Epstein Secrets

d and failure to adhere to it is reversible error." Melbourne HMA, LLC v. School 190 So. 3d 169, 170 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) (emphasis added). See also Tucker v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 175 So. 3d 305, 306 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (final judgment reversed because case noticed for trial before answer to counterclai

Edwards filed his motion to set case for trial, 7 EFTA00793699 the case was not at issue, and thus, the scheduled trial may not proceed based on Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1440.5 (App. 15). Upon receiving Edwards' Supplement to his Motion for Separate Trials, Epstein's counsel immediately researched the Rule

and failure to adhere to it is reversible error." Melbourne HMA, LIE v. Schoof, 190 So. 3d 169, 170 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) (emphasis added). See also Tucker v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 175 So. 3d 305, 306 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (final judgment reversed because case noticed for trial before answer to counterclai

BECAUSE THE CIRCUIT COURT MUST REMOVE THE CASE FROM THE TRIAL DOCKET IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH THE MANDATE SET FORTH IN RULE 1.440. In violation of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.440, this case was not "at issue" when Edwards filed his Motion to Set Case for Trial. Therefore, the circuit court's ensuing Order set

, an adversarial party's counsel, Edwards waived those privileges. See § 90.507, Fla. Stat.; Delap v. State, 440 So. 2d 1242, 1247 (1983). See also Tucker v. State, 484 So. 2d 1299, 1301 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986) ("The law is clear that once communications protected by the attorney-client privilege are volun

ivilege log that this Court's predecessor, The Honorable David Crow, found to be insufficient on its face and not-compliant with the requirements of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(5)7 and TIG Ins. Corp. v. Johnson, 799 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). Edwards has claimed that none of the documents on the dis