Ponzi Scheme was becoming urgent. Depositions taken of Scott W. Rothstein in In re: Rothstein Rosenfeld: Adler, PA; 09-34791-RBR. The court rejected Edwards's Motion, calling it "devoid of evidence." See Order in Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Dated November 5, 2009, 08-cv-80119. The connection between many of these

f the cases were to be tried together (App.19, p.266) Thus, the trial court denied Epstein's motion to remove the case from the docket and granted Edwards's Motion to sever the two cases for trial (App.18, p.184; App.19, pp.265-67). The court held that it would try Edwards v. Epstein as scheduled on March 13,

either good cause or any law in support thereof, fails to satisfy the heightened requisite showing for an order of protection, mandating denial of Edwards's Motion. Third, Edwards asserts that a protective order is warranted because the production requested "is unnecessarily intrusive into the financial privac

fifty states and the District of Columbia," which are inapposite to this matter. See Edwards's Motion for Reconsideration, p. 2. The remainder of Edwards's Motion reiterates cases that he already presented, briefed, and argued to this Court; arguments that this Court rejected. Accordingly, the Court should ne

as "government privilege," notwithstanding that it is he who is prosecuting this matter and who bears the burden of proof. As such, not only should Edwards's Motion to preclude evidence be denied, but Edwards should also be precluded from presenting any evidence or testimony for which he has asserted any privil

in fifty states and the District of Columbia," which are inapposite to this matter. See Edwards's Motion for Reconsideration, p. 2. The remainder of Edwards's Motion reiterates cases that he already presented, briefed, and argued to this Court; arguments that this Court rejected. Accordingly, the Court should no