108 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA Case No. 502009CA040800XXXXMB JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff, VS. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, BRADLEY EDWARDS, individually, Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs. TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS VOLUME II DATE TAKEN: Tuesday, October 3rd, 2017 TIME: 10:01 a.m. - 4:43 p.m. PLACE 205 N. Dixie Highway, Room 10C West Palm Beach, Florida BEFORE: Donald Hafele, Presiding Judge This cause came on to be heard at the time and place aforesaid, when and where the following proceedings were reported by: Sonja D. Hall Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. 1665 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, Suite 1001 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00788219

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 APPEARANCES: For Bradley Edwards: SEARCY, DENNEY, SCAROLA, BARNHART & SHIPLEY, P.A. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach, FL 33409 By JACK SCAROLA, ESQUIRE By DAVID P. VITALE, JR. For Bradley Edwards: BURLINGTON & ROCKENBACH PA 444 W Railroad Avenue, Suite 350 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 By PHILIP MEAD BURLINGTON, ESQUIRE For Jeffrey Epstein: W. CHESTER BREWER, JR., P.A. 250 S. Australian Avenue, Suite 33401 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 By W. CHESTER BREWER, JR., P.A., ESQUIRE For Jeffrey Epstein: TONJA HADDAD, P.A. 315 S.E. 7th Street, Suite 301 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 By TONJA HADDAD COLEMAN, ESQUIRE For Jeffrey Epstein: ATTERBURY, GOLDBERGER & WEISS, P.A. 250 Australian Ave. South, Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 By JACK A. GOLDBERGER, ESQUIRE For Jeffrey Epstein: DARREN K. INDYKE, PLLC 575 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 By DARREN K. INDYKE, ESQUIRE Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00788220

110 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: Have we settled upon the next motion we would like to have heard? MS. HADDAD COLEMAN: Yes, Judge. We will be proceeding -- Tonja Haddad Coleman on behalf of Jeffrey Epstein. We will be proceeding with our motion to overrule objections and compel Defendant/ Counter-Plaintiff Bradley Edwards' answer to questions. Judge, this motion is directed at Mr. Edwards' deposition testimony and the two depositions he provided in this case, the first of which was March 23rd, 2010, the second of which was May 15th, 2013, which is why this motion was not heard, as this Court likely remembers from before lunch. In June 2013, summary judgment was granted, so the issues of the answers to the deposition questions became moot while the case was on appeal. Did the Court find the motion? THE COURT: Well, I have two similarly titled motions here in front of me. One says, Epstein's Motion to Overrule Objections and Compel Defendant/ Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00788221

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 Counter-Plaintiff Edwards to answer questions. MS. HADDAD COLEMAN: Yes, that's the one. THE COURT: Is that the one? MS. HADDAD COLEMAN: Yes, Judge. As this court is aware, the only thing pending at this point in time in the case is Mr. Edwards' claim of abuse of process malicious prosecution against Mr. Epstein. The abuse of process claim has been disposed of. It was successfully won on the summary judgment and is no longer an issue. So the only operative portion of the Fourth Amended Counterclaim is count two, malicious prosecution. In that complaint, Judge, against Mr. Epstein, Mr. Edwards asserts in paragraph 24, "While prosecuting legitimate claims on behalf of his clients, Edwards has not engaged in any unethical, illegal, or improper conduct, nor has Edwards taken any action inconsistent with the duty he has to vigorously represent the interests of his clients. Epstein has no reasonable basis to Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00788222

112 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 believe otherwise, and never had any reasonable basis to believe otherwise." Then in paragraph 33, Edwards lists the damages he suffered as a result of Epstein's alleged wrongful conduct. Judge, damages aren't an actual element of the claim of malicious prosecution that must be proven in this case. Injury to his reputation, mental anguish, embarrassment and anxiety, fear of physical injury to himself and members of his family, the loss of value of his time required to be diverted from his professional responsibilities, the cost of defending against Epstein's spurious and baseless claims. So as a result of those allegations, Mr. Edwards was deposed. Within his deposition -- nearly every section -- the question was answered with an objection by Mr. Scarola. The first portion of our motion deals with Mr. Scarola's very long and laborious speaking objections. And that's an issue the Court can read and perhaps rule upon later, because we would like to just get to Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00788223

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 actual questions themselves. THE COURT: What is Q Task? What's that? MS. HADDAD COLEMAN: That's where I'm going, Judge. Page four, first question, "What type of information did you the put in Q Task?" Q Task, as the Court may be aware or may not -- THE COURT: I don't. That's why I'm asking. MS. HADDAD COLEMAN: It was created at RRA. It was a form of instant messaging within the office where the messages received in the office can be deleted. I believe it was created by Mr. Adler, a way in which you can communicate about a case, invite certain people to participate, and then it can be deleted. And based on information, again, available at the time the suit was filed, there was information about the Epstein cases put in Q Task. So those questions weren't answered. And then the questioning continues Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00788224

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 regarding how LM and EW came to bring a case to Mr. Edwards for him to prosecute against Mr. Epstein. And those questions -- a privilege is asserted. They are not relevant here. They are improper. And furthermore more, Judge, if the Court looks to the specific complaint filed by Mr. Epstein against Mr. Edwards, the allegation that we are stuck to defend here, Rothstein and the litigation team knew or should have known that the three filed cases were weak and had minimal value for the following reasons. Judge, LM and EW were two of the three cases that Mr. Edwards and the Rothstein's firm were prosecuting against Mr. Epstein. LM had testified that she never had any type of sex with Mr. Epstein. She worked at numerous strip clubs, is an admitted prostitute, has a history of illegal drug use, and has asserted her Fifth Amendment to avoid answering questions in deposition testimony. EW testified that she worked at 11 different strip clubs, including one in Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00788225

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 which RRA represented the strip club, The Cheetah, and that EW also worked as a showgirl. Then the same thing with Jane Doe, seeking damages, claiming severe emotional distress. So these are the three cases that Edwards was prosecuting against Mr. Epstein while working at RRA. There's a causal link alleged by Mr. Epstein in his complaint against Mr. Edwards, which forms the basis of Mr. Edwards' lawsuit. Mr. Edwards has asserted that he always acted in good faith, and everything he did while he was at RRA was on the up and up. So these questions go not only to what Mr. Edwards did on behalf of his clients while he was a partner at RRA, but also directly to RRA's involvement in the case and what Mr. Epstein alleged in his complaint against Mr. Edwards that forms the basis of Mr. Edwards' lawsuit. So claiming attorney-client and work-product privilege when asked about EW and LM in Q Task and when information as put in there are questions that should be Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00788226

116 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 overturned. Judge, the testimony given by LM and EW before and after RRA became involved in this case is definitely a central issue here. There was testimony given to the FPI, we believe, because we have privilege logs and -- can't get the information yet, but that's a subject of another motion -- their testimony changed substantially once RRA became involved in this case. That goes right to crux of, again, what Epstein knew at the time these suits were filed. The suit was filed against Edwards, and what Edwards was doing in this case. Judge, if you turn the page, lawyers for Mr. Epstein asked Mr. Edwards if in 2008 if he knew whether LM was listed -- I'm sorry -- EW was listed as or deemed to be a victim by the United States Attorney's Office. He again refused to answer that. One of the issues, again, that keeps being raised is the issue of settlement of these cases or ginning up these cases. This is information that goes back to the crux of that issue, and the responses Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00788227

117 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 are necessary not only for Epstein to defend this case, but more importantly for Edwards to try to prosecute this case. If he's alleging that everything he did was legitimate and on the up and up, he should have no problem answering the questions related to what he did. Judge, if you continue on to pages six and seven, the question turns to communications that Mr. Edwards had with the press regarding interviews with his clients. And again, he asserts privilege communications. This is about communicating with the press. There's no basis in law. I will get to the legal arguments later, but I am just going through the questions that refused to be answered at this time. Next it discusses the deposition of the subpoena served on Ms. Maxwell. And Mr. Edwards is asked, "Do you -- is she neither -- would you agree that neither Jane Doe nor LM" -- who are, again, Mr. Edwards' two clients -- "have testified that there have been any connection whatsoever with Ms. Maxwell?" Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00788228

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 Mr. Edwards answers, "Yes, I would agree." The question then continues to ask, "You know why they are trying to serve a subpoena on Ms. Maxwell to get testimony that these girls that Mr. Edwards was representing never made any allegations that Ms. Maxwell had anything to do with the case?" THE COURT: Who is she? MS. HADDAD COLEMAN: She's a very wealthy female who was touted to the investors as another reason why Mr. Epstein would supposedly want to settle these cases to keep her out of it. Next question: "What occurred in the cases that -- investigation of Mr. Epstein while Mr. Edwards was employed by -- and a partner at Rothstein, Rosenfeldt, Adler?" Mr. Edwards is asked what investigators worked on Mr. Epstein's cases. Not even what work they did at this point, just who worked on it. Refuse to answer. "Who was the first investigator that you believe was involved in investigating Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00788229

119 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the cases, just to name that topic?" Mr. Scarola: "Work product, instruct you not to answer." It goes on. "Who" -- at the bottom of page seven. "Who other than Mr. Fisten from an investigator -- from an internal investigator and RRA employee worked on doing investigations on the Epstein files?" Mr. Scarola: "Same objection. Same instruction." "You're claiming work product?" "Yes." And then the conversation continues, then at the bottom -- at the bottom of page seven, "Have you ever directed -- did you ever direct investigators during the time you were at RRA -- and that's the question you are claiming privilege over, correct?" Mr. Scarola: "I am claiming the privilege with respect to any action that was taken by Mr. Edwards or at Mr. Edwards' direction in connection with the investigation, prosecution of the claims against Mr. Epstein." It goes on. The question -- Judge, if Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00788230

120 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 you read this yourself -- I don't think I need to read it into the record page by page. Same objection. Same instruction. Mr. Edwards will not answer any questions regarding what he did or didn't do. This is in direct response to any question related to an investigation of Mr. Epstein solely while he was working as a partner at RRA. Judge, the next page, the subject matter of the examination of deposition turns to other investigations. "Did Mr. Roberts ever perform investigation work on any of the Epstein files?" "Same objection." Judge, you can go through again, that goes to -- Mr. Scarola objects to every question asked. Then the subject turns to Alfredo Rodriguez. Mr. Epstein's attorney attempted to ask on two separate dates about Mr. Rodriquez in the deposition. And again, the first question, Judge -- you can look at he dates and see how germane these issues Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00788231

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 are. THE COURT: Who is Mr. Rodriguez? MS. HADDAD COLEMAN: He is a man who is alleged in Mr. Edwards' -- some of Mr. Edwards' pleadings as -- I'm sorry, Judge -- something to do with -- he was Mr. Epstein's housekeeper. I apologize, Judge. I came into this case in 2012, so I don't know sometimes all of the facts that came before me. Between those two dates, that is July 29th and August 17th, 2009 -- and again, if the Court remembers, the date of the Ponzi scheme and the implosion Did you speak with Mr. Rodriguez at all? Refuses to answer. All I am asking right now, not the substance, but just so the record is clear, did you the speak with him? And again, Mr. Edwards won't answer. The examination continues regarding contact with Mr. Rodriguez. And then again you can see all the privileges that were responded to as a result of those questions. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00788232

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 Judge, next we're at page 11. The subject matter turns to Mr. Edwards' communications with Maria Villafana, who is the United States attorney -- assistant United States attorney involved in the Epstein cases. Question: My question is only did you speak to her prior to filing that complaint, Doe versus United States. It's just a yes or no. Refuses to answer. Throughout the entire questioning there he refuses to answer. Then it turns to Mr. Edwards' conversations with FBI agents in connection solely about the Epstein cases. And again, he refuses to answer. Page 12, Judge, is where we really get into the heart of the matter. And the subject matter of the examination turns to Mr. Edwards' purported interactions with anyone associated with the Epstein cases. And before I get into these questions, Judge, as the Court may recall and be aware, in some of his pleadings, Mr. Edwards has Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00788233

123 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 asserted that the RRA firm and Mr. Edwards' actions were so zealous during this time period -- as part of his defense -- because there was a joint prosecution agreement in the cases against Mr. Epstein and that RRA was asked to take the lead, or that Mr. Edwards was asked to take the lead because he had three plaintiffs. So these questions are very germane, not only to Mr. Edwards' assertion of why he did what he did, but more importantly to what was actually occurring in these cases during the time frame in which Mr. Epstein formed his basis to file suit against Mr. Edwards. Question: "Mr. Edwards, among the plaintiffs' lawyers, is there any type of joint prosecution agreement related to Mr. Epstein?" "Same objection. Same instruction." Judge, this goes on for two pages. You can see it yourself. Mr. Edwards will not answer any question. This wasn't even asking for a copy of the agreement or what it is. We were just asking what exists. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00788234

124 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next page. The discussion turns to the manner in which the cases were handled while Edwards was a partner at RRA, the meeting he had with Mr. Rothstein. We asked: "The meeting you had in Mr. Rothstein's office with Russell Adler and some unknown person on the phone, were you given any direction at that time that certain discovery should be done, certain tactics should be used with regard to prosecuting the Epstein cases?" "Objection." Question: "What did -- what information did Mr. Rothstein send you that involved Mr. Epstein?" "Same objection. Same instruction." Question: "At the meetings that you at the meetings that occurred where these various lawyers, Berger, Adler, Stone, Rob Bushel were present and Epstein was discussed, was the discovery and/or investigation regarding Mr. Epstein ever discussed?" "Objection." Next line of questions. It turns to Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00788235

125 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the events surrounding the prosecution of the Epstein cases in 2009. Again, Judge the crux of the investigation. "In setting these depositions that is, in requesting these depositions be taken some time in June or July of 2009 or requesting dates for them, did you have discussions with other attorneys at your firm as to the benefits that would exist in your case -- your three cases against Mr. Epstein by taking these individuals' depositions?" "Objection. Instruct you not to answer." Question: "Mr. Edwards, were you involved in any discussions regarding the depositions -- I'm sorry -- regarding the deposing of any of the people -- of these individuals -- Mr. Trump -- that is, in discussions with any other lawyers in your firm, including Scott Rothstein?" "Same objection. Same instruction." "Did you ever discuss with Mr. Rothstein or anyone on his behalf the Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00788236

126 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 value of taking the depositions of Trump, Dershowitz, former President Clinton, David Copperfield, Leslie Wexner as an inducement to get Mr. Epstein to settle his lawsuits?" Again, Mr. Scarola objects. Judge, this all continues on the next page. The questioning goes on about flight data, planes own by Mr. Epstein. And again same objection. "Were you involved with -- in the discussion to receive flight data associated with any planes purportedly owned by Mr. Epstein?" "Objection. Instruct you not to answer." "Did you have any discussion within your firm with regard to taking the deposition of celebrities, famous people who were reportedly on the plane so that they would be deposed and it would be an inducement to Mr. Epstein to settle his lawsuit?" "Same objection. Same instruction." Question: "Isn't it true, Mr. Edwards, in taking the deposition or in attempting to Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00788237

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 take the deposition of Donald Trump, you had no information that Mr. Trump had any knowledge of any female having -- that is, underage female ever having been on Mr. Epstein's plane and having been assaulted by him?" And Mr. Scarola: "What Mr. Edwards knew or didn't know in connection with this prosecution of a pending claim is protected by privilege. I instruct him not to answer." The conversation goes on, Judge, to investigation of Officer -- I'm going to say his name wrong. I apologize -- Vakeri (phonetic) -- purpose of the conversation with this officer. No answer, yet he's listed on the witness list at this time. Then the conversation turns to Ken Jenne, former Sheriff who worked at RRA during the time in question. THE COURT: What page are you on? MS. HADDAD COLEMAN: I'm at the top of page 15. Same objections. Then, Judge, the second deposition, Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00788238

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 which occurred immediately prior to this court granting the summary judgment motion, Mr. Edwards was asked additional questions. In addition to the fact that if he were asked all the questions asked the first time would he object again. And he said he would, he would assert the same objections. So Mr. King is at this deposition objecting on grounds of relevancy, materiality, instructing the witness not to answer. And then if the Court turns to page 16, there's actually a statement of government privilege in response to a question: "Did you ever have any contact with Kendall Coffey regarding the propriety or asking him an opinion on the propriety of taking that book from Mr. Rodriguez?" "Same objections. Work product and attorney-client privilege and government privilege." Then again, Judge, if you go on page 16, the conversation turns to, "If we ask you every question that was asked in the first deposition would you assert the same Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00788239

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 privileges?" And they said yes. Then it's made clear that after the court rules on it the deposition will be continued. Then on the next page, Judge, Mr. King presents that they did not produce any items responsive to Schedule AB served with the deposition duces tecum relating to any damages suffered by Mr. Edwards as a result, allegedly, of this lawsuit, which is, again, an element of this case. He asserted financial privacy privilege at the deposition as to anything related to his work, how much money he made, how much money he made while at RRA, how much money he made off the Epstein cases and things of that nature. So, Judge, those are the summaries of topics in the depositions for which we are seeking responses from Mr. Edwards. As set forth in detail within the motion and the case law presented, neither the attorney-client privilege nor the work-product privilege is applicable to virtually anything we ask, and the argumentative objections made by Counsel, as Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00788240

130 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 well as other certain questionable objections, have no basis in his assertions and should be overruled. THE COURT: Let me you. Do you know whether or not the objections are being asserted during the pendency of the claims by the females that had sued Mr. Epstein and that Mr. Edwards was representing at the time since then having been resolved, to my knowledge -- all of those cases? MS. HADDAD COLEMAN: Judge -- I'm sorry. THE COURT: That's okay. Or was a matter of objecting relative to mental impressions when it comes to work product? Because I really don't see an attorney-client privilege in any of questions asked as it relates to the present case, that is, Edwards/Epstein matter. Does it relate to attorney and work product privilege as it relates to that case, the current case that we have in front of us? MS. HADDAD COLEMAN: Judge, Mr. Edwards sued Mr. Epstein. And he asserted in no uncertain terms in his complaint that every Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00788241

131 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 action he took in these cases were legitimate and for a legitimate purpose, and he did not engage in any impropriety. As a result, these questions, many of which just required a yes or no answer, go to the crux of the allegations he made. He made the statement -- THE COURT: I understand. And my question is not necessarily one of relevance particularly for discovery purposes where we know that the bounds of discovery are much broader than what may be admissible. The test is whether or not the information sought is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. What I'm trying to understand, though, is one of privilege -- and whether you can answer for me -- perhaps Mr. Scarola will be able to do so -- the timing of these depositions may or may not be close to when these cases were still -- the minor female cases or the adult female -- whomever it was that sued -- sued Mr. Edwards (sic) were to recover damages for alleged physical abuse. So my question is whether or not these Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00788242

132 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 privileges that were asserted -- particularly the work-product privilege related to those cases that would have been still pending at the time these depositions were taken, meaning the ones that Mr. Edwards was representing the females -- or was it in conjunction with the case that is at issue here. MS. HADDAD COLEMAN: Judge, the three cases that Mr. Edwards was prosecuting against Mr. Epstein, the civil cases, were all settled by the time the second deposition took place. I believe they were settled shortly after Mr. Edwards gave his first deposition. But they were certainly settled before I came into the case in 2012. So I can tell you, in no uncertain terms, by the time Mr. Edwards' second deposition was taken they had long been settled, because that was in 2013. Judge, I would say not only were the cases closed, but Mr. Edwards put his work product at issue by filing this suit. So certainly, if not when the cases were still Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00788243

133 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 pending, but once the cases were settled he needed to answer those questions and still does. With respect -- I guess to answer your question regarding the work-product doctrine and of course, obviously, this information is needed, as the Court's aware what the law says -- this information is needed for Mr. Epstein to defend himself. And indeed, more importantly, Mr. Edwards will need to use it if he's going to successfully attempt to prosecute this case against Mr. Epstein and say what he alleges in his complaint. He has the burden of proof that everything he did was on the up and up. You can't assert a privilege for every action you took in prosecuting a case and then come back and not give us the information of what you did to defend it. Judge, the law states that if we show that we the party seeking the discovery need the material for preparation of our case, and we are unable, without undue hardship, to obtain the equivalent material another Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00788244

134 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 way, that the court should grant us the access to the information. That's in Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(4), and in Genovese versus Provident Life 74 So.3d 1064 Florida Supreme Court 2011. It's also established, Judge, under the law, that a plaintiff cannot assert work-product privilege to avoid answering questions regarding his own allegations that he alleges in a complaint, even if the question reveals a legal theory of his case. And the case that stands for that proposition, Judge, is Dunkin' Donuts versus Mary's Donuts, 206 F.R.D. District of Florida 2002. rationale supporting this 518 Southern And again, the was quoted by the Florida Supreme Court in 1994 in the Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company versus Deason. Frankly, Judge, if the Court wants me to go through the other objections that were raised in deposition that have no basis in law in a deposition, objections such as assumes facts not in evidence; hypothetical question; no proper predicate; not Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00788245

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 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; the financial part -- I'm sorry, government privilege -- it's all laid out there. I don't think it requires a long belaboring legal argument from me. Frankly Judge, the objection on the grounds of financial privacy -- I'm on page 22 of my motion judge. THE COURT: I am with you. MS. HADDAD COLEMAN: We understand perhaps better than the average defendant that there is a financial right to privacy and sometimes it can be waived. Judge, it can be waived when the material that's sort by a party is relevant to the subject matter of the pending action. Here, Judge, Mr. Edwards is claiming damages against Mr. Epstein. Part of those damages include injury to his reputation as an attorney; loss of time diverted from his practice, again, as an attorney. And how does one quantify this? It's monetary. It's financial. If his reputation suffered somehow as a Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00788246

136 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 result of being sued by Mr. Epstein in 2009 and not by being partners with Scott Rothstein, we are entitled to pursue that. We're entitled to the discovery to show how much money he made while he was working at RRA, before he was working at RRA, after he worked at RRA, what his relationship was with the alleged other plaintiffs with whom he had a joint prosecution agreement that he refuses to turn over, how the money was split up once the cases were settled. All of those issues, Judge, relate to financial damages that he is alleging in this case. THE COURT: Joint prosecution agreement means that one or more than one of these alleged victims would be jointly prosecuting Mr. Epstein? Is that what this is supposed to be? MS. HADDAD COLEMAN: Yes, Judge. In some pleadings, Mr. Edwards has asserted, in defense to our allegations of what went on in the cases while he was a partner at RRA, he alleged that basically RRA was taking the helm, because they had the financial means Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00788247

137 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 to conduct all this discovery. And it was pursuant to a joint prosecution agreement or a co-plaintiff -- I might be using the wrong words -- but it was asked in the deposition. Mr. Edwards brought this up. This wasn't something that Mr. Epstein just thought was occurring. Then when we pressed Mr. Edwards to provide answers to that with whom, how did it work out, did you have anything in writing, Mr. Edwards refused to answer the questions, as you saw in here, pursuant to work-product privilege, attorney-client privilege. In this case, Judge, the damages he's claiming allegedly could have started in 2009 and could be continuing to present date, because this lawsuit is still going on. THE COURT: I understand. MS. HADDAD COLEMAN: So it's our position that because he's made his finances or his financial damages -- it's an element of this case. It's not just run-of-the-mill let's let the jury decide it Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00788248

138 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 thought he was damaged, he has to prove damages. And we are entitled to explore what damages he may have suffered so we can determine the value of his case, if any, and so we can properly defend against it. THE COURT: Was any production in the request made in that respect? MS. HADDAD COLEMAN: Yes, Judge. Again it was requested in his depo, and he objected to everything. And we did serve him after -- after the stay was lifted, I served damages interrogatories to Mr. Edwards, and we received unverified responses in the middle of last week. So I don't have a verified answer to those yet. THE COURT: Do you have those with you so I can take a look? We may be able to bypass some of the discussion and get into the sufficiency of those unverified answers. MS. HADDAD COLEMAN: I do, Judge. If you give me just a moment. It's in my file. Judge, the instructions won't be here, but the relevant time period was 2006 -- or 2008, I believe, right before Mr. Edwards went to work at RRA when he was a sole Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00788249

139 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 practitioner. And before that he was an assistant state attorney. May I approach? THE COURT: Sure. MS. HADDAD COLEMAN: This is Mr. Scarola's filing notice of serving unverified answers, as well as our questions and his answers, the objections. MR. SCAROLA: Your Honor, may I request a copy of that? I didn't bring it with me, as it is not raised as an issue in the motion. THE COURT: Obviously it was something that I was interested in and perhaps it wasn't raised but it could hopefully curtail some of discussions here once I take a look at them. Deputy, would you ask Denise to kindly make an extra copy, please? MS. HADDAD COLEMAN: Judge, with respect to the rest of the motion, we just -- in the motion we -- again, the last deposition was taken a month before you granted the first summary judgment. And as you know, from June 2013 -- I'm sorry from Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00788250

140 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 -- the case had basically not been actively prosecuted in this court until June 2017 when the Florida Supreme Court issued its final ruling. So should the Court grant our motion, we did preserve the right to redepose Mr. Edwards on these issues. We feel not only that all of the actions taken by Mr. Edwards while prosecuting the cases at RRA are issues that need to be answered. Judge, Mr. Edwards' reputation and -- commiserate with his financial business what he was bringing in as an attorney and through his law firm both before and while at RRA, as well as after leaving RRA, go straight to the heart of what he's claiming, being injury to his reputation and time away -- diverted away from his cases. We are hopeful that the Court will review all of that information as well as the case law relied upon in our motion, and compel Mr. Edwards to answer the questions that are related to this lawsuit. THE COURT: As I said, I don't know if you've had the opportunity to review the Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00788251

141 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 answers that are unverified. From a telephone conversation that Mr. Goldberger, Mr. Scarola and Mr. Edwards and I had regarding the logistics of trying to deal with the stay or a motion and how we were going to go forward, the manner in which we can proceed -- Mr. Edwards was on the telephone from Jamaica so it may have been just a matter of his unavailability that caused the unverified answers. Have you had a chance to look at them? MS. HADDAD COLEMAN: Judge, I was at a funeral Friday and couldn't appear telephonically. I did. He object -- if you read the first 25, objection, irrelevant, not likely to lead to admissible evidence, overbroad, without any law or any assertion other than that. Then the last few say, different answers, which is -- a few of them are really related to the verification. But basically there's no answers there, other than the amounts -- he gives us the amounts that the three cases Mr. Edwards was prosecuting against Mr. Epstein were settled Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00788252

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 for, which clearly we know because Mr. Epstein paid the money. So there's no substantive answer to any of them, would be my answer to you at my first glean of them. THE COURT: All right, we will take a look at that. All right, in the meantime while I'm waiting to get those, Mr. Scarola, you want to respond to these general areas of inquiry and the position that you are taking as of now, because I think that's really what matters as opposed to then? MR. SCAROLA: Yes, sir, I would like to. Indeed, that is a very significant distinction because -- THE COURT: Deputy, hand out the copies. MR. SCAROLA: At the time that both depositions were taken, there were competing claims that had not yet been resolved, including Mr. Epstein's claim against Mr. Edwards, in which Mr. Epstein bore the burden of proving that Mr. Edwards lacked a good faith basis for all of the claims that he brought against Mr. Epstein and all of Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00788253

143 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the conduct that he had engaged in during the course of those prosecutions. Obviously, with regard to the conduct that occurred during the course of the prosecutions, that conduct was covered by the litigation privilege, and therefore, all inquiries into any post-filing activities on Mr. Edwards' part was not relevant or material and could not lead to the discovery of relevant or material information. And since it was relevant only to or since the line of inquiry was being pursued with regard to Mr. Epstein's claims against Mr. Edwards, there was no sword/shield concern in that regard. We are now in a position where Mr. Edwards' state of mind at the time he filed his claims against Mr. Epstein has been resolved by virtue of a motion for summary judgment. That is, we moved for summary judgment on the basis that Mr. Edwards did nothing improper, had probable cause to support all of these claims. No opposition was filed to that motion. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00788254

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 And on the eve of the summary judgment hearing, a voluntary dismissal was taken. So there has been a disposition favorable to Mr. Edwards as a matter of law with regard to those claims. So what remains at issue presently is not Mr. Edwards' state of mind, but Mr. Epstein's state of mind. At the time that Mr. Epstein filed his claims against Mr. Edwards -- the five claims that we have referenced earlier this morning on more than one occasion -- the issue in that regard is limited to what Mr. Epstein knew at the time he initiated those prosecutions, and not what he has somehow able to try to discover to attempt to justify his unjustified and unjustifiable actions at the time it was taken. That is, he cannot prove that he had probable cause by reference to things he had no knowledge of, and could not have had any knowledge of at the time he filed those claims. That would specifically include knowledge of any communications that Mr. Edwards had with his clients. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00788255

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 Obviously, Mr. Epstein did not know about the content of attorney-client privilege communications, and could not rely upon the existence of the substance of those communications to try to justify his lawsuit against Mr. Edwards. He also did not know about Mr. Edwards' work product, Mr. Edwards' mental impressions, Mr. Edwards' Q-Tip (sic) communications -- THE COURT: Q Task. MR. SCAROLA: Q Task. Thank you. -- in the intra-office system that existed during Brad Edwards' prosecution of his claims against Mr. Epstein. Incidentally, Brad Edwards began the prosecution of those claims long before he ever became a member of RRA. Those cases were all filed, they were being actively prosecuted and pursued when Mr. Edwards was hired by the Rothstein, Rosenfeldt, Adler firm. But what went on in those cases after Brad Edwards had filed them, was obviously not something that Mr. Epstein could rely Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00788256

146 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 upon. If he didn't already know it at the time he filed suit, he could not rely upon it as justifying his having filed suit, so it could not possibly be part of probable cause. Now, one thing that is glaringly omitted from the argument that Your Honor has heard on these issues is how Brad Edwards could possibly waive a privilege that doesn't belong to him. The attorney-client privilege is not the lawyer's privilege. The attorney-client privilege belongs to the client. The clients are not parties to this action. The clients have taken no action that waive attorney-client privilege. not waived it and Brad Edwards is could They have ethically obliged to protect the confidentiality of those communications, not only during the period of time that he was actively representing these clients, but the attorney-client privilege survives and continues past the termination of the attorney-client relationship. Indeed, even after a client has died the obligation to Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00788257

147 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 protect the confidentiality of the communication continues. With regard to the work-product privilege, that privilege is very clearly defined in Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(3). And, Your Honor, that is quoted in the response in opposition to Jeffrey Epstein's motion to overrule objections and compel answers to these questions. It is quoted in its entirety at page two of our response. And it says that a party may obtain discovery of documents and tangible things otherwise discoverable under subdivision (b)(1) of this rule. That means it must be relevant and material and prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for another party, or by or for that party's representative, including that party's attorney, consultant, surety, indemnitor, insurer or agent. And I will pause there for just a moment. The joint prosecution agreement was an agreement among the plaintiffs' lawyers who all had claims pending against Jeffrey Epstein for the sexual molestation of their Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00788258

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 minor female clients. An agreement was entered into to share confidential information for purposes of serving the unified interest of those claims. That's what the agreement was. That's all the agreement was. There was no fee sharing agreement. There was nothing beyond the fact that information could be shared, and the confidentiality of that information preserved within the context of the common interest that those plaintiffs shared. So I point that out only because it relates to this reference to including that party's attorney, consultant, surety, indemnitor, insurer or agent only upon a showing that the parties seeking discovery have a need of the materials in the preparation of the case -- that goes to this stage whether they have any relevance whatsoever, because we are no longer dealing with Brad Edwards' state of mind, only with Jeffrey Epstein's state of mind, and is unable, without undue hardship, to obtain the substantial equivalent of the materials Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00788259

149 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 by other means. That means you must exhaust alternative means of discovery to uncover the facts before you attempt to invade the work-product privilege. In ordering discovery of the materials when the required showing has been made, the court shall protect against disclosure of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions or legal theories of an attorney or their representative of a party concerning the litigation. Well, what is the stated purpose of this? The only thing we have heard is, we want to discover Brad Edwards' mental impressions. We want to discover what he was thinking when he was making choices that he made during the course of the litigation and what he was thinking when he brought these claims. Well that's no longer an issue before this court. We are not here to decide what Brad Edwards was thinking. That issue has been resolved by way of a voluntary dismissal. What we are here to determine is whether Jeffrey Epstein had any reasonable basis whatsoever to support his Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00788260

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 claims, or was he acting out of malice. So the law clearly tell us the mental impressions of lawyers are not discoverable. Those are sacrosanct work product. THE COURT: Let me stop you for a moment and interrupt, as I have others, with a question. MR. SCAROLA: Surely, sir. THE COURT: In terms of now, the issue is one of Mr. Edwards' bringing an affirmative claim against Mr. Epstein for malicious prosecution. The elements have been discussed with some detail earlier today. Probable cause being one of those that we focused on. The mental impressions that Mr. Edwards may have had -- and that would be potentially protected as it relates to claims of the clients that Mr. Edwards represented against Epstein -- can be compartmentalized as it relates to those claims. However, there is an affirmative claim being made by Mr. Edwards against Mr. Epstein for malicious prosecution Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00788261

151 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 relating to at least several issues -- the ones that we have discussed and perhaps there's more -- is the federal case that was brought that allegedly mirrored the state case, and Mr. Epstein's apparent belief that those claims were being brought to his detriment, arguably -- because I think there's still a question out there whether or not Mr. Epstein actually sustained any cognizable damage as a result of the claim that he brought against Rothstein, Edwards and LM. We will leave that for another day. But there's still issues of the federal case being brought that allegedly mirrored the state claim, and in his view Mr. Epstein's view was somehow inflated to appease the investors in this Ponzi scheme, and thus potentially subject him to further exposure as it related, not only economically for damages, but also costs of the defense, attorney fees and the like. Then also this claim that somehow the alleged factoring of these cases -- I guess they admitted to the factoring of these cases to the extent that shares were Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00788262

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 apparently sold to investors, and the attempt to inflate the amount of those cases to the detriment, again, allegedly of Mr. Epstein, that lengthy discussion as to the current claim would be compartmentalized and unassociated with the prior cases where Mr. Edwards is representing the alleged victims. There has to be some method of discovery here to properly vet probable cause on behalf of Epstein as it relates to his defending the affirmative action brought by Edwards. He cannot be completely and entirely hamstrung from making at least into that aspect of the matter. I agree with you from the asking questions why did EW or some headway standpoint of any of these other females come to you for advice, it would not be sacrosanct. It would not be something that would be subject to discovery. It would be clearly attorney-client privilege, and that privilege would remain consistent, even if the case had been settled. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00788263

153 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 To me, I don't see any relevance from the standpoint of would it be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. But things such as the investigation and how this investigation proceeded when these cases were being factored, when they were being sold to these so-called investors, when the time period was where the LM case was brought to federal court, what transpired during that period of time that may have given rise -- again, getting back to the reasonable calculation analysis for discovery of admissible evidence, why would at least some of that material not be subject to discovery, perhaps not admissibility, but for discovery purposes. MR. SCAROLA: Everything that Mr. Epstein knew about what was going on, everything that Mr. Epstein reasonably believed about what was going on is relevant and material to whether Mr. Epstein had probable cause to sue Brad Edwards for some viable tort claim arising out of that reasonable belief. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00788264

154 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: When he filed the suit. MR. SCAROLA: When he filed the suit, yes, sir. So the point in time that we have got to look at is the point in time at which the lawsuit was filed, because that's when probable cause is measured. If we are talking about an arrest, the viability and legality of the arrest is judged based upon what the law enforcement officers reasonably believed at the time that the arrest was made. If we're talking about the probable cause for the filing of the lawsuit, we are talking about what the plaintiff reasonably believed at the time of the filing of the lawsuit. And as I candidly acknowledged earlier, that might be a mistaken belief, just as law enforcement officers may mistakenly believe a suspect is the one who committed the crime. But if the belief is reasonable, probable cause exist. If Mr. Epstein's belief at the time he filed was reasonable, then probable cause Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00788265

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 existed. But he cannot attempt to establish probable cause on the basis of things that he neither knew nor could possibly have known, because in many circumstances, they hadn't even occurred yet. A lot of this inquiry -- THE COURT: That's fair. What hadn't occurred yet, I agree with you. But things that I focused on in the light most favorable to the broad nature of the law regarding discovery are those that I've already suggested allegedly did take place prior to the suit being filed. MR. SCAROLA: And it would help me if Your Honor gave me an example. THE COURT: I gave two. One was the filing of the federal case that increased Mr. Edwards' (sic) potential financial exposure as it related to the alleged damages -- MR. SCAROLA: Did you mean Mr. Epstein? THE COURT: Mr. Epstein's alleged -- MR. SCAROLA: I do that all the time. I apologize for interrupting the Court. THE COURT: Unfortunately they both Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00788266

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 begin with Es. I did that before with somebody else. MR. SCAROLA: I just want the record to be clear. THE COURT: That's exactly right. It potentially increases Mr. Epstein's financial exposure as it related to the amount of stated damages. It conceivably would have and by virtue of the fact that two cases remained pending, would have increased, to some degree, his payment of attorney's fees and costs associated with the federal -- MR. SCAROLA: Had he ever been served with it. THE COURT: Had he ever been served. MR. SCAROLA: Which he never was. THE COURT: It did expose him, at least to some degree. MS. HADDAD COLEMAN: I'm so sorry, Judge. And I really don't mean to interrupt Mr. Scarola. He wasn't served with it, but it was filed under the consolidated case number, and he did, in fact, have to incur fees to file a motion successfully to Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00788267

157 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 dismiss that federal case. THE COURT: Okay, so the point I'm making is -- just to explain to you what I foresee -- or what I have seen as two examples, that being one of them, the other being this issue -- again, I'm not here to rule on the validity of these claims. I'm not ever here to rule on whether or not a jury is going to decide one way or the other on those claims at this point in time. But the other example that I raised was the issue that surrounds this factoring, and whether or not Mr. Edwards had any involvement, whether knowingly or unknowingly, to, again, somehow damage Mr. Epstein. And I'm unsure as to how that may have damaged Mr. Epstein. But at least, as I said before, trying to be as broad as I can in my analysis of what may be discoverable, i.e., reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence on this issue of the bringing of the files into the Rothstein inner sanctum; Mr. Adler's alleged involvement in that endeavor to bring some Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00788268

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 of these New York investors who were apparently pushing the panic button because of their lack of faith in what was transpiring, according to Mr. Rothstein, as I read. And Rothstein's utilization of these files to prop up this scheme that he admitted to, and is now serving a significant jail sentence as a result thereof. I believe others have also received jail sentences from the Rothstein firm. So those are the areas of inquiry that I believe, at least arguably, have some merit. I agree with you that why LM or why EW or any of these other individuals came to Mr. Edwards and what Mr. Edwards was told by them as to their reason for coming to him would not be subject to discovery. MR. SCAROLA: Let me agree with Your Honor, if I could. Those areas that you have identified are legitimate areas of inquiry in terms of what Mr. Epstein knew about them at the time that he filed. But, what Mr. Epstein cannot do, because the law Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00788269

159 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 of privilege precludes him from doing it, is to find out today what Brad Edwards said to somebody else within his law firm -- one of his investigators, one of the other co-counsel who were helping him with this case, one of the former judges of this court who resigned in order to accept a position with Rothstein, Rosenfeldt & Adler, and was co-prosecuting this case with Brad Edwards. Mr. Epstein cannot say, Tell me about the conversation that you had with one another about the filing of this federal lawsuit, because those matters are privileged. What he can't do is find out what LM told him -- told Brad Edwards that led Brad Edwards to file a federal claim at the same time that he was prosecuting a state court case on behalf of that same plaintiff. So there are legitimate areas of inquiry with regard to those issues that Your Honor has identified. But those legitimate areas of inquiry don't justify an invasion into privileges that are absolute. And they don't justify invasions into a Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00788270

160 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 work-product privilege when mental impressions of counsel are expressly excluded from discovery, because the law considers the operations of an attorney's mind, his mental impressions, to be sacrosanct. Even when there's a reasonable basis for discovering some work product, mental impressions is not one of those exceptions. THE COURT: Well, I have gone through most of these questions. I am still trying to understand -- this really goes more to Mr. Epstein's counsel -- what specifically are the questions that you believe need to be answered? Discussions that Mr. Edwards may have had with respect to or with Ms. Villafana, the U.S. attorney, I don't know what that has to do with this particular case, other than to suggest that if in fact Mr. Edwards was pursuing that Victims' Rights case -- I again, don't mean to minimize that by not knowing the exact name -- as fuel to the fire that's already existing, meaning, may lead to discovery of evidence that they are Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00788271

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 looking to submit, meaning that any discussions that Mr. Epstein may have been aware of between Mr. Edwards and Ms. Villafafia or anyone else associated with the U.S. Attorney's Office may have been a factor in why he brought this case in the first place. So I'm not sure what the purpose of that area of inquiry may be. MS. HADDAD COLEMAN: Judge, if the Court feels -- Judge, two answers to your question. First, if the Court has looked -- again, I don't mean to speak backwards, but I have to -- the exhibit and witness lists filed by Mr. Edwards in this case makes it clear that he has no intention of litigating a malicious prosecution claim. It is bringing up all of these issues. THE COURT: Let me deal with that, okay. I can do that. I am not asking you to take over what I am tasked to do, okay? Excuse me a moment. Let me finish so that I ask a poignant question. In going through the motion, both last Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00788272

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 time and with you today, as you proceeded through some of these areas of inquiry, I really don't know -- and perhaps its context is sometimes a problem when you try to extract these things instead of having a whole transcript in front of me. It's difficult sometimes to get the full flavor of exactly what's being talked about. But irrespective of the difficulties that I have -- because I do these all the time. In other words, I get excerpts most of the time when I ask for the whole transcript so that I can put it into context. What is it here that is relevant to the claim that we are dealing with here from the standpoint of Mr. Edwards' claim against Mr. Epstein for malicious prosecution? For example, these issues about -- where I have already ruled and they're not going to be overruled, the attorney-client privilege. Questions like, Why did EW come? Why did she hire you in the first place? What was the purpose? I don't see how that is involved with anything of any significance Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00788273

163 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 as it relates to the malicious prosecution. MS. HADDAD COLEMAN: Judge, I would agree with you 100 percent. The problem we have and the issue with which we're faced and the reason we're asking these questions of Mr. Edwards is because he has listed them as witnesses in this case. Number one, we're deposing them soon. Number two, the exhibit list, if the Court has not yet looked at it -- again, I would hope that you would rule to keep it all out, because I agree it's irrelevant. However, if Mr. Edwards is going to be permitted, he can't pick and choose what parts of the privilege he's willing to waive. If he wants to list these girls for whom he was prosecuting cases as witnesses, when he, A, probably should have received their permission to waive the privilege before he listed them as witnesses, or B, made sure he wasn't not knowing where their file boxes were for a month while Rothstein was using them to further a Ponzi scheme -- either way, we did not make the them an Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00788274

164 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 issue. Mr. Edwards is. We are now defending. If the Court is saying that these testimony from these women is not going to come in, or that Mr. Edwards cannot use discovery or documentation from the underlying civil suits or attempts at criminal prosecution of Mr. Epstein in this case, then I would agree with you none of that is inquiry that's appropriate. However, based on the information we have in litigating since 2009, it appears to me, as the person defending this case, that Mr. Edwards is determined to try this as a criminal case against Mr. Epstein using these allegations purportedly by these women as his basis. What we would like to see happen and the evidence I would like to get from Mr. Edwards at this time is evidence of what was going on at RRA during the time he was prosecuting these cases. Judge, our undisputed facts solely deal with what went on at RRA and what Mr. Epstein knew at that time, and those are Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00788275

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 the questions we are asking. THE COURT: I don't have a whole lot of -- I don't have a problem with you, as I said before, getting into those areas of inquiry where I think at least they can be vetted, the federal case mirroring the state case. Why Mr. Edwards did what he did is probably going to be met with objection. Whether or not that case was filed, whether or not Mr. Epstein was served -- and I don't know what the ruling is going to be if there is an objection. Perhaps there is not going to be an objection. Certainly, however, assuming we get to the point that this is all going to go in front of a jury, and Mr. Epstein is going take a position that a reason for him bringing the case that he did was because of his perception as to why the federal court case was brought but never served that met with an order of Judge Marra, as I understand, of dismissal, Mr. Edwards may need to explain that. But that's not before me here. What's Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00788276

166 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 before me in pertinent part is this. A line of questioning regarding why was he hired by people name EW and LM. Clearly, attorney-client privilege and it maintains throughout, so, including now. Questions then regarding conversations between Mr. Edwards and the U.S. attorney -- or assistant U.S. attorney, Ms. Villafana, V-I-L-L-A-F-A-N-A, for the record -- we next get into a short discussion of -- I don't know what that's supposed to be. I guess that has something to do with Mr. Adler, but I don't understand the context. Then we get into an issue regarding TV stations and why he didn't want his clients to do interviews with TV stations. Again, I don't see any relevance to this malicious prosecution claim. The next is with this woman Maxwell, and what the connection was between Jane Doe and LM, if any, with Maxwell. MR. SCAROLA: May I address something so Your Honor has the factual background? Ms. Maxwell is alleged, through sworn testimony of multiple witnesses, to have Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00788277

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 been Mr. Epstein's principal procurer of child victims. She would go out and prospect for those victims for Mr. Epstein, and is one of those individuals whom Mr. Epstein somehow managed to obtain federal immunity for in the negotiation of his non-prosecution agreement. So that's -- from a factual standpoint, that's Ms. Maxwell's fitting into this picture. The other individual that Your Honor asked about was Mr. Rodriguez, who was described as a housekeeper. I think he was more accurately -- could be more accurately described as a houseman or butler. THE COURT: At the Epstein home in Palm Beach. MR. SCAROLA: At the Epstein home. He was an eyewitness to comings and goings of many young females over the course of an extended period of time, and also identified other guests going in and out of the Epstein Palm Beach mansion during the same period of time. At one point in time Mr. Rodriguez Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00788278

168 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 offered for sale a telephone directory that belonged to Mr. Epstein and included the names and contact information for a number of the young female victims as well as others with whom Mr. Epstein was associating. And Mr. Rodriguez was ultimately criminally prosecuted for the efforts to sell that evidence. But the evidence was ultimately obtained and became part of the probable cause for the criminal prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein, and for the civil prosecution of claims against him as well. So those are the two individuals that Your Honor requested some background information about. That's the background information. Kendall Coffey Kendall Coffey was an individual outside the Rothstein, Rosenfeldt, Adler firm who was considered to be an ethics expert, who was consulted about how to respond to Mr. Rodriguez's effort to sell these materials. THE COURT: He was a former U.S. attorney, correct, in the southern district? Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00788279

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 MR. SCAROLA: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: So that's a long time ago. MR. SCAROLA: It is quite sometime ago. But you and I are both of the age where we remember that. THE COURT: Obviously, he was outside his official capacity. MR. SCAROLA: Yes. THE COURT: Special appointment or otherwise, he was an attorney at the time? MR. SCAROLA: Correct. MR. GOLDBERGER: Your Honor, I just need to clarify a couple of points that Mr. Scarola incorrectly made. THE COURT: Sure. MR. GOLDBERGER: I had a significant part in the non-prosecution agreement of Mr. Epstein, and Ms. Maxwell was never granted immunity and was not part of that non-prosecution agreement. That statement that Mr. Scarola made was certainly not true. There's no mention of Ms. Maxwell in the non-prosecution agreement in any way, shape or form, nor was she granted immunity. As to Mr. Rodriquez, Mr. Rodriquez was Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00788280

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 either the houseman or the butler. But whatever information that he stole from the Epstein home had nothing to do with the prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein and was not part or any state prosecution. So those are absolutely inaccurate statements. I don't know if they matter to the Court in the issues you need to deal with today, but I needed to make sure the record is clear. THE COURT: That's fine. You can state for the record anything that you disagree with. I certainly I appreciate that. Then we get into the first question. It says -- now I'm on page seven -- quote, "In this particular instance associated with Mr. Epstein, what investigators worked on Mr. Epstein's case during the time you were at RRA?" Mr. Edwards responded to the question. And then immediately thereafter -- or least within a few lines -- it went directly to a gentleman by the name of Mr. Fisten, who, as I recall through the documents, was one of the investigators along with Ken Jenne and Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00788281

171 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 someone else that I can't recall the name at the RRA firm during the pendency of most of the matters that we are dealing with today. Then they go on to talk about things, again, that have -- at least from my vantage point -- relative and marginal, if any, relevance to what we are dealing with in this particular case. MR. BREWER: Your honor, if I might. THE COURT: Yes, sir. MR. BREWER: I rise because I just want to remind the Court the argument that you heard this morning that Mr. Epstein, because he is such a bad person, knew that everything that Brad Edwards did was justified, and he knew that everything that Brad was saying was true. And then we have the allegation coming on top of that that Mr. Edwards says everything that I did was proper and ethical. And they want to then get into a number of matters -- or got into a number of matters saying when we get to the element of malice -- when we get to malice -- this was said this morning these are important because it shows that Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00788282

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 Jeffrey Epstein had malice in his heart when he filed this lawsuit. Mr. Edwards should not be allowed at this point to say everything that I did was right, and then there be no inquiry into what he actually did and why he did it. THE COURT: What I have said throughout this afternoon's process is that I'm more than willing to at least broach the subject of having Mr. Edwards -- to the degree that it would be permissible -- account for certain issues that have been legitimately raised. That's why I repeated twice at least two things that have been brought to my attention through the pleadings and through the arguments of this federal court case and the factoring issues that are involved. The problem is none of that that I have gone through thus far really gets into either of those issues, and again, gets into matters of attorney-client privilege, which has already been discussed, and which Ms. Haddad Coleman also discussed, and, I think, candidly suggested were not subject Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00788283

173 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 to further inquiry. Then we get into who performed investigations on the Epstein files. MR. BREWER: Is Your Honor aware that the allegations with regard to the -- going through Mr. Epstein's trash to pull out particularly incriminating objects, that apparently did transpire on the part of these investigators? THE COURT: Okay. MR. BREWER: And I think it's actually covered in Rothstein's deposition -- somebody's deposition I read -- where they were talking about we have got other people that are on the line because we go through people's trash. THE COURT: And that's a police matter. If someone goes through someone's trash and is not authorized to do so -- I don't even think that you need a warrant any longer to go through people's trash, so I don't know if it's a crime or not a crime. But the point I'm making again is it's the same thing that Ms. Haddad Coleman raised. It only fuels the fire from my Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00788284

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 objective standpoint on those questions toward why Mr. Epstein brought this case against Edwards at all in the first place, meaning, it could be reasonably inferred that he was upset that these people were, among other things, going through his trash and finding whatever objects that they may have found. That may have spurred, arguably, him to have brought this case. So again, I don't really see what the nature or the issues are that benefits Mr. Epstein's inquiry to these things that make any sense to me at all. MR. BREWER: It seems to me, Your Honor, if there was impropriety on Mr. Edwards' part, i.e., we don't know to this day whether he really knew what was going on within the Rothstein firm while he was there, we don't know that. It's arguable that he should have -- I have been practicing law for 39 years. And you have 13 boxes on the three main cases that you are prosecuting that go and stay outside your office in somebody else's office for whatever period of time -- we Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00788285

175 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 have heard three weeks. We have days. Whatever. You know something is going on. You may not know exactly what's going on, but you know. And it seems like if we are going to be faced with this argument that everything that he did while he was at the Rothstein firm was ethical, proper and in his ethical duty or fiduciary duty to protect or to go forward with the claim of his clients, there should be some inquiry allowed as to what he did. We know a lot of what he did. But then go back behind that and also say, Why did you do it? THE COURT: I will need some cases, because I continue to have some concern about whether or not his explanation for why, for example, he filed that federal case, whether or not that's even discoverable and that's not privileged. I don't know one way or the other right now. But, you know, again, if those were the questions that were asked, we can at least sink our teeth into the issues. I don't know who took this deposition, Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00788286

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 and I am not here to criticize it. They may well have had reasons for asking questions in 2010 and 2013, respectively, that are no longer of any moment today. So I am not being critical. And I am sure there are good reasons to find out whether or not Mr. Edwards spoke to Mr. Rodriguez, or what Mr. Edwards' contact was, again, now with Ms. Villafana or the FBI agent. The joint prosecution agreement, I presume that it must have been important at that time. I don't see it as really important now, other than potentially as evidence to be used by Edwards. MR. BREWER: If he's going to use that as evidence, we should be able to inquire with regard to that evidence and do the discovery as to that point. THE COURT: Well, if that's what's going to be done, then that can be -- that may be a point -- I don't know if Mr. Scarola will ever get into that questioning with his own client or is claiming that that's in any way, shape or form part of his claim. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00788287

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 MR. BREWER: Your Honor, they pled it. THE COURT: Sorry? MR. BREWER: They pled it. THE COURT: They pled what? MR. BREWER: They pled everything that Mr. Edwards did was proper, ethical, and that it was in furtherance of the claims of his client to further their claims. That's what they are claiming. We should be allowed on the specific actions that he took in furtherance of his clients' claims to inquire whether those actions were in fact in furtherance of his client's claims or not, or was there some other motive that was involved in taking those actions. And you've pinpointed a couple of them. They're pretty highly suspicious. THE COURT: I'm not suggesting suspicious. MR. BREWER: I'm suggesting suspicion. I'm saying to you, you have pointed them out. THE COURT: Well, the only thing I'm saying is I'm trying to come up with something in terms of when looking at the Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00788288

178 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 broad nature of discovery allowed in Florida -- as dictated by our appellate courts, including the supreme court -- of the broad nature distinction from I'm looking of allowable discovery and what may be admissible. at two points that have been made over the written documents and the arguments that have been made that could at least conceivably provide some fodder for cross-examining or examining Mr. Edwards. The problem, as I said, is there's very little of that that really went into these particular issues. Now, on page 13 there are questions concerning a meeting that he had with Mr. Rothstein -- or in Mr. Rothstein's office with Russell Adler. I apologize, but it's the way it was written and the way it was transcribed that was confusing. The question is -- verbatim -- quote, The one meeting that you had in Mr. Rothstein's office with Russell Adler and some unknown person on the phone, were you given any direction at that time that certain discovery should be done or certain Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00788289

179 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 tactics should used with regard to prosecuting the Epstein cases?" I believe that that's a question that can be asked. Now, the question that follows up now again, it may not be specifically followed up -- because there's no three dots to separate it -- but the pages appear to be different, one page later. The next question, What did -- What information did Mr. Rothstein send you that involved Mr. Epstein? And he was also -- there's also the same objection, same instruction. Mr. Scarola, what's your position on that question? MR. SCAROLA: Anything that went on within that firm in the absence of evidence that would demonstrate that the attorney-client privilege is not applicable because of crime-fraud exception -- THE COURT: This wouldn't be attorney-client privilege. This would be work product. MR. SCAROLA: Or the work-product Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00788290

180 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 privilege was not applicable because of a crime-fraud exception. THE COURT: What about Rothstein's continued admissions in the deposition that I read of his purpose -- essentially sole purpose -- was to engage in this Ponzi scheme; clearly was the head of this Ponzi scheme; clearly was the one who was manipulating these files by his own admission in order to profit by way of obfuscating the true nature of these files and inflating them creating a multi-million dollar -- tens of millions of dollars in some type of a false, fraudulent endeavor? The question reads what information did Rothstein send you that involved Epstein? I'm hard-pressed to believe that Rothstein in the admitted capacity that he testified -- he was not working on the Epstein case. He was not contributing to prosecution of the claims. He was essentially, by his own admission, manipulating these files as to gain his own pecuniary interest and to line his own pockets as a result of selling shares of Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00788291

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 these cases to unwitting individuals, or maybe those who may have had their wits about them. I don't know. But why wouldn't the crime-fraud exception be appropriate and applicable here as it relates to anything that Rothstein may have said to Mr. Edwards? And again, he may not have said a thing. I don't know. But if there was anything said by Rothstein in the capacity that Rothstein held is essentially an admitted criminal at all times material to this analysis -- MR. SCAROLA: Nothing essential about it. THE COURT: Admitted criminal. Thank you, sir. I appreciate that. Why would anything under the guise of work product privilege be in any way affiliated with Mr. Rothstein, and why would it not at least be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery admissible evidence as it pertains to Epstein's claims originally against Rothstein, Edwards, and to some degree, LM, to establish some indicia of probable cause? Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00788292

182 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. SCAROLA: If this were Mr. Rothstein standing before the court attempting to assert any privilege that is excepted to by crime-fraud activity, the answer would be there is no privilege. Crime-fraud exception applies. This is not Mr. Rothstein. This is Mr. Edwards. There is no evidence that Mr. Edwards participated in any crime or fraud. THE COURT: And I'm not suggesting he did. I want to make that clear. But what I am saying is it's not what Mr. Edwards said to Rothstein that's being questioned. It's what Rothstein said to Edwards, if anything. Again, I'm not suggesting he had anything to say. MR. SCAROLA: Quite frankly, I think the answer is nothing, but I don't know that either, as I stand here. THE COURT: Fair enough. And I appreciate that. I'm not suggesting there was anything said, and I don't want that to be a matter of record. My point is that a good faith Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00788293

183 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 work-product privilege protects the mental impressions of counsel and those whom he is working with in what I perceive to be, at least parenthetically, the legitimate prosecution or defense of a given case. MR. SCAROLA: We agree. THE COURT: And if Rothstein was engaged in discussions with Mr. Edwards, from the standpoint of what Rothstein said to Edwards, in conjunction with the testimony of Rothstein relative to his clearcut, unadulterated, admission that he was at the pinnacle of this Ponzi scheme that directly involved cases that he was handling -- strike that -- cases that were in his firm. And again, anecdotally we know of this inner sanctum. We know of this difficult-to-breach security system than he had that protected him, and I believe it was one secretary. We know of his unwillingness to share anything; that there was, by his testimony -- Rothstein, and by others a legitimate side to the business. But what Rothstein was perpetrating Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00788294

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 here -- again, all times material to this analysis, including the time that we are talking about relative to the LM case -- was nothing more than a complete and entire fraud, and criminal activity unabated. I wonder why anything that Rothstein may have said -- so as to go back to the defense of the issue -- the element and also the defense to probable cause would not, at least at this point, reasonably be calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. MR. SCAROLA: Let me approach it from this perspective. THE COURT: We will take a break momentarily. MR. SCAROLA: First, I acknowledge that I don't know whether Rothstein said anything to Brad Edwards that would be of any relevance to anything under any circumstances. But, the issue before this Court in this case is whether Mr. Epstein had probable cause to believe that Brad Edwards was somehow a participant in the Ponzi scheme. Did he have reason to believe Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00788295

185 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that, even if mistaken belief. I'm sure Your Honor saw on the materials that were submitted to the Court that that question was directly posed to Mr. Epstein. What evidence do you have that Brad Edwards was a knowing participant in the Ponzi scheme? To which Mr. Epstein's response was, I refuse to answer on the grounds that it may tend to incriminate me. He refuses to give any evidence with regard to that matter, so how can he -- and we are getting into an area that I know the Court didn't want to deal with today, but it is directly relevant to the inquiry Your Honor is making. How can he attempt to suggest that he had a good faith reliance upon something that Rothstein said to Epstein in the privacy of this tightly -- that Rothstein said to Edwards in the protection of this highly guarded office? How could he possibly say that I relied upon that statement, that he couldn't have known about, that he didn't know about, and that he refuses to answer any questions about? Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00788296

186 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: How does that differ, though, from a simple automobile accident case and the allegation of defense of a pre-existing condition, and that the subject accident not cause or approximately cause the current condition complained of by the plaintiff? Now, the defendant doesn't know all of the information at the time the lawsuit is brought to reasonably consider that -- let's say a 75-year-old person who is claiming neck and back injuries, and it's a preoperative procedure, no operation, no surgeries, they are entitled to know, though, all of background concerning this person's medical history, and at least as it relates to the neck and back; and any prior accidents; any prior injuries; any prior doctor visits; anything of that nature that would come into the fold. The allegations for the facts being stated, they are just that. They are allegations. Now the table has turned, because now it's Mr. Edwards bringing the claim against Mr. Epstein. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00788297

187 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 But I agree that most of the inquiry has to begin when Mr. Epstein brought the suite against Edwards, et al. But at the same time, I don't think that he is necessarily and completely and entirely harnessed to that particular snapshot of information. And you can argue that to the jury. I have no problem with that. But in order to bolster his defenses to the malicious prosecution claim and to show that he had probable cause, I don't see that he should be completely and entirely restricted from engaging in substantive discovery to support whatever those allegations may be. So let's leave it at that. MR. SCAROLA: May I make one further comment in that regard, Your Honor? THE COURT: At the risk of making our court reporter mad, yes, sir. MR. SCAROLA: She is an extraordinarily tolerant young woman who I know will give me the benefit of just a moment's comment on that. THE COURT: Go right ahead. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00788298

188 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. SCAROLA: There is a real concern that the testimony could be tailored to meet the discovery that is now attempting to be obtained. So while the Court -- and I will acknowledge appropriately -- considers that some wide latitude should be granted with regard to discovery, I respectfully suggest that Mr. Epstein should be obliged, if he intends to waive his Fifth Amendment Rights, to answer those questions first and not get the information and then be able to say, Oh, Yeah, I knew about that. That was part of the probable cause I relied upon when we asked him directly in discovery that precedes all of this, What did you know? When did you know it? And his response is, I refuse to answer on the basis of Fifth Amendment privilege. So if Your Honor is considering opening the door to these questions -- and quite frankly, we spent more time arguing over something that may not even exist than that it's worth -- but if Your Honor is considering compelling us to respond to Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00788299

189 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 those questions, deal with the Fifth Amendment issues first so that we get Mr. Epstein on the record as to what he knew before we feed him what he would like to have known. THE COURT: Good point. Thank you. We will back on about 20 after 3, please. (A recess was had 3:10 p.m. - 3:20 p.m.) MR. GOLDBERGER: I need to raise a very last issue that just came up. You know, I may practice on the other side of the elevator most often, but what I just heard just amazed me. Mr. Scarola gets up here and says, depending on how the Court rules, I want Mr. Epstein to testify first if he's going to waive his Fifth Amendment privileges because he, quote, may tailor his testimony. Translated, he's suggesting that Mr. Epstein is somehow going to perjure himself. THE COURT: I don't think he's saying that. I think what he's saying is, if Mr. Epstein is not compelled to testify first, he may try to prove his case through the discovery provided by others. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00788300

190 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 And there is a line of case law that guards against that proposition. In other words, the general theory. I am not quoting. It's my recollection, essentially, that discovery cannot be principally had so as to find out information that you didn't already know from the other side and build your case accordingly. MR. GOLDBERGER: I understand that. Mr. Epstein has clearly stated his grounds for bringing the lawsuit. It's a five-page affidavit that he filed in conjunction with his motion for summary judgment that sets forth what he was thinking and why he filed the lawsuit. THE COURT: I understand. After a while you kind of used to -- you get used to rhetoric. You get used to people posturing. Good lawyers often do their best to shed things or to state things in a light more favorable to their client, but I didn't take it that way. MR. GOLDBERGER: Okay. That's good. THE COURT: The way I took it was the fruits of Edwards' discovery should not be Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00788301

191 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 groundwork of Mr. Epstein's claims. MR. GOLDBERGER: I agree with that. I just don't want there to be any suggestion on this record whatsoever that Mr. Epstein in any way would perjure his testimony. THE COURT: I didn't take it that way, and I didn't take it as suggested by Mr. Scarola in that fashion as well. MR. GOLDBERGER: Thank you. THE COURT: You're welcome. Now why don't we go ahead and -- let me hear from Ms. Haddad, because what I would like to know is -- I think the best way to handle this is to not so much focus on what was asked at a deposition, again, where I indicated that the timing of same, the dates of same would have been different than what may be now is really the core issues that need to be discovered. So why don't you present to me, if you can, what you believe the areas of inquiry will be, and let's see where we can forge and at least attempt to enter into some common ground, if possible. MS. HADDAD COLEMAN: Judge, I don't Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00788302

192 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 know that I'm fully prepared to go into great detail about that, because, again, it wasn't part of what I was anticipating for today. But I would say that the two broad areas about which deposition testimony should be compelled for Mr. Edwards would be, number one, the undisputed facts that we laid out in our motion for summary judgment because they are the facts that Mr. Epstein has stated twice under oath in his affidavit and in deposition testimony -- which, again, we will provide to the Court, contrary to Mr. Scarola's assertions -- that are the facts upon which he relied at the time he filed suit. Directly in response to that, Mr. Edwards has repeatedly asserted, I did everything right. I didn't do anything wrong and Mr. Epstein knows it. Great. Then tell us what you did that was right. Tell us why we were wrong. And again, Judge, it's what Mr. Epstein knew at the time. And Mr. Epstein has clearly and unequivocally not hidden the ball. He has laid out what he knew at the Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00788303

193 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 time. And it's all a matter of public record. Conversely, Mr. Edwards is hiding behind every privilege he can think of to not answer questions about his dealings when he was a partner at RRA. And one of the issues -- the Court did point out two that are correct. But one of the third issues that probably should have stood out to the court -- if I had more time -- I would have prepared it for you -- is at the time in question, about a month before RRA imploded, Brad Edwards filed a motion before Judge Marra in the, I believe, Jane Doe case versus Epstein, asking that Mr. Epstein post a $14 million bond. No reason for this. There was no pleading. No responsive motion to which this would have been warranted in any way, shape or form. This motion delineated in great detail all of Mr. Epstein's net worth: airplanes, bank accounts, businesses, homes, things of that nature. And Judge Marra wrote an order basically striking it down, calling it frivolous. That was another motion that was Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00788304

194 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 filed Mr. Edwards on behalf RRA, again, during the time when the boxes were in Mr. Rothstein's layer and during the time when he signed the document, he was the partner in charge of these cases. So if the Court is going to list for us issues about which we're allowed to depose Mr. Edwards about actions he took, I think everything we raised in our motion for summary judgment -- he hasn't answered any of those questions yet, Judge. So anything germane to our undisputed facts, the facts that Mr. Epstein has already said he was relying on at that time. And if Mr. Edwards defense is, I did everything right, I wasn't involved. I did nothing wrong, and Epstein know it, then Edwards should be held accountable to answer those questions. The second area, Judge, is about his damages. This isn't a case where, yes, he has to plead in excess of $15,000. I understand that. Damages are an actual element of this case. He has to prove he was damaged. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00788305

195 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 they've been repeatedly saying since I've been sitting here, we're not sure what Epstein's damages were. I heard Mr. Scarola say Mr. Epstein wasn't a victim of the Ponzi scheme. But he was. The amount of attorney's fees he incurred by the abuse of process that occurred while these cases were prosecuted by RRA is tremendous, in addition to the other issues that were raised in federal court and in state court, pursuant to which he was called to defend these actions or put out fires. THE COURT: Just so the record is clear, I was talking about what damages he may have sustained as a result of Rothstein factoring these cases. That was my question. MS. HADDAD COLEMAN: And, Judge, our position all along has been the abuse of process committed by RRA, Mr. Rothstein, and possibly Mr. Edwards, that we believe at the time that he was involved did cause him damages, the factoring -- engaged in excessive discovery; putting out fires; Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00788306

196 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 subpoenas; things of that nature. So we do feel that Mr. Edwards -- because he's claiming damages and is seeking punitive damages and is not willing to accept stipulation of net worth from Mr. Epstein -- he clearly believes that he has some serious, serious damages in this case. So we feel that he should be required to answer discovery questions related to his financial damages and otherwise his mental -- I forget what he claimed them to be -- but they're all kind of delineated in our motion, Judge. So I think those are the two areas about which he should be, at a minium, required to answer deposition testimony. THE COURT: Okay, well, a couple things. I appreciate again, both sides' positions here. I have been trying to scan through these interrogatories and the answers that have been provided, and I think, like in any other case where damages are being sought, they have to be proven, and any future damages be proven with reasonable certainty, and the past damages Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00788307

197 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 has to be proven as well. Let's look at the questions. Let's scroll down a little bit and see if we might be able to find a reasonable median so as to get this moving. MS. HADDAD COLEMAN: I'm sorry, Your Honor, what you are looking at. THE COURT: I'm looking at the unverified responses that were filed recently. MR. SCAROLA: As to which there's no motion pending presently, Your Honor. THE COURT: Well, what I was going to say is, we can do this by 8:45 or we can do this now. It was recently filed. I understand there may not be motion pending as far as these are concerned. I would like to get them done, because I am going to order that Mr. Edwards be redeposed. I am going to order that he may be questioned as it relates to the broad probable cause areas of inquiry that I have earlier dealt with. And I'm also going to order that he testify and be examined regarding the Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00788308

198 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 damages that he allegedly sustained as a result of the malicious prosecution claim. So he would be required to be forthcoming. I thought that we may be able to save a little time if we go through these interrogatories and determine what may be appropriate and what may not be appropriate, because there may be areas that I believe are far too private and of that nature, so that I could save you the trouble of having to come back. But if there's a due process issue of notice, then I have no problem with waiting for another day. MR. SCAROLA: Your Honor, I am pleased to try to proceed as far as we can with the understanding that I haven't even had an opportunity to consult with my client about any motion to compel, because there is no motion to compel. But I agree we've got some time available. I would prefer not to waste that time. I would strongly prefer that we can resolve whatever issues need to be resolved, so that if there's further discovery to be Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00788309

199 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 taken, it can be taken without delaying the trial. So let me see what I can do to try to address some of the issues that Your Honor has identified. You have said that Mr. Edwards is to be deposed with regard to the broad probable cause he had for the filing of his claims. And I assume you are referencing the lawsuits that he filed against Jeffrey Epstein on behalf of his clients; is that correct? THE COURT: What I'm talking about right now are the areas that have been identified. The filing of the federal suit that mirrored the state claim, the LM claim. The issues regarding what if any knowledge he may have had concerning the crimes committed by Mr. Rothstein and others, which I believe -- and I don't want to disparage anyone's name, but I believe Mr. Adler and the second name of Rothstein firm -- MS. HADDAD COLEMAN: Rosenthal (sic). THE COURT: -- Rosenthal were also prosecuted successfully, if I'm not mistaken, correct? Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00788310

200 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 MS. HADDAD COLEMAN: Judge, I know Mr. Adler was prosecuted for a campaign fund issue, not for anything, I believe, directly related to the Ponzi scheme. Stuart Rosenfeldt -- THE COURT: Rosenfeldt. MS. HADDAD COLEMAN: -- I'm not sure the indictment for which he was prosecuted. THE COURT: Like I said, I don't want to say anything that is incorrect. But certainly as relates to this factoring issue and its relationship to the cases that were being prosecuted by Edwards at the time of those meetings that I discussed earlier with the New York investors and the attempt, allegedly, that involves Mr. Adler and Mr. Rothstein to manipulate those files, any knowledge he may have had in that regard, I believe that those areas are available for inquiry. MR. SCAROLA: May I ask one question to the Court? THE COURT: Sure. MR. SCAROLA: Any knowledge that Brad Edwards had regarding any impropriety that Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00788311

201 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 was going on within Rothstein, Rosenfeldt & Adler relating to any Ponzi scheme, those are areas that were the subjects of earlier deposition testimony. And also testimony of Mr. Edwards' affidavit. I have no problem in repeating answers that were already given to questions that were already asked, but I just want to point out the fact that those were areas as to which there was no objection. Mr. Edwards has testified clearly and unequivocally he knew nothing about any Ponzi scheme, he had no participation in any Ponzi scheme, he had no idea about any misuse of any of his files. THE COURT: Again, I don't want to suggest that that's my concern. What I am trying to accomplish by virtue of allowing the inquiry to these areas that I have mentioned is to allow Mr. Epstein to be able to defend himself as it relates to the element primarily proximate cause and malice, for that matter, as well. So both of those areas of inquiry have to be proven by the plaintiff now -- now Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00788312

202 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 plaintiff, formerly counter-plaintiff, but formerly defendant counter-plaintiff Edwards. They have to be proven. But at the same time, as I indicated earlier on a rather basic example an analogy that I used in BI context, Epstein has a right to discover those matters to fortify to some degree his allegations and to fortify his belief that these claims were taken at the time they were filed. Now, those areas, I'm going to allow. The other area is then damages. Now, as you've indicated and I appreciate your willingness to cooperate to the best of your ability without your clients being here and providing input. For the record, I am not trying to -- MR. BREWER: Excuse me, Your Honor. I hate to interrupt. I apologize. But we also were concerned with regards to the filing of that motion to present a bond or to -- $15 million bond. THE COURT: The $14 million bond issue, I don't have a problem with that either. You can get into that. That has to do with Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00788313

203 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the federal case, as I recollect. Again, I am providing that broad scope of inquiry on that federal issue that ultimately led to Judge Marra dismissing that case that was not served on Mr. Epstein. MR. SCAROLA: May I try to get a little bit specific in that regard so that we avoid having to come back before Your Honor? I would anticipate asking questions, such as, What was your motivation in the filing of the federal lawsuit? What was the tactic that you were seeking to pursue in the filing of that claim? I would and will, for the record, raise an objection that that is a direct inquiry into the mental processes of Mr. Edwards. And I would like to know in advance whether knowing that that's the objection that will be raised, Your Honor is overruling the objection. THE COURT: I not overruling the objection. But I think the question can be crafted in another way. For example, I likely will allow a Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00788314

204 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 question such as, Can you point to any material difference between the case that was brought in state court versus the case that you brought in federal court? MR. SCAROLA: Again, what that question asks for is Mr. Edwards' legal analysis of the contents of those two claims. And again, I would object to that on the basis that that is attorney-work product. What one case says and what the other case says is apparent on the face of the claims, and Mr. Edwards ought not be obliged to provide his legal opinions, which are protected -- clearly protected mental impressions of a lawyer and are work product. So again, I'm trying -- I don't want to be back here raising objections that Your Honor has already considered and overruled that's the objection I would raise to the question Your Honor is proffering. THE COURT: Right. And what I'm saying is, right now I'm not going to rule on something that's not before me. I would need to see the context, as I said earlier, Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00788315

205 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 of the deposition in totality. I would need to hear the other side's position as to the objections, and to determine then whether or not I believe that it would be appropriately objectionable. MR. SCAROLA: I understand that. The problem I face is I didn't want to raise objections that Your Honor already overruled. I now understand Your Honor is not overruling those objections. You want to hear them in the context of the question as phrased. THE COURT: Correct. And that's what I said earlier today, that while I recognize objections may be raised, I am going to allow at least the area of inquiry to be delved into. And if there's objections then I will deal with them. But again, it's with the understanding that the goose-versus-gander-type approach, and that is that in order deal with these issues head-on, there may be the necessity to rule on these cases -- rule on these matters that would not necessarily comport with the traditional attorney-client, Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00788316

206 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 work-product privileges that we would otherwise deal with. Take away attorney-client privilege. That's really not what I intended to say. What I intended to say is this is not the traditional work-product privilege, clearly. This is a different type of situation and a different type of analysis when we're now getting into issues of malicious prosecution. Because, again, if a factor in Epstein bringing the case against Edwards at all was what transpired in this federal lawsuit, then the objections that Mr. Edwards may make may not be beneficial to his position. In other words, he's going to have to make that strategic decision as to whether or not these objections are sufficient to be able to express his position. In other words, whether it's worth making these objections in order to be able to fully engage and discuss and explain what he may or may not have done. MR. SCAROLA: We recognize we have the same sword/shield problem that, at least at Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00788317

207 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 some stages of this litigation, confront Mr. Epstein. I understand those comments and appreciate them. I would only point out that to the extent that claims are made in this litigation about the abuse of process count or in the other claims about, quote, improper litigation tactics, those claims fail as a matter of law. The litigation privilege, as Your Honor is well aware, is a complete and absolute bar to an abuse of process claim. And it is a complete and absolute bar to any claim that relates to what occurred in the course of litigation as opposed to the filing of the litigation itself. And I suggest that that's going to be a very important distinction when Your Honor comes to ruling upon whether these lines of inquiry are relevant at all. Does it make any difference what Bradley Edwards' motive was, what his subjective thought processes were in filing a motion in the context of a pending case to require the posting of a bond if requiring the posting of a bond Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00788318