759.pdf

NOT A CERTIFIED COPY JEFFREY EPSTEIN, PlaintifVCounter-Defendant, vs. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendants/Counter-Plaintiff, Electronically Filed 10/11/2013 04:08:28 PM ET IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBA JUDGE: DAVID CROW ----------------=' PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S OMNIBUS MOTION TO STRIKE AND FOR SANCTIONS Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"), by and through his undersigned counsel and pursuant to Paragraph IV of this Court's Order Setting Jury Trial and Directing Pretrial and Mediation Procedures and the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, moves this Court to strike Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Bradley Edwards ("Edwards") below-listed pleadings, prevent use of any of the materials or witnesses at trial, and enter an award of sanctions against him for his repetitive and flagrant disregard of the above- cited Rules and failure to comply with this Court's Order. In support thereof, Epstein states: INTRODUCTION This matter is set for Calendar Call before this Court on October 18, 2013. On April 2, 2013, this Court entered its Order Setting Jury Trial and Directing Pretrial and Mediation Procedures (hereinafter "Order" or "Exhibit A"), a true and correct copy of NOT A CERTIFIED COPY which is attached hereto as "Exhibit A." Now, on the eve of trial, Edwards is engaging in repeated and flagrant violations of this Court's Order and the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, mandating that all of the below-listed improprieties be stricken and sanctions awarded to Epstein. As demonstrated more fully below, these actions prejudice the administration of justice, thwart Epstein's ability to timely receive discovery and adequately prepare for trial, blatantly violate the Court's Order, and demonstrate Edwards's bad faith in doing so. ITEMS TO BE STRICKEN 1. Edwards's unilateral Notice of taking Deposition of Jeffrey Epstein on October 21, 2013; after the discovery cutoff date. See Order, ,ill, H. This date was unilaterally set by Edwards. Edwards was repeatedly informed by counsel for Epstein that counsel was unavailable on that date and that it was outside of the discovery cutoff. However, to date he has refused to either cancel it or offer alternative dates. It is noteworthy to mention that Epstein was already deposed twice in this matter; once in 2010 and again in 2012. As such Edwards had more than liberal time within which to properly address the issue and take appropriate measures to attempt to take Epstein's deposition again, had he chosen to do so. 2. The unilateral and untimely Service of a Notice of Taking Deposition of Adriana Mucinska Ross. Edwards unilaterally served Epstein with a Notice of Taking Deposition on October 2, 2013 for a deposition date of October 15, 2013. A true and correct copy of the Notice is attached hereto as "Exhibit B." This "witness" is not listed anywhere in either party's trial or witness exhibit list and was noticed for deposition after the discovery cutoff date. See Order, ,r II, H. After being notified both of the conflict with 2 NOT A CERTIFIED COPY the date upon which he set the deposition and the fact that this witness does appear anywhere in either party's witness list, Edwards still refuses to cancel the deposition. Further, no witness list was amended to include her. This Court's Order mandates that names and addresses of all witnesses be provided "120 DAYS PRIOR TO CALENDAR CALL" and that names and addresses of all rebuttal witnesses must be provided "60 DAYS PRIOR TO CALENDAR CALL." See Order, 11II B, C (emphasis in original). Because she is not listed on a witness list of any kind, there is irrefutably no compliance with this Court's Order. 3. The untimely filing an Expert Witness list after the deadline that contains not one name of an Expert. On September 27, 2013, over three (3) months after the deadline date provided in this Court's Order, Edwards filed an Amended Expert Witness list, which provides the following: "Experts include all listed attorneys involved in the prosecution of civil claims against Jeffrey Epstein arising out of Epstein's serial abuse of minor females." A true and correct copy of this Amended Expert Witness List is attached hereto as "Exhibit C." Not only does this Court's Order say that Experts must be disclosed "120 DAYS PRIOR TO CALENDAR CALL," see Order,, II, A (emphasis in original); but it also requires that more detailed information be provided in the Notice, as delineated in Paragraph II, C of the Order. Such information includes, but is not limited to, the subject matter about which the witness will testify, the substance of the facts and opinions to which the expert is expected to testify, a summary of the grounds for each opinion, a copy of any written reports, and a copy of the expert's curriculum vitae. See Order,, II, A. While a one sentence summation of these unnamed people's testimony was provided, none of the other information was provided. Furthermore, pursuant to Paragraph II, A, 3 NOT A CERTIFIED COPY Edwards is required to provide "names and addresses of all expert witnesses." See Order, ,r II, A. The flagrant disregard for Pretrial Procedure and this Court's Order is evident, as there is not even a proper name on the list. 4. The improper service of discovery requests to which responses will be due after the discovery cut off date. See Order, ~2, H. As detailed below, the law mandates that these items be stricken and that sanctions be entered against Edwards for his incessant and premeditated thwarting of the judicial process, his utterly disregarding this Court's Order, and ignoring the very rules of conduct pursuant to which attorneys are to govern themselves. MEMORANDUM OF LAW This Court's Order clearly and unequivocally delineates the Pretrial rules and parameters within which the parties must adhere. See Exhibit A. Paragraph IV governs Noncompliance, and provides: "NONCOMPLIANCE WITH ANY PORTION OF THIS ORDER MAY RESULT IN THE STRIKING OF THE CASE, WITNESSES, OR EXHIBTS, OR IMPOSITION OF SUCH OTHER SANCTIONS AS ARE JUST." (Emphasis in original). See Exhibit A. In the case at hand, there are multiple violations of this Court's Order. As evidenced by the attached Exhibits, Epstein has brought these violations to Edwards's attention in an effort to remediate the situation without Court intervention; to no avail. Edwards' s disregard of this Order, coupled with the either inapposite or non-existent responses counsel for Epstein has received in response to her attempts to resolve these issues, mandate the implementation of the remedies set forth in Paragraph IV of the Order and the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure governing discovery violations. 4 NOT A CERTIFIED COPY The law is clear that "[e]xcept in cases of a clear abuse of discretion prejudicial to the affected party, trial courts must be allowed to enforce pretrial orders to achieve the orderly and efficient administration of justice, fair to all parties." Fla. Marine Enterprises v. Bailey, 632 So. 2d 649, 651-52 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994 ). Courts have held that "decisions regarding the testimony of improperly disclosed witnesses" is placed squarely "within the broad discretion of the trial judge, who is vested with the interpretation and enforcement of any pretrial order mandating witness disclosure." Id. at 651. "Florida courts have explained that the rules of discovery are intended to avoid surprise and trial by ambush." Agrofollajes, S.A. v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., Inc., Nos. 3D07-2322, 3D07-2318, 3D07-1036, 2009 WL 4828975, at (Fla