Palm Beach Post response to State Attorney's premature sanctions motion

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA¶

CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC, CASE NO.: 50-2019-CA-0146814OOa-MB Publisher of THE PALM BEACH POST,¶

DIVISION: AG¶

Plaintif&¶

{sup}v .¶

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

Defendants.¶

A Cos¶

PLAINTIFF CA HOLDINGS, LLC’S RESPONSE Ti HIS a()E FE ANT STATE ATTORNEY DAVE ARONBERG’S REQUEST TO WREDULE S PREMATURE FLA. STAT. SECTION57.10S MOTION AFTER HIS LATER FILED S MMARY JUDGMENT MOTION¶

PlaintifZ CA HOLDINGS, LL alm Beach Post”) for the reasons stated below requests that this Court schedule f tate Attorney Dave Aronberg’s (the “State Attorney”) Fla. Stat. section 57.105 motion o his motion for summary judgment:¶

I. INTRR~ODUCTON¶

The State mey has admitted that his pending Fla. Stat. section 57.105 motion is “premature ” d sh uld not be set for a hearing. Rather than withdraw his sanctions motion without prejudice, to Attorney seeks a Case Management Conference to have the court impose a hearing date upon The Palm Beach Post to hear his later filed summary judgment motion while his first filed sanction motion remains unscheduled and unheard. This Court should reject the State Attorney’s misuse of section 57.105 by filing a premature motion and then letting it sit on the docket without setting it for hearing and refusing to do so. The Palm Beach Post requests a hearing be set on¶

the State Attorney’s premature sanctions motion, and after it is disposed of, the parties can cooperate and schedule the State Attorney’s summary judgment motion.¶

11. THE PURPOSE OF THE SUIT¶

1. The Palm Beach Post is the largest and most prominent newspaper in Palm Beach County, Florida. It has extensively reported upon the sordid abuse committed by the late Jeffrey Epstein and has justifiably questioned prior State Attorney Barry Krischer’s deci4 disregard evidence of Epstein’s multiple sexual abuse of girls and to use a grand jury ter Epstein for only one misdemeanor count of soliciting a prostitute.

2. The Palm Beach Post seeks, as is its First Amend ri o gather information and infonn the public about Barry Krischer’s actions as State , o ,) re d why Epstein received lenient treatment.

3. The Palm Beach Post named th ‘Se\ the Court and the State Attorney in their official capacities. The Clerk is the custod’ cr itee f th pstein grand jury records and the State Attorney has authority over the grand jury an t egal right to obtain the grand jury materials from the Clerk.

C¶

III. THE STA VT OrtNEY IMPROPERLY SEEKS SANCTIONS¶

4. Not ly in erected in asserting grand jury secrecy in opposition to The Palm Beach Post’s suit, th ttorney wrongly seeks to punish it and its counsel by seeking Fla. Stat. section 57.105

5. The State Attorney’s motion is flawed and should be denied. The Palm Beach Post’s Memorandum of Law in Opposition to the State Attorney’s motion is attached hereto as Ex. “A”.

6. The State Attorney’s sanctions motion is based upon a misinterpretation of the June 8, 2020 Order of Chief Judge Marx which held that The Palm Beach Post lacked standing to assert a claim solely under Fla. Stat. section 905.27.

7. The June 8, 2020 Order does not address the interplay between the First Amendment and Fla. Stat. section 905.27, as Chief Judge Marx solely focused upon section 905.27. The constitutional issues remain unresolved.

8. After filing his 57.105 motion, the State Attorney moved for summary judgment on the remaining declaratory judgment count.

IV. THE STATE ATTORNEY HAS TIED HIMSELF IN HI PROCEDURAL KNOT¶

9. In his over-eagerness to sanction The Palm Beach Post d de er further inquiries into the Epstein scandal, the State Attorney filed his sanctions before filing his motion for summary judgment.

10. The Palm Beach Post repeatedly son te sc edule the sanction motion, but the State Attorney’s counsel refuses to do so.

11. On September 18, 202 e Attorney’s counsel responded that Ile would not 4 cooperate in scheduling the sanc it ‘As until after this Court disposed of his later filed motion for summary judgment. See, Ex.‘friattached hereto for a copy of Douglas Wyler’s September 18, , 7 77 2020 email to The Palm Beach Post’s counsel. rt

12. justify his refusal to schedule his own sanctions motion, the State Attorney’s counsel admitted that his sanctions motion is “premature” and should not be scheduled for a hearing. \_

13. Despite this shocking admission, the State Attorney refuses to withdraw his sanctions motion. See, Ex. “C” attached hereto for the exchange of additional emails.

14. To extricate himself from his self-inflicted problem, the State Attorney seeks a judicial conference to schedule his summary judgment motion while letting his “premature” and defective admittedly “premature” and improper. 16. The sanctions motion should be scheduled for the daily motion calendar as it is A

sanctions motion remain unscheduled.¶

15. This Court should refuse to solve the State Attorney’s self-created dilemma. It should not schedule a hearing on his motion for summary judgment unless he withdraws his sanctions motion and if he does not do so, then a hearing should first be set for his sanctions motion.

16. The Palm Beach Post and its counsel should not have an imtxwelLanctions motion hanging over their heads.

17. Premature motions should not be filed. This is ere here, the motion seeks sanctions against media parties and their counsel for thei\r g assertion of First Amendment rights.

Aetic WHEREFORE, The Palm Beach Post ioeC ’ t t the State Attorney’s motion for summary judgment not be scheduled until the State me s ither withdraws his premature sanctions motion or a hearing on his sanctions moti b uled before the hearing on his motion for summary judgment, and further requests tlt e ourt grant such other relief as it deems just and proper.¶

Respectfully submitted,¶

GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A.¶

Attorneys for CA Florida Holdings, LLC, Publisher of The Palm Beach Post¶

Stephen A. Mendelsohn, Esq. 5100 Town Center Circle, Suite 400 Boca Raton, Florida 33486 Telephone: (561) 955-7629 Facsimile: (561) 338-7099¶

By: /s/ Stephen A. Mendelsohn STEPHEN A. MENDELSOHN Florida Bar No. 849324 mendelsohns@gtlaw.com smithl@gtlaw.com FLService@gtlaw.com¶

By: /s/ Michael J Grygiel MICHAEL J GRYGIEL (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) 54 State St., 6th Floor Albany, New York 12207 Telephone: (518) 689-1400 Facsimile: (518) 689-1499 grygielm@gtlaw.com¶

By: /s/ Nina D. Boyajian NINA D. BOYAJIAN (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) 1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900 Los Angeles California 90067 Telephone: (310) 586-7700 Facsimile: (310) 586-7800 boyajiann@gtlaw.com riveraal@gtlaw.com¶

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE¶

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this r d day of October, 2020, a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been filed with the Clerk of the Court using the State of Florida e-filing system, which will send a notice of electronic service for all parties of record herein¶

Is/ Stephen A. Mendelsohn¶

STEPHEN A. MENDELSO C¶

ACTIVE 52726099v4 iS C) )¶

( S e¶

Cr¶

+o¶

1 1&?¶

( S e¶

EXHIBIT “A”¶

NOTA¶

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 POS7;¶

Plaintiff,¶

v.¶

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

Defendants.¶

CASE NO.: 50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB¶

DIVISION: AG¶

A Cos¶

MEMORANDUM OF LAW OF PLAINTIFF CA HOLDINGS, LLC IN OPPOSITION TO THE STATE ATTORNEY’S FLA. STAT. SECTION 57.105 MOTION¶

Plaintiff, CA Florida Holdings, LLC, pu r (*the largest and most prominent newspaper in Palm Beach County, Florida, The P 1 …e B Post, submits this Memorandum of Law In Opposition to the State Attorney’s S t. 7.105 Motion, and for the reasons set forth below, the State Attorney’s Motion should den with prejudice.¶

I. TII POSE OF THE PALM BEACH POST’S SUIT¶

As extensiv etail in its Amended Complaint, the criminal prosecution of the late Jeffrey Epstein by fo • to Attorney Barry Krischer, Palm Beach Circuit Court Case No. 50-2008-CF-A3i7CXlMk Zws serious and troubling questions as to whether it was properly conducted. The Amended Complaint provides numerous examples of the prior State Attorney’s “highly unusual” in the words of the former Town of Palm Beach Police Chief — treatment of the numerous complaints of sexual misconduct and assault made against Epstein, including but not limited to the former State Attorney’s refusal to cooperate with the investigation of the Town of Palm Beach Police Department, his focus on only one underage sexual assault victim though there were other known victims, his use of information provided by Epstein’s defense team to undermine the State’s witness and his approval of a plea agreement and sentence that enabled Epstein to spend his days on furlough where he likely committed additional sexual crimes. While much of the Epstein saga is a matter of public record, the public still does not know how former State Attorney Krischer used the grand jury process — and the secrecy that comes with it — to shield Epstein and his equally powerful and corrupt accomplices from the public and justify Epstein’s lenient treatment. Access to the Epstein gran reveal how the instrumentality of the grand jury was used in this case, w matter of vital public concern. terials will questionably a¶

H. THE STATE ATTORNEY’S 57.105 MOTION IMP E SEEKS TO DETER THE PALM BEACH POST FROM SERVIN PUBLIC INTEREST¶

In moving pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 57.105 agains\ current State Attorney improperly seeks to deter proceeding. Whether the current State Attom or is trying to protect grand jury secret Beach Post and its counsel, the m is inquiry into the Epstein grand jury ated by animus against The Palm Beach Post ortant. What is important, and troubling, is that the State Attorney does not want toC ai novel and important public issues on their merits, but instead is using the threat of sans o suppress The Palm Beach Post’s investigative reporting.¶

The State Atto ey wered the Amended Complaint, and disclaimed possession of the Epstein grand ju Is, he has not moved for summary judgment on the remaining claim; Count I — Declara ent. Further, the State Attorney has now shown — and presumably cannot show — that he 1 the authority under Chapter 905, Fla. Slats., to request and obtain access to the Epstein grand jury materials from the Clerk of the Court (the “Clerk”).¶

In response to The Palm Beach Post’s Request to Produce, the Clerk’s office recently provided internal email communications, but none were relevant to the Request. According to its officials, the Clerk’s office does not maintain logs or registers and that it is impossible to determine whether the State Attorney’s office sought or obtained access to the Epstein grand jury materials during or after its Epstein prosecution. Given this uncertainty, The Palm Beach Post will serve di demands upon the State Attorney’s office to determine whether it accessed or exercis over the grand jury materials.¶

Also, the Clerk, who admittedly has both possession an trTbf the Epstein grand jury materials, has not followed the State Attorney’s lead in see 4 to lion The Palm Beach Post: the Clerk has neither provided the 21-day safe harbor cc • ofe i?.n _ ined in Section 57.105 nor has she moved for sanctions. The Clerk’s decision supp \ e , erence that the State Attorney is using the threat of sanctions to avoid litigating the c on i erits. e s in¶

HI. THE STATE ATTOR Itl REPRESENTS THE COURT’S JUNE 8, 2020 ,, ORDER¶

In its bare-bones Section Let )05 motion, the State Attorney’s main argument is that this Court’s June 8, 2020 Order r ting Defendant’s Motions to Dismiss Count II of Plaintiff’s First Amended Com t Prejudice (the “Order”) held that all The Palm Beach Post’s claims are without an a Order does no such thing.¶

Tho the parties’ motion papers and the oral argument on June 2, 2020 covered a range of complex statutory issues, the Order addresses only one—whether Fla. Stat. § 905.27 creates a private right of action. This issue was not the principal focus of either the State Attorney’s or the Clerk’s motions to dismiss Count II. Instead, they primarily asserted that The Palm Beach Post lacked standing under section 905.27 to seek grand jury materials “in furtherance of justice.” The State¶

Attorney and the Clerk argued that the statute prohibited the use of grand jury materials except for limited purposes in a civil or criminal proceeding in which the movant is a party. Because, according to the State Attorney and the Clerk, The Palm Beach Post did not intend to use the Epstein grand jury materials in a civil case in which it was a party, nor in a criminal case, the State Attorney and the Clerk asserted it lacked standing.¶

The Palm Beach Post, as set forth in its Opposition to Defendant Dave As State Attorney of Palm Beach County, Florida’s Motion to Dismiss Count first Amended Complaint (“Plaintiff’s Opposition”), views § 905.27 as encompassin use by a party in her civil case; (2) use by a party in her criminal as a representative of the public “in furtherance ofjustice \ ” rgc8 i ed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the Florida Constitution. able scenarios—(I) or (3) use by the media¶

This Court, in its Order, did not ad k ments, though it did acknowledge during oral argument that The Palm Beach Pos sta ling-page 8 of the transcript. Rather, the Order focused solely on whether § 905.27 a rmplied private right of action and held that it did not. See Order at 3. That ruling did n — no less apply — the statute’s “in furtherance of justice” exception to grand jury s o the Epstein case. Given this Court’s narrow ruling, the State Attorney wrongly tha the Court determined that the “justice” provision of § 905.27 has been adjudicated ag e Palm Beach Post, and that Count I is frivolous.¶

E ISSUES RAISED IN COUNT II ARE NOVEL AND COMPLEX¶

As set forth above, this Court limited its inquiry to “whether a cause of action under section 905.27 should be judicially implied. [citation omitted].” See Order at 3. In determining that the Florida legislature did not intend to create a statutory cause of action and remedy, this Court addressed a novel and complex issue. As such, section 57.105, on its face, is not implicated.¶

Section 57.105(1Xa)-(b) provides that a court shall award fees to the prevailing party if:¶

the losing party or the losing party’s attorney knew or should have known that a claim or defense when initially presented to the court or at any time before trial: (a) was not supported by the material facts necessary to establish the claim or defense; or (b) would not be supported by the application of then-existing law to those material facts.¶

Section 57.105(3Xa) further provides that monetary sanctions shall not be awarded¶

if the court determines that the claim or defense was initially presented to the court as a good faith argument for the extension, modificatioth or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law, as it a to the material facts, with a reasonable expectation of [Emphasis added.]¶

The Florida Supreme Court has held that attorneys’ fees shout not awarded unless there is “a total or absolute lack of a justiciable issue, which is tan to a finding that the action is frivolous … and so clearly devoid of merit both on the f I as to be completely untenable.” Muckenfuss v. Deltona Corp., 508 So. 2d 340, 341 (quoting Whitten v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 410 So. 2d 501, 505 (Fla. 1982)). ssue is novel and complex, sanctions under section 57.105(a) may not be imposed. Marina, LLC v. Casamayor, 166 So. 3d 879 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015).¶

It cannot be contested thaCir der rejecting a section 905.27 implied private right of action for the media is a case of ft IcZet Kpression; indeed, neither this Court nor the State Attorney and the Clerk cite to any i previously resolved this issue.¶

In t e Palm Beach Post presented various reasoned arguments why section 905.27 creates a p to right of action in favor of the media on both constitutional and statutory grounds. See Plaintiff’s Opposition at 10-15. The Palm Beach Post first analyzed the Florida Statutes themselves and U.S. Supreme Court case law, both of which confirm that Florida’s grand jury secrecy laws are not absolute. See Plaintiff’s Opposition at 10-11; Butterworth v. 494 U.S. 624, 626 (1990) (section 905.27 unconstitutional to the extent it prohibits grand jury witnesses from disclosing their own testimony).¶

Florida has also held that the media is entitled to know of grand jury reports that fmd public corruption, notwithstanding section 905.27 secrecy. See Miami Herald Pub. Co. v. Marko, 352 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 1977). In Marko, the Florida Supreme Court recognized that the media plays a vital role in informing the public of the misdeeds of public servants and statutory grand jury secrecy cannot outweigh the public’s right to be informed through its constitutionally protected ne rting.¶

Here, The Palm Beach Post alleges overwhelming facts that raise s ’ ions as to why Epstein was prosecuted and sentenced in such a highly unusual and t e t ero er. At the heart of this issue is the public’s right to know, through the media, whe <it) the orneys then working the case at the State Attorney’s Office fulfilled their public du • r either corruptly or recklessly by misusing the grand jury process.¶

In this regard, The Palm Beach Post an it \ ion 905.27 and presented a well-reasoned argument supporting the existence of a p ’ ten of action, it properly focused on the interplay between section 905.27’s allowance r ‘s ure “in furtherance of justice”, on the one hand, with t aw the public’s right to know throu ia under the First Amendment and the Florida Constitution.¶

This Court did no ssly address The Palm Beach Post’s reliance on a combined constitutional and t ry asis for a section 905.27 private right of action. Instead, it focused exclusively u.’ ion 905.27 and in holding that the “in furtherance of justice” exception is constrai e statute’s other secrecy provisions.¶

The State Attorney’s section 57.105 motion also ignores the constitutional role of the media in informing the public. The fallacy of a purely statutory analysis, without consideration of The Palm Beach Post’s constitutional rights and obligations in conjunction with section 905.27, is that justice can never be furthered, as the statute authorizes, unless the media is able to provide facts to the public as to whether its officials may have violated their oaths.¶

The Palm Beach Post acted in good faith and presented reasoned bases to justify the interplay between the federal and state constitutions and section 905.27. It properly sought to enforce the rights of the media in the Epstein case through the application of complex constitutional and statutory arguments to create new law. Though the Court dismissed one of The Palm Beach Post’,c two claims, such partial dismissal cannot support the State Attorney’s section 57.105 motion.¶

V. THIS COURT’S LIMITED ORDER DISMISSING COUNT II DIQ1rUT RESOLVE COUNT I¶

The State Attorney’s threadbare section 57.105 motion ass at this Court’s Order extinguishes Count I — Declaratory Judgment, and renders C volous. The State Attorney is demonstrably wrong.¶

Count H alleges that The Palm Beach Post \ ns utional and statutory standing for it to overcome grand jury secrecy provisions “in of justice.” Count I, in contrast, does not allege a section 905.27 private right nstead, Count I seeks a declaration that the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment lorida Constitution’s analogous provisions, along with section 905.27, provide ample for this Court to direct the release of the Epstein grand jury materials to The Palm Beac st, or require the Court to conduct an in camera examination of the same, to balanc a i 1ic’s right to know through a free media with Florida’s qualified statutory interest in secrecy.¶

The ssues have yet to be addressed by a dispositive motion or by either Defendant. The State Attorney’s motion to dismiss Count H focused exclusively on section 905.27 and did not acknowledge nor address any constitutional issues. The same is true of the Clerk’s motion to dismiss. Concomitantly, as stated above, the Order was limited to the four corners of section 905.27, and expressly did not consider The Palm Beach Post’s constitutional arguments.¶

VI. THE STATE ATTORNEY IS A PROPER PARTY¶

The State Attorney also argues that it does not possess the Epstein grand jury materials, and based upon this unswom claim, sanctions are also justified. Again, the State Attorney is incorrect, as there is no factual or legal basis to impose sanctions upon its unsupported allegation.¶

While the State Attorney alleges his office does not currently have physical possession of the Epstein grand jury materials, he has argued, relying on section 905.27, that the should not produce them. By taking a position against disclosure, the State Attorney has,, ect, asserted his right to the secrecy of the Epstein grand jury materials. Stated another the statutory right to prevent access to the Epstein grand jury mat s; IRtlhverse of such a claimed right is that he has the right to provide access to the same .a te Attorney claims¶

The State Attorney’s position actually suppo solely a custodian of the grand jury records. R office has “as its primaty interest the prot Grand July Proceedings, 832 F. 2d petitioned a Florida State Attorn Beach Post. He was not named as a defendant in his official capacity as his its grand jury system.” [Italics in original.] In re 11th Cir. 1987). In that case, the federal government over state grand jury transcripts. In opposition, the Broward State Attorney argued agai il eir release citing to section 905.27. Later, a federal grand jury served a subpoena upon t ame St? 1 te Attorney seeking grand jury transcripts. The State Attorney advised the federal co he would produce the transcripts, thereby demonstrating that whether or not he has physi\ ession, he had legal authority to obtain and deliver them pursuant to the subpoena. For these same reasons, the State Attorney, in his official capacity, is a necessary party.¶

Also, assuming the State Attorney does not have physical possession, Florida law does not prohibit his office from requesting Epstein grand jury materials from the Clerk. Indeed, as the State Attorney is well aware, Chapter 905, Fla. Stats. does not bar any State Attorney from accessing grand jury materials, even after a defendant has been convicted and sentenced.¶

VII. THE STATE ATTORNEY’S MOTION IS ADMITTEDLY PREMATURE¶

The State Attorney also admits that his sanctions motion — which is based on the motion to dismiss proceedings and resulting Order — is “premature”. See Exh. “A” attached hereto for a copy of Douglas Wyler’s September 18, 2020 email. As set forth above, those proceedings and the Order were focused on The Palm Beach Post’s statutory claim, not the declaratory relief claim. The State Attorney acknowledges that his motion is not ripe because it first requires this Co solution of his later-filed summary judgment motion. Unlike his motion to dismiss, ’ ary judgment motion addresses The Palm Beach Post’s remaining declaratory action a lief.¶

The State Attorney’s admission demonstrates that his ci,gA ‘on contrary to the express language of section 57.105. As stated above, section 57.1 1( examines a claim or defense “when initially presented to the court”. Because the • flue State Attorney’s sanctions motion I i t admittedly depend upon this Court’s resolutio ; Sks’ , -unscheduled summary judgment motion, the State Attorney’s sanctions motion is p ct …e tune. eznek v. Chase Home Fin., LLC, 152 So. 3d 793 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014). As a premat urt o • , • should be denied.¶

WHEREFORE, The Pal eac ost respectfully requests that the State Attorney’s Fla. Stat. section 57.105 motion be a r • , with prejudice, and that the Court grant such other relief it deems just and proper. YY +0 Respectfully submitted,¶

GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A.¶

Attorneys for CA Florida Holdings, LLC, Publisher of The Palm Beach Post¶

Stephen A. Mendelsohn, Esq. 5100 Town Center Circle, Suite 400 Boca Raton, Florida 33486 Telephone: (561) 955-7629 Facsimile: (561) 338-7099¶

By: Is/ Stephen A. Mendelsohn¶

STEPHEN A. MENDELSOHN Florida Bar No. 849324 mendelsohnsegtlaw.com smithl@gtlaw.com FLService@gtlaw.com¶

By: /s/ Michael J Grygiel MICHAEL J GRYGIEL (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) 54 State St., 6th Floor Albany, New York 12207 Telephone: (518) 689-1400 Facsimile: (518) 689-1499 OS grveielm(a atlaw.com¶

By: /s/ Nina D. Boval NINA D. BOY (Admitted h dlt e) 1840 Cen’ t, Suite 1900 Los A omia 90067 Tel 1) 586-7700 310) 586-7800 aw.com nv. law.com¶

C TE OF SERVICE¶

I HEREBY CERTIFY at ory t is 2nd day of October, 2020, a true and correct copy of the will send a notice o 1,Sectron , service for all parties of record herein foregoing has been filed w e Clerk of the Court using the State of Florida e-filing system, which trop¶

/s/ Stephen A. Mendelsohn STEPHEN A. MENDELSOHN¶

EXHIBIT “A”¶

NOTA CONTINUED COPY¶

From: To: Subject: Date: pnuolas Welee Mendelsohn. SteMen A. Inhkl-FTL4 T) Re: PALM BEACH POST (Epstein) Friday, September 18, 2020 1:11:43 PM¶

Again, we will not withdraw the motion. Please let me know when you are available for the case management conference or I will unilaterally schedule the hearing.¶

Doug Wyler, Esq. =, Scholz & Wyler, LLC 961687 Gateway Blvd., STE 201-I Fernandina Beach, FL 32034 904-261-3693 904-261-7879 (fax) doug.wvIerPrnmract.net¶

Please be advised that this e-mail and any files transmitted, communication or may otherwise be privileged or con individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If read, copy or retransmit this communication bu dissemination, distribution or copying of this cr nfidential attorney-client s co are intended solely for the the intended recipient, please do not immediately. Any unauthorized tion is strictly prohibited.¶

From: <MendelsohnS@gtlaw. om> AC(” 1 Date: Friday, September 18, 2dB4l.at 1:04 PM To: “Douglas Wyler, Esq. ug.wyler@comcast.net> Cc: <BoyajianN@ law.co >, grygielm@gtlaw.com Subject: RE: PA ACH POST (Epstein)¶

Cos¶

Mr. Wyle • • r-ciate your candor in admitting your 57.105 motion is premature.¶

You mus ithdraw it as the motion has no basis, which you acknowledge, because the court has yet to address the merits of the dispute.¶

To: Mendelsohn, Stephen A. (Shld-FTL-LT) MendelsohnS@gtlaw.com¶

Cc: Boyajian, Nina D. (Shld-LA-LT) BoyajianN@gtlaw.com; Grygiel, Michael J. (Shld-ALB-LT) grygielm@gtlaw.com¶

Subject: Re: PALM BEACH POST (Epstein)¶

*EXTERNAL TO GT*¶

I spoke with my client we will not withdraw our motion for attorneys’ fees. Again, we i si that the motion for summary judgment be heard first as it would be premature to have an a hearing when there is no prevailing party and no substantive hearings held since t otion for fees was filed . Being that we are unable to agree on the order of the motions to e h am filing the attached motion to set case management conference. Please see the att v able hearing times for this motion and let me know what works best for you so we ca resolve this matter.¶

Scholz & Wyler, LLC 961687 Gateway Blvd., STE 201-I Fernandina Beach, FL 32034 904-261-3693 904-261-7879 (fax) doug.wylerPrnmeast.nej¶

4s)¶

Please be advised that this e-m a(and and files transmitted with it are confidential attorney-client communication or may otherwis bavdrivileged or confidential and are intended solely for the individual or entity to wh are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy or retran it th communication but destroy it immediately. Any unauthorized dissemination, d4i tion or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.¶

From: <JViendelsohnSPgtlaw.conp¶

To: “Douglas Wyler, Esq.” <doug.wylerPromeast.net>¶

Cc: <finvajianNegtlaw.corn>, ¶

Mr. Wyler, please let us know if the State Attorney will withdraw its sanctions motion without prejudice.¶

If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at postmaster@gtlaw.com, and do not use or disseminate the information.¶

Page 1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE HO.: 50-2019-CA-0146$1 CIRCUIT CIVIL DIVISION: ‘AG’ CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS LLC PUBLISHER OF THE PALM BEACH POST, Plaintiff/Petitioner DAVE ARONBERG, SHARON R. BOCK, Defendant/Respondents. HEARING BEFORE THE HONORABLE KRISTA MARX (200M CONPERENCE1 Wednesday, June 3, 2020 10:08 a.m. - 10:28 a.m. REMOTE ZOOM CONFERENCE Port Saint Lucie, Florida Stenographically Reported By: SONJA M. IIII Court Reporter¶

1 2 On behalf of the Plaintiff/Petitioner 3 GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A. 1840 Century Park East 4 Suite 1900 Los Angeles, Californ S 310.586.7700 boyalianfigtlaw.com 6 BY: NINA D. BOYAJIAN, RZ 7 On behalf of the Def spondent: 8 JACOB, SC OL2 4 L , LLC 961687 teway Bo evard 9 Suite Fern 10 9 11 12 f of the Defendant/Respondent: 13 CLERK 4 COMPTROLLER, PALM BEACH COUNTY .0. Box 229 14 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 561.355.2983 15 nfingerhutOmypalmbeachclerk.com BY: NICOLE R. FINGERNUT, ESQUIRE 16 17 18 APPEARANCES: ch. Florida 32034 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 in 369 recomcast.net AS A. WYLER, ESQUIRE¶

Page 3 1 PROCEEDINGS 2 3 THE COURT: We are here today for a very 4 invited purpose. I’m sure the attorneys are aware of 5 that, but I just don’t want there to be any 6 confusion. We are here on Defendant Dave Aronberg 7 and Defendant Sharon Bock for the Comptroller and the 8 State Attorneys motion to dismiss Count II. 9 You’re all acutely aware as the lawyers that 10 this is a question of law. So we’re not going to be 11 diving into facts and the Court wil not b8 deciding 12 the merits of this motion this mom are 13 simply here for the sole purpose hat m0 ’ n to 14 dismiss. So I just wanted “to sure that we all 15 stay on track and we’re III on t t me page. 16 So. Ms. Boyagiant$‘ll di o you first, 17 =. I — of come, we all know that the Law 101, 18 I must look at the kltirnrirers of the motion, which 19 alleges t the tate Attorney, David Aronberg, and 20 the d ptroller. Sharon Bock. actually have 21 cu trol of these grand jury proceeding. 22 thane true or not is not for this to etermin because I’m looking simply at the ur mers of the complaint. But, not for nothing, ASc{sup}5 hink we all know that they don’t have control and¶

Page 4 1 custody of the records. But I’m going to assume that 2 Ws correct because that’s what has been alleged. 3 So what I first want to hear from is the 4 attorney for Florida Holdings with regard to, 5 assuming arguendo, that Florida Statute 905.27 does 6 create a cause of action, what relief is it that 7 you’re seeking from — in Count II, specifically. 8 Not the dec action. We’re not here on that today 9 what is it you hope to get, a judgment? 10 MS. BOYAGIAN: Thank you, your Honor. Good 11 morning, and thank you for the privilege of appearing 12 before this court. 13 The relief we are seeking is disclosure of the 14 grand jury records, pursuant to the Furtherance of 15 Justice Exception to 905.27. And under the First 16 Amendment. 17 The press, as your Honor is aware, has a right 18 of access under the First Amendment as a surrogate of 19 the public — 20 THE COURT: Let me just stop you for a minute. 21 rd like you to answer my specific question. 22 So I am not particularly convinced — and I’d 23 hke for you to address that. So we’re not going to 24 dive into facts or the press’s standing because 25 that’s not something we’re here to discuss today.¶

1 And I have read the voluminous paperwork — 2 I’ve received paperwork as — and — five-minute ago 3 from some of the other parties. But I deeply 4 appreciate the fact that you sent this to me so much 5 in advance and I have been able to spend some time 6 with, as I said, the voluminous paperwork that was 7 provided. 8 But as you know, we are here for such an 9 extremely limited issue today, and that their motion 10 to dismiss where they state you’re suing the wrong 11 people; that the court has these records. 12 And so, more importantly, I want you to address 13 whether Section 905.27 gives you a private cause of 14 action against the state attorney and the clerk. 15 Again, I’m going to assume the facts are true 16 that are asserted in the motion. Whether they are or 17 not — because I think we can all agree we’re not for 18 sure if they ever — that the state attorney doesn’t 19 have these records. So what is it you’re seeking in 20 Count II — not the dec action. I know you want the 21 records. I’ve got that. But in Count II, 22 specifically, what do you — what’s the relief you’re 23 seeking and, more importantly, how under this statute 24 do you get to assert a private action — a private 25 cause of action against the state attorney and¶

1 clerk? 2 MS. BOYAGIAN: Your Honor, we area, 3 course, that there is no expressed private ri ght at” 4 action, 905.27. But that does not end the inquiry. 5 As the Florida Supreme Court stated: 6 ‘Where a statute like 905.27 7 forbids an act which’ to Plaintiffs 8 injury, the party injured have 9 an action” 10 And that’s the Pi zo case in the volume 11 of materials that we sent you. 12 There’s no question here that the denial of the 13 FIRST AMENDMENT right to the press is an injury which 14 Aiegits rise to a right of action. 15 .’Stated another way, looking at the analysis 16 that the Fischer Metcalf Court looked at, there are 17 three factors in determining whether there is a 18 private right of action where a statute does not 19 expressly provide for one. 20 One is whether the Plaintiff is part of the 21 class for which the statute is intended to protect; 22 second is a legislative history; and the third is the 23 underlying purposes of the statutory scheme. 24 The first factor I already addressed, that the 25 press is part of the class that the statute is 34 /¶

1 intended to benefit, being the surrogate of the 2 public and exercising its first amendment right. 3 The second issue of legislative history and the 4 purpose — statutory purpose are somewhat related. 5 We were unable to find much legislative history on 6 this issue of a private right of action under the 7 statute. 8 There is nothing that says we intend to create 9 a private action, but there’s certainly nothing that 10 says we do not want to create a prtvaje right of 11 action. 12 What we do have is that in 1 13 that 905.27 was reenacted, 14 the secrecy of State Gra 15 juries was also enact 16 905.395, has no e 17 records. By con 18 enacted 905.27 19 Exception. 1”, 20 If the public through the press can’t bring a 21 private right of action to enforce that exception or 22 to seek relief under that exception, that intentionally placed exception of furthering justice essentially rendered hollow — (Speaking simultaneously.) same time that pertains to statewide grand sion, which is — for revealing these st the legislature intentionally urtherance of Justice¶

2 3 4 5 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: Okay. Pause fora minute. I don’t think anybody is saying that there isn’t a cause of action or that the press doesn’t have standing. That’s not what I’m asking you. I’m asking you. how are the clerk and the state attorney the proper defendants? So, you know, nowhere have I said there isn’t a cause of action. Clearly there is. I’m puzzled by the procedural posturing of this case naming the state attorney. And, you know. I’m further stymied by the fact that you allege in your complaint that they have - particularly David Aronberg the State Attorney - that he has these records. But I’m going to assume that’s true. So I’m not telling you, you don’t have a cause of action. I’m just saying, okay, let’s run this all the way out. Let’s say you win and you get a judgment against the State Attorney Dave Aronberg. What’s he supposed to do with it? He can’t release the grand jury testimony. He has no authority whatsoever to do that. MS. BOYAGIAN: Well, your Honor, as you stated, this is a motion to dismiss stage, and we are entitled to discovery on the issue of possession,¶

Page 9¶

1 custody, and control. My understanding Is that the 2 state attorney has asserted that he does not have 3 possession. Its not my understanding that the clerk 4 has taken that positron. So the clerk may Indeed be 5 the — someone who does have possession, custody, and 6 control. 7 In any event, we would submit that the state 8 attorney, even it does not have actual possession at 9 this time, it might be able to have the power to 10 control or direct the entity or persons who do have 11 control and possession to release those to effect 12 the judgment. 13 THE COURT: So let me ask you this: So the 14 de* is the keeper of the record. But even if you 15 got a judgment against her — let’s say you asserted 16 this cause of action and let’s say you win and you 17 get a judgment against the clerk. The clerk cannot 18 release grand jury testimony to you. Only the court 19 can. 20 So really — all I’m saying to you Is I do not 21 understand the way this case was filed or why these 22 are the defendants because it’s impossible for them 23 to perform. 24 I mean, I’m going to assume, based on your 25 motion, again, that they do have the records. But¶

1 all know — everyone in the room knows the 2 that only the court — they’re — they’re 3 court interpreting. And only the cou 4 the records. 5 So if you get a judgment a 6 state attorney or the clerk, they 7 guess what you’re saying to me is, well, we want to 8 do discovery and we wantliarkto say unequivocally “I 9 have these recor or “I don’t have them’ 10 And — I the law is abundantly clear. 11 You ca t a court detemiining whether, 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 of justice, the release is OYAGIAN: And that is a determination we asking your Honor to make, and we’re asking for an or er from your court. THE COURT: When we get to the merits of the case, sure it is. But, again, you’re asking me to make that determination and for me to make a determination of whether the grand jury records should be released. And the only thing we’re here today about is why should the clerk and the state attorney have to defend a civil action when it’s a possibility of performance? They — even if you were to win and get a judgment against them, they cannot¶

Page 11¶

1 give you what they don’t have. 2 So — I mean, it’s as simply as this: Are 3 you — you just want to engage in some discovery for 4 them to absolutely assert, particularly, the state 5 attorney. “I don’t have these records’: look to the 6 rules that say the moment the grand jury’s over. 7 they’re sealed and they’re turned over and they 8 cannot be released without court order? 9 So I’m not addressing the merits or whether you 10 have an exception or you’re able to argue that 11 there’s an exception in the furtherance of justice. 12 We’re not getting there today. I’m simply saying why 13 should these two entities have to defend this lawsuit 14 when even down the road if they win they can’t give 15 you what they don’t have? 18 MS. BOYAGIAN: As your Honor stated, I’m not 17 sure that’s the case with the clerk. That was not in 18 their — that issue was not stated in their papers. 19 THE Let me ask you this, then: Do you 20 think, t got judgment and I or the court 21 alrel.the determination that the grand jury 22 uld be released, that the clerk would be orm? cold they be able to say “here you go”? I n. could the clerk just make that unilateral¶

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 decision “I’m going to release the records, sealed confidential records”? Does she have any authority to do Mat? MS. BOYAGIAN: My understanding, your Honor, is that 905.27 requires a court order before the records are unsealed. THE COURT: Exactly. Exactly. All right. Let me hear from Mr. Aronberg’s attorney, Mr. Wyler. MR. WYLER: Thank you, your Honor. May it please the Court — THE COURT: Good morning, Sir. MR. WYLER: Good morning. Your Honor, I just wanted to let you know that I spoke with counsel for the clerk, Ms. Fingerhut, a couple of days before this hearing, and we decided that I would just make the presentation for both of of us, being that our arguments overlap except for the fact of who this claim — whether they have the 20 records or not, which, of course, we’ve said we don’t 21 have custody of the records. 22 But, nonetheless, our arguments overlap. The 23 Plaintiff is attempting to assert a cause of action 24 under Section 905.27. That statute settled testimony 25 not to be disclosed exceptions. So it’s Just¶

Page 12¶

Page 13 Page 15 1 explaining exceptions to the disclosure of the grand 1 attorney’s position, and we also agree with what the 4 cause of action and that it’s impossible for us to 4 really cannot — we’ll be defending something without 12 and that within that civil or criminal — 12 Court limited the application 905. ying that a 13 (Speaking simultaneously.) 13 witness can reveal her own t h ny a prohibiting 16 MR. WYLER: — can only be used in the defense 16 MS. BOYAGI e S eme Court case, the 17 for — 17 Butterworth case in which the Supreme Court ruled 20 ready to cross that bridge. I’m here for a very, 20 violation of First Amendment, in that case, the state 22 So just as I stopped Plaintiffs counsel from 22 COURT: Well, I assume the state attomey¶

2 jury testimony. 2 Court has said, that the plain language of the 3 Our position is that it doesn’t set forth a 3 statute, a cause of action doesn’t exist. And we 5 perform what they’re asking. 5 the four corners. We’re simply involved in this 6 I know you said you didn’t really want to get 6 action because the clerk Is the custodian of the 7 into the Furthering Justice Exception, but I know 7 records. 8 that’s what they’re using as their basis to get to 8 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you, 9 these. But it’s our position that the dear I . Boyagian, back to you. 10 unambiguous statutory language, it shows that this 10 MS. BOYAGIAN: Your Honor, I’d ‘Ice to note 11 disclosure only applies to a civil or criminal case. 11 that in the Butterworth case in which e Supreme 14 THE COURT: Again, sir — I’m sorry. As I told 14 that they violate the First ent — 15 Plaintiff’s counsel — 15 THE COURT: Say at ’ n, lease. 18 THE COURT: Okay. We’re not there. We’re not 18 that 905.27 can’t iisttict a Grand Jury witness from 19 discussing the merits of the case, and — I’m not 19 revealing her own testimony, that would be a 21 very limited hearing today. 21 a ey was, in fact, a party. 23 arguing the merits of the case and whether or not the th as present — I mean, I don’t find that that’s 24 Furtherance of Justice Exception will apply in this to what we’re talking about here, and that’s 25 instance, we’re not even there yet. 5 ther or not — I mean, as we know, this was in¶

4 Page 16 1 I’m only here for the purpose of det 1 2006. Certainly Dave Aronberg wasn’t even the state y 9 opportunity you want to take to convince me that it 13 14 down for me as to this — let’s take it all the way down the road. You win. You get a judgment against¶

2 whether or not the clerk and state attom 2 attorney then. But this is about the release of 3 dismissed. And I am bound by the ur c of the 3 records. 4 document, which assert that youflo ea:intro] and 4 I want to give you ample opportunity — and 5 custody over it. 5 again, I sincerely appreciate that all of the case 6 So if you’ll fashion your ar ent ‘th regard 6 law and the way that it was presented to the Court in 7 to that limited purpose,, I would appreciate it. 7 such a timely fashion. I really do. And I did spend 8 MR. WYLER: No patentr your Honor. I 8 some time with it. But I want to give you whatever 9 apologize. - 10 Within theieur corners” of their complaint, our J. \… 10 is in — as to Count 2, again. Not the dec action — 11 position isthat they failed to state a cause of 11 whether these would be the appropriate defendants. 12 action under905.27. It does not provide for — it 12 And, you know, really, I want you to boil it 13 doetet fist tiled there’s no element that they have 14 _adequately pled to assert a cause of action under 15 %Fiat\ There’s — and the only thing they’re asking 15 the deck and the state attorney. 16 for is fecords that we don’t have. 16 I know there’s other reasons why you might have 17 There’s really not much more to it, your Honor. 17 filed it this way. But I’m just simply puzzled 18 And we would ask that you would grant our motion to 18 because I do hear what the clerk and the state 19 dismiss for failure to state a cause of action. 19 attorney are saying, and that is, performance is 20 THE COURT: Okay. Ms. Fingerhut, are you still 20 impossible. They don’t have the records and 21 on the phone? 21 cannot — absolutely. There’s not even an inch of 22 MS. FINGERHUT: Yes, your Honor. 22 wiggle room — that they could release the records 23 THE COURT: Is there anything you wish to add? 23 even If you got a judgment. It is solely a 24 MS. FINGERHUT: We agree with the state 24 determination for the court. 25 25 I, frankly, think, you know, there’s ways to¶

Page 17¶

1 get to your records. There’s ways to get 2 confidential records. But it isn’t by suing the 3 state attorney and the clerk. 4 So I just want to hear your last final argument 5 on how Count II, the appropriate defendants are the 6 derk and the state attorney. Even assuming arguendo 7 they have the records — we know they don’t — you 8 were to get a judgment against them, how would you 9 expect them to perform? 10 MS. BOYAGIAN: Two points, your Honor: One is 11 that, again, the clerk did not assert in her papers 12 that she does not have control. That is a position 13 that the State Attorneys Office has asserted. It is 14 our allegation, and as your Honor noted, allegations 15 must be accepted as true — as true at this stage of 16 the proceedings. 17 Second, it Is also our understanding that the 18 state attorney and the clerk intend to block access 19 b these records. So our allegation is that they do 20 have possession, custody, or control, which the clerk 21 has not denied: and second, that they are trying to 22 block access to the records — 23 THE COURT: What do you mean? What do you 24 mean? They’re not trying to block it. They’re 25 saying that despite the fact — let’s just talk about¶

1 the clerk, because we all know the state a 2 doesn’t have it. 3 So the clerk is the custodian of 4 That’s her main job. There’s no u It. We 5 all know that. But we also know, uneg lly — 6 unequivocally, only the court caiRnake the 7 determination of wheth:r the moving party has 8 satisfied that there is a e n that these 9 should be released. 10 So, agairr,-litsk you -she is, in fact, the 11 custodian of the records — is it your opinion that 12 if you got a judgment saying clerk and comptroller 13 gets a judgment against them, that she can release 14 ,.the records without the court — without the court 15 weighing in, without the court making that 16 deterfiiination as required by law? 17 MS. BOYAGIAN: No, your Honor. We are asking 18 your Honor to order the clerk to do that under your 19 discretion. 20 THE COURT: All right. 21 Mr. — Ms. Fingerhut, you wish to be heard on 22 that? 23 MS. FINGERHUT: Your Honor, our position is 24 that we’re not trying to block access to the 25 records —¶

Page 19¶

1 (Speaking simultaneously.) 2 THE COURT: Can you hear? Can the attorneys 3 hear? 4 MS. FINGERHUT: — custodian the records and 5 that he cannot release the records without court — 6 THE COURT: Exactly. 7 Okay. All right. Anything further, Mr. Wyler? 8 MR. WYLER: No, your Honor. I concur with the 9 attorneys for the clerk’s office that it’s impossible 10 for us to release these records. There’s no intent 11 to hide them or block anything from e Plaintiff. 12 THE COURT: Okay. Anyth er, 13 Ms. Fingerhut? 14 MS. FINGERHUT: or. 15 THE COURT: An Ian, anything 16 further, 17 MS. BOYAG thing further, your Honor. 18 THE COURT: I will get an order out 19 quickly. ou, folks so much. And I’ll see you 20 on the net\tcu . Thanks a tot. 21 S}.BO AGIAN: Thank you, your Honor. 22 VVYLER: Thank you, your Honor. proceedings concluded at 10:28 a.m.)¶

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Sonja X. S Court Reporter, certify that : vas authorized to and did stenographically report the foregoing proceedings and that the transcript, pages 1 through 19, is a true and coeptete record of ny stenographic notes.¶

Page 20¶

CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER¶

noted this 3rd day of June, 2020.¶

L2…7,451”312,S,¶

Sonja H. Court Reporter¶

EXHIBIT “B”¶

From: To: Subject: Date: pnuolas Welee Mendelsohn. SteMen A. Inhkl-FTL4 T) Re: PALM BEACH POST (Epstein) Friday, September 18, 2020 1:11:43 PM¶

Again, we will not withdraw the motion. Please let me know when you are available for the case management conference or I will unilaterally schedule the hearing.¶

Doug Wyler, Esq. =, Scholz & Wyler, LLC 961687 Gateway Blvd., STE 201-I Fernandina Beach, FL 32034 904-261-3693 904-261-7879 (fax) doug.wvIerPrnmract.net¶

Please be advised that this e-mail and any files transmitted, communication or may otherwise be privileged or con individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If read, copy or retransmit this communication bu dissemination, distribution or copying of this cr nfidential attorney-client s co are intended solely for the the intended recipient, please do not immediately. Any unauthorized tion is strictly prohibited.¶

From: <MendelsohnS@gtlaw. om> AC(” 1 Date: Friday, September 18, 2dB4l.at 1:04 PM To: “Douglas Wyler, Esq. ug.wyler@comcast.net> Cc: <BoyajianN@ law.co >, grygielm@gtlaw.com Subject: RE: PA ACH POST (Epstein)¶

Cos¶

Mr. Wyle • • r-ciate your candor in admitting your 57.105 motion is premature.¶

You mus ithdraw it as the motion has no basis, which you acknowledge, because the court has yet to address the merits of the dispute.¶

To: Mendelsohn, Stephen A. (Shld-FTL-LT) MendelsohnS@gtlaw.com¶

Cc: Boyajian, Nina D. (Shld-LA-LT) BoyajianN@gtlaw.com; Grygiel, Michael J. (Shld-ALB-LT) grygielm@gtlaw.com¶

Subject: Re: PALM BEACH POST (Epstein)¶

*EXTERNAL TO GT*¶

I spoke with my client we will not withdraw our motion for attorneys’ fees. Again, we i si that the motion for summary judgment be heard first as it would be premature to have an a hearing when there is no prevailing party and no substantive hearings held since t otion for fees was filed . Being that we are unable to agree on the order of the motions to e h am filing the attached motion to set case management conference. Please see the att v able hearing times for this motion and let me know what works best for you so we ca resolve this matter.¶

Scholz & Wyler, LLC 961687 Gateway Blvd., STE 201-I Fernandina Beach, FL 32034 904-261-3693 904-261-7879 (fax) doug.wylerPrnmeast.nej¶

4s)¶

Please be advised that this e-m a(and and files transmitted with it are confidential attorney-client communication or may otherwis bavdrivileged or confidential and are intended solely for the individual or entity to wh are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy or retran it th communication but destroy it immediately. Any unauthorized dissemination, d4i tion or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.¶

From: <JViendelsohnSPgtlaw.conp¶

To: “Douglas Wyler, Esq.” <doug.wylerPromeast.net>¶

Cc: <finvajianNegtlaw.corn>, ¶

Mr. Wyler, please let us know if the State Attorney will withdraw its sanctions motion without prejudice.¶

If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at postmaster@gtlaw.com, and do not use or disseminate the information.¶

EXHIBIT “C”¶

From: MilldtIcahn. Stephen A. cgtici.FrLix To: Douolac WvIft ce: Povation Nina n (5118-1 T). pormol WWI 1 (chkl-Al 8-111 Subject: RE: PALM BEACH POST (Epstein) Date: Friday, September 18, 2020 2:22:36 PM¶

I will let you know Monday.¶

Sent: Friday, September 18, 2020 1:11 PM To: Mendelsohn, Stephen A. (Shld-FTL-LT) MendelsohnS@gtlaw.com e s\ From: Douglas Wyler doug.wyler@comcast.net Subject: Re: PALM BEACH POST (Epstein)¶

Co ) Again, we will not withdraw the motion. Please let me know wh V are available for the case management conference or I will unilaterally schedule the h, se n)¶

Doug Wyler, Esq. Scholz & Wyler, LLC 961687 Gateway Blvd., STE 201-I Fernandina Beach, FL 32034 904-261-3693 904-261-7879 (fax) &tug wylPrPromrast net¶

Please be advised that thi e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential attorney-client communication or may of be privileged or confidential and are intended solely for the individual or entity who they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy or ret n it this communication but destroy it immediately. Any unauthorized disseminatio bu ion or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.¶

From: <JVIendelsohnS(agtlaw.corn> Date: Friday, September 18, 2020 at 1:04 PM To: “Douglas Wyler, Esq.” <doug.wvIerPcnmeast.not> Cc: <grvgielmOgtlaw.com> Subject: RE: PALM BEACH POST (Epstein)¶

Mr. Wyler, we appreciate your candor in admitting your 57.105 motion is premature.¶

You must withdraw it as the motion has no basis, which you acknowledge, because the court has yet to address the merits of the dispute.¶

From: Douglas Wyler <3-toile wvIerPromrast net>¶

To: Mendelsohn, Stephen A. (Shld-FTL-LT) ¶

Cc: Boyajian, Nina D. (Shld-LA-LT) <BovajianN(Thgtlaw.corn>; Grygiel, Michael 1 Subject: Re: PALM BEACH POST (Epstein) C B-LT)¶

Mr. Mendelsohn: c¶

*EXTERNAL TO GT*¶

I spoke with my client we will not withdraw our moti c(4 .a neys’ fees. Again, we insist that the motion for summary judgment be heard first as it ,..,s,u e premature to have an attorney fee hearing when there is no prevailing party and ubs ntive hearings held since the motion for fees was filed . Being that we are unable to agr on t order of the motions to be heard, I am filing the attached motion to set case manageme nce. Please see the attached available hearing times for this motion and let me kn rks best for you so we can resolve this matter.¶

=, Scholz & W ler, LLC 961687 Gatewa STE 201-I Fernandina L 034 904-261- 904-2¶

Please be advised that this e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential attorney-client communication or may otherwise be privileged or confidential and are intended solely for the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy or retransmit this communication but destroy it immediately. Any unauthorized dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.¶

From: <MendelsohnSPgtlaw.corn>¶

To: “Douglas Wyler, Esq.” <doug.wvIerPromeast.net>¶

Cc: <BovajianNPgtlaw.com> <grvgielmegtlaw.com>¶

Mr. Wyler, please let us know if the State Attorney will withdraw its sanctions motion without prejudice.¶

If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in thi delete it, notify us immediately at postmasterOgtlaw.rom and do not use or dis e te the information. ase¶

C O¶