Epstein Secrets

Florida, this day of , 2009. 1 e v izOOS David French !:)r- c\c"``A- Circuit Judge Copies furnished: TTON, JR., ESQ., and MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ., EDWARDS, ESQ., Brad Edwards and Associates, , JAY HOWELL, ESQ., Jay Howell & Associates, PA, erbury Goldberger & Weiss, PA., EFTA00722688 IN THE COURT O

day of , 2009. 1 e v izOOS David French !:)r- c\c"``A- Circuit Judge Copies furnished: TTON, JR., ESQ., and MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ., EDWARDS, ESQ., Brad Edwards and Associates, , JAY HOWELL, ESQ., Jay Howell & Associates, PA, erbury Goldberger & Weiss, PA., EFTA00722688 IN THE COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUD

is day of , 2009SAGOO et -, IREml VA r e `0 • David French' . Circuit Judge Copies furnished: TTON, JR., ESQ., and MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ., D EDWARDS, ESQ., Brad Edwards and Associates. , JAY HOWELL, ESQ., Jay Howell & Associates, PA, iterbuly Goldberger & Weiss. P.A. EFTA00722689 g e sz LEOPO

hich might possibly lead to evidence supporting some subsequent cause of action is quashed. COBB and PETERSON, IL, concur. Fla.App. 5 Dist.,2001. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Parrish O 2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. Page 2 http://web2.westlaw.corn/print/printstream.aspx?sv

3301 54)467-1223 Attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein Bradley J. Edwards, Esq. FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHR

f/Counter-Defendant's Motion for Fees and Costs, and as grounds therefor would state: INTRODUCTION This case arises from Epstein's lawsuit against Edwards, when Epstein sued Edwards merely for his legal representation of people accusing Epstein of misconduct. Edwards counter- sued Epstein for, inter al

decision to accept or reject. See Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Pollinger 42 So.3d 890, 891 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). As the Supreme Court has noted State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. Nichols, 932 So.2d 1067, 1079 (Fla. 2006): The rule intends for a proposal for judgment to be as specific as possible, leaving n

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:

r procedure is for the trial court to examine the disputed documents in-camera and remove those documents which fall into the privileged category." State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Kendrick, 780 So. 2d 231, 233 (Ha. 3d DCA 2001) (error for trial court to order production of documents allegedly protected by a

s O ) .1 •s--• tAtin Beach, it Our' c C•T David French Vr- Circuit Judge Copies furnished: TTON, JR., ESQ., and MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ., and BRAD EDWARDS, ESQ., Brad Edwards and Associates, JAY HOWELL, ESQ., Jay Howell & Associates, PA.. and JACK A. GOLDBERGER, ESQ., Atterbury Goldberger EFTA0061441

, JR., ESQ., and MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ., and BRAD EDWARDS, ESQ., Brad Edwards and Associates, JAY HOWELL,

hich might possibly lead to evidence supporting some subsequent cause of action is quashed. COBB and PETERSON, IL, concur. Fla.App. 5 Dist.,2001. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Parrish O 2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http://web2.westlaw.corn/print/printstream.aspx?sv=Split&p