Epstein Secrets

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

ry responses responsive to Epstein's Requests. In support thereof, Epstein states: I Them are still outstanding damages discovery requests to which Edwards's Response is not due until after the Court's deadline date for the filing of this Motion. As such, an additional Motion may be required upon receip

ANSWER: Objection. Irrelevant, immaterial, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and an unwarranted invasion of Bradley Edwards' right to economic privacy. 15. State the amount of gross income that you received from the provision of goods or services other than while acting a

issue was relevant to the calculation of damages under the cause of action and as such financial discovery was proper). See also Friedman v. Heart Institute of Port St. Lucie, Inc., 863 So.2d 189 (Fla. 2003). In the case at hand, it is irrefutable that Edwards's financial information is relevant; in fact, it was he who p

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

ry responses responsive to Epstein's Requests. In support thereof, Epstein states: I Them are still outstanding damages discovery requests to which Edwards's Response is not due until after the Court's deadline date for the filing of this Motion. As such, an additional Motion may be required upon receip

ANSWER: Objection. Irrelevant, immaterial, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and an unwarranted invasion of Bradley Edwards' right to economic privacy. 15. State the amount of gross income that you received from the provision of goods or services other than while acting a

issue was relevant to the calculation of damages under the cause of action and as such financial discovery was proper). See also Friedman v. Heart Institute of Port St. Lucie, Inc., 863 So.2d 189 (Fla. 2003). In the case at hand, it is irrefutable that Edwards's financial information is relevant; in fact, it was he who p

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

ry responses responsive to Epstein's Requests. In support thereof, Epstein states: I Them are still outstanding damages discovery requests to which Edwards's Response is not due until after the Court's deadline date for the filing of this Motion. As such, an additional Motion may be required upon receip

ANSWER: Objection. Irrelevant, immaterial, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and an unwarranted invasion of Bradley Edwards' right to economic privacy. 15. State the amount of gross income that you received from the provision of goods or services other than while acting a

issue was relevant to the calculation of damages under the cause of action and as such financial discovery was proper). See also Friedman v. Heart Institute of Port St. Lucie, Inc., 863 So.2d 189 (Fla. 2003). In the case at hand, it is irrefutable that Edwards's financial information is relevant; in fact, it was he who p