Epstein Secrets

IN, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, Case No. 50 2009 CA 040800XXXXMBAG v. BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, et al., Defendants/Counter-Plaintiff. JUDGE: HAFELE JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE TO BRADLEY EDWARDS'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO STRIKE THE JUNE 30.2017 AFFIDAVIT OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN AND TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE AS TO WHICU DISCOVE

JEFFREY EPSTEIN AND TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE AS TO WHICU DISCOVERY WAS WITHHELD UNDER CLAIMS OF PRIVILEGE Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"), by and through his undersigned counsel, hereby files his Response to Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Bradley Edwards's ("Edwards") Motion in Limine

DICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, Case No.

millions of dollars. Q. And trying to find out, Mr. Epstein, whether you have any evidence whatsoever that

and 6 generate cases. See Deposition of Jeffi•ey Epstein, p. 28; line13-p. 29; line 6. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q

ion is deficient on its face, and in direct contravention to the facts. As such, Edwards's Motion should be denied. INTRODUCTION Epstein filed his Motion for Summary Judgment on June 30, 2017, and in support thereof executed an affidavit, which was nearly identical to the one he executed in support of his previously file

efendant, v. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendants/Counter-Plaintiff. / PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT/COUNTER-PLAINTIFF BRADLEY EDWARDS' MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER RELATING TO =.'S DEPOSITION AND MOTION TO COMPE

O COMPEL M. TO ANSWER OUESTIONS RELATING TO THE CRIMES VICTIMS' RIGHTS ACT AND TO REOPEN DEPOSITION Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"), responds in opposition to the Motion for Protective Order [D.E. 1026] filed by Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff, Bradley Edwards ("Edwards"), relatin

ction was to, among other things, force Edwards to abandon his efforts to set aside the NPA through the CVRA action: 10 And we intend to prove that Jeffrey 11 Epstein's motive in filing these knowingly 12 false claims against Brad Edwards - his 13 motive was to extort Bradley Edwards into 14 abandoni

agreement. (11/29/17 Tr. 106:10-18, e.s.) 3 And Mr. Epstein clearly knows that 4 Mr. Edwards is lead counsel

00808640 for.") (8/4/08 Tr. 4-5) (Ex. A.) It was not until March 21, 2011, about a year after settling her lawsuit with Epstein, when M. filed her Motion for Summary Judgment for Finding Violations of the NPA, that it was clear that M. was continuing with her efforts to invalidate the NPA. Epstein should be able to prese

UIT COURT OF THE 15th JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION AG CASE NO. 502009CA040800XXXXMB Judge David F. Crow JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, v. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs. PLAINTIFF'

aintiffs. PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT EDWARDS' RENEWED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Plaintiff, Jeffrey Epstein ("Plaintiff" or "Epstein"), hereby files the following Response in Opposition to Defendant Bradley J. Edwards' ("Edwards") Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment ("Motion") an

SE NO. 502009CA040800XXXXMB Judge David F. Crow JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, v. SCOTT

ng to the Order granting additional time, not only for an extension of time but also for a stay in the preparation of the privilege log pending its Motion for Summary Judgment to be heard by this Court (A: 16). Edwards filed a similar motion with this Court which is presently set for hearing on January 27, 2011. On Decem

S. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendants/Counter- Plaintiffs. ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT THIS CAUSE came before the court on Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Motion for Summary Judgment as to De

ing heard argument of counsel, and being otherwise duly advised in the premises, finds and decides as follows: In December 2009, Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") filed suit against Scott Rothstein ("Rothstein") and Bradley J. Edwards ("Edwards"). In response to Epstein's lawsuit, Edwards filed a Countercla

H COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO. 502009CA040800XXXXMB JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, VS. SCOT

cess and malicious prosecution. Both causes of action were premised upon Epstein's initial filing of his lawsuit against Edwards. Epstein filed his Motion for Summary Judgment, asserting therein that both the abuse of process claim and the malicious prosecution claim filed by Edwards against Epstein were barred by the lit

COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO. 502009CA040800XXXXMB JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, VS. SCOT

S. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendants/Counter- Plaintiffs. ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JU DGMENT THIS CAUSE came before the court on Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Motion for Summary Judgment as to D

ving heard argument of counsel, and being otherwise duly advised in the premises, finds and decides as follows: In December 2009, Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") filed suit against Scott Rothstein ("Rothstein") and Bradley J. Edwards ("Edwards"). In response to Epstein's lawsuit, Edwards filed a Counterclai

cess and malicious prosecution. Both causes of action were premised upon Epstein's initial filing of his lawsuit against Edwards. Epstein filed his Motion for Summary Judgment, asserting therein that both the abuse of process claim and the malicious prosecution claim filed by Edwards against Epstein were barred by the liti