797.pdf

NOT A CERTIFIED COPY Filing# 9448113 Electronically Filed 01/22/2014 08:02:25 PM JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, vs. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA Case No. 50 2009 CA 040800:XXXXMBAG I PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S REPLY TO DEFENDANT/COUNTER-PLAINTIFF BRADLEY EDWARDS'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND IN CORPORA TED MEMORANDUM OF LAW Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"), by and through his undersigned counsel, files this Reply to Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Bradley Edwards's ("Edwards") Opposition to Epstein's Motion for Summary Judgment and states: I. SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT Epstein filed this action to recover damages from Co-Defendants Scott Rothstein ("Rothstein") and Edwards based upon Epstein's well-founded belief at the time of filing his Complaint that these two individuals, among others, engaged in serious misconduct involving a widely publicized illegal pyramid scheme operated through their law firm, Rothstein, Rosenfeldt & Adler ("RRA"). To further the Ponzi scheme, civil cases were used as bait to lure unsuspecting investors into the fraudulent scheme, including cases being prosecuted against Epstein by RRA through its Partner and lead counsel, Co-Defendant Edwards. In response to Epstein's original lawsuit, Edwards immediately filed his Counterclaim, and after a series of dismissals and multiple revisions thereof, Edwards alleges two causes of action against Epstein: abuse of process and malicious prosecution. Epstein has denied liability as to these causes of action and has asserted various affirmative defenses, including Edwards's inability to overcome the absolute NOT A CERTIFIED COPY Epstein v. Rothstein, et al. immunity afforded to Epstein under the litigation privilege and Edwards' s failure to state causes of action in abuse of process and in malicious prosecution. II. STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS Epstein relies upon his statement of undisputed facts as delineated in his Motion for Summary Judgment. It is incontrovertible that Epstein's filing of the suit, and any and all actions taken during the course of prosecuting it, are absolutely protected by the litigation privilege. Further, in addition to the absolute immunity afforded to Epstein by the litigation privilege, Edwards's causes of action are easily negated by the uncontested, incontrovertible, and undeniable facts that existed at the time Epstein filed his initial suit and his Amended Complaints 1 : Edwards was a partner at Rothstein Rosenfeld Adler ("RRA") from April 2009 through November 2009, a period during which RRA was a front for the largest Ponzi scheme in Florida's history. In early November 2009, as a result of widely publicized press accounts, Epstein learned that RRA had imploded, and that three civil cases that RRA was prosecuting against Epstein (the "Epstein Cases") were used to defraud investors of millions of dollars and fund the RRA Ponzi scheme. RRA partner Edwards was lead counsel and the supervising attorney over each of the Epstein Cases used to lure investors and fund the Ponzi scheme. In late November 2009, Epstein was also alerted that as a result of the Ponzi scheme at RRA, the law firm of Conrad Scherer filed a Complaint against Scott Rothstein and others, Razorback Funding, LLC, et al. v. Scott W. Rothstein, et al., Case No. 09-062943(19) (hereinafter referenced as the "Razorback Complaint"), on behalf of some of the Ponzi scheme investors; a case that settled for approximately $160 million dollars. In the Razorback Complaint, Mr. Scherer detailed RRA's fraudulent use of the Epstein Cases, alleging: Rothstein used RRA's representation in the Epstein case to pursue issues and evidence unrelated to the underlying litigation but which was potentially beneficial to lure investors into the Ponzi scheme. For instance, RRA relentlessly pursued flight data and passenger manifests regarding flights Epstein took with other famous individuals knowing full well that no under 1 A separate index and copies of all items cited in the undisputed facts is provided with the full Motion. - 2 - NOT A CERTIFIED COPY Epstein v. Rothstein, et al. age [sic] women were on board and no illicit activities took place. RRA also inappropriately attempted to take the depositions of these celebrities in a deliberate effort to bolster Rothstein's lies. See Razorback Amended Complaint; page 17; ,r 49 (emphasis added). The deposition subpoenas and discovery requests to which the Razorback Complaint refers were served and filed by Edwards at the time that Edwards was a partner at RRA and the lead attorney on the Epstein Cases. On December 1, 2009, also before Epstein filed suit, the Information against Scott Rothstein was filed by the Federal government. The Information repeatedly references RRA as the Enterprise with which Rothstein and his co-conspirators were associated and by which they were employed. The Information charges that "Rothstein and his conspirators, known and unknown," participated in or conspired to participate in "racketeering activity" to further the Ponzi scheme. Edwards's partner at RRA, Scott Rothstein, admitted to and was convicted for these acts and is serving a fifty (50) year sentence. Several other partners of RRA have also been Federally charged and/or convicted, and the Government has confirmed that the events at RRA are still the subject of an active, ongoing investigation. Also as described fully in Epstein's Summary Judgment Motion, highly questionable litigation practices in the Epstein Cases, including those described above in the Razorback Complaint, intensified drastically during the short six ( 6) months during which Edwards was a partner at RRA; with Edwards admitting that litigation expenditures increased from $25,000.00 to approximately $300,000.00 during those short six ( 6) months. Epstein was forced to disburse funds for attorney's fees in resisting this onslaught, and according to the allegations made in the Razorback Complaint, at least some of these efforts were made to further the Ponzi Scheme. On July 23, 2009, Edwards held a meeting at RRA with all attorneys regarding the Epstein Cases. The next day, on July 24, 2009, Edwards filed a two hundred thirty-four (234) page, one fifty-six (156) count federal complaint against Epstein on behalf of a plaintiff, LM, for whom Edwards was already prosecuting a case against Epstein in state court involving the very same facts alleged in the federal - 3 - NOT A CERTIFIED COPY Epstein v. Rothstein, et al. complaint. The complaint was filed in federal court, but was never served on Epstein. It was, admittedly, shown to the Ponzi scheme investors. Also during this time when, according to Rothstein and the Federal government, the Ponzi scheme was unraveling and was in desperate need of funds from new investors, Edwards filed a motion in Federal court seeking a fifteen million dollar bond from Epstein in the Jane Doe case that was being touted to the investors. In the motion, Edwards detailed at great length Epstein's net worth, calling him a "billionaire," and listing in detail the vehicles, planes, and other items of substantial value he purportedly owned. The Court flatly rejected the motion, calling it "entirely devoid of evidence" and declining to find any misconduct by Epstein to justify the bond "based upon the adverse inferences relied upon by Plaintiff." See Order in Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Dated November 5, 2009, 08-cv-80119. Although other undisputed facts are cited in support of Epstein's Motion for Summary Judgment, the above facts, alone, require that it be granted. III. MEMORANDUM OF LAW