Epstein Secrets

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:

s to confidential communications made in the rendition of legal services to the client. Section 90.502, Fla. Stat.; Southern Bell Tel. & TeL Co. v. Deason, 632 So. 2d 1377 (Fla.1994). Section 90.502 codifies the attorney-client privilege which protects those confidential communications between attorney

of whether they pertain to confidential communications between attorney and client. F1a.R.Civ.P. 1.280(b)(2). See Southern Bell TeL & Tel. Co. v. Deason, 632 So. 2d 1377 (Fla. 1994). The privilege may also protect an attorney's mental impressions which may be disclosed through testimony. Hamilton v.

JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff, vs. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually. Defendants. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: 502009CA0408

) of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby moves this Court for entry of an order directing Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Bradley J. Edwards ("Edwards") to respond to questions asked of him at his deposition taken on March 23, 2010, and again on May 15, 2013, and to such follow up questions as are

e the same or similar information is available through ordinary investigative techniques and discovery procedures.'" Southern Bell TeL & TeL Co. v. Deason, 632 So. 2d 1377, 1384 (Fla. 1994). Here, the information sought by Epstein from Edwards in deposition is not "available through ordinary investiga

ry important distinction when Your Honor comes to ruling upon whether these lines of inquiry are relevant at all. Does it make any difference what Bradley Edwards' motive was, what his subjective thought processes were in filing a motion in the context of a pending case to require the posting of a bond if re

otion to overrule objections and compel Defendant/ Counter-Plaintiff Bradley Edwards' answer to questions. Judge, this motion is directed at Mr. Edwards' deposition testimony and the two depositions he provided in this case, the first of which was March 23rd, 2010, the second of which was May 15th,

ng this 518 Southern And again, the was quoted by the Florida Supreme Court in 1994 in the Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company versus Deason. Frankly, Judge, if the Court wants me to go through the other objections that were raised in deposition that have no basis in law in a depositio

ISION AG CASE NO. 502009CA040800XXXXMB Judge David F. Crow JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, v. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs. / PLAINTIFF JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS BY DEFENDANT BRADLEY EDWARDS

gh his undersigned counsel, hereby respectfully seeks the entry of an Order compelling Defendant Bradley Edwards to produce the documents listed in Edwards' privilege log, or, in the alternative, the entry of an Order compelling Edwards to serve a privilege log that fully complies with Fla. R. Civ. P. 2

f whether they pertain to confidential communications between attorney and client. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(b)(2). See Southern Bell Tel. & TeL Co. v. Deason, 632 So. 2d 1377 (Fla. 1994). Work product is a qualified immunity from discovery. See DeBartolo-Aventura, Inc. v. Hernandez, 638 So. 2d 988 (Fla.

JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff, vs. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually. Defendants. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: 502009CA0408

) of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby moves this Court for entry of an order directing Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Bradley J. Edwards ("Edwards") to respond to questions asked of him at his deposition taken on March 23, 2010, and again on May 15, 2013, and to such follow up questions as are

ques and 19 Tonja Haddad, P.A. • 315 SE 7th Street, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 EFTA00585412 discovery procedures.'" Southern Bell TeL & TeL Co. v. Deason, 632 So. 2d 1377, 1384 (Fla. 1994). Here, the information sought by Epstein from Edwards in deposition is not "available through ordinary investiga