Epstein Secrets

dant, SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendants/Counter-Plaintiff, JUDGE: HAFELE PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S OMNIBUS MOTION IN LIMINE Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"), by and through his undersigned counsel, herein moves for an Orde

er-Plaintiff, JUDGE: HAFELE PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S OMNIBUS MOTION IN LIMINE Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"), by and through his undersigned counsel, herein moves for an Order in Limine precluding Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Bradley Edwards ("Edwards") a

OUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG JEFFREY EPSTEIN, vs. Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, SCOT

laintiff has no evidence, nor can he prove, that Mr. Epstein lacked probable cause at the time he filed his l

his litigation. See Deposition Transcript of Jef•ey Epstein. When Edwards's inquiry turned to questions rega

moving party and, if referenced in a question or by counsel, would unlikely be disregarded by the jury despite an instruction by the court to do so. Fischman v. Suen, 672 So. 2d 644, 645 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).Consequently, in the case at hand, Epstein requests that this Court enter an Order precluding any

ter-Defendant, v. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendants/Counter-Plaintiff. PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND IN LIMINE OF UNRELATED SETTLEMENTS Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"), moves for a protectiv

NTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND IN LIMINE OF UNRELATED SETTLEMENTS Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"), moves for a protective order pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(c) on the production and disclosure of any additional confidentia

OUNTY, FLORIDA Case No. 50-2009CA040800XXXXMBAG JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, v. SCOTT

And again, the degree of financial exposure that Mr. Epstein was facing is reflected by the settlements of al

EFTA00805165 agreements constitutes classic grounds for preclusion of production and admission into evidence. See § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (2017). In Fischman v. Klarquist, Sparkman, Campbell, Leigh & Winston, Civ. No. 94-1057, 1995 WL 264213 (D. Or. May I, 1995), the plaintiff sued her former employer all

nformation from Epstein's criminal case and prior civil cases; not one of which is an abuse of process or malicious prosecution case. 4. Video of Jeffrey Epstein's home and route from victim to Epstein's home 9. Documents related to Jeffrey Epstein produced by Alfredo Rodriguez 11. Jeffrey Epstein phone reco

N LIMINE TO PRECLUDE AT TRIAL THE USE OF THE FOLLOWING ITEMS LISTED ON EDWARDS'S REVISED EXHIBIT LIST Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"), by and through his undersigned counsel moves for an Order in Limine precluding Defendant/Counter- Plaintiff Bradley Edwards ("Edwards") and his C

UNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, JUDGE: D

moving party and, if referenced in a question or by counsel, would unlikely be disregarded by the jury despite an instruction by the court to do so. Fischman v. Suen, 672 So. 2d 644, 645 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). In the case at hand, Epstein requests that this Court enter an Order precluding any reference to