nd media should have access to the information and that the victims should be able to use it in their lawsuits. Krcuslcr Walsh would not comment on the Fourth District's order. But Spencer Kuvin. a lawyer for one of the victims, called the decision "frustrating." "The rules shouldn't be different for rich people tha

ble cause, but referenced only the issue of bona fide termination. Because the issue of bona fide termination was the sole tipsy coachman argument, the Fourth District's decision not to disturb this Court's evaluation of that issue does not bar Epstein, by operation of the law of the case doctrine, from presenting h

proceedings, something which this Court recognized at the May 23, 2018, hearing is properly before it in light of the new trial schedule created by the Fourth District's rulings. (5/23/18 Tr. 13:9-23.)4 Moreover, none of the general references for which Edwards would have Epstein sanctioned violated any privileges o

reliance upon the additional authority attached, and would show that the attached opinion of the Fourth District Court of Appeal further evidences the Fourth District's adherence to the universally accepted recognition that claims for malicious prosecution are an exception to the litigation privilege's absolute bar

ion [was] based continue to be the facts of the case." Juliano, 801 So.2d at 106. Therefore, the law of the case doctrine binds this Court to follow the Fourth District's holding (and therefore this Court's prior determination) on this issue. The Fourth District Court of 4 EFTA00613504 Appeal has already affirmed