Epstein Secrets

privacy. 5. This is strictly a "fishing expedition" unrelated to any aspect of this case. A similar Request to Produce was served in the casel v. Jeffrey E. Epstein and , Case No. 502008CA025129XXXXMB Al, in front of Judge Garrison. A copy of the objection to the Notice is attached as Exhibit "B" and Judge Garr

BOARD CERTIFIED CVO-TRIAL LAWYER Sent by Fax and U.S. Mail Isidro M. Garcia, Esq. A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP April 13, 2009 Re: Doe II v. Epstein, et al. Case No. 09-80469-Civ-MARRA/JOHNSON ADELQUI.LBENAVENTE rmukumALINVBSTIOMOR BARBARA M. NkKENNA ASHLIE STOKEN-BARING BETTY STOKES PARALE

kKENNA ASHLIE STOKEN-BARING BETTY STOKES PARALEGALS RITA H. BUDNYK OP COUNSEL Dear Sid: Please be informed thal subpoenaed deposition in thel.L. Epstein case on April 16th, 2009 is hereby cancelled. Cordially Robert D. Critton, Jr. RDC/clz cc: Jack A. Goldberger, Esq. L•A•W•Y•E •R•S TELEPHONE

py of the case law and Florida Statutes cited in Defendant Epstein' otion to Dismiss, For More Definite Statement, a

ar Request to Produce was served in the casel v. Jeffrey E. Epstein and , Case No. 502008CA025129XXXXMB Al,

ar Request to Produce was served in the casel v. Jeffrey E. Epstein and , Case No. 502008CA025129XXXXMB Al,

OW CAB Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, (hereinafter "Mr. Epstein"), by and through his undersigned attorneys, pur

hich might possibly lead to evidence supporting some subsequent cause of action is quashed. COBB and PETERSON, IL, concur. Fla.App. 5 Dist.,2001. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Parrish O 2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. Page 2 http://web2.westlaw.corn/print/printstream.aspx?sv

o privacy. 5. This is strictly a "fishing expedition" unrelated to any aspect of this case. A similar Request to Produce was served in the caa v. Jeffrey E. Epstein and Case No. 502008CA025129XXXXMB Al, in front of Judge Garrison. A copy of the objection to the Notice is attached as Exhibit "B" and Judge Garris

RIAL LAWYER Sent by Fax and U.S. Mail Isidro M. Garcia, Esq. Garcia Law firm P.A. A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP April 13, 2009 Re: Doe II v. Epstein, et al. Case No. 09-80469-Civ-MARRA/JOHNSON ADELQUI.LBENAVENTE rmemeom. I INVBSTIOMOR BARBARA M. NkKENNA ASHLER STOKEN-BARING BETTY STOKES PAR

OW CAB Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, (hereinafter "Mr. Epstein"), by and through his undersigned attorneys, pur

ilar Request to Produce was served in the caa v. Jeffrey E. Epstein and Case No. 502008CA025129XXXXMB Al, i

py of the case law and Florida Statutes cited in Defendant Epstein' otion to Dismiss, For More Definite Statement, a

CASE NO. 502008CA037319XXXXMB AB Plaintiff, v. JE an Defendants. DEFENDANT'S, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, O

ilar Request to Produce was served in the caa v. Jeffrey E. Epstein and Case No. 502008CA025129XXXXMB Al, in

hich might possibly lead to evidence supporting some subsequent cause of action is quashed. COBB and PETERSON, IL, concur. Fla.App. 5 Dist.,2001. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Parrish O 2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http://web2.westlaw.corn/print/printstream.aspx?sv=Split&p

NO. 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG Judge David F. Crow JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff, v. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, indivi

you put into Q-task regarding the claims against Mr. Epstein? Edwards had filed suits against Epstein on beha

rrett, 742 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999. Therefore, if the answer was evident from the complaint eventually filed by Edwards ("to seek redress from Jeffrey Epstein"), it would not be privileged. Likewise, if L.M. had initially hired Edwards to consult him about a claim she never pursued, the subject might argua

lm Beach County Courthouse, 205 North Dixie Highway, Courtroom 9C, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 on Friday, April 1, at 9:00 a.m., the following: EPSTEIN'S AMENDED AND SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION OF PLAINTIFF TO OVERRULE OBJECTIONS AND COMPEL DEFENDANT EDWARDS TO ANSWER QUESTIONS AND APPEAR FOR FURTHER DEPOS

r procedure is for the trial court to examine the disputed documents in-camera and remove those documents which fall into the privileged category." State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Kendrick, 780 So. 2d 231, 233 (Ha. 3d DCA 2001) (error for trial court to order production of documents allegedly protected by a

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA. CASE NO. 502009CA040800XXXXMB JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, -VS- SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendant/Counter-Plaintiffs. RESPONSE IN

in Opposition to Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant's Motion for Fees and Costs, and as grounds therefor would state: INTRODUCTION This case arises from Epstein's lawsuit against Edwards, when Epstein sued Edwards merely for his legal representation of people accusing Epstein of misconduct. Edwards counter-

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

decision to accept or reject. See Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Pollinger 42 So.3d 890, 891 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). As the Supreme Court has noted State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. Nichols, 932 So.2d 1067, 1079 (Fla. 2006): The rule intends for a proposal for judgment to be as specific as possible, leaving n