1359.pdf

NOT A CERTIFIED COPY Filing# 75280564 E-Filed 07/20/2018 02:02:37 PM JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff, vs. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, and L.M., individually, Defendant, I --------------- IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO EPSTEIN'S RENEWED MOTION FOR LEA VE TO DISCLOSE EXPERT WITNESS Plaintiff, Bradley J. Edwards, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby files this Response in Opposition to Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Renewed Motion for Leave to Disclose Expert Witness, and as grounds therefor states as follows: Binger Does Not Permit a Party to Ignore Trial Court Orders In this and other motions, Epstein relies on the Supreme Court's decision in Binger to argue that Epstein should be permitted to ignore this Court's pre-trial orders, as long as there is no prejudice to Edwards. This interpretation of Binger is wrong and is an affront to the authority of a trial court to control its docket. Epstein has already tried, once, to belatedly add Mr. Smith as a purported "expert" witness well after the Court's deadline to disclose witnesses. The Court denied that request by order dated January 17, 2018. And, although Epstein relies on Binger and its related cases, this is not a situation where Epstein only recently discovered the existence of this new witness or the relevance of his FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, SHARON R. BOCK, CLERK, 07/20/2018 02:02:37 PM NOT A CERTIFIED COPY Edwards adv. Epstein Case No.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG Response in Opposition to Epstein's Renewed Motion for Leave to Disclose Expert Witness "expert" testimony. See Tomlinson-McKenzie v. Prince, 718 So. 2d 394, 396 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) ("There was no finding that appellants failed to comply with the pretrial order in bad faith. The record reflects that appellants moved to amend the witness and exhibit list as soon as the surveillance tape became available.") (emphasis added). Rather, the issues about which Epstein seeks to have Mr. Smith testify have been known to Epstein and his extensive team of defense lawyers for years. Those attorneys made the tactical decision not to retain an expert in this case, and for eight (8) years Edwards prepared his case in reliance on that decision. If the Court were to permit Mr. Smith to be added as a witness, this case would be further delayed by the reopening of discovery, the taking of Mr. Smith's deposition, and Edwards likely having to retain one or more rebuttal experts, assuming Epstein would be able to overcome multiple legal challenges to the admissibility of Mr. Smith's opinions. Daubert/Fabre challenges are likely. Admissibility hinges on the extent to which legal opinions invade the province of the Court to decide probable cause as a matter oflaw. Prior assertions of Fifth Amendment and Attorney-Client privileges present foundational challenges. Enough. The parties were ready to try this case on March 13, 2018. At the March 8, 2018 hearing, counsel for Epstein repeatedly stated on the record that they were ready to try this case, which has been pending for 3,146 days. Any further delay in the trial of this matter severely prejudices Edwards, who is entitled to his day in court to clear his name in connection with the malicious lawsuit Epstein filed on December 7, 2009. And as the delays continue, Edwards is denied access to the only effective antidote to the poison that Epstein created and spread to intentionally destroy Edwards's reputation. 2 NOT A CERTIFIED COPY Edwards adv. Epstein Case No.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG Response in Opposition to Epstein's Renewed Motion for Leave to Disclose Expert Witness In addition to the foregoing, Edwards has included below a slightly revised version of his prior-filed Response in Opposition to Epstein's original Motion for Leave to Disclosure Expert Witness: The Renewed Motion Fails to Meet the Court's Requirements to Reopen Discovery 1. On November 27, 2017, the Court entered its Order on Motion to Reconfirm Existing Pre-Trial Deadlines, in which the Court ruled that additional discovery will only be permitted if "the discovery requests are impacted by the Court's rulings on motions currently pending to be heard on November 29th, December 6 th and 7 th ." At the hearing preceding the Order, the Court outlined the standard by which any such additional discovery requests would be considered: So what I am going to do is this. Because there are issues that need to be addressed -- and I'm hoping I will have orders out as soon as possible after those hearings are done --is that I am going to require motions to be filed on a discovery issue-by-discovery issue, deposition by deposition, so as to find out several things. One, is the need to take that deposition and whether that need has been either clarified or required by virtue of a court order that will be entered subsequently to the commencement of Wednesday's hearings and thereafter on those days that I provided. If it cannot be demonstrated to the Court that these witnesses need to be taken solely as a result the Court's ruling, then those requests will be denied, because, again, we were set to try the case next week. *** So 20 some-odd deposition, unless they can be proven and shown to the Court as being required as a result of the rulings of the Court, will not be entertained. They should have been done before. And if not done before, I will need a reason for that as well. 11/27/2017 Hearing Tr. at 12:11-25 and 13:1-6, 17-23. 3 NOT A CERTIFIED COPY Edwards adv. Epstein Case No.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG Response in Opposition to Epstein's Renewed Motion for Leave to Disclose Expert Witness 2. Thus, Epstein must establish that D. Culver Smith Ill's ("Smith") proposed expert testimony is required solely as a result of a recent Court ruling. Epstein's renewed motion, like the prior motion that was denied by the Court, clearly fails to meet this requirement, and therefore the renewed motion should be denied. A. The "Legal Ethics and Responsibility" Related to the Discovery Edwards Conducted in the L.M., E.W. and Jane Doe Cases Has Been at Issue Since 2009. 3. The first category of Smith's proposed expert testimony is "legal ethics and responsibility," regarding the legitimacy of the discovery Edwards conducted in his clients' sexual molestation cases. 4. Obviously, the propriety of this discovery has been challenged by Epstein since December 7, 2009, when Epstein filed this malicious lawsuit claiming, inter alia, that he had somehow been damaged by Edwards's litigation conduct in those cases (despite the absolute litigation privilege). In fact, the Court need look no further than Epstein's 'Summary of Action' in the Complaint, which includes the following allegations: Attorney Scott Rothstein aided by other lawyers . . . at the firm of Rothstein, Rosenfeldt and Adler, P.A., for personal greed and enrichment, in betrayal of the ethical, legal and fiduciary duties to their own clients and professional obligations to the administrative of justice ... conduct[ed) egregious civil litigation abuses that resulted in profoundly serious injury to Jeffrey Epstein . . . The misconduct featured the filing of legal motions and the pursuit of a civil litigation strategy that was unrelated to the merits or value of their clients' cases ... As a result, Epstein was subject to abusive investigatory tactics, unprincipled media attacks, and unsupportable legal filings . ... 5. Specific allegations concerning Edwards' purported litigation misconduct are replete throughout the December 7, 2009 Complaint. See, e.g., ,I 35 (alleged improper pursuit of 4 NOT A CERTIFIED COPY Edwards adv. Epstein Case No.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG Response in Opposition to Epstein'