Epstein Secrets

STEIN SHOULD NOT BE HELD IN CONTEMPT OF COURT, TO PERMIT DISCOVERY, TO ASSESS SANCTIONS AND COSTS, AND FOR OTHER APPROPRIATE RELIEF Fanner, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, P.L. ("Farmer Jaffe"), through counsel, hereby moves this honorable Court for an Order to Show Cause Why Fowler White an

client. And I can say legal counsel, Mr. Goldberger. So that's it." Hearing Trans. 64:14-19. 30. During the hearing, counsel for Epstein (Link and Rockenbach) also revealed that Fowler White was disclaiming any memory of the circumstances surrounding the creation and retention of the disc: "We have reach

cause, for representing then-minor girls sexually abused by Epstein, including L.M. 21. On March 2, 2018, Epstein, through counsel Scott Link and Kara Rockenbach, Epstein filed Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Notice of Filing of Redacted Appendix in Support of Response in Opposition to Defendan

1068) and to Compel Jeffrey Epstein to Pay for the Production of All Documents in Response to His Requests Filed by Interested Party Fanner, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, P.L., In re Rothstein Rosenfeld! Adler, P.A., United States Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of Florida, Case No. 09

use proceedings and the upcoming depositions. BACKGROUND During the March 8, 2018, hearing, the Court instructed Epstein to file under seal Link & Rockenbach's copy of the disc and exhibits identified on Epstein's March 5, 2018, Clerk's Trial Exhibit List which Edwards claimed were privileged. The exhibit

ckenbach"), which occurred on October 13, 2018. Due to the impermissible questions, Epstein additionally moves this Court to require Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, P.L. ("Farmer Jaffe"), Bradley J. Edwards ("Edwards") and Intervenor L.M. ("L.M.") (collectively, the "Movants") to pay

ng line of questions about his firm's review of the disc after its discovery: Q. How did she [Paralegal Tina Campbell] review the disc contents? Rockenbach (counsel for Mr. Link): I am going to object on the basis of, not only work product protection, but that this exceeds the scope of Judge Ray's orde