Epstein Secrets

ned herein including, but not limited to, the discovery abuses and bad faith litigation tactics that Epstein has been the subject of at the hands of Scott Rothstein and his-co-conspirators, any tax returns must be redacted to preserve confidently and to prevent further abuses. See supra. Further, Epstein's com

ermore, as set forth in a Civil Complaint attached hereto as Exhibit ar attorney Scott Rothstein aided by other lawyers and employees at the firm of Rothstein, Rosenfeldt, and Adler, P.A., deliberately engaged in a pattern of racketeering that involved a staggering series of gravely serious obstructions o

work product where the requesting party can show need and the inability to obtain the substantial equivalent by other means without undue hardship. Vesta Fire Ins. Corp. v. Figueroa, 821 So.2d 1233. 1234 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)(the showing of need and undue hardship necessary to overcome the work product immunity

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

roduct where the requesting party can show both the need for the information and the inability to obtain the substantial equivalent by other means. Vesta Fire Ins. Corp. v. Figueroa, 821 So. 2d 1233, 1234 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Ashemimiy v. Ba Nafa, 847 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). Accordingly, this producti

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

roduct where the requesting party can show both the need for the information and the inability to obtain the substantial equivalent by other means. Vesta Fire Ins. Corp. v. Figueroa, 821 So. 2d 1233, 1234 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Ashemimiy v. Ba Nafa, 847 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). Accordingly, this producti

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

roduct where the requesting party can show both the need for the information and the inability to obtain the substantial equivalent by other means. Vesta Fire Ins. Corp. v. Figueroa, 821 So. 2d 1233, 1234 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Ashemimiy v. Ba Nafa, 847 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). Accordingly, this producti