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

e seeks to prohibit any reference to evidence at trial by first having its inadmissibility determined outside the presence of the jury. Rosa v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 636 So. 2d 60, 61 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). The purpose of this motion in limine is to prevent Edwards from offering improper evidence at trial, the mer

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Petitioner, -VS- SCOTT individually, Intervenors.' ROTHSTEIN, BRADLEY J. individually, and and JANE DOE, Respondents CASE NO. 4D18-0762

Background Facts 4 Epstein Attempts to Intimidate His Victims by Filing Suit Against and 5-11 Retaliates Against their Lawyer ARGUMENT 12-26 EPSTEIN'S PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS SHOULD BE DENIED BECAUSE EPSTEIN WAITED UNTIL THE EVE OF TRIAL, MORE THAN TEN MONTHS AFTER THE CASE HAD BEEN SET F

APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Petitioner, -VS- SCOTT individually,

ision AG of anything whatsoever having to do with Mr. Epstein's prosecution of that one-count Complaint agains

s Fargo Bank, N.A. 1 204 So.3d 476 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) Gawker Media, LLC v. Bollea 20, 21, 22 170 So.3d 125 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) Grossman v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 14 570 So.2d 992 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) Haft v. Adams, 1 238 So.2d 843 (Fla.1970) HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Serban, 14, 18, 19, 20 148 So.3d 1287 (

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

Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, v. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs. / PLAINTIFF JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS BY DEFENDANT BRADLEY EDWARDS AND FOR SANCTIONS Plaintiff, Jeffrey Epstein, by and through his undersigned

onse to several orders entered by Judge Raymond Ray in the Bankruptcy Court, filed a one hundred and fifty-nine (159) page privilege EFTA00582857 Epstein v. Rothstein and Edwards DRAFT 2/3/12 4:26 PM Case No. 502009CA040800XXXXMB/Div. AG log, claiming that over two thousand (2000) documents are pri

Engineering, Inc. v. Small, 861 So. 2d 1248, 1250 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). The latter is subject to nearly absolute immunity. See, e.g., Smith v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 632 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). A trial court is instructed "to make particularized findings in support of its determination of which of the do

HE 15th JUDICIAL CIRCUIT 5/1/118:14 PM IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION CASE NO. 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG Judge David F. Crow JEFFREY EPSTEIN. Plaintiff, v. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendants. PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO OUASH SUBPOENA AND FOR PRO

009CA040800XXXXMBAG Judge David F. Crow JEFFREY EPSTEIN. Plaintiff, v. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually a

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

other things, this Court may enter an order that the requested discovery not be had at all. Rule 1.280(c)(1), Ha. R. Civ. P.; compare Medero v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 658 So. 2d 566, 568 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)(reversing trial court order denying deposition of material witness).\* 16. The Rule has been successfully