Epstein Secrets

z 22 EFTA00582670 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was sent via E- mail on May 9, 201 to: Jack Scarola, Esquire, Searcy Denny et al and counsel for Plaintiffs, and to Sigrid McCawley, Esquire, Boies Schiller & Flexner, counsel for Jane Doe No. 3, a

ing was sent via E- mail on May 9, 201 to: Jack Scarola, Esquire, Searcy Denny et al and counsel for P

ment are inapposite because they involved attempts to obtain information that had no "possible relevance" to the issues in dispute. For example, in Calvo v. Calvo, 489 So. 2d 833, 834 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), the Third District held that an ex-wife's financial records had no "possible relevance" to her po

ail on May 6, 2015,46,; S-204544ar554046 to: Jack Scarola, Esquire, Searcy Denny et al and counsel for Pl

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was sent via E- mail on May 6, 2015,46,; S-204544ar554046 to: Jack Scarola, Esquire, Searcy Denny et al and counsel for Plaintiffs, and to Sigrid McCawley, Esquire, Boies Schiller & Flexner, counsel for Jane Doe No. 3, at

ment are inapposite because they involved attempts to obtain information that had no "possible relevance" to the issues in dispute. For example, in Calvo v. Calvo, 489 So. 2d 833, 834 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), the Third District held that an ex-wife's financial records had no "possible relevance" to her po

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on November U , 2010 a copy of the foregoing has been served via Fax and U.S. Mail to all those on the attached service list. Jack Scarola Searcy, Denney, Scarola, Barnhart & Shipley 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd West Palm Beach, FL 33409 By: 42 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013360 --- PAGE BREAK -

ber U , 2010 a copy of the foregoing has been served via Fax and U.S. Mail to all those on the attached service list. Jack Scarola Searcy, Denney, Scarola, Barnhart & Shipley 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd West Palm Beach, FL 33409 By: 42 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013360 --- PAGE BREAK --- SERVICE LIST Christo

ntiary hearing is not required. See Strasser v. Yalmanchi, 677 So.2d 22, 23 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), rev. dismissed, 699 So.2d 1372 (Fla. 1997); Solis v. Calvo, 689 So.2d 366, 369, n.2 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). In fact, a hearing is not even required provided the trial court identifies the filings of the parties a

by using the Florida Courts eFiling Portal and thus served by electronic mail: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] to: Jack Scarola, Esq, Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A., Counsel for Plaintiff, 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., West Palm Beach, Florida 33409; jonijones@

at the contents of the “subpoena is a classic ‘fishing expedition’ and the trial court’s order departs from the essential requirements of the law.”); Calvo v. Calvo, 489 So. 2d 833, 834 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (quashing subpoena served on wife’s bank for financial records finding them irrelevant: “indeed, the

rshowitz Case No.: CACE 15-000072 Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records Page 12 of 20 Scarola) and Dershowitz’s extended answer are quoted in full— including Dershowitz’s reference to the oral sex allegation that he now argues this Court shoul