IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE

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 som