 45:13, 21 47:25 48:3, 5, 6 49:4 55:15, 15 59:21, 25 61:5 62:22 63:11, 24 65:6 71:10 72:25 74:17 78:3 79:24 81:19 82:4, 5, 12 83:22 84:4, 12, 18, 21, 24 85:2, 10, 19 86:16 91:11, 12 92:19 93:4, 11, 14, 17 103:12 109:19, 25 111:24 116:21 118:19 119:5 120:14 122:13 123:8, 9 124:7, 9 128:21 132:7, 13, 17 133:7 134:15, 18, 21, 23, 23 143:11, 21 144:17 145:13, 15, 17 147:6, 23 150:3, 5, 21 151:1, 5, 10 152:22 153:12, 14 154:7 155:5, 7 GOLDBERGER 2:9, 10 71:24 gone 5:4 gone. 5:4 Good 3:1, 2 44:18 66:16 67:16 71:7 93:17 98:13 146:23 Good. 50:23 64:13 got 18:20 35:1 40:25 93:12 131:5 152:25 gotten 30:/, 6 33:2 60:1 130:20 government 8:6 12:12, 12, 17 13:2 26:20 46:5, 8 68:15 69:16 87:5, ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083094 15 7 116:1, 4 124:25 126:21 127:12, 19, 24 128:9 129:17 130:22 131:17 132:11 government. 119:18 127:11 Grail 100:9 grandchildren 144:18 grant 116:16 131:12 134:17 granted 82:11 granting 35:9 37:11 gray 71:5 great 119:14 great. 110:8 greatly 56:5 grievance. 130:24 grounds 32:7 40:15 82:13 83:7 145:24, 25 146:2, 20 group 53:18 123:18 guarantee 113:16 guaranteed 113:1 guess 3:16 4:1 13:10 27:4 29:3 33:10 53:25 60:4 87:9 95:17 96:5 143:25 152:14 guess, 35:17 guess. 63:7 guidance 36:12 94:16, 18 guilty 44:20 46:10 87:1 89:18 guys 34:3 35:21 62:1 93:16 111:16, 23 155:7 < H > H. 145:5 had 23:8 25:10 31:24 41:19 43:4 44:17 46:9, 10, 11 84:23 105:1 107:5 120:24 121:5 122:1 127:19 146:2, 22 147:14 had, 142:16 hand 64:2 handle 48:6 59:20 116:15 handled. 99:25 hands 17:10 50:19, 20 52:7, 8 131:16 151:6 handy 118:14 Hang 78:18 79:5, 5 happen. 74:17 happened 48:17 49:18 87:12 142:19 happens 39:4 49:14 happens, 144:18 happy 87:5 harass 85:2 harassing 83:25 86:2 90:18, 22 154:16 harassment 86:8 155:2 hard 3:7 56:15 67:21 75:13 has 15:2 22:5 34:6 45:22 52:9, 17 61:6 83:2 87:7 97:17 103:4 106:3 110:6, 11 113:5, 8 135:16 155:25 hasn't 151:16, 16 154:2 hate 70:19 have 5:19 6:6 25:21 27:24 29:11, 24 33:5 34:22 39:12 47:6 52:22 53:7 56:2, 15 57:14 60:16 62:21 63:18 65:8 67:13 70:21 71:13 74:2 76:15 77:7 83:14 84:5 85:24 91:13 100:11 104:25 108:18 109:16, 17, 23 110:11 114:5 117:3 122:9 128:22 129:1 130:11 131:14 132:23 136:10 144:20 150:20 153:20 156:6 haven't 33:1 60:1 89:10 131:4 having 39:22 45:8 85:10 114:13 148:24 he 24:13 33:13 47:1, 3 52:8 67:25 76:21 77:12 87:7 90:19 91:3 99:8 100:5 124:21 126:23 130:17 135:15 138:7 140:6, 18 141:23 145:14, 19 146:15 147:13 148:23 149:16 152:18, 19 153:23 154:1 he, 32:4 121:21 130:20 head 93:11 Health 36:16 healthcare 89:6, 9 hear 96:16 110:4 144:9 heard 29:25 32:8 36:5 40:4 93:10 115:15 125:1 144:21 HEARING 1:12 16:19, 21 31:22 37:2 39:3, 7 42:24 43:4 49:6 70:16 94:17 96:10 106:18 146:14, 16 148:1, 13 151:5 155:22 hearing. 42:23 hearings 41:11 44:16 61:4 hearsay 114:6 heart 91:9 heavy 64:19 heck 155:16 held 10:6 103:5 113:3 help 52:18 59:5 60:14 64:24 68:5 101:4 help, 65:22 helped 100:17 her 115:6 122:10 Herald 98:6 Herb 115:23 here 37:6 60:3 64:2 72:14 84:14 86:19 87:13 93:12 120:3 140:2 here. 16:11 40:6 125:4 here's 30:21 36:7 he's 88:22, 24 128:23 133:7 142:9 151:19 153:13 hide 29:15 58:5 high-profile 11:2 12:4 high-tech 122:2 Highway 1:15 him 75:24 87:16 148:20 153:20 154:21 him. 32:1 his 7:4 23:20 39:20 69:13 76:7 90:25 120:22 129:25 130:12 138:4 139:25 140:16 142:20 147:15 152:20 historically 138:8 139:4 history 102:20 hold 23:20 95:9 102:7 143:24 144:10 Holmes 70:25 121:12 122:7 Holy 100:9 honestly 81:15 Honor 4:15, 19 6:17 8:19 10:5 15:14 16:25 17:4 18:24 20:10 21:8 23:16 25:17 27:11 29:7, 24 30:21 33:21 35:13, 19 37:18, 25 38:21 40:3 50:11 58:4, 23 59:3, 12 64:21 65:21 66:9, 19 67:1,4 70:11 71:6 72:15 73:7, 24 74:3, 18, 21 76:8, 24 77:3 78:12, 21 79:20 80:12, 13 81:6, 12 82:1 88:14, 24 90:13 91:24 93:19 94:14, 21 97:Z 6 102:2, 14 104:24, 25 108:12 109:4, 6 112:10 114:9, 24 115:18, 21 116:15 117:17, 25 125:2 128:4, 13 129:9 131:12, 20, 22 ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083095 16 132:19 136:18 139:25 140:15, 19 142:5 143:10, 24 149:9, 20 150:7 153:12 154:24 155:21 156:19 Honor, 16:17 54:18 86:25 124:18 127:4 Honor. 3:1, 2 16:9 35:11 60:8 64:8 65:17 68:13 105:23 110:22 138:9 141:18 150:11 151:3 152:3, 24 153:2 HONORABLE 1:12 37:10 Honor's 23:19, 21 28:11, 23 58:22 73:4 Hoovler 68:17, 21 71:19 hope 30:6 114: / / 155:11 hopeful 71:15 horse 17:16 29:7, 25 hour 61:24 hourly 138:17 139:16 141:13 hours 54:15 how 26:12 33:13 35:9 64:24 77:9 84:20 92:19 120:6 136:18 137:2 139:19 140:11 hundred 54:25 55:6, 7, 11, 23 64:25 66:12, 14, 15, 15, 15 71:17 116:3, 25 hurling 69:1 hypothetical 107:18 hypothetically 106:11, 13 <I> I 3:22 6:13 13:6, 9 17:22 18:5 19:13, 19 20:2 22:20, 24 25:9 27:20 28:10 30:7 33:24 34:21 38:8, 12, 14 39:9 47:5 50:3 57:20 59:18 60:4 63:13 65:5, 7 69:4 72:15 73:7, 15 75:13 86:10 87:11 89:21 92:22 93:15 95:16 101:5, 9, 22, 24 103:22 118:6 121:13 123:15 128:11, 25 132:11 134:17 138:20 143:24 148:21 150:25 151:5 155:8, 22 158:10 I, 82:19 I. 79:23 i.e 27:16 88:10 idea 25:10 93:17 138:10 idea. 50:17 identifications 76:18 identified 42:21 43:1 55:24 57:14 68:20 76:17 identify 42: / 7 71:24 identifying 51:9 if 6:5 17:14 20:6 25:1 62:18 75:12 84:15 86:24 87:18, 22 115:8 118:3 129:22 134:16 143:4 147:23 I'll 60:12 156:14 illegal 26:10 80:5 illegal, 28:17 illegitimate 22:11 I'm 8:18 12:4 27:5 31:17 32:19 44:24 63:15, 23 71:15 88:16 110:4 115:2 132:16 133:11 134:5 142:9 152:15, 22 154:9 imagine 54:15 116:20 141:5 immaterial. 137:21 immunity 30:17 impact 57:22 106:25 143:17 important 5:21 11:13 62:15 66:8, 11 67:1 117:18, 25 121:3 156:5 impose 103:9 108:12 imposed 98:11 imposing 113:10 imposition 10:14 imprecision 4:23 improper 7:7 8:8 10:18 26:10 28:18 improprieties 97:9 in 3:10 4:24 7:2, 15 9:19 16:14 18:2, 14 19:5, 25, 25 21:12 22:6 30:8 33:10, 17 36:10 37:21, 23 40:20, 24 46:17, 25 48:5 49:2 50:8 52:7 53:16 54:3 58:4, 24 60:25 61:1 66:16 75:2 78:1 85:8 91:14, 19 93:14, 21 96:18 100:7 101:21 106:1 109:15 112:11, 20, 23 114:6 115:13 120:21 121:22 122:9, 24 123:16, 24 124:14 129:10 131:15 139:4 141:9 148:18 151:8 in. 97:3 inability 119:8 inadequacy 56:1 inadequate 42:18 inappropriate 10:9, 18 97:20 incarceration 53:9 incidents 93:1 included 20:24 31:2 34:25 37:23 includes 37:18 including 10:1Z 14 13:2 19:23 20:9 22:24 25:24 26:21 34:3, 4, 4 53:9 69:5 85:17 138:2 income 137:14, 23 138:5 139:6 143:19 incorporate 38:7 incorporated 36:18 37:2Z 24 38:5 111:6 incorporates 16:18 99:4 incorporation 16:13 incorrect 72:22 increase 127:7 increasing 110:7 incredible 146:12 incurred 9:12, 19 Indeed 5:7 130:14 independant 10:10, 16 100:12 139:20 indicated 47:21 indication 24:24 individual 24:11 28:1, 1 125:25 individually 45:13 individually, 1:7, 7, 8 individuals 53:10 infer 14:1 inference 139:14 inferences 78:2 132:1 inflammatory 9:5 10:23 inflate 71:11 information 23:4 27:5 58:14 80:20, 22 812 10 90:18 100:3 106:21, 25 116:22 132:2, 4 133:20 135:24 139:15 146:15, 24 information. 137:8 143:2 inherent 98:19 initial 53:19 Initially 40:7 54:21 59:16, 18 initiated 7:20 109:23 inject 107:21 injuries 141:1 injury 140:24 141:4, 7, 13, 14 input 128:10 inquiries 139:18 inquiry 64:23 134:7 137:21 141:11 145:15 insert 97:9 inspection 58:21 installation 14:24 instance 66:20 67:23 68:15 instruct 108:2 instructed 152:21 ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083096 17 instructions 107:23 integrity 105:11 intend 26:13 intended 92:6 148:10 intent 11:2 12:3 30:11 intentional 99:21 interest 102:10 107:15 109:14 117:7, 10, 10 128:1 interest, 109:13 interested 109:19 158:11 interests 58:17 80:18, 19 110:10 interfere 8:3 46:3 104:1Z 20 110:18, 20 125:15 129:15 interference 8:17, 21, 22 12:14 21:19 22:16 30:15 46:6, 16 131:2, 6 135:17 142:13, 23 interference. 22:13 interfering 7:8 interim 3:14 interlocutory 82:15 International 8:23 Internet 85:9 103:10, 13, 14 148:1 Internet. 100:21 interrogatories 73:5, 12, 19 74:6 78:14, 17 85:21 86:11 92:13 134:22 interrogatory 78:23, 25 79:1 91:2 134:17 142:6 interrupt 57:7 60:12 124:18 interrupted 23:6 interview 99:9 103:17 interviews 109:11 Intimidate 99:13 into 21:19 24:22 27:9 139:24 introduce 89:17 Introduced 99:16 106:22 introductory 6:22 7:3 intruded 16:22 intrusive 71:10 invade 84:5 invaded 105:15 invalidates 49:13 invasion 139:24 investigated 31:9 investigating 68:15 investigation 26:15 27:10 87:8 123:4 125:22 investigative 7:7 investigator 23:12 67:24 71:9 122:7 125:23 investigators 25:13 67:20 68:4 118:25 121:21 123:2, 7, 16 investigators, 122:5 investigators. 23:15 investing 127:8 investment 132:9 investment. 129:13 investor 71:12 124:4 135:25 136:7, 10 investor. 136:3, 5 investors 5:17, 23 6:8 25:5, 8 44:22 45:2 46:13 52:25 84:10 118:20, 24 119:2 122:1 123:11, 14 124:15 127:7, 10, 12, 13 135:25 investors, 45:17 investors. 123:13 involve 7:12 10:24 67:15, 24 83:10 involved 5:11, 15, 21 6:6 10:13 11:16 27:23 33:13, 13 45:5 50:8 89:16 91:17 123:21 125:9, 20 127:24 involvement 17:20 29:8 33:9, 9 72:17 involves 30:19 132:20 135:4 involving 12:2 13:1 26:20 104:6 128:25 irrelevant 41:18 87:6 137:21 is 5:9 9:8 12:18 13:8, 10 15:9, 15, 24 18:17 19:7 20:23, 23 23:12 28:17 30:6 32:8, 9, 9 37:22 48:1 52:18 53:17 54:19 57:16 62:6 64:20 69:2, 15, 17 70:1 71:10 72:25 79:25 81:1, 2, 9, 23 82:25 83:24 84:16 86:7, 14, 20 87:6 88:18 89:19 96:2 100:4 101:21 103:19 105:17 106:17 110:19, 25 113:4 116:15 118:15 120:11 121:2 122: / / 123:8, 9 125:14 126:18 130:25 131:14 132:17 134:1 137:13 139:1 141:21 142:1 146:7 149:5 152:19 155:10, 16 is, 86:18 149:9 is. 22:21 28:5 34:13 63:15 74:22 88:7 isn't 18:8 87:25 issuance 40:12 issue 11:11 20:5 21:5 27:10 32:10 35:17 48:8 56:22 58:21, 23 60:8 63:6 65:25 66:3, 4 67:2 70:3, 5, 16 82:16, 19, 20 84:18 89:7, 11 94:14 95:3, 11 96:18 102:19 105:22 108:17 109:12 115:1 120:15, 23 125:4 127:3 128:22 133:17 135:4 147:13 155:24 156:7 157:1 issue. 23:18 70:17 81:19, 25 108:16 issued 14:1 40:8 42:9 44:1, 11 issues 3:21 19:20 25:23, 23 34:3 35:5 41:12 43:11 49:4, 15, 17, 17 59:1, 5, 10, 21 66:18 79:25 81:14, 16, 20 82:8 83:10, 12, 18 85:11 91:13 97:9, 22, 25 101:2 102:18 104:/, 4 107:8, 25 108:11 109:22 119:3 120:2 132:23 133:18 135:10 144:21 146:25 149:25 151:11, 20 156:7 issues. 47:8 95:13 Issuing 12:5 27:7 100:15 it 20:3 22:2 28:24 34:12 36:24 38:25 39:3 43:20 45:13 48:22 56:15 61:13 63:3 83:21 87:24 93:4 97:21 98:21 105:2 106:17 110:10 114:1 115:9 121:14 125:20 128:1 130:4 131:13 139:1, 7 143:13 152:5 156:10 it, 107:21 115:7 it. 13:7 18:17 37:7 42:13 61:9 63:6 72:7 73:22 95:24 103: / / 115:5 120:20 157:5 items 46:1 its 6:2 18:12 43:17 47:22 82:9 86:14 99:2 106:24 it's 8:19 22:19 33:11, 23 34:1 36:8, 8 43:13 66:11 77:10 79:10 95:15 97:20 106:21 111:19 117:17 135:8 137:5 itself 11:8 24:15 I've 36:23 61:25 129:4 149:19 <J> JA 155:11 ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083097 18 JACK 2:9, 14 jacket 64:19 Jane 23:25 Kathleen 1:17 158:3, 19 keen 109:13, 14 15, 17 140:10, 11 141:2/, 22 143:3 148:21, 22, 23 Lawrence 68:21 laws 144:21 lawsuit 17:3 22:25 JEFFREY 1:4 17:1 keep 55:19 56:19 149:20 155:6, 12, 32:17, 18 40:10 37:13 99:16 106:21 133:19, 19 15, 21 48:16 61:22 62:19 Jenny 23:11, 11 140:8 145:8 153:12 know, 105:19 64:4 76:17 77:11 67:24 121:21 Ken 123:1 knowing 18:4 34:1 83:1 85:1 89:24 122:6 123:1 key 68:23, 24 knowledge 99:24 91:21 155:16 job 32:2 120:15 112:25 lawsuit. 33:8 job. 32:5 kind 3:7, 8, 19 4:13 known 5:16, 19, 22 lawsuits 7:5 12:18 jobs 72:1 11:25 16:15 28:8 6:7 89:8 110:12 24:7 25:7 33:15 Joe 95:11 29:4 33:14 39:22 knows 98:25 133:8 100:16 129:11 joint 43:2, 3, 14 65:13, 14 71:5 140:19 lawsuits. 25:10 119:19, 19 125:14 93:13 104:22 Kretschmer 124:5 lawyer 65:22 68:17 132:11 125:3 141:5, 10 Kuvin 42:25 43:16 69:13, 15, 17 98:22, JOSEPH 2:2 kinds 19:2 25 111:1 119:15 JR 2:2 kitchen 20:23 <L> 120:10 122:7 Judge 3:15, 15 knew 5:15, 18, 22 1:8 13:15 124:8 140:18 39:18, 20 40:17, 25 6:3, 5 38:13 23:25 86:17 141:13 152:21 42:5, 22 46:25 KNIGHT 2:2 3:2 lack 33:9 120:15, lawyer. 111:13 47:13, 25 49:3 16:25, 25 18:9 19 lawyering 68:6 54:15 61:1,2 20:10, 12 21:2 lacks 66:23 lawyers 10:13 68:17, 21 70:23 22:9, 12, 22 24:19, lady, 86:5 12:13 41:17 53:6 71:16, 19 74:9 22 26:24 272 9, Lakes 2:16 66:21, 22, 23 67:15, 126:7 14 28:10, 14, 23 lapse 46:19 20 68:4, 16, 18, 25, judgment 16:19, 20 29:6 33:21 35:11 large 7:22 25 71:2 80:15 17:14 37:15, 17, 24 64:8, 22 65: / 7 large. 82:23 98:12, 15, 17 38:1, 2, 14, 17, 21 95:10 114:24 last 124:6 103:/5, 24 104:5 42:6 45:23 47:16, 115:4 121:7 126:7 lastly 70:23 108:2, 5 122:23 18 97:7 136:16 157:4 late 68:19 155:21 123:2 126:15, 21 judgment. 16:14 know 3:22 7:19 later 85:6 149:11 142:22 42:4 83:11, 20 8:20 16:6 19:16, latitude. 40:5 lead 31:12, 14 35:7 JUDICIAL 1:1 9:14 18, 22 20:3, 8, 8, 25 law 6:1 7:23 8:11, 46:24 59:22 75:14 30:19 45:11 83:3 22:17 25:11 26:11 18 13:2 15:14, 24 76:9 77:6, 21 84:11 87:15 96:19 27:5 29:12, 18 20:18 22:6, 20 82:18 86:1 90:10, July 1:13 71:4 30:8 32:10, 16, 16, 25:17 26:2, 21 17 116:10 132:2 119:23 158:13 17 33:14, 15, 17, 17, 27:6 28:22 34:10 135:23 140:12 jurors 106:5 25 34:5, 6 36:21 40:8 45:19 46:23 143:2 jury 85:12 97:22 38:6, 7 39:12 40:4 50:20 51:2, 3, 6, 7, leads 18:16 19:23 100:20 106:22 48:22 50:4, 5 8, 17, 20 53:24 84:2 107:5, 19, 22 108:6, 55:21 59:19, 20 54:8 66:8, 24 learn 23:10 19 110:19 149:12 61:14 62:4, 20, 21 68:19 71:20 80:15, learning 123:8 just 11:22 51:21 65:5 66:22 71:24 16 84:9 94:5 least 36:20 43:8 57:21 114:4 122:7 72:4 74:16 78:3, 9 95:18 97:12 99:18 76:9 108:2 151:20 130:3 140:7 150:4 80:8, 21, 23 84:13, 102:23 103:22 least, 88:11 Justice 68:22 23 85:8 86:11 108:18 116:/, 4 leave 19:3 32:21 100:18 104:22 87:12 88:16 89:13, 117:6 119:1 35:9 37:11 110:20 15, 18 95:18, 22, 24 121:23 124:10 left 73:8 123:17 justice. 110:14 98:25 101:8 126:22 131:17 legal 4:22 11:7 justify 102:7 146:1 102:19 104:19 137:18, 20 140:10 672 8, 16 111:11 105:20 106:4, 6 141:23 144:23, 24, legality 68:2 <K> 111:23 114:22 25, 25 145:20 legally 66:2 Kassel 120:10 115:4 124:22 152:6 154:18 legitimate 6:2 7:1, 129:24 128:10, 17 134:3 law. 22:19 144:22 5, 21 11:15 22:8 137:1, 7 139:7, 14, 31:19, 21 32:3 ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083098 19 38:22 75:23, 25 92:6 legitimately 12:19 31:9 88:6 legs 143:22 length 21:18 lengthy 81:13, 16 less 74:4 lesser 113:10 let 54:13 55:16 60:13 101:18 letter 46:15 118:13 Levin 11:21 30:9 liability 9:21 15:23 75:20 76:7 77:11 92:8 93:5 liability. 92:9 liable 6:23 libel 22:16 105:20 lied 124:6 lien 136:22 143:5 life 142:19 light 9:21 10:20 116:5, 8 146:8, 23 like 26:9 39:10 86:22 87:15 105:15 138:19 141:2 157:4 like, 93:13 132:19 likelihood 99:1, 4 111:3 113:13, 22 likely 143:1 limit 90:24 91:14 151:24 152:4 limitations 84:1 98:11, 15 101:3 103:9 113:10 141:4 limited 17:11 19:23 20:9, 24 35:1 45:4 90:23 91:19, 19 107:20 109:22 125:8 141:25 154:13 limiting 112:24 limits 107:12 Lincoln 139:1 line 17:14 35:4 37:1, 19 38:9 39:8 137:21 155:5 lines 78:12 83:12 link 45:8 132:5 links 123:6 list 3:5 28:20 42:19, 20 125:20, 21 listed 125:18 listen 96:19 156:14 listening. 75:16 118:10 litigants 98:12, 15 litigate 84:8 litigated 66:19 122:15 litigating 34:1 52:16 litigation 8:4 9:12, 13, 20, 22 10:3, 7, 8, 18 11:6, 15, 18, 19, 23 13:13, 16, 18 14:2, 19, 21, 23 15:6 21:18, 25 22:1, 7, 15, 18 23:24 30:10, 16 33:19 34:18 69:16 71:8 91:15 156:7 litigation. 10:11 22:1, 4 33:20 Litman 126:12 Litman's 126:19 little 18:17 23:9 39:25 40:5 64:18 69:7 74:16 78:22 living. 139:13 locate 104:25 location 56:11 lodged 41:8 144:3 log 23:10 25:11 42:10, 15, 18 43:1, 9 46:1 47:22 54:20 55:24, 25 58:20 66:16, 23 67:21 68:3, 20 70:8, 8, 12, 15 71:15 129:23 130: /, 3, 5, 8 log. 41:2 66:10 logical 87:12 logs 17:11 18:23 29:8 56:1 61:21 66:7 logs. 42:12 long 30:22 35:13 46:19 57:16 64:4 78:5 96:21 98:18 102:17 111:19 112:17 154:14 longer 31:23 138:3, 4, 20 155:23 look 6:10, 21 7:17 21:17 29:7 39:3 41:17 46:1 47:23 54:20 55:3 58:5 61:24 62:7, 10, 25 63:1, 4 71:16 74:7, 14 75:12 81:4, 23 84:16 87:14 96:20 97:4 99:6 111:18 112:12 119:10 123:20 128:19 129:3, 23 142:16 153:13 looked 42:13 73:10 looking 5:6 24:22 43:9, 10 54:16 61:15 62:1 67:4 71:21 74:25 79:20 118:9 125:15 126:3 127:14 142:20 lose 123:18 losing 123:25 loss 135:18 137:19 141:25 142:10, 11, 14 lost 20:7 137:14 138:13 139:5 140:4 141:2 142:1 145:19 lot 3:8 5:20 6:5 11:14 18:2 38:15 109:15 120:1 140:11 153:10 love 59:9 lumped 29:2 32:23 lumping 20:13 lumps 6:13 lunch 55:16, 19 59:12, 14 63:23 64:9, 12 lunch. 55:20 <M> made 92:15, 16 94:24 105:10 107:12 112:23 116:10 137:12 138:8 139:8 145:16 148:11 151:8 made. 148:20 magistrate 47:Z 4, 13 magnitude 64:25 maintained 156:6 make 57:24 66:5 98:17 116:/7,25 122:3 125:7 138:21 139:13 142:15 143:12 makes 20:4 making 7:4 27:3 32:20 48:5 57:23 63:13 71:14 77:3 89:20, 21 104:5 133:23 137:1 141:23, 24 153:7, 21 making. 153:11 malicious 22:17 man 155:9 manageable 65:2 managed 52:14 management 52:22 manner 62:24 97:21 manufacturers 69:6 many 29:8 54:23 109:20 marked 112:5 marketing 99:18 129:12 Marra 46:25 MARTIN 2:6, 7 Massachusetts 2:8 massive 5:1 71:20 master 40: / 7 41:10, 12 42:3, 16, 19, 19, 20, 23 43:4, 5, 20, 21 47:20 48:12 51:2, 19 52:8 55:3 60:18 61:3, 5, 7, 24 71:22, 23 72:5 93:21 master. 41:24 51:23 material 15:11 16:2 31:8 38:11 58:15 76:22 81:7 92:1 93:5 99:1, 4 113:13, 22 116:7 131:18 139:18 141: / / material. 116:22 materiality 139:22 materially 111:4 materials 36:6 41:9 52:1 matter 10:9 19:11 23:8 28:21 34:10 40:4 56:18 86:10 ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083099 20 88:7 108:14 123:3, 22 130:4 matters 16:2 22:14 40:17 42:9 47:22 48:2 56:3 61:11 65:7 81:19, 24 82:15 83:14 84:5, 8, 18 89:16 91:14 95:1 100:25 103:10 109:23, 24 122:20 145:23 151:17 matters, 153:16 matters. 88:5 maximize 32:2 Maxwell 80:1 86:6 91:5 98:10 may 25:23 33:12 67:14, 23 104:2 meant 41:16 45:13 149:8 meant. 149:7 meantime 42:21 measure 138:16 measures 103:3 mechanisms 46:8 media 98:13 100:19 104:12 106:17 107:2 108:1, Z 6 120:6 mediator 72:9 Medical 8:23 Meeks 36:17 meet 42:15 91:22 meeting 45:6 121:1 123:3, 20 1242 9 meetings 41:11 minors 77:18 80:11 85:18 148:19 minute 94:11 126:1 155:22 156:13 minute. 141:19 minutes 55:18 57:9 59:11 111:22 minutes. 144:12 misapprehended 74:21 misconduct 15:7 76:6 92:19 110:8 148:19 misconduct, 87:17 misdeeds 88:11 misquoting 22:20 misrepresented 47:2 97:13, 14, 17 99:13 103:20 104:10 113:18 114:4, 5, 18 115:22 116:16 120:17 122:4 131:12 132:20 133:1, 22 134:14 135:8, 14 144:1, 8 145:23 146:6, 13, 18 147:16 148:10, 12 149:17 151:4 155:14 156:13, 25, 25 motion. 4:5 37:24 38:9, 13 104:16 148:5 motions 3:5, 1Z 18 4:8 35:20 36:20 40:15, 20 42:16 143:14 151:9 45:8 123:8 124:17 missed 141:14, 15 54:22 56:17 61:1 Maybe 110:5 132:8 missing 26:17 64:11 65:19 72:13 152:14 meets 18:12 mistake 78:13 106:20 144:19 McCrary 103:1 memo 1022 4 misunderstand motive 76:6 86:23 McIntosh 98:7, 14 123:1 20:20 101:18 87:18, 21 88:7, 19 101:4, 23 102:12, memo. 102:3, 6 misuse 45:10 87:14 91:12 92:1 14 112:3, 4 memorandum molestations 5:14 motive, 91:24 me 3:4 32:12 108:11 moment. 7:18 motive. 76:23 54:14 63:3 75:8 memorandum. money 7:22 11:14 move 17:4, 14 101:19 113:24 112:11 44:22 120:1 21:11 115:17 134:15 memory. 154:24 123:16 127:8 moved 4:25 me, 17:8 62:15 mental 142:8 136:20 138:7 moves 37:10 me. 35:22 105:2 mentioned 33:25 140:11 141:3 119:25 112:20 122:8 124:5 143:4 142:15, 17 143:13, moving 120:12 mean 3:14 4:11 mere 34:10, 20 17 Mr 5:22 8:6 9: / 7 13:4 17:8 20:6, 24 105:13 monitoring 121:23 11:12 12:20 13:21 22:5, 25 26:4, 18 merely 48:13 86:8 months 156:6 14:16 15:20 17:20 28:22 31:5 34:23 106:22 Moran 68:18 19:11, 17 25:4, 5, 9, 41:25 43:9, 21 meritorious 5:12 more 27:17, 23 22 31:10 41:8 48:7 50:9 54:13 merits 153:4 33:22 68:19 76:11 44:24 45:1 46:19 57:7 59:16 60:4, met 40:11 109:5 78:14 50:12 57:11 66:10 12 65:10 87:11, 12 151:19 morning 3:1, 2 75:8 67:14 75:24 76:14 89:21 93:16 95:22 method 54:19 most 10:1 77:4, 16 80:3, 16 111:12 115:16 Miami 98:6 motion 4:1, 6, 13, 82:24 84:9 87:1 128:12 134:1 Middlebrooks 11:21 14 5:25 16:12, 17 89:17 92:11 98:5 138:19 140:7 midst 44:16 17:13, 14, 24 21:15 99:25 100:16 147:13 might 46:23 23:17 25:15 26:2 104:7 109:17 mean, 69:3 million 142:25 29:22 35:9, 25 110:6 117:10 mean. 127:15 million. 142:7 36:5, 7 37:4, 9, 15, 119:14, 23, 24 meaning 47:10 mind 15:18 64:16 17 38:1, 2, 4, 6, 15, 121:4, 6, 21 122:1, 66:20 minimum 91:16, 17 17, 18, 21, 23 39:2, 5, 6 123:13 124:15 meaningful 145:25 minor 76:4, 12, 15, 6, 6, 17 42:4, 6, 22 126:19 129:10 146:8 21 80:4 84:21 49:2 65:5, 10, 11 130:16, 21 137:14, means 7:12 20:9 85:3, 14 86:6, 12 73:2, 3, 24 82:9 17, 18 144:6 55:9 98:24 104:22 87:17 91:5 83:11, 20 85:6 145:12 149:14 means. 21:1 93:20 94:4, 22 ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083100 21 Mr. 20:14 23:6 45:6 123:6 much 35:10 92:18, 20 133:22 much. 3:5 mud 50:3 multiple 76:4 multiply 24:14 must 30:17 58:15 Muzzling 98:17 my 16:5 26:7 41:25 59:15 61:19 62:20 69:17 96:19 107:17 115:14 144:17, 21 155:17 158:6 <N> name 78:15 89:8 named 53:4 67:24 68:17 names 85:5 126:13 narrow 64:25 66:1Z 13 narrowly 72:15 national 109:9 natural 22:19 nature 103:8 108:23 145:12 146:10 nature, 147:24 Nebraska 107:10, 14 necessarily 55:8 68:13 84:14 155:13 necessary 8:20 46:23 62:23 63:19 necessity 114:12 need 17:19 18:23 19:11 27:23 30:3, 4 33:23 34:24, 25 35:10 37:2 38:8, 9, 13, 14 39:25 48:21 53:17, 19 60:9 61:12 70:7 78:7, 9 83:9 86:13, 14 89:2, 5, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 90:25 93:1 94:11 111:/7,23 116:24 117:13, 14 120:5 134:19 137:1, 7 1382 6 141:21 148:1 149:14, 15 151:5 153:5 157:5 needed 44:17 59:11 146:15 151:11 needless 144:18 needs 20:16 21:16 28:3 32:6 832 5 91:16 147:15, 17 151:16 153:24 neither 130:13 net 143:13 never 6:25 8:12 17:24 21:22 22:25 67:25 96:9 115:12, 14 124:19 144:21 new 5:5 15:19 50:20 51:2, 3 52:1 131:19 144:6 146:15 149:21, 21, 22, 25 153:8, 8 156:19 new. 96:11, 12 News 99:16 newspapers 85:9 102:25 112:5 next 93:16, 25 143:22 nice 64:12 nine 5:1 13:23 23:14 25:13 67:20 79:4 104:10, 15 136:13 Nine. 75:11 79:15 81:3 nitty-gritty 72:13 no 11:14 15:17 31:23 60:22 69:18 72:4 85:15 104:11 116:5 no. 4:10 50:22 55:1 156:20 nominal 20:18 nominated 64:22 non 5:20 non-appearance 148:14 non-party 42:25 non-prosecution 7:8 8:3, 5, 10, 14, 24 12:14 24:8 46:3 87:4 119:13 125:12, 16 127:17 129:15 131:2, 7 132:6 nonsensical 21:20 134:2 nonspecific 33:1 normal 115:4 not 7:19 8:21 10:23 12:20 19:16 31:7, 13, 21 32:13, 20, 25 38:19 44:25 53:11 62:17 69:22 71:13 72:5 75:13, 22 82:18 83:15 84:13 87:5 89:23 91:20 92:1, 22 96:20 105:15 107:7 127:12 128:21 133:9 137:6 140:8 146:17, 22 151:24 156:/7 not, 113:5 not. 62:11 73:19 78:4 Notary 158:3 notebook 65:9 73:9 notes. 112:6 158:7 nothing 15:3 81:24 85:25 86:8, 15 93:6 104:2 131:6 notice 9:14 15:20 93:20 115:22 noticed 148:7 151:10 Notifying 11:2 12:3, 7 26:12 34:20 Notwithstanding 104:13 novo 71:22 Now 13:25 47:9 111:24 153:5, 19 Now, 8:4 14:5 46:25 58:18 now. 69:11 80:9 90:2 108:8 nullity 8:25 number 12:10 15:14 32:23 34:7 45:5 56:4 59:17 66:17 67:5, 7 70:13 76:3 77:17, 19 78:23 79:21, 24, 24 80:1, 1, 6, 10, 12, 25 81:3, 14 84:23 85:3 86:4, 5, 11, 17 87:2 89:16 91:3 99:24 115:24 123:5, 21 125:9 129:11 132:23 135: / /, 22 136:13, 21 137:4 143:11, 15 numbers 37:20 numerous 6:14 41:3 87:2 107:2 124:17 132:8 147:9 148:17 Nurik 119:12, 15 <0> object 32:19 35:12 40:12 68:9 90:6 110:15 objected 61:6 82:22 83:7 objecting 62:6 objection 60:22 65:8 72:5 78:22, 24 79:21 91:9 116:2 133:18 134:8 135:22 137:5, 11 objection. 57:3, 5 objections 33:12 41:9 73:4 85:22 90:1, 21 91:18 93:20 115:22 117:2, 5, 13, 14 133:22 135:12 144:3 145:22 obligation 58:17, 20 obliged 57:23 58:8, 11 92:3 139:10 150:17, 22, 23 observed 139:1 Observer 100:11 obtain 13:24 30:13 100:6 115:8, 9 131:9 obtaining 114:20 115:7 obvious 30:5 obviously 5:12 32:5, 19 38:22 43:8, 10 149:10 150:16, 23 occasions 76:4 occur 106:12 107:2 108:1, 7 occur, 124:21 occurred 10:21 12:1, 15 33:6, 7, 7 45:6 46:19 99:6 145:9 147:10 ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083101 22 occurring 30:18 43:16 97:6 124:1 occurs 10:7, 11, 17 11:18 104:5 107:2 147:10 October 123:22 OF 2:2, 7, 10, 15 3:9, 18 5:20 6:17 7:10 8:14 9:6, 7, 14 10:4, 14, 17, 22 11:17,25 12:19 13:12, 16 14:8, 10, 24 15:4, 9, 17 16:6 18:2 21:22 23:1 24:/, 9 25:1, 16 26:5, 7, 19, 23 27:6, 22 28:21, 21 29:16, 22 30:14 32:3, 7 33:16 37:14, 18 38:10 39:21 42:20 49:17, 20 50:5, 9 52:12 53:9 57:18 58:12 59:3, 18 61:14 66:23 68:1, 5 69:5, 24 70:3, 24 71:9 73:8 75:23 77:15, 23 79:1 80:12 83:18 85:4, 6 87:14, 23 88:8 90:6, 23 92:3 93:21 94:25 95:12 97:7 102:2 103:4, 18 104:21 108:22 109:16 111:3 112:7, 21 113:1, 13, 19 115:22 119:5 120:15, 18 122:15 125:17 131:2 132:4, 15 134:8 135:11 136:13 137:16 138:12, 14 139:11 141:11, 13, 14 142:3, 6, 20 144:20 145:21, 23 147:24 148:2 149:15, 24 150:19, 25 151:13 154:12, 25 156:6 158:3 offensive 105:14 office 25:8 45:22 126:15, 18 office. 115:1 124:12 officers 114:16 116:1, 5 131:18 officers. 126:22 officials 13:2 26:20 98:15 116:1, 4 126:22 131:17 oh 29:14 94:7 112:2 114:10 118:8 Okay 3:3 4:11 13:9 19:7 33:24 35:17 38:16 39:4, 17 40:3, 10, 13 42:2, 18, 21 43:10, 19 44:9, 14 46:18 47:14, 16 48:7, 20 49:3 50:23 51:16 52:13, 14 53:22 54:11 56:14, 15 57:1, 9, 11, 11 58:8 59:20 60:15 61:15, 22 63:18, 22 70:21 73:1 79:8 81:12 82:8 84:25 85:3 87:1, 3, 4, 21 89:11 90:20, 23 91:1, 4, 7, 23 93:10 96:9, 13, 14, 16, 24 97:10, 16, 19 99:15 100:3 102:16 103:4, 21 104:3, 4 105:3 106:11 107:4 112:16 114:11 115:/7,20 119:11, 19, 22 123:12 126:4, 10 127:2 128:4, 5 130:7, 10 132:15, 19 133:1 134:25 135:3, 12 136:18 137:5, 7, 9 138:19 143:3, 13, 20 144:8, 25 145:7 151:15, 18 155:7 okay, 46:19 50:24 okay. 11:10 20:11 24:21 35:23, 24 40:2 46:5 47:12 50:15 52:11 53:14 55:17 56:13, 25 57:6 65:20 73:20, 23 74:23 79:12 82:6, 10 84:22 85:13 90:15 91:6 95:14 100:18, 22 105:24 106:10 109:1 111:8 112:13 118:8, 11 124:10 126:3 132:2 133:11 136:6, 12, 22 143:9 145:3, 6 156:16 old 50:21 51:25 99:20 on 14:4, 8 16:25 17:11 18:12 19:4 20:12 31:5 35:18 36:5 50:12 59:20 63:24 71:3 74:11 76:3 83:13 84:6, 24 85:7 90:13 93:10 98:11 99:24 101:13 102:16, 23 108:4, 5 110:5, 9 119:3 123:2 127:2 128:22 137:3 145:11 147:11, 12 157:1 on, 51:5 on. 77:11 once 21:8 23:10 61:2 67:1 70:3 96:18 97:10 103:23 110:16 One 11:16 12:2 70:23 79:22 88:1 112:3 115:15 123:6 132:24 142:19 one, 81:14 one. 6:18 93:23 94:1 126:4, 5 143:23 ones 25:3 43:8 49:2 50:20 53:16 64:1 75:1 79:3 112:18, 20 136:10, 10 ones. 56:24 ongoing 58:15 71:25 117:9 online 100:15 only 23:11 70:25 121:4 open 19:2 95:18, 23 118:13 opened. 97:25 opener 118:13 opening 3:20 operating 60:20 operation 145:20 opinion 74:1 100:21 107:22 opportunities 109:21 opportunity 37:3 39:7 56:6 109:9, 10, 11 112:18 131:8 154:1 156:22 opposed 48:7 opposing 30:12 opposite 151:23 opposition 38:22 39:8 oppressive 151:25 154:12 oppressive, 155:2 or 5:15 23:22 28:8, 19 34:23 40:14 71:21 72:22 82:17 87:11 102:9 103:7 104:20 105:20 113:21 117:4 127:18 128:10 141:2, 23 142:19 143:18 147:3, 4 154:14 158:8 or. 55:6 oral 13:15 order 3:12, 19 30:12 37:11 39:19, 20 41:1, 1, 21 44:6 47:4, 7 48:13, 17, 22 51:12 65:8, 19 73:4 78:20 79:6, 6 84:15 93:12, 20 94:4, 19 95:4, 9, 17 98:8, 13 101:17, 22, 25 103:7, 12 104:11 108:13 111:12 113:25 115:9, 13, 22 116:16, 25 117:20 122:2 129:18 131:13 134:16 136:25 143:25 145:24 147:18 148:11, 12 150:23, 24 154:4, 15 order. 79:11 95:5 96:6 157:1 ordered 42:19 53:6, 9 orders 9:14 35:20 39:22 82:16 107:11, 13 108:22, 24 109:3 132:16 154:10 155:8, 9 156:24 ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083102 23 original 17:3, 24 page 4:20 36:22 particularity 81:25 period 123:9 59:19 37:1, 19 38:9 39:8 84:20 141:17, 25 156:18 other 20:24 21:6 102:2, 3 104:9, 14, particularization period. 90:12 34:2 38:16 40:20 15 126:6 66:24 perk 19:22 42:18 45:12 56:16 page, 5:1 particularized 66:5 permissible 98:13 57:24 58:18 70:9 pages 110:24 67:21 70:7, 15 107:11 113:14 84:17 88:20 116:3, 25 158:5 71:15 permission 4:16 106:21 135:16 pages. 55:14 particularly 45:25 permission. 114:22 139:3, 6 156:14 paid 61:24 85:4 65:23 66:11 67:1 permit 66:16 others 18:22 86:21 141:16, 16 75:11 83:2, 16 persistently 15:11 others. 144:4 pain 53:9 100:21 107:7 person 30:14 otherwise 31:24 PALM 12 15, 16 108:13 109:14 76:17 78:16 98:23 88:19 104:21 2:5, 11, 16, 16 121:3 146:1, 8, 22 101:11, 16 104:11 106:6 154:10, 15 76:13 125:22 parties 9:15 41:22 111:2 otherwise. 44:6 126:16 48:11 72:7 104:21 personal 15:4 155:19 paper 103:21 154:5 90:22 140:24 ought 35:15 62:2 paper. 93:18 parties' 158:9 personnel 5:10, 11, 133:7 140:1 150:20 Paragraph 5:9 parts 134:7 14 15:4 our 19:22 49:24 6:22 7:3, 19, 21 party 3:4 40:18 perspective 65:3 53:18 58:9 65:11 8:2 9:1, 3 11:1, 1 94:19 98:8 150:21 perverted 28:18 74:6 93:20 98:2 12:1, 3, 22, 24 152:9 154:19, 20 84:11 102:1 104:15 13:14 14:4, 13, 15 passengers. 13:17 petition 127:24 139:2 144:21 20:14, 14 22:23 past 138:10 130:22 155:22 24:3, 4 34:21 path. 93:9 pharmacies. 13:24 out 3:16 12:15 36:21 37:9 75:11 pattern 31:7 92:7 Phillips 2:4 62:25 117:21 155:9 135:13, 14 108:7 phone 121:24 out, 145:21 paragraph, 4:20 patterns 132:5 photographing out. 81:22 paragraphs 28:1 Paul 129:24 114:21 outcome 140:1 outline 103:3 37:20 paragraphs. 152:23 pay 24:13 31:24, 25 95:24 phrase 19:22 physical 141:4 outlined 103:3 paralegals 23:14 payment 136:14 physician 13:12 outrageous 12:9 25:13 67:20 payments 143:5 picked 52:4 outside 13:13 parameter 125:6 pedophile 100:2, 3, piece 69:24 22:24 23:22 25:3 parameters 74:19 17 pig 72:10 outweighed 106:24 Pardon 136:4, 15 pedophile. 97:15, 18 pilot 9:7 over 51:4, 11 76:5 Park 2:7 pending 3:13, 25 pilots 9:4, 6 10:23 90:21 153:1 overall 28:4 63:16 part 5:19 9:17 13:15 17:12 31:6, 4:6, 8 31:1 46:18, 25 65:7 74:4 23:2 27:17 31:3 PLACE 1:15 3:10, 87:1 119:6 143:16 7 33:8 45:23 75:20 77:12 78:8 11 93:3, 3 98:5 overly 93:6 56:21 60:15, 16 88:2 116:6, 7 101:3 102:22 overnight 93:18 61:14, 15 63:6 124:25 131:1, 10 108:4 148:2 overruled 83:10 81:6 87:3 90:1 137:12 143:8, 8 placed 15:20 89:11 overruled. 90:3 overstatement 93:7 112:10 120:7, 13 125:16 127:5 pending. 116:14 people 5:21 6:5 98:15 120:24 129:1 146:11, 25 154:25 overt 91:7 131:2 136:24 154:9 participant 80:5 25:21 29:9 42:17, 20, 21 45:5 48:14 148:1 PLAINTIFF 2:11 overview 65:14 participate 42:23 51:9 53:1 85:15 7:23 20:6 43:14 owned 53:5 participated 129:10 123:21 1242 10 64:3 83:13 140:24 < P > participating 40:24 72:18 125:9, 20 126:16, 17, 17 127:15 144:1, 2 145:16, 18 148:12 M. 22 10, 15 participation 110:17 129:21 Plaintiff, 1:5 M. 2:7 particular 31:4 perceived 130:23 plaintiff. 32:12 p.m 123:4 33:1 106:5 107:15 perfect 97:6 plaintiffs 17:8 p.m. 1:14 157:7 150:19 performance plaintiffs 123:18 packet 118:3, 5, 6 138:11, 11 ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083103 24 136:8 140:18 plan 132:9 142:21 playing 29:11 Plaza 2:7 plead 14:13 17:6 25:16, 18 26:1 122:3 124:15, 20 127:5 129:6 136:19 pool 85:12 97:22 100:20 107:5 108:6, 19 portion 106:14 prejudicing 99:1 111:4 Preliminary 118:15 prepare 41:2 58:20 117:19 156:4, 24 prepared 8:19 Priam 123:15 124:5 prima 154:7 primarily 140: / 7 primary 116:17, 23 Prince 97:24 98:2 99:16 100:6, 7 34:24 35:2 56:8 122:14 42:10, 20 49:20 principal 16:20 pleading 4:22 7:14 pose 102:8 57:20 96:2 130:6 principally 66:9 30:5 31:20 46:21 position 4:17 prerequisite 37:16 140:18 78:7 81:20 103:19 29:13, 14 43:17, 17 prescription 120:23 print 113:5 118:17 46:12 55:17 58:18 prescriptions 13:24 prior 40:8 72:1 pleading, 46:15 59:2, 8 63:15, 17 presence 19:3 84:15 95:3, 5 pleadings 3:12 4:9 85:10 97:7 145:17, 85:15 102:7, 24 103:4 27:21 36:10 48:21 19 146:20 present 102:8 107:13 112:24 58:25 116:13 position. 62:4 108:19 109:5 113:4, 11 114:3 Please 60:14 possession 40:9 116:13 128:25 146:24 pleased 110:4 51:15, 18, 21, 24 148:15 155:18 privacy 134:9 pled 20:2 28:22 54:3 presentation 149:12 139:25 40:11 46:10 85:17 possibilities 119:17 presented 37:14, 22 privacy. 15:7 87:1, 10 89:18 possible 15:5 96:10 147:17 private 52:21 plowing 64:11 54:14 117:15 presently 85:17 privilege 9:22 10:3, plural 6:21 possibly 7:11 8:14 131:1 4, 8, 20 11:7, 25 plus 23:14 9:8, 20 26:14 32:4 president 22:3 13:16, 19 15:13, 17, Point 2:4 20:5 86:1 110:18 press 4:21 5:1 24 17:9, 11, 21 22:10, 11, 12 24:1, postpone 132:3 19:3 94:25 100:15 18:23 21:18, 21, 25 24 28:11, 23 32:18, potential 15:18, 22 101:1 103:10 22:15, 18, 19 23:10, 20 33:16, 17 36:7 66:13 75:21 93:4 104:6 107:10 13, 17 25:11, 22 38:19 42:8 43:4 107:5 117:12, 14 108:23 109:11, 12, 27:10 29:8 30:10, 44:14, 15 45:16, 20 140:14 13, 14, 16, 21, 23, 25 17 33:7, 12 34:4 54:3, 7 55:22 potentially 66:17 113:2, 4 114:20 40:15 41:2, 8 59:25 60:1 61:8 85:11 120:19 115:7, 10 42:10, 11, 15 43:1, 62:12, 20 69:9 128:24 140:20 press. 113:11 3, 13 46:1 47:22, 83:15 85:12 87:6 power 98:19 108:22 pressure 32:1, 4 24 48:8 49:8, 10, 95:10 106:2 107:4, practice 36:24 88:4 15, 17, 22 50:7, 8, 7, 9 108:13 113:17, practices 5:3 presumably 9:2 12 54:20 55:24, 25 23 114:4, 6, 18 practicing 140:25 14:25 57:19, 22 58:1, 2, 115:11 116:15 144:22 presume 24: / 7 12, 16, 19, 20 59:7 117:15 118:16 prayer 19:20 87:10 61:2, 8, 20 62:18 119:8 121:2 125:5, preamble 28:25 presumption 682 2 64:5, 24 66:4, 5, 7, 7 127:3 134:3, 19, precluded 21:10 pre-trial 85:7 98:10 10, 16 69:19 70:6, 21 135:5 140:2 predictor 138:11 102:16 103:7 8 72:19, 20 76:25 148:4 152:12 prefer 4:18 104:1 105:18 77:5 78:1, 4 79:20 153:9 154:3 preference 76:4 106:2 157:1 80:13 83:13 89:20, point. 83:9 preferences 83:24 pre-try 100:20 23 117:2, 4, 7, 11, points 6:18 pre-judgment pretty 17:9 48:9 13, 14 121:10 Police 125:23 120:17 85:20 93:17 125:14 128:22, 23 126:16 127:15 prejudice 36:8 prevent 69:19 129:2, 23 130:1, 3, policy 10:9 39:16 99:5 104:21 86:20 88:20 5, 7 132:1/, 23 Ponzi 4:25 5:19 106:22 113:13, 22 103:25 120:17 135:9, 12 136:15 18:22 25:6 33:10, 114:8, 11 146:12 prevents 95:18 152:19 153:6, 21 10, 11 45:12 46:3, 148:3 previous 151:17 155:15, 24 156:3, 7 14 53:1 61:17 prejudiced 57:18 previously 15:13 privilege, 43:8 80:18 84:11 prejudicial 94:23 44:18 66:4 102:22 privilege. 11:20 118:18 120:7 99:1 106:24 previously. 5:6 13:13 14:3, 21 27:13 58:9, 10 ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083104 25 68:7 79:18 80:24 89:25 119:9 privileged 10:24 15:6 29:18 33:2 56:4 62:11, 17, 18 63:3 65:23 66:20 67:11 128:21 privileges 43:12, 18 50:13 57:25 60:5 probably 69:4 70:20 probation 46:11 122:11, 14 129:22 probation, 87:3 probation. 129:25 probative 139:6, 23, 24 problem 6:13 15:8 19:19 32:9 33:24 36:14 54:18 59:6, 18 110:3 146:17 problems 18:3 32:22 54:13 procedural 4:23 procedural. 151:14 Procedure 36:13, 19 60:23 149:13 proceed 3:17 31:20 48:11 61:13 65:4, 6 102:22 129:14, 15 148:15 proceeding 11:7 30:19 40:25 41:24, 25 42:1 45:24 47:8, 20 49:20 51:19 60:19 85:25 95:18 97:20 99:2, 3 112:25 114:22 120:16 128:25 proceeding. 30:23 111:4 proceedings 10:14 45:11 48:4 98:16 102:16 113:1 115:8, 12 158:5 proceeds 73:7 85:10 process 52 5 6:23 7:12, 15 9:7 10:24 11:16 12:2, 5, 6 13:13 14:10, 11, 17, 18 15:3 18:11 20:18 21:12, 20, 21, 25 22:6, 17 24:1,9 26:6, 7, 12, 14, 15, 16, 16, 23 27:7, 7, 16, 25 28:4, 12, 18 29:20 33:6, 15, 17 34:9, 12, 21 45:9, 10 48:7 60:15 61:13 65:14 82:25, 25 83:3, 18 84:2, 13, 15, 22, 25 85:16 86:7, 15, 19, 23 87:14, 20 88:1, 6, 9, 9, 10, 17 92:2, 4 107:21 121:19 128:2, 14 131:5 142:12 153:15 155:19 process. 6:11 7:25 8:15, 25 12:6, 8, 10, 21 21:23 34:19 127:20 142:4 processes 22:7 procurer 80:2 produce 41:20 49:7 51:1 53:7, 10, 20 73:12, 15 132:25 134:12 144:3 145:21 147:4 150:9, 18 153:24 produce, 41:14 produce. 134:10 135:1, 7 produced 45:25 47:5, 7 49:8, 11 51:11 54:2 110:11 135:22 136:10 156:1 producing 53:12 137:23 138:5 139:6 production 48:14 54:7 58:24 133:25 productive 140:9 productively 140:16 productivity 140:20 professional 98:19 135:17, 19 142:13, 24 proffer 36:25 37:23 proffer. 38:3 profit 20:7 prohibit 98:7 114:2, 20 147:2, 3, 3 prohibited 109:8 prohibiting 115:2, 7 prohibition 102:23 113:3 149:15 promise 66:15 promotion 23:5 proof 43:12 87:21, 23 97:19 109:6 120:15, 19 122:9 proper 67:8 71:8 115:16 properly 34:15 154:5 property 14:5, 8 15:1, 5 property. 14:10 proposed 101:15 106:24 122:22 proposing 103:6 104:9 proposition 11:6 20:21 propounded 73:5 prosecute 6:2 16:3 122:10 prosecuted 31:5, 9 prosecuting 12:19 34:18 99:14 118:23 129:20 prosecution 5:15, 24 6:6 13:20 15:19 22:17 24:11 117:8, 9 119:19 125:9 137:24 prosecution, 43:2 prosecutions 5:12 prosecutor 68:23 prospectively 139:4 protect 15:5 57:24 58:16, 17 69:15 87:11 98:9 103:13 154:5 155:1 protected 11:19 protecting 50:9 102:9 154:11 protection 105:7, 10, 11 152:7 protective 93:20 94:4 115:22 116:16 131:13 143:25 145:23 148:10, 12 154:15 protects 30:11 prove 84:1 90:20 91:12 118:18 proved 118:22 proves 107:18 provide 9:24 15:11 30:7 provided 21:15 57:15 65:10 66:8, 10 80:20 152:18 provider 89:6, 9 provides 111:11 123:5 providing 45:8 proving 99:21 provisions 50:1 113:2 psychic. 16:15 public 10:9 98:18, 24 103:23 109:17, 24 110:9, 12, 17 145:15 146:11 147:1 148:17, 20, 21 153:21 158:3 publication 100:1, 10 103:4 publications 107:3, 20 publicity 85:7 98:10, 21 104:1 105:10, 18 106:2 public's 112:25 published 98:3 1002 12 Publishing 98:7 pull 42:8 94:10 pulled 37:6 pump 18:22 pumping 123:10 punitive 4:6 24:18, 19 25:1, 2 31:2, 8 36:1, 20 37:12, 17 38:16, 23 53:11 76:8 99:9 156:25 purpose 8:4 11:12 23:24 26:8 34:16, 17 44:22 45:1Z 12 47:17 86:8, 19 88:10, 18 92:3, 5, 6 110:7 purpose. 22:8 purposefully 122:13 purposes 22:4 26:10, 10 139:11 148:25 149:11 pursuant 36:11 38:4 47:7 57:15 pursue 88:22 pursuing 85:23 ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083105 26 87:16 pursuit 110:14 put 24:3 25:19 41:20 43:20, 21 58:3 67:5 72:10 73:21 88:2, 4 90:13 93:18 100:5 122:20 128:10 150:13 155:23 puts 29:12 81:24 putting 27:21 32:1, 3 45:13 139:12 puzzled 77:8 puzzling 78:15 <Q> 43 52:19 Qtask 52:13, 16, 20 53:4, 20, 25 120:3 qualifications 30:21 question 23:20, 21 26:5 30:9 31:4 48:10 50:7 53:16 55:22 74:8 77:14 78:15 89:13 90:5, 7, 8 101:19 133:15 140:16 question. 111:5 questioned 17:23 questions 9:5, 6, 7 10:23 12:9 26:7 34:5, 6, 16 58:19 88:16 90:25 132:22 134:2 146:10 152:20, 21, 22 153:10, 14, 19 quick. 94:12 quickly 74:7 quite 3:7 11:5 12:22 20:9 69:22 77:8 82:20 110:3 112:18 117:23 quote 5:15 8:3 30:8 36:21 68:4, 4 102:13 quoted 97:21, 23 99:15, 17, 17 100:4, 11 102:2 112:10 < R > rabbit 147:23 raise 6:1 85:22 97:8 135:12 136:20 raised 83:18 90:14 133:22 134:8, 9 149:25 raised. 78:24 ramp 24:10 25:2, 6 ran 118:18 rare 68:1 rate 139:16 rate. 138:18 rational 62:24 Ray 40:17 42:5, 22 47:25 49:3 61:1, 2 razorback 40:21 42:22 48:21, 24 49:9 Razorback. 51:4 reach 84: / 7 101:21 reached 46:4 128:5, 9 129:16 151:9 reaches 16:12 read 3:14 4:5, 21 16:10 22:5 36:6 38:9 39:19 44:6 48:22 55:5 69:5 75:1, 8, 9 96:21 101:5 111:19, 22 112:17, 18 read, 11:4 re-address 116:19 reading 18:1 28:16 109:25 reads 12:24 reads. 152:1 ready 51:11 76:1 148:15 real 94:12 101:2 re-allege 33:21 really 23:3 24:7 27:10 32:15 38:10 50:6 57:1, 21 60:2, 25 68:16 85:12 87:6 91:9 93:15 103:11 123:17 127:2 129:5, 8 145:4 149:5 re-argue 84:14 re-arguing 44:25 reask 91:18 reason 21:4 22:4 25:21 32:15 36:7 38:20 65:24 77:17 82:11, 16 87:9 88:11, 12, 17, 18 110:13 128:11 133:10 134:5 146:6 reasonable 18:10 37:3 77:23 98:23 102:11 111:2 116:9 139:14 147:8 reasonably 5:16, 18, 22 31:12, 14 75:14 76:9 77:4, 6 98:25 116:10 131:10 135:23 reasons 16:4, 7 38:18 42:19 48:15 53:15 56:9, 16 100:23 114:14 118:2 120:4 123:5 recall 38:17 76:24 101:10, 23 recall. 38:19 recalls 37:18 receive 21:6 94:17 received 52:23 133:21 136:21 145:22 receiver 67:14 receives 98:9 receiving 43:1 recent 10:2 recess 94:11, 15 recitation 37:18 reciting 152:18 recognition 58:22 recognize 149:13 recognized 31:16 98:18 recommend 71:19 reconsider 82:16 reconsideration 65:11 73:4, 25 82:9 record 37:14, 19 48:4 90:14 103:23 109:24 158:6 recorded 149:11 recording 121:23, 25 records 12:11 13:8, 11, 12 40:9 45:21, 23, 24 49:/, 1 53:3, 7, 10 89:6 120:5, 23 122:12 156:10 redepose 133:15 134:20, 23 144:5 153:5 154:20 re-depose 93:22 redeposed 146:15 redress 130:23 reduce 66:17 70:13 reduced 56:5 67:5 refer 100:16 reference 37:22 referenced 30:21 referral 142:22 referred 97:18 152:16 referring 60:21 100:15 refers 119:20 135:14 refined 126:19 reflecting 126:20 refused 15:11 regard 4:7, 8 12:17 16:21 57:19 70:5 75:20 77:1, 15 78:1, 10 84:18 86:11 100:25 105:11 108:25 109:3 110:13, 17 116: / / 117:9 119:7 122:4 124:24 131:16 137:13 153:20 regarding 8:12 12:12 42:15 46:22 65:11 72:23 130:2 145:16 regardless 30:19 74:19 77:22 139:3 regards 85:19 regress 46:9 regulating 98:21 Rehabilitation 36:16 rehearing 74:12 rehearing. 82:11 re-issue 116:18 relate 51:6 84:22 95:1, 12 128:20 130:5 131:8, 10 related 11:7, 17 23:13 39:11 40:10 43:11, 13 45:10, 19 49:5 53:1 612 17 66:18 67:10 74:4 83:14 84:9 85:20, 23 86:15 91:21 92:25 123:19 128:17, 18 130:9 135:21 136:8, 18 relates 20:17 27:14 29:21 77:14 80:22 ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083106 27 85:6 106:20 118:17 119:12 133:1 136:23 137:12 143:18 relating 5:25 13:3 15:15 24:6 26:22 46:16 63:10, 12 82:2 84:10 85:7 86:1 94:4, 22 103:8 107:24 119:3 129:24 132:23 135:15 136:22 143:25 144:2 145:15 relation 11:18 30:22, 25 71:8 145:4 relationship 8:18 74:5 135:18, 20 relationship. 30:15 relationships 142:14, 16, 24 143:19 relative 20:15, 16 21:5, 17 24:6, 10 25:15, 18 158:8 release 4:21 5:1 released 9:13 16:8 releases 100:15 106:17 109:12 relevance 58:21, 23 59:1 60:7, 16, 22, 24, 25, 25 61:3, 5 62:5 63:6 70:4 75:6 119:5, 7 127:3, 4 135:23 137:12 139:21 relevance, 85:12 relevancy 59:6 66:3 106:24 116:2, 13, 23 117:15 125:7 143:7 relevant 15:11 16:2 21:14 22:1 23:7 24:8 31:8 40:11 41:23 58:14 59:22 61:21 62:3, 19 76:22 81:7, 21 86:1 87:18, 24 88:17 89:24 90:10, 17 91:10 92:1 93:5 108:4 112:10 116:7, 18, 22 129:7 130:13 131:18 132:10, 12 134:7 139:15, 17, 18 140:16, 17 141:7, 10, 24 143:1, 2 relevant. 86:16 95:2 118:4 143:19 reliance 46:12 relief 15:16 78:6 153:9, 11 relying 82:24 154:24 remain 1492 3 remained 77:12 remains 78:7 remedies 10:12 138:3 remedy 5:2 remotely 81:21 84:2 86:15 render 106:7 re-noticed 145:10 repeated 14:20 repeatedly 15:10 19:4 130:12 131:1, 8 152:16 repetitive 155:3 rephrased 91:2 replead 84:19 report 3:14 43:5 55:4 158:4 REPORTED 1:17 148:19 reporter 94:15, 18 95:11, 19 111:25 114:25 148:15 149:4, 6, 8, 9 reporters 94:16 103:16 148:18, 24 reports 108:1 148:21 represent 25:22 71:17 represent, 80:17 representation 67:9, 10, 17 70:12 71:8 representations 45:1 representative 12:24 26:18 represented 46:21 58:13 67:18, 18, 19 68:17 80:15, 17 99:20 122:1 125:24 representing 40:8 120:11 reprinted. 100:9 reputation 20:7 135:17 142:10, 13 reputation. 19:5 request 47:25 51:1, 9 58:24 62:6, 7 73:12, 15, 16, 19 74:6 76:3 78:11 79:25 89:19 91:8 100:24 119:8 125:6 132:25 133:25 134:1, 9, 11 135:1, 7, 14 144:3 145:21 146:8 147:9 149:22 150:17 154:4 request, 54:7 request. 65:12 73:14 requested 45:21 49:21 93:1 94:16 125:11 131:9 135:15 146:5 requested. 150:10 requesting 12:11 13:8 121:1 146:7 requests 12:15 73:5, 8 75:3 77:1 78:1 85:20 106:19 require 9:15 36:24 65:1 87:21 147:4 required 18:13 24:16 84:19 90:9 101:12 135:18 requirement. 91:22 requirements 42:15 56:2 requires 63:4 66:9 87:23 113:23 requires. 66:25 requiring 11:14 84:20 requisite 37:23 researched 114:25 residence 76:13 resolve 59:5, 10 60:7 68:5 resolves 67:2 respect 45:20 respectfully 131:12 respectfully. 37:5 respects 78:14 respond 13:6 64:22 86:22 87:13 140:5 150:7, 17 respond. 27:1 60:9 responded 63:9 responding 142:11 response 16:6 18:14 59:13 65:17 72:12 73:18 83:20, 20 84:9, 12 96:14 106:19 109:22 126:3, 11, 19 131:23 145:14 152:25 response. 73:17 126:2 127:1 responsibilities 135:19 responsibility 130:21 responsive 51:2 53:18 126:23 rest 45:7 157:3 restated 131:15 restrain 113:6 restrained. 113:7 restraint 95:4, 5 101:12, 20, 22 102:8, 10 103:4 108:23 113:4, 11 114:3 restraint, 102:24 restraints 107:14 110:15 restrict 90:20 restricted 74:3 111:1 restricting 76:7 restriction 148:2 restrictions 94:24 114:15 147:21 150:13 restrictive 107:11, 13 result 20:22 68:8 97:13 111:12 140:25 141:3 resulted 137:19 results 70:15 retention 15:3 retreat 46:9 review 10:5 48:6 55:25 56:6, 8 63:19 64:24 65:2 66:14 67:22 70:3 71:21 103:9 116:24 128:19 ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083107 28 reviewing 61:20 62:16 63:11 69:19 70:14 112:21 reviews 70:20 revoke 122:14 127:19 revoked 128:2 RICCO 5:3 14:14 138:2 right 6:1 8:11, 12 15:23 16:1 22:2 38:18 51:19 57:25 74:9 75:2, 17 77:3 78:8 82:7 88:23 90:2 93:11 95:15 96:10 101:23 102:5, 20 108:7 111:23 112:13, 25 113:5 115:16 119:25 121:14, 15 127:23 130:15, 20, 21 131:3 132:14 135:10 136:9 149:2 153:6, 18 Right. 44:13 52:10 117:23, 24 130:2 145:18 rightfully 29:9 rights 50:9 113:15 120:12 145:20 risk 39:21 road 120:5 roadmap 93:14 Roberts 122:6 rolling 4:14 Room 1:15 43:7 Rosenfeldt 5:11 ROTHSTEIN 1:7 3:4 4:25 5:8 17:18, 20 18:18, 20, 21, 21 19:17 20:17 23:5, 9 25:4, 9 33:11 41:6 44:20, 23, 24 45:1, 6, 17 48:25 50:21 51:25 52:15, 22, 24 53:5, 22 54:8 66:21, 22, 22 67:15, 19, 23 69:14, 18 71:3 118:18, 20 121:8 122:1 123:1, 6, 8, 13, 15, 23 124:3, 15, 19 125:19 127:6 129:10 136:14 Rothstein, 5:10 123:12 Rothstein. 53:24 121:7 136:2, 11 Rothstein's 71:11 124:12 137: / 7 routine 31:6 routinely 19:13 royalty 109:18 RPR 1:17 158:3, 19 RRA 5:10, 14 26:20 51:8 66:20 67:23 68:4 115:25 116:4 126:21 128:16 130:17 131:17 135:21 136:1, 11 137:15, 15 RRA. 7:20 138:8 RRA's 12:25 13:1 26:19 rule 36:8, 9, 10, 14 39:5 47:23 61:11 64:4 72:8 93:11 96:20 99:3 104:2 110:25 111:10, 14 146:9 150:3, 5 151:2Z 23 152:1 154:9 ruled 3:13 42:16 61:5, 7 84:14 86:10 108:3 117:20 144:20 Rules 36:13 60:23 66:24 97:12 98:20 114:19 147:20 149:12 154:16 rules, 36:18 ruling 47:8, 20 48:7 49:4 82:9, 14, 15 89:22, 23 114:10 151:6 ruling. 42:6 82:21 88:15 rulings 55:25 59:3 runs 39:21 Russell 119:11 <S> S: 2:1 safety 15:4 said 48:24 67:24 sailed 61:6 salary 141:15 143:12 same 23:9 40:22, 23 77:14 80:3 84:20 85:21 100:13 sanctions 10:15 111:12 146:19 147:17, 18 satisfies 37:15 save 57:8 133:2, 4 saved 38:12 say 6:21, 23 27:12 39:4 44:11 70:12 141:6 say. 48:8 saying 21:8 26:14 28:11 44:8 62:15, 15 64:20 69:16 81:13 92:22 95:11 97:15 105:13 119:14 120:25 121:13 127:23 138:20 142:1 151:4 152:14, 15 saying. 104:8 115:3 says 6:10 8:2 14:4, 13, 15 27:6 28:13, 17 30:8 34:12 36:15, 22 37:9 39:5 47:5 71:3 75:18 88:16 98:1 101:16 102:23 105:14 120:14 123:23 135:22 136:5, 9 137:6 141:12 154:10, 16, 22 155:3, 6 says, 5:9 says. 48:23 102:12 111:15 scared 88:22 SCAROLA 2:14, 15 3:1 4:10, 15, 19 6:17 11:9, 11 16:12, 16 17:3 18:24 19:1 20:15 21:18 23:7, 16, 20 29:24 32:13 35:12 36:2, 4 37:5, 8 38:10, 20, 24 39:1, 15 40:12 49:6 52:5 55:13, 18 57:3, 5, 7, 13 58:8, 11 60:7 642 7, 12 65:4 66:10 68:9, 20 72:15 73:3, 24 74:10, 18, 24 75:4, 10, 17 78:19 79:9, 12, 16, 19, 24 82:1, 6, 7 83:14, 18 90:3 91:24 92:24 93:19 94:2, 7, 14 95:21 96:11, 14, 15 97:1, 8, 14, 17, 23 98:1, 3 99:8 100:4, 11 102:1, 5, 13 103:17 104:7 106:14, 16 107:21 108:10, 17, 24 109:2 112:8, 9, 14 115:21 117:7, 23 118:9 119:20 124:18 130:11 133:4 137:10 138:13, 17, 24 140:15 141:9, 20 143:4, 7 144:5, 13, 23 145:2, 9, 12 146:18 148:7 149:8 150: / /, 15 151:15 152:16, 25 153:3 156:17 Scarola, 147:14 Scarola. 4:14 91:23 Scarola's 41:14 44:4 82:24 84:9, 12 145:14 schedule 3:9 61:19 126:6, 8 scheduling 148:9 Scheller 8:22 scheme 4:25 5:19 8:2 18:22 25:6 33:10, 11 46:3, 14 53:1 71:12 80:18 122:3 124:15, 20 127:5 136:20 scheme. 45:12 61:17 84:11 118:18 120:8 129:6 Scherer 80:14, 14, 16, 16, 21, 21 SCI 21:14 scope 10:4, 11, 17 13:13, 18 14:2 18:3, 5 74:22 76:6 77:23 83:24 92:25 93:2 151:24 scopes 82:23, 23 SCOTT 1:7 121:1 123:1, 7 136:11 screaming 123:17 ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083108 29 script 150:21, 25 152:18 scrupulously 109:22 110:16 scrutiny 110:12 140:7, 9 send 97:3 120:22 sending 123:13, 15 124:3 sense 62:20 63:13 95:1 97:9 100:25 103:8 104:6 108:3 146:10, 25 147:24 153:16 share 144:24 sir 4:10 29:24 37:5 59:8 64:12 75:17 96:15 109:2 140:6 sir. 11:9 27:2 36:2 sealed 64:1 118:13 93:14 133:17 sharing 135:15 57:12 64:7 72:3 search 71:20 sense. 13:5 134:24 She 64:19 94:18 81:10, 11 95:21 126:14, 20 sent 3:4 46:14 sheet 74:13 99:7 96:23 97:1 108:9 searched 68:19 63:8 94:5 118:20 Shepherd 98:10 110:2/, 23 112:14 SEARCY 2:15 135:7 145:21 shield 15:15 16:4, 130:10 131:21, 24 seated 4:16 sentence 124:6 21 25:24 32:9, 10, 137:9 144:13 148:6 second 4:1, 4 7:4 separate 50:19 16 34:4 83:9, 12, 21 sit 62:1 106:5 13:14 16:10 45:18 95:17 ship 61:5 site 100:14, 17 51:5 61:10 66:7 sequitur 5:20 SHIPLEY 2:15 sitting 37:6 47:13 67:13 70:7 96:13 series 41:11 152:17 short 63:22 103:3 139:10 140:6 143:24 150:9 serious 32:22 143:21 situation 24:12 second. 95:9 102:9 130:23 should 5:18 91:17 128:24 144:10 serve 28:14, 15 100:24 135:21 Six 13:8 40:15 secondly 10:24 110:5 show 37:13 44:23, 77:19 79:4, 15 84:23 90:16 served 22:1 37:2 25 45:2 46:13 80:10 86:11 106:5 147:12 151:15 40:14 46:11 87:3 89:14 91:20 92:3 110:25 135:14, 22 secret 56:19 110:10 94:25 118:2, 19 156:6 secretaries 121:1 serves 110:7 119:2, 5 120:5 sixteen 55:5, 7, 11, section 68:11 Services 36:17 123: / / 125:7, 10 23 64:25 66:1Z 14 120:14 Serving 12:6 129:5, 7 148:13 skipped 121:11 sections 96:7 122:17 151:19 153:25 slander 22:16 secure 52:24 set 9:2 36:19 39:2, 154:21 155:19 slander. 105:21 security 14:25 15:4 6 43:5 50:24 51:5 showing 119:1 So 22:5 27:24 see 27:4 29:8 52:12 59:9 64:23 shown 5:17 6:7 34:24 37:2 51:14 34:12, 23 35:5 101:10 107:23 41:21 44:22 59:1 93:14 112:16 48:21 56:3 69:16 108:15 110:16 116:14 118:23 146:4 148:2 152:21 79:14, 21 84:20 113:12 132:5 151:16, 17, 24 154:2 So, 114:17 97:10 105:18 137:2 141:11 shows 132:5, 9 So.2nd 103:2 114:19 126:14 147:18 148:12 shut 43:21 socializing 85:14 128:17 129:3 151:8, 8 156:13, 15 side 39:4 84:7 software 52:21, 25 132:13 144:17 sets 50:19 51:17 85:19 53:25 154:9 155:3 53:13 101:23 sides 3:20 111:17 softwares 52:14 seek 100:18 settle 31:24, 25 114:12 sole 11:12 34:16 seeking 15:16 120:1 sign 72:10 solely 82:10 48:11, 15 49:9, 15 settled 7:22 46:20 significant 15:8 solidified 107:8 94:5 101:11 58:13 61:14 149:10 some 7:13 14:25 115:24 154:20 settlement 9:17 silence 87:15 22:4 23:24 26:11 seeking, 106:25 87:2 silent 149:2, 3 28:20 45:11 54:22 seeks 15:9 135:16 set-up 3:9 silly 134:15 149:5 61:11 78:5 88:2 Seems 112:21 Seven 13:14 79:17, similar 69:6 94:15, 24 103:7 115:10 134:1 19 80:12 156:6 simple 50:6 105:6 133:3, 5 seen 108:7 115:12, seven. 79:4 simplify 135:4 144:2 14 seventy-nine 4:20 simply 32:15 68:3 somebody 3:17, 24 seized 68:21 several 146:10 74:21 78:12 99:23 12:4, 7 14:10, 12 select 110:19 sex 13:15 99:14, 21 113:18 148:16 26:6, 13 34:20 selection 150:18 sexual 76:4, 11, 16, since 40:16 54:14 44:6 95:23 105:13 self-incrimination 21 80:3, 10 83:23, 101:6 117:19 138:20 15:24 24 84:4, 21, 24 single 5:2 31:4 155:2 sell 25:5 139:1 86:12 87:16, 17 35:14 89:14 someone 5:23 89:6, 10, 16 91:5, 8 sink 20:23 ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083109 30 something 16:11 28:9 33:19 34:11 something. 26:17 sorry 55:11 57:4 60:11 79:13 89:22 103:1 121:8, 11 124:18 126:8 129:8 140:1 sorry, 136:17 sorry. 18:24 44:9 78:19 79:8 93:24 94:7 sort 18:8 sought 47:14 53:3 126:20 146:3, 21 sounds 92:15 157:4 source 4:22 50:17 sources 139:4, 19 South 2:11 Speak 26:3 100:6 109:21 149:3 speaker 121:24 speaking 97:23 122:8 special 20:1 35:2 40:17 41:10, 12, 24 42:3, 16, 19, 23 43:4, 5, 20, 21 47:20 48:12 51:2, 18, 23 52:8 55:3 60:18 61:3, 4, 7, 23 71:22, 23 72:5 93:21 specific 19:12, 21 23:19, 21 28:7 37:20 38:14 45:1 51:9 57:13, 18 63:10 72:13 84:24 85:5 100:25 108:20 126:13, 14 146:10 specifically 31:15 32:23 36:19 37:19 39:8 45:25 46:2 63:2 90:7 98:14 110:25 113:3 119:7 122:4 125:21 specifically. 34:24 specificity 25:18 29:20 33:22 104:7 specificity, 24:3 specifics 27:24 specifics. 28:25 specified 7:3 21:3 specify 34:25 specifying 19:9, 15 29:3 spell 19:16 27:18 spelled 19:25 21:12 Spencer 42:25 spend 62:1, 16, 22 86:14 spent 54:15 142:11 spoke 100:24 spoken 92:25 148:24, 25 spurious 77:11 137:25 stage 21:16 32:15 47:19 stage. 134:13 stakes 8:4 stamped. 126:24 stand 11:5 standard 43:12 77:22, 23 99:5 101:7, 10, 23 102:1 108:21 113:10, 12, 19 138:17 139:16 standard. 92:23 standards 18:12 109:3 115:5 standing 142:10 stands 66:19 start 3:11, 18, 25 4:12, 14 31:22 54:11, 12, 14 56:20 64:11 75:4 81:13 started 4:20 40:4 61:3, 3 starting 3:10 state 5:Z 3 9:22 13:2 26:21 30:4 31:21 86:13 116:13 122:11 125:21, 24 126:17 127:25 131:5, 19 158:3 stated 12:25 26:19 48:3 69:23 131:4 153:4 statement 30:20 982 23 104:12 statements 11:23 19:2 94:23, 25 98:18 105:10 109:17 111:2 114:17 145:15 148:17, 20, 22 151:7 153:22 States 22:3 91:2 98:14 99:19 103:23 104:11 107:10 113:Z 9, 14 124:6 152:4 States, 112:22 stating 43: / 7 status 3:16 Statute 36:11 statutory 37:16 stay 43:20, 22 44:11 51:12 156:8 stayed 48:13 58:24 stayed. 51:13 Ste 2:7, 10 steady 107:6 stenographic 158:7 stenographically 158:4 step 124:7 steps 45:14 98:9 127:18 Stettin 115:24 still 52:15 59:25 72:10 91:9 120:5 128:20 156:5 stipulated 9: / 7 stop 19:6 48:13 54:14, 23 103:14, 15, 15 117:19 118:/6 stopped 48:18 stopped. 47:20 straight 127:22 stretch 143:22 stuff 3:6 33:14 38:15 49:4 61:8 85:7 97:11 103:16 135:10 151:6 156:16 subdivision 154:11 subject 20:12 33:12 50:25 53:8 67:11 91:3, 8 92:8 130:4 133:21 147:9 151:13 154:15 156:3 subjected 75:19 submit 107:25 111:20 132:12 submitted 56:19 118:7 Sub-paragraph 9:4 11:1 12:10, 11 sub-part 28:2 subpoena 7:14 11:11 12:6, 6 13:11 22:2 30:14 40:8, 13, 13 41:10 42:9 45:18, 18 46:15 50:25 51:6, 13 53:19 58:24 60:19 61:6, 16 63:9, 9, 10, 11 94:4 116:18 122:22 126:14 156:8 subpoena, 125:17 subpoena. 62:8 subpoenaed 40:21, 22, 23 45:16, 20 53:3 124:24 subpoenaed. 126:9 Subpoenaing 13:12 26:6 122:25 subpoenas 13:23, 25 43:22 44:1, 4, 11 45:19 48:13 120:22 127:21 subpoenas. 44:4 subsection 36:15 subsequent 123:11 subsequently 122:14 subset 67:15 substantial 4:22 15:14 46:12 99:3, 4 106:14 111:3 113:12, 21, 21 115:24 substantially 40:21, 22 49:1 successfully 99:19 such 13:21 101:25 149:23 sue 15:25 19:10 30:3 131:14 sued 23:23 77:13 139:11 suggest 8:24 25:19 61:18 65:5 74:3, 18 76:8 78:12 109:4 127:25 139:25 140:23 suggested 59:11 suggesting 63:15 128:8 ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083110 31 suggestion 75:4 133:4 suing 18:4 75:22, 24 134:3 summary 16:14, 19, 83:3 84:11 87:15 88:2 154:14 system. 53:25 <T> 122:17 126:19 131:1 142:12 task 107:1 Teague 56:2 66:9 tecum 115:23 30:6 31:8, 22 32:7 33:5, 11, 19 37:13, 24 38:1, 8, 21 40:10, 10, 12 42:4, 10, 17, 20 43:3, 13, 20 17:14 36:25 Tab 64:1 79:9 Telegraph 100:1 18 44:19, 22, 23, 25 37:15, 17, 24 38:1, 96:15 102:5 television 109:10 45:3, 19 46:1 47:5, Z 14, 17, 21 42:4, 6 taint 85:11 97:21 tell 18:1 32:13 22 48:4, 6 49:5, 13 45:23 47:15, 17 100:20 36:4 55:17 68:3 50:13 52:4 53:4 83:11, 20 97:7 tainted 107:19 70:8, 19, 22 92:19 55:24, 25 57:13, 22 sums 7:22 108:6, 20 96:17 101:6, 13 58:23 60:1, 21 supplement 69:12, take 6:4, 10, 21 110:9, 15 111:16 61:18 62:4 64:2 24 9:14 17:17 28:20 124:20 143:20, 22 68:9 69:8 70:2 supplemental 36:10 29:13 36:3 41:24 149:4 71:6 72:6, 12 132:20 54:20 55:16, 18 Telling 12:4 50:5 74:18, 21 76:20, 24 supplied 52:20 57:2 58:3, 5 63:22 70:1 128:8 77:18 80:8, 19 support 37:13, 14 64:14, 16 74:7 tells 7:21 101:11 81:1, 17 82:2, 8, 17, 71:7 99:9 103:20 81:4 84:6, 7 85:19 Ten 35:14 62:10 22 83:5 86:7 114:1 137:4 94:10, 11 95:11 99:20 100:17 87:19 88:5 90:4, 9 supporting 37:20, 96:4, 6 98:7, 9 116:2, 24 136:21 91:18 92:5, 10, 16 21 92:16 145:17 111:21 112:12 terms 3:10, 12, 23 93:8, 11 94:4, 25 supports 49:24 118:3 143:21 18:3 19:25 39:18, 95:12 96:3, 21 85:16 121:19 145:17 146:24 23 482 9 53:16 98:14 100:4 supposed 60:23 147:15 149:19 54:7 63:10 66:10, 101:10, 14, 23 124:23 150:1, 4, 5 154:13 11 76:7 77:23 102:15 104:/, 3, 5, Supreme 9:25 10:2, 155:4, 4, 23 90:22 101:20 22, 23 106:19 6 11:22 31:16 TAKEN 1:13 14:7 106:23 138:11 107:1, 10, 25 96:22 99:5 101:5 27:15 83:17 94:13 141:20 108:18 109:3, 6, 12, 103:2 107:12 109:13, 14 112:15 terms. 76:2 15, 24 110:15 112:2/, 22 113:8, 9, 114:17 144:14 test 60:16 105:5 112:2 113:19 13 114:14 145:19 149:24 106:23 139:23 114:19 116:8 Sure 40:6 57:24 153:15 140:1 117:7 118:20 70:17 79:20 80:25 takes 119:19 testified 45:4 120:10 121:25 82:4 95:14 111:10 taking 22:13 45:14 121:4 124:13, 21 122:12 124:2, 14, 142:9 147:4 talk 4:12 17:19 125:8 145:13 20 125:10, 13, 15 Sure. 64:17 25:22, 23 63:23 testimony 37:1 126:24 129:2, 9, 12, surveil 14:12 100:8 114:19 testimony, 124:16 19, 20 133:19, 25 surveillance 14:5 119:24 123:24 than 4:22 66:9 137:7, 21 138:3 15:2 26:15 122:2 130:12 76:12 140:3 141:10, 17 129:18 talked 17:4 122:21 thank 3:4 4:15, 19 143:1, 11, 17 144:6, survive 20:19 28:1 talking 11:23 23:7 16:9 26:2 33:22 19 145:18 146:3, 9, 29:22 27:13 34:3 54:24, 64:7, 8 65:21 72:3 13, 21 147:7, 10, 13, suspect 82:5 24 55:23 61:16, 22 81:10, 11 110:21 22 148:1, 3, 3 sustain 79:21 91:18 71:1 72:24 75:2 112:14 121:8 149:13 151:25 sustained 78:22 78:25 79:3 82:2 131:21 144:13, 15 155:7, 9, 13 156:4, 80:12 141:1 89:17 103:15 157:6 10 sustaining 73:4 121:24 122:19 that 4:25 5:22, 25 that, 19:21 39:22 sweetheart 8:8 124:23 128:15, 16 6:12 8:5, 6, 11, 17 that. 4:18 24:23 130:19 130:6 132:6 9:18 10:6, 11, 12 28:9 37:4 39:14 sword 15:15 16:4, 138:13, 14 150:8 12:17 13:4 14:2 43:15 44:8 48:19 21 25:24 32:9, 10, 154:10 155:16 15:19, 21 16:3 55:10 58:6, 7 74:8 16 34:3 83:8, 12, talks 9:4 17:12 19:8, 22 20:21 78:18 79:6 83:22 19, 21 77:17 98:22 21:1, 25 24:1, 23 92:21 101:8 125:1 system 14:25 102:16 121:23 25:3, 12, 24 26:13 134:18 147:11 45:11 46:7 52:21 28:23 29:2, 14 150:22 ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083111 32 that's 7:25 11:15 12:8 23:5 54:12 87:15 88:12, 16 89:12, 15, 22 90:14, 24 31:13 50:18 51:17 66:19 68:1 things 6:20, 24 19:21 24:23 26:4, 59:8, 11 62:19 24 91:1, 14 92:4, 75:25 76:25 90:24 11 32:19 34:8 69:21 74:9 82:11 17 93:7, 15 94:16, 99:8, 18, 23 105:16 38:6 60:1 61:21 85:20 86:16 88:12 17, 19 97:9, 11, 13, 108:19 115:13 72:24 78:21 97:5, 91:7, 8 97:16 98:4 21 98:12, 16, 18, 24 126:14 144:15, /9 16 105:12 119:25 100:2 102:20 99:6, 12, 12, 15 148:8 155:8 127:6, 7, 9 129:11, 124:22 125:11 100:8, 8, 10, 12, 16. there. 61:25 85:22 14 132:22 135:4, 150:14 20 101:3, 6, 16 121:15 17 151:3 155:15, 17 that's, 151:1 103:6, 21, 24 therefore 21:22 think 4:6, 7, 11 the 3:5, 12, 17 4:3, 105:16 106:15 67:11 83:19 17:23 19:20 20:2 8, 12, 15, 25 5:11, 107:9, 19, 22, 23 therefore, 83:1 21:24 22:11, 14, 15 19, 23, 25 6:18, 19, 109:24 111:6, 12 137:20 27:21 28:2, 23 20 7:3, 12, 23 8:4, 113:1, 14, 16, 17 thereof 37:13 33:3 34:14, 18, 24, 5, 24 9:2, 13, 15, 20, 114:3, 14, 14, 25, 25 there's 32:18 93:5 25 35:2 36:8 20, 24, 24 10:2, 5 116:1, 15 117:8 124:17 132:23 38:20 59:12, 17, 23, 11:17, 18 12:24 118:1, 16, 19, 24 136:15 148:14 24 62:12, 14 65:3 14:18, 20 15:2, 21 119:6, 12, 15, 16, 21 these 22:25 23:2 69:22 71:4 72:9, 16:16, 19, 19 17:7, 120:7 121:17 25:2 26:3 27:25 22 73:8, 14, 16 9, 13, 17 18:15, 20, 123:3, 25 124:4, 5, 29:17 43:1 45:1 74:20 75:13 80:13 22 19:9 20:1 21:2, 16, 23 125:3, 15, 19, 48:2, 11, 25 50:10 81:1, 5, 9 84:17 3, 14 22:2 23:4, 10 24 126:8, 12, 20 63:17 78:16 79:2 91:9 93:13, 15, 17 24:2, 7 25:13, 20 127:3, 7, 9 128:9 81:4 85:5 89:24 95:10 96:18 99:7 26:16, 18 27:16 129:16 130:23 91:21 95:13 96:20 102:19 107:9 28:2, 3, 24 29:5, 6, 131:3, 16 132:10, 97:24 109:21 112:7 113:23 9, 18 30:2, 9, 18, 22, 18 133:12, 16, 20 112:8 118:23 117:17, 25 118:12, 25 31:15 32:17, 22 134:25 135:13 123:10 129:20 15 119:10 120:14 33:14 36:9, 15 136:19 137:19 131:25 132:16 121:16 128:2, 11, 37:3, 3, 9, 14 38:1, 139:5, 25 140:13, 137:24 149:10 14 132:3 134:12, 16 39:13, 23 40:7, 25 141:3, 25 142:2, 154:13 155:15 18 138:24, 25 12, 21, 22 41:1, 5, 5, 7, 21 144:25 these. 130:9 157:3 141:10, 10 146:17 16 42:8 43:14 145:7 146:1 147:2, they 3:20 6:22 8:1 147:8 149:7 44:15 45:8, 10, 10, 6 148:4 149:16, 25 17:15 25:6 28:15 150:22, 25 153:23, 16 46:4, 21, 22 150:1, 6, 19 151:22 41:3, 17 42:3 44:7 23 154:25 155:/, 23 47:16, 19, 23 48:4, 153:14, 16 154:16, 46:2, 13 47:23 thinking 27:7 7, 20 49:1, 3, 5 18 155:18 156:2, 49:16 50:14 55:8 third 7:7 36:20 50:19, 20 51:9, 25 22, 24 158:5 56:1 62:7 65:8 52:12 122:6 52:14, 21, 23 53:2, their 17:21 40:23 85:23 86:1 88:1 147:20 150:12 3, 10 54:16 55:22, 75:6 88:13 102:6 91:19 97:11 103:9 third-parties 69:19 22 56:9, 2/ 58:4, 114:16 156:18 109:19 114:20 117:6 128:21 11, 13, 16 60:18, 19, them 19:3 83:10 120:17 122:13 153:22 23 61:2, 7, 13, 16, them. 65:19 70:10 129:4, 17 131:3 third-party 13:23, 17, 19, 22 63:5, 9, themselves 7:24 142:8 156:5 25 49:12, 16 10, 18, 21, 25 65:5, themselves, 112:9 they're 62:11 98:1 120:22 156:12 10 66:11 68:12, 18, themselves. 75:3 122:24 128:1 third-party. 156:1 24 69:6, 20 70:5 then 23:25 46:24 thing 4:13 18:1 thirty 4:20 35:11, 71:2, 11, 17 72:17, 65:18 74:5 99:17 24:22 27:21 29:7 12, 17 39:5, 6 55:9 18, 20, 22 73:9, 11, 101:2 107:5, 22 32:7 38:6, 17 65:6, 153:9 156:18, 22 18 76:1, 6, 22 156:8 13 70:20 85:8 thirty-five 144:22 77:19 78:12 79:5 theoretically 65:1 86:4, 17 105:16, 20, this 3:8 17:2 21:4 80:18 81:5, 6, 7, 8, theory 31:22 45:9. 25 110:19 113:23 23:8 26:1 27:16, 18, 18, 21 82:2, 23 10 88:9 125:17 118:13 132:24 18, 23 28:16 30:10 83:10, 12, 19, 25 131:3 132:13 152:15 156:15 31:16 32:14 33:3, 84:10, 19 85:1, 9, there 4:8 14:11 thing. 18:8 100:13 6, 15 36:14, 17 11, 14 86:12, 22 17:24 22:18 24:18, 40:3, 25 41:23 ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083112 33 46:3, 16 48:15 50:6, 9 54:7, 13, 20 56:17 58:25 59:16 61:15 63:25 64:3 65:24 69:1, 25 71:19 75:18 77:5 82:5 83:16 84:7 85:9 86:2, 13 89:2, 18 93:2 96: / 7 97:9 101:11, 16 105:20 109:19 110:10, 17 113:22 116:18, 21 118:13 119:8 123:5, 25 127:12 129:11, 12 131:9 132:8, 10, 20 18 77:15 79:4, 7, 9, 13, 15 80:1 84:23 86:4 94:2, 3, 3, 8, 9 96:7,8 1022 3 115:18, 20 120:14 129:21 132:20 133:2, 2 145:2, 3, 4 152:23 three. 59:12 threshold 58:21, 23 59:5 101:7, 21 through 43:7 77:11 78:10 89:8 156:15 158:6 thrown 20:23 thumbs 144:16 to 3:10, 13 4:11 6:7 7:16 8:2 9:15 10:10 11:11 12:3, 15 13:11, 23 15:5 16:2 17:1, 8, 13, 19, 25 18:5, 19, 21 19:9, 23 20:5, 16, 17, 17 21:15, 17, 17 25:5, 16 27:4, 22 28:12 29:11 30:9, 12, 12, 13 31:18, 19 32:21 34:17 35:7, 21 36:15 37:9 38:5, 6 39:3, 4, 7, 20 40:9 42:22 44:10, 12 46:8 143:2, 8 144:1, 8 145:25 146:19 148:17 149:3 150:/7, 21 151:11, 23 152:17 153:6, 8, 12, 24 154:2, 4, 7 155:24 to, 26:8 62:23 to. 115:10 tobacco 69:6 today 3:9 4:17 25:15 59:2, 9, 9 82:17 96:2, 20 97:17 134:24 139:11 141:24 151:8 134:3 135:4 138:7 tied 25:6 49:8, 12, 20 51:12 today. 23:7 141:8 139:17 141:6 TIME 1:14 21:2, 7, 53:1, 20 55:15 together 32:24 142:3, 12, 18 146:5 10 23:10, 11 33:16, 56:6, 9, 20 57:23 told 9:11 44:18 149:4 151:4 18, 23 35:10, 14 59:4, 10, 22, 23 127:9 140:3 149:20 153:13 156:16 36:4 40:12, 19, 25 60:24 61:16, 21 tomorrow 132:17 this, 19:8 42:4 43:4, 5 44:14, 62:9, 25 64:23 155:10 this. 36:12 72:25 15, 25 45:16, 20 65:6, 14 66:13, 16, took 88:2 73:9 86:3 46:11, 18 47:21 21 67:5, 18 71:4, tools. 7:7 thorough 31:10 54:7 58:25 60:22 11 73:5, 6 74:5 top 6:12 93:11 those 9:16 16:3, 7, 61:20 62:16, 21, 22 75:21, 23 77:8 102:2 12 22:17 24:14 63:19, 21 66:1 78:3, 11, 22 79:25 torpedo 127:17 31:6, 14 40: / 7 69:2 77:12 81:17 81:12, 20 82:13 tort 22:15 23:22 41:22 45:15 47:15 82:8, 16, 17 84:6 84:3, 4, 19, 21 85:1, 33:4 91:25 92:2 49:18 51:10, 14 86:3, 12, 14 87:3 11 86:1, 9, 11, 11 tortious 8:17 11:24 57:14, 17 58:17 90:24 91:15, 19 88:3, 10, 19 90:11, 12:13 21:19 22:13, 62:19 64:3 96:21 102:17, 18 17, 18 91:11, 12 16 30:15, 20 46:6 though 27:15 106:18 107:4 92:6 93:13 94:22 92:12 131:6 thought 23:16 108:5, 13 111:19 95:6 96:3, 16 torts 30:17 68:10 69:5 88:8 114:4 123:9 97:16, 23 100:15 total 109:6 90:8 92:22 105:1 125:12 132:8 102:21 103:12, 15 tout 127:7 152:4 133:5, 17 135:18 104:3, 6, 24 105:5 touted 5:17 6:7 thoughts 3:8 137:1 138:14, 16 106:8, 20 107:1, 6, track 156:5 thoughts. 16:23 139:2, 5, 17 140:4, 20 108:5 109:11 trafficking 85:18 thousand 36:11 7, 8, 9, 17 141:7, 17, 110:18 111:11 99:22 54:25, 25 55:14 21 142:2, 11, 14 114:24 116:11, 16 trail 147:23 61:25 62:10 116:2, 148:4 149:22, 24 117:2, 9, 16 118:1, transcript 49:6, 19 24 151:4 154:3 17 119:2, 3, 7, 20, 158:5 thousands 13:1 155:21 156:15 25 120:14, 20 transcription 94:17 26:19 61:22, 23, 23 time. 32:20 57:8 121:/, 20 1222 14 transfer 120:16, 17 threat 102:9 77:18 90:23 114:7, 123:15, 22 124:7, 8, transporting 85:18 threatened 28:15 18 127:3 133:3 9 125:5, 6 126:12 treat 13:9 threatening 27:8 134:4 139:2 140:4 127:24 128:6, 8, 18, treated 13:10 89:10 28:20 34:10 141:25 18 129:2, 5, 15, 21 trespass 14:9 15:1 three 9:4, 15 10:22 times 33:25 59:18 130:22 131:5 trespassed 14:4, 7 12:10 14:22 18:18, 60:17 86:5 92:25 133:7, 18 134:8, 9, trespasses 14:10 20 21:3 24:6 25:3 147:9 11, 16, 19, 22, 23 trial 30:11, 12 69:4 53:13 66:15 67:6, Tire 74:1, 9 135:23 139:5, 12 74:2 98:9, 14, 21 9, 17 69:4 71:17 title 38:2 140:12 141:24 104:13, 20 105:6, 72:2 73:22 76:15, 142:2, 11, 13, 14, 24 12, 17, 18 108:6 ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083113 34 110:16 113:1 114:13 trial, 102:18 trial. 101:2 108:15 113:16 tried 14:13, 15 17:7 75:21 107:4 tried. 107:3 trip 84:7 85:19 trouble 34:20, 22 69:8 128:7 true 14:7 86:24 97:16 107:18 158:6 true, 6:4 True. 152:8 Trump's 122:19 trustee 12:25 26:19 39:18, 24 40:9, 14, 16 48:14 50:21 51:1, 6, 10, 13, 14, 19 52:4, 15 53:4, 19 54:3, 17 61:17 94:5 115:23 126:13 131:16 136:22 143:5, 14 156:8 trustee. 43:22 44:12 51:15, 21, 22, 24 truthfulness 14:6 try 3:11 29:9 41:11 64:22 71:11 72:8 75:22 98:5 125:15 131:14 trying 5:23 44:10 48:8 56:7, 8 79:6 98:Z 4 103:25 107:17 125:7 129:5 132:1 133:2 143:16 turn 133:2 156:10 turned 49:16, 19 51:1, 3, 11, 14 twelfth 123:3 twelve 99:20 115:14 twenty 23:14 25:12 67:20 111:22 138:22 Twenty-eight 55:14 twiddling 144:16 Two 11:1 12:3 29:3 36:11 42:11 50:19 51:17 60:15 61:25 62:1 65:3, 25 66:14 76:11 79:4, 24, 24 105:12 116:3, 25 120:4 122:5 123:3 141:14, 15, 17 two, 79:14 type 3:18 25:1 43:3 81:25 90:19 95:20 108:12 121:22 147:23 151:24 <U> U.S 45:22 71:24 107:12 122:8 125:21 126:15 127:14 U.S. 72:1 Uh-huh. 89:1, 4 ulterior 88:19 ultimate 104:4 132:12 ultimately 20:4 41:12 44:23 59:25 61:21 66:18 67:4 104:2 110:14 120:15 137:25 143:11 unable 21:6 24:25 131:11 141:1 unchallenged 19:4 unconstitutional 108:12 undefined 78:7 under 24:4 60:22 undergo 153:25 underlying 9:12, 13, 15, 20 10:22 14:23 23:5, 24 24:15, 17 46:22 77:20 undermine 24:7 128:6 understand 13:6 21:9 22:19 26:4 27:19, 22 28:11 29:4 39:15 41:4 48:19 50:4 56:7 58:7 60:10 62:4, 9 63:14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 20 64:2 72:7 74:11 75:5, 6 76:24 80:7 90:4 92:21 101:6 103:23 105:13 111:16 114:12 130:10 138:15 146:3, 4 151:11, 22, 23 152:1 understand. 12:23 39:1 understanding 34:21, 22 40:24 50:18 62:14 69:22 80:19 95:21 151:10 understood 22:20, 22 53:16 57:17 90:5 101:22 154:13 undertake 83:5 undertook 46:2 129:11, 18 underwear 85:24 unequivocally 10:6 unfair 118:16 148:3 Unfortunately 17:18 144:16 155:8 unfortunately. 144:16 unfounded 7:4 unilaterally 148:13 United 22:3 112:22 1132 9, 14 unless 146:14 unnecessary 28:19 91:15 104:1 unnecessary. 66:6 unquestionably 107:11 unreasonable 6:24 7:2, 16, 17 9:3 28:19 unrelated 13:20 22:4, 9 24: / / 34:17 48:15 88:10 92:6 unsuccessful 8:21 unsuccessfully 8:9, 10 until 42:6 46:20 91:16 104:4 151:21 untold 49:14 unwaived 67:11 up 40:19 41:1 82:14 137:25 up. 97:4 148:13 upheld 102:10, 11 upon 10:5 139:19 upping 8:4 upset 130:19 us 132:5 us. 48:18 use 14:18 28:18 45:11 49:23, 23 56:10 57:16, 17, 20 94:24 101:24 140:16 148:2 150:19 154:12 156:3 used 25:8 45:23 88:10 99:9 used. 147:21 uses 57:21 using 56:21 utilize 101:24 utilized 64:3 utilizing 28:18 < V > vacation 144:17 157:4 vague 32:25 104:22 vagueness 60:2 validity 15:16 valuable 62:16 value 24:14 32:2 135:18 138:13 139:6, 23, 24 140:4, 14 141:21 142:2, 11, 14 149:10, 13 varied 3:22 various 3:21 18:16 25:5, 8, 23 45:17 123:13 137:3 vast 146:24 verdict. 106:7 versus 3:3 8:22 36:17 74:1 102:25 very 5:6 11:25 23:9 34:2 39:11 50:4 vexatious 6:24 7:2, 16, 17 9:3 viable 30:4 vice-versa 20:6 victim 24:11 31:4 45:15 99:10 103:18 109:16 127:23 128:8, 18, 20 142:3 victims 5:13 8:11 12:19 14:19 80:18 87:2 91:3 120:11, 11 128:23 130:15, 19 132:10 victims. 128:15 ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083114 35 video 105:7 145:10 146:6, 7, 25 147:3, 20, 25 148:7 149:11, 19, 24 150:1, 13, 13 videoing 114:21 videotape 146:11 videotaping 149:16 view 10:4 26:8 32:24 34:9 98:3 155:18 vigorously 130:22 violated 129:22 violating 129:24 violation 122:10 violative 71:10 virtue 37:21 voluntarily 7:22 49:11, 16 vs 10:1 133:18 134:12, 16 144:5, 8 147:7, 11 148:19, 21, 22, 23 149:20, 23 150:1 153:6, 10 155:6, 10, 12, 13, 15 156:14 want, 57:10 wanted 46:22 47:1, 3 49:2 56:17, 20 119:16 136:1 147:15 wants 25:17 37:25 69:10 84:23 86:10 87:7 90:20 91:11 94:18 100:6 115:6 153:19 warm. 64:18 was 9:13 13:19 22:12 40:14 41:19 42:11, 25 46:17 94:5 106:12, 19 109:7, 22 116:9 120:4, 23 121:18 122:8, 17 123:18 125:11 127:17 128:16 132:22 134:12 135:12, 14, 19 136:1, 25 138:15 142:17 144:25 145:8 146:16 149:21 156:4, 11 web 100:14, 17 week 93:12 141:17 weeks 141:14, 15 weigh 139:23 WEINBERG 2:6, 7 25:22 64:21 65:21 68:13 69:10, 12, 24 70:11, 18, 23 71:2 57:19 58:8 59:24, 25 61:7, 15, 16, 22 65:5, 6, 15, 16 66:13 74:24 75:1 78:1, 2 79:3 81:2, 10 82:2 84:4, 7, 12, 13 85:25 91:12 93:14 94:23 95:8 103:6, 21, 24 104:9 105:6 124:23 128:15, 16 130:6 134:1, 23 138:13, 14 142:1 143:15 150:8 151:5 153:18, 19 154:7 155:16 weren't 32:1 West 1:16 2:4, 5, 11, 16 76:13 we've 32:11, 12 vs. 1:6 58:21 62:13 66:3 WEISS 2:10 54:18 59:9 90:14 68:20 80:13 90:9 welcome 110:12 97:13 100:5, 14 < W > 92:6, 24 93:1 Well 13:9 24:9 102:22 108:7 wage 100:19 106:14 124:20 27:4 32:2 35:16, 121:25 142:6 154:3 wait 91:16 126:1 127:5 130:6 21 36:23 39:23, 25 what 6:16 18:1, 7 141:19 137:11 141:22 52:1 54:16 58:16 19:16 20:8, 25 wait, 42:5 145:13, 15 146:4, 64:13 74:16 75:21 22:14 23:22 32:17 waive 57:25 21, 23 147:8 82:14 84:12 86:25 34:16 35:6, 7 waived 29:17 was. 18:3 22:11 87:25 88:8 92:24 36:22 37:21 43:11 47:24 54:21 60:6, wasn't 96:1 139:9 95:6, 15 96:1, 5, 7 59:21 62:15 63:14 6 62:7, 18 632 18 151:9 100:2 107:9 65:15 68:24 73:1 145:18 146:2 waste 91:14 112:19, 22 134:19 75:17 77:22 80:22 153:6, 21, 25 155:25 wasting 86:3 135:10, 11 138:20, 89:15 90:21 91:6 waived. 49:22 50:1 way 3:17 13:10 24 141:6 143:22 92:25 95:10 60:6 15:9 16:5 24:10 150:3 156:15 157:6 101:15 103:5, 14 waiver 49:12 66:3 28:22 34:8 39:9, 9 we'll 57:10 65:19 104:20 111:14 70:4, 16 72:18 56:15 90:5 91:12 well, 27:15 138:1 124:23 127:25 149:1 154:7 92:17 93:13 103:5, went 18:9 20:15 129:3, 7 132:14 waivers 67:2 70:5 11 106:4 116:15 21:3, 18 23:1 41:5 134:3 138:22 waives 72:20 122:13 134:17, 22 42:22 48:24 60:19 139:16 140:4 waiving 64:5 142:24 152:1 61:7 81:16 127:9 141:22, 24 142:17 want 3:4, 15 9:24 155:12 131:25 137:15, 16 143:21 148:23 17:13 21:10 29:18 way. 7:3 38:25 were 5:14 23:25 149:21 151:1 33:6 35:20 36:3 55:2 89:3 90:7 25:7 31:9 43:10 155:1, 16 38:4, 5, 10 392 13 ways 65:3 142:20 44:21 45:7 46:14 what, 34:6 143:10 48:25, 25 54:1Z 12 ways. 25:14 65:25 47:6, 24, 24 51:8 what. 14:14 55:22 56:9 57:22 We 9:11 18:6 21:8 68:3 83:3 85:23 whatever 23:23 62:1, 16 64:10 23:17 25:18, 25 86:5 115:11 148:9 67:4 116:19 65:18 70:22 72:12 29:10, 25 41:11 We're 3:3, 10 7:16 128:11 131:18 82:17 90:13 93:17 42:15, 17 44:15 11:22 21:2 23:7 what's 74: / 7 96:3 97:16 100:6 47:21 48:25 53:24 25:15 27:19 29:11 whatsoever 11:15 101:20 110:19 56:2, 19 57:23 34:1 38:24 45:21 64:6 109:7 130:17 111:21 115:5, 8 58:3, 5 59:2, 13 49:9, 14, 15, 20 when 43:6 45:25 117:2, 22 119:24 64:25 71:15, 17 51:5 53:16 54:6, 77:9 83:11 91:4 122:12 131:14 81:15, 20 92:2 24 55:23 56:7, 7 150:3 156:9 ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083115 36 where 9:1 11:22 17:2 24:12 39:17 41:7 46:7 56:18 59:24 76:13 87:6 115:12 119:23 132:6, 7 140:24 143:12 whether 22:16 62:10 70:4, 9 77:3 87:5 106:23 149:1 which 9:12 14:7 16:8 18:15, 16 19:13 22:23, 23 23:24 24:10 29:3 43:9 45:18 49:10, 22 50:25 81:15 87:14 93:3 102:25 108:6 125:19 133:6 142:8 145:22 153:17 which, 38:21 Whichever 93:13 while 91:25 107:11 WHITE 2:2 who 23:11 29:19 67:16 whole 21:5 whom 19:10 why 17:12, 23 23:6 47:2 48:13 53:15 80:25 91:21 119:6 122:12 132:9 146:7 153:5 why, 86:9 will 17:11 54:3 56:4 70:12 84:5 96:19 97:25 106:20, 23 107:4 William 68:18 80:14, 21 willing 95:24 133:16 wind 137:25 wish 56:15 98:17 with 4:24 17:5 18:10 23:13, 21 25:8 33:21 35:6 38:15 41:12 45:14 46:18 54:12 60:16, 17, 19 66:2 68:4 70:15 75:5 81:25 82:4 84:10 89:16 93:19 96:24 99:10 100:24 107:18 108:24 110:12 112:5 116:12 119:8 121:5 125:8 135:24 142:24 145:11 156:9, 23 with, 121:22 with. 65:16 70:6 85:25 120:2 within 107:12 without 6:14 14:6 18:4 19:14 33:25 49:16 114:10 142:16 withstands 155:14 witness 30:12, 14 witnesses 110:11 woman 80:2 99:16 103:18 women 50:10 92:14 99:20 100:18 won't 128:17 word 92:24 125:1 wording. 152:15 words 28:17 89:8 words. 154:17 work 38:8 138:22 140:18 141:1, 15, 15, 15 working 118:25 123:2 125:23 155:9 work-product 41:9, 16 58:16 63:12 69:13, 14, 17 117:2, 5, 12 150:20 work-product. 50:14 works 141:13 world 18:2 58:5 100:21 104:20 worries 24:10 worth 141:7 worthless 57:20 would 18:7 24:13, 24 25:19 31:25 66:4 114:20 150:17 152:20 write 117:20 written 36:25 wrong 107:6 wrong. 149:5 wrongful 7:11 < Y > yeah 36:9 73:10 79:14 104:24 157:6 Yeah, 103:1 year 145:11 years 99:20 115:14, 14 138:22 140:21 141:23 144:22 year's 140:19 Yes. 52:5, 6 54:10 74:10 104:18 157:2 yet. 33:2 you 19:17 20:22 22:16 26:5 30:4, 4 33:4, 6 34:4, 17 35:2, 17 37:25 42:9 43:19 46:1 48:10 62:1, 20 66:15 70:20 72:9 74:14 84:16 91:2 94:21 101:19, 20 102:19 103:15 105:12 113:25, 25 121:9, 12 122:20 127:13, 22 128:9 129:23 133:15, 23, 23 136:21 138:23 140:1 143:20 150:4, 10 151:12 155:5 157:5 you. 14:12 26:2 33:22 47:11 59:14 92:20 118:2 126:7 157:6 young 92:13 Your 15:13 16:22 21:7 35:13 36:3 37:17 39:17 44:3 48:2 59:23 66:8 76:12 77:2 87:9 89:24 105:22 112:10 114:8 136:18 151:25 152:3 154:23 155:20 you're 20:7 128:7 134:22 154:15 you've 28:6 34:8 112:19 ORANGE REPORTING EFTA01083116