Epstein Secrets

r to the proceeding. I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was emailed and ft-- mailed this of clay of February, 2011 to Marc S. Nurik, Esq., One East Broward Boulevard, Suite 700, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301; and Jack Scarola, Esquire, 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, P.O. Drawer 36

155, 170, 181, 184-187, 192, 198-202, 205-206, 208-210, 212, 215-217; Exhibit 1. Forty years ago, the Florida Supreme Court, in Surf Drugs, Inc. v. Vermette, 236 So. 2d 108, 112 (Fla. 1970), gave this general definition of work product saying what it is and what it is not: [T]hose documents, pictures,

33409; Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq., Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A., 250 Australian Ave. South, Suite 1400, West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012; and Marc S. Nurik, Esq., Law Offices of Marc S. Nurik, One East Broward Blvd., Suite 700, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301. Joseph L. Ackerman, Jr. W:180713kAfTNCPL76.15th

s." Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Harmon, 580 So. 2d 192, (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). Forty years ago, the Florida Supreme Court, in Sof Drugs, Inc. v. Vermette, 236 So. 2d 108, 112 (Fla. 1970), explained what is covered by the work product privilege: [T]hose documents, pictures, statements and diagrams whi

dale, FL 33301; Jack Alan Goldberger, Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A., 250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400, West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012; Marc S. Nurik, Law Offices of Marc S. Nurik, One East Broward Boulevard, Suite 700, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301; and Jack Scarola, Searcy Denney Scarola et al., 21

truth to ensure a fair trial." Elkins v. Syken, 672 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 1996) (citing Dodson v. Pend!, 390 So. 2d 704 (Fla. 1980); Suif Drugs, Inc. v. Vermette, 236 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 1970)). -"S ,r‘ II. In Elkins, the Florida Supreme Court commented on the purpose of pretrial discovery: Discovery was ne