Epstein Secrets

conducted an analysis of the seminal cases upon which Appellee relies in support of his assertion that the trial court's ruling was proper; Levin, Middlebrooks, Mabie, Thomas, Mayes & Mitchell, P.A. v. United States Fire Ins. Co., 639 So. 2d 606, 608 (Fla. 1994) and Echevarria, McCalla, Raymer, Barrett & 9

ional Association, 141 So. 3d 754 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) 2 LatAm Invests., LLC v. Holland & Knight, LLP, 88 So. 3d 240 (FIa. 3d DCA 2011) 3 Levin, Middlebrooks, Moves & Mitchell, P.A. v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 1994) passim McCullough v. Kubiak, 4D13-4048 (Feb. 18, 2015) 9, 10 Microbil

dled those cases I 9 believe to their conclusion, at or near the time 10 that I left that division two years ago or so. 11 Okay. So are you Ms. Haddad? 12 MS. HADDAD: I am. 13 THE COURT: Will you be arguing on behalf 14 Mr. Epstein? 15 MS. HADDAD: No, Judge. I don't have -- 16 Mr. Brewer wi

fide injuries, the chilling effect on free testimony would seriously hamper the adversary system if absolute immunity were not provided. Levin, Middlebrooks, Mabie, Thomas, Mayes & Mitchell, P.A. v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639 So.2d 606, 608 (Fla.1994) (citations omitted). In recognition of the necessity fo

Haddad, Tonja 10/10/2014 For Educational Use Only James v. Leigh, 145 So.3d 1006 (2014) 39 Fla. L. Weekly D1914 145 &Lad 1006 District Court of Appeal

rida in 1907 to provide legal immunity for actions that occur in judicial proceedings. Myers v. Hodges, 53 Fla. 197, 44 So. 357 (1907). In Levitt, Middlebrooks, Mabie, Thomas, Mayes & Mitchell, P.A. v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639 So.2d 606, 608 (Fla.I994), the Florida Supreme Court extended the litigation pri

Haddad, Tonja 8/26/2013 For Educational Use Only Wolfe v. Foreman, — So.3d — (2013) 38 Fla. L. Weekly D1540 2013 WL 3724763 Only the Westlaw citation i

igation privilege argument that your Honor 10 has heard repeatedly from opposing counsel. It 11 is based upon the Court's decision in Levin, 12 Middlebrooks which describes a broad litigation 13 privilege, applicable in the context of 14 legitimate claims. 15 The attempt to apply the litigation 16

THE COURT: Oh, yes, I got the reply too, 13 sorry, you're right. 14 MS. COLEMAN: Your Honor, before we 15 commence the hearing, I know that Mr. Haddad 16 has been trying to reach your office, and I 17 tried to reach everybody this morning. He 18 suffered an accident this morning. 19 THE COUR

undertaking from the Court. I harken back to a case yesterday on a very complex business matter where one of the attorneys was a clerk for Judge Middlebrooks, federal court. And he gave somewhat of a wry smile when he stated that our trial courts here in the state of Florida are not afforded with the sa

to chop up that motion limine THE COURT: I agree. I think that my better judgment would be to defer on the motion in limine until such time as Ms.Haddad and her cohorts or her co-counsel have had the opportunity to brief the issue conclusively and exhaustively. In this particular instance, Mr. Sca