Epstein Secrets

EY EPSTEIN, (hereinafter "EPSTEIN"), by and through his undersigned attorneys, files this action against Defendants, SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, and M., individually. Accordingly, EPSTEIN states: SUMMARY OF ACTION Attorney Scott Rothstein aided by other lawyers and employees

ey Edwards whether he would withdraw them in exchange for an affidavit from Mr. Rush attesting to the fact that he had interviewed Mr. Epstein. Mr. Edwards said he would not. 10. On Friday, April 30, 2010, I received service of a subpoena from Doe's counsel requiring movant journalist George Rush to a

etoric directed to cases against EPSTEIN used by Attorney EDWARDS and Berger changed dramatically in addressing th

for Admission as "[y]ou have committed sexual assault against Plaintiff, a minor," and "[y]ou digitally penetrated Plaintiff when she was a minor," SJ Opp. at 4, and his refusal to answer numerous questions at a Mar. 8, 2010, deposition, id. at 10 & Ex. D. 8. Annexed hereto as Exhibit E is a copy of

EY EPSTEIN, (hereinafter "EPSTEIN"), by and through his undersigned attorneys, files this action against Defendants, SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, and M., individually. Accordingly, EPSTEIN states: SUMMARY OF ACTION Attorney Scott Rothstein aided by other lawyers and employees

ey Edwards whether he would withdraw them in exchange for an affidavit from Mr. Rush attesting to the fact that he had interviewed Mr. Epstein. Mr. Edwards said he would not. 10. On Friday, April 30, 2010, I received service of a subpoena from Doe's counsel requiring movant journalist George Rush to a

etoric directed to cases against EPSTEIN used by Attorney EDWARDS and Berger changed dramatically in addressing th

tein's silence in the face of such confrontational Requests for Admission as "[y]ou have committed sexual assault against Plaintiff, a minor," and SJ Opp. at 4, and his refusal to answer numerous questions at a Mar. 8, 2010, deposition, id. at 10 & Ex. D. 8. Annexed hereto as Exhibit E is a copy of

t nor pages reflecting the earlier testimony, are included in the exhibit.) M. is another anonymous plaintiff who is suing Epstein and is apparently Edwards' client. Edwards Mitt 11 I I.24. She is also a co- defendant with Edwards in Epstein's racketeering and fraud suit against both Edwards and M. as wel

ed on April 13.2010 ("Si Opp.").8 she repeatedly argues that in fact she has more than enough evidence against him to survive the motion. See. egs, SJ Opp. at 12 ("far from supporting summary judgment for the defendant, the evidence overwhelmingly inclines in favor") (see other examples Carroll Reply

tled his case; finding that "the probative value of this testimony is ex- tremely high because of its similarity with the allegations in this case"); SJ Opp. at 10-11 (- Statement of Material Fact (-SOMF") 1 19), citing F.R.E. 415 and passages of Epstein's and her own depositions in support of statement

t nor pages reflecting the earlier testimony, are included in the exhibit.) M. is another anonymous plaintiff who is suing Epstein and is apparently Edwards' client. Edwards Mitt 11 I I.24. She is also a co- defendant with Edwards in Epstein's racketeering and fraud suit against both Edwards and M. as wel

d on April 13, 2010 ("Si Opp.").8 she repeatedly argues that in fact she has more than enough evidence against him to survive the motion. See. egs, SJ Opp. at 12 ("far from supporting summary judgment for the defendant, the evidence overwhelmingly inclines in Jane Doe's favor") (see other examples Carr

tled his case; finding that "the probative value of this testimony is ex- tremely high because of its similarity with the allegations in this case"); SJ Opp. at 10-11 (Doe's Statement of Material Fact (-SOMF") 1 19), citing F.R.E. 415 and passages of Epstein's and her own depositions in support of state