Epstein Secrets

nkrocklaw.com Secondary: [email protected] Trial Counsel for Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein 12 EFTA00805169 SERVICE LIST Jack Scarola Searcy, Denny, Scarola, Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach, FL 33409 [email protected] Nichole J. Segal B

[email protected] Trial Counsel for Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein 12 EFTA00805169 SERVICE LIST Jack Scarola Searcy, Denny, Scarola, Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach, FL 33409 [email protected] Nichole J. Segal Burlington & Rockenbach,

EFTA00805165 agreements constitutes classic grounds for preclusion of production and admission into evidence. See § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (2017). In Fischman v. Klarquist, Sparkman, Campbell, Leigh & Winston, Civ. No. 94-1057, 1995 WL 264213 (D. Or. May I, 1995), the plaintiff sued her former employer all

n, Esq. Florida Bar No.: 176737 Ton'a Haddad, PA (facsimile) Attorneys for Epstein EFTA00598340 SERVICE LIST CASE NO. 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG Jack Scarola, Es . Searcy Denney Scarola et al. Jack Goldber er Es . Atterbury, Goldberger, & Weiss, PA Marc Nurik, Esq. Brac lwards, E . Farmer Jaffe Weiss

RVICE LIST CASE NO. 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG Jack Scarola, Es . Searcy Denney Scarola et al. Jack Goldber

moving party and, if referenced in a question or by counsel, would unlikely be disregarded by the jury despite an instruction by the court to do so. Fischman v. Suen, 672 So. 2d 644, 645 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). In the case at hand, Epstein requests that this Court enter an Order precluding any reference to

RVICE LIST CASE NO. 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG Jack Scarola, Esq. Searcy Denney Scarola et al. 2139 Palm Be

neys for Epstein 24 Tonja Haddad, P.A. • 315 SE 7th Street, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 EFTA00585443 SERVICE LIST CASE NO. 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG Jack Scarola, Esq. Searcy Denney Scarola et al. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd. West Palm Beach, FL 33409 Jack Goldbe er, Es . Atte ury, o erger, c Weiss, PA 2

moving party and, if referenced in a question or by counsel, would unlikely be disregarded by the jury despite an instruction by the court to do so. Fischman v. Suen, 672 So. 2d 644, 645 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).Consequently, in the case at hand, Epstein requests that this Court enter an Order precluding any