Epstein Secrets

06/06/2012 Page 7 of 22 JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff, vs. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY J, F.DWARDS, individually. Defendants. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO. 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED MOTION TO COMPEL DISC

enue, Suite 2 Fort-Lauderdale; FL 33301 EFTA00208204 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 177-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2012 Page 21 of 22 TO A HADDAD, PA nurc Lanaoraate, 33304 May itt; 204 Via:W andtectbmiellail Itik " Searcy enney;etia West Palm gad; 33.40 Re: EnorpziN &Wyk aid peat M

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

put you in a position where you would not have been able to, nor would you have proceeded with questions today. Id. at page 100; lines 20-23. MR. HADDAD: We wouldn't even — no, as long as it's pending before the Court, I saw no purpose in having to reestablish that you were objecting. Id. at page 100

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: 502009CA040800SSSSMB JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff/Counter-Defend

al amount. I reject it also because of the presence of the Etchaverria case and the other case that involves the law firm that slips my mind. MS. HADDAD: Levin. THE COURT: The Levin case. So there was language principally used in the Wolfe case -- that's the underlying case that you primarily reli

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

put you in a position where you would not have been able to, nor would you have proceeded with questions today. Id. at page 100; lines 20-23. MR. HADDAD: We wouldn't even — no, as long as it's pending before the Court, I saw no purpose in having to reestablish that you were objecting. Id. at page 100