JEFFREY EPSTEIN,

Plaintiff,

vs.

SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually,\
and [REDACTED] J, [REDACTED],\
individually.

Defendants.

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

CASE NO. 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG

**PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES\
AND FOR SANCTIONS**

SHARON BOCK, PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA\
CIRCUIT COURT\
2012 JUN 5 PM 13\
SILENT

Plaintiff Jeffrey Epstein, by and through his undersigned counsel and pursuant to Rule 1.380 of the *Florida Rules of Civil Procedure*, hereby moves this Court to enter an order compelling the Defendant [REDACTED] Edwards, yet again, to provide responses to Plaintiff's Request for Production. Plaintiff likewise requests that this Court order sanctions against Defendant [REDACTED] for his direct and flagrant disregard of this Court's previous Order dated April 10, 2012. In support thereof, Plaintiff states:

**INTRODUCTION**

On March 9, 2012, Plaintiff Epstein served upon Defendant [REDACTED] a Motion to Compel and to Amend and Lift a Protective Order. A true and correct copy of Plaintiff's Motion is attached hereto as "Exhibit A." On April 10, 2012, this Court entered an Order on Plaintiff's Motion to Compel, stating that "within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order, the Defendant [REDACTED] shall produce any non-privileged documents as identified in Paragraph 13 of [REDACTED] [sic] Motion to Compel and Amend Protective Order." *See Order entered April 10, 2012*, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as "Exhibit B." The Order further avowed that "[n]othing in this Order shall

constitute any waiver or ruling upon any privilege that may apply to said documents and the Defendant and/or others may file an objection to any such documentation on any privilege grounds and shall file a privilege log specifically identifying such documents." See Exhibit B (emphasis added). Accordingly, all responses were due on or before April 30, 2012.

On May 9, 2012, Plaintiff received Defendant M' untimel nse to the afore-referenced Request to Produce. A perfunctory review oCth provided by established that his response was both incomplete deficient. response contained nothing more than partial electronk, c cations bePveen himself and three or four of the countless reporters with whom he. had communications during the relevant time period. On or about May IS, 2012, and after sending a letter to Defendant explaining his non-compliance, Plaintiff 111 . )1ed its initial Motion to Compel and for Sanctions. In response thereto served upon Plaintiff a privilege loge as to the electronic mail correspon een and a member of the press, There was reference, objection, or privilege asserted as to the rest of the items Defendant was ordered by this Court to produce; to wit: "[a]ll e-mails, data, correspondence, and similar documents dated April 1, 2008 through August 1, 2010 by and betweeriaradley J. Scott W. Rothstein, Marc Nurik, Cara Mike Fisten and any one of the following regarding or mentioning Jeffrey Epstein in any way: (a) the U.S. Attorney's Office, (b) the State Attorney's Office, (c) the Federal Bureau of

I While the document is labeled "Privilege log," it contains an objection to each of the Discovery requests as "irrelevant" notwithstanding that this Court has already deemed them as relevant.

the above, Defendant has will' " ii, this Court resulting in his culat thwarting of the discovery process. As such, and as demonstrated more fil iimy below, Plaintiff's requested order and sanctions are warranted. Finally, and of paramount concern, is the undeniable fact that •uests were due to Plaintiff on or before April 30, 2012; two full weeks bef irb I line imposed upon Plaintiff by the Federal court to turn over documents PEaint intends to utilize in its deposition of Scott Rothstein; the Co-Defendant in e documents were due to the Federal court on or before May 15, 2012, and n s deposition of Scott Rothstein is now scheduled for the week of June, dates about which Defendant has firsthand knowledge and has been a veral weeks. To date, and notwithstanding tionally, and irrefutably ignored an Order from

# MEMORANDUM OF LAW

Investigation, (d) and (e) any other news employees or reporters." See Exhibit A. Accordingly, Defendant's response undeniably corroborates that he wholly disregarded this Court's Order, failed to comply with this Court's Order to produce the items responsive to Plaintiff's Request, and failed to provide any privilege log with respect to any of the afore-referenced parties, with the single exception being

As this Court is aware, it Ordered Defendant specific items: to provide the following

[a]ll e-mails, data, correspondence, and simi 2008 through August 1, 2010 b and between J. Scott W. W ig April 1, Rothstein, Marc Nurik, Cara Mike Fisten an any one of the following regarding or mentioning Je rey Epstein in any way: (a) the U.S. Attorney's Office, rney's Office, (c) the Federal Bureau of Investigation, (d) and (e) any other news employees or reporters.

See Exhibit A. The Order further avowed that Defendant was permitted to assert any alleged privilege by filing "a privilege log specifically identifying such documents." See Exhibit B. failed to either provide the items requested or a privilege log as to his communications with all listed entities/persons, other than =. 2 It is well-settled law that if a party alleges that information requested from it is protected by privilege, then a privilege log must be prepared and attached to the response, or the privilege is waived. See TIG Insurance Corp. of America v. M, 799 So. 2d 39 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (stating that failure to provide a reason for privilege and a privilege log constitutes waiver of the privilege) (emphasis added). Here, ails to either respond to the Request to Produce or assert any privileg ordered, with the single aforereferenced exception. A court has the inheren power to implement and enforce effective judicial proceedings pursuant to pretrial rules. As such, when a party fails to comply with a pretrial order, a court has_broatlzdiscretion in determining sanctions. First Republic Corp. of America v. Hayes, 431 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). Accordingly, Defendant M ' inapposite awl patent disregard for this Court's Order mandates sanctions.

Final aintiff certifies that he "in good faith, has conferred or attempted to confe th person or party failing to make the discovery in an effort to secure the info ation or material without court action." FLA. R.Civ. P. 1.380. A true and correct copy of the correspondence sent to Defendant regarding the first Motion to

<sup>2</sup> The bility and veracity of IM assertion that the communications between himself and are "Work Product Privilege" will be addressed in a separate Motion and Memorandum of Law, as Plaintiff opposes this contention and submits that it has no basis in law or fact.

Compel is attached hereto as "Exhibit C," and the second, which was sent after receiving the "privilege log" is attached hereto as "Exhibit D." Pursuant to Rule 1.380 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, Epstein is entitled to reasonable attorney's fees necessitated by Defendant's flagrant disregard of both this Court's Order and the aforereferenced Rules of Civil Procedure. 44A

# CONCLUSION

Accordingly, for all of the reasons delineated above a i sl14/ c upon the applicable law cited herein, Plaintiff Jeffrey Epstein respectfull requsts that this Court, yet again, Order Defendant to respond in full to Plaintiff's Request to Produce, award attorney's fees as sanctions, and such other and further relief as this Court EIR deems proper, including any available for interference and impediment regarding the deposition of Scott Rothstein.

WE HEREBY CERTIF upon all parties listed on t 2012. and correct copy of the foregoing was served service list, via facsimile and US Mail, this May 30,

Tonja Haddad Co eman, Esq.

Fla. Bar No.: 0176737 LAW OFFICES OF TONJA HADDAD, PA 524 South Andrews Avenue Suite 200N Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 954.467.1223 954.337.3716 (facsimile) Tonja®tonjahaddadpa.com

### SERVICE LIST

CASE NO. 502009CA0408003OOO(MBAG

Jack Scarola, Esq. Searcy Denney Scarola et al. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd. West Palm Beach, FL 33409

Jack Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury, Goldberger, & Weiss, PA 250 Australian Ave. South Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401

Marc Nurik, Esq. 1 East Broward Blvd. Suite 700 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301

E Jaffe Weissing Fistos 425 N Andrews Avenue Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301

Lilly Ann Esq. LS Law Firm Four Seasons Tower "," -"- 15th Floor 1441 Brickell Avenue Miami, Florida 33131

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15<sup>th</sup> JUDICIAL CIRCUIT\
IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA

CIVIL DIVISION AG\
CASE NO. 502009CA040800XXXXMB\
Judge David F. [REDACTED]

JEFFREY EPSTEIN,

Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant,

v,

SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and\
[REDACTED] J. [REDACTED], individually,

Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs.

**PLAINTIFF JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO COMPEL\
AND AMEND PROFECTIVE ORDER**

Plaintiff, Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"), by and through his undersigned counsel, moves this Court to compel the production of documents from Defendant, [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED] ("[REDACTED]") and to amend and lift a protective order relating to a subpoena to the Bankruptcy Trustee. The grounds for this Motion are as follows:

1. 1. On April 12, 2010, Epstein sent a Request to Produce to [REDACTED] requesting the following documents:
   1. 3. All emails, data, correspondence, memos, or similar documents between [REDACTED] J. Edwards, Scott W. Rothstein, William Bergen, and [REDACTED] Adler and/or any attorney or representative of RRA and any investor or third party (person or entity) regarding Jeffrey Epstein or which mentions Jeffrey Epstein (including Mike Fisten, Kenneth Jenne, [REDACTED] s or Rick (Rich) Fandrey).
   1. 2. On May 11, 2010, [REDACTED] served his response to this request by stating:
   1. 3. Objection as to communications to or from investigators as that is protected by the work-product and/or attorney-client privilege.

1. Although did not object to producing all documents requested, he did not produce any documents responsive to this request. Nor did M, who asserted privilege, prepare a privilege log related to this request. It is important to note that thi request went to documents within from the Bankruptcy Trustee. and control as opposed to docw it were produced

1. The documents requested in #3 were also reque means of a subpoena to the Bankruptcy Trustee dated April 17, 2010. After seve ns and orders to compel, finally prepared a privilege log relating to comet.to and from the investigators among others. However, did not prod ails or documents between the lawyers at RRA and (a) the U.S. Attorney's O State Attorney's Office, (c) the Federal Bureau of Investigation — to which he ha objeeted and for which he did not claim a privilege on his privilege log.

1. ot produce any documents by and between RRA lawyers or representatives and d parties such as S a reporter, and any other news employeej4 Cr has not identified any communication with reporters on his

On January 3, 2011, Epstein sent a second subpoena requesting the following documents from the Bankruptcy Trustee:

Rothstein, Boden, Deborah Christina Kitterrnan, Gary and of the following regarding Jeffrey Epstein: 1. Any and all email communications by/between any attorney and/or employee of the former Rothstein law fun, including but not limited to, Scott William Berger, en Jenne, David Richard Fandry, e one hand, and any

- a) U.S. Attorney's office;
- b) State of Florida Attorney's Office
- c) Federal Bureau of Investigations;
- d) City of Palm Beach Police Department;
- e) Any investigator working for the State of Florida; 0 Any attorney, law Sim and any agent of any attorney or 1 o represented any individual with a claim against Jeffrey Epstein.

7. On April 1, 2011, Epstein sent a Request to seeking documents that support = contention that Epstein has vt d his Fifth Amendment right by speaking to reportets.

1. On May 5, 2011, =res W1th tibjections add claims of privilege. did not prepare a privilege log e 3\\ n ugh the Court ordered him to do so.

1. On July 14, 2011, this/ urt ntered an Order granting a Motion for Protective Order without prejudice rel 'records on the subpoena to the Bartkrttptcy Trustee based J' \_I on scojoe and relevancy. ,A. copy 9i the Order is attached to this Mbtion as'Exhibit 1.

I, 10. On Noventhor 11, 2011, fried his Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment and a leg y Statement of Undisputed Facts in Which he prpotted to identify nsanunarlijfidrent evidence" on which he relied. Snch "undisputed facts" reference and/or P3lm Beach Police Incident Report (see p), correspondence from the U.S.. Attorney's ceto Epstein (see 115, 19, 25), correspondence between the U.S. Attorney's Office and Epstein's counsel (see ¶16, 20, 27) to support argument that he acted in good faith and that Epstein "violated his agreement with the U.S. Attorneys Office..." (%28). also quotes correspondence from the U.S. Attorney's Office to Epstein's counsel (see 16) specifically in support of his contention that there was a "joint attempt to minimize Epstein's civil exposure."

(M). also cites from a proposed plea agreement (see 120) in support of his contention that Epstein engaged in witness tampering.

11. as also referred to statements allegedly made by E to to a reporter in 9¶80-81 of his Undisputed Statement of Facts. reporters waives his Fifth Amendment rights. contends Ep gg statements to

01. As a result of Edwards relying on Gomm= with the government and reporters as part of his Renewed Motion for ent and to support his contention that Epstein has waived his Fifth Amendment eking with reporters, discovery is highly appropriate on these issues and shout tted.

01. Epstein wishes to a w his request to the Trustee to obtain the following records:

> All e-mails, data, boxYe ndence, and sinrilar doc ents dated April 1, 2008 through Au, 3010 by and between J. Edwards, Scott W. Rothstein, c Nurik, Cara HOlhies, Mike ststen and any one of the following regarding or menfioning Jeffrey Eppm any way: (a) the U.S. Attorney's Office, (b) the State Attorney's O ce, (c) the Federal Bureau of hr\*estiga0ort, (d) Conchita Samar, and (e) any other news employees or otters.'

e described documents are not privileged, so no in camera review is necessary. request has been narrowed so that compliance and production are not overly broad or burdensome. The reqtest is relevant and necessary in order for Epstein to defend a' Reitetved Motion for &hi:unary Judgment, including contention that EM has waived his Fifth Amendment rights by discussions and communications with media, news employees or reporters.

15. Based on the above, Epstein requests the following relief:

a. An Order directing [REDACTED] to produce the above-described records that are in *his* possession and control;

b. An Order directing the Bankruptcy Trustee to produce the records described above and amending the prior protective order so as to allow the Bankruptcy Trustee to produce the records described above; and

c. That the Order contain a specific deadline for compliance. Epstein requests compliance within twenty (20) days of the date of the Order so as to allow time for any additional discovery in advance of Rothstein's deposition and in advance of the hearing on [REDACTED] Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment.

16. The undersigned counsel certifies that he has and will continue to attempt to resolve this matter with counsel for [REDACTED] without the need of a hearing.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, requests the Court grant its Motion to Compel and Amend Protective Order for the reasons set forth above.

Respectfully submitted,

*[Signature]*\
Jeseph L. Ackerman, Jr.

Florida Bar No. 235954

[REDACTED] BURNETT, P.A.

901 [REDACTED] Point West

777 South Flagler Drive

West Palm Beach, Florida 33401

Telephone: (561) 802-9044

Facsimile: (561) 802-9976

and

[REDACTED] B. Knight

Florida Bar. No. 607363

BpntCinv. Rothstein andll Case No. 502009CA040800=DIMB .v. Bpstein's Motion to Compel and Amend Protective Order

MantollURNFrr, . 14th Floor P.A. 1395 Brickell Avenue Miami, Fkaida 33131 Telephone: (305) 789-9200 Facsimile: (305) 789-9201 Attorneys for Plaintiff3i •

# 1:31:BXINI-9#.1X

I HEREBY GERT1PY that a brae and correct of oregoing was seat via U.S. Mail on this 9m day of lvfarch, 2012 to: JaCk Sr earcy Denney Sandia Barnhart & Shipley, PA, 2139 Pahn. Beach Lakes B Palm Beach, FL 33409; Jack Man Goldberger, BR., Attertrufy, adabeig, P.A., 250 Australian Ave. South, Suite 1400, West Palm Beach, FL 33401-M2. \$. Nurik, Esq., Law Offices of Marc S. Nurik, One East BroWard BI bd., Stith 70 derdale. FL 13301

ennan, Jr.

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15<sup>th</sup> JUDICIAL CIRCUIT\
IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA

CIVIL DIVISION AG\
CASE NO. 502009CA040800XXXXMB\
Judge David F. [REDACTED]

JEFFREY EPSTEIN,

Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant,

v.

SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and\
[REDACTED] J. [REDACTED], individually,

Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs.

______________________________________________________________________

**ORDER ON PLAINTIFF JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S\
MOTION TO COMPEL AND AMEND PROTECTIVE ORDER**

THIS MATTER came before the Court on Plaintiff Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to Compel and Amend Protective Order in the above-styled case. This Court having reviewed the Motion, having heard argument of counsel, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby

**ORDERED AND ADJUDGED** as follows: The Motion seeks to Compel a Request to Produce and to modify this Court's prior Protective Order in regard to specific requests of the Defendant [REDACTED]. In addition, the Motion seeks authority to direct a subpoena to the Bankruptcy Trustee of the former law firm of the Defendants [REDACTED] and ROTHSTEIN. The Court finds that the Amended Request for Production and request for subpoena, does request documents which the Court finds are either relevant and/or reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. Therefore, within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order, the Defendant [REDACTED] shall produce any non-privileged documents as identified in Paragraph 13 of EDWARDS' Motion to Compel and Amend Protective Order. In addition, the Plaintiff EPSTEIN is given authority to issue a subpoena to the Bankruptcy Trustee requesting the identical documents that are non-privileged.

Nothing in this Order shall constitute any waiver or ruling upon any privilege that may apply to said documents and the Defendant [REDACTED] and/or others may file an objection to any such documentation on any privilege grounds and shall file a privilege log specifically identifying such documents.

Epstein v. Rothstein and [REDACTED]\
Case No. 502009CA040800XXXXMB/Division AG\
Order on Epstein's Motion to Compel and Amend Protective Order\
Page 2 of 2

DONE AND ORDERED in [REDACTED] at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida\
this \_\_\_\_ day of April, 2012.

**SIGNED AND DATED**\
APR 10 2012\
JUDGE DAVID F. CROW

HONORABLE DAVID F. [REDACTED]\
CIRCUIT JUDGE

Copies furnished to:

[REDACTED] L. Ackerman, Jr., Esq.\
[REDACTED] Burnett, P.A.\
901 [REDACTED] Point West\
777 South Flagler Drive\
West Palm Beach, FL 33401

Lilly Ann [REDACTED], Esq.\
The L•S Law Firm\
Four Seasons Tower, 15<sup>th</sup> Floor\
1441 Brickell Avenue\
Miami, FL 33131

Jack Scarola, Esq.\
Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A.\
2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd.\
West Palm Beach, FL 33409

Jack A. Goldberger, Esq.\
Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A.\
250 Australian Avenue, South, Suite 1400\
West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012

Marc S. Nurik, Esq.\
Law Offices of Marc S. Nurik\
One E. Broward Blvd., Suite 700\
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301

[REDACTED] J. [REDACTED], Esq.\
[REDACTED], Jaffe, Weissing, [REDACTED], Fistos & Lehrman, P.L.\
425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2\
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301

# TONJA HADDAD, PA

524 South Andrews Avenue\
Suite 200 North\
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301

954.467.1223 telephone\
964.397.3716 facsimile\
tonja@tonjahaddadpa.com

May 11, 2012

Via US and Electronic Mail

Jack Scarola, Esq.\
Searcy Denney *et al.*\
2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd.\
West Palm Beach, FL 33409

Re: *Epstein v. Edwards et al*

Dear Mr. Sbarola:

We are in receipt of your purported responsive documents to Paragraph 13 of our Motion to Compel and have reviewed same. Please note that the request to which you were Court-ordered to respond required you to provide the following:

"All e-mails, data, correspondence, and similar documents dated April 1, 2008 through August 1, 2010 by and between Bradley J. Edwards, Scott W. Robinstein, Marc Nurik, Cara Holmes, Mike Fisten and any one of the following regarding or mentioning Jeffrey Epstein in any way (a) the U.S. Attorney's Office, (b) the State Attorney's Office, (c) the Federal Bureau of Investigation, (d) Concilia Stripoff, and (e) any other news employees of reporters." *See Paragraph 13 of Motion to Compel.*

However, you provided little more than multiple copies of correspondence responsive to subparts (d) and (e). As such, please be advised that if we do not receive items responsive to the actual request to wit: all e-mails, data, correspondence, and similar documents dated April 1, 2008 through August 1, 2010 by and between Bradley J. Edwards, Scott W. Robinstein, Marc Nurik, Cara Holmes, Mike Fisten and any one of the following regarding or mentioning Jeffrey Epstein in any way (a) the U.S. Attorney's Office, (b) the State Attorney's Office, and (c) the Federal Bureau of Investigation on or before Monday, May 14, 2012, we will be left with no choice but to, yet again, file all appropriate mentions with the Court and seek any and all sanctions available, including those to which you will be vulnerable for violation of a Court order.

Sincerely,\
TONJA HADDAD, PA

![](<>)Tonja Haddad Coleman\
for the firm

From: Tonja Haddad Coleman (tonja@tonjahaddadpa.com\] Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 10:47 AM To: 'Mary E. Pirrotta' Cc: 'Jack Scarola' Subject: RE adv. Epstein Jack

To avoid any further miscommunications, misunderstandings, attempts to circumvent or delay the legal process, and any other intellectually dishonest or legally inconsistent statements made by you, please note the following with respect to your purported statement below and its accoamtying attachment As you are undoubtedly aw you were Ordered by Judge to produce the following (or provide a proper privilege log regarding same):

pall e-mails, data, correspondence, and d dated Ap through August 1, III and between J . Scott W. n, Marc, Nurik, Cara Mike Fisten and any on of he followings mg or mentioning Jeffrey Epstein in any way: (a) the U.S. Attorney's O iiiiiittorney's Office, (c) the Federal Bureau of Inv • ation, and (e) any other news employees or reporters.

The plain language contained therein could not be m d definite. However, you have provided a privilege log that addresses c ence with one of the parties listed above. As such, you are, yet again, failin c with the Court's Order. Accordingly, we disagree with your assessor t eated d do not agree that you have completed production in acc ewith judgebili nOrder.

Tonja Haddad Coleman, Esq. Justice Building TONJA HADDAD, P.A. 524 South Andrews Avenue Suite 200 North Fort Lauderdale, Florida 3 01 (954) 467-1223 (954) 337-3716 facsi www.tonjahaddadp

The infccrnaLon contained in arts transmission may contain privileged and confidential information. It is intended Only for the use of the persons) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified Oat any review. dissemination, distribution or duplication of this communication Is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.

EXHIBIT D