Epstein Secrets

March 23, 2010, counsel to Epstein deposed Edwards. During that examination, Edwards refused to answer numerous questions to which he or his counsel Jack Scarola objected. For example, he was asked generically about RRA's document storage system: Q. And what type of information did you put into Q-task regard

gh Edwards could have answered the question without disclosing information intended to be kept confidential by his client L.M3 Id. at 99. 10. Mr. Scarola also erroneously counseled Edwards not to answer a series of question about his communications with federal prosecutors: ". . .do you know whether,

155, 170, 181, 184-187, 192, 198-202, 205-206, 208-210, 212, 215-217; Exhibit 1. Forty years ago, the Florida Supreme Court, in Surf Drugs, Inc. v. Vermette, 236 So. 2d 108, 112 (Fla. 1970), gave this general definition of work product saying what it is and what it is not: [T]hose documents, pictures,

S. Mail on this IM day of January, 2012 to: Jack Scarola, Esq., Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley,

VICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was sent via electronic mail and U.S. Mail on this IM day of January, 2012 to: Jack Scarola, Esq., Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A., 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., West Palm Beach, FL 33409; Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq., Atterbur

s." Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Harmon, 580 So. 2d 192, (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). Forty years ago, the Florida Supreme Court, in Sof Drugs, Inc. v. Vermette, 236 So. 2d 108, 112 (Fla. 1970), explained what is covered by the work product privilege: [T]hose documents, pictures, statements and diagrams whi

ing the counterclaim — arose. 4. [See attached Affidavit of ; I suggest we say what is known about Seckel to shift the burden and possibly refute Scarola, e.g., Mr. Seckel is a scientist, businessman, etc.: Mr. Seckel has never been in the presence of the Plaintiff in the company of young women, unde

West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012; Marc S. Nurik, Law Offices of Marc S. Nurik, One East Broward Boulevard, Suite 700, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301; and Jack Scarola, Searcy Denney Scarola et al., 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, P.O. Drawer 3626, West Palm Beach, FL 33409. - 5 - FOWLER WHITE BURNETT P.A. • 90

truth to ensure a fair trial." Elkins v. Syken, 672 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 1996) (citing Dodson v. Pend!, 390 So. 2d 704 (Fla. 1980); Suif Drugs, Inc. v. Vermette, 236 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 1970)). -"S ,r‘ II. In Elkins, the Florida Supreme Court commented on the purpose of pretrial discovery: Discovery was ne