EFTA00235301.pdf

Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 214-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09'02,2010 Page 1 of 10 Page 3 ban I I UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY 0OURT I THE COURT: Rothstein Rosenfeldt & Adler. SOUTHERN DISTRICT OP FLORIDA 2 MI right May I have appearances, please? 2 3 MR. LICHTMAN: Good morning, Judge. 3 4 4 Chuck Lichtman, Berger Singerrnan, for the trustee. S CASE NO.: 09-34791731CCREM 5 MIL NEIV/IRTH: Good morning, your Honor. 6 In Re. 6 Ronald Neivrinh, Fowler White Burnett, on behalf of 7 ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLfl. P.A.., 7 the movant, Epstein, and with me today are two of my s Debtor 8 partners, Chris Knight and Lilly Ann Sanchez - 9 MS. SANCHEZ: Good morning, Your Honor. 9 10 MR. 1O41O111: Good morning, your Honor, 10 ti II MR. NESVEZTH: — both of whom are MOTE MOTION TO COMP ILPRODUCTTON OF DOCUMENT'S FROM TRUSIta, 12 familiar with the State Court angle on this than 1 12 PURSUANT TO COMMENT PRCOUCTION PROTOCOL BSTABLISHED 13 am, so they came along to be able to elucidate that BY DB0672 (S07), AMENDED MOTION FOR PROTL'CTIVE ORDER 14 end of It. 13 (SIR) 15 MR. FARMER: Good morning, your HOME 14 16 Gary Fanner on behalfofLM, Brad Edwards, and 15 August 4,2010 I6 17 the Fanner Jaffe Wasting law firm. We are an 17 The ahow-cndaal ass mit on for 18 interested party and have filed a motion for 111 Menne MAN as HONORABLE RA1040761B. RAY 19 protective order as to the subpoena that is at 19 once:: de Naga oft UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY 20 issue here today. 20 COURT, m end fel the SOUTHRRN DIST/UCT OF FLORIDA. 21 THE COURT: All right Insofar as the 21 el 799 Ear! Browsed Bad , Fr LatelerdaM/3704444 22 TD Bank motion, Docket Entry 780, that has been the 21 Carney, TIMM on Tondo, Mom 4, 2010, Mei Mos 9130 ant, se4 the knave% 23 subject matter of en agreed order that was submitted 21 omemendng 14 proccedino were had: 24 to me. 25 Repotted By: Mutant Franz= 25 MR. LICHTMAN: Correct, Judge. Page 2 Page 4 1 APPEARANOIS 1 THE COURT: Mr. Scherer. 7 2 MR. SCHERER: Yes, sir, your Honor. 3 BERGER 8/910BILMAN. try CHARLES H. WHOA" ESQUIRE 3 I'm William Scherer and I'm here on behalf of a 4 on WINIIM Ea Emote 4 number of victims in the State Court action, as s $ Wen aS the chairman of the creditors' committee 6 CONRAD & SCHEItElt, by WILLIAM R. SCNEKO, ESQUIRE 6 In the banIcruptiry. 7 on beloiltofeictkret 7 THE COURT: All right. That leaves us with s 8 Docket Entry 807 and 819. 807 is Jeffrey Epstein's 9 FOWLER MITE. BIJRN6TT, by RONALD 0. M3TWIRTIL ESQUIRE 9 motion. 10 LILLY ANN SANCHEZ, ATIORNEY•AT.LAW 10 MR. NEIWIRTH: Thank you, your Honor, and CHRISTOPHER E. KNIGHT, ESQUIRE 11 JOSIEN L ACKERMAN, ESQUIRE 11 again, good morning. We represent Jeffrey Epstein. on beluntotkahy Epstein 12 He has a civil claim pending in State Court in 12 13 Palm Beach County. He had served a subpoena on 3 FARMER JANE WEISSINO EDWARDS P1STOS & LEHRMAN. by 14 Mr. Stettin requesting documents from the RRA estate. Ye GARY FARMER. ESQUIRE 15 That was back in April. BRAD EDWARDS, ESQUIRE While this was still in process, in 15 on. MINN of LEL Brad Edon and 16 Fumy Rae Wtimag Edwin% Fatal & ',Orman 17 May, tinder Docket Entry 672, your Honor entered 16 18 an order standardizing procedures for obtaining 17 19 discovery from Mr. Stettin and the RRA estate, IS 20 and at /cast on the face of it, it takes 19 21 jurisdiction ova all discovery efforts against 70 21 22 the trustee. That left us in a quandary. n 23 We had a subpoena pending in State 73 24 Court. We had correspondence from Berger 24 75 25 Singerman on behalfof the trustee dist they had OUELLETTE & MAULDIN COURT REPORTERS, EFTA00235301 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 214-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09'02,2010 Page 2 of 10 Pies? Pegs 5 1 identified information and they were processing I taken jurisdiction over these discovery matters 2 it, including vetting for attorney/client 2 and attempted to standardize discovery efforts 3 privilege issues, but then In the meantime carne 3 for the trustee. There's a lot of people that 4 your Honor's order on May 18th, so we had to go 4 want things from the trustee. 5 The trustee is overseeing an estate 5 back and reinvent the wheel and go through the 6 necessary hoops in order to comply with that 6 which involved somewhere in excess of 70 lawyers 7 In the meantime, as we sit here now, we 7 and lots of cases and lots of problems, and 8 still have no production. We have a trial date 8 literally millions of documents, and we have 9 coming up in October, and we have a motion for 9 absolutely no problem with the standardized 10 order, but that means that somehow or other wo 10 protective order coming from a party who's 11 have to be able to deal with it in a standardized 11 already settled out, the LM party. They DO 12 manner, instead of Mr. Flumes suggestion, which 12 longer have anything directly to do with this. 13 Further, we are advised by the I3 is go back to Slate Court and deal with it over 14 there. 14 creditors' committee that in addition to what was THE COURT: What is the status of the State 15 15 proffered to us, that at some point In time there 16 Court proceeding? 16 had been something like ten boxes of records MR. NEUWIRTH: May 1 defer to my partner, 17 pertaining to these particular issues and someone 17 18 on behalf of the victims had been given, or 18 who is more familiar with that? 19 MR. KNIGHT: Your Honor, Christopher 19 several someones, had been given access to those 20 Knight, if I may? While we were waiting for the 20 ten boxes and had viewed them, which would 21 documenu from the Stettin office, we obviously 21 vitiate any attorney/client privilege in any 22 wanted to go down two tracks because we had an 22 event So what we are trying to do is fashion 23 October trial date. The status of it is we could not 23 24 come to an agreement with the other side. 24 a mechanism so we can comply with your order, 25 Mr. Ackerman was at the last beating, in which the 25 Docket 672, about standardized means of getting Page6 h&c 8 1 judge said, one, !need a representative of the I production from the trustee, allow for the 2 mines here and two, shouldn't this be back before 2 appropriate vetting of the materials for 3 attorney/client privilege, and we must bear in 3 you, Judge Ray. 4 THE COURT: You can't proceed against 4 mind that this is one objector, there's a lot Rothste in in the State Court, they're here. 5 5 more documents than that 6 MR. KNIGHT: And that Is the same thing I 6 To the best of our knowledge, the 7 think Judge Crow recognized, and that's why we're 7 documents that pertain to the LM party, who is 8 back here, and that's why we had to file the motion. 8 settled anyway, may be 15 percent of those which MR. ACKERMAN: The claim against 9 9 are responsive to the Inquiry that we made of the 10 Rothstein is against him Individually, and it's 10 trustee, but in any event, someone has to vet 11 against Brad Edwards individually, and it was II them for attorney/client privilege and do a 12 against one of the claimants, 12A individually. 12 privilege log. 13 '11W COURT: So It's not against the debtor 13 Now, Mr. Farmer's office on behalf of 14 estate. 14 LM wants to do that We don't think Mars 15 MR. ACKERMAN: That's correct. 15 appropriate. We third* the privilege at this 16 MR. KNIGHT: Just to go a little further on 16 point, since the case is settled, lies with RRA 17 what Mr. Neiwinh was saying. Out of these documents 17 and, therefore, the trustee, rather than 18 we've been asking for fora long time, very few of the 18 Mr. Farmer and his client, because as to them 19 them would even have privilege on their face because 19 case is ova. 20 they have nothing to do with the clients that were 20 Furthermore, we don't think them is 21 represented, what's bees called as LM. 21 any privilege because the boxes have been vetted 22 If there's going to be a log, if 22 before and we'll hear more about that from 23 there's any need, which I don't think there is 23 Mr. Scherer, I assume, because he was the one 24 because I think privilege has been waived, it 24 that was aware of that. 25 needs to be a log put together by the trustee, 25 And last, but not least, your Honor has 2 (Poses 5 to 8 OUELLETTE & MAULDIN COURT REPORTERS, INC. EFTA00235302 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 214-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2010 Page 3 of 10 Page 9 Pupil I not anybody else that has some sort of interest 1 everybody first 2 in it. 2 MR. KNIGHT: Okay. 3 If there's a problem with payment for 3 MR. FARMER: Thank you, your Honor, may it 4 those, et cetera, our client has already offered 4 please the Court Again, Gary Fanner on behalfof 5 to the trustee, to Mr. Lichtman, we will pay for 5 the interested party, LM, also on behalf of 6 it, whether ifs a special master or whether it's 6 Brad Edwards and I'm sorry, your Honor, Mr. Edwards 7 a contract attorney, if they need to do that, but 7 is here with me. I neglected to Introduce him to S 8 1 don't think wo even need to reach that. 8 Court earlier. 9 Idris& these documents are long 9 MR. EDWARDS: Good morning, your Honor. 10 overdue. They have been produced to others, they 10 MR. FARMER: There has been a lot of 11 have been used in depositions for others, they 11 discussion here about your Honor's standardized 12 are out there, and ! think the privilege Issue is 12 production order and I think that you need to 13 just being used as a smoke screen to keep our 13 understand that this particular matter, which is 14 client from being able to get the documents he 14 before you today, is anything but standard or common 15 needs to be able to prove his case. 15 to the matters before this Court 16 Thank you. 16 You need to understand the nature of 17 MR. ACKEMAN: Your Honor, one other 17 the ease. Jeffrey Epstein is an admitted 18 matter. Judge Crow expressed a concern about 18 convicted pedophile. He sexually assaulted 19 entering any order against the trustee or his 19 dozens and dozens of young girls under the age of 20 counsel without them being present 20 15. He pled guilty to this and he has settled 21 Initially we had filed a motion to 21 every civil lawsuit filed against him on this 22 compel in the State Court, but we didn't realize 22 issue. 23 at the time or It was unclear, because we had 23 Despite all of this, Mr. Epstein has 24 just taken over the case from another law firm, 24 seen fit to file a lawsuit against LM, who is one 25 that the Court had entered its order. 25 of the plaintiffs against him; against Paz: lo Page 12 1 There was some discussion prior to the 1 Brad Edwards, LM's attorney; and against 2 hearing and when we went to the hearing, it was 2 Mr. Rothstein. 3 clear that there was no agreement that had 3 Now, Edwards, myself and all the 4 existed and Judge Crow said, I'm not entering en 4 members of our fi rm were RRA attorneys when 5 order, I'm not doing anything on this motion 5 Mr. Rothstein took his ill-fated trip to Morocco 6 undl the bankruptcy trustee is represented. 6 and did the things which are now so well known, 7 Ho was concerned because this Court's 7 but the fact of the matter is that this discovery 8 order had set up the standardized procedure for 8 request ls a blatant attempt to obtain clearly 9 dealing with these arguments and had reserved 9 privileged documents related to the 10 jurisdiction relating to any subpoena or request 10 representation of LM and many other victims, by 11 for documents from the trustee. so that's why 11 the way. 12 we're here now. 12 And if1 can show your Honor a copy of 13 THE COURT: All right. 13 the subpoena itself, I don't think that the 14 MR KNIGHT: Your Honor, just one other 14 breadth of the subpoena has been adequately 15 point. We tried to work, and we've been working with IS represented to the Court. If you peruse this, 16 Mr. Lichtman, tried to work out a protective order 16 you will see they are asking for communications 17 between the trustee and Epstein regarding the 17 with private investigators, they're asking for 18 subpoena. Mr. Lichtman and Ms. Sanchez agreed to 18 contingency fee contracts, they're asking for 19 language on it I have a copy of it. 19 every comnamicadon between any member of the 20 Mr. Farmer, with his motion for 20 firm, and they throw Rothstein in just to make it 21 protective order, would not agree to that, but if 21 sexy, about these cases. 22 the Court would like to have a copy of what the 22 Now, your Honor. clearly communication 23 draft was, I will approach your clerk, but if you 23 about the representation of a client falls under 24 do not want that, I also — 24 not only the work product, but if the client is 25 THE COURT: Well, let me hear from 25 involved in the communication, also the 3 (Pages 9 to 12) OUELLETTE & MAULDTN COURT REPORTERS, INC. EFTA00235303 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 214-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09'02 ,2010 Page 4 of 10 Pagel) PRIM 1 attorney/client privilege. 1 Mr. Scherer's clients, who have claims before 2 Now, most of this stuff we've already 2 this Court, and hopefully they will get some form none, but for many 3 of relief from the Bankruptcy Court Epstein is 3 responded and said none, nono, 4 of these items, we have asserted the privilege 4 not seeking any bankruptcy assets. He's suing 5 and we continue to assert the privileg e. 5 Brad Edwards and LM personally, and Scott Now, the only reason the trustee is 6 Rothstein, and ifs ratan estate claim, it's 6 7 against Scott Rothstein personally. 7 here — THE COURT: Walt, there's been a privilege 8 So my suggestion, your Honor, is that 8 the trustee to turn this electronic ing? 9 you instruct 9 asserted in the State Court proceed information over to us. We will MR.. FARMER: Yes, air. 10 docume ntation 10 riate privilege log with the THE COURT: And there is a privileg e log 11 file the approp 11 Court judge who is presiding over the 12 Circuit 12 and the judge has made a ruling? is most familia r with the case, who MR. FARMER: No. The dispute now really is 13 case, who 13 be conside ring the upcomi ng motion for 14 will 14 over who's going to file the privilege log and nt, and possibl y trying the case, t is that the 15 summa ry judgme 15 respectfully, Judge, what we sugges and that way your Honor is not burden ed with this 16 16 trustee has been thrust into this matter simply incur fees and 17 because the trustee stands in the shoes of all the 17 matter, the trustee does not 18 former attorne ys at RRA, and the trustee is likewis e 18 expenses of having to go through all of these to the eases and 19 document, prepare a privilege log and our 19 bound by the privileges that attach 20 client and Mr. Edwards — Mr. Edwards is also a 20 to the lawyers that were at the firm. 21 The trustee has repeatedly acknow ledged 21 party of that lawsuit He enjoys his own 22 privilege, your Honor, over and above, or in 22 the fact that it Is bound by those privileges 23 and, of course, as your Honor knows, the 23 addition to, I should say, the privilege 24 privilege belongs to the client, not to any 24 possessed by our former client and, of course, I 25 lawyer or any law firm. 25 know couasel knows that the privilege extends Pop 14 rats it. So the trustee is really kind of stuck 1 beyond the litigation. 1 So although Mr. Epstein paid a ton of 2 2 in the middle here. You've got the pedophile who 3 money for this claim that is supposedly 3 wants documents related to the cases he's already 4 frivolous, it has been settled, but the privilege 4 settled and pled guilty for. Those documents, 5 the electronic documents, at least, the e-mails, 5 still extends and it remains in place. So we 6 simply want to make sure that our investigative 6 electronically stored Information is how ifs 7 referred to in the discovery request, your Honor, 7 materials, our reports, other documentation 8 relating to the claims we have and have had 8 are not In ow possession, they are in the 9 against Jeffrey Epstein are not put into the 9 possession of the trustee because the trustee 10 hands of Jeffrey Epstein's attorneys. 10 took the computer system. II Now, we just want the chance to review II So the trustee doesn't want to incur 12 these documents and prepare the privilege log and 12 the cost and expense of filing a privilege log 13 the trustee is kind of stuck In the middle here, 13 and, frankly, I don't know that the trustee has a 14 Judge. Remove the trustee from the equation, let 14 full appreciation of the nature and specific 15 us get the documents, we'll file the privilege 15 facts of the cases that would enable it to 16 log, and then Mr. Epstein and us can go before 16 conduct a complete privilege log. So my suggestion, your Honor, and it's 17 Judge Crow. He can review the privilege log, 17 18 review the documents in camera. 18 been rejected — I believe ifs acceptable to the All that is going to be pretty time 19 19 trustee, but ifs been rejected by Mr. Epstein's 20 consuming, but he's much more suited, a better 20 counsel, is the trustee be removed from this 21 suited judge because he's more familiar with the 21 equation. There's no need that we come back 22 facts to engage in that inquiry. 22 before you. 23 THE COURT: Thank you. 23 This case, this Epstein case, is not a MR. FARMER: Thank you, your Honor. 24 24 matter which would involve bankruptcy estate THE COURT: Mr. Lichtman, Mr. Scherer, your 25 25 assets going to Mr. Epstein. Unlike 4 (Pages 13 to 16 OUELLETFE & MAULDIN COURT REPORTERS, INC. EFTA00235304 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 214-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09'02,2010 Page 5 of 10 Page 19 Posen I input, please. 1 allegations in the LM case that they knew were 2 MR. LICHTMAN: I'm going to let Mr. Scherer 2 not true, in order to entice my clients into 3 go first. 3 believing that Bill Clinton was on the airplane 4 MR. SCHERER: I think he wants me to go 4 with Mr. Epstein and these young woman and other 5 first. 5 personages, I can't remember who they are, and 6 THE COURT: All right. 6 all sorts of other allegations that really were 7 MR.. SCHERER: Your Honor, in November 7 not even related to the LM case. 8 And to the extent that any lawyers from 8 we filed a lawsuit in State Court and we alleged 9 that as a part ofMr. Rothstein and the firm, and 9 the RRA finn, former lawyers, made a ton of money 10 the firm's employees, and maybe some ofthe 10 or however Mr. Farmer talked about it, we're 11 firm's attorneys, conspired to use the Epstein/LM 11 interested in that ton of money because if they 12 litigation In order to lure $13.5 million worth 12 were involved In this scheme, this fraud, there's 13 ofmy victims, my clients, into making 13 a crime fraud exception, and in addition, I want 14 investments in these phoney settlements. 14 to see the ten boxes that they brought down. 15 The trustee does not have those ten 15 And as we alleged in that State Court 16 boxes. Those ten boxes were taken by Mr. Edwards 16 proceeding, and we've sharpened the allegations 17 as we've amended a few times, we allege that 17 when he left the law firm, I presume. So we want 18 sometime in late October, that my clients were 18 the ten boxes, we want all the communications and 19 invited into the Rothstein finn with 19 we want to look through everything on behalf of 20 my State Court ease, but also on behalfof the 20 Mr. Rothstein, and he explained that he bad a 21 creditors' committee because the creditors' 21 litigation going in State Court with Mr. Edwards 22 committee is looking to see if anybody else in 22 representing LM, a victim ofMr. Epstein, and 23 the firm, other than Rothstein, was Involved in 23 these are kind ofsensational allegations and 24 this massive fraud that used the Epstein case. 24 it's been printed widely. The model of using an existing case and And my clients, a number of them and 25 25 Fate 20 Page IS then spinning off a fraud from it is the same 1 their lawyer, went into the Rothstein conference 2 that was perpetrated on the Morse — in the Morse 2 room and Mr. Rothstein brought down — summoned 3 situation, as has been alleged and widely 3 the investigators, two of than, two or three of 4 produced. 4 them, to bring down the Epstein file. And the I can't conceive that Mr. Edwards and 5 5 lawyer that my clients brought from a national that 6 the predecessor law firm would have any standir.g 6 finn, went through the LM boxes, ten of them 7 to prepare privilege logs or anything else, given 7 the investig ators brough t down, and conclud ed 8 what 1just told the Court. That would be like 8 that the Epstein case was a real case. 9 having the fox guard the hen house. That Epstein 9 And what Mr. Rothstein did with that 10 case is settled, and to the extent it's the ten 10 real ease, ofcourse, is he told everybody that 1t boxes of stuff that we looked through, and I'll 1 not only did he have the LM client of 12 have to get the boxes to see if the attorney who 4 12 Mr. Edwards, that that were a number ofother 13 looked through them, and how much time he spent 13 young ladies, that was widely published in the 14 looking through than — 14 newspaper, that the fists was representing and THE COURT: Where are the ten boxes? 15 that wanted to settle with Mr. Epstein on a 15 16 MR. SOBERER: That's a good question. 16 confidential basis. 17 The trustee does not have the ten boxes. I 17 So he used the real case in order to 18 presume the ten boxes are residing with the 18 defraud my clients into investing into these 19 lawyers who took the case, Mr. Edwards and the 19 phoney settlements and paid 13 and a halfmillion 20 successor law firm. The trustee does not have 20 dollars. I believe that Mr. Rothstein and others 21 them. And then in addition, there's about 6,000 21 in the firm also told that story to a lot of 22 e-mails that the trustee has, and I bet you when 22 other people, and let a lot of other people 23 we look at Qtask, there's going to be a boatloa d 23 examine those ten boxes of the real case. 24 more. 24 In addition, as we have alleged, that My clients were also advised during Edward s and the firm put sensational 25 25 Mr. 5 (Pages 17 to 20) OUELLETTE & MA DIN COURT REPORTERS, INC. EFTA00235305 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 214-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09:02,2010 Page 6 of 10 Pars?! Pie 23 I their due diligence, short due diligence to 1 to take those ten boxes to start with. 2 settle these cases with these young ladies — 2 THE COURT: All right Mr. Licluman. 3 these putative young ladies who had to get the 3 MR. LICHTMAN: Good morning, Judge. Inn 4 money and leave town because of whatever the 4 going to try to walk you through sort of 5 stories were, that there were other members of 5 chronologically the trustee's perspective of what has 6 the firm that told my clients that they, indeed, 6 happened here. I think that what Tve heard from all 7 had even identified more of these victims that 7 the parties are comments that aro correct, and not 8 Mr. Rothstein didn't even know about at that 8 necessarily correct, and Pm not suggesting 9 time. So we know it wasn't just Mr. Rothstein falsehoods. We Just have kind of a different 10 spinning the talc, there were a lot of people in 10 perspective of some things and there arc some points 11 the firm. 11 that ought to be corrected. 12 We've alleged almost all of this in ow 12 Mr. Stettin received a subpoena in a 13 State Court action that we filed in November, up 13 Palm Beach State Court action for production of 14 to where we are right now, but, your Honor, 1 14 documents, and as we had done In virtually every 15 think your Honor is going to have to deal with Is subpoena, we went to ow forensic accountants, 16 these issues in this court and I would urge you 16 the Berkowitz Dick Pollack & Brant firm, and 17 to have the trustee get involved and let the 17 said, okay, we need to produce c•mails and we 18 trustee do its job with respect to whether there 18 need to also then, with the staff that we have at 19 are privileges that need to be protected, work 19 Berger Singennan and elsewhere, and look to see 20 product or attorneyklient privileges, given 20 if there an any hard documents that we can find, 21 what's going on, and I believe the trustee will 21 notwithstanding what we'll call the issues as to 22 be investigating whether the trustee wants to 22 the RRA bard drive that contain client files. 23 bring any claims on behalf of the estate by 21 We quickly realized that this Is a 24 virtue of what I've just laid out for you. 24 claim different than all of the other subpoenas. 25 Thank you. 25 The subpoenas that we had been receiving from Page 22 Piss, 24 1 THE COURT: So your lawsuit in State Court 1 virtually every other party in the case were 2 names these people as defendants? 2 requests for production of documents related to 3 MR. SCHERER: It names Rothstein. It 3 claims that those moving parties or requesting 4 does not name Mr. Edwards. It just names 4 pasties would have as it pertains to them trying 5 Rothstein, not the finn, and lays out the facts 5 to recover some aspect of money as pertained to 6 and says other people in the firm. We did not 6 the Portal scheme. 7 name them because we want to see the documents 7 Okay. Lie Mr. Scherer, who said 1 and see whether they had involvement. 8 need a bunch of documents, cm you help us? So 9 But the facts that I have alleged for 9 we would enter into, on a one by one basis, a 10 you, your Honor, is pretty much what I've alleged 10 protective order that was very, very tightly II in my first through third amended complaint in II negotiated. There is no standard form protective 12 State Cowl. 12 order in this case, contrary to what everybody 13 THE COURT: So, in essence, your position 13 has told you. We have a form that we use, and 14 in this matter would be to support the motion to 14 everybody that has come to us, we said, we need 15 compel and deny the motion for protective order? 15 to have a protective order in place -- 16 MR. SCHERER: Yes, sir, notwithstanding 16 THE COURT. We have Docket Fatty 672, which 17 that Ms. Epstein is a convicted pedophile. I 17 apparently is the document production protocol. 18 want to put that on the record. You know, he's 18 MR. LICHTMAN: We have that, yes, but then l9 served his time and whatever, but I support the 19 we also, as an example, Document 685, have a 20 same position that he that he has asked the 20 protective ceder that was entered with Mr. Scherer's 21 Cowl, and that is to have the trustee deal with 21 clients. We have, as an example, Document 715 that 22 this, get these documents and deal with it with 22 pertains to MS Capital, and on and on 23 you, rather than allow the successor law firm to 23 So, in any event, what we realized is 24 have them. 24 the cue with respect to the Epstein vs. Scott 25 I don't know where they had the right 25 Rothstein, Bradley Edwards case, is this is 6 (Pages 21 10 24 OUELLETTE & MAULDIN COURT REPORTERS, MC. EFTA00235306 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 214-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02'2010 Page 7 of 10 Pies n Pare 23 I different. This Is not an asset either to the 1 MR. LICHTMAN: Qtask is not part of this 2 RRA estate, nor is it really an asset to any 2 equation as ofright now. Now, it may be, and were 3 potential creditor of the RRA estate that is 3 still trying to got that. I'm just talking about 4 internal e-mails where we would put in search, 4 investigating claims that can bring a recovery 5 that can help in terms of the overall dollars 5 give it to the Berkowitz Sun and say, run an e-mall 6 into either RRA or to a particular creditor on 6 search on the following names. 7 And when we realized the volume of 7 their individual lawsuits. 8 The Epstein case, rather, is a lawsuit 8 work, and you can imagine, you know, hire from a 9 between a third party that was being sued by the 9 ream of paper, 500 sheets ofpaper, and you 10 Rothstein ann against Rothstein lawyers, and we 10 multiply that out and you get to 12 reams of that 11 had a different privilege issue than we had 11 paper, it takes up a lot of paper, it takes up a 12 tremendous amount of time. This is not an asset 12 focused on with all these other document 13 of the estate that we can, if we have to, warrant 13 productions. So we get the 6,000 e-mails, and on the 14 doing the work. the hard work, as we've done on 14 15 many of the other claims, some of which already 15 eve of one ofmy colleagues getting ready to 16 are before you for settlement purposes. This is 16 enter into — either enter into one of these 17 protective orders or say, here, take them, like 17 a liability to the estate and an expensive one. 18 So we really didn't want to go through 18 we've done with everybody else, we looked up and 19 the undertaking ofhaving to protect the 19 Mr. Stettin and I said, time out. We have a 20 privilege, though we would, and candidly, 20 legitimate privilege issue here. And I want to be clear, we don't want 21 Epstein's counsel has said well pay you to do 21 22 it, but then there's also the manpower issue 22 to come anywhere close to stepping in the mess of 23 because we are pressed very hard to get certain 23 waiving attorney/cheat privilege, unless and 24 until the Court tells us to, and I want to also 24 adversaries moving as quickly as we can and were 25 fighting a lot of battles on a lot of different 25 be clear, we wish we weren't hen. We would Paten Pate 26 I grounds, we still really don't want to do that, prefer not to have a fight on any of this stuff 2 and also because we don't know the Epstein case I 2 and on one hand, we don't ewe who does the 3 well enough to be able to assess what is 3 privilege log and who gets the documents, and on 4 privileged, what Is not, and preparing a 4 the other hand, because of some things that 5 privilege log the proper way is really a time 5 Mr. Scherer just commented on, that I learned 6 consuming mess. 6 literally today, and because of the common 7 So I teed it up for both sides and 7 interest agreement that everybody knows wo have 8 said, here's what I'm willing to do. Putting 8 with Mr. Scherer and the committ