# IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC, Publisher of THE PALM BEACH POST,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO: 2019-CA-014681

DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of Palm Beach County, Florida, SHARON R. BOCK, as Clerk & Comptroller, Palm Beach County, Florida,

Defendants. GO

# DEFENDANT, DAVE ARONBERG, AS STATE ATTORNIIIMPALM REACH COUNTY, FLORIDA'S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND MOTION TO DISMISS COUNT 11
Defendant, DAVE ARONBERG, as State A olgalm Beach County, Florida, ("SAO"), by and through the undersigned attorney, he Plaintiff, CA Florida Holdings, LLC, Pt( to Dismiss Count II, as follows: Count I of the First Amended Complaint of e Palm Beach Post ("Post"), and files a Motion

- 1. Admitted fir" dietional purposes.

# JURISDICTION
# PARTIES
cnicd that Defendant Aronberg or the Office of the State Attorney for the Fifteenth

Judicial Circuit is in possession and/or control of documents that are the subject of this action. Otherwise admitted.

- 4. Admitted.

# INTRODUCTION
- 5. Paragraph 5 contains the Post's statement of the case and legal arguments to which no

response is required. To the extent that a response is required, the SAO is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of any factual allegations contained in paragraph 5, and therefore denies the allegations and demands strict proof thereof.

6. Paragraph 6 contains the Post's statement of the case and legal arguments to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, the SAO admits only that section 905.27(1)(c), Florida Statute authorizes the disclosure of grand July proccedinoie cr certain circumstances.

7. Paragraph 7 contains the Palm Beach Post's statement of legal arguments to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is r r , the SAO is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the factual allegations contained in paragraph 7, and therefore denies the allegations and a t proof thereof.

8. Paragraph 8 sets forth the Post's st e o the case and legal arguments to which no response is required. To the extent that a nse required, the SAO is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief of any factual allegations contained in paragraph 8, and therefore denies the allege mends strict proof thereof.

9. Paragraph 8 sets e Post's statement of the case and legal arguments to which no response is required. T i xtent that a response is required, the SAO is without knowledge or information suffre en forma belief as to the truth of any factual allegations contained in paragraph 9, and the the allegations and demands strict proof thereof.

# FACTUAL BACKGROUND
10. The SAO is without knowledge or information sufficient to forma belief as to the truth of any factual allegations contained in paragraph 10, and therefore denies the allegations and demands strict proof thereof.

# A. First Epstein Sex Crimes Investivation, Indictment, and Plea Agreement: 2005-2008.
of any factual allegations contained in paragraph 11, and therefore denies the allegations and demands strict proof thereof.

12. The SAO is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of any factual allegations contained in paragraph 12, and therefore denies the allegations and demands strict proof thereof.

13. The SAO is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a beli to the truth of any factual allegations contained in paragraph 13, and therefore denies the alle and demands strict proof thereof.

14. The SAO is without knowledge or information suffrcient'oyh a belief as to the truth of any factual allegations contained in paragraph 14, and there the allegations and demands strict proof thereof.

15. The SAO is without knowledge or of any factual allegations contained in pars strict proof thereof. sufficient to form a belief as to the truth therefore denies the allegations and demands

# (1) Police Chief Reit C to the State Attorney
16. The SAO is with o wledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of any factual allegations c fp a d in paragraph 16, and therefore denies the allegations and demands strict proof there°

17 • AO is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of any fa a egations contained in paragraph 17, and therefore denies the allegations and demands strict proof thereof.

# (2) The July 2006 State Grand Jury Presentation
18. The SAO is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of any factual allegations contained in paragraph 18, and therefore denies the allegations and demands strict proof thereof.

19. The SAO is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of any factual allegations contained in paragraph 19, and therefore denies the allegations and demands strict proof thereof.

20. The SAO is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of any factual allegations contained in paragraph 20, and therefore denies the allegations and demands strict proof thereof.

21. The SAO is without knowledge or information sufficient to form f as to the truth of any factual allegations contained in paragraph 21, and therefore denies ons and demands strict proof thereof.

22. The SAO is without knowledge or informationnr to form a belief as to the truth of any factual allegations contained in paragraph 22, and enies the allegations and demands strict proof thereof.

# (3) The FBI's Investigation an tein Non-Prosecution Agreement with Federal Authorities.
23. The SAO is without owe or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of any factual allegations contai in aTagraph 23, and therefore denies the allegations and demands strict proof thereof.

24. The ( 4cOr is 'thout knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of any factual 'o contained in paragraph 24, and therefore denies the allegations and demands strict p .

25. The SAO is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of any factual allegations contained in paragraph 25, and therefore denies the allegations and demands strict proof thereof.

26. The SAO is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of any factual allegations contained in paragraph 26, and therefore denies the allegations and demands

strict proof thereof.

27. The SAO is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of any factual allegations contained in paragraph 27, and therefore denies the allegations and demands strict proof thereof.

28. The SAO is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of any factual allegations contained in paragraph 28, and therefore denies the allegatio, d demands strict proof thereof.

29. The SAO is without knowledge or information sufficient t as to the truth of any factual allegations contained in paragraph 29, and therefore deni a egations and demands strict proof thereof.

of any factual allegations contained in paragraph 3 \ it ore denies the allegations and demands 40 30. The SAO is without knowledge or info rma(is {40 'o r lent to form a belief as to the truth strict proof thereof.

31. The SAO is without 1m 'nformation sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of any factual allegations contain 'n ph 31, and therefore denies the allegations and demands strict proof thereof.

# (4) The crhne c s' Rights Act Litigation.
32. is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of any fac ons contained in paragraph 32, and therefore denies the allegations and demands strict p f.

33. The SAO is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of any factual allegations contained in paragraph 33, and therefore denies the allegations and demands strict proof thereof.

34. The SAO is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of any factual allegations contained in paragraph 34, and therefore denies the allegations and demands strict proof thereof.

35. The SAO is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of any factual allegations contained in paragraph 35, and therefore denies the allegations and demands strict proof thereof.

36. The SAO is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of any factual allegations contained in paragraph 36, and therefore denies the allegatiq d demands strict proof thereof.

37. The SAO is without knowledge or information sufficient t as to the truth of any factual allegations contained in paragraph 37, and therefore deni a egations and demands strict proof thereof.

# icicle: 2019. B. Second Epstein Sex Crimes Investigation. Ind
39. The SAO is without knowled 4fo ation sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of any factual allegations contained in g 9, and therefore denies the allegations and demands strict proof thereof.

38. Admitted.

40. The SAO is with° wledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of any factual allegations d in paragraph 40, and therefore denies the allegations and demands strict proof thereo

41 • AO is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of any fa a a egations contained in paragraph 41, and therefore denies the allegations and demands strict proof thereof.

42. The SAO is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of any factual allegations contained in paragraph 42, and therefore denies the allegations and demands strict proof thereof.

of any factual allegations contained in paragraph 43, and therefore denies the allegations and demands strict proof thereof.

44. Admitted.

# C. The August 27, 2019, SDNY I I earina: Enstein's Victims Sneak.
45. The SAO is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of any factual allegations contained in paragraph 44, and therefore denies the al demands strict proof thereof. ns and

46. Admitted that United States Senior Judge Richard M. B August 27, 2019, but the SAO is without knowledge or information suffi, form a belief as to the truth of any remaining factual allegations contained in p 3, and therefore denies the allegations and demands strict proof thereof. a hearing on

47. The SAO is without knowledge or of any factual allegations contained in pare strict proof thereof. \ io sufficient to form a belief as to the truth therefore denies the allegations and demands

48. The SAO is witho of any factual allegations contain aragraph 48, and therefore denies the allegations and demands strict proof thereof. ge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth

49. T11 SIis without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of any fac ons contained in paragraph 49, and therefore denies the allegations and demands strict p f.

50. The SAO is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of any factual allegations paragraph 50, and therefore denies the allegations and demands strict proof thereof.

51. The SAO is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of any factual allegations contained in paragraph 51, and therefore denies the allegations and demands

strict proof thereof.

# D. The Palm Beach Post's Standing and the Public Interest.
- (1) The Palm Beach Post Has Reported Extensively On Epstein's Crimes For Nearly 15 Years.

52. Admitted.

53. Admitted.

54. Admitted that the Post has extensively investigated and reported the egations against, the law enforcement investigation of, and the crimes committed by Ep i lacks sufficient knowledge to admit or deny any factual allegations remaining in pare ph 5 , d therefore denies the allegations and demands strict proof thereof.

55. The SAO is without knowledge or informa truth of any factual allegations contained in paragra therefore denies the allegations and demands strict proof thereof. ' i k) t to form a belief as to the

# The Palm Beach Post's StalingrACISr d the Public Interest.
56. Paragraph 56 of th ended Complaint contains the Palm Beach Post's statement of the case and legal to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, the \T0 ieradmits the press has a constitutional right of access to criminal proceedings, but is out owledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of any remaining fa a I Lions contained in paragraph 56, and therefore denies the allegations and deman f thereof.

57. Paragraph 57 sets forth the Post's statement of the case and legal arguments to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, the SAO is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of any factual allegations contained in paragraph 57, and therefore denies the allegations and demands strict proof thereof.

58. Paragraph 58 sets forth the Post's statement of the case and legal arguments to which

no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, the SAO is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of any factual allegations contained in paragraph 57, and therefore denies the allegations and demands strict proof thereof.

59. Paragraph 59 of the First Amended Complaint contains the Palm Beach Post's statement of the case and legal arguments to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, the SAO admits that Fla. Stat. 905.27 allows a court to make te rmination of disclosure but is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief e truth of any remaining factual allegations contained in paragraph 59, and therefore allegations and demands strict proof thereof.

# E. The Court's Jurisdiction and Authority.
# A X , (1) The Court's Supervision of the Grand .kuryC 'recess and Its Authority to Order Public Disclosure of the Epstein Evide
60. Paragraph 60 of the First aint contains the Palm Beach Post's statement of the case and legal argume h no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, the SAO a ss has a constitutional right of access to criminal proceedings, but is without kno information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of any remaining factual allegati ro tz contained ar in paragraph 60, and therefore denies the allegations and demands strict p ereo .

Onitted.

61. itt .

63. Y Paragraph 63 sets forth the Post's statement of the case and legal arguments to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, the SAO is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of any factual allegations contained in paragraph 63, and therefore denies the allegations and demands strict proof thereof.

64. Paragraph 64 of the First Amended Complaint contains the Palm Beach Post's

statement of the case and legal arguments to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, the SAO is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of any remaining factual allegations contained in paragraph 64, and therefore denies the allegations and demands strict proof thereof.

# (2) The Court's Jurisdiction To Declare Rights And Construe Statutes.
- 65. Admitted.
- 66. Admitted.
- 67. Admitted. C)

4 4,

# COUNT I
(Declaratory Relief - Florida Stat. Sections V et seq.)

- 68. The SAO reincorporates and re-alleges its p ' r s to paragraphs 1 through
- 69. Admittcd. 4 67 above. \
- 70. Paragraph 70 contains the 's siilement of the case and legal arguments to which no response is required. To the ex t t sponse is required, the SAO is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a the truth of any factual allegations contained in paragraph 70, and therefore denies egations and demands strict proof thereof.
- 71. Ad de7 tha The Palm Beach Post is seeking a declaration from this Court but tlit ,34v/ denies the re o aragraph 71. itted.
  - 73. Y Denied.
- 74. Paragraph 74 contains the Post's legal arguments to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, the SAO is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of any factual allegations contained in paragraph 74, and therefore denies the allegations and demands strict proof thereof.

# MOTION TO DISMISS COUNT II
(Florida Stat. Section 905.27)

Defendant, DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of Palm Beach County, Florida, pursuant to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.420, hereby files this Motion to Dismiss Count II of Plaintiff s First Amended Complaint for failure to state a cause of action, and in support thereof states:

# I. Standard of Review
When confronted with a motion to dismiss, the Court must determine wh athe mplaint as phrased within its four comers sufficiently states a cause of action, where • n be granted. Fox v. Professional Wrecker Operations 801 So. 2d 175, 178 (Fla. 5 DC I). A motion to dismiss tests whether the plaintiff has stated a cause of action. for a motion to dismiss under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.140(b) is whether the pl er u rove any set of facts as alleged in the Complaint to support his or her claim. See, Co 1 ebeco Inc. 89 So. 2d 482, 484 (Fla. 1956); Wasua Ins. Co. v. Haynes, 683 So. 2d 11 DCA 1996).

In order to meet this test, "a co nt allege sufficient ultimate facts to show that a pleader is entitled to relief." W.R. T n ontr.. Inc. v. Jensen Civ. Constr.. Inc.,728 So. 2d 297, 300 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (quoti Cos t rove 464 So. 2d 664, 665 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Fla. IL Civ. P. 1.110(b)). Th {sup}`t` urt.need not accept internally inconsistent factual claims, conclusory allegations, unwa de ctions, or mere legal conclusions made by a party. a (citing Response Oncolo in tralealth Insurance Co.,978 F. Supp. 1052, 1058 (S.D. Fla. 1997)); Oxford Asset M 97 F.3d 1182, 1188 (11th Cir. 2002) ("[On a motion to dismiss,] the plaintiffs factual alle :lions are accepted as true.... However, legal conclusions masquerading as facts will not prevent dismissal."). To avoid dismissal, a pleading "must allege a cause of action recognized under law" against the defending party. Kislak v. Kreedian, 95 So. 2d 510, 514 (Fla. 1957).

# H. Argument
- a. Neither Defendant Aronbere, nor the Office of the State Attorney for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit is in possession and/or control of documents that

# arc the subject of this act ion.
It is significant to emphasize that despite Plaintiff's allegations to the contrary, Defendant Aronberg and the Office of the State Attorney for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit are not in custody or control of the records sought herein, and therefore Defendant Aronberg is not a proper party to this action. In fact, Defendant, Sharon R. Bock, as Clerk and Comptroller of Palm Beach County, Florida, admits that it is the custodian in possession of the documents that arc the subject of thjh,g ion.

# b. Plaintiff Fails to State a Cause of Action
Plaintiff attempts to assert a cause of action, in the interest of "furth ", under Florida Statute § 905.27; however, a review of the statute in question reveals that c se of action is provided for therein and consequently Count IT of Plaintiff's First Am plaint must be dismissed as a matter of law. Despite Plaintiff's extensive recitation background regarding Jeffery Epstein and the testimony and evidence presente t 21f06 grand jury in Palm Beach County, Florida, Fla. Stat § 905.27, merely explains ceplfons to the disclosure of grand jury testimony and does not set forth in any way a ca upon which to initiate a valid law suit.

Moreover, a review of a issue clearly indicates that even if § 905.27, Fla. Stat. provided a basis for a cause of ac laintiff is barred from access to the records it seeks. To wit, in pertinent part, Fla. Stat. § !N 9 . (2) states:

When such osure is ordered by a court pursuant to subsection (1) for use in a civil case, sclosed to all parties to the case and to their attorneys and by the latter to ike associates and employees. However, the grand jury testimony afforded s by the court can only be used in the defense or prosecution of the civil or c'P\*pii case and for no other purpose whatsoever.

Here, despite the clear statutory guidelines for disclosure of grand jury materials in a civil case, Plaintiff is improperly seeking the requested 2006 grand jury materials for the purposes of public disclosure pursuant to the court's inherent authority and supervisory powers over the grand jury. [See, Complaint ¶¶ 8, 63]. Again, even if Plaintiff properly asserted a cause of action under Fla. Stat. 905.27, the statute unambiguously states that grand jury testimony "can only be used in the defense or

prosecution of the civil or criminal case and for no other purpose whatsoever", which is distinctly different from Plaintiff's intended purpose for public disclosure of the grand jury evidence. Fla. Stat. § 905.27(21.

WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing argument and supporting authority, Defendant, DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of Palm Beach County, Florida, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court grant the instant Motion and dismiss Count II of Plaintiff's First Amq Complaint with prejudice, and grant Defendant Aronberg all other and further relief de t and proper, including attorney's fees and costs for defending this frivolous action.

# CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 24th day of January y of the foregoing has been electronically filed with the Florida E-File Portal for e- • I parties of record herein. so\

4 SCHOLL & WYLER, LLC

Douglas A. Wyler

Artlwrq. Fla. Bar No.: 10249 Richard J. Scholz, Esq. Fla. Bar No.: 0021261 Douglas A. Wyler, Esq. Fla. Bar No.: 119979 961687 Gateway Blvd., Suite 201-I Fernandina Beach, Florida 32034 (904) 261-3693 (904) 261-7879 Fax Primary: jacobsscholzlaw@comcast.net

General Counsel for the Florida Prosecuting Attorney's Association