Epstein Secrets

-over" so that, rather than appear as trial counsel on the eve of trial to actually try the case, they can reopen discovery and start from scratch. Binger, however, does not permit Epstein to do so. Epstein correctly notes that the Court should not permit Epstein to amend his exhibit list if the propo

ement. If a settlement is reached, it shall be the responsibility of the attorneys or parties to reduce the agreement to writing and to comply with Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.730(6), unless waived. B. The Plaintiff's attorney shall be responsible for scheduling mediation. The parties should agree on a mediat

EARING After ruling that Epstein would not be allowed to use certain exhibits identified since March 2018 on his Clerk's Trial Exhibit List under a Binger' analysis, this Court raised the pending issue of the 47 e-mails that Edwards claims are privileged and Epstein's pending request for an in camera

ils), Edwards clearly waived any work-product protection he may have had by — among other compelling reasons -- his complete failure to comply with Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(6). With Epstein's citation in his motion to the Fourth District Court of Appeal's controlling case of General Motors Corp v. Mc

hibit 3.) During its in camera review, this Court must consider and determine: 1. The e-mails are directly relevant to the issues for trial and no Binger's "surprise in fact" exists regarding them; 2. If any work product protection existed, it was waived or excepted based on: a. Farmer Jaffe's exp

ivilege log that this Court's predecessor, The Honorable David Crow, found to be insufficient on its face and not-compliant with the requirements of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(5)7 and TIG Ins. Corp. v. Johnson, 799 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). Edwards has claimed that none of the documents on the dis

EARING After ruling that Epstein would not be allowed to use certain exhibits identified since March 2018 on his Clerk's Trial Exhibit List under a Binger' analysis, this Court raised the pending issue of the 47 e-mails that Edwards claims are privileged and Epstein's pending request for an in camera

ils), Edwards clearly waived any work-product protection he may have had by — among other compelling reasons -- his complete failure to comply with Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(6). With Epstein's citation in his motion to the Fourth District Court of Appeal's controlling case of General Motors Corp v. Mc