1424.pdf

NOT A CERTIFIED COPY Filing# 80698563 E-Filed 11/13/2018 10:38:54 AM 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.: 502009CA040800:XXXXMBAG MOTION TO STRIKE JEFFREY EPSTEN'S MOTION FOR AN IN CAMERA INSPECTION OF 30 E-MAILS Bradley J. Edwards ("Edwards"), by and through undersigned counsel, and pursuant to this Court's oral ruling at the November 2, 2018 hearing and its Order on Briefing for In Camera Inspection entered November 9, 2018, hereby files this Motion to Strike Jeffrey Epstein's Motion for an In Camera Inspection of 30 e-mails, and as grounds therefor states as follows: 1. At the November 2, 2018 hearing, the Court outlined the briefing schedule for the in camera inspection related to Edwards' privileged materials. In response to undersigned counsel's concern that Epstein's counsel had already seen, reviewed, and analyzed these privileged materials, and placed them in the public Court record 1, the Court explicitly stated that Epstein was to simply file a "generic" motion for in camera inspection, and that any substantive discussion of the e-mails would be limited to a confidential memorandum of law to be submitted to the Court under seal: 1 Despite full knowledge that the e-mails were listed on Edwards' privilege log and were the subject of a Federal Court order. See below. FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, SHARON R. BOCK, CLERK, 11/13/2018 10:38:54 AM NOT A CERTIFIED COPY THE COURT: Well, that may be. That may be fine for legal argument, but I want to get to the practical aspects of trying to -- for my own purpose, be able to adequately review the legal arguments in connection with the emails at issue. And at least from the attorneys' standpoint, and Mr. Epstein's standpoint, as I understand it, the cat is out of the bag in that regard. So, I can't undo what's already been done, and that's been years ago. MR. SCAROLA: So we don't want to aggravate the problem. THE COURT: And I agree. That's why I'm saying that I think the best approach would be for a motion to be filed of a generic quality that does not mention any contents of these emails, but simply tees it up, so to speak, with the understanding on this record today that any substantive discussion of those emails will be done under seal by way of memorandum, and that will be done under seal and will continue to be under seal, and will be filed under seal in case of a need for appellate review. 11/2/2018 Hearing Transcript at 122:20-123:8 (excerpt copy attached hereto as Exhibit 'A'). 2. On November 9, 2018, the Court entered its Order on Briefing for In Camera Inspection, in which it reiterated that any public filing by Epstein was limited solely to a "generic" motion for in camera inspection: On or before November 9, 2018, Epstein shall file a generic Motion for an in camera inspection. Order at ,i 4 (copy attached hereto as Exhibit 'B'). 3. In contrast, any citation or reference to the privileged emails was to be made in the sealed Memorandum of Law: Separately, Epstein shall file under seal a detailed Memorandum of Law in which Epstein's counsel may specifically cite and refer to the 47-emails at issue ... Order at ,i 5. 4. In what can only be described as a complete disregard for this Court's rulings and the sacrosanct nature of a privilege assertion, Epstein instead filed a 20-page (!) Motion for in 2 NOT A CERTIFIED COPY camera inspection, complete with over 120 pages of exhibits. Epstein's motion accuses Edwards of a deliberate attempt to "conceal" the privileged emails on the privilege log,2 of falsely asserting privilege where none existed, 3 potential perjury,4 and application of the crime-fraud exception with respect to Edwards' purported conduct. 5 A copy of Epstein's Motion, excluding exhibits, is attached hereto as Exhibit 'C'. 5. And, despite the Court's explicit direction that the contents of these emails were not to be discussed, Epstein repeatedly addresses the e-mails in a substantive manner throughout his unauthorized pleading: "The 30-emails ... eviscerate Edwards' damages claim and directly controvert Edwards' ... representations ... regarding the weakness of Edwards' clients' damages claims ... Edwards' association with Rothstein ... the litigation tactics in which Edwards improperly engaged, and they destroy the overall credibility of Edwards' allegations against Epstein." 6 "[T]he e-mails directly debunk Edwards' assertion that he had no involvement with Rothstein, that he acted properly in the litigation, and that there is nothing to demonstrate any weakness in Edwards' now-settled three clients' claims against Epstein. " 7 [T]he e-mails implicate the crime-fraud exception due to] Rothstein' s and Edwards' working together." 8 "[T]hese e-mails are case-ending or worse. " 9 2 E.g. Motion at p. 12 3 Id at 8 4 See id. at 4. 5 Id. at 17. 6 Id. at 6. 7 Id. at 16. 8 Id.atl7. 9 Id. at 9. 3 NOT A CERTIFIED COPY 6. There is nothing "generic" about this public filing, which is clearly a "substantive" discussion" of the emails that the Court explicitly stated was to be made in the confidential filing. Any claim that the discussion of the general contents of the privileged e-mails, but not the specific contents, was permitted by the Court's order completely ignores the explicit directions of this Court. In fact, this filing appears to be nothing more than another attempt to utilize privilege information that Epstein should never have had possession of, and to inject salacious allegations into the public record in order to smear Edwards, with the hopes that the media will seize on this information, report on it, and ultimately taint the jury pool. 7. As recent discovery in the bankruptcy proceeding has revealed, however, this is not the first time that Epstein has attempted to knowingly use privileged materials in violation of a court order. 8. As this Court is aware, in March 2018, Epstein sought to admit these emails on the eve of trial without requesting an in camera inspection. It was Edwards who notified the Court that these emails were on Edwards' privilege log since 2011, and it was Edwards who notified the Court of the existence of Judge Ray's Bankruptcy Order restricting the use of these emails. 9. Edwards has learned, however, that Epstein was aware that these emails were listed on Edwards privilege log before he added them to his proposed Trial Exhibit List in early March 2018, 10 and Epstein was likely also aware that these emails were the subiect of Judge Ray's Order. 11 10 See Sworn Declaration of Fact of Scott Link, Esq., attached hereto as Exhibit 'D', attesting that, prior to filing Epstein's Trial Exhibit List: "I recognized that some documents were listed on a [sic) Farmer Jaffe's privilege !Qg[.]" 11 Although Mr. Link dances around this subject in his deposition testimony, and was instructed not to answer certain questions by counsel, the testimony that was provided eviscerates any credible claim that Epstein was not aware of Judge Ray's order before attempting to admit these privileged materials on the eve of the March 2018 trial date. 4 NOT A CERTIFIED COPY 10. Epstein failed to disclose either fact to this Court. 11. This