Epstein Secrets

for this deposition. 18 BY MR. TEIN: 19 Q. Go ahead. Please answer yes or no. 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Thank you. 22 In fact, you know that Mr. Herman held a 23 press conference after he filed the fifty-million-dollar 24 lawsuit on your behalf, don't you? 25 A. After it happened. Ph. 561.682

fically "to protect defendants." Legg v. Wyeth, 428 F.3d 1317, 1325 (11th Cir. 2005). Cf., e.g., Picquet v. Amoco Prod. Co., 513 F. Supp. 938, 941 (M.D. La. 1981) (explaining that courts developed the fraudulent-joinder doctrine to protect "the right [of removal] granted to 8 In Bonner v. City of Prichard,

which I'm doing, and I'll make the same objection. And if it calls for attorney/client privilege, any conversations you In fact, you know that Mr. Herman held a Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 76 o1316 EFTA00180376 Case 9:08-

fically "to protect defendants." Legg v. Wyeth, 428 F.3d 1317, 1325 (1Ith Cir. 2005). Cf, e.g., Picquet v. Amoco Prod. Co., 513 F. Stipp. 938, 941 (M.D. La. 1981) (explaining that courts developed the fraudulent-joinder doctrine to protect "the right [of removal] granted to 8 In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 6

e 9:08-cv-80804-KAM ent 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 75 of 100 nsor & Associates \ Reporting and Transcriponn, Inc. Page 49 1 Mr. Herman in the presence of IMO" 2 A. None. 3 Q. What discussions did you have in the 4 presence of her aunt? 5 A. Of my aunt? 6 MR. GOLDBERGER:

fically "to protect defendants." Legg v. Wyeth, 428 F.3d 1317, 1325 (11th Cir. 2005). Cf., e.g., Picquet v. Amoco Prod. Co., 513 F. Supp. 938, 941 (M.D. La. 1981) (explaining that courts developed the fraudulent-joinder doctrine to protect "the right [of removal] granted to 8 In Bonner v. City of Prichard,

1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 40 of 100 nsor & Associates Roportenp and Tanscriptinn, 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 stepmother and Mr. Herman at the press conference 12 regarding your lawsuit? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Now you know that this is a very serious 15 matter, don't you? 16 MR.

fically "to protect defendants." Legg v. Wyeth, 428 F.3d 1317, 1325 (11th Cir. 2005). Cf., e.g., Picquet v. Amoco Prod. Co., 513 F. Supp. 938, 941 (M.D. La. 1981) (explaining that courts developed the fraudulent-joinder doctrine to protect "the right [of removal] granted to In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661