Epstein Secrets

RIDA JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Complex Litigation, Fla. R. Civ. Pro.120 I Plaintiff, Case No. 50 2009CA040800XXXXMB AG v. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, and L.M., individually, Defendants. AMENDED AND SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION OF PLAINTIFF TO OVERRULE OBJECTIONS AND COMPEL DEFENDANT EDWAR

on Friday, April 1, at 9:00 a.m., the following: EPSTEIN'S AMENDED AND SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION OF PLAINTIFF TO OVERRULE OBJECTIONS AND COMPEL DEFENDANT EDWARDS TO ANSWER QUESTIONS AND APPEAR FOR FURTHER DEPOSITION The following procedures must be noted on all specially set hearing notices in Division AG:

155, 170, 181, 184-187, 192, 198-202, 205-206, 208-210, 212, 215-217; Exhibit 1. Forty years ago, the Florida Supreme Court, in Surf Drugs, Inc. v. Vermette, 236 So. 2d 108, 112 (Fla. 1970), gave this general definition of work product saying what it is and what it is not: [T]hose documents, pictures,

ISION AG CASE NO. 502009CA040800XXXXMB Judge David F. Crow JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, v. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs. / PLAINTIFF JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS BY DEFENDANT BRADLEY EDWARDS

gh his undersigned counsel, hereby respectfully seeks the entry of an Order compelling Defendant Bradley Edwards to produce the documents listed in Edwards' privilege log, or, in the alternative, the entry of an Order compelling Edwards to serve a privilege log that fully complies with Fla. R. Civ. P. 2

s." Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Harmon, 580 So. 2d 192, (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). Forty years ago, the Florida Supreme Court, in Sof Drugs, Inc. v. Vermette, 236 So. 2d 108, 112 (Fla. 1970), explained what is covered by the work product privilege: [T]hose documents, pictures, statements and diagrams whi

, 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 DEPOSITION OF ALFRED SECKEL Plaintiff Jeffrey

commanding non-party Alfred Seckel to appear for deposition in Los Angeles, California on May 23, 2011 which subpoena Defendant Bradley J. Edwards ("Edwards") has noticed over the Plaintiffs objection. The grounds for this Motion are: I. On or about April 7, 2011, counsel to Edwards noticed the deposit

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 commented on the purpose of pretrial discovery: Discovery was ne

Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 38 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2009 Page 17 of 18 Respectfully Submitted, Plaintiff, by One of Her Counsel, s/ Bradley J. Edwards Bradley J. Edwards ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER Las Olas City Centre 401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1650 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Telephone

Senator Kerry refers to the statutorily imposed damage amount as "penalties." Id. The cases of U.S. v. Siegel, supra (11th Cir. 1998), and U.S. v. Edwards, supra (3d Cir. 1998), also support Defendant's position that application of the current version of 18 U.S.C. §2255 would be in clear violation of

ihood of surprise and to insure a fair opportunity to prepare for trial. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(1); see also Surf Drugs. Inc., v. Vermette, 236 So.2d 108, 111 (Fla. 1970)(stating that the rules of discovery should be afforded broad and liberal treatment to effectuate their purpose), ci