Epstein Secrets

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

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

nadmissible at trial, if it may lead to the discovery of relevant evidence." Allstate Ins. Co. v. Langston, 655 So. 2d 91, 93 (Fla. 1995). See also Murray Van & Storage, Inc. v. Murray, 343 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977) (stating that an objection to discovery claiming that the sought-after information is not reasonably c

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

o. 2d 859 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). Discovery responses containing bare-boned objections, without more, are stricken as a matter of course. Id. See also Murray Van & Storage, Inc. v. Murray, 343 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977) (stating that an objection to discovery claiming that the sought-after information is not reasonably c

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

o. 2d 859 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). Discovery responses containing bare-boned objections, without more, are stricken as a matter of course. Id. See also Murray Van & Storage, Inc. v. Murray, 343 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977) (stating that an objection to discovery claiming that the sought-after information is not reasonably c

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

o. 2d 859 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). Discovery responses containing bare-boned objections, without more, are stricken as a matter of course. Id. See also Murray Van & Storage, Inc. v. Murray, 343 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977) (stating that an objection to discovery claiming that the sought-after information is not reasonably c