Epstein Secrets

uderdale Division In re: ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER, PA, Debtor. Case No. 09-34791-BKC-RBR Chapter 11 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY FOWLER WHITE AND JEFFREY EPSTEIN SHOULD NOT BE HELD IN CONTEMPT AND SCHEDULING EVIDENTIARY SHOW CAUSE HEARING THIS MATTER came before the Court for a hearing on April 13, 2018, upo

, nor shall any images or copies of said documents be retained in the memory of Fowler White's copiers. Should it be determined that Fowler White or Epstein retained images or copies of the subject documents on its computer or otherwise, the Court retains jurisdiction to award sanctions in favor of Farm

ter 11 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY FOWLER WHITE AND JEFFREY EPSTEIN SHOULD NOT BE HELD IN CONTEMPT AND SCHED

ject documents" and passed these documents on to Mr. Epstein and his current counsel, Scott Link and Kara Roc

otion for Issuance of an Order to Show Cause Why Fowler White and Jeffrey Epstein Should Not be Held in Contempt of Court, to Penn it Discovery, to Assess Sanctions and Costs, and for Other Appropriate Relief [D.E. 6326] (the "Motion for Order to Show Cause"), the Responses [D.E. 6351, 6355], and the Reply [D.E. 6358] th

to anyone else. The Agreed Order Cancelling Hearing provides, in its entirety: The Motion for Relief From Amended Order (D.E. #1068) and to Compel Jeffrey Epstein to Pay for the Production of All Documents in Response to his Requests filed by Interested Party Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman,

ions" (id. at p. 17) or a finding of criminal contempt "as may be appropriate" and monetary sanctions of $25,000 for each of the intervenors against Epstein for any noncompliance with the order at issue, for which amounts "Epstein [be] permitted to seek reimbursement from any of his attorneys who may ha

E OF AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY FOWLER WHITE AND JEFFREY EPSTEIN SHOULD NOT BE HELD IN CONTEMPT OF COURT,

in its files, having provided all hard files to Mr. Epstein's current counsel, Scott Link. Movants' Motions

Motion for Issuance of an Order to Show Cause Why Fowler White and Jeffrey Epstein Should Not Be Held in Contempt of Court, to Permit Discovery, to Assess Sanctions and Costs, and for Other Relief (DE 6323; re-docketed as DE 6326) and Bradley Edwards' Joinder in Motion for Issuance of an Order to Show Cause (DE 6325)i. T

E DIVISION www.flsb.uscourts.gov IN RE: ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER, P.A., Debtor. CASE NO.: 09-34791-RBR CHAPTER 11 BRADLEY EDWARDS'S REPLY TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION FOR ISSUANCE OF AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY FOWLER WHITE AND JEFFREY EPSTEIN SHOULD NOT BE HELD IN CONTEMPT OF COURT, TO PER

highly confidential and privileged emails pertaining to Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse victims and the prosecution of their civil cases against Mr. Epstein. In order to protect the sanctity of those privileges, the Court ordered a special master to preside over the confidential review of such documents

34791-RBR CHAPTER 11 BRADLEY EDWARDS'S REPLY TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION FOR ISSUANCE OF

and the prosecution of their civil cases against Mr. Epstein. In order to protect the sanctity of those privi

osition to Farmer Jaffe's Motion to Show Cause Why Fowler White and Jeffrey Epstein Should Not Be Held in Contempt of Court, to Permit Discovery, to Assess Sanctions and Costs, and for Other Appropriate Relief, and as grounds therefore states as follows: INTRODUCTION Jeffrey Epstein's Motion, through one misstatement aft

nymously, having previously moved to intervene in this action and having filed a motion for an order to show cause [DE 6345], now file this reply to Jeffrey Epstein's Response in Opposition to ■., ■., and Jane Doe's Joinder in Motion for Order to Show Cause and Motion for Discovery, to Assess Sanctions and Costs,

anctions and Costs, and for Other Appropriate Relief [DE 6353]. INTRODUCTION In their motion, the Victims sought sanctions against Fowler White and Epstein for illegally retaining copies of materials forbidden to be retained or copied by this Court's November 2010 order — including a disk of thousands

r to show cause [DE 6345], now file this reply to Jeffrey Epstein's Response in Opposition to ■., ■., and

e won't use them. MR. SCAROLA: Does that include Mr. Epstein? THE COURT: Does what include Mr. Epstein? MR.

reply to Jeffrey Epstein's Response in Opposition to ■., ■., and Jane Doe's Joinder in Motion for Order to Show Cause and Motion for Discovery, to Assess Sanctions and Costs, and for Other Appropriate Relief [DE 6353]. INTRODUCTION In their motion, the Victims sought sanctions against Fowler White and Epstein for illega

T OF FLORIDA FORT LAUDERDALE DIVISION www.flsb.uscourts.gov IN RE: ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER, P.A., Debtor. CASE NO. 09-34791-RBR CHAPTER 11 JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S EXPEDITED MOTION IN LIMINE TO ENFORCE COURT'S RULING AND TO STRIKE IRRELEVANT. SCANDALOUS AND IMPERTINENT DEPOSITION OUESTIONS AND FOR ATTORNEYS' F

ief Expedited Hearing Requested on or before October 24, 2018, so that the Court may rule prior to the October 26, 2018, hearing) Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") moves this Court in limine to enforce this Court's ruling at the upcoming October 26, 2018, evidentiary hearing, and to strike irrelevant, scandal

.A., Debtor. CASE NO. 09-34791-RBR CHAPTER 11 JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S EXPEDITED MOTION IN LIMINE TO ENFORCE C

Motion for Issuance of an Order to Show Cause Why Fowler White and Jeffrey Epstein Should Not be Held in Contempt of Court, to Permit Discovery, to Assess Sanctions and Costs, and for Other Appropriate Relief. (D.E. 6326.) Edwards and L.M. joined that request. (D.E. 6325; D.E. 6345.) Movants allege that Fowler White EFTA

E OF AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY FOWLER WHITE AND JEFFREY EPSTEIN SHOULD NOT BE HELD IN CONTEMPT OF COURT,

Other Appropriate Relief, and as grounds therefore states as follows: Jeffrey Epstein issued a subpoena, through the Palm Beach State Court case of Jeffrey Epstein v. Scott Rothstein, Bradley J. Edwards, and L.M., Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Palm Beach County, Florida Case No. 50-2009 CA 040800XXXX M

dley J. Edwards, and L.M., Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Palm Beach County, Florida Case No. 50-2009 CA 040800XXXX MB AG (hereinafter "the Epstein lawsuit"). The result of that subpoena was the production from the RRA trustee of approximately 27,000 emails to be delivered to Fanner Jaffe for th

upport of Farmer Jaffe's Motion to Show Cause Why Fowler White and Jeffrey Epstein Should Not Be Held in Contempt of Court, to Permit Discovery, to Assess Sanctions and Costs, and for Other Appropriate Relief, and as grounds therefore states as follows: Jeffrey Epstein issued a subpoena, through the Palm Beach State Cour

urts.gov IN RE: ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER, P.A., Debtor. CASE NO.: 09-34791-RBR CHAPTER 11 JPROPOSED1 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY FOWLER WHITE AND JEFFREY EPSTEIN SHOULD NOT BE HELD IN CONTEMPT OF COURT, TO PERMIT DISCOVERY, TO ASSESS SANCTIONS AND COSTS, AND FOR OTHER APPROPRIATE RELIEF This Court having pr

TO ASSESS SANCTIONS AND COSTS, AND FOR OTHER APPROPRIATE RELIEF This Court having previously entered an order directing that both Fowler White and Epstein were not to have "retained images or copies of the subject documents on [their] computer[s] or otherwise" DE 1194, and this Court having retained j

ROPOSED1 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY FOWLER WHITE AND JEFFREY EPSTEIN SHOULD NOT BE HELD IN CONTEMPT OF COURT,

r Jaffe its Motion for an Order to Show Cause Why Fowler White and Jeffrey Epstein Should Not Be Held in Contempt of Court, to Permit Discovery, to Assess Sanctions and Costs, and for Other Appropriate Relief, that a prima facie case has been made this the Court's order has been violated, now ORDERS as follows: I. Fowler