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-014681-XXXX-MB Publisher of THE PALM BEACH POST, DIVISION: AG v. DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of Palm Beach County, Florida; SHARON R. BOCK, as Clerk and Comptroller of Palm Beach County, Florida, co # WRITTEN CLOSING ARGUMENT OF C DA HOLDINGS, LLC, PUBLISHER OF THE PALM BEACH PO Olt ATE ATTORNEY DAVE ARONBERG'S AMENDED MOTIO FLORIDA STATUS ATTORNEYS' FEES UNDER TION 57.105 Plaintiff, CA Florida Holdings, pu8ljsher of The Palm Beach Post ("Plaintiff" or the "Post"), pursuant to the Court's i the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing held on September 6 and 8, 2022, res submits this Written Closing Argument opposing State Attorney Dave Aronber Ir rovember , 9, 2020 Amended Motion for Attorneys' Fees (the "Amended Motio under lorida Statutes § 57.105 [DE 50]. # L INT ON Attorney's Amended Motion should be denied with prejudice, as it is both procedural) and substantively deficient. The evidence establishes that—in an effort to inform the public how sexual predator Jeffrey Epstein received a highly unusual and extremely lenient plea agreement following his 2006 grand jury indictment by a former Palm Beach County State Attorney—the Post and its attorneys conducted an extensive factual and legal investigation, leading to the filing of this case seeking the Epstein grand jury materials. The Post relied upon statutes and case law supporting disclosure of the grand jury materials under the unique and extraordinary circumstances of the Epstein case—including Miami Herald Pub. Co. v. Marko, 352 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 1977), in which the Florida Supreme Court recognized an exception to grand jury secrecy under the First Amendment in the context of grand jury findings of public corruption—to argue that a similar exception to grand jury secrecy should be recognized in the E case. While ultimately denying the relief that the Post sought, in the Court's Final J nt on the declaratory relief claim in Count I, Judge Hafele stated that the Post's ar re "palatable and persuasive" and presented "strong arguments" for a more expa iv ction of the "in furtherance of justice" language of Florida Statutes Section 90 J e Hafele also noted the case presented questions of "first impression" regardi tute's interpretation and the Court's inherent authority over grand jury proceedi V ' SS'c , uestions also implicated "issues of constitutional import regarding the historic c "Sloc s ote tlw een grand jury secrecy and the First Amendment." Ex. J30 at pp. 5, 7, 11, I Th issues are now on appeal before the Fourth District Court of Appeal. As was shown at the e hearing, the State Attorney's Amended Motion has no merit. It is the State Atto r' burden—and a heavy one—to prove sanctions are permitted and warranted under 'da S lutes Section 57.105 as to Count I of the Amended Complaint, the declaratory t claim. This is a burden the State Attorney not only failed to meet, but cannot meet, dmitted in his Answer that the Count I declaratory judgment claim presented a "good faith dispute" between the parties. Ex. J09 at ¶ 72; Ex. J10 at ¶ 72. The State Attorney's accusation that he was named in his official capacity—in a claim Citations to "Ex. J\_" correspond to the hearing exhibit numbers set forth in the parties' Joint Exhibit List, filed with the Court on September I, 2022. seeking access to grand jury materials from a prosecution by a former State Attorney—solely because of some "personal vendetta" against him has no factual basis. Hrg. Tr.2 at 58:6-59:25.3 Rather, the evidence shows a thoughtful, deliberate, and detailed factual investigation and legal analysis by the Post's attorneys to determine what claims to bring and what parties were required to be joined to obtain public access to Epstein's grand jury materials. The State Attorney was always a necessary party—the reasons requiring IA pder were alleged in the initial Complaint, continued in the Amended Complain ver changed, contrary to the State Attorney's argument that the Post somehow "mo e t 'posts." Hrg. Tr. at 53:1-11, 59:15-25, 60:21-61:14. Unlike the Clerk, who was c) edit s official capacity only as being "in possession of documents that are the subjec i ion," [Ex. J04 at ¶ 4; Ex. J09 at ¶ 4], the State Attorney was named in his °Melia S p 2 rimarily because of his "authority in grand jury proceedings pursuant to Fla. St see also Ex. J16 (June 23, 2020 Letter f Dave Aronberg). \*o 7.03." See Ex. J04, ¶ 3; Ex. J09 at ¶ 3; elsohn to D. Wyler, counsel for State Attorney As the sole public offic 1 wi authority over grand jury proceedings, the State Attorney had the right and authori p so chose, to object to the release of grand jury materials by the {sup}`2`Full transcri, evidentiary hearings on September 6 and 8, 2022 ("Hrg. Tr.") have been filed with' and condensed versions of the transcripts hereto are attached as Composite Exhibit A. {sup}`3` The Sta Attorney's belief that the only reason his Office was named as a defendant was because of a "pe al vendetta" and animus to "go after" him on behalf of the Post (Hrg. Tr. at 58:6- 59:25) was not supported by any exhibit, nor any pleadings or filings. To the contrary, the Post's attorney, Stephen Mendelsohn, testified he had a great deal of respect for the State Attorney and his Office. Hrg. Tr. at 136:17-137:13. Despite the State Attorney's speculation about the Post's purportedly adverse motivations and his criticism of the Post's prior reporting, none of the articles he took issue with were offered in evidence. Further, the State Attorney's allegation that the Post had coordinated its reporting with its counsel was rebutted as Mr. Mendelsohn testified that he did not speak to the Post's editorial staff about its news coverage of the issues in this litigation. Hrg. Tr. at 135:23-136:16. Clerk. The State Attorney exercised his authority and objected to release of the grand jury materials by his motion to dismiss the initial Complaint, and again in his Answer to Count I and Motion to Dismiss Count 11 of the Amended Complaint. Ex. J06; Ex. J10. Once the State Attorney changed his position, on October 14, 2020, by affirmatively stating that he did not obiect to release of the grand jury materials if ordered by the Coup, the Post dismissed the State Attorney from the lawsuit on October 21, 2020. Yet, nineteeA4ls after his dismissal, on November 9, 2020, the State Attorney filed the Amended M Because the Amended Motion was filed after the State Atto n dismissed from the case and because there was a lack of proper service of the d otion, there is no need to address the merits of the State Attorney's Amended ty nn der the law, the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider it, and the Amended Motio "Sic denied on that basis alone. # II. THE COURT LACKS JURISD O CONSIDER THE AMENDED MOTION # A. THE STATE ATTORNEt in rn HIS AMENDED MOTION AFTER HE WAS DISMISSED As A PA As a threshold—but I—point, the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the Amended Motion (the on otion set for hearing before the Court) because, as the State Attorney plainly admitted, led h Amended Motion on November 9, 2020, after he had already been dismissed October 21, 2020. Ex. J23,125; Hrg. Tr. at 44:3-6, 57:2-12. With that admiss ourt does not have jurisdiction to consider the Amended Motion. Sidlosca v. Olympus 1 Co., 276 So. 3d 987, 989 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) [Authorities TAB 26] ("[A] trial court has continuing jurisdiction to consider a section 57.105 motion for sanctions only where the motion for sanctions was filed with the court before a voluntary dismissal") (emphasis added). # B. THE AMENDED MOTION VIOLATED THE "SAFE HARBOR" NOTICE. PROVISION IN SECTION 57.105(4). AS IT WAS NEVER SERVED BEFORE IT WAS FILED. Compounding the above error, the State Attorney admitted that the Amended Motion was not properly served before it was filed. Hrg. Tr. at 16:16-17:21; 92:2-93:25. As a result, the Amended Motion violated the strict "safe harbor" notice provision of section 57.105(4), which requires a motion for fees to be served on the non-moving party at least 21 days bef it is filed. Fla. Stat. § 57.105(4) ("A motion by a party seeking sanctions under this sec ust served but may not be filed with or presented to the court unless, within 21 d s a service of the motion, the challenged paper, claim, defense, contention, allegation, denylal is not withdrawn or appropriately corrected.") (Emphasis added). The State Attorney's admission that if he had s mended Motion before the Post dismissed him as a party on October 21, 2020, he a no motion for fees, is also fatal. Hrg. Tr. at 93:3-25. Without proper safe harbor Liberty Express, Inc., 252 So. 3d at 40 er to have properly complied with section 57.105, [the filing party] must have first proposed motion upon the party it sought to sanction.") This is because "[t]he primary p e5e of section 57.105's safe harbor provision is to provide the recipient of the moti n wi n ice and the opportunity to withdraw or abandon a frivolous claim before sanctio t." Id.; see also Ferere v. Shure, 65 So. 3d 1141, 1145 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) [A AB 6] (section 57.105(1) was not applicable where there was no way for plaintiff's nsel to withdraw an allegation after a post-trial motion). Court does not have jurisdiction. See MC # C. THE STATE ATTORNEY MAY NOT RELY ON SERVICE OF A PRIOR "PLACE-MARKER" MOTION FOR FEES TO AVOID TILE STRICT REQUIREMENTS OF 57.105. The State Attorney relies on a prior—what he calls a "place-marker"—motion for attorneys' fees that was served on June 8, 2020 and filed on July I, 2020, in an attempt to avoid the safe harbor requirements of 57.105(4). Ex. J14; Ex. J18; see also Ex. J21 at pp. 5, 13. His reliance is misplaced. Service of that initial "place-marker" motion is not sufficient to comply with section 57.105(4), because once the State Attorney filed his Amended Motion containing new arguments, the 21-day safe harbor notice was required anew. See Lago v. Kame By Design, LLC, 120 So. 3d 73, 75 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) [Authorities TAB 14]. The Lago Court stated: We hold that if a party files a subsequent or amended motion for under section 57.105 and raises an argument that was not raised in the ri on for section 57.105 sanctions, the subsequent motion must indepe ply with the twenty-one-day 'safe harbor' provision of section 57.105( Id. at 75; see also Moore v. Estate of Albee by Benzenhafe .3d 192, 195, n.2 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018) [Authorities TAB 20] (court could not co m s 1 61amended motion for section 57.105 tiCt fees because it raised additional grounds for san ot ised in the defendant's prior motion for fees and there was "no indication that nd t] complied with the twenty-one-day 'safe harbor' provision of section 57.105 147 So. 3d 569, 572 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) [Authorities TAB 22]. Lago and its pro eny ish that the State Attorney was required to independently comply with the 21 y sloe fiarbor before filing his Amended Motion, because the Amended Motion made at ents and referenced new evidence, including the State Attorney's August 2020 mot time of th "place-marker" motion. Compare Ex. J14 with Ex. J25; see also Hrg. Tr. at 94:6-17. mmary judgment and affidavit in support, which were not in existence at the # III. THE INITIAL "PLACE-MARKER" MOTION CANNOT BE CONSIDERED, AND EVEN IF IT COULD IT WHOLLY FAILS TO SATISFY SECTION 57.105 # A. THE INITIAL "PLACE-MARKER" MOTION FOR FEES WAS NEVER NOTICED FOR HEARING. Apparently recognizing at the hearing that the State Attorney's violation of section 57.105(4)'s safe harbor provision is fatal to the State Attorney's Amended Motion, in his opening statement the State Attorney's counsel said he would now rely, in the alternativS the initial "place-marker" motion for attorneys' fees-i.e., the one-page motion and 4;1,age enclosure letter, served on June 8, 2020 [Ex. J14] and filed on July I, 2020 [Ex. 0 The State Attorney's July I, 2020 "place-marker" fee mot never been set for hearing. Hrg. Tr. at 128:1-4. The only motion that was s ng, and re-set for hearing at least twice, is the November 9, 2020 Amended x. 325; Hrg. Tr. at 132:14-17. Accordingly, the Amended Motion is the onl hat may properly be considered by the Court. See, e.g., v. Persighetti, "trial court erred in ruling on a remand). While the State Atto 1226, 1226 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022) (holding the as not noticed for hearing," requiring reversal and the Court should also now consider his initial fee motion based upon Logo, that ion does not save him, as Lago did not address whether the first sanctions motion been roperly noticed for hearing and the appellate court did not consider whether con on f the first motion would violate the opponent's due process rights. See Lago, • at 75. As stated above, were this Court to now address the "place marker "motion, ich was not noticed for hearing, it would violate the Post's and its attorneys' due process rights. # B. THE INITIAL "PLACE-MARKER" MOTION FOR FEES WHOLLY FAILS TO SATISFY SECTION 57.105. Even if the initial "place-marker" motion had been noticed for hearing (which it never was) and the Court could consider that motion (which it cannot), the initial motion does not help the State Attorney. The barebones "place-marker" motion fails to meet the high burden of section 57.105. The Court must look at the substance, or lack thereof, of that motion, as of at moment in the timeline, to determine whether at that time the State Attorney met his bu 11f Of s wing the claim was frivolous or, in other words, that the Post knew or should have ow that time there was no longer any justiciable claim. See Chue v. Lehman, 21 So. 3d 8 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) ("Thus, we must consider the evidence presented at the e hearing concerning what [plaintiff] and his attorney knew or should have known I po tin the litigation.") [Authorities TAB 1]; Weatherby Assoc.'s, Inc. v. Ballack, 7138, 1142-43 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) ("First, the court must determine whether th t w rivolous when initially filed. If it was not, then the court must determine whethe ame frivolous after the suit was filed.") (finding that "[a]ny reasonable inferen e defendant was working for plaintiff's competitor disintegrated during discovery aifY.Q4tera deposition revealed the opposite, "leaving no justiciable issues of law or fact" and n ering the suit frivolous" at that point) [Authorities TAB 30].4 There on ne purported basis for sanctions stated in the first "place-marker" motion (technics nclosure letter to that one-page motion) regarding the declaratory relief claim {sup}`4` See also Tr. Mortg., LLC v. Ferlanti, 193 So. 3d 997, 1001 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) ("Instead, like here, where the party reasonably believes the factual basis for its claim exists, it is entitled to proceed with its claims and seek to prove those facts. If attempts to prove those facts are fruitless, that is still not cause for sanctions where the party's initial belief was well-founded. It is only in circumstances like Country Place where the party knew or should have known at the time of filing that the material facts were nonexistent that a claim is truly frivolous and worthy of sanctions.") [Authorities TAB 28]. in Count 1—the argument that the State Attorney did not have possession or custody of the Epstein grand jury materials. Ex. J14; Ex. J17. Did that argument alone end the matter as to the State Attorney? No. Did that argument alone make the State Attorney's joinder in this case so frivolous as to be completely untenable? Absolutely not. At the time the first "place-marker" motion was filed on July 1, 2020, there w s no sworn testimony in the record as to what grand jury materials the State Attorney and hi e actually possessed. It was not until August 18, 2020, more than six weeks after th a i d of the safe harbor period for the initial place-marker motion, that the State A e his motion for summary judgment and affidavit in support, in which he stated oaZlffor the first time that he did not have possession of any grand jury materials soug n mplaint, and in which he first stated his position that he did not have the authorityi hat the Clerk provide access to the grand jury materials. Ex. J18; Ex. J19. Morselpth% July 1, 2020, the State Attorney had not yet addressed the other main reasons his ' • der i e case was necessary. Indeed, it was not until October 14, 2020, more than three s er the expiration of the safe harbor period—and after being reminded in both a lette mg by the Post as to why the Post had joined him in the case—that the State Attokt Jed his reply stating "the State Attorney has no objection" to the Clerk producing gad jurf materials if ordered by the Court. The State Attorney's failure to address th prior to the filing of his "place-marker" motion would be fatal even if that motio per to consider. Even if the State Attorney could overcome the jurisdictional defects that prevent the Court from considering the Amended Motion (which he cannot), under the merits, the evidence shows that there is absolutely no basis for sanctions under section 57.105. # IV. THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THE STATE ATTORNEY FAILED TO MEET HIS HEAVY BURDEN FOR SANCTIONS UNDER SECTION 57.105 # A. LEGAL STANDARD FOR SANCTIONS UNDER SECTION 57.105. Under Florida Statutes Section 57.105, the Court may award reasonable attorneys' fees only if "the court finds that 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 efore trial: (a) Was not supported by the material facts necessary to establish the cla' r se; or (b) Would not be supported by the application of then-existing law to th • 40 1 facts." Fla. Stat. § 57.105(1). was 'frivolous or so devoid of merit both on the facts a s t Before awarding sanctions, the trial court must make ' c it findings" that "the action be completely untenable.' . . . This burden is a heavy one." MC Liberty Ex s,1i I v. All Points Servs., Inc., 252 So. 3d 397, 403 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) [Authorities T erS18 y ernal citations omitted) (emphasis added); see also v. Bailynson, 268 So. 8 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) (setting forth the same standard for sanctions). Thus, t motion for sanctions, the Court must make "explicit findings" that a claim was frivo d completely untenable, and those findings "must be based on substantial competent c fce that is either contained in the record or is otherwise before the court." MC Lib2kryjress, Inc., 252 So. 3d at 397; see also Yakavonis v. Dolphin Petroleum, Inc., 934 5, 618 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) ("The trial court's finding must be based upon substanti competent evidence presented to the court at the hearing on attorney's fees or otherwise before the court and in the trial court record.") [Authorities TAB 31]. # B. THE STATE ATTORNEY HAS NOT PROVEN THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT CLAIM WAS FRIVOLOUS OR DEVOID OF MERIT. The State Attorney's Office—the executive branch office tasked with protection of =secrecy—did not meet its burden of proving that naming the State Attorney's Office as a party to a declaratory relief claim seeking access to grand jury records—from a prosecution and grand jury proceeding conducted by the former State Attorney's Office—was "frivolous or so devoid of merit both on the facts and the law as to be completely untenable." See, e.g., MC Liberty Express, Inc., 252 So. 3d at 397. Rather, the evidence demonstrates the opposite of what the State Attorney was required to prove—it shows that the declaratory judgment claim was made in good fait the State Attorney, in his official capacity, was a necessary party. Recognizing this tate Attorney answered the declaratory judgment claim and admitted that a good f t existed between the parties. Ex. 309 at ¶ 72; Ex. 310 at ¶ 72. The merit of the be undisputed, as the State Attorney admitted that "the D Act) including the State Attorney] have refused to provide, access to the testimony, mi , ther evidence presented in 2006 to judgment claim should the Palm Beach County grand jury" and "a pute exists between the panics." Ex. J09 at ¶ 72; Ex. J10 at ¶ 72. These admissio se • ..., a raponsive pleading doom the Amended Motion. # C. THE STATE Arro Rot) Y A NECESSARY PARTY. The Post sued both the Cle ho was charged by law with maintaining possession of grand jury materials, and rtate Attorney's Office, who conducted the grand jury proceedings and who by law charg with the authority and control over the grand jury process, including the obligatio t grand jury secrecy. At the hearing, the State Attorney incorrectly argued that this solely about who has custody and possession of the grand jury materials and accused the Post and its attorneys of "moving the goalposts" by asserting other non-possessory reasons for naming the State Attorney. Hrg. Tr. at 45:2446:5. No evidence supports these arguments. As Mr. Mendelsohn testified, the Post's legal team determined after months of intensive and careful legal and factual research that the State Attorney was a necessary party to any action to obtain the Epstein grand jury materials and disclose them to the public because: 1. The State Attorney's Office was the public office that conducted the grand jury proceeding in 2006 and obtained Epstein's indictment, and to the extent the Office had custody or possession of any grand jury materials, the *Post* was requesting that they be produced and disclosed to the public. 2. The State Attorney is the public official with authority and control over the grand jury system and, as such, has the power to object to release of grand jury materials by the Clerk. 3. There was nothing under Florida law that prohibited a State Attorney from requesting copies of grand jury materials from the Clerk during and after close of criminal prosecution. See Hrg. Tr. at 112:5-114:11; Ex. J04, Ex. J09, Ex. J16. As demonstrated in the timeline attached as **Exhibit B** and as shown at the evidentiary hearing, the *Post* never moved the goalposts—these grounds were set forth in both the original and the Amended Complaints: Both the initial Complaint, filed in November 2019, and the Amended Complaint, filed in January 2020, named the State Attorney in his official capacity and as having "authority in grand jury proceedings pursuant to Fla. Stat. section 27.03." Ex. 304 at ¶ 3; Ex. J09, ¶ 3. On June 23, 2020, the Post's attorney, Mr. Mendelsohn, responded to the State Attorney's initial "place-marker" fee motion and specifically laid out the 3 reasons why the Sta e Attorney was a necessary party, with citations to additional case law. Ex. J16. Mr. Mende June 23, 2020 letter explained that the State Attorney has "as its primary interest th n of its grand jury system," citing In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 832 F. 2d 554, 55 1 . 1987) (italics in original). Ex. J16. In that case, the federal government petitio I ) Flo State Attorney to turn over state grand jury transcripts, and the State Attorney s eir release, citing to section 905.27. Later, a federal grand jury served a subpoe same State Attorney seeking grand jury transcripts. Reversing his position, the ? \e tt ey in response advised the federal court that he would produce the transcript ere c; demonstrating that irrespective of physical possession, he had legal authority o ' nd deliver them pursuant to the subpoena. Ex. J16. Mr. Mendelsohn then explain tha d on In re Grand Jury Proceedings, the "State Attorney was named as a party no ' y as a custodian of grand jury records" but rather, "the relevant State Attorney is eces ry party in order to protect the grand jury that the Office of State Attorney su and to make arguments, if need be, against release of the grand jury materi J16. While In re Grand Jury Proceedings dealt with a subpoena as opposed to service of a summons and complaint, both a subpoena and a summons served with a complaint are forms of process. See, e.g., 28 C.F.R. §§ O. I I I (b); 0.114(e) (defining "process" as "a summons and a complaint, subpoena, writ, orders, and the execution of court-ordered injunctions, and civil commitments on behalf of a requesting party" for the U.S. Marshals Service, tasked with "[tjhe service of all civil and criminal process emanating from the Federal judicial system").5 As there was no pending civil case in which the Post could issue a subpoena, the only form of process available to the Post was through service of a complaint. See Hrg. Tr. at 184:2-185:12; 186:25- 187:14:.6 It is also worth noting that the State Attorney in In re Grand Jury Proceed! gs inserted himself into the case for the purpose of objecting to disclosure of grand jury reco en before he was served with a subpoena, demonstrating that, regardless of the fo s, or even if there is no service of process, a State Attorney may intervene for th f asserting grand jury secrecy. See 832 F. 2d at 559. The State Attorney's counsel did not respond to M Auy submitted, BERG TRAURIG, P.A. rneys for CA Florida Holdings, LLC, ublisher of The Palm Beach Post /s/ Lauren Whetstone LAUREN WHETSTONE Florida Bar No. 45192 MARK F. BIDEAU Florida Bar No. 564044 GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A. 777 South Flagler Drive, Suite 300 East West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Tel.: 561.650.7900 whetstonel@gtlaw.com bideaum@gtlaw.com sandra.famadas@gtlaw.com thomasdegtlaw.com FLService@gtlaw.com STEPHEN A. MENDELSOHN Florida Bar No. 849324 GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A. 401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 2000 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Tel.: 954.768.8225 mendelsohns@gtlaw.com smithl@gtlaw.com MICHAEL J. GRYGIEL (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 54 State Street, 6th Floor Albany, NY 12207 Tel.: 518.689.1400 grvizielmegtlaw.corn NINA D. BOYAJIAN SA (Admitted Pro Hac •• GREENBERG TRAU 1840 Century P Los Angeles, C 9 1 1 67 Tel.: 310 7 bo w.com rive .com uite 1900 # CERTIFICAT 14\ICE \ I HEREBY CERTIFY that on thi ay October, 2022, a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been filed with the e Court using the State of Florida e-filing system, which will send a notice of elec C )is ice for all parties of record herein. > Is/ Lauren Whetstone. Esq. Lauren Whetstone, Esq. # Composite Exhibit “A” # IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO. 50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB AG CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC, Publisher of the PALM BEACH POST, vs. DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of Palm Beach County, Florida; SHARON R. BOCK, as Clerk and Comptroller of Palm Beach Count Florida, RE: Ad4tp At 04 Defendan D ve Aronberg's Amended Motion for Attorneys Fees # IPT OF HEARING OCEEDINGS ?s, A BEFORE: EN: Tuesday, September 6, 2022 1:42 p.m. - 4:53 p.m. PALM BEACH COUNTY COURTHOUSE 205 North Dixie Highway Courtroom 10D West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 LUIS DELGADO, JR., Circuit Judge Stenographically reported by: Lisa Begley, RPR, RMR 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 11 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 21 24 25 APPEARANCES: On behalf of the Plaintiff: GREENBERG TRAURIG 777 South Flagler Drive 3 Suite 300 East West Palm Beach, Florida 31401 561-650-6420 5 BY: LAUREN R. WHETSTONE. ESQ. whetetOnelOgtlaw.com MARK F. BIDEAU. ESQ. bideaumagtlaw.corn 8 GERARD BUITRAGO. ESQ. buitragogegtlaw.cce: 9 On behalf of Defendant, Dave Arenberg: JACOB, SCHOLZ 6 WYLER, LLC 961687 Gateway Boulevard 12 Suite 2011 13 Fernandina Beach, Florida 32034 904-261-3693 14 BY: DOUGLAS A. WYLER, ESQ. dougajsvflorida.com Also present: Dave Aronberg, State Attorney Defendant 17 1 2 3 4 S INDEX Opening Statement By Mr. Wyler By Ms. Whetstone WITNESS DAVID ARONBERG, STATE A 7 Direct Examin Cross Exam' 8 Redirect Ex 9 STEPHEN Dire 10 11 12 13 14 Ste Wyler by Mt. Bideau on by Mr. Wyler HP, SQ. ion by Ms. Whetstone Joint Exhibits I - 37 15 16 17 Certificate of Reporter 18 19 20 21 22 21 24 25 EXHIBITS ENTERED IN EVIDENCE 1 2 4 6 7 10 11 15 16 18 19 20 21 Thereupon, the foliating proceedings began at 1:42 p.m.: TP18 CCURT: All right, please be seated. All right, so we're here on the amended =la: for attorneys' fees. Let's announce appearances. MS. WHITSTI0NE: Good after:XAaL Your Motor, Lauren Whetstone. With re is Mark Bideau and Gerard Buitrago and our paralegal, Jennifer Throat Exam Greenberg Traurig on behalf of CA Florida Holdings, the pub her of the Palm Beach Post. ME. C\*12R: , Your Honor. My GM'S Dcogl I'm here on behalf of defendant, State Attorney Cave Honor. Thank you very much. It's your MR. WYLER: Thank you, Your Honor. May I roach? THE OTURT: Mods head vp and down.) R. WYLER: Hi, again, Your Honor. Thank you. May it please the Court. As you know, we're here today on Pt. Aronberg's amended motion for PAGE 4 23 96 95 141 1 attorney's fees. It was filed on November 9th, 2 2020, in conjunction with his 57.105 demand that 3 was made to the plaintiffs on June 8th, 2020. 4 That demand letter that was sent to the 5 plaintiff's counsel was sent on the same day that 6 Judge Marx entered her order granting the 7 defendant's motion to dismiss Count 2 of this case 8 with prejudice. And that motion, that 57.105 9 demand letter asserted that the plaintiff's sole 10 remaining count for declaratory action had no 11 basis in fact or law pursuant to 57.105. 12 Their declaratory relief claim is rooted in 13 Chapter 905.27 Florida Statute that governs the 14 exceptions for the release of grand jury -- grand 15 jury materials. 16 In our 57.105 letter, we specifically told 17 the plaintiffs that, under 57.105(1)(a), their 18 declaratory relief claim is unsupported by the 19 material facts necessary to establish it and also, 20 =der 57.105(1) (b), that their declaratory relief 21 claim is unsupported by the application of the law 22 to those material facts: 23 There's a case, v. Bailynson, it's 24 found at 268 So.3d 762. It's a Fourth DCA case 25 from 2019. 1 THE OrET: Give me that cite one more 2 time. 3 MR. WIER: Yes, sir. It's IIIII v. 4 Bailynson, B-a-i-l-y-n-s-o-n, 268 So.3d 762. It's 5 a Fourth DCA 2019. That case says, The central 6 purpose of 57.105 Florida Statute is and always 7 has been to deter meritless filings and, thus, B streamline the administration and the procedure of 9 the courts. Thus, the post-1999 version of the 57 10 -- 57.105 has expanded the circumstances where 11 fees should be awarded and the purpose is to defer 12 meritless filings. 13 57.105 -- The statute 57.105 provides the 14 following language authorizing the award of 15 attorneys' fees such as in the present litigation. 16 It says, spoon the Court's initiative or motion of 17 any party, the Wart shall award a reasonable 18 attorney's fee, including prejudgment interest, to 19 be paid to the prevailing party in equal mounts 20 by the losing party and the losing party's 21 attorney on any claim or defense at any tire 22 during a civil proceeding or action in which the 23 Court finds that the losing party or the losing 24 party's attorney knew or should have known that a 25 claim or defense, when initially presented to the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Court or at any tine before trial, was not supported by the material facts establish the claim or defense, or supported by the application of to those material facts.' So, notably, the st te includes a lot of key words in there, but he I'm focusing cn i Here, t obligation filed tlye ultimat or words that d have boom.' tiff had a due diligence he law was when they They should have known the the case all along, and they . the proper legal mechanism for °heal the records that they were seeking. Nonetheless, we've informed the plaintiff multiple tints throughout this case that not - that )t. Arcrterg is an improper party, not only -- because not only is it impossible for him to produce the requested records since he has no possession, custody or control over the, but also because the statutes that govern the disclosure of grand jury records clearly and unambiguously do not grant such authority or power to the state attorney. Another case for you is Trust Mortgage, 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 LLC, v. Ferlanti. That's found at 193 So.3d 997. That's also a Fourth DCA case from 2016. And it can guide the Court here. This case says that, in determining an award of sanctions under Section 57.105, the trial court's findings must be based on substantial competent evidence and the trial court must make an inquiry into what the losing party knew or should have known daring the fact establishment process both before and after the suit was filed. So, as to the 57.105(1)(a) c in, Mr. Aronberg's position is per should have known when t doi their research that it was ibility, that he had no access, custody • 1 these records, but that fact une was drawn to that fact by Judge in the June 3rd, 2020, motion to dismiss he he made several statements that plaintiff on notice, if they weren't a if it waald please the Wart, I would read those onto the record. You can find -- We've submitted a joint binder to you, if you -- THE COURT: I have it here. Tell me where 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I'm looking. MR. NYLER: Yes, sir. If you look at J13, that's the condensed version of the transcript. You can find the full version if you look at J29, and I can give you the IIIII stamp numbers. THE @CURT: Tell me where to look, and I'll look. MR. NMER: Absolutely, Your Honor. Look at stamp 1353, and that will start you -- THE CURT: Of what exhibit? MR. )nnER: Okay, Exhibit 29 is the full version. I thcur that might be easier for you to read it. At 1353. THE CUNT: You said J29. MR. EYLER: Yeah, J29, and, if you look in the lower left corner, there's a number that says CA, slash, Arenberg, and you'll see the MN static numbers. THE COURT: What's the number? MR. Mgt: 1353. CURT: Go ahead. MR. MISR: Thank you, Your Haar. I'm going to go throut this transcript, and I'll direct you to the actual page number of the transcript itself, okay? Page 3, lines 18 -- 4 1 through 1. "Mot for nothing" -- This is all Judge 2 Marx. 'Not for nothing, I think we all know that 3 they don't have control and custody of the 4 records.' 5 Page 5, lines 17 through 19. "I think we 6 can all agree that the state attorney doesn't have 7 these records." B Page 8, lire 4. "I'm asking you, how are 9 the clerk and the state attorney the proper 10 defendants?" 11 Page 8, line 8. "I'm puzzled by the 12 procedural posturing of this case naming the state 13 attorney, and, you know, I'm further stymied by 14 the fact that you allege in your complaint that 15 they have, particularly David Arenberg the state 16 attorney, that he has these records." 17 Page 8, line 18. 'dray, let's run this all 18 the way out. Let's say you win and you get a 19 judgment against the state attorney, Dave 20 Arenberg. What's he supposed to do with it? He 21 can't release the grand jury testimony. He has no 22 authority whatsoever to do that." 23 Page 10, line 21. 'And the only thing 24 we're here today about is wty should the clerk and 25 the state attorney have to defend a civil action 1 2 3 4 when it's an impossibility of performance even -- If you were to win and get a against then, they cannot give you have.' 5 6 7 Page 11, line 12. 'I'm si should these two entities lawsuit when, even down t can't give you doct have?" n9. to defend this you win, they why 9 10 Page 16, 2. 'And, you know, really, I want to for me as to this: 11 Let's t way dam the road. You win. 12 13 You get against the clerk and the state a know there's other reasxs why you 14 might filed it this way, but I'm just simply 15 16 puzzled because I do hear what the clerk and the state attorney are saying, and that is, 17 18 performance is impossible. They don't have the records and cannot, absolutely. There's not even 19 an inch of wiggle roan that they could release the 20 21 records eve: if you got a judgment. It is solely a determination for the Court. I frankly think 22 23 you know there's ways to get your records. There's ways to get confidential records, but it 24 isn't by suing the state attorney and the clerk." 1 2 3 4 that they have the records, we know they don't. You were to -- If you were to get a judgnent against then, how wild you expect then to perform?' 5 6 7 8 9 10 And then finally, on page 17, line 23. 'that do you seen? ithat do you mean? They're not trying to block it? They're saying that, despite the fact -- let's just talk about the clerk because we all lave the state attorney doesn't have it.' 11 12 13 I would ask the Court to ent the hearing transcript found at J29, 135 as Defense's Exhibit No. 1. 14 15 16 THE CCORT: k MS. klETSTCNE oint exhibits are in evidence, 17 18 19 20 MR. re in evidence, but I don't know if ed to nark them for each per I don't need to do that, then I'll that. 21 These joint exhibits have all pulated to? MR. VILER: Yes. THE COURT: NO need then. MR. WIER: Then I'll leave it alone. 1 Thank you, Your Honor. 2 These statements, along with the upcoming 3 examination of Mr. Arnaberg and Mr. Mendelsohn, 4 along with everything that's presented to the 5 Court, it shahs that these sanctions are 6 justified, and there is no arguable basis in fact 7 or law the way these statutes are written that 8 Mr. Arenberg could ever provide the requested 9 materials that he was sued for. 10 As to the 57.105(1) b) argument, 11 Mr. Arenberg's position here is that the 12 newspaper, plaintiffs and their attorneys, they 13 should have also krIcrei at the beginning when they 14 were doing their research that those statutes 15 precluded Mr. Aluierg from actually providing 16 these records. That's what they sued for. They 17 asked for Mr. Arenberg to provide these records so 18 that they could then be disclosed to the public. 19 But chapter -- or, Statute 905.27 states this: 20 And this -- this argument has been presented in 21 everything that we've said to the newspaper. 22 'When such disclosure is ordered by a Court 23 pursuant to subsection Cl) for use in a civil 24 case, it ray be disclosed to all parties to the 25 case and to their attorneys and by the latter to 1 their legal acAmmiates and employees. However, 2 the grand jury testimony afforded such persons by 3 the Cant can only be used in the defense or 4 prosecution of the civil or criminal case and for 5 no other purpose whatsoever." 6 That arganont was ultimately utilized in 7 Judge Hafele's final judgtent in favor of the B clerk because, an top of other things, the 9 plaintiff admitted that they weren't seeking to 10 use these reoposted records in an underlying civil 11 or criminal case. They wanted to use it to -- for 12 public disclosure. 13 Chapter 905.17 of the Florida statutes also 14 applies here. This has also been made evident and 15 very clear to the plaintiff. That statute says, 16 in pertinent part, "The notes" -- and this is all 17 regarding the grand jury materials -- "The notes, 18 records and transcriptions are confidential and 19 exempt from the provisions of Chapter 119.07 and 20 Section 24(a), Article 1 of the State Constitution 21 and shall be released by the clerk only on a 22 request by a grand jury for use by the grand jury 23 or an an order of the Own pursuant to 24 Chapter 905.27." 25 So, like I said, these legal arguments have 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 been presented to plaintiff and its lawyer several times. It was in the 57.105 letter, but plaintiff dropped Mr. the case too late. The statute effect. There's a 21-day safe- sion in that statute. And the t -'veny and evidence today will show that a rot ttorneys' fees was filed appropr ly wit hat statute, and then following Mr. Aronberg was dropped fran the case. that, amended notion for filed. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 an argument having to deal ng of when our areded motion for atto ' fees was filed. They claim that we don't comply with the 21-day safe-harbor provision, and they use this case of Lago v Kane, Lago v Kane By Design. It's K-a-m, like Mary, K-a-m-e By Design, LLC. That's found at 120 So.3d 73. It's also a Fourth DCA case from 2013. 20 21 22 23 24 25 So that case held that, if a party files a subsequent or amended motion for sanctions under Section 57.105 and raises an argament that was not raised in the original nodal for Section 57.105 sanctions, then the subsequent motion must independently comply with the 21-day safe-harbor 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 provision. Okay, but the facts are different, totally different. See, in the [ago case, the party who was served with the 57.105 demand never withdrew from the case. They stayed in the case to the end. The person that served the original 57.105 in sago, after serving it, served a seccad one, and when they served the second 57.105 -- well, they didn't serve a second 57.105 demand letter. They fees, an ttout letter That didn't filed a second notion for atto amended notion for attorneys providing an additional before they filed the happen in this case notion. 16 17 18 19 20 21 In this -- our origi Hoverter 9th, Mr. our amended motion for attorneys' fees on then they dropped from the case on October 21st - ed I'm sorry. I apologize, Your iled our original notion for ' fees on July 1, 2020. I apologize. dropped Mr. Araterg fran the case an ober 21, 2020, and then we filed our amended motion for attorneys' fees on Hoverter 9th, 2020. 1 So the significant thing about this, Your 2 Moro:, is the 21-clay safe-harbor provision is 3 there to provide the -- provide an opportunity to 4 reevaluate your position and change your position 5 and withdraw your case based on the demands in the 6 57.105. 7 There was no opportunity for the plaintiff 8 to reevaluate and change their position. They had 9 already rade their mind up. They had already 10 dropped Mr. Arcrberg free the case. So, by asking 11 or saying that we failed to provide the 2I-day 12 safe-harbor provision, that is misleading, Your 13 Honor, because there was no way they could change 14 their position with another demand letter sent to 15 them. They had already made their decision and 16 dropped Mr. Aiumborg from the case. It was 17 impossible for them to change their position. So 18 he had no obligation to serve his amended notion 19 prior to filing with the Court because he was 20 already dropped, and a previous motion for 21 attorneys' fees was already filed. 22 Another interesting part of that Lago case 23 is that, in that case, the Court did find that the 24 wended motion was filed improperly because they 25 were still in the case, but, instead, the Court 1 picked up the originally-filed motion for 2 attorneys' fees in that case. And we would ask 3 Your Honor, in the alternative, should you find 4 that, that you would rule on our original notion 5 for attorneys' fees if it came down to it because, 6 in the end, the arguments are the sane, and the 7 real diffetcue in the filing of the amended B motion for attorneys' fees is that it included the 9 final tabulation of my firm's fees, as well as 10 affidavits -- my affidavit of reasonable -- of 11 fees and an affidavit of reasonable fees from our 12 expert. 13 The ocher interesting thing here, the other 14 argument that you'll hear plaintiff make is that 15 Mr. Aronberg was a proper party to the case. Now, 16 again, the clerk is the person -- the only entity 17 that has authority to provide these records under 18 statute, and that alone should be enough to show 19 that Mr. Arenberg is not a proper party defendant. 20 But Judge Hafele's final judgment actually helps 21 out this because Judge Hafele's final judgment 22 actually instructed plaintiff en the right way to 23 go about [tying to get the records that they were 24 seeking. It points out that they followed -- 25 failed to follow the right procedure. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 In that final judgment, Judge Ha ele it clear that all that they had to do follow the Rules of Judicial Rule 2.42 and file a motion seek the underlying case, and then se that case and anybody. it. That underl case ilk. State of Florida vs. Jeffrey It's case number 2006-CF-94 Mr. enberg rim his office is a party t So he is an improper party. They ne to sue him to get these records. a big difference between suing the state Betorrey to get records versus filing a motion in a case that was already open. Okay, now they make one other defense here under 57.105(3)(a), but that does not apply here in any sense, and I'll explain to you why. First, let me read you the statutory language. This is 57.105(31(a), and it says, "Notwithstanding subsections (1) and (2), =nary sanctions may not be awarded; (a), Under paragraph (1)(b) if the Court determines that the claim or defense was initially presented to the Court as a good faith argument for the extension, 2 3 4 modification or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law, as it applied to the material facts, and with a reasonable expectation of success.' 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 So here, the plaintiff tries to twist the language of that statute in two different ways to suit its argument. First, they entirely failed to recognize that tht 57.103(a) (sic) defense applies only to claims made under 57.105(1)(b), and that has to do with the law not being correct as applied to the facts to establish he case. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 The law here cannot be to the case in such a way that wouldAt the claim as I went through with t is the only scenari making a legal where you can So there is no es with you. That 1) ), when you're a factual argment, with a good faith defense. ith defense at all that aPP1 factual angrent that it is 1 r Mr. Arenberg to provide these that he has no access, custedy or over them and he never has. That is by this defense of theirs. But the interesting thing is that this defense fails in another way, too, because, if you I recall, their only remaining count is for 2 declaratory relief, and when declaratory relief is 3 asked of the Curt, that is an asked for 4 interpretation, and admittedly so by the 5 plaintiff. Their -- They state that Where did 6 I just put it? They argue that their declaratory 7 relief claim was presented to the Cant as a, 8 quote, good faith argarent for the interpretation 9 of existing law or at least the establishment of a 10 new law. But that doesn't work here because, if 11 you go back to the statutory language, the 12 statute, it's only for the extension, modification 13 or reversal of existing law. It doesn't say 14 anything about interpretaticns. 15 They did not ask for the extension of 16 57.105 -- or, of 905.27. They didn't ask for it 17 to be modified. They didn't ask for it to be 18 reversed. They asked the Cain to interpret it 19 and tell them whether or not they had the ability 20 to have the grand jury records disclosed to the.. 21 That is totally -- That is an interpretation that 22 they asked for. The Court only got to address 23 that as to the clerk because, again, we were 24 dropped before then. 25 So the other part of that statute talks 1 about -- it says, or creation of a rex law, okay? 2 They weren't asking to create a new law with their 3 declaratory relief claim. 'The only place where 4 they were trying to create a new statutory cause 5 of action was in their Camt 2 that was dismissed 6 with prejudice by Judge Marx and is not at all a 7 part of It. Armeerg's 57.105 demand. B The 57.105 demand only regards the claim 9 for declaratory relief. So the defense under 10 57.105(3)(a) fails as to both of Mr. Arcnberg's 11 57.105 claims. 12 I would just like to reiterate to the Court 13 that the clerk is in actual possession of the 14 requested records, is the only entity that is 15 statutorily authorized to release grand jury 16 records pursuant to a Court order, and despite 17 plaintiff's arganents to the contrary, the record 18 evidence will slow that plaintiff and its lawyers 19 knew or should have known at the time they were 20 served -- at least at the tire they were served 21 with the 57.105 demand that the declaratory relief 22 claim fails under 57.105(1)(a) because it is 23 unsupported by the material facts necessary to 24 establish it, and under 57.105(1)(b) because it is 25 unsupported by the application of the law to the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 material facts. Plaintiff and its attorneys have themselves to sanctions under 57.1 Mr. Amnberg requests such relie THE CCURT: Thank you. YR. WLER: Thank YW. You- Honor. ch, Your Honor? TIE 03URT: M. And if I may, I'll flip over this Honor should have a copy in your b' Is that the -- Yes, give re -- 1 ually... his it? MS. WHETSTONE: Yes. TIE COURT: Whenever you're ready. it please the Court. The Post filed a complaint seeking access co materials from Jeffrey Epstein's grand jury investigation which was run by the Palm Beach County's former state attorney in 2006. The Post felt a duty to inform the public as to how this sexual predator got the deal of the century and got off with such leniency. It is a matter of genuine public interest and concern as 1 this Court has noted. 2 The Post rated two defendants, ruiner one, 3 the clerk of Omit as the public office tasked 4 with custody of grand jury records and, =doer 5 two, the state attorney's office because it 6 actually ran the investigation and because it is 7 the public office tasked with protecting grand 8 jury secrecy. 9 The state attorney's office says they 10 should have never teen na-redapart Of course 11 they had to be rated a party. ly were they 12 the public office that investigation 13 and presumably had passe ce in documents 14 at sore tine, but, no antly, they're the 15 public office with authority to 16 prevent the c ' mg grand jury 17 Coca:lents. 18 Your H rd in the state 19 at opening that this is about 20 r the state attorney had the 21 docjtrgt whether he had possession or custody of s, but it's not just gout that. It c just akcut custody. And it's -- We'll get to this, but the inportant point is, the state attorney's office has as its task the protection 1 of the grand jury system. 2 And it's important to remember, we're here 3 today on a motion for 57.105 sanctions relating to 4 the declaratory relief claim, not the statutory 5 claim. We heard reading from the transcript 6 before Judge Marx relating to the motion to 7 dismiss Count 2, which was on a statutory claim 8 under Florida Statute 905.27. 9 Of course, we are here on the declaratory 10 reliefclaimthatalsoinvolvedconstitutional law 11 and First Menthe-It law, not just Florida 12 statutory law. 13 So, starting off, we went as to the merits, 14 but you don't even need to get there, Your Honor. 15 There are two ncccurable, case dispositive 16 jurisdictional issues which require denial of the 17 motion without any consideration of underlying 18 facts. And this is not just an argument. These 19 are jurisdictional defects. 20 Number me, the Court lacks jurisdiction 21 because the wended motion for sanctions was filed 22 after the state attorney was dismissed as a party. 23 And I'll indicate -- Hopefully you can hear me, 24 but here is where the state attorney filed his 25 mended maim for fees. It was November 2020. 1 And we dismissed -- the Post had dismissed him as 2 a party 19 days before, on October 21st, 2020. 3 The case law is clear that the Court has no 4 jurisdiction over a motion for sanctions after a 5 voluntary dismissal, like the motion here. And 6 this is case law, including Sidlcsca vs. Olympus, 7 and that is in Authorities tab -- the Authorities B binder that Your donor has at tab 26, and I'll 9 read the case cite for the record. 276 So.3d 987. 10 It's a Third DCA 2019 case. 11 Number two, the Court also lacks 12 jurisdiction because the amended motion, which is 13 the only motion we are here on, violated 57.105 14 subsection (4)'s safe-harbor notice provision 15 which requires a motion for fees be served at 16 least 21 days before its filed. 17 It is (undisputed that the state attorney 18 never served a copy of the amended motion for 19 sanctions at any time before filing it on Hoverter 20 9th. I believe Mr. Wyler also mentioned that and 21 agreed with that in his opening. As a result, the 22 amended notion cannot be considered. The state 23 attorney tries to rely on a prior, what he calls, 24 quote, unquote, place-marker notion for fees that 25 was served cn June 8th, 2020, in an attempt to get 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 around the safe-harbor requirement of 57.1 cannot do so. First, the statute is of the court law, so it rust be s construed. Yore importantly, the case , and this is logo vs. Kam, t law says that the initial place-marker moti sufficient to comply with 57.10 attended motion 21-day saf again, binder use, they filed an new arguments, then that was required anew. And, this is tab 14 in Your Honor's must independently comply with fe harbor. state attorney tries to argue that, because we dismissed him prior to him filing the amended motion for fees, he's no longer required to cceply with the 21-day safe harbor, but the dismissal is exactly what the 21-day safe-harbor provision is aimed at encouraging from parties in litigation. There ;as nothing to ask us to withdraw with a 21-day notice because it had already been withdrawn, so 57.105 doesn't even apply to the situation here, and that's actually a situation that came up in the Ferere, F-e-r-e-r-e. vs. Shore 1 case, and that's tab 6 in Your Honor's binder and 2 that's a Fourth DCA case. And in that case, the 3 Court said that 57.105 subsection (1) was not 4 applicable where there was no way for plaintiff's 5 counsel to withdraw an allegation after a 6 post-trial motion. So if 57.105 -- the 7 safe-harbor notice was not available, then 57.105 8 doesn't apply at all. 9 And, here, it's obvious that the amended 10 motion made new arguments not in t first 11 place-marker motion. And we're so ng to pull up 12 the first place-marker moti amended 13 motion to compare than, melee exhibits, 14 Joint Exhibits 14 and 15 So, first, he he first 16 place-marker 14, it's -- the 17 motion itself There's an enclosure 18 letter that c it, and it's two pages. So 19 thr local. The motion itself says nothing 20 going to prevail, and this is your 21 tSCe,. want fees. the enclosure letter says, along the I believe Mr. Wyler said this in his that the defendant Arenberg nor the office of the state attorney is in custody or 1 control of the 2006 grand jury materials sought 2 therein. 3 However, the first motion completely failed 4 to address the main reason why the state attorney 5 was a party to the lawsuit, because it could 6 object to the clerk providing the grand jury 7 records. 8 So now let's pull up Exhibit 25, which is 9 the amended motion. And, Your Honor, here, so you 10 can have an idea, here's the first motion. It's 11 Joint Exhibit 14. Here's the amended motion. 12 This is three pages. This is 59 pages with 13 exhibits, 11 pages of a motion. Ard one page of a 14 motion. So clearly there's new stuff in the 15 amend calm for fees. But Mr. Wyler said they 16 said the same arguments. That's not -- That's net 17 true. 18 The wended motion clearly makes new 19 arguments not in the first place-marker motion. 20 It also references new documents, like the state 21 attorney's ((option for smeary judgment and 22 Mr. Arenberg's affidavit, both which were filed in 23 August of 2020. So here (indicating). 24 Importantly, the amended motion also raises 25 new positions. Just as an example -- and. Gerard, 1 if you could pull up paragraph 20 of the amended 2 motion -- it says, "The state attorney has no 3 objection to the clerk producing and disclosing 4 the requested materials should the Court grant an 5 order to that effect.• And then in paragraph 25 6 it says, "Likewise, the state attorney has no 7 objection and never has had any objection to the B clerk releasing the records sought by the 9 plaintiff." 10 That's not true, though. M you will see 11 in the evidence, the position that the state 12 attorney had, quote, no objection, or, quote, 13 never had any objection to the clerk producing 14 grand jury materials was new, and you'll hear from 15 attorney Suephen Mendelsohn that 16 this is exactly the position t:•at the Post was 17 trying to get and Mr. Mendelsohn was trying to get 18 from the state attorney. 19 And you'll hear, in a June 23rd, 2020, 20 letter Mr. Mendelsohn wrote to the state attorney, 21 he said the state attorney is named here because 22 they are a party that is tasked with protection of 23 the grand jury system. You have the right to 24 object to the release of grand jury materials. 25 That's why you're here. And, once we had this 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 notice right here of saying they don' dismissed him. So he first said on the rem October 14th, 1 have no objecti production of the Epstein grand We dismissed him October So, to close out on argil:snit, the and cited new at the ti the the str there outright. not cb rials. sdictional aised new argtments evidence that did not exist place-marker motion. So had independently complied with safe-harbor requirement, and the failed to serve it before filing; the amended motion must be denied 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Your Honor, even if the Court -- sorry - even if the state attorney could overate the jurisdictional defects, the evidence will show there's absolutely no basis for sanctions under the statute, and let's turn to the statute nos and the standard under it as applied by the case law. And this will be tab 18. 71€ Calker: Are you talking to me, or -- MS. hEETSPdmIE: Sorry, I was indicating to Gerard. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 And, Your Honor, here's the standard for sanctions under Florida Statute 57.105. The statute is behind it. read from that. And this is a case that interprets -- interprets this high standard, and this is the same -- I note that IIIII vs. Bailynson -- I'm going to botch that name, sorry, but the case that Mr. Wyler read from has the same exact standard as to how you - you interpret whether somebody has met the requirements of 57.105. So this is a high burden. This is not a who won. This is n4 a prevailing party standard. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 They have the •irr;•Chat the claim was so frivol• .•. . ..id of merit both on the facts and the 1 as completely untenable, and the lain w•as not frivolous, n because they admitted in their answer ry claim - rand, if you could pull up the admitted in their answer to this very t a good faith dispute exists between the es. And here you're seeing -- Your Honor is ing a comparison of Exhibit 9, which is the mended complaint, this count for declaratory 1 relief, and Ii5dlibit 10, which is the state 2 attorney's answer. And it says, "Mt Palm Beach 3 Post has sought from defendants, and defendants -- 4 but defendants have refused to provide access to 5 the testimony, minutes and other evidence 6 presented in 2006 to the Palm Beach Canty grand 7 jury. Indeed, defendants have each filed motions 8 to dismiss the complaint and the relief it sought 9 weer Florida Statute Section 905.27(1). 10 Accordingly, a goal faith dispute exists between 11 the parties.' And, in response, the state 12 attorney simply said, 'Admitted." 13 By that admission, they lose this motion 14 for sanctions. They cannot now argue this claim 15 was without merit. And, in addition, we will go 16 through the evidence that shows the Post and 17 Greenberg Traurig acted only in good faith and 18 with thoughtful deliberation and that this was not 19 a frivolous claim by any means. 20 So backing up a bit and to what we believe 21 the evidence will show. After Epstein's arrest 22 here in Palm Beach Canty in 2005, the Post began 23 an investigation into Epstein and then what 24 happened with the prosecution in 2006, haw he got 25 this sweetheart deal from the former state 1 attorney, to inform the public what went wrong. 2 The Post made a number of public records 3 requests. No lurk. The limited dccurents they 4 received shed no light on hcw Epstein got off with 5 such leniency. 6 So, in the sumer of 2019 -- we again have 7 this timeline -- after years of investigation on B Epstein, the Post brought in a team at Greenberg 9 Traurig, including Stephen Mendelsohn here who you 10 will hear Iran today, and other experienced 11 attorneys in First Arendrent and constitutional 12 law and criminal law. 13 The Poet and its attorneys spent months 14 researching and determining how do we get these 15 records. And you'll see the first box is from 16 July -- July 2019 through Mk:wester 2019, research 17 and -- legal research and due diligence regarding 18 what claims to bring and how. You will hear that 19 Mr. merdelsam tried contacting the state 20 attorney's office and requesting what was missing 21 from the public records requests. 22 And if you want to pull up Dchibit 1. 23 Exhibit 1 is an ample of such, and it has 24 a letter fran Mr. Mendelsohn that you'll hear 25 about "Mere he requests specific documents. And 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 you will hear that Mr. Mendelsohn was not attorney to write the state attorney's addition to the Post. You will Mr. Mendelscisn's specific reco the state attorney's office went tea and you will hear Iran ar4 the Poet that the Post was left with no i ion. So the Post filed this 1 t see access to grand jury materials two defendants, the clerk and the st attorney was a necessary party "tom , here. I believe I've gone over ick1y, maker one, the state attorney ran - the grand jury investigation in 2006. At some point, the state attorney's office had to have records. But, number two, core isportantly, as the public official with responsibility and control over the grand jury system, the state attorney had to be named. As the public office with that control, the state attorney had the power to object to the clerk producing records. And this is something that the state attorney has never refuted or even addressed, and that goes hand in hard with number two, that the state attorney also had the ability to request access to records from the clerk. This 2 was not on a whim, rot to harass and certainly not 3 frivolous. 4 In doing all this background research, you 5 will hear that Mr. Mendelsohn care across Fourth 6 DM and federal case law supporting the conclusion 7 that the state attorney was a necessary party. 8 Mr. Mendelsohn provided the state attorney with 9 that case law and explained what we needed from 10 the state attorney in this case. We needed the 11 state attorney to represent that would not 12 object to the release of gr terials by 13 the clerk if ordered by ignored 14 that request. 15 You will hear 16 rbdinsit 16 -- 3rd, 2020, letter he 17 sent to the s rney in resper.se to the 18 state attorney -marker =jai for fees that 19 was June. And, in this letter dated 20 J . Mendelsohn set forth three reasons 21 e attorney was pared as a party. r one, custody; number two, they had to make argfl:nts against release of and jury materials; =her three, [here was nothing that prohibits the state attorney from 1 requesting copies of the clerk during and after 2 the close of criminal prosecution. 3 So, as Mr. Fandelsoim says in this letter, 4 even if the state attorney's office did not have 5 possession or custody of the grand jury materials, 6 that did not end the need for his office to be a 7 party to the declaratory relief claim. The state 8 attorney still had the right to object to the 9 clerk producing records. fiat's exactly why we 10 included them in the case. 11 You'll hear they previously did oppose 12 release by filing a motion to dismiss -- this is 13 Cast 2, I'm sorry, the statutory count and 14 then, by filing the answer to Count 1 admitting 15 that a good faith dispute exists as to this very 16 claim. 17 So in the timeline, for months after 18 Mr. Mendelsohn's letter, they -- they refused to 19 respond, and we also reminded than on October 2nd, 20 2020, in a later filing, what we needed. klut we 21 from the state attorney to release hin fran 22 this case was that he would not object to the 23 clerk's release of materials, and this was in our 24 reply -- sorry -- response to the first 25 place-marker motion for fees, and that was 1 Exhibit 20. 2 In that exhibit -- or, in that document, 3 Mr. Mendelsohn again raises the In re Grand Jury 4 case that you just saw in the June 23rd letter. 5 It was not until after this, on October 14th, 6 2020, that the state attorney's office finally 7 stated in a court filing they weld not object to 8 the clerk's proobction if ordered, and he todc a 9 position of neutrality. Days later, we dismissed 10 the state attorney. 11 It's important to note the dismissal of the 12 state attorney does not rake him a prevailing 13 party, not even under the 57.105 sanctions 14 standard, which is much higher than a prevailing 15 party standard, but even under a regular 16 prevailing party standard, the state attorney is 17 not a prevailing party here. Just because a 18 plaintiff voluntarily dismisses a defendant does 19 not make a defendant a prevailing party. Where a 20 plaintiff gets something or a carpranise out of 21 litigation, a dismissal becomes an appropriate 22 course of action as a result, then neither party 23 is the prevailing party for purposes of 24 contractual attorneys' fees. Aral that's pursuant 25 to the Kelly vs. Bankunited case that is -- it 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 should be in tab 39 of Your Honor's Author binder. We sent it included in the TIE CCURT: I think I -- YS. METSTCNE: It should Thursday, but -- THE MUST: I got i YS. hWtSitf€: As purpose of 57.105 to det judicial syst litigation atto atto even said, the misuse of the o discourage needless declare the state party and entitled to these facts would be t goal. n, yaa'll hear from Mx. Mendelsohn that the Poet dismissed the state attorney only after it got what it needed from him, changing his opposition to release of grand jury records to getting his affirmative statement that his office did not object. And, Your Hoper, the cases here -- sorry -- the Court's rulings here actually support this finding of no basis for sanctions even further. With regard to -- We heard a lot from the transcript before Judge Man from the motion to dismiss Cant 2. First, that was with regard to a Peg e 38 Page 40 1 notion to dismiss Can 2, not the count we're on 2 here today, which is Count 1 for declaratory 3 relief. 4 It's important to note that Count 1 for 5 declaratory relief involves issues of First 6 A:nen:bent and constitutimal law, not just that 7 Florida Statute 905.27. 8 In number two, respectfully, what -- what 9 Judge Marx said during a hearing is rot evidence 10 as to whether the state attorney actually has 11 custody or control of records. So we heard her 12 statements on the record but about 13 whether the state atto or di not have 14 custody of the he did say in his 15 filings he does mit t .ye t or control of the 16 documents, but not just here about 17 his own oust or trol; we're here about his 18 right as the s orney to object to the clerk 19 rel jury records. 20 Judge Marx entered an order on 21 &sing Count 2, that was a limited whether there was a private cause of on under that statute. In addition, there was Judge Hafele's final judgment that was Exhibit 30 in the binder, and 1 Judge Hafele, wren he entered the final judgment, 2 that was as to the sane claim that's at issue 3 here, the declaratory relief claim as it remained 4 against the clerk, because yeu'll recall the state 5 attorney had already been dismissed as a party 6 once they said they had no objection to the clerk 7 releasing grand jury materials. 8 In the final judgment, Judge Hafele noted 9 this was a case of first impression involving 10 issues of genuine public concern. The arlrents 11 by the Post's attorneys in support of the 12 declaratory relief claim ware strong, sincere, 13 palatable and persuasive. He camended everyone 14 for their hard work. This is the opposite of a 15 frivolous claim. And, while the (but ultimately 16 did not rule in the Post's favor for declaratory 17 relief as to the clerk, we respectfully disagree, 18 and that decision is currently on appeal. But, 19 more importantly, that is not the standard for 20 57.105. Again, it is not a prevailing party 21 standard. 22 They have not met the high burden for 23 sanctions to prove that the fact -- the claim was 24 so frivolous or so devoid of merit under both the 25 facts and the law as to be completely untenable, 1 and, at the very least, this is a case -- in this 2 case of first impression, the claim for 3 declaratory relief was a good faith argument for 4 extension of the law. And, according to 5 57.105(1)(a) sanctions cannot be awarded. 6 A reminder here, too, that it was not just 7 the statutory -- the Florida statute at issue. B It's constitutional and First imminent law at 9 issue in the declaratory relief claim. 10 Finally, it's worth noting that, if there 11 are no sanctions imposed, there are no fees to be 12 paid by the state attorney's office, by 13 Mr. Arcaberg personally or by taxpayers, by 14 anybody. 15 Yr. Miler, who represents state attorneys 16 across the state of Florida, had a contingency 17 agteerent with the state of Florida in this case 18 -- sorry -- state attorney in this case and, from 19 the outset, no fee obligations arose unless there 20 was a Court order awarding fees. And that's 21 Exhibit 5 in the joint exhibit binder. So the 22 only way they were going to get fees was under a 23 57.105 action. However, there has never been any 24 basis for 57.105 sanctions. 25 In closing, Your Honor, 57.105 is reserved 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 for egregious conduct. There's remotely close to that ccthc; The motion must be res1a.tfully requests t motion for sanctions in 112u9c you, TIC COURT: calling? Honor. witnesses are you here. Post the amended ety. Just one. Mr. Arenberg. All right. Do you solemnly swear or affirm iL-L th? ruth, the whole truth and nothing tut at icknce ycu are about to give will be ThIT WITNESS: I do. Thereupon, DAVID AROMERG, STATE ATTORTEY, having been duly sworn by the Clerk of the Court, rewrurded and testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMIMATICDI BY MR. hYnl\_ : Q. Good afternoon, It. Arenberg. Will you please introduce yourself to the Court and tell us how lcmg you've held your position. A. Good afternoon. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 I'm David Arenberg. I Go by Dave. And I've been state attorney since I was elected in 2012. Q. Thank you. We're here today on your amended motion for attorneys' fees filed November 9, 2020, against the plaintiff, correct? A. Correct. Q. And did you engage my law firm, Scholz L Tyler, to defend you in this action? A. Yes. Q. I'm going to thew you our Joint Titbit 5. Do you recognize this as a copy o fin's engagement letter with your office s Howard? A. Yes. 4. BY Thank /yW~ MR. CO ACZPvExhibit 5, Your Honor, cur fi t letter, contingency fee Thank you. ler. Arenberg, have you reviewed or are you iar with the pleadings and filings with the Court in this hearing? A. I am. Q. So then you're familiar with the newspaper's original motions and complaint filed against 1 you on Bkrtaiber 14th, 2019, and then the amended 2 complaint filed January 17, 2020? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. And what has the newspaper sued you for? 5 A. They sued me to obtain the Jrufrey Epstein 6 grand jury ¤ts. 7 Q. Did they sue to just obtain them, or to 8 also produce the and provide them to them? 9 A. They wanted re to produce them and to give 10 it -- give those doe is to them. 11 Q. And do you know what they wanted to do with 12 those documents once they got them? 13 A. They wanted to publish the documents. 14 Q. Okay. And do you have possession, custody 15 or control of those requested grand jury documents? 16 A. No. I've never had possession, custody or 17 control of those dm-melts. 18 Q. And, by control of those documents, do you 19 Mean that you couldn't -- you have no power to release 20 then if you had then? 21 A. I have no power to releacw these documents. 22 I don't have tiler. never had them. They knew I've 23 never had them. 24 Q. But, in their complaint, didn't they allege 25 that you and your office are, quote, in possession of the 1 documents that are the subject of this actim7 2 3 4 5 A. That's this whole case. It's whether I had possession, custody or control of these documents. That's wiry they sued me and my office. AndInever had possession, custody or control of these documents. 6 7 B 9 MR. %MIER: Your Fimor, you can find that on J9 of the amended omplaint if you're looking. 1%M COURT: Thank you. 10 MR. WYLER: You can find it at IIIII stamp 11 118. 12 BY MR. AMER: 13 Q. It. Arenberg, are you familiar with the 14 newspaper's allegation in their complaint that you, 15 quote, have denied to the Palm Beach Post and to the 16 public at large the grand jury materials sought to be 17 disclosed? 18 A. I am. 19 Q. Did you ever deny the newspaper those 20 requested materials? 21 A. Pram the beginning, we informed the 22 newspaper that I've never had these documents. In our 23 notion to dismiss, we had two argaments. The first one, 24 the very first one was that we do not possess, have 25 custody or control of these documents. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 In the second argnent, argument of law, because it's a moti have to argue as a matter of law a the ratter of fact that I didn't they put us in a position to any that, even if we did not provide than. we rely on nts. So utter of law r the law we maid 8 10 A. a cudgel. then, they've been using that as 11 12 13 And, Your iknor, if I can, I'll to J6 and J10. Those are the two to dismiss that do make that assertion. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 '47 \c's MR. RYMER: Yes, Your Reno:. And I'll read that on the record. J6, IIIII stamp 103, it says, 'It is significant to note that, despite plaintiff's allegations to the contrary, Defendant Aruterg is not in custody or control of the records sought and is, therefore, not a prefer party to this action." 22 23 24 25 And, in the seccnd motion to dismiss, I'll read that to the Court as well. That's at J10, IIIII stamp 222. 'It is sigtificant to emphasize that, despite plaintiff's allegations to the Q. Okay. Q. WE COURT: 6 and 10? Contrary, Defexiant Aronberg and the Office of the State Attorney for the 15th Judicial Circuit are not in custody or control of the records sought herein, and, therefore, Defendant Arenberg is not a prcper party to this action. In fact, Defendant Sharon R. Bock as clerk and captroller of Palm Beach County, Florida, admits that she is the custodian in possession of the docents that are the subject of this action." BY MR. WYLER: Q. Mr. Arenberg, after initial filings, did you take any other steps notify the newspaper and its lawyers that you fice lacks possession, custody 1 of the requested records? A. Yes, cane out that Post and tryi documents, I s ask was doing that. I had a Fa.cebeek message Id resign. i ause, when the articles stonewalling the Palm Beach let public access to these o get calls and texts from people Peter Antonacci, my predecessor down in reached out to me, wanted to krone why I was ing for the grand jury -- or, for Barry Krischer or or others. And I told him I don't have the documents, because that to be lost in the articles written. And so I took an extraordinary step. I made a decision to create a Web portal and to release every document that my office had relating to Jeffrey Epstein and put it on the Internet, and that was -- and I have just to refresh my recollection, the dates up here that was January 30th. Q. Okay, great. On January 30th, did -- I'm going to shoe you joint Exhibit No. 12. Do you recognize this as the press nisei' that your office released that you were just explaining? A. Yes. Q. And can you read it to the Court, please? A. This is a press release that my office put out when we established this Web portal, and it says this: 'Palm Beach County State Attorney Dave Arenberg creates Web portal for public access to Jeffrey Epstein records.' Art then there's a statement fret me: "In respense to a large meter of requests, my office is posting online all the public records from the investigation and prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein. these records, which have all been released previously pursuant to public records requests, can be accessed through the following link," and it gives the link. "The Jeffrey Epstein case occurred several 1 years and aultiple state attorney administrations before 2 I became Palm Beach County State Attorney in 2013." I 3 was elected as -- As an aside, I was elected in 2012, but 4 I started in 2013. "As such, I have never seen or had 5 access to the Epstein grand jury transcripts as the state 6 attorney's office has never possessed them. As lawsuits 7 and investigaticns continue to mote forward, I hope that 8 Epstein's victims are able to achieve justice and clips-sire 9 they deserve." 10 Q. Thank you. Now, in addition to that press 11 release, did you make any other steps to further notify 12 plaintiff that you don't have the records they were 13 seeking? 14 A. In addition to pitting out that press 15 release and secding it to the Palm 13warh Post and every 16 other media outlet in our database from around the 17 country, I also vat that press release on my 7Mitter page 18 and, not only that, I pinned it so it would be the first 19 thing on my Twitter page. 20 I also put it out on my Facebook page, and. 21 as a result, it received national media coverage, 22 including coverage from the Sum-Sentinel, the ccmzetitor 23 to the Palm Beach Post. Tit, curiously, the one paper 24 that did not report on this Web portal, the one paper 25 that did not report at my releasing all the dcarnen 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 my possession was the Palm Beach Post. To this day, they still acknowledged that I posted every to Web page, onto my Twitter page, onto F page, onto our Web portal. To this day, I've had that tweet pinned to my page f months in the past, they have never acknowledged that it 8 9 10 Q. Thank you, Vt. . I'm going to show No. 11. Do you recognize this as were just referencing? you our joint the Twit 11 12 13 A. does it say the same thing as the press 12 14 15 16 17 rel÷ Yes. Q. Thank you. A. It also looks like this could be from Facebock as well. 18 19 20 21 Q. Okay. All right, are you aware and familiar with the June 3rd notice to dismiss hearing and tataterents made on the record by Judge Marx, the ones I just read to the Court previously? 22 23 24 25 A. Yes. Q. What did you think of those remarks? MR. BIDE J: Objection, Your Honor, irrelevant what Mr. Arenberg thinks of remarks. 25 1 2 If: COURT: Sustained. BY MR. WILIER: 3 4 5 6 7 Q. So following those marks from Judge Marx, do you believe that the newspaper knew or should have known that you were not in possession, custody or control of those records and that they should have towed you frail the lawsuit even then? a 10 MR. BIrmAil: Objection. Again, Your Hoor, I don't know how Kr. Aronberg could know what the newspaper knew or should have known. 11 12 1113 COURT: So your jecticn is speculation. Susta 13 14 15 16 17 621. WYLER: 119E right, you know, generally, let's keep objections then if I reed to, or I'll ask. we have a j short. for 18 Okay, Your Honor. 19 20 21 BY Can you -- Mt. Aremberg, can you please the Court how it is impossible for you to these records? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Secondly, I have no custody or control over these docurents. I've never had them. They know that, which is why they now are ring the goal posts to change this whole lawsuit, this whole action from custody, possession, control, into keeping re on the sidelines so I don't object to the clerk's ability to release the documents. So it's a new -- it's a new ball game now apparently. 9 10 11 But the newspaper obviously knew that I never had these dccurtnts, that I never had custody or control over then because I repeatedly told them. 13 14 Q. All right. And then so, following Judge Marx's order that I just referenced on June 3rd, what action did you then direct me to take? 15 16 17 18 A. 9R11, after Judge Marx's order and I was dismissed from ore of the two counts, I asked you to seek sanctions, well, to start the ball rolling, 57.105, so to send a letter that gives the 21-day notice. 19 20 Q. That's correct. And let me show you a copy of that letter. 21 22 23 24 MR. WYIfl: Your Honor, if you see our J14, it's a copy of the 57.105 demand letter and the email to Mt. Mendelsohn that accompanied it, and just for a point of clarification, there is the motion for attorneys' fees at the end, but that A. Well, first. I never had these records, so iously it's impossible for re to provide them. I told them that. They knew that. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 was not filed ai June 8th. Pursuant to the statute, you have to wait at least 21 days, and as you'll see later, that was followed. 7103 ODURT: The way this is -- I assure this was attached to the letter? MR. NYIER: It is, Your Honor. It's at Static 235, yes, Your Honor. BY MR. WYIER: Q. Do you recognize that, It. Arenberg, as a copy of the email to It. Mendelsohn and then the 57.105 demandthatwe issued to the plaintiff? A. Yes. Q. And, in that letter, did we assert our position that their demand to produce the 2006 records, that there was no basis in fact or law? A. Cbrrecc. Q. Do you ?mow if the newspaper dropped you fro the lawsuit within the 21-day safe-harbor provision provided by statute 57.105? A. 'They did net. Q. Hut they eventually did drop you? A. A lag tine later, they did finally drop Q. Okay, but, before they dropped you, did not file a notion for summary judment? 1 A. Correct. 2 Q. And did that include an 3 affidavit from you? A. Correct. 5 Q. Let me show you a of t affidavit. 6 That's at J18. Do you regime this as a copy of your 7 affidavit? A. Y 9 Q. 10 Court? 11 12 13 "My name is David (Dave) Arenberg, and I'm 14 the Shat Attorney for the 15th Judicial Circuit, Palm 15 Beach County, Florida, since 2013 and a defendant in the 16 above-captioned matter. Plaintiff is seeking declaratory 17 relief pursuant Florida Statute 905.21(1) (c) and the 18 Court's inherent authority allowing plaintiff access to 19 the testimony, minutes and °thar evidence presented in 20 2006 to the Palm Beach Canty grad jury, the requested 21 materials, and to use those materials for the purpose of 22 informing the pablic." 23 "fespite plaintiff's above-described action 24 for declaratory relief, neither myself nor the Office of 25 the State Attorney for the 15th Judicial Circuit (SAO) is ease reed it aloud for the A. ire page? 6 7 8 10 11 • .4 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 =miry judgment? 2 A. After ue filed the notion for smeary 3 judo/tent, we included the affidavit, and then there was a 4 -- at sore point I was dismissed, and then there was an amended 7ction after that. Q. That's correct. And I'm going to show you J23. Do you recognize this as a copy of the notice where you were dropped as a party from the lawsuit? Q. %tat date is that? It's on the top, the very, very top. A. This was October 21st, 2020. Q. Thank you. And, after you were dismissed, are you aware -- yeah, after you were dismissed, are poi aware that the Court eventually granted the clerk summary judgment in their favor, a summary judgment in favor of the clerk? Q. Okay. Just a couple more questions for You. There's been some references to maybe the newspaper not just suing you just to get these records for public disclosure. Even Judge Marx said that she thought that there was something else going on. What do you think is the underlying reason here for this lawsuit? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 in control, custed), or possession of the required' - excuse me " of the requested materials.\* "As such, the declaratory relief sought by the plaintiff seeks materials that are impossible for me or my office to produce. To be clear, neither myself nor the SAO has the legal authority to obtain and deliver the requested materials. I've repeatedly made these facts evident to the plaintiff and the public through not only the pleadings and correspondence in this matter, but also through an office press release erg my pane social media accounts." "Despite the neither myself nor the that the clerk grant materials after a c awing my has access to office in this of plaintiff, the atority to demand cress to grand jury has concluded. Moreover, ither myself nor my office materials fran the clerk's other instance." "As provided in Section 905.1711) Florida clerk has sole authority and possession of ed materials, which can only be released by pursuant to an order of the Court.' Q. Thank you. Do you know of any other tive action regarding plaintiff's claim for declaratory relief after you filed your motion for 1 MR. BIDEAU: Cbjecticn, Your Honor, 2 irrelevant as to what the reason is. 3 MR. WYLER: It goes to good faith, Your 4 Honor. 5 THE COURT: All right, overruled. 6 A. Look, it was clear to me from the beginning 7 that this '.tole lawsuit was a twofer for the Palm Beach B Post. tarter cm, they were able to try to mercane the 9 fact that the Miami Herald, a newspaper 90 miles away, 10 scooped them al the Jeffrey Epstein story, and they 11 wanted to catch up and be the hero of their an 12 narrative. And so they rade themselves the center of 13 this whole thing by suing to get these transcripts. 14 And, number two, they can do it on the back 15 of soceone they have extreme dislike for, and it's men 16 secret in this amity that the Palm Beach Post and I 17 have had =eras battles over the years, usually 18 one-sided, where the Paln Beach Post has, for the past 19 12 years, has attacked me, written many misleading 20 articles, which stem from a personal vendetta fran a 21 leader of the Palm Beach Poet, Randy , and me. 22 And then, after he was removed from his position, his 23 acolytes believed that I had something to do with it, and 24 they -- the attacks continued. 25 I mean, they or.time even today uter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 there's a front page article about some misleading front-page article about a in Broward who is making claims ex-wife's deposition. Arid the P of writing the facts about it, deposition released. I mean, for issue between the Bea t and me, and it's not a secret. For when they hired a reporter to cover my office, , prior to my being there, proses cocaine. So I was thinking maybe at sane po ld find a reporter to cover our office a Mant t my 0, instead t the ex-wife's s has been an ongoing did not prosecute for crack cocaine. So this an ongoing thing. So this whole matter stems fran two things: The Palm Beach Post trying to get the Jeffrey Epstein story back, sell newspapers and to go after me, and they're able to do it. And that's why I insisted that we at least get the taxpayers sate of their crone/ back because they had to fight and pay for your legal fees to fight a lawsuit that was, in my mind, frivolous fran the beginning because this newspaper kw" I never had these Moments, I never had control or custody. And it's very telling that now they're trying to move the goal posts and make this abotat something entirely different. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 BY KR. Hr1.67: Q. Let's talk about that, moving the goal posts. We talked earlier about the wording in the ccuplaint against you. Do you recall the statements were that you somehow denied the Palm Beach Post and the citizens of Palm Beach County the grand jury records they were requesting? Do you recall that? A. Yes. Q. And now it appears that we're hearing a whole new argument from plaintiff today; is that correct? A. Yes. Q. And that t me if I'm unrog, is that they were fine 4 said didn't object to the records being rel that, for that reason, they dropped you; te? A. B leadi : Cbjection, Your Honor, ME CCM:: Sustained. Can you please explain your -- your on of bow they moved the goal posts? A. Look, I mean, this lawsuit from the inning was about whether Ihad pcmmswwion, custody, control of the Jeffrey Epstein grand jury transcripts. 1 That's a series of articles they wrote about this. They 2 wrote a long series of articles attacking me for trying 3 to obstruct. Those articles were misleading. 4 The fact that we're here today and now it's 5 not about that, it's about keeping me at the sidelines so 6 I didn't have -- that I didn't object to the clerk's 7 production of these documents is something that I haven't 8 heard before, and I think is so misleading because this 9 whole thing was about the grand jury transcripts. It's 10 not about trying to prevent re from saying something to 11 the clerk. 12 It was clear from the beginning I never had 13 these draments. Judge Marx made it clear on the record, 14 and that's why we pursued these sanctions. 15 Q. Thank you. And isn't it -- isn't there a 16 big difference between objecting to the release or 17 intervening in the release and actually being able to 18 release the records? 19 A. hey F.ed re to get the records. They 20 didn't sue me to prevant re from speaking up. 21 Q. There's nowhere in the ccuplaint that says 22 that they're suing to you keep you from objecting to the 23 release? 24 A. Not only is there nothing in the oarplaint, 25 there's nothing in all the articles they wrote. They 1 wanted this thing to caatinue, to continue to write 2 articles. It amid have been embarrassing for then to 3 admit that they filed a frivolous lawsuit and then ttay 4 had to dismiss me. So they continued these articles way 5 past the 21-day period, and now, when they got called on 6 it, they're trying to change the whole case into 7 something about how theyneededcm to stay silent so B wouldn't tell the clerk to do something. 9 I mean, this thing was about production, 10 custody and control of grand jury documents, and I just 11 don't believe the Palm Beach Post should be able to 12 change it after the fact. 13 Q. So do you believe they have an agenda 14 against you end were intentionally targeting you when 15 they filed this lawsuit? 16 A. They've always had an agenda against am. 17 MR. BICEAU: Cbjecticn, Your Honor, 18 relevance. 19 THE CURT: I think you have already 20 covered it. So I'm going to sustain the 21 objection. That's fine. 22 BY MR. %TIER: 23 Q. Have your friends and family been impao 24 by the plaintiff's agenda-driven reporting? 25 MR. BILEAT: Again, j'llge, objection, 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 relevance. 7103 COURT: Sustained as MR. WYLER: Tank BY MR. Wil-Mt : Q. Do you believe that 42ff's relationship with you prevented them from accepting the ultimate fact that you have no legal right to possession, custody or control,ef the release of the requested grand jury records? Cbjecticn, armilative, Judge. 'ye been over this. He asked the same fore. Tht COURT: We've covered this. MR. WYLER: Ho further questions. Th73 MUD': Cross examination. MR. BICEAU: Thank you, Judge. CROSS EXAMINAT1CN BY KZ. BICEAU: Q. (bpi afternoon, It. Aronberg. A. Hi. Q. You said a couple minutes ago to your lawyer that you filed this motion to get the taxpayers back some of their money, right? A. Uh-huh. Q. That's what you said? The taxpayers are 1 not out any money, are they? 2 A :t is a contingency-fee basis. 3 Q. Right, and so the answer to question is: 4 The taxpayers are not out any money, are they? You don't 5 owe your counsel a nickel today, right? A 2 think that's fair to say. 7 Q. You haven't paid your counsel a nickel 8 today, right? 9 A. We have not. 10 Q. And the only way that your counsel gets any ll money is if he wins this 57.105 nab , right? 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 A. flout any money, A. Yeah Q. ago that you taxpayers back That's a good So under no are the taxpayers You're right. you testified a few minutes s motion in order to get the , that was wrong, right? Look, the fact that or office -- Is that right, or wrong? book, I have to dispute with you on that , look, the fact that our office has spent having to deal with this frivolous lawsuit, that's yer rcney. And, yes, so perhaps I misspoke when I said that because the money wouldn't go directly to him 1 unless we got something today. But it's clear the 2 taxpayers are cut money when you divert my attention from 3 real business to focus on your frivolous lawsuit that has 4 been filed for nothing more than to sell newspapers and 5 make a profit for your client. 6 Q. So the only person involved in this lawsuit 7 -- I haven't seen you -- Have you testified in any 8 hearings in this case? No. 10 Q. Have you been deposed in this case? 11 A. No. 12 Q. Okay. So the only thing you've done in 13 this case presumably is chat with your lawyer, correct? 14 A. Are you saying cur office has done nothing, 15 has not been distracted about this case? 16 Q. I'm talking about you, It. Aronberg. 17 A. II, I've spent plenty of time about this 18 case. I have spent way more time than I ever should have 19 in a case that I had nothing to do with. 20 Q. Nr. Arcoberg, you maid that this idea that 21 -- Well, let me hack up for a second. 22 You said that you thought the Palm Beach 23 Post brought this case for two reasons: One, they 24 brought this case because they don't like you and they 25 wanted to mnbarrass you somehow, and they brought this 1 case because they've been scooped by the Mini Herald, I 2 think you said, right? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. On the Epstein matter. Imo, you agree 5 that an investigaticm into the Epstein matter and what 6 your predecessors did in the Epstein matter is a 7 legitimate matter of public interest, right? 8 A. The investigation of Jeffrey Epstein? 9 Absolutely. 10 Q. Absolutely. And the -- And the 11 investigation of what your office by your predecessor -- 12 By the way, nobody has ever suggested, Mr. Aronberg, in 13 any of the pleadings filed in this case that you 14 personally were involved in whatever happened with 15 Wt. Epstein. That's not in the =plaint, right? 16 Iterate no reference to you personally having been 17 involved. In fact, the complaint makes it very clear 18 that this was your predecessor who was involved, correct, 19 not you? 20 A. Correct. 21 Q. Nat, BO the pleadings we drafted didn't -- 22 didn't accuse you of having done anything wring with 23 respect to Mr. Epstein or the plea deal that got cut or 24 whatever happened with the fads, correct? 14 =cowl 25 you weren't around in the pleadings that we filed 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 case, right? A. You acknowledged that with the stuff in the past, but hiding grand jury transcripts t Q. There's nothing in you hid grand jury The lawsuit for declare you either turn oyfwhat ydg,had, A. Q. filed in about 1 , correct? o do me of possessed. that said the mast - was to declare that correct? don't read your own newspaper. about the pleadings that are I understand that you are concerned of this. I'm concerned about the The legal side sued se to get grand jury transcripts, and the press side accused me of hiding theca. Q. Okay, so we can agree that the legal side, the thing we're here on in this case today, is about getting grand jury testimny, correct, getting grand jury transcripts? A. Possession, custody and control, correct. Q. Incidentally, when my fin:first got involved -- Do you have the exhibit binder in front of you? A. I do not. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Mt. BIDEAD: Okay. Can we get an extra copy of it? VERITSTONE: We can pull it up on the screen. Mt. BIDBAU: Exhibit 1. 1HE CURT I'm sorry, what number? MR. ELDEAD: Exhibit 1, Your Honor. MS. VELEISIINE: Your ibnor, may I approach with the exhibit binder? 1HE COURT: Yes. BY MR. RIDEAU: O. It. Aronberg, i be a little quicker if I just hand you the b okay? tway you don't havetoturnaround it. A. is it? Q. A. is en August 21, 2019, latter from to you, correct? Correct. And this was a request for -- Nbw, prior to office had received a umber of public records to from the Palm Beech Post, correct? A. About -- About this? Q. About the Jeffrey Epstein matter. All my 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 gnostical, are stout the Jeffrey Epstein matter. A. Okay, yes. Q. dray, and this use the first letter you received from my office, correct? Pron Mr. Mendelsohn about the Jeffrey Epstein matter, right? A. I don't know if this is the first letter. If you say it, I ass= that's true. Q. And, in this letter, Mr. Mendelsohn requests a number of &camas end records with respect to the grand jury matter concerning Mr. Epstein, correct? A. I'd have to read it, but, yes, I'll take Q. By the wry, your office never actually responded to this particular letter, did it? A. I don't know. Q. And, in fact, after this letter, if you look at tab 37, which is the very last tab -- and I apologize, the binder is so big, it's hard to move around. This letter is dated of August of 2019. Tex CCURT: What exhibit? Mt. BIDEAU: Exhibit 37, Your lemur. N.S. tiousreme: It's also on the screen if that's easier. 1HE WIIVESS: Maybe I can lock at the screen. MR. BICEAU: You can look there, okay. TIC COURT: I'm going to sloe you down a little bit. I can't see the writing at the screen from that far, so I'm going to flip to 37. MR. BIDEAU: And, I apologize, I hate these big binders. 0/URT: It's okay. I just want to see out you're talking about as you're talking about it. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 You're right, they're not easy to navigate. All right, please continue. 12 BY MR. BICCAU: 13 Q. Exhibit 37 is an October 9th, 2019, letter 14 and that's from Mike Grygiel, another lawyer in my 15 office, to your office, and it's following up o0 16 It. Mendelsohn's October (sic) 27th letter, okay, and his 17 September 17th letter. Do you see that? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. Okay. And up to that point in time, we had 20 not yet received responses to cur letters, correct? Do 21 you knot? 22 A. I don't know. 23 Q. Okay. And then -- And then after that, 24 sir, it was on January it was on it was in 2019, 25 shortly after that, November of 2019 that we filed 1 first lawsuit against you, correct? 2 A. Correct. 3 Q. So, after having two 4 letters, you don't Imow if we es to those 5 letters, we went and filed a in that lawsuit 6 we named you in your officl capacity, correct, not a 7 personal capacity? B A. Corr 9 Q. 10 office, 11 time, it 12 right 13 Correct. 14 You sue -- You are an entity like the state 15 attorney's office in its -- by the state attorney who is 16 in his official capacity, correct? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. And you talked about your original notion 19 to dismiss, J6, so let's take a look at J6, if you want 20 to look at Exhibit 6 in the binder, or can you look at it 21 up there. I don't really care. 22 A. Okay. 23 Q. Let's look at the sent page. Cm the 24 wood page, you -- 25 MR. BIDEAU: Ctuld you highlight, Gerard, you sue the state attorney's gets sued for things all the anything to do with you personally, 1 2 3 4 where it starts with, 'Plaintiff has improperly..." Dam at the bottom, last ParagaPh• BY MR. BD)EAU: 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Q. You see you indicate -- your lawyer responded by saying, 'Plaintiff,' that would be the Palm Beach Post, 'is improperly seeking requested 2006 grand jury materials for the purpose of public disclosure pursuant to the Court's inherent authority and supervisory powers over the grand jury.' Do you see that? 12 13 14 15 16 17 A. Yes. Q. So at leas objecting saying the not entitled to want to give what the see , you were don't get these, they're can't -- because they public, right? And that's 18 19 20 21 A. Is that what it says? Look, you are -- this is exactly the t you guys did. You filed a lawsuit against the first defense that we had was that we didn't the documents, bat because, as you know, in a notion dismiss you have to argue as a matter of law. So the only way we could dismiss this frivolous lawsuit is to 1 argue asawatter of law. And this -- this was the legal 2 position that says, by the way, under the law you're not 3 entitled to these &amts. And then you -- then your 4 client then wrote all these articles saying, see, he's 5 trying to block us, he's trying to obstruct us, without 6 mentioning the amber one defense, which was he doesn't 7 have the dccurrents. That could have gone a long way. 8 That could have sham maybe save good faith if you would 9 have done that. 10 Q. Mr. Aronterg, in connection with -- at the 11 time of the notion to dismiss, you had filed nothing, 12 your office had done no indication that you didn't have 13 the documents, did you, up to this point in time? Up to 14 this point in time. And this is ally -- this is only 15 late 2019. You hadn't filed an answer. You hadn't filed 16 any motion. 17 A. In ear motion to dismiss. 18 Q. You hadn't responded to any of our three 19 prior lettere, and the first pleadings you filed 20 indicated that your objection was that we were improperly 21 seeking these materials under the Court's inherent 22 authority and supervisory powers over the grand jury for 23 public disclosure. /bat was the official position filed 24 by your lawyer, and I understand, you were taking a legal 25 position to dismiss the lawsuit. 1 A. Correct, but also I do rant to challenge 2 one part of that. When you say that we -- we were silent 3 over and over again about responding to your public 4 records requests, I have spoken to -- I've spoken to the 5 public records person in my office who believes that she 6 did say that ae didn't have the docanents to everyone who 7 has requested them. B MR. BILE U: Your Wafer, I'd MOM to strike 9 as hearsay. 10 ThE COURT: Sustained. 11 BY MR. BIDEAU: 12 Q. And, after you filed this notion, the Palm 13 Beach Poet filed an amended complaint, correct, and, in 14 that amended coplaint, the Post asserted two causes of 15 action, right? One was a statutory claim, and one vas a 16 declaratory judgment claim under the First Amendment and 17 the Court's inherent authority, correct? 18 A. Correct. 19 Q. And the motion to dismiss and the arguments 20 in front of Judge Marx all went to the statutory claim, 21 not to the second claim, the declaratory judgment claim, 22 cannot? 23 A. The Man( hearing was about Count 2. 24 Q. Count 2, the statutory claim, correct? 25 A. Correct. 1 2 3 4 J9 -- Q. And, so, when we look at - complaint here because I want to read amended complaint, which is J9, and-1/ t a look at 5 6 7 THE HURT: Let me for one second. So I'm flipping t these, but, like, for example, right the 't -- I can't see that. 9 Mt .t, I know. But I saw that you were able to 10 11 bl of -- DEAU. He is. 12 13 COURT: -- and I'm going to ask him to t, that way I don't have to -. 14 15 ÷ MR. BIDEAU: I'm going to ask him to blast it up so you can see it. 16 17 THE COURT: tank you very much. I appreciate it. 18 BY MR. RIDEAU: 19 20 Q. So let's take a look here at Count 1 for declaratory relief. 21 MR. RIDE U: Gerard, it's on page 19. 22 23 Okay, just blow up the Count 1 for declaratory relief, please, that section. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 see that am of the allegations is that the Post respectfully requests the Court declare that, pursuant to Plorida Statute 905.27(1), it is entitled to access to the testimony, minutes and other evidence presented in 2019 -- 2006 to the grand jury because such disclosure and access would be in furtherance of justice, and then it cites to 905.27(1)06 (sic), correct? 8 Yes. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Q. And it says, because the Post is not seeking these materials in connection with any civil or criminal case, it seeks a declare -- In other words, it asks the Court, hey, construe paragraph, construe the statute to allow us give this stuff to the public because we recognize interest of justice provision in that s rota, t7 16 A. -t it says it is. 17 18 Q. that's what it says, right, in furtherance o That's what the request was? 19 Again, it is what it is. 20 Okay. And then paragraph 71, the Post 21 declaration that disclosure of the minutes and other evidence presented to the and jury is appropriate pursuant to the Court's ent authority over grand jury proceedings because of the exceptional public interest in this case and 1 compelling ciremstarces supporting transparency. Do you 2 see that? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Okay, and, with respect to paragraph 71, do 5 you low what the answer was -- 6 A. No -- 7 8 Q. A. -- that you filed? -- not offhand. 9 10 MR. BIDEAU: Okay. Can we pull up the answer to 71? That's J2, page 10, 71, 71. 11 12 BY MR. BIEEkU: Q. As to 71, you admit that we seek a 13 declaration, but you deny the remainder of paragraph 71. 14 15 So, in fact, although we were asking in 71 that the Court uses its inherent authority over grand jury proceedings, 16 17 because of the exceptional interest in this case and coopelling circumstances, that the Court declare that 18 19 we're allowed to use this testimony, your answer was, well, that's your declaration, but we deny paragraph 71. 20 21 So you asked the Court to deny that relief? A. It is what it is. 22 23 MR. BIDEPO: Okay. And then we'll go to paragraph 72. I think you have a slide on that, 1 BY MR. BICEAU: 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Q. And, in 72, we say, the Post has sought from defendants, but defemdants have refused to provide, access to the testimony, minutes and evidence presented in 2006 to the grand jury. Indeed, defendants have each filed potions to dismiss the ccmplaint and the reliefs sought under 50 -- 905.27(11. Accordingly, a good faith dispute exists between the parties. Do you see that? A. Yes. Q. And you see in that case your office admitted that, your lawyers admitted that at least, admitting there was a good faith dispute between the parties and admitting that the defendants had refused to provide access to the testimony, minutes and evidence presented, right? Nb qualification, you all just admit that. 17 A. Again, it .s ,that it is. 16 19 20 21 22 23 Q. Now, you said that this argueent that Ms. Whetstone made during her opening statement, that the idea that you wouldn't object to disclosure, was something new, that just popped up at this hearing, that -- I think your phrase was, "you moved the goal posts,\* right -- Yes. 25 Q. -- at this hearing? But that's not 1 2 either, right, because that issue had been you all the way back in June of 2020, 3 4 5 A. Are you saying this that? Is that that you're saying, or a say that it was about possession 6 7 9 10 Q. The issue - issue of your position with respect to whether -agree with -- I'm sorry -- whether you would object the request to have the records releaseE %MS an issue that bad been raised by Mr. Mendel 'Same of 2020, correct? 11 'Cu restate the questtcn, please? 12 13 14 15 . Let me -- Let me try to do it a lit iculately because that was pretty terrib Let me get the letter out to make it easier for all of us. J16, please. 16 You've seen this letter, right, Exhibit 16? 17 A. I'm not sure if I've seen this one. 18 19 20 21 Q. Okay, well, did you /mow that, when your layer filed his 57.105 notice back in early June and then bad that two-page letter that he served it with, right, and he laid out, we don't have the records, right? 22 Correct. 23 Q. Mitch is the basis for your 57.105 -- 4 Q. Okay, no possession, custody or control. 5 Mr. Mendelsohn, a couple weeks later, wrote 6 a letter back, right? Do you resat seeing that? 7 A This is the letter you're referring to? 9 the binder. 10 A. Again, I don't rooter seeing this letter. 11 Q. Cam you flip to the page? 12 A. This letter to my attorney -- 13 Q. To your at sigh 14 A. -- back ' of 2020. Q. That's the letter, and it's under tab 16 in 15 Q. sae A. 16 caber reading this letter. Q. 1? let ere see if I can help you 18 out then. to the middle of that paragraph 19 'The state attorney was named...• Can you 20 t, where it says, 'The state attorney was 21 not -- Do you see it? Okay. A. Well... 2 Q. Basically. A. Yeah, ad possession, custody or ccrtrol. Do you see It. Kendelsolm writes back, he 'An\* the state attorney does not currently physical possession of the Epstein grand jury materials' -- I man, by the way, the Office of State 1 Attorney at some point would have had possession of the 2 materials that were going to be presented to the grand 3 jury, right? I mean, the office presented this stuff to 4 the grand jury. You would have had possession. :f yof re talkIngaba.:t the transcripts, no. 7 Q. No, but I'm talking about the other 8 materials, the investigative materials, the exhibits, the 9 minutes, the other things like that. 10 A. its minutes? 11 Q. Your office would have bad those? 12 A. fie minutes? I don't believe so. I guess 13 it depends. I don't know how they did it back in Barry 14 Krischer's achinistration, but the documents that you 15 asked for, I've never had. So that's the only question I 16 had. 17 Q. Well, hold on. You MOM the transcripts, 18 because in the complaint, we actually ask for more than 19 transcripts. 20 A. Right, but those are documents I've never 21 had, and that's the whole thing. 22 Q. You personally never had the, but -- 23 A. Right. 1 investigation, mild have had those materials, it had to? 2 A. Again, I don't fnrw what Barry Krischer's 3 administration had back then. 4 Q. Well, when you got the public records 5 request, did you have somebody go back and look and see 6 what they had? 7 A. Well, obviously, when we got public records 8 requests, we try to fulfill all of the:. 9 Q. Right, and you don't know personally 10 sitting here today what was dime to respond to any of 11 Mr. Mendelsohn or Mr. Gaygiel, my partners' letters 12 asking for materials from back during the Barry Krischer 13 days, correct? Because there's been no response to those 14 letters even to today. 15 MR. WYLER: Objection, Your Honor, those 16 letters and the Chapter 119 request have nothing 17 do with this lawsuit. They're not referenced in 18 the lawsuit. They have no bearing on the 19 requested relief that plaintiff is requesting 20 here. 21 NB COURT: Overruled. 22 BY MR. BICEAU: 23 Q. And so -- 24 11111 0OURT: an you repeat the question? 25 MR. BIDEAU: Sure, I'll repeat the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 question. BY MR. BICEAU: Q. You don't know what did to respond to Mr. Mendelsohn letters, Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 37 personally laze? A. It is my oonversatims I records were told, office el's t? You omit based on th f f ice, that every public responded to and that people Jeffrey Epstein grand jury trWMT did not have them. Mendelsohn and Mr. Grygiel, in those 1el ueet a lot Tore than just transcripts, right? They wanted evidence. They wanted exhibits. They wanted that sort of material, correct? That was Exhibit 1 and 37, we looked at, right? A. When I say 'transcripts," I mean records, I man records, that anything we had, we put then out on that portal that your client refused to acknowledge. Q. Well, the portal was things you'd already produced. That's what -- Your press release says this is all the stuff we've already given out, right? That's already been in the public, right? Q. Okay, well, but you understand, we were 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 asking for stuff that you hadn't yet given out, and, as beat you know, you don't have any personal knowledge as to 'tether or not -- what happened to those requests, to It. Mendelsohn's request or Mr. Grygiel's request, right? You personally don't know? A. Kell, again, you objected because of hearsay before, but, in speaking to an individual who does public records in my office, I've been told that that person had said whether or not we've had those dm/mots, and so I believe that everyone who requested documents were told truthfully whe'`her we had those docunents or not. And we is in a broad - in a broad way. Q. In a , right? A. Co Q. have copies of any responses or that went Mendelsohn or Mr. Grygiel in my office when documents, correct? I ;amid think that Mx. Wyler would have t we produced. Okay. Now, Mr. Mendelsohn, back in June in response to your first 57.105 letter, he The state attorney was named as a party, not simply custodian of the grand jury -- the grand jury records. The state attorney was named in his official capacity as 1 his office has, quote, as his primary interest, 2 protection of its grand jury system, and he cites to a 3 11th Circuit decision. Do you see that? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Okay. And, in that case, the D.S. petition 6 -- be goes on to explain it. He goes on to explain that 7 the Broward County State Attorney was involved in this 8 case, and so Kr. Mendelsohn was indicating to pm in that 9 case where you were named not only whether you had 10 custody; you were named in that case basically because 11 you're in charge of the grand jury process, you had the 12 right to object if the clerk wanted to give out those 13 records or not. 14 A. lit:eredoes it say that? 15 Q. It's in the -- The case indicates that, 16 when one seeks grand jury materials, the relevant state 17 attorney is a necessary party in order to protect the 18 grand jury system, and the Office of State Attorney 19 supervised it to make arguments if needed against release 20 of the grand jury materials. Do you see that? 22 Q. So Mr. Mendelsohn was telling you, as 23 opposed to what you said a few minutes ago in here, that 24 the first time you saw these goal posts being roved, 25 Mr. Mendelsohn -- was today when Ms. afretstone testified 1 -- I mean, when Ms. Whetstone talked. In fact, all the 2 way back to when the very first 57.105 motion was filed, 3 Mr. Mendelsohn told you that me of the reasons that the 4 Post sued you in this case was in order to address the 5 situation that you had the right, if you thought it was 6 appropriate, to object to the release of materials. Do 7 you see that? 9\_ Was that in the =plaint? 9 Q. I'm asking about the -- I'm asking about 10 11 12 13 A. Well, the letter you wrote after -- well after the complaint, the letter you're showing re here that was sent to Mr. Wyler is that it says it is. 14 15 16 But you told me that this idea of swing 17 the goal posts, that the Post was suddenly making that 18 argument, you told everybody in this courtroom a few 19 minutes ago that just happened today, I mean, they're 20 just roving the goal posts on me. Well, if the goal 21 posts are being roved, that was back on June 23rd of 22 2020, and you rumba seeing this, right? Q. Correct. A. That's on not in the complaint, right? Q. 23 A. Again, I don't remember seeing this letter, 24 but, again, this was not part of the cocplaint. This ' 25 an after-the-fact letter fret tor. Mendelsohn to my \ I 1 lawyer. 2 3 4 5 Q. Correct, and so -- A. Okay. Q. -- you -- neither responded to this letter, right? 6 7 8 10 11 A. Well, you'l about that. Obviously I letters written t Q. with the p partied lavye But you told us you're familiar 're not familiar with this ve to talk to my lawyer smelly respond to 12 13 14 15 16 sentence, These are secs state attorney was named Very last sentence of that paragraph. I don't rester seeing this letter. Now, Mr. Mendelsohn indicates in the last of the same reasons why the in this case. Do you see that? 17 18 19 20 21 A. Yes. MR. BIDEAU: Can we take a look at Exhibit 21? Do you have Exhibit 21 up? Can you -- Can you blow up the part that's highlighted, please, and I'll read it? 22 23 24 25 BY MR. BIDEAU: Q. Now, Exhibit 21 is Defendant David Aronberg's response to plaintiff's menorandum in opposition to the 57.105 motion, the original one filed 1 back in Arne of 2020. And do you see in paragraph -- in 2 the first paragraph, you indicate, quote, Nonetheless, 3 the state attorney has no objection and never had any 4 objection to the Court releasing the records sought by 5 plaintiff as to the disclosure of the requested materials 6 sought herein lies within the province of the clerk 7 pursuant to the order of the Ccurt. Do you see that? 9 10 Q. And this is the first time in any pleading -- Strike that. 11 12 13 14 15 First of all, obviously you knew this was an issue back in October of 2020ini rfact that the Post was arguing that cos to be in this case was because you had to object, because you address that issue 2020, correct? 17 18 19 A. (). argument had but ght, as of October 2020. So that not for the first time today, 20, right, It. Aronson? 20 Aronterg. 21 Aronberg. I'm sorry. A. This is what it says it is. And, again, I felt that this sentence was stent with what our position always has been because, when we were forced to do the motion to dismiss, 1 we were forced, because of a ratter of law, to rake the 2 legal ailment as a legal ratter that the Post is not 3 entitled to this, but as far as my belief of whether I 4 care whether these grand jury dockets are released, 5 I've never cared ate way or the other, but, because of 6 this, in my view, bad faith lawsuit, you forced us to do 7 a notion to dismiss that told you we don't have this 8 stuff, and, secccdly, we had to do a response as a matter 9 of law. 10 Q. Okay, now let me get back to my question. 11 My question was: You told the Court earlier today that 12 this roving the goal posts, this idea that you had the 13 right to object and we wanted to make sure you weren't 14 going to object was something that care up for the first 15 time today, and that wasn't true, was it? That issue 16 came up back in June of 2020 at the -- at the latest when 17 Mr. Mendelsohn put it in his letter, and you saw it 18 necessary to address it in October of 2020, right? 19 A. So the letter that I said I don't remsrter 20 seeing is the letter that you say put be on rttice that 21 this argument was being rade? 22 Q. Well, that letter certainly put you on 23 notice if you didn't know it before that, sir, because it 24 says it clear as day. 25 A. But it doesn't rake my statement 1 inconsistent. It said, again, that I was not aware of 2 your moving the goal posts, and, besides, it doesn't 3 matter becausethistle thing is about possession, 4 custody and control, which you informed of that we didn't 5 have. Noe you're saying, cell, this whole thing was 6 about you wanted me to talk to the clerk, or you didn't 7 want me to talk to the clerk, and to me that's B disingenuous because that's not the subject of this 9 lawsuit. 10 You mentioned in a sentence that 11 Mr. Mendelsohn wrote to my lawyer notch later than the 12 complaint, well after the complaint, in one sentence in a 13 letter to my lawyer, and you're saying, aha, we wanted 14 this the whole tine. 15 Q. Well, certainly we wanted it the whole 16 time, and we wanted it at the, as Mr. Mendelsohn will 17 testify, and Mr. Mendelsohn wrote that when your lawyer 18 sent a 57.105, saying our case isn't frivolous, we think 19 your office might have possession of the records, at 20 least same of the records that we were seeking, and in 21 addition, your office has the right to object. 22 A. Did you put that in the complaint? You 23 didn't cat that in the complaint. 24 Q. I imow it's hard for a lawyer to not ask 25 questions, but -- 1 A. Fair enough. Fair enough. 2 Q. And try not to argue 3 reporter is going to kill us. 4 Okay, in any event Wt. in the 5 October 14th, 2020, response, you that the state 6 attorney has no objection to the dirk pro:beim 7 these records if the clerks them right? A. Ri 9 Q. Ow, by the way, that the clerk 10 had already produced without -- well. pzekebly -- 11 nobody could fines court order -- had given them to the 12 D.S. At and the FBI years earlier, right? 13 I guess so. I mean, I wasn't there years 14 earlie if that's what happened, yes, sure. 15 Q. And, by the way, shortly after you filed 16 Exhibit 21 is when the Pale Beach Post dismissed the 17 case, right? It was within 14 days of that, correct? 18 We can do it up there. Maybe 17 days? 19 A. Whatever your timeline says. 20 Q. Right. All right, you indicated on the 21 20th is the first time you stated you had no objection to 22 production of the materials, okay, and then on 23 October 21st, now that you said you don't have them and 24 you don't object, the Post dropped you as a party seven 1 2 3 4 5 A. Yeah. Q. Right? Okay. And then 17 days later, you file an mended notion which makes a host of arguments not set forth in your original motion back in June of 2020, correct? 6 7 8 9 10 A. Well, you have to ask Mr. Wyler about the siostance of that, but I know that the motion -- the amended notion was filed after I was already dismissed from the lawsuit and after your client failed to dismiss me within the 21-day IIIII period. 11 12 Q. Nell, that's the 21- IIIII period for the first notice that you fil 13 A. Coloetn, Co 14 15 16 17 Q. But the, i We're here on today, according to the and the notice, is your amended notice filed, correc river served prior to being 18 19 20 A. e you saying that the filing of the means that the first motion is DOW void, it y, it didn't exist? 21 We're going to be arguing that to the t the filing, under the law, the filing of a motion that raises new and different arguments utely goes away, the first motion pea away. 1 2 is to give you a chance to dismiss me, and I was already dismissed by that point, so -- 3 4 Q. So let's take that to its logical -- let's assure you had gale ahead and served this back, say, back 5 6 here in October, okay, and then you filed that response and we looked at it and said, II, he's now admitting -- 7 8 9 he's now saying he's not going to oppose it. If we had dismissed you right then, you'd have no fee claim, right, because under the rule, we're allowed to dismiss. 10 A. You get 21 days. 11 12 Q. We gat 21 days, right. So if you had served it all the way heck here in October and if we had 13 14 gotten your response and dismissed, you'd have no fee claim, right? We would have gotten your 57.105, and 15 16 within the IIIII period, we would have dismissed it, right? 17 A. Ifthesecondonewas filed before I was 18 19 dismissed, within the 21 days -- Q. Yee, sir. 20 21 A. -- ard the case was still pending? Men, yeah, you'd have a =In better angtment. But you don't 22 have an argurrent rod because, under the first -- 23 24 Q. Judge - we'll argue -- We'll argue that to the A. But the whole purpose of the 21-day novice 1 Q. -- as to whether we have an argument now. 2 We think the Fourth is pretty clear on that Coe. 3 '2. BEM': Baudyoubringup, please -- 4 just last question -- Exhibit 25. paragraph 20? 5 BY MR. BIDEAU: 6 Q. And this is -- this is your amended motion, 7 and you say, The state attorney has no objection to the 8 clerk producing and disclosing the requested material 9 should the Court grant an order to that effect; however, 10 it is impossible for the state attorney to carply with 11 the relief, blab, blab, blab, because you'd made that 12 argument before. 13 That argument that you had no objection to 14 the clerk producing the requested materials was not set 15 forth in your original notice, your original 57.105 16 motion, correct? 17 A. I believe that's correct. 18 MR. RIDEAU: That's all I have, Judge. 19 THE COURT: Redirect? 20 MR. WYLER: Just real quick. 21 REDIRECT EXAMMATICV 22 BY MR. WIMP 23 Q. Mr. Arenberg, you were just talking -- or, 24 just being asked questions about the public records 25 requests that were made of your office. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 Did the plaintiff ever file \_( p9 lawsuit against your office for those A. No. 72. WYLER: No f THE CCURT: Is Mr. hb excused? THE WIT= Thank you, Your Honor. MR. WYLER: re excused. MS. Your Honor, may we take a five- weak? We'll be back in a few. I'll s, we'll say 5 to 10 minutes. the record from 3:39 p.m. to +p.m.) THE COURT: All right, please be seated. MR. WYLER: Your htnor, before I rest, I 16 just wanted to say to the Court that plaintiff and 17 defense counsel, we've -- we've agreed on all 18 those exhibits, that joint exhibit book. WO just 19 wanted to make sure that all exhibits, 1 through 20 37, are recognized by the Court. 21 THE COURT: All right, so Exhibits 1 22 throat 37 of this joint binder have been 23 stipulated to and are in evidence, and that's the 24 an agreement of the parties. 25 MS. 781EfSiOt.E: Yes, Your Honor. Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 MR. WIER: Thank you, Your Honor. (Joint Exhibits 1 through 37 were admitted into evidence.) Defense rests. THE COCKY: But not this timeline, correct? This is not? MS. UILPTSTIONE: That's CO !CLL. That's a demonstrative. Thank you, Your Hoor. THE CLeIRK: Thank you. MS. METSTCNE: The plaintiff calls Stephen Mm-Aelschn. THE COURT: Before we Mllsia4how long is Mr. Mendelsohn going to t toda MS. UHETSTIONE: rl make this as fast as possible. THE through eve ing to rush you t we're done at 5:00 today. Thirty minutes. And after Mr. Mendelsohn, are Yes, Your Honor. COURT: Okay. In the event that you're past 5 -- we're not going to go past 5, but the event you need to go past 5, I'll bring you back in later in the week. It won't be tomorrow. 1 Tomorrow I have another matter that I have to hear 2 in the afternoon. But, in the event we need to go 3 past 5, even if it's for argunent, probably 4 Tharsday or Friday in the afternoon, I'll bring 5 you back. 6 If the testimony is going to conclude today 7 or mostly conclude today and the only thing left 8 are your arguneras of law and your arganents as to 9 the findings of fact, then that might be something 10 that we end up doing on Thursday or Friday 11 afternoon, okay? 12 MR. WiTaBR: Yes, Your Honor. I think it 13 might be worthwhile to point at to the Court that 14 the reasonableness phase of this, if se get there, 15 we've already agreed that there would be no 16 experts, so I think that could dispense with that. 17 Ian located iv in Melia Island, Florida, 18 so I am -- 19 THE COURT: Fifteen minutes away. 20 MR. VILER: Super close. So I doe't knty 21 if it would be possible, if we finished with the 22 testimony today, if maybe we could make written 23 closing arguments to the Court instead of ooairg 24 back? 25 THE COURT: How do you feel about writing? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 MS. FEEDEIrliE: We would have no objection to that if Your Minor would prefer. ktatever Your Mawr prefers, we will do. WE =RP: If you gays don't mind writing. I mean, I think people are better in writing. People overestimate their oratory skills, but okay. B 9 10 WE CLERIC: Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the evidence you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? 11 THE WITNESS: Yes. 12 13 14 15 Thereupon, STEPICEIrENcescm, EsQ., having been daly acorn by the Clerk of the Ccurt, responded and testified as follows: 16 WE CURT: htenever you're ready. 17 MS. hBIETSTORE: Thank you, Your Horror. 18 DIRECT WAMINkTICN 19 BY MS. hatElh-D10E: 20 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Mendelsohn. 21 A. Hello. 22 Q. Please introduce yourself to the Court. 23 A. Yes. I an Stephen WLendelsohn. 24 Let me just move a little closer. 25 Yes, I'm Stephen Mendelsohn, and I'm 1 2 attorney at Greeterg Traurig in the Fort office. 3 4 Q. Please let us 'mow background. 5 6 7 I have a bachelor's r from Colgate University in Upstate 1 rk, graduated in 1980 and - in economics, and I have a ee from liorstra 8 University School Law f 1983. Q. is your work impudence going 10 badmards 11 12 13 14 15 16 A. been at Greeters Craurig as a c®erch2 or for approximately 20 years, and all been a shareholder at Greenberg. As I said, . tic out of the Fort Lauderdale office at present. Previous to that, I was in the Boca Raton office of Greeterg Traurig, so going back 20 years. 17 18 19 20 21 22 Before that, I was an attorney with Rutherford Malhull & Wargo in Boca Raton, also commercial litigation, and, prior to that, Iwasanared partner a firm in Miami. That was CarolceLga, Langen, Lored.ma (phonetic) & Mendelson, and before that, I was an assistant attorney general for the State of New York. Q. In what states are you licensed to practice 23 24 law? 25 A. New York and Florida. 1 2 Q. At Greenberg Traurig, what types of cases do you practice? 3 4 5 6 7 8 A. A variety of commercial litigation, copyright, trademark, securities, real estate disputes, disputes over employment, contract, fraud. Also, not just simply culumrcial, but I also do defamation defense, First Amendment cases on defamation, and I do trial work and appellate work. 9 Q. \*en you were at the New York State 10 11 Attorney General's Office, what types of cases did you handle? 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 A. I was in the Li Bureau of Labor Statistics, and that's c tigatrTp, primarily civil rights and ccestituti cases involving 42 USC Section 1983, tere ate and its officials were sued in their ity. That included cases under the h t, cases under the Seventh Amend-tilt ccc , and the Eighth Menchent and Eau s to the U.S. Constitution. 20 Are you AV rated? 21 Yes, AV rated as well. Q. Have you ever been sanctioned or subject to limry action? A. Never. A. In any jurisdiction. 2 Q. Ever bad 57.105 sanctions or Rule 11 3 sanctions awarded in any case that you've worked on? A. This is the first motion ever under 57.105 5 or Rule 11 under the federal rules or any of that. 6 Q. So besides this case, no? 7 A. No. 8 Q. You've never had any motion raised? 9 A. No. No, 10 Q. Sae did you first get involved with the 11 Jeffrey Epstein case on behalf of the Paha Beach Post? 12 A. I was contacted by Michael Grygiel fran our 13 Albany office. He represents a number of media and 14 newspapers throughout the United States, and essentially 15 he heals the media group at Greenberg Traurig. And he 16 was looking for sanecne to help the Palm Beach Pcet in 17 obtaining damnents from at that tine the state 18 attorney's office here in Palm Beach County. 19 Q. when were you contacted by Nike Grygiel? 20 A. When approximately? 21 Q. (Bids head up and dom.) 22 A. In the sa-rer of 2019. It's Grygiel, 23 G-r-y-g-i-e-1. 24 Q. Ito\* you. So here, around -- on the 25 timeline, I'm indicating July 2019? 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. And what did the Pest went to find out and 3 inform the public about with regard to Jeffrey Epstein? 4 A. Right, at that time, the Epstein matter was 5 back in the nets. Mr. Epstein had been arrested by the 6 FBI, and he was being prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney's 7 Office in the Southern District of New York and was in B custody. 9 So the issues of the plea deal that had 10 been worked cut by Mr. Krischer's office back in 2006 was 11 back in the mess, and, in particular, President Trup's 12 Secretary of Labor, Alexander Acosta, at that tine was 13 the U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of Florida who 14 also helped negotiate the plea and the non-prosecution 15 agreement, and there was a big firestorm as to utether or 16 not Mr. Acosta should or should not resign as Secretary 17 of Labor. 18 Q. what was the Post interested in finding out 19 with regard to the prior grand jury investigation by the 20 Palo Beach County State Attorney? 21 A. Well, because of the firestorm surrounding 22 Alex Acosta and the re-arrest, or mew arrest, I should 23 say, of Jeffrey Epstein, the Post was interested in 24 looking back again as to what Barry Krischer's office 25 state attorney did in tents of using or misusing 1 grand jury process, in terns of the pro 2 Jeffrey Epstein both in tens of the 3 non-prosecution agreement that t. 1 to enter 4 into, as well as the extremely 1 Lent sin that he 5 had. 6 Q. were you • mid in drafting letters to 7 the state attorney's offic documents relating to 8 the Epstein prosecution? 9 10 IISS1pfUNE: would you please bring up A. 'ifs. 11 12 BY MS. 13 14 exhibi We're pulling up ahibit 1 in the joint . It's an August 27th letter. 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Or, actually, Mr. Mendelsohn, please let me 17 know 'that this letter is. 18 A. Yes, this is Joint Ekhibit 1. This is a 19 letter I wrote on August 27, 2019, to State Attorney Dave 20 Arenberg on behalf of the Post requesting specific 21 documents related to the grand jury investigation of 22 Jeffrey Epstein. 23 Q. Mbat were you seeking in this letter? 24 A. Particularly, we were interested in items 25 stated on pages 2 and 3, sate of what we were looking at. 1 We were very interested in finding out the conversaticns 2 between defense counsel, that's criminal defense counsel 3 for Mr. Epstein and, in particular, Alan Dershoritz and 4 Mr. Krischer's office. 5 We 'rna from investigation that 6 Mr. Dershowitz had provided Mr. Krischer with exhibits or 7 documents which went to injure the testimony -- the 8 credibility and the testimony of the yarag woman who 9 testified before the grand jury. I mean, we were looking 10 for those communications between Mr. Krischer's office 11 and defense ccunsel, in particul where Mr. Dershowitz 12 and others from the defense those materials to 13 damage the credibility o witness. 14 Ke also t cations between 15 Mr. Krischer's off 16 Office because 17 because of Al 18 such communica 19 back I and the U.S. Attorney's were caning to the fore , and we did ;axe' that there were and we wanted those documents to go for public disclosure. 20 21 What was the state attorney's office's this August 27th letter? A. I never received a IexuSe to this letter. Q. Were there other letters from Greenberg ig to the state attorney's office following up? A. Yes. Mr. Grygiel wrote a letter to the 1 state attorney's office as well. Men I didn't receive a 2 response, I guess he felt whatever, but he did send that 3 next letter. 4 Q. Okay, ea I'n pulling up Exhibit 37. Is 5 this -- Let me Immo what this is. 6 A. Yes, this is Mr. Grygiel, from our Albany 7 office, this is his letter to State Attorney Dave 8 Aronberg, October 9, 2019, reiterating some of the [hires 9 that we thought were in the possession of the state 10 attorney's office but had not been provided to the Palm 11 Beach east. 12 Q. Did you get a response -- Was there a 13 response to this letter? No. 15 Q. Did you review the documents that were 16 provided by the state attorney's office to the Poet? 17 A. Yes. Before -- Sort of in the middle of 18 this, the Palm Beach Post, before I had written, had made 19 a public records request of the state attorney's office, 20 and sore raterials had been pm:Added, and we did go 21 through that, those materials. They did not include 22 those that I remixed in Joint Exhibit 1, which 23 particularly were missing the Dershasitz ccummicaticos 24 and the camunicatiens with Mr. Krischer's office, the 25 FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office. 1 Q. So what information -- what additional 2 information was needed that the Post was seeking? 3 A. We wanted to see why the grand jury was 4 used in such a key as to result in a very lenient charge 5 for Mr. Dpstein, as well as the lenient sentence that was 6 part of the rat-prosecution agreement. 7 We )mew from the Post's investigation and B from other materials we had assembled that there were -- 9 there was a grand jury that was enpaneled. In fact, 10 there was two. The first one was canceled, and the 11 second one was conducted, and a witness, a victim did 12 testify. And we were on fairly certain ground that the 13 state attorney's office under Barry Krischer undermined 14 her credibility with materials provided to Mr. Krischer 15 by defense counsel -- 16 Q. Did you -- 17 A. -- anri we did not get those raterials back 18 from the state attorney's office. 19 Q. Did you review any other infornetion to 20 reach the conclusions about the indictment? 21 A. Yes. I wanted to say that I was not the 22 only one working cn this at Greenberg Traurig. In 23 addition to Mr. Grygiel, Nina Boyajian of our los Angeles 24 office, wow is a First Amendment expert, was also part 25 our team. She is very well versed in First 1 issues, especially when it Wiltb to repre 2 media's interest under the First 3 So we also had paral s ith that 4 responsibility, too. We had led tion 5 transcripts, affidavits that had 'tied in 6 various cases. I persona have spoken with the Town of 7 Palm Beach Canty -- the lm Beach Chief of 8 Police Reiter and sed s testimony with him in 9 civil cases. ined his deposition transcripts. 10 we spdce t the plaintiffs' lawyers in the 11 cases, them did provide us with materials. 12 was a volurninss amount of materials 13 also went back to the criminal case where 14 the als were in the piblic domain and read through 15 those items as well. 16 Q. AM, after this team at Greenberg reviewed 17 all this intonation and did due diligence, what was 18 decided next? 19 A. Ultimately, the team decided that it was 20 necessary to bring a lawsuit to obtain what we call grand 21 jury materials. It's not just simply the transcripts of 22 what occurred in front of the grand jury, but all of the 23 ancillary or corollary materials related to that. And 24 that, as we stated in Exhibit 1, included, but not 25 limited to, the communications where we believe 1 Mr. Dershowitz provided damaging information or 2 documentation to Mr. Krischer's office to destroy his own 3 witness in front of the grand jury, which honestly, 4 looking at all of the materials we had received and based 5 Limn my personal discussions with the chief of police of 6 the Town of Palm Beach, we came to the ccoclusion 7 Mr. Krischer had ahzased his authority as state attorney. 8 Q. When did the due diligence process start 9 and when did it end as far as reviewing the facts? 10 A. Started in the summer of 2019, and it -- 11 Well, the first phase resulted in he lawsuit, and that 12 contained hundreds of hours' work, not only 13 legal work, but, as I sa ual tigatory work as 14 well. But it contin fter the lawsuit had teen 15 filed as well. We in case we found something 16 new, and ulti did ird new things out in this 17 case, which I an add later, but there were new 18 revelations t occurred. 19 • And the initial omplaint was filed in...? 20 The end of November of 2019. 21 Mat legal research was done before filing ini/tial complaint? And that was for the statutory under 905.27. A. Sure. Ilrz way we divided the work between myself primarily and Ms. Boyajian was that we would {sup}`7`Page 109 1 handle the First Amendment issues in the case. So the 2 U.S. Supretre Cart cases involving the rights of the 3 media to be the public surrogate or be the public 4 mouthpiece and to obtain and participate in all facets of 5 criminal proceedings, she helped re and provided that -- 6 I was aware of all of that, but she certainly had a 7 greater in-depth knowledge than I did. I was tasked with 8 the responsibility of fleshing out Section 905.27 of the 9 Florida statutes primarily. 10 Q. What did you personally research to flesh 11 out Florida Statute 905.27? 12 A. I read every word of Chapter 905. I looked 13 at Law Review articles. I remember one from Catholic 14 University, Valparaiso and ethers about the grand jury 15 process, grand jury secrecy, both federal cases and state 16 (sees. I found every reported case under 905.27, which 17 particularly dealt with the issues that we were 18 discussing before and that Mr. Arenberg testified about, 19 and that went back to even the predecessor statute to 20 905.27, which is into the 1920s. Azri I tried to find 21 legislative history on the statute, but there wasn't any. 22 So I amassed 50, 60 cases under the statute 23 going back from the '20s, '30s, '40s, '50s, '60s, et 24 cetera, under 905.27. I read all of them 25 Q. It sands like a great deal of research, 1 but did you engage in any other research before filing 2 the initial complaint? 3 A. Well, federal as well, not only under the 4 state, but I wanted to see, you know, who to sue, to be 5 honest with you, in this case. we had a debate amongst 6 ourselves as to who the proper defendants were going to 7 be, and my principal responsibility was deteminirg under B Florida law who that would be. 9 So I had extensive eicperience as an 10 assistant attorney general on suing, at least in 11 defending state officials in not only 1983 cases, but 12 many other type of cases where state officials are sued 13 in their official capacity. So this was certainly 14 nothing new to ne. 15 I probably handled 3, 400 cases like that, 16 all on the defense side. So I was very familiar with 17 arguments of who was the proper party and the role of a 18 state official in litigation. 19 So what did 1 do? I went to see wtather 20 there were other 905 cases, Chapter 905 cases where state 21 officials had been sued, and in particular I ford two 22 cases. the was a state case and one was a federal case. 23 The state case was James vs. Wille and, coincidently, 24 actually involved the predecessor to Barry Krischer, 25 that case involved the beating of an inrate at the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1- 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Beach County Jail out by Belle Glade, and cel)ght grand jury testimony, and the named as a party in the case and, in the case as to whether or rot the statute -- you know, the ext arguments opposing such. Q. So we're you relied utxe A. MU a cipated urder and rode legal shout same of the cases mining that the state attorney ty defendant, and I wanted to pull up as vs. -- Was it the James vs. Wille Yeah, James %T. Mille, correct. Q. And that's txhibit 36. Cm you just let me know if achiblt 36 is the case you were talking about? A. Yep, that's the case. Q. And were there any other cases you relied upon specifically with regard to the state attorney necessarily being a party? A. Yes. An 11th Circuit case called In re Grand Jury. It's a Federal 11th Circuit Court of Appeals case. MS. WHETSTONE: And that's in Your HOnor's binder, the Authorities binder at tab 11. We'll 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 pull that up. BY MS. WHETSTONE: Q. Is that the In re Grand Jury case? A. Yes, that's CFR case. Q. So what were the three -- what were the tenons the state attorney was named a defendant? A. Well, this case particularly, the state attorney was Eras Broward County tamed in this case. It's a little explicated facts, but essentially there was a federal grand jury that issued a subpoena to the Broward County State Attorney s ng state attorney grand jury materials for a pa investigation, and the Broward 0ounty atto.i you n see here, participated in this objected to the release of such under 905.27. cularly interested in the language from his which said that the state attorney's vol essential one because his or her role rotect the grand jury process, utich jury secrecy. So, based upon the James vs. Wille case and and my background in defending state officials, t that the state attorney here in his official apaeity was a necessary party because someone had to advocate one way or the other for grand jury secrecy if 1 the state attorney decided that's what he wanted to do. 2 But, if we didn't cane the state attorney, we were 3 denying that state official and that office the right to 4 object under secrecy laws. So the purpose was to allow the state 6 attorney, if he chose to do so, to object to the 7 disclosure under 905.27 and to advocate for the state 8 secrecy interest, and that was a prime issue of why he 9 was named. 10 Q. Were there other reasces? 11 A. Well, we weren't sure what the state 12 attorney's office had. We knew that at one point the 13 state attorney's office had grand jury materials because 14 that's -- under Mr. Krischer that's what had occurred. 15 lie presented this to the grand jury. So we weren't 16 completely sure uto had what. 17 So we also believed, and I still believe, 18 that the statute does not prohibit the state attorney 19 from requesting the state attorney to look at grand jury 20 materials, not disclose it to the public, but merely to 21 disclose it to the state attorney if the state attorney 22 wanted to look at it. 23 So we were hopeful that, if the state 24 attorney was interested in looking at these materials, 25 that he would say that he had the right to look at them 1 under 905.27 and then, if so, ask the Court for an 2 in-camera review before release to the public. 3 So those are the three issues we were 4 concerned with. 5 Q. Did Greenberg Traurig conclude that the 6 state attorney was a necessary party to this case 7 regardless of whether it bed possession of the grand jury 8 materials? A. Yes. 10 Q. kid was that conclusion a yes? 11 A. Yes, it was. 12 Q. So, after the complaint -- the initial 13 complaint was filed in November of 2019, were discussions 14 had with the state attorney's counsel and the counsel for 15 the clerk? 16 17 Q. What were those discussions? 18 A. Well, we had discussions about the case, 19 particularly where this is going, did they have 20 objections and, if so, under what basis did they have 21 objections. 22 Q. After the complaint -- the initial 23 complaint was filed, what position did the state attorney 24 take in the case? 25 A. Took two Tcok two positions. He f 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 an answer, and that answer contained a cot Q. Backing up. Sorry. Af complaint was filed, what was the position taken by the state atto complaint, just the Count 2? A. Okay. Q. Sorry, just A. His ition 1p that grand jury secrecy was preeminent 905.27, and that statute barred the release of . He also argued that the statute u rntive where there was a pending civil ng criminal case, and since the was not pending civilly involving the Post, or the minal case, there was no criminal case in Palm Beach County, we didn't have any position or standing under the statute to seek the materials on behalf of the Palm Beach Post. Q. Did the state attorney file a motion to dismisstheinitialcomplaint? Yes. Q. What was your reaction to that? A. Well, I was hopeful that they wouldn't object or seek to dismiss it, but I understood that they had a statutory obligation to protect secrecy, so I didn't take it personally or anything like that. I 1 understood the role that they were playing because that 2 was the role we gave them the opportunity to play in this 3 case. So I was neither surprised, rertpset that they 4 played that role, because that's the opportunity we gave 5 them. 6 Q. Did the clerk file a motion to dismiss the 7 initial complaint as well? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. After the state attorney filed his motion 10 to dismiss the initial complaint, what did the Post do in 11 response? 12 A. After the init 1, we filed an 13 anerdhent to the -- to t lain-14 Q. Did you oak at whether there were 15 other causes of action assert? 16 A. to develop the First 17 Amanclrent iss in rte e depth and argue that the Post had 18 rights under Amend:art, as well as the statute, 19 in with the statute to obtain the materials, 20 aoganent that I had developed which was 21 rt has inherent authority as the ultimate r of the grand jury system under the Florida itution to prevent abuse of the grand jury system, we felt that the Court had such authority. :bat was the Clayton case that I was relying on. 1 Q. we're going to pull up Exhibit 9, which is 2 the amended complaint in this natter. 3 Could you confine to me that's the first 4 amended complaint/ 5 A. Yes, I see that. That's or. the board here. 6 Yes, it's in front of me as well. 7 Q. And we'll turn to it, but the state 8 attorney answered Count 1 of this mended complaint, 9 which was the count for declaratory judgment; is that 10 correct? 11 A. Mat is correct. They 'roved to -- Yes, 12 they moved to dismiss Count 2, the purely statutory 13 claim, and they answered the declaratory judgment which 14 was the mixture of First Amendment, statute, inherent 15 authority of the Cana. 16 Q. What do you recall about reviewing the 17 answer to the first mead complaint for declaratory 18 relief? 19 A. Well, they continued to oppose the release 20 of the materials onder 905.27 asserting grand jury 21 secrecy and asserting that we didn't have a claim. under 22 the statute. I did rote that they adnitted in 23 paragraph 72 that the case was brought in good faith, and 24 that's particularly the declaratory jutpent one. That 25 stood out to me. 1 Q. We'll pull that up. I think we've Seel it 2 a couple times. We'll pull it up. 3 Please let an bra if this comparison of 4 Exhibit 9 and Exhibit 10 is the paragraph you're talking 5 about. 6 A. Right, right, yes, that they refused to 7 provide access. That's through their objection to the B clerk to testimony, minutes and other evidence. Again, 9 this was not just simply transcripts. It was such 10 broader than that. And that a good faith dispute exists, 11 and they admitted all of that. 12 Q. Did Count 1 for declaratory relief seek to 13 force the state attorney to produce documents that he did 14 not have? 15 A. No. 16 Q. Did the state attorney's position that his 17 office did not have possession or custody of the grand 18 jury materials end the need for his office to be a party 19 to the declaratory relief claim? 20 A. No, and really the proof of that is what 21 actually occurred, which is they moved forward with their 22 motion to dismiss and ultimately a notion for summary 23 judgment. 24 So they opposed the release of the 25 materials, as was their right, under the statute 1 asserting grand jury secrecy. So it actua 2 we put them in the case, which is to 3 opportunity on behalf of the offi o assert 4 grand jury secrecy, which is uha they So, in 5 effect, it worked. They cook f the 6 opportunity and asserted t we were not entitled to it 7 under the statute's grand provisions. 8 Q. Co 8th, 0, Judge is -- did Judge 9 Marx enter an the motion to dismiss Count 2 10 under F .27? 11 A. id. what was -- what was the ruling? 13 She determined that the Post lacked -- 14 well, the statute did not create a private right of 15 action, that it was limited to those who were seeking the 16 materials in the pending civil case and a pending 17 criminal case, so she did it on a very narrow ground. 18 Q. That order sorry. 19 A. Go right ahead. 20 Q. Mr. Mendelsohn, go ahead. 21 Okay, that order did not address the 22 declaratory judgment claim in Count 1, did it? 23 A. ND. 24 Q. When did the state attorney send its 25 initial what he calls place-marker 57.105 demand letter 1 and motion for fees? 2 A. Within hours of the order from Judge Marx 3 was issued, I believe, on June 8, 2020. 4 Q. And at that point why was the state 5 attorney kept in the case? 6 A. Well, they were still objecting to 7 disclosure under Gault 2, under the declaratory judgment. 8 They were still asserting that grand jury secrecy and the 9 statute could not be overcome by the First kendrent or 10 by the Cant's inherent authority, and that the Cant's 11 inherent authority was limited he statute, which we 12 obviously thought was sort of r way, that the 13 statute or the legislator d not it the Court's 14 inherent authority judiciary had its rights 15 and the legislature s. So that issue still 16 remained. 17 Q. you write to the state attorney's 18 counsel and 1 Poet's reasons for continuing to 19 inch tate attorney in the case? 20 Yes. That's ray letter of June 23rd, 2020. 21 And we'll go ahead and pull that up. t 16. Is that the letter that you're referring A. Yes. 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 10 Q. And your letter set forth the reasons why the state attorney was named as a party in the case -- A. Q. -- and continued to be named? Yes. Q. Did the state attorney's office ever address the second reason for keeping the state attorney in the case in swam to this letter? A. : -.ever received a wr'--Pr response :o this letter. 11 12 13 14 15 16 Q. And that second reason was that he was the -- that the state attorney's office was an official tasked with protecting grand jury secrecy? Correct. 0. And, in your letter, did you cite a case to the state attorney? 17 18 19 20 21 A. Yes. I cited to In re Grand Jury Proceedings, the 11th Circuit case. Q. Did you have discussions with the state attorney's counsel after this point, after writing this letter? 22 23 24 25 A. Yes, with Mr. Myler. Q. And what were they? A. What are we going to do about this case essentially. Is the state attorney going to gone us? 1 Is he continuing to oppose us? Because I never received 2 a response to my Jtme 23rd letter, and I wanted it to be 3 understood that we honestly believed that the state 4 attorney had a necessary role to play in their official 5 raparity. We were hopeful that they would take a neutral 6 position, but they remained adamant that they had to 7 protect grand jury secrecy woder the statute, which we respected. 9 Q. And I don't want to )now the substance of 10 settlecent discussions, if there were any, but did 11 settlecent discussions go on with the state attorney's 12 counsel after the Jima 23rd letter? 13 A. Yes. Yes, they did. 14 Q. And is that indicated on the timeline here 15 of June, June 8th, 2020, to October 15th, 2020? 16 A. Yes. With M.T. Wyler, yes. 17 Q. It. Wyler. 18 A. He was a very nice Mr. On the phone. We 19 had very gccd rahversations, very professional. 20 Q. The state attorney filed his motion for 21 fees on July 1st, 2020; is that correct? 23 Q. And is this the state attorney's first 24 motion for fees that was filed co July 1st, 2020? A. It is. 1 2 Q. Did the initial 57.105 mots forth any of the grounds for the mai 3 4 A. No, it didn't. It entitled to 57.105. they were 5 6 Q. So, after this pan Post and Greenberg seek -- did the tram the clerk? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. And the litigation? 9 A. 10 Q. did you seek from the clerk? 11 A. ed to know whether or not any -- 12 well, fi r the state attorney under 13 had asked for any of the materials that the 14 clerk had, and, also, whether the FBI and U.S. 15 16 Attorney's Office had asked the clerk to provide such materials. And the clerk indicated to us in leavmme to 17 a request that the clerk's office had done so, though 18 they were vague as to why and htL-1. 19 Q. And what -- did you serve 20 interrogatories -- 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. -- sad document -- 23 A. Requests, yes. We wanted to see a leg of 1 what was in there, not really specifically what was in 2 there, but by category, whether it was a transcript, 3 whether there were exhibits and/or whether there were 4 affidavits or whether there were deposition transcripts. 5 Whatever there was in there, we wanted to understand. 6 The clerk had responded that they don't 7 keep a log, so they couldn't tell us unless the seal was 8 broken what was in there. 9 Q. In August of 2020, the state attorney's 10 office filed a motion for summary udgnent; is that 11 correct? A. Yes. 13 Q. And Exhibi •.4 leese7 Is this the state 14 attorney's notice for udgment that's on the 15 screen? 16 A. es. 17 Q. support of this motion for summary 18 judgment, did file an affidavit in support? 19 He did. 20 MS. CFAs IE: If you could go to 18, 21 se. Q. Arel is 18 the State Attorney Dave s affidavit in support? A. It is. 1 Q. At this point, after the affidavit had been 2 filed, had the state attorney responded to another one of 3 the reasons that he had been named as a necessary party 4 to the action? A. No. They focused exclusively on possession 6 rather than their position protecting the grand jury's 7 secrecy issue which they had advocated for. 8 Q. So did the state attorney's affidavit and 9 motion for summary judgment address In re Grand Jury 10 Proceedings or any of that -- any point in your letter 11 about his office being able to prevent the clerk from 12 releasing grand jury materials? 13 A. No, they never resporded to that. 14 Q. Was there still a factual issue -- At this 15 time in August 2020, was there still a factual issue as 16 to whether the state attorney had physical possession of 17 copies of grand jury materials? 18 A. Well, we knew at one point Mr. Kristher 19 obviously had to have had such. We also had -- We were 20 of the Belief that there were ccontracations, on very 21 strong grounds, between Mr. Krischer's office and 22 Mr. Dershowitz and other defense counsel, as well as the 23 FBI and U.S. Attorney leading up to and including the 1 We never received any such, and we 'craw 2 they were out there. Exactly who had them, where they 3 were, we weren't sure. We learned in hindsight that the 4 U.S. Attorney's Office had been provided with such by the 5 clerk's office. This is the Palm Beach County clerk's 6 office. 7 Q. So fast forwarding a bit to October 2nd, 8 2020, did Greenberg and the Post -- sorry -- did the Post 9 file a response to the state attorney's first 10 place-narker 57.105 motion? 11 A. We did. 12 Q. And if you could pull up Exhibit 20. 13 A. Which one is this exhibit? 14 Q. 20. 15 A. That's what I thought. Ckay. 16 Q. Is this the Poet's response, maroranchmo of 17 law of the plaintiff to the state attorney's -- 18 A. That is correct. 19 Q. -- 57.105 sanction motion? 20 A. Yes. I drafted this, yes. 21 Q. Co page 8 -- 22 MS. WdE15-IONE: Gerard, do you mind going 23 to page 8. 24 BY MS. WHEISTCRE: 25 Q. Did you again raise the state at 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ability to object to release of grand j A. Yes. I cited to In re Proceedings again. Q. If you look at the 8? Is that where you cited to? A. Correct. Q. And at this bad not regaled this is that co A. 17a9a state attorney still he was named as a party; on October 14th, 2020, did the state a reply to this response? Yes. MS. 70IITGENE: If could you pull up Exhibit 21. BY MS. WIGMOTDONE: Q. Is this the state attorney's reply in support of the first place-marker motion for fees? A. Yes, it's in respc...se to their June 2020 motion for fees. Q. So this is not a reply to the 57.105 motion we're here on today, right? A. That's correct. Q. This is a reply to the original June place-matter motion for fees, correct? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 A. Correct. What happened is the state attorney never noticed the first motion they filed for fees for a hearing, and they still haven't done that. So it's never been noticed for hearing. There was a little dispute between myself and Mr. Tyler as to whether or not the fee motion that he had filed in June should be heard first or their motion for =wary jucklnent should be heard first, and there was a caseTanager:ant conference beforeJudge Hafele, and Judge Hafele decided that the state attorney could decide the order of when that would So not knowing when -- what hearing would go fi ed a response to their fee motion that In June, and that was Exhibit 20, and scalded in Ekhibit 21. Q. And I attention to pages 1 through 2 of the state attorney's reply -- A. e it's highlighted on the Yep, I see that. It says, 'Nonetheless, the state attorney lactic@ and never has had any objection to the releasing the records sought by the plaintiff.' Was this the first time the state attorney -- the state attorney stated his office would not object 7 Page 129 1 to the release of grand jury materials if ordered by the 2 Court? 3 A. 4 Q. So, after your reply -- sorry -- after your 5 response on October 2nd, then on October 14th, the state 6 attorney for the first tire stated in a filing that he 7 had no objection to the production of Epstein grand jury 8 materials by the clerk? :hat's accurate, yes. 10 Q. Was this a change from the state attorney's 11 prior position about releasing grand jury materials? 12 A. Absolutely. 13 Q. Bowwouldyoudescribe the change iron the 14 initial -- from his initial response to the initial 15 =plaint to this reply? 16 A. Initially they fulfilled why they were in 17 the case, which is they objected to the release of the 18 materials under 905.27, and now they were taking a 19 neutral position, and they were no longer advocating the 20 m.precacy of 905.27 and its secrecy provisions as a bar 21 or prevention or preventive for the release of grand jury 22 materials. They were no longer taking that position. 23 They were no longer taking any position. 24 Q. What was your reaction to this change? 25 A. Well, I was pleased. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Did you send a letter --asettlement letter on October 15th in response to this October 14th position in the reply? A. Yes. I did it pretty quickly after I saw it. Q. The next day? A. The next day. Well, I started writing it on the 14th, but, yes, we sent it on the next day. Q. Okay, and I'll pull W Exhibit 22. Is this your letter to Mr. Ifylerc with regard to the reply? A. Yes. Since they had changed to a neutral position, I didn't see a point in discussing whether or not they should remain in the case, and that's %%tat the purpose of this was. Q. AM in it you say you were pleased about than changing -- A. Yes, yes. In the sewed paragraph, I said I was pleased to read that they -- the state attorney's clear and unemivocal statement in their response filed yesterday that their office will not oppose the Post's request for access to the Jeffrey }stein grand jury materials. I was pleased. Q. Once the state attorney's office said it would no longer object to release of the grand j 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 materials by the clerk, what was the Poet's response? A. We had a team meet discussion with the Post as to attorney should remain in the c first tine, Mr. Aronberg' ffidavit. He had previously stated that position, but irst time in a pleading or an of vit fi in the case, he said he clearly didn't session. AM he's now taking a neutral a of the change in position that this nest now created, we had a very serious discussl whether or not he should remain in the remember, one of the necessary party prongs that I mentioned previously was to give Mt. Ai .erg the opportunity as state attorney to mice either his objection to the release or his neutrality or maybe his support. Now he decided to change from opposition to neutrality, and, since that has the case, we determined ultimately to drop him from the case that there was no -- he had exercised his option and made a decision, and we were happy that he had done so. Q. Was -- What date was the state attorney dropped as a party to the action? A. It was in October. Was it October 21st? ly the state for the 1 Q. Neill pull up Exhibit 23. 2 A. Okay, I've got it in front of me it was 3 October 21st, 2020. 4 Q. And is this Exhibit 23 the notice of 5 dropping the state attorney as a party? 6 A. Correct. 7 Q. After this, 19 days after this, did the 8 state attorney file an amended notice for fees under 9 57.105? 10 A. He did. 11 Q. Is that the motion re here on today? 12 A. Correct. That' y one that the 13 state attorney has noti 14 Q. We're Exhibit 25, and, once it's 15 up, I'd like you to this the amended notice 16 for sanction or today? 17 A. es. 18 Q. Wm this amended notion ever served on you 19 or the Poet anytime before it was filed? 20 11 A. too. 21 Does the amended motion set forth new and BCs for the motion for sanctions then compared first what they call place-marker notion? A. Pleolutely. Q. What were sane of those new arguments? 1 A. Well, ultimately the major new argument was 2 that he now had neutrality in the case. That was a 3 massive change in the position of the state attorney 4 which was not the situation back ht•en they first made 5 their place-holder motion, and this is the words they 6 used back in June. This was a sea change as far as we 7 were concerned in the status of the case. 8 Q. AM you told the state attorney that was 9 the basis for its joinder back in the beginning of the 10 case? 11 A. As a necessary party, yes. And, slim they 12 were no longer advocating secrecy and row had adopted 13 neutrality, that's why we dropped them from the case. 14 Q. And I'll move to what I think is going to 15 be my last exhibit, the final judgment, which is 16 Exhibit 30. 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Did the Rost -- So did the Post file a 19 notion for sumary jndgaent against the clerk -- 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. -- as to the declaratory relief claim? 22 A. Yes. They were the remaining part), in the 23 24 Q. And Judge Hafele heard element on that 25 notice for smeary judgment? race.. 1 A. He heard it for about two and a half boars, 2 yes. 3 Q. And was this the same declaratory judgment 4 count that had been asserted against the state attorney 5 that had been dismissed against him after he said he had 6 no objection to the clerk releasing documents? 7 A. It was Count 1. That was the sane cart B that we had against the state attorney and the clerk, and 9 that had been dropped against the state attorney at the 10 time I argued the motion for summary judgment in front of 11 Judge Hafele in September of 2020 or August of 2020. 12 Q. And Judge Hafele entered an order on a 13 motion for surnnary judgment which been this final 14 judgment; is that right? A 16 Q. And going through it, on page 5, the Court 17 noted that the Post's position was -- Well, I'll ask you, 18 what was the Court's reaction in the final judgment to 19 the presentations given by the Post? 20 A. Ultimately Judge Fafele determined that his 21 hands were -- while he recognized that the Court had 22 inherent authority and that inherent authority covered 23 the supervision of p uwecutorial abuse of the grand jury 24 process, he felt constrained by the statute, which was 25 905.27. So he felt ultimately that he could not 1 inherent authority because of the limitat 2 thought 905.27 contained, though, in 3 egotistical, he was very effusive 4 Greenberg Traurig had done, as de doe by 5 the clerk's counsel. 6 Q. So I'll draw-attention to page 7. It says, 7 'The newspaper makes strockergerients to advance its more 8 expansive caw of Section 905' -- 10 11 12 Q. then page n of furthering justice.' And 'The Court acknowledges the t and sincere arguments.' 13 Was that -- Was that comment with regard to 14 15 Coun>19,p, A. Yes. 16 17 18 Q. And that's the count we're here on today? A. Correct. That matter is on appeal. The final judgment is on appeal. 19 Q. Thank you. That was my next question. 20 21 22 Okay. Q. Okay. Okay, one last question -- sorry -- 23 24 25 Did you have any discussions with the editorial side of the Post having anything to do with the decision to sue the state attorney? A. Noce. There was a firehmll between the 2 legal arguments we were making here and whatever the Pest 3 was writing both editorially and factually. I had 4 absolutely no conversations with the Post, nor did any 5 meter of my team as to what they were going to write. 6 It's not ty role to tell the paper what it wants to, or 7 not, write or not write, so the legal positions that we 8 adopted in this case were -- were the positions that we 9 as Greenberg IYaurig and the paper carte to the conclusion 10 of based upon the facts and the law. 11 As to what the Post y have wanted to 12 write or did write, I have z into that, nor did 13 Mr. Grygiel, nor did Ms. didn't even know 14 what was going to be t oil I read it in the 15 paper, so I did not they were going to put 16 in the paper. 17 Q. t question. Did suing the state 18 attorney in caai have anything to do with a personal 19 t the state attorney? 20 Well, I voted for Mr. Arenberg. No. 21 So no? A. We haveatutual friend. So I have no against him at all. I'm not happy he has Ile =big up here, to be honest with you, but, you knew, I understand why he has me up here. Iget that. He's ret 1 2 3 4 happy being associated with Mr. Epstein. The ran was reprobate. He was one of the lowest forms of humanity. So even having my rare in an article, even if I'm not accused of something, I can understand why he's not happy about it. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 But I don't -- he didn't do this out of animus or lack of preparation. This was a sober decision against scmeone in their official capacity. I'm sorry that he feels personally offended by this, but we took great pains to make sure that there were no allegations ir. the wended complaint and the complaint accusing him of anything or of any wrongdoing of any kind because 13 14 15 16 17 18 that's just not the case that we have in front of us. MS. WHETint1NE: Thank you, Mr. Mendelsohn. Sorry, we went a little long. THE COURT: No, it's okay. Are you going to finish in the next 10 minutes? 19 20 21 22 MR. WYIER: No, Your Honor. That's impossible for me. THE CCURT: So then we're not going to get started. 23 24 25 MR. WYIER: I don't think it would be worthwhile for me to start and then stop in 10 minutes. It's going to take me at least 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 30 cinutes, probably more like 45. THE COURT: Okay, so, you know, fray krelia Island to here is five hours? YR. WYLER: CCURT: YR. EISR: Yes, sir. You're almost in Georgia. Exactly. Your Honor, I will be here whenever you need ee to be here. I'll make it happen. THE COURT: Thursday or Friday? PR. WYLER: Honestly -- ME OXIRT: How about Thursday? PR. 'TILER: -- how about Thursday? Yeah, Thursday would be better. THE CYJRT: Okay, all right, we'll care back in Thursday. YR. M:NDEL9CFRI: In the afternoon, Your Honor? THE OXIRT: ace back Thursday, probably 1:00 p.m. Give me one minute. (Brief interruption.) THE COURT: All right, so the only thing left is cross examination, redirect, and then are the parties going to write closing argrents? YS. ivirmISTCNE: If Your Falco would prefer it, we'd be fire with that. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE 03URT: I prefer closing argaren are written. I think things are more You know, I thick the logic is ti parties don't mind writing closi would prefer that. Okay, do you want t argument? I man, I can know what you're M. direct the tes and a ring your closing e you probably If we could finish the just make sure we have we will have the transcript closings or make sure that we do you think? WYLER: Your Honor, it's going to be really hard for Be to drive back, and Urn hand write it and then drive back down here again. THE COURT: Why don't we do this: Cross examination, redirect. You'll give me a closing argument, and you can supplement yoar closing amprents in writing. If I need to have an additional hearing, we can do that via Zoom since the evidence and presentation will haveconcluded YS. hIETSPnVE: Sounds good. COURT: Sound good? YR. WYLER: Sounds good, yes. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 7HE CURT: All right, so we'll ire back Thursday, 1:00 p.m. HEE WrflrS: Pm I excused, Your Honor, from the stand? THE COURT: Yes. 7HE 14171.e S: Thank you. THE CCURT. I /WS we have guests. You krow, the Wall Street Journal will write reprobate. It's a big word. It's a big word. All right, anything else? Have a great day, eve 're in recess. (The hearing adjou9S 4:53 .m.) CO 2 1 STATE OF FLORIDA 4 COUNTY OF PALM BEACH 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 21 24 25 COURT CERTIFICATE I, Lisa Begley, RPR, RMR, certify that I was authorized to and did stenographically report the foregoing proceedings and that the transcript is a true and complete record of wry stenographic notes. Dated this 12th day of Septonber. 2022. lEkbighti Lisa Begley. RPR, RMR # IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO. 50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB AG CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC, Publisher of the PALM BEACH POST, vs. DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of Palm Beach County, Florida; SHARON R. BOCK, as Clerk and Comptroller of Palm Beach Count Florida, A # TRANS F CONTINUATION OF G PROCEEDINGS RE: Defendan ye Aronberg's Amended Motion for Attorneys'— Fees BEFORE: LUIS DELGADO, JR., Circuit Judge : Thursday, September 8, 2022 1:06 p.m. - 2:42 p.m. PALM BEACH COUNTY COURTHOUSE 205 North Dixie Highway Courtroom 10D West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Stenographically reported by: Lisa Begley, RPR, RMR 1 2 1 4 5 6 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 IS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 APPEARANCES: On behalf of the Plaintiff: GREENBERG TRAURIG 777 South Plagler Drive 3 Suite 300 Eaet Kest Palm Beach, Florida 33401 4 561-650-6420 5 BY: LAUREN R. WHETSTONE, ESQ. whetstonelegtlaw.eom 6 MARK P. BIDEAIL ESQ. bideaumegtlaw.com GERARD BUITRAGO. ESQ. buitragogsgtlaw.com On behalf of Defendant, Dave Arenberg: JACOB, SCHOLZ L WYLER, LLC 11 961687 Gateway Boulevard 12 Suite 2011 Fernandina Beach, Florida 32034 13 904-261-3693 14 BY: DOLGLAS A. WYLER, ESQ. dougajswflorida.con 15 Also present: Dave Arenberg. State Attorney 16 Defendant Leigh Public Records Coordinator 18 Office of the State Attorney PBC 1 2 7 8 9 10 17 19 20 21 Thereupon, the following proceedings began at 1:06 p.m.: THE COURT: All right, please be seated. All right, announce your presence. MS. WifftERRCE: Good afternoon, Your Honor, Lauren Whetstone, and with me, Mark Bideau, Gerard Buitrago and paralegal, Jennifer Thorson, on behalf of Greenberg Traurig, on behalf of CA Florida Holdings, the publisher of the Palm Beach Etst, the plaintiff, and air witness, Stephen Mendelsohn. MR. EYLER: , Your Honor, Douglas Eyler wi Scholz A Eyler here on the State Attorney, Dave Aronberg, 1 right, so we left off with cross Is that where we are? : Yes, Your Honor. MR. WYLER: Yes, sir. THE COURT: Madam Clerk, please swear in witness. Sir? THE WITNESS: II, I've been sworn in before. THE CLERK: Do you solemnly swear or affirm 1 INDEX 2 WITNESS 3 STEPHEN MENDELSOHN, ESQ. Cross Examination by Mr. Wy 4 Redirect Examination by Ma 6 9 10 11 12 11 24 IS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Non-movant rests 0 Certific epo AGE 146 187 204 er 210 10 BY MR. WYLER: 8 responded and testified as follows: 9 CROSS 1 2 3 4 that the evidence that you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? THE HITE215S: I do. 5 Thereupon, 6 STEPHEN NE2BX2f2101, ESQ., 7 having been duly sworn by the Clerk of the kart, 11 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Mendelsohn. 12 A. Good afternoon, Mr. Wyler. 13 Q. So I'm going to start off with this: Isn't 14 it true that part of the exhibits that we've all agreed 15 on that are here and part of evidence are some of the 16 portions of our settlement negotiations? A. There is one letter, yes. 18 Q. Okay. And isn't it true you and I talked 19 several times regarding settlement? A. Sure. 21 Q. And isn't it also true that, during the 22 pendency of our settlement negotiations, Mr. Aronberg was 23 contacted by the same reporter that the SAO had 24 previously prosecuted for illegal sastances? 25 MS. hIERRTCHE: Objection, Your Honor, no 1 2 3 4 6 7 B 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 foundation. MR. WYLER: That's fine. THE COURT: All right. BY MR. XYLEM: Q. Isn't it true, though, that Mr. Arenberg and Mike Edmondson contacted you to complain about an article that was being written about him? A. No, no. I've never spoken to Edmondson that I remember. Q. Well, okay. That's fine. But you did speak with Mr. Arenberg, right? A. No. I don't recall speaking to anyone on this matter, unless he was on the phone with you. Other than that, no. Q. Okay, well, then part of when we spoke, and maybe you didn't knot, Mr. Arenberg and Mike Edmondson were on the phone with us, but isn't it true that there was a time, when you and I spoke in settlement negotiations, that you offered CO hold an article pending our settlement negotiations? S. \*LIST'S: Objection, Your Mc or, settlement discussion. MR. WYLER: They opened the door Co settlement negotiations by putting it into evidence. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BY t41. THE COURT: \*at exhibit are about? MR. MILER: I don't exhibit that is part of exhibit that is not part offer to the THE COURT: is sust A. absolutely untrue. an I do have an that I will good then. Cbjecticn 're saying that never happened? Mr. Aroilerg, through you, suggested Clement, that the paper would write a favor article about him if we were able to settle. You suggested that. I didn't make a comment one way or the other, but I absolutely advised my client of it. I don't make editorial decisions for the paper, so I have no authority to make such. Q. So you're saying there was never a conversation between you and I where we discussed Mr. Arenberg creating a comsat to go into the newspaper as part of those settlement negotiations where you wanted us to drop our 57.105 demand and you offered to get an article held while we determined whether we would do that? 1 MS. WIE7SaCEE: Objection, Your Fanor, 2 ed, corpard. 3 THE CURT: Sustained as compound. 4 BY FR. WYLER: 5 Q. All right, I'll move on. 6 So, in your direct assignation the other 7 day, isn't it true that you stated that you devoted 8 hundreds of hours to the research and development of 9 bringing this Lawsuit? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Okay. Arid so, in of that research, you 12 extensively put time into 1 to Chapter 905.27 13 before you brought this :4 A. Yes, si 15 Q. And, 16 on the motion 17 18 19 20 21 Marx's June 8th order 2 -- Let me scratch that. Isn't it also true that your client's complaint alleged awdinst -- that my client was in presession ox control of the documents that are in this jest of this action? I'm sorry, can -- Q. I'll repeat it. Isn't it true that your t's complaints alleged that my client and/or his ffiee is in, quote, possession and/or control of the documents that are subject of this action? A. Are you reading from the amended complaint? 2 Q. That is found at page 117, IIIII stamp 3 masher 117, paragraph 3 of the first amended complaint. 4 I'll be happy to show it to you. A. Well, if you'll just let me know where in 6 the amended complaint it is, what paragraph. 7 Q. Paragraph 3. 8 THE CURT: What's the stamp? 9 MR. WIER: 117, Your Honor. 10 A. Yes, sir, that's part of what I said in 11 paragraph 3. 12 Bl' RR. WII1ER: 13 Q. But there was an allegation that my client 14 is in possession and/or control of the documents? 15 A. In his official capacity as his office is 16 in possession and/or control of documents that are the 17 subject of this action. And in the prior sentence, : 18 quoted Florida Statute 27.03 which provides for the 19 attorney excuse me -- the state attorney to have 20 authority over grand jury proceedings in the state of 21 Florida. 22 Q. Okay. Isn't it also true in the first 23 amended complaint that your client admitted that it is 24 not -- it is not seeking these materials in connection 25 with either a civil or criminal case aad, therefore, 1 2 sought unlimited access to the requested materials under 905.27? 3 4 A. Again, that's a ccqxu.-cl question. I'm not sure which one goes first. 5 6 Q. Isn't it -- If you would look at stamp page 135. 7 8 A. I don't have the stamps in front of All I have is the exhibits, sir. 9 10 Q. Okay. They should be on there, in the bottom left corner. 11 A. Which one is it? 12 13 14 Q. 135. A. Okay. I'm sorry, what is your question, sir? 15 16 17 Q. Didn't you admit on that page that you are not seeking these requested materials in connection with either a civil or criminal case? 18 A. A pending -- Right, that is correct. 19 Q. Okay. 20 21 22 A. The Post was not seeking these documents in apendingcriminal or civil case involving the Post. That is correct. 23 Q. Thank you. And did you also seek unlimited 24 access to those requested materials for that reason? 25 A. No, that's not accurate. 1 2 Q. If you look -- Would you at that IIIII stamp I just provided 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. I believe it's on 5 A. Are you looking at 6 Q. Dh-huh. 7 8 A. -- on Exhibi . Es, I'm looking at that, sir. 9 10 Q. if you would look at 11 Parnench 12 theS ine then, do you see -- one, two, three -- 13 14 down, in the sentence that starts with, 'Because..." 15 16 17 0. Okay. It says, "Because the Palm Beach Post is not seeking these materials in connection with 18 19 20 either a civil or criminal case, it seeks a declaration that the scope of its use of the disclosed materials it not limited." 21 22 A. Right, not limited to a civil or criminal case, but that the Post had the right under section (c) 23 24 25 of 905.27 in furtherance of justice. We were always seeking an in-camera inspection of the documents by the Court prior to any release to the Poet. 1 2 Q. Did that argurmit succeed in your claim against the clerk? 4 5 6 Q. That you had no connection with the civil or criminal case and to get unlimited -- to get unlimited access. 7 8 9 A. Well, again, we weren't seeking unlimited access. As I just mentioned, we were always seeking an in-mina inspection by the Ca= prior to release to us. 10 11 So we were not seeking unlimited access, nor immediate access to the docirrents. 12 13 Q. You weren't -- t, we're going to non on. 14 15 16 Isn't i the other day you testified that you t because you needed him not to object yty t for these materials? 17 18 19 20 A. him not to object? No. I gave him the opport o do actually three things. One is to syl r it request; two, they could have taken a ion; or, three, they could have objected. 21 Initially, the state attorney's office took ion to object, and as I think I testified, they ually changed the position in October of 2020 to trality. 1 filing this lawsuit against my client? 2 3 A. That they adopted a neutrality position? I'm not clear ,that you're asking me. 4 Q. M, no, that you needed him not to object. 5 A. That I needed him not to object? No -- 6 Q. Unless you rented -- 7 8 A. I'm sorry, did I step on you, sir? Q. No, you're fine. 9 A. No. That I needed him not to object? No, 10 11 12 13 I gave the state attorney's office the option to make, in their discretion, to make the decision as to what they wanted to do vis-A-vis grand jury secrecy. And as I stated -- You know, if you look at the paragraph you 14 15 16 17 18 quoted before, that's paragraph 3 of the first wended =plaint, I cite to Florida Statute 27.03, which gives the state attorney the authority over grand juries, and if you lock at the cases cited under 27.03, there are a meter of them which say that the state attorney has 19 20 very, very broad powers in the conduct of a grand jury, 21 22 Q. Thank you, Mt. Mendelsohn. Let's move on. A. Okay. 23 Q. In your long practice as an attorney, is it 24 25 your understanding that clear, Imarbiguous statutory language has to be enforced as written? Which cce? Q. And you believe that's a proper basis for 1 A. Well, there are circumstances where the 2 courts have implied causes of action. That's the famous 3 United States Supreme Court case of fort v. Ash where the 4 Court said that. even if Congress did not specifically 5 authorize a cause of action, that, in certain 6 circumstances, if Congress did not bar such, you could 7 have an implied cause of action. That cores also for B Section 10(b)(5) of the securities laws. 9 Q. Okay, but -- 10 A. And Florida has that, too. 11 Q. All right. But, in your research. you 12 stated that you rant through 905.27, right? Exactly. yes. 14 Q. Okay. And you ear across this language, 15 right? I'm going to read this to you: "libel such 16 disclosure is ordered by a Court pursuant to 17 subsection (1) for use in a civil case, it maybe 18 disclosed to all parties to the case and to their 19 attorneys and by the latter to their legal associates and 20 employees; however, the grand jury testimony afforded 21 such persons by the Court can only be used in the defense 22 or prosecution of the civil or criminal case and for no 23 other purpose whatsoever.' 24 You came across that language when you 25 doing the research, right? 2 3 4 5 A. Absolutely. Q. And do you recall my el as a defence from the beginning, f interaction, first legal filing A. Yes, you made a no that smiss arguing 6 7 B 9 10 11 12 that the Post did not -- Q. wo.21 take A. Wel and I was inte t was a yes or no. ask me if you client did that, t. So the answer - it as a yes cc no. A I finish my answer without 13 14 15 16 17 The answer is, yes, you made a motion to dismds der 905.27 and asserted that the materials could only be used in a civil or criminal case. Of course, we disputed that because of (c), which is the furtherance of justice language. 18 19 20 Q. And did that did that argument -- was this argument successful in your action against the clerk? 21 A It was never addressed by the Court. 22 Q. So you're telling me that 23 never brought up 57 -- or, 905.27 in his final judgexot? 24 25 A. No. I'm suggesting the way you characterize it was not the way Judge Hafele decided. 1 Judge Hafele, in his final judgment, said that he felt 2 constrained by the statute vis-a-vis his inherent 3 authority as a judge. 4 While he wanted as a judge to exercise his 5 inherent authority to allow for disclosure, he felt that 6 the statute constrained him in doing so because it did 7 not expressly so state that it could be used outside of 8 the civil or criminal case. That's what I believe Judge 9 Hafele said. 10 Q. Do you have a ow 4 the final judgment in 11 front of you? 12 A. Yes. 'Fat it. 13 Q. It's tab 3 14 A. Okay 15 Q. All Xor, 1477. 16 A. spacer makes strong arguments 17 to advance 18 sir. No, sir. 19 I'm sorry. 20 No, sir. Let me redirect -- Let me direct 21 first paragraph here under Emphasis Added? Co it says, 'Reading subsection (1)(cl..."? A. Right. Q. Could you read that until the cite for the seadad complaint, please? 1 2 3 4 5 6 A. Right. "Reading subsection (11(c), furthering justice," which is in quotes and parentheses, "in tandem with section (21, it is evident that the phrase, quote, furthering justice, e-4 quote, is to be interpreted in the context of seeking disclosure of the grand jury materials for use in a pending criminal or 7 civil rase.\* 8 9 10 11 Q. my going. A. Yep. "The newspaper acknowledges that it is not seeking the disclosure of such materials for such purpose. Instead" -- 12 Q. Tbat's it. Thank you, Mr. Mendelsohn. 13 A. But it's not the -- 14 15 16 Q. Mt. Mendelsohn -- TIE STENORAPER: I'm sorry, I can't take this. 17 18 CCORT: Gentleman, gentleman, we're here for trial, and you're being cross-examined -- 19 20 21 TICE WTiNESS: Your Honor, maybe, for the rule of completeness, I would like to be able to read the entire sentence. 22 THE COURT: So right now you're testifying. 23 24 It's your witness. What's your next inquiry? 25 PR. WYIfl: manic you, Your Ibnor. May I 1 continue with this final judgment, Your Honor? 2 BY MR. WYLER: 3 Q. I would like you, Mr. Mendelsohn, to flip 4 to page 1479 of that same final judomasit. At the very 5 top of that page, could you read that first sentence for 6 me, too -- for me? 7 A. 'Subsection (2) clearly limits 8 Section 925.27's (sic) scope as to the instances in which 9 grand jury testimony or materials need to be disclosed 10 for use in a criminal or civil case." 11 Q. And then -- You can keep going. 12 A. 'Section (2) provides that, once grand jury 13 testimony is disclosed in the course of a court 14 proceeding, it is then open to unlimited dissemination. 15 Before that otters, the Court must determine that one of 16 the three needs prescribed in section (1) is present in a 17 criminal or civil case that requires disclosure. There's 18 nothing in Section 905.27 that gives the Court carte 19 blanche,' which he has italics, 'authority to release 20 grand jury materials in any situation that might bear 21 some relationship to, quote, furthering justice, end 22 quote, in its broadest sense." 23 Q. 'hank you. All right, so moving on from 24 905.27, in your extensive research of this case, did you 25 also care across Chapter 905.17? 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Sure. Q. Okay, and let me to w, sir. MR. WYLER: This is f -- or, 33 of the Authorities, Your 33. BY MR. WYLER: O. Do you you like me to provide A. It' of attorneys' Q. BY t Mr. Mendelsohn, or would and applerental affidavit costs? have the Authorities binder? don't have the Authorities binder. WYLER: May I approach? THE COURT: Yes. Q. Here's a copy of 905.17. A. Yes, I'm familiar with this provision. Q. Great, okay. And than the very last sentence of that first paragraph, it starts with. •The notes, records and transcriptions..." Would you please read that for the Court? A. I'm not sure where you're directing fre, sir. Q. Let me approach again and show you here. I'm sorry, I didn't have this highlighted for you. Right here, vary last sentence of that 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 first paragraph starts with, The motes..." A. Q. A. Yes. Mill you please read that for the Court? Sure. "The notes, records and transcriptions are confidential and exeunt from the provisions of Section 119.07 subdivision ill and Section 24(a), Article 1 of the State COnstitution, and shall be released by the clerk only upon request by a grand jury for use by the grand jury or on order of the Court pursuant to 905.27.° Q. Thank you, Mt. mho. And do you recall my client asserting defense to your claim as well? A. Yes, Q. And firm and you yourse that Mr. Aronberg a\$ his office have no ability to comply with your declaratory relief claim because they have, on, custody or control of those requested teriale? I'm aware that's your argrent. Q. You're aware that we've made that argument several times, are you? A. Yes, you made a notion to dismiss and a metier for summary judgment. that your client and your made aware several tires 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. And did we also put that argument in our 57.105 decand? Q. Okay. And isn't it true that you and your client have admitted that the clerk is the only one in possession and control of those requested grand jury materials? Q. All right. If I could direct the Court and you, It. Mendelsohn, to tab 20, and it's IIIII stamped 262. A. 262? Yes, sir. Q. And then the second paragraph starts with, "Also..." Can you just read -- Can you just read that first sentence for me? Or I'll just read it here. It says, Also, the clerk, whoadmittedlyMabothpossession and control of the Epstein grand jury materials, has not followed the state attorney's lead in seeking sanction of the Palm Beach Post. It says that in there, correct? A. Well, you didn't read it verbatim, but essentially that's what it says, yes. It also says the clerk's decision -- Q. I didn't ask you what else it says. A. I know, becauseitdoesn'thelpyou. Page 163 Page 165 1 Q. But I didn't ask you that. 1 Q. Okay. would you please flip to our joint 6 civility. 6 Q. Okay, do you -- do you recognize this as a 14 as part of the group, we had discussions as to how we 14 Q. Thank . then, if you flip to the -- 18 Q. Did you attend via Zoos or -- 18 notice for at I fees that was sent along with that 22 Q. Andhavey\*0n ever read the transcript of i if we did not act within the 21-day safe harbor Q. That's right. And that -- Doyou/mowwhen 2 THE CURT: Gentleman, so this is the 2 Eabibit Amber 14? 3 second time, okay? 3 A. :.:- 4 MR. MR: Thank you, Your Baer. 4 Q. It's also found at IIIII stamp 232. 5 DEB COURT: Let's maintain a little 5 7 BY MR. WYLER: 7 copy of my client's 57.105 demand letter and a copy of 8 Q. Mr. Mendelsohn, in your extensive 8 the email when it was sent to you? 9 involvement in this case. how did you contribute to the 9 A. Yes, I do. 10 Jima 3rd, 2020, motion to dismiss hearing? 10 Q. And what dry was it sent to you? 11 A. How did I? 11 A. June 8th -- 12 Q. Yeah, or did you? 12 Q. Okay. 13 A. I didn't argue the motion, but certainly, 13 A. -- of 2020 15 thought it should be argued, the potential arguments from 1.5 peat the letter, 's IIII stamp 235. 16 the state attorney's office and what we thought would 16 A. 17 occur. 17 Q. you r. Do you recognize this as the 19 A. Yes -- 19 mod• or, with that 57.105 demand? 20 Q. Okay. 20 A. Well, it wasn't a action. It was an 21 A. -- : did. 21 option that you were suggesting would 23 it? 57.105. 24 A Sete time ago, yes. 4 25 Q. Okay, so then you were aware of this motion for attorneys' fees was actually filed? Page 166 3 performance for the records that 3 Q. If I told you July 1, 2020, does that sound 6 statements as to an Lgws lity of Mr. Arlberg being 6 Q. Okay. And is that core than 21 days after 11 knowl what the state attorney's possession 11 Q. If you look at -- I quoted in our -- In the A. No. It wasn't necessary. 25 Q. Can you tell me anywhere in there there's a A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. lbe demand letter that's Exhibit 16? No, no, no. Still on 14. 14. IIIII stag) 233. 233? Yes. Okay. Do you see where the 57.105 1 Marx's statements, the ones that I read 1 A. July, the beginning of July of 2020, I 2 in my opening statement regarding the of 2 believe. 4 A. I know she said t, yes. 4 correct to you? 5 Q. Okay. Did you Marx's 5 Yes, it does. 7 able to ccaply? 7 June 8th, 2020? 8 A. I t her st is as complete dicta 8 A. Yes. 9 since they we fore her as a question co the 9 Q. It's 23 days beyond, my mach. 10 action to d not know what personal 10 A. I have no reason to doubt that. 12 or . So I did not credit it as being 12 57.105 demmod, you'll see a quote of the Chapter 57.105 13 a dicta statement from her. 13 subsection (1). 14 So you or your fin, no one objected to 14 A. What are you referring to now? 15 those statements then, correct? 15 Q. Do you see in my -- the 57.105 demand 16 A. There wasn't -- I'm not sure %tat you're 16 letter, still Exhibit 14? 17 referring to. 17 18 Q. Was there any objections made to any of 18 19 those statements made -- objection or appeals made as to 19 20 those statements sade on the record in that hearing? 20 21 A. I don't follow, because you don't make 21 22 objections to a judge's amieuts. 22 23 Q. Well, through an appeal, you would. Did 23 statute's quoted there in the middle of the page? 24 you file an appeal as to that motion to dismiss? 24 A. Yes. 1 good faith element? 2 A. No, because you didn't quote the good faith 3 element of the statute. 4 Q. In subsection (1), is there a good faith 5 element? 6 A. I believe there is a good faith element 7 that wraps =Lind the entire proceeding of 57.105. 8 Q. Okay, but in subsection 1 itself, is there 9 a good faith element in that subsection? 10 A. No, but there's an additional good faith 11 provision in 57.105 that you didn't cite to in this 12 letter. 13 Q. Okay. Now, are you referring to 57.105 14 subsection 4? I can show you the statute. 15 A. Let rre just check here. I'm looking at my 16 letter of Jun 23rd. 57.105(3)(a), that's utat I was 17 referring to. 18 Q. Okay. All right. And, now, we talked 19 stout this before. Can you -- 57.105(3)(a), can you read 20 absentia (a) for the Court? 21 A. I don't have 57.105. I have my letter 22 which -- 23 Q. I can hand it to you. 24 A. Sure. 25 Q. Yeah, absolutely. 1 A. Thank you. 2 Q. You're welcome. 3(a) 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 A. 'Notwithstanding mmetary sanctions nay not be paragraph (1)(b) if the Coat de or defense was initially ted to the Court as a good faith argurrent for the codification or reversal of exist establishment of new law as it is appli it applied to the material facts for the Cation of success; (b), under section' -- 'under paragraph (1)(a) or against a losing party's attorney, if he o in good faith based am the rep tions of his or her client as to the existence of material facts; (c), under' - and (2), under that the claim 16 17 Q. I just -- I just needed you to reed (a). Thank you. 18 A. II, I wasn't sure. 19 20 21 Q. So under (3)(a), does that apply to subsection (1)(a) of the statute, or does it only say (1)(b) there? 22 23 24 25 A. No, if you look at (3)(a) -- if you look at (3)(b), it says, under paragraph (1)(a) or paragraph (1)(b) against a losing party's attorney if he or she has acted in good faith. 1 You're seeking fees against oryself and -- 2 3 4 4. A. No, no. -- and Greenberg attorneys, so I read that as being applicable. 5 6 7 Q. Mr. Nmadelsohn, you're skipping down to -- That's not what I asked you. 57.105(3)(a), does that apply to 57.105(1)(a)? Does it say it in the statute? 8 9 MS. AFETSPONE: Objection, calls for a legal conclusion. 10 11 MR. NYLER: No. I'm just asking him to read it. 12 13 14 15 16 A. It doesn't say under 131(a), but I don't remember the case r or not, when you're suing both the the lawyer under 57.105, that both of then • argument of geed faith. BY YR. WYIER:'14/ 17 18 19 20 Q. t 0Orrect me if I'm wrong, it did say, under paragraph (la), if the Court determines that the claim or &dense was initially presented to the Court as argument? 21 (1) Ibl has good faith in it as well, yes. 1 from that. I believe the Court understands what I'm 2 saying. 3 So back to that 57.105 demand letter. 4 5 6 Isn't it true in that demand letter that we asserted that your client's declaratory relief claim is not supported by the material facts to establish it? 9 A. That's what the state attorney asserted. 10 Q. Yes, sir, okay. And, in making that 11 12 13 14 assertion, didn't he say that neither him or his office has custody or control of those records and that's it's impossible for him to provide then? He made that known to you in that letter? 15 A. That's what he said, yes. 16 Q. Okay. Didn't that letter also say that 17 18 your client's declaratory relief claim is unsupported by the application of the law to those facts? 19 20 A. Well, in a conclusory way, yes, but not in any specifics as to thy we were wrong. 21 22 Q. Well, then maybe you should keep looking at that because, if you flip to the second page of that 23 24 57.105 daand letter, do you see Section 905.27(2) quoted as the reason for that assertion? 25 A. Yes, but if you recall, there was more -- . It doesn't say (1)(a) in there, does it? A. I'm confused now as to %tat you're asking No offense. Q. Mr. Mendelsolm, that's okay. I'll more on A. That's %tat you say, yes. Q. Okay, we made that assertion, yes? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Thank you. A. -- there was more than one argument you were making and rore than ore arament we were making. Q. A review of this letter makes crystal clear -- sorry. All right. Okay, let's go to tab comber 16. A. Yes. Q. Do you recognize this as the letter where you rejected our 57.105 demand? A. Yes. Q. Can I direct you to the very last paragraph of that letter? A. For these reasons, he decline' -- Q. No, sir. NO, sir. I'll point you. The very last paragraph of this letter, it starts with, °Also A. That's actually -- Q. II, no, I'm sorry, as the second page. I didn't need that one. That's actually the penultirate -- Then we'll start with the penultimate A. Q. paragraph on 245 -- A. Right, I see that, yes. It starts, Also Q. First sentence, plume. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Also assuming the state a have physical possession of the grand there is nothing in Florida law attorney fran requesting the cle state attorney.' Do you wan Q. No, sir. to keep reading? Hut I would like to s, the state es to the redirect your at on, ag9n back to 905.17 and that statement that earlier. It says, ill\* notes, records ri are confidential and exept from the of Section 119.07(1) and Section le 1 of the State Constitution and by the clerk only on request by a grand jury fb5use by the grand jury or on order of the Ccurt pursuant to Section 905.27." A. Right, I'm familiar with that. Q. Okay. A. And that section refers to the clerk, not to the state attorney. Q. Thank you. Exactly. !bank you. A. So there's nothing to prohibit the state attorney in this statute fran asking the clerk for these materials. Q. All right, isn't there a big difference between getting access from the clerk for materials and 1 disclosing the materials? Isn't there a difference 2 between that? 3 A. I don't understand what you're asking. 4 O. I'll ask you again. Isn't there a 5 difference between accessing the materials and being able 6 to disclose the materials? 7 A. Once the clerk provides -- 8 Q. No, no, no. It's a yes or no question. 9 A. Ibiza I don't understand what you're asking 10 me, to be honest with you. 11 O. Is there -- Is a difference between 12 saying, Bey, may I please records, versus 13 saying, Here you go, , Newspaper? 14 A. Well, -- what you'reaskingme 15 is a twofold quest 16 Q. 17 difference 18 19 di 20 s 21 question. Is there a and disclosure? you access something, it's don't understand what you're asking me, ly don't. Mr. Mendelsohn, I'm sorry, and I do not have -- I do not want to asks the Court angry, ve got to stop talking over each other. I'm you a simple question. You stated here that Mr. Arenberg could get 1 access to these records through the Oaurt -- through the 2 clerk, correct? 3 A. He could ask the clerk for them, and I 4 didn't -- and I argued that there was nothing in the 5 statute prohibiting him from asking the clerk for the 6 clerk to give his office these docarents, yes, sir. 7 Q. Okay, sure. Okay, thank you. And so let's 8 just say that happened. 9 A. Okay. 10 Q. The clerk gives -- It. Arenberg asks the 11 clerk for the records and the clerk gives them to him. 12 A. Okay. 13 Q. That's not what you asked for in your 14 lawsuit, is it? 15 A. Yes, of course it is. 16 Q. It. Mendelsohn, did you not -- does not 17 your complaint request the complete -- the disclosure of 18 these records fres my client? 19 A. But -- 20 Q. You asked -- Did you ask in your lawsuit 21 for my client to hand these records over? 22 A. No, no. 23 Q. No? Okay. 24 A. No, because be had asked for the records to 25 be examined by the °curt in camera before they were ever 1 to be disclosed to the public. In fact, we stated in the 2 myriad complaint that the Court should review such 3 documents and redact anything that would identify 4 witnesses or potential witnesses or those who were not 5 charged with a crime. 6 So it's inaccurate for you to suggest that 7 the paper just wanted it handed to them. That was never 8 the case. 9 Q. Okay. Let's look back at your complaint. 10 It's tab number 9. We're going to look at IIIII stamp 11 136, and we're going to look at your wherefore clause. 12 A. Tab 9, you say? 13 Q. Yes. 14 A. 136? 15 Q. Yes. 16 A. I see it. 17 Q. Okay. 18 A. \*Wherefore, the Post -- the Palm Beach Post 19 respectfully requests that the Court determine the rights 20 and obligations of the parties by declaring that, 21 pursuant to Florida Statute Section 905.27(1)(c) and the 22 Ccurt's inherent authority, the Palm Beach Post may gain 23 access to the testimony, minutes and other evidence 24 presented in 2006 to the Palm Beach aunty grand jury 25 use those materials for the purpose of informing 1 public.\* 2 3 4 Q. Okay, thank you. And that you're asking for the Palm to the testimony; is that correc 5 A. Yes, after the 6 camera. 7 8 Q. How else unless it was disclosed to to testimony 10 not. L(.7 11 following idiat you're asking me, 12 I'm 13 Would you please look at tab J17. 14 15 Q. Dave Aronberg's motion for attorneys' fees? Uh-huh. 16 A. 17 Q. Okay. It's at MI stamp 247. 18 19 A. 2020. Right. This is the one you made on July 1, 20 Q. Correct. And we went through that. 21 22 Before, you said that was filed at least 21 days after you received the 57.105 demand, correct? 23 A. Well, you said it was 23, and I ay.ved with 24 you. A. 1 A. Right. 2 Q. Thank you. So, if I give you this -- Let 3 me give you this 57.105 statute again and ask you to look 4 at subsection (4) for me. 5 A. Okay. 6 Q. And if could you reed that to the Court. 7 Thank you. 8 A. "A motion by a party seeking sanctions 9 under this section must be served bit may not be filed 10 with or presented to the Court unl ss, within 21 days 11 after service of the motion, the lenged paper, claim, 12 defense, contention, allegat al is not 13 withdrinm or appropriate 14 Q. Thank you and your client did not 1.5 withdraw the claim relief within that 16 21 days after correct? 17 A. . And then let me have you look 19 at -- or, our Exhibit Mater 23. 20 Plaintiff -- Yes, the notice of dropping 21 Dave Arenberg cc October 21st, 2020, that you want me to look at? Q. Yes, that's right. Yep. And that's the te it was filed, October 21, 2020; is that what you said? 1 A. 2 3 Q. Okay. And is that filing date more than 21 days beyond when you were served with the 57.105? 5 Q. Pb, I'm not. I asked you a question. 6 A. I cannot answer that question, I can't -- A. You're confusing a lot of things there. 7 Q. Okay. 8 A. -- because it's making a number of 9 assumptions that are inaccurate. 10 Q. No, no, no. That was one simple question. 11 When were you served with the 57.105 demand? 12 A. Which one? 13 Q. No, no, no. You were only served with one 14 57.105 demand. 15 A. That's correct. 16 Q. Okay. I'm just asking which one. 17 A. Right. I wanted you to pin down what you 18 did. 19 O. Okay, you %ere served with one 57.105 20 demand. 21 22 Q. What day was that? 23 A ?he. \_ester has June 8th, 2020. 24 Q. Okay. And this -- And that gave you 25 21 days from that date to change your position; is that 1 correct? A. The statute gave me that, yes. 3 Q. Okay. And then when did you actually 4 change your position and drop Mr. Aronbeng? 5 A. We dropped Yr. Aronberg -- khan you say 6 changed position, I don't ;cow what you're referring to. 7 Ye dropped Mx. Aronberg as a defendant in this case an 8 October 21, 2020. 9 Q. Okay, and October 21, 2020, is more than 10 21 days after June 8th, 2020, right? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Okay. So then that fits with the statutory 13 language then, correct, of what that 21-day -- it gives 14 you 21 days to withdraw, and you didn't withdraw within 15 21 days, correct? The statute, 57.105 subsection (4), 16 gives you 21 days to withdraw the alleged -- 17 A. You are confusing a number of thirgs that 18 are happening, so I cannot answer that question. You're 19 assming certain things that are not accurate, so I 20 cannot answer your question in the manner you put it to 21 22 Q. Mr. Mendelsohn, it's very simple. I'm just 23 trying to establish that that -- that you filed your drop 24 cure -- you dropped the claim against Mr. Aronberg 25 outside of the 21-day safe-harbor period, correct? ACir 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 it. Yes, that is the position. Q. Can you tell me, after dropping Mr. Aronberg from the lawsuit, bow your position -- how your client's position could have changed if they were served with another letter being that he was already out of the lawsuit? A. Well, that's the problem you have because you served this motion without giving us the safe-harbor, the amended motion I'm referring to, as well as the fact that you served it after we him. For jurisdictional purposes, you can do that. O. SW could I a safe-harbor if you had alreadydropped the t? A. Mr. Myl all due respect, you're actually raking my .ich is that 57.105 is not applicable hi' case. Q. is no longer part of the I guess we just have differing 19 vf to interpret that statute, Mr. Mendelsohn. 20 • All right, I just have a few more questions 21 \ack Sure. Q. I'd like W go -- I think I'd like to go to that final judgment. That was tab 30. A. Okay. A\ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. But you never moved - notion on the first motion you made fg(fegs. Q. Okay. A. That's not before So re confusing a safe-harbor for something you' roved on versus dropping }our client as fendant after something else happened. Q. A. Q. 're nixing two things together. I believe you are. deny, so is it your that, attar you dropped Dave sot, that -- He's not a client. After -- /s it your position that, after you dropped Dave Arcrberg as a party free this lawsuit, it's your position that, after you dropped him, that another 57.105 demand letter should have been sent to you? A. Q. You didn't give us -- Just answer my question. After you dropped Aronberg from this lawsuit, is it your position that you should have been served with another 57.105 demand letter? A. Yes. You didn't =ply with 57.105 for your amended motion for 57.105. You did not comply with 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. All right, all right, I'mm=4th\* 1473, and I'm at the top of that page, that first sentence. A. The clerk's position? Is that what you're reading from? Q. Yes, yes. That's correct. A. "The clerk's position is that he is merely a custodian of the materials, and, as such, he has no real interest in the issues before the Court as identified. The cleric only needs direction from the Court on whether or not he should produce or disclose the materials. Nonetheless, the clerk has zealously advocated the position against disclosure based upon grand jury secrecy and confidentiality because Rule 2.420(d)(1)(8)(xvii) of the Florida Rules of General Practice and Judicial Administration, the clerk is required to maintain the confidentiality of grand jury records." Q. Yes, will you read the next paragraph, too, please? A. The clerk is correct that his role as custodian of the materials is only to follow the Court's direction once confidentiality is determined. The clerk's role in this proceeding has been complicated or expanded because the newspaper filed this action as a 1 civil declaratory judgment action and has moved for 2 gunnery judgment under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 3 1.510. However, the proper procedure for obtaining 4 disclosure of confidential Court records is set forth in 5 Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial 6 Administration 2.420(j) which only requires the filing of 7 a, quote, motion, end quote, seeking disclosure, Florida 8 Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 9 2.420(j)(2)." 10 Want re to keep going? 11 Q. Yeah, just to the very end of that next 12 sentence, please. 13 A. "Accordingly, the Court will treat the 14 newspaper's complaint and motion for smeary judgment as 15 a notion for disclosure under Rule 2.42' -- excuse me -- 16 "2.420(j). As a result, the Court need not deterx:re as 17 a matter of law whether the clerk of the Court is a 18 proper defendant to the declaratory judgment for the 19 release of the grand jury materials." 20 Q. Thank you. All right. 21 A. I'm sorry. was there a qastion? 22 Q. No. There's going to be. Just one second. 23 When you filed this lawsuit, were you 24 familiar with Rule 2.420 of the Rules of Judicial 25 Administration? A. Absolutely. 2 Q. Then why didn't you jus it a ton like 3 the rule says -- says you're want 4 confidentialCourtrecordsand t instead? 5 A. First off, the rul actually say 6 that. It says you may f a motion in a pending 7 criminal or civil p there wasn't a 8 pending criminal evil p , we didn't view that 9 motion as be ry to be rade. 10 issue is before the Faith Da at 11 the pr and the clerk's taken the position in 12 its hat Rule 4 -- 2.420 is ambiguous and 13 t that needs to be position is 14 mm And, in fact, the clerk's position is now 15 that the Supreme Court must reassess how one would seek 16 grand jury materials. 17 That was in their answer brief, which I'd 18 be happy to provide to the Court along with our initial 19 brief and reply brief, which extensively discusses 20 Rule 2.420, but also argue that the clerk has now adopted 21 a position of neutrality when it cones to the release of 22 the grand jury materials. In its answer brief, it says 23 it no longer opposes release of the materials. 24 Q. Okay. 1 Q. Thank you, /tr. Mendelsohn. 2 In the Court's final judgment, however, it 3 does say, which you just read to the Court, the proper 4 procedure for obtaining disclosure of ccofidential 5 records is set forth in Florida Rule of General Practice 6 and Judicial Adednietratico 2.420(j), which only requires 7 the filing of a notion seeking disclosure; is that 8 correct? 9 A. Yes, but at this tire, the state attorney 10 was not a party, and, in fact, the state attorney has 11 never made any amprect under Ru 2.420 in this case. 12 It has never made such an a 13 Q. But you f t rule before you 14 filed this lawsuit? 15 A. Righ erk rade this argrent 16 after we attorney from this case. That 17 was the firs' clerk had rade such. The clerk 18 rade this a the rule was applicable in 19 our motion for au:Teary judgant which r the state attorney had been dropped from 20 21 So this was not an issue in the case either use your client did not raise it, the clerk did not ise it, and it was not before the Court until after your client was no longer a party. So it was net an 1 issue that either you addressed or we addressed as part 2 of your demand that we withdraw the case. 3 Q. But you still knew about it before you 4 filed the lawsuit, right? You haw about that rule? A. Of course. Of course. 6 Q. All right, last question for you: Isn't it 7 true that your client's goal in obtaining these records 8 from my client was for public disclosure? Was that your 9 end goal? 10 A. After the Court examined them in camera and 11 removed witness identification or people who hadn't been 12 indicted, that was actually discussed very musk: 13 extensively in the oral argirrent before Judge Hafele, 14 and, in fact, he asked us particularly if I were -- and 15 using Judge Hafele's words -- inclined to release these 16 materials to the newspaper and the public -- it wasn't 17 just the paper; it was simultaneously to the pcblic -- 18 how would I go about redacting them? Would I need to 19 have someone else, a , possibly review them? How 20 would I go about doing it? 21 And we had about a half hour's worth of 22 discussion as to how to accomplish that if he were 23 inclined to grant disclosure. So that absolutely was an 24 issue before Judge Hafele. 1 the final goal to have these requested grand jury 2 materials be able to be disclosed to the public? 3 A. Absolutely. 4 O. Okay. And that was without any connection 5 to any underlying civil or criminal case, correct? 6 A. If you're asking me whether or not the Post 7 was part of a civil or criminal case pending at the time, 8 no, it was rot. 9 Q. You did not -- Did you request these 10 records as part of a pending civil or criminal case? A. Involving the Post? No -- MR. MILER: Thank you. No further questions. A. -- ocher than this lawsuit. 7HE COURT: Thank you. Redirect examination. REDIRECT EDDIMIlaTICN 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 BY MS. WHETSTCNE: 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Good afternoon, Kr. 14mndelsohn. A. Yes. Q. Mr. Wyler asked you to read a sentence in the amended complaint -- A. Yes. O. -- and I'd like to dram your attention that, and it's kchibit 9. I'm going to look at 1 paragraph 3. 2 A. Yes, I have that in f 3 Q. Can you read the en 4 please? 5 A. Yes, I'd be happy 6 'Defendant ve Arenberg is the duly 7 elected State Attorney h Judicial District in 8 and for Palm y, rida, pursuant to Florida 9 Statute Secti and has authority in grand jury 10 proceedi g t Florida Statute Section 27.03. 11 He is •fficial capacity as his office is in 12 posseae control of dacurents that are the is action.' So, and I'm actually going to compare -- 15 MS. NEE15-DDNE: And it's on the screen for 16 Your Honor, too, if that's easier to see. 17 BY MS. WHEDM-PDNE: 18 Q. But we're going to look at paragraph 4 next 19 because paragraph 4 names the clerk; is that correct? 20 21 Q. Could you read paragraph 4, please? 22 A. Yes. "Defendant Sharon R. Bock is the duly 23 elected clerk and comptroller of Palm Beach County, 24 Florida. She is sued here in her official capacity as 25 her office is in phnnennion and/or control of docurents 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 :3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 that are the subject of this action.' Q. So comparing those two paragraphs, was the clerk named in a different capacity as the state attorney in paragraph 3? A. Yes, because, in paragraph 3, I cited to Florida Statute 27.03, which is the broad grant of authority to state attorneys to supervise and conduct grand jury investigations, and that's really what the situation involved in this case. Q. So you set asrth amended complaint that the state attorney was having authority over grand jury proceedings; 1 correct? A. Yes. Q. Was the in the first complaint that was 2019? A. Q. ahead and pull that up. EE: And, Gerard, if you don't t's Fachibit 4. And, while you're turning to that, was the y named in its official capacity as having on? A. Yes, that is correct. I'm looking at paragraph 3 of the original complaint dated 11/14/2019, Page 190 1 and it appears that paragraph 3 appears the sane. 2 Q. And let's go ahead and blow that up just so 3 we can close the loop CO this. 4 Paragraph 3 of the original complaint is 5 the same as the amended complaint; is that correct? 6 A. Yes. Both of them cite to Section 27.03 7 Florida Statutes creating jurisdiction by the state 8 attorney over all grand juries within their particular 9 judicial district. 10 Q. So the state attorney was named -- never 11 named solely because he might have possession, custody -- 12 or custody of the grand jury records from the Epstein 13 grand jury laViNitigatiOn; is that correct? 14 A. That is correct. The primary reason was 15 because the state attorney has such authority over the 16 grand jury process in this judicial district. 17 Now, granted, Mr. Arenberg was not the ore 18 who canducted the Jeffrey Epstein grand jury proceeding. 19 Nevertheless, wp didn't sue Mr. Arenberg in his 20 individual capacity, only in his official capacity 21 because he's the successor to State Attorney Krischer. 22 Q. Was there any case law cited in the amended 23 complaint -- We'll go back to Exhibit 9, please -- any 24 case law cited in the amended complaint dealing with the 25 state attorney's official capacity as the protector of 1 the grand jury system? 1 2 A. You mean paragraph 3? 2 3 Q. Yes. 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 A. No, I didn't cite to it because it was 4 clear to anyone who looked at Florida Statute 27.03, they 5 would see a litany of cases describing the authority of the state attorney over the grand juries in their judicial district. So it was obvious that -- what he were getting at. 9 10 11 Q. You cited the statute that gives the state 10 attorney power over the grand jury? 11 12 13 14 A. Corneas, yes. In fact, there are cases 12 that say that, under this statute, that the grand jury is 13 essentially the arm of the -- of the state attorney. 14 15 16 Q. And now that we're back on the amended 15 complaint, I'll direct your attention to paragraph 21 -- 16 17 sorry -- page 21, wherein there is the wherefore clause. 17 18 Mr. Wyler had you read from one of the 18 19 20 wherefore clauses, but I wanted to ask about the 19 wherefore clause on page 21 -- 20 6 and I respect Judge Marx. She's a very, very seasoned 8 She determined that, under 905.27, that 22 Q. -- and you had said that you had requested 23 an in-camera inspection. Actually, could I just ask you 24 to read this wherefore clause? 25 A. Sure. "The 2alm Beach Post reufec. 1 requests that this Court, pursuant to Flo 2 Section 905.27(1) and the Court's in ty, 3 order the state attorney and cle to file 4 with this Court files of testi and other 5 evidence presented in 2006 to ch County grand 6 jury during the first Je Epstein sex abuse 7 investigation so that, fo in-camera inspection, 8 it can be nark avateble to Palm Beach Post and the 10 further ' or 1 relief the Court deems just 11 and pr 12 Jo( in the amended complaint, did you 13 -care inspection? 14 In fact, in our motion for sumer,/ judgment 15 that we made before Judge Hafele, there's a %bole section 16 on that. 17 Q. And Pt. Wyler asked you about the 18 transcript -- the hearing before Judge Marx and that 19 transcript, and during that hearing, Amiga Marx made 20 comments about possession and custody of the grand jury 21 records by the state attorney. 22 I wanted to ask you about the order on that 23 motion to dismiss. The order was Exhibit 15. public on an basis, and grant such other and 21 Yes. almeists that Kr. Wyler read? A. No, she did not. That's why I believe that they were dicta. Q. And what did Judge Marx's order rule? A. She ruled on a very narrow area, which -- and reasoned jurist. there was not a private cause of action, and that, because it was not a private cause, of action, we could not utilize that statute to seek grand jury materials. We disagreed wit and that is the subject of the appeal. Q. So final judgment that was entered by Judge is -- A. Q. t 30, yes -- -- It. Wyler asked you to read Iran page 7, number ending 1477. Q. And I'm going to ask you to go ahead and that paragraph, or read the whole paragraph if you like. A. Right. "The newspaper makes strong 1 arguments to advance its more expansive construction of 2 Section 905.27 as part of, quote, furthering justice, 3 unquote. Unquestionably, the established matters 4 sinnxinding Mr. Epstein's conduct, the circumstances of 5 his resolution of the 2006 state charges and potential 6 federal charges and his guilty plea and 7 incarceration are matters of public interest, and 8 disclosure of the materials may arguably fall within the 9 concept of, quote, furthering justice, end quote, in the 10 broadest social sense of the phrase." 11 Should I keep going, or not? 12 Q. I think that's fine for now. 13 Were there other portions of the final 14 judgment that you wanted to discuss and needed to finish? 15 Did the -- 16 A. Well -- 17 Q. Go ahead, sorry. 18 A. I take issue with the state attorney's 19 assertion that this was only about possession and 20 custody. Me were asserting that the Cant has inherent 21 authority over the grand jury process and that inherent 22 authority superseded or was preeminent over the statute, 23 905.27. 'that is wiry we gave the state attorney the 24 opportunity to participate in this case, because we felt 1 the public to hear a voice for secrecy. And 2 the state attorney availed himself of that opportunity. 3 Now, on appeal, we are of the belief that 4 the Court has such inherent authority and that the 5 Court's inherent authority is, as I say, superior to the 6 statute. There are federal cases %rich say that, and 7 there are state cases which say that. And, in fact, the B Florida Supreme Court's case -- actually it's a Fifth DCA 9 case in Clayton says that, where a state attorney may 10 have abused his authority with the grand jury -- It's not 11 Mr. Krischer, and it's not Kr. Arenberg, so I'm not 12 suggesting they are -- but, in that case, it was the 13 Fifth DCA who said that, I don't care what the statute 14 says, the Court has authority to control ahme% of the 15 grand jury process, and ultimately that's why we're here. 16 We believe that we've laid out a very 17 detailed factual and legal reason why we think the prior 18 state attorney abused his authority. How did he do so? 19 By obtaining materials from the defense team that 20 undermined the credibility of the witness and the victim 21 before the grand jury. We assert that in paragraph 22 of 22 the amended complaint. It states that in there. And, if 23 you look at the exhibits, you'll see that. 24 We now know, based upon the Department o 25 Justice, tte U.S. Department of Justice's report. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the clerk's office in Palm Beach County reported secret grand jury materials al goverment without a court order, apparently to Mr. Aronberg's off or t We public. Now, why they did r what authority they did that, 't know. Now, whether they asked Mr. )(Tischer or wile tad during the time of the U.S. rney's [erections with the state attorney, Mr. s office, we don't know that either. that they have been disclosed. Q a; 're trying to get those materials We want the public to have those materials. Right. Ntt me. Q. The public. A. The public. The Post is only a conduit fo. the public. That's what the media is under the First ?merriment. Without the media acting as the conduit for the public, the public does not have the authority, the time or the resources to inform the public of what's going to happen. Imagine if Joe Public or Jane Public came and brought this lawsuit. WOuld it have gone anywhere? No. Thank God for the First Amendmmtt that the Post has 1 2 3 important. 4 THE CCCRT: You are. So let's move on. 5 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 6 BY MS. WHETS1tt'E 7 Q. Thank you, Mr. Mendelsohn. Now let's go 8 back to the demand, the first motion for sanctions that 9 was that one-page motion, and that was served on 10 June 8th, 2020. 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. And the demand tidbit 14. 13 Yes. 14 Q. And Mt. asked you smae questions 15 about the letter that was with that motion and 16 wasthe basis for cos motion that was attached 17 dealing with possess or custody of the grand jury 18 materials by attorney's office. 19 I'm sorry, I don't understand your 20 21,t\_ Sure. He had asked you whether there was a the first motion for fees, and the basis is set in this enclosure letter; is that correct? A. Right. Their position was that the Statute, 905.27, and -- yes, 905.27 did not provide a the right constitutionally to seek these materials. I know I'm going off on a tangent, but it's 1 private right of action, yes. 2 Q. So 905.27, that statute is not the claim 3 that we're here on today, correct? 4 A. That is correct. Count I was broader than 5 that. 6 Q. And, when it cares to -- Mr. Wyler said 7 something about possession or custody of the state 8 attorney. He referenced that the state attorney does not 9 have possession or custody in this letter, correct? 1: A. Correct. 11 Q. But the reason for naming the state 12 attorney in the complaint, the initial complaint and the 13 amended complaint, was broader than his own possession or 14 custody? 15 A. Correct. As the entity charged by Florida 16 law with the supervision of the grand jury proceeding, 17 that included as well the protection of grand jury 18 secrecy, and we need him in his official capacity, if he 19 so chose, to protect grand jury secrecy, which he did in 20 a notion to dismiss and the =kin for sugary judgment 21 he filed opposing the release of the materials to the 22 public. 23 Q. So that first motion for fees was filed 24 July 1st, 2020; is that correct? 25 A. The first motion, yes. 1 2 4 5 7 8 sanctions which was filed November 9th, 2020; is that 9 correct? 10 A. Co . And, in fact, the amended motion 11 and the notice of hearing does not mention the first cc\* 12 iron July of 2020. 13 Q. So you never got a notice of hearing that 14 set the original first -- July 1st, 2020, notice for fees 15 for hearing; is that correct? 16 A. That is correct, yes. 17 Q. And you never got a copy via mail or fax or 18 hard copy of the amended motion for fees filed 19 November 9th prior to the time it was filed, correct? 20 A. That is correct. We weren't given the 21 21-day safe harbor. 22 Q. Why did you -- Why did the Poet decide to 23 drop the state attorney +den it did? 24 A. The state attorney's position changed f 25 OCR of opposition to the release of the grand jury Q. Yes. And did the state attorney ever set that motion, original motion for fees for hearing? A. sever. 3 Q. And we are not here on that first motion; 4 is that correct? 5 A. Correct. They never set it for a hearing. 6 Q. So we're here on the amended motion for 7 1 materials to one of neutrality. Once the 2 Woe the state attorney changed the the 3 Post re-evaluated Mather or not in in the 4 case, and xe determined that he d 1>e from 5 the case. 6 Q. At that point, had the Post accomplished 7 everything that it needed from the state attorney in the 8 amended complaint 9 A. s. had given him the opportunity to 10 voice obj r jection. He originally voiced 11 object changed it to neutrality. That was 12 his deer there was nothing further that needed 13 t 14 And, at that point, when the Post decided 15 to dismiss the state attorney on October 21st, 2020, had 16 the Post accomplished everything that was set forth in 17 your June 23rd, 2020, letter, those three reasons? 19 A. Yes. Vb had given the state attorney his 19 opportunity to be heard, and he took it and then decided 20 he no lancer needed it. 21 Q. And, finally, the -- you mentioned that the 22 final judgment on Count 1 regarding declaratory relief is 23 currently on appeal. Cost I is, yes. 25 Q. And does the state attorney need to be 1 2 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 need in that appeal? A. No. Q. Why not? A. Well, the appeal was taken on Octet 1 as you say. ()stint 1 had a nu7ber of elements associated with it. That's the declaratory judgment provision. It asserted that, under the First Amendment, both the U.S. Constitution and the Florida Constitution that the Post had standing or the right to seek these grand jury materials, and the statute was lernentary to that First Amendeent right by the 1a. ge in the statute, 905.27, of it being in furt We also as inherent authority appellate court we conflict with authority So there were el justice. that The Court had 905.27. If the that 905.27 was in thority, that the Court's to 905.27. So if it's unclear - r of elements, a constituticnal Court's ccnstituticnal inherent authority as the Florida Supreme Court and that we the reading of the statute that read out in of justice or tied it exclusively to a ng civil or criminal case •was too narrow a reading the statute. Q. So the state attorney has stated his 1 affirmative non-objection to the clerk releasing the 2 grand jury materials from the Jeffrey Epstein case if 3 ordered by the Court? A. Yes. That :as xity we &Lipped the state 5 attorney. 6 O. co October 14th -- 7 A. Correct, yes. 8 Q. -- that vas the first time he filed that 9 affirmative statement -- 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. -- that be didn't object? 12 A. That's absolutely right, yes. 13 Q. And the clerk no longer objects to the 14 release of the grand jury materials if ordered by the 15 Court in the Furth DCA appeal? 16 A. Yes. In their answer brief, the clerk took 17 the position that it had no opposition at all to the 18 release of the materials, utich was contrary to the 19 position they took against our motion for stranary 20 judgment. 21 MS. WEINIXNE: No further questions. 22 THE CCCRT: Is this witness excused? 23 THE WITNESS: Thank you, sir. 24 MS. ATEMIME: Yes. 25 THE CURT: All right, thank you, sir. 1 MS. Nrobto.tra If I may approach, I'll 2 take the exhibit binder. 3 THE WITNESS: These are for Mr. Wyler. 4 Thank you. 5 THE CUJRT: Next •witness. 6 MR. WYLER: May we call a rebuttal witness? 7 MS. WE15-DINE: Your Honor, there's no 8 rebuttal witness listed on the -- 9 MR. WYLER: Well, as to the statements that 10 Yr. Mendelsohn said at the beginning denying the 11 conversation where he, you know, put it on us to 12 -- you know, he said that he would hold the filing 13 of an article while settlement negudations were 14 pending. 15 MS. Vutia LW: And, Your Honor, those 16 settlement discussions were never entered into 17 evidence, never e•.en atterpted to enter into 18 evidence, and we object to those being entered 19 into evidence now. 20 WE COURT: Settlement negotiations are 21 excluded by statute. All right, so no. 22 MR. WYLER: Okay. 23 FLS. VutioLUNE: Thank you, Your Honor. 24 THE WJRT: Is there anything else? 25 W. WYLER: Other than -- No, Your Honor. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 please? 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE 07JYT: Okay. Then, I guess, parties have rested at this point? MS. WALTSICNE: I was going Hera: wanted copies of the appea the reply that had been filed in the CUJRT: It's n evidence, no. MS. WNETSITXZE: -movant rests. THE COURT: right So everybody's rested. I ha joint - have just a moment, I'll take a mment. I'll be minutes. the record from 2:20 p.m. to 2:35 p.m.) THE CUJRT: Please be seated. Everyone get a chance to confer with VriD they need to confer with? MR. WYLER: Your Honor, thank you. We'd ask if you might reconsider the rebuttal witness. It's not based on settlement. It's really based on the direct testimony yesterday of Yr. Mendelsohn saying that there was a firewall between the legal team and the news team, and our witness can directly contradict that. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 MS. WETSTONE: Your Honor, we object to this as not on the witness list, which we have agreed, and having no issue that needs to be raised. You could have asked Mr. Mendelsohn about and you could have asked Mr. Arenberg about his con recollection of that instance. MR. WfLER: I could call Mr. Axcaerg then as a rebuttal. THE COURT: I'm sorry? MS. FOWTSICUE: Objection, i 's not relevant to the motion at all. THE COURT: I agree. reconsider. MR. WYLER: THE CURT: now, I think here has tha arguments, give I will not our Honor. ts. All right, ed last time we were d give re your closing needed to supplement, I'll supplement in writing. hat you all want to do, or do you lode today? . WYLER: I would prefer to provide you a en closing aliment if pemsible. ME COURT: Instead of -- MR. Mt R: Yeah, I absolutely would. 1 think that there's a lot of -- there's a lot going 2 on here, and I think it might be beneficial to the 3 Court if you would -- if you would allow us. I 4 will give you -- I'd be happy to give you a 5 written closing argument. I think it could help 6 you in formulating your final judgment, whichever 7 hay you go. 8 MS. hICTSTONE: Your Honor, I prepared a 9 closing argument, bit -- and I can also write one. 10 I was planning on doing a supplemental one anyway. 11 THE COURT: Well, I'm asking you, you know. 12 MS. hMISTONE: I think it would probably 13 be more -- if you were going to do one or the 14 other, I think written closing argrents, we could 15 really lay out, you }mow -- 16 THE OCCIRT: Yeah, I joked about it earlier, 17 I think people are better in writing. A lot of 18 people, when they try to go off the cuff or deal 19 with the changes they experienced during a trial, 20 they miss things. I do think people are better in 21 writing. 22 How itch tire do you need to prepare a 23 written argument? 24 MR. WLER: If you could give us a week, 25 that would be great. 1 Tht COOK: Okay, I'm going to give you 2 some guidance because there's something I do %ant 3 to hear fawn you. 4 I do want you to address [ago. And, 5 Ys. Whetstone, when I read In re Grand Jury 6 Proceedings, in those cases the state attorney was 7 subpoenaed, they were not a party to the case, and 8 I want you to address that as well. 9 How arch tine do you need to prepare your 10 closings? 11 MR. WYLER: If you could give us a week, 12 Your Honor, that would be terrific. 13 THE CCURT: I'll give you a week. 14 Ms. Whetstone, is a week sufficient? 15 MS. WniabiLEE: Yes, Your Honor, a week is 16 sufficient. 17 THE COURT: I'll give you 10 days. I world 18 also like a copy of the transcript attached. 19 MR. WYLER: Then we might need a little 20 more tire to get it. 21 MS. h14,151Ck€: Your Manor, could we ask 22 for 20 days? 23 IHE COURT: I'll give you three weeks. 24 I'll give you three weeks. Give re your -- your 25 written closings and proposed orders. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Give me one more minute. There nd something else I want you guys to In the event that I agree ri Mr. Arenberg, the amamts have hBLETSICtri: No not been stipulated to. that objects to t THE MS. e .ta"P: didn't Honor, they have ted a bench memo jorit f the fees. that. Travel time. s Your Honor. But the rates have been not contesting the rate. They to bring an expert to talk about the rate. Our argument was on legally whether sane of these -- sane of these fees were -- were recoverable. 7HE COURT: You can be seated. Give me a secrod. okay. THE COURT: I want you to address Weatherby. One of the cases submitted, Weatherby. MR. WYLER: Weatherby? Yes, sir. And, Ms. Whetstone, I want you to address In re Grand Jury on that issue regarding -- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 because there is a difference, Mr. Arenberg in his official capacity as a named party, and In re Grand Jury, I think in that case, I think the state attorney's was subpoenaed. And I also want you -- well, both parties to address the Horowitz case where it says that the judge can extend the law because it's an obligation of legislative authority. All right, so you'll give me your arguments and proposed orders within 21 days. Do I need to bring you back "n for a hearing? MS. hREISTOR4E: No MR. MIER: No, r. THE CCCRT: ght, then we'll be in recess. MS you, Your Honor. Thank you, Your Honor. Have a great day. ing concluded at 2:42 p.m.) 2 STATE OF FLORIDA 4 COUNTY OF PALM BEACH 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 21 24 25 COURT CERTIFICATE I, Lisa Begley, RPR, MCA, certify that : was authorized to and did stenographically report the foregoing proceedings and that the transcript is a true and complete record of ny stenographic notes. Dated this 13th day of Septenber. 2022. ofok13O1 Lisa Begley. RPR, RHR # Exhibit “B” # Timeline # Exhibit “C” 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-014681-XXXX-MB Publisher of THE PALM BEACH POST, DIVISION: AG v. DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of Palm Beach County, Florida; SHARON R. BOCK, as Clerk and Comptroller of Palm Beach County, Florida. # BENCH MEMORANDUM REGARDING '4( KREY FEE OBJECTIONS CO SA Plaintiff, CA Florida Holdings, LLC (" e st"), publisher of The Palm Beach Post, by and through undersigned counsel, and pu o tlTe Court's Order on Joint Motion to Continue Evidentiary Hearing on the State Amended Motion for Attorneys' Fees dated August morandum in connection with the evidentiary hearing scheduled on September 6, 202 :30 p.m.: 5, 2021, hereby submits this # DE NDY IS NOT ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY'S FEES For t Memoran. aw ("Response in Opposition"), The Office of State Attorney is not entitled to recover an amounts under Florida Statutes § 57.105. discussed in The Post's February 24, 2022 Amended Response and # MANY OF THE FEES REOUESTED ARE NOT COMPENSABLE Should this Court determine the State Attorney is entitled to fees, which he is not, many of the fees requested are not compensable and/or should be substantially discounted. Such categories and case authority are below:' - Travel Time in the amount of \$10,412.50; see Exhibit A attached hereto. hereto. o Mandel v. Decorator's Mart, Inc., 965 So. 2d 311, 315-316 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) ("[T]he award of fees should not have included the travel time of the attorneys ... without proof that a competent local attorney could not be obtained, an award of attorney's fees from an opponent should not include travel time over and above what a local attorney would charge."). o Palm Beach Polo Holdings, Inc. v. Stewart Title Guar. Co., (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) ("[T]ravel time is generally not compen - Costs in the amount of \$1,482.77; see Exhibit B attached 858, 862 o Ferdie v. Isaacson, 8 So. 3d 1246, 1251 (Fla. 4th 2009), superseded by statute on other grounds. (reversing award s and stating that Fla. Stat. § 57.105 allows for "reasonable attorney's paid to the prevailing party, but makes no mention of costs." (intern s omitted)). o Ferere v. Shure, 65 So. 3d 1141, 1 is not allowed under section 57 th DCA 2011) ("[A]n award of costs - Litigation Time Re: Fee Amount e amount of \$3,485.00; see Exhibit C attached o Cox v. Great Am. '88 So. 3d 1048, 1049 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) ("The trial court erred in tomey's fees incurred in litigating the amount of the fee award."). o Yakavoni e 1phin Petroleum, Inc., 934 So. 2d 615, 620 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) fees are only available for time spent litigating the issue of em, not for the time spent litigating the amount of fees to be awarded."). Beach Polo Holdings; Inc., 132 So. 3d at 862 ("Although fees incurred in e , gating entitlement to attorneys' fees under section 768.79 are authorized, fees incurred in litigating the amount of fees are not recoverable.") (emphasis in original). o Oquendo v. Citizens Property Ins., 998 So. 2d 636, 638 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (fact that retainer agreement obligated insureds to pay counsel for time expended in The Post's objections against a multiplier are not included as the State Attorney no longer seeks a multiplier. See April 13, 2022 Notice, [DE 99], at Tab X of Plaintiff's Joint Pleadings & Filings Hearing Binder. litigating the amount of attorneys' fees made no difference to issue of whether fees were compensable by other side). - Administrative Entries in the total amount of \$7,522.50, also containing block billed time entries where portions of the entry are administrative; see Exhibit D attached hereto. o N. Dade Church of God Inc. v. JM Statewide, Inc., 851 So. 2d 194, 196 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) ("We do, however, conclude that the attorney's fee award must be reduced. . . . Likewise noncompensable is excessive time spcn on simple ministerial tasks such as reviewing documents or filing notices ofgpp arance.'). - v. Sophia, 711 So. 2d 209, 212 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) mere fact that the client is not standing over their shoulders as each time gged does not allow them to inflate the time spent on their client's • or does it allow duplicative services by multiple members of the firm o Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Mickelson, 2018 F ir.TEXIS 3017,'9 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 2018) ("Courts are clear that purely sks should not be billed at paralegal rates regardless of the qualific e biller. Where there was no evidence that work done was parale I r as opposed to secretarial work, courts have reversed an award of pgrtffe s." (collecting cases)). - Media time entries in the amount \$ . ; see Exhibit Eattached hereto. - Settlement time entries in t oun of \$1,835.00; see Exhibit F attached hereto. - hereto.? o MacAlister v. Be (stating that c serves its inte chilling effect on LLC v. 1000 Friends of Fla., Inc., 228 So. 3d 147 (Fla. 4th DCA (same). Inc., 164 So. 3d 773, 776 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) apply Section 57.105 "with restraint to ensure that it rpose of discouraging baseless claims without casting a of the courts."). Back time entries in the amount of \$27,540.00; see Exhibit G attached Yakavonis, 934 So. 2d at 619-620 ("Ulf the claim or defense is not initially frivolous, the court must then determine whether the claim or defense became frivolous after the suit was filed . . . The trial court is free to measure the attorney's fees from the time it was known or should have been known that the claim had no basis in fact or law."). This calculation is done from the date of The State Attorney's Response to Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in Opposition to the First Motion for Fees, October 14, 2020. Alternatively, calculating from July 1, 2020, the date the first Motion for Fees was filed comes to \$ 16,447.50; see Exhibit H attached hereto. o Hustad v. Architectural Studio, Inc., 958 So. 2d 569, 570 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) ("The mere dismissal of a suit does not necessarily justify an attorney's fee award if the suit can be considered to have been non-frivolous at its inception."). o Fla. Stat. § 57.105(1)(a) (stating that fees are to be awarded "on any claim . . . at any time during a civil proceeding . . . in which the court finds that the losing party . . . knew or should have known that a claim . . . [w]its not supported by the material facts [or law] necessary to establish the claim."). • Clerk-Only Entries in the amount of \$2,277.50; see Exhibit I att ec to. This covers fees claimed after the dismissal of the State Attorney and which rel Iely to matters involving the litigation with the Clerk of the Court. Respectfully su La tone No. 45192 ideau a Bar No. 564044 cnberg Traurig, P.A. 777 South Flagler Drive, Suite 300 East West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Tel.: 561.650.7900 whetstonelQutlaw.com bideaum@gtlaw.com sandralamadasagtlaw.com thomasd@gtlaw.com FLService©gtlaw.com Stephen A. Mendelsohn Florida Bar No. 849324 Greenberg Traurig, P.A. 401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 2000 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Tel.: 954.768.8225 mendelsohns©atlaw.com smithl(agtlaw.com Michael J. Grygiel (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) Greenberg Traurig, P.A. 54 State Street, 6th Floor Albany, NY 12207 Tel.: 518.689.1400 [grygielm@gtlaw.com](mailto:grygielm@gtlaw.com) Nina D. Boyajian (Admitted *Pro Hac Vice*) **Greenberg Traurig, P.A.** 1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Tel.: 310.586.7700 [boyajiann@gtlaw.com](mailto:boyajiann@gtlaw.com) [riveraal@gtlaw.com](mailto:riveraal@gtlaw.com) *Counsel for Plaintiff CA Florida Holdings, LLC, Publisher of The Palm Beach Post* **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE** **I HEREBY CERTIFY** that a true and accurate copy of the foregoing has been served on all parties of record herein on this 1{sup}`st` day of September, 2022. /s/ Lauren Whetstone Lauren Whetstone # Exhibit A | Date | EE | Activity | Description | Rate | Hours | Line Total | | ------------ | ---- | ---------- | --------------------------- | ---------- | ------- | ------------ | | 07/15/2021 | DW | Travel | Travel to West Palm Beach | \$425.00 | 5.5 | \$2,337.50 | | 07/17/2021 | DW | Travel | Travel back to Amelia | \$425.00 | 5.5 | \$2,337.50 | | 03/03/2022 | DW | Travel | Travel to West Palm Beach | \$425.00 | 8.0 | \$3,400.00 | | 03/04/2022 | DW | Travel | Travel back to Amelia | \$425.00 | 5.5 | \$2,337.50 | Total: 24.5 \$ 10,412.50 | Date | EE Activity | Description | Rate | Hours | Line Total | | --------------- | ------------- | ------------------------------------------------------- | ---------- | ---------- | ------------ | | 07/15/2021 DW | Expense | Gas | \$42.02 | 1.0 | \$42.02 | | 07/16/2021 DW | Expense | The Ben West Palm Beach, re: 7/16/21 hearing | \$557.46 | 1.0 | \$557.46 | | 07/17/2021 DW | Expense | Gas | \$59.12 | 1.0 | \$59.12 | | 03/03/2022 DW | Expense | Gas | \$70.41 | 1.0 | \$70.41 | | 03/04/2022 DW | Expense | Hyatt Place West Palm Beach/Downtown, re: 3/4 hearing | \$659.92 | 1.0 | \$659.92 | | 03/04/2022 OW | Expense | Uber to Courthouse | \$6.51 | 1.0 | \$6.51 | | 03/04/2022 OW | Expense | Gas | \$87.33 | 1.0 | \$87.33 | | | | | | Total: A | \$ | cos # Exhibit C | Date | EE | Activity | Description | Rate | Hours | Line Total | | ------------ | ---- | ---------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------- | ------- | ------------- | | 11/05/2020 | DW | Draft | Draft Amended Motion for Attorneys' Fees & Costs | \$425.00 | 3.0 | \$1,275.00 | | 11/06/2020 | DW | Draft | Continue drafting Motion for Attorneys' Fees & Costs and Affidavit of Attorneys Fees and Affidavit of Reasonable Attorneys' Fees, sent to expert for review | \$425.00 | 2.0 | \$850.00 | | 11/09/2020 | DW | Various | Call w/ expert, re: affidavit; Call w/ Client, re: filings; filed Motion & | \$425.00 | 1.0 | \$425.00 | | 03/01/2022 | DW | Various | Review and reply to email from op. counsel, re: availability from 3/14 - 5/20; call w/ client; call w/ expert | \$425.00 | 1.0 | \$425.00 | | 03/08/2022 | DW | Various | Call w/ Client, re: upcoming hearing, experts, plan; Meeting w/ █ | \$425.00 | 1.0 | \$425.00 | | 03/25/2022 | DW | Teleconference | Call to expert witness, re: fees, updated affidavits, hearing date | \$425.00 | 0.2 | \$85.00 | | | | | | Total | 8.2 | \$ 3,485.00 | O C # Exhibit D | Date | EE | Activity | Description | Rate | Hours | Line Total | | ------------ | ---- | ---------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------- | ------------- | -------------------- | | 11/26/2019 | DW | Draft | Drafted engagement letter and sent to client | \$425.00 | 0.3 | \$127.50 | | 11/26/2019 | DW | Review | Reviewed 15th circuit local rules | \$425.00 | 1.0 | \$425.00 | | 12/06/2019 | DW | Draft | Completed final draft of motion to dismiss; filed with Court | \$425.00 | 0.7 | \$297.50 | | 01/24/2020 | DW | Various | Completed Answer/MTDismiss Amended Complaint; filed with Court; sent copy to Client | \$425.00 | 1.0 | \$425.00 | | 01/24/2020 | DW | Draft | Drafted and filed Notice of Unavailability | \$425.00 | 0.4 | \$170.00 | | 06/03/2020 | DW | E-mail | Emailed courtesy copies of Aronberg's Answer and MTDismiss to Judge | \$425.00 | 0.1 | \$42.50 | | 06/23/2020 | DW | E-mail | Sent client copy of PI's letter refusing to dismiss complaint | \$425.00 | 0.1 | \$42.50 | | 07/01/2020 | DW | Various | Spoke w/ client, re: filing of 57.105 motion for fees/sanctions; filed motion for attorneys' fees based on PI's failure to voluntarily dismiss amended complaint count 1 | \$425.00 | 0.5 | \$212.50 | | 08/18/2020 | DW | Draft | Finalized Motion for Summary Judgment; filed w/ court along with Aronberg affidavit | \$425.00 | 2.0 | \$850.00 | | 09/18/2020 | DW | Various | Drafted and filed motion to set case management conference; re: MSJ 1st or Fee hearing 1st | \$425.00 | 0.5 | \$212.50 | | 09/22/2020 | DW | Various | Drafted and filed Notice of Hearing on 10/15/20; set up Court Call; spoke w/ client, re: hearing date | \$425.00 | 0.7 | \$297.50 | | 10/14/2020 | DW | Draft | Finalized and filed Response to PI's Memo of Law | \$425.00 | 1.0 | \$425.00 | | 10/21/2020 | DW | Various | Drafted 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 | \$425.00 | 1.0 | \$425.00 | | 11/09/2020 | DW | Various | Call w/ expert, re: affidavit; Call w/ Client, re: filings; filed Motion & Affidavits | \$425.00 | 1.0 | \$425.00 | | 12/03/2020 | DW | Draft & File | Draft and File Notice for Non-Jury Trial; email to JA; emails w/ opposing counsel counsel to set meeting | \$425.00 | 0.7 | \$297.50 | | 12/10/2020 | DW | Draft & File | Draft and File Amended Notice for Non-Jury Trial | \$425.00 | 0.5 | \$212.50 | | 07/23/2021 | DW | Various | Complete and File Memo of Law; Meeting w/ AJJ to discuss; call to JA; call to Client; several emails w/ opposing counsel | \$425.00 | 2.0 | \$850.00 | | 07/23/2021 | DW | Teleconference | Call to Judge Hafale's JA, re: hearing date | \$425.00 | 0.1 | \$42.50 | | 07/29/2021 | DW | Draft & File | Complete drafting and file updated Memo of Law | \$425.00 | 2.0 | \$850.00 | | 08/12/2021 | DW | Various | Complete draft of Amended Memo of Law & filed; reviewed and responded to several emails w/ opposing counsel | \$425.00 | 2.0 | \$850.00 | | 09/13/2021 | DW | E-mail | Accept calendar invite for 9/14 teleconference | \$425.00 | 0.1 | \$42.50 | | Total: | | | | | **17.7** | **\$ 7,522.50** | # Exhibit E | Date | EE | Activity | Description | Rate | Hours | Line Total | | ------------ | ---- | ----------- | ------------------------------------- | ---------- | ------- | ------------ | | 10/21/2020 | DW | Telephone | Spoke w/ client, re: media response | \$425.00 | 0.2 | \$85.00 | | 10/21/2020 | DW | Telephone | Spoke w/ client, re: media response | \$425.00 | 0.1 | \$42.50 | | 10/21/2020 | DW | Telephone | Spoke w/ client, re: media response | \$425.00 | 0.1 | \$42.50 | | 10/21/2020 | DW | Telephone | Spoke w/ client, re: media response | \$425.00 | 0.1 | \$42.50 | | 10/21/2020 | DW | Telephone | Spoke w/ client, re: media response | \$425.00 | 0.1 | \$42.50 | | 10/21/2020 | OW | E-mail | Sent email w/ Aronberg statement to | \$425.00 | 0.1 | \$42.50 | | 10/21/2020 | AU | Meeting | Discussed media response w/ DAW | \$475.00 | 0.3 | \$142.50 | | 10/21/2020 | DW | Meeting | Discussed media response w/ ALI | \$425.00 | 0.3. | \$127.50 | Total: 4 cos 567.50 | Date | EE | Activity | Description | Rate | Hours | Line Total | | ------------ | ----- | ----------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------- | ------------ | -------------------- | | 10/15/2020 | DW | Telephone | Spoke w/ PI's counsel, re: settlement | \$425.00 | 0.1 | \$42.50 | | 10/15/2020 | DW | Telephone | Spoke w/ client, re: PI's settlement proposal | \$425.00 | 0.2 | \$85.00 | | 10/15/2020 | AJJ | Various | Discussed PI's settlement proposal w/ DAW and then w/ Client | \$475.00 | 0.4 | \$190.00 | | 10/15/2020 | DW | Meeting | Discussed PI's settlement proposal w/ AJJ | \$425.00 | 0.2 | \$85.00 | | 10/16/2020 | DW | Telephone | Spoke w/ PI's counsel, re: settlement | \$425.00 | 0.2 | \$85.00 | | 10/16/2020 | DW | Telephone | Spoke w/ client, re: PI's settlement proposal | \$425.00 | 0.5 | \$212.50 | | 10/16/2020 | DW | Meeting | Discussed PI's settlement proposal w/ AJJ | \$425.00 | 0.2 | \$85.00 | | 10/16/2020 | AJJ | Meeting | Discussed PI's settlement proposal w/ DAW | \$475.00 | 0.2 | \$95.00 | | 10/19/2020 | DW | Telephone | Spoke w/ client, re: PI's settlement proposal | \$425.00 | 0.2 | \$85.00 | | 10/19/2020 | DW | Telephone | Spoke w/ PI's counsel, re: settlement | \$425.00 | 0.1 | \$42.50 | | 10/19/2020 | AJJ | Meeting | Discussed PI's settlement proposal w/ DAW | \$475.00 | 0.2 | \$95.00 | | 10/19/2020 | DW | Meeting | Discussed PI's settlement proposal w/ AJJ | \$425.00 | 0.2 | \$85.00 | | 10/20/2020 | DW | Various | Reviewed email from PI, re: settlement; sent copy to Client and called to discuss | \$425.00 | 0.5 | \$212.50 | | 10/20/2020 | DW | Telephone | Spoke w/ client, re: settlement | \$425.00 | 0.4 | \$170.00 | | 10/20/2020 | DW | Telephone | Spoke w/ PI's counsel, re: settlement | \$425.00 | 0.1 | \$42.50 | | 10/20/2020 | DW | Telephone | Spoke w/ client, re: settlement | \$425.00 | 0.1 | \$42.50 | | 10/20/2020 | DW | Meeting | Discussed PI's settlement proposal w/ AJJ | \$425.00 | 0.2 | \$85.00 | | 10/20/2020 | AJJ | Meeting | Discussed PI's settlement proposal w/ DAW | \$475.00 | 0.2 | \$95.00 | | | | | | **Total:** | **4.2** | **\$ 1,835.00** | NOTA CERTIFIED | Date 11/26/2019 11/26/2019 11/26/2019 11/26/2019 11/26/2019 1126/2019 11/26/2019 1126/2019 11/26/2019 12/02/2019 12/02/2019 12/02/2019 12/02/2019 12/02/2019 12/03/2019 12/03/2019 12/06/2019 12/06/2019 12/06/2019 12/06/2019 12/06/2019 12/13/2019 01/16/2020 01/16/2020 01/17/2020 01/17/2020 01/17/2020 01/71/7070 01/21/2010 01/21/2020 01/21/2020 01/21/2020 01/22/2020 01/22/2020 01/23/2020 | EE DW DW OW DW DW AU AU DW_ AU DW OW OW All AU All DW DW DW DW Al) Al) DW DW DW DW DW DW 01/20/2020 II OW DW DW Al) DW OW OW OW | Activity Review Review Teleconference Draft Review Review Meeting Meeting__ Teleconference Draft Teleconference Review Teleconference Meeting Meeting Draft Teleconference Teleconference Review Review Review Review Review Review Teleconference Review Review Review Review Teleconference Meeting Meeting Review Research & Draft Teleconference | Description Initial review of summons and complaint. Reviewed motion for pro hac vice and Judge Hafele order granting Teleconference w/ Client, re: response to lawsuit Drafted engagement letter and sent to client Reviewed 15th circuit local rules Initial review of complaint Meeting w/ DAW to discuss lawsuit and strategy Meeting w/ to discuss lawsuit and strategy Teleconference w/ Client, re: response to lawsuit Research & Preparation Research and prep for Motion to dismiss 1st Draft motion to dismiss Teleconference w/ Client, re: draft motion to dismiss Reviewed 1st Draft MTDIvniss Teleconference w/ client, re: draft motion to dismiss Meeting w/ DAW, re: motion to dismiss Meeting w/ All, re: MTDismiss Completed final draft of motion to dismiss; filed with Court Spoke w/ client, re: final draft of motion to dismiss Spoke with Clerk's attorney, re: response Reviewed final draft MTDismiss Reviewed Clerk's MTDIsmIss Reviewed Clerk's Motion to Dismiss Reviewed Order Setting Nearing on Defendants' MTDIs Reviewed motion for pro hac vice Reviewed Pl's Amended Complaint Spoke with client, re: Amended Complaint Reviewed IN's notke of filing Reviewed PI's Am. Comps Reviewed Judge Marx's Order Cancel Reviewed Pi'sObjection to Defeo ts Spoke with client, re: Amend m nt Meeting w/ DAW, re: respo o Am. Meeting w/ AU, re: respon to Compl. Reviewed Order gran' o hac v Researched and dr. Spoke with Cler ttor | Rate 5425.00 5425.00 \$425.00 5425.00 5425.00 \$475.05 5475.00 5425.00 \$475.00 5425.00 \$425.00 \$42 75. 75.00 25.00 5.00 425.00 \$425.00 \$475.00 \$475.00 S) \$425.00 \$425.00 \$425.00 \$425.00 \$42.5.00 \$425.00 \$475.00 M I easing \$425.00 smiss 5425.00 \$425.00 pl. 5475.00 \$425.00 admission \$425.00 to Amended Complaint 5425.00 re: response to amended complaint \$425.00 | Hours 1.5 0.2 0.5 0.3 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 2.0 1.0 05 0.3 05 0.2 0.2 0.7 0.5 05 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.1 0.1 1.0 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.1 1.0 0.2 | Line Total \$637.50 \$85.00 \$212.50 \$127.50 5425.00 5475.00 5237.50 \$212.50 \$237.50 \$850.00 \$425.00 \$212.50 \$142.50 \$23750 595.00 585.00 529750 \$212.50 \$212.50 595.03 595.00 \$212.50 \$4250 \$42.50 \$425.03 5212.50 542.50 \$142.50 \$4230 \$85.00 \$212.50 \$9500 585.00 \$4230 \$425.03 585.00 | | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | 01/24/2020 | DW | Various | Completed er H | ss Amended Complaint; flied with Court; sent copy | | | | | | | to Client | \$425.00 | 1.0 | 5425.00 | | 01/24/2020 | DW | Draft | Draft nd filed • ce of Unavailability | 5425.00 | 0.4 | \$170.00 | | 01/24/2020 | Al) | Review | Review Ina! A wer/MTOismiss | \$475.00 | 0.2 | 595.00 | | 01/27/1020 | OW | Review | Reviewe s Answer/MTDismiss | 5425.00 | 0.3 | \$127.50 | | 02/03/2020 | OW | Review | Sewed Order setting hearing on Deis' MTDismiss | \$425.00 | 0.1 | 54250 | | 02/03/2020 | DW | Teleconference | client, re: order setting MTDismiss hearing for March 24, 2020 | \$425.00 | 0.5 | 521250 | | 03/13/2020 | OW | Review | iewed N's Opposition to Asonberg MTDIsmiss & Clerk's MTDIsmiss | \$425.00 | 1.5 | \$637.50 | | 03/13/2020 | Al) | Review | R ewed Pl's Opposition to Arenberg MTDIsmiss & Clerk's MTDIsmiss | 5475.00 | 0.7 | 5332.50 | | 03/18/2020 | DW | Teleconfer | ce Reviewed email from Pl's counsel, re: motion to continue hearing | 5425.00 | 0.1 | \$42.50 | | 03/18/2020 | OW | Revie | Reviewed Pl's unopposed motion for continuance | \$425.00 | 0.1 | \$42.50 | | 03/18/2020 | OW | E-ma | Emails w/ Clerk's counsel, re: N's request to continue hearing | 5425.00 | 0.2 | \$85.00 | | 03/19/2020 | DW | | Reviewed email from PI, re: agreed order & responded | \$425.00 | 0.1 | \$42.50 | | 03/20/2020 | DW | R | Reviewed Court's agreed order continuing hearing | 5425.00 | 0.1 | \$42.50 | | 04/21/2020 | D | | Reviewed order rescheduling hearing on Deis' MTDismiss | \$425.00 | 0.1 | \$42.50 | | 04/21/2020 | DW | onference | Spoke w/ Client, re: order rescheduling MTDismiss hearing for June 3, 2020 | 5425.03 | 0.3 | 5127.50 | | 04/21/2020 | Al) | R | Reviewed Order rescheduling MTDismiss hearing | \$475.00 | 0.1 | \$4730 | | 05/22/2020 | DW | Review | Reviewed order setting Zoom hearing, re: MTDismiss | 5425.00 | 0.1 | 542.50 | | 05/22/2020 | OW | Teleconference | Spoke w/ client, re: hearing will be via ZOOM | \$425.00 | 0.2 | \$85.00 | | 05/27/2020 | OW | Review | Reviewed Clerk's filing: change of atty of record | 5425.00 | 0.1 | 542.50 | | 05/27/2020 | DW | Teleconference | Spoke with Clerk's new counsel, Nicole Fingerhut | 5425.00 | 0.2 | \$85.03 | | 05/28/2020 | DW | E-mail | Reviewed N's email, re: cases and authorities for MTDismiss hearing: responded | 5425.00 | 0.1 | 542.50 | | 05/29/2020 | DW | Preparation | Began oral argument prep for 6/8 MTDismiss hearing | 5425.00 | 1.0 | 5425.00 | | 06/01/2020 | OW | E-mail | Reviewed email from Judge Marx's JA and responded | 5425.00 | 0.1 | \$42.60 | | 06/02/2020 | DW | Various | Reviewed Pl's 500.. page binder, re: MTDismiss & prepped for hearing | 5425.00 | 3.0 | 51,275.00 | | 06/02/2020 | DW | E-mail | Drafted and sent email to client, re: MTD hearing tomorrow | \$42500 | 0.1 | 54250 | | 06/03/2020 | OW | Attend Hearing | Prepped for and attended MTDismiss hearing via Zoom | \$425.00 | 1.5 | \$63750 | | 06/03/2020 | OW | Teleconference | Spoke w/ Client, re: debrief MTDismiss hearing | \$425.03 | 03 | \$212.50 | | 06/03/2020 | OW | E-mall | (mailed courtesy copies of Aronbergs Answer and MTDismiss to Judge Marx | \$425.00 | 0.1 | \$4250 | | Date | EE | Activity | Description | Rate | Hours | Line Total | | ------------ | ----- | ------------------------ | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------- | ------- | ------------ | | 06/03/2020 | DW | E-mail | Reviewed response from Client and replied | \$425.00 | 0.1 | \$42.50 | | 06/03/2020 | AJJ | Attend Hearing | Attended MTDismiss hearing via Zoom | \$475.00 | 1.0 | \$475.00 | | 06/03/2020 | AJJ | Review | Reviewed order granting MTDismiss w/ prejudice | \$475.00 | 0.3 | \$142.50 | | 06/08/2020 | DW | Review | Reviewed Court's Order Granting Defendants MTDismiss Count II w/ Prejudice | \$425.00 | 0.5 | \$212.50 | | 06/08/2020 | DW | Various | Shared order w/ Client and spoke w/, re: result and plan going forward, re: | \$425.00 | 0.5 | \$212.50 | | 06/08/2020 | DW | Various | Researched § 57.105 Fla. Stat.; drafted 57.105 demand letter and proposed motion for attorneys' fees/sanctions; Served PI's counsel with demand letter and proposed motion. | \$425.00 | 2.0 | \$850.00 | | 06/08/2020 | AJJ | Meeting | Meeting w/ DAW, re: Order & 57.105 | \$475.00 | 0.3 | \$142.50 | | 06/08/2020 | DW | Meeting | Meeting w/ AJJ, re: Order & 57.105 | \$425.00 | 0.3 | \$127.50 | | 06/08/2020 | AJJ | Review | Reviewed 57.105 demand and proposed motion for sanction | \$475.00 | 0.2 | \$95.00 | | 06/10/2020 | DW | Various | Reviewed notice of change of attorney, re: Clerk; called and spoke w/ new counsel Cynthia Guerra | \$425.00 | 0.3 | \$127.50 | | 06/23/2020 | DW | Various | Reviewed PI's letter refusing to voluntarily dismiss amended complaint despite 57.105 demand; called and spoke w/ client, re: PI's refusal & next steps | \$425.00 | 1.0 | \$425.00 | | 06/23/2020 | DW | E-mail | Sent client copy of PI's letter refusing to dismiss complaint | \$425.00 | 0.1 | \$42.50 | | 06/23/2020 | AJJ | Review | Reviewed PI's letter refusing to dismiss Count I/Am. Compl. | \$475.00 | 0.1 | \$47.50 | | 07/01/2020 | DW | Various | Spoke w/ client, re: filing of 57.105 motion for fees/sanctions; filed motion for attorneys' fees based on PI's failure to voluntarily dismiss amended complaint | \$425.00 | 0.5 | \$212.50 | | 07/02/2020 | DW | E-mail | Email to client, re: affidavit and summary judgment | \$425.00 | 0.1 | \$42.50 | | 07/08/2020 | DW | Teleconference | Discussed w/ Client drafting and filing Motion for Summary Judgment and MSJ | \$425.00 | 0.7 | \$297.50 | | 07/08/2020 | AJJ | Teleconference | Discussed w/ Client drafting and filing Motion for Summary Judgment and MSJ | \$475.00 | 0.7 | \$332.50 | | 07/10/2020 | DW | Draft | Created 1st draft of Aronberg Affidavit; shared w/ client | \$425.00 | 1.0 | \$425.00 | | 07/10/2020 | AJJ | Various | Reviewed draft affidavit and discussed w/ DAW | \$475.00 | 0.3 | \$142.50 | | 07/10/2020 | DW | Meeting | Discussed draft affidavit w/ AJJ | \$425.00 | 0.2 | \$85.00 | | 07/13/2020 | DW | Review | Reviewed PI's Request to Produce, re: Clerk | \$425.00 | 0.1 | \$42.50 | | 07/13/2020 | DW | Teleconference | Spoke w/ Clerk's counsel, re: Request to Produce | \$425.00 | 0.2 | \$85.00 | | 07/27/2020 | DW | Review | Reviewed PI's Amended Request to Produce, re: Clerk | \$425.00 | 0.1 | \$42.50 | | 07/27/2020 | DW | Teleconference | Spoke w/ Clerk's counsel, re: Amended Request to Produce | \$425.00 | 0.1 | \$42.50 | | 07/28/2020 | DW | Draft | Revised Aronberg affidavit | \$425.00 | 0.5 | \$212.50 | | 07/29/2020 | DW | Draft | Finalized Aronberg Affidavit and sent to client | \$425.00 | 0.5 | \$212.50 | | 07/29/2020 | DW | Research & Preparation | Research and prep for Motion for Summary Judgment | \$425.00 | 1.0 | \$425.00 | | 07/30/2020 | DW | Various | Received executed Aronberg Affidavit | \$425.00 | 0.1 | \$42.50 | | 07/30/2020 | DW | Draft | Began drafting Motion for Summary Judgment | \$425.00 | 2.0 | \$850.00 | | 08/05/2020 | DW | Draft | Continued drafting Motion for Summary Judgment | \$425.00 | 1.0 | \$425.00 | | 08/07/2020 | DW | Review | Reviewed email from Plaintiff attempting to set hearing on 57.105 motion for fees/sanctions | \$425.00 | 0.1 | \$42.50 | | 08/10/2020 | DW | E-mail | Sent responsive email to PI's counsel | \$425.00 | 0.1 | \$42.50 | | 08/17/2020 | DW | Meeting | Discussed draft MSJ w/ AJJ | \$425.00 | 0.2 | \$85.00 | | 08/17/2020 | AJJ | Various | Reviewed draft MSJ and met w/ DAW to discuss | \$475.00 | 0.5 | \$237.50 | | 08/18/2020 | DW | Draft | Finalized Motion for Summary Judgment; filed w/ court along with Aronberg | \$425.00 | 2.0 | \$850.00 | | 08/27/2020 | DW | Teleconference | Spoke w/ Clerk's counsel, re: request to produce | \$425.00 | 0.1 | \$42.50 | | 09/01/2020 | DW | Various | Reviewed PI's email and accepted conference call invite for 9/2/20 | \$425.00 | 0.1 | \$42.50 | | 09/02/2020 | DW | Review | Reviewed Clerk's response to request for production | \$425.00 | 0.2 | \$85.00 | | 09/02/2020 | DW | Teleconference | Spoke w/ PI's counsel, re: dispute as to whether MSJ should be heard before 57.105 fee motion or vis versa - call was unsuccessful | \$425.00 | 0.5 | \$212.50 | | 09/02/2020 | AJJ | Meeting | Discussed w/ DAW phone call w/ PI's counsel | \$475.00 | 0.2 | \$95.00 | | 09/02/2020 | DW | Meeting | Discussed w/ AJJ phone call w/ PI's counsel | \$425.00 | 0.2 | \$85.00 | | 09/16/2020 | DW | E-mail | Reviewed email from PI's counsel requested Aronberg to withdraw sanctions motion w/o prejudice | \$425.00 | 0.1 | \$42.50 | | 09/17/2020 | DW | Meeting | Discussed w/ AJJ filing motion for CMC | \$425.00 | 0.1 | \$42.50 | | 09/17/2020 | AJJ | Meeting | Discussed w/ DAW filing motion for CMC | \$475.00 | 0.1 | \$47.50 | | 09/18/2020 | DW | Various | Drafted and filed motion to set case management conference; re: MSJ 1st or Fee hearing 1st | \$425.00 | 0.5 | \$212.50 | | 09/18/2020 | DW | E-mail | Responded to PI's 9/16/20 email and refused to withdraw 57.105 motion; provided copy of motion to set CMC and available dates for hearing | \$425.00 | 0.1 | \$42.50 | | 09/18/2020 | DW | E-mail | Reviewed PI's email insisting that 57.105 motion be withdrawn | \$425.00 | 0.1 | \$42.50 | | 09/18/2020 | DW | E-mail | Replied to PI's counsel that the 57.105 motion for sanctions will not be withdrawn and asking for response, re: CMC | \$425.00 | 0.1 | \$42.50 | | 09/18/2020 | DW | E-mail | Sent client copy of email exchange w/ PI's counsel; called and spoke w/ Client | \$425.00 | 0.5 | \$212.50 | | 09/22/2020 | DW | Various | Drafted and filed Notice of Hearing on 10/15/20; set up Court Call; spoke w/ client, re: hearing date | \$425.00 | 0.7 | \$297.50 | | 10/02/2020 | DW | Review | Reviewed PI's Memo of Law opposing Aronberg's 57.105 motion for fees/sanctions | \$425.00 | 0.7 | \$297.50 | | Date | EE | Activity | Description | Rate | Hours | tine Total | | ------------ | ----- | ------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------- | ------- | ---------------------------- | | 10/02/2020 | DW | Review | Reviewed Pl's Response to Aronberg's request to schedule 57.105 motion for fees | | | | | | | | after MS1 | \$425.00 | 0.5 | 5212.50 | | 10/02/2020 | AU | Review | Reviewed Pl's Memo of Law opposing 57.105 motion | \$475.00 | 0.5 | \$237.50 | | 10/02/2020 | All | Review | Reviewed Pis Response to Aronberg's request to schedule 57.105 motion after | \$475.00 | 0.4 | \$190.00 | | 10/12/2020 | OW | Research | Research caselaw & statutes, re: response to Prs Memo of Law | \$425.00 | 1.0 | \$425.00 | | 10/13/2020 | OW | Research & nnalwe | Continued researching caselaw, re: response to Pl's memo Of law | \$425.00 | 1.0 | 5425.00 | | 10/13/2020 | OW | Draft | Created 1st draft of Response to Pl's Memo of Law and shared w/ Client | \$425.00 | 4.0 | 51.700.00 | | 10/13/2020 | OW | Meeting | Discussed w/ All caselaw and draft response to memo | \$425.00 | 0.5 | \$212.50 | | 10 13 2020 | AU | various | Reviewed draft MS1, discussed draft w/ DAW and caselaw | \$475.00 | 0.7 | \$332.50 | | 10/14/2020 | OW | Draft | Finalized and filed Response to Pis Memo of Law | \$425.00 | 1.0 | \$425.00 | | 10/14/2020 | OW | Telephone | Spoke w/ client, re: memo of law | \$42500 | 0.2 | 585.00 | | 10/14/2020 | OW | Telephone | Spoke w/ client again, re: response to memo of law | \$4251W | 0.1 | \$42.50 63.6 \$ 27,\$60.00 | cos | Date FE | Activity | Description | Rate | Hours | tine Total | | ---------------- | ---------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------- | ------- | ------------ | | 11/26/2019 OW | Review | Initial review of summons and complaint. | \$425.00 | 1.5 | \$637.50 | | 11/26/2019 DW | Review | Reviewed MOHOn for pro hac vice and Judge Hafele• order granting | 5425.00 | 0.2 | 585.00 | | 11/26/2019 DW | Teleconference | Teleconference w/ Client, re: response to lawsuit | \$425.00 | 0.5 | 5212.50 | | 11/26/2019 OW | Draft | Drafted engagement letter and sent to client | 5425.00 | 0.3 | \$127.50 | | 11/26/2019 OW | Review | Reviewed 15th circuit local rules | 5425.00 | 1.0 | \$425.00 | | 11/26/2019 All | Review | Initial review of complaint | \$475.00 | 1.0 | \$475.00 | | 11/26/2019 411 | Meeting | Meeting w/ DAW to discuss lawsuit and strategy | 5475.00 | 0.5 | \$237.50 | | 11/26/2019 OW | Meeting | Meeting w/ All to discuss lawsuit and strategy | \$425.00 | 0.5 | \$212.50 | | 11/26/2019 AU | Teleconference | Teleconference w/ Client, re: response to lawsuit | 5475.00 | 0.5 | 5237.50 | | 12/02/2019 OW | | Research & Preparation Research and prep for Motion to dismiss | \$425.00 | 2.0 | 5850.00 | | 12/02/2019 DW | Draft | ist Draft motion to dismiss | \$42 . | 1.0 | \$425.00 | | 12/02/2019 DW | Teleconference | Teleconference w/ Client, re: draft motion to dismiss | | 0.5 | \$212.50 | | 12/02/2019 AU | Review | Reviewed 1st Draft MTDismiss | 75. | 0.3 | \$142.50 | | 12/02/2019 AU | Teleconference | Teleconference w/ client, re: draft motion to dismiss | 75.00 | 0.5 | \$237.50 | | 12/03/2019 All | Meeting | Meeting w/ DAW, re: motion to dismiss | 75.00 | 0.2 | 595.00 | | 12/03/2019 DW | Meeting | Meeting w/ All, re: MTDismiss | 5.00 | 0.2 | \$85.00 | | 12/06/2019 DW | Draft | Completed final draft of motion to dismiss; filed with Court | \$425.00 | 0.7 | 5297.50 | | 12/06/2019 DW | Teleconference | Spoke w/ client, re: final draft of motion to dismiss | \$425.00 | 0.5 | \$212.50 | | 12/06/2019 DW | Teleconference | Spoke with Clerk's attorney, re: response | \$425.00 | 0.5 | 5212.50 | | 12/06/2019 AU | Review | Reviewed final draft MTDismiss | \$475.00 | 0.2 | 595.00 | | 12/06/2019 AU | Review | Reviewed Clerk's MTDismiss | \$475.03 | 0.2 | \$95.00 | | 12/13/2019 DW | Review | Reviewed Clerk's Motion to Dismiss | 5425.00 | 0.5 | \$212.50 | | 01/16/2020 DW | Review | Reviewed Order Setting Hearing on Detention M is | \$425.00 | 0.1 | \$42.50 | | 01/16/2020 DW | Review | Reviewed motion for pro hac vice | \$425.00 | 0.1 | 542.50 | | 01/17/2020 DW | Review | Reviewed Prs Amended Complaint | \$425.00 | 1.0 | \$425.00 | | DW | Teleconference | Spoke with client, re: Amended Co I | \$425.00 | 0.5 | \$21230 | | DW | Review | Reviewed Prs notice of filing | \$425.00 | 0.1 | 542.50 | | 01/20/2020 All | Review | Reviewed Prs Am. Compl | \$475.00 | 0.3 | 5142.50 | | 01/21/2020 DW | Review | Reviewed Judge Marx's Cance TDIsmiss Hearing | \$425.00 | 0.1 | 542.50 | | 01/21/2020 OW | Review | Reviewed Prs Objection t De ants' MTDismiss | \$425.00 | 0.2 | 585.00 | | 01/21/2020 DW | Teleconference | Spoke with client, r nded c plaint | \$425.00 | 0.5 | 5212.50 | | 01/21/2020 All | Meeting | Meeting w/ DA to Am. Come'. | 5475.00 | 0.2 | \$95.00 | | 01/21/2020 DW | Meeting | Meeting w/ ,r • res to Am. Comp!. | \$425.00 | 0.2 | \$85.00 | | 01/22/2020 OW | Review | Reviewed rant pro hac vice admission | 5425.00 | 0.1 | 542.50 | | 01/22/2020 DW | Research & Draft | Rea ad ed response to Amended Complaint | 5425.00 | 1.0 | 542540 | | | 01/23/2020 OW__ Teleconference _ | Spoke ith Cle 's attorney, re: response to amended complaint | \$425.00 | 0.2 | 585.00 | | 01/24/2020 OW | Various | Console wer/MTDismiss Amended Complaint; filed with Court; sent | | | | | | | | \$425.00 | 1.0 | \$425.00 | | 01/24/2020 DW | Draft | and filed Notice of Unavailability | 5425.03 | 0.4 | 5170.00 | | 01/24/2020 AU | Review | eviewed final Answer/MTDismiss | \$475.00 | 0.2 | 595.00 | | 01/27/2020 DW | Review | viewed Clerk's Answer/MTDismiss | \$425.00 | 0.3 | 5127.50 | | 02/03/2020 DW | Review | Reviewed Order setting hearing on Defs' MTDismiss | 5425.00 | 0.1 | 542.50 | | 02/03/2020 DW | Te ce | Spoke w/ client, re: order setting MTDismiss hearing for March 24, 2020 | 5425.00 | 0.5 | 5212.50 | | 03/13/2020 DW | | Reviewed Prs Opposition to Aronberg MTDismiss & Clerk's MTDismiss | 5425.00 | 1.5 | \$637.50 | | 03/13/2020 All | i | Reviewed Prs Opposition to Aronberg MTDismiss & Clerk's MTDismiss | 5475.00 | 0.7 | \$332.50 | | 03/18/2020 D | nference | Reviewed email from Prs counsel, re: motion to continue hearing | \$425.00 | 0.1 | 542.50 | | 03/18/2020 DW | Review | Reviewed Prs unopposed motion for continuance | 5425.00 | 0.1 | 542.50 | | 03/18/2020 DW | ail | Emails w/ Clerk's counsel, re: Prs request to continue hearing | 5425.00 | 0.2 | \$85.00 | | 03/19/2020 DW | E-mail | Reviewed email from PI, re: agreed order & responded | \$425.00 | 0.1 | 542.50 | | 03/20/2020 DW | Review | Reviewed Court's agreed order continuing hearing | \$425.00 | 0.1 | \$42.50 | | 04/21/2020 DW | Review | Reviewed order rescheduling hearing on Defs' MTDismiss | \$425.00 | 0.1 | \$42.50 | | 04/21/2020 DW | Teleconference | Spoke w/ client, re: order rescheduling MTDismiss hearing for lune 3, 2020 | \$425.00 | 0.3 | 5127.50 | | 04/21/2020 AU | Review | Reviewed Order rescheduling MTDismiss hearing | \$475.00 | 0.1 | \$47.50 | | 05/22/2020 DW | Review | Reviewed order setting Zoom hearing, re: MTDismiss | 5425.00 | 0.1 | \$42.50 | | 05/22/2020 DW | Teleconference | Spoke w/ client, re: hearing will be via Zoom | \$425.00 | 0.2 | \$85.00 | | 05/27/2020 DW | Review | Reviewed Clerk's filing: change of atty of record | \$425.00 | 0.1 | \$42.50 | | 05/27/2020 OW | Teleconference | Spoke with Clerk's new counsel, Nicole Fingerhut | \$425.00 | 0.2 | \$85.00 | | 05/28/2020 DW | E-mail | Reviewed Prs email, re: cases and authorities for MTDismiss hearing; | 5425.00 | 0.1 | 542.50 | | 05/29/2020 DW | Preparation | Began oral argument prep for 6/8 MTDismiss hearing | \$425.00 | 1.0 | \$425.00 | | Date | EE Activity | Description | Rate | Hours | Line Total | | ---------------- | ---------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------- | ------- | ------------ | | 06/01/2020 DW | E-mail | Reviewed email from Judge MareslA and responded | \$425.00 | 0.1 | \$42.50 | | 06/02/2020 OW | Various | Reviewed Prs 500. page binder, re: MTDismiss & prepped for bearing | \$425.00 | 3.0 | \$1,275.00 | | 06/02/2020 DW | E-mail | Drafted and sent email to client, re: MTO hearing tomorrow | \$425.00 | 0.1 | \$42.50 | | 06/03/2020 OW | Attend Hearing | Prepped for and attended MTDismiss hearing via Zoom | \$425.00 | 1.5 | \$637.50 | | 06/03/2020 DW | Teleconference | Spoke w/ Client, re: debrief MTDismiss hearing | \$425.00 | 0.5 | \$212.50 | | 06/03/2020 DW | E-mail | Emaded courtesy copies of Aronberes Answer and MTDismiss to Judge Marx | \$425.00 | 0.1 | \$42.50 | | 06/03/2020 DW | E-mail | Reviewed response from Client and replied | 5425.00 | 0.1 | \$42.50 | | 06/03/2020 Ail | Attend Hearing | Attended MTDismiss hearing via Zoom | 5475.00 | 1.0 | \$475.00 | | 06/03/2020 All | Review | Reviewed order granting MTOismtss w/ prejudice | \$475.00 | 0.3 | 514250 | | 06/08/2020 DW | Review | Reviewed Court's Order Granting Defendants MTDismiss Count II w/ Prejudice | 5425.00 | 0.5 | \$212.50 | | 06/08/2020 DW | Various | Shared Order w/ Client and spoke w/, re: result and plan going foment re: | \$42 . | 0.5 | \$212.50 | | 06/08/2020 DW | Various | Researched § 57.105 Fla. Stet; drafted 57.105 demand letter and proposed | | | | | | | | | 2.0 | \$850.00 | | 06/08/2020 AU | Meeting | Meeting w/ DAW, re: Order & 57.105 | 75.00 | 0.3 | \$142.50 | | 06/08/2020 DW | Meeting | Meeting w/ Alt re: Order & 57.105 | .00 | 0.3 | \$127.50 | | 06/08/2020 AU | Review | Reviewed 57.105 demand and proposed motion for sanction | s \$475.00 | 0.2 | \$95.00 | | 06/10/2020 DW | Various | Reviewed notice of change of attorney, re: Clerk; called and spo | V7. . n | | | | | | | \$425.00 | 0.3 | \$127.50 | | 06/23/2020 DW | Various | Reviewed Prs letter refusing to voluntarily dismiss amended co | n | | | | | | despite 57.105 demand; called and spoke w/ client, re' | usal & next | | | | | | | \$425.00 | 1.0 | \$425.00 | | 06/23/2020 DW | E-mail | Sent client copy of Prs letter refusing to dismiss co | aint \$425.00 | 0.1 | \$42.50 | | 06/23/2020 All | Review | Reviewed Prs letter refusing to dismiss Count V | I. \$475.00 | 0.1 | 547.50 | | 07/01/2020 DW | Various | Spoke w/ client, re: filing of 57.105 motion f | es n i s; filed motion for | | | | | | attorneys' fees based on Prs failure to voiukan | ism amended complaint | | | | | | count 1 ..a. | | | | | | | | \$425.00 | 0.5 | \$212.50 | Total: 37.9 \$ 16,447.50 G"¢ # Exhibit I | Date | EE | Activity | Description | Rate | Hours | Line Total | | ------------ | ----- | ------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------- | ------- | ------------- | | 03/25/2021 | DW | Review | Review Notice of Change of Counsel | \$425.00 | 0.1 | \$42.50 | | 10/01/2021 | DW | Review & Analyze | Review Clerk's response to MSJ | \$425.00 | 0.5 | \$212.50 | | 10/05/2021 | DW | Review & Analyze | Review Order, re: MSJ hearing on 10/22/21 | \$425.00 | 0.1 | \$42.50 | | 10/05/2021 | DW | Review & Analyze | Review PI's Reply in support of MSJ | \$425.00 | 0.5 | \$212.50 | | 11/02/2021 | DW | E-mail | Reviewed several emails b/w opposing counsel | \$425.00 | 0.2 | \$85.00 | | 11/05/2021 | DW | E-mail | Reviewed several emails b/w opposing counsel | \$425.00 | 0.2 | \$85.00 | | 12/20/2021 | DW | Various | Review & Analyze Final Judgment in favor of Clerk, meeting w/ AIJ, call client to discuss | \$425.00 | 1.5 | \$637.50 | | 12/20/2021 | AIJ | Meeting | Meeting w/ DAW, re: MSJ Order | \$475.00 | 0.5 | \$237.50 | | 12/21/2021 | DW | E-mail | Review email from Op. Counsel | \$425.00 | 0.1 | \$42.50 | | 01/04/2022 | DW | Review | Review Clerk's Motion to Amend Final Judgment | \$425.00 | 0.1 | \$42.50 | | 01/04/2022 | DW | Review | Reviewed Clerk's Notice of Appearance | \$425.00 | 0.1 | \$42.50 | | 01/12/2022 | DW | E-mail | Reviewed and replied to email from Op. Counsel | \$425.00 | 0.2 | \$85.00 | | 01/19/2022 | DW | Review & Analyze | Reviewed and replied to email from Op. Counsel | \$425.00 | 0.5 | \$212.50 | | 01/26/2022 | DW | Review | Review Notice of Withdrawing Motion to Amend FJ | \$425.00 | 0.1 | \$42.50 | | 01/26/2022 | DW | E-mail | Emailed Clerk's Motion for Sanctions to Client | \$425.00 | 0.1 | \$42.50 | | 01/27/2022 | DW | Review | Review PI's Notice of Appeal | \$425.00 | 0.1 | \$42.50 | | 01/28/2022 | DW | Review | Reviewed 4DCA Order, re: abeyance | \$425.00 | 0.1 | \$42.50 | | 03/10/2022 | DW | E-mail | Reviewed and replied to email form Clerk's counsel | \$425.00 | 0.2 | \$85.00 | | 03/30/2022 | DW | Review | Review Motion to Withdraw | \$425.00 | 0.1 | \$42.50 | | | | | | Total: | 5.3 | \$ 2,277.50 | NOTA CERTIFIED