Epstein Secrets

BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, Appellant, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Appellee. FOURTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 4D14-2282 L.T. Case No.: 502009CA040800 I ANSWER BRIEF OF APPELLEE JEFFR

as its finding that the litigation privilege was applicable specifically to Edwards's claims for malicious prosecution and abuse of process against Epstein, constituted issues of law. DelMonico, 116 So. 3d at 1211 (stating the determination of whether the litigation privilege extends to the alleged tor

BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, Appellant, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Appellee. FOURTH DISTRICT COURT OF APP

s that conduct has some relations to the proceeding.'). To this end, Florida courts have expansively interpreted the `relates to' requirement. See Rolex Watch U.S.A. Inc. v. Rainbow Jewelry, Inc., 2012 WL 4138028 M. Fla. Sept. 19, 2012) (`[t]he decision to file a lawsuit clearly relates to a judicial proceeding'); De

RECEIVED, 2/25/2015 3:10 PM, Clerk, Fourth District Court of Appeal BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, Appellant, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Appellee. / FOURTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 4D14-2282 L.T. Case No.: 502009CA040800 ANSWER BRIEF OF APPELLEE JEF

as its finding that the litigation privilege was applicable specifically to Edwards's claims for malicious prosecution and abuse of process against Epstein, constituted issues of law. DelMonico, 116 So. 3d at 1211 (stating the determination of whether the litigation privilege extends to the alleged tor

t of Appeal BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, Appellant, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Appellee. / FOURTH DISTRICT COURT O

s that conduct has some relations to the proceeding.'). To this end, Florida courts have expansively interpreted the `relates to' requirement. See Rolex Watch U.S.A. Inc. v. Rainbow Jewelry, Inc., 2012 WL 4138028 (. Fla. Sept. 19, 2012) (`[t]he decision to file a lawsuit clearly relates to a judicial proceeding'); De

adings and discovery responses, and as conceded by Edwards's counsel at oral argument, the events giving rise to Edwards's purported claims against Epstein occurred solely in the course of, and were related to, the litigation, just as occurred in the Wolfe case, mandating Summary Judgment. Wolfe v. For

s that conduct has some relations to the proceeding.'). To this end, Florida courts have expansively interpreted the `relates to' requirement. See Rolex Watch U.S.A. Inc. v. Rainbow Jewelry, Inc., 2012 WL 4138028 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 19, 2012) (`[t]he decision to file a lawsuit clearly relates to a judicial proceeding');