Epstein Secrets

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

JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff, vs. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individu

ES TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"), by and through his undersigned counsel and pursuant to Rule 1.350 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure hereby files his amended responses to Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Bradley Edward's Net Worth Interrogatories to Jeffrey Epstein: I. Wha

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

JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff, vs. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individu

ES TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"), by and through his undersigned counsel and pursuant to Rule 1.350 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure hereby files his amended responses to Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Bradley Edward's Net Worth Interrogatories to Jeffrey Epstein: I. Wha

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

JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff, vs. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individu

ES TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"), by and through his undersigned counsel and pursuant to Rule 1.350 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure hereby files his amended responses to Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Bradley Edward's Net Worth Interrogatories to Jeffrey Epstein: I. Wha

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. b. None. 6. All fee sharing agreements between Bradley J. Edwards, RRA, or Scott W. Rothstein and/or any other attorney or investor relating to any aspect of any Plaintiff's case. ANSWER: Objection, relevance, not reasonably calculated to l

ent to his cause of action. Moreover, discovery relating to Edwards's financial incentives to join RRA and to engage in conduct in cooperation with Rothstein in support of RRA's illicit activities is most certainly relevant to Edward's allegations in this case and Epstein's defense of the same. Accordingl

e work product privilege. This contention fails for two reasons: First, Edwards failed to properly assert the privilege as mandated by Rule 1.280 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and prevailing case law, see TIG Insurance Corp. of America v. Johnson, 799 So. 2d 7 Tonja Haddad, P.A. • 315 SE 7'h Street, Fort Lauder

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

ter of these objections were speaking objections by Edwards's counsel that went beyond the scope of what is permitted in a deposition as provided in the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and relevant case law. As this analysis demonstrates, Edwards neither complied with the spirit of Rule 1.130(c) of the Florida Rules of

out of millions of dollars, claims of outrageous sums of money were made on behalf of alleged victims across the board. And the only way -- in fact, Scott Rothstein sits in jail. And what I've read in the paper, claims that I've settled cases for $200-million, which is totally not true. She has made claims of

Edwards, creating -- excuse me -- creating fraudulent cases of a sexually charged nature in which the U.S. Attorney has already charged the firm of Rothstein, a firm of which Bradley Edwards is a partner, was a partner, with creating, EFTA00582822 fabricating malicious cases of a sexual nature, includi

king of Epstein's affidavit is warranted. Edwards does not contend that Epstein failed to comply with a court order as contemplated by Rule 1.380 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure; nor does Edwards assert that Epstein's affidavit contains material that should be stricken from a pleading as delineated in Rule 1.140 o

IFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO. 502009CA040800XXXXMB JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, VS. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendants/Counter- Plaintiffs. PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR FEES

PSTEIN, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, VS. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individual

ust 25, 2011, Epstein served an Offer of Judgment on Edwards in the amount of three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000.00) pursuant to Rule 1.442 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and §768.79 of the Florida Statutes (the "Offer"). A true and correct copy of same is attached hereto as "Exhibit A." Edwards failed to a

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. b. None. 6. All fee sharing agreements between Bradley J. Edwards, RRA, or Scott W. Rothstein and/or any other attorney or investor relating to any aspect of any Plaintiff's case. ANSWER: Objection, relevance, not reasonably calculated to l

ent to his cause of action. Moreover, discovery relating to Edwards's financial incentives to join RRA and to engage in conduct in cooperation with Rothstein in support of RRA's illicit activities is most certainly relevant to Edward's allegations in this case and Epstein's defense of the same. Accordingl

e work product privilege. This contention fails for two reasons: First, Edwards failed to properly assert the privilege as mandated by Rule 1.280 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and prevailing case law, see TIG Insurance Corp. of America v. Johnson, 799 So. 2d 7 Tonja Haddad, P.A. • 315 SE 7'h Street, Fort Lauder

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

ter of these objections were speaking objections by Edwards's counsel that went beyond the scope of what is permitted in a deposition as provided in the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and relevant case law. As this analysis demonstrates, Edwards neither complied with the spirit of Rule 1.130(c) of the Florida Rules of

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. b. None. 6. All fee sharing agreements between Bradley J. Edwards, RRA, or Scott W. Rothstein and/or any other attorney or investor relating to any aspect of any Plaintiff's case. ANSWER: Objection, relevance, not reasonably calculated to l

nt to his causes of action. Moreover, discovery relating to Edwards's financial incentives to join RRA and to engage in conduct in cooperation with Rothstein in support of RRA's illicit activities is most certainly relevant to Edward's allegations in this case and Epstein's defense of the same. Accordingl

e work product privilege. This contention fails for two reasons: First, Edwards failed to properly assert the privilege as mandated by Rule 1.280 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and prevailing case law, see TIG Insurance Corp. of America v. Johnson, 799 So. 2d 7 Tonja Haddad, P.A. • 315 SE 7'h Street, Fort Lauder