The Epstein Index

Keyboard shortcuts

/
Search the files
j k
Move through a list of results
[ ]
Previous or next document
g g · G
Top or bottom of the page
Esc
Leave a search field or close this box
?
Show this box

Go to a page: g then

h
Index
t
Timeline
p
People
r
Redactions
x
Explore
w
News
l
Legislation
a
About

Court filing · 2020

Court filing, 2020

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

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

DEFENDANT DAVE ARONBERG’S AMENDED 11i(ci> OR ATTORNEYS’ FEES

Defendant, DAVE ARONBERG, as State A “SS?” alm Beach County, Florida, by and i ,c is through the undersigned counsel, hereby mov c kigv rabic Court, pursuant to Rule 1.525, Fla. R. Civ. P. to enter an award of atto ’ fee n his favor against Plaintiff, CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC, publisher of BEACH POST, and in support thereof states the C following: Ay

  1. BEACH P vem r 14 , 2019, CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC, publisher of the PALM aintiff”) filed a complaint against DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of Palm B unty, Florida (the “State Attorney” or “Defendant Aronberg”) and SHARON R. BOCK, as Clerk and Comptroller of Palm Beach County, Florida (the “Clerk”). The basis of the action was asking the Court to order the State Attorney and the Clerk to disclose the 2006 Jeffrey Epstein grand jury materials, (the “Requested Materials”), pursuant to § 905.27(1) Fla. Stat.

B ’ I OR AWARDING ATTORNEYS’ FEES

  1. On December 6, 2019, the State Attorney filed his Motion to Dismiss, then on December 13, 2019, the Clerk also filed a Motion to Dismiss. In response, Plaintiff filed its First Amended Complaint on January 17, 2020, which in addition to its original claim under § 905.27 Fla. Stat. (Count II) added a claim for Declaratory Relief (Count I) that sought an order declaring of informing the public. that the State Attorney and the Clerk disclose the Requested Materials to Plaintiff for the purpose

  2. On January 24, 2019, both the State Attorney and the Cle the First Amended Complaint and Motion to Dismiss Count II (” ion to Dismiss). Notably, the State Attorney’s Answer/Motion to Dismiss assert is t to attorneys’ fees for defending the action and requested such relief from the C it Answer to

  3. On June 8, 2020, the Court ente reSt s Granting Defendants Motions to Dismiss Count II of Plaintiff’s First Amended la with Prejudice (“Order”).

  4. Immediately following o Order, on June 8, 2020, the State Attorney, through the undersigned counsel, ‘ntiff with a demand pursuant to § 57.105 Fla. Stat., to voluntary dismiss/withdraw Amended Complaint and the claims against the State Attorney, along with a ’ for Attorneys’ Fees (“57.105 Demand”). See, Exhibit “A”. Specifically, bec of e Court’s Order only Count I of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint remained, w t Declaratory Relief under § 86.011, Fla. Stat.

ere, in properly serving his 57.105 Demand on Plaintiff, the State Attorney also properly put Plaintiff on notice that he would seek sanctions by filing the 57.105 Motion for Attorneys’ Fees if Plaintiff failed to dismiss the remainder of its First Amended Complaint within 21 days of service of the 57.105 Demand and Motion for Attorneys’ Fees.

  1. On June 23, 2020, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a response to the 57.105 Demand refusing to withdraw the remainder of the First Amended Complaint. See, Exhibit “B”.

  2. § 57.105, Florida Statutes states the following:

A motion by a party seeking sanctions under this section must be served but may not be filed with or presented to the court unless, within 21 days after service of the motion, the challenged paper, claim, defense, contention, allegation, or denial is not withdrawn or appropriately corrected.

  1. Accordingly, after receiving Plaintiff’s June 23, 2020, withdraw the remainder of the First Amended Complaint and waiting t after service of the motion” the State Attorney’s Motion for Attom Court on July 1, 2020. See, Exhibit “C”. resl: rousing to isite “21 days was filed with this

  2. Thereafter, on August 18, 2020, the S Judgment (“Motion”) and proceeded, on October State Attorney’s Motion (“Motion to Set”) of this matter without the Court’s in y filed his Motion for Summary 0, to file a Motion to Set Hearing on the c clear that them would be no resolution

  3. Nonetheless, lat C d)e day, rather than setting and participating in a hearing on the merits as to State Attorney otion, Plaintiff filed its Notice of Dropping the State Attorney (“Notice”) from the s• stant , as . See, Exhibit “D”. Asa consequence of filing its Notice, Plaintiff has effectivel de admission that its allegations against the State Attorney have no basis in fact or la

1 12. “An essential distinction between a notice of dropping a party and a voluntary dismissal is that the former concludes the action as to the dropped party while the latter is generally utilized to conclude the action in its entirety.” Caner v. Lake County, 840 So. 2d 1153, 1155 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003).

  1. Specifically, Plaintiff’s Notice states: “Plaintiff, [sic], pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P.

1.250(b), hereby notifies the parties that it has dropped State Attorney, Dave Aronberg from the above case.”

  1. Rule 1.250(b), Fla. R. Civ. P. states:

(b) Dropping Parties. Parties may be dropped by an adverse party in the manner provided for voluntary dismissal in rule 1.420(a)(1) subject to the exception ted in that rule. If notice of fis pendens has been filed in the action against a so dropped, the notice of dismissal shall be recorded and cancels the t of s pendens without the necessity of a court order. Parties may be drop rder of court on its own initiative or the motion of any party at any stage tion on such terms as are just.

  1. Rule 1.420(aX1), Fla. R. Civ. P., Voluntary Distyi

(1) By Parties. Except in actions in which prope, custody of the court, an action, a claim, or an dismissed by plaintiff without order of co trial by stating on the record, a notice of motion for summary judgment, or if no retirement of the jury in a case tried case to the court for decision, or all current parties to the actio the dismissal is without p adjudication on the mer any court an action bas n seized or is in the action or claim may be trial by serving, or during 1 ilt any time before a hearing on or if the motion is denied, before c a j or before submission of a nonjury ng a stipulation of dismissal signed by herwise stated in the notice or stipulation, ept that a notice of dismissal operates as an erved by a plaintiff who has once dismissed in including the same claim.

  1. Notably, Rule of Civil P be dropped except 1.250(6) expressly incorporates the procedural aspects of Florida 0(a)(1) governing voluntary dismissal by providing that parties may manner provided for voluntary dismissal in rule 1.420(a)(1) subject to the in that rule.”’ Siboni v. , 52 So. 3d 779, 780 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010).

  2. Likewise, because Rule 1.250(b) specifies that a party is dropped “in the manner provided for voluntary dismissal in Rule 1.420(a)(1), the Siboni court concluded that “the manner” includes the same entitlement to costs and attorney’s fees which would have been enjoyed had the dismissal occurred entirely under Rule I .420(a)(1). Id. at 781.

  3. Accordingly, the Siboni court held that a “party dropped from litigation under rule 1.250(b) is subject to the time limitation contained in rule 1.525 governing service of a motion seeking a judgment for costs and attorney’s fees.” Id.

  4. Although Plaintiff filed its Notice the claims asserted by Plaintiff have been, since the filing of its initial complaint, completely without support of the facts or the law. At their very core, all of Plaintiff’s claims are based on the presumption that the State Attorney to disclose the Requested Materials. Nonetheless, Section 905.17(1), FloriCi that Plaintiff’s Requested Materials can only be released by the Cie authority makes clear a court order.

The stenographic records, notes, and transcriptions stenographer shall be filed with the clerk who shall k not subject to public inspection. The notes, r confidential and exempt from the provisions of the State Constitution and shall be released jury for use by the grand jury or on order out reporter or in a sealed container d transcriptions are ) and s. 24(a), Art. I of e only on request by a grand rt pursuant to s. 905.27.

Section 905.17(1), Florida Statutes (2020).

  1. The State Attorney h Requested Materials should th the State Attorney to comply C the relief sought by Plaintiff in its remaining claim for declaratory relief as be do no possess or control the Requested Materials and is statutorily barred from any disc. tion to the Clerk producing and disclosing the t an order to that effect, however, it is impossible for

  2. ough the State Attorney was prepared to make his argument to the Court, Plaintiff db9ided instead to drop him as a party. Despite Plaintiff’s decision, the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and the above authorities make clear that because Rule 1.250 specifies that a party is dropped “in the manner provided for voluntary dismissal in Rule 1.420(a)(1),” it therefore “operates as an adjudication on the merits.” See, Siboni v. M, 52 So. 3d 779, 781 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010); Rule 1.420(a)(1) Fla. R. Civ. P.

  3. Consequently, the filing of Plaintiff’s Notice triggered Rule 1.525, Fla. R. Civ. P. and therefore:

Under [§ 57.105], the legislature has expressed its unequivocal intent that where a party files a meritless claim, suit or appeal, the party who is wrongfully required to expend funds for attorneys’ fees is entitled to recoup those fees.

County Conservation Alliance v. County, 73 So. 3d 856, 857 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (finding that “Courts are not at liberty to disregard the legislative mandate that co I impose sanctions in cases without foundation in material fact or law. The word “Ci]) § 57.105, Fla. Stat., evidences the legislative intent to impose a mandatory penalty t sc a c baseless claims, by placing a price tag on losing parties who engage in these a • • ies3fxtion 57.105 expressly states courts “shall” assess attorney’s fees for bringing, * o dismiss, baseless claims or defenses.”).

  1. In fact, “Section 57.105(1) cl tia plicitly v confers upon the trial court the authority to award attorney’s fees to the vatllig party upon the court’s initiative, if ‘the court finds that the losing party … kne grave known that a claim or defense when initially presented to the court or at a efore trial… [w]as not supported by the material facts necessary to establish th • or defense.” v. la 47 So. 3d 320, 324 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010).

  2. imple fact of the matter is that Plaintiff failed to withdraw its Amended Comp the State Attorney within the 21-day period provided for in section 57.105(4), and therefore the State Attorney was permitted to file his 57.105 Motion for Attorneys’ Fees as sanctions.

  3. Furthermore, based on the impossible nature of Plaintiff’s demand of the State Attorney, it was proper to demand withdrawal of Plaintiff’s remaining claim for declaratory relief and serve the 57.105 Motion for Attorneys’ Fees due to Plaintiff’s claim lacking any basis in fact or law. Again, neither the State Attorney nor his office has possession, custody or control of the Requested Materials. Likewise, the State Attorney has no objection, and never has had any objection, to the Clerk releasing the records sought by Plaintiff, as disclosure of the Requested Materials sought by Plaintiff lies solely within the providence of the Clerk pursuant to an order of the Court.

  4. Consequently, the State Attorney is entitled to recover 0 149 i’s reasonable attorneys’ fees in defending this suit by virtue of 57.105, Florida Sta

REASONABLENESS AND AMOUNT OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES

  1. From the service of the 57.105 Demand to e Nt ithis motion, the attorneys for the State Attorney have rendered 42.2 hours of leg S in or a total amount of $18,275.00 in defending this action. Sec time sheets detail* s : itiips”c ount of hours by each timekeeper, the timekeeper’s hourly rate, and a descri ’ of tasks done during those times, on attached Exhibit “E”. Of that amount, the ed has been paid $0.00 as the engagement with the State Attorney is on a pure con gen fee basis. The undersigned expects to incur an additional 4.0 hours at $425.00 an h reparing for and attending the hearing on attorneys’ fees. Thus, the total amount urly torneys’ fees the State Attorney is seeking is 46.2 hours for a total of $19,975.00. er set forth below, the State Attorney also seeks a multiplier of 2.0, which when a17j ylRFlnakes the grand total attorneys’ fees as sanctions sought herein $39,950.00.

  2. An Affidavit of Attorneys’ Fees is attached hereto as Exhibit “F”, which details and breaks down the attorneys’ fees sought herein.

  3. The State Attorney would offer the following facts and arguments as they relate to the factors promulgated in Rule 4-1.5 of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar and Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. [REDACTED], 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1985):

FactorFacts and Arguments
(A) the time and labor required, the novelty, complexity, and difficulty of the questions involved, and the skill requisite to perform the legal service properlyThe time involved by counsel was substantial, consuming nearly 75 hours of legal work. Moreover, the issues in controversy were novel and complex in that Plaintiff sought to create a new private statutory cause of action under Florida Statute § 905.27, implicated several 1st Amendment issues, and further sought declaratory relief pursuant to said Statute. Finally, this litigation has been ongoing for nearly a year and required skill and knowledge in these areas of the law.
(B) the likelihood that the acceptance of the particular employment will preclude other employment by the lawyerBecause of the amount of time involved in this litigation and considering the relative small size of the firm representing the State Attorney, the undersigned attorneys were forced to turn away or delay representing other clients especially during critical stages of the litigation, due to time required in the instant matter.
(C) the fee, or rate of fee, customarily charged in the locality for legal services of a comparable or similar natureThe base fees consisting of $425.00/hour for Mr. Wyler’s services and $475.00/hour for Mr. [REDACTED] services are reasonable for lawyers in their respective communities possessing equal experience and skill.
(D) the significance of, or amount involved in, the subject matter of the representation, and the results obtainedThe outcome of this case is of great public significance to the State of Florida as it pertains to the disclosure of grand jury records and the role of the State Attorney concerning such disclosure. Here, the results obtained were the maximum sought by Defendant Aronberg as he was dismissed from the case, albeit not within the time constraints of the safe-harbor provision within § 57.105, Fla. Stat.
(E) the time limitations imposed by the client or by the circumstances and, as between attorney and client, any additional or special time demands or requests of the attorney by the clientThere were not any extraordinary limitations imposed by the client, however, Defendant Aronberg expected and received zealous representation, with the desire that the case be dispensed of quickly and efficiently.
(F) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the clientAs general counsel for the FPAA the undersigned counsel has represented Defendant Aronberg since the beginning of his tenure as State Attorney in civil matters throughout the State of Florida as well as matters before the Florida Legislature.
(G) the experience, reputation, diligence, and
ability of the lawyer orof a media entity and lawyers from multiple states regarding the
lawyers performing the service and the skill, expertise, or efficiency of effort reflected in the actual providing of such servicesrelease of information with a nationwide interest. Accordingly, the
(H) whether the fee isThe fee arrangement herein was entirely contin en wherein
fixed or contingent, and, if fixed as to the amount or rate, then whether the client’s ability to payobtaining a fee was conditioned upon prevailing a ining an order awarding fees.
rested to any significant degree on the outcome ofO ‘S
the representation.Amt.

JUSTIFICATION FOR M IPLIER

  1. Defendant Aronberg was able to proi ‘Ss,SI)’ is litigation only if counsel would receive a court order awarding contingency b 1%, s’ fees upon achievement of a successful outcome in this case. See, Exhibit “G”. en rs and the fact that counsel risked a total of 74.8 hours of work for no pay, of w ’ ours is subject to the 57.105 Demand, Defendant Arenberg submits that multipli of would be appropriate in this case. Based upon the hours expended, the hourly ra 0 multiplier, Defendant Aronberg respectfully requests an award of attorneys’ f anctions as stated herein.

  2. regard to the application of a multiplier, the court must analyze the three facto in Standard Guaranty Insurance Co. v. Quanstrom, 555 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 1990):

  • (1) whether the relevant market requires a contingency fee multiplier to obtain competent counsel; (2) whether the attorney was able to mitigate the risk of nonpayment in any way; and (3) whether any of the factors set forth in arc applicable, especially the amount involved, the results obtained, and the type of fee arrangement between the attorney and his client.

See, Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Pulloquinga, 183 So. 3d 1134 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015).

  1. Here, as to the first factor there was no other counsel in the relevant market who would agree to represent Defendant Aronberg under the contingency fee agreement needed due to the financial situation of the Office of the State Attorney as a public entity funded entirely by the taxpayers of the State of Florida. Although “Risk Mitigation” within the Florida Department of Financial Services and the Office of the Attorney General indeed represent the State Attorney in some instances, this case was not picked up by either and Defendant Aronberg v0 t needing representation by other, private counsel. Although the undersigned co law firm are General Counsel for the Florida Prosecuting Attorneys’ Association ., AA”) the instant matter did not fall within the scope of representation for th th engagement between Defendant Aronberg and the ur rgit counsel. Accordingly, the undersigned counsel and his law firm agreed to rec t endant Aronberg on a contingency fee basis and to try the case to final judgment s ,S e g that there was no other counsel willing to represent Defendant Aronberg on suc s. d required a separate

  2. With respect to the a ors to be considered in applying a multiplier as set forth in Quanstrom, here Defers nberg was unable to mitigate against non-payment of fees because as a purely taxp> pded entity, the Office of State Attorney had no other means by which to pay th dersi ed counsel. Additionally, Defendant Aronberg meets each of the individual R tors as set forth in the table located above on pages 8-9. Accordingly, based on the the application of a multiplier herein is proper. In this vein, the court set guidelines for the size of a multiplier, as follows:

Based on our review of the decisions of other jurisdictions and commentaries on the subject, we conclude that in contingent fee cases, the lodestar figure calculated by the court is entitled to enhancement by an appropriate contingency risk multiplier in the range from 1.5 to 3. When the trial court determines that success was more likely than not at the outset, the multiplier should be 1.5; when the likelihood of success was approximately even at the outset, the multiplier should

be 2; and, when success was unlikely at the time the case was initiated, the multiplier should be in the range of 2.5 to 3.

Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1985).

  1. Additionally, the Quanstrom court confirmed and modified the approach, as follows:

However, we find that the multiplier in should be modified as follows: ltth trial court determines that success was more likely than not at the outse apply a multiplier of 1 to 1.5; if the trial court determines that the F ood f success was approximately even at the outset, the trial judge may ap tiplier of 1.5 to 2.0; and if the trial court determines that success was unli h outset of the case, it may apply a multiplier of 2.0 to 2.5. Accordingl e decision is modified to allow a multiplier from 1 to 2.5.

Standard Guaranty Insurance Co. v. Quanstrom, 555 So. 2. 4 (Fla. 1990). Thus, based upon all of the foregoing factors, Defendant Aronberg y submits that a multiplier of 2.0 is appropriate for this representation.

CERTIFICATION OF CO AITH EFFORT TO RESOLVE

The undersigned certifies that th effort was made to resolve the issues raised in this motion by agreement of t The parties were unable to resolve by agreement the issues of entitlement to fees or ount of fees.

WHEREFO , I dant, DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of Palm Beach County, Flori y at this Honorable Court will enter an Order awarding Defendant Aronberg his reaso meys’ fees with a multiplier of 2.0 against the Plaintiff, CA FLORIDA HOLDIN LLC, publisher of the PALM BEACH POST, in the amount of $39,950.00.

ERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 9th day of November, 2020, a copy of the foregoing Defendant, Dave Aronberg’s Amended Motion for Attorneys’ Fees has been electronically filed with the Florida E-File Portal for e-service on all parties of record herein.

SCHOLZ & WYLER, LLC

/s/ Douglas A. Wyler

Arthur I. Esq.

Fla. Bar No.: 10249

Richard J. Scholz, Esq.

Fla. Bar No.: 0021261

Fla. Bar No.: 119979

961687 Gateway Blvd., Sui

Fernandina Beach, Flon 34

(904) 261-7879 Fax

Primary: jacob z comcast.net

AttoraeysfØefe ;v nt, Dave Aronberg

EXHIBIT “A”

EXHIBIT “A”

Subject: SERVICE OF COURT DOCUMENT; CASE NO. 2019-CA-014681; CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC V. DAVE ARONBERG ET AL. Date: Monday, June 8, 2020 at 3:58:58 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: Douglas Wyler To: ‘mendelsohns@gtlaw.com’, smithl@gtlaw.com, flservice@gtlaw.com, BoyajianN@gtlaw.com, riveraal@gtlaw.com, GRYGIELM@gtlaw.com Attachments: 2020-06-08 Aronberg 57.105 Demand and Motion for Attorneys’ Fees.pdf

Please see attached and below in this matter.

Court:Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Palm Beach County, Florida
Case No:Case No. 2020-CA-014681
Plaintiff:CA Florida Holdings, LLC
Defendant:Dave Aronberg
Title of Documents Served:
  • Fla. Stat. § 57.105 Demand Letter
  • Defendant, Dave Aronberg’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees
Sender’s Name and Telephone Number:Douglas Wyler
(904) 261-3693

a yler, Esq. Scholz & Wyler, LLC 961687 Gateway Blvd., STE 201-I Fernandina Beach, FL 32034 904-261-3693 904-261-7879 (fax) dougalerPcomcast.net

Please be advised that this e- any files transmitted with it are confidential attorney-client communication or may otherwi 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.

JACOBS SCHOLZ 8c WYLER, LLC.

THE LAW °mots OF S ASSOCIATES. P.A. MINIM I.

A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY OF PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS

GATEWAY TO AMELIA

901587 GATEWAY BLVD.. SUITE 201.1

FIDDIA-NDENA BEACH. FLORIDA 02034

TELEPHONE (904/ 261.3693

FAX NO. (904) 261.7679

June 8, 2020

VIA ELECTRONIC & U.S. MAIL

Greenburg Traurig, P.A.

5100 Town Center Circle, Suite 400

Boca Raton, FL 33486

RE: CA Florida Holdings, LLC v. Dave Aronbe Palm Beach County, Case No.: 2019-CA ,,i

Dear Mr. Mendelsohn:

As you are aware our firm represents the intere County, Florida, in the above referenced ma dismissal of your First Amended Complaj is made pursuant to section 57.105, Fl Arenberg, as State Attorney of Palm Beach rpose of this letter is to demand the voluntary omplaint”), dated January 17, 2020. This demand

As you know, Section 57

  • (1) Upon the court’s reasonable a rney’s prevailing pa on anyj1aim o the h e or motion of any party, the court shall award a ee, including prejudgment interest, to be paid to the ual amounts by the losing party and the losing party’s attorney efense at any time during a civil proceeding or action in which Inds that the losing party or the losing party’s attorney knew or should that a claim or defense when initially presented to the court or at any ore trial: Was not supported by the material facts necessary to establish the claim or defense; or Would not be supported by the application of then-existing law to those material facts.

RICHARD J. SCHOLZ. P.A. RICHARD J. SCHOLZ

DOUGLAS A. WYLER, P.A. DOUGLAS A. WYLCR

A Cos

Today, Judge Marx granted, with prejudice, Defendant Aronberg’s Motion to Dismiss Count II of the Plaintiff’s Complaint. Pursuant to the Court’s ruling, the Plaintiff’s only remaining cause of action consists of Count I, for Declaratory Relief. Accordingly, we believe that the Complaint filed herein and its sole remaining Count for Declaratory Relief is not supported by the material facts necessary to establish the claims asserted, and that your claims are not supported by the application of current law to said material facts.

First and foremost, the Complaint is not supported by the material facts necessary to establish the claims asserted because neither Defendant Aronberg, nor The Office of the State Attorney for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit is in custody or control of the 2006 grand jury materials sought therein. Simply put, the declaratory relief sought by the Plaintiff, seeks records from my client that are impossible for him or his office to produce. Accordingly, Defendant Aronberg is not a proper party to this action because no matter what, he and his office do not have possession, custody, or control of the requested materials.

In addition to the foregoing material facts that negate the claims asserted in the Complaint, your claims are also not supported by the application of current law. Specifically, your action for declaratory relief fails based on the clear, unambiguous statutory language found in Section 905.27(2), Florida Statutes, which states:

When such disclosure is ordered by a court pursuant to subsection (1) for use in a civil case, it may be disclosed to all parties to the case and to their attorneys and by the latter to their legal associates and employees. However, the grand jury testimony afforded such persons by the court can only be used in the defense or prosecution of the civil or criminal case and for no other purpose whatsoever.

Moreover, even if the Plaintiff were to prevail in the declaratory action, Mr. Aronberg would be unable to comply with any court order granting disclosure of the requested documents because neither Mr. Aronberg nor The Office of the State Attorney for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit have possession, custody, or control of the 2006 Epstein grand jury records.

Based on the foregoing, if the Complaint is not dismissed within 21 days of the service of this letter, the enclosed Motion for Attorney’s Fees will be filed and we will seek as sanctions, from your client and your firm, recovery of the legal expenses incurred in defending this frivolous action.

Please govern yourself accordingly.

For the Firm

Encl.: Defendant’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees

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

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

CASE NO.: 19-CA-O14681

O SA

C

DEFENDANT, DAVE ARONBERG’S M R ATTORNEYS’ FEES

Defendant, DAVE ARONBERG, as S of Palm Beach County, Florida, by and through the undersigned attorneys, mov Co , pursuant to Florida Statutes, Section 57.105, to award him reasonable attorneys’ e defense of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, (the “Complaint”), and as rods r, would show that on June 8, 2020, Plaintiff was served {sup}acopy of this Motion, togeth a letter from the undersigned attorney, in accordance with subsection (4) of abo’tute, demanding dismissal of the Complaint, at least 21 days prior to the filing {sup}os on. In said letter, Defendant’s attorney advised Plaintiff of the facts which establis mplaint is without support of the facts or the law.

REFORE, Defendant, DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of Palm Beach County, Florida, respectfully requests the Court enter an Order requiring Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s attorneys to pay said Defendant’s attorneys’ fees incurred herein after service of this Motion.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this ____ day _____, 2020, the foregoing was electronically filed via the Florida E-File Portal for electronic service on the parties of record herein.

[REDACTED] SCHOLZ & WYLER, LLC

/s/ Douglas A. Wyler

_____ Arthur I. [REDACTED]‘s, Esquire Fla. Bar No.: 108249 Richard J. Scholz, Esquire Fla. Bar No.: 0021261 Douglas A. Wyler, Esquire Fla. Bar No.: 119979 961687 Gateway Blvd., Suite 201-I Fernandina Beach, Florida 32034 (904) 261-7879 jacobsscholzlaw@comcast.net

Attorneys for Defendant

NOTA CERTIFIED

EXHIBIT “B”

EXHIBIT “B”

Stephen A. Mendelsohn Tel 561.955.7629 Fax 561.659.9119 mendelsohnegtlaw.com

June 23, 2020

Douglas A. Wyler Jacob Scholz & Wyler, LLC 961687 Gateway Blvd. Suite 201-1 Fernandina Beach, Fl. 32034

Re: CA Florida Holdings, LLC v. Dave Aronberg ei at Case No. 2019-CA-014681

Dear Mr. Wyler:

We are in receipt of your letter of June 8, 2020 with y In your letter and your proposed motion, you firm of Greenberg Traurig, P.A. should be li Attorney Aronberg after the date of your I (a) and (b) for support. As shown below and we expect that if the State Attom ed Fla. Stat. section 57.105 motion. Florida Holdings, LIE and the law attorneys’ fees to be incurred by State letter cites to Fla. Stat. sections 57.105(1) o basis for a Fla. Stat. section 57.105 motion, make such a motion, the court should deny it.

Your letter omits a citation to may not be awarded where th reversal of existing law or the es a reasonable expectation 5(3). Subsection 57.105(3Xa) provides that sanctions good faith argument for the extension, modification or shment of new law, as it is applied to the material facts, with ” We have such a good faith argument.

Contrary to your lysis of Fla. Stat. section 905.27, there are actually three instances where a court may ord’ se of grand jury materials. As we argue, the court may order release “in furtherance t. just e.’ There are few cases in Florida reviewing this provision and its scope. It is an open t t uestion as to whether the court may order release of grand jury transcripts to them r both the statute and the First Amendment to the US Constitution in furtherance of justice. e statutory language you cite refers to instances where a person is seeking grand jury materials for use in a civil or in a criminal case. In these limited situations, the statute allows for such uses and for no other reason. However, the statute does not state, as you assert, that where the media seeks grand jury materials based upon its constitutional standing, which the Circuit Court acknowledged at the June 2, 2020 hearing includes The Palm Beach Post, that the statutory

Greenberg thaurig, P.A. I Attorneys at Law 5100 Town Center Circle I Stite 400 I Boca Raton, Florida 33486 I T +1 561.955.7600 I F +1 561.338.7099

Albany. Amsterdam. Atlanta. Austin. Berlin: Boot Raton. Boston. Chicago. Dallas. Delaware. Denver. Fon Lauderdale. Houston. Las Vegas. London: Los Angeles. Mexico City: Miami. Milan: Minneapolis. Nashville. New Jersey. New York. Northern Virginia. Orange County. Orlando. Philadelphia. Phoenix. Sacramento. San Francisco. Seoul’ Shanghai. Silicon Valley. Tallahassee.Tampa. Tel Aviv: Tokio: Warsaw: Washington, D.C. West Palm Beach. Westchester County.

use limitation you cite applies. No reported Florida case has addressed this issue and there is a good faith basis for our view of Fla. Stat. section 905.27

Your letter also argues that sanctions are applicable because the State Attorney has alleged that it does not possess the Jeffrey Epstein grand jury transcripts. This allegation is also contained in the State Attorney’s Answer. Assuming that the State Attorney does not currently have physical possession of the Epstein grand jury materials, which has yet to be demonstrated, this does not end the matter. The State Attorney was named as a party not simply as a custodian of grand jury records. The State Attorney was named in his official capacity as his office has “as its primary interest the protection of its grand jury system.” [Italics in original.] In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 832 F. 3d 554, 559 (11{sup}th Circuit 1987). In that case, the US petitioned a state judge to order the State Attorney to turn over grand jury transcripts. The State Attorney argued against their release citing to Fla. Stat. section 905.27. Later, a federal grand jury subpoenaed the Broward County State Attorney for delivery of state grand jury testimony. The Broward State Attorney advised the federal court that it would produce the transcripts, thereby demonstrating that while it may not have physical possession of the materials, he had legal authority to obtain and deliver them. It should also be noted that the State Attorney moved to quash the subpoena arguing that it was unlawful under Florida law and Fla. Stat. section 905.27. This case indicates that where one seeks grand jury materials, the relevant State Attorney is a necessary party in order to protect the grand jury that the Office of State Attorney supervised and to make arguments, if need be, against release of the grand jury materials. These are some of the same reasons why the State Attorney was named in this case.

Also, assuming the State Attorney does not have physical possession of the grand jury materials, there is nothing in Florida law that prohibits the State Attorney from requesting that the Clerk provide copies to the State Attorney. Chapter 905, Fla. Stats. does not contain a prohibition against a State Attorney demand that the Clerk grant his office access to grand jury materials, even after a criminal case has concluded. Upon information and belief, the Clerk’s office maintains a log that tracks release of grand jury materials to the State Attorney upon its request. Please confirm whether the State Attorney has accessed grand jury materials from the Clerk’s office in other instances or that it has never done so. If the Clerk has such a log, then its contents should be discoverable, or subject to Florida Public records laws.

Correspondence to Douglas A. Wyler June 23, 2020 Page 3

For these reasons, we decline your Fla. Stat. section 57.105 demand that the case be dismissed against the Office of the State Attorney. We expect that your demand will be withdrawn.

Thank you,

Very truly yours,

/s/Stephen Mendelsohn

Stephen Mendelsohn

SAM:ls

ACTIVE 51081659v1

EXHIBIT “C”

EXHIBIT “C”

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

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

cos

DEFENDANT. DAVE ARONBERG’S MO Ol ATTORNEYS’ FEES

Defendant, DAVE ARONBERG, as State y f Palm Beach County, Florida, by and through the undersigned attorneys, moves tlt Qurt, ursuant to Florida Statutes, Section 57.105, to award him reasonable attorneys’ f defense of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, (the “Complaint”), and as grotmCd served a , would show that on June 8, 2020, Plaintiff was copy of this Motion, together ’ a letter from the undersigned attorney, in accordance with subsection (4) of th bov ute, demanding dismissal of the Complaint, at least 21 days prior to the filing of • n. YYYY In said letter, Defendant’s attorney advised Plaintiff of the facts which establish mplaint is without support of the facts or the law.

WW REFORE, Defendant, DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of Palm Beach County, Florida, respectfully requests the Court enter an Order requiring Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s attorneys to pay said Defendant’s attorneys’ fees incurred herein after service of this Motion.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 1st day July, 2020, the foregoing was electronically filed via the Florida E-File Portal for electronic service on the parties of record herein.

SCHOLZ & WYLER, LLC

/s/ Douglas A. Wyler

Arthur I. ME, Esquire At Fla. Bar No.: 108249 its Richard J. Scholz, Esqui Fla. Bar No.: 002126 Douglas A. Wyle Fla. Bar No.: 11 Femandi h, Florida 32034 (904) (

961687 Gateway ., Suite 201-I Gs’ zlaw@comcast.net

eys for Defendant, Dave Aronberg

EXHIBIT “D”

EXHIBIT “D”

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;

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

CASE NO.: 50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB

DIVISION: AG

PLAINTIFF CA HOLDINQS’ NOTICE OF DROPPING STATE ATTORNEY. DAVE ARONBERG

O SA

.)

Plaintiff, CA HOLDINGS, LLC, pursuant to Fla. Rjw. P.)1250(b), hereby notifies the parties that it has dropped State Attorney, Dave Aronber bove case.

Respectfully submitted,

GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A.

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

401 East Las Olas Boulevard Suite 2000

Boca Raton, Florida 33486

Telephone: (561) 955-7629

Facsimile: (561) 338-7099

By: is/Stephen A. Mendelsohn

STEPHEN A. MENDELSOHN

Florida Bar No. 849324

mendelsohns@gtlaw.com

smithl(a)gtlaw,com

FLServicea.gtlaw.com

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

By: /s/ Nina D. Bovajian NINA D. BOYAJIAN (Admitted Pro Hoc Vice) 1840 Century Park East, Sui Los Angeles California Telephone: (310) 586-7 Facsimile: (310) 586-7 bow’.ian riveraalO

CERTIFICATE 0

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 2151 foregoing has been filed with the Clerk of will send a notice of electronic servi October, 2020, a true and correct copy of the urt ITsing the State of Florida e-filing system, which nits of record herein

/s/ Stephen A. Mendelsohn STEPHEN A. MENDELSOHN

EXHIBIT “E”

EXHIBIT “E”

lir Scholz & Wyler, LLC Gateway Blvd., Suite 2011 Fernandina Beach, FL 32034 United States 904-261-3693

Dave Aronberg

IM Scholz & Wyler, LLC

Balance $32,440.00 Invoice # 00307 Invoice Date November 6, 2020 Payment Ter Due Date

Aronberg (SAO15) adv. CA Florida Holdings, LLC

CO

Time Entries

DateEEActivityDescription— NY —
RateHoursLine Total
11/26/2019DWReviewInitial review of summonplaint. $425.001.5$637.50
11/26/2019DWReviewReviewed motion lo o haand Judge
$425.000.2$85.00
11/26/2019DWTeleconferenceTeleconferenClient. re: response to lawsuit $425.000.5$212.50
11/26/2019DWDraftDrafted4gagern\rint letter and sent to client$425.000.3$127.50
11/26/2019DWReviewRetie-b•led iirCircuit local rules$425.001.0$425.00
11/26/2019AIJReviewInitVeyjew of complaint$475.001.0$475.00
11/26/2019AIJMeeting’…4teting w/ DAW to discuss lawsuit and strategy$475.000.5$237.50
11/26/2019DWMeeting 7—
Va ! Meeting w/ AU to discuss lawsuit and strategy$425.000.5$212.50
11/26/2019AIJTeleconferenceTeleconference w/ Client. re: response to lawsuit$475.000.5$237.50
12/02/2019DWA.
, ariCho n &
Research and prep for Motion to dismiss$425.002.0$850.00
12/02/2019oWt
’Matt1st Draft motion to dismiss$425.001.0$425.00
OWTeleconferenceTeleconference w/ Client. re: draft motion to
dismiss$425.000.5$212.50
12/02/2019AIJReviewReviewed 1st Draft MTDismiss$475.000.3$142.50
12/02./2019AIJTeleconferenceTeleconference w/ client, re: draft motion to
dismiss$475.000.5$237.50
12/03/2019AIJMeetingMeeting w/ DAW, re: motion to dsmiss$475.000.2$95.00
12/03/2019OWMeetingMeeting w/ AIJ, re: MTDismiss$425.000.2$85.00
12/06/2019DWDraftCompleted final draft of motion to dsmiss: filed with
Court$425.000.7$297.50
12/06/2019DWTeleconferenceSpoke w/ client, re: final draft of motion to dismiss$425.000.5$212.50
12/06/2019DWTeleconferenceSpoke with Clerks attorney. re: response$425.000.5$212.50
12/06/2019AIJReviewReviewed final draft MTDismiss$475.000.2$95.00
12/06/2019AIJReviewReviewed Clerk’s MTDismiss$475.000.2$95.00
12/13/2019DWReviewReviewed Clerk’s Motion to Dismiss$425.000.5$212.50
01/16/2020DWReviewReviewed Order Setting Hearing on Defendants’
MTDismiss$425.000.1$42.50
01/16/2020DWReviewReviewed motion for pro hac vice$425.000.1$42.50
01/17/2020DWReviewReviewed Prs Amended Complaint$425.001.0$425.00
01/17/2020DWTeleconferenceSpoke with dient, re: Amended Complaint$425.000.5$212.50
01/17/2020DWReviewReviewed Prs notice of filing$425.00il 0.1$42.50
01/20/2020AIJReviewReviewed Prs Am. Comp/$475.000.3$142.50
01/21/2020DWReviewReviewed Judge Marx’s Order Cancelling
MTDismiss Hearing$425;00
IC, \i’.,,..;,
01/21/2020DWReviewReviewed Prs Objection to Defendants’ MTDismisshad0.2$85.00
01/21/2020OWTeleconferenceSpoke with dient, re: Amended complaint25.000.5$212.50
01/21/2020AIJMeetingMeeting w/ DAW, re: response to Am. Cogin$475.000.2$95.00
01/21/2020OWMeetingMeeting w/ AU, re: response to Am. OASTV $425.000.2$85.00
01/22/2020DWReviewReviewed Order granting pro haoe ion $425.000.1$42.50
01/22/2020DWResearch & DraftResearched and drafted resriense toltherided
Complaint$425.001.0$425.00
01/23/2020DWTeleconferenceSpoke with Clerk’s y, response to
$425.000.2$85.00
01/24/2020OWVariousCompleted Anismiss Amended
Complaint filedCourt; sent copy to Client $425.001.0$425.00
01/24/2020DWDraftDrafted and filed Notice of Unavailability$425.000.4$170.00
01/24/2020AIJReviewReieewecifinal Answer/MTDismiss$475.000.2$95.00
01/27/2020OWReviewicz-r< Reviewed Clerk’s Answer/MTDismiss$425.000.3$127.50
02/03/2020DW11( Review ..----
MTDismiss$425.000.1$42.50
02/03/2020DW
,,%,’ .‘
TeleconlerenteSpoke w/ client, re: order setting MTDismiss
03/13/2020D. VW,iimon &viewReviewed Prs Opposition to Aronberg MTDismiss
$425.001.5$637.50
03/13/2020AIJReviewReviewed PIS Opposition to Aronberg MTDismiss
& Clerk’s MTDismiss$475.000.7$332.50
03/18/2020OWTeleconference$425.00 Reviewed email from Pi’s counsel, re: motion to
continue hearing0.1$42.50
03/18/2020OWReviewReviewed PIS unopposed motion for continuance$425.000.1$42.50
03/18/2020DWE-mailEmails w/ Clerk’s counsel, re: Prs request to
$425.000.2$85.00
03/19/2020DWE-mailReviewed email from PI, re: agreed order &
$425.000.1$42.50
03/20/2020DWReviewReviewed Court’s agreed order continuing hearing$425.000.1$42.50
Reviewed order rescheduling hearing on Defs’
04/21/2020DWReview
MTDismiss$425.000.1$42.50
04/21/2020DWTeleconferenceSpoke w/ client, re: order rescheduling MTDismiss
hearing for June 3, 2020$425.000.3$127.50
04/21/2020AIJReviewReviewed Order rescheduling MTDismiss hearing$475.000.1$47.50
05/22/2020DWReviewReviewed order setting Zoom hearing, re:
MTDismiss$425.000.1$42.50
05/22/2020DWTeleconferenceSpoke w/ client, re: hearing will be via Zoom$425.000.2$85.00
05/27/2020DWReviewReviewed Clerk’s filing: change of atty of record$425.000.1$42.50
05/27/2020DWTeleconferenceSpoke with Clerk’s new counsel, Nicole Fingerhut$425.00A 0.2$85.00
05/28/2020DWE-mailReviewed Pi’s email, re: cases and authorities for
MTDismiss hearing; responded$425.000.1$42.50
05/29/2020DWPreparationBegan oral argument prep for 6/8 MTDismiss
hearing$425.001.0$425.00
06/01/2020DWE-mailReviewed email from Judge Marx’s JA and
responded$425.000.1$42.50
06/02/2020DWVariousReviewed Pi’s 500+ page binder, re: MTDisrniss &
prepped for hearing 4‘ , I$425.003.0$1,275.00
06/02/2020DWE-mailDrafted and sent email to client, re: MID-k, ‘6
tomorrow 111‘..$425.000.1$42.50
06/03/2020DWAttend HearingPrepped for and attended ‘sat-oaring via
Zoom$425.001.5$637.50
06/03/2020DWTeleconferenceSpoke w/ Client, re; debrief MTDismiss hearing$425.000.5$212.50
06/03/2020DWE-mailEmailed cou pies riAronberg’s Answer and
MTDismiseito Marx$425.000.1$42.50
06/03/2020DWE-mail
—’ ,
Reviewed response from Client and replied ..,$425.000.1$42.50
06/03/2020AIJAttend HearingAttended MTDismiss hearing via Zoom$475.001.0$475.00
06/03/2020AIJReviewReviewed order granting MTDismiss w/ prejudce$475.000.3$142.50
06/08/2020DWReviewmTp ffevieiswed missCourtun’stOrderpGreriaudi ntineg Defendants Shared order w/ Client and spoke w/, re: result and$425.000.5$212.50
06/08/2020DWVarious
ii! N
k -) Nplan going forward, re: 57.105 Researched § 57.105 Fla. Stat.: drafted 57.105 demand letter and proposed motion for attorneys’$425.000.5$212.50
06/08/2020Dl ic 7 -,„-Variousfees/sanctions; Served Pi’s counsel with demand letter and proposed motion.$425.002.0$850.00
06/08/2020AIJMeetingMeeting w/ DAW, re: Order & 57.105$475.000.3$142.50
06/08/2020DWMeetingMeeting w/ AU, re: Order & 57.105$425.000.3$127.50
06/08/2020AIJReviewReviewed 57.105 demand arid proposed motion for
sanction$475.000.2$95.00
06/10/2020DWVariousReviewed notice of change of attorney, re: Clerk:
called and spoke w/ new counsel Cynthia Guerra Reviewed Pi’s letter refusing to voluntarily dismiss$425.000.3$127.50
06/23/2020DWVarious
amended complaint despite 57.105 demand; called and spoke w/ client, re: Pi’s refusal & next steps$425.001.0$425.00
06/23/2020OWE-mailSent client copy of Pl’s letter refusing to dismiss
complaint$425.000.1$42.50
06/23/2020AIJReviewReviewed PI’S letter refusing to dismiss Count VAm.
Compl.$475.000.1$47.50
07/01/2020OWVarious
07/02/2020OWE-mailEmail to client. re: affidavit and summary judgment$425.000.1$42.50
07/08/2020DWTeleconferenceDiscussed w/ Client drafting and filing Motion for
Summary Judgment and MSJ evidence$425.000.7$297.50
07/08/2020AIJTeleconferenceDiscussed w/ Client drafting and filing Motion for
Summary Judgment and MSJ evidence$475.0/11-4-0.7$332.50
07/10/2020DWDraftCreated 1st draft of Aronberg Affidavit: shared w/
1.0$425.00
07/10/2020AIJVariousReviewed draft affidavit and discussed w/ DAW?b. 5.0.3$142.50
07/10/2020OWMeetingDiscussed draft affidavit w/ AU$,25.000.2$85.00
07/13/2020OWReviewReviewed Ks Request to Produce, re: Clerft-$425.000.1$42.50
07/13/2020OWTeleconferenceSpoke w/ Clerk’s counsel. re: Request b Produce$425.000.2$85.00
07/27/2020DWReviewReviewed Pl’s Amended Reque o re:
Clerk$425.000.1$42.50
07/27/2020DWTeleconferenceSpoke w/ Clerk’s counsel mendedRequest to
Produce$425.000.1$42.50
07/28/2020OWDraftRevised Arenberg fi ‘
07/29/2020OWDraft
07/29/2020DWResearch F.
Resear an regotor Makin for Summary
J n
$425.001.0$425.00
07/30/2020OWVariousReceived executed Aronberg Affidavit$425.000.1$42.50
07/30/2020OWDraftBegan drafting Motion for Summary Judgment$425.002.0$850.00
08/05/2020DWDraftVZontinued drafting Motion for Summary Judgment$425.001.0$425.00
08/07/2020DWRevidSReviewed email from Plaintiff attempting to set
hearing on 57.105 motion for fees/sanctions$425.000.1$42.50
08/10/2020OWI.l,mail
Sent responsive email to Ks counsel$425.000.1$42.50
08/17/2020DIg:tiAnetingDiscussed draft MSJ w/ AU$425.000.2$85.00
08/17/2020AIJVariousReviewed draft MSJ and met w/ DAW to discuss$475.000.5$237.50
08/18/2020DWDraftFinalized Motion for Summary Judgment: filed w/
court along with Aronberg affidavit$425.002.0$850.00
08/27/2020DWTeleconferenceSpoke w/ Clerk’s counsel. re: request to produce$425.000.1$42.50
09/01/2020DWVariousReviewed Pl’s email and accepted conference call
invite for 9/2/20$425.000.1$42.50
09/02/2020DWReviewReviewed Clerk’s response to request for
production$425.000.2$85.00
09/02/2020DWTeleconference
09/02/2020AIJMeetingDiscussed w/ DAW phone call w/ F1’s counsel$475.000.2$95.00
09/02/2020DWMeetingDiscussed w/ AIJ phone call w/ Pt’s counsel$425.000.2$85.00
09/16/2020DWE-mail
$425.000.1$42.50
09/17/2020DWMeetingDiscussed w/ AIJ filing motion for CMC$425.000.1$42.50
09/17/2020AIJMeetingDiscussed w/ DAW filing motion for CMC$475.000.1$47.50
09/18/2020DWVariousDrafted and filed motion to set case management
09/18/2020DWE-mail
$425.000.1$42.50
09/18/2020DWE-mailReviewed Prs email insisting that 57.105 motion be withdrawn$425A R oe0.1$42.50
09/18/2020DWE-mail
r 14/
0.1$42.50
09/18/2020DWE-mailSent client copy of email exchange w/ Prs ’ called and spoke w/ Client$425.000.5$212.50
09/22/2020DWVarious
/ ft Drafted and filed Notice of Hearing on) set
$425.000.7$297.50
10/02/2020DWReviewReviewed Prs Memo of La ing Arenberg’s
57.105 motion for fees/s$425.000.7$297.50
10/02/2020DWReviewReviewed Prs Response to iktnnberg’s request to
schedule 57.105 tiorilorfees after MSJ$425.000.5$212.50
10/02/2020AIJReviewReviewed Pis -of Law opposing 57.105
motion …‘;\$475.000.5$237.50
10/02/2020AIJReviewRe ted esponse to Aronberg’s request to
sc ule 57. 05 motion after MSJ$475.000.4$190.00
10/12/2020DWResearch ,i—
$425.001.0$425.00
10/13/2020DWResearctvg
Pre memo of law$425.001.0$425.00
10/13/2020DW—:\ ’ ’ ’ graft -..N.il
and shared w/ Client$425.004.0$1,700.00
10/13/2020IDWL—,eting
mem°$425.000.5$212.50
10/13/2020Al,)VariousReviewed draft MSJ, discussed draft w/ DAW and
caselaw$475.000.7$332.50
10/14/2020OWDraftFinalized and Ned Response to Pre Memo of Law$425.001.0$425.00
10/14/2020DWTelephoneSpoke w/ client, re: memo of law$425.000.2$8500
10/14/2020DWTelephoneSpoke w/ client again, re: response to memo of law$425.000.1$42.50
10/15/2020OWAttend HearingAttended hearing, re: Motion to Set CMC; called
client to discuss$425.001.5$637.50
10/15/2020DWVariousReviewed email and letter from PI, re: settlement.
Sent copy to Client and called to discuss.$425.000.5$212.50
10/15/2020DWTelephoneSpoke w/ Pi’s counsel, re: settlement$425.000.1$42.50
10/15/2020DWTelephoneSpoke w/ client, re: Prs settlement proposal$425.000.2$85.00
10/15/2020AIJVariousAttended hearing, re: motion to set CMC;
$475.001.0$475.00
10/15/2020AIJVariousDiscussed Prs settlement proposal w/ DAW and
then w/ Client$475.000.4$190.00
10/15/2020DWMeetingDiscussed Pi’s settlement proposal w/ AIJ$425.000.2$85.00
10/16/2020DWVariousDrafted and shared proposed order w/ Prs counsel$425.000.5$212.50
10/16/2020DWTelephoneSpoke w/ Prs counsel, re: settlement$425.000.2$85.00
10/16/2020DWTelephoneSpoke w/ client, re: Pi’s settlement proposal$425.00 40.5$212.50
10/16/2020DWMeetingDiscussed Pi’s settlement proposal w/ AU$425.00 Ar---4-2,. 4..0.2$85.00
10/16/2020AIJMeetingDiscussed Pi’s settlement proposal w/ DAW$475*
0.2$95.00
10/19/2020DWVariousUploaded proposed order, re: CMC for Judge
Hatele$425.01
A- “4,:…, “>1
0.1$42.50
10/19/2020DWTelephoneSpoke w/ client, re: Pi’s settlement proposal$425.000.2$85.00
10/19/2020DWTelephoneSpoke w/ Prs counsel, re: settlement .,,, ..4$425.000.1$42.50
10/19/2020AIJMeetingDiscussed Pi’s settlement proposal w/j EAVtik4 „I I$475.000.2$95.00
10/19/2020OWMeetingDiscussed Pi’s settlement proposal vii AU ,$425.000.2$85.00
10/20/2020OWVarious
$425.000.5$21a50
10/20/2020OWTelephone4 \ Spoke w/ client, re:Slemert1 `4$425.000.4$170.00
10/20/2020DWTelephoneSpoke w/ Prs co4uhlel,..rksettlement$425.000.1$42.50
10/20/2020DWTelephoneSpoke w/ c’$425.000.1$42.50
10/20/2020DWMeetingDiscusatt ers setitement proposal w/ AIJ$425.000.2$85.00
10/20/2020AIJMeetingDideussed A /settlement proposal w/ DAW$475.000.2$95.00
10/21/2020OWVarious
$425.001.0$425.00
10/21/2020DWRevie4 NsReviewed Order, re: CMC unnecessary$425.000.1$42.50
10/21/2020DW
lel ephr,le SSpoke w/ client, re: media response$425.000.2$85.00
10/21/2020D\ T I nSpoke w/ client, re: media response$425.000.1$42.50
10/21/2020DWTelephoneSpoke w/ client, re: media response$425.000.1$42.50
10/21/2020DWTelephoneSpoke w/ client, re: media response$425.000.1$42.50
10/21/2020DWTelephoneSpoke w/ client, re: media response$425.000.1$42.50
10/21/2020DWE-mailSent email w/ Aronberg statement to media$425.000.1$42.50
10/21/2020AIJMeetingDiscussed media response w/ DAW$475.000.3$142.50
10/21/2020DWMeetingDiscussed meda response w/ AU$425.000.3$127.50
10/22/2020DWVarious
10/22/2020AIJVariousReviewed PI’s Notice of Dropping Aronberg as party; spoke w/ Client and DAW, re: notice and next steps$475.000.5$237.50
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Totals: 74.8 $32,440.00

Time Entry Sub-Total:$32,440.00
Sub-Total:$32,440.00
Total:$32,440.00
Amount Paid:$0.00
Balance Due:$32,440.00

EXHIBIT “F”

EXHIBIT “F”

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

v. CASE NO.: 19-C 14681

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

STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF NASSAU CO S

AFFIDAVIT OF ATTORNc9

BEFORE ME, the undersigned am ( lcared ’ Douglas A. Wyler, Esq., who, after being first duly sworn, deposes and saAc ,

  • I. Affiant is a partr f SCHOLZ & WYLER, LLC, counsel for
  • Defendant, DAVE ARONB G, aj to Attorney of Palm Beach County, Florida, (“Aronberg”), as well as general cou to the Florida Prosecuting Attorneys Association, (“FPAA”), and makes this Affidavit o own rsonal knowledge.
    • 2. i t is licensed to practice law in the State of Florida, is an active member of the Flo in good standing and has engaged in the practice of law in the State of Florida since 2015.
      1. As detailed herein, the services rendered by Affiant and his firm pertain to Affiant’s demand letter and motion for attorneys’ fees sent to Plaintiff’s counsel pursuant to § 57.105, Florida Statutes, on June 8, 2020, in defending against Count I of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint

and Plaintiff’s October 21, 2020 Notice of Dropping State Attorney, Dave Aronberg from the above-captioned lawsuit. See, Exhibits “A” and “B” attached hereto.

  1. The total time Affiant’s law firm has expended services rendered to date is 74.8 hours, however, from the date of Defendant Aronberg’s 57.105 demand, Affiant’s law firm has demand was served, the Affiant expended a total of 42.2 hours. Of the 42.2 hours expended since Defendant Aronberg’s 57.105 Asseic

  2. Of the 42.2 hours expended since Defendant Aronberg’ demand was served, the total time Affiant has expended services rendered to dates S. hours at the rate of $425.00 per hour. Likewise, the total time Affiant’s law partn rt . M, has expended services rendered to date is 6.8 hours at the rate of $475.0

  3. Accordingly, since Defendant Aronbe, demand was served, Defendant Aronberg’s counsel, la SCHOLZ & WYLE)<ILC, has rendered services in the amount of $18,275.00, in conjunction with the de f the instant action pursuant to § 57.105, Florida Statutes. See, Exhibit “C” attache

  4. Affiant expect tb i J r additional 4.0 hours at $425.00 an hour in preparing for and attending the hearing on eys’ fees. Thus, the total amount of hourly attorneys’ fees the State Attorney is seeking is 46.2 hours for a total of $19,975.00. Additionally, the State Attorney seeks a multiplier of 2.0, which when applied makes the grand total attorneys’ fees sought herein $39,950.01).

Dated this 9th day of November, 2020.

FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT.

Douglas AJ Wyler, Esq., Fla. B No. 119979

STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF NASSAU

The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 9th day of November, 2020, by Do . Wyler, Esquire, who is personally known to me and who did take an oath.

Sig f otary Public — State of Florida

4itraN R. CacKson Name typed, printed or stamped

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +6s SCHOLZ & WYLER, LLC ?S S y Douglas A. Wyler Arthur I. Esq. Fla. Bar No.: 10249 Richard J. Scholz. Esq. Fla. Bar No.: 0021261 Douglas A. Wyler, Esq. Fla. Bar No.: 119979 961687 Gateway Blvd., Suite 2014 Fernandina Beach, Florida 32034 (904) 261-3693 (904) 261-7879 Fax Primary: jacobsscholzlaw@comcast.net Attorneys for Defendant Dave Aronberg

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 9th day of Novem been electronically filed with the Florida E-File Portal , a copy of the foregoing has on all parties of record herein.

EXHIBIT “A”

EXHIBIT “A”

Subject: SERVICE OF COURT DOCUMENT; CASE NO. 2019-CA-014681; CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC V. DAVE ARONBERG ET AL. Date: Monday, June 8, 2020 at 3:58:58 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: Douglas Wyler To: imendelsohns@gtlaw.com, smithl@gtlaw.com, flservice@gtlaw.com, BoyajianN@gtlaw.com, riveraal@gtlaw.com, GRYGIELM@gtlaw.com

Attachments: 2020-06-08 Aronberg 57.105 Demand and Motion for Attorneys’ Fees.pdf

Court: Florida Case No: Case No. 2020-CA-014681 Plaintiff: CA Florida Holdings, LLC Defendant: Dave Aronberg Title of Documents • Fla. Stat. § 57.105 Demand Letter Served: • Defendant, Dave Aronberg’s Motion tto Fees Sender’s Name and Douglas Wyler Telephone Number: (904) 261-3693 Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Palm Beach Cnunty,

S )

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

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 coreNation is strictly prohibited.

SCHOLZ 8c WYLER, LLC.

THE Lao OnICCS co ASSOCIATES. PA. ARTHUR

A UMITED LIABIUTY COMPANY OF PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS

GATEWAY TO AmELIA

961457 GATEWAY BLVD.. SUITE 201.1

FERNANDLYA BEACH, FLORIDA 32034

TELEPHONE (904) 261.3693

FAx NO 1904) 261.78710

June 8, 2020

VIA ELECTRONIC & U.S. MAIL

Greenburg Traurig, P.A.

5100 Town Center Circle, Suite 400

Boca Raton, FL 33486

RE: CA Florida Holdings, LLC v. Dave Aronberg et a Palm Beach County, Case No.: 2019-CA- 1468

Dear Mr. Mendelsohn:

As you are aware our firm represents the interes County. Florida, in the above referenced ma dismissal of your First Amended Complai is made pursuant to section 57.105, Flo • \ e ronberg, as State Attorney of Palm Beach rpose of this letter is to demand the voluntary plaint”), dated January 17, 2020. This demand

As you know, Section 57.

RICHARD J, SCHOLZ. A. RicHARO J. SCHOLZ

DOUGLAS A. WYLER, PA. DOUGLASA. %TYLER

  • (I) Upon the court’ 0or motion of any party, the court shall award a reasonable atto ee, including prejudgment interest, to be paid to the prevailing party in I amounts by the losing party and the losing party’s attorney on any cl r defense at any time during a civil proceeding or action in which the court r t the losing party or the losing party’s attorney knew or should ha known t a claim or defense when initially presented to the court or at any fore trial:
    • a. as 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.

Today, Judge Marx granted, with prejudice, Defendant Aronberg’s Motion to Dismiss Count 11 of the Plaintiff’s Complaint. Pursuant to the Court’s ruling, the Plaintiff’s only remaining cause of action consists of Count 1, for Declaratory Relief. Accordingly, we believe that the Complaint filed herein and its sole remaining Count for Declaratory Relief is not supported by the material facts necessary to establish the claims asserted, and that your claims are not supported by the application of current law to said material facts.

First and foremost, the Complaint is not supported by the material facts necessary to establish the claims asserted because neither Defendant Aronberg, nor The Office of the State Attorney for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit is in custody or control of the 2006 grand jury materials sought therein. Simply put, the declaratory relief sought by the Plaintiff, seeks records from my client that are impossible for him or his office to produce. Accordingly, Defendant Aronberg is not a proper party to this action because no matter what, he and his office do not have possession, custody, or control of the requested materials.

In addition to the foregoing material facts that negate the claims asserted in the Complaint your claims are also not supported by the application of current law. Specifically, your action ford tory relief fails based on the clear, unambiguous statutory language found in Section 905.27(2) Statutes, which states:

When such disclosure is ordered by a court pursuant to subsection ( a civil case, it may be disclosed to all parties to the case and to their atto the latter to their legal associates and employees. However, the grand Iry te. •nv afforded such persons by the court can only be used in the defense firer ecut n of the civil or criminal case and for no other purpose whatsoever.

Moreover, even if the Plaintiff were to prevail in the decla to comply with any court order granting disclosure of Aronberg nor The Office of the State Attorney for custody, or control of the 2006 Epstein grand jury . Mr. Aronberg would be unable documents because neither Mr. th Judicial Circuit have possession,

Based on the foregoing, if the Complaint is the enclosed Motion for Attorney’s Fees and your firm, recovery of the legal ex within 21 days of the service of this letter, and we will seek as sanctions, from your client d in defending this frivolous action.

Please govern yourself according

4

Douglas A. Wyler, Est. er For the Firm

End.: Defer {sup}sMo n for Attorneys’ Fees

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

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

DEFENDANT, DAVE ARONBERG’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES

\ / ti\i{sup}t Nc Defendant, DAVE ARONBERG, as Sta {sup}t ‘A ono y of Palm Beach County, Florida, by and through the undersigned attorneys, moves ( {sup}S {sup}e n, pursuant to Florida Statutes, Section 57.105, to award him reasonable attorneys’ for t defense of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, (the “Complaint”), and as go’t {sup}er, would show that on June 8, 2020, Plaintiff was served {sup}acopy of this Motion, together wi aletter from the undersigned attorney, in accordance with \a.) subsection (4) of the- ve Statute, demanding dismissal of the Complaint, at least 21 days prior to the filing of this Motion. In said letter, Defendant’s attorney advised Plaintiff of the facts which establish,that the Complaint is without support of the facts or the law.

NWHEREFORE, Defendant, DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of Palm Beach County, Florida, respectfully requests the Court enter an Order requiring Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s attorneys to pay said Defendant’s attorneys’ fees incurred herein after service of this Motion.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this ____ day _____, 2020, the foregoing was electronically filed via the Florida E-File Portal for electronic service on the parties of record herein.

[REDACTED] SCHOLZ & WYLER, LLC

/s/ Douglas A. Wyler

Arthur I. [REDACTED] Esquire

Fla. Bar No.: 108249

Richard J. Scholz, Esquire

Fla. Bar No.: 0021261

Douglas A. Wyler, Esquire

Fla. Bar No.: 119979

961687 Gateway Blvd., Suite 201-I

Fernandina Beach, Florida 32034

(904) 261-7879

jacobsscholzlaw@comcast.net

Attorneys for Defendant

NOTA CERTIFICATE

EXHIBIT “B”

EXHIBIT “B”

CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LW, Publisher of THE PALAIBEACHPOST,

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

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

CASE NO.: 50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB

DIVISION: AG .

PLAINTIFF CA HOLDINGS’ ,LC e NOTICE OF DROPPING STATE ATTO IrT,A E ARONBERG • V

Plaintiff, CA HOLDINGS, LLC, pursuant to Fla. i . 0(b), hereby notifies the parties that ..X it has dropped State Attorney, Dave Aronber < /ros s,” n tlybove i case.

+6s

Respectfully submitted,

GREENBERG TRALIRIG, P.A. Attorneys for CA Florida Holdings. LW. Publisher of The Palm Beach Post

Stephen A. Mendelsohn. Esq. 401 East Las Olas Boulevard Suite 2000 Boca Raton, Florida 33486 Telephone: (561) 955-7629 Facsimile: (561) 338-7099

By: /s/ Stephen A. Mendelsohn STEPHEN A. MENDELSOHN Florida Bar No. 849324 mendelsohnslittlay..com sm FLServiceVislaw.com

By: 4/Michael/Gm/el MICHAEL J GRYGIEL (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) 54 State St., 6th Floor Albany, New York 12207 Telephone: (518) 689-1400 Facsimile: (518) 689-1499 grvaielm@rrtlaw.com

By: 1st Nina D. Bovedian NINA D. BOYAJ1AN (Admitted Pro Hat Vice) 1840 Century Park East, Suit Los Angeles California 9006 Telephone: (310) 586-7700 Facsimile: (310) 586-7800 ) bovajiannegtlaw coin riv

CERTIFICATE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 21’ 1ber, 2020, a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been filed with the Clerk of ng the State of Florida e-filing system, which will send a notice of electronic semi all ies of record herein w

is/ Sievhen A. Mendelsohn STEPHEN A. MENDELSOHN

EXHIBIT “C”

EXHIBIT “C”

Time Entries

Fp Scholz & Wyler, LLC Gateway Blvd., Suite 2011 Femandina Beach, FL 32034 United States 904-261-3693

Dave Aronberg

Aronberg (SAO15) adv. CA Florida Holdings, LLC

Z .:4Q
DateEEActivityDescriptionRateHoursLine Total
11/26/2019OWReviewInitial review of summons doom$425.001.5$637.50
11/26/2019DWReviewReviewed motion for pro hac vIce_and Judge
$425.000.2$45.00
11/26/2019OWTeleconferenceTeleconferewV/ Client, re: response to lawsuit$425.000.5$212.50
11/26:2019DWDraftDraftedyarinentletter and sent to client$425.0003$127.50
11/26/2019DWReviewRevieWedt5th ckcuit local rules$425.001.0$425.00
11/26/2019AUReviewInitial review of complaint5475.001.0$475.00
11/26/2019AUMeetingMeeting’w/ DAW to discuss lawsuit and strategy5475.000.5$237.50
11/26/2019DWMeeting,,,iwicr
Meeting WI AU to discuss lawsuit and strategy$425.000.5$212.50
11/26/2019AUTeleconferenc(Teleconference w/ Client, re: response to lawsuit$475.000.5$237.50
12/02/2019OWRenton &
PreparatiOnResearch and prep for Motion to dismiss$425.002.0$850.00
12/02/2019OW c..Draft1st Draft motion to dismiss$425.001.0$425.00
12/022019 AT DOVA\i’,
TeleconferenceTel
12/02/2019AISReviewReviewed 1st Draft MTDismiss$475.000.3$142.50
12/02/2019AUTeleconferenceTeleconference w/ client, re: draft motion to
dismiss$475.000.5$237.50
12/03/2019AUMeetingMeeting w/ DAW, re: motion to dismiss$475.000.2$95.00
12/03/2019DWMeetingMeeting w/ AIJ, re: MTDisrniss$425.000.2$85.00
12/06/2019OWDraftCompleted final draft of motion to dismiss; filed with
Court$425.000.7$297.50
12/06/2019DWTeleconferenceSpoke w/ client, re: final draft of motion to dismiss$425.000.5$212.50

Scholz & Wyler, LLC

Balance Invoice # Invoice Date Payment Term Due Date $32,440.00 00307 Rcnber 6, 2020

12/06/2019DWTeleconferenceSpoke with Clerk’s attorney, re: response$425.000.5$212.50
12/06/2019AJJReviewReviewed final draft MTDismiss$475.000.2$95.00
12/06/2019AJJReviewReviewed Clerk’s MTDismiss$475.000.2$95.00
12/13/2019DWReviewReviewed Clerk’s Motion to Dismiss$425.000.5$212.50
01/16/2020DWReviewReviewed Order Setting Hearing on Defendants’ MTDismiss$425.000.1$42.50
01/16/2020DWReviewReviewed motion for pro hac vice$425.000.1$42.50
01/17/2020DWReviewReviewed PI’s Amended Complaint$425.001.0$425.00
01/17/2020DWTeleconferenceSpoke with client, re: Amended Complaint$425.000.5$212.50
01/17/2020DWReviewReviewed PI’s notice of filing$425.000.1$42.50
01/20/2020AJJReviewReviewed PI’s Am. Compl$475.000.3$142.50
01/21/2020DWReviewReviewed Judge Marx’s Order Cancelling MTDismiss Hearing$425.000.1$42.50
01/21/2020DWReviewReviewed PI’s Objection to Defendants’ MTDismiss$425.000.2$85.00
01/21/2020DWTeleconferenceSpoke with client, re: Amended complaint$425.000.5$212.50
01/21/2020AJJMeetingMeeting w/ DAW, re: response to Am. Compl.$475.000.2$95.00
01/21/2020DWMeetingMeeting w/ AJJ, re: response to Am. Compl.$425.000.2$85.00
01/22/2020DWReviewReviewed Order granting pro hac vice admission$425.000.1$42.50
01/22/2020DWResearch & DraftResearched and drafted response to Amended Complaint$425.001.0$425.00
01/23/2020DWTeleconferenceSpoke with Clerk’s attorney, re: response to amended complaint$425.000.2$85.00
01/24/2020DWVariousCompleted Answer/MTDismiss Amended Complaint; filed with Court; sent copy to Client$425.001.0$425.00
01/24/2020DWDraftDrafted and filed Notice of Unavailability$425.000.4$170.00
01/24/2020AJJReviewReviewed final Answer/MTDismiss$475.000.2$95.00
01/27/2020DWReviewReviewed Clerk’s Answer/MTDismiss$425.000.3$127.50
02/03/2020DWReviewReviewed Order setting hearing on Defs’ MTDismiss$425.000.1$42.50
02/03/2020DWTeleconferenceSpoke w/ client, re: order setting MTDismiss hearing for March 24, 2020$425.000.5$212.50
03/13/2020DWReviewReviewed PI’s Opposition to Aronberg MTDismiss & Clerk’s MTDismiss$425.001.5$637.50
03/13/2020AJJReviewReviewed PI’s Opposition to Aronberg MTDismiss & Clerk’s MTDismiss$475.000.7$332.50
03/18/2020DWTeleconferenceReviewed email from PI’s counsel, re: motion to continue hearing$425.000.1$42.50
03/18/2020DWReviewReviewed PI’s unopposed motion for continuance$425.000.1$42.50
03/18/2020DWE-mailEmails w/ Clerk’s counsel, re: PI’s request to continue hearing$425.000.2$85.00
03/19/2020DWE-mailReviewed email from PI, re: agreed order & responded$425.000.1$42.50
03/20/2020DWReviewReviewed Court’s agreed order continuing hearing$425.000.1$42.50
04/21/2020 04/21/2020DW DWReview TeleconferenceReviewed order rescheduling hearing on Dels’ MTDismiss$425.000.1$42.50
hearing for June 3, 20205425.000.3$127.50
04/21/2020AUReviewReviewed Order rescheduling MTDismiss hearing$475.000.1$47.50
05/2212020OWReviewReviewed order setting Zoom hearing, re:
MTDismiss$425.000.1$42.50
05/22/2020DWTeleconferenceSpoke w/ client, re: hearing will be via Zoom$425.000.2$85.00
05/27/2020OWReviewReviewed Glories ling: change of any of record$425.000.1$42.50
05/27/2020DWTeleconferenceSpoke with Clerk’s new counsel. Nicole Fingerhut$425.00i0.2$85.00
05/28/2020DWE-mailReviewed Pt’s email, re: cases and authorities for
$425.04naltS1$42.50
05/29/2020DWPreparationBegan oral argument prep for 6/8 MTDismiss MTDismiss hearing; respondede2N.1.0$425.00
06/01/2020DWE-mailReviewed email from Judge Marx’s JA and
respondedL$425.00 )0.1$42.50
06/02/2020DWVariousReviewed Prs 500+ page binder, re: MT •
prepped for hearing$425.003.0$1,275.00
06:02/2020DWE-mailDrafted and sent email to client, re. a
tomorrow A
$425.000.1$42.50
06/03/2020DWAttend HearingPrepped for and attended ON ‘I ng via
Zoom A
$425.001.5$637.50
06/03/2020DWTeleconferenceSpoke w/ Client, re. 1814ciffsmiss hearing$425.000.5$212.50
06/03/2020DWE-mailEmailed courses co of Aronberg’s Answer and
MTDismiss. ge
$425.000.1$42.50
06/03/2020DWE-mailReviewed re se from Client and replied$425.000.1$42.50
06/03/2020AUAttend HearingAlleuxlik‘MtaisMiss hearing via Zoom$475.001.0$475.00
06/03/2020AUReviewReviewed order granting MTDismiss w/ prejudice3475.000.3$142.50
06/08/2020DWReviewRei4Sed Courts Order Granting Defendants
MTDismiss Count II w/ Prejudice$425.000.5$212.50
06/08/2020DWVanOisShared order w/ Client and Spoke w/, result and
IIplan going forward, re: 57.105 Researched § 57.105 Fla. Stat.: drafted 57.105$425.000.5$212.50
OW •Varibus
06/08/2020__ .,letter and proposed motion.$425.002.0$850.00
06/08/2020AUMeetingMeeting wi DAW, re: Order & 57.105$475.000.3$142.50
06/08/2020DWMeetingMeeting w/ AU. re: Order 8. 57.105$425.000.3$127.50
06/08/2020AIJReviewReviewed 57.105 demand and proposed motion for
sanction$475.000.2$95.00
06/10/2020DWVarious$425.00 Reviewed notice of change of attorney, re: Clerk:
called and spoke w/ new counsel Cynthia Guerra0.3$127.50
0623/2020DWVarious
$425.001.0$425.00
06/23/2020DWE-mailSent client copy of PCs letter refusing to dismiss
complaint$425.000.1$42.50
06/23/2020AUReviewReviewed Fts letter refusing to dismiss Count VAm.
Cornpl.$476000.1$47.50
07/01/2020DWVarious
07/02/2020OWE-mailEmail to client re: affidavit and summary judgment$425.000.1$42.50
07/08/2020DWTeleconferenceDiscussed w/ Client drafting and filing Motion for
Summary Judgment and MSJ evidence$425.000.7
07A58/2020AUTeleconferenceDiscussed w/ Client drafting and Ming Motion for
Summary Judgment and MSJ evidence$475.00
07/10/2020DWDraftCreated 1st draft of Aronberg Affidavit: shared w/
1.0$425.00
07/10/2020AUVariousReviewed draft affidavit and discussed w/ DAW— 75.00I0.3$142.50
07/10/2020DWMeetingDiscussed draft affidavit w/ AU II$425.000.2$85.00
07/13/2020DWReviewReviewed Pl’s Request to Produce, re: Genic/N‘ ---5425.000.1$42.50
07/13/2020OWTeleconferenceSpoke w/ Clerk’s counsel, re: Requestt6Prod ,I$425.000.2$85.00
07/27/2020DWReviewReviewed PCs Amended Request Sci/Produce. re:
Clerk$425.000.1$42.50
07/27/2020OWTeleconference
Spoke w/ Clerk’s counsel, need Request to
Produce$425.000.1$42.50
07/28/2020DWDraftRevised Aronberii,Cfidavi 7$425.000.5$212.50
07/29/2020DWDraftFinaized Aro rg ralvit and sent to client$425.000.5$212.50
07)29/2020OWResearch 8
Research Motion for Summary
$425.001.0$425.00
07/30/2020DWVariousFtereeiviiizAted Aronberg Affidavit$425.000.1$42.50
07/30/2020OWDraftE’ agan drafting Motion for Summary Judgment$425.002.0$850.00
08/05/2020OWDraftContinued drafting Motion for Summary Judgment$425.001.0$425.00
08/07/2020OWReview /
hearing on 57.105 motion for fees/sanctions$425.000.1$42.50
08/102020OWE-mailSent responsive email to PIS counsel$425.000.1$42.50
08/17/2020OW ifMeebng ‘Discussed draft M5,1w/ AU$425.000.2$85.00
08/17/2020Au.,VariousReviewed draft MSJ and met w/ DAW to discuss$475.000.5$237.50
08/18/2020OWDraftFinalized Motion for Summary Judgment; tiled w/
court along with Aronberg affidavit$425.002.0$850.00
08/27/2020DWTeleconferenceSpoke w/ Clerk’s counsel, re: request to produce$425.000.1$42.50
09101/2020OWVariousReviewed Fts email and accepted conference call
invite for 9/2/205425.000.1$42.50
09/02/2020DWReviewReviewed genes response to request for
production$425.000.2$85.00
09/02/2020DWTeleconference
09/02/2020AUMeetingDiscussed w/ DAW phone call w/ F1’s counsel$475.000.2$95.00
09/02/2020OWMeetingDiscussed WI AU phone cal w/ Prs counsel$425.000.2$85.00
09/16/2020DWE-mail
$425.000.1$42.50
09/17/2020OWMeetingDiscussed w/ AU filing motion for CMC$425.000.1$42.50
09/17/2020AUMeetingDiscussed w/ DAW filing motion for CMC$475.000.1$47.50
09/18/2020DWVariousDrafted and filed motion to set case management
conference; re: MSJ 1st or Fee hearing 1st$425.000.5$212.50
09/18/2020DWE-mail
$425.00 A0.1$42.50
09/182020OWE-mailReviewed Prs email insisting that 57.105 motion be
withdrawn$425c, 0.1$42.50
09/18/2020DWE-mail
( 14/0.1$42.50
0918/2020DWE-mailSent client copy of email exchange w/ Prs
09/22/2020OWVariousDrafted and filed Notice of Hearing 1
$425.000.7$297.50
10/02/2020OWReviewReviewed Fts Memo of Law, nberg’s
57.105 motion for fees/$425.000.7$297.50
10/02/2020OWReviewReviewed Pt’s R Ar rg’s request to
schedule 57.105 fo after MSJ$425.000.5$212.50
10;02/2020AUReviewReviewed ’ limo 0 opposing 57.105
motion3475.000.5$237.50
10/02/2020AUReviewpt’s nse to Aronberg’s request to
schedeili<S7.)05 motion after MSJ$475.000.4$190.00
10/12/2020DWResearchResearch caselaw & statutes. re: response to Prs
litemoOf Law$425.001.0$425.00
10113/2020DWResearch a ’-’,, ,
$425.001.0$425.00
10113/2020OWOraftCreated 1st draft of Response to PI’S Memo of Law
and shared w/ Client$425.004.0$1,700.00
10/13/2020DWMeetingDiscussed w/ AIJ caselaw and draft response to
10/13/2020AUVariousReviewed draft MSJ, discussed draft w/ DAW and
caselaw$475.000.7$332.50
10/14/2020DWDraftFinalized and filed Response to Prs Memo of Law$425.001.0$425.00
10/14/2020DWTelephoneSpoke wr client, re: memo of law$425.000.2$85.00
10/14/2020OWTelephoneSpoke wr client again, re: response to memo of law$425.000.1$42.50
10/15/2020OWAttend HearingAttended hearing, re: Motion to Set CMG: called
client to discuss$425401.5$637.50
10/15/2020DWVariousReviewed email and letter from PI, re: settlement.
Sent copy to Client and called to discuss.$425.000.5$212.50
10/15/2020DWTelephoneSpoke w/ PI’s counsel, re: settlement$425.000.1$42.50
10/15/2020DWTelephoneSpoke w/ client, re: PI’s settlement proposal$425.000.2$85.00
10/15/2020AJVariousAttended hearing, re: motion to set CMC; discussed w/ client$475.001.0$475.00
10/15/2020AJVariousDiscussed PI’s settlement proposal w/ DAW and then w/ Client$475.000.4$190.00
10/15/2020DWMeetingDiscussed PI’s settlement proposal w/ AJ$425.000.2$85.00
10/16/2020DWVariousDrafted and shared proposed order w/ PI’s counsel$425.000.5$212.50
10/16/2020DWTelephoneSpoke w/ PI’s counsel, re: settlement$425.000.2$85.00
10/16/2020DWTelephoneSpoke w/ client, re: PI’s settlement proposal$425.000.5$212.50
10/16/2020DWMeetingDiscussed PI’s settlement proposal w/ AJ$425.000.2$85.00
10/16/2020AJMeetingDiscussed PI’s settlement proposal w/ DAW$475.000.2$95.00
10/19/2020DWVariousUploaded proposed order, re: CMC for Judge Hafele$425.000.1$42.50
10/19/2020DWTelephoneSpoke w/ client, re: PI’s settlement proposal$425.000.2$85.00
10/19/2020DWTelephoneSpoke w/ PI’s counsel, re: settlement$425.000.1$42.50
10/19/2020AJMeetingDiscussed PI’s settlement proposal w/ DAW$475.000.2$95.00
10/19/2020DWMeetingDiscussed PI’s settlement proposal w/ AJ$425.000.2$85.00
10/20/2020DWVariousReviewed email from PI, re: settlement; sent copy to Client and called to discuss$425.000.5$212.50
10/20/2020DWTelephoneSpoke w/ client, re: settlement$425.000.4$170.00
10/20/2020DWTelephoneSpoke w/ PI’s counsel, re: settlement$425.000.1$42.50
10/20/2020DWTelephoneSpoke w/ client, re: settlement$425.000.1$42.50
10/20/2020DWMeetingDiscussed PI’s settlement proposal w/ AJ$425.000.2$85.00
10/20/2020AJMeetingDiscussed PI’s settlement proposal w/ DAW$475.000.2$95.00
10/21/2020DWVariousDrafted and filed Motion to Set Hearing on Aronberg MSJ; drafted proposed order granting motion to set; checked court availability; emailed PI’s counsel, re: choose date for hearing$425.001.0$425.00
10/21/2020DWReviewReviewed Order, re: CMC unnecessary$425.000.1$42.50
10/21/2020DWTelephoneSpoke w/ client, re: media response$425.000.2$85.00
10/21/2020DWTelephoneSpoke w/ client, re: media response$425.000.1$42.50
10/21/2020DWTelephoneSpoke w/ client, re: media response$425.000.1$42.50
10/21/2020DWTelephoneSpoke w/ client, re: media response$425.000.1$42.50
10/21/2020DWTelephoneSpoke w/ client, re: media response$425.000.1$42.50
10/21/2020DWE-mailSent email w/ Aronberg statement to media$425.000.1$42.50
10/21/2020AJMeetingDiscussed media response w/ DAW$475.000.3$142.50
10/21/2020DWMeetingDiscussed media response w/ AJ$425.000.3$127.50
10/22/2020DWVariousReviewed PI’s Notice of Dropping Aronberg as party; spoke w/ Client and AJ, re: notice and next steps$425.000.5$212.50
10/22/2020AJJVariousReviewed PI’s Notice of Dropping Aronberg as party; spoke w/ Client and DAW, re: notice and next steps$475.000.5$237.50
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Totals: 74.8      $32,440.00

Time Entry Sub-Total:$32,440.00
Sub-Total:$32,440.00
Total:$32,440.00
Amount Paid:$0.00
Balance Due:$32,440.00

EXHIBIT “G”

EXHIBIT “G”

SCHOLZ & WYLER, LLC.

A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY OF PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS

GATEWAY TO AMELIA

961687 GATEWAY BLVD., SUITE 201-1

FERNANDINA BEACH, FLORIDA 32004

TELEPHONE (904) 261-3693

FAX NO. (904) 261-7879

THE LAW OFFICES OF [REDACTED] & ASSOCIATES, P.A. ARTHUR I. [REDACTED]

RICHARD J. SCHOLZ, P.A. RICHARD J. SCHOLZ

DOUGLAS A. WYLER, P.A. DOUGLAS A. WYLER

November 26, 2019

Office of the State Attorney 15th Judicial Circuit Attn: Jeanne Howard 401 North Dixie Highway West Palm Beach, FL 33401

Re: CA Florida Holdings, LLC v. Dave Aronberg et al. Case No.: 2019-CA-014681

Dear Mrs. Howard:

The purpose of this letter is to confirm that [REDACTED] Scholz & Wyler, LLC will represent you regarding the above-referenced matter.

Our fees will be contingent upon our success in this matter. You will not be liable or required to pay any monies to our office unless we are successful in our representation of you regarding the above-referenced litigation and receive a court order awarding attorneys’ fees.

Accordingly, should we be successful in this matter, you agree to be billed for the time incurred in defending this action at our current hourly rates. At this time, our current hourly rates are: $475.00/hour for senior partners, $425.00/hour for other partners, $375.00/hour for associate attorneys, and $125.00/hour for paralegal time.

Furthermore, the attorneys’ fees paid to our firm shall be calculated by the above listed hourly rates multiplied by the number of hours expended in defending this action or the total fee mandated and awarded by the court order herein, whichever is greater.

By signing below, you agree to the terms as set forth above. Please return a signed and dated copy of this letter to our office. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact our office. On behalf of the firm, we are proud to represent you in this matter.

For the Firm

6/4/2020 Date

Also released as

The same pages were released more than once, under different numbers.

Discuss on Bluesky

Retrieved from https://epstein-index.org/documents/court-ca-florida-holdings-efta02732955/.