Epstein Secrets

Rothstein/Edwards Case No. 502009CA040800XXXXMB W. Chester Brewer, Jr., Esq. W. CHESTER BREWER, JR.

differential. Under section 768.79, you offer an "amount," not a deal. You can't apply mathematics to "non-monetary offers." As a later panel of the Fifth District noted, "One might logically posit, in fact, that 'the only enforceable non-monetary condition allowable under the rule is one that does not go beyon

IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA 2 3 4 E.W., ) 5 ) Plaintiff, ) 6 ) vs )Case No. 502

rest that both sides receive, as I mentioned earlier, a fair consideration of their case. I do temper my comments today with the understanding as the Fifth District in the Ballast case made clear, that discovery is far EFTA00776416 52 1 broader than admissibility. I'm not suggesting 2 at this juncture tha

d others, Razorback Funding, LLC, et al. v. Scott W. Rothstein, et al., Case No. 09-062943(19) (herei

n by the defendant in the malicious prosecution action at the time the underlying action was initiated, not some later point in time."). In Yurko, the Fifth District concluded: "The affidavit here shows Yurko reasonably researched and investigated his case, and had a tenable theory to present to the court and ju