DS9 Document EFTA01102379

1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15th JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO. 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, - Vs- SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, INDIVIDUALLY, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, INDIVIDUALLY, Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs. / TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING PROCEEDINGS VOLUME 1 (Pages 1 - 25) ORIGINAL DATE TAKEN: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 TIME: 8:51 a.m. PLACE: Palm Beach County Courthouse 205 N. Dixie Highway Courtroom 9C West Palm Beach, FL 33401 BEFORE: Donald W. Hafele, Circuit Judge This cause came on to be heard at the time and place aforesaid, when and where the following proceedings were stenographically reported by: Nancy Cannizzaro, RPR www.phippsreporting.com EFTA01102379 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 APPEARANCES: On behalf of the Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant: LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM CHESTER BREWER, JR. 250 S. Australian Avenue Suite 1400 Sear PAlm Reach, Florida 33401 BY: WILLIAM CHESTER BREWER, JR., ESQUIRE TONJA HADDAD, P.A. 315 SE 7th Street Suite 301 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 BY: TONJA HADDAD COLEMAN, ESQUIRE I II On behalf of the Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Bradley J. Edwards: SEARCY, DENNEY, SCAROLA, BARNHART & SHIPLEY, P.A. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Reach, Florida 33409 BY: JACK SCAROLA, ESQUIRE www.phippsreporting.com EFTA01102380 3 1 Thereupon, 2 the following proceedings began at 8:51 a.m.: 3 THE COURT: Epstein and Rothstein. How are 4 you doing, gentlemen? 5 MR. SCAROLA: Good morning, Your Honor. 6 MR. BREWER: Well. Thank you. 7 Good morning, Your Honor. 8 THE COURT: Okay. I looked at this. I'm 9 not necessarily sure where the conflicts lie, so 10 let me know where we are, please. 11 MR. SCAROLA: Your Honor, let me call the 12 Court's attention to paragraph 1 of the joint 13 discovery schedule. And if Your Honor takes a 14 look at that paragraph, the scope of the 15 disclosure to be made by the defendant is the 16 issue that Your Honor needs to resolve. 17 THE COURT: You're speaking about an order 18 to try to prove up the time spent by Epstein's 19 attorney if they want to see the records of time 20 spent by Mr. Edwards' attorney? 21 MR. SCAROLA: No, sir. That is -- that is 22 a usual issue being presented to the Court, but 23 that's not the issue here. 24 THE COURT: Okay. 25 MR. SCAROLA: These fees are being sought www.phippsreporting.com EFTA01102381 I 4 1 pursuant to a proposal for settlement. 2 THE COURT: Right. I understand. 3 MR. SCAROLA: And obviously, that proposal 4 for settlement triggers the entitlement to fee 5 recovery. That is the date of the filing. It is 6 the defendant's position that they should only be 7 obliged to disclose records that relate to time 8 expended subsequent to that date. 9 THE COURT: Now, you're saying the 10 defendant's position. Are you talking about 11 Epstein or are you talking about -- 12 MR. BREWER: The counter-defendant. 13 MR. SCAROLA: I'm talking about Jeffrey 14 Epstein, Your Honor, yes. 15 THE COURT: Okay. Epstein was the 16 counter-defendant. 17 MR. SCAROLA: That is correct. 18 THE COURT: Okay. 19 MR. SCAROLA: And the counter-defendant's 20 position is they should only have to disclose time 21 records from the date of the filing of the 22 proposal for settlement. 23 Our position is that we are entitled to see 24 earlier time records in order to make the 25 determination as to whether services rendered www.phippsreporting.com EFTA01102382 5 1 subsequent to the filing of the proposal were 2 duplicative of services that were filed before the 3 proposal for settlement. 4 Your Honor may recall that there have been 5 a large number of lawyers involved in representing 6 Mr. Epstein in this proceeding. If services were 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Mr. Scarola is correct, there have been a 18 number of different law firms involved. Our 19 position is that we are only entitled to claim 20 time from the effective date of the proposal of 21 settlement until Your Honor entered an order on 22 entitlement. In other words, once entitlement has 23 been determined, you're no longer allowed to claim 24 fees or hours. We have got that -- before the 25 proposal for settlement was filed, there was one in fact rendered prior to the proposal for settlement, they ought not to be entitled to recover for duplicate of services rendered after the filing of the proposal. The only way I know that is by getting to look at those time records. THE COURT: Thank you. I understand the issues. Mr. Brewer. MR. BREWER: Thank you, Your Honor. Chester Brewer on behalf of Jeffrey Epstein. www.phippsreporting.com EFTA01102383 I 6 1 law firm involved, Bob Critton's firm. 2 THE COURT: Okay. 3 MR. BREWER: This is a 2009 case. They 4 were involved for roughly two years. They 5 withdrew. They withdrew over a year before the 6 proposal for settlement was made. 7 THE COURT: Okay. 8 MR. BREWER: Then comes then Fowler 9 White comes in, primarily Mr. Ackerman, and they 10 are on the case for 16 months before the proposal 11 for settlement was made. The way this is worded, 12 by the way, this is all records. And if you say 13 "all records," you're talking about those law 14 firms -- well, certainly Mr. Critton's law firm, 15 but you're also talking about -- for services 16 rendered, we're talking about -- we've got an 17 active appeal going on and there are time records 18 related to that appeal which we don't think we 19 should be forced to reveal at this point. 20 They're asking for records for which we are 21 not claiming time. This is -- it's really almost 22 in the form of a request for production. If -- 23 24 25 THE COURT: The only issue that I'm not understanding, that is pending right now on this particular matter, is the issue concerning time www.phippsreporting.com EFTA01102384 I 7 1 records prior to the offer of -- proposal for 2 settlement, right? 3 MR. BREWER: Yes, sir. 4 MR. SCAROLA: We are not seeking 5 post-entitlement time records, Your Honor. That's 6 not the issue. 7 THE COURT: That's what I was trying to 8 narrow. 9 MR. BREWER: Okay. 10 THE COURT: All right. 11 MR. BREWER: So let me continue on then, 12 Your Honor. 13 THE COURT: Briefly. 14 MR. BREWER: Briefly. They are requesting 15 records for time that we are not claiming. 16 Ordinarily, attorney's fee records are to be 17 protected. They can be obtained upon a showing 18 of -- what is the word? I've forgotten for a 19 second -- compelling need and no ability to obtain 20 the equivalent through less invasive or involved 21 methods. 22 THE COURT: Mr. Ackerman was the one who 23 filed the proposal, correct? 24 MR. BREWER: That is correct. 25 THE COURT: All right. www.phippsreportin .com EFTA01102385 I 8 1 MR. BREWER: So they can ask he's going 2 to take -- I'm sure he's going to take Joe 3 Ackerman's deposition. He's going to take 4 everybody's deposition. 5 He can ask Joe Ackerman: "Did you 6 duplicate any time that was prior to the proposal 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 voluntarily agreed to do this. We're going to 15 provide all the time records in the operative 16 period from the effective date of the proposal to 17 the entitlement order. 18 THE COURT: Okay. Let me last hear from 19 Mr. Scarola on the issue. 20 MR. SCAROLA: Yes. Thank you very much, 21 Your Honor. 22 Your Honor, lawyers who were no longer 23 involved in the case subsequent to the filing of 24 the proposal for settlement are not in a position 25 to be able to say whether their successors for settlement?" Joe Ackerman is not going to be dishonest from the standpoint of one or two or three or four or five hours of potentially duplicative time. Certainly, Critton is out of the picture for over a year before the proposal for settlement is made. And our position is we should be -- and we www.phippsreporting.com EFTA01102386 I 9 1 duplicated efforts in which they were involved. 2 Even if they were in a position to say 3 that -- and obviously they can't; they don't know 4 what was done after they got out of the case. 5 Even if they were in a position to address that by 6 way of testimony, I'm not limited to what their 7 recollection is or what their opinion is. I'm 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 or her client. And in a sensitive matter such as 16 this, I would think that that privacy issue may be 17 heightened in light of what may be on the bill and 18 what the reasons for the billing may be. 19 I recognize the concerns over duplication. 20 The Court has to make a determination of 21 reasonableness of attorneys' fees, which I believe 22 legitimately can be called into question if there 23 are duplications involved. So we do have that 24 tension between privacy and a disclosure issue and 25 entitled to see the records of the services that were rendered in order to make that determination. THE COURT: Do you have any cases or case law that would support your position in this regard? Because there is a certain degree of privacy associated with bills that are forwarded to an attorney -- forwarded by an attorney to his the need to determine what is reasonable, and as www.phippsreporting.com EFTA01102387 10 1 part of that analysis would include whether or not 2 there are duplicates of entries. 3 MR. SCAROLA: May I address that concern, 4 Your Honor? 5 THE COURT: I would like you to address not 6 so much your argument, because while I appreciate 7 both side's positions, they have equal merit, I 8 would like to see a case that goes either way as 9 it relates to attorneys' fees, billing, prior to 10 the offer or proposal for settlement. 11 I see a lot of attorneys' fees cases, as 12 you can imagine, and I haven't seen this issue 13 come up, to my recollection. 14 MR. SCAROLA: Nor have I, sir. And quite 15 frankly, I think it's unlikely that we are going 16 to find an analogous situation described in 17 reported cases. 18 But the concerns that Your Honor is 19 expressing are concerns that are not addressed by 20 way of a blanket prohibition of the discovery. 21 Those concerns are addressed by providing redacted 22 records if in fact there is a matter of concern 23 that relates to the kinds of privacy issues that 24 Your Honor has recognized potentially could exist. 25 So you redact those out, you provide us www.phippsreporting.com EFTA01102388 I 11 1 with a privilege log, and we have an opportunity 2 to challenge the redaction, if in fact the 3 redaction is appropriate. But the privacy 4 concerns are largely waived by virtue of the 5 application that is being made. 6 So once they come into court and they say 7 "we want to be reimbursed" for what I anticipate 8 are going to be probably hundreds of thousands of 9 dollars in fees, given the size of Mr. Epstein's 10 legal team, we're entitled to defend against that. 11 So, respectfully, I suggest to Your Honor 12 that while I'm more than happy to undertake an 13 effort to try to find case law, I don't think 14 we're going to find it. But the way to address 15 the Court's concerns is produce the records, 16 produce them in redacted form, if necessary, 17 provide a privilege log. 18 THE COURT: Mr. Brewer. 19 MR. BREWER: Yes, sir. 20 I also searched for a case that would be to 21 this specific issue and could not find one. 22 Doesn't mean it's out there, but I couldn't find 23 one. 24 There is, however, a case that Mr. Scarola 25 pointed out to me when I was asking for his time www.p innsrenortin .com EFTA01102389 12 1 records. It's a Fourth District Court of Appeals 2 case. I don't remember the name of it. But the 3 Fourth District sort of overturned what we had all 4 thought to be the case, which was if you object -- 5 if the non-moving party objects, then you can 6 force them to turn over their time records so you 7 can compare the two from the standpoint of what's 8 reasonable or not. 9 The Fourth District Court of Appeals found, 10 no, you've got to show a compelling need and an 11 inability to obtain that in another fashion, and 12 turned over the lower court's ruling that said 13 that the, in this case, non-moving party had to 14 turn over their records. 15 I think we're in somewhat of an analogous 16 situation because we're not claiming the time 17 prior to the time that we filed the proposal. 18 THE COURT: Well, many times, those 19 decisions are based upon the skills of appellate 20 21 22 23 24 25 counsel and trial counsel, and the skills and knowledge associated with them, as well as the panel of district court of appeal judges who are making the ultimate decision. I'm going to make the following ruling: And that is, I'm going to order that the records www.phippsreporting.com EFTA01102390 13 1 of Mr. Ackerman and his firm be turned over for a 2 period of 90 days prior to the date that the offer 3 of judgment -- offer to settle -- proposal for 4 settlement, whatever the current terminology is, 5 was filed. 6 I think that provides a sufficient time 7 frame prior to the proposal being filed to 8 investigate what would be, in my view, material 9 duplication and relevant and timely potential 10 duplication; meaning something that may have 11 happened a year prior, such as a conference with a 12 client, things of that nature, wouldn't be within 13 the Court's scope of analysis anyway, in all 14 likelihood. 15 So in balancing the issue of privilege 16 and it goes beyond just the mere entries. It goes 17 to the amounts of moneys spent, things of that 18 nature, by a given individual. And those things 19 should remain something -- somewhat in confidence 20 between lawyer and client. If there are any 21 matters deemed to be privileged, as far as the 22 entries are concerned, I'll require a privilege 23 log to be filed. 24 Let's look at timing. How much time do you 25 believe would be necessary for counsel to be able www.phippsreporting.com EFTA01102391 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 to retrieve those records? MR. BREWER: Well, Your Honor, if I might. We have the actual time periods during that 90-day period only. I have gone through them. Rather than a "privilege log," can we redact those actual records and provide them to Mr. Scarola? THE COURT: Well -- MR. BREWER: It will say -- what it will 9 say is things like: "Conversations with Epstein 10 re." And then after the "re," we'll redact. 11 THE COURT: That's important, though, to 12 know. And the Court would either have to -- 13 depending upon the extent of the documents, either 14 a special master or myself would have to look at 15 those documents to make a determination, first, as 16 far as privilege, second, whether or not there is 17 duplication ultimately. So there's no way for 18 Mr. Scarola to know the subject matter without the 19 Court's intervention to some degree. 20 Your position as far as the procedure 21 involved? 22 MR. SCAROLA: Your Honor, I understand what 23 the Court is suggesting with regard to the 90-day 24 period of time. 25 THE COURT: And I've already ruled on that, www.phiposreporting.com EFTA01102392 I 15 1 so we're not going to tread on that ground again. 2 Thank you. I'm asking only about the procedure. 3 MR. SCAROLA: In terms of having a special 4 master look at these issues? 5 THE COURT: The logistics issue and the 6 manner in which Mr. Brewer has suggested the 7 disclosure. 8 MR. SCAROLA: Well, 1 have agreed that they 9 can redact what they consider to be privileged, so 10 I don't have a problem with that. 11 THE COURT: All right. 12 MR. SCAROLA: And if what they're 13 suggesting is they want the Court to review that 14 to determine whether in fact it's privileged, I 15 have no problem with that either. 16 THE COURT: Okay. Very well. 17 MR. BREWER: Just so I'm clear, we'll give 18 them the actual time records with -- 19 THE COURT: Only those issues that are 20 21 22 23 24 25 deemed to be privileged, i.e., a matter of privacy, a matter of what would be considered attorney-client-privileged information within those bills. MR. SCAROLA: Your Honor, I haven't asked for financial information. I don't care how much www.phippsreporting.com EFTA01102393 i 16 1 they were charged before. 2 THE COURT: I agree. But I'm talking about 3 the "re" aspect. Meaning, what is being discussed 4 may have a certain privacy component, a certain 5 attorney-client-privileged component that only the 6 client and the attorney know about. 7 Now, how much an attorney will put in 8 there, if it had such information, I'll leave to 9 the discretion of counsel. But I don't know what 10 the answer is right now. 11 MR. BREWER: Just so you'll know, Your 12 Honor, there are also work-product privileges that 13 will be claimed. 14 THE COURT: Okay. 15 MR. BREWER: I don't know about that 90-day 16 period. 17 THE COURT: Again, I don't know what the 18 nature of that type of a privilege would be, how 19 an attorney's fee bill could be claimed as being 20 prepared in anticipation of litigation. Is that 21 what you're suggesting to me? 22 MR. BREWER: No. As an example, there were 23 issues that I know that Mr. Ackerman was looking 24 at with regard to -- let's see. What would be an 25 example. www.phippsreporting.com EFTA01102394 17 1 THE COURT: I don't need examples now. 2 MR. BREWER: A particular issue is 3 discussed in there. 4 THE COURT: If that's the case, it's the 5 case. We'll deal with that when the time comes. 6 MR. SCAROLA: Your Honor, there's a second 7 issue that needs to be addressed. 8 THE COURT: Certainly. 9 MR. SCAROLA: And that is with regard to 10 paragraph 5 of this order, and that raises timing 11 issues as well. The Court has asked us to address 12 in this order the issue of mediation. 13 THE COURT: Well, I've ordered mediation, 14 Mr. Scarola, to be more precise. 15 MR. SCAROLA: Yes, sir, you did order 16 mediation. And both parties are in agreement that 17 mediation before a resolution of the pending 18 appeal is an absolute and total waste of time. 19 THE COURT: Well, let me say this: What 20 won't be a waste of time, however, is to narrow 21 the issues as to what is being challenged in terms 22 of hourly rate, what won't be challenged as far as 23 the number of hours, what won't be challenged as 24 far as the individual entries relative to same, 25 which all go hand-in-hand, as far as the Court is www.phippsreporting.com EFTA01102395 18 1 concerned. 2 So, if mediation does nothing else other 3 than to assist the parties in narrowing those 4 issues for the Court, so that I'm not forced to go 5 through every 0.2 and 0.1 that may be sitting 6 there on a timesheet -- because you yourself have 7 indicated that we're looking at multiple hundreds 8 of thousands of dollars potentially -- 9 MR. SCAROLA: That's a guess. 10 THE COURT: Probably an educated guess, I 11 would assume. 12 MR. BREWER: A very educated guess. 13 THE COURT: So, in that regard, I have more 14 of a concern based upon the time that I have spent 15 in this chair regarding these 0.2 and 0.4 entries 16 than I do in terms of a global settlement. 17 Mediation doesn't necessarily have to mean 18 that you are going to resolve the case in its 19 entirety. Mediators work toward resolving issues 20 and narrowing same for the Court's convenience and 21 for the Court's assistance. So that's the reason, 22 in part, that I ordered mediation. 23 I had all of that in mind prior to making 24 that part of the order. One, that the likelihood 25 of a global settlement was slim. Two, that there www.phippsreportitto.pom EFTA01102396 19 1 is an appeal of my order on summary judgment, and 2 I recognize that. But three, also that I believe 3 the weight of the case law, at least from my 4 perspective, mandated that I proceed with this 5 process. So mediation was considered by the Court 6 with all of those factors in mind. 7 MR. SCAROLA: May I respond? 8 THE COURT: And I believe, from my 9 perspective, it would have been better practice to 10 have moved the Court to either cancel mediation or 11 to request some kind of relief from same as 12 opposed to presumptively adding it into a 13 stipulation. 14 MR. SCAROLA: Your Honor, we haven't added 15 it into a stipulation. 16 THE COURT: I see it here as a proposed 17 part of the stipulation. 18 MR. SCAROLA: Yes, sir. And that -- this 19 was our opportunity to present these matters to 20 the Court. I'm sorry if Your Honor thinks that we 21 haven't done it in a procedurally proper manner. 22 THE COURT: Not only do I think it, I know 23 it. 24 25 MR. SCAROLA: Yes, sir. If I may. THE COURT: Yes, sir. www.phionsreporting.com EFTA01102397 I 20 1 MR. SCAROLA: What Your Honor may not know 2 is that a companion case addressing the viability 3 of the Wolf decision was argued before a panel of 4 the Fourth District Court of Appeal about a month 5 or so ago. 6 THE COURT: Okay. 7 MR. SCAROLA: Both Mr. Brewer and I were in 8 attendance at that oral argument. And the oral 9 argument began with an acknowledgement from the 10 panel that they believed Wolf to be an improper 11 statement of the law, that it was overly broad, 12 and there is very likely going to be an opinion 13 from the Fourth District Court of Appeal that will 14 have a significant impact on the applicability of 15 Wolf to this case. 16 This case has been fully briefed and is 17 also going to be presented before the Fourth 18 District Court of Appeal in oral argument, which 19 has already been scheduled, correct? 20 MR. BREWER: I don't think it's been, no. 21 MR. SCAROLA: Okay. It hasn't been fully 22 briefed. We are awaiting oral argument on this 23 case. But we are likely to get guidance from the 24 Fourth DCA that will assist this Court in making a 25 determination as to whether the expenditure of www.phippsreporting.com EFTA01102398 21 1 resources that is going to be involved in 2 following the procedures that have been set out 3 and that will be necessary to, in effect, try a 4 very substantial, contested legal proceeding makes 5 any sense. 6 So what I am suggesting to Your Honor, 7 although it is not yet raised, because I believe 8 it to be premature to raise it right now, there is 9 a serious concern about whether we should be going 10 forward with these procedures at this time in 11 light of the appellate posture of the Wolf 12 decision in the Fourth DCA. 13 THE COURT: All right. Well, again, I 14 can't presume everything that's going on here. I 15 appreciate that. But simply making a statement 16 during oral argument by a Fourth District Court of 17 Appeal judge is not going to be persuasive, in my 18 view. 19 MR. BREWER: I was just going to say, Your 20 Honor, that that was a side comment that was made 21 by Judge Gross, and to say that it was espoused by 22 the panel, I think, is totally incorrect. And we 23 do disagree as well with whether the Wolf decision 24 was correct and whether the Fourth District Court 25 of Appeal is going to come out and go right into www.phippsreporting.com EFTA01102399 I 22 1 the face of Wolf. 2 There were four or five other issues, and 3 4 the -- 5 THE COURT: Again, like I said before, that 6 doesn't change the fact that when a court orders 7 mediation, I do think it presumptuous to state in 8 a proposed stipulation that you're not going to 9 mediate without relief from the Court. 10 MR. BREWER: Excuse me, Your Honor. That's 11 not what it says. 12 THE COURT: "The parties are in agreement 13 that there is absolutely no chance for a 14 successful mediation prior to resolution of 15 pending appellate issues." That's what it says. 16 MR. SCAROLA: Yes, sir. 17 THE COURT: What does that mean? 18 MR. SCAROLA: That means we fully intend to 19 follow the Court's order, unless Your Honor 20 decides that you don't want us to engage in what 21 both sides consider to be a useless process. 22 THE COURT: Well, I don't see a portion of 23 this proposed stipulation, Mr. Scarola, that 24 provides for a court order or the Court's -- 25 MR. SCAROLA: Your Honor has already they spent all their time on the other issues, not www.phippsreporting.com EFTA01102400 23 1 ordered us to mediation. 2 THE COURT: I understand that. But in 3 other words, for you to change -- you, 4 collectively, to change the Court's order with 5 this joint discovery schedule and ask for the 6 Court's imprimatur on same, without anything 7 attached that would allow the Court to make such a 8 ruling, meaning to sign and sign off on this, 9 still remains, in my view, presumptuous. 10 MR. BREWER: If I might, Your Honor. The 11 stipulation that you see there is not agreed to. 12 And I will show you the draft that we made, if I 13 might approach, and you'll see what the last 14 paragraph says. 15 THE COURT: Well, I appreciate that. 16 Okay. In any event -- 17 MR. BREWER: If I might have that back. 18 THE COURT: -- as I said before, I want to 19 make sure that we recognize protocol still has to 20 21 22 23 24 25 be respected and followed. That's all I'm asking. And that for the reasons stated, I continue to order mediation to go forward. At this point, if the Fourth District Court of Appeal takes issue with Wolf and finds conflict, then I have a different matter to consider. But at this point, www.phippsreporting.com EFTA01102401 I 24 1 as far as the Court is concerned, I've seen 2 nothing to indicate that Wolf is not good law 3 here, in the Fourth District, as well as 4 elsewhere, and I was not convinced otherwise that 5 it does not stand as good law in the most recent 6 pronouncement on the issue of malicious 7 prosecution and abuse of process, for that matter, 8 as well. 9 Anyway, have a good day. 10 MR. SCAROLA: Thank you, sir. 11 MR. BREWER: Thank you. 12 THE COURT: I want you to go ahead and fill 13 out that order, please, indicating as well that 14 the Court continues to order mediation to proceed 15 until further order of the Court. 16 (Thereupon, the proceedings were concluded 17 at 9:19 a.m.) 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 EFTA01102402 25 1 COURT CERTIFICATE 2 3 4 STATE OF FLORIDA 5 COUNTY OF PALM BEACH ) 6 7 8 I, Nancy Cannizzaro, Registered 9 Professional Court Reporter, State of Florida at Large, 10 certify that I was authorized to and did stenographically 11 report the foregoing proceedings and that the transcript 12 is a true and complete record of my stenographic notes. 13 14 15 16 17 18 •ictitckecatiuu Nancy Cadnizzaro, R 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Dated this 28th day of May, 2015. EFTA01102403