Epstein Secrets

a good faith job hunt in order to receive benefits for lost wages, was not a confidential communication within the ambit of the privilege; see also Watkins v. State, 516 So. 2d 1043 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), rev. denied, 523 So.2d 579 (Fla. 1988) (defendant's former attorney not barred 13 EFTA00606638 fr

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15th JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION CASE NO. 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG Judge David F. Crow JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff, v. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendants. NOTICE OF HEARING (Specially Se

9-34791-RBR Doc 6323 Filed 03/19/18 Page 16 of 23 with their lawful orders through civil contempt remedies. Citronelle-Mobile Gathering, Inc. v. Watkins, 943 F.3d 1297. 1301 (11th Cir. 1991). Courts also have the inherent power to sanction a party for misconduct. Chambers v. Nasco, 501 U.S. 32, 42 (1

sor to Judge Crow). As it has evolved, Epstein's lawsuit against Edwards was dismissed and the lawsuit now 3 Specifically, on April 10, 2012, Judge David F. Crow (presiding over the Epstein lawsuit) entered an Order requiring Edwards to produce any non-privileged documents identified in paragraph 13 of Epste

tions were intended to be disclosed to third parties or did not involve the giving of legal advice, in which case there is no privilege. See, e.g., Watkins v. State, 516 So. 2d 1043, 1046 (Fla. 1g DCA 1987). VI. THE WORK-PRODUCT PRIVILEGE CANNOT BE DETERMINED FROM EDWARDS' PRIVILEGE LOG 9 EFTA005828

PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15th JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION AG CASE NO. 502009CA040800XXXXMB Judge David F. Crow JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, v. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendants/Counter-Plaint