Discovery Request to Edwards and Response

Discovery Request to Edwards and Response EFTA01099387 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA JEFFREY EPSTEIN Plaintiff, v. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, and L.M., individually, Defendants. Complex Litigation, Fla. R. Civ. Pro.1201 Case No. 50 2009CA040800XXXXMB AG PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF SERVING FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES DIRECTED TO DEFENDANT BRADLEY J. EDWARDS Plaintiff, Jeffrey Epstein, (hereinafter "Mr. Epstein"), by and through his undersigned attorneys hereby files this Notice of Serving First Set of Interrogatories Directed to Defendant Bradley J. Edwards (hereinafter "Edwards"), pursuant to Rule 1.340, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, and request the Defendant to answer said interrogatories in writing within thirty (30) days from date of service hereof. Certificate of Service I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was sent by fax and U.S. Mail to the following addressees MARC S. NURIK, ESQ. Law Offices of Marc S. Nurik One East Broward Boulevard Suite 700 Fort L uderdale, FL 33301 on this 5th day of April , 2010: Gary M. Farmer, Jr., Esq. Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, PL 425 N. Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 EFTA01099388 Epstein v. Rothstein, et al. Page 2 Fax Attorneys&Defendant Scott Rothstein Jack Scarola, Esq. Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart Shipley, P.A 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd. West Palm Beach, FL 33409 686-6300 383-9424 F Attorneys for Defendant Bradley Edwards Fax Attorneys for Defendant, L.M. Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. & Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1400 West FL 33401-5012 Fax: Co-Counse for Jeffrey Epstein • BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN, LLP 303 Banyan Boulevard Suite 400 FL 33401 Favi By: Robert . Critton, Jr. Florida ar #224162 Michae J. Pike Florida Bar #617296 (Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) EFTA01099389 Epstein v. Rothstein, et al. Page 3 PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES DIRECTED TO DEFENDANT BRADLEY J. EDWARDS 1. As to paragraph 12 of your Counterclaim, state the following in detail: a) Identify specifically all damages which you claim you have suffered to your reputation. Include in your response, how your reputation has been damaged, to whom (person or entity) your reputation has been damaged, any loss of income which you claim as a result of the current lawsuit against you and how you calculate that loss. b) Identify in detail how the lawsuit filed against you has interfered in any professional relationships. Identify in your answer all professional relationships which have in any way been negatively impacted or lost or compromised as a result of this lawsuit. Identify the name and address of the individual and/or entity with whom you have the professional relationship, how it has been affected and identify any monetary damage which you sustained. EFTA01099390 Epstein v. Rothstein, et al. Page 4 c) Identify by date the exact amount of time (and specify how your time was spent) that has been diverted from your professional responsibilities. 2. (a) Identify all costs and/or fees you have incurred (to whom and under what circumstances) for the defense of the Epstein claim as set forth in paragraph 12 of your Counterclaim. (b) State whether you have a written or oral fee agreement with Searcy Denney and the terms of same. Include amount of money paid to date and if you paid a retainer. EFTA01099391 Epstein v. Rothstein, et al. Page 5 3. During the time you were associated with Rothstein, Rosenfeldt & Adler, P.A. ("RRA"), state the following: a) Identify by person and date any person who performed any searches of trash at 358 El Brill° Way, Palm Beach, Florida which is alleged to be the home of Mr. Epstein which were authorized by you or which you learned had taken place, if not authorized by you. If not authorized by you, identify who did authorize it? b) Identify all individuals at the RRA including but not limited to any one of its attorneys or investigators or anyone retained by or working for RRA or its attorneys or investigators who conducted wire taps or "bugging" on any telephones which purported to be from the home of Mr. Epstein. Include who authorized the wire taps and dates it took place. c) Identify all individuals at the RRA including but not limited to any one of its attorneys or investigators or anyone retained by or working for RRA or its attorneys or investigators who conducted wire taps or EFTA01099392 Epstein v. Rothstein, et al. Page 6 "bugging" on any telephones which are purported to be from the attorneys for Mr. Epstein including but not limited to: Roy Black, Alan Dershowitz or Jack Goldberger. Include who authorized the wire taps and dates it took place. d) Identify all intercepted phone conversations authorized by RRA including but not limited to any one of its attorneys or investigators or anyone retained by or working for RRA or its attorneys or investigators and/or RRA investigators; identify the date, the source of the call, who conducted the intercepted telephone conversations and whether a tape and/or transcript exist of such conversations. e) Identify all intercepted cell phone conversations authorized by RRA Including but not limited to any one of its attorneys or investigators or anyone retained by or working for RRA or its attorneys or investigators and/or RRA investigators; identify the date, the source of the call, who conducted the intercepted cell phone conversations and whether a tape EFTA01099393 Epstein v. Rothstein, et at Page 7 and/or transcript exist of such conversations. f) Identify all Individuals at the RRA including but not limited to any one of its attorneys or investigators or anyone retained by or working for RRA or its attorneys or investigators who intercepted or acquired electronic mail (e-mails) to and from the home of Mr. Epstein. Include who authorized the interception and acquisition and dates it took place. g) Identify all individuals at the RRA including but not limited to any one of its attorneys or investigators or anyone retained by or working for RRA or its attorneys or investigators who intercepted or acquired electronic mail (e-mails) to and from the attorneys for Mr. Epstein including but not limited to: Roy Black, Alan Dershowitz or Jack Goldberger. Include who authorized the interception and acquisition and dates it took place. EFTA01099394 Epstein v. Rothstein, et al. Page 8 4. Identify the names and addresses of all individuals who will testify that a sexual assault took place on an airplane purportedly owned by Mr. Epstein or a Jeffrey Epstein entity at any time between 1998 and 2005. Additionally, identify any alleged celebrity, dignitary or international figure who purportedly was on board the airplane at the time of the alleged sexual assault. 5. Identify in detail the amount of all costs (including photocopies, telephone, fax, research, investigation, travel expenses, deposition related costs, expert costs, etc.) that were incurred by you in the representation of you and/or your law firm in representing Jane Doe, L.M. and M. prior to joining RRA. 6. Identify in detail the amount of costs (including photocopies, telephone, fax, research, investigation, travel expenses, deposition related costs, expert colic.) that were incurred by RRA in its representation of Jane Doe, L.M. and during the time you were employed by RRA (or that is being EFTA01099395 Epstein v. Rothstein, et al. Page 9 claimed by the trustee in bankruptcy for RRA). Segregate by each of your 3 clients. 7. In ti tached transcript dated July 31, 2009, you stated to Judge Hafele with regard to the MI. and L.M. cases the following: 'What the evidence is really going to show is that Mr. Epstein — at least dating back as far as our investigation resources have permitted, back to 1997 or '98 — has every single day of his life, made an attempt to sexually abuse children. We're not talking about five, we're not talking about 20, we're not talking about 100, we're not talking about 400, which I believe, is the number known to law enforcement, we are talking about thousands of children, and it is through a very intricate and complicated system that he devised where he has as many as 20 people working underneath him that he is paying well to schedule these appointments, to locate these girls? (A) State all evidence to support this assertion including any individuals and/or documents which are the source of the information and identify by name and address who currently has that information. EFTA01099396 Epstein v. Rothstein, et al. Page 10 (B) List the name and addresses of all females to whom you were referring in your representation to the court. 8. During the time you were employed/associated with RRA, state the names of all attorneys at the RRA firm with whom you discussed potential dep=ts or who participated in any decision to depose witnesses in the Jane Doe, L.M. or M. cases. 9. During the time you were employed/associated with RRA, state the names of all paralegals or investigators at the RRA firm with whom you discussed potential deponeiiiir who participated in any decision to depose witnesses in the Jane Doe, L.M. or cases. EFTA01099397 Epstein v. Rothstein, et al. Page 11 STATE OF FLORIDA ) ss COUNTY OF PALM BEACH SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED before me this day of , 2010 by , who is personally known to me or has produced the following identification which is current or has been issued within the past five years and bears a serial or other identifying number. Print Name Signature NOTARY PUBLIC - STATE OF FLORIDA Commission Number: My commission expires: (Notarial Seal) EFTA01099398 Condensed Transcript IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. Case No. 502008CA028058 XXXXMB AD PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE HONORABLE JUDGE DONALD W. HAFELE July 31.,_2009 8:30M. 205 N. Dixie Highway West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Jennifer DiLorenzo, court reporter 0 ESQUIRE an Al ..... 0O1e CeeP441 Toll Free: Facsimile: Suite 1300 51.5 East Las Olas Boulevard FaL i iiiw i cled... 301 EFTA01099399 Proceedings July 31, 2009 11 1 IN TNN CIRCUIT COURT OF 711! 1371i JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND roe PAL$ BEACH COUNTY, PLORIOA Plaintiff. Case Mo. S0200BCR0280S0 XXXX/al AD JEFFREY !PEPSIN. Defendant. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE HONORABLE JUDO! DONALD N. NAMES JaLy 31. 2009 5:30M. - 205 N. Dixie NighwaY Nest Palm Beach. FL 1)401 Jennifer DILOtenzo, court reporter 3 1 Proceedings In the Matter 0all. vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN. 2 July 31, 2009 8:30 3 THE COURT: Good morning, gentlemen. 4 We're here this morning on the Plaintiffs motions to add punitive damages. Who will be 6 arguing on behalf of the Plaintiff? 7 MR. EDWARDS: Brad Edwards, Your Honor. 8 THE COURT: Alright, Mr. Edwards. 9 MR. EDWARDS: Do I need to gob the 10 podium or is right here line? 11 THE COURT: Whichever you prefer. 12 MR. EDWARDS: Your Honor, with our motion 13 we flied - and. I believe, Your Honor has It 14 the discovery that was submitted to Mr. Epstein, 15 which consists of Requests for Admissions, 16 Requests for Production, Interrogatories, as 17 well as Interrogatory responses under oath by my 18 client. 19 THE COURT: Do you have any cases that 20 speak to the presumption relative to the 21 Defendant exercising his Fifth and Sixth 22 Amendment rights during the deposition testimony 23 and/or during any other discovery? 24 MR. EDWARDS: Sure. Your Honor. 25 THE COURT: I know that Mr. Critton in his 2 1 APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL 2 3 On behalf of the Plaintiff: 4 ROTHSTEIN, ROSENFELDT & ADLER BY: WILLIAM J. BERGER, ESO., S Mars Park Office Tower Suite 675 6 225 NE Mime( Boulevard 7 ROTHSTEIN, ROSENFELDT & ADLER 9 BY: BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, ESO., 401 EMI Las O1as Boulevard 10 Suite 1650 33394 12 13 On behalf of the Defendant 14 BURMAN. CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN BY: ROBERT 0. CRITTON, JR., ESQ.. 15 515 Noah Reeler Drive Stile 400 16 , FL 33401 27 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4 1 reply memorandum Indicated some conflict in 2 terms of the nature of the discussions of the 3 appellate courts relative to that issue. MR. EDWARDS: May I approach? THE COURT: Thank you. MR. EDWARDS: I'm going to present the 7 case of Fraser vs. Security and Investment out of the Fourth DCA. 9 The pertinent pan, It says: "Our 10 conclusion Is consistent with the prevailing 11 rule that the Fifth Amendment does not forbid . 12 adverse inferences against parties to civil 13 actions when they refuse to testify In response 14 to probative evidence offered against them: the is amendment 'does not preclude the inference where 16 the privilege is claimed by a party to a civil 17 cause." 18 It skips down and says: 'Such a rule is 19 both logical and utilitarian. A party may not 20 trample upon the rights of others and then 21 escape the consequences by invoking a 22 constitutional privilege - at least not in a 23 civil setting.' 24 The final paragraph on that page says: 25 'Nor are we persuaded that the fact of ESQUIRE ”Mo Methann Toll Free: Facsimile: Suite 1300 515 East Las Olas Boulevard EFTA01099400 Proceedings July 31, 2009 5 7 1 invocation of the prNilege is Irrelevant and 2 immaterial' "In the case" Sorry, 'Mr. 3 Justice Brandeis... observed that 'Silence is 4 often evidence of the most persuasive character." 6 Clearly, this case, out of our district court, is an indication that adverse inferences may be drawn. 9 Right now we are al a punitive damages 10 stage. We are not at a stage where we are 11 talking about the admissibility of evidence. We 12 are -- 13 THE COURT: Speaking only of a proffer to 14 establish punitive damages as required under 15 768.721, correct? 16 MR. EDWARDS: Exactly, and I was going to, 17 for the record, read that part of 768.721: "In 18 a civil action, there is a' -- 19 THE COURT: I think we can skip that. 20 MR. EDWARDS: Okay. 21 THE COURT: The statute speaks for itself 22 and it's a part of the record today, so why 23 don't you go ahead and proceed? 24 MR. EDWARDS: The reasonable showing, by 25 way of proffer, that there is an intentional 1 we're not talking about 400, which, I believe, 2 is the number known to law enforcement, we are 3 talking about thousands of children, and it is 4 through a very intricate and complicated system that he devised where he has as many as 20 6 people working underneath him that he is paying 7 well to schedule these appointments, to locate 8 these girls. 9 He particularly goes after a very 10 vulnerable and impressionable age group that -- 11 THE COURT: To use the quotation, 'the 12 evidence will show the Defendant sought out 13 underprivileged and economically disadvantaged 14 minor females; and later go on to say, is 'influenced them away from the typical 16 adolescent lifestyle as a result of his 17 allegedly criminal acts." 18 MR. EDWARDS: And that is exactly what 19 he's done. The age group begins as young as 20 12 years old and as old as 16 years old. There 21 will be evidence that at 16 years old, many of 22 the girls are told, 'You're getting too old for 23 me.' 24 He very dearly targets this specific age 25 group and has a method to this; that is, 'Get 6 1 misconduct or gross negligence on behalf of the 2 Defendant. 3 Intentional misconduct is defined as 'the 4 Defendant had actual knowledge of the wrong 5 permissible conduct and the high probability 6 that injury or damage lo the claimant would 7 result and, despite that knowledge, 8 intentionally pursued that course of conduct 9 resulting in injury or damage." 10 In this case, we have intentional 11 misconduct of the worse kind. This is a case 12 that has been presented to the public through 13 public relations people for the Defendant at 14 times as "five or six bad under-aged prostitutes 15 from a high school that, as one of their stops, 16 wound up at Mr. Epstein's home," and that's not 17 the case at all. 18 What the evidence is really going to show 19 is that Mr. Epstein - al least dating back as 20 far as our Investigation and resources have 21 permitted, back to 1997 or '98 - has every 22 single day of his life, made an attempt to 23 sexually abuse children. 24 We're not talking about five, we're not 25 talking about 20, we're not talking about 100, 8 1 the girls inside the house and I wilt do the 2 rest.' and he creates this God-like aura for 3 these girls and -- 4 THE COURT: Let's talk about - pardon me s for interrupting you - let's talk about the 6 precise claims that are being made here. You're 7 dealing with M. and L.M. • they're pseudonyms a for purposes of this litigation. Why don't we 9 speak to those two individuals at this juncture 10 and how the punitive damage proffer is 11 sufficient or insufficient relative to them 12 individually, please? 13 I understand the global allegations and I 14 understand the allegedly wide scale situation 15 that you're suggesting as you've alleged here, 16 but I want to go now to the precise claims made 17 by these two Plaintiffs who are in front of the 18 Court today, and whether or not that proffer Is 19 sufficient to satisfy the case law, including 20 the case that Mr. Critton cited, and that is: 21 The Estate of Despain. D-E-S•P-A-I-N, vs. Avante 22 Group, Inc., which is found at 900 So.2d. 637, 23 and that was a Fifth District Court of Appeal 24 case, decided in 2005. 25 MR. EDWARDS: Yes, Your Honor, and that Is ESQUIRE • AI mein CI all' Caw pat Toll Free: Facsimile: Suite 1300 515 East Las 0las Boulevard EFTA01099401 Proceedings July 31, 2009 9 1 the case that states: 'a 'proffer' according to 2 traditional notions of the term, connotes merely 3 an 'offer of evidence and neither the term 4 standing alone nor the statute Itself calls for an adjudication of the underlying veracity...is 6 merely a representation of what evidence the 7 defendant proposes to present.* 8 We can turn to the sworn Interrogatory 9 answers. No. 8, wherein L.M. and, similarly, 10 III., in slightly different words, states: 'I 11 was touched, battered, and fondled by Defendant 12 Jeffrey Epstein during the incidents described 13 in the complaint. I observed the Defendant 14 touch and fondle himself. I observed the 15 Defendant ejaculate numerous times. I was made 16 to touch the Defendant. I also observed sexual 17 acts and had sexual acts perpetrated on me by 18 Defendant Jeffrey Epstein. At various times I 19 was unclothed, as was the Defendant and others. 20 Al all times material, I was a child under the 21 age of 18 years old. The Defendant also used me 22 to bring him other minor gids and he controlled 23 and brainwashed me' -- 24 THE COURT: Just a second. 25 (Telephone interruption.) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 11 the Defendant. I also observed sexual acts and had sexual acts perpetrated on me and was forced to perform on me, including oral sex and other activities. At various times I was unclothed, as was Defendant and others. At all times material, I was a child under the age of 18 years. I was a victim of various criminal acts and sexual exploitation. I was induced and coerced by the Defendant into acts of prostitution? THE COURT: Thank you. You were going to speak to a legal point — MR. EDWARDS: Right. THE COURT: •- before I asked you to read into the record those Interrogatory answers. Go ahead. MR. EDWARDS: Where we left off was the coercion into prostitution. What makes these crimes so egregious is the fact that these girls that we're talking about were all beginning their grooming process with Mr. Epstein when they're 14 and 16 and 16 years old. There is a specific statute, which we have filed, and a cause of action under our complaint, that is under 796.09, Coercion, civil 10 1 MR. EDWARDS: -- 'and brainwashed me Into 2 believing this lifestyle was healthy and normal 3 for a girl my age. I was a victim of various 4 criminal acts and sexual exploitation. I was induced and coerced by Defendant Into acts of 6 prostitution.' 7 While we're on the coercion and 8 prostitution, there is a specific — 9 THE COURT: Before you move on, that's 10 L.M.'s -- 11 MR. EDWARDS: Yes. Your Honor. 12 THE COURT: — Answer to Internatories? 13 Why don't you read into the record M.'s Answer 14 to InterrogalorieS so the record is dear? 15 MR. EDWARDS: I apologize, Your Honor. 16 THE COURT: Take your time. 17 MR. EDWARDS: Answer to Interrogatory No. 18 8 for indicates: 'My injuries are 19 emotional and psychological and are the direct 20 result of Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's actions. 21 I was touched, battered, and fondled by the 22 Defendant during the Incidents described in the 23 complaints. I observed the Defendant touch and 24 fondle himself. I observed the Defendant 25 ejaculate numerous times. I was made to touch 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 12 cause of action. Reading 796.09, Paragraph 1: 'A person has a cause of action for compensatory and punitive damages' - this is in the statute - 'against a person who coerced them into prostitution; and it goes on to define what coercion means, and it is exactly what happened in this case. This statute allows for punitive damages on a statutory level irrespective of the ago of the person that is coerced into prostitution. THE COURT: And the coercion that you're talking about are the alleged acts as between these two Plaintiffs and Mr. Epstein as opposed lo, I think, there's something in one of the Interrogatories that suggests that there may have been prostitution that followed, at least ono of the Plaintiffs, involvement with Mr. Epstein, but you're speaking solely about the prostitution issues as it concerns the Plaintiffs here and Epstein; is that accurate? MR. EDWARDS: I believe, if I understand what you are saying, I mean, in terms of damages, it one of the Plaintiffs - and I can represent - if one of the Plaintiffs was led ESQUIRE • AI t is4o• Gallo Coop., Toll Free: Facsimile: Suite 1300 515 East Las Olas Boulevard EFTA01099402 Proceedings July 31, 2009 13 15 1 2 3 4 5 7 a 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 into a life of prostitution after being indoctrinated into this deviant lifestyle at an early age by Mr. Epstein - she was not a prostitute prior to that - and I relate that similar to kids of that age being brought over to somebody's house that Is as powerful and wealthy as him and he has, let's say, cocaine on the table, and they do that for three years. They think it's fun at the time, but after that they have this addiction that continues on. This is something similar to what happened to one of the clients. But, yes, the coercion into prostitution Is something that on a statutory level already allows for punitive damages, and that's irrespective of the age. THE COURT: Again, I'm trying to understand the factual basis. There's allegations that Mr. Epstein paid these young ladies $200 to massage him and then subsequent thereto, there was some type of alleged sexual activity. Are you speaking to that specifically when you're talking about the statutory remedy or are you speaking about something distinct from that? 1 intentional misconduct and/or gross negligence. 2 I think the record is very clear at this 3 point, especially after this proffer, that if 4 any case Is deservant of punitive damages being added, it's this one. 6 THE COURT: Alright. Thank you. Ill 7 give you a couple minutes to wrap up after Mr. 8 Critton finishes his argument. 9 MR. EDWARDS: Thank you. Your Honor. 10 THE COURT: Thank you. 11 MR. CRITTON: May it please the Court. As 12 the Court knows, I represent Mr. Epstein in this 13 matter. 14 Your Honor, a couple of things to start - 15 the case that Mr. Edwards cites deals with 16 inferences, deals with inferences at trial time 17 as distinct from inferences that, I believe, are 18 sufficient to carry the day, so-to-speak, in the 19 absence of other evidence with Mr. Epstein's 20 claim of Rfth Amendment privilege. As well, we 21 cited to the court cases - and I'll get to in 22 just a minute - that specifically address that 23 issue. 24 Secondly, we're not hero on - and I think 25 the Court, I think, I kind of at least got the 1 2 3 4 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 14 MR. EDWARDS: No, that's specifically what I am talking about -- THE COURT: Okay. MR. EDWARDS: — Mr. Epstein paying them and using their age, their economic - their lack of wealth - the fact that these are poor, disadvantaged children with very little parental guidance to his advantage to induce them Into acts of prostitution. THE COURT: Ill give you two minutes to wrap up, please. MR. EDWARDS: Okay. Your Honor. while I know that we are focusing on and LM., there are certain defenses that have been made such as, "The girls were'. - "we didn't know that they were over 18, otherwise we wouldn't have done this; where we are going to be able to show there are hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of girls and none of them were over the age of 18. Many of these girls, including my clients, told him that they were under the age of 18 and he continued to do this misconduct, which is exactly what the statute or what the punitive damages statute speaks to when it talks about 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 16 drift is we're not here on other claims - we're here on M. and L.M.'s claim today to add punitive damages and, in fact, 'Do they meet the standard under the applicable statute in this instance'?" What I think is the most striking part about this - and while I believe that the evidence may be - their perception, the Plaintiffs' perception of the evidence - may be different than ourselves, but I think the evidence in this case will show, at least LM. and were prostitutes before they ever met Mr. Epstein, they remain prostitutes, and they are still prostitutes today. THE COURT: But is my role today one of weighing the evidence or one of determining whether or not there's a sufficient record in order to allow a punitive damage claim to stand? I mean, in one of the cases, I believe - it's the case of State of Wisconsin Investment Board vs. Plantation Square Associates, that's found at 761 F.Supp 1569 - Judge Hugler (phonetic) of the federal court provided an excellent discussion of the distinction between the proofs necessary to sustain a claim for ESQUIRE Toll Free: Facsimile: Suite 1300 515 East Las Olas Boulevard EFTA01099403 Proceedings July 31, 2009 17 19 1 punitive damages even at summary judgment, much 2 less a trial, and compared that with the 3 relatively lighter burden of simply making a 4 proffer of record evidence to support a claim for punitive damages. 6 MR. CRAYON: Right. 7 THE COURT: Aren't we at that stage; that 8 is, the kilter stage right now? 9 MR. CRITTON: Yes, and I very well 10 understand the distinction and, I believe, I 11 understand what the Courts role is in this 12 particular instance in making that 13 determination. 14 A couple of the issues though, in 15 particular - with a camera here today, for some 16 unknown reason, showing up at this hearing - is 17 there were references to drugs, alcohol, other 18 instances that are not applicable to this case. 19 There's no pleadings on that particular issue, 20 and I'm concerned about that, is that there's an 21 attempt to jack this up In the media, as I said, 22 with the camera here today, for no other 23 hearing. It's ridiculous under the 24 circumstances, and to make all of these wild 25 allegations against Mr. Epstein for which there 1 FBI agent and a U.S. attorney that was there at 2 the time - and she talked about going over to 3 Mr. Epstein's house. She said, 1 had a fake 4 ID.' She was told to make certain that she was 5 18. She told Mr. Epstein she was 18, and she 6 said it was her understanding that all of the 7 other girls that she brought for this horrific 8 experience - she continued to bring other girls 9 and go herself on a number of occasions. 10 She said that she, herself -- On Page 8, 11 it asks, "Old she ever call you?' - and I assume 12 that was someone else - and she goes. "No. I 13 gave Jeffrey my number and, I said, you know, if 14 you want me to give you a massage again, 15 basically I'm more than anxious to come." 16 On Page 9, L.M. says, "I willingly took" - 17 "so I willingly, the first time, took off my top 18 when I gave him the massage and nothing more 19 than that." zo She goes on to say in her testimony at 21 Page 10, her sworn statement, "I said, I told 22 Jeffrey, 'I heard that you like massages 23 topless." 24 "And he said 'Like, yeah.' He said, 'But 25 you don't have to do anything that you don't 18 1 Is absolutely no evidentiary proof nor was that 2 submitted here in support of their proffer, I 3 did want to address at that. 4 So let me get to the heart of the issue. 5 I think the most distinguishing pad of this 6 particular case that's different; that is, L.M. 7 and M., is the fact that L.M. gave a sworn 8 statement to the FBI in this instance. 9 Again, there's a strong distinction. She 10 gave a sworn statement back in '05 or in '06. 11 She had - L.M. did - she had an attorney, Mr. 12 Eisenberg, it was before she had a civil lawyer 13 who's seeking millions of dollars under these 14 circumstances, and the testimony of L.M. at that 15 time was very significant and it flies directly 16 in the face of her 'sworn testimony or her 17 "sworn interrogatories.' 18 The Court had Mr. Edwards read in L.M.'s 19 answer and M.'s answer to their 20 Interrogatories as to what allegedly occurred 21 with Mr. Epstein and, "Oh, surprise; they were 22 almost verbatim, word for word, as to what 23 allegedly happened. 24 But at the time of her sworn statement to 25 the FBI, L.M. said on 424/07 - again, it was an 20 1 feel comfortable with.'" 2 'And I said, 'Okay,' but I willingly took 3 it off" - this is L.M. at the time. This is her 4 sworn testimony. 5 At Page 17, the police officer or the FBI 6 agent says, 'and when he turned over then did he 7 touch you at all or was he just' -- Her answer 8 was, 'No, I did not touch him, he did not touch 9 me. He didn't even want...' and I assume to 10 'touch you.' 11 She goes on to say, "He didn't want me to 12 touch him and he didn't touch me.' 13 She goes on and on in this statement, 14 L.M., in the statement and she says, 'We had 15 fun.' 16 'It was positive," on Page 18. 17 On Page 19, "You know, I would wear 18 panties. Willingly one time, because we were 19 making jokes and everything, and willingly one 20 time, I had, yes, I was totally nude, but I was 21 fine with that.' 22 She talks about within the statement the 23 other girls that she brought over. Again, she's 24 testified or she gives the Interrogatory answer 25 that this was outrageous to her, but, yet she ESQUIRE Toll Free: Facsimile: Suite 1300 515 East Las Olas Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 EFTA01099404 Proceedings July 3 1 , 2009 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 21 1 brought other girls to experience this. She 2 says - now that she has a civil lawyer seeking 3 money damages - now it's a bad experience.' 4 Now all of a sudden, 'He touched me, he did these things to me." 6 She references - at least, on Page 29 of 7 the statement, Judge - there's a 'W" that's 8 referenced. "W" I would represent to be.. in the M. complaint, and I think we established that when Mr. Berger and I were atng a prior motion to you. So she talks about. on Page 29. That's when she starts saying, she says, 'EW - "she,' meaning -.,'was my baby's father's girlfriend at the time." Then on Page 30, 'How old was "She was 17.' Alright, so you have 12, 13. 14, 15, 16. You have L.M. saying "W" was 17 at the time. 'And what happened when W' came over?' She said the same thing, 'She went a few times." On Page 31, L.M. testified under oath to the FBI and the United States attorney, 'None of my girls ever had a problem. And they'd call 23 1 LM. and-. in their Answers to 2 Interrogatories have made all sorts of, what we 3 believe in part, are baseless or in large part 4 baseless allegations, but we also have sworn 5 testimony of L.M. on this instance. 6 We don't have it of.., but we have LM. 7 testifying about her own experience under oath: 8 That it was positive; that he never used force, 9 that she willingly did a number of limes 10 including giving topless massages; that Mr. 11 Epstein never touched her, that she never 12 touched him inappropriately, all she did was 13 basically give him massages; that-., in this 14 instance, as well as all the other girls that 15 she took, she spoke with them afterwards, they 16 begged to go back to Mr. Epstein's home, and 17 none of them, not one of them ever complained. 18 So there's a large chasm between what is 19 now being asserted in Answers to Interrogatories 20 and mere allegations in the complaint between 21 what the sworn testimony, at least L.M., was 22 under the circumstances, as it relates to 23 herself and what she was told by M. and other 24 girls. 25 Thank you, Your Honor. 22 1 me. They begged me, you know, for us to go to 2 Jeffrey's house because they loved Jeffrey. 3 Jeffrey Is a respectful man, he really is. I 4 mean, he all thought we were of age, always, • that's what's so sad about it." 6 And she goes on, Page 36, and the FBI says 7 to her, 'Now, when you were working for him, you • were going over to Jeffrey's house to give him 9 massages, did you have a boyfriend?" 10 "Yeah.' 11 "And how did your boyfriend feel about 12 it?' 13 "He was' — L.M. says, 'He was a jealous 14 little boy, but he didn't care, 'Bring home the 15 bacon,'" and the statement goes on and on, Your 16 Honor. I know you've had an opportunity road it 17 before and I reference again today. 18 There's clearly a distinction conflict 19 between L.M., now that she has a civil lawyer 20 and she wants money, versus at the time that she 21 didn't want money and she gave a statement under 22 oath to the FBI and the United States attorney's 23 office. 24 I recognize the Court's role In this. I 25 recognize the standard. I recognize that both 24 1 THE COURT: Thank you. 2 Mr. Edwards, Ill give you a couple 3 minutes here. 4 MR. EDWARDS: Your Honor, I want to 5 address the statement that was made by L.M. to 6 the FBI and how that even came about. This Is a 7 girl who, at the time of the statement, was 8 fairly unaware of the investigation against Mr. 9 Epstein, who is now, as we know, a convicted sex 10 offender. 11 An attomey showed up to her house, paid 12 for by Mr. Epstein, to represent her despite - 13 and told her that, 'For your role, you could 14 possibly be Implicated in some wrongdoing.' 15 MR. CRITTON: Your Honor, just — 16 MR. EDWARDS: He represent -- 17 MR. CRITTON: — note my objection. This 18 Is complete hearsay here. He was aware of what 19 was filed. He didn't file any affidavits for 20 his client in opposition. I would object to any 21 of this. 22 THE COURT: Alright. I don't want to get 23 into any of the details. I don't think it's 24 necessary at this juncture, which probably leads 25 me to my question to you; that is: is the 410 ESQUIRE .0 Monsen Cialle Company Toll Free: Facsimile: Suite 1300 515 East Las Olas Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 EFTA01099405 Proceedings (July it, 2vu9 25 27 1 weighing of evidence appropriate at this 2 juncture? 3 MR. EDWARDS: No, Your Honor, I don't 4 believe that's the standard at this stage 5 anyway, and I don't think that Mr. Critton 6 believes that either. 7 Just so the record's clear, we had nothing 8 to do with the video camera being here, although 9 that was implied. I don't know who did. I 10 don't know if it was Mr. Critton, but it wasn't 11 me. 12 THE COURT: Dan is always welcome here. 13 MR. EDWARDS: It's perfectly fine, but I 14 don't like that being on the record, that it 15 looks like I did it when I didn't. 16 THE COURT: I understand. We have a 17 record hero. The official record is being taken 18 down by our fine court reporter, so. 19 MR. EDWARDS: Either way, sounds like what 20 we just heard, that the reason that punitive 21 should not be allowed here is because these 22 14-year-old girls did this willingly. 23 We know that they're 14 years old, Mr. 24 Griffon knows they were 14, 15 year olds. There 25 were message pads and scheduling books in 1 The Court finds that, while I appreciate 2 Mr. Critton's argument and while I appreciate 3 his submission, that essentially at this stage, 4 respectfully, he is, at this point, presenting 5 countervailing evidentiary submissions. 6 The Court further goes on in paraphrasing 7 and then directly quoting Judge Hugler: 8 'Therefore a proffer is merely a representation 9 of what evidence the defendant proposes to 10 present and is not actual evidence." Actually, 11 that's a quote from Grim vs. State, 841 So.2d. 12 455, 462, and that, I believe, is a Florida 13 Supreme Court case, even though the citation 14 itself is not complete. 15 It goes on to say importantly • and that 16 Is in the Despain case • "A reasonable showing 17 by evidence in the record would typically 18 include depositions, interrogatories, and 19 requests for admissions that have been filed 20 with the court. Hence, an evidentiary hearing 21 where witnesses testify and evidence is offered 22 and scrutinized under the pertinent evidentiary 23 rules, as in a trial, is neither contemplated 24 nor mandated by the statute in order to 25 determine whether a reasonable basis has been 26 1 Epsteln's possession indicating the dates, which 2 would show how old those girls were, and that's 3 evidence that will be presented in this case. 4 There are serious statutes to protect • these kids from this kind of conduct, and these 6 second and third degree felonies were committed 7 repeatedly against them, and this is a case ▪ where, at least in a civil case, punitive 9 damages are warranted, Your Honor. 10 Thank you, Your Honor. 11 THE COURT: Thank you both. I'm going to 12 grant the motion. In conformance with and 13 II:glowing the Despain case, the Court indicates, 14 in following the analysis of Judge Hugler - and, 15 by the way, that analysis of Judge Hugler is 16 commented upon on a supportive basis by several 17 appellate courts - and in the Despain case under 18 headnole 7 and 8 on Page 642 it states: "a 19 'proffer' according to traditional notions of 20 the term, connotes merely an 'offer' of evidence 21 and neither the term standing alone nor the 22 statute itself calls for an adjudication of the 23 underlying veracity of that which is submitted, 24 much less for countervailing evidentiary 25 submissions.' 28 1 established to plead punitive damages," and 2 admit this citation from the Fifth District 3 Court of Appeal, but, again, that is cited in 4 Despain. 5 Likewise, in Strasser vs. Yalamanchi, 677 6 So.2d. 22, which is a Florida Fourth District 7 Court of Appeal case from 1996, which is one of 8 the paradigm cases on the proffering of punitive 9 damage evidence, that states that "there was 10 reasonable basis for recovery of punitive 11 damages' can be demonstrated by either a 12 presentation of supporting evidence already in 13 the record or by a proffer of the evidence to 14 come. 15 I find that a combination of the Answers 16 to Interrogatories - I will take into account, 17 though, give little weight to the Fifth 18 Amendment arguments of Plaintiffs - but 19 certainly the Answers to Interrogatories on 20 behalf of both of these individual Plaintiffs in 21 this Courts view, and particularly in 22 conjunction with the Coercion statute relative 23 to prostitution, 796.09, would form a reasonable 24 basis to establish al least a claim for punitive 25 damages, recognizing that, again, the courts ESQUIRE as ANutioderGallet•••••7 Toll Free: Facsimile: Suite 1300 51S East Las Olas Boulevard EFTA01099406 Proceedings July 31, 2009 29 31 1 have made clear that the proffer and the burden 1 CERTIFICATE 2 on the moving party is much less than at summary 2 3 judgment or at trial, so I will allow the 3 STATE OF FLORIDA ) 4 amendments to proceed and, therefore, we do have 4 COUNTY OF BROWARD ) 5 an amended complaint, so how much time will you s 6 need, Mr. Griffon, to respond? 6 7 MR. CRITTON: I just wrote to Mr. Berger 7 I, JENNIFER D. DiLORENZO, Shorthand e 20 days I would like for both of them, if that's a Reporter, certify that I was authorized to and did 9 agreeable with the Court. 9 stenographically report the foregoing proceedings and to THE COURT: Fine with me, as long as li's 10 that the transcript is a true and complete record of 11 fine with the Plaintiffs. 12 my stenographic notes. 12 12 MR. BERGER: Yes, Your Honor. I dratted 13 Dated this 5th day of August, 2009. 13 an order and just showed it to Mr. Critton. II 14 14 just says: "Granted for reasons staled on the 15 15 record. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint 16 16 to allege a count for battery' - which is also 17 17 part of our motion, which was unopposed - 'and 18 18 punitive damages. The defense shall have 20 19 JENNIFER D. DiLORENZO, 19 days lo respond' COURT REPORTER 20 THE COURT: I believe you already filed 20 21 the proposed amended con-plaint. 21 22 MR. EDWARDS: Yes, Your Honor. I filed It 22 23 with the motion. 23 24 MR. BERGER: I'll correct that. 24 25 THE COURT: You can indicate in there -- 25 30 1 MR. CRITTON: Deemed filed. 2 THE COURT: — 'the amended complaint 3 shall be deemed filed as of the date of this 4 order from today." s MR. BERGER: We'll draft it out there and 6 present it to the bailiff. 7 THE COURT: Not a problem. Thank you very e much. Gentlemen, thank you for your arguments 9 and your submissions and have a good rest of the 10 week. 11 MR. CRITTON: If they gel it typed I'll 12 take a copy. 13 (The hearing concluded at 9:05 ■.) 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ESQUIB.t.E Toll Free: Facsimile: Suite 1300 515 East Las Olas Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 EFTA01099407 Edwards' Response EFTA01099408 05/11/2010 15:49 FAX 6616845816 SEARCY DENNEY IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff, vs. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, and L.M., individually, Defendant. NOTICE OF SERVICE OF DEFENDANT EDWARDS'S ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGATORIES Defendant, Bradley Edwards hereby files his Notice of Service of Defendant's Answers to Plaintiff's First interrogatories propounded on April 5, 2010. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been 117-- furnished via eft Mail to all counsel on the attached list on May /I 2010. Jack Scarola Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. Attorneys for Defendant, Bradley Edwards 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm = - = 'nda 33409 Phone: 0 Fax: (5 By: EFTA01099409 05/11/2010 15:50 FAX 5616845816 SEARCY DENNEY Q1002 Case No.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG Defendant's Answers to Interrogatories COUNSEL LIST Robert D. Critton, Jr., Esquire Michael J. Pike, Esquire Burman, Critton, Luther & Coleman LLP 303 Banyan Boulevard, Suite 400 West Palm 33401 Pho Fax: Attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein Jack Goldberger Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1400 West Palm 33401 Pho Fax: Attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein Gary M. Farmer, Jr. Farmer, Jaffe, Wei g, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, M. 425 N. Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort La 301 Phone• Fax: Attorneys for L.M. Marc Nurik Law Offices of Marc S. Nurik One East Broward Boulevard, Suite 700 Fort Lauderd Phone: Fax: Counsel for Scott Rothstein 2 EFTA01099410 05/11/2010 15:50 FAX 5616845810 SEARCY DENNEY V3003 ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES 1. As to paragraph 12 of your Counterclaim, state the following in detail: a) Identify specifically all damages which you claim you have suffered to your reputation. Include in your response, how your reputation has been damaged, to whom (person or entity) your reputation has been damaged, any loss of income which you claim as a result of the current lawsuit against you and how you calculate that loss. ANSWER: I have spent more than 50 hours of time defending this action against me. The lawsuit against me was made public and makes serious allegations that I have personally committed criminal acts that involve dishonesty. I have been asked about this lawsuit by a number of people on multiple of occasions. Current clients have inquired and prospective clients have been and continue to be placed on notice of these false allegations. b) Identify In detail how the lawsuit filed against you has interfered in any professional relationships. Identify In your answer all professional relationships which have in any way been negatively Impacted or lost or compromised as a result of this lawsuit. Identify the name and address of the individual and/or entity with whom you have the professional relationship, how it has been affected and Identify any monetary damage which you sustained. ANSWER: Not yet completely determined at this time. c) Identify by date the exact amount of time (and specify how your time was spent) that has been diverted from your professional responsibilities. ANSWER: Not yet completely determined at this time. 2. (a) Identify all costs and/or fees you have incurred (to whom and under what circumstances) for the defense of the Epstein claim as set forth in paragraph 12 of your Counterclaim. ANSWER: 3 EFTA01099411 05/11/2010 15:51 FAX 5616845816 SEARCY DENNEY Q004 Not yet completely determined at this time. (b) State whether you have a written or oral fee agreement with Seamy Denney and the terms of same. Include amount of money paid to date and if you paid a retainer. ANSWER: Written. 3. During the time you were associated with Rothstein, Rosenfeldt & Adler, PA. ("RRA"), state the following: a) Identify by person and date any person who performed any searches of trash at 358 El Brillo Way, Palm Beach, Florida which is alleged to be the home of Mr. Epstein which were authorized by you or which you learned had taken place, if not authorized by you. If not authorized by you, identify who did authorize it? ANSWER: Nobody. ANSWER: Nobody. b) Identify all individuals at the RRA including but not limited to any one of its attorneys or Investigators or anyone retained by or working for RRA or Its attorneys or investigators who conducted wire taps or 'bugging" on any telephones which purported to be from the home of Mr. Epstein. Include who authorized the wire taps and dates it took place. c) Identify all individuals at the RRA including but not limited to any one of its attorneys or Investigators or anyone retained by or working for RRA or its attorneys or investigators who conducted wire taps or 4 EFTA01099412 05/11/2010 15:51 FAX 5616845818 SEARCY DENNEY oos 'bugging" on any telephones which are purported to be from the attorneys for Mr. Epstein Including but not limited to: Roy Black, Alan Dershowltz or Jack Goldberger. Include who authorized the wire taps and dates It took place. ANSWER: Nobody. d) identify all intercepted phone conversations authorized by RRA including but not limited to any one of its attorneys or investigators or anyone retained by or working for RRA or its attorneys or Investigators and/or RRA investigators; identify the date, the source of the call, who conducted the intercepted telephone conversations and whether a tape and/or transcript exist of such conversations. ANSWER: Nobody e) Identify all intercepted cell phone conversations authorized by RRA Including but not limited to any one of its attorneys or Investigators or anyone retained by or working for RRA or its attorneys or investigators and/or RRA Investigators; Identify the date, the source of the call, who conducted the Intercepted cell phone conversations and whether a tape and/or transcript exist of such conversations. ANSWER: Nobody f) Identify all individuals at the RRA Including but not limited to any one of its attorneys or investigators or anyone retained by or working for RRA or Its attorneys or investigators who intercepted or acquired electronic mail (e-malls) to and from the home of Mr. Epstein. Include who authorized the Interception and acquisition and dates it took place. ANSWER: Nobody 6 EFTA01099413 05/11/2010 16:62 FAX 5016845816 SEARCY DENNEY 1006 g) Identify all individuals at the RRA including but not limited to any one of its attorneys or investigators or anyone retained by or working for RRA or its attorneys or investigators who intercepted or acquired electronic mail (e-mails) to and from the attorneys for Mr. Epstein including but not limited to: Roy Black, Alan Dershowitz or Jack Goldberger. Include who authorized the interception and acquisition and dates it took place. ANSWER: Nobody 4. Identify the names end addresses of all individuals who will testify that a sexual assault took place on an airplane purportedly owned by Mr. Epstein or a Jeffrey Epstein entity at any time between 1998 and 2005. Additionally, identify any alleged celebrity, dignitary or international figure who purportedly was on board the airplane at the time of the alleged sexual assault. RESPONSE: Objection, relevance, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is protected by the work product privilege. 5. Identify in detail the amount of all costs (Including photocopies, telephone, fax, research, investigation, travel expenses, deposition related costs, expert costs, etc.) that were incurred by you in tirpresentation of you and/or your law firm in representing Jane Doe, L.M. and prior to joining RRA. RESPONSE: Objection, relevance, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is protected by the work product privilege. 6. Identify in detail the amount of costs (including photocopies, telephone, fax, research, investigation, travel expenses, deposition related costs, expert co tc.) that were incurred by RRA in its representation of Jane Doe, L.M. and during the time you were emoloved by RRA (or that is beino claimed by e trustee in bankruptcy for RRA). Segregate by each of your 3 clients. RESPONSE: Objection, relevance, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is protected by the work product privilege. 6 EFTA01099414 05/11/2010 15:52 FAX 5616845816 SEARCY DENNEY I21007 7. In the attached transcript dated July 31, 2009, you stated to Judge Hafele with regard to the.. and L.M. cases the following: 'What the evidence is really going to show is that Mr. Epstein — at least dating back as far as our investigation resources have permitted, back to 1997 or '98 — has every single day of his life, made an attempt to sexually abuse children. We're not talking about five, we're not talking about 20, we're not talking about 100, we're not talking about 400, which I believe, is the number known to law enforcement, we are talking about thousands of children, and it Is through a very intricate and complicated system that he devised where he has as many as 20 people working underneath him that he is paying well to schedule these appointments, to locate these girls.' (A) State all evidence to support this assertion including any individuals and/or documents which are the source of the information and identify by name and address who currently has that information. (B) List the name and addresses of all females to whom you were referring In your representation to the court. RESPONSE: Objection, relevance, work product privilege and attorney client privilege. 8. During the time you were employed/associated with RRA, state the names of all attorneys at the RRA firm with whom you discussed potential de ants or who participated In any decision to depose witnesses In the Jane Doe, L.M. or M. cases. RESPONSE: Objection, work product privilege and attorney client privilege. 9. During the time you were employed/associated with RRA, state the names of all paralegals or investigators at the RRA firm with whom you discussed potential depone r who participated in any decision to depose witnesses in the Jane Doe, L.M. or cases. RESPONSE: Objection, work product privilege and attorney client privilege. 7 EFTA01099415 iscovery Request to Edwards (Response will be provided as soon as we locate it.) EFTA01099416 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA JEFFREY EPSTEIN Plaintiff, v. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, and L.M., individually, Defendants. Complex Litigation, Fla. R. Civ. Pro.1201 Case No. 50 2009CA040800XXXXMB AG EPSTEIN'S REQUEST TO PRODUCE TO EDWARDS Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN ("Epstein"), pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.350, requests that Defendant, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS ("Edwards"), produce or make available for inspection documents responsive to the requests below within thirty (30) days from the date of service: DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS A. "Document" means any written or graphic matter or other means of preserving thought or expression, and all tangible things from which information can be processed or transcribed, including the originals and all non-identical copies, whether different from the original by reason of any notation made on such copy or otherwise, including, but not limited to, correspondence, memoranda, notes, messages, letters, purchase orders, telegrams, teletype, telefax bulletins, e-mails, electronic data, meetings, reports, or other communications, interoffice and intra-office telephone calls, diaries, chronological data, minutes, books, reports, charts, ledgers, invoices, worksheets, receipts, returns, trade information regarding fabric, carpets, samples EFTA01099417 etc..., computer printouts, prospectuses, financial statements, schedules, affidavits, contracts, cancelled checks, transcripts, statistics, surveys, magazine or newspaper articles, releases (and any and all drafts, alterations and modifications, changes and amendments of any of the foregoing), graphs or aural records or representations of any kind, including, without limitation, photographs, charts, graphs, microfiche, microfilm, video tape, recordings, motion pictures and electronic, mechanical or electric recordings or representations of any kind (including, without limitation, tapes, cassettes, discs and recordings), and including the file and file cover. The term "Document" also means any and all computer records, data, files, directories, electronic mail, and information of whatever kind whether printed out or stored on or retrievable from floppy diskette, compact diskette, magnetic tape, optical or magnetic-optical disk, computer memory, hard drive, zip drive, jaz drive, orb drive, microdisk, external memory stick, software, or any other fixed or removable storage media, including without limitation, all back-up copies, dormant or remnant files, and any and all miscellaneous files and/or file fragments, regardless of the media on which they reside and regardless of whether the data consists in an active file, deleted file, or file fragment. B. "Communications" means any oral or written statement, dialogue, colloquialism, discussion, conversation or agreement. C. "Plaintiff' means L.M. (L.M. v. Jeffrey Epstein, Palm Beach County Case #502008CA028051)CCXXMB), . (M. v. Jeffrey Epstein, Palm Beach County Case #502008CA028058XXXXMB), Jane Doe (Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein, United States District Court Case #08-civ-80893-Marra/Johnson), and any other person who is or was represented by Rothstein Rosenfeldt & Adler that has not 2 EFTA01099418 yet filed an action against Jeffrey Epstein, and any employee, agent or attorney for any plaintiff and/or any other person acting for or on behalf of any plaintiff, or under her authority and control. D. "RRA" means Rothstein Rosenfeldt & Adler, P.A. E. "Money" means any tangible thing of value. F. "Costs" include, but are not limited to, court costs, filing fees, Sheriffs service and any other necessary service of legal papers or notices or subpoenas, court reporters' charges, long distance telephone charges, postage, courier services or Federal Express or UPS, investigative costs, investigative bills, photocopies, faxes, Westlaw computerized research, travel expenses, and witness fees and expert witness fees and costs. G. "Trustee" means Herbert Stettin as bankruptcy trustee for RRA. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION.' 1. For the time period from March 1, 2009 to present, any and all documents between, or on behalf of RRA, its employees or agents or clients, and any third party regarding a purported settlement of any litigation between Jeffrey Epstein and a RRA client or Plaintiff, or the financing of any litigation between Jeffrey Epstein and a RRA client or Plaintiff, (whether existing clients or fabricated clients), including but not limited to: a. Documents indicating that litigation with Jeffrey Epstein has been settled; b. Soliciting or receiving money in return for settlement funds allegedly paid or to be paid by Jeffrey Epstein; c. Soliciting money to help finance ongoing litigation against Jeffrey Epstein; d. Soliciting money to be given to, or used on behalf of, the Plaintiffs in litigation against Jeffrey Epstein; e. Communication between third party investors or potential investors and the Plaintiffs or their attorneys involved in litigation against 1 Due to the potential volume of documents involved, the parties and the Court should consider appointment of a special master andror an in camera inspection to address any objections, claims of privilege and generally manage the production of documents. 3 EFTA01099419 Jeffrey Epstein; f. Payments made by RRA to or on behalf of any Plaintiff. 2. Any and all fee agreements that exist or have existed between the following: a. Any Plaintiff and Bradley J. Edwards or any entity with which he has been associated; b. Any Plaintiff and the law firm RRA. 3. All emails, data, correspondence, memos, or similar documents between Bradley J. Edwards, Scott W. Rothstein, William Berger and Russell Adler and/or any attorney or representative of RRA and any investor or third party (person or entity) regarding Jeffrey Epstein or which mentions Jeffrey Epstein (including Mike Fisten, Kenneth Jenne, Patrick Roberts or Rick (Rich) Fandrey). 4. All emails, data, correspondence, memos, or similar documents between Bradley J. Edwards, Scott W. Rothstein, and/or any attorney or representative of RRA regarding Jeffrey Epstein or which mentions Jeffrey Epstein (including Mike Fisten, Kenneth Jenne, Patrick Roberts or Rick (Rich) Fandrey). 5. All agreements or documents of any nature which were provided to or received from an investor or potential investor relating to any case (real or fabricated) involving Jeffrey Epstein and any of the following: a. Scott W. Rothstein b. Bradley J. Edwards c. RRA e. any entity formed by RRA or Bradley J. Edwards or Scott W. Rothstein to create investment opportunities for third party investors to invest in any plaintiffs case against Jeffrey Epstein 6. All fee sharing agreements between Bradley J. Edwards, RRA, or Scott W. Rothstein and/or any other attorney or investor relating to any aspect of any Plaintiffs case. 7. All documents made available to any investor or potential investor by Bradley J. Edwards, RRA, Scott W. Rothstein or any of Scott W. Rothstein's entities to solicit "investors" for any case involving Jeffrey Epstein. 8. All document reflecting the names and addresses of all individuals or entities who invested or purported to invest in any aspect of any case against Jeffrey Epstein. 9. All documents evidencing the Costs and payment of any bill or Costs in each Plaintiffs case against Jeffrey Epstein, and the source(s) for said payments of any Costs. 4 EFTA01099420 10. All documents received by you or your current firm wherein the Trustee of RRA has asserted a lien for attorney's fees or Costs arising out of work done and Costs incurred related to the Plaintiffs' cases during the time Plaintiffs' were represented by RRA. 11. All documents and tangible things retrieved from the trash at 358 El Brillo Way, Palm Beach, Florida which is alleged to be the home of Jeffrey Epstein. 12. All conversations recorded from any telephones which purported to be that of Jeffrey Epstein that are contained in any media (audio tapes, CDs, DVDs, zip drives, hard drives or any other electronic format and any written transcriptions). 13. All conversations recorded from any telephones which purported to be from Jeffrey Epstein's attorneys including Roy Black, Alan Dershowitz or Jack Goldberger, that are contained in any media (audio tapes, CDs, DVDs, zip drives, hard drives or any other electronic format and any written transcriptions). 14. All intercepted phone conversations authorized by RRA including but not limited to any one of its attorneys or investigators or anyone retained by or working for RRA related to Jeffrey Epstein that are saved or stored in any media (audio tapes, CDs, DVDs, zip drives, hard drives or any other electronic format and any written transcriptions). 15. All intercepted or acquired electronic mail (e-mails) to or from Jeffrey Epstein authorized by RRA including but not limited to any one of its attorneys or investigators or anyone retained by or working for RRA. 16. All intercepted or acquired electronic mail (e-mails) to and from the attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein including but not limited to: Roy Black, Alan Dershowitz or Jack Goldberger, authorized by RRA including but not limited to any one of its attorneys or investigators or anyone retained by or working for RRA. 17. All documents supporting the contention that a sexual assault took place on an airplane purportedly owned by Jeffrey Epstein or a Jeffrey Epstein entity at any time between 1998 and 2005. 18. All documents related to the amount of all Costs that were incurred by you igjbe representation of you and/or your law firm in representing Jane Doe, L.M. and prior to joining RRA. 19. All documents setting forth to amount of Costs were incurred by RRA in its representation of Jane Doe, L.M. and M. during the time you were employed by RRA (or that is being claimed by the Trustee). 20. In the attached transcript dated July 31, 2009, you stated to Judge Hafele with regard to the M. and L.M. cases the following: 5 EFTA01099421 "What the evidence is really going to show is that Mr. Epstein — at least dating back as far as our investigation resources have permitted, back to 1997 or '98 — has every single day of his life, made an attempt to sexually abuse children. We're not talking about five, we're not talking about 20, we're not talking about 100, we're not talking about 400, which I believe, is the number known to law enforcement, we are talking about thousands of children, and it is through a very intricate and complicated system that he devised where he has as many as 20 people working underneath him that he is paying well to schedule these appointments, to locate these girls." (A) Provide all documents to support this assertion including any documents which are the source of the information. 21. lAl ll documents related to or mentioning potential deponents in the Jane Doe, L.M. or . cases. 22. All documents that support your claim of damages in your counterclaim in this case. 23. The written fee agreement with the Searcy Denney firm for their representation of you in this case. 24. All emails exchanged between you (or anyone of your behalf) and one or more of the following individuals wherein Epstein, a Palm Beach billionaire or a similar reference was mentioned: a. Scott Rothstein b. Russell Adler c. William Berger d. Michael Fisten e. Kenneth Jenne f. David Boden g. Deborah Villegas h. Andrew Barnett i. Patrick Roberts j. Richard (Rick) Fandrey k. Christina Kitterman. 25. A copy of your RRA business card. 26. Any employment agreements, letter agreements or memos given to you by RRA or a representative or agent of RRA describing your compensation and benefits at RRA. 6 EFTA01099422 27. All documents and communications from Herbert Stettin, as bankruptcy Trustee for RRA, asserting liens against recoveries in: a. b. c. L.M. v. Epstein, Case No. 502008CA028051XXXXMB . v. Epstein, Case No. 502008CA028058XXXXMB Jane Doe v. Epstein, Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON Certificate of Service I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was sent by fax and Mail to the following addressees on this 12th day of April , 2010: Gary M. Farmer, Jr., Esq. Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, PL 425 N. Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 - fax Attorneys for Defendant, L.M. Jack Scarola, Esq. Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart Shipley, P.A 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd. West Palm Beach, FL 33409 686-6300 383-9424 F Attorneys for Defendant Bradley Edwards U.S. Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1400 West Palm Beach FL 33401-5012 Fax: Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein MARC S. NURIK, ESQ. & Law Offices of Marc S. Nurik One East Broward Boulevard Suite 700 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Fax Attorneys for Defendant Scott Rothstein BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN, LLP 303 Banyan Boulevard Suite 400 West Pal 33401 (561) 84 (561) B Ro► D. ritton, Jr. Florida Bar #224162 Michael J. Pike Florida Bar #617296 (Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) 7 EFTA01099423