Epstein Secrets

E. The Present Motion to Compel I0 ARGUMENT 11 I. EDWARDS MAY NOT RELY ON THE VACATED DISTRICT COURT ORDER FROM THE JANE DOE ACTION 12 II. EDWARDS FAILS TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR DISCOVERY OF A NON-PARTY UNDER CPLR 3101(a) 14 A. The Epstein Interview Does Not Have Heightened Relevance to

a deposition in one of the now-settled suits by implying that "he did not recognize" reporter Rush. Moving Br. at 17; see also Moving Affidavit of Bradley James Edwards, sworn to Sept. 14, 2010 ("Edwards Aft"), ¶ 22. Besides being farfetched and factually unsupported, Edwards' apparent desire to attack Epstein's cr

pstein sex abuse litigation, as even a quick Google search reveals. See. e.g., Heiress Quizzed in Sex Suits. M. POST, Oct. 12, 2009 ("Florida lawyer Brad Edwards. who represents three of the 'Jane Does' who are suing Epstein, told Page Six that Phislaine] Maxwell would be questioned over her knowledge of how

lawyers and others close to the case — including attorney Edwards — who could provide tips and information to assi

36 (1950) 13 Ulrich v. Coast Dental Servs., Inc., 739 So.2d 142 (FIa. Dist. Ct. App. 1999) 30 iv DINT 15845345v3 3970112.000042 EFTA00596453 Valdes v. GAB Robins North Am., Inc., 924 So.2d 862 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006) 17 Vasquez v. State, 777 So.2d 1200 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001) 21 Wains

Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.470, files this Notice of Proposed Jury Instructions and Verdict Form. Epstein adopts Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Bradley J. Edwards' ("Edwards") November 9, 2017, proposed Standard (Civil) Jury Instructions Nos. 201.3, 202.2, 202.3, 202.4, 301.1, 301.2, 301.3, 301.4, 301.5, 406.1

Procedure 1.470, files this Notice of Proposed Jury Instructions and Verdict Form. Epstein adopts Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Bradley J. Edwards' ("Edwards") November 9, 2017, proposed Standard (Civil) Jury Instructions Nos. 201.3, 202.2, 202.3, 202.4, 301.1, 301.2, 301.3, 301.4, 301.5, 406.1, 406.3, 4

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 33 !BIFURCATED ISSUE! 503.2 PUNITIVE DAMAGES' There is an additional claim in this case that you must decide. If you find for Bradley Edwards and against Jeffrey Epstein, you must decide whether, in addition to compensatory damages, punitive damages are warranted as punishment to Jeffrey E

ffrey Epstein has not proven any loss or damage, you may still award Jeffrey Epstein nominal damages such as one dollar. Source: Abuse of Process: Valdes v. GAB Robins N. Am. Inc., 924 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006); S & I Investments v. Payless Flea Market, Inc., 36 So. 3d 909, 917 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)

BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, Appellant, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Appellee. FOURTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 4D14-2282 L.T. Case No.: 502009CA040800

e litigation privilege applies to malicious prosecution claims, as well as its finding that the litigation privilege was applicable specifically to Edwards's claims for malicious prosecution and abuse of process against Epstein, constituted issues of law. DelMonico, 116 So. 3d at 1211 (stating the dete

uneral Services of Florida, Inc. v. Henry, 839 So. 2d 702 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) 22 Steinberg v. Steinberg, 152 So. 3d 572 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) 6, 9 Valdes v. GAB Robins, 924 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) 7 Volusia County v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, M., 760 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 2000) 2 Wolfe v. Forema

N THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, v. BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, et al., Defendant/Counter-Plaintiffs. No. 50-2009-CA-040800XXXXMBAG JUDGE HAFELE PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO: DEFE

t this Court's consideration of the probable cause issue raised in Epstein's motion for summary judgment is barred by the law of the case doctrine. Edwards argues that the probable cause issue was raised by Epstein as a point on appeal in Edwards v. Epstein, 178 So. 3d 942 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015), and that

issal without prejudice, which does not constitute a bona-fide termination, one of the six essential elements of a malicious prosecution claim. See Valdes v. GAB Robins, 924 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). Appellant neither addresses nor submits argument as to Appellee's assertion, so this is not addre

N THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, v. BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, et al., Defendant/Counter-Plaintiffs. No. 50-2009-CA-040800XXXXMBAG JUDGE: HAFELE PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFEN

on for Summary Tonga Haddad. P.A. • 315 SE 7th Street, Fon Lauderdale, FL 33301. EFTA00808559 Judgment is batted by the law of the case doctrine. Edwards argues that the probable cause issue was raised by Epstein as a point on appeal in Edwards v. Epstein, 178 So. 3d 942 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015), and that

issal without prejudice, which does not constitute a bona-fide termination, one of the six essential elements of a malicious prosecution claim. See Valdes v. GAB Robins, 924 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). Appellant neither addresses nor submits argument as to Appellee's assertion, so this is not addre

RECEIVED, 2/25/2015 3:10 PM, Clerk, Fourth District Court of Appeal BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, Appellant, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Appellee. / FOURTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 4D14-2282 L.T. Case No.: 502009CA04

e litigation privilege applies to malicious prosecution claims, as well as its finding that the litigation privilege was applicable specifically to Edwards's claims for malicious prosecution and abuse of process against Epstein, constituted issues of law. DelMonico, 116 So. 3d at 1211 (stating the dete

uneral Services of Florida, Inc. v. Henry, 839 So. 2d 702 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) 22 Steinberg v. Steinberg, 152 So. 3d 572 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) 6, 9 Valdes v. GAB Robins, 924 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) 7 Volusia County v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 2000) 2 Wolfe v. Fore

t Lauderdale, FL 33301 ttorneys or e rey pstein Bradley J. Edwards, Esq. FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHR

rclaim and Supporting Memorandum of Law, based on the law of the case doctrine. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In the Fourth Amended Counterclaim, Edwards raised two claims against Epstein: 1) abuse of process and 2) malicious prosecution. As to the malicious prosecution claim, Edwards alleged that th

issal without prejudice, which does not constitute a bona-fide termination, one of the six essential elements of a malicious prosecution claim. See Valdes v. GAB Robins, 924 So.2d 862 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). Appellant neither addresses nor submits argument as to Appellee's assertion, so this is not addres

A JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Complex Litigation, Fla. R. Civ. Pro. 1201 Plaintiff, Case No. 50 2009 CA 040800XXXXMBAG vs. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually Defendants. PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT/COUNTER-PLAINTIFF BRADLEY EDWARDS' M

FREY EPSTEIN ("Epstein"), by and through his undersigned counsel, hereby offers the following response in opposition to Defendant/Counter- Plaintiff EDWARDS' ("Edwards") Motion for Leave to Assert a Claim for Punitive Damages ("motion")" and states: SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT Edwards' latest kitchen-sink moti

law, abuse of process cannot be based solely on the filing of an allegedly groundless claim, which is the crux of Edwards' counterclaim. See, e.g., Valdes v. GAB Robins N. Am., Inc., 924 So. 2d 862, 867 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)("Valdes' failure to allege any improper willful acts by the appellees during the

A JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Complex Litigation, Fla. R. Civ. Pro. 1201 Plaintiff, Case No. 50 2009 CA 040800XXXXMBAG vs. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendants. PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COUNTERCLAIM AND SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF LAW

n"), by and through his undersigned counsel, hereby moves to dismiss the Amended Counterclaim of the Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff, BRADLEY EDWARDS ("Edwards"), and in support thereof states as follows : I. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT Edwards' Amended Counterclaim should be dismissed because it fails to state a

ss.' [Citation omitted] The plaintiff must prove improper use of process after it issues." S&I !mu., 36 So. 3d at 917 (quotation omitted). See also Valdes, 924 So. 2d at 867 ("Valdes' failure to allege any improper willful acts by the appellees during the course of the prior action requires dismissal

A JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Complex Litigation, Fla. R. Civ. Pro. 1201 Plaintiff, Case No. 50 2009 CA 040800XXXXMBAG VS. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendants. PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DEFENDANT/COUNTER-PLAINTIFF BRADLEY EDWAR

-Plaintiff Bradley Edwards' Counterclaim, and states as follows : I. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT Summary judgment should be entered in favor of Epstein on Edwards' single-count Counterclaim for abuse of process because it is legally insufficient. Edwards' Counterclaim does not state an actionable claim for ab

or perverted process; and 3) damage as a result of the conduct. See, e.g., S&I Invs. v. Payless Flea Mkt., 36 So. 3d 909, 917 (Fla. 4th DCA. 2010); Valdes v. GAB Robins North America, Inc., 924 So. 2d 862, 867 n. 2 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006); Della-Donna v. Nova Univ., Inc., 512 So. 2d 1051, 1055 (Fla. 4th DC