1371.pdf

NOT A CERTIFIED COPY Filing# 76293431 E-Filed 08/10/2018 03:18:44 PM JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, V. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendants/Counter-Plaintiff. ---------------~/ IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA Case No. 50-2009CA040800:XXXXMBAG COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE TO COUNTER-PLAINTIFF BRADLEY J. EDWARDS' MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF TRIAL ORDER AND CROSS MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") responds to the Motion for Clarification of Trial Order filed by Counter-Plaintiff Bradley J. Edwards ("Edwards") on August 3, 2018, and cross moves seeking clarification of the Court's Trial Order, and states: INTRODUCTION This Court properly established new pre-trial deadlines in its August 3, 2018, Order Setting Jury Trial ("the Trial Order") because this is the first trial setting on Edwards' severed claims and the trial of the severed claims is special set in December 2018. The only "clarification" needed is how the deadlines should be calculated. That is, the Trial Order establishes deadlines based on calendar call, yet does not set forth a calendar call date. Epstein seeks clarification that the deadlines should logically be calculated from the first day of trial (i.e., December 4, 2018) as the Court has done in three trial orders in the past. FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, SHARON R. BOCK, CLERK, 08/10/2018 03: 18:44 PM NOT A CERTIFIED COPY RESPONSE TO EDWARDS' MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION Within an hour of the Court's issuance of the Trial Order, Edwards filed his Motion for Clarification, seeking clarification that it was not the Court's intent to reopen discovery. Without conferring, Edwards' counsel noticed the Motion for a UMC hearing on August 15, 2018. 1 While Epstein agrees that the Court may limit discovery, Epstein disagrees that no discovery should be conducted, as explained more fully below. Further, while not addressed specifically in the Motion, Edwards has also taken the position that the parties should neither exchange new Exhibit and Witness Lists nor file a new Pre-Trial Stipulation. Epstein also disagrees with these positions. EPSTEIN'S CROSS MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION A. This is the First Trial Setting on Edwards' Severed Claims For the more than eight years this case has been pending, and as set forth in the parties' December 22, 2017, Pre-Trial Stipulation, Epstein's claim against Rothstein and Edwards' claim against Epstein were going to be tried together. On March 1, 2018, just 12 days before the scheduled trial date, Edwards for the first time asked that the claims be severed. At the March 8, 2018, hearing on Edwards' Motion, and as memorialized in its March 13, 2018, Order, the Court granted that request. Epstein sought certiorari review, but the decision was upheld by the Fourth District Court of Appeal without prejudice to Epstein's ability to appeal that decision later. 1 1n the Notice of Hearing, Edwards' counsel certified that he had spoken in person or by telephone with Epstein's counsel before noticing the matter for hearing, however no such communication ever took place before the Notice was filed. After the fact, Epstein's counsel opposed setting the matter for a UMC hearing on August 15 because another issue is already set that day and Epstein's counsel did not believe ten minutes is sufficient time to address both issues. Edwards' counsel refused Epstein's counsel's suggestion to have the matter heard at the August 22, 2018, hearing. The Court would be well within its authority to refuse to consider Edwards' Motion for Clarification based on Edwards' counsel's unprofessional failure to confer. 2 NOT A CERTIFIED COPY All of the parties' previously filed pre-trial documents - Exhibit Lists, Witness Lists, Rebuttal Witness Lists, Expert Disclosures, Pre-Trial Stipulation, Deposition Designations, Jury Instructions and Verdict Forms - were prepared and are based on the claims proceeding together. The Court properly established new deadlines in the Trial Order to allow the parties to file new pre-trial documents based on the severed claims and new trial date. The Trial Order, however, established deadlines based on calendar call, yet does not set forth a calendar call date. Epstein seeks clarification that the Court logically intended for the deadlines to be calculated based on the trial date, as follows: Deadline Calculation Due Date Exhibit Lists; Witness Lists; Expert 60 days before trial October 5, 2018 Witness Lists; Expert Disclosures Rebuttal Witness Lists 50 days before trial October 15, 2018 Objections to Exhibits; Parties to Meet 30 days before trial November 2, 2018 and Confer to Discuss Settlement and Prepare Pre-Trial Stipulation Pre-Trial Stipulation; Deposition 20 days before trial November 14, 2018 Designations Discovery Deadline; Counter 10 days before trial November 23, 2018 Deposition Designations; Objections to Deposition Designations Mediation Before trial December 3, 2018 B. Limited Discovery Should be Allowed Epstein is not seeking to "open the flood gates" to conduct extensive discovery. However, in light of the passage of time and the fact that the trial will now be on Edwards' claim only, limited deposition discovery is needed. 3 NOT A CERTIFIED COPY i. Epstein is Entitled to an Updated Deposition Regarding Edwards' Damages. The Court's October 13, 2017, Order on Epstein's Motion to Strike Edwards' Discovery Objections and Compel Responses allowed Epstein to take Edwards' deposition to ask, among other things, questions concerning Edwards' alleged damages. Exhibit A (10/13/17 Order); Exhibit B (10/3/17 Hearing Tr., 197:20-198:2). Pursuant to those rulings, Edwards' deposition was conducted on November 10, 2017. As to damages, Edwards testified: Q. What were your damages on December 21st, 2009? A. It was the same types of damages that I am claiming now, in that the complaint that was filed against me was - and it was intentionally designed to link me to Scott Rothstein ... Since that point in time, those damages have continued to increase. But they began right from the time that this was filed. So whatever damages, whatever cause of damage that I was seeking back then, it's the same thing as now. *** Q. And I asked you earlier if the dismissal of that lawsuit stopped the damages that you are claiming, and you said, No, it carries all the way on to today .... A. It carries on until a jury decides otherwise, decides that these things against me were untrue and hurtful. Exhibit C (11/10/17 Edwards' Depo. Tr. 201:5-23; 209:6-12; emphasis added). Simply put, Edwards is seeking damages through trial. Because trial is now set for a time more than one year after Edwards' November 10, 2017, deposition, Epstein seeks a very narrowed, updated deposition limited to two hours, on Edwards' claims of damages sustained after his November 10, 2017, deposition. Clearly, this is information Epstein needs, and is entitled to. 4 NOT A CERTIFIED COPY ii. Epstein is Entitled to Take Virginia Roberts Giuffre's Deposition, Should the Court Allow her to Testify at Trial. On April 7, 2011, Edwards and his counsel conducted a telephone interview of Virginia Roberts Giuffre ("Ms. Roberts"). Epstein's counsel did not attend, participate in or know about the interview. While Ms. Roberts brought tort claims against Epstein, she was not one of Edwards' three clients. On May 17, 2011, Edwards filed an unofficial transcript of Ms. Robert's April 7, 2011, interview in support of his Motion for Leave to Amend to Assert a Punitive Damages Claim. In December 2011, Epstein served a discovery request seeking "witness statements you intend to use in this case" which included "recordings of sound." Edwards resp