101 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 was. THE COURT: Okay. MR. SCAROLA: And what the non-prosecution agreement was, was a deal that Jeffrey Epstein entered into with the federal government to avoid criminal prosecution for the molestation of approximately 40 children. Bradley Edwards was challenging the validity of non-prosecution agreement by filing a Crime Victims' Rights Act case, also referenced in the complaint. THE COURT: So let's stop there for a minute and let's refocus ourselves on the motion that's before the Court. It's a motion in limine, particularly -- from this Court's perspective, important as it relates to the invocation of the Fifth Amendment and attorney-client privilege, whatever that might amount to be. If you ask Mr. Epstein -- or if you have asked Mr. Epstein a question regarding whether or not he was motivated to sue Mr. Edwards because in part of the move by Jane Doe through Mr. Edwards -- as I DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD EFTA00792911

102 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 understand, Mr. Edwards has been counsel. MR. SCAROLA: Yes, sir. Pro bono counsel in that case for many years. THE COURT: And you ask Mr. Epstein is it not true that you entered into this non-prosecutorial agreement because of X, Y and Z, I don't think there's a problem with that. In other words, if he refuses to answer the question, then I think that can be admitted. A question of whether you are a serial child molestation would fail the 403 analysis in my view. MR. SCAROLA: I'm sorry. If I led the Court to believe that that's what the question was going to be, then I wasn't communicating very well. THE COURT: You have always communicated exceptionally well, so could very well be my error. So tell me what is the intend, then -- do you recall the questions that have been asked, if any, regarding this particular NPA that he failed to respond at this point? DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD EFTA00792912

103 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. SCAROLA: No, sir. I can't recall those offhand. What I was addressing was not specifically a Fifth Amendment issue. Although, I recognize the fact that this motion is supposed to be focused on the Fifth Amendment. But Your Honor, I thought, raised the question about whether we were going to get into the existence of other claims besides the claims of L.M., E.W. and Jane Doe. And that's what I was responding to. I was pointing out that there is absolutely no way to avoid getting into the existence of those other claims, because Epstein has raised those issues in the complaint he filed against Brad Edwards. And he is relying upon those circumstances by virtue of the presentation that is being made being made during this hearing to suggest to Your Honor, One of the reasons why I had probable cause to believe that this was maliciously prosecuted case against me was because of what went on after Brad Edwards joined RRA in moving to set aside DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD EFTA00792913

104 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the non-prosecution agreement. So if that's what he's telling you he intends to prove, I'm simply pointing out to Your Honor -- and I can go through this. It's going to come up in almost every one of these elements -- while I understand the Court's concern about trying to narrow the focus, the door has been blown off the hinges by Mr. Epstein's own complaint. And his lawyers have taken that door and thrown it out the window when they argued to Your Honor that one of the reasons why we believe -- or Jeffrey Epstein reasonably believed that Brad Edwards was a knowing participant in the Ponzi scheme, is because he moved to set aside the non-prosecution agreement after he joined RRA. Now, many aspects of this timeline -- THE COURT: I have to say, I really don't understand the connection, but I will give Mr. Link to explain it to me. MR. SCAROLA: I'm not sure I understand it either, but this is their exhibit. They are the ones that are saying this was the basis for our making this determination, or DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD EFTA00792914

105 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 for Mr. Epstein reasonably believing that Brad Edwards was a knowing participant in the Ponzi scheme. THE COURT: Just for the record, there was never a malicious prosecution claim filed by Epstein -- MR. LINK: There was not, Your Honor. THE COURT: Abuse of process claim? MR. LINK: Yes. THE COURT: Juts so that the record is clear. MR. SCAROLA: Abuse of process claim. MR. LINK: And, Your Honor, if I may just point out -- THE COURT: No, not right now, please. You will have amble opportunity to rebut. MR. LINK: Thank you, Judge. THE COURT: I don't want to get into what we did this morning. MR. SCAROLA: So all I am responding to -- and maybe this isn't the appropriate time to that -- is the idea that we are able to sanitize this case to the point where we are not going to be talking about a variety of other claims that were being prosecuted DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD EFTA00792915

106 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 by other plaintiffs' lawyers working together with Brad Edwards, and not going to be talking about the Crime Victims' Rights Act case, because as Your Honor has repeatedly acknowledged, motive is going to be very significant. And we intend to prove that Jeffrey Epstein's motive in filing these knowingly false claims against Brad Edwards his motive was to extort Bradley Edwards into abandoning or cheaply compromising the rights of his clients, and abandoning his efforts through the Crime Victims' Rights Act case to set aside the non-prosecution agreement. He had an enormous economic motive, if he could limit his civil exposure, and he had a tremendous motive, in terms of the criminal liability he faced, and the way he chose to address that was, I'm going to make an example out of Brad Edwards, who ha taken a leadership role among all these plaintiffs lawyers, and I'm going to target one of these victims. I'm going to sue them both, and I'm going to show them what happens when you try to take on this billionaire. That's DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD EFTA00792916

107 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 what he was trying to do. Plain and simple. And we are entitled, I respectfully suggest, to be able to prove just how big a motive that was. What's at stake. THE COURT: I'm not in disagreement with you. When this went on the board, my first response to Mr. Link and his presentation as to Mr. Epstein's reasons were what? Was that this can be turn around directly to harm potentially Mr. Epstein and provide Mr. Edwards with the motivation. So I'm not in disagreement with you. The only thing I am concerned with -- certainly one of the more pertinent things that I am concerned with for today's hearing, again, relates back to how far we are going to permit the jury to hear, or how much we are going to permit the jury to hear as it relates to these other claims. Now, as you further described it -- again, subject to Mr. Link's rebuttal -- there is no way around the fact that the NPA is going to become a part of this trial. As I have indicated earlier, and the DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD EFTA00792917

108 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 reason for my question, was to ensure that my understanding was correct that the principle reason -- or a principle reason Mr. Epstein continues to invoke the Fifth Amendment is because of the pendency of this NPA case, correct? MR. LINK: Generally, yes. It's not the pending of the NPA case, but it's the case -- THE COURT: The potential of a criminal -- further criminal exposure if the NPA gets revoked -- or whatever the terminology is -- MR. LINK: That's correction, Your Honor. THE COURT: -- in Judge Marra's court, assuming he's still the Judge on the case. MR. SCAROLA: Just to clarify that point, if I could. THE COURT: Sure. MR. SCAROLA: The non-prosecution agreement is an agreement with the U.S. Attorney's office for the Southern District of Florida. It extends immunity to Mr. Epstein and his unnamed co-conspirators DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD EFTA00792918

109 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 for crimes claims committed in the Southern District of Florida. So even if per chance the Crime Victims' Rights Act case were to go away tomorrow, which seems highly unlikely, Mr. Epstein will still have a valid right to assert a Fifth Amendment privilege. And I acknowledge that. I haven't challenged the validity of his Fifth Amendment assertion. What we are talking about is not his right to assert it, it's the consequences of that assertion. THE COURT: And to respectfully bring us back into focus on what's before the Court, generally, the invocation of the Fifth Amendment, and bringing out the fact that the NPA in some form or fashion, because of it being a reason for the invocation of the Fifth Amendment, is going to be mentioned during the trial. There's no way around it. MR. LINK: We understand that, Judge. THE COURT: Fine. The question that I am going to pose to you and Mr. Scarola now is how far we are DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD EFTA00792919

110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 going to go with that agreement and where the 403 analysis has to focus. So -- Not now. When you have your opportunity. Mr. Scarola. MR. LINK: Champing at the bit, Your Honor. MR. SCAROLA: Your Honor, I believe that it is unavoidable that the jury be informed as to what the non-prosecution agreement is. It would be our intention to enter it into evidence. They need to understand what the Crime Victims' Rights Act is. What they don't need to do is to resolve the legitimacy of 40 other plaintiffs' claims. Now, some of Mr. Epstein's (sic) clients -- in fact, I think all three of them -- are identified in the non-prosecution agreement. So Mr. Epstein, as part of the non-prosecution agreement, agrees to compensate each of these 40 people under specific circumstances. And that gets us into a discussion as to why the federal lawsuit was filed. And this is something DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD EFTA00792920

111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that we have referenced briefly in argument before Your Honor earlier. But -- THE COURT: I want to stay on this subject for just a moment, if I could. And that is, tell me why you believe that the motivation that Mr. Epstein may have had to file this suit was relating to or is related to this Jane Doe moving to unseal the NPA. Explain that to me again, please. MR. SCAROLA: Yes, sir. I think that obviously motive can only be proven through circumstantial evidence if the defendant is not confessing. And not only is Mr. Epstein not confessing, he's refusing to give considerable relevant testimony because of his assertion of both the attorney-client privilege in the absence of any assertion of advice of counsel defense, as we have already established, and his Fifth Amendment privilege. So we need to prove what his motive is circumstantially. And Mr. Epstein clearly knows that Mr. Edwards is lead counsel in this Crime Victims' Rights Act case. He clearly knows, DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD EFTA00792921

112 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 because he's a participant in that case. He has intervened in the case. He knows that the consequences of that Crime Victims' Rights Act case could be that he loses the immunity that he negotiated with the U.S. Attorney's Office. So being able to push Brad Edwards aside as the primary moving force in the Crime Victims' Rights Act case is obviously a reasonable conclusion from those circumstances. But it goes beyond that, because direct threats were made to Bradley Edwards by Jeffrey Epstein. THE COURT: So the suggestion, I guess, from the defense, the malicious prosecution claim of Mr. Epstein is that he found it necessary to file the lawsuit -- strike that. Yeah. He found it necessary to file the lawsuit against Rothstein, Edwards and L.M., because he felt that by doing this unsealing it was motivation, it was exposure, it was public information so as to allegedly gin up these three claims held by the three plaintiffs with the initials and DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD EFTA00792922

113 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the Jane Doe. MR. SCAROLA: Yes. THE COURT: On the other hand, as I indicated, the reverse effect taking place, would be Mr. Edwards' position that in fact the ill motive was the fact that -- and to file this lawsuit against Edwards and others -- was because Mr. Epstein was being exposed, if you will. MR. SCAROLA: Poor choice of words. THE COURT: Pardon me? MR. SCAROLA: Poor choice of words. That was a joke, Your Honor. A bad one. THE COURT: That's okay. I understand. So that's essentially what I am understanding count -- point counterclaim. MR. SCAROLA: Yes, sir. My only point is, we can't avoid getting into that. As soon as they raise it, we can make the counterpoint. We can explain why it was done. And the same thing is true with regard to everything else that is on this list. The claim for $50 million -- THE COURT: I'm not sure that they even DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD EFTA00792923

114 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 have raise it for it to be relevant. MR. SCAROLA: I don't think they do, because we have an obligation to prove our case. We get to prove malice. THE COURT: Well, I am even talking about probable cause. MR. SCAROLA: And probable cause. Yes, sir. I agree. We can prove probable cause. We can prove what Mr. Epstein knew. We can prove his motives, and we can prove malice as part of proving probable cause. But I don't think it's necessary to ever parse out is this relevant to probable cause only, is it relevant to malice only. If it's relevant to one or the other it comes in. THE COURT: And the 40 individuals that you are contending and that's the subject to this NPA are all minors? MR. SCAROLA: Yes, Your Honor. And what the federal law says is $150,000 per molestation. That's what the federal law says. And what the NPA says is if these claim are brought pursuant to the federal statute, you are not going to DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD EFTA00792924

115 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 contest your liability. Now, what they did contest is whether it's 150,000 per molestation, or 150 cap. So once you pay the 150,000 you get to molest these kids as many times as you want to. THE COURT: Per claim? MR. SCAROLA: Yes. So that was an issue. But that's the reason why -- and the jury is going to need to hear this -- why does Brad Edwards file a 256-page -- or 256- paragraph -- whatever it is -- or 256 counts -- THE COURT: 254-page -- MR. SCAROLA: Whatever it is. Why does he file this lengthy federal case? Was that really as an effort to try to gin up these cases for purposes of participating in a Ponzi scheme or was there an independent legitimate basis for doing what he did? THE COURT: Of course, the interesting part of that is from the timeline, the complaint filed -- the federal complaint, 234-page federal complaint was filed after the settlement of three cases. DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD EFTA00792925

116 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. SCAROLA: No, sir. I don't think so. MR. LINK: No. THE COURT: I thought that the settlement was 7/6 -- I'm sorry. My bad.I was reading '09. The 7/27/09, and then 7/6/10. That was my error. MR. SCAROLA: Yes, sir. And you may recall -- we have already made reference to the timing of the filing of that federal case that we were obliged to file within two years after L.W. coming of age. She was about to celebrate her 20th birthday and it needed to be filed within that time. THE COURT: There were statute of limitations issues. Again, another counterpoint. MR. SCAROLA: Exactly correct. Absolutely. I am only suggesting to Your Honor that it is very difficult to be able to say as a blanket matter, I am not going to let in evidence of these other claims. THE COURT: Again, I am not taking that DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD EFTA00792926

117 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 position yet. What I'm saying is that on a matter-by-matter basis -- and we are using Mr. Epstein's timeline and those pertinent events, which are noted therein -- if there were questions that relate to the NPA that were asked of Mr. Epstein and he did not answer based on Fifth Amendment grounds, the inclination -- again, without reading question by question, would be to allow that in, subject again, to the issue of multiple claimants, if you will, the 40 minors that you represented to the Court. But again, when we look at it from the standpoint of both sides trying to balance this as best I can under 403. On the one hand we have Mr. Edwards taking strike that -- Mr. Epstein taking the position that doing what was done by Jane Doe through Mr. Edwards as counsel was an attempt to publicize and to sensationalize the circumstances so as to increase the value of at least the claims that were held by the Rothstein firm. MR. SCAROLA: Which I think is what DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD EFTA00792927

118 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 every lawyer is supposed to do within the bounds of propriety, obviously. But our job is to maximize the value of our clients' claims. THE COURT: And on the other side of the coin is Mr. Edwards taking the position that the impetus -- or an impetus for filing the complaint at bar was the exposure of Mr. Epstein -- once again, to the ignominy of having to face the publicity of a non-prosecutorial agreement where there were admissions, where there were agreements -- perhaps not admissions -- but agreements that limited the prosecution of him as it relates to multiple claimants or multiple potential victims. So again, my ruling on that is if there are questions that have to do with this issue, globally they will be allowed to be asked subject to further argument as it relates to the multiplicity of the numerous victims that we are dealing with here as alleged. Same as it goes with this 234-page federal complaint. If there were any DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD EFTA00792928

119 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 questions that were asked of Mr. Epstein where he refused to answer on Fifth Amendment grounds, I find that the information would be relevant. Therefore, his failure to answer would be -- would be able to be utilized if such questions were asked of him regarding the 234-page federal complaint filed on behalf of L.M. by Mr. Edwards. MR. SCAROLA: Let me just clarify one point, and that is we have been focusing on questions that have already been asked of Mr. Epstein. Obviously, we have the right to call Mr. Epstein as an adverse witness. We have the right to put him in that witness chair in front of the jury, and to ask him questions that Your Honor has considered to be appropriate that may not have been asked at the time of his deposition. So I want to make it clear that we don't consider, nor do I understand Your Honor to be ruling that we would only be limited to asking questions already asked of him in his deposition. We would permitted to ask him any question, relevant and DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD EFTA00792929

120 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 material to the claims that he has made against Mr. Edwards. And that as has been announced, we know he will be invoking his Fifth Amendment right. THE COURT: With the caveat and understanding that any reasonably sensitive type of question that is going to be construed as graphic -- reasonably construed as graphic, going to be questions about global conduct, should be run by the court first by way of a proffer. MR. SCAROLA: I understand the Court's concern. And I -- THE COURT: I am very, very cognizant of the fact that we are going to spending a significant amount of time both pretrial and at trial. And I do not want to get into a circumstance where we are going to be taking liberties at the expense of ensuring that a fair trial is provided to all. MR. SCAROLA: I am happy to make the commitment to the Court, because I understand your concern, and I recognize the sensitivity of these issues. THE COURT: Thank you. DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD EFTA00792930

121 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. SCAROLA: I will make a commitment to the Court that we will proffer in advance any question that we reasonably anticipate will invoke a Fifth Amendment privilege. THE COURT: All right. Let's move on then. Again, let's refocus back to some of these issues that are directly before the Court. MR. LINK: Your Honor, can I just clarify, because I don't want that to leave untouched and it's this. May I, Your Honor? THE COURT: Briefly. MR. LINK: Thank you. Very briefly. I want to be clear that we have not heard the questions, so I can tell you, without knowing what the question is, whether we will raise the Fifth Amendment or not. My commitment to the Court was the questions that were asked already were not going to change the assertion of the Fifth. THE COURT: I think that was a caveat to Mr. Scarola's recitation. MR. LINK: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Again, it is with the same caveat that I explained earlier, and that DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD EFTA00792931

122 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 is, I am going to have both sides provide me with questions that -- well, really it would start with Mr. Edwards and Mr. Scarola providing your side with questions -- the specific questions that were asked that Mr. Scarola in good faith believes he will be asking at trial that have already been subject to invocation of the Fifth Amendment and/or attorney-client privilege or any other privilege, for that matter. All I've see are Fifth Amendment ad attorney-client privilege. There may have been a Fourteenth amendment or another amendment. MR. SCAROLA: Those questions will be elicited through Mr. Epstein's deposition, Your Honor. THE COURT: So what I'm trying to, again, give you global guidance as to how the Court intends to rule on some of these issues, but at the same time reserving the ability to be able to review the specific questions that with the Court's global guidance today are still subject to debate as to whether or not they are going to be DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD EFTA00792932

123 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 asked. For example, Mr. Scarola may have a list of 30 questions that after he has culled through the testimony he intends to ask -- strike that. He intends to publish before the jury by way of deposition utilization. If you find that any or all of those questions are outside the parameters the court has provided to you today, then it will be incumbent upon you to bring those before me and to -- MR. LINK: Judge, I understand. That's a fair procedure. THE COURT: -- and I will entertain further argument or I may not entertain further argument. I may just rule on it pursuant to the law that I have and what I perceive to be the appropriate rules of evidence. MR. LINK: Understood. That procedure is very clear to me. THE COURT: So let's go back now -- I want to give Mr. Scarola his opportunity -- is there anything else specifically that we DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD EFTA00792933

124 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 need to talk about now on Fifth Amendment issue? Because most of these other exhibit matters we can handle those -- we can handle them today, if you'd like to. But we don't need to handle them in conjunction with the Fifth Amendment issue. Things like massage tables and messages from notepads in Epstein's homes, flight logs, things of that nature, don't really get into necessarily Fifth Amendment issues. MR. LINK: We agree. THE COURT: So why don't you go ahead, Mr. Link. I want to give you an opportunity to rebut. MR. SCAROLA: Your Honor asked if there were other specific matters relating directly to Fifth Amendment. And the financial discovery raises Fifth Amendment issues that need to be discussed. THE COURT: Okay. We can do that after we get finish with Mr. Link's rebuttal on the global Fifth Amendment issues that we've dealt with thus far. Thank you. MR. LINK: Okay, I'm going to pick up a couple pieces of -- Your Honor, I just want DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD EFTA00792934

125 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 to touch on a couple pieces of the presentation, then I will go back to where I want to go. You asked about this timeline. And it doesn't say that it had anything to do with setting aside the NPA. This timeline says this. Jane Doe moved to unseal the NPA. And the reason that that caught Mr. Epstein's attention was because Mr. Edwards and Jane Doe already had it. They had a copy of the NPA, so why would they want it to be unsealed. THE COURT: For the same reasons that we discussed earlier -- Mr. Scarola was rather blunt about it -- and that is that doing that will enhance the value of the claims made by the three pseudonym plaintiffs. MR. LINK: Maybe. THE COURT: It may be. And I grant you that. But it also could inflame Mr. Epstein, potentially, as well. It also could provide Mr. Epstein with bona fide good faith motivation that he thought that this was resolved and now it's being opened DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD EFTA00792935

126 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 up again, so I can see both sides. MR. LINK: No question. That's what takes us to the Fifth Amendment and what we're talking about. And that that's this. Everything that was just discussed has to do with the truth -- with the truth of the allegations that are contained in Epstein's complaint against Mr. Edwards. What Mr. Scarola wants to do and what Mr. Edwards told us in his deposition, is they want to show the world that those allegations were untrue. THE COURT: Which allegations? MR. LINK: The allegations Mr. Epstein filed against Rothstein and Edwards. THE COURT: That the allegation as it relates to the claims by the three pseudonyms plaintiffs? MR. LINK: No, sir. THE COURT: Start again. I am not following you. MR. LINK: So there was a lawsuit filed by Mr. Epstein. He sued Rothstein and he sues Edwards. THE COURT: And L.M. DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD EFTA00792936

127 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. LINK: And L.M. In that claim, if you read it fairly, you will not find an allegation that says that the three plaintiffs Mr. Edwards represented fabricated their claim. What you will find, Your Honor, when you read it, is that it says that those three cases were used to entice investors to invest in other cases. They also say in this complaint very clearly, that those three cases -- those three cases, the value of them -- the value -- not the legitimacy of filing them -- the value. THE COURT: That's not what it says. Paragraph H, which I will read for a third time says, quote, Rothstein and the litigation team -- which I'm assuming that included Mr. Edwards -- knew or should have known that their three filed cases were weak and had minimal value for the following reasons. MR. LINK: Yes. I agree with that. And I think any questions about that -- right -- any questions about that would go to whether that statement is true. But it DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD EFTA00792937

128 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 doesn't say -- it says they were weak. It doesn't say that they were ginned up. It doesn't say they were fabricated. It doesn't say any of the words that Mr. Scarola told you it said. It said that they should have known -- remember what I said, it follows the $500 million paragraph. If you relate it to the $500 million, they should have known that these cases weren't worth $500 million. But it doesn't not say anywhere in this complaint that Mr. Edwards fabricated those three cases in 2008. It doesn't say that anywhere. It doesn't say it anywhere. I absolutely agree -- I absolutely agree it says they were used by Rothstein to attract investors. Rothstein lied about those cases. Mr. Edwards candidly told us in his deposition that Rothstein used his cases -- Mr. Edwards' cases -- and fabricated claims about them in settlements. THE COURT: And the point is what? MR. LINK: The point is this. What Mr. Scarola wants to try to the jury is this DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD EFTA00792938

129 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 case right here. He wants the jury to hear the case that settled, these three folks to get on the stand and say that they were physically abused when they were minors. And if that is true -- that's what he tells us -- plaintiff Edwards starts -- my proving the truth of the claims he brought on behalf of them. If he does that, if he proves their underlying claim, he now has lack of probable cause. It's a disconnect. Because lack of probable cause has to do with Edwards' (sic) state of mind at the time. THE COURT: Edwards or Epstein? MR. LINK: Epstein. We have all done it four times. Epstein. Epstein's state of mind, and only his state of mind. I am competent if this case was tried -- this is the Epstein versus Rothstein and Edwards -- that Mr. Edwards will get on the stand, and he would tell the jury all the reasons why he did what he did. And they may believe him. But whether he had a legitimate reason or not, isn't relevant to whether Epstein had DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD EFTA00792939

130 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 probable cause. THE COURT: Let's focus on the Fifth Amendment issues. MR. LINK: Well, that's why it's important, because if you asked Mr. Epstein a question -- if you asked him a question that goes something like this, Did you touch E.W.? And sanitize it. Don't put anything graphic. Did you touch E.W.? what does that question -- it would be relevant here. He asserts the Fifth, relevant to this case (indicating), Judge. He asserts the Fifth, how is that relevant to the reasons in his head about why he decided to sue Rothstein and Edwards? How can it be relevant to that? THE COURT: If you asking me, as opposed to being rhetorical, I can answer it simply. MR. LINK: Both. THE COURT: This is pre-settlement, the filing of this lawsuit at bar, okay? MR. LINK: Yes. THE COURT: His strike, if you will, is a preemptive one on virtue filing of this DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD EFTA00792940

131 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 lawsuit. MR. LINK: That could be his motive. I agree. THE COURT: That's a simple answer. MR. LINK: Well, but that goes to motive not probable cause. Remember, the motive ties into the malice element. THE COURT: I understand. But the plaintiff in the malicious prosecution claim, Mr. Edwards, has the ability, through direct and circumstantial evidence, to be able to put on a case as to what was Mr. Epstein's reason. Why did he do it? To contradict Mr. Epstein's contentions. And, in my respectful view, one of those motives -- if you're asking me -- which you have -- and you suggested that you have -- MR. LINK: I have. Go ahead. I need teaching all the time. THE COURT: It's not teaching. It just a common sense logical thought that the reason why you bring a lawsuit like this that constitutes somewhere in the neighborhood of 35 pages where you are DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD EFTA00792941

132 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 claiming after this -- shortly after this law firm blew up -- MR. LINK: Correct. THE COURT: -- and everybody is scrambling. Nobody knows what's going on. Federal agents are raiding the offices, including, I presume, Mr. Edwards' office. MR. LINK: Yes. They took the Epstein case boxes. THE COURT: This is filed in 2009. The number 40,800 -- give you an idea of how many foreclosure cases we had back then. But the bottom line is it's -- I don't know if it's on this timeline -- the lawsuit is noted as to when it was filed. MR. LINK: 12/7/09. THE COURT: 12/7/09. Rothstein is arrested on 12/1/09. A week later (sic). MR. LINK: A week before. THE COURT: A week before. Exactly. Excuse me. A week before. Razorback complaint is filed 11/20/09. Things are, what I would, again, perceive, if you are asking me -- MR. LINK: I am. DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD EFTA00792942

133 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: -- to be at the zenith of stress and tension. MR. LINK: I agree. THE COURT: Here is something that is filed that, at least arguably could be suggested, was trying to get to Mr. Edwards at his weakest moment. MR. LINK: How about if for purposes of today I agree with you that was the motive. I am going to agree with you. Let's say, Your Honor, you are exactly right. For purposes of today that was the motive. What does that have to do -- this is the whole Fifth Amendment -- what does that have to do with this (indicating). THE COURT: With probable cause. MR. LINK: Probable cause. Because here is what probably cause -- THE COURT: Did he have probable cause to file this lawsuit when he did? MR. LINK: When he had the most evil of intent. THE COURT: You said it, not me. MR. LINK: Only for purposes of today. THE COURT: You asked me what my DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD EFTA00792943

134 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 perception could be -- MR. LINK: Yes, sir. THE COURT: -- and what this jury's perception, more importantly, could be. Because again, any answers that are given my this Court are what I perceive based upon 35 years of doing this work, as a trial lawyer and a trial judge, and seeing hundreds of jurors and how they would go about their work. MR. LINK: You're older than I am. I didn't think that was possible. THE COURT: So that's where I think my frame of reference is. NR. LINK: And I appreciate it. And I appreciate it. And I'm agreeing with you, when you look at the element with what you just described could potentially be evidence of malice. According to the jury instruction and the case law is it cannot be evidence of probable cause. Here is one of the disconnect. I heard Mr. Scarola tell you the two statements he wants to focus on. What he is telling you in a subtle way is that he wants to have a DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD EFTA00792944

135 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 defamation case. Publication of two statements, falsity. And then he said to you, then the burden shifts, which it does in a defamation case. He used the defamation words: truth with good motive. This is not a defamation case. It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if they have all the evidence in the world that they would have won, they would have had a land-slide victory, if the Epstein versus Rothstein and Edwards case was tried. It doesn't make any difference, because the focus has to be in December 2009 was there enough information. I'm not saying, Judge, if you were the lawyer if you would have brought it, or whether I would have brought it, but it was brought. And question is, was there enough information available that a reasonable person would -- could have reasonably brought this claim when they did. The timing can be suspect. The motive can be suspect. The malice can be suspect. But if there's enough information and logical inferences, then you don't have a DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD EFTA00792945

136 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 failure of probable cause. And the reason that's important under Fifth Amendment is if these three plaintiffs come in and testify, then essentially what we have -- we are trying the very original case that was filed in 2008, because I have to then cross-examine them on all of their claims and their damages and their health condition, and whether they had done prostitution before, and all of the other things that would have been tried in that case. So then if we open the door to 40 other people, we are going to have 43 sexual molestation cases. THE COURT: I'm not suggesting we are doing that. Again, this is not the work of Mr. Scarola. This is not the work of Mr. Edwards. This is not the work of you or Ms. Rockenbach. This is the work of Mr. Epstein -- MR. LINK: I agree it is. THE COURT: -- making these allegations in subparagraph H, 1 through 3 -- some weird tiny numbers. H, 1 through 3. He's, with DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD EFTA00792946

137 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 all due respect, stuck with these allegations. He's stuck with this lawsuit. He's stuck with the claims are contained therein and the allegations that are contained therein. MR. LINK: Absolutely. I agree 100 percent. But what are we stuck with? That's the question. Are we stuck trying this case, Judge? Or are we stuck trying to prove to a jury that based on the information that existed, that we had reasonable basis to bring a civil proceeding? Because that's what it talks about. It doesn't say what claim did you bring? What count did you bring? What statements did you bring? It is a civil proceeding. THE COURT: Right now, though, Mr. Link, we're concentrating on the Fifth Amendment issues. There is not a motion in limine in front of me at this juncture as to the 40 other -- or the 40 in total alleged victims. There is not a motion in front of me regarding how far we are going to go with regard to the trial -- DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD EFTA00792947

138 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. LINK: Fair enough Judge. THE COURT: In regard to the claims of the three litigants represented by Mr. Edwards. MR. LINK: Your Honor is 100 percent right. I appreciate you indulging me to answer some of the questions that's were on my mind. And I am appreciate that. Where we would like to go next, Your Honor, if the Court has time -- or we can take it up next time -- are those things that were on the exhibit list and witness list. One of the things we don't know, based on the rulings so far, is will E.W., L.M. and Jane Doe be taking the stand, because that's part of the motion in limine what we have been talking about. THE COURT: Are they listed as witnesses? MR. LINK: Pardon me? THE COURT: Have they been deposed? MR. LINK: They have not been deposed in this case. THE COURT: I presume they are listed DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD EFTA00792948

139 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 as witnesses. MR. LINK: They are listed as witnesses. MR. SCAROLA: Your Honor, I'm sorry -- MR. LINK: Were they deposed in this case? MR. SCAROLA: One of them was deposed. MR. LINK: I'm sorry. MR. SCAROLA: One of them was deposed in this case just recently. MR. LINK: I thought that was -- oh, yes. You're right. Sorry about that. One out of two. MR. SCAROLA: And the only one noticed to be deposed. MR. LINK: And that's an issue that you told us to come back to you on, Judge. Because if they are going to called -- I don't know if they are -- but if they are going to be called, then I would like the opportunity to depose those two. THE COURT: What I said somewhat off the cuff, but not as articulate as the Second District Court of Appeal in the case of Liabos versus Harman -- L-I-A-B-O-S. DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD EFTA00792949

140 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Harman, H-A-R-M-A-N 215 So.2d 487 was what I intended earlier, just so that we are all clear on the issue of probable cause, at least as it relates in this case in my relatively quick word search. It says, "It should be first noted that the lack of probable cause is a mix question of law and fact -- I will omit the citation -- that is to say when the facts relied on to proving lack of probable cause are in dispute, their existence is to determined by the jury as a question of fact. Their legal effect, on the other hand, is determined -- to be determined by the Court, but only after these facts are admitted to found -- are admitted or found to be true. MR. LINK: Yes. That's right. We are in complete agreement, which is, if the facts we say we relied on in bringing this claim -- if there's a dispute about one of those facts and whether we rely on it, then we would have a jury trial, and the jury would determine whether we relied or not. The Court would then take the 10 pieces of DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD EFTA00792950

141 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 information that was relied on and decide if that was enough. You may agree it is, you may agree it is not, Judge. It's going to be your call. THE COURT: Let's go back to the Fifth Amendment issues and deal with those now. You have gotten my global rulings on the issues. I am going to review the individual questions that are intended to be reasked or to be published by the counter-plaintiff Edwards at trial as it relates to Mr. Epstein's invocation of the Fifth Amendment and the related privileges that he is claiming. I don't want to be hamstrung by this record as only dealing with Fifth Amendment. Anything that's in his deposition that has been objected to on privilege grounds. MR. LINK: Thank you, Your Honor. We appreciate it. THE COURT: Thanks. What I would like to then get into next are some of these exhibits. If we can deal with those now, let's go ahead and do that. We will use the next hour or to take care of DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD EFTA00792951

142 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 those please. MS. ROCKENBACH: May I approach the bench, Your Honor? THE COURT: Sure. MS. ROCKENBACH: I have a copy of Mr. Edwards' amended exhibit list. And those items that are highlighted -- some of which Your Honor has already mentioned -- this would be related to paragraph B -- or item B in the revised omnibus motion in limine on page 22. Mr. Epstein has raised both and asserted both relevance, 90.401 and the gatekeeper function of the Court, probative value, prejudicial effect of 90.403. Some of the examples that Your Honor had mentioned, I think, was a massage table, which was number 59. But if we start at the front, there is an order confirmation from Amazon for the purchase of a book entitled "Slave Craft: Workbook for Erotic Slaves and their Owners." Completely irrelevant, prejudicial, has zero probative value whatsoever to do with the malicious prosecution action. DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD EFTA00792952

143 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The same is true -- and I have highlighted all of these -- they are really grouped, Your Honor. Some of them are just so outrageous when you read them, such as the erotic book, sex offender registrations, massage table, school records and year books of Jane Doe and -- unidentified year books just of Royal Palm Beach. Flight logs, evidence of contributions to Palm Beach Gardens Police Department. And there are some articles, which leads me very quickly -- and I think we can probably -- I hate to jump, but I think, based on Your Honor's ruling, it's possible that Mr. Scarola will agree to item C in the motion in limine, which relates to derogative adjectives when referencing my client. Based on the rulings that you have made this morning, I believe that Mr. Scarola probably would agree not to refer to Mr. Epstein as convicted child molester, billionaire pedophile or the like. THE COURT: Well, billionaire pedophile, I agree is subject to argument. DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD EFTA00792953

144 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 But convicted child molester, Mr. Scarola. MR. SCAROLA: That is an accurate description of Mr. Epstein. It is a description, which I believe appears in some of the newspaper articles that Mr. Epstein alleges he relied upon to form a reasonable belief that Bradley Edwards was a participant in these -- in this Ponzi scheme. THE COURT: Did he take a plea of guilty? MR. SCAROLA: Yes. He entered a plea of guilty to two felonies. He is a registered sex offender here in -- THE COURT: I just want to make sure it was a guilty plea, as opposed to a nolo or -- MR. SCAROLA: No. It was a guilty plea, Your Honor. Under the non-prosecution agreement with the federal government, he was required to plead guilty to two state court felonies. THE COURT: Mr. Goldberger, did you want to comment on that? MR. GOLDBERGER: Thank you, Your Honor. DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD EFTA00792954

145 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Just for a point of clarification, neither of the counts that Mr. Epstein pled guilty to are, quote, those that suggest that he's a child molester. It was procuring an underaged for prostitution. That's the count. So the suggestion by counsel for the counter-plaintiff that he is somehow a child molester, there's just no basis in the guilty plea that he entered. Now, he is a registered sex offender subject to a 403 analysis. Perhaps counsel will be able to go there. But there's no evidence to support, based on the documents and on the guilty plea that he's a child molester. He simply didn't plea guilty to anything factually related to that. THE COURT: Tell me exactly what he pled guilty to. MR. GOLDBERGER: Let me get the document, if I can -- THE COURT: Sure. MR. GOLDBERGER: -- Your Honor, so there's no mistake. Solicitation for prostitution, procuring someone under the DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD EFTA00792955

146 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 age of 18 for prostitution. MR. SCAROLA: Three someones, which made it a felony, correct? MR. GOLDBERGER: Yeah. Solicitation of prosecution requires three individuals before it goes from a misdemeanor to a felony. THE COURT: Even if it's under the age -- alleged victim is under the age of 18? MR. GOLDBERGER: That's the other count that he pled guilty to. Solicitation of prostitution of someone under the age of 18. The solicitation for prostitution, in order to make that a felony it requires three separate incidents. But none of those success factually in any way the facts that he was a child molester. That's the point that I think my co-counsel is trying to make. THE COURT: Convicted child molester is the term that was used. MR. GOLDBERGER: And that's simply not factually correct. THE COURT: Anything else, Mr. Scarola? MR. SCAROLA: Since we are dealing with DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD EFTA00792956

147 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 this in the context of Fifth Amendment assertions -- THE COURT: No, we are dealing with this as a matter of a portion of the omnibus motion in limine. MR. SCAROLA: Then I don't have any further comment. THE COURT: The objection is sustained. The motion is granted. As I understand it in reviewing the case law recently, the guilty plea would be admissible. The registration of sex offender, I am going to need some additional briefing on. MS. ROCKENBACH: And believe me, I've done that, Your Honor. I'm not sure we can take it up today. But Mr. Edwards asked this Court to take judicial notice of it and we have supplied a response. THE COURT: I can only go through so much material within the time -- MS. ROCKENBACH: I know. I think we only addressed part C of the motion in limine. I hoped it would be quick, that's why I brought it up. DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD EFTA00792957

148 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: Off the record. (A discussion was held off the record.) MR. SCAROLA: Getting back to the ruling Your Honor just made, I certainly have no intention of referring to Jeffrey Epstein as a convicted child molester when his convictions did not expressly relate to child molestation. It was solicitation of prostitution, multiple solicitations for prostitution. I will be sure that I accurately refer to those things when I make reference to them. THE COURT: Of a minor? MR. SCAROLA: Of minors. THE COURT: My understanding of the case law it's clear that the plea is admissible. MS. ROCKENBACH: Your Honor, maybe we should take that up. And I guess we are going to skip exhibits for a minute, because this is too important to just gloss over. THE COURT: I don't know if it has been briefed, at least in the briefs that -- MS. ROCKENBACH: Probably not the way we would like, but we don't want to paper DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD EFTA00792958

149 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the court. Pages 26 and 27 deal with the derogatory adjectives. That is somewhat along those lines. But where I think Mr. Scarola is going is 90.610 of the Florida Evidence Code, which indicates that when Mr. Epstein is on the stand he can be asked, Have you ever been convicted of a felony? The answer, Yes. But the identity of that felony is not admissible, and that is part of the evidence code. So I'm not sure -- Your Honor is correct, this has not been fully briefed, because all that I anticipated were these two very inflammatory terms. THE COURT: The distinction, though, Ms. Rockenbach, that I would respectfully make -- and I'm not going to suggest that I'm an authority on this particular area -- is that typically that question is asked for one of credibility. Meaning, have you ever convicted of a felony or a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude. MS. ROCKENBACH: Correct. THE COURT: If the answer is yes, the DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD EFTA00792959

150 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 next question is how many times. If there is any falsity to any of those -- either of those responses, then the requesting party has the opportunity to provide the Court, and potentially the jury, with counter-evidence typically in the form of certified copies of convictions. MS. ROCKENBACH: That's correct. THE COURT: Now, that's a lot different than in this case, where we are not necessarily talking about merely credibility. What we're talking about what in essence -- if not the heart, certainly near the center of the entire case. In other words, but for the fact that -- at least, but for one of the facts that Mr. Epstein was convicted, the context of a malicious prosecution claim and the context of the contentions that would be made by Mr. Edwards relating to the malicious prosecution claim would be that his conviction and his legal peril were part of his reasons for bringing the case against Mr. Edwards. So this is not merely an issue of DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD EFTA00792960

151 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 testing credibility of any given witness. As I understand it, just about any witness can be asked those questions. This is more of an issue of a fact central to the presentation of the case. MS. ROCKENBACH: Your Honor, Mr. Epstein's guilty plea was June 30th, 2008. His lawsuit against Mr. Edwards was December 7th, 2009. So the guilty plea was entered at least a year and a half before he sued Mr. Edwards. And my concern with this under the impeachment part of the Florida Evidence Code 610.5 -- I am going to quote from Ehrhardt, 2016 version, "When a witness who testifies as a criminal defendant there is a danger" -- we are not even a criminal defendant. We are not even trying the criminal case -- "but there's danger that the jury will consider the convictions, which are admitted only to impeach as evidence the defendant is a bad person. The concern is greater when there are number of prior convictions." There's on one. But the point is, this is bad character DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD EFTA00792961

152 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 evidence under 90.404. It's improper impeachment under 90.610. And we absolutely oppose and object to the guilty plea coming into evidence. It has no relevance to the issue of why my client filed a malicious prosecution action a year and a half after he pled guilty. THE COURT: Mr. Scarola. MR. SCAROLA: Ms. Rockenbach is incorrect that we would seek to admit this evidence solely under 90.610. Because under that provision of the evidence code, we would be restricted to, Have you ever been convicted of a crime? How many times? I understand that entirely. And that's strictly a matter of credibility. However, the issue that we have the burden of proving is an issue of probable cause. And that involves, as we have explained in great detail, an analysis of what Mr. Epstein knew. Part of what Mr. Epstein knew when he sued Bradley Edwards is that he was guilty of multiple crimes involving sexual activity with minors. That's part of what he knew. He DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD EFTA00792962

153 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 pled guilty to that. Now, he was asked in deposition, Who are the minors that you pled guilty to? Objection. Fifth Amendment. I refuse to answer on the ground that it may tend to incriminate me. those people. Well, we can draw an adverse inference He refused to identify from that. And the adverse inference we draw is that the three people were L.M., E.W. and Jane Doe. Now, he can get up and try to rebut that adverse inference through something other than his own testimony, because through his own testimony he has foreclosed any further evidence coming from him. But if there's some independent source where he can suggest to the jury that this is not a proper inference to draw. He wasn't pleading guilty to crimes committed against these three young women -- these three children at the time -- then he can do that. But it is relevant and material to the issue of probable cause because he admitted sexual offenses relating to children and refuses to can DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD EFTA00792963

154 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 identify in the context of this case who those children are. So this isn't just propensity. This isn't bad character. This is evidence that is directly material to an element of this case that we are obliged to prove. So your Honor's reaction was absolutely correct. There are other reasons why this comes in in the context of this case. Thank you, sir. MS. ROCKENBACH: Your Honor, may I reply? THE COURT: Sure. MS. ROCKENBACH: In Mr. Epstein's deposition March 17th, 2010 on page 103, Mr. Scarola asked him, line 23, "Who is the minor that you procured for prostitution? And the answer is, "I do not know." Let's get back to the probable cause issue. MR. SCAROLA: I'm sorry. I do stand corrected. I am remembering now that that was his response. It wasn't the Fifth Amendment assertion. It changes none of the arguments I've just made. DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD EFTA00792964

155 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: I understand. MS. ROCKENBACH: Your Honor, the issue of whether my client pled guilty to prostitution with one minor or not is not relevant to what facts and circumstances. And that's the phrase of all the cases reported. What facts and circumstances were known to Mr. Epstein when he filed his malicious prosecution. And the Wright versus Yorco (phonetic) case. We haven't talking about it, but -- THE COURT: I'm familiar with it. MS. ROCKENBACH: I'm sure, Your Honor. -- both sides cited it. And it talks about what constitutes that probable cause. The public record. The public record. So my client can rely on two parts. Rely on firsthand knowledge or trustworthy information provided to him. That's the Razorback lawsuit. That's Mr. Bill Scherer, the Fort Lauderdale attorney being quoted by the newspaper as saying that Epstein -- Rothstein didn't act alone. It's the head of the South Florida FBI saying this was not a one-man show. DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD EFTA00792965

156 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The issue of my client's plea of guilty, has nothing to do with his probable cause of whether he believed Mr. Edwards was in connection with Mr. Rothstein in puffing up the claims. THE COURT: One thing I appreciate the appellate courts doing recently is writing, somewhat extensively, on the fluidity of motions in limine, and the fact that until the Court can digest at trial all of the facts that are being presented in putting these things into context, it makes it somewhat difficult, and recognizes the trial court's difficulty in dealing with some of these motions and some of these issues without context. But, in my respectful view, the flaw of the argument from its inception -- again, I'm not trying to be disrespectful -- but the flaw in the argument is what I perceive to be a lack of recognition of, not only Mr. Epstein's rationale for filing his suit, but the focus, or lack thereof, on Mr. Edwards' responsibility and burden a strict one, and a strong one according to DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD EFTA00792966

157 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 onerous -- used by one of the cases in being able to prove probable cause here. And Mr. Scarola has used in his briefing this building blocks approach. And I think the same type of analogy or picture can be utilized here when speaking about the motive. What was the probable cause in actuality from the counter-plaintiff Edwards' standpoint for Epstein doing what he did. As I indicated before, but didn't use the analogy, what you and Mr. Link provided to the Court provides, not only building blocks for potentially Mr. Epstein's probable cause, but likewise provides building blocks for Mr. Edwards' proving that he did not have probable cause. And as far as the Court is concerned, if the guilty plea came after he filed suit, then there might be some reasonable argument to separate it out and say, Judge, he hadn't even filed suit -- the suit was filed -- strike that. He hadn't pled guilty. The guilty plea came three years after he filed this suit DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD EFTA00792967

158 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 for malicious prosecution, then it would probably be a relevancy argument that may or may not win the day. But when looking at it from a building block type of analysis, as I have in the most simplest terms, in looking at it from both sides, which I am incumbent to do, as Mr. Scarola alluded to, this is but one item that could be argued to have fueled Mr. Epstein to have filed this lawsuit, thus making it relevant. Now, the fluidity issue that I spoke about is, I'm willing to look at it, again, if there's a case on point that specifically says otherwise. But for purposes of this particular matter, the Court would find absent the production of a case that would say otherwise, that Mr. Epstein's guilty pleas -- I understand it's combined, so I'm not suggesting there were more than one combined plea -- would be relevant, that it would be relevant to the issue of probable cause, and it would be relevant, potentially, to the issue of malice. And that, again -- with the Court DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD EFTA00792968

159 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 looking at it from both sides, and analyzing it from both sides, it could be used by Mr. Epstein. It could be used by Mr. Edwards. But it provides, at least, some relevancy, defined again as proving or tending to prove or disprove a material fact. The material fact is the element of probable cause and perhaps malice. So again, I am going to rule that they would be admissible. Next issue, please. But again, we are going to completely and entirely stay away from any type of pejorative comment. I understand that sometimes things are said in the heat of deposition that would never be repeated at trial. Again, I'm certainly ordering that that not take place. All right. We want to go back to some of these -- in the time that we have left, let's go back to some of these exhibits and see if we can work through them. MS. ROCKENBACH: Thank you, Your Honor. We had identified and have highlighted, starting with number three, photographs and DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD EFTA00792969

160 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 information of Mr. Epstein's homes, planes automobiles. I'm not sure what relevance that would have as to why he filed a malicious prosecution action. THE COURT: Let's take them one at a time. Mr. Scarola, what's your position? MR. SCAROLA: His homes and his automobiles are evidence with respect to his pecuniary circumstances. Obviously a relevant matter when we are talking about a punitive damage claim. THE COURT: Typically, though, net worth is what is considered, not necessarily -- unless it's impeachment, i.e., you'll have a picture of a home that he owns in the US Virgin Islands -- I think that he has some connection with one of those islands -- and I'm not trying to suggest anything as far as anything inappropriate -- but I can conceive of this situation that if Mr. Epstein testifies that his net worth is X comprised of A, B and C in large part, but you find an asset that he has not taken into account that's worth DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD EFTA00792970

161 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 twice as much of his claimed net worth -- MR. SCAROLA: I know he has a minimum net worth of -- I don't mean to interrupt, Your Honor, but Mr. Epstein refuses to provide any evidence with regard to his net worth, so we are obliged to offer circumstantial evidence of his net worth, unless and until those objections based on Fifth Amendment grounds are overruled on the basis that they are non-testimonial. THE COURT: I think that's a subject for another motion. MS. ROCKENBACH: It is, Your Honor. MR. SCAROLA: It is. But Your Honor should not be deciding this issue on the basis of the premise that we are going to get evidence from Mr. Epstein as to what Mr. Epstein's net worth is. THE COURT: Agreed. MR. SCAROLA: All he has told us is he's willing to stipulate to a net worth in excess of $100 million. Well, it makes a difference as to whether it's 100 million, 200 million or a thousand million, that is a DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD EFTA00792971

162 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 billion dollars, or $2 billion. So even if we're left with a Fifth Amendment assertion, we are back to the same issue that was raised by the defense, and that is, there needs to be some evidence independent of the Fifth Amendment assertion that would allow the inference to be -- THE COURT: I'm going to cut you off. I'm going to defer on number three. Number four is the Amazon receipt for the "SM 101: A Realistic Introduction, Slave Craft: Roadmap for Erotic Servitude-Principles, Skills and Tools" and Training Miss Abernathy. A Workbook for Erotic Slaves and their Owners." MR. SCAROLA: I never read it. Your Honor, if I might -- MS. ROCKENBACH: It has no relevance, Your Honor. Prejudicial. Should not be discussed, referenced, admitted. I think it's also a receipt from Amazon for the book, by the way. It's an order confirmation. If my memory serves correct, it's a receipt for the purchase of a book. It has nothing to do with malicious DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD EFTA00792972

163 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 prosecution. THE COURT: Mr. Scarola. MR. SCAROLA: In fact, it does. I might explain to Your Honor that many of items that on this list that are being challenged, a vast majority of them, were part of an appendix to the motion for summary judgment that was not defended against by Mr. Epstein. THE COURT: Let me ask you this. Was this particular exhibit located prior to the suit being filed by Mr. Epstein? MR. SCAROLA: Yes, sir. MS. ROCKENBACH: It's the receipt located by whom? THE COURT: By anybody. For the purposes of this case. MR. SCAROLA: These are items -- THE COURT: In other words, was it discovered in a lawsuit that was filed prior to Mr. Epstein filing this suit? MR. SCAROLA: No, sir. It was discovered when a search warrant was executed by law enforcement shortly after the criminal allegations were made against DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD EFTA00792973

164 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Mr. Epstein before any of the civil lawsuits were filed. So law enforcement gets probable cause to execute a search warrant on Mr. Epstein's home. And one of the things that is found -- or many of the things that are described here, are found during the course of the execution of that search warrant and formed probable cause for the criminal charges against Mr. Epstein. Even more significantly, they formed the basis for the civil lawsuits that were filed on behalf of L.M., E.W. and Jane Doe. That is, this is all evidence taken into account in substantiating the validity of the claims of these three particular victims of Mr. Epstein. And all of these things are delineated in the motion for summary judgment that Mr. Epstein does not defend against and voluntarily dismisses his case on the eve of the hearing. Your Honor is well aware of procedurally he would have been obliged well in advance of the hearing to file his DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD EFTA00792974

165 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 opposition to the motion for summary judgment. He doesn't do that. Why is that significant in the context of this case? Because, as we have heard from the defense, they are going to challenge whether there is a bona fide termination of the claim against Mr. Edwards in favor of Mr. Edwards. Was the abuse of process claim terminated under such circumstances as to indicate a bona fide termination? How do we make that decision? Well, the only way to make that decision is to talk about the motion for summary judgment, what supported the motion for summary judgment, and the fact that the motion for summary judgment was not opposed, a voluntary dismissal was taken, and the statute of limitations permitted to expire without ever refiling those claims. So as long as bona fide termination remains an issue, the motion for summary judgment is clearly relevant and material. And this is all part of the motion for summary judgment. DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD EFTA00792975

166 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Many of these things, in addition to that, forms the basis for the explanation of Mr. Edwards' conduct when he was a member of RRA, and demonstrate that he wasn't abusing process in any respect at all while he was prosecuting these claims. He was pursuing very relevant and material avenues of discovery reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. So that's my full response to this. THE COURT: The objection is sustained on two grounds: on relevancy and also 403 analysis. I will entertain the introduction outside the presence of the jury, if it becomes necessary. The other concern I have is that at best it appears to sound like it may be impeachment on a collateral matter. Collateral to the summary judgment -- the summary judgment motion that was made and then not challenged. For those reasons, I'm going to sustain the objection at this time. Again, subject to context for being able to readdress it, if necessary. DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD EFTA00792976

167 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. SCAROLA: Number four is sustain? THE COURT: Yes, sir, for the reasons stated in the record. MR. SCAROLA: Understood. THE COURT: The NPA, I have already indicated that the inclination would be -- if properly predicated -- would be allowed. The Jane Doe, one of two complaints -- I don't see any -- what would be the grounds for objecting to that? MS. ROCKENBACH: I'm not sure what the relevance is. I'm not the proponent of the evidence, but I don't see what relevance there would be of Jane Doe's complaint. The relevance in this malicious prosecution action might be the allegations of this complaint, this action. But when we start bringing in other complaints as exhibits for a jury to read, I think that go far afield from -- THE COURT: This is the same Jane Doe or a different Jane Doe? MR. SCAROLA: Same Jane Doe. THE COURT: Overruled. Next issue. DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD EFTA00792977

168 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me, Your Honor. There are two Jane Does. This is Jane Doe 102. Jane Doe 102 was a Bob Josefsberg client. And just so I orient Your Honor with regard to this matter. Under the terms of the non-prosecution agreement, the federal court appointed Bob Josefsberg as counsel on behalf of all unrepresented victims to protect the interest of unrepresented victims turn the terms of the non-prosecution agreement. One of those multiple victims being represented by Mr. Josefsberg was an individual identified as Jane Doe 102. She has since been publicly as And the specific allegations in this complaint include the transport of Jane Doe Number 2 on Mr. Epstein's private jets to various homes owned by Mr. Epstein in various locations inside and outside the United States. THE COURT: She's expect to be a DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD EFTA00792978

169 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 witness? MR. SCAROLA: Yes, sir. THE COURT: Live witness? MR. SCAROLA: Live. THE COURT: At this point I'm going to find that, if, in fact, she is a witness, that it would be cumulative, and hence I am going to sustain the objection on those grounds. MR. SCAROLA: May I just finish my argument as to why this complaint was of significance? Because she does -- she does allege in the complaint that she was molested onboard the airplane, and that she was prostituted out to third parties onboard the airplane, which provided the basis for Mr. Edwards seeking airplane logs and the testimony of pilots and the testimony of others identified in the flight logs as being present on the plane. THE COURT: That's fine. I don't have a problem with Mr. Edwards testifying. If it becomes an issue in terms of credibility or whatever it might be, then I will take another look on it. But on the basis of the DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD EFTA00792979

170 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 arguments that I have heard, the objection is sustained for the reasons that I provided. MR. SCAROLA: Understood. Thank you, sir. MS. ROCRENBACH: Your Honor, before we leave, based on Your Honor's ruling, I would make an ore tenus motion for leave to depose , because now it has become clear that she is going to be testifying, based on Mr. Scarola's statement and Your Honor's ruling. THE COURT: Wasn't she scheduled to come to court from Australia? Wasn't that the lady? MR. SCAROLA: That's where she's living. She was scheduled to come to court. She was available to be deposed previously. They chose not to take her deposition. She has been listed as a witness for years in this matter. THE COURT: I have to do a written motion, but I want to be consistent with what I said recently, and that is that it's not -- the continuance is not -- and I DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD EFTA00792980

171 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 emphasize, not designed to be a wholesale reopening of discover, that the Court would take that up on an issue-by-issue basis. But, without pre-deciding anything, unless it can be demonstrated to the Court that there was unavailability, that there was a late filing, that there was some type of inability of a witness to testify, something along those lines. These witnesses have been listed for a lengthy period of time. Again, this was not the purpose of the motion that was filed and it was not the import of the order of the Court. Let's talk about number seven. MS. ROCKENBACH: Messages taken from message pads found at Mr. Epstein's home. THE COURT: What do the messages say? MR. SCAROLA: They relate to arranging sexual massages with minors. I can't tell you from memory -- but Mr. Edwards may be able to -- whether there are specific references to our three clients. THE COURT: Not to be overly technical or hypertechnical here, is Mr. Edwards DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD EFTA00792981

172 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 serving as co-counsel? MR. SCAROLA: Yes, Your Honor. I think I've told Your Honor before, we don't anticipate him taking an active role in the trial, but he remains as co-counsel of record in this case. THE COURT: Fair enough. Mr. Edwards, would you like to comment on that? MR. EDWARDS: Sure, Your Honor. The message pads include the names of many of the underaged females that visited and set up appointments at Mr. Epstein's home, including L.M., E.W. and Jane Doe. THE COURT: Have they been authenticated by Mr. Epstein? Or did he take the Fifth on that? MR. EDWARDS: He has taken the Fifth on questions related to that. They have been authenticated in other depositions by Detective Vicari, although those were taken in other cases. But he's an available witness who could testify as to the chain of custody: Where he found the message -- where he found the messages and how he DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD EFTA00792982

173 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 gathered them during the search warrant. THE COURT: The relevancy, Mr. Scarola? MR. SCAROLA: They clearly relate to the validity of the claims on behalf of these three victims of Mr. Epstein. They corroborate that these young women were there at his home on many occasions, and along with a large number of other underaged females who were being routinely molested by Mr. Epstein. MS. ROCKENBACH: Your Honor, may I relay? This is inflammatory. These message pads may be relevant had Mr. Edwards not settled the three lawsuits in which he represented those three women. But they are not relevant in the malicious prosecution case whether my client had probable cause to file this action or not, or malice. We are definitely getting far afield in terms of the exhibits. And it looks like -- and I understand why Mr. Edwards would want to try exhibits that were relevant to his clients' action because the exhibits that should be relevant in the malicious prosecution case are the facts and DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD EFTA00792983

174 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 circumstance, or the lack of facts and circumstances on which my client relied in filing this lawsuit -- the civil action -- the civil proceeding. Message pads regarding these appointments are absolutely 90.403 prejudicial and not -- which prejudicial affect clearly outweigh any remote probative value in this action. MR. SCAROLA: It seems to me that we are going, unfortunately, around the same mulberry bush. The validity of the claims is an issue. In addition to that, the viability of the claims against Mr. Epstein from a criminal perspective is part of why he was so concerned about this non-prosecution agreement being set aside. He knew that there was a mountain of evidence that would prove that he was a serial child molester, that there were dozens and dozens of victims of his molestations, which were occurring multiple times a day, day after day after day. And the only way he could foresee at DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD EFTA00792984

175 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 this point in escaping the criminal exposure that was clearly going to result in convictions, because of this mountain of evidence available, was to scare off the one person who was challenging that non-prosecution agreement through the Crime Victims' Rights Act case. THE COURT: I'm going to defer on ruling on this. But it is not to be mentioned during opening statement. And it is going to be determined by the Court in the context in which I believe it would be necessary. And I'm concerned about first -- as I mentioned earlier on in another exhibits -- that this is collateral. That it would constitute impeachment on a collateral matter. Again, I don't want to get back into serial child molestation. I believe words to that effect were just utilized, so that's the reason for the ruling. I think that right now, based upon what I'm looking at, which is not the actual messages, but just the recitation of an DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD EFTA00792985

176 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 exhibit would be that there -- that any probative value would be materially outweighed by the prejudice. MS. ROCKENBACH: Thank you, Your Honor. We are working off of Mr. Edwards' exhibit list. And the next one is eight, documents related to Mr. Epstein produced by Alfredo Rodriguez. THE COURT: Alfredo Rodriguez was the houseperson, if I'm understanding? MS. ROCKENBACH: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: I don't know what that means. What specifically are we talking about? MR. SCAROLA: We're talking about a book that contain a list of Jeffrey Epstein's victims, their names and telephone numbers, as well as a number of other contacts that Jeffrey Epstein have, who through other evidence, were established to be regular guests in his home. These provided corroboration of the testimony of L.M., E.W. and Jane Doe. They provided evidence of the extent of Mr. Epstein's molestation of children, which DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD EFTA00792986

177 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 obviously supports the magnitude of the wrong in which he was engaged, which goes directly to the punitive value of the claims brought by L.M., E.W. and Jane Doe, that is, a jury faced with the task of making a determination as to the appropriate amount of punitive damages is instructed that they shall take into consideration the magnitude of the wrong, and that includes the total number of victims involved in the offender's wrongdoing. THE COURT: I presume that by the time the case was settled that I or a predecessor judge in that division had found a valid claim for punitive damages in terms of those case that we are dealing with here? MR. SCAROLA: Yes. There were multiple punitive damages claims pending. THE COURT: I would have expected so. I just didn't know the timing. MR. SCAROLA: Yes. MS. ROCKENBACH: Your Honor's question got us directly to the point. This is relevant evidence for punitive damages in Mr. Edwards' clients' cases, not in this DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD EFTA00792987

178 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 case. THE COURT: My concerns are, again, that we are going too far afield. And again, my best efforts to try to keep this as a level playing field when it comes to focusing on the claims that are made in this particular case, that being the malicious prosecution case. And while I know and I have already indicated, and I believe Epstein's counsel has conceded that it cannot be sanitized, and will not be sanitized, because it goes to many of the issues that are involved here, and by way of Mr. Edwards' recitations, through Mr. Scarola, the motives that Mr. Epstein may have had to file the action at bar. But at the same time I am going to rule in the same way as I did as to number seven, and, that is, that I find that under 403 that the probative value -- any probative value is materially outweighed by the prejudice involved. MR. SCAROLA: May I ask a rhetorical question, Your Honor? DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD EFTA00792988

179 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: Sure. MR. SCAROLA: When Mr. Epstein alleges that these cases were ginned up, when he alleges that asking in the complaint for $50 million was totally out of line and supportive of his conclusions that this was a fabricated claim constructed solely for the purposes of supporting -- knowingly supporting a Ponzi scheme -- when he alleges that these cases really had no significant value, how can we not talk about what the punitive damage value of the cases were and why they had enormous punitive damage value when they are claims relating to a vast number of molestations by a billionaire? THE COURT: Because we are dealing with the three cases that Mr. Edwards represented these three individuals. And to allow records, information about anybody else at this juncture would, in my view, be collateral to the allegations made by Epstein in his claim. And there's no contention here that Mr. Edwards, for whatever reason, went on some type of organized witch hunt so as to DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD EFTA00792989

180 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 persecute or threaten Mr. Epstein with proof of other cases, proof of other alleged molestations, documents that are at issue or anything of that nature. MR. SCAROLA: That's exactly what was alleged, sir. It was alleged that Bradley Edwards was pursuing discovery with regard to molestations of other children that took place on an airline when none of Brad Edwards' clients were ever molested on the airplane. That he had no reasonable basis for doing that. THE COURT: Now, it seems to me we're engaging in a negative, proving up a negative. MR. SCAROLA: You lost me. THE COURT: You understand what I'm trying to say? MR. SCAROLA: No. THE COURT: None of Mr. Edwards' clients were molested on an airplane, then it seems to me to be conceding my point, and that is, then there's no reason for these other issues to be introduced, because there's nobody that Mr. Edwards represented DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD EFTA00792990

181 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that was molested on an airplane. MR. SCAROLA: That's exactly my point, sir. That's the defense argument. THE COURT: Show me where that's -- MR. SCAROLA: That's the defense argument that this was irrelevant discovery. THE COURT: Show me where that's in the complaint about the other alleged victims. MR. SCAROLA: We'll have that for you in just a moment, Your Honor. THE COURT: Let me take a look at that and see how it may or may not be conjecture. MR. SCAROLA: While we are finding that -- we will have that for you in just a moment -- your Honor may recall that I referenced earlier -- and I have, unfortunately, misplaced the copy of the federal statute. I should have it -- I should have it in just a moment. THE COURT: I mean, I'm looking at paragraphs 17 and 18, for example, where Mr. Epstein alleges, while relative to this action, Epstein is currently named as defendant in three civil actions alleging sexual assault and battery that were handled DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD EFTA00792991

182 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 by RRA and his attorneys, including Edwards, prior to its implosion -- presuming he means RRA's and not Mr. Edwards' implosion -- one of which was filed in federal court -- and the two in state court that I have already identified. The civil actions were filed in August and September of 2008. Paragraph 18 then says, quote, what is clear is a fraudulent and improper investment of a Ponzi scheme was, in fact, conducted and operated by RRA and certain of the named defendants, which scheme directly impacted Epstein as a named defendant in these civil actions -- referencing the three at issue. MS. ROCKENBACH: Correct. THE COURT: Where is -- MR. SCAROLA: Paragraphs 35 and 36. THE COURT: Let's take a look at those. Paragraph 35 states, quote, For instance, the litigation team relentlessly and knowingly pursued flight data and passenger manifests regarding flights Epstein took with these famous individuals knowing full well that no underaged women were on board DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD EFTA00792992

183 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and no illicit activities took place. Rothstein and the litigation team also inappropriately attempted to take the depositions of these celebrities in a calculated effort to bolster the marketing scam that was taking place, end quote. Next paragraph? MR. SCAROLA: Next paragraph. THE COURT: Quote, one of the plaintiffs' counsel -- strike that. One of plaintiff's counsel Edwards, deposed three of Epstein's pilots and sought the deposition of a fourth pilot currently serving in Iraq. The pilots were deposed by Edwards for over 12 hours, and Edwards never asked one question relating to or about L.M., E.W. and Jane Doe, RRA's clients, as it related to transportation on flights of RRA clients on any of Epstein's planes. But Edwards asked many inflammatory, leading and irrelevant questions about the pilots' thoughts and beliefs, which will never be admissible at trial, which could only have been asked for the purpose of pumping the cases, and thus by using the deposition to DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD EFTA00792993

184 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 sell the cases or a part of them to third parties. End quote. Anything else? MR. SCAROLA: Those are two obvious references in the complaint to conduct on the part of Brad Edwards alleged to have been improper and forming part of the basis for abuse of process claims. THE COURT: The Court's ruling remains the same. MR. SCAROLA: I never like to argue after the Court has already ruled, but there is one additional point that I want to make. THE COURT: Sure. MR. SCAROLA: Your Honor, I have cited in -- we have cited in submissions to the Court, specifically the motion in limine addressing the scope of admissible evidence that we have filed. We have cited the provisions of Florida statute 90.404, subsection two, commonly known as the Williams Rule statute, which talks about evidence of other crimes. We have also cited the federal rule of evidence, Rule 415. And that rule expressly DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD EFTA00792994

185 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 permits the introduction in evidence of the molestation of other children in any federal action, criminal or civil, involving the molestation of a child. Congress explained -- and quote, That in the submission to the Court -- the reform effected by these rules is critical to the protection of the public from rapists and child molesters. It's justified by the distinctive characteristics of the cases to which it applies. "In child molestation cases, a history of similar acts tends to be exceptionally probative, because it shows an unusual disposition of a defendant, a sexual or pseudosexual interest in children that simply does not exist in ordinary people. "Moreover, such cases require reliance on child victims, whose credibility can readily be intact in the absence of substantial corroboration. "In such cases, there is a compelling public interest in admitting all significant evidence that will shed some light on the credibility of the change -- excuse me -- of DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD EFTA00792995

186 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the charge and any denial by the defense." So -- THE COURT: And Mr. Scarola, if we were trying a sexual molestation case, there may be a stronger argument. But the very point that I'm making is that we're not trying a sexual molestation case, per. Now, there may be elements and issues that may arise, depending upon the nature of Mr. Epstein's position relative to these matters. However, it does not change the Court's view that these messages taken from a message pad at Epstein's home relate to others and that the documents related to Epstein produced by his houseman, Mr. Rodriguez, that relate to others, remains irrelevant. And any probative value, if found to be relevant, would be materially outweighed by the prejudice. The Court's decision remains the same. I think it's bolstered by the fact that we are not trying the child molestation case. And the significance of the collateral cases is not, in my respectful view, necessarily a touchstone of this particular case and this DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD EFTA00792996

187 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 particular analysis. We are going to have to call it a day. I thank you very much, again, for your arguments and your input, written and oral. Thank you, again. Again, thanks to our court reporter and our courtroom personnel also for their hard work and courtesies. Have a good rest of the week. We will see you back, if not before, on December 5th. MR. LINK: Thank you for your time. THE COURT: We will take up the remaining issues of evidence first, and then we will go back to the schedule, which I very much appreciate you all providing. We will adhere to that schedule as we continue on with the motions. We will be in recess. DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD EFTA00792997