Epstein Secrets

ceedings. Under Florida law, there is no immunity for acts undertaken in judicial proceedings that bear no relation to those proceedings. See, e.g., Levin, Middlebrooks, Mahie, Thomas, Mayes & Mitchell, P.A. v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639 So. 2d 616, 608 (1994). It is for a fact finder to determine wheth

A040800XXXXMB/Div. AG Epstein's Response in Opposition to Edwards' MSJ revealing relevant information in pretrial discovery." (emphasis added). The Fourth District explained in Brancaccio that the "Supreme Court has disapproved of procedures which require a party to surrender one constitutional right in order

ht now. 8 NR. UREMIA: So let's get into the Wolfe 9 case. That's where we're headed next. And really 10 there's a trilogy of cases. There's the Levin 11 case, the Echevarria case, if I'm somewhere close 12 to pronouncing that correctly, and the Wolfe case. 13 All of them deal with litigation

efore them 3 because it had already been determined that the 4 litigation privilege applied to the abuse of 5 process in both the Third and the Fourth District 6 Courts of Appeal. That's admitted by 7 the counterclaim in their motion in opposition. g I wanted to speak about this idea that the 9 worst

t. I reject it also because of the presence of the Etchaverria case and the other case that involves the law firm that slips my mind. MS. HADDAD: Levin. THE COURT: The Levin case. So there was language principally used in the Wolfe case -- that's the underlying case that you primarily relied upon

R. SCAROLA: Yes, your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. So the language was utilized from Levin and Etchaverria in order to support the oral decision in the Fourth District Court of Appeal. But again, the fact that the argument in good faith may erode the ethics argument doesn't dispel the concern that the Court has,