DS9 Document EFTA01125055

0001 1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL? CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA 2 Complex Litigation, Fla.R.Civ.Pro.1201 3 CASE NO. 50 2009CA040800XXXXMB AG 4 5 JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 6 Plaintiff, 7 vs. 8 SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, 9 and L.M., individually, 10 Defendants. 11 12 13 14 15 16 Taken on 17 DATE TAKEN: TIME: 18 PLACE: 19 20 21 22 23 DEPOSITION OF RUSSELL S. ADLER Behalf of the Plaintiff Wednesday, April 20, 2011 9:10 AM - 3:00 PM Fowler White Burnett, P.A. One Financial Plaza - 21st Floor 100 Southeast 3rd Avenue Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394 Examination of the witness taken before: Lee Lynott, Certified Merit Reporter Registered Professional Reporter 24 Certified Shorthand Reporter, Florida Hi-Tech/United Reporting, Inc. 1218 SE 3rd Avenue 25 0002 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 APPEARANCE FOR THE PLAINTIFF: FOWLER WHITE BURNETT, P.A. BY: SUSAN APRIL, ESQUIRE One Financial Plaza - 21st Floor 100 Southeast 3rd Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33394 APPEARANCE FOR THE DEFENDANT BRADLEY EDWARDS: SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART 6 SHIPLEY 9 BY: WILLIAM KING, ESQUIRE 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard 10 West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 11 EFTA01125055 APPEARANCE FOR THE WITNESS, RUSSELL S. ADLER: 12 FRED HADDAD LAW OFFICES 13 BY: FRED HADDAD, ESQUIRE One Financial Plaza - Suite 2612 14 100 Southeast 3rd Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0003 1 INDEX 2 3 Deposition of Russell S. Adler: Page No. 4 Direct Examination by Mrs. April 4 5 Cross Examination by Mr. Xing 151 6 Certificate of Oath 155 7 Certificate of Reporter 156 8 Read and Sign Letter to Witness 157 9 Errata Sheet (to be forwarded upon execution) 158 10 11 * * * 12 PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT INDEX 13 Exhibit. Description Page No. 14 No. 1 Subpoena For Deposition Duces Tecum 6 15 16 DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT INDEX 17 No. Description Page No. 18 ***** NONE ***** 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0004 1 THEREUPON, 2 THE COURT REPORTER: Do you swear or affirm 3 that the testimony you are about to give will be 4 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 5 truth? 6 * * * 7 WHEREUPON, 8 RUSSELL S. ADLER 9 acknowledged having been first duly sworn to tell the 10 truth, testified upon his oath as follows: ••••••• ••••• EFTA01125056 11 THE WITNESS: I do. 12 DIRECT EXAMINATION 13 BY MRS. APRIL: 14 Q Sir, my name is Susan April. We met just a 15 few minutes ago I guess on the other side of the room 16 here. Thank you for coming today. 17 You know, of course, Mr. Haddad is your 18 lawyer today, right? 19 A Yes. 20 Q And you know Bill King over here? 21 A Just met him. 22 Q Just met him? And you were out in the 23 hallway talking to him for a moment? 24 A Yes. 25 Q Can I ask you what you were talking about? 0005 1 A What we were talking about? 2 Q Yeah. 3 A Just the fact that much of what we 4 anticipate that you're going to ask is protected by 5 the work-product privilege and I told him I would 6 invoke it as I see necessary. 7 Q Alrighty. Let me get down some basic 8 information. Is your full name Russell S. Adler? 9 A Yes. 10 Q Can I get your current address? 11 A I'm presently residing at 12 13 Q Are you currently employed? 14 A Self-employed. 15 Q What is the name of your business? 16 A Russell S. Adler, P.A. 17 Q And where is your business address? 18 A 401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400. 19 Q How long have you been with that firm as a 20 self-employed attorney? 21 A Since November 2009. 22 Q What's your date of birth, sir? 23 A 24 Q Are you taking any medications or anything 25 that would impair your ability to testify truthfully 0006 1 today -- 2 A No. 3 Q -- or impair your memory? 4 Did you see a Notice of Taking Deposition 5 with an attached subpoena for this deposition? 6 A I saw the subpoena. I don't know that I 7 ever saw the notice. 8 Q Did you bring any documents with you today? 9 A NO. 10 Q Did you understand the subpoena to request 11 that you bring documents? 12 A Please show it to me. 13 Q I will. EFTA01125057 14 A I may have read it. I don't recall what it 15 says as I sit here now. 16 (WHEREUPON, the document was marked as an 17 Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 1 for Identification and 18 attached). 19 A I guess you want me to look at the duces 20 tecum? 21 Q Please. Do you recall seeing that, sir? 22 A Briefly. 23 Q Can you tell me on page -- Well, it's 24 numbered Page 6 because it was numbered I guess as an 25 attachment to a notice, but where it says "requests" 0007 1 in the middle of Page 6. 2 A I'm looking at it. 3 Q Did you search for any documents that you 4 believe would be responsive to these requests? 5 A I'm reading it. Hold on. 6 Q Well, let's go through it because it will 7 save time I think. 8 A Go ahead. 9 Q The first one: Did you look to see if you 10 had documents evidencing any and all written 11 communications between you and Bradley Edwards 12 regarding any pending and/or contemplating litigation 13 against Jeffrey Epstein from September 2008 to the 14 present? 15 A Let me save you some time and paint with a 16 broad brush. Any communications between myself or 17 Brad Edwards - or I see you even have Scott Rothstein 18 listed in another one of these requests - during the 19 time that I was employed by the RRA firm is 20 work-product privilege and / invoke that privilege 21 and I will refuse to answer any questions concerning 22 any such communications. That privilege extends to 23 any of these documents that you're requesting that 24 fits within those parameters. 25 Q Well, let me -- 0008 1 A As to Number 1, there is absolutely nothing 2 concerning this from, let's say, November or October 3 31st, 2009 through the present. 4 As to anything from 2008 through November 5 of 2009, that would be the time that I was employed 6 by RRA and you are not entitled to those documents 7 if, in fact, they even exist because it's 8 work-product privilege. 9 Q Well, let me ask you this question. You 10 just said if, in fact, they even exist. What I'm 11 asking you is, let's go back to my earlier questions: 12 Did you look to see if you have any documents, 13 whether or not they would be work-product, for that 14 period of time? 15 A I don't even have access to those documents 16 any more. They're the property of the bankruptcy EFTA01125058 17 trustee -- 18 (WHEREUPON, an off-the-record discussion 19 was had). 20 A First of all, you interrupted me in the 21 middle of my answer to the question. 22 Q I'm sorry. She barged in. 23 A Let me finish. 24 MRS. APRIL: How about you read it back? 25 (WHEREUPON, the requested testimony was 0009 1 read back by the court reporter). 2 THE WITNESS: They're the property of the 3 bankruptcy Trustee. I don't even know if I'm 4 still a member of any QTASK process concerning 5 these matters. 6 But in any event, the Trustee has made it 7 very clear that the files that were being 8 handled by the firm are the property of the 9 bankruptcy Trustee unless they have been 10 transferred out to another attorney, and they 11 were not transferred to me. So, no, I do not 12 have the right to see those files or access to 13 those files. 14 BY MRS. APRIL: 15 Q So you don't have them you're saying? 16 A Correct. 17 Q Therefore, you didn't look because you know 18 you don't have them? 19 A Correct. 20 Q I think, just to be clear, that you said 21 anything from November 1st, 2009 to the present is 22 nothing that exists that's responsive to Number 1? 23 A Correct. 24 Q Number 2, did you look to see if you had 25 any communications, and that would include e-mails, 0010 1 between you and Mr. Edwards about compensation or 2 benefits that he expected or requested from the firm 3 from September 2008 to October 31st, 2000 -- 4 A There were no such communications -- 5 Q Can I finish my question, sir? I know 6 you've been in depositions, right? 7 A Well, why don't you just ask me if I have 8 anything responsive to Number 2? You don't have to 9 read it to me on the record. I can read. 10 Q Sir, this will go smoother and faster. I 11 think I'm being courteous to you -- 12 A It will go a lot faster -- 13 Q If you're not going to let me finish my 14 questions, we're going to be here really long and I 15 have things to do also. 16 A If you insist on reading everything to me 17 that is right in front of me it is going to take 18 really long, but I'm not going to tell you how to 19 take your deposition. So, finish the question. EFTA01125059 20 Q Thank you. Have you had a chance to look 21 at Number 2? 22 A Yes. 23 Q Do you have any documents that are 24 responsive? 25 A No. 0011 1 Q Did you look to see if you have any? 2 A No. But I was not even involved in Brad 3 Edwards' compensation or benefits when he was hired 4 by RRA, so I know I don't have anything -- I know 5 that there's nothing like that out there. And if 6 there is, I don't have access to it any way. 7 Q Let me ask you about that for a minute. 8 When Brad Edwards -- You know Brad Edwards, I take 9 it, because you mentioned his name several times? 10 A Yes 11 Q When did you first meet Brad Edwards? 12 A Probably four or five years ago. 13 Q Where did you meet him? 14 A At the gym. I'm sorry. He appeared -- He 15 did some work on a case when he was with the Kubicki, 16 Draper firm. It was a personal injury case when he 17 worked for Earleen Cote. 18 Q Was that a case that you were involved in? 19 A Yes. 20 Q Were you on the same side? 21 A No. 22 Q He was opposing counsel? 23 A Defense counsel, yes. 24 Q Do you know what year that was? 25 A Nope. 0012 1 Q About five years ago? 2 A Approximately. 3 Q And then you mentioned something about -- 4 A Wait a minute. Now, that would be probably 5 seven or eight years ago now that I think about it. 6 Sorry. 7 Q And Earleen Coat (pronouncing), is that the 8 name you said? 9 A C-o-t-e. 10 Q She was at the time an attorney at Kubicki, 11 Draper? 12 A Still is. 13 Q How did that case turn out? 14 A I don't even remember what case it was, so 15 I can't tell you how it turned out. 16 Q After that did you have any occasion to 17 communicate with him before he joined RRA? And I'm 18 going to use RRA for your former firm of Rothstein, 19 Rosenfeldt & Adler, if that's okay? 20 A I would see him at the gym from time to 21 time and we would have smalltalk, but that's about 22 it. EFTA01125060 23 Q What gym was that? 24 A It was the, I think it was called The 25 Fitness Company and it was located in the 110 Tower 0013 1 across the street from the Broward County 2 courthouse. 3 Q During the time that you would see him at 4 the gym and have smalltalk occasionally, did you ever 5 have any conversations before or after the gym or did 6 you ever meet with him for social activity? 7 A No. Before he joined the firm, no. Or 8 right before he -- until right before he joined the 9 firm, no. 10 Q From the time that you met him when he 11 worked at Kubicki, Draper, other than seeing him at 12 the gym occasionally, you had no communication with 13 him until he joined the firm, is that correct? 14 A Until soon before he joined the firm, 15 correct. 16 Q Can you tell me, as best as you can recall, 17 how he was recruited or if he was recruited to join 18 the firm? 19 A He was not recruited to join. Well, I'll 20 tell you what happened, because that's subject to 21 interpretation. 22 I received a large verdict in a sexual 23 abuse case in Palm Beach County and it was in the 24 newspaper. Brad called me and said that, I read 25 about your verdict. And he told me that he had some 0014 1 sexual abuse cases as well. 2 And I told him, I said, Let's have lunch, 3 because I was looking for -- I was always on the 4 look-out for lawyers who I would potentially like to 5 work with and bring into the tort practice group at 6 the law firm. And so, we had lunch. 7 Q And was anyone else at the lunch? 8 A Nope. 9 Q What was the case that you got the large 10 verdict in, if you remember? 11 A It was called Doe or Jane Doe, 12 S-i-r-i-w-a-t. 13 Q How large was the verdict? 14 A $24 million. 15 Q Did Christina Kitterman also work on that 16 case? 17 A She brought the case in. She did very 18 little on that file, if anything. I did pretty much 19 all the work. 20 Q So you had lunch with Brad Edwards. Where 21 did you have lunch? 22 A Yolo. 23 Q Can you tell me what the discussion 24 consisted of? 25 A He told me a little bit about his cases, I EFTA01125061 0015 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Q Did he explain to you who Jeffrey Epstein 25 was? 0016 1 A told him about my practice group with the law firm and we talked about the possibility of him joining the firm. Q What cases did he tell you he had? A The Jeffrey Epstein cases. Q Do you know how many there were at that time? A I don't recall. Q Were there more than three? A I believe so, but I'm not positive. Q Do you know how any of them were designated, in other words, how they were named in the court files? A We didn't discuss that level of detail. Q What did he tell you the cases -- what did he tell you was the basis of the cases? A He told me that he represented several young girls who were - I'm not sure if he used the word "molested," but that's the word that sticks in my mind - molested by Jeffrey Epstein. Q Did you know who Jeffrey Epstein was at that time? A No. Briefly. 2 Q How long 3 hour? 4 A Correct. 5 Q Did he tell you 6 he was in those cases? 7 A I don't believe 8 about them generally. 9 Q Did he tell you 10 valued at? 11 A I don't think he did, no. 12 Q Prior to that lunch, when you would see him 13 at the gym, did you ever know that he worked on those 14 kinds of cases? 15 A No. I knew that at some point he had left 16 Kubicki, Draper and he was in solo practice, but I 17 didn't know really anything else about what kind of 18 cases he was handling. 19 Q From your experience with him or observing 20 his work at Kubicki, Draper, did you think he was a 21 good lawyer? 22 A Yes. 23 Q Or, did you have an opinion about his legal 24 skills? 25 A It was more that I liked the guy and I 0017 1 thought he was really sharp. I didn't have that many 2 dealings with him during that case that I could, you did you meet, was it just a lunch how far along in discovery so. I think we just spoke what he thought they were EFTA01125062 3 know, in order to measure his skills as a lawyer. 4 Q Was it your impression during the lunch 5 meeting with Brad that he might be interested in 6 joining with the firm, with your firm? 7 A At the time, yes. 8 Q Did he tell you he was interested in doing 9 that? 10 A I think he was interested at that point, 11 sure. 12 Q What did you tell him about the prospects 13 of his being offered an opportunity to join your 14 firm? 15 A I believe I told him I'd -- 16 MR. KING: Let me interpose an objection 17 here. If there were any discussions at all 18 relating to compensation then we're going to 19 invoke the financial and privacy privilege. 20 MRS. APRIL: What is that privilege since I 21 cannot find it and I've seen it invoked in Mr. 22 Edwards' deposition. Do you have some authority 23 for that? 24 MR. KING: It is well-recognized that 25 parties have a right to protect financial 0018 1 privilege unless -- financial information unless 2 it is otherwise deemed relevant. And we'll take 3 that position -- 4 THE WITNESS: Well, hold on a second. Let 5 me save you some time, okay? I didn't discuss 6 compensation with him. 7 BY MRS. APRIL: 8 Q I don't think I even asked you that question 9 yet which is why I wanted to go back. 10 A It could have been part of an answer in 11 fairness. 12 MRS. APRIL: I think the objection is 13 premature and in the nature of coaching, with 14 all due respect. So, could you read my question 15 back and maybe you could answer it without 16 disclosing anything that you think is 17 improper. 18 (WHEREUPON, the last question was read 19 back by the court reporter). 20 A I told him I was interested in bringing him 21 in and that he should make an appointment to come in 22 and meet with Rothstein. 23 Q Is that how you left it when you ended your 24 lunch? 25 A I believe so, yes. 0019 1 Q Did you tell Scott Rothstein that you had 2 had a meeting with Brad Edwards? 3 A I'm sure I did at some point, yeah. 4 Q Did you recommend that Scott consider 5 offering him a position? EFTA01125063 6 A Yes. 7 Q What is the next thing you recall about 8 Brad joining the firm, did Brad tell you he made an 9 appointment with Scott? 10 A I don't recall that, but I do recall he 11 joined the firm. 12 Q What month was it or what year and month 13 was it that you had the lunch meeting? 14 A I don't remember. 15 Q Do you know if Brad Edwards joined the firm 16 in 2009? 17 A I don't remember. 18 Q Do you know what day Rothstein, Rosenfeldt 19 & Adler stopped doing business? 20 A Well, we found out that there was a problem 21 on Halloween, October 31st, 2009. The day that the 22 entity formally stopped doing business I'm not clear 23 on, because a Trustee was appointed and then a 24 bankruptcy Trustee was appointed. And I don't know 25 the exact definition of operations, so I can't tell 0020 1 you any more than that. 2 Q Let's use Halloween as close enough. But 3 as a practical matter, you stopped working there on 4 or about Halloween of 2009? 5 A I stayed, I stayed around for a few more 6 weeks because I had to try and wind things up in 7 transition and everything happened very suddenly and 8 it was very shocking to everybody. So, I stayed 9 around for a couple of weeks until I made 10 arrangements to go into solo practice. 11 Q Do you recall testifying at another 12 deposition taken by Charles Lichtman in a case called 13 "In Re: Rothstein, Rosenfeldt a Adler," the 14 bankruptcy case? 15 A Yes. My deposition, yes. 16 Q Do you remember Mr. Lichtman asking you 17 whether you thought that Brad Edwards had joined the 18 firm around June of 2009? 19 A I don't recall that specific question and 20 answer, if you want to show it to me. But if it's in 21 the deposition transcript, I, obviously, was asked 22 about it. 23 Q But you don't actually know when he joined? 24 A I don't recall the specific year that he 25 joined, and I'm being very careful because I'm under 0021 1 oath today. 2 Q Yes, you are. 3 A I really don't know if it was late-'08, 4 early-'09 or what the date was. You probably know 5 about it, though. 6 Q Well, if I told you that I had seen 7 communications between RRA lawyers, including Brad 8 Edwards, that are starting in April of 2009, does EFTA01125064 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0022 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 0023 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 that refresh your memory at all? A With all due respect, you represent Mr. Epstein and I'm not going to take anything that you tell me as the truth, especially if you're not going to be showing me documents. So, don't ask me to confirm communications that you claim to have without showing them to me. I'm not doing that. Q You don't know? Your best recollection is late-'08 or sometime in the early part of '09, is that what / understood your last -- Sir, can I ask you to not -- A Yes. Q If you want to take a break or make phone calls or do whatever you're doing on your phone, I'm fine with that, but I would appreciate your giving us your attention. A I'm sorry. I just told someone to stop texting me, to leave me alone. What was your question? Q You are under oath and this is testimony. MRS. APRIL: You want to read back the last question? (WHEREUPON, the requested testimony was read back by the court reporter). THE WITNESS: I don't have a specific recollection as I sit here today. If I gave a more exact answer under oath in my deposition in a Trustee case then that was my sworn testimony at the time and it is what it is. BY MRS. APRIL: Q You made a comment a moment ago that you don't trust me because I represent Mr. Epstein. Can I ask you what that has to do with whether -- Have you ever met me before today? A It has nothing to do with you personally or even Mr. Epstein. You are taking my deposition in litigation that I am not a party to. Q That's right. A I'm not going to take any lawyer's word that they've seen something that they haven't even shown me to use that as the basis for asking me questions. If you want to ask me about specific documents document, if I know Q fact that case that Epstein vs al? A Q to him? or communications then show me the mark it, and I will answer your questions the answer. Have you talked to Brad Edwards about the he has been sued by Jeffrey Epstein in the we're here on today, which is Jeffrey . Scott Rothstein and Bradley Edwards, et Yes, briefly. What did he say to you and what did you say EFTA01125065 12 A After he was sued, he told me about the 13 lawsuit and that he was being sued. That was about 14 all we talked about at that time. And then I 15 recently spoke with him about my upcoming deposition 16 for the same purpose I just mentioned to his lawyer, 17 because after I was subpoenaed for deposition I 18 called him and told him that I believe that 19 everything that we did at the law firm during the 20 pendency and handling of that case is work-product 21 privilege and I intend to invoke that privilege and 22 refuse to answer any questions encompassed by that 23 privilege unless ordered to do so by the judge. 24 Q You say "that case." What case are you 25 referring to, sir? 0024 1 A What do you mean that case? 2 Q You just made a statement that included a 3 reference, to quote, that case. 4 THE WITNESS: Can you read back my answer, 5 please? 6 (WHEREUPON, the requested testimony was 7 read back by the court reporter). 8 A To answer your question - and I apologize - 9 I was referring to the lawsuits against Jeffrey 10 Epstein that Brad Edwards was handling both before he 11 joined the RRA firm and after. 12 Q Earlier in your testimony you mentioned 13 that you couldn't remember the exact style of those 14 suits or the exact amount, the number of suits. Were 15 there additional suits filed against Jeffrey Epstein 16 by your firm after Brad Edwards joined the firm, 17 whenever that was? 18 A I don't recall, because I had very little 19 involvement in those cases at all. They were Brad's 20 cases when he joined the firm and they remained 21 Brad's cases after he joined the firm. I was merely 22 the head of the Tort Litigation Division and in an 23 administrative capacity. I don't think I did much of 24 anything in any of those Epstein cases, and that's 25 why I don't remember or I cannot tell you about the 0025 1 details you're asking. 2 Q Your position is: If you did talk to Brad 3 Edwards about cases against Jeffrey Epstein during 4 the time that you both worked at BRA that they're 5 subject, those conversations, to a work-product 6 privilege, right? 7 A Absolutely. 8 Q Have you read the complaint or the amended 9 complaint filed by Jeffrey Epstein against Brad 10 Edwards? 11 A No. 12 Q Have you read Brad Edwards' deposition 13 given in that case? 14 A Are you talking about in this case? EFTA01125066 15 Q In this case? 16 A No. 17 Q Did Brad Edwards talk to you at all about 18 questions he was asked during his deposition in this 19 case? 20 A No. 21 Q You mentioned that you had these couple of 22 conversations with Mr. Edwards concerning this case 23 once when he told you he had been sued by Jeffrey 24 Epstein and then more recently when you said you 25 were -- you told him you were going to be deposed? 0026 1 A Correct. 2 Q What did he say to you in response to your 3 remarks? 4 A He just agreed with me that any questions 5 you ask me about any communications, thoughts, 6 discussions or, basically, anything else we did while 7 at the RRA firm handling those cases is work-product 8 privilege. That was it. 9 Q In your view, was the communication that 10 was held between you and Scott Rothstein, Brad 11 Edwards and several other attorneys at a conference 12 in Mr. Rothstein's office where boxes were in the 13 room from the Epstein cases, was that conversation 14 privileged? Do you remember there being such a 15 conversation, let me ask you that? 16 A I'm thinking. I remember a conference in 17 Rothstein's office soon before -- soon before October 18 31st sometime I think during that month. I do not 19 recall boxes from the Epstein case being present. If 20 they were, I didn't -- I wasn't aware of that at the 21 time. But if it was about that case, then it's 22 absolutely work-product privilege. 23 Q Do you remember testifying about the 24 subject matter of the discussion in your deposition 25 taken by Mr. Lichtman in the bankruptcy case? 0027 1 A I don't, but I'm happy to look at what 2 you're referring to if you would like to show it to 3 me. 4 Q I'm going to draw your attention to Page 5 131 and 132 of the deposition of Russell Adler taken 6 October 28th, 2010 by Charles Lichtman. 7 Rather than read it to you, because that 8 would make the record long, I'm going to ask you to 9 start looking at: "Did you have any involvement in 10 any" -- 11 MR. KING: Let me look over your shoulder. 12 You don't have an extra copy, do you? 13 MRS. APRIL: Not that's not marked up. 14 A I've read the portions that you asked me to 15 read and, now, I recall a little more detail. 16 Q Do you remember Scott Rothstein calling you 17 and Mr. Edwards and Gary Farmer and perhaps others EFTA01125067 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0028 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 0029 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 into your office -- A Into his office? 0 -- into his office to ask A Yes. Q And you recall testifying looked at this - that you wanted to whether or not a particular statute sexual abuse case? you questions? - now that you've know about applied to a A I remember exactly what I said -- MR. KING: Let me interpose an objection. I didn't mean to cut you off. I want you to complete your answer. A I am not sure if at this point because of my testimony in the Trustee case it is still work-product or not work-product. Suffice it to say, I do remember asking (sic) the questions and answering them to the best of my ability in my deposition on the pages that you referenced and I stand by that testimony. Although, as to this case, I am unsure as to whether or not that is work-product privilege. MR. KING: And we would assert it to the extent that you intend to pursue it. MRS. APRIL: I'm sorry. I didn't understand your -- MR. KING: We would intend to assert the work-product doctrine to the extent that you intend to pursue it beyond the question you just asked relating to whether or not his testimony was his testimony. A And I will point out that that testimony was given in a deposition where I was being sued by the Trustee that stands in the shoes of RRA. And it's my understanding that, by order of Judge Rey, all privileges, work-product, attorney-client are preserved and that's why I am not comfortable testifying openly in this deposition about those dealings and conversations in light of who the parties are in this case. In other words, I still think there is a work-product privilege as to Mr. Epstein. And, if I'm wrong, then the circuit judge in this case can tell me so and order me to tell you more. Q You mentioned that there was an order of Judge Rey in connection with the case where the bankruptcy Trustee sued you and your wife was sued in that case, too, right? A Yes. Q Do you know specifically when that order was entered where Judge Rey said that? A I just have a recollection of knowing that in the main bankruptcy case, of which the adversary case against me was an offshoot, in the main EFTA01125068 21 bankruptcy case there was a ruling that the Trustee 22 stood in the shoes of the law firm and that all 23 privileges were preserved, because I guess that's 24 what happens when a Trustee takes over a law firm. 25 Q Who represented you in that case? 0030 1 A In the bankruptcy adversary case? 2 Q Yes. Did Mr. Haddad represent you there as 3 well? 4 A Mr. Haddad represented me in that and I was 5 also represented by a few other lawyers. 6 Q Do you know who they were? 7 A Jason Slatkin, S-1-a-t-k-i-n, represented 8 me for most of the case. Before him, Tom Messana, 9 M-e-s-s-a-n-a, represented me. 10 Q Well, let me ask you this: Now that you've 11 looked at these couple of pages, irrespective of 12 work-product privilege, do you recall that Scott had 13 Epstein files in his office at the meeting you 14 described? 15 A I recalled it at the prior deposition that 16 you have shown me and I now recall it a little better 17 from reading it. 18 Q So there were Epstein boxes in Scott's 19 room? 20 A Apparently, in his office. Apparently, 21 there were and that's what I testified to in my prior 22 deposition. 23 Q Today I'm asking you, do you remember -- 24 How did you know they were Epstein files? 25 That's a different question. It wasn't asked before. 0031 1 A Frankly, I don't remember how I recalled 2 that they were Epstein files. I mean, do 3 specifically recall looking at the labels on it or 4 maybe there was writing on the boxes that they were 5 in? I just don't recall those details. I'm sorry. 6 Q When you're talking about boxes, are you 7 referring to standard sort of banker's box that law 8 firms keep files in? 9 A Yes. 10 Q Do you know whether there were a large 11 number of boxes or a small number? 12 A I don't remember whether or not I counted 13 the boxes. I probably didn't. 14 Q Do you think there were more than two? 15 A Probably. 16 Q Do you think there could have been as many 17 as 19? 18 A I really don't know. I am not comfortable 19 even giving an approximation under oath concerning 20 the number, the specific number of boxes. 21 Q So you have no idea whether there were -- 22 Do you know how they were set up in the room; were 23 they on the table, on the floor, on the credenza? EFTA01125069 24 A I just remember seeing boxes on the 25 floor. 0032 1 Q Were they stacked up on the floor or were 2 they spread around so that one could -- 3 A I do not have that level of detail in my 4 recollection. I'm sorry. 5 Q Were you surprised that the boxes were in 6 Scott's office? 7 A I was either surprised or perplexed, or 8 both. 9 Q Do you recall if anybody who was in 10 attendance at that time looked at any papers in the 11 boxes, including Scott? 12 A During that meeting? 13 Q Yes. 14 A I don't think anyone -- I don't recall 15 seeing anyone pull anything out of boxes and start 16 looking through files at that meeting. We sat at a 17 table and there was a discussion. 18 Q Now, I'm a little unclear about the 19 position you're taking on work-product or whether 20 it's waived or whether it's preserved, so I'm going 21 to ask you some questions. And if you think there's 22 some privilege, I'm sure you'll tell me. 23 A Okay. 24 Q Did Scott Rothstein tell you during that 25 meeting that the questions that he was asking you had 0033 1 something to do with the Epstein cases? 2 MR. KING: We'll assert the work-product 3 doctrine to any conversations occurring during 4 the course of that meeting. 5 A But as to whether they pertain to Epstein 6 at all -- 7 HR. KING: Because even the failure to 8 associate a particular statement with a 9 conversation could have significance from a 10 work-product standpoint, so we'll assert the 11 work-product doctrine. 12 A And so will I. I'll leave it up to the 13 judge, although you do have my sworn testimony from 14 the other case in front of you. 15 Q Let me ask you this: Without answering the 16 question, because this will make a difference as to 17 whether we need to come back after the judge rules. 18 A Yes. 19 Q Do you know the answer to that question? 20 In other words, you're not telling it to me, but do 21 you remember if he said that at all or are you 22 allowed to tell me that? 23 A I'm just saying that, as I sit here today, 24 I don't have a clear recollection of that specific 25 matter. I think it might be covered in my answers in 0034 EFTA01125070 1 the prior deposition from what you showed me. I have 2 not reviewed the entire deposition, for the record. 3 You directed me to two pages of my prior deposition 4 and those are the only two pages that I looked at. 5 And that deposition, I think we said this already, 6 was taken on -- 7 Q Six months ago almost. October? 8 A Six months ago. October 28th, 2010. 9 Q A week short of six months. 10 Have you ever read the transcript of the 11 deposition that you gave in that case on October 28, 12 2010? 13 A Soon after I got a copy of the transcript, 14 I did. 15 Q Do you recall sitting here today who else 16 was in the room? At that time you said the Tort 17 Group, including Brad Edwards, Gary Farmer and maybe 18 Steve Jaffe. Do you recall whether Steve Jaffe was 19 there? 20 A I have no greater recollection today than I 21 did at the time of my deposition. So if that's what 22 I said in my deposition, that's the best answer I 23 can -- that's better than the answer that I can give 24 you today, to tell you the truth. 25 Q On Page 132 of that deposition -- Excuse 0035 1 me. Strike that. 2 Do you recall, did you testify -- Since 3 October 31st, 2009, have you testified in any other 4 lawsuits, you, as a witness? 5 A No. Other than the adversary case against 6 me, no. 7 R Have you settled that case? 8 A Yes. 9 Q So let me be clear on this, because I do 10 not know that it would be fruitful to go through a 11 dozen or more questions that you are going to claim 12 work-product to: It's your position that anything 13 that occurred during the time that RRA existed where 14 you talked to other lawyers in the firm in any way, 15 shape, or form about Jeffrey Epstein is subject to 16 work-product privilege? 17 A Correct. That's my understanding. 18 Q So I'm going to reserve the right to ask 19 you those questions when we have a ruling from the 20 court. We believe there's been a waiver, and you're 21 telling me you don't know or you're not sure there's 22 been a waiver? 23 A As I understand waivers of the work-product 24 doctrine, I am personally of the opinion that there 25 has not been a waiver at all. Hy prior deposition 0036 1 was compelled testimony that was given by way of a 2 subpoena in a case in which I was a defendant and I 3 had to answer those questions when asked by a EFTA01125071 4 bankruptcy Trustee who stood in the shoes of the law 5 firm. I don't think that that constitutes any waiver 6 of the work-product privilege, especially as to the 7 person who was a defendant in those underlying 8 lawsuits and that's the person who you represent in 9 this case. 10 So that's my understanding, that's my 11 position that I'm taking. If the circuit judge 12 disagrees with me and he enters an order, I will do 13 what I'm ordered to do by the judge. But I say that 14 in an abundance of caution as well and in good faith, 15 of course. 16 Q You're not saying that the subpoena that 17 was delivered to you by giving it to your lawyer in 18 this case is less of a subpoena, are you? 19 You said you were compelled in that case 20 because you got a subpoena. Are you treating this 21 subpoena differently? This is a lawsuit. 22 A I know it's a lawsuit. 23 Q We issued a subpoena. Do you feel you were 24 not subpoenaed to testify truthfully and fully today? 25 A I don't know what you're talking about. I 0037 1 know what a subpoena is. I am here testifying under 2 oath. 3 Q Pursuant to the subpoena? 4 A Pursuant to a subpoena. I do not have the 5 documents that you are requesting. If they exist, 6 they're in the hands of the bankruptcy Trustee, so 7 talk to him. 8 Q Sir, thank you. I know how to talk to and 9 who to talk to. 10 A Okay. 11 Q My question to you is: You made a 12 statement a moment ago that you testified in a 13 certain way on October 28th, 2010 because you were 14 compelled by virtue of a subpoena in a case where you 15 were a party and the bankruptcy Trustee -- you were 16 required to give testimony. 17 Do you think that the subpoena that was 18 served today is any different? Do you think you're 19 not required to give testimony when asked? 20 A In the sense that I am required to give 21 pursuant to a subpoena, it's the same thing. It's 22 just that the parties are very different in this case 23 than they were in the adversary case against me. 24 Q Sir, you've been practicing how long? 25 A 24-and-a-half years. 0038 1 Q In 24-and-a-half years you have served 2 subpoenas on witnesses and parties? 3 A Yes. 4 Q Is there some distinction on whether or not 5 a person has to testify truthfully and fully 6 depending on whether they're a party and who is suing EFTA01125072 7 who? 8 A I have told you my position in this case 9 very clearly as to the reasons behind my assertion of 10 the work-product privilege and my reasons why I don't 11 believe it has been waived. Any further questions 12 from you about my serving subpoenas and what 13 subpoenas mean, quite honestly, is badgering and it's 14 a waste of time. And I would request that you move 15 on and ask me other questions, because this is just 16 absolutely -- there's no purpose behind this 17 questioning other than to badger me. 18 Q Let's go back to your conversations with 19 Brad Edwards before he joined the firm. 20 A Yes. 21 Q I had asked you questions before. Let's 22 pick up there. 23 You had a lunch with Brad Edwards sometime 24 before he joined the firm and you're not sure when 25 that was, but can you tell me this: Following your 0039 1 lunch, do you know if Brad Edwards joined the firm? 2 A Yes. 3 Q Do you know whether it was a period of a 4 long stretch of time before he joined the firm or was 5 it a month or six months or a year? Can you tell me 6 approximately how long after you had that lunch that 7 he joined the firm? 8 A I don't recall. I'm sorry. 9 Q Was it a year? 10 A I don't recall. I'm sorry. 11 Q You have no recollection? 12 A It was less than a year. 13 Q All right. 14 A Okay. 15 Q Did you meet with him on any other 16 occasions for any reason to talk about a case, for 17 social reasons or otherwise, between the lunch at 18 Yolo's and his walking into the firm and saying I 19 work here now? 20 A I don't believe so. 21 Q Did he call you, e-mail you, or otherwise 22 communicate with you between the time of that lunch 23 and his becoming employed by RRA? 24 A I don't recall. 25 Q You don't recall. Do you have in your 0040 1 possession anywhere e-mails, hand notes written on 2 napkins or otherwise that would refresh your 3 recollection about the answer to that question? 4 A I might have copies of some e-mails. But, 5 if I do, I don't think I have any e-mail attachments 6 and I would certainly have no record of phone calls I 7 don't think. 8 Q When you say you might have some e-mails, 9 is that because you maintained e-mails on a personal EFTA01125073 10 computer at home or are these e-mails that belonged 11 to the firm that you retrieved? 12 A I think I took a copy of some e-mails 13 before I physically left RRA. 14 Q Did you review those e-mails prior to 15 coming here today to see if any of them were 16 responsive to my subpoena? 17 A No. 18 Q And that's because you believed they were 19 not or you didn't think of it, or what? 20 A Didn't think of it, to be honest with 21 you. 22 Q Did you give Brad Edwards your e-mail 23 address at some point before he joined the firm? 24 A 25 Q Did you hand him a business card? 0041 1 A I don't specifically recall doing that, but 2 any lawyer can find any other lawyer's e-mail address 3 these days. 4 Q Well, did you send any e-mails to Brad? 5 A Just so we're clear here, the requests in 6 the subpoena in the duces tecum section keep asking 7 about written communications. 8 Q And you think an e-mail is not written? 9 A That is like some esoteric issue that I 10 really don't waste my time thinking about. Written 11 communications to me mean letters, notes, handwritten 12 stuff, printed, typed, things like that. 13 Q If you look at the subpoena on Page 5 14 there's something called "definitions." Number 2, 15 written Communications. 16 Sir, did you read the instructions in 17 definitions before you reviewed the subpoena? 18 A I don't recall. 19 Q If I say to you that the instructions on 20 this subpoena, that you're choosing not to look at, 21 says: 22 "Number 2. Written communications means any 23 documents evidencing communications between you and 24 another person or persons of any kind," would that 25 include an e-mail? 0042 1 A Let's put it this way, I will agree to go 2 back and look at the back-up I took to see if I have 3 anything that's responsive and that I do not feel was 4 privileged. And if I come across any such e-mails, I 5 will print those and produce those to you with a copy 6 to Brad's lawyer. 7 Q And, sir, if you determine that they are 8 privileged, will you let us know that they exist so 9 that we can deal with that at such time as the 10 privileged question is ruled upon? 11 A Sure. 12 Q Thank you. EFTA01125074 13 I think you've testified, and I know that 14 Mr. King has objected, but I think your testimony to 15 a question I had not yet gotten to was that you 16 didn't know, but let me make it clear. Do you know 17 what salary and benefits were offered to Brad Edwards 18 when he joined RRA? 19 A No. 20 Q Do you know what salary and/or benefits he 21 received when he did join RRA? 22 A No. Other people handled that part of 23 it. 24 Q What people were those people? Who handled 25 it? 0043 1 A The ultimate hiring decision would have 2 been made by Scott Rothstein, as would the 3 compensation. The benefits part would have been 4 handled by either Debra or someone else who worked in 5 the administrative part of the firm. 6 Q Was that Debra Villegas? 7 A Yes. 8 Q Did Brad Edwards tell you prior to meeting 9 Scott Rothstein or, excuse me, prior to joining RRA 10 what he was or had been earning in prior years? 11 A I don't think I discussed that with him. 12 Q Did he give you any kind of a ballpark 13 about what he would need to make it worth his while 14 to move to the firm? 15 A That was not my issue to discuss with him. 16 So, no. 17 Q He didn't offer that information to you? 18 A Gratuitously? Voluntarily? No, I don't 19 think he did. 20 Q But he did contact you to say he might be 21 interested in joining up with you? 22 A I've already answered that question. 23 MR. HADDAD: Object to the form. 24 MR. KING: Objection. 25 BY MRS. APRIL: 0044 1 Q As part of your preliminary conversation, 2 is it your testimony there was no discussion 3 whatsoever about the range of money he would need to 4 move to the firm? 5 A The only discussion that I might have had 6 with him in that regard was to tell him that I need 7 to get him in to see Rothstein so he could work out 8 the details to see, you know, with respect to numbers 9 and money and all of that, because that was something 10 that Rothstein did. I had no involvement in any of 11 the finances of the firm or salaries or compensation 12 other than, of course, my own. 13 Q When you say you had no involvement, do you 14 mean not only that you didn't determine what salaries 15 or compensation people got but that you didn't know EFTA01125075 16 what anyone else got? Is that clear or do you want 17 me to rephrase it? 18 A That's basically true, yeah. it wasn't my 19 concern. 20 Q I think you offered this information in an 21 earlier answer, that you were the head of a 22 department or a group of tort lawyers, am I 23 correct? 24 A Correct. 25 Q What did you call that department? 0045 1 A The Tort Practice Group. I hesitate, 2 because we also did class-action and mass tort. 3 Q All right. 4 A That fell under the umbrella of tort. 5 Q How many lawyers did you have working in 6 that group when the firm ended, broke up? 7 A When the firm ended, I think there were 8 nine of us. 9 Q And Mr. Edwards was one of the nine? 10 A Correct. 11 Q So your testimony is, you didn't know how 12 much money any of those lawyers had been paid that 13 year or any prior time? 14 A Other than myself? 15 Q Of course, other than yourself. 16 A That's correct. That was not my function 17 in the firm to know that or to deal with that. 18 Q Did you ever make any suggestions or 19 recommendations to Mr. Rothstein about the work of 20 the -- 21 You're the 9th, right? I mean, there was 22 eight, plus you in the group? 23 A Correct. 24 Q -- recommendations about the compensation 25 or bonuses that you thought should be paid to any of 0046 1 those who worked in your group? 2 A I really wasn't privy to that information. 3 That was something that Rothstein handled. 4 Q Does that mean, no, you didn't ever 5 recommend or suggest a bonus or salary for one of 6 your people? 7 A I think that is correct. 8 Q Do you know if Scott Rothstein or anyone at 9 RRA required Mr. Edwards to produce financials or 10 some information about the money he had made in the 11 prior years before joining the firm? 12 A I don't know. 13 Q You don't know? He didn't tell you that 14 was being asked of him? 15 A He didn't tell me one way or the other and 16 I never asked him about that. 17 Q When he joined the firm, you had been at 18 the firm -- In 2009, how long had you been there? EFTA01125076 19 A I started in February 2005. 20 Q When you joined, Scott Rothstein is the one 21 who determined your compensation? 22 A Yes. Well, we talked about it and we made 23 an agreement. 24 Q But he was the one who made the decision 25 from the point of view of the firm as far as you 0047 1 know? 2 A Yeah. 3 Q Did he ask you to produce any financials or 4 documentation as far as what your book of business 5 was? 6 A Yes. But when I came to the firm it was 7 very different, under very different circumstances 8 than when Brad Edwards came to the firm. 9 Q How so? 10 A Because I had an up-and-going law firm with 11 me and I think it was two other lawyers. I literally 12 closed my office and Rothstein hired my entire staff. 13 And I hesitate, because I'm not sure if every single 14 staff member came over. I think a couple of them 15 might not have come over, but it was, you know, it 16 involved copying machines and it involved all kinds 17 of other issues. And, yes, I did give him financials 18 when I joined for I think two years. 19 Q Did your existing firm merge into the 20 Rothstein, Rosenfeldt 6 Adler firm? 21 A I don't know the definition, the legal 22 definition of the term "merger," so I am reluctant to 23 say yes or no, we did or did not merge. But suffice 24 it to say, I closed my doors at my law firm and my 25 firm became the Tort Practice Group of RRA. 0048 1 Q When you joined BRA did you, as part of 2 that transaction, sign over your then-existing 3 receivables to the new firm, RRA? 4 A Assign my receivables? Well, all of my 5 cases were contingency fee cases, so there were no 6 receivables, per se. There was certainly -- I think 7 a better way to put it is that the ARA firm 8 substituted in as counsel on all of my pending 9 lawsuits and there were probably a few, there were 10 some lawsuits that were carved out of the deal that 11 remained. The fees from which, if they ever came, 12 were my fees. 13 Q When you joined the firm and you brought 14 cases to RRA that were ongoing cases, did RRA 15 reimburse you or -- 16 Your prior firm, what was it called, the 17 one you brought over? 18 A Karmin, K-a-r-m-i-n, Adler, P.A. I believe 19 was the name of the firm when I closed it and joined 20 BRA in February of 2005. 21 Q I take it you had incurred some EFTA01125077 22 out-of-pocket expenses, costs in those cases when you 23 joined RRA? 24 A Yea. 25 Q Did RRA reimburse you or Karmin & Adler, 0049 1 P.A. for money that had already been spent on cases 2 that became theirs? 3 A I know that they did when those cases were 4 settled or resolved. I would get a check cut-back 5 for the costs that I had outlaid on those cases 6 before I joined the firm. 7 If you're asking: Did they write me checks 8 from the very beginning for monies I was 9 out-of-pocket for? I don't think they did. 10 Q In the case of Brad Edwards, if you know, 11 were you aware that some of the cases he brought over 12 that there had been costs incurred by him? He was a 13 sole practitioner, I think you said, before he joined 14 RRA. 15 A I probably assumed it at the time, but I 16 don't think we discussed it. 17 Q You don't know one way or another whether 18 BRA reimbursed him for those costs or how they were 19 handled? 20 A No, because that would go back to the terms 21 of his joining the firm which was not my 22 involvement. 23 Q Do you know whether he had - he, being Brad 24 Edwards - a written contract with the firm when he 25 joined? 0050 1 A I don't know. 2 Q Did you when you joined and you brought 3 over your firm, Karmin & Adler, P.A.? 4 A A formal written contract? The answer is: 5 No, we did not. There might have been some e-mails, 6 some checklists, stuff like that. But again, the 7 circumstances under which I closed my firm and moved 8 everything over to RRA was very different than hiring 9 one lawyer who was in solo practice at the time. 10 Q Did Mr. Edwards bring over cases besides 11 cases against Jeffrey Epstein? 12 A Yes. 13 Q Do you know or is there an inventory 14 someplace that is written that describes the cases 15 that were transferred over? 16 A Yes, there was. 17 Q And -- 18 A But I do not have that or have access to 19 that. 20 Q At the time that the firm was still going 21 and Mr. Edwards joined -- 22 A Yes. 23 Q -- did you have access to that inventory at 24 that point -- EFTA01125078 25 A Yes. 0051 1 Q -- so that you could confer with him about 2 cases? 3 A Well, what would have happened was, he 4 would have provided a case list at some point in time 5 and those cases would have been inputted into our 6 case management system at RRA. So, there would have 7 been a case list that was retrievable by a lawyer. 8 Q Did those cases not need to go through a 9 conflict process before he joined the firm? 10 A Yes, they did. 11 Q Were you involved with that at all? 12 A No. 13 Q Was it a person who oversaw that at your 14 firm? 15 A What person? 16 Q If there is such a person? 17 A There were people who performed conflict 18 checks. I don't remember specific names of people 19 who did it, but I know for a fact they were done and 20 they were done before an RRA firm file number would 21 be assigned to the file. In other words, you would 22 not get a firm file number until the conflict 23 checking process was done. 24 Q Were those people administrative people or 25 attorneys that did this process? 0052 1 A That did the conflict checks? 2 Administrative people or secretarial. 3 Q Do you know who they reported to or at 4 least at the highest level who was the highest level 5 administrative person in the firm? 6 A Debra Villegas. 7 Q Have you ever discussed the case that 8 you're here on today, Epstein versus Rothstein, with 9 Debra Villegas? 10 A No. I have not seen or spoken with her 11 since before October 31st, 2009. 12 Q So, Brad Edwards joins the firm. You're 13 not sure exactly when that was, but he came alone, 14 right? He didn't bring any other lawyers? 15 A Correct. 16 Q Did he sit anywhere in proximity to your 17 office; same floor? 18 A I'm trying to think where his office was. 19 At one point he was on the same floor. And then 20 after that, he got moved I believe up to another 21 floor or down to another floor. 22 Q Was that, was there a reason for that that 23 you're aware of? 24 A Yes. 25 Q What was it? 0053 1 A After Brad joined the firm some additional EFTA01125079 2 space got built out, new space for us, and I think it 3 was on the 15th Floor. Brad was moved down there 4 when that space was completed. 5 Q Were other members of your group of nine 6 moved to that floor? 7 A Yes. 8 Q And you weren't? 9 A Correct. 10 Q Because you didn't want to move? 11 A I liked my office. 12 Q Fair enough. I understand the firm 13 utilized a system that's been referred to as QTASK? 14 A Yes. 15 Q Can you tell me what QTASK is? 16 A QTASK is a web-based project management and 17 collaboration tool. 18 Q Did you have anything to do with the 19 development or marketing of that tool? 20 A Yes. 21 Q Can you tell me when that started? 22 A Approximately 2007. 23 Q Does somebody own proprietary rights in 24 QTASK? 25 A What do you mean by proprietary rights? 0054 1 Q Copyright, patent? 2 A I don't know the details of that. 3 Q Do you own any part of QTASK? 4 A No. 5 Q Have you ever? 6 A No. 7 Q To your knowledge, did RRA own the rights 8 to use or market QTASK? 9 A Did we own the rights to use or market? 10 Scott Rothstein was an investor in QTASK personally. 11 Our firm was allowed to use QTASK. As far as 12 marketing QTASK, I was more of an evangelist than a 13 salesperson. I would tell people about it and I 14 would show it to them. And I also participated in 15 the design and specifications of particular features 16 and user interfaces in QTASK. 17 Q Is QTASK a tool that would allow the office 18 to have gone paperless? That term has been used 19 sometimes when talking about firms. Is it in lieu of 20 paper that you would use QTASK? 21 A QTASK is or can be used to store and manage 22 scanned images. 23 Q Did your tort group use it for that 24 purpose? 25 A For the most part, no. There was other 0055 1 software that was used to manage the scanned images 2 at KRA. That's not to say that some documents were 3 not stored in QTASK for one purpose or another or for 4 one case or another, but the firm officially used a EFTA01125080 5 different software product to manage its scanned 6 images. 7 Q What product was that? 8 A That was called Fortis, F-o-r-t-i-s. 9 Q When Bradley Edwards joined the firm were 10 his case files brought over to RRA's offices? Paper 11 files, I mean. 12 A Were they physically brought over to RRA's 13 offices? I don't think i knew that at the time, 14 because the idea was if he was not paperless that all 15 of his files be imaged and brought into our image 16 management system at the firm, because we were a 17 paperless law firm. But did he physically bring over 18 all of his files? I don't know the answer to that 19 question. 20 Q So when you say "we were a paperless law 21 firm,• using Fortis, for example, as you said -- 22 A Yes. 23 Q -- you'd have images of documents in lieu 24 of paper copies? 25 A All files were supposed to be imaged or 0056 1 scanned, but there were exceptions to that. In other 2 words, some lawyers still used paper files over there 3 for various reasons and I cannot swear under oath 4 that every single file was, in fact, scanned or 5 imaged. 6 Q Do you know whether Mr. Edwards' files were 7 scanned or imaged when or about the time he joined 8 the firm? 9 A I'm sure some of them were, but I cannot 10 tell you if all of them were. You would have to ask 11 him. 12 Q Now, you referred earlier to the Epstein 13 cases. Those cases, did you ever actually have an 14 occasion to look at the cases; in other words, 15 whatever file he had whether it was scanned or in 16 paper? 17 A Are you asking me if I ever sat and looked 18 through any of the Epstein files whether in paper or 19 digital form? 20 Q Yeah. 21 A I don't think I did, no. 22 Q What about PACER, did you ever use the 23 public access system that provides access to Federal 24 court filings to look at any of them? 25 A No. 0057 1 Q Do you use PACER now to look at any court 2 filings? 3 A I don't practice in Federal court, so the 4 answer is no. I don't even know how to use PACER. 5 Q Is it fair to say - and I don't know if 6 you'll think this is work-product or not, but I'll 7 ask you and you'll tell me - is it fair to say that EFTA01125081 8 the information that you got about the Epstein cases 9 was given to you by other people rather than by 10 first-hand observation of documents? 11 A Any information I got about the Epstein 12 cases would have come from Brad Edwards. Can I swear 13 that I never looked at one piece of paper or looked 14 at one deposition from that case, no. I might have, 15 but I don't remember specifically looking at any 16 particular document or deposition. 17 I never had anything to do with those cases 18 except from an administrative viewpoint and I did 19 attend I think two depositions in that case, but I 20 did not participate in taking them. 21 Q Was one of them the brother of Jeffrey 22 Epstein, Hark? 23 A Yes, in New York City. 24 Q Why did you attend? 25 A Because I wanted to go up to New York any 0058 1 way. Brad was there and I just showed up for an hour 2 or something like that. It wasn't very long. 3 Q The other one you attended, was that also 4 in New York? 5 A No, that was Jeffrey Epstein. It was his 6 deposition or a part of his deposition, I should 7 say. 8 Q And why did you attend that one? 9 A Because it was being taken up on Australian 10 Avenue in West Palm Beach. I was up there for 11 hearings that morning I believe and, again, I just 12 wanted to stop in and see what was going on. I think 13 there were two other lawyers there, Brad and someone 14 else. 15 Q Something I forgot to ask you before. When 16 you were talking about the lawyers that were in your 17 group when PRA ended you said there were nine. Was 18 Christina Kitterman in your group? 19 A No. 20 Q Had she been in your group before? 21 A No. In the Tort Group? 22 Q In the Tort Group? 23 A No. 24 Q What kind of lawyer, what kind of practice 25 did she have? 0059 1 A Commercial litigation. 2 Q Was she at the firm at the end? 3 A Yeah. 4 Q The case I think you've mentioned before, 5 that was the $24 million verdict? 6 A Yes. Thank you for mentioning that 7 again. 8 Q That originated through her? 9 A She brought it in. She knew the mother of 10 the girl who was molested. EFTA01125082 11 Q Do you know where she's working now, Mrs. 12 Kitterman, if she's working? 13 A Yes. 14 Q Where is that? 15 A She's in private practice. 16 Q Her own? 17 A Yes. 18 Q I mean, I'm in private practice, too, but I 19 work at Fowler, White, Burnett. 20 A I know. 21 Q But she's on her own? 22 A Yes. 23 Q Do you know if she received any 24 compensation for being the person who brought in that 25 piece of litigation? 0060 1 A What, the $24 million verdict? 2 Q Yes. 3 A She probably received nothing, because we 4 didn't collect any money on it. We didn't collect 5 the verdict. The guy filed bankruptcy. 6 Q Now, I want to go back to the request in 7 the subpoena because I'm not entirely clear now 8 whether or not you don't have any responsive 9 documents to the seven categories or whether some of 10 them might be contained in the e-mails that you had 11 forgotten to look at. 12 Did you previous, prior to today look to 13 see whether you had any written communications, I'm 14 going to include e-mails in that, between you and Mr. 15 Rothstein about Mr. Edwards? 16 A I think the only documents I would have, as 17 you define "documents", would be e-mails. And, no, I 18 did not look, but I will. 19 Q I think I've already asked you this, but 20 just so it will be clear. Number 4, I had asked 21 about written communications to or from Mr. Edwards 22 prior to his becoming an employee of RRA. And you 23 said those may be in the e-mails or not? 24 A If I have them, I will either produce them 25 or I will describe them and invoke privilege if I 0061 1 feel it's applicable. 2 Q Now, if it's a communication to or from Mr. 3 Edwards prior to his becoming an employee of RRA, 4 what privilege would you be invoking? 5 A I don't think there is a privilege for that 6 particular category. Well, none that I can think of 7 unless privacy -- 8 MR. KING: From your standpoint, financial 9 privacy might be -- 10 MRS. APRIL: Are you taking the position 11 that if I am looking for a job with a firm and I 12 send an e-mail to this fellow saying, Hey, I 13 gotta have six figures, big six figures, that ••••••••,••• EFTA01125083 14 would be somehow a privileged communication? 15 MR. KING: In a certain type of case the 16 privilege may be overridden by other interests, 17 but in this particular case we continue to 18 assert the privilege for the reasons that Mr. 19 Scarola set forth in the earlier deposition. 20 There's absolutely nothing that would 21 outweigh -- there is nothing of interest in this 22 case from the defendant's perspective, from our 23 standpoint that would outweigh the interests of 24 our client with regard to financial privacy. 25 MRS. APRIL: We have a non-party witness 0062 1 here today, so I don't want to waste his time 2 with this silliness. 3 MR. KING: You just asked me what our 4 position was and I recounted it. 5 MRS. APR/L: I know, but I just wanted to 6 understand that you're saying your guy had some 7 kind of expectation of privacy if he 8 communicated with another person who he didn't 9 even work with and that it would privileged? 10 MR. KING: No. Our position is what I've 11 set forth. 12 MRS. APRIL: Okay. You don't have to 13 repeat it. It speaks for itself, I guess. 14 BY MRS. APRIL: 15 Q Number 5. Between March 1, 2009 to the 16 present date we had asked you this: For any and all 17 documents between or on behalf of any agent of RRA, 18 including you, and any third party, meaning someone 19 who doesn't work at RRA, regarding a purported 20 settlement of any litigation between Mr. Epstein and 21 one of your clients. 22 Did you look to see if you had any such 23 documents? 24 A Settlement? That's settlement with 25 Epstein? 0063 1 Q Regarding a purported settlement, not 2 necessarily a settlement. 3 A I don't think any of the cases had settled 4 by the time -- by Halloween of 2009. 5 Q So the answer is: You don't think there 6 would be -- 7 A In fact, I'm virtually certain none of them 8 had settled. And if none of them had settled, there 9 would be no such e-mails at least involving me. 10 Q Have you heard that Mr. Rothstein told 11 third parties, persons not in your firm, that there 12 were settlements that had occurred or were about to 13 occur with Mr. Epstein at some point? 14 A At some point in time did I hear it or -- 15 Q Yes. 16 A I might have read it in the paper at some •••••• ••1.4... EFTA01125084 17 time in 2010, but never, ever before Halloween of 16 2009 or even on Halloween of 2009. 19 Q So you don't have any documents that would 20 describe these purported settlements? 21 A I knew nothing of any purported settlements 22 at all before 2010. 23 Q And the way you learned about it was 24 through the press or just rumor or something? 25 A I think what I read in the newspaper. 0064 1 Q You don't believe everything you read in 2 the newspaper, do you? 3 A That's correct, I do not. 4 Q Did you look to see if you had any 5 documents, this is also part of Number 5, concerning 6 the financing of any litigation by an RRA client 7 against Mr. Epstein? 8 In other words -- Well, I don't know. Do 9 you have any such documents that concerns the 10 financing of those litigation matters? 11 A The only information I really have about 12 that is what I spoke about in my prior deposition in 13 the Trustee case. 14 Q And you don't have any documents about 15 that? 16 A I don't think I've ever seen any documents 17 about that. 18 Q If you don't mind looking at Number 5 just 19 for a minute, because there are Subparts a, b, c, d 20 and e. 21 A Yes. 22 Q Just to be clear then. You don't think you 23 have any documents concerning - let's go to "b," I 24 think you've answered "a" already - soliciting or 25 receiving money in return for settlement funds 0065 1 allegedly paid or to be paid by Epstein? 2 Not necessarily a document you created, but 3 that came into your possession from Mr. Rothstein or 4 anyone else? 5 A Absolutely. Well, before 2010 I didn't 6 know of any settlement or settlement funds or 7 anything having to do with that issue involving the 8 Epstein cases -- 9 Q All right. Had you -- 10 A -- except as specifically described in 11 answers to questions in my prior deposition when the 12 questions were asked of me by Mr. Lichtman and I 13 answered them. Those questions and answers touch on 14 some of the issues you're asking me about today. 15 Q In that deposition, do you recall 16 testifying that you did not know prior to the breakup 17 of the firm that Scott Rothstein was marketing 18 structured settlements to investors? 19 A I had no idea. I did not know at all. EFTA01125085 20 Q Did you know or hear -- Let me break it 21 into two questions. 22 Did you know that Scott Rothstein was 23 marketing investments of any kind to anybody during 24 the time that you worked at RRA? 25 A I never knew anything about that when I 0066 1 worked at RRA. 2 Q Did you hear even as rumor that he was 3 selling some kind of investments? 4 A While I worked at RRA? 5 Q Yes. 6 A Absolutely not. 7 Q I assume your answer is going to be no, but 8 let me just ask you to look at Number 6 so that I'm 9 clear on the e-mails that you're going to go back and 10 look at don't cover this. 11 Number 6, we asked you if you had any 12 documents which purport to evidence any transfer of 13 funds or property from Epstein to RRA, Mr. Rothstein 14 or any other Rothstein-related entity for the 15 settlement of any case against Epstein, real or 16 fabricated? 17 A Same answer. During the time I was at RRA, 18 the Epstein cases were all pending. Nothing had been 19 settled. There were no monies or funds or transfers 20 that I knew of. 21 Q That's why the word "purport" is in there. 22 A Whatever, but I'm just telling you. 23 Q Number 7 I believe you've answered? 24 A I have. 25 Q You do not have any copies of any 0067 1 employment agreements or documents between Mr. 2 Edwards and RRA that describes compensation? 3 A Nope. 4 Q So whether or not it's privileged, you 5 don't have it, if it exists? 6 A I don't have it, if it exists. 7 Q Sir, you said you've been a lawyer for 24 8 years. Where did you go to law school? 9 A Nova. 10 Q And currently in your -- Is it Russell S. 11 Adler, P.A.? 12 A Yes. 13 Q Do you have other lawyers who work with you 14 as employees or partners? 15 A I have no employees or partners. 16 Q Prior to RRA I think you have said the firm 17 that you were with was Kartan (pronouncing)? 18 A Karmin. 19 Q Karmin & -- 20 A It was Karmin & Adler, P.A., I believe. 21 Q Do you recall going through your prior 22 employment when asked by Mr. Lichtman about what EFTA01125086 23 positions you had held as a lawyer before joining 24 RRA? 25 A I don't specifically recall, but if he 0068 1 asked me, I would have told him. 2 Q So you graduated in 19 -- What year is 24 3 years ago? 4 A What, what year did I graduated from law 5 school? 6 Q Yes. 7 A 1986. 8 Q Can you just take me through your 9 employment, a summary of what you did first? I know 10 when you got to Karmin & Adler, but between law 11 school and that firm. 12 A So you would like to know my employment 13 history from 1986 forward, is that your question? 14 Q Yes. 15 A In 1986 I was employed by Sheldon J. 16 Schlessinger, P.A. 17 Q Okay. 18 A In early-1987 or in late-1986 I left his 19 employment and I went into solo practice for several 20 years. And then I joined the law firm of Roderman, 21 Spadara & Karmin in 1988. I'm sorry. In 1988 I 22 joined that firm Roderman, Spadaro & Karmin. Two 23 years later in 1990, Karmin and I split off and 24 formed Karmin & Adler. 25 Q And that brings us up to when you -- 0069 1 A Basically, right. Carl, you know, we 2 brought some people on; some lawyers came, some 3 lawyers went. Carl went out on disability and I 4 bought him out in, I think, 2003 or 2002, but we kept 5 the firm name and I stayed there until I joined RRA 6 in February of 2005. 7 Q I believe you testified already that you've 8 settled the case that you gave testimony, I mean, the 9 adversary proceeding that the bankruptcy Trustee 10 filed against you? 11 A Yes. 12 Q And you're not a party in any other 13 lawsuits at present? 14 A At present, no. 15 Q Have you ever been a party in a lawsuit 16 other than that one? 17 A Yes. 18 Q When? 19 A In my whole life? 20 Q Yes. 21 A I was named in two other lawsuits arising 22 out of the RRA situation. 23 Q Are those suits pending? 24 A No. I settled one of them. The other I 25 believe I was dismissed from. EFTA01125087 0070 1 Q And excluding -- 2 A And have had other litigation other than 3 that. 4 Q Well, excluding like professional 5 negligence or anything relating to RRA, have you been 6 a party in any other lawsuit? 7 A Just maybe by a credit card company or I 8 think West Publishing sued me once, I didn't pay my 9 Westlaw bill. I think that's about it subject to 10 those parameters and subject to everything else I 11 disclosed to you. 12 Q What about a plaintiff, have you ever been 13 a plaintiff in a lawsuit? 14 A I think I sued someone in small claims 15 court in college that I think ran into my car, but I 16 think that's it. 17 Q Have you been deposed before last year when 18 you gave a deposition in the adversary proceeding 19 that Chuck Lichtman took your deposition? 20 A Have I ever been deposed in my life before 21 then? 22 Q Well, since you were a lawyer? 23 A Yes. 24 Q Were you deposed as a -- were any of them 25 concerning your legal practice? 0071 1 A There were two, I think there were two 2 malpractice suits against me. I might have been 3 deposed in one of them, but I'm not positive. And I 4 think I've been deposed a few times as like an 5 attorney's fees expert. 6 Q That's what I was going to ask you, as an 7 expert? 8 A Yeah. And I think that's it. There's 9 something else that there might have been another 10 time I testified, I just don't remember the details 11 of that. 12 Q You mentioned earlier that when you -- soon 13 after you gave the deposition October 28th, 2010 that 14 you did see the transcript and you looked at it? 15 A I read it over. I might not have read it 16 word for word, but I looked through it. 17 Q Well, typically, court reporters will give 18 you an Errata Sheet and ask the witness if they want 19 to make any corrections? 20 A 1 don't think I did. I might have said I 21 will read, but I don't think I made any corrections 22 to the Errata Sheet. 23 Q To your knowledge, were there any 24 inaccuracies in your statement? 25 A Not to my knowledge. But again, I did not 0072 1 read it word for word. In other words, I ended up 2 effectively waiving my right to read and make EFTA01125088 3 corrections on the Errata Sheet by not returning 4 it. 5 Q Other than your own counsel and your 6 conversation with Brad Edwards, did you speak to 7 anyone else about the fact that you were being 8 deposed in this case? 9 A I might have told my wife. I'm not sure. 10 Q I understand. And again, I'm doing this to 11 save time. We can go through it more slowly, but 12 based on your prior testimony in answers to questions 13 by Mr. Lichtman, you were never actually an owner of 14 any equity in RRA, is that correct? You were 15 promised to be, but you never actually received any 16 stock, correct? 17 A Correct. 18 Q And that you had a title of vice-president, 19 but that was more of a title rather than a meaningful 20 functional title? 21 A It was just that, it was a title. I never 22 acted as vice-president in any capacity. It was a 23 title I was given. 24 Q Did you have the authority to hire or fire 25 at all? 0073 1 A Nope. 2 Q Even your secretary or some clerical 3 person? 4 A If I wanted to get rid of a secretary, I 5 could go to Debra and tell her, Please get rid of 6 them. And she would. So I guess I had the indirect 7 authority to do that. 8 Q You were head of your Tort Group. Was the 9 firm divided into other departments similar? 10 A Whether there other practice areas within 11 the firm, yes. 12 Q Do you know how many there were? 13 A Probably five or six. 14 Q Was there any discussion between you and 15 other lawyers at the firm, including Scott Rothstein, 16 about, well, vetting Mr. Edwards before he joined the 17 firm where you sat around the table and talked about 18 whether it would be a good idea to bring him on or 19 you didn't sit around the table but you talked? 20 A Other than telling Scott Rothstein that I 21 had met with Brad and I wanted to bring him into the 22 firm, no. 23 Q What about references or background checks 24 on Mr. Edwards, did you personally or did you ask 25 someone else to do that? 0074 1 A I didn't perform any. Whether the firm did 2 or not, I really don't know. 3 Q Do you know whether the firm typically 4 would do any kind of checks on lawyers before 5 bringing them on? EFTA01125089 6 A What specifically do you mean by checks on 7 lawyers? 8 Q Calling the Florida Bar to make sure 9 they're in good standing, checking to see that they 10 really went to law school, whether they have any 11 convictions, things like that? 12 A I don't know one way or the other. 13 Q You didn't do it and you don't know? 14 A I did not do it for the most part, no. I 15 only hired lawyers that I knew. 16 Q In your testimony that you gave on October 17 28, 2010 you attribute, indirectly I think, Mr. 18 Edwards coming to the firm with Christina Kitterman 19 bringing in the case that was your $24 million 20 verdict. Do you remember that? 21 MR. KING: Objection to form. 22 BY MRS. APRIL: 23 Q Let me ask you this, because it's not meant 24 to impeach you, it's just to get to a point. You 25 mentioned earlier that Brad Edwards saw some press 0075 1 about the case, the $24 million case? 2 A That Christina Kitterman had brought in. 3 Q Yes. 4 A And Brad called me once he saw that. 5 Q So the connection there is strictly because 6 Christina brought in the case, you worked on the 7 case, the case got publicity, Brad called you about 8 it; that's the only connection between Christina 9 Kitterman and Brad Edwards? 10 A Christina Kitterman had nothing at all to 11 do with it other than the fact that she brought that 12 Doe vs. Siriwat case into our law firm. 13 Q Was Stuart Rosenfeldt part of your practice 14 area group? 15 A No. 16 Q Was he the head of a different group? 17 A Yes. 18 Q What was that group called? 19 A Labor and Employment. 20 Q Did Brad Edwards bring over to your 21 knowledge any Labor and Employment cases? 22 A I don't know. 23 Q If he did, he was in your group? He wasn't 24 like -- Could a person be in more than one group 25 depending on the kinds of cases they had? 0076 1 A I think that some groups were more 2 well-defined than others within that firm and some 3 groups were run differently than others from an 4 administrative viewpoint. I think some groups 5 weren't even run at all, they were just lawyers who 6 practiced in the same area and who just worked 7 together. 8 Q But when Brad joined the firm I think you EFTA01125090 9 mentioned earlier that there was what I call an 10 inventory or a case list of what he brought over. 11 Did you personally look at the cases so you would 12 have an understanding of the nature of the book of 13 business he brought over? 14 Let me rephrase that. I don't mean 15 personally looked at the case files. 16 A Right. 17 Q But look at the style of the case and have 18 some conversation so you know what they were about? 19 A Once they got on our case list, I might 20 have sat with him and said, What's this case? What's 21 that about? What's this case? What's that about? 22 Q Were you aware whether any of them were 23 sexual harassment cases against an employer? 24 A Are you asking whether I am aware that any 25 of them were Labor & Employment cases? 0077 1 Q Well, no. Somebody might call it that. 2 Specifically, harassment cases by an employee against 3 an employer? 4 A I really would not know about that. Not to 5 say I wouldn't have access to that, but I was 6 concerned with the tort cases that I was 7 administratively overseeing. 8 Q Are you saying that if he did have a case 9 or cases of that type that, administratively, they 10 would be overseen by Stuart Rosenfeldt or someone 11 else? 12 A If Brad, hypothetically, brought a Labor & 13 Employment case into the firm, he would deal with 14 Stuart Rosenfeldt about that. If he told me he bad 15 one, I would say, Go and talk to Stuart. Lawyers 16 were encouraged to bring in other kinds of cases that 17 other lawyers in the firm handled, but I didn't 18 really keep track of what cases Brad brought into the 19 firm that were not regarding personal injury or 20 tort. 21 Q When Brad came into the firm -- Well, let 22 me back up. 23 At Rothstein, Rosenfeldt & Adler, were 24 lawyers referred to as partners or shareholders and 25 associates? 0078 1 A People were given titles like that. 2 Q And when Brad came in was he considered in 3 the associate group or in the partner/shareholder, if 4 you know? 5 MR. KING: Objection. Form. 6 A He would have been either an associate or a 7 partner. I don't recall what type of title he was 8 given when he came in. I don't recall. 9 Q Is that something that he talked to.you 10 about when you met with him about whether or not it 11 was important what his title was? EFTA01125091 12 A I don't recall. 13 Q Do you know how in the firm it was 14 determined whether somebody was given the associate 15 title versus partner or shareholder? 16 A I did not know the specific criteria, but 17 that was ultimately up to Scott Rothstein. 18 Q Were there any attorneys at the firm who 19 were in a different category such as of counsel or 20 senior counsel or some other title? 21 A Was anyone of counsel? I'm not sure. I 22 just don't know. 23 Q When you met with Brad Edwards at Yolo 24 during your meeting when you talked to him about his 25 possibly joining RRA, did he describe to you his 0079 1 success rate, you know, his wins or losses or how he 2 had done in cases? 3 A We may have, but I do not specifically 4 recall. 5 Q Who besides Scott Rothstein in the firm - I 6 know now I think it's the Trustee, but at the time 7 the firm was still operating, besides Scott 8 Rothstein - who else would have known the 9 compensation package that was ultimately agreed upon 10 with Brad Edwards? 11 A I don't know for sure, but probably whoever 12 was involved in payroll and benefits and things like 13 that. I don't really know who had access to what on 14 that administrative side of the firm. 15 Q But some administrative person, you just 16 don't know who, or persons? 17 A I am not even sure under oath, you know. 18 Probably Irene Stay (phonetic), who was the 19 bookkeeper, probably had salary information I would 20 imagine, but there were several different people over 21 time who worked in that administrative part of the 22 office with Scott and Debra and all of those people. 23 They handled that. 24 Q Did you ever participate in any assessment, 25 review of the work of attorneys who worked with you, 0080 1 with Mr. Rothstein? In other words, where you 2 discussed with him how they were doing for purposes 3 of their year-end compensation or whether they would 4 have adjustments? Did you have any of those sort of 5 discussions with him? 6 A The only kind of discussions I recall, he 7 might have said, How is this person doing? Or, How 8 is that person doing? At one point I might have been 9 named to a Compensation Committee, but I don't think 10 that any Compensation Committee that I was ever 11 involved in ever even met. It was like something 12 that was said or discussed that Scott brought up, but 13 I never sat down and made compensation decisions or 14 reviewed the work for compensation purposes. EFTA01125092 15 I oversaw the case list and the 16 distribution of cases among different attorneys and 17 staff members to make sure the cases were balanced. 18 Q Did you even, well, even fill out a written 19 evaluation of the lawyers that worked with you? 20 A No. Not a formal written evaluation. 21 Q What about an informal written evaluation 22 or an e-mail even? 23 A Did I ever send an e-mail to one of the 24 lawyers in my group about something on one of their 25 cases? I'm sure I did. 0081 1 Q No. No. I mean, to Mr. Rothstein or the 2 Compensation Committee? You said they never met, but 3 was there ever any collection of information when you 4 were there about how the eight other lawyers in your 5 group stacked up, how they were doing? 6 A There may have been some e-mails like that. 7 I don't specifically recall. 8 Q Do you remember if there were any ever done 9 on Brad Edwards? 10 A I don't recall. He wasn't there for that 11 long, you know. 12 Q Yes. 13 A He was probably there about a year, give or 14 take. That's why I was kind of fuzzy about whether 15 he started in '08 or '09. 16 Q You said you didn't read his deposition 17 given in this case? 18 A No, never did. 19 Q Do you know where he went to work after RRA 20 closed? 21 A Yes. 22 Q Where? 23 A The Farmer, Jaffe firm. 24 Q Did you consider going to that firm? 25 A Yes. 0082 1 Q why didn't you go there? 2 A Because soon after they began discussing 3 forming that firm, more details about the extent of 4 Rothstein's criminal acts were coming out. I'm 5 trying to think of a way to word this. I began to be 6 concerned that just because my name was part of the 7 firm name that there could be some negative 8 association by outsiders with my name and I did not 9 want anything involving my name to affect or hurt the 10 lawyers who were forming that firm. And so, I chose 11 at that point in time to go into solo practice where 12 I still am today. 13 Q Now, Brad Edwards, he has testified in his 14 deposition or you have testified today that you knew 15 him also at The Fitness Factory, the gym? 16 A The Fitness Company. 17 Q The Fitness Company. Okay. And did you EFTA01125093 18 ever talk about cases at the gym? 19 A In smalltalk I might have said something 20 like, I'm starting trial tomorrow, or, I just hit a 21 verdict. Just things like that. Things that lawyers 22 talk about in passing when they see each other. 23 Q What about Brad to you, did he give you 24 similar sort of smalltalk? 25 A Not that I really recall. 0083 1 Q So is it accurate to say that until Brad 2 Edwards called you about what I'm calling the $24 3 million verdict, because it's easier than remembering 4 the name who went bankrupt, for me it is, until he 5 called you and said he had seen something in the 6 newspaper, did you even know the kinds of cases that 7 he was working on when you would see him at the gym? 8 A I knew he was handling personal injury 9 cases, but that's about all that I knew. 10 Q Did you know at that time he had any abuse 11 cases? 12 A At what time? 13 Q When you were seeing him at the gym, before 14 he called you -- 15 A Before he called me that day to 16 congratulate me about my verdict, I did not know 17 anything about any sexual abuse cases that he had or 18 that he was handling. 19 MR. HADDAD: You guys go ahead. 20 MRS. APRIL: No. Why don't we take a 21 couple minute break, is that okay? 22 (WHEREUPON, a short break took place from 23 11:10 a.m. to 11:20 a.m.) 24 BY MRS. APRIL: 25 Q Did you ever go to Brad Edwards' office 0084 1 before he joined your firm? 2 A No. I might have been to the Kubicki, 3 Draper firm while he was a member there, but I never 4 went into his office at that firm. 5 Q At Kubicki, Draper, this was one case you 6 had where he was on the other side, he was on the 7 defense team? 8 A I had many cases over the years with 9 Earleen Cote and with Ken Oliver and other lawyers at 10 the Kubicki, Draper firm. When Brad Edwards was 11 there, he worked as an associate to Earleen Cote. I 12 only recall I think one case where Brad showed up 13 covering a depo or doing something for Earleen. 14 Q Were you ever in a case that went to trial 15 that he was at the trial? 16 A No. I never tried a case against him. 17 Q Did you ever see him in court before he 18 joined the firm? 19 A I might have seen him in the courthouse at 20 motion calendar. But did I ever see him in trial EFTA01125094 21 before he joined the firm -- 22 Q Well, I mean, a trial or a substantive 23 evidentiary hearing or something like that? 24 A No. 25 Q Did you have any information about his 0085 1 skills as a trial lawyer? 2 A I just knew that he had been a prosecutor 3 before he joined Kubicki, Draper and I knew that he 4 had been a defense attorney; I felt that defense 5 attorneys make good plaintiff lawyers when they 6 switch sides. 7 Q To your knowledge, did Brad Edwards use an 8 attorney to represent him in his negotiations with 9 Scott Rothstein? 10 A I don't think so. 11 Q I'm not clear if your prior answer covers 12 this, so let me just ask you: Was it typical at RRA 13 for lawyers who produced a lot of revenue for the 14 firm to get bonuses for that or do you know? 15 A Everybody had their own compensation 16 package. So the reason I cannot answer your question 17 is that I really wasn't familiar with the 18 compensation packages or even the bonus structure 19 that other lawyers had other than my own. 20 Q Do you know during the time that Brad 21 Edwards was with the firm what kind of collections, 22 if any, came into the firm as a result of his effort 23 on his cases or other cases he worked on? 24 A You call them collections. i call them 25 settlements or verdicts that were paid. I don't 0086 1 think he tried any cases, actual trials while he was 2 at RRA for the time that he was there. 3 Did he settle cases when he was there? 4 Probably, but I can't recall a specific case as I sit 5 here right now. 6 Q Is it accurate to say you don't know what 7 money came in as a result of his efforts through 8 settlement, for example? 9 A I would have kept track of that when we 10 were at the firm, but I don't know as I sit here 11 today. 12 Q That information, to your knowledge, would 13 be in the hands of the Trustee? 14 A Yes. 15 Q Do you recall learning of any settlement of 16 a Brad Edwards case? And I'm not talking now about 17 necessarily Mr. Epstein, but any case that Brad 18 Edwards brought in that was a significant settlement. 19 A First of all, to the best of my 20 recollection, none of the Epstein cases settled while 21 he was at the firm I think I told you. 22 Q I think you said that, yes. 23 A I think he may have settled one or two EFTA01125095 24 others cases not involving Epstein while he was at 25 RRA during the short time he was there. 0087 1 Q Do you know if they were significant 2 settlements, you know, upwards of six figures, seven 3 figures? 4 A I have no recollection. I just don't know. 5 I don't think -- There were no seven-figure 6 settlements. There might have been six figures. Are 7 you talking about the fee or the gross settlement 8 amount? 9 Q Fee. 10 A I don't think there were any six- or 11 seven-figure settlements during the short time he 12 worked there on his cases, but I might be wrong. 13 Q Are you aware of the fact that RRA financed 14 costs for the cases against Jeffrey Epstein during 15 the time Brad Edwards was at the firm? 16 A I'm aware that the firm advanced costs or, 17 I should say, paid costs on those cases -- on cases 18 that were being handled by the Tort Group, that would 19 include Brad Edwards cases in the most general sense. 20 Can I tell you if I know for sure, can I 21 swear under oath that the firm advanced costs on the 22 Epstein cases? I can't tell you that. If I wanted 23 to know how much money RRA advanced or had put into 24 any case, I would have to get that through the 25 Bookkeeping Department because they kept those 0088 1 records, not me. That would typically occur before 2 mediation when I had to know what the cost would be 3 or when a case settled so that we could prepare the 4 Settlement Statement. 5 Q Do you know whether RRA loaned any money to 6 Brad Edwards when he was a lawyer at the firm? 7 A I do not know. 8 Q Do you know what individuals worked with 9 Brad Edwards on his cases? 10 A Which cases are you referring to? 11 Q Well, let's start with the Epstein cases. 12 Was there any particular lawyers or paralegals that 13 were assigned to him on those cases? 14 A At one point in time he did have a 15 secretary named Jackie, I don't know her last name. 16 He might have had -- There was a period of time that 17 he did not have his own secretary, so I don't -- I 18 cannot tell you as we sit here today which secretary 19 or secretaries other than Jackie worked on his 20 files. 21 Q Could it have been Jackie Johnson? 22 A I believe so. 23 Q What about attorneys, were there particular 24 attorneys? Did he have associate attorneys that 25 worked on his cases, more junior lawyers? 0089 EFTA01125096