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

) 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

ctions have sanctioned counsel for just this behavior during deposition. See e.g. Van Pilsum v. Iowa State University of Science and Technology, 152 F.R.D. 179 (S.D. Iowa 1993) ("The style adopted by [deponent's counsel]...will not be tolerated by this court. Merely because depositions do not take place in

April 28, 2016 and dated in a manner to attempt to justify the privilege claim. A similar undated letter was invented for Fanner, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman (FJW), P.L, and co-counsel, Paul G. Cassell, Esq. Menninger Decl., Ex. L. It states: Again, while the letter is conveniently and

ollowing: Sigrid S. McCawley Meridith Schultz BOLES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP 401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Ste. 1200 m i Ft. Lauderdale FL 33301 Bradley J. Edwards FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. 425 North Andrews Ave., Ste. 2 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Paul G. Cassell 383 S. Univers

o v. Stanley Black & Decker Inc., No. CV 13-3963 JFB SIL, 2015 WL 136011, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 9, 2015) (citing Baki v. B.F. Diamond Constr. Co., 71 F.R.D. 179, 181-82 (D.Md. 1976)); Eisai Co. v. Teva Phann. USA, Inc., 247 F.R.D. 440, 441-42 (D.N.J. 2007). Ms. Maxwell has not sought discovery of "facts kno

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

ctions have sanctioned counsel for just this behavior during deposition. See e.g. Van Pilsum v. Iowa State University of Science and Technology, 152 F.R.D. 179 (S.D. Iowa 1993) ("The style adopted by [deponent's counsel]...will not be tolerated by this court. Merely because depositions do not take place in