Epstein Secrets

FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, Case No. 50 2009 CA 040800XXXXMBAG v. BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, et al., Defendants/Counter-Plaintiff. JUDGE: HAFELE JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE TO BRADLEY EDWARDS'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO STRIKE THE JUNE 30.2017

ion for Summary Judgment, and to "exclude evidence as to which discovery was withheld under claims of privilege." As demonstrated more fully below, Edwards's Motion is deficient on its face, and in direct contravention to the facts. As such, Edwards's Motion should be denied. INTRODUCTION Epstein file

that there were other media, local media. I've been told that the -- his investigator was sent to California to harass people representing his -- Brad Edwards' investigator -- representing fictitiously, fraudulently that he was a FBI agent to try to gather information for Mr. Edwards' claims. See Depositi

sitting over their computer looking at their bank accounts. So, unfortunately, I would have to say, no, sir. Q. Have you ever personally witnessed Bradley Edwards engaged in money laundering? MR. PIKE: Form. THE WITNESS: Again, sir, the U.S. Attorney's Complaint of the Rothstein firm alleges money laundering

her through a proper motion or at trial, so that this Court can properly examine the issue and rule on Edwards's request that it be precluded. See Tomlinson-McKenzie v. Prince, 718 So. 2d 394, 396 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Aguila-Rojas v. City Management Group Corp., 606 So.2d 765, 766 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). In the case

c.it JUDGE DONALD HAFELE Circuit Judge Copies furnished to: F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F Andrew A. Harris (~~) Bradley James Edwards (ffillia Fred Haddad an) John Scarola irsETPH \CKERMAN JR Maria Kelchian ~la) Matthew D Weissing II~M) Pi 4IMP M RUM INC- roN service@jurytri

ENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO ALLOW AMENDMENT TO EXHIBIT LIST AND SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION TO ALLOW AMENDMENT TO EXHIBIT LIST Bradley J Edwards ("Edwards"), by and through undersigned counsel, hereby files this Response in Opposition to Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to Allow Amendment to Exhibit

tein's Motion to Amend Exhibit List. McKenzie v. Prince, 718 So. 2d 394, 396 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (citing Binger). As the Fourth DCA aptly stated in Tomlinson-McKenzie: The objecting party is prejudiced by the admission of such evidence if the party might have taken some action to protect itself had it had timely

CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff, vs. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, and individually, Defendant, RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO EPSTEIN'S RENEWED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO DISCLOSE EXPERT WITNESS Plaintiff, B

e Court's decision in Binger to argue that Epstein should be permitted to ignore this Court's pre-trial orders, as long as there is no prejudice to Edwards. This interpretation of Binger is wrong and is an affront to the authority of a trial court to control its docket. Epstein has already tried, once,

n Case No.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG Response in Opposition to Epstein's Renewed Motion for Leave to Disclose Expert Witness "expert" testimony. See Tomlinson-McKenzie v. Prince, 718 So. 2d 394, 396 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) ("There was no finding that appellants failed to comply with the pretrial order in bad faith. Th