Epstein 2006 indictment news article and attorney fee agreement letter

Document EFTA 02735849¶

his cu. job, has returned Si 10,000 to him becauethe Palm Beach scandal, the New York Daily News has reported.¶

Rather than file charges, the state attorney’s office presented the case to a county grand jury. The panel indicted Epstein last week on a single, less serious charge of felony solicitation of prostitution.¶

The case raised eyebrows because the state attorney’s office rarely, if ever, kicks such charges to a grand jury. And it increases the.difficulty of prosecuting child sex abuse cases especially when the defendant is enormously wealthy can hire high-priced, top-tier lawyers.¶

At least one of Epstein’s alleged victims told police 12w she was underage when the two of them got naked for massages and sexual activity. She was t6 years old at the time and said Epstein asked her questions about her high school, according to police re¶

A girl who said she met Epst when she was IS said he / told her if she told an hat happened at his house, bad things could , the police reports state.¶

Epstein’s youhgest alleged victim was 14 when she says she gave hima-massage that included some sexual activity. She ow 16. The girl’s father says he doesn’t know whether old Epstein her age.¶

y daughter has kept a lot of what happened from me because of sheer embarrassment,” he said. “But she very much looked 14. Any prudent man would have had second thoughts about that.”¶

Defense attorney Jack Goldberger maintains that not only did Epstein pass a polygraph test showing he did not know the girls were minors, but their stories weren’t credible. The state attorney’s office also implied that their credibility was an issue when it decided not to charge Epstein directly, but instead give the case to the grand jury.¶

“A prilitor has to look at it in a much broader fact,’ a state attorney’s spokesman said last week.¶

Epstein hired Harvard law Professor Al tz when he became aware he was under on, and Dershowitz gave prosecutors info a n at some of the alleged victims had spoke of coh land marijuana on a popular Web site, accor4g to m Beach police report.¶

Prosecutors alder two things in deciding whether to arge ebody with sex-related offenses against minor ether there is sufficient evidence and whethe is a public interest in doing so, Delde said.¶

o teens are in a sexual relationship and: the boy turns before the girl, he could be charged with a sex crime if e sex continues. There would be no public interestin pursuing that, Dekle said.¶

1¶

1¶

But where there is a large gap in ages - and especially in cases of teachers with students - there is a public interest in prosecuting, he said. Likewise if the accused has a track record of sex with minors.¶

Still the [REDACTED] is a “universal constant” in prosecuting the [REDACTED] cases, Dekle said. Men who exploit underage children for sex often carefully choose their victims in ways that will minimize the risk to them, he said.¶

Victims usually are from a lower social status, and they may suffer from psychological problems, Dekle said.¶

“Lots of child sexual abuse victims have been victimized by multiple people over a period of time. Then the act of abuse produces behavior in the victims that further damages their credibility.” Examples include promiscuous behavior and drug abuse.¶

Some of the alleged victims in the Epstein case returned to his home multiple times for the massage sessions and the $200 to $300 he typically paid them per visit. “That would be a definite problem for the prosecutor,” said Betty Resch, who prosecuted crimes against children in Palm Beach County for five years and now is in private practice in Lake Worth.¶

“The victim becomes less sympathetic” to a jury, Resch said. “But she’s a victim nevertheless. She’s a kid.”¶

Most men charged with sex crimes against minors look normal, Dekle said. A jury expecting to see a monster seldom will. And the victims’ ages work against them and in favor of the defendant in a trial, Dekle said.¶

If a child and an adult tell different stories and both swear they’re telling the truth, adult jurors are more likely to believe the adult, Dekle said.¶

“You have all these things working against you in a child sex abuse case. Prosecutors normally try to be very careful in filing those cases because they know what they’re getting into. There is no such thing as an iron-clad child sexual abuse case.”¶

Epstein camp calls female accusers bars¶

Posted Aug 8, 2006 at 12:111 AM¶

Updated Oct 3, 2019 at 3:35PM¶

Paint Beach Post on Aug. 8, 2006)¶

Attorneys and publicists for Palm Beach financierie Epstein went on the offensive Monday, contendin teenage girls who have accused Epstein of sexual shenanigans at his waterfront home ire liar ying that the Palm Beach Police.Department ’¶

“There never was any sex betwee underage women,” his lead a n\11 c;;1na • Goldberger, from Idaho where he was tio ’ g with his family. and any said¶

Epsteindid have): n come to his house to give him massages, said. 14n Epstein absolutely insisted any. dy w came: to.his house be over the age of 18. How he v d that, I don’t know. The question is, did anythin occur. The law was not violated here,¶

ad no explanation as to why Epstein would pay girls or oinen with no massage training - as the alleged victims d was the case - $200 to $300 for their visits. “The credibility of these witnesses has been seriously questioned,’ Goldberger said.¶

Epstein, 53, was indicted by a county grand jury last month on a charge of felony solicitation of prostitution. After at: 11;inonth investigation that included.sifting through Epstein’s trash and surveilling his home, Palm Beach police concluded there was enough evidence to charge him with sexual activity with minors. When the-grand jury indicted¶

Epstein, the less serious charge, Police Chief Mi. Reiter referred the case to the FBI to determine whether there were federal law violations.¶

After a spate of stories about the case last week, New York publicist Dan Klores - whose client list has included Paris Hilton and Jennifer - said on Saturday that Epstein’s camp was ready “to get their story out.”¶

They did that Monday via Goldberger and a Los Angeles publicist for Miami criminal defense attorney Roy Black, who also has represented. Epstein in the case.¶

“We just think there has been a distorted view of thi c in the media presented by the Palm Beach police,” Goldberger said.¶

Reiter has consistently declined to co ect case and did not respond to a request Ac, < fo t Monday.¶

The implication that State Attorney Barry Krischer was easy on Epstein by presenting the case to a grand jury rather than filing charges directly against him is wrong, Goldberger said.¶

The *Beach Police Department was “happy an® ecstatic” that the panel was going to review the evidence. ‘I think what happened is they weren’t happy with the result. They decided to use the press to embarrass Mr. Epstein.”¶

But records show that Reiter wrote Krischer on May 1 well before the case went to the grand jury - suggesting that Krischer “consider if good and sufficient reason exists to require your disqualification from the prosecution of these cases.”¶

Rather than flat-out decline to charge Epstein, Krischer referred the case to the grand jury to “appease” the chief,— Goldberger said.¶

A state attorney’s spokesman would say only thast,thenffice refers cases to the grand jury when there su with the viability of the evidence or witnesses’¶

Both the state attorney and dit jui5r concluded there was not sufficient evidence4kat s in had sex with minors, according to Goldberger. “It was just a childish performance by thePthltni3each Police Department,” Goldberger said. ../L¶

The defense a’ttottiey said one of the alleged victims who claimed the was a minor was in fact over the age of 181¶

ther alleged victim who was subpoenaed to testify to rand jury failed to do so. Epstein’s accusers, he added, ve histories of drug abuse and thefts. “These women are Jars. We’ve established that.”¶

But why would they all invent their stories about meeting. Epstein for sexual massages?¶

“I don’t have an answer as CO what was the motivation for these women to come forward and make these allegations,” Goldberger said.¶

1¶

COPY¶

Reiter focus of fire in Epstein case¶

Clipped By:¶

reiter_m Sat, Apr 22, 2017¶

Copyright © 2019 Newspapers.com. All Rights Reserved.¶

Newspapers¶

4 Palm Beach Post REAL NEWS STARTS HERE¶

Delays in Epstein case unusual, lawyers say¶

Posted Mar 13, 2007 at 12:01 AM¶

Updated Oct 3, 2019 at 3:48 PM¶

(EDITORS NOTE: This story originally published in The Palm¶

Beach Post March 13, 2007)¶

A federal probe or a plea deal could explain the wait in AS, Palm Beacher’s solicitation case.¶

I 1¶

1 ; ; ; i 1¶

Nearly eight months after Palm Beach rycoolUtfr c 1 Epstein was charged with felony solicitation of plostitution, 1 there has been no discernible progress in his case. No 1 witnesses deposed. No trial date set. Nothiii, save for 1 routine court hearings reset without explanation.¶

,¶

s¶

`Usually that would be unusual,” said criminal defense 1 attorney Glenn Mitchell, who has no involvement in the i 1 case. i / 1¶

“As a general tgleyit would be unusual for nothing to have i happened,” ag. Michael Dutko, a criminal defense a rneyin Fort Lauderdale. He represents 2 4o .of Palm Beach, potentially a key witness in the¶

() se + A routine hearing for Epstein was pulled from the court docket last week and reset for May 16. The delays and inaction could be due to a potential federal probe of Epstein or because a plea deal is in the works, attorneys say.¶

Unusual is the word that best describes everything about the case against Epstein, 54, an enigmatic money manager in New York City who counts Bill Clinton and Donald Trump among his friends.

¶

“High“‘usual” is how Palm Beach Police Chief Ape! Reiter described State. Attorney Barry Krischer’s handling of the case in a bluntly critical letter to Krischer last year before Epstein was indicted.¶

Reiter referred the matter to the FBI to determine whether any federal laws had been violated. Epstein’s allies countered by attacking the chief personally and professionally.¶

Reiter’s department investigated Epstein for 11 months. Police sifted repeatedly through his trash and conducted surveillance on his five-bedroom, 7 1/2-bath, 7,234-sq foot home on the Intracoastal Waterway.¶

Police said Epstein paid women and girls as ctO give him erotic massages at his home. Po) 1, ’ t,ht there was probable cause to charge him withickwf sex acts with a minor and lewd and lascivious nwlestation.¶

Epstein responded by hiring/1%g of lawyers. One of them, Harvard law pro provided the state alcohol and they were wi for and author Alan Dershowitz, ffice with information about by some of the girls who said¶

ProsecV en referred the case to the grand jury rather t S fiele arges directly against Epstein.¶

st m’S attorneys deny he had sex with underage girls. e lawyers say the girls’ stories are not credible. But if the court file is any indicator, they’ve made no effort to depose the girls.¶

Neither prosecutors nor defense attorneys have sought to question , said Dutko, her attorney. She recruited teenage girls to visit Epstein for massages and sexual activity, Palm Beach police said, and presumably would be a key witness.¶

s ;¶

Epsteettorney Jack Goldberger did not return messages.¶

A source close to the case suggested it is languishing pending a decision by the FBI on whether to refer it to federal prosecutors.¶

“We still have a pending case,” FBI spokeswoman Judy Orihuela said Monday.¶

State Attorney Krischer did not return a call for comment. His spokesman, Mike Edmondson, declined to say whether federal investigators are delaying the Epstein case. But, added, “if another agency is looking at something, we wouldn’t want to step on their toes.”¶

Attorneys say inertia in a criminal case oft to a pending plea deal.¶

“It would not surprise me if some’ugS lat appened that’s not reflected in the court ”’ ’ Disko, such as an agreement that will be ford ater.¶

Defense attorney diner said defense attorneys sometimes pu conducting discovery — deposing witnesses, r est g documents and the like — because doings tea more work for harried prosecutors who may bee e angry and not offer a plea deal.¶

es defense lawyers, knowing that, will try and do covery without taking depositions,” said. Shiner, a former prosecutor for 13 years.¶

Instead, they may conduct a below-the-radar probe such as having a private investigator check out leads, he said.¶

Shiner and others say a plea deal for Epstein probably would result in pretrial intervention, in which a defendant may be ordered to undergo a psychological evaluation, counseling or other conditions in return for dropping the charge.¶

1¶

Edmond Lon, spokesman for State Attorney Krisch Raid there is no plea offer and no request for the prosecution to show its cards.¶

“To my knowledge, it’s never happened before on a filed case,” he said.¶

252 / 278 - Thursday, October 18, 2007¶

Edition: FINAL¶

Section: LOCAL¶

Page: 5B¶

Source: The Associated Press¶

Illustration: PHOTO (B&W)¶

Memo: Ran all editions.¶

Dateline: NEW YORK¶

WOMAN SUES BILLIONAIRE INVESTOR, SAYS THEY HAD SEX WHEN SHE WAS 16¶

A billionaire investor, already facing jail in Palm Beach County on charges of soliciting underage prostitutes, is being sued by a young woman who says he had sex with her when she was 16 and had sought his help becoming a model.¶

The lawsuit, filed late Tuesday in Manhattan’s state Supreme Court, says financier Jeffrey Epstein had the teen perform a sex act when she brought photographs of herself for him to review in his Upper East Side mansion sometime in 2000.¶

Epstein, 54, a money manager, told the teen he managed finances for Victoria’s Secret and “could get you into the catalog” if she were “nice” to him, court papers say. The papers say being “nice” included massages and other favors.¶

When the girl told Epstein, “I am 16 years old and just want to model,” he replied, “Don’t worry, I won’t tell anybody,” court papers say.¶

Epstein, said by London’s Mail on Sunday to be a close friend of England’s Prince Andrew, has been indicted in Palm Beach on charges of soliciting underage prostitutes. That case is pending.¶

The girl visited Epstein “several times over the several months and engaged in bizarre and unnatural sex acts” while she was a minor, the lawsuit says.¶

Epstein “repeatedly requested that (the girl) return with her 14-, 15-, and 16-year-old girlfriends, stating, ‘Come by with your friends your age next time. Don’t bring Sherrie (a mutual friend in her 40s). I love girls your age.’”¶

The young woman, now 23, kept returning to Epstein because she has “mental issues,” said her lawyer, William J. Unroch. He refused to elaborate, but court papers say she was “disabled as a result of severe mental disease and defect.”¶

Epstein’s lawyer in New York, Gerald Lefcourt, said, “The girl has admitted she is insane, but she can read a newspaper and recognize the word ‘rich.’”¶

Lefcourt also said the statute of limitations has expired for the woman’s case criminally and civilly, and will almost certainly be dismissed.¶

He refused to comment on Epstein’s Florida charges.¶

Meanwhile, Unroch, 57, also acknowledged that his client was living with him and was at the center of a $10 million lawsuit he filed last year against a neighbor who said he was having sex with underage girls. That case is pending.¶

“What she was doing at 22 is irrelevant to what happened to her when she was 16,” Unroch said Wednesday. He went on the say he hoped Epstein would agree to “do right” by his client and resolve the case out of court.¶

it Palm Beach Ptst REAL NEWS S1ARTS HERE¶

Palm Bucher pleads in sex case¶

Posted Jul 1, 2008 at 12:01 AM¶

Updated Oct 3, 2019 at 1:47 PM¶

(EDITORS NOTE; This story originally published in The¶

Palm Beach Post on July 1, 2000¶

Jeffrey Epstein will serve 1 1/2 years on teen solicitation charges.¶

He lives in a Palm Beach waterfront mansion and company with the likes of President Clinton, Prin Andrew and Donald Trump, but investme V er Jeffrey Epstein will call the Palm Beach Coun for the next 18: months.¶

/Ca 4’ elony Epstein, 55, pleaded guilty solicitation of prostitution and procu ” under the age of 18 for prostittgion. After se onths in lail, :he will be under house air r. And he will have a lifelong obligation to a sex offender. He must submit to an HIV test 48 hours, with the results being provid ti, vir, *his victims or their parents.¶

k m o the plea deal, federal investigators agreed to drop et riveatigatiOn of Epstein, which they had taken to a rand jury; two law. enforcement sources said.¶

e¶

Epstein was indicted two years ago after an 11-month investigation by Palm Beach police. They received a complaint from a relative of a 14-year-old girl who had given Epstein a naked massage at his five-bedroom, 7;234 square-foot, 88.5 million Intracoastal home.¶

Police concluded that there were several other girls brought in 2004 and 200S to an upstairs room at the home for similar massages and sexual touching.¶

1¶

1¶

The Aliment charged Epstein only with felony solicitation of prostitution. The state attorney’s office later added the charge of procuring underage girls for that purpose.¶

Prosecutor Lanna Belohlavek said of the plea: ‘I took into consideration the length the trial would have been and witnesses having to testify” about sometimes embarrassing incidents.¶

I I t¶

Epstein may have made a serious mistake soon after he was Attic i charged. He rejected an offer to plead guilty to one count o aggravated assault with intent to commit a felony, , according to police documents. He would have gotten- {sup}i years’ probation, had no criminal record and not b el ) I registered sex offender, the documents indi¶

1 ; t¶

Epstein arrived in court Monday wit 5 ree c He wore a blue blazer, e . ’ ,, blue jeans and iesii4” {sup}I A4” I and gray sneakers. Afte C ‘trludge Deborah Dale Pucillo accepted the plea, vasTtgerprinted. Epstein i i then removed his bla handcuffed for the trip to I jail while his atto to shield him from I photographe c =Ile d I¶

s¶

;¶

reen When he eve y is released to house arrest, E p stein will have to rve a 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. curfew, have no supentsed contact with anyone younger than 18 and r own nor possess pornographic or sexual materials at are relevant to your deviant behavior,” the judge said.¶

Epstein will be allowed to leave home for work. The New York-based money manager told the judge he has formed the not-for-profit Florida Science Foundation to finance scientific research. I’m there every day,” Epstein said.¶

The foundation was incorporated in November. Epstein said he already has awarded money to Harvard and MIT. Whets released from jail, there is a chance thattein will be forced to move. Sex offenders are not allowed to live within 1,000 feet of a school, park or other areas where children may gather. No determination has been made as to whether Epstein’s home complies, but attorneys said it likely does.¶

Sex offenders also typically must attend counseling sessions. Belohlavek said that was waived for Epstein because his eke private psychiatrist is working with him. The judge was skeptical but agreed to it.¶

Epstein’s legal woes don’t end with Monday’s plea. The are four pending federal civil lawsuits and one in staterelated to his behavior. At least one woman has suelC51 1i in New York, where he owns a 51,000-square- -square- anhattan mansion.¶

“It’s validation of what we’re sayi vil cases: said Miami attorney Jeffrey Herm tepresents the alleged victims in the federal lawsa Palm Beach attorney Ted Leopold represents-one a ged victim in a civil suit in state court. He sa e gtiOates amending that lawsuit to add “a few ot Likc t as well.¶

In the crimin , police went so far as to scour Epstein’s trash a nduct surveillance at Palm Beach International c Toni’ here they watched for his private jet so they am o Id know when he was in town. They concluded that paid girls $200 to $300 each after the massage A sessions.¶

“I’m like a Heidi Fleiss,” now 22, told police about her efforts in recruiting girls for Epstein.

¶

There was probable cause to charge Epstein with unlawful sex acts with a minor and lewd and lascivious molestation, police concluded.

¶

1¶

1 I¶

The sliknorneyl office said questions aboutthee credibility led it to take the unprecedented.step of presenting the evidence against Epstein to a grand jury, rather than directly charging him..¶

Palm Beach Police Chief Michael Reiterwas furious with State Attorney Barry Krischertsaying in a May 2006 letter that. the prosecutor should disqualify himself.. continue to find your office’s treatment of these cases highly unusual; he:Wrote. He.then asked for and got a federal investigation.¶

IA addition to mansions in Palm. Beach ttan, Epstein owns homes in New Mexico rgin Islands; He’s a frequent contributor to De it arty candidates: He also donated $30 million rd in 2003.¶

Epstein hired a phalanx of high-priced lawyers - including A’ Harvard :law professor and author Alan Dershowitx public relations people who questioned Reiter% co and the victims’ truthfulness. C 0)¶

Former New York Gov io pitxer returned a $50,000 campaign contribu” pstein after his indictment, then resigned ring his own sex scandal. And the same Palm ach P ce Department that vigorously investi ated n returned his 590,000 donation forthe pur rearms.¶

writer Eliot Kleiriberg and former stiff researcher elle Quigley contributed to chi; gory.¶

Jeffrey Epstein: Scientist, stuntman, `sex slave’ visit jailed tYc0011¶

By LARRY _% Palm Beach Post Staff Writer¶

Posted Aug 13, 2008 at 12:01 AM¶

Updated Jul 16, 2019 at 4:54 PM¶

Tycoon Jeffrey Epstein mingled with an eclectic mix of people, including beautiful young women, before he gq into trouble for paying teenage girls to give him se massages at his Palm Beath mansion:¶

Not muth has changed;even though he es is a .dorm at the Palm Beach County Sfie$ e s I7-acre, %7-bed stockade near the fairg¶

During his first month.of S fin t nt, Epstein was visited by the female assistan o, g told police, had escorted them to the room on where they gave him naked massagC¶

Also trekking e jail was a young woman whom Epstein purpo scribed as his Yugoslavian sex slave.¶

wealthy financier antl science wonk also has been. sited by an expert on artificial intelligence, as well as a an who is a mixed martial arts aficionado and sometime movie stuntman.¶

The only other people to visit him at the jail, according to records, are a Island man and an individual who listed’ Epstein’s Palm Beach address as his own.¶

Epstein, 55, pleaded guilty on June 30 to two prostitutionrelated charges and was sentenced to 18 months in jail, followed by a year of house arrest. Epstein paid teenage¶

girls Alio 8300.in 2004 and 2005 for massages 11) home that sometimes included sexual touching, Palm Beach police said.¶

His jail visitors in July included;¶

.29, who some of the teen masseuses said phoned them when Epstein was in town and escorted them upon their arrival at his Palm BeaCh waterfront home to an upstairs yowl, where she prepared the massage table and provided the oils for their encounters with him. visitor’s log.-.lists a Manhattan home address. O Reached by telephone, she declined to discuss Epst ACt., visited Epstein three times in July, according to a jail¶

• Nadia MartinIcOvai 23, whose family in Yu Epstein paid money to so that he could b the United States to be his ‘sex slave: tw. : :‘rls told polite. One girl told police that E cted and het to kiss a It- {sup}t teat while he’ itched and masturbated. Motile ‘d S s sngaged in sex with at Epstei arcinkova visited Epstein i in jail four times he lists her address as on the. Upper East si attan, not far from Epstein’s enormous a

• Roger Schtink, 62, founder of the Institute for Learning, ieticest Northwestern University and an expert on ‘al intelligence, paid one visit to Epstein. Schank has ritten numerous books on that subjectand has a doctorate degree front Yale University in linguistics: He was one of 19 people who applied to be president of Florida Atlantic University in 2001 He became ‘chief learning officer at the online Trump University in 2005. Schank listed his address as being in Stuart, and records show he also owns a home in Lake Worth.

Epstees financed a number of scientists over theirs, including Nobel Prizewinners.. He gave. $30 million to Harvard University in 2003. In November, he formed the not-for-profit Florida Science Foundation, which he said finances scientific research.¶

• Igor Zinoviev, a Russian mixed martial arts fighter, who coaches a Chicago team in the International Fight League. He also has worked as a persOnal trainer, celebrity bodyguard and movie stuntman, according to the leagues Web site. The New jersey resident visited Epstein seven times in July.

Zinoviev, Schank and comment. Could not be¶

Staff researcher Niels Heimeriks contrib s story.¶

$¶

ern Beach Daily News¶

Billionaire sex offender leaves jail six days a week for work¶

Posted Jul 1;2008 at 12:01 AM¶

Updated Oct 4, 2019 at 927 AM¶

Palm Beach. billionaire Jeffrey Epstein, who’s serving 18 months in jail for soliciting an underage girl for prostitution, is allowed to leave the Palm Beach County Stockade six days a week on a work-release program.¶

Teri Barbera, spokeswoman for the Palm Beach Sheriffs Office, confirmed that Epstein, 55, work-release program since Oct. 10.¶

lie works six days ameelc Friday ednesday 10 a.m. to 10 pm.; Barbera said (He) works at his local West Pains BeaCh o red on air acute GPS system (he wears an e b t).. Mr. Epstein hires a permh deputy, for his own security at his workplace duri he is out¶

Miami attorn 0y:1-lett:Ian tepteSerits six young women ye sued Epstein, claiming he sexually abused t)em at s Palm Eteadh home when they were minors.¶

Clogram from the U.S. Attorney’s Office within the past e an said he received a letter about the work-release +few days. But Herman says Epstein had been out on workrelease for several weeks before the notification.¶

1¶

j¶

‘My clients expressed shock and disappointment,” Herman said. “I find it incredible that he’s on work-release in the community and my.clients aren’t notified of this and we get this letter weeks after the fact? 1¶

arrant/int is not unusual. •¶

lie goes to work every single day and goes back to jail at • night, just like everybody else (in the program),’ Goldberger said.¶

Epstein pleaded guilty June 30 to two felony counts: soliciting prostitution and procuring a person under 18 for prostitution. As part of the plea agreement, Epstein must serve one year of house arrest and register as a lifelong sex¶

offender. cos¶

1¶

Women want. Epstein sex pleaded unsealed¶

Posted Jul 1, 2008 at 12:01 AM¶

Updated Oct Z 2019 at 213 PM¶

Palm Beach Post June 10, 2(09)¶

Their attorneys will ask a judge to open Jeffrey.Epstein’ O “S r records.¶

When wealthy money manager Jeffrey Epstei f Beach pleaded guilty last year to produrin prostitution, his case detoured aroun; state rules regarding the sealing of court d¶

At a plea conference on the es, a judge, a defense lawyer and a prosecutor h T at the bench and decided that a deal Epstein with federal prosecutors to avoid charges s aled) according to a transcript of the hearing.¶

And so r¶

<ISFlori t, a rules ofjudicial administration, as well as rules +Of Palm Beach County court system, require public deification that a court document has been or will be sealed, meaning kept from public view. i.e rules also require a judge to find a significant reason to seal, such as protecting a trade secret Or a compelling government interest..¶

Yet no notification pr reason occurred in Epstein’s case, according to court records:

¶

Epstelewn attorneys, in federal filings, have ref$ to his confidential deferred prosecution agreement with the U.S. attorney’s office, struck in September 2007, as “unprecedented” and “highly unusual.” And it was “a significant inducement” for Epstein to accept the state’s deal, observed the state judge who accepted his plea, County Judge Deborah Dale Pucillo.¶

Epstein now faces at least a dozen civil lawsuits in federal and state courts filed by young women who said they had sex with him and now are seeking damages.¶

Attorneys for some of those women want his agreeme with, federal prosecutors unsealed and will ask Cir Jeffrey Colbath to do so today.¶

“It is against public policy for these docu,k e have been sealed and hidden from public scruti4r. A a member of the public, E.W. has a right to tlve .,these documents unsealed: former Cir cin’ u w e Bill Berger, now in private practice and repre er’• ‘ng ,, e of the women.¶

The Palm Beach Post 41sdPwill ask Colbath to unseal the agreement. P st attorney Deanna Shullman will argue that the public has • ht to know the specifics of Epstein’s deal.¶

Ac ordin licr_to * various media accounts, Epstein moved in es that included President Clinton, Donald Trump and 0 ‘n e Andrew. “International Moneyman of Mystery,” 4 dared a 2002 New York magazine profile of Epstein”¶

Epstein, 56, is in the Palm Beach County Stockade, serving an 18-month sentence after pleading guilty nearly a year ago to felony solicitation of prostitution and procuring teenagers for prostitution.

¶

He is allowed out from 7 a.m. to II p.m., escorted by a deputy, said Palm Beach County Sheriffs Office spokeswoman Ted Barbera.¶

.¶

1¶

The Florida Supreme Co as 2ipressed “serious concern” and launched an all-outinqui into sealing procedures across the state following media reports in 2006 of entire cases being sealed niaiscridisappearing from court records.¶

“The public’s c titutional right of access to court records must remaih inviolate, and this court is fully committed to eguarding this right, justices wrote in their final report.¶

office on Tuesday referred any questions to Goldberger, who declined to comment. Pucillo also has declined to comment.¶

Duritealm Beach Police Department investigaefive victims and 17 witnesses gave statements. They told of young women brought by his assistants to Epstein’s mansion on El Brillo Way for massages and sexual activity, and then being paid afterward.¶

At Epstein’s plea conference last year, his attorney, Jack Goldberger, and then-Assistant State Attorney Lanna Belohlavek approached Pucillo in a sidebar conference. Pucillo, who had left the bench nine years earlier, was Filling in temporarily as a senior judge.¶

According Epstein had to entered a transcript, a confidential Goldberger agreement told Pucillo with that ithe U.S._ ’ — S) 1 attorney’s office in which federal prosecutors brokered 9not I pursuing charges against him if he pleadedgnifi Qn state s court. Pucillo then said she wanted a se 44 5e. f the {sup}1 agreement filed in his case, and Gold ncurred that ; he wanted it sealed. Belohlavek e d off on it. I¶

s i¶

i 1¶

Epstein secret pact with: Feds reveals “highly unusual” terms¶

Posted Jun 10, 2009 at 12:01 AM¶

Updated Oct 4, 2019 at 9:23 AM¶

Palm Beach Post on September 19, 2009)¶

A secret non-prosecution agreement multimillionaire financier Jeffrey Epstein struck with federal prosecutors is being called “highly unusual” by former federal prosecutors and downright outrageous by attorneys nogg rEpgesenting young women who serviced him.¶

The deal reveals that the FBI and h St’ . onney’s Office investigated him for several f rimes, including engaging minors in corn ial . he crimes are punishable by anywh years to life in prison.¶

But federal pro rbicked down and agreed to recall grand jury subpoena if Epstein pleaded guilty to prostitution-related felonies in state court, which he ultimatebrdid. He received an 18-month jail sentence, of ch he served 13 months.¶

Ohe .S. Attorney’s Office also agreed not to charge any of A pstein’s possible co-conspirators: a¶

M, Lesley Groff and¶

The deal was negotiated in part by heavyweight New York criminal defense attorney Gerald Lefcourt.¶

Unsealed on Friday after attorneys for some of Epstein’s victims and The Palm Beach Post sought its release, it offers the first public look at the deal Epstein’s high-powered legal counsel brokered on his behalf.¶

MarkSson of Stuart, a former federal prosecuti41) described the disparity in potential sentences as unusual, but even more so a provision on attorney payment.¶

The first draft of the agreement in September 2007 required that Epstein pay an attorney — tapped by the U.S. Attorney’s Office and approved by Epstein — to represent some of the victims. That attorney is prominent Miami lawyer Bob Josefsberg.¶

But an addendum to the agreement signed the following month struck Epstein’s duty to pay Josefsberg if he and the fS victims did not accept settlements — capped at $150,000 - and instead pursued lawsuits.¶

said it appears the government wasstgc balance the lesser sentence for Epstein with ecolring $150,000 for each. victim. “I’ve never, anything like that in my life: he said. “It’s ”’” ’ h ual.”¶

The deal does not say whethAty ctims were contacted or consulted before the eal w’y made.¶

/’• Attorney Brad Edwards Fort Lauderdale, who represents three of the young women, believes that none of the 30 to 40 woman identified as victims in the federal investigation were told ahead of time. said his clients received 1 rs &bin the U.S. Attorney’s Office months after the deal w signed, assuring them Epstein would be prosecuted.¶

O¶

“Never consulting the victims is probably the most outrageous aspect of it,” said. “It taught them that someone with money can buy his way out of anything. It’s outrageous and embarrassing for United States Attorney’s Office and the State Attorney’s Office.”¶

Epstein now faces many civil lawsuits filed by the women, who are represented by a variety of attorneys. In many, the allegations are the same: that Epstein had a predilection for teenage girls, identified poor, vulnerable ones and used¶

otherlig women to lure them to his Palm Beal. mansion. They walked away with between $200 and S1O00.¶

Fortner. Circuit Judge Bill.Retger,.also representing victims, called. the agreement a ‘sweetheart deal:¶

“Why was it so important for the government to make this deal?” Berger. asked rhetorically. ‘We have not yet had an honest explanation by anypublic official as to why it was made and why the violins were sold down the river:¶

Former federal prosecutor Ryon McCabe described the agreement as ‘very unorthodox:” Such agreements, are usually reserved for corporations, not individ¶

“Ifs very, very rare. I’ve never seen or he? procedure that was setup here,” said involvement in any Epstein litiga¶

“He’s• essentially avoiding fe rajecution because he can afford to pay that y e to help those victims review their cases…, n has: no money, he couldn’t be able to strike this and avoid federal prosecution.¶

The b oom deal with federal prosecutors is all the more ineresn light of the legal powerhouses who have or Epstein, including Harvard profetsor Alan Oe e owitz and Bill Clinton investigator Kenneth Starr. fcourt is a past president of the National Association of CriMinal Defense Lawyers..¶

Epstein’s local defense attorpey,fadt Goldberger, issued a statement Friday saying he had fought the release of the sealed agreement to protect the third parries named there. “Mr. Epstein has fully abided by all of its terms and conditions. Re is looking forward to putting this difficult period in his life behind him. He is continuing his longstanding history of science philanthropy:¶

The litigation triggered tensions between porn!!l prosecutors, with then-Palm Beach thief Michael Reiter saying in a May 2006 letter to then-State Attorney Barry Krischer that the chief prosecutor should disqualify hiniself.-¶

1 continue to find your office’s treatment of these cases highly unusual;” Reiter wrote. He then asked for and got the federal investigation that ended in the sealed deal.¶

‘The Jeffrey Epttein matter was an eXperience of what a¶

many-million-dollar defense can accomplish: Reiter told the Palm Beach Daily News upon his retirement. cos¶

187 / 278 - Wednesday, January 27, 2010¶

Edition: FINAL¶

Section: LOCAL & BUSINESS¶

Page: 3B¶

Source: By JANE MUSGRAVE Palm Beach Post Staff Writer¶

Dateline: WEST PALM BEACH¶

JUDGE RULES EPSTEIN ATTORNEYS CAN SUBPOENA ABORTION RECORDS¶

In a decision that could spark a constitutional showdown over privacy rights, a judge Tuesday gave lawyers representing multimillionaire sex offender Jeffrey Epstein the right to subpoena abortion records from women who are seeking millions in damages from the part-time Palm Beach resident.¶

Palm Beach County Circuit Judge Donald Hafele said the records could help Epstein rebut the women’s claims that they suffered psychological ills after being paid to give him sexually-charged massages at his Palm Beach mansion when they were as young as 14.¶

Hafele told Epstein’s attorneys they couldn’t go on a fishing expedition. The medical records, he said, can’t be sought until the women are asked whether they have ever had an abortion, how many and where. Further, he said, the records would not be made public and might not be admissible during trial.¶

But, he said, since the women claim Epstein, now 57, is responsible for their emotional distress, his attorneys can explore the impact of other events. Medical records, Hafele said, are a better source of information than a person’s memory.¶

Attorney Louis Silver, who represents the Presidential Women’s Health Center, a West Palm Beach clinic where abortions are performed, warned Hafele that he was stepping on shaky constitutional grounds.¶

“These records are protected by our constitutional right of privacy,” he said, referring to the Florida Constitution.¶

After the hearing, Silver said an appeal won’t be necessary until Epstein attorneys seek the records.¶

In another ruling Wednesday, Hafele also said that videos from depositions in the state cases can’t be released without a court order. The ruling came after Epstein attorney Robert Critton complained that a video of Epstein being asked whether he had an “egg-shaped” penis became a youtube.com sensation. It first appeared on The Palm Beach Post Web site.¶

Critton blamed attorney Spencer Kuvin for releasing it. Kuvin said it was public record.¶

The civil suits began mounting after Epstein agreed to plead guilty to two state charges: procuring a minor for prostitution and soliciting prostitution. He served 13 months of an 18-month sentence. As part of the deal brokered with federal prosecutors, he agreed not to contest the accusations in the civil lawsuits. He can argue the women don’t deserve the millions they are seeking.¶

~jane_musgrave@pbpost.com¶

Epstein Journal’s Findings COM Resurrect Case¶

By Jane Musgrave¶

Posted Sep 17, 2019 at 12:01 AM¶

Updated Oct 1, 2019 at 10:51 AM¶

(EDITORS NOTE This story originally published in The¶

Pal* Beath Post on March 20, 2010)¶

A purloined journal that is said to contain the naines “hµndredC of victims of convicted sex offenderie Epstein could be used to reopen. the investig in e multi-millionaire’s appetite for teenage orney representing seven of the yictimssai\¶

New details about the coated, ;nal were released this week when.Alfredo R gt ho worked as a property manager for each resident, pleaded guilty to obstnicti for lying to federal agents when asked if information about his former bate crimin He later tried to sell the journal he stole from Ep for $50,000 to an unidentified person, who ale thorities, according to court records.¶

ofthe plea agreement, federal prosecutors said the umal ‘contains information material to the Epstein investigation, including the names of material witnesses and additional victims!¶

`Had the items been produced in response to the inquiries of state or federal authorities… the materials would have been presented to the federal grand jury: federal prosecutors wrote.¶

1¶

1¶

Insteafibosectitors short-circuited the grand jury® investigation and cut a deal with’ Epstein. They agreed not to pursue federal charges if he didn’t contest prostitutionrelated felonies in state court The money manager pleaded guilty in July 2008 to procuring a Minor for prostitution and soliciting prostitution. He served 13 months of an 18 month sentence.¶

Attorney Adam Horowitz; who represents seven of the roughly 18 women who have filed civil suits against Epstein, said the new information could trump the socalled non-prosecution agreement¶

The multifaceted agreement, he said, deals only wi specific list of victims that the U.S. Attorneys Offi about when it penned the deal in 2007. If a are listed in the journal Rodriguez stole federal prosecutors could reopen th O al victims said¶

It opens the door for further tion,” he said.¶

in addition to turning urnal to federal agents, Rodriguez told the his former boss was having sex with unde en he worked for him in 2004 and 2005. H naked girls, who looked like minors, in the pca lot o of ein’s $8.6 million mansion. He had seen pornog images of young girls on Epstein’s computer, rditi to court records.¶

either Epstein’s criminal defense attorney, Jack Goldberger, nor attorney Robert Critton, who represents Epstein in the civil lawsuits, could be reached, Federal prosecutors have consistently declined comment.¶

The wording of the controversial agreement is unclear. It says federal prosecutors would provide Epstein’s attorneys “with a list of individuals whom it has identified as victims.’ Miami attorney Robert Josefsberg was appointed to¶

reprelliany of the victims on the list who wanteilD pursue Epstein in civil court: As partof the agreement, Epstein, is to pay for Jotefsberg to represent the women,¶

Some of the women, most identified as Jane Doe in lawsuits, had. already hired attorneys to represent diem. Some have since settled their suits with Epstein, although terms were not disclosed.¶

Horowitz said he has filed court papers to get the journal that Rodriguez stole. “(t’s another piece of evidence that shows our clients: were at Epstein’s mansion, he said.¶

Rodriguez told prosecutors he didn’t turn over the j when both FBI and Palm Beach police asked for it he wanted money for it. He also said he was would make him ‘disappear.” The infor told investigators, was his Insurance polj em¶

He faces a maximum 20 years en he is sentenced on June 18.¶

jane_musgrave@pb¶

I I I t¶

I I i¶

I !¶

C¶

OPP.p.toiv i¶

The Palm each Post. REAL NEWS STARTSAERE _ _ _¶

Epstein paid three women $54 Million to end ;ilederager sex lavaiiits¶

By line Mosinee.¶

Posted Oct 3,2017 at 12:01 AM¶

Updated Oct 4, 2017 at12A6 AM¶

Ending years of speculation about h6W witch Palat Beach billibnaire Jeffr paid young women who claimed he used them as sex toys, court documents filed C ) show .he shelled out S5.5 million to settle lawsuits with three of more than two doze teen who sued him.¶

Responding to requests. from Epstein’s attorneys in a. comp sex scandal, attorney said the politica offender paid more than. $1 million to each of the• it that was spawned by the d 64-year-old convicted sex it i represented.¶

1¶

I 1¶

Identified in court papers only by their ird onyms because of the nature of the allegations and their youthful ages, L.M. w SI million, E.W: $2 million and Jane Doe 1 511.5 million,. said of the settle a negotiated with Epstein. to. end the lawsuits. 1¶

Jack Goldberger, one pf Epste defense attorneys,.on Tuesday declined comment on the revelations, citing confide i agreements that. were part of the settlements. For the same reason, he detlin ay whether Epstein paid similar amounts to settle toughly two dozen lawsuits file ryOung-Women against Epstein, claiminghe paid them forsex i when some we ung as 14 years old.¶

a, who is representing M, said his client was compelled to divulge settlements to answer questions posed by.Epstein’s attorneys. ‘Brilliant move he said.¶

Even if Epstein’s attorneys hadn’t opened the door, Scarcila said the information would have likely come out He says the information will help him undermine Epstein’s claims that “ginned up” the allegations to help his former law partner, imprisoned and disbarred Fort Lauderdale lawyer Scott Rothstein, perpetuate a $1.2 billion Ponzi scheme.¶

The revelations of diesettlements came as parr Of an.ohgoing lawsuit that started as a dispute between Epstein and Rothstein, both billionaires.¶

A year after Epstein in 1008 pleaded guiltytololicitation of prostitution and procuring a minor for prostitution, he sued Rothstein and M, claiming they trumped up the allegations of sexual Molestation to perpetuate the Ponzi. scheme.¶

Rothstein was sentenced to 50 yeart in prison in 2010 after admitting he had built hi ithwildly successful law firm by forging the names of federal judges and others to persuade’• v stors he had negotiated settlements in lawsuits against high-profile people. Investors Ac etol ey could .get a cut of the cash.¶

One of the high-profile people Rothstein used to lure investorswas psteO., according to a lawsuit West Palm Beach attorney Robert Critton mid on Eps ’ ‘s I According to the lawsuit, Rothstein told investors: Epstein, a money Manager, eed to settle the lawsuits: with the teens lot-4200million— a claim Critton descr’ As ti ’ oniplete fabrication.’¶

After Epstein dropped the lawsuit in 2012, Edw Epstein’of filing the lawsuit maliciously top Although no evidence was a partner inRot was involved i charged other attorneys and me said in the malicious prosecu ti e the tables on him. accused or representing.the young women. w defunct firm, Scarola claims Epstein had - scheme. Federal prosecutors successfully firm, but. was never implicated, Scarola¶

The revelation’s about th ey Epstein paid to three of the young woman came last week in documents filed fogs hea Tuesday in preparation for a December trial on the lawsuit.¶

0 Attorney ’ ,’) Haddad Coleman,: who represents Epstein, on Tuesday sought a delay of the trial, in pe, because she claimed she has been unable to talk to her client since his estate on his private island in the U.S. Virgin. Islands was devastated last month by Hurricane Irma. “I’ve had no ability to communicate with Mr. Epstein,’ she said..¶

Pointing out Epstein’s enormous wealth and his private jet, Palm Beach County Circuit Judge Donald Hafele rejected her request. While saying he didn’t want to appear insensitive to those victimized by the storm that hammered the Caribbean and roared through South Florida, he said Coleman offered no proof, such as an affidavit from Epstein, to shore up her claims.¶

Still, Hafele gave Coleman extra time to respond to various motions that he will have to decide before the case goes to trial.¶

Despite Scarola’s insistence that had nothing to do with Rothstein’s Po erne, Coleman said the evidence indicates otherwise. Why else would he try to de pst n’s well-known friends, such as now President Donald Trump, former Presi linton and illusionist David Copperfield, she asked. He used the celebrities as a aid.¶

“The Epstein cases were used to fleece money and defraud invest, A s e said.¶

Edward’s malicious prosecution case has been difficult n have refused to answer questions. As he di his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimi has claimed that much of the information E pscern privilege. es because both Epstein and lawsuits, Epstein has invoked questioned by Scarola.n is protected by attorney-client¶

( The malicious prosecution lawsuit o 4,t e yo hotly-contested lawsuits that continue to pit n against Epstein. Edwards als suing the U.S. attorney’s office, claiming it violated i the federal Crime Victims Rights Act when it negotiated anon-prosecution agreement with Epstein.¶

17 1.4r Only after feslera ecutors agreed to drop their investigation of Epstein, did he agree to plead guilty t tw r ‘union charges in Palm Beach County Circuit Court. In federal court records, p s claim one of the key reasons they agreed to drop their case was Epstein’s agreeme o settle lawsuits filed against him by dozens of his underage victims.¶

Palm Beach Daily News,¶

Judge= rules feds’ agreement with Jeffrey Epstein pact violated teen victims’ rights¶

By Jane Musgrave¶

Posted Sep 17, 2019 at 4:02 PM¶

Updated Oct 8, 2019 at 12:31 PM¶

Palm Beach Post on February 22, 2019)¶

Federal prosecutors violated the rights of Jeffrey E C te i9is teenage victims by failing to reveal they had dropped plans to prosecute the billionaire on dozens of federal .charges in connection with the girls’ claims thathe paid them for sex at his Palm Beach mansion, U.S. Districtjudge Kenneth Marra ruled on Thursday.¶

In a blistering 33-page ruling, Marra meticulously and methodically detailed thezumerous steps federal prosecutors t k tah young wome c w)ide the agreement from more than 40 claim Epstein paid them for sex when they w asyoung as 14.¶

hik t e government spent untold hours negotiating the and implications of the NPA with Epstein’s attorneys, Giant information was shared with the victims,” Marra A46. wrote. “Instead, the victims were told to be ‘patient’ while the investigation proceeded.”¶

By then, it was too late. A deal had already been cut with then-South Florida U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta and Epstein’s attorneys to shelve a 52-page federal indictment against Epstein, a former math teacher turned money manager who counts Presidents Donald Trump and Bill Clinton among his friends.

¶

Proseills failure’to alert the young women abo$ deal violated the Crime Victims’ Rights. Act, Marra ruled. “At a bare minimum the (act) required the government to inform (the young women) that it intended to enter into an agreement not.to prosecute Epstein; he wrote.¶

Still, Marra said he wasn’t second-guessing prosecutors’ decision not to pursue Epstein on federal charges if he pleaded, guilty to minor state prostitution charges and agreed to compensate his victims for the trauma he caused.¶

‘The court-is not ruling that the decision not to prosecute A was improper,’ Marra, wrote: The court is simplynil’ that, under the facts of this case, there was a Viol-at the CVRA.-¶

Further, he made no decision about wha dy should be. He gave prosecutors and presenting the toting women 15 days-to in T i how to unravel the complex legal web that • inhanging over Epstein and his young victims fore a decade.¶

The chances an ac r reached are slim, said attorney Jack o is representing the two Jane Does who loge the prosecutors’ actions.¶

Furthe id, there is no road map to. follow. The suit orney filed on behalf of the two titled young women, claiming prosecutors violated e federal act, is unique, he said.¶

We. are treading.on virgin ground, to use what is probably an inappropriate phrase in this situation,’ he said:¶

Starola said he and will ask that the nonprosecution agreement be thrown out, That would open. the possibility that the long-shelved federal indictment could be dusted off and filed against the 66-year-old Epstein, who. spends most of his time on a private island he owns in the U.S. Virgin Islands,¶

“I dor. the government conceding to that rem. Scarola admitted. Further, he said, it is likely Epstein will be allowed to weigh in. Miami attorney Roy Black years ago filed papers asking to intervene on Epstein’s behalf.¶

The U.S. Attorney’s Office said it wouldn’t comment on Marra’s ruling. Neither Black nor New York City attorney Jay Lefkowitz, who led efforts to bury the federal indictment, responded to emails or phone calls for comment. West Palm Beach attorney Jack Goldberger, who represents Epstein, also didn’t respond.¶

Scarola, said it is likely Epstein’s star-studded legal team -S , argue that Epstein fully complied with the terms of agreement he made in 2007 with federal prosecut therefore the agreement can’t be undone.¶

As he promised, Epstein pleaded guiltyin,c in 008 to state charges of soliciting a minor for non and soliciting prostitution. He served 13 mo an 18-month jail term in a vacant wing of the couy st ade that he was allowed to leave 12 hours a d week.¶

Further, as agr settlements to the young women who sued hi . Whi the settlements were confidential, court records he paid three women a total of $5.5 million.¶

(In Seturn, federal prosecutors held up their end of the rgain. Their investigation ceased.¶

Having done all that prosecutors asked of him, Scarola said Epstein will make a simple argument: “You can’t turn around and deprive me of the benefits I bargained for.”¶

However, Scarola said, using Marra’s ruling, he will counter that the contract Epstein signed was illegal and therefore unenforceable.¶

r.¶

Even •rra agrees to toss oatthe non-prosecutie agreement, Scarola conceded that doesn’t mean Epstein will. face federal charges.¶

“The contract can be set aside and.the federal government can attempt to enter into. the same agreement,” he said: “Exceptthe spotlight of public attention will be on them and the 40 victims will be able to explain to the court. why this sweetheart deal should notbe approved?¶

Scarola said that prnatittors may have had good reason not to pursue Epstein. “There may be a reasonable explanation but we don’t know what that reason may have been: b said. 0¶

In court papers, federal protetutors have sai. . tm the young women were afraid to cross politically connected money manage y refused to testify against him.¶

In other cases, they “said, hanged their stories, Jape: Poe 2, who is t the non-prosecution agreement thrown y described Epstein as “ari. awesome man rotecutots she hoped “nothing happen? to e shelater agreed to testify against Epstein, prose rs laid they feared Epstein’s. attorneys would words to destroy her’if she ever took the d.¶

arm, however, said the young woman s comments.didn’t mean she wasn’t entitled to know about the prosecutor? plans to drop the charges.. `There is no dispute that Epstein sexually abused Jane Doe 2 while she was a minor,” he wrote. “Therefore, regardless of her comments to the prosecutor, she was a victim.”¶

Before the case is finally resolved, Scarola predicted that ‘a lot of people are going to have to answer a lot of questions.”¶

In hiseg i Marra detailed what appeared to be aS relationship between Acosta, his line prosecutors and Epstein’s team of lawyers. His phalanx of lawyers included noted Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz and Kenneth Starr, the former U:S. solicitor general whose investigation led to the impeachment of President Clinton.¶

Marra describes an.October 200, breakfast meeting between Acosta, who is nOW U:S: labor secretary; and Lefkowitt shortly after the non-prosecution agreement was inked.¶

After the meeting; .Lefkowitz.sent Acosta ante. tbanid S him for ‘the commitment you Made to the during October 12 meeting in which you assured me that Office would not .,. contact any of the iden individuals, potentialvimesses, orpote aiMantt: and their respective counsel in this¶

Marti quoted an. equally plea sakst or e then-Palm Beach County State Attorney B ris er sent to Assistant U.S. Attorney Villaf w as the lead prosecutor in Epsteiti’s case. “G d get this worked out for reasons I wo Ong; Kriscler wrote, shortly after the non ros ution agreement was signed. “After this is reso I would love to buy you a cup at Starbucks and l b o haveac v nation.,.”¶

oithe notes that were exchanged deilt with osecutors’ and Epstein’s lawyers’ shared desire.to keep the deal secret from Epstein’s accusers. In a September email, Villafana asked Lefkowitz for guidance about what she should reveal: “And can we have a conference call to discuss what .I may disclose to … the girls regarding the Agreement,” she asked.¶

Such liberation between prosecutors and defense attorneys is unusual, Marra said. “it was .a deviation from the government’s standard practice to negotiate with defense counsel about the extent of crime victim notifications; he wrote.¶

Further,he noted, that when and his two young clients asketifor information, they were repeatedly misled: “The CRVA was designed to protect victims’ tight and ensure their involvement in, the criminal justice process,” Marra wrote. “When the government gives information to victims it cannot be, misleading.’¶

Ultimately, the terms of the non-prosecution agree were revealed only after and attorneys fo press successfully sued to make them public¶

jmusgrave@pbpost.com¶

@pbpcourts¶

76 / 278 - Tuesday, July 9, 2019¶

Edition: Final¶

Section: A Section¶

Page: 1A¶

Source: By Jane Musgrave, The Palm Beach Post¶

Zpstein: indicted oit sex Charges Part-time Palm Beacher pleads not giiilty to sex trafficking, conspiracy charges in federal court in Manhattan.¶

Dressed in a blue prison jumpsuit, billionaire Jeffrey Epstein on M to charges accusing him of creating a vast network of girls as for his sexual pleasure at his homes in Palm Beach and M leaded not guilty 4 that he exploited¶

The 66-year-old money manager’s appearance in U.S. rt in New York City capped more than a decade of recriminations by you and their attorneys who claimed Epstein used his money and political. infl ce. oid federal prosecution.¶

Epstein’s attorney Reid Weingarten dismissed e o-to t indictment on sex trafficking charges as “essentially a do-over” of allege 4e4 Epstein in the Palm Beach County Jail for 13 months more than a d¶

However, unlike in 2007 when then-$ shelve a 53-page federal indictmen prostitution charges, prosecuto now U.S. labor secretary: U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta agreed to in agreed to plead guilty to two state ork indicated they aren’t willing to deal,.Acesta is¶

“The alleged behavior shoc Berman said at a rucience,” New York City U.S. Attorney Geoffrey¶

morning news conferen is still profoundly, deserve their d while the charged conduct is from a number of years ago, it o many of the alleged victims, .now young women. They¶

At a detentipnhearIa,g scheduled for Monday, Berman said he will ask a federal judge to keep Bpstefit behind bars until he is tried on charges of sex trafticking.ena conspiracy to commit ‘x trafficking. Epstein paid dozens of young women to give him nude massages that, ost, led to se; he said.¶

If convNisd of exploitiiiiiozens of young women, including many Palm Beach County girls who were students at palm Beach High School, Epstein faces a maximum 45-year prison sentence.¶

Citing Epstein’s enormous wealth, his homes in New York, Palm Beach, the U.S. Virgin Islands, New Mexico and Paris and his ownership of two jets, Berman said there are few conditions that could keep Epstein from fleeing to a. foreign country to evade prosecution.¶

“We think he’s a significant flight risk,” Berman said of the man who ferried Britain’s Prince Andrew, actor Kevin Spacey, famed Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz and former President Bill Clinton on his jet, dubbed the Lolita Express.¶

Berman’s hard-line stance was welcomed by young women who for years have been told that Epstein couldn’t be touched because Acosta signed off on the nonprosecution agreement, promising not to charge Epstein in federal court.¶

Former Palm Beach County resident Virginia Guiffre, who has accused Epstein of turning her into his sex slave and forcing her to have sex with others, including Dershowitz and Prince Andrew, praised Berman. He showed the case is “being taken in a serious way,” she told the Associated Press. Dershowitz has vehemently denied Guiffre’s claims.¶

New York prosecutors were able to ignore the controversial nonprosecution agreement because it contained some significant fine print, said former federal Judge Paul Cassell, who for years has fought to get the agreement thrown out. It says only that no charges could be filed against Epstein in South Florida, he said.¶

Berman agreed. “That agreement only binds, by its terms, only binds the Southern District of Florida,” he said. “The Southern District of New York is not bound by that agreement and wasn’t a signatory of it.”¶

That means the sordid allegations that have been leveled at Epstein for years are now part of a federal indictment.¶

Contrary to Epstein’s claims, he knew the women who came to his homes in New York and Palm Beach were minors because they told him their ages, according to the indictment. Epstein preyed on young girls because he knew they were “vulnerable to exploitation,” prosecutors added.¶

As part of a carefully orchestrated sex ring, Epstein or his associates would call girls while he was in New York so they would be available for sex once he returned to Palm Beach, the indictment says. The employees weren’t named. They were identified only as “Employee-1,” “Employee-2” and “Employee-3.”¶

To ensure he had a steady stream of young girls, Epstein would turn some victims into recruiters. He would pay them to bring new girls to his home on El Brillo Way along the Intracoastal Waterway in Palm Beach or to his palatial townhouse on New York’s Upper East Side.¶

“This allowed Epstein to create an ever-expanding web of new victims,” Berman said. In both New York and Palm Beach, the lurid operation was similar. Unidentified employees of Epstein’s would escort the teens into a room. They were told to take off all or most of their clothes before giving the naked billionaire massages, according to the indictment.¶

“Epstein would also typically masturbate during these encounters, ask victims to touch him while he masturbated, and touch victims’ genitals with his hands or with sex toys,” the indictment says.¶

As part of the criminal complaint, prosecutors are asking that Epstein be forced to turn over his multimillion-dollar townhouse on East 71st Street. The complaint does not seek forfeiture of Epstein’s house in Palm Beach.¶

While heartened that Epstein now faces serious criminal charges in New York, Cassell said he would continue to push a West Palm Beach-based federal judge to throw out the nonprosecution agreement that Acosta forged with Epstein’s star-studded legal team.¶

U.S. District Judge Keneth Marra has already ruled that Acosta violated the federal Crime Victims’ Rights Act by not telling Epstein’s victims about the agreement before it was inked. Coincidentally, Cassell and Epstein attorney Roy Black had to file papers by midnight Monday, explaining what action Marra should take to redress that wrong.¶

Cassell insisted Epstein should face charges in federal court in West Palm Beach. “Florida victims deserve justice in Florida,” said Cassell, who is working on behalf of Epstein’s victims with attorneys [REDACTED] and Jack Scarola.¶

Since it’s likely Florida women will get to testify against Epstein in New York, Scarola said he’s not focused on whether Epstein will face charges here. Instead, he said he wants to know how and why the agreement was reached.¶

“There’s been no explanation as to how a deal like this could have been cut and how the federal government could have been involved in a conspiracy to violate federal law,” Scarola said of his interest in continuing the legal battle over the nonprosecution agreement.¶

When Acosta agreed to drop the federal investigation, Epstein in 2008 pleaded guilty to two prostitution charges and served 13 months of an 18-month sentence in a vacant wing of the Palm Beach County Jail - a cell he was allowed to leave 12 hours a day, six days a week. He was also forced to register as a sex offender and settle civil lawsuits more than 30 young women filed against him.¶

U.S. Rep. Lois Frankel, D-West Palm Beach, said she shares Scarola’s interest in finding out how the agreement came to be. “I am especially more interested in why Epstein got the deal he got,” Frankel said. “We need to know why he was given such an easy sentence.¶

While she has asked the House Oversight Committee to investigate Acosta, Frankel said she is not sure that will happen. “It just seems to me it was a travesty that this guy got off the way he did and, without pre-judging it, let’s have a proper court case,” Frankel said.¶

Former Palm Beach Police Chief Michael Reiter was inflamed in 2006 when then-State Attorney Barry Krischer refused to charge Epstein with serious crimes. Reiter took the information his officers had gathered from dozens of Epstein’s victims to Acosta, believing he would prosecute Epstein. He didn’t.¶

Reiter said he was heartened that 13 years later, Epstein will finally face justice.¶

“Thankfully, U. S. Attorney Berman and the other authorities in New York have the good judgment to investigate and prosecute Epstein in the way that should have occurred in Florida over a decade ago,” Reiter said in a statement.¶

And, Scarola said, there are signals that Berman’s investigation is far from over.¶

Berman declined to answer questions about whether others, such as Epstein’s high-powered friends, would be charged. He brushed off questions about the significance that the investigation was being handled by the Public Corruption Unit.¶

While agents on Saturday were arresting Epstein aboard his private jet at the Teterboro Airport in New Jersey after returning from Paris, other officers were searching his New York City townhouse. Agents seized nude photos of young girls who appeared to be minors, Berman said.¶

He said his focus was on finding more women who were exploited and abused by Epstein. Turning to a poster, detailing the charges that had been filed against Epstein, he pointed a finger at a photo of the convicted sex offender who was once described as “a man of mystery.”¶

“If you believe you are a victim of this man, Jeffrey Epstein, we want to hear from you,” Berman said. A special number, 1-800-CALLFBI, will link victims of authorities. Bill Sweeney, assistant director of the FBI’s New York office, said after years of being ignored by federal agents, the victims’ voices will be heard.¶

“The Jeffrey Epstein matter is No. 1 on the major case list in the country,” Sweeney said. Turning to address Epstein’s victims directly, he said: “Your bravery may empower others to speak out against crimes against them.”¶

jmusgrave@pbpost.com¶

Def.Ex.A-5¶

IN Tk1E CIRCUIT COURT of THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA¶

CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC, Publisher of THE PALM BEACH POST,¶

v. CASE NO: 2019-CA-.014681¶

Palm Beach County, Florida, SHARON R. A DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of BOCK, as Clerk 8e Comptroller, Palm Beach County, Florida, O¶

/¶

C AS¶

DEFENDANT, DAVE ARONBERG, AS STATE ATTORNEY NALM BEACH COUNTY. FLORIDA’S ANSWER TO FIRST AM E DED COMPLAINT AND MOTION TO DISMI Ut T II.¶

Defendant, DAVE ARONBERG, as State A o alm Beach County; Florida, (“SAO”), by and through the undersigned attorney, here p,SaSlip hl outit I of the Firtt Amended Complaint of Plaintiff; CA Florida Holdings; LLC, Pu At m.,. t of e Palm Reach Post (“Post”), and files a Motion to Dismiss Count II, as follows:¶

JURISDICTION¶

• 1. Admitted urisdictibnal purposes.

PARTIES¶

( 701nied that Defendant Aronberg or the Office of the State Attorney for the Fifteenth¶

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

• 4. Admined.

INTRODUCTION¶

• 5. Paragraph Scontains the Post’s statement of the case and legal arguments to which no

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

6. Paragraph 6 contains the Post’s statement of the case and legal arguments to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, the SAO admits only that section 905.27(1)(0, Florida Statute authorizes the disclosure of grand jury proceedings ailesvcertain circumstances.

S 7. Paragraph 7 contains to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is re the SAO is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the tru actual allegations contained in paragraph 7, and therefore denies the allegations and d proof thereof. allegationsthe 1)a1t n Beach Post’s statement of the egal arguments¶

no response is required. To the extent that a equired, the SAO is without knowledge or and demands strict proof thereof. information sufficient to form a belief as milte truth of any factual allegations contained in paragraph 8, and therefore denies the , _ . -nr— 8. Paragraph 8 sets forth the Post’s e case and legal arguments to which¶

_ 9. Paragraph 8 set forth the Post’s statement of the case and legal arguments to which no response is required. li the extent ‘that a response is required, the SAO is without knowledge or information %Aileen \ to form a belief as to the truth of any factual allegations contained in paragraph 9,and therefor e the allegations and demands strict proof thereof.¶

FACTUAL BACKGROUND¶

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

A. First Epstein Sex Crimes Ins estigation, Indictment, and Plea Agreement: 2005-2008.¶

11. The SAO is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth

of any factual allegations contained in paragraph 11, and therefore denies the allegations and demands strict proof thereof.¶

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

13. The SAO is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belie he truth of any factual allegations contained in paragraph 13, and therefore denies the allega and demands strict proof thereof. 0

14. The SAO is without knoWledgeot information SutTicient t ort belief as to the truth of any factual allegations contained in paragraph 14, and thereto the allegations and demands strict proof thereof.

15. The SAO is without knowledge or infoCatio indent to form a belief as to the truth of any factual allegations contained in paragraph15, and therefore denies the allegations and demands strict proof thereof.

(1) Police Chief Reiterlic.etter to the State Attorney¶

16. The SAO is without knoWledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of any factual allegationvuoinaincd in paragraph 16, and therefore denies the allegations and demands strict proof thereon-

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

(2) The July 2006 State Grand Jury Presentation¶

18. The SAO is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of any factual allegations contained in paragraph 18, and therefore denies the allegations and demands strict proof thereof.

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

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

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

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

(3) The FBI’s Investigation and Epttei ^A ,s on^I -Prosecution Agreement with Federal Authorities.¶

23. The SAO is without mformation sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of any factual allegations containedin aph 23, and therefore denies the allegations and demands strict proof thereof.

24. The SAO ThWit rout knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of any factual alleg ons contained in paragraph 24, and therefore denies the allegations and demands \ `‘y strict proof Mere°

N¶

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

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

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

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

29. The SAO is without knowledge or infOrmation sufficient to as to the truth of any factual allegations contained in paragraph 29, and therefore denies ations and demands strict proof thereof.

30. The SAO is without knowledge or informa - to I ’ nt to form a belief as to the truth /— of any factual allegations contained in paragraph 30, and titer it denies the allegations and demands . \ strict proof thereof.

31. The SAO is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth . / of any factual allegations contained in paragraph 31, and therefore denies the allegations and demands strict proof thereof.

(4) The Crime Victims’ Rimhts Act Lineation.¶

32. SAO iSwithout knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of any factual allegati contained in paragraph 32, and therefore denies the allegations and demands strict prodf thereof.

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

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

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

36. The SAO is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of any factual allegations contained in paragraph 36, and therefore denies the allegationM t% 1 mands strict proof thereof.

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

B. Second Epstein Sex Crimes Investigation. IndictniChSed ide: 2019.¶

38. Admitted.

39. The SAO is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of any factual allegations contained in parpgrnph 39, and therefore denies the allegations and demands strict proof thereof.

40. The SAO is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of any factual allegationsisMailied in paragraph 40, and therefore denies the allegations and demands strict proof therein/ S

41. /rite S O is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth. 4 I of any fachmi allegations contained in paragraph 41, and therefore denies the allegations and demands strict prdof thereof.

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

43. The SAO is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth

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

• 44. Admitted.

C. The August 27, 2019. SDNY Hearinn: Epstein’s Victims Sneak.¶

45. The SAO is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 4, k truth of any factual allegations contained in paragraph 44, and therefore denies the alleg iniR ’ and e demands strict proof thereof.

AS 46. Admitted that United States Senior Judge Richard M. Be d a hearing on August 27, 2019, but the SAO is without knowledge or information suffic fto orm a belief as to the truth of any remaining factual allegations contained in par and therefore denies the allegations and demands strict proof thereof.¶

47. The SAO is without knowledge or infoCation fficient to form a belief as to the truth of any factual allegations contained in paragraph 47, and therefore denies the allegations and demands strict proof thereof.

48. The SAO is without knowledge or information sufficient to forma belief as to the truth \•”:, , of any factual allegations contained in paragraph 48, and therefore denies the allegations and demands strict proof thereof.

49. AO is ithout knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of any factu contained in paragraph 49, and therefore denies the allegations and demands strict proo f.

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

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

D. The Palm Beach Post’s Standine and the Public Interest.¶

(1) The Palm Beach Post Has Reported Extensively On Epstein’s Crimes For Nearly 15 Years.¶

52. Admitted.

53. Admitted.

54. Admitted that the Post has extensively investigated and reported on the al)egations against, the law enforcement investigation of, and the crimes committed by Epstein, but lacks sufficient knowledge to admit or deny any factual allegations remaining in paragraph 54,‘arid therefore denies the allegations and demands strict proof thereof.

55. The SAO is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of any factual allegations contained in paragraph-55,44therefore denies the allegations and demands strict proof thereof.

(2) The Palm Beach Post’s Standine and the Public Interest.¶

56. Paragraph 56 of the ded Complaint contains the Palm Beach Post’s statement of the case and legaLatu to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, the SAO fits the press has a constitutional right of access to criminal proceedings, but is withou ledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of any remaining factuttickgations contained in paragraph 56, and therefore denies the allegations and demands ussttopfler thereof.

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

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

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

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

E. The Court’s Jurisdiction and Authority.¶

• (1) The Court’s Supervision of the Grand Ju and t Its Authorits to Order Public Disclosure of the Epstein Evidence,

60. Paragraph 60 of the First Amended-Complaint contains the Palm Beach Post’s statement of the case and legal arguments t8 N71jFh no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, the SAO admits t1 has a constitutional right of access to criminal / proceedings, but is without kno Idtig itkormation sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of any remaining factual allegations c tus ‘rid in paragraph 60, and therefore denies the allegations and demands strict proof the

• 61. ddlfljEted.

fitted.¶

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

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

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

(2) The Court’s Jurisdiction To Declare Rights And Construe Statutes.¶

65. Admitted.

66. Admitted.

67. Admitted.

COUNT I¶

(Declaratory Relief - Florida Stat. Sections 86.011 et seq.)¶

68. The SAO reincorporates and re-alleges its prior answers to paragraphs 1 through 67 above.

69. Admitted.

70. Paragraph 70 contains the Post’s statement of the case and legal arguments to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, the SAO is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of any factual allegations contained in paragraph 70, and therefore denies the allegations and demands strict proof thereof.

71. Admitted that The Palm Beach Post is seeking a declaration from this Court but denies the remainder of Paragraph 71.

72. Admitted.

73. Denied.

74. Paragraph 74 contains the Post’s legal arguments to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, the SAO is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of any factual allegations contained in paragraph 74, and therefore denies the allegations and demands strict proof thereof.

MOTION TO DISMISS COUNT II¶

(Florida Stat. Section 905.27)¶

Defendant, DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of PiIm Beach County,.Florida, pursuant to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedute 1.420, hereby files this Motion to Dig-Mist Count II of Plaintiff’s First Amended Coniplaint for failure to state a cause of action, and in support thereof stater:¶

L Standard of Review¶

When confronted with a motion to dismiss, the Court. must detemiinc wha c plaint as phrased within its four corners sufficiently states a cause of action, whereb c tr be granted. Fox v. Professional Wrecker Operations 801 SO. 2d 175, 178 (Fit 5 ‘.1). A. inotitin. tO dismiss tests whether the plaintiff has stated.a cause of action. Th g for tion:to dismiss under Florida Rule of CiVil Procedure 1.140(h) is whether the plea u ve any set of feels as alleged in the Complaint to support his or her claim. Is, 89 So; 2d 482, 484 (Fla. 1956); Wasua Ins. Co. v. HaVries 683 So..2d 1123 DCA 1996).¶

In order to meet this test, “a compi of st lege sufficient ultimate facts to show that a pleader is entitled to relief.” W.R. To tr.. Inc. v. Jensen Civ. Constr. Inc., 728 So. 2d 297, 300 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (quoti etekvlCoserove 464 So. 2d 664, 665 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.110(b)). The couritbeeA not accept internally inconsistent factual claims, conclusory allegations, unwarranted ons, or merelegal conclusions made by a party. Kt (citing Jtesoonse, Oncoloev, Inc. ealth Insurance Co” 978 F. Supp. 1052, 1058 (S.D. Fla. 1997)); Oxford Asset 97 F.3d 1182, 1188 (11th Cir. 2002) (“(On a motion to dismiss,) the plaintiff’s ons are accepted as true… However, legal conclusions masquerading as facts will not prevent dismissal.”). To avoid distniSsal, a pleading “mist allege a cause of action recognized Under law’ against the defending party. Kislak v. 1Creedian 95 So. 2d 510, 514 (Fla. 19.57).¶

Q. Arpu men t¶

a.. Neither Defendant A ronberg, nor the Office of the State Attorney for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit is in possession and/or control of documents that¶

are the subject or this action.¶

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

b. Plaintiff Fails to State a Cause of Action¶

Plaintiffattempts to assert a cause of action, in the interest of “furthe Statute § 905.27; however, a review of the statute in question reveals that n for therein and consequently Count II of Plaintiff’s First matter of law. Despite Plaintiff’s extensive recitation o Epstein and the testimony and evidence presented Florida, Fla. Stat. § 905.27, merely explains thelxce ‘,under Florida of action is provided aint must be dismissed as a background regarding Jeffery grand jury in Palm Beach County, o s to the disclosure of grand jury testimony and does not set forth in any way a cause of` tion upon which to initiate a valid law suit.¶

Moreover, a review of the tyre sue clearly indicates that even if § 905.27, Fla. Stat. provided a basis for a cause of a Lion, Pliintiff is barred from access to the records it seeks. To wit, in pertinent part, Fla. Stat. §- 9_05.27(2) states:¶

When sucfrdisclostire is ordered by a court pursuant to subsection (I) for use in a civil case, it maybe disclosed to all panics to the case and to their attorneys and by the latter to their kgal associates and employees. However, the erand jury testimony afforded such persons by the court can only be used in the defense or nroseention of the civil or crinithakase and !Or no other purpose whatsoever.¶

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

prosecution of the civil or criminal case and for no other purpose whatsoever”, which is distinctly different from Plaintiff’s intended purpose for public disclosure of the grand jury evidence. Fla. Stat. 905.27(2).¶

WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing argument and supporting authority, Defendant, DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of Palm Beach County, Florida, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court gane the instant Motion and dismiss Count Il of Plaintiff’s First Mithilkmplaint with prejudice, and gant Defendant Aronberg all other and further relief deeme ft and proper, including attomey’s fees and costs for defending this frivolous action.¶

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE¶

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 24th day of January, 202 py of the foregoing has been electronically filed with the Florida E-File Portal for e-serviceprf all parties of record herein. \ \ _”,""¶

,4(4 611S SCHOLZ & WYLER, LLC¶

(SS ouglas A. Wyler¶

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

General Counsel for tire Florida Prosecuting Attorney’s Association¶

Def.Ex.A-6¶

In the Matter Of:¶

CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS vs DAVE ARONBERG¶

50-2019.CA-014681¶

HEAR’¶

June ,010¶

UIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS¶

800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com¶

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

CASE NO.: SO-2019-CA-014681 CIRCUIT CIVIL DIVISION: “AG”

¶

CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS LLC PUBLISHER OF THE PALM BEACH POST,¶

Plaintiff/Petitioner¶

-vs-¶

DAVE ARONBERG, SHARON R. BOCK,¶

so¶

HEARIN THE HONORABLE KRISTA MARX (ZOOM CONFERENCE)¶

Defendant/Respondents\¶

AS 1)¶

Cos¶

Wednesday, June 3, 2020 10:08 a.m. - 10:28 a.m.¶

REMOTE ZOOM CONFERENCE Port Saint Lucie, Florida¶

Stenographically Reported By: SONJA M. Court Reporter¶

ESQUIRE NIOMWMSMWWӦ

800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions. corn¶

1 APPEARANCES:¶

2 On behalf of the Plaintiff/Petitioner: 3 GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A. 4 1840 Century Park East 5 Suite 1900 Los Angeles, California 90067 6 310.586.7700 boyajian@gtlaw.com 7 BY: NINA D. BOYAJIAN, ESQUIRE¶

8 On behalf of the Defendant/Respondent: 9 JACOB, SCHOLZ & WYLER, LLC 961687 Gateway Boulevard Suite 2011 Fernandina Beach, Florida 32034 904.261.3693 doug.wyler@comcast.net 10 BY: DOUGLAS A. WYLER, ESQUIRE¶

11 On behalf of the Defendant/Respondent: 12 CLERK & COMPTROLLER, PALM BEACH COUNTY 13 P.O. Box 229 14 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 561.355.2983 15 nfingerhut@mypalmbeachclerk.com 16 BY: NICOLE R. FINGERHUT, ESQUIRE¶

800.211.DEPO (3376)¶

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¶

PROCEEDINGS¶

THE COURT: We are here today for a very limited purpose. I’m sure the attorneys are aware of that, but I just don’t want there to be any confusion. We are here on Defendant Dave Arof g and Defendant Sharon Bock for the Comptrol and the State Attorney’s motion to dismiss Cou t¶

You’re all acutely aware as the rs that this is a question of law. So w= re of going to be diving into facts and the Coin not be deciding the merits of this motion ” rning. We are simply here for the solA A I,c) S utur se of that motion to dismiss. So I just wanted to make sure that we all stay on track and/Werre all on that same page.¶

So, Ms. B’yagian, I’ll send it to you first, . i — o i'''course, we all know that the Law 101, I must look the four corners of the motion, which alleg hat the State Attorney, David Aronberg, and ti erk and comptroller, Sharon Bock, actually have t ‘7S-ody and control of these grand jury proceeding.¶

Whether that is true or not is not for this court to determine because I’m looking simply at the four corners of the complaint. But, not iOr nothing, I think we all know that they don’t have control and¶

ESQUIRE m”..”.“m” 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 1 2 custody of the records. But I’m going to assume that it’s correct because that’s what has been alleged.¶

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 So what I first want to hear from is the attorney for Florida Holdings with regard to, assuming arguendo, that Florida Statute 905.27 does create a cause of action, what relief is it t you’re seeking from — in Count II, specifi Not the dec action. We’re not here on what is it you hope to get, a judgmen d {sup}y¶

10 11 12 V MS. BOYAGIAN: Thank you, yo nor. Good morning, and thank you for the ’ ege of appearing before this court. -4\¶

13 14 15 16 The relief we are is disclosure of the grand jury records, s t to the Furtherance of Justice Exception .27. And under the First Amendment.¶

17 18 19 The press, your Honor is aware, has a right of access u the First Amendment as a surrogate of the p¶

20 21 COURT: Let me just stop you for a minute. -ledike you to answer my specific question.¶

22 23 24 25 So I am not particularly convinced — and I’d like for you to address that. So we’re not going to dive into facts or the press’s standing because that’s not something we’re here to discuss today.¶

• {sup}1 2 3 4 5 6 7 And I have read the voluminous paperwork — I’ve received paperwork as — and — five-minute ago from some of the other parties. But I deeply appreciate the fact that you sent this to me so much in advance and I have been able to spend some time with, as I said, the voluminous paperwork thatwaits provided. Agq,r/¶

8 9 10 11 But as you know, , we are he fo. such an extremely limited issue today, and th t t eir motion to dismiss where they state “you Uing the wrong people”; that the court has t cords.¶

12 13 14 AC And so, more importan want you to address talky whether Section 905.27 ’ s you a private cause of egc. action against the s to ttorney and the clerk.¶

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Again, I’m 6 o assume the facts are true that are asser -td the motion. Whether they are or not — because Lig hink we can all agree we’re not for sure if the e — that the state attorney doesn’t have tfh e records. So what is it you’re seeking in Cg I — not the dec action. I know you want the ds. I’ve got that. But in Count II, specifically, what do you — what’s the relief you’re seeking and, more importantly, how under this statute do you get to assert a private action — a private cause of action against the state attorney and the¶

0¶

ESQUIRE .""… 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 1 clerk?¶

2 3 4 MS. BOYAGIAN: Your Honor, we are aware, of course, that there is no expressed private right of action, 905.27. But that does not end the inquiry.¶

5 As the Florida Supreme Court stated:¶

6 “Where a statute like 905.27¶

7 8 9 forbids an act which is to 46C Plaintiff’s ASly injury, the party injured should haVi::) an action.”¶

10 11 And that’s the Smith Piezo case in the volume - h of materials that we sent you. //i / i¶

12 13 14 There’s no question here that the denial of the FIRST AMENDMENT right to the press is an injury which gives rise to a right_ of action. (—, /¶

15 16 17 18 19 Stated another 7’looking at the analysis 7 that the Fisch Mepalf Court looked at, there are three factors irk-determining whether there is {sup}a private rig of action where a statute does not express provide for one.¶

20 21 22 23 is whether the Plaintiff is part of the -olaes for which the statute is intended to protect; second is alegislative history; and the third is the underlying purposes of the statutory scheme.¶

24 25 The first factor I already addressed, that the press is part of the class that the statute is¶

• 25 (Speaking simultaneously.)¶

1 2 intended to benefit, being the surrogate of the public and exercising its first amendment right.¶

3 4 5 6 7 The second issue of legislative history and the purpose — statutory purpose are somewhat related. We were unable to find much legislative history, on this issue of a private right of action unde statute.¶

8 9 10 11 AC;r I There is nothing that says we int create a private action, but there’s certain •thing that says we do not want to create a to right of action.¶

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 What we do have is t 994, the same time that 905.27 was reenact tatute that pertains to the secrecy of State ra Jury statewide grand juries was also That provision, which is 905.395, has ex tions for — for revealing these records. By co ast, the legislature intentionally enacted_905Y27 with the Furtherance of Justice Exce¶

20 21 22 23 24 the public through the press can’t bring a to right of action to enforce that exception or to seek relief under that exception, that intentionally placed exception of furthering justice is essentially rendered hollow —¶

ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376)¶

ase the is he supposed to do with it? He can’t grand jury testimony. He has no authority whatsoever to do that.¶

THE COURT: Okay. Pause for a minute.¶

I don’t think anybody is saying that there isn’t a cause of action or that the press doesn’t have standing. That’s not what I’m asking you. I’m asking you, how are the clerk and the state attorney the proper defendants?¶

So, yOu know, nowhere have I said the )isn’t a cause of action. Clearly there is. I’M puzzled by the procedural posturing of this cage:naming the state attorney.¶

And, you know, I’m further,gtvmied r by the fact that you allege in your compleint that they have particularly David Aronberg the State Attorney that he has these recd¶

But I’m goin sume that’s true. So I’m not telling yo don’t have a cause of action. I’m just sayin kay, let’s run this all the way out. Let’s you win and you get a judgment again he State Attorney Dave Aronberg.¶

MS. BOYAGIAN: Well, your Honor, as you stated, this is a motion to dismiss stage, and we are entitled to discovery on the issue of possession,¶

EsquireSolutions.corn¶

9 {sup}1 2 3 4 5 6 custody, and control. My understanding is that the state attorney has asserted that he does not have possession. It’s not my understanding that the clerk has taken that position. So the clerk may indeed be the — someone who does have possession, custody, and control.¶

7 8 9 10 11 12 In any event, we would submit that the state attorney, even it does not have actual, possession at ,, this time, it might be able to have the power to control or direct the entity or perebns who do have control and possession to rele nthose — to effect the judgment.¶

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 THE COURT: So let you this: So the clerk is the keeper record. But even if you got a judgment a n per — let’s say you asserted ainst the (:: this cause of c 1 and let’s say you win and you get a judgment clerk. The clerk cannot release gra Ty testimony to you. Only the court can.¶

20 21 22 23 really — all I’m saying to you is I do not AT144orstand the way this case was filed or why these E are the defendants because it’s impossible for them to perform.¶

24 25 I mean, I’m going to assume, based on your motion, again, that they do have the records. But we¶

ESQUIRE “..0” 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions. corn 1 2 3 4 all know — everyone in the room knows they do not - that only the court — they’re — they’re with a court interpreting. And only the court can release the records.¶

5 6 7 8 9 So if you get a judgment against either the state attorney or the clerk, they cannot I Aisk, I guess what you’re saying to me is, well, we t o do discovery and we want them to say unec¢ ally “I have these records” or “I don’t have¶

10 11 12. 13 And — I mean, the law is abUildantly clear. You cannot do it without a court determining whether, in the furtherance of justice, the release is appropriate.¶

14 15 16 MS. BOYAGIAN: And that is a determination we’re asking your to make, and we’re asking for an order from yOur\cohrt.¶

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT:’ -.When we get to the merits of the case, sure it—As. But, again, you’re asking me to make that determination and for me to make a determination of whether the grand jury records 41d be released. And the only thing we’re here today about is why should the clerk and the state attorney have to defend a civil action when it’s a possibility of performance? They — even if you were to win and get a judgment against them, they cannot¶

800.211.OEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions. corn • 1 give you what they don’t have.¶

• 24 25 Would they be able to say “here you go”? I mean, could the clerk just make that unilateral¶

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 So — I mean, it’s as simply as this: Are you — you just want to engage in some discovery for them to absolutely assert, particularly, the state attorney, nI don’t have these records”; look to the I rules that say the moment the grand jury’s oveL,c they’re sealed and they’re turned over and y cannot be released without court order¶

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 So I’m not addressing the merits hether you have an exception or you’re able o rgue that there’s an exception in the f nce of justice. We’re not getting there to ‘m simply saying why should these two entiti Aida to defend this lawsuit when even down the they win they can’t give you what they do e.¶

16 17 18 MS. BOYAG -ii. A N: )s your Honor stated, I’m not (h) sure that’s thee ase with the clerk. That was not in their th issue was not stated in their papers.¶

19 20 21 22 23 COURT: Let me ask you this, then: Do you if you got a judgment and I or the court t make the determination that the grand jury records should be released, that the clerk would be able to perform?¶

ESQUIRE …“.w.. 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions. corn¶

2 decision “I’m going to release the records, sealed confidential records”?¶

3 Does she have any authority to do that?¶

4 5 6 MS. BOYAGIAN: My understanding, your Honor, is that 905.27 requires acourt order before the records are unsealed.¶

7 THE COURT: EXactly. Exactly.¶

8 9 All right. Let me hear from Mr. {sup}A attorney, Mr. Wyler.¶

10 11 MR. WYLER: Thank you, your Igo . May it please the Court¶

12 {sup}s 4,./ THE COURT: Good morning i¶

13 MR. WYLER: Good my{sup}erntng¶

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Your Honor, {sup}Iju {sup}t -WSnted to let you know that {sup}Ispoke with counsel tar{sup}y the clerk, Ms. Fingerhut, {sup}a 7 \ couple of days (befoxe{sup}i this hearing, and we decided that I would jUst.,-Make the presentation for both of of us, bein’4ithat our arguments overlap except for the farett who this claim whether they have the record or not, which, of course, we’ve said we don’t custody of the records.¶

22 23 24 25 But, nonetheless, our arguments overlap. The Plaintiff is attempting to assert a cause of action under Section 905.27. That statute settled testimony not to be disclosed exceptions. So it’s just¶

• {sup}1 2 explaining exceptions to the disclosure of the grand jury testimony.¶

3 4 5 Our position is that it doesn’t set forth a cause of action and that it’s impossible for us to perform what they’re asking.

¶

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 I know you said you didn’t really want t into the Furthering Justice Exception, butAil% now that’s what they’re using as their bas’ et to these. But it’s our position that th unambiguous statutory language, ’ 30(::, ows that this disclosure only applies to a v.1 r criminal case, and that within that civil minal¶

13 (Speaking simultan )¶

14 15 THE COURT: Aga — I’m sorry. As I told Plaintiff’s couns¶

16 17 MR. WYLER Lan only be used in the defense for —¶

18 19 20 21 THE COURT: Okay. We’re not there. We’re not discus/sing the merits of the case, and — I’m not rya o cross that bridge. I’m here for a very, limited heating today.¶

22 23 24 25 So just as I stopped Plaintiff’s counsel from arguing the merits of the case and whether or not the Furtherance of JUstice Exception will apply in this instance, we’re not even there yet.¶

1 2 3 4 5 I’m only here for the purpose of determining whether or not the clerk and state attorney should be dismissed. And I am bound by the four corners of the document, which assert that you do have control and custody over it.¶

6 7 ilk So if you’ll fashion your argument with rrd to that limited purpose, I would appreciate.¶

8 9 MR. WYLER: No problem, your Honor. apologize.¶

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Within the four corners of theircomplaint, our position is that they failed to/state’ acause of action under 905.27. It does not provide for — it doesn’t list that there cpelement that they have adequately pled to as r a cause of action under that. There’s — only thing they’re asking for is records ittki don’t have.¶

17 18 19 There’s rem not much more to it, your Honor. And we would ask that you would grant our motion to dismissNfor failure to state a cause of action.¶

20 21 THE COURT: Okay. Ms. Fingerhut, are you still ron he phone?¶

22 MS. FINGERHUT: Yes, your Honor.¶

23 THE COURT: Is there anything you wish to add?¶

24 MS. FINGERHUT: We agree with the state¶

25¶

—¶

800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions. corn • {sup}1 2 3 4 5 6 7 attorney’s position, and we also agree with what the Court has said, that the plain language of the statute, a cause of action doesn’t exist. And we really cannot — we’ll be defending something without the four corners. We’re simply involved in this action becaUse the clerk is the custodian of 4Aa;c records.¶

8 9 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you, II. Boyagian, back to you.

¶

10 11 12 13 14 MS. BOYAGIAN: Your Honor, ike to note that in the Butterworth case h the Supreme Court limited the applica .27 by saying that a witness can reveal her tZ timony and prohibiting that they violate t Fi t Amendment —¶

15 THE COURT: iat again, please.¶

16 17 18 19 20 21 MS. BOYA AN n the SUpreme Court case, the Butterworth caste’ in which the Supreme Court ruled that 905.27V Can’t restrict a Grand Jury witness from revealing her own testimony, that would be a violation of First Amendment, in that case, the state \ -1”2 ‘ttorney -. was, in fact, a party.¶

22 23 24 25 THE COURT: Well, I assume the state attorney that was present — I Mean, I don’t find that that’S diese to what we’re talking about here, and that’s whether or not — I mean, as we know, this was in¶

r¶

1 2 3 2006. Certainly Dave Aronberg wasn’t even the state attorney then. But this is about the release of records.¶

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 {sup}Iwant to give you ample opportunity — and again, I sincerely appreciate that all of the case law and the way that it was presented to the t in such a timely fashion. I really do. And I send some time with it. But i want to give aever opportunity you want to take to convir ame that it is in — as to Count 2, again. {sup}Ne dec action whether these would be the app ’ e defendants.¶

12 13 14 15 And, you know, really, you to boil it down for me as to this - {sup}stake it all the way down the road. You wyou get a judgment against the clerk and the ttorney.¶

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 {sup}Iknow th her reasons why you might have filed it this But I’m just simply puzzled because I dO/hear what the clerk and the state attorney\are saying, and that is, performance is impossible. They don’t have the records and cannot — absolutely. There’s not even an inch of wiggle room — that they could release the records even if you got a judgment. It is solely {sup}a determination for the court.¶

25 I, frankly, think, you know, there’s ways to¶

• 23 24 25 THE COURT: What do you mean? What do you mean? They’re not trying to block it. They’re saying that despite the fact — let’s just talk about¶

1 2 3 get to your records. There’s ways to get confidential records. But it isn’t by suing the state attorney and the clerk.¶

4 5 6 7 8 9 So I just want to hear your last final argument on how Count II, the appropriate defendants are the clerk and the state attorney. Even assuming iikr4u.endo they have the records — we know they don’t you were to get a judgment against them, h ld you expect them to perform?¶

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 M.S. BOYAGIAN: Two points, onor: One is that, again, the clerk did no t in her papers i that she does not have conAk That is a position that the State Attorney s i ce has asserted. It is our allegation, and ate e4y ;411 ,r Honor noted, allegations _ _ must be accepted as — as true at this stage of the proceedingS.¶

17 18 19 20 21 22 Second, i’IA also our understanding that the state a torOy and the clerk intend to block access to th records. So our allegation is that they do h p.Ssession, custody, or control, which the clerk AMW%Stiof denied; and second, that they are trying to block access to the records¶

800.211.DEPO (3376) EtquireSolutions.corn 1 2 the clerk, because we all know the state attorney doesn’t have it.¶

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 So the clerk is the custodian of records. That’s her main job. There’s no doubt about it. We all know that. But we also know, unequivocally unequivocally, only the court can make the determination of whether the moving party satisfied that there is an exception th se should be released.¶

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 So, again, I ask you — she s, in )fact, the custodian of the records i- i •ur opinion that if you got a judgment Sayi tJ tie and comptroller gets a judgment against that she can release the records without urt — without the court weighing in, without court making that determination as’ required by law?¶

17 18 19 MS. BOYAGIANi No, your Honor. We are asking your Honor ” to Order the clerk to do that under your discretion.¶

20 TIE COURT: All right.¶

21 22 ====_ Mr. — Ms. Fingerhut, you wish to be heard on that?¶

23 24 25 MS. FINGERHUT: Your Honor, our position is that we’re not trying to block access to the records —¶

800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions. corn¶

MS. FINGERHUT: — custodian the records and that he cannot release the records without court — I, THE COURT: Exactly.¶

Okay. All right. Anything further, Mr. Wyler? MR. WYLER: No, your Honor. I concur with the attorneys for the clerk’s office that4t,s 1 impossible for us to release these records. /Thitre’s no intent rjr \ zip to hide them or block anything from,-the Plaintiff.¶

THE COURT: Okay. An .19 further, Ms. Fingerhut?¶

MS. FINGERHUT: of ur Honor. o S¶

THE COURT: S. Boyagian, anything further,¶

II. BOYAGIAN: Nothing further, your Honor.¶

THE quickly Thank you, folks so much. And I’ll see you ext round. Thanks a lot. COURT: Okay. I will get an order out¶

MS. BOYAGIAN: Thank you, your Honor.¶

MR. WYLER: Thank you, your Honor.¶

(The proceedings Concluded at 10:28 a.m.)¶

(Speaking simultaneously.)¶

THE COURT: Can you hear? Can the attorneys hear?¶

CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER¶

I, Sonja M. [REDACTED] Court Reporter, certify that I was authorized to and did stenographically report the foregoing proceedings and that the transcript, pages 1 through 19, is a true and complete record of my stenographic notes.¶

Dated this 3rd day of June, 2020.¶

Sonja M. [REDACTED] Court Reporter¶

800.211.DEPO (3376)¶

Def.Ex.A-7¶

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

CIRCUIT CIVIL DIVISION AG CASE NO.50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS LW PUBLISHER OF THE PALM BEACH POST, Plaintiff/Petitioner vs. DAVE AROINI13ERG, SHARON R BOCK, Defendant/Respondents.¶

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS MOTIONS TO DISMISS COUNT II OF PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE¶

THIS CAUSE came before the Court on Dave Aronbe SatimAitomey of Palm Beach County’s (“State Attorney”) and Sharon R. Bock, as ? e orrptroller of Palm Beach County’s, (“Clerk”) respective Motions to Dismiss CottQt rBf A Florida Holdings, LLC, Publisher of the Palm Beach Post’s (“The Post”) case is assigned to Division AG, which is c Hafele. However, the undersigned, as ed Complaint (DE## 22, 24). This ded over by the Honorable Donald e of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, presided over the June 3, 2020 hearing on the State Attorney and Clerk’s Motions as the Motions implicate records of the Palm each Connty grand jury, over which the Chief Judge presides. See § 905.01, Fla. Stat. (2019). r careful consideration of the pleadings and the arguments presented at the hearing, ourt grants the Motions for the following reasons.¶

Background¶

The Post a outlet which has heavily reported on the 2006 Palm Beach County criminal pros effrey Epstein. Through the instant civil lawsuit, The Post seeks “immediate access testimony, minutes, and other evidence presented in 2006 to the Palm Beach County grand jury” in Mr. Epstcin’s case and alleges that both the State Attorney and Clerk are “in possession and/or control of [those] documents.” (DE # 17, First Arrtnded Complaint at 11 3,4, and 77). Specifically, The Post seeks declaratory judgment as to its rights to obtain the grand jury testimony in Mr. Epstein’s case from the State Attorney and Clerk (Count 1) as well as judgment against the State Attorney and the Clerk pursuant to section 90527, Florida Statutes, which sets forth the parameters of grand jury secrecy in Florida. (Count II). Both the State Attorney and the Clerk move to dismiss Count II of The Post’s First Amended Coniplaint, arguing that that section 90527 does not create a private cause of action. (DE## 22, 24). The Court agrees.¶

Analysis¶

“In reviewing a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, the court must adcept the allegations of the complaint as true and construe them in the light most favorable4 the plaintiff.” Almarante v. Art Institute of Fort Lauderdale, Inc., 921 So. 2d 703, 704-05 (Fla.4tliDCA 2006). The motion should only be granted if the moving party demonstrates that the plaintiff cannot provide any facts that would support a cause of action. id,=It follciWs that if the cause of action alleged is nonexistent under Florida law, dismissal is,wanniated. Cummings v. Dawson, 444 So. 2d 565, 566 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) (affirming d’g( ss of cause of action not recognized by Florida law).¶

Section 90527, Florida Statutes (2019), is ” timony not to be disclosed, exceptions,” and states:¶

• (1) A grand juror, state attorneZns Cant state attorney, reporter, stenographer, interpreter, or any other person appearing before the grand jury shall not disclose the testimony of a witness examined before the grand jury or other evidence received by it except when required by a court to disclose the testimony for the purpose of:
  • a. Ascertaining yhether it is consistent with the testimony given by the witness before the court;
  • b. Determining whether the witless is guilty of perjury; or
  • c. ,Furthering justice.
• (2) t is unlawful for any person knowingly to publish, broadcast, disclose, divulge, or cotnrrarnicate to any other person, or knowingly to cause or permit to be published, broadcast, disclosed, divulged, or commutated to any other person, in any manner whatsoever, any testimony of a witness examined before the grand jury, or the content, gist, or import thereof, except when such testimony is or has been disclosed in a court proceeding. When a court orders the disclosure of such testimony pursuant to subsection
• (I) for use in a criminal case, it may be disclosed to the prosecuting attorney of the court in which such criminal case is pending, and by the prosecuting attorney to his or her assistants, legal associates, and employees, and to the defendant and the defendant’s

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

(3) Nothing in this section shall affect the attorney-client relationship..A client shall have the right to communicate to his or her attorney any testimony given by the client to the grand jury, any matters involving the client discussed in the client’s presence before the grand jury, and any evidence involving the client received by or proffered to grand jury in the client’s presence.¶

(4) Persons convicted of violating this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.083, or by fine not exceeding $5,000, or both.¶

(5) A violation of this section shall constitute criminal contempt of court.¶

§ 90527, Fla. Stat. (2019).¶

As the State Attorney and Clerk argue and T oncedes, section 90527 1’ \ makes no express provision fora civil suit or civi Aste4(ay. onctheless, The Post maintains that it is entitled to seek the grand jury records v riv cause of action pursuant to the “furthering justice” exception to grand jury sccrec c in subsection905.27(1Xc). Therefore, the limited question for this Court’s COOSOCI3 n is whether a cause of action under section 90527 7— ’ y ’ should be judicially implied. See Murth / v. N. Sinha Corp., 644 So. 2d 983, 985 (Fla. 1994).¶

In advocating thatit may maintain a cause of action against the State Attorney and Clerk ii under section 90527, The’Post urges the Court to examine three factors “(1) whether the plaintiff is one Of the class for whose special benefit the statute was enacted; (2) whether there is any indication, either explicit or implicit, of a legislative intent to create or deny such a remedy; and (3) whether judicial implication is consistent with the underlying purposes of the legislative scheme” (Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant, Dave Aronberg, As State Attorney of Palm Beach County, Florida’s Motion to Dismiss Count II of the First Attended Complaint at page 13 (citing Fischer v. Metcalf, 543 So. 2d 785 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)). Within these three factors, The Post recognizes that there is no indication of legislative intent to create a cause of action, but leans heavily on the benefit factor, arguing that the “furthering justice” exception to¶

grand jury secrecy outlined in section 90527(I)(c) was meant to benefit the public at large, for which the press acts as a surrogate. The Post’s arguments are unpersuasive as to the discrete issue of whether a private cause of action lies in section 90527.¶

To begin with, The Post’s reliance on the benefit factor is misplaced. Per the Florida Supreme Court’s 1994 opinion in Murthy, “the question of whether a statute establishes a duty to take precautions to protector benefit a particular class of persons is no longer determinative on the question of whether a cause of action should be recognized.” Sorenson v. Prof! Compounding Pharmacists of W. Pa., Inc., 191 So. 3d 929 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (citing Murthy, 644 So. 2d at 985). Instead, “whether a statutory cause of action should be judicially implied is a question of legislative intent.” Horowitz v. Plantation Gen. Hosp. Ltdcrslitipi959 So. 2d 176, 182 (Fla. 2007). See also QBE Ins. Cap. v. Chalfinte Condo. A’. en s’n, Inc., 94 So. 3d 541, 551 (Fla. 2012) (“Since Marshy, we have reaffirmed tlyrp that whether a statutory cause of action should be judicially implied is a questio & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Loftus, 276 So. 3d 849, 851 (F alive intent”); Universal Prop.¶

As is always the case when a court undo hakes legislative intent analysis, the plain language of the statute is the starting, and ciften ending, point. See Horowitz, 959 So. 2d at 182. “When the statute is clear and unambiguote, courts will not look behind the statute’s plain \ c:*. language for legislative intent pr resortto rules of statutory construction to ascertain intent.” Loftus, 276 So. 3d at 85l(Fla.41111)CA 2019))(quoting Daniels v. Fla. Dell! of Health, 898 So. 2d 61, 64 (Fla. 2005)). “HOwever, a single part of a statute should not be read in isolation.” 4/. / “Instead, ‘all part:kfa statute must be read together in order to achieve a consistent whole.”’ Id. c -S,., y \ (quoting ,F sythe’ . Longboat Key Beach Erosion Control Dist., 604 So. 2d 452, 455 (Fla. .’,..__) 1992)).—,¶

As The Post acknowledges, “there is a dearth of legislative history surrounding Section 90527 and the The Palm Beach Post was unable to locate any documents capturing any legislative intent regarding the possibility of a private right of action.” (Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant, Dave Aronberg, As State Attorney of Patin Beach COunty, Florida’s Motion to Dismiss Count II of the First Amended Complaint at page 14). While the lack of any legislative¶

history indicating an intent to create a private right of action is telling, it is not diapositive as the plain language of the section 90527 is clear an unambiguous and, therefore, controls. Horowitz, 959 So, 2d at 182.¶

Examining the plain language of section 90527 in its entirety which requires the Court to look at more than just the “furthering justice” provision of section 90527(IXc) relied on by The Post, it is clear that the intent of the Legislature in passing section 905.27 was to limit, not facilitate, disclosure of grand jury records. In no uncertain tents, the Legislature provided that no “person appearing before the grand jury” may “disclose” testimony or evideoCe presented except when “required by a court” under certain limited circumstances. §905.2.711 Fla. Stat. In solidifying that its intent was to prohibit disclosure without court pe gislature provided that disclosure without a court order is a criminal offen:s 9 (4), Fla. Stat. Therefore, to the extent section 90527 could be read as itrposulgrayhtyon the State Attorney and Clerk, the duty imposed is one of secrecy, not disclos ta’H/2¶

/- In stun, there is nothing in the text of sectio .90 27 flint which one can deduce that the Legislature contemplated a member of the one else for that Matter, having a private cause of action to compel the State Attorney and Clerk to disclose grand jury records. Indeed, to the contrary, section 90527 prolibits theState Attorney and the Clerk (assuming that, as / pleaded by The Post, they a the dOeurnents) from disclosing the documents without first being ordered to do so by the et5uttLa Reading section 90527 as creating a private cause of action against the State Aitiarney and Clerk is, therefore, not only unsupported by the language of section 90527, but is actually paradoxical to its plain language of the statute. As such, this Court lacks the power to construe the unambiguous language of section 90527 in a way that would extenditsapreSs terms and create a cause of action where none exists. “To do so would be an abrogatiOt ’ of legislative power.” Horowitz 959 So. 2d 176. 182 (quoting Holly v. Auld 450 So 2d 217. 219 (Fla. 1984)1¶

Conclusion¶

Based on the foregoing, the Court funds Count II of The Post’s First Attended Complaint must be dismissed with prejudice as it pursues a nonexistent cause of action under section¶

90527. In arriving at this conclusion, the Court does not suggest The Post has no available mechanism to obtain a court order granting it access to the grand jury proceedings. The Court also does not render any opinion as to whether releasing these records is appropriate for the purpose of “furthering justice” within the meaning of section 90527. Rather, the Court’s dismissal of Count Il is necessitated by precedent and the simple fact that a civil lawsuit against the State Attorney and Clerk under section 905.27 is not the proper mechanism for The Post to pursue its goal.

Therefore, it is hereby¶

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Dave Aronberg, as State Attorney bf Palm Beach County’s and Sharon R. Bock, as Clerk & Comptroller of Palm BeachCounly’s; respective Motions to DismiSs Count TI of CA Florida Holdings, LLC, Publisher of the Palm Beach Post’s First Amended Complaint arc GRANTED and Count II ofPlaintiff’s first Amended Complaint is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice.¶

A \ DONE AND ORDERED, in West Palm Beieft Patin Beach County, Florida this 8th day (ST\ of June, 2020.¶

) 10;25.1eaki0146 :950. 0 p124120 . Isti’M au( aCtilin yap¶

_ 50.2019.CA.014681..XX X X-MB 06/08/2020 Krista Man Chief Judge¶

al The Court notes that, if there was a court order directing the State Attorney or the Clerk to disclosereeords and the State Attorney or the Clerk refused, the remedy for disobeying a corm order is contempt or, in some instances, a mandamus proceedings — not a civil lawsuit.¶

COPIES TO:¶

No Address Available 961687 GATEWAY BLVD SUITE 201-I FERNANDINA BEACH, FL No E-rrnil Address Available doug.wylen@corrcastnet¶

| MICHAEL GRYGIEL | 32034 54 STATE STREET 6TH FLOOR ALBANY, NY 12207 | GRYGIELM@GTLAW.COM | | ------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | MICHAEL J. GRYGIEL NICOLE R. FINGERHUT | No Address Available POST OFFICE BOX 229 WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33401 | grygielm@gtlaw.com CLERK_E- SERVICE@MYPALMBEACH CLERK.COM nfingerhut@mypalmbeachclerk. com | | NINA D. BOYAJIAN | No Address Available | boyajiann@gtlaw.com riveraal@gtlaw.com | | NINA D. BOYAJIAN | 1840 CENTURY PARK EAST SUITE 1900 LOS ANGELES, CA 90067 | No E-mail Address Available | | STEPHEN A. MENDELSOHN, ESQ | 5100 TOWN CENTER CIR SUITE 400 BOCA RATON, FL 33486 | mendelsohns@gtlaw.com flservice@gtlaw.com |¶

NOTA CERTIFIED¶

Def.Ex.A-8¶

TIC. LAW. OFFICES OF ASSOCIATEC.P:A. ARTHUR,.¶

SCHOLZ LLC. Lo.¶

A A LIMI LIASIUTY . COMPANY or PROIC.,SIONAL ASSOCIATIONS¶

GATEWAY TO AMELIA ’¶

9SISS7 GATEWAY SLVD.. SUITE COI.!¶

FEatimainin BEACH. FLORIDA 32034¶

TELEPHONE (OOA) ESI-369S¶

nx NO. (110.) 261.7679¶

June 8, 2020¶

VIA ELECTRONIC & U.S. MAIL¶

RE: CA Florida Holdings, LLC v. Dave Aronbe Palm Beach County, Case No.: 2019-CA-0¶

RICHARD J. SCHOLZ. P.A.¶

RICHARD J. SCAOLZ¶

DOUGLAS A. WY1.04¶

A Co’s¶

As you are aware our firm represents the inteteg 11f , Aronbergi as State Attorney of Palm Beach County, Florida, in the above referenced matt u se of this letter is to demand the voluntary dismissal of your First Amended Complaint, “Co plaint”), dated January 17, 2020. This demand is made pursuant to section 57.105, Florj¶

As you know, Section 57.1¶

• (I) Upon the court’s ttiitiat vT or motion Of any party; the court shall award a reasonable attOme , including .prejudgment interest, to be paid to the prevailing p equal amounts by the. losingparty and the losing-party’s attorney on any clai nse at any time during a civil proceeding or action in which the c find I. at the losing party or the losing party’s attorney knew 9r should hav own that a claim or defense when initially presented to the court or at any trial: as not supported by the material facts necessary to establish the. laith Or defense; or
  • b. Would not be supported by the application of then-existing’ law to those material facts.

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

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

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

When such disclosure is ordered by a court pursuant to subsection (1) case, it may be disclosed Wall Parties to the case and to their attom to their legal associates end employees. However the grand i such persons by the court con only be used in the defense or two utish criminal case and for no other purpose whatsoever. IC civil e latter afforded of the civil or¶

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

Based on the foregoing, if the Complaint is n the enclosed Motion for Attorney’s Fees wi and yout firth, recovery of the legal ex within 21 days of the service of this letter, nd we will seek as sanctions, from yourclient Inc d in defending this frivolous action.¶

Please govern yourself accordingl¶

At A —¶

Douglas A. Wyler, Esq. For the Firm¶

Encl.: Defen Motion for Attorneys’ Fees¶

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF pj :EIFitiNtH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT • IN AND FOR. PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA¶

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

CASE NO.:19-C Abet-014081¶

O¶

DEFENDANT, DAVE ARONBERG’S MO 140/,ATTORNEYS’ It FEES¶

Defendant, DAVE ARCINBERO, as Stat n f Palm Beach County, Florida, by and through the undersigned attorneys, moves ursuant to ‘Florida Statutes, Section 57.105, t to award’ him reasonable attorneys’ f r th defense of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, (the “Complaint”), and as ?nun a copy of this Motion, top Would show that on June 8, 2020, Plaintiff was served a letter from the undersigned attorney, in accordance with subsection (4) oldie a It Statute, demanding dismissal of the Complaint, at.least .21 days.prior to the filing of s li . In said letter, Defendant’s attorney advised Plaintiff of the facts which establish. t plaint is without support of the facts or the law.¶

FORE, Defendant, DAVE ARONBEriG, as State Attorney of Palm Beach County, lorida, respectfully reqtaests the Court enter an Order requiring Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s attorneys to pay said Defendant’s attorneys’ fees incurred herein after service of this Motion.¶

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

_____ Arthur I. [REDACTED], Esquire Richard J. Scholz, Esquire Fla. Bar No.: 0021261 Douglas A. Wyler, Esquire Fla. Bar No.: 119979 961687 Gateway Blvd., Suite 201-I Fernandina Beach, Florida 32034¶

Attorneys for Defendant¶

Def.Ex.A-9¶

Stephen A. Mendelsohn lel 561.955./629 Fax 561.659.9119 mendelsohnslagtlaw.com¶

June 23, /020’¶

Douglas A. Wyler Jacob Scholz do Wyler, LLC 961687 Gateway Blvd. Suite 201-I. Fernandina Beach, Fl. 32034¶

Re: CA Florida Holdings, LLC v. Dave Aronberg et al. Case No. 1019-CA-0146H¶

Dear Mr. Wyler:¶

We are in receipt of your letter of/tine 8, 2010 with yo In your letter and your proposed motion, you ass firm of Greenberg Traurig, P.A.. should he liab Attorney Aronberg alter the date of your I (a) and (b) for support. As shown below, and we expect that if the State Attorne Fla. gtat. section 57:105 motion. orida Holdings; LLC and the law attorneyS’ fees to be incurred by State tter cites to Ha. .Stet. sections 57.105(1) no ‘basis for a FM. Stat:section 57.105 motion, e such a motion, the court should deny it.¶

Your fetter ornits a citation to s may not be awarded, where reversal of eisisfinglaw or the a reasonable expectation of su !(3). Subsection 57,105(3)(a) provides that sanctions ood faith argument for the extension, modification or &haft of hew law, as it it apPliedlo the material facts, with. We have such a good faith argument.¶

A &As¶

Contrary to your alysi f la. Stat. section 905.27, there are actually three instances where a court may order relea of grand jury materials. As we argue, the court. may order release “in furtherance o ti. ” There are few cases in Florida reviewing this provision and its. scope. It is an open ah va 1 qu tion as to whether the toxin may Order teldate of grand _limy it:kiwi-pa ki them h the statute and the FirstAmendinent to the US Constitution in furtherance e statutory language you cite refers to instances where a person is seeking grand jury materi for use in a civil or in a criminal case. In these limited situations;•the statute allows for such us and for no other reason. However, the statute does not state, as you assert, that where the media seed grand jury materials based upon its constitutional standing, which the Circuit Court acknowledged at. the June 2, 2020 heating includes The Palm Beach Post, that the statutory¶

Greenberg Tratulg. P.A. I Attorneys at Law¶

5100 Town adder Orcle I Suite 400 lama Raton. Florida 33486 I T 41 561.955.7800 Fe’l 561.330.7099¶

Albany. Amsterdam. Atlanta. Austin. Berlin: Boa Raton. Boston. Chimp. Dallas. Delaware. Deaver. Foil Laudaidaln Houston. Lis Vegas. London! Los Angeles. Mateo City: Miami Hinneaphlis. Nashville. New Jersey. New York. Horniest Virginia. Orange County. Orlando. Philadelphia. Phoenix. Sacrament,. San Frandsen Seoi.,Shangbal Sutton Valley. Tallahassee. Tampa. Tel anir:Tokyo: Wmar:Warbiagton, D.C. West Palm Beach. Westchester County.¶

Page 2¶

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you,¶

Very truly yours,¶

/s/Stephen Mendelsohn Stephen Mendelsohn ACTIVE 51108I659v/ cos¶

SAM:ls¶

Def.Ex.A-10¶

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

v. CASE NO.: I9-CA- 14681¶

CO S¶

DEFENDANT, DAVE ARONBERG’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES¶

Defendant, DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of Palm Beach County, Florida, by and through the undersigied attorneys, moves th suant to Florida Statutes, Section 57.105, to award him reasonable attorneys’ f the fense of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, (the “Complaint”), and as groun o 4 ould show that on June 8, 2020, Plaintiff was served a copy of this Motion, togeth wi a letter from the undersigned attorney, in accordance with subsection (4) of the above Aiptute, demanding dismissal of the Complaint, at least 21 days prior to the filing of thie Motion: In said letter, Defendant’s attorney advised Plaintiff of the facts which establish that the Cothplaint is without support of the facts or the law.¶

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

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

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

Arthur I. Jacobs, Esquire Richard J. Scholz, Esquire Fla. Bar No.: 0021261 Douglas A. Wyler, Esquire Fla. Bar No.: 119979 961687 Gateway Blvd., Suite 201-I Fernandina Beach, Florida 32034¶

Attorneys for Defendant, Dave Aronberg¶

Def.Ex.A-11¶

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

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

CASE NO.: 19-CA-014681¶

cos¶

DEFENDANT DAVE ARONBERG’S MOTION FO MARY FINAL JUDGMENT AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN wr THEREOF¶

Defendant DAVE ARONBERG, as St’ l of Palm. Beach County, Florida, (hereinafter. “Arenberg”), by and through cou be d pursuant to Rule 1,51.0:Florida Rules of’ Civil Procedure, moves for entry of su mal judgment in his favor as to the remaining claim for Declaratory Relief in Plaintiff’s F’ Complaint’, and in support thereof states as follows:.¶

STAT ME OF THE UNDISPUTED FACTS¶

The following is nt of facts material to this motion for summary judgment as to which there is no genii issue:¶

• 1. nt of Plaintiff’s First. Amended Complaint, (hereinafter “Complaint”), filed Janua , seeks Declaratory. Relief pursuant to Section 86.011, Florida Statutes. Specifically, Plaintiff’s Count 1 seeks a court order “declaring that pursuant to Ha Stat. Section 905.27(IXe) and the Court’s inherent authority, The Pafin !leach Post may gain access to the testimony, minutes, and other evidence presented in 2006 to the Palm Beach County grand. jury” that

I On June 8, 2020, thisCourt entered its Order Granting Defendants Motion to Dismiss Count II of the Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint with Prejudice.¶

was empaneled during the first. Jeffrey Epstein, (hereinafter “Epstein”), sex abuse investigation. (hereinafter “Requested Materials”). Complaint pg. 20¶

3. Plaintiff seeks to use the Requested Materials “for the’purpose of informing the public.” Id.

4. Plaintiff seeks the above-referenced declaratory relief, including copies of the Requested Materials, from both Aronberg, as State Attorney of Palm Beach Connty4jda, and Defendant, Sharon R. Bock, as Ckrk and Comptroller of Palm Beach County, Plod (11’14 ereinafter , the “Clerk”). 0

5. Neither. Aronberg nor the. Office of the Sulk Attorney for Fi fl nth Judicial Ciretlit, (“SAO”), is.in control, custody” or possession of the Requested I Arenberg Aff 13, attached as Exhibit “A”.

6. The declaratory’ elief sought by the3i tiff etks materials that are impossible for Aronberg or the SAO to produce. Exhibit “A.(” 1cN, #

7. Neither Arenberg nor th Q ha .the legal authority to obtain and/or deliver The Requested,Materials. Exhibit “A”

8. The undisputed is t forth above in paragraphs 6-7 have been repeatedly made evident by Arenberg tot 21 aintiff and the public thltaigh not only the pleadings and correspondence in this matter, bu, t h.r On office press release and Aronberg’spublic social media accounts. Exhibit “A”

then Aronberg nor the SAO has the authority to demand that the Clerk grant the SAO ac s to grand jury materials after a criminal case ha’s concluded. Exhibit “A” ¶ 7.¶

IQ. During Arenberg’s administration, neither he nor his office has accessed grand jury materials from the Clerk’s office in this or any other instance. Exhibit “A” ¶ 8.¶

II. As provided in section 905.17(1), Florida Statutes (2020), the Clerk has sole custody and possession of the Requested Materials, which can only be released by the Clerk pursuant to an order of the Court. Exhibit “A” 99.¶

MEMORANDUM OF LAW¶

I. Legal Standard Governing Motions For Summary Judgment¶

1.510, Fla. R. Civ. P. It is appropriate to resolve a declaratory action on here, the decree seeks a legal interpretation of a statute. Rahimi So. 3d 804 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018). “The judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositio swers to interrogatories, and admissions on file together with the affidavits, if any, show that this no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment of law.” Rule judgment when, as Discoveries, Ltd., LLC, 252¶

II. The Requested Materials Can Only Be ReaSS The Clerk Pursuant To A Court Order¶

Notably, neither Aronberg nor the SAO is in control, custody, or possession of the Requested Materials. Exhibit “A” 1 3. Nonethe s, ant to Section 905.27(1)(c),. Florida Statutes and the Court’s inherent authority, Plai L iff se court order declaring that Aronberg provide copies of the Requested Materials to The Pa l h Post for the purpose of informing the public. Complaint pg. 20-21. Plaintiff is seekthg’ declaratory relief alleging its entitlemeni to the Requested Materials pursuant to the Ahering justice” exception to grand jury secrecy. § 905.27, Fla. Stat. (2020).¶

Eteispite ringing its declaratory relief claim pursuant to Section 905.27, Florida Statutes, “a singl€pattofa statute should not be read in isolation.” Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Loftus, 276 So. 3d 849, 851 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019). “Instead, ‘all parts of a statute must be read together in order to achieve a consistent whole.’” Id. (quoting Forsythe v. Longboat Key Beach Erosion Control Dist, 604 So. 2d 452, 455 (Ha. 1992).¶

Section 905.17(1), Florida Statutes makes clear that grand jury records, like the Requested Materials in this matter, are to be maintained with the Clerk, and can only be released by the Clerk pursuant to a court order TO Wit¶

The stenographic ‘records, holds, and transeriptiods made by the court reporter or stenographer shall be filed with the clerk who shall keep them in a scaled container not subject to public inspection. The notes, records, and transcriptions are confidential and exempt from the provisions of s. 1.19.07(1) and s. 24(a). Art I of the St e. Constitution and shall be released by the clerk only on request by a grand jury by the grand jury or on order of the court pursuant to s. 905..27.¶

Section 905.17(1); Florida Statutes (2020). (Emphasis added.)¶

Text, context, and purpose are the ordinary tools used. for disce ng sta . meaning, with the overarching principle being “that judges lack the power to co an ambiguous statute in a way which would extend, modify, or limit its express terms or le and obvious implications. To do so would be an abrogation of egislative power.” e plain language of section 905.17 is clear and unambiguous and, therefore, controls. 4 lour v. Plan:O&M Oen. flop, Ltd. P’slio, 959 So.. 2d 176, 182 (Fla. 2007).¶

Accordingly, based on the clew ous statutory language set forth in section 905.17(1), Only the Clerk, not the State A release grand jury materials-pursuant to an order of the court. Thus, it is apparent that A g and the SAO lack the legal authority ‘to obtain and.deliver the Requested Materials. Ex ” 15. Likewisel the declaratory relief sought.by the Plaintiff seeks materials that a ible for Aronberg or the SAO to produce. ‘Exhibit “A” 1 4. Again, the Clerk. has sole d possession of the. Requested. Materials. These facts have been repeatedly made evid- berg to the Plaintiff and the.public through not only the pleaditigs and correspondence in this matter, but also thittigh an office presS release and Atonberfs public social Media accounts. Exhibit “A” 16.¶

Although the above-referenced statutory authority illuminates the fact that only the Clerk may release grand jury records lilcethe Requested Materials herein, it remains signi (leant to note that neither¶

Aronberg nor the •SAO has the authority to demand that the Clerk grant the SAO access to grand jury materials after a criminal case has concluded. Exhibit “A” 1 7. Hence, during Aronberg’s administration, neither he for his office has accessed grand jury materials from the. Clerk’s office in this or any other instance. Exhibit “A” 1 8.¶

III. Conclusion¶

The ultimate facts underlying the lawsuit are not in dispute. The Court is fully were(’ to dispose of this matter based on application of the undisputed facts to the plain Ian e of Section 905.17, Florida Statutes, which renders the Plaintiff’s action for’declaratory possibility for Aronberg to perform and that must be denied as a matter of law.¶

WHEREFORE, Defendant, DAVE ARONBERG, as S Att. of Palm Beach County, Florida, respectfully requests that this motion be granted in his favor consistent’ ith this motion, and hereby Complaint with prejudice and grant such.other deems fit and proper under the *cut-milt mary final judgment be entered requests that this Court dismiss the ding attorney’s fees and costs, as this Court¶

I HEREBY CERTIFY 18th day of August, 2020, a copy of the foregoing has been electronically filed with tic5pLotida er E-File Portal for e-service on all parties of record herein.¶

+6s¶

SCHOLZ & WYLEFt, L.LC.¶

/s/ Douglas A. Wyler¶

Arthur Fla. Bar No.: 10249 Richard J. Scholz, Esq. Fla. Bar No.: 0021261 Douglas A. Wyler, Esq, Fla. Bar No.: 119979 961687 Gateway Blvd., Suite 201-1 Femandina Beach, Florida 32034 (904) 261-3693 (904) 261-7879 Fax Primary: jazobsscholzlaw@comcast.net¶

General Counsel for the Florida Prosecuting Attorney’s Association¶

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

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

STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF PALM BEACH CASE NO.: 19-CA-01468 I¶

C O S¶

AFFIDAV OF DAVID ARONB s,¶

• I. /..” APS My name is David (Dave) Arenberg, aam the State Attorney for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit/Palm Beach County, Florida, since 2013, and a Defendant in the above-captioned matter.
• 2. Plaintiff is seeking declaratory relief, pursuant to Fla. Stat. 905.21(I)(c) and the Court’s inherent authority, allowing Plaintiff access, to the testimony, minutes, and other evidence presented in {sup}2006 to the Palm Beach County grand jury, (the “Requested Materials”), and to use those materials for the purpose of informing the public.
• 3. Despite Plaintiff’s above-described action for declaratory’relief, neither myself nor the Office of the State Attorney for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, (“SAO”), is in control, custody, or possession of the Regorge’l y, aterials. (…) such, the declaratory relief sought by the Plaintiff seeks materials that are impossible for* my. ffice to produce.
• z s - 5. To be clear, neither myself nor the SAO has the legal authority to obtain and deliver the ReqUested Materials.
• 6. I have 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 and my public social media accounts.

Before me, the undersigned authority personally ap ARONBERG, being first duly sworn, states:¶

7. Despite the contentions of Plaintiff, neither myself nor the SAO has the authority to demand that the Clerk grant the SAO access to grand jury materials after a criminal case has concluded.

8. Moreover, during my administration, neither myself nor my office has accessed grand jury materials from the Clerk’s office in this or any other instance.

9. As provided in section 905.17(1), Florida Statutes (2020), the Clerk has sole custody and possession of the Requested Materials, which can only be released by the Clerk pursuant to an order of the Court.

FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT.¶

By:¶

STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF PALM BEACH¶

Sworn to and subscribed before me this 30{sup}th day of July, 2020, by DAVID ARONBERG, who is personally known to me or has shown _____ as personal identification.¶

Notary Public¶

Notary’s Stamp or Seal¶

LATOSHA LOWE-GOODE Commission # GG 887813 Expires May 28, 2024 Received This Budget Money Banker¶

Def.Ex.A-12¶

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

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

STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF PALM BEACH¶

AFFIDAVIT OF DAVID ARONB¶

states: Before me, the undersigned authority personally a ARONBERG, being first duly sworn,¶

• S PP
• I. My name is David (Dave) Arenberg, aam the State Attorney for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit/Palm Beach County, Florida. since 2913, and a Defendant in the above-captioned matter.
• 2. Plaintiff is seeking declaratory AM’, pursuant to Fla. Stat. 905.21( I Xc) and the Court’s inherent authority, allowing Minaret:Cass to the testimony, minutes. and other evidence presented in {sup}2006 to the Palm Beach County grand jury, (the “Requested Materials”), and to use those materials for the purpOse of informing the public. -{sup}2
• 3. Despite plaintiff’s above-described action for declaratory.relief, neither myself nor the Office of the State Attorney for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, (“SAO”), is in control, custody, or possession of the Requ(st-Vaterials. . a auch, {sup}r the declaratory relief sought by the Plaintiff seeks materials that are impossible for -any, Rice to produce. -S. To be clear, neither myself nor the SAO has the legal authority to obtain and deliver the Reqbested Materials.
• 6. I have 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 and my public social media accounts.

7. Despite the contentions of Plaintiff, neither myself nor the SAO has the authority to demand that the Clerk grant the SAO access to grand jury materials after a criminal case has concluded.

8. Moreover, during my administration, neither myself nor my office has accessed grand jury materials from the Clerk’s office in this or any other instance.

9. As provided in section 905.17(1), Florida Statutes (2020), the Clerk has sole custody and possession of the Requested Materials, which can only be released by the Clerk pursuant to an order of the Court

FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT.¶

STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF PALM BEACH¶

Sworn to and subscribed before me this Dud personally knowino me or has shown 0, by DAVID ARONBERG, who is as personal identification.¶

Br¶

a( Public doriot¶

Notary’s Stamp or Seal, tArCrsitatoirrE0000E¶

‘3464: ea, myna mit cansmasearts¶

Def.Ex.A-13¶

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

Publisher of THE PALM BEACH POPST,¶

Beach County, Florida,¶

PLAINTIFF CA HOLDINGS, LLC’S NOTICE OF DROPPING STATE ATTORNEY, DAVE ARONBERG¶

Plaintiff, CA HOLDINGS, LLC, pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1250(b), hereby notifies the parties that it has dropped State Attorney, Dave Aronberg from the above case.¶

Respectfully submitted,¶

GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A.¶

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

401 East Las Olas Boulevard Suite 2000 Telephone: (561) 955-7629 Facsimile: (561) 338-7099¶

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

By: Isl Michael J Gneziel MICHAEL J GRYGIEL (Admitted Pr6 Het Vice) 54 ‘State St., 6th Floor Albany, NeW York 12207 Telephone: (518) 689-1400, Facsimile:: (5.18) 689-1499 givgielmggtlaw.coin¶

By: /s/ Nina D. Bovaiian NINA D. BOYAJIAN: (Admitted Pro Hoc Yice) 1840 Century Park East, Suite Los Angeles California 90067 Telephone: (310) 586-77 Facsimile: (310) 586-78 vaiianntTetlaw.coin¶

CERTIFICATE OF SE¶

I HEREBY CERTWY tha; on this 21u to re, 2020, a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been filed with the Clerk.of dFje ourt g the State of Florida e-filing system, which will send a notice of electronic servi¶

ACTIVE 5331734M¶

/s/ Sienhen A. Mendelsohn STEPHEN AyMENDEL50HN¶

Def.Ex.A-14¶

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY!.FLCIRIDA¶

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

co¶

DEFENDANT DAVE ARONBERG’S AMENDED MOTI FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES¶

Defendant, DAVE ARONBERG, as State Att m Beach County, Florida, by and Through undersigned counsel, hereby moves _t .4\ Itle Court, pursuant to Rule 1.525, Fla. R. Civ. P. to enter an award of attorneys HOLDINGS, LW, publisher of th, following: in . is favor against Plaintiff, CA FLORIDA ACH POST, and, in support thereof states the¶

SC R)A%VARDING ATTORNEYS’ FEES¶

I. On A ovenilfer 14,2019, CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC, publisher of the PALM BEACH PO tiff”) filed a complaint apinst DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of Palm ou ty, Florida (the “State .Attomey” or.”Defendant.Aronberg”) and SHARON R. BOCK, s Clerk and.Comptroller of Palm Beach County, Florida (the “Clerk”). The basis of the action was asking the Court to order the State Attorney and the Clerk to diseloSe the 2006 Jeffrey Epstein grand jury materials, (the “Requested Materials”), pursuant to § 905:27(1) FM. Stat.¶

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

3. On January 24, 2019, both the State Attorney and the Clerk C eS) r ’ Answer to the First Amended Complaint and Motion to Dismiss Count 11 (“Ans*er ’ n to -Dismiss). Notably, the State Attorney’s Answer/Motion to Dismiss assertecLits right to attorneys’ fees for defending the action and requested such relief from the Court.

4. On June 8, 2020, the Court entered its Order.Granting Defendants Motions to /.• Dismiss Count II of Plaintiff’s First Amended CcImplatrit with Prejudice (“Order”).

5. Immediately following the Court’s Order, on June 8, 2020, the State Attorney, _ through the undersigned counsel, served Plaintiff with a demand pursuant to § 57.105 Fla. Stat., to voluntary dismiss/withdraw the First/Amended Complaint and the claims against the State Attorney, along with a Motion -for Attorneys’ Fees (“57.105 Demand”). See, Exhibit “A”. Specifically, because of e Court’s Order only Count I of Plaintiffs Amended Complaint remained, whic sought Declaratory Relief under § 86.011, Fla. Stat.

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

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

8. §. 57.105, Florida Statutes states the following:

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

9. Accordingly, after receiving Plaintiff’s June 23, 2020, respoinsc4 refuting to withdraw the remainder of the First Amended Complaint and waiting the prereguisite , “21 days after service of the motion” the State Attorney’s Motion for Attorney:14/ :y was filed with this Court on July I, 2020. See, Exhibit “C”.

ice7 10. Thereafter, on August 18, 2020, the Stat led his Motion for Summary Judgment (“Motion”) and proceeded, on October 2 0, file a Motion to Set• Hearing on the State Attorney’s Motion (“Motion to Set”) a ante clear that there would be no resolution of this matter without the Court’s inte¶

11. Nonetheless, later y, rather than setting and participating in a hearing on the merits as to State And non, Plaintiff filed its Notite of Dropping the State Attorney (“Notice”) from the instils. See, Exhibit “D”. As a consequence of filing its Notice, Plaintiff has effectively uhi,e an admission that its allegations against the State Attorney have no basis in fact or law

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

13. Specifically! Plaintiffs Notice states: “Plaintiff; [sic], pursuant to Fla. IL Civ. P. 1 .250(b), hereby notifies the patties that it has dropped State Attorney, Dave Aronberg from the above case.”

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

(b) Dropping Parties. Parties may be dropped by an adverse parry in the provided for voluntary dismissal in rule.1.420(a)(1) subject to the exceptions in that rule. If notice of Its pendens has been filed in the action against a dropped, the notice of dismissal shall be recorded and cancels the n f 11 pendens without-the necessity of a court order. Parties may be dropp-: r of court on ifs own initiative or the motion of any party at any stage o on such terms as are just.¶

1.5.. Rule 1.420(aX I), Fla. R. Civ..P., Voluntary Dismi¶

(I) .13y Parties. Except in actions’ in which Ism . Seized or is in ‘the custody of the tourt,.an action, a Clain; or any ction or claim may be disMissed by plaintiff without order of court al by serving, or during trial by stating on the record, a notice of di y time before a hearing on motion for summary judgment, or if non or if the motion is denied, before retirement of the jury in a case tried e a or before submission of a nonjury case to the court for decision, or B b in a stipulation of dismissal signed by all current parties to the action. s o ite stated in the notice orstipulation, the dismissal is without prej t that 4 notice of dismissal operates as an adjudication. on the m.eri vi by a plaintiff who has once dismissed in any court an aefion b.a chiding the same claim.¶

16. Notably, “[R]ule 0(b) expressly incorporates the procedural aspects of Florida Rule of Civil P be dropped exception s that rule,‘“Siboni.v. M, 52 So. 3d 719,780 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010). 2 (aWI) governing voluntary dismissal by providing that parties may nner provided for voluntary dismissal in rule 1.420(aXI) Subject to the

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

IS. Accordingly, the Siboni court held that a “party dropped from litigation under rule 1.250(6) is subject to the time limitation contained in rule 1.525 governing service of a motion seeking a judgment for costs and attorney’s fees.” Id.¶

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

The stenographic records, notes, and transcriptions made th ofiirt reporter or stenographer shall be filed with the clerk who shall kee the n a sealed container not subject to public inspection. The notes, records’, an transcriptions are confidential and exempt from the provisions of s. 119.07(1) and s. 24(a), Art. I of the State Constitution and shall be released by the clerkonlvon request by a grand July for use by the grandjury or on order orthecourt pursuant to s. 905.27.¶

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

20. The State Attorney has o bjectIon to the Clerk producing and disclosing the Requested Materials should the ran order to that effect, however, it is impossible for the State Attorney to con* the relief sought by Plaintiff in its remaining claim for declaratory relief as he dotr,uot possess or control the Requested Materials and is statutorily barred from any disclosure.

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

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

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

County Conservation Alliance v. County, 73 So. 3d 856, 857 (Ea. 1st DCA 2011) (finding that “Courts are not at liberty to disregard the legislative mandate that courWsfiall impose sanctions in cases without foundation in material fact or law. The word “shall” in 57.105, Fla. Stat., evidences the legislative intent to impose a mandatory penalty to clistoutagehaseless claims, by placing a price tag on losing parties who engage in these activifies;Section 57.105 expressly states courts “shall” assess attorney’s fees for bringing, or faili\nst to dismiss, baseless claims or 2( N 7 defenses.”).¶

23. In fact, “Section 57.105(1) clearly and explicitly confers upon the trial court-the authority to award attorney’s fees to the prevailing party upon the court’s initiative, if ‘the court finds that the losing party … lcnew or shal’have known that a claim or defense when initially / presented to the court or at any nme-hofbre trial . [wJas not supported by the material facts necessary to establish the clatm-ordefense.” 2010). v. 47 So. 3d 320, 324 (Fla. 2d DCA

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

25. Furthermore, based on the impossible nature of Plaintiffs demand of the State Attorney, it was proper to demand withdrawal of Plaintiffs remaining claim for declaratory relief

and serve the 57.105 Motion for Attorneys’ Fees due to Plaintiff’s claim lacking any basis in fact or law. Again, neither the State Attorney nor his office has possession, custody or control of the Requested Materials. Likewise, the State Attorney has no objection, and never has had any objection, to the Clerk releasing the records sought by Plaintiff, as disclosure of the Requested Materials sought by Plaintiff lies solely within the providence of the Clerk pursuant to an order of the Court. Amitc 26. Consequently, the State Attorney is entitled to recover ‘reasonable attorneys’ fees in defending this suit by virtue of 57.105, Florida Statu REASONABLENESS AND AMOUNT OF ATTOFtN 8) FEES 27. From the service of the 57.105 Demand to the date of this motion, the attorneys for the State Attorney have rendered 42.2 hours of legal rvices for a total amount of $18,275.00 in defending this action. See time sheets detailin th mount of hours by each timekeeper, the timekeeper’s hourly rate, and a descriptio e asks done during those times, on attached Exhibit “E” Of that amount, the has been paid $0.00 as the engagement with the State Attorney is on a pure co thigen basis. The undersigned expects to incur an additional 4.0 hours at $425.00 an hour in ring for and attending the hearing on attorneys’ fees. Thus, the total amount o ourl att mcys’ fees the State Attorney is seeking is 46.2 hours for a total of $19,975.00. fu set forth below, the State Attorney also seeks a multiplier of 2.0, which when a i es the grand total attorneys’ fees as sanctions sought herein $39,950.00. An Affidavit of Attorneys’ Fees is attached hereto as Exhibit “F”, which details and breaks down the attorneys’ fees sought herein.¶

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

Factor	Facts and Arguments
(A) the time and labor required, the novelty, complexity, and difficulty of the questions involved, and the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly	The time involved by counsel was substantial, consuming nearly 75 hours of legal work. Moreover, the issues in controversy were novel and complex in that Plaintiff sought to create a new private statutory cause of action under Florida Statute § 905.27, implicated several 1st Amendment issues, and further sought declaratory relief pursuant to said Statute. Finally, this litigation has been ongoing for nearly a year and required skill and knowledge in these areas of the law.
(B) the likelihood that the acceptance of the particular employment will preclude other employment by the lawyer	Because of the amount of time involved in this litigation and considering the relative small size of the firm representing the State Attorney, the undersigned attorneys were forced to turn away or delay representing other clients especially during critical stages of the litigation, due to time required in the instant matter.
(C) the fee, or rate of fee, customarily charged in the locality for legal services of a comparable or similar nature	The base fees consisting of $425.00/hour for Mr. Wyler’s services and $475.00/hour for Mr. [REDACTED] services are reasonable for lawyers in their respective communities possessing equal experience and skill.
(D) the significance of, or amount involved in, the subject matter of the representation, and the results obtained	The outcome of this case is of great public significance to the State of Florida as it pertains to the disclosure of grand jury records and the role of the State Attorney concerning such disclosure. Here, the results obtained were the maximum sought by Defendant Aronberg as he was dismissed from the case, albeit not within the time constraints of the safe-harbor provision within § 57.105, Fla. Stat.
(E) the time limitations imposed by the client or by the circumstances and, as between attorney and client, any additional or special time demands or requests of the attorney by the client	There were not any extraordinary limitations imposed by the client, however, Defendant Aronberg expected and received zealous representation, with the desire that the case be dispensed of quickly and efficiently.
(F) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client	As general counsel for the FPAA the undersigned counsel has represented Defendant Aronberg since the beginning of his tenure as State Attorney in civil matters throughout the State of Florida as well as matters before the Florida Legislature.

(0) the experience, reputation, diligence, and
ability of the lawyer or	of a media entity and lawyers from multiple states regarding the
lawyers performing the service and the skill, expertise, or efficiency of effort reflected in the actual. providing of such services	release of information with a nationwide interest. Accordingly, the
(H) whether the fee is	The fee arrangement .herein was. entirely contingeat, wherein
fixed or contingent, and, if obtaining a fee was conditioned upon prevailing a. fixed as to the amount or rates•then whether the clieors ability to pay rested to any significant	’ of aining an order awarding fees. CO
degree on the outcome the representation..	of

JUSTIFICATION FOR MU¶

30: Defendant Aronberg was able to pro receives court order awarding contingency bas s’ fees upon achievement of asnceessfid outcome in this case. See, Exhibit “G^ i en and the fact that counsel risked a total of 74S hours of work for no pay, of whi 3 .. um is subject to the 57.105 Demand, Defendant Aronberg submits that r of ould be appropriate in this cast Based .upon-the hours expended, the hourly rags firid a .multiplier, Defendant Atonbetg respectfully requests an award of attorneys’ fees ns as stated herein. s litigation only if counsel would¶

31. ard to the application of a multiplier.; the court must analyze the three factors Jd Standard Guaranty Insurance. Co. v. Qua nstrom, 555 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 1990):

whether the relevant market requires a contingency fee multiplier to obtain c mpetent counsel; (2) whether the attorney was able to mitigate of nonpayment in any way; and (3) whether any of the factors set Rath in are applitable, especially the amount involved, the results obtained, and the. type o fee arrangement between the attorney and his client.¶

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

32. Here, as to the first factor there was no other counsel in the relevant market who would agree to represent Defendant Aronberg under the contingency fee agreement needed due to the financial situation of the Office of the State Attorney as a public entity funded entirely by the taxpayers of the State of Florida. Although “Risk Mitigation” within the Florida Department of Financial Services and the Office of the Attorney General indeed represent the State A orney in some instances, this case was not picked up by either and Defendant Aronberg w eeding representation by other, private counsel. Although the undersigned counsel a law firm are General Counsel for the Florida Prosecuting Attorneys’ Association, matter did not fall within the scope of representation for the the instant required a separate engagement between Defendant Aronberg and the and Counsel. Accordingly, the undersigned counsel and his law firm agreed to repres,e dant Aronberg on a contingency fee basis and to try the case to final judgment co that there was no other counsel willing to represent Defendant Aronberg on such term

33. With respect to the other`factors to be considered in applying a multiplier as set forth in Quonstroto, here Defendant Aronberg was unable to mitigate against non-payment of fees because as a purely taxpayer funded entity, the Office of State Attorney had no other means by / - which to pay the underst’med counsel. Additionally, Defendant Aronberg meets each of the N individual Rowe faciors as set forth in the table located above on pages 8-9. Accordingly, based on the foregoing the application of a multiplier herein is proper. In this vein, the Rowe court set guidelines for the size of a multiplier, as follows:

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

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

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

34, Additionally, the Quanstrom courtsonftrmed and modified the follows: approach, as¶

However; we find that the multiplier in should be modified as follows:1 trial court determines that success was more likely than not at outse apply a multiplier of I to 1,5; if the trial court determines that the lik o success was improximately.even at the outset, the trial judge may app tier of 1.5 to 2.0; and if the trial court determines that success was unlike utset Of the case, it may apply a multiplier of2.0 to 2.5. Accordingly ecision is modified to allow a multiplier from 1 to 2.5.¶

Standard Guaranty lusimance Co. v. Quanstroin, 555. So. 2d (Fla. 1990). Thus, based upon all of the foregoing factors, Defendant Aronberg r ubmits that a multiplier of 2.0 is appropriate for this representation.¶

CERTIFICATION OF GO? A. T F. Fro R-r TO RESOLVE¶

The undersigned certifies that fai effort was made to resolve the issues raised in this motion by agreement of the - e parties were: unable to resolve by agreement the issues of entitlement to feet o omit of feet.¶

WHEREFORE, tocl ant, DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of Palm Beach County, Florida stint is Honorable Court will enteran Order awarding Defendant Aronberg his teas° eye fees with a multiplier of 2.0 against the Plaintiff, CA FLORIDA HOLD L’LC, publisher of the PALM BEACH POST, in the amount of S39,950.00..¶

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE¶

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

SCHOLZ Si WYLER, LLC¶

/s/ Douglas A. Wyler¶

Arthi q.¶

Fla. Bar. No.: 10249¶

Richard J. Scholz, Esq.¶

Fla. Bar No.: 0021261¶

Fla. Bar No.: 119979¶

961687 Gateway Blvd., Suite¶

Fernandina. Beach, Florida¶

(904) 26 l -3693 rt%¶

(904) 261-7879 Fax¶

Primary! jaeobssc il mcast.net¶

AlWrZ <Se¶

Dave Aronberg¶

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

Please see attached and below in this matter.¶

Court:	Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Palm Beathillt	,
Case No:	Case No. 2020-CA-014681
Plaintiff:	CA Florida Holdings, LLC
Defendant:	Dave Aronberg	O S
	Fla. Stat. § 57.105 Demand Letter	C )
Telephone	(904) 261-3693	L’A)

p,Wyler, Do Esq. Scholz & Wyler, LLC 961687 Gateway Blvd., STE 201-I Fernandina Beach, FL 32034 904-261.3693 904-261-7879 (fax) eigza@comcast.net¶

Please be advised that this e-mail andI files transmitted with it are confidential attorney-client communication or may otherwise be privileged or confidential and are intended solely for the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy or retransmit this communication but destroy it immediately. Any unauthorized dissemination, distribution or copying of this co unit:400n is strictly prohibited.¶

THE LAW OPICCS or ASSOCIATES. PA. ARTHUR I.¶

SCHOLZ-. LC.¶

{sup}M A illiAll ILITYCOMP 0108C NAL.ASSOCIATIONS¶

GATEWAY TO /*Alba ’¶

1.61097 GATEWAY OLVO.. SUITE t01-1¶

POINANDEVA Brace FLORIDA 32634¶

TELEPHONE (904) 26141693¶

FAX NO. (904) 26 1-7979¶

June 13, 2020¶

VIA ELECTRONIC & US. MAIL¶

5100 Town Center Circle, Suite 406¶

RE: CA Florida Holdings, LLC v. Dave Aronbe Palm. Beach County, Case No.: 2019-CA-0¶

As you are aware our rem itprtsents the inters≤ County, Florida, in the above referenced matt dismissal of your First Amended Complaint, is made pursuant to section 57.105, Florj e Ai’onberg, as State. Attorney of Palm Beach se of ihis, letter is to demand the voluntary Co plaint”), dated January 17. 2020. This demand¶

As you know, Section 57.1¶

RICHARD ../..SCHOLZ. I.A.¶

RICHARD J. SCHOLZ¶

DOUGLAS A. WYLCR, P.A.¶

DOUG SA. NYLON¶

cps¶

• (I) Upon the court’s nitiai v or motion of any pafty, the court shall award a reasonable attome , including prejudgment interest, to be paid to the prevailing in equal amounts by the.lOsiritparty and the losinsparty’s attorney on any claim rise at any time during a civil proceeding or action in which the c find at the losing party or the losing party’s attorney knew or should own that a claim or defense when initially presented to the court or at any trial:: Was not supported by the material facts necessary to establish the claim.or defense; or
  • b. Would not be supported by the application of then-existing law to those material facts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please govern yourself accordingly:¶

Encl.: Defendant’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees¶

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

CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC, PUblisher of the PALM BEACH POST*¶

v. CASE NO.: 19-CA-0146g1¶

DAVE ARONBERO, as Stic Attorney of • Palm Beach County, Florida; SHARON ft{sup}e BOCK, as Clerk and Comptroller of Palm Beach County, Florida.¶

Defendants. CO {sup}S¶

/¶

DEFENDANT, DAVE ARONBERG’S MOTIOVCATTORNEYS’ FEES¶

Defendant, DAVE A RONBERG, as State \of Palm Beach County, Florida, byand through the undersigned attorneys. moves ursuant to Florida Statutes, Section 57.105, to awarthim reasonable attorneys’ f r th defense of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, . (the “Cortmlainn, and as groun would show that on June 8, 2020, Plaintiff was served {sup}acopy of this Motion, toge er wi aletter from the undersigned anon*, in accordance with subsection (4) of the aIlv Statute; demanding dismissal of the Complaint at least 21 days prior iir to the filing Of olio . In.said letter, Defendant’s attorney advised Plaintiff of the facts which establish plaint is without support. of the facts or the law.¶

FORE, Defendant, DAVE ARONBEftG, as State Attorney of Palm Beach County, lorida, respectfully requests the Court enter an Order requiring Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s attorneys to pay said Defendant’s attorneys’ fees incurred herein after service of thiS Motion. .¶

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE¶

I hereby certify that on this day , 2020, the foregoing was electronically filed vii the Florida E-File Portal for etectronic service on the parties of record herein.¶

SCHOLi & WYLER, LLC¶

Douglas A. Wylei;¶

Arthur I. Esquire RA. Bar No.: 108249 Richard 3. Scholz, aqui Fla. Bar No:: 002126 Douglas A. Wyler Fli. Bar No.: 11 961687 Cratewa c Iv, ‘,Suite 201-1 Fernandi orida 32034 (904) 2 (901 j k” ),’ zlaw@comcast.net¶

4 io eys for Defendant (s\ cwt¶

Stephen A. me:Welton:1 Tel 561.955.7629 Fax 561.659.9119 mendelsolln5.011aw corn¶

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

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

Dear Mr. Wyler:¶

Cos¶

We are in receipt of your letter of June 8, 2620 with yo Fla. Stat. section 57.105 motion. In your letter and your proposed motion, you ass orida Holdings, LLC and. the law lion of Greenberg Tratirig, P.A. should be I.: attorneys’ fees to be incurred by State Attorney Aronberg after the date of your 1 otter cites to Fla. Stat. sections 57.105(1) (a) and (b) for support. As shown below, th no asis for a Fla. Stat. section 57.105 motion, and we expect that if the State Attorney ake such a motion, the court should deny it.¶

Your letter omits a citation to may not be awarded where reversal of existing law or the a reasonable expectation of suc (3). Subsection 57A05(3)(a) provides that sanctions ood faith argument for the. extension, modification or hirient of new law, as it is appliedio the material facts,. with We have such a good faith argument.¶

Contrary to your court may orde furtherance an open air va the m of j materia such us alysi of Fla. Stat. section 905.27, there are actually three instances where a releas of grand jury materials. As we argue, the court may order release “in ” There are few cases in Florida, reviewing this provision and its scope. It is estion as to Whether the court Ailey order release of grand jury transcripts: to h the statute and the First: Amendment to the US Constitution in furtherance ,.statutory language you cite refers to instances where a person is seeking grand jury for use in a. civil or iu a criminal case. In these limited situations, the statute allows for and for no other reason. However, the statute does not state, as you assert, that where the media seeks grand jury materials based upon its constitutional standing, which the Circuit Court acknowledged at the June 2, 2020 heating includes The Palm Beach Post, that the statutory¶

Greenberg Trawls. Pat. I Attorneys at Law¶

5100 Town Center Cade I State 400 I Dote Retc4i, Florida 33486 I 7 +1 561.955.7600 I F +1 561.338.7099¶

Albany. Amsterdam. Atlanta. Austin. Berliri Boca Raton. Boston. Chicago. Dallas. Delaware. Deaver. Fori Loudermilk. Houston. Las Vegas. London! Las Andes. Wales CUP: Miami Haan’. Minneapolis. Nashville. New Jersey. New York Norther° Virginia. Orange Countt. Orlando. PlaidelphiLltmenia. Sacramento. Sao Francisco. Seoul; .Shanshai. Silicon Valley:Tallahassee. Tampa. Tel AAV: Tokyo: Warsaw:Washita:ma; D.C. Wut Pan Ileaeli.Westchester County.¶

‘ate” viosavws 4.2ngngiCiri•O•niteraTe.ii.S. • or: • I’M. 4.. ;e eakinq••••0 41” C..40 .14¶

Page 2¶

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

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

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

Page 3¶

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

Thank you,¶

Very truly yours,¶

/s/Stephen Mendelsohn¶

Stephen Mendelsohn¶

SAM:1s¶

ACTIVE 51081659vI¶

A Co’s -4) cwt¶

EXHIBIT “C”¶

cc¶

EXHIBIT “C”¶

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

CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS. LLC, Publisher of the PALM BEACH POST,¶

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

DEFENDANT, DAVE ARONBERG’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES¶

Defendant, DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of Palm Beach County, Florida, by and through the undersigned attorneys, moves th ourt, pursuant to Florida Statutes, Section 57.105, to award him reasonable attorneys’ fense of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, (the “Complaint”), and as groun ould show that on June 8, 2020, Plaintiff was served a copy of this Motion, togeth wit a letter from the undersigned attorney, in accordance with subsection (4) of the ab we, demanding dismissal of the Complaint, at least 21 days prior to the filing of* oiion. In said letter, Defendant’s attorney advised Plaintiff of the facts which establish t plaint is without support of the facts or the law.¶

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

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

Arthur I. Jacobs, Esquire Richard J. Scholz, Esquire Fla. Bar No.: 0021261 Douglas A. Wyler, Esquire Fla. Bar No.: 119979 961687 Gateway Blvd., Suite 201-I Fernandina Beach, Florida 32034¶

Attorneys for Defendant, Dave Aronberg¶

EXHIBIT “D”¶

EXHIBIT “D”¶

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

Publisher of THE PALM BEACH POST,¶

Beach County, Florida,¶

PLAINTIFF CA HOLDINGS, LLC’S NOTICE OF DROPPING STATE ATTORNEY, DAVE ARONBERG¶

Plaintiff, CA HOLDINGS, LLC, pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1250(b), hereby notifies the parties that it has dropped State Attorney, Dave Aronberg from the above case.¶

Respectfully submitted,¶

GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A. Attorneys for CA Florida Holdings, LLC, Publisher of The Palm Beach Post¶

401 East Las Olas Boulevard Suite 2000 Telephone: (561) 955-7629 Facsimile: (561) 338-7099¶

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

By. /5/ Michael J MICHAEL J GRYGIEL (Admitted Pro Hoc Vice) 54 State St:, 6th Floor • Albany, NeW yotk 12207 Telephorte: (518) 689-1400. Facsimile; (518) 68.9-1490 givaielnautlaw.coni¶

By. Is/ Mho D. Bowlike; NINA D. BOYAJIAN (Admitted Pro He Vice) 1840 Cannily Park East, Suite LoaAngeles Califomia 90067 Telephone:. (310) 586.77 Facsimile: (310) 586-78¶

I.HEREBY CERTIFY that oWthis 213’d \ * ft to r, 2020,. a true and ‘correct copy of the foregoing has been filed with the Clerk of ourt lig the State of Florida e-filing system, which will send a notice of electronic servi t Zjj Il parties of record herein •¶

ACTIVE 533I7341O¶

Stephen A. Mendelsohn • STEPHEN. &-MENDELSOHN¶

EXHIBIT “E”¶

EXHIBIT “E”¶

Scholz & Wyler, LLC 961687 Gateway Blvd., Suite 2011 United States 904-261-3693¶

Scholz & Wyler, LLC¶

Dave Aronberg¶

Balance $32,440.00 Invoice # 00307 Payment Terms Due Date¶

Aronberg (SAO15) adv. CA Florida Holdings, LLC¶

Time Entries¶

Date	EE	Activity	Description	Rate	Hours	Line Total
11/26/2019	DW	Review	Initial review of summons and complaint	$425.00	1.5	$637.50
11/26/2019	DW	Review	Reviewed motion for pro hac vice and Judge Hafele’ order granting	$425.00	0.2	$85.00
11/26/2019	DW	Teleconference	Teleconference w/ Client, re: response to lawsuit	$425.00	0.5	$212.50
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
11/26/2019	AJ	Review	Initial review of complaint	$475.00	1.0	$475.00
11/26/2019	AJ	Meeting	Meeting w/ DAW to discuss lawsuit and strategy	$475.00	0.5	$237.50
11/26/2019	DW	Meeting	Meeting w/ AJ to discuss lawsuit and strategy	$425.00	0.5	$212.50
11/26/2019	AJ	Teleconference	Teleconference w/ Client, re: response to lawsuit	$475.00	0.5	$237.50
12/02/2019	DW	Research & Preparation	Research and prep for Motion to dismiss	$425.00	2.0	$650.00
12/02/2019	DW	Draft	1st Draft motion to dismiss	$425.00	1.0	$425.00
12/02/2019	DW	Teleconference	Teleconference w/ Client, re: draft motion to dismiss	$425.00	0.5	$212.50
12/02/2019	AJ	Review	Reviewed 1st Draft MTDismiss	$475.00	0.3	$142.50
12/02/2019	AJ	Teleconference	Teleconference w/ client, re: draft motion to dismiss	$475.00	0.5	$237.50
12/03/2019	AJ	Meeting	Meeting w/ DAW, re: motion to dismiss	$475.00	0.2	$95.00
12/03/2019	DW	Meeting	Meeting w/ AJ, re: MTDismiss	$425.00	0.2	$85.00
12/06/2019	DW	Draft	Completed final draft of motion to dismiss; filed with Court	$425.00	0.7	$297.50
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	$212.50
12/06/2019	AJJ	Review	Reviewed final draft MTDismiss	$475.00	0.2	$95.00
12/06/2019	AJJ	Review	Reviewed Clerk’s MTDismiss	$475.00	0.2	$95.00
12/13/2019	DW	Review	Reviewed Clerk’s Motion to Dismiss	$425.00	0.5	$212.50
01/16/2020	DW	Review	Reviewed Order Setting Hearing on Defendants’ MTDismiss	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
01/16/2020	DW	Review	Reviewed motion for pro hac vice	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
01/17/2020	DW	Review	Reviewed PI’s Amended Complaint	$425.00	1.0	$425.00
01/17/2020	DW	Teleconference	Spoke with client, re: Amended Complaint	$425.00	0.5	$212.50
01/17/2020	DW	Review	Reviewed PI’s notice of filing	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
01/20/2020	AJJ	Review	Reviewed PI’s Am. Compl	$475.00	0.3	$142.50
01/21/2020	DW	Review	Reviewed Judge Marx’s Order Cancelling MTDismiss Hearing	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
01/21/2020	DW	Review	Reviewed PI’s Objection to Defendants’ MTDismiss	$425.00	0.2	$85.00
01/21/2020	DW	Teleconference	Spoke with client, re: Amended complaint	$425.00	0.5	$212.50
01/21/2020	AJJ	Meeting	Meeting w/ DAW, re: response to Am. Compl.	$475.00	0.2	$95.00
01/21/2020	DW	Meeting	Meeting w/ AJJ, re: response to Am. Compl.	$425.00	0.2	$85.00
01/22/2020	DW	Review	Reviewed Order granting pro hac vice admission	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
01/22/2020	DW	Research & Draft	Researched and drafted response to Amended Complaint	$425.00	1.0	$425.00
01/23/2020	DW	Teleconference	Spoke with Clerk’s attorney, re: response to amended complaint	$425.00	0.2	$85.00
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
01/24/2020	AJJ	Review	Reviewed final Answer/MTDismiss	$475.00	0.2	$95.00
01/27/2020	DW	Review	Reviewed Clerk’s Answer/MTDismiss	$425.00	0.3	$127.50
02/03/2020	DW	Review	Reviewed Order setting hearing on Defs’ MTDismiss	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
02/03/2020	DW	Teleconference	Spoke w/ client, re: order setting MTDismiss hearing for March 24, 2020	$425.00	0.5	$212.50
03/13/2020	DW	Review	Reviewed PI’s Opposition to Aronberg MTDismiss & Clerk’s MTDismiss	$425.00	1.5	$637.50
03/13/2020	AJJ	Review	Reviewed PI’s Opposition to Aronberg MTDismiss & Clerk’s MTDismiss	$475.00	0.7	$332.50
03/18/2020	DW	Teleconference	Reviewed email from PI’s counsel, re: motion to continue hearing	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
03/18/2020	DW	Review	Reviewed PI’s unopposed motion for continuance	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
03/18/2020	DW	E-mail	Emails w/ Clerk’s counsel, re: PI’s request to continue hearing	$425.00	0.2	$85.00
03/19/2020	DW	E-mail	Reviewed email from PI, re: agreed order & responded	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
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 June 3, 2020	$425.00	0.3	$127.50
04/21/2020	AJJ	Review	Reviewed Order rescheduling MTDismiss hearing	$475.00	0.1	$47.50
05/22/2020	DW	Review	Reviewed order setting Zoom hearing, re: MTDismiss	$425.00	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	DW	Teleconference	Spoke with Clerk’s new counsel, Nicole Fingerhut	$425.00	0.2	$85.00
05/28/2020	DW	E-mail	Reviewed PI’s email, re: cases and authorities for MTDismiss hearing; responded	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
05/29/2020	DW	Preparation	Began oral argument prep for 6/8 MTDismiss hearing	$425.00	1.0	$425.00
06/01/2020	DW	E-mail	Reviewed email from Judge Marx’s JA and responded	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
06/02/2020	DW	Various	Reviewed PI’s 500+ page binder, re: MTDismiss & prepped for hearing	$425.00	3.0	$1,275.00
06/02/2020	DW	E-mail	Drafted and sent email to client; re: MTD hearing tomorrow	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
06/03/2020	DW	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	Emailed courtesy copies of Aronberg’s Answer and MTDismiss to Judge Marx	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
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: 57.105	$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’ lees/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 UAm. 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 count 1	$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 evidence	$425.00	0.7	$297.50
07/08/2020	AJJ	Teleconference	Discussed w/ Client drafting and filing Motion for Summary Judgment and MSJ evidence	$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 affidavit	$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	AU	Meeting.	Discussed w/ DAW phone call w/ Prs counsel	$475.00	0.2	$95.00
09/02/2020	OW	Meeting	Discussed w/ AU phone call w/ Prs counsel	$425.00	0.2	$65.00
09/16/2020	OW	E-mail
				$425.00	0.1	$42.50
09/17/2020	DW	Meeting	Discussed w/ AU fling motion for CMC	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
09/17/2020	AIJ	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
				$425.00	0.5	$212.50
09/18/2020	DW	Email
				$425.00	0.1	$42.50
09/18/2020	DW	E-mail	Reviewed Prs email insisting that 57.105 motion be
			withdrawn	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
09/18/2020	OW	E-mail
				$425.00	0.1	$42.50
09/18/2020	DW	E-mail	Sent client copy of email exchange w/ Prs counsel;
				$425.00	0.5	$212.50
09/22/2020	DW	Various	Drafted and filed Notice of Hearing on 10/15/20344
			up Court Call; spoke w/ client, re: nearing date	$425.00	0.7	$297.50
10/02/2020	DW	Review	Reviewed Prs Memo of Law opposing Aronberg’s
				$425.00	0.7	$297.50
10/02/2020	OW	Review	Reviewed Prs Response to Aironberg’s request to
			schedule 57.105 motion for fees alter MS)	$425.00	0.5	$212.50
1042/2020		Review	Reviewed Pr of LEA opposing 57.105
			motion	$475.00	0.5	$237.50
10/02/2020	AU	Review	Reviews(’ Prs Response to Aronberg’s request to
			schedule P.105 motion after MSJ	$475.00	0.4	$190.00
10/12/2020	OW	Research	Researdicaselaw & statutes, re: response to Prs
				$425.00	1.0	$425.00
10/1a/2020	OW	Research &
				$425.00	1.0	$425.00
10/13/2020	OW	Dtatt	Created 1st draft of Response to Prs Memo of Law
			and shared w/ Client	$425.00	4.0	$1,700.00
10/13/2020	DW	Meeting	Discussed w/ AU caselaw and draft response to
				$425.00	0.5	$212.50
10/13/2020	AIJ	Various	Reviewed draft MSJ, discussed draft w/ DAW and
				$475.00	0.7	$332.50
10/14/2020	DW	Draft	Finalized and filed Response to Prs Memo of Law	$425.00	1.0	$425.00
10/14/2020	DW	Telephone	Spoke w/ Client, re: memo of law	$425.00	0.2	$85.00
10/14/2020	I3W	Telephone	Spoke w/ client again, re: response to memo of law	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
10/15/2020	DW	Attend Hearing	Attended hearing. re: Motion to Set CMC; called
				$42560	1.5	$637.50
10/15/2020	DW	Various	Reviewed email and letter Isom PI, re: settlement.
				$425.00	0.5	$212.50

10/15/2020	OW	Telephone	Spoke w/ Ks counsel, re: settlement	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
10/15/2020	OW	Telephone	Spoke w/ client, re: Pt’s settlement proposal	$425.00	0.2	$65.00
10/15/2020	AU	Various	Attended hearing, re: motion to set CMC;
				$475.00	1.0	$475.00
10/15/2020	AIJ	Various	Discussed Prs settlement proposal w/ DAW and
			then w/ Giant	$475.00	0.4	$190.00
10/15/2020	OW	Meeting	Discussed Prs settlement proposal w/ AU	$425.00	0.2	$85.00
10/16/2020	DW	Various	Drafted and shared proposed order wf Prs counsel	$425.00	OS	$212.50
10/16/2020	OW	Telephone	Spoke w/ Prs counsel, re: settlement	$425.00	0.2	$85.00
10/16/2020	OW	Telephone	Spoke w/ client. re: Prs settlement proposal	$425.00	Th 0.5	$212.50
10/16/2020	OW	Meeting	Discussed Prs settlement proposal w/ AU	$425.00	”0.2	$85.00
10/16/2020	AU	Meeting	DiscuSsed Prs settlement PropoSal w/ DAW	$475.00	0.2	$95.00
10/19/2020	DW	Various	Uploaded proposed order, re: CMC for Judge
			Hefei’)	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
10/19/2020	DW	Telephone	Spoke ve client, re: Prs settlement proposal	$425.00	0.2	$85.00
10/19/2020	OW	Telephone	Spoke w/ Pt’s counsel, re: settlement	U25.00	0.1	$42.50
10/19/2020	AU	Meeting	Discussed Prs settlement proposal w/ DAW	$475.00	0.2	$95.00
10/19/2020	DW	Meeting	Discussed Prs settlement proposal w/ AU.	$425.00	0.2	$85.00
10/20/2020	DW	Various	Reviewed email from PI, re:settlement sent copy
				$425.00	0.5	$212.50
10/20/2020	DW	Telephone	Spoke ‘w/ client, re: tettleerient	$425.00	0.4	$170.00
10/20/2020	OW	Telephone	Spoke w/ Firs counsel, re: settlement	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
10/20/2020	OW	Telephone	Spoke w/ client, re: settlement	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
10/29/2020	DW	Meeting	Discussed Ors settlement proposal w/ AU	$425.00	0.2	$85.00
10/29/2020	AU	Meeting	Discussed Prs settlement proposal w/ DAW	$475.00	0.2	$95.00
10/21/2029	DW	Various
				$425.00	1.0	$425.00
10/21/2020	DW	Revievs	Reviewed Order, re: CMC unnecessary	3425.00	0.1	$42.50
10/21/2020	DW	Telephone	Spoke wl 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	OW	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 media	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
10/21/2020	AIJ	Meeting	Discussed media response w/ DAW	$475.00	0.3	$142.50
10121/2020	DW	Meeting	Discussed media response w/ AU	$425.00	0.3	$127.50
1022/2020	DW	Various
				$425.00	0.5	$212.50

10/22/2020	AJJ	Various	Reviewed PI’s Notice of Dropping Aronberg as party; spoke w/ Client and DAW, re: notice and next steps	$475.00	0.5	$237.50
------------	-----	---------	--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------	----------	-----	----------

Totals: 74.8 $32,440.00¶

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

EXHIBIT “F”¶

EXHIBIT “F”¶

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

Publisher of the PALM BEACH POST,¶

CASE NO.: 19-CA-014681¶

Beach County, Florida.¶

AFFIDAVIT OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES¶

STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF NASSAU¶

BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority appeared Douglas A. Wyler, Esq., who, after being first duly sworn, deposes and says:¶

1. Affiant is a partner of JACOBS, SCHOLZ & WYLER, LLC, counsel for Defendant, DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of Palm Beach County, Florida, (“Aronberg”), as well as general counsel to the Florida Prosecuting Attorneys Association, (“FPAA”), and makes this Affidavit of his own personal knowledge.

2. Affiant is licensed to practice law in the State of Florida, is an active member of the Florida Bar in good standing and has engaged in the practice of law in the State of Florida since 2015.

3. As detailed herein, the services rendered by Affiant and his firm pertain to Affiant’s demand letter and motion for attorneys’ fees sent to Plaintiff’s counsel pursuant to § 57.105, Florida Statutes, on June 8, 2020, in defending against Count I of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint

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

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

5. Of the 42.2 hours expended since Defendant Aronberg’s 57.105 demand was served, the total time Affiant has expended services rendered to date is 35.4 hours at the rate of $425.00 per hour. Likewise, the total time Affiant’s law partner, Arthur L. Jacobs, has expended services rendered to date is 6.8 hours at the rate of $475.00 per hour.

6. Accordingly, since Defendant Aronberg’s 57.105 demand was served, Defendant Aronberg’s counsel, [REDACTED], SCHOLZ & WYLER, LLC, has rendered services in the amount of $18,275.00, in conjunction with the defense of the instant action pursuant to § 57.105, Florida Statutes. See, Exhibit “C” attached hereto.

7. Affiant expects to incur an additional 4.0 hours at $425.00 an hour in preparing for and attending the hearing on attorneys’ fees. Thus, the total amount of hourly attorneys’ fees the State Attorney is seeking is 46.2 hours for a total of $19,975.00. Additionally, the State Attorney seeks a multiplier of 2.0, which when applied makes the grand total attorneys’ fees sought herein $39,950.00.

Dated this 9th day of November, 2020.¶

FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT.¶

STATE OP FLORIDA COUNTYpt NASSAU.¶

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

otary Public — State of Florida¶

Barak R. 1-Ackson¶

Name typed, printed or stamped¶

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE¶

. I HEREBY CERTIFY that on thii 9th day 61Noverhbe V a copy of the foregoing has been .electronically filed with the Florida E.:File Portal f ost- 4’ n all patties or record herein.¶

HOLZ &-WYLER, LLC¶

uglas A. Wyler¶

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

.Attorneys for Defendant. Dave Aronberg¶

Subject: ’ SERVICE OF COURT D0CHMENt•CASE NO. 2019-CA-014681; CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, u.ev: DAVE ARON BERG ET AL. Date: Monday, June 8, 20204 3:58:58 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: Douglas Wyler • . .• •• To: ‘InendelsOhns@gtlaw.cOm’, smitidg0gtlaw.ciirp,.fiserviceeltiaw.Corn, BoyijianNegilaw.COm; riveraal@gtlaw.com, GMIGIELM@gtlaw.com . Attachments: 2020-66-08 Arenberg 57.105 bernandand Motion for Attorneys’ Fees.pelf¶

Court: Case No: Plaintiff: Defendant: Title of Documents Served: Sender’s Name and Telephone Number: CliCiallt Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, in ana for Palm Be Florida CaseiNo..2020-CA-014681 CA Florida Holdings, LLC Davej Arenberg • 4); Fla. Stet: § 57.105 Demand Letter el Defendant, Dave Aronberg’s minion fQL for s~Fees Douglas Wyler (904) 261-3693¶

Doug Wyler, Esq. Scbolzfit Wyler, LLC 961687 Gateway Blvd., STE 2014 Fernandina Beach, FL 32034 904-261.3693. 004-261-1879 (fax)¶

Pleasebe advised that this e- y files transmitted with it are confidential attorney-client communication or may otherwise ileged or confidential and are intended solely for the individual or entity to whom they are essed. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy or retransmit this tommuni bat destroy it immediately. Any unauthcirited dissemination, distribution or copying of this co S .yrdca y is strictly prohibited.¶

JACOBS SCHOLZ & WYLER, LLC.¶

A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY OF PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS¶

FERNANDENA BEACH, FLORIDA 62034¶

TELEPHONE (904) 261-3693¶

FAX NO. (904) 261-7679¶

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

RICHARD J. SCHOLZ, P.A.¶

June 8, 2020¶

VIA ELECTRONIC & U.S. MAIL¶

RE: CA Florida Holdings, LLC v. Dave Aronberg et al. Palm Beach County, Case No.: 2019-CA-014681¶

As you are aware our firm represents the interests of Dave Aronberg, as State Attorney of Palm Beach County, Florida, in the above referenced matter. The purpose of this letter is to demand the voluntary dismissal of your First Amended Complaint, (the “Complaint”), dated January 17, 2020. This demand is made pursuant to section 57.105, Florida Statutes.¶

As you know, Section 57.105 provides:¶

1. (1) Upon the court’s initiative or motion of any party, the court shall award a reasonable attorney’s fee, including prejudgment interest, to be paid to the prevailing party in equal amounts by the losing party and the losing party’s attorney on any claim or defense at any time during a civil proceeding or action in which 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 before trial:
   1. a. Was not supported by the material facts necessary to establish the claim or defense; or
   2. b. Would not be supported by the application of then-existing law to those material facts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please govern yourself accordingly.¶

Encl.: Defendant’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees¶

&TEE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT AND:FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA¶

CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS; LLC, Publisher of the PALM BEACH POST,¶

• DAVE AP.ONDEED; as State Attorney of .Palm Bench Comity, Florida; SHARON .R. BOCKa:s Clerk slid CoMptroller of Palm Beach County., Florida.¶

CASE NO.: 19-CAM14681¶

cdr¶

DEFENDANT. DAVE ARONBERG’S MOT TTORNEYS’ FEES¶

Defendant, DAVE ARONBERG, as State.lRto alm Beach County, Floridb, byand through the undersigned attorneys, moves t u7 truant to Florida Statutes, Section 57..105; to award him reasonable attorneys’ fees o e d tense of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint,. (the “Complaint”), and asgroun h ould show that on June e, 2020, Plaintiff was served a copy of this Motion, to letter from the undersigned. attorney, in accordance with subsection (4) of the above, demanding disthissril of the Complaint, at least 21 days prior to the filing of di’s In said letter, Defendant’s attorney advised Plaintiff of the facts which establish l 6 t Cdrn faint is withodt support of the facts or the law.¶

ORE, Defendant, DAVE ARONEEkb, as State Attorney. of Palm Beach Ad, respectfully requests the Courfenter an Order requiring Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s atto eyi to pay said Defendant’s attomeys fees incurred herein after service of this Motion.¶

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

[REDACTED] S SCHOLZ & WYLER, LLC¶

_____ Arthur I. [REDACTED], Esquire Richard J. Scholz, Esquire Fla. Bar No.: 0021261 Douglas A. Wyler, Esquire Fla. Bar No.: 119979 961687 Gateway Blvd., Suite 201-1 Fernandina Beach, Florida 32034¶

Attorneys for Defendant¶

CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LIC, • ‘Publisher of THE PALM BE4al POST.:¶

’ Plaintiff..¶

• .¶

DAVE AltONBER0, as State Aitpincy of Palm Beach County, Floridk SHARON R. BOCK,Iis Clerk and Comptroller of Palm Bach County; Florida,¶

• Defendants.¶

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFIF,ENT11 JUDICIAL CIRCUIT NAND . FOR PALM BEACH.CONTY, FLORIDA .. • . .¶

. • . • . • . • • .. CASE NO.: 50-20197C-A-0146814OOO544B¶

DIVISION: AG ,. •¶

PLAINTIFF CA HOLDINGS NOTICE OF DROPPING STATE /VITO . . y A RONBERG¶

. • Plaintiff, CA HOLDINGS, LLC, pursuant Sr Fla. R. . hereby notifies the panics that it has dropped State Attorney, Dave Amber’s As f v¶

pectfully submitted,¶

GREENBERG TRAI.JIRIG, Attorneys or CA Florida jloldiiigc. LLC. Publisher • of The Palm Beach Past¶

Stephen A. Mendelsohn..Esq. 401 East Las O1as Boultvard Suite 2000 Boca Raton, Florida 33486 Telephone: (561) 935.4629 Facsimile: (561) 338.7099¶

By: /s/ Stephen A. Mendelsohn STEPHEN A. MENDELSOHN Florida Bar No. 849324 ’ mendelsohnstibgilaw:com smithVagtlaw.com FLServicetalgtlaw.com¶

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

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

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 21{sup}st day of October, 2020, a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been filed with the Clerk of the Court using the State of Florida e-filing system, which will send a notice of electronic service for all parties of record herein¶

Isl Stephen A. Mendelsohn¶

ACTIVE 53317341v1¶

EXHIBIT “C”¶

EXHIBIT “C”¶

Jacobs Scholz & Wyler, LLC 961687 Gateway Blvd., Suite 2011 United States 904-261-3693¶

Jacobs Scholz & Wyler, LLC¶

Dave Aronberg¶

Balance $32,440.00 Invoice # 00307 Payment Terms Due Date¶

Aronberg (SAO15) adv. CA Florida Holdings, LLC¶

Time Entries¶

Date	EE	Activity	Description	Rate	Hours	Line Total
11/26/2019	DW	Review	Initial review of summons and complaint.	$425.00	1.5	$637.50
11/26/2019	DW	Review	Reviewed motion for pro hac vice and Judge Hafele’ order granting	$425.00	0.2	$85.00
11/26/2019	DW	Teleconference	Teleconference w/ Client, re: response to lawsuit	$425.00	0.5	$212.50
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
11/26/2019	AJ	Review	Initial review of complaint	$475.00	1.0	$475.00
11/26/2019	AJ	Meeting	Meeting w/ DAW to discuss lawsuit and strategy	$475.00	0.5	$237.50
11/26/2019	DW	Meeting	Meeting w/ AJ to discuss lawsuit and strategy	$425.00	0.5	$212.50
11/26/2019	AJ	Teleconference	Teleconference w/ Client, re: response to lawsuit	$475.00	0.5	$237.50
12/02/2019	DW	Research & Preparation	Research and prep for Motion to dismiss	$425.00	2.0	$850.00
12/02/2019	DW	Draft	1st Draft motion to dismiss	$425.00	1.0	$425.00
12/02/2019	DW	Teleconference	Teleconference w/ Client, re: draft motion to dismiss	$425.00	0.5	$212.50
12/02/2019	AJ	Review	Reviewed 1st Draft MTDismiss	$475.00	0.3	$142.50
12/02/2019	AJ	Teleconference	Teleconference w/ client, re: draft motion to dismiss	$475.00	0.5	$237.50
12/03/2019	AJ	Meeting	Meeting w/ DAW, re: motion to dismiss	$475.00	0.2	$95.00
12/03/2019	DW	Meeting	Meeting w/ AJ, re: MTDismiss	$425.00	0.2	$85.00
12/06/2019	DW	Draft	Completed final draft of motion to dismiss; filed with Court	$425.00	0.7	$297.50
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	$212.50
12/06/2019	AJJ	Review	Reviewed final draft MTDismiss	$475.00	0.2	$95.00
12/06/2019	AJJ	Review	Reviewed Clerk’s MTDismiss	$475.00	0.2	$95.00
12/13/2019	DW	Review	Reviewed Clerk’s Motion to Dismiss	$425.00	0.5	$212.50
01/16/2020	DW	Review	Reviewed Order Setting Hearing on Defendants’ MTDismiss	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
01/16/2020	DW	Review	Reviewed motion for pro hac vice	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
01/17/2020	DW	Review	Reviewed PI’s Amended Complaint	$425.00	1.0	$425.00
01/17/2020	DW	Teleconference	Spoke with client, re: Amended Complaint	$425.00	0.5	$212.50
01/17/2020	DW	Review	Reviewed PI’s notice of filing	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
01/20/2020	AJJ	Review	Reviewed PI’s Am. Compl	$475.00	0.3	$142.50
01/21/2020	DW	Review	Reviewed Judge Marx’s Order Cancelling MTDismiss Hearing	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
01/21/2020	DW	Review	Reviewed PI’s Objection to Defendants’ MTDismiss	$425.00	0.2	$85.00
01/21/2020	DW	Teleconference	Spoke with client, re: Amended complaint	$425.00	0.5	$212.50
01/21/2020	AJJ	Meeting	Meeting w/ DAW, re: response to Am. Compl.	$475.00	0.2	$95.00
01/21/2020	DW	Meeting	Meeting w/ AJJ, re: response to Am. Compl.	$425.00	0.2	$85.00
01/22/2020	DW	Review	Reviewed Order granting pro hac vice admission	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
01/22/2020	DW	Research & Draft	Researched and drafted response to Amended Complaint	$425.00	1.0	$425.00
01/23/2020	DW	Teleconference	Spoke with Clerk’s attorney, re: response to amended complaint	$425.00	0.2	$85.00
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
01/24/2020	AJJ	Review	Reviewed final Answer/MTDismiss	$475.00	0.2	$95.00
01/27/2020	DW	Review	Reviewed Clerk’s Answer/MTDismiss	$425.00	0.3	$127.50
02/03/2020	DW	Review	Reviewed Order setting hearing on Defs’ MTDismiss	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
02/03/2020	DW	Teleconference	Spoke w/ client, re: order setting MTDismiss hearing for March 24, 2020	$425.00	0.5	$212.50
03/13/2020	DW	Review	Reviewed PI’s Opposition to Aronberg MTDismiss & Clerk’s MTDismiss	$425.00	1.5	$637.50
03/13/2020	AJJ	Review	Reviewed PI’s Opposition to Aronberg MTDismiss & Clerk’s MTDismiss	$475.00	0.7	$332.50
03/18/2020	DW	Teleconference	Reviewed email from PI’s counsel, re: motion to continue hearing	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
03/18/2020	DW	Review	Reviewed PI’s unopposed motion for continuance	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
03/18/2020	DW	E-mail	Emails w/ Clerk’s counsel, re: PI’s request to continue hearing	$425.00	0.2	$85.00
03/19/2020	DW	E-mail	Reviewed email from PI, re: agreed order & responded	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
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 June 3, 2020	$425.00	0.3	$127.50
04/21/2020	AJ	Review	Reviewed Order rescheduling MTDismiss hearing	$475.00	0.1	$47.50
05/22/2020	DW	Review	Reviewed order setting Zoom hearing, re: MTDismiss	$425.00	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	DW	Teleconference	Spoke with Clerk’s new counsel, Nicole Fingerhut	$425.00	0.2	$85.00
05/28/2020	DW	E-mail	Reviewed PI’s email, re: cases and authorities for MTDismiss hearing; responded	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
05/29/2020	DW	Preparation	Began oral argument prep for 6/8 MTDismiss hearing	$425.00	1.0	$425.00
06/01/2020	DW	E-mail	Reviewed email from Judge Marx’s JA and responded	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
06/02/2020	DW	Various	Reviewed PI’s 500+ page binder, re: MTDismiss & prepped for hearing	$425.00	3.0	$1,275.00
06/02/2020	DW	E-mail	Drafted and sent email to client, re: MTD hearing tomorrow	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
06/03/2020	DW	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	Emailed courtesy copies of Aronberg’s Answer and MTDismiss to Judge Marx	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
06/03/2020	DW	E-mail	Reviewed response from Client and replied	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
06/03/2020	AJ	Attend Hearing	Attended MTDismiss hearing via Zoom	$475.00	1.0	$475.00
06/03/2020	AJ	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: 57.105	$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	AJ	Meeting	Meeting w/ DAW, re: Order & 57.105	$475.00	0.3	$142.50
06/08/2020	DW	Meeting	Meeting w/ AJ, re: Order & 57.105	$425.00	0.3	$127.50
06/08/2020	AJ	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	AJ	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 count 1	$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 evidence	$425.00	0.7	$297.50
07/08/2020	AJ	Teleconference	Discussed w/ Client drafting and filing Motion for Summary Judgment and MSJ evidence	$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	AJ	Various	Reviewed draft affidavit and discussed w/ DAW	$475.00	0.3	$142.50
07/10/2020	DW	Meeting	Discussed draft affidavit w/ AJ	$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/ AJ	$425.00	0.2	$85.00
08/17/2020	AJ	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 affidavit	$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	AJ	Meeting	Discussed w/ DAW phone call w/ PI’s counsel	$475.00	0.2	$95.00
09/02/2020	DW	Meeting	Discussed w/ AJ 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/ AJ filing motion for CMC	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
09/17/2020	AJ	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
10/02/2020	DW	Review	Reviewed PI’s Response to Aronberg’s request to schedule 57.105 motion for fees after MSJ	$425.00	0.5	$212.50
10/02/2020	AJ	Review	Reviewed PI’s Memo of Law opposing 57.105 motion	$475.00	0.5	$237.50
10/02/2020	AJ	Review	Reviewed PI’s Response to Aronberg’s request to schedule 57.105 motion after MSJ	$475.00	0.4	$190.00
10/12/2020	DW	Research	Research caselaw & statutes, re: response to PI’s Memo of Law	$425.00	1.0	$425.00
10/13/2020	DW	Research & Analyze	Continued researching caselaw, re: response to PI’s memo of law.	$425.00	1.0	$425.00
10/13/2020	DW	Draft	Created 1st draft of Response to PI’s Memo of Law and shared w/ Client	$425.00	4.0	$1,700.00
10/13/2020	DW	Meeting	Discussed w/ AJ caselaw and draft response to memo	$425.00	0.5	$212.50
10/13/2020	AJ	Various	Reviewed draft MSJ; discussed draft w/ DAW and caselaw	$475.00	0.7	$332.50
10/14/2020	DW	Draft	Finalized and filed Response to PI’s Memo of Law	$425.00	1.0	$425.00
10/14/2020	DW	Telephone	Spoke w/ client, re: memo of law	$425.00	0.2	$85.00
10/14/2020	DW	Telephone	Spoke w/ client again, re: response to memo of law	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
10/15/2020	DW	Attend Hearing	Attended hearing, re: Motion to Set CMC; called client to discuss	$425.00	1.5	$637.50
10/15/2020	DW	Various	Reviewed email and letter from PI, re: settlement. Sent copy to Client and called to discuss.	$425.00	0.5	$212.50

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	Attended hearing, re: motion to set CMC; discussed w/ client	$475.00	1.0	$475.00
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	Various	Drafted and shared proposed order w/ PI’s counsel	$425.00	0.5	$212.50
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	Various	Uploaded proposed order, re: CMC for Judge Hafele	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
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
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
10/21/2020	DW	Review	Reviewed Order, re: CMC unnecessary	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
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	DW	E-mail	Sent email w/ Aronberg statement to media	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
10/21/2020	AJJ	Meeting	Discussed media response w/ DAW	$475.00	0.3	$142.50
10/21/2020	DW	Meeting	Discussed media response w/ AJJ	$425.00	0.3	$127.50
10/22/2020	DW	Various	Reviewed PI’s Notice of Dropping Aronberg as party; spoke w/ Client and AJJ, re: notice and next steps	$425.00	0.5	$212.50

10/22/2020	AJJ	Various	Reviewed PI’s Notice of Dropping Aronberg as party; spoke w/ Client and DAW, re: notice and next steps	$475.00	0.5	$237.50
				Totals:		74.8	$32,440.00

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

EXHIBIT “G”¶

EXHIBIT “G”¶

JACOBS SCHOLZ & WYLER, LLC.¶

A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY OF PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS¶

THE LAW OFFICES OF [REDACTED] & ASSOCIATES, P.A. ARTHUR J. JACOBS¶

FERNANDINA BEACH, FLORIDA 62034¶

TELEPHONE (904) 261-3693 FAX NO. (904) 261-7879¶

RICHARD J. SCHOLZ, P.A.¶

November 26, 2019¶

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

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

Dear Mrs. Howard:¶

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

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

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

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

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

6/4/2020 Date¶