Epstein Secrets

s Counsel for Defendant Scott Rothstein Jack A. Goldberger Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, . 250 Australia

expert which is otherwise qualified to testify to what he's going to testify. (3/8/18 Aft. Tr. 93:16-20.) Indeed, "[a]s indicated in Binger v. King Pest Control, 401 So. 2d 1310 (Fla. 1981), the exclusion of an unlisted witness' testimony is a drastic remedy which should pertain in only the most compelling

01 Counsel for Defendant Scott Rothstein Jack A. Goldberger Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, M. 250 Australia

l by way of memorandum, and that will be done under seal and will continue to be under seal, and will be filed under seal in case of Ringer v. King Pest Control, 401 So. 2d 1310 (Fla. 1981). 2 EFTA00808705 a need for appellate review. So that is going to be the direction of the Court, that the motion be

k Counsel for Defendant Scott Rothstein Jack A. Goldberger Atterb , Goldber er & Weiss, P.A. o- ounse or

Link & Rockenbach, PA discovered documents that were voluntarily produced years ago by Edwards to his potential adversaries at the 6Binger v. King Pest Control, 401 So. 2d 1310 (Fla. 1981). 3 EFTA00794279 time — the Razorback plaintiffs. These e-mails directly contradict Edwards' sworn testimony and pos

m Counsel for Defendant Scott Rothstein Jack A. Goldberger Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Austral

that any substantive discussion of those emails will be done under seal by way of memorandum, and that will be done under seal and 'Binger v. King Pest Control, 401 So. 2d 1310 (Fla. 1981). 2Excerpts of the November 2, 2018, Hearing Transcript are attached as Exhibit A. 2 EFTA00794299 will continue to b