Epstein Secrets

ALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA Case No. 50-2009CA040800XXXXMBAG JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, v. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendants/Counter-Plaintiff. PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S RENEWED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO DISCLOSE EXPERT WITNESS Pl

disclose an expert witness, and states: INTRODUCTION This case is currently not set for trial and, therefore, Counter-Plaintiff Bradley Edwards ("Edwards") will not be prejudiced by Epstein's renewed request to disclose his expert witness to opine on matters of legal ethics and responsibility, probabl

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

EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR IN CAMERA INSPECTION OF 30 E-MAILS Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") responds in opposition to Counter-Plaintiff Bradley J. Edwards' ("Edwards") November 13, 2018, Motion to Strike Epstein's Motion for in Camera Inspection of 30 E-Mails and states: INTRODUCTION Edwards knows onl

ividually, and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendants/Counter-Plaintiff. / COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO EDWARDS' MOTION TO STRIKE EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR IN CAMERA INSPECTION OF 30 E-MAILS Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") responds in opposition to C

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

PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA Case No. 50-2009CA040800XXXXMBAG JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, v. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendants/Counter-Plaintiff. / COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR AN IN CAMERA INSPECTION OF 30 E-MAILS Counter-De

es to them. Following this Court's in camera review, Epstein seeks a ruling from this Court that these 30 e-mails, which were improperly withheld by Edwards, an officer of the court, on the false bases of irrelevancy, attorney-client privilege and inapplicable basis of work product3, should be unsealed,

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

EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR IN CAMERA INSPECTION OF 30 E-MAILS Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") responds in opposition to Counter-Plaintiff Bradley J. Edwards' ("Edwards") November 13, 2018, Motion to Strike Epstein's Motion for in Camera Inspection of 30 E-Mails and states: INTRODUCTION Edwards knows onl

ividually, and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendants/Counter-Plaintiff. / COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO EDWARDS' MOTION TO STRIKE EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR IN CAMERA INSPECTION OF 30 E-MAILS Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") responds in opposition to C

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