Epstein Secrets

2010 seeking the similar relief. The grounds for this motion are: 1. Late last year, Epstein filed this action to recover damages from Defendants, Scott Rothstein ("Rothstein") and Edwards, based on Epstein's well founded belief that the two, and possibly others, had perpetrated an illegal pyramid scheme direc

WLER WHITE BURNETT P.A. • 901 PHILLIPS POINT WEST, 777 SOUTH FLAGLER DRIVE, WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33401 • (561) 802-9044 EFTA00606624 Epstein v Rothstein, Edwards CASE NO. 502009CA040800=OCMBAG Notice of Hearing PLEASE GOVERN YOURSELVES ACCORDINGLY. In accordance with the Americans With Disabilitie

155, 170, 181, 184-187, 192, 198-202, 205-206, 208-210, 212, 215-217; Exhibit 1. Forty years ago, the Florida Supreme Court, in Surf Drugs, Inc. v. Vermette, 236 So. 2d 108, 112 (Fla. 1970), gave this general definition of work product saying what it is and what it is not: [T]hose documents, pictures,

ALM 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 JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF

eral 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 privileged.' Th

s." Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Harmon, 580 So. 2d 192, (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). Forty years ago, the Florida Supreme Court, in Sof Drugs, Inc. v. Vermette, 236 So. 2d 108, 112 (Fla. 1970), explained what is covered by the work product privilege: [T]hose documents, pictures, statements and diagrams whi

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 PROTECTIVE ORDER TO PREVENT DEPOSITI

F. Crow JEFFREY EPSTEIN. Plaintiff, v. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individual

truth to ensure a fair trial." Elkins v. Syken, 672 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 1996) (citing Dodson v. Pend!, 390 So. 2d 704 (Fla. 1980); Suif Drugs, Inc. v. Vermette, 236 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 1970)). -"S ,r‘ II. In Elkins, the Florida Supreme Court commented on the purpose of pretrial discovery: Discovery was ne

nsel, s/ Bradley J. Edwards Bradley J. Edwards ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER Las Olas City Centre 401 East

ihood of surprise and to insure a fair opportunity to prepare for trial. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(1); see also Surf Drugs. Inc., v. Vermette, 236 So.2d 108, 111 (Fla. 1970)(stating that the rules of discovery should be afforded broad and liberal treatment to effectuate their purpose), ci