Epstein Secrets

T OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff(s), VS. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, and N., individually, Defendant(s). NOTICE OF SERVING UNVERIFIED ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES Bra

t, including subparts, substantially exceeds the maximum number permitted without leave of court. 37. For each payment or distribution made by you, Rothstein, Rosenfeldt & Alder, Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman PL and/or any other law firm through which you have provided legal services

evant, material or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The interrogatory seeks to invade the economic privacy of the Counter-Plaintiff and all others encompassed within the extraordinarily broad scope of Definition #5 of Counter-Defendant's Interrogatories. Reference to "the period

T OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff(s), vs. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, and L.M., individually Defendant(s). REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN COMES NOW the Co

MBAG JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff(s), vs. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually,

HSTEIN, individually, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, and L.M., individually Defendant(s). REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN COMES NOW the Counter-Plaintiff, Bradley J. Edwards, by and through his undersigned counsel and propounds the following Request for Admissions pursuant to Rule 1.370 Florida Rules

T OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff(s), vs. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, and L.M., individually, Defendant(s). NOTICE OF SERVING ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES Bradley J. E

t, including subparts, substantially exceeds the maximum number permitted without leave of court. 37. For each payment or distribution made by you, Rothstein, Rosenfeldt & Alder, Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman PL and/or any other law firm through which you have provided legal services

evant, material or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The interrogatory seeks to invade the economic privacy of the Counter-Plaintiff and all others encompassed within the extraordinarily broad scope of Definition #5 of Counter-Defendant's Interrogatories. Reference to "the period

owing. It is therefore EFTA00602092 Epstein V. Rothstein, et at Case No. 502009CA040800 AG Order Page 2

endant(s). ORDER ON COUNTER-PLAINTIFF EDWARDS' RENEWED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO ASSERT CLAIM FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon the Counter-Plaintiff, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS' Motion to Amend to Add a Claim for Punitive Damages in regard to his abuse of process and malicious prosecution claims. The Co