Epstein Secrets

04667 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 This simply, again, is another circumstance where Jeffrey Epstein's current counsel takes issue with the quality or quantity of the work done by Jeffrey Epstein's privately retained prior counsel. That's an issue

itional exhibits. The witness that was the potential cause of concern has been withdrawn for the purposes of the action by Mr. Edwards against Mr. Epstein, so that is moot at this juncture. And we'll launch into the discussion relative to the proposed exhibits. I don't know if -- I know Mr. Scarola

, 2018 10:25 a.m. - 1:06 p.m. Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Epstein's Motion to Allow Amendment to Exhibit List, et

CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA JEFFREY EPSTEIN, ) ) ) Petitioner/Counter-Defendant,

he purposes of the action by Mr. Edwards against Mr. Epstein, so that is moot at this juncture. And we'll lau

: SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, P.A. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd. West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 By JOHN "JACK" SCAROLA, ESQUIRE and DAVID P. VITALE, JR., ESQUIRE Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00804572 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2

HE COURT: Let's go ahead and proceed with the substance of the motion and we will go from there, please. MS. HADDAD COLEMAN: Good morning, Judge. Jeffrey Epstein's motion for summary judgment is based on a very simple issue that was not addressed by this Court in a Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. 561-471-2

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: We have various motions on the Edwards counterclaim that was brought against Mr. Epstein relative to the remaining count of malicious prosecution. I have read as much as the materials that someone can sit down and read for the better

id, I would like to begin with Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Epstein's motion for summary judgment on Defendant/ Cou

H COUNTY, FLORIDA Case No. 502009CA040800XXXXMB JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff, VS. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, indiv

he Edwards counterclaim that was brought against Mr. Epstein relative to the remaining count of malicious pro

dwards: SEARCY, DENNEY, SCAROLA, BARNHART & SHIPLEY, P.A. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach, FL 33409 By JACK SCAROLA, ESQUIRE By DAVID P. VITALE, JR. For Bradley Edwards: BURLINGTON & ROCKENBACH PA 444 W Railroad Avenue, Suite 350 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 By PHILIP MEAD BURLINGTON, ESQUI

rivilege is very clearly defined in Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(3). And, Your Honor, that is quoted in the response in opposition to Jeffrey Epstein's motion to overrule objections and compel answers to these questions. It is quoted in its entirety at page two of our response. And it says that a

urt is aware, the only thing pending at this point in time in the case is Mr. Edwards' claim of abuse of process malicious prosecution against Mr. Epstein. The abuse of process claim has been disposed of. It was successfully won on the summary judgment and is no longer an issue. So the only operativ

H COUNTY, FLORIDA Case No. 502009CA040800XXXXMB JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff, VS. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, indiv

f abuse of process malicious prosecution against Mr. Epstein. The abuse of process claim has been disposed o

dwards: SEARCY, DENNEY, SCAROLA, BARNHART & SHIPLEY, P.A. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach, FL 33409 By JACK SCAROLA, ESQUIRE By DAVID P. VITALE, JR. For Bradley Edwards: BURLINGTON & ROCKENBACH PA 444 W Railroad Avenue, Suite 350 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 By PHILIP MEAD BURLINGTON, ESQUI