Epstein Secrets

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

nt), make Epstein's request for information about such expenditures, as well as the rationale for engaging in same, relevant. See also Behm v. Cape Lumber Co., 834 So. 2d 285 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (stating that proper discovery includes records and information that are relevant to the calculation of damages.

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

nt), make Epstein's request for information about such expenditures, as well as the rationale for engaging in same, relevant. See also Behm v. Cape Lumber Co., 834 So. 2d 285 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (stating that proper discovery includes records and information that are relevant to the calculation of damages.

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

nt), make Epstein's request for information about such expenditures, as well as the rationale for engaging in same, relevant. See also Behm v. Cape Lumber Co., 834 So. 2d 285 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (stating that proper discovery includes records and information that are relevant to the calculation of damages.