Epstein Secrets

to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. See Edwards Affidavit, Exhibit "N" at 117. 75. Epstein also takes issue with Edwards identifying Bill Richardson as a possible witness. Richardson was properly identified as a possible witness because Epstein's personal pilot testified to Richardson joining Ep

evidence. See Edwards Affidavit, Exhibit "N" at 117. 75. Epstein also takes issue with Edwards identifying Bill Richardson as a possible witness. Richardson was properly identified as a possible witness because Epstein's personal pilot testified to Richardson joining Epstein at Epstein's New Mexico Ranch

73. Epstein's complaint alleges that Edwards provided notice that he wished to take the deposition of Tommy Mattola. That assertion is untrue. Mr. Mattola's deposition was set by the law firm of Searcy Denny Scarola Barnhart and Shipley. See Edwards Affidavit, Exhibit "N" at ¶16. 74. Edwards gave not

to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. See Edwards Affidavit, Exhibit "N" at ¶17. 75. Epstein also takes issue with Edwards identifying Bill Richardson as a possible witness. Richardson was properly identified as a possible witness because Epstein's personal pilot testified to Richardson joining Ep

evidence. See Edwards Affidavit, Exhibit "N" at ¶17. 75. Epstein also takes issue with Edwards identifying Bill Richardson as a possible witness. Richardson was properly identified as a possible witness because Epstein's personal pilot testified to Richardson joining Epstein at Epstein's New Mexico Ranch

73. Epstein's complaint alleges that Edwards provided notice that he wished to take the deposition of Tommy Mattola. That assertion is untrue. Mr. Mattola's deposition was set by the law finn of Searcy Denny Scarola Barnhart and Shipley. See Edwards Affidavit, Exhibit "N" at 116. 74. Edwards gave not

evidence. See Edwards Affidavit, Exhibit "N" at 117. 75. Epstein also takes issue with Edwards identifying Bill Richardson as a possible witness. Richardson was properly identified as a possible witness because Epstein's personal pilot testified to Richardson joining Epstein at Epstein's New Mexico Ranch

to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. See Edwards Affidavit, Exhibit "N" at 117. 75. Epstein also takes issue with Edwards identifying Bill Richardson as a possible witness. Richardson was properly identified as a possible witness because Epstein's personal pilot testified to Richardson joining Ep

73. Epstein's complaint alleges that Edwards provided notice that he wished to take the deposition of Tommy Mattola. That assertion is untrue. Mr. Mattola's deposition was set by the law firm of Searcy Denny Scarola Barnhart and Shipley. See Edwards Affidavit, Exhibit "N" at ¶16. 74. Edwards gave not

ted to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. See Edwards Affidavit, Exhibit “N” at 17. 75. Epstein also takes issue with Edwards identifying Bill Richardson as a possible witness. Richardson was properly identified as a possible witness because Epstein’s personal pilot testified to Richardson joining Epst

73. Epstein's complaint alleges that Edwards provided notice that he wished to take the deposition of Tommy Mattola. That assertion is untrue. Mr. Mattola's deposition was set by the law firm of Searcy Denny Scarola Barnhart and Shipley. See Edwards Affidavit, Exhibit “N” at (16. 74. Edwards gave notic

gment, Edwards had a sound legal basis for believing that Donald Trump, Allen Dershowitz, Bill Clinton, Tommy Mattola, David Copperfield and Governor Bill Richardson had relevant and discoverable information (Exhibit “A” — Edwards’ Statement of Undisputed Facts, paragraphs 69-81). That belief was reinforced by the

in support of his Motion for Summary Judgment, Edwards had a sound legal basis for believing that Donald Trump, Allen Dershowitz, Bill Clinton, Tommy Mattola, David Copperfield and Governor Bill Richardson had relevant and discoverable information (Exhibit “A” — Edwards’ Statement of Undisputed Facts, para