Epstein Secrets

EACH PRIVATE SCHOOL TAPP,F C CANTOR,MABEL GOLDBERG,DR RICHARD REIDEL,LAURA

STEPHAICH,LOUISE TORREY,DAVID L RAYNER,WILLIAM DERRIN,SCOTT J 210 VIA DEL

minal cases upon which Appellee relies in support of his assertion that the trial court's ruling was proper; Levin, 9 EFTA00589629 Middlebrooks, Mabie, Thomas, Mayes & Mitchell, M. v. United States Fire Ins. Co., 639 So. 2d 606, 608 (Fla. 1994) and Echevarria, McCalla, Raymer, Barrett & Frappier v

on for misconduct!" Id. at 593 (quoting Levin, 639 So. 2d at 608). 15 EFTA00589635 Appellant correctly acknowledges that in Echevarria, Mc Calla, Raymer, Barrett & Frappier v. Cole, 950 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 2007) the Florida Supreme Court not only reaffirmed the Levin decision but also expanded it to in

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, M. v. United States Fire Ins. Co., 639 So. 2d 606, 608 (Fla. 1994) and Echevarria, McCalla, Raymer, Barrett & 9 EFTA007

bsequent civil action for misconduct?" Id. at 593 (quoting Levin, 639 So. 2d at 608). Appellant correctly acknowledges that in Echevarria, McCalla, Raymer, Barrett & Frappier v. Cole, 950 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 2007) the Florida Supreme Court 15 EFTA00714938 not only reaffirmed the Levin decision but als

etely barred. Id. (emphasis added); see also Echevarria, McCalla, Raymer, Barrett &Frappier v. Cole, 950 So. 2d 380 (F1a.2007); Levin, Middlebrooks, Mabie, Thomas, Mayes & Mitchell, M. v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 1994); DelMonico v. Traynor, 2013 WL 535451 (Fla.2013); Am. Nat'l Title &

iled and were related to the judicial proceedings, both causes of action were completely barred. Id. (emphasis added); see also Echevarria, McCalla, Raymer, Barrett &Frappier v. Cole, 950 So. 2d 380 (F1a.2007); Levin, Middlebrooks, Mabie, Thomas, Mayes & Mitchell, M. v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639 So. 2d 6

ious behavior, suéh as tortious interference with business relationship, so long as act has some relationship to proceeding, See Levin, Middlebrooks, Mabie, Thomas, Mayes & Mitchell, P.A. v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639 So, 2d 606 (Fla. 1994). The immunity afforded to statements made during the course of a ju

s well. id. The litigation privilege applies in all causes of action, whether for common- law torts or statutory violations. See Echevarria, McCalla, Raymer, Barrett & Frappier v. Cole, 950 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 2007). Defamatory statements made by lawyer while interviewing a witness in preparation for and con