Document Mentions (3 shared documents)

EFTA00799402

3 mentions1 same-page

Page ?Same page

JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff, vs. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually. Defendants. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH C

. The topic of the examination next turned to Scott Rothstein and his involvement in the Epstein cases. Counsel for Epstein asks Edwards to discuss Rothstein's general knowledge regarding the Epstein cases, specifically a meeting he attended in Rothstein's office with Russell Adler: Q: Was a question po

re I am not going to answer that question. Id. at 18-19. Q: If Mr. Fisten represented that he was associated with the Miami-Dade Police Department, Miami-Dade County Police Department, would you find that conduct inappropriate. Id. at 21-24. MR. SCAROLA: Same instruction and I would also observe with regard to each of the hypoth

EFTA00585394

3 mentions1 same-page

Page ?Same page

JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff, vs. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually. Defendants. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH C

EFTA00201246

2 mentions1 same-page

Page ?Same page

nsel, s/ Bradley J. Edwards Bradley J. Edwards ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER Las Olas City Centre Fort Laud

to lose the civil case in summary or default judgment proceedings." Id. at *I. Moreover, the stay in Ventura was granted on motion of the defendant Miami-Dade County Police Department because it would be prejudiced by its codefendant, a former police officer, asserting the Fifth Amendment and refusing to answer "in response to th