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

uialism, discussion, conversation or agreement. C. "Plaintiff' means L.M. (LM. v. Jeffrey Epstein, Palm Beach County Case #502008CA028051,OOO(MB), E.W. (EVV. v. Jeffrey Epstein, Palm Beach County Case #502008CA028058)OOOO48), Jane Doe (Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein, United States District Court Case

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 emails exchanged between you (or anyone of your behalf) and one or more of the followi

quialism, discussion, conversation or agreement. C. "Plaintiff' means L.M. (LM. v. Jeffrey Epstein, Palm Beach County Case #502008CA028051XXXXMB), E.W. (E.W. v. Jeffrey Epstein, Palm Beach County Case #502008CA028058XXXXMB), Jane Doe (Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein, United States District Court Case #

ded the cost of dealing with over 70,000 emails — a cost that could not be advanced by Rothstein's bankrupt firm, Edwards' attorney Jack Scarola of Searcy Denney told Law360 on Monday. "The strong language in the order was considered adequate protection to preserve the confidentiality of the documents," Scar

ckenbach PA told Law360, "Mr. Epstein never even knew Fowler White had the disc until we found it." Counsel for three victims — identified as L.M., E.W. and Jane Doe — asked Judge Hafele to order Fowler White to explain its handling of the confidential documents, but he said he lacked the authority

Toll ua about Paul Caaaell. IS Spencer kuvin, Sid Garcia, Tod Leopold, Adam Horowitz 20 A Well, I don't know a whole lot about him, 30 and the Searcy Denney law firm? 21 other than he lives out of atato. And I think he's 21 A Yea. 22 connected with a university. I may be mistaken. 22 0 To what e

S to strike. 14 THE MITNESS: Ho. Is BY MR. SCAROLA: IS Q If Jeffrey Epstein alleges in this 19 complaint against Bradley Edwards that III., E.W. or 24 Jane Doe voluntarily consented to their sexual 21 molestation, could Jeffrey Epstein have possibly made 22 that claim on the basis of any

hard Horace Willits, Esq. Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbu Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. Counsel for Plainti Jack Scarola, Esq. Jack P. Hill, Esq. Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. Counsel tor vetwn-ciant JOU Bruce Reinhart, Esq. Counsel for Defendant Sarah Kellen Respectfully su By: ROB

, Vegas Cabaret, Spearmint Rhino, T's Lounge, Pure Platinum, Solid Gold, and The Body Shop. Substantial discovery will take place in that matter of E.W.'s co-workers, supervisors and others that may have Information regarding the claims she asserted against Epstein. Epstein should be afforded that sa

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

n related costs, expert costs, etc.) that were incurred by you in the representation of you and/or your law firm in representing Jane Doe, L.M. and E.W. prior to joining RRA. ANSWER: Objection, relevance, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is protected by

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

n related costs, expert costs, etc.) that were incurred by you in the representation of you and/or your law firm in representing Jane Doe, L.M. and E.W. prior to joining RRA. ANSWER: Objection, relevance, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is protected by