GT GreenbergTraurig Stephen A. Mendelsohn Tel 561.955.7629 Fax 561.659.9119 [email protected] June 23, 2020 Douglas A. Wyler Jacob Scholz & Wyler, LLC 961687 Gateway Blvd Suite 201-1 Fernandina Beach, Fl. 32034 Re: CA Florida Holdings, LLC v. Dave Aronberg et al. Case No, 2019-CA-014681 Dear Mr. Wyler: We are in receipt ofyour letter ofJune 8,2020 with your proposed Fla. Stat, section 57.105 motion. In your letter and your proposed motion, you assert that CA Florida Holdings, LLC and the law firm of Greenberg Traurig, P.A. should be liable for the attorneys’ fees to be incurred by State Attorney Aronberg after the date of your letter. Your letter cites to Fla. Stat: sections 57.105(1) (a) and (b) for support. As shown below, there is no basis for a Fla. Stat, section 57.105 motion, and we expect that if the State Attorney were to make such a motion, the court should deny it. Your letter omits a citation to section 57.105(3). Subsection 57.105(3)(a) provides that sanctions may not be awarded where there is a “good faith argument for the extension, modification or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law, as it is applied to the material facts, with a reasonable expectation of success.” We have such a good faith argument. Contrary to your analysis of Fla. Stat, section 905.27, there are actually three instances where a court may order the release of grand jury materials. As we argue, the court may order release “in furtherance ofjustice.” There are few cases in Florida reviewing this provision arid its scope. It is an open and valid question as to whether the court may order release of grand jury transcripts to the media, under both the statute and the First Amendment to the US Constitution in furtherance ofjustice, The statutory language you cite refers to instances where a person is seeking grand jury materials for use in a civil or in a criminal case. In these limited situations, the statute allows for such uses and for no other reasori. However, the statute does not state, as you assert, that where the media seeks grand jury riiaterials based upori its constitutional standing, which the Circuit Court acknowledged at the June 2, 2020 hearing includes The Palm Beach Post, that the statutory GreenbergTraurig, P.A; | Attorneys at Law 5100 Town Center Circle | Suite 400 j Boca Raton, Florida 33486 | T+1 561.955.7600 | F+1 561.338.7099 Albany. Amsterdam. Atlanta. Austin. Berlin.’ Boca Raton. Boston. Chicago. Dallas. Delaware. Denver. Fort Lauderdale. Houston. Las Vegas. London? Los Angeles. Mexico City? Miami. Milan? Minneapolis. Nashville. New Jersey. New York.-Nnrilwrn.vtm;..;—r,- ■ San Francisco. Seoul. Shanghai. Silicon Valley. Tallahassee. Tampa. Tel Aviv? Party JOINT ’Orlando. Philadelphia. Phoenix. Sacramento. 'est Palm Beach. Westchester County. OtkTsteS « "’Gr»ert<r5 tnutj UK M bjtieriy. ‘Grtert-erg Irautj $ C.i’Grejrfrrj trwj •eerfccr; lor.g PA. riocia. USA, ’Gf.KxwHcrSUJBaSv. trxej Gees ID#. J16 EV#J'lG VW DATE ADMITTED'. *-.1 Joint Exhibit J16 Case No. 2019-CA-014681 BEACH COUNTY, FL, 3/27/2023 3:44:22 PM NOT A CERTIFIED COPY ' IJ GreenbergTraurig Stephen A. Mendeisohn Tel 561:955.7629 Fax 561.659.9119 [email protected] June 23, 2020 Douglas A. Wyler Jacob Schoiz & Wyler, LLC 961687 Gateway Blvd. Suite 201-1 Fernandina Beach, Fl. 32034 Re: CA Florida Holdi1igs, UC v. Dave Aronberg et al. Case No. 2019-CA-014681 Dear Mt. Wyler: We are in receipt of your letter of June 8, 2020 with your proposed Fla. Stat. section 57.105 motion, In yolJr letter and yolJr proposed motion, you assert that CA Florida Holciings, LLC and t_he l_<1w firm of Greenberg Traurig, P.A. shoulcf. be liable for the attorneys' fees to be ip.curred by State Attorney Aron berg after the date of your letter. Your letter cites to Fla. Stat sections 57.105(1) (a) and (b) for support. As shown below, there is no basis for a Fla. Stat. section 57.105 motion, and we expect that if the State Attorney were to make such a motion, the court should deny it. Your l~tter omits a citation to section 57.105(3). Subsection 57.105(3)(a) provides that sanctions may not be awarded where there is a "good faith argument for the extension, modification or reversal of existing. law or the establishment of new law, as it is applied to the material facts, with a reasonable expectation of success." We have such a good faith argument. Contrary to your analysis of Fla. Stat. section 905.27, there are actually three instances where a court may order the release of grand jury materials. As we .argue, the court may order release "in furtherance of justice." There are few cases in Florida reviewing this provision and its scope. It is an open and valid question as to whether the court may order release of grand jury transcripts to the media, under both the statute and the First Amendment to the US Con~titution in fiirthenµ1ce of jl!St_ice, The statutory langu~ge you cite refers to instances where a person js seeking gran<;ljury materials for use in a civil or 'in ~ criminal case. In these limited situations, the statute allows for such uses and for no other reason. However, the statute does not state, as you ass·ett, ·that where the media seeks grand juty materials based upon its constitutional standing, which the Circuit Court acknowledged at the June 2, 2020 hearing includes The Palm Beach Post, that the statutory Greenberg Trai.µig, P.A. I Attorneys ;it Law 5100 Town Center Circle j Suite 400 j Boca Raton, Florida 33486 I T +1 561.955.7600 I F +1 561.338. 7099 Albany. Amsterdam. Atlanta. Austin. Berlin:·Boca Raton. Boston. Chicago. Dallas. Delaware. Denver. Fort Lauderdale. Houston. Las Vegas. London: Los Angeles. Mexico Cit/ Miami. Miian'. Minneapolis. Nashville. New Jersey. Ne,v York .. NnrthPcn.u;,,.;_,-_..,. __ ~--orlando. Philadelphia. Phoenix. Sacramento. _San Francisco. Seoul~ Shanghai. Silicon Valley. Tallahassee. Tampa. Tel Avii Party JOI NT 'est Palm Be~ch. 'westci)est~r County. -----... Joint Exhibit ID#.J16 EV#.J.iia, DATE~o: Ci/f,/lo2Z. Case No. 2019-CA-014681 WW CA/AroJll:laE!D)OPtU..,441 BEACH COUNTY, FL, JO~E~~KCLERK. 3/27/2023 3:44:22 PM J16 Correspondence to Douglas A. Wyler June 23, 2020 Page 2 use limitation you Cite applies. No reported Florida case has addressed this issue and there is a good faith basis for our view of Fla. Stat, section 905.27 Your letter also argues that sanctions are applicable because the State Attorney has alleged that it does not possess the Jeffrey Epstein grand jury transcripts. This allegation is also contained in the State Attorney’s Answer. Assuming that the State Attorney does not currently have physical possession ofthe Epstein grand jury materials, which has yet to be demonstrated, this does not end the matter The State Attorney was named as a party not simply as a custodian of grand jury records. The State Attorney was named in. his official capacity as his office has “as its primary interest the protection of its grandjury system.” [Italics in original.] In re Grand Jury Proceedings. 832 F. 3d 554, 559 (11* Circuit 1987). In that case, the US petitioned a state judge to order the State Attorney to turn over grand jury transcripts. The State Attorney argued against their release citing to Fla. Stat, section 905.27. Later, a federal grand jury subpoenaed the Broward County State Attorney for delivery of state grand jury testimony. The Broward State Attorney advised the federal court that it would produce the transcripts, thereby demonstrating that while it may not have physical possession of the materials, he had legal authority to obtain and deliver them. It should also be noted that the State Attorney moved to quash the subpoena arguing that it was unlawful under Florida law and Fla. Stat, section 905.27. This case indicates that where one seeks grand jury materials, the relevant State Attorney is a necessary party in order to protect the grand jury that the Office of State Attorney supervised and to make arguments, ifneed be, against release ofthe grandjury materials. These are some ofthe same reasons why the State Attorney was named in this case. Also, assuming the State Attorney does not have physical possession of the grand jury materials, there is nothing in Florida law that prohibits the State Attorney from requesting that the Clerk provide copies to the State Attorney. Chapter 905, Fla. Stats, does not contain a prohibition against a State Attorney demand that the Clerk grant his office access to grand jury materials, even after a criminal case has concluded. Upon information and belief, the Clerk’s office maintains a log that tracks release of grand jury materials to the State Attorney upon its request. Please confirm whether the State Attorney has accessed grand jury materials from the Clerk’s office in other instances or that it has never done so. If the Clerk has such a log, then its contents should be discoverable, or subject to Florida Public records laws. GreenbergTraurig, P.A. | Attorneys at Law wvAv.gtlaw.com CA/AroKiaj)0m4a BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 3:44:22 PM NOT A CERTIFIED COPY Correspondenceto Douglas A. Wyler June 23, 2020 Page 2 use limitation you cite applies. :No reported Florida case. has addressed ttjis issue and there is a good faith basis for our view of Fla. Stat. section 905.27 Your letter also argues that sanctions are applicable because the State Attorney has alleged that it does not possess the Jeffrey Epstein grand jury transcripts. This allegation is also contained in the State Attorney's Answer. Assuming that the State Attorney does not currently have physical possession of the Epstein grand jury materials, which has yet to be demonstrated, this does not end the mattec The State Attorney was named as a party not simply as a custqdian of grand jury records. The State Attorney was named in. h(s official capacity as his office has "as its prima,y interesfthe protection ofits grand jury system." [Italics in original.] In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 832 F. 3d 554, 559 (I 1 tlJ Circuit 1987). In that case, the US petitioned a state judge to order the State Attorney to turn over grand jury transcripts. The State Attorney argued against their release citing to Fla. Stat. section 905.27. Later, a federal grand jury subpoenaed the Broward County State Attorney for delivery of state grand jury testimony. The Broward State Attorney advised the federal court tbat it would proquce the transcripts, thereby demonstrating that while it may not have physical possession of the materials, he had legal authority to obtain and deliver them. It should also be noted that the State Attorney moved to quash the subpoena arguing that it was unlawful underFlorida law and Fla. Stat. section 905.27. This case indicates that where one seeks grand jury materic!is, thereievant State AttQmey is a necessary party in order to protectthe grand jury thatthe Office of State Attorney supervised and to make arguments, if need be, against release of the grand jury materials. These are some of the same reasons why the State Attorney was named in this case. Also, c1:s_suming the State Attorney does not have physical possession of the gravd jury materials, there is nothing in Florida law that prohibits the State Attorney from requesting that the Cierk provide Copies to the State Attorney. Chapter 905, Fla. Sfats. does not contain a prohibition against a State Attorney demand that the Clerk grant his office access to grand jury materials, even after a criminal case has concluded. Upon information and belief, the Clerk's office maintains a log that tracks release of grand jury materials to the State Attorney upon its request. Please confirm whether the State Attorney has accessed grand jury m<j.terials from the Clerk's office in other instances or that it has never done so. If the Clerk has such a log, then its contents should be discoverable, or subject to Florida Public records laws. Greenberg Traurig, P.A. I Attorneys at Law www.gtlaw.com CA/Arollti~OB0J.,ffl: BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 3:44:22 PM Correspondence to Douglas A. Wyler June 23, 2020 Page 3 For these reasons, we decline your Fla. Stat, section 57.105 demand that the case be dismissed against the Office of the State Attorney. We expect that your demand will be withdrawn. Thank you, Very truly yours, /s/StephenMendelsohn Stephen Mendelsohn SAM:ls ACTIVE 51081659v1 Greenberg Traurig, P.A. | Attorneys at Law www.gtlaw.com CA/AroHHgg)OO0M6I BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 3:44:22 PM NOT A CERTIFIED COPY Correspondenceto Douglas A. Wyler June 23, 2020 Page 3 For these reasons, we de9line your Fla. Stat. ~ectiori 57.105 demand that the case be dismissed against the Office of the State Atton:iey. We expect that your demand will qe withdrawn. Thank you, Very truly yours, /.<J/Stephen Mendelsohn Stephen Mendelsohn SAM:1s ACTIVE 51081659v1 Greenberg Traurig, P.A. I Attornevs at Law www.gtlaw.com • CA/Arorl.tielr@O~ BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 3:44:22 PM

No text available for this page

No text available for this page