n by his current counsel would, in fact, represent Link & Rockenbach's never-before-disclosed opinion work product and attorney-client privilege in the State Court Action." DE 6353 at 7. Somehow Epstein and his new lawyers argue that the attorney-client and work-product emails that were improperly obtained have now t

ducted in both this action (In re Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler, P.A., U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of Florida, Case No. 09-34791-RBR) and the State Court Action (Jeffrey Epstein v. Scott Rothstein and Bradley J. Edwards, 15th Judicial Circuit Case No. 50-2009-CA-040800XXXXMBAG), and will also address Epstein

rt's March 8, 2018, rulings, (Composite Exhibit B) Link & Rockenbach maintains in a sealed box in its offices: (1) the unredacted Appendix filed in the State Court Action; and (2) a set of the e-mail exhibits Epstein's counsel printed from the disc and identified on Epstein's March 5, 2018 Clerk's Trial Exhibit List

h the Court's March 8, 2018, rulings, (Exhibit B) Link & Rockenbach maintained in a sealed box in its offices: (I) the unredacted Appendix filed in the State Court Action; (2) Fowler White's original disc; and (3) a set of the exhibits Edwards claims should not be allowed into evidence because they were identified on

-1Vest PS Beach. FL 33401 - - EFTA00808427 exceptions require disclosure to the state court jury in December. The Honorable Donald J. Hafele in the State Court Action will make those determinations. Finally, it is illogical and absurd for the Intervenors to premise their claim of "significant emotional distress"