Draft: efta02771697

Sonja D. Florida Professional Reporter Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. 1665 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, Suite 1001 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 (561) 471-2995¶

3¶

4¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

APPEARANCES:¶

For¶

SEARCY, DENNEY, SCAROLA, BARNHART & SHIPLEY, P.A.¶

2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd.¶

West Palm Beach, FL 33409¶

By DARRYL L. IIIII, ESQUIRE¶

Pro Se:¶

, JAFFE, WEISSING, , FI LEHRMAN, P.L.¶

425 North Andrews Avenue #2¶

By J.¶

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301¶

For Jeffrey Epstein:¶

FRED HADDAD, P.A.¶

One Financial Plaza-, ite 2612¶

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394¶

By FRED HADDAD 'ESQUIRE¶

For Jeffrey Epste :¶

TONJA HADDAD COLEMAN, P.A.¶

524 S Andrews Avenue¶

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301¶

By TONJA HADDAD COLEMAN, ESQUIRE¶

For Jeffrey Epstein:¶

ATTERBURY, GOLDBERGER & WEISS, P.A.¶

250 Australian Ave. South, Suite 1400¶

West Palm Beach, FL 33401¶

By JACK A. GOLDBERGER, ESQUIRE¶

2¶

3¶

4¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

DIRECT EXAMINATION¶

BY MR.¶

Q What is your profession?¶

A Attorney.¶

Q At some point in time were you employed by the law firm of RRA, the way it's been called i case?¶

A Yes, from approximately April.of"200'9 until what Mr. Haddad described as implosion around, I believe, November lst, 2009, but otbly the day before.¶

Q And in what cape were you employed by that firm?¶

A I was a 'aetorney. I was an employee there.¶

Q And when you came to the firm, did you bring some cases with you where you were prosecuting some cases on behalf of some minor children against Mr.-- stein for him molesting them?¶

Q Yes. There were two different lassifications of cases all revolving around the same issue. i filed them all around the same time in 2008. One, I represented -- ultimately I represented, I believe, 10 to 12 victims of Jeffrey Epstein. But while I was at RRA, I represented at least three files that were being litigated. I had filed those in 2008.¶

2¶

3¶

4¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

In addition to those files, I was litigating, and still currently litigating, another case on behalf of all of Jeffrey Epstein's minor victims against the United States Attorney's Office wherein the allegations are that the U.S. Attorney's Office improperly gave Jeffrey Epstein immunity prosecution of the crimes against these vic violation of the Crime Victims Rights App case is currently pending in front of Judge Marra. Jeffrey Epstein has intervened in that case and certainly is interested in knowing the information that we have regarding those allegations.¶

And if -- one of the things that we are asking for in that case is to overturn the immunity agreement which would open him back up to prosecution. Those causes were all being litigated while was at RRA, and the Crime Victims Rights Act c .Sts. till active today.¶

C1 Al ' Now, who was your supervisor at RRA, your e irect supervisor?¶

A Adler was the head of the personal injury tort division. He was in charge of the division, and that's the division that I was in.¶

And did you have communications from time to time with Mr. Adler regarding these cases against¶

2¶

3¶

4¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

Mr. Epstein?¶

A It was more than just from time to time. Adler knew what was going on with the cases, we had Epstein meetings where myself, former Judge Bill Berger, Russ Adler, other members of the firm would talk about Epstein, talk strategy about Epstei AR mental impressions were out on the table, s speak; discovery, strategy was discussed. intimate details of our clients was Not-on at, the discussed. Things that all fall into the parameter work product IS privilege and attorney-clien ege, and that's just in-person communica n ''¶

Q In additio o -person communications with Mr. Adler on a regular basis regarding these cases, was there also a computer program at the firm called Q Task?¶

Z isf .r¶

is? Q Can you explain to Judge what Q Task¶

A Yes.¶

THE COURT: Say that again.¶

MR. Q Task, T-A-S-K, Judge.¶

Q Can you explain what that is, please?¶

A Adler describes that program much better than I do. He was one of the creators of the¶

2¶

3¶

4¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

program, and it was a very good program. I only used it during the time at RRA. I think Russ Adler has described himself as an evangelist for the program. But it is basically a virtual boardroom for attorneys to communicate specifically back and forth, have meetings in a virtual manner so that you can discuss cases, details of cases, strategy on cases. one of the projects -- actually, every case, I had a project within Q Task. Certain people would give impact or input on cases were i o the project. Both myself and Russ Adler w hose projects, which means everything t sted or Bill Berger, for instance, posted, uss Adler posted -- I believe those were the main parEicipants in that project - would have access to literally everything that was in that communication device.¶

Q Let's be very specific for Judge . Did t- stein project have a Q Task project associated hat case?¶

A There was an Epstein project.¶

Q Was Mr. Adler also on the Q Task list for that project?¶

A Yes. Meaning he had access to literally all of the privileged communications and privileged information, work product, attorney-client and¶

2¶

3¶

4¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

otherwise, all of it that I had access to, Mr. Adler also had access to.¶

Q And can you explain to the Judge what it was for?¶

A It was so that we could brainstorm, share ideas, discuss strategy, discuss discovery, disc what was going on in the case, and we would n lci lbihave to call formal meetings. we would communicate private manner about details involving any case going to that project.¶

Q Let's be specific about the Epstein case, which is why we are here / ali l y ow that they have an unfair advantage by M . v ad representing both Mr. Epstein and - ead. Just keep it to the Epstein¶

A The Epstein case was one project that I communicated ideas in, Russ Adler communicated ideas in: I was handling the case; I was the primary attorney. Any idea that I had to bounce off of any other attorney that was in this project, the other attorneys invited to that private project also had access to.¶

So Russ Adler had access to literally all of my mental impressions going on that were in this private site. It is designed -- basically designed¶

2¶

3¶

4¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

and utilized solely for the purpose of sharing privileged information amongst lawyers in the law firm.¶

Q Can you please share with the court whether or not you considered all bf those communications with Mr. Adler and the other lawyers who were on that Q Task project privileged?¶

A Of course, so did Russ Adler, and, I believe, Mr. Haddad definitely won't dispute that.¶

Q Now, from your perspec 4 re you concerned with respect to al e communications, personal communications t li kt had with Mr. Adler in person where you were talking about the Epstein case, all the communications that you had on Q Task that you considered privileged, that with Mr. Haddad representing Mr. Adler how that can give him a tactical advantage in his representation now of Mr. Epstein? Can you explain that to Judge please?¶

A I am concerned because Russ Adler had access to all of the information I knew. Mr. Haddad representing Jeffrey Epstein would be no different at this point than Russ Adler representing Jeffrey Epstein.¶

2¶

3¶

4¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

based exclusively on things that I did while at RRA. The allegations against Russ Adler had been made similar allegations, but made by Scott Rothstein against Russ Adler.¶

Mr. Haddad has the task of defending Russ Adler in those allegations. I am assuming any information that would help to acquit or defend Russ Adler, that Mr. Haddad could ask his clients about those things. And if it would assist in that defense then he certainly would. And certainly, all of this information that is privileged that Russ Adler has, he would have the ability to share with his attorney -- probably should share with his attorney so that s ttorney can effectively represent him¶

And I have a problem understanding how Mr. Haddad could represent Russ Adler in the exact accusations related to his actions at the time that he was at RRA when Scott Rothstein is alleging that he was, in Scott Rothstein's words, deeply involved in the Ponzi scheme and a co-conspirator, that Russ Adler is saying are false; and how Mr. Haddad can represent Russ Adler against those accusations and divorce himself from the knowledge that he learned from Russ Adler so that he can represent Jeffrey¶

2¶

3¶

4¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

r. (<, THE WITNESS: I am sure that Mr. Haddad ould be better able to explain this. But Adler was from the very beginning a target of a criminal investigation. He has not been cleared as of yet to the extent that I know.¶

Epstein in this action without utilizing information he learned or could learn from his client.¶

THE COURT: Let me confused. What lawsuit Mr. Haddad representing -- I want to -- I'm or claim is Mr. Adler in regards to allegations that he is involved in the Ponzi scheme?¶

THE WITNESS: I believe that from the very - Mr. Adler has not been charged.¶

THE COURT: I am asking is there any pending either criminal or civil matter against Mr. Adler based upon allegations that he was involved in some way in this - you-,keep saying that he is defending him against these allegations. I want to know what case --¶

THE COURT: I understand that, sir. What I am asking you is -- I may have misunderstood. But I got the impression¶

here there is an active, pending litigation or criminal proceeding. And maybe there isn't. What you're talking about is the potential for some claim down the road or some possible criminal action or some sort of possible civil action, but anything pending right now, to your knoWledge?¶

THE WITNESS: I don't know. There was also an adversary proceeding, which I believe also settled where¶

THE COURT: The cl¶

THE WITNESS: Ric But other than that, I don't know.¶

' MR. LEWD nk you very much, Your Honor. W few more questions.¶

BY MR. " kr¶

Q^ put everything in context, you heard Mr ;j - ddad in his opening statement in response to a ,Itt('I, 1ent I made to the court in our opening atement how is he going to cross-examine Mr. Adler about information that may be adverse to Mr. Epstein and Adler in this case. And you heard him say that, well, I probably wouldn't cross-examine Mr. Adler, Mr. Goldberger would do that. You heard him say that, right?¶

1 A Yes.¶

2 3 Q Now, practically, if he's a co-counsel, I guess he's also representing Mr. Epstein, too?¶

4 A Yes.¶

5 6 Q And Mr. Haddad is representing Mr. Epstein, too?¶

7 A Right.¶

8 9 10 11 12 Q Do you have a concern at all tha Mr. Haddad has got to do is say Mr. Goldberger, why don't you ask him this, don't as communicate things that you serted as privileged in our case th knows from that they can¶

13 MR. GOLDBERGji udge¶

14 15 THE COURT; This is not closing argument counsel. Just ask the question.¶

16 17 I apologize, Judge. I want get oto::::ssue.¶

18 TEE COURT: Ask your question.¶

19¶

20 21 Q Are you concerned about that? And can you please explain to the court what your concern is?¶

22 23 24 25 A My concern is that any privileged information that Mr. Haddad wants, if we invoke a privilege all he has to do is ask Russ Adler. That's my concern. That's it.¶

MR. : Thank you, Judge. I don't have any other questions for Mr. right now.¶

THE COURT: Cross-examination, sir?¶

MR. HADDAD: Yes, sir.¶

CROSS-EXAMINATION¶

BY MR. HADDAD:¶

Q Mr. Adler is a very close friend of yours, correct?¶

A That's true.¶

Q And Mr. Adler is t ho brought you into RRA, correct? 7 V¶

14%,,¶

A That's¶

Q And as a truerti; ter of fact, if Mr. Adler were to testify for you, he would be a character witness, would he not?¶

4.S. , He considers you one of the finest lawyers A!eZ a d, does he not?¶

I would think so.¶

A I believe so.¶

Q He's expressed that to a number of people?¶

A I believe so.¶

Q Do you think that Mr. Adler is going to be a witness adverse to you?¶

1 Q Answer the question please, sir.¶

2 THE COURT: Excuse me, sir.¶

3 If you can answer the question, answer,¶

4 but you can explain your answer if you can.¶

5 A I don't know what that question means.¶

6 Q Mr. , you will concede that¶

7 Mr. Epstein dropped his lawsuit against you rect?¶

8 A Yes.¶

9 Q And the only thing pending noCad your¶

10 lawsuit against Mr. Epstein, cor¶

11 A Right.¶

12 4 Would you conc t Mr. :SI that RRA fell¶

13 14 apart and the Feds ca rom October to November of 2009? /4S7mv¶

15 ,I. ) A I believe -so.¶

16 17 Q Would you agree that the files that were RRA Ne; regarding Epstein were taken at that time?¶

18 Right, Russ Adler no longer had access.¶

19 20 A÷ Qrrect? He had no access to Q Task or anything,¶

21 A I don't know that.¶

22 23 Q Now, that was before I began to represent him, correct?¶

24 A I guess so.¶

:¶

2¶

3¶

4¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

you guys were told this is it?¶

A That's right. I just don't know when you started representing him.¶

Q On November 2nd you sent an email, as a matter of fact, to Mr. -- I can't say his name. Epstein's lawyer at that time, something like that? Cuman (phonetic)¶

A Okay.¶

Q And you asked him in an email Che would agree to reset the deposition becaug ou had no access to files, your office thing else, correct?¶

(:.4 ir¶

A That's tru¶

Q And you sent. an email saying you were very surprised that he said no, correct?¶

A I don't remember which'lawyer this is because it is a whole team of them. I don't doubt that this happened.¶

Q Well, I think you filed a joint motion to continue on the 14th of November, 2009 setting forth that you had no office, no files, no ability to do anything, and therefore you would request that it be continued?¶

A I don't remember doing that, but I don't quarrel with any of that because it is all true.¶

MR. HADDAD: May I show him a certified copy of the motion? '¶

A I am not disputing it. I haven't seen a copy in years.¶

Q That looks like it?¶

A Filed by Bob Crichton as a joint moti yep.¶

Q Now, did you today get to review aAg;Py of an affidavit by morning by email? Adler that I fileCr)¶

A I saw it.¶

Q And, of course, are of your answer to Interrogatory 3,4 ,yO he second set of interrogatories -- the 'r set of interrogatories to you, correct?"‹ 07 ,¶

A Am I aware of my answer to question Number 32?¶

Q Yeah, where I put out there that you said i answer to interrogatory that -- let me read 'Identify Aii!L all attorneys who worked on the client ses against plaintiff-counter defendant Jeffrey Epstein, including, but not limited to the attorneys formerly at RRA, abbreviated, the attorneys of the former Jaffe -- that's your firm, correct?¶

A Correct.¶

2¶

3¶

4¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

attorneys. And your answer was: Brad, Paul Cassel (phonetic) -- that's the lawyer in¶

A Correct.¶

Q Matt Weissing, Steve Jaffe and Bill Berger rendered substantive services in the prosecution of the plaintiff Jeffrey Epstein. i" attendance, you said, at multiple depositions,C u was not an active participant, correct?A.¶

A All true.¶

Q Adler did not y participate in your case at all, correct¶

A Other than wha lust described.¶

Q Now, is it n t orrect that none of the Epstein cases settled during the period of time that you were at RRA?¶

A hat is true.¶

!i71d 441Vyou are aware, of course, that Mr. / ^t IQ Sr tein said in his deposition that you /4'!!ed with Mr. Scarola, that in fact you settled e of them that was part of the Ponzi scheme, correct?¶

A I don't remember that at all.¶

Q There's no question one of the cases settled?¶

1 2 Q And you were there for a grand total of six months?¶

3 A At the most.¶

4 Q Six months at the most. You brought your files with you, you left with your files?¶

6 A True.¶

7 Q And you settled them later, correct?¶

8 A Over a year later.¶

10 11 12 13 Q Now, whatever work product -- and I don't know what work product you have r m4,t you are talking about, you did have ews with the Daily News, correct; for the re$ for the Daily News, t s" regarding Jeffrey Epstei¶

14 A Over the lasEiew years.¶

15 Q Even at that time, yeah?¶

16 A I believe so.¶

17 18 Q You had an interview with a gentleman named ( .1k¶

19 20 lir) ^R George Rush? I think Epstein had an interview with sh.¶

21 22 23 Q Yeah, and then you called the guy back after that and you had a conversation with him, which you filed an affidavit on, right?¶

24 A Right.¶

2¶

3¶

4¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

affidavits to make a determination of why you found it necessary to depose Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, Prince Albert -- was it Prince Albert? One of those guys, and all of those individuals, correct?¶

A I didn't --¶

THE COURT: Where are you going with this?¶

MR. HADDAD: To show that every single thing that he claimed would have k4en privileged, he put out in a -fid,; ts and interviews that he gave press.¶

THE COURT: Tha oing to be a neat trick if you don ow what he spoke to the press about.¶

MR. HADDAD) I'm sorry?¶

THE COURT: Go ahead.¶

S MR. HADDAD: Well, Russ Adler is going IQo testify and I think that will clear that¶

THE COURT: Mr. Adler is not going to talk about attorney-client privilege communication he had with him, is he?¶

MR. HADDAD: He's got an affidavit I can show the court.¶

1 2 I didn't see the emails. I'm not on your email list.¶

3 MR. : we did object --¶

4 5 6 THE COURT: Just ask the question, okay. I was wondering where you were headed.¶

7 MR. HADDAD: I'm sorry, yes, sir.¶

8 BY MR. HADDAD: 0¶

10 Q You never had a conversation 'th Mr. Adler regarding Epstein until you got t7y, correct?¶

11 A Correct.¶

12 13 Q And then when em <4 \ re at RRA you advised him of these cases tha u had, correct?¶

14 15 -\ A What I advised him of, I believe, would be product privilege, which is the problem here.¶

16 17 18 Q I_am talking about the existence of the case hich public record, not any inner workings, al ?¶

19 Okay.¶

20 21 22 Q Did you not make the statement that Russ Adler learned about the case from the newspapers in your deposition?¶

23 A I might have.¶

24 Q You won't dispute that, correct?¶

A¶

S"¶

1 Q Sir?¶

2 A I wouldn't dispute it.¶

3 4 Q Now, you have read Mr. Adler's deposition, correct, in this matter?¶

5 A At some point in time I did.¶

6 7 Q You have read my response in opposition to the motion to disqualify me, correct?¶

8 A Yes. (::E 'r¶

9 10 11 Q And do you disagree with Mr. r'S assertions that he had nothing t th the file and has no privileged info¶

12 13 A Which question u asking, that he had nothing to do with the¶

14 15 16 Q Do you r with his assertions in his Zet deposition that he ad no privileged information or anything that was privileged regarding that case?¶

17 18 19 A I don't think he said that, so that's the Q l ^e pr bl m. He invoked the privilege at the deposition w you represented him.¶

20 21 Q I understand that. He invoked every privilege he could in that deposition?¶

22 A Right, implying that --¶

23 Q My question to you is -- sir?¶

24 25 A -- implying that he had privileged information, and that's all I'm --¶

1 Q I will let it go at that point.¶

2 Do you have any -- you wouldn't, but okay.¶

3 4 The claim that now exists is your claim for damages against Mr. Epstein, correct?¶

5 A Yes.¶

6 7 Q And that claim for damages is for abtl f process, correct?¶

8 A That's one of the counts, correc¶

9 Q And the other is what, defamation?¶

10 A Malicious prosecution¶

11 Q Malicious prosecut¶

12 13 14 Those are sepa e d apart from the claims that you have t the United States of America, correct? 4 1..v¶

15 ) A Separate claims from that claim?¶

16 Q Yes.¶

17 Yes, they are separate claims.¶

18 19 20 21 c, And you filed -- excuse me, Mr. Epstein's eys filed a lawsuit against you while you were tively prosecuting claims for the victims that you cited were of what occurred, correct?¶

22 A That's true.¶

23 24 25 Q And that is where your inner workings were, involving the plaintiffs who have already settled, correct? They have all settled?¶

1 2 A They have settled. The case against Epstein has settled.¶

3 4 5 Q That's what I'm saying. The case against Epstein has settled, the case against you by Epstein has settled?¶

6 7 The case against you by Epstein has settled by his dismissal of the claims against you?¶

8 A He dismissed the claim, right.¶

9 10 Q So the only thing that you have against him? remaining is the claim¶

11 A That's correct.¶

12 13 Q For malicious p&Q tion and for abuse of process?¶

14 15 A As well -Ss the Crime Victims Rights Act. That's still ongoing.¶

16 17 18 Q O., now, you made mention to the Judge of Mr. Adler's defense. Are you aware of anything that Mr. Adler has outstanding where I represent him?¶

19 A By outstanding --¶

20 Q Well, other than -- let me put the caveat.¶

21 22 23 24 25 I am sure you've read -- he may have an appeal of a 30-day suspension by Judge for a failure to sign an affidavit and a fraudulent mortgage application. But other than that, are you aware of anything against Mr. Adler with whom you are very¶

2¶

3¶

4¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

friendly?¶

^AI talk to Russ. Adler frequently. I know generally what he believes is going on with respect to Scott Rothstein's accusations. And I don't know exactly formally where that prosecution or potential prosecution is or if it will ever be. But that the only thing that I know is ongoing that you hA l^l ^loeany role in representing him in.¶

0¶

Q Let me ask you this. Based uCl your long-term knowledge and friendsh' t,7t Mr. Adler, is there any doubt in your mind %Id never breach ^a confidence and share any 'At'n with me?¶

A If he's --¶

MR. LEWIR:(166tr 1 Honor, how --¶

THE COURT: Excuse me. Please stop. ^I¶

/14 thinkzare, asking for credibility. This¶

-character reference. I don't think¶

(^41 has --¶

, 10,9t! HADDAD:¶

^QOkay, I will rephrase it. Do you have any information to remotely suggest that Adler has passed one bit of information to me?¶

^AI would believe that Russ Adler will tell you all of the information that would assist you in representing him. And if the allegations against him¶

2¶

3¶

4¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15 .¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

are that he was involved in a Ponzi scheme and emails would help to refute that, then I would hope that he would pass that on to you. But I don't know what he's given you, because I'm not involved in your attorney-client relationship.¶

Q Do you have any information that Russ Adler would in any way share any information il h me -- share any information that's privileged with me, if there is any, regarding Jeffrey Epstein and this case?¶

A He shares a privil you. So if it helped in his defense, h and he could and he should.¶

Q I am talki ut the instant case.¶

A It's all related to the same subject matter.¶

Q Do you have any information, even remotely, that Mr. Adler was involved in a Ponzi scheme?¶

41 No.¶

denied Did you ever hear any -- Mr. Adler has from the first day that he had any knowledge of the Ponzi scheme, correct?¶

A He has.¶

Q And he said the only way he found out about the Ponzi scheme was the same way you did, in the newspaper?¶

1 A Correct. I have read that. I believe that.¶

2 MR. HADDAD: I don't have anything¶

3 else.¶

4 THE COURT: Any redirect?¶

5 MR. Just real brief, Judge.¶

6¶

7 BY MR. IIIII:¶

8 9 Q Were you deposed in the case that's pending before Judge Illi?¶

10 A For hours. Eight hour¶

11 12 13 14 Q And during the ti ou were deposed, did you have occasion to work product privilege to question/gat r. Epstein's lawyers were asking you? <to")¶

15 A Yes¶

16 17 18 Q And those questions that you were asserting privilege to, would Mr. Adler have access to that information that you were asserting privilege to?¶

19 20 21 A I don't remember the specific questions, but he had access to all information that I had access to at RRA. He had access to the information.¶

22 23 24 He wasn't the active attorney prosecuting the file, but through Q Task he had access to all privileged information, yes.¶

REDIRECT EXAMINATION¶

1 and show the witness one document?¶

2 BY MR.¶

3 4 5 Q Mr. , I am going to hand you a document, it's two pages. And first of all, can you tell the court what it is?¶

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 A A string of emails that -- four emails that began October 13th, 2010 from one of Adler's other attorneys. By other, I mean other than Fred Haddad, and it is initially directed to Russ Adler and Fred Haddad. And it is asking: Russell, any idea what this is all about? It was in response to pleadings filed by Jeffrey Epstein's attorneys at the time in the bankruptcy case wherein they were attempting to gain access to privileged information, including emails at RRA, Q Task information. It was a list. The court is familiar with that subpoena.¶

17 18 19 Mr. Haddad apparently responds: Russ, I thought Sheer (sic), referring to Bill Sheerer, I presume¶

20 Q Explain to the court who Mr. Sheerer was.¶

21 22 23 24 25 A Mr. Sheerer was representing some creditors in the bankruptcy proceeding, who were apparently a part of the purchase of fraudulent settlements that Scott Rothstein had made up out of thin air related to Jeffrey Epstein.¶

1 2 3 Q And so Mr. Haddad is cc'd or whatever on this string. And what does Mr. Haddad do with respect to Mr. Adler after receiving this?¶

4 5 6 7 A He forwards to Russ Adler an email that says: Russ, I thought Sheer filed for that discovery of Stettins stuff from RRA. You better reread in case you have to assert privilege. Your name was mentioned.¶

8 9 10 This says to me Mr. Haddad is telling to protect the privilege of the victims of the Epstein girls if need be, discussing privilege.¶

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Adler responds back to Mr. Haddad with the message: Pedophile Jeffrey Epstein is trying to capitalize on the Rothstein situation by filing lawsuits and making baseless claims in the bankruptcy case that the lawsuits filed against him by Brad Edwards on behalf of the young girls Epstein molested were cooked up and fabricated as part of Rothstein's Ponzi scheme. This claim is ridiculous and Epstein has settled most of the molestation cases with Brad¶

21 22 23 24 Most of what Epstein and others are asking for is privileged, and Brad and Seth Lehrman, my current partner, are already fighting the disclosure of the materials sought in the notice.¶

3¶

4¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

information is because Russ forwarded it to me saying do I need to assert a privilege since my name was mentioned? And we told him back, no, we are protecting the same information. You are protecting privileged information relating to the girls, we are already protecting privileged information related to our communications and the girls, you don't 1lFe to additionally protect that same privileg l C information. So we took care of it, sot's the only reason I even have this e don't know what other emails exist.¶

Q Exactly. And tAsr ort of that is that privilege that he's asiSing and Mr. Haddad asked him to assert, are these consistent with the privileges yo have asserted in this case with respect t cific questions that Mr. Epstein's lawye has eked you?¶

s ., Like I said, if my privilege is asserted, the only thing that Mr. Haddad would have to do ask his client, Adler, who would be able to tell him all of the privileged communications, so long as remembers those things.¶

Q Would that give Mr. Epstein a tactical advantage in his defense of the case that you have brought against him for abuse of process and¶

1 malicious prosecution?¶

2 3 MR. GOLDBERGER: Argumentative, Your Honor.¶

4 5 THE COURT: It is argumentative, Counselor.¶

6 7 MR. : Your Honor, may I go ahead and mark this, please?¶

8 9 THE COURT: Exhibit Number 1. Any objection, Counsel?¶

10 11 MR. HADDAD: If I can cr xamine on it.¶

12 THE COURT: wila 1 y low that.¶

13 14 (Plaintiff' i t Number 1 was marked for identi ation.)¶

15 THE COURT* Are you finished, Counsel?¶

16 BY MR.¶

17 18 4c Sir, Mr. Adler was also deposed in this c ending before the court, correct?¶

19 That's correct.¶

20 21 + Q Did Mr. Adler on many occasions in that deposition invoke a work product privilege?¶

22 23 24 25 A His deposition has been filed. And basically, at the beginning of the deposition he said I am going to invoke privilege on all communications and everything else. So it was basically a standing¶

2¶

3¶

4¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

objection, and additionally, throughout the deposition he invoked privilege.¶

MR. : Thank you very much, Judge.¶

THE COURT: Mr. Haddad, limited to the document.¶

MR. HADDAD: Yes, sir, limited to the document.¶

May I approach the witness?¶

RE-CROSS EXAMINATION¶

BY MR. HADDAD:¶

Q This email has a string of emails that begins with from Russell Adler to Katie Adler; Slatkin, who is the bankruptcy lawyer, Fred Haddad?¶

A Okay.¶

Q "What is this?" Dated October 13th,¶

2010 --¶

,k•sr Correct.¶

-- at 10:46, correct?¶

Yeah.¶

Q And that's the whole pedophile stuff, Epstein?¶

A Right.¶

Q Most of what Epstein is asking for is privileged. Brad and Seth Lehrman -- Brad, that's you -- are fighting the disclosures of the materials 1 sought, right?¶

2 A Right.¶

3 4 Q The sentence you left off is Russ Adler saying I am not involved in that battle?¶

5 A He wasn't.¶

6 Q Okay, you didn't tell that to the Judit\im r¶

7 8 A I think there's even a back page, i ou wanted to read the last one. 0¶

9 10 11 Q There is a response, as opposed to being in that, is from me on October 14th ext day. So the sequence you have is in g spi orrect?¶

12 A Okay.¶

13 Q Correct? ?S y¶

14 A Yes.¶

15 16 17 18 response was: Russ, I thought Sheer filed for discovery of Stettins stuff from RRA. You better ceive (sic) that in case you have to assert a privilege, correct?¶

19 A That appears to be correct.¶

20 21 22 Q You don't know whether I was discussing with him the Fifth Amendment privilege or attorney-client privilege?¶

23 24 A I have no idea what your discussions would be.¶

4(;;97w¶

1 2 case? A What kind of law are we practicing in this¶

3 Q It's pretty close to criminal.¶

4 You know that --¶

5 THE COURT: We are in civil court,¶

6 right?¶

7 MR. HADDAD: I am trying to be,¶

8 THE WITNESS: He forgot for a aeoon . 174¶

9 BY MR. HADDAD: (h)¶

10 11 Q You don't know what prjrvege I was talking about, correct, Mr.¶

12 A No, i have no ' a¶

13 14 15 16 17 18 Q And there wa ot er response to that later that day. a aid do I need to assert privilege sin tmy me was mentioned? His response was: I d t think so, since my only communications were within the firm. He puts work product, and all of that was already being asserted by you guys?¶

19 A Correct.¶

20 21 Q I have never had any communication with any Epstein clients?¶

22 A That's true.¶

23 Q Now --¶

24 MR. HADDAD: Okay, I will let it go,¶

sorry.¶

THE COURT: You can step down, sir. Thank you for your time.¶

(The requested portion of proceedings were¶

concluded at 2:23 p.m.)¶

COURT CERTIFICATE¶

STATE OF FLORIDA : SS COUNTY OF PALM BEACH )¶

I, SONJA D. , certify that I was authorized to and did Stenographically report the foregoing proceedings and that the transcript is a true record of my stenographic n te¶

k ) :4(tSK
¶

Dated this 2 ' t S orday of October, 2012.¶

iS¶

, .i¶

Keyboard shortcuts

Go to a page: `g` then

COUNSEL LIST¶

s EXCERPT TRANSCRIPT -4' r EEDINGS¶

DIRECT EXAMINATION¶

CROSS-EXAMINATION¶

REDIRECT EXAMINATION¶

RE-CROSS EXAMINATION¶

COURT CERTIFICATE¶