Epstein Secrets

you represented Jane Doe. .. whether she was considered a victim by the U.S. Attorney's Office?" and then re-phrased: ". . .[D]id you learn whether [Jane Doe 1] was listed as a, or deemed to be a victim by the U.S. Attorney's Office?" Id. at 100-104. Although contrary to law, Mr. Scarola's stated position

ROLA: I am going to object. That calls for attorney-client privilege. 100/9-14 Q. At the time do you know whether, at the time that you represented Jane Doe 1, do you know whether her name, whether she was considered a victim by the United States Attorney's Office? 100/15-23 A. SCAROLA: If that informati

s to confidential communications made in the rendition of legal services to the client. Section 90.502, Fla. Stat.; Southern Bell Tel. & TeL Co. v. Deason, 632 So. 2d 1377 (Fla.1994). Section 90.502 codifies the attorney-client privilege which protects those confidential communications between attorney

of whether they pertain to confidential communications between attorney and client. F1a.R.Civ.P. 1.280(b)(2). See Southern Bell TeL & Tel. Co. v. Deason, 632 So. 2d 1377 (Fla. 1994). The privilege may also protect an attorney's mental impressions which may be disclosed through testimony. Hamilton v.

you may respond. Id. at p.100; line 15-22. THE WITNESS: I cannot respond. Id. at page 100; line 23. Q: Prior to the filing of the lawsuit against Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 against the United States Government, did you learn from any source, maybe a document, maybe a telephone call or a conversation that

e the same or similar information is available through ordinary investigative techniques and discovery procedures.'" Southern Bell TeL & TeL Co. v. Deason, 632 So. 2d 1377, 1384 (Fla. 1994). Here, the information sought by Epstein from Edwards in deposition is not "available through ordinary investiga

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 which RRA represented the strip club, The Cheetah, and that EW also worked as a showgirl. Then the same thing with Jane Doe, seeking damages, claiming severe emotional distress. So these are the three cases that Edwards was prosecuting against Mr. Epstein while working

ng this 518 Southern And again, the was quoted by the Florida Supreme Court in 1994 in the Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company versus Deason. Frankly, Judge, if the Court wants me to go through the other objections that were raised in deposition that have no basis in law in a depositio

you may respond. Id. at p.100; line 15-22. THE WITNESS: I cannot respond. Id. at page 100; line 23. Q: Prior to the filing of the lawsuit against Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 against the United States Government, did you learn from any source, maybe a document, maybe a telephone call or a conversation that

ques and 19 Tonja Haddad, P.A. • 315 SE 7th Street, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 EFTA00585412 discovery procedures.'" Southern Bell TeL & TeL Co. v. Deason, 632 So. 2d 1377, 1384 (Fla. 1994). Here, the information sought by Epstein from Edwards in deposition is not "available through ordinary investiga