Epstein Secrets

M. or E.W. cases. 22. All documents that support your claim of damages In your counterclaim in this case. 23. The written fee agreement with the Searcy Denney firm for their representation of you in this case. 24. All emalls exchanged between you (or anyone of your behalf) and one or more of the followi

eissing, Edwards, Flstos & Lehrman, PL 425 N. Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Attorneys for Defendant, LM. Jack Scarola, Esq. Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart Shipley, P.A 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd. est Palm Beach, FL 33409 Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A

STEIN, Plaintiff, vs. @001/o05 onfifro SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, IndNIdually, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, Individually, and L.M., Individually, Defendant. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: 602009CA040800XXXXMBAG DEFENDANT BRADLEY J. EDWARDS RESPONSE T

on » is not >a >> secure mode of communication and may be accessed by unauthorized persons. >> This communication originates from the law firm of Searcy Denney >> Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. and is protected under the >> Electronic > Communication >> Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. S2510-2521. The informatio

06/06/2012 Page 7 of 22 JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff, vs. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY J, F.DWARDS, individually. Defendants. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO. 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED MOTION TO COMPEL DISC

asonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and protected by the work-product privilege. 23. The written fee agreement with Searcy Denney firm for their representation of you in this case. ANSWER: Objection. Edwards objects to the above-cited Requests to Produce on the purported gro

JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff, vs. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually. Defendants. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG JUDGE: HAFELE PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFEN

asonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and protected by the work-product privilege. 23. The written fee agreement with Searcy Denney firm for their representation of you in this case. ANSWER: Objection. Edwards objects to the above-cited Requests to Produce on the purported gro

JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff, vs. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually. Defendants. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG JUDGE: HAFELE PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFEN

asonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and protected by the work-product privilege. 23. The written fee agreement with Searcy Denney firm for their representation of you in this case. ANSWER: Objection. Edwards objects to the above-cited Requests to Produce on the purported gro

JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff, vs. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually. Defendants. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG JUDGE: HAFELE PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFEN