Epstein Secrets

nt prosecution agreement with Edwards' counsel, whereby both parties agreed to share information relative to their claims and/or defenses related to Scott Rothstein without waiving privilege as to their communications or documents shared." Edwards' Supp. Resp. to Epstein's Mot. to Declare Relevance, July 26, 201

in (e.g., victims of) Rothstein Rosenfeldt & Adler's Ponzi scheme, in the Razorback litigation. These investors were unquestionably adverse to both Rothstein and Edwards' law firm of which he was a partner. Despite this, Edwards voluntarily produced documents that he now claims are privileged to Mr. Scher

ion. § 90.507, Fla. Stat. In plain English: "When a party himself ceases to treat the matter as confidential, it loses its confidential character." Delap v. State, 440 So. 2d 1242, 1247 (Fla. 1983). See also Tucker v. State, 484 So. 2d 1299, 1301 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986) ("The law is clear that once communications

nt prosecution agreement with Edwards' counsel, whereby both parties agreed to share information relative to their claims and/or defenses related to Scott Rothstein without waiving privilege as to their communications or documents shared." Edwards' Supp. Resp. to Epstein's Mot. to Declare Relevance, July 26, 201

in this action about his anxiety over being sued by Epstein They also directly relate to Edwards' interaction with Ponzi-schemer Scott Rothstein ("Rothstein") and the strengthAveakness of Edwards' clients' damage claims against Epstein, both which have become critical factual issues in this case. First

th attorney-client and work product) to Conrad, Scherer, an adversarial party's counsel, Edwards waived those privileges. See § 90.507, Fla. Stat.; Delap v. State, 440 So. 2d 1242, 1247 (1983). See also Tucker v. State, 484 So. 2d 1299, 1301 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986) ("The law is clear that once communications prot

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

x-wife). The attorney-client privilege is waived if the client voluntarily discloses the substance of the communication. See § 90.507, Fla. Stat.; Delap v. State, 440 So. 2d 1242, 1247 (Fla. 1983) ("[W]hen a party himself ceases to treat the matter as confidential, it loses its confidential character."). Edw