Epstein Secrets

in 4 session. The Honorable David Crow presiding. Miley Epstein, 5 MR. CRITTON: Good morning. Plaintiff. 6 MR. SCAROLA: Good morning, Judge. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, 7 THE WITNESS: Were here on Epstein versus BRADLEY J. EDWAFtDS, individually, and L.M. individually, Defendants. / 8 9 10 Ro

IN, individually, 7 THE WITNESS: Were here on Epstein versus BRADLEY J. EDWAFtDS, individually, and L.M. individually, Defendants. / 8 9 10 Rothstein, et al. So, I've read the materials you guys submitted on both sides and also read the counterclaim. HEARING BEFORE. THE HONORABLE 11 MR. SCAROL

criminal, tinder the 9 court properly found that Russell showed — and 10 Civil Theft Statute 772.11. One, we think it's 10 again this is in the McMurray case — the 11 not applicable. Two is we don't think notice 11 non-existence of a genuine issue of material 12 is required. It's part of the -- t

ling. 4 my client in the counterclaim are really 4 And they go down and they cite relying on 5 Paragraphs 9, 10, and II. And the key is the 5 McMurray versus U-Haul which is the Fourth 6 action was filed for the sole purpose to 6 District case, which holds that the mere filing 7 intimidate Edw

PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION CASE NO. 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG Judge David F. Crow JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, v. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendants. PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO

LER WHITE BURNETT P.A. • 901 PHILLIPS POINT WEST, 777 SOUTH FLAGLF.R DRIVE, WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33401 • (561) 802-9044 EFTA00306384 Epstein v Rothstein, Edwards Case No. 502009CA0408003OOOCMBAG First, Edwards seeks "damages including but not limited to..." various elements of damages. (See Second

ng of that lawsuit. Fifth, abuse of process is based on process used for an immediate purpose other than that for which it was designed. See, e.g., McMurray v. U-Haul Co., 425 So. 2d 1208 and n. I (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). Edwards, however, does not allege that any specific process was used by Epstein for an

tedly baseless lawsuit. Given the fact that the mere filing or service of a spurious claim is not itself actionable as abuse of process, see, e.g., McMurray v. U-Haul Co., 425 So. 2d 1208, 1209 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Blue v Weinstein, 381 So. 2d 308, 310 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), it necessarily follows that Edwa

PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION CASE NO. 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG Judge David F. Crow JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, v. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs. PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MEMORANDUM OF LA

FOWLER WHITE BURNETT • 901 PHILLIPS POINT WEST, 777 SOUTH FLAGLF.R DRIVE, WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33401 • (561) 802-9044 EFTA00582686 Epstein v Rothstein, Edwards Case No. 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG First, under Florida law, Edwards cannot recover compensatory damages for the alleged loss or use of his

ch requires abuse of the judicial system subsequent to the filing of a complaint — not purportedly unfounded allegations in a complaint. See, e.g., McMurray v. U-Haul Co., 425 So. 2d 1208, 1209 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Blue v Weinstein, 381 So. 2d 308, 310 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). Finally, to the extent that Edw

D FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Complex Litigation, Fla. R. Civ. Pro. 1201 Plaintiff, Case No. 50 2009 CA 040800XXXXMBAG vs. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually Defendants. PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT/CO

ds must show that Epstein's filing of his abuse of process claim against him — which is the gravamen of Edwards' abuse of EFTA00582880 Epstein v. Rothstein, Edwards CASE NO. 50 2009 CA 040800 XXXXMB AG Epstein's Response in Opposition to Edwards' M/Dismiss Amended Complaint process claim against Epste

r purpose after an action was filed and process served. See,. e.g., Della-Donna v. Nova University, Inc., 512 So. 2d 1051, 1055 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); McMurray v. U-Haul Co, Inc., 425 So. 2d 1208, 1209-10 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). Accordingly, the filing of an action itself does not constitute abuse of process.

D FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Complex Litigation, Fla. R. Civ. Pro. 1201 Plaintiff, Case No. 50 2009 CA 040800XXXXMBAG vs. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendants. PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COUNTERCLAIM

FOWLER WHITE BURNETT P.A. • ESPIRITO SANTO PLAZA, 1395 BRICKELL AVENUE, 14•• FLOOR. MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 • (305) 789-9200 EFTA00584348 Epstein v. Rothstein, et al. CASE NO. 50 2009 CA 040800 XXXXMB AG Epstein's Am MPO Prejclude O/C, etc. from Making Extrajudicial Statements, et al. Il. BACKGROUND In

, 443 So. 2d 1025, 1026 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)(counterclaim allegedly causing undue expenditure of time and money did not constitute abuse of process); McMurray v. U-Haul Co., 425 So. 2d 1208, 1209 (Fla. 4'h DCA 1983)(same); Blue v. Weinstein, 381 So. 2d 308, 311 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)("[N]o abuse of the - 4 -

D FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Complex Litigation, Fla. R. Civ. Pro. 1201 Plaintiff, Case No. 50 2009 CA 040800XXXXMBAG VS. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendants. PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DEFENDA

FOWLER WHITE BURNETT P.A. • ESPIRITO SANTO PLAZA, 1395 BRICKELL AVENUE, 14•• FLOOR. MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 • (305) 789-9200 EFTA00584338 Epstein v. Rothstein, et al. CASE NO. 50 2009 CA 040800 XXXXMB AG Epstcin's Am MPO Prejclude O/C, etc. from Making Extrajudicial Statements, et al. favor of Epstein on

, 443 So. 2d 1025, 1026 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)(counterclaim allegedly causing undue expenditure of time and money did not constitute abuse of process); McMurray v. U-Haul Co., 425 So. 2d 1208, 1209 (Fla. 4'h DCA 1983)(same); Blue v. Weinstein, 381 So. 2d 308, 311 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)("[N]o abuse of the proces