1356.pdf

NOT A CERTIFIED COPY Filing# 75231691 E-Filed 07/19/2018 04:20:29 PM JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff, vs. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, and L.M., individually, Defendants. I --------------- IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: 502009CA040800:XXXXMBAG RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO ALLOW AMENDMENT TO EXHIBIT LIST AND SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION TO ALLOW AMENDMENT TO EXHIBIT LIST Bradley J Edwards ("Edwards"), by and through undersigned counsel, hereby files this Response in Opposition to Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to Allow Amendment to Exhibit List and Supplement thereto, and as grounds therefor states as follows: Delay, Delay, Delay When the Court peels back the layers of Defendant Epstein's attempt to drastically alter his Exhibit List, it will be left with a rather basic question: How far will the Defendant be permitted to go in his efforts to avoid a trial of this nearly nine (9) year old case? On November 1, 2017, the law firm of Link & Rockenbach entered its appearance in this case as trial counsel on behalf of Epstein. At the time, this case was set to begin trial on December 5, 2017, and the parties had already exchanged exhibit and witness lists pursuant to the Court's Order Specially Setting Trial, which was entered on July 20, 2017. 1 1 Two days later, on November 3, 2017, Edwards filed his Objections to Epstein's Trial Exhibits. FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, SHARON R. BOCK, CLERK, 07/19/2018 04:20:29 PM NOT A CERTIFIED COPY Edwards adv. Epstein Case No. 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG Response in Opposition to Epstein's Motion to Amend Exhibit List. On November 6, 2017, Epstein filed his Motion to Continue the December 5, 2017 special set trial. In the Motion to Continue, Epstein made the following representation to the Court and the parties: Following the Court's clear and unambiguous advice at the October 3, 2017, hearing to fortify lead counsel in the preparation and defense of his claim, on October 13, 2017, Plaintiff retained new trial counsel, who appeared in the case on November 1, 2017. Plaintiff also retained a team of lawyers from the Gunster law firm as trial support. None of the things Plaintiff is asking for in this Motion is based on lack of manpower. Even using all of these resources, there is still not enough time to get everything that is needed done before the December 5, 2017, trial date. Importantly, Plaintiff and his trial counsel will not seek another continuance. We will be ready to try the case in 90 days. (Emphasis added). Based in part on this representation, the Court granted the Motion to Continue and reset this case for a special set trial on March 13, 2018. Despite the representation that it would not seek any further continuances, at the December 5, 2017 all-day hearing, Plaintiff and his trial counsel asked the Court to indefinitely stay this case pending resolution of the Crime Victim's Rights Act Proceeding in federal court. The Court denied Epstein's Motion for Temporary Stay of Proceedings on the record, and the corresponding order was entered on December 28, 2017. Yet, on March 5, 2018, after the parties had taken up a considerable amount of the Court's resources for multi-day special set hearings and other matters, Epstein once again sought to avoid trial by filing a Motion to Remove Case from Trial Docket, based on a hyper-technical argument that the case was not "at issue" under Rule 1.440. In what was in all likelihood a first in this Judicial Circuit, Epstein did not assert that Edwards' malicious prosecution claim was not at issue. Rather, Epstein argued that his claim against Scott Rothstein, an uncollectible defendant in federal prison, 2 NOT A CERTIFIED COPY Edwards adv. Epstein Case No. 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG Response in Opposition to Epstein's Motion to Amend Exhibit List. was not at issue as a result of Epstein's own dilatory conduct in failing to know what pleading was pending against Rothstein and failing to know whether a default had been entered. At the hearing on March 8, 2018, Epstein's trial counsel nonetheless repeatedly claimed that they were "excited" to try this case, and, in fact, represented to the Court repeatedly that they were "ready to try the case" on March 13, 2018. See 3/8/18 Hr'g Tr. at 14:13-14. However, when given the option to waive any technical argument under Rule 1.440, they declined to do so: MR. LINK: Thank you. I know Mr. Scarola said they're excited to try the case, believe me, Judge, we are really excited to try the case. The evidence that we recently discovered - THE COURT: Then waive the technicality. If you are so excited about it, then waive the technicality. MR. LINK: I won't do that, Judge. 3/8/18 Hearing Tr. at 49:8-17. Although Epstein's trial counsel would not waive the technically, they did represent to the Court that, if the Court were to remove the case from the trial docket and deny severance of the Edwards v. Epstein counterclaim and the Epstein v. Rothstein claim, they were prepared to have a default judgment entered against Rothstein that day and would be remain "ready" to try this case within 50 days, or by April 27, 2018: MS. ROCKENBACH: I have an order for the Court to sign to enter a default. Served it on Mr. Rothstein's counsel of record, Marc Nurik. And we will then be ready once this Court enters the default, and presumably either party notices it for trial in 20 days when it is then at issue, this Court can then set it no less 30 days. 3 NOT A CERTIFIED COPY Edwards adv. Epstein Case No. 502009CA040800:XXXXMBAG Response in Opposition to Epstein's Motion to Amend Exhibit List. 3/8/18 Hearing Tr. at 11, 6-14. At the end of the oral argument on Epstein's Motion to Remove Case From Trial Docket, undersigned counsel warned that the hyper-technical argument being raised with regard to Rule 1.440 was merely a ploy to reopen discovery and delay this case once again by, among other things, attempting to invalidate the Court's July 20, 2017 pre-trial order: MR. SCAROLA: The defense, in violation of this Court's order, last week listed 724 new exhibits they want to use. And they are going to use this hyper technicality to say the pretrial order was invalid because the case was not at issue; a new pretrial order needs to be issued; discovery is not yet closed; we have an opportunity to proceed with additional discovery; and we can amend our exhibit list, and we can include 724 new exhibits, and more which they say we are still finding. 3/8/18 Hearing Tr. at 65:24 to 66:10. And, now here we are. After representing to the Court in November 2017 that Epstein would be ready to try this case on March 13, 2018, after representing to the Court on March 8, 2018 that they were ready to try the case on March 13, 2018 but for a hyper-technical "at issue" argument, and after representing to the Court that they would be ready to try the case by April 27, 2018 {as long as Rothstein's claim was not severed, of course), When one reviews the timeline and conflicting representations made above, Epstein's strategy becomes quite clear. If Epstein is permitted to amend his exhibit list to add exhibits that were publicly available years before trial counsel entered its appearance in this case, the parties will necessarily be required to take additional discovery to cure the resulting prejudice to Edwards, who disclosed his witness and exhibit list, and prepared to try this nearly decade old case, without the burden of 4 NOT A CERTIFIE