Epstein Secrets

limitation, specifically arising out of that certain incident described more particularly in Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff's Counterclaim filed in the Action entitled JEFFREY EPSTEIN v. SCOT?' ROTHSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY'. EDWARDS, individually, Case No. 502009CA040800,OOOCMB-AG, pending in the

rse of a judicial proceeding are absolutely privileged, so long as the actions have some relation to the underlying proceeding. Levin, Middlebrooks, Moves & Mitchell v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639 SO. 2d 606, 608 (Fla. 1994). This position was reaffirmed in Echevarria. In Wolfe, the Third District Court of Appeal, q

he facts to footnotes. In pertinent part, Epstein's affidavit alleged the following as probable cause for the filing of the complaint: I filed the Action against Rothstein and Edwards because, based on the facts described below and in the Summary Judgment Motion, I believed at the time of filing my o

eedings, the litigation privilege applied to both the abuse of process and malicious prosecution claims, and also finding that Levin, Middlebrooks, Moves & Mitchell v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 1994), Echevarria, McCalla, Raymer, Barrett & Frappier v. Cole, 950 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 2007), and Wolfe p

limitation, specifically arising out of that certain incident described more particularly in Defendant/Counter-Plaintiffs Counterclaim filed in the Action entitled JEFFREY EPSTEIN v. SCOTT R0THSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Case No. 502009CA040800)OOaM13-AO, pending in the

. This Court agrees and grants summary judgment in favor of Epstein. EXHIAIT "B" EFTA00617998 The Court thoroughly reviewed Levin, Middlebrooks, Moves & Mitchell v. US. Fire Ins. Co., 639 So. 2d 606, 608 (Fla. 1994), Echevarria, McCalla, Raymer, Barrett & Frappier v. Cole, 950 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 2007), and Wol