781.pdf

NOT A CERTIFIED COPY JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff, vs. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually. Defendants. ------------- I Electronically Filed 11/12/2013 10:05:28 AM ET IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG JUDGE: CROW PLAINTIFF JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE TO BRADLEY EDW ARDS'S "MOTION" TO DETERMINE STATUS OF PUNITIVE DAMAGE DISCOVERY Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"), by and through his undersigned counsel and pursuant to Rule 1.530 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby files this written response to Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Bradley Edwards's ('"Edwards") "Motion"' to Determine Status of Punitive Damages Discovery, and states: On February 22, 2013, Epstein filed his responses to Edwards's Net Worth Interrogatories and Request for Production. On February 25, 2013, Edwards filed a Motion to Strike Untimely Objections to Financial Discovery. In that Motion, Edwards moved to strike all objections and privileges raised by Epstein except bis Constitutional Privilege against Self Incrimination. On March 11, 2013, this Court entered its Order on Edwards's Motion in which it overruled all objections other than privilege. In that Order, this Court explicitly, and correctly, ruled that Epstein shall not file a privilege log as to any documents he contends are Constitutionally Privileged. Edwards did not, and has not, challenged that portion of this Court's Order. Subsequently, the Court entered an Order on May 17, 2013, in which it compelled Epstein to create a privilege log as to all items/answers for which he asserted privileges. In 1 This "Motion" is set on the Court's UMC for November 14, 2013, but as of this date no Motion has been filed. 1 NOT A CERTIFIED COPY response thereto, Epstein filed a Motion for Clarification/Reconsideration as to this Order, which this Court denied on June 17, 2013, but in so doing specifically avowed that Because the Counter-Plaintiff has expressly limited his own objections to the Counter-Defendant's assertion of non-constitutional claims of privilege, this Court will not rule on the Counter-Defendant's assertion of Fifth Amendment privilege even though many of the requested documents appear to belong to corporations which do not possess Fifth Amendment rights. Accordingly, it is here by ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the Counter-Defendant's Motion for Clarification/Reconsideration of this Court's Order Dated May 17, 2013 is DENIED. This Court will proceed with the in camera review, as previously delineated under the Second Discovery Order, and will rule upon all of the Counter-Defendant's asserted non-constitutional claims of privileges, both for interrogatories and document production, after the in camera review is complete. Order dated June 17, 2013 (emphasis added). A true and correct copy of this Order is attached hereto as "Exhibit A." After receipt of the June 17, 2013 Order, on July 9, 2013, Epstein filed Amended Responses to Edwards's Net Worth Interrogatories and Request for Production, in which he deleted all non-constitutional privilege assertions and only asserted his Fifth Amendment Privilege against Self-Incrimination; the only one to which Edwards did not object and for which Epstein was not required by this Court's Order to produce anything for an in camera inspection. True and correct copies of the Amended Responses are attached hereto as composite "'Exhibit B." Finally, on September 16, 2013, while the parties were present on another issue, this Court inquired as to whether or not there was any outstanding issue regarding this discovery, and the following transpired: MS. COLEMAN: No, your order said that you 10 needed to be able to rule on the other 11 non-fifth amendment privilege which we raised. 12 Every other privilege we raised has now been 13 withdrawn and all the discovery has been 14 amended. Anywhere we asserted a privilege, we 2 NOT A CERTIFIED COPY 15 asserted the Fifth along with other privileges. 16 All the other privileges were taken out. So 17 it's only the Fifth Amendment. So there's 18 nothing to review. MS. COLEMAN: lfyou would like us to 24 do- 25 THE COURT: No, I never asked for 1 in-camera inspection if I don't need to do one. 2 I'm just asking what it is I need to do that I 3 haven't done in regards to the privilege log in 4 regard to Mr. Epstein. We're just dealing with 5 this. 6 MR. SCAROLA: I will accept Ms. Coleman's 7 representation on the record that all of the 8 discovery that has been withheld has been 9 withheld solely on the basis of the Fifth 10 Amendment privilege. MS. COLEMAN: No, Judge. The answer it's 14 all net-worth discovery. The discovery that 15 was at issue is the net-worth discovery for the 16 punitive damages. 17 THE COURT: This is probably unfair to you 18 guys. I'm asking questions because it concerns 19 me if there's something out there I'm supposed 20 to be ruling on and I might have to do that. 21 Is there something pending on me that I'm 22 supposed to rule on? 23 MR. SCAROLA: Not if the only privilege 24 that's being asserted is a Fifth Amendment 25 privilege. A true and correct copy of the transcript is attached hereto as "Exhibit C." Accordingly, all punitive damages (net worth) discovery has been completely answered by Epstein, and the only privilege asserted by Epstein was his Constitutional, Fifth Amendment Privilege, to which Edwards has not objected and upon which this Court has repeatedly stated it would not inquire. 3 NOT A CERTIFIED COPY WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served upon all parties listed below, via Electronic Service, this November 7, 2013. Isl Tonja Haddad Coleman Tonja Haddad Coleman, Esq. Fla. Bar No.: 0176737 TONJA HADDAD, PA 315 SE J1h Street Suite 301 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 954.467.1223 954.337.3716 (facsimile) Tonja@tonjahaddad.com 4 NOT A CERTIFIED COPY Electronic Service List Jack Scarola, Esq. Searcy Denney Scarola et al. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd. West Palm Beach, FL 33409 _ ScarolaTeam@searcylaw.com eservice@SearcyLaw.com Jack Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury, Goldberger, & Weiss, PA 250 Australian Ave. South Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 jgoldberger@agwpa.com Marc Nurik, Esq. 1 East Broward Blvd. Suite 700 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 marc@nuriklaw.com Bradley J. Edwards, Esq. Farmer Jaffe Weissing Edwards Fistos Lehrman 425 N Andrews Avenue Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 staff.efile@pathtojustice.com Fred Haddad, Esq. 1 Financial Plaza Suite 2612 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Dee@FredHaddadLaw.com W. Chester Brewer, Jr. One Clearlake Center Suite 1400 250 Australian A venue South West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 wcblaw@aol.com; wcbcg@aol.com 5 NOT A CERTIFIED COPY fN THE CJRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUJT lN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA JEFFREY EPSTEIN, CASE NO.: 50-2009-CA-040800-XXXX CIVIL DJVISION ·"AG" Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant. V. SCOTT ROTHSTEJN, individually, BRADLEY l EDWARDS. individually, and L.M., individually. Defendant(s) and Counter-Plaintiff{s). I ORDER DENYING COUNTER-DEFENDANrs MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION/RECONSIDERATION THIS CAUSE came before the Court on Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's (the ··countcr-Dcfcndanf') Motion for Clarification/Reconsideration of this Court's Order Dated Ma; 17. 2013, filed on May 28, 2013. This Court, having heard argument on the motion and having carefully reviewed