Epstein Secrets

tions at a Mar. 8, 2010, deposition, id. at 10 & Ex. D. 8. Annexed hereto as Exhibit E is a copy of pertinent pages of the Complaint in Epstein v. Rothstein, Edwards No. 50 2009 CAO 40800 (Cir. Ct., 15th Jud. Cir., Palm Beach Co., Dec. 7, 2009), as downloaded from http://www.scribd.com/doc/23947743/121

NTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Complex Litigation, Fla. R. Civ. Pro. 1.201 CASE NO. Plaintiff, v. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, ilr DLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, and ., individually, Defendants. 50 2009 cAo 03 (JUI0X04B COMPLAINT COPY RECEIVED FOR FILING

has held that, when faced with a combination of federal claims and pendent state law claims, federal common law controls under Rule 501. Hancock v. Dodson, 958 F.2d 1367, 1372-73 (6th Cir. 1992) ("Since the instant case is a federal question case by virtue of the appellant's section 1983 claim, we hold

tions at a Mar. 8, 2010, deposition, id. at 10 & Ex. D. 8. Annexed hereto as Exhibit E is a copy of pertinent pages of the Complaint in Epstein v. Rothstein, Edwards & L.M. No. 50 2009 CAO 40800 (Cir. Ct., 15th Jud. Cir., Palm Beach Co., Dec. 7, 2009), as downloaded from http://www.scribd.com/doc/2394774

NTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Complex Litigation, Fla. R. Civ. Pro. 1.201 CASE NO. Plaintiff, v. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, ilr DLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, and ., individually, Defendants. 50 2009 cAo 03 (JUI0X04B COMPLAINT COPY RECEIVED FOR FILING

has held that, when faced with a combination of federal claims and pendent state law claims, federal common law controls under Rule 501. Hancock v. Dodson, 958 F.2d 1367, 1372-73 (6th Cir. 1992) ("Since the instant case is a federal question case by virtue of the appellant's section 1983 claim, we hold

14 PM IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION CASE NO. 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG Judge David F. Crow JEFFREY EPSTEIN. Plaintiff, v. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendants. PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO OUASH SUBPOENA AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER TO PREVENT DEPOSITI

F. Crow JEFFREY EPSTEIN. Plaintiff, v. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individual

void costly litigation, and to achieve a balanced search for the truth to ensure a fair trial." Elkins v. Syken, 672 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 1996) (citing Dodson v. Pend!, 390 So. 2d 704 (Fla. 1980); Suif Drugs, Inc. v. Vermette, 236 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 1970)). -"S ,r‘ II. In Elkins, the Florida Supreme Court