Epstein Secrets

JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff, vs. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually. Defendants. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG JUDGE: HAFELE PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFEN

AROLA: I am going to object. That calls for attorney-client privilege. Id. at page 98; line 24-25. Q: All right. At the time you began representing E.W. or at any time prior to the filing of the lawsuit against the United States Government in July of '08, did you learn whether she was listed as a, o

reet, Fort Lauderdale, FL 3330I• 954.467.1223 EFTA00799405 lines 20-21. Q: During that time that you have been involved in this case on behalf of E.W., has Mr. Howell participated in the case; that is, has he done work on the case? Id. at page 90; lines 20-23. A: Yes. Id. at page 90; line 24. Q:

JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff, vs. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually. Defendants. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG JUDGE: HAFELE PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFEN

AROLA: I am going to object. That calls for attorney-client privilege. Id. at page 98; line 24-25. Q: All right. At the time you began representing E.W. or at any time prior to the filing of the lawsuit against the United States Government in July of '08, did you learn whether she was listed as a, o

Attorney-Client and work-product privileges. Id. at page 89; lines 20-21. Q: During that time that you have been involved in this case on behalf of E.W., 3 It is significant to note that other jurisdictions have sanctioned counsel for just this behavior during deposition. See e.g. Van Pilsum v. Iow

:35 PM JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff, v. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, BRADLEY J, EDWARDS, Individually, and L.M., individually. Defendants. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.502009CA040800XXXXMBAG JUDGE: HAFELE DEFENDANT/COUNTER-PLAINTIF

in this case, Jack Scarola ("Scarola"), for their flagrant violation of the confidentiality agreements between Epstein and Edwards's clients L.M., E.W., and Jane Doe, as well as enter an Order of entitlement to costs and attorneys' fees in favor of Epstein and against Edwards and Scarola. In support

STEIN, Plaintiff, vs. @001/o05 onfifro SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, IndNIdually, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, Individually, and L.M., Individually, Defendant. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: 602009CA040800XXXXMBAG DEFENDANT BRADLEY J. EDWARDS RESPONSE T

uialism, discussion, conversation or agreement. C. "Plaintiff' means L.M. (LM. v. Jeffrey Epstein, Palm Beach County Case #502008CA028051,OOO(MB), E.W. (EVV. v. Jeffrey Epstein, Palm Beach County Case #502008CA028058)OOOO48), Jane Doe (Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein, United States District Court Case

JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff, vs. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually. Defendants. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG JUDGE: HAFELE PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFEN

n related costs, expert costs, etc.) that were incurred by you in the representation of you and/or your law firm in representing Jane Doe, L.M. and E.W. prior to joining RRA. ANSWER: Objection, relevance, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is protected by

JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff, vs. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually. Defendants. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG JUDGE: HAFELE PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFEN

n related costs, expert costs, etc.) that were incurred by you in the representation of you and/or your law firm in representing Jane Doe, L.M. and E.W. prior to joining RRA. ANSWER: Objection, relevance, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is protected by

egulation, Case No. 91-2108 (Fla. 2d Jud. Cir.), Order Releasing Public Records dated September 20, 1991 7 8 2 EFTA00233745 oq-a-3-714 1. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CRIMINAL DIVISION CASE MOs.: 2006-CF9454 AXX and 2008-CP9381 AXX STATE OF

ATE OF FLORIDA, E.W., THE PALM BEACH POST, B.B, Respondents. E.W.'S SEALED REQUEST TO DISMISS THE PETITION FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION Respondent, E.W., would show the Court as follows: 1. This Court lacks jurisdiction to hear this petition. The order under review is a non-final order for which no