EFTA02726811.pdf

3 1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF EKE 2 INDEX FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN ASO 1 WITNESS DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT FOR RAJA BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA 4 DR. BERNARD J. JANSEN (By Mr. Link) 5 -- 81 CASE NO.: 50-2009CA040 800XXXXNBAC (By Mr. Scarola) -- 68 -- 4 JEFFREY EPSTEIN, EXHIBITS FOR IDENTIFICATION Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, va @ Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 1 Page 5 SCOTT RCUHSTEIN, individually, - Curriculum Vitae and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 2 Page: 14 Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff. 10 - Report / II Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 3 Page: 31 - Appendix 12 VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 4 Page: 35 DR. BERNARD J. JANSEN 29 - Article Taken on Behalf of the Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant 24 Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 5 Page: 37 and Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff - Article 15 DATE TAKEN: Friday, December 1, 2017 Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 6 Page 39 TINE: 9:23 a.m. - 11:21 a.m. 16 - Article PLACE: Law Offices of Edwards Pottinger, LW 27 Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 7 Page 40 - Article 30 Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 8 Page: 46 )9 - Article Exanlnation of the witness taken before: 20 plaintiff's Exhibit No. 9 Page: 54 - Article Mena Logo, Court Reporter 21 Palm Beach Reporting Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 10 Page: 59 22 - Article 23 24 25 2 4 1 APPEARANCES 1 - - - 2 2 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Today is the let day of For the Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant: 9 3 De ter 2017. The time le 9:23 a.m. This Sc the LINK a ROCKENBACH, P.A. 4 videotaped deposition of Doctor Bernard Jensen in 4 BY: SCOTT J. LINK, ESQ. S the matter of Epstein versus Rothstein and Edwards. KARA B. ROCKENBACH, ESQ. 5 6 This deposition is being held a I 6 o Ily none Sc Robert Barfield. l'n the 7 For the Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff: 0 SEARCY, DENNY, SCAROLA, BARNHART 9 videographer from Visual Evidence, Inc. 4 SHIPLEY, P.A. 10 Would the attorneys please announce their 9 BY: JACK SCAROLA, ESQ. 11 appearances for the record? 12 Wt. LINK: Yoa. . 21 12 Wt. SCM01.1.: 11y sumo Is Jack Scare's. I'm Also Present: 14 00.20901 on behalf of the Plaintiff, Bradley 22 ROBERT BARFIELD, Videographor, Visual Evidence IS Edwards. And Mr. Edwards la also present. 29 16 RR. LINK: Scott Link and Kara Rackenbach on BRADLEY J. EL:BARDS, Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff 14 17 behalf of Mr. Epstein. 15 10 Mere.liSO4, Doctor Bernard J. Janson vas duly 16 10 swain.) 17 it, 20 Wt. SCAROIA: I'n going to offer a stipulation 19 21 co you. And that la that rather than go through 20 22 cho &mails of the witness' background, training, 21 22 21 and experience, we would agree chat his curricula 25 24 vitae will be worked es en exhibit to this 24 25 deposition and any portions of it soy be read by 25 Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA02726811  5 7 either party as if those entries in the CV wore A. Aa I outlined LA ay report in one of the 2 responsive to appropriate quoations during the 2 paragraphs that we can go through, I outlined explicitly 3 course of the deposition. • what the atatements were that I used. 4 MR. LINK: That's acceptable. 4 Q. 1 understand 'ihat a 'statement is. I don't MR. SCAROLA: Cood. Thank you. 5 have any problem with you doing research. The research 4 MR. LINK: Shall we go ahead and mark that as 4 that you did makes sane to ne. If you plugged in a 7 Exhibit 1? 7 ➢entente and wanted to ➢ee hem many tines it was u➢ed, MR. SCAROLA: That'a a good idea. a that ekes ➢anon to ne. iThecoupon, the docunent referred to was • A. Oh-huh. 10 marked Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 1 for identification.1 Is Q. I'm trying to under➢tand the language and the II TREREUPCM: II decision you mole about a statement being defamatory, 12 DOCTOR BERNARD J. JANSEN 12 andlwant to know how you madeadecisica that whatever 13 was called as a witness and, having been previously duly 13 statenere you were researching was a defamatory 14 sworn and responded 'I do,• was examined and testified 14 statenent. is as follows: 15 A. The defamatory statements was something that I 14 DIRECT EXAMINATION 16 was provided, as 1 state in my report, that it was these I BY MR. LINK: 1? stetenents that linked Mr. Edwards to the Panel velum, Q. Mr. Jansen, would you please take a look at le of Mc. Rothstein. That's what was provided to no. That I' what we Just marked as Exhibit 1 and tell ea what that 19 was my assignment. 20 is, 20 O. Okay. So you were told by either Mc. Edwards 21 This la my Cv, my curriculum vitae. 21 or Mc. Scarp'a what statement they thought was 22 And is that current through today? 22 defamatory. 23 I could chock every page. but it's a fairly 23 h. Those were the aaaaa',ant* I was told to look 24 recent CV. 24 for, yes. 25 Q. Okay. Mr. Janson, toll ma what your opinions 25 O. Okay. So did you nake any determination of 6 8 I are that you have reached in this case. 1 what's defamatory? 2 A. Tho -- my opinion is that the defamatory 2 A. No. 3 atatements against Mr. Edwards leaking into the Pony,. 3 Q. All right. Is there a way that you could 4 schema of Mr. Rothstein were disseminated to 74 4 describe the statement from your words what you were 3 different media sites, in 104 different articles, to 5 doing? Because the word 'defamatory' is not your word, I 9,665,542 daily media visitors. 6 la it, in this report? That's one of the layer's • Q. You just used the words •defamatory 7 words. • atataments.• Old you make a determination that there 8 A. Nell, it was a description I used for those • was a statement in ➢ome publication that was defamatory? 9 particular statements. It was provided to no, what 10 A. I was given the gist of the statements that -- 10 those statement, were. II the statements that linked Mr. Edwards to the Pons' 11 Q. Okay. So you chose the word 'defamatory 12 scheme of Mr. Rothstein, and than I chocked for the 12 statements'? 13 explicit statement, tho➢e particular statements in each Is I didn't say that, no. I w➢ provided that 14 of the 104 articles. 14 these are the defamatory aaaaarent* to look for. IS Q. I understand that, but I'm talking about the 15 O. Right. So the parson who nade the deci➢ion to 14 word •defamatory.• 1.3 label whatever statement➢ you researched defamatory was 17 •Defametory is a legal words is it not? 17 not you? 18 I don't know whether it'➢ a legal word or not. 10 A. Nhother they were defamatory or not was not my 19 51511, what does it moan? When you were doing is doci➢lon. re your work you said you used •defamatory statements.' 20 O. Okay. I➢ there something about my question 21 And I want to know what you concluded was a defamatory 21 that's cau➢ing you pause? 22 statement and we'll talk about -- 22 A. A little bit, yeah. I did an IT 33 Sure. 23 inve➢tigation. You're a➢king ne kind of a legal 24 -- the credentials you have to make that 24 question. 35 determination for -- to say that to a jury. 25 Q. Oh-huh. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA02726812  9 11 A. And I'm just telling you that I was provided 0. Okay. So then what aro the ➢ub-categories of 2 those statements. 2 opinion➢ thaw. you have? 3 And the reason I'm asking la you told ne your • A. Well, we can go over ny report but -- and I'll 4 opinion was about defamatory ➢tatementa. And that has a • provide those. 5 lot of significance to it. And I want to understand who • 0. 1 have your report, but I want you to tell no • detenined what statements were de famatory, whether you 4 what opinions you're planning to provide to the jury. / did that or the lawyers for Mr. Edwards did that. HA. SCAPULA: And you ahouid understand that • MR. SOMOZA: Objection, repetitious, asked • co the extent that It aaaaaaa you in providing an • and answered. • accurate response to any question that i➢ asked 10 A. Yeah, your question is asking kind of two to during the course of this deposition, you're free II question➢. II to refer to anything that you'd like to. 12 BY MR. LINK: 12 I have a copy of your report here. If you 13 You nay answer both. Co ahead. 13 want to look at that, you ere free to do that. As A. All right. The statements linking Mr. Edwards long as Mt. Link knows what it is you're looking Is to this Boost scheme by Mr. Rothstein, I noon, those 15 et, if it helps you to give honest and accurate 14 were statements I looked for. I looked for the explicit 16 answers, you're free to look at that. 17 statement, you know, those particular expression of 17 f0.. LINK: Jack, I don't agree to that. I 14 those statements. At -- the aspect of whether they were 10 don't want you to hand hin exhibits -- It defamatory or not from a legal aspect is not within my 19 KR. SCAROIA: l'n carry that -- 20 purview. 20 pt. LINK: -- and tell him whet he can do. 21 Q. Right. Okay. So that must mean that the 21 KR. SCAROIA: I'n aorcy that you don't 22 language •defamatory statement• was provided to you by 22 23 either Mr. Scarola or Mr. Edwards. 23 KA. LINK. I don't. 24 Noll, yeah -- yea, that particular subject 24 MA. SCUOLA: -- but that happens to be a 25 matter was provided, yea. 25 natter of law. Ka ha➢ a right to refresh hi➢ 10 12 Q. Okay. Ca you have any other opinions in this recollection to refer to anything that he wants to 2 ease other than the one you just shared with no? 2 during the course of the deposition as long as you 3 A. Well, there's supporting opinions that I 3 ace aware of the fact that he's referring to • outline in my report but that's the major -- that's what • something and have a chance to look at it yourself. 3 I was asked to do, dlasemination of those defamatory 5 KR. LINK: I don't want to ergue with you. 4 statements. 6 Please let ne take fly deposition the way I want to. 7 O. So -- okay, SO you keep saying •defamatory 7 KR. SCAROIA: You're free to do that. S statments.• And when you say that, the reason it • BY MR. LINK: 9 causes ne concern is whether a statement is defamatory 9 So what l'n asking la whet your opinions are. 10 la for a judge or jury to decide. 10 A. Oh-huh. IS A. Okay. Then maybe l'n -- 11 And we'll get co your report. And if you 12 You're not the judge or jury in this case. 12 don't remoter something, ju➢t toll ne you don't 13 I making that statement in a colloquial sense 13 rOffAabOr. 14 rather than the legal sons* you're using it in. 14 But, I want to know as you ➢lt here %tat IS O. So what we're really talking about, though, is IS you're going to tell the jury. And I understand opinion If a statement and how many times that statement wan picked 14 amber one i➢ that you took a statement given to you by 17 up by the press; is that right? 17 Hr. Edwards and Nr. Scarola and you did your research to IS The press -- yes, it was available on-line -- 10 ➢ee how many Lima you mad find it in the prem.; 19 O. Do you -- 14 right? 20 A. -- a particular typo of subject matter for 20 A statement, ye➢, or ➢imilar ➢tatmmnta that 21 these particular statements, yea. 21 related to it, yes. 22 Q. Right. Okay. And so whethor or not that 22 O. Cot lc. 23 statement was defamatory or not la not an analysts you 23 what other conelualona or opinion➢ did you 24 engaged Sn? 24 reach other than that one? 23 A. The defamatory part, no. 25 A. Nell, the other sub-supporting -- sub-opinions Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA02726813  13 15 that anymore that particular opinion. 1 with In deciding Mather you would bo retained in this 2 I'm asking what are they, air. 2 case was Mr. Scarola, not Mr. Edwards? 3 A. Okay. Well, that the statements were That is correct. 4 distributed to 74 different on-line sites, that I 4 Did you have contact with Mr. Edwards about S calculated the traffic to those particular altos. Tho 5 the content of your report? 4 sites that I couldn't verify the traffic or didn't feel 4 Yes. / I had reliable traffic numbers I didn't include. The And did you haws contact with Mr. Edwards • 104 articles, I looked through each of those articles • about what -- the way your report la written? s for defamatory statements, using that colloquially. I Well, yes, ho -- Mr. Edwards towhead a draft 10 outlined 12 different steps of why that is a 10 of the report. 11 conservative estimate, that 9,635,542, and give several II Q. And gave you comments on the writing of the 12 examples in my report. 12 report? Is Q. Okay. So that just sounds like the numbera 13 A. Yea, basically. 14 that you found when you did your singular opinion, which 14 Made some changes to it? Is la to see where this statement provided to you by the IS A. Made some suggestions, yes. 14 lawyers was replicated in the press, and that's the 16 Okay. And did you accept his suggestions? 15 number of times that you saw that; is that right? 17 A. Most of then wording changes, yes, and there 14 A. Noll, that was ono of my main opinion but you 10 was one recommendation that he asked if I could include Is asked for the sub-opinions and I've outlined it, that 19 in my report. 20 9,665,542 -- 20 And did you do that? ft Q. Yeah. 21 A. Yea. 22 was a conservative animate. 22 O. Okay. So you took his wording changes and you 23 okay. Any other opinions? 23 made a notarial change co your report based on 24 No can go through paragraph by paragraph in 24 Mr. Edwards asking you co de so: is chat right? 25 the report but I gave you the -- 25 A. He asked if I could include somothing and I 14 16 That's it? I felt it was in line, so yea. 2 -- broadest opinion. 2 Okay. So back to paragraph 9 for a second. 3 Okay. when wore you retained in this case, 3 The question that you were asked by Mr. Scarola and 4 air? 4 Mr. Edwards is: what is the level of diasomination of 5 By October 2017, on or about. 5 defaning statements? 4 MR. LINK: Okay. Let's go ahead and mark the 4 Did they give you any definition of what 5 report as Exhibit 2. • •dofaning• moans? S Intereupon, a brief discussion was held off 8 A. The -- again, this .defamingw La kind of a 9 the record, after which the deposition continued as 9 legal thing you're harping on here. I use it in a 10 follows:I 10 colloquial expression. And they gave ma what the Il IThereupon, the document referred to was Il statements I was to look for. 12 marked Plaintiff's Exhibit Umber 2 for identification.) 12 Right. So la the word "defaming• here really 13 BY NR. LINK: 13 superfluous from your standpoint? What you really 14 Q. Ready? Let's turn to page 3, air. On page 3 14 flooded wore the statements and not an adjective to 15 you outline what your assignment was. 15 describe them for you to do your work? If And who provided you with the assignment? who If For me to do my work? 17 gave you what's In paragraph 9? 17 Yea, sir. IS That would be Ns. Scarola. 18 A. I needed the statemanta to look for. 19 Mr. Scarola gave you paragraph 9? 19 So if the word 'defaming• wasn't in here it 20 Yeah. It's a -- and I added sone words to the 20 wouldn't have changed the way you wont about doing your 21 thing to sake it more in lino with what I had to do but 21 wort; would it? 22 that's basically just to looking for -- 32 A. Aa long as I had the statements, no, it 23 okay. 23 wouldn't change my work. 24 -- those types of words. 24 Q. Okay. Tarn to pogo 5, please. Look at 25 All right. So the person that you had contact 25 paragraph l5, if you would. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA02726814  17 19 1 Yes. 1 involved with Rocascain's illegal activities? 12 2 It ➢ays: •The defusing ➢tatements associating • that -- is that fight? ) Mr. Edwards with the illegal activities of 3 A. That Mk. Edward,. was involved with these • Mr. Rothstein...• • illegal activities and chat so -- you're writing it don 5 Do you see that? 5 like that was the only aaaaament I searched for. But, Yea. a as I said, in each of these 104 articles that verbiage what is the statement that you searched [or? 7 changed likely article co article. • Well, It was -- it varied slightly, you know, • Q. Okay. Well, Mr. dcarola corrected no and s docuaent to doctment, but it was an association with -- * added the word •knowing.• That's why I added he wo d 10 that Mr. Edwards was somehow knowingly involved with the 10 to My SOM01104.. 11 illegal activities of Mr. Rothstein. Was that not a word that was Srportent to you 12 what was the word search that you used? 12 in deternining whether the statement you were supposed 13 Nell, again, to find the articles or the 13 to find was included in en article? 14 statements in the articles. 14 A. I don't understand the question. 15 Q. I want to know the word search that you were 15 O. Nell, I just asked you if the statement that 14 Looking for. A9 I understand your assigneent, it was to If you were asked to locate to see how many tines it wee 1/ take the connection of Mr. Edwards with Mr. Rothstein 17 disseninated was the vex that reads like this: That 14 and Mr. Rothstein'➢ illegal activities and prepare a 10 Edwards was knowingly involved with Rothstein'a illegal Is report and identify ovary place that there was a 19 activity. 20 reference to Hr. Edwards and Hr. Rothstein and the 20 A. And I'n going to refer you to paragraph 15 21 illegal activities. Is that right? 21 that clearly states: Defaning statements associating 22 You're going to have to ➢ay that one sere 22 Mr. Bradley with illegal activities of Mt. Rothstein... 2) time. 23 O. Okay. So whether it was Mr. Edwards knew 24 Okay. 24 about it or not was not germane to your xaaaaaeh? 25 Sorry. 25 A. That's not what I laid. 18 20 Q. I thought I understood that the assignment Well, I just read what you wrote here and it 2 that you had was to simply take Mr. Rothstein, 2 just says associating him. It doesn't say whether he 3 Mr. Edwards, and the concept of illegal activities, and 3 know or didn't know. 4 then search and see where in the Internet, the • And I'm trying to really understand if you 5 newspapers, that combination of words exists. 5 wore looking [or articles that simply say: Edwards and • MR. SCAROLA: I'm going to object to the 4 Rothstein. And Rothstein has illegal activity. Or you 7 ntscharacterization of the an➢wer that was 7 were looking [or articles that said: Mr. Edwards was a S previously given, which included a reference to the S known participant in the Pearl scheme. 1 fact that Bradley Edwards was a knowing participant 9 MR. SCA/IOLA: Object to the fore of the 10 in the illegal activities. 10 question as it excludes the possibility that both 11 MR. LINK: Thank you for that clarification. II were included. 12 MR. SCAROLA: You're volcano. 12 1) Well, I can take your question two different 13 MR. LINK: Good coaching. 14 ways, okay. Ono, what I used to look at these Ia BY RR. LINK: IS documents, and those I outline in my report. IS Co right ahead. If BY NB. LINK: If A. I don't understand the torment about the I/ Oh-huh. 17 coaching. IS A. And than the actual statements in each of IS No, it was just for Hr. Scarola's purposes. IS these documents. And those atatomonta vary slightly, It okay. Could you repeat the question? 24 you know, article to article. But it was somehow there 20 Q, I probably can't. I don't reminder what I 21 I a➢ a reader of these articles would -- that the 21 asked now, but I'll cane up with another question. 22 article expressed that Mr. Edwards was ➢omehow knowingly 22 MR. SCAROLA: I'd be happy to help, if you'd 23 involved in these illegal activities of Hr. Rothstein. 23 like -- 24 Q. Okay. So is that the key to this? Tho 24 MR. LINK: No, no -- 25 article needed to show that Mr. Edwards was knowingly 25 MR. SCARCER: -- cause I resenber it. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA02726815  21 23 1 MR. LINK: -- I'll figure it out. With the illegal activities. 2 MR. SCAROLA: Okay. 2 COI IC. Okay. 3 MR. LINK: I'll figure it out. 2 All eight. Will you turn co page 13, please. 4 BY KR. LINK: • When you were identifying articles in which there MAO 5 I'm trying to understand what was important to 5 reference made to Nr. Rachstein'a illegal activities and 4 you in doing your search -- 4 Mr. Id.ards' lAVOIVeneht or Contribution to or knowledge 7 A. Uh-huh. 7 about those activities, did It matter co you where that. • Q. -- because I understand the number➢. That • infornacion cane from? * makes sense to me. That's sort of the easy part of And here is what I moan. Did you exclude, for l0 this. What I'm trying to understand la what you were 10 example, press statements by Mr. Scarola? 11 searching to find, so that I can then talk to you about 11 A. Nell, there's two questions there. Let me 12 whether the articles you located satisfy the ➢earch 12 deal with the last one. I mean, I don't recall any 12 request you wore soaking. 13 press -- looking at any press releases from M. Sterol., 14 Does that sake sense? 16 so I don't think I included those. is And when I read your sentence to paragraph 15, 15 Q. Now about statements to the press by 14 if that'➢ what you wore looking for, chon whether 14 Ht. Scarole? IS Mr. Edwards know or didn't know would not bo important )7 A. The -- well, let me answer your other 14 to you in your search. le question, which was -- which right now I forgot. Nah, I -- you know, well, you can argue and 19 Q. Okay. So let's deal with the question of when 20 interpreter it how you would like. But as I explain in 20 you were -- 21 my report, you know, I looked in those -- in the 21 A. Nell, I went to make sure I answer your 22 articles where that Mr. Edwards W➢ involved, knew 22 question. It was a -- it actually was a very good 23 about, contributed to, that somehow had to get across in 23 question and now I -- 24 these article➢ to me. 24 O. We're going to got back co it. 25 Okay. 25 RR. SCAROLA: Do you want the earlier coapound 22 24 So the exact -- yeah. 1 question reed back to you? 2 Involved, know about -- and I biased the third 2 THE WITNESS: Yes, the earlier compound 3 question reed back. 4 Involved, knew about -- 4 KR. LINK: Read it back. Saw about lt? 2 Somehow involved, is that what to was? 5 Objection sustained. 6 MR. LINK: Sack, do you remaabort 4 (Thereupon, the following was read by the 7 MS. ROCKENBACH: Contributed to. 7 Court Reporter: MR. LINK: Contributed to. 8 •question: All right. Mill you turn to page 9 MR. SCAROLA: Knew about. 9 19, please. Nhen you were identifying articles in 10 MR. LINK: Involved, knew about, contributed 10 which there was reference made to It. Rothstein's 11 11 illegal activities and Mr. Edwards' involvement or 12 MR. SCAROLA: Contributed to. 13 contribution to or knowledge about chose 13 MR. LINK: Cot lt. Thank you. 13 activities, did it matter to you where that 1• BY NR. LINK: 14 information cane from? IS Q. Okay. So -- ➢o then you were focused on not IS •And here is what I mean. Old you exclude, 14 Just that Mr. Edwards was employed at the Rothstein firm 16 for example, press statements by Mr. Scarola?•1 1* and that the Rothstein firm was involved in illegal 17 h. Yea to the first quostlon. Yes, it did matter IS activities. You wore looking for articles that 10 where it cats from. 19 connected Mr. Edwards to that illegal activity. lo BY NA. LINK: 20 A. That la a very good example. Yes, there were 20 Q. Okay. trplain to no why and what you did to 21 articles that, for exasple, said that Ns. Edwards was at narrow the field. 32 employed in Ns. Rothatein'a firm, and those articles I 33 h. For example, I ignored several -- chore's a 33 didn't include. It had to be somehow that he was 23 lot of docunonto -- court decumenta about this case that 24 somehow associated with this. 24 are available on-line. I didn't link those bells. You 33 Q. With the illegal activities? 25 know, I Just hit -- I -- Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA02726816  25 27 Q. You did not? atatenenta or articles or interviews were created 2 A. Specifically court documents, no, I did not 2 by Mr. Edwards or Mr. Scarola, those are still 3 include those. • included in the realer of hens you identified with 4 They're, identified in your report, the court 4 atatenenta?•) 5 docunenta. a BY MR. LINK: Where are they identified? O Q. Okay. bac so ask the question again. I think 7 Okay. We will look at that. 7 MO elated a couple of words. Let me sea if I can break 4 So you excluded court documents? • it down. Yea. Now, if -- the only disclose -- just to So let's take It then -- for exisple, the 10 clarify that, if an article referenced a court document 10 first article listed on page 13. Do you see that that's 11 or had a snippet free a court dominant, you know, like 11 en October 6th, 2017 article? 12 [rem a news article, than I included it. But if it was 12 A. Nell, I Just want to -- that's a -- this Se a 13 just, you know, about none Florida Court Association 13 search result, a snippet linked to en article. 14 repository, no, I didn't include those. 14 O. Right. And I assume that that article that's 15 All right. Any other limitations? 15 referenced here is one that you included es a hit in 14 They -- if, far exanple, there ware articles 16 looking for a statement, that's why you're showing it. If that just mentioned the case -- I? A. Nell. no, because in Figure 1 I lust give -- is Oh-huh. le trying to explain what I did in tent of search *marlin. It -- but didn't mention that -- had the 19 I would have to check that particular link, if I 20 statements about Mr. Edwards being involved In these 20 included that first link in my report. 21 illegal activities, I didn't include those. O. Nell, this -- okay, so all you're doing in 22 There may have bean soma other exanpies. But 22 this example, and maybe I read it wrong, is it says: 23 my real -- my real aspect was to focus on sone type of 23 Figure 1. 24 explicit publishing of chase statements. 24 This is Figure 1, I thinks right? 25 Q. All right. And so I take it than that you 25 A. That is correct. 26 28 1 were not eliminating articles that, for example, it 1 Q. Geogle search peewits for search: edwards 2 Mr. Scarola or Mr. Edwards spoke, to a reporter which led 2 epstein Pearl scheme. 3 to an article being written or they invited a reporter Right? 4 to a hearing or had lunch with a reporter to talk about 4 A. Yee. a the case, which created an article, you didn't exclude 5 Q. So these are the items that popped on that 4 those free your analysis? 6 search, and then you would read the article to see what MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me. • it said? Objection, no proper predicate, and compound. O A. Yea, these are the first -- well, these are 9 BY MR. LINK: 9 the first five articles from that particular query. And 10 Q. You can answer it. 10 then I'd open into the article and then read what the II A. In each ar the 104 doctoonta I looked for the 11 article said. 12 expression of the statement that linked Mr. Edwards to 12 Q. Okay. And were you provided any parameters 13 these illegal activities. 13 from Hr. Scarola or Nr. Edwards for the time frame that 14 Q. So that if -- so that if soma of the 34 you ahould search for? 15 statements or articles ar interviews ware created by 15 Prom then specifically I was not provided with If Mr. Edwards or Mr. Scarola, those are still included in 14 a tine frame. 1, the number of item you identified with statements? 17 Q. Okay. Did they ask you to limit your search II MR. SCAROLA: Objection, no proper predicate, 10 to the time period that Hr. Epateln'a Complaint against 15 2ASU002 facts not in evidence, no good faith basis 19 I . Rothstein and Mr. Edwards was pending? 20 to suggest such things over happened. 30 Not explicitly, no. 21 Can I have the question back? 21 Okay. Did you limit your search to that tine 32 MR. LINK: Please. 32 period? 33 (Thereupon, the following was read by the 23 Yes. 24 Court Reporter: 24 All right. So that your search should not 35 "position: So that IC sane of the 25 contain any articles that go peat 2012? Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA02726817  29 31 That is Incorrect. Okay. You have an appendix co Exhibit 2, 2 All right. So then you did search for 2 which is your written report in this case, that 3 articles that came into existence after dr. Epstein's 3 identifies -- 4 Complaint against Mr. Rothstein and Mr. Edwards was 4 1G. SCAAOLA: Did you nean to give me this S dismissed? copy? A. Let me -- let me go back. I misunderstood KR. LINK: I meant to. your question. KR. SCAROLA: Oh, okay. Oh-huh. • 1G. LINK: I anent to. And the reason I did All right. I -- the lawyer talk of •claims,• • is all of chase articles aro going co correspond co 10 •counterclaims,• is throwing me a little bit. I did it the actual article itself, Jack, so we can Lie than 11 from the original lawsuit from Mr. Epstein against II in together. 12 Mr. Rothstein and Kr. Edwards and ono other person. 12 hen. SCAROLA: Gat it. Thank you. 13 Oh-huh. 13 ml. LINK: Let's go ahead and fork this 14 So, yeah, that's what -- when you said the Exhibit S. 13 •lawsuit• that's what I was -- IS (Thereupon, the document referred to was 14 0. So you !carted your search December lth, 2009. 16 mocked