Epstein Secrets

ards was not the attorney that noticed Mr. Mottola's deposition. See Statement of Undisputed Facts. • Complaint ¶38(v): With regard to illusionist David Copperfield, Edwards had sound legal basis for believing Mr. Copperfield had relevant and discoverable information. See Statement of Undisputed Facts. • Comp

Statement of Undisputed Facts. • Complaint ¶38(v): With regard to illusionist David Copperfield, Edwards had sound legal basis for believing Mr. Copperfield had relevant and discoverable information. See Statement of Undisputed Facts. • Complaint ¶40(i): With regard to former New Mexico Governor Bill R

, 08-80802), . (Case No.08-80811), Jane Does Nos. 101, 102 and 103 (Case Nos. 09-80591, 09-80656, 10-80309), another Jane Doe (Case No. 08-80804), Jane Doe II (Case No. 09-80469), as well as other non-filed claims. Furthermore, Defendant has also resolved three state court claims. The only cases not resolv

d to lead to the discovery of the admissible evidence; protected by privacy rights 02001-02003 10/09/2009 Jacquie Johnson Bradley J. Edwards David Copperfield Work product; attorney/client privilege; irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of the admissible evidence; protect

ed to lead to the discovery of the admissible evidence; protected by privacy rights 20217.20218 08/04/2009 Bradley Edwards Mike Fisten Info on Copperfield Work product; attorney/client privilege; irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of the admissible evidence; protect

ted to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; protected by privacy rights 02411-02413 05/12/2009 Attorneys at RRA Bradley J. Edwards Jane Doe II v. Epstein Work product; attorney/client privilege; irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of the admissible evidenc

d to lead to the discovery of the admissible evidence; protected by privacy rights 02001-02003 10/09/2009 Jacquie Johnson Bradley J. Edwards David Copperfield Work product; attorney/client privilege; irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of the admissible evidence; protect

ed to lead to the discovery of the admissible evidence; protected by privacy rights 20217-20218 08/04/2009 Bradley Edwards Mike Fisten Info on Copperfield Work product; attorney/client privilege; irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of the admissible evidence; protect

ted to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; protected by privacy rights 02411-02413 05/12/2009 Attorneys at RRA Bradley J. Edwards Jane Doe II v. Epstein Work product; attorney/client privilege; irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of the admissible evidenc

nior. Mr. Frederick Fekkai. Q. Who is that? A. Fekkai, Frederick Fckkai, the famous hairstylist. Who else? I don't think I can remember anymore. Q. David Copperfield, the magician? A. No, I never saw him. Q. You never saw him. Now, would these -- the people that you named were all people that you saw visiting

d to the investigation would be compensated and 17 Q. Have you ever gone to one of David 17 those who would not or who would hurt him in the 18 Copperfield's shows? 18 investigation would be dealt with? 19 MR. REINHART: Objection to form, lack of 19 MR. REINHART: Objection to the form, lack of 20

44 22 one: 22 23 (Via tekpbone) 23 24 24 25 25 Page 6 Page 8 I Appearances contimied... 1 PROCEEDINGS 2 On behalf of the Plaintiff. Jane Doe II: 3 ISIDRO MANUEL GARCIA, ESQUIRE 2 — — — GARCIA EI.K1NS & BOEHRINGER 3 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are now on video 4 I record. This is Media No.

le witness from Switzerland Joint W/P Priv. 11332-11336 08/04/2009 Spencer Kuvin Bradley Edwards FW:Transcript of Alfrefo Rodriguez Depo and Copperfeild and Clinton's whereabouts Joint W/P Priv. 11340-11341 08/05/2009 Mercedes Estrada Bradley Edwards RE:Epstein vs.Jane Doe No.101 & 102 Joint

/02/2009 Bradley Edwards Katherine Ezell RE:Meeting w/Stanley Arkin Joint W/P Priv. 06861-06863 05/12/2009 Bradley Edwards Katherine Ezell RE:Jane Doe II v. Epstein Joint W/P Priv. 06876.06879 05/12/2009 Bradley Edwards Stuart Mermelstein RE:Jane Doe II v. Epstein Joint W/P Priv. 06891-06897 05/

nt and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of the admissible evidence; protected by privacy rights 20217.20218 08/04/2009 Info on Copperfield Work product; attorney/client privilege; irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of the admissible evidence; protect

not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; protected by privacy rights 02411-02413 05/12/2009 Attorneys at I Jane Doe II v. Epstein Work product; attorney/client privilege; irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of the admissible evidenc

le witness from Switzerland Joint W/P Priv. 11332-11336 08/04/2009 Spencer Kuvin Bradley Edwards FW:Transcript of Alfrefo Rodriguez Depo and Copperfeild and Clinton's whereabouts Joint W/P Priv. 11340-11341 08/05/2009 Mercedes Estrada Bradley Edwards RE:Epstein vs.Jane Doe No.101 & 102 Joint

/02/2009 Bradley Edwards Katherine Ezell RE:Meeting w/Stanley Arkin Joint W/P Priv. 06861-06863 05/12/2009 Bradley Edwards Katherine Ezell RE:Jane Doe II v. Epstein Joint W/P Priv. 06876-06879 05/12/2009 Bradley Edwards Stuart Mermelstein RE:Jane Doe II v. Epstein Joint W/P Priv. 06891-06897 05/